St. Lambert Residence by René Desjardins
Montreal, Canada based interior designer René Desjardins provided a contemporary update for this 1960s bungalow in St. Lambert, Quebec, for a young couple with two children.
Visit the website of René Desjardins – here.













Two lateral wings were created behind the existing structure, framing either side of a large terrace / sculpture garden. One of the wings houses bathrooms and bedrooms for family members, and is served by a corridor with glazed bays on the exterior wall. Full-height doors face these openings, creating the illusion that you are stepping out of the bedroom directly into the garden. The corridor, equipped with museum lighting, also serves as an art gallery.
The original bungalow, from which all partitions were removed, now has the living room and dining room / kitchen. This is the festive part of the house. The tone is set as soon as you step in the door. Guests are greeted by an oversized chimney in bands of slate; small joyful flames dance along the entire length of the rectangular hearth. Open to both sides, the fireplace immediately provides a vista to the living room and the garden beyond. The layout places a priority on space, using as little furniture as possible to ease circulation.
For the sake of minimalism, the same materials are used throughout the home: ipe wood, a species from Brazil, and polished stone from Saint Marc. Walls are finished in vanilla white, and the windows and bays are free of curtains, such that the space fills with natural light. Nothing holds the eye but the artwork. Glass is also used to enhance the impression of fluidity. The sliding screens in the bathrooms are glazed, with the turquoise glass softening the austerity of the stone and dark wood. In the corridor of the east wing, walls feature translucent strips of glass lit from above to create an effect of diffused light. Also in glass, the staircase railing is an absolute expression of discretion, a way to give the voids centre stage.
For more information visit : www.rdesjardins.com

alexandre on 15 Nov 2008 at 8:29 am #
wow, this house has awesomeness pouring out of its drains
GMac on 15 Nov 2008 at 9:34 am #
This entire place screams impractical and obese!
My Name In Arabic on 15 Nov 2008 at 9:52 am #
These must be one young RICH couple.
LuigiSalami on 15 Nov 2008 at 10:10 am #
Thanks for the tour. Hope your maid is well-paid.
Fubiz on 15 Nov 2008 at 1:28 pm #
Thanks for the shooting!
Emerald on 15 Nov 2008 at 2:02 pm #
It’s lovely, but how young are those kids? I’m picturing spilled juice on those white couches and hand smudges all over the glass…
debra on 15 Nov 2008 at 4:26 pm #
its bare and impersonal.
Jeff on 15 Nov 2008 at 4:54 pm #
Debra, if it seems bare to you, it’s because these are staged photos. They spend all day cleaning the house and putting everything away before the photos are taken. Architectural photography tends to be like this because nobody is interested in seeing the owner’s every day clutter.
Calling this house impersonal couldn’t be more foolish. The owners PERSONAL collection of art is all over the house, almost every room has their PERSONAL collection of art on the walls. Also, I would say the tree in the living room qualifies as a personal touch. The sofa in the bedroom is rather unique too.
Steve on 15 Nov 2008 at 4:59 pm #
What’s up with the tree?
Dave on 15 Nov 2008 at 6:15 pm #
Maybe the tree is art?
bob smith on 15 Nov 2008 at 10:32 pm #
It’s obscene. The earth is running out of resources. This is a time when scaling back and simple living is in vogue. This monstrosity is “in-your-face” opulence. It makes one despise the occupants. I don’t know how anyone with a conscience could live in it – or build it for a couple with 2 kids. Disgusting.
Dave on 15 Nov 2008 at 11:01 pm #
Did you notice that this house is from the 1960s, and instead of tearing it down and rebuilding a whole new house, they recycled an old one?
bob smith on 16 Nov 2008 at 1:42 am #
Dave: “Did you notice that this house is from the 1960s, and instead of tearing it down and rebuilding a whole new house, they recycled an old one?”
—-
Yeah, I noticed. Big deal. Warren Buffet lives in a 50s house – without the luxurious rebuild.
People with any sense of what’s happening on the planet wouldn’t live in such a palace as a matter of principle. This isn’t “recycling” – it’s over-the-top opulence.
What people tend to admire these days are ingenious ways of using what’s readily available to build scaled down, energy efficient, earth friendly homes – like homes made with old tires and earth – and countless other brilliant innovations that are sustainable and within the reach of average people.
This home is in-your-face opulence. The home simply screams out that it was built by self-absorbed yuppies with no sense of the world they are living in. I wouldn’t live in that house if it were given to me for free. Seriously.
Dave on 16 Nov 2008 at 4:53 am #
Building houses out of old tires and earth is interesting, cute and charming, but I don’t think it’s very realistic for most people. I think houses made from rammed earth, straw bales, and/or re-used shipping containers are interesting, so I’ve paid attention to the examples that I’ve seen, and I’ve learned that it’s not exactly easy to do, especially in cities because the local councils often don’t allow those building methods under their bylaws and building codes.
So, I think beautiful modern design is the most realistic sustainable practice in homebuilding today. Homes that are well designed are sustainable because people keep and maintain homes that are beautiful, well built, and well designed. This is a well designed house that the owners will love and care for and maintain through the years.
