Hi all.

This is an old house near center of Hanoi, Vietnam, my client request to build an small office.
The project dates from 2008
Here's the first.

http://lh5.google.com/bacnguyentran/R8KC8xUrzFI/AAAAAAAAAeo/03eflNwflUY/s800/Bac%20128NTH-suaTcong051-1.JPG

http://lh6.google.com/bacnguyentran/R8KETBUrzGI/AAAAAAAAAew/hGFYBR4USMs/s800/DSC00005.JPG

Lord we need more information.
Do you have plans and site plan. And a brief - what kind of office etc.

You can read the posting requirements here (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2747)

yes, more info is needed.

please attach images and do not hyperlink. use the manage attachments button below the main text entry area.

That palm tree on the balcony looks really freaky...

hi man,
This is a new building or renovate the old house
First, if it's a new project, I thinks its ok
But it's a rebuild, may be it affected the near house, you can reference to the Noor office which is rebuild from the old house, one of style classic
p/s: in the picture, the panel damage the old house, this is a real sitution in Vietnam about architecture

This is a new building or renovate the old house
This's a new building
That palm tree on the balcony looks really freaky...
I think the same but ArchiCAD have less 3d tree, i think palm look good, may be i change other tree

My god...!!!!!, a rupture in scale , design and a desrespect of lot of architecture values. As heritage and history, urban insertion, etc, etc...

No, and no... for real project is really a NO!!!!

I don´t see how a so tall building could be implanted in a so narrow site.
There are no integration of the new building with the existent ones, that seems to me of an interesting architecture that would be able to preserve. This is even more necessary if you take account that the old house is a whole unit with both that are alongside.

pedro, maybe the context has something to do with it - when I visited Vietnam I was struck by the contrast of old and new, and the extent of "clearance" that was happening - quite a different mind-set to maintsream western urbanism

pedro, maybe the context has something to do with it - when I visited Vietnam I was struck by the contrast of old and new, and the extent of "clearance" that was happening - quite a different mind-set to maintsream western urbanism

you mean repeating the mistakes of the west in the 50s+60s?

all I mean is that without knowing the context of the site - what happens in the surrounding area, the planning objectives etc it's difficult to understand the design solution (which is presented in isolation as a single site)

you mean repeating the mistakes of the west in the 50s+60s?

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

emow54... is this sarcasm!?!?... :confused:

Out of scale, out of context, out of ...
Don't begin to make the mistakes lot of European countries made during the 60 and 70's (and China is making since the 90's).
Integration and "urban politeness" seems to be completely ignored in your project. Sad...:(

You'll find we're hard with you, but it's 'cause we are sad lot of us ignore the others mistakes. To learn the other's mistakes could be a good way to limit urban trauma.

@all: I agree with you about the project, I'm Vietnamese and I known what happen in my country about architectural,
I thinks "the plan and the pers" is a new building . and the drawing about "1st floor, section and the elevation" is a old house which is a house style in 80s-90s in my country because Vietnam is a colony of France from 30s to 40s, maybe LORD make we are at cross-purposes.
@ Lord: the plan , the elevation and the pers ..... don't go together??

I know this is not really the same thing but this project by Morphos, http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3812&highlight=morphos, shows how the synergy between old and new can be achieved.

(I SO love that project, :craqueur:, kudos to Morphos)

A total disregard for the site and context. I find it hard to visualize and design with blinders.

did I miss something? It's pretty hard to work out what's happening as there's no information about the site context. The photo shows that there"s a tallish (maybe 4 storey) building to the right of the site. Nothing tells us what's happening nearby etc.
I think it's a little harsh to criticise without that informaiton - the context (unless of course the criticism is that this informaiton hasn't been supplied), but I don't think it reasonable to draw conclusions based on one photo, one model and a plan/section....

... independently from urban context, is the total disrespect of the colonial building... and therefore a eraser over the memory, of history, architecture, construction methods, etc... thats the issue...

I think it would be better to approach this with more understanding of social and educational context. Some advice and encouragement may have a positive effect on the design methodology...There is a great opportunity here to help inform the design.

... independently from urban context, is the total disrespect of the colonial building... and therefore a eraser over the memory, of history, architecture, construction methods, etc... thats the issue...Maybe that's the client's idea.

you mean repeating the mistakes of the west in the 50s+60s?aaah nice cheap shot.

integration i sooooooo 1990's.

Thank you all.
We know that there's a lot of mistakes but client's idea (height, total area....) is important.
We're going to upload more information of the site.

