Hello.This is my first post here.
I have a photo of the house my 4th gr grandparents lived in in North Carolina.It is in a style which I believe is called Southern Country Neotraditional.What I would like to do is to build a copy of this house and live in it.
It is no longer standing,so physical inspection isn’t possible.
I’m wondering if there is any sort of software that would allow me to make measurements on the photo.It would seem possible to me to be able to duplicate the dimensions very accurately,if the size of some standard object was known.I’ve seen some interesting software from Punch,in a store.It will show how to frame it up,after you decide on dimensions.
Anyone have any idea if this will work?Any help appreciated.
Replies
we do it all the time..
there are alway certain objects that can be used to determine scale from..
if you have a digital camera.. you can convert the .jpg file to a .bmp file and import it into a CAD program.. then expand or contract the image until the feature you know the dimensions of correspond to a CAD dimension..
you can do this better than a stranger because you are familiar with the house.. of course the scale of a 10 year old changes as you become an adult... so sometimes the memory plays tricks on us...
....... "used to walk 10 miles to school thru 3' of snow"
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I don't own a digital camera,yet.
And I don't know which object to use to figure the scale from.
There are several windows that could easily be used.Would there be a way to find out if there was a standard size of window used on houses in the early 1800's?
I would start with the probably most standard measure in construction which is door height @ 6'-8" for residential & 7'-0" for commercial
On a hill by the harbour
There's a program called PhotoModeler that will let you create 3D models from photos. You need two pictures of the same area taken from different viewpoints- you then identify matching points in the two photos, and the computer generates a 3D model of the house. To make it work well, you'll need to have photos of all sides on the house, with each side showing up in two photos. You'll also need a known dimension (such as the height of a door) to get the model to scale. It's a pretty cool program, and relatively cheap- I think the Lite version is under 200 bucks, and the biggest limitation is the number of "points" you can reference- it's something like 800- which should be more than enough to get you started.
Bob
Well,the house burned down sometime in the 1900's,and there is only 1 known photo of it.
If you gentlemen saw the photo,could you perhaps tell me more about how to proceed?
You can scan it and get a jpeg file, or a bit map. Scanners are cheap, and quite useful. It will probably come in handy in your project. Some do faxing and copies as well.
Are steps visible? That will get you close, or perhaps a brick? A known person standing? A car next to it? A 55 gallon drum or trashcan of some sort? Just trying to think of known objects. No matter what, you're going to have to do a lot of "infilling" as you only have 1 picture and a memory.
No matter, it sounds like a great project. And don't worry about being perfect, it's the spirit of the place that counts.Jake Gulick
[email protected]
CarriageHouse Design
Black Rock, CT
"There are several windows that could easily be used.Would there be a way to find out if there was a standard size of window used on houses in the early 1800's?"
No standard sizes back then. Each window was custom built on site.
"here is only 1 known photo of it"
It is not really possible to duplicate a house from one photo. At most only two sides are visible. The other two sides are going to be guesswork. It burned sometime in the 1900's??? Is there anyone living who remembers it? If so, you should talk to them to find out about what the walls not in the pic look like, what the floor plan is, and any other details they might remember.
"If you gentlemen saw the photo,could you perhaps tell me more about how to proceed?"
Seeing the photo might help some. I for one am very curious to see this photo of such an interesting house someone wants to rebuild it.
Rich Beckman
Another day, another tool.
I'm sorta hesitant to comment here, being completely out of any of my areas of competency - but what the heck, it hasn't stopped me before...
Older houses were often built on a smaller scale, particularly the windows. I am not sure you would actually want to absolutely replicate an older house. The windows were probably not up to to todays code for egress in all the rooms. I would think it would be more practical to have a competent architect recreate the general look and shape of the house from the photograph but incorporting more modern amenities, and code compliance, in the house rather than trying to duplicate the exact dimensions of an old house. Duplicating an old house might lead to duplicating all of the old problems.
That said, I have taken dimensions off of older houses using what I assumed was the standard height for a door just using a finely graduated ruler. No fancy software neeed. If you really want to put it in an a graphics package, you could have the photograph scanned at your local photo shop or maybe some place like Kinkos Copy shop. You could then feed this into Photoshop or some other program and convert the file type to something that could be used in a more traditional drafting package.
For my land use plan, I had to submit elevation and plan drawings of how the proposed house would look on the land. Since I have not yet hired an architect, I simply took a picture of a house that looked similar, scanned it into Photoshop, modified it as needed and changed the color and then imported it into Adobe Illustrator to add some additional details.
I have a scanner,and several versions of the photo.Improvements in showing detail have been done.And yes,you can see the steps.
Is there any way to post it on this site?
If not,then I can email it,or post a link to my Family Tree Maker page,where the photo has been uploaded.
See,doing genealogy research is what led me to this.My dad is from North Carolina,and since 1999 I've been researching family stuff from there,and established a network of about 100 email contacts that I have family connections with.Not just 1st cousins,but as far away as 10th cousins.We are fortunate in being able to trace our family lines way back into England,Wales Scotland,etc.
The ancestor that lived in the house was Col. Hillory Madison Wilder.He was the representative in the North Carolina Legislature for Johnston County,North Carolina.They didn't meet every year,but he was the rep for about 20 years.He was a delegate to the convention to amend the NC constitution in 1835.An interesting coincidence(to me,anyway),is that I was born on the day he died,separated by 110 years.This past summer,I met 2 of my distant cousins in Raleigh,and they showed me around.The site has not been maintained.It was an 1800 acre plantation when my grandfather was living.Now nothing is left but the family cemetery,which I was fortunate to visit and take photos of.Kinda doesn't seem right for a Wal-Mart,a gas station,and a Golden Corral to be sitting there.That's the way it is,though.Gone With The Wind.
I'm not looking for an "absolute" match,but as another poster mentioned,something that is visually very close and in the spirit will do.The original site was called Wilder's Grove Plantation,and it is now on the eastern side of Raleigh,in Wake County.I believe that used to be Johnston Co.,as the counties had a history of boundary changes.I live in a suburb of Dallas,Texas,and would love to build this house on some land in nearby East Texas,and call it Wilder's Grove II.
Another family line I have from there is Hinton.They had around a dozen homes arrayed around Wake County,in a thing called Planter's Walk.Only 2 of the homes are left standing-Beaver Dam,and Midway.My dad's first cousin owns Beaver Dam,but is trying to sell it.It is in rather poor shape.Midway is beautiful.These are also on my FTM page.Actually got to walk through Beaver Dam.Man,that was the best vacation EVER!!
Attempted to upload photo.
So, what is that ... Georgian style architecture?Matt
I'm definitely no architecural expert.Found only 1 similar house online a few days ago,when searching for builders of old fashioned houses,and it was called Southern Country Neotraditional.
