3-in-1 House (Schab-Sherman Residence)

schah-zoningasform.jpg

POPULATION GROWTH VS HOUSE TYPOLOGY
Los An­ge­les con­ti­nues to inc­rease in den­sity and there is now an ur­gent need for more peo­ple to find a place to live in­side the city. Ho­we­ver, the de­sire of the inha­bi­tants who al­ready live within the ur­ban areas is to con­ti­nue kee­ping the cu­rrent low den­sity which re­sem­bles that of a su­burb. Con­se­quently the re­sults of this ten­sion dis­turb not only the form of the ur­ban lands­cape of LA, but also be­gin to se­ve­rely trans­form both the shape and iden­tity of its do­mes­tic ty­po­lo­gies. Ro­ger Sher­man of Ro­ger Sher­man Archi­tec­ture + Ur­ban De­sign sta­tes that to­day “Los An­ge­les needs to build more within its exis­ting size, within its exis­ting foot­print.”

Cu­rrently, the den­si­fi­ca­tion hap­pe­ning ac­ross mul­ti­ple neigh­borhoods and ci­ties com­bi­ned with ra­pidly es­ca­la­ting land costs — perhaps near a mi­llion do­llars for a 30-by-100 foot lot in areas like Santa Mo­nica and Ve­nice — nu­me­rous dis­tricts are get­ting out of reach. Con­se­quently, many peo­ple are being for­ced to move into more af­for­da­ble areas. Ho­we­ver, in the re­cent years, we tend to see more ho­meow­ners buil­ding house ad­di­tions to ac­com­mo­date re­la­ti­ves, trans­for­ming the ga­rage ty­po­logy into ren­tal apart­ments and in­te­gra­ting new ren­tal unit(s) onto their pro­perty in or­der to be able to live in these high-priced neigh­borhoods. Thus, ren­tal units have be­came a po­pu­lar and in­ge­nious means to inc­rease the monthly in­come of those fa­mi­lies who de­sire to live in more ur­ban areas; the Schab-Sherman Re­si­dence exem­pli­fies this de­sire. “Without a ren­tal unit, we could ne­ver af­ford to build a single-family house in this area,” says Sherman.

Lo­ca­ted in Santa Mo­nica, the Schah Re­si­dence sits on a com­pli­ca­ted lot; a site cons­trai­ned by its small size and steep inc­line where up to th­ree dwe­llings can be de­ve­lo­ped. Con­se­quently, the house be­co­mes a pro­totype whe­rein the archi­tect crea­ti­vely ex­plo­res dif­fe­rent sys­tems in or­der to de­ve­lop a higher den­sity within a stan­dard size lot.

schah-typologicaladaptation.jpg

This pro­ject pre­sents an in­no­va­tive and un­con­ven­tio­nal struc­ture by com­bi­ning two dwe­llings and an of­fice space. Meanwhile, this buil­ding show­ca­ses the ef­fect of the po­pu­la­tion growth on the man­ner in which the con­tem­po­rary home is as­sem­bled, whether th­rough si­mi­la­ri­ties or contrasts.

schah-interlockingvolumes.jpg

schah-conjoineddomains.jpg

Mo­reo­ver, the archi­tect in­ves­ti­ga­tes the building’s re­la­tionship to its site. The Schah Re­si­dence sits along the hill­side in con­trast to all the neigh­bo­ring hou­ses which are orien­ted to­ward the street and stand uphill on their man-made pla­teaus. The re­si­dence fills the en­tire side yard rather than the front yard. By re­du­cing the ne­ces­sary size of pro­gram­med spa­ces and by buil­ding up­wards as op­po­sed to out­wards, the archi­tect frees up the land, main­tains the ra­tio bet­ween so­lid and void — bet­ween the buil­ding and the lands­cape — and fi­nally pre­ser­ves the su­bur­ban tex­ture of the city.

schah-sideyard.jpg

schah-groundlevelplan.jpg
(Ground Le­vel Plan)

schah-secondlevelplan.jpg
(Se­cond Le­vel Plan)

