Daniel Libeskind designs prefab
Daniel Libeskind’s recent project, a series of signature prefabricated homes, is a drastic change from his usual commissions. Although a smaller project (5,500 square foot), the residence strongly speaks his language of design with drastic angles, strong geometries and seamless transitions between spaces. In this ever-growing age of prefab dominance, Libeskind’s villas will be able to be shipped to almost any location in the world within months, and will be assembled on site by a team of experts within weeks.
More about the project after the break.
“This is really the first time I have taken on the issue of doing something which is a limited artistic edition of a new space, a new way of living….I did everything in reverse in my career. Most people start with small projects and go on to design a museum. I started with a museum,” Libeskind commented.
Crafted from premium materials, the living space meets the highest standards in design, craftsmanship and sustainability. The villa’s exterior is clad in the same standing-seam zinc as Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin. The zinc, which is attached to the house’s wooden frame, provides a solar thermal system. Electric power is generated from photovoltaic thin film and rain water is harvested from the rooftop for use in the garden’s irrigation system. The villa is classified as a low-energy structure as it successfully complies with the tough energy-saving standards of Germany’s KfW40 code, which indicates a thermal energy consumption of less than 40 kWh/m²a.
Libeskind pays special attention to creating a highly sustainable entity without sacrificing the overall design of the project. Although the exterior is strong, the interior offers a softer and comfortable atmosphere of living with its asymmetrical plan. Upon entering, a grand room highlights the geometric space and offers uninterrupted views of the gardens. Full height windows continue to flood the interiors with sunlight and create a transparent environment.
The sculptural living space is certainly not the conventional house, nor the conventional prefab project because it challenges the traditional. Although designed as a prefabricated residence, the villa includes several custom features and will take several months to assemble on site. By offering regional exclusivity, the rush to create neighborhoods of Libeskind prefabs will be prevented.
To read more about the signature series. As seen on treehugger.
The Villa – Libeskind Signature Series
Completion: 2009
Client: proportion GmbH
Technical Details:
Building Area: 515 sq m
Building Footprint: 26m x 22m, max height 11m
Building Details: Spacious room layout with a grand central room, 4 bedrooms, family room, multiple bath and restrooms, office and multi-purpose rooms in basement
Structure: Wood frame construction with maximum thermal insulation and noise reductionStructural Engineer: Martin Augenstein, Werner Zuber
Building Engineers: Hans-Dieter Hammer, Roland Jockel
Consulting Architect: Achim Dannenberg
Image Credits: ©Screen ID: Images 2-7, ©SDL: Images 1, 8-11
Related articles:
88 comments »
Not the traditional prefab indeed — not because it “challenges the traditional” but because it seems to achieve none of the goals of prefab — affordability, speed of on-site construction.
”Libeskind pays special attention to creating a highly sustainable entity without sacrificing the overall design of the project.”
I worked in this office, and this statement is entirely indicative of the philosophy there. Either the project is about design [read: angles randomly copied from 'Chamberworks'] or it has some sustainability. But not both. I love how sustainability automatically lowers the quality of the ‘design.’
I also love how they say it’s pre-fab and then show one being constructed in what looks like a site.
‘Architecture is the machine that creates the universe, that creates the gods. You can tell by my funny recessed lighting angles.’
since when did prefab have basements?
Pretty cool, but I’m afraid this wouldn’t be available to most. I always conceived as prefab to be for the masses, not the selective. Do the wealthy invest in prefabricated homes? If so, does anyone know where I can find examples?
that is all.
looks like a poorly designed out of style decon. building
@joshua “angles randomly copied from ‘Chamberworks”
so that’s how rich those drawings are, he’s been using them for almost 30 years as a source of inspiration for his architecture!
Time was when you needed to be a mega-millionaire like Frederick Hamilton (Denver) or Michael Lee Chin (Toronto) to be able to foul up a city with a Libeskind design. At only $2-$3 million, this “villa” allows people of lower net worth to lower the tone of their own neighborhoods with Libeskind-designed schlock.
It would be insteresting to see real images of those prefabs
Way to use “pre-fab” as a buzz word then fail at accomplishing that. God I love Starachitects
This doesn’t look like something someone would like to live in, and also seems to be in contradiction with what prefab really is all about – so what is the point?
this project seems is merely paying lip-service to the aforementioned design qualities (pre-fab, sustainable). there is no sustainable project in my opinion that is developed upon a 5,500 sq. ft house. i agree with Ronen; i from the pics, i cannot see myself living there, very sterile and inhospitable. interesting convergence of forms though, would like to see some working drawings.
