The Great Interior Design Challenge

This show is mostly enjoyable with some great designers and a fun host with interesting historical facts about British architecture. But one aspect that absolutely makes me cringe is that they introduced a judgement round for the client presentations that just comes across as mean. The contestants aren't professional designers and likely don't know the pitch rules, so the pitch judgement is often really deflating for them. Can't the judges just provide feedback without a public shaming?

I've watched the Great Pottery Throwdown as well as the Sewing Bee. One of the pottery judges is often overwhelmed by emotion by some pieces - and I always see why and sometimes share the emotion. In Sewing Bee, the judges are cooler but clearly very competent both on design and manufacture. Nobody goes to the next round or is dropped without if being clearly explained and fairly obviously right. On Design Challenge, the judging criteria is inconsistent - a designer who delights the client is dropped yet a designer who gets strong criticism goes through to the next round on the specious grounds of the judge's confidence that the designer will learn from their mistakes and do better better next time. With just two judges there is no-one to arbitrate. Here we have the ferociously forceful former The Appprentice Dragon-Lady Kelly Hoppen MBE teamed with rather limp and eager to fit in, Daniel Hopwood. At last they have brought in a third judge - someone who clearly has an independent mind and complete willingness to fully explain her view. The designer who disappoints her clients has just done it again. Without the new third judge, I think she would have won the series. When a waiter asks a group at a table if they have enjoyed their meals, there is much nodding of heads and "Very nice" comments. As soon as the waiter is out of ear-shot, the group erupts with criticism. "Very Nice" is the polite default, not wishing to offend or spoil the occasion. But voiced criticism means real wont-come-here-again disappointment.

British interior designers are so much different than American ones it seems. I like the quirky design from some of the contestants. However, the hosts are terrible at times. Their opinion changes so easily and I am not sure what parameters they judge by. Has anyone noticed how the hosts never change their clothes even though the timelines stretches across 3 days? Weird.

I watched four seasons and was loving it, especially the smart architecture history. But Season 4was a huge disappointment. I knew who the winner would be from the start, and I was right, damn it. Too bad, because 2 better designers lost out to the judges' pet.

First off, I really do enjoy this show. There are a lot of talented and creative designers, and of course some...uh...questionable ones too. Seeing the processes in which they create these spaces from start to finish is intriguing, and inspirational at times.

My issue, however, is with the hosts Sophie Robinson and Daniel Hopwood. One minute they're praising a designer for bullying their client and having a wacky brief, then they're lecturing about the importance of pleasing said clients and working with their concerns. The best looking spaces end up being criticized as being "too safe," when the clients specifically stated they wanted something traditional. Numerous times, they'll give a designer conflicting feedback that they're obviously annoyed by. It just feels like they have no real guidelines in how they judge things, other than personal opinion. Also, they come across as being hilariously pretentious. As another reviewer stated: they'd be perfect templates for Portlandia characters.

If you like interior design shows this is still very entertaining, if you can get past the hosts.