Is there such a thing as ‘populist architecture’? What is the difference between ‘popular’ and ‘populist’ attributes? How can a populist political course use its tools in the physical environment? I am looking for the answers on the example of two investments: the National Hauszmann Program and the Liget Budapest Project. First, I examine connecting culture studies and ideology studies texts (Adorno, Jameson, Foster, Reckwitz), then I give a base in political science (Csillag and Szelényi, Mudde and Rovira, Szűcs). Then, I approach the questions of architecture theory through the distinction between ‘popular’ and ‘populist’ (Gans, Shamiyeh, Scott Brown, Frampton). I choose different viewpoints for examining the two architectural projects. While in the case of the National Hauszmann Program I approach the topic from representation of power and heritage protection, in the case of the Liget Budapest Project I talk about the issues of public demand, architectural icons, museology and ecology. At the end I contemplate about the future of these projects and ask the question: How would they be realized if Hungary wasn’t led by a right-wing populist government?