Add To Collection
Add to Collection
Southern Comfort
Southern Comfort
Dublin, Ireland
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
Other Projects by Box Urban Design Architecture
Southern Comfort
Dublin, Ireland
Type
STATUS
Built
YEAR
2005
SIZE
1000 sqft - 3000 sqft
BUDGET
$100K - 500K
The existing house was one half of a semi d built during the 1950s on a left over site between the dart line and an established Victorian neighbourhood bounded by the sea and the train line. The building was well below standards required by the current building regulations in all aspects. The layout of the interior and its relationship with the external spaces was completely contrary to the requirements of a modern family home. The future sustainability of the building was threatened.
The house was originally entered from the centre of the South elevation which faces and gave access directly to the street. The front garden constitutes 40% of all the outdoor space in the curtilage of the dwelling which is also bounded by public space to the west. The entrance to the site was on the South-West corner and the approach from there to the front door was through the front garden. This denied any privacy in the front which acted as a valve between the public and the private places, the semi public domain. This front garden receives the most direct sunlight which was separated from the private part of the house, and thus the opportunity of a relationship between interior and that external spaces was denied. “A non place.”
The accommodation at first floor consisted of four small bedrooms and a small bathroom. The utility elements and the smaller rooms occupied the rear of the house which affords the best views across Dublin Bay. The first floor was served by a single stair ascending from a hall adjacent to the front door at ground floor level. This is the typical spatial arrangement for this type of house. At ground floor level there was a small kitchen on the North which had not been altered since the original construction. This arrangement is considered inappropriate to modern day living standards where the kitchen has become the heart of the family home. A small dining room and a living room were accessed symmetrically on either side of the hall. Windows from these rooms allowed views to the front garden while standing in the room, but not when seated. Off the living room the original access to the rear garden was denied by a north facing conservatory. Outhouses and a garage attached to the house occupied western part of the site which denied any penetration of light into the building during the evening. An enclosed front porch had been built in front of the window of the living room denying it any direct ventilation to the exterior, and further compromising the privacy of the house by the visual intimacy between opposing domains.
The design brief was to subvert the existing typically suburban spatial condition both in the private and the public realms and to provide for a building of architectural quality informed by its context. This was to be achieved while allowing accommodation for a large flexible family unit and promoting both physical and social sustainability in a resilient built form and robust spatial hierarchy. To rearrange the house and extend as required accommodating best practice in life time design for a particular family unit.
This was achieved by rearranging the relationship between the public and the private domains by the insertion of a new wall and by the relocation of the front door into the resultant space. This contributes to both privacy and community by varying the height of boundaries and allowing glimpses into the private domain placed on the edge of public space. This achieves the social requirement of perceived surveillance in the public realm, dictated by modern day demographics and life styles. This allowed a more intimate relationship between the newly created private external spaces and the interior of the house to be created.
The design of the extensions to the house reinforces the required hierarchy between the public and private realms. The existing staircase was retained and the ground floor reorganised around the new entrance door. The result of this was that the stairs is now located in the most private part of the house. An adaptable open plan is formed on the ground floor by the use of sliding and folding doors conceived as moving walls allowing many permutations of room type and arrangement between them. This permits maximum flexibility in the use of the house. Daylight penetrates deep into the plan of the building by the insertion of a two storey light void between the new tower to the rear, containing the master bedroom, and the existing house. The form and placement of the new extensions allows future development of the site to its full potential without substantial alteration further contributing to the physical sustainability of the building. The design required little removal of the existing built fabric thus minimising the embodied environmental footprint of the new building.
The house was originally entered from the centre of the South elevation which faces and gave access directly to the street. The front garden constitutes 40% of all the outdoor space in the curtilage of the dwelling which is also bounded by public space to the west. The entrance to the site was on the South-West corner and the approach from there to the front door was through the front garden. This denied any privacy in the front which acted as a valve between the public and the private places, the semi public domain. This front garden receives the most direct sunlight which was separated from the private part of the house, and thus the opportunity of a relationship between interior and that external spaces was denied. “A non place.”
The accommodation at first floor consisted of four small bedrooms and a small bathroom. The utility elements and the smaller rooms occupied the rear of the house which affords the best views across Dublin Bay. The first floor was served by a single stair ascending from a hall adjacent to the front door at ground floor level. This is the typical spatial arrangement for this type of house. At ground floor level there was a small kitchen on the North which had not been altered since the original construction. This arrangement is considered inappropriate to modern day living standards where the kitchen has become the heart of the family home. A small dining room and a living room were accessed symmetrically on either side of the hall. Windows from these rooms allowed views to the front garden while standing in the room, but not when seated. Off the living room the original access to the rear garden was denied by a north facing conservatory. Outhouses and a garage attached to the house occupied western part of the site which denied any penetration of light into the building during the evening. An enclosed front porch had been built in front of the window of the living room denying it any direct ventilation to the exterior, and further compromising the privacy of the house by the visual intimacy between opposing domains.
The design brief was to subvert the existing typically suburban spatial condition both in the private and the public realms and to provide for a building of architectural quality informed by its context. This was to be achieved while allowing accommodation for a large flexible family unit and promoting both physical and social sustainability in a resilient built form and robust spatial hierarchy. To rearrange the house and extend as required accommodating best practice in life time design for a particular family unit.
This was achieved by rearranging the relationship between the public and the private domains by the insertion of a new wall and by the relocation of the front door into the resultant space. This contributes to both privacy and community by varying the height of boundaries and allowing glimpses into the private domain placed on the edge of public space. This achieves the social requirement of perceived surveillance in the public realm, dictated by modern day demographics and life styles. This allowed a more intimate relationship between the newly created private external spaces and the interior of the house to be created.
The design of the extensions to the house reinforces the required hierarchy between the public and private realms. The existing staircase was retained and the ground floor reorganised around the new entrance door. The result of this was that the stairs is now located in the most private part of the house. An adaptable open plan is formed on the ground floor by the use of sliding and folding doors conceived as moving walls allowing many permutations of room type and arrangement between them. This permits maximum flexibility in the use of the house. Daylight penetrates deep into the plan of the building by the insertion of a two storey light void between the new tower to the rear, containing the master bedroom, and the existing house. The form and placement of the new extensions allows future development of the site to its full potential without substantial alteration further contributing to the physical sustainability of the building. The design required little removal of the existing built fabric thus minimising the embodied environmental footprint of the new building.
Product Spec Sheet
Were your products used?
Join as a manufacturer to add your products.