Ordinary Courtyards. To unlock the spatial resources in housing by Gennaro Postiglione

ORDINARY COURTYARDS to unlock the spatial resources in housing

Politecnico di Milano Scuola AUIC Thesis in Architecture-Building Environment-Interiors A.Y. 2019/2020 Supervisor: Gennaro Postiglione Co-Supervisor: Laura Pogliani Students:Valeria Righetti 904024 Marta Sciarra 904051

INDEX

PART I/ Courtyards

PART III/ The new law

1. Quarantined courtyards

5. Synecdoche

1.1 Quarantined courtyards 1.2 For health emergency, for housing 1.2.1 Courtyards and the housing issue

6.Blocks analysis

1.2.2 Voids as resources

1.3 Modern housing issues 1.4 Void as a resource

2.Courts and courtyards 2.1 Etymology of two terms 2.1.1. The typological issue 2.2 Evolution of courts and courtyards

PART II/ Commons 3. The commons

3.1 What is a Commons 3.2 Housing and Commons

3.3 Commons over the time

3.2.1. Commons in architecture today

3.3.1. A continuum space 3.3.2. Society model and change of housing-system 3.3.3. A political structure 3.3.4. European scenario 3.3.5. From sharing to commons

3.4 How to build a Commons? User level: appropriation

Space level: porosity Use level: diversity

5.1 Evolution of milan 5.2 Milanese patterns 5.3 Synecdoche

6.1 NIL 21 6.2 NIL 20 6.3 NIL 19 6.4 Courtyards as residuals: The parking war 7.The project of city courtyards

7.1 Domestic and urban courtyards 7.2 Urban policy 7.3 Give me back my courtyard!

PART IV/ NoLo Block 8. NoLo courtyards

8.1 Choice of pilot block 8.2 Urban policy 8.3 Metaproject: urban courtyards 8.4 A stroll in the urban courtyards 8.5 Metaproject: domestic courtyards 8.6 A stroll in the domestic courtyards 8.7 Details

For future studies

4. Case studies

Bibliography

ATTACHMENTS

4.1 Urban policies 4.2 Spatial quality 4.3 Surniture and practices

/ A PRACTICAL TOOLBOOK_Urban Policies / A PRACTICAL TOOLBOOK_ permeable walls and furniture

A B ST R A C T

During the lockdown, the way some courtyards came to life became more and more evident to us. Until that moment they were completely forgotten by residents, who used them as car parks or just a place where to store their litter. In the quarantine period, instead, people started looking at their courtyards with different eyes, hence using them for diverse purposes. This research considers the possibility of these courtyards being used in a different way also in the post-pandemic society and draws the characteristics they need to have in order to become a new publicspace model with a large-scale applicability. The project brings forward a draft law to be integrated with Urban Policies, based on the courtyardsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; morphology and type. These would be applied in the context of a Pilot Block in the NoLo district of Milan. The project, in the chosen block, aims at making the walls and property divisions permeable, acting on the surfaces and revitalising the ground floors, which overlook the courtyards, by introducing new activities. The research is divided into four parts, the first two parts explore the theory on the theme, while the third and fourth parts set out the design proposal. In the first part of the research, the objects under examination, the courtyards (chapter 2) after having listed the starting points of the reflection (chapter 1), are better analyzed. Courtyards could be necessary spaces to face three different emergencies, not only the health emergency but also the housing issue and the environmental one. In the second part, the theme of the Commons is explained (chapter 3), a key applied to case studies to identify useful tools in the planning phase (chapter 4). The third part explains the project on the Urban Policies scale (chapter 7), derived from the analysis of a few blocks (chapter 6) selected along a territorial axis in the city of Milan (chapter 5). In the fourth and last part, the project applied to one block in the NoLo neighborhood is explained (chapter 8). Thanks to the re-design of courtyards, it would be possible to revitalise part of the urban fabric in disuse. The urban fabric would become an adequate place for handling pandemic-related issues, the housing and environmental problems, it would help to create new economic and productive opportunities for people, as well as encourage social aggregation. Looking at this from a Commons perspective, it would be possible to identify the characteristics that would allow to manage the project on different scales: from the city to the detail dimension.

PART I / COURTYARDS

1. Quarantined courtyards 1.1 Quarantined courtyards 1.2 For health emergency, for housing 1.2.1 Courtyards and the housing issue

1.2.2 Voids as resources

1.3 Modern housing issues 1.4 Void as a resource

2.Courts and courtyards 2.1 Etymology of two terms 2.1.1. The typological issue 2.2 Evolution of courts and courtyards

1. QUARANTINED COURTYARDS When quarantine has forced us into our houses, courts and courtyards have become more important as they are among the few places where we could get some fresh air. Spaces that have always been little considered, in these circumstances assumed new values. The entrance area to the garages becomes a play area, the threshold of the house a place where we can sunbathe playing cards, the courtyards become laboratories where we can finally do DIY... The use of these exisisting spaces in housing is necessary to spread the gathering places during the health emergency. Moreover courtyards can be resources to help to tackle the housing issues of the today market.

Quarantined Courtyards

QUARANTINED COURTYARDS

"Our yard today is more noisy than usual,don'tyouthink?What'shappening?" "Look, children are playing in front of the garage!" "Funny, this has never happened before!" "Must be because of the quarantine, they're tired of being at home." dialogue between two forced flatmates, Milan, 9 April 2020

We are stuck in Milan, in a building from the 1920s that peeps out on Viale Abruzzi, in the eastern part of the city. The condominium closes, at the corner of a block, forming a void with an irregular shape, overlooked by all the apartments. We feel a bit like Jeff from Hitchcock's "Rear Window". Like him, we can't move and we end up constantly looking out the window in search of looks that make us feel part of social life. But we're not the only ones who feel a bit Jeff, it seems that every condominium has turned its interest to the introverted space of the building, leaning towards the courtyard, on galleries and balconies. During this period, where staying at home is an obligation, many have begun to develop "evasive" instincts: every inch of sunshine is seen as the most valuable asset. What you don't do to get out, even just five minutes, to stretch your legs and take a breath of air!

[Pic 1] backstage picture of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Rear Windowâ&#x20AC;?, Alfred Hitchcock, 1954.

And this is how the courtyards, hallways, and collective spaces of the house are spontaneously used, places where the division between a private residence and shared space becomes more and more subtle. Here in Via Stradella are occupied at alternate times by the various inhabitants: in the morning the old man upstairs enjoys the fresh air of the early hours of the day and paints the shutters of his windows; just before lunch, when everyone is busy at the stove, the lady of the ground floor sneaks out and sneaks some red flowers from the bush in the corner, they will surely give more joy to her table. In the early afternoon the girl next door comes running down the stairs in her sneakers, does a couple of laps jumping around the garbage shed and climbs all the steps to the top floor, and then goes down the courtyard again, like this, for a good half hour. After the snack, the children in the building opposite, three little brothers, use the hallway as a runway for their cars, the marble floor makes them slide, which is a wonder! Shortly before dinner, the boy on the second floor takes the dog into the courtyard, makes him run around for a few minutes among the flowerbeds, and makes him play with a ball. Uno, the half-breed he adopted a couple of years ago, doesn't need much space and he really seems to like the courtyard. The quarantined courtyards have changed, the cars stay holed up in their pits, and the condos take over these spaces. The threshold of the house expands into a hybrid, familiar, domestic environment, but still unexplored. "Who knew there was a stone fountain behind the garage canopy?"

[Pic. 0] first page of the chapter: flyer for "Rear Window", italian version.

QUARANTINED COURTYARDS

This unexpected interest in the courtyards seemed to us an argument that could produce reflections that, even if projected at the end of the quarantine, would retain a certain validity. The questions that arose were many and, for the most part, it was not possible to give an immediate answer. Even if we had the foreboding it was necessary to verify that indeed our courtyard was not an exceptional case. The research we started on this subject revealed that in half of the yards considered the inhabitants, our accomplices in this project, found changes between the use "before" and "during" quarantine. Although the case studies are not yet sufficient to define our approach as "scientific" (for now about eighty people have responded to our call), the percentage should not be underestimated. Moreover, if we consider only the courtyards inserted in a dense urban fabric, such as the Milanese one, there are very few that have not recorded variations in use. But let's go with the order. The research began on Instagram, and then adapted to other social platforms. We asked all our friends and not only to draw on a shared map of their own courtyard and to add a photo and a description that would highlight the changes in the use of this space during the quarantine. To facilitate the process and collect as many examples as possible, we have extended our search to every pertinential space in the home. We did not refuse photos of large gardens bordering the countryside or strips of asphalt between one garage and another. The concept of a courtyard, after all, accommodates a very wide variety of objects even avoiding the personal meanings attributable to the word and considering only the dictionary definition: "portion of open area between the bodies of a building" or "space not entirely enclosed between the bodies of a building, but connected to them by fences or low secondary buildings" (Treccani). Many of the respondents stopped at the description of their courtyard, perhaps not grasping the usefulness of the information requested, while others claim not to have noticed changes. In fact, the courtyard is a "collective" space, and as someone points out, one should not encourage its use, nothing changes between a courtyard and the street. One should stay in the house. End of the story. But the other half tells us how unwritten regulations have been established in courtyards that allow the use of these spaces by one person or family group at a time, just as happened here, in Via Stradella. Many write in the caption that accompanies their photos that children have begun to inhabit the "intermediate" spaces of the residences. "If before it was just an empty space, now since the morning it is inhabited by children and young people who have placed a basket and a ping pong table in this space" writes Francesco. "The courtyard has never been a particularly popular place, but in this period of quarantine, it has been populated by children who play 1,2,3 star every other day" adds Lucrezia. And then some say they go to the courtyard for a walk, for a run, to smoke a cigarette or to have a beer at sunset.

[Pic 2] facing page: schemes of maps of the courtyards that we collected during our research on Instagram. @ordinary courtyards https://www.instagram.com/ordinarycourtyards/?hl=it As we can see from the pictures all the spaces are different in shape and size, also the locations (that people sent) ranges, however the uses and the behaviours are always similar.