There is nothing environmentally friendly about fabricating a house in Germany and then shipping it across the globe. This is more half-understood garbage from the mouth of Daniel Libeskind. (And if he thinks his own design is so hot, well how come Daniel and his wife hired another architect to do their own house? The man is full of it on so many levels he could pass for a septic tank.)
Its like a church……we are the prefabricated concept…and the interior its like a simple regular home..in other words
EL EXTERIOR NO TIENE NADA QUE VER CON EL INTERIOR..this is for my personal concept, i think he can work in a better desing for this prefabricatd concepts or desings, beacause he is a great architect.
I think I just puked a little in my mouth.
-Last commnent was funny though I don’t share it.
-The issue about prefab it’s completly right.
-If you have the intentions and the money you can make almost every home sustainable, what is important is the carbon footprint, wich is the only paramater nowadays to measure real sustainability.
-I really like Daniel’s work, but I don’t know if prefab or housing is his thing considering his kind of sensibility to other aspects of life, keep it big Daniel
-finally, I would say that the house beeing inhabited could be a lot nicer, once the trees grow, and the house gets furnished for humans, and not only for the photos (or are they renders, don’t really know, doesn’t matter anyway)
This is like the hybrid hummer of prefab homes. Most of the materials employed are not particularly sustainable. Your right carbon footprint is the status quo measurement of sustainability these days… but have you looked into ecological footprint?
This house will change forever what people think about prefabricated houses. Prefabricated architecture doesn’t mean it’s cheaper but it may mean “high architectural quality”
Thierry,
I disagree. Libeskind is such an insincere moron that his house will never influence anyone other than the poor idiots foolish enough to live in it.
“it may mean”,so you are not so certain, I found is quite a strange argument yours, please no offens intended.
though you somehow have a point, doesnt really have to be cheap, just has to be made of standarized parts.
It’s like a Jewish memorial museum souvenir.
so totally shite…..no wonder architects have such a bad reputation for being self indulgent and irrelevant…
i was going to say that this building would only be sustainable if it was used as a bike shed at the Jewish Museum… but then i thought, no, this is actually quite good. i like it. im sick to death of people banging on about sustainability, without the faintest idea what it means. it doesnt have to be a house with vegetables growing on the balcony, or have its own wind turbine, or have a solar powered kettle. Good design in itself is sustainable. Even if it is expensive to build and buy… if that person buys this house and lives in it for 50 years – IT IS SUSTAINABLE.
Why do you people hate so much?
they don’t hate; cant understand. i know your projects is hard to understand; they are about being there. sometime the exterior image overrides the purpose of the space. but the complexity of spatial relations is admiring. i like the JMB because the zigzag form is humbled (despite your intentions) and is nothing on the surface. the stories you make about your projects are fake, but works in political word.
Edit: Why do you people hate me so much?
Firstly its only arch daily who labeled it prefab with all those associations, not necessarily lieb himself
2ndly I cant believe daiber thinks carbon footprint is all that matters for measuring sustainability. The way i see it human based carbon emissions is a minor point that has been blown up out of proportion because its easy … its easy to just judge by the embodied energy and forget about the bigger picture. Here’s why this house is sustainable
-it can move when the situation changes, to where its needed
-It uses minimal energy to run
-PV cells make its own electricity
-it harvests rain (water consumption is just as important as energy consumption)
-large windows provide natural light
-it is as big as it needs to be, not excessive
-it responds to a need in a creative way, he didnt hide behind sustainability as an excuse for dull design
If thats not enough sustainability for you then abandon architecture and go live under a tree.
“It’s like a Jewish memorial museum souvenir.”
Haha – I agree.. It’s a pocket version of the style that made him famous. I like some of Libeskind’s work but when the same stylistic tropes are repeated endlessly irrespective of typology, location etc they lose whatever meaning they might have had and start being just decoration.. In a way though, I like the idea of the ‘average’ person (well, a wealthy enough one anyway) being able to afford a piece of ’starchitecture’ if they so desire.
With theese, Daniel shows that his designs could be anything, could fit every program. he has forgotten that architecture has to have a character, how its form is revealed tells you something of what is inside. I have heard him before talking about that reverse in his career, and i think that what he wants to do is close that circle, museums –> houses, but he doesn’t or doesn’t want to realize that if he wants to design houses, he have to think again his teories and concepts, think again how to aproach in the design of houses, how to confront house’s architecture.
Greetings from Peru.
