Let me start by apologizing to everyone for the somewhat flaming vitriol that I included in my original post (now deleted by the mods). Believe it or not, I am actually a moderator here, and really should know better. Further, personalizing it only diluted my larger point. I will soften it and repost.
Alan - I feel Taliesen should have met code (if there was one). That is the point. Great architecture should be based on more than art alone. Otherwise it is sculpture.
David - I would challenge you to consider that all that is not modern is not just quaint and cozy. Consider the myriad of historic and vernacular based archetypes still developing forward around the world.
Gary - Modern Architecture is not on trial in my argument, or certainly isn't indeed to be. I love modern architecture. In my N.O. presentation I will use Morphosois's Crawford house and Falling Water as examples of modern genius that (to me) seem to respond beautifully to vernacular, history, and culture. I love all architecture, and dislike all poorly done architecture, irrespective of the style... again, "style blind." I do find that modern architects get way too protective of their ground. Read my post again, the point is to judge content and architectural process over style. Peace!