A comparison between different urban analysis methods: the case study of Rubattino-Ortica district in Milan

The paper deals with urban studies focused on historical districts named Rubattino and Ortica
set in the east part of Milan. It represents a focus on urban morphology’s analysis and it deals
with the comparison of different urban analysis’ methods. The given site of Rubattino and
Ortica districts in Milan is characterized by very different urban morphologies and building
typologies, even if it represents a kind of big urban “cluster” in between railways and highways:
the historical settlements with their monuments, the industrial era with productive spaces, the
post-war expansion with housing districts, the post-industrial era with large dismissing and new
speculations, the recent developments due to cultural events and activities. It is very difficult to
find out just one architectural theory that fits this “hybrid” of urban morphologies, but more
than one theory can partially describe its features. The aim of the study is to deal with urban
analysis accordingly to pre-assigned morphological approaches, showing that they are
complementary and not alternative. The approaches have been chosen accordingly to a deep
preliminary urban analysis, finding out feasible ways of describing the site with clear urban
indicators. Two of the chosen approaches seem more appropriate to describe site’s morphology:
one is based on the idea of ‘urban islands’ or ‘clusters’ that describes cities as a unity of
different and independent parts. The other one is based on the idea of city as ‘layers’, showing
also the interference of different functions and ‘systems’. Describing the same site through
different theory-based urban analysis’ approaches represents the chance for a comparative study
of theories themselves