Città Della Memoria - Bethan Watson

C I T TÀ D E L L A MEMORIA AN ALTERNATIVE RECONSTRUCTION APPROACH FOR HERITAGE IN POST-DISASTER L’AQUILA Bethan Watson

MPhil in Architecture and Urban Design, University of Cambridge

D ES I G N T H ES I S

Design Thesis Città della Memoria: An alternative reconstruction approach for heritage in post-disaster L’Aquila

by Bethan Watson Robinson College, University of Cambridge 27th May 2016

A Design Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil Examination in Architecture & Urban Design (2014-2016).

Word Count: 14,947

Acknowledgements: Antonello Alici Ingrid Schröder All at the GSSI in L’Aquila Thanks also go to those friends, colleagues and family who have provided invaluable help and support.

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.

Cover Image: Pattern of the white and pink stone facade of the Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio, L’Aquila

CittĂ della Memoria

CONTENTS

Introduction

Part One

1-3

4 - 13

The significant spaces of an evolved city

Part Two

14 - 29

The chaotic unpicking of an evolved city

Part Three

30 - 47

The question of what to restore or rebuild

Part Four

48 - 63

An exploration of how to restore or rebuild

Conclusion

64 - 65

References and Bibliography

66 - 71

Appendices

A 72 - 79

i

Città della Memoria

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Maps to locate the project site within a wider context.

2. Plan of the proposed project site.

3. Photograph of a L’Aquila resident sharing her memories on a poster at a public seminar.

4. Pre-earthquake analysis of significant places in the centre.

5. Photograph of La Fontana delle Novantanove Cannelle.

6. Photographs of the Basilica di Collemaggio and Perdonanza.

7. Portici lining Il Corso in 1980. (Image source: Renzetti et al., 2010) 8. Pre-earthquake plan of Piazza Palazzo, before the founding of Univaq.

9. Pre-earthquake plan of Piazza Palazzo, after Univaq.

10. Diagram of the constitution of the pre-earthquake ‘living’ city.

11. Diagram of the constitution of the post-earthquake city, showing changes in memory and significance.

12. Photograph of Casa dello Studente memorial.

13. Photographs of a CASE condominium and its seismic supports.

14. Map of post-earthquake settlements and initiatives.

15. Photograph of L’Aquilone shopping centre.

16. Photograph of the post-earthquake market in Piazza d’Armi.

17. Photograph of the temporary theatre in Piazza d’Arti.

18. Photograph of the ‘wheelbarrow protest’ in 2010. (Image

sourc e: CafeBabel online, http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/society/article/ laquila-post-earthquake-wheelbarrow.html [Accessed 23/4/16])

ii

Unless otherwise referenced in this list, all figures were produced by the author.

19. Photographs of CaseMatte.

20. Diagram of the incomplete nature of memory of the city postearthquake.

21. Photographs of the Mother Church in Salemi after

rehabilitation. (Image sourc e: DETAIL Inspiration online,

http://www.detail-online.com/inspiration/urban-renewal-in-salemiitaly-106948.html [Accessed 20/5/16])

22. Photograph of Gibellina Vecchia land art.

23. Photograph of Casa dello Studente.

24. Photographs of the Basilica di San Bernardino.

25. Panoramic photograph of Palazzo Camponeschi.

26. Comparison of the Partal Palace portico, Alhambra, pre- and post-restoration. (Image source: Vit-Suzan, I., 2014. Architectural heritage revisited: a holistic engagement of its tangible and intangible constituents. pp. 136-137)

27. Photographs of Venzone, Italy, post-restoration dov’era com’era.

28. Photographs of L’Auditorium del Parco. (Plan image source: Renzo Piano Building Workshop online, http://www.rpbw.com/ project/95/auditorium-del-parco/ [Accessed 10/4/16]).

29. Diagram of the current reconstruction focus in L’Aquila.

30. Design tests to explore contemporary design in historic fabric.

31. Photographs of the restoration of the Castelvecchio, Verona.

32. Still from a film, showing Bar Boss in 2016.

33. Process diagram for acquiring planning permission in L’Aquila.

34. Photograph of the Chiesa di Santa Margherita stone facade.

iii

CittĂ della Memoria

35. Pre-earthquake analysis of the centre, highlighting five proposed nodes of revitalisation.

36. Design exploration of the post-earthquake five nodes of

revitalisation, focusing on piazze Palazzo and Vincenzo Rivera.

37. Model exploring incremental changes within Piazza Rivera.

38. Design exploration to develop an incremental approach for intervening in historic fabric.

39. Photograph of a L’Aquila resident sharing his memories on a poster at a public seminar, with details of his contribution.

40. Model of the Espacio Goya museum proposal by Herzog

& de Meuron. (Image sourc e: Afasia Archzine online, http:// afasiaarchzine.com/2010/07/herzog-de-meuron_ 31-4/ [Accessed 12/2/16])

41. Design exploration of specific moments in the city abstracted as material and spatial resources based on memory.

42. Diagrams of the proposed pilot scheme and the evolution of a central node of significance.

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Translations from Italian to English are the author’s, unless specifically referenced.

CASE

Complessi Antisismici Sostenibili ed Ecocompatibili (Anti-seismic, Sustainable and Environmentally friendly Complexes)

GSSI

Gran Sasso Science Institute

NGO

Non-governmental organization

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SPAB

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

Univaq

University of L’Aquila

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

USRA

Ufficio Speciale per la Ricostruzione dell’Aquila (Special Office for the Reconstruction of L’Aquila)

v

Città della Memoria

Teramo

Mare Adriatico

Pescara

Abruzzo region in Italy

L’Aquila

Chieti

The four provinces in Abruzzo.

Comitatus (in red) within L’Aquila province.

L’Aquila municipality within Comitatus, showing historic centre within periphery

Pilot project site in historic centre

CITTÀ DELLA MEMORIA AN ALTERNATIVE RECONSTRUCTION APPROACH FOR HERITAGE IN POST-DISASTER L’AQUILA

INTRODUCTION Following a devastating earthquake in the Abruzzo region of Italy in April 2009, the historic centre of L’Aquila was evacuated and remains largely abandoned. The displacement of the inhabitants has left empty buildings to fall into disrepair, and the city is struggling to recover under protracted redevelopment focused on reconstruction dov’era, com’era - where it was and how it was.

Figure 1.

Pilot project site location within wider context of the large, complex territory of the Comitatus Aquilanus.

This thesis argues for an alternative approach to heritage reconstruction in L’Aquila’s historic centre. It explores the possibility of change and development that relates to the former structure of the city as manifest in the memories of its citizens and the spatial configuration of the urban fabric. It relates to a speculative project which forms part of the wider scope of this thesis. The pilot project concentrates on renovating a series of structures which face onto Piazza Vincenzo Rivera, to form a sociocultural node within the centre (Figures 1 and 2). It proposes different stages of new building, partial rebuilding and total restoration. The aim is to create spaces that reflect places familiar to local people and complement the medieval city fabric, whilst being innovative in function and design where appropriate.

The need for an alternative reconstruction methodology stems from three primary, interrelated issues: First, the effects of the earthquake’s destruction leads to intangible shifts in meaning of the centre and its physical discontinuity; second, the poor post-earthquake management of the centre and related

1

Chiesi Edifici Speciale Commercial / Residential

Città della Memoria

Significant Palazzi Proposed site of new build

Key Cultural hub site University of L’Aquila Church Significant public building Commercial or residential Significant Palazzi Proposed site of new building

Project Site

Palazzo Carli, 17th century

University of L’Aquila

Partial re-build

All new build

Chiesi

Edifici Speciale

Piazza Vincenzo Rivera

Commercial / Residential Significant Palazzi

Proposed site of new build

Palazzo Camponeschi, 18th century

Chiesa Santa Margherita

All restored

Piazza Margherita

Palazzo Carli, 17th century

Partial re-build

All new build

Piazza

Piazza Palazzo Vincenzo Rivera

Palazzo Camponeschi, 18th century

Chiesa Santa Margherita

Piazza Margherita

All restored

Piazz Palaz

2

Introduction

Figure 2.

Site of the proposed project within the historic centre, identifying key buildings.

redevelopment trajectory of L’Aquila; third, the outdated definition of heritage and the conservative conservation approach in Italy. The architectural design proposal, whilst not attempting to solve these problems, is a prototypical example of how the topics of heritage conservation policy, sociocultural engagement, and tectonic development can be brought together. Design experiments demonstrate a strategy for the mixed treatment of heritage - material, technical and spatial possibilities - to explore the consequences of these issues and changes in collective memory.

The thesis is primarily informed by interviews, informal conversations and general observations gathered first-hand in L’Aquila, acknowledging the subjective nature of memory presented through local stories and ideas (Figure 3). Interviews with forty-two L’Aquila residents were undertaken during an initial one week field study in December 2014, and subsequent nine month fieldwork placement from May 2015 - February 2016, when research and site analysis were conducted alongside the Gran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI). The thesis is supported by existing secondary literature concerned with collective memory, heritage conservation and post-disaster sociocultural recovery.

Figure 3.

Posters displayed during a public seminar on L’Aquila’s reconstruction - organised by the GSSI on 14/12/15 - were used as a means of gathering stories and memories, supplementary to the interviews.

A L’Aquila resident contributes her ideas, and a sample of the results are shown to the right.

3

Città della Memoria

The most significant thing about L’Aquila was the people. I have lived here all my life… The entire city centre is significant, for the ‘life’.

- Aq09, 2014 1

Of course, all the ‘life’ before the earthquake was in the centre, inside the historical wall of the city.

- Ext05, 2015

This is my identity, you know? I’m from L’Aquila. I’m from here. I grew up in the little streets here; it was safe.

- Aq14, 2015

Route of the Perdonanza

Il Corso, lined with portici Piazza Palazzo

La Fontana

Market Main area of small shopping streets

All buildings Pre-20 th century buildings

4

Basilica di Collemaggio

PART ONE

THE SIGNIFICANT SPACES OF AN EVOLVED CITY

Figure 4.

Pre-earthquake plan of the centre and analysis of significant places, to inform design development which explored key regeneration locations postearthquake (highlighted in red).

1.

A significant number of quotes from

fieldwork interviews are given anonymously at the request of the interviewees. They are referenced by the abbreviation ‘Aq’ for a ‘native’ Aquilani, and ‘Ext’ for an extrinsic source who is nevertheless familiar with or has lived in L’Aquila for several years.

These are followed by a field number and year date. Additional information such as gender, age and profession are given in Appendix 1 under this code.

L’Aquila’s historic core, hereby referred to as the ‘centre’, was vital to the large, evolving territory of the Comitatus Aquilanus (Figure 1), and the focal point of political, economic, sociocultural activity, and heritage identity (Centofanti, 1992). The centre constituted a complex layering of historical, social and civic places and activities which supported the city’s metabolism. This layered structure was disrupted by the 2009 earthquake. Places of significance were disconnected or lost altogether, and the city rendered incomplete (Bullock, 2010). An arbitrary removal or editing of place - which had naturally developed over time - has disrupted aspects of its meaning, leaving the centre discontinuous and incoherent. A reconstruction approach needs to balance what to retain, what to lose, and what to build new, to recreate a similarly complex city metabolism. It is necessary to understand what constitutes the city of L’Aquila to explain the arbitrary removal of place and other effects of the disaster, and to develop an understanding of post-earthquake reconstruction methodologies.

The way in which L’Aquila developed its centre and evolved its civic life is due to what is considered significant within the city, and the distribution of those significant spaces. Initial design proposals explored key regeneration locations post-earthquake (Figure 4). These revealed significant places in pre-earthquake L’Aquila, highlighting the constituent components of the city when it was ‘alive.’ The most significant were within the centre (Aq17, 2015). These places show parts of the city became or remained significant for two primary factors, which can be categorised as either: 1) formal or historically significant, such as the Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio, La Fontana delle Novantanove Cannelle, and public buildings and palazzi; or 2) significant by custom (informal), such as the market, cafes and portici [porticoes] on Il Corso, and others that support the social aspects of civic life.

The first category encompasses places significant for their traditional, formal value. They have an obvious or assumed importance typically due to age, monumentality, striking aesthetic appeal, or evident historical connotations, and

5

CittĂ della Memoria

6

Part One

Figure 5.

La Fontana delle Novantanove Cannelle. The spouts with masks represent the number of L’Aquila’s founding families.

Figure 6.

The Basilica di Collemaggio during the 2015 Perdonanza.

Due to earthquake damage, religious rites took place in front of the main white and pink facade.

Detail of participants in the Perdonanza parade.

are typically defined on Italy’s list of edifici e aree vincolati (protected buildings and areas), similar to Historic England’s listed building register. La Fontana symbolises L’Aquila’s founding story through ‘masks’ representing the ninety-nine founding ‘families,’ who created the centre for market trade in the 13th century (Figures 4 and 5) (Clementi and Piroddi, 1986).

L’Aquila’s religious tradition is represented by the Basilica di Collemaggio, associated with Pope Celestino V (Grillo, 2010; Aq08, 2014). During the Perdonanza Celestiniana, local people parade to the Collemaggio and enter through its Porta Sancta; ‘if you go in then you are cleansed of your sins - it is unique’ (Aq03, 2014). This annual religious rite reveals cultural heritage as traditional and living (Figures 4 and 6) (Worthing and Bond, 2008). Such places are deeply rooted in the community’s sense of place and identity (Ext06, 2015), constituting a material embedding of significance. Both La Fontana and the Collemaggio feature white and pink ashlar masonry, a technique created by Aquilani artisans. This has significance as a representative Aquilan motif (Clementi and Piroddi, 1986) - ‘Before the earthquake, the colours of L’Aquila were red and white - as expressed in the Collemaggio’ (Aq03, 2014). Representations of this masonry pattern provide a way of identifying with L’Aquila’s historic places (Renzetti et al., 2010).

This produces ‘a sense of continuity and popular identification that many people find comforting’ during times of change and disaster, by providing elements of continuity between past and changing present (Belanger, 2002: 75).

The second, informal category is broader in scope. The initial design explorations revealed that parts of the city are significant by ‘custom’, and remain significant because of their value in terms of customary use, and consistency of that use. The sociologist Kracauer (1963) discusses wider social relations in a city, raising awareness of marginal, ordinary, or ‘low culture’ places and practices. These places are familiar to local people, and hold common everyday value in a city. Jacobs (1962) places them within a whole informal system that sustains the street, with social interactions inherent in these spaces growing from an urban plan that evolved naturally, gradually, and with diversity. This category also encompasses an alternative significance identified by the local population, including

7

Città della Memoria

personal significance: ‘this is where I met my wife’ (Aq11, 2015), and, ‘my friend used to live here’ (Aq19, 2015). These stories can be equally significant to local inhabitants as formal, historical value (Sim, in Dalsgaard 2012).

A significant site of public culture in the centre is Il Corso, lined by ‘i portici e i molti caffe… pieni di folla’ [‘the arcades and the many cafes… full of crowds’] (Figures 7) (Piovene, 1961: 430). The interviewees also remember ‘little shops’ down narrow medieval streets (Ext05, 2015). Many locals stress the significance of the daily market in the main square, which ‘was important for everyone… because it was every day, it was genuine… very characteristic’ (Aq19, 2015). The portici and the market reflect a typical outdoor Italian lifestyle, manifested in L’Aquila through their connection to the Gran Sasso mountains - ‘thousands of people go walking here… A major culture in a mountain city’ (Aq14, 2015).

L’Aquila’s physical, social and civic structure grew out of these two categories of significant space, forming a complex web that binds places of historical value with places of customary value, reinforced by surrounding insignificant places. Mundane places are important for shaping significance, forming connective structures which help memorialise the city, orientating places of spiritual, political or collective consciousness. The citizens’ spaces in pre-earthquake L’Aquila were not only churches, basilicas, and palazzi. Whilst these places remain historically valuable to shape local identity, the significant spaces of the

8

Figure 7.

Portici which line Il Corso, the central spine of the city, in 1980. Portici are significant spaces in L’Aquila, representing an outdoor lifestyle.

Part One

citizens are now places of ‘real’ civic engagement - bars, cafes, piazze (squares), portici, shopping streets, markets - reinforcing a predominantly sociocultural identity.

