common space

7/17/2019 Common Space

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/common-space 1/273

Building the common space

INSAN BOOK - ESA - Atelier D6 - 2011



Index

1.D6 AELIER

2.SIES

3.BOOKS

4.KEY PROJECS

5.FIELD RIP

6.LECURES

7.PROJECS



BUILDING HE COMMON SPACEMaking the city center - Luca GaloaroMariabruna Fabrizi, Fosco Lucarelli (MICROCIIES)

"It was well into the detailed design of the project that, at an alco-hol-inspired brain-storming session off imes Square in 1962, wedecided on the name Fun Palace for our short-life conglomerate ofdisparate, free-choice, free-time, voluntary activities, planned as a

public launching-pad rather than a Mecca for East London." – Ce-dric Price, rom alks at the AA, AA Files 19 (Spring 1990), p. 32.

Te main purpose o the atelier is to determine what relationshipexists today between architecture and urban history, and how thisrelationship can be represented by a hybrid urban space wherework and culture come together in a space reed rom unctionalconstraints.

In Rome, the historic center o the city is slowly dying deeatedby several actors, its architectural heritage is protected androzen at the time o the story and is no longer considered acommon and shared heritage. Te atelier intends to define theidea o reclamation and reuse o monumental spaces that at themoment are only a tourist attraction: to rethink them it is nec-

essary to bring them back within the city lie cycle and restoretheir collective value.

Te purpose is to define a vocabulary o spaces as a basis or re-thinking the orm o the contemporary city as tools o preservations. Te context or this exercise will be the monument o

ancient Rome, its walls, its ruins, and those areas that used to bethe quintessential places or politics, health and wellness, culture,inrastructures.



Te legal restrictions or preservation in Rome are extremely rig-id; but the city accommodates many temporary structures muchmore intrusive and disrespectul o the surrounding places.

Our main purpose is to emphasize how the project can help topreserve history yet to make it a proposal or the uture develop-ment o the city.

In Rome many projects o different ages coexist and overlap, icurrent preservation policies had been applied back in time, mosto the monuments would not exist today (in the S. Maria degliAngeli church Michelangelo dialogues with the ruins o the Bathso Diocletian reinventing the program but respecting space, theMarcello theater turns into housing).

For us preservation is a tool or transormation, it is possible toinvent strategy or reuse in collaboration with local needs, with-

out necessarily heavy physical transormations

Te monument itsel is a common space, we define the concepto collective space, neither private nor public, according with thedefinition given by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their“Commonwealth”: by collective we mean, more precisely, all that

is derived rom social production, which is necessary or socialinteraction and or production continuation, such as knowledge,languages, codes, inormation, eelings and so on.Te concept o communal does not presuppose the separationo humanity rom nature, as i humanity was her pimp or herguardian, but she emphasizes the practices o interaction, care

and coexistence in a world that is very communal, practices thatcontribute to increase the most productive aspects and orms ocommunal and to limit the most harmul...



Tere is no doubt that during a long process o appropriationthe earth's surace has been almost completely divided betweenthe public and private property.... Despite all a big portion o theearth is still common, accessible to everybody and enriched by an

active participation.

Where is, or better, where it can be the common space within thecontemporary city?I think we can find it on the threshold between public and privatespaces, within the huge monumental heritage o the historic city,a place to be reused through architecture.

Within this reappropriation process the program takes on newmeanings because it defines a continuous field where the differentconditions o use that defines the “common” are created along theboundaries between public and private.In order to produce common space it is important to develop

a system o relations between different programs, the com-mon space in act starts as a private extension o the public. Notthrough a programmatic hybridization, but through a criticalcomparison o different well-defined programs. Culture, employ-ment, leisure find their in unitary objects and spaces that aresolid, immobile and aggressive in their almost physical orce o

communication.

Architecture in this sense is a research project, an expanded fieldsurpassing the act o simply making buildings, where design andresearch coincide and where the project marks the boundariesbetween public, private and common.

In this sense the project goes beyond the modern trend o the “lonelymonument” as an element that does not participate in city lie.



We will choose among three different places in Rome:

Te Baths o CaracallaTe Aurelian Wall in san Giovanni

Te emple o Minerva

Students are asked to design here a reed space temporary or per-manent, that dialogues with the ruins, defining a place that couldbe an area o work and discussion, a place to share knowledge,produce a quality that can oppose the demands o the market.No shopping malls, neither just museums, but places where lie,culture, politics are absorbed in a continuous space o relations,the common space.

Te common space arises rom the contrast between the histori-cal strong space and the generic space o contemporary architec-ture.

By careul planning we could have an environment in which thehuman mind and spirit may either relax or find the stimulus anddelight which leads to creative activity.... Tis series o orms,these ideas, shall not be sealed or enclosed by some limitingscheme or statistical or sociological theories regarding the activ-

ity o the people, but in their incompleteness the place will leaveto people themselves the possibility o developing new experi-ences or themselves.

It will be undamental or the class the investigation o projectsthat by their radical nature have shown us how architecture can

be a tool through which to rebuild a notion o social space thatcan reinvent our cities.



Giovan Battista Piranesi, Basilica di San Paolo uori le mura, 1748



Pirro Ligorio, Map o Ancient Rome, 1553



ROME: A ALE OF WO CIIESFosco Lucarelli - MICROCIIES

1.

Rome is today the narrative o two cities. Te city o the hystoricspace, kept in a crystallized image, object o a kitch resignifica-tion by the tourism industry, the monumental and archaeologicalareas converted into a ertile ground or exploitation by virtue otheir own specific suspension, their absence rom time.

And the “living city”, on the run rom the condition o periph-eral capital, looking or the modernization o the communicationflows, subject to rapid demographic and social change. Te Romeo the flight o the inhabitants rom the center, o the jobs in thesuburbs, o the vehicular traffic. Te city that seems to orget hispast, but that hardly reaches modernity.

Tereore, the two cities, two opposed times, live a riction thatunolds in the metastasis o the barriers and the gates aroundthe archaeological sites, by now terrains vagues alienated romthe rest o the urbe. Te physical line o separation (in all its variants or typologies, rom nineteenth-century walls to ivycovered scaffoldage) seems to transcend the role o temporary

protection or o regulation o access, to hide -much more sub-tly- a roman vernacular orm o today’s post-ideological poli-tics. A politics that renounces to its very constitutive dimen-sion, in order to convert into good administration o saety andwelare, where “ear” becomes a means or mobilizing masses.It goes without saying that surveillance, protection, barriers be-

come the instruments o implementation o a persuasive cam-paign based on insecurity.



Locked in a “cage”, the monument now lives a lie similar to thato an animal in a natural reserve: protected and apparently saerom civilization, but in act imprisoned within an island. In-spected by generic tourism which does not speak its language, the

monument is unable to “remember”, is dumb. Present with onlyits physical shell, its meaning is emptied out.

2.Historical and contemporary space

Yet the dialectic between historical and contemporary space hasrhythmically marked the ime o the City.

Te Roman territory is the territory o continuity and stratifica-tion. Oblivion, reuse, desacralization and re-symbolization are,throughout the Middle Ages, the means by which power address-es and modifies the built geography o the city. Te architectures

o the past are, first o all, building materials.We will have to wait long beore reaching the current paroxysmo the untouchability o the past, be it universal monument, orneglectable ruin.

I the birth o archeology symbolizes a new awareness o the past

as a oundational structure o the present, and thus a territoryto preserve up to its reconstruction, the ascist pickaxe oundeda new past, instrumentalizing the ruins and turning them into asymbolic legitimization o the upcoming empire.

And when, subsequently, the preservation o the historic centers

came back as a central theme o the Italian architectural debaterom the post-war years to the 70’s o last century, some o theItalian radical groups reacted ironically, bringing to the extreme



consequences the intrinsic conflict in the very idea o preserva-tion and restoration (continuity, conservation or return to a pre- vious state). Tus, the project o restoration o Rome by Superstu-dio ollows a completely linear logics, when it plans to flood the

center in its own waste, preserving the ruins rom the smog andproviding places or uture archaeological excavations.

3.Te present: a landscape full of “weak” reappropriation.

