Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The City of Sport and Culture
Itinerary
1 – Villaggio Olimpico, Residential districts for athlets for the Olympic Games 1960
(Adalberto Libera and others) 1957-1960
2 – Palazzetto dello Sport, Sporting palace (Pierluigi Nervi, Annibale Vitellozzi) 1956-1958
3 – Stadio Flaminio, Football stadium (Pierluigi Nervi) 1957-1958
4 – Corso Francia viaduct, (Pierluigi Nervi, Adalberto Libera and others) 1968-1960
7 – Auditorium – Parco della Musica (Renzo Piano) 1994-2002
8 – MAXXI – National Museum of 21st century Arts, (Zaha Hadid) 1998-2009
9 – Foro Italico (former Foro Mussolini) – Sporting complex
(Enrico Del Debbio, Luigi Moretti) 1928-1933
Stadio dei Marmi
Guy Debord and his manifesto Society of the Spectacle has been mentioned several times over the last couple of months. The text is a reaction against mass media, commodity fetishism, and the degredation of the quality of social life. On the italian stage, mass media is government propaganda, commodity fetishism is the obsession with historical relics, and the degradation of social life comes about due to the totalitarian regime. This is particularly relevant at the Foro Olimpico, and especially the Stadio dei Marmi. It's a hollow environment built to emulate the ancients and to suggest the greatness of the regime, all through the construction of (false) public spaces/programs, monuments, and iconic sculpture. We are drawn to it today because it is disturbing/absurd...
Debord on spectacle: (roman parallels)
"The dominion of the concentrated spectacle is a police state."
"The spectacle, considered as the reigning society’s method for paralyzing history and memory and for suppressing any history based on historical time, represents a false consciousness of time."
"(The dictatorship’s) spectacle imposes an image of the good which subsumes everything that officially exists, an image which is usually concentrated in a single individual, the guarantor of the system’s totalitarian cohesion."
"The attempts to establish a normative classicism or neoclassicism during the last three centuries have been nothing but short-lived artificial constructs speaking the official language of the state (whether of the absolute monarchy or of the revolutionary bourgeoisie draped in Roman togas)."
On the periphery:
"The self-destruction of the urban environment is already well under way. The explosion of cities into the countryside, covering it with what Mumford calls “a formless mass of thinly spread semi-urban tissue,” is directly governed by the imperatives of consumption."
On the development of cities:
"Urbanism is the modern method for solving the ongoing problem of safeguarding class power by atomizing the workers who have been dangerously brought together by the conditions of urban production."
The entire book, Society of the Spectacle can be found here:
www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/
also, in regard to: "you can live without Libera, you CAN'T live without Moretti... go home and google him"
http://www.architettoluigimoretti.it/site/it-IT/Sezioni/Vita/
-mia+ariane
Friday, November 14, 2008
International Conference: Architecture and Politics
Academia Belgica, Rome
Berlage Institute, Rotterdam
The Berlage Institute in Rotterdam, in collaboration with the Academia Belgica in Rome, presents a one-day symposium aimed at defining a new agenda for architectural criticism and its instrumentality in relation to the social and political imagination.While the success of architectural design, as both a product and as an icon of entrepreneurial prestige, has grown immensely in recent years, its power as a critical instrument of political and social responsibility has waned. The public popularity of architecture is, ironically, inversely proportional to an increase of political powerlessness and cultural disillusionment many architects feel about their effective contribution and relevance to the built environment.
This symposium offers this reality as a platform for an intellectually committed agency. It provides the possibility to reflect upon the way we imagine the politics and the form of the city, along with the contribution of architectural criticism to both. It will also pose new opportunities for architecture as a design practice and provide an opportunity to rethink architecture’s history, criticism, and theory.
The symposium is convened by Pier Vittorio Aureli, Joachim Declerck, Salomon Frausto, Gabriele Mastrigli, and Martino Tattaro.
Due to a fortuitous scheduling mishap, we were able to attend not only the planned morning lectures (Mario Tronti, Elia Zanghelis), but also several rescheduled afternoon ones (Pippo Ciorra, Richard Ingersoll)…
Lectures:
Elia Zanghelis “Design and Political Commitment”
Pippo Ciorra “The Individual City”
Richard Ingersoll “The Inversion of the Iconic Power”
Also, accompanying the symposium was an exhibition entitled “A Vision for Brussels: Imagining the Capital of Europe.”
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Lorenzo Romito : Stalker Lab
Our visit to the firm Stalker stirred the already-brewing question in my mind “what are we really doing?” Similar to many of my colleagues, one of my foremost attractions to the field of architecture is its ability to tangibly influence our surroundings. Built structures have an obvious visual impact. Within the mainstream architectural world, it is expected that our future involves a firm relentlessly submitting designs to competitions. The more we build, the more we change our reality. I am not saying that this system is completely flawed, however, a large part of me wonders how much the majority of built structures really change people’s lives. Yes, there are certainly great works of architecture that redefine the way we live or have other significant impacts on our lives, but those buildings seem to be a small percentage of designed architecture – a category that is already a very small percentage of constructed buildings. Over the past year I have been fortunate enough to see many magnificent works of architecture, however they often remain in my mind as static beautiful objects rather than influencing forces.
So what is architecture really doing? Is it just sitting there looking pretty? Perhaps, as Lorenzo Romito of Stalker proposed, the most effective method for changing our reality is changing our perspective. After all, it is our mental and sensorial interaction with these buildings that truly makes them real. If architectural design is to start at the source, we must make the people within our built environment the primary focus. As we have seen in so many failed, large-scale, low-income housing projects, architects cannot force people into a new way of life, no matter how well-meaning their intensions. Lorenzo sees the housing problem residing not in housing design, but rather in the perception of those living there. Instead of imposing social or functional aspirations upon people, Stalker’s design method involves learning from communities and using the process of artistic creation to help dissolve boundaries and make their existing lifestyles more sustainable. Without talking to the people involved in Stalker’s projects I am unable to fully judge their success, but based on images and descriptions I felt that their projects were quite compelling and had a large amount of integrity.
Its true, they were not producing a large quantity of work, but any income for them is bonus and they have no real clients – only beneficiaries, so who cares. It is also true that the work Stalker produces has an extremely small audience, however I also wonder whether it is most powerful to influence a large group of people in a small way, or a small group of people in a large way.
So is Stalker the answer? It’s hard for me to imagine a very successful world where every architecture firm was modeled after their design process. We would never have another new building. However, with regards to my own future, I certainly see myself more likely working there than a large, traditional, corporate firm. Perhaps, in the end, Stalker’s most significant success is in its desire to be a catalyst – within its immediate surroundings, and my own personal mind.On Friday Nov. 7 we visited the "architecture" firm Stalker Lab in Rome. The experience was quite an appropriate extension of our trip to the Venice Biennale, following the theme "Architecture Beyond Building." Although in this case, I took away a notion of criticism of architecture as building, or rather, the limitations and failures that thinking about architecture (strictly) as building and projection had come to impose on the discipline.
I found especially interesting the tension between Lorenzo Romito's position on the (modernist) traditions of architectural planning, learning toward a more spontaneous, dynamic way of generating building, and the perhaps limitations in scale of which these positions can be implemented in design construction : It is fascinating to imagine this kind of architecture in which there exists no preconceptions of reality or social boundaries but instead considers the whole of present reality as a departure point, as equilibrium, from which to generate new architecture that highlights, provokes, or makes more harmonious these relationships. What he is essentially proposing is truly bottom-up design : getting to know the users, making a meaningful connection with the context, creating an architecture through this process of understanding. But the scope of this attitude shift is so immense that one has to wonder and even doubt, the ability of such a process to become integrated to any efficiency within the complicated yet rigid network of the building industry, which leads to a sort of impasse that Lorenzo had expressed concern about also - is architecture even the right medium to achieve this? Is architecture, in all of its own inherent scale and complexity capable of achieving this? And if not, then what is?
It seems that Stalker Lab at this point in time almost prefers to not be architects - either they have not arrived at a point in which they are able to practically implement their ideas in the industrial reality, or they are simply waiting for that reality to change and better accomodate their design methods - it seems to me that they are leaning toward the latter.
-Gary
The work at Stalker asks people to go outside the preconceived norms of society. Every culture has a particular way of living, accepted by that whole community, and there also exists the condition of how that particular culture interacts with the rest of the world. Within culture, people build identities, and within the formation of those identities boundaries are usually formed. Every culture in some way assumes their way of living as well as their consciences beliefs are Correct. This common assumption of correctness often hinders different cultural groups within society from accepting, understanding, and appreciating everyone for their differences.
During the talk a goal was stated of building a common consciousness in people’s behavior and the activation of a collective whole. This idea in itself is so phenomenal if even possible because it’s the complete opposite of how society usually works. Society has an abundance of cultural communities that create the diverse world of division we inhabit. I see people coming together as the collective when there is a universal problem to address. In my mind this works with the ideas of the public city because the city is the space where people are forced in some way to interact with each other.
Architecture is directly linked to this public city, but architecture in no way as tool can completely transform society. Society must accept the architecture and the actions within the public city of constant change.
-Andreka
[2:42:04 AM] mia ovcina says: STALKER! is....
[2:42:21 AM] mia ovcina says: "Maybe the zone is a very complex system of tolls... I have no idea what goes on here in the absence of man. But as soon as someone arrives everything goes haywire... the zone is exactly how we created it ourselves, like the state of our spirits... but what is happening, that does not depend on the zone, that depends on us." (Stalker di A. Tarkovskij, 1979)
[2:43:43 AM] mia ovcina says: their website is horizontally formatted
[2:43:45 AM] ariane.pm says: but i want 1 cookie
[2:52:46 AM] mia ovcina says: I like that they are trying to address subversive issues, gypsies, immigrant communities, as opposed to the standard questions (periferia, etc...)
[2:53:56 AM] ariane.pm says: that is exactly what they were doing though. these issues are on the periphery of mainstream life.
[2:54:59 AM] ariane.pm says: besides, periphery is their life, basically, or do i misunderstand "entering reality from the corners" ???
[2:56:47 AM] mia ovcina says: you know what i mean... gypsies are a taboo topic in europe. few people are willing to talk about them, much less try to help them. subversive subcultures. when i said periphery, i was thinking of physical borders of rome... by your definition, they are UBERperiphery or something...
[2:58:11 AM] ariane.pm says: no... it's nice that their interests metaphorically represent what all the rest are concentrating on physically. they are operating parallel to reality!
[2:58:30 AM] mia ovcina says: yes! like communists!
[2:58:59 AM] ariane.pm says: we just proved that they achieved their sought-after "dislocation in space!"
[2:59:07 AM] ariane.pm says: that they have reached nirvana??
[2:59:45 AM] mia ovcina says: so long as they don't sell out. ahem
[3:02:15 AM] ariane.pm says: no, just kidding, ok, i will play devil's advocate and say that they "practice letting things happen in the most spontaneous way possible in order to achieve their 'dislocation in space'" because they are, for the most part, lazy--they do not want to deal with tough reality and clients and restrictions and are off frolicking in the clouds...
[3:05:31 AM] mia ovcina says: i don't think so. anyone can deal with conventional reality. zoning codes? budgets? easy. attempting to make an actual difference in the lives of people who are deemed hopeless? with no guaranteed paycheck? much harder, i would say.
[3:07:31 AM] ariane.pm says: yes, but isn't it a recent thing, that they have been working with these people? they had, what, 3 realized, built projects (including the experimental supper circle?) i guess this is an advancement over theoretical propositions with absolutely no grounding and no tangible purpose?
[3:12:13 AM] mia ovcina says: i think it's more interesting/fruitful to engage people (physically, mentally, emotionally) than it is to build a standard building... maybe not architectural enough for some, but maybe that kind of architecture (the built kind) is overrated today...
[3:13:05 AM] ariane.pm says: well i don't know. i think a little reality doesn't hurt. anyway, now they seem to be reverting back to their cloud environment with the i-ching....maybe they work like sine waves. the peaks being the encounter with reality and the rest being mind exploration... which is ok. if the exploration is the main focus, which is something they should be able to say!
[3:15:07 AM] mia ovcina says: maybe it's more important for architects to find a balance? (the middle part of the sine curve) to seek solutions that are both work hand in hand with built architecture, maybe a decent figure ground isn't enough any more.
[3:18:14 AM] ariane.pm says: yes! that's why big firms are lucky. like oma. they build and are successful and can do research and whatever they want and are richrichrich.
[3:18:22 AM] mia ovcina says: NO!
[3:21:34 AM] mia ovcina says: OMA is the devil. their research is selfish, hypocritical. sure, they preach what stalker preaches, but then they build for oppressive regimes, with very little concern for the consequences, and the damage they are supporting.the problem is the richrichrich part. as soon as money becomes a motivator, the sincerity of the research is lost...
