Map+Posts

In order of appearance on blog:
Fernando - ROME 1960: The Olympics as a Catalyst for Urban Change
Olivia - United Colors of Tiburtino : Neorealism and the Search for a New Vernacular
Yao - Stazione Termini in Esquilino: Towards a Locus Solus of urban Dystopia
Agnes - The Roman Palazzina
Khaleel - Development of the EUR: A Representation of Fascism
Heera - The Colosseum through times: Functions and Symbols
Esther - Circus Maximus: A Contemporary Public Space
Melissa - The Sporting Complex: Stadio Olimpico and its’ Fascist Influence
Matt - Villa Doria-Pamphili: Evolution of an Emerald from Private to Public
Peter - Tuscolano: Neorealism and the Peripheral Development of Postwar Rome
Shichun - The Ex-slaughterhouse in Testaccio: Survival through Reuse
Anjuli - The Garbatella: The "Garden City" and its Community
Maria - Prati: The Other Rome
William - Corviale: A Controversial Housing Implementation

ROME 1960: The Olympics as a Catalyst for Urban Change

Mega-events such as Universal Expositions, World Fairs and the modern Olympic Games are short-term occasions that, since their inceptions, have consistently had a major impact on the urban system. They posses a unique ability to restructure civic plans and priorities, to form discussions about usage after the event, to promote urban redevelopment, and are instruments of ideologies that enthusiastically promote economic growth.[i] As a recent article in the International Journal of the History of Sport stated, “There is a constant intimacy between Olympic development and the evolution of host cities.” This assertion is greatly substantiated when discussing the Summer Olympics of 1960, when the Italian capital, Rome, secured the rights to host the Games of the XVII Olympiad. The Roman Games established a turning point in the Olympic history, as they became an archetype of the mega-event as a catalyst for significant urban change. From this spectacle in 1960 onwards, the Games began to have several extensive consequences on the local built environment, as the Olympic venues and infrastructure became key elements of the comprehensive urbanistic intervention.[ii] In addition, this physical capacity of the Olympics has generated several other effects, including a new image of the host cities and an enhanced sports culture.

To secure the hosting rights of the 17^th Olympiad, Rome had to compete in an unprecedented race against fifteen other candidates, including four European and seven American cities. In June of 1955, after four failed attempts, the International Olympic Committee finally declared Rome as the next Olympic headquarters. Although the Second World War had ended a decade before, these Games were to be the first ones staged after the period of post-war austerity, thus amassing a potential to create great change. Indeed, the Olympic plan that was carried out over the next half-decade in Rome truly presented the Games as a forceful trigger for major urban development and improvement that went well beyond the construction of sports facilities.[iii]

With five years to prepare for the 1960 spectacle, the city of Rome sought to develop three focal zones for Olympic activities, and to design a comprehensive system of transportation infrastructure throughout the city. The main sporting facilities were clustered in three separate sites, two in the northern outskirts of the city, and one in the southern periphery, thus stretching the built area in two directions. The organizers capitalized on these areas where relevant facilities were already available: the Foro Mussolini sports complex constructed during the Fascist Era; the Flaminio area which had for several decades retained a particular character devoted mainly to sports events and leisure; and the E.U.R., a district south of the city center that was initially designed as an extraordinary setting for the 1942 Esposizione Universale Romana (E.U.R.), which never occurred because of WWII.

Announced in 1927, the original Foro Mussolini became the boldest new project announced by the Fascist regime. Completed in 1938, the sports complex reflected the regime’s efforts to undertake projects beyond those dealing with ancient sites in the historic center. Instead, the Foro would offer Rome a new “city” devoted to sports, physical fitness, and youth—a city of physical education in the tradition of the ancient gymnasium but in a modern form consistent with the regime’s program.[iv] Thus, its use as an Olympic center was an appropriate decision. Renamed the Foro Italico, the complex housed the revamped 80,000-seat Stadio Olimpico (formerly Stadio di Cipressi), the upgraded Stadio dei Marmi, the new Stadio del Nuoto, and the completed area in front of the immense Palazzo della Farnesina.

Across the river, in the Flaminio district, several more projects were realized. The old Stadio Nazionale was replaced with the new Stadio Flaminio, while the Palazzetto dello Sport, an indoor arena designed by Pier Luigi Nervi, was constructed to host boxing matches. The foremost project in Flaminio, however, was the construction of the Olympic Village. This residential complex boasted 1,800 apartments that would house all 5,348 participating athletes and their coaches.[v] After the two-week spectacle, the apartments were subsequently handed over to the state, and became the most successful intervention of public housing in the city.

More so than the vast Olympic Village at Flaminio, the most ambitious project assumed during this time was the revamping of the E.U.R. site. Although the district had originally been designed as the fairgrounds for the 1942 Rome Universal Exposition, the Olympic preparations nearly two decades later stimulated a major redevelopment. Some of the most important sporting facilities of the city were constructed here during this period, including the Palazzo dello Sport (today the nation’s largest sport arena), the Piscina delle Rose (swimming pool), the Laghetto dell’EUR (artificial lake) at the central park, the Tre Fontane sports training area, and the recently demolished Velodromo for track cycling competitions. In total, nearly three billion Liras were spent in the redevelopment of EUR.[vi]

Aside from the actual facilities constructed or improved at the Foro Italico, Flaminio and EUR, a major aspect of the Olympic plan was the network of roads that would connect these sites, located at opposite ends of the city periphery. Thus, the decision to use the Foro and EUR as Olympic clusters not only brought back to life images of the Fascist regime, but required the longest and most costly highways to link them. Two were built, running north-south at either edge of the city, and stimulating real-estate development all along their routes. Thus, Rome gained from infrastructural improvements undertaken with the Games in mind, especially the new roads and bridges built to connect the Olympic venues.

The main clusters were connected by a new thoroughfare called the Via Olimpica (Olympic Way), built just in time for the Games in 1960. During its construction, the Via Olympic was very controversial for being exceedingly expensive and laborious, and was nicknamed “the trail of gold,” in large part because it seemed that the extensive pathway was built to raise the value of nearby lands. Connected the Olympic Village and the Foro Italico in the north with EUR in the south, the Via used stretches of existing roads throughout its course, before crossing the Flaminio bridge (1951) and into the Olympic Village. The Corso di Francia, built between 1958 and 1960, was an elevated viaduct that bypassed the newly constructed Olympic Village and across the Tiber River, connecting Via Cassia and Via Flaminia with the center. In all, $2.8 million were spent on the network of internal roads, $6.4 million on the external road network, and another $3.5 million on the connection from north to south of the city. This was in addition to the $21 million spent to construct Fiumicino Airport, which was inaugurated just five days before Opening Day of the Games in 1960. As the total investment on the Olympic Games was approximately $45 million (64 billion Liras), 75 percent of the total expenses were set aside specifically for transportation-related infrastructural investments. Incidentally, this road network was the largest project of the Olympics, occupying 75 percent of the total land used for the event (12). These lavish developments even led to requests for the annulment of the next Summer Games because of the increasing scale and complexity of the Olympic urban commitment (13).

