Good To Go (a.k.a. Part 3)

February 1, 2026

Villa Rotonda and Haus am Horn don’t look very similar on the outside and even less similar on the inside, but both are biaxially symmetrical and both have a large, top-lit space of increased height where those axes intersect.

Here’s those two central spaces. On the right is that Haus am Horn study niche (nische) I was talking about. It’s the space with the external triple window and it has the same relationship to the main space as the living room extension of last week’s tiny house iteration that’s now known as Proposal 2.

Massing

This is how it played out. From left to right below are a schematic plan of Villa Rotonda, a schematic plan of Haus am Horn, the two combined into a schematic plan mashup and lastly, the schematic plan of Proposal 3 with the east side kitchen extended north, and the west side bedroom extended and displaced northwards. Not to scale.

Or, for what it’s worth.

Layout

The Proposal 3 layout is much the same as that of Proposal 2 but with part of the living space as a 3m x 3m x 3mm cube. Internal area at 33.5m² is about the footprint of the original outbuildings but buildable space left unbuilt on the east side has been moved to the west. This displacement of the permissible footprint isn’t in accordance with the letter of the planning permission exemption but I’m hoping it’s in accordance with its intention. The neighbours definitely benefit from the replacement building not being on the fence-line as it would be if “footprint” meant footprint shape and not footprint area. The bathroom might need to have a second door from the bedroom and, if/when it does, the washing machine will have to go elsewhere. The living area won’t be the 18m² I imagined in the sketch below.

Drainage

I can’t find any documentary evidence of it, but it makes sense for that external drain between the rear sliding glass door of the existing studio shed to be there to collect water coming through the retaining wall to the north and this means it must link to the drainage system of the main house. However, I did find out that the main sewer line runs along the N-S boundary. The electricity and communications connections are along the street at the front. There won’t be gas. [My sister would like me to mention that the outbuildings are still in their recent “as-bought” state.]

All this is important because of the floated possibility of splitting the land title so that this tiny house will have its own street address and can be bought and sold independently. This needs to be designed for and will mean that all rainwater needs to be collected and drained within the boundaries of the site even though it complicates the roof somewhat. Splitting the title means there may have to be an easement so the main house can access the sewer line or the tiny house can access the street. Needs further investigation.

But, upon further thought, the fly in this ointment may be that, should the title be split, the existing building footprint conversion planning permission exemption may no longer apply because the new dwelling would be no longer have a main building to be an accessory to, and so detached dwelling regulations such as for setbacks may kick in. In other words, it’d be game over. This means that the new tiny house, however separated or connected it is to the spaces of the main house, will remain a part of it even if its connectivity to the main house is managed with gates and walls. This tiny house is still likely to be a potential money-earner but only as short- or long-term rental accommodation and not as an outright sale.

This means that access and sewage and other easements aren’t a problem anymore, and it also means that the roof drainage can be reworked. I’m inclined to have it remain the same as above because, even without this new building, there’s some puddling at the west (far) end of the former driveway where the clothes line is. All the same, the roof could be configured like below if the roof rainwater didn’t have to be isolated but, all the same, I don’t want this building to exacerbate any existing puddling problem. The driveway may need to be partially dug up and replaced with something more permeable. Or maybe just the drains cleaned.

The low pyramid roof was cute and really only needed a gutter for half of the west side, but a simple gable roof means that the raised section won’t need any gutters and downpipes as it can drain directly onto the lower roofs.

Electricity Generation

It also means a larger area for the installation of PV panels but a gable roof like the one below would only allow the installation of three 1 x 1.7m panels that would only meet 20–30% of the electrical requirement of a one-person household. Depending upon orientation, it takes at least twelve panels to produce sufficient electricity for a single-person household to sell back to the grid. A mono-pitch roof would provide sufficient area for six panels but would also make the south end of the roof too high, especially if the slope is the optimum 32°. On the plus side, I prefer PV panels to not look as if they were simply thrown at the roof as happens all too often in Perth. This spotty effect is a consequence of Perth roofs having too many hips and valleys following the front elevation ins and outs that attempt to create an illusion of depth – as in so-not-like-a-box. Below right, you can see how this shallow depthiness is reinforced by colour. So not boxy.

I suppose I could always keep the pyramid roof and have three half panels on the lower row and one on the upper row, and on the east, north and west sides but, y’now, it feels a bit tricksy even if it does allow the same amount of panel area. The shape of the roof might come down to the preference of the neighbor who’s a lawyer, I’m told.

Pragmatically, the PV panels don’t have to go on the upper roof – I mean, (and not to denigrate the legacy of Le Corbusier) – it’s not as if they’re that much closer to The Sun FFS. Next, I tried orienting them directly to the north for maximum efficiency and, in my perfect world, we would see beauty in this but even I’m not seeing it in the one on the left while the one on the right has corners of the panels slightly visible from inside. We used to call these First World problems.

Keeping it real, placing the PV panels on the lower roof increases the possibility of shading from those large olive trees in the foreground but, on the whole, the proposal on the right below, is a reasonable compromise between output and how the blessed things will be seen. If there’s any compromise it’s about year-round cost performance as there’s now five panels collectively producing 1.5kW which is slightly less than half of expected consumption. However, if the title isn’t to be split, the roof of the main house probably has room to install another five. IDK.

But, these past few days I’ve learned that PV panels are a mature industry in Australia, as well as facts like an orientation to the north-west or even the west is better if peak demand is in the evening rather than morning. I know I’ve done what I can regarding cross ventilation but I expect summer evening air conditioning will be the largest drain on energy.

Materials

A concrete slab is going to be necessary if all doors in and out are to have level access. The walls are unlikely to be Australia’s preferred double-brick cavity wall construction and are more likely to be steel framed that will also make them thinner and this is good. The roof will be (probably white) steel cladding that Australia does so well. The image on the right is “Hamptons White” corrugated steel roofing. There’s some science to this.

External walls will be a textured wood-effect cladding in either steel or fibreboard. There’s no lack of suppliers, and the walls won’t look heavy or metallic. White guttering and downpipes. Won’t scare the neighbours.

Inside

The high-windows and the raised portion of ceiling are a major enhancement to the experience of being in this tiny house but, plan-wise, little has changed apart from the kitchen now being a separate volume opening off the main space.

I’d like the living room extension to not have a visible beam separating it and for the soffit to meet the wall with the high windows cleanly. As at Haus am Horn come to think of it, but with a raked soffit to the extension. Like this. Nice. I just want things to be nice.

The kitchen volume is different. At the beginning of last week I imagined it as something similar to the nicshe at Haus am Horn but, since I’ve let the kitchen become a chocolate box of colours and textures, there’s surely something else at work. From probing my database, all that comes up is the hallway leading to the atrium space of John Lautner’s 1966 Harpel House No. 2 in Anchorage, Alsaska. Didn’t see that coming. How our brains find links between observations (remembrances) and current problems continues to fascinate me but it’s no use fighting for a more meaningful architectural AI. I’d just like to make this space a space my father will choose to live in, all other factors considered.