Its been a while since I posted any projects so I thought I would put up this one which is in progress.

This is a small house on a small lot at a seaside community. The context is small one and two story houses from the 50s and 60s. These original houses are small and were built inexpensively as weekend homes and now many are occupied year round as does my client.

The brief was for a small expansion to add a new bedroom and outdoor deck and balcony space. The owner wishes to re-invent the exterior to make the house appear more contemporary. Hmm . . . another facade job!

Here is the existing house:

And the existing as mocked up in SU:

There was a house down the street from them which they liked because it was overtly contemporary. I don't want to dump on this house - please restrain yourself if you don't like it. I just want to show it for the sake of context. Its typical of the sort of "showy" houses that are often built in resort communities like this one.

This is just their shed, but in the background you can see a few of the typical neighboring houses. The house above used to have something like these on the site, but typical for these neighborhoods the houses closest to the beach get knocked down and replaced with those giants.

The first scheme I attempted to be conservative in terms of budget, attempting to limit the interventions to the existing house, and integrate the form into a larger composition. I also omitted the upper level balcony that they desired. Sketches looked like this:

The existing roof framing was more or less untouched and we now had this up and down roof line which did not go over very well. The porch roof skirting around the two sides gives some shade to the lower windows. The large window in the new bedroom faces a view to the bay, and would have roll down shutter. There are some sliding window blinds along the front facade to control light as well.

Scheme two absorbed the portion of the existing roof line facing the street into a new extension of the facade. The balcony is in place upstairs, so all windows now have turned over to doors. The new bedroom now has a high clerestory with a shading overhang. Downstairs the desired deck has been added, and existing windows replaced with doors. There is also a small expansion for an entry vestibule. Massing sketch:

another view, you can see the upperlevel better without the rail in the way

and this is what is happening with the existing roof line behind the facade. Its a good compromise as we can still just leave the existing framing in place and build on top of it.

looking at it with windows here. I'll follow up with more later. We are looking at materials now.

Of course Greg an overhang had to be there! It's your signature :cool:
I like the way it's looking now.
Even though you're going through material options you can alredy hint some wood and steel beams for the balcony and steel wires for the rail. I don't want to rush it but I think it would make the project look very cool.
Now that roof thing just kills me. Couldn't you just simplify it a little bit by doing only one slope instead of dividing it in two?
Like this

greg i like the first option the best in terms of facade.. the second option looks too overtly flat with fixturs stuck on it.. i think it would be ngood to encorporate the deck and some shading device, on the first option, if that is possible, as i haven't seen any plans,....

is the building going to be re clad or the cladding will continue into the new one??

i also find scheme 1 more interesting than scheme 2

the shading device in scheme 2 for me seems bitsy... it's either than or the whole scheme is not bitsy enough to match the canopy.

scheme 1 is a lot more clever and lot more pleasing form... in fact probably more scope for further exploration IMHO

Scheme one definately .

I like scheme 1 also the best.
It has more volumetric richness to it. Would be easier to construct as well.
It has more contextual richness as well: the shedded roofs are reminders of traditional roof forms but interpreted in a contemporary way.

I do agree on making the windows towards the terrace into doors.
Conclusion and my 5 cent opinion: combine scheme 1 with a good window ('doors') configuration that seams better in scheme 2.

As comes to usage of materials: i would keep material assignment simple and go for a 'monomaterial' solution which to me suits better the surroundings than the so called 'ultramodern' house further in the street you posted.

Really curious about the next step you will take in the design.
Overall it is looking very promising and i think you show good design skills.
Keep working hard on this project and i am sure it will work out fine.


regards,
Kwisten

Could you consider a trellis over the balcony like I used in the attached proposal for another beach house?

Lavardera,
....sorry, couldn't resist to give it a try myself.
In this scheme i only use a terrace to one side of the house.
In the front instead of expanding volume with a terrace i pushpulled a piece of the existing facade to the front...to make a dedicated entrance prononciation and shadow for those windows at groundfloor.

I don't know the internal layout...so these efforts stay 'fiction' and windows probably are not well placed...

Very Kwistenbiebelesque! :D

Very Kwistenbiebelesque! :D
...And the seccond is Very Lavarderesque!! :D :D

Reminded me of Paulogonx house too: Raphael Residence (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1257)

just brainstorming all options...:wondering

Greg,
Scheme 1 looks great, what about drainage from the roof valley?
How about a scupper off the front? or are you sloping it to the rear?
It does look like you've re-interpreted vernacular architecture, made it contemporary and made it your own.
How much time did it take to develop these design studies?
Thanks,
cheffey

Now that roof thing just kills me. Couldn't you just simplify it a little bit by doing only one slope instead of dividing it in two?
Like this

I could, but I'm trying to get the top of the wall horizontal where it is not steeply sloping. It has to be a low slope roof system so it will be no more difficult with the hip; the framing is a bit more involved..

i also find scheme 1 more interesting than scheme 2

the shading device in scheme 2 for me seems bitsy... it's either than or the whole scheme is not bitsy enough to match the canopy.

scheme 1 is a lot more clever and lot more pleasing form... in fact probably more scope for further exploration IMHO

Well, it will all get more "bitsy" with materials - Richard will give me what-for no doubt. The canopy and balcony framing are meant to evoke one another.

The client provided a collage of images which I am reacting to as well, which is also leading the design...

I appreciate the kudos for scheme one, but this project has no reverse. I'm afraid we won't be revisiting it.

Primo, the Raphael Res reminds me of Schindler:

I guess you have to keep an eye on the whole budget so this limits things a bit

On scheme 1 the sliding louvres ~ could these be vertical sliders?
Could the existing windows be made into french door balcony ?

I would like more info on the plan + site plan with best views, orientation etc
Just some thoughts ... I wonder whether the existing bedrooms could be extended / cantilevered out over the front maybe into a communal conservatory or enclosed balcony. I think this may help free up the design / contemporary feel

I appreciate the kudos for scheme one, but this project has no reverse. I'm afraid we won't be revisiting it.

Primo, the Raphael Res reminds me of Schindler:


Mmm. Watercolour.

What's the process from here? I'm thinking about your thread re: BIM and am curious as to what process you take to get your SU model to CD stage - I'd like to see if I could implement the same thing here as I would much rather work all day in SU :cheers:

What's the process from here? I'm thinking about your thread re: BIM and am curious as to what process you take to get your SU model to CD stage

Bruce, when the project gets to that stage I'll post about the process. First we have to pin down the design and appear for a zoning variance hearing. The lot is undersized and anything we do needs a special review.

Greg,
Scheme 1 looks great, what about drainage from the roof valley?
How about a scupper off the front? or are you sloping it to the rear?
It does look like you've re-interpreted vernacular architecture, made it contemporary and made it your own.
How much time did it take to develop these design studies?
Thanks,
cheffey

you are right - there would need to be a scupper at the front. There is a large cricket draining out this valley to the front and rear.

I have not kept track of my time - I'd guess I am 20-30 hours into it including my measuring on site and all, much less spent in SU if that is what you are wondering.

I personaly like scheme2 it seems to be more beachy and provides a nice outdoor up above the salty swirl at the ground. It sucks at beach level if you arent right on the water. with the wind blown and rain foam splash plus the light is fantastic up above reflecting back off the water . I am not fond of the sun screen..it seems like if it were in a real model at a uni crit the professor would snap it off and pinn it to the wall. It snot yet fully integrated.. It will be interesting to see its evolution.

The roof configuration could be simpler but I like the gable and 2 shed approach you show versus flater smaller roof over the area next to the bedroom alternatively suggested.
Could you timber frame the front roof structure through the existing leaving the intersection and the enclosed space below exposed.. to get all that space as heated and very open.. with soaring light?..

