During our course of study there have been many topics addressed in the field of design, among these one that particularly impressed us was Social Housing.
We believe that social housing is an urban reality destined to be very successful today and in the future future, as a reality that best combines with post-pandemic needs, both in terms of new desires housing and social conditions of people as a response to the economic repercussions of Covid-19.
Cross-border/international
Italy
Germany
Member State(s), Western Balkans and other countries: France
Member State(s), Western Balkans and other countries: Italy
- Milan
- Berlin
- Barcelona
- Paris
Mainly urban
It refers to a physical transformation of the built environment (hard investment)
No
No
As an individual in partnership with other persons
First name: Andrea Last name: Negri Gender: Male Age: 27 Please attach a copy of your national ID/residence card:
By ticking this box, I certify that the information regarding my age is factually correct. : Yes Nationality: Italy Address (country of permanent residence for individuals or address of the organisation)<br/>Street and number: via Piave, 6 Town: Cassinetta di Lugagnano Postal code: 20081 Country: Italy Direct Tel:+393335071600 E-mail:negriandrea95@gmail.com
{Empty}
Yes
New European Bauhaus or European Commission websites
Today more than ever we feel the need and importance of a "school
of architecture”, of the formulation of a method. During the century
last, many of these "schools" have handed down, from masters
to students, ideas, ways of interpreting society through
architecture. In ancient times, although "labelled" in retrospect, yes
they can find common elements and approaches within currents
history such as the Middle Ages or the Renaissance.
Today globalization has led to a very high degree
liberalism in architectural expression, and this is without
doubt a progress, from a point of view of civilization, but it also has
the fragmentary nature of the forms and of the image has been raised to the maximum
of the architectural work.
Often today, we see architectures that look like a brand
of the architect who designed them, as if it were a
distinctive trait, a signature, intent on celebrating his personality
and his inventiveness. But the form must be a representation of
needs of the place, not the ultimate goal of the architecture, fulfilled
in self-celebration or mere servility towards the
market.
Mies already wrote on the matter:
«Is form really a purpose? It is rather not the result of the process of giving
form? Isn't the process [that is] essential? […] Form as purpose brings
always [and only] to formalism.»
Inclusiveness
Co-habiting
Co-working
Green urbanity
Fluid spaces
Precisely this process, or method, as will also come later
called, must be what drives the design, as
fruit of a rational and empirical thought, of questions posed,
of criticism and sensitivity towards society.
The isolated, self-celebrating designer can only exalt
the plastic, sculptural element of its architecture that rises up
above the context. Again, history helps us,
showing us how the greatest things, positively and sadly
even in the negative, they were made possible by the strength of a
group, from the collectivity; since ancient times, religions, the revolutions, the affirmation of corporate models, have been possible
thanks to the support of a large number of people. Often this
has led to terrible outcomes, but this mostly happens when
the masses in question do not think, do not ask questions, e
they are merely passive pawns in the development of events.
When the movements in question are populated and powered by
critical thinkers, cultured interpreters of the historical moment in which they have
place, it is possible to give life to something that really could
reverse course, positively changing the course of events.
Our work begins here, looking back, around, and
trying to imagine how reality could change in which
we live, in the years to come.
Among the multitude of theories of architecture we have tried to
examine some that could help us understand how to carry out
our research work. Although different Rossi, De Carlo
and Gregotti treat some of the aspects for us in their theories
essential in the planning of social housing
(SH): the first deals specifically with reading the context
and the understanding of the city as an urban fact; DeCarlo
is the main promoter of a participatory architecture in which the
Participation is a structural and fundamental element for success
of a good project. Finally, Gregotti understands the method as a
rational scientific practice, a useful tool for understanding
the behavioral dynamics generated by the designed space e
that can streamline the design process.
The area that has particularly captured our interest is
that of "social housing", a real incubator of society,
where public and open spaces collide, work, recreation,
daily life, private life and much more.
Social housing in Europe has taken a rampant amount of
different ways than its original purpose, often degenerating
in an uncontrolled manner and no longer becoming a social necessity
much more an economic opportunity. The great deals of
investment guaranteed by some scenarios definitely have
played a fundamental role in this phenomenon, leading
architecture to lose part of its original social relevance.
