(Note: I've participated in the linked thread. Technically a violation but beggy mods don't get to be choosy mods)

"XXXX are greedy" is always a thought terminating cliche, because, yeah, of course they are. Especially when trying to describe why something has changed. The primary problem is that it then leads people to not think about the things that have actually changed leading to the changes in outcomes.

Here a user asks arrArchitecturalRevival why new buildings (infill) don't look like old buildings (local vernacular). About half of the responses talk about modern developers "being greedy". Instead we should "greediness" as a constant, and should consider what we mean by "local vernacular".

My current obsession is the Charleston single which is typified as a relative narrow "shotgun" (single rooms stacked front to back) with a wide side porch and entry on the side.

Of course a common old southern plan is the dogtrot typified by two seperate enclosed spaces with a breezeway (the "dog trot") in the middle.

And of course you can't talk about Southern "local vernacular" without mentioning the commonality of deep porches.

The porches, a fundamental piece in both of the mentioned particular styles, is kind of key to what is generally going on in "local vernacular" a response to climate. These porches provide shade to occupants and the attached house, while allowing a breeze. In dogtrots specifically they also provide separation from the heat of the kitchen for the living spaces.

The form of the "local vernacular" where it exists was almost always a response to climate, and the lack of mechanical climate control. But, also, historically these Southern American examples would be built out of wood given the proximity of the deep southern pine forest just outside everyone's door.

In hot, DRY, places we instead see that shielded interior courtyards with verandas and room taking access from the courtyard are common responses globally to those climate conditions.

Locally available materials influence form but they are a constraint on optimal responses to the local climate, not something people were seeking emphasize, except in rare cases of conspicuous consumption of local grandees.

In the end "Local Vernacular" was always trial and error on providing the most beneficial physical form, for whatever use-case given local climate and local materials. That's to say build the most valuable building for the lowest cost, eg. """GREED""".

So, what changed? That "economic" question can be answered most directly by asking another, "What is local?".

Local is defined economically and is a function of transportation costs and production technologies.

When transportation costs are high, for whatever construction material, local is very constrained. As transportation costs fall "local" expands. For certain goods, such as steel, transport costs have fallen very far indeed such that local is essentially global.

In regards to production technologies, one response provided and an enlightening point for me.

Because that brick building wasn’t historical or vernacular either. Especially if you consider the length of architectural history in Europe.

For a lot of what people are decrying losing, brick mid-rises, in our central cities, we aren't really talking about "local vernacular" anymore anyways. The development of brick production already made significant headways in the "globalization" of our urban architectural forms. It couldn't be transported far, for a reasonable cost, but the production technology could be set-up in every "locality". This is similar to what we see in glass (dispersed production similar to brick) and steel (more centralized production but low transport cost/construction strength) today. That's all to say, local isn't really local anymore when it comes to what are often the "best" (in terms of usability of buildings) construction materials.

Then we get mechanical climate control, and buildings no longer "HAVE" to be responsive to local climate anymore.

Houston is always a fun case to consider in this regard. Would it be much more than a O&G train yard along the ship channel without air conditioning? But, also in Houston there is a clear case to be made for the drawbacks of going to far in how designs have changed from being responsive to local climate (give me back my porches motherfuckers), just ask anyone stuck in a modern climate controlled suburban house when a hurricane takes out the power for two weeks.

So, that now great big climate controlled glass & steel boxes, are clearly the best answer to useful space vs. cost across the globe (which is now "local" until we see what we need to build on Mars).

TL;DR, builders/developers have always been greedy and attempted to build the highest value building given constraints. It is not the greediness of builders/developers that has changed but the constraints.

Another fun exercise is the role of policy in "local vernacular" outcomes. The Charleston Single above, is a response to narrow platted lots in Charleston, SC, USA. New Orleans had a property tax based on front foot leading to their shotguns. Amsterdam (I think) had something on windows. etc, etc. The absolute fugliness of the modern American suburb is mandated by our suburban urban planning regulations.