Personally I'd do environmental engineering. Seems more lucrative, stable, and less dependent on talent. If you're extremely talented and great with making friends, have an entrepreneurial and risk taking personality and are for sure architecture is the only thing that'll fulfill you professionally, I'd go with arch. Seems like one of those careers in the same realm as say acting. Some make bank many don't. although unlike acting, less of a starving kind of profession (although it depends on the economy). I'd do env.engineering and paint and/or build on the side. Personally.

i don't know how similar "environmental engineering" is to either "environmental studies" or "environmental management," but yale has a master of environmental management dual-degree with architecture.

i'm sort of in the same boat and i've been searching for "dual degrees" and "joint degrees."

most are only 1 year extra on top of the master of architecture degree.

thanks, i think right now i'm leaning toward env. engineering, though if i could find/get into a joint program, i would go for that. i also know uc berkeley has a dual degree program with civil engineering, only a bachelor's in engineering is required.

i guess if i am really motivated or find that I really want to do architecture, i could choose to obtain a MArch after I get a Master's in Env Engineering...although i also like Ersatz's idea about painting/building on the side.

It sounds like you should do architecture. Maybe you'd be better at environmental engineering, or maybe you'd make more money - but if architecture is what you really want to do, go for it. There are plenty of M.Arch programs you can do which focus on environmental technology / s************y if you want.