Aside from the Olympics-related projects discussed, the city also developed a new water supply system, new hotels, a new jetport, improved public transport, street lighting and illumination of monuments, and numerous decorative improvements to the city’s urban landscape. Thus, in many ways, Rome used the occasion in 1960 to reinforce its permanent facilities and urban infrastructure. The 1,800 apartments that housed the athletes in the Olympic Village were used after the Games as low-income housing. The Flaminio area as a whole was revitalized, after years of being covered with barracks. Major traffic routes amplified for the Games now accommodate the ever-increasing use of private automobile activity throughout the metropolis, especially the Olympic Way and the Corso Francia. Many of the sports facilities built or improved for the Olympics continue to be in use today, including the Olympic Stadium at the Foro Italico, the Palazzo dello Sport in EUR, and the Palazzetto dello Sport in Flaminio.[vii] Investing more than a third of all the funding for the Olympics on the airport at Fiumicino, Rome finally acquired its major international connection to the world.

In summary, the Rome Olympics of 1960 was a defining moment in the history of the modern Olympic movement, as it became the first major Olympiad to trigger a wide range of lasting urban improvements. Unlike the earlier productions of the Games, the Olympic sport spectacles since 1960 on have retained a vigorous tendency to stimulate and accelerate major developments such as new road systems, public transport initiatives, air terminals, urban renewal programs, tourist and cultural facilities, and parks and beautification projects designed to enhance the city’s landscape and environment. Indeed, the expenses involved in staging an Olympic celebration are now so excessive that host cities can often only justify the expenditure when it is seen as leading to a major program of regeneration and improvement. Thus, it can be said that the modern Olympics have developed from a comparatively small-scale beginning, and emerged as a remarkable catalyst of urban change and a considerable instrument for urban policy.[viii]

There are certain implications that surface as the modern Olympics continue to increase in scale and infrastructural requirements. Originally set out to be a celebration of human physical ability and cooperation through sport, it seems that the immensity of the spectacle has overshadowed its original philosophy. Most athletes are now professionals rather than amateurs (think of the 1992 NBA “Dream Team”); the Games have become dependent on commercial sponsorships and television rights (both of which first came into the picture during the Olympics in Rome); and the infrastructural commitments and scale of investment are so imposing that no Olympic Games have yet to be staged in South America or Africa. It will be especially interesting to observe what course the Olympic movement takes in future stages, as the most recent production of Beijing 2008 has certainly proven. The decision to allow the Chinese capital the hosting rights—despite concerns about mass displacement of entire communities, environmental hazards, human rights abuses, television coverage restrictions, a 40-billion-dollar production cost, etc.—was an indication of the International Olympic Committee’s interest in host cities and countries that are willing to extend themselves to their limit to stage a successful Games. Perhaps the Rome Games nearly half a century ago spoiled the Olympic Committee, opening its eyes to a new and incomparable spread of possibilities and influence that could be achieved through the Olympic Games, and justified in the name of fair play.

---

[i] Hiller, Harry H. “Mega-events, Urban Boosterism and Growth Strategies: An Analysis of the Objectives and Legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 24.2 (2004): 450-1.

[ii] Liao, Hanwen, and Adrian Pitts. “A brief historical review of Olympic urbanization”. International Journal of the History of Sport. 23.7 (2006): 1232-3.

[iii] Gherarducci, Mario. I Giochi sono fatti: La storia, i personaggi e i resultati delle Olimipiadi dal 1896 ai nostri giorni. Milano: Zelig, (1996).

[iv] Painter, Borden W. Jr. Mussolini’s Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, (2005). Pg. 14-15.

[v] Gherarducci, Mario.

[vi] Gold, John R., and Margaret Gold. “Olympic Cities: Regeneration, City Rebranding and Changing Urban Agendas”. The Authors Journal Compilation. (2008): Pg 305.

[vii] Kirk, Terry. The Architecture of Modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton Architectural Press, (2005).

[viii] Kitchen, T. “Cities and World Events". Process, Town & Country Planning. 65.11: 1996. Pg 314-316

Olivia Cho_9: Tiburtino

United Colors of Tiburtino:

Neorealist Architecture and the Search for a New Vernacular

"They had strange forms, with pointed roofs, little terraces, dormers, round and oval windows: people began to call the place Alice in Wonderland, Magic Village, or Jerusalem..”

-Pasolini (Casciato 36)

[INA-Casa Tiburtino housing project, 1949-54]

Just beyond the fringe of the city, Tiburtino stands ambiguously in its multi-colored, playful facades, celebrated by its inhabitant yet dismissed by its very designers. Constructed between 1949 and 1954, it is the earliest one of INA-CASA housing projects, and a paradigm of neorealist architecture. By the second-half of the twentieth century, neorealism gained a new momentum as conceptions of modernism shifted in parallel with the new reality of the Italian state and its democratic ideals. Diverging from rationalist and fascist attitudes, the new ideology was in search of a vernacular language that was rich in tradition and sensitive to the needs of the ordinary, common individual facing the repercussions of the war. Such was the case with the architects of Tiburtino, whose goal was to provide a remedy for housing shortage through the design of “architecture on the human scale” (Casciato 45). Tiburtino was thus a comprehensive project in scope, attempting to find an equilibrium between social values and functional yet organic design, and ultimately testing architecture’s limits in realizing that ideological pursuit.

[INA-Casa Tiburtino housing project, 1949-54]

History: Towards a New Democracy

By the end of the war, housing became one of the chief concerns in Italy’s reconstruction, as six percent of housing or “over two million rooms” were damaged (Kirk 156). Efforts began by establishing governmental and financial structure from 1944 to 1948, paving the way to the planning and executing of large housing projects by the end of the decade. Tackling the problem of unemployment and lack of housing was a considerable task, and these social goals had to work in sync with the overall design in a speedy yet effective manner.

It was certainly an ambitious project that had ethical and social underpinnings, and to challenge the architects even further, they were to institute a new aesthetic and artistic expression stripped away from Fascism and adhere to the principles of a new democracy. While the former style was dictated by a rational, monumental, and academic tradition, detached from the “architecture of daily life” indifferent to the individuals, the new design was to critically consider the psychological, social, and material needs of the individual and the society at the same time (Casciato 32).

[Palazzo della Civilta del Lavoro, example of Italian Fascist architecture]

This idea was first elaborated in Bruno Zevi’s 1945 Towards and Organic Architecture, in which he proposed an architecture that was not bound by authority, but one that was functional from technical, social, and psychological point of view. It is by no surprise that in the Manuale dell’ Architetto (The Architect’s Handbook), a mass produced handbook created in 1946 which set up criteria for the fields in architecture and planning design, proposed solutions stemming from the idea of an organic architecture. The manual drew its references from the elements of German functionalist as well as craft techniques, which would later be realized in Tiburtino. Organizations like APAO (Associazione per l’Architettura Organica) and various literatures, including the journal Metron, also propounded upon the idea of a more authentic and “realistic” architecture giving emphasis on the people who occupy it.

