A Compact Solution To Combined Living.
This interesting example of a live/ work dwelling was designed by architects Pieter Peerlings and Silvia Mertens, who also happen to be its inhabitants. As such, the confined spaces have to accommodate the daily lives and work of two architects.
The space is modest, measuring a mere 2.4 meters in width, 5.5 meters in depth and a total of 12 meters in height.
The space is modest, measuring a mere 2.4 meters in width, 5.5 meters in depth and a total of 12 meters in height.
The building has been divided into 4 floors, with a garden on the roof. Each floor is assigned a purpose, with the ground floor designed for working, the first floor laid out for dining and the second floor and roof garden for relaxing.
This layout is a logical one for them. They are able to meet their clients on the ground floor without taking them through their home. Having the dining area directly above the studio provides quick access to the most commonly required functions of the house, access to food and water.
This layout is a logical one for them. They are able to meet their clients on the ground floor without taking them through their home. Having the dining area directly above the studio provides quick access to the most commonly required functions of the house, access to food and water.
The part of the house which I take issue with is that of the 'Bathroom'. This may have been a design decision which was necessary for them as people, but it is certainly not the most elegant of solutions. Instead of having an actual bathroom, the components are instead spread out amongst the open plan interior of the other floors.
Perhaps the strangest decision is to have the prison-style toilet located at the end of the bed. Following this is the shower on the garden roof. Interestingly these are located on opposite sides of the house too, suggesting that this was not necessarily a decision due of having to follow plumbing. Each floor features large full width and full height windows on both sides, maximising natural light intake, but minimising privacy. I suspect that the issue of privacy is not a problem for the inhabitants, but it no doubt is for other people The balance of light vs privacy is going to be a difficult one to get right for my site, especially considering the position of the plot on the perimeter block. Although this example has an interesting approach to providing artificial light at night, as can be seen in the images below. |
Although the building's design may have issues with privacy, it is clearly designed with personality. It was designed by the people that live in it specifically for them. This is perhaps key to this project. My client/s will require a building that works for them and responds to their needs and personalities, not just a generic box, but a personalised form.
www.coolboom.net/architecture/livework-space-by-sculpit/
www.madeofboxes.pl/?live-work-space,45
www.madeofboxes.pl/?live-work-space,45