Best European City for Architecture Students
 

Hi, I am going to Barcelona for study abroad this Fall 2016, so I am preparing for it, and I have never been to Europe before. I have already had two of my study abroad meetings, and they give us a Fall Break of about 9 days. The school wants us to plan ahead and recommend we leave Spain for the week, so I am thinking of places to go. We also have three day weekends, so I can always do weekend excursions as well. The study abroad program includes a field trip to South and North Spain, including Madrid, so I would want to go somewhere out of Spain. What would be a good city for an architecture student to go to for a week or even a weekend that is relatively cheap to stay and get to from Barcelona? I won't have a whole lot of money, and I am really interested in New Urbanism, preservation, and history, so I would prefer a city with a compact urban structure and with layers of varying historic architecture that is somewhat cheap. I know the typical cities are Rome, Paris, London, and Berlin and I want to see the main architecture sights, but I am open to other options as well that are less known and cheaper. I have thought of Istanbul (if safe), Budapest, Athens, Krakow/Warsaw, Prague, Munich, Brussels, Morocco (even though no Europe), Lisbon, Edinburgh. Professors have also suggested that I could stay in Europe after my program and backpack with my fellow students, but it would require a Visa. Right now the program is exactly 90 days, allowing me to stay without a Visa, but any longer would require me to pay for one. I am open to anything and I appreciate any advice. Thanks.

I'd look at Amsterdam. Lots of historic and conservation buildings, lots of amazing modern design, compact and easy to get around, no language barriers.

Disclaimer: I am not an architect.

The modernisme of Gaudi and Puig will captivate you. It infuses the entire city.

To me the reconstruction of Rotterdam, which was destroyed during WWII by Allied and Nazi bombing is extremely interesting in terms of modern urban design.

Krakow and Prague were spared bombing during WWII and they have layers of styles. Not necessarily cohesive but interesting.

Brussels is a bore.

What is interesting in Paris the uniformity of style and the absolutely brilliant use of light to highlight the city. I for one, think the I.M. Pei pyramid is an intrusive horror. I think they could have done something in the style of Louvre and create huge stained glass windows that would allow light into the common areas and bathe the museum goers in blues and red from the windows.

Madrid is a real meh for architecture. But the Belle Epoque style in parts of San Sebastian/Donostia and interesting.

The Alhmabra is a spectacular example of Moorish design with the simplistic exterior and elaborate and ornate interior, to reflect how humans should be.

Istanbul is a most unusual city.

Florence just for Brunelleschi's Dome is worth it.

Vienna, would be a great choice too. Its city-centre is very compact, if you look a map you will easily distinct the old walled city (walls are gone now, replaced by a glitzy boulevard the Ringstraße). As the imperial capital of the Austrian Empire (one of the major powers of European History) the city is home to some spectacular architectural masterpieces, and the old city as a whole is a UNESCO site. You will see many layers of architecture. From the Gothic "Stephansdom", to Neo-Gothic "Rathaus", to Neo-Renaissance "Staatsoper", to Baroque "Belvedere", to Secessionist "Vienna Seccesion". I can literally go on forever.

Definitely give it a look, it's worth it.

Rotterdam, as mentioned, is very interesting for an architecture student.

Antwerp is worth a visit too. Some notable new buildings (the new Port of Antwerp building by Zaha Hadid, the justice palace, the MAS museum. And Park Spoor Noord for a good example of urban regeneration.

To keep costs down, I think Poland might be your best bet. I also think the modern architecture of Portugal is some of the very nicest in Europe (Lisbon also has some hideous clunkers) and important to include Porto in the mix.

Another vote for Rotterdam.
One amazing showcase for anyone even remotely interested in architecture - from historic Delfshaven and 1950s central shopping street to amazing skyscrapers.
Plus you find some nice cafes and pubs for the younger clientele - along Witte de With straat.

You can combine it with nearby Delft - the historic town centre is the total opposite to the mix of styles in Rotterdam.


The most interesting items (from an architectural perspective) in Berlin are that you get post-war 'capitalist and communist' modern architecture in one city.
Furthermore, you have fine examples from early 20c urban housing by famous architects like Bruno Taut - UNESCO world heritage sites, by the way.
It's also a place where architects can do pretty much what they want - as long as they don't touch the wide open spaces, some of which still the result of the separation of the city until 25 years ago.

