One of the things that happened in the last century was the de-emphasizing of churches. A lot of them were built to look like other things, barns for instance.
However, in the last decade, there has been a revival even outside of traditional circles to reclaim the church as a building type. We are still in the growing pains phase of this revival and so we aren't quite up to the standard of even the early 20th century, but we're getting there. The problem is, now we often get churches that are close but are very obviously not quite there. And since it's not just a barn and the congregation has paid millions for it, there's no hope of replacement for a while.
I call these churches "churches that might have been." Here is an example, the first in a series:
What I don't understand is how they decided to put the new church at such an ange with the original church facade. The continuity is just plain absent. It however is very nice in its materials, it looks like, and give off a generally good impression. Inside, however, there is a huge absence of natural light. It's kind of atrocious.