It wasn't bad, I wouldn't live there as I don't go in for pure minimalism but it was clearly what they wanted and was an excellent example of how to manage your own build... Look at many of the previous programmes, they go over budget because the owners completely fail to think through the build (and often have far too much confidence in their own abilities). Sure, they spent £1k on a tap, but they saved about £30k by knowing what they were doing. Given the amount of absolutely top end features and the quality of the construction and finish the cost was pretty low. Still, when the kids grow up they're gonna kick themselves in the teeth for having that open wall on the master bedroom.
Modernism meaning minimalism is a bit of a fallacy that has came to itself in the late C20th, modernist buildings often appear minimal simply because they are entirely geared around function. if you build a block of flats for 400 people you can't say to yourself 'well so-and-so will live here, they like this, so I'll do that' so you create a clean, functional, well-lit space that people can then occupy and call their own. Of course there are a hell of a lot of staggeringly bad builds that are kind of by the numbers modernism; the sort of brutalist mass-housing that sprung up in the 60s and 70s but these are that way because they were built on the cheap with very little thought for the occupants. In fact there are also some extremely well thought out buildings from that period too; if you walk down Gospel oak road for example you see some fairly blank looking modernist terraces, slit windows and a lower brick (or possibly tile) portion... Go round the back though and you see that they also have outdoor spaces, go inside and they have large, open rooms which are well lit from above and behind, the street view is minimal (the slit widows), but then why would you want to see that?
Sorry, going off on one a bit - basically I'm pointing out that modernism is about a space that does exactly what it is supposed to do; and this is the key, a blank, white crisp house is not necessarily fulfilling that role. To do away with ornamentation and create something that is easy to organise and keep clear of clutter is one thing, but it is far too easy to push that too far and create something sterile. This is where critical regionalism comes in, the idea that modernism can draw on elements of the past, or the materials and traditions of the area to inform a build. It is about creating a modern space but one which responds to its environment, rather than simply being inserted into it. Tactility is important, materials should help inform the experience. It is most certainly not about using directly from the past, rather it is about using key elements, often in a manner that would not be associated with that technique/material etc. Note that it should not be confused with regionalism.
Critical regionlism is post-modern (which is a very misleading term, not postmodern style, simply a response to modernism), but there are elements of it in many of the works of the great modernists, particularly in dwelling spaces. Although not always expressly drawn from the area the qualities of the tactile, the sensory are often there.
Anyway, to get to the point, minimal modernism is a bit of an odd path to walk in a home (although it may be entirely appropriate for flats and offices), it is entirely possible to create a clutter-free, light, modern and spacious building that also brings in some natural qualities and that uses the tactile and the intriguing... At the end of this week's episode they talked about bringing the house outside, but at the same time one should consider bringing the outside in.
