I didn't say it was coincidental - I said the opposite. A straightforward construction system, used to the same end, several cenuries apart: of course there's going to be a resemblance. Why did Holden express the beams in that way? You ask that question as if his choice to express structure is in some way a result of his classical training. The expression of structure is by no means exclusive to classical or historical architecture. In fact classical architecture is arguably largely about faking-up structure. Many of its motifs are derived from timber architecture and have little relevance, in a structural sense, to the way one builds in masonry. Holden chose to express the roof structure because he wanted to. A few decades later Rogers & Co decided to express the structure of the Pompidou centre because they wanted to: "Fetish for glass and steel" is yet another cliche - what is that supposed to mean, actually? Do you think all contemporary architects have an urge to make everything out of glass and steel? Or do you think it might be something to do with the practicalities of building large structures (which obviously tend to be the most noticeable ones)? Yes they are. In some cases it is ideological, in some cases it is practical. This just seems to illustrate the confusion in these discussions: imitating the past is a completely different thing to conserving it. I'd put money on the vast majority of modern, even modernist, architects having a much greater respect and love for true historic buildings than the average member of the public.