Is timelessness even possible anymore?

At the end of the text a proposition is made to abandon a form of critical architecture towards one that is projective. That projective architecture shouldn't be a “capitulation to market forces...”. Unless I missed the obvious answer in the text, why would a projective approach to architecture capitulate under market forces vs the established critical method?

This text put into words thoughts I've had for a while about architecture and the architect's role in society. Design is applicable to most things we do/create in our lives although a very small part of the population is aware of it. The text alludes to taking a critical approach to architecture as a reason why architecture can be so heterogeneous and is losing validity within the professional world. By taking an approach of projective architecture the field becomes less exclusive, becoming more approachable to certain groups that don't relate with the established architectural approach and opening possibilities in fields where architects don’t usually participate in.   

This approach liberates us from the “idea” of architecture towards an understanding that the possibilities are limitless. It has always seemed to me like something is missing from our current approach to practice; a lot was lost when our profession was industrialized. Our profession is many times called “the last renaissance” profession although architects nowadays can’t even design the interiors of their buildings. In a way this is going back to a multidisciplinary approach to our built environment, trying to bridge the gaps that were created by specialization. The difference is that now we have a set of tools in the design process and an accumulation of theory to help us out.

Another thing I find fascinating about this approach is a sense of humbleness that comes from creating something for others to interpret on their own. Architecture today is about making a statement (starchitects) or imposing a “narrative” on a building. Haven’t we realized by now that even our closest neighbor has a completely different way of interpreting the world? Does anyone ever understand the original intent of the architect? Does the architect himself/herself even see that intent materialized after all is said and done and a building is value engineered to hell? Why would we limit ourselves to one meaning/narrative? Is timelessness even possible anymore?