Good morning from Barcelona everyone:

Based on Brad W’s observation from yesterday I suggest that you take these current comments with a grain of Gaudi’s salt (and more than a little Rioja).

First off, it is interesting that the group used the 10 point scale for each of the segments. As you can see from today’s video I didn’t do that. However, I like the nuance of your approach. Do you think that 1-10 is too broad a range for each segment? I was thinking it may be clearer if we had a scale that was either a letter grade (A, B, C, F) or more qualitative (Excellent, good, fair, bad).

My second observation is that the checklist format seems to be a useful addition to the format of the what’s wrong with this house project. I think that it gives some structure to both the analysis and the discussion. I also really appreciate Ron Murray’s observation that the process allows one to look at each of the pieces of the design as well as the overall. David P had an overall sense of the plan that he then revised after going through the process while BradW finished the checklist and then revised things a bit while preparing the overall summary.

This process of moving between the specifics of the individual elements and the overall whole is exactly what Matthew and I have been trying to achieve. It is how architects are trained to look at buildings and it is a very valuable skill to develop.

On that note, I think that Jim Baer’s use of the marked up plan is a great example of how to visualize the analysis process. I like the way it flows naturally from the editing process we have all been working on.

My third comment is to compliment Doug Roberts and Sherry for their redesign work. As always, it is very informative to see how a few modest physical changes can so drastically improve the quality of the house. It also adds a lot to the evaluation discussion because, like the editorial comments last week about showing good examples along with the bad, the revised plans illustrate quite clearly how problematic certain aspects of the original house really are.

Finally, now that you have all had the chance to see my video evaluation (which seems to be in the minority) it would be interesting to discuss the range of evaluations and what this might mean. I don’t think having a range of opinions is a bad thing because it encourages more conversation.

What are your thoughts?

I found the scale too large. Either a 5-point or simple grading system would probably work better for me.

As for the two reworked plans…I didn’t like the laundry in the kitchen in Sherry’s, and I also thought the dining room should be more adjacent. Doug did a good job of addressing those two concerns, but then he went one step further by opening the north end of the master bedroom, which I felt was unnecessary.

A note: I see the plan on the screen above has a completely different entry closet than the PDF file shows. This was the same yesterday.

Good reworks by Sherry and Doug.

Much better access to the one wall of light by eliminating the kitchen wall. Sherry’s also has a useful closet by the front door, then the walk-in can be used for storage. In a house this size, it’s reasonable to put the W/D in the kitchen. And the circulation problems clear themselves up too.

I like that Doug has moved the closet for Bdrm2 to maximize the terrace. Also providing access to the master closet is a big plus. But not crazy about the changes to the kitchen. The counter space is minimal, and I’m not sure that a breakfast bar is needed with the dining room right there. Also, opening up the master bedroom to the public areas adds to the overall light, but I think sacrifices privacy too much.

I also found 1-10 scale too large and would prefer a 5-point scale. It forces you to make a decision! I’d also favour a simple, relative numeric scale (1 to 5) rather than qualitative (i.e. poor to excellent) because the words can mean different things to different people.

Further to this ranking discussion, yesterday I had made a list of our rankings just to see how I compared with others. Jim Baer didn’t actually rank the individual categories, but I interpreted his “pretty good”s and “not bad” or “terrible” to be 3, 4 and 10. Anyway, using this made him come out with a 5.4, but he rated it 7. So. I may have misinterpreted what he meant exactly. What this tells me is that if the scale were more limited, such as the old Bad,Poor,Fair,Good and Excellent that we find in common questionnaires, perhaps it would be easier to do the ranking.

I also noticed on my chart that I was way higher than anyone else on the Shape/Size category, and I realized that it was because I had put more emphasis of the last rule of thumb under livibility: allowing light into the centre of the house. I felt it failed due to the north exposure. Yet it all the other rules, the house comes out pretty good. There were more 3s than any other number on this category (4), followed by 4s (3 of those), so 7/12 were pretty much in agreement.

Doug- I like the more private option. Would a window on the wall between bedroom 2 and the terrace work?

I kept getting mixed up yesterday with the scale, thinking that 1 was bad and 10 was perfect. I have a feeling that I might like having the 1-10 bigger range next week when we have 2 more houses to compare with this one.

Cat — Yes, a window between bedroom 2 and the terrace would work well, as it could do double duty, both allowing additional light into bedroom 2 as well as acting as a reflective surface to bounce additional light into the living and dining areas. The only issue would be privacy, as someone on the terrace would be able to look directly into bedroom 2, but that could be easily handled with a proper window covering. John mentioned in his video the possibility of giving bedroom 2 direct access to the terrace, but my concern with putting a door on that wall is that it would turn the west end of the terrace into more circulation space and make furniture placement on the terrace very difficult.

I think that a 1-5 scale or even a 1-4 scale might be easier to work with. With 1-4 you would have the option of slow, somewhat slow, somewhat fast, fast. A 1-4 scale still makes you make a call for either fast or slow, but gives the option for some nuance.

I really liked the idea of opening up bedroom 2 to the terrace in place of the closet, but since this was a condo unit, my assumption was that the exterior facade was not something that could be changed significantly.

I liked the more open kitchen in Doug’s layout. I like what opening up the bedroom does for lighting but agree with Elizabeth that it sacrifices too much privacy. I still have children at home and cherish my solid wall and door that closes.

One thing that I didn’t like about the changes that I made was losing the direct connection between the kitchen and the terrace.

Sherry — Given this is a “What’s Wrong With this House” exercise, as opposed to a “Which House Should I Buy” exercise, I approached the redesign of this condo more from the perspective of how the builder could have made it better from the outset, as opposed to how someone buying it now could renovate it to make it better. Accordingly, on that basis I felt that changes to the exterior, at least relatively minor ones, were fair game.

Elizabeth,
Thanks for explaining that little nuance that I didn’t pick up on. I’ve never thought of introducing guests to the toilet like that! And here I was thinking it was such a nice polite toilet, behind a little pony wall. :)
I agree with you, though, having the shower next to the door seems like it might crowd the room’s entry too much, and therefore a guest will be forced to face it.

BTW, I’m glad you asked about that “multi-purpose” dining room point on yesterday’s post. I’ve wondered exactly what to make of that detail too.