the finishes are hideous. the floor, the windows, the lack of handrail on those holes…
maybe the photos are from an unfinished state of the construction.

I’m the Architect that designed the House :)

PamArq, Luis: thank you for your positive comments. Its very encouraging to hear positive feedback.

Some general comments about the project – Flex was designed on a VERY modest budget. The intention was always to design a house that could be built well by the local, generally untrained craftsmen of Palmira, Colombia. I believe in the final result this was acheived.

Alejandro: the ‘poor’ choice of materials which you refer to is probably a comment on budget rather than taste. As i mentioned, the house was designed and built on a very small budget,and assembled by local workers, so finishes had to be economical.

Richi, Reger:
‘the entire facade without windows’ comment is a bit harsh – ouch :). These were publicity photos, and for this, all the windows on the facade were opened during the shoot. I assure you there are indeed windows on the external facade.

All:
The ‘holes in the floor’ are actually an unbuilt phase of the project. These ‘holes’ are openings cutting through the house. Inside these openings will be placed a steel frame with timber boxed shelving. Diagram 04 in the drawings shows this. My apologies for any confusion.

Please keep your comments coming in, Its great to hear feedback from around the world.

Sorry Mr. Architect but thanks for sharing.

This would have been a great building if the architect only would’ve put more effort into its details. Indeed it lacks many. This vague effort is evident when analyzing the plans and section provided. Pops out the fact that it its off balance design, more toward the elaborated façade and less toward the unrelated interior, instead, it is chose to insert a storage wall in an attempt to integrate the “in” with the “out”. Sorry Mr. Architect this alone does not do it.

Also budget and unskilled workforce should never be a reason not to come up with a creative solution, to a fairly small problem.

D.Cacho

I like what I see, but I’d like to see more interior shots, it’s difficult to get a sense of the interior spaces from the sections which all focus on the light well and flexing walls – both great ideas, which I’m sure make the interiors livable breathing spaces. Regardless of the choice of materials, it is refreshing to see a project that isn’t all about the same old polished finishes! I don’t believe the superficial / ‘superficie’ is so important in this project. I bet the Client / occupiers love it, so who gives a damn about pickety critics? Bravo Senor Arquitecto. Un opera de arte!

Maybe is a good idea, and off course the house is better than the other ones in the neighborhood …but this project is not good enough to be posted here, there are so many good projects in Colombia, this one seems to be very normal….

And sincerely modest budget can’t be the excuse.

Drawings are better….

First of all I completely agree with Paco.
Gill: I insist upon the idea that modest/local construction techniques should not be an architect’s excuse, in other words in my opinion this project suffers from wanting to be something it could not be. Either economically and conceptually wise or even regarding it´s context: client, city, climate, local urban laws; thus in my opinion poor choice of materials mean unwise judgment, perhaps a bit foolish and imprudent but above all it lacks discretion and wisdom.
For me really good architecture has a sense of being thought as a whole, has unity. Trying to build that with limit resources in such a context should make the architect rethink its strategy, perhaps with fewer gymnastics, without stopping to be modern but looking with a critical eye towards the local traditional architecture, its construction methods and it´s materials.
In such a context : ‘Latin American modern cheap baroque’ it could have been better perhaps to suggest a modest facade (since the floor plans are really simple in their intentions compared to the facade) which emphasized the opposite thus establishing a better spatial relationship with the neighbors facades, regarding finishing’s instead of putting a cheap ceramic tile you could have the actual cement floor as your final finish just adding some cheap mineral color or cement aggregate, resulting in a cheaper monolithic floor without any ugly unthought-of floor expansion joints. And if your esthetic intentions were the ceramic tile finish with all those joints, perhaps if it was actually thought and not just placed randomly it would have been better.
Ending in a higher note, as a conclusion I must say it´s nevertheless architecture – far better than the surroundings and Gill it´s obvious you have lots of ideas- keep at it.

I am surprised by the fact that so many people become impressed with the simplest and most irrelevant builidings. This is just your everyday house between median walls present in any developing country in the world; simply “enhanced” with a “contemporary” facade and a HUGE explanation (graphic, conceptual, etc.) to make it supposedly interesting.

I guess if some artists are allowed to sell their own canned feces, any architect sell his own, behind a cute front wall. It’s all in the way you sell it to the public, isn’t it?

The plan shows a complete ignorance of local cultural patterns (have these guys ever heard about Mr. Alexander?). Open kitchens and sleeping rooms in every floor, even next to the kitchen, are clearly contrary to the residential habits of the Cauca Valley inhabitants, used to clear functional divisions between social, private and service areas in their houses; even when they’re poor.

Not to mention issues of climate and light, which are unsolved. Small inner – courts are useless in a tropical region where the median temperature is close to 100oF day and year long.

