"Thirties style modernisn was mostly the later and had little to speak for it."
Really?
McGraw Hill Building, New York by dct66 | flickr
That is 1930s modernism. I think it is pretty bold, especially the colour. At a time when almost every building was brown brick, and heavily ornamented, this building was a bold new concept. Green, and lightly ornamented. Now, the modernism from the late fifties through to the mid 80s was trendy, and mass produced, with little meaning. Not that the era didn't have it's share of significant buildings (Sears, Hancock, IDS in mpls, Seagram, all great examples of Modernism) but there was a lot of fluff. But then when you look at a lot of the old buildings we're trying to save, they have little going for them other than their age. And the modern buildings in many ways are just severely distorted same-old same-old from the 70s. Set Malmö's Turning Torso straight and it's actually a pretty ugly building. The original Freedom Tower Design with the big ugly cage on top (and the new one with the big blank slab on the bottom) fit into your definition of 'new and more relevant than anything else' and they are, frankly, hideous pieces of shit. I guess I'm between you and hhnc. I don't entirely hate modern buildings, but I can admit that a lot of them are absolute tripe. And I can agree that a lot of buildings being re-done in architectural styles of the past are 'morally wrong' and just shouldn't be. But I don't think we should forget the past - we should draw on it for inspiration. But we shouldn't look to the past for all the answers either, there is a lot of inspiration in the future as well.
The present is where the past and future meet, make it so. And personally, I think the most timeless architecture is that 60s/70s modernism, which still has stray examples dotting the 21st century. Done right, it can be quite good.
If architecture is supposed to reflect our culture, reviving architectural styles of old presents a present yearning for the past.
(Now, how incoherent was that?
)