The composition of these angles is about as poetic as an Englishman’s smile
what I mean with the carbon footprint issue, is that that sustainability in architecture is somehow overrated.
yeah you collect energy and water and don’t know what else, but what takes to elaborate all the materials. Sustainability can’t be looked that easily I think, we have to be very serious about it and take into account every aspect of it.
Though any intent is somehow valuable.
Why would I want to live in a home with design elements distinctly reminiscent of Libeskind’s Jewish Holocaust Museum in Berlin? I mean, that ceiling in the second photo is nearly identical to one of the architectural features in his Jewish Museum meant to evoke Nazi concentration camp search lights.
A poor showing from a fairly talented architect — I can see why he hasn’t done much residential architecture.
Libeskind is becoming a parody of a sitcom architect. He’s so far gone along the slipper slope of commercialism that he can no longer see what architecture really is. He’s more of a dumb celebrity now – architecture’s version of Lindsay Lohan. In other words, a washed up loser.
Anyone wealthy enough to purchase this home is not going to want pre-fab. It may be a buzzword in architectural circles, but in real-people land it’s a euphemism for double wide. Also, Durban, how is over 5000 square feet of space “as big as it needs to be, not excessive”?
the most interesting comment is from joshua:
“I worked in this office, and this statement is entirely indicative of the philosophy there. Either the project is about design [read: angles randomly copied from 'Chamberworks'] or it has some sustainability.”
they must be randomly copied in order for them to have an indeterminacy, did he talk about this in his office?
Libeskinds drawings are quite beautiful, though the translation of those drawings in to ‘A’rchitecture is questionable. Has Libeskind completed any newer series of drawings after those drawn 20-30 years ago, Micromegas, Chamber Works, Theatrum Mundi? this early exploration is definatly the most interesting. After Berlin Jewish Museum…unfortunatly it all becomes ‘decoration’.
oh yeah, but i could still very comfortably live in this house, may i dare even say enjoy living in this house?
well Ronen Berkerman that´s because you´re stupid.
You even look stupid!
its not that horrible right..
HA!
Big up’s to the comments of Joshua and the “souvenier guy”
+500m2 alot more than it needs to be…
I doubt the “rush to build neighbourhoods with theese houses” will happen.
But yea maybe it is right on a Jewish town segment with jewish peoples wanting to live in miniture monomuments of aginy.
I’d rather live in a concentrations camp:)
Libeskind is a good architect but sometimes his works repeat the same design.
all those angles and all for nothing
Prefab? Concepts are changing
Clearly, someone was absent during the teachings on principles of design! Go back to school D!
For $3mil – $4 mil. a wealthy client should expect a unique house that responds to a specific site, a highly personal lifestyle and individual aesthetic goals. Libeskind’s mass-produced, “one-size-fits-all” house, however glorified in the jargonistic buzzwords of the day (i.e. “sustainability”), satisfies none of those ideals. Hence it can never truly be considered high-end design. It will never be more than something for the intellectually insecure to use to try and achieve social credibility. Only a fool would buy into Libeskind’s self-serving hype.
Richie said ” I like some of Libeskind’s work but the same stylistic tropes are repeated endlessly irrespective of typology and location …”
That’s the interesting thing, Daniel Libeskind brings a new kind of typology in the domestic market dominated by double pitched roof or flat roof houses. This is highly positive for other architects working outside the boundaries.
I don’t see any problem to have common architectural elements with the museum; those are basic architectural motives and can be used in any kind of project.
Thierry said “…positive for other architects working outside the boundaries.”
I would posit that Libeskind is NOT working outside the boundaries. Rather, he has one gimmick up his sleeve and no wherewithal or imagination to get beyond it. He’s working in side his own little box. It may be a pointy box, but regardless, he’s stuck in it.
My guess is that Libeskind did just the doodle, let everyone else figure out the details and then swooped in to take all the credit. That’s his usual mode of operation.
I can’t believe the complete ignorance and arrogance of the comments on this post, especially ones made personally about specific architects that clearly most people truly know nothing about, just broad sweeping comments, ha…i suppose thats what ‘architects’ are renowned for!
yeah it’s deliberately a long sentence.
but why would anyone care about my broad sweeping comments!
I like the design but this is not a sustainable house – at over 500 square metres its material use is excessive, and as other have said if its shipped around the world….
@ Justin
The basic design methodology goes something like this: 1 build a series of funky polygonal shapes in rhino, 2 unroll srf, laser cut the surface, fold it up. 3 Daniel sweeps by, says he loves it or hates it subjectively. 4 rework the digital model, this time copying random geometry from chamberworks, recut, remodel, repeat.
