VB:I am not talking about gradual evolvement based on continuous research and design process. Since we talked eight years ago architecture went through a drastic transformation. We no longer celebrate the individual. Your work from the beginning was about celebrating the iconic and the invention of a distinctive signature style. It was a direct response to the times. How do you acknowledge the new reality when so many young architects openly suppress their individuality? Is there pressure to make any concessions?

JMH:Well we can only write with our own handwriting. Architecture is the same way. There is no specific intention or strategy in regard to the architectural language that we use just our own capacity to work with the medium that is architecture. However the making of architecture shifted towards more communication and collaboration which enriches the design process and its complexity. I don’t believe our work changed that much even if the discourse has shifted. We were always concerned with how our buildings are experienced. Our architecture anchors itself in different contexts and that forces us to evolve. What is currently being discussed are just moments of particular urgencies and preferences; they come and go. But we have so many ongoing issues. Right now we may be focusing more on being sensitive to the environment and being pragmatic. That of course influences our work but the language that we use is already established and formed by many forces beyond today’s discussion.