David Moriarty:
I don't think it's a matter of people on here not being interested in a frank, honest and open exploration of these topics. It's more a matter of trying to have that kind of discussion on here with you. You continuously tell people like Peter Pallotta his opinions are not accurate as if your opinions ought to be taken as fact because you think you've done some research and written and IMO essay. So what?
In my opinion, Peter Pallotta has always had a far more realistic, balanced and probably historically accurate outlook on this era and most of the courses discussed such as Myopia, NGLA and Merion. And what is this IMO piece you did on NGLA's sphere of influence? Please don't try to tell me it was that essay entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion."
You also seem to infer that NGLA set the bar for American architecture for the foreseeable future. That was not the case. It didn't even take five years for Pine Valley to eclipse NGLA in the minds of most architecture commentators, and there most certainly aren't many similarities between the two. Check it out in the commentaries. It's really not very hard to figure out.
Furthermore, I don't know how accurate Travis was with his remarks about what Hutchinson said about Myopia having so many blind shots but the fact is it never even had as many as NGLA.
It seems to me it's pretty true to say that more really good architecture was done in inland England primarily right around the heathlands in the decade preceding the teens but after that American quality architecture really began to assert itself, just as Tillinghast accurately chronicled. Matter of fact, Tillinghast's career-end article about his differences of opinion with Macdonald's ideas on architecture are some of the most fundamentally interesting I'm aware of but knowing some of what you've said lately you'll probably even take that as some attempt to minimize or disrespect Macdonald.