Responsabilitate în și prin arhitectură în situații de urgență
Can human responsibility towards the built environment exist without the responsibility of the act of building it towards humanity? Architect Raimond Abraham questioned architecture as a study of the human condition, always putting man in relationship with the built environment and the process of building. Anthropologist Vintilă Mihăilescu stated that ”a house is a relationship that is fulfilled in space and takes place over time.”1 Architecture provides space for happenings and interactions and becomes a framework for living. It is man the one who is both the designer and the builder of the frame, but also its user in the everyday life. But what happens in an emergency situation? Emergency situations, whether natural disasters, epidemics or adverse social circumstances, imply an imbalance in the daily life and involve disturbance, vulnerability and uncertainty. How could architecture mediate the social impact of these situations? Its responsibility to man cannot be limited only to providing shelter. Through the quality of its spaces, architecture could heal, could even have a therapeutic role in restoring balance or it could become a tool in limiting the spread of diseases. For example, during the recent crisis of the pandemic, at a time when most people needed to be isolated, architecture acquired a responsibility for which, it remains to be seen whether or not it was prepared. We therefore propose that the discussion of responsibility in and through architecture revolves around the social relationship between man and the built environment in two particular phases of an emergency situation: during one (pandemic architecture) and after one (post-disaster architecture). We will analyse whether human responsibility towards architecture and architecture’s responsibility towards humanity could establish a co-dependence relationship for crisis mediation.