Also, a lot of renovations are done these days specifically to make houses more environmentally friendly. Such as adding more (and better) insulation, or replacing old single pane windows with double pane insulating ones that keep the heat in during winter and out in summer. Old toilets get replaced with new low-flow ones that use much less water. Old appliances like fridges get replaced with ones that use much less energy. Incandescent lighting gets replaced with energy efficient LED lighting. Old inefficient heating systems get replaced with geothermal. Etc, etc, etc…
The houses that you should be more concerned about are McMansions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMansion
They’re huge and always poorly built. They’re tacky because they’re always built in some fake historical architectural style like Victorian, Tudorbethan, or Tuscan/Spanish villa. They’re filled with useless and fake architectural details like columns, pediments, quoins, keystones, and dormers. Because they’re fake, tacky, and poorly built, they’ll quickly fall into disrepair, and nobody will want to maintain them, so they’ll probably get torn down in less than 20 years and be replaced with a whole new house, an incredibly wasteful process.
I think well designed and built modern minimalist homes that use energy efficient features are about the most realistic environmentally friendly homes today.
Herb on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:32 am #
bob smith, et al,
Greenwashing your socioeconomic resentment and bitterness does not make it any more valid. Who are you to dictate how others spend their own money. Calling this place opulent is ridiculous. Yes it is much more costly than a Centex subdivision crap shack, but opulent? Please.
As for Warren Buffet. Many of his views to border on the absurd. The “billionaire next door” may live in a modest condo, but the fuel for his private jet far exceeds, both in money and waste, anything most people could afford after many lifetimes.
I suggest that if this home offends you, then you should unplug and return to your ashram.
Herb on 16 Nov 2008 at 5:41 am #
I’m aware of the grammatical error in the second paragraph. I would like to edit it if I could.
I meant to say “Many of his views border on the absurd”. He is one of, if not, the world’s most successful investors that, until very recently, hoarded his wealth to create only more wealth. Quite the humanitarian and eco-evangelist.
pete on 16 Nov 2008 at 6:18 am #
I agree with bob smith, it’s opulent. And who are we to say such things? A:Co-Habitants on this planet!
Worse yet,do you folks have any idea of how cold it gets in Montréal?
“greenwashing” as you call it does not take the beauty away from this home instead, it helps all of us realize we need to make changes in our designs to adequately protect the environment (or at least lower the impact)
alexandre on 16 Nov 2008 at 7:44 am #
yeah, it is, indeed, sort of very exaggeratedly opulent… but so awesome…
Jose on 16 Nov 2008 at 11:24 am #
does anyone have a computer with zoom capabilities that make it possible to read the art-print on the second to last pic? i was just wondering what it said.
Jeff on 16 Nov 2008 at 12:31 pm #
What is so “opulent” about this house? Seriously, what specifically is opulent?
This is an average suburban house that has been renovated. If you want to point your fingers and scream opulence, choose something else. You people make it sound like this is a 10,000 square foot mansion covered in gold, like something Donald Trump would own.
Here’s what opulence looks like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wetbaloney/357151348/
alexandre on 16 Nov 2008 at 2:59 pm #
lol, that’s opulent too, only in a higher degree
Connie on 17 Nov 2008 at 12:02 pm #
I’m completely stunned by these nasty and, what I feel, inappropriate comments. I really don’t see what is so “opulent” about THIS house in particular. It’s not small, okay, but at least it is a redo and not a teardown.
I see exceptionally beautiful hardwood floors, a very nicely done fireplace and walls that stop short of the floors – a rare architectural detail. Looks like good workmanship throughout.
Mycroft on 17 Nov 2008 at 1:18 pm #
Well, thank goodness none of you can tell me what to do with my money.
James on 17 Nov 2008 at 3:01 pm #
This is a very nice house. The designer has good taste.
Ithaqua on 17 Nov 2008 at 6:52 pm #
I think it is a very well thought out and desinged house
The sky is falling on 18 Nov 2008 at 3:37 pm #
Beautiful home, beautiful design.
To all of the self-righteous wackos losing their mind over a single home, just remember that there are many indigenous peoples out there complaining that YOU consume too much! Move to your nearest cave you hypocrites.
And get off my lawn!
alexandre on 19 Nov 2008 at 6:33 am #
the lighting is so nice and carefully planned. great lighting
DR.VEGAS on 24 Nov 2008 at 12:00 am #
Get a life BOB.The home is stylish…not opulent.
The world IS NOT “running out of resources”.It does however appear to be top-heavy with unimaginative busy bodies who are unable to innovate…and therefore wish to regulate & re-distribute.Hating on people who are more successful than you is not the sport to take up.
What will you hate on when SUV’s run on renewable
fuels…when beautiful stylish homes go OFF THE GRID? One day soon we’ll be there.No thanks to people like you.
young designer on 24 Nov 2008 at 10:48 pm #
wow, nice work. i like the style. i don’t think this house is that opulent, it’s a well designed house made for the client needs and satisfcation.
value of a room is realtive according to the user needs, so we can’t judge how impersonal this house is, because maybe this house is already personal enough for them, right?
user satisfaction is the measuring tool to see whether our design is successfull or not.
kast on 03 Feb 2009 at 7:54 pm #
why lots of people said the house is opulent ..its the owner right to get a beauty house if you can spend for it . from wasting ur money for other things like car ,cloth, club, etc .its ok to spend it to where you will live it in the entire life …and make the profit rised. overall the house is still in minimalist mood with clever used material that made it lavish .do you see any glod leaf funiture of fake column .???
Shirish on 04 Feb 2009 at 1:48 pm #
How much is the house worth like an estimate cost in US dollar: