"Is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?"
I get this all the time: "Oh, Scott, you get the best places to shoot." And I'm always thinking, "No, it was actually kind of crappy, and I made it look good."
A couple of other thoughts, regarding the lights/no lights discussion:
First, I have to say I agree with CB. If you don't know how, then you're not really making the decision, are you?
Second, in my opinion, "good" supplemental light accomplishes the goal of rendering the reality of the scene into a dynamic range that the camera can actually capture. Saying things like "I want my photos to look natural," are really red herrings, because "natural" is meaningless when you compare your eye/brain combination to your camera. The camera will NEVER see things the way you do.
Unfortunately, learning to light things well is hard, and so you do see an awful lot of flashy, flat images out there. Gives lighting a bad name.