Architecture has since Roman times been most often clothed in something different from the structure. Tudor is an exception. The problem today is the fragility of most construction systems we used.

For example, stucco doesn’t tolerate movement like wood, while it’s right at home on masonry, so stucco on frame requires a ton of control joints, otherwise the manufacturers won’t warrant it.

So stucco goes from being read as stucco to being read as “some colored stucco-like substance” much like Michael Pollan’s “food-like substances.” So it loses the longstanding meaning and associations of stucco.

I’d suggest that much of the broad dissatisfaction with architecture is because it has devolved from being clothed in things known to being clothed in things unknown which feel insubstantial.

With some clothing such as lingerie, insubstantial is good, as is a tent in the woods. But for longterm shelter, most people tend to want things that seem capable of sheltering them.