What makes a house design 'next level'?

[puntloos]

The Architect? The Lighting Designer? Hand-picked Iraqi sandstone? Interior Designer?

 

Some house designs are 'totally fine'. Check out my 'Finekitchen' picture as just an example.

And then take a look at my 'NextLevelKitchen' picture. 

Would you agree that NextLevel is just much more impressive without being (to my super untrained eyes) dramatically different? Of course (?) I'm very much interested in function first and foremost, and form later, but if I can make my place impressive without breaking the bank.... 

 

And what can I do, as an aspiring newbuilder, to make it more likely I'm getting Next Level results? Surely it's not just 'throw money at better materials/brands'?

 

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by puntloos

[ToughButterCup]

4 hours ago, puntloos said:

[...] 

 what can I do, [...] to make it more likely I'm getting Next Level results? 

[...]

 

There are as many answers to your question as there are members of BH. Next level is inside your head.

[Ferdinand]

Those are two very different photos (or 3d models of your proposed kitchen?), and I want to go on a perambulation before talking about kitchens. This is something I am thinking about this AM, in the context of marketing a student property. I thought I would do my thinking here, if that is OK. These are musings, and I am quite open to being shot down in flames.

 

One is perhaps a good example of a cheap-and-cheerful which can be replaced by 2 in a decade.

 

First of all - DRESSING AND PRESENTATION.

 

Need to filter out the presentational differences before looking at the substance. How much is the presentation affecting your perception?

The light is different in the pics. The first looks washed out and with less variety of colour. Compare the histograms -  (this is luminosity, but colours all also have a far narrower depth of palette in the first than the second). Your "next level" piccie is on the left.

 

 

What does that mean?

 

You can see the difference in the histogram. To me the one piccie looks like a snapshot, and the second looks dressed (in addition to the furniture differences) fro eg Instagram or Dezeen. I would say that is an artefact of our culture now being more universally visual (as opposed to in islands and subsectors such as Architects or Artists or Photogs or Models).

 

In a way the first looks like an aspirational room from Ikea Gen 1 (say 1975 in design environments, as popularised by early Ikea).

The second is more sumptuous with a greater range of colour, which we are now getting perhaps ith the 1940s/50s (rather than 1960s/early 1970s) being in fashion.

 

I think that just with a small adjustment to the 'old gen' kitchen makes it more attractive to 2019 eyes. All I have done is dialed in richer colours via changing the Gamma for the photo.

 

 

Here is the luminosity histogram for this pic:

 

 

Content Differences

 

However, there are also some photo / lighting differences - the second one is photographed to include the snug, and more sitting places. The first one says "kitchen with nowhere to relax", like something out of a Hall of Residence which is primarily functional; the second one is clearly a home.

 

(This is one way my letting agent describes their philosophy of designing / marketing student houses).

 

These are probably subliminal, but communicate a different environment where the viewer might be ore comfortable existing.

 

(A great example of this was when digital artists started displaying their Gicle images on Ebay as if hung on a wall behind a sofa by plonking a floating sofa at the bottom of the pic. I first noticed that in about 2005 when on Ebay when a photo-printing blogger pointed it out).

 

There is also (not sure whether intentional) the classic "before and after" manipulated photograph thing as you saw on Trinny and Susanna. Compare those 2 kitchen piccies to this weightloss before and after:

 

 

There is a weightloss, but also mucho photo-shenanigans.

 

On the left - flat frontal lighting, no highlights to give depth or definition (eg rh picture, lighting from rhs giving a halo to skin and boob), body and bounce in rh hairdo not there in lh piccie, stomach on rhs tensed (LH to me looks relaxed), rh picture has model smiling and engaged (lh has just been told her puppy got run over), variation in colour/tone on rhs and depth of colour palette  ( not on left) etc. It may be instructive to compare the colour histograms.

 

And those arms and waist look Photoshopped.

 

There is a lot similar going on in your 2 piccies - especially eg flat colours in the first compared to the second, and perhaps lighting. But that is also true of the design.

 

Not saying that it is deliberate as in the model piccies, but it could be affecting the subliminal perception (does with me).

 

So, where are we?

