I think that the No-places are developing through the dynamics of the contemporary society. Marc Augè is an anthropologist of the ancients civilities and he says that the our current society is destroying the concept of place as is happened in the precedents societies. The place has three characteristics: Identity, which marks the identity of the people of that place;Historic, because the place remembers to the person is roots;Relational, identifies the relationships between the people This kind of characteristics are not in the structure of the contemporary society that are used for the transit, transport, commerce and fore the free time: Airports, stations, hotels aren’t thought fore the specific man different by the each other but for a generic man allocated by a document or a credit card. These architectonics structures all very similar in the conception and idea of the space.The traditionalists places have a sedentary society with defined confines. No-places are the spaces of the standard where nothing is occasional but everything is calculated: lights, time, displacements, stays, information. These are the only space where is realized the dream of perfect habitats for efficiency and technological comfort.The globalization is the price paid in the figurative terms: no-place are the same in every city of the world:
Monument or anti-urban Icons?
If a reference that has represented the authority for generations of architects, not only Italian, since the mid-Sixty – more than 7 editions in various language of “The Architecture of the City” had been published in 1986 – underscores the importance and necessity of monuments as a constant in the urban structure, it means that an interdependency between exceptional character of a single building considered as a representative and the general building tissue is recognized and recognizable. Not only does Aldo Rossi assert that the “architectural form of the city is exemplified by its single monuments, each of which is a separate individuality” , an individuality that he however defines as its own alterity. In this interpretation a building becomes monument when its image, that is independent and individual by virtue of exceptional nature, express permanent and collective values of the city that is home to it, and that it represents. If we transpose this idea of city to the landscape, the scenario pf reference does not change in terms of mutual dependency between setting and monument. Consequently the growing tendency to build eye-catching construction that conquer a place in the media, that we have witnessed since early Nineties with the proliferation of individualistic approaches to architecture, meets the needs of particular hedonistic companies and customers rather than those of the city and its inhabitants, as they do not bear witness to a value represented by a synthesis of the part embodying the aggregate, but rather a pursuit taken to extremes, of a self-assertion where the architecture is considered on a par with any other communication and marketing instrument. This scenario is characterized by proliferation and self-regeneration of the star system that, gaining monument from uncritical juxtaposition of exceptional buildings, paradoxically ends up with destroying the very idea of the monument, its necessary solitude, its indispensable difference manifested within a homogeneous morphological structure where the peculiarities are clearly limited to the indispensable. Beyond this, all that remains is the unnecessarily showy appearance of icons without real meaning.
.jpg)
.jpg)
