Aesthetically as well: Arains were probably much more "humble" than their Catholic/Orthodox counterparts. I think the big effect of preaching Jesus as being more human than he was spiritual didn't mean there was a lot of emphasis on trying to present some maddening image of heaven you'd get in richer Orthodox and Catholic churches/cathedral (especially later period, but Arianism was also dead by the time the romantic image of the "gothic" cathedral arose). Arian aesthetic would be more about the approach-ability of Jesus and possibility the divine as being human in many respects, and not some major divine hand of God and he needed to be that much.

Though Jesus WAS created according to Arius, he is not the son of God in the same way the mainstream church viewed him. This kind of falls into line that God is one and only, and any attempt at shoe-horning a trinity into God's nature is a half-assed attempt at being polytheistic while claiming it's still monotheistic by claiming the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost is one the same. So that might be the focus of the theological debate. Aesthetic argument might boil down to, "That church is too rich, you could have spent the money you got on alms for the poor"; but not as extreme as the Lollards (whoever thought it was amazing to be poor) or whatever.