TS1GT

The contemporary architecture is by definition the architecture produced now. I thus think that this term groups together some current and that so it is impossible to have only one opinion on this subject. To begin, one of the positive sides of the contemporary architecture is that the conception and the realization are worried about the environmental protection and about the ecology. The choice of materials which are not dangerous for man (banishment of the asbestos for example); the arrangement of rooms in order to facilitate energy savings either still use of new methods of energy contributions (geothermal science, photovoltaic panel) constitutes in my mind great headways. This new mode of conception and realization is characteristic of the district Bedzed in London. This district, drawn by architect's office Bill Dunster was thought to reduce considerably its ecological impact in comparison to the classic buildings (no use of fossil energy, use of materials coming from a distance lower than 60 km for example).

Bedzed in the London Borough of Sutton

Then, I think that in some cases, the contemporary architecture damages the landscape. Indeed, sometimes, the forms of the contemporary constructions are in no way in accordance with the environment which surrounds them. Several times, the forms are not conventional; buildings postpone a lot of the orderly rationality of the modern architecture. It is a metter of architectures of the current Deconstructivism. The Vitra Design Museum of Weil am Rhein in Germany, conceived by Franck Gehrg is a good example. This work hasn't standard shape, it is not round or not squared or not triangular. It's compound of lots of geometrical forms. I think that the interest of this kind of architecture is strictly artistic. For me, this building distorts completely the landscape and pollutes it. It would have its place in a museum of contemporary art but maybe not in the nature.

Vitra Design Museum of