Tallinn. The former port quarters as a mix of old and new, some really interesting dealings with the leftovers of old factory and storage buildings combined with modern architecture (and of course the old town and cathedral hill for the historical city). To give you an idea, the keyword is "Rotermann quarter": http://www.rotermann.eu/en/

Tallinn could easily be combined with a visit to, for example, Berlin within your timeframe.

Let's get a bit more systematic.

In the history of architecture, over the centuries different concepts of urban layout were realized.

In antiquity, we had three types of cities: (1) the imperial cities of the great rulers of Mesopotamia or Egypt, (2) the democratic Greek cities and (3) the Roman Colonial City.

(1) Imperial cities were dominated by magnificent buildings which symbolized the ruler's power and rather broad streets where processions happened. The best remains of imperial cities you find nowadays in Egypt, especially Luxor, but within Europe, you have a good chance to admire the magnificent Ishtar gate and procession street of ancient Babylon in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar_Gate

(2) The democratic Greek cities had three areas: The sacred area with the Temple, the public area with the Agora (market and political assembly) and the private residential area. There were no palaces and the residential homes were all decent, roughly of the same size, with narrow streets.

Unfortunately, of these times, not much has been left, because the Romans, after conquering Greece, turned the democratic cities into Roman Colonial cities. However, in Athens, you can still see significatn remains of the sacred and the public areas: the Acropolis with two temples, impressive enough, the Areopagus hill where the supreme court same together, the Pnyx hill where the democratic assemblies of six thousand deputies happened (even the speaker's rostrum is conserved), extensive, yet crumbled remains of the Agora and a wonderfully preserved temple, the temple of Hephaestos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Athens

The Old Town of Athens is basically Islamic (see below) and modern Athens is architecturally not very significant.

(3) The Roman Colonial Cities. When Rome founded new cities or overtook existing ones, the made them imperial - with broad streets, a main street (cardo maximus), magnificent temples and other buildings representing the power of the Emperor and huge private mansions of rich officials and citizens. Urban layout was usually Hippodamic.

Perhaps the best remains of a Roman Colonial City you find ironically not in Rome but in Ephesus (Turkey). There are also good excavations in Southern France (Provence), especially in Vaison-la-Romaine, but also (in this order) in Nîmes, Arles (where you find many layers), Orange and near St. Remy-de-Provence (Glanum).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaison-la-Romaine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arles

In Rome, you find the remains of the Forum Romanum, the Arena (Colosseo) and of several buildings, among the Pantheon as an almost perfectly conserved example of large dome built with concrete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Forum

After the Roman Age, the age of feudalism emerged which meant that people left the cities and started rural settlements.

Meanwhile, at the edges of Europe, another type of city emerged: the Islamic City. In Islam, the private life of the family is strongly protected. The resulting architectural style are extremely compact cities with very few and small public spaces, a maze of crooked, narrow alleys, nested homes without facades and outer windows, covered markets (souk, bazaar) and mosques.

You find good examples of Islamic Cities in Morocco (Fes, Marrakech etc.), in Andalucia (Vejer de la Frontera) and Greece (e.g. Lindos on the island Rhodes).

http://www.vejerdelafrontera.co.uk/index.html

In Europe, the Medieval City gradually emerged. Like the ancient Greek city, the Medieval City was democratic. The structural elements were: a city wall, a central market square, a main church or cathedral, a city hall, the halls of the merchants guilds and narrow crooked streets.

You find examples of medieval cities in all European countries. Best-conserved are usually small towns without modern developments. Good examples are in Southern France Carcassonne and Aigues-Mortes, in Germany Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Nördlingen, Dinkelsbühl, but also the City of Lübeck. In Belgium, Brugge, is a fine example of a medieval city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aigues-Mortes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothenburg_ob_der_Tauber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges

The medieval parts of most larger European cities have been demolished when mighty kings and princes turned them into residential cities, but one capital city completely kept her medieval urban layout: Amsterdam. Amsterdam is the largest remaining example of a Medieval City in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam

The middle ages ended with renaissance, a period that brought a different type of urban planning, with palaces, more social inequality, grand facades, carefully designed squares and public buildings. Of course, Florence was the birthplace of renaissance and still has finest examples of this style.

Then came the age of the great empires. Kings and princes became incresingly powerful and turned cities into their places of residence, often demolishing medieval parts of towns and replacing them with palaces, broad streets, huge squares, long vistas, parks and rows of uniform buildings. Paris, where absolutism was born, is still the main example of this architectural style, but also Berlin.

Later, this residential style should be further developed by Baron Haussmann who replaced medieval urban structures by blocks which where structured by broad boulevards. Again, Paris is the main example. But also in Barcelona, you will find the contrast of the medieval Barrio Gotic with crooked and narrow streets and the more modern Eixample district in Haussmann-style.

Then came industrialization which brought two major innovations: industrial architecture and garden cities.

In the beginning, the big factories and mines were built in romanticist style, often resembling medieval castles with many decorative elements, towers, turrets and battlements. Later, the decorative style became more abstract, over art nouveau to art deco. Today, many of these beautiful buildings have been converted into cultural centers, museums or entertainment centers. Some of them have even been acknowledges as UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

The best place in Europe to see how industrial architecture has been preserved is the Ruhr Valley in Germany.

Here two examples of different architectural styles of former coal mines:

http://www.lwl.org/LWL/Kultur/wim/portal/S/zollern/ort/
http://www.zollverein.de/

The big mines and mills built neighbourhoods for their workers, many of them as garden cities, decades before Ebenezer Howard wrote his book (he was in fact accused of plagiarism). If you are interested in New Urbanism you find the roots of this movement in the workers neighbourhoods in the Ruhe Valley. Many of these neighbourhoods are also fine examples of preservation. Here just three examples:

This is the oldest "garden city" neighbourhood, dating from 1847: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siedlung_Eisenheim
These two have been built inspired by Howard:
https://www.ruhrgebiet-industriekult...thenhoehe.html
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siedlung_Teutoburgia

A must-see for an architectural student is certainly the cradle of modern architecture, the Bauhaus. The main building and many realized projects of the most important architectural school of the 20th century is in Dessau:

http://www.bauhaus-dessau.de/en/index.html

You can even sleep in the Bauhaus (I have done it). Another branch of the Bauhaus was in nearby Weimar.

Another root of modern architecture was Le Corbusier. You find many buildings of him scattered mostly across France, the most impressive (or infamous) one certainly the "cité radieuse" in Marseille.

http://www.marseille-tourisme.com/en...-le-corbusier/

I will stop this brief tour d'horizon through the history of European architecture which might be superficial and over-generalizing, but I wanted to give some ideas what you can see.

Given your limited time and budget, you must make a decision what your main interest would be: Ancient cities, medieval cities or the early garden cities.

There are possilities to combine: Paris, Brugge, Amsterdam and the Ruhr Valley are easily connected by train and give you the chance to see a wide range of styles and ages.

I'd look at easy flight from Barcelona. Look at the skyscanner and see where they go

Interesting to me would be Lisbon (after the earthquake), Lecce and its growth over 3 periods, Glasgow for its early grid pattern, Newcastle for its river development and comparison with Bilbao (which I guess will be on your course), Leeds for the Corbuisier input.

It's nice that people want to show off their knowledge of architecture and history, or flag wave for their favorite city, but the OP has already said what is of most interest to the OP:

" I am really interested in New Urbanism, preservation, and history, so I would prefer a city with a compact urban structure and with layers of varying historic architecture that is somewhat cheap."

The OP mentions at least 4 or 5 times in the original post that money is a very important factor in choosing a destination. To be honest, that rules out Italy (which has very little New Urbanism anyway), the Netherlands, much of France and certainly London and much of the UK/Ireland. Berlin is one of the few capital cities of Europe that is not expensive, but it is not "compact" and, for having been bombed to smithereens in WWA2, it does not have much historic architecture preserved.

So where to go to for a week and get a good price/quiality ratio spending euros? Although much of Polish historic architecture has been reconstructed, it has been quite meticulously reconstructed, so places like Gdansk, Krakow, etc are compact and of interest from medieval times through the 20thc, and for New Urbanism, Warsaw as well. Portugal has sufferend greatly from austerity and brain drain, but there is still original new architectural talent in Portugal and a quite interesting salvaging and re-purposing of the historic cities.

PS: I'm not suggesting that Poland and Portugal are the only cheap destinations in Europe that feature New Urbanism movements and compact cities with multiple layers of historic architectural interest, but think it would be more helpful to the OP if people could identify other economical, compact cities in Europe like Portugal and Poland that feature these things at a good price for a student. This is a student budget, and OP wants someplace compact (meaning, not London or Berlin).

Rotterdam, to see how city is rebuilt after destruction. Good for domestic and civic architecture.
Almere, for a brand new city with various types of modern domestic architecture, not all good, or Amersfoort for a mix of medieval in the centre, to modern around the edges. Utrecht would also be a good one to combine with any of those, for modern and old in one city centre. Hilversum to see the architecture of Dudok.

