Abstract
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) long ago observed, “In the order of things it is found that one never seeks to avoid one inconvenience without running into another; but prudence consists in knowing how to recognize the qualities of inconveniences, and in picking the less bad as good.” Given these complex conditions of engagement, it is critical that the relationship between architecture and health be revised. While perhaps partly responsible, architecture is not always capable of providing positive solutions for the environment or the “sick” body. Instead, a confused and anxious contemporary architecture struggles to produce new manifestations that avoid exalting the spectacle of capital of the last twenty years. While architecture is looking once again into the ambiguous political, cultural, moral, and, above all, social ideas of health and medicalization for both justification and a new mandate, it should seek to challenge – rather than pacify – the newly emerging neo-liberal agenda and question a medicalized vision and approach toward health issues.

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Therapeutic architecture, Body and Mind wellbeing.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 76-83
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.DKWAK6OT

Abstract
One of the characteristics of the 20th century heritage hospital is the permanent remodeling of its spaces, a sign of the frequent changes in clinical practices which, in turn, bring about functional, construction and spatial changes. This characteristic, due to the functional prevalence of health facilities, generates forms of environmental and territorial consumerism. Contrary to any conservation or crystallizing idea of the heritage hospital, this present reflection seeks to find the aspects of this heritage that may be preserved in the remodeling processes, informed by the recent trends in the design of healthcare facilities, which ultimately constitute opportunities for their rehabilitation, reuse or restoration.

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Rehabilitation, Reuse, Restoration, Portuguese modern architecture.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 68-75
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.K3YN27KP

Abstract
The France-USA Memorial Hospital in Saint-Lô, Normandy (1948-1965), is known as one of the most relevant French Reconstruction projects. It is the first important work crafted by the French-American architect, Paul Nelson (1895-1979). His humanist approach inspired a series of unprecedented, meaningful and technical architectural innovations. The organization of the new hospital, based on functionality and modernity; polychromic and artistic inclusion; extended high-quality work, notably the "claustra" façade; ovoid surgical rooms and technical equipment are testimonies to the major quality and innovation pursued in the Memorial Hospital project. Paul Nelson’s work brings into focus the rich and comprehensive relationship between architecture, arts and care.

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Paul Nelson, France-USA Memorial Hospital, French modern architecture, Modern hospitals.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 60-67
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.R3O24KOL

Abstract
In New York, the New Deal saw the construction of a new breed of hospitals under the direction of Isadore Rosenfield (1893-1980). Though quasi-unknown today, his contribution to the field of hospital design cannot be overstated in terms of the quantity of facilities he built on four continents and the philosophy underlying his activities as an architect, planner and educator. Currently, though, even his most successful buildings are being demolished or converted without documentation. The author examines the context and some issues encountered in his photographic recording of these facilities and looks at their potential considering today’s larger challenges.

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Isadore Rosenfield, New York modern architecture, Modern hospitals.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 52-59
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.I56FHEBV

Abstract
Sanatoriums are an emblematic program of the Modern Movement in architecture. Prolifically built in Europe between 1900 and 1950, they constitute today a remarkable architectural heritage whose technical, functional and spatial qualities are well documented. Since the decline of tuberculosis after the WWII, those sanatoriums that were not demolished have been constantly transformed and reused. Although iconic sanatoriums benefited from meticulous restoration, guided by precise historical and technical knowledge, much remains to be done to explore and develop the reuse potential of these buildings.

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Sanatorium architecture, European modern architecture.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 44-51
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.IYJYY4X1

Abstract
The decades between 1950 and 1980 mark the heydays of modern hospital architecture. It represents an ideal merger between Modernism and medicine and a highly specific approach to health and illness as medical qualities. Since the 1990s, public health experts have recognized that aspects that have been discarded both by medicine and by modern architecture should be re-integrated in all policies that target health: the modern hospital has become a relic of the past. This essay is a plea to incorporate the changing views on health and illness in the value assessment of the modern hospital.

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Modern hospitals, Healing machine.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 36-43
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.4FBS2HCP

Abstract
Although the works of Frederick Law Olmsted – such as Central Park, Prospect Park, Franklin Park, Riverside – are today widely recognized and appreciated, some of them having, in fact, been the object of important restoration work, the thinking which engendered them is much more unfamiliar, notably due to its complexity. The mission of landscape architecture, as it is defined by Olmsted, is above all social: to improve the living conditions of the population, beginning with the most unfavored. It is not just a matter of providing breathing spaces, but of allowing people to experience places capable of appeasing their minds.

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Landscape architecture, Frederick Olmstead.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 28-35
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.MC4LREXQ

Abstract
During the 19th century, a shift in the meaning of the notion of type took place, accompanied by the idea of an explicit inscription of habits and needs in space. A new correlation between the architectural type and the habitual was established. If only tentatively, esthetics and planning could now be harmoniously reunited through the introduction of new habits in order to generate a collective way of living. As a result, the object of architecture became to moralize and to reform. The “dream” of this period was that of a purely technological solution for civil building and housing. It would further expand into the vision of the exact partitioning of living space, and of the invention of perfect machines for healing, controlling, and living. In fact, two genealogies began to merge: total sanitariness, which led to the exact quantification of fluids piped into buildings; and total technology, which aimed, through the use of new materials, at the precise programing and optimization of space. Underlying the thousands of proposals in the 19th century, the idea of the circulation of goods and people was crucial, and dependent on the imperatives of mobility and decentralization. Traces of such “dream architecture” remained in the form of the features that would become an intrinsic part of 20th century, modern architecture.

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Industrial city, House as living machine, 19th century cities.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 18-27
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.IZO61SEB

Abstract
The human is an unstable idea; simultaneously an all-powerful creature – capable of transforming the whole ecology of the planet – yet extremely fragile, a murky ghost. Contemporary research into our microbiome portrays the human itself as a mobile ecology constructed by the endless flux of interactions between thousands of different species of bacteria – some of which are millions of years old and others joined us just a few months ago. This challenges conventional understandings of architecture. What does it mean to house the human when we no longer think that the human organism is securely contained within its skin? What is the role of architecture when the humans occupying it are understood to be suspended in clouds of bacteria shared, generated and mobilized by other macro-organisms (pets, plants, insects…) and the building itself; when the human is not a clearly defined organism or in any sense independent; when the architectural client is a massive set of ever-changing trans-species alliances that make the apparent complexity of even the largest of cities seem quaintly uncomplicated. What kind of care do architects offer if we think of ourselves as alliances between bacteria within the apparent limits of the body and throughout the spaces we occupy? What faces 21st century architects in comparison to 20th century architects?

Keywords
Modern Movement, Modern architecture, Healthcare architecture, Form and Function, Healing architecture, Building ventilation, Cleansing architecture, Healing environment.

Issue 62
Year 2020
Pages 6-17
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/62.A.YSGG9KKU