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.