[3:24:15 AM] ariane.pm says: i like richrichrich. :)
[3:25:08 AM] mia ovcina says: i'm sorry for your soul
[3:25:58 AM] ariane.pm says: thank you mia, i hope you come visit me in hell.
[3:26:10 AM] ariane.pm says: but i know i know.
[3:26:23 AM] mia ovcina says: what do you know?
[3:26:37 AM] ariane.pm says: money is evil.
[3:27:51 AM] mia ovcina says: not necessarily. its the standard dilemma...
[3:28:10 AM] ariane.pm says: HOWEVER, it is a moot issue to compare the two. stalker can never be like oma because they are just too unambitious to ever reach that point.
[3:28:31 AM] ariane.pm says: they will keep floating around, just the way you like, until the day they go to heaven and rem goes to hell.
[3:28:57 AM] mia ovcina says: that's not fair you poo
[3:29:21 AM] ariane.pm says: what are we talking about?
[3:29:24 AM] ariane.pm says: ....
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Neorealist City itinerary
1 – Tuscolano I, (Barucci, Castellazzi, Dall'Olio, Dinelli, Fasolo, Fioroni, Gatti, Mainardi, Minissi, Nicolini, Nicolosi, Orestano, Paniconi, Pediconi, Venturi) 1950-51
2 – Chiesa dell’Assunzione di Maria Santissima (Muratori) 1954-70
3 – Tuscolano II, (De Renzi, Muratori) 1950-60
4 – Tuscolano III (Libera) 1950-1954
5 – Parco degli Acquedotti
Tuscolano II and III stand in juxtaposition to one another. As we discussed, De Renzi and Muratori used the scale and typology of Modernism with traditional details. In contrast, Libera used a more traditional scale with a distinctly Modern articulation of form and space. Both projects illustrate the departure of Italian architecture from purely historical styles (embodied in the ICP projects of Testaccio and the Esquiline hill). But they also suggest a lingering indebtedness to past and rural traditions. It is interesting that this blending of traditional and modern occurs in a periphery condition—between the historical core of Rome and a wide open horizon. -Tim
I found Tuscolano III (INA Casa Single-Story Housing Complex) to be one of the more interesting sites we have seen due to its unique spatial qualities. Of course, positioned between the city and a rural landscape the complex successfully exudes stylistic qualities of both a modern housing complex as well as traditional vernacular architecture of the region. What I found particularly interesting, however, was my experience as the occupant within the complex. Distributing the majority of the residential program on a single level (while incorporating green spaces) greatly distinguished this complex from a typical urban space, removing the occupant from the city. The enclosed space containing small road access to the apartments with individual entrances allows the occupant to be visually removed from the adjacent city fabric. The unique design of a dense fabric applied in a tradition sense additionally creates a structural connection between the city and landscape. The views from the single tall residential building, reference the city as well as the rural landscape creating a visual connection point.
--Tina
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
At Work: Garofalo Miura Architetti
During our visit to GMA, we spoke about the convergence of architectural theory and practice. Francesco explained his desire to “close the gap between statements in the classroom and those in the real world.” He criticized the notion that designers need to slip in their ideas under the nose of strict clients.
Their work seems to communicate on two levels; it responds to the world of academia and the world of reality. Maybe this is a result of their partnership, which combines a theoretical mind with a pragmatic one.
-Tim
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Model City itinerary
1 – Palazzo dei Congressi site, (Massimiliano Fuksas, under construction)
2 – Museo Pigorini, (Brusa, G. Cancellotti, E. Montuori, A. Scalpelli) 1938-43
3 – Museo della Civiltà Romana, (Aschieri, Bernardini, Pascoletti, Presutti) 1938-52
4 – Palazzo dei Congressi, (Libera) 1937-52
5 – Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, (Guerrini, La Padula, Romano) 1938-43
6 – Post Office (Banfi, Belgioioso, Peressutti, Rogers), 1939-1940
7 – Palazzo dello sport (Nervi, Piacentini) 1956-60
8 – Nuova Centralità “Torraccio” (masterplan Purini, under construction)
9 – Laurentino 38 (Barucci), 1975-79
This photo was taken from a terrace of the Palazzo dei Congressi where performances can take place with the city as the background. I saw the idea of the city as the theatrical landscape (backdrop) to be very interesting. The city is the place where new scenes (new public interventions, new architecture, future urban plans of development) are enacted, tested, and played out. The suspense of testing interventions within the urban fabric never ends because the result of how a project will be utilized can never fully be predetermined only strongly suggested.
