Tree House by 6a Architects

London studio 6a Architects has extended the home of architecture critic Rowan Moore and his family by adding a timber structure that curves around a tree (+ slideshow).

Tree House by 6a Architects

The extension was designed by 6a Architects to provide a new ground-floor bedroom and bathroom for the London house, which is an amalgamation of two cottages constructed in the 1830s.

Tree House by 6a Architects

A ramped corridor runs parallel to the existing house, negotiating a gentle change in level and allowing access for the mother of the family, who uses a wheelchair.

Tree House by 6a Architects

This corridor connects the house’s living room with the new bedroom suite, which extends out into the garden.

Tree House by 6a Architects

The exterior of the structure is clad with reclaimed timber, while white-painted timber panels line the interior walls.

Tree House by 6a Architects

Glazed doors open the space out to a curving timber deck that surrounds the sumac tree and steps down to the garden.

Tree House by 6a Architects

London studio 6a Architects also recently completed an extension of Paul Smith’s Albemarle Street store and previously designed the expansion of the South London Gallery. See more projects by 6a Architects »

Tree House by 6a Architects

Other London housing extensions include a one made up of tapered volumes in north London and a glazed kitchen and dining room added to a house in east LondonSee more residential extensions »

Tree House by 6a Architects
Axonometric diagram – click for larger image

Here’s a project description from 6a Architects:


The Tree House is a timber framed and reclaimed timber clad construction on reversible timber foundations.

Tree House by 6a Architects
Site plan – click for larger image

It sits within the luxuriantly overgrown garden of two tiny knocked together 1830’s weavers cottages shaping itself around the central sumac tree.

Tree House by 6a Architects
Floor plan – click for larger image

Its ramped interior absorbs the ½ storey difference between the cottages and its new master bedroom and wetroom nestled under the eucalyptus tree.

Tree House by 6a Architects
Cross section detail – click for larger image

The family home has been re-orientated so that the mother of a busy family remains central to all the activity whether resting in the garden, eating with her children or entertaining as she becomes more reliant on her wheelchair.

Tree House by 6a Architects
Long section- click for larger image

Architect: 6a architects
Structural Engineer: Price & Myers.
Contractor: John Perkins Projects Ltd
Building Control: MLM
Lighting: Izé (Veranda lights)
Exterior Cladding Ashwell Recycled Timber Products
Blinds Ace Contracts (London) Ltd
Garden design Dan Pearson Studio / Mark Cummings Garden Designs

Tree House by 6a Architects
Elevation – click for larger image

The post Tree House by
6a Architects
appeared first on Dezeen.

Olympic regeneration claims are “bullsh*t,” says Rowan Moore

Future of the Olympic Park

News: architecture critic Rowan Moore has labelled Renzo Piano’s Shard skyscraper as a “serious failure of planning” and described claims that the Olympics will regenerate east London as “bullsh*t”.

Moore, architecture critic of the Observer, said the £12 billion spent on the London 2012 Olympics had created a “big buzz” but criticised the organisers of the games for justifying the cost by claiming they would regenerate east London.

Rowan Moore

“The deal with the Olympics ought to be really simple,” Moore (above) told Dezeen during a filmed interview yesterday. “It’s this very big amazing event which, if it goes well, gives the host country a big buzz, as happened with the London Olympics, and for that you have to pay £12bn, or whatever the real cost is. And that’s almost the beginning and the end of it. If you wanted to regenerate east London there’d be much, much easier ways to do it than holding the Olympics, and much cheaper.”

He added: “But the people who promote the Olympics find it hard to admit that. They say it’s about regeneration, it’s about boosting sporting legacy, it’s about boosting business, it’s sustainable. All these things are absolute bullshit.”

Moore, former director of the Architecture Foundation and editor of Blueprint magazine, made the statements as part of a wide-ranging interview with Dezeen to coincide with the publication of his new book, Why We Build (below). The book explores the forces – including hope, power, money and sex – that drive the creation of architecture.

Why We Build by Rowan Moore

“On the Olympics site they’re going to build about 12,000 homes and I think they’re going to make about a similar number of jobs,” Moore added. “If you’re really saying you have to hold the Olympic Games in order to achieve the equivalent of a middle-sized market town in east London, that’s just daft. That’s not how you go around regenerating things.”

More than 11,000 homes will be built on the site of the Olympic Park in the next 20 years, according to plans set out by the London Legacy Development Corporation, with the first new development made up of apartments converted from the Athletes’ Village.

Moore added: “I think they’ve done a better job than most previous Olympics, but it’s really up in the air what happens next. It could be a great model for how to improve areas. I mean, people in Stratford say it’s given them pride in the place, so that’s great. The big question is whether we get the usual housebuilders moving in and doing their usual product and essentially creating private enclaves.”