The presentation style is perfect for conveying formal ideas without getting bogged down in materials and other considerations.

These days when ever I see a wood sided beach house I think of Mathias Klotz. Casa Müller has a sun screen .. that might provide some inspiration

Bruce, when the project gets to that stage I'll post about the process. First we have to pin down the design and appear for a zoning variance hearing. The lot is undersized and anything we do needs a special review.
Are you able to take SU output to this hearing? Will that be sufficient?

The councils over here are going mad. One of our residential extension consents was refused because we didn't specify how we were fixing the deck boarding down to the joists :bang head . I thought bubble-gum was the standard.

Drawings are typically submitted well in advance of the meeting so that members can review them and do a drive by if they wish.

As far as the state of mind of the board - its a roll of the dice, you can never tell what you are in for! :confused:

Greg

Mate I'd never give you what for over varied material use!!! I tend to actually favor it. Its different material direction that I sometimes get opposed too.

I admit to not being so sure about either scheme. Wrap around balconies do absolutely nothing for me! They seem to generally add nothing but cost 1. for initial construction and two for replacement once every 10 to 15 years. and 2. They actually serve to do nothing really at all but allow for easy access for cleaning the upstairs windows.

Sincerely greg I'd play with more options for this scheme, it is not (and I mean this with appreciation) of your normal attention to solution.

Here is my two cents or five minutes (calculates at 24 cents an hour - sounds right) worth. Mindfull out of budget.

Would like to see further solutions.

Cheers Richard

All right Lav, double whammy........

I'm with Richard on this one. The wrap around decks are wastelands.

And I think the void over the existing garage it a missed oportunity to bring light deep into the interior. Need to manipulate that area (second floor) and not JUST the roof line.

my 2 beaver pelts worth

Yowch! Double whammy indeed!

Richard - beautiful form study. Always ready to send me back to the drawing board. Someday I hope I will be able to accommodate you. :) I'm afraid that the wrap around balcony is not my elective here, but brought to the table by the owner. I've taken you to task about balconies before - you know how I feel. They don't get used. But its a tightrope you walk between advising and accommodating a client.

Wilson - there is no garage so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

All good advice all around, but the construction budget, and design budget will only allow so much. I'll do what I can to improve every step of the way, and take these lessons to the next project.

material study

slight variation - also playing with the window here

Greg

Mate you've got to learn to stand your ground more. If a client came to me with something I disagreed with passionately I'd reply with "You want to do WHAT?", this normally sits them down and makes them think I think they are idiots and they rethink their ideas. Make the idea sound stupid!!!

Even plant the thought that the money spent on the wrap around deck might be used for something useful.

For me the upper deck really looks as it is an add on, thsi is helped somewhat by the inclusion of the lower deck but still.

I dont mind the play with materials you have proposed, I think the use of as much material to match the deck will help hold the whole concept together by integrating the deck into material use.

I might suggest however I would myself, in regards to what I suggest above, continue the timber cladding of the upper left front all the way to the lower deck, this may help to integrate the deck better. Also if there is any way to conceal your joist behind the bearers of the upper deck, this is IMHO what is making the whole concept a little bitsy.

Richard you are right - I am not inspired to shape my clients like that. I have to save my face-offs for more critical battles - like getting paid! I am more of the mindset to accept certain givens as a challenge and do my best with them. In this case I moved to eliminate the balcony in scheme 1 and added it back in because of their objection. It may still face the hurdle of the budget. At this point however I am relying on it to moderate the unbroken wall of stucco - once you start working with it you can't just remove it without reconsidering the composition.

It is always easier to design free of these constraints, but good practice to tackle them sometimes too.

...continue the timber cladding of the upper left front all the way to the lower deck, this may help to integrate the deck better..

