Room to Improve.

freshpopcorn

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I rewatched it last night, as I thought maybe the people assassinating her character on here were right, and she insulted him.
I take on board people's views, and so I checked it out. I even took down snippets of dialogues just to have an objective view, you know, when it's written down.

- She absolutely 100% does not insult Dermot.
- There is great banter between the two for most of the program, and in the end they both say they got on well in spite of the disagreements.
- she is tongue in cheek most of the time, and Dermot gets that.
- Dermot plays the "hurt feelings" "why is she giving out to me" little boy card a lot, I think it's obviously directions from productions.
- she plays the "I'm a tough, demanding cookie" card. In fact, after the zero out of ten dialogue, she concludes "back to the drawing board D", and she checks/looks at whoever (production) is at the back of camera for reassurance. That's how that interaction ends, her checking with producers if she was bitchy enough with a goofy laugh.

- she does get narky towards the end, in particular in 3 instances :

~ colour of window frames, it's the same colour says D, but it isn't, she says, but it is, says D, little back and forward, and D gets the last word.

~ she's a bit abrupt when, after trying to convince her for the umptiethst time about the open plan, D is going on and on about it and the floor.
They have 3 tiles on the floor, she asked him to pick one, he must have gone on about his gripes a while (edited), and she says :
"D you're waffling, pick a tile".
and she tells him she likes the opposite one.

~ the stairs discussion is where she is the narkiest. He's rubbishing their choice, apparently said in an email it was excessive, and is now saying :

"Look, all the things going inside the house, they're not farmhousey.

She says : I know, maybe you need to share your vision of this farmhouse you're trying to create.

I told you, dark tiles, dark tiles in the kitchen timber...

her : are you going to bring in some hens and throw them around the place as well ?"

That's it.
That's the extent of her "bullying".
Meanwhile, D is pushing the open plan thing about 5 or 6 times on camera, and every time she says "this is not what we want", "I don't like open plan", and various explanations of why she does not like it, and how "personally", for herself, she just does not want it, there was open plan in her own house growing up and it's noisy, they want privacy, etc...
Every time she makes her point she makes it clearly and firmly, and I think this gives the perception to people on here that she's rude or bullying.

I'm a sad case but I do have a lot of that dialogue scripted if anyone would like to see, it would just take a lot of space here, while you can just re-watch the thing for yourself. Really other than what's up there it's all just stating her preferences in a respectful way.



Also this myth about Padraic being meek and having no say in this, "poor guy hasn't a hope with her", that's wrong.

He's well able and willing to speak his mind throughout, and she is listening and respectful every time he does so, like in the instance of the size of the window going to the front of the house, the types of cabinets for the kitchen, the colour of the kitchen...

There is characterization going on on the part of production, with many off camera contributions setting them up in their parts :
- she's the tough cookie, very demanding, confrontational, "war" suggestion.
- D is the poor guy who really wants to help but whose feelings get hurt.
(even though he's the one pushing his agenda intensely on 5 or 6 occasions throughout to very patient rebuttal)
- Padraic is the bumbling idiot who talks to his cows.

There are no insults, she does not treat him like rubbish.
By the time she gets a bit narkier as in, above, they know each other well and a lot of banter has already gone on, D has pushed his agenda numerous times, and she has patiently explained her point numerous times.
It is simply not fair and it is disingenuous or knee-jerk to paint her as a thundering B.

Maybe people who didn't like her are right and maybe your right. People have a difference of opinion.

The Princess Bride

@Mountainsandh

Have to agree.
She knew what she/they wanted from the start.
And just because she wasn't malleable, and stuck firmly to her wish list, she was branded as difficult.

Yes-She was easily identifiable as a teacher, but so what.
I'm sure lots of us have traits which are relevant to our careers.
But the criticism she received on twitter was terrible.
Jeez, you wouldn't want to be sensitive going on TV, you'd fall apart.

I think it's one of the nicer finished homes on RTI.
Perhaps not exciting enough for some of our posters here, but the clients got their dream home within budget, and it doesn't look like every other DB house in the country.

Franz Von Peppercorn

sydthebeat wrote: »

There ABSOLUTELY are different styles of architects.
Its essentially an art form, so there are a myriad of different architects who work to their own styles.

Really. So people have to research the open plan vs the traditional architect? Or do they say it on their website. I’ve just gone to Dermot Bannon website and it doesn’t say “open plan only”

And even if that’s what he likes and the client disagrees then the architect has to change or they move on.

This is where the restaurant analogy disintegrates. Restaurants do advertise their type so you won’t get, or expect, an Italian meal in a Chinese restaurant.

Hiring an architect is more like hiring a chef, who cooks for you. The chef may like to produce a fish dish as his speciality but if you want chicken you get chicken ( or either party can end the relationship at the discussion phase, which didn’t happen here).

jooksavage

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You keep saying that. Makes no sense. There aren’t styles of architects.

I wouldnt agree with that. Bannon definitely has a signature style. I've said before that I actually think he's a bit limited aesthetically but at least prospective clients should have a fair idea of what to expect at this stage.

Mountainsandh

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Maybe people who didn't like her are right and maybe your right. People have a difference of opinion.

I may post some of these dialogues where she is just assertive later on, Fresh popcorn.
The above is genuinely all that can be said about her. There is forming an opinion on someone saying "you're an asshole", and then there is slating someone for saying " this is not what I like", "this is 100% not what we want".

vicwatson

Jebus this thread has turned into a train wreck :eek:

Overanalysis people

I am renovating and extending a house at the moment and someone gave my wife a loan of Dermot Bannon's book last night.

When you remove the drama and deliberate showmanship of RTI, some of what he has written tells you a lot about his style

"Never give people what think they want. People don't know what they want until you show them."

However, he also adds this on open plan living, something he seems to have broken in Sunday's show:

"When my clients outline their problems, often the solution is an open plan family space - although they can take some persuasion. I would never persuade a client to do something they really didn't want to do."

It looks like Dermot is compromising his own rules for the sake of creating drama on the show.

For what it's worth, I gave my architect a brief a few weeks ago and he came back with a plan that is pretty much exactly what we asked for and are delighted with. After a few tweaks, we'll have our planning application in by the end of the week.

freshpopcorn

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I may post some of these dialogues where she is just assertive later on, Fresh popcorn.
The above is genuinely all that can be said about her. There is forming an opinion on someone saying "you're an asshole", and then there is slating someone for saying " this is not what I like", "this is 100% not what we want".

I think a lot of people's main issue with her was why they they hired Dermot in the first place to be honest.
One of my sibling did a Dermot Bannon style house a few years ago. So, when in the search for architects they viewed work/portfolios that suited them and they ended up with somebody very similar to Dermot.
A neigbhour of mine waned a bigger living room and kitchen but didn't want anything open plan/etc so they hired a more traditional person.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think a lot of people's main issue with her was why they they hired Dermot in the first place to be honest.
One of my sibling did a Dermot Bannon style house a few years ago. So, when in the search for architects they viewed work/portfolios that suited them and they ended up with somebody very similar to Dermot.
A neigbhour of mine waned a bigger living room and kitchen but didn't want anything open plan/etc so they hired a more traditional person.

How does it work? Do you apply to be on the show or do you hire Dermot Bannon and then they ask you do you want to go on the show?

If she hired Dermot Bannon for the job she wanted then that was a mistake on her part...

Mountainsandh

vicwatson wrote: »

Jebus this thread has turned into a train wreck :eek:

Overanalysis people

Isn't it great you don't have to read it ?

I happen to have a bit of spare time right now and I think it's worth debating. There's a young lady possibly feeling crap now because people are quick to judge and publish their thoughts, with the added bonus of what it is exactly that we can expect from an architect, and a good dash of "assertiveness is fine if you word it up really really delicately so as not to offend".

Wombatman

sydthebeat wrote: »

And you see, this is the big issue.

You can only "want" what you know..... You cannot want what you do not know.

Its an architects job to challenge the clients brief to enhance the final product. Dermot, as an architect, has over 25 years experience in designing and fitting out build projects. He has already seen where the mistakes happen, what aspects work well etc. Most clients are first timers so wouldn't have a clue about these things.

Really, if you have a singular 'non for changing' idea of the design you want then you don't hire an architect.... Because an architect is a "design" professional. Not allowing them to design is completely counter productive.

You are confusing design imperatives, like compromising structural integrity, with taste. Architects do not have monopoly on the concept of beauty.

On the contrary people who don't have a strong idea of what they want should just let a builder build based on an off the self plan.

An architect brings the 'non changing idea' to life for the client. It's not like she had plans already done up for each room. Dermot was give a few simple parameters and he wasn't creative enough to meet them.

Mountainsandh

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think a lot of people's main issue with her was why they they hired Dermot in the first place to be honest.
One of my sibling did a Dermot Bannon style house a few years ago. So, when in the search for architects they viewed work/portfolios that suited them and they ended up with somebody very similar to Dermot.
A neigbhour of mine waned a bigger living room and kitchen but didn't want anything open plan/etc so they hired a more traditional person.

Well yes, and that's fair enough, that's the whole : "what can you expect of an architect" debate.
Myself I don't think they thought about it that deeply beforehand, they might have thought that he was a great architect and would come up with something great for their house while remaining functional, it just didn't occur to them that the open plan may be mandatory with D.

But people have been describing her as a bully and rude, and it is simply not fair, and this is clear when you re-watch it for accuracy.

Sleepy

The lengths you're going to trying to defend her, I'm beginning to think you are Katie, Mountainsandh!

Her behaviour on the show was stereotypical schoolyard bully. Passive aggressive, condescending and passed off as "sure it was just a bit of banter" or "but I was only messing". Perhaps she is just utterly oblivious to normal social interaction and thought she was being funny by belittling the professional they'd asked to work (for free) for them. Her sense of humour was well off if so. Even her mother seemed embarrassed by her behaviour!

You can be assertive and polite. Rolling your eyes dismissively at the opinion of an expert in an area you're an amateur is not a polite way to assert oneself. We really need to stop excusing such behaviour as "assertiveness" in young women on the basis of their gender as it really does them no favours (as the vast majority of social media response to this episode highlights).

Penn

sydthebeat wrote: »

And you see, this is the big issue.

You can only "want" what you know..... You cannot want what you do not know.

Its an architects job to challenge the clients brief to enhance the final product. Dermot, as an architect, has over 25 years experience in designing and fitting out build projects. He has already seen where the mistakes happen, what aspects work well etc. Most clients are first timers so wouldn't have a clue about these things.

Really, if you have a singular 'non for changing' idea of the design you want then you don't hire an architect.... Because an architect is a "design" professional. Not allowing them to design is completely counter productive.

While I mostly agree syd, I don't think she had a 'non for changing' idea of the design she wanted, but there were certainly specific things she wanted and specific things she didn't want. Everything else was malleable and she did seem open to ideas on many things, and took his advice on a lot of things. But those specific things she wanted and didn't want were largely ignored in his original concept. There's challenging the client's brief, and then there's ignoring it.

She wanted his design ideas and expertise, but in a concept that would deliver the functions they wanted. His initial concept didn't achieve that for them. I think most architects are aware that open plan doesn't suit all families. There are alternative and innovative design ideas Dermot could have used rather than a wall with doors to separate the spaces and allow it to function as both open and separate as needs be but ultimately the budget didn't allow for that.

And as persons not familiar with design and costs, that's why they needed an architect. Sometimes you want an architect to give you a fantastic design, but sometimes you need the architect to tell you you can't afford it and have to make the choice between design and their own preferences for functionality. They chose the latter.

Mountainsandh

Sleepy wrote: »

The lengths you're going to trying to defend her, I'm beginning to think you are Katie, Mountainsandh!

Her behaviour on the show was stereotypical schoolyard bully. Passive aggressive, condescending and passed off as "sure it was just a bit of banter" or "but I was only messing". Perhaps she is just utterly oblivious to normal social interaction and thought she was being funny by belittling the professional they'd asked to work (for free) for them. Her sense of humour was well off if so. Even her mother seemed embarrassed by her behaviour!

You can be assertive and polite. Rolling your eyes dismissively at the opinion of an expert in an area you're an amateur is not a polite way to assert oneself. We really need to stop excusing such behaviour as "assertiveness" in young women on the basis of their gender as it really does them no favours (as the vast majority of social media response to this episode highlights).

Oh no you found me out ! :D:D

Please, just rewatch it.
She is not passive aggressive, condescending, and belittling D.
Her mother does not seem embarrassed by her, in fact she is very proud of what her daughter can achieve.

Just shed this first hand feeling you got because of the music, the production and the characters they want you to buy into, and watch it simply for the dialogue that is in it.

Her impatience at times is well matched to how pushy Dermot is. On two occasions he digs to push the open plans not once but twice in a short space of time, if anything he is sometimes the one who borderline belittles, in a "joking" manner, the couple's interests and preferences. (Chaise Longue, China, cows, closed room, stairs, tiles ...)

