The battle with the issues of quality and meaning was canceled due to a shortened horizon - and replaced by a chaotic, looting fistfight between the issues of hyper-generic and hyper-specific. These can be fine drivers, 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 project, we should try to address them every time.
Isn’t this exactly what the competing philosophies of the generic (renaissance, status quo, eternal) and the specific (baroque, progress, innovation) are trying to do? They think so. But as they are fixed answers instead of questions, they possess inherent paradoxes. These include the environmental impossibility of a global generic and the intellectual impossibility of specificity created through difference (...to what...?), to mention a few. Any discourse between pre-stated answers can only be dogmatic 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, only to find its true nature as a solution - for truly individual issues of varying kinds. Such way (even if discerning in its lack of constant direction) could release the architectural profession from the impossibilities of scholastic approaches. The best efforts will gain true individuality without forced difference. And, as every single building can not be a success, it could enable sufficiently good solutions in place of total disasters.
(Ps. How is this done? We would love to learn.)