Modena Cemetery

The design of the Modena cemetery is definitely heavily influenced by religion. Rossi’s intentions of establishing architecture as an authority are very apparent, and his tools of accomplishing this idea are certainly successful. Moneo, in his essay, claimed that Rossi had to adopt an elusive relation to broader urban technologies to protect the authority of architecture in the post-war city. To me, it seemed that Moneo was seeking the grounds to support Rossi, but the evidence of the contemporary city - the late 20th Century metropolis -made Rossi's propositions difficult to accept without stipulation.

Moneo's essay began a procedure of reconciling Rossi's theory and practice of architecture within a broader and ultimately more self-sustaining field, in this case the post-war city of Western Europe and the United States. In addressing the self-sustaining role of the metropolis itself, Moneo seemed reluctant to accept a project of architectural autonomy, and instead came close to proposing the autonomy of the metropolis as a monetary, governmental and power-laden instrument. In Rossi's work, architecture offered what Moneo termed a "fleeting glimpse" of the city achieved in the suspension of analytic technique. Architecture as memory, as time-image, allowed Rossi to conceive of architecture as permanent, limited and distinct, yet also relieved it of its relative and synthetic unity.

Powerful cemetery

Rossi’s theory and work are responsive to the modern architecture that had spread across the world to become known as the International Style. While this style was about simplicity, stripping down to the basics, and uniformity, Rossi’s desire was to bring back that lost quality of architecture that would capture meaning and awe the beholder. His Modena Cemetery does just that. When I look at it at first, I am discomforted because I cannot reach out and claim any of the forms or spaces as familiar property of my culture… or of my world. The color, the scale, the massing, all of it is unexpected, unrecognizable and disassociated with typical building functions. Then when I begin to think about as a city of the dead, I feel inspired and intrigued by the mystery of what lies beyond the frame. It definitely sets up a threshold condition; it is as if the solid orange mass is a gated wall barring any from entering, yet the smaller square openings suggest passage into a new space, one hidden from sight by the shadows. Such a bold monument opposes the light, airy, black and white forms of the International Style; it asks that we take a second look at architecture as something able to carry a weighty meaning and project a profound understanding that even words could not capture.

Typology from memory

"no type can be identified with a particular form, but all architectural forms can be referred to types."

Rossi's words shake a bit of artist's vanity out of me. Many architects, especially the young ones, aspire to become an artist, and within an artist's heart, there is an ambition to be original and revolutionary. Incorporation of a building typology into an architectural design puts a selfish reluctance in an artist's heart. It is thought to diminish the originality of a design. We are afraid that our plans will be too easily categorized and lose its novelty. Aldo Rossi's design method is not concerned with such immature worry. He embraces building typology. Through established typology he strives to create a place that is instinctively familiar. Its is not surprising such nostalgic architecture is produced by an Italian architect. Rich Roman architecture is powerful in a fundamental level, and any who grow up in a place so rich with history would come to love and miss the powerful presence of Roman atrium and Renaissance churches.

Construction through Time/History

The relationship Rossi brings up about "Construction of the city in time" caught my attention because even though we design with references to historical structures or using a historical structure as inspiration, I had not really thought of being able to link the past with the present in order to evoke a sense of nostalgia such as the cemetery does. The non-functional windows with no sills made it clear that the space was not meant to be used by the living and were there instead to add to the feel of abandonment as the article states. The idea of representing time through architecture in this manner seems interesting and I feel like Rossi was quite successful in this cemetery.

There are more recent buildings such as the Jewish Museum that relate to history and evoke a sense of remembrance but in a more dramatic manner. The cemetery is quite subtle in the way it portrays the passing of times and of he people that lived have lived during those times. The Jewish Museum in a way forces the past on you with the chaos and extreme spaces that greet you at every turn of the corner. In this case the building is independent of the city or its past. It is not constructed by history or time but by the existence of a short period in time, not by "its collective life, through memory" as Rossi states..

Typology and Memory

Architecture's relationship to the past is very difficult. For a long time, throughout the classical period, architecture changed very little, and when it did it tended to be very incremental. Therefore its relationship to the past was simple. However, as architecture has increased in complexity and innovation, its ties to the past have become more and more muddled. Finally, during the Modern Movement, these ties were purported to be severed completely. This was false. Architecture could not dissociate itself from the past, because our collective past defines us as human beings, and all of our thoughts, observations, and impressions are colored by it. All that could really be accomplished by severing ties with the past was to make architecture unintelligible.

