Room to Improve.

evolving_doors

Deleted User wrote: »

.................because its called "Room to Improve"!
It was originally about just doing up a few rooms in the recession, then became more about extensions as people had slightly bigger budgets.
Its not call" knock my house down and build a new one".

You can't blame Dermot for this. This is the remit of the show. Speak to RTE and the producers.

Well they had plenty of room to improve on that farm.

Ya ok just kidding, i forget the shows 'brief'.

I'd still be interested to see what he'd do with a blank slate though.

Anyone know if he's building his own new house or is it a renovation?

Penn

seamus wrote: »

Why hire an architect at all then?

Architects are designers, first and foremost. When you hire a designer, you give them a broad outline and they transform that into a design.

If you have a very specific idea of exactly what you want it to look like, you don't hire a designer and then complain when they've used their own ideas.

You pay an architect money for their ideas, not their ability to draw straight lines. If you don't want ideas, don't hire an architect.

Agreed. You may have an idea of what you want, but that's why you go to an architect; for them to give you a design you didn't know you wanted, because you can't come up with designs an architect is able to.

But sometimes, what the architect comes up with isn't what you want, and doesn't satisfy your needs. You're never going to know that though until you've already engaged them.

Architects very rarely get the design right on the first try. There's always back and forth with the client, and narrowing it down to what you like and what you don't like, and taking bits from different concepts to form a new one.

But this is a TV show, so that bit rarely makes it into the show. We didn't even get to see a graphic or any external shots of the redesign.

seamus

Penn wrote: »

But sometimes, what the architect comes up with isn't what you want, and doesn't satisfy your needs. You're never going to know that though until you've already engaged them.

Architects very rarely get the design right on the first try. There's always back and forth with the client, and narrowing it down to what you like and what you don't like, and taking bits from different concepts to form a new one.

Sure, but in this case there was no "narrowing it down" for her. The design was all wrong, "zero out of ten", "nothing innovative at all".

As soon as she saw it, she shut down and refused to engage.

The initial design was actually perfect except for the open plan. It delivered everything they wanted within the budget allowed. But he didn't draw what was in her head and that was the end of it. She was the one with no imagination, but she couldn't see it that way.

Quazzie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Don’t architects have to follow briefs? I know some people might give a simple overview of what they need (more light, more space) and others may be more detailed.

I don’t buy that there’s architects who only do open plan. If so they should make it clear before producing any plans.

He's been producing the same extension for years on one of the country's most popular TV shows. How much clearer can he make it. :rolleyes:

sentient_6

Anyone else think the production has taken a strange turn this season? Im thinking yesterday with them out using conveniently placed bales of hay for checking out the plans and the wan from fermoy chatting to dermot in a jacuzzi. Awful stuff.

lawred2

sentient_6 wrote: »

Anyone else think the production has taken a strange turn this season? Im thinking yesterday with them out using conveniently placed bales of hay for checking out the plans and the wan from fermoy chatting to dermot in a jacuzzi. Awful stuff.

that was the pits

Penn

seamus wrote: »

Sure, but in this case there was no "narrowing it down" for her. The design was all wrong, "zero out of ten", "nothing innovative at all".

As soon as she saw it, she shut down and refused to engage.

The initial design was actually perfect except for the open plan. It delivered everything they wanted within the budget allowed. But he didn't draw what was in her head and that was the end of it. She was the one with no imagination, but she couldn't see it that way.

I disagree. They wanted a fourth bedroom and specifically for the living room to be closed off. He didn't give them the fourth bedroom, instead going for a large rooflight and different wall finish for the rear extension, and didn't close off the living room. I work in house design and even if I disagreed with it, her brief was pretty clear. You can only inform the clients and try to persuade them as much as possible, but you have to follow the brief as closely as possible, even if it means sacrificing the aesthetics of it. Ultimately, that's the client's choice to make and the designer's role to fulfill, and it was only when seeing what their budget could achieve that they could make that choice.

