Di re&fa re

Andrea Zaia

Master “Emergency” 2016-2017 Università IUAV di Venezia

DI.RE & FA.RE

Dignitous Reception through a Fascist Requalification A new reception quality system through the regeneration of the Italian architectural rationalism heritage

“Le contraddizioni non si risolvono infatti con la negazione di uno dei due termini, che hanno sempre la loro profonda e ineluttabile ragion d’essere, ma con l’affermazione e cioè con la realizzazione dell’unità superiore, in cui i contrari coincidono.”

Emilio Gentile

ABSTRACT

The project “DI.RE & FA.RE - DIgnified REception through a FAscist (heritage) REqualification” takes in consideration two important Italian issues, one of social interest and really actual as the massive migratory flow coming from Africa and Middle East, direction Europe; and the second one of cultural-artistic setting, the architectural heritage of Italian Rationalism of the beginning XX century.

The project starts with an analysis of the two topics, which apparently haven’t so much in common, in order to define the main issues, determining sort of a framework for the research.

The idea is to set a connection in between these two topics, proposing a common and unique strategy to improve the actual situation, in which the solutions useful for one issue could be helpful also for other, and just through this collaboration the process could be implemented and developed.

In Italy, there is a huge amount of buildings, built under and for the fascist power, which belong to the national architectural heritage, and which at the moment are abandoned or disused.

They could be used to accommodate part of the migrants coming to Italy, compensating the lack of places and infrastructures on the territory, and becoming part of the Italian reception system.

The counterpart of this action would be the gradual restoration of these buildings, done by the migrants themselves, under the supervision of professionals (architects, engineers, historians...).

This project will allow the people living in the structures to get in touch with the hosting community, in an active way, starting a process of positive integration in the society and in the work market, giving them the possibility to contribute actively and also to get quicker autonomous.

The restoration process will provide furthermore these buildings the effective status of “architectural heritage”, giving them the possibility to be used for a new function (that could be the reception center but also some other), and be reintegrated in the urban and city fabric they should belong to.

I

II

(I) barcone di migranti nel Mar Meditterraneo_ photo Matthew Willcocks (2016) (II) giovani balilla durante una foto

INDEX

1. The phenomenon of the migration fluxes............................................................................... pp. 6-7 2. Dynamics and flow of the forced migrations..........................................................................

2.1 Main reasons of gateway...................................................................................................

2.2 Main Routes to Europa.....................................................................................................

2.3 Provenience of the immigration to Italy..........................................................................

pp. 8 pp. 8 pp. 9 pp. 10

3. Reception System in Italy........................................................................................................ pp. 11-13 3.1 Features and characteristics of the reception structures................................................. pp. 14-15

4. Italian Rationalism heritage.................................................................................................... pp. 16 4.1 Capillarity on the territory................................................................................................ pp. 17 4.2 Useful building typologies............................................................................................... pp. 19

Schede casa del fascio rural................................................................................................................. casa del fascio middel size...................................................................................................... casa del fascio federal.............................................................................................................. casa balilla................................................................................................................................ colonia “block”......................................................................................................................... colonia “free floorplan”........................................................................................................... colonia “tower”........................................................................................................................

pp. pp. pp. pp. pp. pp. pp.

20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-31 32-33

5. The Matrix................................................................................................................................. pp. 34-35 6. Conclusion................................................................................................................................ pp. 36 6.1 “It is already reality”................................................................................................................ pp. 37

“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it..”

Art.1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Geneve.1951

15000

1. The question of the migration fluxes

10000

europe asia africa

15000

10000

5000

1000

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

immigration trend in Italy 1990-2016

(1) Decreto legge 30 ottobre 1995, n.451 “Disposizioni urgenti per l’ulteriore impiego del personale delle forze armate in attività di controllo della frontiera marittima nella regione Puglia” (http://old.asgi.it/public/parser_download/save/dl.451.95.pdf)

europe asia africa

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

One of the most critical and actual phenomenon affecting Italy, and in the last years also the entire European Union, is for sure the massive migratory flow coming from Africa and the Middle East.

This first chapter will seek to define more precisely the origins of these flows, and to understand, although superficially, the main reasons for them.

Italy is not new at this dynamic, which interests the country, even though alternately, since decades. The 90’ were the 5000 theater of a massive migration coming from the Balkan area, due to the breaking up of Yugoslavia, starting from 1990, and afterward with the arrive of Albanians people, after the crumbling of socialist regime of Enver Hoxha (1990), who forced the country to a segregation lasted 40 years.

Due to these situations, Italy understood the necessity of establishing a first reception system, and of instituting an embryonal legislation, with the introduction of the law proposal 441/95, and afterward the law n.563/95 / also called “Legge Puglia”(1).

1000 This law proposal, besides the military coast guard and monitoring, guaranteed the creation, by the Ministry of Interior, of three centers along the coast of Puglia in order to provide a first reception process and tackle the issue of clandestine arrivals.

Such first legislation, although not homogeneous and not structured, has defined the base of the actual Italian reception system, creating the first accommodation centers, and giving birth to the Italian tradition of reception, which is nowadays so important and necessary, but still improving.

How shows the graphic above, the last years were the most critical, with the intensification of the problem, which became a higher priority, not just involving and affecting Italy, or the Mediterranean countries, but the whole continent.

In fact, the origin of the migration is not anymore localized, but concerns several nationalities, and different continents (Africa and Asia), and an increasing amount of people.

At the same time the destinations are not anymore just the countries of the Mediterranean basin, like Italy, Greece, and Spain, but also Germany and France, until the far north of the continent, with Sweden and Norway in the first position in the reception process.

“The arrival in Europa of more than 1 million refugees during 2015, undermined all the securities and certainties on which the Old Continent where relying on, and on which Europe tried to build up a common identity. There is right now the urgency of finding a solution, which was until now underestimated. This emergency though forced the 28 nations of the EU to take a position, even though several times are really different, sometimes also completely discordant, that’s why right now we can see Europe in a confused situation, facing the impossibility of finding a common guideline for all the member States” (2).

On one side Germany, for instance, has completely opened its borders to the Syrian refugees, whereas some others country, as Hungary and Serbia have decided to close the frontiers, even building up physical barriers and walls in order to contrast the migration flow.

In any case, EU, whereas late and facing an emergency situation, is trying to implement a set of common rules, in order to guarantee a shared and homogeneous reception strategy, based on the full application of the Geneva Convention (3) about the refugee status, defined o 28 th July 1951 (supplemented afterward with the New York Protocol of 31st January 1967).

This process is based on the European Directive 2003/9CE of 27th January 2003 (4), which defines minimum standards regarding the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States, and all the requirements about documents release, education, and work market access.

This Directive was afterward modified in 2008, but it was not directly accepted, because of some divergences among the member about some important aspects.

Just in 2013, the European Union Commission managed to deliver the Directive 2013/33/UE, closer to the requests of the members, that became afterward the European Regulation 604/2013/UE, known as Dublin III Regulation (5).

Finally, the European Commission has faced the increasing of the phenomenon of the migration flows with a unanimous approach, establishing an agenda inspired on the founding Treaties of the Union: the solidarity principle, that should have been realized through a fair distribution of the migrants arrived in Europe (the majority are on the Italian and Greek coasts) among the UE countries. In this way it would have been overtaken de facto the Dublin Regulation, allowing a better control of the arrivals, also determining more clearly which member state has the responsibility in the reception, defining also when a country is handling an excessive amount of asylum seekers, according to the dimension and the prosperity of the country itself (2).

Following (6), a list of the main regulations about and related to asylum, reception and repatriation in the European Union: Schengen Agreement -1985- an agreement to get rid of all controls at their borders, which allows people and goods complete freedom to move between their countries.

Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/EU) to determine the conditions for the exercise of the right of family reunification by third-country nationals residing lawfully in the territory of the Member States.

Return Directive (2008/115/EU) to set out common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in accordance with the fundamental rights”.

Regulation 439/2010 establishing the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), became a real Agency with the COM2016/271.

Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU) with the purpose of defining standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection Asylum Procedure Directive (2013/32/EU) with the aim to establish a common asylum procedure in the EU, in order to safeguard and guarantee access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure.

Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU) to ensure adequate standards for the reception of applicants for international protection.

The EURODAC Regulation (603/2013/EU) aims to facilitate the application of the Dublin Regulations through a joint electronic registration system.

Dublin Regulation (604/2013/EU) establishes a hierarchy of criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining asylum claims within the EU territory, made by third-country nationals or stateless persons.

EU Regulation n.1051/2013 provisions for reintroducing internal borders controls.

European Agenda on Migration (May 2015) (7) in order to strengthen the EASO capacities, to set additional funding to FRONTEX (search and rescue operations), and define the Hotspot Approach.

(2) ANCI, Caritas Italiana, Cittalia, Fondazione Migrantes, Sprar, UNHCR, Rapporto sulla protezione internazionale in Italia 2016 (3) “Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees” http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10 (4) “COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers” http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ (5) “REGULATION (EU) n.604/2013 of the european Parliament and of the council of 26 June 2013” http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF (6) NORCAP/ Norwegian Refugee Council, “Dignified Reception Guidelines” 2016 (7) “European Agenda on Migration 2015 – four pillars to better manage migration” https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/background-information/docs/summary_european_agenda_on_migration_en.pdf

2. Dynamics and flow of the forced migrations 2.1 Main reasons of gateway The main and most important reason of forced migration in the world is for sure the wars and civil instability situations.

According to recent studies (8), there are nowadays 35 conflicts and 17 crisis situations in the world, with an estimate of 167.000 victims (most of them civilians) just in 2015.

map of the conflicts in the world - 2015-

red-war yellow-instability

Anyways there are other causes that induce to this situation, sometimes in conjunction with wars: Immigrants flee from economic inequalities; is enough to say that the 1,75% of world population have the 56% of the worldwide income, and 23% of the population instead lives in conditions of “extreme poverty”.

Another important factor is the inequalities in food access, in fact nowadays 100 million human beings have no food supply, and at least 800 million are at risk of famine.

The problematic is paradoxical analyzing that every year the agricultural production increases of 15% and that annually 1,3 billion tons of food are wasted.

People flee from inequalities in the water access, and from the Land grabbing phenomenon, whereby multinational countries, most of the time in Africa, buy huge lands for really derisory prices, expropriating and marginalizing local populations.

Finally, also the instability due to the terroristic attacks could be counted as an important parameter, for instance, if we take into consideration the Global Terrorism Index 2015 (Institute for Economics and Peace), we can see that in 2014, happened 13.000 terrorist attacks in 67 countries, with 32.685 victims (of which 78% just in Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria).

UNCHR estimated that in 2015, 65,3 million of people have been forced to move from their place, of which 21,3 million compelled to leave their native country (9).

Data UNCHR 2015

(8) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts http://www.warsintheworld.com/ (9) “Global trends. forced displacements 2105. UNCHR” http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-globaltrends-2015.html

2.2 Main Routes to Europa Among the above mentioned 21,3 million, just a marginal part of them could use some kind of resettlement programs.

Again according with UNCHR, in Europe in 2015, 107.000 persons took advantage from such programs, whereas the majority, about 1.820.000, came to Europe illegally (10).

At the moment the main access routes are 8, even though just two are the most used:

rotta Artica

1.920

via del Mar Nero

68

rotta Balcanica

764.038

via del Meditteraneo Occidentale

7.164

via circolare dall’Albania

8.932

via del Meditteraneo Orientale

885.386

via dell’Africa Occidentale

874

via del Mediterraneo Centrale

153.946

main immigrations routes to Europe

A. Central Mediterranean route It was always the most exploited, even though in 2015 became the second one, after the Balkan way, because of the massive migration of middle east population, in particular, way coming from Syria.

This is any way the absolutely most utilized route of the Africans, and it is also the most dangerous, in fact, according to IOM data, in 2015, out of the 3’771 victims, the 77% was on this ax (11).

B. Balkan route This is the main land way to travel through Greece to the UE countries. Thereby also this path in 2015 had an exploit, raising of 16 times the volume of persons that used it, in comparison with 2014.

Even though is difficult to register the provenience of all the immigrants, this route was used mainly by people coming from Albania, Kosovo, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

C. East Mediterranean route Even this route had an exploit in 2015 (16 times), with about 880.000 migrants that have been registered (in comparison with 50’000 in 2014). In this case too, the main origin of the people is the middle East.

D. Circular way from Albania to Greece Frontex has counted approximately 9’000 persons passed along this way, even though it is a bit “special”, because is mainly about Albanians who enter in Europe (most of all in Greece) for seasonal works.

E. West Mediterranean route Is the way going from north Africa to Spain, and in 2015 had approximately 7’000 presences, mainly from Guinea, Algeria and Morocco.

