OVERVIEW

The design studio deals with the development of integrated urban planning and landscape design projects by understanding the development of the contemporary urban space, defined by cycles of abandonment, reuse and transformation. The nature of these landscapes, places of cohabitation or separation of a mix of populations and activities prompts us questioning on the shape and nature of the city, about the objectives of the project, the economic realities, the social practices and future challenges.

Discussing about 'landscape' in a wider sense offers the opportunity to design on a larger scale and, at the same time, introducing a series of evolving concepts. Moving from the theoretical and methodological framework of Landscape Urbanism approach, the design studio aims to develop knowledge on the relationship among infrastructures, architecture and public space from a semantic, environmental and performative point of view.

AIMS AND CONTENT

AIMS AND LEARNING OUTCOMES

The design studio is aimed at learning and experimenting with methods of analysis and design techniques related urban planning and landscape urbanism, in order to develop interventions for the transformation of the urban space. The course aims to train students through critical readings and interpretation of contextual elements in relation to the themes of urban planning, the system of networks and infrastructures, as well as the design of projects that contribute to the ecological transition of the territory.

Through the urban design experimentation, the students acquire the ability to critically interpret the morphology of urban space and open spaces in a multi-scalar dimension (macro-urban scale > design zooms) with particular focus on sustainable planning and urban regeneration processes. The learning outcomes to be achieved during the design studio are:

1. Interpretative survey: acquiring the ability to critically read the context elements (sense of places), analysing settlement transformations and contemporary landscapes, by the use of direct and indirect survey techniques, in order to map and digitally represents the main spatial components on which defining the project proposal;
2. Project methodology: defining the functional programme, localization and characteristics of the urban design proposal, by using also reference projects to formulate basic design principles (research-by-design) and checking the feasibility of the interventions, according to the current urban planning framework and site-specific conditions (potentials and constraints);
3. Concept of the proposal: defining the design masterplan and its quality though functional and dimensional characteristics of volumes, urban services, mobility networks and open spaces, by representing the proposal’s spatial structure with a concise diagram (concept);
4. Development process: visualizing correctly the main spatial and architectural qualities of the proposal (visioning) by applying alternative spatial configurations (scenarios), taking into account the sustainable development goals and the possibility to introduce a pre-feasibility study of the proposal (time-to-plan).

PREREQUISITES

The prior attendance of the course of Fundamentals of Urban Planning (or similar) and of the course of Fundamentals of Computer-Aided Design and principles and practices of info-graphic for the project is required.

TEACHING METHODS

The annual design studio is organized according to a blended teaching method, through thematic in-depth lessons and seminars that can also be held online and in-person meetings (general reviews), if permitted by the provisions on prevention and containment of spread from the SARS-CoV2 / CoVID-19 virus.

The projects will be developed by the students in groups of 2/3 people (2 architects + 1 landscape architect). The progress will be organized according to a monthly sequence of deliveries. In parallel, the students will have to carry out 3 ex-tempore exercises, connected to topics of the theory lessons and a research of best-practices, to be developed independently and collected in 3 design readings for each group, based on different scale of intervention (local/urban/territorial scale) as mentioned in the course Syllabus.

The teaching will be carried out with lectures by the mentor, theory lectures with ex-tempore exercises, presentation of significant case studies (readings) by students, seminars by guests and visiting-experts, individual reviews on a weekly basis, and two general reviews (Interim Review and Final Review) articulated according to 4 subsequent step of design elaboration (4 Panels DIN A1 Vertical - 84.1 x 59.4 cm).

SYLLABUS/CONTENT

Since the late 1990s, the development of physical infrastructural networks has accelerated the changes in the urban structure, transforming the interpretation of landscapes, cities and territories. This has determined one of the main myths of the past century, namely that infrastructures bring development. This has not always happened and among the most significant consequences there is an overproduction of infrastructures, which often become a burden for cities, compromising landscapes and local economies. At the beginning of the 21st century the “infrastructural myth” seems to have lost its validity and the paradigm of landscape as infrastructure has become a primary interpretative key of the space in which we live and of the relationships we establish. In this framework, the theoretical and methodological positions of Landscape Urbanism are emerging, given the multiple interpretation of landscapes (natural, touristic, logistic, materials, metabolism, relational) through planning, programming and «as apparent form of a cultural, economic and social context, even before being physical». (Waldheim 2016)

Regarding the relationship between urban planning and infrastructure, Stan Allen argues that the concept of Infrastructural Urbanism can offer a new model of interpretation that, by giving a renewed sense to the potential of architecture, helps to understand the current spatial transformations. From this point of view, the development of new infrastructures, whose primary objective is the mobility of people, brings out a concept of dynamic public space, which can also innovate the use of consolidated paths (space of cycling), as ordering and qualifying elements of new urban landscapes (place of cycling).

The sensitivity towards the themes of alternative mobility, understood not only through the spatial dimension of the movement but also for its extra-urban value, has identified in the panorama of academic studies the limits of the utilitarian approach to transport modelling. The character of the integrated use of resilient cycle networks capable of accommodating a wider range of services concerns a type of approach that replaces the "goal" with the "path", as the main subject in which site-specific projects take shape, which favour the interconnection of urban, extra-urban and natural landscapes. The rediscovery of the bike in recent years has been promoted especially in Northern Europe through a multitude of initiatives of associationism or genuine cycling advocacy campaigns. The infrastructure, from a relational space for daily life, becomes an opportunity for an overall landscape reorganization on the principle of urban proximity as proposed by the Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo (2020), with the model "City of 15 minutes", where all residents can reach on foot or by bicycle all the services they need.

The design studio focuses on the development of urban & open space design projects enhanced by the role cycling infrastructures / sustainable mobility in Genoa metropolitan area.

RECOMMENDED READING/BIBLIOGRAPHY

Urban planning

Rossi A. (1966) L’Architettura della Città. Marsilio, Venezia

Lynch K. (1969) L’immagine della città. Marsilio, Venezia

Jacobs J. (1992) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, London: Vintage

Gabellini G. (2001) Tecniche urbanistiche, Carocci, Roma 2001

Gausa M. et al. (2003) The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture. Actar, Barcelona.

Wolfrum S., Nerdinger W. (2008) Multiple City. Urban Concepts 1908 | 2008. Jovis, Berlin

Solà-Morales M. (2008) A Matter of Things. Nai010, Amsterdam

Mostafavi M., Doherty G. (2010) Ecological Urbanism. Lars Müller, Zürich

Schröder J., Weigert K. (2010) Landraum: beyond rural design. Jovis, Berlin

Ciorra P., Marini S. (2011) Recycle. Strategie per l’architettura, la città e il pianeta. Electa, Milano

Ricci M. (2012) New Paradigms. List, Trento-Barcelona

Baum M., Christiaanse K. (2013) City as Loft: Adaptive Reuse. ETH Honggerberg, Zürich

Carta M. (2017) The Augmented City. A paradigm shift. List, Trento-Barcelona

Mareggi M. (2020) Spazi aperti. Ragioni, progetti e piani urbanistici. Planum publisher, Roma-Milano. Download gratuito: http://www.planum.net/planum-magazine/planum-publisher-publication/spazi-aperti-ragioni-progetti-e-piani-urbanistici

Infrastructures / Landscape

Corboz A. (1983) ‘Le territoire comme palimpseste’ in Diogene, n. 121, pp. 14-35

Allen S. (1999) ‘Infrastructural Urbanism’. In: Points and Lines: Diagrams and Projects for the City.

Princeton Architectural Press, New York, pp. 48-57.

Donadieu P. (2002) La società paysagiste. Actes Sud, Paris

Lanzani A. (2003) ‚Le trasformazioni insediative e paesistiche dell’Italia‘ In: I paesaggi italiani. Meltemi, Roma, pp. 9-202

Sampieri A. (2008) Nel Paesaggio. Il progetto per la città negli ultimi vent‘anni. Donzelli, Roma

Corner J., Balfour A. (1999) Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Ferlenga A., Biraghi M., Benno A. (2012) L’architettura del mondo. Infrastrutture, mobilità nuovi paesaggi, Editrice Compositori, Bologna.

Reed C, Lister N.M. (2014) Projective Ecologies. Actar, New York.

