Winy Maas0:04
First, I would say politically almost, and because the position of Prague in the heart of Europe is quite crucial in the reorganization of Europe, where the eastern part of Europe and the southeastern part needs to be stronger, connected somehow in terms of wealth and in terms of social comparisons. So there's a job to do there. And then Prague, one could say compared to other cities in the middle part of Europe, is the most stable, despite what you might think, and that is for better and for worse. So that's one huge potential. The second potential is basically in the younger generation, which I find quite energetic, not only skeptical naysayers which certain generations in the Czech population celebrate almost. So there is also intentionality to work with, to go for more energy and more potentials, more future.
One to say now, I follow Harari: everything is temporary. So in the case of Prague, where this center, which is only 10% of the city, is dominated by conservationists, and that is because of its beauty, let's not forget. But temporary solutions can sometimes help to expand that gap. I would add that I also advocate a catalog of solutions so that a new camp may develop. For instance, in the interpretation of UNESCO protection elements or other elements, you can imagine and fantasize on certain cohabitations that will help in the Netherlands especially to see space for innovation and new programs within current envelopes. That technique is now embedded in the Dutch heritage boards as a toolbox to mitigate processes from water management to infrastructure. So let's not forget that it's not only architecture that touches this subject. Effectiveness depends on the criteria. I think there is a shopping list of criteria added to the value and programmation of architecture, and therefore the criteria we have to fulfill. There is a social aspect to start with, where cheaper buildings are sometimes needed to facilitate rents. At the same time, we have climatic or environmental constraints from noise, sun, temperature, energy, carbon, and that costs money. Then you have constraints like beauty committees in the Netherlands, which are very important to raise the spatial quality. Last but not least, in urbanistic terms, you could wish for more architects working on a subject to get variety, a biodiversity of logics and appearances. I think that's important to create an architecture that celebrates diversity, so you can see different ways of fulfilling these tasks. So it's quite a stack. The environmental part and the other parts need to be combined. There are people who say they are happy only with the environmental, so they prioritize, but on the other hand, we talk about a small percentage of the climatic agenda that is done by architecture. With buildings, there's more. Well, my architecture, I think, is on the loudspeaking part. I think my role in architecture is to say out loudly what I think about the situation, and I do that through the building itself. But hopefully not in a flat way, but in a conceptual way so that it integrates with the more eternal values of a building that you want to come back for. Not everybody agrees. I think there's a whole Swiss delegation that loves to hide away. There's also a majority of buildings that are simply functional and don't yell out. What to yell out are the big themes we have to address, as just discussed. There are also very contextual yellouts needed, because certain situations or countries are so boring they deserve a louder voice, or other countries never smile. So giving relativation would be helpful for those environments. I find the contextual component super important because you make buildings where the visitors are, and they come from there. It can range from a wake-up call to a gentle message. You can speak out gentleness also loudly. Especially after you have done some louder buildings, a gentle building is also a message.
