Photo: © Jakub Čajko, 2022
Cite this article
Špaček, R. (2024) ‘Editorial’, Architecture Papers of the Faculty of Architecture and Design STU, 29(4), pp. 1-3. https://www.doi.org/10.2478/alfa-2024-0018
Each of our days, our whole lives, now and here, even in longer phases, is a chain of instinctive reactions and rational decisions. Let’s leave instincts aside and think about rational, logically framed decisions. The word decision originally comes from the Latin “decidere” (“determine”). The notion of decision-making is bundled with morality and ethics. The management sphere operates through a process of hierarchical decisions. Multiple decisions have remained rooted in the skeleton of history: a knot cut through, an egg tapped… the dice cast. We can hardly take responsibility for the instinct-driven decisions; we are always responsible for the conscious, well thought-out ones. These are carried by our moral standards. Deciding between good and bad options shouldn’t actually occur. A good option should, of course, take precedence. Deciding between two good options appears to be a luxury at first glance, but it can bring doubts afterwards.
The individual potential to make decisions is often lost, diluted… in collective practices such as voting, … in my mind I stick to my opinion, but I respect the decision of the majority. If I’m afraid, I keep my own thoughts just to myself, well hidden from others. The worst case is when decision-making is affected by cognitive dissonance. Some decisions are irreversible, some we can take back, change them, others we can apologise for, many we have to live with. Good decisions used to win wars, led to establishing peace, good decisions brought breakthrough moments in science and knowledge. The nature of decision algorithms determines the quality of management systems from global, social to workplace relationships. The scaling from democracy to totalitarianism is now reflected in cyberspace and in bot communication. Respect for an authority’s decisions is either power-based, e.g. in politics, or natural, e.g. in science. Decisions can define a “variant of the future” that starts to develop straight away. We are aware of speculative ideas about what the present days would look like had different decisions been made in the past. Both globally and locally. Our journal could still have been issued in printed form.
Any author of an article, scientific study or a review article decides within the boundaries of the following framework. In the name of freedom and independence of science, a scientist may define the research goal on their own: this requires a Renaissance-like enlightened sponsor. Or there is research within the framework of a programme or a commissioned research. Most frequently, we are limited by the method and scope of funding, the outcome which is “to please”, brings no material benefit. The outcome should have a targeted application, in most cases, the ultimate goal is to generate profits. Obviously, we publish new information coming from research, at times out of genuine efforts to bring knowledge to the academia, at times simply driven by academic self-preservation. The most beautiful would be to publish outcomes out of joy, however, in reality we decide confined in the shackles of “publish or perish”. Every scientific text is a chain of argumentative decisions. Authors constantly keep looking for cogent formulations, unless they are using space fillers. After all copy-reading/reviewing peripeties, the author faces the decision whether to edit the text or “give it up”.
The worst that can happen in the decision-making process, is to hit the wall called “dilemma”. A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable. A dilemma is the urgency to choose one from two conflicting options, a hard choice to make. Let’s put aside Joshua Green and his moral cognition studies and all the trickery of Sophia’s choice. Let’s keep to our own playground. A dilemma between the conscience and purpose: will we take a morally correct decision even if it ruins our business? …architects often face this dilemma. Nowadays, there are also mainstream lines in research which must be followed, otherwise you are a heretic. Doubting the green strategies is a taboo, fundamentalism is present at the gates of the world of heritage and monument protection. As we cannot save the essential, we indulge ourselves in the details. This is our dilemma in teaching: idealism stemming from the “temple” of knowledge versus sheer focus on practice. The current dilemma in architectural practice is demolish or conserve.
Sometimes we are as ropewalkers thinking which side they fall down to. As it follows from the definition of dilemma, neither side is desirable. At best, a dilemma can lead to a compromise that nobody likes but everybody does. A compromise is a soft way out to relieve one’s conscience. A typical dilemma excludes compromises, one cannot be slightly dead, nor… Perhaps historians will once call our times a Dilemmatic Era. Satisfactory solutions are only seen at the far end of the tunnel, but after all we’re counting on the Lesser Evil. Our decisions then contribute to a cultural and historical entropy, the loss of natural systems homeostasis, and we’re diluting the historical identity in general. The crucial question is whether dilemmatic situations can be prevented. Opting for a lesser evil might be manipulating your conscience, but it is not a clear way out of the dilemma. The history tells us about examples when it was necessary to swim with the devil to kill the beast. Moral relativism strikes back most of the times. If we run out of good options, we will have to create them.
