Page 1


Shelter by Gianni Accasto

Didactic exercise Fall Semester 2010

Interior worlds: “Shelter” Main Editor Gennaro Postiglione Course of Interior Architecture Faculty of Architettura e Società Politecnico di Milano Editor Adam Lucas Manfredi

only for pedagogic purpose not for commercial use

INDEX 00_Shelter by Gianni Accasto 01_Kelvingrove art gallery and Museum 02_City hall of porto alegre 03_Beurs van berlage 04_Batista campos square 05_Kuopion city market 06_Copacabana sidewalk 07_Union station 08_Oulun city market 09_Tantolunden park 10_Pennsylvania station 11_New york public library 12_S達o paulo city opera 13_Grand central station 14_Guell park 15_Palace of fine arts san francisco

16_Grand army plaza

36_San francisco maritime museum

17_Valencia central market

37_Duffy square

18_Paço da liberdade curitiba

38_Fredhall park

19_UFPR historical building

39_Fair park texas

21_Stockholm city hall

40_USA national gallery

22_Lincoln memorial


23_Skandia theater


24_Rui barbosa square or sation square

43_Jefferson memorial

25_Café de unie 26_Verdi square 27_Buckingham fountain 28_Stockholm public library 29_Pildamm park 30_Paradise Restaurant for Stockholm Expo 30’

44_Nuestra senhora de africa market 45_Minestry of public health and education building 46_Marabounparken 47_Vasaparken 48_Pampulha park 49_Stuyvesant town

31_Jefferson park

50_Oslo city hall

32_National museum of fine arts buenos aires

51_Dome of discovery

33_National archives of USA 34_Mexico fine arts palace 35_Farroupilha park

52_Vallingby centrum 53_Abby aldrich rockefeller sculpture garden

54_Ibirapuera park

71_SĂŠ square sp

55_Centre national des industries et techniques

72_Kimbel art museum

56_Crown hall 57_Seagram building 58_National museum of western art 59_Guggenheim museum ny 60_Flamengo park 61_Toronto city hall square 62_Nordic countries pavillion at venice biennal 63_Dartmouth massachusetts university library 64_Mexico national museum of antropology

73_Van gohg museum 74_Kresge college 75_Chicago federal center 76_Birigui park 77_Georges pompidou center 78_New national gallery 79_Forum in new halles 80_Zentralsparkasse 81_The barbican center 82_The roof of the alma station 83_Neue staatsgalerie

65_Metropolitan theater at lincoln center

84_Modern art wing des moines art center

66_Oakland museum of california

85_Tanner fountain

67_Le corbusier center


68_Neue nationalgalerie

87_Pyramid at louvre museum

69_Toronto dominiom

88_Broadgate center

70_Itamaraty palace garden

89_Grand arche

90_Place stalingrad 91_Tokyo city square 92_Place berri 93_Story garden 94_Overtown pedestrial mall 95_Schouwburgplein 96_La barceloneta maritime sidewalk 97_Gallego center of contemporary art 98_Reuilly garden 99_SÊ square salvador 100_Editor’s own picture

Shelter by Gianni Accasto

Abstract In the essay, the author talks about the sense of interiority in the urban sphere. He starts saying that the interiority is a state of mind and that this state is provided by the configuration of the space. Even more, the author affirms that there’s a special feature that can give the space this sense of interiority, which is the inside/outside boundary that according to him is “an old-age site of exchange and transition. This feature is so important because it can turn the space in the urban scene into a shelter or not. For the author the shelter in the urban sphere is a place that gathered people by proving them a sort of interior space in the outside, a place where people can feel safe, where they can rest or even just waist some time, finding a kind of oasis in the middle of the city rush. According to the author if the inside/outside

boundary is not able to exist, if this place of “exchange and transition” cannot be provided the shelter space cannot exist. That’s why during the essay the author give a lot of examples of situations in which this shelter appears or does not appears and the consequences of these to the people that use the urban scene. The author emphasizes the importance of the existence of the shelter space in the urban sphere when he affirms that ‘’the city is the human place per excellence, dense, variegated, the construction of all men’’ and also when he affirms that city and civilization are two concepts that are inseparable in this instance of the analysis. With this is possible to conclude that is only possible for the human being exists in a place where it’s a shelter for him (city) because this place should provide him the possibility of communi-

cations integration within the human individuals (civilization) because that’s the only way the human being can exist is in civilization. So for the author the shelter is a particular place in the city where the human interactions can take place in a sort of relaxed way. Because of this prior importance of the shelter the author condemns the rationalist attitude of the modern movement that had disintegrated the city space and with this resulted in the inexistence of shelters in the city and even more created one more problem to the city, the skyscraper. The building that puts inside it all the human’s activities and create a boundary between men and between men and the urban space. That’s why the author ends the essay affirming the importance of the maintenance of the shelter place in the urban scene and the defending the idea of avoid the skyscraper as a solution for the city problem as many people still believe nowadays.

Paper The inside/outside boundary has been a crucial place throughout the history of architecture, an age-old site of exchange and transition. Ledoux’ engraving entitled “the poor man’s shelter” (l’abri du pauvre) is one of the discipline’s archetypical images. While one of the purposes of interior architecture is to make a comfortable environment, what we have here is the dream of an entire world that is wholly comfortable, the yearning for an “absolute” interior, and – most importantly for our purposes – the extension of the feel of indoors to the urban scene. “Urban interior” can mean many things, but it is also an oxymoron, one which seems at first sight to be reviving the old opposition between architects and tapestry-makers in the framework ofcontemporary debate.

Let us start by examining the terms of certain questions, for these are thick with complexities however they are viewed. Cities, and with them the categories of urban design, are configured and described in just one particular way at present: in terms of their characteristics as sites of communication and exchange, of the public sphere. The interior (“interiority”, or what at the start of our modern age was called l’intérieur) is primarily a matter of the private sphere, of security from transgression. These two cross-fertilize mutual inferences, so we are obliged to clarify relationships and define our terms. So: let us agree that the “interior” is first of all a state of mind, an opportunity to make something one’s own by arranging a space. Furthermore we may define “interior ar-