These conceptions were soon to be realized in 1949 through the Fanfani Law, which spawned the growth of large-scale housing projects nationwide. The national insurance institute INA (Istituto Nazionale per le Assicurazione) oversaw and executed the housing legislation INA-Casa until it expired in 1963. The INA-Casa Tiburtino complex was one of the earliest of its prototypes and a significant one, embodying a wide scope from the architectural component to its very details. The overall plan was designed by Mario Ridolfi, while Ludovico Quaorni focused on the aspects of urban planning. The complex was situated in an L-shaped area of 88,000m2 to accommodate about 4000 inhabitants. Along with its 770 apartment units, there were shops, social centers, as well as sports facilities and green spaces.

[site plan of Tiburtino housing complex]

In Context: Back to the Roots

What was most compelling in the vision for Tiburtino was thus the humanistic approach. It was an approach away from rigidity and towards a “continuity” that Ernesto N. Rogers in Casabella stressed in 1952. It was a comprehensive ideology responding to the postwar reality, which left the nation fragmented and in desperate search for a cohesive national identity, not just in the realm of politics, but the Italian culture as a whole. By means of referencing back to a common, shared history, tradition, and culture, it aimed to make a connection back to the ordinary individuals occupying that reality.

[Vernacular Roman builings as precedents for Tiburtino]

Through this nostalgic lens neorealism entailed a strong emotive participation. This is epitomized in Tibertino, where the principal design goal was to give “careful consideration of habits, local traditions, climate, latitude, and altitude, local construction materials, crafts, workmen, and building systems…bearing in mind the spiritual and material needs of a man, of a real man and not an abstract being” (Casciato 33). This intimacy and sensitivity towards tradition was achieved through a plan reminiscent of a medieval Roman village, fostering a more intimate setting and a sense of natural growth of a local community.

In place of austere and abstract geometries of modernism, a more fluid continuity was introduced to provide mediation between public and private spaces (Casciato 29). Along with distorted winding roadways, housing blocks were organized into clusters, opening up public spaces, allowing multiple viewpoints and stimulate both architectural and social interaction. This composite experience that the Tiburtino project attempted to render “was exploiting to the utmost emotions that a man walking along the street might experience” (Casciato 43).

Building: Finding the Dialect

Consequently, social obligations, psychological values, and architectural design had to all work in tandem to generate a quick yet comprehensive and functional solution. The general strategy focused on bringing in a local dimension, from the use of local workers, material and technologies to the very layout of the complex. Tiburtino project thus attempted to go back to the humble roots, mimicking “folk flavor” of traditional villages (Casciato 34). Yet it also had to consider the necessity and urgency of the postwar economic situation, accommodate high density and minimize building costs.

[Different building typologies in Tiburtino]

The 770 flats in Tiburtino were arranged in three building typologies, consisting of row houses, apartment blocks, and free-standing apartment towers, and ranging in height from three to eight floors. In addition to alternating heights and elevations with staggering rhythms that conform to the undulations of the site, plans rotate in such a way as to open up spaces with varying vistas. The composition gets more interesting in further detail. Row houses form triangular linkages, while loggias retain irregular forms, balconies begin protruding, and inclined roofs decorate the top. The institutional housing that would have been otherwise monotonous and devoid of character is now articulated and modulated through fragmentations and ruptures.

[staggering rhythm shown in elevation]

The architects were also concerned with traditional techniques and materials for detailing and construction. The exterior of row houses are covered with plasters, and underneath are layers of tufa stones with courses in brick. Plastered surfaces also cover apartment towers, which have frame construction of reinforced concrete. These surfaces are then painted with “Roman earth tones,” which are derived from local iron ore deposits. If the choice of materials is a straightforward borrowing from the rural peasant tradition, the design of minor details such as window shutters and railings of balconies and stairs take the Roman dialect one step further by giving them a modern touch. In effect, Tiburtino had an air of spontaneity and idiosyncrasy as it drew its inspiration from multiple sources and synthesizing different materials and forms: the housing models of Scandinavian and German-speaking countries and combining them with local tradition. Neorealist language in this way was not an entirely new one, but rather a rediscovery and re-activating of an existing vernacular. It was an amalgamation of sorts, heterogeneous in character.

[Colors of facades reminiscent of Roman earth tones]

Experience: A Cinematic Approach

The polychromatic character of Tiburtino share many commonalities with neorealist cinema. It was from the neorealist cinema from which the architects picked up the sensibility to rediscover and celebrate the “arcane Italy – the Italy of the common folk” and attempted to actualize it into architecture (Casciato 26). In both cases, a new sense of democratic identity was portrayed through its respective mediums.

[Bicycle Thieves, 1948 by De Sica]

In neorealist films, the democratic ideal was represented by dividing narratives into fragmented episodes, which contrasts with the unitary character of the fascism. Their goal was to depict “truth” and reality of these ordinary individuals whose lives were marked by the struggles they faced in search for a new life. The use of vernacular language and dialects, amateur rather than professional actors, and on-site film locations made it all the more realistic. In neorealist films, this culminated in a plot that involved actual, believable problems and characters (Bondanella 34). For example, in Vittorio De Sica’s 1948 film Bicycle Thieves (see film clip), an unemployed man finds a job, loses a precious bicycle, and wanders throughout Rome to find the thief without success (Landy 136).

[Bicycle Thieves, 1948 by De Sica; trailer]

In the same vein, neorealist architecture was in search for a new vernacular. Again, moving away from a hierarchical scheme, they brought together disparate elements and arranging those fragments in random fashion that resembled the spontaneous character of village, whereas neorealist films used fragmentation to represent spontaneous character of the lives of individuals. They were hoping to create a space “where each building had its own distinct physiognomy and everyone can find their home, feeling their own personality reflected in it” (Terranova 5).

Conclusion: Alice in Wonderland?

Aspirations of the new democratic state found its way into architecture in Postwar Italy, and neorealist architects put considerable effort to embody those ideals into the project, as seen in the INA-Casa Tiburtino quarter. Yet the project received criticism based on its nostalgic vision, and the effort to imitate a village-like neighborhood was dismissed for its artificiality. Designers of the project themselves repudiated it the pursuit for the picturesque, and critics labeled it as being exotic, baroque, and fantasy-like. The problem seemed to lie in the notion that the variety and spontaneity it tried to achieve was imposed upon the project in a deceiving and illusionistic way, making it appear as though the complex had been laden with history and built over time.

[Corviale vs. Tiburtino]

Regardless of the reception, from the perspective of an ordinary individual, Tiburtino is admirable because it gave respect to local culture and color such that current inhabitants are “enormously proud of their housing complex and maintain it beautifully” to this day (Ghirardo 2). Was not this the very premise of the project, to make connection back to the people? While housings such as Corviale have fallen into despair because its residents find it dehumanizing, it is still embraced by architects for its monumental and idealized architecture. Such a paradoxical contrast now raises the question of what really constitutes success in social housing.

___________________________________________________________

Sources:

Bondanella, Peter E. Italian Cinema: From Neorealism to the Present. Ungar film library. New York: F. Ungar Pub. Co, 1983.

Casciato, Maristella. “Neorealism in Italian Architecture.” Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture. Ed. Sarah Williams Goldhagen and Réjean Legault. Montréal: Canadian Centre for Architecture, 2000. 25-53.

Ghirardo, Diane. Modern Currents Along the Tiber. The American Institute of Architects Committee on Design. 10 May 2009 http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=ced/places.

Kirk, Terry. Visions of Utopia, 1900 - Present. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2005.

