Can we define when Architectural theory inadvertently does more harm than good?

Can we define when Architectural theory inadvertently does more harm than good? And by what metrics developed from whom draws this line between positive and negative? Is it your peers, the client, the public, or a combination of the above? Like a work of art on display in a museum or a downtown infrastructure project, users perceive and develop their own personal opinions on a given work. As a practicing architect, if you had to choose⁠—would you prefer the work over the course of your career to be perceived as consistently stable, or rather that the opinions of others experiencing it would change over time?

Architectural theory can be beneficial in many ways, such as providing a framework for understanding the design process and helping architects to think more critically about the implications of their designs. However, it is possible for an architectural theory to do more harm than good if it is not considered in the context of a real-world situation.

Please enjoy the following video from a Comedy Central satire sketch on "the man behind the world's ugliest buildings." I think the comedian hits it home on how our multi-disciplined field can sometimes lose touch with practicality when considering (or not) elements like functionality, accessibility, and aesthetics. The architect in this sketch is shown to impose their own ideas and vision on communities, regardless of their needs and desires.