Architectural philosophy in Italy: From Bruno Zevi’s didactics to the concept of resilience
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2025-2-159-174
The main theoretical field in which philosophy and architecture meet is the problem of the habitat, which is dominated by the concepts of place identity, space production, and the image of cohesion with the landscape. “Architectural philosophy” is a relatively new interdisciplinary approach that does not consider architecture as part of the philosophy of art, or even the philosophy of technology, but considers architecture itself as a method of cognition of reality. The “formal logic” (rules, positions, consequences and conventions) of the functioning of the metalanguage of architectural forms, aesthetic, figurative and visual approaches are analyzed in this study, taking into account certain temporal characteristics, by the method of topological reflection. The emergence of new conceptual approaches in architecture and urban planning over the past thirty years is explained by special social changes in post-industrial society: a shift in emphasis from visual/iconic to ethical and “sustainable” concepts, including due to new theories of posthumanism and intergenerational responsibility. In this sense, the Italian experience of topological reflection is unique. Originated largely on the phenomenological grounds popular in the Italian architectural discourse of the 1950s and 1960s, this approach persists in current projects of space creation, demonstrating conceptual continuity. The actualization of this approach goes simultaneously with attempts to comprehend the possibilities of multisensory technologies. Sociological concepts of “sensory fields” are also being introduced into practice. In general, we can talk about the emergence of several new trends, yet based on old traditions, which assign architecture, renovation and urbanism a significant, if not the main, role in creating conditions for a territory’s resilience.
Keywords: architectural philosophy, Bruno Zevi, philosophy of architecture in Italy, resilience, organic architecture, sensitive approach, topological reflection
References:
Alberti, L.-B. (1935). Ten books about architecture: In 2 vols. Vol. 1 (V. P. Zubov, Trans.). Izdatelstvo vsesoyuznoy Akademii arkhitektury. (In Russian).
Ardizzola, P. (2018). History will teach us everything. Bruno Zevi and the Innovative Methodology for Future Design. Esempi di Architettura, 5(1), 5–11.
Barthes, R. (1996). Mythologies (S. Zenkin, Trans.). Izdatel’stvo Sabashnikovykh. (In Russian).
Bembel’, I. O. (2023). Nikos Salingaros and his criteria for adaptive architecture. Academic Bulletin of Uralniiproekt RAASN, 2, 52–57. (In Russian).
Besana, D., Greco, A., & Morandotti,M. (2018). Resilienza e sostenibilità per il riuso del patrimonio costruito. Techne – Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 15, 184–192. https://doi.org/10.13128/Techne-22093
Bojanić, P., & Đokić, V. (2015). La filosofia architettonica. Rivista di estetica, 58, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.4000/estetica.427
Colucci, A. (2012). Le città resilienti: approcci e strategie. Jean Monnet Centre.
Duarte, F., & Ratti, C. (2019). Designing cities within emerging geographies: The work of Senseable City Lab. In The new companion to Urban Design (pp. 561–570). Routledge.
Eisenman, P. (2007). A reply to Jacques Derrida. In P. Eisenman, Written into the void, selected writings 1990–2004 (pp. 1–5). Yale University Press.
Foucault, M. (2006). Other spaces. In Intellectuals and power. Selected political articles, speeches and interviews (B. M. Skuratov, Trans.) (pp. 191–204). Praxis.
Frigerio, E. (2014). Slow architecture: istruzioni per l’uso. LetteraVentidue Edizioni.
Fromm, E. (1990). To have or to be? Progress. (In Russian).
Longhi, A. (2019). Storie di architettura ecclesiale e processi di patrimonializzazione: valori, resilienza, adattività, riuso. BDC. Bollettino Del Centro Calza Bini, 19(1). 9–26. https://doi.org/10.6092/2284-4732/7058
Markaryan, D. A. (Hieromonk Dometian). (2018). Some features of the architectural and landscape complex of an Old Russian monastery. RSUH/ RGGU Bulletin. “Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies”, 3(13), 99–110. (In Russian).
Ratti, C.(2004). Space syntax: Some inconsistencies. Environment and planning B. Planning and Design, 31(4), 487–499.
Ratti, C., & Claudel, M. (2016). The city of tomorrow: Sensors, networks, hackers, and the future of urban life. Yale University Press.
Rossi, A. (2017). Architecture of the city (A. Golubtsova, Trans.). Strelka Press.
Vattimo, G. (1982). Abitare viene prima di costruire. Casabella: Rivista internazionale di architettura, 485, 48–49. (In Italian).
Zevi, B. (1972). From the book “How to Look at Architecture”. In Masters of Architecture about architecture (pp. 466–488). Iskusstvo. (In Russian).
Zevi, B. (1993). Zevi su Zevi: architettura come profezia. Marsilio.
Zevi, B. (2004). Saper vedere l’architettura. Saggio sull’interpretazione spaziale dell’architettura. Einaudi.
Zevi, B. (2018). Architettura e storiografia: le matrici antiche del linguaggio moderno; seguito da La storia come metodologia del fare architettonico. Quodlibet.
( 355.7 kB ) 
( 344.42 kB )
Issue: 2, 2025
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 159 — 174
Downloads: 25