“Within each of us is the ability to distinguish music from noise, poetry from drivel. In art we sense the presence of an order that is linked to the soul of man.  The human eye and thus the soul is able to discern sensitivity and thoughtfulness in a work.  It is when those substantial traces of humanity are embedded in a building that it begins to transcend the ordinary.”

Humanity have great stories to tell and build, architecture plays a big role of molding it. Architecture and economy are starting to build rivalry through times. Expectations are made for architecture itself as being one of a great factor of a growing economy, but why nowadays, people are satisfied by architecture visually? but more so theoretically, is architecture solving and living its role as one of an important factor in a country’s economical value and growth? Or its only becoming of an art itself and not being true to what living spaces should be or what people would really expect from it. what should architecture really be, an art? a science?, or trying to be both but merely not living its purpose.

Humanity leaves an infinite loop through its history using the media of language, art, knowledge and architecture. These loops are not simply viewed in the past; they are primary to our time and define our civilization and economy at any given moment, justifying our very sense of being human. This justification is important. Humanity exists in a constant tug for existence. We are vital, but we wish to become the maker and culture that would become success in this battle. Culture allows us to assert our existence to ourselves to the extent that we are not just ‘now’ but are- in essence- forever. There is a connection between the concerns and expectation in needs of every society or the situation it finds in ourselves and architecture, misuse of architecture is evident and rampant to create a narrative that is outside the built sustainable environment, many times we see architecture as a creation of dominance and power rather than creating a built environment that creates story for people, that serves people. Architecture has lost its value to create a society to create what people expect, to be the canvas of what people will stroke its brush and color it.  Architecture has lost its true value to the society. The first purpose of architecture is to create habitat and to fulfill the needs of society or individuals for places to work and live. Good architecture has to be aware of those aspects which may have economic impact and meet expectations of humanity.

Architecture in reality and not by books nor by good presentations, have its limits. Living spaces are turned into vertical spaces rather than a horizontal ground space, did we ever questioned ourselves why this kind of development are being pushed through? Is it because of maximizing one’s space, its profitability. Is it economically viable or feasible?  Economical feasibility does not need to be partnered with financial feasibility, as long as architecture creates good and livable space, a place to work, to play, to entertain, to live. The common definitions of social responsibility often leave out one critical dimension of sustainability, the necessity for profitability and economic viability. Sustainable Architecture must be able to meet some of the basic needs of people in today’s economy without compromising opportunities for those of future generations to meet their needs as well. In a sustainable economy, profits are the rewards for meeting the needs of people today while economic viability is the reward for being able to meet the needs of people in the future. All economic value is derived from either natural or human resources. An economy creates nothing; its productivity ultimately depends on nature and society. An Architecture that depletes the productivity of its natural and human resources is not economically viable over time. Regardless of how architecture must also survive economically in the present if it is to have the capacity to maintain its productivity and value to society into the future. At the end there will always be a question of  having big investments architecture are free to do the best with the design and the process that approach the things more professionally. And with big investments architecture that has no boundaries, tend to alienate rather than speaking for its people and for economy of it.

It is very tempting to seduce ourselves, as architects or as anybody keen on architecture or otherwise involved in the design process that the answer to our problems lies with buildings. Do you actually believe you can separate buildings out from the infrastructure of cities and mobility of transit and the expectations and incentives of people?

The buildings are what form a major part but not necessarily the most important part of the infrastructure of the city.  Whether it is the transportation networks, water supply and other such systems that results in the buildings or in most scenarios the demand for modes of transportation or incentives that arises due to the existing buildings it cannot be ignored that both are a result of factors that cannot be independent a rely heavily on financial, political and social context. Thus the architecture of the city may not entirely depend on the design of buildings in isolation but the idea is nesting it to the surroundings so that it is adaptable to future developments or sets well within the existing systems. So no I don’t believe that they can be separated or even clearly distinguished from one another.

Why do people tend to believe that what is financially profitable (for developers) is not actually equivalent to economically feasible (positive impacts on social welfare)? How would you show that this does not necessarily have to be like this (but rather the opposite)?