Landy, Marcia. Italian Film. National film traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Scrivano, Paolo. "Ludovico Quaroni, Mario Ridolfi: barrio INA-Casa Tiburtino, Roma = INA-Casa Tiburtino neighborhood, Rome." 2G: Revista Internacional De Arquitectura = International Architecture Review. 15 (2000): 28-35.

Terranova, Antonio. The Design of the City. 10 May 2009. http://upcommons.upc.edu/revistes/bitstream/2099/3255/1/018-033_El%20dise%C3%B1o%20de%20la%20ciudad.pdf

STAZIONE TERMINI IN ESQUILINO:TOWARDS A LOCUS SOLUS OF URBAN DYSTOPIA

Locus Solus: a singular place, which works as the relationship of architecture to the constitution of the city and the relationship between the context and monument.
-Aldo Rossi, Architecture of the City

History and Background:

The Esquilino hill, one of the Seven Hills of Rome, was traditionally a residential area of the rich and privileged. Its distance from the congested city center and availability of relatively cheap land, as well as the cool windy weather attracts the affluent city population to built villas and palazzos. The presence of leisure facilities such as the Bath of Diocletian further identifies the area as a high quality living quarter with tertiary service activities.

In 1863, Pope Pius IX opened the first termini station on the site of villa Montalto-Peretti , the station was constructed in 1868 and completed in 1874, based on the design by Salvatore Bianchiby. In 1937, in preparation for the planed 1942 world fair in Rome (which was never held), a new station was conceived to replace the old with a modernistic design by Angiolo mazzoni. Following the collapse of the Fascist Government in 1942, construction was interrupted and the current station in use was completed after a competition in1947 by two teams of architects: Leo Calini and Eugenio Montuori; Massimo Castellazzi, Vasco Fadigati, Achille Pintonello and Annibale Vitellozzi

The insertion of this piece of monumental infrastructure has stimulated much turbulence and change in the Esquilino neighborhood. Being Italy’s largest multi-ethnic district today, its transformation or so called degradation by Romans started long before the arrival of the immigrants. Its traditional affluent residents deserted it because of the chaos brought by the mobile population through the train station. The following lack of maintenance of the existing facilities further reduced the quality of the urban space, catalyzing its later occupation by the poor immigrant communities.

Lesson of Esquilino “Degradation”:

- The imposing modernity

Modernity flourished after the industrial revolution and rise of the machine age. Modern architecture favors styles that simplify forms and eliminate ornament. Form follows function. These shifts in aesthetics and paradigm result in the production of an urban landscape with imposing monuments of machines.

The above image of the Termini imposing itself over the off-scale neighborhood has a curious resemblance to the photomontages of the “continuous monument” of Superstudio, In this project, the architects expressed concerns over the possible future when modern technology and culture renders the world uniform with a single continuous environment. Every point in the built world would be identical and neutral, without a distinct identity. The modern obsession with speed and efficiency has created the new orthodox of converting the historic city center into glorified railway intersection. The monotony and length of this modern machine of efficient transportation isolates itself from the continuous and richly composed Roman cityscape, hence generating a locus around it also detached from the urban landscape which follows its own modern development.

- The Paradox of futurism and tradition

In Piranesi’s etching “caceri d’invenzione” depicting an imaginary prison interior, he conveys an important idea: irrational and rational are no longer mutually exclusive. The problem of resolving equilibrium of opposites is fundamental to the concept of architecture.

In the Analogous City, through fragmentation, repetition and collage of types in his architecture and drawings of the city, Rossi expresses the same ‘equilibrium of opposites’ that Piranesi’s drawings proposed.

At Termini station, the con­tin­u­ous strip win­dows and dy­namic struc­tural lines ex­pressing the Fu­tur­ist idea of speed and stream­lin­ing, juxtaposed with the ancient Servian wall in front of the building façade, conveys a similar idea. The radical future adjacent to the ancient past, this collision is an apt manifestation of time and change in architecture. The dramatic contrast between the modernistic, even futuristic train station and the historic urban fabric creates a tension which disjoins the Termini affiliated area with the rest of the city, making it an isolated locus.

-The ambiguity of identity

The Greek-Italian surrealist painter Giorgio de Chirico was famous for his metaphysical depictions of Italian cities. These imagery often included long porticos and colonnades, solitary monuments and figures, dramatically cast shadows and contrasting classical architecture with a new model of monumentality of the industrial age. They convey a suspended temporality, a blaze outlook prevalent in modern cities with nostalgia for the past in memory.

The two-kilometer long side structure of the design by Angiolo Mazzoni remains part of the current-day station. The parallel between this modern side façade clad in stone and glass and a roman aqueduct raise the question about the identity of this architecture. Is it modern or inherently archaic?

The ambiguity of the monumental architecture also blurs the identity of the neighborhood. Is it ancient or modern? Is it Roman or international? All people have a human desire to retain unique identity. A person’s past fulfills some inherent notion of a person’s individuality. When the monument of the locus does not provide a strong identity for the context, people define themselves by their past and memories. The Romans left for a traditional cityscape they identify with, while the immigrants settle for the multi- faceted modernity in the locus solus.

Within the Locus Solus:

Today, immigration has been the driving force behind the transformation of Esquilino. With the influx of immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Balkans and South America, of the 1,300 or so commercial premises operating in the district 800 are Chinese-owned, 300 are run by immigrants from other countries and some 200 are owned by Italians. Although the Esquilino is excluded from the city’s reconversion into an upper-class district, the socially segregated community within the locus solus develops their own rules and standards which stimulates a different urban development in the locus towards a globalised ethnic town which in the eyes of the Romans, an urban deterioration and dystopia.

It is also interesting to compare Rome with Manhattan and their reception of modern public infrastructure. Rome being a public city, the insertion of public infrastructure created a locus solus with logic different from the rest of the city. On the other hand, Manhattan being a private capitalist city, the insertion of public infrastructure like the Grand Central Station is well received by general public and fully integrated into the urban fabric. Maybe the tradition in Rome is so prevalent that any imprint of modernity, especially public projects with greater social impact, would easily create anomaly in the city landscape, becoming a locus solus of urban dystopia.

work cited:

Architecture of the City: Aldo Rossi

Toward an Architecture: Le Corbusier

Rossi’s Poetics of the Fragment: The Physical (the City) and the Temporal (Memory)

http://www.limacon-design.com/Rossi_Poetics.pdf

Patterns of Segregation in Contemporary Rome, Pierpaolo Mudu

http://education.washington.edu/areas/ci/courses/documents/rome_2008/Italy_immigration_diversity/Pierpaolo_Mudu.pdf

Roma Segreta http://www.romasegreta.it/esquilino/stazionetermini.htm

Futuristic art during the Fascist Government

Giorgio de Chirico and surrealist mythology, Roger Cardinal 2004

http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/papersofsurrealism/journal2/acrobat_files/cardinal_article.pdf

Agnes Ladjevardi - The Roman Palazzina

The Roman Palazzina

Palazzina: a building type and an exception to the type.
The Roman palazzina is both a building type and an exception to the model. The palazzina type was officially instituted in 1934 during the updating of Rome’s 1931 Regulatory Plan. Its dimensions are strict: twenty-five to thirty-five meters wide, three to four stories high (seventeen meters). Its structure is compact, and is of parallelepiped form. The roof’s surface cannot exceed the two thirds of the ground floor surface. The requirements of the palazzina type reach into the smallest details: windows and balconies also follow prescribed dimensions (Passieri and Figorito, 2007). Inner structure is often the same between palazzine: each holds about eight apartments, usually two or three per floor. Palazzine are characterized by setbacks: from the ground level, as they are often elevated aboce it, but most often from the street, behind a gate, and from the adjacent buildings. The palazzina is a floating urban element. The later palazzine have driveways that lead into underground or surface parking. The palazzine are also characterized by a simplicity in form: most are functional blocks, whose facades are only broken by balconies and terraces for the upper floor.

