Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: Architecture is an art. Surely, it must have big big influence because it's a part of culture. We live in cities, in good cities with nice places and beautiful buildings. You think about the time when they were built and they are a symbol of power. You can accept this or not, but there are another places in the world where architecture serves politics, for example these skyscrapers which symbolise our modern time. Of course, architecture, builgings have become more comfortable or more useful for people living there. It's excellent. I call this architecture, product of people`s and artists` creativity. But there are another buildings like small cages for people. It's not architecture. These are just jails for people or prison cells looking like cardboard boxes. It's not architecture. Architecture is something wonderful.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: I do not know exactly how the architecture can better serve the social, economic, political and environmental concerns. What I know is that the old architecture could serve these concerns in the past, but now the current architecture cares for earning money and gain rather than serving economic and social concerns. I am not sure whether we should get rid of the current architecture because it looks really ugly in compare to the old architecture and I do not know if we should create a new kind of architecture for the human being and life.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I think that architecture and architects as big artists of the urban space and of the spaces where we live have a big impact on the quality of life of our cities and of our habitat. I think that architects should turn into being artists again. In many cases architects became constructers and technologists and the signifance of arts and of the space in which life happens has got lost. The significance of the artistic space in which life should happen and of the human space has got lost. Architecture should promote meeting spaces, spaces of cohabit, of reflection and of circulation. The Colombian architect Rojelio Salmona which is one of our biggest architects talked about the importance of architecture in relation to time, to the perception of architecture of time as a dimension, architecture that invites to wander and to walk through time, architecture that meditates or that obligates to meditate and to feel time in realtion to its space.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Kenneth, I think like all the other sciences or art forms, the moment architecture begins to think more deeply about structure as an indispensable part of how we live, rather than structure as an integral part of defining that builds environment, it’s a question of entering into another, more dynamic relationship with people, once again, rather than the science of building. Whether we do development of space, or whether we build architectural structures for houses, you know, we need to think about architecture in a completely different way. Architecture is not just about ideas, architecture is about humans, it’s about the kind of structures that are placed on the surface of the earth, to kind of contextualize the way in which we think, the way we feel, the way we cohabit, the way we inhabit; the structures that become far more ergonomically sustainable, they become far more aesthetically viable and pleasing, they use materials that are far more empathetic to the environment, and that they utilize energy far more efficiently.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Answertext will be available soon.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: It is a very interesting question and it raises an important essay that was written by Friedrich Engels on the housing question, where he talks about how housing architecture, how the construction of homes, how the construction of public spaces is a profoundly political question and is tied up with the priorities of a society in a given historical moment. And really, of course, when you ask the question of architecture, you ask the question of the contradictions of living in a world where some people can construct homes that cost millions upon millions of dollars, while other people go absolutely homeless, how it is that we live in a world where architecture is overwhelmingly the preserve as an art form, but also as a material form of a handful, and the question of people’s housing, the question of people’s experience of public space is one that’s overwhelmingly beyond their economic means or control. And so, I think we have to understand that the question of architecture is a political question, it’s a social question and that architects can like other artists be a part of raising awareness of those issues and also participating in an understanding of how a different kind of architecture might be possible, how a different form of creation of space might be possible in an emancipated society.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: By putting in honest -- what is ideal.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I look forward to listening to the answer to this question from other people because I think I have a lot to learn from that.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: It’s clear that architecture is vital in our environment. And, we know that from certain eastern forms of thinking that look at the Chi energy or the Feng Shui for example, understands enormously the depth of how our environment physically shapes our human energy. An architecture is an art form, of course it attends to shaping the space and our ecologies in which we live. And, it reflects the consciousness. We can live in spaces that are more alienating and de-humanizing and separating us, and cutting us off from nature and natural flow of human energy one to the other. So I think architecture in the generic sense has enormous influence in our human flow of energy and interconnectivity. So, it reflects our state of consciousness. And again, if we are in an integral holistic awakened consciousness, a mindful consciousness of being connected with our ecology, the architecture will be profoundly altered and different. For example, we can have spaces that promote dialogue and those that break dialogue. One complaint I have with this setting is that we are speaking at the cameras, but our backs are turned to the audience behind us. And this architectural structure, as important as it is to reach out to the audience through the camera, cuts us off from the human contact with others around. So, we have to be sensitive to the space and how it structures our human energy and human relations. And, as you move to more dialogic spaces and architectural spaces that bring us into relation, we will have a more organic flow in our economics, in our social relations, in our political, democracy, deep dialogue and so forth. So rounded circular space that encourages dialogue and town meetings will be more encouraging for deep democracy, for example, than an architecture that breaks those circuits.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Avi Primor:

