itopia

Map+Posts

2009-05-19T15:29:00.001-07:00

In order of appearance on blog:
Fernando - ROME 1960: The Olympics as a Catalyst for Urban Change
Olivia - United Colors of Tiburtino : Neorealism and the Search for a New Vernacular
Yao - Stazione Termini in Esquilino: Towards a Locus Solus of urban Dystopia
Agnes - The Roman Palazzina
Khaleel - Development of the EUR: A Representation of Fascism
Heera - The Colosseum through times: Functions and Symbols
Esther - Circus Maximus: A Contemporary Public Space
Melissa - The Sporting Complex: Stadio Olimpico and its’ Fascist Influence
Matt - Villa Doria-Pamphili: Evolution of an Emerald from Private to Public
Peter - Tuscolano: Neorealism and the Peripheral Development of Postwar Rome
Shichun - The Ex-slaughterhouse in Testaccio: Survival through Reuse
Anjuli - The Garbatella: The "Garden City" and its Community
Maria - Prati: The Other Rome
William - Corviale: A Controversial Housing Implementation

ROME 1960: The Olympics as a Catalyst for Urban Change

2009-05-13T23:05:00.000-07:00

Mega-events such as Universal Expositions, World Fairs and the modern Olympic Games are short-term occasions that, since their inceptions, have consistently had a major impact on the urban system. They posses a unique ability to restructure civic plans and priorities, to form discussions about usage after the event, to promote urban redevelopment, and are instruments of ideologies that enthusiastically promote economic growth.[i] As a recent article in the International Journal of the History of Sport stated, “There is a constant intimacy between Olympic development and the evolution of host cities.” This assertion is greatly substantiated when discussing the Summer Olympics of 1960, when the Italian capital, Rome, secured the rights to host the Games of the XVII Olympiad. The Roman Games established a turning point in the Olympic history, as they became an archetype of the mega-event as a catalyst for significant urban change. From this spectacle in 1960 onwards, the Games began to have several extensive consequences on the local built environment, as the Olympic venues and infrastructure became key elements of the comprehensive urbanistic intervention.[ii] In addition, this physical capacity of the Olympics has generated several other effects, including a new image of the host cities and an enhanced sports culture.

To secure the hosting rights of the 17^th Olympiad, Rome had to compete in an unprecedented race against fifteen other candidates, including four European and seven American cities. In June of 1955, after four failed attempts, the International Olympic Committee finally declared Rome as the next Olympic headquarters. Although the Second World War had ended a decade before, these Games were to be the first ones staged after the period of post-war austerity, thus amassing a potential to create great change. Indeed, the Olympic plan that was carried out over the next half-decade in Rome truly presented the Games as a forceful trigger for major urban development and improvement that went well beyond the construction of sports facilities.[iii]

With five years to prepare for the 1960 spectacle, the city of Rome sought to develop three focal zones for Olympic activities, and to design a comprehensive system of transportation infrastructure throughout the city. The main sporting facilities were clustered in three separate sites, two in the northern outskirts of the city, and one in the southern periphery, thus stretching the built area in two directions. The organizers capitalized on these areas where relevant facilities were already available: the Foro Mussolini sports complex constructed during the Fascist Era; the Flaminio area which had for several decades retained a particular character devoted mainly to sports events and leisure; and the E.U.R., a district south of the city center that was initially designed as an extraordinary setting for the 1942 Esposizione Universale Romana (E.U.R.), which never occurred because of WWII.

Announced in 1927, the original Foro Mussolini became the boldest new project announced by the Fascist regime. Completed in 1938, the sports complex reflected the regime’s efforts to undertake projects beyond those dealing with ancient sites in the historic center. Instead, the Foro would offer Rome a new “city” devoted to sports, physical fitness, and youth—a city of physical education in the tradition of the ancient gymnasium but in a modern form consistent with the regime’s program.[iv] Thus, its use as an Olympic center was an appropriate decision. Renamed the Foro Italico, the complex housed the revamped 80,000-seat Stadio Olimpico (formerly Stadio di Cipressi), the upgraded Stadio dei Marmi, the new Stadio del Nuoto, and the completed area in front of the immense Palazzo della Farnesina.

Across the river, in the Flaminio district, several more projects were realized. The old Stadio Nazionale was replaced with the new Stadio Flaminio, while the Palazzetto dello Sport, an indoor arena designed by Pier Luigi Nervi, was constructed to host boxing matches. The foremost project in Flaminio, however, was the construction of the Olympic Village. This residential complex boasted 1,800 apartments that would house all 5,348 participating athletes and their coaches.[v] After the two-week spectacle, the apartments were subsequently handed over to the state, and became the most successful intervention of public housing in the city.

More so than the vast Olympic Village at Flaminio, the most ambitious project assumed during this time was the revamping of the E.U.R. site. Although the district had originally been designed as the fairgrounds for the 1942 Rome Universal Exposition, the Olympic preparations nearly two decades later stimulated a major redevelopment. Some of the most important sporting facilities of the city were constructed here during this period, including the Palazzo dello Sport (today the nation’s largest sport arena), the Piscina delle Rose (swimming pool), the Laghetto dell’EUR (artificial lake) at the central park, the Tre Fontane sports training area, and the recently demolished Velodromo for track cycling competitions. In total, nearly three billion Liras were spent in the redevelopment of EUR.[vi]

Aside from the actual facilities constructed or improved at the Foro Italico, Flaminio and EUR, a major aspect of the Olympic plan was the network of roads that would connect these sites, located at opposite ends of the city periphery. Thus, the decision to use the Foro and EUR as Olympic clusters not only brought back to life images of the Fascist regime, but required the longest and most costly highways to link them. Two were built, running north-south at either edge of the city, and stimulating real-estate development all along their routes. Thus, Rome gained from infrastructural improvements undertaken with the Games in mind, especially the new roads and bridges built to connect the Olympic venues.

The main clusters were connected by a new thoroughfare called the Via Olimpica (Olympic Way), built just in time for the Games in 1960. During its construction, the Via Olympic was very controversial for being exceedingly expensive and laborious, and was nicknamed “the trail of gold,” in large part because it seemed that the extensive pathway was built to raise the value of nearby lands. Connected the Olympic Village and the Foro Italico in the north with EUR in the south, the Via used stretches of existing roads throughout its course, before crossing the Flaminio bridge (1951) and into the Olympic Village. The Corso di Francia, built between 1958 and 1960, was an elevated viaduct that bypassed the newly constructed Olympic Village and across the Tiber River, connecting Via Cassia and Via Flaminia with the center. In all, $2.8 million were spent on the network of internal roads, $6.4 million on the external road network, and another $3.5 million on the connection from north to south of the city. This was in addition to the $21 million spent to construct Fiumicino Airport, which was inaugurated just five days before Opening Day of the Games in 1960. As the total investment on the Olympic Games was approximately $45 million (64 billion Liras), 75 percent of the total expenses were set aside specifically for transportation-related infrastructural investments. Incidentally, this road network was the largest project of the Olympics, occupying 75 percent of the total land used for the event (12). These lavish developments even led to requests for the annulment of the next Summer Games because of the increasing scale and complexity of the Olympic urban commitment (13).

Aside from the Olympics-related projects discussed, the city also developed a new water supply system, new hotels, a new jetport, improved public transport, street lighting and illumination of monuments, and numerous decorative improvements to the city’s urban landscape. Thus, in many ways, Rome used the occasion in 1960 to reinforce its permanent facilities and urban infrastructure. The 1,800 apartments that housed the athletes in the Olympic Village were used after the Games as low-income housing. The Flaminio area as a whole was revitalized, after years of being covered with barracks. Major traffic routes amplified for the Games now accommodate the ever-increasing use of private automobile activity throughout the metropolis, especially the Olympic Way and the Corso Francia. Many of the sports facilities built or improved for the Olympics continue to be in use today, including the Olympic Stadium at the Foro Italico, the Palazzo dello Sport in EUR, and the Palazzetto dello Sport in Flaminio.[vii] Investing more than a third of all the funding for the Olympics on the airport at Fiumicino, Rome finally acquired its major international connection to the world.

In summary, the Rome Olympics of 1960 was a defining moment in the history of the modern Olympic movement, as it became the first major Olympiad to trigger a wide range of lasting urban improvements. Unlike the earlier productions of the Games, the Olympic sport spectacles since 1960 on have retained a vigorous tendency to stimulate and accelerate major developments such as new road systems, public transport initiatives, air terminals, urban renewal programs, tourist and cultural facilities, and parks and beautification projects designed to enhance the city’s landscape and environment. Indeed, the expenses involved in staging an Olympic celebration are now so excessive that host cities can often only justify the expenditure when it is seen as leading to a major program of regeneration and improvement. Thus, it can be said that the modern Olympics have developed from a comparatively small-scale beginning, and emerged as a remarkable catalyst of urban change and a considerable instrument for urban policy.[viii]

There are certain implications that surface as the modern Olympics continue to increase in scale and infrastructural requirements. Originally set out to be a celebration of human physical ability and cooperation through sport, it seems that the immensity of the spectacle has overshadowed its original philosophy. Most athletes are now professionals rather than amateurs (think of the 1992 NBA “Dream Team”); the Games have become dependent on commercial sponsorships and television rights (both of which first came into the picture during the Olympics in Rome); and the infrastructural commitments and scale of investment are so imposing that no Olympic Games have yet to be staged in South America or Africa. It will be especially interesting to observe what course the Olympic movement takes in future stages, as the most recent production of Beijing 2008 has certainly proven. The decision to allow the Chinese capital the hosting rights—despite concerns about mass displacement of entire communities, environmental hazards, human rights abuses, television coverage restrictions, a 40-billion-dollar production cost, etc.—was an indication of the International Olympic Committee’s interest in host cities and countries that are willing to extend themselves to their limit to stage a successful Games. Perhaps the Rome Games nearly half a century ago spoiled the Olympic Committee, opening its eyes to a new and incomparable spread of possibilities and influence that could be achieved through the Olympic Games, and justified in the name of fair play.

[i] Hiller, Harry H. “Mega-events, Urban Boosterism and Growth Strategies: An Analysis of the Objectives and Legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 24.2 (2004): 450-1.

[ii] Liao, Hanwen, and Adrian Pitts. “A brief historical review of Olympic urbanization”. International Journal of the History of Sport. 23.7 (2006): 1232-3.

[iii] Gherarducci, Mario. I Giochi sono fatti: La storia, i personaggi e i resultati delle Olimipiadi dal 1896 ai nostri giorni. Milano: Zelig, (1996).

[iv] Painter, Borden W. Jr. Mussolini’s Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, (2005). Pg. 14-15.

[v] Gherarducci, Mario.

[vi] Gold, John R., and Margaret Gold. “Olympic Cities: Regeneration, City Rebranding and Changing Urban Agendas”. The Authors Journal Compilation. (2008): Pg 305.

[vii] Kirk, Terry. The Architecture of Modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton Architectural Press, (2005).

[viii] Kitchen, T. “Cities and World Events". Process, Town & Country Planning. 65.11: 1996. Pg 314-316

Olivia Cho_9: Tiburtino

2009-05-13T20:50:00.000-07:00

United Colors of Tiburtino:

Neorealist Architecture and the Search for a New Vernacular

"They had strange forms, with pointed roofs, little terraces, dormers, round and oval windows: people began to call the place Alice in Wonderland, Magic Village, or Jerusalem..”

-Pasolini (Casciato 36)

[INA-Casa Tiburtino housing project, 1949-54]

Just beyond the fringe of the city, Tiburtino stands ambiguously in its multi-colored, playful facades, celebrated by its inhabitant yet dismissed by its very designers. Constructed between 1949 and 1954, it is the earliest one of INA-CASA housing projects, and a paradigm of neorealist architecture. By the second-half of the twentieth century, neorealism gained a new momentum as conceptions of modernism shifted in parallel with the new reality of the Italian state and its democratic ideals. Diverging from rationalist and fascist attitudes, the new ideology was in search of a vernacular language that was rich in tradition and sensitive to the needs of the ordinary, common individual facing the repercussions of the war. Such was the case with the architects of Tiburtino, whose goal was to provide a remedy for housing shortage through the design of “architecture on the human scale” (Casciato 45). Tiburtino was thus a comprehensive project in scope, attempting to find an equilibrium between social values and functional yet organic design, and ultimately testing architecture’s limits in realizing that ideological pursuit.

[INA-Casa Tiburtino housing project, 1949-54]

History: Towards a New Democracy

By the end of the war, housing became one of the chief concerns in Italy’s reconstruction, as six percent of housing or “over two million rooms” were damaged (Kirk 156). Efforts began by establishing governmental and financial structure from 1944 to 1948, paving the way to the planning and executing of large housing projects by the end of the decade. Tackling the problem of unemployment and lack of housing was a considerable task, and these social goals had to work in sync with the overall design in a speedy yet effective manner.

It was certainly an ambitious project that had ethical and social underpinnings, and to challenge the architects even further, they were to institute a new aesthetic and artistic expression stripped away from Fascism and adhere to the principles of a new democracy. While the former style was dictated by a rational, monumental, and academic tradition, detached from the “architecture of daily life” indifferent to the individuals, the new design was to critically consider the psychological, social, and material needs of the individual and the society at the same time (Casciato 32).

[Palazzo della Civilta del Lavoro, example of Italian Fascist architecture]

This idea was first elaborated in Bruno Zevi’s 1945 Towards and Organic Architecture, in which he proposed an architecture that was not bound by authority, but one that was functional from technical, social, and psychological point of view. It is by no surprise that in the Manuale dell’ Architetto (The Architect’s Handbook), a mass produced handbook created in 1946 which set up criteria for the fields in architecture and planning design, proposed solutions stemming from the idea of an organic architecture. The manual drew its references from the elements of German functionalist as well as craft techniques, which would later be realized in Tiburtino. Organizations like APAO (Associazione per l’Architettura Organica) and various literatures, including the journal Metron, also propounded upon the idea of a more authentic and “realistic” architecture giving emphasis on the people who occupy it.

These conceptions were soon to be realized in 1949 through the Fanfani Law, which spawned the growth of large-scale housing projects nationwide. The national insurance institute INA (Istituto Nazionale per le Assicurazione) oversaw and executed the housing legislation INA-Casa until it expired in 1963. The INA-Casa Tiburtino complex was one of the earliest of its prototypes and a significant one, embodying a wide scope from the architectural component to its very details. The overall plan was designed by Mario Ridolfi, while Ludovico Quaorni focused on the aspects of urban planning. The complex was situated in an L-shaped area of 88,000m2 to accommodate about 4000 inhabitants. Along with its 770 apartment units, there were shops, social centers, as well as sports facilities and green spaces.

