A few weeks ago, I responded to a call issued by the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) in partnership with the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for their Multidisciplinary Research Project. This initiative seeks to promote ‘new modes for collective research.’[1] In its sixth edition, the program proposed the theme In the Hurricane, On the Land, inviting participants to explore the relationship between land and architecture against the backdrop of the current climate crisis.
Applicants were asked a couple of basic questions on the theme, along with a request to outline a project proposal. What follows is my contribution to that call.
Q: How Do You Define the State of Being ‘In the Hurricane’?
Answer: From the perspective of lived experience, it never happened to me to be in a hurricane, actually. Then, I can only faintly imagine the anxiety, urgency, panic, fear, or desolation one might feel before and after such an event.
From a geographical perspective, as a European, the term hurricane is not one we typically use to describe violent atmospheric phenomena. Yet, in recent years, storms of unprecedented force have struck our cities, bringing floods, destruction, and loss of life. In my birthplace, Milan, Italy – a city with no historical record of such intense atmospheric events – violent tempests have uprooted thousands of trees and caused widespread damage, and they are occurring with alarming frequency.
For these reasons, I believe we now all have more than just an abstract idea of what it means to be ‘in the hurricane.’ It has become evident that climatic and physical processes once confined to certain regions are now causing devastation in places that had never before experienced them. The threshold of danger posed by natural forces is being crossed almost everywhere, and the distinction between ‘here’ and ‘there’ is rapidly fading.
Ultimately, the hurricane – whether literal or metaphorical – reminds us that we are all aboard the same vessel: Planet Earth. And since childhood, through films, cartoons, or stories, we have known what happens to vessels in a hurricane: they risk being torn apart. S.O.S. – Save Our Souls.
Image 01: During the night between 25 and 26 of July 2023, the city of Milano, IT, was hit by a violent storm that caused nearly a half thousand of trees to fall in many parts of the city, causing severe damage to things and infrastructures. Since we have records, never in history Milano was hit by such a violent atmospheric phenomenon.
Q: What Is a Land-Based Intervention for You?
Answer: In a certain sense, part of the answer is already contained in an earlier point I made: the differences between here and there fade when we focus directly on the processes underlying the appearance of phenomena. The image of the hurricane is particularly instructive in showing that what is happening here, now, on the American coastal territories, is connected to – or entangled with – what happened over there, before, in the warm waters of the ocean, thousands of miles away. The hurricane thus reveals the spatial and temporal continuity of processes, demonstrating that the past in one place can play a decisive role in shaping the present and future in another, even if those places are far apart.
Physicists use the term entanglement to describe certain phenomena at infinitesimal scales. The hurricane offers a large-scale analogy: we cannot separate the physicochemical processes that generate and fuel hurricanes from biological processes or from human sociocultural and symbolic processes. On the one hand, physicochemical processes directly affect the forms and survival of biological life and human cultures along coastlines; on the other hand, decades of scientific research have shown that these violent natural phenomena are themselves intensified by human activity. Once again, we encounter entanglement—this time between natural and human orders of process.
Recognizing this entanglement is essential because it is precisely this interweaving of processes that creates the continuity, or solidarity, linking any given land or territory with its own history (temporal scale) and with other lands or territories that have shaped, and been shaped by, that history.
Image 02: Even if places have a specific identity, they cannot be studied in separation from their contexts (which are constituted by other places) because the processual dynamics behind places act with continuity on spatial and temporal dimensions as well.
Image 03: Any place apart from being dynamically and processually entangled with other places on a spatial dimension is entangled with its past on a temporal dimension: it is properly this continuity of processes on a spatial and temporal dimension that characterizes any land, territory, or place as unique. Every time we intervene on lands and territories their temporal dimension, or continuity, has to be carefully examined through records, data, histories, etc.
