Paesaggio Urbano /// DOSSIER SPECIALE GRAND PARIS III
a cura di Alessandro delli Ponti
Hard and Soft Infrastructures in Grand Paris
Il riduzionismo infrastrutturale alla prova dei fatti.
I casi di La Défense e del Périphérique.
Contiene tre interviste esclusive:
_AIGP (Ateliers Internationales du Grand Paris) _ Bertrand Lemoine, Direttore Generale
_OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture) _ OMA’s La Défense
_TVK Architectes Urbanistes_La Métropole du Périphérique
Paesaggio Urbano, 6, 2012 (pag. 55 - 91)
CONCORSO INTERNAZIONALE — Un Parco Urbano per Piazza d’Armi
MENZIONE SPECIALE
————
Il Gruppo:
Alessandro delli Ponti con Federico Bernetti, Ferdinand Schmelzer, Paola Corciulo, Marco Teofili, Davide Curatola Soprana
Consulenti per il Paesaggio: EEM Paysage , Marc Blume
Consulenti per la sostenibilità dell’intervento architettonico: Arch. Letizia Martinelli
Consulenti per le immagini: Arch. Ilaria Novielli
Artista: Carlo Bernardini
http://www.paisea.com/en/2012/08/urban-park-piazza-darmi-laquila/
http://europaconcorsi.com/projects/204347-Parco-Urbano-di-Piazza-d-Armi-L-Aquila
Alessandro delli Ponti meets Herman Hertzberger (RIBA Golden Medal 2012) in Amsterdam for an informal interview on knowledge spaces, and Spatial Temptation.
LE VISITEUR
n°18, in October 2012
GRAND PARIS
Strategia vs. Impromptu
Conferenza di Alessandro delli Ponti
Università di Ferrara, Dipartimento di Architettura
20.4.2012, Ore 10.00
EUROPAN 11 _ REIMS
“The Collaborative Landscape”
with Camille Alwan, Ilaria Novielli
Paesaggio Urbano /// DOSSIER SPECIALE Paesaggi della Conoscenza
Note per un approccio antro-politico alla città e all’Architettura
Un Intervista ad HERMAN HERTZBERGER
di Alessandro delli Ponti
Paesaggio Urbano, 1.2012
-
Knowledge Landscapes and “Interpretativity”,
Notes for an Anthro-political approach to Architecture and the City
“It’s only when the relational is revealed in the absolute space and time of social and material life that politics starts living!” Don Mitchell
Otterlo 1959, in the last turbulent days of the CIAM, Aldo Van Eyck called for a new way of looking to the space of the city, a way that should not disregard “the semantic universe of dream and soul”.
Those where the days in which the Modern’s Dogmas seemed to be rapidly crumbling, revealing, under the aging mask of the most unwavering certainties a “terrain vague”, that “something of subterranean, between wine and life” evoked by Tristan Tzara in his Parisian DADA (1) days.
Herman Hertzberger has been, since from the early sixties, a protagonist of those heteronomic forces that tried to build a new, alternative path to Modern.
Animated by the programmatic will to surpass the auto-referential certainties of disciplinary autonomy, he has followed an extraordinary personal and professional path, built through the collaboration with Aldo van Eyck, the review Forum, Team X, the debates with Alison and Peter Smithson, the exchanges with De Carlo, Rossi, and the foundation of the Berlage Institute, but most of all, realizing a corpus of buildings that substantiates coherently his peculiar approach to structuralism.
HH, though convinced that practical awareness and realizations are the real playground of architecture, has always cultivated a particular relation with the text of architecture, initially in the form of the pamphlet or of the article, as editor of the review Forum, and, then, offering to a wide public the monographic synthesis of his critical and designed reflections; we must remember his “Lessons of architecture” (Edizioni Laterza), “Articulations” (Prestel), and the recent series published in Holland by 010 Rotterdam, particularly “Space and Learning” (010, Rotterdam, 2009).
The edifice of his lessons is still an open construction site and the recent publications confirm his predilection for the leading theme of his critical reflection, that is to say: the relation between the Project and Knowledge Spatialization (mise en espace).
