Is it the architect? The developer? Or perhaps the city? The correct answer, it would seem, is whoever has the most followers on social media:

For the Norwegian branch of the social media movement Architectural Uprising, this revision was another feather in its cap. Founded in Sweden in 2014 as a public Facebook group, the Uprising is a collective of citizen design critics who object to what organizers call the “continued uglification” of developments in Nordic cities, and push for a return to classically informed design. With more than 100,000 social media followers across some 40 different branches, the group now serves as a significant platform for those who assert that the public, not just bureaucrats, architects, developers and property owners, ought to have a voice in the design of their built environments.

As a developer and person who studied architecture, I find this frustrating. Imagine you're a painter working in a busy public square. And every time somebody walks by and shouts a new criticism, you need to change your art. How would you feel about your work?

Now assume that your painting is an expensive commission. Your clients just re-mortgaged their home to pay for it and they specifically asked you for a painting that looks like something from Henri Matisse's "Blue Nudes" collection.

Unfortunately, the crowd in the public square wasn't a fan of the color blue or of abstract figures, and so you've instead rendered dozens of well-fed Renaissance figures sitting in a lively garden eating grapes. "Sorry, hope you like it. This is what the critics wanted."

Look, I may be stretching here. I fully appreciate that architecture is inherently a more public form of art than painting. I just think it's important to give entrepreneurs, artists, and other creatives the freedom to experiment.

If we force everyone to look toward the past, how will the misfits ever create the future?

P.S. I have no issue with voting on publicly-funded architecture. I actually think that's a good idea.