The million programs were one good idea but the aesthetics were less successful. There were, however, certain successful aesthetic features such as the fact that there are often many green areas in the million programs. Now these areas need to be equipped. It is not important not to make the same mistake again. People become more depressed in anonymous high-rises. In addition, it is good if the architecture is connected to previous buildings from the time before the modernist era. The part of Gothenburg that the citizens of Gothenburg consider the most Gothenburg is the Majorna with their many preserved governor's houses. Furthermore, a varied road network is needed that feels alive, with pedestrian streets.
Peter Olsson, Economics student at The Gothenburg School of Business and Economics writes about good architecture on the Arkitekturupprorets website.
There were more good feature with the million program houses. They were very architecturally functionally explored on the inside. Several of the pipes went into a vestibule and were therefore easy to replace. The kitchens were ergonomically planned. The standard was also much higher than in previous houses. In new condominiums and in some tenements, the pipes are laid in concrete in the floor, which is why it is difficult to change them. Another fault with the million program areas was that there were only rental properties. It is important that different people with different backgrounds can meet in everyday life. Then hope and understanding can grow. However, it is of the utmost importance that a high proportion of the housing stock consists of tenements with low rents. In addition, this must be supplemented by the fact that in each area there are detached houses and condominiums at affordable prices. The latter is easily achieved by the supply of low-rent rental properties being large so that demand is so low that prices do not become too high for privately owned homes.
An argument which usually cited against classical architecture is that, for example, governor's houses were in their time considered conformist and ugly. "Today's houses will also be considered beautiful over time", so goes the argument from the modernists. A strong counterargument is to see the types of buildings that architects and decision makers themselves prefer. The claim that it is too expensive to build according to classical aesthetics not true either. It is easy to see if you look up and look at all the beautiful new buildings in Europe.