-Andreka
Above: Our profs in comparison to the Palazzo Della Civilita Italiana - looks smaller than it is. The grandeur of the EUR was impressive. At the end of our walk, I returned to italian class a bit dazed, and my teacher asked what I had thought. When I told her I was a bit captivated by the drama of the place (or blurted out that I liked it, in weak italian), she told me scornfully how she had lived in the EUR and how terrible it had been (she shuddered). Perhaps she lived towards the Laurentino side of things. Perhaps the scale of the EUR, as a whole, could be overwhelming to the average resident - it certainly wasnt designed with that perspective in mind, as in Garbatella. However for the tourist, museum goer, dermatoligist, etc. the immense axiallity, consistensy and symmetrey of the place serve as quite the imperial backdrop for daily activities.
-Travis
I thought that the Laurentino housing development was an excellent counterpoint to the EUR. We see in both the incredible power of design—the ability for architecture to shape and respond to the lives of inhabitants. Each project addresses prevailing urban issues such as density, public space, and circulation, but they do so in different ways. The implementation of these designs and their success/failure in a modern context provides an invaluable precedent for new architects who often tackle the same problems.
Many in our group felt that the EUR was a success (perhaps others could elaborate?). When we stood on the road looking at the bridges of Laurentino, however, everyone understood that the concept there had failed. Somehow the research, planning, and design of Barucci came to a relatively fruitless end. Before using 20/20 hindsight to explain the failure, I think it is valuable to identify why it may have been a success. The project strives to create communities; it makes green space accessible; it promotes local commerce; and it prioritizes pedestrian traffic while accommodating the car.
By all measures this is a success! It would be showered with praise by design critics at Cornell. But, then again, what are our value-scales at Cornell, what are they throughout architecture academia at large? Do they correspond to reality? How much can projects ever be resolved in the design process, or must they always be tested under worldly pressures… in the largest laboratory available?
-Tim
The Square Colosseum in its current state of renovation epitomizes the difference between theoretical intention and actual use within less successful portions of the EUR. There is quite literally a dialog between the bold, monumental inscription at the top of the structure, and the graffiti scrawled across a concrete barrier that denies any entrance to the inhabited space at the foot of the structure.
-Benn
With the juxtaposition of the commercial bridge in Venice (Ponte di Rialto) and the bridge housing project in Rome (Laurentino housing development) I was wondering what makes “good” or “bad” bad design, and how much the designer can actually control. As context change, a bridge with retail that used to be for the common person living in Venice now becomes a tourist trap and a hotspot of activity. While in the bridges social hosing, the pools of isolated development could not support store activity, and the hazard of these spaces overtook their ultimate need.
-Sheryl
.
.
.
Laurentino was sketched out in the 70s as a futuristic urban utopia. Today it's a highway to nowhere, and the pedestrian bridges have been taken over by squatters. This description as to why it has failed in function makes total sense:
The site plan makes a convincing diagram, however, there seems to be little organizational connection with the existing community. Entrance past the paired slabs is a passage through a parking area and, once reached, the plaza lacks activity, definition, and the facilities needed to make it truly a central community space. The idea of the extended stepped slabs with parking to one side and a landscaped open space to the other, also makes a good diagram but this space is too big, poorly defined and, as a result, is underused. These spaces are unkempt and are not well equipped or maintained. […] The absence of a viable shopping environment results in the reality of closed shop fronts, graffiti, a generally trashed, unkempt ambience, and loss of viable pedestrian activity. It may be that the adaptations that were made to the original legge 167 housing standards, changes made to reach a more realistic correspondence between building cost and affordable financing have resulted in a loss of the amenities that no community can be without. A reoccurring pattern in many of these developments is the building of incomplete communities where public facilities are late in coming or are never funded at all for sites, that at least when they are first built, are physically and spiritually detached from an existing infrastructure of shopping, schools, and transportation.
