OS House Competition proposal / Andrea Morri

Sep 2010

By Sebastian J — Filed under: Housing , Accra, Andrea Morri, Ghana

▼

Add this to My Bookmarks:

share by email

share by email

Italian architect Andrea Morri shared with us his proposal in collaboration with Ing. Massimo Maioli for the OS House Competition. The project is an innovative and sustainable concept for housing in Ghana. More images and architect’s description after the break.

For a person, the house is a shelter, a place where they look for and create their microcosm made of objects, affections and memories. Home also symbolizes the culture a person belongs to.

This project develops as part of a rapidly increasing economy in one of the most thriving African areas.

The house prototype we propose aims at creating a suitable living solution in urban areas, but also in rural or isolated areas and emergency contexts.

Courtesy of Andrea Morri

Our prototype has been carried out so that it can meet the requirements of a house enlargement in connection with a growing family; this ensures the highest flexibility according to the changes the African society is undergoing, more and more often approaching “Western” life styles but, at the same time, remaining rooted deeply in its traditions.

This led us to carry out a prototype which mingles the use of advanced technologies and the use of local materials whose ways of use have been partially renewed.

As a precise project choice, we decided to use passive technologies rather than active energy systems; this choice permits to minimize the use of pipes and installations and makes it easier to build and dismantle the house, without increasing building costs.

Courtesy of Andrea Morri

Indeed, we decided to reduce building costs by rationalizing the living spaces and consequently reducing the size of encumbrances; that has been obtained, for example, by using the upper part of the rooms and the gap in the loose stone foundation as a well to replace bulky wardrobes.

The use of “poor” but decorous local materials permits to find materials easily on the spot, to set up and dismantle the dry-stone walls easily and to make the house movable. For this reason the only fixed part of our prototype is the skeleton, conceived as an iron profiled frame fastened to the ground through a hand-built foundation.

The basis is made of a loose stone foundation built by reusing EUR pallets and OSB panels; a bamboo parquet flooring produced locally completes the basis.

Courtesy of Andrea Morri

For the walls we used a “sandbag” system; the outside part is made of OSB panels, whereas on the inside insulation is achieved through a framework of sandbags filled with soil and fastened with barbed wire; the outside part of the walls are painted with clay plaster and chalk powder.

Covering is conceived as to minimize the sun beating down through an internal ventilated gap and to make rain water collection easier during the copious summer rains. As for the rooms, our prototype is made of two bed rooms, a central living area directly linked to the entrance, a wall equipped as a kitchen and a bathroom with toilet and washing facilities equipped with shower.

Besides containing the water treatment pipes, the well between the kitchen and the bathroom also houses two PVC pipes for rain water, which is directly driven to the bathroom discharge or conveyed into storage tubs dug under the loose stone foundation. That way, rain water could be reused for household activities after being conveniently treated with SODIS technology.

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

: Courtesy of Andrea Morri

Cite:
Jordana , Sebastian . "OS House Competition proposal / Andrea Morri" 19 Sep 2010. ArchDaily. Accessed 26 May 2012. <http://www.archdaily.com/78162>

Comments (20)
Tweets (9)
Links to this entry (0)

isla says:

might be a little blurry only have circular windows, just my opinion.

# September 19, 2010 at 12:21

Toba says:

to be honest, a see a lot of hard work, details and obsession to project, which is good. But the formal aspect, morphology and design of project and presentation is not very good

# September 19, 2010 at 14:26

radix says:

I THINK IT´S AN EXAMPLE OF BAD DESIGN.

# September 19, 2010 at 15:15

Well says:

I fully agree with Toba.
Nice way it’s built – but sculpturally it’s sh*t.

# September 19, 2010 at 17:10

BEfamous says:

I agree with both of you.
Moreover I don’t think there is a lot of hard work here… Frankly, I don’t know what this kind of student’s attitude is doin’ here?

# September 19, 2010 at 18:52

bob says:

Its not great but for student work and for ghana where affordability/sustainability are concerns, its not bad. I wouldn’t be knocking it so readily. I think the round windows are a bad idea though. not so modular to build with

# September 19, 2010 at 19:28

ATL_ says:

seriously?

# September 19, 2010 at 22:15

up_today_arch says:

Here is the mix of two or three ideas… For this small building just round windows enough for making image. Just make them more significant more basic for architecture…

# September 20, 2010 at 04:40

andrea morri says:

Da:
Italiano
▼
In:
Inglese
▼
Traduci testo o pagina webmight be a little blurry only have circular windows, just my opinion
I must say I very pleased to have helped move comments and discussions with my project.
I always thought that one of the fundamentals of the profession of architect was the transmission and exchange of ideas and opinions.
This provided those opinions are based on actual basis and not influenced by aesthetic judgments.
We are talking about architecture? We are talking about building? Or are we talking about image? Because if the discussion focuses on the image dear sirs I have not much to say.
I would appreciate that you could analyze in detail the project, perhaps reading the report, percapire and what are the choices that are at the base.
Otherwise, if you look image, you are wrong project!