In this sense, the term Knowledge hands us with some interesting semantic feed-backs.
If in Scholar buildings the term can be seen banally as a system of codified information to be communicated to a given public, the Knowledge Hertzberger refers to has a deeper nature and relates to the development of the spatial-relational awareness of those who live in space.
Van Eyck’s relativistic revolution within the CIAM, and the contextual foundation of Team X, has opened the way for the integration of architecture in a deeper anthropologic structure, following the suggestions of de Saussure and Levi-Strauss.
Herman Hertzberger’s approach originally follows this research path, in the attempt to articulate the primatus of absolute typological spatiality with the revelation of their relational potential.
The Autonomy of Architecture is thus redefined by what HH calls “Spatial Interpretativity”, a notion that gives a leading role to usage and human components rather than focusing exclusively on the object’s tectonics and aleatory functionalism.
Interpretativity is thus to be meant as a category synthetising the dialectics between Interzia and Autonomia of spatial values, it’s a principle that illustrates the architects awareness of the “non-univocity” of forms, of their potential misinterpretation and reveals the hope, the project, of a “spatial-tentation” positively opened to the inhabitant’s voluntarism.
In this sense, the buildings for teaching become representative of the way HH looks at Architecture and the City.
The designers attention is not primarly concentrated on the space to be assigned to explicit knowledge and thus to ex cathedra teaching, but rather to that Psicologic Landscape (Focillon), the maieutic Structure, linking inhabitant to inhabitant, intellect to intellect, helping the emergence of a tacit, inter-individual knowledge that stands “between things” and founds the legitimacy of Space in the heart of its communitas.
Revindicating the primatus of the relational on the quantitative might appear as a neuter and “ecumenical” operation, but it actually reveals all its strength when we read in these terms the continuity between Hertzberger’s vision of architecture and of the city, transposing his projectual, architectural reflections on the condition of contemporary urbanity.
The distinction between the absolute, the relative and the relational conception of urban space proposed by Henri Lefevre and David Harvey, becomes thus a useful epistemic instrument to understand, at a urban scale, what HH demonstrates in his architecture.
If the in-between, the space between things and people, emerges as the founding dimension of the project, we must notice that this relational principle is conceived through the design’s spatial concreteness, in the Architects material and technical choices.
Techné becomes charged with profound social values and with a specific relational potential.
In this sense, to give a concrete example, different from those which will follow in the interview, we can associate the pauperistic choice of materials in HH’s projects of the sixties and seventies to Lina Bo Bardi’s approach (they’ve been cooperating on various workshops); in both these masters’ attitude, the materials-technical choice is not reducible to an artistic issue (Eduardo Subirats) but is rather a condition for an easier reappropriation, both in a practical-phisical sense, than in an imaginative and symbolic one.
Listening to Hertzberger’s words becomes thus particularly interesting in a moment in which, in Europe, in reason of strategic-political wills of national and over national level, the policies of “culturalization” of the public realm are integrating in a vision of economic instrumentalization all the remaining creative forces (Eco), researching the improbable demonstration of Richard Florida’s paradigma and selling the operation as the construction of the new creative city, ending in the “in series” production of urban scenarios and singularities, ever more similar to review-like archetypes, to historic centres transformed in museums rather than being truly inhabited, exploring all the possible perversions of the originary Guggenheim effect.
What new possibilities are unveiled for the re-interpretation of these urban products? And which lesson can we get from Architecture?
The present crisis, and the wage launched by the necessity to envision a sustainable decreasing development, might demand us to find a new Continuity between Space, Architecture and the society that inhabitants them, a continuity that might leave behind the dictate of normative strings and procedimental “t-ordures” that pack usages in functions and these last in programs reducing the space of the city to a measured list of admissible lives and interpretations.
- Alessandro delli Ponti
Followed by an Interview and the Conclusions
THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ISLAND
Lampedusa is a spot geography in the geo-political barycentre of the Mediterranean Sea. It is an Italian island, 3 km large and 13 km long, with a permanent population of 6.340 units.
