We live in a country full of stimuli in both our natural surroundings and our built environment among places of great charm and interest, rich and divergent. Our history and the history of our Architecture have inspired a plethora of studies and research. Getting to know Greek monuments and traditional settlements was, and still is, part of the architectural studies for many students. This rich environment has given us the chance to live and work around exciting places full of meaning always having something new to discover.

Where is this concentrated experience in the new architecture that we produce? Could it be that we repeat ourselves in matters connected to the design and evolution of space and we consume the better part of our efforts in matters concerning the external form? One can bring in mind the space arrangements of apartment buildings and observe the similarities among the layouts of buildings belonging to the same decade. Or one can observe a repetitive pattern in space arrangements in projects regardless of their design quality. This standardization possibly hides an inadequate research in the true potential offered when creating a new space. There are many different ways to approach architecture. In all of them space is, or should be, the primary substance. A raw material and at the same time a scarce resource with capabilities that transcends our personal limits. We often neglect it hastening to deal with those parts of our work that are linked to the more tangible parts of a project. Our education, but also the criticism addressed to architecture, contributes to this. The consistency of our designs concentrating on the relationship between structure, form and function is always at the core. In other cases architecture is treated exclusively as an expression of art. Or, in other cases, the ambiguous issue of “functionality” prevails. Our true relationship with the space we use goes beyond these analyses. It is a dynamic experience influencing all aspects of our interaction with space.. It has to do with the way we experience space, our feelings inside and outside of it, the positive, negative or neutral effect it has in whatever we are doing.

 ” … the predominant question “how big is it?” very quickly shifts to “how good is it? … ”

The dramatic change in the conditions of production of our built environment, because of the economic crisis, gives birth to new ways of thinking. Τhe predominant question “how big is it?” very quickly shifts to “how good is it?”

In the USA there are many new implemented proposals for trailer houses measuring 12m2 to 18m2. In Japan it is common practice to build houses on 20m2 or 30m2 plots. Combining these with opposite examples, like a big new ranch in Mexico and the richness of spatial experience that it may offer, one can get the measure of the potential and adaptability that our raw material offers. Within space itself there are many relationships and values that can be found and explored. Spatial arrangement, internal-external space, light and shade, public and private, movement and posture activity – tranquility, are only a few among the many that can be mentioned. Research, experimentation and evolution concerning choices that are taken for granted may lead to proposals that without costing more are closer to fulfilling the complex network of needs of building-users.