As housing shortages intensify across the globe, a contentious debate has emerged over who should determine what constitutes beautiful architecture. While everyone agrees on the urgent need for more homes that look appealing, the question of decision-making authority remains divisive among architects, governments, and the general public.
The British government estimates it needs to build up to 300,000 homes annually to meet the country's housing demands, though a Financial Times analysis suggests the number could be closer to 500,000. Despite historically lukewarm reception to large-scale development, a 2024 YouGov study found that 61 percent of Britons now support new house building, with only 10 percent strongly opposed.
Public opinion strongly favors traditional aesthetics, according to recent surveys. A Policy Exchange study of residents in London and the southeast revealed that 85 percent believe new homes should either blend with traditional surroundings or match existing architecture. "Beauty elevates everyone's environment and daily life," says Michael Lykoudis, professor of architecture at the University of Notre Dame, though he acknowledges the complexity of defining beauty in architectural terms.
Policy Exchange's recent paper, "Building Beautiful Council Houses," proposes constructing 100,000 council homes annually with beauty as a core principle. The think tank advocates for "strategic democratization of beauty," moving away from gatekeeping by any single group toward a more collaborative approach. Their examples of beautiful housing range from Cambridge's Marmalade Lane co-housing development to Vienna's Karl-Marx-Hof municipal complex, illustrating the difficulty of establishing universal beauty standards.
Across the Atlantic, President Donald Trump's "Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again" executive order takes a more prescriptive approach. The August directive mandates classical architecture as the preferred style for federal buildings, explicitly favoring designs modeled after ancient Athens and Rome over contemporary styles that "sometimes impress the architectural elite, but not the American people." The order specifically excludes input from architects, engineers, and architecture critics in favor of general public preferences.
The architectural community has responded with fierce opposition to Trump's directive. The American Institute of Architects accused the order of "replacing thoughtful design processes with rigid requirements that will limit architectural choice while removing local input from Washington DC residents." Critics argue this approach stifles dialogue and oversimplifies the complex relationship between architecture, context, and culture.
Nicholas Boys Smith, founding director of Create Streets and co-chair of the former Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, offers a more nuanced perspective. He cites a 2020 National Civic Art Society poll showing 72 percent of Americans prefer traditional styles for federal buildings. "Buildings are by their nature a public good," Boys Smith explains. "If we're going to spend taxpayers' money, it's certainly the right starting point to build what the public recognizes collectively as attractive and meaningful."
Emerging research supports the idea that architectural preferences may have deeper roots than mere cultural conditioning. A University of Sussex study found that infants as young as four months old are more drawn to visually complex buildings, with baroque facades performing better than brutalist ones. This research feeds into the growing field of neuroarchitecture, which explores how our brains and bodies respond to built environments.
Thomas Heatherwick's global "Humanise" campaign represents another approach to understanding architectural preferences. The 10-year initiative encourages the industry to use neuroarchitecture findings showing that people are naturally drawn to natural materials, visual complexity, and curves, while finding blander buildings less appealing. A 2025 University of Cambridge study demonstrates the relationship between design elements and users' cortisol levels, providing scientific backing for design decisions.
Not everyone embraces the "building beautiful" movement, however. Barnabas Calder, senior lecturer in architecture at Liverpool University and author of "Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism," argues that the focus on beauty distracts from more urgent priorities like functionality and sustainability. He warns that emphasis on beauty could lead to unnecessary demolition of unfashionable but valuable architectural styles.
The term "beauty" itself has become politically charged in policy circles. In July 2024, former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner removed the word from government housing policy, arguing that "beautiful means nothing really, it means one thing to one person and another thing to another." The Royal Institute of British Architects similarly urged replacing "beauty" with broader definitions of quality design, noting that beauty is "only one element of creating a successful building or place."
Current public consultation processes remain inadequate for addressing these complex decisions. A 2019 Grosvenor report found that only 2 percent of the public trust private developers to act in communities' best interests, while just 7 percent trust local authorities to make appropriate decisions. The conventional approach of posting consultation notices on lampposts falls far short of meaningful engagement.
Innovative consultation methods are emerging to address these shortcomings. The Humanise campaign promotes community review panels that invite detailed public input during pre-application stages. Create Streets advocates for area-specific design codes developed through extensive public consultation, providing clear frameworks for planners, developers, and communities.
Successful examples of collaborative design processes offer hope for resolving these debates. In Lichfield, England, comprehensive consultation asking residents to identify favorite local buildings and rank architectural options led to wide consensus on a "gentle density" approach featuring Georgian-style buildings with distinctive Staffordshire red brick. The Scottish Highlands village of Tornagrain employed a 10-day public design workshop, resulting in a widely praised 4,960-home development that earned multiple awards.
Artificial intelligence may offer new tools for streamlining consultation processes. Boys Smith's research found that AI selections aligned with public opinion when choosing preferred designs for various building types. "Through combining AI tools with neuroarchitecture and traditional consultation processes, it could be much easier to create buildings with high public support than it might have been 100 years ago," he suggests.
The debate extends beyond new construction to questions about preserving existing buildings. Critics worry that emphasis on current beauty standards could lead to premature demolition of currently unfashionable styles that may later gain appreciation. Calder points to brutalism's recent rehabilitation as evidence that architectural tastes evolve over time.
Historical precedent supports the possibility of changing public perceptions. Richard Rogers' "bowellism" style, characterized by exposed mechanical systems, initially faced public resistance but gained acceptance through buildings like London's Lloyd's Building and Paris's Pompidou Centre. Milan's Torre Velasca and New Haven's Pirelli Building demonstrate how buildings can achieve lasting value through factors beyond initial aesthetic appeal.
Education emerges as a crucial factor in bridging the gap between professional and public perspectives. "We have to broaden architectural education, especially now that we are building more than ever before," argues Lykoudis. "In the past, the common person had good understanding about how things were built. Today, nobody has a clue – we defer to experts." Better communication about craft and design processes could help the public appreciate non-traditional styles while preserving architectural innovation.
The path forward may require abandoning the search for a single authority on architectural beauty in favor of inclusive processes that respect all stakeholders. As the housing crisis demands rapid construction of appealing homes, the challenge lies not in determining who should decide what makes buildings beautiful, but in creating decision-making processes that meaningfully involve the public, architects, and government officials in collaborative dialogue about the built environment that will shape communities for generations to come.
