Cite this article
Búš, P. (2025) ‘Editorial’, Architecture Papers of the Faculty of Architecture and Design STU, 30(3), pp. 1-2. https://www.doi.org/10.2478/alfa-2025-0012
In the evolving landscape of architectural discourse and urban development, interaction stands as a core principle—shaping the relationship between humans, the built environment, and its creation—beyond its role as a mode of communication or technological function. The contributions gathered in this issue collectively challenge static conceptions of architecture and spatial planning by foregrounding interaction as a dynamic and multi-layered force—between people and public space, contemporary and historical architecture, water and urban systems, and digital tools and creative processes. These varied contexts reveal a shift towards human agency, where people help generate meaning and responsive outcome, no longer confined to the role of passive observers or end-users.
Paulína Ebringerová’s exploration of interactive art in public spaces reframes artistic production as an open-ended, co-constructed process. Here, interaction becomes a performative act in which meaning arises through the dynamic interplay between technology, artists, and the public. Public space is a living interface, transformed by ephemeral and sensory experiences. Audiences participate as collaborators, moving beyond passive reception—revealing how human presence and bodily engagement can become central to artistic and spatial expression.
This spirit of co-creation also permeates the work of Farnaz Rahimifard, who introduces a digital workflow for designing modular high-rise architecture. The method integrates user preferences with algorithmic logic, enabling interactive, real-time configuration of spatial layouts. Instead of following a linear path of authorship, design operates through feedback loops, driven by optimisation, adaptability, and responsiveness. Human input and algorithmic intelligence interact within a shared design ecology—pushing forward the future of participatory digital fabrication.
At the intersection of heritage preservation and sustainable tourism, Üyesi Eda Özsoy and Munira Umar Jibrilla’s study in Kano, Nigeria, underscores the essential role of community interaction in cultural conservation. By engaging locals, tourists, and heritage experts, the research reveals how diverse perceptions and values shape the potential for ecotourism to serve as a tool for preservation and empowerment. Interaction here operates through dialogue, memory, and lived experience, with and within the community as a key stakeholder in defining and sustaining cultural identity.
Fatima Mazouz and Amine Behilil confront the spatial and aesthetic tensions between contemporary architecture and ancient urban fabrics. Their critical reflection exposes the divergences between mimicry, contrast, and contextual integration. Through this lens, interaction becomes a contested terrain of negotiation—between past and present, regulation and innovation. The paper calls for a more sensitive architectural practice that respects the wholeness of the historical context while allowing contemporary interventions to emerge meaningfully.
Finally, the investigation by Mohammad Tanvir Hasan and Tanjima Siddika Chandni into the relationship between water-based activities and urban spatial structure brings ecological and infrastructural interaction to the forefront. In Sylhet, Bangladesh, blue spaces like ponds serve as both ecological assets and cultural-social nodes. This research highlights how urban morphology affects, and is affected by, patterns of human interaction with water—emphasising the need for integrative planning approaches that preserve these vital connections in the face of urbanisation.
Collectively, these articles assert that interaction is not an optional layer of architecture or planning—it is foundational. Through artistic embodiment, digital parametrics, heritage engagement, or ecological integration, the human role remains integral to all of the above. What gives spaces meaning in each case is their responsiveness: the capacity to evolve, adapt, and connect with their users, beyond mere form, usage or function.
In a time of accelerating urban change, cultural fragmentation, and environmental urgency, it is precisely this interactive, human-centred approach that must guide the design and stewardship of our shared environments. Architecture, at its best, is not an object—but a process of connection.