I would say that one of the main goals of any architect designing a building is to make a design that is iconic and stands the test of time. In my experience there are several ways to go about this. One is to create a religious building such as a church or a masque. Another is to create a structure that has a set purpose for a city and is a necessity. And last is to create a structure that will later function as a museum or landmark for a city. No matter what, every building that is ever built has to have some initial purpose. Whether or not that function changes is completely random and is determined throughout history by the people and events in the surrounding area.
While reading The Architecture of the City I couldn’t help but think about the flaws in Rossi’s theory of permanence. Rossi states that “In this respect, permanences present two aspects: on the one hand, they can be considered as propelling elements; on the other, as pathological elements.” (Rossi 59) Rossi defines propelling elements as structures that assume different functions over time and don’t focus on one initial function to be permanently used. Pathological elements, in contrast, are structures that are forced to have the same function within the city due to their deep roots in the cities’ history and in people’s minds. In my opinion, the claim that we can characterize buildings, that Rossi considers “artifacts,” as either propelling or pathological is extremely subjective.
Take the Hagia Sophia for example. The function of this worldwide landmark has been changed countless times over the course of history. Its initial function, in the 6th century, was to be the center of Catholicism in the great city of Constantinople. Today, it serves as a masque in Istanbul, Turkey. Characterizing this element as either propelling or pathological is irrelevant and impossible to determine. Some would say its function has always been religion therefore it must be pathological. Others would say it has been the home to several religions and also serves as a museum so it must be propelling. At the end of the day these opinions do not matter because it is a landmark and a strong definition of what architecture is.
Rossi goes on to explain that his reasoning for creating these subgroups is to show that pathological elements are “urban artifacts” and therefore, are more about the function they serve than a piece of architecture. “An urban artifact determined by one function only cannot be seen as anything other than an explication of that function.” (Rossi 60) In other words, a structure that is designed for some function, can only be seen as an element of that function. I disagree with this completely. Most buildings are not and cannot be designed to be propelling elements. They must be designed for a specific function. Function is the basis of the practicality in architecture. We cannot settle to believe that function is an arbitrary idea that we make up in our mind. Society is built on our ability to assign meaning.
Rossi’s core example of a propelling element is the Villa Ragione in Padua, Italy. He considers this to be a propelling building due to its ability to shape the city through its multiple uses over history. In order to create buildings such as this architects would have to forget about function and the necessity of a city and create a space that is adaptable to time. Even then Rossi’s argument is flawed because the initial function of that structure would be to “be adaptable” and serve the city. Elements of a city have to have meaning, they must be designed around the needs and perspectives of the people living it. Functionalism and organicism are the core of all living things and architecture is very much alive. We can not simply say that it is too complicated to organize and we therefore must solely focus on the simplest form and focal points.
Overall, the difference between propelling and pathological is very vague. The two can be interchangeable depending on the time. Characterizing buildings into these subgroups is a waste of time due to the complete randomness of which buildings will alter functions and which buildings will be stagnant.
Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press, 1982.