[2] could be understood as generally typological, observing more closely contemporary

global urban places we cannot avoid to notice how they are extremely Influenced in
their spatial features by functional paradigms. In other words, I he function is still (if
not nowadays even more) the catalyst and promoter of the urban place even when it
refers to more contemplative intangible properties such as the symbolical, iconical , or
mnemonical dimension.
We think that the challenge for a sustainable livability of contemporary metropolises is
first played through the analysis and then through the design of the “free space” as an
“ultra-public” dimension. The free space is the place of individual functions that
expressed collectively become public. Free space is, thus, the summation of multiple
contributions, which, expressed in the space / time dimension, represent a fundamental
part of the urban locus, In the contemporary city of the thousand prohibitions and
private spaces, strenuously defended and impenetrable, “free space” is a rare and
precious resource and frequently coincides with the unplanned space. It is, in fact,
potentially, the place of the unexpected and the original creativity. It is the place of
unpredicted (good or bad) surprises. At the same time, however, it cannot be a fully
anarchic space, thus, lawlessness or “with no governance’: Chaos left to itself is not a
carrier of quality. By borrowing metabolic concepts, “free space” m~stbe equipped with
infrastructures capable of governing its existence and addressing its implementation
and development. In this sense, the definition and design, of a “free space” would seem
contradictory because it would frustrate the celebration of a space without constraints
and directives but it is not so. The infrastructure