Look at my questions again, none of which were "why do we need it?" What I asked was: "Where does the imperative for public discourse come from?" and "Is the public asking for it?" You gave a vague, subjective answer. That you interpreted my questions as "opposing" tells me, at least, to not really trust your judgment, and is indeed indicative of "perhaps architects are hypercritical."

What I'm actually advocating is for you to take a much more objective view of what it is you're promoting as "public discourse".

Expanded client base aside, the desire seems to be one where, if the public is more aware of architecture and the makings of good design, then the built environment would subsequently be somehow better. Is that right? And if so, is the premise for more "public discourse" then nothing more than a vague assumption?

You ask what my methodology is, and I don't see that there's any real clear methodolgy to what you're doing either.