Purple Hill House / IROJE KHM Architects

Nov 2009

By Nico Saieh — Filed under: Houses , Selected , Concrete, IROJE KHM Architects, Korea

Architect : HyoMan Kim – IROJE KHM Architects
Location: Youngin, Gyeounggi-do, Korea
Design team : KyeongJin Jung, JiWon Ym, EunHae Park
Structure designer : MOA. SungYeong Oh
Contractor : JEHYO
Site area : 554 sqm
Bldg. area : 110.28 sqm
Gross floor area : 290.88 sqm
Photographer : JongOh Kim

Suburban residential site

This scenic site is a part of the residential area developed in the natural greenery area of the mountain gwanggyo and that is located at the entrance area to trail to mountain.

Merit = siteplan faced to evergreen mountain=Demerit=Facing not south but northwest=Lack of southern sunlight.

From agony about the direction to which major living space see, the plan of this house started.

site plan

After all, the direction to the opposite mountain that will be preserved in the natural green space forever was selected.

But this charming selection that introduce the permanent natural landscape brought the problem, bad solar condition, that the major living space is faced to northwest sunlight.

And so, we must make the solution to absorb the southern and eastern sunlight into the inside of the house.

Solution the demerit -“Floating glass garden” absorbed southern sunlight

“Glass box of light” that will absorb the useful sunlight was introduced to inside space of the various level and these boxes which are planted with flower and fruit are functioned as “Floating glass garden”.

Actually, we solved the problem and we own both the two conditions that are the introduction of landscape and ecological environment and naturally, we have been reached to the complex solution that all the rooms have their own garden.

Floating boxes with bamboo garden – Dynamic and vertical sequence of space

The dynamic, unrealistic interior space which are produced with several floating glass boxes over the major living space that is opened to the vertical height of 3 floors, will be the symbolic impression of this house.

Small purple hill – Landscape architecture – Harmonizing with the surrounding context
We expect that this landscape architecture will coexist with the surrounding context for a long time, as if a small purple hill….

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: © JongOh Kim

: site plan

: basement floor plan

: first floor plan

: second floor plan

: third floor plan

: roof garden plan

: roof plan

: elevation 01

: elevation 02

: elevation 03

: elevation 04

: section 01

: section 02

: section 03

: section 04

: section 05

: section 06

51 comments »

theChavacano says:

Mmmh, is this is 1993 and this is Culver City?
Well i like the kitchen

# November 6, 2009 at 23:56

Hoon Yoo says:

Too much is going on here…
Too many stories in anywhere in this house….

# November 7, 2009 at 02:49

tony says:

ya it seems that all of useless and very unnecessary forms create a lot of unresolved spaces and walls.

…looks like an undergraduate project in which the designer got way in over their head with the aesthetics right before the deadline.

# November 10, 2009 at 18:46

leo says:

very nice sculpture, but I’m scared to live in there.

# November 7, 2009 at 05:22

jeff says:

unique design, but does anyone want to live in a house where everything seems to be constantly falling over?

# November 7, 2009 at 05:52

Luci says:

A house???? You’ve got to be kidding!!!. This is an example of how confused are the “creators” nowadays.

# November 7, 2009 at 06:18

okiduki says:

I was at Peter Zumthors lecture a week ago. He showed us a house, where he lives and works and by the way he said. This house likes its neighbourhood and does not say “I am better.” OK, you can tell me, there is not only one way to do architecture, but what has the future? This Purple Hill House?

# November 7, 2009 at 06:56

мила миелович says:

Dear okiduki ! Peter Zumthor … This is a laconicism and a colour nobility . And as for Purple Hill House ,it is too heavyish and mourning outside and too much details -inside. I like Floating Glass Garden -only. Dear okiduki ! Perhaps , you know a lecture schedule of Messir Peter Zumthor in East Europe . My respect to you from Russia .

# November 9, 2009 at 16:07

Nick says:

Oh noo, noo, noo nooo

# November 7, 2009 at 07:00

plots says:

there is a lot of talk of site conditions and light being the makeup of this house and then I look at any photograph or drawing and it all goes right out the window. Way too much going on in the interior, I can’t imagine having to live there, and the exterior? Unless the landscape is made up of giant purple triangles I can’t see then I’m still at a loss there as well.

And the spanning structures? What are those doing? Why that facade material?

I can see what they were going for in the second photograph if I try real hard but overall this is so poorly executed in response to the concept.

# November 7, 2009 at 09:02

Doug says:

A truly unsettling hot mess.

# November 7, 2009 at 09:20

cantero says:

very funny,

yeahh..

good for halloween

# November 7, 2009 at 09:48

Juan Cristobal says:

Can somebody get into the web page? 406 Not Acceptable

# November 7, 2009 at 15:03

E-J says:

i actually quite like it! because the material was kept simple and pure they could add more different forms and “wierdness”. IMO there is still a sort of balance and rest in this design.

greetings from holland

# November 7, 2009 at 18:12

peter says:

I agree with you, there is much to like about contemporary Korean architecture of which this is a good example.

