Constantly striving for the essence.

Prone to eschew fashion or trends of any kind or “ism”.

Does not acknowledge problems or questions of ‘form’ – only of construction.

Does not contemplate ‘form’ as a goal or cause ‘per se’ – only as the result of an informed intricate process (not as the motive, only as a consequence).

Dismisses, thus, ‘form’ as an objective by itself – or in other words, (mere) ‘formalism’.

Focuses on restoring the architectural practice’s agenda to what it should (exclusively) belong to, and which (still) remains as its (sole) core support –

materiality and its pure construction design.

Considers these as grounding and embodying the discipline’s (only) possible creative tools –

and ultimately, the architect’s (specific) potential themes.

Ponders that architecture should just be itself – and not some (subliminal) ‘symbol’ aiming to metaphorically depict something else.

In a time that celebrates the frivolous and nonessential, and in which detail, refinement and (slow) absorption are (usually) neglected or half forgotten, he essays within a tradition of an architecture of ‘resistance’, one that speaks and communicates nothing more than its very own (silent) language.

Significance, conceptualization and value come afterwards – they lie in the eye of the beholder, and not of the former.

Believes that each project bears the imprint of its own circumstances.

Though seeking for the acuity of very precise answers to each specific problem, he strives for a particular ‘constellation’ :

the ambiguity of an (anonymous) spatial ‘composite conglomerate’, that allows for (and specifically responds to) a certain use, but that can (occasionally or eventually) be freed from its purpose –

spaces in (constant) expectation, and not merely the (usual) principle of “form follows function”.

Hence, each project synthesizes a unique and unrepeatable (poetic) endeavor.

Refers Japan as a defining experience in his life.
In Japan, he was guided through a line of local customs and traditions, and enlightened to their exquisite culture.
As such, he learned their evocative vision of the mundane, and the beauty of impermanence.

In short, to accept ‘space’ as one accepts ‘time’ –

with its share of (in)finiteness, transience, unpredictability, melancholy and ineffableness.

Ever since, he became interested in presence, and in reconciling built spaces with their sense of belonging, memory, harmony and grace –

like an endless ‘elegy’ to what is continuously both perennial and ephemeral.

Practices architecture as a secular discipline that, among and together with coordinating several areas of expertise, (still) possesses its own autonomy.

Although claiming that, every so often, it may reach a timeless artistic existence, he regards architecture as an “art” solely through its Greek ancient essence and meaning, the original root-word “techné” –

a specific way of knowledge or ‘know-how’, that operates with its own specific means (or a particular, intuitive but concrete sense of doing, which arises from both accumulated experience and sensibility – or in other words, from both practice and theory).

Hence, he interprets architecture as

an art of designing,

an art of building,

an art of inhabiting –

and, ultimately,

an art of living.