The CPT (centre for temporary migrants’ stay) is a 3000 mq militarised space in Lampedusa.
The CPT, for Italy’s spatial standards, could host 190 people.
The migration fluxes touching Lampedusa, in times of international crises (such that of the Nato-Libian war) is of 200.000 units, and promises to augment its charge in the future.
At the present moment, the CPT of Lampedusa is de-facto the European Port for African Migration, the closest to both continents, the less controlled, a possible gateway to a declared or undeclared life in Italy, Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland, England, Belgium or the Nederland, for many people escaping from thirst, hunger, wars and despair in its many forms.
Lampedusa is now days, as a whole, a communitarian space, a “natural-right” geography, a 20 square Km hosting centre, and it’s local population becomes directly implicated in the hosting process, the hosting process becomes a human-relational topic rather than a matter of absolute-space with a logistic-military problem to be solved.
In cases of “human” overcharge, the administrative boundary is displaced up to the Franco-Italian or Italo-German frontier, and physical limits are transformed in burocratical concerns, the bio-political perspective is reaffirmed, the reflection scale becomes larger, the locus of migration management becomes secreted and bilateral, the single human unit is reduced to a number and to an obliged logistic path.
We state that Lampedusa can become the locus of the evolution from National-Militarism to International Cooperation !
Lampedusa can become a Shared Spatial Palimpsest between European Union and African Union.
A Trans/National_Inter/Continental Mediterranean Capital City
Its Geography should be read as an Hyper-Public Space, a real Public Geography.
The Shared Palimpsest of the Relational Potential between distant languages, territories and distant law systems.
People will meet in the Geographical Infrastructure and maybe build a new cultural approach to trans-national integration.
This new capital-city needs a new and different grid-approach, an adaptative and infra-structural one, more Geo and less Graphical.
Grids are dimensionally determined, but its contents is a shared balance between functional nation driven units and local territorial topology, free of access for all.
Administrative Migration Management looses sense as well as Traditional “Administrative” Architecture.
The collaborative Landscape is the spatial basis for trans-national work policies that help people from different nations decide to move elsewhere in reason of a demand offer you they’ll meet in Lampedusa.
Paesaggio Urbano /// DOSSIER SPECIALE GRAND PARIS II
“Il Paesaggio Aeroportuale di una Global City Europea”
Tra Eterotopie ed Integrazioni Complesse
a cura di Alessandro delli Ponti
Presentazione: Prof. Romeo Farinella
Contiene due interviste esclusive a Mathis Güller e a Christian Devillers
Paesaggio Urbano n° 5, 2011
ABSTRACT_
The Airport Landscape of a European Global City
“In-between Heterotopias and Complex Integrations”
The “Grand Paris” Project aims at consolidating Ile-de-France as a global metropolitan capital region. In the complex network of international exchanges and circulation it becomes thus fundamental to better understand the new role Parisians’Air-related “Gates to the World” will play at a Urban-Metropolitan scale, now that the new state plan for Paris fast mobility has been approved. In this second Grand Paris thematic Report we’ll investigate the Airport’s Territory in relation to the infrastructural, environmental and social transformations that the integrative Urban growth of Air Hub’s is currently stimulating. The theme of Airport-related urban growth is extremely complex as it answers to the State’s ambition and development plans, locally anchoring to marginalized, infrastructural, noisy (though inhabited) territories.
Conflicts tend to emerge between the vocational profiles of urban areas, bound to a totalizing technical and economical efficacy and the life quality of local communities; the airport’s urban area emerges as a locus of political battle.
The latent paradox of hyper-mobility associated to the slow space of rural or peri-urban areas, reveals the Parì (bet) implied in certain post-kyoto urban paradigms such as those proposed by Secchi and LIN for Greater Paris, aiming at developing a spatial isotropic condition rather than the current system ok “potential gaps”. Though supporting the primacy of continuity, we must notice that this vision finds its “revealing accident” (Virilio, Mau) in the necessity, for the contemporary metropolis, to equip with secured, socially hygienic and heterotypic Plug-ins.
