Here in New England everyone seems to like to build neo-Greek revival. The original Greek Revival was referencing the original Greek. The first revival was far away from the original in form as well as geographical location and had its own set of clearly defined rules set out in builders guide books. The neo-Greek revival tries to copy the second coming but, too often, without the rules. So to a trained eye (or even not so trained) it generally fails miserably although enough people seem to think its lovely that there is plenty of it around. Point being; there is room for anything in terms of aesthetics and you never know what's going to stick. Give it 100 years and let history be the judge. I suspect that this may prove to be a weird point in history when people wanted new homes that looked old - a steampunk sort of thing. I am starting to see a shift in perspective already. I often work in the Greek revival style because it puts food on the table but also because there is also a lot to learn from it which is applicable to my more modern work. The New England historians remind us that all those old Greek revival village homes look so lovely because they tore down the ones that were ugly. Form and function and beauty are fine and good starting points but as ~~an architect~~ a person who has experienced what happens when architecture goes beyond those three things, I shall never stop trying to achieve that higher goal.Even when people think I'm nuts.