Architecture which does not fetishize the engineering aesthetic, which is mindful of its impact on the public realm, and which does not consider the building-proper as an artistic expression in and of itself.
Basically, anything before modernism, before WW1 is generally good. Or really, anything before cars. The rise of car culture and the decline of architecture are directly correlated.
Wow, everything you list as bad is everything I consider good. Nothing is worse for a neighborhood than the tyranny of ordinances requiring homogenized, historic designs.
It's a good thing there's more than one building in the world. Everyone should be able to live, work, and design spaces they like, within the local scale (so no 80 floor highrises next to houses if they don't want it, but props to the houses if they do want the highrise). That means you might end up with a glass box next to a pre-WW1 stone box. That's a good thing -- there's no reason a long-passed generation should have the final say in architecture at the expense of the present.
Basically, anything before modernism, before WW1 is generally good. Or really, anything before cars. The rise of car culture and the decline of architecture are directly correlated.
I personally had a hard time articulating why I found contemporary architecture so revolting, it was just a feeling. Then I found videos by Leon Krier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFiYL8AvvnY), or Nathan Lewis's blog series on the topic (https://newworldeconomics.com/category/traditional-city-post...), and everything suddenly just clicked.