Maybe it had something to do with the 4th of July fireworks last night or being over-served by the bar tender, but some night shots of our latest project, the Davidson Residence, sounded like a good blog post today. We love taking night shots and dusk shots of our projects because the conditions keep changing by the minute – it’s a balancing act between exercising patience and quick maneuvering. We’re also finding some key ingredients that greatly improve the quality of night shots:

1.    Get all the lights on, all of ‘em. An obvious one, but you’d be surprised how often we forget.
2.    Shooting in .RAW format to capture a greater spectrum of light – you can always narrow down the spectrum later, but you can’t create more spectrum once the shot is taken.
3.    There’s a critical window of time when the artificial lights glow and there’s still enough light in the sky to define the clouds – the magic moment.
4.    Adobe Lightroom – this software has been critical to our in house photography lately.
5.    Extraordinary homeowners who allow us to poke around the house for several hours (a huge thanks to Mike and Chelan).

We’re certainly no pros – so if you are, let us know how we’re doing.
Cheers and happy birthday America.

BUILD LLC just wrapped up a sharp, modern residence in Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood and it’s a perfect time to share some materials, methods and design ideas. We decided years ago that the BUILDblog would be dedicated to transparency and getting useful information out there in the world about design and architecture. This project, in particular, is an excellent means to do so as the owner, Mike Davidson, has kept the most thorough journal/blog we’ve ever seen on a residential project. A HOUSE BY THE PARK documents everything from talking to realtors about buying the land, through the design and construction process, all the way down to the punch list. It’s an objective, accurate look at home construction and you should check it out. Give the owner some kudos for the achievement and supporting architecture!

[Existing Entry, photo by BUILD LLC]

The project was completed for 1% over the target budget and we worked diligently to keep the finances on track, still accommodating several scope increases. The owner’s blog details every expense and keeps a running tab of the construction costs each step of the way. The design-build process proved to be an excellent system as design modifications and construction decisions could be taken care of expediently in the field.

[New Entry, photo by BUILD LLC]

Because the existing house was located on Magnolia’s steep western bluff, any earthwork would have been precarious, bureaucratic and expensive. The team decided to re-use the existing foundation for several reasons; it was in good shape, it would save a significant amount of work, it was cost effective and last but certainly not least it’s a great way to re-use materials. The landscape package was integrated with the geometry of the home to create a formal entry at the approach; the landscaping at the back of the home maintains the original mid-century modern design.

The house was organized into (3) parts; the center circulation space -nicknamed the Big Wood Rectangular Thingy (BWRT), the north wing housing the kitchen and master suite, and the south wing containing the living spaces, bedrooms and garage. This helped us define the interior functions and it allowed us to make deliberate changes to the siding package. The BWRT also becomes a feature design item of the house and the framed views from within are just stunning.

[New west face, photo by BUILD LLC]

[Existing west face, photo by BUILD LLC]

There are (3) types of materials at the envelope; a Prodema rainscreen offers warm tones and a durable skin at the BWRT, CBF Sil-Leed 5/16” treated rainscreen panels create a handsome gray background at the lower level, and dark stained T&G clear cedar adds detail and texture to the composition at the upper level. Both rainscreens sit in front of a Vapro Shield membrane. The changes of exterior materials coincide with the different programs within the home; also employed is a change of plane at the various surfaces to lend shadow and depth to the exterior.

The window package is made up of Marlin 1505 series clear anodized aluminum windows with an Atrium Shade side cabled sunshade system at the west side of the house. Exterior shades prevent a tremendous amount of heat gain inside the house and thereby decrease the amount of necessary cooling. Gaps in the siding at the window system are filled with aluminum panels to match the machined look of the windows. The door package is a variety of systems including NanaWalls at the north wing, Milgard sliders and a fir entry door. The NanaWalls allow entire walls to open up to the outdoors and we’ve been impressed with the accordion mechanical folding system.

A standing seam metal roof with a 1:12 slope is installed at the north and south wings as well as the garage. A flashing package by Taylor Metal seals up the edges and provides a match to the roof color. Strategically placed Tam Skylights align with interior geometries and bring natural daylight to the center of the structure.

