Starting off I feel that Rossi unlike the previous readings tends to be less like the city is a living breathing machine and more the city is a manmade piece. I feel this is is best exemplified by this line in the first reading “I use the term architecture in a positive and pragmatic sense” (Rossi 21) and “avoid the use of a term like architectural organism and substitute it for a more appropriate word like building” (Rossi 56). This I feel marks a shift, at least from my perspective on where the class is going. I thought it was interesting how Rossi almost described urban artifacts as pieces of puzzle, in which the puzzle is a city. But not only that, these artifacts are also composed of their own little puzzle pieces. For example, Rossi discussed the city of Athens and how basically these public and significant buildings (the temple, the theater, the acropolis etc..) which as a individual structures are already incredibly complex and meticulous as it is. Basically he was saying how they were the focal point of not just the city but everyone’s lives so it’s only natural that they be in the center. And like the Palazzo della Ragione, which was also mentioned, the functions and meaning behind these structures has changed, people do not worship Athena anymore however that doesn’t mean the site and structure are not still significant. A direct correlation I see is in Boston and how at least when I am there I am always going towards Government Center but if I am seeing friends I either in the north or south end. Another is in my hometown of Dover, MA there is a house of a former Puritan minister that is still maintained and kept even though one could argue there is no point, he wasn’t terribly significant to my town but it represents the history that occurred in my town, especially during the colonial America and the revolutionary war.
Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press, 1982.