Wealth architecture, just as its name implies, sees buildings as an embodiment of socioeconomic class. Among buildings owned by private sectors, embodiment of classes is constrained by wealth accumulation; at the same time, a certain level of accumulated wealth will definitely become the catalyst of architectural expressions. The high relevance between the two can be used to explain the ideographic and symbolic aspects of building appearances. The opposite of wealth architecture is poverty architecture. As a matter of fact, as architecture itself is an important type of economic activity, there is no need to talk about poverty architecture. From the historical perspective, except for special social systems that can rule out the possibility of wealth architecture (e.g. collectivism era in 1900s), private buildings can evolve under a regular system as long as it allows for the implementation of social orders and wealth accumulation. Its fundamental role is to widen the gap between itself and poverty and create more and more diverse symbols and forms. In addition to political economy, wealth architecture will certainly lead to cultural selection. As a result, it will become an important discussion subject in wealth architecture that under what conditions symbols and forms will continue to evolve and change.