This is just trad vulgarity. There is no simple distinction between some abstract concept of "beauty" and different historical trends in design and architecture. Sure contemporary architecture can be terrible but the depth of engagement is atrocious on this subject. What are you talking about? Gothic influences? Roman? Greek? Does the author reference any modern architecture firms such as OMA or other less accessible ones? Midwit critique.
> It's a question of priority, not cost.<p>> Or could the view that a beautiful building can inspire students have been factored in?<p>This is a bizzare take. Ornamentation and extraneous detail cost money. They take more time and need more maintenance which in turn cost more money. Money that could instead be spent money building more schools and paying teachers more.
A still from Jacques Tati's film "Playtime" (1967): <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SS76YifzgN0/TBqlmteuTTI/AAAAAAAABYI/eRiMsdUGZKA/s1600/playtime7.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SS76YifzgN0/TBqlmteuTTI/AAAAAAAABY...</a>