# September 20, 2010 at 06:49

ho capito il tuo inglese, anche aspetto che tu puoi capire il mio italiano e latin.

Utilitas, firmitas e VENUSTAS.

As i said before you worked a lot and it is admirable, complimenti for that, but everything architects do has to be beautiful.

# September 20, 2010 at 07:26

Hey Andrea,

it’s not your pictures, they are ok. But what didn’t seem ok to us was simply the aesthetics, generally your windows, or if you want criticism in detail: the design of the fascade doesn’t just simply look terrible to I guess most people conditioned by studies of architecture, the design results in a terrible lighting situation in the inside of the building which might make people not only tired when inhabitating your building but also possibly depressive. I guess that’s the point besides the terrible look. There’s a good reason you can calculate the optimum light situation in rooms, because light is a necessity to human beings. Your building submits to your idea of design, but not to it’s possible inhabitants.

Besides: As i previously said, the way you construct the building – I think this is pretty kool. If you now would mind thinking more about the inhabitants of a building and less about designig something that looks different to everything, you’d be a very good architect I guess.

# September 20, 2010 at 07:34

pero says:

is it some kind of a joke? this man is an architect or still a student? this concecpt is so poor, that i can’t find nothing insteresting in here. and the presentation – u should built a model a take a photo of it instead of making those horrible visualistations. that’s only my opinion

# September 20, 2010 at 08:52

rupalauste says:

Honestly I don’t get some comments.
Ok we are architects. For sure we are not stylist and for sure we should be able to go beyond the way a project is shown (even though I think that a better graphic approach would hel a lot more).
We should give more technical and professional opinion when we see a project.Otherwise we could just say “nice” and “horrible” like our clients.
I think this project has a lot of analys behind and as Well says the building techninc is admirable.
And I don’t think is something wrong with the volumes.
Maybe I wouldn’t have worked with round windows, maybe the round shape is given by the “sandbag” system of the walls? this is the only way I could justify them.
I find the bris soleil quite useless.
Anyway my opinion is the same, as usual: I don’t like to see projects that are not built. The judgment would be a lot different for a building that has been realised.
And then I don’t get why only this project is shown.

# September 20, 2010 at 09:33

I respect your opinion but I can not accept it because it gives no specific indication. I very much regret the fact that it continues to talk about image and not architecture. Maybe you should devote yourself to a fashion show!
Instead, I share some guidance on lighting inside. I must say that the view inside was made for explanatory purposes. And in a climatically sensitive as the equatorial need to pay close attention to solar loads.
Thank you for this indication anyway. I’ll make good use for the next opportunity.

# September 20, 2010 at 09:47

Have you seen other OS competition projects? They are efficient, thay have smart technical solutions, they use local materials, and many other creative aspects. And finally, they look good and their presentation also looks good. You cant say that only beacuse you have been precise in technical aspects, you cant take serious comments about the aestethics. If it would be for that, everybody would make good architecture, it is not hard to make technical details. But it is more how creative you are applying all the resources available for your final design. Some people may like your design, some not. If you prefer to to put more emphasis in the techical solution and forget design, its ok! We are all different and have different opinions and ways of seeing things. In the end, when you choose somenthing you do it because you like it. I bet you that most clients will choose a better looking project, even if it is not so great technically. I just think that architecture should be balanced in its aspects. And you are italian, you should know about fashion.

# September 20, 2010 at 10:46

The technical correctness, the economic feasibility and appropriateness applications are objective. Aesthetics are subjective and therefore I respect your individual aesthetic judgments like those positive received.
The project responds to my vision of architecture and taste.
But I invite you to hear the project.
because the whole project is designed to be largely self built. Only the structure is industrialized. Foundations, walls and ceiling are available in the site with poor materials and readily available, like finishing up the floors, made of parquet wood produced and marketed its own in Ghana.

# September 20, 2010 at 11:38

Kris says:

Very bad detailing. I mean, is steel really that available in Ghana? How will it be lifted in place? How will it be fastened?

And then to place the steel directly onto a concrete footing? I don’t know what’s bearing on what, and don’t want to talk about the steel rusting out. This is not well thought out, not well constructed, not cheap, not accessible. I’m sorry.

# September 21, 2010 at 13:48

Vidia says:

Seriously steel in Ghana? Even two level project houses in Australia are made wholly of bricks or timber. Not even concrete!

# September 21, 2010 at 22:27

Ghana is one of the emerging African countries and the homes in question were destined for a new middle class. Before deciding on the use of steel we have verified the availability of steel.
Ask please!

# September 22, 2010 at 09:43

anon says: