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?

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.

Season 2 designers brought, for the most part, a higher standard of product and ability. Season 3 has been disappointing to say the least. The workmanship and materials have been disappointing. I would not want the inferior workmanship or materials in my home.

This is a wonderful design show! I love all of the design shows, but what is great about this is the competitive aspect and the designers are amateurs. They are learning with u and yet bringing things to the table that are worthy of much more experience. It is also fun Bc the settings alone are its own character! The narrator is an architecture Historian and he teaches u about these gorgeous areas, full of charm and history, that these designers are competing in! Each episode starts off with amateur designers who are competing with each other to make it to the semifinals and then the finals, and win. The designers get a brief from the client, create a presentation board for the owners to approve, and then have three days and £1000 to make it work! As they are completing the rooms, they are given random challenges, give interviews, and talk about the process. The format of the show is light, fun, and very informative! The two hosts are great! They offer wonderful insight, keep the pace going, and aren't there just to complain or add stress to the designers! It's a great watch!

The real star of this show is the diversity and peculiarity of British architecture plus the contestants. You see presumably amateur designers use only 3 days to transform some very interesting looking spaces. I was also blown away by the various types of houses in Britain. It's a small country but clearly with a rich history and culture.

With that said the judges are awful. Their critique is overly pretentious and non sensical. Sometimes they appear to find fault with the design for the sake of finding a fault. Listening to their comments is painful because they nitpick and make fun of the smallest of things.

Overall good show but the judges really need to work on providing constructive criticism.