House Design Ideas to Transform Your Home

Introduction: A Paper Legacy and Evolving Works

Of the nine theoretical houses planned by Peter Eisenman, the star of the Deconstructionist architectural movement, between 1968 and 1975, only four were ever built. However, their “cardboard-like” and abstract nature did not prevent these houses from etching their names into the memory of global architectural history. Today, an experienced architect, Andrew Ferentinos, is leading a radical transformation – or rather, a “reincarnation” – of one of the most famous of these houses, House VI in West Cornwall, Connecticut, as well as House II in Hardwick, Vermont. Under new ownership, these works are being revived, challenging the notion of static preservation and embracing Eisenman’s own philosophy that architecture is a living entity that evolves.

A Chance Meeting Leads to a Historic Mission: How the Story Began

Working on any building of historical significance is a dream for any architect, but how does such a rare opportunity come about?
Ferentinos reveals that it began with a chance meeting during a tour of modern houses in Connecticut. He says, “I previously worked at SOM in New York before starting my own practice, and these clients had a house designed by Whitson Overcash, who was a designer there during the Gordon Bunshaft era. We connected over that.” While invited to see their home, the clients surprised him with the news that they had bought Peter Eisenman’s House VI, asking, “Have you heard of it?”.

Ferentinos’s academic background from The Cooper Union, where he studied under Anthony Vidler, a leading scholar of Eisenman’s work, provided deep theoretical understanding. This, coupled with his vast practical experience as a “house doctor” – an official term in some states for engineers specializing in diagnosing and treating building problems – made him the ideal candidate for this difficult task.

Between Restoration and Demolition: Facing the Physical Reality of House VI

When Ferentinos began the project, the scope was clear: renovate the exterior of the house and some of the interior. But reality held bigger surprises. Ferentinos reveals, “Everything, it seemed, was compromised except for a small leftover portion. And at a certain point, saving a particular piece becomes more expensive than starting fresh.”
The dismantling process revealed that the innovative two-layer exterior cladding system with its high-tech 3M coating had failed over the years under exposure to the elements. The structure itself, made mostly of conventional lumber and some steel, was not as robust as expected. It reached a point where saving the building was no longer possible; it needed to be recreated.

The Philosophy of “Reincarnation”: Preserving the Idea with a New Body

Here, Ferentinos introduces his revolutionary concept for the project: it is not a restoration nor a renovation, but a “reincarnation.”
He explains: “We stripped it down to the foundation and two steel columns only. It’s the same architecture, but it has a mostly new body.”
The priority was to preserve the core design “rules” that define Eisenman’s work:

The Red Staircase to Nowhere: That surreal element that challenges the traditional function of a staircase.
The Glazed Split: The glass gap that cuts through between the bedrooms, creating visual and functional tension.
The “new body” was built with the help of West Mountain Builders using a durable primary steel structure, engineered lumber, and an advanced Stucco system from Sto with thermal insulation – all necessary performance improvements for modern living in the New England climate, even if they altered some dimensions by fractions of an inch.

A Dialogue with the Archive: Why Didn’t Ferentinos Consult Eisenman Himself?

Avoiding consultation with the original designer on such a sensitive project might seem like a bold, even risky, decision. But Ferentinos was confident.
He clarifies: “I paid my respects to Eisenman by analyzing every single sketch and drawing, reading every piece of writing that I could find. I studied the houses inside and out. I went to the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) which holds his archive. I’ve been researching and working on House VI for nine years.”
He adds that Eisenman’s ideas are “so clearly crystallized in the drawings, the writings, and in the built thing itself.” In the end, he did not feel the need to call him, considering the study of the archive to be the most respectful form of dialogue in this context.

Eisenman’s Preservation Philosophy: Why He Opposes Freezing in Time

One of the most exciting aspects of this story is that Ferentinos’s approach aligns perfectly with Eisenman’s own philosophy as expressed in the afterword of Suzanne Frank’s book, “Peter Eisenman’s House VI: The Client’s Response.”
Eisenman argues that buildings should not be static and opposes restoring them to their “original” state, arguing that the strength of architecture lies in its resistance to “normative culture.” Examples like St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome and The Frick Collection – which was originally a house – prove that the greatest architectural works are those that have been allowed to grow and adapt.

A Parallel Project: Saving House II and Designing a New Guesthouse

Years after starting work on House VI, a new project emerged: House II in Vermont was facing demolition.
After contact from Devin Colman, Vermont’s state architectural historian, Ferentinos and the clients visited the house and decided to buy and save it.
The scope of work here will be different; it’s not a “reincarnation” but a “careful reconfiguration.” Ferentinos describes the process as changing the “playing field” upon which the logical “rules” of the house’s design take place, an utterly abstract concept.
Ferentinos also designed a guesthouse from the ground up next to the main house. This project raises a fascinating architectural question: how do you design a new building in your own language to fit within the narrative of two works by Eisenman? Ferentinos has tried to establish a “triangle of relationships” between the two original houses and the new one.

The Ultimate Challenge: Living in an Intentionally Discomforting Work of Art

Ferentinos concludes by discussing the biggest challenge: making these “works of art” livable without betraying the original design intentions.
He notes that Eisenman himself said, “You don’t notice architecture unless it creates some disturbance in your everyday life.” There are many “intentional discomforts” in these houses, like the staircase that leads to nowhere or the gaps that challenge privacy. Ferentinos and the clients decided to keep them all because they are “architecturally important discomforts.” It is a commitment to intellectual curiosity and architectural discipline that drives this ambitious project, ensuring Eisenman’s legacy continues not as pictures in books, but as vibrant, living homes.

✦ Editorial Insight from ArchUp

This article delves into the philosophical and practical journey of restoring two legendary works by Peter Eisenman, House VI and House II, led by architect Andrew Ferentinos. Our positive critique focuses on the exceptional depth with which Ferentinos approached the task, moving beyond traditional restoration to “reincarnate” the building with modern materials while preserving its conceptual essence, and his reliance on comprehensive archive study rather than direct consultation, reflecting a deep understanding of the designer’s original intent. However, the question of the long-term livability of these “intentional discomforts” and how they are balanced with modern comfort requirements remains a thought-provoking topic. Overall, this project represents an inspiring model of adaptive preservation, where the building becomes a living canvas capable of evolution, retaining its revolutionary spirit while adapting to the needs of the era, ensuring the legacy of experimental architecture endures for future generations.