Tag Archives: MATTEO IEVA

L’Antico Futuro a Canosa di Puglia – ARCHEOLOGIA e PROGETTO

Scuola/Workshop di Progettazione in Area Archeologica
Canosa di Puglia | 18-28 settembre 2023






aree di progetto  

last Canosa Workshop Antico Futuro – programma DEF

Premessa e obiettivi della Scuola-Workshop
La Scuola estiva-Workshop di progettazione architettonica “L’antico futuro a Canosa di Puglia. Archeologia e
progetto” è un’iniziativa promossa dall’Amministrazione Comunale di Canosa di Puglia (tramite il Comitato di
Consulenza Tecnico-Scientifico e Culturale) in collaborazione con la Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio per le province di BAT e FG, dalla ricerca europea “KAEBUP Knowledge Alliance for Evidence-Based Urban Practices”, dall’Ordine degli Architetti P.P.C. di Barletta, Andria e Trani e dalla Fondazione Archeologica Canosina.
L’evento si propone di promuovere il tema della conoscenza a fini progettuali del patrimonio archeologico della città.
Tra gli obiettivi della Scuola e del Workshop vi è, infatti, l’interesse a rilanciare i temi del progetto in ambito archeologico attraverso il confronto critico-dialettico dei partecipanti che esporranno le proprie esperienze di ricerca scientifica e professionale offrendo uno spaccato delle recenti tendenze in questo campo, anche in vista
dell’aspettazione a costruire una prospettiva concreta di intervento basata su idee progettuali – quale strumento
della proposta formativa – finalizzate a delineare scenari di conservazione e valorizzazione di alcune tra le più
importanti e complesse aree archeologiche della città.

last Canosa Workshop Antico Futuro – programma DEF

The Great Transformation – Typology and Morphology in the Anthropocene

Expose.Berlin.5 Conference.The Great Transformation. TuBerlin Conference.The Great Transformation. TuBerlin

25.-27. Jan. 2023 –  T.U.Berlin – Institute for Architecture


January 25  
Klima Polis book presentation and discussion
Sascha Roesler, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Mendrisio
Moderation: Lidia Gasperoni –at Halle 7
at Forum
January 26
09:00 – 09:30 Introduction to the conference
Rainer Hehl and Jörg H. Gleiter
09:30 – 10:15
Key Note lecture
The End of the Territory, Architecture and Other Disasters
Giuseppe Strappa, Università degli Studi La Sapienza Rome
coffee break
10:30 – 12:00
The Urban Form and the Town’s Storytelling
Paolo Carlotti, Università degli studi La Sapienza Rome
Sandra Bartoli, University of Applied Science München
Between Absence and Loss: Rewriting as a Paradigm of Tansformation
Domenico Chizzoniti, Politecnico di Milano
12:00 – 12:30 Discussion
lunch break
14:30 – 16:30 Form and Meaning in the Foundation of Cities
Daria Belova, Phd candidate at Università degli studi La Sapienza Rome
N.N. Julian Raffetseder, PhD candidate at Università della Svizzera Italliana Mendrisio
Is Technique our Environment? Why and how Anthropocene Challenges Urban Morphology  Nicola Marzot, TU Delft and Università degli Studi Ferrara
Criticism of Subjective Individualism Between Anthropocene and Ecocene Matteo Ieva, Politecnico di Bari
N.N. Sascha Roesler, Università della Svizzera Italiana Mendrisio
16:30 – 17:00 Discussion
coffee break
17:30 – 18:00 Workshop Assignment
Introduction by Rainer Hehl
18:00 – 19:00 Workshop part I
at Forum
January 27
09:00 – 12:00 Workshop part II
12:00 – 14:30 Review/Presentations
14:30 – 15:00 Final discussion


The Great Transformation
Typology and Morphology in the Anthropocene
“The Anthropocene is the epoch in which the dialectical tension between man’s well-meant »architecture of good
intentions” and its disruptive consequences for the Earth system comes to the fore.” (Jörg H. Gleiter)
The changing environmental conditions – climate, mega cities, overpopulation and shrinking
population, rising sea levels, digitalization, and AI – are forcing people to rethink the relationship
between humans and System Earth, and with it the concept of architecture and the city as a manmade
The conference/workshop The Great Transformation. Typology and Morphology in the Anthropocene
takes a critical look at the changing conditions of typologies and urban morphology as central
architectural concepts for the creation of a meaningful human environment. It examines how and
whether the changing concept of “environment” will lead to a typological transformation of existing
urban morphology. Changing demographics, new concepts of living and housing, public
transportation, biodiversity and human and animal conviviality are factors that have an immediate
effect on typology and urban morphology.
Already in 1944 Karl Polanyi addressed the destabilization of the political order by the industrial
revolution. Today we notice that it is the aftereffect of the third industrial revolution, i. e. AI,
digitalization and smart technologies that lead to a great transformation of the climate, the eco system,
the cohabitation of species, migration, over- and depopulation eventually effecting the everyday
culture, architecture, cities and the territory at large. Under the current challenges of the Great
Transformation can be rather understood as an integral endeavor to cope with the consequences of
irreversible phenomena and there effects on architecture and city.
As the new epoch shakes the hitherto firm foundation of our understanding of the relationship between
man and earth, the question arises of what this means to urban identity and how the narratives of the
city adapt to it. Unlike previous epochs, the “becoming” of architecture, i. e. the morphological
transformations of types and models will receive important impulses from these new environmental
What are the implications of current “environmental forces” on the spatial, morphological and
typological constitution of architecture? What are the changing and what are the stable components of
the vocabulary for architectural typology and urban morphology? The Great Transformation. Typology
and Morphology in the Anthropocene conference/workshop explores alternative narratives, concepts
and practices for the changing environment in the Anthropocene. With the themes of atmosphere,
urban form, kinship, and commonality the conference encourages a critical look at both the history and
current practice of morphological and typological studies, their interconnectedness and crossfertilization,
their historical legacy and their potential to reshape architecture and the built environment.
It critically examines design strategies for an analytical and speculative journey into a forward-looking
new spatial, urban, and territorial vocabulary for the morphological and typological transformation of
architecture in the era of the Anthropocene.
The Chair of Architectural Transformation and the Chair of Architectural Theory will invite experts from
the field of urban morphology, typology and Anthropocene studies to discuss the above issues. Next
to lectures and discussions a student workshop and the presentation of students’ work are an integral
part the conference.

N. Scardigno – Il rinnovamento del pensiero morfologico-progettuale e la didattica della Scuola di Bari

Urban morphology and Design.
The renewal of typological-design
thinking in the teaching of the Bari
School, in U+D 15 – 2021







M. Ieva (capogruppo), A. Camporeale, N. Scardigno, G. Volpe, Progetto di concorso internazionale: “New habitats, new beauties. Speculation for Tallin 2019”.




U+D  issue 15   EDITORIAL

by Giuseppe Strappa

In the life of every journal, I suppose, there are moments of reflection and regeneration: one takes a look at the work done and takes stock, looking at the future with new eyes, and makes plans. The U+D new issue is one of these moments for us. It is the result of a considerable commitment by the entire editorial staff, and we present it, I must admit, with some expectations. It poses, in fact, two relevant goals.

The first is to try to review the current situation of research in Italy concerning urban morphology, particularly in architecture schools. Courses in this discipline are now active in the faculties of many countries, which share the need for rationality, concreteness, transmissibility of the proposed methods. In Italy, the signs seem contradictory. In Rome, for example, despite the presence of an important tradition that stems from the teaching of Saverio Muratori, the urban morphology course has become optional. In other faculties such as in Bari, Bologna, Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Naples, Palermo, Parma, Turin, Venice, these courses, even if given with a limited number of credits, are highly active and open to new perspectives. The term “urban morphology” is employed in an extended and open meaning, as a study of the form of the built landscape based on different founding principles, which share, however, their role as a rational and communicable tool aimed at the project. For this reason, I believe that urban morphology could also prefigure a choice of fields (sometimes not easy) with respect to current production, often based on methods aimed more at communication and individual expression than at construction. Against this egocentric inclination of the architect, in the past schools have in some way constituted a remedy, playing an important aggregation and sharing role. Yet, I wonder if it is still possible today to speak, in the proper sense, of schools. They presuppose masters and require, together with common theories and methods, shared values. The master is such not only for the quality of his scientific production, but above all for his ability to express common goals, the competence to recognize a common substratum in the work of individuals. Just as the school is an organism, a unit of parts held together by a unifying objective. Two conditions that are impossible today: we have long lost the unity of things, the vision, or at least the hope, of an organic world where every knowledge finds its place, every cultural heritage its congruent location.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that specificities and shared lines still exist, albeit indirectly. I believe that the contributions of this issue, at least in part, are proof of this. Moreover, the study of urban form, in order for it to be a field in which differences have a rational and legible basis, is the terrain that best allows us to distinguish areas of research and affinities, and also oppositions, which originate even further back than the lesson of the masters. The specificities of the Milanese research have more distant roots than the writings of Aldo Rossi and Guido Canella, they have their distant origins in the Lombard Enlightenment; the experiments in the Roman area go beyond the lesson of Gianfranco Caniggia and Saverio Muratori, they go back to the studies of Gustavo Giovannoni, Giovan Battista Milani and many others. But these specificities are now unstable, recognized in an uncertain and controversial way. It is no coincidence that today there is no disciple who is willing to defend that legacy openly, who does not feel obliged to claim his secularism, his independence. It is true that identity, in the contemporary condition, is not inherited: it is a strenuous search in which the vigorous defense of the origins can be a risky bond. The contemporary condition of those who investigate the urban form is that of a disorientation: orphans of the masters, whose lessons we jealously guard, we understand how certainties no longer exist, how it is impossible to reconstruct the lost unity of things.

Yet, perhaps there is, more than we are willing to admit, a long-lasting cultural layer that gives a sense of continuity to our research. I believe that, to understand how the Italian response to the new demands of objectivity and realism shows its own characters, it is necessary to compare it to the “quantitative” drift of the studies often conducted abroad, influenced by the success, even professional, of the Space Syntax. Certainly, useful studies which throw new light on the structures that regulate the shape of cities, but still giving an indirect contribution to the urban project. On the other hand, I believe that many of these studies, based on the notions of density, flows, networks, are in my opinion an update of the issues addressed by the traditional urban planning discipline. This diversity perhaps explains, if it does not justify, the improper term, used above all abroad, of the “Italian School”, because it is true that the research on the form of the city is characterized with us by a humanistic and historical background that has always prevented determinisms and taxonomies, allowing us to recognize how a building or a fabric exists, in its fullness, only in a more general context, in a becoming that, together, explains them and gives them meaning. Although the invitations to the participants to the study day did not cover the broad spectrum of research that derives from the multiple meanings of the term “urban morphology”, I consider the almost total absence, in the following contributions, of the strictly “quantitative” field of study to be significant. A remarkable specificity which allows us to look with optimism at the original role that studies conducted in our country can play on the international scene. In my opinion, the evidence of this condition poses with increasing evidence, after the long late-romantic season of individualisms and spectacular gestures, the problem of a radical renewal of research in architecture that could give our work a new civil sense.  Beyond the slogans, the real tools of sustainability and regeneration of our cities (which will not die of Covid, with all due respect to our prophets of the return to the villages) consist, I am convinced, precisely in the careful study of the built reality and its form, its continuity and its ruptures, which provides awareness of the crisis we are going through and can show us the way to future transformations.

The second important goal of this issue is to experiment new forms of construction and a different way of collaborating with the authors, having in mind the place of our journal in the international panorama of studies that are being conducted today on urban form. Perhaps it is useful, in order to understand the urgency of this issue, to summarize the cultural framework in which our work arises.

The magazine was born in 2014 as an Italian contribution to the International Seminar on Urban Form (Isuf), a scientific society that already owned its own, relevant journal dedicated to urban morphology. However, it was interested in it, above all from the point of view of geography, in the wake of the research of M.R.G.Conzen. His fertile teachings, heirs of the Kulturlandschaft, were developed in the 70s by the Urban Morphology Research Group (UMRG), with which we found, at the beginning of the 90s, considerable affinities and promising prospects for collaboration, starting from the very definition of “urban structure” realistically understood, basically in architectural terms, as an integrated system of routes, lots and buildings. But also, some significant differences. Geography is above all a descriptive science, when the goal of urban morphology, from our point of view as architects, is above all aimed at the project. The problem of geography is to make the infinite irregularity of a mountain ridge coincide with the simplicity of the line drawn on a map. It is the difficulty of any descriptive science that seeks synthesis in the general and abstract representation of the concrete details of the object it describes. The problem of architecture is different: recognizing in that ridge a beginning, a first provisionally inhabited form and the origin of the paths that structure a territory. Saverio Muratori had devoted a lot of energy to formulating a “theory of ridges” based on the shape of the soil and its anthropization process. A formulation conducted with the designer’s tools. Was it, too, a science? Certainly yes, if by the term we mean a form of systematic knowledge. But it was also a critical form of investigation, a reading oriented by the operating subject that proceeds by layers and phases, recognizes in the object the aptitude for transformation and, fundamental fact, the expression of a civil context. Reading is therefore already a project, it is an evaluation and a choice. For this reason, it cannot aspire to the (moreover relative) objectivity of the descriptive sciences, as well as the design that follows is the full responsibility of the designer, with the inevitable discontinuities due to an evident condition of crisis.

However, the Conzenian school had inherited a particular meaning of geography, that of the cultural landscape, of the territory as a synthesis in the making of successive transformations. A meaning that we felt close to. This is the definition of urban morphology that Jeremy Whitehand, the best-known exponent of the Conzenian school gives: ‘Urban morphology is the study of the built form of cities, and it seeks to explain the layout and spatial composition of urban structures and open spaces, their material character and symbolic meaning, in light of the forces that have created, expanded, diversified, and transformed them ‘. A broad and open meaning, in many ways similar to ours. On the wave of this affinity, Isuf was born, which over time had to reach its current dimensions of international association, transforming itself into a large container in which many souls live together. The Italian journal, therefore, was born as a complementary communication tool devoted to the reading and to the architectural design. Within this context, our initial aspiration was to consider the journal itself as a project, an architecture in some way, made up of congruent parts linked by a relationship of necessity. The ideal reference could only be the post-war publishing tradition, the season in which architecture magazines reported the great debates that then revolved around the revision of the international modernity. We soon realized, however, how that production was the result of a cultural climate in which different and cohesive communities of experimenters converged, who grouped around common convictions, making clear the positions taken, clear debates and controversies. A quite different climate from the current one, fragmented in many separate research, rarely communicating with each other. Moreover, within a more general condition in which the common meaning of the term “form” considers the rational and concrete aspect of our profession to be of little relevance. A context in which the term “type” smacks of archaeology and those of “construction” and “fabric” of obsolete techniques, despite the fact that their unifying meaning, and their civil value are in direct relationship with the emerging issues of the current city.

Every author ends up today by producing autonomous contributions to the journals, linked to the others only by a common theme. For this reason, we have tried to involve some designers and scholars interested in the problem of the concrete study of urban form already in the planning of this and the next issue. At the same time being aware, however, of the inevitable partiality of the operation. While we were not deluding ourselves that the structure of the issue could be born from this day of study (task and responsibility of the editorial staff), we believed that this meeting could however compare themes, ideas, points of view in such a way that each author could take into account the context in which his article ranks. It seems to me that the result confirms, with all the limits of an experiment, the effectiveness of the method. This issue, in fact, does not constitute a form of proceedings of the study day, but the collection of contributions by it oriented, often quite different from those presented during the meeting.

The articles derived from the study day are partly published in this and partly will be published in the next issue of the journal. The following issue, just because of the questions that have arisen on the concrete usefulness of morphology studies, will be dedicated to the urban project.