I am currently contemplating between two options - both relating to themes of place making, identity, memory and meaning:

1) Not every space creates meaningful experiences for its users. Spaces that do, achieve this through identity, sense of place, memory and belonging. 

Urban memory is what bounds communities together, creating layers of meaningful historical networks. In that sense, adaptive reuse projects have the power to build upon these layers of meaning and add a hybrid of its own, however many projects fail, becoming deceitful and focus solely on the aesthetic shell neglecting the layers of memory of what was once there and dismissing its formal and mythical representation. 

2) As the distinction between programmatic elements becomes blurred – mainly public and private and mixed use development - identity, meaning and the experience of a place is lost.

Meaning and the experience of space is enhanced by creating a sense of place and identity. In the urban context, these are enhanced by programmatical elements which make up landmarks within cities. As more of these programmatical elements are fused with one another architectural amnesia starts to take place.

The problem with many of the existing mixed-use projects is that they are typically large scale by developers solely after economic and space efficiency and disengaging from the fine grain, variety and authenticity of a true mixed-use development.