VR
V. Romieri
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
The not ordinary academy
Architecture is more than design. Design is as precise in its outcome as it is obscure in its process, and it sheds fragile evidence
The studio topic Glaneur/Glaneuse refers to the old ‘profession’ of the gleaners, those people picking up the leftovers of the agricultural harvest and making out of these food for their families. Architects are called to be some kind of gleaners, too.
In these past graduation months, the site (field) has been read and absorbed. The reading process has been guided by the french architecture theories of Clement, Lefebvre and Latour. Gilles Clement, in his ‘Third Landscape Manifesto’, describes how urbanisation creates residues within the city structure, such as vacant industrial areas. ‘THE (NOT) ORDINARY ACADEMY’ project challenges current urbanisation, questioning its environmental, economical and, mostly, social sustainability, attempting to give a new meaning (function) to these residues. For example, the demolition of the existing factory fabric indeed provides more space for specific urban and architectural developments. However, this specificity requires more time, money and energy than the adaptive reuse of these 'third landscapes’, with the risk that city requirements change during their construction. To then mention Bruno Latour’s theories, “...critical attention is shifted from architecture as a matter of fact to architecture as a matter of concern. As matter of fact, buildings can be subjected to rules and methods, and they can be treated as objects on their terms. As matters of concern, they enter into socially embedded networks, in which the consequences of architecture are of much more significance than the objects of architecture.”
In a general and local context where architecture doesn’t engage enough with ‘local’ political and social contexts, the need to re-consider the potential for architects to be influential and transformative agents of (existing) space grows pressing.3 Challenging ‘mainstream’ architecture means fighting norms that shut down other ways of thinking and operating. In fact, in this conflictual environment, many architects find themselves reduced to simple decorative participants improving the marketability of developers’ projects. This critique aims to re-evaluate the potential and influence of the architects in the definition of the urban and social space.
A similar theoretical approach has already been defined by some offices, projects and publications, which suggest other ways of doing architecture to move away from architecture's traditional focus on the look and making of buildings. They aim for a much more expansive field of opportunities in which architects and non- architects can operate and collaborate. These case studies have been presented along with this master thesis to show a transformative intent to make the status quo better: the means are varied, from activism to pedagogy, publications to networking, making stuff to making policy.4
Spatial production belongs to a much wider group of actors. In this ecosystem of actors and events, the intention of the research is to narrate the conditions in which an on-site architecture office can ACT as a device to challenge and/or inspire the ongoing developments, investigating in which way this alternative could provide more sustainable solutions with a different urban strategy. The purpose is to assemble a gradual re-appropriation and re-configuration of the leftover buildings whose functions won’t be overdetermined, allowing a continuous transition of activities that will increase the value and awareness of these spaces and their potential. More practical, the project is an attempt at how a fast deliverable architecture could be given back to the city with the least and mostly needed intervention possible, all done in the name of presenting a new way of looking at how buildings and space can be produced. How?
The non-overdetermination of the building’s function is based on a simple change of connotation of the existing artefacts (being there spaces, structures or objects) allowing different conditions to happen while this transition is happening, also after the architect leaves the site.
As written in the studio description, “architecture grows out of existing conditions and resources.” In fact, the design assignment – as will be presented in the common urban plan – aims to discover and develop the scenario between a vacant industrial site – in its built and unbuilt matter – and the possible opportunities that its vacant spaces can offer, as evidence of the possible cohabitation of public and private domains. In this way, the project detaches from the ordinary academic architectural ‘utopia’ and looks forward to a more realistic approach with given realistic social, political and architectural conditions, defining the architect’s role not anymore as consequential, but rather influential.
Evoking “mixed feelings” (thanks Paul) is a way to express the complexity of this process. As Enrique Walker writes in the foreword chapter of ‘Without Content’ by Kersten Geers, (referring to architects) “...they stage a conversation, and situate their work within it. They forge alliances. They establish sources. They delineate sensibilities. They define positions. They declare programmes.” And, as shown this afternoon, they curate. ...
