This is going to be a somewhat skewed review as I haven't had time to view all of the episodes, but I fail to see how anyone can think that the owner/architect of the 344 sq ft home in "Hong Kong" is that far outside of "average" - which seems to be the criterion most viewers were looking for in this series. But if the creators of "Home" had sought out "average" architects (rather than "creative" ones) how would they merit a series about those designs, if their creations followed everyone else's cookie-cutter housing?
To me, the Hong Kong architect came across as down-to-earth, practical, and driven. The home which he remodeled had been in his family for generations, and his intention was to keep it in the family, and make it more livable in the process. However high-tech (and yes, expensive) the interior of his tiny home might have been, the view OF its EXTERIOR, and FROM its interior starkly revealed the incredibly average environment which this man's home was crammed into. So to me, this particular episode at least (and "Malibu," from a different perspective) did exactly what another reviewer accused it of failing to do, namely, showing us "...these homes, how they were built and how people actually live in them."
To be fair, I can easily imagine a series such as this swinging in the opposite direction, and focusing more on "special owners" and egos, rather than the pragmatic (but much less 'sexy') transformation of "manufactured" homes, as only one example. The "average" viewer/homeowner could probably have benefited more from this approach, and therefore, yes, perhaps the series as a whole could have been more balanced. But I still valued the passion and insight that I took from parts of "Home."