Planet Earth is a complex, dynamic system arising from the entanglement of four fundamental classes of processes: physicochemical, biological, social, and symbolic. These processes operate in continuous interaction across both temporal and spatial dimensions (see On the Structure of Reality). Any genuinely land-based approach must be framed within a systemic and processual perspective: no human intervention can be considered accurate—or even meaningfully ‘land-based intervention’ —if it fails to address all four classes of processes that constitute the overall land system. Each must be examined both individually and in their reciprocal combinations (see Images 04 and 06, below), for together they form an integrated whole: the land as a single, unified place.
Alongside the example of the hurricane, the spatial and temporal continuity of processes shaping lands can also be illustrated through the image of a fractal: regardless of the scale of intervention—whether at the level of objects, buildings, streets, neighborhoods, cities, regions, nations, continents, or even the planet—the same four fundamental classes of processes are always at play (see Image 06 in New Realism for Architects). This means our attention must consistently remain on these processes whenever we act to transform lands or territories.
Image 04: Any land or territory (i.e., any place) is a unique system of processes which is related to, or entangled with other processes in adjacent places so that nature presents itself as a nested chain of places evolving on a continuous spatiotemporal scale or dimension: places within places, within places, within places… That’s why, in the end, we all live the same place: Planet Earth.
Project Outline: An Identity Card for Places – IDp
Over the past decade, my professional activity has been shaped by three fundamental interconnected occurrences, which together form the background to my proposal for the sixth edition of the CCA–Multidisciplinary Research Program. Those occurrences are:
1. Architectural Competition, Zagreb, Croatia – My participation in an international competition for the requalification of a 20,000-square-meter urban area in a central district of Zagreb marked a turning point in my practice. The project, the outcome of several years of study on the relationship between architecture and environmental concerns, was grounded in a holistic, 360-degree consideration of land-specific dynamics (Badel Block Redevelopment—Zagreb). This experience broadened my understanding of reality beyond the conventional boundaries of architecture, leading me to formulate an unconventional systemic approach to the understanding of place.
2. Interdisciplinary Conference, Oxford (2014) – Building on the first experience, I presented a theoretical investigation into the philosophical and scientific foundations of that landscape architecture project at an Interdisciplinary Conference held in Oxford. This encounter marked the beginning of a transdisciplinary effort to clarify, from a theoretical standpoint, several questions that had emerged only in outline in my earlier work. From that point on, I began systematically gathering readings, reflections, and writings exploring spatial concepts and their relationship to how we understand and categorize the phenomena of nature, drawing from a wide range of disciplines (From Space to Place: A Necessary Paradigm Shift in Architecture).
3. Rethinking Space and Place – This line of inquiry ultimately led to the creation of this website RSaP—Rethinking Space and Place www.rethinkingspaceandplace.com,[2] a platform where I examine the relationship between spatial concepts, nature, and its processes, framed within an organic and systems-oriented view of reality.
This prelude is essential, as my proposal for the CCA–Multidisciplinary Research Program is both theoretically grounded in and exemplified by material already available online, directly connected to the three occurrences outlined above.
The proposal is at once simple and ambitious: just as every person has a specific identity and character, so too does every place—and, by extension, every parcel of land. In the same way that people carry identity cards (ID) to meet certain social requirements and functions, I propose creating an Identity Card for Places (IDp). This document should serve as a detailed reference that all parties involved in the design or management of land and territories must consult — and, ideally, either respect in full or engage with critically through rigorous counter-analyses and well-founded considerations — before formulating or implementing their plans or projects. In practical terms, the IDp would take the form of a comprehensive report compiling both existing and newly gathered data, records, and histories that together define a place’s identity. While it could be developed for various scales, I envision municipalities—from small towns to large cities—as the most effective unit of application. Whenever we plan for a territory—whether natural landscapes or areas shaped by human presence—the IDp would serve as a clear, accessible guide for designers, stakeholders, politicians, and other practitioners. It would help ensure that interventions are made in dialogue with the unique identity of the land, rather than treating it as an empty slate.
