Can We Find A Happy Medium?

 Theory vs. Practicality? Theory vs. Reality? Theory vs. Fact?

Is theory practical? Can it be realistic? Is it based on factual knowledge? Or how can we disseminate whether a theory is even usable in architecture? Time and time again, we have seen how theoretical ideas have been implemented in architecture and ultimately failed due to the lack of thoughts regarding practicality, reality, and contextual facts. An example of this is Peter Eisenman spending countless hours in his lifetime constructing theories that were intended to be revolutionary in the world of architecture but resulted in designs that were impractical in terms of function, neglected the realm of reality in the way that the user would use the space, and ignored factual evidence from context and instead designed in a vacuum. We see this show up in his work specifically House 2. Eisenman is concerned only with formal qualities based on his theory behind forms and grids that make up complex interior spaces that have zero thought on the function of the space and marks a clear separation from the land, nature, and informative contextual information. What we are witnessing here is that writings that explain theories are totally different than working with clients and designing based on needs, surrounding context, and usability. 

While theory as explained above is unusable in my opinion, I have found theories that do make sense to me in a world of practicality, reality, and knowledgeable fact. Aldo Rossi his theories around "Architecture of the City," has shown up in multiple arenas that play major roles in the development of cities. As a synopsis, Aldo Rossi's theory is that a city must be studied and valued as something constructed over time; specifically how urban artifacts found within the city can withstand the passage of time. We have seen this in places in the United States, such as Charleston, South Carolina with the single house, and in places throughout Europe like Italy in terms of Italian Villas and Palazzos. The single house and Italian villas and palazzos serve as urban artifacts that remain in the city as time passes and can persist over time with new functions and programs. The single house can serve as a home, a place of business, and in history, even serve as a firehouse or clinic. Italian Villas and Palazzos have served as residences and redeveloped into businesses, dance facilities, and the list goes on. The urban artifacts, due to the way they were designed, can serve as architectural elements that provide permanence, value, and architectural culture to a city. 

Theories like this are ones that make sense to be carried through. Make sense to be studied and implemented in new cities today. Theory, in essence, can either be an architectural revolution or absolutely useless.