The BWRT performs many functions including defining a roof deck at the highest point of the house. On top, it is constructed like a deck with Trex decking on sleepers over a single ply roof membrane. The roof deck guardrail is composed of custom fabricated galvanized steel verticals and a horizontal kit-system by Cable Rail.  A custom ipe wood cap finishes off the gaurdrail and provides an inconspicuous pocket to hide an undermount rope light. The roof deck offers a spectacular view of the Puget sound and Olympic Mountain Range complete with a roof-top hot tub.  A Bilco roof hatch provides access without compromising weatherproofing.

The rainscreen system allows for space to conceal downspouts for a clean and unencumbered facade. The precise breaks of the rainscreen also give a structured, machined look to the envelope.

BUILD’s on-site project manager, Bart Gibson (above), puts some of the finishing touches on the residence.
Stay tuned for the interior and cabinet review of the home, and for the play-by-play of design and construction follow us on Twitter.

One of our favorite things about running a design blog is the discussion and dialogue that takes place around any given post. Among all the talk, we’ve been introduced to some champion peoples, individuals we just wouldn’t know otherwise.  After our post on Mid-Century Modern Communities, Pamela and Erik gave us a shout-out because they own a home in the super cool Hollin Hills hood.

Combine a couple of MCM lovin homeowners with a very handsome house and the fact that Erik is an architectural photographer and what you get is a project that we’re dying to share with you. Enjoy

Hollin Hills near Alexandria Virginia (about 10 miles outside of Washington D.C.)
Established in 1949 and includes about 450 houses
Designed by Charles Goodman and developed by Robert Davenport
Archipreneur did a very nice job of covering it here.
You can purchase the book on Hollin Hills here
-thanks to Adam

[Photos by ChamayBleue]

[Photo by Chris McNamara]

Arapahoe Acres in Englewood, Colorado (south of Denver)
Established in 1949 and includes 124 houses
Designed and developed by Edward Hawkins
More information here
You can purchase the book on Arapahoe Acres here
-thanks to Justin

[Photo by ModMidMod]

Hilltop in Bellevue Washington
Established in 1947 and includes 39 houses
Designed by John Morse, Perry B. Johanson, Fred Bassetti, Paul Hayden Kirk, Wendell Lovett, Lionel Pries, Tucker & Shields, John Van Horne & Edward Cushman, Lee McRae, Richard Haag, Glen Hunt, Robert Chittock, Eckbo, Royston and Dean
More info here
You can purchase the book on Hilltop here

[Photo courtesy of UW Libraries]

Six Moon Hill in Lexington Massachusetts
Established in 1947 and now includes 29 houses
Designed by The Architects Collaborative (T.A.C.)
More info here
You can purchase the book on T.A.C. here
-thanks to Mike

Krisana Park & Lynwood in Denver Colorado
Established in the mid 1950s, Krisana Park includes 175 houses, Lynwood includes 80 houses
Desiged and developed by H.B. Wolff & Co., although the designs are said to be nearly exact copies of Eichler plans
More info here
-thanks to Justin

[Photos by ModMidMod]

There’s a number of lesser known mid-century modern design communities that are every bit as important to the overall movement.
-thanks to Aaron for these

Snake Hill in Belmont Massachusetts
Established in 1941 and includes 5 houses
Developed and designed by Carl Koch

Five Fields in Lexington Massachusetts
Established in 1951 and includes approximately 50 houses
Designed by The Architects Collaborative

Peacock Farms in Lexington Massachusetts
Established in 1952 and includes 68 houses
Designed by Danforth Compton and Walter Pierce

Kendal Common in Weston Massachusetts
Established in 1948 and includes 22 houses
Designed by Carl Koch, Robert Woods Kennedy, Walter Bogner, Hugh Stubbins, Carleton Richmond, and The Architects Collaborative

Brown’s Wood in Lincoln Massachusetts
Established in 1956 and includes 22 houses
Designed by The Architects Collaborative

Conantum in Concord California
Established in 1951 and includes 100 houses
Designed by W. Rupert McLaurin and Carl Koch

A very good article titled Hipsters in the Woods by David Fixler, FAIA covers these projects in more detail.