In this context, the
phenomenon of «Gentrification» which especially in large cities
Europe has great social relevance and often influences
the urban space policy, in order to increase the value
economy of some areas, sometimes leading to ghettoisation,
discrimination and inequality, as if space had no lo
same value for all.
Furthermore, we believe that the phenomenon of Social Housing, in Europe
and in particular in Italy, has reached a phase of stagnation,
as if he had exhausted all the potential to which he could aspire.
We continually see new matrix projects being born
similar, but which fail to go beyond those approaches
partly oppressed and crushed by regulatory constraints
limiting. Yet, in our view, social housing has maybe
only need new ideas and new ways to express all the
social value that it could give to tomorrow's living.
In addition to the critical aspects we also intend to analyze some
experiences from our point of view relevant in the experimentation
and in an attempt to overthrow this system that we believe is harmful
for the planning.
It was also interesting to study those architectures that are
openly oppose a capitalism harmful to the ends of
society, which exploits the architectural space and sometimes homologous
to fashions. The reflections that emerged highlighted how those
exclusively market-driven interventions are at the end of the
non-architectures, somehow superfluous for the purposes of a society
that works prolifically.
We realize that we give an unambiguous definition of this
phenomenon is difficult as factors affect each country
different, however we have identified some characteristics
design that in our opinion define social housing and that
allow the inclusion of more case studies in this typology
far from the current conception of SH.
The choice of case studies fell on five collocated projects
temporally within the 1900s and on five contemporary cases
located in as many European countries. Our will is to
return a picture of the situation as broad as possible in
so you can have all the useful elements to compare that
may allow us to identify the guidelines for a new type design.
This has also led us to make some considerations regarding the
future of living.
We think that in the years to come the house will need more and more
be a versatile place, equipped with shared environments, capable of
be customizable and adaptable. The threshold between the public and the private
it will necessarily have to shrink to ensure sharing ed
greater inclusiveness within residential areas; it becomes
therefore it is interesting to understand how to integrate privacy spaces with each other
to completely shared environments within the residences,
such as living areas and work spaces.
The functions should perhaps disappear, in favor of more spaces
versatile and customizable; in the end, most of the most
great architectures of history have shown the veracity of
this statement.
Functions can mutate or even disappear with the
passage of time, for an architecture, but this does not affect its
value as space and the relationship that persists with the city ed
the surrounding context; we have plenty of examples in ours
city, of spaces that have changed their purpose without however
change in the architectural substance, because the initial idea was
so cultured and rooted in the place as to be able to give life to something
almost autochthonous.
«Architecture does not want to be functional; It wants to be an opportunity»
It is therefore of primary importance to intervene by outlining some valid ones
canons of social and inclusive planning, looking away
to tomorrow's living and trying to demonstrate the usefulness that a
certain theoretical and practical vision of architecture can bring
to the health of society. A reflection against a movement that
by now it has turned out to be very uncontrollable and tending
to bring discrepancies, qualifying a social class or a space
architectural according to its profit.
Ultimately, after expressing the conclusions we are at
arrived, we have fixed the key concepts in the drafting of a
list of guidelines that we understand as the bearer of an idea of architecture, the result of the teachings of a school, with the
hope this will offer food for thought during the
social housing development process.
“The formation of a theory of design constitutes the specific objective of
an architecture school and its priority over all other research is incontestable. A
design theory represents the most important, founding moment of every
architecture […].”1 - A. Rossi
1.1 The relationships and links between theory and practice.
Architectural thinking and the realized project are often assumed
as the greatest dichotomy of architecture, from which they spring
infinite reflections, but which always end up being considered as
distinct elements.
On the one hand, if the Theoria represents an approach to phenomenal reality
with the gaze of thought, the reality in question must be determined.
