The dynamic - historical reading of the planning, andthe balances of what we consider as a structural “bad urbanrural development” of the territories (at least since the 60s), is essential. This position, although open to debate, has become evident taking into account the also dynamic reading of the great challenges of sustainable transitions and "resilience”, that have marked planning and management intentions in Central American planning history. This statement necessarily leads torethinking global architectures inherited (built form, forms of management and planning, governance) to define the intensities of the changes. Moving towards this, implies to define the method and the transition system to be implemented, and to define the instruments that allow rehabilitating, reconstructing,remodeling, “re-architecturing” territories and institutions inherited. However, the re-architecture proposed will depend on the collective clarity, first of the pasts carried over, and second the desired futures. Accounting for the "arts" or the "politicalsocialinstitutional techniques" that created (and continue to do) the "metropolitan areas", is today an essential stage to be able to move towards new development models. Indeed, many local and metropolitan challenges, such as the “right to sustainable housing for all” (which has a high component of physicalconstructive design), contain high probabilities of never being effective in the current and trending context. Given that the current political, institutional, economic and social capacities, to make considerable changes in the management of the territories, seem to be compromised. Forging new capabilities and new abilities (financial, environmental, social, and including technical-constructive) is a collective challenge. And collectively conceiving a new urban planning and territorial planning (corrective – preventive and collaborative) is an urgency. ILIA: Investigaciones Latinoamericanas en Ingeniería y Arquitectura, No. 01, 2024: 167-173.