Politically, it felt mandatory to embrace the sexuality of our clients. After all, we do so, living in a conservative Australian political environment where up until 1997 it was illegal to be gay in some states. What started as a flag of pride, become the symbolism of the architecture.
The existing is now juxtaposed against the proposed, formally, spatially and politically. The critical moment of debate occurs where the existing and proposed negotiate a union. The apparent compression of the hall, and deliberate interference of a flow through calls into question the relationship. Is it a kitchen or is it passage way? Does the kitchen serve the outside or the inside? From this moment, the new addition unfolds itself, allowing a story to be narrated.
The programme is a small 50m2 extension to an existing Californian bungalow in the suburban suburb of Preston. The clients are a young couple, whose interest and passion are producing films. The architectural propositions operate in multiple layers. Different operations and ideas for different moments, a combination of form, fiction and ideas.
Was the new addition to sit easily within the contextual language that stood in place? Should we critique the relevance and appropriateness (spatially, logistically, formally) of a Californian bungalow programme located in the suburban context that it sits within?
We will no longer ignore the inherent qualities of light, sunshine and wind, through ignorance and spatial pragmatics. We will no longer embrace the “generic” add on. We will embrace our clients and the possibilities that the constraints may bring to us.
- Categories →