The beginning of 20th century was a complete rejection of this aesthetic because it's really just trying to come off as something it isn't really. So the Arts & Crafts movement began where simplicity and high quality became more important. This was a complete rejection of victorian aesthetics.
Saying that, many examples of Victorian styled homes in pre-war towns are beautiful and far more appreciated today. Even still you see some that are just confused in what they're trying to be (we might call them "eclectic" today), similar to many McMansions today where they use ideas out of context.
Like our McMansions of today, the houses often combine aspects that on their own can be nice in ways that don't quite "fit".
But in todays context it’s a simply gorgeous home. “Eclectic” if anything but it has stood the test of time.
But I imagine looking at it from that period and it probably looks like a poorly designed McMansion today. Except for built with really great materials.
Just compare a period revival built in 1915 to one from 1970. It probably isn’t even close which one not only looks better but also uses the right lines, moldings, etc. I think there was simply a better understanding by architects about what details a particular style of home should and should not have.
But yes a well constructed modern home is probably better in most ways than an old home. Better waterproofed, more efficient, engineered better, etc. If built well which I’d argue most modern homes aren’t unfortunately. But I have seen modern homes framed out entirely in engineered wood, have advanced sheathing and waterproofing and high-end siding. Will last many generations.
Modern building science has raced past those, but not all construction crews are utilizing them; which is sad. Many times there's not an increased cost at all; it's simply correctly using materials.
It's the #1 reason I'd hire multiple home inspectors during construction if I ever have a house built.