I'll look at that when I pick this up again - thanks mate!

greg,
Sorry, :bang head When I was typing my response I didnt go back and look at the one story portion (maybe an enclosed porch :wondering ) and guessed it was a garage. Just thought the infill area there was the opportunity for a solid/void interplay since it is the area of new construction and the one with the most potential.

:cheers:

The brief was for a small expansion to add a new bedroom and outdoor deck and balcony space. The owner wishes to re-invent the exterior to make the house appear more contemporary. Hmm . . . another facade job!

This project raises the issue of "style" for me and with which I'm still struggling. If I understand correctly, many here assert that contemporary architecture has no "style" and a building's appearance can only legitimately arise solely from its function and materials.

This project ,however, needs to fulfill a desire to apply a modern style to an existing building. A "facade job" as you say. Do you think the result would be any less worthy if the desire was for a "tradtional" facade?

By the way, my preference would have been for the first scheme, but why is there no balcony since it was specifically requested?

Greg,

You said this was a seaside community, I though it meant that it has views and is probably a vacation house.

I have to agree that most balconies are not used. However, two things change this. One being the size, it has to be a space where you can place furniture, becoming more a terrace than a balcony.Two would be the function of the house.

I have been in many houses in which the outside balcony or terrace is all that is used, this happens in vacation houses. I am mostly refering to houses in the Caribbean islands and in the Carolina Outer Banks, maybe this is not so in colder climates.

In vacation houses you go to do a lot of nothing, eat and look at the views, even more in beach houses. This changes the use of a typical house where you stay inside a lot more. In your regular house, even with a great view, you are so used to it that you rarely go out. Not in a vacation house where your stay in short term. If the kitchen or living open widely into the balcony it also helps a lot. A partial roofed area may also help.

I personally liked the element of the louvres or shades that you introduced in the first scheme. I noticed that this did not carry over in any way to that of the second scheme. Any particular reason? I thought that the introduction of vertical lines strenghten the relationship to that of the existing 2nd storey.

In your material studies it was interesting to see the segregation of the materials especially on the second storey of the building. It seems to give the impression of an addition (which I now that is what it is) instead of the feeling of a harmonious entity. Is there a way that the material of the 2nd storey addition might relate better to the existing building. Simliar to that of the existing side. Say continuing the material to the first floor or extending the limits of the material across the 2nd storey facade.

I thought that the overhang on the second storey is a great idea and adds an element of intrest to your roof. It just seems that it does not integrate into the design very well. I looks as if it was placed in a haste. Perhaps a material change or continuing the overhand along the sloped roof side of the new addition may make the element moreintegrated.

Overall I really like the project and loved seeing your 2 schemes. The windows and doors look to be bringing in alot of light. The interior would be really interesting to see, especially the new sloped ceiling.

The images really communicate your ideas well. I was wondering if you email the images, print them or show them to your clients using sketchup?

I really hope your clients are excited about the ideas that you have presented them and hope the project goes extremely well. Thank you for posting your great work.

Attached is some of the ideas I have mentioned above. I hope I am not intruding, but I think it communicates my comments better than what I have written. No harm intended.

Yes, I agree with your proposal drichard, the overhanging roof on the side make it better blended with the building...

Greg, all the variations more or less work well, and don´t have a formal oppinion on that... :cheers:

hi greg

i'm surprised from your drawing, the renovation seeems to re do the facade of the old one and make it new, there is almost no element od the old building. i think it would have been nice to juxtopose the two, with the older style and a newer renovation at the side and back with maybe some new elemants to the existing building like a modern/contemp. door entry or window...

that is my view cos i like juxtoposing new and old...

i think as much as we comment greg do what is best for you it has suceeded in the past. i think you posted to keep us updated more than consult are ideas???

so best of luck and i'd like to see what the client is shown for presentation and their feedback??/

Hmmm.. I think I agree with you Ouesty. I also like that kind of juxtaposition. I do think it is easier to pull off when the original piece is a better example of design in of itself, but none the less it could be more interesting. In this case the owners did not like the existing look and wanted to change it.

