Human life is based on three phases: planning, implementation and verification. The first and the third phase are performed in a private space, while the second occurs as an interaction between other users in a common space. The implementation phase is the clash of all users strategies that cohabit in the space-time. It is a receiver and distributor of symbols, signs and gestures. Man cannot exist without society, without human relationships and without own purpose. Each of us creates his community, and in them their symbols. The symbol is understood not only as an icon, drawing, but also as a gesture, a word, behavior, custom, etc. Every culture, human group has its own characters, with whom he identifies. By creating a build space for the realization of life – meetings, work, run, rest, eat – we need to remember about appropriate opinion and acceptance of the users.

While assessing building in economic terms one shouldn’t look at the aspects such as choice of cheaper materials, structural solutions or possibility of applying alternative energy sources. Instead the importance should be given to the size of the site, area of communication in relation to the other, the size and height of the building, the use of ramps, lifts, the amount of building material used, number of public spaces etc. In a way all the solutions that raise the costs of investment should be considered in principal as elements that are contributing to creation of ‘better’ buildings. We must take into account not only the financial aspect, but also social. The building should be accessible and “friendly”, likely visited, advertising on it’s own, with no need for promotion or organization of extraordinary events that would attract crowds. Information of existence of such space in which everyone can feel like at home – spreads by its members that relocate and start to create a new society.

When it comes to single-family house, where the investor is a private person, the argument for building speaks only through a comfort. Within commercial and public buildings, if the space is available, the number of services and recipients increases; the investor’s profit expands. If it is an office building and an investor has the ability (special quality) to employ and accommodate people for example with disabilities, he will be getting grants for this purpose. Moreover on the bigger scale the city or the state will also benefit from this micro decision that relies on the compatibility of the single building; more disabled people working, the less is the benefit, and unemployment is reduced.

The role of the architect is significant, but not decisive. There is no architect that would create entire city, even the best, neither best investor. There is a need of awareness and commitment and quite an amount of time … With the city it is like with the human because the city expresses its inhabitants. The city is a place where we spend most of the time; where we look for inspirations, opportunities, wealth of meaning and content. The city comes to creating places where man is most important. Individual buildings, public spaces with diversity of squares, passages express individual and dynamic character of the city and its inhabitants. The city should be thick, not only in form and solid, but in content, in diversity, which gives and opportunity of choice. We need to appreciate the importance of landscape architecture for the perception of the city. It’s like home furnishing. Here city is an extension of our home. Regardless the scale of units such as city/house/room, each should merge with gradation in order to ‘blend in’ and feel like there are an infinite number of starting points instead of one legitimate beginning. Spatiality and quality of the building should be assessed based on city and human capacities, if not it will become unnatural environment that the city can not assimilate , and the man in it will be lost.