I recognize the fact that many of these beliefs are the product of naivety and a general lack of experience in the politics of architecture. But what I lack in terms of experience in architecture, I make up for with an external perspective on the subject. We often wonder what architecture means to an architect, but we rarely take the time to ask what architecture means to the general public. The people. Perhaps even more important than the opinions of architects, who do not even represent a quarter of the population, is that the people we design for should be given an equal or greater platform on which to express their opinion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayAs 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 support for creating a standardized form to meet everyone's needs states that “All men have the same organism, the same functions. All men have the same needs." (Le Corbusier; p. 136) is a blatant disregard for many preferences, traditions, cultures and other specific needs of the inhabitants. The idea of ​​standardization not only marginalizes most of its inhabitants, but just as Le Corbusier mentioned, like the automobile, it welcomes competition between different companies. As a result of this expansion of self-interest and aggressive competitive architecture, the community, similar to the story of Babel, will become even more divided than ever. This is exemplified in the development of skyscrapers. He created a space that would serve as a playground for architects and developers to have the opportunity to etch the land with their name and advertise to their clients. Because the interests of the community are not synonymous with the interests of developers and companies. Private owners' privileges to build tall buildings often leave the burden on the community to shoulder the resulting consequences. The community is no longer in control of the aesthetic visions of how their cities will appear, and as a result, the community has lost their city to developers and businesses. Instead of setting a standard, I believe we should aim more to improve our current understanding of architecture or generate new ideas. A spark of creativity. A fire. As Vitruvius amusingly described in The Origin of the Dwelling House, early man accidentally discovered fire. They preserved it and rallied around it. Through repetition they begin to develop language and, with language, the ability to distinguish themselves from nature to use it as a script and therefore 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 homes at their disposal, they began to observe and compare each other's inventions. Then, they start combining ideas and features and improve each other's homes by comparing homes to create something more sophisticated. Perhaps it would be more beneficial for us to continue the conversation. Just like early man's non-discriminatory meetings and conversations, architects should open the conversation more to the public. We should openly embrace different concepts that address different situations to improve our own. There is no architecture without a concept, the concept comes from the language and the language continually changes concepts. Unfortunately, there are forces in the past and..