Jo

 –  Designing with such rarefied aesthetic vision and criteria that the common person has no idea what the heck the artist is even going for, such that only someone with a degree in architecture (which none of the actual occupants have) can appreciate it. eg, Boston City Hall.

 –  Designing it for the sake of art, with no regard to the fact that actual humans have to live there. eg, Fallingwater.

 –  Paying attention to what the actual occupants actually need, and using that information for the purpose of designing the building to metaphorically represent what the actual occupants actually need, while failing to actually provide what the actual occupants actually need. eg, the David Williams Building, or BnF François Mitterrand.

It's not like it's impossible to make a beautiful building that is actually well designed for its occupants. Indeed, one might even say that that is the point of architecture, or perhaps merely the highest purpose of the art. eg, the Stephen A Schwarzman Building.

In fact, that's what makes architecture the kind of beauty that it is, as opposed to literature or painting or engineering! The amazing work that happens when you combine practicality with aesthetics. That's how you get the Thomas Jefferson Building and the Palais Garnier and the New York Guggenheim.