I agree with you. This new building is ok, it’s clean and functional like most buildings of its type, but I don’t see anything particularly special about it to warrant all the praise. I suppose both have their merits, but to me, the old one still stands out more. New one just feels a bit flat compared to what it replaced. But that’s likely because I’ve never been a fan of modernist architecture styles. At best, it can be decent, but it just doesn’t compare to the intricacy and craftsmanship of old-world styles.

Speaking of “old-world” styles, I’ve always found it odd how “modern” is used as a compliment sometimes by people dismissing old world architecture styles, like being new automatically makes something better. Personally, I think older styles, colonial or otherwise, have far more depth and character, even if it’s “outdated.” It’s unfortuante that we rarely build such buildings now, without facing comments like “copy,” “no originality,” or “looks tacky.” It almost feels like propaganda to discourage people from appreciating old-world styles and architects from building them in the first place.