GRAND DESIGNS: CONSUMER MARKETS and HOME-MAKING Grand Designs Aneta Podkalicka · Esther Milne Jenny Kennedy Grand Designs

Home , Grand Designs

ANETA PODKALICKA, ESTHER MILNE AND JENNY KENNEDY GRAND DESIGNS: CONSUMER MARKETS AND HOME-MAKING Grand Designs Aneta Podkalicka · Esther Milne Jenny Kennedy Grand Designs

Consumer Markets and Home-Making Aneta Podkalicka Esther Milne School of Media, Film and Journalism Department of Media and Monash University Communication Melbourne, VIC, Australia Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, VIC, Australia Jenny Kennedy School of Media and Communication RMIT Melbourne, VIC, Australia

ISBN 978-1-137-57897-6 ISBN 978-1-137-57898-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57898-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018947629

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identifed as the author(s) of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affliations.

Cover image: ozgurdonmaz/Getty Images Cover design: Fatima Jamadar

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Macmillan Publishers Ltd. part of Springer Nature The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom Foreword: ‘Generations of Plimsolls and Adolescent Knees’: The Gleam of Self-building

Raymond Williams once observed that public lectures were a form of mass entertainment in the nineteenth century, lifting the understanding of the popular classes by making knowledge theatrical as well as useful, improving both selves and society along the way (Williams 1978; see also Hewitt 2002; Huang 2016). Meanwhile, the Bildungsroman or ‘improving novel’, tracing the formation of the maturing self in tension with society, was an infuential genre from Germany, whence it spread to many other national lit- eratures. From Goethe to George Eliot, Carlyle to Ruskin, Jane Eyre to Harry Potter, self-building has caught the public imagination over the whole period of modernity. Of course, ‘self-building’ has also come to mean something a bit different since then, but the underlying themes persist in Grand Designs, where people build homes in order to express their true selves. Aneta Podkalicka, Esther Milne and Jenny Kennedy have done scholarship— and popular understanding—a great service by producing this extended account of 21st-century self-building. As they say, Grand Designs defes easy categorisation. It’s not ‘reality TV’ as usually construed, nor is it quite like the well-populated ‘home improvement’ or ‘makeover’ genre, much less the real-estate ‘house- hunter’ type. In some ways, it’s a genre of one, achieving global success without spawning anything quite like itself (except, possibly, George Clarke’s Restoration Man).

v vi FOREWORD: ‘GENERATIONS OF PLIMSOLLS AND ADOLESCENT KNEES’ …

You could even argue that there’s now a ‘Kevin McCloud genre’, given the presenter’s own numerous spin-offs, including the risky and challenging Kevin McCloud: Slumming It (about complex urban systems in Dharavi, Mumbai), Kevin McCloud’s Man Made Home (two series featuring his own ‘men’s shed’) and various related shows, from Kevin McCloud’s Grand Tour (of Europe) to Kevin McCloud’s Escape to the Wild (far-fung self-suffciency and family homes). In fact, McCloud fulfls a role more often occupied by a seemingly endless run of British comedians, who enliven multiple serious subjects without losing the general audience. They can popularise expertise without dumbing down or trivialising the topic. Think about Stephen Fry (Wagner), Joanna Lumley (Russia), Sue Perkins (SE Asia), Tony Robinson (archaeology) and Bill Bailey (evolution). McCloud is no comedian but he too has a wry and acerbic humour and a thought-provoking turn of phrase, quite apart from his personal appeal, which extends even to millennial youth. Vice, for example, jokes that he is ‘the greatest TV host of all time (excluding RuPaul, of course)’, advising readers that ‘reducing Kevin McCloud to a few hun- dred words is impossible’:

Kevin McCloud is the most puzzlingly charismatic TV host ever to grace our screens. The sonorous voice; the dad fashion; the constant, unrepent- ant sass. … Kevin McCloud is a character. (Connaughton 2017)

The authors have now done that puzzle justice. It seems that Grand Designs continues in that grand tradition of turning the improvement of the self into a theatrical narrative. They cite the show’s creator, Daisy Goodwin, who has explained how each show includes ‘risk, drama, jeopardy, caravans and screaming kids’; people watch it for ‘the moment when it’s clear that all the suffering has been worthwhile’. Or, as McCloud himself told a reporter: ‘I still get excited by great stories because I’m frst and foremost a maker of TV programmes. It doesn’t matter how beautiful the building is, if it’s a badly told story I’d be mortifed’ (MailOnline UK, 20 October 2012). In any ‘novelistic format’ (Goodwin), a well-told story needs a plot. McCloud locates its narrative tension in the vicissitudes faced by the families involved: ‘they’d built themselves out of diffculty and into a future’. Maybe the suffering itself pleases, as much as the redemptive resolution. Vice reckons that schadenfreude keeps viewers watching (although FOREWORD: ‘GENERATIONS OF PLIMSOLLS AND ADOLESCENT KNEES’ … vii

McCloud has distanced himself from that term), especially among those who can’t afford a house of any kind: ‘Every fooded underground garage and misplaced load-bearing wall is the millennial’s revenge’:

Kevin McCloud acts as the audience’s proxy—and gives us all permission to indulge our inner cynic, the worst angels of our nature. No house is ever going to work. Each build is a bigger clusterfuck than the last, and every single one is the dumbest idea in the history of architecture. Yes: you’re going to go £400,000 over budget, Simon and Claire from Surrey. Yes: it’s going to rain. …. (Connaughton 2017)

However, as we discover in this book, there’s more to it than that. The BBC’s franchise Changing Rooms more or less sucked dry whatever humour was to be had from having posh designers perpetrate monstrous jokes on the homes of ordinary people in the name of their own sup- posedly superior taste. In contrast, McCloud’s critical style is cutting but never cruel; his interventions, Captain Kirk-style, advise but do not alter. Instead, one of the abiding values of the show is what might be called its uxorious sympathies: it shows couples fnding their own ways to test and emancipate their relationship as well as their project-management skills. It’s not just about taste-making, conspicuous consumption, extravagance, or even about thrift, sustainability and reducing waste, all of which are discussed herein. It’s also a Bildungsroman for couples. Thinking about why the show has not until now attracted a full- length study, the authors hit upon what for me is an inspired insight:

So why hasn’t Grand Designs received the systematic attention that one might expect? … We suggest this invisibility is because it seems, simultaneously, too much and not enough. Grand Designs produces its narrative tension through competing discourses of excess and sustainability, a double logic that in some sense is not amenable to easy classifcation.

‘Too much and not enough’. The book pursues this line of thought by showing how Grand Designs itself, and analysis of it, must aim to keep opposites in tension. You need both textual and political-economy approaches; both cultural studies and the sociology of consumption; both entertainment and academe. To explain its appeal, you might need to follow it from Surrey to Mumbai, and you certainly need to reconcile the spectacular with the everyday, the mundane mainstream with viii FOREWORD: ‘GENERATIONS OF PLIMSOLLS AND ADOLESCENT KNEES’ … sustainable eco-innovation, as each self-building protagonist lives the tension between selves and society. There’s a gleam in Grand Designs. Having read this book, I can identify its source. It’s not so much the gleam in Kevin’s eye; the one that moves me is ingrained in the recycled fooring of the Gloucestershire Treehouse (S17 E1), as documented by our authors:

Also notable—at least for McCloud’s sheer contentment—is the beech foor in the tree house made out of an old basketball fooring, retaining the original coloured demarcation marks of the sports court—and the gleaming fnish resulting from “generations of plimsolls and adolescent knees”.

The satisfying sheen of good material, imaginatively reused, across the generations: here indeed is innovation made accessible to all, popular TV inspiring social change; and inspiring too this careful, judicious and often surprising book, through which home truths continuously gleam.

Perth, Australia John Hartley Curtin University

References Connaughton, M. 2017. Kevin McCloud is, hands down, the greatest TV host of all time (excluding RuPaul, of course). Vice, October 10, https://www. vice.com/en_au/article/evp98p/a-love-letter-to-kevin-mccloud-of-grand- designs. Hewitt, M. 2002. Aspects of Platform Culture in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Nineteenth-Century Prose 29 (1): 1–32. Huang, H. F. 2016. When Urania meets Terpsichore: A Theatrical Turn for Lectures in Early Nineteenth-Century Britain. History of Science 54 (1): 45–70. Williams, R. 1978. The Press and Popular Culture: An Historical Perspective. In Newspaper History from the 17th Century to the Present Day, eds. G. Boyce, J. Curran and P. Wingate, 41–50. London: Constable. Acknowledgements

The idea for the book originated when the three of us were colleagues at the Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University, Melbourne, but the core writing took place at Monash University (Aneta), Swinburne University (Esther) and RMIT (Jenny). This book is a result of our combined enthusiasm, effort and expertise. The empirical research component we draw on was part of a large collaborative project ‘Media and Communication Strategies to Achieve Carbon Reduction Through Renovation of Australia’s Existing Housing’ funded by the CRC for Low Carbon Living Ltd supported by the Cooperative Research Centres program, an Australian Government initiative. We thank our Swinburne collaborators from the project: Kath Hulse, Tomi Winfree, Gavin Melles, and PhD candidates Shae Hunter, Aggeliki Aggeli and Sarah Fiess, as well as our industry partners. Thanks also to Stephen White, CRC LCL Program Leader ‘Engaged Communities’ for support, and also to colleagues from a related CRC project on residential energy effciency, particularly Magnus Moglia and James McGregor. Many thanks to John Hartley (Curtin University) for his keen encouragement at the start of the project, and Peter Lunt (University of Leicester) for a valuable discussion around the public service argument, while the book was drawing to an end. Last but not least, to all the research participants for sharing their ideas with us.

ix Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Production: Visual Style, Narrative Structure and the Viewer Renovator 31

3 Home: Ideas of Home and the Work of Home-Making 51

4 Consumption: The Ethical and the Extravagant 71

5 Innovation: From Represented Novelty to Transformation in Practice 87

6 Markets: Creating Value in Media Industries and Consumption Cultures 107

7 Conclusions 133

Videography 143

Grand Designs Episode List 147

Index 167

xi List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Opening title sequence of Grand Designs 3 Fig. 3.1 A celebration of agricultural heritage (S11 E4) 58 Fig. 4.1 An expanse of sand is navigated by supply trucks between the tides (S11 E3) 80 Fig. 5.1 The black cladded house and imposingly windowless, unconventional design (S17 E4) 89

xiii CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Grand Designs has been on air since it was frst broadcast on British television in April 1999. It is produced by Boundless Productions, a subsidiary of FremantleMedia UK, and screens internationally in more than over 100 territories including Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa and Taiwan. Presented by British designer and writer, Kevin McCloud, the highly successful program follows the progress of homeowners as they embark on design, renovation and building projects at almost always dizzying scales of endeavour. McCloud himself is crucial to the enduring popularity of the series. His closing soliloquies, gentle sense of humour and charisma have become an integral branding strategy for the program. Its market reach expands to multi-platform spin-offs and franchises such as Grand Designs Abroad, Grand Design Trade Secrets, Grand Designs Australia, Grand Designs New Zealand, the Grand Design Magazine and The Grand Design Live Exhibitions held biannually in London and Birmingham since 2008, which have also been held in Sydney and Melbourne. In addition, McCloud has published numerous books such as Kevin McCloud’s Complete Book of Paint and Decorative Techniques (1997), Grand Designs Handbook: The Blueprint for Building Your Dream Home (2006), and Principles of Home: Making a Place to Live (2011), created and presented the program Kevin McCloud’s Man Made Home, and in 2007 launched the crowd-invested company ‘Happiness Architecture Beauty’ (HAB). The aim of this venture is to ‘challenge the way identikit volume housing’ is constructed in the UK by helping people to buy, rent and, in

© The Author(s) 2018 1 A. Podkalicka et al., Grand Designs, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57898-3_1 2 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY some cases, design and ‘self-build’ homes that are ‘sustainable, beautiful and a pleasure to live in’ (HAB 2014). Its frst initiative established a housing estate of 42 homes located in Swindon called ‘The Triangle’ which itself became the subject of a Channel 4 two-part special entitled Kevin’s Grand Design. Our story begins not with McCloud, however, but with the title music that precedes him. Written by British composer and producer David Lowe, whose other scores include the iconic audio branding of the BBC News credits, the Grand Designs distinctive signature theme is a pastoral, joyful mix of choir and strings. No less pastoral, or instantly recognisable, is the title sequence which accompanies the score. It opens on a sweeping view of the countryside inviting us to embark on a tour of the British landscape with the background shifting from country to coast. Aerial shots scale clifftops, zoom in on agricultural felds, skim forests of green and burnished brown. But this is not simply a celebration of the quiet beauty of British scenery. Because now we can see small framed images begin to emerge depicting the energetic construction process. Here is a pallet of timber; there we catch glimpses of site personnel working on a rooftop and beyond are the beautiful buildings we are yet to meet in their various stages of progress. Criss-crossing these images and barely discernible at frst are the faint grid lines of architectural plans. As the music swells, the letters of the title start to come into focus, appearing almost as if being built from the blueprints. And as shown in Fig. 1.1, we now alight from our British tour with the fnal shot of the logo ‘Grand Designs’ fully realised from the plans and occu- pying the foreground of the screen. At the time of writing, the opening title sequence is designed by Matt Lawrence who was tasked with giving the titles a ‘refresh’ in 2016 during his time working with production company Envy. As he explains, ‘my concept was a construction of scenes in a schematic style – much like an architectural drawing – leading into a schematic logo reveal’ (Matt Lawrence, email message to authors, May 27, 2018). Before Lawrence, London-based company Huge Designs was responsible for the credit sequence. What hasn’t changed in nearly 20 years is the signature musical score. Indeed, so evocative and popular is it that Lowe has extended the track into a piece entitled ‘Wedding Bells’ in response to requests by fans of the program to use as their wedding song (Lowe 2014). Although walking down the aisle to Grand Designs might not appeal to everyone, it is compelling evidence of the affective and commercial 1 INTRODUCTION 3

Fig. 1.1 Opening title sequence of Grand Designs poignancy of the program. To a signifcant degree, its narrative tension is produced through distinctions of taste—aesthetic, fnancial and environmental—drawn by both audience and participants. One could also add ‘generic’ to the list of distinctions. Grand Designs moves, not quite effortlessly, between documentary flm, reality programming and property TV, its vernacular both an ode to ethical consumption and a celebration of excess. Illustrating how the program functions as a contested site over questions of taste is, on the one hand, McCloud’s regular insistence that the program is not about property, ‘I never use the P word’ he says (McCloud cited in Collinson 2011), and on the other hand, tabloid media’s almost visceral condemnation of it. The Daily Mail, in particular, persistently features stories of what it calls ‘the Curse of Grand Designs’ (Williams 2013). With a palpable sense of derision, one episode review put it like this:

As the rain washes away their traditionally built walls and the builders insist on eco-unfriendly concrete, their idealism crumbles faster than you can say freethinking, self-suffcient twats. By the middle of January the following year, they are still on a building site and the money’s run out. There’s no option but to sack the builders and do it themselves. Ha. (Daily Mail, n.d.) 4 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

In this book, we explore how narratives of consumption and innovation both shape and are shaped by Grand Designs. We want to capture something of the passion and disquiet this program produces. What it means to be a homeowner amidst economic uncertainties and growing concerns for the environment presents an interesting conundrum for participants and viewers of this genre around the world. Aspirations to design, build and own homes prevail despite fnancial precarity linger- ing from the global fnancial crisis. Grand Designs: Consumer markets and home-making is the frst book-length study to consider the program. Indeed, scholarship specifcally focussed on Grand Designs is relatively sparse; this invisibility, we argue, speaks to its particular generic patterns of consumption and production. In order to redress the gap, this book brings into dialogue a number of critical felds which help to situate the program’s reception, production regimes and symbolic systems of meaning. We now turn to a survey of the critical terrain into which our book intervenes. Of particular concern in this section is to offer some thoughts about what might account for the absence of sustained academic interest in Grand Designs when its cultural impact is undisputed, as an economic player and as an intensely popular pastime. We conclude the introduction with a chapter summary.

Critical Fields This study takes as its scholarly frame a number of distinct yet interrelated disciplinary felds: reality TV; lifestyle media, in particular the programs dealing with property and real estate TV; consumption studies, including ethical and sustainable consumption and the emerging fgure of the moral entrepreneur, thrift and austerity cultures. These areas are vast, of course, but the critical engagement with them is necessary as we seek to forge a meaningful link between media research and the current challenges of contemporary lifestyles. The introductory section charts a critical path through the literature to identify key debates and foci that help to situate Grand Designs.

Reality TV Reality TV, ‘one of the most infuential, controversial, and provoking media genres in contemporary culture’ (Negra et al. 2013, 187) has been a dominant form of television programming for the last 15 years 1 INTRODUCTION 5 although many media scholars look further back to the 1970s, 1950s and earlier for its formal and social underpinnings (e.g. Berenstein 2002; Hatch 2002; McCarthy 2004; Marcus 2014). Over the years, its descrip- tions have included: ‘documentary as diversion’ (Corner 2002); ‘con- frontainment’ (Grindstaff 1995); ‘reality based programming’ (Friedman 2000); ‘docusoap’ (Dovey 2000); the circulation of ‘global formats’ (Holmes and Jermyn 2004); ‘popular factual television’ (Hill 2005); ‘ordinary people engaged in unscripted action and interaction’ (Nabi 2007, 373); ‘the fusion of popular entertainment with a self-conscious claim to the discourse of the real’ (Murray and Ouellette 2004); and ‘possessive individualism, hyper-competitiveness, and commodifcation’ (Miller and Kraidy 2016, 176). Recognising the need to refne these broad defnitions, scholars have attempted to categorise reality TV into subgenres and formats. The infuential typology developed by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette identifes eight groupings: gamedocs, dating programs, makeover/lifestyle, docusoaps, talent contests, court programs, reality sitcoms and celebrity-based programs (Murray and Ouellette 2004, 3–4). Further studies have revised these types using different methods and criteria such as the audience survey material employed by Robin Nabi who dis- tils previous classifcations to identify ‘romance and competition’ as the two fundamental characteristics ‘most salient to audiences when thinking about reality based programming’ (2007, 383). Other researchers look to the formal or representational elements arguing, as Daniel Beck, Lea Hellmueller and Nina Aeschbacher do, it is the performative dimensions that calibrate the genre. Their schema uses plot-like descriptors such as ‘Getting Along in New Settings’, ‘Living History Programs’ and the ‘Making a Dream Come True’ narrative (2012, 1–43). Finally, the political economy and industrial contexts of reality TV have been emphasised to highlight how surveillance or neoliberalism bifurcate and organise the genre. Chad Raphael coins the term ‘Reali-TV’ to illustrate that the economic needs of the industry are inseparable from the manner in which reality is represented through the medium. The point of departure for Raphael is the degree to which a particular format will rely on ‘non-traditional’ or professional modes of labour for ‘story development, writing, performing and camerawork’ and for its production contributions. While some formats use a hybrid of paid and amateur workers (such as The Real World which employs professional camera crew and non-professional actors), others rely almost 6 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY entirely on a non-unionised, unpaid labour force for user generated content (such as America’s Funniest Home Videos) (Raphael 2004). For Mark Andrejevic, a key aspect of reality TV is what he describes as its ‘omnivorous’ quality, an ability to continually expand, to ‘enfold a broad range of social life and redouble it for entertainment and proft’. As evidence, Andrejevic cites the development of the subgenre focussed on ‘work life’ such as The Apprentice where monitoring and surveillance functions to duplicate both work and worksites:

The introduction of the camera redoubles the productivity of such worksites, since willing submission to monitoring generates what might be described as a refexive secondary product. In a complementary gesture, for some reality television cast members, sites of leisure and domesticity enfolded within the reality television embrace become a form of work. (Andrejevic 2014, 50)

In a similar vein, Ouellette and Hay argue that the various formats and categories of reality TV are best understood in terms of neoliberal models of governance where the State rescinds its duty for care and ‘governs at a distance’. As they argue, ‘it is a sign of the times, that, in the absence of public welfare programs, hundreds of thousands of people now apply directly to reality TV programs for housing, affordable healthcare, and other forms of assistance’ (Ouellette and Hay 2008, 4–5). As this outline suggests, conclusive defnitions of the genre are noto- riously diffcult to achieve. Addressing this aspect head on, the comprehensive Routledge guide, A Companion to Reality Television, suggests a search for a defnitive generic description ‘may not be the best way to pinpoint and address what is most salient about the reality phenomenon’ since ‘reality television as a whole revels in generic hybridity and bor- rows extensively from other televisual forms’ (Ouellette 2014, 5). Yet a fascination with generic scope has been a defning feature of reality TV scholarship since its early days. This is not to condemn the enterprise as folly. Rather, it is to recognise that genre itself, the business of classify- ing, reclassifying, rejection and negotiation, is a dialectical and processual interpretive act of cultural signifcance. As Jason Mittell explains in his insightful work on television, ‘we can never know a genre’s meaning in its entirety or arrive at its ultimate defnition because this is not the way genres operate’. Instead, generic ‘defnitions are always partial and con- tingent, emerging out of specifc cultural relations, rather than abstract 1 INTRODUCTION 7 textual ideals’ (Mittell 2001, 16). In other words, identifying the generic properties of reality TV is not merely a starting point as if one could then move onto the ‘serious’ business of analysis. Struggling with the limits and features of reality TV is an ongoing part of understanding its situated social, economic and technological place within a particular regime of representation. If the ‘very ground of reality television’ is ‘the ordinary, the banal, the everyday’ (Negra et al. 2013, 187), then Grand Designs surely does not ft the category. However, thinking through how these terms do or do not apply to the program reveals rich symbolic and material terrain to explore. Why don’t we call the people appearing on the program ordinary? After all, in very many instances the participants are dealing with the everyday labours and sites of domestic life such as bringing up children, making a home and earning a living. And as the program regularly documents, the process of building and renovation always involves tedious, dreary and prosaic periods of transition: the uncomfortable caravan relocation or faulty sewage problem. Yet, of course, a fight from the banal is an intrinsic trope of the program. Perhaps what any generic confusion might tell us is that the ‘the everyday’ is never self-evident but is instead produced, or erased, through complex economic and aesthetic patterns of screen culture. The ‘everyday’ of Grand Designs is markedly different from that of other renovation, makeover or property TV programs such as House Hunters, The Block, Ground Force or Location, Location, Location. In turn, these different programs offer variegated systems for engaging in everyday modes of creating, maintaining and living in domestic spaces. This then brings us to the next area of scholarship that informs our study where we consider the cultural forms of lifestyle media and property TV.

Lifestyle Media and Property TV The term lifestyle media gestures to its prehistory as the genre incorporates formats and content from early talk shows, mid-century women’s magazines, DIY instructional handbooks and nineteenth-century etiquette manuals (Hill 2005; Lewis 2008a). It also speaks to its contemporary articulations through platforms such as YouTube, Pinterest, Instagram, and Facebook. Every day, millions of people post images of their lifestyle consumption practices of plates of food, exercise regimes, fashion choices and domestic renovation adventures. Seeking tips, advice, 8 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY product information and inspiration, these spaces of amateur self cura- tion become fertile ground for advertisers and formal media providers seeking new revenue streams. In 2012, YouTube launched a suite of lifestyle channels to make and broadcast original content in partnership with media companies such as Warner Brothers, FremantleMedia and The Wall Street Journal. As one industry publication notes admiringly:

for programmers targeting the female lifestyle segment, partnering with video portals like YouTube provides a lower cost barrier to entry than the now largely unionized world of basic cable production. (Frankel 2012)

If its form drew from earlier media, its emergence in Britain is also linked to the rapidly evolving, increasingly deregulated broadcasting landscape and to the legislative frameworks of the 1990s. As Rachel Moseley has shown, lifestyle programming arose, in part, as a response to demands on the BBC from the Broadcasting Act that it commissions 25 percent of its television content from independent production companies such as Bazal, creators of Changing Rooms under the Endemol Entertainment Group. At the same time, she argues, the terms and remit of ‘public service broadcasting’ were being transformed:

… in relation to its ethos ‘to inform, educate and entertain’, public service broadcasting now extends to the care of the self, the home and the garden, addressing its audience through a combination of consumer competence and do-it-yourself-on-a-shoestring. (Moseley 2000, 301)

Tensions between informing, educating and entertaining, what David Bell and Joanne Hollows call the ‘Reithian Bargain’ (in reference to Lord Reith establishing these principles in public service broadcasting), help to situate lifestyle media. Increasingly blurring the boundaries between these, perhaps formerly, distinct cultural objectives, lifestyle programming is underpinned by the paradox that despite claims about the pre- dictability of formatting and franchise media, commercial success is often uncertain (Bell and Hollows 2005, 10). The proftability of the UK program Top Gear, for example, has not been matched in the USA. With a similar focus on the interrelation between information, education and entertainment, Annette Hill defnes lifestyle programming as ‘the involvement of ordinary people and their ordinary leisure interests (gardening, cookery, fashion, home improvement) with experts who 1 INTRODUCTION 9 transform the ordinary into the extraordinary’ (Hill 2005, 29). Here, Hill points to three crucial elements: everyday people, expert guides and the makeover or reveal, highlighting the ways in which these constitu- ent parts are always in a dialectical relation. Interactions between experts and those they guide through transformation of body or property create much of the narrative drive of lifestyle media. From moments of instruction gone wrong to instances of transcendent success, the expert, participant and audience are in constant dialogue. Charlotte Brunsdon calls this the ‘double audience structure’ of lifestyle programming which refers to:

an internal audience who knows the person or place transformed, and to whom the transformation is a surprise, and the external television-viewing audience, both superintended by the television presenters and experts who have effected the transformation. For without the internal audience to express shock or joy or astonishment, how would we, the external audience, understand the emotional signifcance of what we see? (Brunsdon 2003, 10–11)

Angela Smith takes up this notion of the ‘double audience structure’ in the context of property TV but refnes the expert fgure to include that of the host. Despite opportunities for the lifestyle format to offer representation of everyday people, the expert host ‘is always allowed the fnal word’ (Smith 2010, 192) and becomes a site through which particular regimes of taste and class are reproduced. Drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu, scholars have explored how the experts of lifestyle media operate as ‘cultural intermediaries’ regulat- ing taste and personal identity particularly in relation to the representation of consumption. As Tania Lewis writes ‘a key feature of reality television experts … is the role they play in mediating and naturalizing market-based social relations and consumerist modes of citizenship’ (Lewis 2014, 408). Being mediated is not always a pleasant experience. David Giles analyses the discursive frameworks governing the expert host of property TV and fnds that ‘participants are ruthlessly mocked for their stylistic blunders’ (Giles 2002, 607). Similarly, Deborah Philips argues that despite their claims to democratise taste, makeover programs ‘serve to confrm the superior knowledge and cultural capital of the designated expert’ (Philips 2005, 213). Others are more hopeful about the fssures of resistance offered by the dynamic between host, participants and audience. Brenda Weber shows how a ‘public sphere critique 10 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY of authorities on makeover shows predominate’ in online fan forums where style advisors, such as those in What not to Wear, are subjected to the sorts of criticism they themselves offer to program participants (Weber 2009, 117–118). And Beverley Skeggs and Helen Wood offer an intriguing corrective to the dominance of neoliberalism and governance interpretations by insisting on the political agency of affect to intervene in social and institutional settings. Their empirical data show the degree to which ideas of instruction or governmentality are thwarted by participants in a ‘recalcitrant rejection of “advice”—not necessarily bearing any connection to the neoliberal “moral of the story”’ (Skeggs and Wood 2012, 155). We return to the function of the expert host framed as ‘moral entrepreneurship’ in our discussions of ethical consumption. For Naomi Stead and Morgan Richards, McCloud foregoes the overtly instructive or censorious presence of many lifestyle TV hosts. This doesn’t mean he withholds expert advice entirely but his interventions operate subtly and implicitly through the way he expresses ‘support of a particular ethos of building’ together with his ‘questions to the participants and the aspects of the building he focuses on’ (Stead and Richards 2014, 107). Examining the ways in which the program mediates taste and aesthetics, the authors make the interesting observation that the architectural community have been ‘somewhat begrudging’ in recognising the popularity of Grand Designs, demonstrating that the ‘familiar policing of high/low culture is evident in criticism from architects that television essentially “dumbs down” or oversimplifes and trivialises architecture’ (105). In the pages of publications such as The Architects’ Journal and Building Design, their point is borne out by the tenor of many articles where, for example, a lecturer in architecture upbraids his students with the exhortation to ‘stop watching Grand Designs’ warning that ‘you need to be extraordinarily quick-witted and intelligent to achieve an insightful critique on the relevance of such programmes to the architectural profession’ (Architects’ Journal 2014, 44). In another piece, the author coins the term ‘The McCloud Clause’ which is ‘a planning loophole that allows huge one-off luxury homes on green belt land, as long as they appear on Grand Designs’ (Martin 2011, 50). While these derisive comments do not represent the reception of the program by the wider architectural community, a number of whom have written favourably of the HAB project (Hunter 2013), they do, once again, raise questions about taste, distinction and, as we argue, the affective reactions the program engenders. 1 INTRODUCTION 11

Consumption and Ethics Perhaps it seems counterintuitive to trace a line of enquiry from reality TV, though lifestyle media and arrive at political, green or ethical consumption. After all, as Brenda Weber points out these formats are regularly decried as ‘vehicles for rampant consumerism and narcissistic self-absorption’ (Weber 2009, 226). However, as Weber and others also argue, the heterogeneous viewing publics produced in and around lifestyle media offer signifcant tools for thinking about how new cultural identities and patterns of sociality emerge to provide alternative modes of citizenship. Of course, one reading of this claim would simply note that choice is the beating heart of market logic. It matters little the specifc nature of that choice just that it is in abundance and is freely made; the rhetoric of choice reproduces and shores up neoliberal forms of governmentality. In the trenchant words of Ouellette and Hay: at ‘a time when privatization, personal responsibility, and consumer choice are promoted as the best way to govern liberal capitalist democracies, reality TV shows us how to conduct and “empower” ourselves as enterprising citizens’ (Ouellette and Hay 2008, 2). The rejoinder to such observations has been to highlight that even as conservative discourses of autonomous market power surface through lifestyle media, a countervailing ‘ethicalization’ comes to the fore in which, as Lewis explains, lifestyle consumption becomes ‘a site through which ordinary people invest in ethical, social and civic concerns’ (Lewis 2008b, 228). Where these opposing views are evident in the literature on lifestyle media, similar tensions arise as writers grapple with ethical consumption in its broader institutional and geopolitical settings. On the one hand, we have those such as sociologist and philosopher Zygmunt Bauman for whom consumer markets function as ‘prime factories of social inequality’ and consumer activism forms part of a landscape of political apathy, signalling a withdrawal from and danger to democratic principles:

the void left behind by citizens massively retreating from the extant political battlefelds is, to the acclaim of some enthusiastic observers of new trends, flled by ostentatiously non-partisan and altogether un-political ‘consumer activism’ … the consumerist critique of representative democracy is fundamentally an anti-democratic one. It is based on the premise that unelected individuals who possess a lofty moral purpose have a greater right to act on the public’s behalf than politicians elected. (Bauman 2008, 141) 12 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

And then, on the other hand are arguments which exemplify the enthusiasm Bauman denounces, such as that from political scientist Michele Micheletti who argues ‘consumption and capitalism play a moral force globally’ since ‘anti-slavery and anti-sweatshop causes’ show ‘how market transactions can teach obligations of justice’ (Micheletti 2008, 121–136). Perhaps part of the problem with understanding ethical consumption as a discursive feld, this constant back and forth pull of the argument, is sutured into its very fabric. In other words, there is an inbuilt tension or what Jo Littler calls a ‘crisis’, operating. As she explains,

ethical consumption should not need to be there; the wider system of consumption should be “ethical”. The fact that this sphere has to label itself as such on some level represents a crisis in the imagined and practised political teleology of production and consumption. (Littler 2009, 14)

If the parameters of the debate just sketched speak to a radical dispar- ity in their oppositional force, this is matched by the sheer breadth and diversity of activities, groups, movements, beliefs, discourses and actions which collect under the moniker of ‘ethical consumption’. As many scholars have noted, the range of different terms used—including political consumption green consciousness, radical consumption, consumer activism, conscience consumption, and anti-consumerism—demonstrates how the feld, if it can even be denoted as such, does not share ‘a coher- ent set of politics or values’ or ‘a defned set of practices’ (Lewis and Potter 2011, 4). To convey something of the favour of these sometimes interrelated, other times distinct and often contradictory cultural expressions, a representative list could comprise: slow food movements, Fair Trade products, consumer boycotts, Buy Nothing Days, Corporate Social Responsibility, Animal Rights, reclaimed timber, consumer watchdog organisations, resource sharing through sites such as Freecycle, Craigslist or Gumtree, smart mobs, genetically modifed food labelling, anti-sweatshop movements, brand hacking, Ad Busters, the ‘McLibel case’, Eco tourism, DIY and makers movements with practices of recycling, re-use and repair such as those portrayed in Grand Designs and Kevin McCloud’s Man Made Home. As will be gleaned from this list, not only is it diffcult to identify commonalities, these various instances could actually operate in contradictory ways. As Littler explains, buying ‘Fair Trade wine from Chile or 1 INTRODUCTION 13

Australia contradicts the imperative of “buying local” to save food miles if you live in Europe’ (Littler 2011, 28). Moreover, consumer activism applauded in one arena might attract legal or commercial sanctions in another. The increasingly popular uses of social media parody or fake accounts targeting corporate misconduct offer a salient instance. The so-called ‘PR disasters’ of transnational companies such as BP, Shell and Qantas have made world headlines as the brunt of ever-escalating feats of communication subterfuge (Milne 2013). In identifying the often intractable debates raised by ethical consumption, a number of scholars have argued that media and cultural studies face highly particularised problems in navigating or, in some cases simply ignoring, the terrain. The argument can be extended to meanings and the politics of thrift cultures. According to Matthew Hilton, part of the problem lies with the ways in which cultural studies and social theory critically and materially locate consumption. ‘For the focus on the cultures of consumption’ he writes ‘has not been on bread and cheese, but on motor scooters and televisions, department stores and advertising hoardings, movies and clothing, all objects which are either extremely visual … or which add to the general proliferation of images and brands said to dominate contemporary life’ (Hilton 2008, 90). The actual lived, ordinary experience of the consumer is overlooked and then made to serve a ‘higher ideological end’ namely ‘to refect on the banality of mass consumption generally’ in the Marxist/Frankfurt School tradition. Similarly, cultural studies may actually ‘celebrate the profundity of agency in the midst of such seeming banality’. It is within this context that Hilton explores the ‘practically ordinary’ of consumerism and how this enables signifcant forms of citizenship through the history of consumer watchdog organisations. Product research and testing groups such as the Consumers’ Research and the Consumers Union formed during the 1920s in the USA together with organisations begun in the 1960s and 1970s like the UK-based Consumers’ Association, and the International Organisation of Consumers Unions brings the micropolitics of domestic safety, its food- stuffs, cars and electrics, into the public domain (Hilton 2008, 91). Similarly, Sam Binkley and Jo Littler argue that the banality of consumption is central to the ways in which cultural studies occupy an uneasy relationship with forms of consumer activism and explain why it has been reticent to examine the feld. In the editorial for a special issue of the journal Cultural Studies dedicated to a ‘critical encounter with anti-consumerism’, Binkley and Littler write: 14 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Long championing mundane consumption as always-already radical, some strands of cultural studies have seemed reluctant to embrace anti- consumerism as a popular source of opposition, as this would seem to imply a return to the stereotyped totalizations of its age-old nemesis: the mass culture critics and the Frankfurt School. (Binkley and Littler 2008, 520)

For Nick Couldry, Sonia Livingstone and Tim Markham, it’s not that the feld of media or cultural studies have overlooked the political potential of consumption rather it is that media itself as a form of consumption has been elided. With a particular emphasis on uncoupling the citizen/ consumer divide, in which the consumer is ‘located within the domain of the market, distinct from that of the state and its citizens’ (Soper and Trentmann 2008, 1), the authors argue the unique ‘double articulation’ of media complicates the ways in which it is perceived within consumption studies. Media operate as both material and symbolic object, technological forms that are consumed, worn, carried, displayed (phone or plasma TV) and objects through which narratives and symbols are consumed (reality TV or the news). In general, they argue, studies of consumption fnd it diffcult to comprehend or reconcile both uses of media objects preferring instead to privilege its informational aspect (Couldry et al. 2008; see also Livingstone 2007). Extending arguments about the impact that material forms of media have on the environment is the work of Maxwell and Miller in Greening the Media which attempts to dispel the symbolic power or ‘enchantment’ which imbues media technologies by bringing to light the disastrous effects of e-waste (Maxwell and Miller 2012). If you wanted a spectacular example of media’s double articulation, as both symbol and object, you couldn’t get much better than Gogglebox. This top rating UK and Australian observational reality TV program flms people in their homes watching television and discussing the content. Produced by Channel 4 in the UK, it is usually scheduled imme- diately after Grand Designs; the participants of Gogglebox are sometimes forthright in their commentary of McCloud and the program. Asked about the kinds of TV on which they disagree, one couple, Kate and Graham, have the following exchange:

Kate: I don’t like Kevin McCloud, Graham loves Kevin McCloud, he’s got a bromance crush on Kevin McCloud. Graham: He’s my hero. 1 INTRODUCTION 15

Kate: Graham would leave me for Kevin McCloud and his overbudgetness. He buys Grand Designs magazine every month, he’s got all the DVDs. Graham: I haven’t got all the DVDs just the frst few. Kate: It’s the same show every week … It always goes over budget; they’ve always got pretentious names. She’s always the project manager and is crap at it; the glass never arrives on time; and she always ends up preg- nant. More bloody money than sense the lot of them. And then Kevin thinks it’s a triumph. Every single time. ‘It’s a triumph’. Oh shut up you smug arse. (Hazeley et al. 2014, 141–142)

Moral Entrepreneurship Earlier we noted that the expert host of lifestyle media is a cultural intermediary translating, representing and modelling taste and patterns of consumption. Their ‘principal role’, explains Guy Redden, is to ‘guide the ordinary person through a series of consumer choices in order to achieve a particular goal, typically some kind of breakthrough in personal experience or appearance of domestic space’. Crucial to this function is the capacity to frame consumption as a moral act. As Redden puts it ‘the makeover reproduces a central tenet of commercialism … consumption leads to improved life experience. This is not simply a narrative tendency, but constitutes a moral vision of consumption as a right action leading to improvement’ (Redden 2007, 152). Within the cultures of ethical consumption, the lifestyle host as ‘moral entrepreneur’ emerges as a signif- icant fgure who ‘makes explicit the relationship between consumption and morality’ (Hollows and Jones 2010, 308). This phenomenon is more broadly referred to as the ‘advocacy’, ‘philanthropy’ or ‘activism’ work carried out by celebrities (Brockington 2015). We conclude this section with a look at moral entrepreneurship and the connections to thrift and austerity cultures as a context for a brief discussion about why Grand Designs, as both a media product and an industry, seems relatively under researched—particularly within those felds we have reviewed and from which one would expect interest to have emerged. Drawing on Jamie Oliver as a case study, Joanne Hollows and Steve Jones examine the industry and policy settings in which Oliver functions as an entrepreneur in his success at the restaurant business and in his ability ‘to give focus and leadership to debates about the place of cuisine within national life’ (Hollows and Jones 2010, 308). Celebrity is intensely bound 16 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY to the landscapes and discursive production of the moral entrepreneur; in some cases, celebrity is actually achieved through these ethical acts while in other situations, the ‘celebrity activist’ (Fuqua 2011) deploys their cultural capital to achieve ethical outcomes. These are not mutually exclu- sive categories because celebrity itself is a malleable, context-dependent, signifying practice. This means in many situations the ‘moral entrepreneur’ needs to fght against their celebrity status to achieve the result which celebrity makes a possibility in the frst place. Again, Jamie Oliver presents a case in point where the popularity of his culinary programs Jamie’s School Dinners and Jamie’s Ministry of Food received widespread approval because he was not seen as driven by economic need: ‘Jamie’s moral investment is independent of and even runs counter to, his celebrity and wealth’ (Hollows and Jones 2010, 319). As the term ‘entrepreneur’ suggests, this fgure operates by generating capital in a particular economic feld that is used to increase, diversify and create further markets. Both materially and symbolically, the moral entrepreneur as lifestyle host models the possibility of ethical consumption and the value of social innovation as a market-based solution for issues such as health, diet, education and the environment. Seen in this light, for many commentators the celebrity as moral entrepreneur is a function of neoliberal modes of governance. Chris Rojek defnes ‘celanthropy’ as ‘the transformation of causes into cause celebres via the public involvement of celebrities’ which ‘is striking for the subtle shift in devolving the responsibilities of the state onto the shoulders of the citizens’ (Rojek 2014, 127). Similarly, focussing on Brad Pitt and the Make it Right campaign Joy Fuqua suggests Pitt’s celebrity ‘becomes a form of neoliberal citizenship showing that social problems can be solved by individual innovation and the capacity to generate capital’ (Fuqua 2011, 193; see also Goodman and Littler 2013). While Hollows and Jones draw from the theoretical framework developed by Ouellette and Hay, covered by us above, on how reality TV assumes the role of the state in providing citizen-consumers with care, assistance or public services, they distinguish between the USA and British national contexts. Jamie’s Ministry of Food doesn’t seek to replace the state, but it does represent the Government as ‘out of touch’ and expresses ‘anti- statism’ which sees the ‘state’s role as reactive to ideas for change that can only come from those outside it, those equipped with a set of moral terms – community, empowerment, civic responsibility – over which the state can no longer claim a monopoly’ (Hollows and Jones 2010, 320). 1 INTRODUCTION 17

The notion of the moral entrepreneur has clear applicability to McCloud, and indeed, his HAB project has been compared to the social enterprises of Jamie Oliver (Baillieu and Hurst 2008). However, a neoliberalist critique might not be the only frame through which to understand the role of the expert host within ethical consumption, and for social change more generally. Kate Soper’s idea of ‘alternative hedonism’ presents one such perspective in which she questions purely economic explanations for consumer identity that focus on production regimes and deregulated markets. Consumption becomes a ‘potential site for political agency’ through the ways in which pleasure is felt by ‘committing to a more socially accountable mode of consumption’ (Soper 2008, 196–199). In Chapter 5, we discuss how the expert host and expertise more generally are understood as drivers for innovation through popular education. Since celebrity is ineluctably tied to the material and discursive patterns of consumption, one might ask what happens to this fgure under conditions of austerity? In the wake of the global fnancial crisis, how is ‘recessionary culture’ playing out on the screen and in the home? Hannah Hamad argues that the identity of the lifestyle host needs to be fexible in order to respond to the post-2008 landscape, producing new modes of symbolic consumption. The ‘gleefully consumerist pre-recession celebrity is appositely reattuned to the transformed economic environment, in an ostensible spirit of responsible recessionary citizenship’ (Hamad 2013, 245). Hamad cites as an example the well-known British lifestyle host, Kirstie Alsop, whose brand has expanded from property TV (co-host of Location, Location, Location) into markets about thrift via her program Kirstie’s Handmade Britain. Matters of class intervene as Alsop’s own affuent background provides the social and economic conditions within which she is able to extol strategies of thrift not available to those without such systems of support (Hamad 2013, 247). This represents a curious signifying chain where ‘thrift’ and ‘luxury’ become coexist- ent, a double logic we pursue in relation to Grand Designs throughout the book. Bell and Hollows make a similar argument about lifestyle chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall by showing how his campaign to encourage ethical chicken farming refuses to acknowledge the impact that economic circumstances might make in changing behaviour. Such a tendency can be extrapolated to understand the wider discursive feld of ethical consumption where ‘the “choice” to consume “ethically” not only relies on a level of fnancial resources’ but is also in ‘confict with other kinds of 18 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY ethical dispositions of everyday consumption practices’ (2011, 189). For these authors, a key problem with representations of ethical consumption is that it may ‘render certain kinds of “ethics” as “more ethical”’ than others:

Because some forms of ethical commitment are less easy to capitalise on than others (for example, the caring work which has been naturalised as feminine), the forms of ethical consumption championed by Fearnley- Whittingstall run the risk of creating distinctions between consumers we recognise as ‘ethical’ and those whose ethics either remain invisible or are rendered ‘unethical’. (Bell and Hollows 2011, 189)

While Frances Bonner also reads fgures such as Oliver and Fearnley- Whittingstall as cultural intermediaries shaping and conveying taste based on class, she does allow that they bring about a ‘degree of disarticulation of continually escalating consumption’, particularly in relation to ‘water- wise gardening’. However, these objectives are sometimes tempered by the commercial imperatives of the makeover genre (Bonner 2011). Rebecca Bramall engages with these tensions in her work on the history and cultural politics of austerity narratives. For many on the left, austerity rhetoric and policy formation are tied inescapably to funding cuts. In 2014, for example, the Australian Conservative Government announced ‘the end of entitlement’ as it slashed welfare budgets. The power and injustice wrought by this discursive strategy seems unde- niable. Yet at the same time, modes of anti-consumerism, or what has been called ‘austerity chic’, open up pathways for new forms of activism. Bramall offers a nuanced reading of the often contradictory and competing social, symbolic and economic uses to which austerity is put. In particular, she identifes how arguments, often from the left around class distinction, ignore what people are actually doing in their everyday lives and their active consumption choices. When these practices are acknowledged, the argument becomes one of class where ‘only the middle class can materially afford to accommodate (or to desire) austerity’ (Bramall 2013, 34), a proposition that is regularly expressed in the literature surveyed above and interestingly appears repeatedly in tabloid reactions to modes of ethical consumption practised through lifestyle media (see e.g., Jones 2011). Against these positions, Bramall urges us to ‘take emergent desire for austerity seriously’ by focussing on its many and 1 INTRODUCTION 19 varied applications, declaring it is ‘time for left politics to engage with these other meanings’ in particular those articulated by anti-consumerist movements (Bramall 2013, 35). Bramall presents a resonant point on which to conclude our discussion of the critical literature. Without dispensing entirely with a critique of neoliberalism as a theoretical lens through which to understand lifestyle media and the broad feld of ethical consumption, there is rich potential for what Bramall offers. In some senses, it is close to Kim Humphery’s idea of ‘generative social analysis’ (Humphery 2010, 13–14). Although governmentality tells us a lot about how policy settings reproduce formations of inequity, it is not very good at picking up on other desires, habits, feelings and motivations driving media culture. Affect in its capacity to make us think and act, as cogently argued by Skeggs and Wood (2012), helps render visible some of these other strands. This is not to ignore the market or, for that matter, its own affective relations in producing circuits of value and meaning. Markets are imbued with symbols and social interactions (Zelizer 2013), and textual systems with practices within market arrangements (Callon 1998). Surveyed above then is the broad framework for making sense of the narratives of consumer markets and home-making produced through Grand Designs and its mediascapes.

Grand Designs as Critical Object of Study So why hasn’t Grand Designs received the systematic attention that one might expect from felds interested in lifestyle media, property TV, moral entrepreneurship or ethical consumption? Some studies do cite the program, but these are marginal references, and those that deal with it in any detail have been noted (e.g. Stead and Richards 2014). We suggest this invisibility is because it seems, simultaneously, too much and not enough. As mentioned, Grand Designs produces its narrative tension through competing discourses of excess and sustainability, a double logic that in some sense is not amenable to easy classifcation and hence it falls from the view of scholars as their desired object of study within a particular academic feld. So, those areas interested in the ‘ordinary’ of consumption studies or lifestyle media, the ‘mundanity of its concerns’ as Bonner puts it (Bonner 2003, 3), may fnd in the program evidence of the spectacular rather than the everyday. This despite the fact that not 20 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY only do representations of domestic life and labour appear on the screen but millions of people internationally participate in the very ordinary practices of its franchises: watching the program, buying the books and visiting its exhibitions. Conversely, for disciplines examining symbolic and material explorations of sustainable living, Grand Designs is viewed as, perhaps, too mainstream when what is sought for the unit of analysis are specifc instances of domestic and industrial environmental activity as a subgenre of the lifestyle TV format. In some cases, scholars have almost willed this critical object into being because the success of the particular form is yet to be determined. Allon, for example, suggests the ‘eco-makeover’ is ‘one of the most popular formats of lifestyle television programming’ (Allon 2011, 203), but the programs she cites have, in most cases, lasted only one or two seasons. Likewise, Lyn Thomas identifes the emergence of what she terms ‘eco-reality’, a subgenre of lifestyle media that is ‘directly concerned with environmental issues’ (Thomas 2008, 685). Unfortunately, one of her case studies The Real Good Life was discontinued after two weeks on air and No Waste Like Home ran for one season only. This is not a refection on the widespread embrace of ethical consumption in popular culture which, as Allon rightly notes, is now ‘part of ordinary language’ (Allon 2011, 205). Moreover, as Lewis has shown mainstream lifestyle media seems increasingly interested in exploring ‘conscience consumption’ through themed episodes of existing programs (Lewis 2008b, 230). However, as a number of commentators have remarked, lifestyle TV programs whose specifc focus is on green issues have not made a signifcant impact on ratings (Bonner 2011, 233; Bell and Hollows 2011, 190). That the ‘eco-makeover’ genre has failed to gain discursive traction could speak to the utility of theoretical frames in which environmentally responsible living habits are not couched in didactic or ‘sanctimonious’ terms (Littler 2009)—something we explore further in Chapter 5. What this suggests to us is an illustration of the fascinating specifcity of TV formats; not everything works as a reality show in the market, to put it bluntly. But Channel 4 with its statutory remit of content innovation has struck gold. Finally, in noting the lack of sustained analyses of Grand Designs, we recognise the substantial research that has been accomplished across these different but interrelated terrains. Yet our survey has opened up an intriguing critical space which Grand Designs: Consumer markets and home-making will traverse, to examine the crucial juncture of television, material culture and consumption today. 1 INTRODUCTION 21

The Approach and Aims of the Book We have felt strongly about writing a book that pushes beyond the agenda of traditional media studies based either on a close textual analysis or on the political-economy reading of industrial media structures and dynamics (see Couldry 2004). These studies provide valued inspiration but perhaps what’s needed is an integrated approach to studying cultural and media objects, their meanings and especially the quotidian workings in society. In his book Re-inventing Media, Graeme Turner notes that much of the debate:

about the social function of reality TV is generated by readings of the texts themselves, with rather less in the way of research into how these texts are understood and/or appropriated into their audiences’ everyday lives. However, it is the latter we need to understand better if we are to develop a stronger sense of the social function of this kind of programming and the versions of personhood it appears to recommend. (2016, 114–115)

Grand Designs: Consumer markets and home-making is about narrative logics in the series and the uses of the program in everyday life. The book discusses the British series in dialogue with the empirical ‘people-focused’ research conducted with Australian home renovators and practitioners such as architects, designers and builders. The research, funded by the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, and conducted by two of the book authors, engaged a broad group of home renovators and practitioners to probe into the role of media, across the spectrum of traditional, digital and social media, on home renovation and home-making practices. We were keen to fnd out what building sector practitioners think of property TV in general as they deal with clients or go about sourcing materials. So we brought together carpenters, plumbers, plasterers, designers and architects. Some of these practitioners specialised in a certain type of renovation or space, for example ‘house interior’ or ‘bathroom’. Others were training for qualifcations in sustainability or environmental impact design. Specifcally, we asked how Grand Designs and other property or lifestyle programming might fgure in their design and implementation practice, does it daunt or inspire? The qualitative research involved focus groups with home renovators from across Melbourne who were in the middle of renovation, or those who had completed one within the last three years (n. 5); focus 22 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY groups with building practitioners (n. 2); a national online survey with home renovators (n. 156); in addition to in-depth interviews with industry experts including designers, architects, local council sustainability offcers, construction consultants and media producers (n. 9) (for further details, see Podkalicka and Milne 2017). In this study, Grand Designs (UK) emerged as a critical site for Australian home renovators and practitioners alike. For people imagining or attempting a building project, Grand Designs was mentioned repeatedly as both a symbolic and material resource. Our research participants have been in most cases de-identifed, unless they requested otherwise. In these cases, the discussions are referenced as citations. It’s important to note that our empirical research based on qualitative interviews, group discussions and the small scale online survey is not geared towards capturing the ‘objective reality out there’—neither is it representative of all home renovators in Australia (McKee 2001; Bowles 2006). But we hope that our thematic approach interwoven with the empirical material makes the book stronger precisely thanks to the articulation with the series’ contexts of consumption and social impacts on the citizen-consumers in the audience—in ways put forward by Turner (see also Pertierra and Turner 2013). Grand Designs is a rich media text for understanding contemporary discourses on consumption and home-making. We conducted a close reading of over 190 hours of Grand Designs episodes in preparing this book and watched many more hours of the series spin-offs and comparative programs. We critically read each episode of the program for narrative logics on lifestyle, taste, personhood, ethical consumption, thrift, materialism, waste, sustainability, house-markets, production and innovation. Through this thematic analysis, we selected the concrete examples used in the following chapters to illustrate and enliven our discussions of how the program situates and shapes popular imagination and the practice of home-making. The combination of the textual, thematic analysis and human research is useful for bringing to the fore the structure and the production of themes in Grand Designs such as ‘consumption’ or ‘innovation’, and importantly their context-specifc meanings—and how they bear on people’s perceptions and experiences of creating a home at a particular place and point in time. We can thus put fesh on the bones of Ben Highmore’s observation that ‘the idealised house’, imagined in 1 INTRODUCTION 23 lifestyle magazines and ‘aspirational DIY television programs such as Changing Rooms (BBC, 1996–2004) and Grand Designs (Channel 4, 1999–ongoing) (…) not only shapes our imagination; it also shapes our real homes’ (2014, 9–10). This integrative approach situates our book somewhere in between cultural and media studies and the sociology of consumption and means that a book with a comprehensive encyclopaedia-type account for Grand Designs over its whole life span (and now also various cultural versions) remains to be written for the Grand Designs fans around the world. Channel 4 and of course Wikipedia contain some of the factual content information and were useful for us as a catalogue of episodes that has been produced since its inception. Finally, the task of writing an academic book about a program with a great international fandom is both exciting and also daunting. When frst hearing about our project, one of our colleagues asked: ‘Why write a book about Grand Designs’? This provocation, as we interpreted it, was pointed at the academic style that runs the risk of turning entertaining, iconic cultural objects such as Grand Designs into impenetrable texts shelved in university libraries for a limited readership. Throughout this project, we have been regularly reminded of the Grand Designs’ extensive international fan base. As we’ll discuss, its social media visibility is created by fans sites and par- odies working alongside offcial Grand Designs accounts across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. At the personal level, a lot of our own friends and colleagues in Australia have been fans of the program, with many having watched all seasons with partners and family or re-watched particular episodes. Some have imagined their own homes based on the projects they have watched and enjoyed. Others have appreciated the show’s entertainment value more than anything else. We have thus attempted to adopt an approachable style that uses thematic chapters with many concrete examples from the series and its associated programs, which can hopefully appeal to the broad international readership—beyond students of cultural and media studies. Throughout the book, we discuss audience ratings across international markets and these are drawn from a variety of sources including the UK-based Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB); the Australian TV audience measurement company, OzTAM; Annual Reports of the relevant television broadcasting services together with industry surveys and news items. 24 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Book Outline Mapping the critical literature demonstrates that Grand Designs functions in a highly distinctive fashion, part documentary flm, part makeover program, part sustainability story. Our second chapter, Production, places these generic features within their industrial contexts by looking at some of the aesthetic and commercial choices made by its creators during the early days. Many of these design decisions became signature elements of the Grand Designs identity and we map these through the program’s format, style and genre, identifying its dramatic arc and episodic structure. As familiar as McCloud’s opening monologue are ‘the fnals’, those sweeping cinematic shots that reveal the completed builds. This chapter goes behind the screen to explore how the camera is used by some of the creative practitioners of the program. We also introduce the fgure of the ‘viewer-renovator’ to capture how audiences use the program in material and symbolic patterns of engagement. As our introduction has demonstrated, Grand Designs operates as a powerful discursive and material site and Chapter 3, ‘Home’, extends the focus by examining the symbolic values and practices of home-making in Grand Designs. This chapter argues that homes are positioned in Grand Designs as lifestyle ‘vehicles’. The architectural form is certainly important in the program; however, it is the human stories of the owners and affect that is mobilised as a narrative driver through refexive interview- ing and dramatic narration. While much emotional and physical labour is invisible in Grand Designs compared to other property TV programs, this chapter demonstrates how it is no less dramatic. Thinking about the ways in which the desires of the homeowner might clash with wider economic forces raises questions about the circulation of material goods, the labour by which they are produced and the structures through which they are consumed. Chapter 4, ‘Consumption’, is interested in how consumption is represented in the program domestically and how this relates to values and notions of homeownership, taste, personhood and fnancial security. Central to our argument is the degree to which ethical consumption operates in and through lifestyle media. We explore representations of green, sustainable and thrifty consumption as a recognised but conficted presence in Grand Designs, where the imperative to minimise the cost of the build co-exists with examples of extravagance, ineffciency and waste. Extending ideas of the expert host, Chapter 5, ‘Innovation’, examines the ideas and practices of experimentation and innovation as embedded 1 INTRODUCTION 25 within Grand Designs. The focus on innovation spans diverse felds and scales of social practice central to creating a desirable home and to the program’s pedagogical premise, including how novel materials, methods, and the processes of problem-solving are represented, and the way professional expertise converges with amateur skills leading to a result that is perhaps better than originally imagined. Innovation and change is arguably behind Grand Designs’ potential to inspire audiences to re-imagine the meaning of a perfect home and to shape design practices. The chapter traverses these dimensions and argues that the attention to innovation can usefully explain some of the tensions and also social uses of the program, which is explored more in the following chapter. In the chapter, ‘Markets’, we examine how the multi-platform environments of Grand Designs create new market confgurations. Program franchising and branding increase and diversify audiences through spin- offs such as Grand Designs Abroad and Grand Designs Trade Secrets; publications including the Grand Design Magazine and host McCloud’s book series; and The Grand Design Live Exhibitions. Measuring audience engagement is also explored in relation to traditional ratings and new patterns of spectatorship such as second screen, social TV, streaming services and video on demand. Having plotted the media landscape of viewer habits as they access Grand Designs, we then ask what people are doing with the program in their everyday lives. Discussing the empirical data from our research into Australian house renovations, we fnd the program plays an important material role beyond the merely textual or symbolic. Throughout this introduction, we have identifed the competing logics of a number of narrative strands and critical perspectives. The book concludes with a discussion of how these material and symbolic forces can help us make sense of the role of Grand Designs within the media landscape but also how it presents important lessons in the future of media studies itself.

References Allon, Fiona. 2011. Ethical Consumption Begins at Home: Green Renovations, Eco-Homes and Sustainable Home Improvement. In Ethical Consumption: A Critical Introduction, ed. Tania Lewis and Emily Potter, 202–215. New York: Routledge. Andrejevic, Mark. 2014. When Everyone Has Their Own Reality Show. In A Companion to Reality TV, ed. Laurie Ouellette, 40–56. West Sussex, UK: Wiley. 26 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Architects’ Journal. 2014. Twelve Things I Wish I Could Say to My Students (July 25): 44–45. Baillieu, Amanda, and Will Hurst. 2008. Kevin McCloud’s Own ‘Grand Design’ in Chaos. Building Design, August 8. https://www.bdonline.co.uk/kevin- mcclouds-own-grand-design-in-chaos/3120039.article. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2008. Exit Homo Politicus, Enter Homo Consumens. In Citizenship and Consumption, ed. Kate Soper and Frank Trentmann, 87–110. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Beck, Daniel, Lea Hellmueller, and Nina Aeschbacher. 2012. Factual Entertainment and Reality TV. Communication Research Trends 31 (2): 1–43. Bell, David, and Joanne Hollows. 2005. Ordinary Lifestyles: Popular Media, Consumption and Taste. Berkshire: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. Bell, David, and Joanne Hollows. 2011. From River Cottage to Chicken Run: Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and the Class Politics of Ethical Consumption. Celebrity Studies 2 (2): 178–191. Berenstein, Rhona. 2002. Acting Live: TV Performance, Intimacy, and Immediacy (1945–1955). In Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the Real, ed. James Friedman, 25–49. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Binkley, Sam, and Jo Littler. 2008. Introduction: Cultural Studies and Anti- consumerism: A Critical Encounter. Cultural Studies 22 (5) (September): 519–530. Bonner, Frances. 2003. Ordinary Television: Analyzing Popular TV. London: Sage. Bonner, Frances. 2011. Lifestyle Television: Gardening and the Good Life. In Ethical Consumption: A Critical Introduction, ed. Tania Lewis and Emily Potter, 231–243. New York: Routledge. Bowles, Kate. 2006. Representation and Textual Analysis. In Media and Communications in Australia, ed. S. Cunningham and Graeme Turner, 2nd ed. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin. Bramall, Rebecca. 2013. The Cultural Politics of Austerity: Past and Present in Austere Times. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brockington, Dan. 2015. Celebrity Advocacy: International and Comparative Perspectives. Celebrity Studies 6 (4) (October): 393–398. Brunsdon, Charlotte. 2003. Lifestyling Britain: The 8–9 Slot on British Television. International Journal of Cultural Studies 6 (1): 5–23. Callon, Michael. 1998. The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell. Channel 4 Television Corporation. 2017. Programme Information. Kevin’s Grand Design, November 15, 2011. http://www.channel4.com/info/press/ programme-information/kevins-grand-design. Collinson, Patrick. 2011. Grand Designs: The Home Truths of Kevin McCloud. The Guardian, April 9. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/ apr/09/grand-designs-kevin-mccloud. 1 INTRODUCTION 27

Couldry, Nick. 2004. Theorising media as practice. Social Semiotics 14 (2): 115–132. Corner, John. 2002. Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions. Television and New Media 3: 255–269. Couldry, Nick, Sonia Livingstone, and Tim Markham. 2008. “Public Connection” and the Uncertain Norms of Media Consumption. In Citizenship and Consumption, ed. Kate Soper and Frank Trentmann, 104– 120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Daily Mail. n.d. Grand Designs. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-70188/Grand-Designs.html. Dovey, Jon. 2000. Freakshow: First Person Media and Factual Television. London: Pluto Press. Frankel, Daniel. 2012. Yahoo and YouTube Target Cable’s Golden Goose: Women’s Lifestyle Programming. Gigaom, April 3. https://gigaom. com/2012/04/03/yahoo-and-youtube-target-cables-golden-goose-wom- ens-lifestyle-programming/. Friedman, James (ed.). 2000. Introduction. Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the Real. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Fuqua, Joy. 2011. Brand Pitt: Celebrity Activism and the Make It Right Foundation in Post-Katrina New Orleans. Celebrity Studies 2 (2): 192–208. Giles, David. 2002. Keeping the Public in Their Place: Audience Participation in Lifestyle Television Programming. Discourse & Society 13 (5): 603–628. Goodman, Michael, and Jo Littler (eds.). 2013. Celebrity Ecologies. Special Issue, Celebrity Studies 4 (3): 269–275. Grindstaff, Laura. 1995. Trashy or Transgressive? ‘Reality TV’ and the Politics of Social Control. Thresholds: Viewing Culture 9: 46–55. Hamad, Hannah. 2013. Age of Austerity Celebrity Expertise in UK Reality Television. Celebrity Studies 4 (2): 245–248. Happiness Architecture Beauty (HAB). 2014. About HAB. https://www.hab- housing.co.uk/about-hab. Hatch, Kristen. 2002. Daytime Politics: Kefauver, McCarthy, and the American Housewife. In Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the Real, ed. James Friedman, 75–91. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Hazeley, Jason, Joel Morris, Quinton Winter, Craig Cash, and Caroline Aherne. 2014. The World According to Gogglebox: The Offcial Companion to the Hit TV Show. Edinburgh: Canongate Books. Highmore, Ben. 2014. The Great Indoors: At Home in the British House. London: Profle. Hill, Annette. 2005. Reality TV Audiences and Popular Factual Television. New York: Routledge. 28 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Hilton, Matthew. 2008. The Banality of Consumption. In Citizenship and Consumption, ed. Kate Soper and Frank Trentmann, 87–103. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hollows, Joanne, and Steve Jones. 2010. At least He’s Doing Something’: Moral Entrepreneurship and Individual Responsibility in Jamie’s Ministry of Food. European Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (3): 307–322. Holmes, Su, and Deborah Jermyn (eds.). 2004. Understanding Reality Television. New York: Routledge. Humphery, Kim. 2010. Excess: Anti-consumerism in the West. Cambridge: Polity. Hunter, Will. 2013. McCrowd Funding. Architectural Review 234 (1398) (August): 14–15. Jones, Liz. 2011. Sorry Kirstie, I Want a Life, Not a Homemade Beeswax Candle. Daily Mail, October 31. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2055154/ Kirstie-Allsopp-sorry-I-want-life-homemade-beeswax-candle.html. Lawrence, Matt. 2017. Grand Designs // Titles. Vimeo. https://vimeo. com/182844085. Lewis, Tania. 2008a. Smart Living: Lifestyle Media and Popular Expertise. New York: Peter Lang. Lewis, Tania. 2008b. Transforming Citizens? Green Politics and Ethical Consumption on Lifestyle Television. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 22 (2) (April): 227–240. Lewis, Tania. 2014. Life Coaches, Style Mavens, Design Gurus: Everyday Experts on Reality Television. In A Companion to Reality TV, ed. Laurie Ouellette, 402–420. West Sussex, UK: Wiley. Lewis, Tania, and Emily Potter (eds.). 2011. Ethical Consumption: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge. Littler, Jo. 2009. Radical Consumption: Shopping for Change in Contemporary Culture. Berkshire: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. Littler, Jo. 2011. What’s Wrong with Ethical Consumption? In Ethical Consumption: A Critical Introduction, ed. Tania Lewis and Emily Potter, 27–39. New York: Routledge. Livingstone, Sonia. 2007. On the Material and the Symbolic: Silverstone’s Double Articulation of Research Traditions in New Media Studies. New Media & Society 9 (1): 16–24. Lowe, David. 2014. David Lowe Music. http://www.davidlowemusic.com/. Marcus, Daniel. 2014. From Participatory Video to Reality Television. In A Companion to Reality TV, ed. Laurie Ouellette, 134–154. West Sussex, UK: Wiley. Martin, Ian. 2011. Launching the Poundbury Roadshow, and Sharing the Olympic Legacy with a Rebranded London. Architects’ Journal (March 3): 50. Maxwell, Richard, and Toby Miller. 2012. Greening the Media: How Media Technology Contributes to the Global Ecological Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press. 1 INTRODUCTION 29

McCarthy, Anna. 2004. ‘Stanley Milgram, Allen Funt, and Me’: Postwar Social Science and the ‘First Wave’ of Reality TV. In Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 23–43. New York: New York University Press. McKee, Alan. 2001. A Beginner’s Guide to Textual Analysis. Metro Magazine, 138–149. Micheletti, Michele. 2008. The Moral Force of Consumption and Capitalism: Anti-slavery and Anti-sweatshop. In Citizenship and Consumption, ed. Kate Soper and Frank Trentmann, 121–136. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Miller, Toby, and Marwan M. Kraidy. 2016. Global Media Studies. Chicester: Polity Press. Milne, Esther. 2013. Parody: Affective Registers, Amateur Aesthetics and Intellectual Property. Cultural Studies Review 19 (1) (March): 193–215. Mittell, Jason. 2001. A Cultural Approach to Television Genre Theory. Cinema Journal 40 (3) (Spring): 3–24. Moseley, Rachel. 2000. Makeover Takeover on British Television. Screen 41 (3) (October): 299–314. Murray, Susan, and Laurie Ouellette (eds.). 2004. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York: New York University Press. Nabi, Robin. 2007. Determining Dimensions of Reality: A Concept Mapping of the Reality TV Landscape. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 51 (2): 371–390. Negra, Diane, Kirsten Pike, and Emma Radley. 2013. Gender, Nation, and Reality TV. Special Issue, Television and New Media 14 (3) (May): 187–193. Ouellette, Laurie (ed.). 2014. A Companion to Reality TV. West Sussex, UK: Wiley. Ouellette, Laurie, and James Hay. 2008. Better Living Through Reality TV: Television and Post-Welfare Citizenship. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Pertierra, Anna Christina, and Graeme Turner. 2013. Locating Television: Zones of Consumption. London: Routledge. Philips, Deborah. 2005. Transformation Scenes: The Television Interior Makeover. International Journal of Cultural Studies 8 (2): 213–229. Podkalicka, Aneta and Esther Milne. 2017. Diverse media practices and economies of Australian home renovators: Budgeting, self-education and documen- tation. Continuum, 31 (5): 694–705. Raphael, Chad. 2004. The Political Economic Origins of Reali-TV. In Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 119–136. New York: New York University Press. Redden, Guy. 2007. Makeover Morality and Consumer Culture. In Makeover Television Realities Remodelled, ed. Dana Heller, 150–164. London: I.B. Tauris. 30 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Rojek, Chris. 2014. Big Citizen Celanthropy and Its Discontents. International Journal of Cultural Studies 17 (2): 127–141. Skeggs, Beverley, and Helen Wood (eds.). 2012. Reacting to Reality Television: Performance, Audience and Value. London: Routledge. Smith, Angela. 2010. Lifestyle Television Programmes and the Construction of the Expert Host. European Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (2) (May): 191–205. Soper, Kate. 2008. “Alternative Hedonism” and the Citizen-Consumer. In Citizenship and Consumption, ed. Kate Soper and Frank Trentmann, 191– 205. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Soper, Kate, and Frank Trentmann (eds.). 2008. Citizenship and Consumption. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Stead, Naomi, and Morgan Richards. 2014. Valuing Architecture: Taste, Aesthetics and the Cultural Mediation of Architecture Through Television. Critical Studies in Television 9 (3): 100–112. Thomas, Lyn. 2008. Alternative Realities: Downshifting Narratives in Contemporary Lifestyle Television. Cultural Studies 22 (5) (September): 680–699. Turner, Graeme. 2016. Re-inventing the media. London & New York: Routledge. Weber, Brenda. 2009. Makeover TV Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity. Durham: Duke University Press. Williams, Amanda. 2013. The Curse of Grand Designs? Daily Mail, August 13. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2390446/The-curse-Grand- Designs-Owners-storey-water-tower-featured-TV-knock-2million-asking- price.html. Zelizer, Viviana. 2013. Economic Lives: How Culture Shapes the Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. CHAPTER 2

Production: Visual Style, Narrative Structure and the Viewer Renovator

Glimpsed between two large mounds of claggy soil, a massive glass wall appears. Flanked by steel girders and shimmering in the sun, its aspect is imposing and exhilarating. Still, higher looms a vast, grey slate roof, its surface tessellated by an expanse of skylights. But we are not sharing the view of an architect or builder telling us the story of their grand project. No, here is the camera operator, crouched on the ground, his shoes awash with water, struggling to get the fnal shot of the day. This chapter goes behind the screen to focus on the production regimes and creative practitioners of Grand Designs to trace the dynamic between those who are on camera and the people who document their stories. We explore the personal and professional interactions that spring up on site, how flming a family over two years might feel, and the ways in which these intimacies inform and shape the program. The chapter also considers the formal properties of the program outlining its generic, compositional and aesthetic style.

Early Days In 2015, Grand Designs won its frst British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) in the features category. Accepting the British Academy Television Award was its production team together with McCloud. This was not the frst time it had been up for a BAFTA, and in a post-awards interview, McCloud quips that although it’s always wonderful to be nominated it had been slightly galling to have continued

© The Author(s) 2018 31 A. Podkalicka et al., Grand Designs, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57898-3_2 32 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY to lose to the same programs year after year (British Academy Television Awards 2015). Since 2000, just after it began, Grand Designs has been nominated fve times and its competitors for the features category have included The Naked Chef, Top Gear, Wife Swap, Faking It and The Great British Bake Off with a number of these titles having won on multiple occasions. When asked about the program’s production schedule during the BAFTA celebrations, one of the production team was quick to point out ‘it’s not like the Dragon’s Den’ (British Academy Television Awards 2015). What the interviewer wanted to know, and it’s a question that piques the imagination of many of us, is how do properties get selected? Do all these passionate builders, architects and designers pitch to the program, showcasing their talents? Again, as the producers quietly insist, the Grand Designs’ approach is perhaps more measured and ‘gentle’ than competition-based programs because a great deal of consultation and liaison occurs between the production team, McCloud and the project contributors over plans and blueprints before a build will be selected. Adding to the accolades for the program, in 2013 McCloud was awarded Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) for his contribution to sustainable living and energy saving (BBC News 2013). While McCloud is obviously the face (and voice) of Grand Designs, at work behind its invention are script writers, camera operators, production editors, location assistants, sound mixers, architects, engineers and builders. Originally intended as a documentary, it was conceived by award-winning writer and TV producer Daisy Goodwin and the frst episodes were produced by John Silver. Both Goodwin and Silver have each achieved widespread acclaim for their work in the creative sector. Goodwin is a New York Times bestseller of two novels and poetry editor of numerous anthologies. In addition to Grand Designs, she has brought to global TV screens some signifcant property and lifestyle-based programs including How Clean is Your House, Jamie’s Kitchen and Property Ladder while she was Head of Factual Programming at Talkback Thames. In 2005, she established her own production house, Silver River, and in 2016 created the eight-part drama series Victoria about the life of the British Monarch, Queen Victoria which was based on her novel of the same name published in 2015. Right from the beginning, narrative has been at the heart of Grand Design’s success. As she points out, Grand Designs is driven by a ‘novelistic format’ which means it runs the full gamut of narrative tension, from confict to resolution. As she puts it, there always exists ‘risk, drama, jeopardy, caravans and screaming 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 33 kids … but people watch the programme for the fairy tale ending, the moment when it’s clear that all the suffering has been worthwhile’ (Goodwin cited in Lee-Potter 2011). During the celebrations for the 100th episode of Grand Designs in 2012, Goodwin told Twitter that she’d had to argue with Channel 4 because in the beginning they had wanted to call it ‘Building Houses’ (Goodwin 2012). Similarly, John Silver has established his own independent TV house, Pi Productions, which focuses on factual entertainment and lifestyle formats. In addition to producing Grand Designs from Series 1–5, Silver has also devised the highly popular Build a New Life in the Country and The Biggest Loser UK. One of Silver’s most memorable and popular early episodes of Grand Designs was about the co-op flmed in Brighton during the frst series (S1 E3). This involved a group of 10 families comprised of people in temporary or insecure housing who worked together to develop a community accommodation precinct. The land was supplied by the council who also contributed funding to the build. Calling themselves the Hedgehog Self Build Co-op, each family would commit 30 hours per week to the construction which drew on the Walter Segal system of self building. This system relies on timber frames, environmental responsibility and is specially targeted at builders with minimal construction experience (Hedgehog Co-op 2015). Grand Designs has dedicated an episode to the Co-op site twice, once in 2001 and again in 2012, and the project was fnally completed in 2013. For McCloud, the fact that some of the original builders still inhabit these houses is testament to its cooperative and sustainable ethos. As he put it ‘they’d built themselves out of diffculty and into a future. I’d been banging on for 15 years about how architects can improve people’s lives, but that was to some extent a hunch. Then here was the proof’ (McCloud cited in Wheatley 2014). The frst season of Grand Designs began broadcasting in April 1999. Filming the build of a timber frame kit house (S1 E1), McCloud introduced this very frst episode by setting the scene: ‘we’re in New Haven in East Sussex, above the sea, on the cliffs, looking out—it’s the most wonderful location. And we’re here to meet a couple who’ve got to build their house in double quick time’. Although McCloud admits to having tried his hand at script writing over the years, in general he does not write the spoken pieces to camera. He does, however, like to contribute ideas to the monologue, and many of his narrations are a combined effort between him and the producers. His role in the program, as he sees it, is to ‘hold the viewer’s hand’ to reassure and guide their 34 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY journey as if to say: ‘It’s ok I’m with you, I’m not with them, they’re mad, you’re safe’ (McCloud cited in Jones 2015). It’s important that he establish a relaxed rapport with the audience, to talk to them in as natural manner as possible as he puts it, ‘like I would to a mate that I was taking round a building site’ (McCloud cited in Jones 2015). Ensuring the monologue functions like a conversation is crucial. As he insists, the ‘knack of reaching out to an audience is to talk to them – not to recite to them’ (McCloud cited in Callaghan 2012). While the main work of bringing these episodes to life lies with the production company, the Commissioning Editor plays a key role in the evolution of Grand Designs since it is their task, among others, to approve a series return. At Channel 4, the Commissioning Editor of Features and Factual Programming works with independent and in-house content producers and is responsible for sourcing formats that are ‘informed by a compelling and, ideally, fresh insight around human behaviour’ (Channel 4 Television Corporation 2017). The frst Commissioning Editor for Grand Designs was Anna Beattie who went on to create the BAFTA-winning Great British Bakeoff through the company Love Productions which she established with her husband Richard McKerrow. With an interesting narrative arc of their own, Beattie and McKerrow actually met on the set of Grand Designs in the early seasons. Recently, to much controversy, they moved the Great British Bakeoff program from the BBC to Channel 4 (Addley 2016). Alongside Grand Designs, other successful factual and property programs commissioned by Channel 4 include Married at First Sight, Location, Location, Location, and Restoration Man (Channel 4 Television Corporation 2017).

Format, Style and Genre That Channel 4 should be the home broadcaster to the Grand Designs’ format can be traced back to the broadcaster’s origins and the reputation for ‘self-conscious’ experimentation ‘in programming content and form’ (Lunt and Livingstone 2012, 98), ‘creative risk-taking’ (Hadida and Morris 2013) or what media commentators referred to as the television with a ‘licence to bring in challenging broadcasting and social change’ (Burrell 2012). Grand Designs generates multiple genre meanings, many of them conficting, raising questions of taste, class, labour and everyday life as we discussed in the Introduction. Like the show, the broadcaster represents an unusual model. It is charged with the public service remit 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 35 to represent social and cultural diversity but is supported by advertising. Set up in the UK in the early 1980s, Channel 4 was to disrupt the duopoly of the state-subsidised Reithian BBC and the commercial broadcaster ITV (Lunt and Livingstone 2012, 98), investing in ‘content which is aspirational yet attainable’ (Channel 4 Television Corporation 2017). In terms of rationale, the Antipodean equivalent of Channel 4 is multi- cultural broadcaster SBS Australia. Grand Designs fts the alternative offering bill quite well. It creates a distinctive format that oscillates between a public broadcaster sophis- tication and commercial high-entertainment value. One of the publications introducing the show to the American audience puts it aptly: ‘Smarter than HGTV and livelier than PBS’ (Hurley 2017). As noted in our Introduction, Grand Designs has been variously described as lifestyle programming, a property show, reality TV, renovation program and documentary flm-making, illustrating the curious generic space it occupies. McCloud too has repeatedly addressed the issue of genre, citing the responsibility for quality and education, which, in his mind, sets Grand Designs apart from proliferating makeover shows on commercial TV. To make this point, McCloud uses an example of now defunct British home improvement show Changing Rooms:

Changing Rooms belongs to a genre of television that says more about the arrogance of television producers than it does about interior design. I wouldn’t have a problem if you took a really exciting, top designer and we followed them working with a family over a couple of months. But it’s a televisual conceit to say, ‘It’s got to be done in a weekend for £500’ when actually people would spend more time and money if left to their own devices. Having said that, I think it opened a lot of people’s eyes to what was possible. The trouble is, once you do that there is an obligation to show people the best. Just because it’s not a documentary doesn’t mean it doesn’t have responsibility. All programmes do. I sound very Reithian, don’t I? (McCloud cited in Gilbert 2004—emphasis ours)

Grand Designs can be regarded as more ‘Reithian’ amongst its commercial real estate programming (Stead and Richards 2014). For starters, it pitches itself as about home-making rather than property investment as discussed in Chapter 3. Its participants are, in most cases, well-educated, white-collar professionals, teachers, artists and naturally designers and architects—not so much the ‘ordinary’ of the reality or lifestyle TV genre. The bourgeois favour operates, of course, through the portrayal 36 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY of many high-budget home builds and is also heralded by the presenter’s lyricism and multilingual language skills shining through the quite effortless conversations he can carry out in French or Italian.

The Viewer Renovator If McCloud is sometimes ambivalent about which television genre best describes the program, audience members can be similarly puzzled. And here, we introduce a very particular demographic which we call the ‘viewer renovator’. Curious to know the degree to which homeowners and builders might use property, makeover or lifestyle TV during their own builds, we talked to Australian renovators about their media consumption. One of the refrains we discovered was that Grand Designs is quite diffcult to categorise as the following discussion between interviewer and the viewer renovator attests:

Q: Hang on, you said you don’t watch any of that [reality programming], but you did mention Grand Designs just then. So you haven’t watched it? A: Well Grand Designs I don’t put in the category of the [reality TV] stuff. No this is real TV. Q: So why don’t you put it in the same category? A: Because they built something that’s absolutely unbelievable and it’s unique, it might be a castle or it might be something on the moors, or it’s just the context in what they’re trying to do is way out of my scope. But it’s just beautiful to see what’s possible.

Clearly ‘real TV’ is not to be confused with reality TV. In fact, a point of difference was drawn between Grand Designs and TV shows within the reality TV genre such as The Block or House Rules in Australia on the basis that the former is more ‘realistic’. To Australian audiences, Grand Designs offers a less fctional portrayal of the building process, especially related to the plethora of on-the-ground negotiations and upheavals. One of our focus group participants observed:

I feel like rightly or wrongly it’s more factual. It’s more about how they get the experts in and the engineering reports and it’s more about can this physically be done? How do we do it? Ok, let’s start seeing the progress. As opposed to couples bickering about yellow versus red. 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 37

Even the practitioners, architects, designers and builders we interviewed concurred. As one of the interviewed tradespersons put it ‘they might not work for a month on Grand Designs and they’ll tell you why—the supplier has been shut down’. Equally, for those making the program all those hitches and glitches will help to create audience identifcation. Of the common problems faced by participants and observed by one interviewed cameraperson is that:

They run over. They come across unexpected issues with the property. Budgetary concerns come into it as well. So the Grand Designs aspect is like a rumbling beast that could go … for as long as you like. And it’s like anybody renovating … would probably understand that, you know. You have certain expectations and then all these rabbits come out of the hats that you don’t expect. So Grand Designs is generally about the journey as much as anything.

Episode Composition and Narrative Structure Analysing the long-running UK lifestyle program Property Ladder, Smith sketches a narrative and formal structure of makeover TV which provides a useful framework for thinking about Grand Designs. The dramatic arc, as she calls it, consists of the following stages:

1. contextualising information; 2. interview/s with the participant/s; 3. host offers advice on makeover; 4. work in progress, with occasional appearances by the host; 5. the ‘moment of revelation’ 6. independent assessment—the ‘validation’; and 7. host’s summing-up. (2010, 193)

Although ‘the moment of revelation’ has received substantial critical attention, Moseley calls its ‘power, danger and appeal’ a defning feature of the genre (Moseley 2000, 303), Smith highlights the importance of the ‘validation’ stage that comes later. In Property Ladder, real estate agents and potential buyers are used to confrm the opinions, in particular the misgivings, of the expert host about the renovation strategies of its participants. Further generic elements of the dramatic arc include ‘tightly edited’ content in which not all aspects of the renovation will 38 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY be seen and the use of narrative voice-over by the expert host. Of utility here is the deployment of the ‘historic present tense’ in voice-over to convey the impression that the screen action is happening in real time rather than, as is the case, having already occurred and been documented in flm. The ‘viewer, like the voiceover, is witnessing this for the frst time’ explains Smith of the immediacy and authenticity such a stylistic device achieves (2010, 194–195). ‘Patrick’s recycled containers are making their way to site’ we hear McCloud in voice-over describing an episode that sees a young architect attempt to build a house out of four 45-foot shipping containers (S14 E4). In many ways, we can understand Grand Designs to be operating according to the narrative schema and formal elements outlined by Smith. The historical present tense conveys a sense of drama unfold- ing, of renovation dreams in the making. McCloud, as the consummate expert host, offers advice and then charts its implementation (or otherwise); returns to document work in progress usually in tones of increasing doubt as inevitable problems beset the build; is integral in the reveal, his walk-up the driveway to meet the new inhabitants a signature piece; and sums up the project’s ultimate success with self-effacing good grace as his initial fears prove, largely, unfounded. What’s missing from Smith’s model as applied to Grand Designs is the ‘independent or validation’ stage. While its omission could point to the inadequacy of the theory, this stage does operate in many makeover programs such as What not to Wear, The Block and Extreme Makeover where the initial evaluations of the expert host are validated by the participants’ friends or industry practitioners appearing at various times throughout the episode. That this element is generally absent from Grand Designs speaks to the singular- ity of McCloud in his role as expert host—external validation is perhaps superfuous—and to the place occupied by the program in the wider categories of lifestyle media and property TV.

The Dramatic Arc So how exactly is the program put together? What formal decisions are made in relation to locations, flming, and what is it like to participate in the program? Every episode begins with McCloud’s introductory monologue and as discussed shortly, many of the other formal features are familiar as well. On average each series consists of 8 episodes, although 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 39 may be broadcast in sequence with Grand Designs Revisited episodes and special features to produce seasons of up to 17 episodes. Each program focuses on a single project where an individual, couple, family or group will plan and execute an ambitious build of expansive proportions. Often this is a brand new property but it might be a conversion of an existing place. Part of the charm of Grand Designs is the familiarity of its dramatic arc. Following McCloud’s opening remarks, we meet the participants and hear about their plans while also learning of their personal circumstances that led to their appearance on the program. During what could be termed this introductory or ‘ambition’ stage of the narrative, we might learn that it has been a lifelong dream to design and construct a new house, while discover for others that it is a sudden change in work situation that precipitates embarking on an adventure. As we absorb these details, the camera could survey the site, a hill or a plot of urban land, or be taken to the participants’ workplace to see how they will juggle the project with all the other demands of their life. Next in the scene-setting comes the visualisation stage in which we encounter the 3-D architectural modelling software, a now iconic element of the program, that unfolds as McCloud in voice-over describes the ideas rendered graphically on the screen. Graphic cues are also provided by the date stamp convention employed by the program whereby progress is documented: we read ‘November 2015’ as it appears on the screen and wonder how will things look like a year later? As one camera operator puts it in interview, this is ‘the process of how they get from A to B’. He is referring to how the progression of time is conveyed between visits scheduled to capture signifcant moments in the build’s progress, ‘and how they accomplish that and the issues they might come across while trying to achieve that’. And here, of course, we begin to feel the dramatic pull of the program as ‘the setback’ stage arrives. Glass isn’t delivered when predicted, money suddenly runs out, and the rain descends: here, the participants are tested and often McCloud steps in to offer a helping hand. During this ‘education’ phase, McCloud might demonstrate direct to camera a technology or a particular design decision, sometimes also involving the manufacturers of an innovative product. As the dramatic arc moves towards the reveal, the participants are often presented with a ‘fnal hurdle’. Here, the flmic language changes and we see in tight shot the details of this last minute hold up: a hinge, an 40 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY ill-ftting window, a leaking wall. Obscuring the views of the overall project, this stage makes it diffcult for the viewer to gauge the success of the completion thereby ushering in the reveal. As McCloud begins his walk-up the driveway the wait is over. Have the ambitions been realised? This closing generic characteristic usually takes the form of a tour of the fnished property and a chat with its creators. To the crew and production team, this stage is sometimes referred to as ‘the fnals’, and from the very frst day of the project, planning begins on how the fnal build will be framed on screen and how McCloud will be captured in his concluding piece to camera (Etwell 2013). Audience members inspired by McCloud’s closing monologue often react in delight and intrigue as they try to fathom his opinion on the ultimate success of this week’s project. ‘Does Kevin McCloud ever say he hates a house?’ asks one forum post, sparking a furry of speculation about McCloud’s real views. ‘I think that’s what he means when he talks about “a very ambitious vision”’ replies a fan while another adds ‘I seem to remember one awful one where they were building a giant barge houseboat. Kevin left so much unsaid that there was hardly any dialogue’ (Mumsnet Forum 2014). Meanwhile on set, the crew are also enjoying the performance. As seasoned Grand Designs camera person Tony Etwell reveals, these monologues ‘are just as much fun for the crew as they are for the viewer’, noting wryly:

As the build progresses we are always keen to hear whether he thinks the architectural design blends harmoniously into its surroundings or is more reminiscent of a WWII bunker, and whether he considers the family creating the project to be courageous or just plain bonkers. (Etwell 2013)

Etwell trained in advertising photography and has worked in broadcast television for over twenty years. He has been part of the Grand Designs team for ffteen years, often in the role of Director of Photography. In 2013, he received the Award for Excellence from The Guild of Television Camera Professionals (GTC) for his flming of the derelict water tower (S12 E5) which was frst broadcast in October 2012 (GTC 2013). We return to his insights below when we look at the aesthetics of the flming process. 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 41

The fnal narrative component is ‘the revisit’ where McCloud returns to the projects months or sometimes years later to chart its evolution and chat with its inhabitants. In general, the crew spend twenty days on each location of which about seven days involve McCloud (Wheatley 2014). Each episode can take up to fve years to document depending on the timeline of the build. And at any one time, the production team have approximately ffteen different projects being flmed (British Academy Television Awards 2015). McCloud himself, as the program presenter, is an essential compositional element. As testament to the popularity of his role in establishing the program’s tropes and conventions, are the many parody sites and fan responses that have sprung up to make sense of the generic constraints, his mannerisms frequently relished by audiences. One of these sites, ‘The Grand Designs Drinking Game’, has even caught the attention of McCloud himself. Using the hashtag #granddesignsbingo and establishing a Facebook Page, in 2014 various fan communities of Grand Designs devised a game in which familiar scenarios are described and the players are instructed to have a drink every time one of these appears on the program. Some of these situations include: ‘the owners have not secured the funding they need to complete the project before they begin’ with ‘Bonus points (or an extra drink) if they run out of money during the build’ or ‘The owners end up living in a caravan during the build to save money/because they have run out of money’ with ‘Bonus points (or an extra drink)’ awarded ‘if the owners are expecting a baby while living in a caravan’ (Charlton n.d.). As news of the social media game spread, McCloud’s team apparently responded by peppering certain phrases throughout one of the episodes as a nod to the joke. However, Channel 4 is said to have denied that the game impacted production of any one episode, maintaining McCloud made the comments in jest (Singh 2014). Nevertheless, the owners of the Facebook group claim that McCloud had actually discussed the drinking game at a Grand Designs Live event held in Melbourne, urg- ing audience members to fnd it online and had apparently noted that the specifc program, apparently episode fve of Series 11, was indeed made in response to the game (‘Grand Designs Drinking Game’ 2012). Whether or not this occurrence can be defnitively settled, the active, demonstrable input of fans can’t be denied. We shall return to this discussion when we look at the audience in subsequent chapters. 42 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Aesthetics and the Filming Process Having outlined the plot or narrative structure of each episode in the previous section, we now delve into how Grand Designs is flmed. Of course, as media studies have taught us, story and discourse are always interwoven. The narrative of Grand Designs is critically linked to its form, and the content of the story is shaped by its onscreen texture. In other words, the preceding and present sections work in dialogue; elements such as narrative can’t be sharply cut off from aesthetics as we hope to demonstrate. In terms of the composition of the onsite crew personnel and how they function, Etwell notes that each episode generally comprises the producer/director, camera operator or director of photography, assistant producer, sound recordist and a general assistant. On the frst day of shooting and then depending on how well the timelines of the story production are progressing, the series producer will sometimes join the set (Etwell 2013). With respect to its flming, Grand Designs is often perceived as an outlier within the wider property TV genre, or lifestyle formats more generally, precisely because of its high production values and cinematic aesthetic. One of the industry experts we interviewed works as a freelance camera operator for a range of lifestyle programs including Grand Designs Australia and Grand Designs UK. For him, there are obvious differences between the productions on Grand Designs and, for example, that of the Australian renovating program The Block or the international franchise Selling Houses. Creating a sense of emotion can be tied to its cinematic approach, as he told us:

A lot of property shows that you’ll see is generally off the shoulder … which gives it a bit of immediacy. As a viewer you feel like it’s fresh and you’re seeing it, which is great but that would be something like maybe The Block [which] doesn’t particularly set itself apart as a very high production value. It’s not that expensive to make that type of program and it’s not that complicated either. So if you look at Grand Designs and what makes Grand Designs really interesting to look at is lots of wide shots and sweeping shots and things that draw you in, they’re quite emotional shots to work on. And then you’ve got this mixture of the drama, you know about the people.

Being able to emulate a particular visual style is crucial to the success of a camera operator. As this expert goes onto explain, he came to the 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 43 attention of the producers for his ability to marry narrative and cinematography. In answer to the question of the process by which he began working on Grand Designs UK, he remarked:

There’s people at the network that would watch other shows where they’re developing ideas and stuff, so they’ll ask for the people … if they see your name on the credits and they like what you’ve done then they’ll ask for you. So you get pulled in by the network and then the production’s companies get you in. So it’s quite competitive because … you’ve got the story that’s important but the look of how what you’re producing is very important too.

Crafting the Grand Designs aesthetic seems to be especially close to McCloud’s heart. He hardly ever uses the word ‘episode’ to describe the program’s format, preferring instead the term ‘flm’. Discussing his favourite dwellings across the series, for example, he remarks in an interview that ‘over the years I’ve had favourite people, favourite builds and favourite flms’ (Radio Times 2017). While perhaps a minor observation, it is indicative of McCloud’s general adherence to a lyrical or poetic sen- sibility, adjectives which, again, he often employs to describe the dwellings themselves. If Grand Designs has established itself as something of a benchmark for the genre, then key to this achievement are its pace and rhythm, attributes often fashioned through the choice of camera shot and technology. While participant journeys develop over a number of years, this does not come at the expense of the drama created. To the contrary, the sense of a project unveiling itself in real time creates intimacy and engagement with the audience as a camera operator elaborates:

It’s set a bar that’s pretty high and I think part of it is because of the time that they had to flm each element and the fact that the production knows that this house could take two years. So there’s no sort of immediacy … we can’t rush this, we can’t strong arm it and all of that. That’s the beauty of it, because people change and their views change over that time, so it’s almost like a good wine. People grow with the property or change, so it’s a very intimate thing to get involved in with Grand Designs. That’s a very high bar to compete with, because property shows work on different levels. You can shoot something really quickly or you can make it a kind of a game show type property show. The less time that is taken on the property and the subject, I fnd the audience are less engaged. 44 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

To forge a relationship with the audience, the camera is often imagined as standing in for the viewer. Again, we are familiar with this strategy from screen studies where the gaze of the camera can invite, manipulate or persuade the audience into taking various ‘positions’ within the wider story being told. So it is with Grand Designs where camera operators often emphasise the rapport between camera, camera operator and viewer. As Etwell comments, ‘on this show, the camera, when working well, becomes the viewer’ (2013). In conversation with us, Etwell expands on these observations pointing out that sometimes this aim presents a challenge that needs to be addressed through specifc flming strategies. As he puts it the

challenge is to really make the viewer feel that they are there on site with you, we do this by very careful selection of lenses and Kevin’s interaction directly with the viewer on that lens. A hand held camera on a wide (ish) lens seems to work well. It’s immensely satisfying when we get it right. (2018)

For Etwell, another challenge is the sheer diffculty of physically manoeu- vring for the shots: ‘walking backwards with the camera on a building site has never been an easy task’. Yet it’s a skill that has garnered praise from his co-workers and, it turns out, his family. As he jokes, ‘my lovely wife Denise thinks I walk backwards better than I walk forwards!’ (2018). Others we interviewed also shared their thoughts about the dynamic relations between onsite personnel, the building project and the viewer. One noted that in order to bring spontaneity to property TV, to convey an impression of discovery about the project journey, the camera operator must, to some extent, remain objective and themselves surprised. In one sense, this is counter-intuitive, the flm crew surely know what they are supposed to be flming and what the producer is seeking. While of course flm crew attend pre-production meetings to discuss how a build will be conceived on screen, in general, as a camera operator explains ‘producers don’t tend to want to tell you everything that they know’. Instead, as he remarks ‘I take the place of the viewer’ meaning they discover the tribulations of a self-build as he does. If a producer is ‘too specifc in what they want me to get’, he continues, ‘you would end up with a very clinical product at the end result, and that comes across vis- ually’. What can happen, though, is that if a producer doesn’t feel they 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 45 are getting the material they had envisaged for the story they wanted to tell ‘they might have a quiet word’ with the camera operator and point out something specifc they want done. However, he tells us that situation is ‘pretty rare’, in setting up the flm shoot. Instead, the ‘common thread is to be objective about it, because it’s not always the things that you expect that make a cut’. In other words, ‘you can’t really direct how people are going to behave’. Objective is one thing, and invisible is quite another. Although onsite production crew may strive to remain outside the story that they are telling they are frmly located within the social and material settings of its production. For camera operators, this often sets up a fascinating yet sometimes fraught dynamic. As one reported to us, flming a build might necessitate dwelling with a family for 14 hours a day. This means, in his words, ‘you can sense tensions’ because ‘it’s a stressful thing to have strangers in your house while you’re renovating’ especially if ‘things aren’t going correctly’ with the project. Etwell agrees. In answer to our questions about whether he ever fnds himself feeling personally involved in the projects, he explains:

It’s inevitable that we become caught up emotionally with the families! When you work so closely people who share the same passion for architecture as you do, you share the pain and share the elation with them. When creating a home for a family or partner there really is so much at stake, they can be on the edge of fnancial catastrophe or enviably succeeding in pulling off a lifetime ambition that many of us will not be able to follow. (2018)

Certainly, Grand Designs’ participants also speak of the layering effect of such pressures. ‘At times it was pretty hard’ says Jon White whose crooked chocolate cottage featured in Series 13 Episode 4 with his wife Becky. Though their build was a relatively well organised one, having to adapt their day to accommodate the flming was arduous: ‘flming days were quite long’ (White cited in Richoux 2013). In general, producers attempt to brief the participants in order to alle- viate misgivings over expectations and, in fact, quite often the subjects of property TV will forget about the camera running in the background. So much so that one of the distinguishing factors of Grand Designs against competition-based renovation programming is the degree to which flming impacts on the everyday life of its participants. For some crew members on 46 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Grand Designs, it often feels like they are just watching the building work unfold since as one put it ‘you’re more of a voyeur into what’s happening, because the production doesn’t really input that much into what’s happening, so you’re going along with the journey’. Conversely with a program such as Selling Houses, our interviewee states there’s a ‘physical impact from the production into the property, so they’re going to change things, they’re going to move things around and do whatever to the house.’ Etwell describes the relationships that develop on Grand Designs as ‘Living the Project’ (2013, 42). For him, the intimacies that spring up among crew members and the participants help substantially to drive the success of the program. As Etwell notes, ‘Kevin and the rest of the team fnd themselves … wanting to stay after the shoot, drink tea and eat homemade cake’. Such moments of respite are necessary because the contributors are ‘embarking on a huge and potentially ground breaking project, often entailing putting their fnances on the line’ so the experience can ‘be an enormously stressful period of their lives’ (2013, 42). Although catching up over cake seems fairly inconsequential, in fact the crew play a vital emotional role as Etwell elaborates:

Now, this might just sound like … an excuse for a free drink, but this bond is a crucial part of the special chemistry of these shows. At this time our new friends need continuity and as the flm-makers we can often provide support, adopting the extra role of being a friendly face and demonstrating real concern for their well-being. (2013, 42)

Meanwhile on screen, the narrative drama continues. And as mentioned briefy above, it is often during the fnals—those lavish shots which conclude each episode, narrated by McCloud’s closing monologue—where the cinematic performance peaks. While the earlier camera work of the program is often documentary in tone to convey the ‘actuality’ of a given building site, the denouement calls for more fnely grained technical approaches to deliver the intense visual lyricism. As we watch the camera sweep across the landscape with the glorious completed home in its sights, the effect feels effortless. But of course, there are multiple aesthetic and technical decisions that are happening in order to bring us this cinematic pleasure. Explaining how the ‘trademark shots’ of the fnals are executed, Etwell notes that all the ‘tracking shots need to be smooth and precise, so it is vital we use steel track and a solid dolly as the ground is never even’. More specifcally, in order to ‘show off brand new natural stone foors, immaculate polished concrete or newly-laid Douglas 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 47

Fir timber foorboards, wobbly tracking shots simply won’t do’ (Etwell 2013, 41). As the project comes to a close, Etwell describes the fnals as one of his favourite parts of flming. In his words, ‘all is quiet and I can immerse myself in the architecture and make some art. After all, that’s my job!’ (Etwell 2018). Speaking generally about the photographic aesthetics of property TV, another camera person in our study points to the fact that in contrast to the fast-paced, competition-based programs of, say, The Block in Australia, in general Grand Designs will use cameras containing larger sensors which is what delivers the flmic look. Cameras with smaller sensors tend to restrict the viewer experience: ‘your eyes aren’t allowed to go wandering so much’, ‘you don’t linger’. With its use of larger sensor cameras, Grand Designs operates at a more languid scale. Asked specifcally about what might set Grand Designs apart from other building or renovation programs, Etwell responds that the

team has basically been together for over 15 years and the style originally developed has remained very much the same. Yes we moved with the times technically but the basics of flming pace, the team’s passion for architectural detail and invention, patient unhurried examination photographically and Kevin’s genuine interaction and compassion with the families and the viewer … gets through to the audience in a way that no other program seems to achieve. And we love making it! (2018)

Recruitment At the time of writing, the Grand Designs UK production team advertise on their website that they seek self-builds that are ‘exciting and unique’ which offer ‘something you feel we haven’t covered before’ (Boundless West Productions 2016). Included in the stipulated criteria are the following conditions to be met by potential participants:

• New residential builds, signifcant residential conversions or restora- tions of historic buildings; • They have unique or interesting elements in terms of design, materials, construction techniques, location and/or the people involved; • Planning permission is in place and you are planning to live in the property yourself; • You agree to be involved with the project and are available to be flmed on a regular basis. (Boundless West 2016) 48 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

In addition, the application form asks potential participants to identify if they have secured funding, the source of that funding and the projected cost of the completed work. Applicants need to state whether architects, surveyors and builders have been hired and to indicate if these practitioners are willing to be flmed. Finally, the production team at Grand Designs are also interested to gauge what, if any, media coverage has already been given to the applicant’s building venture. Despite its longevity, McCloud admits to being surprised that people continue to apply and to sometimes worrying there will not be enough content to keep populating the show (British Academy Television Awards 2015). Such processes imply that applications to be featured are an open playing feld; however, the production company are also active in seeking out unique and interesting builds. The owners of a converted concrete water tower featured in Series 11 told the press ‘Grand Designs had phoned up the local planning people and asked if they had any interesting designs and they told them about the mad couple building a home in a water tower and living in a caravan’ (Del Tufo cited in Dunn 2017). A known architect also raises a project’s chances of being featured. ‘I always ask who the architect is’ says McCloud (cited in McGhie 2008). In this chapter, we have sought to deconstruct the beauty and ingenuity seen on our screens by exploring some of the production contexts which help shape the program. In particular, the material and affective experiences that camera operators bring to bear on Grand Designs reveal signifcant patterns of meaning. Focusing simply on textual analysis does not always tell the full story of a program. Likewise, the audience for Grand Designs is not a single, unifed entity but is dispersed over multiple platforms and environments. We elaborate on the social and industrial meanings of Grand Designs in the following chapters but frst we turn our analysis to the narratives of home and consumption that stand out in its storytelling.

References Addley, Esther. 2016. “Three Years of Bad Blood”: How the Bake Off Producers and the BBC Fell Out of Love. The Guardian. September 15, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/sep/14/will-channel- 4-be-a-move-too-far-for-great-british-bake-off. BBC News. 2013. New Year Honours for Somerset People. December 31, 2013. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-25551220. 2 PRODUCTION: VISUAL STYLE, NARRATIVE STRUCTURE … 49

Boundless West Productions. 2016. Grand Designs Application. https://www. granddesigns.tv/apply/. Burrell, Ian. 2012. Channel 4 May No Longer Shock, But We Should Be Glad It’s Still Here. The Independent. London. August 27. British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA). Television | Features in 2015 (video interview). http://awards.bafta.org/award/2015/television/ features. Also available https://youtu.be/GXi8eNVIXao. Callaghan, Greg. 2012. 10 Questions Kevin McCloud, TV Presenter, Designer, 54. The Australian. May 12, 2012. http://www.theaus- tralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/questions-kevin- mccloud-tv-presenter-designer-54/news-story/1f54c9be30a262ca9a13ac 84017985a6. Channel 4 Television Corporation. 2017. 4 Commissioning: Features. http://www.chan- nel4.com/info/commissioning/4producers/features. Accessed December 12, 2017. Charlton, Elizabeth. n.d. Grand Designs Bingo/ Grand Designs Drinking Game. https://carina.org.uk/granddesigns.shtml. Accessed December 31, 2017. Dunn, James. 2017. Now That’s a Grand Design! Abandoned ‘Tank on Stilts’ Water Tower Transformed Into a Quirky Modern Home Goes on the Market for Almost £1 million. The Daily Mail. April 20, 2017. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4428538/Grand-Designs-Water-Tank-home-Kent- sale-895-000.html#ixzz5EzCcG0Pd. Etwell, Tony. 2013, Autumn. Grand Designs. ZERB: Journal of The Guild of Television Cameramen. http://www.gtc.org.uk/media/fm/Zerb%20articles/ Grand%20Designs%20web.pdf. Etwell, Tony. 2018, May. Discussion with the Authors. Gilbert, Gerard. 2004. From Here to Modernity; His Enthusiasm for Other People’s Houses Has Transformed the Way We Look at Architecture, But Is Kevin McCloud’s Own Home a Temple of Innovation? The Independent. London. September 13. Grand Designs Drinking Game. Facebook Group. February 12, 2012. https://www.facebook.com/pg/Grand-Designs-Drinking-Game-3315205 86886378/posts/?ref page_internal. = Goodwin, Daisy (@DaisyGoodwin). 2012 Just Went to a Party for the 100th Grand Designs. October 11, 2012, 7:35 am. https://twitter.com/Daisy Goodwin/status/256130799873712128. Hadida, Allègre, and Claire E. Morris. 2013. Channel 4 and the British Television Industry: 1982–2013 (Case A). Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Hedgehog Co-op. 2015. Hedgehog Self Build Co-op, Hogs Edge, Brighton. https://www.selfbuild-central.co.uk/frst-ideas/examples/hedgehog-co-op/. Hurley, Amanda. 2017. The Show that Fuses Architectural Critique with Real- Estate Porn. CITYLAB. Retrieved August 24, 2017, from https://www.citylab. 50 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

com/life/2017/05/the-show-that-fuses-architectural-critique-with-real-estate- porn/525831/. Jones, Kirsten. 2015. Kevin McCloud, Do You Write Your Own Scripts? Express. October 6, 2015. Video. https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/609516/ Grand-Designs-presenter-Kevin-McCloud-fear-bravery-interview. Lee-Potter, Emma. 2011. How to Write a Novel—Tips from Daisy Goodwin. House with No Name (blog). September 23, 2011. http://housewithnoname. blogspot.com.au/2011/09/how-to-write-novel-tips-from-daisy.html. Lunt, Peter, and Sonia Livingstone. 2012. Media Regulation: Governance and the Interests of Citizens and Consumers. London: Sage. McGhie, Caroline. 2008. Grand Designs: Kevin McCloud’s Trade Secrets. The Telegraph. April 19, 2008. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fnance/property/ luxury-homes/3361079/Grand-Designs-Kevin-McClouds-trade-secrets.html. Moseley, Rachel. 2000. Makeover Takeover on British Television. Screen 41 (3): 299–314. Mumsnet Forum. 2014. Grand Designs—Does Kevin McCloud Ever Say He Hates a House? March 2014. https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/property/2016814-Grand-Designs-does-Kevin-McCloud-ever-say-he-hates-a-house. Radio Times. 2017. Kevin McCloud’s Favourite Grand Designs. http:// www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-08-04/kevin-mcclouds-favourite- grand-designs/. Richoux, Paul. 2013. Jon’s Built a New Life for Himself. BespokenMe. November 8, 2013. http://www.bespoken.me/forum/topics/jon-s-built-a-new-life- for-himself-by-paul-richoux. Singh, Anita. 2014. Kevin McCloud: My Secret #granddesignsbingo Drinking Game. The Telegraph. November 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/ tvandradio/11229505/Kevin-McCloud-my-secret-Grand-Designs-drinking- game.html. Smith, Angela. 2010, May. Lifestyle Television Programmes and the Construction of the Expert Host. European Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (2): 192. Stead, Naomi, and Morgan Richards. 2014. Valuing Architecture: Taste, Aesthetics and the Cultural Mediation of Architecture Through Television. Critical Studies in Television 9 (3): 100–112. The Guild of Television Camera Professionals (GTC). GTC Award Winners 2013. http://www.gtc.org.uk/media/fm/Zerb%20articles/Grand%20Designs%20 web.pdf. Wheatley, Jane. 2014. Grand Designs Host Kevin McCloud Takes Jane Wheatley Behind the Scenes. Sydney Morning Herald. September 13, 2014. http:// www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/grand-designs-host-kevin-mccloud-takes- jane-wheatley-behind-the-scenes-20140829-109va6.html. CHAPTER 3

Home: Ideas of Home and the Work of Home-Making

Sara Ahmed, Claudia Castaneda, Anne-Marie Fortier and Mimi Sheller state ‘being at home and the work of home-building is intimately bound up with the idea of home’ (2003, 9). Grand Designs shows the work of homebuilding both literally and fguratively. While participants typically employ professionals to complete the building work, they are shown onscreen engaging in dirty work, negotiating with contractors and facing fnancial woes. More importantly though, they are shown witnessing the materialisation of their home and the manifestation of a desired lifestyle. Grand Designs emphasises the importance of home and in doing so provides insight into the signifcance of home:

Grand Designs will still always be about the psychological drama of watching people chase after their deepest fantasies, of trying to defne that illusive yet vital word, “home”. And that is what makes the series such compelling viewing, each builder a Prospero, fashioning their own intimate world, mastering the materials of wood, metal, glass to create their own perfect island, their sheltering cave in the Tempest. (Lonsdale 2012)

For this reason, it is diffcult to place Grand Designs squarely and solely within the property TV genre (and indeed, the program creators actively resist this placement). During the last decade, a number of scholars have turned their attention to the complexity of the emerging formats of real estate programming. Ruth McElroy defnes property TV as a ‘distinct sub-genre’ of lifestyle media which focuses on ‘the acquisition,

© The Author(s) 2018 51 A. Podkalicka et al., Grand Designs, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57898-3_3 52 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY exhibition, inhabitation or transfer of homes’ (2008, 43–61). McElroy traces how the ‘politics of taste’ plays out in the construction of class and nationhood, particularly in ways that regulate or even restrict aspirations to homeownership. In contrast, Mimi White (2014) has emphasised the cosmopolitanism and transnational mobility of Real Estate TV showing how, despite the often-formulaic structure, programs such as the USA House Hunters become vehicles for ethnic and class diversity. Exploring the varied economic formations of real estate programming, James Hay coins the term ‘Realty TV’ to ‘describe programs and networks whose primary subject of interest is the homeowner, buyer, seller, and secu- ritizer’, the latter refers to the process by which mortgages function as security against further loans and investments. Hay argues that Realty TV arises in response to the global fnancial crisis, neoliberal patterns of governance and emerging modes of ‘entrepreneurial citizenship’. Realty TV blurs the lines between makeover programming and property speculation ensuring these distinctions become normalised (2010, 382–402). Similarly, Fiona Allon and Guy Redden (2012) demonstrate the signifcant conceptual and material links between the global fnancial crisis of 2007–2008 and lifestyle media where, as they put it the ‘development of property TV over the 2000s maps directly onto the dramatic acceleration in house prices and private borrowing in the US and UK up until the crash’. But where does this leave Grand Designs? When McCloud makes his fnal visit to a property to validate (or not) the design choices of the owners and offer a critique of the end result, there is no discussion of property valuation, investment or resell potential that would connect it to other property TV programs. As Stead and Richards (2014, 106) explain, Grand Designs is not a ‘property programme in the sense where property is understood as a short-term asset to be “made over” with an eye to resale value’. Indeed, as the authors astutely note, the degree to which Grand Designs ‘sublimates or down- plays the focus on money’ is instructive in its wish to align with architectural aesthetics rather than refect the ‘grubby infuence of the market’. Unlike Homes under the Hammer, or Fixer Upper, Grand Designs is not about the commodity value of property. At no point is the market value of the house even discussed. Because the design choices are explored rather than concealed during the episode, the most compelling aspect of the fnal visit is when McCloud pointedly asks how much money was spent. Here, he clearly frames the home in terms of what it cost (fnancially and emotionally) to bring it to reality. 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 53

Kevin: And the cost? Patrick: It cost me a lot of sleepless nights. (S14 E4)

When projects are incomplete by series production end, the home is typically revisited in the spin-off series Grand Designs Revisited in order to document the completion of projects. Often popular projects are also revisited, indicating that the interest in the building is not only for its fnal form, but also for the lived experience. In this framing of revisits, the program identifes home as a set of practices, and as ‘a complex inter- actional achievement between persons, spaces and things’ (Lloyd and Vasta 2017, 4) through which homes are made rather than occupied.

Home-Making Through Taste-Making Home-making brings to mind the domestic nurturing-natured work that makes a property a pleasant place to live. While the efforts of those labours are visible by the fnals in Grand Designs homes, the home-making practices the program is most focused on are the labours of creating and managing the building of the structure of the home. While on the one hand Grand Designs supports a very gendered distinction between construction and cultivation (Young 1997), where the majority of architects, construction workers and paid professionals are male, in many ways it subverts that. Women are positioned centrally to the construction process as project managers. ‘Most women on Grand Designs are’, says McCloud (cited in McGhie 2008). The women in the program become immersed and skilled in knowledge of building regulations, thermal properties of insulation materials and contemporary building techniques. Homes and their contents enable people to articulate aspects of their identity. Take the uniquely personal avant-garde building that resembles a jewel box built by contemporary jewellery designer Sarah Jordan and photographer Coneyl in a polite Edwardian street in London (S2 E7). Sarah sees the building as revealing their true selves. ‘Nobody when they see this fnal thing will expect it of us’ she tells McCloud, ‘this is like the real us’. Incorporating obscure materials and cutting-edge methods, their daring vision emerges as a pair of buildings—a house and a studio building—set facing each other across a water garden, connected by a colonnaded walkway. The whole design is a careful play of light and balance. Custom furniture such as kitchen cabinetry has built-in lighting, making them stand out as ‘jewel-like’ objects. Praising the way their 54 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY architect interpreted their brief, they say ‘It’s our house. Mike has picked up on all of our sensitivities and put them in here’. Certainly, few viewers will fnd all the houses featured in the program over the years to be to their tastes and proclivities given the program shows people endeavouring to construct their own idea of the perfect home. Tastes for architectural style are certainly idiosyncratic—consider, for example, Helen Saunders and Mark Eisenstadt’s enormous mansion in the style of a Georgian regency villa (S2 E1), Julie and Mark Veysey’s Miami-style beach house inspired by previous holidays to the USA (S5 E6), or the gothic Addams family-style home built by Jo and Shaun Bennett (S8 E4). Then, there are those that live out childhood fantasies, like Francis Shaw who dreamt of living in a fourteenth-century castle (S7 E1) and John Martin who wished for a tree house (S17 E1). Beyond the regulation and codifcation of domestic spaces (e.g. demarcating food preparation areas from toilet and laundry areas, see Lawrence 1987, 158), there are informal expectations of how home spaces will be confgured and the structural elements they will most likely include. Any features beyond these are considered quirks and representative of unconventionality, e.g. the wooden slide in an unassuming home in Kew (Grand Designs House of the Year S1 E2), or a disco dance foor (S11 E7). Matt and Sophie White extend a Grade II-listed gamekeepers cottage into what McCloud describes as a ‘giant toy box’ of a home (S17 E2), flled with secret passageways, hidden spaces, a kaleidoscopic staircase, revolving bookcases and freman poles between foors that invite exploration and play. Even McCloud can’t resist what he calls the ‘sheer delight’ of the freman pole. Many of the features of the home are ‘a bit silly’ says owner Matt, such as the revolving bathtub which opti- mises views of the Sussex countryside. These playful elements disguise considerable pragmatism and long-term utility. The hidden staircase occupies a space that can eventually be repurposed into an elevator shaft. Other playful elements are equally movable and modifable, capable of adapting to the family’s changing needs over time. While adapting house structures for whimsical fantasy is fun, there are occasions when conventional house features are impractical and can hin- der or reduce occupants comfort, or indeed independence. One of the more inspirational episodes of Grand Designs follows the story of Jon White and his partner Becky (S13 E4). Jon’s life was changed dramatically when he lost both legs at the knee and his right arm after stepping 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 55 on an improvised explosive device while serving as a Royal Marine in Afghanistan. Returning to civilian life, the old cottage that was pre viously home was now poorly suited for his mobility needs, with tight, narrow spaces and living spaces split across multiple levels. Jon applied his logistical and people management skills to project manage the build of a new home for his family. Typically, a house adapted for a person with disabilities might overlay adaptations (made of ugly white plastic) onto conventional structures (e.g. additional handrails) to assist the person move around independently. Instead, as McCloud narrates, Jon and Becky’s crooked chocolate box home ‘designed out obstacles’. There is a lift that enables Jon to access each level of the house. There is also a staircase adapted to suit Jon’s prosthetic limbs. It has shallow rises and wide treads made of a clear acrylic that give with applied pressure to make them optimally comfortable for use with his prostheses. Doorways are wider than average, the house can be entered directly from the garage, and an integrated bench seat wraps around the bathroom shower and sink enabling Jon and Becky to make use of the space together. Each of these subtle adaptations is both universally practical and aesthetically pleasing. The crooked chocolate box cottage marries practicality with the sen- sibilities of taste. Taste matters a great deal in Grand Designs. Homes are imbued with cultural and social values relating to taste (Bourdieu 1979). The sometimes moralising tone of the program derives from the symbolic power of economic, cultural and social capital, converted by professionals and upper-middle-class participants in performances of consumption practices which are evident of their taste competencies. Should participants not adhere to acceptable standards, or should examples of poor levels of taste literacy occur, these are met with McCloud’s literally raised eyebrows. The expert host framing taste as a moral act. For this reason, Grand Designs is often disparaged for being middle-class oriented. An acerbic article titled ‘A Deep Dive Into ‘Grand Designs’, the Greatest Show on British Television. Or: why middle class couples in gilets are determined to build their legacy’ describes the program as:

a TV programme where rich couples in body-warmers fuck up their lives for absolutely no reason. Every single project is built over a home where another home nearby would just do. None of these people need to build these monuments, but they do, and Kevin loves them. Strange vanity projects to serve the egos of the already gilded. (Golby 2017) 56 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Related, one of the central criticisms aimed at Grand Designs over the years has been its purported pre-occupation with large-scale, expensive ‘grand’ houses—something that the press has dubbed ‘the charge of elitism’ (Aitkenhead 2008), based upon the view that few people could afford the projects featured. McCloud is quite familiar with the criticism. In 2014, when speaking at the Grand Designs Show in Melbourne, he proceeded by framing the series as not just about big houses, observing that a lot of projects they include are in fact relatively small, somewhere between [£]100 and 200 k. Elsewhere, when queried on the emphasis on ‘grand’ and ‘the trouble it causes’ McCloud argues:

Many of the people I flm don’t live in grand designs. They live in beautiful houses, but they’re not often large in size. They’re sometimes quite modest. I think that is a misrepresentation of the people I flm. Many live in straightforward, three-bedroom houses. (McCloud cited in Day 2013)

Grand Designs, while ostensibly packaged as an architectural program, is foremost about (tasteful) home-making. For buildings to be featured in the program, they must be owner-occupied, in that once built they must become the primary residence of the owner, and therefore, the primary site for their domestic life. The framing of each episode around the domestic experience the occupants intend to achieve through the building of the property is emphasised in the opening scenes, where McCloud probes the occupants for their dreams and aspirations as they imagine them to be enabled by the future building.

I think the important thing is to extract from people at the beginning their kind of agenda, to understand what it is they are trying to do. And then in the end all we’re doing is measuring the project against that, against their original aim. (McCloud 2017)

This focus on how the building performs as a home and vehicle for lifestyle is revived in the fnal scenes of each episode when McCloud returns for the conclusive visit, to ‘reveal’ the fnished building. In these scenes, McCloud examines the building’s architectural features, interviews the family on their experience of the process and invites them to gauge the success of the building’s ability to meet their desires and enable their preferred lifestyle. The popularity of the ‘revisit’ episodes through the distinct program Grand Designs Revisited underscores this demand to 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 57 understand the lived experience of the building. After all, if the program and viewership is about architectural integrity, then a revisit is unlikely to reveal much new beyond the quality of the workmanship against daily wear and tear.

What Is a Home? The priority of the domestic experience over capital investment, or even architectural design, in Grand Designs is particularly apparent in McCloud’s preoccupation with ‘coziness’—a certain atmosphere of domesticity, and of comfort and well-being, typically characterised by family life. One episode follows the conversion of a large, Grade II-listed timber-framed barn in Essex by artist Freddie Robbins and sculptor Ben Coode-Adams (S11 E4). The 500-year-old agricultural structure sits on farmland owned by Ben’s parents, who have gifted the barn and land it sits upon to the couple. The vast 7500 square foot barn is seven times the size of an average three-bedroom house, yet it is not just the scale that is contrary to the notion of a typical home. ‘We won’t have walls’ states Freddie. Indeed, Freddie and Ben reject many conventional features of a family home. ‘We defnitely didn’t want to build a four-bedroom family house inside the barn’ says Freddie vehemently. ‘No trees in pots, no hanging baskets, absolutely no nice-ifcation. Not interested in that’. Indeed, when McCloud presses further, the couple reject the modern expectation of a home to be not just inhabitable, but comfortably so:

Kevin: How do you get it to work and feel, if not cozy, comfortable at least? Freddie: Well I hope it doesn’t feel cozy. I don’t want a cozy home. Kevin: Does the idea of living in a house with conventional ceilings, and squishy sofas, and carpet not appeal? Freddie: No I fnd that claustrophobic, I don’t want to live like most other people live. I don’t want that kind of life. I don’t want that kind of building. I want something other.

Freddie’s outright rejection of conformity is at odds with many of the builds featured on the program that aims to produce functional, inspirational and desirable spaces to live. Yet fundamentally, the episode ulti- mately identifes that home is a feeling that is both idiosyncratic and contextual. Freddie admits her family home is not to everyone’s taste. 58 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Figure 3.1 shows how the property’s agricultural heritage is celebrated, with vast concrete foors, exposed timber frame, recycled materials and cavernous storage spaces visible. Freddie says: ‘I don’t expect people to like it, but it’s perfect for us. When I drive down the road it feels like home, so it must be home’ (Essex Live 2011). Home evokes complex feelings, emotions and meanings. For housing scholars Peter Saunders and Peter Williams, the home encompasses ‘household structures and relationships, gender relations, property rights, questions of status, privacy and autonomy, and so on’ (1988, 81). Home is problematic too. Home is not always a site of refuge; it can also be a site of oppression and pressures (Hochschild 1997; Mallett 2004), not least fnancial pressures (Tanton et al. 2008) to which Grand Designs participants are far from immune. The fnancial pressures represented in Grand Designs highlight how the home is increasingly commodifed in neoliberal real estate markets which are ‘overheated’ and ‘built on dept’ (Lloyd and Vasta, 3). Fundamentally to be home refers to a sense of familiarity, of spatial and temporal belonging (Blunt and Dowling 2006), and ‘ontological security’ (Dupuis and Thorns 1998). Ontological security, Ann Dupuis and David Thorns argue, is the sense of well-being created through

Fig. 3.1 A celebration of agricultural heritage (S11 E4) 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 59 continuity of events and experiences that provide a sense of constancy, context and control. When crafting their own grand design, people featured in the program are very much in pursuit of ontological security. John Flood and Eleni Skordaki can’t bear to leave their little corner of Hackney, East London where they have lived for ten years (S3 E6). John states: ‘This is a unique part of London. It’s close to the centre. There is warmth. The people are friendly. The people say hello’. The couple were content with the location of their nineteenth-Century terrace home, but not with its period features. They chose to tear out all original internal structures, including walls, ceilings and foors in order to transform it to a modern open-plan design to better enable the lifestyle they desire. For Eleni, the house represents ‘what I needed ten years ago, it’s not what I need now’. Her ability to change the house to suit her current needs brings a sense of control, secured by the constancy of the ongoing local context. John also holds on to the constancy of locality as a basis for self-examination: ‘I don’t want to leave this neighbourhood. I don’t want to leave this house even but I do want to, in a sense, reinvent what is here and change myself if you like as well as change the house’. Even with this desire for the new there is a sense of ‘loss’ and of ‘bereavement’ as the old house’s structural features are demolished and the stability— physical, ontological and fnancial—they provided is withdrawn. Homes have profound connection to place, ‘without exception, the home is considered to be the ‘place’ of greatest personal signifcance’ (Prohansky et al. 1983, 60). This sentiment is echoed in the work of leading scholars from social philosophers Martin Heidegger, Gaston Bachelard and Pierre Bourdieu to geographers Yi-Fu Tuan and Doreen Massey. Massey specifcally contests the idea of the home as a fxed place of security. As Massey argues, homes are ‘constructed out of movement, communication, social relations which [are] always stretched beyond it’ (Massey 1992, 14); at any time, these relations are capable of upsetting the sense of stability and settledness.

Connections to Place In the same season as John and Eleni’s terrace conversion, Merry Albright wants to build a traditional cottage that pays homage to her ancestry (S3 E8). She comes from a line of Herefordshire builders who have each built their own homes using traditional building crafts. Merry wants to retain this family tradition, as well as stay in the local area she 60 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY has known all her life. Her father owns a company called Border Oak that designs and constructs bespoke green oak-framed houses, in which many family members, Merry included, are employed. Merry and her husband Ben’s home is to be built by Border Oak. In their early 20s, Merry and Ben are two of the youngest participants on the program and have one of the quickest project to complete. McCloud returns to visit the couple in their new home just 19 weeks after the foundations are poured.

Merry: We could have moved fve or six weeks ago, we could have moved in yeah. I got a bit frightened about leaving my mum and my dad and my sister, and it was too… Kevin: Leaving home? Ben: It was a bit strange coming in, the frst time you sleep here. It’s like sleeping in someone else’s house. It turns from being a project into you actually accepting that it’s your house.

Prior to, and during the build, the couple lived in a converted shed at the bottom of Merry’s parent’s garden. When their own home is completed, Merry hesitates to move in because to do so means leaving her parental home for the frst time in her life. For Merry and Ben, the physical structure of their new house cannot be easily reconciled with the social, cultural and emotive sense of being at home. It takes time for their new home to become the secure base around which their identities are constructed. Searching online for details of the couple following the episode airing reveals that, as it happens, they only lived in the new home for 20 months before deciding to begin the whole process again to make space for their growing family. They fnd another plot of land within the same village as their frst home and set about their second build; they even return to Merry’s parent’s converted shed for the duration of the build (Philips 2008). They didn’t stop there either as, according to the Facebook page of Border Oak (the family business), the couple move again, ten years later to another, larger Border Oak property within the same area (RightMove, n.d.). For Merry and Ben, home provides security in the sense that it is located in a place with strong ties to family. For other people featured in Grand Designs, their homes offer fnancial or physical security. For example, John Cadney and Marnie Moon have never been able to afford a permanent home for their family, camping instead for a total of sixteen 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 61 years on land owned by Marnie’s parents (S5 E3). They are fnally in a position to implement a solution to this dilemma. Their solution is to build a log cabin that arrives from Finland as hundreds of pre-cut bits of wood. It’s a cost-effective solution, that’s if they can fgure out how to ft it together! Having lived in a makeshift home at the back of John’s workshop, in which all three children share a single room, Marnie doesn’t ask for much from her new home: ‘Well’, she says, ‘it’s our dream isn’t it? It’s actually being able to have a house with a sitting room, dining room, separate bedrooms, space, warmth, heat. All the amenities of modern life’. McCloud states off-camera that the house fulfls John’s ‘very male need to provide shelter’ for his family. While John describes his need as ‘primal’ to feel as though he has provided for his children: ‘There I am trying to make beautiful stunning pieces of furniture for people who live in expensive or beautiful houses, and there’s us living in a shack’. Another episode that highlights how homes bring a sense of security is especially poignant. Lucie Fairweather set out to build a fairly modest home (within the context of the program) with her husband Nat McBride, who at the time flming commenced had just been diagnosed with stomach cancer (S10 E3). Six months into the build, Nat sadly passed away leaving behind Lucie and their two young children. Lucie shoulders Nat’s death and courageously perseveres with their plans for the family home through the help of family friend and architect Jerry Tate. In one especially telling scene that highlights the expectation that a home should protect and nurture those within it, Jerry tells the camera how the design has been modifed to suit both Lucie’s revised budget and the new circumstance. ‘The layout is something we spent a lot of time working on’ he states, ‘things like the master bedroom overlooks the front door, so that when you wake up in the middle of the night, you can come out and see who’s coming. We felt that was an important thing to have’. Lucie, as a single mother, has heightened concerns for security. Jerry explains to McCloud that ‘the house is in many ways and on many levels security for Lucie. In a sort of spiritual, and physical, and fnancial way’. The house, McCloud surmises, provides a sense of stability. Returning three years later, McCloud concludes that the home has provided exactly the security and stability that Lucie needed, but even this stability is potentially transitory. ‘It’s important that I’m happy’. Lucie says fnally. ‘It’s important that our lives move on. I’m never going to be so attached 62 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY to this house that I wouldn’t move on from it. But at the moment it’s wonderful’. Lucie acknowledges here that her ontological security is always an ongoing process; hence, here it is articulated in relation to her past, present and future experiences. Aside from the architectural integrity of the project, the other striking aspect of Lucie’s project is how closely the flming process documents her journey from wife to newly widowed single mother, to active local community member flled with independence and optimism. The appeal of the series throughout is less the architectural prowess of the project, and more the human stories behind it.

We understand the buildings through understanding the people, and we come to love the buildings through loving the people. In that sense, it is both celebratory of architecture and of human energy and endeavour. (McCloud cited in Stanford 2016)

Human Stories Though the human stories drive the narrative, this was not the intention at the outset. The foregrounding of the human element to each story is something McCloud has gradually come round to over the course of the program:

I started out not at all interested in docusoap; what interests me is the architecture and design of the buildings. That’s why I’m there. But I’ve come to realise that the buildings only exist because of human beings, and they refect the characters of the people who built them. So even if you try to talk about just the building, you end up looking at the people who built it, trying to understand it from a human point of view. (McCloud cited in Bedell 2002)

Over the series, McCloud has been seen to forge special personal connections with several of the contributors—most notably, Ben Law who hand built himself a woodsman cottage (S3 E3) and Angelo Mastropietro who excavated and restored a cave house (S16 E4). These are just two episodes in which McCloud actively participates in the building process; they also happen to be two episodes in which the main contributors are single males who share a keen interest in sustainability and the conservation of traditional building crafts. Signalling perhaps his own personal 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 63 interest in such concerns, McCloud is flmed on site far more frequently during these particular projects compared to many other episodes. Angelo as a father of two, motivated by a recent diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and a future of uncertain physical mobility, begins a passion project to restoring a cave house to habitable conditions. He converts the rock house into a modern bright dwelling with all the utilities of modern living including electricity, running water, underfoor heating and Wi-Fi: ‘a Hobbit hole into a 21st century man cave’—as McCloud character- istically puts it. With a budget of £100,000, much of the hard labour is done by Angelo himself. Without power to the site in the beginning of the build, the main excavating work is done by hand then, fnally, with electric tools, but with the hard rock and vibration of the drills even these are taxing on the body. ‘The man need company’ notes McCloud, ‘I volunteer to help him make a wardrobe’. McCloud joins in for full day’s work, participating in the excavation work with a jackhammer to extend the living space, mixing lime coat to cover the walls, and joining a team of Angelo’s friends in lugging materials up the hillside. Rather remarkably McCloud also accompanies Angelo on a research trip to the South Italian city of Matera, known for its ancient cave-dwelling settlements that have in recent decades experienced a resurgence of interest. Exploring examples of contemporary cave dwellings, the pair pontifcate (in Italian no less) on a ‘rigorous conservationist approach’ that attempts to minimise the human intervention to ‘conserve the hum- ble beauty’ of caves and ‘the layers of history’ inscribe in them. McCloud visiting comparative buildings or areas, even in other countries, is not unusual in the formulaic narrative arc of Grand Designs. McCloud also visits Finland to explore processes of sustainable woodland harvest- ing (S5 E3). What is different in regard to Angelo’s cave house is the amount of time McCloud and Angelo are shown at leisure in convivial ease: touring Matera; building fres and preparing meals on the worksite with Angelo’s father Tony, a retired chef; drinking Italian coffee made in the back of a utility vehicle; or sharing Tony’s homemade wine on the hillside while yet another meal cooks on the fre. As the episode concludes, McCloud further signals his desire for their kinship. ‘There’s one last thing I’d like to do’ he muses, ‘go back to the bottom of the hill where I’ve spent so many happy hours with Tony and Angelo’. The episode even fades out over the image of the trio perched on the hill around a campfre, drinks in hand, as the sun sets. 64 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Through their human stories, both the woodsman cottage and the cave house episodes advocate a therapeutic connection to hard labour and the grounding effect of working with raw materials sourced from the natural environment. As McCloud tells Angelo: ‘That phase of just you working with the stone was so primal, you found yourself in that’.

Vehicles for a ‘Better Life’ The homes in Grand Designs are presented as epiphanic objects (to use Norman Denzin’s concept, see 1989a, b). They represent a turning point in people’s lives. In many episodes, the project of building a home is the catalyst for a change in the particular rhythms and routines of the household, whether to achieve existing practices more smoothly, or enable a radical redirection. All of these changes are seen as positive and benefcial to the social fabric of the household and to the emotional health of the individual. In one such episode, Denise and Bruno Del Tufo subdivide their property, selling a quaint Victorian gamekeeper’s cottage to renovate an ‘ugly brute’ of a concrete water tower at the bottom of their former garden, even living in a caravan for the duration of the build (S6 E4). The couple pour everything they own into rescuing the building for cultural posterity while in pursuit of a ‘mortgage free, work free life’. The couple’s fnances are put under duress when the price of steel escalates, dramatically increasing their build costs, putting increased work pressure on Bruno at a time he was hoping to step away from working, and the dream of living mortgage free fades. Steering their way through these fnancial hurdles and setbacks, the couple emerge with a new sense of their ability to adapt to change and adversity.

This house had a life-changing effect on Bruno who was undergoing enormous work-related stress when it was being built. His new home gave him enormous confdence at a time of serious self-doubt. You can’t ask more of a home than that. (McCloud cited in Lonsdale 2012)

The building represents their ability to persevere, and to challenge convention, which in turn gives a confdence that extends to other spheres of their lives. Every episode of the program emphasises the transforma- tive potential for a building to change people’ lives, a sentiment which is reinforced in the visits and revisits: ‘Houses become an externalised 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 65 dream, an externalised realisation of all your hopes and ambitions’ (McCloud cited in Bedell 2002). Jim and Simone Fairfull build a serene home on a remote loch in Scotland (S6 E1). With a focus on quality, Jim and Simone’s builder is working without a set completion date, and the build itself, while not particularly fast, is relatively straightforward. However, it comes at a time when Jim is going through a diffcult split from his business partner and brother, and suffering the ill-health effects of resultant stress including ulcerative colitis—infammation of the intestines. For the sake of Jim’s health, they want the stress of the build to be over and for the family to move in. Jim expects that moving in will help resolve his health issues. ‘I feel like I won’t actually get better until I get in’ he says. The solitude of the location, rejuvenating surroundings and healing powers of ‘therapeutic features’ such as the huge three-metre fsh tank have the desired effect on Jim. Speaking of the house’s ability to heal, he says ‘It’s good for the soul’. For most of the projects featured on Grand Designs, people are motivated by desires for a shift in their current rhythm or style of living—typically people are looking for a slower pace, and to be more connected to the environment. The idea that a slower, more tranquil pace of life can be conjured by a building is a frequent trope of the program. Feeling they had exhausted the challenges and excitement of their careers and the capital, Phil Palmer and Michael Butcher left their high-fying media jobs as head of marketing research consultancy and chief editor celebrity gossip magazine, and their inner-city home in London to establish a new home and lifestyle on a farm in rural Newbury (S13 E9). Their commitment is total. Michael quips: ‘I get up at the time I used to go to bed’. They reinvent the concept of the farmhouse, bringing sleek modernism to serve an agricultural purpose, transform their daily practices by building a fourishing brewery business, establish new identities as ‘farmers, brewers, and entrepreneurs’. Ian and Sophie Cooper are similarly desperate to move out of London and begin a life in the country (S9 E1). They are seeking a ‘different kind of life’ Sophie tells McCloud, ‘in a different kind of building’. They found an apprentice store building in Somerset which they intend to renovate through an Internet search for ‘Old Mill Buildings’, and once they saw it ‘the heart took over and we decided we had to have it’. They have experience renovating fats, but none with anything like the for- midable 200-year-old near ruin, Grade II-listed commercial building 66 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY within the Bath World Heritage boundary, and in an area of outstanding beauty. The old apprentice store, now on the buildings at risk regis- ter, was once the storage space for the adjacent mill. It takes three years just to get listed building consent from the demanding Bath conservation authorities. In the process of ‘rescuing the building, restoring and reconditioning things like the stone, the existing timbers, the fooring, the fagstones’ Sophie explains that it is easy to ‘lose sight’ of the new lifestyle that was their reason for building. ‘We haven’t fallen out of love with it’, but I can’t picture us living there’. There is something ironic in the idea that the stressful, fraught and drawn out processes of building a home, all while flmed for national TV, is the path many chose in pursuit of a more tranquil life. Speaking on what the contributors have in common, McCloud states:

They all share that same readiness to go to the edge. One’s drawn in by the fact that these are people like us who have just gone to a different place. They are ordinary people doing an extraordinary thing. It’s that idea of setting sail around the world, selling your grandmother, and sending your children to the South American jungle. (McCloud cited in Stanford 2016)

Moving on The tensions and traumas that people endure when building their homes is of course one of the crutches of the program. However, the sufferings are not just fnancial. Barry Surtees suffered a heart attack and under- went fve heart bypasses while building his modern mansion in Brighton (S9 E8), and Dean Marks’ ambitions to renovate an eighteenth-century church resulted in two heart attacks and divorce (S7 E5). Building a new home takes its toll. Many fnd the stress of the build process pulls at the fabrics of their romantic partnerships until their relationship has disintegrated. When John Cadney put 10–12 hours days into building the log cabin for himself, Marnie and their three children, it left Marnie doing everything else (S5 E3). Speaking about the project some years later, Marnie says ‘I had 16 horses to look after, three children, and I was helping out with the build by driving backwards and forwards picking up materials, as well as providing food for the build team’ (Moon cited in Streetwise 2009). Even when the relationship survives, the love affair with the property can wane, or the fnancial pressures can continue to overwhelm, and the 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 67 family can outgrow the property or wish to move on, and perhaps even build again. Jonathan Belsey’s radian house, known locally as The Arc, featured on the program in 2010 (S10 E5). Some years later, he states: ‘It will be a sad day when we move out of the house, but with our four children now grown up and in their own homes, it’s time for a new chapter in our lives. Since having The Arc built, we’ve most certainly caught the development bug. We’re currently constructing a holiday home in Greece, and you never know, sometime in the future we may have another project here in the UK too’ (Belsey cited in Fenn Wright 2017). For every revisit episode, there are the homes that cannot be revisited because the original occupiers are no longer there. McCloud has encountered this many times over the program: ‘It happens quite a lot. We fnd they have moved on in some way or other’ (McCloud cited in Stanford 2016). The website ‘Grand Designs For Sale: Buildings From Kevin McCloud’s Iconic Television Series’ (http://granddesignsforsale. co.uk/) documents just some of the properties featured on the program that have hit the market, including the ill-fated Dome House which is discussed in more detail in the following chapter. In the process of building, any sense of constancy, context or control Grand Designs participants may have felt is inevitably threatened. This is the axle on which the program grinds:

They say that when you move house, your world is turned upside because it is so fundamentally traumatic. And in that period, your behaviour can be changed. So I could be watching behaviour being changed. It demonstrates how we underestimate the importance of the home – its routines, its sanctity, its permanence, the idea of it as a fxed point of comfort in our lives. The moment that is removed, life descends into chaos. (McCloud cited in Stanford 2016)

Grand Designs shows multiple interpretations of home, in terms of both physical structure and arrangement, but also in terms of the relationships and connections the home affords to the dwellers, the local community and the landscape. It also speaks to the ways in which home is shaped by memories, past experiences and wishes for the future. The program revolves around home-making, not just residential buildings, but the buildings in which the people who own them will themselves live. Therefore, the program presents to us ideas about how people relate to each other in the domestic setting, and how the home is tied up in senses of belonging and attachment. 68 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

References Ahmed, Sara, Claudia Castaneda, Anne-Marie Fortier and Mimi Sheller. 2003. Uprootings/ Regroundings: Questions of Home and Migration. Oxford: Berg. Aitkenhead, Decca. 2008. Man About the House. The Guardian. October 11, 2008. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2008/oct/11/ design-architecture. Allon, Fiona, and Guy Redden. 2012. The Global Financial Crisis and the Culture of Continual Growth. Journal of Cultural Economy 5 (4): 375–390. Bedell, Geraldine. 2002. Concrete Bungle. The Guardian, August 25, 2002. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2002/aug/25/features. review17. Blunt, Alison and Robyn Dowling. 2006. Home. New York: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. R. Nice. London: Cambridge University Press. Day, Elizabeth. 2013. Kevin McCloud: ‘Do I Covet the Houses in Grand Designs? No’. The Guardian, September 22, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2013/sep/22/kevin-mccloud-grand-designs-housing. Denzin, Norman. 1989a. Interpretive Biography. London: Sage. Denzin, Norman. 1989b. Interpretive Interactionism. London: Sage. Dupuis, Ann, and David Thorns. 1998. Home, Home Ownership and the Search for Ontological Security. Sociological Review 46 (1): 24–47. Essex Live. 2011. Feering Couple Breathe New Life into Old Barn. Essex Live, 2011. http://www.essexlive.news/feering-couple-breathe-new-life-old-barn-tv/ story-13543013-detail/story.html. Harold M. Proshansky, Abbe K. Fabian and Robert Kaminoff. 1983. Place- identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (1): 57–83. Hay, James. 2010. Too Good to Fail: Managing Financial Crisis Through the Moral Economy of Realty TV. Journal of Communication Inquiry 34 (4): 382–402. Golby, Joel. 2017. A Deep Dive Into ‘Grand Designs’, the Greatest Show on British Television. Or: why middle class couples in gilets are determined to build their legacy. Vice. October 25 2017. https://www.vice.com/en_au/ article/43ndkj/a-deep-dive-into-grand-designs-the-greatest-show-on-british- television. Hochschild, Arlie. 1997. The Time Bind. Journal of Labor and Society 1 (2): 21–29. Lawrence, Roderick. 1987. What Makes a House a Home? Environment and Behavior 19 (2): 154–168. Lloyd, Ellie, and Justine Vasta. 2017. Reimagining Home in the 21st Century. In Reimagining Home in the 21st Century, ed. Justine Lloyd and Ellie Vasta, 1–18. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 3 HOME: IDEAS OF HOME, AND THE WORK OF HOME-MAKING 69

Lonsdale, Sarah. 2012. Kevin McCloud. Most Grand Designs are Too Big and Too Bright. The Telegraph, October 9, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ fnance/property/9596965/Kevin-McCloud-Most-Grand-Designs-are-too- big-and-too-bright.html. Mallett, Shelley. 2004. Understanding Home: A Critical Review of the Literature. The Sociological Review 52 (1): 62–89. Massey, Doreen. 1992. A Place Called Home. New Formations 7: 3–15. McCloud, Kevin. 2017. Kevin McCloud Explains the Biggest Mistake His Grand Designs Home Builders Make. This Morning, YouTube, April 28, 2017. Audio, 5:32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v gt3hqigmHUk. = McElroy, Ruth. 2008. Property TV: The (Re) Making of Home on National Screens. European Journal of Cultural Studies 11 (1): 43–61. McGhie, Caroline. 2008. Grand Designs: Kevin McCloud’s Trade Secrets. The Telegraph, April 19, 2008. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fnance/property/ luxury-homes/3361079/Grand-Designs-Kevin-McClouds-trade-secrets.html. Philips, Jeremy. 2008. An Oak Frame Cottage. Home Building & Renovating. December 18, 2008. https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/an-oak-frame-cottage/. RightMove. n.d. ‘4 Bedroom Detached House for Sale. Right Move. http:// www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-46297855.html. Saunders, Peter, and Peter Williams. 1988. The Constitution of the Home: Towards a Research Agenda. Housing Studies 3 (2): 81–93. Stanford, Peter. 2016. Kevin McCloud on Why Building Your Dream Home Could Ruin Your Relationship. The Telegraph, November 22, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/kevin-mccloud-thinks- building-dream-home-could-ruin-relationship/. Stead, Naomi, and Morgan Richards. 2014. Valuing Architecture: Taste, Aesthetics and the Cultural Mediation of Architecture Through Television. Critical Studies in Television 9 (3): 100–112. Tanton, Robert, Binod Nepal and Ann Harding. 2008. Wherever I Lay My Debt, That’s My Home: Trends in Housing Affordability and Housing Stress, 1995–96 to 2005–06. AMP NATSEM Income and Wealth Report, Issue 19. Sydney: AMP Financial Services. White, Mimi. 2014. House Hunters, Real Estate Television, and Everyday Cosmopolitanism. In A Companion to Reality Television, ed. L. Ouellette, 386–401. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Wright, Fenn. 2017. As Seen on Grand Designs—The Arc, Boxford. Fenn Wright, 2017. http://www.fennwright.co.uk/contact-us/news/ as-seen-on-grand-designs-the-arc-boxford/. Young, Iris Marion. 1997. House and Home: Feminist Variations on a Theme. Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy, 134– 164. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. CHAPTER 4

Consumption: The Ethical and the Extravagant

Writing on Grand Designs specifcally, Maggie Andrews places the program within a highly consumerist cultural idiom:

Despite the appearance of occasionally environmentally friendly sustainable buildings, the series endorses a strongly capitalist ethos, where the only judgmental paradigm operational within the text is that of taste … the audience themselves may well question the extravagance and conspicuous consumption of the participants; particularly perhaps in the noughties – an era of unemployment and mortgage crisis – when for many property ownership had opened up yet another gap between ‘an ideal’ and lived experience. (2012, 226)

Andrews’ point underscores how consumption functions as a pervasive aspect of lifestyle media. Indeed, it is diffcult to imagine the format operating without this imperative. As a case in point, perfectionist Clinton Dall’s bungalow is not for the faint-hearted (S16 E1). One of the largest and most extravagant projects to feature on Grand Designs to date, the scale of the house is nothing short of colossal, equating in footprint to seven average sized houses, and costing £1.5 million to build. This magnitude is further put in perspective through the various quantities of materials consumed in the build process. It required: 1300 square metres of tiles, each measuring 1.5 metres; 3 kilometres of underfoor heating pipes; 21 tons of steel, enough for up to ten conventional houses; the property sits on a slab of concrete 60 metres

© The Author(s) 2018 71 A. Podkalicka et al., Grand Designs, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57898-3_4 72 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY long; and a 5-metre-long couch and a 5-metre TV unit were commissioned for the main living area, a single area that can house ‘four fre engines’. McCloud is visibly shocked and uncharacteristically speechless when he visits the site ten weeks into the build, after the steel frame has been erected, and the full scale of the house is revealed. ‘Bloody Nora’ he eventually exclaims. Being into the sixteenth series McCloud is well aware of the quantities of materials typical builds require and how far this build will surpass those needs. ‘You just wait until the glass comes’. He lectures, ‘You just wait until all that ceramic cladding comes. The volume of material you are going to need to insulate, clad, glaze, fnish, paint this is gargantuan’. Most Grand Designs are not to this scale: ‘The word “grand” does not apply to budget, nor does it apply to the physical size of the building, it applies to the design risk of the project’ (McCloud cited in Handley 2014). Still, projects such as Clinton’s that feature material excess tend to capture the public’s attention (Debnath 2015). For owner Clinton, the home is the realisation of an ambitious dream, inspired by one of the twentieth century’s iconic public buildings, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion, known for both its minimalist form and considered use of luxurious materials. The house is actually Clinton’s second attempt at constructing the perfect home, the frst attempt being completed only two years prior. The second will be his masterpiece. Clinton uses his consumption practices as social drivers with the capacity to communicate symbolic dimensions of social and material worth. Clinton is willing to spend whatever it takes to achieve his vision of per- fection. The episode follows the usual narrative arc of the program, but all attempts to construct dramatic suspense fall short. Clinton’s budget certainly accelerates, and he has to juggle fnances and investments to meet payment deadlines, including borrow hundreds of thousands of pounds from a friend of a friend, selling a car and cashing in endow- ments, but he never reaches the precipice of fnancial crisis. Clinton maintains a solid confdence throughout that the build will persist without budgetary restraint or compromise. He says ‘I haven’t really got a budget. I think it’s going to be what it’s going to be and I don’t want to compromise’, then restates ‘I do not want to compromise. I want this house to be absolutely bang-on. I want this to be frst class in every way’. Indeed, Clinton is shown throughout the episode refusing to compromise: when the vast expanses of glazing are installed and one section of the frame doesn’t neatly match the grout lines of the foor, he has the 4 CONSUMPTION: THE ETHICAL AND THE EXTRAVAGANT 73 glass recut. If something is not satisfactory, he simply pays more. His sole compromise to his aesthetic ideal is to add a rigid pool cover for safety to the 15-metre outdoor pool directly accessible from his children’s bedrooms. Clinton draws attention to his own extreme consumption tenden- cies: ‘£3200 for four doors for the ensuites. That’s not normal is it?’ he asks. What makes Clinton’s excesses acceptable (at least in the eyes of McCloud) is the superiority of the materials and design decisions, which amount to good taste. McCloud extols the risk in the fnals: ‘Quality of design and craftsmanship here is near faultless, but this is no eco-home. It is a temple to newness, wrought from the world’s resources, not least in the $125,000 kitchen’. For a program occupied by design risk, material extravagance is a recursive theme. Consumption practices communicate symbolic dimensions of social and material worth, tempered occasionally by taste. In season 16 also, Bram and Lisa Vis set out to create their own uncom- promising piece of ‘landmark architecture’ on the Isle of Wight, with everything in it they could possibly want (S16 E3). As he appraises the progress of the seaside house, McCloud looks furtively over his shoulder before saying softly to camera there’s ‘a faint whiff of footballer’s wives about this place’. Like Clinton, Bram and Lisa refuse to compromise on the quality of their materials. When the steel arrives, Bram says: ‘we could get it a bit cheaper, but that’s not what this is about’. Their architect Lincoln Miles describes their process of evaluating cost options: ‘Bram and Lisa are sticking with the specifcation I’m coming up with for various items, whereas they could cheapen them, they could. So if something costs twenty grand, they could do it for ffteen, they could do it for ten but twenty looks so much god-damn better. And this is going to be hopefully a profound building’. Interestingly, the architect describes the design as inspired by another Mies van der Rohe building, this time the Farnsworth house, exemplify- ing open-plan simplicity, though without the same restrained approach to materials. Instead, the build incorporates many novel, time-intensive techniques intended to provide texture and interest to the facade. These overly intricate cladding techniques—resin-imprinted paper cladding made from industrial waste and pebble-dashing with large pebbles sourced and picked from the local beach—take many hours to prepare and install. McCloud notes they are ‘one of the few green aspects of 74 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY what is a hugely indulgent building that is likely to gobble materials and money’. The architect sheepishly admits he had no idea how long these techniques would take to implement. Excited by the effect of the over- sized pebble-dashing, he attempts a neologism, calling the technique ‘boulder-dash’. ‘Balderdash more like’ quips McCloud. While the materials themselves are ethical and inexpensive, the labour costs far over- shadow any aesthetic impact or environmental gains. Financing such a ‘profound building’ is met with what McCloud calls ‘untrammelled ambition’ by the couple. Their frst moment of fnancial pressure occurs early, when breaking ground. The excavation of the land on which the property will sit costs hundreds of thousands of pounds and produces tons of waste. McCloud asks if they are selling the dirt on to recuperates some costs, and is met by blank faces. ‘Just paying to just get rid of it then’ he surmises. The waste of these raw materials is ampli- fed by the cost and labour in their removal. Having survived a life-threatening brain haemorrhage, accountant Bram’s cavalier attitude towards money creates some nail-biting and uncomfortable moments. In one striking scene, £65,000 of glass waits on a truck unable to be installed because the glaziers have not yet been paid. Bram stands before them making frantic phone calls to a bridging loan company to fnalise release of the loan money. He manages to pay the glaziers’ mere moments before they prepare to leave with the glass. In another scene, Bram talks jovially and insensitively about being unable to pay the labours visibly working hard behind him. New invoices arrive daily as the couple lose grip on what they are spending. Throughout the flming, Lisa appears unfazed by their fnancial predicament. ‘We have a way of landing butter-side up’ she states. Rather than focusing on budget issues as their fnances evaporate, they look instead for ways to raise more funds. They remortgage their current home, max out credit card limits and apply for further high-interest bridging loans and personal loans. Bram is dismissive of such fnancial risks:

The mortgages aren’t necessarily the problem because, well I don’t think that will be a problem. Paying them off might be a problem. We’re not really worried about that at the moment because we’re more worried with getting the money to fnish the house.

And fnish the house they do, albeit with slightly more restraint than desired due to the lack of available money. McCloud’s critical assessment 4 CONSUMPTION: THE ETHICAL AND THE EXTRAVAGANT 75 is fairly positive as he approaches the house, liking the way it is hunkered down in the natural surroundings, those costly cladding techniques ren- dering it nearly invisible, but his eloquence and adjectives dry up when he enters the building. He makes note of the ‘weirdly large’ entrance area, the ‘waterproof telly’ in the bathroom, and states that the games room in the basement reminds him of a ‘Methodist church hall’. While their extravagant consumption might be forgiven, their apparent lack of taste is not. Sensing such, Lisa and Bram are both reticent and defensive in the fnal sit-down. ‘This is’ McCloud tells them ‘the most expensive build ever followed’. ‘All I can see is debt’ says Bram, while Lisa seeks to claw back the home from McCloud’s critical assessment ‘It’s a home’, she protests, ‘it’s not an architectural object’.

Grand Follies and Finances The fnancial somersaults the Vises perform to keep their build progressing are to be expected in a program that features people pushing for something special. Viewers anticipate which builds have people teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and even follow up through social media and press some months after episodes air to identify unflmed consequences. As one observant fan notes in a forum about the Vises: ‘It’s been several months since the programme aired …. yet this family have not gone bankrupt and no unpaid contractors have come forward’ (In Denial 2016). Others are less fortunate and fnancial diffculties continue long after flming ends. One of the most widely known projects to face fnancial ruin is the dome-shaped house, originally airing in 2010 (S10 E8). The eco-home was initially described as ‘awe-inspiring’ by McCloud; however, the project was plagued by fnancial diffculties (not helped by harsh winter weather), and when the episode aired with the build yet unfn- ished, the future of the family home was uncertain. Featured again in Grand Designs Revisited, Robert Gaukroger revealed that an anonymous donor had seen the original episode and offered the family a private loan to complete the build. All it seemed had ended well. But in 2015, Robert and the Dome House were in the news again, this time for sale with a price tag of £2.5 million. Unsuccessful in selling, Robert set about turning it into apartments but was foiled by an ongoing land dis- pute with a neighbour. By 2016, the property was reported to be ‘abandoned’ and ‘dilapidated’ (Moore 2016). The house was eventually sold 76 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY to Yvonne Malley, who was also revealed as the anonymous donor who enabled the build to be completed. Yvonne’s son and daughter-in-law now run the property as a luxury guest house, and the Gaukrogers are building a new home in London (Malley, n.d.). We might surmise that being featured in the program raised aware- ness of the Gaukroger family’s plight and provided an opportunity for a generous viewer to step in with assistance. It is worth pondering also whether a desire to be flmed succeeding, and not failing, might encourage or even pressure people into more risky fnancial actions. Clinton Dall, for instance, later told reporters: ‘I told Grand Designs not to worry, I would get it fnished. So I had to’ (Dall cited in Milard 2015). Robert Gaukroger later acknowledged that his ego made it diffcult to reign the project back: ‘I built it nursing an ego’ (Gaukroger cited in White 2016).

Crisis at Home Grand Designs functions against the backdrop of a long-running ‘social project’ of home ownership and neoliberal economic rhetoric, where housing is central to discourses of security and stability (Forrest 2015). For many program participants, their realities are set within the context of precarious experiences of the housing market with escalating housing prices, particularly in urban centres under pressure for space. Bill and Sarah Bradley’s project of constructing two houses on one lot in London is representative of these social strains and anxieties—they embarked upon the project explicitly ‘in the hope of living mortgage free’ (S7 E8). We also recognise this backdrop of macro socio-economic developments in Monty and Clare Ravenscroft’s project (S5 E1). The young couple, priced out of a housing market in London, spent years looking for a cheap piece of land and eventually built on a tiny plot squeezed in-between Victorian heritage buildings in Peckham. Their beautifully crafted design made innovative use of the space, for instance the double bed slides back to reveal a bath, and a huge retractable roof means they are not lacking in light despite having no external windows. Not only is the build clever, it is also done on a very limited budget. The build costs them £170,000, plus £40,000 for the land at a time when a comparative family home in the local area was selling for £350,000-plus. One thing that certainly had an effect on builds featured in later seasons of Grand Designs is the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 4 CONSUMPTION: THE ETHICAL AND THE EXTRAVAGANT 77

2007–2008. The majority of the tenth series was flmed in the midst of the crisis. The production team feared that Grand Designs would run out of risky projects to follow: ‘But people carried on. What hap- pened was the projects got much slower. It was harder to get the fnance and when they got the fnance they were much more careful with it’ (McCloud cited in Brown 2013). Rather than stall production entirely, the GFC encouraged greater design risks. ‘The great bonus is that when people don’t have all the money they can get, when they know that the resources are fnite, then they start to think a bit harder’ says McCloud, ‘We all know what buildings look like when people have limitless budgets. We all know how extravagant and wasteful and indigestible they can seem. Equally, some of the best projects I have ever flmed have been small ones where people have been strapped for cash and have had to think their way out of problems’ (McCloud cited in Brown 2013).

Thrift As Allon and Redden discuss in relation to the cultural contexts described above, popular media discourses teach ‘how to live in the housing market not just in a house’ (2012). ‘The home’ they claim more broadly, ‘is an asset to be invested in so as to generate additional value whether use value in lifestyle rewards, or exchange value in its potential price’ (2012, 386). Grand Designs shows people using varying degrees of thrift to navigate the housing market. In Simon and Jasmine Dale’s three-bedroom family house built out of recycled materials, hay bales and sheep’s wool for just £27,000 (S17 E6), thrift is approached holis- tically, pervading the whole project from beginning to end. Yet in many projects thrift is pursued in a rather ad hoc way. For Sue Charman and Martin Whitlock converting two derelict barns using old English building techniques thrift is a moral practice (S2 E8), while for Stephen Yeoman and Anita Findlay building a rusty metal house (S16 E7), it is based on fnancial necessity. Despite a huge initial budget, economising becomes necessary for Stephen and Anita when building their statement home. To save money during the build challenged by mismatched specifcations for the cladding, cash fow problems and a surprise pregnancy part way through the build, Stephen buys second-hand objects on eBay, openly admitting his love of a bargain. Not only is he able to source high-quality fttings and fxtures for the fraction of their original price, he enjoys the thrill of second-hand shopping. Thrift in this version has 78 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY a particularly middle-class affiction, manifested in Stephen’s taste for high-end consumer objects such as an expensive designer basin or the 200-year-old, elm wooden dining table that is singled out by McCloud as an especially ‘beautiful’, ‘upcycled’ object. Upcycling is the creative transformation of objects that would otherwise be regarded as waste products, and conferring on them a new aesthetic value and purpose. Thrift is a multidimensional practice, and while often framed as a necessary, productive activity (Podkalicka and Potts 2014), the examples of upcycling represented in Grand Designs are underwritten by middle-class tastes and money (see also Wollaston 2014). In series 18, Beth Dadswell and Andrew Wilbourne are scorned for their renovation of an old Victorian dairy (S18 E5). Initially wanting to retain the original features such as the rear brick wall of the house complete with its weeds and peeling paint, the couple upcycle numerous original objects—including making a chandelier out of the rusty old gutters. Grand Designs fans lit up Twitter to voice their distaste, stating comments such as ‘Style over function everywhere you look…and it still looks rubbish’ and ‘Tonight on Grand Designs a couple spend 1.2 million to look poor’ (Warner 2017).

The Romance of Restoration Many of the projects featured in the program emerge out of buildings that once had very different purposes, and which involve painstaking renovation and conservation. According to our calculations, as of Season 18, there have been no fewer than 39 episodes specifcally involving renovation and conservation (as detailed in Table 4.1). Typically these projects are motivated by logic of conservation, enacted through the preservation of the run-down buildings for posterity, collective heritage and the honour of attaching one’s own personal legacy to a longer historical trajectory. In ‘The Lifeboat Station – Denby’ (S11 E3), the exterior is retained as the shell for an ambitious new dwelling inside. To achieve this, the couple has to proceed with the dereliction of the hulk, going to extraordinary measures to preserve it, given the diffculty even of reaching the site. Their effort illustrates the interplay between narratives of consumption and conservation. Figure 4.1 shows the restored exterior and the isolation of the site. From the image, it is possible to see the expanse of sand that had to be navigated by supply trucks between tides in order to get the materials close enough to crane 4 CONSUMPTION: THE ETHICAL AND THE EXTRAVAGANT 79

Table 4.1 Grand Designs (UK) featuring renovation and conversion builds, Series 1–18

Ashford. The Water Tower Conversion (S1 E4) Cornwall. The Chapel (S1 E6) Netherton, Yorkshire. The Wool Mill (S2 E3) Brecon Beacons, Wales. The Isolated Cottage (S2 E4) Devon. The Derelict Barns (S2 E8) Whaley, Derbyshire. The Water-Works (S3 E2) Surrey. The Victorian Threshing Barn (S3 E4) Hackney, London. The Terrace Conversion (S3 E6) Lambeth, London. The Violin Factory (S4 E1) Leith, Edinburgh. The Nineteenth-Century Sandstone House (S4 E3) Gloucester. The Sixteenth-Century Farmhouse (S5 E2) Ross-on-Wye. The Contemporary Barn Conversion (S6 E2) Ashford. Water Tower Conversion (S6 E4) Skipton, North Yorkshire. The Fourteenth-Century Castle (S7 E1) Hampshire. The Thatched Cottage (S7 E2) Bournemouth. The Bournemouth Penthouse (S7 E4) Birmingham. The Birmingham Church (S7 E5) Somerset. The Apprentice Store (S9 E1) Oxfordshire. The Chilterns Water Mill (S9 E2) Newport, Wales. The Newport Folly (S9 E3) Isle of Wight. The Tree House (S10 E1) Stowmarket. The Barn and Guildhall (S10 E4) Morpeth, Northumberland. The Derelict Mill Cottage (S11 E1) Tenby. The Lifeboat Station (S11 E3) Essex. The Large Timber-Framed Barn (S11 E4) Cornwall. The Dilapidated Engine House (S11 E6) Roscommon, Ireland. Cloontykilla Castle (S12 E1) London. The Derelict Water Tower (S12 E5) London. The Edwardian Artist’s Studio (S12 E6) London. The Joinery Workshop (S12 E8) Thorne, South Yorkshire. The 1920s Cinema (S13 E1) Worcestershire. The Cave House (S16 E4) County Antrim. The Blacksmith’s House (S16 E5) Somerset. The Concrete Cow Shed (S16 E6) Horsham. Fun House (S17 E2) The Wirral. Floating Timber House (S17 E8) Harringey, London. Victorian Gatehouse (S18 E 2) County Down. Agricultural House (S18 E3) South East London. Victorian Dairy House (S18 E5) 80 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Fig. 4.1 An expanse of sand is navigated by supply trucks between the tides (S11 E3) up the 12-metre-high pier. To purely conserve such a building is a different project to making it a home. One’s desire to attach homely qualities to a functional building lies in the broader connection of home to personhood.

Recycling and Reducing Waste Upcycling in Grand Designs is portrayed as a form of aspirational and middle-class focussed recycling. Arguably one of the most exciting tri- umphs of recycling occurs in Northern Ireland, where Patrick Bradley uses four shipping containers stacked crossways as basis for his home structure (S14 E4). Also notable, at least for McCloud’s sheer contentment, is the beech wood fooring in a Gloucestershire tree house made out of an old basketball court, which retains the original coloured demarcations of the sports court (S17 E1). McCloud gleefully points out the gleaming fnish on the fooring, describing it as the result of ‘generations of plimsolls and adolescent knees’. But recycling in and of itself is not always thrifty, nor middle-class, and the use of recycled materials can in fact create more trouble, labour and waste. The most notorious example of the diffculties reusing waste materials is the episode which features the renovation of an old barge 4 CONSUMPTION: THE ETHICAL AND THE EXTRAVAGANT 81

(S7 E3). Chris Miller and his wife Sze Liu Lai pool the little savings they have together to create a house for their young family uncom- fortably crammed into a tiny apartment in East London. Driven by the necessity for more living space and armed with a bold creative vision, the couple embark on a project to turn a small steel barge into an ecologically sound home. Their minimal budget dictates their reliance on recycled materials, but their absolute commitment to recycling, as viewers fnd out, becomes the couple’s undoing. Recycled materials such as windows, for example, sourced in second-hand markets may come cheap but also come in different sizes and styles, creating tonnes of installation problems for the builders constructing the eco-barge, and overall com- promising the design and project timelines. The homeowners and builders confict over whether such obsessive recycling is a legitimate way to progress and execute the project. Clearly not is the message. Such complete commitment to recycling is presented as a liability for the enact- ment of environmental sustainability because of ineffciencies in building and subsequent waste. The eco-barge episode is one of very few that McCloud attempted to distance himself from, stating to the media ‘The project was compromised from the beginning. They were not prepared properly from the beginning and were relying on happenstance. I didn’t want to do that one from the start’ (McCloud cited in Collinson 2011). Questions of how waste materials generated during a project build are managed and disposed of are frequently absent from the on-screen commentary in Grand Designs. Waste materials include objects such as surplus supplies, excavated earth and demolished structures, including pre-existing buildings. The practice of destroying an existing building to acquire the land (a practice described as ‘bungalow-gobbling’) is suggested in multiple episodes as a way of navigating limited land availability in desired locations, or even as a way of bypassing planning permission laws (e.g. S3 E1). David and Greta Iredale build a customised German kit house (S4 E2). They choose their pre-fabricated house precisely because it is eff- ciently manufactured, with minimal waste products produced during its construction. Their insistence on this beneft is interesting given the demolition of their old house on the site to make room for the new effcient design. While the owners salvage as much bric-a-brac material from their previous home, how the majority of building material is disposed of is not captured on camera. Such questions of waste and disposal are generally left unresolved by the program. There are just a few notable 82 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY exceptions. When building their timber frame kit house, Tim Cox and Julia Brock, like many Grand Designs homeowners, face monetary and time limitations (S1 E1). The original derelict house on the purchased land is demolished and removed, together with 200 tonnes of clay. Tim and Julia calculate the resell value of these materials into their build budget. Natasha Cargill’s periscope house must minimise waste during the build process in order to achieve the highest carbon rating (6 in the UK scale) as a condition of planning permission and residency policy (S14 E6). Another further aspect of waste is in the longevity of the project once completed. Rob Hodgson and Kay Ralph’s clifftop house is built precar- iously close to the edge of an eroding cliff in Gwynedd, Wales (S14 E1). Not only does this precarious position ensure ongoing maintenance work but also makes certain to reduce the house lifespan to a mere 60 years.

Champions of Ethical Consumption The instances of thrift on display in Grand Designs are also underwritten by broader efforts in ethical consumption and sustainability. In an iconic episode, one of the frst builds ever featured on Grand Designs, Rob Roy and Alida Saunders’ building of their eco family home typifes their ideals of green living (S1 E5). The young couple with three children swap their Victorian house for a self-built ecological house that can deliver lower utility bills and a higher quality of living. To save money, the family live in a caravan on the property for the duration of the build. Instead of contracting in expensive professionals, the project is completed by Rob and a small group of like- minded associates. Rob, a former taxation consultant, sources sustainable building materials while Alida thrifts items for the home such as original Victorian doors. They buy non-toxic paints, composting toilets and a solar hot-water system. Furthermore, Rob and his associates become accredited practitioners of an innovative insulation system so that they can assist others in acting on sustainable principles. Because of Rob’s insistence that professionals are unnecessary as he can learn every aspect of the build himself, the time frame dramatically extends at the expense of his family’s comfort in their cramped caravan. Likewise, his dogged- ness on the highest specifcations results in him choosing the strongest wood available for the ring beam on which the house is propped—never 4 CONSUMPTION: THE ETHICAL AND THE EXTRAVAGANT 83 mind that the selected wood is unnecessarily strong and diffcult to manipulate. Despite the many delays and challenges of the build, the commitment pays off. When McCloud visits Rob and Alida 16 months later (Grand Designs Revisited), the house is almost fnished, although the solar panels on the roof are yet to be installed. Rob’s heating and water recycling technologies get bills to a fraction of what they used to be. The viewers learn about a range of compromises that the couple have made to their original vision: some paints and fxtures ended up being ‘pragmatically’ swapped for less-ecologically sound equivalents. It also turns out that Alida isn’t comfortable with other people’s perception of a compositing toilet after all so a low-fush one is used instead. By the homeowners’ admission, life in the new house feels ‘comfortable’ and ‘easy’, and the dream to live ecologically does become part of their normality. By showing self-builders such as Rob and Alida, Grand Designs informs public perception and impresses upon the discursive arena of sustainability imagination and practice. Geoffrey Craig studies the Grand Designs eco-house episodes and argues that what stands out is the diversity with which the series acknowledges sustainability, as well as pragmatic negotiations required including fnance (Craig 2016). Some homeowners have the highest consideration for the natural environment. Such commitment is exem- plifed in projects including Ben Law’s woodman’s cottage (S3 E3), Richard Hawkes and his wife Sophie’s innovative eco arch house with its hand-made vaulted parabolic arch and passive solar design (S9 E4), Kelly and Masoko Neville’s house made out of oak frame and straw bales in Cambridgeshire (S7 E7), and Ed and Rowena Waghorn’s recycled timber-framed house (S11 E5). These participants go to extreme lengths to keep in check the house footprint and human impact on the environment. As in real life—sustainability can also mean subtle shifts implemented through mundane practices. Craig’s observations are borne out in our empirical research, where home renovators reported various scales and commitments to a green living. The desires and practices enacted upon to achieve sustainability occur alongside elements of extravagance, cost-saving and thrift. It may be disappointing for some audiences of Grand Designs that when faced with the choice between an innovative eco solution and a conventional product with a lower build cost, the houseowners opt for the latter, but the deliberation and the pragmatic decision-making are genuine. 84 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

While the tricky issue of the upfront cost of sustainability is a complex one (similarly present in our empirical research) and remains ambiguous in the program, the fact that some protagonists of Grand Designs do feel compelled to enunciate their pro-environmental attitudes is in itself interesting. It points to the signifcance—and also persistence—of cultural norms and meanings, and the ways in which they co-shape people’s everyday consumption practices, alongside available skills, and technologies (Shove et al. 2012). Both excess and thrift are often bundled with practices and discourses of sustainability, for example selecting a timber frame because it is environmentally friendly, after having demolished and disposed of the building that was on the site, or using an unknown ecological material not tested in residential building projects before. Discursive and value systems in Grand Designs are often in tension with incongruous material practices of transformation that ensue on the screen. Anthropologist Daniel Miller has written extensively about the ways thrift in particular animates consumption, through a contradiction between ethics and mor- als, which includes fnancial concerns. As he puts it, the ‘ethical concern for wider issues of the planet and other people … always seem to be at the expense of the moral concerns for one’s own family and household’ (2012, 89). Miller’s work is vital for understanding the situated modes of ethical consumption in Grand Designs. It draws attention not only to what people do in their everyday consumption practices, but also to how markets and economic theory play out in these wider structural felds (Dombos 2012).

References Allon, Fiona, and Guy Redden. 2012. The Global Financial Crisis and the Culture of Continual Growth. Journal of Cultural Economy 5 (4): 375–390. Andrews, Maggie. 2012. Domesticating the Airwaves: Broadcasting, Domesticity and Femininity. London: Bloomsbury. Brown, Pam. 2013. ‘Grand Designs’ McCloud Built to Last. The West Australian, June 6, 2013. https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/tv/ grand-designs-mccloud-built-to-last-ng-ya-351578. Collinson, Patrick. 2011. Grand Designs: The Home Truths of Kevin McCloud. The Guardian, April 9, 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/ apr/09/grand-designs-kevin-mccloud. 4 CONSUMPTION: THE ETHICAL AND THE EXTRAVAGANT 85

Craig, Geoff. 2016. Green Grand Designs Sustainability and Lifestyle. In Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference. Newcastle. Retrieved from http://www.anzca.net/documents/2016-exec-meeting-and-agm/909-anzca-2016-conf-handbook/fle.html%0D. Debnath, Neela. 2015. Is It the Most Amazing House? Grand Designs Fans in Awe at Biggest House in Show’s History. Express, September 10, 2015. https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/604149/Grand-Designs- Kevin-McCloud-Clinton-Dall-Sussex. Dombos, Tamás. 2012. Narratives of Concern: Beyond the “Offcial” Discourse of Ethical Consumption in Hungary. In Ethical Consumption: Social Value and Economic Practice, ed. James Carrier and Peter Luetchford, 125–141. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Handley, Lucy. 2014. Kevin McCloud: Grand Designs Don’t Have to Be Expensive. High 50, September 1, 2014. http://www.high50.com/homes/ kevin-mccloud-grand-designs-dont-have-to-be-expensive. In Denial. 2016. https://onthewight.com/grand-designs-isle-of-wight-house- photos-stunning/. Malley, Yvonne. n.d. Back Story. https://www.domehouselakes.co.uk/. Milard, Rachel. 2015. ‘Now That’s a Grand Design: Spanish-Inspired Home Oozing with Lots of Style to Appear on TV Show.’ The Argus, September 8, 2015. http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13651840.Now_that_s_a_Grand_ Design__Spanish_inspired_home_oozing_with_lots_of_style_to_appear_on_ TV_show/. Miller, Daniel. 2012. Consumption and Its Consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press. Moore, Chris. 2016. Grand Decay: Inside the Awe-Inspiring’ Lake District Eco- Lodge that Now Lies Just Six Years After Featuring on C4 show. Daily Mail, May 23, 2016. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603551/Grand- Designs-Lake-District-eco-lodge-crumbling-abandoned.html. Podkalicka, Aneta, and Jason Potts. 2014. Towards a General Theory of Thrift. International Journal of Cultural Studies 17 (3): 227–241. Shove, Elizabeth, Mika Pantzar, and Matthew Watson. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. London: Sage. Warner, Sam. 2017. Grand Designs Fans Shocked as Couple’s £1.2 m Victorian Home Is Wrecked on Show. Digital Spy, October 6, 2017. http://www. digitalspy.com/tv/reality-tv/news/a839961/grand-designs-1-2-million- victorian-home-is-wrecked/. White, Anna. 2016. Grand Designs Eco Mansion to Be Turned into Flats. The Telegraph, February 25, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/ luxury/want-to-buy-a-piece-of-grand-designs-now-you-can/. Wollaston, Sam. 2014. Kevin’s Supersized Salvage—TV Review. The Guardian, April 25, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/apr/25/ kevins-supersized-salvage-tv-review. CHAPTER 5

Innovation: From Represented Novelty to Transformation in Practice

If a comfortable, even chic twenty-frst century tree house seems appeal- ing, then the Gloucestershire Treehouse is a must-see (S17 E1). It is a standout house for a number of reasons, although it is actually perfectly tucked away on a protected nature site in the middle of the small town of Dursley. The whole build is essentially a tree house for grown-ups, suspended on metal stilts carefully screwed into the ground like giant bolts so that no damage is done to the tree roots, and more broadly the character of this woodland oasis is retained. The main house and its spacious verandas are suspended up in the air and elegantly cladded in wood to camoufage the structure into the surrounding trees. To enter the house, you have to follow the steel grating bridges and walkways that connect the house to the ground level. Below the house, there is a workshop wrapped in softly frosted mirror panels to ‘refect the foliage’ host- ing a kiln room for Noreen Jaafar, who is a ceramic artist. Self-builders Jon Martin, who is a plumber and a landscape painter, and his partner Noreen had endured four long years of construction, with challenges typical of the limited budgets and daily discomforts depicted by Grand Designs. The result is an impressive house that shows off their respect for nature and human creativity. This chapter discusses different types of innovation that Grand Designs depicts and seeks to enact off-screen. Grand Designs thrives on innovation:

[T]hese people who will get three new credit cards in order to be able to spend £60,000 on an experimental heating system that uses bio-gas and dog pooh. Without them trialling it, it doesn’t get to the next level, from the experimental to the innovative, and then from the innovative to the widespread. (McCloud cited in Stanford 2016)

In the literature, the integral feature of ‘innovation’ is not only the ‘newness’ of the idea or practice but its actual application and dissemination (Franz et al. 2012, 3). Innovation, of course, is not limited to the introduction of new consumer products but can refer to the re-assembling of old or used ones, or applying familiar products in different or new contexts (Franz et al. 2012). Innovation can also refer to the development of a new product or service in the consumer markets, or the pursuit of a creative idea or solution to address a problem or an unmet social need (Mulgan 2011; see also Podkalicka and Rennie 2018). In Grand Designs, innovation fgures across these economic and social registers, and across a rich tapestry of sources and uses. From representing architectural innovation such as the tree house in the example above, documenting the ideas about the experimentation and use of novel building materials, techniques and designs, through to the prospects of social innovation expressed in McCloud’s social enterprise projects, there are several levels at which the show productively invokes and seeks to ‘do’ change. We posit that to account for Grand Designs’ meaning and infuence, the analysis needs to include a reading of on-screen visual transformations and also the changes to ensuing consumer practices encountered off-screen (see Chapter 1), which the concept of innovation can be useful for tracing.

Creativity and Experimentation At the textual level, it is typical for Grand Designs to depict novelty and innovation in design and architecture by showing how rules of what’s familiar or acceptable are challenged and bent. For example, one seemingly non-negotiable area in the residential building is that houses are built with windows. But this is not how artist Michelle Parsons and her architect partner David opted to construct their own house in the Essex woods (S17 E4). The black cladded house, that features recycled brick from houses demolished to make ‘room for a new Olympic stadium in Stratford’, is imposingly windowless from the main entrance to the property. The unconventional design shown in Fig. 5.1 invites comparison 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 89

Fig. 5.1 The black cladded house and imposingly windowless, unconventional design (S17 E4) with the black wooden conservation boxes for bats found in the surrounding woodland area. Introducing the episode, McCloud holds one of these boxes up to the camera, pinpointing the obvious lack of daylight and construing an analogy to Michelle and David’s home. But the build, as the audience learns eventually, abates these legitimate concerns, in the end delivering an affordable, light-flled quality living, with a separate studio workspace at the back of the garden. When it comes to the representation of unique houses, the innovation process depicted in Grand Designs centres on processes of experimentation, with trial and error as a recurrent theme. Evocative in this regard is the project by Nigel Hussey, a professor of experimental physics, and his wife Tamayo who build a house that is meant to capture the ‘calm and tranquillity’ of Tamayo’s childhood in Japan (S13 E6). The self-builders select larch wood to clad the house. The viewer is told that the use of this material is ‘staple’ in Japan but unusual in the UK. When the Welsh rain sets in, the point where the cladding and windows meet is under pressure to maintain the ‘shape and performance’. The ensuing idea is to erect little wooden roofs direct above the windows to redirect rain streams. While the solution looks playful in the way it is implemented— analogous to the game of jack-straws because of dexterity required—it is fddly, demanding and time-consuming. In an effort to placate the 90 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY frustrated builders, the couple throw a Japanese-style party with sushi rolls and sake but ‘this too is a novelty’ we hear McCloud narrative, as one of the builders chokes on wasabi, a ‘relatively fne mistake compared to building without detailed plans’ McCloud concludes wryly.

Technological Innovation The way Grand Designs portrays architectural innovation can be broken up into a range of constitutive parts: materials, techniques and skills, all elements constituting design and building practice. The series is arguably more restrained when it comes to direct product placement compared to more notorious mainstream commercial lifestyle and reality programs such as Australian reality TV show The Block. Yet, representations of how new products, novel or newly employed building techniques are positioned or ‘qualifed’ (Callon et al. 2002) in and through the series abound. They are interwoven with educational segments and commen- taries delivered by McCloud, a generally trusted if judgemental expert, who visibly enjoys the opportunity to espouse the material properties, histories and modern applications of goods and methods. In Episode 2 of Series 16, the audience witnesses the building journey of James Strangeways, an ageing sailor who constructs a house that is meant to refect his passion for boats and life on water. The house is erected on stilts and features an elevated concrete platform resembling a jetty construction. It incorporates elements typical for boat making, with wood as the principal building material, highly minimal but functional storage and resolutely no cupboards. One of the most spectacular house details is a butterfy roof which is an inverted roof with a fat green section. McCloud demonstrates the difference between the conventional and inverted roof by showing an old book and the way it folds along the spine. ‘There is something poetic about this roof’ he observes pensively, eliciting James’ own analogy: ‘like ribs of the boat’. Over the years, much of the content depicting experimentation with novel or unknown products has revolved around materials with ecological credentials (see Chapter 4). Andrew and Helen Berry’s Art Deco house shows off the skill in combining past architectural aesthetics with modern eco-building technologies (S7 E6). Great emphasis is placed on the benefts of using lightweight breathable eco-friendly concrete instead of traditional, heavy and environment-polluting cement blocks. McCloud demonstrates the differences using makeshift scales 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 91 put together from large wooden planks on the building site. The reason for their lighter weight is the presence of ‘millions and millions of tiny air bubbles’ which remind the presenter of an ‘Aero’ chocolate bar. McCloud’s layperson-friendly pedagogy does not stop there. The next camera shot takes the audience away from the house building to the factory where the eco-blocks are manufactured. The technology called ‘Aircrete’ still includes CO2 producing concrete, but in proportions friendlier for the environment. In this technology, McCloud tells us, cement is ‘mixed with lime, sand, water and pulverised fy ash – the waste product from coal powered stations’, with added a small quantity of aluminium, which heated creates the bubbles that give the product its name. The whole manufacturing process involves letting the mixture rise and baking it in massive ovens—resembling ‘bread-making’. If McCloud’s pro-environmental stance is made quite subtly in some episodes, in this episode it comes with the full disclosure:

For me it is not that these blocks are light-weight or that they are easy to handle but that they have in them a third of the material found in the conventional blocks (…) These are light on the planet.

In another classic example of an eco-house, Andrew Teilo and Lowri Davies pursue their dream of a peaceful lifestyle by building a big and light-flled eco-house on a small rural block in Wales (S5 E7). The green scenery with gentle rolling hills and tranquil paddocks offers the background for an adventurous project that is meant to be simultaneously environmentally friendly and affordable. Lowri has come to love living in the area in which Andrew grew up, and now living with their two pre-adolescent sons, the budget-conscious, green-leaning, houseowners are on a quest for what they dub ‘a sense of permanence’. The eco-brief is as exciting as it is daring for the couple, leading them to employ an architect passionate about the modern use of green technologies. As the audience, we are informed, for example, that the product McCloud says look like ‘cocoa beans’ is in fact made of a low-energy material typically used as underfoor insulation. Environmentally friendly materials such as lime screed used for slabs and fooring, thermally adaptable and low-cost sheep wool as insulation or a roof terrace made out of recycled tyres are some of the features of the grand four-bedroom house. The challenge, the viewer fnds out, is not the lack of commitment to the green ideals or existing green opportunities but the problems in 92 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY the execution. Lime, known as a building material since the Romans, has fallen out of common use to be replaced by cheaper and easier-to-handle concrete. McCloud is quick to point out that in place of the usual sight of big cement lorries rolling onto a construction site, we see a group of builders, completely unfamiliar with the material, using a small mixer and a little digger to painstakingly scoop lime mortar, and by all accounts, essentially learning on the job. The extra labour means extra time, which routinely translates into more effort and money. The eco-material as an ‘unknown entity’ is a prominent source of the confict between the owners and their architect. But it is the architect leading the eco-charge more so than the homeowners. Such drama is clearly good for TV entertainment but less magnan- imous for the protagonists engaged in the everyday life labour captured on camera. Lowri, who is a teacher, takes on extra housekeeping responsibilities, while husband Andrew, an actor working full time in a Welsh-language soap, project manages the build to save money and gets increasingly more involved in hands-on jobs on the site. ‘What is it that you want?’ McCloud asks Lowri as the problems with the eco-materials escalate. McCloud praises the couple’s green commitment but probes into what is really being transacted over. ‘Is it a highly technical way of building?’ Is there more at stake he wonders, ‘Do you think you’re also being sold a dream?’ he asks. Lowri pauses, then with more than a brief hint of resignation says ‘but we have to wake up in the morning and pay for it’. The dual objectives of sticking to a budget while building an environmentally sustainable house is a dramatic pivot that is representative of the general preoccupation of Grand Designs with budget and innovation, all encapsulated in narratives of ‘idealism and pragmatism’ (Craig 2016).

Innovation by Constraint An obvious way in which experimentation and innovation occur in the program is when tied up with constraints or limitations. Self-builders such as Ben Law (S3 E3) have to come up with creative techniques because of their limited budget, while staying true to personal values. In Ben’s case, he builds the house using materials gathered over time in the surrounding forests and applying an elegant jointing method that doesn’t involve any nails or metal hinge. Others innovate because of the 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 93 limitations of space, whether it is the awkward shape of the plot, its small size or an unforgiving location next to the high-speed railway tracks. To build their miniscule house, Joe Stuart and Lina Nilsson develop on a 38-square-metre plot of land (S18 E8). They are feeling squeezed by the high-priced housing market in London and can afford only a tight space in one of the most expensive cities of the world. Their home design is based on a tight budget too—£160,000 for the build including excavation of the land, and have paid £73,000 for the plot which once held a coffn workshop. Their solution is to build into the ground and up, cleverly organising the house layout across six levels and using the latest building materials and techniques such as Structural Insulated Panels (SIPS) and ingenious bracketing to suspend the foors. The panels are computer cut in a factory in Scotland and slotted onto position on site. Joe and McCloud make a trip to the factory, not only to admire the construction process, as McCloud makes clear, ‘but to learn how to build it’. With the constraints of the space, digging the basement proves a budget-blowing headache resulting in substantial delays and stress for all involved, especially given the build is fnancially supported by Joe’s parents who remortgage their own house to help their son. In typical Grand Designs fashion, Joe gradually takes on a greater amount of hands-on work and quits his job leaving Lina to support them fnancially while the project is underway. Joe also goes into extreme lengths to ensure the highest energy-effciency possible. He opts for what he describes as ‘magic glass’, not two but triple-glazed windows, in addition to a highly insulated home structure. The innovation potential of this project is clear to McCloud from the very beginning: ‘if successful’, he declares, ‘this might be an exciting model of how to build on tiny urban spaces’. But the fnal result of this sustainable house, which McCloud at one point refers to as ‘box fresh’, is not framed exclusively as technologically innovative. Instead, it is described as an example of urban regeneration and community building that starts with ‘pioneering individuals’. As McCloud puts forward: ‘We should stop measuring houses by the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and start measuring by energy, human energy that goes into making them’. He at least recognises that ‘big ideas can come in small pack- ages’. Therefore, the encountered limitations of available space and density growth are not a liability but rather a trigger for imagination and creativity. As we argued in Chapter 4, grand designers’ projects 94 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY may be ‘grand’ and often excessive but they coexist with invocations to moral and productive values that link up with ideas of transformation and innovation. This skill to ‘make weakness [or constraints] work in your favour’ is often referred to as ‘frugal innovation’ (Leadbeater 2014, 2). As Charles Leadbeater argues ‘frugal innovators’ behind new, more affordable and effcient approaches and products, ‘do more because they have less, and because they have less they have no option but to think completely differently’ (Leadbeater 2014, 2). Another spectacular exem- plar of creativity on small budget (including recycling) is the house in a rural Northern Ireland built out of four shipping containers (S14 E4). To McCloud, the house demonstrates ‘a genius exercise in upcycling, with a very low-environmental footprint’. The daring and beautifully executed design that makes most of the natural beauty of the adjacent creeks, heavy moss-covered boulders and mountainous vistas, anchors itself onto what to its architect and owner calls a ‘priceless’ family-owned farm. The house was shortlisted for the highest architectural prize in the UK in 2015—the Royal Architect Prize. It is impressive that this creative architectural feat was achieved on the comparatively modest budget of £130,000.

Collective Learning While the instances of product, method and design innovation across the life of the program are diverse, what stands out is an overall commitment to popular education. Grand Designs tracks the processes of testing materials and putting new design ideas in practice, documenting a myriad of individual circumstances each with their own idiosyncratic building demands and opportunities. Think back to when Katrin and James Gray convert the rooftop of a heritage hotel in Bournemouth peppered with over-sized water tanks and a spectacular dome into a penthouse (S7 E4). As the audience, we learn as much about the need to get on with neighbours living in the building as about the practical challenges of navigating the inconvenient shapes and spaces. There is a pedagogic touch to the Grand Designs stories wrapped in the presenter’s sense of humour and televisual charm. McCloud offers brief lessons in provenances of architectural styles that on occasions take us to Roman times (e.g. lime mortar), Japanese conventions (e.g. larch wood) or Scandinavian styling (e.g. hygge). Nowhere is the comedic 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 95 favouring more obvious perhaps than when McCloud is shown working on his own projects or fronting Grand Designs’ spin-offs. In a live broadcast from the Grand Designs Live show in London, for example, we watch McCloud wearing a tropical Havana shirt and a straw hat locked in a glass cubicle (Grand Designs Live 2008). This is not a holiday feature but an experiment to test the thermal durability of triple-glazed glass (which McCloud refers to as ‘uber glass’) reported to withstand the extreme cold while proving comfort inside. While the temperature outside the cubicle is progressively decreased to Arctic levels of freez- ing, we watch McCloud inside working on his crossword and offering an occasional commentary to the camera. At the climax to the experiment, the glass shatters spectacularly, not because of the defcient thermal glass properties, the audience is instructed, but due to the failure of the supporting metal frame. On a lighter note, in Kevin McCloud’s Man Made Home McCloud documents his own adventure of building a holiday shed. The audience learns about product innovation through historical detours and often hilarious trials of modern applications. For instance, McCloud illustrates the waterproof propensity of pig intestines that are used to create an ultimate raincoat to protect the shed owner from the typically rainy weather on the Somerset coast. A popular pedagogy is applied to demonstrating how soap can be made from fsh oil, and, more spectacularly, a shower is fashioned from an iconic red English telephone box that McCloud and his colleagues retrieve from a junkyard. The idea underpinning this show (with two seasons in 2012 and 2013) is not so much for the audience to copy what McCloud is able to achieve with his skilled if occasionally wacky associates, but to showcase the material, technical and creative potentials of everyday and abandoned items, materials and techniques, to witness what is possible, what is down-right misguided and also why. Sam Wollaston (2014) makes this point about Kevin’s Supersized Salvage and notes:

… it’s excellent telly, because of the interesting designs – grand even, some of them. But also because it does get you thinking about the way you buy stuff and might start to buy more recycled things.

So perhaps it is best to describe Grand Designs as an instance in collective learning. Grand designers are self-builders, often DIYers and novices but they are not your typical reality TV personalities set up or exploited 96 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY for an eviction or non-negotiable televised failure. They are a purposively chosen cohort with projects likely to throw up obstacles and challenges. They are also usually middle-class professionals such as teachers, artists and most aptly, architects and interior designers, with cultural capital in spades as it were. An interviewee who has previously worked on both Grand Designs UK and AU emphasised that the program participants are people who ‘have a really solid idea of what they’re doing’. As he elaborates, the sense of collective learning is facilitated by the centrality of McCloud:

There is the whole collective thing of learning different techniques from different people and then having a single reference point of the presenter (…) that you really like, and he’s assessing it and he is like ‘yeah okay, I didn’t think that was going to work but yeah, actually that’s pretty cool’.

The ways in which professional expertise in Grand Designs converges with ‘amateur’ skills and commitment amount to the uniqueness of the project. McCloud is an articulate defender of what he refers to ‘unique’ ‘contextual one-off architecture’ that is necessarily ‘bound to modify’ in the process, further elaborating in a Guardian article:

Building a house from scratch in the middle of a feld is a bit like building a prototype car. As with all prototypes, if you’re building a car you usually have the luxury of producing several prototypes before you arrive at the production line version—so the opportunity for changing things is quite rich. But with a one-off house it’s almost impossible to make all your changes before you begin to build. Half way through, you suddenly realise something’s got to change. (McCloud cited in Aitkenhead 2008)

The show is premised on exploring novelty and experimentation in residential architecture, televising self-builders’ efforts that invite McCloud’s quibbles and ongoing critique. While the presenter may consistently broach his reservations about participants’ approaches to their projects (many of which are visionary), the end, in the vast majority of cases, provides a comforting resolution (see Chapter 2). This is accompanied by the presenter’s admission of being consistently proven wrong and offering his concluding words of endorsement. Just how much his approval means varies case by case. In some instances, the impact is quite signifcant. For Tom and Danielle Raffeld, his approval of their home in South Cornwall meant a 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 97 great deal (S17 E3). The visibly emotional couple broke down in tears after their relatively low-budget conversion of an old house received McCloud’s highest praise for its exemplary creative use of one single material—wood, expertly steam-bent and woven through the building. The televised happy endings pay tribute to the persistence and problem-solving capacities of the protagonists, into which culminates the on-screen drama and material processes involved in the builds. McCloud has referred to the program as ‘a high-profle feld to trial products for manufacturers’, which owning to the participants’ preparedness to ‘experiment’ and ‘fail’ creates opportunities for change and innovation, and the probability that trialled materials, if successful, are likely to be taken up by builders everywhere (McCloud at Grand Designs Live Show, Melbourne 2015).

Green Innovation Over the Grand Designs’ lifespan, viewers have largely been exposed to representations of energy-effciency through the choices of specifc building materials and appliances that houseowners or architects opt for. Direct references to specifc green products and techniques such as water tanks, Autoclaved Aerated Concrete or simply LED lighting are dotted across episodes. As explained in Chapter 4, an interesting commentary on ethical consumption runs throughout the series. As a case in point, the obviously excessive disco house of Claire and Ian Hogarth, with a disco foor, fsh tank, neon-lit spa and sauna ftted into a large basement in Kensington, London, is clad with solar photovoltaic panels (S11 E7). That the solar panels are included comes across as ordinary, not something to dwell on too much. In these cases, energy-effciency is presented as an inconsequential add-on; while at other times, it is celebrated whole- heartedly as a holistic lifestyle philosophy. Grand Designs does not limit the discussion of ethical consumption to building materials but also addresses the eventual house performance. The houseowners of the eco-house in Carmarthen (S5 E7) and the miniscule house in London (S18 E8) are as concerned about green manufacturing practices as they are about lower-running costs, which is really what leads them to incorporate the improved insulation and high-quality materials. While many episodes emphasise the benefts of technological innovation especially those connected to the green credentials of products (such as double- or triple-glazed glass or alternatives 98 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY to energy-intensive concrete), they also revel in the explanation of how green products work. For example, the children of the homeowners building a ground house in Brittany, France (S9 E5), outline the routes and uses of recycling toilet water; not to mention McCloud’s own low- key demos and everyday analogies that are meant to bring home the understandings of the effciencies of some green products and solutions. If there is any discernible change over the years, it appears to be in the way the market for green materials and the accessibility to environmental knowledge and skills is gradually growing in mass popularity. In his reading of eco-house episodes, Craig (2016) argues that they ‘normalise’ the ideas of eco-design and sustainability, while tending to focus on the diffculties of delivering on sustainability in the build/renovation projects. Although in the early seasons of Grand Designs, the attention paid to environmental sustainability was more specifc and contained within the designated eco-house episodes, it has gradually been distributed across all the series output. Furthermore, on camera McCloud acknowledges the mainstreaming of ‘green’ building by observing the rise of interest in green projects, for example, in references to volunteer labour used for Grand Designs eco-houses (e.g. S9 E5). Indeed, his experience leads the presenter to make an argument for Grand Designs’ actual impact on the built environment industry, that is beyond drawing viewers’ attention to novelties in building and design products and processes as they unfold on the screen. In one account, McCloud states:

The legacies of Grand Designs are underfoor heating, bi-fold doors and heat pumps. I think the next will be airtight homes with managed ventilation. (McCloud cited in Conner 2017)

From Market to Social Innovation A key aspect of any innovation is that if successful, it ceases to be new or innovative; it becomes commonplace, embedded in the everyday (Franz et al. 2012). Innovation, at the end of the day, is about ‘realignment’ and ‘integration’ (Shove et al. 2007, 8, 11). As a process, it is dynamic, occurring in interconnected stages that see a new product, method or solution move along the axis from a unique, one-off event to widespread, affordable and mass marketed. It means that for us to speak of innovation in and through Grand Designs, the trademark ‘bespoke’ ideas 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 99 have to become ordinary. McCloud refects on the program’s impact in relation to consumer markets:

When we started making the programme [underfoor heating] was new, came from Germany, required a pit in the ground and worked like a fridge backwards. Twenty years ago in the UK, it was quite novel. And – probably dubiously – I also consider that Grand Designs is responsible for introducing bi-folding doors to the UK, which is a terrible legacy. (McCloud cited in Stanford 2016)

McCloud asks the question of Grand Designs’ signifcance for social change and innovation head-on in the introduction to Series 15 of Grand Designs, a four-part special with the subtitle Grand Designs: Living in the … (S15 E1). This series is a compilation of episodes themed around distinct spatial locations, with a strong ‘public campaign’ narrative:

[…] when affordable housing in our cities is in such a short supply, surely it seems perverse to be looking to the bespoke, one-offs that have been the meat of Grand Designs? So what’s the point? Why should we care about these house, and these people? What have they done for us? What can we learn from them?

McCloud does not let the viewers ponder too long and hastens with his own response:

I believe innovation, prototyping, experimentation, risk-taking – all those things produce change, so what the trailblazers, mavericks are doing right now, we all will be doing in 10 or 15 years’ time. Contemporary architecture in the city? Absolutely! Super sustainable, zero carbon? Of course! The buildings that promote the ecological lifestyle and promote the sharing, why not?! Beautiful? I certainly hope so.

The Grand Designs: Living in the… special brings together 14 series of Grand Designs to showcase house innovations. This summative and retrospective series has high-profle architects such as Carl Turner and Deborah Saunt known for their innovative housing projects in the UK, as well as architecture historians and curators appear alongside McCloud. Collectively, they make the case for viewing the role of architecture as a mechanism for social change and homeowners as ‘pioneers’, innovators 100 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY and ‘change agents’. These accounts espouse the tenants of good contemporary architecture as generative of community belonging and being about the social connections to place over ‘massive budgets’. While the respect and forged relationship to place through property is a familiar mantra in McCloud’s concluding remarks, here it is formulated and packaged as a manifesto of sorts for innovation and social change. ‘The trick is to take the most pioneering ideas and make them accessible to everyone’ insists McCloud (S15 E1). This emphasis on social diffusion is the key facet of innovation. Over the years, McCloud has become a public advocate for innovation related to green, affordable and socially sustainable residential designs, and getting his own hands dirty by practising what he preaches through challenging social housing development ventures across Britain. He has been reported to ‘ride a fold-up bicycle’ or alternate between ‘his Saab fuelled by locally [Somerset] produced bioethanol, or the Land Rover he has converted to run on vegetable oil’ (Aitkenhead 2008). Whether these personal facts are deliberate exaggerations deployed for droll effect is less important than the visibility of McCloud’s social interventions. In 2009, in partnership with the World Wildlife Foundation, the UK Green Building Council and the Energy Saving Trust, he led The Great British Refurb aimed at supporting UK residents to lower carbon emissions by renovating:

approximately 26m homes in Britain, most of them as well insulated as a rabbit hutch, most of which will still be in existence in 2050. And those homes are responsible for around 27% of Britain’s carbon emissions. (McCloud 2009)

McCloud’s personal views on sustainable, low-carbon housing are often on display in his episode-concluding monologues, for example, whenever he overtly endorses eco-lifestyles or tasteful, pared back styles ‘with no ounce of bling’, declaring no less than we ‘all have to live like that in the future’ (as he states in S16 E2). The self-branded spin-offs such as Kevin McCloud’s Grand Design or Kevin McCloud’s Man Made Home exemplify his own green interests and practices, even if some projects are ‘clearly impractical’ and unattainable for the average DIYer (Wollaston 2014). These examples once again pin down McCloud’s philosophy and the declared agenda to encourage the diversifcation and high-quality housing industry in Britain, which so strongly permeates the cultural 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 101 understanding of Grand Designs. For us, the case he makes for innovation pulls together the discussion threads about the meaning of Grand Designs on and beyond the screen.

The Uses of Television It is well-established that media has cultural and social impacts. Not in the direct linear and causal ‘media effects’ fashion that the early communications research had argued but more fundamentally as a mechanism of ‘media citizenship’, whereby cultural objects such as television programs mediate social values, ways of knowing, learning and belonging (Hartley 1996; see also Couldry 2004). They prompt conversations and inspire social practices, including in the context of consumer markets. Back in 1999, media theorist John Hartley wrote an infuential book called Uses of Television, which is essentially a treatise on how much television bro- kers cultural and social relationships, exposing the audience to lifestyles, norms and popular education. To build his argument, Hartley canvassed a number of broadcasting examples, including a close reading of a British documentary flm from 1935 titled Housing Problems (Hartley 1999, 92–111). The flm depicts the problems of living in London’s East End at the time as narrated by ‘real people’ with frst-hand tough housing experiences, mixed through with the commentary by the sympathetic public fgure experts. It is done in the support of urban modernisation driven by the universal reform of living conditions at a time when television was emerging ‘in both spectacular and domestic forms’ (Hartley 1999, 92). As Hartley notes, there are problems with Housing Problems. The documentary essentially backed up the eradication of slums while advo- cating for moving working-class families into ‘high-rise concrete block of fats’. As it turned out, the promoted positive solutions were over time discredited for the social problems they created, and, because of that, in some cases removed. The interests of the flm’s funders (the British Commercial Gas Association) were also exposed for commercial rather than public benefts. Disappointingly, the textual presences of ‘ordinary’ people were used for a narrative impact rather than to give a voice to their genuine needs. In effect, the decision-making and action are left to the experts who are empowered to ‘improve’ the lives of ‘real people on the screen’, who come across as ‘rambling’ and ‘stilted’, (96–97) and thus needing authoritative ‘help’. 102 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

The purpose of bringing Housing Problems into the orbit of Grand Designs is to round up the discussion of the ‘uses of television’, while gesturing to the genealogy of this type of ‘housing television’. Housing Problems illustrates a particular televisual ‘grammar’ (Hartley 1999, 96) that has impacted representation and production techniques of the current television genres. Discussing the textual analysis process, Alan McKee summarises:

… the textual features that he [Hartley] is describing are an almost perfect ft with what we now call an ‘actuality segment’ or ‘reality TV’ (see Airport, Sylvania Waters, The Village, etc.). But this representation of ‘reality’ is not simply ‘real’ – it is a set of practices and techniques for making texts, with its own history - which begins to emerge in the UK with this 1935 documentary flm. (2011, 26)

There are deep textual and genre differences between the two programs. To highlight just a couple: while the documentary addressed the macro-housing issues grounded in reported personal experiences of housing in one single episode, Grand Designs represents the process of making a home at a micro-scale by many people repeatedly, over many years. The focus, as argued by Mimi White (2014) in relation to a similar contemporary real estate show House Hunters, is on individual housing practices— albeit narrated within the context of the evolving property market, thus ‘encouraging cumulative and comparative assessment by audiences’ (White 2014, 396) and picking up on the broader discourses such as the coveted homeownership. This ‘cumulative’ effect is signifcant, with implications for how audiences can think of the ideal of home ownership as part of the broader public discourse and everyday consumer practice (see Chapter 6). The key argument in Uses of Television is that popular television holds potential for inspiring social change (Hartley 1999, 94), and this is what we want to highlight in our reading of Grand Designs. It is instructive that when we asked expert interviewees the question of how to best engage the Australian public with innovation around domestic energy- effciency, many suggested communication through popular storytelling media given the failures of top-down educative approaches. In those conversations, Grand Designs emerged as a format worth considering for inspiration because of the presence of engaging stories. As one local council sustainability offcer described it, through these narratives audiences can learn ‘what went wrong (…) It makes it real for people and it makes 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 103 it honest, and they believe people because sometimes hideous mistakes happen…’ As we have argued in this chapter, Grand Designs’ educational message plots a story of persistent and mostly resourceful houseowners, with the presenter’s professional expertise delivered directly, even didacti- cally, but just short of assuming monolithic authority. In other words, expert help is available (through professional building practitioners’ advice and McCloud’s explanations or ‘constructive’ criticisms), but grand designers are expected to help themselves, as it were. The program centres on depicting them as agents of their own destiny through the representations of ongoing negotiations and everyday battles in the context of contemporary consumer and property markets (see Craig 2016). Furthermore, participants are a select group of experimenters and entrepreneurs, pursuing individual risks and costs for the chance of collective learning, social change and even innovation, particularly in relation to green or low-carbon technology. The clustering of past Grand Designs projects thematically in the Grand Designs: Living in the … miniseries to argue the case for social change makes the social function represented by the program particularly salient. Similarly, McCloud’s own social enterprise projects use television as a key channel to publicise a message of large-scale housing reform in the UK. Collectively, Grand Designs and its spin-offs, in different ways, are examples of how media can be used to drive change and also innovation in residential consumer markets (i.e. through the availability of cheaper, better, more ecological products), or social innovation, where the market proft is a means towards a social gain (e.g. community building and housing affordability) rather than the sole or ultimate goal. This chapter has traversed the diverse aspects and scales of innovation as represented in and also enacted through Grand Designs. The various episodes used here illustrate the ingenuity and the courage of con- viction of participants that make up the Grand Designs’ repertoire and appeal. The premise of invention, experimentation, customisation and innovation, captured by the label of the ‘bespoke’, defnes Grand Designs’ storytelling interests and images. As described in our Chapter 1, the series enlists self-builds that speak to values of novelty and uniqueness in building design. The embrace of difference through the multitude of individual projects (see Craig 2016; White 2014) and away from the stock stand- ard mass-developed homes is what makes the self-builders’ ambitious projects part of Grand Designs. At the basic level, audiences are exposed 104 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY to diverse instances of technological innovation, especially evident in the representations of green technologies, new products and building techniques. It is also interesting to observe just how frequently innovation in Grand Designs involves re-imagining or rediscovering traditional materials and knowledge. What stands out in the way architectural and technological innovation is depicted is a commitment to popular social pedagogy. In addition to the documented trials and errors, McCloud is a keen on-camera educator offering explanations of products and methods through demonstrations and instructive conversations with homeowners and professionals. As we argued, however, the pedagogical premise of Grand Designs is best understood as a mix of professional expertise blending with amateur (or pseudo-amateur) skills—and leading to a result that in itself is better than originally imagined. As we have learned from the defnitions of innovation, creativity or invention does not by themselves constitute innovation. These are, like experimentation and entrepreneurship, processes required for innovation. Instead, innovation can only occur once new ideas and practices have been normalised and embedded in markets and social life. The depictions of creativity and innovation have been a programmatic feature of Grand Designs and its associated housing projects, straddling the individual (micro) scale of a house (i.e. in single episodes) and the collective (macro) scale across the various episodes and over the program’s lifespan. Selective programs have also focused on the discussion of social change and innovation head-on as their key theme and message (e.g. Grand Designs: Living in the…). But change and innovation in Grand Designs are not confned to the representational and symbolic. In this chapter, we have started to trace the contours of its social impacts, suggesting that the program signifes and mediates ideas, values, material goods and techniques for the audiences to witness and discuss. Chapter 6 further explains the international appeal of the program by focusing on its meanings and uses for the Australian audiences in the context of the media industries and consumer cultures.

References Aitkenhead, Decca. 2008. Man About the House. The Guardian. October 11, 2008. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2008/oct/11/design- architecture. 5 INNOVATION: FROM REPRESENTED NOVELTY … 105

Callon, Michel, Cécile Méadel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. 2002. The Economy of Qualities. Economy and Society 31 (2): 194–217. Conner, Megan. 2017. People Associate New Housing with Crap. I Want to Change That.’ The Guardian. September 26, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/26/kevin-mccloud-homes-tv-life-lessons. Couldry, Nick. 2004. Theorising Media as Practice. Social Semiotics 14 (2): 115–132. Craig, Geoff. 2016. Green Grand Designs Sustainability and Lifestyle’. In Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference. Newcastle. http://www.anzca.net/documents/2016-exec-meeting-and-ag- m/909-anzca-2016-conf-handbook/fle.html%0D. Franz, Hans-Werner, Josef Hochgerner, and Jürgen Howaldt (eds.). 2012. Challenge Social Innovation: Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare & Civil Society. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Grand Designs Live. 2008. E1 Docklands E01, May 4. Hartley, John. 1996. Popular Reality: Journalism, Modernity, Popular Culture. London: Arnold. Hartley, John. 1999. Housing Television: A Fridge, a Film and Social Democracy. In Uses of Television, ed. John Hartley, 92–111. London and New York: Routledge. Leadbeater, Charles. 2014. The Frugal Innovator: Creating Change on a Shoestring Budget. Basingstoke: Palgrave. McKee, Alan. 2001. A Beginner’s Guide to Textual Analysis. Metro Magazine, 138–149. McKee, Alan. 2011. What is textual analysis? In Sage Research Methods, 1–31. Mulgan, Goeff. 2011. The Theoretical Foundations of Social Innovation. In Social innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfgure Markets, eds. A. Nicholls & A. Murdock, 33–65. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Podkalicka, Aneta, and Ellie Rennie. 2018. Using Media for Social Innovation. Bristol: Intellect. Shove, Elizabeth, Matthew Watson, Martin Hand and Jack Ingram. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life. New York, NY: Berg. Stanford, Peter. 2016. Kevin McCloud on Why Building Your Dream Home Could Ruin Your Relationship. The Telegraph, November 22. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/kevin-mccloud-thinks- building-dream-home-could-ruin-relationship/. White, Mimi. 2014. House Hunters, Real Estate Television, and Everyday Cosmopolitanism. In A Companion to Reality Television, ed. L. Ouellette, 386–401. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Wollaston, Sam. 2014. Kevin’s Supersized Salvage—TV Review. The Guardian. April 25. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/apr/25/ kevins-supersized-salvage-tv-review. CHAPTER 6

Markets: Creating Value in Media Industries and Consumption Cultures

It is safe to say that after nearly 20 seasons Grand Designs is an astonish- ing success. It has attracted television audiences across the world, with many contributing to online forums, making fan pages on Facebook or venturing onto the show to become participants. Traditional audience rating fgures are one measure of its success in a number of territories. Over its nearly 20-year lifespan, Grand Designs consistently rates in the top ten programs aired on British television by attracting viewers in the millions. In 2010, for example, fgures for Series 10 which was broadcast during the period September to October reveal it occupied second spot in the ratings garnering nearly 3.3 million viewers or 14.5 percent market share. Narrowly beating it was the BBC program The Young Ones where seasoned celebrities return to their youth which had 3.6 million viewers or 15.9 percent of the audience (Plunkett 2010). These fgures were slightly down on the previous year where the frst night of the new season in January 2009 grabbed top spot with 4.1 million viewers and an 18 percent market share, occupy- ing equal billing with the BBC program The Secret Life of Elephants (Holmwood 2009). Looking further back to Series 8 which was broadcast during January to April 2008, the premier episode received 5 million viewers (Holmwood 2008) and similar success was seen in the previous year where the return night of the series attracted 5.3 million or 24.3 percent audience share (Rogers 2007). Screened in October 2012, the 100th episode featuring the now iconic ‘Derelict Water Tower’ project drew 3.5 million viewers (Millar 2012). For Australian

© The Author(s) 2018 107 A. Podkalicka et al., Grand Designs, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57898-3_6 108 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY audiences of Grand Designs UK, this episode ranked as the most popular of the season, rating nearly 1.1 million viewers. While these fgures might not impress a UK advertiser, the fact that Grand Designs UK is shown on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Australia’s free-to-air, federally funded, national broadcaster, is worth noting. Generally speaking, programs aired on the ABC do not fare well against their commercial counterparts. As we discuss below, Grand Designs UK is clearly one of its success stories.

Audiences, Publics and Second Screen Another way to measure Grand Designs’ popularity is to compare how it performs within Channel 4’s other offerings in which it often dominates the number one place. Weekly fgures for 2010 show that it consistently received the highest ratings on Channel 4 with viewer numbers aver- aging between 3 and 4 million. Following it in popularity during that period were other Channel 4 programs such as Come Dine with Me and Desperate Housewives (BARB 2010). However, this is not always the case. During Series 17, broadcast from September to October 2016, Grand Designs actually dropped behind some of Channel 4’s other success stories. Coming in at 4th place below Gogglebox and Celebrity Island with Bear Grylls, Grand Designs rated 2.4 million viewers (BARB 2016). The year before with Series 16, Grand Designs had reaped healthy fgures of 3 million but was unable to dislodge Gogglebox from frst place with its fgures of 4.7 million (BARB 2015); an ironic result perhaps when you realise that, as noted in Chapter 1, Grand Designs is a program regularly discussed on Gogglebox and actually provides its competitor with content. Free-to-air ratings certainly don’t tell the whole story of the multiple ways by which people access or engage with the program. For one thing, Channel 4, like many television stations, offers a version of ‘catch up’ or ‘on demand’ where programs are either rescreened or available for viewers to stream at times of their own choosing. Its 4oD service has been lauded as ‘the UK’s leading commercial long-video platform’ pulling in ‘younger viewers and advertisers alike’ (Burrell 2012). The fgures discussed above do not include Channel 4 + 1 which is Channel’s 4 catch-up streaming service or 4oD, the on-demand offering. Including such platforms into the mix can often add a further 250,000 viewers (BARB 2016). 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 109

Understanding audience engagement in a contemporary media- saturated environment is a complex activity requiring new methods and perspectives that go beyond traditional ratings. While the focus on everyday media practices shows continuity with earlier television studies such as the classic works by David Morley (1986), Lynn Spigel (1992), and Roger Silverstone (1994), there are new and emergent realities of media consumption that are coming to the fore of audience research. A key media development is captured by the concept of ‘second screen viewing’, which refers to ‘the use of smartphones, tablets, and laptops while watching television’ (Van Cauwenberge et al. 2014, 100). In this study, the authors emphasised the information gathering and consumption aspects of the practice rather than any social media interaction. Conversely, other researchers have looked to the concept of ‘Social TV’, a related but distinct activity. Often the two terms get used interchange- ably although it is probably more accurate to say that second screen viewing is the umbrella term under which Social TV sits to refer to the overtly interactive elements. With second screen viewing, audience members use a complementary screen to gather information about a particular program without interaction with others. In contrast, ‘Social TV’ describes the phenomena such as ‘live tweeting’ during event television and other modes of socially engaged spectatorship. Some commentators have insisted second screen viewing is always about the social aspect which is described as ‘posting commentary to social media while watching television’ (Zappavigna 2017, 150). The entertainment industry is increasingly aware of second screen viewing as an opportunity to forge new markets. According to a 2015 report entitled Digital Video and the Connected Consumer, 87 percent of consumers use a second screen device while accessing traditional TV (Accenture 2015). Although it offers signifcant revenue streams for in-home entertainment producers, there are drawbacks. A 2014 survey conducted by the National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE) and the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) sought opinions from key show runners including Vince Gilligan (Breaking Bad), Damon Lindelof (Lost), Caryn Mandabach (Nurse Jackie), Kara Vallow (Family Guy), and Anthony Zuiker (CSI). The industry personnel described key reasons for adopting companion devices in simultane- ous viewing as: 110 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

building social currency among viewers, making viewers feel special, bringing about a deeper experience with the primary content, creating a shared viewing experience and sense of community among fans, and maintaining a show’s relevance by offering viewers a platform to continue to interact and talk about the program, even when it’s not on the air. (Gruenwedel 2014, 6)

However, the downside of these new modes of spectatorship is an apparent dilution of the original TV product: where ‘real-time viewing on both screens will pull attention from the primary content, leaving viewers with a disjointed experience, which could hurt the brand’ (Gruenwedel 2014, 6). It was felt among creators and programers that there was a real danger for ‘viewers to neglect frst-screen material to create second-screen content’ particularly because television content creators had not yet found a way to successfully monetise second screen engagement (Gruenwedel 2014, 6). In 2016, Neilson launched its ‘Social Content Ratings’ product which measures ‘program-related social media activity across both Facebook and Twitter’ (Nielsen 2016). Neilson tracks how audiences engage with TV content from three hours before to three hours after a television broadcast. Facebook analysis includes posts, likes, reactions, nested comments and replies, boosted posts, shares and likes. Engagement across Twitter is calculated via retweets, quotes, replies and likes (Nielsen 2017). Regularly appearing in the ‘top ten’ of those TV programs that are engaged with by social media are reality TV shows such as The Voice, sports events and drama series like The Waking Dead (Nielsen 2017). It is clear that the ground of audience attention and engagement is shifting and media research is at pains to adjust and to keep up with market research. Craig Hight and Harindranath Ramaswami argue that to ‘conduct audience research means to continue to address the challenges of how terms such as “audiences”, “consumption”, “audience activity”’ are understood ‘within a rapidly and continually evolving digital context’ (2017, 1). For these authors the feld seems bifurcated by two different lines of enquiry that will emphasise either the continuity of or rupture from twentieth-century ‘legacy media’. One perspective insists that the methods and conceptual frameworks deployed to understand audience consumption within mass media spaces remain a vital touchstone for tracing current confgurations. Participation across digital media platforms must be located within a wider media ecology where traditional 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 111 television continues to play a signifcant role by, for example, generating a substantial volume of content for social media traffc. In contrast, the highly active co-creators of new digital media forms, who are upload- ing, remixing and sharing content, make obsolete older ways of thinking about a single unifed ‘audience’. And here in this latter view is where marketing terms such as ‘post-demographic’ indicate the important shifts being made in audience research. Widely reported and resonating in this regard are the comments from Todd Yellin, Vice President of Product Innovation at Netfix. ‘Geography, age, and gender?’ he asks ‘we put that in the garbage heap. Where you live is not that important’ (Barrett 2016).

International Audiences and Franchise Arrangements In reality, where you live may not be as important as before, but geography does continue to shape people’s media consumption experience. Grand Designs is a good illustration. The program is broadcast around the world but its consumption differs in form due to licensing and franchising arrangements and also online interactivity. In Australia, for example, the original British version of the program was picked up in 2005 by the subscription media company Foxtel and broadcast on the Lifestyle channel. A year later, the program appeared on Australia’s public service broadcaster, the ABC in 2006 at 6 p.m., making it available free-to-air ever since (Houston 2011). By some accounts, the program had been ‘watched by hundreds of thousands of people’ in Australia with, nonetheless, ‘very little advertising or marketing’ (Houston 2011). Grand Designs moved into the Sunday primetime on ABC in 2010, validating and reasserting its popularity. As one journalist put it:

And although architecture might not be top-of-mind as perfect TV fod- der, in a country as obsessed with houses as Australia – and with all of us such suckers for renovation shows – it is not that surprising people started watching. (Houston 2011)

Australia’s obsession with houses is something McCloud actually attributes to the long-term success of Grand Designs:

I am really grateful to Australia and to the viewers because they are really important when it comes to the commissioning editors at Channel Four 112 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

saying ‘Let’s do another series’. We have success and longevity thanks to the viewers, without them you don’t get commissioned. (McCloud cited in Brown 2013)

Grand Designs (UK) airing on the ABC attracted an average of 913,000 people in 2015 and 619,000 in 2016 (OzTAM 2016). These fgures increase with the screening of particularly popular series or episodes such as ‘Derelict Water Tower’ mentioned above or the specialised series Grand Designs Revisited. As the name suggests, viewers are returned to the sites of celebrated projects to see how the renovators and their work have fared since the initial builds. Grand Designs Revisited peaked at 1.5 million viewers in 2015 and 1.3 million in 2016. Another ratings success is Grand Designs: House of the Year in which McCloud showcases houses nominated for the prestigious Royal Institute of British Architects’ Award. In 2016, Grand Designs: House of the Year averaged audience numbers of 737,000 in Australia. Figures such as these may mean in some instances, the programs have won their timeslots over the commercial channels, a notable achievement for the ABC. Over the years, the ABC has also aired Grand Designs’ multiple spin-offs—including Grand Designs: House of the Year. Like Channel 4, ABC makes the program available through its on-demand ABC iview service. DVDs of the show are also made available through ABC retail stores. McCloud says: ‘If I want to buy DVDs of the show, I buy them in Australia because you can fnd them there’ (McCloud cited in Brown 2013). Australia and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world with local adaptations of Grand Designs. The Australian version of the format is produced by FremantleMedia Australia for Foxtel and has been broadcast on its Lifestyle channel since 2010. Grand Designs New Zealand went to air in 2015 on commercial national digital free-to-air channel Three (+HR E, formerly TV3). The Antipodean franchises = have become successful, with Grand Designs Australia winning an award from the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) for the best Lifestyle Program category and separately for the Australian host, Peter Maddison, in 2011. The Australian series has been exported to the UK and shown on Channel 4. Similarly, the Kiwi series has been appearing on Channel 4 in the UK, and also in Australia on ABC TV and ABC iview. In Australia in 2015, Grand Designs Australia attracted average audiences of 31,000 and 29,000 in 2016. These relatively low viewer numbers are actually comparable with other 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 113 property-based programs aired on subscription TV. For example, Selling Houses Australia gained on average 32,000 weekly viewers in 2015 and Location Location Location Australia garnered 25,000 for the same time period. In other international markets, Grand Designs has appeared through diverse trade arrangements. In the large US market, the program became frst available only in 2017 thanks to Peak TV and Netfix, although some American audiences would have come to know Grand Designs before that through YouTube (Blake 2017). In 2017, Grand Designs was also accessible on Netfix, for example, in Norway. The Polish viewer can watch Grand Designs UK on subscription cable HD Domo+ channel devoted specifcally to lifestyle and home design, which is part of the Multimedia Polska network produced and delivered by CANAL+ Cyfrowy Sp. z o.o (Domo+ 2017). There exists the Polish- language online fan following organised around Facebook groups and blogs that share, debate and jest about the program. One of them includes a post on an architectural blog offering a laudatory synopsis of one of the Grand Designs episodes, images of the home design plans and also a link to YouTube where the episode can arguably be watched in full (Wereszczyńska 2015). In the European market, past episodes are available for free on the Internet-based TVMuse platform. Depending on the country of residence, one can access Grand Designs via numerous online content aggregators (e.g. https://123movies.co/ in Australia), which draw on different servers to offer a library of episodes to watch for free. Grand Designs is available to download on Apple iTunes and Google Play Movies. Selected episodes are also accessible as part of airline in-fight entertainment.

Digital Media Access Beyond traditional broadcast television lies a mediascape of varied nodes of access which would include subscription TV; DVDs; video on demand services such as Netfix and Amazon; YouTube and other online streaming services; VPN-assisted watching practices; and peer-to-peer fle sharing distribution systems such as Bit Torrent. Although this feld is rapidly shifting in terms of assessing viewer habits, there are identifa- ble trends. In 2017, TV streaming services outsold DVDs for the frst time. Revenue generated from digital downloads which includes services 114 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY such as Apple iTunes increased by almost 23 percent to a spend of £1.3 billion. In contrast, sales of DVD and Blu-ray Disc only accounted for £894 million of the market, a decrease of 17 percent, the frst time physical discs have fallen below £1 billion (Sweney 2017). Multiple web-streaming platforms offer further viewing options. But one thing to remember about YouTube as a broadcast platform is that it also provides online discussion forums where audiences can post comments. This is how YouTube has been used by Grand Designs’ international audiences, with some comments appearing in languages other than English. A quick scan of comments under specifc episodes reveals praise for the participants’ dedication, skills and craftsmanship. In other cases, not everyone is impressed with the fnal outcome, despite McCloud’s endorsement of the ingenious use of materials and experimental approach. Critical comments can relate to various aspects of the featured houses, their ‘ugly’ aesthetics, unnecessarily large scale or unrealistic energy-effciency performance. Comments also reveal typical YouTuber complaints about ‘quality videos’ being taken down because of copyright infringement and also appreciation that various episodes get re-uploaded again. Some Grand Designs stories have taken on a life of their own after the frst broadcast, spurring further interest, spin-offs, remixes independent of the Fremantle Productions and business opportunities for its protagonists. For example, a popular episode featuring a Peckham House with a sliding glass roof (S5 E1) has earned a spin-off in the form of a DVD that is sold by Amazon entitled ‘How to Build a Dream Design, Sliding Roof Peckham’, introduced by McCloud as a house full of innovation, with homeowner and architect Monty Ravenscroft described as a renaissance man, and a great engineer (http://www.peckham- house.com/home.html). Kent County Council commissioned a short clip essentially promoting low-carbon housing based on the Grand Designs’ featured home known as ‘The Eco Arch’ (S9 E4) located in its jurisdiction. Tagged as ‘one of the UK’s frst “zero-carbon” homes’, the clip displayed educational or instructional favour and it was advertised through the council Twitter account (@KCCvideo). It features the owner–architect demonstrating to the audience the ecological features of the house such as vacuum-insulated doors, heat recovery ventilation units, triple glazed windows, a fexible interior design and smart meters that log how much electricity is being used. Some YouTube users praised the county’s proactivity in spreading the 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 115 content to encourage energy-effcient house renovations and upgrades. Exploiting the reputational value of Grand Designs, practitioners and manufacturers use the format for advertising their own creativity and services. For example, the architects involved in ‘The Cheeran House’ (S2 E4) appearing on RIBA Grand Designs House of the Year 2016, reposted a clip on YouTube, acknowledging permission from Fremantle International to do so. The house was shortlisted for a RIBA award for its creative build on a challenging piece of land, surrounded by many neighbours in proximity to the site, thus requiring smart positioning of windows and the use of blinds for privacy. It combined the aesthetic principles of English and Asian gardens and created a great minimalist indoor space with lots of storage solutions. Some grand designers develop business and media presence of their own, such as Ben Law, a popular eco-builder Series 3 who specialises in Roundwood Timber Framing techniques to create eco-homes and organises courses to teach others. On the coat-tails of his Grand Designs success, Ben leads public visits of his house and written successful books translated into German and French (https://ben-law.co.uk).

Social Media Presence It is perhaps testament to the dynamic fan communities of the program and their willingness to generate social media content that the Grand Designs brand does not appear to have employed a comprehensive or integrated social media strategy. Accounts are established in a fairly ad hoc manner with @GDLive_UK, the Twitter account attached to the live events, launching as early as 2009 and currently followed by about 38,000 people. Meanwhile, the Facebook and Twitter accounts for the UK version of the TV program itself arrived relatively late to the social mediascape in 2016 with, respectively, 278,000 likes and 8200 followers. It is likely that these sites coincided with the 2016 launch of the Grand Designs website discussed in Chapter 2 as a key portal for participant recruitment. The Australian Twitter account, @GrandDesignsAU, began in 2010 and operates on a relatively small-scale basis with a following of just 1700 people. In contrast, Grand Designs Australia does rather better on Instagram with about 67,000 followers at the time of writing. Not surprisingly given its visual strength, Instagram hosts a number of Grand Designs-related accounts including Grand Designs Live with approximately 8000 followers and the Grand Designs Magazine followed by 116 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

2800 people. However, while the Instagram account for Grand Designs UK has a healthy 5399 followers at time of press, it has yet to post any content. McCloud’s own Twitter account is a wry mix of deadpan humour and architectural fact summed up well in the bio which reads ‘Channel 4 House Rapper, design cheese and starter of Hab Housing’. With a following of approximately 115,000 people, McCloud’s Twitter feed regularly retweets and promotes the ethical and organic ftness wear company, Threadstrong, run by his son Milo McCloud (Threadstrong, Facebook) along with commentary on forthcoming episodes of the program. Like its bio suggests, McCloud’s Twitter account is often quite self-aware and tongue in cheek. Posting a picture of muddy work boots, he writes ‘Whoever nicked my red kit bag from the GD crew vehicle, bring it back! It’s got my site boots and hi-vis in it. Bastards’ (McCloud 2017). If McCloud’s own Twitter feed tends towards self-parody on occasion, actual parody accounts abound on social media for Grand Designs. Carrying the byline ‘A responsibly sourced parody’, for example, is @ Grand_designz with nearly 5000 followers. As with the ‘Grand Designs drinking game’ discussed in Chapter 2, this Twitter account gently mocks the character types and narrative tropes of the program: ‘Lombardo is sourcing human hair for the traditional cladding on his medieval sta- ble renovation by shaving his adult children every 6 months’ (Grand Designz 2016). Beyond parody accounts, popular hashtags used by audiences to discuss the program across social media include #granddesigns, #GrandDesignsAU, #houseoftheyear, #property and #architecture.

Brand Identity A key strategy for the market expansion is producing franchises and off- shoots of the core program across multiple media sectors under a visible brand. McCloud has authored multiple books about home-making and architecture (e.g. Kevin McCloud’s Principles of Home: Making a Place to Live, 2010) sold internationally. In Australia, a niche publisher Universal Magazines is responsible for the Grand Designs Australia Magazine, published bi-monthly under the FremantleMedia licence (B&T Weekly 2012). The magazine is available in print and online versions and, like its British equivalent, features home projects linked to the TV show, along with glossy pages of building plans and product advertising. The focus is on design, with editorial input from Grand Designs Australia host 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 117

Peter Maddison—and tapping into the identifed home renovation and DIY market in Australia, with an estimated $31 billion spent on home renovation in 2016 (HIA 2016). Maddison himself authored the Grand Designs Australia Handbook in 2013, which promises similarly to profle ‘the most interesting renovations from the TV series’ while ‘offering renovators tips on what materials to use, whether to use an architect and how to choose a builder’ (Leggatt 2013). Grand Designs has also lent its brand name in the reputation markets for architectural excellence in the UK. As mentioned before, since 2016 it has produced Grand Designs/ RIBA Best House series that features homes in running for the highest prize awarded by Royal Institute of British Architects. As a valued and value-creating brand (Foster 2013), the program, however, has given rise to products and offerings that go beyond strict media industries. Grand Designs Live, a series of popular home trade shows with fagship bi-annual presence in Birmingham and London, is a prominent example of the blended experience that adds to the Grand Designs multimedia brand by exhibiting ‘high-end’ home products and designs, featuring expert talks (including by McCloud and Maddison) and, most alluringly perhaps, offering ‘a bit of the sparkle and magic of the television show’ in ‘3D’ (Anonymous 2011). These shows are of course heavily mediated, with television appearances by McCloud and co, and also live broadcasts from the shows. And, as it is now expected, online and offine advertising is heavily used to promote the brand, using appropriate local slogans. In the Australian context, for example, Lifestyle channel advertised the launch of Grand Designs Australia through a mix of print and outdoor advertising, under the slogan ‘See what’s possible’ (Varley 2010). The marketing strategy follows an arguably simple formula whereby a place where the show is successful is likely to be considered for a Grand Designs show (Crow 2012). The trade exhibitions are an extension of the core Grand Designs program to showcase architectural innovation, albeit coming off more strongly as a commercial enterprise. They exhibit endorsed manufacturers and host talks by practitioners. If the program is about popular- ising the experimentation by grand designers who ‘trial stuff’ and are ‘prepared to fail’ (McCloud at Grand Designs Live show, Melbourne 2014—see Chapter 5), the trade shows function to establish the direct connection to the consumer markets (Aspers and Darr 2011). Grand Designs Live is a site where quite literally audiences are consumers, and consumer audiences. 118 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

The Uses of Grand Designs: The Australian Context In the empirical research with home renovators and building practitioners we conducted in Australia, Grand Designs came up as a key point of reference in the context of media and home renovations and a source of viewing enjoyment and occasionally practical inspiration. For some we spoke to, Grand Designs is enjoyed specifcally as a window for aspirational consumption, straddling the predictable attributes of grand scale, top-end design and famboyance but also more down-to-earth ideas connected to the practice of recycling and creative repurposing through the use of ‘the beautiful recycled timbers’ and also ‘of weird stuff that they can reclaim’. One home renovator noted:

The type of materials that they use, there’s always this thing about using industrial materials versus domestic, because some of them are engineers and [understand] industrial capacities, so using those in a domestic situation completely changes the type of build.

Talking to industry practitioners, such as carpenters, plumbers, designers and architects, we discovered that Grand Designs rated highly as a trusted source of inspiration and education for the building sector, in large part because of the perceived accurate portrayal of the building process. One Australian builder we interviewed said of the program:

It’s pushing the boundaries, like yes, things can be done and built that way, but yes, it’s really going to blow your budget and you’re probably going to run out of money, but it’s pushing the [envelope] and it comes back down to architectural design and that things are possible and you don’t need to have your typical three-bedroom home.

For some viewer renovators, Grand Designs was inspiring in relation to green products and techniques. A Melbourne-based designer told us:

I’m interested in green walls because I think they add a lot to the façade on buildings and I mean, it’s good to re-use or harvest rainwater to keep that wall green, you know, the waterproofng that’s involved in that, so I like that sort of aspect and I get some of that from Grand Designs on Channel 2. He’s [McCloud] pretty good. 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 119

And it played a role in creating or extending consumer markets by promoting novel products. In one of the focus groups with practitioners, the value of the program as explicitly informational source was expressed in the following way:

And then they might specialise in something where it is like a green building or they’re using some specifc material that’s not in the market before that no one’s used, so that’s where I guess the information is good for our side of things.

Another question that we sought to explore was the extent to which practitioners in the built environment in Australia felt there are suffcient opportunities for the exchange of ideas and best practices to inspire the mainstreaming of low-carbon home renovations. While we have found that more needs to be done through targeted forms of engagement including through professional local organisations, it is noteworthy that Grand Designs and its trade events came up as one such platform. Describing their experiences in relation to a design practice, one designer interviewee expressed their frustration about the patchy information trickling down to practitioners, and pointed out the productivity of engagement initiated by McCloud and his associates:

I mean, shit, I went over to the UK with one of my bathtubs so I’m in it but only when I know about it, and these guys out of Grand Designs they researched me so I got emails frst and then phone calls and then Kevin McCloud came and had a bit of a chat. It was great.

Original UK Version Versus Australian Franchise In the majority of cases, it was the British version that appeared to have achieved most purchase with our study participants. A professional couple from a Melbourne-based architectural consultancy, who for their own family home renovation received a local council award for an outstanding green project, explained their long history with Grand Designs as follows:

A1: I discovered “Grand Designs” when it frst was hitting Fox – well when it frst really came it out. It was played at nearly midnight at night and I was for some reason up, I don’t know, and I discovered this show. I can remember saying to my partner, “Oh you’ve got to see this. This is great. This is called ‘Grand Designs’ and it’s just fabulous and you see all these old houses …” 120 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

A2: She’s in love with Kevin McCloud. A1: No, I’m not. No. No. I was just excited. The whole show enthused me. I’ve sort of watched it from the start and then I was excited at the thought of–and, “There really should be an Australian–why shouldn’t we have an Australian version?” Then when the Australian version came out, it’s ended up all about these fashy looking homes. It’s not really hit the mark of people doing things on small blocks. Which they do in the English version where it can be people in inner city who’ve got this block that’s sort of in–squashed in amongst all these other homes and I hardly–I don’t think they do anything like that and I don’t know why because it must be the same people doing.

The fact that Grand Designs UK is more popular is an interesting fnding. It demonstrates that a cultural text produced in a very different built environment context can hold an appeal that the local franchise seemingly didn’t match. The Australian audience we talked to considered the British version of Grand Designs more ‘interesting’ in terms of the featured projects, whereas the Australian franchise, to them, appeared ‘a bit behind, so that people don’t want to be on it’. One home renovator explained:

I’ve watched both of them, but I think I prefer the British one, because you get a lot more ideas. When I used to watch it years ago they talk about double glazing and I’ve never even seen double glazing here and you’ve gone what’s that? Even when we travelled to Europe, cause I’ve watched Grand Designs, you talk about the engineering of the windows and you go there and a window opens four ways, not just one way like it does in Australia. You wind it like this in Australia and there it’ll open this way and that way. Those technical things, even how they build the places in Germany and they come and they click together the walls and they’re already all built, they just click together onsite. A house goes together so quickly, once it’s built in the factory.

That Grand Designs UK is made available free-to-air in Australia, unlike Grand Designs Australia aired on the relatively limited cable TV in Australia, should partly explain the greater resonance of the British program with the Australian audiences who participated in our research. At the same time, focus group participants made much of the charisma of the British presenter as well as the appeal of the ‘foreign’ content rather than the ‘local’ representations of Grand Designs projects. The international popularity of Grand Designs UK is perplexing to McCloud, 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 121 who has no qualms about the local specifcity of the housing market in Britain, which does not take away from how attractive the original has been in the Antipodean countries:

I struggle to understand why (it is so popular) really, because it’s a series made in Britain about Britain and I’m British. We certainly didn’t make it with any view to an export market (…) Quite bizarrely, it sells into, I think 145 countries but certainly I think it fnds its most enthusiastic audience in Australia and New Zealand. I’d go as far to as to say it is more popular in New Zealand than it is in the UK. (McCloud cited in Harvey 2015)

As mentioned in the previous chapter, despite the popularity of the show due to its intertwined factual and entertainment uses, it is important to note that Grand Designs should not be considered primarily as a building manual or educational television. It is entertainment, motivated commercially frst and foremost. The empirical research has also revealed a slippage between the clearly aspirational and the reported realistic dimensions offered by the series—with general viewing pleasures frmly confned to the leisurely practice and certainly not extending into consumption off-screen. Some interviewees, for example, addressed their ‘real’ fnancial situation as an obvious barrier to imitating Grand Designs projects or some aspects of those; others noted the perceived absence of relevant skills, suggesting that ‘inspiration’ might be the most adequate way of describing Grand Designs’ impact. One renovator explained: ‘I would love to have my own grand design one day. Don’t know if I have the skill set for that, but the ideas [resonate]’.

It does show the houses that are unbelievable and it’s unique, it might be a castle or it might be something on the moors, or it’s just the context in what they’re trying to do is way out of my scope. But it’s just beautiful to see what’s possible.

The Ambiguous Market for Low-Carbon Housing One related aspect salient in the research was the extent to which the ‘foreignness’ of the text reveals, in fact, the incommensurability in the context of consumer markets. This is not only the problem of Grand Designs but more broadly, as one home renovator observed, ‘the 122 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY magazines and everything going so global, it’s like, well, that’s beautiful but it’s just you can’t get it here’. The consideration of whether there is actually a ‘market’ for products, especially for sustainable, low-carbon housing is something that the series has dealt with at the representation level, not necessarily sys- tematically but nonetheless visibly. The existence, or lack thereof, for a market of green, low-carbon products and techniques is shown to be a player in this context, shaping the way that builds progress and the emotional fow-on effects they may have. In many episodes, we can observe a balancing act between what’s on the mainstream offer, in relation to both price and availability, versus high-spec ecological products that continue as a rather high-end commodity. Think back to Rob Roy’s explicitly ecological house (S1 E5), for example, where the ‘eco green house building consultancy’ that Rob had envisioned gets shelved because, as Rob admits in the conversation with McCloud, he can no longer see a ‘fertile market for it’. In contrast, the owner of ‘The Eco Arch’ (S9 E4) speaks directly of the extent to which his effcient green-house might appeal to the broader market. In a short promotional clip, emerging on the coat-tails of the Grand Designs episode and supported by Kent County Council as ‘one of the UK’s frst “zero-carbon” homes’, architect Richard observes:

… some of what we’ve done here will be applicable to the common market; some is always going to be a bit more avant-garde, maybe a bit higher-end but trying out a lot of new things, and monitoring it, and learning from it; and I think there is an awful lot we can get from this. (https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v zZWLv-CzT2c) = We have also seen in the example of Andrew Teilo and Lowri Davies’ Welsh house (S5 E7) in Chapter 5 that green values and intentions don’t count on their own. A market is necessary that drives prices for green products down, develops a customer base and promotes the associated trade skills, for example how to use lime screed instead of concrete slabs. In these dynamic market contexts, architect Sarah Wigglesworth and her partner Jeremy Till build a daring house clad in sandbags, insulated with straw to dampen the noise from the nearby high-speed railway in Islington and incorporating many green products (S1 E7). The build, as many before and after it, runs over time, giving McCloud an opportunity to revisit the house a couple of years after the project began (Grand 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 123

Designs Revisited). The character and performance of the house are shown to deliver on its promise: the house is spacious, light and impres- sively adaptive to the challenging environment of regular noise and train-induced vibrations. The house literally bounces along with passing trains. It’s by no means all high-tech: in fact, an element that the owners seem particularly happy with is a sizable low-key veggie garden. This episode picks up the theme of innovation discussed in Chapter 5, com- menting also on the dynamics of consumer markets within which builds occur. In the Revisited episode, McCloud refers to Sarah and Jeremy as ‘early adopters’, ‘innovators’ and ‘trailblazers’—the creatives ahead of the mainstream market for low-carbon products, which in the program appears to be yet fully developed or mature. These market logics are further highlighted in the conversation between Sarah and McCloud included in the 2017 package of best ‘grand designs’ located in the city (S15 E1), pointing out the fact that the house took advantage of products that were largely uncommon at the time. Kevin’s Grand Design tackles the question of the ‘green’ market head-on. In a conversation with a large-scale housing developer, McCloud enquires about the existence of a market for well-designed, low-carbon housing directly, to learn that it is perceived rather ‘niche’, around 5 percent of the total residential market in the UK. But in the same episode, McCloud’s is quick to insist that: ‘Years of Grand Designs have taught me a few things. Chiefy that there is a market for light, spacious, ecological homes; and that building is never easy’. This belief in the market with low-carbon characteristics sets in motion a series of actions documented in Kevin McCloud’s Grand Design (2011), with an all-telling subtitle: The Great British Property Scandal. As briefy touched upon in Chapter 1, the two-episode spin-off depicts McCloud’s own Grand Designs journey, for the frst time as not only a TV presenter but also a developer of an ambitious environmentally friendly, mixed social housing project on a site of an old car park in Swindon. The motiva- tion to reform inadequate building practices in the mainstream residential sector in Britain prompts McCloud to set up an architectural frm HAB—Happiness Architecture Beauty—that has since been involved in numerous building projects (see Chapter 1). In addition to the critical reading of the content, a number of focus group discussants refected on the domestic construction industry, specifcally the extent to which the inspiration from the British series cannot be readily transposed to the Australian circumstances. Not only is it 124 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY because of the individual fnancial capacity mentioned above, but also the micro-economics of the built environment. The Australian audiences enjoyed the experimentation processes depicted in Grand Designs but they were quick to point out the differences between the UK representations and the Australian context.

A: I think the advantage that they’ve got is a much more mature building market, they’ve got more product available to them, they’ve got craftspeople that are much higher skilled than they are here in Australia. Our trades aim at the middle market, not at the high end. And it’s much cheaper to do things. You see someone renovating a barn, and they’re using original master craftspeople and you’ll think, God, that’s going to cost them a million bucks, and they go, it’s $25,000, and put in hand hewn original oak rafters and beams, and you just go, you couldn’t get a carpenter out here to do a deck for me for that amount of money. A2: Yeah, totally. A1: And the case in point was a place, it was probably season two, there was a house done in Bath… Q: So you were a real, loyal fan? A1: In the beginning, but this particular house I love, it was a house in Bath that was entirely prefabricated in Germany. All the panels were about 18 inches deep, prefabricated, foam flled, it came out and it was assembled in about a day, and then it was rendered and in Bath you can only render the outside of the house in one colour. Q: Season two? A1: Yeah, it’s about then. And it is an incredible house, and you just look at it and you go, that’s inspiring, I’d love to be able to do it in Australia, but there’s not a maker here that was even geared for it.

Noteworthy in this extended transcript is the attention to the technical detail as well as critical appraisal, which reveals the differences in available expertise and affordability. This discussion strand is representative also of how closely fans can remember selected Grand Designs, which, in some cases, go back a decade or so. To media theorists, it may be reaffrming how ‘active’ the audiences are and how important the Internet is as an extension of the conversations about the show. However, it’s also important to bear in mind that these accounts are based on our interviewees’ perceptions and understanding of the situation in the UK from a particular situated vantage point. There has indeed been criticism, including from Grand Designs’ audiences leaving comments online, about the UK government rolling back their commitment to zero-carbon housing on 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 125 the basis that the UK building industry was out of step and well beyond the pro-environmental continental Europe (comment by YouTube user, Kent County Council, ‘The Crossway Eco Home’).

Media Innovation Grand Designs is an important player within the international market trading in variedly termed lifestyle, property and home improvement shows. As discussed in the previous chapters, Mimi White (2014) has studied a successful program within the real estate/property genre called House Hunters and argued that diversity is a hallmark of the show in the USA. Grand Designs too is all about breadth of projects it showcases. While certainly aspirational in its storytelling, with the mainstay middle-class demographic tapping into the high cultural capital of the design, architectural world and often deep hip pockets, the program is at the same time wide-ranging in its representations. As we have argued in Chapter 4, the invocations of thrift co-exist with excess and conspicuous consumerism. As is the case with the White’s example of House Hunters, here too participants come from different cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, and are part of different family structures. According to Craig (2016) this ‘fexible representation’ of participants and house projects in Grand Designs is required for the show’s commercial viability to be able to cater to as broad audiences as possible. The belief in the value of diversity for the sustaining McCloud’s ‘excitement’ and audiences’ interest is something that Grand Designs presenters have put on the public record as well. McCloud has noted that ‘Every series is different, every project is different. But the series is evolving—not least the issues around where people get the money from to do projects’ (McCloud cited in Collinson 2011). In Australia, Peter Maddison observed high interest from people wanting to be involved in the show, at some point, with a reported ‘1000 applications’. And yet, ‘The reason we constantly call for more is to provide texture in personalities and also in house types, budget and location. To put together an interesting series the team needs a good range to select from’ (Maddison cited in Cuthbertson 2012). Despite the genre similarities, however, there is a distinctiveness to Grand Designs that makes it stand out in relation to commercial counterparts. It is important to remember the program’s original context going back to the specifc mission of its broadcaster within the UK media 126 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY system consisting of the strong public service broadcasting sector with BBC and adventurous Channel 4 (see Chapter 1). That industrial location will be formative. For example, the review of the BBC Charter (2016) reinforces the public service broadcaster’s mission to media innovation in public interest:

To retain its unique status, the BBC will need to do more to stand apart from the competition, rather than looking to replicate services consumers are already getting elsewhere. This is not to say that the BBC should not be popular – distinctive programmes can have widespread appeal. It is to say that popularity should not be its primary objective; maximising its public value must come frst. (BBC 2016, 23)

For comparison, the Channel 4 mission is put as follows:

Our public service remit extends beyond the value we offer to the viewing public to our contribution to the strength and diversity of the British creative economy. We aim to be the destination of frst choice for the independent program maker. We will refect a range of voices which are in danger of being crowded out by an increasingly commodifed television environment (…). (Channel 4, n.d.) It requires Channel 4 to be innovative, to inspire change, to nurture talent and to offer a platform for alternative views. It also requires us to not just provide Education content for 14–19-year-olds, but to provide content with an editorial tone that is educational in programs from other genres, including Factual. (Channel 4 2016)

What this means is that Grand Designs’ longevity and appeal need to be considered in the context of surrounding media industry discourses and contemporary media practices that shape the way audience engage with the content today. Grand Designs is popular but it is also educational and approximating the factual. Grand Designs is a frm fxture in the global media industries, with international audiences built around the program’s licensed broadcasts on public service media and commercial screens, and increasingly Internet-based televisions such as Netfix. Channel 4 provides catch-up services but they are typically geo-blocked for anyone trying to gain access from outside of the UK. The media market of Grand Designs is 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 127 also further built through franchising agreements, currently in Australian and New Zealand. Given the popularity of the program, much of the international audience is also located in online places, including YouTube channels where users upload clips from episodes informally, despite the familiar copyright problems. It is clear that the interest in the program comes from various places, from places as distant from each other as Russia, Canada and the USA, with people seeking further details on particular building products and designs, or voicing their support or dis- approval. Some ask others to upload missing episodes or to direct them to further sources of information. This is a permeable, networked if not always clean-cut world of contemporary television. Our empirical research with home renovators and practitioners in Australia has delved deeper into the ways in which the meanings of home, design and architecture are negotiated and discussed by Grand Designs audiences. As we noted in Chapter 1, the research wasn’t a conventional audience study of Grand Designs, as originally we set out to examine the role media (across traditional, digital and social media) play in shaping home renovation practices in Australia more broadly. However, we quickly discovered that Grand Designs kept coming up as an important point of reference, prompting us to look closer at the uses of the program from the perspective of home renovators and building practitioners. We found that the meanings and applications of the program are multifold. Audiences are lured into the entertaining, drama-flled and aspirational world of Grand Designs and, when prompted, are critical of where the boundaries between the fction and reality lie for each of them. What may be surprising in the era of online streaming and multiple screens is that some respondents have reported the social nature of watching of Grand Designs with friends and family, and also recording some episodes for multiple viewing. In our research, we were able to draw out some differences that the Australian audiences noted between the British and Australian versions of Grand Designs, with the former perceived as more ‘experimental’, more diverse and progressive in terms of energy-effcient housing. The relationship between international TV content and local uses and interpretations has a long tradition in audience and international television studies—and media scholars have pointed out the importance of following ‘both what happens in media texts and what happens to them as they travel’ (Miller and Kraidy 2016, 122). 128 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

We have demonstrated the extent to which practices of home-making and consumption are impacted by the show. From the inspiration that the depicted products and techniques (especially green) provide for some home renovators and even practitioners, through to the broader social conversations about the differences between consumer markets and deliberate market positioning that the show prompts, the engagement with the Grand Designs content is not black and white. For example, it is not uncommon for the text to be subjected to pointed critique by savvy audiences who take issue with any technological errors or miscalculations that the show may display. The role of social media in extending these conversations but also the scope for collective learning is beyond doubt (see Chapter 5). The vast archives of mainstream press add further evidence of the program’s impact through individual accounts and testimonials. Vikki Scott, for example, is a British audience member, turned entrepreneur, who was reportedly inspired into a new blinds-ftting and selling business by improvement shows such as Grand Designs (Anonymous 2008). ‘It got me obsessed with homes and inte- riors and now I’m a fan of all the big shows. “Grand Designs, Property Ladder, Homes under the Hammer, Location, Location, Location”—I watch them all’ (Anonymous 2008). The debates on the integration of television into everyday contexts and audience readings extend to the early studies of television (e.g. Morley 1986; Silverstone 1994). Television’s cultural, discourse-producing functions are equally well-recognised (see Hartley 1999; Chapter 5). Neither new is the recognition that consumer markets develop or expand as a result of mediation and product promotion. Marketing and advertising exist to exploit this potential strategically and for commercial gains (Sinclair 2015). As pointed out earlier, while product placement within Grand Designs TV episodes is less conspicuous than on commercial counterparts (e.g. reality TV The Block in Australia), specifc products are featured abundantly—although largely named in generic terms rather than visibly through their brand name. The suite of Grand Designs- branded trade offerings does engage in promotional commercial activities, most notably through the Grand Designs Live home design shows. Grand Designs’ spin-off Trade Secrets also relies on the trusted Grand Designs’ brand to promote specifc building methods, such as prefabricated penthouses that can be planked ‘completely fnished’ onto the rooftops of crowded cities ‘as a giant piece of Lego’ (First Penthouse 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 129 on Channel 4’s Grand Designs). There are comprehensive lists of products and service providers made available for released episodes, although carefully identifed as being ‘for informational purposes only and no representation or endorsement is made by use in respect of these suppli- ers’ (https://www.granddesigns.tv/). As media scholar Gareth Palmer argues:

International reality television formats become established by proving their value both as products (for the media marketplace) and as processes (that help fashion people for the wider marketplace): there is a symbiotic relationship between the two. (Palmer 2011, 134)

These relationships are complex but the ultimate argument of this chapter—and the book—is to consider Grand Designs as a media package with social consequences in the increasingly convergent creative industries.

References Accenture Consulting. 2015. Digital Video and the Connected Consumer. https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-digital-video-connected- consumer. Anonymous. 2008. Windows Opening for Vikki. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, March 31. Anonymous. 2011. Grand Designs Goes Live in Australia. BPN, Chatswood. Aspers, Patrik, and Asaf Darr. 2011. Trade Shows and the Creation of Market and Industry. The Sociological Review 59 (4): 758–778. B&T Weekly. 2012. Grand Designs Australia Mag Launches. B&T Weekly, Surry Hills. Barrett, Brian. 2016. Netfix’s Grand, Daring, Maybe Crazy Plan to Conquer the World. Wired, March 27, 2017. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/ netfixs-grand-maybe-crazy-plan-conquer-world/. Blake, Meredith. 2017. The Best Home Design Show in the World—No, Really—Is Finally Available on Netfix. LA Times, August 31. http://www. latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-grand-designs-best-real-estate-show- netfix-20170331-story.html. Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB). Weekly Top 10 Programmes. http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-top-10/. Brown, Pam. 2013. Grand Designs’ McCloud Built to Last. The West Australian, June 6. https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/tv/grand-designs-mccloud- built-to-last-ng-ya-351578. 130 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Burrell, Ian. 2012. Channel 4 May No Longer Shock, but We Should Be Glad It’s Still Here. The Independent, August 26. http://www.independent.co.uk/ news/media/opinion/media-studies-by-ian-burrell-channel-4-may-no- longer-shock-but-we-should-be-glad-it-s-still-here-8082043.html. Channel 4. n.d. Channel 4’s Statement of Promises. http://www.channel4. com/about_c4/promises_2001/promises_intro2.htm. Channel 4. 2016. Overview: The Remit and Model. http://annualreport.chan- nel4.com/downloads/The%20remit%20and%20model.pdf. Collinson, Patrick. 2011. Grand Designs: The Home Truths of Kevin. The Guardian. Retrieved January 26, 2017, from https://www.theguardian. com/money/2011/apr/09/grand-designs-kevin-mccloud. Craig, Geoff. 2016. Green Grand Designs Sustainability and Lifestyle. In Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference. Newcastle. Retrieved from http://www.anzca.net/documents/2016-exec-meeting-and-agm/909-anzca-2016-conf-handbook/fle.html%0D. Crow, Rorger. 2012. Even Grander Designs. Northern Echo, Darlington, September 22. Cuthbertson, Ian. 2012. Grand Adaptation of a Winning Format. The Australian, Canberra, April 19. Department for Culture Media & Sport. 2016. A BBC for the future: a broadcaster of distinction. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fle/524863/ DCMS_A_BBC_for_the_future_linked_rev1.pdf. Domo+. 2017. KanałDomo w ofercie Multimedia Polska. Retrieved September 2, 2017, from https://www.domoplus.pl/o-domo/aktualnosci- domo/12556988571698/kanal-domo-w-ofercie-multimedia-polska. Foster, Robert. 2013. Things to Do with Brands: Creating and Calculating Value. Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3 (1): 44–63. Grand Designz. Twitter Post. November 12, 2016 (10:19 PM). https://twitter. com/Grand_designz/status/797398283417219073. Gruenwedel, Erik. 2014. TV Show Producers: Second-Screen Viewing Here to Stay. Home Media Magazine, February 3: 6–19. Hartley, John. 1999. Housing Television: A Fridge, a Film and Social Democracy. In Uses of Television, ed. John Hartley, 92–111. London and New York: Routledge. Harvey, Kerry. 2015. Why Grand Designs’ Kevin McCloud Loves New Zealand Homes. Stuff, May 7. http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/68326160/why-grand-designs-kevin-mccloud-loves-new-zealand-home. HIA. 2016. Australia’s $31.4 Billion Home Renovations Market. Media Release, October 7. Hight, Craig, and Ramaswami Harindranath (eds.). 2017. Studying Digital Media Audiences: Perspectives from Australasia. New York: Routledge. 6 MARKETS: CREATING VALUE IN MEDIA INDUSTRIES … 131

Holmwood, Leigh. 2008. Grand Designs Builds Audience. The Guardian, February 14. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/feb/14/tvrat- ings.channel4. Holmwood, Leigh. 2009. TV Ratings: Grand Designs Draws 4.1m viewers. The Guardian, January 29. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/ jan/29/tv-ratings-grand-designs. Houston, Melinda. 2011. The Cult of Kevin. The Sydney Morning Herald, October 13. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/the-cult- of-kevin-20111011-1ljns.html. Leggatt, Johanna. 2013. Grand Designs Australia Handbook. Melbourne: The Weekly Times. McCloud, Kevin. Twitter Post. October 31, 2017 (8:49 PM). https://twitter. com/Kevin_McCloud/status/925298670186258432. Millar, Paul. 2012. Grand Designs 100th Edition Enthrals Over 3 Million. Digital Spy. October 18. http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ratings/news/ a431688/grand-designs-100th-edition-enthrals-over-3-million/. Miller, Toby, and Marwan M. Kraidy. 2016. Global Media Studies. Cambridge: Polity. Morley, David. 1986. Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure. London: Comedia. Nielsen. 2016. Nielsens Social Content Ratings Launches to Become First Standardized Measurement Across Twitter and Facebook. March 8. http:// www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2016/nielsens-social-content-ratings-launches-to-become-frst-standardized-measurement-across-twitter-facebook.html. Nielsen Social. 2017. Weekly Top Ten. http://www.nielsensocial.com/ socialcontentratings/weekly/. nzherald.co.nz. 2017. Calum Henderson: Grand Designs NZ Is Up to the Job. Retrieved December 5, 2017, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id 1501119&objectid 11523930. = = OzTAM. 2016. Audience Measures for specifc building/renovation/home programs. Report commissioned by authors. Further information available from: http://www.oztam.com.au/. Palmer, Gareth. 2011. Organic Branding: The Self, Advertising and Life- Experience Formats. In Reality Television and Class, ed. Helen Wood and Beverly Skeggs, 132–143. London: Palgrave. Plunkett, John. 2010. TV Ratings: Grand Designs Lays Firm Foundations for New Series with 3.3m. The Guardian, September 16. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/sep/16/tv-ratings-grand-designs. Rogers, Jon. 2007. New Dramas Fail as Viewers Have Other Designs. Broadcast, March 1. https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/new-dramas-fail-as-viewers-have- other-designs/119902.article. 132 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Silverstone, Roger. 1994. Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge. Sinclair, John. 2015. Advertising, the Media, and Globalization. Media Industries Journal 1 (3): 42–47. Spigel, Lynn. 1992. Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sweney, Mark. 2017. Film and TV Streaming and Downloads Overtake DVD Sales for First Time. The Guardian, January 5. https://www.theguardian. com/media/2017/jan/05/flm-and-tv-streaming-and-downloads-overtake- dvd-sales-for-frst-time-netfix-amazon-uk. Threadstrong. August 16, 2017. https://www.facebook.com/threadstronguk/. Van Cauwenberge, GabiSchaap Anna, and Rob van Roy. 2014. TV No Longer Commands Our Full Attention: Effects of Second-Screen Viewing and Task Relevance on Cognitive Load and Learning from News. Computers in Human Behavior 38: 100–109. Varley, Melinda. 2010. LifeStyle Channel Promotes Grand Designs. B&T Weekly, Surry Hills. October 11. Wereszczyńska, Aga. 2015. Dom z kontenerów. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from http://www.blog.awx2.pl/2015/01/dom-z-kontenerow-grand-design- sezon-14-odc-4/. White, Mimi. 2014. House Hunters, Real Estate Television, and Everyday Cosmopolitanism. In A Companion to Reality Television, ed. L. Ouellette, 386–401. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Zappavigna, Michele. 2017. Ambient Liveness Searchable Audiences and Second Screens. In Studying Digital Media Audiences, ed. Craig Hight and Harindranath Ramaswami, 150–172. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis. CHAPTER 7

Conclusions

Grand Designs is an experiment whose success intrigues and inspires. The program has garnered ‘the sort of cultish adoration usually reserved for sci-f series and confronting HBO dramas’ (Houston 2011). Others have credited it with ‘a huge impact on broader public understanding of and appreciation for architecture’ (Stead and Richards 2014, 105). While systematic academic studies are perhaps surprisingly few and far between, popular media has reeled off volumes of coverage on Grand Designs across the spectrum of criticism, ridicule, humour and celebration. Taken together, the prevalence of the popular commentary, healthy audiences fgures and the place it occupies in the public imagination testify to the program’s social meaning and impact. This book has traced the history and characteristics of Grand Designs as a hybrid, hugely popular series with an impressive, nearly twenty year, broadcast presence that has undoubtedly informed the collective consciousness of home-making. We have mapped out its often ambivalent regimes of meaning encompassing the reformist ethos of environmental and social sustainability (including documented instances of thrift) alongside conspicuous and ceaseless consumerism (including of worry- ingly high levels of waste). In parallel to the ‘soft’ educational agenda, apparently produced in the public interest, we have demonstrated its proft-making, commercial qualities and multidirectional operation geared towards brand development and the expansion of markets in the convergent entertainment industry.

Grand Designs is a media text that refects and shapes the popular imagination and the practice of home-making. But the series is also more than a text to be critically read for clues about contemporary sub- jectivities and discourses on identity, lifestyle, taste or consumerism and therefore requires approaches to account for it as such. As a brand with multiple spin-offs and subsidiary enterprises, the series’ signifcance and its cultural and economic agency stretch well beyond the screen and audience viewing pleasures. As we noted in Chapter 6, its popular trade show is a prime example of how Grand Designs creates markets in the built environment sector, not just media industries. Navigating the public, commercial and promotional logics, the program sparks new forms of cultural production (including user/fan-generated) and drives networked entrepreneurship. It entertains and it transforms. In our empirical research, we heard stories from people who would stay up to watch Grand Designs when it was frst broadcast in Australia in mid-2000s; and from people who spend hours watching it as part of the rich property TV diet today, idly as a way to relax and daydream; and from those who made a habit of enjoying Grand Designs with friends or family; or col- lecting the show’s past seasons and re-watching them. The series does more than ‘just’ entertaining or garnering indiscriminate audience attention. The program has been important for the ways in which people can learn and organise their real-life practice. And also for professionals in the building and renovation sector, who draw on the Grand Designs’ representations and promotions of novel products and design techniques as an inspirational and trusted resource. Some of the featured new products are claimed to have entered the markets and, in some cases, to have become the mainstay of the building practice, conferring on the program an active role in innovation and change (see Chapter 5). To position media productively, through its capacity to make a difference culturally and socially in addition to creating markets, is of course not new in media research, which has elaborated conceptual tools to explain these relations in a myriad of ways. For example, drawing on celebrity studies we were able to demonstrate how McCloud can lev- erage his televisual appeal and popularity for social and environmental advocacy and housing market reform in the UK even though he is not a full-blown celebrity character; not a Hollywood star nor a TV fgure such as Ellen DeGeneres or a social media personality like Kim Kardashian. If anything, he goes to great lengths to keep his private life under the radar as much as possible (see Stanford 2016). Although, as we noted in the 7 CONCLUSIONS 135 previous chapter, McCloud has recently dipped his toe into family visibility on social media through the support he gives to his son’s business endeavours on Twitter. In turn, the long lineage of audience research helps to understand how interpretative strategies of the viewing public result in active readings and amount to the formation of fan cultures, or specifc subjectivi- ties of the citizen-consumer. The work by Bev Skeggs and Helen Wood (2012), for instance, has charted a direction for our thinking about the relationships between on-screen representations and the situated assess- ments of them within the contexts of embodied, social practices that defned our empirical research (see also Turner 2015). Above all, the theoretical tradition of media studies is a useful for exploring the connections between popular culture, politics and democracy, whereby television is seen as delivering everyday education and opportunities for social and political discussion, community building in the way that formal insti- tutions don’t—the function that was theorised by John Hartley as ‘media citizenship’: that is “the actions of living persons” in relation and reac- tion to popular media and powerful truth-discourses’ (1996, 62). Throughout this book, we have attempted to fnd an innovative critical lens informed by what people actually do with the program in order to challenge current understandings of the popular lifestyle or factual television genre. Scholarship of the feld has been dominated by governmentality perspectives for at least the last 15 years. In this view, reality TV instructs people how to look after themselves, ‘governing at a distance’ and so removes responsibility from the state for care of its citizenry. As Guy Redden explains, ‘Reality shows have often been described as ‘neoliberal’ in their logic. They typically present participants as self-responsible enterprising authors of their own lives in ways consistent with the valori- sation of market relations by neoliberal theorists’ (Redden 2018, 399). However, the neoliberal paradigm is not without its problems. For one thing, as Brenda Weber notes, critics seem unable to account for the sheer diversity of the genre(s) nor its own internal contradictions and complexities (2009, 51). This blind spot often causes the multiple and varied audience responses to the format to be ignored particularly from within feminised viewing publics. As she writes of the makeover subset, since ‘we are talking about modes of improvement that are typically cast as beautifcation, a traditionally feminised cultural practice, it is important that we do not too quickly categorise those who desire or participate in makeover culture as wholly docile bodies’ (2009, 52). Not only are 136 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY audiences positioned as passive and duped, the critical tool itself, as often applied in ‘cookie cutter fashion’, can feel blunt, dull and static. Across countless articles and books, the critique hardly ever attempts to ask the question ‘what’s next?’ Indeed, because change is frequently the narrative driver or formal conceit of the genre—the makeover, the reveal and the fip—neoliberal frameworks can be quite suspicious of social transformation itself especially if achieved through entertainment. In response to what we perceive as something of an impasse in media studies, we have cast the net wide theoretically and empirically, combining survey, focus group discussion and interview-based methodologies to locate Grand Designs in a situated context of everyday life. The analysis of our empirical research material has enabled us to highlight the extent to which Grand Designs’ content is simultaneously made sense of by audiences, or more specifcally Australian audiences, and materially productive in reconfguring local and domestic consumption contexts and even consumer markets. Although the represented house designs are often far from banal and typical (e.g. large fsh tank-like houses built on the edge of a cliff are by and large outside the average person’s fnancial capacity), they are still made meaningful because in Grand Designs they are always embarked upon within everyday contexts of budget balancing and family life. In addition, our data reveal that Grand Designs is comforting, inspirational and at times exasperating. Some writers have highlighted the tension that the program embodies as it oscillates between being another example of ‘real-estate porn’ and a satisfactory educational ‘architectural critique’ (Hurley 2017). It affords the opportunities for sheer voyeurism as the cameras work their way to reveal the private spaces of work-in- progress builds flled with a mess and emotional upheavals of the houseowners involved—and it also ‘smuggles serious architectural con- cepts into a deceptively pleasant package’ (Hurley 2017). Its cultural representation is beyond doubt the spectacular headaches, fops and situational drama of the risks unreasonably taken—all wrapped into cin- ematographic images of spectacular builds, and, more often than not, uplifting stories of human progress. This is some of the series’ unques- tionable appeal. A sustainability offcer at a local council in Melbourne put it plainly: ‘[Grand Designs] is an engaging story because they tell you about what went wrong as well, and that’s quite interesting, almost fascinating, people just get obsessed with how things get stuffed up’. 7 CONCLUSIONS 137

The emphasis on the material vectors of Grand Designs that mediates everyday practice brings us in a dialogue with the sociology of consumption, especially through its interest in theories of practice (see also Couldry 2004). Sociological studies of consumption have recognised the ways in which material culture (things, objects and products) and ever-evolving practices contribute to what Elizabeth Shove and her colleagues elegantly call ‘the design of everyday life’ (2007). These studies focus on things not only as a ‘carrier of semiotic meaning’ with consequences for identity formation, which they are, but also as agents that impact the material organisation of home and consumption practices in everyday life (Shove et al. 2007, 3). However, the specifc role of media as cultural objects in those domestic routines of consumption has been a largely under-explored terrain within this body of literature, if anything, surfacing in relation to purposefully educational, promotional media and advertising cultures (Podkalicka 2018). By highlighting the ways in which lifestyle/infotainment media such as Grand Designs can foster public knowledge, conversations and indeed patterns of consumption more fundamentally we have tried to push this debate forward. Our intention was to take seriously ‘the semiotic but also practical trajecto- ries’ (Shove et al. 2007, 8) of this popular media text as bearing real social and material consequences. To locate Grand Designs in the domain of social (in addition to reading) practice, we hope, responds in some way to Graeme Turner’s call for analyses of how ‘texts are understood and/or appropriated into their audiences’ everyday lives’ (2015, 114). Many elements apparently combine for the show’s success, textual innovation and marketability. For one, Grand Designs can be seen as riding the wave of the mass appeal of the reality television genre, in addition to the televisual charm of the host-presenter. Real estate is a popular topic, not least because of the prevalent habits of DIY and renovation and, more broadly, the aspirations of homeownership, increasingly complicated under the strained conditions in the urban centres of the Western economies acutely experiencing the problem of housing unaffordability and austerity measures. Grand Designs’ high-production values, along with the generously paced, entertaining narratives under- girding the variety of home constructions, have not been lost on the audience, which has loyally stuck by the program since the beginning. Neither has Grand Designs’ appeal gone unnoticed in the media trade, with the original format airing around the world, franchised in Australia 138 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY and New Zealand, and collectively circulating in the international media markets and creating consumer markets. At the core of Grand Designs’ international success might indeed be the multiplicity of scenarios and versions of home-making that the program depicts, compellingly interweaving them, compellingly interweaving them with familiar priorities and negotiations such as budget constraints (thrift), the availability of particular skills (including thrift), with the on-screen testing of the range of ideals, aspirations and pragmatics, including those associated with green lifestyles and the physical market for green products (Craig 2016; see also White 2014 for a similar argument about diversity in House Hunters). If anything, Grand Designs’ representational stance and social acting is not bulletproof. The hard questions around the portrayal of waste remain and are clearly at odds with the brand’s green philosophy, which is less orthodox and more dynamic and instable. But the larger point about the series’ popular pedagogy resonates again. As culture and consumption scholar Grant McCracken (2012) observes, ‘reality TV doesn’t suck’, ‘it makes anthropologists of us all’ and ‘may even make us smarter’— especially when the program sticks around for long enough. Television studies as a discipline have matured since Grand Designs went on air for the frst time back in 1999. With the pronounced changes to television, new theories and approaches have emerged to study its increasingly nonlinear nature, delivery on the Web (Lotz 2017) and complexity defned by ‘spreadability’ (Jenkins, Ford and Green 2013). Part of our analysis was to explain how Grand Designs’ meanings are produced outside of the primary or formal media markets, where media consumption is fragmented and unstable but also globally connected, affective, interactive and conversational (Chapter 6). But another contribution of this book, we hope, is in revisiting the question over the function of popular television in the digital economy more broadly; in the environment in which the identities of the audience and consumer are mediated in and through the much more complex, fuid and diffused communicative arrangements between various actors (Curtin, Holt and Sanson 2014; Lotz 2017). Similarly, there has been much attention paid to the questions over the role of public service media in the changing, increasingly deregulated media environment, and also the impacts of the lifestyle reality TV genre that, to some critics, ‘has spread like wildfre across the world since the beginning of the century’ (Miller and Kraidy 2016, 142). For Peter Lunt, popular reality TV, especially in the countries with a strong public service broadcasting tradition such as the UK or 7 CONCLUSIONS 139

Australia, can work in public service—as both entertainment and ‘a space for public expression, performance, and refection’ (2014, 502). This argument departs from well-trodden framing of reality TV under the banner of the neoliberal governance and control, and is similarly articulated in Miller and Kraidy’s (2016) global appraisal of the genre, in which the authors draw attention to the importance of distinctive histories, contexts and profles of media systems that produce and adapt reality formats for local media consumption (see Chapter 1; also Milne and Podkalicka, forthcoming). We have described the curious distinctiveness of the format, emotion- packed, at once educative and entertaining, and symptomatic of Channel 4’s ambition for media and social innovation. The case can perhaps be made for the importance of shows such as Grand Designs as an intermediary for fostering discussions over urgent public concerns such as housing affordability and social coherence in the strained and volatile property markets in the Western economies. The housing crisis in places such as the UK, for example, is so monumentally acute and unjust that some argue it represents ‘the largest transfer of wealth in living memory’ (Macfarlane 2017). From the Australian vantage point, these concerns are equally pressing, and so it is interesting to observe the popular format affording some opportunities to drive these conversations forward. We have noted that the Australian audience defned the program against commercial makeover shows, and some valued it for shedding light on economic alternatives such cooperative and low-budget housing initia- tives. Those instances where Grand Designs proactively inserts itself into the re-imagination or re-design of social discourses, identities and realities around social change, improvement or reform make its public service leanings most explicit. But even as a commercial enterprise geared towards attracting advertising, extending markets and making proft, the elements of public interest are arguably evident in the way the series represents and encourages consumption. While the narratives of mindless consumerism are present, visible too are the efforts to express multifac- eted social scenarios across particular seasons, where the popular pres- entations of commodifcation and consumer capitalism co-exist with social economies and thrift cultures. In writing this book, we adopted an approach that led us through the various spatial sites of consumption: from the domestic space imbued with cultural meaning and the pragmatic minutia of everyday decisions to the external organisation of consumer markets. While focusing 140 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY squarely on the moral economies of home, our book explains some of the aspects and confgurations of markets pertaining to and fuelled by the Grand Designs brand oscillating between media and consumer markets. This multi-spatial frame, which in some ways mirrors the topology of scales advanced in Ruth Lane and Andrew Gorman-Murray’s work on Material Geographies of Household Sustainability (2011), characterises the series at the representational level but also relates to its market arrangements and broader social embedding and implications. We have argued that it is important to study programs such as Grand Designs because of the role they play in connecting the private domestic space of consumption and also the social realm of public discourse and social action. This mediation was particularly salient in our empirical research that not only captured the meanings and applications of the program at the domestic level but also extended to conversations about the mainstream media function for creating social change and innovation in relation to environmental sustainability. To the question about the role of mainstream television in contributing to the sustainability objectives in Australia, a Melbourne-based designer responded:

I think it is because that’s entertainment so you get information via an entertaining format, like Grand Designs. Lots of people love to watch that because it’s not full of huff and puff. It’s actually factual and as a designer you get that information as to why they have used it and how they have applied it and the problems that the architect had or the engineer had.

To be clear, Grand Designs is not typical eco television but the narratives of sustainability are nonetheless present. To an extent, occasionally we can consider the program a promotional platform for environmentally friendly houses and considerate consumption that goes with it. This is evident most clearly in relation to the eco-houses, and the building of green, affordable homes it valorises as innovative and aspirational. However, unlike targeted green TV shows for which the media landscape has been pretty unforgiving, as we explained in the Chapter 1, Grand Designs’ version of sustainability is arguably less moralising, atomised and more down-to-earth. Above all, the meta-narrative of Grand Designs is the depiction of the pervasive and humanistic desire for creating a home, with all the everyday challenges and contradictions it presents (Craig 2016). The way aspiration and the actual pragmatics of the build process collide harks back to the distinction drawn out by Ben Highmore 7 CONCLUSIONS 141 between the ideal and actual home. The negotiation between the two is central to the social life pictured on the screen and also its ‘imagined’ and ‘lived in’ dimensions experienced beyond the screen (2014, 10). Nevertheless, it would be wrong to lose sight of Grand Designs’ primary goal as a form of leisure and entertainment. The textual richness, with which the series dips in and out of a particular theme or blends it with others, the foregrounding of personal storylines and the details of everyday life make for entertaining and compelling television that remains popular with audiences around the world; it continues to signify and therefore it works.

References Couldry, Nick. 2004. Theorising Media as Practice. Social Semiotics 14 (2): 115–132. Craig, Geoff. 2016. Green Grand Designs Sustainability and Lifestyle. In Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference. Newcastle. Retrieved from http://www.anzca.net/documents/2016-exec-meeting-and-agm/909-anzca-2016-conf-handbook/fle.html%0D. Curtin, Michael, Jennifer Holt, and Kevin Sanson. 2014. Distribution Revolution: Conversations about the Digital Future of Film and Television. Oakland: University of California Press. Hartley, John. 1996. Popular Reality: Journalism, Modernity, Popular Culture. London: Arnold. Highmore, Ben. 2014. The Great Indoors: At Home in the British House. London: Profle. Houston, Melinda. 2011. The Cult of Kevin. The Sydney Morning Herald, October 13, 2011. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/ the-cult-of-kevin-20111011-1ljns.html. Hurley, Amanda. 2017. ‘The Show That Fuses Architectural Critique With Real-Estate Porn’, CITYLAB. Retrieved August 24, 2017 from https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/05/ the-show-that-fuses-architectural-critique-with-real-estate-porn/525831/. Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. 2013. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York University Press. Lane, Ruth, and Andrew Gorman-Murray (eds.). 2011. Material Geographies of Household Sustainability. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Lotz, Amanda. 2017. Linking Industrial and Creative Change in 21st-Century US Television. Media International Australia 164 (1): 10–20. 142 A. PODKALICKA, E. MILNE AND J. KENNEDY

Lunt, Peter. 2014. Reality Television, Public Service, and Public Life: A Critical Theory Perspective. In A Companion to Reality Television, ed. L. Ouellette, 501–515. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Macfarlane, Laurie. 2017. It’s Time to Call the Housing Crisis What It Really is: The Largest Transfer of Wealth in Living Memory. Retrieved December 10, 2017 from https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/time-call-housing-crisis- really-largest-transfer-wealth-living-memory/. McCracken, Grant. 2012. Why Reality TV Doesn’t Suck, and May Even Make Us Smarter. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2012/10/ why-reality-tv-doesnt-suck-and-may-even-make-us-smarter/. Miller, Toby, and Marwan M. Kraidy. 2016. Global Media Studies. Cambridge: Polity Press. Milne, Esther, and Aneta Podkalicka. In Submission. Grand Designs and The Block: Audience Engagement and Modes of Consumption Through Lifestyle Reality TV in Australia. In Routledge Companion to Global Television, ed. Shawn Shimpach. Podkalicka, Aneta. 2018. Actor, Intermediary, and Context: Media in Home Renovation and Consumption Practice. Communication Research and Practice, 4 (2). Redden, Guy. 2018. Is Reality TV Neoliberal? Television & New Media 19 (5): 399–414. Shove, Elizabeth, Matthew Watson, Martin Hand, and Jack Ingram. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life. London: Bloomsbury. Skeggs, Beverley, and Helen Wood (eds.). 2012. Reacting to Reality Television: Performance, Audience and Value. London: Routledge. Stanford, Peter. 2016. Kevin McCloud on Why Building Your Dream Home Could Ruin Your Relationship. Telegraph.co.uk. London. Retrieved from https:// www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/kevin-mccloud-thinks-building- dream-home-could-ruin-relationship/. Stead, Naomi, and Morgan Richards. 2014. Valuing Architecture: Taste, Aesthetics and the Cultural Mediation of Architecture Through Television. Critical Studies in Television 9 (3): 100–112. Turner, Graeme. 2015. Re-Inventing the Media. London: Routledge. Weber, Brenda. 2009. Makeover TV Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity. Durham: Duke University Press. White, Mimi. 2014. House Hunters, Real Estate Television, and Everyday Cosmopolitanism. In A Companion to Reality Television, ed. L. Ouellette, 386–401. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Videography

This list sets out all programs referenced in the book. Information is listed in the following order where available: Name of program; Production company; network on which it was originally aired; and date originally aired. Where specifc episodes are mentioned, these are listed below the program information. We have gathered this information from the following sources: IMDB (Internet Movie Database), Wikipedia, on-screen credits, and websources including specifc production company websites, broadcasters, and TV listings.

America’s Funniest Home Videos. ABC. First aired 26 November 1989. The Apprentice. NBC. First aired 8 January 2004. The Biggest Loser. NBC. First aired 19 October 2004. The Block. Nine Network. First aired 1 June 2004, revived 22 September 2010. Build a New Life in the Country. Shine Television. Channel 5 Television (UK). First aired 23 June 2005. Celebrity Island with Bear Grylls. Shine Television. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 18 September 2016. Changing Rooms. Endemol Studios. BBC2 (UK). First aired 4 September 1996. Come Dine with Me. ITV Studios, Shiver Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 10 January 2005. Desperate Housewives. Touchstone Television. ABC (US). First aired 3 October 2004.

Faking It. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 18 September 2000. Fixer Upper. HGTV (US). First aired 23 May 2013. Gogglebox. Studio Lambert. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 7 March 2013. Gogglebox Australia. Shine Australia. The LifeStyle Channel (Aus). First aired 11 February 2015. Grand Designs. Boundless Productions (previously Talkback Thames). Channel 4 (UK). First aired 29 April 1999. Grand Designs Abroad. Boundless Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 8 September 2004. Grand Designs Australia. FremantleMedia Australia. The LifeStyle Channel (Aus). First aired 21 October 2010. Grand Designs New Zealand. Imagination TV. TV3 (NZ). First aired 4 October 2015. Grand Designs Trade Secrets. Boundless Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 28 February 2007. Grand Designs: House of the Year. Boundless Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 4 November 2015. Grand Designs: Indoors. Boundless Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 1 March 2001. The Great British Bake Off. Love Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 17 August 2010. Ground Force. Endemol UK. BBC2 (UK). First aired 19 September 1997. Homes Under the Hammer. Lion Television. BBC1 (UK). First aired 5 May 2003. House Hunters. Pie Town Production. HGTV (US). First aired 7 October 1999. House Rules. Seven Studios. Seven Network (Aus). First aired 14 May 2013. How Clean is Your House? Talkback Thames. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 21 May 2003. Jamie’s Kitchen. Fresh One Productions and Talkback Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 5 November 2002. Jamie’s Ministry of Food. Fresh One Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 30 September 2008. Jamie’s School Dinners. Fresh One Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 1 February 2005. Kevin McCloud’s Man Made Home. Optomen Television. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 23 September 2012. Videography 145

Kevin’s Grand Design: The Great British Property Scandal. Talkback Thames. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 8 December 2011. Kirstie’s Handmade Britain. Raise the Roof Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 19 October 2011. Location, Location, Location. Ideal World Production. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 17 May 2000. Married at First Sight UK. CPL Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 9 July 2015. The Naked Chef. Optomen Television. BBC2 (UK). First aired 14 April 1999. No Waste Like Home. Celador Productions. BBC2 (UK). First aired 1 September 2005. Property Ladder. Talkback Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 27 September 2001. The Real Good Life. Talkback Thames. ITV (UK). First aired May 2005. The Real World. Bunim/Murray Productions. MTV (US). First aired 21 May 1992. Restoration Man. Tiger Aspect Productions. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 14 March 2010. The Secret Life of Elephants. BBC Natural History Unit. BBC1 (UK). First aired 14 January 2009. Selling Houses Australia. Beyond Productions. LifeStyle (Aus). First aired 19 March 2008. Top Gear. BBC Midlands. BBC2 (UK). First aired 22 April 1977. The Walking Dead. AMC Studios, Circle of Confusion, Darkwoods Productions, Idiot Box Productions, Valhala Motion Pictures. AMC (US). First aired 31 October 2010. What Not to Wear. BBC Studios. BBC2 (UK). First aired 29 November 2001. Wife Swap. RDF Media. Channel 4 (UK). First aired 1 January 2003. The Young Ones. BBC Studios. BBC2 (UK). First aired 20 December 2010. Grand Designs Episode List

Details and credits of each Grand Designs episode, series 1–18. All episode were frst aired on Channel 4 (UK). We have gathered this information from the following sources: IMDB (Internet Movie Database), Wikipedia, on-screen credits, and websources including Boundless and FremantleMedia UK production company websites, broadcasters, and TV listings. However, these sources do not always provide consistent information and there are incongruences between territories and DVDs in the listing or naming of episodes. We have ensured therefore that suffcient information is provided to allow reference to alternate sources, and that the identifcation of episodes in this book have internal integrity.

Series 1 (1999) Episode 1. Newhaven, East Sussex. The Timber Frame Kit House. Executive Producer: Peter Fincham. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Niall Downing. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jim Cox and Julia Brock. First aired: 29 April 1999. Episode 2. Oxfordshire. The English Barn. Executive Producer: Peter Fincham. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Alannah Richardson. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Denys and Marjorie Randolph, Roderick James (Architect). First aired: 6 May 1999. Revisit aired: 29 October 2003.

Episode 3. Brighton. The Co-Op. Executive Producer: Peter Fincham. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Alannah Richardson. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jenny and Paul Crouch, Hedgehog Self Build Co-op. First aired: 13 May 1999. Revisit aired: 6 December 2001. Revisit aired: 5 December 2012. Episode 4. Coleshill, Amersham. The Water Tower. Executive Producer: Peter Fincham. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: John Silver. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Deborah Mills and Andrew Tate. First aired: 20 May 1999. Revisit aired: 24 September 2002. Revisit aired: 8 December 2010. Episode 5. Suffolk. The Eco-House. Executive Producer: Peter Fincham. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Niall Downing. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Rob Roy and Alida Saunders. First aired: 3 June 1999. Revisit aired: 15 November 2001. Episode 6. Cornwall. The Chapel. Executive Producer: Peter Fincham. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Niall Downing. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Gavin Allen and Jane Fitzsimons, David Sheppard (Architect). First aired: 10 June 1999. Episode 7. Islington, North London The House of Straw. Executive Producer: Peter Fincham. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: John Silver. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jeremy Till and Sarah Wigglesworth. First aired: 17 June 1999. Revisit aired: 22 November 2001 Revisit aired: 15 October 2003. Episode 8. Town Fields, Doncaster. The Glass-House. Executive Producer: Peter Fincham. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Alannah Richardson. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Michael Hird and Lindsay Harwood, Colin Harwood (Architect). First aired: 24 June 1999. Revisit aired: 8 November 2001. GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 149

Series 2 (2001–2002) Episode 1. Farnham, Surrey. The Regency Villa. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Amelia Dare. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Mark Eisenstadt and Helen Saunders, Jim Garland (Architect). First aired: 17 July 2001. Episode 2. Sussex. The New England Gable House. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Amelia Dare. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jane Warren and Willem Mulder. First aired: 31 July 2001. Episode 3. Netherton, Yorkshire. The Wool Mill. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Amelia Dare. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Chris and Jill Heleine, Adam Clark (Architect). First aired: 31 July 2001. Episode 4. Brecon Beacons, Wales. The Isolated Cottage. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Helen Simpson. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Adrian and Corrina Philips. First aired: 7 August 2001. Revisit aired: 10 September 2002. Episode 5. Lambourn Valley, Berkshire. The Cruciform House. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Helen Simpson. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Rupert and Julie Upton, Hugh Wray-McCann (Architect). First aired: 14 August 2001. Revisit aired: 8 October 2003. Episode 6. Birmingham. The Self-Build. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Helen Simpson. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Angela and Peter. First aired: 21 August 2001. Revisit aired: 29 November 2001. Episode 7. London. The Jewel Box. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Anna Palmer. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Sarah and Coneyl Jordan, Jay Mike Tonkin (Architect). First aired: 28 August 2001. Episode 8. Devon. The Derelict Barns. Series Producer: John Silver. Director: Helen Simpson. Director: Firstname Surname. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Sue Charman and Martin Whitlock. First aired: 4 September 2001. Revisit aired: 1 October 2002. 150 GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST

Series 3 (2003) Episode 1. Peterborough. The Wooden Box. Executive Producer: Daisy Goodwin. Producer and Director: Fiona Caldwell. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: John and Terri Westlake, Nathan Lonsdale and Andrew Budgen (Archtects). First aired: 12 February 2003. Revisit aired: 5 March 2008. Episode 2. Whaley, Derbyshire. The Water-Works. Executive Producer: Daisy Goodwin. Producer and Director: Simon Bisset. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Chris Jones and Leanne Smith. First aired: 19 February 2003. Episode 3. Sussex. The Woodsmans Cottage. Executive Producer: Daisy Goodwin. Producer and Director: Fiona Caldwell. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Ben Law. First aired: 26 February 2003. Revisit aired: 26 October 2005. Revisit aired: 29 April 2009. Episode 4. Surrey. The Victorian Threshing Barn. Executive Producer: Daisy Goodwin. Producer and Director: Claire Hobday. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Philip and Angela Trail, Elspeth Beard (Architect). First aired: 5 March 2003. Revisit aired: 19 March 2008. Episode 5. Buckinghamshire. The Inverted-Roof House. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Tom and Judy Perry. First aired: 12 March 2003. Revisit aired: 4 February 2004. Episode 6. Hackney, London The Terrace Conversion. Executive Producer: Daisy Goodwin. Producer and Director: Fiona Caldwell. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: John Flood and Eleni Skordaki. First aired: 17 September 2003. Revisit aired: 4 May 2005. Episode 7. Cumbria. The Underground House. Executive Producer: Daisy Goodwin. Producer and Director: Claire Hobday. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Helen Gould and Phil Reddy, John Bodger (Architect). First aired: 24 September 2003. Revisit aired: 26 March 2008. GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 151

Episode 8. Herefordshire. The Traditional Cottage. Executive Producer: Daisy Goodwin. Producer and Director: Simon Bisset. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Merry and Ben Albright. First aired: 1 October 2003.

Series 4 (2004) Episode 1. Lambeth, London. The Violin Factory. Series Producers: Amy Joyce, Helen Simpson. Director: Emma Bowen. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Louise and Milko Ostendorf. First aired: 21 January 2004. Revisit aired: 13 October 2005. Episode 2. Walton on Thames, Surrey. Customised German Kit House. Series Producers: Amy Joyce, Helen Simpson. Director: Emma Bowen. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: David and Greta Iredale, Peter Huf (Architect). First aired: 28 January 2004. Revisit aired: 12 March 2008. Episode 3. Leith, Edinburgh. 19th Century Sandstone House. Series Producers: Amy Joyce, Helen Simpson. Director: Emma Bowen. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Reuben Welch and April Marr, Greg Holstead (Architect). First aired: 11 February 2004. Revisit aired: 6 April 2005. Episode 4. Clapham South, London. The Curved House. Series Producers: Amy Joyce, Helen Simpson. Director: Martin Morrison Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: David and Anjana Devoy, Peter Romaniuk (Architect). First aired: 18 February 2004. Revisit aired: 23 May 2006. Episode 5. Pett Level, Sussex. The Modernist Sugar Cube. Series Producers: Amy Joyce, Helen Simpson. Director: Martin Morrison. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Tom Watkins and Darron Copping. First aired: 25 February 2004. Episode 6. Kilcreggan, Argyll, Scotland. The Oak-Framed House. Series Producers: Amy Joyce, Helen Simpson. Director: Christian Trumble Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: 152 GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST

Tony and Jo Moffat, Andy McAvoy (Architect). First aired: 3 March 2004. Revisit aired: 25 April 2007. Episode 7. Avon Tyrrell, Dorset. An Idiosyncratic Home. Series Producers: Amy Joyce, Helen Simpson. Director: Sasha Bates. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Lizzie Vann and Mike Thrasher, David Underhill (Architect). First aired: 10 March 2004.

Series 5 (2005) Episode 1. Peckham, London. The Sliding Glass Roof House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Monty Ravenscroft and Clare Loewe, Richard Paxton (Architect). First aired: 13 April 2005. Revisit aired: 18 April 2007. Episode 2. Gloucester. The 16th Century Farmhouse. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Jessica Orr. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jeremy and Louise Brown, Toby Falconer (Architect). First aired: 20 April 2005. Episode 3. Kent. Finnish Log Cabin. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Jessica Orr. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: John Cadney and Marnie Moon. First aired: 27 April 2005. Episode 4. Shaldon, Devon. Shaped Like a Curvy Seashell. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Pat Becker, Peter Hall (Architect). First aired: 19 October 2005. Episode 5. Belfast, Northern Ireland. A 21st Century Answer to the Roman Villa. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Graham Sherrington. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Thomas and Dervla O’Hare. First aired: 2 November 2005. Revisit aired: 24 November 2010. GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 153

Episode 6. Devon. The Miami-Style Beach House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Julie and Mark Veysey. First aired: 9 November 2005. Episode 7. Carmarthen, Wales. The Eco-House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Graham Sherrington. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Andrew Teilo and Lowri Davies, Catherine Jones (Architect). First aired: 16 November 2005. Revisit aired: 28 March 2007.

Series 6 (2006) Episode 1. Killearn, Scotland. The Loch House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Directors: David Goodale, Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jim and Simone Fairfull, Alistair MacIntyre (Architect). First aired: 5 April 2006. Revisit aired: 22 April 2009. Episode 2. Ross-on-Wye. The Contemporary Barn Conversion. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Livia Russell. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Robert and Jane Ellis, Gary Thomas (Architect). First aired: 12 April 2006. Episode 3. Stirling, Scotland. The Contemporary Cedar Clad Home. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Directors: David Goodale, Graham Sherrington. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Theo and Elaine Leijser, Christopher Platt (Architect). First aired: 19 April 2006. Episode 4. Ashford, Kent. Water Tower Conversion. Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Directors: David Goodale, Graham Sherrington. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Bruno and Denise Del Tufo, Derek Briscoe (Architect). First aired: 26 April 2006. Revisit aired: 16 November 2011. Episode 5. Exeter. Garden House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Graham Strong. 154 GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST

Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Peter and Christine Benjamin. First aired: 17 May 2006.

Series 7 (2007) Episode 1. Skipton, North Yorkshire. The 14th Century Castle. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Livia Russell. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Francis and Karen Shaw. First aired: 28 February 2007. Revisit aired: 18 March 2009. Episode 2. Hampshire. The Thatched Cottage. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Graham Strong. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Alex and Cheryl Reay. First aired: 7 March 2007. Revisit aired: 15 April 2009. Episode 3. Medway. The Eco-Barge. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Chris Miller, Sze Liu Lai. First aired: 14 March 2007. Episode 4. Bournemouth. The Bournemouth Penthouse. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: James and Katrin Gray. First aired: 21 March 2007. Episode 5. Tipton, Birmingham. The Birmingham Church. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Directors: Ruairi Fallon, Graham Sherrington. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Dean and Hilary Marks. First aired: 4 April 2007. Episode 6. Guildford. The Art Deco House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Ruairi Fallon. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Andrew and Helen Berry. First aired: 11 April 2007. Episode 7. Cambridgeshire Fens. The Cambridgeshire Eco Home. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Graham Strong. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Kelly and Masoko Neville. First aired: 2 May 2007. Revisit aired: 25 March 2009. GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 155

Episode 8. Dulwich, London. The Glass & Timber House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Director: Ruairi Fallon. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Bill and Sarah Bradley, Hampson Williams and Martin Williams (Architects). First aired: 16 May 2007. Revisit aired: 17 November 2010.

Series 8 (2008) Episode 1. Cheltenham. The Underground House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Madeleine Hall. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Zoe and Tim Bawtree. First aired: 16 January 2008. Episode 2. Oxford. The Decagon House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Clare Fisher. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Henry Chopping, David Williams (Architect. First aired: 23 January 2008. Episode 3. Sneyd Park, Bristol. The Modernist Sugar Cube. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Madeline Hall. Host: Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Martin and Katherine Pease. First aired: 30 January 2008. Episode 4. Herefordshire. The Gothic House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Madeline Hall. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jo and Shaun Bennett. First aired: 6 February 2008. Episode 5. Midlothian, Scotland. The Lime Kiln House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Graham Strong, Ann Lalic. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Pru and Richard Irvine. First aired: 13 February 2008. Revisit aired: 15 December 2010. Episode 6. Bathwick Hill, Bath, Somerset. The Bath Kit House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeline Hall. Director: Clare Fisher. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Tiffany and Jonny Wood, Craig Underdown (Architect). First aired: 20 February 2008. 156 GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST

Episode 7. Maidstone, Kent. The Hi Tech Bungalow. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeline Hall. Director: Mike Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jean and Bill Letley. First aired: 2 April 2008.

Series 9 (2009) Episode 1. Somerset. The Apprentice Store. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeline Hall. Director: Clare Fisher. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Ian and Sophie Cooper, Matt Driscoll (Architect). First aired: 28 January 2009. Episode 2. Oxfordshire. The Chilterns Water Mill. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Michael Ratcliffe, Ruairi Fallon. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Chris Ostwald. First aired: 4 February 2009. Episode 3. Newport, Wales. The Newport Folly. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Ann Lalic. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Sarah and Dean Berry. First aired: 11 February 2009. Episode 4. Kent. The Eco Arch. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeline Hall. Directors: Clare Fisher, Graham Sherrington. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Richard and Sophie Hawkes. First aired: 18 February 2009. Revisit aired: 9 November 2011. Episode 5. Brittany, France. The Brittany Groundhouse. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeline Hall. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Daren Howarth and Adi Nortje. First aired: 25 February 2009. Revisit aired: 10 November 2010. Episode 6. Wiltshire. The Marlborough Farm House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeline Hall. Directors: Clare Fisher, Graham Sherrington. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Andrew and Meryl Ainslie, Timothy Bennett (Architect). First aired: 4 March 2009. Episode 7. Kent. The Headcorn Minimalist House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Directors: Clare Fisher, Graham Sherrington. Host: Kevin GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 157

McCloud. Contributors: Mimi and Andre D’Costa, Nick Eldridge (Architect). First aired: 11 March 2009. Revisit aired: 30 November 2011. Episode 8. Brighton. The Brighton Modern Mansion. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Ann Lalic. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Barry and Julie Surtees. First aired: 8 April 2009.

Series 10 (2010) Episode 1. Isle of Wight. The Tree House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Richard Parkin. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Lincoln Miles and Lisa Traxler. First aired: 15 September 2010. Revisit aired: 14 November 2012. Episode 2. The Cotswolds. The Stealth House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Helen and Chris Seymour-Smith. First aired: 22 September 2010. Episode 3. Woodbridge. The Modest Home. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Ann Lalic. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Lucie Fairweather and Nat McBride, Jerry Tate (Architect). First aired: 29 September 2010. Revisit aired: 13 November 2013. Episode 4. Stowmarket. The Barn & Guildhall. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Richard Parkin. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Simon and Jill Bennett. First aired: 6 October 2010. Episode 5. Ipswich. The Radian House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Ann Lalic. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Lindsay and Jonathan Belsey. First aired: 13 October 2010. Episode 6. Lizard Peninsula. The Scandinavian House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Kathryn Tyler. First aired: 20 October 2010. 158 GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST

Episode 7. Cumbria. The Adaptahaus. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Alan Dawson. First aired: 27 October 2010. Revisit aired: 23 November 2011. Episode 8. Lake District National Park. The Dome House. Executive Producer: Charlie Bunce. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Directors: Richard Parkin, Catey Sexton. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Robert and Milla Gaukroger. First aired: 3 November 2010. Revisit aired: 2 November 2011.

Series 11 (2011) Episode 1. Morpeth, Northumberland. The Derelict Mill Cottage. Executive Producers: Charlie Bunce, Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: Madeline Hall Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Stefan Lepkowski and Annia Shabowska, Kevin Brown (Architect). First aired: 14 September 2011. Episode 2. London. The Contemporary Mansion. Executive Producers: Charlie Bunce, Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Madeline Hall, Michael Ratcliffe. Director: Ann Lalic. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Paul and Penny Denby, James Engel (Architect). First aired: 21 September 2011. Episode 3. Tenby. The Lifeboat Station. Executive Producers: Charlie Bunce, Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Madeline Hall, Michael Ratcliffe. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Tim and Philomena O’Donovan, Michael Argent (Architect, not shown on flm). First aired: 28 September 2011. Episode 4. Essex. The Large Timber-framed Barn. Charlie Bunce, Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Madeline Hall, Michael Ratcliffe. Director: Ann Lalic. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Freddie Robbins and Ben Coode-Adams. First aired: 5 October 2011. Revisit aired: 28 November 2012. GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 159

Episode 5. Herefordshire. The Recycled Timber-framed House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Ann Lalic. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Ed and Rowena Waghorn. First aired: 12 October 2011. Revisit aired: 1 November 2017. Episode 6. Cornwall. The Dilapidated Engine House. Executive Producers: Charlie Bunce, Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: Madeleine Hall. Director: Michael Ratcliffe. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Adam Purchase and Nicola Brennan. First aired: 19 October 2011. Episode 7. London. The Disco Home. Executive Producers: Charlie Bunce, Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Madeline Hall, Michael Ratcliffe. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Claire Farrow and Ian Hogarth. First aired: 26 October 2011. Revisit aired: 21 November 2012.

Series 12 (2012) Episode 1. Roscommon, Ireland. Cloontykilla Castle. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Michael Ratcliffe, John Lonsdale. Director: Catey Sexton. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Sean Simons. First aired: 12 September 2012. Episode 2. Hertfordshire. The Computer-cut House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: Michael Ratcliffe. Director: Catey Sexton. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Celia Brackenridge and Diana Woodward, Bruce Bell and Dominic McCausland (Industrial Designers). First aired: 19 September 2012. Episode 3. Brixton, London. The Glass Cubes House Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Michael Ratcliffe, John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Mary Martin and Carl Turner. First aired: 26 September 2012. Episode 4. Oxfordshire. The Thames Boathouse. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Michael Ratcliffe, John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Lysette and Nigel Offey, Chris Tapp (Architect). First aired: 10 October 2012. 160 GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST

Episode 5. London. The Derelict Water Tower. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Michael Ratcliffe, John Lonsdale. Director: Rob Gill. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Leigh Osborne and Graham Voce. First aired: 17 October 2012. Episode 6. London. The Edwardian Artist’s Studio. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Michael Ratcliffe, John Lonsdale. Directors: Ann Lalic, Nicki Stoker, Max Baring. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Audrey and Jeff Lovelock. First aired: 24 October 2012. Episode 7. Isle of Skye. The Larch-Clad House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Michael Ratcliffe, John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Indi and Rebecca Waterstone, Alan Dickson (Architect). First aired: 31 October 2012. Episode 8. London. The Joinery Workshop. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Michael Ratcliffe, John Lonsdale. Director: Catey Sexton. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Henning Stummel and Alice Dawson. First aired: 7 November 2012.

Series 13 (2013) Episode 1. Thorne, South Yorkshire. The 1920s Cinema. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Directors: Rob Gill, Nicki Stocker. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Gwyn and Kate ap Harri. First aired: 4 September 2013. Episode 2. North London. The Miniature Hollywood Mansion. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: Michael Ratcliffe, John Lonsdale. Director: Catey Sexton. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jonathan and Deborah Broom, Paul Archer (Architect). First aired: 11 September 2013. Episode 3. York. The Giant Farm Shed. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Martin and Kae Walker. First aired: 18 September 2013. Episode 4. Devon. The Crooked Chocolate Box Cottage. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Max Baring. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 161

Jon and Becky White, Stewart Maxwell (Architect). First aired: 25 September 2013. Revisited. First aired: 5 November 2014. Episode 5. Strathaven, South Lanarkshire. The Metal Sculptural Home. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: John Lonsdale, Michael Ratcliffe. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Colin Mackinnon and Marta Briongos. First aired: 2 October 2013. Episode 6. Monmouthshire. The Japanese House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Tamayo and Nigel Hussey. First aired: 9 October 2013. Revisited. First aired: 29 October 2014. Episode 7. Brockwell Park. The Modernist Masterpiece. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Rob Gill. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Ben and Rachel Hammond, Zac Monroe (Architect). First aired: 16 October 2013. Episode 8. Devon. The Cob Castle. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producers: John Lonsdale, Michael Ratcliffe. Director: Max Baring. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Kevin McCabe. First aired: 23 October 2013. Episode 9. Newbury. The Christmas Farm. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Max Baring. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Michael Butcher and Phil Palmer, Sara Gardhouse (Architect). First aired: 30 October 2013.

Series 14 (2014) Episode 1. Gwynedd. The Clifftop House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Rob Hodgson and Kay Ralph. First aired: 3 September 2014. Episode 2. Cornwall. The Cross-Laminated Timber House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Rebecca Sturrock and Gregory Kewish. First aired: 10 September 2014. 162 GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST

Revisit aired: 13 November 2015. Episode 3. Milton Keynes. The Round House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Rob Gil. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Peter and Chard Berkin. First aired: 17 September 2014. Episode 4. County Londonderry. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Rob Gil. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Patrick Bradley. First aired: 24 September 2014. Episode 5. London. The Urban Shed. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Tracy and Steve Fox. First aired: 1 October 2014. Episode 6. Norfolk. The Periscopes House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Elliot Kew. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Natasha Cargill, Wilf Meynell (Architect). First aired: 8 October 2014. Episode 7. Marlow, Buckinghamshire. The Floating House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. Director: Rob Gill. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Andy Bruce and Nicki Bruce. First aired: 15 October 2014. Revisited. First aired: 28 October 2015.

Series 15 (2015) Grand Designs: Living in the … (four-part special) Episode 1. Living in the City. Host: Kevin McCloud. First aired: 9 July 2015. Episode 2. Living in the Wild. Host: Kevin McCloud. First aired: 16 July 2015. Episode 3. Living in Suburbia. Host: Kevin McCloud. First aired: 23 July 2015. Episode 4. Living in the Country. Host: Kevin McCloud. First aired: 30 July 2015.

Series 16 (2015) Episode 1. West Sussex. The Perfectionist’s Bungalow. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 163

Director: Elliot Kew. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Clinton Dall, Desmond Hammond (Architect). First aired: 9 September 2015. Episode 2. East Sussex. The Boat House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: James Strangeways, Ben Hebblethwaite (Architect). First aired: 16 September 2015. Episode 3. Isle of Wight. The Seaside House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Bram and Lisa Vis, Lincoln Miles (Architect). First aired: 23 September 2015. Episode 4. Worcestershire. The Cave House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. Director: Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Angelo Mastropietro. First aired: 30 September 2015. Episode 5. County Antrim. The Blacksmith’s House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. Director: Elliot Kew. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Michele Long and Michael Howe. First aired: 7 October 2015. Episode 6. Somerset. The Concrete Cow-Shed. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. Director: Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Ed Versluys and Vicky Anderson. First aired: 14 October 2015. Revisit aired: 30 May 2017. Episode 7. Lewes, East Sussex. The Rusty Metal House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Londsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Stephen Yeoman and Anita Findlay. First aired: 21 October 2015.

Series 17 (2016) Episode 1. Dursley. Gloucestershire Treehouse. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: John Martin and Noreen Jaafar. First aired: 21 September 2016. 164 GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST

Episode 2. Horsham. Fun House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Matt and Sophie White. First aired: 28 September 2016. Episode 3. South Cornwall. Steam Bending House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Tom and Danielle Raffeld. First aired: 5 October 2016. Episode 4. Essex. Black House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Marc Beers. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Michelle Parsons. First aired: 12 October 2016. Episode 5. Bolton. Ultra-Modern House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Marc Beers. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Paul Rimmer. 19 October 2016. Episode 6. Pembrokeshire. Low-Impact House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Simon and Jasmine Dale. First aired: 26 October 2016. Episode 7. Devon. Plough-Shaped House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Mark and Candida Diacono, Edd Medlicott and Tamsyn Froom (Architects). First aired: 2 November 2016. Episode 8. The Wirral. Floating Timber House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Stuart and Rosie Treasurer. First aired: 17 November 2016.

Series 18 (2017) Episode 1. Malvern Hill House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Directors: Nicki Stoker, Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Jon and Gill Flewers, Nick Caroll (Architect). First aired: 6 September 2017. GRAND DESIGNS EPISODE LIST 165

Episode 2. Harringey, London. Victorian Gatehouse. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Directors: Nicki Stoker, Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Penny Talelli, Mark Edwards, Andrew Mulroy (Architect). First aired: 13 September 2017. Episode 3. County Down. Agricultural House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Directors: Marc Beers, Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Micah and Elaine Jones. First aired: 20 September 2017. Episode 4. South Hertfordshire. Roman House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Claire Lasko. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Chris and Kayo, Rogan Gale-Brown (Architect). First aired: 27 September 2017. Episode 5. South East London. Victorian Dairy House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Nicki Stoker. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Beth Dadswell, Andrew Wilbourne, Takero Shimazaki (Architect). First aired: 4 October 2017. Episode 6. Blackdown Hills, Devon. Snake House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Ned Williams. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Stephen Tetlow. First aired: 11 October 2017. Episode 7. Peak District. Post-Industrial House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Marc Beers. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Fred and Saffron Baker. First aired: 18 October 2017. Episode 8. London. Miniscule House. Executive Producer: Fiona Caldwell. Series Producer: John Lonsdale. Director: Marc Beers. Host: Kevin McCloud. Contributors: Joe Stuart and Lina Nilsson. First aired: 25 October 2017. Index

0-9 The Art Deco House (S7 E6), 90–1 3-D architectural modelling software, audiences 39 engagement, 108–15 international, 1, 107–8, 111–13, 114, 120–1, 126–7, 137–8 A ratings, 23, 107–8, 110, 112–13 Aeschbacher, Nina, 5 austerity and thrift cultures, 13–14, aesthetics and flming process, 42–7 17–19, 77–8, 84 affect, 10, 19 Australia Ahmed, Sara, 51 Grand Designs publications, 116–17 Aircrete, 91 Grand Designs (UK) screened in, Albright, Ben and Merry, 59–60 107–8, 111–12 Allon, Fiona, 20, 52, 77 housing affordability, 139 Alsop, Kirstie, 17 local adaptation of Grand Designs, alternative hedonism, 17 112–13, 115, 117, 119–21, American audiences, 113 127, 137–8 Andrejevic, Mark, 6 market for Grand Designs, 118–19 Andrews, Maggie, 71 Australian Broadcasting Corporation anti-consumerism, 13–14, 18–19. See (ABC), 108, 111, 112 also austerity and thrift cultures Australian Subscription Television The Apprentice (TV series), 6 and Radio Association (ASTRA) The Apprentice Store (S9 E1), 65–6, Awards, 112 79 awards presented to Grand Designs, architects’ views on Grand Designs, 10 31–2, 112

B broadcasting, changes in Britain, 8. See Bauman, Zygmunt, 11–12 also public service broadcasting Beattie, Anna, 34 Brock, Julia, 82 Beck, Daniel, 5 Brunsdon, Charlotte, 9 Bell, David, 8, 17–18 Butcher, Michael, 65 Belsey, Jonathan, 67 Bennett, Jo and Shaun, 54 Berry, Andrew and Helen, 90–1 C Bildungsroman, v, vii Cadney, John, 60–1, 66 Binkley, Sam, 13–14 The Cambridgeshire Eco Home (S7 The Birmingham Church (S7 E5), E7), 83 66, 79 camera operator experiences, 42–7 Black House (S17 E4), 88–9 Cargill, Natasha, 82 The Block (TV series), 7, 36, 38, 42, Castandena, Claudia, 51 47, 90 The Cave House (S16 E4), 62, 63–4, The Boat House (S16 E2), 90 79 Bonner, Frances, 18, 19 celanthropy, 16 Border Oak Design & Construction, celebrities and moral entrepreneurship, 60 15–18 Boundless Productions, 1 Changing Rooms (TV series), vii, 8, 35 Bourdieu, Pierre, 9, 59 Channel, 4 The Bournemouth Penthouse (S7 E4), catch-up and on-demand services, 94 108, 126 Bradley, Bill and Sarah, 76 commissioning of Grand Designs, Bradley, Patrick, 80 20, 33, 34 Bramall, Rebecca, 18–19 performance of Grand Designs brand identity, 1, 116–17 within, 108 The Brighton Modern Mansion (S9 mission, 34–5, 126, 139 E8), 66 See also entries for spin-off programs, British Academy of Film and Television e.g. Grand Designs: House of the Arts (BAFTA) Awards, 31–2 Year (TV series) British Broadcasting Corporation, Charman, Sue, 77 (BBC) The Cheeran House (RIBA House of audio branding of news service, 2 the Year 2016 shortlist), 115 changes in 1990s, 8 choice and neoliberalism, 11 Changing Rooms, vii, 8, 35 The Christmas Farm (S13 E9), 65 Great British Bakeoff, 32, 34 cinematography, 42–7 mission, 126 citizen-consumers, 9, 11, 13–14, 16, ratings, and Grand Designs, 107 135 Reithian, 8, 35 class and taste, 17–18, 52. See also The Brittany Groundhouse (S9 E5), middle class 98 The Clifftop House (S14 E1), 82 Index 169 collective learning and innovation, Craig, Geoffrey, 83, 92, 98, 103, 125, 94–7, 128 138, 140 Commissioning Editors (Channel 4), creativity and innovation, 88–90 34 credit sequence, 2 commodifcation of the home, 52, 58 The Crooked Chocolate Box Cottage concrete, 90–1, 92 (S13 E4), 45, 54–5 connections to place, 59–62 cultural intermediaries, 9, 15, 18 conscience consumption, 20 Customised German Kit House (S4 conservation projects, 78–80 E2), 81 constraint and innovation, 92–4 consumer activism, 11–14 consumer markets and role of Grand D Designs, 119 Dadswell, Beth, 78 consumer watchdog organisations, 13 Daily Mail (UK), 3 consumption Dale, Jasmine and Simon, 77 competing discourses of excess Dall, Clinton, 71–3, 76 and sustainability, 17, 19, 84, date stamp convention, 39 139–40 Davies, Lowri, 91–2, 122 conscience, 20 Del Tufo, Bruno and Denise, 64 ethical, 11–15, 16, 17–18, 20, demolition works, 81–2 82–4, 97–8 The Derelict Barns (S2 E8), 77, 79 and expert hosts, 9 The Derelict Water Tower (S12 E5), large-scale and extravagant builds, 40, 79, 107–8 71–6 design risks, 72, 73, 77 and lifestyle media, 71 digital media and audience engage- and moral entrepreneurship, 15, ment, 109–11, 113–15 17–18 disability and home design, 54–5, 63 recycling and reducing waste, viii, The Disco Home (S11 E7), 54, 97 78, 80–2, 94, 95 diversity in real estate programming, restoration projects, 78–80 52, 125 small-scale and low-budget builds, The Dome House (S10 E8), 75–6 76–7, 93–4 double articulation of media, 14–15 and social media, 7–8 double audience structure, 9 sociological studies, 137 dramatic arc, 37–41 thrift and austerity cultures, 13–14, drinking game, 41 17–19, 77–8, 84 Dupuis, Ann, 58–9 Coode-Adams, Ben, 57–8 DVDs of episodes, 112, 113, 114 The Co-op (S1 E3), 33 Cooper, Ian and Sophie, 65–6 costs of building, 52. See also fnancial E pressures of building The Eco Arch (S9 E4), 83, 114–15, Couldry, Nick, 14 122 Cox, Tim, 82 The Eco-Barge (S7 E3), 81 170 Index eco-friendly builds. See environment experimentation and innovation, The Eco-House, Carmarthen, Wales 88–90 (S5 E7), 91–2, 97, 122 expert hosts, 9–10, 15, 37–8, 55, 90, The Eco-House, Suffolk (S1 E5), 103, 104 82–3, 122 extravagant builds, 71–6 eco-makeover genre, 20 eco-reality genre, 20 educational role of Grand Designs, F 35, 39, 90, 94–7, 103, 104, 126, Facebook, 7–8, 23, 41, 110, 115 128, 138 Fairfull, Jim and Simone, 65 Eisenstadt, Mark, 54 Fairweather, Lucie, 61–2 emotion and cinematography, 42 fan communities, 41, 113, 115 The English Barn (S1 E2), 54 fantasy homes, 54 environment Fearnley-Whittingstall, Hugh, 17–18 eco-reality and eco-makeover flming process, 41, 42–7 genres, 20 ‘the fnals’, 40, 46–7, 52–3, 56, 73, ethical consumption, 11–15, 16, 74–5 17–18, 20, 82–4, 97–8 fnancial pressures of building, 58, 64, green innovation, 97–8 74–6, 93–4 innovation by constraint, 92–4 Findlay, Anita, 77–8 locally sourced raw materials, 62–4, Finnish Log Cabin (S5 E3), 61, 63, 66 73–4 frst episode (April 1999), 1, 33 low and zero-carbon houses, 100, Flood, John, 59 114, 119, 121–5 Fortier, Anne-Marie, 51 recycling and reducing waste, viii, The Fourteenth-Century Castle (S7 78, 80–2, 94, 95 E1), 54, 79 role of Grand Designs, 20, 118, franchise arrangements, 111–13 138, 140 Frankfurt School, 13, 14 social innovation, 16, 98–101, FremantleMedia, 1, 112, 115, 116 139–40 frugal innovation, 94 technological innovation, 90–2 fun features in homes, 54 Walter Segal self-building system, 33 Fun House (S17 E2), 54, 79 Envy Productions, 2 Fuqua, Joy, 16 episode composition, 37–8 ethical consumption, 11–15, 16, 17–18, 20, 82–4, 97–8 G Etwell, Tony, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46–7 Gaukroger, Robert, 75–6 European audiences, 113 gender and home-making, 53 ‘the everyday’ and reality TV, 7 generative social analysis, 19 e-waste, 14 genre excess and sustainability, competing and Grand Designs, v, 3, 7, 34–5 discourses of, 17, 19, 84, 139–40 and reality TV, 6–7 Index 171

Giles, David, 9 green innovation, 97–8. See also The Glass & Timber House (S7 E8), environment 76 global fnancial crisis of 2007–2008, 17, 52, 76–7 H Gloucestershire Treehouse (S17 E1), Hamad, Hannah, 17 viii, 54, 80, 87 Happiness Architecture Beauty Gogglebox (TV series), 14–15, 108 (HAB), 1–2, 10, 17, 123 Goodwin, Daisy, vi, 32–3 Hartley, John, Uses of Television, Gorman-Murray, Andrew, 140 101–2, 135 The Gothic House (S8 E4), 54 hashtags, 116 Grand Designs Australia (TV series), Hawkes, Richard and Sophie, 83 112–13, 115, 117, 119–21, 127, Hay, James, 6, 11, 52 137–8 Hedgehog Self Build Co-op, 33 Grand Designs Australia Handbook Hellmueller, Lea, 5 (Maddison), 117 Highmore, Ben, 22–3, 140–1 Grand Designs Australia Magazine, Hight, Craig, 110 116–17 Hill, Annette, 8–9 The Grand Designs Drinking Game Hilton, Matthew, 13 (parody site), 41 historic present tense in voice-over, 38 Grand Designs: House of the Year (TV Hodgson, Rob, 82 series), 112, 115, 117 Hogarth, Claire and Ian, 97 Grand Designs Live (trade shows), 1, Hollows, Joanne, 8, 15–16, 17–18 41, 56, 95, 115, 117, 128 home Grand Designs: Living in the … (TV connections to place, 59–62 series), 99–100, 103, 123 defning, 51, 57–9 Grand Designs Magazine, 115–16 human stories refected in builds, Grand Designs New Zealand (TV 62–4 series), 112, 127, 138 importance of in Grand Designs, 51, Grand Designs Revisited (TV series), 52–3 39, 53, 56–7, 75, 112, 122–3 making, and taste, 53–7 Grand Designs: Trade Secrets (TV moving on, 66–7 series), 128 as vehicles for a ‘better life’, 64–6 ‘grand’, use of term, 56, 72 House Hunters (TV series), 52, 125 Gray, James and Katrin, 94 The House of Straw (S1 E7), 122–3 Great British Bakeoff (TV series), 32, housing affordability, 76–7, 137, 139 34 Housing Problems (documentary flm), The Great British Property Scandal 101–2 (Kevin’s Grand Design), 123 Huge Designs, 2 Great British Refurb campaign, 100 human stories refected in builds, 62–4 172 Index

Humphery, Kim, 19 Kevin’s Supersized Salvage (TV series), Hussey, Nigel and Tamayo, 89–90 95 Kraidy, Marwan M., 127, 139

I identity and home-making, 53–4, 137 L innovation labour force and reality TV, 5–6 and collective learning, 94–7, 128 Lai, Sze Liu, 81 by constraint, 92–4 Lane, Ruth, 140 creativity and experimentation, large-scale and extravagant builds, 88–90 71–6 defning, 88 The Large Timber-Framed Barn (S11 frugal, 94 E4), 57–8, 79 green, 97–8 Law, Ben, 62, 83, 92–3, 115 media, 125–9 Lawrence, Matt, 2 social, 16, 98–101, 139–40 Leadbetter, Charles, 94 technological, 90–2 Lewis, Tania, 9, 11, 20 uses of television, 101–3 The Lifeboat Station (S11 E3), 78–80 Instagram, 7–8, 23, 115–16 lifestyle media, 7–10, 11, 20, 71 international audiences, 1, 107–8, lime (building material), 92 111–13, 114, 120–1, 126–7, Littler, Jo, 12–14 137–8 Livingstone, Sonia, 14 Iredale, David and Greta, 81 locally sourced raw materials, 62–4, 73–4 The Loch House (S6 E1), 65 J low-budget builds, 76–7, 93–4 Jaafar, Noreen, 87 low-carbon houses, 100, 119, 121–5 Jamie’s Ministry of Food (TV series), Low-Impact House (S17 E6), 77 16 Lowe, David, 2 Jamie’s School Dinners (TV series), 16 Lunt, Peter, 138–9 The Japanese House (S13 E6), 89–90 The Jewel Box (S2 E7), 53–4 Jones, Steve, 15–16 M Jordan, Coneyl and Sarah, 53–4 Maddison, Peter, 112, 117, 125 Make it Right campaign, 16 makeover TV programs, 9–10, 38, K 135–6 Kent County Council, 114–15, 122 Malley, Yvonne, 76 Kevin McCloud’s Man Made Home markets (TV series), vi, 1, 95, 100 audiences, publics and second Kevin’s Grand Design (TV series), 2, screen, 108–11 100, 123 Australian context, 118–19 Index 173

brand identity, 1, 116–17 on ‘grand’ as a term, 56 digital media access, 113–15 at Grand Designs Live, 117 international audiences and fran- Happiness Architecture Beauty chise arrangements, 1, 107–8, (HAB), 1–2, 10, 17, 123 111–13, 114, 120–1, 126–7, on Hedgehog Self Build Co-op, 33 137–8 on homes as vehicles for a ‘better low-carbon houses, 100, 119, life’, 64–5, 66 121–5 on human stories refected in builds, and media innovation, 125–9 62 original UK version versus on innovation, 88, 89, 90–1, 92, Australian franchise, 119–21 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99–101, and social media, 109–11, 114–16, 123 128 on international audiences, 111–12, success of Grand Designs, 1, 107–8, 120–1 133, 137 Kevin McCloud’s Man Made Home, Markham, Tim, 14 vi, 1, 95, 100 Marks, Dean, 66 Kevin’s Grand Design, 2, 100, 123 Martin, John, 54 Kevin’s Supersized Salvage, 95 Martin, Jon, 87 on large-scale and extravagant Massey, Doreen, 59 builds, 72, 73–5 Mastropietro, Angelo, 62, 63–4 Member of the Order of the British Mastropietro, Tony, 63 Empire, 32 Matera, Italy, 63 as moral entrepreneur, 17, 55 Maxwell, Richard, 14 on moving on from homes, 67 McBride, Nat, 61 participation in building process, ‘The McCloud Clause’, 10 62–4 McCloud, Kevin as presenter, vi–vii, viii, 1, 33–4, 36, and aesthetic of Grand Designs, 43 39–40, 41, 47, 94–5, 96–7, on BAFTA Awards, 31–2 120, 134–5 on connections to place, 60, 61 publications, 1, 116 coziness preoccupation, 57 recruitment of participants, 48 on diversity of programs, 125 Twitter, 116, 135 Eco-Barge issues, 81 visits to comparative buildings and environmental interests, 32, 78, 80, areas, 63 83, 91, 100, 119, 123 McCloud, Milo, 116 as expert host, 10, 38, 55, 90, 103, McCracken, Grant, 138 104 McElroy, Ruth, 51–2 fnal visits, 40, 52–3, 56, 73, 74–5 McKee, Alan, 102 on fun features in homes, 54 McKerrow, Richard, 34 on gender and home-making, 53 media on genre, 3, 35 citizenship, 101, 135 on global fnancial crisis, 77 double articulation, 14–15 Gogglebox commentary of, 14–15 innovation, 125–9 174 Index

The Miami-Style Beach House (S5 viewers of original UK version, 121 E6), 54 Nielsen Media Research, 110 Micheletti, Michele, 12 Nilsson, Lina, 93 middle class Norwegian audiences, 113 and austerity, 18 novel products and building tech- orientation of Grand Designs, 55, niques, 119 78, 80, 96 Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig, 72, 73 Miles, Lincoln, 73, 74 O Miller, Chris, 81 Oliver, Jamie, 15–16, 17, 18 Miller, Daniel, 84 online discussion forums, 114 Miller, Toby, 14, 127, 139 onsite production crew, 42–7 Miniscule House (S18 E8), 93, 97 ontological security, 58–9, 62 Mittell, Jason, 6–7 Ouellette, Laurie, 5, 6, 11 mobility needs and home design, 54–5, 63 The Modest Home (S10 E3), 61–2 P monitoring and surveillance in reality Palmer, Gareth, 129 TV, 5–6 Palmer, Phil, 65 Moon, Marnie, 60–1, 66 parody sites, 41, 116 moral entrepreneurship, 15–19, 55 Parsons, David and Michelle, 88–9 Moseley, Rachel, 8, 37 participants moving on from homes, 66–7 as agents of own destiny, 103 multiple viewings of episodes, 127 challenges faced by, vi–vii, 7, 37, Murray, Susan, 5 39–40, 45, 58, 66, 136 musical score, 2 demographic, 35, 55, 95–6 recruitment of, 32, 47–8, 115 relationships with onsite production N crew, 45–6 Nabi, Robin, 5 The Perfectionist’s Bungalow (S16 narrative construction, 37–8, 42 E1), 71–3 neoliberalism The Periscopes House (S14 E6), 82 commodifcation of the home, 58 Philips, Deborah, 9 and ethical consumption, 11 Pinterest, 7 and moral entrepreneurship, 16, 19 Pitt, Brad, 16 and political agency of affect, 10 place, connections to, 59–62 and reality TV, 5–6, 135–6, 139 Polish audiences, 113 and Realty TV, 52 popularity of Grand Designs, 1, 107–8, Netfix, 113, 126 133, 137 Neville, Kelly and Masoko, 83 product lists for viewers, 129 New Zealand product placement, 90, 128 local adaptation of Grand Designs, production 112, 127, 138 aesthetics and flming process, 42–7 Index 175

dramatic arc, 37–41 revisits of builds, 39, 41, 53, 56–7, 75, early days, 31–4 112, 122–3 episode composition and narrative Richards, Morgan, 10, 52 construction, 37–8, 42 Robbins, Freddie, 57–8 format, style and genre, 34–6 Rojek, Chris, 16 viewer renovators, 36–7 Roy, Rob, 82–3, 122 project managers, 53 Royal Institute of British Architects Property Ladder (TV series), 37–8 (RIBA) Awards, 112, 115 property TV, 9, 21, 51–2, 125 The Rusty Metal House (S16 E7), public service broadcasting, 8, 34–5, 77–8 125–6, 138–9 publishing spin-offs, 115–17 S sales of Grand Designs homes, 67, R 75–6 The Radian House (S10 E5), 67 Saunders, Alida, 82–3 Raffeld, Danielle and Tom, 96–7 Saunders, Helen, 54 Ralph, Kay, 82 Saunders, Peter, 58 Ramaswami, Harindranath, 110 Saunt, Deborah, 99 Raphael, Chad, 5–6 scale of builds, 56. See also large-scale ratings (audience), 23, 107–8, 110, and extravagant builds; small-scale 112–13 and low-budget builds Ravenscroft, Clare and Monty, 76, 114 Scott, Vikki, 128 real estate programming, 9, 21, 51–2, The Seaside House (S16 E3), 73–5 125 seasons of programs, 39 Reali-TV, 5 second screen viewing, 109–11 realistic portrayal of building process, The Secret Life of Elephants (TV series), 36–7, 118, 136, 140 107 reality TV, 4–7, 11, 21, 135–6, 138–9 Segal, Walter, 33 Realty TV, 52 selection of participants, 32, 47–8, recruitment of participants, 32, 47–8, 115 115 self-building (self-improvement), v, vii The Recycled Timber-Framed House self-building, Walter Segal system, 33 (S11 E5), 41, 83 Selling Houses (TV series), 42, 46 recycling and reducing waste, viii, 78, series, length of, 38–9 80–2, 94, 95 service provider lists for viewers, 129 Redden, Guy, 15, 52, 77, 135 Shaw, Francis, 54 The Regency Villa (S2 E1), 54 Sheller, Mimi, 51 Reithian Bargain, 8, 35 The Shipping Containers House (S14 relationships between participants and E4), 38, 53, 80, 94 onsite production crew, 45–6 Shove, Elizabeth, 84, 137 restoration projects, 78–80 signature theme, 2 Silver, John, 32, 33 176 Index

Skeggs, Beverley, 10, 19, 135 mediated by expert hosts, 9–10 Skordaki, Eleni, 59 mediated by Grand Designs, 10, 55 The Sliding Glass Roof House (S5 questions of, and Grand Designs, 3 E1), 76, 114 Tate, Jerry, 61 small-scale and low-budget builds, technological innovation, 90–2 76–7, 93–4 Teilo, Andrew, 91–2, 122 Smith, Angela, 9, 37–8 television and innovation, 101–3 social connection through viewing, television studies, 128, 138 127 The Terrace Conversion (S3 E6), 59, Social Content Ratings (Nielsen), 110 79 social innovation, 16, 98–101, 139–40 Thomas, Lyn, 20 social media Thorns, David, 58–9 and consumer activism, 13 Threadstrong Ltd, 116 The Grand Designs Drinking Game, thrift and austerity cultures, 13–14, 41 17–19, 77–8, 84 Kevin McCloud’s use of, 116, 135 Till, Jeremy, 122–3 and lifestyle consumption practices, The Timber Frame Kit House (S1 7–8 E1), 33, 82 and markets, 109–11, 114–16, 128 time required to flm episodes, 41 Social TV, 109 title music, 2 Soper, Kate, 17 title sequence, 2, 3 space limits and design, 93 Top Gear (TV series), 8, 32 Stead, Naomi, 10, 52, 133 trade shows, 1, 41, 56, 95, 115, 117, Steam Bending House (S17 E3), 96–7 128 Strangeways, James, 90 The Traditional Cottage (S3 E8), streaming services, 113–14 59–60 Stuart, Joe, 93 The Triangle (Swindon housing success of Grand Designs, 1, 107–8, estate), 2, 123 133, 137 Turner, Carl, 99 Surtees, Barry, 66 Turner, Graeme, 21, 22, 137 surveillance and monitoring in reality Twitter, 23, 33, 110, 115, 116, 135 TV, 5–6 sustainability and excess, competing discourses of, 17, 19, 84, 139–40 U sustainable living. See environment United States audiences, 113 upcycling, 78, 80, 94 Uses of Television (Hartley), 101–2, T 135 tabloid media opinion of Grand Designs, 3 taste V and class, 17–18, 52 Veysey, Julie and Mark, 54 and home-making, 53–7 Victorian Dairy House (S18 E5), 78, 79 Index 177 viewer renovators, 36–7 Williams, Peter, 58 Vis, Bram and Lisa, 73–5 Williams, Raymond, v Wollaston, Sam, 95, 100 Wood, Helen, 10, 19, 135 W The Woodsmans Cottage (S3 E3), 62, Waghorn, Ed and Rowena, 83 64, 83, 92–3 Walter Segal self-building system, 33 work and reality TV, 5–6 waste reduction and recycling, viii, 78, 80–2, 94, 95 Water Tower Conversion (S6 E4), Y 64–5, 79 Yellin, Todd, 111 Water Tower Conversion: Revisited Yeoman, Stephen, 77–8 (S11 E10), 48 The Young Ones (TV series), 107 Weber, Brenda, 9–10, 11, 135 YouTube, 7–8, 113, 114–15, 127 ‘Wedding Bells’ (music track), 2 White, Becky and Jon, 45, 54–5 White, Matt and Sophie, 54 Z White, Mimi, 52, 102–3, 125, 138 zero-carbon houses, 114, 122, 124–5 Whitlock, Martin, 77 Wigglesworth, Sarah, 122–3 Wilbourne, Andrew, 78