Comments on: PREFAB FRIDAY: ‘Watershed’ Sustainable Writer’s Retreat

By: materialicious » Blog Archive » architecture roundup, january 11

materialicious » Blog Archive » architecture roundup, january 11 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:39:45 +0000

[...] Watershed by FLOAT architectural research and design @ Inhabitat [...]

By: Jac

Jac — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:21:42 +0000

Think of it more as an extended patio, sheltered from bad weather. And it’s convenient to move it around, built with sustainable materials. I think the toilet is behind the bush. You can surely pack food and eat there, bring an icebox for drinks.

By: Maxx

Maxx — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:49:59 +0000

John,
I fail to see your logic? I would never claim to be an environmentalist, and I admit I’ve never made any measurable and purposeful effort to be green… But I am curious how you figure a 100sq ft structure, even for a single person, is inefficient? (I really am curious, I’m not bashing on you in the least, btw) I’ve started research on minimalist housing and such, and it just seems like a good idea to me is all. This thing’s the size of a typical bedroom, but incorporates all necessities for the owner. I figure, even if a family of 5 decided to purchase 5 of these, and plop them down right next to each other (to be close.. but not *that* close I guess), that’s still only a 500sq ft footprint on the land – much better than any typical building standards. Seems very minimal on the materials used as well, no? While I agree that obviously a high-rise has a smaller footprint per capita, the materials used to build them would have to be substantial for support and structural purposes I’d suppose. Just curious, thanks
-maxx

By: John

John — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:59:15 +0000

All,
I think, before all other arguments about use and impact on the land are discussed, we all have to agree that a 100 sq foot unit with 4 walls for one person is an extremely inefficient use of materials. small does not equal green, i think that is what rami is trying to say. that is not to say one should build a high rise for every writer to escape to, just a simple mathematic fact.

By: Aulaire

Aulaire — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:58:22 +0000

Holly–

If a writer spends long stretches of time writing in the space, staring out at the natural surroundings would be a lot more sustaining than staring into the dark gloom of a tent. (That IS practical for a writer!) And the [semi] permanence of the structure would allow the owner to leave her books and other writing equipment there in safety.

By: Holly

Holly — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:56:06 +0000

I would like to know more about the way the author/owner uses this space. Does she hike in from a main road, or does she drive in? Is the building insulated? How does she heat it? Does she sleep/cook/live there for any length of time, or is it strictly an office? And, the ever-important (to me) question … does it have a toilet (composting or other)?

I think it’s very lovely, but I’d really like to know how it would be a practical improvement over, say, a good-sized tent.

By: Richie

Richie — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:36:46 +0000

Then links not posted in my reply are here: http://www.modularhousingsystem.com/ , http://www.modularhousingsystem.com/modularhousingsystem/pagesindex.html .

By: Richie

Richie — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:33:29 +0000

Dear Rami, On p.64 of ‘The Book of Totally Useless Information’ (ISBN: 1567312667) we find that the 1990 population of 5,333,000,000 people, if evenly distributed over the 57,900,000 square miles of the Earth’s landmass… would each have 6.5 acres to dwell upon. Think about it.

As far as nature lovers parking next to this dwelling… I imagine that the owner of the retreat owns the land immediately surrounding it ? So is that really an issue ?

A design aspect that I think could have been better with this project… would have been the use of ‘Modular Hosuing Systems’ self gripping aluminum extrusions. That way… the entire house/retreat could have been disassembled and reused as component parts. Their use would have also avoided the necessity for trucking the structure in as the aluminum posts could have been walked in instead. See: or just

By: Randy

Randy — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:47:16 +0000

Rami, lighten up a tad. For starters, no where in this posting does the word “green” show up except in your comment. Why is this person “selfish”? Simply because they chose to have a nice, small retreat built on property they own? Are you suggesting that we should all abandon the countryside and move into highrise apartments? What a silly notion. You’re drawing your personal line of acceptable ecological morality and then you’re condemning anyone that steps across your line. That seems selfish to me. Why is your line the right one? I enjoy looking at the pictures of that cabin much more than reading the overexcited babble of humorless people.

By: Alexi

Alexi — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:58:25 +0000

to rami

I think you are a bit exhagerating here. I totally agree with you about what prefab houses can do in a rural landscape if it’s set on commercial pipeline. We all now of a failure of mono-functional suburban dream.

But this case is different. The house is not promoted as a prefab unit ready to be shipped anywhere you wish.
This house is an example of single application in the rural setting.

By: rami

rami — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:00:08 +0000

but what if 1 million nature lovers were to park themselves in singular homes and sheds next to her? no prefab or bungalow or single family home is green, Im sorry to burst your bubble. highrise homes are far more green than any shed no matter how much its materials are recycled. This is not green, its selfish people who park themselves inside nature hoping nobody else will.

By: Francisco Saraiva

Francisco Saraiva — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:28:39 +0000

beautiful and ecological