370
O. E. Bellini
This leads to preventive practices that reduce structural vulnerability to seismic actions, planning methodologies that promote a rational use of resources, an
enhancement of the built environment and the preservation of human life (Marotta
and Zirilli 2015). Interventions that provide an alternative to the traditional “scrapping/demolition” and transcend the practice of “abandoning what does not work”. It
is possible to exceed the ideological dilemma between demolition/conservation and
inaugurate a “third way”. A design method which today is prefigured in Parasite,
Rooftop and Hybrid architecture (Boeri and Longo 2012; Angi et al. 2012; Angi
2016a, b; Montuori 2016).
The project contents go beyond the conventional methods that define sustainability
as related just to an energy upgrade, by introducing solutions on the structural safety
and stability aspects relating to the increasingly frequent seismic phenomena as
well (Marini et al. 2016). The sustainability of an intervention is also related to the
impacts of damage and collapse due to possible earthquakes during the life cycle of
the retrofitted building (Murie et al. 2003; Feroldi 2014; Belleri and Marini 2016).
In the disciplinary debate, ranging from “scrapping” to “mending”, it appears
reasonable to use the potential of the adaptive exoskeleton system (Marini et al. 2017).
In this way, it is possible to integrate a design approach that allows to implement the
resilience of buildings. This device improves the performance, through an external
supporting and cooperating prosthesis, which is not simply earthquake resistant, but
also technological, considering that it facilitates the realization of “double integrated
skin solutions” with which to obtain a new frontier between exterior and interior,
in order to improve energy efficiency and promote the architectural restyling of the
building (Guidolin 2016). The use of the exoskeleton facilitates the morpho-technotypological rethinking of the existing structure and allows for the activation of urban
densification policies (Boeri and Longo 2012) and for the urban regeneration of the
social and functional substrate (Di Giulio 2013).
4 Conclusions
The research on social housing buildings on Piazzale Visconti aims to demonstrate
the potential to use innovative technical strategies for the rational maintenance of
real estate directed at the architectural recovery and reconfiguring of social housing
stock, improving the performance and quality of the environment built.
Today, it is possible to apply retrofitting processes in opposition with demolitions
and reconstructions, above all in terms of social and environmental costs.
We have articulated social, economic and technological critical situations, in
which it is possible to adopt external structures to help the integrated refurbishment.
This device is the exoskeleton system.
O. E. Bellini
This leads to preventive practices that reduce structural vulnerability to seismic actions, planning methodologies that promote a rational use of resources, an
enhancement of the built environment and the preservation of human life (Marotta
and Zirilli 2015). Interventions that provide an alternative to the traditional “scrapping/demolition” and transcend the practice of “abandoning what does not work”. It
is possible to exceed the ideological dilemma between demolition/conservation and
inaugurate a “third way”. A design method which today is prefigured in Parasite,
Rooftop and Hybrid architecture (Boeri and Longo 2012; Angi et al. 2012; Angi
2016a, b; Montuori 2016).
The project contents go beyond the conventional methods that define sustainability
as related just to an energy upgrade, by introducing solutions on the structural safety
and stability aspects relating to the increasingly frequent seismic phenomena as
well (Marini et al. 2016). The sustainability of an intervention is also related to the
impacts of damage and collapse due to possible earthquakes during the life cycle of
the retrofitted building (Murie et al. 2003; Feroldi 2014; Belleri and Marini 2016).
In the disciplinary debate, ranging from “scrapping” to “mending”, it appears
reasonable to use the potential of the adaptive exoskeleton system (Marini et al. 2017).
In this way, it is possible to integrate a design approach that allows to implement the
resilience of buildings. This device improves the performance, through an external
supporting and cooperating prosthesis, which is not simply earthquake resistant, but
also technological, considering that it facilitates the realization of “double integrated
skin solutions” with which to obtain a new frontier between exterior and interior,
in order to improve energy efficiency and promote the architectural restyling of the
building (Guidolin 2016). The use of the exoskeleton facilitates the morpho-technotypological rethinking of the existing structure and allows for the activation of urban
densification policies (Boeri and Longo 2012) and for the urban regeneration of the
social and functional substrate (Di Giulio 2013).
4 Conclusions
The research on social housing buildings on Piazzale Visconti aims to demonstrate
the potential to use innovative technical strategies for the rational maintenance of
real estate directed at the architectural recovery and reconfiguring of social housing
stock, improving the performance and quality of the environment built.
Today, it is possible to apply retrofitting processes in opposition with demolitions
and reconstructions, above all in terms of social and environmental costs.
We have articulated social, economic and technological critical situations, in
which it is possible to adopt external structures to help the integrated refurbishment.
This device is the exoskeleton system.