Contemporary Design in Detail: Sustainable Environments

14 Sustainable Environments

Each of the houses in “Response to Place” draws on the topographical and surface

characteristics of the land as a starting point for its design.  e focus here is the way

the buildings connect to the ground, whether built into the earth, as exemplifi ed by

many projects in “Site Specifi city,” or resting lightly above it, as seen in “Site Conserva-

tion.” In reality, these divisions are not constructed from the building’s relationship to

the ground plane, since the Slavin-Arnholz and the Oxford Gardens Residences would

fall into the opposite group from which they are now placed.  e two groupings de-

rive, rather, from the diff erent philosophical objectives of blending into, and becoming

part of, the landscape or preventing changes to ecological and topographical condi-

tions throughout the building site.

 e landscape—considered here broadly as topography, vegetation, or even the

surrounding view—is a strong determinant in the design of the houses in “Site Speci-

fi city.” It may, for example, lead to the use of a certain building profi le or material. In

every case, the structure and form of the house adapts to the conditions of the site, as-

serting that each condition warrants a unique solution.  ese works address the visual

impact of buildings on the landscape, yet it is not merely an architectural response to

the landscape that their designers elicit. By refusing to impose on its site, each of these

houses aspires to facilitate in the inhabitants a deeper understanding of, and greater

connection to, their environment.

 e houses are set into agrarian, wilderness, and suburban contexts, and although

the two suburban projects inhabit sloped sites the outcomes could not be more dif-

ferent. Of these projects, the Island House is perhaps the most wholly integrated into

its environment. Not only do its green roofs, planted with native vegetation, allow it

to blend in visually, but its harvested groundcover enables it to participate in the local

agricultural economy. With the Reeve and Slavin-Arnholz Residences, the existing

trees provide a reference point for the houses’ relationship to their sites. Both create a

response through the use of sympathetic materials—wood in the fi rst case, copper in

the second.  e Reeve house develops an architectural articulation of the weathered

tree line; the Slavin-Arnholz, one based on the verticality of the tree trunks on the

sloping lot. By disappearing into the treescape, moreover, the Slavin-Arnholz addition

never overpowers the older original home in front, even though it almost doubles the

living space. For its part, the Sloping North House adapts to an undesirable plot of

land in a new development by turning the problematic condition of its steep slope into

an organizing principle for the residence that links inside with outside.

“Site conservation” seems an odd term to use when talking about the construction

of a building, since the process involves disturbing both existing ecosystems and natu-

ral grading. How does a building conserve a site, when, by its very nature, it occupies a

footprint on the land?  e architects of the residences presented here address this di-

lemma in a twofold manner: First, they fi nd the least damaging way to erect the house,

Response to Place