chitecture” as a system of procedures and arrangements which makes architecture habitable, matching its rhythms (and also of the city) to those of living. Light is cast here by Walter Scott’s brief description of the sense of “interior” in Ivanhoe, explaining how, when a lady was to occupy an apartment, the servants would hang its walls with cloth coverings: an operation, a mediation was required in order to make a given piece of architecture habitable. There are analogous operations in the case of the city, and also differences; the first sign of the appropriation of space, of the city’s existence, is its boundary, the city wall. Here we should recall Ryckwert’s essay on myths of origin, and the complexities that underlie the city as an institution. Founding rites, too, can be seen as procedures for matching the rhythms of habitation with those of the world. The city, says Fustel de Coulanges, is the human place par excellence: dense, variegated, the construction of all men; in this it differs from the clarity of the ideal city of architects or philosophers, which expresses a reflective view of habitation and lives its own parallel life, cosseted in the aquarium of theory. Cities and their buildings have, incidentally, a relationship with beauty that is only partial, only marginal; few portions are created by the official professionals of beauty. Humans adapt, get used to their city and its architecture. Much that is thought hideous today will win our hearts in the end, if it survives. A Klossowsky tells the story of an extraterrestrial visitor who discovers one dominant species on our planet, Great Buildings, and a subordinate species (mankind) which exists only to serve them and extend their domain. We should also remember the

shipwreck of Erik F. Russell’s Martian Village, which reshapes itself day after day – even changing completely – to suit the shape of its builders: a charming story with much truth. We should also remember the notion – which appears in many places – of the “chair that fits anyone”: clearly, a more plausible idea is that of the human child, born small in a world full of objects and growing up until he can sit in the chair (with our present subject, though, we should always bear symmetrical correspondences in mind, starting with Alberti’s house/city parallels). Clearly, though, cities and architecture must be affected by a general crisis like the present worldwide one. This is undoubtedly a difficult moment for architecture (I prefer not to use the term “crisis” in this instance, because crisis is almost a necessary condition for art; and, I believe, for the city too, for it cannot be tranquil for ever: its dynamics require constant changes in understanding and accommodation; I also agree that our cities suffer from stagnation – and not just miserable transport, either). With revivals, pseudotechnical myths, a surfeit of change, kitsch, remakes, etc, architecture right now is at best in hock, at worst in thrall to the other arts. The city’s “difficult moment” is proving a hallmark of this new millennium: plans to militarize space, nostalgia for the ordered castrum (though considering Baghdad this is less plausible…). Virilio said we just have to accept that the city is disorderly, and necessarily so (remember, too, Quaroni’s account of the tension between Rome and other Roman cities, and his Tower of Babel). We have Benjamin’s description of the labyrinthine Paris of the Arcades; and

likewise, from a century earlier, Victor Hugo’s (partly invented) Paris of the sewers. No Metro then, no Zazie; nor had Beineix yet made the film he should have called “Nôtre Dame des Métros”. Above all, Prefect Haussmann was yet to finish his work of demolishing houses and deploying boulevards, his new city spinning what have been called the “Tales of Haussmann”. (Bloggers attacking Haussmann’s work claim his new metropolis with its huge new sewer system unintentionally created an ideal habitat for vampire bats, which the Parisians therefore call Haussmann’s Children). Virilio has good grounds, then, for saying that Paris is not all open, despite Haussmann, but a succession of interiors: closed in by walls or other boundaries; house walls, city walls, right up to the walls of the world. Before Kansai airport was built it was said – and will be again when, it seems, that airport is submerged again – that the Great Wall was the only artefact visible from the moon. It was built to give physical form to a definitive, universal judgement on the world: on the one hand, the civilized world of humans; on the other, the world of barbarians and fairs. Rome, too, built its walls and carefully marked its Limites; the determination to give meaning to the contrast between inside and out has always been a hallmark of every culture. This is charmingly put in Ivan Morris’ essay on Heian Japan “The World of the Shining Prince”: the harshest sentence for a nobleman was to be sent out of the city, even on a mission we would consider important; it meant leaving civilisation (I have no idea whether in Japanese the words for “city” and “civilisation” share the same root as they do with us, but in this instance they are in-

separable); beyond the city boundaries were brutes, storms, and discomfort: the world outside was not habitable. Some centuries later, the rude creatures of the countryside were first redeemed as leading characters in Il Ruzante’s works. Later still, they and their habitations became the very subject-matter of the myths of the Noble Savage and the State of Nature, the original housing of the soul, and bore witness to the threads linking Laugier, Rousseau and Thoreau. The last fifty years have unfortunately seen other walls, from the Berlin Wall to the “security barrier” in the West Bank, unwitting and miserable replies to the tragedies of the ghetto. Earlier came the Maginot and Siegfried Lines, the Atlantic Wall and the smaller Alpine Wall: but everywhere, as for the La Marquise d’O in Rohmer’s film, the enemy (and the new) always wins by appearing along an expected route. Walls, then, as well as setting limits, express the limitations of their builders. On both sides they fail to restrain, they define oppositions whose weaknesses – limits – they reveal, often with unexpected consequences. Now I turn to the origins of the modern world; the walls are down, the city/country boundary dissolving; but simultaneously the urban world is dissolving too; we face an almost Oriental suggestion, dissolution as harmony. The elements of civilization become more and more “interior” as they move into buildings. This is only marginally due to the Rationalist redefinition of the city in terms of functional parts. True, functionality’s categories have over time dissolved and diminished the irreducible complexities of urban life; but when the Rationalists made this simplification, they were surely carrying forward what Virilio calls the “mental map

of the city”, their attitude of civilization. They could experiment with annihilating complexities, based (at the extreme) on a “city of houses alone”. This attitude however, not far from the spontaneous attitude of the wallbuilder, has exhausted itself over the years and grown remote; mockexperimental has nowadays replaced the real thing. Theories of the ideal city, with their various approaches, have also contributed much to today’s situation, from theoretical constructions (ranging from the Eighth century to the Nineteenth) to the visionary communities of America. A model has been progressively worked out, which is not just a shared house or common home, in which the characteristics of urban living – of community – begin to redefine social and spatial relationships together, placing them inside the buildings. This leads to two paradoxes: Asimov’s Trantor, a wholly-constructed world, an immense indoors whose outdoors has vanished; and Metropolis, where the city/country dichotomy renews Hugo’s city/underground one; and finally Ballard’s great Condominium, where order triggers violence and self-destruction. For those outside, the talking-point is urban wastelands, social problems, jobs, resources, from their role in the ancient city as the outcome of building, to the consequences of defending the hollowness of Rationalism. As Caesar built a desert (another oxymoron) outside the limes, so the Rationalists by taking the city to pieces began to build a desert of houses (Virilio recalls Aragon’s Paysan de Paris, who inhabits a wilderness of houses; opera-lovers will recall that La Traviata made the same point fifty years earlier). In this wilderness, civilization has to be sheltered

