© Julien Fernandez

• Architects: Fabre-DeMarien Architectes
• Location: Bordeaux, France
• Area: 189.0 sqm
• Project Year: 2015
• Photographs: Julien Fernandez

• Design Team: Fabre-DeMarien Architectes, Emmanuelle Lesgourgues
• Structure : Malandain
• Electricity: Cazeau

© Julien Fernandez

From the architect. Bordeaux, Chartrons’ area. On the street front, a limestone building. On the back lot, a silk screen printing workshop. The order was to renovate and raise the two storey building, creating two dwellings and one shared ground between the workshop and the housing.

© Julien Fernandez

Three Spaces for Three Functions

The building’s groundfloor is divided in two main parts : the common space / private access and the garage / public access to the workshop. In the courtyard, a single stairway serves the upper floors of both dwellings and printshop. For an intuitive sharing, a subtle variation of the ground material delineates the nominated areas. Freed  from the interior circulation, everyone benefits of extra spaces. In the metal growth, the flat expands on two floors, making good use of an attic space relieved of traditional woodframe.

© Julien Fernandez

Section

© Julien Fernandez

The extension, composed of a wooden structure and zinc scales, relies on the existing stonework. Locally, zinc scales were used to protect the west gablewall. The material create a bridge between the historic context and the contemporary extension, used to create a continuous skin from the street to the courtyard. As if something precious was embedded in a raw stone, the small addition reflects the surroundings, producing a moving spectrum of colours day and night.

© Julien Fernandez

http://ift.tt/2c0MRUi

DETAIL Magazine has announced the winners of the DETAIL Prize 2016. This year, the jury selected five projects from a pool of 337 projects from 42 different countries by looking for “realizations in which the overall design concept and the detailing were brought together in a coherent way.” The winners were noted for being “future-oriented, innovative and pioneering projects from different disciplines that have outstanding architectural and technical qualities.”

This is the seventh edition of the biennial award, which aims to “strengthen architecture in public debate, strengthen the role of architects in public, and strengthen networking among architects, industrialists, developers and politicians.”

Continue after the break to see the winners.

Winner

MPavilion 2014, Melbourne / Sean Godsell Architects

MPavilion 2014, Melbourne / Sean Godsell Architects. Image © Earl Carter Photography c/o Sean Godsell Architects, Melbourne. Courtesy of DETAIL

2nd Prize

St. Agnes, Berlin / Brandlhuber + Emde, Burlon / Riegler Riewe Architekten

St. Agnes, Berlin / Brandlhuber + Emde, Burlon / Riegler Riewe Architekten. Image © Michael Reisch, Düsseldorf. Courtesy of DETAIL

3rd Prize

Hilti Art Foundation, Vaduz / Morger Partner Architekten

Hilti Art Foundation, Vaduz / Morger Partner Architekten. Image © Valentin Jeck, Stäfa. Courtesy of DETAIL

DETAIL Structure Prize

Merchant Square Footbridge, London / Knight Architects

Merchant Square Footbridge, London / Knight Architects. Image © Edmund Sumner, London. Courtesy of DETAIL

DETAIL Inside Prize

K8, Kyoto / Florian Busch Architects

K8, Kyoto / Florian Busch Architects. Image © Sohei Oya, Tokyo. Courtesy of DETAIL

This year’s jury consisted of Peter Ippolito (Ippolito Fleitz Group), Gilles Retsin (Gilles Retsin Architecture), Mike Schlaich (schlaich bergermann partner), Enrique Sobejano (Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos) and Daniel Lischer (alp architektur lischer partner ag).

Voting for the DETAIL Reader’s Prize is now open. Until 14 October 2016, you can vote online for your favorite selection out of 13 projects nominated by the jury.

Winning projects will be presented and displayed alongside other works from the winning firms at the DETAIL Symposium in the Magazin der Heeresbäckerei event venue in Berlin on Friday, 11 November 2016.

News via DETAIL Magazine.

http://ift.tt/2c0KXTu

© Gonzalo Viramonte

• Architects: FCP arquitectura
• Location: Jockey Club Río Cuarto, Av. Pres. Perón Oeste 1600, Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
• Author Architects: Carolina Ferrreira Centeno, Andrea Paolasso
• Landscape: Andrea Paolasso
• Area: 480.0 sqm
• Project Year: 2015
• Photographs: Gonzalo Viramonte

• Cálculo Estructural: EA3 Ing Gerónimo Caffaro
• Arquitecto Construcción: Luciano Femopase
• Maestro Mayor De Obra: Italo Femopase

© Gonzalo Viramonte

A large volume of white extended walls that recreates the trees on the lot preserving family privacy that connects with portions of forest … lots of heaven…lots of wáter.

© Gonzalo Viramonte

The lot is located in a gated neighborhood near the central area of the city of Córdoba and it showed great contrasts … .an irregular exposing corner lot that challenged us to preserve home life … .an ancient dense forest of native trees occupied half of the land, opposite to a plain stripped of vegetation. 

Floor Plan

Floor Plan

The challenge and exploration of the work aimed to amalgamate the light of the land with the programmatic needs of housing … the forest, its shadow, its intimacy … and the plain, its light, its expansion as a vacuum to overturn in architecture. A serene family life of four members with an active social life. Thus, the skin is the element that condenses this dialectic as a contact membrane between the inside and the outside, assuming the responsibility to face different requirements as a whole. 

© Gonzalo Viramonte

© Gonzalo Viramonte

We decided to consider the work in a stereotomic way, thereby we established and reinforced a concrete boundary between public and private. Pure white ceramic block masonry volumes lightly suspended soil barely were thought to connect the inner and outer spaces according to the demands of interior activities. As subtle counterpoint to the white walls, rusty sheets of iron act as a filter in these turning points, mobile panels that regulate access, lighting, privacy, from the full opacity to the transparency of the perforated surfaces. 

© Gonzalo Viramonte

The green landscape and the folds of the topography that we had built complete the proposal to set up a private space that reviews the patio paradigm. The requirement of considering the water as part of the family activities throughout the year brought about a large water mirror that connects the social spaces of the house and extends to the barbecue. In summer it enjoys the outdoors in the sun meanwhile the house offers shelter in winter with the help of solar and heating systems. 

© Gonzalo Viramonte

The culmination of the work relied on local construction systems and reinforced concrete masonry. The strategy aimed to differentiate private to social places, a smaller spatial scale and the presence of the walls capture visuals; and a more permeable social space characterized by large beams that support the roof and the wall of the main façade, hanging over and diluting the limits, large aluminum frames open the space to the family yard. 

© Gonzalo Viramonte

The proposal optimizes the relationship between the geometry of the lot, its landscape, the programmatic requirements of housing and our spatial intentions. Most private housing sectors directly link with the forest in the zero plane …they have direct contact with the tree and on the terrace. On a larger scale, social spaces are connected to the empty open place… the reference of the tree is at the distance …it is sculptural. 

http://ift.tt/2clFHvA

When it comes to expensive artforms, architecture undoubtedly tops the list (even if the artistic merits of some of the absolute priciest buildings are sometimes dubious). But what may not be so obvious is that many of architecture’s iconic works have been completed on budgets not so dissimilar to the work of another artistic industry: filmmaking. Each with their own set of merits, works from both categories have transcended time, confirming that (in most cases) they have more than returned on their initial investment.

To illustrate this point, we’ve complied a list of buildings from eras past, paired with movies of similar budgets completed in the same calendar year. Which buildings or movies have contributed the most based on their initial costs?

1939

Johnson Wax image via wikimedia user Jack Boucher under public domain. Wizard of Oz image via wikimedia user MGM under public domain.

Building: Johnson Wax Building / Frank Lloyd Wright
$1.2 million

Movie: Wizard of Oz
$2.7 million

1952

Lever House image © flickr user ekain. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. The Greatest Show on Earth image via IMDB under public domain.

Building: Lever House / SOM
$6 million

Movie: The Greatest Show on Earth
$4 million

1956

Price Tower image © flickr user fireboats. Licensed under CC BY 2.0. Love Me Tender image via IMDB under public domain.

Building: Price Tower / Frank Lloyd Wright
$1.25 million

Movie: Love Me Tender
$1 million

1959

Guggenheim Museum image © Laurian Ghinitoiu. Some Like It Hot image via wikimedia user United Artists under public domain.

Building: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum / Frank Lloyd Wright
$3 million

Movie: Some Like It Hot
$3 million

1967

Habitat 67 image © Jade Doskow. Casino Royale image via IMDB under public domain.

