I can see you are trying to find evidence to support your assumption. No problem, but respectfully, not really interested in playing that endless question and answer game.
The truth of it is that architecture is beholden to the same arcane and Byzantine cost structures that effect any other large scale, one off projects. Like those that make software engineering expensive (when programming is so cheap!). Or why don't they just make good movies these days?. The forces acting on architecture are strongly market driven, and if the forces pushed toward traditional methods, then those buildings would be built.
They are not. And, I think architecture would be much easier to understand (and even be effected positively) if people, such as yourself could enumerate their actual requirements of buildings, internally, externally, publicly, privately, phenomenologically, metaphysically, and give some thought to the prioritisation of such requirements, and the deceptive complexity of satisfying them.
If I could make this into a generalisation.. a product is its specification. If you just want a cheaper building (or car, website, or apple) you will get something that resembles that.
Yes, as I suggested before, lettable floor area is king. That is why commercial buildings are made from glass. There are other major differences, and also minor differences with large knock on effects. And no, not every traditional style building is an order of magnitude more expensive than every other style building. And yes, you can fake the stylistic appliqué. And yes, architects have thrashed that dead horse to death time and again over the last 600 years or so.
The truth of it is that architecture is beholden to the same arcane and Byzantine cost structures that effect any other large scale, one off projects. Like those that make software engineering expensive (when programming is so cheap!). Or why don't they just make good movies these days?. The forces acting on architecture are strongly market driven, and if the forces pushed toward traditional methods, then those buildings would be built.
They are not. And, I think architecture would be much easier to understand (and even be effected positively) if people, such as yourself could enumerate their actual requirements of buildings, internally, externally, publicly, privately, phenomenologically, metaphysically, and give some thought to the prioritisation of such requirements, and the deceptive complexity of satisfying them.
If I could make this into a generalisation.. a product is its specification. If you just want a cheaper building (or car, website, or apple) you will get something that resembles that.