In discussions or writings about contemporary architecture the interest usually focuses on big or high profile projects. Architecture is always connected to its creator. This emphasis on recognition has shifted our interest from the results of architecture towards the question of ”who did what” and ‘what else has he done”. This aptitude is related to the belief, that the big and important projects are what we inherit to the next generations, they are what contributes to the evolution of our civilization.

Man’s creative involvement in the improvement of the space he lives in is very old. Whether it is a new project or the improvement of what already exists his endeavors go back to the beginning of his existence. Many of the monuments that we now admire as part of the world’s heritage were not meant as such when created. Others had this recognition in the core of their creative conception. This distinction may lead to different approaches to architecture. In the first the final result is the determining factor. The perfect completion of an excellent creative idea is what justifies all the efforts and resources utilized. An alternative approach may accept that the end product is the result of many different opinions, specialties and factors where each carries its own weight. Without being indifferent to the final result it considers it as something that may change through time and focuses in values that will be sustained through time. It may be more tolerant to decisions that compromise its expressive clarity. The task of the architect is better described as a service that contributes in the complex process of design and less as that of a sole creator of a final result.

” … The task of the architect is better described as a service that contributes in the complex process of design and less as that of a sole creator of a final result … “

In our country architects and architecture have been challenged for many years and for many different reasons. Almost everyone is dissatisfied with our built environment. In real life however the evolution of a building does not always stop with the completion of its construction. New needs and conditions create new opportunities. If we can overcome the conventional approach to the question of “how creative is what we are doing” we may combine creativity with our obligation to offer better solutions improving the everyday life of end users. This approach will also contribute in addressing each new project as a precious opportunity and challenge. Contemplating a little less about what our designs say for us and caring a little more about what others feel about what we design, we may be able to decrease the gap between architects and the public. After all dealing with the contemporary needs of our society may go hand in hand with our concerns for the future generations.