There appears to be no sense of pride in the design of newer housing. Nothing to draw the eye, nothing to say that the architect or builder was interested in anything other than squeezing as many people into as small a space as possible

It's not like architecture of the past was alien to cheap, small houses in an attempt to pack in as many as possible. You could guess that you are in the north from that street, but it could be anywhere from Liverpool to Newcastle. The country is absolutely littered with terraced housing which was made exactly for that. Copy and paste homes aren't a new phenomenon. Look at upscale new developments and you'll notice that they are more interesting, have plenty to 'draw in the eye', take this one for example, even if you don't like the style it's fair to say the development has put some effort into making the houses look slightly different at least.

I say this everytime someone suggests that architecture of the past was better (not that I am suggesting you are saying that). People are quick to point to grand old buildings and say "don't make 'em like they used to" but what they are forgetting is that cities of 30,50,70 years ago had just as many shit buildings are we do now, what people don't realise is that generally only the best of them survive. It's an on going cycle, 70 years ago they lived with the shit buildings they made, they were demolished and developed, the best remained. Today we live with the shit buildings we've made, they will be demolished and developed, the best will remain.

To me, it's not so much that new houses are poor fullstop. It's cheap houses that are poor, but that's always been the way. The difference is that cheap houses in the past were, well... cheap? Today they are expensive, and 'expensive' houses are have become unobtainable for most people.