OK - This is my first real proyect web-crit so lets see how this fares out...

Project - Apartment Building
Location - Lima, Peru over the Lima sea cliff...
Type of Project - Residential
Design Parameters - The client wants 4 duplex apartments (one over the other) thus making an 8 storey apartment building. The area is mid to high class. The client was very specific about a couple of points: No big windows, He likes balconies, He wants high ceilings, He wants a common area on the roof, He likes modern architecture but dislikes too much glass and/or steel. The location is actually quite nice the problem is that the lot IS ONLY 8.8 mts WIDE!!! and is quite deep (aprox 40mts)
Design Approach - I decided to express the narrowness of the site by locating a series of planes that will enable architecture to develop. Any other elements should slide into place between those planes... (at least this was the original idea)...
Tools/Programs- Sketchup so far...

This is the location in google...

This is the formal process.. I already had an idea of where things should go (in terms of functional arrangement...

A bigger image...sor far

The frontal elevation

The semi-basement was a BIG design problem due to the narrowness of the site. The basement practically determined the location of everything (it usually does...)

Also I think the beams can span the whole distance (the 8.8mts) and given the high floor to floor, the depth will not be a ploblem...

I will follow your thread with interest regarding the short dimension of your street elevation. Will trace the japanese way to adapt to short sites ?

Reminds me of the Anter (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32287&postcount=28) building by Max Borges.

I would like to see your idea scheme the interior layout. I do not see the balconies the customer is asking for, or the balconies should be larger. The roof common area should be given more importance, a larger roofed area with a larger roof that gives character to the building should be considered.

Reminds me of the Anter (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32287&postcount=28) building by Max Borges.

I would like to see your idea scheme the interior layout. I do not see the balconies the customer is asking for, or the balconies should be larger. The roof common area should be given more importance, a larger roofed area with a larger roof that gives character to the building should be considered.

I considered your idea about the roof but since I had to elevate the building 1.5mts to accomodate for the semi-basement parking (adding to this the high ceiligs) I am already .5mts over the maximum allowed height....
Yes the balconies are small but (I think) that when he refered to balconies he refered to the typical colonial wood balconies (which are quite small)... (the balconies are those protruding boxes in the volume to the right...)
I am sure this proyect could be much more interesting but I need imparcial feedback. Here at my office everybody says that it is beautiful (of course... I am their boss....)... I feel I really need crits...

The other problem I have is that I have to put the circulation core up front and since it has to go all the way to the roof, It collaborates too much with the height making a taller (to the left) tower....

Also... the setback is 5mts...

My first impression about the elevations is that the living room should take the full wide, I'd move the elevator and the stair a little bit back and I'd open the elevator directly to the unit, so you can eliminate the foyers….the stair could be next to service area( kitchen) because it'd be a emergency egress more than main access to the unit….how big are you stalls?...I don't remember but I think the minimum in Peru is 2.1x 5.0

This is the first floor of the duplex (note that it is still under development so the facade does not correspond to the 3d yet)...

the second floor

I'm not so sure about your formal approach of vertical slices...why vertical?
The site is already so narrow and it just makes your building looks even more narrow.

I also think your balconies could be larger, specially when I look at your aerial photo and think about the beautiful views the top units will have.

Agree with Fabio, I would take the stairs and elevator back, even if it complicates the garage.
Alternatively, there is an apartment here with glass elevator through wich you access a "winter garden", or window terrace in every apartment.

My first impression about the elevations is that the living room should take the full wide, I'd move the elevator and the stair a little bit back and I'd open the elevator directly to the unit, so you can eliminate the foyers….the stair could be next to service area( kitchen) because it'd be a emergency egress more than main access to the unit….how big are you stalls?...I don't remember but I think the minimum in Peru is 2.1x 5.0

the minimum stall size is 2.5 x 5.00 and you need a 6m long clear area behind.

I agree with all of you! I think that the living should have the whole width and that I should put the core in the middle but I need to have 8 parking spaces minimum (by regulation) and If I put the core back, they I would have to go through the parking to rach the elevator...it is very complex....I will give it a try but I can anticipate the client will not like it (I wouldn't).
The lot is already too narrow for perpendicular parking (as per the dimensions above, you would need a minimum of 11 mts). also the "road" annot be less than 3 mts...That Is how I got that parking scheme, it is the only one that works...unless...

Agree with Fabio, I would take the stairs and elevator back, even if it complicates the garage.
Alternatively, there is an apartment here with glass elevator through wich you access a "winter garden", or window terrace in every apartment.

Definetely agree with this point of view. It's a pity to give so much space and light to a staircase and elevator in such a narrow plot. Façade should be a big opening towards what looks like a magnificent view!
Maybe you could try to invert the "public" staircase and the "private" one.

Ok! I have an idea!. What do you guys think if I separate the core from the rest of the building by a structural bay (set back the apartment even more (not the core))? This way you will get out of the elevator into an open garden via a bridge or something (thanks promocordara!) and then into the apartment. this way one half will overlook this open garden (and since it is open, mabe a little bit of the ocean) and the other 1/2 will have the magnificent view outside...

I would personnaly prefer a full ocean view...

