Junkspace as Honest Space

In our discussions in class, it seems that Rem Koolhaas' view on Junkspace has been somewhat debunked - albeit in a valid way; not about its existence, but about its connotation of purpose. We all agree that Junkspace is usually a result of our 21st century obsession with commodified, money-making architecture. However, as a frequent user of shopping malls and other everyday places that appear banal and uninteresting, I can account for the fact that they are still relevant and necessary. Beyond that, these spaces have remained in a state (regardless of your generation) where people can be themselves, while still creating a unique collective identity that rarely exists elsewhere. 

This quote from Rem Koolhaas' article Junkspace struck me in an interesting way: 

"Junkspace is the sum total of our current achievement; we have built more than did all previous generations put together, but somehow we do not register on the same scales. We do not leave pyramids. According to a new gospel of ugliness, there is already more Junkspace under construction in the twenty-first century than has survived from the twentieth..."

My main question on this is, does all architecture need to have the same expectation of monumental existence equal to that of the pyramids? Also, since the spaces he considers "Junkspace" are so popular and enjoyed by many communities, why does it have such a negative connotation that assumes "ugliness" and uselessness? I propose that malls and spaces where the public can freely intermingle should instead be called Honest Spaces.