Then, Miralles introduces a why-not element that is missing from the other, more cautious, schemes. Roofs like the hulls of boats? Why? Might as well ask the Danish architect Jorn Utzon why he designed the Sydney Opera House roofs the way he did. It seems that Miralles, travelling through Scotland, saw some upturned wooden boats being used as cabins somewhere, as they are down south on Lindisfarne. He was taken with the strange delicacy of the revealed hulls. "Something about their form floating in the landscape should be a part of our project," Miralles muses in his entry. "We are sure Scottish shipyards will be more than happy to collaborate in such a task," he adds optimistically. Good for him, I say. Why not?

To return to my original question: do we, and the judges, want businesslike efficiency, wild originality, or something in between? The reason I opt for the wild originality of Spain's Miralles is the feeling that his entry alone would provide a building of world importance. I confess I also find Miralles a satisfying antidote to the very wealthy and familiar architects from G7 nations who make up the rest of the shortlist. They have nothing to prove: he has a lot to prove. The fact that he's come this far, in a contest that has been structured to exclude most fringe architects, might only be chance. Or it might possibly be an augury.