[site plan of Tiburtino housing complex]

In Context: Back to the Roots

What was most compelling in the vision for Tiburtino was thus the humanistic approach. It was an approach away from rigidity and towards a “continuity” that Ernesto N. Rogers in Casabella stressed in 1952. It was a comprehensive ideology responding to the postwar reality, which left the nation fragmented and in desperate search for a cohesive national identity, not just in the realm of politics, but the Italian culture as a whole. By means of referencing back to a common, shared history, tradition, and culture, it aimed to make a connection back to the ordinary individuals occupying that reality.

[Vernacular Roman builings as precedents for Tiburtino]

Through this nostalgic lens neorealism entailed a strong emotive participation. This is epitomized in Tibertino, where the principal design goal was to give “careful consideration of habits, local traditions, climate, latitude, and altitude, local construction materials, crafts, workmen, and building systems…bearing in mind the spiritual and material needs of a man, of a real man and not an abstract being” (Casciato 33). This intimacy and sensitivity towards tradition was achieved through a plan reminiscent of a medieval Roman village, fostering a more intimate setting and a sense of natural growth of a local community.

In place of austere and abstract geometries of modernism, a more fluid continuity was introduced to provide mediation between public and private spaces (Casciato 29). Along with distorted winding roadways, housing blocks were organized into clusters, opening up public spaces, allowing multiple viewpoints and stimulate both architectural and social interaction. This composite experience that the Tiburtino project attempted to render “was exploiting to the utmost emotions that a man walking along the street might experience” (Casciato 43).

Building: Finding the Dialect

Consequently, social obligations, psychological values, and architectural design had to all work in tandem to generate a quick yet comprehensive and functional solution. The general strategy focused on bringing in a local dimension, from the use of local workers, material and technologies to the very layout of the complex. Tiburtino project thus attempted to go back to the humble roots, mimicking “folk flavor” of traditional villages (Casciato 34). Yet it also had to consider the necessity and urgency of the postwar economic situation, accommodate high density and minimize building costs.

[Different building typologies in Tiburtino]

The 770 flats in Tiburtino were arranged in three building typologies, consisting of row houses, apartment blocks, and free-standing apartment towers, and ranging in height from three to eight floors. In addition to alternating heights and elevations with staggering rhythms that conform to the undulations of the site, plans rotate in such a way as to open up spaces with varying vistas. The composition gets more interesting in further detail. Row houses form triangular linkages, while loggias retain irregular forms, balconies begin protruding, and inclined roofs decorate the top. The institutional housing that would have been otherwise monotonous and devoid of character is now articulated and modulated through fragmentations and ruptures.

[staggering rhythm shown in elevation]

The architects were also concerned with traditional techniques and materials for detailing and construction. The exterior of row houses are covered with plasters, and underneath are layers of tufa stones with courses in brick. Plastered surfaces also cover apartment towers, which have frame construction of reinforced concrete. These surfaces are then painted with “Roman earth tones,” which are derived from local iron ore deposits. If the choice of materials is a straightforward borrowing from the rural peasant tradition, the design of minor details such as window shutters and railings of balconies and stairs take the Roman dialect one step further by giving them a modern touch. In effect, Tiburtino had an air of spontaneity and idiosyncrasy as it drew its inspiration from multiple sources and synthesizing different materials and forms: the housing models of Scandinavian and German-speaking countries and combining them with local tradition. Neorealist language in this way was not an entirely new one, but rather a rediscovery and re-activating of an existing vernacular. It was an amalgamation of sorts, heterogeneous in character.

[Colors of facades reminiscent of Roman earth tones]

Experience: A Cinematic Approach

The polychromatic character of Tiburtino share many commonalities with neorealist cinema. It was from the neorealist cinema from which the architects picked up the sensibility to rediscover and celebrate the “arcane Italy – the Italy of the common folk” and attempted to actualize it into architecture (Casciato 26). In both cases, a new sense of democratic identity was portrayed through its respective mediums.

[Bicycle Thieves, 1948 by De Sica]

In neorealist films, the democratic ideal was represented by dividing narratives into fragmented episodes, which contrasts with the unitary character of the fascism. Their goal was to depict “truth” and reality of these ordinary individuals whose lives were marked by the struggles they faced in search for a new life. The use of vernacular language and dialects, amateur rather than professional actors, and on-site film locations made it all the more realistic. In neorealist films, this culminated in a plot that involved actual, believable problems and characters (Bondanella 34). For example, in Vittorio De Sica’s 1948 film Bicycle Thieves (see film clip), an unemployed man finds a job, loses a precious bicycle, and wanders throughout Rome to find the thief without success (Landy 136).

[Bicycle Thieves, 1948 by De Sica; trailer]

In the same vein, neorealist architecture was in search for a new vernacular. Again, moving away from a hierarchical scheme, they brought together disparate elements and arranging those fragments in random fashion that resembled the spontaneous character of village, whereas neorealist films used fragmentation to represent spontaneous character of the lives of individuals. They were hoping to create a space “where each building had its own distinct physiognomy and everyone can find their home, feeling their own personality reflected in it” (Terranova 5).

Conclusion: Alice in Wonderland?

Aspirations of the new democratic state found its way into architecture in Postwar Italy, and neorealist architects put considerable effort to embody those ideals into the project, as seen in the INA-Casa Tiburtino quarter. Yet the project received criticism based on its nostalgic vision, and the effort to imitate a village-like neighborhood was dismissed for its artificiality. Designers of the project themselves repudiated it the pursuit for the picturesque, and critics labeled it as being exotic, baroque, and fantasy-like. The problem seemed to lie in the notion that the variety and spontaneity it tried to achieve was imposed upon the project in a deceiving and illusionistic way, making it appear as though the complex had been laden with history and built over time.

[Corviale vs. Tiburtino]

Regardless of the reception, from the perspective of an ordinary individual, Tiburtino is admirable because it gave respect to local culture and color such that current inhabitants are “enormously proud of their housing complex and maintain it beautifully” to this day (Ghirardo 2). Was not this the very premise of the project, to make connection back to the people? While housings such as Corviale have fallen into despair because its residents find it dehumanizing, it is still embraced by architects for its monumental and idealized architecture. Such a paradoxical contrast now raises the question of what really constitutes success in social housing.

___________________________________________________________

Sources:

Bondanella, Peter E. Italian Cinema: From Neorealism to the Present. Ungar film library. New York: F. Ungar Pub. Co, 1983.

Casciato, Maristella. “Neorealism in Italian Architecture.” Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture. Ed. Sarah Williams Goldhagen and Réjean Legault. Montréal: Canadian Centre for Architecture, 2000. 25-53.

Ghirardo, Diane. Modern Currents Along the Tiber. The American Institute of Architects Committee on Design. 10 May 2009 http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=ced/places.

Kirk, Terry. Visions of Utopia, 1900 - Present. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2005.

Landy, Marcia. Italian Film. National film traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Scrivano, Paolo. "Ludovico Quaroni, Mario Ridolfi: barrio INA-Casa Tiburtino, Roma = INA-Casa Tiburtino neighborhood, Rome." 2G: Revista Internacional De Arquitectura = International Architecture Review. 15 (2000): 28-35.

Terranova, Antonio. The Design of the City. 10 May 2009. http://upcommons.upc.edu/revistes/bitstream/2099/3255/1/018-033_El%20dise%C3%B1o%20de%20la%20ciudad.pdf

STAZIONE TERMINI IN ESQUILINO:TOWARDS A LOCUS SOLUS OF URBAN DYSTOPIA

2009-05-13T19:43:00.000-07:00

Giorgio de Chirico and Surrealist MythologyLocus Solus: a singular place, which works as the relationship of architecture to the constitution of the city and the relationship between the context and monument.
-Aldo Rossi, Architecture of the City

History and Background:

The Esquilino hill, one of the Seven Hills of Rome, was traditionally a residential area of the rich and privileged. Its distance from the congested city center and availability of relatively cheap land, as well as the cool windy weather attracts the affluent city population to built villas and palazzos. The presence of leisure facilities such as the Bath of Diocletian further identifies the area as a high quality living quarter with tertiary service activities.

In 1863, Pope Pius IX opened the first termini station on the site of villa Montalto-Peretti , the station was constructed in 1868 and completed in 1874, based on the design by Salvatore Bianchiby. In 1937, in preparation for the planed 1942 world fair in Rome (which was never held), a new station was conceived to replace the old with a modernistic design by Angiolo mazzoni. Following the collapse of the Fascist Government in 1942, construction was interrupted and the current station in use was completed after a competition in1947 by two teams of architects: Leo Calini and Eugenio Montuori; Massimo Castellazzi, Vasco Fadigati, Achille Pintonello and Annibale Vitellozzi

The insertion of this piece of monumental infrastructure has stimulated much turbulence and change in the Esquilino neighborhood. Being Italy’s largest multi-ethnic district today, its transformation or so called degradation by Romans started long before the arrival of the immigrants. Its traditional affluent residents deserted it because of the chaos brought by the mobile population through the train station. The following lack of maintenance of the existing facilities further reduced the quality of the urban space, catalyzing its later occupation by the poor immigrant communities.

Lesson of Esquilino “Degradation”:

- The imposing modernity

Giorgio de Chirico and Surrealist Mythology

Modernity flourished after the industrial revolution and rise of the machine age. Modern architecture favors styles that simplify forms and eliminate ornament. Form follows function. These shifts in aesthetics and paradigm result in the production of an urban landscape with imposing monuments of machines.

The above image of the Termini imposing itself over the off-scale neighborhood has a curious resemblance to the photomontages of the “continuous monument” of Superstudio, In this project, the architects expressed concerns over the possible future when modern technology and culture renders the world uniform with a single continuous environment. Every point in the built world would be identical and neutral, without a distinct identity. The modern obsession with speed and efficiency has created the new orthodox of converting the historic city center into glorified railway intersection. The monotony and length of this modern machine of efficient transportation isolates itself from the continuous and richly composed Roman cityscape, hence generating a locus around it also detached from the urban landscape which follows its own modern development.

- The Paradox of futurism and tradition

In Piranesi’s etching “caceri d’invenzione” depicting an imaginary prison interior, he conveys an important idea: irrational and rational are no longer mutually exclusive. The problem of resolving equilibrium of opposites is fundamental to the concept of architecture.

In the Analogous City, through fragmentation, repetition and collage of types in his architecture and drawings of the city, Rossi expresses the same ‘equilibrium of opposites’ that Piranesi’s drawings proposed.

At Termini station, the continuous strip windows and dynamic structural lines expressing the Futurist idea of speed and streamlining, juxtaposed with the ancient Servian wall in front of the building façade, conveys a similar idea. The radical future adjacent to the ancient past, this collision is an apt manifestation of time and change in architecture. The dramatic contrast between the modernistic, even futuristic train station and the historic urban fabric creates a tension which disjoins the Termini affiliated area with the rest of the city, making it an isolated locus.

-The ambiguity of identity

Giorgio de Chirico and Surrealist Mythology

The Greek-Italian surrealist painter Giorgio de Chirico was famous for his metaphysical depictions of Italian cities. These imagery often included long porticos and colonnades, solitary monuments and figures, dramatically cast shadows and contrasting classical architecture with a new model of monumentality of the industrial age. They convey a suspended temporality, a blaze outlook prevalent in modern cities with nostalgia for the past in memory.

The two-kilometer long side structure of the design by Angiolo Mazzoni remains part of the current-day station. The parallel between this modern side façade clad in stone and glass and a roman aqueduct raise the question about the identity of this architecture. Is it modern or inherently archaic?

The ambiguity of the monumental architecture also blurs the identity of the neighborhood. Is it ancient or modern? Is it Roman or international? All people have a human desire to retain unique identity. A person’s past fulfills some inherent notion of a person’s individuality. When the monument of the locus does not provide a strong identity for the context, people define themselves by their past and memories. The Romans left for a traditional cityscape they identify with, while the immigrants settle for the multi- faceted modernity in the locus solus.

Within the Locus Solus:

Today, immigration has been the driving force behind the transformation of Esquilino. With the influx of immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Balkans and South America, of the 1,300 or so commercial premises operating in the district 800 are Chinese-owned, 300 are run by immigrants from other countries and some 200 are owned by Italians. Although the Esquilino is excluded from the city’s reconversion into an upper-class district, the socially segregated community within the locus solus develops their own rules and standards which stimulates a different urban development in the locus towards a globalised ethnic town which in the eyes of the Romans, an urban deterioration and dystopia.

It is also interesting to compare Rome with Manhattan and their reception of modern public infrastructure. Rome being a public city, the insertion of public infrastructure created a locus solus with logic different from the rest of the city. On the other hand, Manhattan being a private capitalist city, the insertion of public infrastructure like the Grand Central Station is well received by general public and fully integrated into the urban fabric. Maybe the tradition in Rome is so prevalent that any imprint of modernity, especially public projects with greater social impact, would easily create anomaly in the city landscape, becoming a locus solus of urban dystopia.

work cited:
Giorgio de Chirico and Surrealist Mythology

Architecture of the City: Aldo Rossi

Toward an Architecture: Le Corbusier

Rossi’s Poetics of the Fragment: The Physical (the City) and the Temporal (Memory)

http://www.limacon-design.com/Rossi_Poetics.pdf

Patterns of Segregation in Contemporary Rome, Pierpaolo Mudu

http://education.washington.edu/areas/ci/courses/documents/rome_2008/Italy_immigration_diversity/Pierpaolo_Mudu.pdf

Roma Segreta http://www.romasegreta.it/esquilino/stazionetermini.htm

Futuristic art during the Fascist Government

Giorgio de Chirico and surrealist mythology, Roger Cardinal 2004

http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/papersofsurrealism/journal2/acrobat_files/cardinal_article.pdf

Agnes Ladjevardi - The Roman Palazzina

2009-05-13T19:34:00.000-07:00

The Roman Palazzina

Palazzina: a building type and an exception to the type.
The Roman palazzina is both a building type and an exception to the model. The palazzina type was officially instituted in 1934 during the updating of Rome’s 1931 Regulatory Plan. Its dimensions are strict: twenty-five to thirty-five meters wide, three to four stories high (seventeen meters). Its structure is compact, and is of parallelepiped form. The roof’s surface cannot exceed the two thirds of the ground floor surface. The requirements of the palazzina type reach into the smallest details: windows and balconies also follow prescribed dimensions (Passieri and Figorito, 2007). Inner structure is often the same between palazzine: each holds about eight apartments, usually two or three per floor. Palazzine are characterized by setbacks: from the ground level, as they are often elevated aboce it, but most often from the street, behind a gate, and from the adjacent buildings. The palazzina is a floating urban element. The later palazzine have driveways that lead into underground or surface parking. The palazzine are also characterized by a simplicity in form: most are functional blocks, whose facades are only broken by balconies and terraces for the upper floor.

