Townhouse in Landskrona by Elding Oscarson
Swedish architects Elding Oscarson have designed a townhouse in Landskrona, Sweden.
Full description after the photos….

.
Townhouse in Landskrona by Elding Oscarson
The narrow site is sandwiched between very old neighboring buildings in Landskrona, Sweden. Since mid 20th century it has been empty, waiting behind a wooden fence. It is only 5 meters wide with a tiny area of 75 square meters. Immediately adjacent buildings are low, but the street is lined with buildings of various height, size, facade material, age, and approach. Behind the row of buildings is a colorful world of back yards, brick walls, sheds, and vegetation. We find this small-scale, motely, naturally worn place extremely beautiful.
The building relates to the surroundings in scale, proportion and in the way it adds to the established rythm of low and tall buldings along the street. A perpendicularly inserted crow-step gabled house a few lots down the street is a particularly important ancestor. Yet, our aim is to create a sharp contrast, to express inherent clarity, but more importantly to highlight the beauty of the surroundings. Our clients, a male couple that love art and run a café in a bigger city closeby, plan to settle here for good. They see the potential in this small town, beyond its current economic and social problems.
Compressed slab construction, unconventional ceiling heights, and the ground floor flush to the street level, permitted fitting three floors into a volume aligned with the neighboring rooftops. The interior consists of a single space, softly partitioned by three exposed steel slabs. These span the entire width of the house and divide its program – kitchen, dining, living, library, bed, bath, and a roof terrace. A home office for a growing side business of art dealing is located in a separate building across a small garden in the back. Mechanical and service spaces are housed next to a glazed entrance from the street.
Our intention is to use small means to create an array of different spatial experiences in this very small project. The division of the single space aims at a non-minimalistic and lively sequence of confined and airy spaces, niches, interiors and exteriors, horizontal and vertical wiews as well as carefully framed views of the site. The continuous interior space is opening up to the street, to the middle of the block, and to the sky above.
The openness to all directions generates a building both monolithic and transparent. All facades are treated equally, exposing the interior and offering views through the building with similar apertures whether on the front, back or sides. The neigboring facades are closed, yet there is something deeply humane about their tactility, detailing, and ornaments. We want to contribute to the street with a faded border to the private sphere, with artifacts, furniture, plants, and patios; traces of human presence, consideration, and care.
Project: Townhouse
Location: Landskrona, Sweden
Architect: Elding Oscarson
Structural Engineer: Konkret
Builder: Skånebygg
Structure: leca-masonry, metal deck slab
Gross Floor Area: 125sqm
Construction Cost: 280,000 Euro
Completion: 2009
Photographer: Åke E:son Lindman
Visit the Elding Oscarson website – here.
.


























Swede on 25 Jan 2010 at 11:45 pm #
Nice house but not there….
Understand the thinking of the architect:
“I wanna do something special, something that makes people talk about me. Eureka!! I build a house with ultramodern design in this 17th century neighbourhood”
So unique thinking! NOT.
Also i dont like the new way contemporist.com displays pictures.
STavros on 26 Jan 2010 at 12:22 am #
Excellent use of space. Love the white walls and the art lying on the floor. Big windows for better lighting.Love it
ok on 26 Jan 2010 at 2:08 am #
Doesnt fit in AT ALL! Dont architects care about the typology of the location these days? I mean that’s really why people dont like architects..just put a cube anywhere. It doesnt answer to the shape, color and even the height difference of the surrounding buildings. I love contemporary architecture, but architecture is always inseperably connected with the location. And this one just doesnt have that for me. And dont get me wrong…floor plan and interior is just fine, but thats personal space. You have to care about the influence on public space aswell.
arch. jojo on 26 Jan 2010 at 7:35 am #
Wow’, very nice! it looks good! for a small space, as simple as that. i love minimalist design.
GReat!
Michael McTigue on 26 Jan 2010 at 8:49 am #
This may be my favorite home you’ve featured.
Janson on 26 Jan 2010 at 11:49 am #
Wow, really: “The building relates to the surroundings in scale, proportion…?” I have a very hard time imagining how that sentence could possibly be accurate. The building shares neither shape, nor reference to shape, neither size, nor reference to size, not color nor reference to color, and worst of all not openness and no reference to the culture of openness surrounding it.
Note that the adjacent buildings’ windows have no dressing: they are open to the street and because the houses are so shallow the gardens can often be seen straight through. This building is opaque, private, almost afraid. The garden wall in the back is brutally tall, bisecting what is otherwise an open, neighborly backyard community.
“The openness to all directions”! Really? THERE ARE NO GROUND FLOOR WINDOWS. Just by saying it’s not a fortress doesn’t make it any less of a fortress.
Michael McTigue on 26 Jan 2010 at 1:09 pm #
I disagree…this house is much more open than the others. You’re right, there is no window on the ground floor but there is a GLASS DOOR that allows much more of a glimpse into the private space. Alsom the shape and color allows the surrounding buildings to shine. This building is akin to white space in a magazine layout….it gives the eye a rest from the (lovely) chaos surrounding it.
