Architectural projects are subject to a vast and complex set of rules that the architect needs to master correctly in order to secure approval. These rules are expected to be clear and objective, but often they are not, creating challenges in their interpretation and implementation.
Many of our PDMs and municipal regulations contain rules with indeterminate and discretionary concepts, which we commonly refer to as open and subjective rules. One rule that is often present, which puts architectural projects at the mercy of the subjectivity of those who evaluate them, is the one that refers to “architectural and urban framework”, “harmonious integration”, “aesthetic framework of projects in the existing urban context” or “framework in the dominant morphological and typological characteristics”. The subjectivity and discretion of this type of standard can “kill a project at birth” if applied without coherence or context.
Open and subjective standards allow for a flexible interpretation of the architectural and urban planning framework and integration, using broad and not strictly defined terms, without specific parameters, promoting a case-by-case assessment. Undoubtedly, this flexibility allows for adaptation to different contexts, but at the same time, discretion gives entities greater decision-making power and can lead to differences in interpretation.
Some regulations try to densify the standard with specific parameters, such as heights, volumes and materials, but without completely closing off the concept. This failure, whether voluntary or involuntary, can be seen as a defense tool for the authorities, allowing them to reject projects that they don’t consider to be architecturally interesting for the location, whether they are more conservative or more innovative.
All of us architects, at some point in our professional lives, have seen our projects annotated by other fellow architects (or other technicians without architectural training, but that’s another topic) in this context, starting an endless litany of reasons, often unsuccessfully, even though we know that, although open rules grant greater discretion to the administration, this freedom is not unlimited, as they are subject to administrative law.
The RJUE, in the version of the much-vaunted Simplex, through the application of Article 20(1)(h) (appraisal of building projects and works), combats this discretion, stating that external aspects and urban integration can only be appraised when duly specified in municipal plans or regulations. However, this has not been common practice. The authorities (almost) always assess external aspects and urban integration, even in the case of small-scale alterations.
This issue applies to all processes, whether they are subject to a license or prior communication, and in the first case the grounds may be resolved during the process, while in the second case they may not, which could lead to divergences in the inspection process.
Several questions arise: is the subjectivity of the rule fundamental? Is it fair? Should it exist? Should it be sufficiently densified? If densified, does it limit creativity? What is the impact on project appraisal time and costs?
By questioning open and subjective standards, I’m not advocating a formatted, rigidly structured architecture. I’m arguing that standards to control the urban framework and architectural integration should be detailed, so that they don’t depend on subjective interpretation. If the aim is to promote a balance between conservative and innovative projects, open standards should not be the basis for rejecting projects.
The challenge is to create standards that guarantee quality and urban integration, but allow architectural freedom, with a balance between specific and flexible standards, and transparent and technically grounded evaluation processes.
Opinion article by Marta Falcão, Head of Urban Planning at Worx, published in Magazine Imobiliário on September 9, 2024.
