The psychology of creativity, encompassing child’s plat and adult fantasy as explained by Freud in his Creative Writers and Daydreaming paper, brings about interesting considerations with regards to design in architecture. Design may be considered a practice which operates within the fantastical realm solely for the sake of creativity yet ultimately must return to the physical reality in order to problem solve and create tangible utility. Industrial design operates here generally, fantasy gives way to reality for the purpose of utility. Architecture is becoming increasingly ephemeral with the onset of automatic computation, and virtual reality. It is able to better adjust to the fantasy and day dreaming which Freud talks about. This is not solely because we could not conceive of these day dreams in physical reality previously, but that it is becoming less important to conceive architectural design in physical reality. Much like the creative write, who is employed in the practice of representing fantasy, the architect’s practice is becoming increasingly interested in constructing the day dream, that which functions outside of physical expectation. This is not to say that it can not be realized in hapticity, but the external forces of human ecology will eventually ground the architecture, removing any semblance of fantasy. So then I question whether we should continue to strive for that pie in the sky ideal or would we be better served by resorting to the design of utility? This undoubtedly brings us back to Freud’s construction of the personality, in this case with respect to the architect. Does the architect’s ego rise to design that which is fantastical or does the superego embed moral acceptance in design?