When approaching a new build, whether it be a new home or the renovation of an existing one, have you ever considered, as the client, you are placing an ungodly amount of trust and money into the hands of someone who barely knows you?

This statement is something I've pondered for some time.
Typical Scenario

Client researches designer.
- Makes contact and organises an initial meeting.
- The designer gathers information and presents his or her initial ideas.

What is wrong with this picture?
Whether they be an industry leader or an emerging firm, whoever you choose to work with in your home, all are subject to the limitations associated with time.

When I refer to 'time,' I refer to the timeframes needed to understand the client implicitly.

This is a genuine issue!

The ever-present pressures aligned with delivering a 'client design brief' within a short series of meetings are, at best, shallow. The result is a set of loose parameters that are more about room labels than anything beyond. 

Herein lies the problem.
Almost every design professional will default to his or her own spatial and materialistic bias due to the lack of really knowing the client and their circumstances.

I am NOT saying that this is the fault of the client nor the designer but rather a flaw in the system directly connected with the nature of home procurement.

I have personally faced this problem many times. When putting pen to paper, I have often felt that I am designing based on what I would like to live in rather than from a position of really knowing who I am preparing for. It is not because this is a conscious choice; I simply don't know the client.

Due to the timeframes linked with this situation, it would be arrogant to think that I could ever deliver something intrinsically relevant based on a lifetime of memories, habits, and quirks that I have not been privy to.

I feel this is why we see architects and designers across the board producing bodies of work that reflect 'brand.' Their efforts manifest as a series of built buildings based on their precedent of past work.

The nature of the brand places an onus on the consistency of things. There is an emphasis on developing ubiquitous similarities that produce a recognisable product.

I believe that when a brand becomes identifiable in a body of work, the homes and buildings that result become more about the designer's notion of relevance rather than a reflection of the client's sense of individuality.

The issue is time itself.
- What if coming up with an appropriate design brief is not the issue?
- What if our buildings could educate us about optimal living without compromising liveability?

Possible solution
If there is integrated into the structure a high degree of adjustment, then, as the occupants experience the spaces over time, the natural environment (solar-passive design) would effectively allow for a knowledge of the location to inform the best way of living. Therefore, through discovery, the clients understand how best to use their spaces. This would take the onus off a design brief that ticks certain boxes to achieve its relevance. The client would then be empowered to become the authority on how best their home is used. 

Much of what we live in relies solely on mechanical means to achieve comfort levels. Yet, when we go on holiday, we will often gravitate to places and spaces that allow the natural environment to impact our senses. i.e., the ocean or the bush.

Wouldn't it be amazing if, when it comes time to sell, the value of a property was not determined by room labels but rather the quality of imparted spatial wisdom gained by the seller over their time in the home? Wouldn't that be something!

Anthony Rigg
 Bluescape Design

PHOTO: Mitti Street House by James Russell Architect