It seems that ]present[ has become the most unattractive period. People look rather to past or future. The nostalgic think that past is much better, while the others wage everything on the future. It might be as well a sign of dissatisfaction with ]present[ or an attempt to escape in an ideal time. However, the problems posed by ]present[ keep on piling up, and people look backwards or forwards, mesmerized by the future; they are less motivated to take action today.
Nonetheless, architecture cannot be performed in the past or future, since it speaks of ]present[ culture. The role of architecture is to provide answers to current challenges.
Sometimes we experience brief moments of “anticipation architecture” that try to forecast future, though it has no knowledge about the questions of the future. You can only understand it as an escape from ]present[ and a refuge into an unblemished future. “Anticipation architecture” as much as films or literature of this sort is but a simple promise taken out from the shortcomings of ]present[. “Anticipation architecture” focuses spectacular images and has no intention to give answers to questions it does not know anything about; it solely tries to dumbfound and invent fantasies. However, ]present[ is the inevitable gate to future, and that depends on how well we know to handle the current problems.
Traditional cities were architectural answers to people’s needs. Once they represented the communities and displayed their values, history, and aspirations. They went hand in hand with community life and promptly answered their changes. This is why we can easily read the history of the place in its architecture. Neither settlements, nor houses can feign history, because sometimes they narrate less desirable aspects of a given world.
Modern city seems to have lost this kind of flexibility. Although it intended to anticipate society developments, it did not react to several changes; thus, architecture could not come up with a proper answer and the whole thing went into a state of crisis. Several dysfunctional cases arose, and architecture could not keep up with novelties.
It seems that modern city cannot adjust to ]present[ and forgets its role in the service of citizens. Moreover, the 21st century has challenged the cities. Some can be seen anywhere in the world, while others are just local. Naturally, architecture should offer solutions to every challenge.
Technology, for one, is a challenge that architecture does not metabolize successfully. Instead, it crowded the world with dubious objects, sometimes useless.
The economic developments upset large territories more than often. Economy has learned to live on the ephemeral and imposed a provisional state in architecture.
However, there are also accidental challenges due to natural or social calamities.
A phenomenon of individual migration takes place, and architecture cannot put itself together to settle people “at home”, thus, becoming a short-lived concept.
There are other challenges that take place in smaller zones, of which you hardly hear.
Although individualism is an easily and clearly identifiable phenomenon, one tries to turn public spaces in city landmarks and places for people gatherings; however, no one understands that a public space is not a self-contained entity but has to be connected to a diversity of spaces.
Architecture should come up with an immediate answer to the above-mentioned facts. However, we have noticed that only provisional solutions have been given. Architecture would like to learn from such challenges and offer final answers.
Competitors are expected to discuss a wide range of particular challenges from the places they live in. The drawings will explicitly and clearly define both the author’s proposal and his/her solution.