“The Third Typology” was the text that grabbed my attention the most because it clarified the concepts that Rossi discussed. By breaking down the different typological approaches that architects have used past and present, I believe that I have a better understanding of the concepts behind the analogous city.
“The first typology, which ultimately saw architecture as as imitative of the fundamental order of Nature itself, allied the primitive rusticity of the hut to an ideal of perfect geometry, revealed by Newton as the guiding principles of physics” (Vidler 289). Here we see that the first typology focused on architecture’s relationship to nature, and how architecture can use as many construction principles found in nature as possible as the basis for construction. This relates a lot to what Rossi discussed in “an Analogical Architecture”, when he was describing the similarities between different bridges across Europe, and how they related to their natural surroundings. This kind of observation highlights some of the older principles of architectural construction, and how these principles are shared across many different places no matter how far away some of these places might be.
“The second typology, which substituted for the classical trinity of commodity, firmness and a delight dialect of means and ends joined by the criteria of economy, looked upon architecture as simply a matter of technique” (Vidler 290). The second typology dealt with the relationship architecture had with the second industrial revolution. Rather than having construction principles be based solely on nature, principles based and technology and industry were now coming into focus. Architects were focused on adhering to the principles of machine, and now saw opportunities to experiment with form. The incorporation of technology into the forms of architecture were now seen as important as the utilization of the principles of nature from the old typology.
Both of these typologies are important in the context of the third typology because the first two seemed to cause conflict between each other. The question of how to merge nature and technology became a difficult one to answer, and often resulted in architects entrenching themselves in the principles of one or the other. This only highlights the importance of Rossi’s thinking, because Rossi was able to see these two sets of principles as not a set way of thinking of construction, but rather as pieces to of a larger puzzle, which brings us closer to the thinking of the analogous city. All these different ideas were not separate, but rather components to be considered in the continuation of the experiment of the city. When I think of the analogous city, the image of a clock comes to mind. The little hand, big hand, and little ticks that mark time do not fight each other, but work together in order to fulfill a larger purpose. The principles of nature and technology do not need to be in conflict, and a utopian idea cannot be derived from either set of principles. The relationship between all principles must be considered and expanded upon, and the different evolving parts of the city must be studied in order to create a more functioning architecture.
Citations:
Rossi, Aldo. The Analogous City Panel, 1976.
Rossi, Aldo. An Analogical Architecture, 1976.
Vidler, Anthony. The Third Typology and Other Essays. 1977.