Comments on: Edge House / JVA

By: Ed Hines

Ed Hines — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:51:29 +0000

Ilove progressive architecture wherever it stands.If site shall govern,art shall create.In this structure I see the
good marriage of both. Let us keep striving for the best in shelter for humanity,both at the high end, and the lesser. sincerely, Ed

By: Mr Sheep

Mr Sheep — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:56:24 +0000

To put the first part of the discussion dead; I can tell u that the building cost of this house is about the SAME as u today have to pay for a 3-4 room old apartment in Oslo that is just 2/3 of the size. If other architects get the impression it cost 2-3 times more than the actual building cost, I would say that Jarmund/Vigsnaes did quite a good job, and proves that good architecture is not linked to money alone.

BTW the stairs can be heated, and is directed in a manner that gives the shortest route up to the house, as living on 2nd floor. Its wrong if people think the intention was to build something spectacular and then put it on pillars on a cliffside. Is quite a site specific project and shows the strength and worth of the role architects can fulfill. The obvious place to build on this site was to build on the flat platou. In doing that there would be no outside area for the owners. By moving the house into mid air the owners “gained” a garden that otherwise would have been lost. The side effect of this pragmatic solution gives a spectacular effect to a “down to earth” project.

By: Amandazz

Amandazz — Sun, 03 May 2009 04:34:12 +0000

Keep the arguments coming people – it’s good knowledge for newcomers to architecture like me hehehe

V. inspiring house. I love the angles.

By: Sex and Architecture: my unqualified position. « Harpreet Kaur Sandhu’s Workings

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:59:19 +0000

[...] are elementary for most. With some play with corners, edges, color, light, materials. Perhaps the Edge house, or David’s Tea House, would prove to be good examples. Though honestly, they were chosen [...]

By: 颉

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:16:20 +0000

haha

By: Truls Stangeland

Truls Stangeland — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:48:05 +0000

Just a comment on mr cheaps limited budget question; Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and therefore a “limited” budget, in what sence i feel you describe it, will be a lot higher than many other places. This, toghether with strict building regulations, makes the process – when a client actually hires an architect – to become quite expensive, rather than when in some cases the architect builds the house on his/hers own initiative. I know the case, and it is a seemingly cheap project compared to other ones in the same category, but in no likes the limited budget kind, for example of sami rintala

By: casa en la ladera | JVA | TOTONKO

casa en la ladera | JVA | TOTONKO — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:36:59 +0000

[...] vía [...]

By: speedwing

speedwing — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:24:00 +0000

I like this house.
It’s beautiful, but I wouldn’t like too slide down all those icy steps in Norwegian wintertime.

By: Mr. Cheap

Mr. Cheap — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:11:38 +0000

I have never introduced class in any of my arguments, -you did. The only thing I have questioned in the context of this rather excellent single family home, is why we celebrate architecture, and to what extent it is an important type of intelligence in society, -beyond the single family dwelling.

Pherhaps the anger and boredom you read in my comment, is more due to the nausia architecture has caused for itself. If you don’t understand open source as a contemporary expression for all more decision making in society, it is pherhaps due to architectures institutional manner, -conserve, mystify and protect as an oposition to open source. Architecture and the business culture of Apple Macintosh is in many ways comparable. A way for architecture to remain unintelligent and create very limited inventions. In this context, both the presentation of this house (not nessecarily the house itself), and this blog to some extent, keeps me very bored. But it is beautiful !

How sober does archdaily make you feel ?

By: Terry Glenn Phipps

Terry Glenn Phipps — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:41:32 +0000

Mr. Cheap,

Well, though that is a rather incoherent monologue I guess I do grasp the fundamental point.

The process of design should be more accessible to whom? What are you referring to here? Accessible is a nice word, like sustainable, and both are really meaningless drivel.

Whatever does open source mean in the context of architecture? Open source what? It seems to me that building technology is substantially diffused and equally available to all. Frankly, I fail to see what your talking about here. It isn’t like there is a code base or patent art that is being jealously protected by a cabal of price-fixing architects.

Most architecture has always (since Vitruvius) been thoughtless and unintelligent. Largely it is an ephemeral process that fades with time. The historical fabric of a great metropolis is textured by the examples that survive and the failures are forgotten, torn down, or whatever. All the utopian thinking in the world is never going to change that fact.

“but it’s totally deaf when it comes to a lot of other work” is sort of a meaningless phrase. If someone does something good should they be listening to everything that is bad? Should no one make good buildings because not everyone can afford them and it makes the average joe feel bad to see a nice building?

Not everybody wants to celebrate. You seem pretty bent on putting class envy front and center in your arguments. Frankly, class envy doesn’t seem to have produced such great architecture in the past. Most buildings we “celebrate” are representations of the singular or collective ego.

Sorry, but I am mystified by your Scooby Doo reference. I suppose it is meaningful to you.

Terry Glenn Phipps