Yes, Richard - copping out again and doing what I'm told! :rolleyes:

I have reservations about the projecting roof element - its height and angling upwards means it will provide very little effective shading and absolutely no weather protection. Is it just there for visual effect?

We need to know more about what considerations were part of the design process. For example:
- What is the latitude?
- Where is south in relation to the street elevation?
- Where are the views in relation to the street elevation?
- What are the good climatiic influences and what are the bad, and how have these been factored into the proposal?
- What considerations have been made to privacy from the street so that the upper levels are useable by the inhabitants without them feeling like they are in a fishbowl?
- What are the proposed zonings (ie. uses) in the various parts of the new house?
- How do the clients actually want to live in this house?

Design is more than just visual effect - in the end it is about creating a living environment for the clients. I would like to see more detail on the overall proposal.

I thought some of that info was apparent. The front of the house faces the street which is south. The overhang provides complete mid day shade for the clerestory window for the summer months. During the spring-early summer and fall-late summer the sun does begin to find the edges of the window, and of course during the winter the window takes the sun full on because of the lower angles. This stuff is easy to review in SU as you know.

The upstairs rooms are bedrooms, the master in the new addition. Downstairs the spaces are living and sitting rooms, the kitchen is to the rear of the house.

All that said, the project is highly superficial in many ways and I aluded to that in the first post. Again, I plead that this is the nature of what I've been asked to do. Richard called me out on it, and he is right, but I test my limits with each client and decide how far I can go. I do not risk leaving them unhappy in order to chase my ideals. Rather I attempt to achieve incremental goals in order to get the best results I can from the situation. Not as heroic as convincing the client to follow the way of design, but I've found that its helped me slowly improve the work of my practice. So, yes, it means at times the design approach is forced to be less than ideal. This topic is really deserving of its own thread.

But you are right mike - I have not chosen to post all that info here. You don't have to comment if you wish to go deeper than what I've decided to share. I'd be very pleased to see you post some of your work where we can explore at that level of detail.

...., but I test my limits with each client and decide how far I can go. I do not risk leaving them unhappy in order to chase my ideals. Rather I attempt to achieve incremental goals in order to get the best results I can from the situation. Not as heroic as convincing the client to follow the way of design, but I've found that its helped me slowly improve the work of my practice. So, yes, it means at times the design approach is forced to be less than ideal.


Now that is a statement i will frame and hang on my bedroomwall...i will look at it every night before i go to sleep and in the morning when i get up as well.
A perfect reminder of what architects feel every day.
....Sometimes i feel frustrated in my job not always being able to execute what i had in mind but you seem to have a nice 'zen' and pragmatic attitude about it that keeps you going.

Having said this you should keep in mind that all posts by other people (including myself) with proposals like 'i would do it like this or that...' are just little designgames that we architects like to play....Sometimes it's easy to rethink and give critics to a design of someone else than facing our own frustrations about proposals we are trying to sell to our clients.
For us threads like these are playgrounds, for you the projects are your business.

Concerning your project here and others posted earlier: you definively
created your own style within architectural limits...Keep it up.

I thought some of that info was apparent. The front of the house faces the street which is south. The overhang provides complete mid day shade for the clerestory window for the summer months. During the spring-early summer and fall-late summer the sun does begin to find the edges of the window, and of course during the winter the window takes the sun full on because of the lower angles. This stuff is easy to review in SU as you know.

The upstairs rooms are bedrooms, the master in the new addition. Downstairs the spaces are living and sitting rooms, the kitchen is to the rear of the house.

All that said, the project is highly superficial in many ways and I eluded to that in the first post. Again, I plead that this is the nature of what I've been asked to do. Richard called me out on it, and he is right, but I test my limits with each client and decide how far I can go. I do not risk leaving them unhappy in order to chase my ideals. Rather I attempt to achieve incremental goals in order to get the best results I can from the situation. Not as heroic as convincing the client to follow the way of design, but I've found that its helped me slowly improve the work of my practice. So, yes, it means at times the design approach is forced to be less than ideal. This topic is really deserving of its own thread.

