Raili & Reima Pietilä Dipoli

Dipoli might be a torso. It is unsettled architecture. At the same time as being like a materialized sketch, it is a sketch of architecture. – Too difficult to settle rightly as yet. It is suggestive in the same sense as the spoken word, good if one can sense the meaning. Dipoli is contrary to preconceived good taste; styleless (in as much as style is the consistency of convention). It is contrary to the tried and accepted rules of composition. Defends the right to be different, yet is architecture, and believes that architecture is more than just one (architect favoured) type of building. Adds to our in-sight into what a building is. Opposes the view that architecture is only good if it is deadly serious. There are no preconceived, readymade unit areas in Dipoli; there is also no single concept pattern to regulate the way in which the spaces take shape. In Dipoli the aim is no longer that one should see and remember a morphological event just by looking.
Dipoli: Literal morphology.
Arkkitehti 9/67 (Translated by Diana C. Tullberg)

The question was, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DESIGN A SURREALISTIC BUILDING THAT IS FUNCTIONALLY ADEQUATE? A sample of guide line sketches that were produced before any design show how the design approach became formed. Before the submission we changed however the elevations so that the project began to look more like a ‘real building’. We thought that the jury would actually reject our entry. Mr. Aalto who was a member of the jury asked me after the competition. ‘Why did you not design it sculpturally throughout?’. I understood that we had compromised without reason.
Introspective Interview A+V. 9:74.