

Italian Architects Look to Replicate Success of N.Y. High Line in Rome - ascertain
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/03/05/390986262/italian-architects-look-to-replicate-success-of-ny-high-line-in-rome

======
danso
Thank god...Of the big cities I've visited as a tourist, Rome was the one that
most quickly lost my interest. The architecture and history is of course
amazing...but after more than two days of seeing the same architecture, over
and over...I just had to get out. I don't know how many other Italians feel
like this, but what one resident told me stuck with me: "Yes, we have
thousands of years of architecture and art, but very little of it is _ours_
[i.e. created by the current generation]"...I know the OP discusses a project
that is on the outskirts of the old city, but if it becomes a successful
reality, maybe it'll spur additional creativity and development.

In New York, it's always distressing to see landmark buildings get paved over
for condos, and even the High Line has lost a small bit of its appeal with all
the new high-rise condos sprouting around it...but after visiting Rome, I had
a much bigger appreciation for the vitality that comes with change...and in
the five years I was there, the good seemed to at least even out the bad. The
High Line was probably the best change. There was a time when 7-11s threatened
to take over the city, but when I left, the location on St. Marks Place was
shuttered after less than a couple or so years. Hell, even the Apple Store in
Grand Central ended up being a good thing...until it opened, that part of the
Terminal was inaccessible to anyone who wasn't a guest of the overpriced
restaurant that was there.

~~~
pesenti
You could say the same for Paris, Venice, Prague, etc. I feel the opposite of
you: these cities fill me with a sense of beauty that no modern architecture
is able to match. And their urbanism, centered around piazzas and dense
walking centers with low rise buildings, is so much more human and enjoyable
than any American city. It makes me wonder what we have learned in the past
300 years....

~~~
gaadd33
> These suburbs are dominated by huge, gray, unattractive public housing
> projects.

I'm guessing the above commentator was referring to the parts of European
cities outside of the historic city centers. It seems very similar in the few
German cities I've wandered around extensively, you have a great walkable low
rise center with lots of mixed use and then just bland same looking housing
blocks outside of that.

The European city centers tend to be far better than their American
counterparts but I would argue the suburbs mentioned are worse
architecturally.

------
carsongross
Whenever I see stories like this I always wonder why we don't talk about (and
get shouted down when we do try to talk about) the failure of modern
architecture and urbanism. It's great that they are trying to turn lemons into
potable lemon-flavored water, but there is almost no self-reflection on how we
ended up with lemons in the first place. The fear of looking insufficiently
progressive and innovative has caused huge damage to our built environment,
and it simply isn't discussed in polite society.

There are symmetries between this and the current fad of flat UX: we had
discovered what worked (UX visual easements using faked depth), had become
bored with it and noted that some unsophisticated people overused and misused
these techniques (symmetric with the stuffy and occasionally cartoonish
classicism of Golden Age building) and pitched the entire thing in the garbage
can, starting afresh on top of what turn out, for users, to be horrible ideas.

~~~
bluthru
So many reasons:

* Developers spend a whole lot less on the built environment today. They don't care about contributing to the urban fabric as much as they care about cost per square foot.

* A century ago, 5% of building costs were systems. Today, half of a building's cost is the stuff between the walls. Buildings are "more machine than man now". There is very little time or money left for Architecture in most cases.

* Almost every building component is mass produced.

* HVAC and electricity has allowed people to care a whole lot less about intelligent passive systems and daylighting.

* There isn't a market incentive to make buildings last for over a century. (Let alone three decades.)

* Developers want flashy crap that makes their building unique in non-subtle ways rather than a building that reinforces community and the urban fabric.

~~~
sayangel
This is so sad, but true. I've talked with a lot of architects about how
virtual reality can revolutionize the way they design and a lot of them always
end up telling me that the visual portion is often overruled by the numbers.
Especially when dealing with real estate developers its all about the bottom
line.

My hope is virtual reality will bring the human element back into
architecture.

~~~
bluthru
It all sort of clicked for me when I realized Modernism was no longer a style
or a democratization of architecture but rather a reflection of a lack of
investment in the built environment.

I'm actually a lapsed architect. I was really passionate about making great
communities and urban environments but the realities of capital and our
political structures just don't make that feasible right now. What an
unfortunate industry where the best buildings were created a century ago. Who
wants to be apart of that?

Regarding VR helping architects: Maybe? Robots CNC'ing interesting facades
might help even more. Unfortunately technology has been used by architects to
undercut other architects, and not for the benefit of the building. This is a
fantastic article that I agree with:

[http://www.utexas.edu/architecture/center/benedikt/articles/...](http://www.utexas.edu/architecture/center/benedikt/articles/less.html)

~~~
sayangel
I'll definitely have to give that a read.

Have you seen this Marc Kushner talk?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hha0NsYXS5c&feature=share](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hha0NsYXS5c&feature=share)

Would love to hear what you think. He kind of argues that historical buildings
are no longer the best ones nor the only way for us to build great things. And
that "Architecture is not about math or zoning — it's about visceral
emotions."

~~~
bluthru
Good building design is independent of time and style. The NJ library he
linked to is garbage not because it's aping classicism but because it's
poorly-designed flippant junk. People want to see care and craft no matter the
style.

Are old libraries best-suited for modern programmatic requirements? No. Does
New York's Public Library's reading room make you feel better...

[http://m7.i.pbase.com/o3/89/198089/1/108166607.2tKeYd60.libr...](http://m7.i.pbase.com/o3/89/198089/1/108166607.2tKeYd60.librectprojectionredo5.jpg)

...than Seattle's?

[http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/washington/seattle/librar...](http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/washington/seattle/library/0112.jpg)

Of course.

Seattle's Public Library is really clever with daylighting and its book
spiral, but it will simply never be the civic statement that NY's library is.

\---

Frank Gehry's Bilbao was an anomaly, but that hasn't stopped architects and
developers from trying to get their name in the public's conscious.
Individualism when it comes to buildings is so overrated. People don't visit
Paris, London, Barcelona, Venice, etc. because they have signature buildings,
they visit because there's a communal form language to form a strong identity.
Buildings are a supporting role, but people don't want to admit that.

So here's the original pavilion that burnt down:

[http://markatlarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Fire-
Islan...](http://markatlarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Fire-Island-
Pavilion-before-fire.jpg)

[http://queerty-
prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2012/01/Pict...](http://queerty-
prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2012/01/Picture-725.png)

And here's the author's replacement:

[http://www.architectmagazine.com/community-projects/fire-
isl...](http://www.architectmagazine.com/community-projects/fire-island-pines-
pavilion.aspx)

Thew new project seems like it has more in common with an OMA (Rem Koolhaas)
competition entry than the waterfront. Why the over-scaled cross-bracing for a
two story structure? Why does everything have to be triangular? How much more
did this cost than just making a building similar to what existed? Is it
really so innovative to create an expensive, over-wrought building with an
"architecture" stank on it that looks more contextual on Architizier than the
physical site?

Marc seems to be encouraging flashiness for the sake of instagram likes rather
than what makes sense long term for the locals.

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

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

~~~
simonebrunozzi
I met the mayor once here in Silicon Valley, Ignazio Marino. Former world-
class surgeon, who pioneered liver transplant from babboons. Brilliant person.
I am Italian, living in San Francisco, and of course I keep following what's
going on in Italy. I've never seen a politician as competent, and well
intentioned, as this one.

Rome is a political mess, and has been a mess for two thousand years, but
there's some hope.

------
bane
I love the High Line. These kinds of off-elevation parks are wonderful escapes
in a busy city.

Another fantastic park along a similar theme is Cheonggyecheon in Seoul.
Except it's a river and below street level.

The more of these the better.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon)

