It sounds like your critique of modern architecture is that it's somehow not a valid exposition of identity because it isn't "authentic" enough. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, like saying that dressing up like a pilgrim and riding a horse on a dirt road into town to buy freshly churned butter is somehow more of an authentic New England cuitural experience than riding the Red Line to South Station in a business suit and getting a hot dog. You and Peterson aren't desirious of an authentic narration of identity in architecture, what you want is a period experience, you've conflated the trappings of an idealized point in history as somehow more real than the current reality. Trying to mimic the styles and forms of the past while rejecting modern styles as lesser is nothing more than historical role play.
That's not to say that modern architectural styles shouldn't take inspiration from the past, they should and they do — it's a straw man fantasy to say that every contemporary architect is Frank Gehry, but inspiration isn't mimickry, and a structure not being to your taste doesn't mean that it tells less of a "cultural story," just like hip-hop isn't not music because you don't have an ear for its