QUARANTINED COURTYARDS

What emerges from various testimonies is how condominiums have reorganized these spaces almost as if they were "extensions" of their home. "We also started to take care of the courtyard, pruning some plants and fixing it" writes Matteo "We would never have done it if not in these conditions since it is a space that would not even be ours but the store on the ground floor". The courtyards during the quarantine seem to take on new values that move them away from the definition of mere "servant spaces". The majority of these interstitial spaces, in fact, are the result of discontinuous and heterogeneous construction processes that consider the courtyards functional elements to absorb the irregularities of full volumes. Rarely ordinary architecture elevates the void to a generator of space as happens in the type of courthouse, in the Domus, as well as in Renaissance palaces. Rather, the courtyard acts as a support to the house, relegated to the entrance of light and air in the rooms. As a result, even the common use of these spaces is not far removed from actions necessary and essential to everyday life, but secondary. However, the lockdown seems to have weakened this hierarchical structure that sees the void subject to the rules of full and it seems that the peculiarities of these residual space are gradually being discovered. The concept of emptiness as an unexplored resource is certainly not new. Courtyards fall into the category of those intermediate places between the intimate dimension of private living and the more properly public dimension of the street and the city that have often been at the center of the debates of the last century. The reflections prompted by Team X since the 1950s have given shape to objects that the world of architecture had not yet thought of: the charged voids of the Smithsons (Smithson 2001) and the playgrounds of Aldo Van Eyck (Strauven 1998) are only possible examples. These ways of telling the void described a point of view on architecture and its ramifications that is still proving to be current today. Nevertheless, it is inevitable to notice a substantial difference: if Team X and its followers associated emptiness with social occasions, cooperation, and solidarity, quarantine only allows the relationship between open space and the individual. The courtyards remind us, again making a comparison with a film, of the skylight from which Joy and Jack, the protagonists of "Room", could observe the world outside the shed in which they were locked. If, however, the skylight is an upward eye, which cannot reciprocate the glances of the two prisoners, the courtyard allows in a certain way a form of sociality at a distance: whoever gets lost between the flowerbeds and the parking lots is certain to be observed from all the windows cut out in the walls of this newfound type of open-air room.

[Pic 3] facing page: pictures of the courtyards that we collected during our research on Instagram. @ordinary courtyards https://www.instagram.com/ ordinarycourtyards/?hl=it As we can see from the pictures all the spaces are different in shape and size, also the locations (that people sent) ranges, however the uses and the behaviours are always similar.

[Pic. 4] Room, Abrahamson, 2015.

Lenny

In the next page some of the witnesses we collected.

"The court is divided by a wall into two private properties belonging to two distinct condominiums. One has a garage, the other one has flowerbeds and a garbage house. Neither of the two parts is used during the year if not, precisely, as a parking lot or as a waste deposit. During the quarantine some children started to use the area in front of the garages and the hallway as a play area in the late afternoon." "My garden is quite big, and my family and I hardly ever used it before the quarantine. Now that it is the only way we have to spend some time outdoors, everyone is glad and thankful to have it. We realise how lucky we are, because it is our "safe place", thanks to which we are not going crazy. There are those who just relax reading in the sun, or doing crosswords, my dad who takes care of the plants, and my sisters' children who never stop running or riding their bikes all around it. For those who want to keep their shape, it is also a good place to go for a run, because it is wide and you do not get excessively bored by the view." "Being on the sixth floor, I can enjoy a privileged view of my court: a low body divides it into two smaller courts, but from the top you can perceive it as a whole. Like me, the other people who overlook it are used to live the court from above, since the only function it has at the moment is that of waste area. The quarantine has made the balconies more lively: during any time of the day, you can see people who, through very simple activities such as reading or sunbathing, seek a semblance of normality and freedom while enjoying the open air." "A courtyard not very animated and not particularly valuable, simple storage for bicycles and garbage, used by both tenants and staff of the activities on the ground floor. Part of the courtyard is raised one level and serves as a terrace (unused) for two apartments. There were no changes between the "before" and "after" quarantine except for a sporadic series of paper airplanes here and there." "The courtyard is generated in the interior space of a U-shaped, four-family building. It consists of a terrace and a garden. Usually it is used very little, in particular in summer are opened some tents to enjoy the days outside and the garden is taken care of all year round by my dad. During this quarantine, my grandmother and her neighbor look out from the upper floors to chat on their respective balconies. We have also rediscovered the beauty of the garden and everyone takes advantage of it to get some air and stretch their legs by taking a walk under the fruit trees. Do not underestimate the possibility of relaxing under the warm sun on the swing placed on the terrace for twenty years, which no one used frequently anymore." "Private outdoor garden delimited on three sides by nets and hedges. The space is used almost all year round, with the exception of the winter season, both as a place of recreation and as a space for the cultivation of plants and herbs. The quarantine period has not changed its functions or times of use." "The courtyard of my house is closed, it is just a step away from the Navigli and is bordered by typical buildings of Milanese architecture: the gallery houses. It is completely for residents' use, and it is a perfect meeting place for chatting and making friends! " "The simplicity of a courtyard between farmsteads in the center of town, bordered on two and a half sides by houses and on the other side and a half missing from a fence. Three families, or rather four. The quarantine has not changed much its use, but it has helped us to appreciate more the rustle of the leaves of each fruit tree and that smell of softener coming from the laundry just laid out. It has allowed us to chat on the balconies and celebrate a new birth, that of Matteo, by now the grandson of all. Despite the size of the space, there is no dispersion of emotions. We could even go back to doing the garden."

"The exclusively residential courtyard has an irregular and narrow shape. The buildings that delimit this void are tall and close together; for this reason it is almost always in the shade. In the ''center'' there is a large magnolia tree overlooking the balcony of my kitchen (a fortune!). The courtyard has never been a particularly frequented place, but in this period of quarantine it has been "populated" with children who play "1,2,3 star" every other day as well." "This space is closed on three sides and open on the fourth allowing a view of nature to the south. It is used partly as a passage from one block to another of the building and partly as a bicycle storage room. After the general lockdown many students started to experience it as a recreational space." "Courtyard of cement. Before the emergency Covid-19 was frequented by the grandchildren of my neighbor, who played football and ran on their bikes; now it is rarely used by condominiums to take a walk every now and then." "I have never seen anyone in the yard before the quarantine, except those who parked their car there or went to throw the trash. Now when I look out from the balcony I sometimes see a child playing, boys drinking a beer sitting on a wall, someone coming down just to smoke a cigarette in the open air before returning home. When I get off I go into the backyard, a strip of asphalt that connects the pits, at least I can walk for a few hundred meters in a straight line, almost. " "This small garden is one of the reasons why I chose this as my Milanese home. A very nice green handkerchief, dotted with hydrangeas and trees, cut out from overlooking the garage, but not for this less beautiful. No one ever goes there now, except those who stay locked out and try to call their roommates' attention screaming, maybe because we all have large balconies that run along the entire profile of the building and overlook the garden. Or maybe because it is a small space and the fear of getting in touch with someone is still very strong". "I always knew I was lucky to live in a house outside the city traffic and with a nice courtyard, but today it has become a real blessing. Getting out of the house and spending a few hours outdoors walking in circles or reading a book in peace is not a luxury that everyone can afford. For us it is an outlet for worries that never seem to diminish." "The courtyard that overlooks my balcony is divided between 7 different properties. Each one uses the open space differently: some are garages, others are used for garbage collection or bicycle storage, others have greenery and parking spaces; one in particular, however, since the quarantine began, has been completely transformed: if before it was just an empty space, now since the morning it is inhabited by children and young people who have put in this space a basket and a ping ping table ... at least they can continue to have fun in the open air." "The court consists of a main part, which serves mainly as a loading/unloading of goods, and a secondary part on the back used as a vegetable garden. These are divided on one side into a pergola. During the quarantine it has not changed its use because the house on the left is little frequented, and the one on the south is uninhabited." "The courtyard is small enough, surrounded by buildings of 6 and 3 floors, is therefore not very bright. it is completely paved and has the entrances to some garages. it is closely guarded by the concierge who strongly discourages its use so as not to prevent the passage of the few cars that access it. During the quarantine, a family tried to use it to play football, but was quickly removed for an "inappropriate" use of the common space."

For health emergency, for housing

QUARANTINED COURTYARDS

Outdoor spaces become indispensable in the organization of a safe life during the health emergency we are experiencing. All the actions that before the spread of the pandemic could be done in closed, sometimes overcrowded, must now necessarily take place either in very large spaces or outdoors. For events, shows, but also gatherings among friends and relatives, it is advisable not only to keep a safe distance but also to stay outside, where the virus is transmitted with more difficulty1. Outdoor spaces, therefore, acquire new values and become necessary to fight the virus.

[Pic 1] Orizzontale, 8Â° giorno di quarantena al Mandrione, Roma, 2020. In Domusweb, Come abbiamo abitato in quarantena: un diario (16 marzo-8 maggio 2020). h t t p s : / / w w w. d o m u s w e b . i t / it/notizie/2020/03/16/comeabitiamo-in-quarantenaun-diario-dei-giorni-delcoronavirus.html

"The pandemic also challenges urban planners to rethink the architecture of density. Density is the logic of cities: the concentration of activity in an urban environment stimulates economic activity, for example through the "agglomeration effect". The concentration of people is also a good ecological principle when dealing with climate change, saving on infrastructure resources. It is also positive socially, as it exposes us to different individuals in a densely differentiated city. However, to prevent or inhibit future pandemics, we may need to find different physical forms of density, allowing people to communicate, to see their neighbors, to participate in street life, even if they are forced to separate temporarily. Long ago, Chinese urban planners found a form with this flexibility in the shikumen, the courtyard. Architects and planners must find its contemporary equivalent"2. The equivalent could be in the redesign of the management of open spaces x forms already found in the city, such as courtyards. However, it is also necessary to rethink the infrastructural apparatus at the base of the open space system in order to allow the rapid reception of all the necessary services. A solution is being sought in the municipal administrations of Paris and Bogota with projects towards a "15 minutes city", where the residents can have all their needs met-be they for work, shopping, health, or culture-within a quarter of an hour of their own doorstep. But the concept of "hyper proximity", as the French call it, seeks to stitch some of the city function back together, and it's driving many of the world's most ambitious community planning projects. Meanwhile, in Portland, Oregon, walking-distance-limited neighborhood planning is seen as central to climate action: the city aims to cover 90 percent of the city in so-called "20-minute neighborhoods", where all basic needs-with the exception of work-can be reached within a third of an hour of walking time. In Australia, Melbourne rolled out a similar pilot in 20183.

