Anywhere in the world, with crisis and without crisis, there are some constants that are repeated at the time of closing an architectural project. Issues doubts and differences of opinion that occur between the technicians outside experts who analyze the project in question and then the criteria and ideas of the architect original author.
Some contemporary architects, like Menis, use unprecedented and originals materials as part of one new and innovative idea that he develops for a particular building in a particular place.
We have now this problem in Poland, for example, with the use of sheets in one new Concert Hall or in relation with the material of roofs mobile in this Concert Hall which is designing.
It look like simple question, but change a material is a change in identity and construction and architectural coherence of the building; and it is important the search of roots in the vernacular Torun tradition (in this case with the use of brick), the affirmation of the emotional resulting in massive structures with thick walls and roofs, materials with local textures. So if we have discussed this before in many ocaasions with the client, what to do for go ahead? Is necesary in these cases a plus of confidence in the whole team?
Consider that in the case of the New Music Hall in Torun, Menis was commissioned to design an initial "audience", a site whose initial function was to host the symphony concert, opera or similar musical events especially. This was -initially-not necesry to combine music with theatrical use or with conferences and fairs use. ( Moneo had the same problem in the Kursaal in San Sebastián). After winning the competition and work near two years, in july 2010, Menis was ordered by Torun Twon Hall to turn the project in a theatrer and congress space too, so Menis was commisioned to extend the initial building applications. This resulted in an obvious increase of volumen and cost. It is normal, and Poland have another similar problems like this in new cultural buildings in Wroklac and Sczcezin, for example.
Therefore at the time of final acceptance of the project , we find some discrepancies between the technicians responsible for informing the project and the author, and my opinion is that the technique is as good as dangerous in cases like this. It resolves almost everything in the paper, but nos guarantee nor beauty and harmony. Architects need the technique to solve the problems properly, but the spark of art is that which produces emotion. It is important never to forget that architecture is art, and harmony, and aesthetic coherence too. And more in the World Heritage City of Torun.