Green = Giant?

I thought this article brought up a really interesting problem.  

It seems like at this point, in order to make all the systems for self-sufficiency truly effective and worth the bother, we have no choice but to build on a HUGE scale.  We just can't keep doing that, though.  We have to correct what's already been built before we eat up more resources and land.

The other thing is, we need to start working on ways to make this viable on a very small scale, on the scale of a small, single family residence.  I refuse to believe that isn't possible.

Ryan

P.S. I'm also VERY, VERY excited about this:

--New York Post

Questions

Lately it seems that there's a flood of amazing, high-profile architects getting major commissions all over the globe, and there's no sign of it stopping.  I don't think it's been like this for probably 30 years.

Do you suppose wild/ impressive/ unusual works of architecture by well-known architects being so much in the public eye is a good thing on the whole?

Does architecture in general being a topic of public discussion mean that people who normally wouldn't even consider it will be more likely to hire an architect of quality to build, rather than winging it (like on a smaller residential project, for instance)?

Or does it mean that all the great commissions will be going to high-profile architects, and the lesser-known firms--many of which are doing incredible work--will get squeezed even further out into the margins?

Ryan

Met News

I forgot to mention: down in Founders' Hall of the Metropolitan Opera House where all the portraits are, rumor has it they're going to split through one of the marble walls of donors' names and put in a little staircase down.  Down the stairs will be a new full-size costume gallery for the Met's older costumes.  I think it sounds fantastic.  The glass cases on the parterre level will evidently remain as they are.

Ryan