 

Underneath all of that, to me the second one looks about twice as expensive eg compare the material for the island worktop, or the designer staircase. But there is a big difference bewreen the 2 piccies before we get to "what is in the kitchen".

 

So my comments are:

 

1 - Visit as well as look at pictures.

2 - "Klotzen nicht Kleckern" - don't spend on everything. Work out the bits that matter to you (eg by working out where you spend your time or use most, and spend money on that). Spend the money where you will often touch the quality.

3 - Focus on reducing price for a given quality , not on buying cheaper things with extra gewgaws.

4 - Think about external factors - how you use the rooms etc, layout and so on. Fabric.First.

5 - Really pay attention to the detail.

6 - As for Designers etc, you need someone to facilitate your process with their skills, not someone who will tell you what to do.

7 - For colours, a limited range of contrasting colours with different tones, rather than a range of shades of similar colours. The current Renovate Don't Relocate does this well (I think it is a product of murderous Stamp Duty in London). You also get to see a TV series with Sarah Beeny not pregnant.

 

For an example - I have an expensive (£600 bought online for £400) sink with a non-standard drainer-sink-halfsink arrangement as I use it a lot, and like to be able to flap around with guts and gore in the halfsink *away* from the drainer.

 

I think you start with your own philosophy and perhaps a "statement of needs", then evaluate different things against that. "Next Generation Kitchen" is not a statement of needs - unless you are a Boutique Hotel.

 

Buzzword-driven kitchen design (which I do not think you are doing except a list as a way to provoke debate) ends up with a lottery-winner's gin palace or a City-Boy's never-used swank pad kitchen; it's a kitchen version of a trophy-wife.

 

Sorry for the long post. Hope it was useful.

 

Ferdinand

Edited April 30, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Gone West]

7 hours ago, puntloos said:

Would you agree that NextLevel is just much more impressive without being (to my super untrained eyes) dramatically different?

No, not to my eyes. If it's the actual room layout, then I prefer the first picture. It's very subjective, I don't like staircases in the living space and functionally it looks like there are potential thermal bridging issues with the roof windows in the second picture.

[Big Neil]

The flooring in the first picture looks like that thick lino you often get in the disabled changing room downstairs at cheap gyms. I think 'Next Level' is a subjective thing. Is it a grand on crap units and 20 grand on expensive appliances, or is if granite instead of laminated chipboard etc etc. Obviously there's a base level underneath which anyone would think quality is crap. I imagine there's a reasonable percentage to be assigned to installation quality.

[Big Jimbo]

I used to design and build high end kitchens for posh new houses. I used to take photos of the installed products on whatever camera was on my phone, and then select a couple to put on my website. They never looked as good in the photos, as they did in the flesh. Getting them photographed by a professional made such a difference. They know about angles, lighting, and about composition. It is a skill like a lot of things in life. I did however have one of my phone photos used as a magazine front cover. When i used to present my designs to a developer, i always used to do Two designs. The first would be pratical, and the second would be the "wow" design. They always went for the wow. I always think that it is very hard to make things that are only made from a single material, look stunning, however, too many materials can look a mess. Good design is , in my opinion, not that hard. Good design that looks fantastic is much harder to achieve.

[nod]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand said:

Those are two very different photos (or 3d models of your proposed kitchen?), and I want to go on a perambulation before talking about kitchens. This is something I am thinking about this AM, in the context of marketing a student property. I thought I would do my thinking here, if that is OK. These are musings, and I am quite open to being shot down in flames.

 

One is perhaps a good example of a cheap-and-cheerful which can be replaced by 2 in a decade.

 

First of all - DRESSING AND PRESENTATION.

 

Need to filter out the presentational differences before looking at the substance. How much is the presentation affecting your perception?

The light is different in the pics. The first looks washed out and with less variety of colour. Compare the histograms -  (this is luminosity, but colours all also have a far narrower depth of palette in the first than the second). Your "next level" piccie is on the left.

 

 

What does that mean?