There is a car that can be seen,off to the right.I have no idea what it is.
Perhaps somebody will have some good ideas about how to proceed?
I appreciate the help.
Well, interesting house there. the photo is good enough to see some detail and you can easily deduce some basic dimensions.
I would make some calls to the local colleges that have decent architectural classes. I would imagine that a professor in American Architecture History would be able to give you a ton of info about details and typical floorplans in no time.
Good comments above about the changing uses and needs in todays home building. Looks like having enough space won't be a problem, though!
Jake Gulick
[email protected]
CarriageHouse Design
Black Rock, CT
The main part of the house looks georgian. Any idea as to the date of construction? If it's first period georgian, than it's really old (mid to late 1700's) but georgian as a style can be from any period. The floor plan is probably a very predictable center-hall style.
The car looks to be from the late teens or early twenties, and the small building to the right of the car looks like early 1920's to me.
The porch looks like an early 1900's classical revival add-on.
Steve
I don't know when it was constructed,but Col. Wilder passed away on March 22,1848,so you would think it was built in the early 1800's.
I appreciate the comments and the insight,folks.Please keep it coming.
I don't know what Mike scaled off of, but I ended up woith remarkably similar dimensions.
My basis was the height of the front porch railing.
I show the front of the house at 43' 8-1/2", and the height of the cornerboard, from bottom to soffit, at 25' 8-1/2". Looks like the cornerboard extends past the mudsill by a few inches.
About 1:1.7, pretty close to the golden rectangle.
Sounds like a wonderful project. Best of luck.
Thanks for the help.
Now,how did you make those measurements?
I'm ignorant of all this.
You have to find something in the photo that you can recognize as having a somewhat of a recognizable dimension. It's difficult in this case due to the relatively poor resolution of the photograph, and because the house is old, so it may not meet the standard construction dimensions used today.
I took a peek at the front porch and locked on to the front porch railing. Today's railings are code-dictated to be a minimum of 36" high. In the past railings may have been a different height, but for yours I used 36".
Using a ruler on the photo, the railing measured about 7/32nds of an inch. I then measured the front face of the house, it was 3 3/16ths inches across.
Make a ratio: 7/32" is to 3' as 3 3/16" is to X
X=[(3 3/16)(3)]/(7/32)
X=43.71', or 43' 8-1/2"
The corner board measured 1 7/8ths inches tall, inserting that in the equation instead of 3 3/16 gave X=25' 8 1/2"
Here's the rub: Errors. If the railing was indeed 36" high, but I was off by +/- 1/32" in measuring the height of the railing, the house would then show either 38' 4" or 51' across the front.
Flip the error. If my measurement at 7/32nds was good, but the rail was actually 34" or 36" high, then the distance across the front of the house would be 41' 3" or 46' 2".
While these errors may seem frustrating, realize that to repeat the overall look of the house, in the end you want to replicate the scale and proportion of the house. You only need each part to be in proportion with one another. That's fairly easy to do.
Then simply define one item...a 7' tall front door, for example...and all the other measurements will cascade from that.
Then bring in present-day building code. Stairs have requirements, windows for egress, etc, etc. Some things may need to be tweaked. Some won't. Some things may get tweaked for economy. If the house came in at 40' 3", if nothing will be harmed in doing so, bring it down to 40' even for modular construction.
I did mention the 'golden rectangle' in my previous post. If you're not familiar, a shape that is supposedly pleasing to the eye has a ration (height:width or width:height) or 1:1.62. I think I figured the 43':25' numbers that I came up with to be a 1:1.70 ratio, which is pretty close.
I hope this was more helpful than confusing.<g>
Edit: sorry for the length of the post...
Edited 11/27/2003 2:57:34 AM ET by Mongo
i did much the same... using the 40" stair rise...
i constructed two cad lines, one at the bottom of the stairs and one at the top , then i measured the dimension with my cad dimensioning tool... it came out to 5"... so my ratio was 1 : 8
then i constructed cad lines on the two corners of the house, measured and multiplied by 8..
constructed 2 cad lines at the first floor level ( a guess as to location ) and one at the 2d floor ceiling ( another guess)... and multiplied that dimesnion by 8..
so between our two, i'd guess we have (fairly ) accurate , close aproximation of the front elevation... and the chimney facade would also be fairly helpful..
anyways... a good architect or designer could pretty much duplicate the basic house and style... what's going on with that massive addition on the rear is anyone's guess..
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Another dimension you can check, using the method mongo describes, is the distance from the first floor window sills to the second floor window sills. If you assume the window sills are the same distance from the floor upstairs and down, and make a SWAG at the thickness of the second floor, that'll give you a cross check of the ceiling height on the first floor.
Another one is the width of the roof overhang. It looks fairly modest to me. I hesitate to pick a number, but I'd say between 12 and 24 inches, probably closer to 12. It's not real clear, but I thought it looked like the chimneys were wider than the overhang. Like the window sill distance, more of a cross check than a primary measurement.
The window height assumption is not a good one to make regarding houses of this period. They are very often different from first floor to second floor. They are in my house (1826) and in one I'm working on right now (1850 or so). Windows in early houses are more likely to be posistion for their visual effect on the exterior of the house rather then functionality on the inside.
Steve
You are right about the window height varying. The scale says these could be 4-6" shorter upstairs..
Excellence is its own reward!
I think that the best reference point is the car.
Now someone would need to identify it and find out what it's height its, but I think would be better than window size or railings.
i assumed 8" risers on the front stairs... which gave me a 40" dimension from the ground to the porch level.... and scaled from there...
ain't we grand ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
The car in the photograph appears to be a mid-30's studebaker. This above all, to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day, Thou cans't not then be false to any man Hamlet
It's Georgian, with some Greek Revival Elements. The front facade looks almost like a Foursquare. I think the house was built by a builder not an architect. He mixed and match several styles. It's a pretty house but I don't think it falls under one definitive style.
Also because the photo was taken at an angle as apposed to a straight on shot you have to be very careful with dimensions. For example you may determine that the shutters are 18" wide, but what shutter? If you set your scale up so the shutter at the right front corner of the house is 18" exactly, a shutter on a far left side window will only measure 10" or so, because everything in the photo is going to shrink as it moves further into the background of the picture.I don't understand! I cut it twice and it's still too short!
I don't know how relevant, but in regards to the nearly out of sight 'addition', it might well be the oldest part of the house - - around here (midwest) it is common to see a modest simple gable structure off one side of the large two story main structure - - usually the small part was built first, lived in, and then as fortunes permitted/children arrived the new part was built, containing living and dining rooms, generally a parlor, bedrooms upstairs - - a tip-off is that the kitchen is nearly always in the original part, the kitchen being the 'essential' room -
I'm not sure how this might help you exactly, but I would suggest you take the photo from the frame, scan at high resolution, and then blow it up - - it is amazing what detail can be seen - -
and also, this was occupied by a somewhat famous person - - have you checked the local histories/libraries/museums, etc for further picts?
good luck with your project.
regards, DOUD
It may also be the summer kitchen . Used in the hot months to keep the heat out of the main house.
