House VI is a ‘temple’. It is even nearer to the ‘temple’ extreme of the ‘temple-cottage’ spectrum (discussed earlier in this book) than an ancient Greek temple. Its naming as a ‘house’ implies that the building identifies a place to live, which to some extent it does. But any intention to accommodate places for inhabitation was eclipsed by the priority Eisenman gave to its complex geometric composition. Eisenman’s attitude has been described by Suzanne Frank (in her book) as ‘arrogant’, though she also seems to have come to accept that it was a principled arrogance. The features of this house usually cited as evidence of Eisenman’s arrogance are: a glazed strip down the centre of the bedroom floor that prevented use of a double bed and provided a view from the living room below into the privacy of the bedroom above; a column in the dining area that made it difficult to insert a dining table, and which stands as an extra guest at any meal; kitchen cupboards that, because of the need to obey the geometric discipline of the house, are too high to reach without a step-ladder; and a number of single high steps, particularly on the ground floor, that make moving around awkward. Also, much of the fabric suffered deterioration due to the weather, necessitating reconstruction within twenty years.