The car that forgot the window, ...about vehicles and design values.

But this detail, and the reasoning behind it, triggered my response. As someone who sees design through a human-centred, or better yet, world-centred lens, I believe the Polestar 4 is a clear example of how design shouldn’t work.

A rear window, innovation or over-engineering?

The rationale for removing the rear window is explained directly by Missoni in a video promoting the car. The reasoning? To achieve better aerodynamics. Without the window, the rear design could be optimised for a sleeker shape, reducing drag and helping the Polestar 4 achieve an impressive CW value of 0.26. Additionally, the argument goes, a rearview camera offers a broader and more reliable view than a traditional window ever could.

At this point, I have to ask: is this really a user-centred innovation, or is it just solving a problem that design itself created? 

Why design a car so large—4.84 metres long, over 2.2 tonnes in weight—that it requires such extreme measures for efficiency? And what about the passenger experience? With tinted side and roof windows and no rear view, the back seat feels disconnected from the outside world. Isolating passengers from natural light and their surroundings hardly seems like progress.

The rear window is just one example of a broader issue. These decisions aren’t about solving genuine problems; they’re about creating a rolling status symbol. The Polestar 4 is less about mobility—the primary function of a car—and more about signalling superiority and excess. It’s a telling failure of design values.

A broader problem with design priorities

This isn’t just a Polestar issue.
The SUV coupé trend itself embodies a troubling shift in priorities. These oversized, overdesigned vehicles are marketed as a “new breed,” but they’re essentially the same old statement of dominance. 

Bigger, heavier cars dominate roads and public spaces, encouraging polarisation and even fostering aggression in traffic. And let’s not forget the environmental cost: manufacturing and moving these giants consumes resources far beyond what’s necessary for simple, sustainable transportation.

The bigger issue is what this says about the role of design in shaping societal behaviour. When designers focus on brand expression, market trends, or self-indulgent features, they fail to address the larger question: what do we actually need? 

In a time of climate crisis, design values should prioritise simplicity, sustainability, and inclusivity—not indulgence or excess.

Design accountability in the climate era

When Missoni talks about the Polestar 4, he also mentions retro-illuminated brand logos and his dislike of “direct light.” These details highlight the disconnect between automotive design and the urgent challenges we face today. If car design remains about fulfilling brands’ egos rather than addressing real needs, we’re heading in the wrong direction.

The industry can—and must—do better. Cars should be designed for mobility, simplicity, and sustainability, not as luxury statements. The automotive world needs to stop treating “innovation” as a race to outdo itself and start designing with a world-centred perspective rooted in stronger design values.

The cost of ignoring responsibility

The missing rear window of the Polestar 4 might seem like a small detail, but it symbolises much bigger problems in the industry. It reflects a culture of overengineering and excess at a time when we desperately need restraint and responsibility.

The automotive industry holds immense power to shape behaviour, society, and the environment. It’s time to hold them accountable for ignoring these responsibilities. Because at the end of the day, a car isn’t just a car—it’s a statement about who we are and what we value. And right now, we’re making the wrong statement.