Twenty five years of religious architecture

Abstract

After the two interventions this morning, it is necessary to make some kind of reflection, and logically the words I am going to say now, in my own speech, will somehow initiate the controversy that I hope will continue later, in the round table. But it could not be less, given that some of the statements that have been made clearly clash with my conception of what sacred architecture is. That's the good thing about a congress: that all kinds of opinions are exposed and we work to reach consensus and to enrich, then, our own personal opinions.

I would like to share with you some of the proposals I have made, although none of them is exemplary. They have the advantage of their own reality: they have been built, they have been possible and many ideals and many intentions have been left behind. I will be critical of them in what belongs to me and what does not belong to me, but it may be useful for all of us to reflect a little on these new spaces.