(article previously published in February 2012)
I think it has happened to all of us. When you read in the media about a subject you know about, you are surprised by the “inaccuracies” that are committed. This fact always makes me reflect when I read about something I don’t know.
We must let the experts speak and listen to them. That is the only way to get closer to reality.
Last Saturday, February 4, “El Gran Debate” was broadcasted on Telecinco with the title :
Is housing a luxury or a right?
As usual, the script was based on demagoguery and light judgment on topics that need expert analysis.
Thus, I do not understand a television “show”. It lacks value.
Maybe the advertisers won’t go away again, but I didn’t like it.
Although the need to propose solutions was repeated, the script was different: looking for culprits and human dramas.
Thus, for example, from the Plataforma Afectados por la Hipoteca (in reality, almost all of us are in this association without wanting it) the message is transmitted that occupying is justified.
Later, among the guests from the audience, the “enlightened” come up with irrefutable solutions. Very cheap demagogy.
Sandra Barneda continues with her script: “They would rather die than leave their home”.
Banks are the bad guys against the weak. How easy!
Why do we not talk about those in power who for years have done nothing to solve the problem?
Banks do not cheat. They lend money to make money. Responsibility is shared.
The construction process of a building is complex. There are multiple players involved. If one party does not do its job well, it can affect the final result. Everyone can be responsible.
I found some of Gonzalo Bernardos ‘ interventions disconcerting, to say the least:
“Spain is one of the countries where construction is the worst”.
I do not understand that he is Vice Chancellor and Director of the Master of Real Estate Consultancy at the University of Barcelona.
As Carmen Tomás said, the institutions that commission the construction of a building have to supervise the correct execution of the works. It is their responsibility.
Of course, there are cases of negligence in the process and La Noria is quick to find them.
It was all about sharing and so it was done.
Then, it was the turn of the architects.
“We have visited some of these dreadful buildings,” said Jordi Gonzalez.
In a frivolous way, construction is confused with architecture.
In many cases, haste and unskilled workmanship are responsible for poor construction. Cracks are not usually the result of a bad project. They are the result of poor execution.
The architect proposes his idea in a competition. The institutions choose the one they consider most suitable. It is their responsibility to choose well.
However, I am not going to defend architects simply because I am part of the collective.
Rather, I will do the opposite.
I am in favor of making experiments with soda. It is not acceptable to project buildings that hold up in virtual space but are not realistic for the future.
The example of the building with a structure prepared for vine growth is a good one.
Who is responsible for this unfortunate result?
It could be the architect if he did not understand that in that climate it would not work or if, for example, he did not get the type of vegetation right. It could also be the institution that received the building if it did not allocate a budget to maintain it. Or perhaps, the builder built the supporting structure as best he knew how and as well as he could with the budget he had.
Although I do not quite understand the solution for housing, there are very good projects executed vertical gardens. The Caixa Forum in Madrid or Emilio Ambasz in Fukuoka, whose maxim is green over the grey.
It is true that during the program, images of buildings-experiments were also shown.
Alejandro Zaera Polo’ s housing block is, from my point of view, a paradigm in that sense. The idea is brilliant. The execution is very poor. The result is doubtful and the future uncertain.
I found this report from Comando Actualidad entitled ¿Quién vive ahí?
It was also biased but not as biased as this “great debate”.