While the 24-105 is a very useful lens, it is more a jack of all trades. For that reason, you may want to consider a 24mm prime for landscapes, it depends how important the image quality is to you. I used to use the 24-105 for landscapes, but on full frame, the corners are quite soft, but it does depend on the scene, as to whether that is a problem. I went for the 24mm f/1.4 MkII in the end, as I was going to be photographing some northern lights, otherwise I'd probably have leaned towards the 24 TS/E. In your case the tilt and shift might make more sense with the architecture and it does give you more flexibility with landscapes. Neither the 14mm or the 17mm Tilt and shift allow you to use filters without modifications to holders, as the front element bulges, so that is something to bear in mind. Although I don't shoot many portraits, I have found the 24-105 to be ideal, especially in fast moving scenarios, where you might need to vary the focal length. That would also negate the need for a portrait prime to start with, then you can always add one later, if you want to try out selective focus. In fact you could always hold off on a wideangle prime if you have the 24-105, then you can judge whether the results are good enough for your needs. That leaves macro and sports. The 24-105 could cope with outdoor sports if not too far away, but it isn't one of its fortes, so the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII would make more sense, particularly as it is reputed to be as sharp as many primes and the two combinations would give you alot of versatility at lower cost. Macro-wise, the 180mm macro would allow you to stand back from insects, but it depends what you're shooting. If it is more static subjects, then a 100mm or even less focal length would be better, particularly in restricted spaces. The 135mm can also be used as a close-up lens, if you add all 68mm of a Kenko extension tube set, that gives you around half life size. If you want to save a bit of money, have a look around for the non-L 100mm macro, it is at least as good as the L version, in terms of IQ and focuses slightly faster from what I have read, so can make a useful portrait and short telephoto lens. I'm certainly very happy with it and used to use it for wildlife at feeding stations in low light before I got my 135.
I forgot to mention the 50 f/1.4, as cheap as it is, it is worth having in your bag for when you need it. It may lack a little contrast compared to other lenses, but it is definitely useful.
