|
A&C
INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS iussue
N.4 |
 |
|
Foreword
|
|
YESTERDAY, TODAY, TOMORROW
|
|
It is really surprising -and quite scaring-
to read and listen to the statements by some high officials of the public
administration concerning problems that cannot be solved -without a
personal vocation and a specific skill- through the only support of
their privileged position nor by their diploma.
In the field of urban renewal in historic towns and cities, for example, being engineers or general managers of important firms such as the Italian Railroad Company (FS) is not enough to have the right to invent territorial developments and influence epic transformations like the ones made by Louis XIV or the 20th century's dictators. How is it possible to state, if not inspired by personal arrogance without specific experiences and profound cultural researches -expecially without democratic debates with all the social, economic, and productive components- that to solve huge problems of urban planning it is enough to build a couple of skyscrapers? Problems that regards the extension of the railroad network, the general layout of the traffic system in the area around the central railway station. We take the example of the Emilia-Romagna's capital city as a case-study -in fact the key-node for the entire national railroad network- because we are persuaded that some architectural and urban issues cannot be addressed through initiatives of mere building extension, changing of routes, "modernization" of the image. The Bologna's particular case has been already a subject of many analysis, proposals, discussions. If it has not yet found a solution, the reason is certainly related to the high complexity of the situation, as well as in many other European cities. It cannot be addressed by superficial ideas. If Bofill's project with its towers for thousands employees, the pyramid, the glass curtain was rejected by the local population -and nobody has ever questioned Bofill's preparation or professional skill- it means that citizens understand how nowadays it is not enough to impress people with futuristic extravaganzas over a consolidated urban fabric in order to solve contemporary metropolitan problems. Those problems being surely relevant and therefore requiring serious analysis, researches, and public confrontations at any level of the political, administrative, cultural, and scientific level. A true collaboration among public powers, enterprises, financial and industrial players, architects and town-planners. An old principle that today seems to be in danger, at every latitude, by the general trend towards the spectacularization of initiatives, the superficiality of fashions, the challenge of colossal holdings that exploit right all the futuristic suggestions for their own interest. Therefore, the game is played today in the name of extravaganza and originality, independently from local traditions, rational needs of allocation, shaping, and urban form. Even better if all this happens under the pretext of both leaving an astonishing evidence of organizational efficiency and producing a relevant economy in the process (often temporary and to the exclusive profit of a certain corporation). However, beyond self-explanatory solutions and a local popularity in the general audience, what is the reality of so many urban and architectural interventions in a particular context, such as the one of the Western cities? For example, despite a lot of researches and studies -often carried out today in the field of public health, citizens' wellness, and public economies- it seems that there is no sistematic report on global costs related to psyco-physical stress, air pollution, road incidents, energetic waste, entertainment of highways and public infrastructures, metropolitan utilities, etc. Not to speak of the daily spatial centrigugation of families and the increasing reduction of free-time in people's life. What is the cost of all this? Without considering the loss of traditions, human relations, aesthetic pleasures related to specific forms of community life's organization, together with particular urban environments and architectural forms. It is logic that the continus process of modification of lifestyles, the increasing demographic rates subsequent to immigration and import of foreign habits, together with the accelerated race towards the industrialization of manufacturing processes, the legitimate aspiration of citizens for their own amelioration of economic conditions, all these phenomena together inevitably lead towards the change in size, form, organization, and structure of the city. Indeed, it has only been the same case, even if scales and procedures always change. Through centuries, old towns and cities have constantly evoluted. They have broken ground for new plazas and parks, enlarged streets and avenues, built palaces and churches, but always -as it happens physically in human beings- they have mantained their fundamental physical body. Even during the deep critical and propositive reform of XVIII century -despite theoretical enlighted ideas and the already operating aspiration towards "the modern"- the Vitruvian Triades has conditioned the development of so many European cities, producing, as a result, the beauty that we still admire and enjoy today. Nobody has ever stated that the historic and values of a city can be defended by the mere absence of initiatives, by forcing contemporary communities to passively live in yesterday's spaces, forms, and environments, even when not anymore responding to the practical and conventional lifestyles of today. But we have always defended the principle of cultural forms, structures, and inner vitality in each urban settlement! We have defended the principle according to which architectural and urban solutions cannot be elementarily repeted because every element of the city and the city as a whole are what they are as time -often centuries- has shaped and justified its functional, dimensional, and materic essence. Why should we destroy today such a rich heritage to please simplified formal experiments, superficial ephemeral fashions, and the interests of international corporations, that precisely exploit the internal weakness of the so-called modern society? The sky-city can be left to Japanese and all those who work 14-15 hours per day. To all those who do not enjoy beautiful landscapes such as the Italian ones. Let's let some-or many- architects "be striken down along the way to Damascus" as for the Olympics of 2008 or the Shangai Expo of 2010. Let the building boom in Asia demonstrate the feasibility of millions of new housing for billions of square metres. The reality of Far-East cannot be compared with the one of the old continent. We definitely prefer fighting for the beauty of our heritage or cultural, urban, and human experiences, rather than waste it in no-tomorrow adventures. |
|
Available at: |
|
|
|
A Vision of Europe |
 |