Here's our new cover, which will be on newsstands February 1. This is our annual 'Art Houses' issue; the cover image was taken by photographer Jeremy Toth in an Auckland penthouse with an extraordinary art collection (the penthouse was designed by Cheshire Architects).
The skull artworks are by Andy Warhol, while the koru work in the background is by Gordon Walters. The sculpture on the hearth is by Francis Upritchard, and the carvings in the background are 19th-century ancestral protection figures from Belu, Timor.
Also in this issue: we visit artist Judy Millar's windswept home and studio (designed by Richard Priest) on a dramatic clifftop west of Auckland, Sarah Maxey's 1980s Wellington cottage by Roger Walker, a vineyard home in Hawkes Bay by Hillery Priest Architects, and some beautiful marae on the Mahia Peninsula, among many other things. We'll post outtakes from some of these shoots over the coming weeks.
Sarah Maxey's house will be featured on TV3's Sunrise tomorrow morning at about 8.40pm. We'll also post the link to that footage once it's available online.
Click on 'latest video' and you'll see the link there (we seem to be having trouble pasting the link into this site). It's entitled "Take a peek into a home on a slope".
I've translated the story below into Polish and I am just delighted with the way of seeing and the way of looking at certain things. As Rob Forbes says - we appreciate the beauty in the city, sometimes even we make it without conscious. The public spaces of cities have preserved the originality, which does not easily become the subject of globalisation. The local combinations of textures, pavements, an arrangement of elements creating the unique patterns.. The lighting.. Once again the ouvre of Rene Dubos returns to mind - A God within. Polish translation of the title is The Praise of Diversity. It is difficult to find in the contemporary - so much unified and fashion influenced - design. Much easier is to find the diversity in the cities' public spaces, in ourselves. And this is the most precious..
Just look yourself... And my translation is ready :). It should be yet verified according to the TED procedures and in some time you will be able to see it in the official service.
Photographer and HOME New Zealand contributor Patrick Reynolds has a very eloquent rant about Auckland's urban planning woes on Public Address that is attracting plenty of comment. It's at this link if you'd like to check it out:
One thing that jumped out at me in particular was this assertion of Patrick's:
"As a new world nation with lingering ideals of pioneering self-reliance we fancy the idea of building qua building. That is to say building as built, not thought. Built by proper men, the mythical 'good bloke', a type who now really only exists in beer advertisements, who can do anything, but of course would do nothing smartarse, which is to say: nothing smart".
This made me wonder if the architecture profession is sometimes guilty of underselling its own skills, or side-stepping open discussion of the intellectual rigour that is such a fundamental part of good architecture. I've often been surprised at how New Zealand architects, when discussing a building, so quickly fall into question-and-answer patterns relating to structure, the nuts and bolts of assembling a building rather than the thought process that went into the design. This is not to say that structure is not interesting, but it often seems like a roadbock in the way of a deeper discussion of a building's merits.
True, many architects also grasp at metaphors in a way that makes your eyes roll (partly because they often seem like self-conscious attempts to instill their buildings with some meaning), but there must still be a way to discuss architecture intelligently and approachably.
This is particularly relevant when you consider the sometimes-agonising coverage of the opening of the new Supreme Court in Wellington this week. Whether you admire the building or not, the media coverage made it clear that in general, we lack a vocabulary for articulating a clear response to new additions to our cityscape.
I'll be back on TV3's Sunrise this Friday continuing our series of tours of well-designed homes. This week, the camera crew is filming a house designed by architect Guy Tarrant in the Auckland suburb of Grey Lynn. Patrick Reynolds photographed it for the magazine back in 2005. It's a lovely example of how effective planning can make the most of what many would see as a far-too-difficult sloping back-section.
The home is predominantly north-facing and on one level, with one bedroom and a study located downstairs and opening onto a lawn. The living area in the image below is a single open-plan space that opens onto a terrace.
One of my favourite spaces in the house is the study, which is really a clever occupation of what in lesser hands would have been a simple corridor. You can also see in this photo how the upper and lower levels connect, via a timber-lined stairwell.
Tune into TV3 on Friday morning (I think I'll be on around 8.20am) for a full tour of the house. I'll also put up the weblink to the footage when it's available online.
Our apologies for this: on our December/January cover (and in the accompanying article), we incorrectly attributed the heart-shaped ceramic piece to Christine Thacker. The artist is actually Raewyn Atkinson.
You can see more of both Raewyn's and Christine's work at www.piecegallery.co.nz. Our apologies for the error.
Good news from artist Perry Davies, who lives and works in the little Hawke's Bay hamlet of Ongaonga. Perry says there has been a rush on sales of his whimsical birdhouse sculptures and other works since he was featured in our December/January issue. Perry doesn't seem to have a website but you can easily find his telephone number in the White Pages if you're interested in commissioning him. The photograph is by Paul McCredie.
One of my favourite houses in our current issue is the bach that the late John Scott designed for Bruce and Estelle Martin and their family near Hokitika (that's the model on Scott's original drawings in the image above). My parents live near Bruce and Estelle's house in Hawkes Bay, also designed by John Scott, and we often visited and bought pottery from them when I was a child. For me, John Scott's work has a magical combination of modesty and confidence, a quiet cleverness that is abundantly evident in the bach, which was photographed by Paul McCredie. Here's a view of the exterior:
And this is the living area upstairs:
This is a favourite shot of mine that we couldn't squeeze into the layout in the magazine. It has a beautiful stillness to it. It was taken on the ground floor of the bach, looking towards the stairwell.
Bruce and Estelle's son Craig Martin helped us a lot in producing our story about the bach. He also has an excellent website featuring many of John Scott's other works, which you should check out if you're interested. It is www.johnscott.net.nz. It's a fantastic resource for anyone curious about this hugely accomplished New Zealand architect.
Happy New Year everyone. Here at HOME New Zealand, we've been back since Monday, putting the finishing touches on our annual 'Art Houses' issue, which will be published in the first week of February. It's turning out to be an eclectic lineup of homes, from an art-filled (and very glamorous) Auckland penthouse to an amazing series of marae on the Mahia Peninsula. We'll post more information here once we get the mag off to the printers.
In this issue, we'll also be calling for entries to the 2010 Home of the Year award. This year we'll again be partnering with BMW to bring you the award issue in August, an issue that's always a highlight of our publishing calendar. Interested architects and homeowners will be able to find the entry form in the magazine.
Another truism but very often we do not realise its importance. The great buildings - I mean great public buildings - in the history usually the churches and cathedrals, now the buildings of culture: theatres, operas, museums. But lets look at this phenomena a little bit closer. What are the possible locations of great buildings within the city structure? Here we find very different solutions. Usually the great buildings are connected with great public spaces. This was the case of Egyptian pyramids and the ceremonial procession road, as well as the procession road from the Ishtar Gate to the ziggurat in Babylon. In the second case theirs direct neighborhood consisted of private housing.
Similar situation took place through ages. Citing Camillo Sitte the cathedrals used to be a part of a city not a separated construction. The temple was present in the city structure through the multiple vistas, usually well thought and composed.
Cathedral, Piaza dell Duomo, Florence, Italy, source: Google Street View
The same situation took place in the Renaissance when the role of public spaces became more important and along with the discovery of the perspective the vistas became longer and created with the awareness of the peculiarities of human sight.
All the time the public edifices were surrounded by the common buildings, which formed a background, the obvious environment. The great building attracted people and the close environment profited of this phenomena as well as of the beauty . The beauty, which discovered part by part used to be much more attractive than visible in whole in the middle of a great square. A bit like a dressed body I suppose.. The commerce, the services, the living public spaces appeared. The profits for the inhabitants were obvious. (Of cause the concept discussed here is not new, e.g. J. Jacobs talked of the same things).
The invention of geometry and the role which it took in the history of urban planning since the Enlightenment seems to had been similar to the unbounded believe in the potentialities of human mind. Which as we learned after the II world war occurred to be fault. Just let’s look at the current philosophical thought like the oeuvre of Habermas and his successors. The same situation takes place in the field of urban planning. Camillo Site, cited above, started to criticise erecting the public buildings according to geometric rules already in the end of XIXth century (City Planning According to Artistic Principles ,1889) . The real come back to urban planning which respects the basic rules of situating the important building within the city structure allowing them to play their proper role had to wait yet a bit. In the meantime we had the modernism with its believe in the role of open green spaces and the inhuman scale of urban spaces, like e.g. in Brasilia, notabene with the beautiful structures by Oscar Niemeyer. But the crowd is absent..