I wonder, finally, how the designers managed to build a new-three-story-single-family without any parking space. Local regulations are clear on this point; which allows me to believe this was built without legal permits.

Is everybody still thinking a “cool” facade immediately means global interest and internet relevance? As for me, I rather stick to the old stuff: wonderful plans, great spaces, fine details and an overall strong intellectual excercise, accounting for culture, climate, rules and regulations and the almost infinite number of things great architecture has always been known to solve – when it’s good architecture, that is… Something which this “flex” is definitely not!

In any case (being the devil´s advocate) it would seem that Panamarq is saying that Latin American architecture needs some kind of affirmative action policy to be able to compete in equal terms with better off nations.
I personally don´t think so, as I said before it´s not merely a question of bad economics and lots of bravery, it´s more a lack of a well thought project , which means that even though the conditions were not optimal the ideas succeeded in being well delivered.
Besides, this is not concluding, for sure Studio Gill next project will be different, probably better. We must remember that this forum is of ideas and opinions not of people.

you can not judge Studio Gil on the same scale as Kahn and Le Corbusier. Neither can you group every latin american country together. The problem with viewing architecture via the internet is that you lose context. Is this house better than other houses posted on archDaily? NO! But it shouldn’t be judged against them. It should be judged against its neighbors. (No, this isn’t affirmative action Alejandro)
Let’s use football as an example… Don’t you enjoy watching the South Korean national team play against the Trinidad and Tobago national team every so often? The games are enjoyable even if they are not fundamentally perfect or by the most skilled players in the world. If we were only to watch the best footballers and scorn the rest, we would be stuck watching the same top teams over and over again. Yes, its beautiful football but it is the same beautiful football over and over again. Isn’t it exciting to see some country over achieve and surprise you?
I am simply happy to see more quality coming from this area of the world at this time period. I understand it is not a masterpiece, but I still enjoy it. is there a problem with that??? i just wish that it wasn’t only the architecture snobs who posted here. everybody else speak up!

I feel I have to comment as PanamArq is defending my corner and taking some unfair heat from other posters on this thread.

One really positive aspect that I can take from this is the genuine architectural dialogue developing across the internet – something I did not anticipate. I view all criticism, whether in support or against, as a positive influence – a way to move forward. In this spirit of architectural dialogue, I would like to repond to DT and to an extent Alejandro.

DT: whilst I may not have your knowlege of Latin American architecture, I find it intersting that many of your references (Corb,Khan, Barragan), although undoubeted masters, are backward looking.Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge admirer of Le Corbusier and Luis Barragan, but it strikes me that you miss a fundamental point about architecture – that it is progressive.
Your early postings about the living model in Valley of Cauca for me highlight this – they suggests that everything must conform to old rules, that because certain ways of living are established they must be correct. This argument suggests there is no room for the progressive or alternative.

I would like to table a thought – That contemporary is not scary.

I would like to table a second thought (perhaps controversially) – that aesthetics play a huge part in modern architecture – and this is not a bad thing.

Peter Cook, one of the modern progressive greats, often talks about ‘the eye’. By this he refers to things that look good, things that in DT’s opinion would be “contemporariness” in Cook’s world would be a joy. I would like to draw your attention to the texts of CJ Lim and Christine Hawley who also endorse ‘the eye’. For the record, I endorse ‘The Eye’ – it is nothing to be ashamed of, to create things that are aesthetically pleasing.

I admit, ‘Flex’ has many flaws, which project doesn’t? but it was never intended to be the perfect house (le Corbusier beat us all to it). The intention of ‘Flex’ was very much to design something progressive (that’s why the plan looks that way) and to design something for ‘the eye’ (that’s why the facade looks like that). It was also attempting to break barriers and stereotypes in Palmira – which I believe it may have started doing as some recent house developments are taking and borrowing from ‘Flex’. I don’t for a second suggest it is a masterpiece, but I do suggest it is different.

It would be a very boring world if we were only ever offered the same option over and over again. Especially if those options were always looking to the past, not to the posibilities of forward.

I am a huge believer in learning from masters – but the masters are masters for a reason – because they were progressive.

Thanks for the support Pedro! You are a very brave architect for posting your belief in aesthetics! I am sure that if this post were not so old, you would be crucified by more than a few regular archDaily commentators!
Alejandro, I will look into the author you referenced.
I do think its amazing the dialogue that is able to happen on the web. I never meant to be hateful towards those who have reason behind their dislike for this project. However, it is unfortunate when those like “GG” who posted above claim “the finishes are hideous. the floor, the windows, the lack of handrail on those holes…” with no reason behind her comments or any suggestions on how to make it better.