The same popular debatable concept ‘spirit of the place’ is misread or misunderstood by many. Yes, we point out and accuse capitalism for our copy-paste practices in offices, which is not wrong, but at the same time, are architects themselves recognising their role in accepting their responsibilities for their structural identities while designing w.r.t. the context? I remember our first years are always about recognising our histories, identity, spirit, revolving around the ‘context’. The great gap between theory and practice is not touching that foundation again. The time of realisation is that our (not-so-old) structures are even part of vernacular architecture, holding memory of maybe some poets, painters, writers, or labourers etc. sitting around, or even just stopping by those places for a few minutes. Today ‘reconstructing’ practices that are being seen, deny all of that entirely. Reproducing something from what, then? So the argument shapes if it’s important for us to retain past from which we’re going to be identified, with which wherever we go we stay connected, or while ‘deleting’ this whole point, let’s merge within the land of identical objects.