Invis-a-space?

“… sooner or later all conditioned space turns into Junkspace . . . When we think about space, we have only looked at its containers. As if space itself is invisible, all theory for the production of space is based on an obsessive preoccupation with its opposite: substance and objects, i.e., architecture.”  

Rem Koolhaas ideal that modern architecture was a mistake for the 20^th century, has some truth, but is also very one-sided.  He speaks of this new design style as an inability to appreciate and experience space respectively; however, I believe this image-driven design process enables occupants to experience space on a personal level.

Establishments such as, shopping malls, airports, or amusement parks, consists of several layers of program that have been added, shifted, and placed in every which way.  To the untrained eye, this appears to be overwhelming and may require a directory; yet I see it as beautifully organized chaos.  Is it necessary that the structural form emerge from a well-designed space? Or will the functionally of the space(s) equally influence the form/layout of the footprint respectively?

I believe modern architecture can be successful through the union of several public spaces, where the form is secondary.  “Spaces” designed to be felt by the occupant, will encourage a relationship and spur on memories, rather than a detached feeling that Koolhaas suggests will occur.