[Image 1: a Roman street lined by palazzine: the street's horizon is low, the impression is of low density although the atmosphere is urban, the buildings stand apart like islands, behind fenced private roads, balconies abound, facing the public or the private spaces.]

But many palazzine also provide variations from the type. Many Italian architects of the 20th century turned to the palazzina type to test new architectural principles, most notably rationalistic, modernistic and neo-realistic trends. It is the clarity and strength of the palazzina type which make it an experiment ground for architects. Ridolfi’s Palazzina Mancioli I and II, and Moretti’s Palazzina Girasole are two of the first modified palazzine built in the 1920’s. They clearly belong to the palazzine type, but manage to break from it and infuse in their design 1920’s rationalist ideas: the dominance of simple bodies, clear sections, bright white of materials, assymetrical design, exaggeration of language, raised ground floors.

[Image 2: Il Girasole, built by Moretti, in 1949: a modernistic variation from the palazzina type]

The later part of the 20th century sees less architectural effort put into the modification of the palazzina type. Private developers replicate the simplest palazzina type all over Rome’s periphery, creating in the eyes of some, an exploded urban fabric (Portoghese, 1975).
Listed at the end of this essay are numerous other architecturally valued palazzine. But these must not make one forget that the strength of the architect’s palazzine lies not in its exception to the rule, but in its capacity to still belong to a type, however much it tries to break away from it.

[Image3: Developer-built palazzine, today, in Rome's periphery]

The palazzina as building block of the Roman urban fabric.
More than a building type, the palazzina must be integrated to a larger context. Together, the palazzine create an urban fabric for Rome. This fabric could be viewed as discontinuous, as the palazzine act as islands, disconnected from the road and surrounding buildings by setbacks, and occasionally elevated from the street level. Buildings stand alongside each other with no relationship between them, separated by negative strips of fences and greenery.

However, the repetition of the palazzine patterns creates a coherent urban fabric. The following images show how the palazzine creates a particular urban condition which can be qualified as coherent: that of inward as well as outward looking blocks, with hold complex interactions between semi-private streets, private open spaces, and the public road. The following images compare this building form to the Haussmann style perimeter blocks of Rome as well as with the old Rome fabric. Perimeter blocks create an orderly urban form, which celebrate the street front, and create a dichotomy between private space (inside the perimeter block apartments and in its middle courtyard) and public space (the block creates the street space). Old Rome marries the open space into the built space, creating a fragile equilibrium between negative and positive spaces. The Palazzine, on the other hand, creates a shapeless fabric with innumerable interactions between private spaces and public spaces. Portoghesi, in his article “Palazzina Romana”, speaks of the “discontinuous fabric” (tessuto discontinuito) of the Pallazine, as opposed to the “continuous fabric” (tessuto continuito) of the old Roman buildings (Portoghesi, 1975).

[Image 4: the perimeter block]

[Image 5: the palazzine city: viewed from above, not very different from a 19th century American suburb]

[Image 6 old Roman urban fabric]

[Image 4, 5, 6: Three building typologies give Rome three different urban fabrics. The urban fabric created by the palazzine building type is coherent, albeit less structured than that of the adjacent images]

Buildings become islands connected by a common typological language, and the negative space in between them fully participate in weaving all the palazzine together, in order to create a seamless, unified and coherent space.

Palazzine allow citizens to imagine an urban suburbia.
The aerial image number 5 is striking in its resemblance to the settlement pattern of American suburb: cul de sacs, winding roads, detached structures which deconstruct the road space, abundance of greenery. However, we are here in the middle of a city, and the atmosphere of palazzine neighborhoods, although residential and pleasant, is definitively urban. Just as in suburban layouts, the urban fabric created by palazzine is full of negative spaces. These spaces are opportunities: they allow palazzine areas to be green. The position of the palazzine within blocks create spaces which do not belong to the public realm. Edges between palazzine are invested by an unplanned green agenda: they become gardens which separate one building from the other, from which trees grow and contribute to make the street green. Imagining an urban suburbia is thereby rendered possible by palazzine: the negative spaces allow buildings to appear as islands in green, and allow more intricate private street systems to be created.

[Image 6: the urban suburban landscape of the palazzine streets: green is omnipresent and jutting out from the interstices between palazzine]

Palazzine is a social building type.
Still more than a building type, or a building block for a particular urban fabric, the palazzina is a social building type. Originally, the palazzina is not an urban element. It is born from the adaptation of a rural and aristocratic building into an urban element: the “palazzina” is the small shelter or hunting building, flanked by the Renaissance “Palazzo” (Portoghesi, 1975). From the start, the “Palazzina” is ripped from context and squashed into an urban space too small for it. Historically, therefore, the palazzina is a mockery of inversed logics. From a small building standing within a large amount of open land, the palazzina is widened and heightened, and squished into a small parcel of urban land.

The 1920’s sees the beginning of the palazzina as a wide-scale housing type. The1909 Development Plan for Rome elects the palazzina type as a housing solution (Portoghesi, 1975) for its compactness and easily repeatable form. At that moment, the population of Rome sees itself increase by more than one million from 1.7 to 2.8 million inhabitants between 1951 and 1971. The high migration to cities and the growing consumption of floor space results in a greater housing demand and an unprecedented construction activity (Comune di Roma, 1991, p. 21). The palazzina is at that point progressively alienating itself from its aristocratic origins.

The post-war palazzina receives a second wave of attention following the growth of Rome. The postwar urban development boom updates the peripheral “borgate” fabrics, which were mainly self-built housing, into palazzine for the working class (Kreibich, 2000). Once again, the palazzina’s simple and habitable form becomes the model for housing development: “Since 1945, after a decade of prestigious buildings, simple residential complexes became the most important type for the first time” (Grundmann, Furst, 1998). The palazzina building type turns into the physical symbol of a certain citizen and a certain life-story: the working to middle class migrant, newly arrived to the booming postwar city. The palazzina becomes the receptacle of the “poetics of poverty” (Grundmann, Furst, 1998): its language is vernacular and neo-realistic, as a reaction to the fascist era. The San Paolo area, South of the Basilica, holds examples of such palazzine. But Parioli, which is also made up of palazzine, is a high-end bourgeois enclave.

Palazzine can therefore be invested both by popular and upper class lifestyles and ideals. It proposes a standardized mode of living, common to all. It can be inhabited by the newly arrived urbanites, the upper-middle classes, the new suburbanites, the elderly Romans. It is the epitome of the habitable type, or the universal dwelling type. It is also a hopeful type, in that it proposes semi-dense urban living with all the qualities of suburban life.

Renowned Palazzine
The relevance of such a list is questionable, because the majority of palazzine were not designer built, hence providing a list of architecturally valuable palazzine might mislead one to think of the palazzine type as an elitist type.

Palazzina, 1920-1922, Marcello Piacienti, Viale Lengi, 40 Palazzina Furmanik, Mario de Renzi, 1935-38, Lungotevere Flaminio 18
Palazzina di Via Maria Adelaide 6, Gino Franzi, 1936, Via Adelaide 6
Palazzina Salvatelli, 1939, Gio Ponti, Fornaroli, Via Eleonora Duse, 53
Casa Cooperativa Astrea, Luigi Moretti, 1947-49 Via Jenner 27-29
Villino Alatri, Mario Ridolfi, 1948-49, Via Paisello 38
Il Girasole, Luigi Moretti, 1949-50, Viale Brunno Buozzi, 64
Palazzina Zaccardi, Mario Ridolfi,1950-51Via de Rossi 12
Palazzina, Bruno Zevi, 1950-51,Via Pisanelli 1
La Tartaruga, Ludovico Quaroni and Carlo Aymonino, 1951-54, Via Innocenzo X 25
Palazzina in Via di Villa Grazioli, Cesare Pascoletti, 1953-55, Via di Villa Grazioli

Bibliography.

Argenti, M., Spesso, M., “Architettura Dimenticate del ‘900”. Web 2009.

Comune di Roma (1991). Roma in cifre. Rapporto sulla citta% 1991. Rome

Grundmann, S., Furst, U., 1998, “The Architecture of Rome: an architectural history in 400 individual presentations”, Axel Menges edition.

Kreibich, V, 2000, Self-help planning of migrants in Rome and Madrid
Habitat International, 24: 2, p.203

Muratore, G., 2007, “Roma: guida all’architettura”, 2007, Edizione L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Passieri, A., Figorito, A., 2007, “La Palazzina Romana degli Anni ‘50”, Facolta’ di Architettura, Roma Tre

Portoghesi, P., 1975, “Palazzina Romana”, Casabella, 407, pp.17 – 25.

Development of the E.U.R: A Representation of Fascism

2009-05-13T19:18:00.000-07:00

This report examines the ways in which the design principles of modern architecture has been combined with the principles of classical architecture and implemented to construct the section of Rome, known as the Rome Universal Exposition, or the E.U.R. The E.U.R. is not only interesting because it is a fusion of these two distinctive architectural styles, but because it was designed to be the embodiment of fascism and fascist architecture in the city of Rome. As a result, many buildings in the E.U.R. are undeniably modernist in their style and use of materials, but also represent Classical Roman design principles, such as columns, porticos and central courtyards. This paper examines the development of the E.U.R, how it differs from other modernist developments during the period in which is was planned and built, the history of movements in architecture leading up to this fusion of styles and the theory behind these decisions.

Mussolini announced the foundation of the Italian empire on May 9, 1936, and a month later, the government of Rome applied for the World Fair. Their application was accepted. As a result, the largest international exhibition was planned for the year of 1942, to mark the anniversary of Roman fascism (Grundman, 320). The plan for E.U.R. was not simply a plan for a temporary show as most World Fair plans are. Instead, it was part of a grandiose vision for the city of Rome. Stefan Grundman explains, it “was not conceived merely as an exhibition, but its permanent buildings were intended to form the core of a future imperial city; a third Rome according to Mussolini’s own statement, extending from the southern borders of Rome to the sea (Grundman, 320).” The plan for the E.U.R. was and continues to be the embodiment of Roman fascism and its resultant architectural style. It intended to be a new Renaissance that would influence the rest of the development of Rome (Architettura, 729). These characteristics differentiate the E.U.R. from all other World Fairs.

Before such a spectacular vision could be executed, Mussolini had to commission the architects. In an article written by Alessandra Stanley, she explains that these architects were young, convinced fascists who were constructing buildings that would promote the fascist propaganda. Architectural Historian, Giorgio Ciucci describes the E.U.R. as, “a revolutionary movement based on youth and radical change. Architects were the interpreters of revolution (Stanley).” The architects who designed the E.U.R. had to choose an appropriate architectural style that would represent the fascist regime, which was a fusion of modern architecture as well as classical design. In the two decades leading up to 1937, when the plans for the E.U.R. began, Italy had seen many shifts in architectural thinking. With the arrival of futurism, Italy again assumed a leading role in European art, in which the principles of art transferred into the manifesto of futurist architecture. Agitator and poet, Filipo Tommaso Marinetti (1876-1944), was the key figure in the foundation of the whole futurist movement. On February 20, 1909, he published a Futurist Manifesto in the Paris Figaro that glorified technology, aggression, speed, human masses, militarism and war, in an extreme manner. He called for the destruction of museums, libraries, and colleges; he stated:

We care nothing for the past, we young, strong futurists!…Seize your pick-axes, your knives and your hammers and fear not venerable cities to pieces, without mercy!...Standing erect on the summit of the world, let us once again hurl our challenge at the stars (Kruft, 403)!

These Futurist sentiments were ubiquitous and crossed over into all segments of life, especially architecture. The idea was to employ technology as much as possible and reject history. As a result, buildings were constructed with concrete and steel, and had more complex geometric forms. Symbolically, this break with tradition was a representation of modern life.

Likewise, Italian architect Sant’Elia joined the Futurist Movement. He viewed the modern city as one comprised of reinforced concrete, iron, glass, and synthetic textiles. In his book, a History of Architectural Theory from Vitruvius to the Present, Hanno-Walter Kruft sums up Sant’Elia’s ideas about the modern city:

Modern houses must resemble giant machines: in place of staircases they are to have elevators which wind their way up the glass and steel facades like snakes. The houses themselves are to be of cement, iron, and glass, with no painted or moulded decoration – their beauty will be found in their lines and their simplicity. The house is to be ‘remarkably ugly in its mechanical simplicity’ [ . . . ] poised on the edge of a noisy ravine in which, below the houses, multi-level streets, underground railways and escalators are to be found (Kruft, 404).

Many movements followed the futurists, such as the Il Novecento architects, who in 1923, set out to combine national traditions and modernity. They accepted these new ideas on modern architecture, but also incorporated elements of the Classical Roman style as well. Similarly, Marcello Piacentini, who was one of the leading architects of the E.U.R., served an editorial role for Architecttura e arti decorative and Architettura (1932-43). During his time editing for these popular magazines on architecture, Piacentini published numerous articles to explain the shift he witnessed in architectural development from the expansive modernity of his youth to the monumental neo-classical buildings and urban planning initiatives he undertook as an architect at the command of Mussolini. Piacentini always regards architecture as existing within a geographical and historical continuum; this can be seen in his work as one of architects planning the E.U.R. (Kruft, 407).

*The images below are both plans for the E.U.R., published in a 1938 edition of the magazine, Architettura.

Historical forms were a defining part of architecture in Rome for very long time, until the mid 1920s when radical changes in architecture began to take place in Italy as a result of Movimento Italiano per l’Architettura Razionale, also known as MIAR. This movement is one of many; others were occurring in Germany, France and the Netherlands. All of these movements were aimed at developing a modern formal language of architecture that was committed to the industrial age and are responsible for the form of architecture known as the International Style. The principles of modernism that resulted from this movement are a rejection of historical decoration, as a means of stressing the “beauty and functionality of the machine.” Many modern buildings also have pure, smooth forms that are usually white, with floating volumes that replace rigid, heavy walls. Modern architecture also replaced the order of symmetry with asymmetry.

Likewise, the MIAR followed these principles. It forbade historical decoration and developed a new geometric form. However, the Italian movement differed from the International Style in that it believes: “an awareness that Modern architecture is also part of a long and exciting line of architectural tradition [ . . . ] and has to use this to find types for new kinds of buildings (Grundman, 320).” This uniquely Italian idea that modern architecture is not antithetically historical is evident through out the design and construction of the E.U.R., which is a cluster of several completely planned street blocks containing buildings in the modernist style that have clean, white facades made of smooth exteriors with a lack of surface decoration as a way of highlighting the architectural form of each unit. Nonetheless, all of the classical elements are there as well: colonnades, porticos, interior courtyards, symmetry and the Roman arch. This montage of two stark contrasts in architectural style is a uniquely characteristic of the E.U.R., as most of the buildings at that time that were going up all over Europe and the United States, were a rejection of history.

