The buildings have come to the front line of the informative, because some begin to be built, because this will collapse and until the path that makes construction possible is invaded, the building will not be for the moment. In all of them, the building has become the center of the controversy, a small toy of powerful, caciquism and politics. Architecture has little to matter in these building plots. It is not interesting to know the lighting spaces of the building, how it will relate to the entrance environment, the characteristics of the possible affected or if the constructive system implies an innovation.

Despite the rejection of architecture, architects and politicians come together in one thing, both believe in the ability of a building to change a situation. But the virtue of the buildings is dirty when the architect directs the building to the manifestation of its super-state or when the politician defends a community that will vote. Perhaps the indignation of the spectators of the theatre would be mitigated by the recognition of the use of the building, a courageous action of shame. Whether it's friendship, it's money investiture, it's a promise of some kind to your father or it's a strategy of weakening your enemy. Building construction could gain humanity. On the contrary, we have to listen to the discursive misery: “The new building will be committed to culture, it will be the highlight of the economy.”

We can all understand that a building can allow many events, help catalyze connections. Space can be the motor and promoter of events, and here comes the corrective line “if the human context has a fabric for it”. Without accepting the context, the building becomes a tax action, an expensive skeleton, without architecture or agency.