# November 7, 2009 at 23:54

Yorik says:

I liked much this project… It’s true that it is in the line of the nineties Los Angeles projects (Eric Moss etc), specially in the fact that the “crazy” space is confined inside a “traditional” volume shape. but it’s great to see something new in that vein. The main space is really crazy :) I would have liked to see how the spaces with the trees in section 4 and 5 look like…

# November 7, 2009 at 21:41

miss purple says:

any possibility of seeing some wall construction detail 1:10?

# November 7, 2009 at 23:11

construction detail 1:10?

I find it really curious that critique has become so individual and personal with no ability to see architecture as an act of creativity to deliver a service to a third party (the architects client) NOT the whims of fashion and style generated within our own global or otherwise attitudes towards what might or might not be considered good architecture (this and other forum contributers). I ‘personally’ for one say this house seems very spatially interesting and would enjoy the chance to visit.

# November 7, 2009 at 23:51

L dog says:

thats how everything seems to be nowadays. I think some of the spaces really explore what a “sculpted” house is all about.

# November 7, 2009 at 23:55

maybe it always has been ! just more out there now

# November 8, 2009 at 00:06

MacP says:

Peter, I agree with your comments on critique. Reminds me of James Adams in his book Conceptual Blockbusting: judging rather than generating ideas, he adds “Bad mouthing everyone else’s concepts is in fact a cheap way to attempt to demonstrate your own mental superiority”. I learn from the constructive comments on this blog. Other comments (the negative one-liners) don’t add anything at all

# November 9, 2009 at 03:33

dito says:

there are so many beautiful details and sculptural forms in this house…but its like when you mix too many colours together..it just turns brown.

# November 8, 2009 at 17:46

Michael Hadida says:

This project removes all that is familiar to us in a house. It abandons the warm touch of wood and substitutes an alien purple facade.

This might pass off as a house, but how can it ever be a home?

# November 9, 2009 at 04:03

Fernando Deprit says:

Yo como arquitecto no podria vivir en un casa asi. Es dificil su lectura de la vivienda y no me hace sentir la armonía de una de una vivienda , de un hogar, que es de lo qué se trata al final … muy escultural, Mucho dinamismo de composición pero … no nos olvidemos que a parte de la parte estetica y compositiva tenemos siempre que cumplir con mas objetivos importantes.

# November 9, 2009 at 05:14

João says:

We must remember that the ability of each to inhabit a particular space does not make it good or bad, simply because different people have different abilities to use that space.
What is good for one is not necessarily good for everyone.

# November 9, 2009 at 05:55

Phrases like “I could not live in this space” have as much meaning as “I think this is ugly”, and have no more value told by an architect, a lawyer or a farmer

# November 9, 2009 at 06:06

totally agree

# November 9, 2009 at 07:40

anavic says:

Saying “I could not live in this space” is far from “I think this is ugly”. The only thing both have in common is that both are opinions, that’s it, and if we can’t express our opinions because they are useless of whatever you wanted to say, let’s close this blog. Included you.

I agree with you that what is good for one is not necessarily good for everyone, everytime I say that “I couldn’t live in a place like that” I also say: “I guess is what the client asked for and I understand that another person would like it”.

But you have to understand one thing: houses are made to people, and if a lot of people here thinks this house is uncomfortable and a little bit alien.

By the way, yes, I think a famer of a little village could fix it better than an architect, he just need to think about living there and say what he wants and what he doesn’t want.

# November 9, 2009 at 13:06

Andrew Geber says:

im not sure about the concrete kitchen surfaces..

# November 9, 2009 at 06:44

?? hmmm!!

# November 9, 2009 at 07:42

harry says:

It’s a house, not a home

# November 9, 2009 at 08:26

I think you’re wrong.

Maybe it’s not supposed to be a home now because a home is made by it’s owners, but architects are supposed to give some special features to make a simple building a place to be able to live in. A house is not just a building, it’s not just for walls and a roof.

# November 15, 2009 at 10:51

Estoy de acuerdo con todo lo que ha dicho Joao…sin embargo sigo opinando como profesional del disegno de vivendas que hay caracteres o ecuacion de relaciones entre funcionalidad-economia y disegno que deberian siempre encontrarse con una cierta armonia en un proyecto. Esta casa en mi opinion libre (y para eso existe este foro) no resuelve la ecuacion…pero no se, a lo mejor algun pastor de tu pueblo podria resolver este enigma mas facilmente…

# November 9, 2009 at 08:53

luiz says:

nice design. a lot of information, kind of confused. I would not like to live in a place like this, but maybe someone does. anyway, I like it.

# November 9, 2009 at 09:05

abe says:

Welcome to Disney house.

# November 9, 2009 at 16:55

maurice says:

sorry for language, I’m French (so what?). this is neither house nor home, only scary building. Is it real, or is it for a movie, like new “Psycho”?

# November 9, 2009 at 17:35

YourMOMslover says:

75% of you posters aren’t even working or licensed- so hate on haters and keep drinking that EXTRA CHERRY RED HATERADE…..as for contemporary architecture….its been a long time coming in terms of recognition—BIG UP!