Memories of the local people provide a wider understanding of the two categories, revealed through their stories rather than secondary sources (Sim, in Dalsgaard 2012). Collective memories create a layered understanding of place, such as the numerous recollections of interviewees relating Il Corso to social life.

Certain memories become more significant through emotional references, repeated connotations, and ‘cyclical regularity’ (Belanger, 2002: 91). Places of significance in a city can be defined as ‘habitual’ memories embedded in spaces, cultural practices and language, and the ‘habitual’ memories preserved by a population shape its future as a constitutive element of civic life (Casey, 1987: 147). By preserving significant places reinforced by memory, a population establishes monuments or landmarks as mnemonic devices, constructing narratives of civic identity (Belanger, 2002). Collective memories can therefore be as poignant as significant buildings which have been physically preserved.

It is necessary to understand varied collective memories to understand the city, significance, and its identity. Connerton argues ‘our experiences of the present largely depend upon our knowledge of the past’ (1989: 3), reinforced by Belanger, who showed that a population’s memory is crucial ‘in the making of identities’ (2002: 69). The Perdonanza is one example where memory of the past is sustained by commemorative public ceremony. Similarly, without collective memories such as those defined by La Fontana, a community would be unable to provide explanations of mythology, tradition, or heritage (Olick et al., 2011), since myths ‘constitute the realm of the collective subconscious’ (Gedi and Elam, 1996: 31). In this way, memory has the ability to attach a population to certain spaces by evoking emotions or identification, grounding them in place.

Memories of significant places can provide an understanding of how to reconstruct in L’Aquila’s centre. It is additionally useful to consider how these places inform a wider understanding of the city and its development pre-earthquake. Informal and formal

9

Città della Memoria

significant places are fundamental elements of the city, defining its constituent components. A concept originating in Roman thought proposes that the city has two constitutive elements - urbs and civitas. Urbs was perceived to be an ‘actual place of assembly, the dwelling place…the sanctuary’ (Isin, 2008).

Jennings (2001: 90) expands this definition to embrace sites of ‘religious gathering’, ‘ritual’, and ‘commercial transactions’: ‘an urbs is a market… [and] life with market relationships.’

Urbs can loosely be defined as the physical structure of the two categories of significance - formal and informal. Civitas describes the informal ‘political and moral community’ of a city (Ibid.). Identified as ‘the religious and political association of families and tribes’ (Isin, 2008), civitas concerns the practice of citizenship. A complete view of the city is mutually dependent on the two constituent concepts (Isin, 2008). Urbs and civitas highlight elements of a city’s structure that are fundamental to ‘processes of identity construction’ (Belanger, 2002: 81).

L’Aquila developed from these constituent components, and its population evolved significant spaces as they continued and reinforced specific practices and customs. What they have chosen to retain through memory or practice will have shaped the city physically by preserving, creating, distilling or negating places of significance and cultural heritage. The most significant reveal urbs and civitas, by embodying essential components of urban public life (Amin, 2006).

The understanding of the city as an interdependent system of urbs and civitas, built by significant space and reinforced by memory, is exemplified by L’Aquila’s piazze. The legendary founding of the city is reinforced physically in the town fabric and urban layout; the ninety-nine families each built a ‘castle’ and piazza (Clementi and Piroddi, 1986: 133). The complex Italian ‘street and square’ system is fundamental to secular city life and creates focal points for the community (Aq16, 2015). This arrangement, having guided past collective memory, can shape future cultural and physical formation (Boyer, 1994). The social encounters enforced by this system draw a community together (Emden et al., 2006), reinforced by the way local people relate to these spaces: ‘Piazza San Pietro, Piazza San Biaggio, Piazza Palazzo, and the main street - in general, we can say that this was my world here’ (Aq14, 2015). Piazza Palazzo exemplifies

10

Part One

Figure 8.

Pre-earthquake plan of Piazza Palazzo, before the introduction Univaq. The surrounding buildings (urbs) were central to civic life (civitas) in L’Aquila.

‘the town planning system which is fundamental to Italian culture - the pattern of squares’ (Ext03, 2014). It was L’Aquila’s civic centre since its foundation, revealing local socio-political culture (Clementi and Piroddi, 1986). In the piazza, civic life is inherently related to urbs through its surrounding historic buildings (Figure 8).

Despite changes to the city’s population and its expanding periphery, Piazza Palazzo has maintained its central role. There were profound economic and sociocultural changes in L’Aquila at the end of the 20 th century, notably: the founding of the Università degli Studi dell’Aquila (Univaq) in 1964; rural to urban migration; urban expansion into a città diffusa [sprawling city] post-World War II; and a declining manufacturing industry (OECD, 2013; Ext06, 2015). Subsequent physical adaptations affected citizen’s social fabric and identity (Gotham and Greenberg, 2014). Previously a ‘typical middle sized town with a compact society’ (Ext06, 2015) composed of Aquilani natives and ‘historical families’ (Aq17, 2015), the centre’s day-to-day population shifted mid-20 th century to become predominantly ‘una città di funzionari e di impiegati’ [a city of officials and employees] (Piovene, 1961: 432). An external student user group arrived with Univaq. This reflects Lefebvre’s (1996) observation that spaces are a constitutive and formative force of social relations, with the result that physical changes required a re-identification of society. Piazza Palazzo is emblematic of the shift in population; surrounding streets were filled with restaurants and student housing, as nearby palazzi in Piazza

11

Città della Memoria

Vincenzo Rivera began to house University functions. These piazze became especially popular with university students for their prolific bar scene (Aq18, 2015; Figure 9). Memories give an insight into this aspect of developing culture: [Piazza Palazzo] was a place that was open... During the day it was so crowded by people who go to offices, to the University, to the library; but during the evening, only students!

(Ext05, 2015) The centre similarly remained the focal point of L’Aquila’s cultural, social and heritage identity throughout these pre-earthquake changes (Ext05, 2015). This highlights a differentiation between places of residence and places of daily civic inhabitation, which reinforces the irreducible nature of co-dependant urbs and civitas (Isin, 2008). The pre-earthquake population, approximately 80% of whom lived in the periphery, came to the centre for commercial, social, cultural, and workbased activities (Chiodelli, 2015). It also brought together students from peripheral departments, similar to a campus (Tamburini, 2015). Interviewees remembered the centre as the focus of their sociocultural lives: The centre was ‘the’ place, you know? All the people of the suburbs, we went to spend our social life in the centre… We have this software in the mind to go here.

(Aq14, 2015)

12

Figure 9.

Pre-earthquake plan of Piazza Palazzo after the introduction Univaq (dark blue). The shift in population led to local reidentification with this square, which became surrounded by student amenities (light blue).

Part One

Significant Places: Formal, historic Informal, customary: personal collective Memories of formal and informal

Figure 10.

Schematic diagram to show that the pre-earthquake, ‘living’ city constituted a variety of widespread significant places to form a complex whole.

Significant Places: Places: Significant Formal, historic Informal, customary: personal collective Memories of formal and informal

I think that before the earthquake, the culture of L’Aquila was the centre, in all the senses. Why? Because all things you have to do you have to go in the centre of L’Aquila.

(Aq13, 2015) The pre-earthquake city was a complex, complete whole, composed of urbs and civitas - a system given meaningful significance through physical fabric, through the customary use of that fabric, and through the memory of that use (Figure 10). The city grew out of this system, categorised by the formal and the informal. Urban collective memory reflects these two categories, painting a picture of significance within L’Aquila reinforced by the initial design analysis and factors held by secondary sources. Thus far, these relate to a ‘typical’ or ‘living’ city scenario during ordinary times. Extraordinary circumstances created post-disaster heighten, redefine or relocate these notions of significance. Understanding these changes enables a picture of post-earthquake significance and memory of L’Aquila to be created, and is vital in reconstruction by recognising that heritage and history are constructed in the present.

13

Città della Memoria

For us, the earthquake was like point zero… ‘before the earthquake’ and ‘after the earthquake’. Before christ and after christ.

- Ext05, 2015

Human activities were concentrated in the centre… The earthquake was like a bomb that projected in a radius of 30km all the activities that were concentrated here.

- Aq15, 2015

The city centre is just a piece of memory now.

- Ext04, 2014

14

PART TWO

THE CHAOTIC UNPICKING OF AN EVOLVED CITY The complete constitution of the city - urbs and civitas - is disrupted by natural disasters or war. It risks losing social cohesion and animation as the threads of significance which held it together are broken. These lost threads - institutional and historic, incidental and familiar - cannot be completely recreated, requiring a new methodology to recapture their meaning. To re-create a ‘living’ city, however altered, requires careful consideration of what can be lost and what must be returned to that system of which urbs and civitas are both vital components. Understanding the constitution of L’Aquila as a complex system is the basis for explaining the effect of the earthquake in arbitrarily disrupting and removing parts of it.

The effect of this destruction is three-fold: 1) an intangible shift in the spaces of significance and meaning of the centre, expressed by post-disaster memories of terremotati (people affected by the earthquake); 2) physical discontinuity and incoherence in the fabric of the centre; and 3) little remains or has been reconstructed to date to support the sociocultural structure of terremotati.

To establish a selective reconstruction methodology, it is important to consider significance and local cultural heritage values contained in collective memories of terremotati, as other tangible forms are lost or suspended. Memories generate a post-earthquake notion of significant places within local urban collective memory and reveal significance beyond the first category of formal, historical buildings. Terremotati typically identify lost customary activities: ‘mi mancava Il Corso’ [I miss the main street] - I loved to walk in the streets of L’Aquila’ (Aq13, 2015). Memories are ‘a subjective manifestation… of space that is both socially determined and socially determining’ (Belanger, 2002: 81); therefore what the terremotati have remembered directly reveals what remains of their social civic structure and locates it within the physical fabric of the city.

The disaster changed the role and perception of cultural heritage and social values in L’Aquila. Memories depend on the living experiences of a community and fade unless they are kept alive (Boyer, 1994: 66); this lived experience is reliant on

15

Città della Memoria

physical space (Rich, 2012; Casey, 1987). The terremotati were denied access to their centre for three years post-earthquake, and therefore worry that memories of their centre and social structure will be lost (Sim, in Dalsgaard 2012): I see people who have grown up in this city, and they are trying to list the places they love in order not to lose them. I can see it - they cannot even remember sometimes ‘What was the name of that square?’ or ‘where was that place?’… Of course, it’s fragmented now.

(Aq12, 2015) Something happened like there is a loss of memory… I used to remember the names of the streets where I used to go everyday for years… And now, I don’t remember at all.

(Aq17, 2015) This ‘loss of memory’ is an effect of the earthquake, and leads to an intangible shift in the spaces of collective significance and meaning, expressed by changes in memory of use. Before, the local people thought about and remembered the centre in a particular way; when it was lost, a different memory was created.

‘Selective’ memory post-disaster involves terremotati choosing to remember the most important places and practices to them (Belanger, 2002: 76). Selective memory is ‘powerfully operative in the process of social and cultural definition and identification’ (Ibid.), leading to changes in what the population identify as significant. Some places will become doubly significant, some less significant, others forgotten and ‘lost’ completely (Figure 11). The terremotati therefore re-express elements of cultural heritage most essential to them, whilst incorporating new forms and places of collective identity and significance related to the earthquake and loss.

The various places which have remained significant create a ‘connective structure’ between past and present (Staiger et al, 2009: 5), such as the Perdonanza which prevailed through disaster. This ceremony can be healing - ‘now, I see it [the Collemaggio] as a symbol of my city; but you know, it never meant anything to me [before]’ (Aq19, 2015). The ‘commemoration of

16

Part Two

Significant Places: Formal, historic Informal, customary (yet not ‘living’) Memories Related to loss and memorialisation

Figure 11.

loss’ and continued ‘ritual celebration of holidays… can provide anchors to past community identity and help with social reconstruction’ (Haider, 2008: 5). La Fontana, restored in 2012, is another continuing, inherent element of local culture and collective identity (Aq18, 2015). By re-engaging with their founding spatial myth through La Fontana, terremotati re-root the community in its history. These examples typify the way in which reconstruction efforts are using physical places as devices of memorialisation and recovery (Haider, 2008). By locating the Perdonanza, associated Collemaggio, and La Fontana within living space of the community, terremotati physically re-weave the formal, institutional life of the city and provide a focal point for ceremonial grief.

some lost, some fade, some double many places consigned to memory

Schematic diagram to show that significant places can be lost, fade, or become doubly significant post-earthquake.

Some places are consigned to memory and significance of disaster sites is raised.

Significant Significant Places: Places: Formal, historic Informal, customary (yet not ‘living’) Memories Related to loss and memorialisation

Post-disaster shifts in meaning, memory and significance aggregate around recognisable symbols such as La Fontana, which has gained new meaning. The shifts also raise the significance of specific disaster sites, which become a focus for ‘traumatic (exemplifying painful)’ memories (Casey, 1987: 147; see also Figure 11). According to Boym, ‘one remembers best what is coloured by emotion’ (Boym, 2001: 52), hence terremotati have the ability to consolidate traumatic memory into additional focal points of ceremonial grief that have become significant specifically for connotations of loss. The Casa dello Studente is ‘the building which best symbolises the tragedy of the earthquake… that cursed building’ (dell’Associazione Agora, 2009: 4; see also Ext02, 2014). The Casa residence expressed the central pre-earthquake university culture. After, it became

some lost, some fade, some double many places consigned to memory

17

Città della Memoria

a specific site of disaster and traumatic memory, having suffered ‘pancake-style’ collapse that led to the loss of eight student lives (Alexander, 2014: 1166) (Figure 12). Their deaths - amongst the fifty student lives lost of the total 309 earthquake fatalities - remain significant to the community. The Casa remains untouched, which leaves a continual reminder of the horror the earthquake and political issues surrounding it poor construction (Grillo and Vitturini, 2009).

The Casa exemplifies another effect of the earthquake - the problem of emptiness. The issue of absence and subsequent abandonment of the centre is a painful issue for terremotati - ‘it’s a pity to see, it’s hard to see this place empty without people…

I don’t like to go there now. Everything is a building site so it’s very difficult to recognise the place’ (Ext05, 2015). For others, their experiences of the centre have been entirely reshaped by the current emptiness - ‘I remember this like a dream, for me the normal now is the ghost town. It’s strange to think that the houses that I see now were full of life…’ (Aq14, 2015).

The physical break in the fabric of the centre, the intangible shift in spaces of significance, and subsequent emptiness changes aspects of meaning to the extent that significant spaces risk being lost. Spaces of cultural production and social engagement are being modified amongst a new, younger generation, whose memory is shaped by a category of significance which may not encompass spaces such as the piazza. Many of the youngest locals - too young to remember a time ‘before’ - have never lived

18

Figure 12.

Memorial outside the Casa dello Studente. A continued focal point of ceremonial grief and loss, stemming from traumatic memory.

Part Two

in spaces founded on the ‘street and square’ system. These typical Italian social spaces are not part of their memory of civic life.

This is emphasised by the child who asked his Aquilani mother post-earthquake ‘Mamma, cos’ è la piazza?’ [‘Mamma, what is a square?’] (Stockel, 2013), and reinforced by the interviewees: I think the city has changed a lot, radically. We have a lot of generations that don’t even know how life was before in the centre…

(Aq19, 2015) Even the young generation… spent their childhood without social structure, without knowing what a square is, only living in commercial centres and things… So they don’t care at all about the centre.

(Aq17, 2015) In establishing a selective reconstruction methodology, the mutually defining nature of civic life and urban structure must be considered. The pain of loss is embedded in more than tangible places; an effect of the earthquake was the disruption to the everyday, and the disturbance to the continuity of life (Aq16, 2015). The removal of this support from the city coincides with a physical break in the fabric, reiterating the interdependence of urbs and civitas (Isin, 2008). Physical space being both a constitutive and formative force of social relations (Lefebvre, 1996), results in disruption or loss of one affecting the other.

This sense of socio-spatial loss is created by terremotati stories, revealing a variety of formal and informal significance - ‘I miss the city in general, the relationships… It’s not one thing, because everything has changed’ (Aq14, 2015). Reconstruction in L’Aquila’s centre entails giving value to a number of different locations because the value of the city is contained in different places, all of which contain a continuity of history for terremotati - ‘everything, everywhere you can find memory… everywhere you have someone who lived there, or a pub, or a place which used to be something’ (Aq20, 2015).

Reconstruction of L’Aquila’s centre must therefore consider physical fabric, which is currently discontinuous and incoherent, and the layering of pre-earthquake sociocultural networks

19

Città della Memoria

which have only been partially or temporarily restored. Such considerations will build upon the intangible shifts in meaning, to fully determine the impact of reframed, selective memories on the significance of the city. The post-disaster environment and its particular sense of socio-spatial loss can be identified first in the physical destruction and removal of the centre; second in the subsequent developments constructed outside the centre; and third by the temporary initiatives terremotati are creating in order to address the first two issues.

L’Aquila’s post-disaster environment was created by the earthquake’s natural, erratic removal of place, then exacerbated by the conscious ‘removal’ of the entire centre by the postearthquake management. This has a negative impact on the city’s redevelopment trajectory, as the terremotati were denied the opportunity of retaining living experiences through physical places. Immediately post-earthquake, the national government, under then Prime Minister Berlusconi, seized control of the city, suspending all capabilities of the Comune dell’Aquila (municipality). They handed control to the Commissario Delegato per la Ricostruzione [Commissioner for Reconstruction], associated with the Ministri Dipartimento della Protezione Civile [Civil Protection Agency], headed by Berlusconi’s close aide Guido Bertolaso. The Commissario declared the entire centre a red zone, patrolled by military guard. It became a major void, creating a post-disaster environment without significance, ‘because everything was closed you couldn’t go back there it was a sensation of sorrow. I was missing it. It was really a presence’ (Aq12, 2015).

The ‘wounds’ inflicted on the city, by both disaster and political policy, caused ‘socio-spatial patterns of damage, loss, displacement’ and poor recovery (Gotham and Greenberg, 2014: 22). Berlusconi is widely considered to have used L’Aquila’s disaster to divert attention from his political and private life (Ozerdem and Rufini, 2012; Bock, 2015), and as a means to continue corrupt practices under the guise of reconstruction aid (Alexander, 2012; Ciccozzi, 2011). This three year state of emergency has shaped the city’s trajectory (Bock, 2015).

One notable publicity campaign used state of emergency legislation and public money to re-locate the 2009 G8 Summit

20

Part Two

Figure 13.

A state-funded CASE condominium, and detail of the seismic supports. The complexes provide space for social activity, which may not reflect the needs of terremotati.

from Sardinia to L’Aquila, to attract global attention to the situation (Ibid.). Despite promises made at the G8, Berlusconi subsequently paid little attention to the value of the centre.

Many terremotati feel he redirected resources which should have been used rebuilding their historic town and homes. Protests were held during the Summit (Ibid.) and animosity towards the post-earthquake management still exists: The city is relationships. You have to think about relationships… thinking that identity is important, not working only for your fucking propaganda… because it’s what he did in the first moments. He, Berlusconi, and with the general Bertolaso. Who we hate, we really hate. Our political enemy in that moment.

(Aq14, 2015) Rather than supporting reconstruction of the centre, the Berlusconi-Bertolaso administration initiated the Progetto CASE (Figure 13). These residential developments were planned to ‘temporarily’ re-house approximately 16,000 of the 60,000 displaced residents (Bock, 2015); today they are the permanent homes of many. The nineteen CASE sites were constructed in L’Aquila’s periphery, and have insufficient infrastructural support to commercial zones and the centre (Montanari, 2016; see Figure 14). The CASE failed to provide for the fundamental sociocultural needs of terremotati, blamed on Berlusconi’s administration - ‘they don’t think about the temporary city, what the people need’ (Aq14, 2015). Corruption allegations

21

Città della Memoria

Fig. 14.

Piazza d’Arti

Piazza d’Armi and new market

Rome - Pescara road

urban sprawl university

urban sprawl

airport

airport

case

map

Aterno River

university

N

0

1

2

3

L’Aquilone

Casematte

km

Fig. 15.

22

Fig. 16.

Teatro Nobelperlapace

Part Two

Figure 14.

Map of post-earthquake settlements, government developments and sociocultural initiatives of the terremotati.

were made about the planning and building of the CASE (Ciccozzi, 2011). Until the revelation of the ‘scandal’ in 2010, construction companies worked under unregulated contracts (Alexander, 2012). In November 2010, Bertolaso resigned and Berlusconi’s government were voted out the following year, but the centre remained closed until 2012.

case

Key

case CASE housing settlements UNI admin and services University departments uni departments Other educational facilities student residence Student residences G8 airport Airport for G8 summit, subsequently closed

Figure 15.

L’Aquilone shopping centre floord’Arti pattern which draws on Piazza Piazza d’Armi the pink and whiteand motif newof the market Collemaggio facade.

Figure 16.

Weekly post-earthquake market in Piazza d’Armi, which also has a skate-park, sports-centre and church.

The isolated condition and lack of shared urban space created UNI admin and services a new condition for terremotati. They adapted their customs aquilani stuff and ‘living practices’ to social circumstance (Scott, 1998: 34); uni departments the results of the adaptations are largely considered lamentable other educational stuff (Bock, 2015; Ext06, 2015). During the state of emergency student residence the space of the citizen became peripheral shopping centres G8 airport and parks (Figure 15). Terremotati refer to Piazza d’Armi and L’Aquilone as their central post-earthquake social spaces, especially for younger generations (Aq12, 2015). They are typically considered negatively: ‘I think something that I really dislike is living in these areas like supermarkets, you know L’Aquilone. Now it’s like this - you only go there by car… to this big square. It’s dead, there is no life, it’s neon lights, it’s all like this’ (Aq17, 2015). Piazza d’Armi and L’Aquilone further draw the citizens into the peripheries. The central local market was relocated to Piazza d’Armi, but is a shadow of the former, ‘completely different… it’s not the same thing’ (Aq19, 2015). Its peripheral location means ‘nobody goes there - a few people, pochi persone’ (Aq13, 2015) (Figure 16).

The effects of the earthquake’s destruction and subsequent management caused physical dislocation of place. Due to destruction and exile from the centre during and following the Berlusconi-Bertolaso administration, which failed to support the sociocultural structure of the city, the terremotati are reliant upon collective memories (Olick, 2011). An upsurge of solidarity and new ‘energy’ in terremotati (Aq14, 2015) led a number of groups and individuals to attempt revitalisation, recreating spaces to keep living memory and civic society alive.

The places terremotati chose to recreate were influenced by their memories of identity and significance. In response to the postearthquake social conditions, there was an increase in cultural identification and society-making through new-build and temporary initiatives, created in order to address the issues of

23

Città della Memoria

destruction and displacement (Gotham and Greenberg, 2014).

Figure 17.

The majority of these local initiatives took place in the city’s periphery. While not ‘ideal’ solutions, they temporarily plugged a gap in local civic life, creating shared spaces for everyday encounters and culture (Bock, 2015). One example is The Teatro Nobelperlapace, a makeshift container theatre inaugurated in July 2009 during the G8 summit, in a small village south east of L’Aquila (Figure 14). Similarly, temporary structures frame Piazza d’Arti, a square built at the end of 2009 5km from the centre (Figure 17). In the words of Bock (2015: 84), ‘the place was unattractive: it seemed unfinished, and its temporariness induced a sense of melancholia… The contrast of an assembly of industrial containers plunged into remote urban outskirts with… the beautiful, historic spaces of pre-earthquake urban sociality was striking.’ It did, however, temporarily provide for vital needs not preserved by the government; during the ‘state of considerable social and psychological disorientation’ Piazza d’Arti responded to ‘social needs that were gradually emerging - artistic, cultural, and networking’. 2

Temporary theatre and children’s drama school in Piazza d’Arti, which features other cultural and educational activities.

Terremotati were denied similar opportunities in the centre because Berlusconi’s government suspended ‘democratic participation’ to ‘unleash unlimited state power’ (Bock, 2015: 35-50). This incited a number of reactionary, illegal initiatives which attempted to reclaim existing physical sites of memory within the centre. In February 2010, residents broke in to the red zone and cleared rubble from Piazza Palazzo. This so called

24

2.

See the website of Piazza d’Arti

at http://www.lapiazzaaq.altervista.org/ [Accessed 18/4/16], in particular the information about ‘Fondi Piazza’, 2010.

Part Two

Figure 18.

The ‘wheelbarrow’ protesters, organised by Comitato 3e32, pass by L’Aquila’s main square en route to Piazza Palazzo.

‘wheelbarrow protest’ emphasised the loss of this square, its social connotations, and of the centre more generally (Bock, 2015). The biggest loss to the city is the people (Aq04, Aq06, 2014; Aq17, 2015); Piazza Palazzo symbolises loss as it was the busiest, most popular place. The wheelbarrow protest was organised by a post-earthquake left-wing grass-roots group, Comitato 3e32 (Figure 18). The intention was to restructure space to re-create a lost but familiar place and redefine the community’s sense of its own location (Emden, et al., 2006).

This protest highlights the connective structure of piazze between past and present local significance. The lived experience of piazze comes from their habitual use (Casey, 1987). By attempting to re-form significance of old piazze such as Piazza Palazzo, and by creating new squares such as Piazza d’Arti, terremotati found temporary ways of keeping alive these spaces which were so vital to them.

Dislocating people to the peripheries not only affected the social topography of memory, it also denied terremotati an identification with their heritage (Zunino, 2016). Further political acts attempted to rediscover place and space in order to keep memory alive. Comitato 3e32 created a settlement of temporary wooden shelters in the centre, called CaseMatte. It functions as the base for their ongoing political activism, part of ‘the movement of the citizens of the town that were asking for reconstruction which would be participated by the people, with accountability’ (Aq15, 2015). CaseMatte is also used as a popular public space where concerts and similar sociocultural

25

Città della Memoria

Pre-earthquake ‘living’ places of significance:

Post-earthquake incompleteness:

Significant Places: Formal, historic Informal, customary (yet not ‘living’) Memories of formal and informal

and

Related to loss and memorialisation

26

incomplete nature of memory incompleteness and model for reconstruction

Part Two

Figure 19.

activities are frequently hosted (Figure 19).

CaseMatte, in the grounds of L’Aquila’s disused asylum complex close to the Collemaggio.

The actions and initiatives of the terremotati, based on their changed post-earthquake memories, offer an incomplete view of L’Aquila’s civic life. A selective view of significance in this way can be useful post-disaster, when quick decisions must be made about what to save, rebuild or demolish, and acting in a timely manner is crucial to recovery. The past ideas and memories of a population are a valuable tool to rebuild a city, which acknowledges that heritage and history are constructed in the present. As a representation of the incomplete nature of memory, incompleteness becomes a model for reconstruction (Figure 20).

Figure 20.

Before disaster, there was formal significance, living customary significance, and memories.

After, there is incomplete memory due to inhabitants’ displacement - leaves gaps in the centre which highlight incompleteness.

Significant Places: Significant Places: Formal, historic Informal, customary: Significant Places: personal Formal, historic collective Informal, customary Memories of formal and (yet not ‘living’) informal Memories Related to loss and memorialisation

An incomplete view of the city, told by preserved memories, celebrates significance and cultural heritage. It tells a story about the whole through its key constitutive components. A collection of memories gives the impression of having understood the whole city structure of urbs and civitas. This is exemplified in the narratives of Sebald, who’s novel Austerlitz (2001) is concerned with themes of memory and loss. It is a seemingly disconnected flow of fragmentary information ‘based on memory’s partial and subjective perspective’ (Erll and Rigney, 2009: 68), and yet leaves the reader with a sense of having understood a much wider condition (Sebald, 2001). Fragmented memories similarly reveal those aspects of the city most significant to its population, giving an impression of the whole. For L’Aquila, the actions based on selectively preserved memories during the state of emergency gave a picture of cultural heritage and social community values found in places such as the piazza, rather than tangible, historic structures.

Architectural design has a role to play in preserving these places which reflect the memory of significance. Architecture ‘comprises a part of our memories, of our daily life’, and so designing for incompleteness would ensure that ‘in a world destroyed to rubble’ the quick recovery of comforting memories and associated spaces can be evoked as ‘a form of ritual against chaos’ (Bullock, 2010: 232). To aid recovery in this way, architectural and urban design should create or distil significant places in L’Aquila by focusing on the incomplete

some lost, some fade, some double many places consigned to memory

27

CittĂ della Memoria

28

Part Two

Figure 21.

Incomplete design approach to the rehabilitation of the Mother Church in Salemi to create a public square from the ruin.

Figure 22.

Il Grande Cretto di Burri - land art created from the ruin of Gibellina. Destroyed buildings were levelled to an even height, boarded up, and encased in concrete.

memory. An example of design through incompleteness is the rehabilitation of the Mother Church in Salemi, Sicily, after the Belice earthquake in 1968. Architects Siza and Collovà focused on cultural preservation and incomplete re-crafting of significant public space rather than physical completion of structures (Figure 21). For Salemi’s terremotati - determined to regain heritage as ‘an essential component of their identity’ - the retained ruins have ‘profound value as a testimony to memory’ (Versaci and Cardaci, 2012: 208). A different design approach was taken in Gibellina Vecchia, a town close to Salemi also destroyed in 1968. Instead of reconstruction in an incomplete way, the artist Burri created a vast piece of land art from the ruined town, using built form as an evocative, specific memorialisation of a place (Figure 22). Consigning the town to memory created a new significance from the physical space - a site for consolidating traumatic memory and providing a vast focal point for ceremonial grief.

In Salemi and Gibellina, design was used as a means to preserve, create or distil significance. Salemi offered an alternative method to retain identity and civic life through an understanding of memory and forms of significance as connective structures between pre- and post-earthquake places and ideas. In L’Aquila, it is critically important to prevent the further scattering and dilution of the population, and architectural design can encourage terremotati to return to their places of collective memory in order to sustain them (Olick, 2011). Reconstruction and new architecture should work with the found condition and current identity of the citizen. This is a forward looking approach similar to that taken in Salemi, which understood the current urban topography of memory post-earthquake and maintained references to the disaster rather than rebuilding what was lost. It is unnecessary to try to completely rebuild L’Aquila’s centre; of more importance is to focus on a selective return prioritising those aspects preserved by incomplete memory. Reconstruction must be grounded in a thorough, place-based approach to what can, and should, be restored or demolished and built new in L’Aquila’s centre.

29

Città della Memoria

In L’Aquila it’s difficult to make the Pompidou centre!…

In Italy it is difficult, in L’Aquila it is difficult. The law in Italy is not so soft, for heritage.

- Ext05, 2015

The living and work condition - particularly the living condition - has deteriorated… Clearly social life has been affected all about.

- Ext06, 2015

30

PART THREE

THE QUESTION OF WHAT TO RESTORE OR REBUILD In L’Aquila, the debate regarding reconstruction is highly sensitive. Post-disaster the arbitrary removal of constituent parts of the centre and subsequent management necessitates careful decision making about what should be returned to the city. Considered prioritisation is essential to recognise the need for reconstruction based on selective memory and shifts in significance. A current debate within heritage conservation, in particular the definition of cultural heritage, has skewed the priorities for rebuilding, leading to an incomplete city structure.

There remains a strong argument to reset the parameters for heritage significance, to prioritise the network of sociocultural community assets alongside tangible, physical monuments.

According to terremotati, the significance of the centre is not contained within one building or space. Significance also depends on surrounding informal, customary places.

Additionally, the parts that should be prioritised in rebuilding must take in to account post-earthquake changes; what was there before might not have relevance in the changed city. The particular and ingrained attitude towards heritage preservation - seen throughout Europe - results in reconstruction rarely being considered in this way. This approach stems from the commonly held understanding of ‘heritage’ itself.

Traditional concepts largely prioritise a singular idea of value in heritage - it is the oldest, biggest or most beautiful building. The Venice Charter, 1964, established the modern conservation ethic, defining heritage in terms of ‘historical, scientific, educational or more generally cultural significance’.

This definition is still predominant (Smith, 2006: 26). The distorted depiction highlights the bias towards monumental, grandiose significance in public consciousness after post-World War concerns reinforced heritage as a topic of national interest (Hewison, 1987). This approach to conservation is exemplified

by English Heritage who emphasise ‘place’ and ‘fabric’, focusing on tangibility, de-valuing experiential and community values independent of built form (English Heritage, 2008: 35).

The focus of heritage conservation consequently reflects a prioritisation of the formal category of established significant

31

Città della Memoria

places. This results in certain aspects of the city receiving priority in public consciousness, whilst other aspects are frequently marginalised, overlooked or rejected. English Heritage, for example, define four broad heritage values: evidential, historical, aesthetic, and communal (English Heritage, 2008).

Communal value alone identifies the second category of customary significance, deriving from ‘the meanings of a place for the people for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory’ (English Heritage, 2008: 31). This still depends on a view of heritage that is related to tangible, physical spaces: ‘communal values are closely bound up with historical and aesthetic values’ (Ibid.). The second category of significance is often overlooked because these places, relating to ordinary contemporary civic practice such as café’s and markets, cannot be considered ‘heritage’ against the usual criteria of age and aesthetics.

The narrow focus of heritage conservation policy leads to specific criteria for restoration or reconstruction post-disaster, that fails to reflect its true significance. This narrow rebuilding prioritisation stemmed from considerations about heritage treatment in the early 20 th century during patterns of destruction and new build, in particular post-World War II (Figure 23). Demolition and new construction were frequently preferred to re-construction (Bullock, 2010). This highlighted issues regarding the preservation of our past and the need for new conservation methodologies (Hewison, 1987). Policies developed by the culture of restoration up to that point ‘were no longer adequate’ (Versaci and Cardaci, 2012: 211). Protection of buildings was therefore explicitly incorporated into most planning policies, reflecting the simple humanist desire to restore and preserve after disaster (Bullock, 2010). Subsequent conservation debates led to different ways of dealing with postdisaster reconstruction, ‘ranging from the maintenance of the works of art in the state of ruins’ to reconstruction ‘as they were, where they were’, to demolition and new build (Versaci and Cardaci, 2012: 211).

In Italy, the post-war debates led to an extreme form of conservation conservatism. The debates coincided with a growing notion of collective ownership over Italian patrimony.

32

Part Three

Figure 23.

Casa dello Studente is an example of post-war development in L’Aquila’s centre. New build in historic centres in the early 20 th century exacerbated strict Italian conservation laws.

3. Law N.1089, Tutela delle Cose d’Interesse Artistico e Storico focused on cultural heritage. Law N. 1497, Protezione delle Bellezze Naturali protected the aesthetic value of the environment.

Following the war-time devastation in Italy, there was increased public awareness and concern for built heritage, reinforcing it as a topic of national interest (Stubbs et al., 2011). The approach built on well-established conservation philosophy within Italian national heritage policy. The first laws promoting restoration and the protection of ancient buildings, and separately the aesthetic value of landscapes, 3 were published in 1938 (Glendinning, 2013). These laws were influenced by the 1931 Athens Charter, which stressed the importance of maintenance and ‘repair-only’, and viewed heritage conservation as strict custodial protection (Stubbs and Makaš, 2011: 25).

Reactions and campaigns against post-war demolitions strengthened these foundations into a developed preservative conservation ethic. In Rome and Milan, the debates were instrumental in the formulation of Italia Nostra in 1955 (Guardia and Monclús, 2012). They are highly skeptical of change to heritage, and actively campaign against new build in heritage scenarios (Muzi, 2015). Due to the importance placed on historical and aesthetic values of tangible places, Italia Nostra and other similar conservation bodies choose to rebuild and preserve heritage for posterity. Equally as influential in shaping Italy’s heritage ideology was the Gubbio Charter, 1960.

This discouraged ‘restoration activities’, ‘stylistic additions’ and ‘demolition’ (Gubbio Charter, 1960; see Appendix 4). Coupled with Italia Nostra, the Charter solidified Italy’s conservation conservatism, cementing the idea that heritage - including historic centres as a whole - should be treated as precious, and

33

CittĂ della Memoria

34

Part Three

Figure 24.

Basilica di San Bernardino.

Dov’era com’era restoration was completed in May 2015.

Figure 25.

View of Palazzo Camponeschi from an adjoining church.

Currently under restoration, after completion it will house Univaq’s administration.

4.

Dov’era, com’era is the phrase used

for the type of reconstruction which aims to exactly copy the pre-existing historic structure. In the context of L’Aquila, see: http://www.6aprile.it/rubriche/parolavoi/ testimonianze/2013/09/06/laquila-il-mantra-comera-dovera-e-le-fazioni-pro-econtro.html.

saved from any kind of destruction or alteration. Representing the dominant Italian conservation culture, their policies state damaged historic fabric should be reconstructed dov’era, com’era - where it was, how it was; a slogan which in Italy is ‘like a mantra!’ (Ext05, 2015).4 This strict overarching approach is embodied in conservation law; the Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio focuses on significance which is tangible, historic and aesthetic, and does not sufficiently protect sites of customary significance (Parlamento Italiano, 2004).

Since the centre was reopened and the red zone lifted at the end of the state of emergency in 2012, the rebuilding taking place in L’Aquila’s centre focuses almost exclusively on dov’era, com’era. The places being reconstructed are significant for their longevity - preservation through time, their scale, a cultural hierarchy of importance, or particular historical value. The first public buildings to be restored are predominantly churches. The Chiesa di San Biagio d’Amiternum was reopened in 2014, and restoration of the Basilica di San Bernardino was completed in 2015 (Figure 24). In the private sector, Palazzo Ardinghelli is due for completion late 2016. The first institution to return to the city in late 2016 will be Univaq, after the completion of Palazzo Camponeschi (Figure 25) (Inverardi, 2015). L’Aquila’s exclusive adoption of dov’era, com’era is based on ingrained local attitudes and ‘cultural snobbery’ (Aq17, 2015), reinforced by the continuing mentality of many terremotati which is ‘closed and not really open to anything’ (Aq19, 2015), and influenced by external sources such as Italia Nostra. The dov’era, com’era approach relates to tangible, historic structures and reinforces this as the predominant idea of ‘heritage’ in the minds of terremotati - ‘yes, the ancient buildings have to be dov’era com’era… but, like, other buildings with no importance, they have to make a new one’ (Aq16, 2015).

Despite such ingrained attitudes, conservation conservatism is widely debated. Notably, in 1965 Alvar Aalto attended a conference in Florence to discuss modern architecture in historical towns, following his contemporary design in Helsinki (Mosso et al., 1965). The restoration of the Partal Palace portico, Granada, in 2012 was challenged by societies such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

35

CittĂ della Memoria

1.

36

2.

Part Three

Figure 26.

Comparison of the Partal Palace portico, Alhambra: 1. Illustration of its state before restoration, telling a story through layered history.

2. Photo after conservation, 2010. ‘Restored’ to an earlier style.

Figure 27.

Venzone, restored dov’era com’era in minute detail after 1976 earthquake. Now, the town is primarily touristic, with heritage diluted and not ‘living’.

(SPAB) for creating an imagined image of the past (Figure 26).

More recently, following the on-going violence in Syria, it is argued that the historic site of Palmyra - subjected to piecemeal destruction by Isis throughout 2015 - should not be ‘turned into a fake replica of its former glory’ via a dov’era com’era approach (Jones, 2016). The contentious rebuilding ‘of ancient monuments using modern materials to replace lost parts’ is opposed by conservationists such as SPAB (Ibid.). Authenticity of reconstruction is called into question as this approach typically creates pastiche representations of the past, as in the case of the Partal Palace, and Venzone in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region of Italy (Figure 27). Destroyed by an earthquake in 1976, this town was conserved dov’era, com’era. The focus on tangibility meant its historic fabric became diluted as museum artefacts, linked to the commodification of heritage. There is the danger L’Aquila will similarly become a fake representation of itself.

This reconstruction method is similarly debated in L’Aquila.

Many influential people oppose it’s implementation, such as Paola Inverardi, the Rector of Univaq, who calls for more ‘radical’ design proposals in the centre (Inverardi, 2015).

Antonio Calafati, the Director of Urban Studies at the GSSI, described it as ‘a strange vision of the city… constructing in this way is pointless as we are moving forward’ (Calafati, 2015). It is not unanimously accepted amongst the terremotati (Ext05, 2015; Aq21, 2015); this is highlighted by one interviewee who insisted ‘dov’era com’era is not possible, it’s a slogan… You know, people change. In 6 years, 10 years, 15 years - how can you say com’era? It’s philosophically wrong!’ (Aq14, 2015). Local debate does not argue for a complete departure from historical context, however, particularly with respect to building scale, materials, and retention of the medieval street and block pattern. An architect working in the city thought dov’era com’era ‘is stupid… but not for everything, I like that I have to keep the street, the form… and the volume’ (Ext05, 2015). This debate was most evident surrounding the construction of L’Auditorium del Parco by Renzo Piano in 2012 - one of the very few exceptions to dov’era com’era in L’Aquila’s centre. Conservative Aquilani criticised it, ‘now we have a modern theatre but we don’t like it. We preferred the old one, absolutely’ (Aq13, 2015). More

37

Città della Memoria

ance

arthquake nificance

e doing now 38 = bad

Castello

L’Auditorium

Reconstruction focus: Formal, historic significance Tangible space of pre-earthquake informal, customary significance

what they’re doing now = bad

Part Three

Figure 28.

L’Auditorium del Parco by Renzo Piano, constructed 2012 in Parco del Castello in the historic centre.

L’Auditorium is a temporary replacement of the theatre in Castello Spagnolo.

Figure 29.

Schematic diagram to show the current, narrow reconstruction focus in L’Aquila. It prioritises tangible heritage, predominantly within the first formal category of significance.

progressive Aquilani accepted the new addition, ‘you have to conserve the important things, but you have to have the courage to make little new things, like the auditorium of Renzo Piano’ (Aq21, 2015) (Figure 28).

Dov’era, com’era is valid when employed on only superficially damaged structures, thereby not leading to pastiche representations of the past. What is damaging to a city is this approach being wholly employed, regardless of the degree of damage or significance of the place. Rebuilding with a focus on one category of significance alone leads to insufficient sociocultural support, and a skewed perspective of that city’s identity (Figure 29). The danger is that a singular restoration focus applied wholesale will, to borrow from Scott’s forestry parable, dismember ‘an exceptionally complex and poorly understood set of relations and processes in order to isolate a single element of instrumental value’ (Scott, 1998: 21).

These historical places and fabric are undoubtedly significant; however, they only represent one part of a holistic system. There can be no complete centre if there is only urbs, without creation of a liveable, living city for the terremotati (Continenza, 2015).

A successful balance can be achieved between the approaches of total demolition and total restoration. This core ethos accepts carefully considered interventions alongside historic fabric, involving honesty about time and condition. It was introduced into conservation discourse in England by Ruskin (Versaci and Cardaci, 2012); his ideas were made mainstream by the SPAB (Glendinning, 2013). Their ‘anti-scrape’ ethic means saving as much existing fabric as possible, introducing new where necessary, and allowing for architectural innovation which should ‘complement, not parody’ the existing (SPAB, 2015). The Mother Church in Salemi was not completed dov’era, com’era (Figure 21), thus enabling the recreation of preearthquake senses of space and the importance they conveyed, maintaining heritage identity. Contemporary design alongside ruin combines heritage with modernity to revitalise damaged structures.

Design experimentation explored this approach of building new, being sensitive to the character of the centre. Precedents were

39

Città della Memoria

used to understand the decision making process for prioritising what to restore or build new, and how a balance can be achieved through design (Figure 30). Albeit under a different set of post-disaster conditions, Carlo Scarpa’s ‘radical’ restoration of the Castelvecchio in Verona exemplified his simultaneously subtle and aggressive approach to working with historic, found elements (Figure 31) (McCarter, 2013). Giancarlo De Carlo in Urbino and David Chipperfield in the Neues Museum Berlin display similar methodologies in contemporary readaptations of heritage. These demonstrate that new work can express modern ideals in a contemporary language whilst being sympathetic to the character of contextual historic fabric, creating successful cultural initiatives to re-activate cities. The design revealed, however, that even these more progressive reconstruction methodologies maintain a focus on heritage for historic, aesthetic, and tangible values, again not reflecting the full scope of significance.

L’Aquila’s social structure is diminished by the narrow tangible heritage focus. This focus is characterised by an incomplete system of predominantly urbs in the centre and limited, poor quality civitas in the peripheries, such as the shopping mall L’Aquilone and Piazza d’Armi (Aq12, Aq13, Ext06, 2015). The diminished social structure reflects the fragmented return to the centre by pre-disaster residents, which struggles to recover under protracted redevelopment and partial abandonment. The Berlusconi-Bertolaso administration caused the dislocation of terremotati and the closure of the centre for three years; this has

40

Figure 30.

Design tests through models explore how new build could sensitively combine with heritage. Proposals include new structures alongside existing fabric, with total removal of existing or new work inside a city block.

Part Three

Figure 31.

Details of Carlo Scarpa’s contemporary re-adaptation of the Castelvecchio, Verona.

been pivotal in the centre’s recovery (Bock, 2015; Montanari, 2016), leading to social and also economic decline (OECD, 2012). Terremotati were either forced or chose to abandon the centre in different ways. Their initial displacement caused many people to settle where they were relocated, losing the postearthquake impetus. Some residents are too traumatised to return. For others not as emotionally attached, the earthquake was an opportunity to leave the city (Aq13, Aq17, 2015). Some houses were second homes and others inherited, reducing the sense of urgency to rebuild (Ozerdem and Rufini, 2012; Zunino, 2016). Many people chose never to return to their homes, taking compensation money to build new elsewhere, ‘I got some money from the government… At the beginning you chose to get a house or to get money. Obviously, I choose the money’ (Aq19, 2015).

The centre’s continued abandonment and focus on new build elsewhere is not a suitable reconstruction model. Reconstruction must start from an understanding of what there is in the centre today, and its current social structure. Abandonment should be avoided as there is already a culturally significant, locally important centre with repairable damage. Terremotati express their desire to return: ‘the saddest thing that can happen is that this place remains empty. There are a lot of examples of that in Italy… several places that were hit in the past by earthquakes…

This is my fear’ (Aq15, 2015). A reconstruction approach can build on these desires whilst understanding that the community structure and identity has developed, which was a gradual

41

Città della Memoria

process amplified by the disaster. Since 2012 when the centre was reopened, there have been rapid changes to society. The GSSI saw their first enrolment of PhD students in 2013, which drew a new category of international post-graduate researchers to the centre to increase knowledge-driven development of the city (Koukoufikis, 2015). Numerous lavori [workers] constitute a significant weekday population (Aq13, 2015), changing the way terremotati identify with their centre: I don’t speak with lavori, I don’t feel like I have come back to the city - which city? It’s something different, you know?

(Aq14, 2015) Now, I don’t recognise it… The workers they come from all over Italy and all over Europe, so… There is nothing familiar. So you don’t know who is sitting next to you at the bar.

(Aq16, 2015) The number of University student enrolments was only marginally reduced due to policies such as free tuition postearthquake (OECD, 2009). Only 20% of enrolled students lived in L’Aquila in 2013; however, they still constitute a large daily user group of the centre (OECD, 2013). Their predominant presence in the city is leading to skewed recovery. There is a proliferation of bars and cafés, liveliest during weekdays before the students return to their homes outside the city - ‘the most important places are those in which they reopened activities and night-life venues, such as bars and pubs’ (Aq23, 2016). Several terremotati identified these as the only places of social life in the centre, in particular Bar Boss (Figure 32) - ‘a very social place, and an identity place’ (Aq14, 2015) - and the surrounding area.5 Terremotati are beginning to reuse Il Corso for walking, and the portici are being reinstated as fundamental social spaces for young people, with one local resident observing that this ‘is a typical thing; its always happened here, and its a good sign its happening again!’ (Aq12, 2015), reiterated by others (Aq14, Aq16, 2015). However, it is clear that the centre is ‘not a very healthy place to walk because during the day it’s full of dust and

42

5.

