If a dictator takes up my ideas, the resulting town will survive the political system that commissioned it and stand as a social good. Besides, modernism rather than classicism has dominated the architecture of totalitarian regimes of both the left and right.

In this provocative quote, Leon Krier, a leading advocate of New Urbanism and traditional architecture, reflects on the enduring value of architectural ideas, even when adopted by questionable political regimes. He argues that if a dictator were to implement his urban planning principles, the resulting town or city might outlive the regime and still serve as a social good for future generations. This perspective emphasizes the lasting impact of urban form and design, regardless of the ideological context in which it is created.

Krier's statement underscores his belief that architecture and urbanism, when rooted in human-scale, community-oriented, and timeless principles, can transcend political agendas. He is not justifying dictatorship, but rather asserting that good urban design—informed by tradition, livability, and civic harmony—can benefit people long after the oppressive system that built it has fallen. It’s a claim about the moral resilience of architecture when guided by enduring, people-centered values.

He also makes a pointed observation about the aesthetic preferences of totalitarian regimes, noting that contrary to popular belief, modernism, not classicism, has often been the architectural style of choice for both left- and right-wing dictatorships. From Soviet constructivism to Fascist modernist projects, these regimes frequently embraced industrialized, monumental, and sometimes dehumanizing forms, which Krier critiques for lacking warmth and connection to human scale.

Ultimately, Krier’s quote is a defense of traditional and classical planning ideals, which he believes promote social cohesion, beauty, and cultural continuity. He suggests that architecture grounded in such ideals can outlast political ideologies and continue to serve the public good—an argument that reinforces his broader critique of modernist orthodoxy and his call for a return to human-centered urbanism.