[slide_rule]

^sure you can. but because these neo-historicist styles will still have the constraints of prefab materials, higher labor costs, and need a ____ return on investment, their aesthetics will be compromised and they won't be as timeless as the 'truly' classical architecture they're vaguely based upon.

you've mentioned the need for historic styles and what not. unfortunately styles change. and the styles that you crave right now may not be fashionable in the future. in the 90s, po-mo was in style and people insisted on getting pink stucco. now those buildings are slowly deteriorating and are seen as artifacts from an unenlightened age. in another generation or so, the vast majority of the neo-historicist stuff built now will be showing their age and most likely be supplanted by something else. it's happened that way in previous generations, and it'll happen again. in fact, developers partially depend on shifting architectural fashions to continually build newer (and generally farther) developments in all directions. it's not sustainable and is an example of our slash 'n burn type development patterns.

you could argue that the styles you like are timeless. well, they're based on an ideal of timeless architecture. but then i could easily cite myriad examples of modern architecture that have stood the test of time too. could anyone guess the bank of china building was built 20 odd years ago?

the vast majority of what's built (regardless of a modern or neo-historic style) are built to a cost and will not be timeless, as their proportions are already compromised and will progressively deteriorate with age and wear.

you could cite your present wardrobe as the embodiment of style. give it another few decades, and we'll see if they're still as catchy. fashion is fickle, and people who mistake fashion with some objective standard are just deluding themselves.