Italian Architects Look to Replicate Success of N.Y. High Line in Rome | Hacker News Reader

Italian Architects Look to Replicate Success of N.Y. High Line in Rome

npr.org

47 pointsascertain22 comments

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.

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....

> 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.

Venice actually does feel a bit more monotonous to me, even though you can clearly see different period styles. Most of Venice's history happened in a relatively shorter time frame than many Italian cities. Here in Padova there are everything from Roman ruins (and they've dug up even older stuff) to modern buildings. Venice has none of the Roman architecture because it got its start much later.

Paris isn't too bad. The Louvre Pyramid, Centre Pompidou, much of Palais de Tokyo (e.g., National Museum of Modern Art in Paris), Parc de la Villette, Musée du quai Branly.

I think it's inevitable that any international city with loads of history will struggle to find opportunities for urban renewal that reaches the typical tourist.

Actually this is much more true of Paris than Rome. Paris was basically all rebuilt in the same period of time with ideals of uniformity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Par...

We learned that the automobile industry will warp our built environment and perception to sell people cars.

> the same architecture

It's not, though! It's over 2000 years of architecture, and there are a lot of different things that have happened in that time. Granted, like anywhere, certain kinds of architecture are more represented than others, but still, there's a lot going on there.

I don't particularly like Rome as a city - it's too big, noisy, chaotic and loud for my tastes - but as a tourist destination... you could spend a year there and not see half of what it has to offer. (And not just because of strikes, inconvenient hours, or 'temporarily closed for rennovations'!)

The problem is, here in Italy, we are over-defensive towards the "artistic soul" of a city, often refusing to modernize some areas just because a lot of people think it could "ruin" the artistic soul of the whole place.

Another example is in Turin where there was a battle to try to stop the build of the first skyscraper because it could be higher than the Mole Antonelliana, the main monument of the city. In the end the skyscraper was built but they forced the architects to make it high just some meters below the height of the Mole. And still today there are protesters who say it ruined all the city.

Trying to modernize even some peripheral areas of Rome will be really hard.

I hear you man, I'm Italian and sometimes the architecture feels suffocating. Beautiful, but... suffocating. It's like being inside a giant cemetery.

At least it is an often beautiful cemetery.

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.

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.

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.

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/...

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

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."

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...

...than Seattle's?

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/washington/seattle/librar...

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://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2012/01/Pict...

And here's the author's replacement:

http://www.architectmagazine.com/community-projects/fire-isl...

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.

The best talk I've ever seen on this exact problem is this talk http://blog.ted.com/james_howard_ku_1/

And I find myself strongly agreeing with Kunstler on a great many of his points.

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

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.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com