[Image 1: a Roman street lined by palazzine: the street's horizon is low, the impression is of low density although the atmosphere is urban, the buildings stand apart like islands, behind fenced private roads, balconies abound, facing the public or the private spaces.]

But many palazzine also provide variations from the type. Many Italian architects of the 20th century turned to the palazzina type to test new architectural principles, most notably rationalistic, modernistic and neo-realistic trends. It is the clarity and strength of the palazzina type which make it an experiment ground for architects. Ridolfi’s Palazzina Mancioli I and II, and Moretti’s Palazzina Girasole are two of the first modified palazzine built in the 1920’s. They clearly belong to the palazzine type, but manage to break from it and infuse in their design 1920’s rationalist ideas: the dominance of simple bodies, clear sections, bright white of materials, assymetrical design, exaggeration of language, raised ground floors.

[Image 2: Il Girasole, built by Moretti, in 1949: a modernistic variation from the palazzina type]

The later part of the 20th century sees less architectural effort put into the modification of the palazzina type. Private developers replicate the simplest palazzina type all over Rome’s periphery, creating in the eyes of some, an exploded urban fabric (Portoghese, 1975).
Listed at the end of this essay are numerous other architecturally valued palazzine. But these must not make one forget that the strength of the architect’s palazzine lies not in its exception to the rule, but in its capacity to still belong to a type, however much it tries to break away from it.

[Image3: Developer-built palazzine, today, in Rome's periphery]


The palazzina as building block of the Roman urban fabric.
More than a building type, the palazzina must be integrated to a larger context. Together, the palazzine create an urban fabric for Rome. This fabric could be viewed as discontinuous, as the palazzine act as islands, disconnected from the road and surrounding buildings by setbacks, and occasionally elevated from the street level. Buildings stand alongside each other with no relationship between them, separated by negative strips of fences and greenery.

However, the repetition of the palazzine patterns creates a coherent urban fabric. The following images show how the palazzine creates a particular urban condition which can be qualified as coherent: that of inward as well as outward looking blocks, with hold complex interactions between semi-private streets, private open spaces, and the public road. The following images compare this building form to the Haussmann style perimeter blocks of Rome as well as with the old Rome fabric. Perimeter blocks create an orderly urban form, which celebrate the street front, and create a dichotomy between private space (inside the perimeter block apartments and in its middle courtyard) and public space (the block creates the street space). Old Rome marries the open space into the built space, creating a fragile equilibrium between negative and positive spaces. The Palazzine, on the other hand, creates a shapeless fabric with innumerable interactions between private spaces and public spaces. Portoghesi, in his article “Palazzina Romana”, speaks of the “discontinuous fabric” (tessuto discontinuito) of the Pallazine, as opposed to the “continuous fabric” (tessuto continuito) of the old Roman buildings (Portoghesi, 1975).

[Image 4: the perimeter block]

[Image 5: the palazzine city: viewed from above, not very different from a 19th century American suburb]

[Image 6 old Roman urban fabric]

[Image 4, 5, 6: Three building typologies give Rome three different urban fabrics. The urban fabric created by the palazzine building type is coherent, albeit less structured than that of the adjacent images]

Buildings become islands connected by a common typological language, and the negative space in between them fully participate in weaving all the palazzine together, in order to create a seamless, unified and coherent space.


Palazzine allow citizens to imagine an urban suburbia.
The aerial image number 5 is striking in its resemblance to the settlement pattern of American suburb: cul de sacs, winding roads, detached structures which deconstruct the road space, abundance of greenery. However, we are here in the middle of a city, and the atmosphere of palazzine neighborhoods, although residential and pleasant, is definitively urban. Just as in suburban layouts, the urban fabric created by palazzine is full of negative spaces. These spaces are opportunities: they allow palazzine areas to be green. The position of the palazzine within blocks create spaces which do not belong to the public realm. Edges between palazzine are invested by an unplanned green agenda: they become gardens which separate one building from the other, from which trees grow and contribute to make the street green. Imagining an urban suburbia is thereby rendered possible by palazzine: the negative spaces allow buildings to appear as islands in green, and allow more intricate private street systems to be created.

[Image 6: the urban suburban landscape of the palazzine streets: green is omnipresent and jutting out from the interstices between palazzine]

Palazzine is a social building type.
Still more than a building type, or a building block for a particular urban fabric, the palazzina is a social building type. Originally, the palazzina is not an urban element. It is born from the adaptation of a rural and aristocratic building into an urban element: the “palazzina” is the small shelter or hunting building, flanked by the Renaissance “Palazzo” (Portoghesi, 1975). From the start, the “Palazzina” is ripped from context and squashed into an urban space too small for it. Historically, therefore, the palazzina is a mockery of inversed logics. From a small building standing within a large amount of open land, the palazzina is widened and heightened, and squished into a small parcel of urban land.

The 1920’s sees the beginning of the palazzina as a wide-scale housing type. The1909 Development Plan for Rome elects the palazzina type as a housing solution (Portoghesi, 1975) for its compactness and easily repeatable form. At that moment, the population of Rome sees itself increase by more than one million from 1.7 to 2.8 million inhabitants between 1951 and 1971. The high migration to cities and the growing consumption of floor space results in a greater housing demand and an unprecedented construction activity (Comune di Roma, 1991, p. 21). The palazzina is at that point progressively alienating itself from its aristocratic origins.

The post-war palazzina receives a second wave of attention following the growth of Rome. The postwar urban development boom updates the peripheral “borgate” fabrics, which were mainly self-built housing, into palazzine for the working class (Kreibich, 2000). Once again, the palazzina’s simple and habitable form becomes the model for housing development: “Since 1945, after a decade of prestigious buildings, simple residential complexes became the most important type for the first time” (Grundmann, Furst, 1998). The palazzina building type turns into the physical symbol of a certain citizen and a certain life-story: the working to middle class migrant, newly arrived to the booming postwar city. The palazzina becomes the receptacle of the “poetics of poverty” (Grundmann, Furst, 1998): its language is vernacular and neo-realistic, as a reaction to the fascist era. The San Paolo area, South of the Basilica, holds examples of such palazzine. But Parioli, which is also made up of palazzine, is a high-end bourgeois enclave.

Palazzine can therefore be invested both by popular and upper class lifestyles and ideals. It proposes a standardized mode of living, common to all. It can be inhabited by the newly arrived urbanites, the upper-middle classes, the new suburbanites, the elderly Romans. It is the epitome of the habitable type, or the universal dwelling type. It is also a hopeful type, in that it proposes semi-dense urban living with all the qualities of suburban life.

