Oh, how blissful

is it inspired in arch daily logo?

i think that this building does not match in that context, i agree about wanting to do a fabulous architecture the architect like, but there are more things to care about when you make a project, like its situation. this building would be the same in japan.

I somehow agree with …, but it is very pleasant to see architects doing something totally different than what you would actually expect there without being in the same time blob architecture…
The plans seem to work very well. I like the kind of sketchy style of the drawings (don’t know if it’s done by hand or by that new kind of autocad-like fake handsketch rendering, but it’s nice anyway). My only concern is about the mesh on the terrace to avoid the standard railing, the effect is not as nice from the inside.

very cool!
like japanese projects
… now it’s in the context

To Eldin Oscarson Architects:
My first comment here is: you’ve created a beautiful corbusian house, the inner space clearly and cleverly articulated, and full of light. It must be a delight to live there. And I like the way you let the terracota-colored facade of the neighbor follow the depth of the entrance.
My next comment is not so nice: Take a second look at that street. By the pictures, it seems to be a place inspired on medieval design. If you pay close attention, you’ll notice that most houses are scaled horizontally, and then go on a crescendo until the vertical spire at the end of the street. That’s a kind of harmony that only time can give. Your aim is to disturb that harmony, as you yourself stated: “our aim is to create a razor sharp contrast”. If that’s what you wanted, the client wanted, and the city permitted, there’s nothing anybody could do about it. But then you go on to say: “but more importantly to highlight the beauty of the surroundings”, and “The building relates to the surroundings in scale, proportion and in the way it adds to the established rhythm of low and tall buildings along the street”, and yet “We want to contribute to the street with a faded border to the private sphere”. These are void attempts to validate your disturbance of that setting, to give this house the aesthetic right to be there. That’s dishonest, and you know that. We architects need to stop inventing excuses for our whims; that’s not instructive, not to mention ethical.
It is possible to create something different, yet contributing to the surroundings, as Michelangelo proved with his masterful intervention on the Campidoglio. But here, you killed a beautiful street with your beautiful house.

It is a marvellous house for a couple. It seems to be well detailed, simple and minimalistic and still it feels like a home. It is like a ghost vanishing to its background skies. It exists and doesn’t at the same time. It is not actually doing any harm to its neighbours even though it is totally different anb taller even. It is a built manifestation of difference.

What happens when time passes and this house gets new dwellers? I suppose these ordinary looking neighbours allow many different lifestyles. Is this new thing flexible, does it last time? In 125 sqm it should be possible to have a family with atleast one kid living in there too. If not now, maybe in the next decades. In the millieus like this (ordinary historical buildings that are still lived in and not only museums) it is important to think beyond lifestyles of this generation at the moment. Individual intentions and interpretations of built environment over community’s unity and harmony is not the correct thing to do at this milieu.

What happens if some close neighbours begins to have same kind of fantasies to have a similar house on their own plot? Can we accept the same kind of difference elsewhere too? Or is it just ok to do it once but not twice?

This building rises many interesting issues in architectural point of view but also in life in general. It makes this quite ordinary and minimalistic house more like an artwork in the field of architecture and built environment.

How can someone say this is architecture???Where’s the relation with the context????This is very poor understanding of an architect’s job. This is ignorant, self centered, poor architecture…

simple and full of space! it’s perfect. i just think there is no room for adding any new thing to a particular space….i mean, it is designed in a way that you can not change anything. you have to be neat and clean all the time!

A remarkable example of urban compaction small modern buildings. I liked it.

I agree mostly with Leonardo explanation and other fellow colleagues that mention the influence Japanese Architecture and the similarity with Tado And’s work.
I should add that this work is a flop concerning with colour of the building, also.
First and foremost, Sweden is a very cold country.
Therefore, what you need here to absorb the heat is dark colours not white to reflect it.
White is proper from the mediterranean contries, I’m sorry but you have made a big mistake here.
You can do “modern” forms in ancient cities; you just have to study a little bit more and pay attention to the word “context”.