Grilles yes, bars don't

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 see yes, because there is more and more. Is it the best solution? No.

We all agree that green space — parks and squares — is public and belongs to everyone. The solution to vandalism and people sleep 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 up to 35km. They pass from being a public space to a semi-public or semi-private space, 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 in one that has a square through a metal grating 2 meters high.

The ideal, subjectively, is understood to be green space as public space, with a transitive and imperceptible edge with the sidewalk, as prolongation of it, free use, leisure, shortcut, meeting; whoever was, but symbolizing man's respect for nature, conceiving the city as part of it, or a sign of that there is some respect for it, not wrapping it up like a fish tank, saying to the person, “You have to use this space on this schedule, going in here and going out there.”

However, architecture as an urban tool must be predictable from 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  place  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 model the city first, and then it models you. Customs and sensations affect daily moods and customs. You have to learn to take the pulse in these situations, foresee them and displace them.