In Architecture, is Less Actually More?

In this weeks readings, Koolhaus discussed, through many metaphors, this idea of junkspace.  Junkspace was the product that modernization leaves behind.  It is space that exists merely to exist.  At one point in time it served a purpose, but its inability to adapt to uses over time later makes it become a space with no purpose.  It is design that is constantly trying to have more and more and more, when all it needs is less.  All of this extra "junk" merely just takes up space that is unneeded and as peoples' needs change, these spaces become abandoned and no longer serve a purpose.

When designing architecture, shouldn't we then take a less is more approach?  Sure adding that extra element here and an additional feature there really spices up the design, but is it necessary?  Are those extras truely adding value to the project or are they creating "junk" that will later weigh it down?  These are very important questions to keep in mind while designing our Center of Excellence in Haiti.  In order for the Center to promote the highest form of excellence, it needs to be able to adapt and change over time.  If it doesnt, it will be abandoned.  The more  "junk" space that is added to the building, the harder this will be.  Not to mention that resources are very limited in Haiti and it would be irresponsible to building something just for the sake of building it.  Perhaps taking a minimalist approach is the most appropriate.