The image of city manifests itself through the evolution and uncontrollably fast construction in the urban context, when its real architecture is to be discovered in the hidden parts that represent the city’s historical and social evolution.
In these “Informal/Spontaneous Areas” of the city, architectural and urban conditions are strongly demonstrated in the revival of public and private spaces.
Our research focuses on the dialogue which arises between these spaces and how it impacts the residents and their relationship to this communal living. It is important to understand the alterations that took place over time in order to understand the value of these “private” and “collective” spaces for this specific community.
Accordingly, the study of these “limits” sheds light on the correlation and variation between the “political space” of the city and the “private space” of the citizen.
While the first one “political space” covers the infrastructure of the area, the services provided, and the clarity of the master plan, the second one the “private space” deals with the unsystematic and chaotic movements and alterations that tied together the haphazard architectural aspects of the neighborhood.
The public space gave way to the development of the term “urban values” which in turn becomes a catalyst for collective action in the community. Accordingly, the inhabitants of the area find these collective spaces as a valid act of the community and are configured with the sprawl of the private space into the public.
For that reason, the main reference for the research and project development depends on the repertoire of urban elements which in turn depends on the constant movement and alterations and the dialogue which rises between people, spaces, and things.
“The Howl of the City” reflects on the need of architecture and its role in representing criteria and programs for our political class to inspire hope and aspiration for the new generation to live the urbanity; i.e. to live the civilization, the value of time and history of our society.
The deception of urban policy and that of the government has become so close that it eventually becomes alike. It has become difficult to distinguish them and even more difficult to distinguish between “Abusive Architecture” and the original one of the intervention.
“Abusive Architecture” takes you to extremely interesting and dynamic places that arise as a collective action to acquire the space due to the lack of urban policy application.
For sure, the future of our “city” will be in question in a society where everyone is in movement, where the definition of culture has certainly become something ambiguous and where the territory is controlled only by the investors.