There were numerous accounts during interviews reiterating the

importance of Bar Boss and student night-life.

Part Three

Figure 32.

Still from a film showing a crowd outside Bar Boss, amongst building sites. Film shot in January 2016 on the busiest student night of the week.

The new popularity of Boss post-earthquake revitalised surrounding piazze Regina Margherita and Chiarino.

noise’ (Aq18, 2015). Post-earthquake places of sociocultural activity in the centre, such as L’Auditorium del Parco and CaseMatte, are under-utilised, and with terremotati scattered in the peripheries there is no system to use these cultural spaces to their full potential or rebuild society. Additionally, whilst these spaces create a semblance of sociability, it is a mere echo of the former and terremotati mainly identify a poor sociocultural structure (Aq13, Aq15, Ext06, 2015); they are ‘really missing… the social tissue’ (Aq19, 2015).

A new condition has emerged for terremotati as spaces are formed within an abandoned centre. This has led to a shift in attitudes particularly amongst the younger generations - ‘It’s what I’ve seen for six years now. I am a human being, I adapt myself, or I die. And I adapt myself to this shit’ (Aq14, 2015).

Local initiatives such as Teatro Nobelperlapace indicate that the citizens’ idea of their identity has not changed dramatically, as they still identify with piazze and quality outdoor spaces.

This is changing with the emergence of a new generation who grew up without spaces to symbolise their founding cultural elements. The poor recovery of the centre has impacted their ability to redefine themselves post-earthquake, or identify with their past as a vital process of society (re)making. Whilst older residents who remember the living centre might cry out for its reconstruction dov’era, com’era, young people treat it at best like a dystopian amusement park, and at worst like a rubbish dump (Aq14, 2015; Fontana, 2015); ‘even the portici… now, [they are] not a nice thing cos they’re all full of rubbish and you can’t

43

Città della Memoria

walk through all of them’ (Aq16, 2015). This lack of erstwhile social spaces forces terremotati to find amusement amongst the abandoned core, and ’breaking in’ to abandoned homes is a popular activity. A younger generation who perhaps cannot associate with nostalgic memories of these areas and have a disrupted social structure (Boym, 2001) do not care about the centre and use it as a dumping ground (Ianni, 2014). They enter houses, vandalising them because there is little else to do: Outside here it’s dirty… If you go in the centre it is full of rubbish. There are people that use the centre as a toilet, you have this smell…Somebody broke a fountain [in Piazza dei Novi Marteri] because people just don’t care at all… as if there wasn’t enough disruption around.

(Aq17, 2015) The main areas of the centre that have not been abandoned, such as Il Corso, are nevertheless suffering under slow reconstruction, exacerbating the poor social situation today. In light of the issues caused by the Berlusconi-Bertolaso administration, there has been an increased concern for heritage. The Comune dell’Aquila proceeded with careful, protracted management of the centre from 2012 onwards. Increased anti-corruption bureaucracy further impacted the reconstruction trajectory.

Gaining planning permission for heritage reconstruction followed a convoluted path pre-earthquake, having to contend with Italy’s national conservatism; the earthquake had further bureaucratic repercussions (Figure 33). Projects which do not adhere to the strict national conservation policies are unlikely to be approved by the Soprintendenza per i Beni Architettonici e Paesaggistici dell’Abruzzo, who administers the Codice in L’Aquila (Morganti, 2015). One architect observed, ‘of course we are doing everything dov’era com’era. Because we have to!

The Soprintendenza wants this’ (Ext05, 2015). Local concern for the centre has added to its cautious management, further slowing down rebuilding processes. Grass-roots political groups such as Comitato 3e32, ViviamoLAq and Appello per L’Aquila campaign for a better reconstruction trajectory being skeptical of top-down initiatives, be they dov’era com’era or Berlusconistyle abandonment of heritage (Tettamanti, 2015). Heritage reconstruction is inefficient, arbitrary and focused on private

44

Part Three

Design Process Submissions Pre-Earthquake

Post-Earthquake NO YES

NO

USRA Reconstruction

SOPRINTENDENZA Heritage conservation NO

YES

Debate

COMUNE

+ architect and client

Planning and regulations NO

YES

PROVVEDITORATO Structure and infrastructure YES

Permission to Build Granted

Work must commence on site within 30 days

USRA release reconstruction funds

If scaffolding is required in a public place:

NO

Application for Scaffolding LOCAL POLICE

YES

Commence works

Figure 33.

buildings (Fontana, 2015).

The convoluted process for acquiring planning permission in L’Aquila was exacerbated by the earthquake.

A new approach to post-disaster rebuilding in L’Aquila is needed which will overcome local concern and the convoluted bureaucracy, by holistically encompassing both categories of significance and stemming from a changed understanding of heritage itself. The current definition does not take into account intangible forms (Smith, 2006). A new, wider scope is slowly being considered in many heritage debates (Haider, 2008), understanding that heritage involves more than traditional concepts of monumental forms. Smith proposed the idea that heritage is not a ‘thing’ - one building or object - but a live, cultural process (Smith, 2006); this process can give meaning to tangible ‘things’. UNESCO, who’s list of World Heritage Sites

45

Città della Memoria

was considered ‘increasingly non-representative’ in the 1970s for its lack of intangible forms (Bouchenaki, 2004:16), have formally recognised ‘non-physical’ heritage and ‘living’ cultures since the adoption of the ‘Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage’ in 2003 (Ibid.: 7). Their register now formally recognises various traditions, knowledge, practices, expressions and representations (UNESCO, 2003).

Intangible cultural heritage is also referred to as ‘living heritage’ (Haider, 2008: 2), imbued with ‘social meaning’ (Lynch, 1960: 46). It largely considers those ideas and places defined by civitas.

Isin identifies that a key distinction between civitas and urbs is the difference between ‘the virtual and the actual’, or in other words, the intangible (civitas) and the tangible (urbs) (Isin, 2008: 263).

Intangible heritage includes a tangible quality of built environment that has been preserved, including the meanings and emotions associated with objects and places. The emotional dimension of intangibility is particularly prevalent in postdisaster areas where there is a heightened sense of loss. Chang, based on the teaching of Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu, said it is ‘the intangible elements ... in architectonic forms which makes them come alive’ (Chang, 1981: 9). Intangibility is architectural as well as - though not exclusively - social, ethical, emotional and political. It is the ‘life’ of a place, and applied to heritage intangibility gives meaning to the tangible, reiterating the reciprocity of urbs and civitas. An interviewee made this connection: It’s [the centre] closed, it’s cold, but walking there you try to remember. The problem is memories, we are forgetting everything… So going there and seeing, I don’t know, not the ruins, but some little things like the writing on the wall. I remember that writing… and now I’m remembering something… It’s something to save your memories.

(Aq20, 2015) It is important to categorise heritage more holistically by considering the tangible and intangible together. Smith attempts to broaden the term heritage for precisely this reason, to what

46

Part Three

she has termed ‘holistic heritage’ which encompasses both tangible, built forms (consideration of the object itself), as well as intangible qualities such as memory which can be attached to objects (Smith, 2006: 45). This combined heritage view is constantly evolving, because heritage is living (Alivizatou, 2012). Its living nature places holistic heritage within a wider context to do with incompleteness. The argument that there is not a complete view of the city, because its value is contained in many different places, is reinforced by holistic heritage which inherently assigns value to a number of different locations.

The heritage debate, and the investigation into the role of design in preserving L’Aquila’s heritage, leads to the question of finding a design method involving society to act in this context. Using a holistic heritage approach to develop this methodology poses the question: how can the city be rebuilt with contemporary space which also reflects the new post-earthquake identity, if the memory of L’Aquila is to be preserved to continually express the pre-earthquake culture? Further research alongside design tests explored the development of a reconstruction methodology, as a propositional strategy starting from the previous identification of what heritage, significance and identity means to the terremotati and new post-earthquake community.

47

Città della Memoria

I want to see a living city by day and not only at night; to see the streets full of people, the noise, the smells…

- Aq22, 2016

I want L’Aquila to be beautiful, and for cultural activities to stay in the centre; to have again music, culture, photography, the cinema - the only solution for the city that has this bad situation.

- Aq21, 2015

48

PART FOUR

AN EXPLORATION OF HOW TO RESTORE OR REBUILD The proposed reconstruction methodology for L’Aquila is inherently linked to the understanding of the city remembered by terremotati. The question of what should be restored or rebuilt considers the value of an incomplete understanding of the city based on places of significance, to open a dialogue in reaction to the two current trends of dov’era, com’era or total abandonment. The most significant heritage is that which is held by a community - their own thoughts and what they have preserved over the years physically and by memory of place.

When working with absences and rebuilding after disaster there will rarely be an agreed conclusion; this speculative heritage reconstruction approach embraces memory’s subjective nature, gathering strands of continuity to create pictures of collective significance. The research conducted in L’Aquila uncovered specific, subjective moments of significance to be explored through design, alongside the new idea of holistic heritage. It is exemplified through a case study pilot project as a possible manifestation of incomplete design, which allows for future development. The discussion is not intended to offer a complete model of how the reconstruction of the city might be realised.

Rather, it offers insight into an approach that would realise an alternative reconstruction trajectory for L’Aquila. The core aim is to ground redevelopment in spaces that have meaning for terremotati, reflecting both their past and new post-earthquake condition.

Considering heritage holistically and as a living process requires an alternative conservation approach, and allows a broader understanding of what rebuilding entails. There is currently limited scholarship about reconstruction of cultural heritage in post-disaster scenarios that stresses this co-dependent relationship. Whilst a wider approach is being developed, few methods practice conserving intangibles of customary significance (Haider, 2008). Examples of holistic heritage policy being implemented in practice include Smith (2006), who employed an ethnographic approach to define the significance of Castleford, UK, through local stories and memories. Haider discussed similar action taken post-2006 earthquake to protect cultural heritage in Jogja, Indonesia; a ‘Heritage Post Unit’ was

49

Città della Memoria

established to assess heritage. Their proposed, incomplete view prioritised the most significant elements to the community such as traditional craft (Haider, 2008: 6). In Kabul, Afghanistan, to rehabilitate its centre, more pragmatic data mapping exercises were used alongside discussion with NGO’s and local authorities (Ibid.).

The alternate conservation approach must preserve the specific sociocultural processes of a community to inform a fluid methodology, loosely defined so as to be applicable to a number of places in L’Aquila. The above examples show there is no single way of prioritising significance when it is found in such a variety of places, tangible and intangible, and with such variations in culture and sense of place. Whilst a holistic heritage view is desirable, this does not imply a holistic approach to addressing it. Restauro critico [critical restoration] suggests a case by case approach be taken when acting in heritage contexts (Carbonara, 1997); no conservation approach can be categorically rejected outright as it might be valid for a specific occasion.

Approaching the problem of what to restore or rebuild postdisaster with an appropriate holistic heritage approach is beneficial to terremotati, because what is restored will directly depend upon civitas. Haider notes that the ‘preservation of collective memory, cultural identity, and intangible forms of cultural expression (song, dance, rituals and festivals) are critical to the restoration of hope, sense of self and sense of community’ in post-disaster contexts (Haider, 2008: 3). Memory can therefore be used to re-orientate the residents in their damaged centre, to inform rebuilding continuity of life and reinforcing a sense of identity that reflects their changing identity. This is reinforced by Smith, who noted that for Castleford’s residents, heritage was ‘a process of remembering’ that underpinned ‘identity, and the ways in which individuals and groups make sense of their experiences in the present’ (Smith, 2006: 276).

All stories, aspects of memory and forms of significance in L’Aquila are considered for this pilot proposal. Incomplete collective memory reveals significance in both tangible and intangible qualities of built environment, whether formal and historical, or customary. Interviewees reinforced these ideas

50

Part Four

Figure 34.

Chiesa di Santa Margherita, an example of the characteristic Aquilan rough stone facade discussed by interviewees.

by identifying significant spatial qualities and materials, or intangible heritage such as ‘relationships’ (Aq14, 2015) and ‘feeling’ (Aq19, 2015): You had this church made of rough stones, not bricks…

And I remember just passing up and down, and just noticing this wall that I liked a lot, because it was in this weird material. Just weird…

(Aq12, 2015; see also Figure 34) I remember for example i sampietrini, i sassi [stone cobbles]… We didn’t have cemente in il centro [cement in the centre], only stones, marmo [marble] and legno [wood]…

(Aq13, 2015) Reliant upon living experience, these collective notions of significance must be open to the addition of memories by the new society, including their values and models of significant space.

The approach considers heritage as a process of identity making in the present; in the earthquake aftermath, the community are in a timely position to (re)assess who they are as a collective entity (Waterton and Watson, 2010). Focusing initially on recovery of sociocultural qualities relative to terremotati and the new community, interventions can help them feel rooted.

Community recovery becomes the main incentive. This requires an understanding of memory from all community groups, in light of the changed constitution of the post-earthquake society

51

Città della Memoria

itself which leads to changed heritage values. The changing community have new value systems and ideas of significant spaces, exemplified by the post-earthquake popularity of Bar Boss. Other areas of the centre remain significant for their pre-earthquake values - such as Il Corso and portici - which highlights the post-earthquake strong emotional attachment to patrimonio [heritage] as a way of identifying with the present: Now after the earthquake I understand what we have lost… Strange but it’s true, huh? Because when you lose something you understand the importance of it.

(Aq21, 2015) After the earthquake I realised how beautiful and big and complex was all the architecture in L’Aquila. So now I miss it. But it’s a strange feeling, no? I miss it just because it’s gone, in a way.

(Aq15, 2015) To translate this into architectural design there must be discussion with the community, to define significance through ‘a collaborative process shared by an open community, accepting both conflict and change’ (Hewison, 1987: 144). As an active cultural process involving identity making and re-making, cultural change and progress, L’Aquila’ specific heritage needs to be periodically reassessed, to involve an evermore critical reflection of what it means to the local community disconnected from built heritage fabric. An appropriate, selective methodology to determine what to restore or rebuild, and what to lose, can be found by discussing significance directly with a local population drawing on memories that are current and applicable to redefine cultural and social values for the needs of the present (Smith, 2006). Methods for ‘empathising’ with terremotati - such as group encounters and participant observation - must be sought, in order to inform ways of designing as a means of ‘complementing and enhancing’ their identity (Cooper, 1974: 144). Community engagement and heritage (re)assessments allow this understanding of strands of significance, including many ‘unseen factors’ (intangibles) that are ‘not only unseen but tend also to be unappreciated’ (Chang, 1981: 3). Individual recollections are important, and when these

52

Part Four

Piazza Palazzo

La Fontana

Market

Il Corso, lined with portici and shops

Basilica di Collemaggio and Perdonanza route

Figure 35.

The initial design scheme highlighted pre-earthquake places of significance and introduced five nodes of revitalisation, shown in red and labelled on the plan.

coincide for a community group they form strands of collective ideas, creating a palimpsestic layering of memory in the city highlighting nodes of significance.

As society is changing and heritage, as a live process, changes accordingly, rebuilding should remain programmatically fluid, learning from the city’s changing needs. This allows the terremotati to have a programmatic input - direct involvement in public life and freedom to be creative with design of their historic places. Participation can also overcome problems such as younger generations vandalising the centre. Haider observed that ‘local participation in disaster recovery can result not only in a more effective disaster response but also in capacity building and empowerment’ (2008: 2). Active involvement might promote a sense of belonging and ownership through emotional, physical involvement and investment of time.

Based on the understanding that memories, and therefore significance and identity, can fade post-earthquake, an aim of this thesis proposal is to return terremotati to their places of significance in order that their memories should not be lost (Olick, 2011: 144). The initial scheme, introduced in Part One, proposed revitalisation of five key nodes to draw terremotati back from the peripheries, each encompassing holistic ideas about heritage and varied significances found in memory sources (Figure 35). Each space becomes a node of activity to encourage redevelopment; ‘nodes are unique but also intensify some surrounding characteristic’ (Lynch, 1960: 47). The five

53

CittĂ della Memoria

Piazza Rivera

Piazza Palazzo

La Fontana

Casa dello Studente

54

Piazze Palazzo and Rivera

L’Auditorium del Parco

Basilica di Collemaggio and nearby CaseMatte

Part Four

nodes highlight the benefit of the past in re-making the present in a familiar way, based on collective memory being integral to their sense of identity (Lowenthal, 1985). This partial return to the city reiterates that the entire centre does not require saving immediately. In the first instance, it is more valuable to recover just enough to encourage the community’s return.