In these past graduation months, the site (field) has been read and absorbed. The reading process has been guided by the french architecture theories of Clement, Lefebvre and Latour. Gilles Clement, in his ‘Third Landscape Manifesto’, describes how urbanisation creates residues within the city structure, such as vacant industrial areas. ‘THE (NOT) ORDINARY ACADEMY’ project challenges current urbanisation, questioning its environmental, economical and, mostly, social sustainability, attempting to give a new meaning (function) to these residues. For example, the demolition of the existing factory fabric indeed provides more space for specific urban and architectural developments. However, this specificity requires more time, money and energy than the adaptive reuse of these 'third landscapes’, with the risk that city requirements change during their construction. To then mention Bruno Latour’s theories, “...critical attention is shifted from architecture as a matter of fact to architecture as a matter of concern. As matter of fact, buildings can be subjected to rules and methods, and they can be treated as objects on their terms. As matters of concern, they enter into socially embedded networks, in which the consequences of architecture are of much more significance than the objects of architecture.”
In a general and local context where architecture doesn’t engage enough with ‘local’ political and social contexts, the need to re-consider the potential for architects to be influential and transformative agents of (existing) space grows pressing.3 Challenging ‘mainstream’ architecture means fighting norms that shut down other ways of thinking and operating. In fact, in this conflictual environment, many architects find themselves reduced to simple decorative participants improving the marketability of developers’ projects. This critique aims to re-evaluate the potential and influence of the architects in the definition of the urban and social space.
A similar theoretical approach has already been defined by some offices, projects and publications, which suggest other ways of doing architecture to move away from architecture's traditional focus on the look and making of buildings. They aim for a much more expansive field of opportunities in which architects and non- architects can operate and collaborate. These case studies have been presented along with this master thesis to show a transformative intent to make the status quo better: the means are varied, from activism to pedagogy, publications to networking, making stuff to making policy.4
Spatial production belongs to a much wider group of actors. In this ecosystem of actors and events, the intention of the research is to narrate the conditions in which an on-site architecture office can ACT as a device to challenge and/or inspire the ongoing developments, investigating in which way this alternative could provide more sustainable solutions with a different urban strategy. The purpose is to assemble a gradual re-appropriation and re-configuration of the leftover buildings whose functions won’t be overdetermined, allowing a continuous transition of activities that will increase the value and awareness of these spaces and their potential. More practical, the project is an attempt at how a fast deliverable architecture could be given back to the city with the least and mostly needed intervention possible, all done in the name of presenting a new way of looking at how buildings and space can be produced. How?
The non-overdetermination of the building’s function is based on a simple change of connotation of the existing artefacts (being there spaces, structures or objects) allowing different conditions to happen while this transition is happening, also after the architect leaves the site.
As written in the studio description, “architecture grows out of existing conditions and resources.” In fact, the design assignment – as will be presented in the common urban plan – aims to discover and develop the scenario between a vacant industrial site – in its built and unbuilt matter – and the possible opportunities that its vacant spaces can offer, as evidence of the possible cohabitation of public and private domains. In this way, the project detaches from the ordinary academic architectural ‘utopia’ and looks forward to a more realistic approach with given realistic social, political and architectural conditions, defining the architect’s role not anymore as consequential, but rather influential.
Evoking “mixed feelings” (thanks Paul) is a way to express the complexity of this process. As Enrique Walker writes in the foreword chapter of ‘Without Content’ by Kersten Geers, (referring to architects) “...they stage a conversation, and situate their work within it. They forge alliances. They establish sources. They delineate sensibilities. They define positions. They declare programmes.” And, as shown this afternoon, they curate. ...
The studio topic Glaneur/Glaneuse refers to the old ‘profession’ of the gleaners, those people picking up the leftovers of the agricultural harvest and making out of these food for their families. Architects are called to be some kind of gleaners, too.