I appreciated Moneo's discussion of Rossi here because he attacked the problem of history in a way that I believe is very meaningful. History is not a collection of facts, names, and dates from the past, although many have treated it as such. History's importance lies, as Moneo has said, in memory. History is what shapes cultural identity, and defines the essence of who we are. Therefore, I think a look at the memory of the past is critical to designing architecture that is intelligible and meaningful. The question is whether memory can be tapped into through typology, as Rossi believes. I believe it can, to an extent. There is more to the history of any place than the specific typology of a building within a given culture, but it can certainly provide a starting place for design. The problem arises when typology becomes limiting. Design must be more than simple adherence to a fixed typology. If typology is given too much importance, it can take over a building and make it generic, rather than meaningful. If it is given too little power, it becomes illegible and loses its presence. The key is to find a middle ground where a building's typology can be read, but where breaks from its typology give it interest, meaning, and a sense of self. It is also important to note that typologies are not fixed, but evolve as cultural memories change over time, as Moneo implies in his discussion of the evolution of the city. Therefore architecture is destined to change over time as it responds to these shifts, and a building's perception will always change in response to the times and the course of history.

Aldo Rossi – Analogical Architecture

For Rossi, “analogical thought is sensed yet unreal, imagined yet silent… and practically inexpressible in words.” I think I might have to agree that his architecture is “analogical.” Even as I was reading Moneo’s article I had to write simple equations to keep his ideas straight:
form and style = urban facts
city = image by politics through architecture
proportion = relationship of measures -> value
lives = rituals + customs + situations -> history
construction = relationship of elements -> architecture
autonomy of architecture = discipline, way of thinking as spatial order
a building = achievement of architecture
It’s as if Rossi had to develop his own meaning for these words in order to communicate his theory. I think this is pretty cool, but I think I might need to go the Modena Cemetery for me to like it…

Autonomous Discipline

There is a common ideology between everything we have read up to this point: "the idea that there [is] a specificity or a particular aspect of architecture which could allow it to be considered an autonomous discipline." The attempts to identify this aspect of architecture have been many and varied, and yet in my mind it remains as questionable and elusive today as it did back then. Aldo Rossi provides an interesting outlook on the subject, but his architecture, or at least the Modena cemetary, does not seem to follow his ideology on architecture as the construction of the city. Perhaps it is because we are not able to view it in context of the city, but nevertheless I think he was very successful in creating a "city for the dead." However illogical the idea of "the program of a desolate house" seems at first, it's presence is felt without eplanation or understanding. This metaphysical relationship between people and architecture and his decomposition of buildings to their essence reminds me of the ideology of Louis Kahn. Kahn was searching for the perfect expression of the same building typologies that were central to Rossi's rationalism; in both cases that which was closest to its essence; what a building "wants to be." Rossi's prioritization of form and complete disposal of detail, however, draws an enormous rift between the two comparable to their conflicting political ideologies.

The Theories of Aldo Rossi

Rossi campaigned for the elevation of the urban space as equally important as the architectural design. While his statements occasionally seemed a bit drastic, one phrase of Moneo’s stood out: “Building must become an urban fact.” This is true on many levels, including the one that he meant. He was referring to the ability of a building to address the value, meaning, and uses that the city required it to take on. It became a fact of the city, and it needed to become so interconnected with the fabric of the city that it became indistinguishable from the character of the urban space. It is obviously true on the most basic level, which is to say that once a building is built, it is part of the city. It is a call to the end of formalism, specifically of form for form’s sake. It is an understanding of the need for architecture to reach out to other ideas, whether the ideas of urban planning or of history and memory. This is one of those phrases that could truly be embodied in a design. The idea of focusing on the urban space, on the interactions with other buildings, is a very extroverted way of designing. In a way, it sacrifices what the building itself wants to be for the ability to create a better urban design. A good designer could combine the two ideas in a intriguing and successful way, but there is no doubt that a building will not be successful if it does not add, modify, support, reject, or otherwise respond to the urban fabric of its surroundings.

