Although there is often a difference between the architectural understanding of forms and their social and value-related perception, elements of architectural value are often divided into economic or cultural concerns. Architecture’s true value, however, may be found at the resolution of this dichotomy although it can be argued it is not straightforward to isolate and measure the true value of architecture. This discussion paper suggests that whilst many of the concerns highlighted appear in conflict, they are in fact reciprocal in nature with both causes being advanced through the efficiencies of architectural design. One viewpoint is that economic value perhaps should not be a topic of infrequent discussion, but rather it should be raised from time to time within the context of the broader market within which architecture is positioned. Even this viewpoint is subject to conjecture for some. This discussion paper places the focus on the importance and relevance of value from an architectural perspective, which often is a conceptrarely discussed in design circles. It is meant to encourage discourse and discussion about the different forms of value and how it is perceived in an architectural sense. As there are numerous classifications and perceptions of value in our society which are in a constant state of change, it is imperative that we regularly re-evaluate the relevance of these ever-changing values to design.
Keywords: Architecture, Change regeneration, Cultural, Economic, Lifecycle costs, Value