I think it's like millennial grey. Not only is it more expensive to add ornamentation, it also hurts resale and repurposing of buildings. Ideally you want mostly identical boxes where you could change the sign to make it a church, a McDonalds, a clothing store, etc every few years.

Or that seems like the goal of commercial builders now, right?

This applies to most fields. Far more people get advanced education now but just necessarily as you cater to a larger group of people you have to diminish the end goal and operate more by procedures and standardization. That reverberates and diminishes the skills of the more competent people who would have been able to learn all of the above a century ago, because now all the institutions cater to a larger body. I disagree about it being a mirror of the period as some absolute rule though. Insurance policies, building code/zoning, educational structures and the rest are all choices people make. The cost thing is always absurd to me as in medieval guild systems during the great plague people found resources to build great cathedrals. Acting like cathedrals were cheaper then compared to now is just absurd. We have the resources we just choose to use it to create trash and then burn it, and to punish anyone who tries to make anything that isn't trash.

I was an architect. There's some truth to what you're saying, but to be honest we rarely get the chance to enact such grand visions. Normally the stars have to align with the perfect client who has limitless budget. These crafts don't come cheap, you know! Gaudi does things with wood that frankly shouldn't be possible.

The other aspect I think also deserves attention is that as our lives have become more digitised and online, our care and attention towards the physical realm has degraded a little. We no longer need exquisite masonry to fire off the synapses - we have the endless scroll and the 24-hour news cycle.

Finally there is a small amount of survivor syndrome happening too - we keep the beautiful buildings but ignore or forget the enormous unhygienic slums that often co-existed with our most beautiful architecture.

I don't understand the bit where they can draw? How did they pass the entrance exams or their classes? The architects I know basically had to draw all day, everyday.

You may find this article interesting, as I did.

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-beauty-of-concrete/

Meh history is no reason to keep doing a thing

Would prefer 3D printed buildings try something new; for example 3D print underground living and bedrooms for energy efficiency and just have dining + kitchen at surface level

There is enough antique architecture still standing to appreciate

We can allow ourselves the freedom to dream and explore new ideas just like the long dead gave themselves

>They can't draw, they can't sculpt, they have no clue about art history. Or color theory, if you want to go that far. Usually golden ratio/Fibonacci is kinda where it ends. One of them is a professor of architecture, no less.

I only have a couple of architect friends, but wow, they actually have exactly these skills and interests. Amazing artists and designers in their own right. They seem to know a lot about how philosophy interacts with architecture too! Interesting to know they might be the exception.

> And ofc the modernist rejection of any ornament; even that which is there historically, on existing architecture.

There's an ideological capture of postwar architecture departments. Talk to a dutiful architecture student and mention classical architecture, and don't be surprised if you get some eye-rolling or stock dismissals ("it's anachronistic", "it's pastiche", "it's expensive", "it's unoriginal"). People - and that includes students - tend to go along with the prejudices of their professors, both because of ignorance and because they want to "fit in".

There are some maverick departments[0], however.

> My hope is that in a future where we 3D-print buildings or construct them with robots [...] the cost difference will be marginal/nonexistend.

The cost isn't the issue. Societies much poorer than our - and we are the wealthiest we've ever been in history, materially speaking - have produced magnificent artwork and architecture. We simply have different priorities. I don't remember who it was who said this, but if you want to know what a society worships and holds in highest regard, look for the tallest building in the city.

[0] https://heyzine.com/flip-book/44640c2c78.html

> because the cost difference will be marginal/nonexistent.

It will not happen because the rich will always keep standards of living of the average and poor people just at the low level that they will not rebel.