Part 1: The city and its in-between spaces

Architecture can transform the way a city works. How can a single piece of architecture transform the in between of the city? Is this amount of responsibility appropriate? It is neither a good thing nor a bad one, but it is entirely possible. In Rome, the Fascist monument, 'the wedding cake', redirected street patterns and changed the way the city at that moment looks. The responsibility must, though, be taken with great care. 

Amy sees multiple scales to Allen's discussion on 'the form in between.' When she visited the Cooper Union building in New York, she felt the outside of the building to be an object, a form. But, on the inside the form of the in between can be seen between people and between paths of circulation. The interior is an 'in between' in this case and operates on a much smaller scale than the urban one. The ability to change the way the interior of the Morphosis building works is not nearly as large as changing the direction of traffic, but it is just as meaningful.

In reference to urban spaces, specifically, we discussed how a project can be planned for change around it and still effectively interact with the in between space. One can only plan for the way a project will interact with this in between space. Projects can easily create this type of in between space with the form of its own, but to create an in between form with another existing space is a bit more difficult. I imagine it to be an evolving space that will change due to the needs of the users and the desires and decisions of the designers and planners. Amy points out that a background or knowledge in urban planning becomes important at this moment. It is only possible to react directly to what exists and speculate change. Meaning must be multiple in designs as to allow for evolution in usage through time. One can not know exactly what will change around a site years from now, but it is possible to look at trends and speculate future usages.

We realized that the collage type of architecture is entirely different from the way planning is approached in the US. It is my belief that it is impossible to purposefully introduce this type of thought into city planning in the US at this point. The master plan is the preferred method of planning cities. This is why New York City, for example, differs entirely from cities like Vicenza. The way in which the city arrived to be is entirely different. Barcelona, though, is a unique example. The city, an old European one, is planned in a grid. Chelsea, Manhattan, Amy noticed, is an American example of a palimpsestic, collage on an urban scale. It transformed from large scale, industrial to a residential neighborhood with public attractions. The collage acts in a manner of repurposing selectively and demolishing and rebuilding where necessary. Old meets new in interesting ways. It would be much more difficult to introduce this type of thinking to a suburban area unless cultural changes warranted a desire to change the typical American neighborhood.