F. Route from West Africa to Mediterranean It is at the moment the least used in the Mediterranean Sea, with about 1’000 persons every year, coming from Senegal, Morocco, and Mauritania.

G. Black See route Less than 100 presences, almost all of them from the Middle East.

H. Arctic Path It is a pretty recent way of coming, mainly done by Syrians who crossing Russia and Finland, try to enter in Norway to apply there for the asylum request (2015 – 5’200 people) (10) “Global trends. forced displacements 2105. UNCHR” http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-globaltrends-2015.html (11) “Migranti, Oim: -Nel 2015 3.771 morti nel Mediterraneo, 997mila arrivi-” La Repubblica, 31 dicembre 2015 http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2015/12/31/news/migranti_oim_ nel_2015_3_771_morti_nel_mediterraneo_997mila_arrivi_-130423259/

130.567 3.805 61

3.054

166.050 386 28

arrival(blue) and victims(red) on the european coast in 2015

2.3 Provenience of the immigration to Italy As already mentioned before, the most utilized and dangerous route is the Central Mediterranean route, which has Italy as landing country.

The majority of the migrations flow to Italy has its origin in Africa, whereas after the huge increase of 2014, the number of Syrian people moving to Italy substantially decreased.

In the first semester of 2016, according to IOM sources, of the 225’095 human being arrived in Europe by sea, 65’475 (29,5%) came to Italy first.

The majority are Nigerians, Gambians, Somalis, Eritrean, Guinean and Ivorian.

Eritrea (20% of the 2015 arrivals) is dominated since about 20 years by the president Isaias Afewerki dictatorship; in Somalia (14% of the arrivals) after more of 25 years of civil war, the main threat is caused by the al-Shebaab militiamen, who were responsible in the last years of atrocious terroristic attacks in the capital city.

The Boko Haram raids instead are the main factor of escape from Nigeria, where just in 2015 were registered almost 11’000 violent deaths (12). main proveniences and routes of the migrants (huffington post)

23%

Otehrs

Mali Sudan

Senegal

Ivory Coast

Guinea

Eritrea

Somalia

Gambia

Nigeria

15% 10% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5

country of oringins of the migrants in Italy -2016-

(12) Francesca Romana Genoviva, “Gli sbarchi in Italia nel 2016: alcuni dati per smentire l’allarmismo”, UNCHR The UN Refugee Agency https://www.unhcr.it/risorse/carta-di-roma/ fact-checking/gli-sbarchi-italia-nel-2016-dati-smentire-lallarmismo

3. Reception System in Italy With the Decree 142/1995 (13) Italy started a process that is intended to collect together in a unique legislative instrument all the elements concerning asylum procedures, reception system, international protection and legal process and remedies.

At the moment the Italian reception system is characterized by two different under systems: the first one considers all the “governmental centers” (centri governativi), structures that accommodate several typologies of immigrants and that could be bundled in 4 specific types: CPSA (centri di primo soccorso e accoglienza), CDA (centri di accoglienza); CARA (centri di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo) and CIE (centri di identificazione ed espulsione).

The other subset is the SPRAR System (Sistema di protezione per richidenti asilo e rifugiati), usually managed by the local authorities.

The main goal of the Decree 142/1995 is to elaborate a unique reception system on the whole national territory, articulated in three stages: first aid, registration and sorting in which phase the State is the main responsible, first reception for a short period (the regional authorities are here involved and entrusted), and second reception in small sized centers, where the local authorities have the main role, responsible for finding existing structure or for building new ones in order to host the migrants.

NO

HOTSPOT

HUB regional/interregional

CIE

out of Italy in 7 days

YES

SPRAR

reception process. How it should be

HOTSPOT (first aid, registration, and sorting) The first stage, somehow antecedent the real reception phase, consist in the first aid of the immigrants (activities which are done usually next to the landing location). Still today these activities are carried out by the CPSA (centri di primo soccorso e smistamento).

In these places the migrants receive the first and more urgent medical cares, are registered and could seek by themselves for the international protection.

These are temporary and transitional centers, where the people should not stay more the 48h, even though it happened sometimes, often during the periods of “emergenza sbarchi”, that the permanence is prolonged even for weeks.

The hotspots (at the moment still called CPSA) are huge and multifunctional structures, which could host up to 1’000 persons at the same time.

taranto

trapani catania augusta

p.empedocle pozzallo lampedusa

(13) “Attuazione della direttiva 2013/33/UE recante norme relative all’accoglienza dei richiedenti protezione internazionale, nonche’ della direttiva 2013/32/UE, recante procedure comuni ai fini del riconoscimento e della revoca dello status di protezione internazionale.” http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/09/15/15G00158/sg

REGIONAL/INTERREGIONAL HUB (first reception for short period) They should be under the responsibility and control of the regional authorities, and with this denomination are considered the actual CDA and CARA, present on the territory.

They have the main goal of giving the first reception to the migrants that have been already registered and received the first medical screening, and that has, in a first moment already expressed the will of seeking international protection.

In such structures should be defined the legal situation of the person, and the permanence in the center itself should be limited to the completion of mandatory procedures for the international protection request and the decision about it, which must be done by the entrusted Territorial Commission.

Each Region (In Italy are 20) should equip itself with at least one HUB, with a capacity between approximately 100 and 250 places.

The stay scheduled in these centers should be maximal for 20-30 days (whereas in the meanwhile the migrant gets a residence permit of 6 months, renewable).

CIE (centri di identificazione ed espulsione) They were established in 1998, under the name “Centri di permanenza temporanea e assistenza (CPTA). Such structures serve to the detainment of asylum seekers who committed some crimes, or who received an expulsion request directly by the Ministry of Interior.

The Tribunal defines that the detainment of a person could have the maximal duration of 90 days, even if in some cases is possible to get a permit even for 12 months (renewable).

gorizia

ancona

foggia-bari brindisi-lecce

roma

cagliari trapana-agrigento caltanissettaragusa-catania

crotone

torino

roma

bari

trapani caltanissetta

11%

HOTSPOT +HUB

17%

SPRAR

23%

CAS

Otehrs

71% Mali Sudan

Senegal

Ivory Coast

Guinea

Eritrea

Somalia

Gambia

Nigeria

15% 10% 9% 8%15% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5

CAS (centri di accoglienza straordinaria) According with the Decree 141/1995 (14), depleted the availability of places in all the first and second reception structures, the reception should be ensured in other centers, which have a temporary character, and should have the function of supporting and compensating the overwhelmed system. They are called CAS. The question nowadays is that such CAS is hosting the majority of the migrants on the territory; according to some sources referring to June 2016, the migrants accommodated in Italy were 136’045, and among them, 14’848 (10,9%) in hotspots and first reception centers, 23’496 (17,3%) in the SPRAR System, and 97’701 (71,8%) in CAS (15).

