I was hoping they would focus on the architecture of the buildings - the way the homes and constructed. The design process. Instead they seem to focus every episode almost entirely on the owners and their personal stories. Could have been so much better, such a shame.
16 Reviews
Imbalanced, but worth it...
txmorrison6 December 2020
This is going to be a somewhat skewed review as I haven't had time to view all of the episodes, but I fail to see how anyone can think that the owner/architect of the 344 sq ft home in "Hong Kong" is that far outside of "average" - which seems to be the criterion most viewers were looking for in this series. But if the creators of "Home" had sought out "average" architects (rather than "creative" ones) how would they merit a series about those designs, if their creations followed everyone else's cookie-cutter housing?
To me, the Hong Kong architect came across as down-to-earth, practical, and driven. The home which he remodeled had been in his family for generations, and his intention was to keep it in the family, and make it more livable in the process. However high-tech (and yes, expensive) the interior of his tiny home might have been, the view OF its EXTERIOR, and FROM its interior starkly revealed the incredibly average environment which this man's home was crammed into. So to me, this particular episode at least (and "Malibu," from a different perspective) did exactly what another reviewer accused it of failing to do, namely, showing us "...these homes, how they were built and how people actually live in them."
To be fair, I can easily imagine a series such as this swinging in the opposite direction, and focusing more on "special owners" and egos, rather than the pragmatic (but much less 'sexy') transformation of "manufactured" homes, as only one example. The "average" viewer/homeowner could probably have benefited more from this approach, and therefore, yes, perhaps the series as a whole could have been more balanced. But I still valued the passion and insight that I took from parts of "Home."
To me, the Hong Kong architect came across as down-to-earth, practical, and driven. The home which he remodeled had been in his family for generations, and his intention was to keep it in the family, and make it more livable in the process. However high-tech (and yes, expensive) the interior of his tiny home might have been, the view OF its EXTERIOR, and FROM its interior starkly revealed the incredibly average environment which this man's home was crammed into. So to me, this particular episode at least (and "Malibu," from a different perspective) did exactly what another reviewer accused it of failing to do, namely, showing us "...these homes, how they were built and how people actually live in them."
To be fair, I can easily imagine a series such as this swinging in the opposite direction, and focusing more on "special owners" and egos, rather than the pragmatic (but much less 'sexy') transformation of "manufactured" homes, as only one example. The "average" viewer/homeowner could probably have benefited more from this approach, and therefore, yes, perhaps the series as a whole could have been more balanced. But I still valued the passion and insight that I took from parts of "Home."
Malibu episode is a standout
ScoobySnacks669 July 2020
Some of the episodes felt a bit slow and concentrated more on the story of the builders than the actual homes, but the Malibu episode was an inspiring standout. The Skysource invention is brilliant and gives me some hope that there are still amazingly smart people like David Hertz solving problems to give the entire planet a better future.
Apple has given us a new way to look role that architecture plays.
rfshay22 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, Apple had no intention of being the new HGTV. While some people love a full tour through a three-bed, two-bath, portico-façade, bourgeois house stripped of its context in a majority white neighborhood by a realtor who sees a sale of a house purely as a means of commission, this show is a complete antithesis to that.
It's about reimagining the role that architecture plays towards social mobility in the face of social issues. Architecture, therefore, is a solution, not merely a product: not something to appreciate and then close the laptop and take a thirty minute shower while all of the lights in the house are still on.
In this way, architecture does not exist in a vacuum. A home is a reflection of those who live in them and around them. You cannot appreciate the significance of a home until you appreciate the people who live in it. I will concede that HOME did put a lot of focus on the homeowners, but maybe there's an argument to be made for that decision. It would be quite boring solely to see a beautiful greenhouse encompassing a home if we were not given insight into how people live in it, how they maintain it, or even why they chose to do so in the first place. We would never know the significance of the plants if we were never told that its placement around the home stimulates Jonatan, a witty and ebullient boy with autism. It would seem insufficient--and unethical--to pick and choose solely what you think is pertinent to a person's life. So, is overcoming adversity not a means to the American dream? Or is that not a thing anymore since recent social reckonings of long-lasting injustices have become more egalitarian? Nevertheless, I find it would be just as boring, if not unfathomably more so, to just watch white people take 30 minutes to buy a house. There is no character development or conflict (maybe that's the point of reality television). And that's how it has been for hundreds of years, but times have changed; it's d**n time architecture does too.
Less discursively, HOME is trying to shift our focus away from the expedient superficiality of modern architecture. To diverge from suburban conformism and, instead, plop a home in the middle of nowhere in Maine, in a beautify heath of Sweden, in the turbulent and divested region of Chicago, in the dense jungle of Indonesia, underneath the corporate-plagued land of Austin, or in the inhumanely disenfranchised region of Mexico. Each home sees its architecture as a means to an end. An end that starts with a beginning, whether it be a couple, an individual, a group of people, artists, craftsmen and craftswomen, activists, or literally anyone, because this is only a glimpse at what urban development could look like.
I will concede that the show is relatively pretentious. As a teenager who has lived in a home without sustainable sewage, waste management, energy or food consumption, water treatment, or heat, this is a very intangible and abstract vision of our potential future. I am sure that most cannot afford to build a home underground (unless we depopulate dense areas and rethink urban development before it's too late--as in an environmental downfall) nor can America (and the rest of the world) just uproot all its infrastructure and redo it all. But that does not and should not undermine the vision that the show proselytizes: ecological sustainability and reusability. It's about saving this f**cking planet. How is that pretentious?
Modernity has taken the contents and "pretentiousness" of this show, bastardized it, and made into a shibboleth of conservatism; thereby dismissing it as naïveté. No dream is too extreme for America. No idea is too complicated for America. (This may be the wrong rhetorical approach, seeing as how the show tried hard to have a more global perspective and not stick to pathetic appeals to American exceptionalism.) Still, the show is a calling card, showing us new modes of architecture, some more sustainable, appreciable, welcoming, beautiful, unique, manageable, and without expediency.
Forget American exceptionalism, it's an American expediency.
It's about reimagining the role that architecture plays towards social mobility in the face of social issues. Architecture, therefore, is a solution, not merely a product: not something to appreciate and then close the laptop and take a thirty minute shower while all of the lights in the house are still on.
In this way, architecture does not exist in a vacuum. A home is a reflection of those who live in them and around them. You cannot appreciate the significance of a home until you appreciate the people who live in it. I will concede that HOME did put a lot of focus on the homeowners, but maybe there's an argument to be made for that decision. It would be quite boring solely to see a beautiful greenhouse encompassing a home if we were not given insight into how people live in it, how they maintain it, or even why they chose to do so in the first place. We would never know the significance of the plants if we were never told that its placement around the home stimulates Jonatan, a witty and ebullient boy with autism. It would seem insufficient--and unethical--to pick and choose solely what you think is pertinent to a person's life. So, is overcoming adversity not a means to the American dream? Or is that not a thing anymore since recent social reckonings of long-lasting injustices have become more egalitarian? Nevertheless, I find it would be just as boring, if not unfathomably more so, to just watch white people take 30 minutes to buy a house. There is no character development or conflict (maybe that's the point of reality television). And that's how it has been for hundreds of years, but times have changed; it's d**n time architecture does too.
Less discursively, HOME is trying to shift our focus away from the expedient superficiality of modern architecture. To diverge from suburban conformism and, instead, plop a home in the middle of nowhere in Maine, in a beautify heath of Sweden, in the turbulent and divested region of Chicago, in the dense jungle of Indonesia, underneath the corporate-plagued land of Austin, or in the inhumanely disenfranchised region of Mexico. Each home sees its architecture as a means to an end. An end that starts with a beginning, whether it be a couple, an individual, a group of people, artists, craftsmen and craftswomen, activists, or literally anyone, because this is only a glimpse at what urban development could look like.
I will concede that the show is relatively pretentious. As a teenager who has lived in a home without sustainable sewage, waste management, energy or food consumption, water treatment, or heat, this is a very intangible and abstract vision of our potential future. I am sure that most cannot afford to build a home underground (unless we depopulate dense areas and rethink urban development before it's too late--as in an environmental downfall) nor can America (and the rest of the world) just uproot all its infrastructure and redo it all. But that does not and should not undermine the vision that the show proselytizes: ecological sustainability and reusability. It's about saving this f**cking planet. How is that pretentious?
Modernity has taken the contents and "pretentiousness" of this show, bastardized it, and made into a shibboleth of conservatism; thereby dismissing it as naïveté. No dream is too extreme for America. No idea is too complicated for America. (This may be the wrong rhetorical approach, seeing as how the show tried hard to have a more global perspective and not stick to pathetic appeals to American exceptionalism.) Still, the show is a calling card, showing us new modes of architecture, some more sustainable, appreciable, welcoming, beautiful, unique, manageable, and without expediency.
Forget American exceptionalism, it's an American expediency.
A timely, inspiring, and beautiful show!
SageAdvice00024 June 2022
I'm not typically into architecture shows, but this series is so much more interesting than displaying fancy homes. It has such a diverse yet universal message about the idea of creating a home that transcends any other show about houses. It reminds me what Chef's Table did for cooking. A great find in a world where shows focus more on the cynical world rather than the hopeful one.
Imbalanced - some good, others not
thejdrage17 July 2022
I watched the first season of this show a year or so ago and really liked it. The second season - not so much. This review will be basically about the second season since it's fresh in my mind.
On too many of the "Homes" - the owner/architects and their backgrounds and, frankly, childhoods and all kinds of other things were examined. Everything BUT the house.
This is called "Home" - Not "Meet the Family". I watched this because of an interested in the architecture and a bit of background is great, but OMG, there were episodes where the house was barely shown, but I now know waaaaaaaay too much about the people who built them.
I won't give a list, because everything is relevant. The ones that are good are so worth the watch! The ones that aren't, well, they are people's stories and I used fast forward. You can too, if you want.
Sad commentary on what could have been a really memorable show.
On too many of the "Homes" - the owner/architects and their backgrounds and, frankly, childhoods and all kinds of other things were examined. Everything BUT the house.
