Cities or certain parts of cities are attractive because they are comprehensible. A certain type of order makes them comprehensible and therefore attractive. What this means is that they are better places to live in. The idea of order of course includes the adoption of certain proportions (or disproportions), of certain colours and materials, and, no less important, a certain type of vegetation.

What is being produced in a city environment ought to be interpreted not so much as the growth of a city but the superimposition and addition of new and old urban structures. Urban structures whose foundations are based on a certain strategy which will provide for the mutual enjoyment of services, features and different alternatives that the prevailing economic conditions allow for.

@ architects should not worry about the future of architecture in the abstract. Nowadays it is more important for us to concern ourselves with being part of a coherent profession (call it what you like) relating to the construction of buildings, cities, right up to landscapes. A profession whose concern in the last instance is the forms of construction.

Concern with the problems of form has always been the basic question in architecture from a cultural point of view (including popular culture). Concern with form belongs to good constructors besides all the other questions that must concern them: technical conditions, uses, economic possibilities, etc.

@ as architects we ought to revise some of the ideas about what we are doing. I relieve for example, that we should put aside some philosophical assumptions (generally badly directed) in order to concentrate (albeit for a while) on more architecturally pertinent questions (in design as well as in construction). We should be ADvocAtes of the simple and compact rather than the complex and the indefinite..

Every proposal we make should be backed by a reference or references from one or various cases known in reality (which for architects means that unconstructed projects and failed experiences constitute a part as well). This can contribute to defining a little better our work, and so re-channel our activity as a profession with more solid, social and cultural bases of responsibility and with less romantic/artistic interpretations which actually hide behind the hyper technology and new theories on computerised societies.

We should rethink new forms of significance which are to do with, and are supported by, great changes that are happening in social and economic life. However, these new forms should not be culturally condescending, they should be part of the process of change but at the same time structurally critical. This is to say, that they should not be forms whose significance is centred on the persuasive character of architecture. They should be part of the generation of some general, open, cultural options as opposed to the more closed and elitist alternatives that are currently being developed in relation to the new scientific and technological changes which are occurring. I believe that a period of popular baroque would not be a bad thing in order to throw the elitism of these trends into the discussion (in this sense, as being the anti-dogmatic use of language, the creation of new types, the attempt to communicate beyond a determined social group and the reconstruction of the debate on the modern and the old).