Is it Architecture ?

I have been dealing with Architecture for half a century, and what I have understood is that the term "Architecture" disguises many "products" that need another term to be identified. Can we define architectural works as those structures built and designed by algorithms conceived by urban planners and codified by municipal officials? The spaces, buildings, greenery, parking areas in our neighborhoods have been shaped by numbers: volumes, setback floors, maximum heights, minimum gaps, etc. These are terms familiar to those involved in construction in our territories; in other words, it was the numbers imposed by the regulations that, in fact, shape the structures that modify the territory and interact with the lives of citizens. I am talking about products derived from regulations, often dishonest and often the result of ideological prejudices and lack of disciplinary preparation. I'm talking about urban plans.

Subsequently, we were forced to experience the "gimmicks" of some well-paid masters who, under the influence of who knows what inspiration, gave us enormous "cobs", clouds, tall buildings that were inclined or deformed deliberately and not due to construction defects . Then we suffer the Dubai trend. We are no longer in the field of architecture; that 's something else. I apologize and I do so in particular to those who like these constructs. They must be defined as "constructions" that have nothing to do with the architectural work.

When we tried to deal with less stringent rules, we caused the most damage. The sails of Scampia and the ZEN of Palermo are the most paradoxical examples . Where did we go wrong? Perhaps the most striking error was made in the choices resulting from the open debate in the world of designers in the 1950s, which lasted 40 years. Perhaps the mistake was to grant a cultural alibi to businessmen, naively handing over the splendid legacy left to us by the Masters of rationalism to individuals interested only in making money -

The social architecture of the 1970s was characterized by a series of ambitious projects aimed at solving the housing and social problems of urban communities . However, some of these projects, such as Scampia in Naples or ZEN in Palermo, have had very negative results, even leading to the demolition of the "Vele di Scampia". In this article, we will explore the reasons behind these failures and try to pinpoint the fatal mistakes made by the architects responsible for such projects.

Planning without community involvement

One of the main mistakes made in the design of social buildings in the 1970s was the lack of involvement of the affected communities . The architects, probably guided by a utopian vision, designed and built these residential complexes without properly consulting the future residents. This has led to a lack of adaptation to people's real needs and expectations, creating an alienating and poorly functional environment.

Lack of maintenance and degradation

Another factor that contributed to the failure of many of these projects was the lack of maintenance of the buildings over the years. After the initial construction phase, many residential complexes were abandoned to themselves, without adequate management and without regular maintenance interventions. This has led to the rapid degradation of structures, resulting in increased crime , unemployment and poverty within these communities .

Lack of services and infrastructure

Another serious mistake made in the design of social buildings in the 1970s was the lack of adequate services and infrastructure. Often these residential complexes were built in isolated areas, far from urban centers and without efficient public transport connections. Furthermore, the lack of services such as schools, hospitals and shops has contributed to making these communities unattractive and disadvantaged.

Negative experiences and stigmatization

Social buildings from the 1970s often suffered strong social stigmatization. Due to their negative reputation, many people have avoided living in these housing estates, leading to a concentration of disadvantaged people and further impoverishment of communities . This has contributed to creating a vicious cycle of degradation and social disintegration, making it even more difficult to find long-term solutions to these problems.

Conclusions

In conclusion, social buildings of the 1970s such as Scampia in Naples or ZEN in Palermo had disastrous results due to several factors. The absence of community involvement in planning, lack of maintenance and lack of adequate services are just some of the reasons behind these failures. It is certainly important to learn from these negative experiences and adopt a more holistic approach in the design of social buildings, we will see, taking into account the real needs of the communities and ensuring adequate support and maintenance in the long term. Only in this way will it be possible to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and create inclusive and functional urban environments for everyone.

In general and from a superficial point of view, the answer that many provide may not be enough for me. The question to be addressed is purely disciplinary and concerns architecture in its intimate essence, opening a debate on what it is today and what role it plays in our community structure .