search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Howard Miller | OPINION


HOWARD MILLER OPINION


The co-founder of H Miller Bros in Liverpool relates how one client caused him to call into question whether open-plan living is always the best design solution and discusses some alternative options for creating ‘broken-plan’ spaces


Is open-plan over? D


uring a recent client meeting, I found myself in a heated discussion about open-plan layouts. The client’s home had already been reconfigured to an open-plan layout prior to them buying the house. The discussion was about the degree of openness this style offers. It was obvious that both clients felt torn between the


What was envisaged as a


harmonious space was in fact a contested one, constantly being disturbed


perceived benefits of open-plan living and the negatives that, it was noted, had been laid bare during living through various pandemic lockdowns. It was a moment to take stock for me, because I realised that the wisdom of ‘breaking through’, and creating one large space for kitchen, dining and living areas is such an incontrovertible truth in our business and what this couple were describing struck a chord with my own experience at home, especially during lockdown. We’re so well versed in the arguments for open-plan spaces. The space is casual, social and relaxed and this reflects our modern-day lives in a way that stuffy Victorian rooms do not. The users will be able to move seamlessly


between tasks and therefore manage


housework more efficiently in order to prioritise precious family time. The merging of internal spaces, coupled with an enhanced relationship to the outside through larger windows and skylights, will create a light-filled, healthy home. Something we think, but don’t mention, is UK homes are small and expensive. Combining spaces allows us to make layouts work harder with less space by overlapping functions and sharing circulation space. So, what’s the beef? Well, these clients felt like the


promise of conversation while preparing dinner, helping children with homework while cleaning the work surfaces or having this great room to act as a canvas for family life to play out on, never really became reality. What was envisaged as a harmonious space was in fact a contested one, constantly being disturbed. Having been indoctrinated into the cult of open-plan, starting at architecture school in the late Nineties and then working in the architecture and interiors field for


the past 20 years pretty much converting everything I could to open-plan, I was obviously not going to be easily diverted away from this design convention. However, we are taught as architects never to presume


things, to make keen observations and react accordingly and to challenge prevailing orthodoxies. I started to look around for answers and saw other people struggling with the same set of questions and a cluster of people standing under the banner of broken-plan. Essentially this idea is to treat the symptoms of open-plan layouts with clever physical elements, such as screens, sound absorbers, changes in levels to the floor and ceiling, to differentiate areas within an open-plan space. I can relate to this. At H Miller Bros, we instinctively do this sort of thing all the time, but without a name for it. It also struck me that ‘broken-plan’ was being described with a certain amount of expectation management – where everyone can be together, separately doing their own thing. A bit of a downgrade from the idealistic social agenda that drove open-plan thinking.


As always when I’m stuck with a design dilemma, I


reach for a couple of books that always seem to have something


to contribute. In ‘A pattern language’,


Christopher Alexander describes a ‘half-open wall’ and goes on to describe very beautifully how a room with four walls and a door can sustain activities separate from the next room perfectly, but that it is hard for new people to join these activities or leave them naturally. He compares this to an open space with no walls


around it marked by a carpet on the floor and a chair arrangement. This would be so exposed that people never feel entirely comfortable there. He argues that a balance must be struck between these two extremes and that modern open-plan layouts need a great deal more enclosure to achieve that best-of-both-worlds position. Frank Lloyd Wright had this trick of overlapping the


corners of two rooms slightly so that the overlapping piece was in both rooms. The two rooms could still be read as whole rooms with all the benefits of enclosure. In his Robie House of 1909 in Chicago, he built an


impressive long room divided centrally by a fireplace that one can pass on either side into the other half of the room. It’s a masterclass in striking this balance, because it’s designed in such a way that it was like a piece of movable furniture.


The‘Furniture Makers Kitchen’ by H Miller Bros


May 2022 ·


I concluded that, at its heart, is the age-old struggle for work/life balance being played out in how we lay out our homes. Too often open-plan schemes hit the main moves, but fail to provide any of the subtle details that soften and mitigate the effects of the lack of shelter. When we create a new kitchen or interior,


it’s a rare


opportunity to make a radical change and strike the right balance of enclosure and openness for the client.


31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92