V eseju Luciena Steila Tradicija in modernizem v sodobni praksi si
trije vidiki premoči zaslužijo kritični odpor ad infinitum. Dva odkrita: premoč tradicije nad sodobnostjo
ali apoteoza historizma, premoč estetskega nad vsebinskim ali
obrat arhitektonskih vrednot - in eden prikrit: premoč individuuma nad kolektivom ali preklinjanje utopije. Premoč tradicije nad sodobnostjo avtor razlaga z zoperstavljenjem postmoderne sodobnosti in modernistične preteklosti. Zagovarja tezo o
primatu zgodovine nad sodobnostjo, pri čemer v sodobnosti poudarja mimobežnost v primerjavi s prisotnostjo. Premoč estetskega nad vsebinskim raje zagovarja s klasičnimi arhitektonskimi vrednotami, osnovanimi na videzu, udobnosti in trajnosti, kot z modernimi arhitektonskimi vrednotami funkcionalnosti, racionalnosti in sodobnih tehnik proizvodnje stavb. Premoč posameznika nad kolektivom utemeljuje z zoperstavljanjem dveh eminentno sekularnih zgodovinskih pozicij: prikrit strah pred eno - utopijo - avtor sprošča z drugo - radikalnim liberalizmom.
(...)

Three aspects of superiority, from the essay Tradition and Modernity in Contemporary Practice by Lucien Steil,
deserve critical defiance ad infinitum. Of the three aspects, two are overt: the superiority of tradition over the contemporary (or the apotheosis of history), and the superiority of aesthetics over content (or the converse of the tenets of architecture); the covert aspect is the individual’s superiority over the collective
(or the malediction of utopia). The author finds the reasons for the superiority of tradition over contemporaneity in the juxtaposition of the post-Modern past to the Modernist past. Furthermore, those reasons are also derived from his thesis on the primacy of the past over the present, emphasising present passatism over presence. He supports the superiority of aesthetics over content by
citing the classical tenets of architecture such as beauty, comfort and permanence, rather than citing modern architectural tenets such as functionality, rationality and modern building techniques. He underpins the individual’s superiority over the collective by the juxtaposition
of two distinguishably secular historical positions: radical liberalism and the latent fear of utopia, and furthermore uses
the first to soften the latter.
(...)