The houses around here of that vintage typically have 12 or 13-6 ceilings on the ground floor, and 8 or 7-6 on the upper floor. So you may have to play around with ceiling heights to make it work. And probably had a big central hall and staircase, that would look nice.
Given that Col. Wilder died in 1848, and the main house looks so really georgian, I'm pretty sure that the house is indeed an original georgian period house. The massive chimneys point to that as well. That porch is definately a 20th century addition. The house would look much more true to itself without the porch, plus you could see the probably very intricate Georgian doorway.
As to railing height, most porch railings of the early twentieth century were much lower than 36 inches. 30 was more common, and even 24 to 28 inches was pretty common.
I think I would look at some historical pattern books for Georgian houses. I bet you would find a pretty close match, as it was a very formal, very predictible, and very popular style among the landed set. I bet it's closer in size to sixty feet across, based on a lower railing hieght and just a feel for the structure.
Steve
edited for spelling...
Edited 11/27/2003 10:29:54 AM ET by STEVENZERBY
I guess that I got prosperoed. Was about two pages into a reply when it all disappeared.
Let me shake my head and regather my thoughts and hit it again. ( Man O Man - the dog never ate my homework in school...)
If these railings are 36" then the door is 9' high. I see more at 26" or so. I believe the railing is 24" - 26" with a height not much more than 27"
Window sills generally no more than 24" and window heght at 5'4" panes about 7"W x 9"H
Lap siding at 4"
Stair step risers at 8"
georgian with other influence. The capitals hint at being Corinthian and out of place. I love a pedimented dormer to keep water off the steps and entry
Center hall floorplan, First floor ceiling at 104" and second eight feet or less.
I agree the house is about 44' across the front.
Looks like I almost missed a great conversation by not checking in last night.
The bigggest problems I have in trying too replicate old houses;
- Windows for egress
- Stairwell layout for modern codes and safety
- Flor joist depth
All of theses can change the scaling of a house but this one looks pretty easily replicable. Wish it were in my neighborhood. I'd love the challenge.
.
Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin,
I fully understand that older houses tended to have lower front porch railings. That was my expectation with this house as well.
I wouldn't be suprised, however, if this porch was partially or entirely rebuilt at a later date. Or, I simply could have been off in my measurement. So I revisited a bit.
When I looked at the porch railing just to the left of the porch steps, I saw the darkness of the front door under the bottom rail of the porch railing. From the bottom of that dark rectangle, which I took to be the top of the porch decking, to the top of the railing's top rail is where I took as my initial measurement.
I show the porch railing...from the top of the porch deck/bottom of that dark rectangle...to the top of the rail, as being the same size as about 4 1/2 stair risers. 36" divided by 4.5 equals...
...an 8" riser. Just what you quoted. Same as Mike quoted in his post.
If the rail is indeed 26" high, then the risers measure to 5 3/4" high.
Is that a sidelight to the left and right of the door? A 36" rail makes the top of the sidelight trim about 7'8". If the door is indeed the same height as the sidelight and the door's "additional height" (additional dark shadow) above the door is a transom, then subtracting several inches off the 7'8" door height for door casing/trim along with the possibility of a small step-up from the porch deck to the door threshold brings the actual size of the door slab down to the 7' range. Total speculation there, though. I'm too blind to assume off this picture just where the door height ends. Then again, a 26" rail height would make the sidelights only 5'5" tall.
If the porch rail is 26" high, then the corner board, from sill to soffit, is only 18'6" high, and the house across the front is just 31'6".
Still, I agree with you and Steve that lower porch rails were common in older houses. But in this case, as I just can't get the numbers to fall that way. It's either a 36" rebuild and it scales to 44' wide, or it's 26" and the house is smaller. Or, I just can't measure.
L-tryptophan overload? ZZZzzzzz.<g>
Edited 11/28/2003 12:00:55 AM ET by Mongo
Edited 11/28/2003 12:07:02 AM ET by Mongo
The entry door has an eliptical transom window. I can't tell for sure if the door haaaaas a threshold at same level as the deck, or is up 4" so the door is either 6'8" or 7' My gut says 7'.
I will hold to about 6" or 6-1/4" for the risers on the steps and the rail seems about 22" and 3 or 4" off the deck.
There's really a lot there to digest. Unfortunately, the file size is so large that the program is gringing away to process my manipulations too slowly.
Excellence is its own reward!
It is looking like maybe the columns are more than 84".
The way I came up to 44' long, is in knowing room sizes and common window widths and making an educated guess from there.
If I take the same scale that I apply to the vertical dims on screen, I get 40' long, but since the prespective skews things that way, if is certainly more than that.
One thing that I enjoy about this hi res is confirmation that the ballisters are turned urn style. I barely saw a hint of that in the first jpg. I can still see the brick outlin in the foundation but it is stranger that I cannot get the contrast to see it in the chimneys.
It is looking like the foundation of the main house is a full brick foundation and only the porch is on piers..
Excellence is its own reward!
GSC,
You can send me the larger file at [email protected]
That's the only place I can take a file that large.
Steve
Photo inbound,1.7 megs.
Gary,
Having trouble getting it at that address. Try this one:
[email protected]
Steve
i think the house is apx. 44' across the front, and about 25' from first floor to ceiling of 2d floor..
there is a huge addition on the back that would be hard to duplicate... but the symetrical chimneys on the side should give enough detail so a good architect could duplicate the shell....Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
The car would be aprox. 6' tall thet will give you something to go on.
After going a little blind looking at your posted photo, I think the windows are 9 over 9 lite layout. I would belive the lites are either 8" by 10" or 10" by 12". Allowing 2" for the stiles of the sash and 3" for the upper and lower rails on the sash, and 1 1/2" for the meeting or check rail, I would hazard a guess of about 67 1/2" high for 8x10 and 79 1/2" for 10x12. Would pobably go with 8" by 10" lites. The house looks to be first quarter 19th century for build date. The front porch may well be the original or a facimile of it. Style is Georgian although not high order Georgian. The little roof between the chimneys may well be basement access. I would strongly recommend you spend your time with an architect on this project. I can't see enough of the rear of the house to determine what may or may not be there.
Good luck,
CurlyHand Hewn Restorations Inc.
Restoring the past for the future.
What's a lite,Curly?Is that the same as a pane?
Re: the car-it appears to be a 1925-1929,probably.Not sure exactly what yet,though.
