Cheskey Residence by Qb Design

Went on Youtube a few weeks ago and watched the interview John had with the architect. Very interesting.

Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HixTBVDp58&feature=channel_page

I initially thought that I was looking at the front of the house, and, like Brad, my first thought was “why would they do that to such a nice looking house”. I have always loved old houses and have only recently begun to gain an appreciation for more modern residential architecture, but combining the two is still a bit “out there” for me. It reminds me a bit of Frank Gehry’s very modern “crystal” addition to the otherwise very traditional Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.

Having said that, I do like the transitional nature of the covered outdoor space. The front porch of our infill is a very similar space, but smaller (and no crimson moon), and we really like spending time there, sitting in the sun on the steps and “watching the world go by”.

I am curious, however, as to why the architects did not extend the left side (when viewing from the back yard) of the second floor of the addition forward to fully integrate it into the sloping roofline of the existing house, in the same fashion as they did on the right side. Stopping it short as they have makes the left side of the addition appear very disconnected from the existing house, creates a potential problem area for water infiltration as water runs down the sloping roofline and encounters the front wall of the addition, and creates a dead space on the second floor that could have otherwise been put to good use to enlarge the two tiny second floor bathrooms. Any thoughts?

Doug – The ROM Crystal was conceived by architect Daniel Libeskind and it has garnered both praise and criticism. Perhaps you are thinking of the Art Gallery of Ontario redesign which was done by Gehry.

This project has made me think of the possibilities that enclosing an outdoor space at double height affords over just single storey. There’d be room for trees, great lighting possibilities and a large area to use for outdoor blinds which could add some interest – a bit like the red moon.

I like brad’s comment about the stairs.

Well done QB3. I particularly like how in the interviews the architect describes how elements of the design came together as the designed evolved (i.e. the porch/stage at the tail end and the moon story) The blue exterior cladding appears to have some very subtle lines in it. Was this intended to pick up on the cladding from the original home? Thanks very much for sharing your work here.

Hi all, thanks for having us on here. And John, thanks for the great presentation of our project–great job! We’ll try to address questions as best as we can between meetings, etc.

So, in response to Doug’s question about the addition’s connection to the house: The decision was really about cost. Where the bedroom knifes into the existing house (the right side), there used to be a dormer. So we took down the dormer and essentially ‘attached’ the addition, no extra work. Knifing the addition in on the other side (the left side) where the bathrooms are would mean more demolition, reframing the roof, and a lot of effort with moving plumbing. The water drainage issue is addressed with a cricket gutter between the addition and existing house.

And about the neighborhood’s response to the project… who knows. I’m sure it has been met with mixed reactions, but we do know that the neighborhood kids put on some major performances back there, that draw a large audience. Between the ‘stage’ and the big oak tree, its downright Shakespearian.

While the space planning is good, I don’t like the design. There is no connection at all to the architecture of the original house. I would imagine if the owner’s every sell the home they will have a difficult time.

It seems that every home presented is of a modern style. I have only been viewing the Slow Home site for a few months now, but I have not yet seen a traditional styled case study home.

Like Inga, I immediately thought this project may have been chosen to make us all think a little harder about design. My initial reaction was “Whoah! What happened there?” And then my editor’s brain responded with, “What about consistency?”

After viewing the details, I do think that this addition has created some very compelling spaces–especially the aerie-like master bedroom and the airy two-storey outdoor room. Definitely bold design from the exterior, but a little too daring for my sensibilities, as I have a traditionalist’s heart. That said however, I agree that the original home was sorely lacking a connection to an amazing back yard.

I wonder if cost was an overlying factor in the evolution of the design (such was hinted at with the discussion about not attaching further than at the original back dormer). To extend the back with a two-storey space and still maintain the traditional design would have cost more, and even then the original’s integrity is still questionable. This approach is more honest.

We just got the email telling us our house was the case study today so we thought we’d respond. Thanks, John, for the great presentation and to everyone for expressing their thoughts.

First, to set minds at ease, please know that the neighborhood has not been torn asunder by our addition. We didn’t go into this with the idea that we were going to build what we wanted and to hell with traditional sensibilities so we – and Qb – had a care. We’re a close knit bunch here and Qb very kindly opened themselves up to any questions our neighbors had during construction. Our neighbors in turn felt, I think, respected throughout the entire process.

One thing about the importance of the traditional. Our deck provides a place for the many kids in our neighborhood to stage an end-of-summer talent show. This will be the fourth summer that we’ll have kids hanging a curtain they made themselves, inviting all of our neighbors young and old to our backyard and then entertaining them with music, jokes, pet tricks, etc., until the sun goes down. The community would tell you that it’s a tradition and that these are the traditional elements that are most important to us.

Is the addition different? Sure. But we didn’t want a vinyl sided cube on the back of our house and, sadly, that’s what most people were offering. We wanted something that would open up the back of our house the way the front is open. We wanted something that would pull the outside in while showing us a lush yard that beckoned us outdoors. And lastly, we wanted something that would continue the indoor flow of our house so that finally we could say, “Yes, this makes sense.”

Qb provided all of that. And a crimson moon.

Cheskey,
I echo Paul’s comments. Thank you very much for adding your voice to the discussion. It is really great to hear from the client.

I feel that Qb and the client offered a genuine architectural response to arrive at this design and one that suits the family’s lifestyle and living patterns. It’s bold and daring yes, but i’d rather see this than the often poor attempts of making new houses look like old houses.

In our design studio, we reject the notion of ‘imitating’ history. I have great respect for homeowners who wish to maintain the original character of period homes, but not at the expense of replacing them with false and artificial materials