The general tendency for developers is usually looked as being only financially profitable as it is assumed that short term benefits are more visually and easily understandable than long term profits or social welfare. This is not necessarily the same in every scenario; a simple example of the same can be seen while a country hosts the Olympic Games. Here although the developers make huge financially benefits at the same time huge amount of social welfare can be seen through the development of the overall infrastructure required to conduct the events which help improve the life the of the people living in those cities.

“The diversity and mixed use of the space  for increased the diversity of the city, in order to create new activities and typologies”

Diagram of Mixed Use of the Space, by Trinidad Gómez and Miguel Juárez.

With the past of the time, the word “sustainability” have changed depending on the place in which will be developed or because of the people that is applying this concept; this way of thinking has always existed, people from faraway communities, little towns or without enough resources, have always been self-sufficiency and have found several ways to live only with what they have in the surrounding space;  the only thing that have changed is that in the modern era took a great importance and the architects, urban developers or anyone involved in the design process, tried to apply into a big scale, like cities, thanks to this, buildings, communities, colonies, and every kind of new infrastructure, began to be designed with new materials, technologies and resources; the problem that surged after this new development, was that the plus value of the buildings increased and it only could be affordable for people with highs amount of money, besides that almost all of this projects were made in super expensive areas. 

In the contemporary era, the New Urbanism emerged and with it new ways of thinking were applied in the city, with this theme is which I will respond the first question of the blog post; I do not think that we can separate buildings out from the infrastructure of cities and mobility of transit and the expectations and incentives of people; I believe that the answer lies in the correct integration of these elements without to forget the main actor for we are designing: people.

Applying concepts like the ones in New Urbanism, we can create a system that works with everything and for everyone; the urban connectivity which consist in connect different points of the city to achieve a faster communication and to avoid the pollution because of traffic; urban spaces have to be designed to be walkable spaces, not for private motorized vehicles; the diversity and mixed use of the space  for increased the diversity of the city, in order to create new activities and typologies; and the most important ones: an intelligent urban transport that maximized the resources for an efficient connectivity; the other, an urban sustainability not only in environmental aspects, but also in economic, politic and social aspects; all this to accomplishes an adequate use of the available elements in benefit of the community.

“The urban connectivity which consist in connect different points of the city to achieve a faster communication and to avoid the pollution because of traffic”

Diagram of Urban Connectivity, by Trinidad Gómez and Miguel Juárez.

With this explanation, I can continue with my opinion of the second question phrased by Gonzalo Delacámara: Why do people tend to believe that what is financially profitable (for developers) is not actually equivalent to economically feasible (positive impacts on social welfare)? How would you show that this does not necessarily have to be like this (but rather the opposite)?

I believe that the problem lies in the fact that people feels cheated by certain kind of “developers” who only cares about money, instead for a good site analysis that allowed a good project; another problem is that constructors, urbanists, designers, politics, etc., always wants to create the perfect place starting from zero, instead of interventions inside the city to avoid the boundless growing of the urban sprawl. How would I show to people that what is financially profitable for developers is equivalent to a positive impact on social welfare? With Curitiba, Brazil, the most remarkable example of a city (in my personal point of view) that achieved positive impacts on social welfare, an equitative economy and a correct growing of the city by using Transit Oriented Development, or TOD.

“Accessible public transportation is prioritized when choosing housing and commercial building locations”

Diagram of TOD, by Trinidad Gómez and Miguel Juárez.

Curitiba is an excellent example of TOD, which mainly implies that residential, business and recreational areas should be built in high density areas and close to public transport stations. In addition, TOD proposes land use mix to reduce the travel distances. Accessible public transportation is prioritized when choosing housing and commercial building locations. High traffic areas such as shopping centers and high rise apartment buildings are conveniently located next to public transportation stations. This level of accessibility has reduced automobile dependence. By coupling the development of a pedestrian friendly community with an efficient low-emissions Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system and lower car parking availability, Curitiba has successfully reduced the overall travel of its residents.

With the correct formula we can achieve not only an economical sustainability, but also a political, environmental and social sustainability. It depends on the “how?” and the “why?” always having present the “for who?” For sure Curitiba is not the only successful example in the world, but it is one of the most advanced. The secret lies in to keep developing strategies according to the changes in the city, because we cannot forget that the city is alive and always evolving.