Here's a good example. Check this out - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EWY1PJsPzBA/S7ySUS89CmI/AAAAAAAABq... It's one of Koolhaas' earliest projects. Have you read Delirious New York? If you read that in conjunction with these early, speculative projects as well, there's a pretty clear connection to the work OMA has been producing over the past 30-odd years.
(That's funny:) It's a matter of degrees, I suppose; there is a fine subjective line. Rem's work -- you did note the reference to OMA? -- always had a substantial intellectual and political foundation, imo. But far more importantly, I found him to be a relatively original "dreamer". It is now 2011 and the issues at near to mid view are fairly clear. >Have you read Delirious New York? I think I once made an object from it, for a conceptual assignment :P (Rem sat in a couple of my crits. Tschumi was the dean.) aside: I thank you for your post (seriously). This little exchange has motivated me to visit the storage and scan my student work and get back into the game. Having interacted with "the cream of the crop" up close was a critical input into my decision not to pursue the matter professionally. But it was so much fun & I must not deny myself any longer.
Back to the original point of this though - why doesn't that project fit your definition of architecture?
Actually that was patronizing. The names were merely to inform the background of my studies so we could dispose with further discussion of my awareness of various dimensions of architectural thought and expression. >Back to the original point of this though - why doesn't that project fit your definition of architecture? It is of course subjective. Your milage may vary. Perhaps you will explain what you find particularly architectural (to say nothing of "visionary") about the work?