Figure 36.

Design exploration of five revitalisation nodes based on post-earthquake significance and changing memories.

Piazze Palazzo and Vincenzo Rivera, shown in detail, were chosen for further development as the first proposed node of activity.

In light of L’Aquila’s rapidly changing society and the living nature of memory, these initial design proposals were revisited to reflect today’s situation (Figure 36). In the revised designs, an incomplete return to the city focused on creating spaces based on memory rather than building a physical place.

Incompleteness ensures ‘continuity of a place’s spirit, or genius loci, to make a place more alive’ (Bullock, 2010: 241). An incomplete methodology provides a potential guideline for being selective about sensitive restoration in L’Aquila. This could be achieved in a similar way to the incomplete editing and re-crafting of the Mother Church in Salemi, which sensitively created a mediated response to a variety of found conditions (Figure 21). This pilot proposal is an alternative to the existing pattern of reconstruction in L’Aquila which thus far has focused on rebuilding physical heritage in the centre. The core premise is that there needs to be an incomplete design approach to reforming the whole centre, relating to Mumford’s observation that ‘we must think of the city as the unit, and design for the life within it as a whole process’ (Mumford 1997: 484). Recovering whole tangible ‘units’ within the city is challenged, when an appropriate focus can be on its ‘life’ through stories interpreted in a sensitive, contemporary manner, achieved in an incomplete way.

An incomplete design method informs a way of (re)introducing the entire city structure through rebuilding part civitas and part urbs. Ungers’ 1977 Berlin manifesto, ‘The city in the city’, exemplified how it is not vital to restore everything to the city post-disaster; Ungers chose the most vital places to restore a complete city structure, with a variety of significance, and returned everything else to nature (Ungers, 2013). Ungers’ plan represents a city-wide incomplete approach; the architectural scale is exemplified in Salemi, where moments of encounter between old and new create a subtle balance ‘in a manifest

55

Città della Memoria

N

Existing fabric

Temporary interventions

Interventions within or adapting existing fabric

New build insertions

desire of ‘incompleteness’’ (Versaci and Cardaci, 2012: 211).

Figure 37.

An incremental, incomplete approach was explored through the more detailed design proposals (Figures 37 and 38). The piazze Palazzo and Vincenzo Rivera - a site within the initial design scheme - was chosen for development as the first node of activity, focusing on architectural scale and specific interventions (Figure 37). Terremotati identified that, having guided past collective memory, the ‘street and square’ system can shape future identity that is familiar (Boyer, 1994: 270) - something the local and government authorities failed to recognise. These piazze are significant for their intangible, sociocultural qualities, previously discussed and reinforced by memories:

The model shows the specific portion of Piazza Rivera chosen for detailed development through an incomplete reconstruction approach.

[I miss] mostly the places that I frequented, from Piazza Palazzo to Piazza Duomo and all the streets that connected them.

(Aq22, 2016) I miss very much Piazza Palazzo e Vincenzo Rivera, because it’s the first place that I lived in L’Aquila…

Also I love this place because it was where I first met Francesco [husband]

(Ext05, 2015) Incomplete design must focus on ‘the site of the social’ as the space in which citizenship and identity is formed (Isin, 2008).

56

Models explored incremental changes within Palazzo Carli, from temporary to new build.

Part Four

Working with changes in identity and the new perspective on heritage means respecting that there is a younger generation who do not necessarily identify with the significance of the piazza (Stockel, 2013). To reflect this shift, and to avoid focusing on the piazza in isolation, there must be recreation of other meaningful spaces for the changing citizen, such as the previously identified portici, small shops, bars, streets, and other quality public spaces of sociocultural activity. Throughout the interviews, locals discussed the need to reconstitute L’Aquila’s social fabric and keep the centre’s sense of place, which is arguably as valuable as built fabric (Bock, 2015; Aq21, 2015).

The design proposals therefore focused on analysing the spaces of cultural cohesion in a community, reinforcing them as a series of anchors within the city, facilitating further restoration of buildings. This incremental approach prioritises a set of objectives; cultural processes must occur first to establish central sociocultural nodes for L’Aquila. This echoes Platforma 9,81’s project Invisible Zagreb in 2003-5. They temporarily inhabited abandoned premises with ‘creativity zones’, with the conscious objective of prompting further rehabilitation of those buildings and surrounding areas, both physically and socially.6 Re-establishing the piazze combines incremental changes to site focusing primarily on cultural and social rebuilding with non-damaging installations in historic fabric.

This provides a precedent in L’Aquila, where a large amount of historic fabric could be de-prioritised to promote other factors of heritage significance and allow reconstruction to be seen as an opportunity to create new spaces according to the local’s aspirations. First, terremotati decide what they want to be, and then rebuild accordingly: Aquilani people want to come back here, so I’m sure that our community rebuilds the centre and comes back there, and our identity. Not in the exact way of before, because identity is something fluid… Maybe we have yet to find the identity from the earthquake, you know?

(Aq14, 2015) 6.

See the website of Platforma 9,81 at

http://platforma981.hr [Accessed 8/3/16]

The incremental changes to site to revitalise the piazze involve changes in the surrounding structures and re-working specific

57

CittĂ della Memoria

a.

Fig 38a.

Fig 38c.

58

b.

c.

Fig 38b.

Part Four

Figure 38.

Models develop proposed engagement with heritage, with scales of intervention as an incremental, case by case approach: a) Temporary, no destruction of historic fabric, enabling quick return b) More engagement, light adaptations c) New build permanent interventions in historic fabric

damaged heritage buildings. For this proposal, reconstruction will involve the palazzi Carli, Spaventa, and Camponeschi (Figure 2 and 37). These places offer continuity of place, material, history, and building typology through the typical Italian courtyard structure. Throughout the history of L’Aquila and in its preservation there are certain building structures that have persisted - through form, use, or tectonic. Prioritising these significant elements around the piazze will maintain community sense of identity throughout the subsequent revitalisation of place. Terremotati stressed that palazzi are one of the most important building typologies to have been preserved throughout the city, identifying their particularly significant characteristics such as ‘big scalinate [staircases]… bellissimi’ (Aq13, 2015), and the cortile [courtyards]: I love the cortile of the ancient palazzi… They are beautiful. You go inside and in these courts you just look up and there are no windows, it’s arches. Very illuminated, very nice… Inside those ancient palaces is special.

(Aq16, 2015) L’Aquila is really really beautiful with incredible richness and architecture… In the centre of the building you have the court, and they are so beautiful with columns and a little fountain and the stone of the pavement. It’s really beautiful, the medieval sense, yeah.

(Aq21, 2015) A design language needed to be developed to enable contemporary reconstruction alongside historic fabric. The models in Figure 38 are schematic representations of engagement between historic structures and new design, representing scales of intervention which recall restauro critico - the case by case approach. In the first instance, quick initiatives to engender immediate return of the residents are placed within damaged structures (Figure 38a). These are specific sociocultural components, such as those temporarily erected in Piazza d’Arti. The structures and surrounding piazze must be re-activated otherwise they remain holes in the middle of the city. The interventions begin growing around the piazze, working with a series of time-frames to

59

Città della Memoria

bring terremotati back immediately, whilst also engendering long term return (Figure 38b). Activating this key space in the city is reliant upon the phased strategy. Part of these structures, as culturally significant heritage which suffered only superficial damage, will be rebuilt according to typical Italian conservation methods - the dov’era com’era style. The remaining parts will be open to sensitive adaptation, similar to the contemporary adaptations of Giancarlo De Carlo, for example, to rebuild factors of customary significance (Figure 38c).

Through these buildings and the square, it is possible to tell a full story of the city from a series of interconnected objects and spaces. These will be fragmented, yet create the whole centre in the manner of incompleteness. As with the rehabilitation of Salemi, ‘moments become more significant than widespread rehabilitation of place’ (Versaci and Cardaci, 2012: 211). The design tests indicate there is potential to adapt in this way by introducing smaller, incremental changes at a range of scales.

These will partly be based on typical, mundane qualities in the city that are nevertheless vital, such as tactility, olfaction, and sound (Figure 39). The way in which the city has been built out of a rhythm, a material, an adjustment of scale, gives significance to parts of the centre - details which are extremely important for success of a space. Exactly how these qualities manifest as physical, contemporary space must be the topic of further exploration, linking the theory and resulting methodology to architectural proposition.

60

Figure 39.

A memory gathering method using posters revealed vital intangible city qualities: ‘Il Rumore dei trolley sui sampietrini’ [‘The sound of student trolleys [bags] on the cobbles.’]

Part Four

Figure 40.

Model of the Espacio Goya museum proposal, showing four significant pieces of the city recreated within an existing building.

7.

See the website of Herzog &

de Meuron at https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/276-300/282-espacio-goya. html [Accessed 15/5/16]

A preliminary proposal for the architectural manifestation of memory is the creation of an incomplete layering of representative elements within the urban metabolism, by bringing together and reconfiguring a number of recognisable urban typologies.

The recreated spectrum of spatial and material experiences, and narratives for their palimpsestic layering within the existing fabric will stem from the people, reshaped into physical space that is inherently socially produced. Reconstruction is in the citizens’ interests, in stark contrast to the Berlusconi-Bertolaso administration (Montanari, 2016). Memories provide a way of designing to create spaces that are familiar to terremotati, also allowing for contemporaneity. A precedent for this palimpsestic layering of space is the Espacio Goya by Herzog & de Meuron (Figure 40). They used a piecemeal approach to analyse the city of Zaragoza, Spain, focusing on only a few specific, small pieces of city, understanding that each of those pieces had a different history and emotional connotations.7 They subsequently brought the pieces together as a collage of found spaces within an existing building.

In a similar way, the fragmented memories of terremotati become a physical material and spatial resource which can be used to reconstruct the centre in a contemporary way that also subtly reflects familiar conditions to the terremotati. Specific moments in the city are reflected on an abstract level, and their abstraction allows for the possibility of future development.

This will evoke sensations of significant places, from formal, historical significant forms such as palazzi, to customary places

61

Città della Memoria

and intangible notions such as sense of scale and smell.

Figure 41.

Incomplete, incremental design in L’Aquila based on this layering of material and spatial resources has the potential to establish a set of conditions for terremotati to feel they have understood a wider condition of their city. As with Espacio Goya, which did not create exact replicas, allusions to memory will be made that allows people to make their own, wider associations. This method of recreating found space and conditions remains open to contemporary design. By creating places that are familiar but not replicas, terremotati can still identify with them; objects and spaces have many connotations, leaving them open to interpretation and individual associations through memory (Cooper, 1974). A sense or feeling is embedded in certain spaces and places - through scale, height, width, material - from which people will draw their own meaning (Figure 41). It is possible to reconstruct the identity of the centre from these small fragments. The parts evoke a larger story left open to future development and interpretation. To develop these preliminary proposals, given more time this design study could begin to discuss fragmentation, and fragments of the city as a significant ‘modern phenomenon’ (Vesely, 2004: 322).

Specific moments in the city can be reflected on an abstract level to evoke sensations of significant place. Two such examples of material and spatial resources based on memory are colour and material sense of feeling, and scale, width and movement.

The proposed model can be an alternative route to the initial postearthquake redevelopments which reinforced urban sprawl, as a pilot programme for future development starting from small, incremental changes which can affect greater growth (Figure 42). Recovery in L’Aquila’s centre involves creating nodes of

62

collective Memories of formal and informal Central node based on memory

Proposed Project:

Incremental growth:

Formal, historic

Formal, historic Informal, customary:

Informal, customary:

personal

personal

collective

collective

Memories of formal and informal

Memories of formal and informal

Established, central node based on memory

Central node based on memory

roject:

Incremental growth:

Activate further nodes:

oric

Formal, historic

Formal, historic

f formal and

collective

collective

Memories of formal and informal

Memories of formal and informal

Established, central node based on memory

Activate a central node based on memory

Figure 42.

Schematic Activate diagrams to show further nodes: the proposed pilot approach Formal, historic ustomary: customary: within theInformal, centre’s wider system personal of post-earthquake significance collective and memory, and how a central f formal and informal Memories of formal and informal evolve over time. , central node based on memorynode can Proposed Project: Activate a central node based on memory

l growth:

oric

Formal, historic Informal, customary:

oric

ustomary:

f formal and informal

entral node based on memory

personal

personal

de based on

ther nodes:

Informal, customary:

Informal, customary:

ustomary:

personal collective Memories of formal and informal Central node based on memory

Part Four

activity based on collective memory to re-establish continuity.

Of vital importance is rebuilding enough of the smaller nodes to act as seeds of growth for wider city rehabilitation.

Reconstruction must therefore focus on rebuilding part of the first formal, historical category of significance, part of the second category, and part of the less significant remaining places, out of which will grow more of the same. Such growth will help to re-consolidate the city from its current poor state, with the added opportunity to change the trajectory of the city which was confused and sprawling even before. The Mayor of Christchurch, New Zealand, speaking in a documentary after their major earthquake in 2011, said the ‘adversity of destruction was the opportunity of building a new future’ (Dalsgaard, 2012). L’Aquila’s earthquake has created a unique opportunity to ‘start from scratch’ in the centre’s function, to reinforce it as a sociocultural focal point and give the city coherence again.

Creating spaces which enable terremotati to return to the centre echoes the city’s founding story, when all the towns in the Comitatus Aquilanus came together to create a complex, layered core of social and civic life.

Incremental growth: Formal, historic Informal, customary: personal collective Memories of formal and informal Established, central node based on memory

63

Città della Memoria

CONCLUSION The current state of L’Aquila’s historic centre is a paradox.

Widespread damage post-earthquake has left buildings in need of reconstruction, but contentious management decisions, subsequent disruption to sociocultural networks, and an outdated conservation approach mean redevelopment is problematic.

Large amounts of heritage remain in a state of abandonment and decay. To understand the consequences of these issues and suggest an alternative strategy, a prototypical architectural design proposal explores how the topics of heritage conservation, sociocultural engagement, and tectonic development can be brought together through an informed strategy which reflects a system of collective significance. This stems from an understanding of the complex, layered city structure, in which parts become significant or remain significant because of a variety of tangible and intangible factors.

This thesis argues for a new heritage reconstruction approach.

An incomplete, incremental methodology navigates the changes to the local social structures of significance and identity, which have been exacerbated by the displacement of the citizens and subsequent slow and convoluted return to the centre. The outlined strategy proposes an alternative to imposed dov’era com’era approaches, working with the found sociopolitical priorities in a new way to create spaces innovative in function and design, yet sensitive to both terremotati and their medieval city fabric. The strategy activates a central node to create a sociocultural anchor, facilitating further restoration of buildings. A methodology firmly rooted in an understanding of significance drawn from memory is essential to quickly draw terremotati back to the centre by creating familiar spaces which directly address their immediate and changing needs.

Coupled with an experimental conservation style stemming from a developed definition of heritage, these factors form a project strategy and potential precedent for future schemes in L’Aquila and beyond, by overcoming heritage and local resident concerns which otherwise stifle contemporary historic centre redevelopment.

64

Conclusion

This thesis forms part of a larger body of design research, which will continue to explore this reconstruction methodology as a developed design proposal. The approach requires further exploration into the fragments of continued use and the spectrum of experiences within the city to reconfigure a number of recognisable urban typologies. The piazze Palazzo and Vincenzo Rivera and associated palazzi offer a potential set of spaces for a pilot programme. Having investigated terremotati memories of their city as potential design resources, further exploration is required to develop their physical manifestation: how can memories be designed to (re)build an incomplete but multifaceted form of holistic cultural heritage?

Further design research will investigate memories of the city as potential material and spatial sources. Using memory as a resource combines an understanding of people’s experiential priorities for restoration with a strategy to encourage growth, as a counterpoint to the conservation conservatism and poor reconstruction trajectory of L’Aquila.