Applying his architectural concepts to the Modena Cemetery, one can clearly see the house of the dead, the collective memory of the lives of the dead, and the monumental quality of the space. All of these ideas were intentional, as they reflect his ideas as to what architecture should really be. As each new metaphor of the experience is presented, one can inquire as to the success of this method. Does architecture need such deep, metaphorical meanings in order to convey the sense of power found at the Modena cemetery? Many architects discuss successful buildings based on the program, the function, and the form. Rossi himself believed that construction was paramount to architecture. In the end, Moneo may have clarified the answer best: “Technique does not count, the essence of architecture is not found in technical matters.” If this is to be believed, then one must look for the deeper meaning, perhaps theoretical, philosophical, or sociopolitical depth that could bring a sense of importance to a space. This is not necessary only in the mundane works; it is necessary in all works of architecture. Rossi managed to express his ideas in ways that were not intellectual but rather subconscious, and his greatest success fell in this category. The meaning could be understood by everyone, perhaps not in words, but in experience. It is this meaning that transforms an experience from a walk-through to a moving experience.

Through the design of this cemetery, he also managed to advocate the usefulness of monumentality. Many architects despise this concept, feeling that it is wasteful and unnecessary. Rossi presented spaces that used the monumentality to their advantage. Rather than creating spaces that were simple, he created spaces to move people. Despite all of its shortcomings, the dramatic impact of the monument is something not to be forgotten. Monuments in their very nature recall the memories of the past and connect the events to the present. It is no wonder that monuments and memorials are such widely visited tourist attractions. Something about the monumentality of the space is moving; it allows the occupant to experience, remember, and understand. Such moments can be used carefully in architecture to create similar moments of clarity, provided the monumental nature is strictly regulated. It may be easy for such designs to get out of hand, but they should not be dismissed. The compelling quality of a monument should be harnessed by designers in the same way that Rossi harnessed the effects in the Modena Cemetery.

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.

Rationalist Theory

My understanding of Aldo Rossi’s principles for architecture is that he doesn’t believe in a set form for a specific use, but he does believe in using forms which we know and are common for functions which they are suited. Therefore while his Modena Cemetery appears surrealist and therefore not rationalist, his forms are used in such a way that they suit the purpose of a cemetery. His idea that architecture is a discipline autonomous of sculpture and painting seems to be a direct criticism of architects who build according to form and solely for compositional aesthetics.

Invisible Cities by Calvino also spoke of cities whose existence lie mainly in memories, but I’m not sure if Rossi means the same as Calvino. To me, Rossi seems to see cities in our memories as a type, but what actually results in a city in the physical form will inevitably vary or not fulfill the type fully. Still, according to Rossi, a city’s meaning changes through time as its meanings and relationships to its surroundings and its inhabitants change. Calvino also wrote about that same principle, in which different people sees different things in the city. They’re roughly contemporaries, and both worked in Italy, so I wonder if they knew and influenced each other.

I think Rossi has a very romantic view of what architecture is, despite his method being called rationalism. Still, I think using common forms in a different way is very appropriate in the case of Modena Cemetary, because it creates a sense of displacement, initial, confusion, and alienation.

In "Architecture as Space," Bruno Zevi's defines space (in four-dimensions) as the exclusive consideration of architecture. I think he is really addressing a broader scheme, which correlates with teachings from Suprematism, that architecture, along with every other creative discipline, contains a unique quality inherent to their discourse. There is a unique abstract quality that makes architecture, one that is essential, and Zevi defines it as space. Simultaneously, he acknowledges the importance of archeoligical and philological study in the practice of architecture, but along with their boundaries to enrich the essential idea. In "Production of Space," the motion for new content is dominant but develops from the need for new form. Heneri Lefebvre encourages a constant, changing, inexhaustible dialog between context and form, which resonates with Malevich's call for constant change. And now in comparison of the two former articles, the junction between space and concept is what Bernard Tchumi deems the pleasure of architecture, found in the relationships between constituent parts.

Space in Architecture

I definitely agree with Zevi that when producing orthographic drawings you cannot really know the true space that the building will create. From my own experience, for example drawing elevations, I get caught up in trying to create an aesthetically pleasing composition with the mullions, materiality, etc, yet in reality the elevation may be covered by trees or an undulating landscape, etc. I also find it difficult to know how space will look in the interior of a building when drawing a plan because the scale of one person vs a crowd of people will change the feeling of the space. It is necessary to be able to show how space will be occupied in a given project and that is what the client wants to see, thats why you see so many computer renders today.