A huge thanks to everyone that contributed. If you’d like to be part of the BUILDblog research for topics such as this, keep a pulse on us via twitter.

Throughout our travels over the last several years a couple of places really impressed us with their adherence to community and preservation of character.  These two places have a great deal in common. Both have managed to keep the chain restaurants and big box stores out, a task which must require a unified stance and constant effort.  Both have a philosophy that supports the local crafts of each town, maintaining the presence of street-front shops filled with local cuisine and hand-made products. And near and dear to our design-minded hearts, neither community seems to give a crap about providing ample parking, gaining popularity, or creating more convenience (cheers to that).  So to have a little fun, today’s post is a collection of photos from both places for your viewing pleasure. The first commenter to correctly identify the town and state of both will nab themselves a certificate to Peter Miller books.

Town #1

Town #2

The preservation of traditional architecture is important to us and being a modern architecture firm does not exclude us from having respect for the architectures that came before us. Integrating new home updates to a traditional residence is always challenging and establishing a set of strategies is, in our opinion, key to a successful combination of historical charm with modern precision.  It helps keep the aesthetics deliberate, the team focused, the budget on target, and the result elegant.

BUILD and SPD recently completed an interior update to a 100+ year old craftsman style home on Seattle’s Queen Anne Hill.  It was complicated, challenging and created unique opportunities for us to employ a set of modern strategies we’ve developed over the last decade.  In the end, the project was extremely satisfying for us to work on and is wonderful home enjoyed by a happy family.  We wanted to share the top 5 strategies with you.

1. Draw clear physical lines between modern and traditional. Materials and methods of the current time are readily available and cost effective.  Attempting to match detailing and craftsmanship common a century ago is possible – but extremely time consuming and expensive.  In this case, we (our beloved clients and ourselves) decided that the kitchen and bathrooms were to be updated with a modern design philosophy.  The change between new and old takes place at the threshold of each space.  The modernity is intentional and unapologetic.

2. Respect the traditional by not getting in the way of it. The greatest form of respect is simply to leave things be: clean up and repaint walls, windows and trim but let them be what they are – carpentry from a different era.  Don’t copy or imitate the traditional in other areas- this simply debases the charm from this previous era.

3. Screen back the traditional and highlight the new. Implementing a clean, crisp modernism can easily make the original architecture seem clunky and worn.  The original architecture can be painted a crisp (but warm) white and faded back as the new updates provide new color and texture.  Restore the rich textures that are worth maintaining- fir floors, warm woodwork- but have discipline to honestly assess what is worth the effort to keep and simply fade back the rest.  Lighting can be strategically located to highlight the updates and compliment the palette that is maintained.

4. Employ a modernism that compliments older homes. Working closely with the clients, the team chose warm textures and colors.  The oak cabinets were finished with a Trans-tint Rudd 680 conversion varnish which warmed up the cabinetry composed mainly of rift sawn oak faces.  The Caesarstone countertops and various tile textures are sophisticated but calm.  The plumbing and lighting fixtures are modern and crisp, but understated.  The goal is to NOT notice any of this when you enter a space.  The new fixtures and finishes are precise but elegant; they are not new imitations of older styles (see point 2 above), but they are unapologetically modern and function as fixtures in this century should.

5. Plan on updating the systems. Don’t fool yourself – remodeling an older home will expose other issues within the structure and systems.  Put a little extra in the contingency to take care of that galvanized plumbing, the knob-and-tube electrical and the fact that those heat ducts have been blocked for 20 years.  These remodels are a great opportunity to exhume those ghosts and welcome a brighter future.

[All photos by BUILD LLC]

These 5 strategies allowed the team to achieve an unmatched elegance of crisp modernism integrated with older maintained (not faked back together) bones.

Recently during a drive along Interstate-90, just outside of Seattle, we passed by a large tract housing development on a hillside near Issaquah.  The development immediately caught our attention for a reason that may seem a bit strange.  At first glance it reminded us of some of the Italian hilltowns from our student days backpacking around Italy.  We know, ridiculous right?  Maybe our periphery vision failed us, maybe we had one too many martinis the night before, or maybe we’re just trying to hard.  Whatever the case, we couldn’t get it out of our heads.  There were inexplicable similarities in the overall composition, massing and patterns.

