Rebuild the Gallery or Refit It? Two Routes for an Ageing Control Room

When a client tells us the gallery no longer suits the shows, the conversation usually narrows to two routes. The first is a full rebuild: the room is cleared, the layout redrawn, new racks, a new monitor wall and fresh signal routing installed in one project. The second is a staged refit: the existing room stays in use while we replace the weakest parts in a sensible order, such as routing first, then monitoring, then desks.

Neither route is the clever one by default. They answer different problems. A rebuild suits a room whose basic shape works against the crew, for example sightlines to the wall that force the director to turn their head, or cable runs nobody can trace. A refit suits a room whose bones are sound but whose equipment has drifted out of step with how the productions now run.

I have designed both kinds, and the honest answer depends on what the programmes need, how many weeks the room can be spared, and what documentation already exists.

• Rebuild: one project, one closure, one new layout
• Refit: several smaller stages, the room stays usable
• Both begin with a survey of how the crew works now

The strength of a rebuild is freedom. With the room empty we can place the director, vision mixer and graphics operator where they communicate best, set the monitor wall at the right height and distance, and run cabling in proper trays instead of working around what is already there. Racks can be laid out so that the engineer reaches every connector without moving anything else.

It also gives a clean documentation set. At the end of the project every signal path is labelled, drawn and handed over, so a new operator can learn the room from paper rather than from whoever happens to remember it. That is the part clients tell us they value longest after the work is finished.

The cost is time and disruption. The room is out of action for the duration, which means shows must move elsewhere, be paused or be produced another way, and that is not always possible for a channel with a regular schedule.

• Best sightlines and desk positions
• Tidy cable routes and rack access
• Complete drawings handed over at the end

A refit keeps the channel on air. We agree an order of work with the producers, then do each stage in the quiet gaps between shows: a weekend, a gap between series, an evening with no live output. Each stage is tested and signed off before the next begins, so at no point is the room in a half-finished state when a programme is due.

The money is also spread out. A client who cannot commit to one large outlay can replace the routing this season and the monitor wall the next, and still end up with a coherent room if the plan was drawn up at the start. That plan is what separates a refit from patching.

The risk is drift. If each stage is decided on its own, the room slowly collects compromises: a new switcher feeding an old wall, a desk that no longer fits the layout. Without a written plan, a refit can cost more over several years than a rebuild would have.

• Production continues between stages
• Spend is spread over several periods
• Needs a written plan to avoid piecemeal changes

I put four questions to a client before recommending anything. Can the room be closed for a few weeks? Is the current layout fundamentally awkward, or merely dated? Does anyone hold up-to-date drawings of the routing? And how different will the programmes be in three years' time compared with now?

If the room can be closed and the layout is the problem, a rebuild is usually right. If the schedule cannot give way and the layout is sound, a refit is. The documentation question matters more than people expect: where no drawings exist, even a refit has to start by tracing every cable, and at that point much of the saving disappears.

The last question is about growth. A room that will soon need extra cameras, a remote contribution feed or a second operator position is better rebuilt around that, rather than adapted later at a higher cost.

• Can the room close for a few weeks?
• Is the layout awkward or only old?
• Do accurate drawings exist?
• How will the shows change in three years?

Whichever route is chosen, the common failure is skipping rehearsal. A new gallery should be run through with the real crew, on a real running order, before it carries a live show. We schedule that as part of the project, because a room that is technically correct can still be slow in practice if the talkback, tally or monitor layout surprises the people using it.

Power and cooling are the other quiet trouble. Racks that were comfortable in an old room can overheat once more equipment is added, and a refit often reveals that the supply was never sized for the load. We check both early, since discovering it on the last day is expensive.

Finally, keep the supplier's engineers and your own crew in the same conversation from the first survey. Decisions made without the people who sit in the room tend to be reversed later.

• Rehearse with the real crew before going live
• Check power and cooling at the survey stage
• Involve operators in layout decisions

For most small broadcasters and streaming channels, I recommend a planned, staged refit, provided the layout is sound and the routing can be documented properly. It keeps the programme schedule intact, spreads the cost, and allows the crew to learn each change as it arrives instead of facing a new room all at once.

I recommend a rebuild when the room itself is working against the people in it, or when growth in cameras and sources is already clear. In those cases patching only postpones a decision that will cost more later.

Autumn is a sensible time to decide either way. Many series are between runs, and a survey now leaves time to plan the work before the busiest weeks of the year.