Who is to blame?

"MIT = Made in Tokyo" criticized the lack of aesthetic but views the levels of functionalism from a more positive standpoint than the other articles. In S, M, L, XL Koolhaas large structures are criticized for the sheer mass of the structure, taking away its architectural like elements. In the class we studied program and it's evolution into the high-rise structures of manhattan. Another case where architecture is diluted and in many instances becomes irrelevant because of the program taking higher priority. That's not to say program being the driver is bad; but we studied poor examples of architecture and it's negative consequences, primarily. Los Vegas is also an interesting example as a case study to research and attempt to have a greater understand of the inner workings of the city: acres of parking, adult nightclubs in most neighborhoods, billboards on every highway, etc. Why have we became so fixated on fake architecture? Is it the architect's fault for a lack of a better solution? Are our designs too uninteresting to create change within society or is it's society's nature path of the 21st century? Seeing videos of Manhattan change over years, adding more billboards and flashy neon lights its become obvious how much it has changed from an architectural city to a "disney-fied", overstimulating city. Don't get me wrong, I love NYC just as much as the next person, but the rush you get from flashing lights and HD screens differs from static lights + architecture. Architecture should not be dynamic, architecture is meant to be in equilibrium. 

Image above: "Evolution of Times Square"