لخّصلي

2007, pp.131) If city architecture is a cultural ingredient there is no doubt. But as always, simple and obvious
affirmations are very difficult to demonstrate. That is why the article proposes a discussion on this subject and a
correlated approach on this delicate matter regarding the delineation between the main streams of the domain: urban
architecture and other fields that are directly implicated in this affirmation/ proposition.
Methods and subjects: After the general theorizing and investigating of terms, one of the methods of approach
has been the professionals’ perspective on the specific subject – taken from various sources of information – books,
articles, academic and professional statuses. Another method of investigation has been the insight into the matter
from outside the domain of discussion, namely the perspective predefined by other related professional fields which
study user interaction with the chosen theme. An interesting subject of investigation consisted in defining the
possible applications of the questions and discussions that the results of the inquiry may generate by comparison.
General subjects are referring to the architecture seen as cultural ingredient in different variants of the understanding
and from different positions. Discussion is based on notions as: architecture, heritage, culture, and tradition.
(City) architecture: Present architecture finds itself at the limit of contemporary and advanced notions. But it also
redefines itself in experiments, installations, new theories and manifestos (Jencks & Kropf, 2006), reconsiderations
and limits with closed domains, but also other fields. New status could be defined through creativity and innovation
(Frankelius, 2009) by design, or in the use of architectural space as a tool to reinvent the (common) place. The
notions state references from: dictionaries of architecture, tradition, heritage, memory, history, culture, policies, but
also new inputs as experimental arts, threats and hazard, global markets and policies – for example
experimentations as: Biennale di Venezia (Pagnacco & Sejima, 2010) or global exhibitions. Architecture could be
understood as all its different types of manifestation through history (McCarter & Pallasmaa, 2012), all theories,
manifestos, statements and function of domain, as science, art and craft. Architecture connects the in and out of the
space to scenographic background, bonding together elements of decoration, texture, tradition (Adam, Hardy, &
International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism, 2008) as thinking and habits which
inspire.
Heritage: Among value and culture (Derer, 2007), heritage is an untouchable notion. For this notion the reference
will be stated by the global and local law(s). Architecture is considered as default a part of material cultural
patrimony, but the article will consider architecture as a sum of material and immaterial cultural patrimony
(Ecobescu & Nitelea, 2006).
Culture: Present culture combines different kinds of space understanding. When graffiti is yet understood as
urban culture or street artists could merge the time and space transforming and rewriting the built environment and
its message, there are too many questions for culture to reconsider. Without an updated and connected global
culture, a space cannot be anymore a place to coagulate the environment and make it function. Beyond its culture
and tradition, sometimes there is a need to innovate something in order to activate and resuscitate. Culture inputs are
referring to: humanity, anthropology, architecture, art, literature but also science, activated public places, state of
local/global place. Cultural tourism has a strong connection with lecturing and resonating to this specific
atmosphere, built as tradition and as a state of place, a sum between genius-loci and Zeitgeist. This sum can be
understood as an overlapping, adding, weighting, etc. The construction of the city environment (Burdett & Sudjic,
2007) is a cultural problem, taking culture in the broadest sense of the word – that is, the focus of intervention for
economy, art, science, thought, etc. “Culture is a driving force of the economy: creating products according to
guidelines of the advertising market, directing them at the right people at the right time and in the right place and
selling them at the highest admissible price (having invested what is needed for their production). Architecture is a
product of our time. And the only way to be timeless is to be absolutely of a time: for buildings to reflect the hour
and the minute in which they were designed and constructed.” (Gausa et al., 2003, pp.142) “Culture consists of
patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive
achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of
traditional (i.e^ historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on
the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of further action.” (Kroeber
& Kluckhohn, 1952, pp.181)
Tradition: Tradition (Graburn, 2000) is a difficult term. It is somehow implicit but, at a closer look, it has many
coordinates: as a habit of a space, as a pre-use or pre-understanding of space, meaning of things, or the typical
manner to do, to express, to see etc. There is a tradition of every field, of any domain, this is clear. And this also applies to architecture. To architecture, tradition can be understood as vernacular, but also as traditional architecture
– rural and local habits in architecture. Vernacular means (in architecture) without a known author. There is also a
tradition of every trend and movement in architecture, or in any predefined space – a cultural or a valuable place.
Tradition reference can/may be: culture, anthropology, memory, habits, manner, and history – periodicity.
All these notions are the basis of any proof that built architecture should be consider an important cultural
ingredient (Leach, 1997) for direct or indirect involved specialists in the city theory. And not at least, educators have
to consider this cultural issue very important in targeting new characters for future city integrated rehabilitation,
preservation, sustainable developments, and innovations growth.