The interest in observing the birth, in Europe, of the Airport city and to do this by giving a better look at Paris, is due to the possibility we’re presently given, to imagine a model of governance and organization that might have (beyond functional efficacy) an original urban quality if compared to the renowned and historicized tissues of the 19th century mobility, a new spatial quality that might suggest a new way of thinking the role of mobility, hopefully more socially and environmentally sustainable. Paris presents a rich, multi-polarized, airport condition: while Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle, in the north, consolidates its position as a transcontinental hub, teaming up with the nearby Le Bourget Business Airport, to specialize the local territory; in the south, Orly, a rather continental and National hub, is growing sensible to the nearby transformations of the EPA-Orsa’s territories, being likely to play a major role to enrich the local panorama of urban services in the next years.
In the mean while Beauvais-tille, emerges as the new peripheral and low cost leading hub (Ryan strikes again).
In the North, between Seine-Saint-Denis and Val d’Oise, with the Roissy-Le Bourget asset, we’re assisting at the generative moment of an Airport City. Beyond the boosting and specialization of the two poles, transversal territories will be the linear core of this development: towards the heart of Paris, with the Triangle de Gonesse , and transversally, with the transformations programmed along the Arc of the Tangential Nord-Est towards La Défense.
An interesting occasion is given to solve public connectivity problems that have socially and spatially cut this area out of the metropolitan “difficult whole”. Merging natural and agricultural Land valorization with intense, highly specialized functions in this sector is the direction currently sustained by the EPA Plaine-de-France.
The north sectors analysis is enriched by an exclusive interview to Mathis Güller, of the studio Güller and Güller, author of the book “From Airport to Airport City” and of the winning Project for the Triangle de Gonesse.
In the south, Orly, has a quite different Urban position, we shall not refer here to an Airport City but rather to a compact system of functional transformations of previously isolated logistic areas that will tend to integrate a general character shift in the south east of Paris, playing a major role in the archipelago of strategic urban mutations in the territory of EPA-Orsa.
We’ve deepened our knowledge thanks to Christian Devillers’s lucid and aware regard on the area; in an exclusive interview, the Grand Prix de l’Urbanisme, has exposed us his preliminary design study for this sector.
Paesaggio Urbano /// DOSSIER SPECIALE GRAND PARIS I
“Un Plan Campus per Parigi”
Il ruolo delle Università nella strutturazione di una Global City
a cura di Alessandro delli Ponti
Presentazione: Prof. Romeo Farinella
Contiene un’intervista esclusiva a David Bérinque e a Florénce Lipsky
Paesaggio Urbano n° 3, 2011
Abstract
Primo di una serie di interventi circa il progetto strategico del Grand Paris e i grandi progetti urbani ad esso correlati,
Questo primo dossier riguarda il Plan Campus a Parigi, ovvero la strategia di definizione del ruolo territoriale delle università Francesi e il suo impatto nella costruzione di un’autentica metropoli globale che strutturi un ruolo strategico per le Knoledge Industries come fonte di sviluppo endogeno (P. Hall).
La tipologia Urbana del campus contemporaneo ha una storia che in Francia inizia negli anni ’60 del novecento. Dall’epoca delle prime realizzazioni ad oggi, il mondo è cambiato.
Con gli anni, i Campus di prima generazione hanno iniziato a soffrire di incurie, a causa delle dimensioni eccessive delle proprie aree di competenza, e di perditata di attrattività, essendo spesso distanti dai centri abitanti e privi di una vivacità urbana che li rendesse luoghi “frequentabili” dalle comunità locali.
I piani statali U2000 e U3M hanno tentato tra gli anni ’90 e 2000 di reintegrare i campus nei rispettivi contesti urbani, oggi si rende necessaria una rilettura regionale in chiave globale delle risorse delle università e degli scenari territoriali ad esse legate.
