The classic connection old historical center – new expansion areas is probably one of the most contradictory debate either we see architecture or we see urban planning.
It isn’t easy to project in area near historical center for the collision that new opuses cause in the collective opinion but it’s still more difficult to realize new area in which the designers are free to experiment.
The questions on next future look at new expansion areas of our cities and our villages. The scenarios are many but it’s possible to enclose them in a congruent number that they have common features.
The architecture go down the stream of cycles and recycles, rather then to search for a fracture point with the past architecture, the designers prefer often to take back on old style and adjust it for new supposed request of users proposing the style as innovative and with the supposed discurse that we cannot keep in consideration our architectural past.
Question: do we import some trans-territorial model dislocating it here and there without a real integration and interaction with the place to do the impression being all sons of the globally forgetting the genius loci?
Often the attempt to entry at all costs in a stylistic international circle, it does to re-edit some others idea and it does to take it in Italy without absolutely thinking to the impact of that the model can have on the landscape where it will locate.
When I hear some arguments of which often the work clerk deal with them in architecture it seems the state of things wouldn’t change enough.
From the debates held a fifty years ago and they solved in which today we point out as construction boom, until the currently housing problem, it isn’t change enough.
What do not do and what did not go right in the past continuing to be the object of the debate in the currently architectural critic.
In the past it’s been absent the correlative between reality and prevision and actually and it’s still so.
In a state that it demographically change: Italy is a nation that it make old and it grow only for the immigration, we see a upheaval of construction boom.
We cannot always think in one perspective of new constructions unless we talk of a new model of inhabit tailor-made for a population make old or a new inhabit that it replace a old district as it was been for the stones of Matera.
It could instead raise the question in one perspective to adjustment the needs of today’s population, recuperating the built and pointing on an inhabit tailor-made on the human as Le Corbusier and other architect asserted. Often it are of energy or plant adjustment rather than stylistic revival.
In the history of architecture are present periods in which we built with scrap materials so nothing strange that those old constructions today are however of cultural interest and it could be the same for today's ones too.

Comments