Comments on: Bridge House by Max Pritchard Architect

By: mehdi

mehdi — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:53:59 +0000

This house is fine.tank you for idea

By: Luciano

Luciano — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:08:14 +0000

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

By: John

John — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:23:46 +0000

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.

By: chip s

chip s — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:49:13 +0000

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.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:15:05 +0000

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.

By: Dole RG

Dole RG — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:51:33 +0000

This is great. I would love to have this house.

The metal is a good choice.

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:11:23 +0000

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.

By: Baxter

Baxter — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:57:46 +0000

They built a house across a creek, what more do you need? That alone makes it awesome!@

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:52:45 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:15:23 +0000

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 . . .

By: Susan Merryman

Susan Merryman — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:49:13 +0000

This house is awesome. I think it fits the environment just fine.
What do you want it to be made out of? Sticks?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:07:07 +0000

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?

By: David

David — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:40:28 +0000

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.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:55:00 +0000

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.

By: Rendell

Rendell — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:57:54 +0000

Looks good to me. I like the color and the materials.

By: barbara

barbara — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:49:34 +0000

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.

By: Sebastian Or

Sebastian Or — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:19:54 +0000

I like the metal siding, it was a good choice.

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:26:13 +0000

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.

By: scott

scott — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:14:46 +0000

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.

By: Marco R

Marco R — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:30:24 +0000

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.