Garden house / Tham & Videgård Hansson
© Åke E:son Lindman
Architects: Tham & Videgård Hansson Arkitekter
Location: Södermanland, Sweden
Architects in charge: Bolle Tham & Martin Videgård Hansson
Site Area: 1,006 sqm
Constructed Area: 360 sqm + roof terrace
Project year: 2006-2008
Client: Private
Photographs: Åke E:son Lindman
The client wanted a garden, the actual reason why they decided to move from their duplex apartment in central Stockholm to this country side location at lake Mälaren. Consequently we proposed a house conceived as an integrated vertical addition to the garden, where indoor and outdoor spaces gradually blend and interact.
The triangular foot print is the result of a steep slope that diagonally crosses the site. With one of the long facades facing south we also managed to eliminate a pure northern façade. This further helped the idea of plants climbing high on the oversized trellis that cover some of the windows so that in time they will become hidden within the greenery.
© Åke E:son Lindman
A double height winter garden also function as a natural pre-heating of fresh air. The roof terrace offers very long views over the nearby hills towards lake Mälaren.
Construction is all wood, both structure and finishes.
© Åke E:son Lindman
© Åke E:son Lindman
© Åke E:son Lindman
model
site plan
plan 01
plan 02
roof plan
Related articles:
10 comments »
what excactly is the advantage of a triangle shaped building?
sharp corners that stabs exterior energy field? i don’t like it…
“The triangular foot print is the result of a steep slope that diagonally crosses the site.”
Sorry, but that’s not a complete thought.
There are millions of more successful ways to integrate a garden into your house, especially with a sloping site!
It just doesn’t work for me at all, the trellis looks like a cheap garden fence!
The site is steep, but the area where the structure sits is totally flat. Also, from the photos, the site looks very rocky, not a great place for a garden.
i’m trying to figure out what it is about the internet that makes everyone feel comfortable barfing up their lazy, grumpy opinions about what they see. its sort of like walking around a city in which every building has a can of spray paint tethered to it. pretty soon everything is going to look like crap. honestly.
i for one enjoy this triangle. the advantage of a triangular shaped building is that it looks cool. add plants growing all over it and you’ve got yourself a winner. let’s not get all ‘a house is a machine for living’ on its ass.
can you control how the veins crawl on the trellis? they may end up crawling on your glass window. Too hard to maintain though it is a nice idea.
Why is this thing published?
Made by IKEA ?
The geometry of the building is actually trapezoidal, not triangular. I suppose any shape other than a modernist cube lends itself easily to criticism of architects aspiring to the trends of recent 15-20yr history. What many fail to remember is that the architect counts for 1/3 of the design solution at best. The other 1/3 is contractors, sub contractors, manufacturers and suppliers, while the most important 1/3 is the client’s influence on the design. Perhaps the client is fond of acute corners and feels that these would lend some energy to home working, family life with young kids etc.? Who are we as architects to disregard anything that doesn’t look like an obvious Le Corb solution? Sure, the trellis system may have suffered when the Quantity Surveyor started cutting the budget back, but the idea of a sheltered house in a rough, rocky environment remains.
It is essentially a fairly old school plan slipped into a new shape, especially upstairs. The open plan at least reveals the overall layout and angles. I’m not blown away by the house, but it doesn’t deserve to be cut down by elitism either.