In contemporary practice, two opposing paradigms have emerged: “blockbuster architecture” – iconic, spectacular buildings for the elite – versus what Sunwoo Kim calls
“common architecture,” which embodies shared values and everyday relevance [5]. This dichotomy mirrors the film industry’s blockbusters versus art-house films. Just as a summer blockbuster may entertain but not represent the true artistry of cinema, many flashy starchitect-designed buildings capture attention yet fail to reflect the common value of architecture as a social art[6].‹
Blockbuster architecture is characterized by extravagant forms and fame-driven design.
These projects often prioritize iconicity – visually striking shapes easily marketable in media[7]. They are frequently commissioned by the wealthiest 0.1% of clients and cater to private or corporate prestige[8]. The result is architecture that aligns with branding strategies and personal styles, effectively commodifying design. Beneath the glossy surface, such buildings can sacrifice diversity and context. A skyline filled with attention-grabbing “starchitecture” can start to feel less like a city and more like a collection of trophies, often divorced from local culture or needs. Moreover, when every architect chases iconic status, the discipline risks becoming a race for novelty over substance.
Common architecture, in contrast, values the ordinary, the rational, and the shared. It does not mean boring or mediocre; rather, it denotes designs that arise from widely accepted principles and serve broad societal needs. Common architecture prioritizes functionality, context, and communication over self-expression. It might use familiar forms (like straightforward building types or vernacular styles) that people instinctively understand and feel comfortable with. Importantly, it aims to benefit the many, not just impress a few. As Kim notes, blockbuster designs reflect the priorities of elites and capital, whereas common architecture seeks values that are fundamental and widely appreciated [9][10]. For example, a community library designed with a welcoming porch and clear layout might lack “wow factor,” but it resonates with users through its approachability and logic. It becomes part of daily life – a quality of commonness that blockbuster buildings, fenced off by prestige or exotic form, often lack.
There is also a critical economic and ethical dimension. Blockbuster buildings are expensive experiments; they often require vast resources and serve as symbols of wealth.
Common architecture tends to work within constraints, optimizing budget and responding to actual usage patterns. This makes common architecture arguably more sustainable and ethical: it does more with less and speaks to everyone, not just connoisseurs. A small public park pavilion built with local materials and straightforward design may never go viral online, but it quietly improves daily life – a success in common architectural terms.
The limitations of blockbuster architecture have become evident. Besides catering to market demand over disciplinary value[5], the relentless pursuit of novelty for novelty’s sake can become what philosopher G.W.F. Hegel termed a “bad infinity” – an endless, fruitless chase. Kim observes that creators in various fields, including architecture, sometimes sacrifice their individuality and deeper purpose just to keep up with trends[11].
This yields a hollow cycle of one-upmanship in form-making. The “wow” factor of today’s iconic museum or luxury tower fades tomorrow, because it was never rooted in enduring values. Common architecture provides an antidote: by building on time-tested principles and focusing on communal benefit, it achieves a sense of timeless relevance.
To be clear, common architecture is not anti-creativity or against striking design; rather, it insists that truly innovative architecture must be grounded in common values 12].
Winston Churchill’s famous adage, “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us,” is invoked to remind us that architecture’s impact goes beyond aesthetic pleasure – it actively influences society[13]. If architects only chase personal style or client whims, they may produce novelties that shape us in undesirable ways (alienating public spaces, inefficient monuments to ego, etc.). By contrast, architecture based on shared human scales, needs, and cultural memories will shape us positively, reinforcing a sense of community and continuity.«
In rethinking architectural values, the conversation shifts: success is measured not by magazine covers or tourist selfies, but by how well a building facilitates dialogue and fulfills its role in everyday life. Kim argues that without common values, we cannot even debate what is good architecture [3]. Blockbuster buildings often short-circuit debate – their value lies in instant visual impact, which discourages deeper discussion. Common architecture, with its quieter virtues, invites us to talk about why a simple form works, or how a design references local tradition. It re-engages architects and the public in defining quality together.
Ultimately, “common architecture” is a call to refocus on architecture’s public purpose. It reminds us that the field is not just about singular geniuses and spectacular objects, but about an ongoing cultural project that involves many voices and serves society at large. In embracing common architecture, we do not reject creativity – we enrich it with relevance.
By balancing the extraordinary with the ordinary, and spectacle with sense, architecture can escape the hollow glitz of blockbusters and return to shaping a built environment that resonates with common humanity.
Leave a Reply