If I were a photographer, I wouldn't just walk into a room, snap a shot with my SLR and go home
No, that's exactly what you would strongly prefer to do if you were true architectural photographer photographing real Architecture. Like contemporaries Fernando Guerra, Iwan Baan, or anyone from this list
http://www.archdaily.com/category/ad-photographers/ and past legends like Julius Schulman. Not random Joe from wild-west suburbs of Tenesee.
That's considering the over-use of clique techniques, not the whole duration of shoot. Talking to few architectural photographers they all said they take around 4-10 photos in whole day of the building that actually make it in the end, yet the time isn't spent on meticulous setup of strobes and blending them in horrible HDR fashion.
The examples at the article are simply beyond disgusting. Apart from truly eclectic and idiotic style of american suburbian dream houses, the actual photography is bland, over-saturated kitsch with no presence of light whatsover. All I see is "Look at this amazing marble ! It was so expensive, and this beautiful gold, wood, shiny...look at it,look! shiny !"
Ok, I had my hate and feel better. But the moment I see this type of "architecture" and its "photography" I rage-quit. It's worse than wedding photography, I can't even choose what I hate more.
The fact is, that literature on Architectural photography is close to non-existent. It's extremely sparse, and mostly outdated in technical fashion although principles don't change.
The good info out there, that has to be connected from some old books by Schulman to interviews with the current best photographers grasp altogether different concept than simply placing flash lights around scene in random fashion. Portraying the soul and life of the space, from shapes to detail, in meaningful composition.
With that said, artificially lighting space is science almost of its own, and those who truly master it, don't share a slightest know-how. They just don't, it's small market and the know-how is valuable. It's only those whose work is beyond horrible who share freely like the people in article. American real-estate my ass...vomit inducing.
Check this video from making of catalogue shots for italian brand of furniture. This is just shot for MarieClaire magazine, not the ultra-glamour shots of catalogues like Poliform, which take months to set-up, but you can see the effort in how they do lighting and post-production.
But you touch the right subjest that "photorealistic" lighting does not necessary mean "attractive" lighting. But the article just gives the worst solutions on worst examples.
Really complicated subject, not discusses often at all on archviz foras. It will, foremost continue to be on each person's experimentations.