Today, in 2007 (yes, 2007 is fast approaching), for the first time in the history of mankind, more than 50% of the population lives in cities. Just a century ago, when our great-grandparents or grandparents were alive, a few generations back, 90% lived in the countryside, and only 10% in cities. A transformation on a global scale. On an astronomical scale. I think that the problem of growth obviously places a great strain on society. I realise that time is an extremely important issue: the time it takes to grow. But if we think of Rome or London, we see that these cities have taken a thousand years, two thousand years (or four thousand in the case of Cairo) to reach this urban mass. In Shanghai, if I’m not mistaken, ten years ago there were 300 buildings more than ten storeys high. Now there are 3,000. There’s a synergy between people’s need to live close together (a fact borne out by history) and the positive effect of being closer to the impact of change.
The megalopolis to end all megalopolises, Tokyo, is also the most efficient. Out of 35 million inhabitants, 80% use public transport (trains) to go to work. In Los Angeles, it’s the complete opposite. They are different models, and this has an impact on the landscape, but it also affects people’s sense of social cohesion. If you spend four hours in a car to get to work, as happens in Mexico City, Bangkok or Los Angeles, you’re not spending time with your family. You feel isolated, you’re totally dependent on a system which is not a public club… and I think this has a negative impact. It is important to stress that for the first time, the ecological equation goes hand in hand with social integration, and also with the large-scale architecture that brings people into the city squares and streets. Architects create the scenario, then authors write poems, whether it’s Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities, comparing the horrors of Paris and London in the 19th century, or the great contemporary novels like Ian McEwan’s Amsterdam which speaks of integrated life… you can’t see the difference between architecture and people’s lives.
I don’t think we could put it so bluntly as to say that there’s a one-to-one relationship between architecture and a literary vocation. A city is a wonderful thing, because it changes completely in twenty-four hours: it isn’t unique, it has many temporal dimensions. I think that great authors and writers manage to capture this complexity, which is fascinating. The big problem for us as architects is to create cities of the future without this complexity. It is a real problem, which should be debated at this event and elsewhere: the problem of how to create the cities of the future, not like Pudong in Shanghai, where you go to work and then go to bed, but where you can do a thousand different things in the evening, in public or in private.
I realise that an institution like the Biennale, visited by thousands of people, is a remarkable opportunity for communication. If there’s one thing we want to start doing with this event, it’s to move the debate towards three or four major issues. One is the problem of the rapport between the shape of buildings and their democratic potential. Is it possible to create a fairer society by constructing buildings of a certain type? It’s an ambition. The second thing is the relationship between transport, or the world of mobility, to use a rather boring technical term, and social justice. We’ve already mentioned the third issue, that is, the importance of a city’s shape with regard to sustainability, i.e. a one-to-one relationship. The fourth issue is highly complex and delicate, one that is widely perceived in Italy today. In other words, the higher the immigration of foreigners from different races and religions, the higher the probability that the public spaces in cities become the scene of conflict, not tolerance. Just think of what happened in Paris or Marseilles a few months ago. The last thing is a very old story for Italy: good government. Without a good government, we can forget about everything we have said up to now. Without a good government, great architects and engineers can no longer do anything. These are the five key themes of the agenda we are setting up: architecture and democracy, transport and justice, sustainability, tolerance and good government.