London. Full of counterpoints and interesting buildings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism

j do you need to see the link from the start of the movement in 1990s to the build or do you need to see the concept in context?

My question is that while this idea was described in 1990s in the states, it has been common practice all over Europe for hundreds of years.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_new...s_sprawl/2118/

New Urbanism in Italy is a focus in only a very few places, for several reasons, but it is worth noting that the current leader of Italy owes a good part of his political ascendency for applying New Urbanism principles to the city of Florence when he was its mayor (as opposed to Berlusconi, whose policies encouraged sprawl). New Urbanism is of great interest in places like Genova that have experienced a lot of flight of the middle class from the urban core to outlying suburbs.

Other articles about New Urbanism in Europe:

http://luciensteil.tripod.com/eurocouncil2003/id21.htm

https://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409431350

and if the UK is still in Europe (forgot to check this morning)

http://londonsquares.net/5-new-urbanist-picks/

a lot depends on your specific architectural interests. But Prague is almost unique among major cities in europe in that it was not significantly destroyed in wwII. (Or in the case of Paris largely destroyed in the 1870s.)

In Prague the architecture grew organically and so you will see buildings from all ages and in all styles in/near the center of the city. We took a 2 hour walking trip through the old town led by an architecture student - and it was fascinating how he related info on the different buildings and how they related to the history and culture at the time they were built, esp those n the Jewish section.

Of course, you should go to Valencia (cheap trip) to see the Calatrava stuff.

BTW, this morning I was reading an article in the Telegraph about the world's most visited cities with photos. You know, none of the places with all the skyscrapers interested us.E.g., we would have been interested in visiting the old Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc., but not the new versions of these places.

It's not close to Barcelona, but I don't know how cheap the flights are to this point -- I don't think Dresden has been mentioned. It has only a few authentic old structures left, but there are some old buildings, and then many modern. It is also fairly cheap compared to some big cities. The way they reconstructed that old church is rather interesting in terms of historic preservation. And it is fairly small in the center IMO, you can get around easily enough by walking in the oldest part, and the tram a bit, and there is another area on the other side of the river.

SO you definitely have history and preservation in Dresden. I think Germany is definitely interested in environmentalism and new urbanism, I visited a friend in a suburban apt around Dresden and seems that way to me. See the reconstruction of NeuMarkt, for one thing, or Neustadt. Their new garden apts are not going to be in the dead center, of course, but in the outskirts.

Of course if you have a break of 9 days, you could easily do both Prague and Dresden, they are only a few hours apart by train. There are cheap flights from BCN to Dresden, but not direct (on Germanwings), so they do take up quite a bit of a day (7 hrs+). there are definitely cheap nonstop flights between BCN and PRG, however, on Vueling and even Czech Airlines isn't bad in fares.

Amsterdam is a city that is ultra-modern on the outside and neatly old in its ancient facades in the city center (facades only usually as the buildings behind them have been gutted and modernized)- but that is one city the perfectly matches your architectural interests and is also a mecca for European young folk your age (for various reasons, including legalized marijuana sold over the counter at numerous coffeeshops) and an active nightlife but architecturally the center of Amsterdam has so so many neat architecture styles - some dating from the 20s and early 30s and others from the 1600s.

Rotterdam just an hour or so by train from Amsterdam has a tonof really sweet modern architecture replacing the ancient city that got blitzed to bits during WW2 - but it also has vestpockets of old edifices in its Delftshaven area (from which the Pilgrims once set sail).

Berlin, for the same reason as Rotterdam, also is now a showcase of gleaming avant-garden architecture.

Thanks for everyone's suggestions and help. I am considering for my Fall break in either Lisbon(Sintra)/Oporto, Randstad metro area (Amsterdam(4 days)/Rotterdam(3 days)/Utrecht(2 days), Rome(4 days)/Florence(3 days)/Venice(2 days), Meknes(Volubilis)/Fes, Berlin(4 days)/Dresden(1 day)/(4 days)Prague, Budapest(4 days)/Bratislava(1 day)/Vienna(4 days) or Krakow(4 days)/Warsaw(3 days)/Gdansk(2 days). Is 3 cities too much for one week, should I narrow it down to 2 or one? I am also debating between West and East Europe. West Europe is part of Spain and easy to get to, but East Europe is cheaper. Which of these pairings would have a good mixture of architecture history from multiple periods, easy to navigate/walk and get to, and reasonable in price? Also, I am looking for some good places to go to on my 3 day weekends and I am thinking of cities in Southern France or Italy that are easy to get to from Barcelona and good for 2-3 days, like Nimes, Carcassonne, Perpignan, Naples/Pompeii, or Genoa. If I have enough money I might even stay in Europe for a week or two after my study abroad. I want to make the most out of my study abroad because I heard there is not too much homework, and I don't know when I will be back in Europe. Thanks for everyone's help.

Get a map of Europe and use pin to locate the cities and you will see what you can see in a week.

Consider Venice. The Architecture Biennale is happening from late May to late October, 2016. The Olympics for architects.

It is more intellectual than practical, and this year is curated by a gent who won the Pritzer prize.

Certainly it would be stimulating, and Venice does have relatively new buildings in places, dating from the 1950's.

Google "Carlo Scarpa" for a view of Venice's best known modern architect, and Venice is half an hour by train from Vicenza, home to works by Palladio.

Thanks for that info. I did not know that the Architecture Biennale was happening this year. I will have to stop for at least a day or two to see it. My Fall break will be during that time, either I go to Venice on a weekend, or I can go to Italy for the week. How many days should I stay in Venice? Would two be enough, and then spend 4 in Rome, and 3 in Florence, or should I spend the whole week in Veneto? Also is Venice overrated? I had a friend tell me to avoid Venice or go for only a day because he hated it.

Is Venice overrated?

Yes, if you are an uneducated clod.

Venice is like heroin. Once you get it into your system it will haunt you for the rest of your life.

You should read John Ruskin's The
Stones of Venice.

Thin

Venice punches way above its weight in cultural terms. A major film festival, Arts and Archi biennales, hosts a major university with School of Architecture, and that's just for starters.

To do the Archi Biennale any sort of justice would take four days. I'm going there im mid-September for 2.5 weeks just for the Biennale - and I'm not an architect.

Venice is worth studying in town planning terms. A fully pedestrianised city, so if you stay there any length of time, you keep on running into people that you know. Virtually no crime, certainly no street crime, but sure, pick pockets are active.

I have spent ten months in Venice, and still find things to excite and amaze me.

Plan the one week and then go spontaneously to the other destinations with students from your course. You will have a much better time if you don't overplan now.

For the one week abroad, go to Berlin and include Dresden and Potsdam.

Potsdam needs one day
Dresden needs one day
Travelling needs two half days (or more)
Berlin needs at least three days

>>Lisbon(Sintra)/Oporto, Randstad metro area (Amsterdam(4 days)/Rotterdam(3 days)/Utrecht(2 days), Rome(4 days)/Florence(3 days)/Venice(2 days), Meknes(Volubilis)/Fes, Berlin(4 days)/Dresden(1 day)/(4 days)Prague, Budapest(4 days)/Bratislava(1 day)/Vienna(4 days) or Krakow(4 days)/Warsaw(3 days)/Gdansk(2 days).<<

For a tourist, I would say, this is too rushed. But for you, it would be a professional trip, so it would be doable, but let's go into a few details:

- Meknes, Volubilis and Fes: You will be flying into Casablanca and Meknes and Volubilis will be on the way to Fes. But allow at least 3, better 4 days in total for Morocco.

- 4 days Berlin and 1 day Dresden. If you are in the area it would be a sin not to visit the Bauhaus in Dessau. The train from Berlin to Dessau is 1:38 and from Dessau to Dresden 2:35.

>>How many days should I stay in Venice? Would two be enough, and then spend 4 in Rome, and 3 in Florence, or should I spend the whole week in Veneto? Also is Venice overrated?<<

In Venice, you need at least one full day for the Biennale exhibits, leaving only one other day for the city itsself. Venice is not overrated at all. For centuries, it belonged to Europe's most powerful cities and, because of its wealth, was a major cradle for arts and architecture. Today, Venice is the largest historical city in Europe. Other cities have their Old Towns which are smaller or larger, but Venice is (almost) completely historical.

And full of art. Practically every church, even the minor ones, has invaluable pieces of art, like paintings from Tintoretto and other great masters. You have to wander through town and you have to ride the vaporetti (public boats) through the canals. You have to visit the Palazzo Ducale, the Duomo and the Scuola Grande di San Rocco.

So, with one day dedicated to the Biennale, you need at least three full days for Venice in order just to scratch the surface.

What else? Most of the cities on your bucket list are attractive from a tourist's view, but from an architects view, others may come into mind. E.g. Como still has the unspoilt hippodamic layout of the ancient Roman city.