Renowned Palazzine
The relevance of such a list is questionable, because the majority of palazzine were not designer built, hence providing a list of architecturally valuable palazzine might mislead one to think of the palazzine type as an elitist type.

Palazzina, 1920-1922, Marcello Piacienti, Viale Lengi, 40 Palazzina Furmanik, Mario de Renzi, 1935-38, Lungotevere Flaminio 18
Palazzina di Via Maria Adelaide 6, Gino Franzi, 1936, Via Adelaide 6
Palazzina Salvatelli, 1939, Gio Ponti, Fornaroli, Via Eleonora Duse, 53
Casa Cooperativa Astrea, Luigi Moretti, 1947-49 Via Jenner 27-29
Villino Alatri, Mario Ridolfi, 1948-49, Via Paisello 38
Il Girasole, Luigi Moretti, 1949-50, Viale Brunno Buozzi, 64
Palazzina Zaccardi, Mario Ridolfi,1950-51Via de Rossi 12
Palazzina, Bruno Zevi, 1950-51,Via Pisanelli 1
La Tartaruga, Ludovico Quaroni and Carlo Aymonino, 1951-54, Via Innocenzo X 25
Palazzina in Via di Villa Grazioli, Cesare Pascoletti, 1953-55, Via di Villa Grazioli


Bibliography.

Argenti, M., Spesso, M., “Architettura Dimenticate del ‘900”. Web 2009.

Comune di Roma (1991). Roma in cifre. Rapporto sulla citta% 1991. Rome

Grundmann, S., Furst, U., 1998, “The Architecture of Rome: an architectural history in 400 individual presentations”, Axel Menges edition.

Kreibich, V, 2000, Self-help planning of migrants in Rome and Madrid
Habitat International, 24: 2, p.203

Muratore, G., 2007, “Roma: guida all’architettura”, 2007, Edizione L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Passieri, A., Figorito, A., 2007, “La Palazzina Romana degli Anni ‘50”, Facolta’ di Architettura, Roma Tre

Portoghesi, P., 1975, “Palazzina Romana”, Casabella, 407, pp.17 – 25.

Development of the E.U.R: A Representation of Fascism

This report examines the ways in which the design principles of modern architecture has been combined with the principles of classical architecture and implemented to construct the section of Rome, known as the Rome Universal Exposition, or the E.U.R.  The E.U.R. is not only interesting because it is a fusion of these two distinctive architectural styles, but because it was designed to be the embodiment of fascism and fascist architecture in the city of Rome. As a result, many buildings in the E.U.R. are undeniably modernist in their style and use of materials, but also represent Classical Roman design principles, such as columns, porticos and central courtyards.  This paper examines the development of the E.U.R, how it differs from other modernist developments during the period in which is was planned and built, the history of movements in architecture leading up to this fusion of styles and the theory behind these decisions.

Mussolini announced the foundation of the Italian empire on May 9, 1936, and a month later, the government of Rome applied for the World Fair.  Their application was accepted.  As a result, the largest international exhibition was planned for the year of 1942, to mark the anniversary of Roman fascism (Grundman, 320).  The plan for E.U.R. was not simply a plan for a temporary show as most World Fair plans are.  Instead, it was part of a grandiose vision for the city of Rome.  Stefan Grundman explains, it “was not conceived merely as an exhibition, but its permanent buildings were intended to form the core of a future imperial city; a third Rome according to Mussolini’s own statement, extending from the southern borders of Rome to the sea (Grundman, 320).”  The plan for the E.U.R. was and continues to be the embodiment of Roman fascism and its resultant architectural style. It intended to be a new Renaissance that would influence the rest of the development of Rome (Architettura, 729). These characteristics differentiate the E.U.R. from all other World Fairs.

Before such a spectacular vision could be executed, Mussolini had to commission the architects.  In an article written by Alessandra Stanley, she explains that these architects were young, convinced fascists who were constructing buildings that would promote the fascist propaganda.  Architectural Historian, Giorgio Ciucci describes the E.U.R. as, “a revolutionary movement based on youth and radical change.  Architects were the interpreters of revolution (Stanley).”  The architects who designed the E.U.R. had to choose an appropriate architectural style that would represent the fascist regime, which was a fusion of modern architecture as well as classical design.  In the two decades leading up to 1937, when the plans for the E.U.R. began, Italy had seen many shifts in architectural thinking.  With the arrival of futurism, Italy again assumed a leading role in European art, in which the principles of art transferred into the manifesto of futurist architecture.  Agitator and poet, Filipo Tommaso Marinetti (1876-1944), was the key figure in the foundation of the whole futurist movement.  On February 20, 1909, he published a Futurist Manifesto in the Paris Figaro that glorified technology, aggression, speed, human masses, militarism and war, in an extreme manner.  He called for the destruction of museums, libraries, and colleges; he stated:

We care nothing for the past, we young, strong futurists!…Seize your pick-axes, your knives and your hammers and fear not venerable cities to pieces, without mercy!...Standing erect on the summit of the world, let us once again hurl our challenge at the stars (Kruft, 403)!

These Futurist sentiments were ubiquitous and crossed over into all segments of life, especially architecture.  The idea was to employ technology as much as possible and reject history.  As a result, buildings were constructed with concrete and steel, and had more complex geometric forms.  Symbolically, this break with tradition was a representation of modern life.

            Likewise, Italian architect Sant’Elia joined the Futurist Movement.  He viewed the modern city as one comprised of reinforced concrete, iron, glass, and synthetic textiles.  In his book, a History of Architectural Theory from Vitruvius to the Present, Hanno-Walter Kruft sums up Sant’Elia’s ideas about the modern city:

Modern houses must resemble giant machines: in place of staircases they are to have elevators which wind their way up the glass and steel facades like snakes.  The houses themselves are to be of cement, iron, and glass, with no painted or moulded decoration – their beauty will be found in their lines and their simplicity.  The house is to be ‘remarkably ugly in its mechanical simplicity’ [ . . . ] poised on the edge of a noisy ravine in which, below the houses, multi-level streets, underground railways and escalators are to be found (Kruft, 404).

Many movements followed the futurists, such as the Il Novecento architects, who in 1923, set out to combine national traditions and modernity.  They accepted these new ideas on modern architecture, but also incorporated elements of the Classical Roman style as well.  Similarly, Marcello Piacentini, who was one of the leading architects of the E.U.R., served an editorial role for Architecttura e arti decorative and Architettura (1932-43).  During his time editing for these popular magazines on architecture, Piacentini published numerous articles to explain the shift he witnessed in architectural development from the expansive modernity of his youth to the monumental neo-classical buildings and urban planning initiatives he undertook as an architect at the command of Mussolini.  Piacentini always regards architecture as existing within a geographical and historical continuum; this can be seen in his work as one of architects planning the E.U.R. (Kruft, 407).

*The images below are both plans for the E.U.R., published in a 1938 edition of the magazine, Architettura.