Can't you put the garage underground? That way you would gain a nice public space/garden at entrance level too!

I agree with all of you! I think that the living should have the whole width and that I should put the core in the middle but I need to have 8 parking spaces minimum (by regulation) and If I put the core back, they I would have to go through the parking to rach the elevator...it is very complex....I will give it a try but I can anticipate the client will not like it (I wouldn't).

I thought the parking was underground. Don't you have a ground access level?
Remember you can put 3 cars in the back of the parking. This way you can pick any of the other car spaces to re-place your circulation core.


I would personnaly prefer a full ocean view...

Me too. :)

Well, Since you have only 4 units I'd go to a very compact parking.
I think is better to have nice unit layouts with a decent parking instead a nice parking with decent units.

If you span the 8.8 meters plus I'd have 7 meters instead 6 for the driveway it'd very easy to park the cars


Good Luck.

Fernando

I agree with all those that have thought that is a shame to have the vertical circulation core in the front of the building, where is suposed is the best view towards the famous Miraflores? cliffs. I would sugest to you at all costs try to move the staircase towards the back of the building and release the views in 180 degrees all over the building front. I believe that it would be interesting also, to explore the possibility of having in the first level an free access towards the staircase, like a lobby but this could enlarge the overall height of the building that seems to be limited to only eight levels.

Well, Since you have only 4 units I'd go to a very compact parking.
I think is better to have nice unit layouts with a decent parking instead a nice parking with decent units.

If you span the 8.8 meters plus I'd have 7 meters instead 6 for the driveway it'd very easy to park the cars


Good Luck.

Fernando

NICE!!! This is very good! Perfect thank you! This way I can have more freedom for the design of the apartments... I guess I was fixed with the fact that it was an upper level aptmt bldng and did not even consider double parking but I am sure they won't have a problem with this layout!!! I'll work on this over the weekend...will "report" on Monday!

I like your general conception, however, I must say that vertical circulation should be in the core of the building... it´s such a waiste of view/ light and natural ventilation for the residences... ;)

Can't you put the garage underground? That way you would gain a nice public space/garden at entrance level too!

Not enough ramp space....(lenghtwise)

NICE!!! This is very good! Perfect thank you! This way I can have more freedom for the design of the apartments... I guess I was fixed with the fact that it was an upper level aptmt bldng and did not even consider double parking but I am sure they won't have a problem with this layout!!! I'll work on this over the weekend...will "report" on Monday!

You could try arranging the parking spots all lined up in a diagonal manner to see if the width of the lot is enough.

You could try arranging the parking spots all lined up in a diagonal manner to see if the width of the lot is enough.

The site is narrow, the problem to setup the parking in that way is it becomes in one way so you do need to have a special area to turn the car to get it out.

The site is narrow, the problem to setup the parking in that way is it becomes in one way so you do need to have a special area to turn the car to get it out.

true!

I Like Your Volume Composition However Id These Over Look The Ocean, Wouldn't Bigger Baloconies Be Better For Drinking Beer And Chatting With Friends?//

The core has to be internal both from an architectural point of view but also from a common sense point of view. You have an opportunity to do something really nice here - don't blow it.

Not capitalising on that view would be exceedingly stupid. Suggest to your client that he get some advice from real estate agents on quantifying the value. He might then come to his senses then about the amount of glass and where the core should be located.

The problem is not as easy as it may seem. The site is indeed extremely narrow, making it almost impossible to provide parking. Access to entrance by visitors and parking are two conflicting issues all within setback regulations.

One option could be to try to justify why you should do something that does not follow regulations, this is always a road I try to avoid but frequently end up in. To do this I have sometimes worked out two design schemes, one showing what regulations let you do and another showing what you could do without them. This usually shows how absurd regulations can be. This may not work at all there, but... it is a difficult setting.

If just part of the stairs or elevator could be within the front setback so you could have more linear core that leaves a wider space for the balconies and living? Regulations here sometimes are lenient in having part of the core within the setback space.

The problem is not as easy as it may seem. The site is indeed extremely narrow, making it almost impossible to provide parking. Access to entrance by visitors and parking are two conflicting issues all within setback regulations.

One option could be to try to justify why you should do something that does not follow regulations, this is always a road I try to avoid but frequently end up in. To do this I have sometimes worked out two design schemes, one showing what regulations let you do and another showing what you could do without them. This usually shows how absurd regulations can be. This may not work at all there, but... it is a difficult setting.

If just part of the stairs or elevator could be within the front setback so you could have more linear core that leaves a wider space for the balconies and living? Regulations here sometimes are lenient in having part of the core within the setback space.

The problem with doing something like that is that peruvian regulations are exceedingly strict (even if many times they don't make sense). What people often do is they build whatever they want and then they "update" the file and pay the fines but... when you work with the bank's money, the bank does not allow you to do that (because if everything is not within the law, the public record will show the building as "illegal" and this reslut in all kinds of value problems (and discrepancies)...)

The new Semi-Basement Layout

Just a query. After parking from where does the person go to apartment????

