Revisiting Old Builds: Evolving as a Designer
After completing the Midnight Dining Room, I started thinking about something I don't do nearly enough: going back to my old builds.
It's easy to finish a project, move on to the next one, and assume that progression simply means building something newer, bigger, or more complicated.
But I think there's a much more valuable question to ask:
“Knowing what I know now, what would I change?”
Revisiting an old build isn't about proving that the original was bad. It's about seeing what you couldn't see when you first built it. Your skills change. Your understanding of space changes. Your approach to proportion, geometry, lighting, composition, and architectural integration changes.
And sometimes the best way to see that progression is to put your old work directly beside your current work.
The original build was inspired by the iconic Neptune Pool at Hearst Castle in California.
For me, the Temple Pool was the perfect example. At the time, I was happy with it. And honestly, I still think there was a lot that worked. But revisiting it later made me realize something important:
I have learned how to build better. But had I learned how to design better?
That distinction matters.
The goal wasn't to throw more decorations at the original or make it more elaborate simply because I could. The goal was to identify the decisions that were limiting the architecture and rethink them.
The first thing I changed was the pool.
The original rectangular footprint wasn't inherently wrong. It was symmetrical, orderly, and worked with the horizontal geometry of the temple. But looking at it again, I realized that the rectangle was essentially repeating the architecture's geometry instead of contrasting with it.
The result was clean, but visually rigid. The circular pool changed that.
The curve introduced an entirely different geometric language into the space. Instead of the pool feeling like an object placed in front of the temple, it began to interact with the architecture.
The curved edge creates movement against the rigid temple structure and helps pull the eye toward the central focal point.
That was an important lesson for me: Architectural contrast can be just as important as architectural symmetry. The original build wasn't a failure. It was simply a solution I wouldn't choose today.
- Rethinking How the Space Moves
The second thing I reconsidered was the water.
Shoutout to Deosporin and her water simulation technique, which completely changed how I approached the pool.
Looking at the original build again, I realized that the water effects were there, but the visual movement wasn't fully connected. The fountains created activity around the edges, but the rectangular basin itself remained relatively static.
The circular revision gave me an opportunity to rethink that.
By moving the fountain bowls inward and following the curvature of the pool, the water effects became part of the architecture rather than simply decorative objects sitting around it.
The circular geometry also created the illusion of continuous movement. That was something I wouldn't have necessarily considered when I built the original.
The question changed from: “Where can I put the fountains?”
to: “How should the fountains interact with the space?”
That is a completely different design mindset.
- Rethinking Lighting and Architectural Depth
This was probably the biggest realization revisiting the build. The original had plenty of lighting. But having lighting isn't the same thing as designing with light.
The original environmental lighting flattened some of the architectural depth. The front pillars and rear spaces received relatively similar illumination, which meant some of the intricate design lost its dimensionality.
The revised version allowed me to be much more deliberate.
The darker environment, luminous water, glowing braziers, curtains, columns, and chandeliers created layers of light and shadow. Instead of simply illuminating the room, the lighting started helping define the architecture.
That difference is something I understand much better now.
- Seeing the Difference Between Building and Designing
This is probably the biggest takeaway from the entire exercise.
My original build had a lot going for it. It had symmetry, atmosphere and interesting decorative elements.
But looking at it now, I can see places where I was still primarily thinking about individual objects.
Where should I put this statue? Where should I put this fountain? What can I add to this empty area?
Revisiting the build forced me to think differently.
Instead of asking what the space needed, I started asking what the space needed architecturally.
How does architecture interact with the build? Where does the eye travel? How do individual elements belong to the architecture rather than simply occupy it?
That's the difference between decorating a space and designing one.
I don't think every old build needs to be rebuilt. And I don't think every new version will necessarily be better.
Sometimes you'll revisit something and realize that your original decision was actually the right one. That's part of the process too. The value is in asking the question.
“Would I make the same design decisions today?”
If the answer is yes, great.
If the answer is no, then you have an opportunity to understand why.
And that "why" is where the real growth happens.
For me, the Temple Pool isn't just an old build that I upgraded. It's a snapshot of where I was as a designer at two different points in time.
The original represents what I knew then.
The revised version represents what I've learned since.
And that's ultimately why I think revisiting old builds is so important.
If you want to understand how much you've grown, don't just look forward to your next build. Look back at what you've already created and ask yourself what you would do differently today.
How many of you have gone back to an old build and thought, “Yeah… I’d do this very differently now”? What did you change, and what did you learn from the process?
