Using the grid system seems natural in a sense that it uses basic geometry to articulate into space. In a world where things are simple and complex, grid system seems to be the simplest. When Modernism was taken from its 'utopianness' where it was developed in Europe, into the hands of the Americans, it was brought in at a time which the Americans were economocially more fortunate then the europeans. Im not sure how capitalism ideals enhanced Modernism, considering capitalism to be a result of a mentality to where 'the more the better.' Did they use it as means only to maintain worldy order? they had the money and technology too and further design would just cost more, and is this why the grid system seems to be more influential than any other method of organization at this point?
So its inevitable that "less is not more" because of capitalism but still could aid the nation in mass order.
Was it after modernism came to America or was it pre-existing knowledge that got the architects to feel as though the 'nature and function of ornament' should be that of only structure but that the, as loos explains, consistency of design elements serves as just 'make up' to a 'womans face.'
I think that its basic knowledge for someone who knows almost nothing about architecture to approach it using the grid system meaning that someone with a motive besides simply designing buildings (motive like mass production), could use this simple method to organise more efficiently. I feel as though Grid system represent, when comparing old libraries to new libraries, books, whereas Network represents the interent. Somehow the integration of two completly different methods of organization seem sensible considering if a Modern Library design had to include both an area for design and function with an area that involves only function. A library is a specific case. Grid system, simple approach, to create an area for containment of books, and a Network, more futuristic approach, for the element containing digital media.