In this work, we perform a systematic comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of generative and non-generative models in constructing design spaces for novel and efficient design exploration and shape optimization. We apply these models in the case of airfoil/hydrofoil design and conduct the comparison on the resulting design spaces. A conventional Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) and a state-of-the-art generative model, the Performance-Augmented Diverse Generative Adversarial Network (PaDGAN), are juxtaposed with a linear non-generative model based on the coupling of the Karhunen-Lo\`eve Expansion and a physics-informed Shape Signature Vector (SSV-KLE). The comparison demonstrates that, with an appropriate shape encoding and a physics-augmented design space, non-generative models have the potential to cost-effectively generate high-performing valid designs with enhanced coverage of the design space. In this work, both approaches are applied to two large foil profile datasets comprising real-world and artificial designs generated through either a profile-generating parametric model or deep-learning approach. These datasets are further enriched with integral properties of their members' shapes as well as physics-informed parameters. Our results illustrate that the design spaces constructed by the non-generative model outperform the generative model in terms of design validity, generating robust latent spaces with none or significantly fewer invalid designs when compared to generative models. We aspire that these findings will aid the engineering design community in making informed decisions when constructing designs spaces for shape optimization, as we have show that under certain conditions computationally inexpensive approaches can closely match or even outperform state-of-the art generative models.