65

CittĂ della Memoria

References

REFERENCES Interviews The majority of the interviews conducted during the L’Aquila fieldwork placement, May 2015-February 2016, are given anonymously, at the request of the interviewees. Anonymous interviews are not listed below; further information, records and the referencing system for anonymous interviews can be found in Appendix 1.

Calafati, A. G. (2015, March 6). Economist and Co-ordinator of the GSSI International Doctoral Programme in Urban Studies.

Centofanti, M., & Brusaporci, S. (2015, October 27). Centofanti - notable Aquilani historian and professor at Univaq. Brusaporci - professor of architecture at Univaq.

Chiodelli, F. (2015, June 10). Urban Studies Research fellow at the GSSI. Continenza, R. (2015, November 26). Aquilani architect and professor of architecture at Univaq.

Fontana, C. (2015, December). Architect and PhD candidate in Urban Studies at the GSSI. Inverardi, P. (2015, October 12). Rector of Univaq and Aquilani. [Appendix 2] Morganti, R. (2015, November 30). Professor of architecture at Univaq.

Muzi, P. (2015, June 25). President of Italia Nostra dell’Aquila Tamburini, G. (2015, November 24). Architect and town planner; former professor of town planning at Univaq.

Tettamanti, A. (2015, October 26). Aquilani journalist and founder of 3e32 and Casematte.

Vittorini, A. (2015, June 23). The Soprintendenza for L’Aquila.

Secondary Research Sources Archivio di Ministero dei beni e delle attivita culturali e del turismo, L’Aquila Archivio di Stato dell’Aquila, L’Aquila Biblioteca Provinciale Salvatore Tommasi, L’Aquila Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma, Rome Cambridge University Library, Cambridge Faculty Library at The Faculty of Architecture and History of Art, Cambridge Gran Sasso Science Institute Library, L’Aquila

67

Città della Memoria

Bibliography Alexander, D. E., 2014. Communicating earthquake risk to the public: the trial of the ‘L’Aquila Seven’. Natural Hazards, Vol. 72 Issue. 2, pp.1159–1173.

Alici, A., 2013. Italia Nostra e la tutela del patrimonio storico/artistico in Italia tra gli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta, in Cutolo, D., Pace, S. (eds.), La scoperta della città antica.

Esperienza e conoscenza del centro storico nell’Europa del Novecento. pp. 213–225.

Macerata: Quodlibet.

Alivizatou, M., 2012. Intangible heritage and the museum: new perspectives on cultural preservation. Critical cultural heritage series. University College London institute of archaeology publications series. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press.

Amin, A., 2006. The Good City. Urban Studies, Vol. 43 Issue. 5-6, pp.1009–1023.

Antonini, O., 2010. Architettura religiosa aquilana. Todi: Tau Edizioni.

Bal, M., Crewe, J. V. and Spitzer, L, 1999. Acts of memory: cultural recall in the present.

London: Dartmouth College: Published by University Press of New England.

Belanger, A., 2002. Urban space and collective memory: Analysing the various dimensions of the production of memory. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Vol. 11 Issue 1, pp.69–92.

Bock, J.-J., 2015. L’Aquila - The Social Consequences of Disaster and the Recovery of Everyday Life in an Italian Urban Environment. University of Cambridge.

Bouchenaki, M. ed., 2004. Museum International: Intangible heritage. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Boyer, M. C., 1994. The city of collective memory: its historical imagery and architectural entertainments. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Boym, S., 2001. The future of nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.

Brandi, C., 1978. Teoria del restauro. 2nd ed. Torino: Einaudi.

Bullock, N., 2010. Living with history, 1914-1964: Rebuilding Europe after the First and Second World Wars and the role of heritage preservation. Leuven: Leuven UP. Carbonara, G., 1997. Avvicinamento al restauro: teoria, storia, monumenti. Napoli: Liguori.

Carbonara, G., 2012. Restauro architettonico: principi e metodo. Roma: M.E. Carta di Gubbio, 1960. Carta di Gubbio, Seminario Internazionale Terra Mater. 23-26 September 1960.

Casey, E. S., 1987. Remembering: a phenomenological study. Studies in phenomenology and existential philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Centofanti, M. ed., 1992. L’Aquila, città di piazze: spazi urbani e tecniche costruttive.

Pescara: Carsa.

Chang, A. I. T., 1981. The Tao of architecture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ciccozzi, A., 2011. Catastrofe e C.A.S.E. Il terremoto dell’Aquila: analisi e riflessioni sull’emergenza. L’Aquila: Osservatorio sul terremoto dell’Università degli Studi dell’Aquila.

Clementi, A. and Piroddi, E., 1986. L’Aquila. Le città nella storia d’Italia. Bari: Editori Laterza.

68

References

Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press.

Cooper, C., 1974. The House as Symbol of Self. In: Lang, Burnette, Moleski and Vachon, eds., Designing for Human Behaviour – Architecture and the Behavioural Sciences.

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden: Hutchinson & Ross. dell’Associazione Agora di Barete, 2009. tre e trentadue. emozioni nel cratere. Barete: Associazione Agora.

Emden, C., Keen, C. and Midgley, D. eds., 2006. Imagining the city. Cultural history and literary imagination. Berlin: Lang.

English Heritage, 2008. Conservation principles: policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment. English Heritage.

Erll, A. and Rigney, A., 2009. Mediation, Remediation, and the Dynamics of Cultural Memory. Walter de Gruyter.

Gedi, N. and Elam, Y., 1996. Collective Memory - What Is It? History and Memory, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp.30–50.

Gotham, K. F. and Greenberg, M., 2014. Crisis cities: disaster and redevelopment in New York and New Orleans.

Grbac, P., 2013. Civitas, polis, and urbs. Working Paper Series No.96. Oxford, UK: Oxford Department of International Development, University of Oxford.

Grillo, R., 2010. Un Blues Per L’Aquila - Immagini di una Identita Perduta. Lo Spazio del Ricordo.

Grillo, R. and Vitturini, R., 2009. Terrae Motus. Ore 3:32 L’Aquila 6 Aprile ’09. Marte Editrice.

Haider, H. ed., 2008. Intangible Heritage and Post-Disaster Protection. Available at: http:// www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/hd535.pdf. [Accessed 14 Apr. 2016].

Halbwachs, M., 1992. On collective memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hebbert, M., 2005. The street as locus of collective memory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 23, Issue 4, pp.581 – 596.

Hewison, R., 1987. The heritage industry: Britain in a climate of decline. London: Methuen.

Ianni, N., 2014. Ricostruzione: ‘In centro agibilità parziale, no puntellamenti’. AbruzzoWeb [online] 1 Feb. Available at: http://www.abruzzoweb.it/contenuti/ricostruzionein-centro-agibilita-parziale-no-puntellamenti/ [Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].

Isin, E. F., 2008. Recasting the social in citizenship. London: University of Toronto Press.

Jacobs, J., 1962. The Death and life of great American cities. London: Jonathan Cape.

Jennings, B., 2001. From the urban to the civic: The moral possibilities of the city. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 78, Issue 1, pp.88–103.

Jones, J., 2016. Palmyra must not be fixed. History would never forgive us. The Guardian, 11 April 2016.

Koukoufikis, G., 2015. Building a knowledge-driven city: The case of the Gran Sasso Science Institute in L’Aquila, Italy. International Doctoral Programme in Urban Studies.

Gran Sasso Science Institute: L’Aquila.

69

Città della Memoria

Kracauer, S., 1963. The mass ornament: Weimar essays. Reprinted 1995 by Levin, T. Y. London: Harvard University Press.

Lefebvre, H., 1996. Writings on cities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Lynch, K., 1960. The image of the city. Publications of the Joint Centre for Urban Studies.

London: MIT Press.

McCarter, R., 2013. Carlo Scarpa. First ed. Phaidon Press Limited.

Montanari, T., 2016. Così risorge la città di pietra ma è una quinta senza popolo. la Repubblica, Anno 41, No.5, 7 gennaio 2016.

Mosso, L., Ragghianti, C. L. and Aalto, A. eds., 1965. L’opera di Alvar Aalto: Firenze, Palazzo Strozzi 14 novembre 1965-9 gennaio 1966. Milano: Edizioni di Comunità.

Mumford, L., 1997. The culture of cities. Social theories of the city, Vol. 10. London: Routledge.

OECD, 2009. Spreading the Eagle’s Wings so it may fly: Re-launching the economy of L’Aquila region after the earthquake. Workshop in partnership with the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance.

OECD, 2013. Policy Making after Disasters: Helping regions become resilient. The case of Post-earthquake L’Aquila. Paris: OECD. OECD, 2012. Abruzzo 2030: On the Wings of L’Aquila. Building resilient regions after a natural disaster. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/49866886.pdf [Accessed 17 Nov. 2014].

Olick, J. K., Vinitzky-Seroussi, V. and Levy, D., 2011. The collective memory reader. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oliva, F., Campos Venuti, G. and Gasparrini, C. eds., 2012. Piano Strategico dell’Aquila Proposta di documento finale. Comune dell’Aquila: L’Aquila.

Ozerdem, A. and Rufini, G., 2012. L’Aquila’s reconstruction challenges: has Italy learned from its previous earthquake disasters? DISASTERS, Vol. 37, Issue 1, p.119.

Parlamento Italiano, 2004. Decreto Legislativo: Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, ai sensi dell’articolo 10, n. 137. 22 gennaio 2004.

Piovene, G., 1961. Viaggio in Italia. 11th ed. Milano: A. Mondadori.

Renzetti, M. P., Capaldi, F., Marra, L. and Capezzali, W., 2010. Aquila in cartolina: viaggio nella storia della città dal 1895 al 1945. 2. ed. L’Aquila: One group.

Rich, S. C., 2012. The Architecture of Memory. Smithsonian [online] 6 August 2012.

Available at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-architectureof-memory-14396375/ [Accessed 31 Mar. 2016].

Ricœur, P., Blamey, K. and Pellauer, D., 2004. Memory, history, forgetting. London: University of Chicago Press.

Scott, J. C., 1998. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. The Yale ISPS series. London: Yale University Press.

Sebald, W. G., 2001. Austerlitz. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Smith, L., 2006. Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.

70

References

Staiger, U., Steiner, H., and Webber, A. eds., 2009. Memory culture and the contemporary city. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stockel, G., 2013. Mamma, cos’e la piazza?: L’Aquila dopo il terremoto del 6 aprile 2009.

Roma: Aracne.

Tocci, P. and Rumiz, P. eds., 2012. I gigli della memoria: Narrazione collettiva. Chieti: Tabula fati.

UNESCO, 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. [online] The General Conference of UNESCO, 32nd session. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention.

Ungers, O. M., 2013. The city in the city: Berlin: a green archipelago. Reprint of 1977 manifesto by Ungers and Koolhaas, R., with Riemann, P., Kollhoff, H., and Ovaska, A. A critical edition by Hertweck, F., and Marot, S. Florian Hertweck Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers.

Versaci, A. and Cardaci, A., 2012. The difficult relationship between ruins and modernity: the case study of the Mother Church reconstruction in Salemi (Italy). 1st International Conference on Architecture and Urban Design. EPOKA University, Department of Architecture.

Vesely, D., 2004. Architecture in the age of divided representation: the question of creativity in the shadow of production. London: MIT Press.

Waterton, E. and Watson, S., 2010. Culture, Heritage and Representation: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Zunino, C., 2016. AAA vendesi L’Aquila. la Repubblica, Anno 41, No.5, 7 gennaio 2016.

Documentaries Guzzanti, S., 2010. Draquila - Italia Che Trema. BIM Distribuzione.

The Human Scale. 2012. Directed by A.M. Dalsgaard. Final Cut For Real.

71

Città della Memoria

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: ANONYMOUS INTERVIEWEE REFERENCING SYSTEM The majority of the people interviewed during the L’Aquila fieldwork placement requested anonymity.

These interviewees are listed below. They are referenced by the abbreviation ‘Aq’ for a ‘native’ Aquilani, and ‘Ext’ for an extrinsic source who is nevertheless familiar with or has lived in L’Aquila for several years. These are followed by a field number, year date, gender, age group and other relevant information.

Abbreviation

Field Number Year date Sex

Age group Other description

Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014

F F F M M M M F M M

40-60 40-60 15-25 40-60 40-60 60+ 60+ 40-60 40-60 15-25

Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq Aq

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

M F F M M F F M M M M

25-40 25-40 25-40 25-40 40-60 15-25 25-40 25-40 25-40 25-40 25-40

Administrator Teacher Journalist Physicist Receptionist Homemaker IT support Web developer Secretary and writer Architect

Aq Aq Aq Aq

22 23 24 25

2016 2016 2016 2016

M F M F

40-60

Student Student Student UCL professor

A-72

Sweet stall owner, Duomo La Luna store owner Priest of San Biaggio Lady running a market stall Man running a stall Architecture student

Appendices

Abbreviation

Field Number Year date Sex

Age group Other description

Ext

01

2014

M

40-60

Ext

03

2014

F

25-40

Ext

04

2014

F

25-40

Ext Ext

05 06

2015 2015

F M

25-40 60+

Architect Roman

Ext

07

2016

M

-

Student

Ext

02

2014

M

25-40

From Teramo

Lived in L’Aquila for 3/4 years, German Lived in L’Aquila since her Univaq engineering studies, Italian Lived in L’Aquila for 2 years at time of interview, Italian

A-73

Città della Memoria

APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW RECORD, PAOLA INVERARDI Aquilani and Rector of Univaq. Interview on 12th October 2015. This interview was not recorded as it took place on site in Palazzo Carli; the following is a record of the notes taken during the visit.

PRE-EARTHQUAKE Camponeschi: Library of Humanities Main site for the humanities department, with the offices of their faculty Maybe also a few classrooms An old Monastery - huge corridors and small rooms which were the monastery dormitories Carli: All the administration of Univaq - their headquarters, also some classrooms which were also used by the Humanities POST-EARTHQUAKE The University were given money to restore everything - €40 million in total, for all their buildings. Not a lot Had to make choices They had damage everywhere, in all their structures, so the money was split.

Decisions: In the centre, they decided to put money in to Camponeschi, not Carli.

Camponeschi - they gave €12 /13 million for it. Large amount compared to the total budget, but manageable.

Carli - too expensive. They put it in the official list of public buildings. So it is still owned by the University, but they are waiting for more money.

Why did they make this choice?

A new University building was being built anyway for the Humanities before the earthquake (quite ugly white structure near the old hospital).

Building for that had started before the earthquake, and was finished after.

New plan, therefore, is for Camponeschi to become the new administration building - i.e. the facilities from Carli will move there.

Other Issues: Structure (of Camponeschi) is also not safe because it’ so old, so it can’t be made very earthquake resistant - preservation laws mean they are not allowed to modify the structure too much.

Camponeschi can only fit 90 people inside, but this is not enough for the administration.

They also need meeting rooms in Camponeschi - places where everyone comes together for administration, such as the administration council to discuss the University budget and sustainability, etc., and for the Senate to meet.

A-74

Appendices

Camponeschi post-earthquake: Rectorate will be in Camponeschi, but this will also be moved in to their two ‘new’ places.

Camponeschi, and the new concrete building near Carli, are managed by Provveditorato - they have already been appointed to fix it.

They will move back in to Camponeschi at the end of 2016.

Should have been moving in July 2016, but it was delayed.

They will be the first main public institution to go back into the centre.

Inverardi pushed for parking to be constructed under the garden - it is possible to build a two storey car park under there! They did the plans for it and it was approved, but it was too expensive and would have delayed everything.

Parking also interfered with the historic trees in the garden - they wanted to lift them out and move them, but it would have been a nightmare to relocate them. These kinds of trees live very long, they are very resistant - won’t die!

Carli post-earthquake: There is no money in the budget for this building. They have asked the Government for the money - they can do that because it is historic.

Agreement with the Mayor - the Mayor writes a list of public buildings to ask for the money. The University apply to the Mayor to be put on that list of buildings. Then the Mayor sends the list to the Government, asking for money for the whole list in one go as a lump sum, which if granted he will divide up amongst the buildings.

The University don’t need more space now - they have the new Humanities building and the other two near Carli which will soon be done / are underway. So there is no urgency for Carli for their own uses.

