I'll take that over the crap that's sprawling across the countryside around here (as well as most places in the US)
Some would say that this type of design is only for those with money, however if the product Sci-Arc's partnering with Habitat show anything, is that that's not necessarily true.
Yes, I mostly like the house, but if you're working with the minimalism of a cube, I would have gone with a more minimalist, and less industrial exterior cladding. Not sure what off the top of my head, but I think the house wants to be smooth.
Another option would have to make the best use of the damp rain soaked climate. Some sort of bare surface that transforms over years would be nice. I was thinking of the Ricola storage facility done by Herzog and de Meuron until I googled an image. It would end up reaffirming Volunteer's comments.
All in all, I'd take it. A lack of floor to ceiling senseless glazing is a nice change in the city.
Mr Wiggin, I like the Sci Arc house, and think it's a positive example. I do wonder though, sure it's built for lower incomes and is to be an example that affordable housing doesn't have to be a traditional arts and craft rip off, but is it really as affordable as it's promised to be? Do they factor in volunteer time, the materials that are donated and the grants I'm sure they must receive?
Why would you have a flat roof in a climate with heavy rainfall? Why would have a blank window facing north when for half the year the sun rises north of east and sets to north of west to varying degrees? Why would you want a gray house is a rainy climate? Here is Bergen, Norway, which is probably rainier and grayer than Vancouver. Note brightly colored houses and bright roofs on the houses on the hill. Lot of skylights too! It is entirely possible to be contemporary and still fit in.
No one in Vancouver could handle colour. They would be over stimulated. I'm also betting it would have been harder to get the permit if they knew the house would be orange.
I actually prefer large windows facing north, the view is more vibrant, you see the landscape (and in this case the view of the water ) illuminated with light from behind you which in my opinion is always more pleasant.
Vancouver has consistent rainfall, but it's rarely heavy. Flat roofs are the norm.
i like that it makes what all the other houses are doing, and really the entire socio-spatial expression of North American planning into an architectural parti - disavow the street and public engagement in favor of sequestered lives of pampered luxury behind our hedgerows and in the personal bubble of our luxury vehicles. the poor? I don't even know what you are talking about. Rock on.
Volunteer, sloped roof were great when thatched roofs had to quickly shed water, and still a great option today. I know it's hard to keep up with all the lunch n learns and state of the art construction and all, but we have tpo. Low slope roofs are a much more realistic option now compared to the 15th century.
That is not a low-sloped roof; that is a no-sloped roof in a fairly high rain and some snow climate. The Anasazi were designing no-slope roofs way before the 15th century - but then they lived in the desert.
the anasazi didn't need power poles. asshole modernists, putting electricity and plumbing in their buildings. the romans built stone aqueducts. why can't we have stone aqueducts instead of modern infrastructure?
possibly internal roof drains. also, volunteer may actually not understand how roofs work.
Here is the Central Arizona Project - a aqueduct that is not even finished yet! It may be concrete, but the Romans used concrete as well, so I am not real sure what your point is.
I misread the article, the blank wall actually faces south, which even more inexplicable as most people would want light from the low winter sun at mid-day, especially in a place this far north. Guess you could hang a solar panel there and be really trendy.
The 'street-view' part of 'google earth' shows the house under construction.
so you're saying we should get rid of modern sanitation infrastructure and replace it with concrete aqueducts that mimic the roman aqueducts.
i disagree. i think the modernists have done a fine job of developing better sanitation infrastructure for providing clean water, safely removing household refuse, and mitigating stormwater runoff in a relatively safe manner. they could do better of course, especially at managing stormwater runoff, but getting rid of the infrastructure we have and replacing it with a misunderstood representation of the past would do more harm than good.
