[Rizzo]

A very good (long) first post. I think you generally make a good argument. For each type of architectural revival, there's always been some adaptation of style. classical columns became cladding over steel as opposed to load bearing...and of course translating that into the early 20th century skyscraper.

A point you missed (at least I think somewhere in there) is architects of the past were very convincing on how these older styles and practices were applied in modern construction. By modern...I mean within the last 100 years. The one change we've seen in the latter half of the 20th century are new materials that looks less like real stone or masonry and lends itself to that fake disneyesque look.

That said, the other big change is that these materials tend to be the cheapest to buy and put up. Mid-century modernism did introduce us to mass production of building products, but it maintained the finer materials in building construction. But new building industries continued to emerge. It seems nowadays it's all about cost. I think architects get lost debating what styles to use, or even what new building technologies to implement. It's okay for the sake of better architecture and environments. But it completely ignores the realities of economics which pretty much have the final say on design