“IN-BETWEEN“
In this case the term “bet­ween” is used to desc­ribe an in­te­rre­la­ted ele­ment of archi­tec­ture and lands­cape. “In archi­tec­ture, the “bet­ween” cen­tres its in­te­rest on what me­dia­tes — the archi­tec­ture of re­la­tion and tan­gency. It is the ur­ba­nism of open sys­tems, archi­tec­ture without li­mits, without clause, open to phe­no­me­no­logy of lands­cape, but also the archi­tec­ture of con­junc­tion…” (José Mo­ra­les, The Me­ta­po­lis Dic­tio­nary of Ad­van­ced Archi­tec­ture, p.334).

At this pre­sent time, the eco­no­mic and ur­ban con­di­tions of Los An­ge­les ge­ne­rate an elas­tic ur­ban lands­cape where the tra­di­tio­nal re­la­tionship bet­ween lands­cape and the archi­tec­ture is trans­for­med. “The enor­mous in­te­rest in lands­cape that is ta­king the con­tem­po­rary archi­tec­ture de­bate by storm is a clear sign that we can no lon­ger rely on the clas­si­cal re­la­tionship bet­ween buil­ding and ground, or on the con­ven­tio­nal de­fi­ni­tion of the ground as de­la­mi­na­ted, sta­ble, ho­ri­zon­tal, de­ter­mi­ned and ho­mo­ge­neous.” (Ale­jan­dro Zaera-Polo, The Me­ta­po­lis Dic­tio­nary of Ad­van­ced Archi­tec­ture, p.95). Con­se­quently, many archi­tects like Ro­ger Sher­man are now con­si­de­ring and ex­plo­ring the space bet­ween buil­dings as a ge­ne­ra­tor of po­ten­tial relationships.

In this pro­ject, the lands­ca­ping is used as an in­dex of the pro­gram. The lands­cape is con­fi­gu­red in steps. “The lo­west le­vel is used for the ser­vi­ces, to park and wash the car. All the dirty ac­ti­vi­ties hap­pen at the bot­tom of the site.

schah-parking.jpg

The se­cond le­vel is used as the pu­blic stage of the house. This is where the oc­cu­pants can en­ter­tain them­sel­ves. On the other hand, the up­per le­vel is thought more as a pas­sive area which inc­lu­des a pri­vate sun te­rrace that can be used as the play­ground for the kids,” says Sherman

schah-public-stage.jpg

schah-onthemap.jpg

The lands­cape li­te­rally mo­ves in and out of the struc­ture. Like a pa­ra­llel re­si­dence the lands­cape ma­ni­pu­la­tes the archi­tec­ture and vice versa. Each le­vel ac­cepts a dif­fe­rent pro­gram (pu­blic, semi-private and pri­vate). Con­se­quently, since each in­te­rior space has its own co­rres­pon­ding space ou­tside, the size of the pro­gram is cons­trai­ned in width. Ho­we­ver, since the de­sign ma­xi­mi­zes fle­xi­bi­lity th­rough in­te­gra­ting in­te­rior and ex­te­rior as equal and in­te­rre­la­ted com­po­nents of the do­mes­tic lands­cape, the rooms seem much larger.

schah-grade.jpg

In ad­di­tion, the con­ti­nuous conc­rete floor bet­ween the ex­te­rior and the in­te­rior ac­cen­tua­tes this re­la­tionship and ser­ves to create mea­ning­ful spa­ces. As a re­sult, the en­tire ground is uti­li­zed and as the archi­tect ex­plains: “I get more usa­ble land and real es­tate on this slo­ping site then if it was a flat lot.”

