by Gabriella Reale
This contribution
intends to describe a methodology, or say a way of doing and understanding
architecture. It follows Viollet le Duc’s proposal to reveal the
“structural form” which is usually hidden inside the wall
mass. As it clearly appears in restoration tradition, such logic has
never been followed while a “diffused” consolidation of
the work was rather preferred. The structural process, intended as a
strategy of intervention for consolidating a built manufact, starts
with the identification of those elements inside the architecture that
have a structural role and recalls the rules of good building. In other
words, it is founded on a range of choices linked to the mere building
features of a manufact. Of course it suggests that there should be a
distinction between architecture and building - i.e. between the parts
of a structure which owe static functions and those having only filling
functions - but it also identifies systems of one-way relation that,
in any planning, represent a sure value.
Ortigia Island is, in its complex and unique urban dimension, a valuable
area to be protected as well as a harsh task for anyone who has ever
intended to understand and tackle it according to a fair planning logic.
The problem is how to define a methodology of intervention for restoration
or consolidation that would have general contents and simultaneously
would take into account the complexity and quality uniqueness of the
heritage “diffused” on the territory. Each architectural
manufact is a unique event if we consider its historical and artistic
contents, dimensions, formal solutions, building materials; indeed it
is hardly linkable to any diffused and common building typology. By
the light of these remarks, the structural procedure is the only operative
instrument which can be reasonably used on the territory since it is
both a strategy for small interventions and changes and an instrument
for huge changes of meaning.
This contribution offers reasons and accurate methodological guidelines
as to limit interventions on buildings to the only structural elements.
This is meant to avoid, when it is not indispensable, the common practice
of intrusive interventions. It clearly appears that not all the elements
of a complex building are to play a role or the static functions asked
for by present norms. Theoretical possibilities combined with the highly
useful recourse to new analytical instruments haven’t produced
any satisfying result. Because the idea according to which one shouldn’t
make any distinction between the elements aimed at accomplishing these
tasks and the others which are not, has been uncritically accepted.
Today the true problem would be to exactly identify the areas intended
to play structural functions, recurring to ancient and modern methodologies
of consolidation, which would be clearly visible from the outside.