They had certain things that they wanted. It was up to Dermot to achieve that as much as possible, and I really don't think he did with his initial design.

Mountainsandh

seamus wrote: »

Why hire an architect at all then?

Architects are designers, first and foremost. When you hire a designer, you give them a broad outline and they transform that into a design.

If you have a very specific idea of exactly what you want it to look like, you don't hire a designer and then complain when they've used their own ideas.

You pay an architect money for their ideas, not their ability to draw straight lines. If you don't want ideas, don't hire an architect.

There are rules and regulations that lay people would not know, and builders may not be willing to take responsibility for (widths of stairs, hallways, materials used...).
When we renovated our house we were told we had to get an architect to draw plans and sign off on it. There was no requirement for design input other than comply with regulations and propose an alternative if plans weren't suitable.

Quazzie

Penn wrote: »

I work in house design

Surely then you agree that she should have hired a different architect since she knows what design style Dermot offers.

amdublin

sentient_6 wrote: »

Anyone else think the production has taken a strange turn this season? Im thinking yesterday with them out using conveniently placed bales of hay for checking out the plans and the wan from fermoy chatting to dermot in a jacuzzi. Awful stuff.

Its got the feel of something being produced for sale to other countries for showing

Quazzie

Mountainsandh wrote: »

There are rules and regulations that lay people would not know, and builders may not be willing to take responsibility for (widths of stairs, hallways, materials used...).
When we renovated our house we were told we had to get an architect to draw plans and sign off on it. There was no requirement for design input other than comply with regulations and propose an alternative if plans weren't suitable.

That role could've just as easily been done at a much reduced rate by an Engineer or an Architect Technician.

In the situation you have described there was zero need for an Architect at all.

Mountainsandh

Quazzie wrote: »

That role could've just as easily been done at a much reduced rate by an Engineer or an Architect Technician.

In the situation you have described there was zero need for an Architect at all.

Does an engineer draw plans ? Not sure the council would take just the engineer report.
Can architect technicians be hired by private people ? Never heard, my understanding is you hire an architect who then delegates the jobs to technicians.

mloc123

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Does an engineer draw plans ? Not sure the council would take just the engineer report.
Can architect technicians be hired by private people ? Never heard, my understanding is you hire an architect who then delegates the jobs to technicians.

You can have a draftsman draw plans directly for you if you know what you want.

Sleepy

Penn wrote: »

I disagree. They wanted a fourth bedroom and specifically for the living room to be closed off. He didn't give them the fourth bedroom, instead going for a large rooflight and different wall finish for the rear extension, and didn't close off the living room. I work in house design and even if I disagreed with it, her brief was pretty clear. You can only inform the clients and try to persuade them as much as possible, but you have to follow the brief as closely as possible, even if it means sacrificing the aesthetics of it. Ultimately, that's the client's choice to make and the designer's role to fulfill, and it was only when seeing what their budget could achieve that they could make that choice.

They had certain things that they wanted. It was up to Dermot to achieve that as much as possible, and I really don't think he did with his initial design.

I'd see it that his first design should be the architectural "dream design" i.e. the best that can be done with the property within the scope of the budget (or blowing the budget entirely) and then refined from there to fit the budget or the brief.

It wasn't her insistence on changing elements of the design that made her difficult to take (as Dermot admitted at the end, they *did* use a lot of his suggestions), it was her condescending, rude attitude.

tea and coffee

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It was obviously a deliberate bad fit from the producers' point of view, for the sake of adding a bit of spice to the program.

I agree. I think because it's moved to an hour show and a more reality tv show that the producers have selected the applications that would normally have gone in the "no" pile to make for conflict and drama; to give that reality tv /clickbait spin.
Before the show was the applicants being grateful (mostly) to Dermot and him actually helping them, projects like this one,Christine in Clontarf and Naked Tuesday's wouldn t have featured. They chose projects he could own/be helpful on but now it's about projects where the client wants diametrically opposed things so that they can cue suspensful scenes and explode Twitter. The conflict element is great for ratings, presumably.

seablue

Sleepy wrote: »

It wasn't her insistence on changing elements of the design that made her difficult to take (as Dermot admitted at the end, they *did* use a lot of his suggestions), it was her condescending, rude attitude.

