PB: Can you tell us about the home you made a case for in the judging? Does it represent a particular value, in your mind?

Mirontschuk: It has all the things the American home is supposed to have. It's got a front porch, it's got a nice presence on the street, it's light, it's airy, it's not garage-dominated, and it just feels nice. It's a stand-alone house. It has good curb appeal.

The Home of the Year also should be adaptable for multiple markets. I think you could take this house and put it in the Northeast market. It would sell in Houston, Denver and Chicago. It has, to me, broad appeal across the country, and that's why I was pushing for this type of house.

PB: What about design excitement? A criticism might be that it's not particularly exciting, that it's something we've seen before.

Mirontschuk: Sometimes it's better just to take something that's tried and proven and make it better. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's a comment about the Japanese — they are not truly innovative. They take an existing concept and try to improve and enhance it.

Americans try to be inventive and create new ideas, but I think this home just improved on existing concepts and did a spectacular job with that.

There's only so much you can do with production housing. There's only so much you can do when the home buyer is the final judge. They're the ones who are going to buy it. If they like it, they understand it, then they will purchase it. That's why a lot of builders are afraid to innovate — what if it doesn't sell?

If we understand truly what Home of the Year is, it's good production housing. It's good execution, it's concept — both of those things wrapped up together. I just don't think it's going to be an off-the-wall house that knocks your socks off.

I may be wrong, but I've been judging [design competitions] for 15-20 years, and I can't remember seeing anything that blew me away.

PB: Could you tell us a little bit about the house you made a case for in judging and whether you think it represents a particular design value or philosophy?

Thatch: It's a very interesting design solution. It's unique. It is a one-of-a-kind project, but it helps us look at things a little differently.

Unique design deserves an award. It doesn't need to be elaborate, with details that are really fancy, with a lot of gold and glitter. It can be down-to-earth and should feel solid.

What I liked about some of the projects was how they used materials that make them feel like they've been there for a long time, that they had some heaviness to them, a solidity you don't always get in residential housing.

PB: How important is innovation to Home of the Year?

Thatch: Home of the Year needs to explore the edge. Whether I'm an architect, a builder or a landscape architect, I can see opportunities to do [something new] — something that might not cost me much more but is more interesting for my buyer, creates more value or more sales. One little thing you can take away from Home of the Year for your project could be a starting point for a little different idea from what you've been doing. Whether it's more affordable or luxury, whatever the climate is, there are different things you can take away.

PB: Is there something a project has to have in order to be the Best in American Living?

Thatch: We need to ask, "Is the project an inspiration to lead to other things?" Some people are going to say, "This is not my world. Don't tell me what's new. I have a business to run. I have only so much money to spend. I can't be risking things." My thought is that even if I don't do something exactly like it, it should spur me to do something better. What can I do with my project that will be inspiring or better?