Dakota Residences / PB Elemental Architecture

Architects: Pb Elemental Architecture
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Constructed Area: 650 sqm
Construction year: 2008
Photographs: Pb Elemental Architecture

The four unit project is a premier home placed in a small suburb of South Seattle called Beacon Hill. Surrounded by older one story brick homes, the bold multi-family building rises up 3 levels and is topped off with a generous cedar roof deck. Design begins on the entry floor, where residents are offered a sense of privacy stepping down a few stairs, behind a concrete wall to enter the homes.

Grass inserts line the 4-stall parking area to reduce water run-off.

The home is bathed in concrete flooring and bamboo hardwoods. Custom and concrete stairwell is an instant design focal point upon entry of each unit.

Design elements include seamless floor to ceiling windows and clerestory windows, a design scheme that is carried through out each level of the home. The exterior facades reflect each other, making the 4 units one cohesive building.

The kitchen level is made even larger with extended dark cabinetry, that is floor to ceiling as well, marrying the living and dining areas.

A progressive master bath is left without a door and includes a double vanity sink, a walk in closet located inside, and no bathtub – but a deluxe shower with dual and above shower heads.

Cite: "Dakota Residences / PB Elemental Architecture" 07 May 2009. ArchDaily. Accessed 23 Jul 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=21399>

14 comments

  1. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    Honestly this architecture does nothing for me. Their houses are cookie-cutter modern and do not respect their setting or landscape. Their little “dwell-esque” condos pop up over Seattle and from others I’ve heard their construction quality leaves something to be desired. The home they did on Queen Anne has been sold and sold and sold over again. Nobody really likes living in their work. They do a “modern style” but the individual houses lack character and seem overall cold and sterile.

  2. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    Even though with the nice interiors, I could easily confuse this “condo” with a 1960′s downtown office rental building. It’s too much symmetry with an interior that is trapped in the wrong era of modernism. Keep the interior…..shed the skin.

    that is all.

  3. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    Fino – why would you want to keep the interior – it’s not very good either. There is a kind of a moat around the building and one has to go down to get to the first floor where there is practically no purpose to be. From there you go up (carrying your shopping bags) to the day living area with the kitchen located in the darkest corner of the dining/living. Why not to enter the unit up from the sidewalk directly to the second floor? I do not know… The third floor bathroom could have a window which would be very nice for obvious reasons… why it doesn’t? I don’t know… This is not a good design and not a good architecture…

  4. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    I dont know about this project. There’s nothing really interesting and unique about it. I’ve seen this type of work numerous times.

  5. Thumb up Thumb down +3

    I am an architect in Seattle as well and am really inspired by Pb’s work. To answer Lucky, code does not allow access in the manner you describe. The window in the bathroom cooment I assume that is a shear wall so no penetration would be allowed. I like their work because unlike 99% of what is on this site they are showing modern can be brought to the masses, instead of million dollar homes (which have million dollar details) they create homes below $200 a sqft which is almost impossible in Seattle. I agree I would love to see some of the details from other projects but I know they are not affordable.

  6. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    Bo Lucky:

    I mean, the interior is decent, but I didn’t say I was in love with it. This project was most likely heavily driven by a typical developer by cutting corners and purposefully lacking an attention to good detailing. I saw the interior as the only thing going for this project…..in order to sell.
    But I agree…..it’s not all that hot.

    that is all.

  7. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    There is nothing really wrong with this architecture, especially given that it is intended for a midlevel budget. However, it does lack the purpose and clarity of other architectural expressions that are aimed at this budget area. Thinking about that in terms of FLW’s Usonian buildings (now 60 years ago) you see that much more can be accomplished with much less. There is nothing particularly good about this project either.

    The one detail that bugs me tremendously is this external tube running down the back of the building. What is up with that?

    Terry Glenn Phipps

  8. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    photographs are a bit too HRD.. Hopefully get some shadows in there or make it look realistic next time.. it’s just too much

  9. Thumb up Thumb down -1

    Why is this project in selected?fgtftysudedcdc kn x rkuxxn
    sorry, dosed off from boredom and my head hit the keys…. (intellegent crit for intellegent projects)

  10. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    what a bunch of haters commenting on this site. lets see your work that makes it on these kinds of sites. grow up

Share your thoughts