When you are in Tuscany, Siena would make an excellent contrast to Firenze. Also visit the small town Monteriggioni - it is practically unchanged from the 13th century (the town serves as a backdrop for quite a few films and video games, including The English Patient, Gladiator, Assassin’s Creed II, Stronghold). San Gimignano is interesting because this medieval town had managed to preserve 14 towers which were a trademark of the medieval Italian city (and which have been demolished in most other cities).

In the Renaissance era, architects tried to plan the "ideal city". One of the best examples of a planned Renaissance city is Urbino. In the Palazzo Ducale you find a painting showing an "ideal city".

Needless to say, most the places I recommended here are UNESCO World Heritage sites.

I forgot: Before you travel, make sure to read the Books of Leonardo Benevolo, especially "The History of the City", "Origins of Modern Town Planning" and "The History of Architecture". They are classics with lots of maps, plans and photos.

For insights into the historical life in Venice as well as in other European cities, I strongly recommend reading Giacomo Casanova: The Story of My Life.

I was impressed by architecture of Andalusia in Spain. Starting from Seville and then Cordoba, Granada with an amazing Alhambra. It is an stunning mix of north and south, European and Arabic world. It is not modern at all, but it is very unusual and fascinating...
Oh, and also Toledo was quite a shock, but again it is not modern at all.

If you decide to go to Venice, then you will need more than 2 days make a dent in the biennale and see the other sites of architectural interest (for your purposes, don't miss the Calatrava bridge).

Instead of Rome, I suggest you go to nearby Verona to see the Roman arena there plus Carlo Scarpa's repurposed medieval castle (now the city's art museum)

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/paul-willi...049482.article

From Verona, I would suggest you go to Munich (5 hour train ride) because I think there is more of what you are looking for there than in the rest of Italy. For the most part, Italy has "frozen" its historic centers in time. You will see a lot of exemplary architecture from past centuries, and some very interesting ways in which modern people live inside that "preservation" and re-purpose the historic structures, but most of them have in fact left the historic centers to tourists and live elsewhere. New construction within the historic centers has generally been outlawed for the sake of tourism.

So Munich provides a more interesting present-day example of layers of architectural history in a very liveable modern day city.

Or you could consider Genoa. Italy's most important school of architecture (headed by Renzo Piano) is located in Genoa, and Genoa has the largest unrenovated medieval quarter in all of Europe. But the value of seeing Genoa would be to see the unresolved problems and the bad mistakes that have been made along the way in terms of both urban planning and experiments in modern architecture. If you have an appetite to see the unsuccessful and difficult challenges as well as the success stories, Genoa would be interesting.

If you don't like the idea of Munich or Genoa, both Verona airport and Venice airport have cheap flights to many other European destinations, so you can consider somplace else.

If going to those cities listed by train and if under 26 investigate the Eurail Youthpass - which let you hop just about any train anytime in most countries on your list except Italy and Spain. For lots of great info on European trains, passes, etc check these IMO informative sites: www.budgeteuropetravel.com; www.ricksteves.com and www.seat61.com.

Take overnight trains to save daytime travel time and the cost of a night in a hostel or hotel.

Thanks for all of the advice. For my week off I will go to the Architecture Expo for 3 days, Venice sightseeing for 3 days, Vicenza (Palladian Villas like Villa Rotunda)2 days, and Verona for a day trip. On my weekends I will probably take the train to Southern France, Genoa, or fly to Naples/Pompeii. These places are close by and will be cheap to go on the weekends. I will try to be spontaneous as well, and if I stay longer, I will just go where is cheap and easy to go to at the time. I do not want to over plan, but it is a good thing I started because I did not know of the Architecture Biennale until know. Thanks for everyone's input.

Also take a look at cheap-o airlines like Vueling, Easjet and Ryan which would be perfect for a small carry-on. They are like 19th century nuns enforcing the rules, especially the weight of luggage. Some might have flights from BCN but also nearby airports.

For Venice, this might be of help, for a place to stay:


http://www.we-gastameco.com/en/we_crociferi/

jritch, sounds like a good plan. I highly recommend the Palladio museum in Vecenza, and visit it before you visit other Palladio sites. It gives a great understanding of how he worked, has models, drawings, all sorts of data, and is housed in the only urban dwelling that Palladio did.

Vicenza is half an hour from Venice, so an easy day trip. Verona about an hour, and the Castel Vecchio museum in Verona is worth a look. A great example of how a building, an ancient fortress, can be converted into an art gallery. Carlo Scarpa did the job.