..maybe you should a little bit inform your client about the context,,what you can do or no..its wrong to erase old buildings, context, architecture!

I agree about the context issue…in Peru there are a lot historical buildings and of course you have to follow the code for those particular projects
On the other hand there are a lot old building that they don't have any value (architectural and historical) I don't see any reason why you can't build a new building there…if you see the picture, the structure next to the "old one" it looks like a new building to me…..maybe there is a plan for that area, and if you see the signs, they are blocking the whole façade(they don't have any respect anyway). If He is proposing this kind of project I assume that the building doesn't have any historical value for the city……having the context in mind is good but the city and the local historical organizations are the main sources to see which buildings are untouchables.

ok,.. maybe this is a building that dont have historical value for the city,that is not a argument to desrespect the context or erase a building.. the building in the context has a value, she represent a part of the history in that context ..

"the building in the context has a value, she represent a part of the history in that context " ...very romantic point of view by the way.
Well,how old has to be a building to become part of the context (as a reference)? ....it's relative, so if the city don't define that, how are we to do it?....otherwise it would be impossible to build new constructions in cities older than 100 years....I got your point, I agree to take the context in mind, but the picture only shows an old building...you don't know the context, I don't know either....if he's proposing an a taller building, the building on the right in 2 or 3 floor higher means the the zoning has been changed and maybe this the plan for that area.

the building is related to his context and lose his value with out it and otherwise..on old buiding has his transformation trouth the past sometimes more or less, if she lose more of his authenticity the more she lose of weight..yes for new construction in cities but not on the bill of old buildings,if its in the old segment then integrate with knowledge and respect..
@flino
..very romantic point of view by the way.
heheh:cheers:

New concept of this building

Site

I think it's not a good idea to block out the five-foot-way at the ground level of the old houses. The "five foot way" is the walkway at the ground floor. A relic from an old urban development regulation during the colonial era. This walkway is one of the characteristics of Shophouse architecture in South East Asia. It also serves as a link connecting it to the five-foot-ways of the houses beside it.

Personally I find the idea of a car parking space right at the centre house a bad idea, as it will obstruct the entrance. Just my view. I think it would be a good idea to retain retail shops within the old houses, to retain life in the old houses and the street feel. Most importantly, the context of the "Shophouse". My 2 cents.

Thanks Redstone for your comments. You may have visited Hanoi, right?
Your idea of retaining life and retail shop is interesting but it's so hard. We can't build the new 6-storey office without dismantling the old house so we decide to keep the facade only.
As for the car keeping space, we have no other choice. Car is not allowed to be left in the street and there's no public car park around.
We keep studying to make the project better. :)
With best regards.

Thanks Redstone for your comments. You may have visited Hanoi, right?
Your idea of retaining life and retail shop is interesting but it's so hard. We can't build the new 6-storey office without dismantling the old house so we decide to keep the facade only.
As for the car keeping space, we have no other choice. Car is not allowed to be left in the street and there's no public car park around.
We keep studying to make the project better. :)
With best regards.

I never visited Hanoi before. I'm an architecture student from Singapore and I've seen my share of badly designed and well designed projects with shophouses retained at street level.

I think the worse case scenario would be to only retain the facade, thats unavoidable in your case. Why not put a small shop at one of the houses at the side, the main entrance lobby at the centre house, and the garage at the other house on the other side? Retain the 5 foot way.

And since you're building the office block in the centre of the plot, is it possible to have windows on the sides rather than a blank wall?

EDIT:

Are the 2 shophouses on the sides part of the plot as well? :wondering


Pardon my idea:

If your plot is only one shophouse... Have all the M&E rooms on the ground floor, and that's where the car park will be. A staircase and lift will bring people from the five foot way to the 2nd floor, the lobby will be here. People can look thru the windows of the old shophouse, while the tower block is behind. :)

I think you should provide more info like design brief, client requirements, etc. :)

The thing that is most interesting for me about this post is not the proposed building (either) .....it is how upset the 'posters' from former colonial strongholds are about loosing examples of European Colonial influence elsewhere in the world.

Perhaps the architectural memories of colonial rule and domination are in fact a history not worth cherishing in the middle of Hanoi ?

If fact , they may have bad memories for the people of Hanoi, and be totally unsuitable building types for the current (and possibly the past) climatic, cultural and economic situation.
Perhaps a new contemporary aethetic is better than blindly keeping fabric from a time when the citizens were if fact working fodder for feeding the interests of colonial powers.


