Never before in the history of HUMANKIND was there architecture that didn’t have gaudy ornamentation and historicist references. Never ever

This guy has done the minimum viable Wikipedia research to talk about the subject (name drop Corbusier, CIAMs and the Athens Charter; read some Salingaros to add an educated reactionary perspective) and wrote a book about it. Embarassing

This is the absolute state of “American conservatives”, an orgy of cucks who built a grift on crying “new thing bad” to the skies, stoking some false sense of historical ties to tradition and pocketing donor money from a circle of 80 year olds larping as XIXth century Europeans

The guy is an actual architecture historian and professor with more academic titles to his name than I care to count, and yet on this subject he comes across as having the same level of education and thought put in it as the average reader of Architectural Revival. What the fuck

The larpers will trumpet his credentials as proof that he’s right, I’m trumpeting his credentials as proof that academia is full of grifters among the serious scholars and that any industrious idiot in it can make a career to end up publishing this trash

The wording itself reveals a complete lack of nuance and perspective, and abundance of bias for the things that he likes. Even Roger Scruton cared at the very least to make clear his admiration for the quality of eg. Mies villas among his scathing criticism of modernism

The most charitable explanation I could conceive of is that he tailored his writing to the appetite of the readership, but no, he’s relentless with ignorance until the end, equating contemporary architecture to the ‘Modern Movement’, including architects who have openly bashed it