There's a pretty spectacular glass house, a couple of years old, at the Botanic Gardens in Padua. Five micro-climates housed in a single building, and both the architecture and climate control, with building automation, might be of interest. Padua is on the train line to Verona.

If going to Rome, an architectural feast, and if into modernist art of the 20s and 30s - in Italy called Fascist art I believe - check out EUR just out of central Rome and built under Mussolini as a new city - train stations in Rome, Florence and Venice also sport this sleek modernist look.

https://www.google.com/search?q=EUR+...HfmAAZkQsAQIHg

Tuesday 20th May, we took a day trip to Vicenza. Fast train, taking about 40 minutes, blasting across the Veneto plain at about 100 mph. Last time I went to Vicenza was in mid-December, and the fields were covered in snow, and it was bitterly cold, this time Spring planting in full force, a very different landscape.

Vicenza is, of course, Palladio Centrale. We visited the Teatro Olimpico, walked around the Basilica Palladiana (an older building, the tower dating from the 12th Century, Palladio designed the loggia around the Basilica), the Palladio Museum and the Civic Art Gallery of Palazzo Chiericati, which is near the theatre.

If you visit,and are on a Palladio kick, then I'd suggest visiting the Palladio Museum first. The museum is housed inside an urban dwelling, the only such dwelling completed by Palladio in his lifetime. It gives great insight into where Palladio was coming from as an architect, shows drawings that Palladio did when he visited Rome, sketching and measuring architectural details from ancient buildings. There are models of many of his buildings, including the Rotunda. Palladio was an apprentice stone cutter in his youth, and knew a thing or two about stone - also about faking the appearance of stone and marble. He was seen as an economical builder, knowing when to use marble, and when to use plaster with marble dust in it to simulate stone. There is a model of a brick column, showing how wedge shaped bricks, like pizza pieces, were laid to create a circular column, and then rendered with cement, given a couple of coats of plaster, and a fine edifice results.

Palladio wrote "The Four Books of Architecture", first published in 1570, and the books define what is finest in Renaissance architecture. He was able to describe what details should be used in a facade, maybe a square cornice vs. a rounded cornice, depending on how the light and shade was to fall on the wall. From a distance, Palladio's architecture may seem repetitive, but once you get closer to the details, it can be understood on an intellectual level as well. It's no coincidence that the Melbourne Public Library, or antebellum architecture in the USA, show the same influence - somehow Palladio was able to get it just right.

Having wealthy clients would have helped. The loggia around the Basilica is interesting, as Palladio had to design the loggia to accommodate an existing, much older building, and the architectural tricks that he employed to make the design work are evident. All the arches are identical in form and size, but if you look, you can see how the column spacing varies - it's a bit hard to explain. But the fact that building details are more closely spaced at the corners makes the loggia look more solid, more substantial. The corner columns on the Parthenon are more closely spaced than the centre columns, for the same reason.

At the time of building the loggia, Palladio was on a stipend of 7 ducats a month, which was reasonable pay for a celebrity. The loggia cost some 60,000 ducats - or about 700 years salary for a celebrity. A formidable cost - which maybe explains why the loggia took 50 years to complete. A bit like Gaudi's cathedral in Barcelona.

I've never been able to figure how Palladio worked. There are a mass of drawings and documents, proposal drawings, working drawings, set-out plans. Some fairly simple, others beautifully rendered, maybe to convince clients that it was time to go to contract. Palladio's design office must have had a host of draftsmen, but you don't hear about them, in the same way as you don't hear about the drafties in the offices of the Corb, van der Rohe, Phillip Johnston et al. There must have been site clerks, quantity surveyors, quality assurance people, cost control, just like any modern building project, along with specialists knowing about erecting domes, laying drains, sorting foundations. The information is mute on these people, but I would love to know the back story about them.

One trick that was used, to obtain a good finish to brickwork, which can otherwise be a bit rough. Bricks were polished with silica sand and water on a rotating table, to bring them to an exact, uniform size. They could then be laid with fine, about one millimetre, layers of mortar. Polish the wall to remove any laying imperfections and voila, job done. Apply plaster, dress it to look like stone, and you've saved the client a bundle.