I'd agree with this.

Its hard to tell with the editing what went on but she came across as really rude. You can make your point without putting the other person down. As others have said she wasn't a good candidate for the show (apart from generating online comment!). She could have given her ideas to a good draftsman.

Having said that, Dermot is very pushy with his 'vision' and was a bit condescending himself, mocking her desire for a China cabinet, for example. I thought the China cabinets in the final kitchen looked well.

Penn

Quazzie wrote: »

Surely then you agree that she should have hired a different architect since she knows what design style Dermot offers.

Not really because architects are supposed to be able to modify their design to suit the client's brief. Dermot certainly has his preferences and style but as an architect, you need to work to the client's brief. Dermot's mistake in this one was not getting the balance right between his style and their needs. At the end however, I think there was a lot of Dermot's style in the finished result. It was simply a case where he and the clients disagreed on a lot of his suggestions, and they're the ones that made it into the show.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd see it that his first design should be the architectural "dream design" i.e. the best that can be done with the property within the scope of the budget (or blowing the budget entirely) and then refined from there to fit the budget or the brief.

It wasn't her insistence on changing elements of the design that made her difficult to take (as Dermot admitted at the end, they *did* use a lot of his suggestions), it was her condescending, rude attitude.

I agree that his initial concept was what he felt was the best mix of what they wanted and what he wanted from the design/style. But he read the clients wrong. They valued functionality first and style a pretty distant second.

As for her condescending, rude attitude, I actually thought they got on pretty well throughout, and I think a lot of this was just playful messing between them. I have had clients tell me that the proposal I've given them isn't what they want at all. Hell I tell some of them in advance to be as ruthless as they want because even knowing what they really don't like and why can help shape the next proposal. You have to have broad shoulders for stuff like this. I genuinely didn't see anything from her that I haven't seen from clients I've had who I've still gotten on well with. It's a lot of money on their part, and something they have to live in and look at every day. They want it right.

foxyladyxx

I loved the ''afternoon tea'' bit with her mother introduced as former Housewife of the Year. .Made me laugh, I didn't think they made them like that nowadays.

nuac

lawred2 wrote: »

what is a parlour room anyway?

When I was growing up ( one of seven ) it was the "good room" used mainly when visitors came and on special occasions.

And, yes, a china cabinet for better china, glass etc

Franz Von Peppercorn

Quazzie wrote: »

He's been producing the same extension for years on one of the country's most popular TV shows. How much clearer can he make it. :rolleyes:

I’m taking about in general. Are there really architects who are “open plan only”

Quazzie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m taking about in general. Are there really architects who are “open plan only”

Well every architect has a style, and when considering an architect a client should be aware of their portfolio and perhaps even have some examples that they can show you.

road_high

I dunno. I'm starting to feel sorry for that girl now. The torrent of abuse and criticism on line is a bit out of hand.
Yes, she was confrontational and annoying but she had an idea what she wanted- just she could have been a bit more diplomatic in discussing it.
I'm not sure ridiculing her tastes in china are entirely fair- she's entitled to be into whatever she likes within her own home.

martingriff

Quazzie wrote: »

Bullshít. If that's your attitude it is obvious you have no idea what an architect actually is.

I fully know what 1 is thank you very much. If I get an architect to do up drawing and plans for my house I would have an outline (a brief) of what I need in MY HOUSE e.g. 3 bedrooms all 1 floor as in a wheelchair etc and I would expect when drawing up the plans he would but those in the plans. I do not expect them to draw up what they think. My brother built 2 houses and this is what he did. Call me crazy but am I not the 1 who is employing someone here

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m taking about in general. Are there really architects who are “open plan only”

Architects, like interior designers are going to produce fashionable buildings, that are either in the current style, or at the cutting edge.

They're not going to produce drawings that recreate a 1930s farmhouse.