This is called "Home" - Not "Meet the Family". I watched this because of an interested in the architecture and a bit of background is great, but OMG, there were episodes where the house was barely shown, but I now know waaaaaaaay too much about the people who built them.
I won't give a list, because everything is relevant. The ones that are good are so worth the watch! The ones that aren't, well, they are people's stories and I used fast forward. You can too, if you want.
Sad commentary on what could have been a really memorable show.
Love the imaginative unconventional homes
jyoti102026 June 2022
I love this series. Especially the Bali bamboo houses, the African, the Iceland, sweden, France & India. So connected to local materials, history & family. My favorite was the Iceland concrete factory house.
The most boring ones were the ones in USA in Malibu & Austin, Long Island, Chicago . Expensive, shallow & disconnected.
The most boring ones were the ones in USA in Malibu & Austin, Long Island, Chicago . Expensive, shallow & disconnected.
Great Production with Wrong Focus
Hesashi29 April 2020
The series explores different homes as well as its inhabitants that created them around the world.
Before watching the series I must say that I was fairly excited. I'm a big fan of Netflix Abstract series, and when a high quality docu-series about architecture was about to come out by Apple I had high expectations. But I have to say that I feel as if the series is a bit flat, and hasn't managed to get the same depth as Abstract. In the case of Home, I feel as if the creators has strived to tell a more sensational and sentimental story, instead of showing us these homes, how they were built and how people actually live in them. The music can sometimes also be a bit forced. I feel throughout the series as if the music heavily tried to make us feel something specific at any given moment.
I ended the series with the knowledge of a lot of cool new homes, but nothing about how it is to live in them.
Before watching the series I must say that I was fairly excited. I'm a big fan of Netflix Abstract series, and when a high quality docu-series about architecture was about to come out by Apple I had high expectations. But I have to say that I feel as if the series is a bit flat, and hasn't managed to get the same depth as Abstract. In the case of Home, I feel as if the creators has strived to tell a more sensational and sentimental story, instead of showing us these homes, how they were built and how people actually live in them. The music can sometimes also be a bit forced. I feel throughout the series as if the music heavily tried to make us feel something specific at any given moment.
I ended the series with the knowledge of a lot of cool new homes, but nothing about how it is to live in them.
All about Love
mweratcliffe1 July 2022
This is a fantastic series of half hour documentaries about love. Very inspiring from any view of the words love and home. Apple TV+ has another series called Dear ... I watch this series and want to say Dear Everyone involved thank you for your love - it makes me feel at home.
Show more homes less story
michael-561-69289223 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I feel like this show focuses more on the people inside the home rather than the houses.
Call out to the last episode in season 1... millennials running a non profit company building homes in other countries rather than taking care of the homeless or poor in their own country. Sigh. Neat 3D printer. Rather than paying builders, now the non-profit soaks up more margin on the cost of the home. Sigh.
Call out to the last episode in season 1... millennials running a non profit company building homes in other countries rather than taking care of the homeless or poor in their own country. Sigh. Neat 3D printer. Rather than paying builders, now the non-profit soaks up more margin on the cost of the home. Sigh.
No architecture but pretentious commentary
alexwende12 July 2020
Waste of time, if you expect some decent architecture shots and walk troughs and even talk about the details of it you are just wasting your time since you won't get anything of those in this show. Instead you get a documentary about the owners, at least label it correctly if you make a show like this...
Cringing
steamindemon-210-93829814 June 2020
The houses are beautiful/spectacular etc. But the show focuses too much on the owners, if not almost entirely...who are all huge ego's, and love talking about how brilliant they are. With their friends and mothers being interviewed saying things like "he was always different/special" blah blah. Seriously, this is cringing.
There are much better shows that focus on the house rather than the person who (barely) "thought" of it.
More house, less drivel please
kjak-6901027 June 2022
Some of the houses in this series are very cool however I am not sure it is worth it to have to endure the cheesy music and pretentious drivel that spews out of these people's mouths like vomit from a possessed person being exorcised.
Fascinating but pretentious
richard-giles-15 June 2020
Second season is not about architecture but virtue waving
drkahn23 June 2022
The first season was intriguingly designed homes all o we the world. The second season is largely virtue waving and social justice issues. Mostly fast forwarded through most of the current episodes and probably will skip it if there is a third season as value driven.
Only Apple could make such pretentious rubbish.
cj7020 June 2022
Personally I love architecture, especially sustainable and affordable homes. It's something we all need. So when I came across this series by Apple I was excited, but it didn't last. Each episode is like an iphone. In fact I'm sure everyone in the series is an iphone user. Wealthy architects. Pretentious vapid morons spouting a load of nonsense about connection, landscape, nature. Yeah right! In fact most of each episode is taken up with these pretentious millionaires lives and very little is said about the homes themselves. Worst of all, they're not even innovative. Most are only suitable for a certain climate and use conventional materials. Some don't even really work. A case of aesthetics over functionality. Funny how they don't talk about the flies in their house as they sit strumming guitars in their windowless home like a bunch of idiots. Such a disappointment.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