I like it because it pisses people off. I hate it as an architect. I hate from the rendering on. I guarantee you, guarantee, the people that will live there, will either sell it, or keep it as a vacation home, and stay rarely. It's ham-fisted onto the site. The 3-D rendering shows little context, and when built, shows just how ham-fisted, and FAR tripping it is. The idea that any homeowner is going to love having a near zero lot line, with that much glazing on the ground level, makes the Farnsworth look opaque and private by comparison. Trust me, the home will draw a shit ton of people gawking into the ground floor, and will chase the homeowners into the overweight bunker on glass. An elevator? Really? For essentially two floors? What, are these people from Wall-E? Can they not ambulate without the use of walkers, or floating chairs? I half expect the top half to pancake the glass sliver of "living" space into the sarcophagus, err, Ferrari garage below.
What are you talking about? A poorly-designed house is being built with a flat roof in a heavy rain area. There is nothing modern about a flat roof and it is a piss poor design, as is the blank facing south wall and the dismal gray palate. The house is a tear-down before it is completed. The site is quite attractive and the house could have been contemporary and still fit into the neighborhood. If the owners and architect have no respect for the fabric of the neighborhood why are they there?
By the way, the little white bungalow you see in some pictures is valued at $3.5 million, with the vast majority of it being in the land so close to water, and the structure being valued at $8100.
On the subject of rain fall, I still don't see the roof as much of an issue, but I think there was a missed opportunity to set the lower glazing on the south wall back a bit to leave an overhang. Or in other words, pull the cube out a bit. This would have been great for some covered space during rain, but also blocking out the high summer sun on the lower floor.
Volunteer, having lived in the PNW for several years, and working on passive design strategies in the region, we quickly found that the possible heat gain from the southern sun never outweighed the advantages of having a solid, well insulated wall. You're talking about Vancouver being a rainy place, guess when it rains the most? And with that rain comes sun-blocking clouds. Say what you may about the design, but the flat roof and solid walls aren't creating any practical problems.
Don't tell the Norwegians, OK? They go to extraordinary lengths to get light into their buildings, even though their climate is quite a bit colder than Vancouver.
Flat roofs are fine in this climate, it rarely rains hard enough for drainage to be an issue. We design flat roofs all the time, they're great for rain harvesting.
You people seriously and intentionally wall off the southern exposure of buildings from sunlight in Vancouver? Why would you do that? Why did this architect do that?
Well, that's a non-answer. If you are in an extremely cold environment, which Vancouver certainly is not, the south-facing side would be the last one covered over, would it not? You have eliminated any passive-solar gain such as sunlight heating stone floors through the window and made the house pretty much a sunlight-free tomb. For what purpose?
By now I figured you noticed that several people have mentioned that you're dealing with 100% cloud cover for the cooler months, which eliminates any advantage of glazing for heat gain. Therefore the main concern is blocking the hot sun in the warmer months, which is cheaper than air conditioning, and glazing that will reflect any IR heat gain. I'd say that the home is hardly a tomb, northern glazing, and the skylight are probably enough in the upper floors. The ground floor looks pretty much transparent, so...
When I was visiting in late October a few years ago it was anything but 100% cloud cover. I don't think the heat in the summer coming through a south-facing window is anything to be concerned about in Vancouver, or couldn't be ameliorated with blinds. In any event I find the Norwegian approach to get as much light as possible into the home much more appealing and human. This Vancouver house seems textbook on how not to do a whole raft of things.
"Where are the windows?"
I've always dreamed of building a cube in a conservative neighbourhood just to annoy wealthy people.
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/polarizing-house-on-exclusive-vancouver-road-draws-jeers-and-cheers
I'll take that over the crap that's sprawling across the countryside around here (as well as most places in the US)
Some would say that this type of design is only for those with money, however if the product Sci-Arc's partnering with Habitat show anything, is that that's not necessarily true.
that project is tight - its the white piece of shit next door that should be torn down - the modern one - not the bungalow
Nothing like a dismal, gray building in rainy Vancouver. Looks like a suicide clinic designed to keep the customers from changing their mind.
I like it, but I'm a little mournful of the house they tore down to build it. What a classic.