1. D'Alessandro D, Gola M, Appolloni L, et al. COVID-19 and Living space challenge. Well-being and Public Health recommendations for a healthy, safe, and sustainable housing. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(9S):61-75. Published 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.23750/abm. v91i9-S.10115. 2. Sennett R., Come dovremmo vivere? La densitaĚ&#x20AC; nelle cittaĚ&#x20AC; del post-pandemia, Domus 1046. https://www.domusweb.it/it/ architettura/2020/05/09/comedovremmo-vivere-la-densitanelle-citta-del-post--pandemia. html 3. O'Sullivan F, Paris Mayor: It's Time for a '15-Minute City', 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/ news/articles/2020-02-18/ paris-mayor-pledges-agreener-15-minute-city

QUARANTINED COURTYARDS

Courtyards and the housing issue It is necessary to point out which are the main issues of the housing market in our contemporary society, to answer properly to the question of why do we need to live the adjacent open areas. In recent years, deep and wide changes in housing needs more diversified among social profiles and more changeable over time. Society is facing problems concerning housing affordability, related mainly to the fact that the housing market doesn’t follow the same pace of the big demographic changes which are taking place, and social exclusion, due in particular to the growing multicultural society and different migration flows. Not only more and more of the world’s population is living in cities and the number is growing rapidly, but also as a result, current cities are becoming more populated or overpopulated.

[Pic 2] Francesca Magnani, On the stoop, 2020. Series of pictures taken in New York during the lock-down. Not only courts and courtyards, but all the in-between spaces related to the house have became precious spaces during the quarantine.

As far as socio-demographic field is concerned, the main changes taking place regard the transformation of the traditional family forms, as in today’s reality the traditional nuclear family is rapidly giving way to a multitude of other living situations. We are witnessing growing cases of more singles, separations/divorces, single-parent, and recomposed families. Another issue that has to be highlighted is the growing ageing of the population: more people and more years with dependency/ disability. Then changing migration patterns, for example, immigrationemigration flows, commuters, economic migration to search for better employment, refugees, asylum seekers are fundamental to shape new housing needs. On the other hand, the main socio-economic changes that affect the housing market are mainly the growing flexibility of the labor market, accompanied by mobility and precariousness as consequences, and the dynamic and attractive urban centers with corresponding growth

of population, rising value of real estates leading and decreasing housing affordability. Commuters, one-parent families, three-generations families, as well as immigrants and youths, in particular, are groups that share the issue of housing: “Re-housing / La casa come dispositivo di integrazione” is a research completed at Politecnico di Torino that gives us a general glimpse of the situation of whom it calls “New Italians”, and young people, between 18 and 34, in Italy. The newcomers’ employment rate is slightly higher than that of Italians, however, the average annual income is less than half. Economically sustainable housing for this income would correspond to just 30 square meters (economically sustainable area means the area accessible with 1/3 of the average citizen wage) while currently, the average market area of the rental unit is approximately 70 square meters (from Scenari Immobiliari, Agenzia delle entrate). The frame that emerges regards the quest for housing from new Italian citizens and young Italians, that in most cases coincide because the potential house that these two categories require is the same: accessible in costs and adequate in measure. The residential stock of the offer, however, not manages to guarantee affordable prices and always adequate accommodation size4. But new and experimental living models today suggest the possibility of outsourcing many of the spatial and infrastructural equipment, traditionally inserted within the domestic units.This phenomenon not only allows us to imagine new housing types but allows alsoto radically reconfigure part of the existing heritage: traditional housing models, characterized by rigid and compartmentalized spatial equipment, can be redesigned in flexible and open systems thanks to the application of new spatial strategies. By reconfiguring underutilized environments in new spaces for sharing, through the organization of innovative housing management and the development of systems integrated with the services already present in the urban context, it is now possible to formulate a new concept of living. In this moment of the housing crisis and considering the limited economic capitals of the youth and immigrants a shift from traditional housing to a more integrative one with the city seems reasonable. The solution exercised is based on sharing and commoning spaces, intended as bringing people together, whose activities create social values. After briefly analyzing the fundamental ideas on the home-public space relationship of the twentieth century, today we must consider that more than half the world’s population is settled in urban areas. It is therefore necessary to create the conditions for living in cities and in their public spaces. The use of courtyards can tackle this issue: the spaces of the house can be spread in the open environment creating liveable spaces that can host an infinite number of functions. Courtyards in different times of the year can be an extra room that can change following the inhabitant’s needing.

4. Russi N. Coricelli F., Quaglio C., Rolfo D., Rehousing: La casa come dispositivo di integrazione, Quaderni, Torino 2017, p. 26.

QUARANTINED COURTYARDS

Equipping courtyards with some simple features activates the void: people can spend time working, studying, doing sport, or simply enjoy their free time in the open space, near home.In addition, the controlled presence in outdoor spaces allows you to avoid forms of isolation that, as Richard Sennett recalls, affect the large percentage of elderly people present in cities5. Moreover, thanks to the re-use of courtyards also the underused ground floors can be reactivated. It produces new values and social cohesion among the inhabitants that have the possibilities to create new small communities. These actions can modify the asset of also large areas of the city, creating new liveable environments. Voids as resources The size of the voids in each city is different and this also changes in different areas of the same city. The more attention is shifted to the suburbs, the greater the presence of large spaces. These voids, therefore, occupy a rather large percentage of the urban fabric. The emptiness of the courtyards is therefore a consistent and still unexploited spatial resource.

5. "The pandemic - particularly in

Europe, and in London, from where I write - has raised in people's minds the problem of how to manage the large number of elderly people living alone: in London, they are 40%, in Paris 68%. [...] "Governments, in my opinion, are unable to enact laws that overcome the loneliness created by the imposition of social distancing, which is instead a challenge for urban civil society: to address it, we will need new concepts of community."

6. De Boeck L., De Geyter X., After-Sprawl. research for the contemporary city, NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2002. 7. Russi N., Background. Il progetto del vuoto, Quodlibet, Macerata, 2019, p. 212. 8. Piccinno G., Lega E., Spatial design for inbetween urban spaces, Maggioli Editore, 2012, p. 96.

De Boeck and De Geyter in After-Sprawl6 develop the concept of negative space. Emptiness is no longer understood as a physical lack of construction, but as an absence of design and spatial qualities: it is “the space that is normally not consciously designed and planned and its shape and dimension arise as a negative of the process of building the territory” 7 . Space is no longer interpreted as a mere instrument of description of the full, but it assumes an autonomous value concerning it. Void is therefore not intended as an absence but interpreted as a completely available open field, whose design begins with its thematization. These places leave a wide margin of freedom of use; they can change over time, in the seasons, as the hours go by, they are flexible to uses. “Those intermediate or uncertain spaces, with strong physical, relational, time, connection or disconnection characteristics with their surroundings, through which it is possible to implement new dynamics capable of generating a renewed spatial and interaction value”8 . Voids give access to another space or another level of activity in the same space. They are transitional spaces: areas in which important changes occur for those who pass through them. In this research, we emphasize the concept that a threshold is not merely a limit, an intermediate area of contact but a dynamic zone in which social change happens. The space of the contemporary city, until now, originates from the layout of the buildings on the territory and has no continuity with them. Now, to understand the contemporary metropolis, it is important to focus on the absolute centrality of space as an idea and of the territory as a concrete field of investigation and study.

[Pic. 3] Saul Steinberg, The art of living, Harper & Brothers, 1949.

2. COURTYARDS The courtyards have changed over the centuries their appearance and also their role and value in the complexity of the living space. From spaces of aggregation and sharing, they have then become mere functional tools to ensure the healthiness of the environments that overlook them. Today it is not so utopian to think of these spaces as meeting places between the inhabitants and as thresholds capable of managing the precarious balance between the private and public dimensions of the city.

Courts and Courtyards

COURTYARDS

Etymologically, the words "court" and "courtyard" derive from the Latin "cohors", "land adjacent to the villa" which in turn derives from the Greek χόρτος (fence)1. The term is similar to "hortus", vegetable garden, which has the primitive meaning of "enclosed place". The definitions of both words extrapolated from the vocabulary seem to overlap to indicate a single element: "Uncovered space within the perimeter of a building, to give light and air to the rooms that overlook it"2, for "court" and "Part of the uncovered area between the buildings and intended to give air and light to the interior, the passage of people, or other functions"3 for "courtyard". “Courtyard” is also "Space not entirely enclosed between factory buildings, but connected to them by fences or low secondary buildings”4. The difference, considering this second definition, seems to be substantially linked to the organization of the volumes that surround the open space related to them: a "court" is an open space enclosed by homogeneous, unitary buildings, while a "courtyard" is delimited by different elements, fences and buildings, which are, besides, inhomogeneous and hierarchically different. It is spontaneous, however, to define a space as "court" rather than "courtyard", or vice versa, appealing to a series of characters that are not expressed in the definitions, perhaps synthetic, present in the vocabulary. "Court" and "courtyard" refer to two open spaces with very different connotations. [Pic 1] Villa of Livia or the Villa ad Gallinas Albas on the Palatine Hill. 1st cent. BC. Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome.

The word "court" indicated for the Latins the open space of the colony dedicated to fences for animals, in the early Middle Ages expanded its meaning going to indicate the complex of the dominant fund and adjoining funds, cultivated by servants or freedmen or semi freedmen, which together constituted that economic and legal unit called the Curtense system. Subsequently the term extended to indicate entire portions of territory. The same term was, and still is today, used to indicate the residence of a sovereign and, often, is used to refer to the complex of people in charge of the administration of the palace and the private service of the ruling family. Perhaps also because of these meanings, with "court" tends to indicate a representative space, a public place or otherwise designed to express an identity as a statement of the people that live it. The term "courtyard" refers, instead, to a garden, a space with a domestic character or linked to rural work environments. "Court" refers to buildings, large public and private buildings, courts are unitary architectures, sometimes independent from the rest of the complex in which they are inserted, which can also act as regulating elements of space; on the contrary, courtyards are spaces subordinate to the volumes that surround them, both from a spatial and functional point of view. Courtyards are spaces necessary to the building to allow the exchange of air and light or to allow the connection between the various buildings. Courts certainly assume a certain functional character, comparable to that of courtyards, which is however hidden by the qualitative character of the space, by its ability to express a meaning.

1. https://www.etimo.it/?term=corte 2004-2008 Francesco Bonomi - Vocabolario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana. 2. “Spazio scoperto entro il perime-

tro di un fabbricato, per dar luce e aria alle stanze che vi si affacciano”

3. “Porzione di area scoperta compresa tra i corpi di fabbrica di un edificio e destinata a dare aria e luce agli ambienti interni, al passaggio delle persone, o ad altre funzioni”

4. “Spazio non interamente chiuso tra i corpi di fabbrica, ma ad essi collegato mediante recinzioni o bassi fabbricati secondari” [Pic. 0] drawing that shows only the spaces of the courtyards in a portion of Milan.

