It has almost become customary in our country not to exercise criticism on architecture. All art magazines contain columns in which every artistic activity and event is criticized and evaluated; literature, music, painting, theatre, etc. Such a column does not appear in any Greek architectural magazine, as if a secret agreement existed. The most one can find is a vague anxiety about general architectural questions, with no direct or definite reference to the work of a certain architect, as if the entire subject were taboo.

I do not feel sorry to ignore this taboo. Given the crisis of architecture in our country we probably need now more than ever to face reality unconventionally. I only feel sorry because the colleague, whose work I am dealing with is a nice fellow and I appreciate and respect his work. The fact that I think highly of him as an architect is one of the reasons that led me to criticize the way he has treated the Metropolis square and the result of this treatment. How can one describe something that lacks any central, concrete idea? It is as if you strive to describe a chaotic and random situation, unarticulated, without beginning or end. Everything is neither in order nor clear. Thus, even what we conventionally could call “the concept behind the idea of the square” lies somewhere between the casual and the so called “intentional”. If, of course, one could argue that such a concept exists in the first place and not an obvious dare I say intentional refusal to bring the parts of the square under any order at all.