Tim Dorrington’s Compact Pocket Houses Win Architecture Award

Architect Tim Dorrington, of Dorrington Atcheson Architects, isn’t just designing compact homes – he’s testing them himself.

With the Pocket Houses project in Auckland’s Ōtāhuhu, Tim Dorrington set out to challenge traditional models of residential development by creating a pair of cleverly designed, compact dwellings that occupy the footprint of a double garage. Part architectural prototype, part personal experiment, the homes offer a thoughtful, space-savvy alternative for those shut out of the conventional housing market – from first-home buyers to downsizers and small families.

Recently awarded in the multi-unit category at the NZIA Auckland Architecture Awards, the Pocket Houses are bold in both form and intention.

Here, Dorrington talks about the thinking behind the design, the challenges of being both architect and developer, and why playful, practical design might be one way forward in New Zealand’s housing landscape.

What was the initial spark for the Pocket Houses – was there a particular site, client or problem that inspired their design?

That’s the thing with this concept – we’ve been looking at alternatives for an under-represented part of the population for a while: architecturally designed, free-standing houses for first-home buyers, downsizers, nomads, small families and solos. So, oddly enough for us as architects, the site itself came later in the process. We were the clients, as we wanted to test the concept and prototype on ourselves first. The problem was the apparent lack of options for certain house buyers in particular price brackets. We started off looking at options for “small but perfectly formed” free-standing houses that could work on a multitude of sites. We wanted to be bold, clever with space, and thoughtful in design – putting ourselves in the shoes of the people who might live in these wee houses. The idea being, if we loved them, hopefully others would too.

At just 70m² each, the homes occupy the footprint of a double garage, approximately 36m². How did you approach the challenge of creating homes that are compact but don’t feel constrained or compromised?

We wanted to use the double garage as a reference point, because most people know that size – and many already have an under-utilised double garage on their site that could house a Pocket House instead. It’s all a way to make the concept more accessible and demystify architecture a bit. We made use of virtually every square metre. There’s very little circulation space – besides the stairway, all the floor area is dedicated to household uses. The stair is the breathing space. We also used a slightly unique material and colour palette, which helps open up the feeling of space. You can see the underside of the floor joists above the lounge/kitchen/dining area – painted black – which visually lifts the room. Built-in furniture like shelves, desks, and the daybed (which doubles as a guest bed) is all done in clear-finished plywood, which also helps maximise space.

What compromises, if any, had to be made to keep the project affordable without losing design integrity?

To make a budget work, you have to pick your battles and make any concessions consciously. We focused the richer materials and colours downstairs in the shared areas, which allowed us to keep the bedrooms simpler – painted Gib walls. To add character, we painted all the doors in soft pastel colours. It’s a simple way to add interest without cost. We designed the spaces and built-in elements to have multiple uses – the landing is the home office, the underside of the floor is a feature ceiling, the daybed is a couch, bookshelf and guest bed. We also rethought the roof structure to reduce material use, and developed a method where the interior fit-out and exterior cladding could happen in parallel – lots of small moves added up.

You developed this project yourself – how did wearing both the architect and developer hats shape the outcome?

In some ways, it’s simpler – the design meetings are easy (or non-existent!) and decisions are quick. We learned a lot about development itself. We know building, design and documentation – but it was eye-opening to discover all the other costs along the way, which we came to call ‘compliance’ or ‘permission’ costs. When you’re doing a simple, prototype-style housing project like this – trying to do something good – it almost feels like there’s a disincentive to try, when faced with the roadblocks and bureaucracy.

Why did you choose orange roofing tiles as cladding, and what kind of response have you had to that bold decision?

A client I was designing a coastal brick house for lent me a book of brick houses, and one had a really interesting texture that turned out to be roof tiles. I liked how it looked in sun and shade, and figured, if those tiles can work on a roof in New Zealand, why not on a wall? Once I started talking to suppliers, I discovered there were other benefits – they’re thermally efficient like brick, low maintenance, simple and quick to install, and cost-competitive. We thought, if we’re doing tiles, let’s go with the natural terracotta colour. The response has been really positive.

The interior palette uses cheerful, unexpected colours – how important was playfulness in the design of these homes?

I think playfulness and not taking yourself too seriously is important in all design. You want the colours, materials, view lines and spaces to bring joy and spark, while also offering calm and flexibility in how you live in them.

Were there any unexpected lessons or surprises during the build that might inform future iterations?

Definitely – especially in the compliance and permission space. Some of these processes could be much simpler. It’s encouraging to see recent moves toward self-certification for simple structures. We need a bit more trust – earned trust – and fewer layers and roadblocks. Right now, we have a one-size-fits-all system for projects of every scale and complexity. But simple, low-risk builds like this shouldn’t be burdened with the same processes as large-scale architectural works. There’s room for a more streamlined pathway.

How do you see this model of compact, well-designed housing scaling – across Auckland or in other cities?

It’s almost like a different tier of housing. It’s not replacing other developments, but offering an alternative for people who feel they have no other options beyond questionable low-cost builds. Pocket Houses could be developed as a kind of village – high landscaping, shared green space, and a greater focus on individuality and ownership – versus a block of townhouses. It also challenges the idea of a “forever home”. Maybe you can have the right house for the right time – start small, scale up when needed, then downsize again. That could free up under-utilised buildings, reduce mortgage pressure, and create more adaptable housing.

Do you think architects in New Zealand have a responsibility to respond more directly to the housing crisis?

Yes – that’s why we did this. To test a different way of intensifying, a form of gentle densification in both site impact and potential scalability. Ideally, architects would have more scope to take the lead on solutions like this — but unless you do it yourself, or have a like-minded client, it’s hard to get these projects off the ground. Generally, we serve the client’s brief, and don’t control the budget or scope. But there could be better systems to allow projects like this to happen more easily.

What would you like to see change — from councils, clients, or the industry — to make projects like this more common?

Streamlining the path to consent for small, simple, standalone homes would make a massive difference to affordability and timelines. There are already positive changes — self-certification for some trades, minor dwellings permitted on certain sites, and suggested fast-tracking for buildings under 70m². One big improvement would be combining the separate consent processes — resource, building and subdivision — into one. In our case, processing those took twice as long as the build and cost far more. Infrastructure and development fees are another hurdle. In the wrong zone, they could add 50% or more to the actual build cost. For our project, the off-site, non-building costs were 20–25% of the total — for permissions and connections. That works against the goal of increasing housing stock.

You’ve just won an award for the multi-unit category in the NZIA Auckland Architecture Awards for the Pocket Houses — how does that recognition feel, and what was the feedback from the judges?

We’re delighted! NZIA awards are special because they’re judged by our peers. They come and visit, experience the project in context — warts and all. It’s great to be recognised in the multi-unit category, which is usually filled with much larger, higher-budget projects. The Pocket Houses were quite different, but the judges seemed to really like the place. We sat around, chatted, and just inhabited the space together. One comment that really stuck with me was that the houses made them happy — and honestly, what more could you ask for?