COURTYARDS

On the contrary, however, "court" refers to a physically very large space. It can be called short, in fact, even a space only partially closed, indeed, quite open towards the landscape and inserted in a rural context. And courtyard, instead, also indicates elegant noble and bourgeois residences, domestic and collected spaces. The definitions described in the vocabulary, which reduce the meaning of "court" and "courtyard" to a spatial problem determined by what surrounds them, seem therefore not enough to delineate precisely these elements and even less to draw up a clear and concluded list of differences that allow to distinguish one from the other. The definitions reflect, at bottom, the character of these open spaces that are defined not without difficulty. There are also a series of spaces that do not have a name that indicates their type or summarizes their fundamental characteristics: these are the in-between areas related to the spaces of the residence. Minute residuals of space stuck between one volume and another, retri, undesigned or designed flaps that often derive from the constraints imposed on the design of the urban fabric. Thus, in this research we will use the term "courtyard" to indicate generically all the spaces bounded to houses. "Courtyard" is in someway less specific and determined and it is able to describe a larger number of spaces.

[Pic 2] Delacroix, Matrimonio Ebraico, 1839.

[Pic 3] Palazzo ducale a Milano, veduta della corte (da S. Latuada Descrizione di Milano, Milnao , 1737-38.)

The typological issue

below: sequence of typological evolution of courtyards. The types of courtyards related to the building initial configuration change over time.

courts

courtyard of L building

courtyard between two building

courtyard of in-line building

courtyardo

courtyard of isle building

The fact that the courtyards are considered as spaces subordinate to the volume, is also noticeable by the fact that they are not categorized according to their typology, on the contrary they always refer to the volume to which they are associated. Therefore, the only way to identify different types of courtyard seems to be to identify the typology of the building and then apply the same group to the courtyards: if an open space is linked to an in-line building, the courtyard will be identified as the courtyard of an in-line building, just as if the courtyard is enclosed in an L-shaped building, the courtyard will be identified as the courtyard of an L-shaped building and so on. It seems that it is therefore the organization of the full that determines the character of the void. Nevertheless, evolution has led to the presence of hybrid and unclear situations. Empty space has always had its own identity detached from the building to which it is subordinated. It is important to underline how the open space has progressively divided into properties, determining with the walls spaces with a different character (and therefore perhaps the type?) than the initial one. However, the progressive densification of the building has led to the juxtaposition of more open spaces, creating successions of courtyards of different types of buildings. The boundaries of the courtyards, easily modifiable, have over time widened and narrowed, bending to various needs and moving away, therefore, from their initial "typology". Looking at an urban fabric from above, therefore, from a height from which it is not possible to see the property divisions, the courtyards appear as continuous spaces, with a polygonal or regular shape, but that has forgotten the starting space and its characteristics. To conclude, courtyards cannot be categorized within the synthetic dictionary definitions and associating courtyards to the buildings to which they are subordinate, considering the type of these, returns an image that does not correspond to that of reality, where the space is less determined but, despite this, rich in characters.

Courtyards evolution in housing

COURTYARDS

The shape and the uses of courts and courtyards have changed over years still manteining the characteristics of the type.

[Pic 1] Canniggia G., Gian Luigi Maffei Lettura dell'edilizia di base, Saggi Marsilio, Venezia, 1979.

The domus is the paradigmatic example of the court typology. Despite the etymological affinity with other terms of Indo-European origin corresponding to the notion of dwelling (avestico Demana, Sanskrit Damah, Lithuanian Dimstis (property) ancient Slavic Domu, hence the Russian Dom) the Roman domus has its specific characters strongly typed, and consequently also the open space subordinated to it. In the case of the "mature" domus, it is precisely the distribution of the rooms around the open space, organic and hierarchical, that distinguishes it from other types of court houses spread throughout the Mediterranean basin. On the internal uncovered space of the cohors face rooms of 4/6 meters, generating an introverted space focused on the open area. The unique orientation of the space of the "courtyard" and the possibility of obtaining the best conditions for lighting and ventilation of the rooms, determine the arrangement of the single-cell rooms. These are organized in ideal conditions, unaffected by the terrain and the position of the path, on the short side of the fence facing south. In this case the access is located on the short side opposite, at the path. When the path is north-south, the best orientation corresponds to an arrangement of the compartments on the long side facing south, resulting in a synchronous variant of the load-bearing type. The courtyard of the domus has seen over time a progressive decrease in size, due to the need to implement the building that has been filled occupying the perimeter of the open space. The need to preserve, however, the access to the original side cells explains the formation of the wings, free spaces in front of the entrance to the rooms, while the central compartment, hierarchized by the axial position concerning the entrance, specializes in tablinum. This room is also the passage to the expansion of the domus, typologically less stable, consisting of the original hortus behind which over time will become a garden associated with a porch (peristylium). In this phase, the house contained within the enclosure still belongs to a single owner, while later, with the detachment of the tabernae, specialized rooms for commercial use, the single-family domus will begin a process of multi-family type that develops initially with the autonomous transformation of the tabernae in terraced houses and, subsequently, with the dequantification of the built housing. The cohors remains the pivotal element even in the following phases when the process of pluralisation intensifies, forming the "insulae": the single-family rooms surrounding the open space become single housing units, each cell tends to become autonomous and develop as a particular type of single-cell terraced house facing only one side inside the courtyard. The Insulinisation concludes the process of transformation of the courtyard house: the domus has lost its character and becomes a substrate type, giving rise to a new type of building. The process of transformation of the cohors from a space dedicated to the distribution of the rooms of a single-family house to a point of view of "terraced" houses

COURTYARDS

on several levels is not composed of separate phases and diachronic, but the different steps overlap in the ages generating relationships sometimes unpublished. In later eras the building typology is affirmed with the double facing of the building, so much so that many authors say that the house at court, as we understand it today, derives from the typological evolution of the Roman domus, introverted and without facing the street, and from the contamination of this type with the merchant house, where the main facing is always on the public space and the open space1 for the air and light intake is a patio. If this statement may not have a precise equivalent in the history of the type, i.e. it does not correspond to the manner of its evolution, it stands as a fairly precise definition of the characters of the Renaissance palace organized around the court. However, in private building the court was not born as a formal unity already completed, but develops as a service space in the process of scalar expansion and distributive complication of the merchant house. In Milan "The first palaces present in fact buildings organized in depth or at most according to L-shaped schemes. The courtyard closed by building bodies on four sides appears relatively late, even if it is hypothesized by some authors, in northern Italy, a continuity of the Roman domus type organized around a courtyard, which would not be found in the urban fabric of southern cities"2.

1. Zucchi C., L’architettura dei cortili Milanesi 1535-1706, Electa, Milano, 1989, p.23. 2. Zucchi C.,Ibidem, p.23. [Pic. 2 ] Pictures of Corrales de vecinos in Sevilla, Spain.

Only towards the end of the fifteenth century the porticoed courtyard appears as an element endowed with its characters and relatively stabilized, even if with the due variations of scale and disposition. Its direct origin could be sought in the castles, which already at that time combined the more defensive functions with the distinctly residential features; the formal order of the court originated, more than from the courts of the castles, from the monastic cloisters, where the courtyard

is the real organizing space of the building, and the formal solutions of the four-portico are already well tested and refined. At the turn of the sixteenth century we witness a progressive architectural formalization of the courtyard space; however, this still appears to have a character of relative randomness and "domesticity" that differentiates these architectures from later realizations. The space of the central courtyard has its own identity again thanks to the expulsion of the workshops from the Palace, which in the Middle Ages coexisted with the manor house, increasing the distinction between residential and commercial area3. The treatise of the time cites the spaces of the court. Alberti urges the use of the court in the palaces as a square is for the city: “Et il cortile sarà la parte principale, sopra il quale corresponderanno tutte l’altre membra minori, come se fussi un pubblico mercato de la Casa, del qual cortile non solamente si caverà commodità de la entrata ma de lumi ancora commodissimamente. Et qui si vede che ciascuno vorrebbe havere uno Cortile spazioso, grande, aperto bello e accomodato.”4 If on the one hand the court is established in the noble residences going progressively to affirm its characters of representation, it develops functions unpublished also in the ordinary social housing. As happens in the emblematic cases of the Spanish "corrales de vecinos", examples of residential architecture mudejar (mudejares, as will be known Muslims not converted after the reconquest of Granada) that use systems of galleries and balconies facing the empty interior space for distribution. The large balconies were periodically used as spaces dedicated to the public during performances held on the ground floor, in the courtyard. At that time, the theatre companies were nomadic groups that did not perform in a fixed location or designed specifically for the shows, but were welcomed directly into spectators' residences. Later, when spaces dedicated to the performances began to be built, reference will be made to the corrales de vecinos for their design and construction.

3. Zucchi C., Ibidem, p.28. 4. "And the courtyard will be the main part, above which all the other minor limbs, as if I merged a public market de la Casa, of which courtyard will not only be comfortable entrance, but still very comfortable lights. And here it is seen that everyone would like to have a spacious, large, open, beautiful and accommodated courtyard". in Zucchi C., Ibidem, p.59.

[PIc. 3] Erster-Hof, Meyerischer Hof, Berlin, first years of the 20th century. [Pic. 4] Meyerischer Berlin, Plan.

Hof,

COURTYARDS

These are the Corral de Comedias, composed of a central open space, square or rectangular, closed on four sides, surrounded by balconies often turned or with windows on three sides and a space for the stage towards the remaining end. The Corral de Comedias are comparable to the type of Elizabethan theater, widespread in England at the time of Queen Elizabeth, but unlike the English case, which develops only in the metropolis, London, the corral, both as a pseudo-theater and as Corral de Comedias is present throughout the Spanish region, thanks to the fact that it takes possession almost naturally of a residential type well established in the territory. In the second half of the 1800s, in contrast to the industrial development of cities and the precarious health situations of the majority of the population, several European cities implemented town-planning plans preparatory to the restoration of environments that at the same time aimed at controlling the population. In 1953, the Berlin Baupolizeiordnung plan indicated a minimum size of courtyards for rental houses at 5.34m x 5.34m, with a maximum height of 20m. The courtyards were then developed in succession and communicating spaces creating workingclass neighborhoods, the Mietskaserne. These areas included both residential and productive areas, which overlapped each other seamlessly.

