A detailed analysis of the architectural theories and projects that contributed to the construction of cities and landscapes in the 20th century reveals two opposing tensions: on the one hand, the choice to support the economic exploitation of natural resources; on the other hand, the refusal to do so in the name of an early ecological awareness. These two tendencies not only manifested themselves as contrasts between different professional groups and cultural movements, but even as sometimes indistinguishable parts of the biography of the same author. In the face of these ambivalences, excavating the vestiges of modernity is now more necessary than ever to reinvest the capital that architectural theories and projects have accumulated along the complex path of industrial society.

The climate crisis and the drastic loss of biodiversity are the most serious problems of our time. The construction industry is responsible for a major part of the man-made climate change. For us, as architects, this means that we have the possibility, and even the obligation, to make a difference for the future generations by changing our practices. Sustainability has to become an important criteria in the everyday decision-making of architects. This results in completely new draft and design concepts.

The case of Greater Geneva clearly illustrates the theme of the metropolis effect, coupled in the Geneva case with the border effect. Historically Geneva, due to the rupture introduced by Calvinism in the 16th century, was disinterested in its hinterland and prioritized its interest in the international (international GE). The result today is an unbalanced urban planning but also economic structure, in fact for more than a third of jobs in Geneva, the workers do not live in the territory but in that of a neighboring country. The coordination bodies that have been gradually set up since 1973 are little known, with overlapping and sectoral responsibilities. There is little regional awareness, and if each person pursues their own interest – it is very advantageous, whatever their nationality, to be paid in Switzerland and live in France – the result is general disorder, excellent further contradicted by the supposed wisdom of the “invisible hand”. Not only is the governance of Greater Geneva dispersed and insufficient, and the political structures of the two countries concerned are quite different. But the common vision of a common future is struggling to be constructed. The various areas experience very different degrees of coordination: training, health, economic promotion, housing, mobility, agriculture, biodiversity, energy... some without any consultation, others relatively well coordinated. An attempt at common foresight can be found in the work around MTB 2050, a cross-border territorial vision, in progress, and also in various studies, particularly on the flow of materials (circular economy). But the distortions of the metropolis effect are dominant today and condemn public policies to deal with the most urgent, to the detriment of the ecological, economic and social balance of the territory. It is now a matter of analyzing the positions of the various categories of actors...