You still can't or won't answer any of my substantive points. First, you hide behind a wall of archispeak, next you devolve into a bunch of psychobable. It's amazing a simpleton like me could so easily get under your skin, so much for your convictions. While I think you're work is interesting (not another brain dead glass box), I think it's ugly, and no amount of words will change that. You should check out Gaudi, now that guy knew his curves. By the way, it's just an opinion, not personal. As long as someone is buying what you're selling, onward and forward!
Wow, this guy's seriously out of touch. Reminds me of the medieval priest hood that prefered to keep the "masses" ignorant while speaking latin simply to keep the "authority" in their hands. When you ask simple question you get declarative sentences like "This task of architecture as discipline is to innovate this best practice repertoire in line with general historical challenges." I think Zahahadid's work is interesting, but this pontificating and telling other's their's is the only legitimate perspective while dodging questions... Good luck in you're quest of telling everyone else how to think but I think your "methodological principles, evaluative criteria, and characteristic formal repertoire" are all wrong. "Rarefied exclusivity is not at all what we want" You want more???
The idea that the concept of "style" needs to be re-habilitated while conceding that it's the primary way the public understands architecture underlines the main problem within the profession. They could care less about the public. This article is the most conservative architectural treatis I've recently read in that all the modernist conventions are being upheld. The false dichotomy of either historicism or modernism blows right over the fact that modernism as a style (broadly speaking) is as historicist as any other. This guy's attempt to institutionalise whatever work his firm does as the go to style of today is as transparent as the false intellectualism of the early modernists. We are modern, eclectic people, and as such ought to to whatever we feel like. If only architects as professionals would get over their fear of being tradespeople, we might actually produce buildings people care about. It's no wonder European cities have been frozen in time, it's the public's way of acknowledging we can't do anything better. Look back at most architectural commentary of the last 300 years, and the evolution of whatever style was in vogue was always refered to as modern. To me, it's just another used car salesman pitch.