[Pietraperzia Hilltown photo from "Italian Hilltowns", by Norman F. Carver Jr.]

What troubles us though is this; despite the first-glance similarities, why are tract housing developments in America so incredibly dull and soul-less, while even the most insignificant Italian hilltown is filled with curiosity, culture and life?  It’s certainly not a lack of materials or absence of technology.  It’s not indolence or scarcity of inhabitants.  There is no lack of gently cascading hills and picturesque landscapes here in the northwest.  The dwellings in these hilltowns don’t cost more to build or purchase than a typical tract home.

[Pietra Secca Hilltown photo from "Italian Hilltowns", by Norman F. Carver Jr.]

We seem to possess everything physical and metaphysical to produce something as quaint as the Italian hilltown, and yet culturally and experientially we’re not even hitting the broad side of the proverbial barn.  Quite the opposite, we’re creating short- term habitats that are detrimental to the quality of our physical and psychological environments.

[Cefalu Hilltown photo from "Italian Hilltowns", by Norman F. Carver Jr.]

Being the curious architects that we are – we just couldn’t help but pick this issue apart.  So we chose the Sicilian Hill town of Pietraperzia to break down and compare with Issaquah Ridge (which could be just about any development in the northwest).  Some of these attributes are obvious but we’re going to think out loud here, share your thoughts.

[Pietraperzia Hilltown at 1000 feet, photo courtesy Google Earth]

Top 10 Similarities
1. Topography & stepping
2. Relative scale
3. Absence of vegetation within the development
4. Articulation of individual dwellings
5. Shared walls
6. Similarity of materials between dwellings
7. Perceived density
8. Relatively orthogonal streets
9. A prominent main street
10.  Underground utilities

[Issaquah Ridge at 1000 feet, photo courtesy Google Earth]

Top 10 Differences
1. After a napkin-sketch analysis; the density of the tract housing development would be equal to approximately 5,352 dwellings per square mile, whereas the density of the hilltown would be equal to approximately 16,500 dwellings per square mile, more than 3 times as many dwellings within the same area.
2. The hilltown seems to have grown into the landscape whereas the tract housing has situated itself with disregard to the landscape – leaving an awkward cliff wall of trees in the background.
3. Internal and private gardens exist at random within the hilltown whereas green space (the yard) is equally distributed in the tract housing.
4. There are many more anomalies amongst dwellings in the hilltown, whereas the tract housing is much more regular in form.
5. There is a messiness about the hilltown that the tract housing lacks.
6. There is greater articulation and more penetrations in the tract housing – more doors and windows.  The walls of the dwellings in the hilltown are more solid and massive.
7. There appears to be variations of zoning in the hilltown as church steeples mix in with the dwellings.  The tract housing allows for one type of use.
8. The streets of the tract housing are much more generous indicating that the automobile is more prominent.  The hilltown seems to be calibrated for pedestrians and bicycles.
9. The volumes of tract houses are much larger in plan view than the volumes of the hilltown dwellings (a bit misleading from the perspective photo).
10. The hilltowns have occurred over decades and generations whereas the tract home developments were probably built from start to finish in less than two years.

Conclusion
Issues of quality, experience of place and poetics of architecture in our built-environment are, of course, a much larger matter and we’ve only taken a tiny snapshot of the overall picture in this post.  In the event that our observations are a decent representation of the larger picture, we’ve got a series of suggestions to forward the discussion and begin solving what is increasingly becoming an enormous problem in our built environment.

A. We’re doing too much. We’re over thinking, over regulating and over standardizing our dwellings in the northwest.  The state, city and community leaders need to relax building codes and covenants to allow for more anomaly, more experimentation and, quite frankly, more messiness.

B. As homeowners we need to work better together. The legal and physical lines separating what’s yours from what’s mine are generating dull, regulated living environments.  We’re not suggesting a system of co-ops and communes but simple items like shared driveways, shared back yards and community courtyards would make a tremendous difference in the quality and experience of the built-environment.  We need to stop suing each other and begin negotiating our differences face to face.  We need to stop relying on the building departments for solutions (refer to A) and instead cooperate at the neighborhood level.