schah-kitchen-insideoutside.jpg

The slo­ping lot has another ad­van­tage. Step­ping down the hill, the house ta­kes ad­van­tage of each dis­tinc­tive le­vel of the site by of­fe­ring dif­fe­rent views of the lands­cape and by dif­fe­ren­tia­ting the in­ner space bet­ween the pro­grams. For ins­tance, the of­fice on the ground floor has a small obli­que view to the back­yard — in this case the side yard — but it is mostly orien­ted to­ward the pu­blic space, so is the tenant’s space. On the other hand, the main house over­looks the pa­no­ra­mic views of the Santa Mo­nica Moun­tains and flows out be­yond the boun­da­ries of the site con­nec­ting the lands­cape of the city. “Each room and each oc­cu­pant gets so­mething dif­fe­rent that no­body else has within the struc­ture,” sta­tes Sherman.

schah-domesticlandscape.jpg

schah-kitchenassurveillance.jpg

“The con­tem­po­rary city has been com­pa­red to a hive of di­ver­sity to ex­plain its ove­rall growth and or­ga­ni­za­tion,” wri­tes the archi­tect. In the na­tu­ral world, the hive is de­fi­ned as a struc­ture where the mem­bers of a co­lony live and work with many others in close as­so­cia­tion. At a do­mes­tic scale, a dwe­lling can also be un­ders­tood as a hive; a hive of con­tras­ting in­te­rests whe­rein the dis­pa­rate in­te­rests of each in­di­vi­dual in­te­ract bet­ween each others.

In this pro­ject, the term “bet­ween” means the in­te­rac­tion bet­ween peo­ple or the space bet­ween peo­ple. Every ele­ment of the house, spe­cially the cir­cu­la­tion pat­terns, is used as a me­dia­ting tool in or­der to re-define the space bet­ween the two struc­tu­res. Ins­tead of com­ple­tely se­pa­ra­ting the two ha­bi­tats and the­re­fore ma­king them inert in their re­la­tionship, the archi­tect crea­tes a struc­ture whe­rein both units rub against each other in a very in­te­res­ting and pro­vo­ca­tive way. “I wan­ted to have an awa­re­ness of the te­nant pre­sence, but in a more subtle way,” says Sherman.

schah-interlacedmovement.jpg

The tenant’s unit fills the en­tire width of the pro­perty on the street side. The li­ving areas on the east side are al­most en­ti­rely sub­mer­ged into the ground in or­der to at­tain a cer­tain le­vel of pri­vacy while at the same time dis­si­mu­la­ting the vo­lume from the rest of the re­si­dence. In con­trast, the kitchen has an in­te­gra­ted win­dow into the steps of the sun te­rrace than run above, allo­wing the ren­ter to have a small view of the Santa Mo­nica Can­yon while trans­gres­sing the pri­vate do­main – the side yard — of the main residence.

schah-front-corner.jpg

In ad­di­tion, the tenant’s be­droom on the west side is pla­ced on the se­cond floor, co­ve­ring the architect’s of­fice be­low. This room is com­ple­tely se­pa­ra­ted from the main house by an en­ca­sed ver­ti­cal sky­light that cuts th­rough the en­tire se­cond floor, ac­cen­tua­ting the di­vi­sion bet­ween the two do­mains while allo­wing na­tu­ral light to pe­ne­trate th­rough each le­vel. Du­ring the day, the ren­ter and ow­ner both pro­fit from the ge­ne­rous amount of light while at night the ren­ter can take ad­van­tage of the ac­ti­vi­ties be­low by bo­rro­wing some light from the trans­lu­cent pa­nel that de­fi­nes the ver­ti­cal sur­face of the skylight.

schah-light-diagram.jpg

schah-skylight.jpg

Mo­reo­ver, the tenant’s be­droom and li­ving areas are lin­ked to­gether by a stair­case pas­sing over the main en­trance that si­mul­ta­neously crea­tes a dry porch (ca­nopy) at the en­trance. This in­te­rac­tion heigh­tens the sym­bio­tic and perhaps pa­ra­si­tic re­la­tionship bet­ween te­nant and ow­ner. (S.Schmidt-Wetekam in dis­cus­sion with M.Moreau) As Sher­man ex­plains, “We get so­mething back from what the tenant’s have and vice-versa.”

