Mark: The notion of taking the discipline: part science; engineering; landscaping; and artistic endeavour ... to a new level is a brain-teaser, and like the field itself, a big mystery.
There probably are few firms doing so, but evidence may not materialise in the most obvious manner. Perhaps the answer lies in projects where the architect has not "over-designed" the plot of land. If so, maybe large-budget jobs are precisely where you wouldn't expect a designer to street the opposition. Having the ego in check to underplay the hand, rather than overplay and produce 'excess' must be the hardest thing when presented with conducive land and a limitless budget.
Ask anyone who has played Royal Melbourne (West) and they will talk of grandeur, roominess, and the utter playability of Mackenzie's layout. What they are really hinting at is that Doc under-played his hand; didn't reach for the highest star; and just did the basics really well. Everyone is aware of the old saying: "more is less." Perhaps in the blurring, the basics have long since been distorted, or manipulated, via marketing demands of real estate and developer interests.
Architectural styles go around in circles, and one reason is that interested parties forget what is grotesque. Naturally, I concede that 'grotesque' is in the eye of the beholder.