Where is the locality? The image asks. Due to the drift that has adopted our built context, unless what we see in the image is a new neighborhood, in most cases we will find nothing we can identify in the image. It has put us in a trap, because the answer can be Zarautz or Mungia. Many of the new neighborhoods are complemented by the repetitiveness of a building type, developed by a construction company and carried out by a single architect. In another country, the development of the new neighborhood manages to do the same construction companies, either by public competition or by the confidence of the private promoter, and the company agrees to play with the same architect and the architect decides to repeat the same neighborhood model. Repetitiveness in the house model, portal design, facade composition, material and color of the building, furniture of the plazuelas that form the buildings. The result is a monotonous built urban landscape converted into an architectural franchise. Let us not think that there is a desire to create a brand image of the builders and architects or that there is a model belief of a neighborhood. If the model repeated is good and beautiful…

If we started to qualify the quality of the urban landscape, the testimony would be of vital importance. When considering the context, the composition of the new buildings would be a dialogue with the elements already existing in the environment. The method of thinking about dialogue can be repetitive, but it would be a result of its own. Elements located in the foreground (a tent, a gestural peculiarity of the street) and distant planes (treetops, summit, horizon). By fine-tuning the sensory, the reflection of the sun in the building or the vibrations of the combination of materials, we have elements to take hold of the place with this perceptive richness, making it identifiable.