I have been following this with a lot of interest, would you please send me the larger pic.
[email protected]
Thanks
Pic inbound.
This is certainly one of the more interesting threads in a while and has shown what ingenuity and knowledge those here possess.
I thought that it would be interesting, if as an exercise one person would post a pic of a building of known dimensions and let everyone have a go at it just to test their accuracy in regards to the house in question.
If I had a digi I'd do it.
Eric
I'm game, Firebird. Here's my house. Have at it. Have a shot at the construction date and style as well.
Steve
Hmm.Well,Steve,I'm gonna guess 1826.
Heh heh heh...
Greek Revival with typical recessed entry and sidelights flanking door.
7-1/4"x9-1/2" window lites
AL storms
Metal roof?
Modern drilled well
Corner pillasters are well balanced [They haven't fallen over yet ;-) ] and bold, maybe 15"W or so
6'8" door Window header at 7', 8' or 8'6" ceiling.
Still no vinyl siding.
.
Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin
Thats not fair!
To us from the midwest we dont see many homes earlier than the 1840's. You have all the different styles to chose from and they are period.
I though the same thing about the house but here in the midwest its just the styles that you can guess, the period is a little tougher unless you can see a close up.
Maybe I'll sit the next dance out and let you have a whirl..
Excellence is its own reward!
Greek Revival with typical recessed entry and sidelights flanking door.
Yup.
7-1/4"x9-1/2" window lites
Nope
AL storms
Nope
Metal roof?
Yup. What kind of metal roof?
(edit: I guess that's not fair since you can't really see the roof. You guessed metal from the rust stains on the rake. Stamped metal shingles, I think from around 1920 or so. Totally rusted. One of the more pressing projects.)
Modern drilled well
ca. 1999, 125 ft.
Corner pillasters are well balanced [They haven't fallen over yet ;-) ] and bold, maybe 15"W or so
Nope. And they list about 3" to the right and to the rear (as does the whole structure).
6'8" door Window header at 7', 8' or 8'6" ceiling.
Nope.
Still no vinyl siding.
Thank goodness.
I'll give you a hint. If you are using the clapboards as a scale, you are gonna get fooled.
Gary has the construction date correct, since I mentioned it in an earlier post. This incarnation of the building is a radical remodel.
Steve
Edited 11/28/2003 11:21:28 PM ET by STEVENZERBY
I was trying to go by 4" lap siding at first but saw that it was at least five inch exposure, and uneven at that.
So let's start with a new frame of ref.
The well is 8" casing and the casing on the windows is about 5"
It was more common to have narrower entry doors on these, about 32" but it is dark in there. Is it only 6'6" high?
Windows about 32" W x 5' high with panes 8-3/4" x 11-1/4"
Are they replacement windows? Something sands off about the sashes
The house corners would be WOW 22"?
I'm picturing the roof tin as that which is in sheets 24" wide with two falt pans and a double bead lap and center. The hint it is old and metal is the rust stain over the front facia crown.
.
Excellence is its own reward!
I was trying to go by 4" lap siding at first but saw that it was at least five inch exposure, and uneven at that.
Nope. bigger yet.
The well is 8" casing
Yup.
and the casing on the windows is about 5"
nope.
It was more common to have narrower entry doors on these, about 32" but it is dark in there. Is it only 6'6" high?
Nope.
Windows about 32" W x 5'
Nope. bigger yet.
panes 8-3/4" x 11-1/4"
Nope.
Are they replacement windows?
Replaced in 1863. The grand reopening after the greekification and repurposing of the building was the occasion for the 1864 photo.
Something sands off about the sashes
There is a peculiar aspect to them, having to do with the way they were replaced in 1863. They were originally probably 12 over 12.
The house corners would be WOW 22"?
Nope. Bigger.
I'm picturing the roof tin as that which is in sheets 24" wide with two falt pans and a double bead lap and center. The hint it is old and metal is the rust stain over the front facia crown.
See my edit above.
Take a guess at inside ceiling heights.
Steve
Curious.
You're assuming the door as a 6-8 door. What do you show for the width of the door?
30"?
I just can't pull the same measurements as you. If I figure the door as 6-8, then I get it as a only being a 2-6 door, and the corner boards as 19-22" wide (lots of pixilation), not 15" as you got. I think that door is taller than 6-8.
From some of your posts I gather you're converting ang blowing up and increasing the pixelation of the pics. Example, your ability to call out the balusters in the previoous pic as turned on a lathe. I can barely count them, never mind see that detail.<g>
Still, if you scale the door as 6-8, do the corner boards really proportionally scale to only 15"?
I'm simply pulling lines off the monitor with a ruler. Archaic, and inaccurate.<g>
Edit: I goofed. Was your 15" reference to the entryway pilasters? I misread and jumped on the cornerboards. If so, I get the entryway pilasters as about 16". That's assuming a 6-8 door, though. Still, I think it's taller.
As Emily Latella used to say..."Nevermind"
Double edit: Steve, nice digs. I like older homes, the large-scale trim. Nice color, too.
Triple edit: Steve, that old pic...too cool.
Edited 11/28/2003 11:14:09 PM ET by Mongo
Edited 11/28/2003 11:18:48 PM ET by Mongo
Edited 11/28/2003 11:24:14 PM ET by Mongo
What my method is combines my experiences with what Ifind most common when i need to make any assumptions and scaling off of what appears to be right.
So if I assume 4" clapboards, I can zoom in untill my clear ruler shows 40mm for ten clapboards. It seems to me that in both of these house excercises, the horizontal and vertical dims are not in true aspect but I don't know why.
8" is a very common stair rise inside houses back then, but exterior ones can run from 4-1/2" through 6" and up to 8"
All of my comments are a simple mental excercise and game playing and not intended to be disagreeable, just offering my two cents worth of feedback. I don't have enough of an ego to worry about looking like a fool in things like this.
It's fun, isn't it?.
Excellence is its own reward!
No, I agree, these diversions are fun. A change from the same ole same ole.
My comments in my previous post were because I couldn't mimic your conclusion of a 6-8 door and matching it to 15" cornerboards, as I had the corners as up to 22" wide based off a 6-8 door. Then I realized that you may have been referring to the entryway corner pilasters. My mistake. Thus the questions as to how you were getting your ideas. If I assume a 6-8 door then the entryway pilasters do indeed show as about 16" wide.
Still, I've got to revisit. At 6-8 that front door only shows...I forget...I think I showed 2-6 wide. I guess the door as wider. Which makes it taller as well.
Mongo,
You are very close.
The door is 36" by 7' high.
The Corner pilasters are 23" wide.
The pilasters on the door entablature are 16" wide.
The windows are 36 x 66.
The lites are 10 x 15 except the bottom row of the bottom sash, which are 10 x 14.
The casings are 4" wide.
The window headers are at 7'9" on the first floor.
First floor ceilings are 9'
Second floor ceilings are 12'
Claps are 6 1/2" exp. (give or take)
Steve
PS: I love this house, but 10 years into it, I'm still not done with the first floor, and the second floor is nothing but studs and siding.
Ah Ha!
At least I got the school thing right!
And 22-23 for corner pilasters and 4'5" for casing is close enough to blame on pixelation too. I'll take half a point each for those,
and on that, i'll go to bed. Good nite all..
Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin,
Here's a photo ca. 1864 with people in it for scale...
Steve
yes, a lite is a single pane.
Hand Hewn Restorations Inc.
Restoring the past for the future.
GSC,
Thanks for bringing this to Breaktime. This is a great and fun thread.
I question the utility of the car to determine scale. As already mentioned, the scale is going to change as the distance from the camera increases. Not that info on the car wouldn't be fun to have...
I would ask for a copy of the higher resolution pic, but my ancient computer would probably choke on it.
I do notice looking at the first photo that the file size could probably be halved simply by cropping away the sky, the foreground, and most of the sides (I'd crop the car and the second out building to the left). Just a thought.
Rich Beckman
Another day, another tool.
I'm running a 750 Athalon with 256 rAM and I had to shut off some stuff to recieve, open and reduce that big one.
But it was worth it, almost. It could have been about half the size, IMO. There is a lot more detail there. I saw those turned porch posts around back too and didn't mention them simply because that whole portion is an addition in my mind.
I have seen a lot of southern places that had once had a small back porch that got enclosed and added to when they installed indoor plumbing. The bathroom ended up on the back porch..
Excellence is its own reward!
Yeah,I wish the photo had been taken straight-on.But I guess I'm lucky to even have the thing.And the car is just too indistinct.
From what I've seen,all these home design program things that are affordable are going to be pretty useless.It appears that all they do is allow someone to get a good idea of what they want,but the work they've done can't be converted into anything useable,like construction prints,or even worthwhile measurements.
I looked online at some tax things,but unfortunately they don't go back very far in time.The property has been overrun by commercial developments,and the amount some of these places are worth is staggering.The Golden Corral itself is worth near 1 million.And that's just the building,the land it sits on adds more!!I guess being near the highway and also a main road into town is a very profitable place to be.
Checking people named Wilder,there are many around.They've gotta be kinfolks.A few smaller properties say Ashley Wilder Heirs.I know him-made copies of his Confederate military records when I was out there this summer.1st cousin,5 times removed.I bet there is somebody around out there that knows a lot.Guess I better start doing email and address searches,and make some inquiries.
Kinda wondering if anyone will have any more revelations or ideas,since getting the more detailed photo.
Oh,by the way,did anybody ever take a look at the other 2 photos,of Beaver Dam and Midway?Curious what style they would be.I do have photos of these from every side,but would prefer to rebuild Wilder's Grove,as the people that lived in the other 2 places were uncles,not grandfathers.
Another interesting side note:Col. Wilder came from the same English family that Almonzo Wilder did.Different immigrant ancestors,though.Almonzo was the husband of the lady that wrote Little House on the Prairie.One of my cousins went to the world-wide Wilder reunion at Sulham Manor in England in 1997.That would be interesting to do.
It is pretty interesting to me how well-built some of these old houses were,to still be standing after all this time,and be structurally sound.We've got newer houses in my city that are falling down already!!Shoddy construction,I'm sure.
>> ... the file size could probably be halved simply by cropping ...
Good point! I see a lot of sky in web pictures. A lot of tree tops. A lot of grass, driveway, living room wall and ceiling, a lot of shadowy darkness in unlit corners of the room. And not only on Taunton forums. I see a lot of uncropped pictures even on sites that are trying to sell something. You see the whole gamut on eBay, everything from really good pictures to "What _is_ that?"
It's been a long time since I took any pictures, but I still remember one of the first things I learned:
Fill the frame.
It's harder with an Instamatic type camera, but if you (I don't mean you, Rich, just the generic you) have a camera that can be focused, move up until the object you're shooting fills the frame or you're too close to focus.
Or as you (now I'm back to you, Rich) point out, now that we have photo software, there's no excuse for sending vast numbers of needless bits around the internet.
Hi Curly,
Can't say as I've ever seen a Georgian with a porch like that. Porch feels like early twentieth century to me. The capitals are Ionic, with a non-fluted column. Scamozzi Ionic as far as I can tell, which was common in the classical revival of the early twentieth century.
Georgian was usually symetrical, usually five bays, with no porch.
Though as you say, this is not high georgian. More vernacular. Still porches during the early 19th century were not very common on Georgian or federal style buildings. Start to see more of them in Greek Revival, though more likely to be recessed than protruding. Porches hit full flower in the Victorian and Classical Revival periods, prompting many to snuffle up their out-of-date houses with a shiny new porch with either victorian or classical detailing, depending on when it was added.
If this house is, say 1815 or so, it could very well have gotten a victorian porch in the 186-01880's and been redone to classical revival in the 1920-1930's.
Gary,
I would check with the local historical society for any more pix, especially if this was a family of note. Also track down descendants and cast about for more pix.
Steve
Was it a church?Sure looks like a bell tower.
Gary,
Was it a church?Sure looks like a bell tower.
Yup. Was built as a church in the federal style, but was moved, shortened, restyled to Greek and re-opened as a school in 1864. This is a picture of the school in it's first season of operation.
Unfortunately there is no photo of it before the makeover.
Steve
Or maybe a school.
When did Arbor day celebrations become the vogue?
I see a ring of ladies/girls holding hands as though circling a maypole in the corner nearest the camera while a line of men/boys stands by. There seems to be a little snow here and there still and tress have not leafed out yet so it might be earlier in the year than Mayday.
They've got a lot of young threes in the yard so the building is probably fairly young at that point. Greek Revival was in style in the 1830's and 40's
Yes, I think a school rather than church. The chimney is located in a poor place for a congregation and the windows would be very tall for a high ceiling single floor structur instead of breaking into two storyes.
Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin,
It's an odd building in terms of dates and styles.
It was a very late Federal at 1826.
It was greeked in 1863, which is very late for greek. A lot of the interior details are more typical Italianate rather than greek.
The very high ceilings on the second floor are because it was a church originally. It had an open center with a choir loft along the front of the building and galleries down both sides. When they made it into a school they closed in the center section and rearranged the whole interior.
They also did some very unfortunate things to the frame. It was 12 x 12 posts with 4x4 studs between posts. They decided they didn't like the posts sticking out, so they hand-hewed them back to 6" thick and padded out the walls to 6" and plastered smooth all the way around. Seriously compromised the frame in several spots. I found a federal style mantle top being used as a nailer inside one of the partition walls.
Steve
Off to bed for me too...Thanks for the game!
Edited 11/28/2003 11:58:57 PM ET by STEVENZERBY
They decided they didn't like the posts sticking out, so they hand-hewed them back to 6" thick and padded out the walls to 6" and plastered smooth all the way around. Seriously compromised the frame in several spots. I found a federal style mantle top being used as a nailer inside one of the partition walls.
Ouch!
"I'm not looking for an "absolute" match,but as another poster mentioned,something that is visually very close and in the spirit will do."
With such realistic expectations and such a terrific model to start from, this should be a great project resulting in a beautiful home.
Rich Beckman
Another day, another tool.
Yes,I think it will be something interesting and worthwhile.
Thanks for the help.
I'm wondering now,with people measuring dimensions etc.,can I get any sort of software that will allow me to proceed with creating plans for this,or will I be having to get an architect involved?
We discuss design software frequently. Search for cad or software and you'll find lots of threads. No consensus, but lots of discussion. My own experience has been with a drawing tool that was far less capable than a full up CAD tool, but based on that experience, I would say that CAD software will save you zero time designing one house, just because it takes so long to learn the tool.
Col. Wilder didn't have a CAD package, nor an architect most likely. (There's a fair chance that there never was a detailed drawing, that they just laid out the building footprint and started building, every piece cut and fit.) Last time I checked, art supply shops and even college bookstores still had drawing boards, t-squares, triangles, scales, etc. So you know people are still making drawings with that stuff. The stores don't stock it just for nostalgia.
Edited 11/27/2003 10:23:54 AM ET by Uncle Dunc
Hi,
Nice house. I guess that Punch is a good idea. You can build your house and if you wish, you can import and retouch your photograph.
They have a large community forum and you can ask for professional assistance
Check these sites
http://www.punchhelpers.com/
http://www.punchsoftware.com/index.htm
Best,
Whitte
LOL,
Well spoke uncle Dunc,
I am quite puter literate & find that most times I can get the work done quicker using paper draftingOn a hill by the harbour
The easy route here would be to start wit a blank pad of paper.
then start with a 24'x36' footprint.
12' increments make for efficient use of lumber and good room sizes.
36/1.7 gives ~21' total height.
21'-3'(floor &cieling joists) gives 2-9 ft cielings.
Divide the footprint into desired rooms according to taste and/or historical data.
sketch in some windows on your elevations so they look right.
get all your ideas/desires/needs on your sketches so you can see what fits and what doesn't.
then get out a scale and some big graph paper and start fitting it all together into a drawing.
Maybe make a bunch of copies of the outlines of the elevations and plans so you can see how various ideas fit in to the"look".
Have fun!Mr T
Do not try this at home!
I am an Experienced Professional!
Well said Rich
On a hill by the harbour
That's a lovely house and a very exciting project. You can get some pretty good measurements from an old photograph. My wife and I have been restoring an 1880-era summer home which is still standing but was badly re-muddled between 1965 and 1985. A lot of the information we have on how the house looked originally comes from a 1959 photograph of the house.
I would second the post which suggested getting an architect involved, especially one who has experience with restoration projects. In our case, the architect helped a lot in translating that photograph into workable drawings.
Chip
I would have to agree with the poster who said : "...to repeat the overall look of the house, in the end you want to replicate the scale and proportion of the house. You only need each part to be in proportion with one another. That's fairly easy to do."
Most ceilings in old southern houses I have been in were 10' - 12' high (or more). That would seem larger than the measurements being quoted here. If the house is not as large as you might like, you could easily duplicate the house on a larger scale. Thus it would appear the same from afar. However the windows would be larger allowing more light. The front door, porch and interior stairway, much more dramatic. The Bedrooms and Bathrooms up to todays size standards. And much more room to play with on the layout.
Build it large enough, and it would seem like you were still 10 years old!
If you do build it, please post a photo when your done.
Happy Thanksgiving! Timothy
Well,I hope everyone is having a good holiday.My Cowboys play in a bit.
There have been so many interesting comments and observations made in this thread.It is really interesting to me.I'm beginning to think that duplicating this house can be done.Being an electrician,I could even do all that work myself.
I've got a few comments and observations I'd like to throw out there,and see what ya'll think.
1.It looks to me like the house is sitting on blocks.What do you think?I'll bet there is a better way to do that,these days.
2.Not questioning anyone's judgment at all-just wondering,how do you know the front porch is a 20th century add-on?Does it just not fit the style that would have been used,when the house was originally built?And would that make for a late 1700's construction date?I did make contact with a man that did historical architectural surveys for the Wake Co. Historical Society,and he had never heard of the house,and had no information.
3.About the software that makes a 3D image-could you use a reverse image,made from this picture,and sort of trick the program into thinking it was 2 different shots?
4.Would it make any sense to try something like importing an image of a 6' tall man,and putting him on the porch?Perhaps he could be made larger/smaller relative to the house,until he looked right,then scale everything from there.
5.Do you think there are 4 fireplaces?The few of these house I've been in were made that way.Why stick both chimneys on 1 side of the house?Seems the other side of the house would be cold.
6.What about the floor plan-of course I have no experience at this,but my guess is that the 2 first floor rooms with fireplaces would be living/drawing/sitting/whatever rooms,and the 2 on the second floor would be bedrooms.
7.About the stairway-would that start nearly in line with the front door?And as it goes up,it turns right,then comes back toward the front of the house?I was guessing that this would account for the change in distance between some of the windows on the 2nd floor.
8.How many other rooms would you think there would be?The family was large.
9.I'd really like to start playing around with this thing at home,do some experimenting and see what turns out,before getting a pro involved.Saw some software by Punch that looks promising.Anybody got experience with that?Seems to me that if I can enter a few parameters like width and height of the house (keeping the Golden Rectangle in mind) ,then the software would have some parameters to start with,and be able to continue from there.Talking to an architectural historian as was mentioned seems a good idea,but I still want to make some headway at home before doing that.
Thanks again for everyone's comments and suggestions.I really appreciate it.And yes,if I can make this house a reality,I will definitely post pictures of it.
Just did a search on CAD programs.Wow,what a minefield.Anybody got a preference between AutoCAD Lite,Softplan,Chief,Vectorworks,Design Workshop Classic,Sierra Home Architect,and Architectural Desktop?Pencil and paper is cheaper than all of them-heh heh heh.
Edited 11/27/2003 4:05:53 PM ET by GSC
>>>5.Do you think there are 4 fireplaces?The few of these house I've been in were made that way.Why stick both chimneys on 1 side of the house?Seems the other side of the house would be cold.<<<
Methinks I see the fuzzy outline of a chimbly on the right side of the house, just on the right side of that big tree in the foreground. I'd guess that there are 4 chimblys anyway.
