After the institutional introductions by Giuseppe Ciccarone, Deputy Rector of the Sapienza University of Rome, and Alessandra Capuano, Director of the Department of Architecture and Design | DiAP, followed the speech of Dean Orazio Carpenzano. He defined the research modalities – adopted on the occasion of this cycle of events – finalized to find the main features related to Carlo Aymonino’s work, those which created an echo within the educational programs of the schools of architecture. Highlighting the importance of Aymonino in creating a future perspective, Carpenzano also invited to reflect on the role of the university and on the figure of the architect within civil society. 

This was followed by the description of the different phases of Carlo Aymonino’s life, such as the university education in Rome, the professional practice at Marcello Piacentini’s studio, his drawings and projects, the theoretical work, the design exercises in which he engaged his students, the directorship of the architecture school at the IUAV (Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia) in Venice and the political role in Rome, as alderman for the Rome municipality, with a specific role about the interventions for the historic center of the city. 

Returning to his theoretical work, Carpenzano described how the architect aimed the to keep united two concepts: city and architecture, through the extension of the spatial and plastic concept of a building toward the urban dimension. A concept which belonged to the Italian school of architecture at that time and, with the contribution of the work by Saverio Muratori and Giuseppe Samonà, as well, disseminated at the international level. The roles and aims that Aymonino assumed for himself were certainly demanding ones, which caused in him some concerns – as it is publicly declared on his drawings – but, at the same time, this aspect demonstrated the seriousness with which he made his commitments, especially with regard to his role within Rome city council. 

After Carpenzano’s introduction, some video-interviews with Carlo Aymonino were displayed and a new section of the symposium was opened by Rosalba Belibani, Fabio Balducci, Francesca R. Castelli e Paolo Marcoaldi, before a video-keynote by Rafael Moneo, introduced by Federica Morgia.

Peter Eisenman made a description of Carlo Aymonino through a comparison with his alter ego, and close friend, Aldo Rossi. Eisenman defined Aymonino more as a politician than an architect, as Aldo Rossi was. Eisenman also remembered Aymonino as a sophisticated, cultured and generous person. He talked about his drawings and how these were different from Aldo Rossi ones. Aymonino was a “draftsman,” focused on materials, colors, and so on, for him this kind of representation were only disegno (drawing), he was not an ideologue; on the other hand, Aldo Rossi was able to draw ideas and from this point of view he was the most important architectural figure of that time. 

In the end, Eisenman distinguished two words which remark the difference between them: the principe (prince) and the “architect”. Then, he stated that Aldo Rossi was not a principe as Carlo Aymonino was. But this is more important than being an architect, because it made possible to evoke what gravitates around him: Carlo Aymonino made things possible and we wouldn’t have Aldo Rossi or Manfredo Tafuri without Aymonino’s charismatic figure.

Alessandro Lanzetta, professor at the Sapienza introduced Luca Molinari, professor at the Luigi Vanvitelli University of Campania, and Franco Purini, also Professor at the Sapienza.

Luca Molinari likewise analyzed projects by Carlo Aymonino, but from the point of view of the formal aspect, because the theoretical apparatus of the urban analysis was often contradicted by the projects themselves. His idea of a “composed city” included automatically the concept of “fragment” and this is something which belonged to an entire generation of architects – which included Aldo Rossi – together with the concept of “monument.” Considering both these two concepts for analyzing the project of the Colosso in Rome, Luca Molinari observed that it included the archeological theme. Therefore, the idea related to the “fragment” played a peculiar role. This is not because of nostalgia, but because it was a choice, deliberately based on a contradiction: archeology as an image of a future urban landscape. In this way, a new interpretation about the role of the monument in the contemporary time was proposed, and this is a topic on which there is still an open debate. 

Franco Purini articulated his speech on a few points. He started with the consideration that twentieth century Italian architectural historiography was mainly dedicated to architects who belonged to the academia, overshadowing important designers committed uniquely to the professional activity.

After this introduction he defined two different categories of architects: those who integrated their autobiography in their work – Carlo Scarpa, Mario Ridolfi, Aldo Rossi, Carlo Aymonino – and those who avoided the transcription of their autobiography – Maurizio Sacripanti, Ludovico Quaroni, Saverio Muratori, Luigi Moretti. It is a matter of how the subjective dimension is included in the work of architecture and how much it is explicit. Purini considered this matter a relevant element for the historiography of architecture. 

To conclude, he selected the projects by Aymonino which are fundamental to understand his way of working: the housing complex at via Anagni in Rome, the residential project Monte Amiata at the Gallaratese District in Milan, the Paganini theater in Parma and the School Campus in Pesaro. 

The city, according to Carlo Aymonino, is certainly a complex phenomenon and it is inseparable from politics: polis as policy. It was a palimpsest which, throughout history, declared the inseparability between the architectural project and the city. Two main books are relevant and were highlighted by Casciato: Origini e sviluppo della città moderna (1965) ³ and La città di Padova (1970).⁴ The first was a sort of a sequel to L’urbanistica e l’avvenire della città (1959) ⁵ by Giuseppe Samonà and the second book collected all the research on urban morphology and building typology, which came from the period of teaching at IUAV. 

Another essay was mentioned by Casciato, “Com’è bella la città,” ⁶ where Casciato sees Carlo Aymonino’s programmatic manifesto. It consists of the awareness about the continuous change of the city and of its uses, which determinates, in turn, further transformations. Therefore, the decisions about the future role of the city plays a decisive role. 

The commitment as Alderman for the Historic Center in Rome was a serious matter for Aymonino, because he envisioned the need to give back the historic center to its citizens. This implicated a connection of the center with the outskirts of the city and an overcoming of the idea of center as a “sacred enclosure.” Another important aim was the delineation of the existing heritage through the definition and construction of the incomplete places of the city, not through models anymore, but with the conception of new ideas, decisions and solutions. 

Luca Reale, professor at the Sapienza, introduced Gabriele Mastrigli, professor at University of Camerino, who focused his paper on the affinities between Carlo Aymonino, James Stirling and Oswald Mathias Ungers. He was followed by Valerio Paolo Mosco, professor at the IUAV, with a paper on Aymonino’s language, which grew, according to Mosco, out of Marcello Piacentini’s legacy and it became an idea of the city made out of large “urban paintings.” The figurative element, or better, the figurative ideal demonstrated his clear vision of the city.

The third and last main topic of the symposium was opened by a keynote by Paolo Portoghesi, professor at the Sapienza, introduced by Federica Morgia. 

Fabrizio Toppetti, professor at the Sapienza, introduced Alberto Ferlenga, professor and former Rector at the IUAV, and Patrizia Gabellini, professor at the Politecnico in Milan. 

Alberto Ferlenga wondered how a figure such as Carlo Aymonino could be important for politics today. Through a reading of the correspondence between him and Aldo Rossi, in the mid-1950s, it is evident how the idea of a redefinition of politics, particularly at that specific time, was necessary. It was a common background which included, not only architects, but the Italian intellectuals with a sense of responsibility toward the reconstruction of the country. In this scenario, the re-definition of an architectural culture was another need, and Aymonino made this as one of his commitments. His demonstrated ability in cultural politics allowed to overcome the condition of conservatism: for instance, the studies of Saverio Muratori, professor at the IUAV before Aymonino, were relocated toward an idea of progress. 

Ferlenga concluded with a final consideration: while the projects are being built, the ideas go forward and they could be also re-elaborated in order to create new conditions. Aymonino lived in a time characterized by an historical transition, but we are also going through transitions, as we are surrounded by important changes. Despite this, a substratum of reality still remains unchanged and we have the responsibility to understand this. So, the keys of interpretation, inherited by the studies of Carlo Aymonino, could help this comprehension in order to think about the future, especially in a country where the history is still a present reality.

Patrizia Gabellini addressed an issue about the experience of Carlo Aymonino when he had the role of Alderman for Interventions in the Historic Center in Rome, 1981-85. The book Progettare Roma Capitale (1990) ⁷ by Aymonino represented the basis for the following considerations made by Gabellini. 

The political aspects he had to deal with were mainly three: the program of activities (political vision), the political connections (power) and the handling of administrative practices. 

He privileged the aspect of the vision, for Rome, and consequently the role of the projects within his vision. Furthermore, the need of an acknowledgment about the historic center of the city, as a different morphological part in relation to others, made the urban analysis a fundamental tool and probative element of this matter. The transformation of the historic center from the idea of a business district to an archeological park, which belonged to the entire community, was the program that Aymonino proposed, along with others. This project had certainly a political significance, but it was not understood and completely supported to the end by Rome city council.

