Speaker
Description
This presentation will discuss the empirical findings of our forthcoming article, which examines the role of architectural aesthetics in contemporary urban planning debates. While discussions on justice in planning typically focus on issues such as housing, infrastructure, and sustainability, the aesthetic qualities of the built environment remain relatively overlooked. However, the public architectural debate scrutinized in this study, regarding a perceived lack of beauty in contemporary building, suggests that architectural aesthetics raises several important and complex issues, with implications for democracy, well-being, and urban governance. The debate illustrates the broader challenges of upholding justice in planning when multiple and sometimes conflicting values—public preference, expert knowledge, cultural heritage, and sustainability—must be reconciled. Our study analyzes this ongoing public architectural debate through an argumentation analysis, systematically mapping and evaluating the reasoning behind different positions in the mentioned architectural debate. More than 250 articles from the Swedish press between 2017 and the end of 2022 were collected and analyzed.
Using argumentation analysis as our primary methodological approach, we have identified three dominant themes in the debate. The first concerns the relationship between architecture and beauty. A prominent voice in the debate argues that classical and traditional architectural styles offer a superior aesthetic experience. This aesthetic argument is sometimes framed in terms of intrinsic beauty, where classical architecture is seen as objectively preferable, while in other instances it is based on empirical claims about public preferences for classical styles. However, another voice in the public debate challenges these assumptions, arguing that beauty cannot guide urban planning because it is subjective, that stylistic preferences are culturally and historically contingent, and that architectural quality should not be reduced to aesthetic style alone.
A second central theme in the debate concerns democracy in architectural decision-making. Our argument analysis shows that proponents of “traditional architecture” often emphasize that planning decisions should reflect majority preferences, citing surveys that show strong public support for classical and traditional styles. They argue that the dominance of neo-modern architecture in Swedish urban development is evidence of a democratic deficit in planning processes. Opponents, however, counter that architectural design is not merely a question of popular opinion but requires professional expertise and creative autonomy. Some also warn that political intervention in architectural aesthetics has historical precedents in authoritarian regimes, raising concerns about the risks of imposing stylistic mandates. This conflict reflects a key challenge for justice in planning: how to balance democratic legitimacy with professional judgment.
The third theme we identify in the debate is the relationship between architecture and health. Proponents of classical architecture often argue that traditional styles contribute positively to mental health and social cohesion, pointing to research in neuroarchitecture that links symmetrical and proportionate design to positive emotional responses. However, critics argue that this perspective oversimplifies the complexity of urban health, which is influenced by a wide range of factors. Thus, the debate reveals a deeper question about how different values - such as aesthetics, functionality, and public health - should be prioritized in urban planning.
By systematically reconstructing and evaluating these arguments, our study contributes to a more structured understanding of how aesthetic disputes in architecture intersect with broader ethical and political issues. We explore how justice and values can be operationalized in planning when diverse and conflicting interests must coexist. How should urban aesthetics be governed in a way that is both democratically legitimate and professionally informed? To what extent should aesthetic decisions be democratized, and how can this be done without undermining architectural quality and innovation? And what role should aesthetic considerations play in urban justice?
| Keywords | Architectural aesthetics; urban justice; argumentation analysis; public debate |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
