House V by Jakob Bader Architecture
Jakob Bader Architecture have designed the House V in Munich-Unterfoehring, Germany.

.
House V by Jakob Bader Architecture
House V is a large house on a small plot of land and an even smaller budget. On the outside it is very red and on the inside very raw. The house is well insulated and includes a geothermal pump and air-handling system minimising operation and maintenance costs. House V is not specifically an “Environmental” house but rather just simple and smart.
Arrival at House V is from the South. Cars are not hidden away in a garage but displayed under the house’s wide upper story cantilever which provides ample protection from the elements. This cantilever houses a large study and underneath it the main entry to the house and also a separate entry which is a shortcut to the loft space.
The 16m long house stretches out to the North. The living spaces are to the north enclosed on three sides by glass and outside by the garden. Here the planning of the house becomes obvious. The open living room, kitchen and dining spaces are arranged like a Basilica with the kitchen at the centre, the high alter of our time. The main bedroom and hidden terrace directly above the living room in the loft, are reminiscent of a winter-garden: from the bed one can observe the starry night sky, snow flakes or aeroplanes.
To the north, there is a seemingly endless view to wilderness through a magnificent apple tree and clump of Firs. The land here is attractive for it borders on a reserve that is protected by the state from future building because of infrastructure running through it. English Aristocrats of the 19th century also built their country retreats turned to the North, to accentuate the view into the garden that is bathed in southern light. In Germany it is very uncommon and strange.
House V´s outer T-form is mirrored on the inside: the central services zone is bordered on two sides by the larger living rooms. The central zone includes stairs, two bathrooms and two dressing rooms, a library and an internal chute linking the upper story to the cellar. In the cellar there is plenty of storage space and the all-important control room, the holy crypt of the contemporary house where the technological controls for the house are located. The adjustment for these controls is by touchscreen, internet and iPhone for making changes when out and about.
Building House V was a specific challenge in itself. The strict council rules couldn´t be compromised: e.g. the great upper story is officially called just a pitched roof space. The setbacks from the boundary were also dealt with very artfully.
House V is modern but not perfectionist. It is outwardly sculptural and symbolic and inside raw and even abrasive; unlike many other contemporary houses which are smooth, sexy and dead boring. House V is human. The casual details are not spectacular but the concept: as a whole it is a harmony of volume, layout, facades, structure, technical configuration and inner organisation.
Visit the website of Jakob Bader Architecture – here.
Photography by Kai Arndt
.
.













BjZ on 04 Aug 2010 at 8:59 am #
I don’t know what to make of this one. All i can say is that in some weird way its groovy, funky, cool and it actually gets a passing grade by me. I think this can work, good job!
kristine on 04 Aug 2010 at 10:07 am #
love it! so cool that it is completely red!
kmg on 04 Aug 2010 at 2:41 pm #
I think it’s wonderfully spare. I love all of the exposed concrete.
I just wonder how well it … er, “lives”. Looks rather like a part-time residence.
Concrete and minimalist affinities notwithstanding, I’d opt for a double height layout (zoning and codes permitting)… while I like the layout and materials, such a narrow line of site is causes me to crave more “headroom”. [The photos seem to suggest that the ceiling is bearing down on me.] Anyhow, this is perhaps beyond scope.
All in – engaging. I think it’s inspiring in its spareness.
Jimw on 04 Aug 2010 at 3:38 pm #
There have been a number of projects posted on this site in which the posters have criticized the interiors being cold, sterile, lacking warmth, lacking color, and on and on. I, for one, do not necessarily find the monochrome palette as being negative…it depends on the design, the composition, the use of light and shadow, etc., etc. Many times under the hands of a deft and skillful designer form, space, scale etc. are much more successful without color. Its like a beautiful woman not depending on over-wrought eye make-up to emphasize (or suggest the illusion of) that natural beauty.
This house is covered in eye make-up. The interiors of the project are cold, uninspired, sterile and lifeless. I’ve been in car repair shops with more character. Other than a big circular skylight in the bathroom, there’s not much to study or emote over with this one.
Miss Honey on 04 Aug 2010 at 7:17 pm #
All i can say is that i feel bad for the neighbors. I’m sorry this happened to you. And i agree with Jimw about the interior.
TW on 05 Aug 2010 at 2:06 am #
the exterior appeals to me. Anything residential with a bit of colour is always good.
But that interior…? I agree with both kmg and Jimw – I could work out why it was such an uncomfortable space at first but then read the words “bearing down” in kmg’s response and that about sums it up.
And Jimw, I am one of those people that are generally critical of white or minimalist interiors. Because it takes real genius to make it work. And here is an example of interior design with not a lot of thought.
Jimw on 05 Aug 2010 at 6:29 am #
TW…You’re right on point. It takes a masterful hand to make monochromatic schemes work, but when they do they are incredibly seductive to me. That’s probably because I don’t have that bit of genius necessary to pull it off.
I love color. I love textures. My personal challenge as a designer is paring those down in a manner that the both of those attributes are as critically integral to the “architecture” as is the space, form, etc.
With this project, the color red initially intrigued me, but unfortunately it didn’t last long. I don’t find its use as necessarily defining. I found it as a strong visual device to make up for what is lacking overall; thoughtful organization, intriguing spatial definition, and the creation of “place”. As an example, this structure doesn’t define itself at all in the context. Is it wanting to fit in, or is it an “object” respecting the context/environment in which it is placed? Look at how it addresses the ground…absolutely no thought to it being of the place it sits. It is just “plopped” there.
I’ve proselytized enough here and apologize for my indulgence. To illustrate my points of place, design, color, texture, etc. one of my absolute favorite homes is the “Red House” by Jarmund/Vignaes in Norway. An example I go back to and study time and time again.
Anderson on 05 Aug 2010 at 7:11 am #
Did you people read the first sentence of the description? It says they had a very small budget. So you might want to adjust your expectations accordingly.
PAS on 05 Aug 2010 at 7:24 am #
I really like it.However,it would have been nice if the budget could have been stretched to include a little more furniture in the main living area prior to the photo shoot..
kmg on 05 Aug 2010 at 12:46 pm #
I like the place, but would do some things differently.
I suppose that I wonder why keep the living experience and line of sight to that stingy 8.5 to 9.5 ft (whatever is in this case) … especially when the dominant material experience is just so solid and imposing.
Don’t get me wrong. I love (no LOVE) exposed concrete. But to me it emphasizes the need for more light / air / transparency – I suppose I could say… “negative space”.
Not sure I share Jimw’s view on monochromatic schemes being so demanding conceptually. But I can appreciate his emphasis on the holistic, context driven approach.
My principle issue, I think, is that I’m not convinced this example is particularly functional. I just don’t know where any personal items go … if not on the floor.
For me… the dream is taut, minimal, but functionally well rationalized – with a good sense of materials and negative space.
TW on 06 Aug 2010 at 5:07 am #
To Anderson – you can still be clever on a budget.
The one thing that separates a great architect from an ordinary one is their ability to create something amazing when they are faced with challenges. Including budget challenges. In fact some of the most interesting houses in the world are those borne from restraints.
Shane Bruegger on 06 Aug 2010 at 8:47 am #
I just love this design. Love the cantilever.
Leonardo Ximenes on 12 Aug 2010 at 1:38 pm #
Great little house. Bare but warm, and full of light. It made me think of Ungers’ designs.