Architectural Concept: (Op)Positional Infinity of the City

This paper analyzes the role of the architectural concept in the creation and life of the city. Aiming to identify the urban qualities in the concept, I introduce the distinction between the first and the second object of architecture, where the former represents the architectural concept, which then materializes its authenticity in the latter, that is, architecture’s real state. Within this temporal order of architectural creation, the paper focuses on the transition from the first object to the second, in which the (urban) reality is assumed to be altered by producing the architectural concept. In explaining such alteration, I employ the dialectics between concept and context. My main hypothesis is that to define the architectural concept necessarily implies the definition of its context, that is, the representation of its real exteriority. At the urban level, the inevitable particularity of architecture becomes an aesthetic quality, thanks to which the impossible task of de-fining the city is overcome and made irrelevant for reaching the state of (urban) conjunction. With every architectural concept being realized, the urban reality becomes altered, or multiplied. The urban contextualization, in this sense, implies not simple summation, but rather conjunction of at least two different concepts, whose difference, however, originates from the act of fundamental disjunction. To explain this paradox, I employ Hegel’s notion of aufheben, aiming to reconcile the radical architectural opposition between the conceptual and the contextual, in favor of the idea of the multiplicity of realized concepts – that is, second objects of architecture. What in architecture appears as an opposition of concept and context, serves on the urban level to overcome the problem of (contextual) finitude of the city, and then produce a new, positive difference within it.