To inhabit is not to construct or to build, Ingold recalls following Heidegger. To inhabit is to situate oneself in the specific temporality of care, that is, in that kind of silent conversation woven into our daily and ordinary relationships with the place where we live. To inhabit is to situate oneself in a becoming of the place, or more accurately, in itslines.
Jean-Marc Besse, Habiter
In the nineteen thirties, Mies van der Rohe wrote, in the programme for the Berlin Building Exposition, that the dwelling of his time did not exist, that they were in arrears to conceive a new model for the societies that inhabited the city of that time. We believe this phrase is still valid for the contemporary discussion regarding inhabiting. The problems remain the same; they have not changed. Perhaps what has been transformed, with time, are approaches or solutions. Again, we are about to implement new solutions to old problems.
Perhaps it will help us stop and question the meaning of the word dwell. The French philosopher and historian Jean-Marc Besse, in his book Habiter, proposed an explanation based on the concept of resistance to deterioration, taking care of ourselves, of what we are and what surrounds us. This approach allows us to understand the relevance of housing in our day to day, a home that we take care of and that takes care of us. Is there any more relevant purpose for us in the world? Caring and being cared for.
Although we cannot say that there is no housing for this time, we can say that it is difficult to find, in our context, ways of living—or caring—suggesting a change in the established paradigms and real needs of our population.
We should not look for these new proposals either in the official institutions or in the construction companies, which are more concerned with obtaining an economic return than experimenting with alternative models (in the face of contemporary, urgent, and vital circumstances). This is because urban planning regulations, construction techniques and the need for economic benefit in our cities, where the price of land is increasingly higher, have long been conditioning the project guidelines and leaving aside not only experimentation but also the emergence of other development alternatives.
Looking at research, academia, and peripheral projects can give us an alternative for this discussion. In this issue [of the journal], we find results of research and projects close to the needs and desires of the inhabitants, where the latter are really the centre of reflection. Places where there are organised citizens who undertake participatory interventions, who create flexible units, who mix uses within the house and who adapt to change. In short, communities that help the regeneration of the social fabric, something of great relevance in a country like ours, which is going through a post-conflict process, among other difficult and prolonged circumstances.
Generally, inhabitants do not organise themselves, for this reason it is necessary to have programmes, policies, and associations capable to propose new processes and to help consolidate these neighbourhood units. Dearq collects a series of reflections, research, projects, and scenarios focusing on contemporary living and housing, which pose a fresh gaze, which allows us to question the quality of life in our cities. Here, architecture plays a fundamental role in the face of the current social and environmental crisis. It is the protagonist of processes such as participation, innovation, densification, flexibility and, above all, taking care of those who care for architecture (or inhabit it).