Let's get one thing straight: Tradition isn't what most people think it is, and neither is contemporary practice

The primary reason why people think all architecture of the past 100 years is glass boxes (or brutalist boxes... or aluminum cased boxes) is because people have no contact with what's going on in the market. Just a glance at thousands of random buildings on the front page of Archdaily should tell you that, for one thing, there is huge variety of forms and materials in contemporary practice, for another, we haven't been in the modernist era for about the past 50 years. Hell, even a look around your city should tell you that.

Conversely, if people stopped comparing an average house with baroque palaces, gothic cathedrals and Art Nouveau manors and took a look at the shanty housing the average person had before Modernism, they would find out that it was not only repetitive but usually rather unornamented. If you see a lot more detail on a half-timbered house than on the walls of a modern concrete house, that's not ornament. That's structure.

And that last part should be an indication that architecture wasn't a constant masturbation with ornament that met its demise in the hands of cheapness and "form follows function". Architecture always followed function. It always had some fundamental moral principles far more essential than the "what people like" that some fringe academics have been spreading like a virus. And it's been subconscious social and technological mechanisms that drive its evolution.

No legislation to "enforce beauty" will reverse the inevitable, and definitely neither will wagging war against the whole academia and practice of the architectural profession.