Grand Designs, Channel 4, TV review: the self-build homes squeezed into the tiniest spaces
The series continue to be an overarching lesson on architectural trends
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The usual home of the bravest, boldest, maddest couples on TV is, of course, Grand Designs and Kevin McCloud’s show about architectural anomalies was back on Channel 4 last night with a new “where are they now?” series, themed by location.
This one was about living in the city, which meant a selection of self-build homes ingeniously squeezed into the tiniest slivers of free space, spaces which “to many of us just appear as a place to dump a mattress or the odd fridge”.
Tours of the homes Grand Designs first visited over a decade ago made for more of an overarching lesson on architectural trends than the average episode.
For instance, using alternative crop-based materials was seen as cutting edge when architect Sarah Wigglesworth first built her Islington home in the late 1990s, but now everyone’s doing it. Kev was also decent enough to answer a question that often occurs to city dwellers watching Grand Designs; walls on wheels, watery courtyards and foundations on springs are all very well, but what does it matter, when many of us can’t even afford a badly-designed shoebox in the suburbs?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments