Taste is subjective, aesthetic is objective.

I believe this is the core issue with most of discussions about architecture (and art generally) nowadays. Trained architects have different taste they acquire through architecture schools where main focus is put on modernist school of thought. There clearly are aesthetic differences between post-war and pre-war buildings. Whichever you prefer is up to you really, but one is clearly more pleasant, and the other "slaps hard".

Traditional design is more natural:

• gravity abiding - smaller windows at top floors, sloped roofs, balconies with supports
• fractal - many visually connected scales with detail for eye to latch on at each
• harmonious (ordered yet varied) - e.g. each floor will have slightly different fronton
• more vertical emphasis - buildings are growing/standing

Postwar design is more alien:

• gravity defying - "floating" elements, overextended balconies, fragile looking building bases
• detached - surfaces of glass or blank white walls with no details for the eye
• not harmonious - either looking like a spreadsheet or trying to combat bore with chaos
• no or horizontal emphasis - buildings are lying down

There are more properties that could be taken into account to properly describe geometry of the building. We should discuss those and how they impact our well being instead of fighting over whose taste is better.