Macros are important, that's why I seeking guidance in Let Over Lambda. The most suitable lisps for writing macros are lisp-2, hence the preference for a lisp-2 dual namespace.
Lisp-2's have less potential for trouble with unhygienic macros, but they still have it. Hygienic macro systems work with Lisp-1 as well as with Lisp-2.
In regards to hygienic macros and Hoyte's Let Over Lambda, the type of variable capture hygiene is designed to prevent is actually used as a programming technique in the book; Hoyte calls it free variable injection.
Lisp-1 vs Lisp-2 actually has very little to do with macros. Most of the inconvenience comes when writing functions - things like having to name list parameters "lst." The way Common Lisp gets around the variable capture problem is to forbid the rebinding of special forms, functions, and macros defined in the standard.* This is an ugly hack that forces early binding, and obviously does nothing to prevent capture of user-defined functions.
* - This wasn't done for the sake of macros. The rationale behind the decision as I heard it is to prevent the hypothetical scenario of some standard function like cdr that's called inside the garbage collector or allocator from being rebound to something that tries to allocate memory and crashes the gc or sends the allocator into an infinite loop. I don't really buy it; it's easy enough to prevent these types of scenarios.
I think the Scheme and Racket communities would take issue with your claim that lisp-2 languages are more suitable for writing macros than their respective languages :)
Apropos, I've written a Lisp->JS compiler a while ago; you might find some of the code useful: http://github.com/manuel/cyberlisp/