I still find Heide II the closest precedent to what we've talked about to date, particularly for its type as a house/gallery. This doesn't make it exempt from criticism though, here's my list of pros and cons:Pros:
- Engagement with the landscape through walls framing views.
- Material language. Concrete blockwork and timber decking.
- Flow of space.
- Treated too much as a sculpture itself, not to be reconfigured or modified.
- A space-planning failure. Great gallery, but an awkward house.
- Material language may also be a bad thing, associations with depressing 60's housing.
Posts
3 comments:
I agree with the shortcomings of Heide II especially as a 'home'. It does make a good gallery though and maybe the desire to do both was too big a goal. The Reeds, although being inspired 'participants' in the process, were obviously fairly active in the process. That is another reason for Heide to be a good 'seed'.
Having read the 'living in the Landscape' book, I think we can draw a lot from McGlashan and Everist. Thanks for lending it. We like the Carnegie house in Sorrento a lot. It has the idea of seperate pavillions only loosely connected which is something that Lily and I have been talking about, having the main living area seperate from the girls rooms and the studio.
Yeah maybe it was 'too big a goal to do both a gallery and a house', but I feel like it only really makes sense as a gallery when you think of it as once having been a house.
I agree, I like the Carnegie house too. It's kind of hard to see whats going on in that plan (like whats inside and whats out), so I'll have a proper look at the book when I get it back.
We should tackle this issue of program and clusters of rooms in a new separate post. Its a critical one.
Post a Comment