Squatman

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I rewatched it last night, as I thought maybe the people assassinating her character on here were right, and she insulted him.
I take on board people's views, and so I checked it out. I even took down snippets of dialogues just to have an objective view, you know, when it's written down.

- She absolutely 100% does not insult Dermot.
- There is great banter between the two for most of the program, and in the end they both say they got on well in spite of the disagreements.
- she is tongue in cheek most of the time, and Dermot gets that.
- Dermot plays the "hurt feelings" "why is she giving out to me" little boy card a lot, I think it's obviously directions from productions.
- she plays the "I'm a tough, demanding cookie" card. In fact, after the zero out of ten dialogue, she concludes "back to the drawing board D", and she checks/looks at whoever (production) is at the back of camera for reassurance. That's how that interaction ends, her checking with producers if she was bitchy enough with a goofy laugh.

- she does get narky towards the end, in particular in 3 instances :

~ colour of window frames, it's the same colour says D, but it isn't, she says, but it is, says D, little back and forward, and D gets the last word.

~ she's a bit abrupt when, after trying to convince her for the umptiethst time about the open plan, D is going on and on about it and the floor.
They have 3 tiles on the floor, she asked him to pick one, he must have gone on about his gripes a while (edited), and she says :
"D you're waffling, pick a tile".
and she tells him she likes the opposite one.

~ the stairs discussion is where she is the narkiest. He's rubbishing their choice, apparently said in an email it was excessive, and is now saying :

"Look, all the things going inside the house, they're not farmhousey.

She says : I know, maybe you need to share your vision of this farmhouse you're trying to create.

I told you, dark tiles, dark tiles in the kitchen timber...

her : are you going to bring in some hens and throw them around the place as well ?"

That's it.
That's the extent of her "bullying".
Meanwhile, D is pushing the open plan thing about 5 or 6 times on camera, and every time she says "this is not what we want", "I don't like open plan", and various explanations of why she does not like it, and how "personally", for herself, she just does not want it, there was open plan in her own house growing up and it's noisy, they want privacy, etc...
Every time she makes her point she makes it clearly and firmly, and I think this gives the perception to people on here that she's rude or bullying.

I'm a sad case but I do have a lot of that dialogue scripted if anyone would like to see, it would just take a lot of space here, while you can just re-watch the thing for yourself. Really other than what's up there it's all just stating her preferences in a respectful way.



Also this myth about Padraic being meek and having no say in this, "poor guy hasn't a hope with her", that's wrong.

He's well able and willing to speak his mind throughout, and she is listening and respectful every time he does so, like in the instance of the size of the window going to the front of the house, the types of cabinets for the kitchen, the colour of the kitchen...

There is characterization going on on the part of production, with many off camera contributions setting them up in their parts :
- she's the tough cookie, very demanding, confrontational, "war" suggestion.
- D is the poor guy who really wants to help but whose feelings get hurt.
(even though he's the one pushing his agenda intensely on 5 or 6 occasions throughout to very patient rebuttal)
- Padraic is the bumbling idiot who talks to his cows.

There are no insults, she does not treat him like rubbish.
By the time she gets a bit narkier as in, above, they know each other well and a lot of banter has already gone on, D has pushed his agenda numerous times, and she has patiently explained her point numerous times.
It is simply not fair and it is disingenuous or knee-jerk to paint her as a thundering B.

whilst this might be true, apparently, Dermot abandoned this project midway and had to be begged back. (if you can believe that)

oh, and congrats on the 27th housewife thingy

Sleepy

That's interesting Squatman, where'd you hear that?

gmisk

I wouldn't personally classify her behaviour as bullying at all but having said that I dont think she came across very well put it that way.

She came across like she had a bit of a chip on her shoulder and overly sensitive with the eye rolling and comments with regards design (the window thing was just embarassing and rude), I thought, but hey she got what she wanted in the house and it was their money being spent not Dermots.

Dermot is no angel in fairness himself, that trick he tried with the bricks a few episodes back was a pure cute hoor move!

sydthebeat

Wombatman wrote: »

An architect brings the 'non changing idea' to life for the client. It's not like she had plans already done up for each room. Dermot was give a few simple parameters and he wasn't creative enough to meet them.

