[Rizzo]

A few things that always bother me in these kinds of debates are when people take the architects as the superiors and masses as ignorant. I agree that the public does have a comfort level towards a certain "style" of buildings. This seems to be the chief argument when it comes to designing a new building in a sensitive area (like a historic neighborhood). In some instances, scale and placement becomes an issue, but that's the not the nature of this topic. I really don't see anything wrong with the idea of using a traditionalist design. However, my biggest gripe is when these types of buildings fail to achieve the porportions, material quality, and order of a classic facade. In so many instances they come out looking fake or disneylike because the architect didn't have a clue what he or she was doing. Someone above mentioned that it bothered them that they couldn't tell the difference between a structure built in the 20's or one built today. Well, I find that to be a good thing. And realize that architecture should never be thought of as "in fashion" I hate it when people say that certain types of architecture are "not of this time." I think architecture can be timeless. The reason why is because everyone has a particular taste, and the client deserves to have what they want to build within limits. These limits are what LMich described in his last sentence. And it's the architects job to make the building a succesful one, no matter what type of facade it carries.

So what types of architecture are correct in this argument? BOTH. Everyone is just basing their point off their own opinions and taste of architecture. As long as the architecture carries the quality of the true concepts of its type, then there is nothing wrong.