Historical forms were a defining part of architecture in Rome for very long time, until the mid 1920s when radical changes in architecture began to take place in Italy as a result of Movimento Italiano per l’Architettura Razionale, also known as MIAR.  This movement is one of many; others were occurring in Germany, France and the Netherlands.  All of these movements were aimed at developing a modern formal language of architecture that was committed to the industrial age and are responsible for the form of architecture known as the International Style.  The principles of modernism that resulted from this movement are a rejection of historical decoration, as a means of stressing the “beauty and functionality of the machine.”  Many modern buildings also have pure, smooth forms that are usually white, with floating volumes that replace rigid, heavy walls.  Modern architecture also replaced the order of symmetry with asymmetry. 

Likewise, the MIAR followed these principles. It forbade historical decoration and developed a new geometric form.  However, the Italian movement differed from the International Style in that it believes: “an awareness that Modern architecture is also part of a long and exciting line of architectural tradition [ . . . ] and has to use this to find types for new kinds of buildings (Grundman, 320).”  This uniquely Italian idea that modern architecture is not antithetically historical is evident through out the design and construction of the E.U.R., which is a cluster of several completely planned street blocks containing buildings in the modernist style that have clean, white facades made of smooth exteriors with a lack of surface decoration as a way of highlighting the architectural form of each unit.  Nonetheless, all of the classical elements are there as well: colonnades, porticos, interior courtyards, symmetry and the Roman arch.  This montage of two stark contrasts in architectural style is a uniquely characteristic of the E.U.R., as most of the buildings at that time that were going up all over Europe and the United States, were a rejection of history.

This signature architectural style was unique to the E.U.R. and became the manifestation of fascism.  The plans for the E.U.R. were created in stages with many architects, including Marcello Piacentini, Guiseppe Pagano, Luigi Picinato, Ettore Rossi, Luigi Vietti and Giorgio Calza Bini.  The development plan is comprised of imposing buildings and strict axiality, intended as a way of metaphorically articulating the power of the fascist rule in Rome.  The buildings designed for propaganda also have a preponderance of pure forms and stress space and light over functioning as a way of captivating people and inviting them into the fascist ideology (Grundman, 297).  Architecture was Mussolini’s favorite form of propaganda.  It also speaks to people on another level as well; as former Senator Cini, “The Rome Universal Exhibition is above all an act of faith in the destiny and constructive capacity of the Italian Nation, a solemn affirmation of its will to act, and act in the field of international collaboration (Architettura, 723).”  To convey this method, there are examples of spaces that were named to tribute foreign countries, such as Piazza J. F. Kennedy and Viale America.

The buildings also convey much about Rome’s architectural history on their exteriors as well.  While the Palazzo dei Ricevimenti e dei Congressi is flanked a large symmetrical portico on its exterior, the inside precisely articulates different volumes, juxtaposing open and closed surfaces—this is a very classical approach to architecture.  However, the building is also very modern.  It uses materials such as glass and steel and has a clean white surface.

*The image below to the left is the exterior of the Palazzo dei Gongressi; the image to the right is the interior.

The E.U.R. expresses the language of classical architecture as well as modernism on multiple different levels.  The buildings have classical elements such as colonnades, porticoes and interior courtyards, but are also very modern in their materials used, such as glass, steel, and concrete.  The E.U.R. differs greatly from other examples of modernism dating from the same period; while most of the world was building in the international style and rejecting historical architectural elements completely, the E.U.R. was actively combining both to create a new Roman center that represented the fascist government.

More Photos: 

Works Cited:

Architettura. “The Rome Universal Exhibition 1942.” December 1938.  Note of the

Magazine.

Grundman, Stefan.  The Architecture of Rome. London: Stuttgart, 1998.

Kruft, Hanno-Walter.  A History of Architectural Theory from Vitruvius to the Present. 

New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994.

Reid, Graham. EUR, Italy: the Facades of Fascism. 11 June 2007. Elsewhere. 5 May

2009. < http://www.elsewhere.co.nz/travelstories/297/eur-italy-the-facades-of-fascism/>

Stanley, Alessandra. Rome Journal; Italy’s Fascist Building in Style, and for Sale. 12 July

2000. New York Times. 6 May 2009. < http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/12/world/rome-journal-italy-s-fascist-buildings-in-style-and-for-sale.html>

The Colosseum through times: Functions and Symbols

The Colosseum, one of the most important Symbols of Rome cannot be understood so simply as just the first permanent amphitheater to be erected in the city of Rome. The Colosseum is a result of a complex set of relationships and interactions from the time it was built to the present day. In this entry I aim to ‘simplify’ and break down elements of the Colosseum in order to better translate it.

The Colosseum has a rather complex history of containing inside of it various functions, versus outwardly constructing a space of Rome and consequently defining what the city is. This site-specific structure has not only influenced the physical fabric of the immediate city but also the rest of the world both literally and also in a less tangible sense by representing the image of the city itself.

The Colosseum has not only changed physically and functionally over time but has also changed in terms of its relationship with its urban context, people, the means by which it is accessed and how Romans, tourists and the world in general relates to this structural wonder.

Colosseum = Amphitheatre
Before we begin to discuss all these relationships, it is essential that we familiarize ourselves with the very basics of this ingenious architectural and engineering marvel.

View of the Colosseum today

The Colosseum sits in the valley between the Palatine, Esquiline, and Celian Hills. Despite the damage it has endured over the centuries because of fires, earthquakes and looting, after 2000 years it still remains an incredibly powerful Symbol of the city.

The Colosseum, (formerly known as The Flavian amphitheater) was certainly the most impressive arena the Classical world had yet seen. It was built in an area occupied by a manmade lake adjoining the Domus Aurea (Nero's Imperial residence), at the behest of Vespasian and was inaugurated in A.D. 80 by Titus with games that are said to have lasted 100 days. It was completed by Domitian and restored by Alexander Severusus. The amphitheater was used for gladiatorial spectacles, animal hunts and capital punishment.

The Colosseum is in the shape of a grand ellipse that spanned 187m by 155m, with tiers of seating for 50,000 spectators around the central arena. Below this wooden area level, there were a set of complex chambers and passageways built for wild beasts and other provisions required for the spectacles. From the arena, eighty walls radiate and buttress the vaults for passageways, stairs and the tiers of seating. On the outermost edge circumferential arcades link each level and the stairs between the levels.

The construction utilized a careful selection of materials: concrete for the foundations, travertine for the piers and arcades, tufa infill between piers for the walls of the lower two levels, and brick-faced concrete used for the upper levels and for most of the vaults.

Colosseum = Prototype
The Colosseum is one of the most famous, and instantly recognizable monuments to have survived from the classical world. So famous, in fact, that for over seventy years, from 1928 to 2000, a fragment of its distinctive colonnade was displayed on the medals awarded to victorious athletes at the Olympic Games as a symbol of classicism and of the modern Games’ ancient ancestor. The Colosseum’s tiered seating could once accommodate for 50,000 seated and 10,000 standing, all of whom could enter and leave in a matter of minutes, courtesy of 80 entrances. This amphitheatre used for bloody gladiatorial combats was a radical invention of a new typology of the stadium.

Stadium in Los Angeles

The Colosseum, which is seen as an extremely classical monument, was in fact very avant-garde for its time. Not only did it invent this new stadium typology and push structural limits, it also created a new architectural language that questioned and reinvented a façade using classical elements in a new composition.