In these past graduation months, the site (field) has been read and absorbed. The reading process has been guided by the french architecture theories of Clement, Lefebvre and Latour. Gilles Clement, in his ‘Third Landscape Manifesto’, describes how urbanisation creates residues within the city structure, such as vacant industrial areas. ‘THE (NOT) ORDINARY ACADEMY’ project challenges current urbanisation, questioning its environmental, economical and, mostly, social sustainability, attempting to give a new meaning (function) to these residues. For example, the demolition of the existing factory fabric indeed provides more space for specific urban and architectural developments. However, this specificity requires more time, money and energy than the adaptive reuse of these 'third landscapes’, with the risk that city requirements change during their construction. To then mention Bruno Latour’s theories, “...critical attention is shifted from architecture as a matter of fact to architecture as a matter of concern. As matter of fact, buildings can be subjected to rules and methods, and they can be treated as objects on their terms. As matters of concern, they enter into socially embedded networks, in which the consequences of architecture are of much more significance than the objects of architecture.”
In a general and local context where architecture doesn’t engage enough with ‘local’ political and social contexts, the need to re-consider the potential for architects to be influential and transformative agents of (existing) space grows pressing.3 Challenging ‘mainstream’ architecture means fighting norms that shut down other ways of thinking and operating. In fact, in this conflictual environment, many architects find themselves reduced to simple decorative participants improving the marketability of developers’ projects. This critique aims to re-evaluate the potential and influence of the architects in the definition of the urban and social space.
A similar theoretical approach has already been defined by some offices, projects and publications, which suggest other ways of doing architecture to move away from architecture's traditional focus on the look and making of buildings. They aim for a much more expansive field of opportunities in which architects and non- architects can operate and collaborate. These case studies have been presented along with this master thesis to show a transformative intent to make the status quo better: the means are varied, from activism to pedagogy, publications to networking, making stuff to making policy.4
Spatial production belongs to a much wider group of actors. In this ecosystem of actors and events, the intention of the research is to narrate the conditions in which an on-site architecture office can ACT as a device to challenge and/or inspire the ongoing developments, investigating in which way this alternative could provide more sustainable solutions with a different urban strategy. The purpose is to assemble a gradual re-appropriation and re-configuration of the leftover buildings whose functions won’t be overdetermined, allowing a continuous transition of activities that will increase the value and awareness of these spaces and their potential. More practical, the project is an attempt at how a fast deliverable architecture could be given back to the city with the least and mostly needed intervention possible, all done in the name of presenting a new way of looking at how buildings and space can be produced. How?
The non-overdetermination of the building’s function is based on a simple change of connotation of the existing artefacts (being there spaces, structures or objects) allowing different conditions to happen while this transition is happening, also after the architect leaves the site.
As written in the studio description, “architecture grows out of existing conditions and resources.” In fact, the design assignment – as will be presented in the common urban plan – aims to discover and develop the scenario between a vacant industrial site – in its built and unbuilt matter – and the possible opportunities that its vacant spaces can offer, as evidence of the possible cohabitation of public and private domains. In this way, the project detaches from the ordinary academic architectural ‘utopia’ and looks forward to a more realistic approach with given realistic social, political and architectural conditions, defining the architect’s role not anymore as consequential, but rather influential.
Evoking “mixed feelings” (thanks Paul) is a way to express the complexity of this process. As Enrique Walker writes in the foreword chapter of ‘Without Content’ by Kersten Geers, (referring to architects) “...they stage a conversation, and situate their work within it. They forge alliances. They establish sources. They delineate sensibilities. They define positions. They declare programmes.” And, as shown this afternoon, they curate.
In these past graduation months, the site (field) has been read and absorbed. The reading process has been guided by the french architecture theories of Clement, Lefebvre and Latour. Gilles Clement, in his ‘Third Landscape Manifesto’, describes how urbanisation creates residues within the city structure, such as vacant industrial areas. ‘THE (NOT) ORDINARY ACADEMY’ project challenges current urbanisation, questioning its environmental, economical and, mostly, social sustainability, attempting to give a new meaning (function) to these residues. For example, the demolition of the existing factory fabric indeed provides more space for specific urban and architectural developments. However, this specificity requires more time, money and energy than the adaptive reuse of these 'third landscapes’, with the risk that city requirements change during their construction. To then mention Bruno Latour’s theories, “...critical attention is shifted from architecture as a matter of fact to architecture as a matter of concern. As matter of fact, buildings can be subjected to rules and methods, and they can be treated as objects on their terms. As matters of concern, they enter into socially embedded networks, in which the consequences of architecture are of much more significance than the objects of architecture.”
