Case Study NA01

This is a paraphrase from the Arts and Architecture magazine article in 1945 on Case Study House Program’s House #1 by J.R. Davidson.  It applies largely to my own goals for our own house.

“[Newland Architecture] will build as soon as practicable… [for] a fairly typical American family…  Let us then presuppose a Mr. and Mrs. X, both of whom are professional people with mutual business interests, the family consisting of one teen-aged daughter [soon to be] away at school and [an older son who is also away at school but] is an occasional welcome guest in the house.  In this case, we must suppose that the joint income is sufficient to provide ample but not elaborate living standards.

“[When guests] will enter the normal life of the household, it is desired that some separation be provided, if possible, quarters to be in the nature of a small separate apartment in which privacy can be achieved when desired.

“Provision for the daughter, whose schooling will necessarily develop into longer periods away from home as her education proceeds, must be on the basis of space usable to the parents when not given over to the child.  We might assume a variety of interests in activities related to the work of the parents, provision for indulging in gardening as exercise and recreation, and also arrangements for an indoor hobby in which they both might share.

“Inasmuch as it might be presumed that this will be a servantless house, it must be designed in such a way that care and upkeep do not interfere with the professional activities of the occupants.

“The house is to be a simple and straightforward expression of the living demand of modern-minded people wishing to cope with their living problems on a contemporary basis.

“We now place this all neatly in the lap of Mr. [Scott J. Newland].”

Anthony Bourdain

Listening to an excellent and fun discussion between Anthony Bourdain and Chris Hardwick on Monday's "The Nerdist" podcast, I was struck by this quote from Bourdain when he was asked what he valued today versus when he first started out professionally:

"Now, I try... whatever I do, I don't wanna look in the mirror and feel ashamed of what I did the day before.  I mean, I'm trying to be a reasonably decent citizen of the world.  I want to be a good dad.  I want to make ever more creative work and do the best I can at it, have fun, stay interested... and work with interesting people and make beautiful things that I can feel proud of."

Sounds about right to me.

As Small As Possible?

One more design earthquake later - more of a tremor, actually - and the design is now at 2000 gross square feet.  This is the total area of all 3 floors, calculated from the exterior surface of the exterior walls.  At 28' wide, the house can easily fit on a 40' wide urban lot.  As such, I feel that I've finally been able to achieve the size goal I was after.  And it seems to flow better.  And have a more natural internal flow to the roof deck.

BUT: Is it too small?  Testing furniture layouts in all rooms, it seems like everything works pretty well, but the house has gone from 3 bedrooms + a multi-purpose guest room / office + studio to 2 bedrooms + a multi-purpose guest room / office + studio.  A realtor could see it as a 4-bedroom house, but I see it as a 2 bedroom with some flexible rooms that in reality would end up fixed in function.  Is this too much of a compromise?  Also, I have advised many clients and friends over the decades that anyone who doesn't build out a full basement when they have the chance will come to regret it later.  This current house design does not have a full basement!  If it did, the house would be 564 square feet larger: a crime!  Right?  Plus, more space means more space for stuff, and therefore less impetus to purge stuff that you really don't need anymore or can live without, and that's un-American.  Right?

The logical next step is to define the house with and without the basement fill-out and find out how much the additional cost would be.  Since it could be seen as unfinished (but heated) space and would not include a bathroom, it would be "cheap space".  (I tell that to clients and friends, too.)  But even "cheap" costs something, and I have a cheapskate mentality at the moment.  Wait and see.

Backup Plan

The preferred design needed to be challenged, after I got contractor vibes about size x cost = scary.  So last weekend was literally back to the drawing board, where I came up with a house design that is 2150 square feet (down 400), would fit on a 40' lot (versus 44'), and seems to offer a few improvements.  But it's not as solar-friendly and has lessened envelope thermal performance (though still far above code).  The [very] preliminary main floor plan is shown here.

A glimpse of the possible new super model; thinner and more angular than before.

Happy Earth Day!

The house is about to take one of two key next steps, as I prepare to meet with a general contractor on the primary design.  Either it will feel like it's in the realm of the affordable, or the new backup design will come to the fore.  Design prime is seriously green from a performance standpoint, but it's 2500 gsf including the basement.  But: It feels like the right size for us!  The design variation is 2000 gsf total and has more conventional construction (R-35 walls versus 55, U factor 0.23 windows versus 0.17, etc.), but is it too much of a compromise?  Big decisions loom.

Rough section perspective through the dining room wing.

The Rite of Spring, 2014 version

As I detail the house for contractor pricing, the deluge of spring journals is arriving with the annual "Best Houses" issues.  Most featured homes, like this one in Architectural Record, churn my emotions through attraction and repulsion.  On one hand, the work is often seductive.  The images are professional perfection, carefully staged and lit (and free of humans and apparent real-life use).  They look like sets waiting for movie stars to perform within.  They're for the 1%, or in this case (an 8320 sq. ft. personal enclave in the huge metropolis of Sāo Paulo), the 1% of the 1%.  To its credit, Record's editor admits that these are not sustainable, energy-saving designs, but that they show "daring design and superior craftsmanship" to "influence... how Americans build and live".  Fine, but I live in the real world and deal with real budgets that can be a frustrating challenge to do innovative work within.  Hence the repulsion side of my conflict.  I am inspired to push my designs further, but know that much of what I see in these publications is simply out of reach.  Maybe someday I'll have designs featured in these annual issues, but will the editors look beyond my work to the splashier, trendier, posher submissions they'll be sorting through?

Architectural Record, April 2014, pages 82-83, "Casa P" house by Studio MK27.  Completed July 2012.  Cost: withheld.

Where's the Update?

Yeah, I know.  Subtle progress on all fronts, I assure you.  Look forward to a video tour before long.  Be patient!  I'm busy at the moment.

Progress Snapshot

It's a three-ring circus of small steps forward:
1) Realtor-based property search, using the site criteria we provided.
2) Product research and discussions with different vendors, as well as our getting more informed about financing options.
And, in the center ring:
3) Design development and the further deepening of detail on the documents.

Building Science, Part 1

The more I learn about this, the more there is to learn.  When you get outside of code minimums, rules of thumb, and old habits, research is needed.  After reading an article last November on the science of how vapor drive and condensation relate to where insulation is placed, I studied some key wall construction details to see if I could understand how winter design conditions could be used to develop the most effective wall for a given climate.  I felt that I got it right, but questions remain.  I still need to learn more, not the least of which is how much more such a wall would cost compared with a "conventional" wall, and what the energy savings ROI could be.