> Architects, we have to admit, are under-performing in the metric of "creating new architectural styles and schools of thought" and over-performing in "number

> Architects, we have to admit, are under-performing in the metric of "creating new architectural styles and schools of thought" and over-performing in "number of uninspiring designs." I don't see a problem, except in the unimaginative repetition of obsolete styles. There have always been lots of uninspired buildings, just like there have been uninspired songs - the pop music of 50 years ago wasn't better, it's just survivor bias. They are obsolete now because they were designed for a certain situation: The affordable building materials, skills, engineering, etc. If you want to follow tradition, and innovate new designs now for the new situation - that's what they did, and back then people all complained about anything new, just like now. We were a culture that embraced innovation, now we're actively killing it, IME, as people seem to have embraced thoughtless, irrational conservatism. (General thoughtlessness - an acceptance of the abandonment of reason - is killing it more.) It's socially acceptable to make these statements, people will even cheer you on, so people make them. You can see the almost standardized rhetoric, including the definitive language as if there is no other possibility they can imagine. If even HN doesn't embrace innovation, who will?