Interesting use of archaeology in the 1800s...and a 1901 reaction to it

The 1901 Modern British Domestic Architecture and Decoration, edited by Charles Holme, again in its article "Upon House-Building in the Twentieth Century," spoke of how people aped archaeological finds without consideration of how suitable they were to people's needs, especially in a different part of the planet. The writer, Edward S. Prior, suggests that

House and garden might come together into
pleasant companionship without being modelled on the plan of an Italian villa. The convenience of a common-room, the general
meeting and living-room of the house, might be contrived without

its aping a mediaeval hall. A stately staircase might be set up and be no copy of one in a Queen Anne house or a Genoese palace. Each bedroom might have its separate bathroom, and the contrivance of them not be tortured to the shape of Gothic turrets. So too the ease and comfort of roomy fireplaces and wood- lined rooms might be achieved without the guilt of plagiarising from a Jacobean farm.

I'm not sensitive to borrowing from history -- I'm a time traveler, after all! -- but not at the expense of great discomfort or inconvenience day to day. I'm much more sensitive to things being faked, as spoken of in the last post -- perhaps because I've seen many originals, so fake arches, fake wood, etc. are very jarring and unpleasant to me....What do you think?