Arguing with peers over architecture

In my company we have big old monolith, so I understand that not much can be done within the legacy spaghetti code.

I was lucky enough to write my own, new part of the application (new domain). My team did it using nice cqrs, ddd and onion architecture. Clean and neat. Couple other programmes said it is the cleanest code they every saw.

Fast forward…

Now my team and one other team got new realtively small project (not CRUD) to start, and work together. I proposed the easiest cqrs (stripped to bare minimum), basics of ddd and basic onion architecture. Now I'm "flighting" against my director, another manager, and 2 backend developers because they want 2 separate sub-projects with standard 3tier approach with anemic domain classes and all business logic in services, procedural code.

I have feeling like they don't understand benefits of ddd, cqrs etc. And like I'm being forced to go back 10-15 years.

I offered my help and training to them to help to understand it, so they can appreciate it's benefits. Didn't helped.

Any advice or comments? And yes, I'm bit frustrated at the moment.

P.s. I'm almost sure that once we start with wrong architecture, this project will never be refactored properly.