The Great Interior Design Challenge

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.

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.

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.

The designers were interesting to watch. Since they were all amateurs I found myself wondering if the people whose rooms were redone had some recourse to compensation if they couldn't stand the finished product.

I loved the host and his explanations of the history of the buildings.

I hated the judging. This again is an example of the worst person winning for no apparent reason. The other finalist did so much better than he did. If that had been my house I would have ripped everything he did out and started over from scratch.

Great show but the background music is so loud, you cannot hear what the presenter is saying