“The “utopia” of architecture as a “project” might be progressive in its ends, or nostalgic in its dreams, but at heart it was founded on this premise: that the shape of environment might, like nature herself, affect and hereby control the individual and collective relations of men.” (Vidler 291)
Vidler’s article “The Third Typology” really opened my mind up and in a way clarified some of Rossi’s points in The Architecture of the City. I selfishly enjoy reading Vidler because I think many of his views on the question “what is architecture?” line up with mine. That being said, my disagreements with Rossi’s book did provoke me to create my own opinions on the matter. In reference to Vidler and his “third typology,” I believe that there is no set function that one person can assign to a form that is in agreement with all of society. But in a form’s initial birth, the creator, or architect, must assign a reasoning as to their belief on what the function of that form should be. That initial function is always an underlying factor in how people perceive it to be used. However, that is subject to change based on the determination of the individuals who utilize it.
A form, on any scale of design, always has to have an initial function. “The original use of the form, the layers of accrued implication deposited by time and human experience cannot be lightly brushed away.” (Vidler 293) Take, for example, Mies’ Barcelona Pavilion. He wanted the design to represent infinite space that is sectioned off by his cruciform columns. When he developed the ideas of the two reflection pools and incorporated it into his theme of infinite space, he imagined the pools as a place to be gazed upon and a reflection of what is above. Now, imagine a time and place where Mies’ design elements were not appreciated as a work of art but as a place for recreation and play. It seems silly, but I can picture children running about and ducks wading in his reflection pools. The initial function of these forms have now been repurposed for something completely different than the creator imagined. However, the initial idea of the pavilion and elements within it are never thrown away because people are still susceptible to this original idea that the creator put in place through his deliberate design.
Vidler talks about this idea on a much larger scale: the city. In “the city” the same idea can be applied. Elements of a city will always have a hint of their initial function throughout time no matter what society determines its purpose to be. Yet, one cannot personally determine a function and have it be the ultimate function for eternity nor can they predict the direction it will take. “No longer is architecture a realm that has to relate to a hypothesized “society” in order to be conceived and understood.” (Vidler 292) In other words, architecture is not something that can be applied blanketly with set rules that will guide how people perceive a given form. It is ever changing and exists in the societal interpretation of forms as a whole. And if the form designers’ intentions are clear enough, that original function will never be lost.
Vidler, Anthony. The Third Typology and Other Essays. 1977.
Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press, 1982.