C. Banks need to start lending again. Without access to home loans and construction loans the population is dependent on large-scale self-funded developers for housing.  Most large scale developers have more of an obligation to shareholder profits than they do to the homeowner in producing a timeless and quality environment.

D. Large-scale developers of tract homes need to be kept in check. They need to be held accountable for the quality of life (or lack thereof) that they impose on people.  They need to hire architects rather than drafters.

E. We need to break our dependence on the illusion of the single family home. With a front yard, back yard, two side yards and a white picket fence these developments are wasting space and creating a schism of how we think we’re living and how we’re actually living <queue the golden retriever with the Sunday paper in it’s mouth>.  Most of tract housing is simply the illusion of the rural farm house.  It is much more effective to design and build practical housing without the false appearances that we seem to be fixated on as a culture.

F. Explore transportation options in addition to your car.

G. Slow down. We’re building too fast to make reasonable decisions.  Communities take time to develop.

For more information about the hilltowns shown above we recommend purchasing Italian Hilltowns by Norman F. Carver Jr.

When we heard the news that famed architect Daniel Libeskind is now in the prefab home game, we knew that something has gone terribly wrong with the idea of cost-effective prefabricated, mass-produced, delivered-to-the-site housing. This isn’t a criticism of Libeskind mind you; we have made numerous pilgrimages to admire his projects, including the Jewish Museum in Berlin and his recently completed Royal Ontario Museum Extension in Toronto. His entry into pre-fab home design, however, represents the last nail in the coffin as far as we’re concerned. Like it or not, BUILD is officially declaring the pre-fab home movement dead, at least this round anyway. Here’s 10 reasons why:

1. There are several requirements of pre-fab homes that have never been less expensive than custom construction. Despite the fact that a prefabricated house shows up at the site, it’s not ready to be lived in. The site factors still need to be dealt with like any other home and the costs aren’t any cheaper. The site still requires excavation and a foundation still needs to be poured. Unfortunately a prefab home is not ready to go like a Ford Taurus; pre-fab homes are connected to the site though concrete, electrical strikes, sewer lines and plumbing lines; each of which requires trades and materials unique to the place.

2. Here in the Pacific Northwest the remaining vacant sites are rarely flat and bare. Typically there are topographic issues (steep slopes) and geotechnical considerations (variable soil) that only increase the costs through additional consultants, materials and labor.

3. In difficult economic times (like our current one) it is precisely this type of housing that should prosper. The current movement of pre-fab homes (yes, we know there have been others) has been ramping up for about a decade now. The model should have been primed and ready to go for the current recession. Much to everyone’s disappointment (including our own), the front-runner of the pre-fab movement, Michelle Kaufmann Designs, recently announced that they are closing shop.

4. There is a unique psychology between housing and customization. While most people seem happy to purchase an automobile with a limited set of options, that discipline seems to disappear when it comes their home. From what we’ve seen in the residential market, most people want much more customization than the pre-fabs offer (even though it costs much more).

5. Like any other mass-produced product, prefabs need to sell at a certain volume to pencil out financially. While we don’t know what that tipping point is, we’re guessing that there just aren’t enough consumers with a modern design philosophy to support the formula. Buckminster Fuller and Jean Prouve designed and built successful models decades ago that provided cost-effective, mass-produced, pre-fab housing. One of the main reasons that these models didn’t work is because they didn’t look like little bungalows with white picket fences. As a society, we may not be evolved enough yet for well designed pre-fabs.

6. Architects tend to overdesign pre-fab homes. They become trendy, architectural statements rather than simple methods of solving the issue of cost-effective housing for the masses. We’re not suggesting that the correct solution to pre-fab housing is the ubiquitous double-wide model that has spread like cancer, but there has to be a more sensible balance between architectural design and conventional utility. Pre-fab homes need to be designed in a timeless manner.

7. The pre-fab concept is misrepresented by institutions that we trust. The recent MOMA prefab exhibit hindered the pre-fab movement by decades. The five pre-fab models, constructed in the empty lot adjacent MOMA, couldn’t perform the very basic functions of home; like keeping the heat in and the rain out. They were art projects that you could walk through. It would have been a different scenario had it been presented as “Artistic Impressions of Prefab Homes” but it wasn’t, the exhibit was titled “Home Delivery: Fabricating the Modern Dwelling”. Tens of thousands of museum visitors have a completely skewed and unrealistic understanding of pre-fab homes because of an exhibit which does not address the fundamental principles.

8. There is very little true innovation in current pre-fab home construction methods. The homes are built in a factory much the same as they are built on site. Ideally the pre-fab method would employ mechanical assembly lines similar to industrial design or automobile production. But the reality is that a crew of framers is still slapping studs together – they’re just doing it in a warehouse.

9. Despite our research, we’ve been unable to find much information about how many pre-fab homes have actually been produced and sold on the market. To us, this indicates numbers so low that they are insignificant in comparison to other types of housing.

10. There is a perceived altruism around pre-fabs. The current pre-fab movement aims to make people feel good about buying a pre-fab home. But if pre-fabs aren’t more cost-effective, more timeless or a better overall solution, then it’s just clever marketing.

This is just our take, and we’d love to be proven wrong on any or all of it. As an operation of architects and builders, we think a great deal about effective forms of housing models; these are just the issues we see as barriers with the recent pre-fab movement. As conventional as it is, a better solution for cost-effective housing for the masses is condominiums and townhomes. The cost of earthwork, concrete and utilities are shared between several units thereby making the work much less expensive per home. The size of typical single family lot (~5,000 sf here in Seattle) can easily support 6 homes. One could argue that a primary benefits of pre-fab construction is that you can put it anywhere and that it allows the homeowner to have as much land around their home as they like… but is that really cost-effective, sustainable and sensible?

Today’s post is a tribute to the work of Arthur Erickson who passed away on May 20th, 2009 at the age of 84 in Vancouver.  While Erickson created a substantial portfolio of civic, commercial and institutional work, today’s post will focus on his residential projects.  Erickson’s wood framed homes pushed architecture into new territory in the Pacific Northwest and has influenced generations of architects since.

Erickson was quoted as saying “If you can design a house, you can design anything.”  We’d like to think that this speaks to the complexity and serendipity involved in each residence.  While each house is unique to the clients, budget, environment, and available technology, Erickson developed common strategies to navigate through the design process.  These common strategies are fascinating to us for a number of reasons; it allows the process of design to be efficient amidst all the variables, it develops a visual language with each project, and it unites a population of projects with a collective vision (a thesis if you’ll allow us to get architecty for a moment).  Here is a breakdown of some of the strategies we find most compelling:

Emphasis of post and beam construction
It is said that Erickson was influenced by Native American dwellings with their simple and expressive timber frames.  The differentiation between horizontal beams and vertical walls makes for a handsome composition in addition to being sensible in terms of physics, materials and methods.

Smith House, photo by Ezra Stoller

Craig House, photo by Geoffrey Erickson

Authenticity
These homes look like what they are doing, beams look like beams, walls look like walls.  The materials reveal what they are in color, texture and physical ability.

Hillborn House, photo by Simon Scott

Keevil House, photo by Geoffrey Erickson

Variations of floor plane
Erickson’s most interesting houses use the ground as a datum to add variety.  Within any given project the floor planes may be situated above, below and flush to the exterior grade.  The floor may bridge over a crevasse or span an outcropping rock.  The floor may resolve differences in the topography or call attention to irregularity.  In a sense it puts the focus back on the phenomenal geography found in the Pacific Northwest.

Graham House, photo by Ezra Stoller

Cascading terraces
Often the play between floor structure and topography allows for hillside terracing in Erickson’s projects.  The terracing creates more surface for vegetation and space to enjoy the outdoors.  The terraced structures seem hug the landscape and maintain a modest architectural gesture.

Helmut Eppich House, photo by Geoffrey Erickson

Changing perspectives
Because of the changes in floor plan and stepping of spaces the experience of volume and view in these homes must be extraordinary.  Often, even the roof was composed to be viewed from above – every bit as important as an elevation of the home.