Palazzo Carli isn’t the best building in L’Aquila. It has been altered so much over the years - some bits are old and nice.

Keeping the block and street shape is more important.

It is good to keep the structure just for ease, rather than building the structure new again.

But, it would be better to do something modern, sustainable, and so on.

The Soprintendenza is ‘very rigid’. Vittorini ‘didn’t like’ the old Camponeschi plans, for example; the old Camponeschi designs with glass ends were totally shut down by the Soprintendenza.

Paola is pushing to be braver. For example, Inverardi thinks the building on Via Roma (their restored University building) is fake. Too dov’era com’era. What they will try to do to be ‘braver’ - the University own one room next to the Chiesa di Santa Margherita. They want to build a glass box. But there are problems of ownership - it is outside Camponeschi, but it is their room… This is the only piece they have with room for adaptation.

Another use for Carli: So, the University wanted to offer the building, or at least a part of it, to host entrepreneurial initiatives in the cultural theme / areas of culture.

Idea is to have spaces to rent to people who want to start new enterprises, in culture - any activities, such

A-75

Città della Memoria

as recording, visual, theatre...

Idea to have a technical area with recording rooms, multimedia and spaces to rent to people who want to produce work or art using these labs.

People would stay for a few months - short term rental.

There is a precedent in London - InnovationRCA Incubator. Also Accelerator London (London Met technology startup incubator) Idea started by saying ‘what can we put in the centre to revitalise the town and be productive?’; their first consideration.

‘What productive activity?’ So they thought: in Italy / Europe they talk a lot about creating economic revenue from cultural activity. So they wanted to create a facility to attract people from Rome, abroad, etc.

Don’t want the rent to be too expensive - L’Aquila is a small place, and it’s a new idea.

Place for experimenting and restoring techniques Carli building as an experiment - this is just one place, University offer up this building as an experiment.

It might fail, but if it succeeds it is a seed for other areas - think ahead to do something different.

Inverardi thinks it is too late for L’Aquila, because they didn’t do this from the beginning, but it can still be a precedent for future places / disaster recover ideas.

Not conventional, both in terms of the restoration and the function.

Can find this on the Univaq website, under Strategic objectives.

Initially they plan to look for sponsors for this idea, but there has been no time to do this yet.

Now, there is a private initiative by ANCE. ANCE hired architects and sponsored the design project. They produced a proposal, and offered it to the University as inspiration for their idea.

‘It’s ok’, but it’s just a start - not as ‘radical’ as Inverardi would have liked. It was not very disruptive - she wanted more disruptive! They were too cautious.

ANCE’s idea was original - to detach the 2 parts of the building, splitting Carli, and creating a street in the middle - the street that was there historically. They added a garden in the second courtyard (the rear one).

Splitting provided spaces for the two different uses - half for the University, half for the ‘incubator’.

They will present their idea to the Soprintendenza.

They will see if they can find public money for this idea, but they are happy for a private investor.

The University cannot run this ‘incubator’ initiative, so they need a private entity anyway to keep it alive and run it; i.e. some sort of private initiative to set up, organise and run the ‘incubator’ itself.

Starting idea: Carli is a huge building - what do they do with it?

No museums! They are not very sustainable, and what L’Aquila needs is something with revenue, or something to help the economy. Inverardi thinks they don’t need museums, certainly no more in L’Aquila.

What L’Aquila needs is a real function, and producing - not just a dead structure like a museum.

Generated a lot of interest post-earthquake from artists - singers (famous, can’t remember the name) were willing to put money towards a recording room here. But, they can’t just have one room like that isolated - there needs to be lots!

Inverardi has no idea what the cultural products will be. It might be / Inverardi imagines it will engage all new technologies. They will offer the facilities to fertilise this.

A-76

Appendices

APPENDIX 3: BUILDINGS AND AREAS OF CULTURAL INTEREST Map generated from the author’s initial meeting with Alessandra Vittorini, the Soprintendenza for L’Aquila, on 23rd June 2015, during which information was gathered about edifici e aree di interesse Aree Sottoposte a tutela culturale in L’Aquila’s historic centre.

Edifici privati con decreto

KeyAree e edifici sottoposti a tutela...

Aree Sottoposte a tutela Edifici pubblici con decreto

Private buildings protected by decree Area and buildings sottoposti a indiretta approvati Edifici pubblici con decreto Public buildings protected by decree Pubblici tutelati approvati Edifici pubblici ‘ope legis’ Public buildings protected ‘by law’ - more than 70 years old asse centrale privati con decreto approvati - primary focus of redevelopment Asse Centrale sottoposti a indiretta site Cultural approvati Hub site Edifici pubblici ‘ope legis’ privati con decreto

privati decreto approvati Aree e con edifici sottoposti a tutela...

Aree Sottopost

Edifici privati co

Aree e edifici so Edifici pubblici

Pubblici tutelati approvati

asse centrale

Edifici pubblici

site

privati con decr

sottoposti a ind

Pubblici tutelati asse centrale site

A-77

Città della Memoria

APPENDIX 4: CARTA DI GUBBIO LOCANDINAPIEGA:Layout 1

10-09-2009

10:19

Pagina 2

Map generated from the author’s initial meeting with Alessandra Vittorini, the Soprintendenza for L’Aquila, on 23rd June 2015, during which information was gathered about edifici e aree di interesse culturale in L’Aquila’s historic centre.

A ttualità della Car ta di Gubbio 1960-2010 Dichiarazione finale ap provata all'unanimità a conclusione del Convegno Nazionale per la Salvaguardia e il Risanamento dei Centri Storici (Gubbio 17-18-19 settembre 1960).

Il successo del Conveg no di Gubbio promoss o da un gruppo di Comuni, affiancato da p arlamentari e stud iosi, consente la formulazione di una dichiarazione d i principi sulla salvaguardia ed il risanamento dei centri storici. L e relazioni degli 8 Com uni promotori, la presentazione nella mostra di alcuni studi, in parte preparatori ed in parte es ecutivi, di operazioni di risanamento conservativo e l'adesione al Convegno d i 50 Comuni dimostrano il crescente interes se che il tema sta suscitando presso le Am minis trazioni locali e larghi strati di opinione p ubb lica.

L'estensione a scala nazionale del p roblema trattato è stata unanimemente riconosciuta, ins iem e alla necessità d i un'urgente ricognizione e class ificazione preliminare dei centri storici con la individ uazione delle zone da salvaguardare e risanare. Si afferm a la fondamentale e imp rescindibile necessità di cons id erare tali op erazioni come premes sa allo stess o sviluppo della città moderna e quindi la neces sità che ess e facciano p arte dei Piani Regolatori Com unali, come una delle fas i essenziali nella programmazione della loro attuazione. S i invoca una immediata disposizione di vincolo di salvaguardia, atto ad efficacemente sospendere qualsiasi intervento, anche d i modesta entità, in tutti i centri storici, dotati o no di Piano Regolatore, prima che i relativi Piani di Risanamento Cons ervativo siano stati formulati e resi operanti.

Si riconosce la necessità di fiss are p er legge i caratteri e la procedura di formazione dei Piani di Risanamento Conservativo, come speciali piani particolareggiati di iniziativa comunale, soggetti ad efficace controllo a scala regionale e nazionale, con snella procedura di approvazione e di attuazione. Detti piani fis seranno modalità e gradualità di tutti g li interventi su suolo pubblico e privato, sulle fronti e nell'inter no degli edifici, e si attueranno esclusivamente mediante com parti, cias cuno d ei quali rap presenti un'entità di insediamento e di intervento. Rifiutati i criteri del ripris tino e delle aggiunte stilistiche, del rifacimento mimetico, della demolizione di ed ifici a carattere ambientale anche modesto, d i ogni “d iradamento” ed “isolamento” di edifici m onumentali attuati con demolizioni nel tessuto edilizio, ed evitati in linea di p rincip io i nuovi ins erimenti nell'ambiente antico, si afferma che gli interventi di risanamento conservativo, bas ati su una p reliminare profonda valutazione d i carattere storico critico, devono ess enzialm ente consistere in: a) consolidam ento delle strutture essenziali d eg li edifici; b) eliminazione delle recenti s ovrastrutture a carattere utilitario dannos e all'amb iente ed all'igiene; c) ricomposizione delle unità imm ob iliari per ottenere abitazioni funzionali ed igieniche, dotate di ad eg uati impianti e servizi igienici, o altre destinazioni per attività economiche o pubbliche o p er attrezzature d i modesta entità compatib ili con l'ambiente, conservando al tempo stess o vani ed elem enti interni ai quali l'indagine storico -critica abbia attribuito un valore; d) res tituzione, ove possibile, degli spazi liberi a giardino ed orto; e) istituzione d ei vincoli d i intangibilità e d i non edificazione.

Si ravvisa la neces sità che la valutazione storico-critica debb a, per omog eneità di giud izi, essere affidata ad una Commis sione regionale ad alto livello e che la redazione dei Piani di Risanamento e d ei comparti, da affid are a tecnici qualificati, avvenga in stretta conness ione con la Commissione regionale e con i progettis ti dei Piani Regolatori. Si suggerisce che la p ubb licazione dei Piani di Ris anam ento Conservativo si avvalga di una proced ura par ticolare, in cui siano previste forme di pubblicità estesa, come ad esem pio, la contemporanea esposizione in sede regionale oltre che locale, al fine d i cons entire osservazioni qualificate e l'esame d elle os servazioni con l'intervento d i particolari competenze.

Si affer ma che nei progetti di risanamento una particolare cura deve es sere posta nell'ind ividuazione della struttura sociale che caratterizza i quartieri e che, tenuto conto delle necessarie operazioni di sfollamento dei vani sovraffollati, sia garantito agli abitanti d i ogni comparto il d iritto di op tare per la rioccupazione delle

A-78

abitazioni e d elle botteghe ris anate, dopo un periodo di alloggiamento temporaneo, al q uale dovranno provved ere gli Enti p er la edilizia sovvenzionata; in particolare dovranno es sere rispettati, per quanto possibile, i contratti di locazione, le licenze commerciali ed artigianali, ecc., prees istenti all'operazione di risanamento.

Per la pratica attuazione di tali principi, si invoca un urgente provvedimento di legge generale che, assorbendo i due disegni di legge del senatore Zanotti Bianco ed altri, e dell'on. Vedovato, risolva in modo organico la complessa materia e stabilisca: 1) le modalità ed il finanziamento per il censimento dei Centri storici; 2) la programmazione delle operazioni alla scala nazionale; 3) le modalità per la for mazione dei Piani Esecutivi di Risanamento Conservativo, s econdo i principi enunciati, affidando ai Comuni la responsabilità delle operazioni per la loro realizzazione; 4) le procedure per la d is ponibilità dei locali durante le operazioni d i ris anam ento, ivi comp rese le modalità per la formazione dei consorzi obbligatori e p er un rapido svolgimento delle pratiche d i esproprio o prevedendo anche la s os tituzione, da par te del Comune, di Enti o d i cooperative ai proprietari inademp ienti o che ne faces sero domanda; 5) l'entità e le modalità di finanziamento delle operazioni, preferenzialmente risolto con la conces sione di mutui a basso interess e ai Comuni interess ati con eventuale garanzia dello Stato e con facoltà del Comune di graduare il tasso di interess e proporzionalmente al grado di utile ricavato dall'op erazione, con eventuale contributo a fondo perso nei cas i di accer tata e notevole diminuzione d i valore d ell'intero comparto; 6) le modalità per la perequazione dei valori economici delle s ingole p roprietà all'interno di ogni com parto; 7) la possibilità agli Enti dell'edilizia sovvenzionata d i partecipare alle operazioni d i ris anam ento.

A conclus ione d ei prop ri lavori il Conveg no riafferma la necess ità che gli auspicati provved im enti s ulla salvaguardia ed il risanamento dei Centri storici improntati ai principi enunciati form ino un unico corpo di norm e legislative facente parte, a sua volta, come capitolo fondam entale, del Codice d ell'Urbanistica, in corso di elaborazione.

Si auspica, infine, che gli studi ed i risultati di questo Convegno possano seguitare perfezionandosi ed a tal scopo si decide che il Comitato promotore del Convegno si trasformi in Comitato permanente, cooptando le forze culturali e le Amministrazioni particolarmente interessate alla prosecuzione degli studi, e che sia dato modo di poter esemplificare al più presto, in concreto, alcune realizzazioni nei centri ove gli studi sono più maturi, realizzazioni che servano per la verifica dei principi enunciati e per la formulazione ed il perfezionamento della legge generale.

Elenco dei soci fondatori es clusi i Comuni: − Ente Provinciale per il Turismo di Perugia − A zienda A utonoma di Soggior no e Turismo di Gubbio − Istituto per le Case Popolari per la Provinc ia di Perugia − Prof. A rch. Giovanni Astengo − On. Vinic io Baldelli − Ing. Mario Belardi − Prof. Nicola Benedetti − Prof. Arch. Eduardo Caracciolo − Dr. Luigi Contenti − Prof. Arch. Gisber to Mart elli − Avv. Vincenzo Parlavecchio − On. Camillo Ripamonti − On. Mario Roffi − Prof. Arch. Giovanni Romano − Prof.ssa Egle Renata Trincanato

Appendices

APPENDIX 5: ZONES OF RECONSTRUCTION Two original maps from the website of Comune dell’Aquila; web page for the reconstruction of the city, which informed Figure 9. (Image Source: http://www.comune.laquila.gov.it/pagina199_il-piano-diricostruzione.html) ASSESSORATO ALLA RICOSTRUZIONE

Assessore Pietro DI STEFANO

SETTORE PIANIFICAZIONE E RIPIANIFICAZIONE DEL TERRITORIO Dirigente

arch. Chiara Santoro

Uffici Coordinamento

Maurizio Tollis, Irene Coppola

Servizio Ripianificazione del territorio e Ricostruzione dei centri storici Beatrice De Minicis, Gianluca Fugaro, Alessandro Giordani, Orlando Mancini Valeria Paolucci, Claudio Ruscitti, Adalberto Sacchini

Con la collaborazione di Abruzzo Engineering

C

Laura Di Cesare, Giacomo Di Labio, Riccardo Fagnano, Germano Sgreccia, Roberto Russo

Servizio Pianificazione Generale

Pierluigi Seccia

Con la collaborazione di Abruzzo Engineering Ileana Cafarelli, Silvia Lledo

Consulenti Arch.Daniele IACOVONE; Arch. Sergio PASANISI; Avv.Paolo URBANI In collaborazione con : - Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici dell'Abruzzo - ITC CNR L'Aquila - Settore Emergenza sisma e Ricostruzione privata - Settore Ricostruzione Pubblica - Ufficio Super Coordinamento Sicurezza Cantieri Contributi - Fondazione CENSIS - Ispredil Spa - TPS



B

B



PIANO DI RICOSTRUZIONE DEI CENTRI STORICI DI L'AQUILA - CAPOLUOGO E FRAZIONI

C

Articolo 14 comma 5 bis Legge 24.giugno 2009 n.77

Piano stralcio degli interventi edilizi diretti nella perimetrazione del capoluogo

B

(parere MEF Prot. n. 14252 del 09/06/2011)

CAPOLUOGO Tavola :

Piano Regolatore Generale

Cap_

Dicembre 2011- Scala 1:4.000

02

LEGENDA

B

Piano Regolatore Generale

A

PERIMETRAZIONE E AMBITI DI RICOSTRUZIONE DCR n. 3/2010 Perimetrazione (ex art. 2 DCR n. 3/2010) Del.C.C. n. 35 del 30/04/2010

A

Ambito A - Città/borghi storici Avviso Pubblico del 21/10/2010 prot. n. 1760

B

Ambito B - Aree "a breve" Avviso Pubblico del 25/06/2010

C

Ambito C - Aree "frontiera" Avviso Pubblico del 01/06/2011 prot. n.1543

C

B B

C O M U N E D E L L

VG1 VG2 SP2

AC10

SP3 AC8

SP4

AC9

SP5 AC7 AC5 SP6 SP7

AC6 SG1

AC3

AC2

SG2

AC4

'A Q U I L A

SG3

SP8 AC1

A-79