Damn, I should probably quit while I'm "ahead". Which celeb architects/designers are you referring to? The only un-used or abandoned buildings that come to mind are works of FLW and Corbusier. I know there are others, but my architecture history is a little rusty (idk, people like Adolf Loos?). Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these "abandoned" buildings are typically under the protection of historical preservation institutes and have limited contemporary use?

I think is also something to be said about mindset and the attention to tackling relevant issues through the profession too. I think a good example of this is a project by Tatiana Bilbao here which was designed with the future of the coastal environment in mind (rising sealevels, flooding, marine biology, yada yada). Supporting article here. Of course, we have yet to see if this will also get abandoned or crisis zone. Not trying to down-play your point, just adding another perspective.

JLC-1 - you're a bitter, hateful, middle aged man. It' must be exhausting to be so offended and angry all the time.  

As for the project in question - it's in a slum.  Like most low cost housing projects things get modified by the users.  Because of their low income these user made changes tend to be 'ugly' and poorly constructed.  

The city's government came to the architect for low cost housing.  The architect for this project never said it was going to change anything.  This was an attempt to provide the city with a solution their housing problem that was within budget.  Providing low cost housing isn't a solution to problems of poverty and urban blight though.  Without government and social reform low cost housing is just a temporary bandage.   

One needs to realize (and remember) that the Pritzker awards merely reflect the zeitgeist of a given time. When Aravena won (and to this day, arguably), the zeitgeist is all about low-impact, community driven stuff. It does not reflect what most of us have to do on a daily basis, so theres no need to judge with that yardstick...

Aravena, like Wang Shu, won for his intent rather than the fruits of his (and unpaid interns') labor. As sameoldoctor explained, he stood for the zeitgeist of the '10s and was the ultimate Pritzker insider. What better way to thank a former juror than by giving him the Prize itself? The old boys club has its traditions. The committee gets to pat itself on the back and make the Prize more relevant to mainstream headlines. It helped that Aravena, with his spiky hairdo and good looks, was the consummate salesman - peddling a brand of do-good-feel-good populism while maintaining the kind indie credibility that Bjarke Ingels lost a long time ago.

That said, these housing projects are meant to be freely modified by their residents. They are no panacea, regardless of Aravena's posturing, as they are just low cost buildings bound by the political, economic, and social conditions of their situation. Was the design strategy flawed from the get-go? Possibly. But it was probably the best of a bunch of bad solutions.

Man screw Pritzker. Only academic and students care about that stuff. I want better pay for the field. A 2 BR apartment/house rent costs around $3000/month in my area. Roughly 70% of my monthly pay as a licensed project architect. It is not even NYC, just a shitty suburb 1.5 Hr away from NYC.