Bridge House by Max Pritchard Architect
Architect Max Pritchard has designed the Bridge House in Adelaide, Australia.
Photography by Sam Noonan
Bridge House by Max Pritchard Architect
An idyllic site of winter creek, billabong, large river red gums, dense wattles and rocky banks called for a house that would “touch the earth lightly”. The solution, a narrow bridge like structure spanning the creek providing the experience of living amongst the trees in an almost untouched beautiful setting.
Winter sun through the north facing windows heats the black concrete floor for reradiaiton at night. A wood combustion heater supplements the natural passive heating. Double glazing to the living area helps retain the heat. Perforated steel louvres shade the north windows in summer. The narrow plan form allows cross ventilation and is combined with ceiling fans to provide sufficient cooling for summer comfort. Solar hot water heating and photovoltaic cells positioned on the garage roof compliment the sustainable character of the house.
Visit the website of Max Pritchard Architect – here.
.
ctn. on 02 Jan 2010 at 4:55 pm #
amazing home. i’ll take one.
almost on 03 Jan 2010 at 5:29 am #
I get that it’s a bridge. (A fellow arch student circa 1984 had a similar idea) How about a look into the interior spaces? Someone is to live in it, no?
joe on 03 Jan 2010 at 9:36 pm #
isn’t erosion going to be a problem in the future?
Rudy on 04 Jan 2010 at 6:24 am #
I can’t help looking at these pictures thinking that house doesn’t belong there.
It disrupts a peaceful scenery.
Melissa on 04 Jan 2010 at 1:04 pm #
You could say the same about every house in the world. At one time, the entire earth was peaceful scenery, then someone built something. At least this house has made an attempt to have as little footprint on the land as possible.
Nate on 05 Jan 2010 at 6:58 am #
While it’s true that no man-made structures can entirely integrate themselves in the wildness of their site, it is still a fair critique to identify the degree to which buildings either fit in or stand apart from their surroundings. We can only assume that this structure’s intent is to harmonize naturally with it’s surroundings (often the quality of the site will dictate this). Giving in to that assumption, I agree that this home does not belong. Some simple adjustments to the color scheme might help to ease what is now strikingly discordant (cool greys).
Melissa on 05 Jan 2010 at 8:18 am #
This home fits in just fine.
A pink house would not belong. This house is fine.
Kory Drahos on 05 Jan 2010 at 8:21 am #
I agree with Rudy, there is some sort of tension. For some reason this home seems forced in this space.
sergey yuzvinsky on 05 Jan 2010 at 8:48 am #
Of course it’s forced in this space, they built a house that bridges over a creek. That’s what makes it great.
This is an exciting house in a world filled with boring crap, why can’t people just appreciate that? Would you prefer they just bulldozed the whole area and built a typical dull suburban home?
Juli Scardino on 05 Jan 2010 at 9:01 am #
I think I saw this on a TV show. I love it.
Marco R on 05 Jan 2010 at 9:30 am #
If this house was all wood beams and wood siding, nobody would be talking about how it doesn’t fit the environment….but it would be a bad choice because Australia has major forest/bush fires, so that’s probably why they used metal siding.
I like the house the way it is.
scott on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:14 pm #
Is this solution really any more elegant than jamming a single wide trailer over the same span? It certainly doesn’t seem any different. Seriously you could have just put a single wide manufactured trailer in the same space. So why bother pretending this is some great artifice, when in reality it is just a different use of a trailer or trailer like structure.
Nate on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:26 pm #
Cool Grey with those warm grey stones and sycamores(?) is like wearing black socks and brown shoes. Sometimes being not quite right is more frustrating than being way off. It the same reason why we avoid close ratios like 1:1.125.
Sebastian Or on 05 Jan 2010 at 1:19 pm #
I like the metal siding, it was a good choice.
barbara on 05 Jan 2010 at 1:49 pm #
think the idea is breathtaking– the quiet metal trestle holding up minimal human traffic within. Can’t yet get over my dislike of corrugation-like surfaces which smack of an old trailer park. Must separate myself from the old image to fully appreciate this modest and clean dwelling.
Rendell on 05 Jan 2010 at 1:57 pm #
Looks good to me. I like the color and the materials.
Nick on 07 Jan 2010 at 8:55 am #
Although the house ‘touches the earth lightly’ it is not meant to blend into the landscape. The house utilises many of the simple and distinct Australian vernacular devices which is common in buildings of this type. The allusion to trailer’s from some of the comments is a distinctly north-american viewpoint (apologies if this is not correct but Australian architects would never say this) and ignores the countless examples of corrugated structures which have become synonymous with rural Australian buildings. The use of materials like this in hard to reach places is more than an aesthetic thing, its about ease of construction, sustainability and maintenance to name a few. Whether you like the building or not, this typology won Glen Murcutt the Pritzker Prize, so can’t be dismissed merely as no better than a trailer.