Not at all.... you dont hire a designer if you do not want their design input.
if you have a singular idea of the design you want, and you are not for changing on it, then dont hire a designer.
If you dont want your brief challenged and argued, then again, dont hire a designer.
There are plenty of professionals out there who can flesh out a clients particular design for building purposes, but these professionals design input would usually be limited to making the design function.

remember, unlike the chef analogy above, a building has to exist over time, and over the changing of peoples lives. tastes change, lives change. Many clients only form their brief based on a snapshot of where they are there and then in their lives ie we want 4 bedrooms, we want a guest bedroom on the ground floor, we want a play room, we want a home office etc. A good designer can challenge this brief to question "how often will your guest bedroom be used? can that room double as the home office through clever use of furnishings? what will the play room be used as when the kids grow up? can it double as an extra living space in 15 years time? there you go, ive just saved you 500 sq ft and 75K in mortgage costs.......

it is nonsensical to engage an architect of a wealth of experience and not use or take on board that experience.

Just to clarify, im not speaking directly about dermot bannon, or this particular client in this case. in talking in general. That TV program is an entertainment show and doesnt properly reflect the interaction in the designer / client relationship. It MUST be build on a foundation of trust, and if that trust doesnt exist then the relationship and the project wont be successful.

Mountainsandh

Squatman wrote: »

whilst this might be true, apparently, Dermot abandoned this project midway and had to be begged back. (if you can believe that)

oh, and congrats on the 27th housewife thingy

Well thank you very much, I'm beginning to enjoy all this attention.
Might just keep that going along.
Padraic says hi.

Riskymove

sydthebeat wrote: »

it is nonsensical to engage an architect of a wealth of experience and not use or take on board that experience.

I saw it last night

that was the key point for me and I understand how frustrated Dermot got. The "in your opinion" segment was most telling.

but....it was very different to what I expected based on the reaction to date. I didn't see any bullying

Quazzie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Really. So people have to research the open plan vs the traditional architect? Or do they say it on their website. I’ve just gone to Dermot Bannon website and it doesn’t say “open plan only”

And even if that’s what he likes and the client disagrees then the architect has to change or they move on.

This is where the restaurant analogy disintegrates. Restaurants do advertise their type so you won’t get, or expect, an Italian meal in a Chinese restaurant.

Hiring an architect is more like hiring a chef, who cooks for you. The chef may like to produce a fish dish as his speciality but if you want chicken you get chicken ( or either party can end the relationship at the discussion phase, which didn’t happen here).

Clients should always ask for examples of previous work when hiring an architect. That's why most forms of advertising is their portfolio. This is well established.

sydthebeat

Penn wrote: »

While I mostly agree syd, I don't think she had a 'non for changing' idea of the design she wanted, but there were certainly specific things she wanted and specific things she didn't want. Everything else was malleable and she did seem open to ideas on many things, and took his advice on a lot of things. But those specific things she wanted and didn't want were largely ignored in his original concept. There's challenging the client's brief, and then there's ignoring it.

She wanted his design ideas and expertise, but in a concept that would deliver the functions they wanted. His initial concept didn't achieve that for them. I think most architects are aware that open plan doesn't suit all families. There are alternative and innovative design ideas Dermot could have used rather than a wall with doors to separate the spaces and allow it to function as both open and separate as needs be but ultimately the budget didn't allow for that.

And as persons not familiar with design and costs, that's why they needed an architect. Sometimes you want an architect to give you a fantastic design, but sometimes you need the architect to tell you you can't afford it and have to make the choice between design and their own preferences for functionality. They chose the latter.

i suppose i should have posted my most recent post first, in that im not speaking specifically about this episode or even dermot bannon himself. No bodys perfect. I dont watch RTI myself as i find it incredibly frustrating

Im really talking about the client / designer relationship and how it should work.... and i was replying to two comments that were made on architects in general, and not on the specifics of this episode... one being that architects didnt have their own style, and the other comment being about clients being afraid to say what they want in fear of the 'authority figure'.

iamwhoiam

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I may post some of these dialogues where she is just assertive later on, Fresh popcorn.
The above is genuinely all that can be said about her. There is forming an opinion on someone saying "you're an asshole", and then there is slating someone for saying " this is not what I like", "this is 100% not whgat we want".

People have different opinions because they have often different levels of acceptance . I might find something rude where you might not . Often people interprete a look or a gesture differenty too . It doesn't actually make one wrong and one right .
I found the girl snipey and condescending at times , I don't think she was the divil incarnate but at times I found her rude . She might very well have been aiming to be funny and only she knows that but for me she came across as teachery and a tad condescending . But my guess is it is an aquired look that many teachers have and akin to the " look " a mammy gives to the bold toddlers

Wombatman

Sleepy wrote: »

The lengths you're going to trying to defend her, I'm beginning to think you are Katie, Mountainsandh!

