Our designs produce a progressive sequence, whose overall effect can be described as controversial. And though the specific qualities of the design can be attributed to the object’s form, the actual design process deals with questions that reach beyond form alone: our design process seeks to establish a correlation between the building project and the city’s social cohesion. The conclusions we draw from this process establish the framework for the architecture and the urban planning for the specific project. Accordingly, the building project, or more specifically: the correlation between the building program and its place must be defined new each time. Ideally, our building project shapes our knowledge of the specific place as we engage the specific qualities of this place in developing the ideas on which we base the building program. This process culminates in ambivalent relationships: we seek to increase the appreciation of a place while at the same time changing, on occasion even overcoming the perception we have of a place. This kind of constellation has no predetermined constants or variables. The goal of finding a specific design that will engender a sense of history for a given place necessarily presupposes a dynamic design process. More to the point: there can be no right or wrong. We are borne by an experience of the city that unfolds as a manifest tapestry made up of an endless and multifaceted activity – confusing and plentiful.