The city and the house

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

The city and the house

Gianfranco Guaragna

ГОРОД И ДОМ

Джанфранко Гуаранья,

Абстракт

Нельзя решать проблему дома, не рассматривая также Город. Однако, расширив тему до города, можно было бы рискнуть продвинуться дальше, поскольку первоначальная идея, которая у нас была касательно города, вероятно, больше не актуальна. Ни в коем случае нельзя упускать из виду ощущение того, что городское планирование претерпевает неудачи. Это уже ощутилось в последние десятилетия прошлого века. Инструмент, в который верили, как в городскую науку, похоже, отделился от реальных преобразований. Происходят эпохальные изменения в обществе и в жизни людей и их влияние таково, что может вызвать сомнения в постоянстве их существования. Например, Рем Колхас, прожив более сорока лет в Нью-Йорке, собирает серию эссе в одном томе под этим символичным названием: «Исследования (как тогда называлось) города». Голландский архитектор, исходя из своего опыта, приходит к выводу, что города как такового больше не существует, поскольку он был искажен и расширен, как никогда прежде. Он подчеркивает, что: «любое настаивание на его первичном состоянии крайне неуместно ввиду ностальгии».

Ключевые слова: архитектура, город, дом

Abstract

One cannot address the issue of the House without also considering the City. However, by broadening the theme to the town one could risk pushing further, as the original idea we used to have of the town is probably no longer valid. One cannot in any case omit the feeling of the failure of city planning. It was already present in the last decades of the past Century. The tool in which one believed as urban science seems to have grown apart from the actual transformations. Epochal changes in society and in people's lives are happening and their impact is such that it may instil doubts about a persistence of their existence. Rem Koolhaas, for example, after over forty years from Delirious New York, collects a series of essays in a single volume under this emblematic title: “Studies on (what was called at the time) the city”. The Dutch archistar, starting from his experiences, reaches the conclusion that the city as such does not exist anymore, as it has been distorted and enlarged as never before. He underlines that: “any kind of insistence upon its primal condition is inevitably irrelevant, thanks to nostalgia.”

Keywords: architecture, city, house.

city house urban science

The city and the house

“One can sell or give away a house but it will always remain inside oneself”. Natalia Ginzburg writes this in “La citta e la casa”, but the title of her epistolary novel seems to simply suggest that one cannot address the issue of the House without also considering the City.

By broadening the theme to the town one could risk pushing further, as the original idea we used to have of the town is probably no longer valid. Not only because the beautiful analogy between town and home - starting with Leon Battista Alberti and ending with Josef Frank was always highlighted [1] but also because focalizing on it one could unintentionally be dragged into a sort of serendipity. This could distance us from our considerations about the house and it could make us reflect about the nature of contemporary towns. Fearing that this could set off their “disappearance”.

One cannot in any case omit the feeling of the failure of city planning. It was already present in the last decades of the past Century. The tool in which one believed as urban science seems to have grown apart from the actual transformations. Epochal changes in society and in people's lives are happening and their impact is such that it may instil doubts about a persistence of their existence.

Rem Koolhaas, for example, after over forty years from Delirious New York, collects a series of essays in a single volume under this emblematic title: “Studies on (what was called at the time) the city” [2]. The Dutch archistar, starting from his experiences in Atlanta, Singapore, Dubai, Lille, Tokyo, Moscow, Rotterdam and Paris, reaches the conclusion that the city as such does not exist anymore, as it has been distorted and enlarged as never before. He underlines that: “any kind of insistence upon its primal condition is inevitably irrelevant, thanks to nostalgia”.

Even though he specifies that such a transformation has been caused by an enormous number of factors, where architects were rather marginal, he also admits that the real forces in the field were underestimated. Looking back on the past fifty years, he maintains, we notice that: “all ambition of thinking about the town and considering it as a whole organic entity has been dismantled and discredited”.

The feeling of what was happening had been present from some time, but its importance wasn't fully understood nor its inevitable repercussions, at a global level, on the idea of the city.

We know today that the problem that Aldo Rossi posed in an interview to Cecilia Bolognesi in February 1995 - analysed in relation to what has happened in the world in the last decades - didn't totally seize the entity of the historical-social transformations that were to come. His analysis today appears limited, not only because it was connected to his idea of the city in parts.

Rossi in that occasion showed that, feeling that a reflection on the role of architecture within the great geopolitical transformations that were happening, his idea had not changed at all compared to what he had written in the `L'architettura della citta', and he reaffirmed that he still believed in the “city of parts” and that he recognised airports, train stations and shopping malls as the new facts of cities. The new themes that must be confronted [3].

