I second you. You make me try here to discuss again a pet idea of mine, which get always a rough rebuttal from my friend architects when I try to explain it to them...

I personally can't stand anymore these uninspired modern steel / glas buildings we see everywhere. I believe that the "modern" standard building is successful not because everybody like it , but mainly because its repetitive geometrical motives are much easier to design/ to build: no craftsmanship needed, only a "geometra" (as in the italian "casa da geometra"), some not so skilled labor, and very short lead times.
Proof is that some exceptions like the extremely complicated buildings like Guggenheim Museum of Frank Gehry are just that, exceptions: nobody can afford it, and few people can execute it.
Here come my pet idea: if you don't have stonecarvers anymore, use the computer people you have aplenty. I am convinced that some technologies of the mechanical engineering field I came across in my professional life could be scaled up for giving back to the architects the freedom of fine non repetitive details, curves and 3D characterisation of the facade, with reasonable extra-costs and the building skills and materials of today. But every time I try to explain how, my friends architects laugh at me: No way it happens!
I am said that if such a facade would cost say only 5% more than today Mondrian-but-please-without-the-expensive-colors alike fronts, nobody would pay for it. Such innovation is not needed, I can forget my ideas. No problem with the mirror walls everywhere in the city, everybody is happy, no need to change.
But we pay for riots or city-dwellers depressions...

La répartie est dans l'escalier. Elle revient de suite.