When is the revolution in architecture coming?

This is the one area driven purely by economic factors, any developer commissioning the building will let the architect have free reign on the exterior or overall building shape on the proviso that it maximizes leasable floorspace inside. Exciting and interesting interior spaces either use up space or are less marketable catering to a smaller subsection of the market.

Hopefully, much of the oppressive and ugly modernist rubbish will wither away over time. Shaming bad architecture openly and mercilessly is a public service (after all, we must live in the damned world built by these architects, and they seem not to care about the damage they inflict, so gloves are off). Also, architecture programs need some disruption. Maybe a ranking based on what they teach. University administration loves, and fears, the almighty ranking. They've got a noose around the neck of academia. Time to put a noose around their necks. Funding and its deprivation is another lever in this regard.

In the interim, it's also possible to work with some of the stuff that's already here[0] in very simply ways if financial constraints and practical considerations prevent razing offending architecture and building greenfield. It doesn't take all that much to turn a mediocre building into something that's at least passable. The real difficulty is when the architect has painted you into a corner by producing some weird construction that forms a rigid and perverse totality of which nothing can be saved. Yes, looking at the poop building in the article. You cannot expand or extend or modify that building. Don't let the mood lighting reflecting off its surface fool you here either. You don't fix the problem of oppressive and ugly austerity by building things that look like shit.

I also sympathize with taking on local architectural traditions, but only in a way that refines them and in a way that respects aesthetic principles. Gaudy buildings that look like something that belongs in Vegas or Atlantic City are not fun or "whimsical". They're gaudy.

[0] https://www.stroik.com/portfolio/infant-of-prague-cloister

I compare modernist architecture and architects to James Joyce's "Ulysses": lot of writers and critics love Ulysses but to most of us it's incomprehensible. To have any chance of appreciating Ulysses you have to have an understanding of literature and then work at applying that to the text. (I also suspect there's a bit of intellectual snobbery.)

I am not an architect but I've done a far amount of amateur studying and I find some modernist architecture interesting and/or fascinating. It definitely helps to understand what the architect was trying to accomplish. I can see why other architects--who have the background to understand--would like the examples in the original article.

But public buildings shouldn't require the general public to have a background in architecture to appreciate them. This disconnect between architects and the public is the root of the problem.

I actually prefer the modern ones to the old ones (... well some of them at least).

A bit of an aside - I have often wondered what makes "good" architecture, i.e. what is it about a space that means it is still a "good" place to be. There are many examples of both "old", "post-war", and "modern" architecture in London where the spaces are still great spaces and inspiring and welcoming and just work for their purpose, and likewise there are examples where they are depressing and miserable.

What is the "magic formula" for this that makes a building or space work? There has to be some theory on this, but if so why are "bad" buildings still made?

Having visited several times for meetings, the main thing that stands out to me is how the interior has the decorative sense and aesthetics of a shopping mall. It’s pretty awful.