Firstly the modernity comes with aim to break a historic continuity, with opinion that, the modern architecture should be superior, against traditional architecture. Modernity maked a conflict, a dilema, because of his individual way, of wanted to be so opposite. Now we can see that modernity should be more “retrospective”, looking for historic transitions. There is some possible modernity defending the reconciliation of old and new, the historic city and contemporary architecture. 

The best contribution are capable of arriving at a balance combination between new and old, mantaining their identities, without coming into conflict. Is some important transformations of the existing, making architecture up to date, but under the inspiration from the past.






Do we are incapables, culturally thinking, to promote beautiful cities and useful at the same time? That is why we want to conserve the old center of the cities just as they are so badly?

Are we constructing
 peripheries without identity?

How can we not be afraid to touch and construct in the center of the cities where the patrimonial value is? The disagreement between the new architecture and the historic one and how this is affecting modern architecture is another concept of the text.



The new contributions would fit if we could find the balance between them, engaging with the presences of the past, but nowadays the acceptance of the myth of doing ‘a new thing’ has convert in a strong belief.

The mimesis is boring, the homogeneity is not for the revolution and the education has lost the compositional coherence suppressing the method as the principal thing of the design.


 Read more

Finding the balance between the tradition and the modernity the present architecture will find the way to get the right to have its own historic condition.







Architecture and the city should not be two seperate things, but should have different manifestaions of a single thing. A city is not a gathering of architectures but is itself a large complex, architecture. Here a part is not a piece of the whole, and a whole is not a sum of its parts. The part and the whole should be interrelated, and sometimes the part competes with the whole or the whole is contained in the part for instance the highline in New York. join the friends of the highline



The high line in New York, has two components; one: the high line (the line was no longer in use, whereby vandalisme in the neighbourhood arised), two: the park... Then there is a conflict who arise when you ‘combine’ these two worlds... 

The place of the highline became a very beautifull place, to walk, to sit, to live, etc... Because of the interference, the neighbourhood of the high line has increased by his valour. The highline give something to the city instead of taking. 


The explenation why the highline park works so effective is because it’s not a sum of the two parts but it’s the overlapping between ‘the built’ the highline and ‘the to be build’ the park, who makes the value increase. There is no debate between the two, but a teamwork