You need to think about such movements as not necessarily being sequentially developmental. Post modernism was in many ways a reaction to modernism and rejected many of its tenets. However modernism didn't just die but continued to develop and can be described in many ways one of which is hyper. Or beyond.

However be careful these categories are mostly invented by critics and architects themselves frequently complain about be so categorised

Bryan's points are well-taken. "Postmodern" might also be characterized as "energy-efficient," "sustainable" or "regenerative." But, then, "hyper-modern" could also be aesthetically modern and high-performance (with regard to energy). 

No interest in this particular topic.

I am not familiar with the writing of Trachtenberg.

My architectural education took place just as “post-modernism” was beginning to emerge as buildings in the real world. You surely already know that Modernism was identified as a "movement" resulting from the period following the 1890s through the early decades of the the 1900s. This period of time produced a number of movements, all of which shared basic principles in common: a rejection of "ornament" as irrelevant to the essence of designing buildings; a freedom of form from traditional construction technologies (caves, wood frame, mud/brick/stone, simple spans and even dynamic understandings of forces as revealed by the Renaissance architects of Europe); and a strong set of social-populist issues of human rights to shelter, water, privacy, safety et al.

Post-modernism was merely the name attributed by critics & journalists et al to relatively minor differences in outer form, color & materials but represented no social change, no change in underlying economics. It was historically important - a means to permit freedom from the past superficial and largely stylistic conventions. It only lasted a few decades.

I would, however, argue that “hyper modern” architecture might apply to architecture of today — in which responsive design form emerges additionally from new dramatically diverse and capable materials, from integrating buildings with the natural resources & systems at the site’s locale, from creating functionally specific yet retaining a resilience & versatility that enable them to be useful far beyond a period of just several decades. Thus “hyper” from its ancient Greek origins means over, beyond, above (not extreme or exceptional), and a hyper-modern architecture would logically be extensions to Modernism’s principles. This would form my interpretation of the query, above.

Wim makes good points for you.  He is right to point out that modernism was largely underpinned by views about society. But some came to view its rejection of decoration and so called honesty of materials etc as a tyranny which pm was to reject.  It is in that sense that I meant it was a reaction to modernism but it had little if any underpinning.  I do however think some of its more thoughtful exponents such as Charles Moore were genuinely more interested in making human places. I would add one thing for you to think about since unlike Wim I was educated during the height of modernism.  We were really taught that modernism was not a style but something different.  It was as if it were a full stop at the end of architectural history.   I think pm had to overcome that 

The hyper-modernism is a critically revisited evolution of the precepts of modernity. It would be an improvement from the first ideas of the modern movement with an emphasis on the organizational aspects, incorporating certain postmodern ideas, as the context and history. The hyper-modernity has been a new process that has been aware of the values of modernity, but that has reviewed critically with a postmodern look, with a regionalist tone. A good example in Chile, is the work of Mathias Klotz and Pezo von Ellrichshausen. The work of Charles Jencks and his trees help to understand the spirit that links certain historical moments.