These numbers show clearly the inefficiency of the Italian reception process at the moment, but most of all the urgent lack of places and structures in which to accommodate people who are already present on the territory.

(14) “Attuazione della direttiva 2013/33/UE recante norme relative all’accoglienza dei richiedenti protezione internazionale, nonche’ della direttiva 2013/32/UE, recante procedure comuni ai fini del riconoscimento e della revoca dello status di protezione internazionale.” http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/09/15/15G00158/sg (15) ANCI, Caritas Italiana, Cittalia, Fondazione Migrantes, Sprar, UNHCR, Rapporto sulla protezione internazionale in Italia 2016 pp.124

NO

HOTSPOT

HUB regional/interregional

CIE

out of Italy in 7 days

YES

SPRAR

?

?

CAS

CAS

reception process. How it is in reality

SPRAR (sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati) As already mentioned in the first part of the chapter, next to the governmental reception centers, even called “iniziali”, there are in Italy several collective small/medium size centers, which are constituting the “protection System for asylum seekers and refugees (SPRAR).

SPRAR is a form of “integrated reception”, a network of small centers spread on the territory, that set and define procedures of legal and social orientation and coaching, and also prepare, help and teach people along the integration path in the social and economic system (16).

Usually, the SPRAR require a permanence period of around 6 months and are focused on the integration at the more local level of the society. Also for this reason the SPRAR management is assigned to the local authorities, most of the times in partnership with private organizations.

MSNA (minori stranieri non accompagnati) An important paragraph of this study should be dedicated to another category of immigrants, called “not accompanied migrant minors” (minori stranieri non accompagnati), which are minors that arrive on the territory without being accompanied by any parents, relatives or person encharged.

Among the minors, they represent the 75% of the total.

In 2015 the MSNA were 16’478 (more or less the 10,7% of the immigrants landed on our coasts).

To them is reserved a privileged reception procedure, with shorter terms for the first reception, with a maximum of 60 days of permanence, and a direct introduction in the SPRAR system, even for the minors who have not present any asylum or protection request.

Besides that, through the law 135/2012 art.23 (17), Italy defined and instituted a National Fund for the minors reception, governing the State intervention in order to support the local authorities (comuni) that are hosting and accommodating MSNA, strengthening the first reception and the SPRAR System, providing more places and guaranteeing an high specialization in the reception procedure, and facilitating also the family reunion.

Despite that Italy lacks an official and defined legal instrument, which could provide and set specialized and specified structures for MSNA. This system should not be integrative, but alternative and parallel to the existing one, created in order to host, accommodate and integrate this special category.

In this study, I’m proposing to do, I’ll consider MSNA as an independent and autonomous category.

(16) “Modifica alla normativa in materia di immigrazione e di asilo” (pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 199 del 26 agosto 2002 - Suppl. ord.) http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/02189l.htm (17) “Articolo 23 - Altre disposizioni di carattere finanziario ed esigenze indifferibili (Decreto-legge n. 95/12 come convertito dalla legge n. 135, 7 agosto 2012)” http://www.medicoeleggi.com/argomenti000/italia2012/404168-c-23.htm

3.1 Features and characteristics of the reception structures I’ll try now, missing a literature and some precise and official references, to define the main and necessary features and characteristics of each reception structure, talking about an architectural and constructive point of view.

I have defined some parameters that could be useful to define and compare them, in order to have a common ground to discuss on: CAPACITY – URBN INTEGRATION – ACTIVITY – PRIVACY – SECURITY - PERMANENCE

HOTSPOT They should be directly next to the landing places The permanence should be maximum of 24-48h.

The areas are monitored and delimitated Huge capacity, even around 1’000 persons at the same time.

Big and multifunctional spaces No privacy required Areas: common sleeping areas, common gathering spaces, big and common bathroom. No kitchen required.

HUB Regional Presence The permanence should between 7 and 30 days The areas are monitored but not delimitated Medium capacity, between 100-250 person (there are already some exceptions, like Residence Mineo-Catania- with 1’800 places).

Structures could be not integrated into the urban fabric.

No privacy required Areas: common sleeping areas, common gathering spaces, big and common bathroom. Common kitchen required.

Activities areas required

CIE At the moment are 5 on the national territory.

They must be monitored and delimitated.

The permanence should be of maximum 90 days.

Medium capacity (100-200 persons ate the same time) No privacy required Areas: common and individual sleeping areas, common gathering spaces, big and common bathroom.

Kitchen not required

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

privacy

permanence

security

urban integration

possible activities

privacy

capacity

permanence

security

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

permanence

privacy

security

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

privacy

permanence

security

urban integration

possible activities

privacy

capacity

permanence

security

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

permanence

privacy

security

SPRAR On the whole national territory The permanence should be around 6 months (but most probably more) They are not delimitated and neither monitored Small capacity The structures should be integrated into the urban fabric The migrants (after 60 days from the asylum request) could do work and education activities.

Privacy required Areas: individual sleeping areas, common gathering spaces, bathrooms, kitchens. Spaces for activities (work, learning or integration activities)

CAS They have normally functions similar to the HUB, but they could also be used as SPRAR. For such reason they should be flexible, or be assigned previously to a specific function.

Preferably they will be used as HUB, even though we should be taken into consideration the possibility that the migrants inside could start to do work and education activities after a while.

HUB + long term possibility + activities

SPRAR MSNA On the whole national territory The permanence should be around 6 months (but most probably more) They are not delimitated and neither monitored Small capacity The structures could be integrated into the urban fabric (not mandatory) The minors should be able to start education, integration activities Recreation activities allowed Areas: individual and common sleeping areas, common gathering spaces, bathrooms, kitchen Spaces for activities (learning or integration activities) Spaces for recreational activities.

4. Italian Rationalism heritage The second part of this research will take into consideration another issue, apparently far away from the topic until now described: the degraded and disused Fascist architectural legacy present on the national territory.

As already mentioned at the beginning of the text, the project tries to be the connection in between these two problematics, proposing a common and unique strategy, where the solutions useful for one issue could be helpful also for other, and just through this collaboration could be implemented.

