In his Introduction to the First American Edition of The Architecture of the City, Rossi refers to “an official Italian academic ignorance of America” (Rossi, 13), among architects, critics, and scholars. It is a curious thing for our american-exceptionalist sensibilities to comprehend (please detect the sarcasm in my tone), but if there were such an area where the New World, emphasis on “New”, appears irrelevant or has no horse in the race it would understandably be in Rossi’s argument that urban artifacts are the most important factor in understanding a city as a form of human expression. Rossi, however, criticizes this “ignorance” as unjust, advocating for a shift in mentality where America is “by now an ‘old’ country full of monuments and traditions” (Rossi, 13). Not only does Rossi refute the idea that his study of America does not undermine his book, he asserts “the American City and countryside to be the decisive confirmation of this book” (Rossi, 13), which is no small statement. He later supports this claim with an equally bold one, declaring, “American Architecture is above all ‘the architecture of the city’: primary elements, monuments, parts” (Rossi, 15). In one way I would describe this revelation a consolation, and in another equally positive sentiment, I would describe it as humbling: A consolation, because America is able to, in Rossi’s eyes, be evaluated and understood by the same criteria used in the great cities of antiquity which America has been removed from. It is an affirmation of the significance of America’s history, and subsequently architecture, and its legitimacy on an international scale; humbling, because it undermines the notion of American exceptionalism and unites our history and architecture with the rest of the world’s rather than looking at it in isolation. While I do believe that there are plenty of qualities which make America’s history and architecture exceptional, such that it warrants examination in isolation and through a unique lens, the idea that the United States is subject to the same fundamental qualities as the rest of the world eases the notions of division or superiority.
With regard to the rest of the reading, I found there to be copious quotable theses about the nature of architecture. Take for example: The opening line “The City, which is the subject of this book, is to be understood here as architecture” (Rossi, 21); Shortly thereafter, “Aesthetic intention and the creation of better surroundings for life are the two permanent characteristics of Architecture” (Rossi, 21); later, “Architecture is the fixed stage for human events” (Rossi, 22); followed by, “The history of architecture and built urban artifacts is always the history of the architecture of the ruling class” (Rossi, 23); then, “The Architecture of the city summarizes the city’s form, and from this form we can consider the city’s problems” (Rossi, 29), etc.. Each of these statements, perhaps inadvertently, provides a thesis to some of the lofty questions that I feel architecture theory, and subsequently this class are built upon. I know Rossi is casually dropping answers to profound questions people dedicate there lives to studying (what is architecture?, what is a city?, who does architecture serve?) because he is building his argument, and I love that about this reading. It reminds of the Le Corbusier reading earlier in the semester. I remember commending Corbusier in my blog post for the organization of the logic in his argument. Rossi uses these broad foundational claims to support the rest of the argument which he builds upon it, and I love him for it because this reading to me encapsulates a architectural theory more so than the others which we have read. Theory is about suppositions and personal beliefs which attempt to answer certain lofty questions, and its just really easy for me to understand Rossi’s architectural philosophy from this reading, which is what I believe we are trying to do with each weekly reading. I don’t mean to suggest that my appreciation of this reading comes from it being an “easy” reading. Rossi does use sophisticated language and I do have to do a bit of rereading, but his writing is such that I feel productive in expanding my knowledge on architecture from reading it.
Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press, 1982.