indoors; the alternative solution of suburban destruction, merrily embraced by some, “is formal suicide”. Let us reconsider the destruction of the city walls. This replaced static masonry with free passage; but the secure, constricting boundary of stones gave way to the unbearable steel-and-rubber boundary of ring roads and Beltways. Structures made to encourage movement have turned out paralysing snares. We cannot but remember Godard’s Weekend, stopped dead more than thirty years ago like Warhol’s “Empire”, but not even managing silence. A Paris taxi-driver maintained that what was wrong with the boulevards is that they were longer than they are broad: the other way round, traffic would flow just fine. The paradox is both a caricature and a description of what one might expect of a city designed by Le Corbusier, a tabula rasa on which great buildings would rise to house civilization, to summarize the city within themselves. In fact such summaries are most problematic; the tradition is an ancient one: the earthly paradise of the walled garden, the animals sheltered in the Ark, nature domesticated in the glasshouses of Kew, the whole world assembled and explained under the vaults of the Crystal Palace. Firstly notice how, in a series of steps, we slide from the Wunderkammer to Disneyland to Italy in Miniature: representation, not construction, is central to each: travel, as Papanek’s student says after his Italian trip, is confused, wearisome and dirty; much better Italy’s theme park epitome. Instead of the construction of the city we have the collecting of souvenirs, the representation of events (with a miserable use of “event” which reveals our inability to bear the necessary grandeur).

Our pre-eminent features are now fakes or representations, their short duration itself an (improbable) representation of life’s mutability. In this tranquillized representation danger appears suddenly, regardless of the creators’ intentions; Fuller’s Manhattan Dome foreshadows the alien spaceship in “Independence Day”. Modern architecture, designed to cover and protect, has, on the contrary, incubated within the city the germs of destruction; another reason why the cities of Utopia are enclosed inside their buildings. When I was studying, Cumbernauld Town Centre had a great – perhaps excessive – reputation. Designed as a container of civi- lization; at once a scion of the good English tradition and a faded echo of the underground river of Utopia. The “creation” of events places architecture what we could call “next door” to the other arts: all its peculiar difficulties of expression have been removed. This subordinate status is immediately clear from the disorganized repositioning of the new architects in an overbusy “star” system looking like something out of a Marvel cartoon (apologies to the Fantastic Four). Here again, though, there are longestablished roots: critics who retail the history of architecture as some League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (without seeing the film, and without a shred of its irony). We could call this breathless hysteria of time-worn novelties a period of Olympian architecture, of a quest for records and achievements aptly summarized in the motto “faster, higher, stronger”. As to “higher”, a new dimension, almost, was invented with the elevator: the start of a new race, with unknown rules and results; but remember “who knows not

where to go, goes up.” After beholding Manhattan from his ship, Le Corbusier wrote that the skyscraper is a cataclysm in slow motion; worryingly, the thought is almost a premonition; worryingly, also, the collapse of the Twin Towers has been described as “a great work of art for a new century”: we who have felt the horror have difficulty understanding that this description refers not to the tragedy but to the significance which art has to take on: Virilio says to create art is to cause an accident. Nevertheless, accidents should be avoided in architecture, however stupid we find the safety rules; living in battle is – perhaps – the job of demigods, and entails a need for much rest. For humans, perhaps, there is the possibility of irony; but that implies detachment. The tragedy of this century’s beginning is that irony is actually the Unsafety Exit for anyone still wanting to participate, to mark the landscape. As Victor Hugo put it: a joke made about a misdeed is more horrifying than the deed itself; nothing is more abominable than a crime that does not remain serious. (Translated by Dick Nowell –


Aragon, Louis. 1960. Il paesano di Parigi (1926). Transl. Paolo Caruso. Milano: Il Saggiatore. Benjamin. Walter. 1986. Parigi, capitale del XIX secolo. I “passages” di Parigi (1982). Transl. Giorgio Agamben. Torino: Einaudi. Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis. 1972. La città antica (1864). Transl. Gennaro Perrotta. Firenze: Sansoni. Lotringer, Sylvère&Paul Virilio. 2005. The Accident of Art (2005). Transl. Michael Taormina. New York&Los Angeles: Semiotext(e). Morris, Ivan. Il mondo del principe splendente: Vita di corte nell’antico Giappone (1964). Transl. Piero Parri. Milano: Adelphi 1984. Rykwert, Joseph. 1981. L’idea di città: Antropologia della forma urbana nel mondo antico (1976). Transl. Giuseppe Scattone. Torino: Einaudi. Virilio, Paul. 2004. Città panico (2004). Transl. Laura Oddero. Milano: Cortina. ------. 2007. Valutazioni d’Impatto: Presenza fattuale o Telepresenza? Domus, no. 899, January.


‘00/shelter/heroes square

A place that draws people like this in the picture is a shelter, once people go their to have a walk or to relax, to talk to some friends or just to waste some time. As we can see in the picture the square is full of people walking around it and using the space.

‘01/shelter/kelvingrove art gallery and Museum

In this picture we have a group of people in front of the building using the public space, some of them are talking, other ones are walking and some of them are just fooling around. In other words they are interacting and using the space.

‘02/shelter/city hall of porto alegre

In this picture we can see that outhought it looks like some people are in a rush in the same time we can see people (some kids) that are using the public space without caring with the time. They are having a moment of confratenization in this place because they have the feeling of in doors, of interiority, in the urban scene, once it’s possible because the space provides this feeling.

‘03/shelter/beurs van berlage

Here we have some people sitting in tables, probably having something to eat, they are talking to each other, having some kind of relationship. That’s what happens in a place like a shelter in the urban scene.

‘04/shelter/batista campos square

In this picture we have the image of a square being used by some people. We can see a family on the left and a man on the right. Probably the family is there because the place provide them a sort of feeling that makes them feel confortable or safe. That’s one feature of a shelter place. The man is carrying a sort o pop corn car, probably he is working there because it’s a place where lots of people go there to use the public space like the family in the picture.

‘05/shelter/kuopion city market

Some people talking in front of a public market in what seems to be a public square. They are using the space because the space invites them to use it, because the space gives the opportunities to people to meet there and waste some time together as a shelter place do.

‘06/shelter/copacabana sidewalk

People in the beach using the walkside, lying on the sand, entering in the water, having some fun, possible just because the configuration of the space, because the space has a sort of attrack feeling and people feel well there, like in a shelter.

‘07/shelter/union station

Here we can see that there are some people using the space, sitting in the steps, others are walking in front of the building and there’s also a man selling something in a king of car. They all are there because the space allows them to use it in this specific way.

‘08/shelter/oulun city market

A busy day in front of this public market, some people are coming, some are going and there are also some having something to eat or simply just talkins sitting on tables. But they are all using the space, sharing the feeling of safety that this provides them.

