If you want a discussion. such as it is. in the profession which in simple-minded terms might have the Prince of Wales and new urbanism on one side - which is neither. of course. new nor urban but it is on one side and then in the opposite comer. in the lexicon of the boxing ring. is.1et's say. deconstruction If there' 5 a third corner which is outside in the moraine which 15 ‘please come back Mies van der Rohe‘ or something. in that these groups to some extent still think they hold a certain amount of the truth and sit in a tri-comered system sticking their tongues out at each other. And I think what I‘m most interested in doing in a way— and this shouldn't sound like a political pattern of behaviour- is trying to understand that the truth. there is such a thing as the truth

But the truth is atension between issues. The sensibility is a tension So it's not a matter of then landing incite camp or'lside or group which claims right for itself, in opposition to the other groups which are ipso facto wrong. but in a sense to try to find a way which would be able to hold onto multiple possibilities simultaneously in an architectural sense. And what I call' in that little essay in the thzo'libook* is a dialectical tension which is an intellectual tension between possibilities that one would try to hold onto simultaneously instead of saying "it's this or it' s this" in building. and let's assume for the moment that building could transmute this discussion. and this discussion could be rendered spatially Because I have to say parenthetically that a lot of ‘these kinds of discussions sound very interesting or very boring or very esoteric or very. something. but not materialised architecturally. So I'm first going to argue andthenwe'll seeifl canjustifythis. thatin factwhat I'm arguing for canbe delivered spatially. Because this is very important for an architect This is the only thing that matters. not the speech-making prowess.