My range of what I like in real estate is a little narrow (minded). What I really like is 1988 to 1996 (+/-) "transitional" style...not exactly traditional with all the symmetry, but with mostly hip roofs, a lot of brick, at least 8:12 roof pitch, and the front of the house (rooms, entry, garage) on different masses. Sounds complicated, but this is what they still build a lot of in the suburbs of Houston, for example. There was some of this going on in Atlanta, too, and the stucco (a departure for the South) didn't look that bad. They also built this style in Seattle and Portland during the same period, with less brick or stone, and definitely not stucco because of the constant moisture. I like the same kind of thing in townhomes, except that they would put a 2-car garage underneath and then a person walks up to the entry on level 2. The bedrooms would be on level 3.
I don't like older homes at all and don't like the new wave into the craftsman/bungalow look. The PNW switched over to craftsman style (almost exclusively) in the late 90s.
Drew, I've seen some of the "inventory" I like, and at a price I like, in some PIT suburbs...with most of that stuff showing up in Adams Township on searches (I have no clue if that's good or bad) and other places that end with the word "township." I actually prefer to live in the suburbs...it's a lot quieter, so, I lived in the north suburbs of Atlanta and the East Side (across the lake and the bridges) in Seattle. I find that people who are just as interesting and smart live in the suburbs, so I don't mind it at all, despite the fact that a lot of people bristle at the thought of living in suburbia.
Back on topic, the topic of the life cycle of urban and metro areas is always an area of fascination...so is the "shelf life" of what is cool and uncool in residential architecture...