Relocate the house to high ground on the site or move to a newly filled portion of the site close to the original location.

From the Silman Report

Option B will involve exposing and removing the existing foundations and temporarily jacking and relocating the entire structure. The house will still need to be lifted and transported off its current spot, but it would be relocated to a portion of site already elevated above the hazardous flood levels.

  Silman-A
 

VIDEO: Robert Silman Describes Option B – Relocate

Although this option works with the existing landscape of the site, it requires two sections of excavation and re-grading: both at the current building footprint and at the new site. New foundations are needed in this option as well to ensure an even bearing stratum beneath the building, once relocated. The central utility shaft will also be affected and potentially replaced.

The major disadvantage of this option is that to have enough height to be out of the flood plain, the house would need to be relocated to the far north edge of the site. Relocating the house to a portion of land at high ground completely disassociates the house from the Fox River – a major component to the building’s design. Furthermore, it relocates the building closer to the surrounding roads, exposing occupants to noise pollution and contradicting the very living experience for which Mies designed. RSA considered a second option of relocating the house to a newly filled portion of the site closer to the original location. This option is similar to Option A in terms of scope of work, but it alters the structure’s interaction with the landscape even more significantly than the first option. Since Option A would keep the house in its original location on site, it would be more advantageous to pursue than to study this second relocation option.