La recente riforma delle università Francesi ha imposto una politica di superamento dell’impianto tradizionale che vedeva esclusivamente nelle Grandes Ecoles la culla della classe dirigente, rigidamente inquadrata in una formazione di alto profilo tecnicista e introdotto le Pres (pôles de recherche et d’enseignement supérieur) e dei complessi meccanismi di valutazione associati ad una maggiore selettività dei finanziamenti. Nel 2008, a seguito della riforma, lo stato Francese, attraverso l’azione del ministero dell’istruzione superiore e della ricerca, ha lanciato il Plan Campus, una consultazione su tutto il territorio nazionale per l’individuazione di progetti di rinnovamento o nuova costruzione di Campus Universitari.
A livello Nazionale sono 12 i progetti di campus che hanno ottenuto il label del Plan Campus, tappa necessaria per avere una prospettiva concreta di finanziamento e realizzazione.
Nel caso di Parigi, le operazioni che rientrano nel PC sono “Paris-Saclay”, “Condorcet-Paris-Aubervillers”, “Universitées de Paris”. Saclay e Condorcet, i campus “extra-muros”, sono il cuore urbano di alcune delle aree di sviluppo strutturanti il progetto del grand Paris nello scenario proposto dall’ex-sottosegretario Blanc che è la base per il lavoro delle dieci equipes dell’Atelier Grand Paris.
Saclay si struttura come polarità collaborativa all’interno di un sistema di cluster universitari dall’alto profilo tecnico ricompresi nel piano di sviluppo strategico del “Cone sud francilienne de l’innovation” (Cono meridionale dell’innovazione).
Condorcet-Aubervillers, campus a vocazione umanistica, è invece sviluppato ad una scala più ridotta, che lo interfaccia direttamente con Parigi attraverso il grande piano di riconnessione transperipherique di Paris-nord est di cui ci occuperemo nel terzo Dossier Gran Paris.
Queste polarità “extra-periferiche” ospiteranno il personale, i ricercatori e gli studenti che hanno a lungo abitato il centro della Parigi storica. Problemi e opportunità sociali si sovrappongono, lasciando intravedere uno scenario assolutamente nuovo per l’evoluzione urbana della capitale e della sua corona metropolitana.
Il Caso Condorcet è stato analizzato grazie ad un’intervista con l’architetta Florence Lipsky e con la collaborazione del direttore generale della Fondation Condorcet , l’urbanista David Bérinque.
Alessandro delli Ponti
Chaitén, Chile
Concorso per una città di fondazione
KH_studio + Agence Comceci
CONSTELLATION
Museo del Vino del Cerro St. Cristobal
Santiago, Chile
Concorso Arquitectum 2010
KH + Jean Tabouret e Pierre Wilpart
Constellation is a trans-historical and trans-national symbology
Our local project is conceived as a pole of a Territorial Constellation of public facilities laying
on a same Horizon of public paths.
We trace this possible constellation in order to strongly state the historical and the authentic
specificness of a territorial product, rooted in the geography of ancient civilization.
The idea of diffusing centralities linked to wine consumption and cultural economy on a
metropolitan scale is essential to present the idea of diffusing urban equity in deprived areas,
such as Cerro Renca, through the cooperation of private sector with local society.
Wine identity as the identity of a shared geography.
The Logic of Form
Vertical+Horizontal = Geography
Visibility is achieved through a subtle “contrappunto” of solid volumes with the horizontal line
of the public path.
Defining an Horizon of Public Places and Facilities that might be Sponsored and implemented
by Private Actors such as Vino de Chile .
The aim is that of maximizing visibility from the city without ruining the clear perception of the
metropolis from the Cerro. A tower would impose itself and ruin the landscape of the city from
the Cerro and that of the Cerro from the city. We strongly belive that a sublte articulation of
anthropic and vegetal components can be an exceptional marketing value for the area.
Mithology
The “Wine Experience” (J.B. Colin) implies a specific, rather pagan lithurgy.
The entrence through the obscurity of an underground initiatic - path is the interlude to the
experience of taste and metropolitan sight.
We propose an ironical inversion of Plato’s “allegrory of the cave”, as wine falsifies the ra-
tional perception of reality and proposes an intimate trip in our fantasies and suggestions.