Locked in their cages or protection or carelessness, the monumentstend to ade rom the concerns o the contemporary city. Yet, as de- void o utopias, the present offers a panorama o dense “weak” re-appropriation, in which the dialogue between hystorical space and“living” city is re-woven, but only or a moment. Te rediscovery,though ephemeral, occurs in various orms, beginning with artisticinterventions outside the places appointed: rom the Wrapped Wall

(Via Veneto and Villa Borghese) by Christo and Jeanne Claude in1973/74, to the recent lights installations by Mario Merz in the Ro-man Forum or by Giancarlo Neri in the Circus Maximus.Tese interventions have produced effective linguistic short-cir-cuits by decontextualization, recontextualization, subtraction andre-identification, but the practice shows increasing signs o wear,

and it is rapidly becoming a acile cliché.

Among the various attitudes to dialogue, a subtle irony lies in therecovery or in the detournement o the original meaning o the various monumental spaces: i the Coliseum today symbolizes thefight against the death penalty (lights on every time it is abolished

in any state in the world), the Circus Maximus is the place or masscelebration o sports’ victories, evoking its primordial nature.Te hystorical space is ofen the subject o a dual process o politi-



cal resymbolization : taken as a physical expression o power, themonument is requently invaded and desacralized, taken as animage o collective cultural tradition, it becomes substantial back-ground, legitimizing the political struggle.

Recent examples o institutionalized reappropriation (concerts orestivals taking place within the monuments) are trying to create anew relationship between city and historical space, but the ephem-eral component can not get over the eeling o an “elephant in theroom”: the pace o the monuments remains different rom the paceo the city.

I the creation o gated communities or temporary residents (tour-ists) seems to be the only answer to the riction between the monu-ments and the contemporary Rome, a solution as radical as ques-tionable was suggested by a recent television commercial, in whichthe city appeared erased, saving only the monuments, while the

urban tissue was replaced by country green. Relegated to an archi-pelago o signs without relationship, the historic space stops talk-ing. An operation that selects pieces o content to the exclusion oexpression, can only lead to the death o the language o the city.

In Fellini’s “Rome,” the cars around the Colosseum, the “new” ur-

ban actors in the multitude o traffic, lead to a grotesque syncre-tism o urban east, the carnival o lights, sounds, events, similarto that o the odd collective dinner at the Festa de Noantri, a ewscenes beore. Te monument is never just background, evidenceo a time gone, but it is actor in the tragicomic show o lie andcity: here then the great night motorcycles’ raids during the long

final scene, when they seem to emerge rom obscurity to join, in animaginary line, the spread episodes o the past and o the present.It seems urgent to redraw that line.



“Massimo Silenzio“ 2007 light installation by Giancarlo Neri in the Circus Maximus.



SIES

Te Baths o CaracallaTe Aurelian Wall in san Giovanni

Te emple o Minerva



TBaths o CaracallaTe Opium hill park near the Coli-

seum



Te Aurelian Wall in San Giovanni



Te emple o Minerva



BOOKS



KEY PROJECS



Fun Palace

Cedric Price

Te only historical models, which appealed to Price, and Littlewood were London's great public pleasure gardensof the eighteenth century at Vauxhall and Ranelagh, which served the broadest possible demography of Londonuntil the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Since Littlewood's ‘idea' prescribed no particular program or fixedactivities, Price decided that it should have no specific form and no fixed floor plan. It would not be truly ‘com-

plete' or even a ‘building' in any conventional sense of the word. Was it possible that the users could ‘design' itas they used it? Rather than design a conventional building to contain Littlewood's fluid and transformational

program, Price began to conceive a skeletal framework, like a garden trellis, within and around which activitiesmight grow and develop: Its form and structure, resembling a large shipyard in which enclosures such as thea-tres, cinemas, restaurants, workshops, rally areas, can be assembled, moved, rearranged and scrapped continu-ously. Its mechanically operated environmental controls are such that it can be sited in a hard dirty industrialarea unsuited to more conventional types of amenity buildings.

Te varied and ever-changing activities will determine the orm o the building.Tus the prime motivation o the space is caused by the people and their activities and the resultant ormis continually dependent on them. Te act that such enjoyment does take place within the pathetic areasin Roma's suburbia gives a clue to the immense potential or enjoyment in an area that encourages randommovement and variable activities, which is characterized by flows o completely different people.



Crystal Palace

Joseph Paxton

Te Great Conservatory was the test-bed or the preabricated glass and iron structural techniques whichPaxton pioneered and would employ or his masterpiece: Te Crystal Palace o the Great Exhibition o 1851.Tese techniques were made physically possible by recent technological advances in the manuacture o bothglass and cast iron, and financially possible by the dropping o a tax on glass.

Its novelty was its revolutionary modular, preabricated design, and use o glass. Glazing was carried outrom special trolleys, and was ast: one man managed to fix 108 panes in a single day. Te Palace was 1,848eet long, 408 eet (124 m) wide and 108 eet (33 m) high. It required 4,500 tons o iron, 60,000 cubic eet o

timber and needed over 293,000 panes o glass. Yet it took 2,000 men just eight months to build, and cost just£79,800. Quite unlike any other building, it was itsel a demonstration o British technology in iron and glass.In its construction, Paxton was assisted by Charles Fox, also o Derby or the iron ramework, and WilliamCubitt Chairman o the Building Committee. All three were knighted. Afer the exhibition they were em-ployed by the Crystal Palace Company to move it to Sydenham where it was destroyed in 1936 by a fire.



No-Stop City

Archizoom

For Archizoom, no-stop city peromed a scientific analysis o the contemporary urban condition. Branziexplains:

No stop city was a mental project, a sort of theoretical diagram of an amoral city, a city without qualities…the nihilistic logic of the maximum quantity was the only logic of the system in which we were living; instead ofdenying this logic, we decided to make use of its inner workings to achieve a demystification of all its ideals ofquality and at the same time to carry out scientific research into the real nature of the metropolis



Salvataggi dei centri storici

Superstudio



Superstudio - Salvataggio dei centri storici 1972

Superstudio - Salvataggio dei centri storici Italiani 1972



empio della Fortuna

Luigi Pellegrin



Luigi Pellegrin - Tempio della fortuna Palestrina 1991



FIELD RIP



LECURES

microcitiesgabriele mastrigli

luca montuori



ROME: A ALE OF WO CIIES

microcities

Paris 11-03-2011

Microcities is a young architecture and research office ounded in Paris in 2010. Mariabruna Fabrizi (1982)and Fosco Lucarelli (1981) studied in Spain (ESAM Madrid), Germany (U Muenchen) and in Italy (Uni-

versità di Roma 3). In its first year o lie the office received several awards in international competitions(among them Europan 10).

Our research involves a continuous overlapping o all the scales: any urban project gets relevance at a locallevel and in any building lies the complexity o a micro-city.

Te distance between city and nature is aded, leaving place to new models o coexistence and mutual dia-logue. Outside and inside are not separated by a boundary but more ofen by a blurred territory, an intersti-tial space which questions the notions o public and private, home and community, mineral and natural. Te

line between exterior and interior becomes an "ambiguous" moment o in-between: it defines a limit, but alsoan open environment or human unusual occupations, both private and collective.

At the heart o our practice is the idea o calling into question the context we live in, turning it into a verydesign tool, in order to rethink conventional typologies and ways o living.



Rome, a tale of two cities

01) Rome as two parallel cities:Heritage Vs. contemporary issues


A crystalized image of the “past”

Past as touristic industry keeping a static imageKitsch


Frictions



pollution traffic

From Fellini’s “Rome”, a (not so) surrealscene of daily traffic 01) Rome as two parallel cities:

Heritage Vs. contemporary issues

Borders and exclusion

Enclosure of monuments:Creating gated communities fortemporary citizens.




Monuments areas are nonetheless part ofthe city landscape

Videos from Fellini’s “Rome”:

(1h55’56’’) Motorcycle’s tour of Roman Monuments

(24’25’’) Festa de’ Noantri, open air restaurants(neighbors gatherings during 1930’s)

02) The ever-changing approach to themonuments

02) The ever-changing approach to themonuments

a) Until the Medieval age : continuity andstratification(obliteration, reuse, desacralization or resymbolization)

Campo Vaccino (Cow market on the formerForo Romano)

The temple of Antoninus and Faustina in theForo Romano (141 AC),transformed into the church of St.Lorenzoin Miranda (beginning of VII century AC)



Occupation of the Theater ofMarcellus (13 BC) as a Orsinifamily residence (XVI cent.)

Theater of Pomp61-55 BC(first permanent-not wooden - roman theater)Used as an excation site during t

Middle Age

Later as a founda-tion for a fortressand finally ashouses.

