As a residential architect specializing in the shingle style, I have decided to try and design an architecturally “A+” 2100 (amended to 2721 sqft) square foot house to make available to the masses for a low cost compared to my one off designs for full service fees. The style will be Neo-New England vernacular design; very simple and boxy to save money, analogous to a traditional cape or colonial, but putting a focus on architectural design and material quality rather than traditional fluff.

Monday, December 29, 2008

It has been suggested (by Greg) that there is a lot of space given over to circulation spaces although its broken up into several small interstitial spaces. That perhaps, some of the esoteric planning decisions which give the house a lot of character may also be a turn off to many mainstream customers. For example the imbalance between small closet spaces in the secondary bedrooms and giant dressing room in the master, the lack of a bath, isolation of the study to the master suite. All valid points…. and its pissing me off! :^)

In our projects the master suite rules… and to that extent, I tried to design it large and with all the bells and whistles. To your point, I have really hurt the guestrooms too much. They are very undersized without walk in closets. Very poor! I have mixed feelings… I am OK with some of those decisions…but we very early on the process. URGH!

David R. pointed out to me today that my hierarchy of program items is switching on a day to day basis because my goal was never clear. Tragically, this is allowing my project to morph as it goes, and it is becoming very troubling for me. It is both a problem and an opportunity. I guess what I need to decide is what I am designing (before I have a nervous breakdown,) and this may not end up being a speculative low cost house… I now see four very different roads in front of me.

1. An Andreozzi Architects house with all my typical details (at a higher cost per square foot,) but available to the mass market for a fraction of the cost of my services. This has the most commercial opportunity and is still providing good design to the (more upper middleclass) masses.

2. A more modest house in detail which captures the spirit of my architecture but is much less money to build (i.e. $225 per foot) as I originally viewed it.

3. A low income version stripped of all detail.

4. A version that truly attempts to reinvents (or modernize,) the shingle style archetype with regards to ordering principles and architectural element decoration and reinterpretation. This is something I always wanted to do…but always seemed daunting. This is more sophisticated option and has the most publishable opportunities. But also with the much higher level of difficulty, and higher risk of public appeal.

The truth is that, up until today, I was doing all four at the same time, and I am in need of my meds. Seriously, this has been a freakin’ nightmare!.

2 comments:

lavardera said...

Not sure why you are feeling drama and angst over this. Which of the options takes the CORA mission the furthest? I think its obvious.

David Andreozzi said...

I am not sure that each alternative doesn't address the ultimate goal. Right now I am leaning between 1 & 4. In the case of those two I will have some time in plan design ahead of me before I would have to choose.

Frankly, I think it would be really cool to design the house in all four alternatives!

Followers

BlogCatalog

Architect Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory