ArgumentNo. 13/2021

The Urban Block as Morpheme. Insertions on Calea Moșilor

https://doi.org/10.54508/Argument.13.21

  • / arch. stud., “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, RO

Abstract

The process of analyzing and proposing insertions in the Calea Moșilor protected area draws attention to the role that the urban block has or can have in urban development - is this a passive element or an active tool?

Commenting on two projects carried out in the fourth year under the framework theme "conversion: expansion, rehabilitation, building in a sustainable way", we will refer to the identity of this morphological element in terms of understanding the city as a body. For this, the course of analysis will be considered as a study of process-based typology (the concept of Caniggia and Maffei) and the course of design as being oriented on the integral object, rather than on an integrated object (Ellin's concept of integral urbanism).

These observations, which emphasize the importance of staging, reveal the need to define the term used for the urban block as a morpheme and not just as a constituent element, thus reaffirming its active role and creative potential in urban development.

Keywords

revitalization, process, integration, morphology, urban block

Download

References

  1. Caniggia, G.; Maffei, G. L. (2017). Interpreting basic buildings. Altralinea.
  2. Doratli, N. (2005). Revitalizing historic urban quarters: A model for determining the most relevant strategic approach, European Planning Studies, 13(5), 749-772, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310500139558
  3. De Bellis, V. (2016). Tradition as an architectural ‚topos’: role and interpretation for the contemporary sustainable urban design, City as organism: new visions for urban life (22nd ISUF International Conference), 237-245. U+D edition.
  4. Ellin, N. (2006). Integral Urbanism. Routledge.
  5. Guillerme, J. (1977). The Idea of Architectural Language: A Critical Inquiry, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, 10, 71-76. MIT Press.
  6. Harhoiu, D. (1997). București, un oraș între Orient și Occident. Simetria.
  7. ICOMOS (1987). The Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas. https://www.icomos.org/charters/towns_e.pdf
  8. Kuoppa, J. (2013). Beyond Vague Promises of Liveability: An Exploration of Walking in Everyday Life, Space–Time Design of the Public City, 15, 157-170. Urban and Landscape Perspectives.
  9. Majuru, A. (2003). Bucureștii mahalalelor sau periferia ca mod de existență. Compania.
  10. Mitrache, A. (2018). Explorări urbane – Calea Moșilor, București, Argument, 10, 97-114. Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu” Bucureşti.
  11. Morintz, S.; Cantacuzino, G. I.; Rosetti, D. V. (1959). Şantierul arheologic Bucureşti. Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, 5, 631-654. https://doi.org/10.3406/mcarh.1959.1182
  12. Zhou, Y. (2019). Crafting Urban Intervention: Mario Ridolfi’s Postwar Works in the City of Terni, dissertation, Tongji University.