If it were the Oscars it would win Best Supporting Actor.
tímea on 26 Jan 2010 at 2:06 pm #
it is beautiful and totally cool, but NOT THERE.
and this new contemporist is not too comfortable!
fasiha on 26 Jan 2010 at 9:30 pm #
if buildings had life, this one wd be feeling totally miserable& a fish out of water.
Michael McTigue on 27 Jan 2010 at 6:41 am #
I’d be curious as to how the neighbors feel. This is all very academic.
Paul Johnston on 27 Jan 2010 at 7:41 am #
there’s something terrifically economical about the plan, and catching the kitchen beneath the half floor. the “drawbridge” to the outdoor space is perhaps a shame but wowser otherwise.
Kurian George Architect on 27 Jan 2010 at 9:44 am #
A brash infil!!!
How can one be so mindless of ones environment, especially when there is so much to respond to in the immediate neighbourhood.
Even the architecture of pluralism of which I am a proponent would not accept such an intervention.
This does not mean that one has to replicate the language of the dated vernacular architecture that surrounds the building. But, certainly responses to this in the chosen language is clearly lacking.
This is certainly one building that should not have been built where it is built.
Kurian George Architect on 27 Jan 2010 at 9:55 am #
As an addition to my knee jerk reaction….and more as a clarification after reading the rest of the comments….
There is absolutely nothing wrong in a cube or for that matter a sphere or even a frozen free flowing form.
The openness or closure are again matters of the “thinking of the day” (spirit of the time – zeitgeist)
builidngs of different ideologies and different periods can co-exist in any given neighbourhood.
It could have been a glass and steel building to stretch matters, thus certainly could be a white cube…. but certainly should have been one that factually responds to and co-exists in this environment.
denB on 27 Jan 2010 at 1:31 pm #
i agree. the building is too stand-offish. could have been done a bit differently, similar to this one: http://www.reigoandbauer.com/rb2009/cas-page.html
Michael McTigue on 27 Jan 2010 at 2:33 pm #
denB–I think I must just be an inate contrarian, because I think the one you offer looks like a cheap imitation (I mean no disprespect to you) of the surrounding buildings. The separation of the houses, which offers a relief from building to building, to me make the materials even more important, and in this instance the result just looks cheap to me.
What I like about Townhouse is that it is still part of the rhythm of the street filled with very different buildings–in size/height/shape/color–and that juxtaposition is what gives a project freedom. I very much believe that the architects are responding to their neighbors in a respectful manner–but they push the conversation forward, taking the best parts of the existing street (a sense of openess, the clean lines, a noble material in the stucco) and reinterpret them.
Nostalgia is not useful. A city is an evolving being with multiple perspectives. Architecture should reflect that.
denB on 27 Jan 2010 at 9:04 pm #
Michael McTigue – thank you for your honest opinion! that’s the beauty of this discipline that every person sees something different in the finished result. Considering extensive research and planning by architects to comply with strict building codes in this area (the Beach) of Toronto, and respecting the client’s mandate, i find my sample more pleasing to the eye than the Townhouse. but then its just me….
to be fair, i’m giving a thumb up to the Townhouse for the efficient use of a pretty narrow plot!
denB on 27 Jan 2010 at 9:24 pm #
Michael McTigue – from the technical aspect, due to the above mentioned building codes, a modernist building like the Townhouse simply would not be granted permits to be build in this area.
And as much as i agree with your opinion that the urban landscape is an evolving being with multiple personalities, this Townhouse is the equivalent (visually and emotionally, with respect to the neighborhood and adjoining buildings) of the Crystal, Libeskind’s addition to the Royal Ontario Museum comparing to KPMB’s Gardiner Museum or Ghery’s AGO (you can google these projects). Its an not much as nostalgia, as trying to adapt the new concepts to the existing constraints with the maximum effect.
ra mo na on 28 Jan 2010 at 2:12 am #
excellent work, good concept, nice finishing
Daria on 28 Jan 2010 at 9:21 pm #
Whatever benifit is to the occupants, whatever nice an open is the house, the street ambiance is ruined.
Christian on 29 Jan 2010 at 2:42 pm #
Live in Landskrona, Been on site, I think the house fits very well whith it’s suroundings.
Mycroft on 31 Jan 2010 at 7:07 pm #
A featureless cube. It would look out of place in an open field, much less here.
Dennis Moss on 06 Aug 2010 at 12:54 am #
a beautiful building in the WRONG SETTING
an addition like could work in a place like Manhattan or Tokyo where architecture is constantly evolving, but in this scene it is completely insensitive… to the point of being aggressive.
indeed, modernist architectural “objects” are most successful in a landscape/rural setting (just look at most of the beautiful buildings on this website), not in an historic urban context. please Mr Architect, show some restraint!