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Architecture is really about design. Then how can architecture, how can design better serve the social, economical, political and environmental concerns of our present and future? How can we design systems that allows for better flows for the natural patterns of people to be energy efficient? By designing ways like, if we look at designs by William McDonough who’s looking at the triple bottom line and looking at how a building can actually be living and actually producing more energy than it consumes. If we look architect’s like Sim Van der Ryn who is pioneering a lot of concepts of ecological designs and building with nature, building with natural materials, and pulling the patterns from nature. We’ll look at landscape architect like Josiah Cain who’s doing living architecture, living roofs and actually incorporating the building to be a living breathing thing. These are all forms of architecture that can then allow us, if it pulling from nature’s patterns. They can be reinforcements within our daily lives to reconnect with nature more. If we’re living in a building that is living, and breathing, and generating energy, as much like a forest is. Then, we are connected with nature within our own home. Therefore, it makes it easier when we see the impacts of our consumption and of our choices, when we’re actually living in a part of nature. And these patterns are reinforced, and so we look around and it’s a great architecture here and a really good architecture’s form follows function, right? It’s functional, beautiful.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: Well. This is a very interesting question. We have to start by changing our actual architecture. We have to start by thinking of the human beings and not of the designs of construction. We have to start by thinking of our environment, of the human beings with their culture, climate, ecology, flora, fauna etc. in order to find the appropriated designs for this special environment. This means that each architectural process has to keep the identity of the place where it will be developped. It is possible to realize this with other knowledge and instruments, e. g. passive climatisation, solar energy, wind, thermodynamics, rain and other sorts of conditions with appropriated material. Or also heating with equipments that really consume low energy. The use of materials and techniques thinking about to use plants and about the treatment of water and recycling. The use of constructive systems that permit low costs of maintenance. So perhaps we need architectural processes that start by thinking of the human beings and of their environment and their relation not only to the architectural designs. Because the designs are dominating actually the architecture. We perceive that in many countries the objective of architecture is design and not qualities and conditions that may help to keep the identity of our cities.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: Great architecture inspires us. Great architecture protects us from the elements. We can do much better in our architecture, be more energy efficient, be more renewable, use less resources, use the kind of ideas that Christopher Alexander has espoused in this books to create spaces that are more human scaled that reflect the values that we share across cultures. The work of Cameron Sinclair in producing affordable housing and environmental housing is particularly inspiring. The architecture reflects beauty. Here in Berlin the first day I was here I went out and walked around and just was stunned by the layers of history that you can see in the architecture and the particular beauty of the city. So I think architecture has to get more environmental, using new technologies to cut energy use and make buildings more pleasant, more natural light, more natural ventilation. Standards like the Leeds standards in the U.S. are strong movements in this direction. But I’m personally very inspired by architecture and I hope that the kind of local diversity we see in the texture and the color of cities and buildings around the world only blossoms further in the years ahead. We have the capacity to build very very interesting and distinct buildings at affordable prices at the environmental and the low-cost nature of these designs is mostly in the design process, not in the building process. So let’s propagate the understanding of how to design these kinds of buildings so they can inspire us and save energy and the environment too.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: As first we need urbanism, there what is happening in small and big residential areas is a nightmare: often containing very suspicious ideas, there is no general idea or long term direction. After that come constructors which are also very different, some wish to finish there projects as fast as possible and quarter people under the roof as fast as possible, others how ever in there huge sometimes even strange projects work on quartering of soul and making of the beauty, on making of really human worth space. Of course a lot of this depends on resources and material possibilities there maybe we should invest less in the production of cannons and fight airplanes.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: Okay, so architecture, the queen of the arts. Well, let’s see, one angle on this I’d like to suggest is when architecture models itself on the natural world; that’s known as biomimedics or biomimetry. Then, I think it begins to reflect the natural scale of things. There are a number of architects that have been demonstrating this amazing strategy of mimicking the natural world. I think that’s how we’re going to bring thing back to scale, back to the sense of affinity. So, looking at some of the underlying dimensionality on the basis of building architecture, I’m reminded of the Golden Section, which of course is a mathematical relationship that exists throughout the natural world, including ourselves. So, if I put my arm out like that and my shoulder to my fingertips, my elbow is on that relationship which is 3.18 to 6.82, if my memory serves me correctly. And then if I go from my elbow to the tip of my finger, my wrist is on that section, if I’m here to there, my knuckle from there to there. So, if you look at the relationship of the Golden mean and 3.18 to 6.82 and replicate that in architecture, it’s that sense of scale. And the Georgia architecture in Britain is a great example of that. So, I think that’s the way to get things back to scale and I think that’s when society will then be benefited by really great architecture.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 4:45:00 PM cite

Catherine David: First of all, I think that one should be a little bit conscient of the fact that today, one continues to speak a lot about architecture, although architecture concerns an extremely small part of constructions, and that, in most of the cases, one would better speak about constructions, of constructions which can be leaded by multinational companies like Bouige and others, and that, indeed, the architectural work, i.e. an architect conceiving, accompanying the construction of a building, is absolutely resigning and minor. I think that at the moment one should better ask the question: what is it that urbanism, what is it that the idea of construction in the city can provide? I think that unfortunately, an architect today can't make up his mind between continuing to produce an iconic architecture, or magnificent volumes which make nice pictures on glossy paper in architecture magazines, or doing a little bit more complicated work where one tries to ask also the question of the city. So, I think that for some [...] is to live in the splits, one can mention others, but again, I think today one has to be very conscient that the majority of the buildings produced in the world today are more often based on construction than on architecture. Architecture requires at least an idea, a 'projetto' as they say, the idea of a volume [based on] usages working in a city, in an environment. These are not really the questions that transnational construction companies seem to ask. So I think that one should specify the question, narrow a bit the problems and not send all the architects...

by Catherine David