Designer Forum - December 2009

By Emanuela Frattini Magnusson

EFM Design is a multidisciplinary architecture and design practice based in New York. Our projects range from commercial to residential, as we believe that the shift between the two areas provides inspiration for each area. It is this cross-pollination of needs and ideas that fosters creativity, as the residential realm can inform the commercial.

On the other hand, the practicality of commercial requirements can be successfully integrated into residential projects. The overlap between the two is a lasting development, and how and where we work is undergoing a sea of change. This shift opens up a whole new area of resources, where options for material selections are unburdened from preconceived notions of “appropriateness” and examined under a different light. This is how we like to approach project specifications in general, by looking at the functional requirements and how they can be met or exceeded, and not necessarily in the conventionally prescribed set of options.

In our projects the selection of the flooring material and finish in particular is for several reasons one of the drivers for the entire design palette. Flooring tends to be both the most abused and the most visible surface area, not to mention in general one of the largest single material areas, and therefore a significant line item in the budget.

In several of our recent projects the selection of flooring material has posed a series of interesting challenges, from being a very strong formal design element, to having to hold up to foot traffic in spaces like a lower school lobby (think of what happens at dismissal…), to commercial showrooms that have to look pristine and showcase product under all circumstances, even when there is a slushy snowstorm outside.

In a recently completed showroom, for example, the entrance was through a tunnel-like corridor that opened up into the product display. For the entrance we needed a flooring material that would be perceived as high end, be colorful and capture the attention of visitors, to draw them into the space. Floor, walls and lighting were all we had to work with, given the limitations of the space. Contrary to our first intuition to light the walls and use them as display areas, we decided to dim the lights and only light the recessed cove along the floor.

Because of the perspective created, the space would act like a visual funnel. For the flooring material we went back into our historic repertoire, and worked with Mimosa International in New York to recreate a single pour, troweled “Venetian Pastellone” floor in various shades of ocean blue. Besides being visually striking, it has the durability required in a commercial space. It is one of the floor materials that improves with patina, like natural stone, but with less maintenance.

A second project, diametrically opposed to the one just mentioned, presented the challenges typical of historic renovation and preservation. We were commissioned by the new owners to renovate Frank Lloyd Wright’s house on Manursing Island, in Rye, New York. It was originally designed by Wright for Max Hoffman in 1953, built in 1955-57, and extended by the second owner with a new wing commissioned to Taliesin in 1972.

The original house, a “seaside cottage,” consisted of an L-shaped plan, facing Long Island Sound. The layout included a large living room with connected kitchen and dining areas, two small bedrooms, and one master bedroom with study. The 1972 addition extended the entertaining areas by moving the kitchen and formal dining into the new wing and expanding the original living room. True to the spirit of organic architecture and to the finishes and technologies available at the time, the flooring in the public areas was an extension of the outside flagstone, with no thresholds and no saddles, while the bedrooms were carpeted and the kitchen area floor was covered in linoleum.

In our renovation we analyzed all possible approaches to a historic landmark. We could eliminate everything that was not the original and try to recreate it, or contrast the original with the new intervention and intentionally show it. However, we took a third approach, of maintaining certain rules dictated by the original, while breaking others. The rules we decided to rigorously maintain were the four-foot grid on which the house is laid out, and the “spirit,” the intentions of organic architecture, in terms of using natural materials and blending inside and outside.

We broke some of the rules in order to meet our client’s goal of creating a home for a young family with four kids, a house to be used and enjoyed with many friends. The purpose wasn’t to create a mausoleum to Wright. This approach was particularly relevant in the real work areas like the kitchen, where floors get wet and equipment is used. Linoleum, which was the original choice in the 50s, was a concern because of its performance with water. We had the height limitations of a continuous slab, and did not want to interfere with a transition to the original stone floor, so our two options were a sheet floor or a poured floor.

We choose Allstate Rubber tiles as a good bridge between the feel and look of the original specification and the performance we were looking for, within the dimensional limitations. Our color palette took some of Wright’s favorite hues and increased their clarity, making them more contemporary. The Cherokee red became brighter, and the olive is now the bright apple green of our floor. Function, cultural content, aesthetics, and architectural history were all equally important factors that filtered all available options down to this final choice.

Print the Article