ABSTRACT
Throughout the history of architecture, the ways in which the structure manifested itself were extremely various, both because of the technological evolution of building materials, and the consequent birth of a scientific dedicated knowledge, and for the continuous changes of the conceptual approach. The two aspects evolved in parallel, influencing each other in a continuous endless relay. The purpose of this contribution is to investigate the different approaches represented in the history of buildings, not from a chronological point of view but from the one of design, by analyzing the different ways in which the structure was used to “draw” a building. In this regard we identified three gross categories —- Predominant Firmitas, Declared Firmitas, Integrated Firmitas —- in which a series of representative examples of how the structure has been interpreted to characterize an artifact are highlighted. There is also a fourth category, admittedly contradictory, the Negated Firmitas, which we will discuss separately.
We want to highlight the risks that the imbalance between the three Vitruvian components entails, in particular, when the role of the structure within the design process is underestimated inevitably leading to a marked gap between idea and realization.