In particular, the lack of infrastructures, accommodation places and services in the Italian reception system, could be covered (and compensated) with the usage and the requalification of such heritage, and at the same time the need of maintenance and refurbishment of these buildings could be done through the integration and employment of the migrants on the territory.

The choice of the Fascist architectural heritage is not random, but finds its motivations in some intrinsic problematics of it: the bad reputation it has, connected to the ideology it has been representing (and which should be opportune to change, most of all at the opinion of no-professionals); the fact that really often such buildings are disused, abandoned or in a state of complete degradation, due to the lack of investments and funds. An interesting research on this theme, was recently done by the English photographer Dan Dubowitz, with his book “Fascismo abbandonato”(18), in which he has analyzed some particular buildings of this time, the summer colonies, nowadays completely abandoned.

On the other hand the choice considers also the potential of such legacy: the architectural quality, the fact that often these buildings are integrated in the urban structure, and many time located in privileged sites into the city; and also that they have all the infrastructures and services needed to be used.

Furthermore, and maybe the most important parameter, is the widespread presence on the whole territory of such buildings (almost each Italian town possesses a public building built during the Fascist period).

colonia estiva di Chiavari -photo: Dan Dubowitz (18) Dubowitz Dan, “Fascismo abbandonato. Le colonie d’infanzia nell’Italia di Mussolini” Stockport, Dewi Lewis,2010 www.dandubowitz.net

4.1 Capillarity on the territory (…) a new rationalism, which I name “modernist rationalism”, and which manifested itself in the myth of Italianism, the belief that Italy, regenerated and modernized, was destined to play a dominant role on the world stage.”(22) During the “Ventennio Fascista”, the regime commenced a police of modernization of the country, which never took place after, and which led to the construction of several infrastructures and public buildings on the entire territory.

Among these works, is maybe remarkable to mention the planning of the first motorway network, and the reclamation of many swampy areas, mainly in Lazio and Sardegna, but also in Friuli Venezia Giulia and Veneto.

Those impressive interventions were useful for the Country, which still was in a backwardness condition (in comparison with the European average), and moreover were also important investments in order to relaunch the national economy, even if in a completely autarkic way.

It is also important to remember how these works served to obtain a political consensus (almost absolute), and to show to the population in a physical and territorial way the power and the fascist ideology.

The ubiquitous presence of the Architettura Littoria”, instilled also a sort of fear on the Italian population, celebrating a strong power and leadership.

Quoting Giovanni Amendola, who wrote in 1911 on the “La Voce” editorial: “Our future as a nation will depend on this choice: and this choice is slowly maturing in the depth of national conscience. If we could influence this profound operation of the Italian spirit, we could also create tomorrow’s Italy, an Italy that will cause the miseries of our past to be forgotten forever.”; It is easy to understand which was the main aim of Fascism, to define itself as a new lay state religion, forgetting the bad and dark past, in order to start a new future, based any way on the splendor of the ancient Roman Empire.

Talking specifically about architecture, the regime strategy was able to take action on the whole territory, acting on different scale, and covering a wide range of possibilities:

new foundation cities during the Fascism city rural village

NEW FOUNDATION CITIES Usually coinciding with the huge reclamation works, most of all in Lazio and Sardegna, the regime founded many new cities ex novo, that with the decades have grown and consolidated, as in the most famous case of Sabaudia and Latina, in the “Agro Pontino”.

NEW FOUNDATION RURAL VILLAGES Such interventions, often coinciding with the reclamation works, were smaller and less complex, frequently spread on the territory, and had a peculiar rural character, thought and built as service centers for the agricultural settlement.

Those interventions were really common in Sicily and in the south of Italy, that based its economy on the primary sector, in order to compensate the disparity of services and accessibility between the north and the south of the country.

The map on the right shows these two first strategies on the national territory.

(19) Gentile Emilio, “The Myth of national regeneration in Italy: from modern Avant-garde to Fascism”, pp.32 in “Fascist Visions; art and ideology in France and Italy” M.Affron and M.Antliff, Princeton University Press, Princeton,1997

+

MONUMENTS AND PUBBLIC BUILDINGS These punctual interventions have the aim of representing and celebrating the power, they are monuments, or often public buildings, which served to define the new fascist city and promote the ideology.

Such buildings, besides showing the power through their architectonic style and presence, have important public functions for the whole community and population, they were in fact tribunals, university, stock exchange buildings, ministries, railway stations etc, etc.

We can name them “major architecture” of the Fascist period.

Stazione ferroviaria S.M.Novella -Firenze- Michelucci

MINOR ARCHITECTURE In particular for this research I’m developing here, this is the most interesting category, that I would like to take into consideration, because includes many buildings, which I name “minor fascist architecture”, which are not formally recognized as part of this architectonical heritage, but are capillary spread throughout the country, and follow clearly the “littorio” and/ or rationalist architectural language, and could be easily included in the above mentioned power and propaganda strategy of the regime.

In such category could be considered schools, police and fireman stations, post office, after-work buildings, “case del fascio” (=community centers + offices).

casa del GIL -Bolzano- Mansutti,Miozzo

casa Fiaschetta -Pordenone- C.Scoccimarro

ONB This last category formally belongs to the previous group of the “minor architecture”, considering typology and function, but I think is important to dedicate a section to the “Opera Nazionale Balilla”: a specific project started by the regime with a propaganda aim, and the main goal of educating and forging the young generations, in order to get a future loyal and fascist population.

This political-pedagogical project was proposed by Renato Ricci (who led the ONB for 10 years after) to Mussolini in 1928, was thought and structured as an autonomous project, with a specific aim and method, and was based on the main idea that, quoting R.Ricci himself: “the education of the juvenile masses […] needs a methodic and ongoing work, that is possible just when are available specific place capable of gathering […] a big number of young people from different social classes” (“alla educazione delle masse giovanili […] è necessaria un’opera metodica e costante che è possibile solo quando si disponga di luoghi destinati a raccogliere […] gran numero di giovani di tutte le categorie sociali.”).(20) In this group I collect “case Balilla”, summer and winter colonies, gyms etc, etc.

(20) Vittorini Rosalia, “Costruire per educare: le case del balilla” in “Case del balilla. Architettura e fascismo”, Capomolla Rinaldo, Mulazzani Marco, Vittorini Rosalia; Milano,2008

bambini davanti alla colonia estiva AGIP di Cesenatico

4.2 Useful building typologies For this research I’m doing now, I’ll take in consideration the above mentioned “Minor fascist architecture”; this is in fact for some reasons the most interesting and suitable case.