Persistence of theoriginal structure inthe current urbantissue.

The Piazza dell’Anfiteatroin Lucca (Tuscany).Houses built over the formeramphitheater of the II centur

Void as a significant space inurban life. 02) The ever-changing approach to the

monuments

b) From XVIII century:invention of archaeology.



02) The ever-changing approach tothe monuments

c) Fascism, or the“instrumentalization” of the past

Transforming the hystorical landscape into aa scenography of imperial power

Propaganda:Mussolini starts the demolitionof the medieval neighborhoodbuilt over the Imperial Fori, inorder to open ‘Via dell‘Impero”(Via dei Fori Imperiali, today)1924-1932

Parades on Via dell’Impero(connecting the Colosseum toPiazza Venezia)

Roman ruins as symbolic legimization of the upcoming em


d) After the war, until the 70’s: preserva-tion of the historical centers




e) Parody by the Italian Radicals

Superstudio: Italia Vostra



03) Reclaiming the hystorical space


a) Artistic practices showing a differentread of the monument

Pipilotti Ristprojectionsover the ceilingof Venice’schurch S.Staeduring 2005Art Biennale

Christo and Jeanne Claude, Wrapping of Roman Walls (1974)



Massimo Neri’s “Massimo Silenzio”, Circo Massimo, Notte Bianca 2007


b/1) Symbolic use:

permanence or overcoming of the original meaning(retaliation or symbolic revenge)

Colosseum:a contemporary iconagainst death penalty



Circo Massimo as asport field:from a race track toa celebration area forAS Rome’s victory in2001


b/2) Symbolic use:

The monument as a cinematographic scenario

Ferreri’s “Ne touchez pas à la femme blanche”. (1974)The “hole” of Les Halles, after the demolition, an enormous construction site usedas the settings of a parody: the battle of Little Big Horn (1876) reproduced as a battleagainst modernity.




b/2) Symbolic use:

The monument as a cinematographic scenario

Elio Petri’s ‘The 10th victim‘ (1965)The Colosseum and the Palatine as a Sci-fi background for a dystopic future




b/3) Symbolic use:

Symbolic places as scenarios for revolt

The symbolic place connotes power but also cultural legitimization.




c/1) Using the architectural space:

institutionalized / public




c/2) Using the architectural space

Spontaneous activities

Roman cats are the current owner of Piazza Largo Argentina’s ruins




d) Overtaking and transformation of for-merly abandoned marginalized structures:the case for centri sociali / squat in Rome

An answer to the lack of common activities offered by the

institutions?

social integrationEx Snia Viscosa,Forte PrenestinoVillaggio Globale and Mattatoio di TestaccioCrack


Erasing the contemporary city

Monument (as a shared identity)+ Countryside(as a metaphor for a healthy way of life)come together (to sell you snacks)

Video : La natura entra in città, Mulino Bianco’s 1994 ad campaign



HE DISCONINUOS CIY

gabriele mastrigli

Rome, 16-03-2011

Gabriele Mastrigli is an architect and critic living in Rome. He investigates the relationship between archi-

tects' designing and writing, researching publishing as a critical orm o architecture - the main subject o hisPhD dissertation.

He is a regular contributor to the National Daily il Maniesto and its cultural supplement Alias. His articlesand essays appeared inArquitectura Viva, Domus, Log, Lotus international, Volume, and the Chinese Maga-zine World Architecture. In 2006 he published "Junkspace," a critical anthology o Rem Koolhaas' recentwritings (Quodlibet). In 2007 he was the curator o the exhibition Holland-Italy 10 Works o Architecture,promoted by the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Rome and hosted by the MAXXI-National Museum o the21st Century Arts.

Since 1998 he has been teaching Teory and Design at Ascoli Piceno School o Architecture and CornellUniversity Rome Program and has been visiting lecturer and guest critic at Penn State University, Ohio StateUniversity, Yale University, Berlage Institute Rotterdam. Since 2000 he has been a consultant to the ItalianMinistry o Culture's Department o Contemporary Art and Architecture. He studied at the University oRome "La Sapienza" and at the RWH Aachen (Germany).



The Discontinuous CityRoma 16.3.2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8



9

10

Part 1

Visions of the City

Pirro Ligorio, Piranesi, Le Corbusier

11

12

Maarten Van Heemskerck, Self portrait, 1553

Piazza Leonardo Bufalini, Rome, 1551

13

14

Piazza Leonardo Bufalini, Pinciano, Rome, 1551

Piazza Leonardo Bufalini, Campo Martio, Rome, 1551

15

16



Piazza Leonardo Bufalini, Esquilino, Rome, 1551

Pirro Ligorio, Antiquae Urbis Imago, Rome 1561

17

18

Pirro Ligorio, Antiquae Urbis Imago, Rome 1561 19

20

21

22 G.B. Piranesi, Campo Vaccino, vedute di Roma,1747-1778

23

24



25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32



33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40



41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48



49

50

51

52

Part 2

The modernity of Rome

Waiting for a Center 1870-2010

53

54

55

56



57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64



65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72



73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80



Street Decoration at night in honor of Hitler's visit in Rome, May 1938, 1938, Italy

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88



Rome – Mussolini looking at the model for E42 89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96



97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104



105

106

107

108

109



HE LANDSCAPE OF ROME

luca montuori

Rome, 15-03-2011

Luca Montuori (1965) architect, researcher in Faculty o Architecture o Roma RE, member o the ScientificCommittee o Casa dell’Architettura di Roma. In 2001 ounded with Riccardo Petrachi 2tr architettura. Testudio works on a concept o un-volumetric architecture and on open/empty space as primary element oevery project: this means to work on public spaces and landscape rom different approaches and ideas.

Winner o international competitions, his projects have been published on national and oreign magazinesand have been exhibited in several cities. As guest lecturer and proessor was invited to give lectures inCornell University (Rome programme), Berlage Insitut and several cultural institution in Italy. From 2004 to2008 has been consultant o the Municipality o Rome working in the office or quality in architecture.



1



2



3



4



5



6



EXS



PROJECS

livia allendecelia archet and mariel collard

charles aubertinbaco beaujolin

sebastien bidaultgali cassagne

lou charpin and pascale montet juliette charron

julie dahan jonathan dutour

sebastien durel and pierre antoine marraud

cèlia erraricaroline figiel and chloe tubiana

marine ruchaudeugenia haidarcamille jacouletaurore levalois

lancelot laeufferrançois mandereau victoria migliore

lisa millo and camila porteiroana quirantes

christophe schmitcharlotte simoneau



HE MONUMENS AS A NEW FIELDOF INERVENION, AN EXPLORAION HROUGHSUDENS PROJECSMariabruna Fabrizi - MICROCIIES

Te task proposed or the atelier is to imagine new uses that radi-cally change the perception o the monuments nowadays (an al-most abandoned ruin, a mere etish o a time that was).Methodologically, strong visions have to be proposed in a fieldwhere the intervention o an architect is almost considered anheresy.

Projects become strategies aiming at the reinsertion o the his-torical sites in a living cycle. New programs dialogue with theancient presence and recompose a link with the contemporarycity o Rome and the present time in general. Tis continuous ex-change reveals the entity o the common space.

o deal with this task, it seems necessary to reconsider the cur-rent practice o preservation, based on enclosures, suspension o judgement, and inability o intervention on the historical space.

o realize the monuments as a crucial part o the roman urban

structure and image, means to reclaim those areas or the actualcitizens. It implies the need to overcome the narrow identity giventoday to the historical sites, corresponding to a territory devoted to(mostly) unconscious tourism, stuck in time, isolated in space.

At the same time the proposed projects can both protect the site

and reveal its historical identity, they read the hidden potentiallying in the contradiction between their decadence and theirmeaningulness.



Te students’ projects show some recurring themes. Tese can bereerred to some specific attitudes:

- A contemporary reinterpretation o several historical visions

towards the monuments.

- Te use o existing conditions and unresolved situations (ences,scaffolding, missing parts...) as a potential or intervention on thehistorical buildings.

- Te organization o a new project using the spatial and rhyth-mical composition o the monument as a matrix.

- Several temporary uses showed possible vocations or the mon-uments sites today, some project converted them into permanentstructures (theatre, art exhibitions, housing...)