The new Semi-Basement Layout


And another thing !!!
You also have to think practically. Dont follow something if it looks right. Cars are never triangular . It would work with a triangle, but the moment you put a car in its place u have a problem. There is no space there.

I would give the entry from the side.

We've just finished a project called 'Narrow House'.

It was a plot in a row of terraced houses and we only had 6m width to use and 9m of hieght. 18m long though!

The other problem I have is that I have to put the circulation core up front and since it has to go all the way to the roof, It collaborates too much with the height making a taller (to the left) tower....

This was my first thought and it doesn't seem to make sense that the core becomes a feature of the building at the expense of any views the residents might otherwise have.

I think you need to spend more time resolving the parking/access layout.
Stacked/tandem car parking is difficult in residential situations - moving the "rear" car out if another is parked in front is always a problem, and a frustration.

There are mechanical turntables that can be installed in basements that can help with circulation - also small mechanical stackers for tight parking areas. These may assist with circulation.

Public/visitor access to the building should be attractive - not a fight through the basement of cars.
Maybe the public entry could be off a plaza - an attractive space at the frontage, but placed further into the block on the long boundary - that way the aparments could perhaps become "u" shape wrapping around the central core.

There also seems to be space at the rear of the site which is not utilised

But as I say I think you need to resolve the parking/access issues as a matter of priority.

How about this?

You could have a ramp on each side, one ramp reaching an upper and the other a lower parking level, then you can have twice the parking. On the center you can have an entrance corridor reaching a lobby in the back. Elevator and stairs would nedd to be in the center to cross both parking levels.

nandish,
for information - the triangluar shape showing car parking is a "graphics standard" - common throughout the wold - it's not mean to be a representation of a car.

nandish,
for information - the triangluar shape showing car parking is a "graphics standard" - common throughout the wold - it's not mean to be a representation of a car.

:cool:

He's got a point tho, the door can remain, but cutting a hole in the side wall for access would make it easier than to squeeze between the car and the entrance.

The car's owner won't like it if his car got scratches due to people carrying hard objects home.

How about this?

You could have a ramp on each side, one ramp reaching an upper and the other a lower parking level, then you can have twice the parking. On the center you can have an entrance corridor reaching a lobby in the back. Elevator and stairs would nedd to be in the center to cross both parking levels.

I did tihs once for a design for a parking garage and it worked very well but more parking is not the issue since there is a budget to follow. More parking means more $$ that is never paid from selling the parking spots. Visitors park on the street (wich is common). Also I don't think the width allows to do that since the ramp and circulation space needs to be 3m wide...

And another thing !!!
You also have to think practically. Dont follow something if it looks right. Cars are never triangular . It would work with a triangle, but the moment you put a car in its place u have a problem. There is no space there.

I would give the entry from the side.

Yes I also saw that problem and is now fixed (by pulling the wall in a bit)

I'm certainly opposed to the idea of two driveway entries to achieve two levels of parking given this would leave only about 2m for pedestrian entry!!!

I like the later option (save the need to recify the carpark access to the stairs). I do however have some concern regarding the setup of the tandum spaces and would envisage the need to widen the access between the opposiing spaces to allow greater area for manouvering from all spaces.

I would like to see a section along the site to demonstrate why you have need for stair access to the entry lobby and carpark in this second design. I would at all attempts aim to make provision for barrier free access to the entry lobby.

I'm also very keen to see how you now aim to treat the front facade, I previously found it too broken up and excessively adding to the visual narrowness of the site. Remember when you pick a shirt - vertical stripes make you look thinner - horizontal stripes make you look fat!!!

I'm certainly opposed to the idea of two driveway entries to achieve two levels of parking given this would leave only about 2m for pedestrian entry!!!

I like the later option (save the need to recify the carpark access to the stairs). I do however have some concern regarding the setup of the tandum spaces and would envisage the need to widen the access between the opposiing spaces to allow greater area for manouvering from all spaces.

I would like to see a section along the site to demonstrate why you have need for stair access to the entry lobby and carpark in this second design. I would at all attempts aim to make provision for barrier free access to the entry lobby.

I'm also very keen to see how you now aim to treat the front facade, I previously found it too broken up and excessively adding to the visual narrowness of the site. Remember when you pick a shirt - vertical stripes make you look thinner - horizontal stripes make you look fat!!!

You cannot have free access to the lobby... it is a cultural issue. In Lima ALL lots are surrounded by walls (it is a leftover "tradition" from the days we used to have terrorism) Nowadays it is so embeded in the urban fabric (and the people's minds) that sadly you cannot do without the wall. I would love to have an open access lobby... but I can't. The wall can be located anywhere in the setback. Stair access to all lavels is mandatory (I also had it in the first design, I just didn't draw the door).

You cannot have free access to the lobby... it is a cultural issue. In Lima ALL lots are surrounded by walls (it is a leftover "tradition" from the days we used to have terrorism) Nowadays it is so embeded in the urban fabric (and the people's minds) that sadly you cannot do without the wall. I would love to have an open access lobby... but I can't. The wall can be located anywhere in the setback. Stair access to all lavels is mandatory (I also had it in the first design, I just didn't draw the door).

