House on a Hill by Paterson Architects
Edinburgh-based Paterson Architects have completed a house in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
Full description after the photos….
.
Description of the House on a Hill by Paterson Architects:
A timber clad extension to an existing farm cottage, for a young family and their children.
The house on a hill is a response arising from a sensibility and intention about architecture which places an emphasis on the pragmatic and develops our clients brief and their aspirations into, purposeful and appropriate spaces without profligacy or wilfulness.
The house is contextual, it is site responsive, and it is contemporary. It could not have been realised in its finished form in any other place or time.
The design aims for a good ordinariness. A pragmatic approach driven by the clients brief and the opportunities of the site, developed without formal agenda or polemic.
The modern kitchen is the heart of the family home and no longer a detached workplace; it is the place where friends and family are entertained, and children are raised. Here it is central to the organisation of the plan in three dimensions, with surrounding space and volume defining circulation and the arrangement of public and private space. Corner windows subvert the introverted nature of the simple and appropriately scaled volumes, tracking the sun throughout the day and opening to the landscape and horizon beyond. Simultaneously inside and outside they transform the experience of the space from the introverted intimate focus of the hearth, to the expanse of the wilderness beyond.
Sustainable construction – with FRC sourced timber – is virtually carbon neutral, whilst high insulation levels and considered window openings keep heating and lighting loads to a minimum.
Whilst an unashamedly contemporary addition to an existing traditional cottage, the architecture is unassuming and robust. It sits comfortably and confidently in the unfolding history of a site which has been in constant occupation for the past two hundred years, and will endure and adapt for the inheritance of future generations.
Visit the Paterson Architects website – here.
Photography by Keith Hunter
.
JimW on 04 May 2010 at 6:11 am #
How many exterior shots does it take to tell a story…to really understand a project it would be nice to have some interior shots. Or is there nothing worth seeing here which makes me wonder what the significance of the exterior images is all about?
karinb on 04 May 2010 at 7:09 am #
JimW said it all.
michael on 04 May 2010 at 11:54 am #
I agree with JimW’s comment, but on a bigger picture, why even keep the old house since the new one doesn’t address it at all (misplaced sentimentality)? The interior transition in the plan is non-existent. The new exterior makes the old one look tiny and silly. I can’t see why anyone would want to be in the old part if they had the option of being in the new one. The whole issue of a non-relating addition makes it very hard to justify anything that’s done or even qualify it.
luke on 04 May 2010 at 12:18 pm #
i agree with jimw and michael. good grief man, at least give us some interior shots to fully understand why the exterior is so boring and dull.
Lance on 04 May 2010 at 3:24 pm #
I agree with everyone else. It’s a great concept, old plus new, but when even the interior looks dull, the drab exterior just really sticks out… photo after photo after photo. I’m sure it’s extremely functional for the family, which is of course what matters to the clients, but it’s like Amish Modern, if such a thing exists.
Brian on 04 May 2010 at 5:02 pm #
So they wouldn’t let you inside, eh?
That’ll cost you extra in Scotland.
But I kind of like its ‘ordinariness’, and the way it conronts the original cottage in an unassuming minimal sort of way.
TW on 04 May 2010 at 11:38 pm #
Oh I dunno. I think the beauty of this house is the way it sits in the landscape and how it connects to to the original cottage on the land.
And to Michael – what do you mean “why keep the old house…?”. Haven’t we obliterated enough perfectly good structures already? History, Michael. History.
Maggie on 04 May 2010 at 11:45 pm #
I dont understand what is so special about this house.
marshen on 05 May 2010 at 12:37 am #
This house/addition looks like it was designed to fill the basic needs of the client and nothing more which is fine. It retains the simplicity of country homestead life style. There is utilitarian beauty in it being nothing more than what is essential.
I agree with everyone else, any house submitted to CONTEMPORIST should be required to have at least one photo of each interior room or space along with sufficient outdoor exterior views. We have to set some standards here folks.
michael on 05 May 2010 at 12:51 pm #
A little piece of history with a large modern addition, which doesn’t begin to address any of the qualities of the older house. It’s more a slap in the face to history! I don’t know which part of the new ignores the old house more, the materials, the roof, the fenestration, or the plan. I don’t think the new part enhances the old part at all. It would have been possible to meet client demands, and still address the little cottage way down at the end.
dennis on 05 May 2010 at 8:55 pm #
I’ve been viewing this website for several months now……..day after day an interesting combination of the amazing and the atrocious, and without a doubt the place to come to see first-year architecture school projects actually built. This is a prime example.