‘09/shelter/tantolunden park

A day in a park is always a pleasure like for the people in the picture. They are having some time together, enjoying the sun, talking to each other in this place because here it’s possible for them to do it, the space was created far this purpose. The place makes them feel good. The place is a shelter

‘10/shelter/pennsylvania station

In this picture we have a place of exchange and transition, a place where people come and go, where they meet each other by chance without schedulling like a shelter provide this situation, this chance of meet some one that you already know.

‘11/shelter/new york public library

In this picture a crowd in sitting in the steps of the new york public library. Why are they doing this ? Because they are tired of the rush of city ? Probably. But why did all of this people choose the same place ? That’s probably bacause they feel same staying there like if they were in a shelter.

‘12/shelter/são paulo city opera

Once again people in the stairs in a big city Like São Paulo, in front of an important building, they are using the public space because this space provides them the feeling of being in home, otherwise they wouldn’t stay in this place. The space provides them a sort of safety.

‘13/shelter/grand central station

Another time we are in front of a place of exchange and transition, a place where maybe you can find some one that you know. As a station it’s a place that for many people when they arrive there from a trip they feel almost in home, because the space provides them the feeling of safety.

‘14/shelter/guell park

Kids playing, people taking pictures, others just hangging out. This place is defenately a shelter for it’s users once the have the feeling of enjoying the space, the feeling of spending some time together interacting like if they would’ve done in a shelter.

‘15/shelter/palace of fine arts san francisco

A day of sun in a park, in a place like this specificaly, in a place that’s being used. You see people sitting, talking, having some time together. This place provides them this feeling of relaxing.

‘16/shelter/grand army plaza

Some people just passing by, some people having a conversation, some people just sitting together and enjoying the moment. That’s the scene of a shelter in the urban space, like the one we can look in this picture.

‘17/shelter/valencia central market

People sitting in front of a market, talking, going, just walking, meeting people. That’s a feature of a shelter, a place that provides people this sort of well-feeling.

‘18/shelter/paço da liberdade curitiba

Everybody together celebration something that they all share, they choose a place that makes them feel like if they were at home to celebrate. A place like this square in the picture. that gives them the sense of safety, like a shelter.

‘19/shelter/ufpr historical building

Here we have some people spending some time on the steps of this stair in a busy center, for sure they are there because they feel well using this space, because the features of the space allows them to feel like that, like in a shelter.

‘21/shelter/stockholm city hall

People talking, people spending some time together in a public space that’s what a shelter is. A place that’s allows people to have relationships to each other.

‘22/shelter/lincoln memorial

In this image we can see people using the space, sharing some time together. They feel safe, the space provides them this feeling, like a shelter do.

‘23/shelter/skandia theater

A cinema draws lots of people, like in the picture on the side there’s a group of people staying together in the same place, with the same interrests. They are using the place in front of the cinema as a meeting place, where they can have a conversation, met who they know without any trouble.

‘24/shelter/rui barbosa square or sation square

Here in this picture the kids are playing in this square and the adult are talking. In other words the place is being used, the people are interacting and all them share the same feeling of safety because of the configuration of the space.

‘25/shelter/café de unie

People is sitting on tables on the sidewalk, the boudary inside/outside of the café has been removed with this people can interact with the social enviroment, with the city scene. Is always more interresting to sit near the street in cafés because it’s there where the action happens, where people meet each other, where there’s more interaction.

‘26/shelter/verdi square

Here we can see a busy center but it doens’t mean that people doesn’t also feel confortable in this same place. There are people coming and others going and there are also some of them relaxing while they spend some time sitting near the square because the configuration the space allows them. This feature of a shelter.

‘27/shelter/buckingham fountain

This fountain is a place that gather people, they reunited around it because the place has a kind of attraction feeling on people, because it’s configuration provides them to have sometime together, relaxing the mind from the busy life, they feel safe and well.

‘28/shelter/stockholm public library

In front of this library in Stockholm people use the space to meet each other, to sell things once people pass by. Like in the picture, some are walking others are bicycling. The space provides them this oppotuinity of sharing the same feeling of safety, of indoors in the urban scene.

‘29/shelter/pildamm park

All sharing the same feeling in the same space having a confraternization, relationships are being established. People is interacting to each other because the is place is propitious to this kind of use, a well use of the space.

‘30/shelter/ Paradise Restaurant for Stockholm Expo 30’

This old picture shows us a place that’s being used by a lot of people, all of them are sharing the same time in the same place, a place that provides them this opportunity of staying together, in a confortable enviroment having a sort of relation with each other thanks to the kind of space that makes it possible.

‘31/shelter/jefferson park

Now we can see people using the same place, having fun together, or just relaxing. Some of them feel like they are in their own house, probably like the elderly woman on the left, because all of them have the same feeling of safety provided by the space.

‘32/shelter/national museum of fine arts buenos aires

In this picture of the National museum of fine arts in buenos aires we can notice that some people are staying in the stairs, some of them are talking to each others, other ones are just passing time. This happens in this place because these people felt attracked by this place once there they have a sort of confotable space that invites them to use the space in a more ‘‘interior’’ way, not just like a place of the outside, but also as a place that makes parts of the indoors.

‘33/shelter/national archives

The space in this picture is related to a shelter once it’s a gathered place, people go there because they feel well, even more the spaces provides them the chance on interaction within each other and with urban scene like a place as a shelter.

‘34/shelter/mexico fine arts palace

People are using this place, some are just sitting, others are meeting people, there’s movement in this space, there’s life, human life, the place is a local for being together for interaction, a place in the middle of the city that makes it possible.

‘35/shelter/farroupilha park

People go to this park to meet each other, to enjoy the place, the weather, the moment because it’s possible for them to do it thaks by the configuration of the space that was created for this specific meaning, to reunite people, makes possible the relationship within them, turning itself into a shelter for those who have the pleasure to use it.

‘36/shelter/san francisco maritime museum

In this picture we see people walking together, talking, sitting side-by-sibe, sharing the same feeling in the same moment in this place that makes it possible for them to have this kind of experience together interacting with the urban scene.

‘37/shelter/duffy square

In the middle of the by center of New York people found a place that allows them to take a break, to take a breath. A place that only allows this because of it’s configuration of it’s use, because people keep this place alive and in the other hand the spaces makes possible the people to use it. Like here we see some people on the stairs others near the monument, or ever some just standing, they are all using a space that gives them the feeling of interiority, of indoors, proving the safety needed to feel at home.

‘38/shelter/fredhall park

People are using the space in the picture because they feel well in this park. They can relax there, they can also meet each other, know some new people. That is that keeps the city alive, what makes the city the human place per excellence, this interaction that creates civilization.