The program is thus organized on a binary articulation, between linear hypogeaum space
for distribution, delivery and services and the emerging volumes of functional units.
This articulation allows to structure a complex system of publc-private squares along the
linear path of the cerro and to enhance, at a time, environment and architectural space.
Plato getting high !
AIRCITY URBANITY
Santiago du Chili
2009/2010
3 cycle EAPLV.PUCC
Dal testo edito dall’Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Paris La Villette
2010_2011
L’Urbanité Aéroportuaire, le « Black Hole » de la métropole ?
S’intéresser à l’aéroport et à l’urbanité qu’il est capable d’engendrer, signifie s’interroger à propos de l’intégration dans un tissu social et paysager d’ une entité, celle de l’ “Airport City”qui est, au moment actuelle, relégué au rang d’Urbanité de « genre » (Lussault) et reste imperméable à son contexte.
C’est certainement l’exemple plus claire des paradoxes de l’espace à l’heure de la mondialisation.
L’ espace globaux, isotropique et continu, à l’épreuve des usage et de la capacité de structurer une dimension publique devien hotage des enceintes eterotopiques.
On peut en effet lire l’aéroport, et en particulier son coeur intermodale comme une distopie bio-politique realisée, dont il faut peut-être interroger les présupposés inquiétants avant d’en accueillir positivement l’offre fonctionelle.
C’est une des Typologies architecturales les plus frequentées au monde. C’est l’emblême de la transformation du territoire en support fonctionel pur.
C’est un lieu où l’homme est filtré et contrôlé dans ses caractéristiques intimes et personnelles (bodyscanner), et où l’appartenance à une école de pensée, ou à des convictions politiques, risque de se traduire en incompatibilité sociétale, en refus du droit à l’espace de transition.
Il suffit de se rappeler ce que cela symbolisait d’être d’origine arabe dans la période post 11 septembre, ou d’être Chilien et de passer par les aéréoports de Panama dans les années ’70.
Une Hétérotopie négative, donc, qui est peut-être l’espace de suspension du politique et de l’économique, qui ne nous accueille, qu’après la certification de notre adéquation à la norme.
Cette hyperbole nous permet de réfléchir sur l’espace de la mobilité et sur ses paradoxes soudains.
Évidemment, notre réflexion concerne plutôt le scénario urbain induit par la présence de l’hub et toute l’économie d’urbanisation qu’il engendre. Cependant, ce n’est pas un hasard, si les problèmatiques de la perméabilité et de l’accès du public aux fonctions de la airport city ou à ses espaces ne sont pas encore résolues.
Le terme de « ville aéroportuaire » est souvent un moyen pour essayer de lire de manière cohérente une forte concentration de volumes et d’infrastructures servants.
Ce processus permet à la fois de créer un label pour les opérations d’aménagement, mais aussi de déterminer un flagship au niveau régional, et d’offrir des services supplémentaires à ceux de la mobilité aérienne.
C’est donc un thypique produit de l’économie symbolique, qui voit, dans l’accès à la globalité, une de ses valeurs, et donc un attracteur d’intérêts économiques capital.
L’explosion urbaine des aéroports implique l’interaction d’une série d’acteurs privés et publics, locaux et régionaux, qui ont des intérêts différents et des différentes responsabilités.
Ainsi, ils deviennent des participants à l’économie commerciale d’urbanisation en échange de leurs pré-investissements sur le réseau.
L’airport city, et l’aéroport en soi, sont donc de plus en plus envisagés en tant que lieux de destination, plutôt qu’en tant que lieux de simple passage.
Dans ce projet nous interrogerons les types de programmes associés à la plateforme et nous verrons comment, dans un espace qui a été jusqu’à maintenant défini comme infra-urbain, on peut retrouver l’espoir d’une qualité spatiale, d’une intégration des fonctions et des valeurs publiques qui peuvent faire avancer le domaine de l’urbanité aéroportuaire vers une intégration majeure avec les acteurs locaux et la “ville habité”.
Alessandro delli Ponti
MICRO CONFERENZE di KH
ogni sabato alle 18.30
chez nous