Te first attitude is more specifically reerred to precise historicalperiods. Te romantic read o roman monuments given by paint-ers as Lorrain or Poussin, where the ruins are discovered througha vast and almost wild nature, inspires projects where the land-scape is the medium to “protect” the monument, while becom-

ing an active territory or alternative uses. In Micro-landscapes (P.A.Marraud/S.Durel), the movements o the ground design anew topography where the citizens are active users: nature is notthe territory or the flaneur, but a place or the contemporary in-dependent worker in a need or space and inspiration, in groupor alone.

Wall habitat (C.Archet/M.Collard), encloses the Aurelian walland plays with the common image o the ruin covered by sponta-



neous nature, but it uses the scaffolding which ofen surround themonuments as a support or plants and human activities, at thesame time. Te wall itsel becomes the inrastructure to reach thepark on its multiple levels, while the new system protects it rom

the road traffic on one side and opens a complex spatial dialoguewith the existing territory on the other.

Te reinvention o the original unction o the monument is themain theme behind Micro thermae city (L.Allende) and Walk-Trough (E. Haidar). In the first one, the program o interventionis decomposed in minimal, independent volumes, hosting singleunctions o a deconstructed therma (calidarium, rigidarium,sauna...), becoming a parallel network within the monument. Anew system o spaces, but also o materials and atmospheres isdiscovered wandering through the existing ruins.In the second one the original destination o the so-called emple(ormerly a nympheum in the Horti Liciniani) is brought back

to lie through the presence o a suspended garden placed on apath flowing through the openings o the ruin. Tis path startsrom the ground level and goes back down on the other side, afercompleting a loop allowing an unusual vision o the temple, thato an observer moving in three dimensions.Tese two projects reveal the original nature o buildings elevat-

ed, through the passage o time, to the status o “monuments”, butthat were actually built or specific public or private utility.

Te importance o the roman architecture as an interior spaceis the subject o Hotel Minerva (C. Aubertin). Te striking con-tradiction between the monument and the surrounding site is

resolved through a strong inclusion o the ruin into a built mass.Te temple becomes an empty space that can be discover whilebeing at the hearth o the project.



Te project lowers the status o the monument, turning it into a void within other voids, an abstract orm that can be replicated.

Tis interior space o the emple is instead crossed through a

vertical ascension in Variations on Creativity (F.Mandereau) andin Spontaneous Encyclopedia (L.Millo/C.Porteiro). In the first onethe new spaces evolve in contact with the wall: they become ex-truded volumes coming out rom the openings. In the second onea ramp grows concentrically rom the underground level to thetop without ever touching the ancient structure.

Te attitude o hyper-protection o the ancient structures is takento an extreme in Macro City (A. Levalois), where parts o the ru-ins o the thermae o Caracalla are placed under huge transparentparallelepipeds which give a different proportion to the open airspace o today. Te visitors find themselves wandering through asort o out o scale outdoor museum, where the areas are recom-

posed in a new logic o figure / ground superimposed to the ex-isting one.

In Tink Tank Project (M. Fruchaud) the protection becomes atransparent -almost cubic- building around the temple. A newspace in-between the city and the monument gives the opportu-

nity or a nearer appreciation o the ancient structure, now isolat-ed rom the road in ront o it. A similar attitude is in Nebula ( A.Quirantes), where an inhabited bridge covers the temple.

In ransitory Claustra (V. Migliore), the recurring image o theences enclosing many ancient structures becomes an actual

building around the whole perimeter o the Termae o Cara-calla. Instead o being just a layer, the ence gets a real thicknessand hosts a sequence o spaces and unctions. In this one and in



Matter on Scale (C.Figiel/C.ubiana), it appears to be a search ora continuity between the site o the Termae and the urban areain the proximity. In the last project, a new building completelyencloses a part o the monument as well as part o the street in

ront o it, generating a space o transition where the two areasare combined.

In Leadscape (L.Charpin/P.Montet) the relationship between thecity and the ruins is obtained through a wall that surrounds thewhole site o the Termae and which is used as a filter or differ-ent perceptions. Doors and windows, scattered along the wall,rame, hide and then suddenly show the ancient structure, point-ing the attention on specific views. Te openings in this wall leadto the entrances o a cross-shaped museum which imposes a newgeometry to the site. Te Termae are not visible anymore romwithin the museum, they disappear to be rediscovered only at theend o the path. Te project aims at driving the visitor through an

experience o space where the ruins become part o a system in-cluding the street outside, a park and the museum.

In Crystal palace (J.Dutour) the element o protection is a roothat covers the area o the Termae, turning it in an interiorplace, while a orest o pillars organizes space and suggests uses

or a spontaneous colonization. Te dialectic between regulatedareas and zones destined to spontaneous activities is also theleitmotiv behind No Scale Common (B.Beaujolin) where a fixedgrid o independent elements colonize the area in ront o theAurelian wall. Te space in between those structural cores can becombined, covered and used in different ways. Te wall’s origin

as a barrier is subverted as the new program turns it into a centeror welcoming and exchange, able to evolve through time and ol-low the needs o the users.



Te projects which deal with the Aurelian wall propose differ-ent interpretation o this architectural device, they conront itsstatus o barrier, in order to accentuate it, (Vertical Urban Stage,by C.Jacoulet), or to deny it, (o travel through, the project o

J.Charonne which indeed gives the possibility to cross the wall),to exploit its hollow inrastructure as a connection (Wal(l)king by S.Bidault, Oblique Wall , by C.Simoneau), or to ollow its lineargeometry suggesting a grid’s rule to organize the area (Nomadiccells, by G.Cassagne, Break the Rhythm, by J. Dahan).

Te two different “speeds” (the one o the park and the one o theroad) on the two sides o the wall, is the inspiration or VerticalUrban Stage (C.Jacoulet). Te wall becomes a communicationdevice, a screen, made o a light and usually temporary structure,(the scaffolding). Tis structure can be rearranged ollowing theneeds o a theatre company and the show can be seen rom thepark.

In Wal(l)king , the wall can be walked through as the interventionrebuilds the missing part with a transparent double skin, whileworking as an excavation inside the wall itsel, multiplying thelevels and interconnecting them.

In Oblique Wall (C.Simoneau), a new program colonize the wallthrough the application o Parent’s “onction oblique”: new struc-tures develope on the two sides o the wall, in a vertical and hori-zontal direction.

In Nomadic Cells (G.Cassagne) and Break the Rhythm (J. Dahan)we

find an almost obsessive repetition o elements in dialogue with thegeometry o the wall, a system which helps dealing with the consist-ent length o the site, through a regular organization o unction.



Te last one plays with the idea o the monument as an element“stuck” in a static time. In opposition with the ast rhythm o thecontemporary city, the wall becomes the starting point or a stripo Rome where the citizen are invited to slow down their daily

rhythm and be conronted to collaborative activities, sharing thisspace.

In Gradations (C.Ferrari) and in Playground (C.Schmit), linearelements are almost “extracted” out o the wall. Scattered as rag-ments, their layout is aimed at articulating unctions all over thepark.



MICRO-HERMAE CIY

livia allende

Te Termae o Caracalla is one o the biggest thermae ever built. Tey were built or the benefit o theRomans.Our aim in this project is to reactivate the ruins o Rome and reinsert them in modern lie.

Te erms contains in its sel a whole “city”. In its interior, you could find; a library, gymnasiums(palestra), baths(Caldarium, epidarium, Frigidarium), swimming pool (Natatio), stadium, shops… in other words, the termswhere a combination o different rooms with specific uses.

Nowadays despite being in ruins and only being able to see 30m tall walls one can still have a sense o their mag-nificence.Te objective then, was to preserve their importance having a respectul approach in terms o theintervention. Tisresulted in a very logical un-invasive typology o volumes (boxes) to fill up ree spaces between the walls and cre-ate new activities within.

Te position o the boxes is determined by the old axis and traces o the ruins. Following this axis I created a gridall over the erms that respect the ancient walls. Te boxes are separated 2,50m rom the walls living a corridorbetween them and they all present different materiality.

Moreover, to avoid interering with the important perspective o the entrances the boxes are placed on the side. Inaddition the height o the boxes doesn’t exceed the 10m, not competing thus with the height o the original walls.I terms o unction, the idea was to bring the terms back to the 21st century, reinterpreting their originalpurpose tobe used by the modern roman and at the same time keeping its historical and touristic use.

Te boxes are not only situated within the old ruins but also in the exterior garden.Te ones inside recreate the ro-man baths in this modern perception mentioned earlier, and would contain the “new” Palestra, Sauna, Calidarium,epidarium, Frigidarium, Natatio. For example the epidarium that used to be the most luxurious room with hotfloor that created steamy ambiance comes back to lie as a metallic box with perorated surace that allows thesteam inside to slip to the exterior and generates anappealing and sensual atmosphere that attracts the visitors.

On the other hand, the boxes in the exterior contain modern activities such as: cinema, tennis, volley, restaurant…Te circulation was resolved by to paths. Te main one connects the boxes in the interior o the ruins to suggestthe same order in which the ancient Romans made use o the baths. Te other path links the boxes in the exterior.At the end the erms o Caracalla result in a subtle web that connects activities rom the past and present and thatgives the modern man a common space o recreation while he embraces his roots.



WALL HABIA

celia archet and mariel collard

ime is not the only threat roman historic landmarks ace nowadays. Monuments all over Rome have beentaken over by scaffolding with the doubtul aim o restoration.

Tese architectures are so longing to maintain turn into paralyzed empty elements, blocked both visually andphysically and that have absolutely no positive connection to the city or some kind o interaction with theusers.

Tis project explores the potential o these scaffoldings and the possibilities o inhabiting these spaces, ol-lowing the idea o protection and preservation o the historic monument.

Te project surrounds the wall completely rom one side o the site to the other with a light structure filledup with different programs. It is a horizontal but mainly vertical reanimation and expansion o the currentsoJcalled park. Te wall is transormed to be traversable and accessible and is connected to the structure andthe spaces within it. It is also invaded with different programs involving productivity, leisure, knowledge,exchange and culture.

Te idea is to provoke a relationship between public and private space inviting the people to appropriateand share it. Te more private space is the wall itsel, the public is the park and the structure becomes thespace in between, the common space.

Te Scaffold Habitat is inspired by the contemporary city taking an element so commonly used, scaffolding,and making it genuinely alive. It also takes an important component to Rome: nature. It explores the differ-ent vegetation ound in Rome and pushes it to the next level, reactivating a place, which is no longer just amonument or contemplation.



XIX IXVII IVIIVIV IVIII III

XIX IXV IIIVIIV IVIV IIIIIIIV

IVIV

XIXIX VIIIVIIV IVIVIII III

V IV III II I

IV

IVIV

XIXIX VIIIV IIVIV IVIIIII I

XIX IXVIIIV IIVIV IVIIII IIIV

IVIV

X IXIXV IIIVIIVIV IVIIIIII

V IV I II I II

IV

IVIV

X IXIX VIIIVIIV IVIV IIIII I

X IXIX VIIIVII VIVIV IIIII IIV

IVIV

XIX IXVIIIV IIVIVIV IIIIII

V I VII III I

IV

IV

IVIV

XIX IXV IIIVIIVIV IVII IIII

X IXIX VIIIVIIV IVIV IIIII IIV

IVIV

VIV III II I

IV

IV

IVIV

X IXIX VIIIVII VIVIV IIIII I

XIX IXVII IVIIVIV IVIII IIIIV

IVIV

V IV III I I I

IV

IV

IVIV


XIXIX VIIIV IIVIVIV IIIII IIV

IVIV

IV

IV

IVIV

V I V I II I II

V I V I IIII I V IV III II I V IV III II I

IVIV

IVIV

XIXIX VIIIV IIVIV I VIIIII I


IVIV

X IXIXV IIIVIIVIV IVIIIIII

V IV I II I II

IV

IV

IVIV



IVIV

XIX IXVIIIV IIVIVIV IIIIII

VIV II III I

IV

IVIV


XIX IXV IIIVIIVIV IV IIIIIIIV

IVIV

XIXIX VIIIVIIV IVIVIII III

V IV III II I

IV

IV

IVIV

XIX IXVIIIV IIVIV IVIIII II


IVIV

V IV III I I I

IV

IV

IVIV

XIX IXV IIIVIIV IVIV IIIIII

XIXIX VIIIVII VIVIV IIIII IIV

IVIV

IV

IVIV



IVIV

IV

IV

IVIV

VIV III II I V IV III II I V IV III II I

IVIV

IVIV



IVIV

V IV III I I I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIX IXV IIIVIIVIV IV IIIIII


IV

VIV III II I

IV

IV

XIX IXV IIIVIIVIV IV IIIIII

IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIXIX VIIIV IIVIV I VIIIII I


IVIV

V IV I II

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIX IXV IIIVIIV IVIV IIIIII


IVIV

VIV III II I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

VIV III II I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVX IXIXV IIIVIIV IVIV IIIII I


IVIV

VIV II III I

IV

IV

X IXIXV IIIVIIV IVIV IIIII I

IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IV


XIXIX VIIIV IIVIV IVIIIII IIV

IVIV

V I V I IIII I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIX IXVIIIV IIVIV IVIIII II

XIX IXVII IVIIVIV IVII IIIIIV

IVIV

V IV III II I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVX IXIX VIIIVII VIVIV IIIII I

XIXIX VIIIV IIVIV IVIIIII IIV

IVIV

V I V I IIII I

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVX IXIX VIIIVIIV IVIV IIIII I

XIXIX VIIIV IIVIV I VIIIII IIV

IVIV

V I V I IIII I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIX IXVIIIV IIVIV IVIIII II

XIX IXV IIIVIIVIV IVII IIIIIV

IVIV

V IV III II I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIX IXV IIIVIIVIV IVII IIII


IVIV

VIV III

IV

IV


IV

IV

IV



IVIV

V I VII III I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

V I VII III I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIXIX VIIIV IIVIV IVIIIII I


IVIV

V IV I II I II

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

VIV III II I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVX IXIXV IIIVIIV IVIV IIIII I

IV

IVIV

VIV II III I

IV

IV

X IXIXV IIIVIIV IVIV IIIII I

IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIXIX VIIIV IIVIV IVIIIII I

IV

IVIV

V IV III I I I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIX IXVII IVIIVIV IVIII III


IVIV

V IV III II I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIX IXVIII VIIVIV IVIIII II


IVIV

V IV III II I

IV

IV

XIX IXVIII VIIVIV IVIIII II

IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

V IV I II I II

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

V IV III II I

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

V IV I II I II

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IVXIXIX VIIIV IIVIVIV IIIII I


IVIV

V I V I II I II

IV

XIXIX VIIIV IIVIVIV IIIII I

IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

V IV III II I

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

VIV III II I

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV



IVIV

VIV III II I

IV

IV


IVIV

IV

IV

IV

IV



HOEL MINERVA

charles aubertin

Te project proposes an intervention on the unreachable ruin o the "empio di Minerva".

Considering the relative immobility o the contemporary city acing the issue o those antic objects lefoveraround the city and considering the "absolute preservation" official policy, the project proposes to wrap themonument o concrete as a strong and visible intervention, bringing it back to both common city lanscapeand everyday time. By identifiying the true qualities o the ruin : its interior surace and volume, the interven-tion annihilates the mass o the monument and composition starts rom the ruin as both a conceptual andgeometrical basis or the project.

Te program consists o 3 hotels reduced to their minimum comort and is organised around 4 patiosdrawned rom the ruin's interior space, the first archetype. From this archetype are added the others, the

sliced cone, the squared based pyramid and the triangular pyramid.

Te project is issued rom the traditionnal roman craf o the interior spaces. From the city to the mass untilthe individual sleeping cell, strong spatial experiences occure, rom the collective and the noisy to the abso-lute silence and the contemplation in a small concrete space acing the sky.



0

1 4

3

2



N



NO SCALE COMMON

baco beaujolin

Te Aurelian wall is still very present in the contemporary city o Rome. Most o its 19km are still stand-ing and represent a real barrier. Tis historical symbol o protection, enclosement and deense becomes in“Square common” the set or a welcome and integration center or migrants. Te project leans on the histori-

cal mass o the wall to root itsel into the contemporary abric o Rome, the closer to the wall, the denser theprogram and as the project goes towards the centre, the program becomes reer.

Te centre is based around basic programs: Teatre, classes and conerence halls, dormitories and restora-tion acilities as well as offices and administrative services. Tose programmes are decomposed in their mostsimple needs, which allow different components o various programs to be mixed, misused and appropriatedby the users.

Trough a research on no-scale module, the project is based on the notion that common space cannot becreated but only avoured. Tereore, tools are offered to users, chairs, kitchen, benches, closets, beds… under

various typologies o spaces.

