sexy, not sanctimonious

Architecture should be sexy, not sanctimonious.

This does not mean at all that architecture should not be built on social and environmental principles; quite the contrary:

In behavioural psychology, to ensure that good behaviour is sustained, it needs to be rewarding for it to be repeated, because as much as people endeavour to make a choice based on what’s good for them and for others, they will often be swayed by the choice that looks and feels good. The sweet spot is when what is ethical overlaps with what is desirable. As designers, it is our privilege as well as our responsibility to make what is good desirable. This means that design is a vessel to perpetuate laudable values by making them more attractive.

Social value and ESG should be entrenched in design, not brandished in discourse, because sanctimony may force people into making an ethical choice out of guilt or penance, but sanctimony almost guarantees that this choice is an one-off, not a regular habit. Worse, it may backfire because it rankles people and shrouds the ethical choice with negativity.

In fashion, consumers develop brand loyalty based on good design. They do expect their brand to have social value as a given by sourcing fabric responsibly and paying makers decent wages; however, this is a necessary but not sufficient pre-requisite.

In property, consumers will pick the workplace or home to rent or buy based on how sexy the space is, irrespective of verbose, academic literature about embodied carbon. ESG should be a given, not a USP.

Isn't it time consumers were seduced by architecture?