Bigness = Less Autonomy?

 When reading through the “Team” section in Koolhas’ article Bigness, Koolhas mentions that engaging in Big architecture means the architect is giving up autonomy at the expense of enormity. He goes on to explain that all the people working on Bigness (engineers, contractors, manufacturers, politics, etc) are similar to a web umbilical cords tied together, thus the architect is giving up control of autonomy of the project. However, isn’t the common relationship in most practices? Granted I don’t have much professional experience, but from the time that I have had I have witnessed firsthand the large meetings around the oval table between all the parties attached to the project, and the teamwork that has to be held to produce a building. How is this any different in Bigness? Maybe Koohlas is arguing that because Big architecture needs more engineering consulting than a smaller building, thus the architect giving up control. But could you argue his point at pointing to examples of Big architecture and seeing the strong association between it and its architects? Like the Generali Tower and Zaha Hadid, Al Hamra Tower by Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill, or Turning Torso by Santiago Calatrava.