[wouldbecouldbe]

Yeah modern in the historic classification of the term, not in the way of speaking. Most people normally consider modern housing last decades. Lots of building up untill the second world ware are gorgous, but not considered modern by most people.

For instance Berlage in Amsterdam is modern in your classifcation. And his buildings grace Amsterdam, but most people would consider them "older", he was living around the same time of Gaudi.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Petrus_Berlage

[pixl97]

>Lots of building up untill the second world ware are gorgous

I think you may have severely underestimated the population growth and need for housing after WWII. The world had not seen population growth like that before. The US and Europe cast away their ornate designs and focused on a burgeoning population in the US and rebuilding quickly in Europe.

[wouldbecouldbe]

I'm mostly stating an observation. But even so, that excuse would not hold up for the last decades. Architects still keep going to produce hideous things; and not at all being introspective about it.

Probably has to do with utilitarian and post-modernism; and a general deconstructionism of beauty; which is nice as a philosophy but just not inline with the general experience of a human. On top of that, architectural ego's make it worse.

Let alone Canada & Northern US, they combine it with a terrible city planning strategy, moving most utitilities such as shopping, entertainment & parcs, to a mall only reachable with car. Calgary must the most depressive unlivable city I've ever visited.

Everything produced last decade is either boring and uninspiring for instance:https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2GMG3GJ/new-modern-apartment-block..., or has to be weird and original in the "brand" of the Architect (for instance Rem Koolhaas).