Other incomplete communities could include Testaccio in its beginning stages, or one of Aldo Rossi’s first projects, Gallaratese (1969-1974), a housing complex on the outskirts of Milan...also likened to a beached whale…
mia+ariane
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
In context: Pippo Ciorra: Ludovico Quaroni and the Roman School
For our first lecture of the semester, guest speaker Pippo Ciorra delivers a beautiful talk regarding the work of architect Ludovico Quaroni and his influence on post-war Italian architecture. Among the topics discussed were:
The Italian struggle between modernism and classicism. An issue of language and identity.
Building as city, city as building. The flexibility of scale in design.
Bigness, or the idea that one architectural gesture can affect or change a landscape.
Monumentality as the ultimate architectural desire.
Looking forward to more talks!
Monday, September 15, 2008
11th Venice Architecture Biennale
venice biennale 2008 from mia ovcina on Vimeo.
Biennale Architecture Out There: Architecture Beyond Building
by Aaron Betsky
"The 11th Architecture Biennale, entitled Out There: Architecture Beyond Building, points out what should be an obvious fact: architecture is not building. Buildings are objects and the act of building leads to such objects, but architecture is something else. It is the way we think and talk about buildings, how we represent them, how we build them. This is architecture. More generally, architecture is a way of representing, shaping and perhaps even offering critical alternatives to the human-made environment. In this world it is not enough to keep the rain out, create room for office cubicles, or fit into a context that either changes continually or becomes artificially frozen."
http://www.labiennale.org/en/architecture/
ROMA interrotta
1978 to 2008: “Thirty years later the Biennale di Venezia reopens the game, expanding the horizon from the urban to the metropolitan: the creative itinerary rediscovers imagination.”
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
images: Costantino Dardi
“In order to discover new scenarios by which we might be able to be at home in the sprawl of what was once the city and is now a confused urban field, we must uncover and rethink the past out of which it seemingly inexorably arose...
How can we live with the landscapes time and economic forces have given us? First of all by seeing and knowing them, and that means being able to mirror and map them in those forms and compositions proper to architecture. Roma Interotta showed how that could be done. Now we must continue the work.”
~Aaron Betsky
mia+ariane
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Green City itinerary
garbatella: GARDEN CITY1) how existing projects that are kept intact to idolize a certain time period have to be integrated into a new landscape and
2) the city within the city...
[8:03:36 PM] mia ovcina says: with a dash of propaganda, italian political agendas, and libera
[8:10:33 PM] ariane.pm says: yes. maybe we can address rome as disneyland to begin with
[8:13:53 PM] mia ovcina says: disneyROMA! but aside from tourists, and the obvious attractions, there IS a bit more history/context here...
[8:14:07 PM] ariane.pm says: for example, mussolini planting the pine trees at largo argentina because he thought they were reminiscent of ancient columns and wanted to produce an [artificially] picturesque landscape. since he arbitrarily froze all the layers of rome and pulled out the classical layer as THE one to idolize and reference.
[8:14:38 PM] ariane.pm says: or all the fake paving going on around the forum
[8:14:53 PM] ariane.pm says: and the separation of the forum from the city in the first place!
[8:16:05 PM] ariane.pm says: roma: adventure park.
[8:16:19 PM] mia ovcina says: fine. but there's more...
[8:16:39 PM] mia ovcina says: some of the ruins have been succesfully repurposed.
[8:17:42 PM] ariane.pm says: those old pieces of rubble, waiting for the new idea of the city....
[8:18:22 PM] mia ovcina says: shut up. For example, Circo Massimo/Passeggiata Archeologica... they have modern uses...
[8:19:11 PM] ariane.pm says: yes. a prime example of site value!!
[8:21:04 PM] ariane.pm says: and circo massimo is still being used as a center for spectacle. just as in the good ol' days...
[8:21:23 PM] mia ovcina says: precisely!
[8:26:10 PM] mia ovcina says: ...back to the city, there's also the theme of modern developments (mostly in the periphery) and the various approaches/ideologies as to how rome should expand...
[8:42:07 PM] ariane.pm says: with Garbatella?
[8:58:39 PM] mia ovcina says: yeah. Garbatella...
[9:33:27 PM] ariane.pm says: well. a lot people were forced to leave the city center when it was destroyed...like when Mussolini elimated that neighborhood (Alessandrino) for the construction of the Via dei Fori Imperiali, or before that when the Altare della Patria was inaugurated...
[9:35:11 PM] ariane.pm says: and they were relocated to a new neighborhood, outside the city walls, and were obliged to reinvent a language for themselves.
