Ridiculous, Intellectual architecture?

Loos Haus

J.B. Jackson critiqued modern architecture, but he wasn’t trying to replace the architecture of the 1950s with an older, specific style. He wanted architecture to be formed in recognition of present societal needs, and he wanted space to be organized in a way that would enhance domestic and social life.

Jackson wrote that buildings should not be considered art, like pieces of sculpture. Instead, buildings are structures designed for human use. They are three-dimensional compositions, and their interior spaces are as important as their exterior masses. Buildings are intended for actual clients who hold clear notions of what they want. Architects may have been creating dwellings in the International Style for the wealthy, but American housing developments reflected the average homeowner's desire for convenience and individuality. Americans choose houses that serve to accommodate their families' needs as they define them, rather than reflecting a utopian modern vision.

I’m confused though…..he critiques modern architecture (ie. Le Corbusier), and calls them “Ridiculous, Intellectual architecture”, and yet he doesn’t like architecture to be considered art. Wouldn’t art be the antithesis of “intellectual” architecture? Adolf Loos thought of ornamentation as criminal - not for abstract moral reasons, but because of the economics of labor and wasted materials in modern industrial civilization. Adolf Loos argued that because ornament was no longer an important manifestation of culture, the worker dedicated to its production could not be paid a fair price for his labor. Thus, didn’t he think of the ‘present’ social/cultural situation, which would place him on Jackson’s “good list”?