Throughout the first excerpt from “The Architecture of the City,” Rossi gives a lot of insight into what aspects define a city; He speaks on how cities change depending on their overall planning, who’s describing it, focusing on it’s artifacts, etc. I also like his emphasis on viewing architecture as “not only visible images of the city… but architecture as construction.. of the city overtime” (21) as this is the first time we have seen someone really analyze architecture/ the city with the intention of including pre historical context for its present and future meaning.
One of the most interesting points Rossi brought up in the excerpt was that of permanences or enduring elements (22). Here, he highlights that while history is an important aspect of architecture, it must be dismissed to be able to analyze permanences without those historical contexts. He then mentions how “permanent elements can be considered pathological at times” (22) which I wish he would have expanded on to know more about his criticism on this. For example, would he see the conservation of places reserved today just for the enjoyment of tourists as obsessive or would he see the value in them?
Rossi also brings up the relationship between myths and man and how he basically sees a monument as necessary if it is needed to perform a ritual which keeps the myth alive (24). This to me shows his validation for places of worship (in this case using his definition of “myths” on the second paragraph of page 24 to apply to religions). However, considering my previous question, what does this mean for places that have historically been used for mythical reasons but are now preserved with no ritual actually occurring? The Acropolis of Athens comes to mind, as it was built with the intent of celebrating the goddess Athena but is now preserved even though Panathenaea isn’t taking place.
Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press, 1982.