de arhitectura naturii uman(izat)e
„ [...] Architects always claimed they can shape individual social groups positively with their buildings[...] specific evidence that they live up to this claim is never usually provided[...] the opposite argument on the other hand- that architecture can actually be a trigger for negative social deve-lopments-seems much easier to prove.” Human, humanize are terms basically with a positive content. So do words like building, constructing, constructive, all closely linked to human nature, to the concept of human evolution. But it is not always the case. Too much human presence, „humanizing” nature , can be harmful. Urbanisation usu-ally means more building, that is often wasteful and with no responsability toward environment. Rethinking building as a human activity is needed: refurbishing, recomposing existing built and natural elements or even non-building are valid options. The role of nature, of green infrastructure is essential in this endeavour. Paradoxically, an increased pursuit for more green infrastructure can harm nature: instead of renaturalising the city often nature is „humanized”. Building or nonbuilding, over and underplanning, limiting human intervention/presence in nature or letting nature do its work are all very much present in current public debate. The metamorphosis of Întrelacuri quarter in Cluj, beginning from the middle of the 20th century, might help us better understand this complex phenomenon.