“Square common” embodies the idea o common space being the space that is taken by its users and notgiven by the inventors. Te project does not oppose the notion o public and private but gives liberty to thepeople to decide where to put the boundaries.



WAL[L]KING MUSEUM

sebastien bidault

Te project start rom the typology o the existing, the wall present a strong linearity in the heart o Roma oalmost 1 km and a height o 20 meters which offer a particular point o view on the city. But despite o thoseobvious qualities, the wall step aside to his context, it seems to be dead.

Ten the objective is to revitalize it by bringing it a kind o dynamic, a perpetual movement. Also it is essen-tial to reconnect the wall with the city.

Considering those qualities, the first intention is to use and reinterpret this strong linearity by offering apromenade which cover the entire edge o the wall. Tis promenade, situated at 20 meters above the road, en-able to discover the city rom a new point o view. Strongly marked o the concept o journey, then the projectinvest the interior o the wall with exhibition spaces, it is split in three parts. Peoples can visit a permanentexhibition, an italian artist4s exhibition and a oreign artists exhibition. Te wall being very slim, the exhi-bitions spaces are narrow but taking advantage o a very big height under the roo and ollowing a wish opromenade, the exhibition is given to go through between the different levels. Te visitor creates his own way,alternating dark and intimate ambiances to bright ambiances open to the exterior. o enable the renewal o aconstant flow, our centers, where there are entrances and exits, punctuate the whole. Te second intention is

based on the strong image o the wall. Although it is ade rom his background, the wall present a real pres-ence, especially in its destructed part, giving it an irregular aspect. In a wish to preserve and highlight thisirregularity, an extension o glass prolongs the wall. Tis extension create a game o materiality with the stoneand showed up as a modern interpretation o the wall, it reveal the organization o the interior spaces andmake a spectacle o itsel to the city.



NOMADIC CELLS

gali cassagne

Roma is an historic city. Te side took, is to preserve the ruins. oday, we can assimilate Roma to a museumwhere man leaves under preservations contraints, even those, normally a city is built to answer to human’sneeds. Roma doesn’t put ruins in cage, but man. Ruins prevent the city rom reinventing, progressing and no-body really see them, because its became landscape.Te project wants to hide the hall or show it better, use itlike a program and put it in the city service.

Man become again nomad, the world is a no country’s land.Te project is a oreign place to everybody, butcan be practice easily by every nationalities.

Man always wants to go aster, he doesn’t choose his actions, he takes the easier way: internet, medias, in-ormatics…, because he is invaded, submerged by its and they bring him new needs, eventhose he is a databank by himsel. In the project, man will be conronting to himsel and others without any outside attractive-sources (new papers, computer, V…). It’ll be a place or men where they could choose his actions and beconscious o it.

Te project is an accumulation o private cells (meditation, imagination, reflection, andintrospection), creat-ing between, common places, more ree. One unit cell has one orm, or oneaction and one body’s position.Te all create a kind o labyrinth.Tree areas are fitted out or lessons, production, and a library (inside theHadrian hall).



1

2 3

A

4

5

6

7

9

8

10

12

11

13

B

D

C

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13



LEADSCAPE

lou charpinand pascale montet

We chose the Termes as a challenge, first or the monumentality o the site, secondly or the ruins and thelarge scale it generates. As a mirror o the estate o the site, we wanted to establish anarchical vegetation,which invades the topography and making the connection with the urban landscape.

Te labyrinth o bamboos is bringing the population rom the city to the heart o the Termes, which is themuseum. Te cross is the signal o the project, and it’s introducing the paradox o the two kinds o lecture orthe topography, on one side the ruins very riable and on the other side the radicalism o the cross.

Te aim is to be inside o the historical monument and to erase it, to orget it…Ten the wall is acting as theramework o the project. It’s active, searching to invite, to lead the pedestrian through these three elements;the museum, the labyrinth and the wall to finally bringus somewhere we couldn’t imagine inside o the site.

Tose three elements are set to give us different views and perspective o the Termes.



O RAVEL HROUGH

juliette charron

Neither passéiste nor negationist, but in relation with the passage o time, the new building supports andrepairs the old one.

In the city, the building creates a bond between the streets o modern Rome, breaking up in the direction othe ruins, growing hollow, fissuring, filling in the course o time, weaving a human bond between the urbanscales and social environments.

Te living visitor organizes his own space around his personal course; it is up to himsel to find his time, hisspace and his progression. Allowed is the chance to slip inside, to leave openings, undefined spaces, to giveroom or playulness and degrees o reedom to the phenomena o sel-organization, a kind o architecturalspace potential.



JulietteCharronatelierL.Galofarosemestre.8

bibliotheque

discotheque

espacedetroc

lanmasse1/1000

Totravelthrough



JulietteCharronatelierL.Galofarosemestre.8

PlanR+21/200

Coupelongitudinale1/200

Coupebibliotheque1/200 Coupediscotheque1/200



BREAK HE RHYHM

julie dahan

When I come or the first time to the Aurelian wall, attached to the Basilica Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, a thingbeat mysel: the contrast o this quasi-deserted silent park in a side o the wall, and right afer the door o San Gio-

vanni crossed, the flow, the noise, the density created by the emmagasinement o cars along the street juxtaposingin the wall, via Castrense.

We thus have three rhythm hardly imposed by the city on its inhabitant, the three rhythm needing to be re - har-monized: the intense rhythm, the medium rhythm, and the slow/inexistent rhythm.In this project it is question to offer to the city a space rich in possibilities where anyone, as one pleases and sponta-neously, to recreate the space and the atmosphere which it needs, as he wishes it: the Common Space.

I thus wish to make o this place a real alternative or the rhythm imposed by the city. First o all by creating abreakthrough in the middle o the wall, allowing to leave the congestion o the way, to park its car, and to take backan autonomy o movement by joining the activities and the service o the new park.Te wef o the underground parking lot, will draw the wef o the park, so by keeping o a strong organization, thereedom o movement will remain controlled spatially.Te wall keeps its potential o acoustic and visual protection or the users o the park. Tis one serves as mark:rhythmic mark, because congealed and temporal mark because real ancient memorial.Within the park, three rhythms will be organized by such kind to be always in connection with the average rhythm,the rhythm o the sharing.

- Afer the observation o our lives, it was noticed that the moment o the sharing and the meeting is during ourbreaks, these moments when we stop everything to meet: the meal, possibly, the break-time or even the cooking.We are in break but asset. Tat's why spaces o cooking and dining rooms will punctuate the rest o the activities.- Te slow rhythm is the one o the thinking. We shall thus find workspaces, libraries, and places o reading.- Te rhythm no is the one o the sleep. Rooms allowing a punctual sleeping around will be distributed on the park

and a hotel space accommodated in the wall will serve o also as visual mark.- Te intense rhythm he, is the one sports activities, swimming pool, rent o bikes, rollers, but also agriculturalactivities in a participative and educational purpose o every user.So I wish that this park offers to the city a real new way o lie, where the Being, the elt, are replaced in the center oour interest, and where each one can CHOOSE its rhythm and does not undergo any more that o the city.



MICRO LANDSCAPES

sebastien dureland pierre antoine marraud

In the different analysis we made to find exemples o «common space» the most obvious caracteristic was, orus, that a common space is not generated by architecture itsel but rather by people and how they use space.

Also we decided not to use architectural components to create this common space but to transorm this lan-guage into a landscape.

We would like to offer the benefits o an architectural proposal without contraints inherent o this languagelike discontinuity, inflexibility, monouctionality...

So the project deals with this paradoxal scale between human and nature but also with the question o match-ing this natural mouvement with programs as: desk, conerence room, amphitheater, playground...Te natural shape will induce the human behaviour without constraining it by walls and urnitures. Wethought that body reedom induces the reedom o expression which is an essential carcateristic o a commonspace.

Nowadays people can only see the baths like a painting, the horizontal dimension doesn’t exist any morebecause o the ences all around the site.

Tese Micro Landscapes will offer to the user diffrents relations with the baths giving back a materiality tothis horizontal dimension by transorming it into a combination o oblique plans.

Te romantic dimension o the project is in the centrality o the body into the nature and also in the act thatthe nature is organised around the human body.



CRYSAL PALACE

jonathan dutour

Still a bit drowsy rom the night beore, I get to the thermae o Caracalla. It was a rainy day. I wanted but tofind some shelter in order to stay dry.

