Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy
 

St Andrews townhouse quartet teed up

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

October 8 2019

St Andrews townhouse quartet teed up

Sutherland Hussey Harris have filed plans for four townhouses in St Andrews with some of the best views of the Old Course following their work at West Burn Lane.

Each 210sq/m property will be finished in handmade clay bricks with the upmarket properties making the most of coastal views with expansive glazing and terraces.

In a statement the practice wrote: “The townhouses are organised so that one taller, tower like element addresses the urban setting facing towards the town centre, with a row of three similar units stepped back along the site looking across the golf course.

“Horizontal banding across window reveals and lintels is created using terrazzo. This material has the strength of concrete, which gives the rationale for its structural use, but has a quality of stone, like that of granite, which provides a finesse for these articulated areas.”

Sutherland Hussey Harris won the commission following a limited design competition organised by the owners of an existing 1960s home on the site.

24 Comments

Hudson
#1 Posted by Hudson on 8 Oct 2019 at 11:39 AM
Hah! Good luck getting that through planning... cue the inevitable mouth-breathing nimby objectors with the usual "not in keeping", too modern, don't like anything build after 1905 B-S.

Personally, think it looks great. But don't see it ever being built! Good luck SHH!
Cadmonkey
#2 Posted by Cadmonkey on 8 Oct 2019 at 13:08 PM
Looks like Spain.
Can you provide a link to the planning application please?
Tom Rankin
#3 Posted by Tom Rankin on 8 Oct 2019 at 15:16 PM
Is this an early or late April Fool ... I'm sorry but looks horrendous
UR
#4 Posted by UR on 8 Oct 2019 at 16:23 PM
Not on the portal just yet, official page is here https://www.suhuha.com/fairways
the sound of one hand clapping
#5 Posted by the sound of one hand clapping on 8 Oct 2019 at 19:38 PM
Thank you UR for the detail.
On the architecture side of things, we are not in Spain (but may as well be) - instead, it's literally anywhere, as looking through Suhuha's oeuvre, one approach clearly fits all. As for genius loci? Context is way over-rated these days, apparently.
So, for a 3br. townhouse with a spatially flawed 'kitchen' area and for being stared at by eejits with pringle sweaters , you'd be looking at what - £750,000 - £1M+?
Then i ask meself, what's the point? Surely, there are more worthwhile things to do on this earth than pander to the already bloated rich by providing them with holiday accommodation.
What a waste of an architect's time.
Reminds me of The War of the Worlds, in more ways than one.
cadmonkey
#6 Posted by cadmonkey on 9 Oct 2019 at 13:24 PM
I enjoy the general architectural approach.
But this does need to at least nod to its context, so would look much better with pitched roofs.
Needn't be slate. Just an interesting pitched form.
Then I will approve it and start detailing.
David
#7 Posted by David on 9 Oct 2019 at 15:05 PM
These look great. Some fairly negative comments for some reason (spatially flawed kitchen?...), and the usual 'it should have a pitched roof because all the other buildings have pitched roofs...'

I suspect they'll go for a fair amount more than £1m...

Well done SHH...
Inahuf
#8 Posted by Inahuf on 9 Oct 2019 at 19:07 PM
The living space is really mean in relation to the number/size of bedroom suites. There’s barely space to eat a meal, never mind cook it. It’s definitely for the fly-in, dine-out, holiday market, not to be lived in. Stark contrast to the ethical basis of the Stirling winner. Sad face.
Matt
#9 Posted by Matt on 9 Oct 2019 at 19:54 PM
#8 so what? What a ridiculous statement. Like it or not, St Andrews is an affluent, holiday town and this is a private development...on an particularly expensive site. Are folk seriously critiquing this based on kitchen design and the dinning habits of their potential (or not) target market? Time to get that massive chip surgically removed.
SHH have a track record of delivering stunning housing in the town....good luck to them.

David
#10 Posted by David on 10 Oct 2019 at 09:13 AM
Well said #9. Some sense at last.
the sound of one hand clapping
#11 Posted by the sound of one hand clapping on 10 Oct 2019 at 09:19 AM
David and Matt,
Leaving aside the patronising rhetoric, the design point is that the 'banal' functionality of the living floorplate is obviously compromised, so much so, that form would appear to trump substance in this case - which is never really a 'good look'.
Secondly, and more to the heart of the matter, if we strip this proposal of its architectural ambition, is lavishing the soopah doopah rich with £1M+ holiday lets really a worthwhile human pursuit?
After all, Suhuha, in their undoubted quality work, have already painted this particular canvas many times over. So, do they really need this money? Or, is it never enough? Or, in what way does the world actually profit from this? Or, what economics are being perpetuated by this? Or, indeed, what message does this proposal carry?
These are genuine ethical questions, to which I believe architects are not immune from, or is the making of architecture above that sort of thing? If you think so, then for me its a fairly facile exercise - a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, really. Bravo.
the sound of two fingers being raised
#12 Posted by the sound of two fingers being raised on 10 Oct 2019 at 11:30 AM
#11 - who put you in charge of deciding what is a "worthwile" human pursuit ?

it just comes across as being sanctimonious
David
#13 Posted by David on 10 Oct 2019 at 12:17 PM
In my opinion, I don't see any ethical issues with an architect working for the 'soopah doopah' rich on a project like this, although in this case it's actually the existing house owners who are looking to take advantage of their somewhat unique situation. Good luck to them.