Same as if you asked someone to design you a bright and functional kitchen, you're going to get a white or high-gloss kitchen with ceiling-height cabinets and a marble worktop. You're not going to get a mint green kitchen with a wood-effect worktop and 60mm wall cabinets unless you explicitly say, "I want a kitchen from the 1990s".

So where the choice is between having two medium-sized and dark rooms, or one large and bright open-plan room, they're clearly going to go for the latter. That's what's in fashion; maximum glass, maximum space, minimum brick.

Penn

seamus wrote: »

Architects, like interior designers are going to produce fashionable buildings, that are either in the current style, or at the cutting edge.

They're not going to produce drawings that recreate a 1930s farmhouse.

Same as if you asked someone to design you a bright and functional kitchen, you're going to get a white or high-gloss kitchen with ceiling-height cabinets and a marble worktop. You're not going to get a mint green kitchen with a wood-effect worktop and 60mm wall cabinets unless you explicitly say, "I want a kitchen from the 1990s".

So where the choice is between having two medium-sized and dark rooms, or one large and bright open-plan room, they're clearly going to go for the latter. That's what's in fashion; maximum glass, maximum space, minimum brick.

Plus it used to be the case where you'd have rooms closed off due to heat. Not being able to keep the heat in, or it being harder to heat certain rooms. Now heating systems and the building fabric is such that you can create larger, open areas and still be able to heat them fully, comfortably and cheaply.

seamus

Indeed, it can be swings and roundabouts. There was a time when virtually all houses were just a single room - a hall - with a hearth in the middle of it. The hearth obviously provided warmth & light and cooking facilities.

Over time, wealthier people built houses with a second room with another fireplace, having the money to pay servants to keep both fires stoked, etc.

This eventually filtered down to lower classes, while the upper classes went off building homes with many rooms.

The advent then of central heating using a central stove/range to distribute heat around the house came as a bit of a leap in the paupers being able to have heating in multiple rooms without needing to keep multiple fires stoked. As you say though, there was a significant effort required to heat large rooms with central heating, so it became the fashion to subdivide into many smaller rooms which could then have their heating switched on or off as necessary.

And modern building techniques and technology have flipped it again, where you can now eliminate much of the heat loss in larger spaces, and heat huge rooms with relatively little effort.

Bodhran

There is nothing assertive about telling a professional architect that his plans are zero out of 10. That's just plain ignorance and bad manners.

Squall Leonhart

mloc123 wrote: »

You can have a draftsman draw plans directly for you if you know what you want.

This!

It's what I do for a living, and would do the occasional planning application on the side.

tea and coffee

Ok, I have watched the show now, and I think that she was extremely stressed throughout it. Dermot and herself seem to have quite similar strong personalities and are both used to getting their own way. She didn't want to come across like she was saying no all the time, but she didn't like his ideas so she had to. Dermot was also quite rude about her as well tbh. Neither of them came well out of it. He had some good ideas for them, but ultimately I'd say she regrets getting someone with such a different vision in to design the house.
And yes, she is quite "old" in her mindset. I do agree with her about the open plan to an extent; we got it in our house and it's awful- the kids turn up the TV to its loudest when I am baking or whatever, and it becomes this cacophony of noise; the room is not cosy; it's not relaxing at all.

lawred2

tea and coffee wrote: »

Ok, I have watched the show now, and I think that she was extremely stressed throughout it. Dermot and herself seem to have quite similar strong personalities and are both used to getting their own way. She didn't want to come across like she was saying no all the time, but she didn't like his ideas so she had to. Dermot was also quite rude about her as well tbh. Neither of them came well out of it. He had some good ideas for them, but ultimately I'd say she regrets getting someone with such a different vision in to design the house.
And yes, she is quite "old" in her mindset. I do agree with her about the open plan to an extent; we got it in our house and it's awful- the kids turn up the TV to its loudest when I am baking or whatever, and it becomes this cacophony of noise; the room is not cosy; it's not relaxing at all.

she should have engaged her nan's services