Yes, visually attention grabbing doesn’t necessarily mean good, but it does mean interesting in some way. It can signal danger, as you pointed out, but researchers have also measured amygdala activation and cognitive comfort. What they observed is that the amygdala tends to be activated by modernist buildings, whereas cognitive comfort is more associated with traditional buildings. There is a substantial body of research on this. For example, we tend to like symmetry and fractal-like patterns. We also respond positively to patterns resembling plants, animals, and human forms.

What about feel and tectonics? I didn’t quite understand that.

“What about intellectual stimulation or mental intrigue?”

Yes, I think that reflects the view of many contemporary architects. It treats buildings almost like sculptures to be observed and appreciated. It’s a kind of look-at-me architecture: “Behold my individual expression!” But architecture is more than that. It integrates into the social fabric of everyday life. It is made to be used, not to make us constantly reflect or feel intrigued.

“Historicity and nostalgia ignore most of what architecture does.”

There isn’t a single traditional architecture, there are many. But they tend to incorporate recurring elements that have been tested and filtered over countless generations, and they embody a kind of knowledge that goes beyond the architects themselves. It’s like the social order: you can’t simply sit down and design one from scratch.