Palladio had a thing about the architecture of antiquity, and the Olympic Theatre gave him his chance to build an amphitheatre. Semi-elliptic seating looking down on the stage, a homage to the theatre at Olympia in Greece. The Olympic Academy commissioned the theatre, Palladio designed it, but died a year later, before it could be finished. There are references to the Labours of Hercules in bas-relief above the proscenium arch, maybe a reference to the worth of labour, the work ethic and so on. A good way of getting the message across to a populace that was illiterate. There are niches with statues of the Academy members who funded he job, and they are in good condition, being plaster but always under cover. The faces are of the Members, the more senior members garbed in togas, the more junior as warriors. But look at the statue at the very top left as you face the stage - the body is of a woman, showing breasts, but wearing armour, a Member of the Academy. Someone decided to re-cycle a statue in 1584, hoping it might pass un-noticed.

Behind the seating there are nine niches with statues. The centre statue, the statue in pride of place, is Palladio. Maybe as a way of avoiding controversy as to who should get the prime position.

Andre Palladio, born 30th November, 1508, died 19th August, 1580. Leaving a most remarkable legacy.

From a visit in 2014.
The Architecture Biennale started last week, multiple yachts lined up along the Riva Schiavoni, yachts that in former times were described as "gin palaces". They've mostly gone now, and the Biennale is pretty quiet. I was wondering if I would enjoy the Biennale, or whether it might be a bit too esoteric for a non-archi, and I've really enjoyed a day at the Arsenale, another at the Giardini, and a day at various other locations around town, with several more to come.

The Korean pavilion. A combined pavilion, operated by both Koreas, north and south. When the pavilion was first proposed, the Biennale folk dictated that, "there's only one pavilion. Get along and get over it". So part of the pavilion hosts pictures of dedicated, well fed, happy tradesmen, constructing with enthusiasm a socialist workers paradise north of the 39th parallel. All the workers wear belts, supported by braces, and broad smiles. By contract, the south side has something to say about the social problems that can be created by architecture.

A similar theme was apparent at the Great Britain (Great Britain is not so much heard, replaced by the ubiquitous U.K.) pavilion, "A Clockwork Jerusalem" being the theme. Taking Blake's poem, applying it to contemporary architecture, with particular reference to the Thamesmead development. Thamesmead, developed in the 1970's. Abandoned as a suitable place for families, providing a place for squatters and heavy metal musos, a backdrop for Stanley Kubric, and demolished a decade or two ago.

Israel, a trio of A0 sized plotters, drawing diagrams in sand.

Germany. Impossible, the chancellors bungalow from Bonn recreated in Venice, along with a three thousand word commentary in 6-point font. A political statement, and I didn't get it. German nihilism maybe.

Italy. A 300 metre long installation in the Corderie in the Arsenal, Venice's longest building, with film, dance, installations, showcasing Italy, and also showcasing some pretty disastrous developments in Italy.

Albania. Paintings of ruins. Except that the ruins are just unfinished, never ever to be finished, buildings.

A full scale construction of one of Le' Corbusier's never-built structures. I've never really "got" Corb's architecture, but seeing a work at full scale makes it approachable.

The Stati Uniti d'America, aka the USA. A great resource - the curators have collected a compendium of work by American architects that have worked outside the USA, displaying it simply as a resource. So, for me, possible to see details of work by Walter Burley Griffin, who laid out our national capital, Canberra, and also designed Newman College at Melbourne University, a building that I know well.

And onto the Elements of Architecture in the central pavilion in the Giardini. Fascinating, looking at a set of architectural features. Floor, wall, window, balcony, stairway, escalator, door, corridor, facade, roof, toilet and so on. Interesting, in that architecture is about assembling elements into a building, but this display de-constructs the set. Rem Koolhaas curated this display, and said about the balcony "Without my parents' balcony, I would not be here. They lived on the 5th floor of a new social democratic walk-up. Born in the last months of the war, a cold but very sunny winter, when everything that could be burned had been burned, I was exposed to the sun, naked, to capture its heat, like a mini solar panel."

Which gave me cause to think.

And an architectural note, not connected to the Biennale. Carlo Scarpa is well known in Venice, Venice's favourite contemporary architect. The Olivetti showroom in the Piazza and the Querini Stampalia foundation are two of my favourite buildings in Venice, both done by Scarpa. A Cuban student of Scarpa designed, and managed the renovations, for the apartment that we are staying in, and submitted the building, plus its documentation, for his final year thesis. Scarpa's architectural handwriting is all over the apartment, not as a copy, more a homage to Scarpa's thought processes.

So, to conclude, in someone else's words, words heard on the street, a member of a little tour group to the tour leader, the accent somewhat south of the Mason-Dixon.

"Monica, we've passed a lot of shops selling masks. What's with the masks?"

"Monica, we've passed a lot of shops selling masks. What's with the masks?"

:-)