When we’re confronted with someone whose political views differ from our own, we tend to wonder how any sensible person could have come to such conclusions – and so decide that they must be making their arguments in bad faith. This dynamic, known in the social sciences as “affective polarisation”, turns disagreements about policy into moral battles. It also seems to be shaping the debate over the renovation of NewYork’s Penn Station. The busiest rail hub in the western hemisphere is widely regarded as among the worst.

It’s poor by any architectural standard but its inadequacies seem all the more pronounced when you compare it to the beaux-arts masterpiece that it replaced, designed by Manhattan firm McKim, Mead & White. From 1910 to 1963, the original Penn Station was the largest indoor space in New York. Its neoclassical style embodied the American Renaissance, a movement that cast the US as the vanguard of Western civilisation.

Between 1963 and 1966, the station’s main hall was demolished and replaced by the Madison Square Garden entertainment complex, while most of the station’s infrastructure was forced underground.The destruction of the old train hall prompted an outpouring of public opposition and is still viewed as a big misstep. Public architecture across the globe has since converged on a style that could be dubbed “dated international municipal minimalism” (let’s call it DIMM for short): economical, functional and forgettable structures of glass, steel and concrete.

It’s striking, then, that two of the four shortlisted designs for the new Penn Station buck this trend. One proposal, ReThinkPennStationNYC using the design of RWC Atelier & Co, would almost replicate the McKim, Mead & White design. Another, the Grand Penn plan from the Grand Penn Community Alliance (GPCA), would restore the station’s colonnaded façade as the entrance to a modern train hall with a classically inspired ceiling of vaulted glass. The other designs are typical of DIMM architecture; neither would be out of place in any modern city.

Every proposal has its strengths and weaknesses, and there’s a good-faith debate to be had about which would best serve New York and the wider region. But the discussion risks being overshadowed by politics. Some progressives have been spooked by the aesthetic conservatism of the Grand Penn plan. The GPCA aims to restore classical grandeur to US civic architecture and has aligned itself with the broader reactionary movement that has grown around Donald Trump. Its goal is to “make America beautiful again”, according to Justin Shubow, one of its leaders.

Coverage of the Penn Station renovation in non-specialist media outlets has focused heavily on the GPCA’s political ties and ideology. These might be legitimate concerns but the controversy has come at the expense of a proper consideration of the shortlisted designs’ architectural qualities. The fixation on the politics behind the Grand Penn proposal over its urban-design implications seems to be down to affective polarisation: for some people, the design is tainted by association with conservatives, as though choosing it would mark a right-wing victory in one of the US’s most progressive cities. That is misguided. Whichever design is chosen, the new station will hopefully outlast its backers and the immediate political context. New Yorkers should be careful not to let prejudice predicate yet more DIMM architecture and determine the outcome of a decision that will shape the city for generations.