An Analysis of Lafayette Walk’s Doors & Transoms

Two weeks ago the City’s Preservation Board, in a tediously long meeting, voted to require the developer of the new Lafayette Walk townhouses, Orchard Development, to replace the front door and ‘transoms’ on the units already complete and to make changes going forward.

I must admit that at first glance I agreed with their decision. In spending some more time looking at this project, other new construction projects, and period buildings I’ve some to a slightly different conclusion.

Correctly discussed at the meeting was the lack of a proper transom sash. At Lafayette Walk the developer somehow thought they could just insert glass in the frame and do without the sash. Of course, real opening transoms (like the six in my building) all require a sash frame to work. It is part of the look and should have been a no brainer. The staff & board also focused on the lack of thickness of the header frame between the door and where a proper transom should have been.

Cultural Resources director Kathleen Shea focused on the height of the doors as the other problem. All evening long she asked those speaking the height of their doors. As a result, the Preservation Board voted to require the front doors to be 7ft tall rather than the 6ft 8 in doors that are already in place.

Looking at the entry to the right it is certainly true the door could be taller without any issues. However, if they also thicken the header and do a proper transom sash the amount of area will be significantly reduced.

I have an issue with the light area over the window in the eyebrow. Historically this area would be the same color as the window frame. Why this hasn’t been addressed is beyond me. It is possible this area just hasn’t been painted yet…

---

The building from above includes six units, three with half circle opening like this one. In this case, a taller door would be a horrible mistake as you’d lose the entire view of the transom. So, the first mistake from the Preservation Board was to apply the 7ft door to all openings, including ones like this.

While we are here at this picture I want you to note a few things that I’ll reference later. The front steps leading to the small front porch rise to the point where you are nearly flush with the interior floor — no step up from the porch to get inside the house. As a result the steps are way above the dividing line between the foundation and brick line.

One last thing, I’m surprised they are not required to have a “graspable” handrail given the height of the steps above grade. I know I’d want something to hold on if the steps are covered in snow & ice.

---

If we look closer at this opening we can see the minimal frame at the top of the door. As we’ll see in upcoming pictures this is just not sufficient to replicate the proper look. Even if the standards didn’t require a more authentic look, this should be avoided simply because it looks cheap in my view.

But I have other issues. First, they’ve painted the frame an attractive color but have left the metal front door in the primer color. This is very common with new metal doors for entries and garages. Folks, these doors are meant to be painted, not left this boring off-white color.

I would have liked some doors with glass but, in metal doors the glass is framed by cheap plastic trim, so perhaps it is best they went with solid doors.

What bothers me is the depth this door is recessed back from the brick — almost none. In examples I found in Lafayette Square the door & transom are either in the brick opening or are recessed back a more substantial depth, enough to have side paneling in the opening. This is some confused middle ground that adds to the aesthetic problems.

Let’s take a look at other examples from the neighborhood to see some of the differences. First, I want to start with period homes.

---

Across the street from the project site is this lovely home. The double doors are taller than today’s 6ft-8in doors but the ceiling height is also much more substantial. This type of home was clearly more affluent than the simpler row house look of Lafayette Walk.

The frame above the doors is much thicker and although it is hard to tell in the picture, the transom does have it’s own frame. In this case the door frame & header are painted a different color than the front doors & transom sash.

Also note how the steps break through the foundation line, unlike the examples above. Here the steps get you to a step at the foundation line with a step up to the porch and an addition step up into the residence. This makes a big visual difference in my view, plus it reduces the amount of steps exposed to snow & ice.

But what about more modest row houses?

---

Here is an example from just around the corner. These doors do look to be about 6ft-8in in height, not the 7ft the Preservation Board is asking for at Lafayette Walk. Again, the steps break the foundation line. As a result, the brick opening has a much more vertical appearance than the ones at Lafayette Walk. This issue is not the door height, the issue is the opening in the brick!

These entrances have a better setback from the front facade so that the porch is paneled inside and room is available for a ceiling light fixture. The transoms are pretty massive in this case, just like some of those at Lafayette Walk. Would the Preservation Board a hundred years ago have told this builder to install taller doors to reduce the height of the transoms?