Her behaviour on the show was stereotypical schoolyard bully. Passive aggressive, condescending and passed off as "sure it was just a bit of banter" or "but I was only messing". Perhaps she is just utterly oblivious to normal social interaction and thought she was being funny by belittling the professional they'd asked to work (for free) for them. Her sense of humour was well off if so. Even her mother seemed embarrassed by her behaviour!

You can be assertive and polite. Rolling your eyes dismissively at the opinion of an expert in an area you're an amateur is not a polite way to assert oneself. We really need to stop excusing such behaviour as "assertiveness" in young women on the basis of their gender as it really does them no favours (as the vast majority of social media response to this episode highlights).

Bully, Embarrassing, Aggressive, Condescending, Utterly oblivious to normal Social Interaction, Impolite.

I'd take a bit of eye rolling and a dodgy sense of humor any day in the place of this backbiting judgmental labeling. Begrudgery at its finest. Haters gonna hate is guess.

vicwatson

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Isn't it great you don't have to read it ?

I happen to have a bit of spare time right now and I think it's worth debating. There's a young lady possibly feeling crap now because people are quick to judge and publish their thoughts, with the added bonus of what it is exactly that we can expect from an architect, and a good dash of "assertiveness is fine if you word it up really really delicately so as not to offend".

Just giving my opinion, that not allowed no? Obviously not, if it’s against yours.

irishmoss

I think she locked her horns in when Dermot refused to build the wall. I think when she used "in your opinion" she was possibly referring to the fact he was not listening to what she wanted and she used a bad choice of words. But she was condescending to him in the car.

I get the feeling though that the china cabinets really weren't for herself but for her mother. Maybe she has plans on moving her into the bedroom downstairs:)

Sleepy

Wombatman wrote: »

Bully, Embarrassing, Aggressive, Condescending, Utterly oblivious to normal Social Interaction, Impolite.

I'd take a bit of eye rolling and a dodgy sense of humor any day in the place of this backbiting judgmental labeling. Begrudgery at its finest. Haters gonna hate is guess.

No begrudgery at all, I wouldn't live in that part of the world for any money.

"haters gonna hate"? :rolleyes: Are you 12? From Compton? Or just trying too hard to be "down with the kids"?

Penn

sydthebeat wrote: »

i suppose i should have posted my most recent post first, in that im not speaking specifically about this episode or even dermot bannon himself. No bodys perfect. I dont watch RTI myself as i find it incredibly frustrating

Im really talking about the client / designer relationship and how it should work.... and i was replying to two comments that were made on architects in general, and not on the specifics of this episode... one being that architects didnt have their own style, and the other comment being about clients being afraid to say what they want in fear of the 'authority figure'.

That's absolutely fair and I'd agree. But I also think there's only so far architect's should or can push out the extents of the clients' brief if the client is looking for particular things (when design of same is still in the architect's charge). The architect should definitely point out any flaws or what they would consider to be mistakes, but ultimately the architect has a responsibility to the clients to provide as best a design as they can while adhering to the specific requests of the client even if they choose to proceed against his suggestions/expertise.

Obviously if the architect believes their requests to be so egregious against what they believe to be standard design practices they may choose to excuse themselves from the job altogether as they can't deliver the product the client is looking for. Conversely if the client believes after hearing the advice of the architect that they have as good an idea of what they want and wish to substitute their preferences over architectural design, they may excuse the architect. I just think that sometimes those things don't become apparent to either side until you're already knee deep in the design process.

Hence why I think that "...if you have a singular 'non for changing' idea of the design you want then you don't hire an architect.... Because an architect is a "design" professional" isn't a fair comment to make. Sometimes you need to hire an architect or other design professional to be able to a) point out what they perceive to be flaws in their brief, b) show them what they can actually achieve with their budget/brief, and c) try to find the compromises between design, brief and budget. The clients don't always know that or even how singular their own ideas are until it comes to light as part of the design process.

Wombatman

Sleepy wrote: »

"haters gonna hate"? :rolleyes: Are you 12? From Compton? Or just trying too hard to be "down with the kids"?

Backbiting judgmental labeling. Tisc tisc.

Care to expand on the Compton reference?