Mountains and Metropolis, reciprocal peripheral resources?

To be able to live in mountainous regions, humans have managed to "cultivate" the water, soil, air, snow and wood. Wherever they have turned their attention to landscapes, ecosystem balance and territorial specificities, they have been able to take advantage of the singular ecosystems that underpin constantly changing economies, practices and lifestyles. Consequently, just as mountains have remained habitable for metropolises, so have, to a certain extent, metropolises for mountains. Covetousness and competition between high and low-lying territories seem to be on the increase with the effects of mobility, to reveal contrasting situations that are at times opposing, and often complementary. However, the peripheral proximity of one in relation to the other prompts territorial and architectural questioning: what are the habitability characteristics of one territory to the next, and how can they be qualified? Drawing mutual benefit from this proximity implies reconsidering what constitutes a resource, and re-questioning the stakeholders who interconnect, manage and profit from these mutual peripheral positions. How can we recognise the antagonisms, conflicts and relationships between these two specific faces of territoriality? As places of well-being, mountain regions offer exceptional habitability qualities (panorama, view, calm, silence, space, etc.) that allow metropolitans to discover and enjoy a direct and physical rapport with nature. Similarly, isn't it true that new activities are based on the added value of existing economic channels, or on the invention of new concepts, new forms of habitat and new tradeoffs? The same goes for urban or metropolitan territories, which foster the development of service, industrial, artisanal or commercial activities associated with transitions in the development of mountain territories.