---

This example is one of my favorites. I love having the two doors side by side. In the Lafayette Walk project all 37 doors, to my knowledge, are separate like the previous example. Historically buildings would have a much greater variety so it would be nice if Lafayette Walk flipped a few floor plans around on those that are not yet constructed to add some variety such as this.

As we’ve seen with other period homes, the steps break the foundation line. This gives you a tall and narrow opening in the brick and the steps play a much lessor role in the overall appearance.

I like how one entry has a side-mounted light fixture while the other has a light mounted to the porch ceiling. The glass in the colorful front doors makes the entry far more welcoming than a solid door.

Are we asking too much of new construction to pick up on these details?

---

This row house is likely from the 1980s or thereabouts. Here the builder brought the steps up to the unit in the manner in which period homes have done. The front door & transom (with proper sash) are set back enough from the brick line to create a front porch similar in proportion to those of the period.

This solid door did not appear to be any taller than the conventional 6ft-8in.

---

Another example from the 80s deviates from the period look but it does so much more successfully. Here the door & transom are not recessed back behind the brick. While I couldn’t find any good examples in the immediate area, this is actually correct for a period look although the nicer homes would have had the recessed front porch. Still, aesthetically speaking I prefer this to Lafayette Walk’s barely recessed look.

Also note in this case the foundation line is not broken by the steps as we’ve seen in the above cases. Yet, unlike Lafayette Walk, the foundation line represents the floor line. Looking back at the prior examples we see the top of the foundation more or less does represent the interior floor line. Lafayette Walk’s floor line to foundation line is way off the mark.

This is just up the hill from Lafayette Walk.

---

Across the street from the last example is another in-fill project, most likely from the same period and possibly from the same developer. Same deal, the foundation line represents the floor line so the steps are not so massive and the door and transom are properly detailed although not recessed.

The doors used on these two examples has more depth to them. The trim projects from the plane of the main door while the panels are set back a bit. This looks like a more substantial door whereas the doors used in Lafayette Walk are standard steel doors that have a very flat appearance about them.

---

Another example of newer construction, this time facing the park. Once again the door & transom are done right. The steps come up to the foundation/floor line. This was one of the few cases where I actually saw a handrail.

I think it is fair of the Lafayette Square residents to be concerned about the details in the historic district. However, it seems like they and the Cultural Resources staff failed big time when evaluating the Lafayette Walk project over a year ago. The issue of the relationship of the steps to the floor line to the foundation must not have been addressed. If it was addressed, it was not addressed well.

For all the aesthetic issues at Lafayette Walk, I have to wonder if the residents are not singling out this particular developer.

---

I spotted this home, just finishing completion, around the corner. Even looking at my photo in detail I cannot see an actual transom sash in place. The door header frame is slightly more substantial than the ones at Lafayette Walk but not by much. And can someone please so me a period example of a sidelight?

---

And then we have the Mississippi Place development by Gilded Age.

This building was just completed in the last couple of months. The large half circle glass over the attractive doors has pretty much the same issues as Lafayette Walk. No pretense of a sash exists and the header over the double doors is as wimpy as the ones used at Lafayette Walk. Of course, a half circle transom would have been quite rare because most transoms were hinged at the top and opened in at the bottom.

To be authentic this opening should have had a pair of tall doors made to fit the half circle. Although the color scheme is nice this has a decidedly McMansion look about it. But where are the upset neighbors on this one?

---

Maybe the neighbors are next door looking at this building as part of the same project.

As with the half circle, no transom sash exists and the door header is minimal. Don’t let the color scheme fool you, this is virtually identical to Lafayette Walk.

---

This entry is on the same new building as the last picture. LIke we saw on the other building in the same project, a large half circle of glass is used. If Lafayette Walk’s detailing is so wrong I fail to see why this is acceptable. These half circle windows have no place in Lafayette Square.

Lafayette Square residents need to have a serious look at their historic standards and do some updating. A visual guide for developers and architects is probably in order to avoid some of these digressions from the period look. Of course, had Lafayette Walk not royally screwed up their utilities the door & transom issue most likely would not have even been raised.

– Steve