The Shard

Moore also discussed The Shard (above), the 300 metre high skyscraper by Italian architect Renzo Piano, which opened above London Bridge Station in July this year.

“The contribution of it to its immediate surroundings is pretty minimal,” Moore said. “You can be ten feet away from The Shard and if you’re looking away from it you wouldn’t know it was there.

“The Shard is clearly an icon, and it is very clearly a product of the last 10 years, in that it is by a famous architect, it’s a striking shape, it’s funded by Qatari money, it’s the sort of speculative building that was made possible by a planning culture in London that was very developer-friendly, very much about attracting investment.”

Moore criticised the way the tower fails to interact with, or benefit, the surrounding area. “[It] is sort of amazing, and a serious failure of planning, that you could put that much investment into a place and not have a positive idea about what the whole place is going to be.”

In an interview Dezeen published with Renzo Piano earlier this year, the architect claimed The Shard was designed to be “quite gentle”. “I don’t think arrogance will be a character of this building,” said Piano. “I think its presence will be quite subtle. Sharp but subtle.”

Despite its failings, Moore admits the skyscraper has already become a popular addition to the skyline. “The principles behind it are all wrong, but it has captured people’s imagination and it has become part of the mental furniture of London in a way that I think is positive,” he said.

“Also The Shard just proves that this stuff is going to go on forever – we’re always going to have Shards, always going to have Burj Khalifas, always going to have Chrysler Buildings, so there’s always going to be big money and it’s always going to build big buildings.”

You can read an extract from Moore’s new book, Why We Build, in our story published last month. The story also contains details of a competition to win a copy of the book, which closes tomorrow. A movie and transcript of the interview with Moore will be available soon.

Moore told Dezeen that the book explores “the interaction between architecture and human emotions and desires” and the failure of architects to understand how people actually inhabit buildings, and also draws attention to those architects who Moore believes “allow people to finish the story” of a building, such as the Brazilian modernist Lina Bo Bardi.

Dezeen’s coverage of The Shard includes an interview with Renzo Piano and a movie of the building’s construction.

Our London 2012 Olympics coverage includes Olympic architectureThomas Heatherwick’s Olympic cauldron, reports on Paralympic design and our own medals for the best loved Olympic designs.

The post Olympic regeneration claims are “bullsh*t,”
says Rowan Moore
appeared first on Dezeen.

Competition: five copies of Why We Build by Rowan Moore to give away

Competition: five copies of Why We Build to give away

Competition: architecture critic Rowan Moore‘s new book Why We Build is released today, and we are publishing an extract as well as giving readers the chance to win one of five copies.

Competition: five copies of Why We Build to give away

Moore examines what inspires architects to build and what emotions shape their users experiences of them, using case studies such Dubai’s Palm Jumeirah island (above) and New York’s High Line development (below).

Competition: five copies of Why We Build to give away

The hardback book retails at £20 and is published by Macmillan.

To enter this competition email your name, age, gender, occupation, and delivery address and telephone number to competitions@dezeen.com with “Why We Build” in the subject line. We won’t pass your information on to anyone else; we just want to know a little about our readers.

Read our privacy policy here.

Competition closes 27 September 2012. Five winners will be selected at random and notified by email. Winners’ names will be published in a future edition of our Dezeenmail newsletter and at the top of this page. Dezeen competitions are international and entries are accepted from readers in any country.

Read an extract from the first chapter of the book “Desire shapes space, and space shapes desires” below:


Architecture starts with desire on the part of its makers, whether for security, or grandeur, or shelter, or rootedness. Built, it influences the emotions of those who experience and use it, whose desires continue to shape and change it. Desire and emotion are overlapping concepts, but if ‘desire’ is active, directed towards real and imagined ends, and if ‘emotion’ implies greater passivity, describing the ways in which we are moved, architecture is engaged with both. Buildings are intermediaries in the reciprocation between the hopes and intentions of people, in the present and the past. They are the mineral interval between the thoughts and actions that make them and the thoughts and actions that inhabit them.

Most people know that buildings are not purely functional, that there is an intangible something about them that has to do with emotion. Most towns or cities have towers or monuments of no special purpose, or public buildings and private houses whose volumes are larger than strictly necessary, and structures with daring cantilevers or spans that are not perfectly efficient. These cities have ornament and sculpture, also buildings whose construction drove their owners to ruin, or which never served their intended purpose, or which outlived their use but are preserved. A home might contain pictures, mementoes, vases, antiques, light shades not chosen for their function alone. It might be a centuries-old house with obsolete standards of thermal insulation, draught exclusion, and damp control, for which nonetheless its owner pays a premium. If Dubai seems preposterous, it is only an extreme version of the decisions people make in extending, building, remaking, or furnishing their own homes, which are rarely guided by pure function. If it attracts attention, it is because it presents to us urges that are familiar, but in a way that seems uncontrolled.

