Room to Improve.

memorystick · 26-03-2018 11:42AM

Addle wrote: »

I didn't like her. And I did think she's typical of many who enter the primary teaching profession.
But I don't think she deserves all the abuse.

I bet you €50 she'll be on the late late next week to discuss the online abuse. She might even get a sick cert out of it. Stress and all that stuff.

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2018 11:44AM

That escalated quickly

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/02/15/fed-up-dermot-bannon-takes-dump-in-couples-kitchen/

Mam of 4 · 26-03-2018 11:46AM

Can I ask a question here ?

Surely to God ,Budda , whoever , when people apply to go on the show , there are some meetings , discussions about exactly what they want done to their house , BEFORE the producers pick who gets to be filmed ?

It can't be as simple as Mr and Mrs Whoever applied , lets go with them ?

Or am I completely out of the loop here..

lawred2 · 26-03-2018 11:54AM

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Can I ask a question here ?

Surely to God ,Budda , whoever , when people apply to go on the show , there are some meetings , discussions about exactly what they want done to their house , BEFORE the producers pick who gets to be filmed ?

It can't be as simple as Mr and Mrs Whoever applied , lets go with them ?

Or am I completely out of the loop here..

you'd wonder whether the production company and Dermot have come up with the ingenious plan to deliberately design something at odds with the brief (even if a small difference) simply to generate drama..

Surely Dermot doesn't ignore each and every client's wishes

martingriff · 26-03-2018 11:55AM

Quazzie wrote: »

The "design" they were going for, could've been provided by any local engineer who could produce drawings exactly like the client wanted. She didn't need Dermot, so perhaps it was just the bit of TV time they wanted?

Dermot's aim, like most architects is to provide a livable space which fits in around the needs of the client. He done that with his initial design, while also staying true to himself and his design philosophies.

This is another reason why the show shouldn't centre on Dermot, or at least include guest architects every week because then you can have a wider range of designs and also a wider range of clients. We're at a stage, where the subset of people who both want a Dermot Bannon style house, and who want to appear on TV is saturated, so now we're with people who just want to be on TV.

You could say anyone who goes on these shows could go to any architect. However if I am paying for a do not give 2 f_$ks what there style is u give you a brief you stick by it

iamwhoiam · 26-03-2018 11:55AM

lawred2 wrote: »

you'd wonder whether the production company and Dermot have come up with the ingenious plan to deliberately design something at odds with the brief (even if a small difference) simply to generate drama..

Surely Dermot doesn't ignore each and every client's wishes

Yep , I have always thought the same .Its like the they say they dont like green so he can paint it green and then wonder of all wonders they LOVE it

GavRedKing · 26-03-2018 11:57AM

There has to be some sort of audition for it, surely?

That or someone submits a rough initial plan and dream for the existing property along with a decent set photos and the producers go with whats the most interesting story/house/couple.

I'd be surprised if Bannon has an input into what projects he takes on other than rocking up on the day to meet the clients.

Mam of 4 · 26-03-2018 11:57AM

lawred2 wrote: »

you'd wonder whether the production company and Dermot have come up with the ingenious plan to deliberately design something at odds with the brief (even if a small difference) simply to generate drama..

Surely Dermot doesn't ignore each and every client's wishes

That's exactly how I see it tbh .

Otherwise every house would be the same open plan design that Dermot loves every week .

I give up

goulders · 26-03-2018 12:02PM

The hubby was promised a dowry of a field with a cow in it.

4 years later he is still waiting to get the field.

seamus · 26-03-2018 12:03PM

I expect it's a mix of things - the story behind the build ("Me Mammy is sick and needs a new house"), the character of the applicants ("She's fiery, this'll be fun"), and the actual build itself; how appealing it may be to Dermot to do the design, and how it'll come across on film.

Then they probably sit around a table and select the ones that they think will make the best TV.

I doubt there's much of an "audition" beyond a trip to CoCo's offices to meet the production team and chat to them for an hour.

I'd also say the number of applications is considerably less than you'd imagine. You still have to pay for the build yourself. Most people if they gave it proper thought wouldn't want to be followed around by cameras for a few months and appear on the telly for nothing in return. Maybe you get a discount on Dermot's price, I dunno.

griffin100 · 26-03-2018 12:05PM

It's a reality TV show first and foremost, everything else is secondary to that. Dermot is a TV character first and and an architect second. His refusal to follow briefs leads to conflict which when heavily edited leads to better TV. Do you think this show would be half as entertaining if he did what the clients asked him to do and kept projects on budget?

I work with Architects from large Irish and international firms regularly. As a profession it does attract a certain type, but at the end of the day they work as briefed to do, if they didn't their business would suffer.

Quazzie · 26-03-2018 12:05PM

martingriff wrote: »

You could say anyone who goes on these shows could go to any architect. However if I am paying for a do not give 2 f_$ks what there style is u give you a brief you stick by it

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

Franz Von Peppercorn · 26-03-2018 12:07PM

seamus wrote: »

I expect it's a mix of things - the story behind the build ("Me Mammy is sick and needs a new house"), the character of the applicants ("She's fiery, this'll be fun"), and the actual build itself; how appealing it may be to Dermot to do the design, and how it'll come across on film.

Then they probably sit around a table and select the ones that they think will make the best TV.

I doubt there's much of an "audition" beyond a trip to CoCo's offices to meet the production team and chat to them for an hour.

I'd also say the number of applications is considerably less than you'd imagine. You still have to pay for the build yourself. Most people if they gave it proper thought wouldn't want to be followed around by cameras for a few months and appear on the telly for nothing in return. Maybe you get a discount on Dermot's price, I dunno.

Probably the number of applicants is what is filmed. Dermot is paid by the production company.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 26-03-2018 12:10PM

Quazzie wrote: »

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

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.

seamus · 26-03-2018 12:10PM

martingriff wrote: »

You could say anyone who goes on these shows could go to any architect. However if I am paying for a do not give 2 f_$ks what there style is u give you a brief you stick by it

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.

evolving_doors · 26-03-2018 12:19PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:28PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:38PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:39PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:43PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:44PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:53PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:56PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:57PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:57PM

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 · 26-03-2018 12:59PM

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 · 26-03-2018 01:12PM

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 · 26-03-2018 01:36PM

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 · 26-03-2018 01:36PM

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 · 26-03-2018 01:49PM

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.

Room to Improve.

Comments