But you are right mike - I have not chosen to post all that info here. You don't have to comment if you wish to go deeper than what I've decided to share. I'd be very pleased to see you post some of your work where we can explore at that level of detail.

Now that is a statement i will frame and hang on my bedroomwall...i will look at it every night before i go to sleep and in the morning when i get up as well.
A perfect reminder of what architects feel every day.
....Sometimes i feel frustrated in my job not always being able to execute what i had in mind but you seem to have a nice 'zen' and pragmatic attitude about it that keeps you going.

Having said this you should keep in mind that all posts by other people (including myself) with proposals like 'i would do it like this or that...' are just little designgames that we architects like to play....Sometimes it's easy to rethink and give critics to a design of someone else than facing our own frustrations about proposals we are trying to sell to our clients.
For us threads like these are playgrounds, for you the projects are your business.

Concerning your project here and others posted earlier: you definively
created your own style within architectural limits...Keep it up..

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Having said this you should keep in mind that all posts by other people (including myself) with proposals like 'i would do it like this or that...' are just little designgames that we architects like to play....Sometimes it's easy to rethink and give critics to a design of someone else than facing our own frustrations about proposals we are trying to sell to our clients.
For us threads like these are playgrounds, for you the projects are your business.

A much appreciated reminder - thanks kwistenbiebel. :cheers:

This project raises the issue of "style" for me and with which I'm still struggling. If I understand correctly, many here assert that contemporary architecture has no "style" and a building's appearance can only legitimately arise solely from its function and materials.

This project ,however, needs to fulfill a desire to apply a modern style to an existing building. A "facade job" as you say. Do you think the result would be any less worthy if the desire was for a "tradtional" facade?

I look at it this way. In making the house modern we are attempting to work with techniques and materials that are common and available and within the owner's budget. If we were attempting to make it more traditional we would als be working with materials and techniques that are commonly available and within the owner's budget as well - and for the budget at hand that would mean things like trim and moldings formed of plastic and foam intended to mimic natural materials or items traditionally worked by a craftsman rather than manufactured. Do you view one of these approaches as any more worthy than the other?

By the way, my preference would have been for the first scheme, but why is there no balcony since it was specifically requested?

Peter - I omitted it although it was specifically requested because I did not think the budget supported it. I hope that I am wrong because they would really like to have it.

Greg It seems that this project has a typical tight budget.. but i keep looking at the door under the porch and thinking that it could be a conflation of your design. That you could look at that element and "get it".

not like a mini me of the entire project but just the overall design idea encapsulated in the element.

I keep thinking of Zumthors roman ruins in Chur (http://kubuildingtech.org/cooltour/gallery/romanruins/index2.html) .. when I see your material studies. The entrance there is quite simple but it does this .. encapsulates both the approach and design intent in a single element. You see the entrance and you "get it"

You said this was a seaside community, I though it meant that it has views and is probably a vacation house.

The owners live there year round, but I'm sure they feel like they are on vacation during the summer. After our first meeting the husband jumped into his wet suit and went down the street with his surfboard. :) The view from the second floor towards the bay is nice, but from the ground level it is not prominant. The house is in a rather dense suburban setting with closely spaced houses on a grid of streets.

I have to agree that most balconies are not used. However, two things change this. One being the size, it has to be a space where you can place furniture, becoming more a terrace than a balcony.Two would be the function of the house.

I have been in many houses in which the outside balcony or terrace is all that is used, this happens in vacation houses. I am mostly refering to houses in the Caribbean islands and in the Carolina Outer Banks, maybe this is not so in colder climates.

