Support 
on the 
-- 
Double house / Tham & Videgård Hansson
Architects: Tham & Videgård Hansson Arkitekter
Location: Danderyd, Sweden
Architects in charge: Bolle Tham & Martin Videgård Hansson
Site Area: 1,006 sqm
Constructed Area: 360 sqm + roof terrace
Project year: 2004-2005
Client: Private
Photographs: Åke E:son Lindman
A house organized as a spiralling sequence of four large rooms in four levels. These big spaces without a fixed hierarchy let this house invite the inhabitants to organise their lives following their own preferences.
The building envelope was defined by the full width, the maximum area and height fitting into the building regulations. More or less mirrored in plan, the two units contain small adjustments in relation to the differences in orientation, light and views. As a result of the existing topography spatial variations were developed; starting with the four meter ceiling height of the entrance level, the vertical passage up to the horizontally extended spaces opening up towards the surrounding greenery. The upper large room constitutes the link to the roof terrace – the biggest social area in the house.
Construction is in situ cast concrete. Facades are rendered in plaster coloured dark greyish blue. Protruding window boxes made of oak add a 3-dimensional quality to the facade, thus enhancing the depth and massive character of the interior. All glass panes are fixed, with wooden side vents and doors.
-
- ground floor plan
-
- second floor plan
-
- roof plan
-
- section
Related articles:
8 comments »
This looks more like the “mirror” house.
a semi-detached isn’t really design innovation
I like the color and the wood stain. It feels very solid.
–
http://www.contemporaryartdaily.com
It isn’t about design innovation, fb. It’s a fine building. simple, appealing and comfortable. Nothing innovative about it… who cares? why the thirst for innovation? what’s lacking everywhere is quality! This one is good enough! Anyway, I would have enjoyed to see the design work more with the topography, instead of simply carving out its way for half the building in the name of semi-simmetry between the two houses. I don’t see why the two houses had to be on the same height on all levels. Simple level variations could have contributed a lot on composing the diversity that seems to have been attempted on the facade, and even justified it more than just by “orientation, light and views”.
An architectural tragedy.
This is far from a tragedy. In fact it is a nice elegant house. Not flashy or extravagant which is a nice deviation from the overly complex blobs flooding the market. As mentioned above by Arman, its quality that is often missing from the flashy architecture these days. A simple form with nice detailing is not easy and is actually a noble undertaking. My only question is how the external wood will age. The contrast between the warm wood and dark gray walls is beautiful but will fade as the sun bleaches the wood into a light gray tone.
Links to this article »