So the pundits on the internets have already pretty well established why Top Design was a boring, poorly judged, joke of a show. I agree with all of these assessments, but in the name of thorough research, I watched anyway.What I've not read much about, though, is the criticism that this show was a colossal waste of money. Constantly designing, constructing, and furnishing unlivable show spaces, Top Design really is conspicuous consumption on a grand, televised scale.
Consider this: the show began with twelve contestants, with one eliminated each week. For their design challenges, the contestants designed and executed various rooms, with budgets ranging anywhere between $1,000 to $30,000 dollars. Usually the budgets were in the 5-digit range. With a few small exceptions, each design was executed at the Pacific Design Center and was never meant to be constructed for or actually given to the "clients" the designers worked with. Now, I'm no mathematician, but that's a lot of wasted dough. I imagine some of the furniture and bedding could be donated or resold, but somehow I doubt that those $10,000 dining room tables and $800 vases made it much past the offices and bathrooms of Kelly Wearstler and Todd Oldham.
The final challenge was something else entirely. With individual budgets of $162,500, finalists Matt and Carisa each had to design and execute loft spaces (in the actual lofts, not the PDC) for the ultimate client: themselves. Who says interior design is self indulgent? Did I mention that neither Matt nor Carisa live in L.A. where the lofts are located? Did I mention that getting to keep the loft was NOT one of the prizes for winning? Did I mention that at $100,000, the prize for winning the whole show is actually less than the final challenge budget? Strange things are afoot at the Circle K, my friends.
It would be one thing if the show acknowledged the gross spending of the design challenges. It would be one thing if the show made at least a vague attempt to explain where the furniture and assorted chochkies were going after each challenge. It would be one thing if part of the prize was getting to live in an expensive loft that had undergone $162,500 in renovations and decoration. But Top Design don't care, mmm-K?
I guess I'm not offended by the gross expenditures nearly as much as by the producers total lack of concern over how such wasteful spending would be received by their audience. It seems to me that a Habitat for Humanity Challenge or some type of "design for the needy"-type gesture was in order so that the producers could acknowledge the gross wastefulness of their project. Please ease my conscience for watching this drivel.
