Does the public prefer traditional architecture? Half a century of surveys find:
worksinprogress.co/issue/do-peopl
- Between 60 and 95 percent prefer traditional architecture;
- This pattern holds across gender, class, race, nationality and political views;
- More traditional densification schemes seem to attract remarkably high levels of survey support;
- Laypeople and design professionals respond dramatically differently, with professionals far more favourable to modern styles.
Research is still at an early stage, and many questions remain. Personally, I am particularly interested in how the public would respond to a non-traditional but richer and more decorative style? I think they might like it, but we donโt have hard evidence yet.
But the results are already puzzling. Why do people end up buying buildings that are so different to the buildings they say they prefer? How did we end up in this odd situation? What can we do about it?
Read more in 's definitive review of architectural visual preference surveying.
Post
Conversation
It's good to know that normal people don't have opinions about architecture that track their political opinions or demographics. Not everything requires a culture war! ๐
The weakness of the demographic correlations is astonishing. The overall patterns are perhaps not hugely surprising but I expected them to have much stronger relationships to other demographic features than they do.
"Why do people end up buying buildings that are so different to the buildings they say they prefer" from what I have seen buildings of the second type are pretty rare for new development and are always on the higher end of the price - doesn't that explain it?
I think that's certainly a start! But the challenge is then: why don't developers build more of them, if they sell for a lot? We are commissioning some work on this at the moment, including from .
Maybe interior vs exterior? Open concept, large windows, "clean lines" appear *much* more popular, both for houses and for offices.
I think you're onto something โ although of course one can do a lot with big windows:
Quote
On politics, faith and what to eat,
We specialise in discord;
But show us two designs of street
And suddenly, we accord.
Great article! So glad to have this. You know, if 17-25% of new buildings were modern while the rest were traditional, it'd actually be pretty great. A small proportion of modernist buildings look great amongst trad ones.
There is a lot more work to do, but it is already quite a powerful body of research.
Yes, there's quite a lot of variation based on the particular designs. A substantial minority of people seem to be 'swing voters' who can be convinced by a particularly strong modern design โ which is I think what one might have expected?
i think people want to look at the second building. Not necessarily pay the difference, or live in it.
The cost question is definitely key. We are commissioning more research into this at the moment, including by .
For homes and everyday streets, I find traditional architecture more beautiful. I can also admire a brutalist monument or an industrial landscape. A house is a tool for living in, and its beauty should feel good to come home to every day.
It's not the teaditional. It is the care that goes into it that people feel.
Owners decide, not "the public." The public wants low prices and lots of debt spending to consume before producing value. The public is retarded when government implements its views by force.
Modern architecture is all about more or less a box with some doors and windows plus ugly colours!
The modern designs and buildings have no soul!
โPersonally, I am particularly interested in how the public would respond to a non-traditional but richer and more decorative style? I think they might like it, but we donโt have hard evidence yet.โ
Itโs called Art Deco. People love it.
โWhy do people end up buying buildings that are so different to the buildings they say they prefer?โ
Maybe people appreciate traditional cityscapes and street faรงades without wanting to live in the buildings themselves.
Interesting! As an economist, I'm curious if this is cheap talk or something people will pay for. I thought this was interesting, though they also find the premium for this style is declining. Some papers that cite this seem also relevant. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11
It's interesting that 'traditional' for these kind of buildings is kind of frozen in time with late-victorian neo-gothic