Webinar Beauty and Architecture
Architecture as a public responsibility
What does the architecture of our cities reveal about the society in which we live? That question lay at the heart of a webinar hosted by the Tocqueville Network in April 2026, organised in collaboration with the Custodes Institute and platform The Aesthetic City. Philosopher Pepijn Demortier and urban planner Ruben Hanssen engaged in a discussion on the moral, cultural and political significance of architecture.
At the centre of the discussion was a provocative thesis: architecture is not a private art, but a public one. A painting in a home primarily affects its owner; a building affects everyone who passes by it, lives near it or works in it on a daily basis. As the speakers argued, architecture therefore carries a public responsibility as well.
The divide between architect and citizen
A key theme during the webinar was the growing gap between what architects consider beautiful and what ordinary citizens appreciate. Hanssen referred to research he conducted together with Ipsos. The findings showed that large majorities preferred traditional or classical architecture over many contemporary designs. In some comparisons, more than ninety per cent of respondents chose the traditional option.
Yet very little traditional architecture is still being built. According to Hanssen, this begins in schools of architecture, where students are strongly encouraged to develop their individual vision. Architects are often approached as autonomous artists or “geniuses,” rather than as people responsible for the quality of public space.
According to the speakers, this has led to a structural “design disconnect”: a divide between experts and ordinary residents. While citizens often long for harmony, human scale and familiarity, architectural disciplines tend to prioritise experimentation, originality and theoretical innovation.
Architecture and meaning
The discussion then moved beyond taste alone. According to Demortier, modern architecture also reflects broader societal developments. He described contemporary building culture as an expression of a highly individualised society, in which the idea of a collective good has become increasingly difficult to imagine.
As a result, the city is viewed less as a shared living environment and more as a collection of individual statements. Architects leave their “mark” on neighbourhoods, while clients seek buildings that primarily project identity or prestige.
Hanssen added nuance by pointing out that modernism originally did emerge from a strong sense of conviction and social ambition. The pioneers of the early twentieth century believed that architecture could improve society. According to him, much of that original inspiration has since disappeared. Modernism has prevailed institutionally, yet at the same time has lost much of its cultural vitality.
It is precisely within the revival of traditional architecture, he argued, that new dynamism is now emerging: new schools, summer courses and initiatives in which young designers are once again learning to work with proportion, ornament, human scale and classical compositional principles.
Beauty as a public value
One striking aspect of the discussion was that beauty was not treated as a purely subjective matter. Both speakers emphasised that people often intuitively sense when a building appears pleasant, harmonious or humane. In their view, this is not necessarily rooted in nostalgia, but in principles that formed part of architectural traditions for centuries.
Hanssen pointed out that traditional building styles historically arose from local materials, craftsmanship and practical constraints. Modern industrialisation made it possible to apply the same materials and construction methods everywhere. As a result, architecture became increasingly detached from its surroundings.
Nevertheless, the speakers did not advocate a simplistic return to the past. Not every building needs to be neoclassical or richly ornamented in order to be beautiful. Crucial are attention to proportion, materials, rhythm, light and human scale.
Is building beautifully really more expensive?
A recurring argument against traditional architecture is that it would be financially unfeasible. The speakers acknowledged that rich ornamentation or handcrafted details can indeed be costly, but noted that contemporary architecture often involves high costs as well — for example through complex structures, experimental forms or extensive glass façades.
More importantly, beauty does not always stem from luxury. A street or building can also be attractive because of its coherence and carefully chosen materials. According to Demortier, the essential issue is one of conscious choices and the ability to design buildings in relation to their surroundings.
“Proportions are free,” Hanssen remarked during the discussion. According to him, many aesthetic improvements require little or no additional expense.
Why does so little change?
Perhaps the most fundamental question of the evening was why politics and policy-makers do so little with the clear preferences expressed by citizens. If so many people long for more beautiful cities, why does building practice remain largely unchanged?
According to Hanssen, institutional factors play a major role. Schools of architecture, advisory committees, public commissioning bodies and professional juries often share the same aesthetic assumptions. This creates a closed system in which alternative visions struggle to gain traction.
At the same time, both speakers pointed to encouraging developments. In various European cities, citizens and local politicians are increasingly succeeding in resisting unpopular projects. Internationally, interest is also growing in traditional urbanism, historical reconstruction and architecture that once again emphasises human dignity and public beauty.
Ultimately, the webinar made clear that architecture is far more than a technical discipline. The way we build touches upon fundamental questions of community, democracy, culture and the quality of everyday life. For precisely that reason, the speakers argued, the debate about beauty in public space deserves far greater public attention than it currently receives.