schah-front.jpg

Sub­se­quently, it is very dif­fi­cult to know where one space be­gins and another ends. Like a puzzle, each piece — each space — in­ter­locks with the other to dis­solve or ca­mou­flage the space bet­ween the pro­grams, crea­ting a mea­ning that speaks of the pos­si­bi­li­ties of uni­ting and cou­pling ener­gies and gen­res. Ad­di­tio­nally, this pro­ject re­de­fi­nes the tra­di­tio­nal co­des and forms of the wi­des­pread and long-established du­plex ty­po­logy, ge­ne­ra­ting an unu­sual re­si­dence bet­ter adap­ted to its site and to its so­cial and eco­no­mi­cal situation.

The Schah Re­si­dence not only trans­gres­ses the con­ven­tions of tra­di­tio­nal archi­tec­ture and town plan­ning, but also ends up ne­go­tia­ting bet­ween all the dif­fe­rent needs, some po­li­ti­cal and others eco­no­mi­cal. It has the spi­rit of a game — a game, as a so­cial func­tion in the de­sire to learn.

On the other hand, the term “bet­ween” also means so­mething slightly more abs­tract –the idea of buil­ding new sce­na­rios out of the in­te­rac­tion bet­ween the oc­cu­pants and the uses as well as the den­sity which oc­curs on the site. As Sher­man ex­plains, “The space “in-between” does not have to be a bad thing where you try everything you can to avoid this sense of who is li­ving next to you. Ins­tead, you can pro­duce so­mething ori­gi­nal out of it.”

For ins­tance, the mail­box does not have any enc­lo­sure bet­ween the in­side and ou­tside. The lo­wer shelf, in the architect’s of­fice, pas­ses thought the en­ve­lope of the buil­ding to create a point of exchange bet­ween the post­man and the house — bet­ween the in­side and ou­tside. The di­ning room is another con­nec­ting space bet­ween the of­fice and the kitchen. Du­ring the day, the di­ning ta­ble is used as a con­fe­rence ta­ble, but du­ring break­fast and din­ner time it is used as a re­gu­lar di­ning table.

schah-dining.jpg

Thus, a lot of these com­po­nents over­lap with one another to create a more ac­tive way of li­ving, a new kind of me­dia­ting space while for­ming a new genre of do­mes­tic landscape.

schah-transactionals.jpg

AUTONOMY
Des­pite all the in­no­va­tive means to merge spa­ces, a var­ying de­gree of au­to­nomy bet­ween the pro­grams is also crea­ted. For ins­tance, the children’s be­drooms on the se­cond floor have a se­cond door that leads ou­tside onto the sun te­rrace. So, the chil­dren can get to their be­droom without ha­ving to pass th­rough the en­tire house. The same idea oc­curs bet­ween the parent’s and children’s be­drooms. Both spa­ces are se­pa­ra­ted by an en­ca­sed ver­ti­cal sky­light which cuts the mas­ter be­droom from the other be­drooms while at the same time allo­wing the mas­ter be­droom to be pushed down lo­wer few inches be­low the se­cond floor le­vel. In sec­tion each zone or area has its own dia­gram and in­de­pen­dency thus ma­king this home no lon­ger hie­rarchi­cal. Sud­denly, every space and unit is de­ve­lo­ped like an open network.

schah-children-bedroom.jpg

MATERIALS
With over 30 re­si­den­tial pro­jects built du­ring the past 18 years, the firm Ro­ger Sher­man Archi­tec­ture + Ur­ban De­sign has dis­tin­guished its re­si­den­tial work by em­plo­ying unu­sual, inex­pen­sive ma­te­rials and cons­truc­tion methods.