The Dilemmatic Era is a degradation of values, it brings moral entropy, implies zero value level… The morality breathes with its mouth just above the water level—even a tiny wave comes and it’ll suffocate. Dilemmas also appear in our work as editors. We can feel, we can see that an article has a potential, but… Luckily, independent reviewers deliver us from certain part of the decision-related problems. Despite everything, at times we find ourselves in a situation where rejecting an article is not right and publishing it is not the best option either. Then “in dubio mitius” enters the scene. What is better—to strive for excellence or beware of potentially doing wrong? Let us dig into the realm of quotations and pick the supposedly Voltaire’s quote: “perfect is the enemy of good”. An article written with joy is read with joy, too; otherwise we just read to adhere to the academic duty. The collective reason resolved that this issue will publish the following articles.
Authors Farah Kefif and Malek Hendel in their article ‘Creating an inventory for a heritage that holds meaning for its inhabitants: The case of 1950s large housing estates in Oran, Algeria’ pose a problem which is surprisingly a general one: how to approach large housing complexes in terms of their (heritage?) protection. Large housing estates always emerged with good intentions to resolve social problems of housing. This decision gradually brought other problems, often turning in the opposite direction, let us just mention Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis, which was removed after all, or Gropiusstadt in Berlin which also failed to meet the original expectations. The construction of prefab panel block housing estates in the former Socialist countries in Europe was based on a strong ideological pressure and it took decades until these structures were accepted in society. The presented case study is accompanied by a historical tension, on the one hand there are positive intentions to handle a social problem, and on the other… these were the intentions of a colonial power. The authors’ decision indicated in this article to initiate the creation an inventory for buildings worth of heritage classification, is brilliant.
In the paper ‘Impact of wind in urban planning: A comparative study of cooling and natural ventilation systems in traditional Iranian architecture across three climatic zones’ authors Mina Ganjimorad, Jose Duran Fernandez and Milad Heiranipour stay on in the field of sustainability, in the form of relationship between the sustainability of resources and culture. It has been a long-known fact that in the scale of architecture or building, the research has been steady, we need to shift the focus to urban planning. In the innovation process, we sometimes return to traditional, ancient, tried-and-true experience, which appears ironic at first glance. The natural ventilation and cooling system for buildings and complexes has had a strong tradition in the Middle East. This low-tech approach may become part of the smart city concept, as suggested by the Vienna example referred to in the paper.
The next article ‘Urban expansion and heritage threats: Preservation of the Mansourah archaeological site in Tlemcen, Algeria’ authored by Manar Triqui and Fatima Mazouz introduces us to a different heritage context, more deeply into the history, into the archaeology environment. Pointing at the role of forming the community identity looks rather straightforward. Unfortunately, the issue of fragile, unparalleled values being jeopardised by urban development, is not an isolated problem. Aligning archaeological sites protection with urban development, the respect of protection zones, is a global challenge. It appears that the detailed analyses presented by authors are linked to this particular location only, however, they can be largely generalised. The mere problem of informal, illegal residential construction is a nightmare for the relevant authorities. Here the decision-making can be a tough dilemma.
Karolína Bujdáková and Alexander Schleicher in their article ‘Impact of temporary conversion on the community: Categorisation and current case studies from Europe’ move our attention to another area, although in general, we remain on the territory of respect towards the cultural role and value of architecture. We are entering the realm of a generally accepted sustainability, architecture, space, construction substance. The principle of destroying and building is still present in our thinking, but the situation is changing. Quotation: “The greenest /most sustainable building is… one that is already built.” Let us rely on the idea by Carl Elefante from 2007. His article in the National Trust’s Forum Journal is still an etalon for this argumentation line. The authors advocate for the use of construction substance to the maximum, so to speak. Strategies of conversions, adaptations… urban recycling. These are already well supported by argumentation and applied. The temporality phenomenon is presented in the article, taking the form of the in-between use, until a stabilised state occurs. And we can go as far as an almost a fatal state, let’s use the space up to its death.
We started this issue by delving into the broad context of sustainability of a city. The legendary cultural anthropologist Aby Warburg would surely not mind us now mentioning his frequently quoted maxim “Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail”. Surely, back in 1925 he was not thinking of park seating elements, and yet the quote helps illustrate the scaling of author’ scope in researching the urban topics presented by Mohamed Abdurrahman in ‘User satisfaction with aesthetics of urban park seating’. We can easily continue by saying that nature is beautiful a priori. In Finland especially, the aesthetics of forest is anchored and developed and so is environmental aesthetics in general. Let’s mention the names such as Yrjö Sepänmaa and Jukka Mikkonen, at least. Landscape architecture, park architecture can be considered the first derivative of nature. As regards the research outcomes presented in the article, they refer to the integration of axiomatic park aesthetics per se and the reflection of aesthetic perception of designed seating elements by the users. Although the authors focused on the “details” created by human invention, the context is clear.
…
Dear followers of our journal, I have made my decision—the age is merciless—that from the next year onwards, I will not bear the responsibility for the content and form of the journal. I am handing the function of the editor-in-chief over to another. I am confident that the new person in this post will make right decisions. The new editor-in-chief will address you in the next year’s first journal issue.