Dislocation is not an event that happens in space, or even in space. The space itself is dislocation. It is what we can define as “disjunction” of places or even the original partition that does not cease to take place. Dislocation lives thanks to its opposite. In fact it is the condition of every localization.1
Dislocation in settlement systems appears as an interval between two margins, two regions. Dislocation is necessary to mediate the passage between closed and open systems,2 as villages / countrysides and cities. It is shown as an interval, a sequence following a spatial dynamism; the designer should work on this, overcoming the disjunctions.3 So we do not have to act exclusively locally but through system strategies as the “Continent City” by Yona Friedman, or through linear strategies as the recent interventions on the Parisian périphérique for the Grand Paris projects. In this way the dislocated, peripheral areas are reconnected among them, distributing services, helping the movement of citizens and re-activating their attention towards “new localizations”. This overturns the concepts of demographic degrowth, it consolidates, integrates and hybridizes local identities generating a “Community Shared Culture” while disseminating services and infrastructures on a hyper-connected territory.
1 Goetz, B. [1997]. “La dislocation: critique du lieu”, in Mangematin, M., Younès, C. (edited by), Lieux contemporains, Paris: Éditions de la Passion.
2 Crotti, S. [2000]. Figure architettoniche: soglia, Milano: Unicopoli.
3 Cfr.: Milocco Borlini, M. [2019]. Against Metropolitan Dispersion, http://www.urbanisticatre.uniroma3.it/dipsu/?portfolio=against- metropolitan-dispersion, 4/2019.
