Urban landscapes between staticism and dynamism

At present in architecture in Italy it’s necessary decision making that in the existing istitutions and clients quite missing.
In the new area of expansion of our cities in the twentieth century to resolve the crisis of accomodations post war and post worker emigration it’s arrived yet another quantity of low quality architectures leaving the usual unsolved puzzle of expansions.

In the current suburbs it’s evident the problem of urban renewal together the creation of service for citizen not still available.

The designers often prefer get caged in overcome discussions rather than deal with problems of real requests of society or prefer don’t decide on development path deal for major questions rather than delude the ranks of supporters accumulated in the time.

In our society with age-old story, designers prefer to talk about troublesome accademic discussion as the identity of italian architecture rather than modern style.

This isn’t identity but staticism whether these discussions have the purpouse to rebirth old designers that have contribute to past architectural styles or to revive the style of recent past architectures not more necessary to the current society.

The romans as great conquerors didn’t oppose to influence of greek culture so how can now talk about identity of italian architecture without think that for our architecture it’s necessary an interaction and integration not only with what already exist but also with territory and society around them with an eye to globalization.

Often we hear about a territorial identity inexistent also in the twentieth century architecture.

The inhabitants of Sassi quarter in Matera, the inhabitants of Mesa Verde in Colorado, the inhabitant of Shibam in Yemen can talk about territorial identity, their architecture are inseparable from territory but the inhabitant of present cities see only the identity of historical city but not the identity of many quarters in the periphery where there isn’t integration or interation with the rest of city.

Niemeyer with Brasilia have had a great fortune, he can project an entire new city dictating the fixed points and the axis of the development of the city, an occasion not possible for who project quarters in city with historical centers.

An historical center is securely a good cultural container, but modernize a town is different, the root or the origin of a city are the basis to do something new where the citizen with its needs is the pivot of development.

We have many questions about the future of architecture.

Could we see again utopias that could become the housing decay?

The past had taught something or could we see architectural criticism contend new discussions?

Wouldn’t it be better talk now about new quarters before they could become the new periphery?