The size first of all; the scale of the town (or of the city) is difficult to handle and to plan for the scope of the research.

Another reason is the presence of the territory; the “major architecture”, monumental buildings and big infrastructure are usually located in the big cities, not involving small realities and peripheries, whereas the “minor architecture” has a capillary presence all over the country.

The last, are the conditions of the building; in fact often the monumental and representative buildings have an historical reputation, and qualified as official architectural legacy, therefore are many times already restored, renovated and used (public or touristic functions).

Instead, the “minor buildings” are often abandoned, and in a state of degradation, because they have low visibility and less importance, and are not yet recognized as historical heritage.

A lack of resources of the local authorities either, in order to propose a proper restoration and a new use of the buildings, is often another factor.

Considering this precise subset, I have selected some typologies which could be useful for my research, trying to create a sort of catalogue, and trying to define for each of them the main function, main characteristics, and showing some explicative typological examples (built and/or projects).

In the same way of the analysis of the reception structures, I have defined some parameters that could help me to value and study these buildings: CAPACITY – URBAN INTEGRATION – ACTIVITY – PRIVACY – FLEXIBILITY– SERVICES&INFRASTRUCTURES (The first four are exactly the same as in the previous case, we’ll see afterward why this decision).

TYPOLOGIES: CASA DEL FASCIO - rural - middle size - federal

CASA BALILLA

COLONIA ESTIVA - block - free floorplan - tower

*. the following images presented are either black/with or colour.

(B/ W) it means that the building is not built, or used for another function (C) it means that the building is disused or abandoned

RURAL CASA DEL FASCIO

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

services & infrastructures

Project for sicilian casa del Fascio 1937, Palermo “Istituto Vittorio Emanulele III per il Bonificamento della Sicilia� not built

Casa del Fascio in Borgo Rizza 1939-40, Borgo Rizza, Sicilia ECLS (Ente Conolizzazione Latifondo Siciliano) today abandoned

privacy

flexibility

Characteristics

dimension: Small (usually on one floor) volumes: most of the time simple and regular position: really central in the town structure functions: it contains office rooms, services and sometimes bedroom common spaces and activities: ---

MIDDLE SIZE CASA DEL FASCIO

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

services & infrastructures

Project for casa del Fascio in Sesana ca. 1930-35, Trieste not built

Casa del Fascio in Noventa Padovana 1934, noventa Padovana Arch. Quirino de Giorgio restored today, local authority office

privacy

flexibility

Characteristics

dimension: Small-medium (usually on two-three floors) volumes: frequently regular position: really central in the town structure functions: office rooms, services and sometimes bedrooms common spaces and activities: projection hall (small conference room - theater)

FEDERAL CASA DEL FASCIO

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

services & infrastructures

Project for big federal casa del Fascio 1936 Arch. Belgioso Banfi not built

Casa del Fascio in Predappio 1936 Arch. today abandoned

privacy

flexibility

Characteristics

dimension: big (usually more than two floors) volumes: could be articulated, and with a tower position: really central in the town structure functions: office rooms, services and sometimes bedrooms, common areas, dining areas and kitchens common spaces and activities: projection hall (small conference room - theater), often there are areas for activities (indoor - outdoor)

CASA DEL BALILLA

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

services & infrastructures

GIL in Trecate 1934, Trecate Arch. Luigi Moretti today abandoned

Standard Casa del Balilla from the manual book “ONB Progetti di costruzione�

1932 Arch. E.Del Debbio not built

privacy

flexibility

Characteristics

dimension: medium (usually on two-three floors) volumes: usually regular and simple, with big common areas integrated position: not always in the city center functions: office rooms, services with showers and gardarobe, common areas, dining areas and kitchens common spaces and activities: normally there is a gym, or spaces for activities (also outdoor)

COLONIA ESTIVA BLOCK

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

services & infrastructures

Colonia estiva in Rovegno 1933-34, Rovegno Ing. Nardi, Greco today abandoned

Colonia estiva “Dalmine�

1922, Riccione Arch. C.Greppi restored today, Hotel

privacy

flexibility

Characteristics

dimension: big (usually on two-three floors, and horizonatally organized) volumes: regular and simple, with big common areas integrated position: always outside the city, usually at the see or at the montain functions: common spleeping rooms, office rooms, services with showers and gardarobe, common dining areas and kitchens common spaces and activities: big common spaces for activities and gathering,sometimes there is a gym

COLONIA ESTIVA FREE FLOORPLAN

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

services & infrastructures

Colonia estiva “Piaggio” 1938-39, S.Stefano d’Aveto Arch. L.C.Daneri today abandoned

Colonia estiva “Principe di Piemonte” 1932, San severa by, Cassa di Risparmio Pistoia e Pescia today abandoned

privacy

flexibility

Characteristics

dimension: big (usually on two-three floors, and horizonatally organized) volumes: articulated, sometimes composed by more volumes, with big common areas integrated position: always outside the city, usually at the see or at the montain functions: common spleeping rooms, office rooms, services with showers and gardarobe, common dining areas and kitchens common spaces and activities: big common spaces for activities and gathering,sometimes there is a gym

COLONIA ESTIVA TOWER

urban integration

possible activities

capacity

services & infrastructures

Colonia estiva “FIAT Edoardo Agnelli” 1933, Marina di Massa Arch. V.Bonadè Bottino restored today, Hotel

Colonia estiva in Chiavari 1935-36, Chiavari Ing. C.Narci Greco today abandoned

privacy

flexibility

Characteristics

dimension: big (more than 10 floors, and vertically organized) volumes: usually simple, with ground floor horizontally organized and sleeping areas above position: always outside the city, usually at the see or at the montain functions: common spleeping rooms, office rooms, services with showers and gardarobe, common dining areas and kitchens common spaces and activities: big common spaces for activities and gathering,sometimes there is a gym

5. The MATRIX The upper half of the graphics has the same parameters of the previous diagrams about the reception centers, whereas the bottom half contains other important factors which could be any way useful for my research.

Theoretically, overlapping the diagrams (fascist typology – reception centers) could be possible to find out which structure could match with the needs of a reception center, in order to discover if some of them could be properly used for this scope.

The next steps will be a matrix which enable to visualize this information we got, in order to define a catalogue of fascist buildings suitable for a reception function.