Just a thought......:wondering

Hmm.. here in Singapore we also have the same building typology. The "shophouse" has shops on the ground level and residential floors above that. The covered terrace is a relic of a colonial building regulation. Large windows, high roofs, some have a jack roof and a courtyard. Basically a mash of both European and local styles. Being a style unique to the region, and given the cultural significance, they should preserve at least some of them.

Climate wise, if there is adequate ventilation (if the plot is too deep), its well suited for the tropics. The interior space can be freely adapted, the whole space is column free... only reason would be economics. Bad memories of the former colonial masters? This I have no comment, maybe the people in Hanoi would understand. :)

nimmo, i agree with what you've said. One famous architect said once, "F*** context." I think with the current state vietnam is in now, sometimes, some new insertions are perhaps beneficial to the vibrancy of the street scene.
As well as that I think the team involved in this project are not a bad bunch of designers...

my only question is: how feasible is this design economically?

from the context, the area looks poor. Maybe I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions. Yet, I can't help but think this is going to cost a lot.

One famous architect said once, "F*** context."

F*** famous one architect...
May we know who is these "brilliant" spirit... ? Venturi or some other :puke: figurative architecture mentor ?

Paris Hilton is famous too... does it makes from her a Nobel Prize ?


from the context, the area looks poor

What do you mean by poor ? What is a poor context and how to define objectively the "poor" context ? And even if... That's the interest (one of) of our profession : to work with context (anyone) and make from constraintnesses ideas that will stand our proposals. And the city is make ON the city, not just near... (la ville est faite sur la ville, pas à coté). To ignore your neighbour is insulting for him, you can transpose it into the architectural field. But that's only my opinion...

how to define objectively the "poor" context ? And even if... That's the interest (one of) of our profession : to work with context (anyone) and make from constraintnesses ideas that will stand our proposals.

Poor by definition is: characterized by or showing poverty.
i can only presume you skipped over the part where i said i was making an assumption ;)

yes, it is our job to work WITH the context. I don't think he did, from my viewpoint. However, it was mentioned earlier that architectural juxtapositions in the area do not relate to eachother. when I visited Vietnam I was struck by the contrast of old and new, and the extent of "clearance" that was happening - quite a different mind-set to maintsream western urbanism Perhaps it is normal to do that in the area. Likewise, it was also mentioned that one architect said f*** context. Well Architecture changes in relation to geography. Different cities have different architecture, different architects, different schools, and different ways of thinking.

I'm willing to accept that and say that the building could be successful.

but still, from my line of thought and many others, the design is not contextually fit.

Poor by definition is: characterized by or showing poverty.
i can only presume you skipped over the part where i said i was making an assumption ;)

yes, it is our job to work WITH the context. I don't think he did, from my viewpoint. However, it was mentioned earlier that architectural juxtapositions in the area do not relate to eachother. Perhaps it is normal to do that in the area. Likewise, it was also mentioned that one architect said f*** context. Well Architecture changes in relation to geography. Different cities have different architecture, different architects, different schools, and different ways of thinking.

I'm willing to accept that and say that the building could be successful.

but still, from my line of thought and many others, the design is not contextually fit.


Restore it and it would look nice.

Restore it and it would look nice.

i agree

Poor by definition is: characterized by or showing poverty.
i can only presume you skipped over the part where i said i was making an assumption ;)

yes, it is our job to work WITH the context. I don't think he did, from my viewpoint. However, it was mentioned earlier that architectural juxtapositions in the area do not relate to eachother. Perhaps it is normal to do that in the area. Likewise, it was also mentioned that one architect said f*** context. Well Architecture changes in relation to geography. Different cities have different architecture, different architects, different schools, and different ways of thinking.

I'm willing to accept that and say that the building could be successful.

but still, from my line of thought and many others, the design is not contextually fit.

I would like to add my direct experience in such circumstances.

In many of the asian cities, including in Malaysia, Singapore etc, these areas of the city with the old shophouses are not really any longer the prime business areas they may have been - the city has grown on and left them behind. Typically these areas are neither important enough to be 'heritage' for preservation, nor valuable enough to be redeveloped en bloc.

THey are simply left to the whims of each business property owner. Many of this people would not be able to spell Mies even if you wrote it out for them. You may accuse them of being un-enlightened or un-educated, but they are the owners and they want to exploit every single square meter of space for income or use. You cannot dictate to this kind of owner about conservation unless it is by law, or about aesthetics unless the Feng Shui master says this or that.

The taste is strictly Populist and Grand Chrome Stainless-Steel Glass Tiled Sandstone Cladded etc.