 

You can see the difference in the histogram. To me the one piccie looks like a snapshot, and the second looks dressed (in addition to the furniture differences) fro eg Instagram or Dezeen. I would say that is an artefact of our culture now being more universally visual (as opposed to in islands and subsectors such as Architects or Artists or Photogs or Models).

 

In a way the first looks like an aspirational room from Ikea Gen 1 (say 1975 in design environments, as popularised by early Ikea).

The second is more sumptuous with a greater range of colour, which we are now getting perhaps ith the 1940s/50s (rather than 1960s/early 1970s) being in fashion.

 

I think that just with a small adjustment to the 'old gen' kitchen makes it more attractive to 2019 eyes. All I have done is dialed in richer colours via changing the Gamma for the photo.

 

 

Here is the luminosity histogram for this pic:

 

 

Content Differences

 

However, there are also some photo / lighting differences - the second one is photographed to include the snug, and more sitting places. The first one says "kitchen with nowhere to relax", like something out of a Hall of Residence which is primarily functional; the second one is clearly a home.

 

(This is one way my letting agent describes their philosophy of designing / marketing student houses).

 

These are probably subliminal, but communicate a different environment where the viewer might be ore comfortable existing.

 

(A great example of this was when digital artists started displaying their Gicle images on Ebay as if hung on a wall behind a sofa by plonking a floating sofa at the bottom of the pic. I first noticed that in about 2005 when on Ebay when a photo-printing blogger pointed it out).

 

There is also (not sure whether intentional) the classic "before and after" manipulated photograph thing as you saw on Trinny and Susanna. Compare those 2 kitchen piccies to this weightloss before and after:

 

 

There is a weightloss, but also mucho photo-shenanigans.

 

On the left - flat frontal lighting, no highlights to give depth or definition (eg rh picture, lighting from rhs giving a halo to skin and boob), body and bounce in rh hairdo not there in lh piccie, stomach on rhs tensed (LH to me looks relaxed), rh picture has model smiling and engaged (lh has just been told her puppy got run over), variation in colour/tone on rhs and depth of colour palette  ( not on left) etc. It may be instructive to compare the colour histograms.

 

And those arms and waist look Photoshopped.

 

There is a lot similar going on in your 2 piccies - especially eg flat colours in the first compared to the second, and perhaps lighting. But that is also true of the design.

 

Not saying that it is deliberate as in the model piccies, but it could be affecting the subliminal perception (does with me).

 

So, where are we?

 

Underneath all of that, to me the second one looks about twice as expensive eg compare the material for the island worktop, or the designer staircase. But there is a big difference bewreen the 2 piccies before we get to "what is in the kitchen".

 

So my comments are:

 

1 - Visit as well as look at pictures.

2 - "Klotzen nicht Kleckern" - don't spend on everything. Work out the bits that matter to you (eg by working out where you spend your time or use most, and spend money on that). Spend the money where you will often touch the quality.

3 - Focus on reducing price for a given quality , not on buying cheaper things with extra gewgaws.

4 - Think about external factors - how you use the rooms etc, layout and so on. Fabric.First.

5 - Really pay attention to the detail.

6 - As for Designers etc, you need someone to facilitate your process with their skills, not someone who will tell you what to do.

7 - For colours, a limited range of contrasting colours with different tones, rather than a range of shades of similar colours. The current Renovate Don't Relocate does this well (I think it is a product of murderous Stamp Duty in London). You also get to see a TV series with Sarah Beeny not pregnant.

 

For an example - I have an expensive (£600 bought online for £400) sink with a non-standard drainer-sink-halfsink arrangement as I use it a lot, and like to be able to flap around with guts and gore in the halfsink *away* from the drainer.

 

I think you start with your own philosophy and perhaps a "statement of needs", then evaluate different things against that. "Next Generation Kitchen" is not a statement of needs - unless you are a Boutique Hotel.

 

Buzzword-driven kitchen design (which I do not think you are doing except a list as a way to provoke debate) ends up with a lottery-winner's gin palace or a City-Boy's never-used swank pad kitchen; it's a kitchen version of a trophy-wife.

 

Sorry for the long post. Hope it was useful.

 

Ferdinand

Breathing and happy?

Breathing out and miserable ?