'worthwhile human persuit'?...come on!

Cadmonkey
#14 Posted by Cadmonkey on 10 Oct 2019 at 15:01 PM
Why are some people pitchedroofists?
A nicely detailed contemporary pitched roof here would undeniably add the required small amount of contextual appreciation.
I bet £5 it ends up with a pitched roof.
soopah rich ethicist
#15 Posted by soopah rich ethicist on 10 Oct 2019 at 15:57 PM
Dear the sound of one hand clapping,
The 'message' carried in this proposal is clear. You are welcome to embrace this proposal or not, that decision is yours.
The proposals seek to replace a rather grim house with something else.
To paint this as some sort of class war is, at best, misguided. Shooting fish in a barrel is a relatively straight forward exercise, getting the fish in the barrel in the first place is significantly more complicated. You've done the former, SHH have done the later.

Inahuf
#16 Posted by Inahuf on 10 Oct 2019 at 22:47 PM
@David et al. if serving an unsustainable social, economic and environmental model is a valid and moral thing for the profession to do, it shouldn’t expect to have any voice in those agendas. Keeping praising such conspicuous consumption on the basis it looks pretty from a distance just reinforces the view that architecture, and architects, are just about expensive stuff and nothing about making the human experience any better.
Inahuf
#17 Posted by Inahuf on 10 Oct 2019 at 23:13 PM
#15 who mentioned class? These holiday lets have space for 2-3cars, they’ve 3 large double bedrooms but hardly a space for 6 people to sit so aren’t suited to the sort of flexible use that makes a building a long term asset to an owner or a place. Building and using it will add to climate change with very little social benefit. It’s a dinosaur and simply saying it’s the client’s brief, I made it as bonny as I could, isn’t good enough any more.
Grim Beeper
#18 Posted by Grim Beeper on 10 Oct 2019 at 23:19 PM
#14 flat roofs work. Oh unless you can't detail them....
Sven
#19 Posted by Sven on 11 Oct 2019 at 10:33 AM
The impact rather than design is the issue. West Burn Lane works as the new buildings are hidden down the bottom of that lane and have no visual impact on South Street. This is imposing and cannot see it being approved. I lived in the hall of residence opposite and this blocks the view. The current ugly 1960s building is so bland and hidden by planting that it is not imposing.
soopah rich ethicist
#20 Posted by soopah rich ethicist on 11 Oct 2019 at 10:36 AM
Dear Inahuf,
'Class' was raised when this statement was made "Surely, there are more worthwhile things to do on this earth than pander to the already bloated rich by providing them with holiday accommodation."
Looking forward to seeing your and sound of one hand clapping's alternative social condenser proposal.
'Hardly enough space' is another way of saying enough space but in your opinion there should be more. That's ok that's your opinion SHH clearly had a different view.
Building and using anything only adds to climate change if you are assuming those doing so aren't using sustainable means. We need to increase our reliance on sustainable energy and materials rather than stop doing anything and everything.
Cadmonkey
#21 Posted by Cadmonkey on 11 Oct 2019 at 14:09 PM
If ever there was a site suitable for high end residential development, holiday homes or permanent residences, this is it.
Therefore the “class” argument in favour of affordable homes is pathetic lefty codswallop.
Walt Disney
#22 Posted by Walt Disney on 11 Oct 2019 at 15:25 PM
A. I like it. Even though it comes from the 'house style' potato stamp. (canny blame an architect for getting paid several times for the same design!)
B. Shouldn't architects be concerned with what and how something is built rather than whether it should be built at all?
"Sir, although your large bag of money and your PPP for your site are of interest, I fear that some of the views may be spoiled by development of the site and the required scale may be out of context. I therefore will not take the commission. I shall return to my 'atelier' forthwith and make half of my staff redundant, happy that my artistic integrity is intact.
i McLaren
#23 Posted by i McLaren on 14 Oct 2019 at 09:20 AM
Is this what St Andrews really wants?

Have the Town and the Royal and Ancient golf club of St Andrews not objected?
The hundreds of thousand visitor
This proposed modern design for 4 townhouses
with balconies crammed in to the site of one house,is nice but hideous in this location, much too large and totally out of context.
The granite,concrete and brick plus glass with timber clad frontage is a modern style but a monster proposal being so perilously close to the 4/5 storey sandstone tenement style buildings a few yards away and all the similar style buildings alongside the 18th hole.Not to mention the sandstone with pitched roof student accommodation and sandstone houses surrounding the confined site
The 17th green and 18th tee complex- would become overcrowded ,on the World number one golf course of St Andrews Old course where the Open championship is played on a fairly regular basis.

This proposed development is for sure not
in sympathy with historic St Andrews nor indeed
The Royal and Ancient golf club of St Andrews
ongoing plans for hosting championships,world stage events.
Do not forget that this is a conservation area.
D to the R
#24 Posted by D to the R on 14 Oct 2019 at 13:26 PM
Wait till Tiger drives his 3rd off the fairway thru' one of yon big windys.

Post your comments

 

All comments are pre-moderated and
must obey our house rules.

 

Back to October 2019

Search News
Subscribe to Urban Realm Magazine
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.