Ho­we­ver, the ap­proach of the Schah Re­si­dence is not pri­ma­rily about a con­sis­tent use of inex­pen­sive ma­te­rials, but rather the re­sult of a uni­que ex­pe­ri­ment with the dia­gram and spa­tial or­ga­ni­za­tion. The architect’s de­sire to ex­plore the po­si­tion of the re­si­dence on its site, to ma­xi­mize fle­xi­bi­lity and to in­te­grate the lands­cape within the pro­gram ge­ne­rally in­vol­ves some struc­tu­ral in­ven­ti­ve­ness. Sher­man ar­gues that, “Com­plex spa­ces mean a lot of steel and sub­se­quently, in this pro­ject not a lot of mo­ney was left over to spend on pri­cey materials.”

Des­pite these cir­cums­tan­ces, the archi­tect made good use of con­tras­ting ma­te­rials such as sheet me­tal, ply­wood, poly­car­bo­nate, ex­po­sed conc­rete and wood-studs, stucco and wall­pa­per. “What brings the house to a very high le­vel fi­nish is that it did not fall into an easy ca­te­gory of in­dus­trial aesthe­tic. In fact, the pro­ject has a very do­mes­tic qua­lity even if it has a raw qua­lity fi­nish.” In this con­text, the Schah Re­si­dence breaks down the boun­da­ries bet­ween in­te­rior de­sign and archi­tec­ture. For ins­tance, the wall­pa­per, which is tied up with the stucco ou­tside, is not only used as a de­co­ra­tive ele­ment, but also as an in­side la­yer that shields the oc­cu­pant from the ac­ti­vi­ties ou­tside the house. Whe­re­ver there is stucco used for the en­ve­lope ou­tside, the in­side sur­fa­ces are fi­nished with re­fi­ned and lu­xu­rious wall­pa­per. In this sense, the wall­pa­per oc­curs in con­junc­tion with the stucco ou­tside and as a re­sult the in­te­rior fi­nishes in­di­cate what is hap­pe­ning ou­tside the struc­ture and li­te­rally ex­pres­ses where pri­vacy is needed.

schah-livingext.jpg

Fi­nally, the Schah Re­si­dence re­la­tes to the science of ne­go­tia­tion; how peo­ple (that is bet­ween an ow­ner and his te­nant or an archi­tect and the city) ne­go­tiate with each other and how they stra­te­gize to win the ne­go­tia­tion. In this case, Sher­man pushed the li­mits of the de­sign as far as pos­si­ble while wor­king within the ru­les and cons­traints on the site. The in­te­gra­tion and form of the house is not pre­con­cei­ved, but emer­ges from its en­vi­ron­ment. As Sher­man af­firms, “In this kind of pro­ject, you don’t know what the house will look like at the end. Ho­we­ver, you do know that if you fo­llow a cer­tain lo­gic, even­tually the form and shape will emerge from this pro­cess and af­ter­wards you can just ac­cept it. At the end, this con­cept is not about an ove­rall aesthe­tic eva­lua­tion but rather an ove­rall progression.”

Thus, as every site is uni­que within the city, the use and re­la­tionship of the user and the pro­gram is as well. Th­rough ac­ti­va­ting and en­ga­ging both the uni­que­ness of the site and uses a mul­ti­tude of so­lu­tions to the ur­ban dwe­lling can be discovered.

Pic­tues and dra­wings cour­tesy of Ro­ger Sher­man Archi­tec­ture + Ur­ban Design

Spe­cial thanks to:
Ro­ger Sher­man, Archi­tect
Sa­brina Schmidt-Wetekam, Open Form Archi­tec­ture, Co­lla­bo­ra­tor
Da­rrel Ro­nald, Open Form Archi­tec­ture, Co-Director

3 Responses to “3-in-1 House (Schab-Sherman Residence)”


  1. 1 ????

    It is very impressive

  2. 2 Raymond Nwambuonwo

    Your web­site is a good re­source to the on­line au­dience. When you have time please do take a look at my web­site. Thanks. http://landscapingplans.blogspot.com

  3. 3 Amanda

    Just Blown away!

Leave a Reply