In a general and local context where architecture doesn’t engage enough with ‘local’ political and social contexts, the need to re-consider the potential for architects to be influential and transformative agents of (existing) space grows pressing.3 Challenging ‘mainstream’ architecture means fighting norms that shut down other ways of thinking and operating. In fact, in this conflictual environment, many architects find themselves reduced to simple decorative participants improving the marketability of developers’ projects. This critique aims to re-evaluate the potential and influence of the architects in the definition of the urban and social space.
A similar theoretical approach has already been defined by some offices, projects and publications, which suggest other ways of doing architecture to move away from architecture's traditional focus on the look and making of buildings. They aim for a much more expansive field of opportunities in which architects and non- architects can operate and collaborate. These case studies have been presented along with this master thesis to show a transformative intent to make the status quo better: the means are varied, from activism to pedagogy, publications to networking, making stuff to making policy.4
Spatial production belongs to a much wider group of actors. In this ecosystem of actors and events, the intention of the research is to narrate the conditions in which an on-site architecture office can ACT as a device to challenge and/or inspire the ongoing developments, investigating in which way this alternative could provide more sustainable solutions with a different urban strategy. The purpose is to assemble a gradual re-appropriation and re-configuration of the leftover buildings whose functions won’t be overdetermined, allowing a continuous transition of activities that will increase the value and awareness of these spaces and their potential. More practical, the project is an attempt at how a fast deliverable architecture could be given back to the city with the least and mostly needed intervention possible, all done in the name of presenting a new way of looking at how buildings and space can be produced. How?
The non-overdetermination of the building’s function is based on a simple change of connotation of the existing artefacts (being there spaces, structures or objects) allowing different conditions to happen while this transition is happening, also after the architect leaves the site.
As written in the studio description, “architecture grows out of existing conditions and resources.” In fact, the design assignment – as will be presented in the common urban plan – aims to discover and develop the scenario between a vacant industrial site – in its built and unbuilt matter – and the possible opportunities that its vacant spaces can offer, as evidence of the possible cohabitation of public and private domains. In this way, the project detaches from the ordinary academic architectural ‘utopia’ and looks forward to a more realistic approach with given realistic social, political and architectural conditions, defining the architect’s role not anymore as consequential, but rather influential.
Evoking “mixed feelings” (thanks Paul) is a way to express the complexity of this process. As Enrique Walker writes in the foreword chapter of ‘Without Content’ by Kersten Geers, (referring to architects) “...they stage a conversation, and situate their work within it. They forge alliances. They establish sources. They delineate sensibilities. They define positions. They declare programmes.” And, as shown this afternoon, they curate.
SESCeffect
The city should be for everyone
“The city should be for everyone”. According to Paulo Mendes da Rocha, “the city has to address the issues of coexistence, inclusion and the transformation of its own fabric”. This is the “battle” the Brazilian institution SESC is facing from its birth in 1946. As a non-profit private institution kept by trade businessmen, SESC primary aim is the welfare of workers and their family. However, the institution is also open to the general community. It was created with the purpose of providing to the society education, health, leisure, cultural and medical facilities. This approach to an inclusive architecture is reflected in the units that SESC has built across Sao Paulo; most famously the SESC 24 de Maio, by da Rocha, and the Sesc Pompeia, by Lina Bo Bardi. This two interventions have a fundamental role in the redevelopment of social functions within the tumultuous Brazilian community. In fact, “this cultural and recreational facilities have been part of political operations in the transformation of historic centres”, where architecture is the responsible for the existing urban and social environment rebirth, as the facilities are developed in abandoned transformed buildings, to give back to the city its own fabric. This was very unconventional for the 2nd postwar period, as the government was pushing for a massive construction of new buildings, also influenced by the advent of modernism in Brazil. The idea of an industrial architectural heritage din’t exist at the time. These interventions, especially Bo Bardi’s Sesc Pompeia, are revolutionary: they were meant for the preservation of the form, the structure and the idea of that place, working places where the work was hard becoming places for workers’ leisure. The architectural heritage meet the social, historical and political background. Therefore, this thesis will deepen the combination of means like businessmen’s fundings, collaboration between architects and users and the redevelopment of the industrial heritage, that allowed this institution to be powerful enough to express itself against hard existing social, political and economical conditions, thanks to a revolutionary architectural translation.