David on 07 Jan 2010 at 12:40 pm #
Though I understand the proposal that this structure is in reference to a truly Australian vernacular of rural outbuildings, I must agree that this structure is more intrusive than complimentary to its environs. This is not a necessarily “north american” opinion, but an honest observation. The visual references to a trailer or shipping container dropped in a ravine cannot be ignored. This building has by no stretch of the imagination the grace or complimentary notion architecture and nature of say, a Falling Water. It doesn’t seem to even try. And the notion that it “touches the earth lightly” over reaches and misstates this structures true effect on it’s landscape.
Jeff on 07 Jan 2010 at 1:07 pm #
Notice how people who make negative comments rarely say what they would do differently?
So many people are quick to criticize, but they have no ideas of their own.
Why don’t you negative people tell us what you would design?
Susan Merryman on 07 Jan 2010 at 1:49 pm #
This house is awesome. I think it fits the environment just fine.
What do you want it to be made out of? Sticks?
David on 07 Jan 2010 at 2:15 pm #
Jeff, I must take issue with your assertion that those who offer critique have no ideas. I would like to offer several: This structure might integrate itself into the sloped nature of the ravine on either end by contouring its sides so that the structure appears to emerge from the sloped site. The roof of the structure could have be designed as a green roof, an outdoor patio/bridge that actually connected the house to both sides of the ravine truly bridging the site and providing an engaged outdoor space and landscape, an opportunity to cross the ravine without entering the home. Utilizing indigenous grasses and plantings on the rooftop would better integrate the house with it’s landscape. This green roof could also assist in insulating the home against the hot summers and cool winters. I could go on . . . these are just a few of many ideas . . .
Jeff on 07 Jan 2010 at 2:52 pm #
David, thank you for being the first person in the history of the internet to actually contribute some ideas instead of just criticizing. Although, you did need to be encouraged to do so.
Your ideas are great. Unfortunately, they all cost money. Architects can imagine just as many wonderful things to design as everyone else, but that doesn’t mean the budget will allow for building those things. Architects have to work within the budget that is given to them.
Also, local building codes don’t always allow things like green roofs. In some places it’s also impossible to buy home insurance if you have a green roof. Also, green roofs cost more money.
It’s important to remember that just because you or I can imagine something better, doesn’t mean that it’s possible to do it. People should not be too quick to criticize the work of an architect unless they know the whole background of the project.
Baxter on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:57 am #
They built a house across a creek, what more do you need? That alone makes it awesome!@
Katie on 08 Jan 2010 at 5:11 am #
Interesting, different . . . I personally don’t like the steel structure, too contemporary, just not my taste. It looks small and as has already been mentioned mobile home like in the living quarters. I imagine that it would be nice to enjoy the surroundings from this home. What are the dimensions. As someone has already stated, I would like to see more pictures of the interior. I like the picture with the lights on and reflected in the creek.
Dole RG on 08 Jan 2010 at 7:51 am #
This is great. I would love to have this house.
The metal is a good choice.
Alan on 08 Jan 2010 at 11:15 am #
We did the same concept – a narrow rectangle of a building, in our case, a 25,000 sq.ft. office building over a sterile retention pond -in Canada – also with a metal panel finish. It’s nearing completion and a few photos are up at umanitoba.ca/research/smartpark; it offers a different, de-natured context for a similar concept/form.
chip s on 08 Jan 2010 at 11:49 am #
Yes- I think anyone who does anything creative gets that there is an ideal you could do, and then there is the practical reality, but as everyone knows, the public don’t care about realities, they just state what they see.
It is too bad about the green roof- I don’t think every project needs one, but in this case, the roof is so noticeable from ground viewing angles, and considering the location, it really have have been a good solution.
As mentioned, the green roof integrated like pathway / bridge would have been really unique and memorable.
John on 18 Jan 2010 at 7:23 pm #
I also belive that this house has dimesions similar to a mobile home, however I belive that this also minimizes the impact on the site. We dont need homes that sprawl out over the whole site and i would rather enjoy the green space. I had my infill home designed to be no more than 20 feet wide and it is 3 story’s high with a flat roof. I think this allowed me to utilize my 50 foot wide site to the best. but you could describe the proportions as 3 stacked trailers.
I love the bridge house in the picture and even discused with my wife building such a home in a rual area over an artifical pond that in are area would freeze in the winter and you could skate under the home. As for the green roof great idea but cost has to come into effect at some point. We would all love to live in home with roof gardern soloar panel and geothermal with goats cutting are grass. i think this house is a great compromise with the way we live and liveing in nature.
Luciano on 09 Feb 2010 at 5:08 am #
Copia de la casa del Puente de Amancio Williams,
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amancio_Williams
http://arqui-observador.blogspot.com/2009/06/mar-del-plata.html