This signature architectural style was unique to the E.U.R. and became the manifestation of fascism. The plans for the E.U.R. were created in stages with many architects, including Marcello Piacentini, Guiseppe Pagano, Luigi Picinato, Ettore Rossi, Luigi Vietti and Giorgio Calza Bini. The development plan is comprised of imposing buildings and strict axiality, intended as a way of metaphorically articulating the power of the fascist rule in Rome. The buildings designed for propaganda also have a preponderance of pure forms and stress space and light over functioning as a way of captivating people and inviting them into the fascist ideology (Grundman, 297). Architecture was Mussolini’s favorite form of propaganda. It also speaks to people on another level as well; as former Senator Cini, “The Rome Universal Exhibition is above all an act of faith in the destiny and constructive capacity of the Italian Nation, a solemn affirmation of its will to act, and act in the field of international collaboration (Architettura, 723).” To convey this method, there are examples of spaces that were named to tribute foreign countries, such as Piazza J. F. Kennedy and Viale America.

The buildings also convey much about Rome’s architectural history on their exteriors as well. While the Palazzo dei Ricevimenti e dei Congressi is flanked a large symmetrical portico on its exterior, the inside precisely articulates different volumes, juxtaposing open and closed surfaces—this is a very classical approach to architecture. However, the building is also very modern. It uses materials such as glass and steel and has a clean white surface.

*The image below to the left is the exterior of the Palazzo dei Gongressi; the image to the right is the interior.

The E.U.R. expresses the language of classical architecture as well as modernism on multiple different levels. The buildings have classical elements such as colonnades, porticoes and interior courtyards, but are also very modern in their materials used, such as glass, steel, and concrete. The E.U.R. differs greatly from other examples of modernism dating from the same period; while most of the world was building in the international style and rejecting historical architectural elements completely, the E.U.R. was actively combining both to create a new Roman center that represented the fascist government.

More Photos:

Works Cited:

Architettura. “The Rome Universal Exhibition 1942.” December 1938. Note of the

Magazine.

Grundman, Stefan. The Architecture of Rome. London: Stuttgart, 1998.

Kruft, Hanno-Walter. A History of Architectural Theory from Vitruvius to the Present.

New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994.

Reid, Graham. EUR, Italy: the Facades of Fascism. 11 June 2007. Elsewhere. 5 May

2009. < http://www.elsewhere.co.nz/travelstories/297/eur-italy-the-facades-of-fascism/>

Stanley, Alessandra. Rome Journal; Italy’s Fascist Building in Style, and for Sale. 12 July

2000. New York Times. 6 May 2009. < http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/12/world/rome-journal-italy-s-fascist-buildings-in-style-and-for-sale.html>

The Colosseum through times: Functions and Symbols

2009-05-13T18:55:00.000-07:00

The Colosseum, one of the most important Symbols of Rome cannot be understood so simply as just the first permanent amphitheater to be erected in the city of Rome. The Colosseum is a result of a complex set of relationships and interactions from the time it was built to the present day. In this entry I aim to ‘simplify’ and break down elements of the Colosseum in order to better translate it.

The Colosseum has a rather complex history of containing inside of it various functions, versus outwardly constructing a space of Rome and consequently defining what the city is. This site-specific structure has not only influenced the physical fabric of the immediate city but also the rest of the world both literally and also in a less tangible sense by representing the image of the city itself.

The Colosseum has not only changed physically and functionally over time but has also changed in terms of its relationship with its urban context, people, the means by which it is accessed and how Romans, tourists and the world in general relates to this structural wonder.

Colosseum = Amphitheatre
Before we begin to discuss all these relationships, it is essential that we familiarize ourselves with the very basics of this ingenious architectural and engineering marvel.

View of the Colosseum today

The Colosseum sits in the valley between the Palatine, Esquiline, and Celian Hills. Despite the damage it has endured over the centuries because of fires, earthquakes and looting, after 2000 years it still remains an incredibly powerful Symbol of the city.

The Colosseum, (formerly known as The Flavian amphitheater) was certainly the most impressive arena the Classical world had yet seen. It was built in an area occupied by a manmade lake adjoining the Domus Aurea (Nero's Imperial residence), at the behest of Vespasian and was inaugurated in A.D. 80 by Titus with games that are said to have lasted 100 days. It was completed by Domitian and restored by Alexander Severusus. The amphitheater was used for gladiatorial spectacles, animal hunts and capital punishment.

The Colosseum is in the shape of a grand ellipse that spanned 187m by 155m, with tiers of seating for 50,000 spectators around the central arena. Below this wooden area level, there were a set of complex chambers and passageways built for wild beasts and other provisions required for the spectacles. From the arena, eighty walls radiate and buttress the vaults for passageways, stairs and the tiers of seating. On the outermost edge circumferential arcades link each level and the stairs between the levels.

The construction utilized a careful selection of materials: concrete for the foundations, travertine for the piers and arcades, tufa infill between piers for the walls of the lower two levels, and brick-faced concrete used for the upper levels and for most of the vaults.

Colosseum = Prototype
The Colosseum is one of the most famous, and instantly recognizable monuments to have survived from the classical world. So famous, in fact, that for over seventy years, from 1928 to 2000, a fragment of its distinctive colonnade was displayed on the medals awarded to victorious athletes at the Olympic Games as a symbol of classicism and of the modern Games’ ancient ancestor. The Colosseum’s tiered seating could once accommodate for 50,000 seated and 10,000 standing, all of whom could enter and leave in a matter of minutes, courtesy of 80 entrances. This amphitheatre used for bloody gladiatorial combats was a radical invention of a new typology of the stadium.

Stadium in Los Angeles

The Colosseum, which is seen as an extremely classical monument, was in fact very avant-garde for its time. Not only did it invent this new stadium typology and push structural limits, it also created a new architectural language that questioned and reinvented a façad e using classical elements in a new composition.

Its façade was originally graduated from simple Doric at ground level, to Ionic on the second and ornate Corinthian on the third, using these orders as metaphors of the larger social structuring of Roman society, from the nobility through the merchant classes. The articulation this facade has been a powerful regulating influence upon the facade aesthetic of buildings through to present times. The most notable of these was perhaps Renaissance palazzi such as Palazzo Rucellai in Florence, with its rusticated ground floor, piano nobile and top floor stacked with the different classical orders.

Colosseum = Container of Functions
The Colosseum, built by 80AD to house gladiatorial contests and public spectacles was used for contests well into the 6th century however it underwent many radical changes in terms of its function during the medieval period.

By the late 6th century it was used as a religious space and a small church has been constructed into its structure and the arena was converted into a cemetery. The numerous vaulted spaces under the seating area were used for housing and workshops, and were being rented as late as the 12th century. Soon after the 12th century the Frangipani took control over the Colosseum and converted it to function as fortification by using it as a castle. The Colosseum later functioned as a quarry after much damage was inflicted upon it such as the great earthquake in 1349. The materials looted were reused to build palaces, churches and hospitals around the city. In the mid 14th century a religious order began to occupy a part of the Colosseum and they used it as a shrine until as late as the early 19th century.

When Pope Sixtus V came to power, he found the treasury exhausted and the city full of beggars and unemployed. He decided to develop the export trade by reviving the old Roman wool and silk industries by transforming the Colosseum into a wool-spinning establishment, though this proposal fell through with his premature death.

In 1749, Pope Benedict XIV endorsed as official Church policy the view that the Colosseum was a sacred site where early Christians had been martyred. He forbade the use of the Colosseum as a quarry and consecrated the building to the Passion of Christ and installed Stations of the Cross, declaring it sanctified by the blood of the Christian martyrs who perished there, however there is no historical evidence to support Benedict's claim.

Originally an entertainment and sports arena to a religious space, housing complex, a fortress and then a shrine, the Colosseum today serves as an archeological ruin. The Colosseum can thus be seen as a container of functions.

Colosseum = Nucleus
The Colosseum can be perceived as a large cylindrical object anchored into the fabric of the city and according to Corbusier, its beauty lies in its volumetric form; it is part of a collection of platonic solids strewn across the city that portray a clear, tangible image that anyone can instantly relate to.

The Colosseum should not however be seen just this abstract volume that can embody whatever function successively fills it because it also strongly resists merely being a container as such. On the contrary, it can also be seen as an inverted Piazza because of its outward influence to its immediate site and the rest of the city both physically and symbolically.

The Colosseum is a ‘new’ urban artifact whose constitution has contributed to the growth of the city. It behaves almost as an inserted nucleus (part of a collection of other monuments and locations) around which the city has slowly crystallized.

The activities linked to the original uses of the Colosseum manifested as many buildings that came up around it. For example to its east lie the remains of Ludus Magnus, a training school for gladiators that was connected to the Colosseum by means of an underground passage. Apart from training schools there were the Armamentarium, comprising an armory to store weapons, the Summum Choragium, where machinery was stored, the Sanitarium, which had facilities to treat wounded gladiators, and the Spoliarium, where bodies of dead gladiators were stripped of their armor and disposed of. There was also an accommodation in the Castra Misenatium for the sailors who works the retractable roof or velarium.

The transformation of the city due to this nucleus continued centuries later; in March 1588 Sixtus V opened the new road from the Colosseum to the Lateran. This lead to great building activity close to the Colosseum as the countryside became much more dense.

Maps showing the change of density before and after Sixtus V's intervention

Colosseum = Rome
The Colosseum has acted as a tool for shaping and reshaping the urban fabric of the city over time in response to how people perceived and used it not just physically, but also iconographically.

The Colosseum hosts millions of visitors every year and is the most popular tourist destination spot in Rome. Many tourists who have a very limited time in the city try to capture all of Rome by visiting this monument. Even though the Colosseum is a major urban icon it is impossible to encapsulate the whole of Rome in a single image. From their very naïve point of view, they associate this image as representative of the entire city.

Even though Romans do not at all have such a narrow-minded association between the Colosseum and their city, it still remains as a major Icon to them as well. The Colosseum is not just a Symbol they take pride in but also a physical Presence in the city due to its immense scale. Despite the Colosseum’s complex history of changing conditions over time, it has always been constant in its aspect of representing the city in a single image.

Colosseum = Backdrop
In the post modern city the Colosseum has become a frozen but powerful image of time. Similar to the Caracalla baths, this gigantic structure has become an untouchable chunk that is immensely crucial to the city yet ‘unused’. It is in a sense over-preserved – it can be seen as a mighty giant sitting in the center of the city in a very deep coma, yet ever strong and powerful since it still exerts its own agency on the urban fabric.

Today the function of the Colosseum is not just an archeological ruin where people can imagine and recreate its history but it is actively being used because of its strong iconography. The Colosseum even now after 2000 years astonishingly and amazingly still works – but as a Backdrop. The building has been translated into the contemporary fabric of our society through films (such as Ridley Scott's Gladiator), concerts and literature.

After discussing various important aspects of the Colosseum and how it has come to be we can consequently reflect on how people’s relationship must have changed to this structure over time. Unfortunately, we do not have the chance to be able to experience the energy or spectacle of the Colosseum the way other people were privileged to in the past. I feel that in the present day our perception of the Colosseum has taken a 180-degree turn: At one point in time it was shamelessly exploited and used it as a quarry as its pieces were broken up and distributed around the city; today however we have reached a point of extreme over-preservation, where we have great value for the monument and also its parts that are dispersed and reused around the city.

The Colosseum, as you can see has actively or passively been a major player in many aspects of the world from the day it was first conceived. My translation of the Colosseum to map out its extremely dynamic evolution used the most critical examples to illustrate its depth, however there are many more events that have caused or been caused by this structure. The Colosseum is not just a superblock landmark in the network of Rome but a living, breathing organism like a city in itself that has grown out of the land of Rome.

Works Cited
"The Colosseum, Rome, Italy - information and booking." Italy Online. 10 May 2009 (http://www.tickitaly.com/galleries/colosseum-rome-italy.php).

"Colosseum." Wikipedia. 13 May 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum#Ancient).

Corbusier, Le. Toward an Architecture. Frances Lincoln ltd, 2008.

"Essential World Architecture: Roman Colosseum." Italian Architecture. 12 May 2009 (http://www.italian-architecture.info/ROME/RO-017.htm).

Giedion, Siegfried. Space, Time and Architecture The Growth of a New Tradition, Fifth Revised and Enlarged Edition (The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures). New York: Harvard UP, 2003.

Hopkins, Keith, and Mary Beard. The Colosseum (Wonders of the World). New York: Harvard UP, 2005.

"Lectures." H i s t o r y O n l i n e. 10 May 2009 (http://www.sahistory.org.za/franco/lectures-index.html).

"Roman Colosseum - Rome, Italy - Great Buildings Online." Architecture Design. 13 May 2009 (http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Roman_Colosseum.html).

Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. MIT P, 1982.

Watkin, David. A history of Western architecture. Laurence King, 005.

Circus Maximus: A Contemporary Public Space

2009-05-13T17:23:00.000-07:00

Seemingly an abandoned void, the Cirucus Maximus is in fact a contemporary piazza. Between the Aventine and Palatine hills in the Vallis Murcia leading to the river, the Circus Maximus is the oldest and largest circus in ancient Rome built traditionally by Romulus in the seventh century BC. Today, it is an easily accessible yet ambiguous ancient “monument.” Buried underground but still in use, this mass entertainment venue since antiquity now embodies a very contemporary idea of public space.

Context

The Cirucs Maximus is embedded within systems of archaeological and transit zones. In the 2000 General Regulatory Plan of Rome, the Circus Maximus is part of a major environmental (and pedestrian) connection extending from the Appian Way towards the Tiber River. Thus it connects the archaeological park in the periphery to the city center. The continuous use of the space since antiquity shows its prime location in the city.

Archaeological park zone in green
Sphere of strategic planning for the Tiber-area-Objectives,
Central sector, scale of 1:10,000 (Urbanistica, 2001)

The Circus Maximus is also a point on the existing north-south metropolitan metro B line from Termini-Colosseo to Piramide-San Paolo-EUR. Similarly, in the overall Strategic Plan of Rome places the Circus Maximus at the intersection of the Monumental Archeological Park Zone of the Forums - Appian Way and the north-south zone of Flaminio-Forums-EUR. Thus the Circus Maximus is easily accessible with both archaeological and transit significance in the city.

Different strategic planning spheres in Rome,
Overall view, scale 1:20,000 (Urbanistica, 2001)
Blue: Tiber; Red: Flamino-Forums-EUR area; Green: Monumental Archaeological
Park of the Forums and the Appian Way; Violet: Belt Railway; Yellow: The Walls

Contemporary Uses

Throughout its history, the Circus Maximus has supported different events and functions for Rome. At the end of the 19th century, the Circus Maximus had agricultural plots, a Jewish cemetery, warehouses and industrial buildings. In 1934, the Fascist government's plans to build a new road leading to the Circus Maximus and use the space quickly dismantled these structures. During the Fascist period, the Circus Maximus was an exhibition space as a means to display political propaganda of the regime. The parading of bodies of Italian athletes in the Circus Maximus was part of a ritual commemorating the twelfth anniversary of the regime. Fifteen thousand athletes from all over Italy paraded before Mussolini in the Circus Maximus.

From 1937-1939, the Circus Maximus held four important temporary exhibitions: la Mostra delle Colonie estive e dell'Assistenza all'Infanzia (summer camps and assistance to children, 1937), la Mostra del Tessile Nazionale (Exhibition of National Textile, 1937-38), la Mostra del Dopolavoro (Exhibition of Recreation, 1938) and la Mostra Autarchica del Minerale Italiano (Autarchi Exhibition of Italian Mineral, 1938-39). These exhibitions were a way to express the regime's social and economic policies. The space became a container of exhibition halls designed by architects such as Alberto Libera, M. De Renzi and Franco Petrucci. The exhibitions provided opportunities to test the modernist language in architecture.

Aerial view of Circus Maximus with Fascist Temporary Exhibition in 1937

Pavilion for the Mostra del Minerale by Franco Petrucci in Cirus Maximus, 1938

Presently, the Circus Maximus is a public park on most days. At times, the Circus Maximus becomes a big piazza holding various functions such as art installations, concerts, political rallies and celebrations. In July 2005, Live Aid concerts held to raise world awareness in poverty chose Circus Maximus as the venue. The concerts were also held in other notable places in other cities such as Philadelphia Museum of Art, Hyde Park in London and Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, suggesting the Circus Maximus as Rome's iconic place and symbol. Political rallies often use Circus Maximus as a venue. In May 2006, students protested against Gelmini's Law 133 that cut state funds to public universities by lighting candles and forming "NO 133" on the slope of the Circus Maximus.

On a grander scale, a protest on was organized in April 2009 to criticize the government’s economic policies. The organizer, the largest labor union confederation CGIL claimed 2.7 million attended the protest. The rally culminated at the Circus Maximus arena. Thus the Circus Maximus as a gathering point and terminal point for large crowds where traditionally only a stadium could hold. The flexibility of the Circus Maximus- no entrance fee nor gate control- gives the space a democratic dimension. The Circus Maximus becomes a space to gather and express collectively at a large scale where the spectacle of the crowd and the sheer size of the space add an additional dimension of power to the event.

National Boards of Cgil, Cisl, Uil called a one-day
general strike to voice support for workers' rights.
Organizers claimed 3 million people attended, April 16, 2002.

Crowds gather to watch the funeral of Pope John Paul II
in the Circus Maximus, April 8, 2005.

Crowds in Circus Maximus celebrating Italy's victory
in the 2006 World Cup, July 9, 2006.

The largest labor union confederation, CGIL organized a protest against the Berlusconi's inadequate response to the country's economic woes, April 4, 2009.

Hybrid Public Space

Contemporary in nature, the Circus Maximus does not have a single defined function. As the many examples suggest, it is a hybrid space. Contemporary cities considering the historical preservation of historical areas and monuments often encounter the problem of finding appropriate new functions for buildings or landscapes of historical importance. The debate is often about whether to preserve the monument as it is or to regenerate the space by adding new uses (often commercial or institutional). The Circus Maximus in a way is at the forefront of such discourse by maintaining a hybrid space accessible to the general public. It is not fixed as a park, nor is it fixed as an exhibition space. Not excavating the Circus Maximus and transforming it into a traditional monument-museum enables the city to diversify the uses of this space created by an ancient urban intervention.

Thus the idea of leaving this important space as a void, green space, place for ephemeral events reveals the contemporary approach to preserving an ancient space. The Circus Maximus maintains its charisma despite having no built form by its hybrid nature and flexibility in use. The contemporary events demonstrate that the space is beyond simply a memory of the past, but it is a symbol of available public space in the city. It has been said that Rome is a city where one feels “inside” while being outside. Although not designed, the Circus Maximus is defined in contemporary times as a multi-purpose piazza. Political in many ways, the space has to do with the the city and its people where collective memories are made and reminded. The architecture of Circus Maximus, ancient or contemporary, inspires its citizens with its enduring form and space for making collective memories. Perhaps this is an example of Antoine Grumbach's idea of "inverse archeology," where true architecture pertains to "objects of long-term duration, whose quality is permanence, indifferent to differences, and evident of something already there."

Art installation in the Circus Maximus for La Notte Biana, September 8, 2007.

Bibliography

Berezin, M. (1997). Making the Fascist Self: the Political Culture of Interwar Italy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 119, 121.
Richardson, L. (1992). A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press, p.84.
Grumbach, A.. (1977). "A Challenge to Architecture" In Sartogo, P. et al. (1979). Roma Interrotta: [exhibiton organized by the Incontri internazionali d'arte, Roma, Mercati di Traiano, May-June 1978]. Roma: Incontri International D'arte.
Urbanistica no.166 (2001). Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica. Giugno, pp. 104, 109.

Photos: panoramic photo of Circus Maximus by author; please click on other photos for their sources.

The Sporting Complex: Stadio Olimpico and its' Fascist Influence

2009-05-13T15:00:00.000-07:00

Football in Italy:

Football games are one of the few cultural performances that consistently bring together masses of Italians. These matches reach much further than the stadium, as they play large roles in the construction of communities and even, as was the case with Mussolini, political propoganda.

Fans at an A.S. Roma game in the Stadio Olimpico

Italy is the only country in the world with three daily newspapers dedicated completely to sport, the country in which sports shows receive the highest television-audience rating and the country that hosts what was once called the ‘best football championship in the world.’ Italy’s growing obsession with sports, soccer in particular, was brought about, in part, by the Italian regime’s attempt to invent a tradition of shared identity through the use of sports. Part of this attempt included the subsidization of football stadiums that were open to the public and encouraged individuals to participate in physical education and additionally, demonstrated Fascist Italy’s engineering skills and architectural ambitions.

The Foro Mussolini (Foro Italico):

This coincision led to the conception of one of Mussolini’s boldest projects, a new site dedicated to a sports complex that would be called the Foro Mussolini. The Stadio Olimpico, sometimes also referred to as the Stadio dei Cipressi, was to be the centerpiece of this new complex, which was to serve as a modern ‘city’ devoted to sports, physical fitness and youth. The Foro Mussolini was to be a national center for “physical culture dedicated to the formation of new generations of Italians.”

Plan for the Foro Mussolini

Work on the Foro Mussolini began in 1928, directed by the architect Enrico Del Debbio and the first buildings were opened on November 4, 1932. The Foro Mussolini held numerous buildings, including the Stadio Olimpico, the Stadio dei Marmi, the Academy of Physical Education, a youth hostel, and a complex of facilities including the Olympic tennis stadium. After World War II, the Foro Mussolini was renamed Foro Italico, which it is called to this day.

Image of the current Foro Italico

The Stadio Olimpico in the context of the Foro Mussolini serves as an excellent example of Fascist propoganda. The area’s name, Foro Mussolini, suggested Mussolini’s imperial image, as before only emperors had forums constructed and named in their honor. The forum also contained a number of monuments dedicated to Mussolini. Its’ entrance was dominated by an obelisk fashioned from a three-hundred-ton block of marble and which was over sixty feet tall. The obelisk’s dedication to Mussolini was [made clear by] letters spelling “Mussolini” running vertically down the column and the word DUX inscribed on the base. On the path to the stadiums and other facilities there are mosaics that suggest the similarity between the new Fascist empire of 1936 and the foundation of Rome by Romulus and Remus. Finally, the Fountain of the Sphere contains a sphere weighing forty-two tons whose mass “symbolizes the stregth of facism.”

Obelisk dedicated to Mussolini

Although the original purpose of the stadium was to host a variety of sports, it developed into a venue used by Mussolini for public gatherings, eventually hosting the Fascist Conference in 1938. The Stadio dei Marmi was also frequently used for meetings of party and youth groups, for example, Hitler’s Youth members appeared at the stadium when they visited Rome.

Fascist event at Stadio dei Marmi

The Stadio Olimpico:

Annibale Vitellozzi based the design of the Stadio Olimpico on a series of concentric tiers, coming together to form a huge bowl. The building was designed to look as though it was sunken into the ground so as to fit into its surrounding environment. In this way, the Stadio Olimpico is of an example of landscape intervention, as in its design and construction an emphasis was put upon having the stadium complement and [not disturb] the Tiber River, the Monte Mario Hill and the Ponte Duca d’Aosta.

Stadium before the renovations made for the 1990 World Cup

Following World War II, the stadium underwent renovations to prepare for the 1960 Summer Olympics, during which it was used as the main stadium hosting the opening and closing ceremonies as well as a number of events. After the Olympics, the stadium remained popular and hosted a number of events:

1987 World Championships in Athletics
1968 and 1980 European Football Championships
1977 and 1984 European Cup
1996 (and 2009) Champions League Final.

It has also become the home stadium for two teams in the Italian League: A.S. Roma and S.S. Lazio.

The roof constructed before the 1990 World Cup

In 1987, in preparation for the 1990 World Cup, the stadium underwent numerous transformations, including the addition of a roof and the reconstruction of most of the stands. Despite these transformations, the stadium’s design remained true to the original design, retaining its elliptical shape and bowl-like structure. The stadium is now large enough to hold around 82,000 fans.

The inside of the Stadio Olimpico

The Stadio Olimpico has gone through numerous changes since its' construction, but through it all, it has remained a haven for Italian football fans. Although the era of Mussolini reign is long over, one can see remnants of his propoganda throughout Italy, particularly in the current Foro Italico.

Images: click on any image to see its' original page

Sources: Benoit, Macon. "The politicization of football: the European game and the approach to the Second World War." Soccer & Society 9 (2008): 532-50.

Painter Jr., Borden. Mussolini's Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. Pg 14-16.
Macadam, Alta. Rome. London: Somerset Books Company, 2006.

Guschwan, Matthew. "Riot in the Curve: Soccer Fans in Twenty-first Century Italy." Soccer & Society 8 (2007): 250-66.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a775664624~db=all

Schmidt, Thomas. “Building a stadium: Olympic stadiums from 1948-1988.” The Olympic Review.
http://www.la84foundation.org/OlympicInformationCenter/OlympicReview/1988/ore247/ORE247v.pdf

"Brief Guide to Olympic Stadium of Rome." Brief Guide to Olympic Stadium of Rome. 11 May 2009 .

Agarwal, Atishay. Club Day: AD Roma - Stadio Olimpico. 2 Sept. 2008. Goal.com. 12 May 2009 .

Villa Doria-Pamphili: Evolution of an Emerald from Private to Public

2009-05-13T14:47:00.000-07:00

Villa Doria-Pamphili - once a villa and now Rome’s largest public park - is located on the Gianicolo outside the Aurelian wall circuit. Significant record of the villa begins in 1630, when it was purchased by Panfilo Panfili and subsequently developed by architect Alessandro Algardi into a suburban retreat from the chaos of Rome. The villa still occupies that role, though today it does so for all Romans as opposed to private owners. Through time, war, and macro-cultural shifts, Villa Doria-Pamphili has been transformed from an exclusive, tightly-bound private property into an extensive paragon of public space in Rome.

The peculiar nature of the larger Roman organism offers insight into this process. Looking at Rome from a wider perspective, one observes immediately its expansiveness – indeed, it is the largest municipality in Europe. This is not to construe it as a massive concrete-jungle, however; immediately noteworthy as well is the significant presence of landscape integrated into its fabric. Agriculture contributes one third to the volume of Rome, and green spaces designated for recreation are also abundant throughout. With this larger context in mind, the situation of Villa Doria-Pamphili in Rome hardly seems out-of-place; to be sure, the villa’s openness is in stark contrast with the density of the nearby Trastevere area, but their immediate juxtaposition creates a condition of balance. The accumulation of such contrasts within Rome produces the very puzzle-pieces of its distinct character.

The aforementioned sharp contrast between the villa and its more urban surroundings has existed since its inception; indeed, that contrast was its very purpose. One will observe, however, that since then much has evolved physically within the villa itself. Time, ownership changes, and war have amalgamated to the effect of gradually adding pieces, contributing to the scope of today’s park while simultaneously reflecting contemporary popular thinking about public versus private spaces.

At the core of Villa Doria-Pamphili remains its original iteration, known as the Villa Vecchia. This portion of the villa has remained almost entirely intact, and is characterized by the extent to which it harkens to the past, drawing precedent from antiquity. The most notable of these is a short length of formal canal reminiscent of the Canopus at Hadrian’s Villa, a far more moderate display while still paying homage to past masterpieces the Pamphili admired.

The most abrupt and drastic modification to the physical composition of the villa came in the aftermath of war in 1859-1860. In attempting to defend Rome from French troops, Garibaldi fortified Villa Doria-Pamphili among others, utilizing its elevation to his strategic advantage, albeit unsuccessfully. In the course of the fighting, neighboring Villa Corsini was all but obliterated, prompting Prince Doria Pamphili to purchase it, an acquisition that nearly doubled the already-large Villa Doria-Pamphili. At the same time, a memorial arch was built to commemorate those who lost their lives in the fighting near Porta San Pancrazio, called the Arch of the Four Winds. This has since served as a both a beacon of the area’s historic importance and a prominent symbolic entrance into the site.

Arch of the Four Winds

War-related modifications strongly affected not only the makeup of the villa, but its sociocultural role and popular attitudes toward it. Garibaldi’s decision to fortify the site for the public defense signaled, whether intentionally or otherwise, the notion that the space was not only ideally and securely located, but that it was an effective public gathering point. In essence, Garibaldi’s move drew attention to Villa Doria-Pamphili, casting it into the public eye. Furthermore, the construction of a public monument on site, the Arch of the Four Winds, in 1850 demonstrated an unprecedented openness, reflecting a clear shift in thinking regarding this vast space previously shrouded in a veil of obscurity.

In 1929 it was suggested that Villa Doria-Pamphili be included in the Lateran Treaty, one that would annex it to the Vatican. This was given special consideration due to the Pamphili family ties with the papacy, as Giovanni Battista Pamphili had been elected Pope in 1644 as Innocent X and had himself elected many relatives cardinals. Ultimately, this did not occur, though significantly the idea of the villa assuming a presumably more accessible form was suggested, injecting this idea into the dialogue regarding surfacing tensions concerning the space. To be sure, popular opinion recognized the villa as a potentially valuable public space, and in 1957, this idea was realized; the entire villa was purchased by the Italian State for use in state administrative functions. The city of Rome purchased it between 1965 and 1971, turning it into a gallery and effectively completing the transition that had been gathering momentum for some time. This now-complete role reversal, however gradual, resulted in rather rapid change and solidified the villa in a peculiar hinge role, having transitioned through uncharted gray area on the private-public continuum. It can be said that other contemporary public-sphere projects, such as the Lago Artificiale and the Palazzo dello Sport, may have had a momentum-generating influence to catalyze the finalization of this transition, as post-war Italy was inclined toward public projects.