Agree with previous poster about possiblility that the large main house was added on to a previous structure. I've seen that in some of the older houses round here, too.
Just out of curiousity, I notice what looks like a small gable between the two chimblys, about the height of the top rail on that side porch. Root cellar/storm cellar?
>>>8.How many other rooms would you think there would be?The family was large.<<<
In this time frame, families were typically large. And kids didn't get their own rooms, either, like today. My dad (grew up in early 20's) shared a single room with four other brothers.
>>>1.It looks to me like the house is sitting on blocks.What do you think?I'll bet there is a better way to do that,these days.<<<
I think that the main house is on solid brick underpinning/foundation; only the porch is on brick piers.
Seems that the car is just about the only known measurable item in the picture. I suggest maybe posting on some of the collector car forums, I'm sure someone will ID the car (if like here at BT, lots of people will ID it, if you're lucky, one will be correct), and can help you get the height measurement of a survivor. Maybe check with some old-car folks around your town.
To play around with some quick and dirty floor plans, I would recommend Punch Professional Home Design Suite. It's quick and easy, and at this point, you just want to play around with some floor plan ideas, not draw a set of construction prints. Punch will probably do this quicker for you than a more powered (and features you don't need yet) CAD program.
Finally, I'd research all the old houses I could find from that era (historic sites, old books, etc), and get ideas for the "look" and "feel" of how they were designed back then. And then work into what you want....i.e. houses in this period didn't typically have closets -- they used furniture such as wardrobes for this purpose. Outdoor plumbing was the norm, too. :)
One more thing -- have you checked the county (Wake or Johnston) tax records for any info, I've seen some pretty amazing and really old info come out of other area counties. Maybe you could at least pin down closer the year built, or if there was an existing structure.
I went to the Punch website,and looked around.That program you mentioned looked okay.They've got another one called Punch Architectural Series 3000,that may be just the ticket.It says you can copy a photo of a house,and import that into the program for use as a template.That is really just what I'm looking for.
Thanks again.
Methinks I see the fuzzy outline of a chimbly on the right side of the house, just on the right side of that big tree in the foreground. I'd guess that there are 4 chimblys anyway.
By golly,I believe you are correct.I took a straight edge,and held it at the same angle as the top floor/roofline.Then,raised the straight edge upwards,until reaching the top of the first chimney.That height seems to correspond exactly with where the one on the other side of the house ends.Then I did it with the rearward chimney,and got the same effect.You can just barely see another chimney peeking above the roof,there on the right side of the house.
This is cool.Sorta like a little detective adventure.Can't wait to get that info poked into a program,and start messing around with the staircase and floorplan.
In case anyone has any idle curiosity-these are the Hinton homes,Beaver Dam and Midway.
What style are they?
My goodness, what a lot of well presented and well thought out questions. I'm in heaven.
;)
1> The house is built on brick piers. In that time and place, that was the best way to separate the wood house from termites, carpenter ants and wetness leading to rot. Ther are plenty of ways to build foundations now and the added need for utilities, with the space they take up, makes a full foundation worth while to keep the f;loorplan right without devoting family space to furnaces and tanks.
2> The main box of the house seems plain vanilla for a Georgian but the design elements of the porch are more elegant. The shape of the main box is Georgian, but Georgian walls are quite thick as a generall rule. Scaling window layout suggests to me thatthis is not the case in this house. That leads me to assume that this a a rural copy of the predominant Georgian style. Symetry is one of the main design considerations that is carried forward into this.
If those are more elaborate Corinthian Columns, the rest of the house would probably have had more ornamentation to match them.
Thus, I would assume that weather had taken it's toll at some point in history, and that the proch rotted off and the best way to fix it was to replace it, leading to the statement, "As long as we're here...."
3> I don't know, not being familiar with this software, but it seems to me that to produce a 3d model, you would need the two perspective photos from each side of the house, making a total of eight. One side could possibly be done as you suggest because of the symetry present. A call to the software developers could enlighten you or if that pachage has a forum for users.
4> I think the eight inch riser on the steps is your most likely accurate scaling basis.
5, 6, 8 > You could easily have four rooms on each floor if the house is about 24' to 26' deep, that would allow for rooms about 12' x 16', less closets, or thereabouts.
7> Yes
9> I haven't used Punch software. I have read reviews and heard from others. The general opinion that sticks in my head is that it is adequate for basice designs for homes built in normal ways. Unique items introduce errors into the way it works. It sometimes makes its own internal 'corrections' in your work, especially with custom and difficult roofs and things.
3D Home Architect is an easier and better program for beginners, but still limited. I really believe that you need a designer or architect familiar with restoration to help you on this.
I favor Softplan but it is not a program for a hobby or one time user.
We would all love to hear more from you as this projet moves along.
Good Luck with it.
.
Excellence is its own reward!
I have been playing some more with my photo software and amplifying the image.
There are definitely four chimneys, the two right ones barely discernable behind the tree. The two left ones each have two flues. I also am ready to change my assumption on depth of house. it is surely at least 28' deep and possibly more like 32'
I do see the gable shadow that Probozo does. Could also have been entry for coal cellar later?
By the time I amplify things, that car looks like a Toyota Land Rover to me. There is also another lower headlight/gille in the carport, I think.
I amplify to where I can clearly see the brick joints in the piers. If I assume that the pixlelation is not screwing up my eyes, and that the bricks were eight inches, then the railing is c.22" at 25" high and the steps are only around six inches at the risers, the columns are about 10"D, 84" H, Lower windows are 5'4" and siding may be 4.5" exposure.
.
Excellence is its own reward!
I've zoomed to 600x, sure can't make out the individual brick. Just by my eye, though, that railing, from top rail to bottom rail just "looks" about 24".
GSC, is there anyway you can take the pic out of the frame, then do a flat hi-res scan of it? It'd be a big file, but certainly interesting for us.
(BTW, flip the picture over and scan the backside of it, so we can see the back of the house) :)
Well-here's the deal on the photo.
One of the cousins I met in June is also descended from Col. Wilder.I came from a daughter,but she came from his son,Maj. Gaston Henry Wilder.He was an interesting character.Paymaster and surgeon for North Carolina troops in the Mexican War,president of Raleigh & Gaston Railroad,etc.She knows an elderly lady that is also part of the family.The photo actually belongs to this elderly lady,and Emory has it on loan.She's had it in her possession for several years,now.So,Emory let me take the photo home with me,because I wanted to experiment around with making scans of it,increasing the detail,and blowing it up as large as is possible.
