In architecture, a show is the moment when a building ceases to be merely a shelter or a tool and becomes a story where people gather—sometimes to learn, sometimes to shop, and sometimes just to take photos. This story is powerful: it can revitalize a neighborhood’s economy, shape a city’s image, and set expectations for what “good” design looks like. But with power comes responsibility: when image takes center stage, function, ecology, and social benefit can take a backseat.
Ethically speaking, the fundamental question is simple: When designing to attract attention, who are we serving—citizens, algorithms, culture, or capital? The answer depends on the context. “Iconic” buildings can be public assets or serve public relations purposes; social media-friendly interiors can broaden access or reduce the experience to content. Understanding where ostentation comes from and how the media amplifies it helps us decide when to embrace it and when to resist it.
Understanding the Performance in Architecture
Showmanship is nothing new. It thrives where cities, commerce, and images intersect. The 19th-century marketplace, the world’s fair pavilion, the neon-lit street, and today’s “Instagram-friendly” atrium are all branches of the same family tree: spaces built to be seen, to be wandered through, and to be remembered.
At best, ostentatious structures take on a social function: museums connecting regions, festivals revitalizing parks, symbolic structures teaching history. At their worst, they become exploitative: engineering shortcuts that harm people or wildlife, facades that overheat cities, symbolic structures that drain public budgets. Following this line is an ethical endeavor.
The Origins of Performance in Urban Design
The modern urban spectacle is a phenomenon with deep roots in the 19th century. In Paris, passages made of iron and glass created interior spaces for commerce and display. Walter Benjamin interpreted these passages as the birthplaces of the modern consumer’s interest and the wandering observer, or the flâneur. These passages shaped cities to appeal to the eye by bringing together commerce, light, and movement.
World fairs expanded this lesson even further. The Crystal Palace of the 1851 Great Exhibition turned technology into a center of attraction, drew crowds, and created a permanent museum district (“Albertopolis”) in London. Exhibitions normalized the idea that cities should stage their industrial, national, and cultural progress as a public spectacle.
Towards the end of the 20th century, America’s roadside and the Las Vegas Strip gave rise to a new language of signs and symbols. Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour argued that we should read the city “as it is”: sometimes, a simple box with a conspicuous sign (“decorated shack”) communicates better than a building-shaped symbol (“duck”). This view redefined the spectacle not merely as a formal trick but as a communicative tool.
The Role of Media and Visual Culture
Guy Debord’s concept of “the spectacle” warns that images mediate social relations in modern life, and that we have begun to relate more to representations than to each other. Architecture is also part of this trend: buildings become backdrops for branding, tourism, and politics; citizens become spectators and content producers.
Today, social platforms are accelerating this change. Research shows that Instagram has reshaped the way people search for and remember places, guiding designers and curators toward easily shareable, high-contrast, “iconic” moments. Museums are now debating between photo-free hours and selfie-friendly policies; city marketing relies on “Instagram-friendly” spots that spread well online. The risk is a feedback loop where visibility takes precedence over content.
Media not only distorts, it also democratizes. Research on “effective online architecture” and place branding shows that cities and designers outside traditional centers can make their voices heard through digital channels. The ethical challenge is to use visibility to broaden cultural access without allowing algorithms to determine civic priorities or homogenize local identity.
Showmanship or Functionality: A Conceptual Distinction
When form follows function, physics resists. London’s 20 Fenchurch Street—the “Walkie-Talkie”—is notorious for concentrating sunlight enough to scorch streets and damage cars; Las Vegas’s Vdara created a “death ray” at its poolside from its curved glass. These are not memes; they are elements that remind us that optics, heat, and wind are ethical design concerns, not afterthoughts.
Cities are also regulating the unwanted environmental impacts of glitz. New York City’s Local Law 15 (to take effect in 2021), acknowledging that large windows cause the deaths of millions of birds each year, mandates the use of bird-friendly materials on most facades up to 75 feet in height. Professional guides and advocacy groups publish pattern and reflection standards to reduce collisions. This is a clear example of ethical rules being turned into laws.
Energy and comfort add another dimension. Climate design guidelines in the United Kingdom (e.g., LETI) recommend modest glazing ratios and better orientation to reduce overheating and operational carbon—this strikes a balance with image-focused facades made entirely of glass. In short, a show that considers microclimate, biodiversity, and energy is possible; a show that ignores these is negligent. The choice between “a decorated hut or a duck” remains a practical ethic: communicate clearly, but prioritize performance.
Iconic Projects and Ethical Dilemmas
Cities commission showcase buildings and mega-spaces to rapidly transform their narratives in order to attract visitors, investments, and attention. Sometimes this works: Bilbao’s Guggenheim Museum became a cultural magnet, helping to trigger a broader urban transformation. In 2023 alone, the museum broke records by attracting 1.32 million visitors; numerous impact studies and news reports indicate that the museum has had a significant impact on GDP and employment in the Basque region.
The same landscapes, rising rents, public subsidies, and maintenance burdens can also be passed on to residents. Critics of the “Bilbao effect” warn that copying this formula without elements such as local governance, curation, and timing could lead to disappointment. Regarding the Olympics, global research results are very clear: The Olympics have the highest average cost overruns of any mega-project, often forcing taxpayers to continue paying long after the spotlight has faded.
Three simple tests help: (1) Distribution – who pays, who benefits (tourists or local people)? (2) Sustainability – does the project still function as a building and budget decades later? (3) Dignity – Were workers and neighbors treated fairly during and after construction? The following case studies apply these tests.
Case Study: The Guggenheim Bilbao Effect
Opened in 1997, the Guggenheim Bilbao combined a bold form (titanium, glass, limestone) with a carefully curated exhibition program and a city-wide renewal plan. Over time, visitor numbers exceeded expectations—1.32 million in 2023, the museum’s best year to date. Economic impact reports estimate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual regional GDP and thousands of supported jobs.
Success created a wave of imitation: cities sought “their own Bilbaos,” sometimes disregarding cost, cultural fit, or long-term planning. Academics are documenting the failed or stalled spin-offs and warning against viewing architecture as a magical solution to structural problems. The ethical risk lies in confusing a flashy shell with a city strategy—outsourcing identity to something ostentatious and financing it with public funds.
The “Bilbao effect” was not just a building; it consisted of governance + financing + curatorial depth + timing. What should be replicated is that content (collection, partnerships, local culture) and costs and side effects must begin with transparent public accounting before design. Cities should measure not only pedestrian traffic, but also affordability, artist ecosystems, and neighborhood well-being five and ten years down the line.
Dubai’s Vertical Fantasies and Labor Issues
Dubai has leveraged its height as a brand. At 828 meters tall, the Burj Khalifa remains the world’s tallest building and forms the basis of a silhouette marketed through events, retail, and tourism. As an engineering feat, it advanced super-tall building design and helped put Dubai on the global map.
Behind the scenes, labor rights advocates have documented persistent violations affecting migrant workers in the UAE’s construction and service sectors: heat stress risks, wage theft, recruitment fee debt, and loopholes in enforcement. A ban on working during midday hours and recent reforms are in place, but rights groups say protections remain inadequate, especially as summers become hotter due to climate change. The scene here raises a fundamental question: If the workers building a city are not receiving safe and fair wages, can that city’s image be ethical?
Developers and cities can establish enforceable standards: zero-fee recruitment, timely payment through monitored salary systems, climate-appropriate work schedules, cooling measures, and genuine grievance mechanisms tied to contracts. Public developers should publish independent labor audits at major openings, making worker welfare part of the project’s “iconic” status.
Olympic Stadiums: Symbolism, Cost, and Outcomes
Olympic venues are built to perform on the world’s biggest stage. According to records, these venues exceed the budget more than any other mega-project—by an average of 156% between the 1960 and 2016 Olympics. While some cities have managed to repurpose these facilities (for example, the stadium in London now hosts West Ham and various events), most cities have faced white elephant costs or opaque accounting (Tokyo’s final audit report came in higher than the organizing committee’s figures).
Grand opening ceremonies can mask long-term burdens: debt servicing, operating subsidies, and underutilized venues (most famously parts of Athens 2004 and Rio 2016). Even if legacy areas develop, when cultural palaces eliminate urgent basic needs such as affordable housing, local residents may face rising rents and opportunity costs. The ethical question is intergenerational: who will pay for how long for a two-week show?
There are also opposite models. Los Angeles 1984 was largely realized using existing venues and a new sponsorship/TV model, and ended up running over budget; the Barcelona 1992 Games aligned with long-planned coastal and transportation improvements (though academics still point to budget overruns and mixed social impacts). The practical path: reuse first, temporary use if possible, real-time public ledgers, and a legally binding legacy plan that finances community assets before the pomp of the ceremony.
Economic and Social Impacts on Communities
Gentrification and Displacement Risks
Gentrification is not just about “new coffee shops and high rents.” It is a specific change in who stays, who leaves, and who is deprived of future opportunities. Researchers distinguish between the concepts of gentrification (neighborhood improvement) and displacement (forced or coerced relocation), because one can occur without the other; however, public investment and improvements in amenities often increase pressure on the most vulnerable tenants. The Urban Displacement Project’s definitions and analyses warn us that we must track not only construction cranes but also the risks of both mobility and exclusion.
Large-scale studies have found mixed but real signs of stress for low-income renters. In Philadelphia, research on credit scores revealed that some groups in gentrifying neighborhoods had higher moving rates, but overall results varied by neighborhood and population. Transportation and climate-friendly investments can create small but measurable migration effects for very low-income households—typically between one and two percent—demonstrating that “green” improvements can displace the poorest when protective measures are not taken.
Cities that combine new investments with displacement prevention policies are more successful: community land trusts that secure permanent affordable housing; inclusive or value capture rules (ETOD) that finance housing below market rates near public transit; and Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs) that make local employment, rent-controlled housing, and small business support not just a goal, but achievable. Guidelines from the Urban Institute, SANDAG, and university/legal toolkits provide templates and checklists that you can directly incorporate into RFPs and development agreements.
Public Interest Illusion
Mega projects are often presented with bright claims about jobs, growth, and “world-class” facilities. However, independent studies on stadium and arena subsidies consistently show that the net economic gain for host cities is very small or nonexistent. A 2023 policy review and long-term literature reviews have concluded that these facilities are poor public investments when substitution effects and opportunity costs are taken into account. If your argument for subsidies is that they will “pay for themselves,” the burden of proof is high and rarely met.
Tax expenditures, land value loss, and weak community contracts are causing benefits to disappear—especially when there is no independent cost-benefit analysis, real-time public accounting, and no repayment mechanism when promised results are not achieved. The solution is contract-based and measurable: community contracts that include deliverables (units, minimum wages, supplier diversity) and timelines, along with publicly accessible dashboards that allow residents to track progress.
Before the design sparkle, ask three questions: Distribution (who pays/benefits), Sustainability (can it work without hidden subsidies), and Integrity (labor standards, neighborhood protections). If any of the answers are unclear, the “public benefit” is likely marketing, not policy. Use these tests as gateways in purchasing and zoning approvals, not for making statements to the press after the fact.
Tourism-Focused Design and Local Needs
Short-term rentals (STRs) reduce supply by turning homes into hotel rooms. According to a widely cited study, a 25% increase in Airbnb listings raises rents and prices. Although this increase is small in percentage terms, it has a significant impact, especially in cities where homeowners’ occupancy rates are low. For this reason, many places regulate STRs not only as part of tourism management but also as part of housing policy.
Policies are shifting from “growth at any cost” to “visitor balance.” Barcelona plans to cancel all tourist apartment licenses by November 2028 to return ~10,000 units to residents; New York City Local Law 18 mandates STR registration and prevents platforms from processing unregistered stays; Venice has trialed a day visitor access fee to manage high volumes; Amsterdam is limiting hotel growth and restricting vacation rentals under its “Balanced City” program. None of these are magic solutions, but together they align design and operations with the well-being of residents.
Architects and planners can push for resident-first summaries: limiting ground floors to “all-glass souvenir shops” in favor of daily services; designing visitor flows (queues, shading, sanitation) that don’t cover sidewalks; and including residential contributions to their target projects. Tourism taxes can fund housing and neighborhood services. For example, Catalonia plans to allocate at least 25% of collected revenue to housing measures linked to the impacts of overtourism. International guides from the UN Tourism/UNESCO and implementing networks catalog dozens of other tools that planners can integrate into sites and neighborhoods, ranging from timed tickets to neighborhood transportation capacity plans.
The Role of the Architect: Visionary or Servant?
Architects are hired for their imagination and duty of care. The AIA Code of Ethics frames their obligations to the public, clients, colleagues, the profession, and the environment, reminding designers that creativity cannot overshadow human dignity or safety. Similarly, the RIBA Rules focus on integrity, competence, and transparent relationships. In practice, “vision and service” are not mutually exclusive; they represent a balance that architects must maintain in every assignment.
Today’s commissions often come with city branding goals, political narratives, or the media pressures of the platform era. Movements like Architects Declare argue that professional agencies should be used to serve climate and biodiversity goals—shifting the default from “iconic object” to “regenerative outcome.” The task is not merely to craft a compelling narrative, but to set measurable social and environmental goals and adhere to them.
From greed to accountability.
The concept of ethics is not abstract: it manifests itself in the projects architects refuse to design (for example, the AIA’s ban on death chambers and prolonged solitary confinement), how they participate in them, and whether they evaluate them after the buildings open (after they are put into use). Without accountability mechanisms that continue after the opening ceremony, the vision is meaningless.
Ethics in Commissioned Major Projects
Major projects bring together money, attention, and risk. Ethical rules clearly state that architects must protect human rights and the public interest, even if the client’s goals are image-focused or politically sensitive. The AIA’s latest rules explicitly prohibit members from designing spaces for execution, torture, or long-term solitary confinement. This is an example of drawing a clear ethical line in client relationships.
High-profile projects in high-risk environments raise the issue of “scope limitations”: Does responsibility end at the drawing board? Public debates surrounding the World Cup stadiums in Qatar and reports of migrant worker deaths have pushed the profession into a debate about influence and due diligence, regardless of regulatory compliance. Even if design is not the direct cause, the decision to proceed (or not) is an ethical act.
Add standards to contracts: worker protection clauses, independent audits, and the right to suspend work in case of violations. Use published frameworks to center equity and dignity in the decision-making process (e.g., AIA’s Design Excellence Framework: Design for Equitable Communities). Publish everything you can, such as objectives, audits, and POE findings, so that the benefits and harms are visible beyond the press release.
Architectural Ego and Signature Buildings
“Starchitecture” can catalyze investment and identity, but research warns against treating icons as economic shortcuts. Studies in urban theory and branding show that signature architecture, unless tied to broader civic strategies, generally serves consumption narratives and elite mobility rather than everyday life.
Some companies prioritize care over showmanship and continue to shape the global discourse. MASS Design Group’s Butaro Regional Hospital utilized passive ventilation, local materials, and skilled local labor to reduce infection risk and provide economic benefits. This type of “quiet” architecture goes beyond sharp-silhouetted skyscrapers, because the results speak louder than the form.
Recently, award cultures have increasingly rewarded addition over demolition and social value (for example, Lacaton & Vassal’s “never demolish” approach, recognized by the Pritzker Prize). The message is clear: Signature projects can be measured not only by headlines, but also by carbon avoided, communities preserved, and housing improved.
Accountability in Urban Narratives
Iconic projects not only change the city skyline, they also shape its identity. Research on “iconic buildings under construction” shows how powerful actors use projects as aspirational identity artifacts in public debates. To keep this narrative honest, architects need participatory methods that involve not only the audience but also the authorship.
Sherry Arnstein’s classic work, “The Ladder of Citizen Participation,” distinguishes symbolic participation from real power sharing. Design teams can implement this through joint design briefings, juries composed of local residents, and achievable (not target) social benefits. Then, validate the results through post-occupancy evaluation (POE) and soft landings, as included in RIBA’s Work Plan Stage 7.
Adopt frameworks that align design rhetoric with lived outcomes: AIA’s Design Excellence Framework (equity, prosperity, energy, resources) and RIBA’s 7th Stage, which emphasizes POE/lessons learned, create a cycle where communities can see whether the building delivers on its promises and architects can adjust course. This is how vision gains credibility.
Environmental and Material Considerations
Resource-Intensive Design and Sustainability Trade-offs
When a building is dazzling, it often hides a long chain of emissions. The entire life cycle carbon footprint includes “pre-use” emissions from the production and transportation of materials and the construction of the project, as well as the “use” and “end-of-life” stages. In practice, designers track these using EN 15978 modules (A1–A5 for products and construction, B for use, C for end-of-life). Knowing where emissions occur helps you choose smarter forms and materials in the early stages, when changes matter most.
Eye-catching shapes—massive consoles, double-curved glass, ultra-high atriums—typically require a large amount of high-impact materials. Facades are a silent giant in this story: glass-heavy cladding can contribute hundreds of kilograms of CO₂e per square meter of facade, and high glass ratios often increase cooling loads as well. Meanwhile, material selection matters: producing one ton of primary aluminum averages ~15.1 tCO₂e, while recycled aluminum (closed-loop) averages ~0.52 tCO₂e—a significantly lower value. Logistics must also be considered: transporting a special curtain wall panel by air can require ~50 times more carbon intensity per ton-km than transporting it by sea.
Keep facades honest: use the right size of glass (use shading, ventilation, and daylight instead of a completely glass appearance) and choose low-carbon steel and concrete varieties. Request Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) from suppliers and prioritize reused elements, recycled metals, and mixtures with reduced cement content. Circularity tools such as material passports from the EU’s BAMB project or platforms like Madaster make future demolition and reuse practical rather than a fantasy.
The Carbon Cost of Showy Architectural Structures
As networks decarbonize and buildings become more efficient, the one-time “upfront” effect from construction and building envelopes becomes even greater. WorldGBC estimates that approximately 11% of global emissions currently come from built carbon and that, unless we change course, more than half of total emissions from global new construction between 2020 and 2050 could occur upfront. This reality transforms iconic “one-off” gestures into long-term liabilities unless they are designed differently.
Ambition requires a budget. RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge sets concrete, outcome-focused carbon intensities (e.g., <750 kgCO₂e/m² for new offices by 2030), compelling design teams to treat carbon as a cost, a test, and a value. These targets align with broader calls to reduce concrete emissions well before mid-century (e.g., Architecture 2030).
Long-span roofs, mega beams, and expansive glass walls typically multiply the use of steel, concrete, and facade mass. These choices have a ripple effect: more construction, more cladding, and more transportation. Keeping spans efficient, breaking large movements into repeatable modules, and favoring bio-based or recycled content can preserve expressive architecture without inflating the footprint. (As a perspective: carefully used wood can store carbon in a building for decades and also replace carbon-intensive materials.)
Can Eyeglasses Be Environmentally Friendly?
Some of the most eye-catching “showcase” projects are conversions: preserving the structure while redesigning its functions. Solid research shows that reusing buildings is generally more environmentally advantageous than demolishing and rebuilding. Historic England reports that renovation work significantly reduces lifetime emissions by the middle of the century, while the National Trust’s “Greenest Building” study reveals that reuse “almost always” saves money compared to new construction. Turn the spectacle into the story of what you saved.
The Paris 2024 Aquatics Center demonstrates how a main venue can operate: an 89-meter wooden cable-stayed roof and one of France’s largest rooftop solar panels reduce operational loads, and the venue is designed for a long community life after the Games—thus, the carbon produced upfront serves more people for many more years. Overall, the Games relied on existing/temporary venues to avoid excessive construction.
Establish a life cycle carbon budget in the short term; use passive design solutions (orientation, mass, shading) instead of mechanical heroics; limit glass cladding where comfort and regulations permit; specify recycled aluminum instead of primary, high-GGBS/SCM concrete and verified low-carbon steel; and register a material passport, so today’s symbol becomes tomorrow’s part library. When artistry focuses rather than expands its palette, the show can be lighter, more beautiful, and measurably lower in carbon.
Toward a More Ethical Architectural Future
Redefining Success Beyond Visibility
Treat Post-Use Evaluation (POE) and the Usage Plan/Soft Landing approach as core deliverables, not as “nice-to-haves.” This means setting aside time and budget for Stage 7 feedback loops, monitoring how spaces actually perform for users (comfort, accessibility, safety), and bridging the gap between design intent and operational reality. RIBA’s Work Plan and Usage Plan guidelines, along with the industry’s Soft Landings framework (including the government’s Soft Landings program), formalize this transition from images to measurable outcomes.
In addition to energy and cost, add people-focused criteria: local employment, inclusive procurement, access improvements, time savings for caregivers, and perceived safety. The UK Green Building Council’s social value guide and RIBA’s Sustainable Outcomes (eight clear, measurable targets) guide offer practical ways to define core values and validate benefits through POE rather than marketing claims. Public sector clients can also incorporate this into tenders through the UK Social Value Model (PPN 06/20 → 2025 update PPN 002), which requires social value to be explicitly assessed in awards.
Visualize operational energy (EUI), embodied carbon, and resilience metrics. Set targets for energy, water, resources, equity, and health using the AIA Design Excellence Framework; then report progress through programs such as the AIA 2030 Commitment, which publishes portfolio-level performance data and guides firms toward verified reductions.
Symbolic Structures Created Under Community Leadership and Participatory Design
Go beyond consulting and share joint authority. Use proven participation ladders and spectra (Arnstein; IAP2) to determine the level of impact in advance, and adopt Design Justice principles to ensure that processes “prioritize their impact on the community over the designer’s intent.” Transform this into compensated time, accessible meetings, and collaborative decision-making stages within the scope.
The Granby Four Streets in Liverpool are managed by a Community Land Trust in collaboration with Assemble, demonstrating how co-management can revitalize housing and public life. This project is gaining recognition beyond architectural circles. Superkilen in Copenhagen brings together objects and stories collected with local residents. While not perfect, it creates an effective model for multicultural co-creation and its associated policies.
Facilitate building participation with tools that document decisions and benefits: SEED Evaluator (for social, economic, and environmental outcomes) and MIT D-Lab’s P.ACT co-design toolkit provide step-by-step methods that teams and communities can implement together. For large-scale projects, combine participatory budgeting or Social Benefit Agreements to establish education, affordability, and public space commitments in a way that is both feasible and trackable.
Teaching Ethics in Architectural Education
Accreditation is already leading the way: NAAB’s Student Criteria require an understanding of professional ethics in practical training, while the UNESCO-UIA Charter requires awareness of the philosophy, policy, and ethics of architecture, as well as knowledge of environmental systems. Programs must demonstrate not only intent but also learning through rubrics, case studies, and reflective assessments.
Make each studio accountable to a POE from a previous cohort or a real partner. Include “Usage Plan” assignments, user tests, and evidence-based design modules; send students to neighborhoods as research assistants; and evaluate projects not only in terms of form but also in terms of social and climate outcomes. Public Benefit Design education and SEED methods support this shift by enabling students to apply participatory and verifiable ethical principles before obtaining their license.
AIA and RIBA ethical codes already prohibit harm and require service to the public; AIA’s latest updates even address the design of spaces intended for execution or torture. Incorporate these codes into critiques and contracts, question who benefits and who bears the risk, and evaluate portfolios not only aesthetically but also in terms of how well projects advance health, equity, and decarbonization.