The attention on the domestic scale outside, a necessary intention for new architectural projects, is essential to return to having in the pertinential spaces of the residence not empty, but spaces of aggregation. The courtyards, and the open spaces related to housing, are powerfully the places par excellence where the inhabitants meet and share activities. They have a function of intrinsic connection, functional, between the different volumes that surround them. They are also the junction point between the urban and domestic scales. Intervening on the courtyards means intervening on this passage of scale and the fragile balance of the threshold. However, it is necessary to organize the management of these spaces that need to be managed, since they are "in-between" spaces of a treatment that differs from that linked to the private or completely public sphere. The courtyards are not only spatial resources, but also opportunities for aggregation among the inhabitants who can find new economic and social resources in thesharing of open spaces.

In the second half of the century, attention was focused on the quality of open space, both public and private, which took on its shape. Emblematic is certainly the case of Barcelona with the CerdĂ Plan that in the 19th century had to face the uncontrolled expansion of the city that saw precarious hygienic situations. Drawn up in 1860, it proposed a grid of manzana (block) with trunk corners to create areas of aggregation at intersections and allow visibility. The space, for the first time in the urban fabric, was predominant over the full. Great attention was given to the permeability of public space in the blocks, which often allowed the crossing and the interior was not rarely used for public use with the inclusion of parks and green areas. Also the urban planning of Milan saw a revolution in those years with the Piano Beruto of 1884 that had consequences also on the building of the following decades. The CĂ brutta, for example, designed by Muzio and inaugurated in 1922, had a large polygonal courtyard and part of the space was destined to a public road. In the same years also in other Italian cities the same themes developed, as in Rome in the popular district Trionfale, where Innocenzo Sabbatini's popular residences were articulated around large collective courts. The functionalistic subdivision and the large residential blocks of houses in line led to the disappearance in most cases of the court as a generator of collective space. Or, on the contrary, the court was used on the large "urban" scale, linked to the expanding metropolis, as large enclosures that, however, although imposing themselves clearly in the urban fabric, visibly moved away from the idea of court or courtyard as a space halfway between the city scale and the domestic dimension.

[Pic. 5] Dal trattato De Shepaerd della Biblioteca di Modena, seconda metĂ del '400.

PART II / COMMONS 3. The commons

3.1 What is a Commons 3.2 Housing and Commons

3.3 Commons over the time

3.2.1. Commons in architecture today

3.3.1. A continuum space 3.3.2. Society model and change of housing-system 3.3.3. A political structure 3.3.4. European scenario 3.3.5. From sharing to commons

3.4 How to build a Commons? User level: appropriation

Space level: porosity Use level: diversity

4. Case studies

4.1 Urban policies 4.2 Spatial quality 4.3 Surniture and practices

3. THE COMMONS The commons were born as an economic concept and go to indicate, in the most general sense of the term, the resources shared by a group of people. Recently, the first studies have begun to associate this concept with the architectural field. Seeing space through the lenses of the commons allows you to discover new resources still untapped in the environment around us. The concept of commons can also be attributed to courtyards, which in themselves are spaces suitable for the introduction of commons because of their spatial characteristics. The pertinential space of the houses has always played an important role in the meeting and sharing among people and three characteristics can be identified that make it efficient to organize the spaces of aggregation: appropriation, porosity, and diversity.

What is a Commons

THE COMMONS

The term “Commons” today is widely and extensively discussed within different theoretical frames of reference. Historically it refers to the natural resources that we have in common. Resources that are no one’s property and are available to all: air, water, earth. A commons is “a resource shared by a group of people and subject to dilemmas: questions, controversies, doubts, social disputes”1. Defining a commons as a resource means placing it in the economic area since the concept is related to the potential advantages which can derive from its use, and in relational terms.

[Pic 1.] The oak in summer , Edward Fox, 1866

Understanding the relationships between actors and values that enter the sphere of interest of the commons also opens up new visions in the architectural dimension. In this chapter, we are going to expose what the term commons means, its birth and its potential development also in the architectural field according to the assumption “see the city through the lens of commons”. The term Commons2 occurs in a variety of historical contexts. First of all, the term came up with land enclosures during pre- or early capitalism in England; second, with the Italian autonomia movement of the 1960s; and third, today, in the context of file-sharing networks, but also increasingly in the alter-globalization movement. In particular, paying attention to the English case, from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century this country lives a process of “enclosure” or privatization of large amounts of once collectively cultivated lands and granted by the king for the sustenance of his subjects. Between 1725 and 1825, the ruling landowners in Great Britain appropriated more than six million acres of common lands using almost 4000 Enclosure Acts. The most conspicuous consequence of this process was the almost total disappearance of the commons on cultivations and the impoverishment of the small farmers in favor of the great landowners, there was a critical change in the attitude of society towards the environment: in fact, the transformation of “the environment from a commons to a productive resource”3 has denied to people the right to benefit from resources and this management has also had the consequence of environmental degradation. Thus, the commons has become an issue that is increasingly pervading the cultural debate in different fields of thought and practice, to find a solution to the crisis of resource management by the institutions in charge. “Some scholarly articles about the “tragedy of the commons” recommend that “the state” control most natural resources to prevent their destruction; others recommend that privatizing those resources will resolve the problem. What one can observe in the world, however, is that neither the state nor the market is uniformly successful in enabling individuals to sustain long-term, productive use of natural resource systems. Further, communities of individuals have relied on institutions resembling neither the state nor the market to govern some resource systems with reasonable degrees of success over long periods”4. With enclosure, resources that had historically been managed socially,

1. Ostrom E. and Hess C., Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice, MIT Press, Cambridge 2011, p.24. 2. Illich I., Silence is a Commons, Tokyo, Japan, March 21, 1982, p. 2

“Commons is an Old English word. According to my Japanese friends, it is quite close to the meaning that irai still in Japanese “com-mons”, like iriai, is a word which, in preindustrial times, was used to designate certain aspects of the environment. People called commons those parts of the environment for which customary law exacted specific forms of community respect. People called commons that part of the environment which lay beyond their thresholds and outside of their posses-sion, to which, however, they had recognized claimed of usage, not to produce commodities but to provide for the subsistence of their households.”

3. llich I., ibidem, 1982, p. 5. 4. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: the Evolution for Collective Action, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1990, p. 1. [Pic 0] Des glaneuses, JeanFrançois Millet, 1857.

THE COMMONS

through both formal and informal rules, were privatized and turned into commodities to be sold in the marketplace. There were gains in efficiency and innovation, to be sure – as well as the amassing of great private fortunes – but there was also massive disenfranchisement, ecological harm, poverty, and suffering. Economists and politicians have long assumed that there are only two sectors for governing things and ‘adding value’ – the state and the market. Markets are seen as the vehicle for economic progress while the government is supposed to take care of everything else. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that there is another sector – the commons – that is at least as important to our lives and well-being. As Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Prize in Economics, claims, thinking about commons always starts from the idea of shared goods, common-pool resources. These common resources can be found in our environment and stand out in a “resource system” (such as fishing areas, grazing areas, irrigation canals) and “resource units” (the fish harvested in the fishing area, the tons of forage consumed in the grazing areas). This “The common pool resource is not yet a commons. Instead, it has to be turned into a commons by its users. One cannot talk about the commons without talking about the communities that use and sustain it.”5

5. Helfrich S., Bollier D., Patterns of commoning, Commons Strategy Group and Off the Common, Press , 2012. [Pic. 2] Boston Common, James Kidder, 1829

The commons is not, simply another term for socialism or communism. Both of those systems of governance rely upon state ownership and centralized bureaucracies to manage the people’s resources, a scheme that may or may not work out so well. The commons do not quarrel with the government per se. Indeed, the commons would be in much better shape if it enjoyed half the government support that the ‘free market’ enjoys, in the form of subsidies, protective regulations, government services, and the legal system. But the commons is not the same as government because, in its ideal form, it is about the commoners owning and managing resources as directly and locally as possible. It usually entails a significant measure of participation, transparency, decentralized

control, and accountability – factors that are not always present when the state is managing a resource. General theories about commons pay limited attention to the idea of the city as a resource shared. The few theories that seek to investigate urban commons only highlight the aspect of collective practices in the built environment. Instead, it has remained completely obscured the vision that common goods are capable of transforming the architecture of the city, an integral part of the development of architecture. To see the city as commons means instead to understand the common pool resources as a matrix to redefine the cities. The Belgian political theorist Michel Bauwens offers a more nuanced way of understanding the nature of the common-pool resources that we encounter in urban territories. Bauwens differentiates between three categories of commonpool resources. The first category is “inherited commons”, which he links to resources such as earth, water, and forests. Besides these natural common resources, Bauwens recognizes “immaterial commons” which encompass the cultural and intellectual knowledge, as well as the craft skills that exist in a certain place. Indeed, an important resource of cities resides in the knowledgeable and skillful practices that are held by the citizens. As the last category, Bauwens identifies “material commons”, which he relates to the large man-made and man-handled reserves of materials that we find in our environments. In this sense, cities can be looked upon as a stock of materials which is constantly been used and reused as the urban condition evolves, which is nowadays prevalent with professionals engaging with reuse and sustainability. With his tripartite division of inherited, immaterial, and material commons, Bauwens points to the varied character of common-pool resources in urban territories6. According to Tom Avermaete in addition to defining the vision of the commons-pool resources (Ostrom and Bauwens), a new reading of the city from the perspective of the Commons needs two new levels of

6. Avermaete, T., Constructing the commons, TU Delft, 2016, p.34. 7. Foucault M, The order of the discourse, in Un-tying the text: A post-structuralist reader, Boston, Routledge, and Kegan Paul, 1981, p.59. [Pic 3] Les Promenades de Paris, Jean Charles Adolphe Alphand, 1867. [Pic. 4] Silence is a Commons,

Ivan Illich: “An oak tree might be in the commons. Its shade, in summer, is reserved for the shepherd and his lock; its acorns are reserved for the pigs of the neighbouring peasants; its dry branches serve as fuel for the widows of the village; some of its fresh twigs in springtime are cut as ornaments for the church - and at sunset it might be the place for the village assembly.”

