I recognize the fact that many of these beliefs are a product of naivety and general lack of experience in the politics of architecture. But what I lack in experience in architecture, I make up for with an outside perspective on the subject. We often ask what architecture means to an architect, but we rarely take the time to ask what architecture means to the general public. People. Perhaps even more important than the opinions of architects, who don't even make up a quarter of the population, the people we design for should also be given an equal or greater platform to express their opinions. Say no to plagiarism. . Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay As brilliant and revolutionary as Le Corbusier's beliefs were, there is often a disconnect between his understanding of the world and the real world. His plea to establish a standardized form to meet the needs of everyone affirming that “All men have the same organism, the same functions. All men have the same needs. (Le Corbusier; p. 136) is a flagrant disregard for the preferences, traditions, cultures and other specific needs of the inhabitants. The idea of ​​standardization not only marginalizes the majority of its inhabitants, but, as Le Corbusier said, like the automobile, it promotes competition between different companies. Due to this expansion of self-interest and aggressive competitive architecture, the community, like the story of Babel, will become even more divided than ever. This is illustrated by the development of skyscrapers. This created a space that would serve as a playground for architects and developers to have the opportunity to engrave the land with their name and advertise for their clients. Since the interests of the community are not synonymous with the interests of developers and businesses. The privileges of private owners to construct tall buildings often leave the community with the burden of dealing with the resulting consequences. The community no longer has control over the aesthetic visions of how their cities should look, and as a result, the community has lost their city to developers and corporations. Instead of establishing a standard, I think we should aim more at improving our current understanding of architecture or generating new ideas. A spark of creativity. A fire. As Vitruvius amusingly described in The Origin of the Dwelling House, primitive man discovered fire by chance. They preserved it and gathered around it. Through repetition, they begin to develop language, and with language, the ability to distinguish themselves from nature in order to use it as a scenario and thus, to manipulate or create different types of dwellings. Each person had a different vision of what was essential for their home, and with a diverse set of dwellings at their disposal, they began to observe and compare each other's inventions. So, they began to combine ideas and features, and improved each other's homes by comparing homes to create something more sophisticated. Perhaps it would be more beneficial for us to continue the conversation. Much like the non-discriminatory meetings and conversations of early man, architects should open the conversation more to the public. We should openly embrace different concepts that address different situations in order to improve ours. There is no architecture without concept, the concept comes from language and language changes..