an intermediate area of human experience ...

My architectural theory builds on the psychoanalytical work of D.W. Winnicott’s “Theory of Transitional Space” and Martin Buber’s “I and Thou” paper in which they claim that there exists an intermediate area of human experience in which "inner reality and external (or shared) life combine" which contributes to the whole health of an individual. According to Winnicott, this "potential space", as he would later call it, exists as a lens for which the individual sees his world influenced by his inner and outer realities, more specifically through his cultural contexts and physical and emotional senses.

This Potential Space is the experience of "the doing that arises out of being" and is how we can move from the private to the social world, and how we are able to share experience through cultural symbols and meanings. This intermediate space is a meeting-ground of potentiality and authenticity, located neither within the self nor in the world of political and economic affairs.

In this space, one finds the most authentic and creative aspects of our personal and communal existence, including artistic, scientific, and religious expression. This space is in contrast to the impersonal domain of social collectivity characteristic of mass society in which we find in most modern and post-modern architecture. Using Winnicott’s terms, we may say that the artist, for example, expresses his/her being by constructing a potential space and then articulating it through a shared sense of symbols that resonate with others. The poet, for example, chooses symbols and images of a common language. She invites others into this in-between space, beyond the merely private, subjective, or psychological, which serves as a resting place between inner and outer reality, between psyche and culture.

This same thought can be applied to architecture. A building more so than any other art or object, contributes en mass to the everyday experiences to individuals and therefore has a responsibility to The individuals bring their own memories and characteristics to these spaces, creating either successful or unsuccessful spaces for interrelationships between people.

The Potential Space belongs to the individual and to a cultural whole. Individually, this space, is our direct relationship with the built environment, shaped by the shadows of memories, senses, and emotions.

These three pillars help explain our relationship with the built environment as an experience that is almost indefinable - composed of more than just physical sensations but emotional ones. The first pillar, the spatial conditions of emotion, shapes the type of space desired for a particular type of activity and culture. These emotions of kinship, intimacy, thrill, power, lust, and awe can help determine the shape and volume. It is the difference between the height of a cathedral and the compression of an thermal bath. It is the indefinable quality about a space that keeps people returning and makes it a vital part of the cultural makeup.

The spatial conditions of emotions are primarily driven by the shape and volume of a space. The type of shape can determine whether the focus is inward or outward. It can also determine the path of movement, places to dwell, and places to interact. The volume of a space can determine the feeling of compression and release. How this sequence goes together can determine the type of feeling experienced in a space. This the difference between the compression of a hallway and the release of a theater.