Its façade was originally graduated from simple Doric at ground level, to Ionic on the second and ornate Corinthian on the third, using these orders as metaphors of the larger social structuring of Roman society, from the nobility through the merchant classes. The articulation this facade has been a powerful regulating influence upon the facade aesthetic of buildings through to present times. The most notable of these was perhaps Renaissance palazzi such as Palazzo Rucellai in Florence, with its rusticated ground floor, piano nobile and top floor stacked with the different classical orders.

Colosseum = Container of Functions
The Colosseum, built by 80AD to house gladiatorial contests and public spectacles was used for contests well into the 6th century however it underwent many radical changes in terms of its function during the medieval period.

By the late 6th century it was used as a religious space and a small church has been constructed into its structure and the arena was converted into a cemetery. The numerous vaulted spaces under the seating area were used for housing and workshops, and were being rented as late as the 12th century. Soon after the 12th century the Frangipani took control over the Colosseum and converted it to function as fortification by using it as a castle. The Colosseum later functioned as a quarry after much damage was inflicted upon it such as the great earthquake in 1349. The materials looted were reused to build palaces, churches and hospitals around the city. In the mid 14th century a religious order began to occupy a part of the Colosseum and they used it as a shrine until as late as the early 19th century.

When Pope Sixtus V came to power, he found the treasury exhausted and the city full of beggars and unemployed. He decided to develop the export trade by reviving the old Roman wool and silk industries by transforming the Colosseum into a wool-spinning establishment, though this proposal fell through with his premature death.

In 1749, Pope Benedict XIV endorsed as official Church policy the view that the Colosseum was a sacred site where early Christians had been martyred. He forbade the use of the Colosseum as a quarry and consecrated the building to the Passion of Christ and installed Stations of the Cross, declaring it sanctified by the blood of the Christian martyrs who perished there, however there is no historical evidence to support Benedict's claim.

Originally an entertainment and sports arena to a religious space, housing complex, a fortress and then a shrine, the Colosseum today serves as an archeological ruin. The Colosseum can thus be seen as a container of functions.

Colosseum = Nucleus
The Colosseum can be perceived as a large cylindrical object anchored into the fabric of the city and according to Corbusier, its beauty lies in its volumetric form; it is part of a collection of platonic solids strewn across the city that portray a clear, tangible image that anyone can instantly relate to.

The Colosseum should not however be seen just this abstract volume that can embody whatever function successively fills it because it also strongly resists merely being a container as such. On the contrary, it can also be seen as an inverted Piazza because of its outward influence to its immediate site and the rest of the city both physically and symbolically.

The Colosseum is a ‘new’ urban artifact whose constitution has contributed to the growth of the city. It behaves almost as an inserted nucleus (part of a collection of other monuments and locations) around which the city has slowly crystallized.

The activities linked to the original uses of the Colosseum manifested as many buildings that came up around it. For example to its east lie the remains of Ludus Magnus, a training school for gladiators that was connected to the Colosseum by means of an underground passage. Apart from training schools there were the Armamentarium, comprising an armory to store weapons, the Summum Choragium, where machinery was stored, the Sanitarium, which had facilities to treat wounded gladiators, and the Spoliarium, where bodies of dead gladiators were stripped of their armor and disposed of. There was also an accommodation in the Castra Misenatium for the sailors who works the retractable roof or velarium.

The transformation of the city due to this nucleus continued centuries later; in March 1588 Sixtus V opened the new road from the Colosseum to the Lateran. This lead to great building activity close to the Colosseum as the countryside became much more dense.

Maps showing the change of density before and after Sixtus V's intervention

Colosseum = Rome
The Colosseum has acted as a tool for shaping and reshaping the urban fabric of the city over time in response to how people perceived and used it not just physically, but also iconographically.

The Colosseum hosts millions of visitors every year and is the most popular tourist destination spot in Rome. Many tourists who have a very limited time in the city try to capture all of Rome by visiting this monument. Even though the Colosseum is a major urban icon it is impossible to encapsulate the whole of Rome in a single image. From their very naïve point of view, they associate this image as representative of the entire city.

Even though Romans do not at all have such a narrow-minded association between the Colosseum and their city, it still remains as a major Icon to them as well. The Colosseum is not just a Symbol they take pride in but also a physical Presence in the city due to its immense scale. Despite the Colosseum’s complex history of changing conditions over time, it has always been constant in its aspect of representing the city in a single image.

Colosseum = Backdrop
In the post modern city the Colosseum has become a frozen but powerful image of time. Similar to the Caracalla baths, this gigantic structure has become an untouchable chunk that is immensely crucial to the city yet ‘unused’. It is in a sense over-preserved – it can be seen as a mighty giant sitting in the center of the city in a very deep coma, yet ever strong and powerful since it still exerts its own agency on the urban fabric.

Today the function of the Colosseum is not just an archeological ruin where people can imagine and recreate its history but it is actively being used because of its strong iconography. The Colosseum even now after 2000 years astonishingly and amazingly still works – but as a Backdrop. The building has been translated into the contemporary fabric of our society through films (such as Ridley Scott's Gladiator), concerts and literature.

After discussing various important aspects of the Colosseum and how it has come to be we can consequently reflect on how people’s relationship must have changed to this structure over time. Unfortunately, we do not have the chance to be able to experience the energy or spectacle of the Colosseum the way other people were privileged to in the past. I feel that in the present day our perception of the Colosseum has taken a 180-degree turn: At one point in time it was shamelessly exploited and used it as a quarry as its pieces were broken up and distributed around the city; today however we have reached a point of extreme over-preservation, where we have great value for the monument and also its parts that are dispersed and reused around the city.

The Colosseum, as you can see has actively or passively been a major player in many aspects of the world from the day it was first conceived. My translation of the Colosseum to map out its extremely dynamic evolution used the most critical examples to illustrate its depth, however there are many more events that have caused or been caused by this structure. The Colosseum is not just a superblock landmark in the network of Rome but a living, breathing organism like a city in itself that has grown out of the land of Rome.

Works Cited
"The Colosseum, Rome, Italy - information and booking." Italy Online. 10 May 2009 (http://www.tickitaly.com/galleries/colosseum-rome-italy.php).

"Colosseum." Wikipedia. 13 May 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum#Ancient).

Corbusier, Le. Toward an Architecture. Frances Lincoln ltd, 2008.

"Essential World Architecture: Roman Colosseum." Italian Architecture. 12 May 2009 (http://www.italian-architecture.info/ROME/RO-017.htm).

Giedion, Siegfried. Space, Time and Architecture The Growth of a New Tradition, Fifth Revised and Enlarged Edition (The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures). New York: Harvard UP, 2003.

Hopkins, Keith, and Mary Beard. The Colosseum (Wonders of the World). New York: Harvard UP, 2005.

"Lectures." H i s t o r y O n l i n e. 10 May 2009 (http://www.sahistory.org.za/franco/lectures-index.html).

"Roman Colosseum - Rome, Italy - Great Buildings Online." Architecture Design. 13 May 2009 (http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Roman_Colosseum.html).

Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. MIT P, 1982.

Watkin, David. A history of Western architecture. Laurence King, 005.