What you make as composition, is new culture. You don’t know where you will beget from hence forth. Therefore you have to create new layers. Experience is common to human nature but it is not St. Marco anymore, it is not Scott street in London anymore and when you build a phallus eve- ryone shoots at it saying that it is ugly. The shard is horrible, but whereas the same thing that towers ridiculously as Burg the reaction is WOW! How much ever you hate it, when you land in Dubai, it is fantastic.

TN: I agree with you (Ravi) that in Europe we are too concerned with heritage and mu- seum city, especially the core of cities. But on the other hand, architects have a pure fantasy to consider the fact that Dubai or China are much more innovative than European cities. In Dubai, when designing you have nothing to consider, you have a patch of land, a neutral situation, you do not have to consider the social situation…

VS: You can get as much land as you want.

TN: It is perfect for your own ego because you can realise here what is forbidden to build in Eu- rope. In Europe you have to consider the history, the situation of people, the interaction. I disa- gree with you on the fact that for me the innovation in European cities is not too much on the ar- chitecture but on the public spaces. If you look at the quality of the public spaces and the evolu- tion of the public spaces, it is amazing. Look at Barcelona, after the Olympic games, they trans- formed the entire harbour into the best public space in Barcelona now. To me, this is innovation. This responded to a social need. In Barcelona, you have the Cerda grid but unfortunately you have some small public spaces. There was no big park in Barcelona. Now if you are looking at the situation in Barcelona, you have the architectural fantasy as well. To me, it makes more sense to build this tower in barcelona rather than Dubai or China or even in India.

RK: Barcelona is a very good example of a public city and a city that is transformed itself to a new layer and having history but both these elements being disconnected unlike in London.

TN: Barcelona has a good architectural heritage.

RK: The context of public space getting a new idiom. I agree that all the architects would love to build something as what Vivek did on St. Marks Road. I think that it is fabulous, just to have that en- ergy level, to say what the hell.

TN: For the satisfaction?

RK: No, it is another method for arrival, sometimes your discord will arrange new meaning, that is a qualitative discussion. In the same way nostalgia is important. When we built NGMA, I think re- straint was so absolutely important. Respect of the landscape and the rhythm of the facade in some method. These are two didactics. In all that we have to innovate the public realm in a meaningful way. And it has to have a new analogy. That is the opportunity that is present in the new part of the world. Without Scarpa having to still respect the vault of the arch and the corridor of St. Marco, still build inside and be visible to the outside. Both are right, but it is absolutely excit- ing that you are on a Labyrinth which is completely new animal. You are dealing with a com- pletely different culture hybrid, and there is a platform for you to recreate the new Venice. It is the beginning of a new era of making. In that context I think your (Naina) question gains relevance – if privatisation, capitalism and all those intentions that appear in the making of a mall, what