Why are new buildings uglier than old ones? This is an incredibly common question, asked most recently by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. Caveats aside — there are some truly beautiful modern buildings out there, including ones that don't revive past styles — even the least nostalgic urbanists should concede that too many modern buildings are drab or unsightly, and that such eyesores undermine public support for other new developments. It doesn't follow, however, that we should give up on modern architecture entirely and freeze the existing built environment in place, as many NIMBYs (not in my backyard) believe.
Not only is this unrealistic — cities are necessarily growing, living ecosystems, not museums — but it would actually, counterintuitively, make matters worse. NIMBYism is, in fact, one of the causes of ugliness in our cities. It's not the only one; some argue that higher labour and construction costs have led architects to cut back on "pretty" ornamentation (though on the plus side, workers get paid more and don't die on worksites as often).
Conversely, others argue that losing the frilly bits was an aesthetic choice. But on top of these economic and cultural forces, urban blights are often caused by architects and developers expediently responding to the planning system — a system built to appease NIMBYs. The story often goes like this.
An architect will design a reasonably nice apartment block and the developer will file the requisite planning appli.