“The reduction of architecture to a rational theory,” as considered by Perez-Gomez, is grounds for a debate concerning the basic content of architecture, and whether the technique required is hard and fast to the point where it can be spoken of truthfully and accepted across boundaries as successful. The perception of truthfulness in architecture and human ecologies can vary greatly, where scale and intensity are qualities which can neither be wholly supported or denied. As Perez-Gomez suggests, there is always a set of priorities, inhabitation requires a set of characteristics to be fulfilled before it may considered successful. The implementation of theory in order to meet these demands is draconian, and too often limiting. Even in modern discourse, where theories were put forth to generate a cohesive and operational architecture, it inevitably lacked a specific intent to impress. Ideally, all of these predetermined notions may fade into the background, allowing the architecture to speak for itself, but too often we are caught up in meaning for the sake of argument. How can we allow architecture to move beyond the established boundaries of theory and typology? Is designing with vague intent too unresolved? Or can an architecture with minimal definition then grow and adapt to its inhabitants?