It’s a style game.
@ Jonathan
You are right on. The benefits of pre-fab are that the design is driven by rationality, and it is constructed in a controlled environment, ultimately garnering higher quality at lower cost.
This project is a logical contradiction. The tenants of deconstruction are AGAINST pragmatism and rationality. Hence all the funny angles. The very form is totality antithetical to the logic of prefabrication. Utterly illogical.
@Salidas
Yup. Taking one stylistic move and applying it everywhere regardless of context is just whitewashing, it’s not architecture. There’s nothing ‘critical’ involved. Saying that somehow the same geometry that is appropriate for a holocaust museum, is also appropriate for a world financial center, and an art museum, and now domestic dwellings, just means you don’t actually believe your own words.
Also, the irony is that it does not in any way ‘revolutionize’ or even effect the trajectory of architecture.
To have influence and an effect, you have to engage the construction process. And since the design process is done in a stylistic vacuum, and nearly all contract documents and construction admin are done by associate architects, this means that the actual construction of the building is completely normative. It’s just more expensive.
i’m a massive libeskind fan and some of my favourite buildings are designed by him. on first site, they look great, but then you start to think, what is prefab? and what makes it prefab. the problem in the modern world is buzzwords, people throw them around too much without meaning it. and ‘prefab’ in this case is entirely that. i actually love them, i think they look great, but its whether theyre prefab or whether theyre just built in a sort of miniature scale of his greater buildings, in which case theyre not really prefab. i think if they simply lost the buzzword prefab, it’d be alot more successful.
@ Dove – You win the prize for the most incoherent reply here. Your comment is replete with (1) spelling errors, (2) grammatical errors, (3) incomplete phrasing and sentence structure and (4) syntactical inconsistencies.
It is none of my business, but I hope you are not sending out resumes with this sort of rambling, unstructured prose. If you are, you will never be offered a decent job.
Though almost inconceivable I admit, there are people posting on this forum that do not have English as their mothertongue.
@ Joshua,
From what you say, it looks like Libeskind’s design process, is more about arriving at a quirky shape. It does not seem to be derived from any analysis of the program or the site. So, I have three questions for you:
1. At what stage does Libeskind consider the client’s program, or does it just get shoved in to the preferred shape. (And hey, if you can’t hang art on sloped walls, well that’s the client’s problem. Right?)
2. Libeskind is quoted in Counterpoint as saying he designs EVERYTHING, including all the doors, windows, cabinetry. How is this possible when he’s working on so many projects at once.
3. At what stage does Libeskind start fabricating the “theory” – you know, the stuff about “The shape was inspired by the mountains / history / people / event (delete as appropriate).
@Lahora… this is’nt a spelling bee
@ Dustin
Dustin, Dustin, my poor silly, uneducated, little Dustin,
If you yourself can’t even spell a simple word like “isn’t” without misplacing the apostrophe, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously. I don’t take you seriously. I could never take you seriously. And, in my experience, people who are sloppy in their spelling are usually sloppy in their design. I, for one, would never let someone like you near a design exercise. People like you are better correcting red lines where you stand less chance of embarassing yourself or displaying your ignorance in front of a client.
Now be a good little boy and go back to watching Power Rangers or whatever it is you do when you are not playing with yourself.
If we’re all being grammar nazis here, your sentence should be, “If you, yourself, can’t even spell [...]“
Let me be an awful person and add that there’s an example of cacophony here: “how do you expect anyone to take you seriously. I don’t take you seriously. I could never take you seriously.”
Also there’s a question mark missing, yes, seriously.
puke + souvenir are the best calls.
@Laura B
1 Everyone’s heard of ‘form follows function’ right? Libeskind, like Eisenman and others take the opposite approach. Essentially, the program gets shoved into where it fits.
2 He himself doesn’t design anything. Architectural design is working from and within constraints, conditions and context to produce order. It is taking specific, perhaps conflicting, conditions and synthesing them into a viable architectural solution. What Libeskind does is shape making, he [really, it should be 'they'] imposes a subjective order imperically onsite without being informed by issues of constraints or context. It’s wallpaper.
3 Theory is tricky. There’s kind of two levels. One is back when he was a paper architect under Hedjuk at Cooper, and then as a professor at Cranbrook. Then he was carrying a self-referential dialog that began and ended in drawing about some metaphysical properties of architecture. See ‘Chamberworks.’