I won't say they are wrong, even if I don't agree with their way of valuing a property. We have tounderstand that many of these houses have been neglected for long periods without structural or architectutal maintenace due to many reasons, and to refurbish them to the original is typically a money losing venture because the floor space resulting is not commercially viable. If they are allowed they typically look to maximise the return for any investment on the property by making such buildings on these existing plots.

Also I must add that many in Asia no longer appreciate such shophouses as representative of their lifestyle. To them it is just another old building.

A majority of the business world in asia has this mindset when it comes to old property - it is not about context - it is about income and the style of the moment.

The architect who does not conform to the client's requirement is discarded and another brought in. There are no shortage of them in Asia believe me.

If I went around Kuala Lumpur I am sure I could post so many pictures of such buildings built on old shophouse lots ... it is not a shock to me to see the proposal here ... perhaps it is to those who do not frequent Asia.

In this manner I would say that in the context of Asia the owner is probably spot on, and I hope you understand I say this tongue in cheek with more than a dash of sarcasm.

In many of the asian cities, including in Malaysia, Singapore etc, these areas of the city with the old shophouses are not really any longer the prime business areas they may have been - the city has grown on and left them behind. Typically these areas are neither important enough to be 'heritage' for preservation, nor valuable enough to be redeveloped en bloc.

THey are simply left to the whims of each business property owner. Many of this people would not be able to spell Mies even if you wrote it out for them. You may accuse them of being un-enlightened or un-educated, but they are the owners and they want to exploit every single square meter of space for income or use. You cannot dictate to this kind of owner about conservation unless it is by law, or about aesthetics unless the Feng Shui master says this or that.

I see. This is what I meant by the change in architecture with relation to geography. In this case, it's a change in the way people view the older architecture. am I correct?

one question though, if the city has grown on and left these old "shophouses" behind, does that mean that contextual analysis is irrelevant?

I see. This is what I meant by the change in architecture with relation to geography. In this case, it's a change in the way people view the older architecture. am I correct?

one question though, if the city has grown on and left these old "shophouses" behind, does that mean that contextual analysis is irrelevant?

Is there any Context left to talk off? – certainly there is but perhaps conservation is not the best context - as example Ando's brutal rowhouse is one extreme of context.

I am cautious to say that is because of this reason or that of the populace at large – bearing in mind that these are probably private property and therefore the mindset and objectives of the specific owner has most weight.

The approving authority in this city probably does not impose much restriction - as compared to say Japan an Asian country that has much more regulation where sunlight access hours and other plot restrictions etc may curtail such 'towering' structures on the surrounding.

One can say certain things about context in general, regards climate etc, but one cannot say so much of the exact cultural context of this area in Hanoi from a few thousand km away, one would need to be familiar to the area and the row of houses to come to a better informed opinion.

I see. This is what I meant by the change in architecture with relation to geography. In this case, it's a change in the way people view the older architecture. am I correct?

one question though, if the city has grown on and left these old "shophouses" behind, does that mean that contextual analysis is irrelevant?

Last time before the era of shopping malls, department stores, the market and the shophouse shops were the only retail options, other than the street hawkers.

Shophouses came from a modification of the Chinese courtyard house, the Malay kampong houses and the European rowhouses. It's an interesting amalgamation of cultures and typologies. Each ethnic group had their own style of shophouse. I suppose as society progresses, and the concept of malls came, developers begun building bigger and bigger malls, drawing people away from the other areas. And the concept of a modern society, increased costs of living are pushing the traditional trades to the edge of 'extinction'.

People gradually appreciate less and less of such traditional crafts and building, by building bigger buildings, more modern and functional, I believe that, along with rise in property prices spelt the end of the shophouse. The newest shophouses were built in the 1970s. In Singapore where there is lack of land, no more land is zoned aside for new shophouses anymore.

Originally, the majority of shophouses were meant for families. Then, the owners leased and the lessees let out their part of the house, and slums begun to form. With this "dirty" image, it became less desirable to live it one. Some owners are not affluent enough to maintain their aging buildings and they begun to crumble. People and governments begun to see them as slums.

yeah i agree, many won't get it till they visit Asia. At any given moment, I'd rather let a fairly decent designer take over than a rich merchant who'd simply hire a crappy engineer to restore a crappy facade and place some incoherent plan behind it. Something akin to Venturi's duck. Trust me it happens all over Asia as well, not just in Vegas.

The scenarios are often played out like this :

Colonial terraced building in a "colonial" district comes under the hammer for renovation, Where there are no preservation laws, the owner depending on budget level will choose to:

1. Low budget : seal the cracks and paint the exterior classicist facade, and reorganize the interiors.

2. Medium budget : hire a crappy designer to knock down the whole thing and build a monstrosity - neo modernist, pastiche, with a colour blind painter, or gaudy pink polsihed granite from China to boot.