I haven't actually taken it out of the frame,because of 2 reasons.Mainly,because it isn't my property and I must eventually return it to Emory.And because the back of the frame has a brown paper backing that is glued on.I did actually peel one corner back,just to see.I am almost thinking that I can very carefully use an Exacto knife and go around the edge,and not tear it up.Copy the photo,then glue it back on.Understand my reluctance,though-I'm very fortunate to even have ever SEEN this photo,much less have it in my temporary possession and be able to scan it.If I should somehow damage the thing,I would be mortified.
I think I'm gonna try it,anyway. :-)
I've got another version stored in my puter,that is a bit over 2 megs.If anybody wants a copy,I can email it to you.It was manipulated to show better detail,etc.
Well,I threw caution to the wind,and took the photo out of the frame.Took a few hours,trying not to destroy any more of the paper backing than I had too.Didn't get lucky with any notes or text inside the frame,just the studio name,which I already knew.
I made a 2.41 meg version,and the detail is WAY better.PIFIN,I sent you one to your home email,as you had asked on my Yahoo account.It sent some over 3 gig monstrosity,don't know why.Hope you have Broadband.I'll try and send the version I intended to,later.And anybody that wants one,just tell me.
On this new version,you can definitely see the 4 chimneys,plain as day.I can now tell the detail of what was hard to see before-on the nearest chimney,there are 2 narrow windows on the house,and they are open,and resting against the chimney.
You can now see the front door,and the arch shape above it.Don't recall if that's a window,will have to look again.The really amazing thing-there is a porch light on the wall to the right of the door,and IT IS ON!!
You can see a lot more detail on the back part of the house,including steps.Also,the little thing that may be a storm cellar entrance is much clearer.
On the farthest right upper window,you can see into the room.Either there is something on the wall,or you are looking through a BACK window.
I had wondered why the upper windows didn't have shutters or whatever on both sides.It appears now from looking at the one that is very visible in the new shot,that the window panes cover the entire opening,as if that window isn't made to be opened.
Man,this is cool.Oughta help a lot.I'm glad I took it out of the frame.Guess I'm an outlaw now. A regular ThrillSeeker. :-)
About ten years ago I rented the second floor of a house in Richmond that looked very similar, although more modest in appearance. (Here's a funny coincidence -- I lived there while Doug Wilder was governor of Virginia.) The house wasn't as old as your family place, and from what I understand, it was only briefly used as a single family home (the farm help lived in it).
I've sketched out the floor plan as I remember it. The windows were ganged (two in front, three in the one rear room), and since it had steam heat there were no fireplaces. There were doors between the upstairs rooms, and they were original -- maybe for better cross-ventilation in the summer?
I used to have a dimensioned sketch of the upstairs, and if I can find it, I'll post another plan with dimensions. The place went up for sale just as I was leaving, and I always kicked myself for not buying it.
Happy researching!
Karlyn
karlyn-thanks a lot!!
That looks like a very workable. design.
Do you still own the site or have access to it? Given it was a brick foundation, a little archaeological dig could get you some exact dimensions, orientation with respect to the compass and the path of the sun, and even some good hints as to the floor plan.
-- J.S.
No,I don't own it,unfortunately.That place used to be about 4 miles outside Raleigh,but now Raleigh has swallowed it up.It is in a prime commercial zone,with lots of businesses and traffic.
The family cemetery is the only thing identifiable,to my knowledge.I don't know the exact spot the house was on,in relation to the cemetery.Probably one of the businesses is sitting on top of it.
It is sort of a jarring thing,to stand there at the cemetery,by Col. Wilders' tomb,with the photo in your hand-and look around.That 1800 acre plantation is a part of history.You sure wouldn't know it had existed by looking around now.
I once saw a TV documentary from England about a program of urban archaeology they have over there. They excavated a 1000 year old grave in somebody's garden, and found part of a city wall running through a park. So it might not be that all is lost.
-- J.S.
Basic Southern vernacular structure. I've seen variants of this type called the "I-House" or "Tennessee I-House." I doubt the original structure would have been Georgian. It seems it would have been more Federal, but it was really just an unpretentious plantation house.
It's possible that the main block of the house was originally an I-house that was doubled in size at some point. Where there would originally have been a low gabled roof flanked with a single pair of chimneys, two more rooms could have been added per floor and the whole thing topped off with the hipped roof. Or not
In the photo you can see Victorian turned columns on the back porch from an addition or remodel at some time in the '80s or '90's
The ionic porch and the Georgian front door are not original--they're Colonial Revival additions, and would have been almost brand new when the photograph was taken.
How far out from town was this house originally? If it was ever close enough to city limits, it may have been included on the Sanborn insurance maps. If it were, then you'd at least have a scaled drawing of the structure's footprint. Someone among your city planners, permits office, preservationist or libraries should have sets of the Sanborn maps or access to the database of digitized maps online.
I've been meaning to suggest that while you have the photo out of the frame, take it to a good copy shop and have them make a couple of high quality copies of it using archival paper - then you can return the original and have one practically as good to keep - - any frame shop should be able to reassemble the original and put a new dust cover on the back for a few bucks...
Yep,that's on my agenda,for sure.
I did find a bit more information.There is a write-up on the family in the Wake Co. Heritage Book.
The house was said to have been built by Col. Wilder in 1837,and had 10 rooms.Family lived in it at least until 1878.I'm now hoping that they did indeed have Sanborn for an insurance company,so some documentation of the structure can be found.
The best thing about the internet,in my opinion,is that somebody always knows about something we never heard of before.
Sanborn maps,never heard of it.What a great idea,though.Found the company online,and sent a message.Waiting to hear back.Actually,I probably won't wait any longer than when they open up tomorrow.This looks like it could really work out.
Thanks for the great tip.
This looks like a fun project for you to recreate a piece of history. You might never get the house dimensions right on but from the photograph you should be able to re-create the proportions which are the most important part. And you have come to the right place for help from seeing all the help and suggestions already given.
I would start on the first floor. I would a assume atleast 9'-10' high ceilings on the first floor because of the age and it doesn't look like the original builders cut any corners. I would also assume that the second floor would have 8' high ceilings, this is for proportions and typical constuction. In older homes the first floor windows were usually taller then the second story windows to create a feeling that the house was taller. As a check, on the original photo I wonder if you can make out and count the siding (maybe 6" vert.) to find a height that way. I am assuming 10-12" for the first and second floor structure then 9' + 8' so about 19' of siding. then the remaining height from the ground, count the number of stairs to the porch and assume 6-8" for each riser. So the earlier estimate of 25' from grade would make sense.
The length is harder and I would research era house plans to try to determine rooms, room sizes, uses, and typical sizes, and have someone actually layout the spaces. Start with general ideas and refine them as you go along and just see what looks correct to your eye, the photograph, and what you've been envisioning.
Dan