THE COMMONS

understanding: lex communis and praxis communis. The term lex communis refers to the common codes and conventions of the city. Architecture, as a discipline, can pose a set of common codes and norms, which to gether form an anonymous system that does not belong to the single architect but rather to the broader collective of professionals. Out of such a perspective, the architecture becomes commons. Though in times in which individual signature in architecture is celebrated, such a common and anonymous approach to architecture might seem to be strange, we can find in the history of architecture multiple in stances that illustrate the farce of such a commons attitude to archi tectural design. In his inaugural lecture at the Collège de France in 1970, the French philosopher Michel Foucault indirectly referred to these important dimensions of the commons by positioning the common organization of discipline as opposed to the notion of individual authorship. Foucault claims that “a discipline is defined by a domain of objects, a set of methods, a corpus of prop ositions considered to be true, a play of rules and definitions, of tech niques and instruments: all of this constitutes a sort of anonymous system at the disposal of anyone who wants to or can use it, without their meaning being linked to the one who happened to be their inventor.”7 A third aspect of the commons is praxis communis, social practices of commoning-acts of mutual support, negotiation, collaboration and communication and experimentation that are needed to create systems to manage common pool resources and to engage with common codes and conventions. Ivan Illich has qualified these acts as processes of “conviviality” and has defined them as the “autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of per sons with their environment.” He continues to state that “people [ ... ] need above all the freedom to make things among which they can live, or give shape to them according to their tastes, and to put them to use in caring for and about others.” David Bollier has seconded this perspective and maintained that “rather than look to state authorities as guarant ors or administrators of their interests, commoners generally prefer to seek direct sovereignty and control over spheres of life that matter to them: their cities, neighborhoods, food, water, land, information, infrastructure ...” 8 8. Bollier D., Commoning as a Transformative so-cial paradigm, April 2015, thenextsystem.org/com-muning-as-a-transformative-social-paradigm. 9. Hardin G., The Tragedy of the Commons, 1968. 10. Ostrom, Ibidem, 1990, p. 45.

This process of conviviality for the use and management of the common good must, however, follow rules to avoiding what Hardin says as “Tragedy of the commons”9. Hardin reflects the problem of having an asset “in common” and accessible to a large number of people as it is more difficult for the individual to control its exploitation. The author identifies the problem of the use of the common goods in the figure of the “rational” actor who decides to increase his own exploitation of the resource as he receives the full benefit of the increase even if this is to the detriment of all users. The remorseless and tragic result of each

person thinking this way, however, is the ruin of the commons, and thus of everyone using it. The straightforward application of the “herdsman” analogy to world population is that each couple expects to experience a large benefit from having another child, but only a little of the full social and ecological cost. Ostrom, in response to Hardin, argues the possibility for all those who respect the rules for the use of the commons to contribute to establishing the rules and to participate in their modification without interference from other external authorities, the existence of a system of self-monitoring of the behavior of members and the existence of a system of progressive sanctions. Ostrom sets out eight key points for a regulation1

1. Clearly defined boundaries, Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR must be dearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself; 2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions, Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/ or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and provision rules requiring labor, material, and/or money; 3. Collective-choice arrangements. Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules; 4. Monitoring. Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriator behavior, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators; 5. Graduated sanctions. Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both; 6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms. Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low·cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials; 7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize. The rights of appropriators to devise their own institution’s are not challenged by external governmental authorities; 8. Nested enterprises. Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

THE COMMONS

Evolutionary biologists, neurologists, and geneticists are now confirming just how deep the commons is inscribed in our being. The impulse to cooperate and share; to manage resources as a community and punish free-riders, and to assert a community ethic as a response for social stability â&#x20AC;&#x201C; these propensities are arguably hard-wired into the human species as the basis for our evolutionary success. The real aberration in human history is the vision of humanity set forth by neo-classical economics. Homo economicus defines human beings as rational, ahistorical individuals who invariably seek to maximize their material utility through market exchange. It also asserts, astonishingly, that all of society should be organized around this vision. Reinventing the commons is still a nascent vision, but the contemporary debate that has brought this notion to the fore suggests its use in multiple fields. It is a question of re-reading history in an attempt to identify human connections and social collaboration for the management of common goods. This can be transferred to the field of architecture at a time when the deep economic and social crisis makes it necessary to find new ways of relating between space and people, between the community and the individual. Courtyards are in themselves fertile ground for the creation of commons: they are meeting spaces and therefore, potentially, areas of aggregation. Besides, their spatial conformation and their reference to the theme of the fence links them to the idea that par excellence recalls the commons: that of a collaborative group, separated from the rest of the community but open to it in a relationship of bionivocal exchange. They are also resources that exist in the urban fabric, and that are often created without a design thought, but following the progressive construction of buildings. They are "blocked" resources that need interventions and behaviors that can activate them and make them productive elements for the community.

[Pic.5] Irrigation comunities represented by syndic/ Miniatura Tribunal de les Aguas de Valencia, Bernardo FerrĂĄndiz BĂĄdenes, 1885

Housing and commons

THE COMMONS

The courtyards are part of the group of architectural elements that can be seen "through the lens of commons". It is necessary to deal with a brief historical introduction regarding the evolution of the vision of the city and its spaces, to find out which are the foundations of Commons in architecture. However, this historical part does not speak strictly about Commons, which originally is a concept related to resources, material and immaterial (Bauwens) and connected to the aspect of administration of these resources (Ostrom).

[Pic. 1] Paolozzi E., Smithson P., Smithson A., Henderson N. in This is Tomorrow, 1956.

These principles about Commons spaces are the result of a long journey of ideas that began in the 1950s with the desire to overcome the urban planning theories of the Modern Movement. In fact, it has been preferred a new system of housing to the urban logic based on the street-block relationship. This, however, caused the loss of a significant relationship between the private part of the city (blocks and houses) and its public part (monuments, squares, streets). The open space in the Modern is identified as generic space, characterized by a weak formal definition, thus, unstable surface, that is, unsuitable to build continuity of urban relations. The urban space of the Modern Movement was also characterized by quantitative logics, based on a functionalist grid, which led to the subdivision of urban soil into separate functional areas. The Modern Movement was hardly ever concerned with identifying qualitative criteria for the design of public space, urban soil, open spaces. In some cases, public space was confused with the road network or with the needs of “public order”. This logic has led to the loss of a dialectic of open spaces, i.e. that indispensable sequence of spaces of relationship that goes from public to semi-public and that constitutes one of the main elements of quality in the relationship between the residence and the city 1 . From the 1950s onwards, a number of inspired architects and thinkers have helped to undermine CIAM and Modern functionalist theories: Team X (Jacob Bakema, Georges Candilis, Giancarlo De Carlo, Aldo Van Eyck, Alison & Peter Smithson, Shadrach Woods) and, a little later, Colin Rowe, Jane Jacobs, Jan Gehl, Kevin Lynch, Robert Venturi and others. Their controversial reflections led to underline the symbolic values of urban space, proposed to analyze and enhance the different forms of human association, suggested a re-evaluation of the street as a place of life and collective identification, imagined different forms of appropriation of public space and defined new ways of interaction between design and users, through participation in its multiple forms. A starting point of the shift between the Modern Movement’s ideas to new ones can be identified at the VIII CIAM in Hoddesdon in 1951. On that occasion the Italian piazza was identified as a reference model for a correction of approach in the design of urban public space. For José Luis Sert, in fact, the heart of the city was born from its empty spaces 2 . This “revisionist” CIAM will mark urban design to the present day. The new generation of architects of the time, gathered around Team 10, was

1. Guidarini S., New urban housing, Skira Editore, Milano, 2018, p.14 2. Sert J.L., Ciam VIII: the Hearth of the City. Toward the Humanization of Urban Life, Lund Humphies, London, 1952.

THE COMMONS

the exponent of the idea that the functionalist approach did not help to understand the complexity of public space.

3. Risselada M., van den Heuvel D., Team 10 195381 in Search of a Utopia of the Present 1953-1981, Nei Publishers, Rotterdam, 2005, pp. 30-33 4.Smithson A, The Charged Void: Architecture. Alison and Peter Smithson, The Monacelli Press, New York, 2001, p.11 5. Smithson A. and P., Cluster City. A New Shape for the Community, in The Architectural Review, November 1957, pp. 333-336 6. Alloway L., Banham R., Lewis D., This is tomorrow Exhibition Catalogue, Whitechapel Art Gallery, London, 1956 7. “Abitare è essere ovunque a casa propria” 8. Strauven F., Aldo Van Eyck. The Shape of Relativity, Architectur a & Natura, Amsterdam, 1998, pp. 150-169 [Pic. 2] Smithson A. Ibidem,

1956.

[Pic. 3] Smithson A. and P., Urban Re-identification Grid, 1953.

In 1953, in the following CIAM meeting, Alison & Peter Smithson brought the Urban Re-identification Grid, an alternative grid, which read the city no longer based on functional categories, but on existentialist and phenomenological categories: City, District, Street, House 3 . For them, anything can happen in public space, including the chance encounter of people. The void for them is defined as charged void, a term that describes the capacity of space to influence the nature of things to come 4 . At the next CIAM, the tenth, the Smithsons will present the Cluster city, a model of a city where public in-between spaces are linked together to form a hypothetical bunch of grapes. Public spaces had to be connected to each other also within the urban fabric and people had to feel at home in the street, re-appropriating urban space 5 . On this subject, the English duo together with the photographer Nigel Henderson and the artist Eduardo Paolozzi will dedicate an exhibition in 1956 This is tomorrow 6. In Italy, with regard to the re-appropriation of public spaces, the work that architect and designer Ugo La Pietra has carried out to the present day is important. “To live is to be everywhere in one’s own home” 7, is his slogan that expresses in a conceptual but very evocative way the sense of living that is not only the prerogative of domestic space but also of public space. In his work, there is a big difference between living and using space: you use the hotel room, you inhabit the domestic space. Living means giving meaning, expanding one’s personality. Aldo Van Eyck, through his children’s playgrounds in Amsterdam, also introduces a new dimension of urban space. Between 1947 and 1955, the Dutch architect proposed a free, informal and playful use of public space, in the name of the timeless qualities of human nature 8 . It is considered a playful dimension of urban space, along the lines of Johan Huizinga’s

