Rome provided a very influential experience, both for my development as an architecture student and as a person in general. Just being around structures that were built hundreds of years ago changes a person. Europe was thriving for hundreds of years before the United States began to develop as an urban settlement. Upon arrival in Rome I was taken by the sights. The city has such diversity. You can walk down the street and see a building build in the early 90’s and right next to it is a building commissioned by an emperor in the second century A.D. or even walking through the ruins of the market and forum. It’s an overpowering experience to navigate pathways that were traveled by Romans hundreds of years before.
I would have to say that the thing that I found most interesting was the adaptive reuse of old buildings. In the US, we are so quick to knock down a building because we want to build something more modern and technologically advanced. The average life of a structure is thirty years. This is an obvious effect of huge strides in technology and the fact that buildings are not constructed with lasting processes and materials. One thing that I will take from my experience in Rome is the Roman peoples ability to reuse a structure. I visited an apartment building in Trastevere and it had clearly once been a large family dwelling. The pathway to my friend’s apartment went up a few stairs, down a hall, then down stairs and around a corner. The layout was not that of an apartment complex, but a dwelling that was sectioned off and converted into individual apartments. I can assume that almost every apartment in the building was different. To create an interesting space like this from scratch would be somewhat difficult. The richness in this building would be extremely difficult to replicate. This richness is something that I believe can only be created through layers of history and tradition.
So this leads me to ask myself the question, “What is my stance on architecture?” Will I become an architect who knocks down the old to make way for the new, or will I take the old and tweak it to add one more layer of history? For a while I have been interested in the idea of historical preservation, maybe just as starting point to further understand the work of those that came before me. My semester abroad in Roma has solidified this question for me. In my opinion, there is no better decision than to preserve what we have and make it useful for the future. Our Rome studio project asked us to take a site that was once used for shipbuilding and convert it into a new campus for Temple Roma. Rather than knocking down the arsenal, as well as other structures on the site, I chose to restore and rework the new program into them. I didn’t feel knocking them down or simply restoring them to their original fit and finish was the proper approach. The direction I took on this project was defiantly inspired by my experiences here in Roma. The architecture that I have been exposed to here has helped to develop my stance on design.
The other aspect of Roma which I enjoy is the natural spaces, parks, and villas that exist within the urban fabric; specifically my special place, the Villa Doria Pamphilj. It is very calm and peaceful there. The roads that surround it are muffled by the vegetation to the point that the city becomes nonexistent. You begin to forget that you are in a city at all, that is until you emerge into a vast open space and can see the skyline off in the distance. This is one of the natural spaces in particular that I found amazing. There are other places like this all over the city. It creates a nice rhythm within Rome’s urban fabric. These spaces, once estates of wealthy romans are now places for everyone to enjoy. There is again an element of reuse and layers of history.
In contrast, Philadelphia currently really only has one major park space near its urban center. Rome on the other hand, has many public green spaces throughout. This gives that city, in my opinion, a breathability that Philadelphia lacks. I understand that comparing Rome to Philadelphia is a stretch; however a very important difference needs to be pointed out. Rome lacks the abundance of abandoned and empty lots that Philadelphia has. Imagine if north Philadelphia was condensed, all the space consisting on unused lots and decomposing structures were grouped together and made into public green spaces. One can imagine that it could begin to breathe new life into the city. It would develop the rhythm similar to that of Rome’s.
My experiences in Rome have been helpful to my development. The history and tradition in this place is something that I have never experienced before. To finally get to see the ancient structures that I only had seen pictures of before was inspiring. There is so much here to experience and learn from it is overwhelming. However, the things that I did learn will stick with me forever. The constructs of those who came before us need to be respected. There was a level of craft to which they worked by that has been forgotten. To simply throw away the last few remnants of this is a crime. It is obvious that an exact replication of their processes is not the answer to today’s issues. However we can take what they have left us and add a new layer to it. We can build upon their foundations to create a better solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment