Neo-Rationalist Theory

I found Moneo's essay to be quite a read. As most theorist, he rant and rants rants, but not in a bad way. I think Rossi definitely is a move away from the norm. I can see how Rossi's architecture can be considered rationalist, after all, he has a way of putting everything in order in the most thoughtful of ways. Rossi's use of the word "typology" is used in the most interesting of ways, as he uses it to set up his set of rules, which he will follow to the tee. I'm not very familiar with Rossi's work and I will not go on about it in long sentences, but I did manage to look up some of his work and found, to my amusement, that his tenet of using the city as a means to direct the design is very prominent. I can see why one would want to use such a tenet, specially in a country with so much history and culture as Italy, but I feel that this complicates things quite a bit. It seems that many of his designs were modern versions of the old monuments of Italy. It was as if he remade the pantheon to look more modern. His use of very symmetrical lines along the plans and facades are very reminiscent of older times, but I don't feel that they are very effective for leading architecture into a new direction. I can definitely see why his work is considered rational, as the designs are very strict, simple, and well thought out, specially in the Modena Cemetery. However, I do find them to be quite bland and too symmetrical, to the point where its just frustrating. It reminds me of a person with o.c.d. I might be biased, as are many people, but I do find that Rossi is a much better theorist than he is an architect. His ideas are solid and very thought out, mainly because the city is a very important part of what we, as architects, are trying to make better, or at least take in the direction that is best. But I definitely don't think that by basing architecture on the already available monuments, we can achieve a better architecture. Instead, I believe that leaving those monuments alone, using them for ideas, and creating something that will make them better is a more plausible way to go. I want to move forward into what could be, not what can we use to make it be.