Critic question: are architecture and building two things that they stay poles apart and from time to time they meet here and there in some example unique and unusual?
To prevent any misunderstanding it have to explain that if for architecture and building we intend to pose a brick on other without any respect for what we are doing, that isn’t neither architecture either building.
Critic question: do the urban planning and the architecture communicate or they do it only for circumstances beyond our control?
We attend often to the discurse economic housing and non economic housing to variegate the offers and to render the market accessible to all, but the problem is that to design a house cannot be only a discurse purely economic because if it is so the houses more expenses distinguish from houses more economic only for the finishes because for the fact of esthetic, form and color there aren’t difference.
In other words a villa with a drooping roof is always a villa with a drooping roof except square metres and finishes.
In other nations the difference is done by employer as it consents in many cases the freedom of architectonic expression so we see futuristic villas.
In Italy the question of stylistic freedom is always hinged on church where it is important the dogma and the fact that it is followed some fundaments but for the rest there was freedom of designed freedom.
A time it narrated there was the vitruvian triad and the genius loci, I tell that it narrate because they don’t see not shadow even. I explain better, when we decide to build to give a house we forget above all that humans will go to live there.
Now we don’t give them a house with luxury finishes but at least we give them a house deigns of this definition.
Vitruvian triad (venustas, firmitas utilitas): in the social housing I don’t see. As far as it regards venustas and utilitas you have to hope that who design them it has good taste and it was remembered of human being that they will go to live, as far as it regards firmitas you have to hope that the company built them it is honest.
Genius loci: or rather integration with the place. What I see it’s usually an architectonic cube placed at choise of the designer in the place where it makes less legal problems tied from the point of view of constructive and administrative requisites.
I understand that the difference is the employer with its budget and probably the budget for social housing isn’t more high, but also in that case, an attention at who will go to live there it have to do otherwise you don’t give its a house but only an apartment in a building.

Comments