The first article seems a rather long winded way of saying: "He's not entirely wrong, there are lots of extremely ugly modernist buildings, especially those wh

The first article seems a rather long winded way of saying: "He's not entirely wrong, there are lots of extremely ugly modernist buildings, especially those which are done on a budget or are uninspired. The earlier style buildings are usually of consistently good quality or at least non-offensive even when cheaply or formulaically done since they incorporate many elements are are inherently pleasing to human nature. But I disagree with the author's premise that Modernism was forced on society by its creators and believe it is simply an unconventional style originating from a war stricken period that became wildly popular with people seeking a novel architecture." I still think Curl's point stands that Modernist architecture is founded on rather unnatural patterns and images. I mean unnatural in its most literal sense, not of nature or not incorporating naturally occurring patterns. The pre-modern style gravitates towards the natural and takes inspiration from it. It's no surprise that applying those rules instantly humanizes a structure. It's the difference between a parking lot and a park. The former is a blank, utilitarian space optimized for storing cars, the latter a landscaped environment optimized for human occupation. Sure you can make a beautifully executed parking lot but it will never be as comfortable a place to be on a sunny day as even the most lack lustre park with a few shade trees and a carpet of grass.