A trip through multidisciplinary

maria terzano

© photo by Maria terzano

“For the writer, his work is a secret, about which he does not dwell. A secret, because he is separated from it. The book is not yet the work, the work is not such if not when in it, in the violence of a beginning that is its own, the word “being” is pronounced: an event that is accomplished when the work becomes the intimacy of someone who writes it, and someone who reads it”.

(M.Vitta, Dell’abitare, Einaudi, 2008 - pg. 115, trad. Maria Terzano)

Graduated in Architecture in March 2018, I soon began to experience the profession in an architecture practice in Munich. Eight years had passed since I first entered the Faculty of Rome, which, more than a school, was for me a personal path of research into meanings and values, linked to the very concept of architecture. Over the years it has become increasingly evident to my eyes that it was not enough to see and criticise architecture from the outside, but that, like any great work of art, its meanings were mostly hidden from the eye, but transparent to the emotions.

How to identify a valuable architectural work from another? What makes a project immortal? Why do we remember with emotion one building rather than another?

These are the questions I have often asked myself when studying, designing or simply visiting places. It is not easy to give an answer that is both objective and only valid. There are many factors that contribute to its success: the historical period, the choice of the site, the choice of spaces and materials, the emotionality of the architect, the sensitivity of the viewer. However, two of all the factors fascinated me the most and, at the same time, I asked myself the most frequently: what is the real and tangible meaning of my work? How does this, through its being an active part of a society, influence the destiny of those who live in it?

So what, in the end, is the relationship between the architect’s emotionality and the spectator’s sensitivity?

To find an answer to my questions I started looking around, looking for those hidden meanings in the narrow alleys of Trastevere in Rome, chasing the tram tracks in Milan, or walking under the green trees of the Leopoldstrasse in Munich. An intimate dialogue with each of these cities, observed individually and compared. Although they appear distant if drawn on a map, in my head they have always been joined by a thread full of meanings. Not only a historical and geographical link, however, but also a direct link with the first study person of my analysis: myself. It is true, in fact, that one of the first realities I wondered about was:

How is it possible to define only the role of the architect and the movement to which he belongs, in a world in which young architects from even the same university, develop personal paths so unique and distant?

I immediately realized that the need to start from the analysis of myself was a symptom of a larger phenomenon that was surrounding me. Being the youngest architect in the office I worked in, had its pros (learning a lot from the most experienced) but in the long term it made me realize that I was a long time away from my superiors' approach to architecture. The feeling of inadequacy and detachment that I felt made me realize that maybe my generation had something else to say. Being an architect today has taken on a new meaning for us.

Having the opportunity to travel, study abroad and work away from home has somehow opened our eyes to a reality, the European one, which has inevitably impacted our lives. Being open to dialogue and cultural exchange, in collaborations that are mostly multidisciplinary, has become a fundamental step in our project research.

As a young architect, over the years of my training I have had the opportunity to deal with project realities that are very distant from each other: Rome, Munich, Aachen and even Kibwigwa, in Tanzania. Each time, however, I felt a strong need to start from scratch, to erase my preconceptions and offer myself as a blank sheet of paper to the society of which I was a mere visitor. The questions I asked myself were always the same:

• What is the design request?

• Who am I designing for?

• What is my first-design reaction?

• Will I need the opinion of some specialists for this project?

• How do I put my ideas into practice?

• What will happen when I leave the stage?

Each time it was a new adventure, a new journey through the reading of details and footprints, which would otherwise have been distant and invisible to my eyes.On the one hand, a strong design impulse, born from a real emotional impulse. On the other hand, a desire, a need, as contemporary as possible: to deal with realities that are more distant from architecture, but which are nevertheless fundamental for a successful design.

In this context, the development of new and increasingly indispensable technologies in architecture has led every architect to face a world, the “technical-technological” one, which until a few years ago was mostly entrusted to a specialist profession. Today, not only are we required to be able to include these technologies in the design phase, but some of them (such as sustainable technologies and home automation systems) should even become a design inspiration. But again, the architect cannot stop at a simple technical analysis, as a mere design analysis is no longer sufficient. What society expects from our projects is the material realisation of an analysis made by means of social, psychological, technical, technological studies and, as in any self-respecting magic, a bit of that fairy dust that each architect hides in his own pencil.

Is it possible, therefore, to consider one’ s own project complete? Will we ever be able to do our best in each of these fundamental fields of architecture?

This is where a new figure takes over who has impacted not only architecture, but every single citizen in this world: Agenda 2030. This document, published by the UN in 2015, has set 17 sustainable development objectives for 2030, underlining, for the first time in history, the non- sustainability of the current model of development. Sustainability, therefore, is no longer only environmental, but also economic and social. By definitively overcoming the idea that sustainability is limited to the purely environmental sphere, a new system of transversal collaboration between the various disciplines involved has been identified.

This new approach to sustainability is not only fundamental for the purposes of sustainability, but must also inspire the profession of architect. It is no coincidence that the city, and therefore the architecture, appears in the Goal number 11 of the Agenda, titled as “Sustainable Cities and Communities”. The question therefore arises as to why the Goal on cities has not been associated with architecture or urban planning alone, but with the word community. The answer appeared simple to me: a city without a community that lives in it does not exist, because it is on the trail of our community that the meaning of living and, consequently, that of architecture is born and grows. City, architecture, society and sustainability become a single goal to be pursued together. Transposing this system on an architectural level, it is important to identify which are the spheres that are involved in each of our projects and, in the analysis phase, adopting a new multidisciplinary transversal system as a real design tool. From the collaboration with technical specialists, rather than with sociologists, psychologists or any specialists in the field, the role of the architect is no longer just to understand what it means to live today, but which impact has living in our homes today, within the society in which we live. In this way, the architect is not only a master of projects, but also an observer, friend and listener of the society in which and for which he works. Constantly searching for that intimate empathy with any single human that will experience our projects.

A social responsibility, therefore: a value that, today more than ever, in a world that has broken down its geographical boundaries, becomes central in our profession. This is the challenge that we face today as architects and that we must accept with the best intentions, so that our profession will still have a sense to survive.