You do realize that you mention only 2-3 buildings per city while there are what... around 25 different buildings in the game? Also once your empire grows with more cities, you'll notice you only build a few of the same buildings in each of them apart from those cities you already mentioned.
Let me ask you a different question. Where is the logic in limiting the buildings in your empire? Or at least in this degree? Did the Roman Empire only have a market place and university in a few key production cities? You got to admit the maintaining-cities-part in Civ4 had a closer resemblance to how past empires were run.
Not to mention how unrealistic the effects would be on happiness in an actual empire... it has been mentioned how in Civ4 buildings had a high ROI. Hammer-wise I might agree, but it just makes more sense if a marketplace around 1000AD gives extra happiness as well as increased commerce. Universities do spread culture as well as increased education... etc.
In fact I think in Civ4 they should have given buildings even more importance. Not building a hospital in modern age? Happiness penalty just like emancipation civic.
I went and checked I have a total of 33 buildings and 5 wonders in my 6 cities by 1450. I am not sure that I'm going to get any more cities. I may annex Rome and Tokyo after I conquer them.
. By this stage in Civ IV virtually every core city would have a temple, library, granary, forge, marketplace, courthouse and most cases a monastery. Some cities would have a barracks, stable, lighthouse, harbor, perhaps a theater or aqueduct where needed . I would actively be building University, Bank, and probably a Grocery in all core cities. I am guessing that by this stage in Civ IV I'd have 50-60 buildings. So roughly 50% to twice as many building as a Civ V.
My objection to Civ IV is that because the buildings are so good, I suspect that 90% of the good Civ IV players would agree with my list as must have for core cities. With the only disagreements being if you don't need happiness why build a temple and if you are running at 80+% science why build a marketplace. Obviously the conquest players would laugh and say forget buildings make an army. The fact that us builder agree makes it a not a very interesting strategy discussion. The only disagreement is the order of builds not the value of these core buildings.
In Civ V rather than having too few choices of good building, I am finding the opposite problem. I want to have a University, and Bank, and Colosseum in all of my cities because they are worthwhile buildings. My problems is I have to prioritize between these three (and a bunch of other buildings). If I don't have banks, I now I'll run out of money in a 1a few hundred years as army and maintenance cost increases, but if I don't build the university my science will stall. Finally I only have 3 happiness so must increase this with a Colosseum or I'll stop growing. Gosh there just isn't enough hammers to go around, forcing me to make tough strategic choices. I think is the essence of a good strategy game which is what Sid said.
You may right from an historical perspective, although I have seen plenty of the ruins of Roman baths all over there empire, I have never seen a Roman University ruin. Where is one. I also think there is only one Colosseum. Not mention Rome is a unfair example because of the special ability makes easier for them to duplicate buildings
Now I forget to add. I think the game would be enhance by lower the hammer cost of all the non science building (which all have 50% bonus larger than Civ IV) by 10% or so. I also agree mostly with particularly bad building posted by the OP. I think these would need to be cheaper and/or enhanced to make them worth building on a fairly regular basis. Overall I think the goal for Civ buildings is that all of the building should be worth building some of the time, and none or at least only a few should be worth building all of the time.