But to say that there is emotion in architecture is a bare beginning. What forms does it take, and by what weird alchemy do cold materials absorb and emit feeling? What transformations happen? Whose feelings matter more: the clients’, the architects’, the builders’, or the users’, those of a commissioning government or corporation, or of casual passers-by? What complexities, indirections, and unintended consequences arise, and what epiphanies and farce? Building projects are usually justified with reference to measurable of finance and use. When we acknowledge the intangible it is often with vague words, such as ‘inspiring’, or perhaps ‘beautiful’, an honourable word which nonetheless leaves much unsaid, such as beautiful to whom, and in what way? We might resort to personal taste, or to some idea of what is good or bad derived from aesthetic standards whose origins and reasons we probably don’t know.

In commercial and public building the intangible is usually confined to adjectives like ‘iconic’, or ‘spectacular’, which parcel it with blandness and discourage further exploration. Such words also convert this troubling, unruly, hard-to-name aspect of buildings into something that aids marketing – since ‘icons’ can help sell a place or a business – into, that is, another form of use. Yet if emotion in building is intangible, it is also specific. Particular desires and feelings drive the making of architecture, and the experience of it, and are played out in particular ways. Hope, sex, the wish for power or money, the idea of home, the sense of mortality: these are definite, not vague, with distinct manifestations in architecture.

This book explores the ways in which these concerns of the living interact with the dead stuff of buildings. It will challenge easy assumptions about architecture: in particular that, once the builders move out, it is fixed and complete. It turns out that buildings are unstable: if their fabric is not being adjusted (and it usually is) they are prone to tricks of perception and inversions of value. This instability might feel disturbing, but it is also part of the fascination of architecture. If buildings were 1:1 translations of human urges, my study would be short and boring: if, for example, they were monosyllables made physical, where a pitched roof = home, something soaring = hope, big = power, or phallic = sex. Where things get interesting is when desire and built space change each other, when animate and inanimate interplay. Paradoxes arise, and things that seemed certain seem less so. Buildings are powerful but also awkward means of dealing with something as mobile as emotion, and usually they create an opposite or at least different effect to the one they set out to achieve.

To look at emotion and desire in architecture is not to discount the simple fact that most buildings have a practical purpose. But that practical purpose is rarely pursued with perfect detachment, or indifferent calculation. To build and to inhabit are not small actions, and it is hard to undertake them with coolness. Rather the play of function, of decisions on budget, durability, comfort, flexibility, and use, is one of the expressive properties of architecture.

Definitions are required. ‘Architecture’ is seen not just as the design of buildings, more as the making of spaces: it includes the design of landscape, interiors, and stage sets. A building is seen less as an end in itself, more as an instrument for making spaces, together with whatever else is around, both inside and outside. ‘Architecture’ can also include fictional and cinematic places, which sometimes reveal as much, and differently, as those you can touch.

‘To build’ is used in its usual way, as the action of contractors and workers, and of clients, architects, and other consultants, leading to the making of a physical construction. But the verb will also be used metaphorically, to describe the ways in which the people who use and experience buildings – that is, almost all of us – inhabit and shape, physically and in the imagination, the spaces we find.

This book is not a manual. It will not tell you how to decorate your home, or architecture students how to set about their work. Still less will it tell urban planners how to make wise decisions. Should it have an influence, I dread an outbreak of ‘emotional’ architecture, with sales guff from developers talking of ‘feelings’. Catastrophes will be described, and successes, and works somewhere between; also projects that started well and finished sadly, and vice versa. But the idea is not to make a score-sheet of good and bad, rather to see the many ways in which human impulses are played out in building. This book tries not to instruct, prescribe, or moralize. Its aim is to show, examine, and reveal.

I like to imagine, however, that this book could have some useful effect. Failures of architecture and development often occur because emotional choices come disguised as practical ones. If I can make it a little easier to discern what is going on in such situations, one or two disasters might, conceivably, be mitigated.

The post Competition: five copies of Why We Build
by Rowan Moore to give away
appeared first on Dezeen.

Conran’s designs “don’t quite communicate the fun he has got out of life”- The Guardian


Dezeen Wire:
in his latest article for The Guardian, architecture and design critic Rowan Moore interviews Terence Conran ahead of an exhibition dedicated to his career at the Design Museum, which opens on 16 November.

In the article Moore suggest that Conran’s greatest successes have been the businesses he’s founded rather than the products or interiors he’s designed, which Moore adds are “a little too managed, manipulated, packaged and don’t quite communicate the fun he has got out of life, as if constrained by some invisible boundary.”

Rowan Moore is new Observer architecture critic

Dezeenwire: former Evening Standard architecture writer Rowan Moore has replaced Stephen Bayley as The Observer’s architecture critic, starting off with a review of SANAA’s Rolex Learning Centre in Lausanne – The Observer. See Dezeen’s story about the building here.