In its present state, the villa retains the elements of the Villa Vecchia, with a terraced structure and a strong formality which dissolves into an asymmetrical organization. The interface between these two presents a wall with symmetrical ascending staircases, a foreboding relic symbolic of the past exclusivity of the villa. Inside these walls remain boxwood hedges in an English garden style, implemented after the Napoleonic Era when this style was particularly popular; these were formally arranged to mirror the formal symmetry of the Casino building which they flank.

English Gardens Flanking the Casino

The formality diffuses into open spaces with a noticeably lesser degree of organization, though the presence of a number of picturesque fountains and reasonably well-maintained fields suggest a certain quantity of purposeful upkeep. These areas are perhaps the strongest indicators of the public dimensionality of the site, openly arranged and the pinnacle of accessibility in the face of the restrictive gestures of walls and gates.

Casino, with walled facade

The present condition of Villa Doria-Pamphili would substantiate the notion that this transition to a public orientation was for the better. Surface-level observation is sufficient to determine that the villa is extensively used by the people it now caters to; on a sunny day, one would expect to find bikers, joggers, people walking dogs, or soccer players in the various spaces the park offers, and perhaps even the occasional tourist taking pictures. Today, the Casino and the Palazzino Corsini buildings on site serve as art galleries, making wealth once restricted to private eyes open to popular consumption.

Main Entrance to the Villa Today, in use

Sources Cited

“History”. Galleria Doria Pamphili. http://www.doriapamphilj.it/ukstoria.asp. Cited 5/12/09
Gardens Guide Review. Villa Doria Pamphili. http://www.gardenvisit.com/garden/villa_doria_pamphili.
Cited 5/12/09

De Vico, Rafaelle. “Lago Artificiale 1938-1960”. Cited from coursepack, p.32. Cited 5/12/09

Nervi, Pierluigi and Marcello Piacentini. “Palazzo dello Sport 1956-1960”. Cited from coursepack p.34. Cited 5/12/09

Penelope Hobhouse "Doria Pamphili, Villa" The Oxford Companion to Garden. Ed. Patrick Taylor. Oxford University Press 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Cornell University. 13 May 2009 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t215.e0491

Piperno, Roberto. Villa e Casino Panfili, detta del Bel Respiro. http://www.romeartlover.it/Vasi200.htm Cited 5/12/09

All photographs taken by Matthew Sturz

Tuscolano: Neorealism and the Peripheral Development of Postwar Rome

2009-05-13T14:00:00.000-07:00

In the years following the war, Italy was in state of economic, political and social disarray. At the governmental level, right and left wing forces were fighting for control of the nation’s destiny. And even before the war, Italy was largely an underdeveloped, agrarian and impoverished country. In 1951, 40% of the population was still working in agriculture (handout, 4). This rapidly changed as many rural families, faced with economic hardships after the war, migrated to the cities in search for work. Between 1955 and 1971, statistics show that around 9 million people became displaced due to interregional migrations (handout, 4). Many of those who came to the city had to face issues of housing, labor and poor living standards. The conditions of these poor and working class citizens became the inspiration of Neorealist cinema. Filmmakers such as Vittorio De Sica captured the lives of these common people (see Ladri di biciclette, 1948).

In response, the newly established government saw the need to create affordable housing for the urban, low income working masses. In 1949, parliament instituted the INA-Casa project. Under this plan, selected regions in major urban centers would be developed into social housing complexes. Situated 3 km southeast of the city center of Rome, Tuscolano was one of the interventions under this plan. It developed in three principle main phases: Tuscolano I (1950-51), Tuscolano II (1950-60) and Tuscolano III (1950-54).

(Tuscolano plan. Mornati, 7)

The INA-Casa project brought together many architects from around the country. Together they faced the challenge of envisioning a new type of architecture, one that had practical budgetary constraints and, perhaps more importantly, one that had to somehow reconcile the external forces of modernism with the millennia-old tradition of architecture within Italy. The prevailing sentiment of the modernist movement was to break with tradition and find a new language of architecture that embraced minimalism and functionally-dictated form. The forces of industrialization inspired a “machine aesthetic” which permeated throughout the modernist vocabulary in much of Western Europe and the United States. Nevertheless, the prevailing sentiment of architecture within Italy was that any new type of architecture needed to somehow address the traditional buildings of the past. Even during the fascist era, Mussolini’s government saw importance of historic architecture, and its potential to be revived and reintegrated in a way that gave birth to monumental, classicist and ultimately propagandistic architecture. But with that regime gone after the war, architects now had the freedom to decide where the country’s architectural identity needed to move. Among the population, there still was a deeply- rooted, sentimental longing for the ethnical and arcadian past, perhaps intensified by the rapid industrialization and westernization that was consuming the postwar landscape. These neorealist sentiments, exposed to the world primarily in neorealist cinema, also influenced how the architects approached the Tuscolano project. They needed to resolve the conflict between forces of the past and present, within the context of social housing.

In the Tuscolano II, De Renzi and Muratori’s v-shaped housing complex, called by locals the “Boomerang,” offers one example of how modernist and historic forms were integrated in the architecture of Tuscolano.

(the "boomerang". Mornati, 8)

The six-storied complex has a ground floor that houses shops while the upper floors are small, iterative, apartment complexes. The building’s inner structure and organization is articulated in its façade – look to the concrete, grid-like framework that emerges out of the walls like an internal skeleton. Notice the repetitive, uniform apartment “cells” in the grid, each with a small balcony and window treated in the exact same way on the façade. The direct translation between the façade interior were typical transparent ideology of modernism. The uniform and egalitarian treatment of each unit also seems to stem from a rational approach.

(The boomerang up close. Peter Le , 3 April 2009)

The building gives honest treatment to materials, free of superficial ornamentation. In reference to the local history, the architects have incorporated an element of ancient Roman architecture, a type of brickwork pattern called opus vittatum, dating back to 4th century B.C. Rome. (santagnese).

Alberto Libera’s project, Tuscolano III, deviates from the interventions in Tuscolano I and II on two main points: it is enclosed by a wall and, except for a central multistory building, the living units are all single-story.

Two hundred apartments and a strip of stores along the street are contained within the enclosure of the housing complex. In the optimum plan, the small roads, which serve ten houses each, all depart from a central piazza. The module that is repeated throughout is an aggregation of four houses, one of which is rotated for better exposure. (handout, 149)

(Mornati, 7)

It is evident here that Libera was trying to compose a private community, enclosed by walls, complete with central private “park.” From the inner paths that emanate from the central space to the groups of four houses, the architect was trying to address the issues privacy and community in way that the buildings in Tuscolano I and II did not. The density of inhabitation, reduced to single level houses encourages interaction between neighbors, especially those sharing a courtyard and is also a much needed relief from the towering complexes nearby. The central, balconied complex is certainly a contrast to its neighbors and may seem a little disjointed, but it is Libera’s attempt at unifying the space around the central, prominent structure that oversees not only the surrounding houses but also the distant and scenic landscape of the periphery. Embracing one of Corbusier’s Five Points of Architecture, the building is raised off the ground on fins, creating space for parking underneath. In the single story houses, the walls are faced with different sized stones, a characteristic throwback to the opus incertum in ancient roman housing (santagnese).

(detail of an apartment wall in Tuscolano III. Peter Le, 3 April 2009)

The architects of Tuscolano had to reconsider idea of public space and what it meant in the context of neorealism and social housing. Historically, the piazzas and forums in Italian cities were the primary models of social gathering space, where anyone was able to come and go as the pleased. Buildings and streets were constructed around these spaces. In Tuscolano, the repetitious layout in of buildings in rows as opposed to one where they emanate from a central space shows that the architects were not considering public space in the same way as their predecessors. For Tuscolano, public space takes on a more intimate definition. There are no large spaces, specifically designed for public gatherings. There are gates around many of the apartment buildings, especially Libera’s Tuscolano III. Public space is more private here, it is now that enclosed area where residences of a single complex can mingle - the general public is shut out. A sense of close community is fostered in this type of model, and our class witnessed this on our recent trip to Tuscolano. In relation to the neorealist sentiment, Tuscolano’s model seems closely tied to the pastoral definition of a village, where each building is sort of village with its own private public space.

In our recent trip to Tuscolano, it was apparent that many of these buildings have fallen into disrepair. Being in the periphery of Rome, the district has little interaction with tourists. Bordering a scenic area of vast green landscape, largely untouched, with massive ruins of an ancient aqueduct situated nearby, Tuscolano is where modernity confronts the pastoral beauty of Italy.

(from the balcony in Tuscolano III. Peter Le, 3 April 2009)

Sources:
Mornati, Stefania and Cerrini, Filliipp. Il quatiere Tuscolano a Roma (1950-60). http://www.uniroma2.it/didattica/arctec21/deposito/tuscolanobiblio.pdf

Santagnese.org. http://www.santagnese.org/tecniche.htm. (2009)

handout for class. April 3, 2009.

The Ex-slaughterhouse in Testaccio: Survival through Reuse

2009-05-13T13:21:00.000-07:00

Arial Map of the Ex-slaughterhouse

It has been a long debate as what to do with this large space ever since the slaughterhouse of Testaccio moved to new structure near via Palmiro Togliatti in 1975.

This ex-slaughterhouse complex was designed by Gioacchino Ersoch between 1888 and 1891. It is located on the east side of the Tiber River in the rione Testaccio. It has a total surface area of 105,000 square meters, including a covered area of some 43,000 square meters.

The Ex-slaughterhouse Complex

This complex has an extremely modern organization system and the innovative structures in iron and cast iron. It also has the great pavilions and penthouses with the traditional curtain in tile, elements in travertine. The industrial architecture style of this complex is considered as the transition from Classic to Modern architecture, thus makes this complex as one of the most significant industrial architecture examples of late 19th century. This building is under monumental protection since 1988.

Rome has long history of reusing space and materials. Many historical buildings survived through reusing such as Pantheon and Baths of Diocletian. Today, Rome carries on its tradition one more time to save this industrial architecture example from abandonment and vandalism and to bring a new identity to this place.

However, it is hard to find a solution to reuse this large complex in a sustainable way and save this interesting example of “industrial archaeology” in a conservative way at the same time. Finally, Rome has decided to take the advantage of existing Testaccio urban culture and transform this ex-industrial area into a center of culture, education and art.

The ex-slaughterhouse is divided into several parts and assigned to quite a few big institutes. The 3 dominant institutes are Alternative Economy Town, University of Roma Tre and MACRO. Each institute develops its own plan and has its own design teams with one goal: maximally use this space in a way that best preserves the building structure and architecture style.

Alternative Economy Town (Città dell’Altra Economia)
An area where was the livestock market in the ex-slaughterhouse was turned into Alternative Economy Town (Città dell’Altra Economia). A team leading by architect Luciano Cupelloni developed a plan that combines the restoration of the space with many sustainable aspects such as bio-agriculture market and energy saving. The team won Gold prize in Holcim Awards for Sustainable Construction in 2005.

Plan and Perspective of Alternative Economy Town

Today the economy town occupies of 3,500 square meters of a covered space and approximately 8,000 square meters open space. The covered area houses a Bio-agricultural Market, Conference’s center, exhibition area, ethical finance office, workshops for recycling, tourist office, restaurant, coffee, air trade shops and roofed space. Bio-bar Photovoltaic systems are installed to save the energy and the covered area is transparency.

The project well preserved and restored the existing Ersoch portico with its slender cast-iron columns dating back to the late 1920’s. It is a good example of the combination of historical preservation and innovation.

View under the Covered Area in Alternative Economy Town

University of Roma Tre : The Architecture Faculty
As a part of Ostiense Marconi Urban Plan, University of Roma Tre is transforming 16,511 square meters of the space in the ex-slaughterhouse into the architecture facility. The new facility will occupy one external wing of the complex to house three lecture rooms and one auditorium. The main objective of this intervention is to conserve, reuse and display this industrial archaeology building complex in Rome. The university wants to set up a model for the whole world. Part of spaces already put in use for the students a couple of years ago. Many studies about energy saving and architecture innovations of this space have been done by the professors and students.

The building did not require extensive alteration, rebuilding or extensions, the project is still expensive. The university estimated that the cost will be 40 million euro and already 14 million euro has been spent.

Perspective of Space Used by Architecture Facalty

MACRO Future
In 2003, two great pavilions inside the Slaughterhouse complex was transformed by MACRO (Museum of Contemporary Art of Rome) as MACRO Future to house art exhibitions and encourage an interest in and appreciation for contemporary art. The surface area used by MACRO Future is 2760 square meters. This facility takes advantage of the vanity of Testaccio, and aim at the young audiences. The entrance is free and open from 4.00 pm to midnight every day, except Monday.

MACRO Future has become an Italian and international cultural centre in which the best artists can show their art works and be appreciated by others.

Exhibition Space of MACRO Future

Outside of MACRO Future

Other Institutes
The Center of Cultural Productions will use 5117 square meters for productive market and has started since 2007. Academy of Fine Arts will use 5639 square meters to house the cultural and artistic production.

Different Voice
Stalker, a group of interdisciplinary collective people from architecture, landscape architecture, art and other fields, has different view as to what is the right intervention for this place. The ex-slaughterhouse has been occupied by various groups ever since it was officially abandoned since1975. Kurdish immigrants and other groups have been using a part of the space as their cultural center since 1999. A homosexual group has been organized at least 3 culture events in the complex since 2002. Stalker views the ex-slaughterhouse as occupied and used efficiently, it has never be abandoned by people. The space is used productively and has valid and diverse culture. When big interventions happen, the people used to occupy the space will be force to move out. Stalker argues that this type of spaces should be left as it is and continue to serve people on the margins of society and grow in its own way.

Spaces used by Minority Groups

Conclusion
Rome’s long tradition of reusing the abandoned building and material is transforming the ex-slaughterhouse into a center of culture, art and education. After a decade of hardworking by the city and professionals, changes are happening. Spaces are used by the architecture students as studio and classrooms today. A contemporary museum is open to public for free. Organic restaurants and markets are serving people. Most important, the building structure and industrial architecture style are well preserved by innovative designs. However, controversial does exist as what should have done to make this place useful and functioning as this space has been occupied by various minority groups as a culture center for them since 1975. No matter what happen in the future, Rome once again sets another example to the world in preserving historical buildings, conserving energy, and promoting art.