Already as a student, defending architects as Muzio (remembering the controversy between Giancarlo De Carlo and the so called “giovani delle colonne”), as well as the Soviet or the Fascist architects, was a way of affirming their intrinsic architectural value, free of ideological prejudice. Just as appreciating the beauty of Moscow with its skyscrapers and Lenin's university didn't mean embracing its representative rhetoric, but simply recognising the ability of bonding a great idea to architecture [4]. Rossi was actually interested in the organizational ability of the urban space of these shapes, as they became an orientation for the future development of the city. Very briefly, this is the concept of Palladian architecture.

Aldo Rossi was well aware that a city cannot exist without an idea. He underlined that behind the city of the Catholic church, the liberal, the fascist and the soviet ideas lied an idea. The idea of the city wasn't only a matter of interpreting airports and malls as new facts, he felt that without a reference or a general target they reflect a condition which could be void of any hope of change [5].

Aldo Rossi maintained this two years before his premature death and he didn't have the time to find out if his themes would have obtained the right attention. Rem Koolhaas instead admits that at the end of the past Century very few people had understood that the Western standards would not be dominant anymore. He also states that not everyone realises we are facing a decline of Western influence in the forming of cities. He explains he feels a great interest toward nature in non-Western modernity as he thinks they will be fundamental for this Century [6].

Slavoj Zizek, a clever “agitator”, claims that the big dirty cities, from an ecological point of view, are the best thing for nature. He thinks that as pollution is everywhere, it would be best concentrating as many people as possible inside the big cities in order to have fewer polluted areas pro capite, keeping the greater spaces clean.

The paradox of this ecological choice, which claims it is better to live in small self-sufficient houses powered by solar energy, poses a serious problem. He thinks that if the majority of people lived this way humanity would be scattered over the earth's surface resulting in the disappearance of forests [7].

The Slovenian philosopher questions the general idea of living according to nature. He points out that if Mother Earth is supposed to be our common good and that we must preserve it for our own survival, ecology is the greatest selfish and anthropocentric machine possible. Nature is actually indifferent towards all this because: “nature is crazy: it is chaotic and subject to wild disasters which are unpredictable and meaningless, and we are exposed to its ruthless whims” [8].

The disastrous effects of climate change are obvious. In the original condition of the earth, the hemisphere which wasn't lit by the sun was completely dark, today instead satellites show us the same part of the planet dotted with a myriad of lights. We know that the presence of artificial light alters the habitat of animals and plants. Artificial light has a negative impact on animal migration routes and disturbs their reproduction, causing accidental deaths that can make us fear the extinction of some species. Artificial light also inhibits the melatonin production in human beings, altering the circadian rhythm of our body. It also disturbs the sleep cycle and increases the risk of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and depression. Because of this, new guidelines are being explored concerning the study of more “friendly” lights [9].

It is more than evident that in this era of quick transformations and radical changes, be it a Smart City or a Vertical Forest, architects too see in Sustainability an important sector which may offer them the possibility of playing a not marginal role in the actual transformations. They don't only work with structural engineers anymore, but they increasingly cooperate with professionals who specialize in the physical-climatic sector of buildings and services.

Amitav Ghosh, calling into question not only architects, and not excluding his own category, is clearly judgemental of the different players involved. He poses a moral question when he says that: “if contemporary tendencies in architecture, even nowadays when emissions are increasing, prefer shiny skyscrapers covered in glass and metal, shouldn't we ask ourselves what kind of wishes are fuelled by this kind of buildings?” The Indian writer reminds us that throughout history cultural expressions as poetry, art, architecture, theatre and narrative managed to deal with wars, environmental disasters and all kinds of crisis. He urges to ask ourselves about the reason of such a strenuous resistance on behalf of these disciplines in facing the issue of climate change. The issues that writers and artists should deal with today, according to Ghosh, “do not only concern the political aspect of the economy of fossil fuels, but also our lifestyles and how they are complicit of the concealments that are acted out by the culture we are immersed in” [10].

We must note that (even though it is not an unanimously shared thesis) these years have seen a progressive estrangement from cities. Not only by people who find the city uninhabitable, or by the young generations who have chosen to retrieve farming, but also by those who don't consider the city as an “essential” place.

Within this process one cannot ignore the not marginal role of the world wide web. The Internet has certainly favoured the emancipation of the outskirts and of the countryside. The pandemic has increased this figure as it has made it possible for people to work in places different from usual.