theories in Homo Ludens, which envisaged a re-appropriation of the city free of preconceptions and veined with a sort of innocence 9. Just as Van Eyck describes in the text “When snow falls on cities”, in which snow hides the signs of the ground and cancels every difference between diverse spaces. People, for Team 10, are at the center of the project. These ideologies trigger a series of reflections on his role and that of the intermediate spaces, where social relations usually develop. Nikolaas John Habraken, in 1961, theorized an innovative building system called Open Building, based on various orders of flexibility and involving the participation of the inhabitants in the design 10 . The same theme focused on the role of the inhabitant during the design is of considerable importance for all the work of Giancarlo De Carlo, also a member of Team 10 11. In the same year, 1961, Jane Jacobs published The Death and Life of Great American Cities, in which she was openly opposed to the urban planning of the Modern Movement. The main concepts are the idea of the city as an ever-changing set of individual projects; the idea of street life based on the relationship between street and activities that develop from buildings; urban density, i.e. the concentration of population and activities and the size of the neighbourhood open to the city as opposed to the modern self-sufficient neighbourhood 12 . To this work, Jan Gehl’s research on public spaces and social life is also added 13. Robert Venturi, following the lessons of Louis Kahn, aims to review the relationship between form and function. According to him, form should follow more the context, rather than the idea of function. This is again a position in contrast to those of the Modern Movement 14 . Lynch, rather than the context, prefers the value of the perceptive form that everyone possesses with regard to the cities he experiences. Also in this case the value of sociology and anthropology plays a role of primary importance 15 . When the season of modern pilotis ended, Bernardo Secchi, in 1986, turned his attention to the ground floors, places of interaction between the town and the open space of the city. He defines the “ground plan”, so as to shift the attention “from the building to the ground, to the surface between the buildings” 16 . The rediscovery of the city and its values, accompanied by the awareness that the city almost no longer exists, overwhelmed by post-metropolitan phenomena, has given rise to a discussion on the more general themes of living. The functionalist dimension of the modern is increasingly distant when reading the thoughts of Hans Kollhoff and Massimo Cacciari at the turn of the millennium. The former observes how “the word dwelling must be understood in its broader meaning, which is that of feeling at

9. Huizinga J., Homo Ludens (1938), ed. it. Einaudi, Turin, 1973. 10. Habraken N. J., Supports, An Alternative to Mass Housing, I ed. Amsterdam, 1961. 11. De Carlo G., L’architettura della partecipazione, Quodlibet, Macerata, 2015. 12. Jacobs J., Vita e morte delle grandi città. Saggio sulle metropoli americane, Edizioni di Comunità, Torino, 2000. 13. Gehl J., Vita in città. Spazio urbano e relazioni sociali, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna, 1991. 14. Venturi R., Complessità e contraddizioni nell’architettura, Dedalo, Bari, 1980. 15. Lynch K., L’immagine della città, Marsilio, Padova, 1969. 16. Secchi B., Progetto di suolo, in Casabella n. 520-521, jan.-feb. 1986, pp. 19-23.

THE COMMONS

home on earth and that residence, in turn, becomes part of this function”. According to him, the concept of housing also concerns the functionalist and anti-urban sphere, since it reduces the complexity of urban functions, simplifying them to simply sleeping and watching television17 . The Venetian philosopher Massimo Cacciari points out that “living does not happen where one sleeps and where one eats. [...] The place of living is not accommodation. Only a city can be inhabited; but it is not possible to inhabit the city if it is not available for habitation, that is, if it does not give places”. So you don’t live in an apartment but you live in the city 18 .

17. Kollhoff H., Costruzione urbana contro alloggio / Urban building versus Housing, in Lotus n.94, Electa, Milan, 1997, pp. 100-102. 18. Cacciari M., La città, Pazzini Editore, Rimini 2004, pp. 40-41. 19. Muller M., Niggli D., Together! The new Architecture of the collective, Ruby Press, città 2017, p. 39. [Pic. 4] Van Eyck A., Playgrounds, Amsterdam, 1947-1955.

and political issues first , overcoming also architecture field. Residential settlements are thus required to generate Commons, i.e. places freely accessible on foot and by bicycle, without restrictions and without fences, where it is possible to establish relationships. New housing models need to be multifunctional, with activities that generate social inclusion, entertainment and cultural dissemination activities, productive activities that promote small business, services open to the neighborhood, services for residents.

Nowadays, it is possible to observe a design trend regarding the link between apartments and urban spaces: structures are required that invigorate both the residential spaces inside buildings and the outside areas surrounding them. One positive example is Mehr als Wohnen, an initiative launched by several cooperatives together with the municipality of Zurich: the most important success factors for the new form of urbanity created here are probably the mixed-use ground floor zones and the carefully designed outside spaces that lend themselves to appropriation by the public. This “urbanisation” of the ground floor level is central importance, because a ground floor used exclusively for residential purposes generates privacy conflicts with the public and hence paralyses the adjacent public space. Business, retail and ateliers on the other hand can liven up the ground floor zone and help the public to feel at ease while walking by 19 . The Mehr als Wohnen project, such as other similar building realized in Zurich, has been possible due to the creation of housing cooperatives, born first in 1907 whose concept has been developed by Andrea Hoffer and the philosopher Hans Widmer from 1990. They founded in 1993 Kraftwerk 1 cooperative, based on fundamentals like solidarity, sustainability, openness, diversity and voluntariness, that tackle social

[Pic. 5] Playgrounds and open public spaces in Duplex Architekten, Mehr als Wohnen, Zurich, 2018.

THE COMMONS

Commons in architecture today Nowadays the interest in an architecture of the commons is growing more and more. In recent years, increasingly innovative collective housing projects have emerged, especially in Switzerland and in particular Zurich Many of them are conceived and realized through grassroots initiatives: these new models are influencing the new social housing production on European level, concerning both the aspect of management, through cooperatives, and the aspect of housing typology, proposing new forms of living spaces. Cooperatives are increasingly integrating functions into residential complexes that benefit not only the residents themselves but also the broader public. This is also a good way of financing public amenities such as daycare centers, swimming pools, restaurants… There is no doubt that such projects enhance the quality of their environments and thus trigger a positive dynamic in the neighborhood promoting a social mix and vitalize the neighborhood with commercially used space 1 .

1. Muller M., Niggli D., Ibidem, p. 39.

[Pic.6] - Models in Together! The new architecture of the collective, Vitra Design Museum, 2017

These contents were presented at an important exhibition at Vitra Design Museum in 2017, called Together! The new architecture of the collective: the success of the exhibition led to the publication of a book collecting its main concepts. Many innovative projects dealing with collective living and innovative architecture that mediates private with public spaces were shown and compared together. The importance of this exhibition resides in raising awareness among people that a new way of designing housing is gradually growing. Until now it has worked well in a precise context, such as Zurich or Vienna recently, in which the way of thinking the housing heritage as a common resource is particularly rooted, but the same model can be exported in many other different countries that need further changes in housing policies, as Together exhibition try to witness showing projects from all over the world.

When we speak about Commons and architecture we are talking about space: a Commons space is a physical place but most important it is generator of relations, both between people and other surrounding spaces. The fact that a space can be retained Commons depends mainly on its use. According to Stavros Stavrides2, first, it is necessary to bring to the discussion a comparison between the concept of the commons-based on the idea of a community and the concept of the public. The community refers to an entity, mainly to a homogeneous group of people, whereas the idea of the public emphasizes the relation between different communities. The public realm can be considered as the actual or virtual space where strangers and different people or groups with diverging forms of life can meet. To think about a city based on Commons we have to question and conceptualize the connection of space and the Commons. It would be interesting to think of the production of space as an area of Commons and then discuss how this production has to be differentiated from today’s capitalist production of space. So, starting to think about space as related to the Commons means to conceptualize it as a form of relations rather than as an entity, as a condition of comparisons instead of an established arrangement of positions. We have to conceive space not as a sum of defined places, which we should control or liberate but rather as a potential network of passages linking one open place to another. Space, thus, becomes important as a constitutive dimension of social action. Space indeed “happens” as different social actions produce different spatial qualities. With the prospect of claiming space as a form of Commons, we have to admit the idea that each community exists as a spatially defined entity, in favor of the idea of a network of communicating and negotiating social spaces that are not defined in terms of a fixed identity. Those spaces thus retain a “passage” character. The idea of an emancipating spatiality could look like a city of thresholds. A potentially liberating city can be conceived not as an agglomerate of liberated spaces but as a network of passages, as a network of spaces belonging to nobody and everybody at the same time, which are not defined by a fixed-power geometry but are open to a constant process of (re)definition3. Consequently, common space may take the form of meeting ground, an area in which expansive circuits of encounter intersect 4 . Therefore the common space is created by individuals and their uses in the space itself: according to Bauman, "experience then expresses the value of the space and its meaning" 5. Moreover, to favor relations and “passages”, as Stavrides said, spatial architectural assumptions are required, given by the project and the design process: “it is an almost unconscious, unaware incidence that the physical designed environment exerts on people who live in it” 6.

2. Stavros Stavrides, architect and activist, is Professor of Architectural Design and Theory at the School of Architecture, National Technical University of Athens, Greece, where he teaches graduate courses on housing design (including social housing), as well as a postgraduate course on the meaning of metropolitan experience. His research is currently focused on forms of emancipating spatial practices and spaces of commoning. 3. De Angelis M., Stavrides S., An Architektur- On the Commons: A Public Interview, p. 16. 4. Stavrides S., Common Space as Threshold Space: Urban Commoning in Struggles to Re-appropriate Public Space in Commoning as Differentiated Publicness Fo otprint, Spring 2015, p. 43. 5. Piccinno G., Lega E., Spatial design for in-between urban spaces, Maggioli Edizioni, Santarcangelo di Romagna, 2012, p. 40. 6. Piccinno G., Lega E., ibidem, 2012, p. 48.

THE COMMONS

To define more precisely the notion of space as Commons it is necessary to identify its relations with the surroundings, through its edges: these edges, explain Richard Sennett, “are spaces where different social classes or different functions come into contact”. Sennett shows his interest in the edge condition of places such as, for instance, a beach, which is a border, full of ecological activity, where the sea meets the land, organism feed and evolution speeds up. On the contrary, a boundary is a place that is sealed, a place characterized by a lower level of activity on the edge that in the center. To be more precise, Steven Gould defines the boundary as an edge where things end, while the border is an edge where different entities interact. There is a basic distinction, according to Sennett, between the border and the boundary, as the urban context is concerned. A border is like a membrane: there is not the only separation between one place and another but there is also both porosity and resistance. In a membrane, the cell wants to keep in nutrients and it wants to expel things that are used up. It is porous in a directional form. The same thing should be true in urbanism - there should be things we do not want at the edge and things we do 7.

