The Block Laundries: Winners & Losers

Once again, we were glued to our TVs during Hall and Laundry week, checking out the latest offerings from the teams on The Block. This time, they turned their hand to our second favourite room in the house – the laundry.

Unfortunately, as it was a multi-room reveal (each team also had to present their hallway and powder room to the judges), less time was devoted to each laundry than we would have liked. However, we still managed to get a reasonable look at each team’s space and have a few thoughts.

But, before we get into those, we want to touch on an important point – functionality.

In some ways, the laundry is the most practical room in a house. It has a clear purpose and, no matter how well designed or ‘beautiful’ it is, most people will not want to spend any more time than they have to in it. In spite of this – or, potentially, because of it – the laundry is also one of the most overlooked rooms, with most renovators giving little thought to the layout or design.

We saw this on The Block, with a couple of the teams failing to think how the space will actually be used.

 

Our thoughts on the laundries

 

Overall, while we think the teams did a great job, most of the spaces felt a little underwhelming. All but one seemed smaller than you would like in a luxury family home, and a couple lacked practical storage.

That being said, each laundry was noticeably different in size and styling, which was good to see. There were also a couple of quirky ideas (like Sarah and George’s pet bed and pseudo-mudroom design) that we really enjoyed.

 

House 1: Harry & Tash (1920s)

 

Judge’s comments:

• They noted that there was no tall storage suitable for holding an ironing board.
• While they liked the overall look, they said it lacks visual drama and emotional impact.

What we think:

• Placing the washing machine and dryer underneath the bench would have been more practical and allowed space to store taller items (ironing boards, brooms, mops, etc.).

House 2: Sarah & George (1940s) 

 

Judge’s comments:

• They enjoyed the inbuilt pet bed – and the accompanying doggo!
• While they loved the overall look, they questioned whether it matched the rest of the house.

What we think:

• While the pet bed was a nice touch, the location directly in front of the appliances is impractical.
• Leaving space under the bench seat for pet bowls is a great idea for such a long, narrow laundry.
• Putting the appliances under the bench makes sense given the shape of the room. This allowed more bench space without compromising on the amount of storage that could be included.

 

House 3: Daniel & Jade (1930s)

 

Judge’s comments:

• They said that the design showed confidence.

What we think:

• This was another space that feels smaller than it should.
• Like with House 1, placing the appliances under the bench would have been more practical and made the room feel larger.

 

House 4: Luke & Jasmin (1910s)

 

Judge’s comments:

• They said that they ‘cannot fault’ the design and that they ‘don’t think they could have done anything better’.
• They liked that space had been made to allow the inclusion of a drying cupboard.

What we think:

• This seemed to be the only laundry that wouldn’t feel unnecessarily tight.
• Having all of the cabinetry along one wall helped to elongate the space and would make it easier to use.
• Good mix of materials and the timber shelf helps warm up the white colour scheme.

 

House 5: Jimmy & Tam (1950s)

 

Judge’s comments:

• They praised the panelling that concealed the door, calling it a ‘masterstroke’.
• They loved both the layout and styling, noting that many of the ideas could have gone wrong, but actually work well together.

What we think:

•  As with the kitchen, we would replace the mint green with a Laminex to make it appealing to a wider group of buyers while maintaining the sense of 50s glamour.

• Overall, the mix of cabinetry used seems functional.