Designed Diversity

Following our discussion in class, one of the things that I found most interesting was the Tiburtino District in Rome. What I find most interesting about this project is its “engineered diversity” and how the architects sought to design inconsistencies throughout the project so it seemed to fit into the existing Roman urban fabric. Although it was suggested that this project functions well for its inhabitants as a result of its “engineered diversity”, how well does it actually serve the inhabitants? To me, the idea of "engineered diversity" seems a little phony. When compared to earlier examples we’ve looked at in class, such as Villaggio Matteotti by Giancarlo de Carlo, the Tiburtino District seems more like traditional development where designers imagined how the spaces would be used and designed for those imagined uses and inhabitants, whereas Giancarlo de Carlo actually spoke to the future inhabitants and designed for their specific needs. How does Tiburtino compare to Villaggio Matteotti in terms of serving the inhabitants’ needs? Is it happy medium between no user input and years of user input into the design process? Conversely, what if Villaggio Matteotti was so specific to its immediate inhabitants that it cannot change over the years to adapt to new inhabitants whereas the Tiburtino district is just removed enough to straddle the fine line between specific “engineered diversity” to accommodate various inhabitants and general housing design to accommodate changing inhabitants over the years.

Tiburtino District

Villaggio Matteotti