[epsilonGreedy]

I have to question whether "the next level" is a worthy aspiration.

 

Happy and content humans is my yardstick of a good house. For some that equates to debt free simplicity, for others it is a co2 neutral house. Those who pursue the next level such as musical composers often end up being driven mad by their quest.

[caliwag]

Yes...I would say design has to be detailed consideration of all aspects. Sounds abstract, but if you don't consider how things join...spaces, planes, materials, surfaces, structure to finishes, edges to edges and so on (fill in to your own taste) you'll just get what a tradesman, joiner, plasterer thinks is easy or looks OK...believe me I have worked on projects where that's happened...costs nothing to ask 'What did you want to happen here then?'

 

In terms of light, it rather depends if you want sunlight/dappled light/constant shade/avoidance of glare/fading of fabric or paintings and so on. In my design notes, Self Build Home...the last thing you need is an architect, I suggest several considerations like use/retention of internal windows (surprise/transparency/visual benefits/communication/reflection) rather than 'oh just brick it up)...Design consideration!

 

I recommend at early design stage, you consider potential sill heights in a room...the room you're in now. What is the feel of a room with a 5 feet above floor sill height as opposed to near floor level...one hell of a lot I would venture (consideration at design stage). Likewise what is the effect of a bay or oriel window be on a room or landing? I recall a colleague of  mine telling me he would never use ceiling/roof windows again because of the draught created by heat-loss through the window...fun they might at first seem, but similarly a friend insisted on a velux in a bedroom despite having two french windows and juliette balconies, but then complained the rain kept her awake!

 

Therefore, design is all about consideration or you'll just get bad workmanship or fashion statements....or both

[ToughButterCup]

13 minutes ago, caliwag said:

Yes...I would say design has to be detailed consideration of all aspects.... 

 

... Therefore, design is all about consideration or you'll just get bad workmanship or fashion statements....or both

 

And since only you will be doing the considering (because its your money).... who cares, but you?

[caliwag]

Well indeed that's true. I recall several years ago on the old e-build forum where someone posted their problem of how to face a dormer that they'd had half built. They were asking the forum members how to face it neatly and in a maintenance-free and waterproof way. I'm afraid I just responded in an exasperated way 'but this is why we do detail drawings'...how things join...with elegance or whatever, but to keep the rain out and the heat in, surely. and it's the same in all decisions...indeed who cares?

[puntloos]

13 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Wow I come back from work and this topic has really taken off..

 

13 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

Those are two very different photos (or 3d models of your proposed kitchen?), and I want to go on a perambulation before talking about kitchens. This is something I am thinking about this AM, in the context of marketing a student property. I thought I would do my thinking here, if that is OK. These are musings, and I am quite open to being shot down in flames.

 

One is perhaps a good example of a cheap-and-cheerful which can be replaced by 2 in a decade.

 

First of all - DRESSING AND PRESENTATION.

 

Need to filter out the presentational differences before looking at the substance. How much is the presentation affecting your perception?

The light is different in the pics. The first looks washed out and with less variety of colour. Compare the histograms -  (this is luminosity, but colours all also have a far narrower depth of palette in the first than the second). Your "next level" piccie is on the left.

 

 

Good point, we need to try to eliminate the effects of a photog. Still, some of the things like lighting could be intentional by a skilled designer.

 

Quote

 

What does that mean?

 

You can see the difference in the histogram. To me the one piccie looks like a snapshot, and the second looks dressed (in addition to the furniture differences) fro eg Instagram or Dezeen. I would say that is an artefact of our culture now being more universally visual (as opposed to in islands and subsectors such as Architects or Artists or Photogs or Models).

 

In a way the first looks like an aspirational room from Ikea Gen 1 (say 1975 in design environments, as popularised by early Ikea).

The second is more sumptuous with a greater range of colour, which we are now getting perhaps ith the 1940s/50s (rather than 1960s/early 1970s) being in fashion.

 

I think that just with a small adjustment to the 'old gen' kitchen makes it more attractive to 2019 eyes. All I have done is dialed in richer colours via changing the Gamma for the photo.

