Case studies

Not thoroughly allowed = strictly prohibited?

Looking around, we can easily conclude that bureaucratic and dogmatic approaches in contemporary societies,  are completely inadequate to the needs of communities and their transformation in time, and they are strong obstacles to the affirmation of the uniqueness of communities and places too.

This is also true in Planning and Urban Design rules and regulations, whether it be done through projects, plans or processes: in fact new visions are recommended to the decision-making process that shapes our cities, for public and private actors.

Today we have to recognize that historical cities they´r still  able to polarize attention, preservation and rehabilitation efforts, and they still  promote and enhance opportunities, economy and tourism - bringing together, in addition to other cities, the possibility to understand in a specific location, People and Culture's diversity and uniqueness.

Yet we should be aware that historical cities come from a very different process comparing with the one  we use today in urban management: - in the so called historical cities there was an appeal to superior responsibility and superior demonstration of intelligence, flexibility, collective sensitivity, overall diversity framed by technological exploitation of resources, a procedure that emerges  in every detail, variations or built difference. These possible modulations responded appropriately to human needs and activities in a specific context as a "system" with multiple interrelated variables that people lived with, comfortably.

Therefor the question arises: -  in our every day’s performances and although we are going through times of scarcity... are we paying any attention to the urban management process?