S katerega stališča bi se bilo najbolje lotiti teme bivanja in stanovanja, da bi se pri tem razvila pozitivna kritika, ki upošteva ne le splošne družbene okoliščine, ampak hkrati preučuje tudi progresivne arhitekturne potenciale? Seveda so interesi različnih akterjev v oblikovanju prostora partikularni, prav tako ne obstaja okvirni ali deklarativni modernistični "veliki narativ", ki bi deloval kot programatski ali ideološko zasnovan splošni vrednostni sistem – torej normativen in racionalen konsenz glede vprašanja, kaj je javna dobrina. V okoliščinah, v katerih javni in zasebni interesi niso regulirani in usklajeni, je ena od možnosti obrat od splošnega k posamičnemu, od normativnih k singularnim rešitvam. Ta obrat seveda vsebuje določeno defenzivno politično stališče in predlaga "kapilarno prodiranje" naprednih misli v situacijo, v sklopu katere je samoumevno, da sta konformizem in primat dobička neizbežni kategoriji. Toda rušenje vrednostnega sistema in izginjanje koherentnih arhitekturnih konceptov na področju stanovanja, nenazadnje tudi mestogradnje, je ravno tako posledica dejstva, da smo stari, "humanistični" normativ z lahkoto zamenjali z novim, "liberalnim" normativom, kot dve plati medalje. Torej bi bilo treba preučiti temo normativov.
(...)

How can we approach this topic while developing at the same time a fruitful criticism which would respect common circumstances found in today’s societies and yet be open to the progressive potential of architecture? Undoubtedly, the interests of various actors involved in designing spaces are particular, and we can no longer talk of even a framework or declaratively modernistic "big narrative", which could take up the role of a broadly accepted scale of values programmatically or ideologically founded. We cannot talk, that is, of one normative and rational consensus about what it is that we all take for the common good. In circumstances in which public and private interests have been neither regulated nor put in an adequate relationship, the only alternative is to turn from the general towards the individual, from a general rule to singular solutions. Of course, this turnaround connotes a somewhat defensive political option and suggests strategic "capillary permeation" by progressive thinking through attitudes which imply the priority of conformism and of profit. But the collapse of the old system of values and dissipation of coherent architectural concepts once present in the area of housing, and therefore in town construction, is actually a consequence of the fact that the old "humanist" norm was easily replaceable by the new, "liberal" one, as if that process consisted just in turning the other side of the coin. Consequently, it is the norm that we have to re-examine.
(...)