Instagram and the Homogenisation of Architecture.

In the age of social media, platforms like Instagram have transformed the way we experience architecture. Once a local expression of culture, climate, and context, architecture is increasingly becoming a product of global visual trends. The result? A strange and growing homogeneity across modern architectural design—from coffee shops in Copenhagen to boutique hotels in Bali, from apartments in São Paulo to co-working spaces in Toronto. Everywhere starts to look... the same.

The Rise of “Instagrammable” Architecture

Instagram didn’t invent good design, but it certainly accelerated a specific kind of design: the photogenic kind. The “Instagrammable moment” has become a design brief in itself. Designers and developers now plan with shareability in mind—pampas grass in a terrazzo vase, pastel walls with neon quotes, arched mirrors, and textured concrete are not just stylistic choices; they're marketing tools.

Social media rewards repetition. The more a visual style circulates, the more people recognize and seek it out. This feedback loop fuels a race to replicate the most-liked aesthetics, not necessarily the most thoughtful or locally resonant ones.

Global Taste, Local Erasure

While platforms like Instagram democratize access to design ideas, they also flatten cultural nuance. Traditional materials, climate-responsive design, and region-specific craftsmanship often get sidelined in favor of globally trendy visual cues. A café in Marrakech might look like one in Melbourne—same color palette, same minimalist furniture, same leafy monstera plant in the corner.

This aesthetic convergence erodes architectural diversity. It becomes harder to tell where you are by looking at a building’s design. In extreme cases, this erasure leads to what some critics call "AirSpace"—a term used to describe the uncanny sameness of spaces designed for digital consumption rather than human experience.

The Algorithm as Tastemaker

Instagram’s algorithm favors what works visually at a glance. Clean lines, symmetrical compositions, and muted color palettes perform better than complex, messy, or deeply contextual spaces. So architects and designers—whether consciously or not—start to design for the feed.

The dominance of certain influencers or viral architects reinforces this. When a specific style gains popularity—think Japandi minimalism or Brutalist revivalism—it quickly becomes a template, spawning countless imitations. The architecture stops being about problem-solving or place-making and starts becoming a backdrop for lifestyle branding.

Can Architecture Fight Back?

Not all is lost. In response to this sameness, there’s a growing counter-movement: architects and designers who embrace hyperlocal materials, indigenous techniques, and narratives rooted in place. The key challenge is to design in a way that resonates in real life, not just through a screen.

Some firms are starting to design for anti-Instagrammability—intentionally creating complex, tactile, and immersive spaces that resist flattening into a square photo. Others use social media to show the process, not just the polished product, reminding audiences that architecture is as much about the people who use it as the people who photograph it.

Conclusion

Instagram has undoubtedly influenced architecture—sometimes inspiring creativity, but often narrowing design into a handful of global clichés. The challenge for architects, developers, and users alike is to question what’s driving our aesthetic choices. Are we building for the camera, or are we building for life?

The most meaningful architecture should do more than get likes. It should reflect who we are, where we are, and why we are. And that may never fit neatly into a 1080x1080 pixel frame.

Architectural Designer vs. Architect

We get asked a lot as to whether someone is an architect or not or to be honest, whether that even matters.

It is quite shocking though sometimes to see someones face when they espous of their recently engaged architect and spent tens of thousands of dollars on fees, to find that they weren’t an architect at all. “But they’re called such and such architecture” I hear them cry, and this is where the waters really get murky. You see, in Australia, as well as the term ‘architect’ being protected, so is the term ‘architecture’ when used to describe a service which (in Australia) can only be provided by a registered architect. You see they saw the confusion etymology can play in the public looking to engage in a service which they perhaps might only use once or twice in a lifetime. Pretty cut and dry, whereas in NZ we allow such terminology to be used by anyone. When on occasion I have colleagues and friends from Australia come to visit, they all remark at the huge amount of architects we have in the area. Uh haaaaa, I say, they’re not architects, and they’re absolutely dumbfounded by the notion that the public are being mislead in such a way.

So what is the difference?

For complete disclosure I was once a draughtsman, or an “Architectural Designer” so I can speak with a certain amount of experience on this topic. A draughtsman has 2 years of tertiary education at a Polytechnic after which they receive a Diploma in Architectural Technology. Their focus is on the technical aspects of documentation and producing documents sufficient to gain a building consent. Typically you will use a draughtsman for simple jobs not requiring too much complexity and generally also at a smaller scale. They can be cheaper to engage, but it’s worth enquiring as generally architects and draughtsman have similar overheads and therefore the differences are not as much as you might expect.

An Architect has 5 years of university level education, where they receive a bachelors degree in the 3 undergraduate years and a Masters Degree on completion of the 5 years. Upon completion of the Masters, a further 2 years of documented experience is required under the direction of an architect before sitting an exam and being interviewed before becoming becoming a registered architect. It’s a lot of work so you can understand why architects get a bit agitated when someone calls themselves an architect when they’re not!

The reason being, the term “architect” is protected by law and is governed by the “Architects Act” which is an Act of Parliament. We have a Code of Conduct and a disciplinary board called the NZRAB. (New Zealand Registered Architects Board) who hold us to account and provide consumer protection to the client. Architects are able to work across all scales of the building industry and are also trained in design and problem solving when it comes to more difficult projects with lots of conditions and are able to administer construction contracts when the project goes to site.

So which is better?

To be honest, there are some good architectural designers out there, and there are also some not so good architects. Generally, the more complex a project, the more attuned an architect is to dealing with problems on multitudes of levels. We recommend that firstly you see if your architect really is an architect. Hit the button below which will take you to the NZRAB Architects register where you can find out for yourself. If they are not listed, they are not an architect and should not be calling themselves one. Someone calling themselves an architect when they’re not is misleading let alone illegal, and can be fined up to $10,000 by the NZRAB.