Sorry mate what I meant by barrier free access is one without approach steps, ie: at street level. So I'm not suggesting you do without stair access just wondering why it is necessary, is there quite a change in level from the street to your ground floor. Here is an example where the designer has gone to efforts to bring down to ground level entry (behind the van).

Another image

Interesting building there Richard! What is that old wall part of? looks like an old fortress city?

Mate it was part of an old industrial site in sydney, mind you it may well have had an earlier use as well. Mind you there aren't really any built works in Sydney older than 200 years so it's not that old.

I really like how they interlaced the new work into the old retaining wall and cut stone wall left.

howabout using a carlift system? that may solve a lot of problems. may not be as costly as you think.

If you can split the parking in two levels, you can use a moving ramp, so it occupies the space of one but serves both levels, this is very common here..

I was thinking the same. Check WÖHR PARKSYSTEME (http://www.parkingsystems.de/engl/source/frameset.htm) for ideas. Even in your first proposal, you still have a very narrow circulation space to park your car. The link above has plenty of CAD files if you want to check dimensions precisely. Dunno if you have something similar available in Peru.

You can report to :
http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3808
for some short space car parking

I was thinking the same. Check WÖHR PARKSYSTEME (http://www.parkingsystems.de/engl/source/frameset.htm) for ideas. Even in your first proposal, you still have a very narrow circulation space to park your car. The link above has plenty of CAD files if you want to check dimensions precisely. Dunno if you have something similar available in Peru.

Ive seen that system allot in NY but down here something like that would cost a fortune (will have to import)

Sorry mate what I meant by barrier free access is one without approach steps, ie: at street level. So I'm not suggesting you do without stair access just wondering why it is necessary, is there quite a change in level from the street to your ground floor. Here is an example where the designer has gone to efforts to bring down to ground level entry (behind the van).

Nice building!. I am attaching a diagram showing the height structure... remember that I can't build anthing in the setback (just the outside wall and door)

I am doing this so I don't have to "steal" area of the main building for the lobby...

Here's a second try... I am not 100% sold on it. I am beginning to think the acute angle of the site's shape its whats killing me

Elevation... I am trying to reflect the fact that they are duplex aptmts

Hi Diego,
A suggestion for the unit floor plans...I'd flip them (1st level for Bedrooms and 2nd level for Living areas) then all the units would have a better view to the ocean.

This is another massing idea. It comes from an idealized grid and volumes come out of push/pulling the "modules". It is still in the "ideas" realm; it is not yet compatible wit the plan but we're getting there (I cannot believe I'm having such a difficult time with such a small proyect...)...I guess size does matter right?...

I guess they are all very similar...

Here's a second try... I am not 100% sold on it. I am beginning to think the acute angle of the site's shape its whats killing me

then why not just hold back from that corner a bit. you're only pushing your balconies out there to touch the setback line anyway. or, maybe you can push the front out in a stair-step fashion to meet the setback line in small orthagonal steps...

just for clarification - do you mean the apartments are 2-stories each when you say 'duplex' or are these two side-by-side apartment residences (common american usage of 'duplex')

interested to see how things develop further...

i like how your massing is moving forward... i think i'd pull back and standardize the module a bit, though... either that, or go more 'outside of the box'... right now it seems to be neither here nor there.

i still think the overhead sunshade matching the setback line might be a bit gratuitous, but i think it's getting better.

then why not just hold back from that corner a bit. you're only pushing your balconies out there to touch the setback line anyway. or, maybe you can push the front out in a stair-step fashion to meet the setback line in small orthagonal steps...

just for clarification - do you mean the apartments are 2-stories each when you say 'duplex' or are these two side-by-side apartment residences (common american usage of 'duplex')

interested to see how things develop further...

duplex goes for a 2 storey apartment (typically social areas + kitchen in first floor and private areas in second.. they connect through a private stair)

Latest... Semi basement...

the first floor of the apartment

The second floor of each aptmnt..

Quite an improvement! I would make bigger terraces now...

The semi-basement was a BIG design problem due to the narrowness of the site. The basement practically determined the location of everything (it usually does...)

ddelcast, I believe you're doing a great job figuring out the best solution for this project. Your parking still seems rather unresolved and before I can crit the more interesting architectural elements of this small residential tower, I would like you to take 3 steps back and rethink the organization of the building.

Primarily, the site is rather narrow, but I think you should consider parallel parking (with one empty space in the back corner). You currently are 2.5+2.5+6 so 5 and 6 would also work, correct?

Is there any way you can exit a car through the back of the site to an adjacent street? This would help if you can make the garage a one way system.

Also circulation, I suggest moving the core (elevator and egress) to the center of the plan. And to design a common lobby on only 1 side of the first floor.

Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation is a good example of a narrow building. Although the building is large, the apartments are very compact and well designed. The scheme of duplexes alternate between floors and maximize unit quantities.

I think you should look at having each apartment door on a separate floor. This would add value to each duplex (privacy, security, individualism). And may also generate some elevation options. You can consider having apartments with living space on the lower level and some on the second.

And don't forget program for mechanical spaces, storage, laundry?, trash?, mail?, etc.

Good luck... this will be a nice project to photograph when complete!