Caracalla is an enclosed environment yet everywhere you turn eels like you are still outside.Tere is no truelimitation between interior and exterior.

Nonetheless, the ruins have deteriorated and the interior aspects o the site rely solely on the walls. Te idea isto rehabilitate the area to protect the visitor rom climate change all the while preserving the AUHENIC-IY concept o convergence between interior and exterior. Inspired by the works o Joseph Paxton, a pioneero lightweight glazed construction, Caracalla can become an immense interior surrounding the entire sitewhile keeping the eeling o being outdoors. Te difficulty arises in deying the relationship between the 3 ol-lowing elements: the void, the grid, and the tents (limitations inside the space).

Te void becomes an evolving space due to each individual’s power to influence the environment. And so, the

rules o use will be provided by people and they will give unction to the site.

Te thermal baths’ attraction is their historical aspect, and so the latter will serve as the root o the concept.It becomes a link between the visitor and History. Related to the motion o the visitors, the goal is to create aeeling o zoned spaces defined by the density o the vertical structures.



GRADAIONS

celia errari

"Gradation will become the keyword or the uture o architecture [...] Te allure o space must lay in its abil-ity to actualize in reality the possibilities o a gradation in between 0 and 1." Sou Fujimoto, Primitive Future

Tis project reers to the concept o gradation o Sou Fujimoto, in the sense that it reproduces the diagramapplied to the site o the Aurelian Wall. Tis gradation serves as connection between the city and the ruin.

Tanks to the use o a module o variable height and length, and arranged to create dierent densities, spacesor various unctions are developed. Te disposition is based on the existing topography o the landscape.

Tis treatment o the site, using modules, reects a sort o gradual decomposition o the wall to the street. Asor the major eature o the project, it's an interace o exchanges based on urban art. Te gradation is also no-ticeable through this architectural system within the program. Functional areas near the wall are private (they

are welcoming pavilions artists' studios) and gradually become public to the city (a large garden area relatedwith the adjacent pedestrian access ow). It's the "in between" which constitutes the common space, an areanot opened or closed, connecting the private and the public part. Tis is a place or exhibitions, using largemodules to expose to the public o the park the perormers' work. Tese galleries can be regarded as intersti-tial spaces, thus linking together the various pavilions and them to the park.



MAER ON SCALE

caroline figiel and chlöe tubiana

First, we studied what common space is about, and how the idea o common space could work in the bath.

Te two main elements which answered to this questions are the continuity and the sharing.

Te continuity as an architectural lead, and the sharing as space proposition.

Continuity and sharing, to create a relationship between users, bath, garden and city.

o express that main ideas, we choose to work with the three evident scales around the site (the city and thehouse / the garden level / the -bath), to create an interconnexion between all this elements owed in a kind ogame with the landscape and the topography o the site.

Te building, the roo and the treatment o the landscape allow to connect the present various heights on thesite, thanks to games o slopes, inside or outside.

Te act o playing with the topography o the site, allows to create various spaces, various scales which will

allow us to discover the site o various manners, and to obtain various programmatic unctions within theproject.

Te scale o the project allows to connect the various elements o the site, to create a real communication andone only entity.



HINK ANK PROJEC

marine ruchaud

A think-tank is a laboratory o ideas, a research studio or a specific topic. In the challenge o soul-

searching to the European identity, to the Schengen area and the uture o the European Union, a spaceor reflection would allow a debate, a conrontation o opinions and an advance over the topic. Al-ready present in some countries o the European Union, the Tink-ank based in Rome would be a nod tothe past and the democratic history o this city.

Te reflection process would take place with all the researchers and the speakers. Tese would be publishedand present through the permanent exhibition. All around the temple, the oldness o the site would be acontrast with the spirit o reshness and newness o the program. Te new building is acting like a new skin,a protection o the temple; it contrasts with the curved and heavy appearance, giving a new elegance with itscubic shape, its glass envelope and its transparency.

Te building is divided into three distinct parts: the work space, the common area and the public space. Tecommon space is the connection between the private and the public. It includes the exhibition space and thelibrary. All the boxes contain the exhibition spaces. Te paths through each box allow having a global view onthe buffer space, the common space. Tis brings us directly to the relaxation space, including a restaurant anda terrace. On the ground floor, all the work spaces are grouped together: the reception, the administration,the open space and the conerence room.

Te spaces are established in order to the different types o users and eatures: Te regulars, researchers andemployees who have a direct access to the open space and the administration, and the general public whoreach directly the museum.

Tere are two different kinds o circulation through the building. Te first one is the public one, which ismaterialize in the orm o a ramp. Te other one is a private one, exclusively vertical, or a direct access to therestaurant. In contrast to this verticality, the garden o the temple is a space o reflection, o relaxation andcontemplation.



WALK-HROUGH

eugenia haidar

Te nineo degli horti liciniani, was during many centuries conused by a temple dedicated to Minerva, when

in act it was originally a part o a series o gardens in a great residential ancient roman complex. Tese semi-indoor gardens were meant as a common and playul space o reunion or the courtesans, and provided a sorto sensual environment where nature was the key element.

However, the passing o time and the modern city lie turned this silent witness o the roman history into aneglected ruin, isolated and trapped between the menacing tremors coming rom the Stazioni ermini trainsand the traffic o Via Giolitti.

Tus, the intention o the project was to let the nineo resume its original unction as a common green space,while integrating it back into the modern urban context.

Tereore, to achieve this objective, a “orest” o slender columns was planted in and outside the temple.Tese columns had two tasks: to be the structure or the “ribbon promenade” that curls around the Nineo;and to define different qualities o space through variations in the density and other characteristics.Te “ribbon promenade” provided a way o literally sowing back together the nineo with the city, whilegiving the users a new way o relating to this historical building. Te ribbon goes in and out o the ruins, upand down, with a continuous movement that spreads into the entire plot. Te ree uncovered spaces it createswith its path also give place to other unctions in the ground floor.

On the other hand, the columns are introduced as elements that mark different rhythms and uses within thesurrounding area. I they pile up close together they create a more intimate eeling and slower rhythm that

can serve as reading or relaxing spaces. I they spread apart they give room or fitness classes or kids to runaround. Tey lighten up during the night or midnight strolls or they just stand still to let the plants crawltheir way up.

Tis very simple element defines the landscape o the project and determines its possible uses.



VERICAL URBAN SAGE

camille jacoulet

Te wall was historically built to separate two spaces, and to avoid people coming inside the city. Te sitestill presents this idea o duplicity : rom one side a quiet park and rom the other side the street in constantmovement.

Te project permits to see the wall as an opening on different activities o people who move inside and not asa rupture. Te park with its natural inclination gives a place o sitting in the way o a theater. An interactionbetween actors and spectators is developing.

Te program consists o offering a place to a company o artists to elaborate a show (theater, dance, music...)Te wall becomes an attractive point with all the structures needed by the company like the costume actory,the box o dance, the music studios, or the scenic decoration. Tis private part, is exclusively located insidethe wall. From the side o the street, a sort o scaffolding supports the wall and gives access to the public part.Te intention in this building is to mix users and workers in order to construct a space o meeting and crea-tion.

Te scaffolding develops 2 types o spaces: those where the activity is well defined (exhibition, restaurant, co-

ee) and the public ones that people can appropriate in the way they like. In this common space anyone havethe liberty to construct his own scenario. Tese spaces are movable platorms which permit people to choosetheir organization. Te scaffolding brings the image o reconstruction and elevation symbolizing the variabil-ity and the character ephemeral o the scenography. Te strength o the projet is its ability to evoluate withtime. Te wall becomes an open door which links an outside with the inside.



Roof

Flor

Roof

Flor

Roof

Flor

Roof

Flor

Roof

Flor

Roof

Roof

FlorFlor Flor

Roof



N



MACRO CIY

aurore levalois

When I have been to the Termae o Caracalla, I elt very small because o the site and the history. I had thisimpression to be crushed by those walls. I wanted to go out and have an overview o this site; to know where Iam in the site, and what the past in this place.

I thought: the Termae o Caracalla are not o a human scale, but o urban scale. I didn't get to appropriatethis space.

I was passive o this space like a spectator.

So I wanted to create an human scale in the projet. It will be like a "Macrocity" because o streets, places andboxes. Tose boxes in glass create different natures o space. We can see three natures o spaces: public,common and private space.

For me, to create common space, there is not a specific program. I think it’s important to create an atmos-phere and spaces where persons can appropriated. I chose activities in the context and the environment.Why this material or the boxes? I want to make a choc between past and present, to make a mix between theboth. So I wanted a light and transparent material to put in valour ruins and show a big opposition betweenboth o them.



I



VARIAION ON CREAIVIY

rançois mandereau

Te aim was to restore lie to a place that I was eeling as dead, abandoned to ruin. Creativity is rom myopinion what blossom someone, what can give a better lie. Tis is why the conception o a place to make andto see objects o creation: music, painting, sculpture, film, photography, and poetry. Forthat, I do not want totouch the ruin itsel but exploiting what already exists to give it more strength.

Te architecture that I introduce is divided into three points:

1) boxes coming out o the existing openings o the ruin: creation space.2) stairs, a public place where you can sit, watch the screens, eat or talk : a call to Piranesi.3) ramps, riding on several floors: the exhibition space.

I wanted to play on the act o having very closed spaces, and very open spaces, which can give a special re-lationship with the existing. Te common space is made by creativity. It is a place designed to create, to showhis work and hisideas, to stop or chatting and having a coffee time over many tables available. It is important

to have several floors to have enough space to ocus on cultural production o each and to discuss it in opensky at the top or in a fitted flora, at the bottom. Outside, in addition o the flora, we have boxes to create a callto those inside o the ruins. Te interior space continues outside. Moreover, two things seem to me essen-tial to give a better access to the site: giving a station stop at the existing tram and a particular developmentaround the site to invite and acilitate the access to the passengers.



S c r e e n

0.0

Coffee

Reception

W.C

W.C



5.0

9.0

Photo

development

room

S c r e e n

S c r e e n

S c r e e n



Studiorecording

Cuttingroom

13.517.5

D e c o r a t i o n

S c r e e n

Drawingpaintingspace

B o o

k s

B o o k s

Boo k s

B o o k s

B o o k s

B o o k s

Boo k s

Freeplan



RANSIORY CLAUSRA

victoria migliore

oday Roma is one o the biggest cities o tourism and in ten years the number o tourists will double. Teidea is to take advantage o this situation and create a place where tourists could share their knowledge withthe roman citizen. A cultural place, where they could access, eat, learn, relax and communicate. A completecommon space that could gather tourists.

Te site is in the Roman Caracalla Baths, like all the preserved ruins in Roma it is surrounded by multiplesgates. Te site is caged by those ences, and so are the tourists. Te main concept is to transorm those ences

into unctional spaces. Te cage evaluates depending o the unction o the space and is its urniture; eachpart o the cage gives orm to an element that can be a chair to a floor to a table…

Tis periphery ephemeral cage is a critic o today’s reaction on our heritage. And a way to restore to the baththe main unction that it used to have: a dynamic common space.



TRANSPORT

CULTURE

G A S T

R O N O M Y

S

P O R T



12

11

10

6

1 3 6 2 5 49

9

7

8



SPONANEOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA

lisa milloand camila porteiro

Te project proposal is characterized by creating a series o dynamic spaces and atmospheres all along a cir-cled path in the interior o Minerva temple, which enables the visitor to discover and experience the ancientmonument rom new perspectives, without having a direct contact with its walls.

We understand that or it to respond to the concept o common space, it has to develop a program in whichpeople share (certain activities, thoughts), meet and interact with each other.

Tis is why, our proposal is based on the a idea o a “spontaneous encyclopedia” which above all signifiessharing knowledge, by introducing the concept o bookcrossing, through which, according to the level ointeraction o people the building will become more or less dynamic.

We also intend to create spaces in which people can have a seat and read, places where work meetings takeplace, have a rest, or just let themselves flow through the dynamic experience o books travellingalong the central structure.

In other words, we create a hybrid space where work, leisure and culture come together.Situated in a strategic and central spot o the city o Rome, -anyhow completely orgotten, due to the lack ospace or people to acces the site - ; we decided to bring it back to lie by designing a huge piazza that willconnect porta maggiore with termini. Generating by this, a wide open space in ground level or the projectand a green link that would avor outdoor activities though an interactive parcours.



NEBULA

ana quirantes

What is a common space? A space that we can share, a covered space and an open space, a green space and apure space a public space and a private space. It is a space that all we need.

What do we need? ime and knowledge, two concepts that we can exchange in a common space.

Bank o time, common space’s program.

A green space, and there, a temple. A light skin that transpire and protect it. Down, theorganic and the tem-ple, up, a transparent box, around, a truss like a skin.

Tis is a game o reflections and transparencies between the sky and the green….and the temple, with anintermediate piece that is contaminated by the sky, it filters this reflection and show it down, and vice versa.

Tis skin, ormed by 9 trusses, holds the glass box with flexible spaces, where you can ound all the activi-ties determinate: kitchen, workshop, classroom, etc… but always keeping a relation with the temple, by this

circular peroration and the gateway over the temple. Te supports serve as protection and sometimes as acommunication.

Down, vegetation climbs by the temple trying to touch this intermediate piece. Here, any program is definesbeorehand.



PLAYGROUND

cristophe schmit

Te Aurelian Wall belt surrounding the city o Rome, but at no time did it interacts with people. It is a ron-tier, a hatch between the center o Rome and its outskirts. It is part o everyday lie or the inhabitants o thecity...

My project brings an interaction between the Romans and the wall. With an architecture without ever mov-

ing the habit should be avoided. Next day, time, time in the day or you get nothing in the site will be identicalto the ones you've already seen is in the same place...

It is a resting place where people like to stroll, rest, work or do nothing ... You cut the city, its sounds, itssmells, its speed... But yet it is there, leaning against the wall o Aurelian and orming part o it and the city...



OBLIQUE WALL

charlotte simoneau

Te first idea was to break the linearity o the site, by bringing the concept o olding. o work on the old,creator o dynamism and rhythm, through the oblique.

Te plan emerges rom contextual parameters o the site. Tus, circulation and meeting points, generateorms and orientations o the projet. Concerning the relation to the wall, i went by openings and differentheights o the wall.

o settle in either in the thickness o the wall, when openings permit the entry, or ollow it and be outer.For the common space, the aim was to have in the middle o the wall, where the height is the lowest, a musi-cal center overhanging the whole. A key, a flagship element, the auditorium with its sloping orm, stands outrom the set. On both sides o the central space, slopes running parallel to the wall, lead to the musical center.

Tese slopes are in the continuity o the park, like a playground, walkway space, wherepeople climb up until-reaching the musical center located higher. Te musical center comes along on top o a structural

ramework, in the middle o the wall. Te central spaces, handled according to the oblique unction, offer acourse. Trough the oblique, to ride and live in are associated. Tat is, the private space is not an obstacleanmore but is surmountable.

It is the « habitable circulation ». Tus, possibility to enter the private space or to continue to ride and reachthe roo, by way o walkway with a view on the park. Tat is to say, sloping walls in each space, lead to naturalrows, conducive to the musical listening, looks, and sounds moving. In the program point o view, the audito-rium is like hanging above a melee o oblique volumes.

Well, the auditorium arouses around it a group o volumesdevoted to the musical work (workshops, class-

rooms, repetition rooms). Scattered workshops offer different points o view, either on the auditorium, or thepark, or the Church in the distance.

Finally, under the auditorium and musical rooms, inside the thickness an intimacy o the wall, a musicallibrary is settled in.



PARC

RUE

MUR

PARC

RUE

MUR

RELATION AU MUR

RELATION AU SITE

EVOLUTION

PLAN MASSE

ESQUISSE PLAN MASSE

DIAGRAMMES - 1



MISE EN PLACE D UNE TRAME

P O R T

E

P O R T

EP O R T E

P e n t e

G r a v i

s s a b l e

Escaliers intégrés

ESPACES SUIVANT LA FONCTION OBLIQUE

DIAGRAMMES - 3

AUDITORIUMBAR

FOYER

ATELIER

ATELIER

ATELIER

ATELIER

ATELIER

ATELIER

MEDIATHEQUE MUSICALE

DIAGRAMME PROGRAMMATIQUE EN COUPE

PARK

CO M MO N S PA

C E

M U S ICA L C E N

T E RWalkwayPark Continuity

Park Continuity

PROGRAMME EN PLAN

DIAGRAMMES - 2



PLAN NIVEAU 2

PLAN NIVEAU 1

NIVEAUX PLANS

PLANS - 1

common space

Documents