Alessandro Porotto Utopia and Vision. Learning from Vienna and Frankfurt

Utopia and Vision. Learning from Vienna and Frankfurt By definition, a utopia cannot be realized; at the same time architecture needs a “place”. Within this contradiction, modern architectural utopias have conceived of and developed spatial solutions to implement their principles. The spatial analysis of modern utopias allows for the identification of the relationship between architectural features and social organisation. Through this relationship, it is possible to establish when a utopian model becomes an urban and architectural model. The objective of this article is the comparison of different types of urban and architectural space that modern utopias have produced. Indeed, in the organisational logic of the urban fabric, spaces assume different characters depending on social contexts. In this sense, the social housing experiences in the 1920s are of particular interest not only for their utopian idea of society, but for their ability to realize a model of collective organization at the architectural and urban scale. Starting from the theoretical notions of “utopia” and “realism”, which have already been discussed by historians and critics of architecture, it is possible to identify different spatial features that, through the project, assume specific architectural forms. The comparative approach that animates this article allows the analysis of several exemples through homogeneous tools, but especially through direct observation in order to raise questions still current today. In this sense, the utopian character of the architectural models of the 1920s has a spatial and social “vision” that we can evaluate critically in the current conditions of the contemporary city.