I’m not sure I agree with these examples and I’m not big on architecture criticism like this. I think it’s important not to overvalue a building based on how it looks - 99.9% of your time will be spent inside the building, .1% or less will be spent outside looking at it. Modern houses can be much nicer inside: larger open areas, larger kitchens, larger bathrooms and (usually) less lead paint and asbestos.

The same goes for office buildings, where I think the conservation movement overvalues the small amount of time people spend looking at a building vs the huge amount of time people work inside it. I’ve been in old beautiful office buildings in NYC and modern ugly office buildings and the modern buildings usually have a much better working environment and layout.

Example 1 looks fine to me, I would be happy to live in this house. It’s not beautiful but it’s not ugly.

Example 2 is ugly, the windows on the front are weird and the side has too few windows. My main issues with McMansions is they look cheaper than older houses because of the materials and sometimes facades have no windows or few windows, while old houses tend to have more windows and they are evenly balanced.

Example 3 looks fine, it’s almost pretty.

Example 4 would be better if the dark brick part on the house’s left had a window, and the white brick with random dark bricks is kind of ugly. Not terrible though.

Example 5 looks fine and I like red brick houses.

Example 6 is okay too.

I’d be happy with most of these houses if they had a nice interior and nice yard.