As humans, we tend to believe that our idea of nature is clearly defined. Especially in times of climate change, this should be questioned to stimulate new points of view. We have always used the term nature as a projection of our personal beliefs. Therefore, the term has a variety of interpretations, such as being an antipode to the city, an aesthetic ideal, an ecological phenomenon, or a source of natural resources. Whether we like it or not, every discussion about nature is heavily influenced by these ideological ways of understanding. Conscious of this, we try to interact critically with these ideologies, therefore making our project just as paradoxical as nature itself.

We all know that Vitruvius’ (c. 90 - c. 20 BCE) treatise “De Architectura”, divided in 10 books, is still a guide for building projects. According to him the successful architect and engineer should have theoretical and practical knowledge based on a wider comprehension of sciences and arts. Buildings should always contain three aspects: beauty (venustas), stability (firmitas), and usefulness (utilitas). I wonder what Vitruvius would say about the contemporary city, concerning the new digital dimension being hybridized with it, and how we are teaching architecture.

The following text is an adaptation of a resarch paper, written by Jack for AC1 on the topic of space syntax in urban design. For the sake of brevity, it is published below in a shorter, reader friendly format.