Laziness is a virtue. All architects should be lazy. Before starting to scratch the paper, is necessary to study similar cases. I am sure that hundreds of architects before us have faced the same situation and surely, there are more than a dozen of t hem that have done projects well. The work of a smart architect should not to be original. It consists on to develop, to evolve and to improve what already works well. Furthermore, it is something solid and beautiful. But this clashes with the necessity of some weak architects of being originals. The consequence of this false belief related to be original could be easily notice by exploring new avenues of our cities. In the case of tall buildings, skyscrapers, the search for originality of some weak architects resulted in designs that are authentic artifacts. We just need to see the skylines of some cities in Asia, Middle East and Central America. One does not know if it is a city or some kind of huge fair or thematic park where nonsense is the protagonist.

THOUGHTS

It's really a shame to see what software tools for 3D works are doing with our young talent. I am concerned to see how newly qualified architects have no spatial conception. Also, they do not know how to draw a section without the use of 3D software tools. In fact these 3D software should be banned. These s oftware are so powerful, so extremely good that literally make you believe that you can do whatever you want. In fact, architects are doing literally, only things. Hopefully, if a skillful person handles the software we will see a result that belongs to the extensive branch Architecture. Otherwise, we will see an object from an impossible point of view for humans, unless we send a drone with a camera to appreciate it. As a result, the project, which in the screen looks almost beautiful, will be another object, which nobody understands in real life.

It is very boring to see buildings of these "furriers" architects and how commercial have been resulted. Indeed, we have colleagues who are engaged in the fur, because they do ‘skins for buildings’. It does not matter how the volume is, the place where it will be located or how the building will be illuminated by the western sunlight, etc. The fact is to cover the building of a skin that looks "modern". Flamboyant is the skin of a building located in a corner of a pedestrian street of a European-old city. The "furrier" had no better idea of stamping the logo of the real estate company into the butyral glass of the ubiquitous curtain-wall. Yes. He stamped the logo in all possible sizes and positions. Clearly, he did not want a monotonous façade for his building. In fact, those wonderful and “beautiful” ladies handbags inspired him. By stamping the huge logo once or many times in case the logo is small, these architects found the way to be distinguished from the rest of the architects. In conclusion, if those furriers” are his teachers, our brand architect "furrier" have done his job well.

I have never been able to understand what politicians want when they make popular consultations, also called "citizen participation". They do it only for urban issues. They never do it for fiscal, economic, health o r safety issues. When they are planning to do a new or reformed urban legislation, partial or global master plan, they ask residents opinion. In my opinion, this is like asking someone questions related to macro-economy only because this person has a bank account. In that kind of surveys, usually people answer with demands or observations related to solve their current problems. They cannot understand that urbanism solves medium-term and long-term problems. In my opinion, inquire about urban issues to the residents of a city is meaningless. It may be politically correct and popular this measures, but honestly I do not think it contributes a lot. Recently I have read about a promoter who seriously proposed to perform a cycle lane below the sky train. This was his best solution to solve traffic problems in our city. Political gentlemen, if you need a stomach operation I am pretty sure you will visit the specialist doctor. The masses do not solve the problems because they do not understand them. In some cases, the citizen participation is a utopia. Neither solves problems nor contributes with strategies. Can anyone imagine taking place a public consultation to face a health care reform or a taxes reform? The urbanism should not be democratic.

Nowadays, ecology is currently in vogue. However, it is something too important to be fashionable. Today, buildings must be sustainable and the design and the construction of them should take into consideration the environmental factors. Most people think that this is something new and they believe that this is a triumph of environmentalists’ people who demanding buildings to be "green". Nothing could be further from the truth. Any building constructed 150 years ago and which is still preserved, can be the best picture of a sustainable building. They are thick- walled buildings with thermal inertia. The holes in their façades are submitted to the hierarchy of the orientation of the sun and the wind. They are buildings constructed with local materials and designed to have the minimum energy consumption. They are buildings with a low and economical maintenance. But now, for a building being green has to satisfy a number of parameters that an international organization has selected. The more points the design has, the more "green" and progressive the building is. For example, if the air conditioning system is Inverter and saves energy, the design gets a high number of points. But if someone designs a passive building that does not require any type of air conditioning system, then that building has no points and therefore is not "green" although the architect has designed it by considering the form, the orientation and the natural cross ventilation to achieve a successful climatic comfort without machines. What nonsense this kind of certificates.

All greatest constructions are related with excellent visionary- promoters. Some of these constructions have been designed by great architects. This exciting profession becomes more pleasant if it is possible, when who manages the architect’s work knows exactly what he wants. There is nothing worse than when the architect faces an indecisive client who has no judgment at all. Anyone can be a good client, and certainly there is not a bad client. Architects have the mission to educate the customer with the tools that they dominate. As a r esult, the client will be provided by all concepts and possibilities that can solve their needs. Once the client has been informed of the advantages and disadvantages of each concept, and he is s atisfied with one of the proposals, it is when we move on to define the formal model. In my opinion, a great concept is behind a good formal solution. Otherwise we would be practicing only pure Formalism, which although is acceptable as a discipline (we should learn more about Manierism or Baldassare Peruzzi), this discipline have been ended in itself as pure rhetoric.

1.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.