‘39/shelter/fair park texas

The human shelter here is a place that turns possible the meeting of people, allows them to have a talk to stay together, because the spatial structure of the space makes possible it’s weel use, provining to people a safe place.

‘40/shelter/usa national gallery

People on the stair, meeting each other, they all share the same place. A place that gives them the feeling of confort of welcome, that makes them goes out of their homes to have a piece of communication with the world, the human society.


All this families have chosen the same place to spend the day because of one reason, this place is a shelter in the urban scene. It’s proveded once this space is so well used and this use makes possible that the place keeps staying as a meeting place, in a kind of symbiotic relationship.


It’s possible for us to see that this park is a meeting place in the middle of the city once all this people in the picture have gone to the same place to have some rest, to interact to each other and maybe know someone new. It’s defenately a place been used as a shelter.

‘43/shelter/jefferson memorial

All this crowd in the picture feel well being in this place, that’s why they have gone to there. It’s a good place to have a interaction with other people because the place provides the feeling of being in a safe space.

‘44/shelter/nuestra senhora de africa market

In this picture we can clearly see the human action/interaction that happens in this place making it becomes alive. All of this people came to this market, beyond buying things, for have some kind of interaction within each other because the place povides them to have it, that’s that makes this place being a shelter.

‘45/shelter/ministry of public health and education building

Here we don’t see a huge number of people in the place, but we see in the same way few people that went to this place for some rason. Some to find another person or just to have a walk, but they all came to the same place because they were allowed to it, the place made it possible for them, to being used.


For those who have gone to this park this place is a sort of oasis in the city, they are having fun there, meeting people all together. That’s the shelter feature, a place that draws people, make them stay together in the same place.


In this picture some people are playing a game and the others are just wacthing, just possible because they have acces to a place that turns this kind of activities real. In other words, they are all together because the space is favorable to this situation due to it’s spatial structure and use. This place is a shelter because people can go there and because they want to go there due the well feeling the got there.

‘48/shelter/pampulha park

Here a group of people is taking a walk near the nature, along the river side, they are all doing this because this place is a shelter for them once they all are having interaction with each other due to the feeling of wellness and safety that they receive from this place.

‘49/shelter/stuyvesant town

In this square people is having a time of relax, a time o meeting, some of them are sitting in chairs, there’s an atmostphere of homeness here, the place provides this feeling, and makes possible that people use it as a shelter.

‘50/shelter/oslo city hall

We can see that people is using this place as a place of meeting, some kids are probably playing here, a man is bicycling other people is talking. It’s a gatheting place where people interact to each other that’s why it can be classified as a shelter.

‘51/shelter/dome of discovery

Here we also see a crowd that is using the same place for the purpose of meeting each other, they all have gone there because this place provides them the felling of safety, in other situation it wouldn’t be possible for them to use this place.

‘52/shelter/vallingby centrum

In this picture there are some people walking in the middle of the square spending sometime together, we can also see some tends that are used as places of selling which means that this square has been used in a way people go there, and also stay together meaning that this place is a shelter.

‘53/shelter/abby aldrich rockefeller sculpture garden

Here we also have a group talking to each other having a sort of relationship. This use of the space create a shelter, and this shelter is only possible because of the site’s features that allow the communication between people.

‘54/shelter/ibirapuera park

In this site we don’t see baundaries or walls, people can came and go without any obstacle, there’s no racionalization of the space, it’s possible to meet anyone, to have a talk with no problams what’s why the place is used, and it’s use distinguish this place as a shelter.

‘55/shelter/centre national des industries et techniques

In this picture people are sitting in the grass, laying in the ground and also they are talking to each other and thus meeting people. This kind of space that allows this sort of behavior and gives to it’s user the feeling of wellnes in the urban scene is a shelter as the place in showed in the picture.

‘56/shelter/crown hall

This group of students prove in this picture that the space in front of this building, in this stairs can be considered as a shelter once we can confirm that it’s a place that provides the meeting between people and the human relationships.

‘57/shelter/seagram building

The people in this picture tell us something about the place where they are. They tell us that this place is a shelter for them because it’s possible that they meet each other here and have sometime together in this area.

‘58/shelter/national museum of western art

In this picture we can see that some of the people are using the space of the square as a sort of refuge like the ones near the short wall, that happens because the space invites them to use this area as a place of relax, of interaction withing each other as a place to rest and pass some time due the sense of safety that the place provides them.

‘59/shelter/guggenheim museum ny

The place of the picture is an area that gathered people once it provides them the possibilities to have a conversation in a sort of human interaction. That’s makes this place a shleter because it invites people to stay there.

‘60/shelter/flamengo park

In this picture we clearly see that people is using the public space and that they are enjoying it, some of them are on the beach, the others are on the grass. All of them have the same feeling of confort and safety in the urban scene that they have in the spaces indoors

‘61/shelter/toronto city hall square

Here people are enjoynig sometime together in this place once it’s possible for them to use this area because they’ve got a feeling of safety and well state from this place thanks to the spaces features. This situation configure this place into a shelter.

‘62/shelter/nordic countries pavillion at venice biennal

Here in the Nordic Pavillion in the Venice Bienale we can see that the space provides the possibility of interaction within people. The boundary inside/outside is not noticable once is allowed to walk from “out to in� in the space. This place turns the humans interactions possible.

‘63/shelter/dartmouth massachusetts university library

This couple laying on the grass show us that this place is a place used for human interaction. people can meet there and this turns this place in to a shelter in the urban scene by possibiliting this kind of action, in the urban sphere.

‘64/shelter/mexico national museum of antropology

This large number of people is reunited here due this place makes it possible, where they can talk, they can rest or even just walk. Because of it’s possibility of use this place gives people the feelling of wellness, of a safe-place for them.

‘65/shelter/metropolitan theater at lincoln center

In this picture we see a group of people sitting near a fountain, because of this action, of this specific and spontaneous use the space around them it’s possible to call this place as a shelter for people when talking about the urban area.

‘66/shelter/oakland museum of california

Here we have the demonstration of well use of a urban space once we can see the crowd reunited to perform some kind of activity where lots of people are involved. This sort of relation among people in specific places in the city create areas that draw people as we can see here, that’s why we can call it as a shelter.

‘67/shelter/le corbusier center

This green area allows people to have a walk, to talk, to intaract to each other. They can spend the day there with no problems once there’s no walls, no boudaries in this urban space. It’s a place of transition where they can react also with the enviroment.

