Renovate: 5 projects for the same house

The story of the conception of a renovation project is generally a story full of indecision and unexplored possibilities. For this reason, the architect generally proposes various options, which require more or less invasive work, to achieve one or more possible objectives, taking into account a multiplicity of requests, some of which may not be achievable. Sometimes, however, improvements can emerge that were not even hoped for, and this often makes the difference in the final result. Let’s see the example of this house, with a real story of the state of affairs in which the apartment is located, of the owners’ requests and the 5 project hypotheses created by thearchitect Ornella Musilli.

What the house is like, i.e. the so-called “state of fact”

The apartment, on the first floor of a condominium in a mountain location, has 270 cm high ceilings and independent heating with a gas boiler (which spreads hot air with ventilation pipes on the ceiling, shielded by wood). The house consists of:

• entrance (large unused space)
• lounge/living room with fireplace and access to the balcony shared with the double bedroom
• small service bathroom without window with shower cubicle
• kitchen (with a corner occupied by a storage room where the boiler is located) with a small balcony/terrace (on which there is a further small storage room)
• double bedroom with balcony (shared with the lounge/living room) overlooking the view of other buildings
• guest bedroom with pair of bunk beds (sleeps 4) with window
• bathroom with bathtub and window.

The critical issues of the apartment for the owners

• The current kitchen is narrow and longit is difficult to have lunch and host more people at the table.
• The storage room in the kitchen takes away light and space from the room.
• The entrance hallway gives a lot of air to the apartment but in fact it is an unused space, with a very limiting column/pillar detached from the wall.
• The balcony of the master bedroom is little used both because it is in the sleeping area and because it is too exposed to view and has little privacy for a bedroom (which forces you to keep the curtains closed).

How the house should become

The clients for this apartment, in addition to requesting to take into account the furniture to be preserved (two sofas, one of which can be opened into a double bed), hope for a proposal from the architect that contemplates a less invasive solution playing on the distribution of the current rooms used as kitchen/service bathroom/entrance e a more radical one with inversion rooms-kitchen or other.

Goals to achieve

• organize/recover spaces better, recovering the currently unused space in the entrance;
• have a comfortable space for lunch/dinner and host more people at the table;
• always have two bathrooms but with shower cubicles.

Constraints to be respected in works by law

The following are the regulatory requirements that affect residences; for a detailed check it is advisable to refer to the urban planning instruments in force in the Municipality where the building is located:

• the surface of the living room cannot be less than 14 m2;
• the surface area of ​​the single room cannot be less than 9 m2;
• the surface area of ​​the double room cannot be less than 14 m2;
• the kitchen must be separated from the bathroom through a filter space (anti-bathroom);
• if the kitchen is closed in a dedicated room, it must have a window;
• the air-lighting surface of the external openings (windows) of each room where the continuous presence of people is expected (living room, bedroom, kitchen) must be equal to at least 1/8 of the walkable surface.

Project A: small interventions in the entrance, bathroom and kitchen, making a little use of the corridor

• As per the client’s request, they are foreseen in this first hypothesis interventions that involve the entrance-kitchen-service bathroom area and the storage room in the kitchen is eliminatedin its place there are columns with combined refrigerator and pantry.
• The projection with the current shower cubicle has been moved lower and uses part of the space of the large entrance. In the bathroom, next to the shower tray there is a equipped recess while the. is positioned near the door washing machine with high shelves.
• The kitchen is entered with a sliding glass door: by compacting the furniture into two lines, one of which with a protruding top served by stools, you obtain space for the extendable dining table.
• Atentrance of the apartment is built a built-in wardrobe that incorporates the pillar and can be opened towards the kitchen, between the pillar and the partition there are small shelves in series that can be used from the living room, a mirror is placed in front of the door with a vertical design.

Compare the before and after of project A

Project B: L-shaped living room and kitchen, connected and open to each other: larger service bathroom and with dressing room-laundry room

• In this case the room with the single beds has been moved to the former kitchen and gets the size of the double room since the surface is increased to 14 m2.
• The living room, with kitchen open into the living room although in a well-defined area of ​​its owntakes on an L shape and incorporates the entire entrance space.
• Even in this hypothesis the kitchen has two lines and a peninsula but it is the moving of the plants is expected dedicated to it.
• To the enlarged service bathroom accessed from an anti-bathroom with washing machine, this hallway can also be accessed from the bedroom. In the bathroom with window there is a shower cubicle.

Compare the before and after of project B

Project C: the kitchen is moved and separated from the living room by a sliding door. Plus there is a walk-in closet

The distribution is largely modified with the master bedroom changing places and the kitchen remaining habitable, in its own right.

• the double bedroom reaches the 14 m2 necessary for a double room and has dedicated bathroom and walk-in closet;
• the bedroom with single bed retains a surface similar to the current state but has a longer and narrower shape and the entrance has been moved;
• the kitchen is closed with sliding door made of glass and has adequate dimensions but does not accommodate the table;
• there dining area is located in the living room;
• there are some in the partition between the entrance and the living room two glass openings, one sliding and one fixed “window” above the sofa; both give light to the entrance.

Compare the before and after of project C

Project D: open space living room with corner sofas and compact open kitchen

• This hypothesis is similar to the previous one but the kitchen is open to the living room.
• It follows a ample space for the dining area and the living room with corner sofas.

Compare the before and after of project D

Project E: open space living room with large open kitchen in the corner

• The sleeping area is the same as the previous solutions, while they are different the living room and also the bathroomwhich has a large shower cabin under the window.
• In this case the open space living room incorporates a large corner kitchen.

Compare the before and after of project E

In summary, the architect’s opinion on the 5 design hypotheses

The projects include progressively more invasive and improving interventions, as requested by the reader who would like to evaluate more solutions. The priority objectives are: exploit the entrance space, make the central pillar less interfering, have the possibility of a dining area with more seats at the table to host friends, increase the surface area of ​​the sleeping area. In all cases, the storage room from the current kitchen is eliminated since there is a second one on the terrace.

In the project A we only intervene in the entrance/service bathroom/kitchen area: the protrusion in the current kitchen moves towards the entrance and the washing machine is placed in the new recess of the bathroom (while it is currently located in the long line of the kitchen, see photo), the kitchen is more compact and the dining table has more space around it.

In the project B one of the two bedrooms is also involved which is exchanged with the kitchen, as suggested by the reader, with a consequent increase in the useful surface area of ​​the bedroom and the complete insertion of the entrance into the L-shaped living room, in the bathroom with window the bathtub is eliminated and the shower cabin.

In projects C, D and Ethe other bedroom, which currently has a limited surface area, and the bathroom with window are also involved; they share the same layout of the bedrooms, service bathroom and walk-in closet and differ in the living area and the bathroom with window (the bathroom fixtures are aligned and the bathroom enlarged): Hypothesis C was developed because the owners might prefer a closed kitchen but the result is less satisfactory because obviously the living spaces are more limited.

The best solutions according to architect Musilli are – last but not least – the last two, but they are the most invasive ones and each involve provisions that may not be preferred due to personal tastes, such as the open kitchen in the living room.

In D the entrance to the living area which takes place from the kitchen and in E the shower is under the window (although in the latter the bathroom is even larger).