Is once a week "church" enough?

I feel like there is a lack of true fellowship missing from much of today's Church.  Not everyone, not everywhere... but with a lot.  Fellowship that I see in the Bible.  It's certainly not the humdrum of "going to church" once or twice a week for a couple 1-3 hours max.  In Acts, specifically, they were constantly meeting house to house. It wasn't a once a week thing, and it wasn't at a centrally located building.  Then again, there were also those who sold their houses entirely (Acts 4:34) for the good of others, to be shared.  Be that as it may, it's clear that they met frequently house to house among people or the church corporately who owned them.

Examples:

Acts 2 -- The Day of Pentecost. They were gathered in a house, as directed by Jesus to wait.

Acts 5:42 -- We are told a number of the apostles visited Jewish Synagogues, as well as house to house to teach about Jesus.

Acts 8 -- Saul gathered up the church, going house to house to get them (he didn't go to a "church", where they could all easily be found as might be done today.  I wonder if there is wisdom in that...).

Now, I'm not suggesting it's a sin to have a central building where we all meet at a set time.  But at the same time, it doesn't seem that we see these early Christians found at one unless they were witnessing/preaching the Gospel to others who normally gathered there.  Fellowship, time and time again, occurred in houses.  I'm merely presenting what I find when I read.

So many of us are busy with our own lives; so I wonder how deeply our fellowship really goes with today's mega-churches, and the like (this begs the question, at what point *really* does one become a mega-church)?  What if gathering at "the church"--as we are the church, in the House of God--was really done with a purpose, other than fellowhship?  Or, at least, it wasn't to primary place where we go to attain that fellowship or spiritual food for the week.  What if the church (that's us) through true fellowship, throughout the week--house to house--was learning and growing all over the city, state, country, and world in this way?

Many people still only meet house to house out of necessity I suppose, in some place of the world... but it is uncommon. Now, if we are going to have a central building (that place w/ the cross and the parking lot), Jesus said that His House should be called a House of Prayer (Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46).  He condemned the selling of merchandise at the tables and obstructed people with merchandise from walking through the temple courts (see Mark's version).

If we are going to have a House of God, then why do we spend so much money on making it comfortable?  Is it there to give us a palatable feel to delight our physical pleasures?  I feel much of it often is.  And, in James 4:3 we're told "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."  Our "churches" are air conditioned, soft seated, well lit, with various amenities to keep us in pleased so that we can easily make it through the 1-1.5 hour "service", once a week.  While I'm not necessarily against these things, I just wonder what if they weren't there?  Would we still gather?

So much time and money is spent on making ourselves comfortable when we come together corporately.  Then again, the same pleasures are found in our own homes.  If the AC wasn't there, along w/ soft seats and nice bathrooms, would our fellowship quickly die out?  Would people stop coming?  I'd be interested to know.  And, if it did die out because these things are gone, was it really fellowship?  Perhaps it would be a good test, and a chance to grow.  What if we shared more of what we had--our lives being totally open to what God would put in and take away, regardless of the comfort it may bring or deny us?  What if what was mine is yours, and yours is mine?  What would that fellowship be like?  Would it be profoundly foolish or wise?