TW on 06 May 2010 at 7:00 pm #
“A little piece of history with a large modern addition, which doesn’t begin to address any of the qualities of the older house.”
The how do you suggest an architect deals with an original house? By creating a faux addition that is ‘sympathetic’ to the original. Like they used to do in the 1980′s?
The best way to deal with an original house is to create something that contrasts it so that you can reflect on both designs.
Ever heard of IM Pei? Imagine if he had listened to his detractors and instead of the magnificant pyramid, had created something that ‘addressed’ the qualities of the original. I don’t think so!
Given the small size of the original cottage, it’s roof line and it’s place in the landscape, the architect has come up with a simple and delightful solution.
But I would really like to hear what others would have designed for this site.
michael on 07 May 2010 at 8:12 am #
IM Pei’s solution was removed from the historical building so it wouldn’t compete. It also happened to be a beautiful form that was impeccably detailed. This looks like a semi came to rest against the house. There are lots of design opportunities to appeal to an existing traditional house without trite residential references. I question the need to contrast an existing structure brutally just to point to a contrast. You’re left with a whole that is schizophrenic at best.
corvin on 07 May 2010 at 8:53 am #
For some, discretion and modesty are misinterpreted as “dullness” or “boredom”. In this special case, the fact that the new house is “boring” is a sample of kindness towards the old one . The new one lets the old one live. In such cases, being “dull” I would take it as a compliment. I am sure the Architects were “dull” on purpose, Knowing when not to over design, knowing when to make one step behind, that’s architecture. It has beautiful proportions and admirable simplicity. That’s enough for me. I love it.
It looks like a barn added to the cottage as people would have done it exactly the same way 300 years ago. That is being contextual. That is a reverence to the past and still being very contemporary. Congratulations, Excellent work!
TW on 08 May 2010 at 2:55 am #
Michael – I hardly think that IM Pei’s pyramid is removed from historical buildings. The original plaza and how the historical buildings connected to it form an intergral function to how all of the surroundings were supposed to be viewed. That’s why there was such a cuffuffle about what he proposed.
Regardless, I am still keen to know how you would have approached this families requirements for their small cottage enlargments?
michael on 08 May 2010 at 9:18 am #
If one didn’t know anything about the politics of Pei’s addition, they would have no way to know it connects to the museum building from looking at it. It could have been a sculpture in the middle of a plaza. The separation garners respect for the old structure so they can both stand alone.
I get the barn references here. I don’t think the addition works by scale, attachment, materials (albeit folk vernacular), fenestration, or even plan. The house, as an existing structure is what it is. If you want to keep it for historical reasons, I don’t think it valid to think you’re being sensitive by attaching an addition where it appears that you did whatever you wanted in the design, without some gesture, other than being humble or barn-like, neither of which translate in the final form.
I have to hand it to Comtemporist and TW for stimulating such a debate. Certain projects, like this one, go published and unquestioned. In the course of this discussion, I’ve thought of several ways the the two structures could have related better, but I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Jimw on 08 May 2010 at 5:21 pm #
I love the dialogue that has evolved on the presentation of this project. I find merit within both TW’s and michael’s arguments. Having spent nearly twenty years involved with historic structures from pure preservation to adaptive reuse, the debate to “respect” vs. “distinguish” an existing milieu has and will continue to ensue depending upon your perspective. In this project, I’m still very unclear about the conceptual approach despite the narrative above. From what I can observe of the natural context, its power comes from its vast openness and simplicity. A logical argument to blend or contrast a built element in this framework both have merit. What alters the approach, however, is the presence of a singular existing structure for undisclosed purposes has been kept either for economics, history, function or sentimentality. The narrative attempts to explain the approach as “emphasis on pragmatic…purposeful and appropriate spaces without profligacy or wilfullness”. I can appreciate that premise but am still uncertain as to its purpose in driving the designer’s approach. Is it because of familial or historical reverence of the existing structure, or is it a personal commitment to simplicity; a conviction to live well without being gaudy and excessive? In either case, the designer could present a valid argument to respect the most significant contextual element in the landscape or define a deliberate program to contrast it. I will go back to my original comment regarding the pictorial narrative excessively focusing on only the exterior of the addition; but not done in a very comprehensive manner. It tells me very little about the original structure other than a simple white gable elevation. And without any interior photos to enlighten those unfamiliar with the project, how was it executed and how was the interior “attachment” to the existing structure handled?
Does the existing house merit respect either by replication or by contrast? From what little I can see, the addition may be a perfect example of “good ordinariness”, but the most I can take away from this project is one of indifference. That to me is the larger failure of the architect and this project.