Sordi J. (2014) Beyond Urbanism, List, Trento.

Sommariva E. (2014) Creating City. Agricoltura Urbana. Strategie per la città resiliente. List, Barcelona.

Favargiotti S. (2016) Airports on hold. Towards resilient infrastructures. List, Trento

Doherty G., Waldheim C. (2016) Is Landscape…? Princeton Architectural Press, New York

Waldheim C. (2016) Landscape as Urbanism: a general theory, Princeton UniPress, New Jersey

Bicycle Urbanism

Augè M. (2008) Il bello della bicicletta. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino

Tira M., Zazzi M. (2008) Pianificare le reti ciclabili territoriali. Gangemi Editore, Roma

Pucher J., Buehler R. (2012) City Cycling. MIT Press,Cambridge

Lorenz F., Bufton S. (2012) ‘Beijing’s pedal-based livelihoods as a muse for bicycle urbanism’, in Zoll+, n. 19

Bendiks S., Degros A. (2013) Cycle Infrastructure. nai010 Publishers, Rotterdam

Bozzato S., Ceschin F.M., Ferrara G. (2017) Del viaggio lento e della mobilità sostenibile: Itinerari, paesaggi, territori, esperienze. Exòrma edizioni, Roma

Colville-Andersen M. (2018) Copenhagenize: Guide to Bicycle Urbanism. Island Press, Washington

Gruppo VENTO (2018) Ciclabili e cammini per narrare territori. Arte design e bellezza. Ediciclo. Portogruaro

Sommariva E. (2018) Bicycle Culture for Urban Design. La riscoperta della mobilità lenta per il futuro di Copenhagen. AREA ‘nextGen infrastructure’, n. 158/2018, pp. 18-25

Dorato E., Massari M. (2019) ‘Dal ciclo-attivismo alle politiche per la mobilità attiva’, atti XXI Conferenza SIU ‘Confini, movimenti, luoghi’. in Planum Publisher, Roma-Milano

TEACHERS AND EXAM BOARD

LESSONS

Class schedule

The timetable for this course is available here: Portale EasyAcademy

EXAMS

EXAM DESCRIPTION

During the design studio, a project proposal will be developed according to four design development steps (graphic panels, layout DIN A1 portrait), 3 ex-tempore exercises, related to the topics addressed in the theory lessons, a research of best-practices, (3 design readings), that will constitute the final delivery materials (DIN A5 vertical booklet layout).

Some guest critics and lecturers will participate during the weekly reviews and, in particular, during the Interim Review and the Final Review, formulating positions and comments useful for the development and the improvement of the project. The final mark will be established during a final presentation at the end of the summer term and will take into account the active participation of the students, the delivery of all the required materials, the attendance at classes and the quality of the work produced as a whole.

The evaluation of the projects will be based to the clarity of the proposal and its presentation, the spatial quality of the design and the graphic accuracy, the sustainability of the interventions, including their economic feasibility, as well as the student's learning process. The final delivery of the design studio, in order to access the exam, is a project presented through the following materials:

• 4 graphics panels DIN A1 portrait (84.1 x 59.4 cm);
• 3 ex-tempore exercises related to the theory lessons
• 1 video / power point presentation of max 7 min.;
• booklet of readings design references DIN A5 portrait (21,0 x 14,8 cm).

ASSESSMENT METHODS

The development of the design process is based on a research-by-design methodology articulated in laboratory activities among the groups and moments of individual research by each student. The progress of the work and the assessment of students' knowledge is verified weekly. The elaboration of the graphic tables is defined as an open process that can be continuously implemented throughout the year. The dates scheduled in the calendar for intermediate deliveries represent a useful tool for students for managing the workload independently.

Interim and Final Review are two important moments in the overall assessment process of students' knowledge and in particular: at the stage of defining the urban concept and at the end of the visioning process that demonstrates the spatial and architectural quality of the intervention. The ability to effectively communicate the design proposal, to synthetically elaborate graphics, mappings and project diagrams will be tested through oral presentations and open questions in group reviews up to the exam session. The student must be able to connect and integrate the knowledge acquired during the design studio activities with those acquired during lectures.

Exam schedule