> They should be trying to mesh with and improve the neighborhood they are in. They should be rooted in time and place.
I take it you are not familiar with FLW's philosophy? He believed buildings should mirror their environment using local materials and forms that fit into the landscape. He definitely wasn't in favor of the houses you seem to be describing, which don't fit their environment or local nature. That doesn't mean his buildings can't be considered beautiful or art. Art can fit into and mirror its environment.
A house can be aesthetically appealing and matched to its surroundings without being leaky or damp. A house that is ugly and out of place can also be leaky and damp (they often are because those architects often are also prioritizing form over function, but an ugly form instead of an appealing form).
Yes, and those houses are by definition the traditional architectural vernacular of the area. Traditional architecture in each area evolves from survivor bias and navigating delicate trade-offs in the climate they are placed over long time frames.
I take it you are not familiar with FLW's philosophy? He believed buildings should mirror their environment using local materials and forms that fit into the landscape. He definitely wasn't in favor of the houses you seem to be describing, which don't fit their environment or local nature. That doesn't mean his buildings can't be considered beautiful or art. Art can fit into and mirror its environment.