Architectural Design Studio Projects: Advice and Insight

Thethird-yeararchitecturaldesignstudio obligatesstudentstoexploreItalian/ Europeanurbanenvironmentsandto designinhistoricalcontexts.Withinthe studio,we[theinterviewers]studythe relationshipbetweenabuildingandits context,suchassiteconditions,landscape, accessibility,constructiontechnology, materiality,etc.Thestudioprojectisset inFlorence’sSantaRosaTowerPark, whichislocatedbetweenPonteVespucci and Ponte della Vittoria on the southern sideoftheArnoRiver.Theobjectiveis todesignanewcommunitycenterand thesurroundingriversidelandscape withtheinclusionoftheexistingSanta Rosa Tower monument. Since we have toworkwithsignificanthistoricaland culturalelementsaswellasuniquesite conditions,wearecurioustohearand learnfromAnnalisa’sinputonthe project,especiallyconsideringherextensive academicbackgroundandin-fieldexperiencewithlandscapearchitecture.

Aaron Rombach: In our studio, we are constructing a building here in Florence, around Santa Rosa Tower, a part of the old city walls. In looking at this site we have to incorporate both sides of the river and currently they are two different types of ecosystems. How in your experience, do you combat two opposites or two areas that have to communicate but not be exactly the same?

Annalisa: I find your situation very exciting because you have a single object as a building that has the chance to deal with these different conditions, and it is a translator for something that has to make different conditions dialog with each other. This is great because you have to be sure not make an abstract design because you are placing something that is completely different. Also, you have something with different faces. So, from this point of view, I think you can imagine that you are building totally different features because of the specific conditions they are entering. This is super interesting, I think, because in our contemporary situation there is the tendency to think cities are all the same, or they don’t work, or the open spaces are similar. For example, think about our obsession with numbers. We say, ‘so what is the importance in, say, how much trees I put there’ and so on. Instead, I think we have to reclaim the idea that cities are made of different stuff, of different places, and this is not a problem, this is an opportunity. I always like the idea, for example, that the greek name for ‘city’ was ‘polis.’ It is the same root and language of ‘pólemos,’ which means ‘conflict.’ So, the city is exactly the place for conflict; where conflict is not a way to make war, but it is the way to make different things meet. And in this meeting of different, there is a wonderful sparkling energy. If your building will be able to reveal the sparkling energy that is there, where different things are together, I think you will do wonderful work.

Tim Coleman: Currently we are working on a site with a combination of old and new structures and thinking about how to mix those different styles as well as different materiality in our projects. Something that I think is interesting with recovery and reclamation, especially in European cities, is dealing with the gap between old and new structures and finding a way to preserve the old but still blend new structures in as well. What are some of the ways you are able to deal with this issue?

Annalisa: It is an important issue in Italy because we are obsessed with the past time, so much that we are not always thinking about the future. When thinking about ancient cultures, or Roman culture, they were almost more free, and able to mix and match and to re-use older structures to make something completely new. I think that we need to rethink our present situation; it is not just about maintenance, but it is about the idea of moving. Something that is in the past and the present will be in the future only if it will be able to transform in its meaning. This idea of fixation and anxiety for control is a great problem. If we are able to be more relaxed with the idea of control and let situations change exactly as we are changing, I think that our landscape would be more aligned with who we are. We would be even able to love it more because we would find ourselves within the landscape. It’s super interesting. In Italy in 1967, it was the time when we established the ministry for culture, heritage, and antiquity. We recognize, in Italy, a photographic campaign to describe the oracle and the situation of our heritage that was transformed by contemporary architecture. It’s super fun for me to think that, only one year after the publishing of Robert Venturi’s Complexityand Contradiction, we had a completely different case, and we said, okay, let’s see what’s happening. Perhaps, with this contradiction it could be a sign—a clue—of a sparkling energy of something that is living and transforming. Today, looking back at those photographs, I’ve found them so beautiful because they were able to speak about this transformance—this moving—of something that was, in such a way, completely different. I think that there, there is a lot of energy so do not be afraid of that mixing and matching. If this is not just a way to make strange things, but it is a way to answer to your deep sensibility and you deep desires according to your future.

Cole Johnson: Do you believe we as young architects have a responsibility to change the way people interact with nature through our studio projects or should we allow society and other architects to shape the way we portray it?

Annalisa: I think that you have a great responsibility, and it’s great! I am speaking as a teacher, so I know that I have the responsibility to let you be aware of your responsibility. I think that your responsibility is to tell us that the 20th century is finished, so that idea of conflict of different worlds, the dichotomy that was so relevant into the 20th century, has really no reason to be here today. And when I say dichotomy, I mean many levels of dichotomy; capitalism and communism is just one of them, but I mean even the many layers of division that are in our world. And for sure, the difference between culture and nature, the difference between nature and humans is part of this dichotomy. I am deeply convinced that if we do not pass through this dichotomy, we really can not change our design, our way of designing. There are times to say, “Okay, what is artificial, and what is nature?” Typically, what is nature is good and what is artificial is bad. For example, take a look at the biennale in Venice in 2021; it was a matter of feeling guilty as humans, as designers, for all the tragedies that are in the world. I think that is the time to go away and say, okay, we are nature as humans, and so what we do is exactly in accordance with all the other stuff that we call nature, and if we feel inside nature, we completely change our way to think design. For example, the idea of ‘saving nature,’ that we have to ‘protect nature,’ is a very 20th-century idea of an architect as a savior or a sort of superhero that is able to save nature. But if you feel yourself inside nature, you do not need to save anything to collaborate with it, so you are on the same level. You get into dialogue and not into a hierarchy of differential roles. If we as teachers are able to make you think about that, and if you as young generational architects could be able to overcome any separation between artificial and nature, between what is man-made and what is nature, I think we could imagine a completely different landscape; finally, I think it is the time to make that.

Samantha Markiewicz: Accessibility is something professors tell me that I need to have in my designs, including things like wheelchair-accessible restrooms or elevators, and ramps to move around my designs. With something like landscape architecture, specifically looking at your Climbing Garden Project, how do you go about making your projects accessible? And, how can we implement these design strategies in our own studio designs?

Annalisa: It is a very different question because something that has to do with accessibility, we have more of a concern as designers, and we have to think about how people can use and access the inside. On the harder side, I can say again we are in a sort of misunderstanding. We think that all the sites of our cities are the same, and so we use exactly the same protocols for every kind of project, every kind of design. But really, if we think about the differences in the idea of conflict, as I was speaking before the idea that the city is so beautiful and so vibrant because it is made of different kinds of places, perhaps we could accept the idea that maybe some places are completely accessible and others are not. Because the cities are made of different conditions, this is again something that is connected with the difference between nature and nurture, between nature and artificial that I was wondering, that I was speaking about before. For example, in Italy, we have very strict rules about accessibility when you make a square or a park in the city because they are considered public spaces. But when you are in a national park, in a nature reserve, they are public. In legal terms, they are public exactly in the same way as the square is a public space, and a urban park is a public space. But because we think that it is nature we do not expect it to be accessible. So I think that we have a lot of problems to solve and if we think that it’s okay to have some places as inaccessible and others that are, I think that we can spread out our chances as designers behind any ideology. I know that this could sound [sick], but I think that on the other way if we use the same protocols for every single square meter of our city, we’re losing something, and we are losing the idea of difference, of risk, of adventures, of discovery, even of wonder that is in our city. If everything is under control, if you know exactly where you will go, or you will see where everything is, don’t prefer you will never get lost in the city. And the thing that we need to come back to get lost in the city is a sort of arrangement that I’m afraid we are, we are really, really losing.