Ugly or visionary? Rethinking how we award architecture

Written by Elliott Harris, Part II Architectural Assistant at Fluid

Architecture is a reflection of our society: our values, priorities, and dreams made physical. So it’s no surprise that people have strong opinions about what makes a building “beautiful” or “ugly.” But when an architectural project is widely criticised for its aesthetics, should it still be celebrated? Should “ugly” architecture be eligible for awards?

Let’s unpack this.

First, ugliness is subjective. What one person sees as a concrete monstrosity, another may interpret as a bold artistic statement. Many buildings once deemed eyesores, like the Eiffel Tower or the Brutalist libraries of the mid-20th century, are now celebrated icons. So when we talk about “ugly” architecture, we must ask: ugly to whom? And is that aesthetic judgement more important than the building’s purpose, innovation, or social impact?

Credit: Geisel Library | William Pereira

Architecture awards are not just beauty contests. They often honour innovation, sustainability, social utility, and cultural relevance. A building might lack ornamental appeal but still push the boundaries of engineering, respond brilliantly to its environment, or serve its community in powerful ways. Should such accomplishments be ignored simply because the façade doesn’t please everyone?

Take, for example, social housing projects that prioritise liveability, affordability, and green design. They may lack Instagrammable exteriors but transform lives. If they’re “ugly” but effective, do they not deserve recognition?

On the flip side, critics argue that ugly architecture can harm the urban experience. Cities are lived-in environments. We walk their streets, share their skylines, and absorb their atmosphere daily. When a building disrupts harmony or provokes widespread discontent, awarding it might feel tone-deaf or even elitist. It can signal that architectural circles are out of touch with the people who inhabit these spaces.

Credit: Cité du Grand Parc, Bordeaux | Philippe Ruault

This brings us to a deeper issue: who gets to decide what is “good” architecture? Should it be a jury of professionals or the public who live with the results? The disconnect between critical acclaim and public reception is a growing concern. Awards can serve as both a mirror and a megaphone, reflecting current values and amplifying what we want the future of architecture to be.

So, should we award architecture that’s considered ugly? The answer is: sometimes, yes, if it challenges norms, serves a vital function, or breaks ground in a meaningful way. But that recognition should come with a conversation. Awards shouldn’t be given in isolation; they should spark public dialogue about what we value in the built environment.

In short, we shouldn’t confuse “unattractive” with “unworthy.” But we also shouldn’t dismiss the emotional and cultural impact of architectural beauty. In a world facing climate crises, housing shortages, and rapid urbanisation, we need architecture that works and, ideally, inspires. If a so-called “ugly” building does both, maybe it deserves a closer look, and possibly even a trophy.