Five years ago thus month we finished construction on a house in Northwest Indiana. Altogether it was quite an enterprise. I suppose that almost anyone who builds a house for himself is prey to doubts and anxieties and we were no exception. We did like the design our architect proposed however and now, five years later, see no reason to change our minds. It has turned out to be a peculiarly satisfying place for us to live.

The actual construction, however, turned out to be something of problem. As the house has strong elements of high tech in its design, we hoped that it might be put together in record time, but thus, alas, was an expectation not be realized. Instead of the four to five months originally envisaged, it took fourteen long months before we could finally move in. The house, des by an architect, certainly does have a very strong stamp of originality in its conception and requirements. All of its details are "different." In consequence, workmen who declared initially that they could do it easily enough, found that although they could do it, it took longer than the more standard design construction they were doing elsewhere. So they went elsewhere where they could finish their job more easily and hence more profitably and came around to us when there was time left over.

To clarify the situation perhaps I should briefly describe to you what the house is like. It is one story and built of steel and glass on a 36' x 36' slab of concrete which is ground to resemble terrazo. Its details include 26 sliding doors which separate bedrooms and closets from the rest of the house; a kitchen island containing all the kitchen appliances was custom built and required eight men to bring in; Hope windows from New York whose frames had to be welded onto steel uprights and a solid masonry core of Hanley glazed brick. Everything except for the ground concrete came out very well, but it took more time to do than the usual and probably accounts for the constant delays. Also, there is the fact that there was a construction boom at that time in Northern Indiana and contractors and subcontractors had frequently much more work than they could handle.

Aside from thus our experience has been satisfying and rewarding. Our initial discussions with the architect concerned the basics-i.e. how many rooms we wanted, how many bathrooms, kitchen requirements and other features. Because our site is just inside the edge of a deep woods with a view to the east of tall trees and to the west of a ten acre field planted in corn or soy beans we knew at the outset that our house must have maximum window space and talked at that time about the desirability of having thermo pane. With all that glass our house would be cold, expensive to heat. We decided, however, to forego it as it would have increased the cost of the house to a degree that was unacceptable to us.

The architect had a model of a house he had designed earlier for himself and then, for various personal reasons, decidednot to build. Since the model incorporated many of the requirements we had decided on, he suggested that we might like to keep it for a while and see if we liked the design well enough to build our house to be like it or something like. This model was very helpful. I remember taking it outside and putting it down on the r ass in the backyard and lying down beside it to peer into its rooms. I could see shadow patterns and sunlight on the floor. In my imagination I could see us living there in quite a short time, actually, we did come to the conclusion that we liked the design and wanted to build. Others, as it turned out, also like the design. Our house won the Chicago Chapter AIA Distinguished Building Award for 1980.

A simpler, but no less important requirement we had concerned room for utilities, tools, garden equipment, etc. A prefabricated steel pole building was decided on and the architect draw its details including a wide overhang so that we can walk from one room to another, protected from rain and snow. A real treat for me is a study there, far away from my workaday world. Probably, it is as soothing for the housewife to be in a building that has no kitchen facilities as it is soothing for some people to be where there is no telephone.

Why It Worked So Well
Our experience with our architect was remarkably uncomplicated.Quite simply, we accepted his design our understanding being much helped by the model, and we closely watched construction as the work progressed. Quality control was maintained by the regular vistis of a young architect with the firm we had retained, who made sure that all the design specifications were followed. As I mentioned earlier, the house was very long a-building, but that had more to do with contractors' priorities then with architectural vagaries.

There was one temporary impasse on the subject of fireplaces. Although I could see that something so non-contemporary as a fireplace would not fit very well in a design such as ours, I believed quite firmly that northern country winters need the comforting presence of an open fire. There was a good deal of badinage on the subject as Iremember,andfinally the architect hit upon the happy solution of two Norwegian stoves, one of which can be converted into a fireplace. The stoves give out a lot more heat than a fireplace and they fit in very much better.

In conclusion, I would report that our finished house did not cost more than the original estimates agreed upon with the contractor. The reason for this is probably the fact that we, the clients, didnot demand design and material changes as we went along. When such demands are made hostility frequently develops between the members of the contract and costs are increased. But I felt that the design of our house, because of its nature, permitted no changes and that to demand them would seriously alter its character and defeat our purposes.