nothing new

It is interesting to me the ego and arrogance that architects have in their claims of a "new style of architecture", when the inherent difference of architectural styles dwindles to the denial or the acceptance of the human scale and experience. Architects' claims to their "new style" are typically derived from former ideologies and theories of past architects. As seen in class with Rem Koolhaas, MVRDV, and BIG are all similar in their process and development of architecture through their consideration of program through diagramming in order to create their buildings. (Personally, I prefer their method of their creation of architecture and their consideration of the scale and use of the human.)

Because of this realization I wonder if there is an architecture that can fully satisfy or fulfill the needs and desires of the architect and the human? Some architects (hot architects) wish to make a statement or seperate from the normative and their architecture does not require or maybe even desire the users input-- it forces the user to perform in a specific way; while other architects (cold architects) take a more subdued or aware approach that requires and invites the users participation to activate the building and its purpose-- it conforms to the user.