^ you mean the 3.5 million dollar tear down? That would make this house somewhere in the 5M market? Good lord that's expensive. I like it.
Yes, I mostly like the house, but if you're working with the minimalism of a cube, I would have gone with a more minimalist, and less industrial exterior cladding. Not sure what off the top of my head, but I think the house wants to be smooth.
Another option would have to make the best use of the damp rain soaked climate. Some sort of bare surface that transforms over years would be nice. I was thinking of the Ricola storage facility done by Herzog and de Meuron until I googled an image. It would end up reaffirming Volunteer's comments.
All in all, I'd take it. A lack of floor to ceiling senseless glazing is a nice change in the city.
Mr Wiggin, I like the Sci Arc house, and think it's a positive example. I do wonder though, sure it's built for lower incomes and is to be an example that affordable housing doesn't have to be a traditional arts and craft rip off, but is it really as affordable as it's promised to be? Do they factor in volunteer time, the materials that are donated and the grants I'm sure they must receive?
chigurh, i believe the same architect did the white house next door
chigurh is correct. the white one isn't modern though. that's definitely post modern, making fun of modern.
Why would you have a flat roof in a climate with heavy rainfall? Why would have a blank window facing north when for half the year the sun rises north of east and sets to north of west to varying degrees? Why would you want a gray house is a rainy climate?
Here is Bergen, Norway, which is probably rainier and grayer than Vancouver. Note brightly colored houses and bright roofs on the houses on the hill. Lot of skylights too! It is entirely possible to be contemporary and still fit in.
No one in Vancouver could handle colour. They would be over stimulated. I'm also betting it would have been harder to get the permit if they knew the house would be orange.
I actually prefer large windows facing north, the view is more vibrant, you see the landscape (and in this case the view of the water ) illuminated with light from behind you which in my opinion is always more pleasant.
Vancouver has consistent rainfall, but it's rarely heavy. Flat roofs are the norm.
i like that it makes what all the other houses are doing, and really the entire socio-spatial expression of North American planning into an architectural parti - disavow the street and public engagement in favor of sequestered lives of pampered luxury behind our hedgerows and in the personal bubble of our luxury vehicles. the poor? I don't even know what you are talking about. Rock on.
The structure is a huge distraction right on the crossroad. But, I liked the design.
Volunteer, sloped roof were great when thatched roofs had to quickly shed water, and still a great option today. I know it's hard to keep up with all the lunch n learns and state of the art construction and all, but we have tpo. Low slope roofs are a much more realistic option now compared to the 15th century.
That is not a low-sloped roof; that is a no-sloped roof in a fairly high rain and some snow climate. The Anasazi were designing no-slope roofs way before the 15th century - but then they lived in the desert.
Sloping thatched roofs make it harder to build the requisite rooftop terrace...
But in seriousness, scuppers suck! Is there one on the "alley" side of the house?
Edit: No, I was seeing crap on top of the power poles.
the anasazi didn't need power poles. asshole modernists, putting electricity and plumbing in their buildings. the romans built stone aqueducts. why can't we have stone aqueducts instead of modern infrastructure?
possibly internal roof drains. also, volunteer may actually not understand how roofs work.
we don't need no stinkin' windows!
Here is the Central Arizona Project - a aqueduct that is not even finished yet! It may be concrete, but the Romans used concrete as well, so I am not real sure what your point is.
I misread the article, the blank wall actually faces south, which even more inexplicable as most people would want light from the low winter sun at mid-day, especially in a place this far north. Guess you could hang a solar panel there and be really trendy.
The 'street-view' part of 'google earth' shows the house under construction.
so you're saying we should get rid of modern sanitation infrastructure and replace it with concrete aqueducts that mimic the roman aqueducts.
i disagree. i think the modernists have done a fine job of developing better sanitation infrastructure for providing clean water, safely removing household refuse, and mitigating stormwater runoff in a relatively safe manner. they could do better of course, especially at managing stormwater runoff, but getting rid of the infrastructure we have and replacing it with a misunderstood representation of the past would do more harm than good.
