Strictly based on the options (kinda like a GRE exam)...4. Only because the social science provides a multidisciplinary background and studio art provides you with spatial composition...just my opinion.

I have a BS (Bachelors in Science). It was a 4 year undergrad, strictly ALL architecture. Most of us go into the schools we wanted for grad (including the Ivy's).

That's the safest way to do it. If you do something else, it had better be special.

hmmm...

I'm doing a B.A. in Architectural Studies & Fine Art History. (Although I studied Comp Sci for a year and so I have Calculus, Physics, Algebra, Programming...)

I suppose we'll find out next year if I get into the Ivy's. ;)

Note: I spoke with graduate admissions at my school (U of T) and they completely discouraged me from doing a pre-professional undergrad in JUST architecture. They deemed it way too focused and suggested I do fine art history as well.

I would choose either choice 2 or 4. Here are some reasons why and some things to think about:

Either of these choices will give you a good portfolio to apply with. Remember that your portfolio need not include much or any architecture projects if you're applying to a first-professional M.Arch program.

I don't like choice 3 because I know from experience that any double major that includes architecture is a very, very difficult path to take. Your time, nerves, GPA, general quality of work, and your happiness may suffer if you take this route. Trust me.

Choice 1 would mean that you'd have to either take some electives in drawing/art or be very productive in your own time to create a strong portfolio of visual work. Many M.Arch programs also require at least 1 drawing course as a prerequisite.

One caution: choice 2 will only get you advanced standing in certain M.Arch programs. Many of the top-rated M.Arch programs either rarely or never give advanced standing at all, or treat this as a competetive option that only a small percentage of applicants are granted. It is not automatic that you'd get advanced standing except in a few programs. If recent grads of your particular school have usually gotten advanced standing then your chances would seem a bit better. Also if you are planning to stay at your current school for your M.Arch then you'd probably easily get advanced standing - though staying is not always a great idea. I wouldn't necessarily make my choice based on a difference of a year though.

I do disagree with Trace because about a third of people admitted to most first-professional M.Arch programs have no architecture, art or design background, and these applicants usually don't make up more than a third of the applicants (meaning their chances are as good or better than those applicants with design backgrounds.)

Choice 4 really appeals to me the most, because I think it's a good idea to get a broad background of education/experience and if you do an undergrad architecture program you'll always encounter some redundancy in grad school.

I am finishing up my undergraduate work in a Design school where I did architectural design and business management.I would agree with Aluminate in regard to possibly not choosing a double major. The difference in mine is that it is an Interdisciplinary degree in which the Design school and the School of Business agreed to allow me to make a major combing Architectural Design and Graphics courses, some math, and Business Management related courses all two make one intense and narrowly focused degree.
I took all my liberal arts requirements, but when I got into my major's courses I didn't have to take a bunch of crap I didn't care about-just what pertained to my goals.
The Architectural Design courses allowed me to have a more competitive portfolio for graduate school-although I am only elligible to apply for a Path 1 track(professional M.Arch and not post because my undergrad is not a recognized professional program), and my business courses gave me a great understanding of competitiveness for the marketplace and owning my own company.
I was able to gain a well rounded group of recommenders because they were not all Arch. teachers, but business professors as well.

art history is the single most useless major in the history of academia. and this is coming from the holder of an art history degree.

i graduated with an M.Arch (3 yrs). one year the incoming class was 50% non-architecture backgrounds - social sciences mostly, some fine arts - (that's a lot) and the following year the incomers were more than 75% architecture-major undergrads. i think it not only varies from school to school but from year to year (or dept. chair to dept. chair). keep in mind that a b.arch means you may place out of a year or more of grad $chool

I am graduating this semester with a B.S. Art and Design (focusing in Architecture) and a B.S. Biology from MIT. I also have a strong background in computer programming. So far I have only heard from and been accepted to one school (GSD).

you can see what I turned in for my portfolio here :
http://mit.edu/jrosenk/Public/jrosenk-portfolio.pdf

I would say having extra majors that aren't architecture probably makes you a somewhat more attractive candidate because you are probably coming from a different perspective and have a chance for interdisciplinary work. On the other hand it isn't any substitute for exploring your interest in architecture early on.

In my opinion it just depends on what you want to do. I am about to graduate with a B.S. in a pre-arch program in Ohio. And i just got into grad school. I went into arch when i got into college but had a fine arts foundation before that...i think that both arch and art helps.