 

 

Here is the luminosity histogram for this pic:

 

 

It's better but not miles =)

 

Quote

 

Content Differences

 

However, there are also some photo / lighting differences - the second one is photographed to include the snug, and more sitting places. The first one says "kitchen with nowhere to relax", like something out of a Hall of Residence which is primarily functional; the second one is clearly a home.

 

(This is one way my letting agent describes their philosophy of designing / marketing student houses).

 

These are probably subliminal, but communicate a different environment where the viewer might be ore comfortable existing.

 

(A great example of this was when digital artists started displaying their Gicle images on Ebay as if hung on a wall behind a sofa by plonking a floating sofa at the bottom of the pic. I first noticed that in about 2005 when on Ebay when a photo-printing blogger pointed it out).

 

There is also (not sure whether intentional) the classic "before and after" manipulated photograph thing as you saw on Trinny and Susanna. Compare those 2 kitchen piccies to this weightloss before and after:

 

 

There is a weightloss, but also mucho photo-shenanigans.

 

On the left - flat frontal lighting, no highlights to give depth or definition (eg rh picture, lighting from rhs giving a halo to skin and boob), body and bounce in rh hairdo not there in lh piccie, stomach on rhs tensed (LH to me looks relaxed), rh picture has model smiling and engaged (lh has just been told her puppy got run over), variation in colour/tone on rhs and depth of colour palette  ( not on left) etc. It may be instructive to compare the colour histograms.

 

And those arms and waist look Photoshopped.

 

There is a lot similar going on in your 2 piccies - especially eg flat colours in the first compared to the second, and perhaps lighting. But that is also true of the design.

 

Not saying that it is deliberate as in the model piccies, but it could be affecting the subliminal perception (does with me).

 

So, where are we?

 

Underneath all of that, to me the second one looks about twice as expensive eg compare the material for the island worktop, or the designer staircase. But there is a big difference bewreen the 2 piccies before we get to "what is in the kitchen".

 

So my comments are:

 

1 - Visit as well as look at pictures.

 

 

 

 

Not always easy, obviously.

 

Quote

 

 

2 - "Klotzen nicht Kleckern" - don't spend on everything. Work out the bits that matter to you (eg by working out where you spend your time or use most, and spend money on that). Spend the money where you will often touch the quality.

3 - Focus on reducing price for a given quality , not on buying cheaper things with extra gewgaws.

4 - Think about external factors - how you use the rooms etc, layout and so on. Fabric.First.

 

 

 

"Fabric" as in 'the flow/usage of the place'?

 

Quote

 

5 - Really pay attention to the detail.

6 - As for Designers etc, you need someone to facilitate your process with their skills, not someone who will tell you what to do.

7 - For colours, a limited range of contrasting colours with different tones, rather than a range of shades of similar colours. The current Renovate Don't Relocate does this well (I think it is a product of murderous Stamp Duty in London). You also get to see a TV series with Sarah Beeny not pregnant.

 

For an example - I have an expensive (£600 bought online for £400) sink with a non-standard drainer-sink-halfsink arrangement as I use it a lot, and like to be able to flap around with guts and gore in the halfsink *away* from the drainer.

 

 

Fair enough. Thanks for the tips

 

Quote

I think you start with your own philosophy and perhaps a "statement of needs", then evaluate different things against that. "Next Generation Kitchen" is not a statement of needs - unless you are a Boutique Hotel.

 

 

Yep, we have a very detailed statement already. But nowhere in the statement does it say 'needs to look good' =) - and in this discussion I'm trying to make that one a bit more explicit. 

 

Quote

Buzzword-driven kitchen design (which I do not think you are doing except a list as a way to provoke debate) ends up with a lottery-winner's gin palace or a City-Boy's never-used swank pad kitchen; it's a kitchen version of a trophy-wife.

 

Sorry for the long post. Hope it was useful.

 

Very much a good source of discussion and thought, thanks.

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by puntloos

[puntloos]

12 hours ago, PeterStarck said:

No, not to my eyes. If it's the actual room layout, then I prefer the first picture. It's very subjective, I don't like staircases in the living space and functionally it looks like there are potential thermal bridging issues with the roof windows in the second picture.