‘68/shelter/neue nationalgalerie

This wall in the picture is not a wall tha separates people into different kinds of space. In fact this wall near the green mass in a wall that gathered people that goes to this place because it allows the interaction, the view from this up part with the low part. It’s not a wall in the meaning of a ‘‘wall’’, it’s more like a huge seat that provides spaces for everyone.

‘69/shelter/toronto dominiom

People in this square are interacting to each other, they can go to anywhere and interact with anyone in this place, there’s no wall that limit the flow, the space is open and allows the communication within people.

‘70/shelter/itamaraty palace

Here we see two people standing and looking for the space in a way of moment of reflection and at the same time they are interacting with each others by each indivual presanse in that mutual interfiers the other one. This action takes place in this area becuse it’s provide the possibility of experimenting the sense of interaction there, this kind of use is only possible in this sort of space that allows people to interact without setting limits.

‘71/shelter/sĂŠ square sp

Here we see people using the space in form that the human intercations take place due the lack of walls that set limits making impossible the communication. Here we have the opposite, the space is used in a form that is possible to communicate to anyone, there is no limitaions.

‘72/shelter/kimbel art museum

In this picture we can see a group of people, probably a family using this green space in front of the building. We can also see some people siting on seats near the water. Because of this discription it’s possible to define that the place is used for human interaction in a sort of spontanous way, that turns the place into a shelter in the urban sphere.

‘73/shelter/van gohg museum

This large number of people laying on the grass is using this public space in a sort of way that tell us that they are feeling the space in the outside as a space in the inside, it’s a state of mind that determines the interiority feeling due only for the space’s features that allow this kind of activity.

‘74/shelter/kresge college

The people in this square is reunited here because this space gives them a feeling of safety while being using this area, thar’s way it’s a gathered place and we can considered as a shelter.

‘75/shelter/chicago federal center

Here we have in the middle of busy downtown a place that is a kind of paradise, that invites people to stay, to sit here, because the configuration of the space allows people to feel well, to feel safe. Strangers sitting in the same seat and sharing the same feelings in relation to the space.

‘76/shelter/birigui park

This people prove us that this place is an area with a high percentage of use, once we can see that people use this area for spots, for walking, for meet each orther. It’s a place that allows this use, and this use allow people to stay there. A place that Invites the co-habit.

‘77/shelter/georges pompidou center

In this image people is using the space in front of the building as a place of rest and also of gathering. This kind of use tell us that this place is an spacial place in the urban sphere. It’s the place that provides the human social interaction, the shelter.

‘78/shelter/new national gallery

Here we have the flow of people coming and going, the movement is possible. There’s no seted limits. People can meet each other, the space allows it, they can use the space as a meet point.

‘79/shelter/forum in new halles

This huge people have chosen this specific point in the urban landscap because here they feel confortable, they feel safe, they feel sheltered, once the space features give them this sort of ‘‘interior’’ feeling that makes people use the place as an indoors space.


We have here a station, a place that provides people the possibility to meet someone by chance, what can be the case of these people that are nearby each other in the picture, the place allows them to get together by putting them in the same condition.

‘81/shelter/the barbican center

This kind of square is the meeting point of the picture, we see that people use it to interact to each other, to relax or maybe just to spend some time, but the question here is that the space has been used by people and it allows that it happens.

‘82/shelter/the roof of the alma station

This picture looks like a special meeting, it looks like everyone here has been invited to be at the same time in the same place, but it’s not like this. The place is the factor that gathered all of this people due it’s a place that provides the possibility of meeting in the urban scene.

‘83/shelter/neue staatsgalerie

These people tell us much about this place. This spontanious meeting confirms us that people have a feeling that this place is a shelter for them in this area, outhoght they would not have ben reunited here, but they are. It’s a place that invites people to stay.

‘84/shelter/modern art wing des moines art center

The people in this huge open space tell us that here we are in front of a shelter place, once all this huge crowd is established in the same place and are using this area as the same way, and having the same feeling of a shelter about it.

‘85/shelter/tanner fountain

In this square we see that people reunited yourselves near the rocks and the water, from this we can conlude that here is a spacial place, a place of meeting, of gather as a shelter in the urban sphere.


In this picture we see two people using a specific space among this huge area. Why did they select this place ? The answer is that this place provided them a sort o wellness feeling, of safety, that invited them to sit in this spacific place, a place that provides the human interaction.

‘87/shelter/pyramid at louvre museum

The people along the pyramid have chosen this place to seat and to reunite because here the space allows them the possibility of use this area in the form they are using, as a gathering place, as a shelter.

‘88/shelter/broadgate center

This square is a place of transition where you can meet people, it’s possible to see by the picture that this place is being used for a lot of people that have decided to saty there because the place features and the feelings it provides them as a safe place.

‘89/shelter/grand arche

In the picture we see that the square is being used by a lot of people because it’s a place that invites people to gather and turning possible the human interactions within people in the urban scene as if they were in an indoors space, once we can notice people realxing in the seats and having conversations.

‘90/shelter/place stalingrad

This space is a spacial space because of it’s features that allow people to stay in this area and use it as a place of meetting. That’s why all of this people are reunited in the same place and sharing the same moment.

‘91/shelter/tokyo city square

This huge reunion of people is only provided in spaces like shelters that make people have the feelings of weelness and safety even in the urban secen because of it’s spacial features as we can see in the picture.

‘92/shelter/place berri

The people in this square are having fun, are getting together only because the space’s configuration allows it, otherwise it would be impossible. As we can see in the picture the place is been widely used, that means that it’s a place of reuinion , a shelter.

‘93/shelter/story garden

The kid in the front and the people in the back are using a space that makes them feel safe, that’s the reason they did not dicided to stay in another place with others features, because this place allow the human interaction.

‘94/shelter/overtown pedestrial mall

This people in the picture they are using this space in a special form. They reunited here as if they were in the indoors, that’s the interiority state of mind that gives them the perception of ‘‘in’’ in a place that in fact is ‘‘out’’, this feature of a shelter that provides safety.


In this picture we can see this huge group of people using this square because here we can find the shelter’s features that provide them the feeling of wellness needed to them to transform this space into a shelter.

‘96/shelter/la barceloneta maritime sidewalk

A place like this is responsable for giving the people the feeling of safety as we can see in the picture, that’s way this place is being used as a shelter, because people feel well here, it’s a spacial place in the city.

‘97/shelter/gallego center of contemporary art

The people in the stairs are using this area as shelter once they feel confortable in this place and had chosen here as a site to stay and relax, and interact with people and with the environment as we can see by this wimen figures in the picture.

