The battle with the issues of quality and meaning in construction was canceled due to a shortened horizon - and replaced by a chaotic, looting fistfight between the scholastic issues of hyper-generic and hyper-specific. These both can be fine drivers for fine architectures, but only when built on a more solid statement. Without a meaningful foundation they become vain, often damaging, and exponentially dangerous (as they are easy to replicate).
The meaning of architectural space is to provide a vision of the world and of a way of life. Hence, even though we can not solve every global problem by designing a single building, we should try to address them every time.
This may be exactly what the competing philosophies of the generic (renaissance, status quo, eternal) and the specific (baroque, progress, innovation) are trying to do. But as long as they are fixed answers instead of questions, they possess inherent paradoxes. Architecture is not a problem that requires an answer. Architecture is a solution to unique, case specific individual questions. Any discourse between pre-stated answers can only be scholastic instead of productive.
Maybe counterintuitively, by focusing on hypo-objects (individual parts) the hyperobject (architectural problem) can be resolved, or even vanished. The small becomes the foundation for the big, not the other way round. Architecture, as a task will become unnecessary. Such way (even if discerning in its lack of constant direction) could release the architectural profession from the impossibilities of theoretically sound approaches. The best efforts could gain true individuality without forced difference. And, as every single building can not be a success, sufficiently good solutions could be secured in place of total disasters.
(Ps. How is this done? We don't know, but would love to learn.)