I like it because it pisses people off. I hate it as an architect. I hate from the rendering on. I guarantee you, guarantee, the people that will live there, will either sell it, or keep it as a vacation home, and stay rarely. It's ham-fisted onto the site. The 3-D rendering shows little context, and when built, shows just how ham-fisted, and FAR tripping it is. The idea that any homeowner is going to love having a near zero lot line, with that much glazing on the ground level, makes the Farnsworth look opaque and private by comparison. Trust me, the home will draw a shit ton of people gawking into the ground floor, and will chase the homeowners into the overweight bunker on glass. An elevator? Really? For essentially two floors? What, are these people from Wall-E? Can they not ambulate without the use of walkers, or floating chairs? I half expect the top half to pancake the glass sliver of "living" space into the sarcophagus, err, Ferrari garage below.
It sucks.
What are you talking about? A poorly-designed house is being built with a flat roof in a heavy rain area. There is nothing modern about a flat roof and it is a piss poor design, as is the blank facing south wall and the dismal gray palate. The house is a tear-down before it is completed. The site is quite attractive and the house could have been contemporary and still fit into the neighborhood. If the owners and architect have no respect for the fabric of the neighborhood why are they there?
By the way, the little white bungalow you see in some pictures is valued at $3.5 million, with the vast majority of it being in the land so close to water, and the structure being valued at $8100.
On the subject of rain fall, I still don't see the roof as much of an issue, but I think there was a missed opportunity to set the lower glazing on the south wall back a bit to leave an overhang. Or in other words, pull the cube out a bit. This would have been great for some covered space during rain, but also blocking out the high summer sun on the lower floor.
Volunteer, having lived in the PNW for several years, and working on passive design strategies in the region, we quickly found that the possible heat gain from the southern sun never outweighed the advantages of having a solid, well insulated wall. You're talking about Vancouver being a rainy place, guess when it rains the most? And with that rain comes sun-blocking clouds. Say what you may about the design, but the flat roof and solid walls aren't creating any practical problems.
Don't tell the Norwegians, OK? They go to extraordinary lengths to get light into their buildings, even though their climate is quite a bit colder than Vancouver.
"low winter sun at mid-day"
Hahahaha, you should visit the PNW some January.
Flat roofs are fine in this climate, it rarely rains hard enough for drainage to be an issue. We design flat roofs all the time, they're great for rain harvesting.
With cool (not cold) cloudy winters, and warm/hot sunny summers, a north facing window is ideal for lighting / heat gain year round.
You people seriously and intentionally wall off the southern exposure of buildings from sunlight in Vancouver? Why would you do that? Why did this architect do that?
Glass that can insulate as effectively as that solid wall is pretty expensive...
Well, that's a non-answer. If you are in an extremely cold environment, which Vancouver certainly is not, the south-facing side would be the last one covered over, would it not? You have eliminated any passive-solar gain such as sunlight heating stone floors through the window and made the house pretty much a sunlight-free tomb. For what purpose?
By now I figured you noticed that several people have mentioned that you're dealing with 100% cloud cover for the cooler months, which eliminates any advantage of glazing for heat gain. Therefore the main concern is blocking the hot sun in the warmer months, which is cheaper than air conditioning, and glazing that will reflect any IR heat gain. I'd say that the home is hardly a tomb, northern glazing, and the skylight are probably enough in the upper floors. The ground floor looks pretty much transparent, so...
When I was visiting in late October a few years ago it was anything but 100% cloud cover. I don't think the heat in the summer coming through a south-facing window is anything to be concerned about in Vancouver, or couldn't be ameliorated with blinds. In any event I find the Norwegian approach to get as much light as possible into the home much more appealing and human. This Vancouver house seems textbook on how not to do a whole raft of things.
sunlight in Vancouver
Again I implore you to visit our wonderful region in the winter months.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.