The study touches on the central problem with the practice of architecture in the US: pretending the central ethical issue of architecture is the integrity of the architect's aesthetic vision [or less charitably, that architects tend to believe their own bullshit]. Lundy's approach was correct and the collaborative approach is what makes the Sarasota School the most important architectural movement in American history.
Lundy is quite a contrast to Phillip Johnson. Like the other giants of the Sarasota School, Twitchell and Rudolph, Lundy was a veteran [1]. Johnson was an early fan of the Nazi's [2] -- something my mentor, the late David Crane FAIA, never could forgive.
I'm an architect, and personally I've yet too meet an architect who thinks that way. The opposite is true, most architects think the clients and various stakeholders are overly invested in aesthetic considerations and aren't properly educated in other issues. There are significant bodies of architectural theory dedicated to repudiating overly-aesthetic concerns.
I work as part of a research lab in a large architecture firm where we are working on ways to communicate the importance of energy efficiency, housing affordability, adequate daylighting, material health etc to the clients, and deliver computational tools to architects, urban designers, interior designers and urban planners so that they can being working with these issues. I have never encountered a situation where someone has opposed or been reluctant to engage these concerns.
Lundy is quite a contrast to Phillip Johnson. Like the other giants of the Sarasota School, Twitchell and Rudolph, Lundy was a veteran [1]. Johnson was an early fan of the Nazi's [2] -- something my mentor, the late David Crane FAIA, never could forgive.
[1]: Lundy's wartime sketchbooks at the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=LOT%2014007&fi=number...
[2]: A recent article: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/04/philip-johnson-naz...