Rome
Rain
Rooms

A thoughtful proposal rooted in the context of Rome, creating a genuinely cool and comfortable place within the city. The technical strategy is convincing, and the water element is interpreted in an original way. While the pavilion feels somewhat enclosed and rain itself plays a limited experiential role, the project demonstrates a strong commitment to environmental performance.

Beyond a certain degree of over-design—particularly in the roof geometry, photovoltaic panels, and water pumps—the pavilion responds well to the character of the city through a clear formal reinterpretation of the Roman tempietto archetype. It can be read as a contemporary chapel dedicated to rainwater and nature, combining traditional materials with innovative technologies.

The project expresses the idea of water collection in a particularly strong and legible way while performing effectively in both rainy and sunny conditions. The fact that the same surface and material can also act as a tool for generating a “summer breeze” is a powerful aspect of the proposal, particularly well suited to Rome’s hot climate.

Interesting for its international architectural language, although this could also be a limitation.

The project is extremely well thought out and meticulously studied in its individual components. The reference to the thermal space is clear without being overly literal. The study and design of the terracotta elements are particularly interesting; through their unique assembly, they help create an interior space characterised by a high quality of natural light, made soft and vibrant as it filters through the envelope. The fact that experiencing the space also becomes a sensory experience is a major strength of the project, as is the consideration given to the ease of disassembly and reuse of the system.

One critical note: the door creates an abrupt transition between exterior and interior. It could have been interesting to reach the heart of the space—which is rightly introverted—through an open/closed transitional filter that allowed for greater fluidity between indoor and outdoor environments. The supporting structure of the roof also appears likely to be undersized.

The proposal presents a solid, coherent, and well-developed concept, creating a strong connection to Rome both through the spatial reinterpretation of the Roman baths and through the use of terracotta, a material closely linked to the city’s architectural identity. Of particular interest is its contemporary reinterpretation using 3D-printed terracotta modules, whose geometry and porosity actively contribute to the flow of water and the evaporation process.

One aspect to consider is that the continuous circulation of saline water requires greater maintenance and control of crystallisation, particularly to prevent deposits or obstructions within the hydraulic components. Likewise, the proposal to atomise salt water to create aerosols within the public space would require more detailed justification regarding concentration, control, and exposure conditions.

A clear proposal in which the roof becomes the primary architectural and environmental device. The dialogue between ceramic, light, and water gives the pavilion a distinctive identity, while the pond and adjacent paving offer a pleasant public experience. The project works both as an urban passage and as a place of pause. Particularly interesting is the tension between the apparent weight of the roof and its ability to filter light, air, and water, creating a rich interplay between materiality and climate.

The strength of this project lies in the fact that water becomes the protagonist, to the extent that it is capable of shaping the space. The pavilion becomes, at the same time, a shelter from water and a place to engage with it—not only visually, but also through touch and sound. The system of the sloped roof structure is interesting both in terms of its design and its actual interaction with rainwater. However, it may present critical issues in terms of maintenance.

The concept is interesting, with a simple combination of forms and materials that gives the architecture a timeless quality. Unfortunately, the interior space feels too compressed and claustrophobic, as if it were designed for immersion in warm, therapeutic water rather than for the collection of cold and utilitarian rainwater.

Ultimately, the concept does not fully translate into a convincing spatial experience. The pavilion does not create a place where one would genuinely enjoy spending time, either during rainfall or on a sunny day. The architecture seems to respond more to the idea of water than to the actual experience of being immersed in it.

Very interesting for its space-time connection with Rome’s historical past: a ceiling of which only the tiles remain, through which rainwater now flows. It creates a place to stop and meditate, resulting in a very interesting and poetic architectural theme.

The underlying principle is interesting, and the role of rainwater collection is clearly defined. However, the project does not convincingly demonstrate what happens to the collected water after collection. The spatial design does not sufficiently translate the concept into an engaging and inviting public space.

The proposal is notable for its sensitive and contemporary interpretation of Rome’s architectural heritage. The choice of the archaeological site and the fragmentary condition of the existing wall serve as the project’s key concept. The intervention reinterprets the memory of a vanished roof using a lightweight, reversible structure placed parallel to the wall, incorporating it as an essential part of the spatial experience.

