Concrete House | Fringe Architects

Concrete House attempts a new form of family house located within a inner suburb of Perth . The owner had a strong interest in the work of Perth Architect Iwan Iwanoff and an extensive collection of 1950's and 1960's vintage furniture which formed the basis for the design brief.

What is the conceptual framework of the project - including underlying principles, values, core ideas and/or philosophy?

The core idea of this project was to create a new form of family home that was flexible and adaptable to the changing needs of the 5 member family. The main response was to divide house into separate elements - kids wing, man living zone, parents wing, linear garden and basement. Several norms relating to conventional family housing are challenged in this house, specifically the way the inhabitants interact with their immediate community and neighbours - for example the ubiquitous 'alfresco' area is not at the rear of the house, but at the front facing the street, the way the house is organised on the site relative the existing street patterns and conventions - for example here the house follows the double-loaded frontage of the existing streetscape but departs from it by organising the house along a long linear north facing garden; and  the way that a growing family may adapt to the house over its lifespan - for example through the use of  multiple entry to the house - there are 4 - front public steps, side casual access ramp-way for the infirm or prams, rear ROW children's entry and a sub-terranean garage entry to the kitchen area.

What contribution does the design make to the lives of the inhabitants?

This house creates the opportunity for family members to maintain their own identity and privacy, but interact as a nuclear whole when required. The public zones of the house - namely the linear garden and front outdoor living area promote a greater interaction between the occupants and their immediate neighbourhood. There is also the conscious attempt to present a house to the community that is robust, responds to environment, creates new forms of living and landscaped space and demonstrates adaptive responses to the family growth. So the design, through its inhabitants, suggests a better model for living within communities.

What is the relationship of the built form to the context of the project?

The Town of Cambridge's recent policy "Future Housing Choices”, identifies a need for more diverse forms of housing that better responded to ageing, the changing family unit, single person households and shared housing. The policy has not been fully adopted as yet by the community, and there has been little uptake of the initiatives by residents - namely because of the strong real estate industry resistance to moving away from the singular large full-detached family home. We therefore felt that this house could act as an exemplar of what could be achieved on the site given no change in policy.

Program resolution - how does the functional performance match the client's brief? 

The client's brief is stretched along the south edge of the site over three levels. The rooms are organised along a north facing long linear main circulation + living space. The main outdoor living space then peels off from the main entry and projects forward to the front gardens. The north east and north west ends of the house are curled around an existing Jacaranda Tree to shelter the internal areas from harsh summer morning and afternoon sun. The folding roofscape then folds down with large overhangs to the north to further cocoon spaces.

Integration of allied disciplines - how has the contribution of others, including architects, interior designers, landscape architects, builders and other specialists helped achieve the outcome? 

The core project team consisted of the Client, the Architect, the Builder, the Landscaping Contractor, the Blocklayers and the Joinery / Cabinetmakers. Each were instrumental in the resolution and execution of the design on site. Clear dialogue between all parties was established at the outset of the design stages of project, and maintained throughout the site stages. The process was quite structured contractually but also quite organic in the way participants could contribute throughout the build process. The contributions made by these key professionals and tradesman was instrumental in achieving a cohesive design and building for the client.

Cost/Value outcome - how effective were  the decisions related to financial issues?

Materials were pre-finished or "as found" and made for a cost effective outcome at a rate of $3,000.00/sqm for a 400sqm house. Trade labour was minimized, as was wastage, through promoting better finished construction standards due to the need to erect the materials in one attempt. We deliberately avoided conventional materials that required site applied finishes, as we felt those materials promoted laziness in construction quality and thereby promoted waste and a lack of longevity. We feel that by choosing materials for their honesty and integrity creates a more dynamic, cost-effective house.

How does this project demonstrate innovation and excellence in terms of environmental sustainability? 

The house achieves a 7.3 star rating under the natHERS environmental rating software - this is largely achieved passively through the orientation of the house along a north-facing linear garden, large areas of thermal mass and heat sink walls to the south (concrete blockwork), north facing shaded double glazed windows, cross ventilation to the east and west ends of the house and bulk thermal insulation to roof spaces and wall cavities. Furthermore the house has no external applied finishes - all materials are left as supplied - face concrete block, galvanised steel, cemintel barestone sheeting, H3 treated LVL roof framing, colorbond roofing, honed + exposed aggregate external areas, natural decking and bagged planter walls with integrated colour. So the ongoing lifecycle maintenance costs are minimized.