“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.

The Employee

There is an invisible ghost in economic values, wich you cannot experience every second but in the end you feel its impacts somehow. Cannot see it because it in the 4th dimension: “TIME”. It makes you magically save money, or evaporates money. You get your salary, the beginning of the month you see little expenses not important, buying an extra drink, having a pack of cigarettes, going to a bit more expensive restaurant, they are alright if you see a big number in your bank account every time. This psychological effect makes us in small scale thinking that we are doing fine. At one point it starts to feel insecure and then we start to se the fact : 7o percent of the salary is gone in 6 days. And there put on the brakes trying to recover from the situation and may be get in debt, if something goes wrong. A microscale example of what goes wrong all the time: forgetting the time dimension with all inputs.

On the scale of an employee, that can be quickly fixed next month, you stay home for 2 weeks and you are fine. But what if multimillion companies and even countries act this way. In architecture, cities are the “employee” making little decisions for momentary inputs, not sensing the whole. People with power (money or political force) shape the cities for their profit and make cumulative losses of energy and money in the city. That new shopping mall may bring investment to the city, but makes traffic a mess, commute times +10 minutes, making everyone lose cent by cent more than any positive input of the mall. People may approve this shopping mall construction because it is “value” without knowing end of the month it is their loss, if the calculations are done, like the guy who is buying an unnecessary pack of cigarettes every day for momentary joy and losing thousands of euros every year on that habit. For the second it was a good idea, it relaxes, but in total it makes you not being able to go to that winter vacation. It lowers “social welfare” which cannot be measured momentarily. You have to wait for the end of the month, even a decade to see the results of yor investment.

Recycling is Bullshit

This not computable, not measurable ghost of losing or saving money or resources is there again at the issue of recycling. People are obsessed with it, they feel good about it, even they think they save the world, save money for the nation and be a good person. That is something to do with a lot of benefits. At one point some people started discussing about the topic, putting every day hundreds of trucks with 4 different puroses for collecting organic, glass, paper, and metal (even plastic etc.) is a good idea for a city like Frankfurt. What you gain for that is worth what people have to wait behind big garbage trucks for minutes before going to work (they are already stressed) and consuming fossile fuels. What about them being spectical and obsessed about their consumption, in the end does a recycling factory do a benefit to the city with his ugly fog? Unmeasurable effects on the nation are visible, personally i was pretty stressed in Germany, sometimes i didnt know what category was my garbage, my flatmates were obsessed, i kept garbage in my room and in a dark night took it out threw it in the river. (the story might be a little fictional after some beers)

The Architect

The architect, who wants to speak about sustainability, and economic value generation, has to include a wide angle vision in his design with help of different disciplines, calculating the impact on the “city”, “nation” even “world”. Even if he will not be asked for every question politically or economically, even if he is not expected to answer, the vision is important, from the first line of the design, it is possible to think about sustainability on large scale, local resources, social impacts, energy and traffic congestion inputs even what will happen with the building after 50 years should be put on the first line of the design. So that we are not victims of the invisible money sucking monster at the end of the month, and we can go to that winter vacation.

“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.