# November 9, 2009 at 17:46

for South Korea that is…

# November 9, 2009 at 17:47

srikanth reddy says:

one thing i dont understand of all this is..why should ones day to day life be so complicated…i mean any one who occupies this house will be amazed for say 6 months …1 year . by then he will be quite femiliar with each and every corner of the house…so no more moments of getting amazed .. in this case he lives in a proper box or he lives in a messed up concrete makes no difference ..caz he dosent give a damn bout wats arround him …caz its all known and he is been living in it every day ……… so is this all for that 1 year of amezement …. why cannot living spaces be simple…

do it for a restaurent , pub, art spaces this might stand good caz ppl dont spend much time there so the form leaves some mysterious image of itself in the viewer…wat is this nonsence ….

grow up ppl …its time to think

# November 9, 2009 at 18:13

A comment for all,

In ‘my’ opinion, one of the biggest issues and joys of life are peoples differences of opinions, lifestyles, cultural backgrounds etc so to this end it is a shame we as part of a greater society still can not afford the generosity to cellabrate anothers achievments whilst still offering inquisitive critique through questions that might both inform our own views/attitudes as well as the authors ideas….just a thought.

# November 9, 2009 at 19:50

Sherry says:

I am a student studying architecture in China,I ‘d like to know more about this fatanstic field~!!
thanks a lot

# November 9, 2009 at 20:10

BOO says:

OMG I don’t want to live here.

# November 9, 2009 at 23:15

Pato says:

This is a house or a Museum? I can not imagine a family living there, is so uncomfortable.

# November 10, 2009 at 06:56

mng says:

too much energy from the broken lines and translucent surfaces has in this interior, too complicated without clear statement. no counterpoint to balance this fast rhythm, apart from the exterior landscape. It could be further developed

# November 10, 2009 at 08:03

@ peter

its true that ppl are different in terms of culture,lifestyle etc but when u r talking bout living spaces, basic requirement wouldnt differ much . only the architectural language might differ. end of it every one wants a livable space not conffusion arround them.

if any thing and everything done arround us should be taken as achievement with out any critisism i dont think we would have come this far in making GREATER SOCIETY

# November 10, 2009 at 09:36

Hello Anavic,

Did I say you could not express opinions?
On the contrary, I only expressed mine.
But I still say that the fact that many people like or dislike something does not bring intrinsic quality.
If we were awaiting the views of the crowds we were still in middle age…

The question (for me) is:
What is quality in a project / work and how to evaluate that in a neutral way?

# November 10, 2009 at 11:36

juno says:

we should not look at this house as “what if i live in”.
iroje is a very successful architectural office in Korea and people do come to them for their particular style. the client should say ok to every move, material and colors, so don’t you worry about living in there. i personally do not like this kind of home, so you can also say the same thing, but for the architecture itself, i should say, they pulled off some amazing forms and spaces.

# November 11, 2009 at 00:09

언젠가는 국제적으로도 소통이 가능하면서도 김효만 선생님의 개성이 죽지않는 건축언어가 개발될겄입니다.

여기 포럼이 너무 까다롭긴하네요. 조금 심하단 생각이 들어서 몇글자 적습니다.

저는 미국에서 설계사무실을 다니고 있읍니다. 저희 회사는 주로 대학건물을 설계합니다, 에모리, 예일, 하바드…. 그런 대학들이 주된 클라이언트라고 그러더군요, 뭐 저같이 직급이 낮은 경우에는 뭐가됬든 상관은 없읍니다만….

회사를 다니면서 느낌점은 천재적인 디자인도 중요하지만, 건축가의 아이디어나 이미지를 구체화줄수있는 시스템이 정말 중요하다는 생각이 들었읍니다.

이곳에서는 한국에서 보통 주는 설계기간의 두배나 세배정도의 시간을 실제로 설계에 사용합니다. 단지 시간만 그렇게 늘려서 쓰는게 아니라 고려하는 관점도 그렇게 늘어나는듯합니다.

재료선정, 인테리어 디자인 모든게 세분화, 전문화 되있고 담당하는 인력들이 있는데 이런부분을 건축가가 컨츄롤할수있는 시스템이 있다는 생각을 이곳에서 일하면서 많이 해봅니다. 물론 모든 안건의 경우에 건축가가 자기 고집만을 내세우는경우는 없습니다. 그런데도 종국에는 자기 색깔을 내는걸 보면 참 재밌기도 합니다.

각설하면 이런 시스템부분만 해결이 된다면 한국 건축도 세계 시장에서 해볼만하다는 생각이 든다는 겁니다. 특별히 선생님같은경우는 저도 잘 모르는거지만 국제수준?이라는것에 아주 근접해 있다고 생각합니다. 디자인만 보면 나으면 나았지 뒤지지 않다고 느끼고요 단지 그 시스템이라는거 그 효율성, 그 전문성등은 조금 참고하실 필요는 있다고 느껴집니다. 그런게 아마 문화적 차이일수도 있구요.

각설하고 선생님 힘내시구요, 계속 응원드리겠읍니다.

# November 14, 2009 at 20:59