‘98/shelter/reuilly garden

This hige crowd is laying on the grass, talking to each other and also playing some games olny because the area where they are is a shelter, and here we can notice the space under the bridge because it’s a piece of space that gives people the sense of safety that they need to saty in a place.

‘99/shelter/sĂŠ square salvador

For the people in this stair the place where they are is a shelter because that spot provides them the feeling of safety and confort that they are looking for in a place in the outside where they can use as theis own shelter.

‘100/shelter/editor’s own picture

In this picture that I took from the Duomo area in Milano in a Sunday afternoon we can observe a place that is caracterized as a shelter. The Duomo in Milano in the greatest shelter of the city because people go there to have a walk, to talk, to see other people, it’s the most vibrant place for human interaction in the city. It’s a place where the communication and the transitions are allowed, you can walk around the square in front of the church, or maybe sit on the steps of the stair and have a good moment just seeing the movement of the people, the city’s dinamic. There you can feel confortable because the place provides you this feeling of integration, of human society. For finish it defenately a Shelter place.


‘00: Heroes square - Budapest, Hungria Albert Schikedanz

‘05: kuopion city market - Kuopion, Finland Johan Strömberg Victor wordpress/?p=192

‘01: Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum Glasgow , United Kingdom Sir John W. Simpson ; E.J. Milner Allen

‘06: Copacabana sidewalk - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil José Américo de Souza Rangel http://impressoes-de-viagens.blogspot. com/2010/11/clima-de-verao-no-rio-dejaneiro.html

‘02: city hall of porto alegre - Porto Alegre, Brazil Osmar Muniz Bittencourt Ficheiro:Prefeitura_velha_de_porto_ alegre.jpg ‘03: beurs van berlage - Amsterdam, Netherlands Hendrik Petrus Berlage http://www.bananacitytrips. com/150d6ti613i-Amsterdam-things-to-doBeurs-van-Berlage.html ‘04: batista campos square - Belém, Brazil Lúcio Freitas do Amaral and others http://edilzafontes.blogspot. com/2010/01/belem-de-antonio-lemospraca-batista.html

‘07: Union Station - Washington D.C., USA Daniel Burnham File:WashingtonUnionStation.JPG ‘08: oulun city market - Oulun, Finland Karl Lindahl e Walter Thomé view?q=Oulu%20Kauppahalli&psc=G&filt er=1#5508684251430024770 ‘09: tantolunden park - Stockholm, Sweden Alfred Medina ‘10: pennsylvania station - New York, USA McKim, Mead and White’s top-10-coolest-train-stations-from-aroundthe-world/

Francisco Guard Vial and Alexander Soler

‘11: New York public library - New York, USA Carrère and Hastings venuedetails&id=6006

‘18: paço da liberdade curitiba - Curitiba, Brazil Candido de Abreu almanaque/news/496522/?noticia=NATAL +NO+PACO+DA+LIBERDADE+TEM+UM A+SERIE+DE+ATRACOES

‘12: são paulo city opera - São Paulo, Brazil Ramos de Azevedo ‘13: grand central station - New York, USA Warren and Wetmore, Reed and Stern ary/2921601556/ ‘14: guell park - Barcelona, Spain Antoni Gaudí ‘15: palace of fine arts san francisco - San Francisco, USA William Gladstone Merchant; Bernard Maybeck ‘16: grand army plaza - New York, USA Carrère and Hastings firm cp01-army.htm ‘17: Valencia central market - Valencia, Spain

‘19: UFPR historical building - Curitiba, Brazil Baeta de Faria ‘21: stockholm city hall - Stockholm, Sweden Ragnar Ostberg one?public_place_id=411# ‘22: lincoln memorial - Washington D.C. USA Henry Bacon N00/98870822/in/photostream/ ‘23: skandia theater - Oslo, Finland Erik Gunnar Asplund ‘24: rui barbosa square or sation square Belo Horizonte, Brazil Luiz Olivieri

‘25: café de unie - Rotterdam, Holand J.J.P. Oud ‘26: Verdi Square - New York, USA York and Sawyer http://theboweryboys.blogspot. com/2007_11_01_archive.html ‘27: buckingham fountain - Chicago, USA Bennett, Parsons, and Frost. ‘28: Stockholm public library - Stockholm, Sweden Erik Gunnar Ausplund ‘29: pildamm park - Stockholm, Sweden Erik Bulow-Hube ‘30: Paradise Restaurant for Stockholm Expo 30’ - Stockholm, Sweden Erik Gunnar Ausplund File:Stockh_1930_Paradiset.jpg ‘31: Jefferson Park - Chicago, USA Clarence Hatzfeld ‘32: National museum of fine arts buenos aires - Buenos aires, Agentine

Alejandro Bustillo ‘33: USA national archives - Washington D.C., USA John Russell Pope ncindc/2770921724/ ‘34: Mexico fine arts palace - Mexico city, Mexico Adamo Boari, Frederico Mariscal http://www.mcclatchydc. com/2010/12/02/104649/fresh-air-in-mexico-city.html ‘35: Farroupilha park - Porto Alegre, Brazil Alfred Agache http://portoimagem.wordpress. com/2010/09/19/parque-farroupilhacomemora-75-anos-hoje/ ‘36: San francisco maritime museum - San Francisco, USA Works Progress Administration alex/2923858545/ ‘37: Duffy square - New York, USA Charles keck. tkts-booth-and-the-redevelopment-of-father-duffy-square-byperkins-eastman-united-states/ tkts-booth-and-the-redevelopment-offather-duffy-square-small-scale-architectural-structure/

‘38: fredhall park - Stockholm, Sweden Osvald Almqvist books?id=PbDl860Qx-oC&pg=PA22&lpg =PA22&dq=fredhall+park&source=bl&ots =9Sa4vkICsk&sig=4j9o6SvXHdsl3B9wW DhrUDB0qC8&hl=pt-br&ei=lWxITZbYMYiWswbSuYT7Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&c t=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAg #v=onepage&q=fredhall%20park&f=false ‘39: fair park texas - Dallas, USA George L. Dahl art-deco-photos/ ‘40: USA National Gallery - Washington, USA John Russell Pope most-visited-museums-us-2009-slide-3. html ‘41: Tessinparken - Stockholm, Sweden Arvid Stille froskur/807916866/ ‘42: Tegnerlunden - Stockholm, Sweden Erik Glemme N08/3355485329/ ‘43: Jefferson memorial - Washington D.C. - USA John Russell Pope assignments/99-washington/studentwork/2a/team22A/WTrip_team22A/ place8.htm