The aim is to establish, as accurately as possible, the full range of processes that exist in a given place and that shape its appearance and character. In short, since the processes acting on territories and lands can be synthesized into four main categories—(1) physicochemical, (2) biological (hence, ecological), (3) sociocultural, and (4) symbolic—the proposal is to convene a collaborative working group with at least one specialist representing each category. This team might include earth scientists, biologists, social scientists, historians, architects, artists, and others. The purpose of this group would be to gather existing data, generate new findings, and compile them into a single, integrated report describing the identity of the place from these multiple perspectives.
More concretely, the report would include the analysis of:
- Physicochemical processes and systems: geological records, meteorological data, hydrological data, and related physical parameters.
- Biological and ecological processes and systems: data and records on animal life, plant species, and ecosystem dynamics.
- Sociocultural and symbolic processes and systems: historical records, cultural narratives, social data, economic use of the territory, and symbolic meanings (values, beliefs, religion, etc.) attached to the place.
The result would be a unitary, organic and systemic document offering a comprehensive portrait of the place’s identity—an essential reference for any future planning, design, or management intervention.
Image 05: A similar methodological approach for tracing the Identity of a place, synthesized on a few drawing boards, has been used by the author for the architectural project ‘Badel Block Redevelopment’, concerning the requalification of an urban area in a central district of Zagreb, HR, (in collaboration with Croatian ecologist Ivana Vojnic Rogic).
It is likely that many of the data and records concerning places and territories already exist, produced in different forms by a variety of public and private institutions and organizations. The proposal does not aim to replace this work, but rather to collect, select, and reorganize these dispersed materials into a single, coherent document—the Identity of Place (IDp) report—designed specifically for use in planning, design, and land management. This report would be shaped by a systemic, organic, and process-oriented understanding of nature, ensuring that information is integrated rather than fragmented.
Where existing data is incomplete, outdated, or absent, the proposal calls for the creation of new datasets, generated through the work of a collaborative table of practitioners from diverse fields. This process is guided by the principle that a place’s overall identity emerges from the entanglement of four macro-categories of processes: physicochemical, biological (and ecological), sociocultural, and symbolic (see image below).
Image 06: We can understand the realm of Nature as a unique place, that is, as a system of processes. Any place, independently of its scale, is determined by the entanglement of those four classes of processes. This basic division must be taken as a mode of orientation to start reasoning on the specific identity of a place.
At a higher level of responsibility and decision-making, the proposal calls for active cooperation with public institutions and private organizations—whether urban, regional, or national—to promote and adopt the IDp document as a standard reference in any intervention affecting their territories. More simply put, the Identity of Place report would serve as a guideline for any entity committed to preserving the health and character of lands and territories.
The ultimate aim is to sensitize entire communities—from residents to professionals—about the critical importance of recognizing the entanglement of natural and human-driven processes that shape and sustain the identity of every place. In doing so, the IDp becomes not just a technical tool, but a shared cultural reference that fosters informed, place-specific decisions.
This proposal can be directly implemented within any research program or project dedicated to unveiling the identity and character of a place. By selecting a specific site as a case study and applying the proposed collaborative methodology, participants can identify, document, and interpret the processes that sustain a place—those that make it naturally rich, culturally vibrant, and socially meaningful. The approach ensures that both natural and human dimensions are considered in equal measure, revealing the full systemic complexity that defines the nature of a place. (P.S.: I recently applied this place-based framework to conduct a feasibility study on the new design, recovery, and adaptive reuse of a few buildings in three distinct quarters of Ostiano, a small country town in Northern Italy. I illustrated this case study in my article, The Place of Architecture The Architecture of Place – Part III ).
Notes
[1] On the CCA-Multidisciplinary Research Program, see their institutional webpages at https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/56738/multidisciplinary-research-program
[2] That name – Rethinking Space and Place – was the name that the organizing committee of the 2014 conference in Oxford gave to the section that included my paper.
Image Credits
Featured Image, by Raychel Sanner on unsplash.com
All other images by Alessandro Calvi Rollino, CC BY-NC-SA.
CC, BY-NC-SA, RSaP-Rethinking Space and Place, 2025. All content including texts, images, documents, audio, video, and interactive media published on this website is for non-commercial, educational, and personal use only. For further information, please reach out to: info@rethinkingspaceandplace.com
