'' The answer is not simple and I don't feel like recommending almost anything! but if I really have to unbalance the references that I feel I can suggest are two, and moreover both generic: the first is the history, or rather the knowledge of the history of the form, only that once acquired, and acquired well, it is necessary to forget it and working by subtraction, by the absence of references, as if every time you design it was the first occasion in which you do it. The other reference is man and the relationship this has with space. Using an expression that irritates me but which is opportune in the circumstances, "architecture on a human scale", it is possible to give a synthetic idea of the second reference, but provided that the measure of man is not confused with the only size of his body. The morphology of man does not coincide with the morphology of architecture. On the other hand, it is enough to look at the great works of our art to discover that it is precisely the outsize, or rather the measure of the spirit, that dictates the rules, which decides the height of the steps of the stylobate of the Doric temple and not the length of the step. by Ictino. In short, in the architectural project the physical dimension of man counts, but it counts less and less than the spiritual, the emotional one ”.