Grilles. Yes, bars.

In general, if it were our house, we would all say yes. We need to isolate the private from the  public . But what happens when we need to isolate the public from the public, putting bars in the squares? Is it the solution to preserve them? You can see that, because there are more and more. Is it the best solution? Not

We all agree that the green space — parks and squares — is public and belongs to everyone. The solution to vandalism and to people sleeping if we do not close it, should be social political and not “architectural” or material.

If we “extend” all the green space bars in the city, we add 35 km. They go from being a public space to a semi-public or semi-private space, they have from a schedule of use, to a visual and material edge. It happens to be better to walk on a sidewalk that has business, than on one that has a square through a metal fence of 2 meters high.

The ideal, subjectively, is understood to be green space as a public space, with a transitive and imperceptible edge with the sidewalk, as an extension of it, for free use, leisure, shortcut, meeting; whatever it was, but symbolizing man's respect for nature, conceiving the city as part of it, or showing that there is some respect for this one. Not wrapping it up like a fishbowl, telling the person, “You have to use this space at this time, going in here and going out there.”

However, architecture as an urban tool must be predictable from the socially complex situations that can be generated from creation or decisions when it comes to value a green space, working together in a multidisciplinary way.

People go to a  square  to feel free, in contact with nature, the original, the one that was before us and had no limits or schedules. You have to be aware that you first model the city, and then it shapes you. Customs and sensations affect daily moods and customs. You have to learn to take the pulse of these situations, anticipate them and displace them.