‘44: Nuestra senhora de africa market Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain José Enrique Marrero Regalado http://canariasratitosdenuestrahistoria. ‘45: Ministary of public health and education building - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Arq. Lucio Costa ‘46: marabounparken - Sundbyberg, Sweden Sven Hermelin and Inger Wedborn http://www.sverigesvackrastepark. se/2008/0508.htm ‘47: Vasaparken - Stockholm, Sweden Erik Glemme php?id=36139 ‘48: Pampulha park - Belo Horizonte, Brazil Oscar Niemeyer turismo/pontos-turisticos/marcos-damodernidade/lagoa-da-pampulha ‘49: stuyvesant town - New York, USA Metropolitan Life Insurance Company File:Stuyvesant_Town_-_New_York_ City.jpg ‘50: Oslo city hall - Oslo, Norway

‘51: Dome of discovery - London – United Kingdom Ralph Tulbs ‘52: vallingby centrum - Stockholm, Sweden Backstrom, Reinius and other File:Vallingby_2.jpg ‘53: abby aldrich rockefeller sculpture garden - New York, USA com/1232/566552963_b0e2b87b81.jpg ‘54: ibirapuera park - São Paulo, Brazil Oscar Niemeyer e Otavio Augusto teixeira Mendes ‘55: Centre national des industries et techniques - Paris, France Bernard Zehrfuss with Camelot and De Mailly ‘56: Crown hall - Chicago, USA Mies Van der Rohe ‘57: Seagram building - New York, USA Philip Johnson York.html ‘58: national museum of western art - Tokyo, Japan Le Corbusier ‘59: Guggenheim museum ny - New York, USA Franl Lloyd Wright museum_.html ‘60: Flamengo park - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Burle Marx ‘61: Toronto city hall square - Toronto, Canada Viljo Revel http://ryersonarchitecture.blogspot. com/2010/05/doors-open-toronto.html ‘62: Nordic countries pavillion at venice biennal - Venice, Italy Sverre Fehn venice-biennial-2010-nordic-countries.html ‘63: Dartmouth massachusetts university library - Massachusetts, USA Paul Rudolph read/arquitextos/08.090/189

‘64: Mexico national museum of antropology - Mexico city, Mexico Pedro Ramirez Vasquez htm ‘65: metropolitan theater at lincoln centerNew York, USA Wallace K. Harrison, concert-hall-design/metropolitan-operahouse/ ‘66: oakland museum of california - Oakland, USA Kevin Roche ‘67: Le Corbusier center - Zurique – Switzerland Le Corbusier item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/buildings& CISOPTR=12555&CISOBOX=1&REC=9 ‘68: Neue nationalgalerie - Berlin, Germany Mies Van der Rohe shumake/berlin/1184439600/neue-nationalgalerie.jpg/tpod.html ‘69: Toronto dominion center - Toronto, Canada Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, john B. Parkin and Associates, Bregman + Hamann Architects. N00/157167320/

‘70: Itamaraty Palace garden - Brasilia, Brazil Burle Marx ‘71: Sé square SP - São Paulo, Brazil José Eduardo de Assis Lefèvre ‘72: kimbel art museum - Houston, USA Louis Khan File:Kimbell_Art_Museum_with_Moore_ sculpture.jpg ‘73: Van Gohg museum - Amsterdan, Netherlands Gerrit Ritveld ‘74 Kresge College - Santa Cruz, USA Charles Moore e William Turnbull ‘75: Chicago federal center - Chicago, USA Mies van der Rohe and others http://chicago-outdoor-sculptures. ‘76: Birigui Park - Curitiba, Brazil Lubomir Ficinski

‘77: Georges pompidou center - Paris, France Richard Roges and Renzo Piano

‘84: Modern art wing des moines art center Des Moines, USA Richard Meier html

‘78: New national gallery - Washington D.C., USA Ieoh Ming Pei architects/features/2008/05/pei_ slideshow_052008#slide=1

‘ 85: Tanner fountain - Cambriedge – USA Peter Walker and SWA Group harvard_universitys_tanner_fountain_ wins_2008_landmark_award/

‘79: Forum in new halles - Paris, France Claude Vasconi e George Penchreach ‘80: Zentralsparkasse - Vienna, Austria Guntler Domenig gunther_domenig/StraytSheep_archi_ gunther_domenig.html ‘81: The barbican Center - London, United Kingdon Chamberlin, Powell and Bon ‘82: The roof of the alma station - Brussels, Belgium Lucien Kroll ‘83: Neue staatsgalerie - Stuttgart, Germany James Frazer Stirling

‘86: MOCA - Los Angeles, USA Isozaki Arata los-angeles-museum-of-contemporary-art%E2%80%93-los-angeles-california/la2/ ‘87: Pyramid at louvre museum - Paris, France I.M. Pei ‘88: Broadgate Center - London, United Kingsdom Skidmore, Owings and Merril, ARUP Associates ‘89: Grand arche - Paris, France J.O. von Spreckelsen & Paul Andreu http://parisalacarte.wordpress. com/2009/10/25/shopping-les-4-tempsem-la-defense-aberto-aos-domingos/

‘90: Place stalingrad - Paris, France Bernar Huet http://hushhushfr.wordpress. com/2009/05/16/only-the-brave-blockparty-by-diesel-lhistoire-dune-rencontre/

‘97: Gallego center of contemporary art Santiago de Compostela, Spain Alvaro Siza N00/391032995

‘91: Tokyo city square - Tokyo, Japan Kenzo Tange asp?ID=2765556

‘98: Reuilly garden - Paris, France Pierre Colboc http://landscapeandurbanism.blogspot. com/2008/02/take-high-road-nyc-paris. html

‘92: Place Berri - Montreal, Canada Peter Jacobs and Philippe Poullaouec, Gonidec ‘93: Story Garden - Portland, USA Doug Macy and Larry Kirkland parks_and_open_spaces/the_story_garden ‘94: Overtown pedestrial mall - Miami, USA Wallace, Roberts & Todd and Gerald Marston Overtown-Pedestrian-Mall/85 ‘95: Schouwburgplein - Rotterdam – Holand West 8 ‘96: La barceloneta maritime sidewalk - Barcelona, Spain J. Henrich, O. Tarrasó, J. Artigues, M. Roja, A. M. Castaneda

‘99: Sé square Salvador - Salvador, Brazil Assis Reis http://experimentalcult.blogspot. com/2010/09/vez-de-teresa.html

Interior worlds: Shelter Work realized in 2010 Faculty of Architettura e SocietĂ Politecnico di Milano


Shelter as a public space where people feel safe. Interior as a state of mind in the outdoors.


Shelter as a public space where people feel safe. Interior as a state of mind in the outdoors.