I've come to believe that we're too abstract and afraid to say what we really mean. There are a few things that could be changed that would, IMHO, make a big difference in the aesthetic quality of new development without the need for "style" arguments.

- Roofs are flat. HVAC equipment is put on the roof. This allows a maximum use of zoned floor area.

--> Solution: write a roof/attic allowance into zoning codes.

- Trees are too small. Developers want to avoid maintenance difficulties with trees, so they plant dwarf varieties that don't provide shade.

--> Solution: fund tree management as a public good. Offer incentives for preserving existing trees.

- Buildings are surrounded by Stepfordesque hedges that look unnatural. Green space is crammed into noodle-shaped setbacks that are too narrow to support anything like a garden. Mulch is everywhere.

--> Solution: replace setbacks wherever possible with access easements and open space requrements.

I couldn't care less what the big famous buildings look like. I don't spend much time near them anyway. That's a high-class problem. No wonder it's a duel between the right and the yuppies.

As to why flat roofs are ugly? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it has to do with flat-topped things being uncommon in nature. It's a structure made possible only by decently sophisticated engineering, what with the stress on corners and the need for drainage. It makes the occipital lobe think it's missing something.