3. High budget : hire a corporate designer to turn it into a brutalist, steel and glass office block, some awful rendition of Mies and Foster put together with shite detailing.

4. Smart budget : ask around for top designers who look into sustainability (maintenance, life cycle, thermal, eco, commercial viability, context) to develop a really good outcome.

I love contemporary insertions. Why, because there tends to be more of the classicist stuff around than the contemporary insertions in Asia. Why should there be such an obsession with the past? I find it awkward that so many stores in Europe have very contemporary shops and spaces hollowed out within these rather old structures. perhaps that is part of the charm. But after going through old building after old building, it becomes a blur - monotonous, and drab. After awhile, the charm seems lost. What's worse is that many parts around the world, (North America, UAE, China, are the biggest culprits) try to replicate the style of these old European buildings, in other words - romanticize their architecture to fit a contemporary lifestyle. It is indeed a grotesque pastiche of kitsch.

Don't get me wrong - I'm against razing and bulldozing through old ancient towns like those in China to make way for the future. That is blatant disregard for culture, history and conservation. But the odd "urban infill" insertion here and there can be nice.

some of my thoughts...

'cause the neighbors do have waterclosets tastes , why should we have to take care ?
Interseting point of view...

G'day Lord,

You seem to be taking alot of flack from a bunch who've nominated themselves as the voice of righteousness. What is it about the architecutral profession that attracts such megalomaniacs?

What worries me is the hysterical way in which the words "context" and "respect" have been littered throughout this discussion in a manner that is diliberately offensive and hypocritically disrespectful. Frankly I think it smacks of the kind of murkey academic conservatism and closed-mindedness that has landed many a hapless architect in the tepid waters of postcolonial self doubt.

What galls me most is that it is so painfully obvious that the commentators of this discussion have no real appreciation of the realities of vietnam (insert context here boys) or southeast asia for that matter. It is also clear that they are deflecting attention from their own intellectual sqeemishness by harassing you about your project - Perhaps you lot should save that kind of needlessly aggro commentary for youtube.

welcome back diagram ;)

Thanks Swank-E

I can't resist these sorts of arguments.

Surely we can appreciate that not everyone has the luxury of indulging in the sort of high-minded ponderings ventilated on this thread. This is not an argument against heritage conservation rather its an argument against self serving-romantisim

G'day Lord,

You seem to be taking alot of flack from a bunch who've nominated themselves as the voice of righteousness. What is it about the architecutral profession that attracts such megalomaniacs?

What worries me is the hysterical way in which the words "context" and "respect" have been littered throughout this discussion in a manner that is diliberately offensive and hypocritically disrespectful. Frankly I think it smacks of the kind of murkey academic conservatism and closed-mindedness that has landed many a hapless architect in the tepid waters of postcolonial self doubt.

What galls me most is that it is so painfully obvious that the commentators of this discussion have no real appreciation of the realities of vietnam (insert context here boys) or southeast asia for that matter. It is also clear that they are deflecting attention from their own intellectual sqeemishness by harassing you about your project - Perhaps you lot should save that kind of needlessly aggro commentary for youtube.

No hysterical attitude and no disrespect from me (I hope...). But you have to consider it's sometimes very difficult for a non English native-language to precisely express with precision the way they could help the author of the project. So, even if some posts could seems to be a little bit "ironic", we all have to put some water in our wine when we read some advices. We don't have to read it literally as could do an architecture's integrist.
We can't say to Lord : "Your project is beautifull, you don't have to change anything. Go, go, go..." It would have been a nonsense 'cause it's a non-answer or a non-discussion. The advices we gave (pro or vs) can constitute (ALL of them) a kind of advices found he will (or not) take in...
Imagine everybody tell you your work is absolutely perfect... It doesn't happened to me, but if it's the case, then I change for an other job before to be pleasant to everybody...

Regards

But it's clear, we can't (anywhere in the world) keep everything "as it was before...". The arguments dealing with a complete historical conservatism are not (imo) really my cup of tea. What could be interesting into this kind of project could be "How to keep a trace of the past", not how to keep the past as it was. 'cause if you build the city onto the city, it's not to conserve the history, it can be to make readable the history of the site through the building layering. It can consist into the building or the keeping of a module, a colour scheme, a way to enter the building or to be near the existant buildings. I think it's the way the "respect" and other attitudes where expressed in the precedent posts.