<Usman>There was a point in which the architect, the person responsible or
the design and construction of the building was actually the same person. The
designer of the thing might as well be owning it, and quite possibly living in it.
Capitalist system has evolved separating the trades, labours and responsibilities 
for each of these things to a specific person.
So in a sense the idea of openness in architecture is coming as a reaction to that.
So basically it is trying to tackle several hundred years of inertia. That’s perhaps
why it is taking a little while to come about.</Usman>
<Maxime>It is weird, to have on one side a set of people so-called “elite” who
are forced to decide, and on the other side a set of people who agree to suffer
these decisions made by others. This is quite strange.</Maxime>
<Cesar>Also because architects are depositary of a tradition, which represent a
certain value?</Cesar>
<Usman> In a very practical sense architecture conditions the way we live our
lives, the practice of architecture is inherently conservative profession. We like to
live in the kind of space we grew up in, more or less. It is very difficult for the ma-
jority of people to say “I want to live in a completely different space where doors
are not doors...”. We have this kind of inertia... The function of so-called “avant-
garde architecture” is to probe these different boundaries, so there is a possibility
of flowing in that direction eventually, but not necessarily straight away.
</Usman>
<Cesar>How can we move away from political inertia?</Cesar>
<Nina>Usually, we take our starting point in an existing situation and we intro-
duce some kind of foreign element, or just a wedge into the existing social struc-
ture, something that pushes the entire balance to move just a little bit, and a new
tension arises or a stronger version of the existing tension.</Nina>
<Cesar>Is it a gift?<Cesar>
<Nina>Just as much as an annoyance or a challenge.</Nina>