[9:38:06 PM] mia ovcina says: ironic that the invented language of many of these developments is one that attempts to emulate the city, the place the residents were expelled from, instead of creating something new... something better...
[9:39:42 PM] ariane.pm says: well, they did try to create something better--the garden city--actually an ancient concept in the end...but they had to have a new identity for themselves since they were so detached from and not really part of rome anymore.
[9:42:42 PM] ariane.pm says: so they built their own little square and little houses with shared gardens...it was the fascists that ruined it!! the first movement in 1920 was smaller, more traditional, then in 1934 that idea was done away with and the monumentalization began...silly barochetto...
(ugly fascist barochetto building)[9:43:26 PM] mia ovcina says: it's true, but how much of it was built by 'them' vs. imposed on them by the state? i'm not convinced...
[9:43:42 PM] ariane.pm says: who is them?
[9:43:52 PM] mia ovcina says: them being the people...
[9:44:00 PM] mia ovcina says: the expelled ones
[9:44:26 PM] mia ovcina says: and now they get koolhaas and starchitecture, do they really need it?
[9:46:03 PM] ariane.pm says: ugh. when i say they, i mean gustavo giovanoni, architectural theorist and founder of the architecture school of rome, who was the 1920 planner. he wanted something nice for them. the people were actors in his play. they dealt with his stage props. but they did ok, they built a community feeling.
[9:46:31 PM] ariane.pm says: koolhaas is just trying to make his city of youth...
[9:47:10 PM] ariane.pm says: a connection between the industrial center of garbatella and universita roma tre
[9:47:09 PM] mia ovcina says: "the people were actors in his play." that's what i'm saying. it's not real...
[9:47:37 PM] ariane.pm says: what is your point? live something long enough, make it a reality.
[9:48:12 PM] ariane.pm says: ok we are done here.
[9:48:16 PM] mia ovcina says: fine
[9:48:19 PM] ariane.pm says: it worked is all.
[9:48:42 PM] mia ovcina says: but did it really?
[9:48:27 PM] ariane.pm says: people want to live there now.
[9:48:35 PM] ariane.pm says: gabriele wants to live there.
[9:49:05 PM] ariane.pm says: the end.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
itopia
A desire to construct the public realm permeates the visions and the concrete experiences of contemporary Italian architecture. This desire, deeply rooted in the past, from the roman basilicas to the piano sistino, has generated various attempts to design and build the idea of a truly public city: since the beginning of the XX century architecture has been the tool to shape not only the space of the contemporary city, but also the identities of the communities inhabiting it.
As a mean to build the public city, architecture has been therefore a public activity in itself, closely connected to the political and cultural context, in which it has found unique conditions to make real some visions and theories about the contemporary city.
Rooted in the specificity of Italian situation, since modernity this idea of a public city has generated all over Italy several powerful - as much as controversial - experiments. Rome, in particular, due to its peculiar political and social situation, has been an exceptional ground for some of the most radical ones: not only new buildings but visions of a different society in the form of concrete and specific architectural and urban projects.
The Architecture Theory course at Cornell will therefore focus on this main issue of Italian modern and contemporary architecture, opening the theory field to the dialogue with concrete experiences, and with the multiple relationships that this kind of public architecture establishes with the cultural context. “Getting out” could be the keyword of this program structured in three main sections of exchanges between theory and reality, practice and society.
on site : four “open-air” lessons will give the opportunity to explore the city of Rome following some major issues, and visiting some outstanding examples of the modern city - from the garden city model of the Garbatella, to the neorealismo of the Tuscolano, to the radical piece of Laurentino 38 – compared with some of the most recent, celebrated projects.
at work: four meetings in some significant architecture offices in Rome will actualize these issues concerning the construction of the public city in the actual practices and dynamics of transformation on the city field.
in context: four speakers will be invited to trace a profile of Italian architecture seen from the intense relationships established with the modern and contemporary culture, each time focusing on the peculiar dialectics between architecture and history, literature, urbanism and politics.
These series of lectures will be preceded by a joint lecture to introduce the program and to put in perspective all the following themes and subjects .
As an optional integration to this program there could be some on site and at work sessions to be held during the field trips all over Italy, in order to explore some contemporary architectures and to meet some interesting architectural practices outside of Rome.