In vacation houses you go to do a lot of nothing, eat and look at the views, even more in beach houses. This changes the use of a typical house where you stay inside a lot more. In your regular house, even with a great view, you are so used to it that you rarely go out. Not in a vacation house where your stay in short term. If the kitchen or living open widely into the balcony it also helps a lot. A partial roofed area may also help.

Your discussion of life in a vacation house is great, and I am sure that they live this way for a portion of the year. My thoughts about the balcony not being used relates more to the fact that they are off the bedrooms rather than the common spaces. Part of the function of that balcony will be to shade the lower level windows, so it is important. Also the covered porch wrapping around the house is an important element, something quite common in older houses here in the US where sitting under cover at the front of the house is a way to watch the street and interact with neighbors and passersby. The larger lower level deck at the side will serve as their outdoor living space.

As someone who grew up in/on the water.. The porch is used all the time. Not everyday but if its there its a part of teh life of a water front house. In watre view houses...it sometimes even more important.

I wouldnt think of having a beach house without a raised area. We grilled on the porch.. played cards after waterskiing.. ate crabs. The porch is like and extention of the dock .. our your own dock if you dont have one. Plus with the humidity at the beach on teh east coast.. you sometimes just need a place in the shade. The only issue for me would be one of clutter. The under porch area seems to gather rarely used objects over time. Well at least between major storms.

I personally liked the element of the louvres or shades that you introduced in the first scheme. I noticed that this did not carry over in any way to that of the second scheme. Any particular reason? I thought that the introduction of vertical lines strenghten the relationship to that of the existing 2nd storey.

I've been thinking about forwarding the louvered panel idea again. You see we must provide some sort of sun protection for these doors and I'd prefer it be an exterior shade than an inside shade. I'll try that bringing that forward from the other scheme and see how they like it.

In your material studies it was interesting to see the segregation of the materials especially on the second storey of the building. It seems to give the impression of an addition (which I now that is what it is) instead of the feeling of a harmonious entity. Is there a way that the material of the 2nd storey addition might relate better to the existing building. Simliar to that of the existing side. Say continuing the material to the first floor or extending the limits of the material across the 2nd storey facade.

I thought that the overhang on the second storey is a great idea and adds an element of intrest to your roof. It just seems that it does not integrate into the design very well. I looks as if it was placed in a haste. Perhaps a material change or continuing the overhand along the sloped roof side of the new addition may make the element moreintegrated.

Overall I really like the project and loved seeing your 2 schemes. The windows and doors look to be bringing in alot of light. The interior would be really interesting to see, especially the new sloped ceiling.

The images really communicate your ideas well. I was wondering if you email the images, print them or show them to your clients using sketchup?

I really hope your clients are excited about the ideas that you have presented them and hope the project goes extremely well. Thank you for posting your great work.

Attached is some of the ideas I have mentioned above. I hope I am not intruding, but I think it communicates my comments better than what I have written. No harm intended.

I really like what you have done to the sketch. Your treatment of the roof does go a long way to making the overhang feel more integrated. The siding extending down is also appealing to me however I don't know if it supports the overall scheme. I wanted to make the front facade feel as one, yet recognize the extension, hence the overall stucco treatment, and the juxtaposition of the metal and wood at the upper portion of the wall. Things are happening at several levels here - the overall form is strong and can serve to connect even with a change of material - its a matter of which expression to make stronger.

Good issues raised - thanks.

All that said, the project is highly superficial in many ways and I eluded to that in the first post.

Well, I guess that partially answers my question in post 41.

Greg It seems that this project has a typical tight budget.. but i keep looking at the door under the porch and thinking that it could be a conflation of your design. That you could look at that element and "get it".

Page - its great that you picked up on this. In the first design study I had clad it with metal, which by the time I got around to the second study seemed to be wrong. The cladding on the upper facade added to the existing side of the house was metal, and the cladding added to the upper facade of the addition was wood. I thought then that the vestibule as this small extension of the house should relate back to the addition rather than the existing portion.