Typology

HOTSPOTS

HUB

(* they must be next to the landing areas)

2

1

1

2

1

10

2

2

1

2 3

3

2

1

1

4

1

3

13

2

4

1

3

3

1 1

16

2

6

3

4

1

1 1

3

15

1

1 3

3

17

1

1

1

1

8

1 3

16

2

1

1

15

2

1 6

1 1 3

15

2

3

1

16

3

6

2

3

2

1

1

17

3

6

3

8

1

1

1

8

2

6

3

18

3

4

2

1 6

14

3

2

1 6

3

12

2

14

urban integration

Matrix Explanation 4

4

Each parameter will have a value range, between 1 and 3 4.

3

-Capacity- is considered more important, and relevant 2for the study, for this reason it has a double value rating (2-8)

1

1

1

3

3

12

2

4

3

2

2

2

4

2

4

1

2

2

14.5

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

1 4

2

15

2 2

4

2

2

3

3

3

3.5

1

19

3

3

3

6

1

6

1

6

3

4

2

4

6

2

1

2

3

18

3

4

2

2

6

1

2

4

.5

3

3

2

3.5

6 2

2 3

4

4

2

20

3.5 6

1

3

2

3

3

3

63

2 3

2

1 6

1 3

6

3

2

6

1 3

1

2 1

1

1

15

2

3

4

2

3

2

6

1

1

6

6

1

14

1 4

1

1 3

3.5

3

2

1

.5

3

3

15.5

3

1

16

1 2

3.5

3

3

1

4

1

1

6

1

6

1

1 3

1

4

3

1

3

1

1 6

1

15

5

1

1 3

1 2

3

5

16

1

6

2

3

1

3 1

1

1

4

17

4

3.5

3

3

2

1

3

3

6

1 3

3

1

1

4

1

4

3.5

1

1

6

3

5

2

1

1

3

3

17

2 3

3 1

1

1

1

3

3

3

6

1 3

3

19.5

3

2

3

1

2 3

3

6

1

3

2

1

4

21.5

3

6 23

3.5

3 3

4

3

53

19

3

2

2

4

3.5

6

3

2

3

2 3

3.5

2

1

1

3

1

3

1

4 3

1

3

14

3

1

2

3

3.5

19.5

3

2

3

4

1

6

1

1

1

3

2

2

6

6

20

3

4

6 2

5

3

4

3

3

1

2

1

3.5

2 1

3

6

3

2

3

3.5

3

4

15.5

14

3

2

2

3.5

3

2

4

1

1

2

4

3

3.5

3

3

3

6

1

1

1 3

3

1 3

6

3

3

3

4

3

3

6

2

1

3

1

2

3

19.5

1

2

6

1

13

4

3

3

6

16

1

6

1

3.5

2

17

3

3

3

2

2

3

2

3

6

63

1

2

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

1

3

4

2

1

3

17

2

3 2

4

2

2

2

4

3

2

1 6 2

3

2

1

2

3

3

4

3

3.5 3.5

4

1

2

3

3

2

3

4

3

4

3

4 3

2

3

6

3

4

2

2

2

1

2 2

2

2

3.5

3

3

4

2

6

3.5

3

3.5

3

3.5 2

13

2

3

4

2

min

2

2

2

3

3.5 2

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

4

3

7

3

2

1 4

2 2 3.5

2 2

3

3

2

3.5

1

4

MSNA

2

3.5 2

10

flexibility

2

2

3

3

3 4

4

2

2

23.5

2

2

33

2

1

2

2

2

2

range of results

4 2 privacy 3

14

1

CAS

2

1

2 2

services & infrastructures

3

1

2

21.5

1

22

41 1

SPRAR

2

2

2

6

82

max

3

1

3

4

2

2

4

3

CIE

1

6

2

In our study the range of results obtained is between 10 4 and 21,5. This will define our scale.

2

8

28

2

2

1

1

2

2

4 3capacity

2

1

This will define the quality of the match, with a minimum 3 possible of 7, and a maximum of 28.

2

33 2

2

1

possible activities4

4

3

1

Considering the resulting polygon (intersection recep6 to each 2 4 8 tion-structure), it would be possible to assign case a grade, which is the addition of the several rates of the 1 polygon’s vertexes.

2

4

2

1

2

4

1 3

15

6. CONCLUSION

HOTSPOTS

HUB

CIE

SPRAR

CAS

MSNA

casa del fascio rural casa del fascio middle size casa del fascio federal casa balilla colonia block colonia free ground floor colonia tower

After this brief analysis, I managed to propose a new tool of evaluation, this DI.RE-FA.RE MATRIX, which even though in an experimental way, can help and support us in understanding some things: - The Fascist buildings (and in this case the “Minor architecture” taken in consideration) are compatible with the new function proposed, the integration of the Italian reception system.

- In the specific case, we notice hoe the “case del fascio” and the “case del balilla” could serve better the scope, mostly due to the dimension, the flexibility of the structures and the integration of the building in the urban fabric, guaranteeing therefore a wide spectrum of uses, from the HUB to the SPRAR network.

- The Summer Colonies, although possessing positive and interesting features, are perhaps too specific to adapt themselves to the reception system, even though their capacity would allow to use them in the first phases of the reception (Hotsposts and Hubs).

- A provocation at the same time for the fascist summer colonies, would be to use them for the reception of the MSNA, traducing almost literally the function these building were thought for.

- The hotspot, although not requiring too specific features, need to be really close to the migrants landing areas, restricting therefore the choice of the suitable building.

A further conclusion of this research is that such buildings, besides the reception of immigrants, could be used for similar social purposes, as the reception of other communities, which need places of cure and treatment, and places in which they can gather and aggregate, and be hosted. I’m referring to communities of drug addicted, minorities, homeless and disables.

As already said, the research here in just the basis for a possible future deepening; because the Matrix Tool presented could be useful in a wider project, which should articulate itself as following: 1- CENSUS of the fascist building on the territory, abandoned and in a state of degradation.

2- ANALYSYS of the buildings through the Matrix Tool, in order to figure out the features and the versatility of them 3- LIST of the building which could be compatible to the new use, based on the proposed parameters.

4- Executive PROJECT of a study case, with the renovation and the new function included, in order to propose to a community.

6.1 it is alrady reality...

The project of immigrant reception in such buildings, and at the same time the project of renovation and reuse of a national architectonic heritage through the work and support of the same immigrants is not an utopia, but a concrete and real project, that in some societies and countries is already taking place. For this reason I show here a reference case, presented by Anne Le Cour (Head of Danish Red Cross Asylum Department) on the 24th April 2017, at the IUAV University of Venice: The reuse and renovation of some old and abandoned Danish hospitals, with the purpose of creating new reception structures for refugees (21).

