Seminar on Criticism and Teaching of Architecture Master of Architectural and Urban Project – MAP [au] National University of La Plata
Ayman Safi Zaid
SOMISA, between Alvarez and Otriz About the SOMISA building; its critique by the architect Federico Ortiz, published in Summa magazine, No. 186 April 1983, and the critique to the critique by the architects Mario Alvarez published in Summa magazine, No. 189 July 1983 I think it was a unique quality of professionalism criticizing and replying openly and via the same medium by a critique to the critique, considering the communication tools they had since 34 years. I think the idea of a dialogue of criticism in architecture was a professional way to transmit expressions, to clarify ideas, point to technical details and to share thoughts about styles. Personally, I appreciate such type of dialogue and I think that this is a practice of democracy within architecture development. Such a quality we miss in places from where I come from, concurrently with a complex circumstances affected by a global growing norm of individuality of interests, and of dominancy of capitalists. An architectural project from one side is a product of a limited bilateral relation between the architect both the designer and the builder- and the client, through different phases like trust gaining, design development, until building. From the other side, the realized project become part of the city fabric, and part of the collective views and systems. Although a building is a property of its legal owner, and it’s a product of its designers and builders, but on another level when the project become in operation, it’s then shared, and then belongs to the larger context, affecting and affected at the same time, in the street, the block, the neighborhood, the city, etc. Architecture has functional and order dimensions that are linked to the context. In addition, modern architecture sought to have long lifespan, especially with the modern advancement in structure, materials, and technologies. The work of various architects -and other players- collectively shape and affect the city. From this point of view, it becomes only logical to take responsibility of thinking and rethinking very wisely about each permanent piece added to the city. Thus, I understand the importance of the continuous criticism in different times upon several factors and by various professionals. In the case of professional criticism, it helps to become constructive when it’s public, discussing conceptual and technical aspects, and the feedback becomes part of project story and documentation. The dialog benefits and educate other professionals and clients. In addition, it rises and maintains the public sense of understanding architecture, understanding both the singularity of a project and the pluralism of the city and its society. I had read various texts for this seminar, but finally I chose to write about SOMISA. I understand that this seminar is not about constructing critique of architecture, but I truly could not help not to notice SOMISA singularity when I first visited it. May be because I felt the contrast in expression and context when we were in its basement hall presenting a project about the informal settlements of the republic of Argentina, starting and starring by the famous Villa 31, in the building of Ex-SOMISA, which was at that time -December 2013- the headquarters of the chief of cabinet of ministers.
Page 1 de 5