Modernism... from yesterday to today

I love following the steps architects have taken from modern architecture from the early 20th century to contemporary architecture of today. Isn’t it so interesting how architecture tries to change society and how society changes architecture? How many times scholars like Manfredo Tafuri have looked at things being built around the world and thought, “this is shit.” Modernism started in the early 20th century with high hopes of creating a better world. Technology was changing the world at an incredible rate, and the need for new societies, art, and architecture was enhanced after the world wars. But over time, commercialism diluted modernism. In the 70s, the world would change once again as governments and economies fell and modern architecture was no longer fitting society's needs and wants. Manfredo Tafuri said it needed to change, and Peter Eisenman tried to figure out how… through geometric methodologies? Fragmentation? These are definitely alternatives to modernism, but is architecture at all if it doesn’t work for the user? Then, again, people looked around and thought, “this is shit.” From there comes post-critical and projective architecture from architects like Rem Koolhause and later Bjarke Ingels Group. But is this architectural style really that much different from the 20th century modernism? It’s based on economical shapes with a focus on the human scale, use, and program, just like modern architecture was. Perhaps the only difference is that new contemporary architecture is more interested in creating buildings that people might like than creating a utopia. Did we spend 100 years of architectural evolution just to circle back to a diluted version of modernism?