What he does now is apply a metaphor after the project is designed as a way to justify the form. However, you know this is BS because all of the forms are generally homogenous regardless of site or conditions. The same exact process that was done in Denver for the DAM was applied in New Songdo Korea, however the rhetoric in Denver was ‘the mountains’ and the rhetoric in Korea was a ‘trickling brook.’ Both of these ideas came out post concept design, not before.
terrible terrible. This house does little to live in such wonderful garden… it is all in the head of architect I assume…
@ Joshua,
Wow. That was interesting.
In my experience, visceral reaction to Libeskind’s work is usually negative. Of course this is highly subjective. But lacking your insight or ability to rationalize the process, most people have to rely on their gut reaction which tells them that neither Libeskind nor his process is in any way respectful of things and values that most people hold dear. This is not to say that they dislike modern architecture; there are no shortage of lay persons who like the work of Carlo scarpa, Louis Kahn or Renzo Piano, but loathe Libeskind’s ouevre. But something deep down tells people that Libeskind is more of a snake oil salesman than an artist. Your comment confirms my suspicions that he’s not really a thoughtful person but rather a guy with a gimmick that he’s been milking for ten years or so.
Just curious … how did you “swallow” his BS when you were working there? and how did you put up with his ego? I hear he can be pretty obnoxious when he’s “off camera”.
@Rothko Fan
The bs was difficult to swallow, but there was some minimal room for negotiation. However, when your not signing the checks it’s difficult to hold a position with any influence.
I would ask probing questions and got shut down most of the time, and finally it came to a point where my PM pulled me to a side and said something like ‘I get what you’re saying, however its just not what we do here.’ After that I just went along with the flow and polished my resume.
Daniel as a person, however, is a completely different story. He’s great to work for, the atmosphere was intense, but positive. He was generally in a good mood and very personable. I never had a problem with the work environment.
I think a lot of star architects get a reputation for being a bear to work for, I have heard things about Mayne, Koolhaas, Eisenman, Hadid and Meier. But who knows, the rumors may be true, and maybe not. I think it’s kind of difficult to tell because a big part of architecture is being a salesman, whether what you’re selling is ‘good’ or not.
@ Joshua,
I’ve wondered about Libeskind. I’ve seen him speak several times. He always has this supercilious, almost guilty grin on his face. It’s like he knows he’s gotten away with something. After the Q&A you can almost tell that he’s relieved that no one has called him on the bs. I think, deep down, he knows he’s on shaky ground but he’s running with it as long as he can squeeze a few more bucks out of it.
@ Lahora D.
That was my very first post ever on any architecture based websites/forums. I apologise that my spelling/grammar was that bad, I didn’t realise that this was some kind of spelling competition. Also, everyone’s entitled to have their own opinion’s on architecture, and in my view that is a great thing. I happen to like libeskind’s work, even if his latest pieces are watered down versions of his earlier things. There is nothing wrong with my point of view, and even if there is, it is an opinion and doesn’t necessarily have to be the same as yours. I think it’s hilarious the fact you can totally kill somebody off for having a go, and taking the jump off the diveboard and voicing their opinions. If every single person was dealt with with unfunny, sarcastic remarks then we wouldn’t have a very good debate here now would we? Also i’m a fan of the phrase by Yves Behar,
“The successful people in life are the creative people,
The creative people are the ones who aren’t afraid to be wrong.”
So if we all agred with you, or all were too afraid of a horrifically sarcastic response then we wouldnt be creative people. Furthermore, Resumes? I’ve currently just completed my first year in architecture, so i apologise if i may be a little naive, but believe it or not, we all have to start somewhere.
Regards.
@Dove
Don’t apologise to Lahora, that should be the other way around. The way i see it, if the only comment Lahora can make is about spelling and grammar – rather than about architecture or the topic of discussion – then He/She probably has no original opinions but wants to sound really clever. Just ignore those kinda people and keep up the comments.
Thankyou Durban.
Smart points. will definitely come back again soon-
repetitive + inconsequential + ephemeral
“ what is most important ??
… the signature or the poetry ; of good architecture ?
…. where is your poetry libeskind?
Show us YOUR poetry Anya…
see * earth / wind & sun
I’ve just loved it
Libeskind has been peddling this jagged shard garbage for over a decade now. He needs to start acting like an architect (i.e. behave creatively), rather than merely the seller of his one and only washed-up idea that has never worked.
Who cares about Libeskind???
He is architecturally dead for many years
The problem is Bekerman and he´s st.upid remarks all over the archdaily.
Project Designer: Eddie Van Halen
interesting! every little work by libeskind creates controvercial debates. you all care and affected by his very little signature. thats why you keep talking about him.
Links to this article »