Diagrams, Volvos, and Lee Hall

Today in class the question was asked if we can draw from "critical" and "projective" architecture in our work presently. From here discussion turned to designing architecture we would want to be in. While I do agree that this was the direction the architectural community turned towards as with the development of the diagram, I wonder if the intent lead to a similar result. The idea is that a design process that took its cues from history, culture, topography, existing context, etc. would generate a building that people want to be in. However, I want to ask the question if this actually creates successful architecture. 

This method of creating architecture from a diagrammatic process is the "right" approach to a studio project in today's academic studio. In each of my projects in each of my studios, I have begun with a diagram that informs a new diagram which leads to another diagram which generates a design. By the end of this process, I am left with a building that I have invested so much thought and heart into, I cannot imagine an alternative solution that would accomplish what I set out to accomplish. However, as I look back now and develop my portfolio, I don't know if I like any of my projects. Once I have been removed from the process, I am unsure how I feel about the result. Is it a building I would want to be in? I don't know. However, I don't know if that is me being critical of my own work, or if that is me just being honest with myself.

So if I feel this about my own work, is this how professional architects operate as well? Are these new pieces of architecture, the ones that seem to be full of meaning as they are so informed by a series of arbitrary diagrams, actually spaces we want to inhabit? This debate makes me think of my new car. Before I had a Volvo, I never thought twice about them. But ever since I started driving mine, I am instantly attracted to any other Volvo I see on the road. In my opinion they are one of the most attractive cars around. But have I always thought that? Or is this a new development of having owning one myself? I think it is the latter.

As architecture students, we study buildings more than the average Joe. Lee III has become a place I want (let's ignore that I am forced) to inhabit because I understand the diagram behind the design. However, does the person who doesn't know the story of Lee Hall want to inhabit it? In other words, is the diagram, a tool drawn form projective architecture, really a tool that ensures a building the community wants to be in?