Its funny however because its a shade of distinction. You could also reason that on the side of the house that is existing the upper facade area has been added, and clad in metal, then so should the vestibule that has been added on that side of the house. Somehow this is a more "literal" reasoning to me. To look at it the other way is to say that the additions are clad with wood, and so shall be the vestibule.

Does this push it towards the upper and lower areas being clad with wood as drichard's suggested? I'm not sure - again it pushes it more towards being literal, where as the limited treatment at the top of the wall is more of a signifier.

again it pushes it more towards being literal

Maybe starting with literal is the way to see the path to the subtle.

I like Ouesty's idea. I thought about the idea of leaving the original, but the juxtaposition can be beter.

The sketch of the original simple house without curtains looks good. I would disappear the new extension's facade and make it part of the expansion to be done now, leaving the finish and outline of the original house framed by the new.

...leaving the finish and outline of the original house framed by the new.

like so: ? (Adam Kalkin, Bunny Lane)

Almost everything you come up with, someone already did it!
Great instant reference, that is just what I had in mind. I just did not picture the new stuff flush with the old.

Yes, well this is more like Jonah swallowed by the whale!

...a render of the proposal i made earlier....it's from a more westen-europe (belgian?) viewpoint. Interesting how cultural differences would make such different approaches.

My proposal more emphasizes on a 'solid', more than on creating 'planes'. Designing 'solid' objects in belgium comes from our typical 'brick' tradition.

Oversees designing (States, South America) seems to be more concentrated on playing with lighter materials which results in using more 'planes' and standalone surfaces (overhangs,...).

sorry for the 'hijacking' intermezzo

Lava, you were saying?...

Its true - we have a young tradition of light wood framing here. Things are very transient, and houses such as this one are constantly being refaced, reconfigured, and reinvented by subsequent owners.

;)Its true - we have a young tradition of light wood framing here. Things are very transient, and houses such as this one are constantly being refaced, reconfigured, and reinvented by subsequent owners.

....so you get more work by that....clients come back after some years do re-re-re-do their homes...Here in Belgium, clienst expect their building to exist in the same state for hundreds of years. ;)

:cool: .......it's from a more westen-europe (belgian?) viewpoint. Interesting how cultural differences would make such different approaches.

My proposal more emphasizes on a 'solid', more than on creating 'planes'. Designing 'solid' objects in belgium comes from our typical 'brick' tradition.

Oversees designing (States, South America) seems to be more concentrated on playing with lighter materials which results in using more 'planes' and standalone surfaces (overhangs,...)


kwisten-
Very insightfull. I think you are right on. There is a big difference working geographically and you point out a solid (pun intended ;) ) example. Materials and customs are the bigest influences. Take a look at my recently posted Small Infill Project. I think it is sometimes just a BIG PILE OF STICKS! I was trying to work with carving away a solid and showing that it wasn't solid and, in your projects, you are trying to show their solidness.

i was thinking about this project again and i was wondering whether to give the clienta very modern extension to the west side and this may incled modern/tech style detailed verandah/terrace that may extend ontt the old building,

this appraoch was done with a social housing project competition entry by lacaton and vassal i'll try and look for an image for you.. the architects instaed of demolishing suggested building an exyterior steel balcony around the concrete corb inspired social housing apartment block, while also replacing samller opening with large new windows, doors etc and demolishing some walls..

view of thinking behind strategy

cannot find a image of the xterior it was published in an oz arch mag last year if anyone has a pic of it or could scan it..

Interesting how cultural differences would make such different approaches.

Very true.

News on this project ?

nothing yet

I think that for a beach house scheme two is the best choice. Why? Well, most of beachside or near-beach houses absorb alot of heat. For a beach house, if u dont like being all sweaty and unclean in your house, you would go with this scheme. The accesories gives the house more shadow and less heat. Scheme one is like a more free house. Another fact is that for a beach house you always have to enjoy your view. In scheme two you have the upper balcony which provides this perfect view of the beach.