Friday, Nov 1, 2013. The shoes I wore to meet the architect.
I am on the other side of the table now. I am not the designer, but the designee. The client. The user. The patron. It’s a good side to be on as a designer, an exercise in empathy and compassion. A lesson in how to design for others as you would like to be designed for. We met with Mark to work through reactions to the first set of schematics, prompted by an email exchange that attests to why we wanted to work with him in the first place.
October 19, 2013
Hey, Mark.
Thank you for the great session today and beautiful, thoughtful, work. Will and I are sitting here talking about the house design and are thinking that we would also like to explore a design where the dining room ceiling is only one story. Having that space upstairs is more important to us than an open ceiling (especially if the ceilings are already higher than normal). We’re also worried about that in terms of having a child in the house and the potential danger it poses. We were also thinking that while we liked the open spaces downstairs, that perhaps there was too much focus on openness. We would like to explore a better balance between public and private spaces.
Having said that, would you be open to taking a step back and our exploring other layouts with you in a session where we sketch together, rapidly iterating? That way we can get the layout down via quick pen and pencil sketches before you spend a lot of time on beautiful (and I’m sure time-consuming) renderings.
We saw a lot of things that we really liked today, but want to make sure that the house functions well for us. This will probably be the only time in our lives that we design a house and we want to do it right. I also realize that you can’t read our minds and that, as a designer myself, know that people often don’t know what they want until they see what they don’t want. Let me know what you think! We could make time to come in next week or whenever works for you. We’re in no rush, but would like to include a participatory design session before the next round of polished schematics.
Callie + Will
and
October 23, 2013
Hi, Mark.
Tuesday won’t work for me, but I could do Friday morning, November 1. Will that work?
A question about the contract. For the schematics, I assumed that would include at least three distinctly different low-fidelity layout concepts for the house (three being the industry standard minimum in my field of design). In the contract, there isn’t a specified number, but I’m assuming that includes exploration of more than one concept? I want to make sure we don’t spend all of our schematic budget going too deeply into one idea.
Also, I noticed that Will isn’t included in the sign-off and wanted to make sure his name is added to the final contract.
For our next meeting, here is some concrete feedback about the initial concept you presented that we have strong points-of-view about.
Things we loved:
1 The exterior is looking much like I imagined it. I like the proportions and overall lines of the house. Love the interior transoms!
2 I love the open simplicity of the kitchen, especially the long work / table counter.
3 Love the way the fireplaces are integrated: one thought I have is to have the mantels cast of concrete out of a Victorian mold. Or maybe find used marble ones in a Baltimore 2nd hand store.
4 I really love the staggered approach to the house.
5 I love the French doors opening to the west and also love the concept of the extruded entry as cradling the view.
6 I love the nooks in the architecture that nestle trees.
Things we didn’t love:
1 The catwalk. I know this allows for the open, lofty ceiling which I love, but I think either we go loft all the way, or no loft. Given that we have a child in the house a lot of the time, a catwalk is too risky. Since we’re already going to incorporate high ceilings, I will commit to no lofty elements (unless we can incorporate something lofty into the ADU / guest quarters).
2 The stairwell in the back of the house. For me, having the stairwell divorced from the entry way is not an option. The grand elegance of the entry hall was one of my favorite elements of the Baltimore house, of which the staircase played a central character. I want to incorporate that as closely as possible into the new house.
3 Lowering the house to be flush with the patio. Will and I agree that the main level of the house needs to sit at least as high as the current house, otherwise, we’re compromising the view. I know this affects the patio transition, but…. And on the view note, could we design an easy access point to the roof? Even if it’s just a hole in the roof with a drop down ladder.Then add a simple platform there later. A micro roof deck for 4th of July viewing.
4 The utility room needs to encompass more functionality with a floor drain, sink, etc and be directly off our back entrance. If we could include a laundry chute and dumbwaiter for getting stuff up and down, that would be ideal.
5 This floor plan felt too open. Ideally, we would have a very open kitchen and great room for entertaining in, but then a small library that is secluded for a private quiet space on the main floor, accessed via nicely lit transitional spaces (I have ideas for how this could work if the kitchen is turned 90-degrees and moved closer to the front of the house, and combining the living and dining areas).
6 We did not like the location of the master bath (could this part of the structure be used to house the staircase instead since it’s above the entry? We would like to explore that; walking by the house on 2nd Ave again this week, that is what they have done. On our lot, this would provide a public space – maybe incorporate a window seat on the landing? – with a nice view and light pouring into the entry hall).
I spent some time pinning utility rooms and entry halls that I like via houzz (I invited you as a collaborator: let me know if you didn’t receive a link yet!). Additionally, here’s a photo of the Baltimore entry looking into the house:
and one looking from the stairs toward the front vestibule:
Anyway, I wanted to just capture this all in writing before we meet to explore other low-fidelity layout sketches. We hope this is helpful.
Callie + Will
and finally
Great, I’ll see you then. Also, to follow up on some of your comments below. This process is very cyclical, so at this stage – don’t assume that anything presented is final. We find that it’s often best to put some ideas out on the table based on what we’ve heard from you – to test what we’re hearing. In this case, we heard initially that “ tall, airy, large, open, entertaining space” was a significant driving factor – and the key idea that drove the first iteration. It sounds like that’s not as critical as some other ideas you guys want to pursue, and that’s totally OK. This the process we use to test ideas. We’re going to be working through lots of iterations and different ideas. Whether it’s 3 or 9 at this point isn’t too much of a concern for me (low fidelity or otherwise), what’s critical is that we get the RIGHT solution. And often knowing what you don’t like is as important as what you do.
Also, regarding the Houzz boards. A strategy of picking things from other houses and plunking them on a site can be dangerous. It can pretty quickly end up in a collage of disjointed ideas, vs. a scheme that has its core idea around you guys, the way you live, and your specific site. I think it’s fine to use images as a way to convey ideas, but let’s agree to be careful about falling in love with this pantry or that one, this door or that one – just yet.
We can talk through each of the specifics below next Friday, as well as some other factors that may impact each of these.
Until next week,
Mark
Layers of layout sketch iterations resulting from our design session held after these email exchanges. UrbanAdd, November 1, 2013.