Imagine you inherit a COBOL codebase, would you expand it further or would you try to add a functional microservice in the language of the day?
Ok, you can say: the codebase is not COBOL, is C and is beautifully done. However all architects studied Art History and Aesthetics, so, at least, they have a more informed opinion on what defines a good codebase than a layman. Probably we could give them the benefit of the doubt.
More like a hive-mind indoctrination on the legacy of tired modernism and its contemporary varieties.
Seeing an old building as COBOL - something not to be inspired from and immitate and continue to build similarly, but to rewrite and replace with something entirely else - is an example of that.
Better to see a Le Corbusier building as Brainfuck:
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++
..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.
They are not teaching aesthetics any more. They threw away the casts and teach ‘concept’. Students aren’t taught how to approach Michelangelo’s David, they’re taught how to approach Duchamp’s fountain. I heard a professor espouse that Twombly was some enormous departure from Pollock, an artistic revolution as great a distance as Picasso from Velasquez.
Twombly: https://www.google.com/search?q=cy+twombly&client=safari&hl=...
Pollock: https://www.google.com/search?q=jackson+pollock&client=safar...
The emperor has no clothes.