Creating a flow of space in architecture is incredibly important and can give a building a recognizable identity. One can manipulate space to create a certain mood or bring out a particular emotion in the occupant. I think Steven Holl and Tadao Ando do this very well where their spaces can create a calm feeling and are able to flow easily from one room to the next. I think modern architecture has tried to allow a building to define a more open space and not creating small individual partition walls that don't really relate to one another.

Architectural Space

It was very satisfying reading Zevi’s article about space as the protagonist of architecture. He gave the most cogent criticism of mainstream architectural discourse I have ever read. I greatly appreciated the fact that he pointed out that the purpose of architecture is not its relationship to some perceived socio-cultural-historical context. Architecture is about building and spacemaking, and should be judged by the success or failure of that space. This, to me, encapsulates my belief that architecture should not need justification, a theme I seem to be coming back to more and more. A building succeeds or fails on what is built and has physical form. As is made apparent in the excerpt from The Oneiric House, buildings are ultimately to be inhabited, and in both Zevi’s and my own opinion, the spatial character of a building is ultimately the most important factor in determining the experience of inhabitation. Tschumi’s article, in contrast to Zevi’s did not strike a chord with me at all. I was irritated and angered by his characterization of architecture as having value through uselessness. Certainly, a building should be pleasing, but that pleasure comes from a function that is given shape and form and made pleasurable. I would not even characterize art as useless. I would say that something useless could only be called trash, and celebrating uselessness seems to me to be reveling in decay.

Happy Candy Day!

I want to pose a question: What is it that makes a particular space more than just a space? What qualities exactly are necessary to go beyond the engineering of a shelter, and to achieve true architecture? For me this means a space that I notice; I don’t know if anyone has realized this, but I am not naturally observant. I will not observe architecture at all unless it has that special quality that catches my attention. Otherwise, I just use the spaces I inhabit within their functions and do not look for any higher experiences. Larry always said that people notice architecture, but David always said that people just don’t pay attention to it. I don’t know whether one of these is more generally true, or whether it has to do with people’s personalities. But my question is should our goal be to create an architecture that adheres so perfectly to people’s needs that they do not even notice it? Or is our goal to cause people to stop in their tracks, to forget their original purpose, to gaze and to enjoy? In my own experience, I like the spaces that cause me to slow down and to observe, and I think this could be needed in the bustling American society. If not, I feel that we are just settling for the ordinary; yes, people can function well enough in unnoticed spaces, but what if well is not good enough? I think people are so tired with the monotony of their days, getting up at the same time every morning, going through the same motions day after day, that they are just waiting for something exciting to happen. They are longing for the extraordinary.

So back to the original question: How does one create a space that has that quality about it that takes it to a new level? Does it require a composition that is surprising or unexpected? Does it have to do with the materials and their relationships to each other? Is it caused by generating awe through scale, through mass, through color? Is it the way things meet and join together? Or is it the relationships between multiple spaces and the entirety of progression through them? All I have to say is, spacey people need racy spaces. Bring on the zest and vigor!

I love Space!!!... lol

Thinking of space is one of my favorite areas of architecture. I know its not the only design factor but i believe it is one of he most important because without space there is no architecture, instead you'd have a sculpture. The idea of planes creating spaces drives me crazy. I can almost relate to Tchumis' analogies when I think of having four walls, two pairs perpendicular and running parallel to one another, running by each other and coming close but never touching, forming a space in the center with secondary spaces in between. Just the thought makes me want to build a model of it. Why a model? Because drawings although accurate and representational can only show and exhibit so much.

Plans, sections, and perspectives are crucial during the design process because without these items we would have no way of quickly representing the space we imagine other than models. Considering that they play such a large role in the process of design why is it that these items tend to be such a cripple when it comes to designing a great space? A better question might be why is it that we as architects allow these drawings to cripple our designs?

Space should be experienced and not seen but sometimes it seems like people see it the other way around. A painting is meant to be looked at and admired. A sculpture is meant to do the same. Architecture is something you experience and admire because of the experience. When architecture becomes something you admire because its pretty and you just want to sit across the street to look at it, then it has lost its meaning; it has become a sculpture, a piece of artwork lacking any space. Even though there is spaceless architecture I believe space is the essence of a good architectural experience. Space is experience...

Defining Space through Architecture

A definition of architecture as only that which encloses space is not entirely accurate. The author seems to take the position that if there is not a definite interiority to the space, or definite thresholds, then this is not an actual space. Thus, an arch is not a space. He attempts to clarify by pointing out urban spaces and courtyards as architectural. An arch may not enclose space, but it creates relationships to space that cannot be ignored. These relationships alter experience, define inhabitation, and create circulation patterns. A façade defines the space that it faces. It would appear that an architectural backdrop should define space based on its presence. This is not to say that anything is architecture; architecture still needs to define space, but it should not need to enclose space. Any object used in a spatial means could be perceived as architecture if it does more than function as an obstacle or sculpture. An object that fundamentally alters a space, even if that space is exterior or defined only on one side by the object, should be considered architecture. This is why a façade is truly important to architecture; it does not contribute to the interior but it does often create space on the exterior.

With that said, it does seem reasonable to admit that too little time is spent analyzing the spaces created by architectural moves. These spaces should not be the end all and be all of architecture, nor does the author want them to be. He does, however, want it to be the prime factor for determining if a building should be considered in architectural history. Any failure to create space should be considered non-architecture, and any building that succeeds spatially should have its other flaws overlooked. It is a bit ridiculous to weigh a building so heavily on one fact, even if it is the point of architecture, that if the building fails in every other aspect it will still be considered worthy of discussion as architecture. He chooses to leave all other forms of discussion to the artists, but these are important for architects to consider. Architects should think about what he refers to as decoration to determine if and where the building requires such detailing. Architecture can focus on interior space without relegating all of its other responsibilities to other areas. It just seems like this viewpoint oversimplifies architecture for the sake of making the case for interior space. Perhaps it would be a stronger case to acknowledge the importance of such other factors on the interior space. Decoration might improve or detract from the spatial qualities, but it will definitely have an impact. It is impossible to include something in a design and expect it not to affect the final outcome. Therefore, space is important, but its relationships to other aspects of design should not be minimized or overlooked.

Henri Lefebvre agrees with the holistic interpretation of space, and his understanding of the variables that create a space is much closer to defining the actual entity. Since every element does in fact impact a space, it is only logical that the elements should be discussed with as much intensity as the space they form. His point that the interpretation of a space is more of an afterthought is especially powerful. To think that all discussion of spaces in the realm of architecture amounts to so little would probably upset many professors. Given the wide range of interpretations for any given space, it is just as easy for a space to have no intended interpretation. If the space included the proper architectural elements, it could evoke such strong emotion that each person would create his own interpretation, conscious or otherwise. The obvious antithesis to this idea is the monument, but with the great discouragement against monuments in contemporary architecture, the examples of interpretations key to understanding a space are becoming rarer. The methods of creating space, while discussed in detail, are almost less important than the result. If a location results in meaningful, inhabitable space, then the designer may have succeeded. It becomes more important to establish the methods and criteria to determine how successful a space is. If space is really a language, then it will enjoy the same treatment of the critics that all great novels receive: scrutiny to the point of picking through superfluous information. If space is something unique, perhaps it can develop a sense of critique that evaluates its ability to create an impression as a whole.

Spaced Out...

I really like the emphasis on the idea of space in these readings. I definitely agree that reducing a building to a bunch of plans, elevations, and sections, sucks out the essence of the design. Architects sometimes forget that these are merely design tools to help aid the process of design and construction, and should not be the basis of a design. In today’s money driven world, a major chunk of the firms use the ‘copy-paste’ technique of designing buildings – draw a section in Autocad, and simply repeat the units throughout the height of the building. The idea of forming space that is more user/activity specific seems to be lost. We seem to live in an illusion that architecture is just about shelter, when it’s obviously much more than that. The space formed by four walls can have radical effects on the users - their behavior, mood, health etc.

What I really like about ‘space’ is it’s really lose, fluid character. A mere door forms the seam between my bedroom space and my living room space. A small step (grade change) can create an entirely different space and evoke a different response. Even light and dark can define spaces. This very character of space has always intrigued me.

