“-Re” House together with “-Re” Adapt are two series part of a project in which I review, refine and redesign residential projects available on the Dutch housing market. “-Re” House touches projects that have been completed after the year 2000 and could have been done more efficiently to begin with, while “-Re” Adapt looks at how to better adapt older residential architecture that was designed in a different cultural and historical context.
Though not the typical Re-House, this still to be built project (as per august 2020) caught my attention due to the way it was advertised.
It is a lovely little community of tiny houses, a movement that has a lot of fans both internationally as well as locally, here in The Netherlands. It’s focus is to show people that there is no need to over consume on resources and that small spaces are as welcoming as any other.
As previously stated on this website, what we choose to surround ourselves with has a constant effect on the quality of our lives. We all know that clutter is a mental stressors, however, a much less discussed fact is that a poorly designed space or a space designed for somebody else’s life will have a negative impact on one’s life.
In this regard, the tiny house movement brings a positive element as it forces one to focus on the proper and efficient use of the available space. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
The “Small House, Large Living” project presents a tiny house community in the Dutch region Zeewolde. (You can access the promotional leaflet here) There is a number of 13 houses located in a beautifully green area. The urban layout is designed to provide as much privacy as possible. Due to the size of the plot and the large glass facades there are some privacy issues, however this was bound to happen in such a context.
There are three designs: small, medium and large. Each version has two floors: ground floor and first floor. The ground floor houses the day areas the living space and the kitchen, while the first floor houses the night area: the bedroom and the bathroom.
The floor plans are standard. None is personalized with space saving furniture. As we don’t know in advance the exact needs and possibilities of the future inhabitants, the advertised plans are rather generic which is a standard move when it comes to selling to a general audience.
The problem with general plans however, is that they can be far too general for the general public and make it difficult to understand the full potential as well as personalizing possibilities.
It is impossible to design for all possibilities in advance as there are far too many options. Not to mention the fact that this would raise the price considerably. It is however, possible to provide a larger variety of options in a short amount of time and with minimal resources. The designs that I provide below have been created in the span of just a few days and they provide a greater understanding of the possibilities of the space for people that have no specialized knowledge in architecture or interior design.
Next to the lack of variety there are also a few critical points to the designs chosen to be built and advertised. I will detail these in connection to each of the three models.
Basic Version – advertised design – 4.50m on 5.3m
• Surface: 47m²
Ground floor left / First floor right :
• Both the bathroom door as well as the bedroom door open in ways that are bound to cause problems. The bathroom door opens towards the staircase, meaning that if the person coming up the stairs is not careful, the person coming out from the bathroom will potentially send him/her flying down the stairs.
The surface the bedroom door needs to open is greater than the space presented here between the bed and the door. That means that one would have squeeze between the door and the wall in order to be able to enter or exit the room.
• I fully subscribe to the idea of no unnecessary processions, however seeing that this is advertised to be a two person household, I’l like to raise attention to the lack of storage particularly in the bedroom area. Though minimalism is a blooming trend, most people tend to have possessions that require more than a suitcase.
Basic Version – Archi-Re proposal – 4.50m on 5.3m
• Surface: 47m²
Ground floor left / First floor right :
It is a basic design, based on the limited options given by the total surface. The total surface however, 47m² is not as small as it may seem and there is plenty that can be done within its constrains.
• The changes here are at the level of the first floor. Moving the bed to the opposite wall allows for the door to properly open and for the access in the room to be done with ease.
• The addition of the second closet provides a much more realistic use of the space.
• Chairs/armchairs can still be added if desired.
• The bathroom door opens so that any incoming people on the staircase can be seen and thus avoid any undesired encounters between doors and dear ones.
Medium Version – 4.50m on 6.50m
• Surface: 57m²
Ground floor left / First floor right :
The Medium Version is the upgraded version of the basic design. It has an extra 1.2m added on the long side and as a result an extra 10m² in total usable surface. The total surface of 57m² can even house a two bedroom configuration. The proposed plan, however simply takes the elements of the basic design and spaces them out in the medium configuration.
It makes no use of the extra space to add any additional facilities or showcase any other possibilities.
• Though there are no changes to the issues presented in the Small Version, the bedroom door issue resolves itself with the addition of the extra space. The bathroom door on the other hand, continues to be a possible danger for anybody coming up the stairs.
• On the ground floor the choice is to add the option of an armchair but to maintain the minimalist two person bar table in the kitchen. Though the armchair is nice and adds an extra seat for possible guests, I see a four person table adding much more value to the space and hosting opportunities.
• With the larger surface comes also the observation that there are no additional storage spaces. As most of you know, there are plenty of items (with regular usage, such as vacuum cleaners and other) that do require out of sight storage.
Medium Version – Archi-Re proposal – 4.50m on 6.50m
• Surface: 57m²
Ground floor left / First floor right :
• In addition to the already mentioned solutions to problematic doors, my proposal adds a potential working space.
With the advent of the internet and the world wide developments of this year, working from home became a must have option. In the above design, the addition of the desk in the bedroom allows one person to work during the day in the bedroom and the other in the kitchen/living room, Zoom privacy being thus ensured.
• One of the rules that I abide by, is that desks should be aimed towards the main area of the room, so that the user can have an overview of its space and that it should never be placed in such a way that the door is entirely out of sight.
Placing a desk next to a wall, has indeed the advantage of using less space and in certain situations it proves to be the only viable option. It does however, come it a hidden stressor as it puts one in the uncomfortable position of not being in control of one’s surroundings.
First floor examples:
Large Version – 4.50m on 7.70m
• Surface: 67m²
Ground floor left / First floor right :
In almost the same way that the Medium Version simply integrated the elements of the Small Version, the Large Version brings minimal additions.
Normally, the total surface of 67m² easily provides space for a two bedroom configuration. In this design however, the empty space seems to be the theme. This raises the question of whether this design still falls in the tiny house concept, if its space is rather wasted than used efficiently?
• The issue of the bathroom door is still the same here, however the bedroom door provides us with a new situation. It is practically impossible to have both the closet doors and the bedroom door to open in the same time without creating undesirable interactions. It also makes it difficult for one person to comfortably use the wardrobe in the case of somebody else entering or exiting the room.
• Despite the additional 20m² compared to the Basic Version, the bedroom makes no better use of the space it has.
• On the ground floor there is finally a proper table added to the space, however still no proper storage space is provided.
Large Version – Archi-Re proposal – 4.50m on 7.70m
• Surface: 57m²
Ground floor left / First floor right :
Ironically, in the European country with the largest population density per m², efficient use of space proves to be a rather elusive concept. This is interestingly, much more prevalent in more recent construction than 40 years ago.
• The issue of the bathroom door is still the same here, however the bedroom door provides us with a new situation. It is practically impossible to have both the closet doors and the bedroom door to open in the same time without creating undesirable interactions. It also makes it difficult for one person to comfortably use the wardrobe in the case of somebody else entering or exiting the room.
• Despite the additional 20m² compared to the Basic Version, the bedroom makes no better use of the space it has.
• On the ground floor there is finally a proper table added to the space, however still no proper storage space is provided.
• The space addition compared to the previous two versions, allows for far more options. The four that I have chosen to detail here are just the ones that I believe to be most representative. Based on the specific needs of the residents there are plenty more layout possibilities that can be developed.
First floor examples:
Last but not the least, the price range of €185000 to €205000 makes these tiny houses rather expensive investments. It would thus make sense to have a comprehensive image of the potential that these spaces have.
Click here for more “-Re” House projects
Click here for more “-Re” Adapt projects