References:

“Alternative Economy City in the ex Slaughterhouse in Rome.” Holcim Foundation. 2009
14 May 2009 <http://www.holcimfoundation.org/Portals/1/docs/A05-Juryreports/CTZNH.pdf>

“Città dell’Altra Economia (Alternative Economy Town).” Gimav.it. 2009.
14 May 14, 2009 <http://www.gimav.it/glassinstyle/aprile08_n2/architecture.pdf>

MACRO.museum. 2006. MACRO
14 May 14, 2009 <http://en.macro.roma.museum/macro_future/struttura_del_museo>

“Retrofit of a university building in Rome, Italy.”Annex36.Com. 2009.
14 May 14, 2009 <http://www.annex36.com/pdf/it1n.pdf>

“The Historical Heritage Map of the Ostiense Marconi Urban Project.” Esir.com.2009.
14 May 14, 2009 <http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc04/docs/pap1288.pdf>

Templace.com.19 March 2003. Templace.
14 May 2009 <http://www.templace.com/project-pool/one37ba.html?prj_id=3654>

The Garbatella: The "Garden City" and its Community

2009-05-13T09:10:00.000-07:00

When I visited the Garbatella I was struck by the way that the residents of this “Garden City” came together in a thriving community. The people of the Garbatella have a distinctive identity that they derive from their neighborhood.

The Garbatella, once called La Borgata Giardino Concordia, was constructed as an answer to Rome’s lack of affordable housing. The Istituto Case Populari (ICP), which funds public housing in Italy, designated the area between Porta San Paolo and Porta San Sebastiano as the site for this new community. The foundation stone of Borgata Giardino was laid by King Vittorio Emanuele III on February 18, 1920. This foundation stone was placed at Via Ostiense because there, the residents would have access to public transportation necessary to commute back and forth from work. Only one entranceway was built leading into the community, which was reminiscent of the small walled villages that many of the residents came from (http://www.romeartlover.it/Garbatel.html).

The Entranceway into Garbatella (http://www.romeartlover.it/Garbatel.html)

Soon after construction was completed in Borgata Giardino, locals changed the name of the community to Garbatella. In Italian, garbato means “courteous, friendly”. The suffix –ella gives the word a warm, feminine connotation. It is a common belief that Garbatella refers to “Lady Garbatella”, a women who once owned a tavern near Via delle Sette Chiese. As legend has it, “Lady Garbatella” was very hospitable to the pilgrims and workers who built Garbatella. She even provided them with wine, bread, and other refreshments. During the Fascist regime, there was a movement to change the name Garbatella to Remuria, a name that would honor Remus, whose brother Romulus founded Rome. However, the residents strongly protested this name change and in the end were able to keep the name Garbatella for their community (http://www.romeartlover.it/Garbatel.html).

Lady Garbatella (http://www.romeartlover.it/Garbatel.html)

Garbatella was built in an area marked by hills and meadows crossed by Via delle Sette Chiese. Via delle Sette Chiese provided a link for the pilgrims to travel between San Paolo fuori le mura and San Sebastiano. It was organized by blocks, called Italian Lotto, by multiple architects for a period of about 20 years. The main architectural layout for the Garbatella was set out by Gustavo Giovannoni and Massimo Piacentini (Grundmann, 304).

The original plan of Garbatella (http://www.garbatella.org/storia3.htm)

The Garbatella was modeled after the British Garden Cities. The Garbatella, like the British Garden Cities, was designed to be a self-contained community with greenspace, residences, and local business. The concept of the “Garden City” is built upon “the ideal of living in the country as a counterbalance to the unordered anonymous life of the city was expressed architecturally by using few classical building types and an historicizing formal language” (Grundmann, 304). Giovannoni and Piacentini were proponents of ambientismo (environmentalism); they focused on maintaining the picturesque attributes of the Roman city. The architects adapted the architecture of the farms and villages of Campagna to the Garbatella constructions. They also avoided the use of uniform building structures that was popular in Europe at the time and later characterized the landscape of EUR (Andreotti, 121).

Examples of the Garbatella’s variety of building styles (http://www.romeartlover.it/Garbatel.html)

Instead, the architects linked historical motifs to details from the different periods of Italian architectural history in a technique called barocchetto. The contributions of multiple architects over such a long period of time gave the Garbatella a diverse set of building styles. The buildings are decorated with many interesting sculptures and include patterns from the Baroque, Renaissance, and Medieval time periods. The picturesque building exteriors were representative of the historical change and organic development of Rome over time. Since this combination of different building styles was very common in Rome and its surrounding villages, people felt very comfortable and welcomed by the Garbatella’s architecture.

The variety of decorations in Garbatella (http://www.romeartlover.it/Garbatel.html)

In phase two of construction in Garbatella, the architect Innocenzo Sabbatini built homeless family hostels between the years 1927 and 1929. There were very few of these facilities for the homeless in Rome during the 1920s. In the 20s, many Italians had the idea that homelessness was caused by some intrinsic fault within homeless people. Hence, little social welfare provisions were made for the homeless. Sabbatini’s choice of Garbatella for the site of homeless family hostels is indicative of his belief in the acceptance and toleration of people in the Garbatella community.

Il Albergo Rosso: a hostel built by Sabitini (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53951847@N00/2747431141/)

The homeless family hostels were built in a fascinating ground plan that alternated between courtyards and residential buildings. The tripartite buildings had terraces and enlarged facades. The courtyards were placed between the wings of the buildings. The polygonal bays of the courtyards helped to outline public spaces amidst the changing spatial orientations of the hostel buildings. The street junction was transformed into open roundels by the inward-curving of the hostels. Sabbatini’s project clearly highlights the dynamic relationship between the contour of the buildings in Garbatella and the exterior space of the neighborhood.

In contrast to phase one of construction in the Garbatella, there is a decreased use of design motifs. Sabbatini’s buildings have less heterogeneous exteriors. They are only divided by heavy cord cornices and rows of windows. However, Sabbatini’s buildings were still not as homogenous as the buildings being constructed in other parts of Rome at this time. During the Fascist regime, a rationalist method of architecture took hold in the rest of Rome, particularly in the EUR district. Fascist architecture was supposed to evoke the glory of ancient Rome by constructing buildings that portrayed ancient monuments such as the Colosseo Quadrato that had a similar architecture to the Colosseum. These buildings in EUR are very large, white, and sociofugal. Instead of drawing people in to celebrate the Roman identity, these buildings create a cold atmosphere that discourages socialization (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/ARCH/Notes-Fascist.htm). Sabbatini prevented this cold monotony in his buildings by using stepped floors to loosen the cubical formation of the buildings. The stepped floors included roof-gardens for private use and promoted a feeling of comfort in the living space. His terraced design also added variety to the shape of the buildings (Grundmann, 305).

The Garbatella, once predominately a low-income community, now includes people of mixed socio-economic backgrounds. The people of Garbatella are left leaning and have a strong sense of community. They unite over local events, sports teams, and political issues. The structure of the neighborhood fosters socialization and community spirit.

A political mural and a mural supporting the A.S. Roma soccer team
(http://www.romeartlover.it/Garbatel.html)

With its combination of elements from both the city and the countryside, I think that the Garbatella has the best of both worlds. The center and periphery of the complex were composed of multi-story buildings, some of which had public facilities. I feel that the courtyard gardens between the apartment buildings are good mediators between public and private space. The gardens are positioned so that they are sociopetal and provide a good secondary territory for the residents of the Garbatella. After work, I saw people gather in the gardens to discuss their day and socialize with one another. The gardens also allow children play together while their parents can easily watch them outside of the apartments’ windows.

A Garbatella Courtyard (http://www.flickr.com/photos/massimiliano75/2901905351/)

Another meeting point that I observed on my trip to Garbatella, was the Carlotta fountain, the fountain of love. The Carlotta fountain is a strong part of the history of the Garbatella. According to tradition, the fountain has witnessed the beginning and end of many romantic relationships. It is also a symbol of the love that people of the Garbatella have for their community. In 1993, when the Carlotta fountain was in disrepair, the community came together and petitioned for the fountain to be restored. As a result of all their efforts, the fountain was finally restored in 1998. The fountain then won the Premio Fantasia Award for Garbatella in 2002 (http://www.garbatella.org/la%20fontana%20carlotta.htm).
.

Carlotta Fountain Before Restoration
(http://www.garbatella.org/la%20fontana%20carlotta.htm Carlotta Fountain After Restoration
(http://www.garbatella.org/)

If I ever moved to Rome permanently, I would definitely consider living in Garbatella. This “Garden City” has charming architecture as well as welcoming people. I would like to live in a place where there such a strong sense of belonging and pride in the community.

References
Andreotti, Libero. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-). Vol.47. No.2
(Nov. 1993). Pp. 120-122.
Grundmann, Stefan. The Architecture of Rome. Axel Menges: London. 1998.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/massimiliano75/2901905351/
http://www.garbatella.org/la%20fontana%20carlotta.htm
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/ARCH/Notes-Fascist.htm
http://www.romeartlover.it/Garbatel.html

Prati: The Other Rome

2009-05-13T08:03:00.000-07:00

Prati map wiki (in Italian)

Prati is a modern district built outside the Aurelian walls on the right side of the Tiber surrounding Castel Sant’Angelo. It is the 22^nd Rione of the city of Rome which was incorporated into the city of Rome in the 20th century. Prati differs from the other Rioni of Rome by its architecture and Urban layout. But more importantly, it is symbolic of a turning point in the history of Rome.

Image: Location of Prati in the city of Rome (link to original page)

Significance of Prati to the City of Rome Back to Top
In the 20th century, the expansion of Rome as a city called for the development of new areas. At that time, the political situation in Rome was unstable: the power was shifting from the church to the state. The political tensions created as a result of this shift became reflected in the culture of Rome. And because the architecture of the city was so closely linked to the political and cultural context, it too became reflective of this shift.

As a new district emerging at that point in history, Prati became symbolic of the new government. In its architecture and urban layout, this Rione is the anti-thesis of the catholic state and bears witness to the dwindling power of the church. Prati’s importance is in that it is symbolic of the development of the city into a modern, 20th century metropolis, a new Rome independent of the religious state.

History of Prati Back to Top

1870: cardinal Francesco Saverio de Merode in partnership with some businessmen buys real estate around Castel Sant’Angelo
February 3 1871: Proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy
1871 – 1872: Displacement of the court, parliament and the accompanying administration to a new location.
1873: the proposal for the construction of a new bridge which would create a direct link between Prati and the center of Rome pressures the Municipality to include Prati in the city plan
1882: the government commissions the construction of barracks, the Palazzo di Giustizia and the creation of a piazza d'Armi
1886-1891: the cardinal and his partners build Ponte Regina Margherita to create easy access from Prati to the center of Rome
1888: Major construction begins in the Rione of Prati
1888-1911: Construction of the Palazzo di Giustizia
August 20 1921: Prati is officially named the 22^nd Rione of Rome
1929: Signing of the Lateran Treaty puts an end to the battle between church and state

Prati in 1870 and Prati after its development (link)

Architecture of Prati Top

The construction of the Prati district ended in the first half of the 20th century. The most important modification to the architecture of the time was the disappearance of the monument in favor of many monumental buildings. The loss of architectural hierarchy achieved through the unification of scales speaks at one scale to the split between the church and Kingdom of Italy.

Eclecticism, that is to say the combination of different styles, is highly present in the architecture of Prati. Although the Rione is mostly known for its large and elegant palazzi in the Umbertine and Art Nouveau styles, buildings in different styles also appear on the streets of Prati. Among other architectural styles, two buildings designed in the Gothic and Florentine style line the streets of the Rione. These are embodied respectively in the façade of the church of the Sacro Cuore del Suffragio and of the Palazzo Odescalchi.

Palazzo Odescalchi and Sacro Cuore del Suffragio (link)

The Palazzo di Giustizia is another example of the diverse architecture of Prati. This monumental building designed by Guglielmo Calderini had the ambition of competing with the monuments of the past. Its design embodies an assemblage of elements from the Renaissance and Neoclassicism styles with Baroque decoration and statues along its façade.

Palazzo di Giustizia (link)

In the second part of the 20^th century, newer and more modern buildings were built in Prati at the expense of pre-existing structures. Some earlier buildings were destroyed while others suffered as a result of expansions and increased heights.

Urban Layout Top

The district was designed on the master plan of the “European city”; a “modern” design that included boulevards and large piazze. In the spirit of a modern design, it was also decided that from no point in the district would the dome of St Peters be visible to the pedestrian.

But the desire to build a modern district was not the only reason for the disregard for the basilica of St Peters. Whilst developing Prati, a conflict emerged between the Italian ruling class and the Pope. As a consequence, Prati was designed as a symbolic counter to the religious state and was laid out with its back to the symbol of the catholic government of Rome. Translated urbanistically, this meant that from inside the Rione itself, the street layout would not allow for a view of the dome of St Peters in the background.

In a further attempt to turn its back to the religious state, Prati’s urban design scheme was designed to follow a regular and unifying grid with wide streets as opposed to the narrow and winding streets of the old Rome. This grid also symbolized the disappearance of the monument by prohibiting emphasis of one building over another by way of a centralized layout. The double advantage of these wide streets was that it allowed for strategical military operations (conquests and defense of Rome) put in place by the new regime.

Urban layout of Prati

In an effort to re-emphasize the political position of the new state against the church, the street names in Prati also differ from the ones in old Rome. In contrast to the streets across the Tiber, many streets in Prati were named after the “heroes” who fought in Italy against the power of the pope. Other streets in the district were named after historical figures of Republican and Imperial Rome, Latin and Pagan leaders and writers of the classical era, and after the heroes of the Risorgimento, to whom was dedicated to the main square of the Rione.

The main street of the neighborhood was dedicated in 1911 to a Roman senator named Nicola Gabrini son of Lorenzo, also known as Cola di Rienzo. He was a Roman nobleman who in the 14th century, attempted to restore the republic in Rome to replace the papal power.

Modern Day Prati Top
Today, Prati is one of the more elegant districts of Rome with many shops, restaurants and hotels. Its proximity to the Vatican has made it an ideal tourist destination.

According to a suffrage taken in 2001 the district remains a highly residential area with a population density of 11,566.58 people per square kilometer¹. The study also showed that about 86% of the population living in the district was comprised of adults with approximately 60% of the population living and working in the area. For that reason, Prati developed as an area with many law firms, offices, banks and retail stores.

Piazza Risorgimento (link)

Key Sights in Prati Top

Palazzo de la Giustizia

Piazza Cavour

Piazza Cola di Rienzo – wiki link (Italian)

Piazza dei Quiriti

Sacro Cuore del Suffragio

Teatro Adriano

Images
Click on any image to go to the original page.

Sources Top

"Prati (rione di Roma)." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2009. Web.10 May 2009. <http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prati_(rione_di_Roma)>.

"Rioni dei Prati." Roma Segreta. 11 May 2009. 12 May 2009 <http://www.romasegreta.it/prati/prati.htm >.

"A New Rione." Rome Art Lover. 12 May 2009 <http://www.romeartlover.it/Prati.html>.