---
Program
fri 29 aug - Intro
Italy/Rome: the Public realm between Architecture and the City (Alberto Iacovoni and Gabriele Mastrigli - Palazzo Lazzaroni)
ven 5 sep - On site
The Green City - Circo Massimo/Park of Caracalla Baths, Garbatella (the collective housing by Sabbatini and the garden city by Giovannoni), S.Paolo/Ostiense (the new university and the renewal of the industrial district of Rome, with the ongoing new Koolhaas’ project for the City of Youth)
mon 15 sep - At work
11th Venice Architecture Biennale
mon 22 sep - In context
Pippo Ciorra: Ludovico Quaroni and the Roman School
fri 26 sep - On Site
The City as a Model - EUR (Palazzo dei Congressi by Libera, Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana by La Padula, Congress Center By Massimiliano Fuksas, Centralità Catellaccio and Eurosky Tower by Franco Purini), Decima, Laurentino 38.
fri 3 oct - At work
Garofalo/Miura Architects
fri 10 oct - In context
Emanuele Trevi: The Real City. Writing about Rome from War to Boom
fri 31 oct - On site
The Neorealist City - Quartiere Tuscolano (Libera, De Renzi and others), Tiburtino (Quaroni, Ridolfi, Aymonino).
fri 7 nov - At work
Stalker / On
fri 14 nov - In context
International Conference: Architecture and Politics (Academia Belgica, Rome)
fri 21 nov - On site
The City of Culture - Foro Italico, Villaggio Olimpico, Parco della Musica By Renzo Piano, Maxxi by Zaha Hadid.
mon 24 nov - At work
Carlo Aymonino
fri 28 nov - In context
Pier Vittorio Aureli: The Project of Autonomy. Italian Architecture in ’60 and ‘70
fri 5 dec - Reviews and open discussion
mon 15 dec - Final Presentation (14.00 – 17.00)
---
Guest lecturers
Pippo Ciorra
Architect, critic and professor of design and theory at the School of Architecture of Ascoli Piceno, University of Camerino. Coordinator of the "Villard d'Honnecourt" international PhD program. Adviser for the MVDR prize and for the "Medaglia dell'architettura italiana". Since 1981 contributor to the cultural pages of "Il Manifesto" and other national newspapers and radio stations. Member of the editorial board of "Casabella", "Gomorra", "Parametro". Author of a number of books, texts, publications: among them Ludovico Quaroni, Peter Eisenman, (for Electa) Young Italian Architects (Birkhauser), Nuova architettuta italiana, (Skirà). He has curated and designed important exhibitions and installations in Italy and elsewhere, including the Biennale in Venice, the MAXXI museum and "Palazzo delle Esposizioni" in Rome, the "Casa dell'architettura" in Rome, the Mole Vanvitelliana and Palazzo degli Anziani in Ancona. Most recently he curated the show and catalogue: Next Generation_ Il futuro dei musei (Electa 2006).
Emanuele Trevi
Writer and journalist, born in Rome, 1964. Contributor to the "Manifesto" and "La Repubblica". He has published various collections of essays and narratives including: "Istruzioni per l'uso del lupo" (1994), "Musica distante" (1997), "I cani del nulla" (2003), "Senza verso" (2004), "L'onda del porto" (2005). Co-author with Marco Lodoli pf a text book entitled "Storie della vita"
Pier Vittorio Aureli
Pier Vittorio Aureli is an architect and educator. After graduating cum laude from the Istituto di Architettura di Venezia, Aureli obtained a doctorate in urban planning, a master’s degree at the Berlage Institute, and a PhD at the Berlage Institute/TU Delft. His theoretical studies focus on the relationship between architectural form, political thinking, and urban history. Aureli teaches at the Berlage Institute – where he is Unit Professor and responsible for the “research on the city” program. Currently he is visiting Professor at the Architectural Association in London, Columbia University in New York, and Delft University of Technology. Aureli has lectured and published worldwide and he is currently working on a book entitled “The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture, a Study on the Representation of the City through Architectural Form, from Bramante to Mies”. Together with Martino Tattara is the cofounder of Dogma, and architectural collective centered on the project of the city. Recently Dogma won the first prize in the international competition for the new Administrative City for 500.000 inhabitants in the Republic of South Korea, and in 2006 received the Iakov Chernikhov Prize for the best emerging architectural practice.