chop-up-semester-studio

We now have a great deal of material done: a few hundred projects without having calculated the facts, the tensions, the resources they commit against each other. The City had said it: exploit and dominate independent thinking for each laboratory. First, without order, because each laboratory seems to be ordered in a solution in itself.

But then, if you look closely, each laboratory is an abstraction, a strong top-down of places (paths, measurements, etc.). Finally, therefore, looking at this plan it is almost natural to rearrange the central functions, and to scale them (a regional plan, a municipal notice, an optimistic effort, and a recapitulation).

And yet they are not on a scam area, different from that of urban planning.

So, for now let's try to trace a variant between the connected areas in the historic center, and those connected in the suburbs. The speech is simple: each area should invest another area, even if its destination is the same.

Let's start from the area from which we proceeded: the square and the pier. In fact, between the Museum of the Sea, with contents that are always closed or in any case variable, the Museum of the Sea abandoned a few meters further on, and then the building located in Piazza Primo Maggio, a "legacy plan" would be needed to show the advantages of creating a new institution. At the limit, the building that is traced back to Montuori, could create a form of official presentation. Or return to perform the function of tourist booth for large summer flows, or even the starting point for public transport.

In my opinion there are no great skills to be shared within the outgoing Pescara, but certainly the laboratory 1 (ex_Fea) and 2 (ex_Primo Maggio), must unite in this sense. Of course, each of them must also focus on resources. For Pescara a level of parching under the road is little, but it would give the site a ritual character.

On the website, for now I prefer to remain silent: on the one hand political languages speak without knowing, on the other hand a dispute arises in which not even the Order of Architects can fire: amen.

Then it is better to extricate yourself on the station. It seems to me that if we total half the trees and half the cars, the dimensions are already fine. Add to this an arrangement of a library system, and an acoustic system that can be reached from the street side (yes, but the one finished at no-games, how can you bear it?).

It also seems to me that a part, closer to the station, with urban forms and that cannot be a compromise with the city. Here too, division of aid for everyone. The thing that obviously does not happen inside the plateau of the Station is that everyone sees themselves chasing their goal. Within this mix, it is necessary that construction, based on a severe ideological sampling, can lead to construction (a dimension in which 10% is borne by all the people of Abruzzo). And then the cash flow, of local origin, must be registered in the network of solidarity principles.

Within this scheme, no revival of those Roman tethers that have kept the station stationary for almost a decade.

The 4 poles of the “airport area” remain. Here the disasters have already been achieved: like so many other areas of Pescara, why shouldn't the owners of the northern area be seated around a common table? And those of the southern area?

The same happens in area 9, where the functions are integrating and it is the planners' diagrams that mark a trail. But as you can see from the map, the kilometers are good, and to push us from there to the industrial areas, where the characteristics of the areas indicated still remain, we need some, nor are the economies of the blue discs enough.

Francesco Garofalo.