No, architecture<->cultural exchange is not a naïve association. Rethinking programmatic topology remains as valid as ever. How do you arrange spaces and functions in relation to each other? How do you create architecture that is general enough to meet varying needs, yet has a character of its own?

Space Syntax is one method to analyze spatial configurations by seemingly objective factors (topological depth, proximity etc.) and therefore distances itself from questions of style, beauty and so on. Yet its idealistic goal is the traditional inner city with good pedestrian connections, no cul-de-sacs and an optimized exchange of movement. Netzstadt takes this a step further (Hillier of Space Syntax is mentioned as a source of inspiration) by addressing sustainability and urban sprawl and presenting the tools to analyze and address more contemporary problems.

These are both urban planning methods, but the ideas presented could be, to some extent, applied to architecture, especially if we are dealing with Koolhaas' "bigness" - when the building starts to work more as a small city than a large house. From my own experience, the potential can be huge. Not only in the idea of creating shared spaces, having certain functions in proximity to each other, multifunctionality and generous communication spaces - but also the process of discussing and implementing these ideas with different future users, the clients etc. opens up for cultural exchange in the future.

It is interesting that you posit ‘cultural exchange’, as opposed to the more typical/expected ‘social exchange’. And you do seem to be alluding to the social differences between cultures and their derivative countries (“various cultures can be extremely diverse”). So I will address the issue ‘that way’.

The first step, however, seems to be the relationship between ‘specific authorship’ and ‘shifty-3rd-person-social-client needs’ (the basic issue of ‘social exchange’); this is what a-f has tackled. I do agree that modular-multifunctional design is founded, but would first look at the general theory (since my reference tonight is Michael Hays’ ‘Architecture Theory since 1968’):
Collin Rowe; ‘Introduction to 5 Architects’: “Can an architecture which professes an objective of continuous experiment ever become congruous with the ideal of an architecture which is to be popular, intelligible, and profound?” [the ‘social exchange’ question has been asked before, of course]
From George Baird (1969): If we understand the whole of architecture to be a language, and individual works to be ‘speech acts’, arbitrariness is possible and even necessary (in the works; which does not affect the ‘positive language’, ‘architecture’, to which we refer). Of course, following this, we concern ourselves with “contexts and processes of meaning.” [the possibility of ‘social exchange’ is founded; and the answer is necessarily ‘unclear’]
Jürgen Habermas; 1981: “Railway stations [can] no longer give visual form to the transportation system to which they link passengers in the way that city gates had once given visual form to the city’s concrete ties to surrounding villages” [an example that traditional concepts have been superseded; social use is complex and extends beyond measurable dimensions]

Because of the ‘complexity’, architects may look at underlying data to allow the best fit between their individual expressions and the ways in which spaces might be used. There are surprising types of data that allow us to make this fit (the whole basis for semantic information spaces on-line). Now, when you bring the cultural into the equation, you might be creating a paradox, if you are seeking to establish that the only important aspects to address are ‘specific and unique’; unable to be ‘mapped’ (those ‘essential’ attributes that identify particular cultures). In Mexico, for example, many of my contemporaries seek to establish cultural identity ‘beyond’ global culture (to make their ‘minor’ into a ‘major’), ignoring the fact that they also form part of the global ‘social exchange’ (and they even deny the possibility of mapping localized-cultural ‘social exchanges’).

In my young ignorance, I tend to think of social and cultural issues as very similar, often referring to them generally as "social/cultural." Perhaps I should have said "social/cultural exchange." Is their a generally accepted distinction between them? Does one encompass the other?

This is helpful. I think I need to do some reading. I think I'm struggling with an issue that is on the division line between architecture proper and urban planning. The connections seem very loose: between something as physical as a building and something as ethereal as "social/cultural exchange," or what you will. I am not questioning whether a link exists, perhaps; rather, I do not understand the nature or mechanics of that link. Is it completely irreducible?

maybe you want to try 'everyday urbanism,' [this would be more inclined to the social than to the cultural aspects but might help you clarify where you want to go]

Everyday Urbanism, edited by Margaret Crawford, John Chase and John Kaliski. New York: Monacelli Press, 1999.

i recommend the essay by margaret crawford. this position is based on henri lefebvre's writings and priviledges human experience as the basis of design. it takes its cures from daily life and experience.

ps. a culturally especific project that is a good example: the favela barrio project by jauregui architectos:

http://www.jauregui.arq.br/greenprize.html

[but maybe i'm misunderstanding. is this what you're thinking about?]

Human nature will defy "instigation" in all circumstances. Our most basic survival instinct is the desire for power over the physical environment and freedom from spatial confinement. "A dice game" is not a pejorative term, to the contrary, it is the very best that architecture can be relative to engineering human interaction - because humans will not tolerate a greater role for the architect or for the architecture. The best dice game is the best architecture.