Might 'good architecture' and 'bad architecture' actually share a significant common ground in that neither architectures are easily defined? (That is, unless someone (here) can easily answer "what is bad architecture?")
Personally, I see neither good or bad architectures as being a problem, rather it is the global nimiety of mediocre architecture that I wish were extinct.
Perhaps the education of an architect should revolve around the teaching and learning of what is mediocre since the mediocre is probably the easiest to identify (given there's so much of it).
Then again, this conviction that 'the good' (and bad?) cannot be readily defined or identified might just be unwittingly producing an end result of abundant mediocrity.
Could the best architecture be the architecture that quietly disappears once it starts becoming mediocre?
see the UNITED STATES
Even in all its decaying glory, the SS UNITED STATES is nonetheless the most impressive feature of Philadelphia's waterfront today.
Images of the SS UNITED STATES inaugurate Tempobliviopolis.
I saw the SS UNITED STATES yesterday  while taking my brother to see it for what was his first time in 47 years. He and my parents came to the United States on the United States.
For some unknown reason, they were bumped all the way up to first class. I think it might be because they were obviously dressed the part.