First, to all you carbon carpers (going back over a month); thankfully a 69 year old man still has the ability ,the wherewithal and the freedom to design and construct a dynamic living space to his own idiosyncratic vision. There is something to be said for the way the structure cleaves through the bucolic Massachusetts’s firmament and tortures gravity; a peu pres structural tour d’force.
That said, (and with great respect) it is this self-same programmatic structural requisite that leads to the building’s architectural weakness. The massiveness and ubiquitous character of the truss web members impose themselves on the relatively small living spaces; to the point of intruding on that intimate scale along with the building’s raison d’etre—the sense of the occupant feeling one with nature. The diagonal axial-loaded webs tend to be visually jarring from inside vantage points and bear no complimentary relationship to anything happening throughout the exterior panoramic vistas.
When the architect realizes that the catilevered span requires such overwhelming (again, relative to scale) structure (modified Pratt trusses) it seems to me incumbent on him to consider a shorter span such that the individual truss members can be smaller and more in keeping with the scale and proportions of the building. In spite of all of the above unsolicited rambling critique, I am still compelled to throw in my lot with Mr.Schwartz and to compliment him on constructing his architectural statement of counterbalanced drama.