On the principle of symmetry

I found Pollens description of symmetry in Chapter 2 on the tulip very intriguing. He reasons that against the backdrop of a disorganized forest or the random assortments of plants, flowers provide a structural organization. He goes on to say that symmetry exhibits purpose and intent, showing that there is relevant information in the place. He also points out that symmetry is a sign of health in a being, as mutations or sicknesses disturb the symmetry a lot of the times. Therefore, he argues symmetry is significant. But I found myself asking, why is symmetry so significant to us? As an architecture student I found the theme very relevant to my major. My professors constantly stress to veer away from symmetry in modern building design. They argue that by creating symmetry a building looses identity. And take a look at modern architecture. Unlike classical architecture, modern buildings take the forms of pretty much anything but symmetrical. Why is this? Modern buildings still look appealing if not intriguing. People are interested in them and architects make tons of money of them. All without symmetry.

(Seattle Public Library)

My theory on this is that our perception of symmetry, at least in architecture, has changed. Now, instead of having a disorganized background, there is symmetry everywhere. Classical and even early modern architecture worshipped symmetry and order. The result was cities with so much symmetry that symmetry has become the "backdrop." It is a kind of a reversal of Pollen's theory. Buildings that have no symmetry or visible organization stand out from the all too familiar symmetrical backdrop of a city. So do these manifestations of strange shapes and seemingly random orders now give us the appearance of something significant and worth noting? Has symmetry been replaced?