Ok looks like you are progressing but I have some issues / suggestions:

1. I'm really not so sure about the entry lobby being down half a level, entry for me is a big statement and will be lacking if supressed. For me I would look to raise the building half a floor (eliminate the flying roof feature) and even if necessary reduce the lowest unit to a 2 bed single level apartment. Remember you are saving on excavation, and the construction of an additional floor v's sale price of the lowest unit - consider economics!!!

2. The site is narrow and your facade is starting IMHO to become overly complicated at the cost of simple strong elements and function / privacy looking from deck to deck and loss of function size,

3. The internal spaces are very large yet circulation space and function are IMHO not formalised, excessive and not following some rigid program, the kitchen I am assuming is not facing the view?????

4. The internal stairs of the units should be more central as level to level access is rather long travel,

5. Consider stacking bedrooms > living > living > bedrooms > bedrooms > living > living etc, to reduced noise transfer from unit 1 living to unit 2 bedrooms if you know what I mean!

6. Simplify, simplify, simplify!!!!!!!! I'm seeing a lot of excesses in circulation, expression of elements and loss of functionality where I think a far better solution may present.

Sorry dude I know this is all a bit negative but have to give it straight!

Richard, I'm in full agreement with your list of objectives...

To understand the problem with a simple solution and then design to meet project goals (location, client and budget).

We all go through this on every project, some harder to resolve then others, but that's the fun we signed up for as designers!

Take in consideration the trash chute and of course the trash room.

ddelcast, I believe you're doing a great job figuring out the best solution for this project. Your parking still seems rather unresolved and before I can crit the more interesting architectural elements of this small residential tower, I would like you to take 3 steps back and rethink the organization of the building.

Primarily, the site is rather narrow, but I think you should consider parallel parking (with one empty space in the back corner). You currently are 2.5+2.5+6 so 5 and 6 would also work, correct?

Is there any way you can exit a car through the back of the site to an adjacent street? This would help if you can make the garage a one way system.

Also circulation, I suggest moving the core (elevator and egress) to the center of the plan. And to design a common lobby on only 1 side of the first floor.

Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation is a good example of a narrow building. Although the building is large, the apartments are very compact and well designed. The scheme of duplexes alternate between floors and maximize unit quantities.

I think you should look at having each apartment door on a separate floor. This would add value to each duplex (privacy, security, individualism). And may also generate some elevation options. You can consider having apartments with living space on the lower level and some on the second.

And don't forget program for mechanical spaces, storage, laundry?, trash?, mail?, etc.

Good luck... this will be a nice project to photograph when complete!

I don't understand what you mean by each door on a separate floor... The entry sequence goes like this: you get into the building from the outside, walk to the lobby, check in with the guardian, get into the elevator/stair that is key activated and wait to be "pulled up" by the owners/help.. (it is a very common scheme here); (remember it is very common to have permanent help in peru and in this social class more so)
Also trash/laundry/and storage is done in the apartment (the area to the top/right of the first floor of the duplex). There is a whole area dedicated for help quarters and laundry room and storage etc.
Mechanical is a non-issue since we have such a mild climate that in order to get cooler you just need to open a window and at that area you have a very nice ocean breeze. Also because electric bills are soooo expensive here that only offices have air conditioning (heating is NEVER used down here(ya have to be crazy of even thinking about heating in a 15 degree celcious winter...)

Richard:

1. Yes I know but entries here are not how you think they are. You will never see the entry lobby from the outside since there would be a wall between the lobby and you (with a door of course). From that door you are still outside (remembre we are v close to the equator so climate is a non issue) and you walk to the lobby from there

2. mmmmmm, I'll look into that good point...

3. Yes the kitchen does not face the view.. (remember down here we are very acustomed to have permanent help at our homes so circulation for service and circulation for owners want to be separate). The Service area (living quarters) is next to the kitchen and next to the laundry...

4. What do you mean? once you are inside the aptmnt you just walk a couple of steps yo your right and you are on to the provate stairs..

5. Concrete structure with real brick partitions (noise is not an issue either)... (I know I am sounding defensive but I am trying to separate the crits as those that come from cultural differences are irrelevant...)

6. VERY GOOD ADVICE, I really try to do it but the proportion of the lot is not very friendly in that regard, I guess as I continue to work on it it will simplify. Also remember that this building is oriented towards and A class family so BIG spaces are a must....

Don't worry about sounding harsh, I really appreciate it the WORST crits are those that try to be nice.

Latest try for the massing...

Where are you with parking?

I'm not sure the end walls need to extend so far out, they seem like blinders when standing on the balconies, cutting down on the view. The scheme looks rather forced by the initial concept, sorry about all the comments I made earlier, it's becoming clear there is only one solution here.

Where are you with parking?

I'm not sure the end walls need to extend so far out, they seem like blinders when standing on the balconies, cutting down on the view. The scheme looks rather forced by the initial concept, sorry about all the comments I made earlier, it's becoming clear there is only one solution here.

Yoa re right maybe I am forcing the initial idea to this scheme but I want to keep/show the original shape of the site somehow (since it is so particular). Also keep in mind that the view is already forced at an angle (sse on the first post the relation between site/road and ocean...)

