Most of the evidence below is correlational: studies and polls showing that traditional design goes together with higher prices or stronger public support, without proving that a facade causes a given return. One finding is experimental, and it shows that how a building looks changes public support for it. No study yet measures planning approval rates or decision times by architectural style, so we make no claim about them. Each finding is shown with its source, its caveat and how confident we are in it. We show the caveats because a careful investor will look for them anyway.
For municipalities: public support, value to a place, and design for a long life
5-6%
Co-operative apartments in new classical or neo-traditional buildings in Stockholm sold for about 5% to 6% more than comparable apartments in other post-1965 buildings.
Caveat. A conference paper that has not been peer reviewed, and the result depends on the method. Only 271 of 16,508 sales were classical. Several matching methods give estimates that are not statistically significant. The evidence is observational and correlational.
6.6%
Across about 7,900 home sales in 47 English conservation areas, homes whose surrounding buildings people rated clearly more distinctive sold for about 6.6% more, around £16,000. "Clearly more" here means one standard deviation up the rating scale, roughly the step from an ordinary street to a standout one. Part of the gain went to neighbouring homes, not only to the distinctive buildings themselves.
Caveat. The method is quasi-experimental but still observational. It measures perceived distinctiveness, not traditional style, and does not compare new traditional with new modern buildings.
75%
In a 2015 Ipsos poll of 1,000 GB adults, 75% supported ten new homes on nearby brownfield land designed in the Poundbury style, against 23% to 34% for less conventional designs. Of the 14% who opposed new homes in principle, 51% supported the most popular design.
Caveat. The poll measures stated reactions to photographs, not planning outcomes. It was commissioned by Create Streets, an advocacy group for traditional design.
110 years
A study of 14,879 demolished buildings in nine US and four European cities found an average lifetime of 71 years. In the US cities, brick buildings had stood for 110 years on average before demolition, wood-frame buildings 91 years, and concrete and steel buildings 67 years.
Caveat. The study is observational and counts only buildings that were demolished, so it says nothing about the many that still stand. It measures structural material, not architectural style, and European cities vary widely.
No premium
Across 23,768 sales in Cambridge, UK, between 1995 and 2018, the study found no evidence of a price difference between new Revival and new Contemporary homes. It did find a premium for Revival facades on individual infill plots in historic neighbourhoods.
Caveat. This is a well-controlled UK test that holds building age constant, and it cuts against a blanket claim. The data are observational, and new builds are only about 4% of the sales. It is why we aim our work at context-sensitive and infill sites rather than large generic schemes.
+7.3% value, +17.8% cost
Knight Frank found Poundbury sold for 7.3% more per sq ft than local benchmarks, against a 17.8% build-cost premium. It also found sales value per hectare 55% higher, partly because of higher density.
Caveat. A correlational comparison with local benchmarks, with no causal design and thin data. The 17.8% is described as an upper bound, and phase costs have ranged widely. Offsetting a cost premium preserves absolute profit, not margin. Cost data run only to 2018, before recent build-cost inflation. Poundbury also sells slowly. The two figures must be read together.
Significant premium
A peer-reviewed hedonic study found a significant price premium for newly built homes with neo-traditional architecture in the Netherlands.
Caveat. The study is correlational. The authors attribute part of the premium to local authorities restricting supply, and report that it shrinks over time and that these homes do not hold their value better. We have not verified the size of the premium against the full text, so we do not quote one.
8.5-9.5%
Across 1,088,446 home sales from 1995 to 2010, homes in English conservation areas sold for about 8.5-9.5% more than comparable homes once location and housing were controlled for (23.1% before controls). The premium also grew: prices inside the areas rose about 0.2% a year faster than in the comparison group, and about 0.1% a year faster just outside them.
Caveat. The study is observational and measures location in a conservation area, not architectural style; designating an area did not by itself move prices significantly. The extra growth is small, and the data end in 2010.
4-15%
In more than 5,000 sales from 1994 to 1997, homes in three traditional neighbourhood developments sold for more than comparable homes nearby: 14.9% more at Kentlands (Maryland), 10.3% at Southern Village (North Carolina) and 4.1% at Laguna West (California).
Caveat. The study is correlational and the data are from 1994-97. The premium bundles walkability and mixed use with architectural style, so it is not evidence about facades alone. The percentages come from the University of Notre Dame’s summary of the paper; we have not checked them against the full text.
12%
In 2,061 single-family sales, homes in Kentlands, a traditional neighbourhood development in Maryland, sold for about 12% more than comparable homes nearby, roughly $25,000 each.
Caveat. The study is correlational and the data are almost thirty years old. The premium bundles walkability and mixed use with architectural style, so it is not evidence about facades alone. The 12% and $25,000 come from the University of Notre Dame’s summary of the paper; we have not checked them against the full text.
14 points
In a pre-registered experiment with 5,999 Americans, the same proposed five-storey apartment building lost 14 points of support on a 100-point scale when shown with the least attractive facade instead of an attractive one. That is almost as much as moving it from a street of five-storey buildings to a street of single-family homes (16 points), and far more than making the flats affordable (1 to 4 points).
Caveat. A survey experiment measuring stated support, not real planning decisions, and a working paper not yet peer reviewed. It compares attractive and unattractive facades, not traditional and modern ones, so it shows that looks change support, not which style wins.
13/20
Of 32 English planning appeals in 2021 where design was the main reason for refusal, councils won 5 of 12 before national policy changed on 20 July 2021 to say poorly designed development should be refused, and 13 of 20 after it. Design quality now carries real weight at appeal.
Caveat. A small sample from a single year, compared before and after with no control group. It is about design quality, not architectural style, and the cases are concentrated in London and the South East.
Greater certainty
In a 2012 UCL Bartlett survey, 51 of 311 English planning authorities responded, and every responding authority said design codes gave developers a far greater degree of certainty.
Caveat. The responses are self-reported perceptions, not measured outcomes. The response rate was 16% for authorities and 15% for urban design consultancies, so self-selection is likely. The evidence on speed is mixed and we make no claim about it. The survey predates the 2021 National Model Design Code.
69%
In the Swedish Citizen Panel, a probability sample of 2,006 people in June 2023, 69.4% preferred classic architecture to modern, against 20.1% who preferred modern.
Caveat. Respondents answered one abstract question with no images and no definition of the styles. It measures stated taste, not willingness to pay. The source is a slide deck that has not been peer reviewed.
65.7%
In the SOM probability mail survey (1,701 respondents, 48% response rate, September to December 2023), 65.7% preferred classic architecture and 25.6% modern.
Caveat. One abstract question with no images. It measures stated taste, not willingness to pay, and the sample over-represents university graduates. The source is a slide deck that has not been peer reviewed.
72%
Shown seven unlabelled pairs of real federal buildings, 2,039 US adults picked the traditional design 72% of the time on average. Majorities in every group chose it: 73% of Republicans, 70% of Democrats, 73% of independents, 62% of Black, 65% of Hispanic and 75% of white Americans.
Caveat. An online Harris Poll (17-19 August 2020) commissioned by the National Civic Art Society, an advocacy group for classical architecture. It measures taste in civic buildings shown in photographs, not support for new building or planning outcomes.
No. 1
Agora, the firm's own product, is the world's largest directory of traditional and classical professionals.
Caveat. Agora is the firm's own product. The claim is backed by Agora's own counts and the date they were taken.