New Junk

It seems that there is no problem with the building of every ages embracing the needs of every age. Modern architecture satisfied modernity, as it did in the eighteenth century to the industrial revolution. Both of them bear new functions at their time, which inevitably destabilized architects' self-consistent explanations of architecture. So why only the space that accompanies modernization can be labeled as "junk"? Only based on rough, cheap and his definition of "continuity", I am afraid that the architectural concept of the 18th century’s plant or factory shocks bigger than the conception of modern architecture. Perhaps more forward, the medieval Gothic church is also the pursuit of vertical " Continuity ". Or is it that the real criticism of Koolhaas is not the building space itself, but the logic behind it?