Architects: CHA:COL / Chinmaya+Apurva Collaborative
Location: Westwood, California, USA
Constructed Area: 232 sqm
Photographs: Benny Chan of Fotoworks
The client required us to extensively redesign her recent acquisition of a 2500 sqf residence in Westwood after her retirement. Situated on a sprawling lot, the existing structure was compartmentalized excessively with little natural light reaching the interior. The client also intended to be the sole occupant of this dwelling and required fluidity and openness within the space. The design proposal involved extensive redesign but avoided adding any square footage to the existing footprint.
Instead the scheme exploited volumes created by the generous pitched roof structure that was earlier concealed by existing drop ceilings. A ‘CeilingScape’ was therefore proposed and treated as the equivalent of groundscape, taking cues from cathedral structures. This upper datum then threaded all orphaned spaces into more generous zones and also compactly carried all utilities. Trusses were shop-fabricated and installed within this roof structure for lateral reinforcement and for defining this newly opened volume.
Programmatically, the dwelling was divided into specific zones and each was prioritized in order of privacy. The interior was gutted in it’s entirety and new openings were created to connect these zones to the outdoor. Each zone was specifically connected to a corresponding outer space since usage patterns were different within each. This strategy allowed a more optimal connectivity with what would have otherwise amounted to disjointed outdoor spaces.
Custom details were designed for millwork, concealed gutters and low-maintainance cladding systems. The retrofitted double-glazed windows utilized integral frames that were prefabricated and transported from the shop to site for reducing labor costs and construction error.
The house apparently once belonged to Bugsy Siegel’s mistress, and the dwelling inhabits a scape intrinsically Los Angeles.
-
- model & sketches
-
- floor plan
floor plan sucks
wood is nice
Woops, I’m sorry,
Didn’t take a good look, it’s a redesign.
Nice redesign
I love the exposed structure and they did a really nice job of bringing in natural light.
Wow, what on Earth is going on around here? What could possibly be considered meritorious about the transmogrification of an overpriced forties tract house into yet another McMansion?
What exactly are we meant to take away from this wilderness of exposed trusses other than a West Los Angeles fantasy of Aspen or Montana? What does the room with the sheep ball represent? Does the owner go there to meditate and imagine herself in times before she commissioned this monstrosity? My favorite part is the tin can downlighting that festoons the ceiling and points straight ahead no matter what the angle of the ceiling. Home Depot must have been having a sale.
Sorry, but this is not a project of merit to be included in a blog with serious architectural pretensions.
@ Terry Glen Philips:
Yeah, I kinda see your point. In any case, don’t see this as a serious architectural project but a project in interior design.
On that note, I like the design that went into the interior. The materials used in the bathrooms are very nice, and the new fireplace and furnishings give the house a fresh and comfortable look. Also, the design implications in the shelves, ceiling, etc are done well and the owner will probably enjoy it.
‘An overpriced forties tract house into yet another McMansion?’
Don’t expect EVERYONE to demolish their house and then completely rebuild it with some impractical futuristic glass building.
I don’t know, but to me, it doesn’t really look like a ‘McMansion’; they did a really nice job of keeping the heritage while making the interior look pleasing.
@ Sam
What heritage would you be speaking of? Westwood is a postwar development of tract homes. They were ordinary middle class houses in their day, all 2 x 4′s and drywall and little else. The only heritage was the G.I. Bill. Over time and owing to their adjacency to Beverly Hills the values went through the roof. However, the houses remain what they always were, cracker boxes.
The term McMansion does not speak to any particular architectural style beyond the fact that it is largely inappropriate for the place it is built and takes no consideration of the site. Usually the term implies a structure which maximizes square footage on a too small lot. The difference between a McMansion and a nice house has everything to do with proportion and appropriateness.
Yes, I would agree that this is squarely an interior design and remodeling project. Thus the question, which comes up ever more often here, why is it featured on Architecture Daily? Perhaps these kinds of projects belong in Metropolitan Home or House Beautiful?
By the way, a tear down and glass box wouldn’t be more appropriate to this location. A glass box would force you to look at the neighborhood. Westwood does have some outstanding and appropriate architecture, this is just not an example of that.
House of the Year 1988!
@ Terry Glenn Phipps
Terry, I’m not sure where you’re coming from. You lay down some harsh comments, yet based on your comments you don’t appear to have paid close attention to the article or photos.
I don’t think of this house as a McMansion at all. As stated above in the article, the house is “Situated on a sprawling lot…The design proposal involved extensive redesign but avoided adding any square footage to the existing footprint.” So the designers kept the original footprint, they didn’t increase the ground floor area.
You said “What exactly are we meant to take away from this wilderness of exposed trusses other than a West Los Angeles fantasy of Aspen or Montana?” Once again, the reason for the trusses is clearly explained in the article above. Furthermore, these aren’t rough hewned beams that you’d find in Aspen or Montana. They’re smooth, refined and appropriate for the space they frame. Just because they’re wood doesn’t make them out of place.
You said “What does the room with the sheep ball represent? Does the owner go there to meditate and imagine herself in times before she commissioned this monstrosity?” – Really, grow up. These types of comments are childish. Do you really think this is a monstrosity?
You said “My favorite part is the tin can downlighting that festoons the ceiling and points straight ahead no matter what the angle of the ceiling. Home Depot must have been having a sale.” – This just further proves you’re not really looking at the project. That “tin can lighting” is made up of adjustable downlights, they’re clearly not just standard fixed can lights.
You said “this is squarely an interior design and remodeling project. Thus the question,…why is it featured on Architecture Daily?” – again, did you see the exterior photo, this project clearly involved major exterior work. It’s just too bad they only show the front. Besides, since when is architecture limited only to the exterior. Architecture does in fact occur throughout a building and it’s surroundings.
god you guys like this hoe cus she looks good.