That Frampton suggests leaving behind avant-gardism in favour of tectonic qualities shifts architecture from the middling position between art and science more towards the scientific end. Frampton’s emphasis on material quality and the structural unit reveals a clear bias towards rational design thinking for the purpose of problem solving without moving beyond expectation. It leaves out the opportunity for discovery, and becomes a direct representation of mass. In Frampton’s world, the building is the most solidly defining element in nature. He describes the tectonic as a permanent marker within the landscape, which references back to his discussion on critical regionalism. Where Spuybroek is open to flows and populations with a diffused boundary, Frampton is situated with a permanent relationship to site, clearly defining boundaries. Frampton’s argument for the tectonic is solely focused on refining the qualities of the architecture to such a level that they achieve ideal purity. These two opposite ends of the spectrum are whole in their theoretical support for architectural typologies, but I question to what extent is that architecture which falls in between acceptable? Both are admissible and finely tuned logistical approaches, but what sort of relationship would they have if one building of type (a) was placed beside a building of type (b)?