The reuse of recovered Roman roof tiles is positive. By changing their traditional arrangement and suspending them to form an extended roof, a single construction process creates shade, allows natural ventilation, and guides the flow of rainwater. Particularly notable is the way rainfall activates the architecture as both a visual and acoustic instrument.

The project possesses several inherent strengths. First and foremost, it ensures that interacting with the space becomes a pleasant sensory experience. The quality of natural light inside the pavilion is particularly interesting, as it is fragmented and softened while filtering through the terracotta elements. Its replicability in different contexts is also a strength. However, the use of the amphora in its most classical sense feels somewhat literal; a more contemporary interpretation might have proven more interesting.

The proposal successfully draws inspiration from the context of Rome by incorporating terracotta pots for water collection. This idea could have been explored in a more imaginative way. The pavilion itself feels somewhat enclosed and would have benefited from a more open relationship with the public space.

I particularly appreciate the decision to conceive the pavilion as an architecture made of traditional vases, which serve both as water-collection elements and as sound-producing devices. The project is weakened, however, by the poorly designed textile roof. Such a strong architectural concept would have called for a bolder and more robust roof, one that could also enhance the experience of sitting underneath it.

The project is further compromised by the decision to introduce two different types of vases, effectively relegating the sound experience to an inner, chapel-like space. In such a small pavilion, creating a secondary space within the main space weakens the overall clarity and enjoyment of the architecture. The pavilion could instead have been conceived entirely as a sound pavilion, fully exploiting the acoustic potential of the vases rather than confining this experience to only one portion of the project.

Conceptually, the proposal is well articulated. The use of the amphora as the central element is one of its most interesting aspects, both because of the historical and cultural connection it establishes with Rome and because of how it utilizes the qualities of terracotta related to water, evaporation, and thermal performance. The rainwater-harvesting strategy is naturally integrated into the architecture through the roof, perimeter channel, and drainpipes, incorporating the flow, presence, and sound of water into the pavilion’s sensory experience and thereby reinforcing its identity.

As a point of note, the documentation does not clearly explain the flow of the hydraulic system: how water passes from the channel and downspouts to the vessels, how it is distributed and fills the storage vessels, or how it subsequently overflows or drains into the lower reservoir. Similarly, the number of ceramic elements and the additional weight of the water raise some uncertainty regarding the lightness of the depicted structure.

The project is a pleasant and sustainable reinterpretation of the “dome” spatiality, combined into a piece of urban furniture designed for the community and for active interaction between citizens and the space. Despite having some critical issues—such as the maintainability of all elements, especially at the top, and maintenance and care being left to the actions of individual citizens—the project is poetic in being so deeply rooted in a true idea of community participation. The linear design, along with the simple, lightweight, and easily replicable structure, is commendable.

Introducing greenery into the dense urban fabric is a valuable gesture. Beyond this, however, the proposal lacks the spatial and conceptual qualities needed to create a truly memorable public experience.

Very simple and interesting is the open green dome structure, which allows both protection and introspection toward the outside. Its shape makes the pavilion adaptable to many spaces in the city of Rome. It is also very interesting that the rain is collected for the vegetation.

The overall shape fits Rome well, but the interior space lacks poetic strength. The relationship between the wooden structure and the outer pots feels weak and underdeveloped, resulting in an architecture that is ultimately incoherent and rather unconvincing.

The use of pots could have been an interesting opportunity to engage with the local community and give the pavilion a more collective and meaningful character. However, the way they are integrated into the architecture feels too superficial and bland, missing the opportunity to turn a simple element into a stronger architectural and social gesture.

The proposal presents a clear and well-articulated concept that creates a close connection to Rome through a contemporary reinterpretation of the Pantheon, expressed through the use of geometry and the oculus, as well as through the incorporation of rain as a sensory experience that enriches the perception of space. Of particular interest is the conceptual transformation of the domestic atrium into a public square, which turns the harvesting and daily use of water, typically associated with the private sphere, into a collective experience.

Vegetation is an essential element of both the architecture and the hydraulic system, as it provides shade, a microclimate, and a constantly changing living space. The participatory nature of the garden—where citizens can contribute and care for their own plants using planters made from reused bottles—also incorporates a dimension of recycling, community ownership, and collective care.