> look at the divide in architecture between houses sold to people, that are actually made to look inviting and high-quality While I agree with your conclusion

> look at the divide in architecture between houses sold to people, that are actually made to look inviting and high-quality While I agree with your conclusion, I think your example is incorrect. Most houses aren't custom builds, they're built on spec. Think McMansions. These houses use 2x4 framing, guaranteeing that they can't be adequately insulated. They all use double hung windows instead of high performance options, like tilt turn. They have features that no one actually wants like erratic rooflines, great rooms and oddly places veneer bricks. In short: these are bad houses. They optimize for maximizing square footage, resale value in a Keynesian beauty contest, while throwing all liability concerns to the winds. Contrast this with actual custom contemporary residential architecture. You get features like insulated wall assemblies, large eaves to reduce weathering and summertime thermal gains, roof lines that won't lead to maintenance nightmares and so on. Outside residential, I think you're spot on. Look at Boston's city hall. No one with affection for humanity would've built such a thing.