5 ms·

Italian Architects Look to Replicate Success of N.Y. High Line in Rome

47 points by ascertain 12y ago

register 12y ago
In Italy, and Rome especially, something is finally starting to move. Slowly for sure, but the seed of change starts from a tiny tree. I am glad to see this post here and hope it don't get unnoticed.
- simonebrunozzi 12y ago
  I met the mayor once here in Silicon Valley, Ignazio Marino. Former world-class surgeon, who pioneered liver transplant from babboons. Brilliant person. I am Italian, living in San Francisco, and of course I keep following what's going on in Italy. I've never seen a politician as competent, and well intentioned, as this one. Rome is a political mess, and has been a mess for two thousand years, but there's some hope.
carsongross 12y ago
Whenever I see stories like this I always wonder why we don't talk about (and get shouted down when we do try to talk about) the failure of modern architecture and urbanism. It's great that they are trying to turn lemons into potable lemon-flavored water, but there is almost no self-reflection on how we ended up with lemons in the first place. The fear of looking insufficiently progressive and innovative has caused huge damage to our built environment, and it simply isn't discussed in polite society. There are symmetries between this and the current fad of flat UX: we had discovered what worked (UX visual easements using faked depth), had become bored with it and noted that some unsophisticated people overused and misused these techniques (symmetric with the stuffy and occasionally cartoonish classicism of Golden Age building) and pitched the entire thing in the garbage can, starting afresh on top of what turn out, for users, to be horrible ideas.
- bluthru 12y ago
  So many reasons: * Developers spend a whole lot less on the built environment today. They don't care about contributing to the urban fabric as much as they care about cost per square foot. * A century ago, 5% of building costs were systems. Today, half of a building's cost is the stuff between the walls. Buildings are "more machine than man now". There is very little time or money left for Architecture in most cases. * Almost every building component is mass produced. * HVAC and electricity has allowed people to care a whole lot less about intelligent passive systems and daylighting. * There isn't a market incentive to make buildings last for over a century. (Let alone three decades.) * Developers want flashy crap that makes their building unique in non-subtle ways rather than a building that reinforces community and the urban fabric.
  - sayangel 12y ago
    This is so sad, but true. I've talked with a lot of architects about how virtual reality can revolutionize the way they design and a lot of them always end up telling me that the visual portion is often overruled by the numbers. Especially when dealing with real estate developers its all about the bottom line. My hope is virtual reality will bring the human element back into architecture.
    - bluthru 12y ago
      It all sort of clicked for me when I realized Modernism was no longer a style or a democratization of architecture but rather a reflection of a lack of investment in the built environment. I'm actually a lapsed architect. I was really passionate about making great communities and urban environments but the realities of capital and our political structures just don't make that feasible right now. What an unfortunate industry where the best buildings were created a century ago. Who wants to be apart of that? Regarding VR helping architects: Maybe? Robots CNC'ing interesting facades might help even more. Unfortunately technology has been used by architects to undercut other architects, and not for the benefit of the building. This is a fantastic article that I agree with: http://www.utexas.edu/architecture/center/benedikt/articles/less.html http://www.utexas.edu/architecture/center/benedikt/articles/...
danso 12y ago
Thank god...Of the big cities I've visited as a tourist, Rome was the one that most quickly lost my interest. The architecture and history is of course amazing...but after more than two days of seeing the same architecture, over and over...I just had to get out. I don't know how many other Italians feel like this, but what one resident told me stuck with me: "Yes, we have thousands of years of architecture and art, but very little of it is ours [i.e. created by the current generation]"...I know the OP discusses a project that is on the outskirts of the old city, but if it becomes a successful reality, maybe it'll spur additional creativity and development. In New York, it's always distressing to see landmark buildings get paved over for condos, and even the High Line has lost a small bit of its appeal with all the new high-rise condos sprouting around it...but after visiting Rome, I had a much bigger appreciation for the vitality that comes with change...and in the five years I was there, the good seemed to at least even out the bad. The High Line was probably the best change. There was a time when 7-11s threatened to take over the city, but when I left, the location on St. Marks Place was shuttered after less than a couple or so years. Hell, even the Apple Store in Grand Central ended up being a good thing...until it opened, that part of the Terminal was inaccessible to anyone who wasn't a guest of the overpriced restaurant that was there.
- yulaow 12y ago
  The problem is, here in Italy, we are over-defensive towards the "artistic soul" of a city, often refusing to modernize some areas just because a lot of people think it could "ruin" the artistic soul of the whole place. Another example is in Turin where there was a battle to try to stop the build of the first skyscraper because it could be higher than the Mole Antonelliana, the main monument of the city. In the end the skyscraper was built but they forced the architects to make it high just some meters below the height of the Mole. And still today there are protesters who say it ruined all the city. Trying to modernize even some peripheral areas of Rome will be really hard.
- pesenti 12y ago
  You could say the same for Paris, Venice, Prague, etc. I feel the opposite of you: these cities fill me with a sense of beauty that no modern architecture is able to match. And their urbanism, centered around piazzas and dense walking centers with low rise buildings, is so much more human and enjoyable than any American city. It makes me wonder what we have learned in the past 300 years....
pyb 12y ago
To perhaps give credit where it's due, the High Line in NYC replicated the success of the Coulee Verte in Paris.
bane 12y ago
I love the High Line. These kinds of off-elevation parks are wonderful escapes in a busy city. Another fantastic park along a similar theme is Cheonggyecheon in Seoul. Except it's a river and below street level. The more of these the better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon

47 points by ascertain 12y ago

In Italy, and Rome especially, something is finally starting to move. Slowly for sure, but the seed of change starts from a tiny tree. I am glad to see this post here and hope it don't get unnoticed.

simonebrunozzi 12y ago
I met the mayor once here in Silicon Valley, Ignazio Marino. Former world-class surgeon, who pioneered liver transplant from babboons. Brilliant person. I am Italian, living in San Francisco, and of course I keep following what's going on in Italy. I've never seen a politician as competent, and well intentioned, as this one. Rome is a political mess, and has been a mess for two thousand years, but there's some hope.

carsongross 12y ago

Whenever I see stories like this I always wonder why we don't talk about (and get shouted down when we do try to talk about) the failure of modern architecture and urbanism. It's great that they are trying to turn lemons into potable lemon-flavored water, but there is almost no self-reflection on how we ended up with lemons in the first place. The fear of looking insufficiently progressive and innovative has caused huge damage to our built environment, and it simply isn't discussed in polite society. There are symmetries between this and the current fad of flat UX: we had discovered what worked (UX visual easements using faked depth), had become bored with it and noted that some unsophisticated people overused and misused these techniques (symmetric with the stuffy and occasionally cartoonish classicism of Golden Age building) and pitched the entire thing in the garbage can, starting afresh on top of what turn out, for users, to be horrible ideas.

bluthru 12y ago
So many reasons: * Developers spend a whole lot less on the built environment today. They don't care about contributing to the urban fabric as much as they care about cost per square foot. * A century ago, 5% of building costs were systems. Today, half of a building's cost is the stuff between the walls. Buildings are "more machine than man now". There is very little time or money left for Architecture in most cases. * Almost every building component is mass produced. * HVAC and electricity has allowed people to care a whole lot less about intelligent passive systems and daylighting. * There isn't a market incentive to make buildings last for over a century. (Let alone three decades.) * Developers want flashy crap that makes their building unique in non-subtle ways rather than a building that reinforces community and the urban fabric.
- sayangel 12y ago
  This is so sad, but true. I've talked with a lot of architects about how virtual reality can revolutionize the way they design and a lot of them always end up telling me that the visual portion is often overruled by the numbers. Especially when dealing with real estate developers its all about the bottom line. My hope is virtual reality will bring the human element back into architecture.
  - bluthru 12y ago
    It all sort of clicked for me when I realized Modernism was no longer a style or a democratization of architecture but rather a reflection of a lack of investment in the built environment. I'm actually a lapsed architect. I was really passionate about making great communities and urban environments but the realities of capital and our political structures just don't make that feasible right now. What an unfortunate industry where the best buildings were created a century ago. Who wants to be apart of that? Regarding VR helping architects: Maybe? Robots CNC'ing interesting facades might help even more. Unfortunately technology has been used by architects to undercut other architects, and not for the benefit of the building. This is a fantastic article that I agree with: http://www.utexas.edu/architecture/center/benedikt/articles/less.html http://www.utexas.edu/architecture/center/benedikt/articles/...

danso 12y ago

Thank god...Of the big cities I've visited as a tourist, Rome was the one that most quickly lost my interest. The architecture and history is of course amazing...but after more than two days of seeing the same architecture, over and over...I just had to get out. I don't know how many other Italians feel like this, but what one resident told me stuck with me: "Yes, we have thousands of years of architecture and art, but very little of it is ours [i.e. created by the current generation]"...I know the OP discusses a project that is on the outskirts of the old city, but if it becomes a successful reality, maybe it'll spur additional creativity and development. In New York, it's always distressing to see landmark buildings get paved over for condos, and even the High Line has lost a small bit of its appeal with all the new high-rise condos sprouting around it...but after visiting Rome, I had a much bigger appreciation for the vitality that comes with change...and in the five years I was there, the good seemed to at least even out the bad. The High Line was probably the best change. There was a time when 7-11s threatened to take over the city, but when I left, the location on St. Marks Place was shuttered after less than a couple or so years. Hell, even the Apple Store in Grand Central ended up being a good thing...until it opened, that part of the Terminal was inaccessible to anyone who wasn't a guest of the overpriced restaurant that was there.

yulaow 12y ago
The problem is, here in Italy, we are over-defensive towards the "artistic soul" of a city, often refusing to modernize some areas just because a lot of people think it could "ruin" the artistic soul of the whole place. Another example is in Turin where there was a battle to try to stop the build of the first skyscraper because it could be higher than the Mole Antonelliana, the main monument of the city. In the end the skyscraper was built but they forced the architects to make it high just some meters below the height of the Mole. And still today there are protesters who say it ruined all the city. Trying to modernize even some peripheral areas of Rome will be really hard.
pesenti 12y ago
You could say the same for Paris, Venice, Prague, etc. I feel the opposite of you: these cities fill me with a sense of beauty that no modern architecture is able to match. And their urbanism, centered around piazzas and dense walking centers with low rise buildings, is so much more human and enjoyable than any American city. It makes me wonder what we have learned in the past 300 years....

pyb 12y ago

To perhaps give credit where it's due, the High Line in NYC replicated the success of the Coulee Verte in Paris.

bane 12y ago

I love the High Line. These kinds of off-elevation parks are wonderful escapes in a busy city. Another fantastic park along a similar theme is Cheonggyecheon in Seoul. Except it's a river and below street level. The more of these the better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon