Part 1:

It is always in the act of hiding and cannot be easily disclosed. Like a masked figure, architecture always shares a dependency on its seduction and constant yearn for a dweller. It is without the dweller that neither the building nor the mask can be anything but lifeless objects on their own. What does this mean for architecture today? 

Architecture without the human presence is very much like the mask without a face— they are both dependent upon the desire to allure and present themselves to others with a veil between what is assumed to be reality and what is actually reality. Like a mask, the built is a mystery begging to be identified and questioned.

"working with and not against the site, something new is produced by registering the complexity of the given"

Should we always follow this as a rule upon which make us not feel guilty? It almost reminds me in some occasions on our thoughts of Zaha, although as claimed may not be the case [in regards to working with the site]. In our designs and through the built environment, should we always reach the point to where our architecture transforms its surroundings completely? K. Michael Hays believes in the opposite as stated with the above quote. He provides ways of understanding the site and relationships that might otherwise go unnoticed or unarticulated. By registering the complexity of the site, something more powerful and meaningful may be produced according to him.

This can be true for many works, but as a built and successful example of a juxtapositional architecture within a strict environment, the Pompidou Center in Paris breaks many rules. The success of this building can lie in many things. To begin with, the architecture itself is seductive within its own nature of making and display. It attracts the dweller with its exposed structure, circulation, color, activity...etc. The sunken ground plane and public space breaks the barrier and strikes as unexpected within Parisian habits. Its seduction to visitors contributes to the success.