Writing as a way to describe complex ideas to an audience of neophytes is really hard. Think about it, you have decades of experience and the associated knowledge, which makes understanding your own work a breeze, not to mention that when you spend years on developing a project, the mental map is clear and answers to puzzles come to you easily.
Now put yourself in your clients' shoes for a minute. They're not architects so they don't understand the big words you've been using and you have to explain to them in the course of a relatively short time, how you've come up with your all your crazy ideas, without them having the benefit of your experience-based knowledge, a tall order if there is one.
I can relate as I personally often find myself talking in circles to explain complex ideas to people who don't have the same knowledge as I do, and I know how painful it is for someone else to suffer through a lengthy, byzantine explanation, which inevitably ends-up being summarized in an elevator pitch of sorts that suddenly makes that complex idea clear for both parties. If only that clear elevator pitch came to mind first.
There is a solution, however, which consists of putting yourself in your clients' shoes. If you ask yourself "How would I be able to grasp this idea if I didn't know the first thing about architecture?", you'll be able to start thinking like your clients do and lay down a path to understanding for them, by structuring your description like a journey, with a corresponding series of steps they'll have to go through in order to slowly but surely develop their understanding of your cray-cray ideas.
How do I actually do this you ask? Well, first of all, don't use the big words that you love to toss around. The only thing they accomplish is to piss off your reader. No jargon, no archispeak of any kind allowed. In short, use language that an 8-year-old could grasp.
If you're feeling adventurous, throw in a little creativity in there. Recycle narrative structures found in fiction, like the ubiquitous stock phrase "Once upon a time" found in all the great tales. The more fun and quirky, the more your reader are likely to pause and think "What the fuck went through this guy's head?", but that's a great thing because it will make you stand out and they're way more likely to remember you next time you talk to them.
Or you can stick with the usual drivel (not my words - I 'Borrowed' them from Eisenman Architects) and watch your clients run away from you like their hair is on fire:
"The housing project for Piazza Erba in Milano, demonstrates a new typology. Not only for our work but for new construction in general. It proposes the intersection of two genealogies – abstraction and phenomena – that, it will be argued, have always constituted the underlying structure of a critical dialogue. Abstraction here refers to any aspect of architecture which is embedded in a syntactic structure, while phenomena is grounded in the material presence of the architectural object. While these two genealogies represent disparate modes of thought that have shaped architectural discourse for the past half-century, they intersect in our work for the first time in the Piazza Erba project, as the materials serve as both syntactical indications of a three-part Milanese typology, and as phenomena."
This wins the awards of "how to say the least in the maximum amount of words while peppering in incorrect grammar".
I would hedge my bets and go with the former. What about you?
PS - Here's another one for the road, courtesy of Paul Kulig - I couldn't resist:
"These distortions elicit decipherment in terms of several virtual constructs that allow the house the analogize discourse and call for further elucidation. These constructs are continually motivated and frustrated by conflicts in their underlying schemata and the concrete form in which they are inscribed. They refer to the ideal of real objects, organizations, processes and histories which the house approximately analogizes or opposes."
My fingers hurt from just typing it. You can find more of the same kind here.