Weird. I mean, when you criticized concrete I could see that as a complaint about brutalism, and I'd have agreed.

But if you're talking about buildings from the 19th or the first half of the 20th century, normally there's something good about them, IMO.

"De gustibus non est disputandum", of course.

Now I'm wondering what the better alternative is, though. Naturally good things can be done in many styles (there are also good modern contemporary and minimalist buildings).

I just am not a huge fan of this mixture of balloon framing, sheet rock, and cladding. It's probably better than brick or masonry for earthquakes, but apart from that it just seems flimsy.