The Why”

If we look around us, there are many approaches in creating architecture, but none of them allow people to build something that truly represents them. We all agree that architecture should be optimized in terms of costs, energy consumption, and carbon footprint, but what direction should it take from a humanistic perspective? We believe that just as the constructions of the past tell us a lot about our predecessors, our architecture should do the same for those who come in the future. At all levels, whether it’s a public housing project, a theater, or a park, architecture should speak about the people. In the past, even if climate change was probably not even a term, climate has always been a determining factor because understanding the forms that relate best to creating comfortable environments is essential. Naturally, the available materials have always played a fundamental role because they define what is possible. Simplifying greatly, we can say that climate and technique, in relation to the desired function, have almost always shaped the form of architecture in the past, all over the world. Of course, if we talk about works like the pyramids, this may not be true (perhaps), but when we limit ourselves to “spontaneous” buildings like simple dwellings, this is essentially what has always happened, regardless of the emotions they evoke. Yes, because architecture is by definition the union of the rational and the irrational, function and beauty, optimization and superfluous. Everything else is temporary.

In Italy, in the Aosta Valley and Trentino Alto Adige, two regions with similar climates and available materials, we find very different traditional constructions. The same thing happens when we broaden our view to the world, considering that some areas in China and Europe had the same starting conditions from this point of view. These differences, of course, depend on cultural diversity and the different approaches used to create and use techniques to meet needs. The “how” we approach a situation is more important than the “what” we use to do it because regardless of the starting situation and the means available, it will be primarily our approach that characterizes the result. We all know that this is true in every aspect of our life, from the music we listen to (which has no practical reason to exist) to the food we eat (which we choose for taste as well as nutritional qualities), the clothes we wear (which we carefully select because they reveal something about who we are), and the way we speak (which not only conveys the concept we express but also the emotions we feel). Therefore, in the search for the correct answer to a need, perfection has no relevance. We may strive for it, but we cannot achieve it. What matters is the correspondence with our mentality. There not one solution, but many correct solutions, and only some that appear appropriate to us. The result is an extraordinary richness of diversity in the world, in every field, not least in nature. We can see this clearly in traditional architectures, which express the cultural diversities of the past, while in contemporary cities, this does not happen. One might think that this is also right, that the homogenization of thought brought by globalization is a reality, and that therefore, today’s architectural production simply reflects it. Indeed, we all speak English, listen to the same current news, and read the same books. Yet, we primarily speak our own language, mainly interested in national news, and read books by fellow countrymen. Globalization represents global connection, not homogenization. It values diversity, not negates it. However, in the world, cities are becoming increasingly similar because, on the one hand, most people have no say in defining the physical space of a city, and on the other hand, architecture, in its purely creative phase, is no longer conceived as an equal blend of art and technology but pushed towards one of these extremes, in both cases distributed evenly across the globe. We are not interested in these approaches. We want to solve problems, design, and build in the most efficient, precise, innovative, and cutting-edge way possible. But we know that everything will eventually become obsolete and that without a reason to love it, every space will remain without any value, and because of that we want architecture to speak about the people again. We want to discover what represents us today as human beings. We want to uncover the traditional architectures of tomorrow.