Building: Habitat 67 / Moshe Safdie
$22 million

Movie: Casino Royale
$12 million

1982

National Assembly Building image © flickr user abrinsky. Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. Blade Runner image © flickr user echoes4ever. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Building: National Assembly Building of Bangladesh / Louis Kahn
$32 million

Movie: Blade Runner
$28 million

1989

Wexner Center image © flickr user OZinOH. Licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0. Indiana Jones image © flickr user randar. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Building: Wexner Center for the Arts / Peter Eisenman
$50 million

Movie: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
$55 million

1997

Guggenheim Bilbao image © flickr user angaros. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. The Fifth Element image © flickr user sbwoodside. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Building: Guggenheim Bilbao / Frank Gehry
$100 million

Movie: The Fifth Element
$95 million

Kunsthaus Bregenz image © flickr user Böhringer Friedrich licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Austin Powers image © flickr user thomashawk. Licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

Building: Kunsthaus Bregenz / Peter Zumthor
$22 million

Movie: Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery
$18 million

1999

Jewish Museum Berlin image © flickr user asalisz. Licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0. The Green Mile image © flickr user billstrain. Licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Building: Jewish Museum Berlin / Daniel Liebeskind
$56 million

Movie: The Green Mile
$60 million

2001

Sendai Mediatheque image © flickr user eager. Licensed under CC BY 2.0. Harry Potter image © flickr user clsphotos. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Building: Sendai Mediatheque / Toyo Ito
$130 million

Movie: Harry Potter & the Sorcerer’s Stone
$125 million

2004

Seattle Central Library image © Philippe Ruault. The Polar Express image © flickr user ritahogan. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Building: Seattle Central Library / OMA + LMN
$166 million

Movie: The Polar Express
$170 million

2007

Building: San Francisco Federal Building / Morphosis
$144 million

Movie: I am Legend
$150 million

New Museum image © Iwan Baan. Grindhouse image © flickr user floydgal. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Building: New Museum / SANAA
$50 million

Movie: Grindhouse
$53 million

2008

Watercube image © flickr user Kyle Simourd. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. The Incredible Hulk image © flickr user tim_norris. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Building: Watercube National Swimming Centre / PTW Architects
$140 million

Movie: The Incredible Hulk
$138 million

2009

Aqua Tower image © Hedrich Blessing. Avatar image © flickr user centralasian. Licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Building: Aqua Tower / Studio Gang
$300 million

Movie: Avatar
$425 million

2010

Columbia University image © Michael Moran Studio. Tron: Legacy image © flickr user alcalaenfotos. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Building: Columbia University Northwest Corner Building / Davis Brody Bond + Rafael Moneo + Moneo Brock Studio
$200 million

Movie: Tron: Legacy
$200 million

2011

Building: The Dali Museum / HOK
$36 million

Movie: Midnight in Paris
$30 million

HARPA image courtesy of Henning Larsen Architects. Thor image © flickr user tales2astonish. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Building: HARPA Concert Hall / Henning Larsen Architects
$150 million

Movie: Thor
$150 million

2012

Heydar Aliyev Center image © Iwan Baan. The Hobbit image © flickr user flyfarther79. Licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Building: Heydar Aliyev Center / Zaha Hadid Architects
$250 million

Movie: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
$250 million

2013

user bangdoll. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Building: Danish National Maritime Museum / BIG 
$55 million

Movie: Captain Phillips
$55 million

2014

Biomuseo image © Fernando Alda. The Lego Movie image © flickr user brickset. Licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Building: Biomuseo / Frank Gehry
$60 million

Movie: The Lego Movie
$60 million

2015

The Broad Museum image © Iwan Baan. Mad Max: Fury Road image © flickr user kaysha. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Building: The Broad Museum / Diller, Scofidio + Renfro
$140 million

Movie: Mad Max: Fury Road
$150 million

Overall budgets for buildings can be difficult to measure – numbers are based on total cost of construction. Movie budgets have been found at The Numbers. Buildings not listed in US dollars have been converted using the FXTOP Historical Exchange Rates Calculator.

http://ift.tt/2caQyq3

© Matthew Millman

• Architects: Carney Logan Burke Architects
• Location: Wyoming, United States
• Project Team: Eric Logan, Jeff Lawrence, Jen Mei, Monica DeGraffenreid, Anna Foster
• Contractor: Dembergh Construction
• Area: 4800.0 ft2
• Project Year: 2015
• Photographs: Matthew Millman

© Matthew Millman

The Boulder Retreat is located adjacent to a ski resort in Wyoming. The owners’ program called for a modest but expandable residential program to be interpreted in an architectural language that is abstract rather than literal in referencing the ubiquitous “western log cabin”.

© Matthew Millman

© Matthew Millman

© Matthew Millman

The site’s limited buildable area and the clients’ desire for minimal impact on the landscape required a small footprint for the building. This constraint, together with specifications of the owners’ program, pushed the living areas of the house onto an upper floor and into the canopy of trees, creating an upside-down version of a traditional house diagram. Steep slopes, dense tree cover, and an enormous boulder are all site influences central to the design solution. The primal, geologic character of the boulder had a profound impact on the building form.

© Matthew Millman

Diagram

© Matthew Millman

http://ift.tt/2bI4mpk