Is Cirugeda a product of his environment?

“The city historically constructed is no longer lived and is no longer understood practically. It is only an object of cultural consumption for tourists, for an estheticism, avid for spectacles and the picturesque.”

Which lends some more meaning to the endeavors of Santiago Cirugeda, in a city such as Sevilla, which shows much of the truth in words of Le Febvre speculating that the primary role in the traditional cities is for that of consumption and consumerism. Through my limited insight from visiting the place and staying there for several weeks, much of the historic city showcases the historic buildings and perpetuates imitations of traditional culture for the sake of tourism. 

21st Century carriage driver, also on his phone

Roof work gets completed in historic area over tourists heads

 

Much like Charleston, a Canadian equivalent--Quebec City, or even a similar setting of San Juan, Puerto Rico--the city bends to the will of that particular economy, which highlights and maintains and glorifies a certain architectural past, essentially locking it into a timeless state which halts opportunity for authentic and organic growth which created those cities in the first place. This high priority of maintaining the “historic district” denies voice for the constituents who live in these places, and more-so for those who live around them.

Though the beauty of the entire place was truly astounding, obviously including the historic parts of the city, but to me also, the most exceptional scenes were those in which there was evidence of people living in and adjacent this setting, which more aptly correlates to a particular place in time--the contemporary, which will always be in flux. And it is far from being all historic, as you move away from these parts of the city, it reveals itself as being capable of harboring contemporary life, and interestingly, even goes so far into contemporary as to to facilitate the introduction of the Parasol. Another interesting conversation on the interpretations of urban design and development within and adjacent to a historic context. Although well-acclaimed in architecture and engineering circles for obvious reasons, is it a good urban move?

Which is more lively? The parasol...

 

Or the street corner adjacent to it?

Though i've gone on rambling and reminiscing of my time in Sevilla, to sum up--simply put, the urban dualities on display in a city as complex as Sevilla seems like they don't leave much room for "in between" architecture. Though the historic parts of the city are breath takingly beautiful and the high profile contemporary works like the Parasol and Calatrava's Puente Alamillo are impressive, it begs to question, where is the voice of the people? I would suggest that it lives on in the streets, rooftops, and public plazas, which, for the most part, are vibrant and lively--every bit a part of an organic and growing city. Though Santiago Cirugeda seems to develop most of his political motivation from the state's preferential treatment for banks and neglect of the people in wake of economic downturn, I can also see how a place which has had so much urban focus on opposite-end extremes (from historic district to high profile contemporary projects like Parasol and Calatrava's bridge) there are many who may feel as though they are left out, leaving openings for architects like Cirugeda to attempt to operate above the law.