Following up on our intense discussion about the decontructivists, I would like to throw some light on the topic from a spatial perspective. I feel that those architects are definitely examples of people who sometimes forget the value of the interior space in order to enhance the exterior, aka ‘architecture’ of the building. We as future architects need to understand the idea of complexity in simplicity, and make sure that the spaces we generate are responsive to their users.

Spooky Scary

Aldo Rossi’s Modena Cemetery is a direct reflection of the geometries and architectural trends in the city of Modena. It captures the orthogonal nature of the city blocks as well as the shapes and shadows of the buildings. By emphasizing these aspects while still bringing a hint of modernity to the project, it keeps it relevant yet true to its roots in the city. An interesting point the article brings up is the issue of place. Place gives identity and individuality. The reference to place in this project is very specific and it would not fit as well in any other city, thereby bringing in a sense of architectural honesty, not to be confused with honesty in construction terms. Furthermore, the cemetery is very meditative and introspective; exactly what one would expect a cemetery to be. The clean lines and lack of adornment are reflective of a current style; the buildings are not trying to be something they are not.
This so called “neo-classicism” seems to me to be about monumentality and modernity combined. Is that right? I’m always unclear on what actually creates a specific style. The “House of the Dead” creeps me out because it looks like an abandoned office building that was hollowed out; very somber. It’s almost as if the cemetery itself is a corpse without life; all the guts have been taken out and all that’s left is the empty shell. Happy Halloween, huh?

Space and Meaning

I like the way the last three articles reconsidered space. Since we are educated in a modern-minded school, I think we might take for granted the idea that we are to design space for people to live in when we create architecture. I really like the idea that our view of architecture is incomplete without considering the quality of space it shapes. I do feel like I sometimes describe architecture like I would describe “a painting by giving the dimensions of its frame, calculating the areas covered by the various colors and then reproducing each color separately.” (I think this exercise would be quite fitting for our semester. lol) In learning all of the details that go into making architecture I hope that I don’t forget the importance of the space I am making.
I also liked how Lefebvre spoke of the way we talk about “reading” architecture. I would agree that there may be a “reader” who can “decode” and a “speaker” who can “express,” but there is not a “reading” of a space with one specific message. I think this point continues our semester long conversation about the audience of architecture. As architects we can try to implant so much “meaning” in a building for other architects to dissect all the while leaving any other visitor clueless and uninvolved. But I think Lefebvre would agree that it is in fact the inhabitant, educated in architecture or not, who makes and takes away their own meaning just as “space is at once the result and the cause, product and producer.” This might be the compromise of our opinions: no matter how intentionally readable or functional a space may be, only each user can decide its meaning?

Space...The Final Frontier

It is quite ironic that we have come so far as to disregard space as the product of our designs. Wasn't that the purpose of architecture in the first place? To create spaces for people to use and live? We don't seem to think about what the space is going to feel like, or if we do, we have a hard time trying to put it into words or drawings for that matter. Much like in Space-A Protagonist of Architecture. Maybe we are stuck in a rut and form is more important than function. I do recall, specially around the time of our desk crits or reviews, how people always say what they want the place to be, or what they want it to do, but no one ever talks about the space itself. Not very many people would describe, or can describe, the exact feeling or visual that the space has to offer. Who knows, maybe I'm paying attention to the wrong people?! But I do think that it is an important part of architecture. Consequently, not all spaces are going to look the same, or feel the same, and there should always be grounds to make sure that what we are trying to do as architects does not fall flat or miss out on the meaning. Therefore, I do think that Bachelard makes a good point, which also makes it a bad point. Yes, high rise buildings are not exactly a home, and they don't involve the same kit of parts that a home does, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad. If we put this into the context of suburbia, then the point comes across as moot. Not only that, but it also depends on what part of the country you live in, because not very many homes in Texas have a basement. I understand that he is in France and that it's a nostalgic point of view, written in 1948 no less, but in today's world, it's not that relevant. Not very many people have seen their basements, or attics for that matter, so how does on describe those types of feelings? I can vouch for these people. I've never really been to a basement, and the only attic that I've been to as not as interesting as Bachelard makes you believe it is.