Mario Paris Instituto Universitario de Urbanística de la Universidad de Valladolid Laboratorio Urb&Com – Politecnico di Milano

Interscale of Superplaces

KEYWORDS

Superplace, interscale, looks

2001) context. because functionalism urbanism does not consider these kinds of places and they grew up without an intentional urban project (Castello.2009) called superplaces (Boeri. I argue that superplaces are spaces self-centered and separated from her context yet nonetheless retain some relationship with surrounding territory at three scales. High-speed railways. Superspaces are spaces with a high density of simple functions. 2007 – Paris. In order to study and design superplaces – as new elements in European territory – we need new instruments.ABSTRACT Recently critics (Agnoletto et alii. 1993) system with multi-context relations. At the local scale superplaces are a space enclosed and introverted in the contemporary city – or metapolis (Ascer.and super. and we live in. 2007 – Esteban Penela. We see. Users’s settle these intense and complex places with urban activity and profiles (Rivas Sanz de las. the superplaces reality in contemporary cities. in design solutions most attentive to the role of public space of. At national and trans-national scale superplaces are a network of interconnected nodes. etc. 2005). 2009) of metropolitan function (airport. where the presence and the interactions of users intensity relationships while interchanges fluxes (Coppa. . 2009). The main topic of the discussion focuses on the scale of superplaces and also developing methodological tools to better understand them. Also regional scale is the best level for representing the catchment area (Brunetta & Morandi. Low-cost airports. retail and industry) and their locations. and theme parks are example of superplaces and during the last twenty years they have constantly expanded their centrality characters in European territory. Boundaries are permeable and. railway station. 2010). real-estate investors whom design and sell transformation results. 2009) and hybrid (Latour. which add different types of rationality: public designer’s whom plan and build infrastructures. At the regional scale superplaces influence landscape and different economic sectors (turism.imposed. The superplace’s space is both defined and fragmented and in the superplaces functions are juxta. become points of reference for further processing and turn on new types of territoriality. but urban discipline does not design superplaces. These multiple relations are as numerous as the reference scales that we use to study them.) located inside the superlplaces. Superplaces are both an open (Herrera Napoleon. resulting from real-estate rationality. services and commerce coexist. superplaces are a centrality for generic city inhabitants (Koolhaas. 2007). 2005) nodes where mobility. sports stadiums. At the same time superplaces are a continental network and their relationships both model and exceed the collective mobility lines.

pp. a proposito di due recenti metafore della globalizzazione. (2009) Urbanistica dei superluoghi (Rimini.) . When we look at something the variables are not only linked to the object. Superplaces are a channel.multinational trade of retail and services. the network that they form and I strive to observe from the point of view of those who live in them. Thus. I look into superplaces. The key to prove my thesis is a comparison of eight case-studies by using an approach that I call “looks”. S. Look’s is a useful concept to describe different approaches to objects. 1972) results in a list of features among superplaces. M. The transductive process (Lefevbre. located in the commercial spaces of superplaces. Reflections on the inter-scale role of superplaces. Ashgate Pub) Paris. L. (2005) Superluoghi. but also to the observer and his or her location. their surroundings. This is the principal feature that share the superplaces. The results of this research is double: ‐ ‐ A portrait of heterogeneous and fragmented superplace system with a focus on the objects. and also that of users. CORE REFERENCES Boeri. Maggioli Ed. Secondly it is necessary to know the role of these elements in the contemporary city and to fully investigate their relations (on different scales) with superplaces and to understand the potential that these sites represent in our idea of city and territory. (2010) Rethinking the meaning of place: conceiving place in architecture-urbanism (Farnham. 885. shop and live in superplaces. future research is a necessary step to integrate these new elements in the project of the future city. The system of these features show us new places of the contemporary city and new ways to settle the functions continers of modern city. 88-93 Castello. whom travel. Domus. an element of transition and exchange between different scales   Future development of this research takes place in two directions: First a growing focus on the features and peculiarities of superplaces to better understand their elements is the most important step to comprend the system.