read a comment valleys on the forum on the topic on the draft "recovery" of Piazzatorre, I was struck by this sentence: "Maybe we will lose a bit ' the pine? Maybe we'll see home some more? Maybe a little more concrete ? course, it will give the green light to the buildings will be attentive to the type of aesthetic setting of new buildings and then ....... ?? We want to mention that the two colonies of the country come to life again? That will not be horrid and construction Malten? How much added value will be in town square?? You have no idea what friends say I bring Piazzatorre, just past the side of the colony Bergamo?? I would say that the right balance and everything will be done until now does not deserve negative comments. From now also technically part of a NEW ERA ! ".
I have highlighted in bold some words, because more than others have convinced me that, in general, not just for the specific case of Piazzatorre, the attitude of many people into certain urban projects be constrained by a basic misunderstanding.
This misconception has it that "urban" and "building" are synonymous, two words, but only one meaning. Just so I'll explain how you can weigh, how they were laid on a scale with two arms, two words that mean something totally different.
How, otherwise, to admit without hesitation that "a little 'less of pine forest and a" little "more concrete, will be offset by (although hypothetical) attention to the aesthetics of new homes? How do you pronounce the "right balance"? Through
precisely quell'equivoco powered over the last two decades, namely after the untimely death of urbanism in Italy [1], which has not (and least) architecture, but building technology, would be the panacea for the ills of the city. Equivocal well fed by force of laws that have instilled in the minds of designers and builders first, then the real estate agents, who with rouge technology, with the medal of green building, with innovazionni plant, we built buildings more beautiful, more elegant, more liveable, more, more, more ....
autoassolutoria indoctrination of false consciousness of all those (from policy makers, professional associations, public engineers) who have long forgotten that a city is built from a concept by idea, with a clear objective to be achieved, we believe that our countries have been born at the bottom as summation of buildings here and there by chance, without a specific reason but to have a roof over your head, and then the magic wand of building technology is the recipe for saving not only buildings but the best city best.
Here, under these conditions, the basic rules of "building the city" lose their meaning, everything blends into a stodgy porridge for which even the worst quarter of the periphery becomes more inhuman a jewel if you put photovoltaics on the roofs , double glazed windows, the outer coat to insulate the walls, warm water with geothermal energy and paint the walls with paint, "organic".
short, the dish you can also forget it, so we thee filled contours.
The "new era" said the commentator is as old as the world.
A thousand, however, unaware of relativism: when four hectares of pine forest are 'a bit of pine trees? When 16,000 square meters of gross floor area are "a little bit of cement? When about 250 apartments are "dwelling in some more"? What is the benchmark, Milan? Bergamo? Lombardy?
The legitimate desire to see "revive" the two former colonies (such as not relive, will, quite rightly, etc.) and see friends no longer puzzled or disgusted in front of their abandonment, makes it so uncritical as to digest anything? Damn, better dell'Alka Seltzer.
I have highlighted in bold some words, because more than others have convinced me that, in general, not just for the specific case of Piazzatorre, the attitude of many people into certain urban projects be constrained by a basic misunderstanding.
This misconception has it that "urban" and "building" are synonymous, two words, but only one meaning. Just so I'll explain how you can weigh, how they were laid on a scale with two arms, two words that mean something totally different.
How, otherwise, to admit without hesitation that "a little 'less of pine forest and a" little "more concrete, will be offset by (although hypothetical) attention to the aesthetics of new homes? How do you pronounce the "right balance"? Through
precisely quell'equivoco powered over the last two decades, namely after the untimely death of urbanism in Italy [1], which has not (and least) architecture, but building technology, would be the panacea for the ills of the city. Equivocal well fed by force of laws that have instilled in the minds of designers and builders first, then the real estate agents, who with rouge technology, with the medal of green building, with innovazionni plant, we built buildings more beautiful, more elegant, more liveable, more, more, more ....
autoassolutoria indoctrination of false consciousness of all those (from policy makers, professional associations, public engineers) who have long forgotten that a city is built from a concept by idea, with a clear objective to be achieved, we believe that our countries have been born at the bottom as summation of buildings here and there by chance, without a specific reason but to have a roof over your head, and then the magic wand of building technology is the recipe for saving not only buildings but the best city best.
Here, under these conditions, the basic rules of "building the city" lose their meaning, everything blends into a stodgy porridge for which even the worst quarter of the periphery becomes more inhuman a jewel if you put photovoltaics on the roofs , double glazed windows, the outer coat to insulate the walls, warm water with geothermal energy and paint the walls with paint, "organic".
short, the dish you can also forget it, so we thee filled contours.
The "new era" said the commentator is as old as the world.
A thousand, however, unaware of relativism: when four hectares of pine forest are 'a bit of pine trees? When 16,000 square meters of gross floor area are "a little bit of cement? When about 250 apartments are "dwelling in some more"? What is the benchmark, Milan? Bergamo? Lombardy?
The legitimate desire to see "revive" the two former colonies (such as not relive, will, quite rightly, etc.) and see friends no longer puzzled or disgusted in front of their abandonment, makes it so uncritical as to digest anything? Damn, better dell'Alka Seltzer.
[1] at least that there was little good, the bad and the fight live among us.
