There is a banal argument that is going around with regard to the complexities of a design thesis project. Banality means: the fact or condition of being banal; unoriginality. This goes against the learning outcomes and objectives of the curriculum of a design thesis, in which students should be innovative and explore topics worth examining, often regarding issues, be it site-context based and/or building typology. Any typology under the sun is relevant and worthy in pursuing as long as there are problems to be solved and can be a challenge to the final year student of architecture (equivalent of the graduating architect at Part 2 or Masters of Architecture level). The argument is that a small building is less challenging than a large complex. That is if you debate that the complexities is only the technicalities of quantifying architecture. That 100 feet of soil pipes is more complex that 20 feet of soil pipes. That mechanized and air-conditioning for a 20,000 square feet of building is more complex than a naturally ventilated building of 2,000 square feet. There are so many other factors in designing a building, street environment and park, in terms of environmental, social, cultural, transportation, recreational and many more. Challenges in planning and studying the operational aspects are as challenging to how to detail the roof (which is more of a 3rd year Part 1 level anyway). The clue of how complex a design thesis project is in the word "thesis" and that is setting out with a set of questions and keep on questioning every step of the way regarding the project in the design process. The conversation in this podcast starts a series of discussions on "design complexities". Going back to the curriculum, the debate should shift from the project to the student and ask the question, how ready is the graduating architect is to be challenged in employment?