While I admire the work of OSKA A LOT, I was merely putting forth the idea that they do seem to be, in my very humble opinion, sometimes falling into a certain practice of using many of the same elements, materials and visual language for their projects, and I guess that OSKA archs. being full of obviously talented people, and me admiring their work, was expecting to see a challenging and novel architectural concept that i had not seen before from them. I was being too demanding and smug, but “Yeah but sniping”, however, is not my attitude at all, and you completely misunderstood it.

To put it more literally, Hammer House, Hill House, and Montecito and Rolling Huts projects by OSKA (for instance) seem, IMHO, to be speaking a very similar lingua franca, especially for the “thrust-out” roof elements, and laying out underneath rather orthogonal rooms, similitude in materials,etc.

As for the sheared trapezoid plan…why isn’t there a garden space in the pocket formed? The dining room should open onto this outdoor pocket, making the hallway somewhat useful. I’d invert the kitchen-fireplace in plan. This would make the fireplace area more enclosed, maybe even heating the internal walls, and give more light to the kitchen.

Seems like most of the the issues i started and questions you asked were addressed somewhat. I will agree garage connection to kitchen is a little awkward (walking through pantry/laundry room from what i can make out) but other than that i think the natural lighting in the kitchen along with the rest of the house isn’t an issue. The kitchen has glass all along the southern facade and on the east side the late afternoon lights are blocked out by the large over hangs in the living area. I did see someone mention better “efficiency” by having glazing on the northern facades but i feel like that is only true if you are going to have central air all day. This setup is better for natural heating and lighting. As for natural ventilation i think that it could possibly work with a few windows and sliding doors open but that is a slippery slope.

anyways, i’m done for the day. if any of you live in san diego the 9 Architects Mix is opening tomorrow at the Museum of Contemporary Art in La Jolla. Should be a lot of fun. :)

This work is outstanding as is almost everything that comes out the OSKA practice. If this represents the evolution of case study architecture (and in a certain sense it certainly does) then I would posit that the values that John Entenza proposed for domestic architecture are absolutely worth emulating.

The yeah-but sniping is just depressing. There is no perfect fusion of form and function. Every structure makes concessions to its program, to its site, to its client, and finally to its form.

Even architects whose language was/is seemingly idiosyncratic on a project by project basis (I am thinking of John Lautner and Helene Arahuete) follow a bright line or lingua franca of material expression. There is nothing wrong with that, it is an asset not a liability.

Terry Glenn Phipps

Why should I when you initially described a house that has glass all around it, which obviously doesn’t apply to this particular project. Now, if you want to get back to this project, it is limiting the amount of direct sunlight without eliminating views. Shade=good. Shade=cooler temperatures of the interior. By looking at the pictures, the house obviously gets it’s fair share of ambient lighting so why is artificial lighting a concern? The house obviously takes care of this.

that is all

that’s not all

Artificial lighting has nothing to do with it. It’s the heat that comes the extreme sun angles of the east, and more crucially the west. There would be a limit on glazing on these sides, and the home would benefit better with northern glazing and protected southern glazing, thus you would locate bedrooms and the most occupied portions of the house on the northern side. Number/size/location of windows IS a crucial factor to energy efficiency. Now that’s common sense

that is all.