But could you say they talked better than they built? I've never quite got the Smithsons.
All I see is a lot of overblown rhetoric, and a few ambitious but deeply flawed buildings. Visiting the Hunstanton School was one of the biggest disappointments of my life.
Even their famous Economist complex in London left me tapping my fingers: a slight variation on the American tower-and-plaza concept, with roachbed Portland stone used as a thin decorative veneer. It's not bad at all - just not exactly revolutionary.
I'd say the Smithsons came into that category of talk-the-talk architects, cushioned by a coterie of mutually back-scratching friends and colleagues and critics (London's Independent Group, incorporating Reyner Banham as house Boswell).
There are other architects who talk better than they design: William Wilkins, Robert Venturi, Philip Johnson, Piers Gough, Rem Koolhaas, to give a random selection.
Things might have been different had the Smithsons won the Coventry Cathedral competition, who knows? And no doubt they were inspiring to work for. But as it is, I think they are a parochial footnote in architectural history.