Interesting stuff, and indeed tons of things come down to preference, I'm trying to nail down 'aesthetics' here mostly, not really suitability for anything

 

[puntloos]

11 hours ago, Big Jimbo said:

I used to design and build high end kitchens for posh new houses. I used to take photos of the installed products on whatever camera was on my phone, and then select a couple to put on my website. They never looked as good in the photos, as they did in the flesh. Getting them photographed by a professional made such a difference. They know about angles, lighting, and about composition. It is a skill like a lot of things in life. I did however have one of my phone photos used as a magazine front cover. When i used to present my designs to a developer, i always used to do Two designs. The first would be pratical, and the second would be the "wow" design. They always went for the wow. I always think that it is very hard to make things that are only made from a single material, look stunning, however, too many materials can look a mess. Good design is , in my opinion, not that hard. Good design that looks fantastic is much harder to achieve.

 

Interesting, so perhaps a rule of thumb to derive here is to have two types of material as 'decoration'?

[puntloos]

9 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

I have to question whether "the next level" is a worthy aspiration.

 

Happy and content humans is my yardstick of a good house. For some that equates to debt free simplicity, for others it is a co2 neutral house. Those who pursue the next level such as musical composers often end up being driven mad by their quest.

 

I suppose my thinking about this subject already has evolved somewhat. Clearly (?) the design around how you would use a place, in particular a kitchen, is super personal. Whether or not something has one of those hot water taps, an island, a steam oven all matter differently to different people.. so that's something I am already forming my own opinion on. 

 

For me, 'next level' means two things at this point:

 

1/ "clever design", so for example one could argue that a cupboard above a sink is bad design because you could hit your head or be uncomfortably close to the cupboard while working with the sink. Or a built-in organic waste bin next to the cutting area, the dishwasher right next to the plate/glass storage so you can unload in one move .. etc. Small touches you come to appreciate over time.

 

2/ Making it look impressive, without adding to functionality. We all have our pride to bear here, meaning in this case you're perhaps investing slightly in resale value, but most of these improvements purely influence your own sense of how stylish, beautiful your surrounding is. To say that this is zero-value seems short-sighted to me, but personally I'm not going to get enough value out of 'hand-important sand tiles from Iraq' or something. That said, if some improvements are cheap but effective I'd love to hear them!

 

As an example there, if someone were to say "Your fancy image looks that good because the designer used brown tinted glass for the ceiling lights" my ears would perk up, because that sounds achievable without breaking the bank. (obviously a made up example, but indeed perhaps such tips do exist)

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by puntloos

[puntloos]

7 hours ago, caliwag said:

Yes...I would say design has to be detailed consideration of all aspects. Sounds abstract, but if you don't consider how things join...spaces, planes, materials, surfaces, structure to finishes, edges to edges and so on (fill in to your own taste) you'll just get what a tradesman, joiner, plasterer thinks is easy or looks OK...believe me I have worked on projects where that's happened...costs nothing to ask 'What did you want to happen here then?'

 

In terms of light, it rather depends if you want sunlight/dappled light/constant shade/avoidance of glare/fading of fabric or paintings and so on. In my design notes, Self Build Home...the last thing you need is an architect, I suggest several considerations like use/retention of internal windows (surprise/transparency/visual benefits/communication/reflection) rather than 'oh just brick it up)...Design consideration!

 

I recommend at early design stage, you consider potential sill heights in a room...the room you're in now. What is the feel of a room with a 5 feet above floor sill height as opposed to near floor level...one hell of a lot I would venture (consideration at design stage). Likewise what is the effect of a bay or oriel window be on a room or landing? I recall a colleague of  mine telling me he would never use ceiling/roof windows again because of the draught created by heat-loss through the window...fun they might at first seem, but similarly a friend insisted on a velux in a bedroom despite having two french windows and juliette balconies, but then complained the rain kept her awake!

 

Therefore, design is all about consideration or you'll just get bad workmanship or fashion statements....or both

Very insightful, thank you. 

 

But the next question is: how do you find an architect or interior designer who knows these things inside and out! (and perhaps also- which of them are cheap to achieve, and which are hard/pricey?)