ARCHITECTURE AND CONTRAST
What is it that leads us to think that we can live better if we are locked up?
What kind of ironic utopia is to aspire to inhabit a prison for the rich?
Where is the richness of social and cultural interrelations?
At what point was the concept of human value lost?
A prostituted, commercial architecture emerges giving rights or permits to create communities locked in themselves, regardless of the environment, nor having any concern about the residual spaces left around them.
What leads us to make hasty and selfish decisions? Insecurity, social catalogs, fashion? How do we go back in time when we realize that the vaccine against the ills of society results in an enhancement of them?
Everything inside the wall pretends to be better: tranquility and well-being are the main premise. It poses a micro-city capable of supplying itself. There are schools, restaurants, sports parks, shopping centers, and other services for the sustenance of the inhabitants, which do not need to go outside to function. Private security operates 24 hours, ensuring the healthy development of daily activities that are carried out. To inhabit this micro-city is a whole utopia come true.
Outside the wall, there are remains of what was once “the field” of the generation that precedes us, where activities are carried out in the open air, leaving their memory imprinted to this day. Now this space is reduced to nothing, limited to being the place “behind”. The families in the place of the streets, the bases, the remains of construction works, and the space to build a precarious house. Without services and with a housing deficit, they add to the pollution of a place that has been used both to live and to throw garbage. A complete dystopia made reality.
This remaining space suffers a double pathology. In the first place, the condition of rest that limits in terms of the possibilities of transformation and growth, and, secondly, a contrast that threatens imposing a comparison between the inhabitants of the new community and the inhabitants of “behind the wall”.
Then the question arises: does this new enclosed community isolate itself from the world or isolate the world from the community?
For those outside, the wall is landscape and environment, as cold as it sounds. How to counteract this “landscape wall” effect? For insiders, that limit invalidates its protective function. Paradoxically, the wall functions as a luminous sign, transforming these private neighborhoods into a real focus of attention so that those who look for other people’s belongings know where to go.
It is necessary to reflect on different issues. How to reverse or nullify the effect of the hasty decisions that led to this pseudo-urbanization? How to deal with this pathology of the city? How to work in a space with high potential for the growth of the city, not only because it is located, generally, in the periphery, but also because of the value of the space itself? How to act considering the possibilities of social reactivation in a site of such vulnerability? Where are the cultural proposals, housing, education or recreation, and many other possible responses to the problems suffered by the city?
NO NAME Architecture