{"id":3275,"date":"2013-05-03T11:53:12","date_gmt":"2013-05-03T11:53:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/markstephensarchitects.com\/?p=3275"},"modified":"2013-05-03T11:53:12","modified_gmt":"2013-05-03T11:53:12","slug":"match-or-contrast-or-maybe-something-in-between","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.markstephensarchitects.com\/match-or-contrast-or-maybe-something-in-between\/","title":{"rendered":"Match or contrast, or maybe something in-between?"},"content":{"rendered":"

There’s always the dilemma with extending an existing property over whether the extension should match the existing or contrast with it. How does the architect decide? Which is best? The answer invariably comes from the client; it is their personal preferences that generally sets whether the new part is to blend’ with the traditional or be contemporary and contrast with it. The planners can also have a big say in how they want the building to look unfortunately (more below on this)<\/p>\n

Me? I’ve done and happy doing both. See opposite the modernist contemporary extension to a traditional rural two storey farmhouse in County Roscommon:<\/p>\n

\"Two

Two storey modernist extension to contemporary farmhouse<\/p><\/div>\n

To this two storey extension (currently under construction) and proposed elevation:<\/p>\n

\"2

2 storey extension to traditional house – under construction<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Proposed

Proposed front elevation<\/p><\/div>\n

Even this ‘matching’ extension is set back from the existing house to create a separation of the two buildings; there is also a greater contrast at the rear of the dwelling.<\/p>\n

Each method has its own merits:<\/p>\n