Graham House, photo by Ezra Stoller

Experience of light and shadow
The clean structures lend to crisp shadows; the experience of light and shade changes over the course of a day.  At night the large expanses of glass glow like lanterns.

Smith House, photo by Ezra Stoller

Helmut Eppich House, photo by Roger Brooks

Water as a key element
Erickson’s calm pools enhance the peacefulness of his projects.  It also creates an interesting relationship between the smooth, still surface of the water and the undulating topography.

Helmut Eppich House, photo by Ezra Stoller

Transparency
The walls of glass, so vital to these projects, allow nature to be the focus.  In the dark northwest winters they also allow complete infiltration of light to the interiors.  Achieving such a clarity of built-form in the northwest is challenging.  The seismic zone requires large continuous shearwalls, the energy code limits the amount of glass and most window manufacturers are hesitant to warranty corner windows.

Smith House, photo by Steven Zhen Wang

Craig House, photo by Geoffrey Erickson

Defining exterior rooms
Erickson’s projects do a brilliant job of making outdoor rooms.  The shape of the house or strategic placement of posts and beams can make outdoor spaces intentional and comfortable.

Smith House, photo by Steven Zhen Wang

Craig House, photo by Simon Scott

So there you have it – a few aspects we greatly admire about the work of Arthur Erickson.  His projects are timeless examples of Pacific Northwest modernism and his lessons will be well remembered.  Cheers to the life and career of a master architect.

Photo by John MacDonald

Here’s the material breakdown:

1. Homasote display board attached to vertical slats
2. 1½” x 2” vertical cedar slats at varying lengths
3. Track lights concealed above cedar slats: Juno T12W Trac-Master w/ T359W w/ basic mini universal heads
4. 1 1/4” x 8” cedar slats @ 6”oc (composed of laminating (2) 5/8” slats).
5. 4” deep x 1 ¼” metal flashing “champagne” to match corrugated steel soffit
6. Corrugated, perforated steel panels (off-cuts provided from nearby large project).
7. 4’ long fluorescent lights, boxed out with flashing to match soffit
8. Conference table by SPD; solid laminated Anigre top with steel base

http://specialprojectsdivision.wordpress.com/

9. Concrete slab floor with clear sealer
10. Maple plywood cabinets with exposed edges and clear sealed
11. 4’ long fluorescent light boxed out with cedar trim
12. 6062 “Boeing” aluminum alloy, steel plate wall hanging
13. Track lights: Juno T12W Trac-Master w/ T359W w/ basic mini universal heads
14. Orange acrylic panel mounted to wall
15. Corten steel sheet panel mounted to wall
16. Cork panel wall mounted
17. 3-Form Drift Green panel wall mounted
18. Solid fir plank, clear sealed and wall mounted
19. Chalk board panel wall mounted with inset Mockett pull for chalk holder

The construction process vid

The quick cost summary looks like this (in round numbers):
free perforated metal panels (salvaged and reused)
$350 210 lineal feet of matching edge metal (fabricated)
$225 improperly milled clear cedar material (mill unable to sell conventionally)
$1150 additional lumber, cedar, hardware and materials for ceiling assembly
$1200 additional track lighting, heads and lamps
$1250 conference table base; top was salvaged anigre laid-up by our shop, SPD
$75 homasote panels
free 6062 plate (salvaged from Boeing Surplus many years ago)
$35 acrylic panel, cut to size
$95 corten steel panel
$35 cork panel on multiply base
free 3-Form panel (salvaged)
$295 fir plank (bought from reclaimed supplier)
$85 chalk board panel
$300 general consumables

$5,095 project total

Now granted, the labor was our own. If you factor the labor in at our normal billing rates, the $5,095 balloons up to $14,000. This makes our office improvements a tidy $22/ square foot, everything included. An industrious budget by an industrious group in times that call for industrious solutions.

Designed by: Kevin Eckert, Andrew van Leeuwen, Duff Bangs of BUILD LLC
Constructed by: Bart Gibson of BUILD LLC
Cheers from your friends at BUILD