Style
The Alington house draws on the architectural traditions of International Modernism (and specifically the Modernist pavilion typified by the work of Mies van der Rohe), interpreted for the New Zealand context. The low overhanging flat roof, attention to geometric proportional relationships, the structural articulation and large areas of glazing are aspects of this tradition that Alington has employed, while working within the constraints of timber construction materials and the natural landscape that are characteristic of the domestic architectural trends in New Zealand.
The house is celebrated for its response to its bush setting, and Alington's manner of "working within the constraints of orthogonal geometries, proportional discipline and classical planning as well as the desire to clarify load bearing and born [sic] elements in timber post and beam". For these reasons, and the resulting "balance[d] spaces", the house has been identified as "a benchmark in [New Zealand] residential architecture for many years", and accordingly, was awarded a NZIA-Resene Local Award for Architecture in 2001.
Layout and Key Spaces
The layout of the Alington house is organised according to the logic of the structural system. Running through the house from south to north, the central three structural bays (one major and two minor) define the public areas. The structural bays of the east-west axis also define the spatial arrangement of the private zones of the house, which flank either side of the central spaces. The bedrooms in each corner of the western side (housing a bathroom in between) mirror an almost identical arrangement on the eastern side.
The Palladian-like symmetry of the plan centres on an 'H'-shaped brick wall. Located on the southern side of this wall is the fireplace that opens into the sitting area, while the northern face defines the kitchen area. This central feature-wall stops short of the ceiling, emphasising its non-load-bearing role as a spatial divider for the public areas of the house. Although the middle portion of the house is in fact one open space, the separation created by the brick dividing-wall provides the impression of separate volumes while at the same time maintaining the visual connection between each 'room'. The glazed exterior wall, the brick dividing-wall, and the suggestion of enclosure provided by the structural module (reinforced by the original placement of furniture), provides the spatial definition to each of the public areas.
The clearing amidst the landscape planting immediately outside the front door, and the garden court at the rear of the house, are also key 'spaces' that are central to the layout of the house. The scale and nature of these clearings add to the sense of spatial progression throughout the house, integrating the experience of interior and exterior spaces into a harmonious sequence.
Condition
The house remains in its near original condition, including the retention of its original colour scheme inside and out, built-in furniture in the form of bookshelves and cupboards, and fittings (bathroom, kitchen, lights, etc), and some of the original furniture (although not designed by Alington) has been retained by the current owners. The landscaping and outbuildings are still in much the same condition as when the Alington family was in residence.
Comparative Information.
The use of post and beam construction places this building amongst a small number of similar pavilion houses in New Zealand, including other Wellington examples by contemporaries James Beard (Beard House, 1955) and Bill Toomath (McKay House, 1962). Of these houses, the Alington house is the only example that has not been significantly altered.
The Alington house shows the influence of the house that James Beard had designed for his family in 1955. The Beard house, situated on a bush-clad section in the same area of Karori as the Alington house, also takes the form of a flat-roofed Modernist pavilion. Despite some obvious superficial similarities (the overhanging flat roof, board-and-batten cladding punctuated by large areas of timber-framed glazing, clear articulation of post and beam structural system) the houses are very different, especially in key areas such as planning, proportion, and relationship to the landscape. The Beard house (now much altered) responds to its geometric logic in a much freer manner than the discipline of the Alington house The spatial arrangement of the former exists in spite of the structural module (based on the square), whereas at the Alington house much care has been taken to integrate the structural module (based on the Golden Section) with the organisation of the spaces within (see Figures 24 & 25 of the registration report). This means that the spaces at the Alington house, being determined by the carefully proportioned rhythm of the structural organisation, maintain a calmly ordered and legible consistency throughout.
Differences in the response to the bush-clad context also mark these houses - where the Beard house sits elevated within the regenerating bush, the Alington house takes advantage of its low slung nature to become more integrated with its surroundings. The area in front of the main entry appears as a small 'clearing' after the narrow bush path that leads up to the site and the house; it effectively creates the sensation of a 'room' in the manner of the hallway/foyer, where one waits before being invited into the house proper. Similarly the garden court at the back of the house is another carefully proportioned clearing that forms a spatial continuation of the volumes within the house itself.
A third Wellington pavilion, the McKay house designed by William Toomath, also employs many of the devices found in the Beard and Alington houses. It also features a bush-setting, prismatic flat-roofed form (minus the overhang), and vertical board-and-batten cladding. Present also is the free-standing post and beam structural system. Like the Alington house, which has a semi-height brick wall as a spatial divider between the living areas, the McKay house encloses its lounge with semi-height walls. Where Toomath paints his white, Alington allows the brick to retain its phenomenological warmth, combining it with the fireplace and kitchen to reinforce the 'memory' of the familial hearth.
Toomath designed a compact house that gave the impression of spaciousness by the "planning the interior as a single continuous space, divided by only a few solid elements". Nevertheless, the commonalities between the McKay and Alington houses extend to the alternating structural rhythm of minor and major bays (although the beams run across the McKay house), the formal symmetry, and centrality of the living spaces. The northern elevation of both houses reveals both the similarities between the two plans, as well as the significant generating role of the actual plan itself. Unlike the Alington house however, the spatial arrangement of the McKay house is defined by its circulatory layout. This opportunity arises out of the separation of the spatial and structural systems that is more akin to the Beard house than the Alington house. It does however, mean that the repose that is achieved through a consistent integration of these systems is not as evident at the McKay house.
The three houses show different approaches to what is essentially the same formal typology: the Modernist pavilion that has its roots in the work of Mies van der Rohe. Mies's Farnsworth house of 1950 is effectively a rationalised abstraction of the house, where even interior walls are deemed superfluous. Beard, Alington, and Toomath, each supplement this rationalisation with a well-studied program for living that allows 'Miesian abstraction' to function as 'family home', or in the case of the McKay house, as the home of a social professional couple.
In these houses, Toomath (who was a member of the Group during the 1940s, and a signatory to the manifesto), Beard, and Alington, employed reveal a less selective reading of the Architectural Group's ideas, valuing the aspects of 'standard Modernist' ideology that are generally overlooked in contemporary readings of their manifesto. They sought to create architecture that was internationalist in ideology and expression, but also appropriate to the conditions and building capabilities of this country. It should be noted that the Wellington Architectural Centre was a key part of all three architect's background experience. An adherence to a purer Modernist rhetoric was fostered at the Centre, in part by the presence of the European émigrés such as Plischke and Newman who were influential members. The same can be said of the Ministry of Works under Gordon Wilson in the 1950s, where both Beard and Alington were employed.
However, as Porsolt points out in his review of Living with 50 Architects, "styles overlap". The line between the New Zealand Modernist pavilions illustrated here and the 'elegant shed' that consciously attained to a particular idea of New Zealandness, is at times slim. Houses by Don Donnithorne, Derek Wilson (Toomath's partner in practice), and James Hackshaw (Reynolds and Hackshaw were both members of the Group during the 1940s) are as much shed as pavilion, demonstrating that the two typologies are not mutually exclusive.
The three Wellington pavilions however, display a high degree of resolution in terms of both architectural refinement and functional planning that left little room for further typological development of the New Zealand Modernist pavilion. The Alington house in particular bears testament to elegance and refinement of this typology, through both the skill of its architect and his deep consideration of proportion, planning, and detail, and by virtue of it remaining in its original condition. Sadly, this is not the case for either of the Beard and McKay houses, both of which have been significantly altered to the degree where it is difficult to identify the original architectural form and spatial arrangement.