Such renovation process is done by the migrants, with the supervision of the Danish Red Cross, and the collaboration of professionals and technicians.

Asylum Centre Esbønderup (ex hospital) Denmark

Study case presented at the IUAV University by Anne la Cour, Head of Danish Red Cross Asylum Department 24.o4.2o17 (21) Le Cour,Anne, Head of danish Red Cross Asylum Department “Reception of Asylum seekers in Europe. Denemark as an example”, presentation at IUAV University, Master “Emergency”, april 2017

BIBLIOGRAPHY Rationalism architecture bibliography - Capomolla Rinaldo, Mulazzani Marco, Vittorini Rosalia, “Case del balilla. Architettura e fascismo” , s.n, Milano, 2008 - Portoghesi Paolo, Mangione Flavio, Soffitta Andrea, a cura di, “L’architettura delle case del Fascio” Catalogo della mostra “le case del fascio in Italia e nelle terre d’Oltremare”, s.n., Firenze, 2006 - Ernesti Giulio, a cura di, “La costruzione dell’utopia. Architetti e Urbanisti nell’Italia fascista” Roma,1988 - Pietrogrande Enrico, a cura di “34 case del fascio - settant´anni dopo”, 1.edizione, pp.400, Edizione Marsilio, Venezia, 2014, - Cresti Carlo, a cura di “Architetture e architetti dell’era fascista” parte di “Architettura e arte”, N. 3-4, p. 4-31, Angelo Porticorboli Editore, Firenze, 2004 - Dubowitz Dan, “Fascismo abbandonato. Le colonie d’infanzia nell’Italia di Mussolini” Stockport, Dewi Lewis, 2010 - Bardi Pier Maria, “Rapporto sull´architettura (per Mussolini)”, pp.140, Edizioni di Critica Fascista, Roma, 1931 - Frampton, Kenneth, a cura di “Storia dell’architettura moderna”, 4. edizione, Zanichelli, s.l., settembre 2008 - Gentile Emilio, “The Myth of national regeneration in Italy: from modern Avant-garde to Fascism”, pp.32 in “Fascist Visions; art and ideology in France and Italy” M.Affron and M.Antliff, Princeton University Press, Princeton,1997 - Nicoloso, Paolo, a cura di “Mussolini architetto : propaganda e paesaggio urbano nell’Italia fascista”, pp.315, G. Einaudi, Torino, 2008 - Etlin, Richard Allan, a cura di “Progressive Architecture”, parte di “Modernism in Italian Architecture, 1890–1940”, pp 736, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., August 1991 - Del Debbio, Enrico, a cura di “ONB, Progetti di costruzioni - case balilla, palestre, campi sportivi, piscine”, Editore Palazzo viminale, Roma, 1928 - Irace, Fulvio “L’utopie nouvelle: l’architettura delle colonie” in Domus : architettura e arredamento dell’abitazione moderna in città e in campagna, n. 659 (Mar. 1985), p. 2-30; Milano; 1985 - Santuccio Salvatore, a cura di “L’architettura della casa per la gioventù” in Parametro : bimestrale di architettura e urbanistica, n. 172 maggio-giugno1989 - Bardi, Pier Maria, a cura di “La casa del fascismo. Il lavoro fascista” in Quadrante: rivista mensile, A.1, n.16/17, anno 1934 - Architettura e arti decorative : rivista d’arte e di storia, a. 10, n. 10 (1931), Milano : Bestetti e Tumminelli ; Roma, 1921-1931 - M.Labò, “Architettura delle colonie marine italiane”, in “Costruzioni-Casabella”, n.167, novembre 1941 - M.Labò, “La colonie montane”, in “Costruzioni-Casabella”, n.168, dicembre 1941 - E.Tedeschi, “La colonia marina XXVIII ottobre della federazione dell’Urbe” in “Architettura”, giugno 1935 - “Architettura”, dicembre 1934 - “Progetti per casa del fascio di piccola, media e grande dimensione“, in “Casabella” n.54 , anno 1932 websites www.dandubowitz.net https://issuu.com/civicworks/docs/fa_it_singles http://www.artefascista.it/ http://www.lecolonie.com/home_it.htm http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itinerari/mappa/OspiziMariniToscana.html http://www.fabiogubellini.it/progetti/un-estate-fa

Migrants reception bibliography - Decreto legge 30 ottobre 1995, n.451 “Disposizioni urgenti per l’ulteriore impiego del personale delle forze armate in attività di controllo della frontiera marittima nella regione Puglia - “COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers” - “REGULATION (EU) n.604/2013 of the european Parliament and of the council of 26 June 2013” - “Attuazione della direttiva 2013/33/UE recante norme relative all’accoglienza dei richiedenti protezione internazionale, nonche’ della direttiva 2013/32/UE, recante procedure comuni ai fini del riconoscimento e della evoca dello status di protezione internazionale.”

- “Modifica alla normativa in materia di immigrazione e di asilo” (pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 199 del 26 agosto 2002 - Suppl.d.)

- Decreto-legge n. 95/12 come convertito dalla legge n. 135, 7 agosto 2012_“Articolo 23 - Altre disposizioni di carattere finanziario ed esigenze indifferibili” - “Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees” - ANCI, Caritas Italiana, Cittalia, Fondazione Migrantes, Sprar, UNHCR, “Rapporto sulla protezione internazionale in Italia 2016” - “Rapporto sull’accoglienza dei migranti e rifugiati in Italia. Aspetti, procedure, problemi”, Ministero dell’Interno, Roma, ottobre 2015 - NORCAP/ Norwegian Refugee Council, “Dignified Reception Guidelines” 2016 - “European Agenda on Migration 2015 – four pillars to better manage migration” - “Global trends. forced displacements 2105. UNCHR” - Francesca Romana Genoviva, “Gli sbarchi in Italia nel 2016: alcuni dati per smentire l’allarmismo”, UNCHR The UN Refugee Agency - “Global Peace Index 2016 - Ten years of measuring peace”, Institute for economics & peace, IEP Report 39, June 2016 - Le Cour,Anne, Head of danish Red Cross Asylum Department “Reception of Asylum seekers in Europe. Denemark as an example”, presentation at IUAV University, Master “Emergency”, april 2017 websites http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict http://www.warsintheworld.com/ http://www.repubblica.it/esteri http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it http://www.unhcr.org/ http://economicsandpeace.org/