Introducing topics that range from language to architecture and geopolitics, the following collaborators have made possible the third adventure, proposing alternative approaches to the concept of limit: Adrian Phiffer, AFAB Architecture, Guillermo Sánchez-Arsuaga, Rebecca Carrai + Martino Tattara, Lluís Alexandre Casanovas Blanco, Daniel Martín-Villamuelas, Atxu Amann Alcocer, Tatiana Poggi, Neeraj Batia + Cesar Lopez, Pablo Martínez Capdevila, Kapka Kassabova, n’UNDO and Pedro Azevedo.
Momentum III editorial extract.-
“The meaning and influence that concepts such as limit, border and division have over our ways of life, when addressing spatial and territorial management structures, is nowadays in the spotlight due to the growing migration and exclusion dynamics that exist in our planet. In this context, limits can be understood as lines that just detach ourselves from the different, trying to stablish a limited framework that pretends to save the economic, cultural and social conditions of those who inhabit them.
However, inside these limits, those urban developments that organize the interiority are far from being egalitarian and inclusive because the mechanisms that rule them are based on management and speculation that hardly leave room for alternative ways of acting. […] As Aureli stated: “There is no way back from urbanism”, but maybe we still have time to react from a new kind of interior limit, stablishing a difference between urbanism and architecture that allow ourselves to suggest and propose other ways of interacting with the city as well as alternative dialogues and interactions within the generic in order to transform it and make it evolve. These interiorities could be explored from different approaches, political or social ones, pushed by spatial and programmatic designs or by spontaneous and domestic modes of occupation that sometimes, even without noticing, are producing extraordinary case studies out of completely generic situations.[…]”
However, inside these limits, those urban developments that organize the interiority are far from being egalitarian and inclusive because the mechanisms that rule them are based on management and speculation that hardly leave room for alternative ways of acting. […] As Aureli stated: “There is no way back from urbanism”, but maybe we still have time to react from a new kind of interior limit, stablishing a difference between urbanism and architecture that allow ourselves to suggest and propose other ways of interacting with the city as well as alternative dialogues and interactions within the generic in order to transform it and make it evolve. These interiorities could be explored from different approaches, political or social ones, pushed by spatial and programmatic designs or by spontaneous and domestic modes of occupation that sometimes, even without noticing, are producing extraordinary case studies out of completely generic situations.[…]”