Martino, Domenico. "Il Rione Prati a Roma: Un disegno urbanistico volto a sbeffeggiare il Papa." Europa Oggi. 15/12/2008. 12 May 2009 <http://www.europaoggi.it/content/view/1777/0/>.

Allan Ceen and Jim Tice. "Rioni: The Districts of Rome." 25/09/2006. University of Oregon. 11 May 2009 <http://nolli.uoregon.edu/rioni.html>.

Pendall, Rolf . Analysis of the 2001 Italian Sensus (Lecture)

Map

2009-05-08T03:43:00.000-07:00

List of final titles goes here.

Corviale: A Controversial Housing Implementation

2009-05-08T00:45:00.000-07:00

Corviale (map)(wiki)
Corviale never lived up to its dream, a dream its architect labeled as “the city within a building." Designed in the early 1970s, the city was addressing housing needs from growing populations within the expansive city limits. As the first example in Rome of a development providing all the necessary functions for its population within the same building, the structure was met with much popular and critical acclaim but was unable to stand the test of time. Corviale is a controversial housing strategy because it is a supreme example of cohesive, monumental architecture but has never been able to achieve the social goals its architecture was so meticulously designed to reach.

Social Housing in Rome
Italy in the 20th century had a long history of changing social housing policies. The first public housing required nationally was the Istituto Autonomo per le Case Populari (IACP) beginning in 1904. During the War in 1942 the law was modified to require all municipalities to have a piano regolatore generale comunale (PRGC) (wiki), or - roughly translated - master plan. The Istituto Nazionale delle Assicurazioni (INA-Casa) (wiki), which oversaw a massive construction effort of over 400,000 new housing complexes, was formed in 1949 and lasted until 1963 in the fifteen-year, post-war span.

At the height of the so-called “Economic Miracle” in 1962, Law 167 required large municipalities to build affordable social housing and infrastructure to meet between 40 and 70 percent of the housing need in the area (Legge 18 aprile 1962, n. 167). The law allowed, even required, local leadership to implement large-scale projects rapidly with the additional challenge of meeting low construction costs (Corviale Field Workshop 2006). Law 167 marked a shift in policy from allowing municipalities to determine whether or not to implement social housing to requiring it, mandating implementation in addition to the planning of the earlier PRGC.

Corviale, called il Serpentone by the Romans, was a part of Rome’s 1964 Piano per l'Edilizia Economica & Popolare (First Master Plan for Social Housing); however, it was not the first example of large-scale social housing in Rome, following in a long tradition begun immediately after Italian unification in 1870 in the Testaccio district. At the time, Rome’s population was booming and this growth was projected to continue, and thus Corviale was one of many projects intentionally located in the “outskirts” of the expansive Roman city limits.

Despite their similar origins from the new legislation, the projects all follow completely different strategies, for example Spinaceto (map)(wiki),Laurentino (map)(wiki), and Vigne Nuove (map)(wiki). Spinaceto, which began construction in 1965, was the first to be implemented and has grown from the originally anticipated 25,000 inhabitants. While Laurentino (1970) and Vigne Nuove (1979) are slightly less populated. With different designers at different times, the immense differences between the communities are easily seen in the projects. Though none of the projects are directly related to Corviale, they provide a backdrop to the kinds of social housing interventions occurring at the time in Rome.

Spinaceto Image and Site Plan (Rossi)

Building
Corviale was designed my a team of architects led by Mario Fiorentino but included Gorio, Lugli, Sterbini Valori, and Morandi in the early 1970s, but construction did not begin until 1975 and would not be completed until seven years later in 1982 (Architectour). Though one of the last projects to be implemented for the IACP under Law 167, it was the first to attempt to combine entirely residential and commercial efforts from public funding instead of mixing both public and private. All previous PRGC projects under Law 167 before Corviale share public and private mixed residences with private control over commercial develoment, a precedent Corviale attempted to change. Located in the southwest periphery eight kilometers from the historical center of Rome, the building is situated on Via Della Casetta Mattei and Via Portuense, the route connecting Rome to the ancient Roman Port of Trajan, well away from the population nucleus of the center at the time.

The concrete building's statistics are equally as immense as its presence on the crest of the landscape in the periphery of Rome. The building is 958 meters long, 30 meters in height, and has a total volume of 750,000 cubic meters. The building is navigated with its 74 elevators connecting 9 floors (11 including those below-ground in certain locations) that hold 1,202 apartments with 6,133 rooms designed to house 8,000 residents. The building has 60,000 square meters of parking space (Architectour). Corviale follows many of the design principles presented by LeCorbusier in the Unité d'Habitation (wiki) and is an equally important example of Brutalist architecture.

Corviale was designed to possess an entire network of mixed-use support services under one roof including seminar rooms, library, art school, state school, pharmacy, restaurant, five "green areas," certainly a forward looking idea for the time. The building "finished" in 1982, though technically has never been completed because many support and commercial areas were never completed especially on the fourth floor, cost the equivalent of $38.7 million USD (91 million lira), which was well over budget, approximately four times the anticipated cost in 1975 10.6 (25 billion lira) (Manuele).

Corviale Site Plan

Early designs were based on a stepped section used in similar projects of the time in other Italian cities, but the reverse, a cantilevered overhang is the dominant form felt in the constructed form of the buildng giving a division between the "floating" upper and "weighted" lower portions of the building. The two building(s), which can read as two separate entities placed back to back or as a single parallelpiped volume depending on the level of analytical consideration, are connected by long, continuous, narrow courtyards between the five main vertical elevator and stair circulation cores both designed to be a pedestrian promenades to encourage interaction among neighbors. The primary housing units in the building are two and three bedroom apartments that back to the courtyards where baths and storage spaces are located along the interior wall. The smaller, diagonal building contains only two bedroom apartments but shares the same organization along the vertical circulation cores. The variety of apartments following this basic logic can be seen in the floor plans below.

Corviale Diversity of Floor Plans

Corviale Sections

[For more architectural drawings - especially of the vertical circulation cores - of Corviale, view the collection of Plans, Sections, and Drawings compiled by the university of Rome.]

Reality
Corviale was supposed to be both the reaction and solution to the expansion of Rome, self-contained axes providing all of the support services any community would need within one structure, the complete opposite of the rampant speculative housing in the outskirts of Rome. The architect successfully created a monumental structure and a supreme example of an inhabitable wall. The non-residential component of the project centered around the (piano libero) fourth floor, originally designed for commercial and public spaces. However, the area was not completed when the building was opened in 1982 and quickly became a location for illegal squatting.

Corviale Courtyard

The reality of Corviale is neither a thriving, sustaining neighborhood nor an empty, vacuous shell. Corviale is a container of a vibrant and diverse social climate, isolated from the rest of Rome. Though some critics take an extreme stance and believe the project should be destroyed, most recognize the positive ideas behind Corviale and and study why the building did not fulfill its promise. Italian planners and even Fiorentino himself do not challenge that Corviale did not live up to its expectations, given the reminder of illegally occupied apartments and the even stranger illegal occupation of commercial areas. Theorists contend the project is too ideal an architectural dream to function in an imperfect world; however, the most commonly accepted criticism is Corviale's isolation that disconnects it from Rome (Agnetti).

Interestingly, the many challenges to Corviale’s design do not acknowledge the residents of Corviale. Challengers argue that the monumentality of the parallelpiped lacks the diversity of spaces and volumes required to support a diverse, multi-faceted community. Quite the opposite developed in the 25 years of Corviale’s inhabitation. Corviale was recently used as an area in Rome as a location for attempting a census of gypsies within the city of Rome. Thus, even the highest level of national government recognizes the housing complex carries a large social diversity and numerous cultures. The only similarity among its residents, illegal squatters, and commercial tenants is their poverty. The lack of economic diversity should not be mistaken for a lack of ethnic and diversity. However, this lack of economic stability is detrimental and viewed as being less successful than communities (ex. Spinaceto) that mix public and private housing of mixed income levels. Certainly Corviale would have liked to have achieve this integrated design ideal but the initial failure of including viable commercial space within the project never materialized.

Rather than the challenge of a too monumental design or a too homogenous typology, the most likely reason for the housing failure is the building’s isolation. The idea of a self-sustaining container within an urban realm is not a realistic strategy for a building of only low income residents. The need to become increasingly engaged, involved, and actively participating within the city should be a conscious decision of the architect. Fiorentino recognized this need, but he tried to create an artificial city, perhaps to serve as a testing ground or training facility for low income residents before becoming involved in the society which had by already placed them on the margins and fringes of everyday life. However, Corviale only continues to isolate residents, particularly as low income individuals are unlikely to have a car, the primary mode of transportation in the Roman periphery.

Corviale Walkway

Controversy: Success or Failure?
The principles of Corviale are laudable and even proven as LeCorbusier's earlier Unites developed into a spacious, desirable location for professionals. The goals attempt to provide commercial infrastructure in the immediate vicinity for low income residents. They attempt to solve the problem of affordable transportation. They attempt to create a collective and powerful design for residents that would otherwise not have an impressive structure to call home. They attempt to integrate residents into a community and support structure that is distinct from the outside world that has, at least economically, rejected its residents. This attempt to achieve a social network is seen in the way Fiorentino created corridors that encourage casual, chance interaction among residents and attempted to provide a social area through the commercial spine of the building. However, the inability to achieve an economically-viable (legal) commercial center, which is unlikely given the poverty level of residents without any “outside” (financially sound) patrons of the shops, led to the failure of integration within the rest of the city. The project continues to be a socially interesting residence, but it is only housing and its isolation from other necessary services does not legitimize the project.

The design to create a supportive social network is noble but the physical design of the space though as ideal as possible was too stark a contrast to the reality of commercial needs. This flaw was likely not the building itself but rather the choice to fill the building with only low income housing. Thus, though social networks certainly developed and remain today, there is no economic safety net that can both support the commercial spaces in a more stable manner or that can expose residents to better financial opportunities (Agnetti). This reality is not assumed to be either definite or permanent and many strategies have been developed to change Corviale.

Potential Projects
Corviale continues to serve as a source of inspiration and ideas because the project cannot be considered with an attitude of acceptance. The architecture of the building is visually intriguing, but the reality of unrealized potential within the project appeals to student and practicing architects alike to develop solutions, to provide the missing piece or pieces of Corviale. If viewed as a disappointment, one seeks to design an intervention to fix the building. If viewed as a success that has yet to reach its potential, one seeks to design an impetus of improvement to move Corviale in a different direction. A sampling of interesting projects are found below.

Jake Choi, an architecture student at the Architectural Association in London, proposed the Koinoniac Church an equally iconic but contrasting curvilinear form for a church to encourage additional movement through the Corviale structure and to provide additional social programming. A different approach can be found with a building that serves as an extension of Corviale can be found from the student work of Orlando Oliver's Corviale Intervention.

A young architecture firm in Rome hopes to realize the success of social housing in the area, including Corviale. Their ideas for redeveloping Laurentino are the ma0 p.e.e.p. show. Instead of abandoning old projects and ideas, they hope to modify the structures to address problems discoverved during the first few decades, which will simultaneously update old housing, provide additional housing, utilize existing infrastructure of roads, and reduce displacing individuals and breaking up their social network (ma0).

Others have proposed modifying the building through extensive research, which was supported by the City of Rome in 2006. Studies of the fourth floor typologies (originally designed for commercial space) can be found here and were a part of the Osservatorio Nomade (Nomadi Observatory/Stalker) study on Corviale. A fascinating and informative video montage resulting from the project, including maps of the social diversity of the project, can be viewed as the Corviale Video Progetto. [Highly Recommended]

Photographs
For general views, see Corviale on flickr. Or you can see the artistic views of two photographers at Corviale here or here or here.

For more images from an academic source visit the University of Rome site.
Images Page One
Images Page Two
Also view architectural drawings, Plans, Sections, and Drawings.

Films
For more information on Corviale, view the following academic videos.

Corviale 2004- A documentary of the building. The highlight occurs at 2.45 where a 3D model visually presents the components of the project.

One Day at Corviale- A project by Check In architecture which provides footage of the variety of physical spaces in the project. An appealing overview of the building.

Vivere l'Architettura - Puntata 1.1 - Corviale- A historical and factual introduction to the building as a single episode in a series. Watch the longer, 30 minute version here.

For a less academic, interview-driven video with residents of Corviale, view Le Serpentone. Un ghetto communal

Images Referenced
Click on any blog image to go to image source.

Works Consulted
Angotti, Thomas. Metropolis 2000: Planning, Poverty, and Politics. Taylor & Francis, 1993.

Todaro, Benedetto. Primary and Secondary Sources in Italian. Corso di Laurea Architettura U.E. Laboratorio di sintesi. A. A. 2007.http://w3.uniroma1.it/todaro/didattica/sintesi/testi.htm

Legge 18 aprile 1962, n. 167. Disposizioni per favorire l'acquisizione di aree ... per l'edilizia economica e popolare. Modificata ed integrata dalle leggi 21 luglio 1965, n. 904 e 22 ottobre 1971, n. 865. www.bosettiegatti.com/info/norme/statali/1962_0167.htm

Uno Studio per Corviale. Research for Corviale. Corviale Field Workshop 2006. University of Rome “La Sapienza.” w3.uniroma1.it/arc1ie/BrochureCorviale2.pdf

Barbera, Lucio V. The Long Route Until Corviale. Il Lungo Percorso Fino a Corviale. First School of Architecture, Sapienza University of Rome. w3.uniroma1.it/luciobarbera/Writings/Il%20lungo%20percorso%20fino%20a%20Corviale.pdf

Rossi, Piero O. Roma: Guida all’architettura moderna 1909-2000. Laterza 2005.

Iacovoni, Alberto. Lecture on ma0 architects. p.e.e.p. show. 6 Feb 2009. www.ma0.it

Romito, Lorenzo. The Nomad Observatory. Facing Corviale. 2007. www.lovedifference.it/eng/network/studies/methods/methods07/stalker_facing_corviale.pdf

Maunele, C. Corviale. The Urban Starship. 2000. http://www.thatsrome.20m.com/corviale.htm

Moschinoi, Francesco. Mario Fiorentino a Casa: Progetti 1946-81. Kappa: Rome. 1985.

Carini, Alessandra and Mario Ciammitti. Housing in Europa: 1960-1979. Bologna. 1979.

Todaro, Benedetto. Corso di Laurea Architettura U.E. Laboratorio di sintesi. A.A. 2007. http://w3.uniroma1.it/todaro/didattica/sintesi/sintesi.htm

Sherwood, Roger. Corviale. Housing Prototypes. 2002. http://www.housingprototypes.org/project?File_No=ITA004

Corviale. Architectour.net. http://www.architectour.net/opere/opera.php?id_opera=5487

Elena Sommariva, ed. "5900 neighbours. Corviale, Rome." Domus 886. 2005.