Re: Icing On the Cake!

On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Marco Almeida Carrico wrote:

> Do you feel that for example the Rio de Janeiro favelas are Architecture?

Sorry, I'm not familiar with favelas.

> But my point is that whoever build the favelas had not that idea. They
> dont want transmit any idea, they just want a place to live. We can only
> say that man has a natural atitude to organize himself with others, and
> that is urbanism not architecture. But favelas are not planned so we can
> not say that it is urbanism.

Are you saying that there has to be a totalising idea before their can be
urbanism? How would you compare the evolution of Venice, where it was, as
I have come to understand it, in part a self-organized development
influenced by markets, importation and not an 'idea' and Paris, where in
its history, Haussman(SP?) had an 'idea' and imposed new linear
boulevards. Does planning = urbanism? I would say that there is a bit of
both in urbansim, a plan that allows for unforseen evolutions, such as
self-governing bodies. So, to say that Speer's plan for Berlin was more
architectural because of the 'idea' it wanted to express than these
favelas where it is not architectural because no idea existed prior to
their making is leading to a question of intentionality. Clearly their
probably was not a plan for the growth of the favelas, that was drawn or
conceived, but their was a plan immanent in the intentions of the people
who build them( I am assuming these are built by the occupant). Their is
criteria developed by a group as to road width, height(according to
available structure, and so on. These criteria, I am saying, is the
expression of the people, it is their 'idea' that is manifest in their
construction. It is not self-consciously, likely, an expression but it is
expressive of the decisions that they make. Paris would be an example of
a construction where the idea is from one person being thrown down upon
the rest in domination and control. Is this the expression you consider
urbanism? I don't think so. But as I said before, urbanism(of which I
have had little direct study) is a interaction of those people expressing
themselves in a un-self-consciousness and those who read this(the trained
urban planners) and put parameters down for positive change, but not
progress, which could be misread as utopian, which would get us into
another discussion...

> Architecture is to have and idea and think how to make that idea work.

But how that idea is generated is of utmost importance. This statement of
yours sounds as though ideas are separate from any context and imposed
back onto a context. That is what I am reacting to here.

> I dont, honestly. Architecture needs construction. I mean Architecture
> has to be constructed, otherwise it is just a drawing on a paper. But
> what I want to say is that Architecture is NOT sinply constructing walls
> and a roof. It has to have meanings, express feelings and organize our
> society!
>
Again, how do you understand projects like Piransei's drawings? They
are/were particularly expressive and influential of an idea(and this is
not to reduce it, hopefully) about depth of space in perspective versus a
labyrnthian space. These drawings were never built but seem to me
important to architecture. Well, I think you are right in saying
architecture is not only(simply) construction. But construction can be
expressive, have meaning, and orgainze society, i.e. industrial revolution.

scott