So we're going with Scheme C, but...

(Brendan)

In the two days that followed my brother's visit to present the schemes in early July, after much discussions, Molly and I decided that Scheme C was the best starting point for us. It was interesting to see the poll results of what other visitors would choose as their starting point for the design (the poll was just kind of a fun way of getting some feedback and to see what others thought, even though we had already made our decision beforehand). It turns out of course that Scheme C was the most selected in the poll as well. Here were the final results (19 total votes):

We think it's great that Scheme C is at least recognizable as a good architectural concept of the home by many people, because we would want the home to be easily interpretable to any visitor once it is built. Of course keep in mind that though Scheme C is the starting point for the design, there are going to be other aspects of Scheme A and Scheme B that we would like incorporated or considered for Scheme C. For instance, the exterior landscape of the home seemed best developed in Scheme A, and we'd like a lot of those ideas to port over to C. And the chapel was furthest developed in Scheme B, and we'd like a lot of those ideas kept in mind for C. The main reason we liked scheme C was that it offered some centrality to the home and bedrooms on the same level (both of which Scheme A doesn't have), as well as uniqueness and design intelligibility from the outside of the home (which we didn't feel Scheme B had as much of).

Now for the major news, the first piece of real-time news I have posted on this site (!). Up until now, everything has been a narrative of what has occurred in the past. For any of you who watch Lost on ABC, this is the point where we stop doing the flashbacks and start doing the flash-forwards, as in the last season finale. At any rate, I talked to my brother last week after he had just finished doing a cost ranking of each of the schemes. His process was to walk through each scheme with multiple other architects who have lots of experience in residential design and get lots of independent perspective. Here's the general cost ranking, from least to most expensive (not really a surprise):

• Scheme B
• Scheme A
• Scheme C

So, Scheme C would be the most expensive of the three. In order to do the cost ranking, my brother had to assume some things about the materials of the home, which were the following (same for all three schemes):

• Concrete foundation
• Concrete slab on grade for ground floors
• Structural wood framing
• Pre-engineered wood trusses constructed off-site for roofs
• Radiant heating for ground-floor spaces
• Wood batten exterior enclosure
• Standardized windows and doors, with exceptions for premium spaces (chapel)
• Gypsum wall board (drywall) standard finish for the home, with exceptions for premium spaces
  

No, we're not using a lot of luxurious materials here, but we do care about craftsmanship. Incidentally, regarding the concrete slab, did any of you notice that we don't have a basement in any of the three schemes? C'mon people! I thought that would be one of the first things people asked about. That was the initial starting point anyway, as eliminating the basement eliminates the possibility of moisture issues (since we border a wetland) and simplifies construction. It's also a little more elegant for the design. But this could change.

I don't want to go into all the details as to the cost advantages and disadvantages of each scheme, especially since I already mentioned that going into the cost ranking we had picked Scheme C as our design starting point. So we'll just focus on that one, and there are some significant issues. Here they are, transcribed from my brother's analysis he sent me (put together from the other architects' comments):

• The lack of an overall orthagonality to the entire home will be a challenging issue from a cost standpoint. Coordinating the construction of the structure will be more complex than a contractor normally encounters, which will raise the cost considerably.
• The intersection of the building pieces which cuts a corner off is problematic from a structural point of view. It will require transferring of loads on heavy sills, which will raise costs.

Ugh. The next words out of my mouth were, "So do we need to go back to Scheme A as a starting point?" Sorry Scheme B likers, Scheme A was our second choice. In another aside, when I asked, "So what were the general comments of the other architects? I mean, what did they say, were they interested?" My brother said, "Yeah, of course it's architects, so they could not resist offering unsolicited criticism [I'm hearing the tongue-in-cheek smile over the phone]. Once they grasped the concept, that this was going to be a very different home, with elements that make it incredibly unique, their main criticism was of Scheme B. They didn't think it expressed, from the outside of the home, the uniqueness of what was going on inside. They felt that Scheme B was almost masking or hiding the unique spaces inside the home, and so they thought Scheme A and Scheme C did better job of communicating the design." Interesting.

Anyway, back to the concerns with Scheme C. Here's Scheme C again, where you can see the lack of "orthagonality", i.e. there are lots of acute angles:
And, here are a couple examples where a corner of a space is cut-off, causing a structural support challenge:

Since I am an engineer, my first question is whether a few well-placed columns or other support structures could resolve this issue. It's not like these intersections have to be completely free-floating. I'm not the expert on these issues from an architecture standpoint, so I'm sure this will be discussed further.

In the end, we did decide to stay with Scheme C as the starting point (partly with the enthusiasm of my brother for continuing with this scheme) with the understanding that he is going to have to re-work it to potentially add more orthagonality. One thing the architects all agreed upon is that regardless of any of the challenges, there were no red flags and they agreed it could be done. They also agreed that even taking into account the extra costs associated with the design, the overriding cost driver is still simple square footage. Therefore, we can save significant costs by simply optimizing the square footage of each space (i.e. cut some square footage and we'll save some dough, and this is perhaps the best way to save cost). There were some other points the architects mentioned, which we have considered as well, as ways of saving costs. For instance, any walls that extend into the landscape could be phased in over time, and the driveway could be paved at a later date.

Still, it feels good to have officially settled on a starting point, and my brother is already working on the re-design!