Some architecture styles are explicitly and objectively universal.
For neoclassical you can look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fi...f_Architecture where you'll find a rigorous proportion system for all of the elements of all of the orders. It doesn't matter whether you're in Rome or Alabama or Mars, it doesn't matter if it's a few thousand years in the past or a few thousand years in the future, those are the orders and that is what they're supposed to be.
https://www.amazon.com/Architectural...ture+wittkower This is an interesting architecture book, written by an architectural historian based on his lectures, his lectures/book was very popular during the 1940s and 1950s among modernist architects, during a time when proportional/geometric purity was appealing (Le Corbusier was doing Le Modulor during the time, Mies was doing Farnsworth House). Most of the book just discusses various buildings and architects, but the best part imo is the beginning which explains the reasoning of the architecture. Gothic buildings used geometric constructions, but in the Renaissance they switched to harmonic proportion (so instead of inscribing things in circles etc they were concerned with the ratios between dimensions being things like 1:2, 1:3, etc (the system gets complicated but that's the jist)). They did this because music (our music scales are based on the same types of ratios) and math did the same thing, and they believed that these systems of ratios were the underlying foundation of the universe, in the same way that we today might look at the periodic table or string theory.
Renaissance architecture is the way that this is so that it is in alignment with the fundamental divine order of all of creation. It's literally as universal as architecture can possibly be.
Just like "traditional" architecture encompasses a rich variety of different architectures, "modern" architecture does the same. Some of them are universal and some of them are regional.
But if I had to generalize, I'd say that modernism embraces a universalist process which results in genuinely regional results. The attitude is that you're designing for the conditions at hand, and buildings will be different from region to region to the extent that local cultural customs, weather conditions, construction and labor skills and practices, and material availability are different from region to region. But the basic fact is that humans are all pretty similar, most cultural conceptions of what shelter is are the same (usually, but not always, a few private bedrooms with a few communal rooms), most people around the world find a certain temperature and humidity range ideal (because we're all the same species), and commonplace technology can make most shelters ideal without needing a lot of dramatic architectural solutions.
There's also the issue of what "regional" really means, when the argument is that European architectural forms should be constructed in the US, even though we're different continents. Yes, European countries colonized and immigrated to us, but by that logic, all of the Americas, most of Africa and most of Asia should all have the same "regional" and "traditional" European architecture. And likewise when Europeans colonize mars, mars should also share the same "traditional" architecture, so that our martian cities are suitably regional. :p
For your specific example of that apartment building, you can certainly narrow it down based on that photo. The earlier photo that was from Canada could be figured to be from Canada because we can see the style and size of it and can think of what places have similar buildings. It's nothing to do with the intrinsic regionalism of the architecture. The modern apartment tower can't be built anywhere in the world either. It needs to be some place with a level of development that can support midrise apartment towers, has the industrial supply chains for large scale concrete construction, and met these conditions from 1950-1985. There are no neoclassical buildings in Antarctica because the people making neoclassical buildings were, by coincidences of history, not in Antarctica at the time. It doesn't mean neoclassical is regional.