Noreena Hertz claims that loneliness is not an individual question, nor a psychological one, nor that it originates from the restrictions caused by the pandemic. It is on the contrary a collective problem, with strong economic roots and political implications. She also points out that Covid has simply increased the already existing “social recession” as it made physical contact “toxic”.

Loneliness is also a problem, as it cannot be only ascribed to the pandemic. The place of residence and the work place don't unite people. Three quarters of citizens ignore their neighbour's name and 60 percent of employees say they don't feel at ease in their workplaces. This is a planetary problem which concerns both the US and Europe. In the UK the problem was so severe that a Minister for loneliness was nominated.

Noreena Hertz claims that loneliness is not an individual psychological question, started by the restrictions against the pandemic. It is a collective problem with strong economic roots and political implications. She also indicates that Covid ha simply amplified the “social recession” which already existed, since it made physical contact “toxic”.

In a nutshell, the British economist thinks that social media and smartphones are not the main cause of isolation, even though this is a widespread idea. They have emphasized phenomena from the eighties when a particularly harsh expression of capitalism was established. A form of Neo-liberalism which, according to Hertz, rewarded an idealized kind of autonomy, a weak government and a competitive mentality. Personal interests and business profit are considered more important than the interest of communities and of common goods. This granted a growing power to the big companies and to finance, allowing them to set the rules and the working conditions [11].

Loneliness shows strong political and economic implications, as does the Internet. The web, as well as being influenced by socio-economic factors, also poses a political problem. Zizek is even more precise when he claims that the Internet is a proletarian issue. He states that smartphones have created a sort of global solipsism that makes us feel in contact with the rest of the world while we are isolated in a private space: “you are connected wherever you are but, at the same time, you have nothing” [12].

The “danger” of serendipity that we saw in the beginning is more than obvious, it is not a peregrine risk, as the house theme - although it may seem conceptually void of implications not only includes the cities but even makes us question ourselves about the future of the planet.

Apart from the problems connected to the future of the Earth, while facing a fringed city, where countryside and outskirts tend to overlap nearly losing their identity, talking about cities as we have up to now doesn't make sense anymore. This doesn't mean that we are allowed to certify its end nor to declare it will definitively disappear.

Even if towns have not disappeared, one cannot actually live in them. Because towns are uninhabitable. According to Emanuele Coccia this is a simple objective fact, not caused by the current context.

He maintains that no one actually lives a city. No one can because cities are literally uninhabitable. Not because they are chaotic, polluted or ugly, as one may think. But, he says, because underneath, inside and behind a city there is always a house that enables us to live in it. A kind of life that tries to coincide with the urban space and to live in it without mediation, he adds, is destined to die. “The only true and absolute citizen is the homeless, the clochard; life is vulnerable and, by definition, it is exposed to death” [13].

If it is true that inside the city there always is a house that enables one to live in it, Coccia poses an important question related to the contemporary historical phase. As he says, social media are: “extensions or projections of domestic space. They literally are utopic distorted images of a new way of thinking the domestic sociality. Compared to these houses, dreamed and lived through digital prostheses, our homes, our apartments, appear as obsolete machines, big parallelepipeds built in order to distill our life based on distinct functions [14].

References

As well as the analogy by Alberti, an essay written by Frank in 1931 “The house as street and as square”, the house as street and as square in Percorsi accidentali, essays and projects by Josef Frank, edited by Giovanni Fraziano, Lint Editoriale, Trieste, 2011, pp from 91 to 98

Rem Koolhass, Studies on (what was called at the time) the city, edited by Manuel Orazi, Quodlibet, 2021

Aldo Rossi, Luoghi urbani intervista di Cecilia Bolognesi, Ed. Unicopli, Milano 1999,

p. 26

Ibidem p. 23

Ibidem p. 23

Lo sfarinamento dell'Urbanistica, Conversazione con Rem Koolhass, edited by Gabriele neri, Il Sole 24 Ore, 5/12/2021

Slavoj Zizek, Chiedere l'impossibile, Ombre corte, Verona, 2013, p. 11

Ibidem, p. 10

Patrizia Caraveo, Saving the Starry Night, Springer, 2011

Amitav Ghosh La grande cecita. Il cambiamento climatico e l'impensabile, Neri Pozza Editore, Vicenza, 2017, p. 17

Noreena Hertz, Il secolo della solitudine. L'importanza della comunita nell'economia e nella vita di tutti i giorni, Il Saggiatore, 2021

Slavoj Zizek, Chiedere l'impossibile, Op. Cit. p. 62

Emanuele Coccia, Filosofia della casa, einaudi, p. 6

Ibidem

Размещено на Allbest.ru