A dialogue about architecture is a process of discovery, of commonality and of differences; my conversation with any client is an attempt to understand and identify these. Discussion illuminates physical intersections about the site, and personal intersections between the client and architect. Then ensues a discussion of how my design approach might suit the client's programmatic needs.
In order to decide intelligently how to annex the delicate distance between the user
and the land upon which he wishes to build/occupy, time must be taken to acknowledge the
crossings, commonalities and potential collisions and conflict.
IF such an intersection does not exist, there is no point in continuing the process.
Architectural solutions must be elegant, efficient and becoming, like a properly sized electrical conductor. A misunderstanding of the gap may result in overkill, ornament and disparity of scale. While the sanctions for poor architectural intervention are less clear than in physics, they are nevertheless conspicuous and obvious. We have to live at times with visual and spatial incongruity.
Until inventors started thinking about the puzzle of staying airborne, they tried to devise solutions for flight that were appropriate to a bird, and not to the technology of aviation as we know it today.
The very first thing I design is the proper question.