This institution is considered a worldwide recognised model. In fact, some European recreational and cultural centres which have references (or similarities) in the SESC projects will be used as examples of how the city can be redeveloped starting from its existing fabric. However, the contemporary city is disputed between those architects looking for a multifunctional architecture redeveloping the existing environment, and those who are focused on architecture as a performance, asking for “mono-functional signature” architectural work by a famous architect”. This debate is the second and conclusive part of the thesis, an analysis of these examples of the SESC-influenced buildings, both developing and facing challenges within the contemporary western cities, being preferred the construction and spreading of new ‘icons’. This landmarks’ construction with the aim of attracting tourism is making forget the importance of the development of an architecture based on the social sustainability, thanks to infrastructure containing various programs for the local citizens. The example of SESC in São Paulo—“quite a vertical and densely populated city, a city of great resources and also tremendous poverty, a city with a high crime rate, a city with severe traffic issues, and a city with public health problems”—it’s an evidence of the key role of architecture’s contribution in the urban development, currently threatened by interventions that do not better respond to modern cities requirements.
...
“The city should be for everyone”. According to Paulo Mendes da Rocha, “the city has to address the issues of coexistence, inclusion and the transformation of its own fabric”. This is the “battle” the Brazilian institution SESC is facing from its birth in 1946. As a non-profit private institution kept by trade businessmen, SESC primary aim is the welfare of workers and their family. However, the institution is also open to the general community. It was created with the purpose of providing to the society education, health, leisure, cultural and medical facilities. This approach to an inclusive architecture is reflected in the units that SESC has built across Sao Paulo; most famously the SESC 24 de Maio, by da Rocha, and the Sesc Pompeia, by Lina Bo Bardi. This two interventions have a fundamental role in the redevelopment of social functions within the tumultuous Brazilian community. In fact, “this cultural and recreational facilities have been part of political operations in the transformation of historic centres”, where architecture is the responsible for the existing urban and social environment rebirth, as the facilities are developed in abandoned transformed buildings, to give back to the city its own fabric. This was very unconventional for the 2nd postwar period, as the government was pushing for a massive construction of new buildings, also influenced by the advent of modernism in Brazil. The idea of an industrial architectural heritage din’t exist at the time. These interventions, especially Bo Bardi’s Sesc Pompeia, are revolutionary: they were meant for the preservation of the form, the structure and the idea of that place, working places where the work was hard becoming places for workers’ leisure. The architectural heritage meet the social, historical and political background. Therefore, this thesis will deepen the combination of means like businessmen’s fundings, collaboration between architects and users and the redevelopment of the industrial heritage, that allowed this institution to be powerful enough to express itself against hard existing social, political and economical conditions, thanks to a revolutionary architectural translation.
This institution is considered a worldwide recognised model. In fact, some European recreational and cultural centres which have references (or similarities) in the SESC projects will be used as examples of how the city can be redeveloped starting from its existing fabric. However, the contemporary city is disputed between those architects looking for a multifunctional architecture redeveloping the existing environment, and those who are focused on architecture as a performance, asking for “mono-functional signature” architectural work by a famous architect”. This debate is the second and conclusive part of the thesis, an analysis of these examples of the SESC-influenced buildings, both developing and facing challenges within the contemporary western cities, being preferred the construction and spreading of new ‘icons’. This landmarks’ construction with the aim of attracting tourism is making forget the importance of the development of an architecture based on the social sustainability, thanks to infrastructure containing various programs for the local citizens. The example of SESC in São Paulo—“quite a vertical and densely populated city, a city of great resources and also tremendous poverty, a city with a high crime rate, a city with severe traffic issues, and a city with public health problems”—it’s an evidence of the key role of architecture’s contribution in the urban development, currently threatened by interventions that do not better respond to modern cities requirements.