In the architectural field, as claimed by Aldo Rossi, too often
the theory has been thought to be only an a posteriori rationalization
of the practice, and from this one has a tendency to regard it as one
normalization and an adaptation, rather than to a concrete vision
of society. This is partly the consequence of the fear of some, that,
virtuously they ventured into the formulation of theoretical visions
of society and architecture, without, however, dealing with the phase plus
important aspect of this process: the concrete and planning feedback of the
theory itself.
On the other hand, if we understand Praxis as the concrete activity that
interacts in that real scenario, it is necessary to clarify with which approaches
methodological and with which sets of specific techniques it modifies reality.
So that it is therefore possible to speak of a practical theory of
design, first of all it is necessary to recognize the “need” of a method.
In this sense, Antonio Monestiroli puts forward a methodological proposal
clear and structured towards an operability articulated in themes, issues
and logical sequences that the project should retrace, in order to
prove to be up to the needs of the community.
The steps of the proposed method, which, clearly, are not from consider themselves as strictly binding or authoritative, simplify the
dualism between conceptual/theoretical and actual/practical elements.
The exploration of meaning - the relationship between public and private space - yes
confronts with the topological condition, but also with the idea of the city
who presides over it - relationship between building and context -; the adoption of a
structured formal arrangement - morphological aspects - can only be reversed
in a specific site in relation to the technical data - population density e
quality of the space - aiming however, through the construction elements,
to express an adequate character - typological and identity differences.
As we know, the Greek philosophers formulated a twofold
interpretation of the meaning of form, which refers explicitly to
what concerns theory and practice.
They consider form as είδος - èidos - and form as μορφή
- morphe -. The first, èidos, refers to the idea, the abstract concept that
it is captured by the theoretical intuition to then be pursued in the phase
concrete project, while morphé represents the tangible essence, the
physical and sensory composition of matter, which is the ultimate goal of
project.
In antiquity, the figures of Plato and Aristotle became bearers of
these two tensions, often irreconcilable - one in reference to thought
abstract, the other to concrete and tangible practice -; in modern times,
instead, new needs have developed, and that is why we rediscover
in thinkers such as Marx and Gramsci - whose thinking will be studied e
also taken up by some of the figures in which we will immerse ourselves - the cues of
an already existing will to reunite these two tensions, once upon a time
at the antipodes.
The meaning of "practice" as an individual and social initiative represents
a focal point of much of the philosophical thinking undertaken by Karl
Marx on the problems of mass production and method
scientific.
Already in the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 he wrote “like the
society [...] produces man as man, so it is produced by
him”3
And it is thus that this idea that production - or human praxis -
includes not only the production phases but also everything that
is developed antecedently in social relationships, ideas, needs,
institutions. In this way it becomes natural to understand how theory and practice
they must not and cannot remain unconnected, since the one gives
life to the other and vice versa.
In the light of the examples given in the previous paragraphs, it is undisputed the importance of a method which, however, in our opinion, needs today
to be transformed and rethought so that it can cross with the
need of contemporary man.
Probably one of the most frequent criticisms it can receive
a contemporary architect is the lack of a theory of
written design, compared to the first half of the '900 in which of
architecture was written a lot and this for some architecture critics
turns out to be a major limitation today.
The design theory of the 1950s is a static theory, the
architectural production was often the result of a thought, an idea
personal to what architecture should have been for so it always is
it was man who adapted. Today, society evolves this rapidly
also thanks to technology and factors that put man ahead of
new needs: it is for this reason that in our opinion there is a need
of a method that allows the identification of guidelines for the
design that are not static but that can follow the evolution
of society and the idea of the home in primis.
This means that in our opinion it is possible to update the method
in order to create an architecture no longer based on a personal idea
but on the needs of man and society, so that we can create a
project for the individual.
The architect is increasingly involved in the realization of projects of
redevelopment, regeneration, for the existing. A work of sharing that
empathize with a wide variety of themes such as the inner city,
the periphery, space in all its forms. For this today it is necessary,
find a contemporary method, which is dynamic and which follows
innovation always present in the field of design,
just think of the issues of sustainability and renewable energy that in the
recent years have contributed much to the creation of a new
was architectural.. Method but that you always look at the possibility of a
change.