Just let’s look at few examples of contemporary public buildings which add new values to the surrounding structure.
As a matter of fact in the smaller scale the similar role may be also played by more common buildings like some bigger stadiums or exposition halls. The context seems the most important, as well as the ability to inscribe the building into the surrounding structure.
When reading a very interesting article concerning the urban agriculture plans for Detroit, formerly the forth city of the USA, I've just thought how to evoid similar mistakes elsewhere. Why calling this mistake, even huge mistake? Although "Alex Krieger, chairman of the department of urban planning and design at Harvard, imagines what the settled world might look like half a century from now, he sees "a checkerboard pattern" with "more densely urbanized areas, and areas preserved for various purposes such as farming." And even if " After studying the city's options at the request of civic leaders, the American Institute of Architects came to this conclusion in a recent report: "Detroit is particularly well suited to become a pioneer in urban agriculture at a commercial scale." Of course that in the current situation of Detroit the best solution has been chosen. But..
When looking at the pigs, hens and horses strolling next to the former factories and offices, as well as empty housing estates of height intensity, there is nothing like thinking of the Medieval Ages, when the new life was born on the ruins of former Roman civilisation. Anyway this contrast of country and city scape combined together shocks me. It is something different then the urban gardening, presented e.g. here.
The problem of shrinking cities should become subject of integrated urban planning. Like in some German towns, e.g. Hoyerswerda (above), where the blocks of housing built during the times of prosperity are demolished and the new parks are created and forest is planted. And as the prevention is always better than treatment the urban development plans should reduce the supply of new areas for development.
The city of Lodz where I live also shrinks. It is quite similar to Detroit - the architecture is similar as well as the industrial character of the downtown. After the closure of great public textile factories the social problems have been growing and the number of inhabitants has been shrinking.
The picture showing the layout of planned zones of development in the subsequent plans, the lack of continuation is evident. The source: the materials of study of conditions and development of Lodz.
The former plans used to indicate new areas for development. Which was quite easy in Poland because of the low importance of private property, which was easy to expropriate in the times of socialism. This is quite complicated issue, and as I imagine: difficult to understand for people who have not lived here in these times.
Current study of conditions and directions for our city (which is the general urban planning document concerning the whole city, according to Polish legal regulations) which was approved by the City Council in 2002 assumed the main objective: to stop the new development. And now we see the first results, e.g. the new development in the downtown. There are continous trials to change the document. The debate between the land proprietors and the rest of inhabitants has not even started really. But this is another subject.
What is important for this and similar issues here is the obligation of the European regulations to provide the technical infrastructure: piping, etc for all the urban areas. And the costs of these undertakings stop the appetites , at least a little bit. So maybe we won't breed cows and chickens in the center..
One of the comments under the entry in dezeen magazin blog 's just made me laugh. The article concerns the project of 100 social housing, which are to be realized in Paris in the form of three story buildings along the main pedestrian alley. The designer is French architekt Edouard François.
The comment is what a fantastically innovative way to not actually design anything. The housing of utterly simple, traditional form is very interesting because of urban design, e.g. the silhouette of interior street and thanks to landscaping solutions and first of all - the greenery design. The idea of innovative green wall's been introduced - which is explained e.g. here.
These comments are symptomatic. The architecture is expected to provide the originality for every price. Utterly senseless. Especially when speaking about social housing. The architecture may be rich because of the materials used, the relations of volumes, the shaping of environment. See yourself. I just find the project great.
Tune into TV3 on Friday morning (I think I'll be on around 8.20am) for a full tour of the house. I'll also put up the weblink to the footage when it's available online. 
One of my favourite houses in our current issue is the bach that the late John Scott designed for Bruce and Estelle Martin and their family near Hokitika (that's the model on Scott's original drawings in the image above). My parents live near Bruce and Estelle's house in Hawkes Bay, also designed by John Scott, and we often visited and bought pottery from them when I was a child. For me, John Scott's work has a magical combination of modesty and confidence, a quiet cleverness that is abundantly evident in the bach, which was photographed by Paul McCredie. Here's a view of the exterior:
