An architecture that is concise but nevertheless narrative, familiar and at the same time unexpected, definite but also inventive, is what we believe forms a public contribution. An architectural way of thinking which aims to include instead of exclude, to explore and also sensitize, in contradiction to a static, mute architecture.

Nowadays, architecture is called to reinterpret a multitude of sensitive dynamic fields that life evolution itself releases, by examining under more profound points of view the meaning of material space, the expression of imagination and the activation of emotions. By seeking new ways of thinking and expressing which could intersect the established investigation routes. By being able to understand the undergoing changes of society and transubstantiate them into a meaningful architectural speech, more poetic and explorative, more sensitive to human needs.
Nonetheless, there is an argument that the difference between architectural ideas and the building itself lies in the fact that the building has a practical utility while architectural ideas consist a utopian understanding, detached from reality. This point of view also sets the false dilemma between an indifferent building and an iconographic, ephemeral design. All these notions form an over-simplification that must be avoided. Architecture cannot be – and is not – a consuming product that stops existing after being used.

The quest for a balanced relationship between built and natural environment remains one of the central issues of architecture, especially nowadays that scientific progress leads to a way of living, governed by consumer goods and technology symbols. Within this «techno-centric» environment, architecture is obliged to oppose intellectuality and sentiment, creativity and sustainability. By intervening between the physical phenomena and the human being, architecture contributes – both in pragmatic and semantic level – to the satisfaction of his forgotten primordial needs.

We are concerned with the «theatrical» order of space, the way in which architecture can intervene with our environment «giving colour» to our routine. By shaping life forms – buildings for a small scale and cities for a larger one – which will revitalize emotions by merging reality with dream; past and future through present. We are concerned with those ideas that make sense, can touch the soul and thought, transubstantiating the material world into culture. Ideas, which can influence the collective perspective, leading to a more sensitive awareness; that architecture is neither only functional space or ephemeral form, nor only material. On the contrary, architectural thinking can «stage» spatial experiences that concentrate strong, deeper intentions that broaden the boundaries – beyond the material existence of a building – between the familiar and experimental, the technical and mental, the organized and imaginary, the artificial and natural, by always leading them towards new horizons. This kind of architecture can offer unique emotions by producing a vivid experience of mind and space.
In the course of historic time, architecture reflects the cultural progress of every society revealing the spirit of each era. Therefore, its «image» is consistently over time identified with the «image» of human creation. Like any form of creation, architecture attempts to give answers to critical collective issues – often deeply dilemmatic – related to the human notions and behaviours. Architecture allows the unfolding of powers that facilitate the quest of outlets to these critical issues by intervening in our daily routine and proposing a more interesting framework of life based on hope for something new, deeper, more «beautiful», in the broader sense. Exactly like what painting and music do. For all these, architecture is an art, and compensative on a daily basis.
We conceive the role of architecture in the city like a «link» which is capable of enforcing urban spaces, interconnecting them through their own spatial dynamic; so that these spaces – which sometimes are fragmentary, formless or even abandoned – can obtain connection and interest. This process is much more complex but at the same time more realistic than trying to impose a «prefabricated» urban model and then try to negotiate a suitable architecture.
In this on-going process, the presence of a diverse architecture will contribute to the creation of a vivid urban space, boosting its internal contradictions and interplays. Nevertheless, the complexity of our days no longer allows us to think of unilateral and common solutions. As societies evolve, the subjects will be receivers of new influences and the symbolic schemes for interpreting the world will continue to change. This fact raises a basic issue on architecture which should be characterized with adjustability, and follow open minded intellectual routes.

Each intellectual, artist, creator – and, hence, architect – obtains his legacy of raw materials for further questioning and elaboration. These individuals are not content with the generally accepted schemes, but on the contrary seek to transcend them, by challenging the granted. By analysing with their critical eye their basic elements, they help us see things in a more complex way, from different angles. The knowledge that this brings does not unsettle the collective acceptance on what has already been gained - on the contrary, it makes it more explicit, more conscious. At the same time, they introduce new ways of thinking – maybe sometimes aberrant – but in any case useful as a reply against any kind of persistence that distracts from the essence. We should always remember that architecture is the product of historical progression and history is a perennial creation. But creation means differentiation. A framework of principles – which could satisfy the natural tendency of man towards constant progress and creation, which concurrently guarantees the right to a different way of thinking and expression – which we ought to, according to our opinion, seek as architects.