Aymonino was aware of the fact that it was not due to discipline or intellectual matters, but it depended on political issues. However, a conflict with his same political faction meant, for him, questioning about a life choice. What hindered his work was the administrative structure, the procedures, the regulations. Gabellini remembered the “sour opinion” expressed by his close colleague and friend Raffaele Panella towards Rome municipal administration.

Despite everything, what is certain, for Gabellini, is that Aymonino still left an important cultural legacy. 

Before the last session of the symposium, a video-interview with architect Luisa Tugnoli, Aymonino’s collaborator at the office for many years, described the work experiences she had with him and the numerous projects made together. 

For the final round table, the participants were:

• as moderator: Orazio Carpenzano;

• as discussants: Pippo Ciorra, Senior Curator at MAXXI Architecture in Rome and professor at the University of Camerino; Manuel Orazi, professor at the University of Ferrara and curator of Carlo Aymonino’s exhibition at the Milan Triennale (May 14 – August 22, 2021); Clementina Panella, professor at the Sapienza and Maurizio Sabini, professor at Drury University (USA), Editor-in-Chief of The Plan Journal and former student and collaborator of Aymonino’s at the IUAV in the 1990s. 

As discussed so far, the complex figure of Carlo Aymonino opened toward numerous considerations and the final section of the symposium regarded a further series of analyses and reflections, which served as the conclusion of the conference and started to outline further research material around the Italian master. 

Pippo Ciorra highlighted a couple of points which he considered important to remember. He agreed with Rafael Moneo’s consideration about the necessity of appreciating Aymonino’s work within a specific generation of architects. Ciorra also talked about Aymonino’s “beautiful paradox” because he was a “communist,” but with an interest and passion on the image of the European bourgeois cities, designed for that social class. Summarizing what Aymonino left to further generations is an optimism toward the power of architecture as a transformative tool of the city. 

Clementina Panella worked for thirty-five years as archeologist at the Piazza del Colosseo and she sustained – together with other intellectuals who worked with him – Carlo Aymonino’s vision: the interpretation of the historical heritage as a collective value for a modern city, a city with a national and global importance. In fact, she sustains the concept of a “democratic archeology,” within the urban archeology discipline. 

Manuel Orazi picked up Pippo Ciorra’s argument and pointed out how it could be important to step beyond the general label of “communist.” For a better understanding, he made a comparison between two architects: Carlo Aymonino and Carlo Melograni, equal in age, with the same university education and both “communists,” but with completely different architectural references. Carlo Melograni supported the democratic design and the school of Bauhaus, therefore Leonardo Benevolo and Tommaso Giulio Longo’s positions. Carlo Aymonino had other references, he didn’t believe in the Bauhaus school, but he looked toward the socialist city and he was closer to Aldo Rossi and Costantino Dardi. 

What emerged is the necessity to overcame the political adjectives and focus about the territory, as something to be thought together with architecture, urban planning and politic choices. 

Maurizio Sabini raised the question about how to discuss the legacy of Carlo Aymonino for a wide and international context. Articulating this perspective, he brought out three main aspects of the work of the architect, which could be an encouragement for future generations. 

The first is the “vision”, not only in reference to a political dimension but also to architecture. The Gallaratese residential project, the school campus in Pesaro and the project of the archeological park in Rome were three different works which expressed the spirit of three different cities: a new outskirts for Milan, a new Pesaro and a new, modern, Rome. This is because Aymonino’s “obsession” toward the (re)definition of parts of the city, which was a constant topic for him. The second point is the “criticality.” In other words Aymonino, according to Sabini, did not want to be limited by an ideology, he wanted to preserve the freedom of criticism. The final point was about civic commitment, as a citizen active in politics, but also as teacher, director of IUAV and architect. Sabini mentioned Thomas Jefferson and his famous quote: “political thought and design activity are indivisible.”

For Sabini, in Aymonino there is also the sensibility to differentiate the specificity of the two languages. For instance, when he was an alderman, he often made clear that he was there to be a politician and not to be an architect. The great vision for the Archeological Park in Rome would not have been possible without his vision and his being the intellectual architect he was. 

Orazio Carpenzano concluded the symposium by expressing the hope that this cycle of events could be the beginning of a historiographic and critical study to deepen the assessment of Carlo Aymonino’s legacy and stimulate other initiatives along this direction.