During the 1950s, Chinese architecture underwent a significant change. The newlyfounded communist state employed a centralized system in both architectural practice and research. The connection between Chinese modern architecture, which was inspired by the Modernist approach in the West, and the architectural development in the West had been cut off. Most Chinese architectural professionals and scholars who were trained in North America and Europe continued to work for the new regime even though both professional and academic practices were reshaped and reoriented. Architectural research and practice were challenged by not only the economic shortage of resources but also the newly instilled socialistic ideologies as well as their applications. When the new state pondered on the strategic plan of Beijing development, a large debate occurred between architectural scholars and professionals. One side led by Liang Sicheng and Chen Zhanxiang, both educated in the West suggested to preserve the old Beijing while building new urban centers west to the old urban core. On the other side led by the Soviet advisors and some West-trained Chinese architects and scholars advocated replacing the old Beijing with the new developments. Both groups presented their research analysis and conclusions, which focused on different aspects to define the value of a capital city. The three-year long debate was ended when the central government decided to support the latter opinion. This debate was considered not only an academic debate, but also an indicator of the beginning of political engagement and control in architectural scholarship and practice. From then on, the socialistic ideology and concepts gradually replaced the initial Western versions of architectural understanding and models. This paper examines what the contextual changes for architectural practice and research was in a new regime with more socialistic influence. Rather than investigating the historical event of this debate, this study focuses on how architects and scholars from each side interacted with the governing party members and what the criterion were for the communist party to judge different viewpoints and opinions. This study will provide a case study to better understand the relationship between architectural scholarship and a particular political and social setting, and imply useful strategies for today’s scholars and professionals.