1. Yes I know but entries here are not how you think they are. You will never see the entry lobby from the outside since there would be a wall between the lobby and you (with a door of course). From that door you are still outside (remembre we are v close to the equator so climate is a non issue) and you walk to the lobby from there

Yep good point about the front wall / entry program, I'll still however stick by my view that a clear entry statement is a good sell. I certainly understand cultural differences exist that would deem our views as opposed.

2. mmmmmm, I'll look into that good point...

I certainly like your new facade better though for me I would still like to see it simplified, I do however appreciate it is on the way to still providing expression of the individual units which for me would be something I would try to better emphisise. Meaning if you could almost provide each unit its own clear identity in the layering so from the exterior each ownership is more defined.

3. Yes the kitchen does not face the view.. (remember down here we are very acustomed to have permanent help at our homes so circulation for service and circulation for owners want to be separate). The Service area (living quarters) is next to the kitchen and next to the laundry...

This is certainly something I was not aware of and point well taken.

4. What do you mean? once you are inside the aptmnt you just walk a couple of steps yo your right and you are on to the provate stairs..

Yep but the stairs then put you forward and away from the centre, my thought would be to locate your stairs where you are providing what looks like a large service core adjacent to the front door.

5. Concrete structure with real brick partitions (noise is not an issue either)... (I know I am sounding defensive but I am trying to separate the crits as those that come from cultural differences are irrelevant...)

Mate I live in a very well constructed multi unit structure as you describe and depending on the floor finish impact noise will travel floor to floor. I would also consider that you could use this stacking to effect in your facade with lower floor to floor in the bedroom areas and greater in the living - robbing one to help the other.

6. VERY GOOD ADVICE, I really try to do it but the proportion of the lot is not very friendly in that regard, I guess as I continue to work on it it will simplify. Also remember that this building is oriented towards and A class family so BIG spaces are a must....

I certainly can see the idea of large units you are aiming to achieve but still believe some of the spaces, circulation and rationalisation of the spaces needs to have some greater thought.

Finally glad to hear you are one of us who don't mind hard crit - I always believe that is what PPB is for!

It's interesting how tied architecture is to culture - how if you have domestic help suddenly the kitchen shouldn't have the good view or that there is no need for a trash chute! Also all that stuff about the terrorists' - it is in fact the rich people wanting to keep the poor people out.

Fascinating thread and a very interesting building emerging. I personally really like the current version of the breaking of the facade (although I read the concensus being that the 8.5m should be one wide balcony).

But I don't like the 'blinders' (as InArch said) don't understand what they are? neighboring buildings?

Keep up the good work

ps Peru sounds great!

It's interesting how tied architecture is to culture - how if you have domestic help suddenly the kitchen shouldn't have the good view or that there is no need for a trash chute! Also all that stuff about the terrorists' - it is in fact the rich people wanting to keep the poor people out.

Fascinating thread and a very interesting building emerging. I personally really like the current version of the breaking of the facade (although I read the concensus being that the 8.5m should be one wide balcony).

But I don't like the 'blinders' (as InArch said) don't understand what they are? neighboring buildings?

Keep up the good work

ps Peru sounds great!

The reasoning behind the blinders is to "mask" the neighbour's wall (see attached diagram). Sadly I think you are part right in your "rich people wanting to keep the poor people out" comment and is also an issue of privacy but is spawned becasue of the rough years Lima underwent during the early 80's. Older buildings have really nice courtyards at the front with nice entrances but some people (specially rich people) are very paranoid about that stupid wall. The bad thing is that Lima's urban fabric is becomming a wall (yes some are really nice and have overhangs and formal movement and stuff but still we are loosing the public space...)

This is a diagram showing a typical Lima setting (I dare to say it happens in a lot of places in South America) as oposed to most of the world...

This is a building I designed that never got built but because it has a passage next to it, it clearly ilustrates the relation between wall and building... In our current one so far I am concentrating my effort on the building itself; I'll do the wall later...

Thanks for the diagram. kind of get it.
It also makes me think that the complexity of your facade that I like initself might not be so good if its butt up against some other (quote: "not pretty") buildings.
Is there any way you can put together a photoshop image of existing with your proposed model? Not just for this forum of course but it might affect how you see this facade.

I am now leaning more towards the concensus that simpler bolder might be better here unless you tell us otherwise. Obviously getting this facade right is the project.

I know some of you guys don't agree but I think I'll go for it!. This is a semi-final render before the presentation on Tuesday...Your crits have been EXTREAMLY helpfull!!!!!:cheers:

I like it a lot more than your first proposal. Good luck with the client!:cheers:

Great thanks for sharing, one thing though, that wall at the entrance next to the car entrance reads a bit heavy / solid,

...but I know it's only a model ... nice work!!!!

Great thanks for sharing, one thing though, that wall at the entrance next to the car entrance reads a bit heavy / solid,

...but I know it's only a model ... nice work!!!!

ddelcast-

I agree, the street level needs to be a bit more alluring.

