/page/2
Alessandro delli Ponti and Camille Alwan are presenting 
Mannheim’s Connection at the European Forum 2014
——————
BERLIN - Akademie der Kunste
—
4th July 2014

Alessandro delli Ponti and Camille Alwan are presenting 

Mannheim’s Connection at the European Forum 2014

——————

BERLIN - Akademie der Kunste

4th July 2014

Alessandro delli Ponti and Camille Alwan are presenting “Mannheim’s Connection” at Europan France conference at CHAILLOT - Cité de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine de Paris. 11.4.2014
-
full program here:
http://www.europanfrance.org/actualites/single/29

Alessandro delli Ponti and Camille Alwan are presenting “Mannheim’s Connection” at Europan France conference at CHAILLOT - Cité de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine de Paris. 11.4.2014

-

full program here:

http://www.europanfrance.org/actualites/single/29

"Mannheim’s Connection" _ A relational Story
First Prize   -   EUROPAN XII                           
Team Leaders : Alessandro delli Ponti - Ilaria Novielli  
Consultants : Camille Alwan, Marc Blume
Collaborators : Clelia Bartolomei, Verdiana Spicciarelli

"Mannheim’s Connection" _ A relational Story

First Prize   -   EUROPAN XII                           

Team Leaders : Alessandro delli Ponti - Ilaria Novielli  

Consultants : Camille Alwan, Marc Blume

Collaborators : Clelia Bartolomei, Verdiana Spicciarelli

AIGP - Atelier International du Grand Paris

Atelier du Grand Paris

Alessandro delli Ponti at the AIGP

Paesaggio Urbano /// DOSSIER SPECIALE  GRAND PARIS III
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)

Paesaggio Urbano /// DOSSIER SPECIALE GRAND PARIS III

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)


INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION - Un Parco Urbano per Piazza d’Armi
HONORABLE MENTION
————
DESIGN TEAM:
Alessandro delli Ponti  
with  Federico Bernetti, Ferdinand Schmelzer, Marco Teofili, Davide Curatola Soprana, Ilaria Novielli, Paola Corciulo
-
CONSULTANTS:
Maestro Carlo Bernardini (Brera Academy)
Letizia Martinelli (Consultant - Bioclimatic Sustainability) 
Marc Blume (Consultant - Landscape)
-
PUBLICATIONS :
http://www.paisea.com/en/2012/08/urban-park-piazza-darmi-laquila/
http://arqfuture.com/
http://europaconcorsi.com/projects/204347-Parco-Urbano-di-Piazza-d-Armi-L-Aquila


INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION - Un Parco Urbano per Piazza d’Armi

HONORABLE MENTION

————

DESIGN TEAM:

Alessandro delli Ponti  

with  Federico Bernetti, Ferdinand Schmelzer, Marco Teofili, Davide Curatola Soprana, Ilaria Novielli, Paola Corciulo

-

CONSULTANTS:

Maestro Carlo Bernardini (Brera Academy)

Letizia Martinelli (Consultant - Bioclimatic Sustainability) 

Marc Blume (Consultant - Landscape)

-

PUBLICATIONS :

http://www.paisea.com/en/2012/08/urban-park-piazza-darmi-laquila/

http://arqfuture.com/

http://europaconcorsi.com/projects/204347-Parco-Urbano-di-Piazza-d-Armi-L-Aquila


Knowledge-Scapes an Interview with Herman Hertzberger

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
Knowledge-Scapes an Interview with Herman Hertzberger

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 
Strategy vs. Impromptu


A Conference of Alessandro delli Ponti
University of Ferrara (IT), Department of Architecture
20.4.2012, 10h00

GRAND PARIS

Strategy vs. Impromptu



A Conference of Alessandro delli Ponti

University of Ferrara (IT), Department of Architecture

20.4.2012, 10h00

EUROPAN 11 _ REIMS
"The Collaborative Landscape"

Alessandro delli Ponti, Camille Alwan, Ilaria Novielli

EUROPAN 11 _ REIMS

"The Collaborative Landscape"


Alessandro delli Ponti, Camille Alwan, Ilaria Novielli

Paesaggio Urbano /// SPECIAL ISSUE  Knowledge Landscapes                   
                                   Notes for an anthro-political approach to architecture and the city 
                                   An interview with HERMAN HERTZBERGER
by 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

Paesaggio Urbano /// SPECIAL ISSUE  Knowledge Landscapes                   

                                   Notes for an anthro-political approach to architecture and the city 

                                   An interview with HERMAN HERTZBERGER

by 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
Notes for a Trans/National_Inter/Continental Mediterranean Capital City
 
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.
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.

THE  POSSIBILITY OF AN ISLAND

Notes for a Trans/National_Inter/Continental Mediterranean Capital City

 

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.

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 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

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

Alessandro delli Ponti and Camille Alwan are presenting 
Mannheim’s Connection at the European Forum 2014
——————
BERLIN - Akademie der Kunste
—
4th July 2014

Alessandro delli Ponti and Camille Alwan are presenting 

Mannheim’s Connection at the European Forum 2014

——————

BERLIN - Akademie der Kunste

4th July 2014

Alessandro delli Ponti and Camille Alwan are presenting “Mannheim’s Connection” at Europan France conference at CHAILLOT - Cité de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine de Paris. 11.4.2014
-
full program here:
http://www.europanfrance.org/actualites/single/29

Alessandro delli Ponti and Camille Alwan are presenting “Mannheim’s Connection” at Europan France conference at CHAILLOT - Cité de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine de Paris. 11.4.2014

-

full program here:

http://www.europanfrance.org/actualites/single/29

"Mannheim’s Connection" _ A relational Story
First Prize   -   EUROPAN XII                           
Team Leaders : Alessandro delli Ponti - Ilaria Novielli  
Consultants : Camille Alwan, Marc Blume
Collaborators : Clelia Bartolomei, Verdiana Spicciarelli

"Mannheim’s Connection" _ A relational Story

First Prize   -   EUROPAN XII                           

Team Leaders : Alessandro delli Ponti - Ilaria Novielli  

Consultants : Camille Alwan, Marc Blume

Collaborators : Clelia Bartolomei, Verdiana Spicciarelli

AIGP - Atelier International du Grand Paris

Atelier du Grand Paris

Alessandro delli Ponti at the AIGP

Paesaggio Urbano /// DOSSIER SPECIALE  GRAND PARIS III
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)

Paesaggio Urbano /// DOSSIER SPECIALE GRAND PARIS III

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)


INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION - Un Parco Urbano per Piazza d’Armi
HONORABLE MENTION
————
DESIGN TEAM:
Alessandro delli Ponti  
with  Federico Bernetti, Ferdinand Schmelzer, Marco Teofili, Davide Curatola Soprana, Ilaria Novielli, Paola Corciulo
-
CONSULTANTS:
Maestro Carlo Bernardini (Brera Academy)
Letizia Martinelli (Consultant - Bioclimatic Sustainability) 
Marc Blume (Consultant - Landscape)
-
PUBLICATIONS :
http://www.paisea.com/en/2012/08/urban-park-piazza-darmi-laquila/
http://arqfuture.com/
http://europaconcorsi.com/projects/204347-Parco-Urbano-di-Piazza-d-Armi-L-Aquila


INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION - Un Parco Urbano per Piazza d’Armi

HONORABLE MENTION

————

DESIGN TEAM:

Alessandro delli Ponti  

with  Federico Bernetti, Ferdinand Schmelzer, Marco Teofili, Davide Curatola Soprana, Ilaria Novielli, Paola Corciulo

-

CONSULTANTS:

Maestro Carlo Bernardini (Brera Academy)

Letizia Martinelli (Consultant - Bioclimatic Sustainability) 

Marc Blume (Consultant - Landscape)

-

PUBLICATIONS :

http://www.paisea.com/en/2012/08/urban-park-piazza-darmi-laquila/

http://arqfuture.com/

http://europaconcorsi.com/projects/204347-Parco-Urbano-di-Piazza-d-Armi-L-Aquila


Knowledge-Scapes an Interview with Herman Hertzberger

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
Knowledge-Scapes an Interview with Herman Hertzberger

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 
Strategy vs. Impromptu


A Conference of Alessandro delli Ponti
University of Ferrara (IT), Department of Architecture
20.4.2012, 10h00

GRAND PARIS

Strategy vs. Impromptu



A Conference of Alessandro delli Ponti

University of Ferrara (IT), Department of Architecture

20.4.2012, 10h00

EUROPAN 11 _ REIMS
"The Collaborative Landscape"

Alessandro delli Ponti, Camille Alwan, Ilaria Novielli

EUROPAN 11 _ REIMS

"The Collaborative Landscape"


Alessandro delli Ponti, Camille Alwan, Ilaria Novielli

Paesaggio Urbano /// SPECIAL ISSUE  Knowledge Landscapes                   
                                   Notes for an anthro-political approach to architecture and the city 
                                   An interview with HERMAN HERTZBERGER
by 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

Paesaggio Urbano /// SPECIAL ISSUE  Knowledge Landscapes                   

                                   Notes for an anthro-political approach to architecture and the city 

                                   An interview with HERMAN HERTZBERGER

by 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
Notes for a Trans/National_Inter/Continental Mediterranean Capital City
 
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.
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.

THE  POSSIBILITY OF AN ISLAND

Notes for a Trans/National_Inter/Continental Mediterranean Capital City

 

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.

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 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

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

About:

info@khstudio.org



Architecture, Landscape, Urban Design, Events and Strange Ideas called Theory.

KH_STUDIO is a cross-disciplinar group of young European Professionals deeply interested in new collaborations and ideas exchanges.
It is a flexible and evolutive meeting point invented and nurtured, since 2010, by Alessandro delli Ponti, Davide Curatola Soprana and Marco Teofili.
Its phisical foundations are set in Rome and Paris.
In 2013 Camille Alwan, architect and urban designer integrated the Parisian unit of KH.

Old and new friends are welcomed to start a new adventure together !

Following:

WWF
***
IFC