Overall a very interesting project and I have really enjoyed the discussion. It seemed to be very helpful to you as we could see your progression. I think the front facade, judging from the rendering, is not quite as heavy and bulky as we were imagining. The delicate window mullions and the wood railings give it a lightness the earlier images did not convey.

Good luck, I hope the presentation goes well.:)

The design certainly looks better rendered!

I'm not sure however of the flying roof element, it doesn't seem to tie in at all and the portholes in the centre fin have little cohesion to the design seeming like an after thought.

The solid balustrading looks great to break the facade but will significantly obscure the view, just a concern! And I feel the centre fin could finish flush to the other front elements to further cleanup the lines. Otherwise I'm liking it!

I also like the design a lot.
I'd give it five stars. In my opinion this kind of expressive architecture is more difficult to do and get right than some of the bland mediteranian modernism that is popular here.

But I agree with Richard; the flying roof bit isn't good at all and should go. sorry.

About the image: I don't like that group of three people outside the garage entrance. They look like a group of teenagers about to tag your nice white walls and if, as you imply, your clients tend to get a paranoid about security, I would cut them from the image. The other figures do enough to give the image scale.

oh and sorry, I also don't like that line on the right side flanking wall, I guess you are trying to break up that large flat face but this feels a bit arbitary.

I'm not sure however of the flying roof element, it doesn't seem to tie in at all and the portholes in the centre fin have little cohesion to the design seeming like an after thought.

ddelcast-

I think Richard is right. The flying roof element does seem arbitrary. It draws your attention but doesn't do anything with it. I noticed on your other buildings it seems like a signature move for you. Is that your intent? :wondering

ddelcast-

I think Richard is right. The flying roof element does seem arbitrary. It draws your attention but doesn't do anything with it. I noticed on your other buildings it seems like a signature move for you. Is that your intent? :wondering

I don't (conciously) know if it is a signature move or not.... I agree it is a recurring theme but I always see it after the fact.... It is still at a very early stage and a lot can happen between now and when it is build. (this is not even a schematic designe phase...). I don't want to rule anything out so if further studies tell me the roof element has to go, so be it... so far I think it is ok...

The design certainly looks better rendered!

I'm not sure however of the flying roof element, it doesn't seem to tie in at all and the portholes in the centre fin have little cohesion to the design seeming like an after thought.

The solid balustrading looks great to break the facade but will significantly obscure the view, just a concern! And I feel the centre fin could finish flush to the other front elements to further cleanup the lines. Otherwise I'm liking it!

Yes, I'm thinking that glass panels would be a better solution to this facade as this would reduce apparent material count (thinking the old Mies philosophy that less is more) but without trying it out on the model, it's difficult to say. The flying roof element is a real concern as it looks like its falling onto the roof and doesn't seem to relate to anything else on the building. To me it looks like the overhang is going to cause you a heap of structural problems and it doesn't look like it will work without some kind of additional support (columns/walls/beams), however, we're just looking at the building from one fixed point so it's difficult to say for sure, but it does look like the flat section floats unsupported over the buildings roof. My gut feeling is that you should talk to a structural engineer as soon as possible if it is floating but personally I don't think it adds to the structure.

The flying roof element is a real concern as it looks like its falling onto the roof and doesn't seem to relate to anything else on the building. To me it looks like the overhang is going to cause you a heap of structural problems and it doesn't look like it will work without some kind of additional support (columns/walls/beams), however, we're just looking at the building from one fixed point so it's difficult to say for sure, but it does look like the flat section floats unsupported over the buildings roof. My gut feeling is that you should talk to a structural engineer as soon as possible if it is floating but personally I don't think it adds to the structure.

Ooooooohhh! Now I get what the big fuss about the "flying roof" is about sorry to all of you! I should've showed this angle from the start!. The horizontal section extends to and gets support from the building core. It will create a shade area to use on the roof terrace! I think it also ties nicely with the rest of the massing since it suggests the prescence of a second "skin" than envolves the building....

I thought that it might look something like you've now shown. I can also see that there is going to be a great deal of torson exerted along the length of the cantilevered concrete roof that is supported along it's rear edge by the core and along a small part of one edge by a relatively thin vertical blade wall on the front side of the building. It looks like the opening extends from the core to the supporting blade wall then down a couple of floors formin an 'L' shape. I'm not an engineer, but I don't think you'll get it as thin as it appears in the model and I'd say it would be in the order of at least 200mm thick if it can be built as designed. You could of course taper the roof, but I think the stresses on the outside face of the concrete supporting wall are going to be extremely high depending of course on the size of the opening - the thinner the supporting wall the more concentrated the stress. Do you have any idea of the dimensions/thickness and weight of the roof cantilever? I think that concrete weighs about 2.4 tonnes per cubic metre so if your cantilever is 6m x 3m x 200mm thick (it looks about that size) then that's about 8.6 tonnes, and even at half that thickness your still looking at hanging over 4.3 tonnes dead weight above the building and it's only supported on two edges and only along the short edge of one of them. With the addition of wind loads there are going to be high stresses that need to be transmitted from the roof overhand to ground through the building. I might be wrong but I think you could have buckling problems with the supporting blade wall and I doubt if it can be done in concrete.

I thought that it might look something like you've now shown. I can also see that there is going to be a great deal of torson exerted along the length of the cantilevered concrete roof that is supported along it's rear edge by the core and along a small part of one edge by a relatively thin vertical blade wall on the front side of the building. It looks like the opening extends from the core to the supporting blade wall then down a couple of floors formin an 'L' shape. I'm not an engineer, but I don't think you'll get it as thin as it appears in the model and I'd say it would be in the order of at least 200mm thick if it can be built as designed. You could of course taper the roof, but I think the stresses on the outside face of the concrete supporting wall are going to be extremely high depending of course on the size of the opening - the thinner the supporting wall the more concentrated the stress. Do you have any idea of the dimensions/thickness and weight of the roof cantilever? I think that concrete weighs about 2.4 tonnes per cubic metre so if your cantilever is 6m x 3m x 200mm thick (it looks about that size) then that's about 8.6 tonnes, and even at half that thickness your still looking at hanging over 4.3 tonnes dead weight above the building and it's only supported on two edges and only along the short edge of one of them. With the addition of wind loads there are going to be high stresses that need to be transmitted from the roof overhand to ground through the building. I might be wrong but I think you could have buckling problems with the supporting blade wall and I doubt if it can be done in concrete.

You're probably right, right now I am showing it at 25 cms (a regular slab) but in my experience it will end up being around 35 - 40 and I will probably have to introduce reversed beams... I am aware of that but for this stage I think I'll keep it like that. Also remember this slab only carries its own weight (we call it here "dead weight") so the logic applied to a regular cantilevered section is not as extreme...it is anly 8 stories so wind load is probably not going to be a problem. A couple of years ago I did a piece that was suppotred 16 mts apart and was 1.2 mts deep and ended being 35cms thick (and the engineer only oriented the rebars in the long direction). This piece is only 2.5x6.5 so with double framing I don't think it will be a problem... But you are right it WILL be thicker....:cheers:

This is a reversed beam scheme...but it's too real for this stage...

Looking good Diego. Took your drawing and added a steel column to show that it can still give the same impression even if you need to add a column.

Diego,

I have been following this thread with great interest... a very challenging site and design... I think the reworking of the front facade you have now is by far the best solution... I wasn't too crazy about where it started (even though the processs that you arrived to get there was good)... but that was just your starting point and I think this has progresssed well...

Also, I am not sold on how you are treating the roof 'fold' piece and think you need to look at it differently to see how it could look (or maybe you have and just not posted those studies?)... anyhow, this is a possible direction that might work better... the roof element becomes more applied or maybe integrated differently but doesn't have to be part of your vertical planes that are your strong elements in this design... This is just a down and dirty photoshop edit to show a possible option to handling what I am talking about...

My first thought was that you'd need a reverse beam to solve the problem but I figured that would destroy the very impression of lightness you're trying to create. It's an impression and expectation you're also creating in your clients mind at his stage, so I think you should show it as you know it will be built. To do otherwise is misleading the client.
A reverse beam could of course be set back from the edge of the slab so that it's not visible from below. I think it's something to make your client aware of and to make office notes on just in case there is a problem down the line as it's not unknown for clients to take architects to court over lesser matters and remember it's they who are picking up the tab. Personally I'm not convinced by the look of the roof or the arguments for having it and there are other ways to 'sign' a building that are more aesthetically pleasing and structurally sound. I'm not saying don't do it, but if this is how you 'sign' buildings one shouldn't let ego get in the way of a more rational solution.
I'm not convinced that that your argument that because of the height of the building wind loads won't be a factor. In my experience wind loads are always taken into account by engineers and even single storey buildings have their roofs blow (sucked) off from time to time in all countries.
The building itself looks fine and I'm sure people will enjoy living there if it eventually gets built.

Looking good Diego. Took your drawing and added a steel column to show that it can still give the same impression even if you need to add a column.

Yes it works very well...thanks

Diego,

I have been following this thread with great interest... a very challenging site and design... I think the reworking of the front facade you have now is by far the best solution... I wasn't too crazy about where it started (even though the processs that you arrived to get there was good)... but that was just your starting point and I think this has progresssed well...

Also, I am not sold on how you are treating the roof 'fold' piece and think you need to look at it differently to see how it could look (or maybe you have and just not posted those studies?)... anyhow, this is a possible direction that might work better... the roof element becomes more applied or maybe integrated differently but doesn't have to be part of your vertical planes that are your strong elements in this design... This is just a down and dirty photoshop edit to show a possible option to handling what I am talking about...

Yes this also looks good (and I already looked at something like that) but at this stage I prefer not to "tone down" the design and concede (if necesary) along the way later on... It is part strategic part to see whether they accept it (the clients). Clients tend to like to "value engineer" the design at some point (cost reduction) so I think it is sometimes wise (depends on the client) to have pieces that can be "deleted" without destroying the design. In this case I believe the clients will try and have some incidence in the design so I am covering my bases (some clients are tough)...

ddelcast-
You are a smart man my friend. Very wise of you to let the process continue with the client and allow him to have input and have him suggest the removal of the roof element. ;)