7. Sennett R. in TWF, Maas W., Porocity, Nai Publishers, Rotterdam, 2018, p. 48. 8. Sennett R., Open City, lecture in City Museum of Stokholm, 2014, p. 9. [Pic.7] Student housing, H. Herzberger

It has no defined function, people can easily occupy it doing different activities and it is both open to the city but controlled.

These natural differences between boundary/wall and border/membrane clarify closed and open built form. The boundary/wall dominates the modern city. The urban habitat is cut up into segregated parts by streams of traffic, by functional isolation between zones for work, commerce, family, and the public realm. The most popular form of new residential development internationally, the gated community, takes to an extreme the idea of the boundary wall. The result is that exchange between different racial, ethnic, or class communities diminishes. So we should want to build the border/membrane 8. Lastly, the threshold, of which Stavrides spoke, can be identified: it is the transitional space, the in-between area (among other open or

closed spaces) in which important changes can occur. It is not an edge anymore, like boundary or border, but it can be seen as the thickness of the borderline, where connections happen and the “network of passages” is manifested. Inside the threshold space, with some adequate conditions that we will face further on the research, the Commons space can be created. The Commons space, seen as a threshold, transitional space that creates connection, relations and “passages”, when architecture and especially housing is concerned, can be present at different scales of the project. Commons spaces can deal with the single apartment as well as with the entire city, following a fractal system that develops into the entire housing block and lead to a new housing typology and program. In that sense, these new communally inspired projects are the critical antidote to the stereotypical monofunctional housing developments of the post-war era, (which tended to suffocate urban life thanks to the modernist dogma of functional separation). The architecture of shared housing inspires ways to enhance the quality of urban life in our cities by recalibrating the relationship between private and public space. It envisages a city with a highly mixed program combining housing, working, leisure environments and furthering an inclusive social stratification, whereby people from different income groups live side by side rather than being spatially segregated 9. These different gradients of the Commons space are thus related one to one other: to create a social structure and a corresponding physical structure, equipped with spaces for collective use at different levels, makes possible a moving flow between more private spaces gradually towards more public ones. The area perceived by the individual as pertinent to his home, which is the territory of residence, can extend beyond the actual boundary of the house 10.

9. Muller M., Niggli D., ibidem, 2017, p. 38. 10. Gehl J., Ibidem, 1991, p.83. [Pic. 8] Haarleemmer Houttinen Housing.

THE COMMONS

“A renewed articulation of spaces is thus built, based on a new idea of domesticity, which feeds on the completely private, collective and urban dimensions, and designs them with equal attention, coming to speculate that public space can enter the houses and the domestic dimension flow into the streets” 11. Commons can be a feature of any type of architectural project and tries to create continuity between the city spaces and buildings. Continuity is intended as transition, as a limit that can be crossed and overcome in one or both directions, a continuum between spaces, times or other dimensions. Characterized by the presence of a demarcation line or band that establishes a relationship of inclusion/exclusion between the elements inside and outside it. Considering continuity between city spaces and building, we understand that the field of action for Urban Commons is the limit, the threshold between different spaces. In this research, we emphasize the concept that a threshold is not merely a limit, an intermediate area of contact but a dynamic zone in which social change happens. This is how the idea of conceiving the border as a beginning and not as an end was born. It represents one of the challenges Commons: the border is where each of us begins where “what I am not is what I can become: my thinkable and possible landscape”12. Not only does this approach meet the demand for a high-quality open space, but it is also a response to various autonomous developments, such as new lifestyles, market-oriented project developments by private parties and demands for high-density construction coupled with groundaccessed homes. Normally these developments are guided by groups of people gathered in cooperatives or practices. Commons is the space where urban populations can enjoy the services provided by the public and, at the same time, develop and initiate multiple activities by themselves. The paradox of Commons in housing ensembles is its ambiguity: it attempts to be both public and private. In the case of these ensembles, they lead to new interpretations for housing (private life) and the public domain (public life). The old meanings of these categories shift and lose their unequivocalness. Whereas its traditional typology creates a strict division between private and public space, Commons opens up the building. This strict division disappears and makes way for a new ambiguity within the housing block: a tension between the public and private domains. The developments are no longer only focused on the interior, but also involve the adjacent public domain. The tension between the individuality of the homes and the “outside world” lends Commons an ambiguous character and could also serve as a link between two different interior spaces. 11. Russi N., Background. Il progetto del vuoto, Quodlibet, Macerata, 2019, p. 65. 12. Piccinno G., Lega E., ibidem, 2012, p. 44. “Ciò che non sono è ciò che posso diventare: il mio paesaggio pensabile e possibile”

become points of a social urban system that highlights how much the concrete spatiality of the newly thought public place becomes necessary to restore the perception of being there, of participating, of a rediscovered sociality among people. This happens especially when behind the mere architectural project there is the active participation of people. Also the management of these spaces plays an important role. Normally in fact there is always a cooperative guided by the inhabitants,the direct people interested in the control of these spaces. If we focus on the relationship that is created between the building and the city and pay attention to the space that is generated, we realize that an Commons space leads to the achievement of a state of flow13 . It is a place that evokes a wealth of ambivalent associations, a place filled with “multiple meanings in equipoise”14. Commons is not an abstract conceptual category, but an object of experience, life practice, productive force of new spatiality, resource for the creation of new forms of sociality. The architect is no longer considered as the sole inventor of spatial structures (space is created by the individual), but of the means and ways in which space is daily experienced through movement.

13. Flow is the intense experience

situated between boredom and overstimulation. It is characterized by immersion, awareness, and a sense of harmony, meaning, and purpose.

14. Strauven F., Aldo Van Eyck. The shape of relativity, Architectura and Natura Press, Amsterdam, 1998. [Pic. 9] Heinzholz, cooperative Krafwerk1, Adrian Streich Architekten.

The project was concluded in 2012 ans it is still an example of the typolgy of cluster wohnungem, where different private unit with basic services share a common area with large dimensions. The project regenerate two buildings of the last century, constructing an external staircase that links the groundfloor with all the levels of the two buildings. The platform at the ground floor become a meeting point for the entire neighborhood.

This is how we define the structural models of a new city where a housing project is an opportunity to intervene at all scales and to work at the same time in the private and public sphere. Therefore, a project for Commons in its spatial, formal and material characteristics, is also and above all aimed at promoting collective and individual initiatives able to interpret it as the infrastructure and the background of their development. Commons

Commons over time

THE COMMONS

The history of the common spaces teaches us important issues that can be useful for the moder design. In the following part this evolution will be commented underlining how these spaces affect the behaviours of people together. Previously, the street and the domestic space were one indivisible entity, since compact living conditions made public interaction inevitable and interaction on the street brought households together1 . Later, in industrial cities, the layout of streets and buildings became independent from one another. Therefore, the rapid development of urban cities and the introduction of new forms of transport have led to a clear separation between the two main spheres of the urban fabric, the house and the city. Since then and to the present, the project of housing has faced the challenge of recovering the spatial gradient between what is public and what is private: the communal areas of friction, exchange, and socialization. In short, everything that characterizes and gives meaning to the idea of living in a community between spaces, times or other dimensions.

[Pic 1.] Allegory and effects of Good and Bad Government, Ambrogio Lorenzetti, 1339

As stated by Saverio Muratori 2 , in the history architects dealt exclusively with “special building”: tombs and temples, palaces and fortresses, squares and fountains, gardens and villas. While the “basic building” made up of anonymous houses and the small shops that made up the connective tissues of historic urban structures, was built directly by its inhabitants, there were no major issues of style, materials, shapes, and size. What was built was the house. Urban fabrics were thus made up of small successive additions that are identical, each very similar to the building itself. Increasingly larger neighborhoods have therefore introduced to the larger scale between individual buildings and between the various languages, often adding distressing seriality in internal relations. The latter feature, mainly due to the need for rapid implementation and cost reduction, and a lack of vision towards the common residence. A continuum space The relationship between individual and community then regulated the evolution of private space in the home over the centuries and afterwards underwent a great transformation due to the strong economic and social changes. In this regard it is useful to start our reading of housing from the centuries of the Middle Ages that preceded the revolution of social housing. The attention paid in the last century to the role of the house as an urban condominium derives from a constant relationship between public and private within the design of the home. These relations are found in medieval dwellings. The boundary between professional, public and private life did not exist. Houses were composed of large rooms, flexible spaces in which to cook, eat, entertain, trade and sleep. The notion of

1. Campaña Barquero E. M., Pérez G. R., On the dissolution of the city-home connection in the postindustrial urban fabric, Technical University of Madrid UPM. 2. Saverio Muratori (Modena, 1910 - Rome, 1973) was an Italian architect and historian, as well as a professor at the University of Rome.

THE COMMONS

privacy did not exist, therefore, and homes replaced the condensers of modern social entertainment such as restaurants, bars, and hotels. As a result, territorial depth as the subsequent boundary between public and private areas had a different structural meaning from the present one. In the Middle ages, material success, social conventions and collective amusements were not separate activities as they are today, any more than professional life, private life and social life were separate functions. The main thing was to maintain social relations with the whole of the group into which one had been born and to better one’s position by skillful use of this network of relations3. What mattered was the reputation of a person and therefore mastery over communications with others. Alongside the appearance of the modern individuated self after the Middle Ages, the house changed from a node in public life to a setting for the development of the private life of the individual and the nuclear family. As a typical bourgeois house in seventeenthcentury Paris shows, space was subdivided into a larger number of rooms. Even though most activities continued to take place in a large room, a salle, a move towards concern for privacy can be detected, especially in separating the servants from the masters4. The bourgeois house was becoming primarily a residence, separated from the place of work. It was a more private place, although privacy inside the home remained relatively unimportant. In larger houses, for example, there were no corridors and each room was connected to the next so that all traffic (family members, guests, and servants) had to pass through every room to get to the next. Here the house was transformed into a setting for social theatre, a stage, where appearances mattered more than privacy5. By the eighteenth century, however, the modern family is born and parents and children are willing to live as a separated group from the rest of society. It is important to underline this notion as the historical change in the definition of family defines a new territorial configuration of the house

The family had a social and educational dimension, not sentimental, and the children were not at the center of the social system. Later, starting in the 15th century, the first appearance of schools was focused on the position of children within society and a radical change occurred: they began to play a central role within the family with spatial consequences for the layout of the home and the exterior spaces. Especially during the 17th century, society was based on material success, social conventions and collective entertainment which were not separate activities, as is the case today. During the 17th century, the private life of the individual was invented and gradually the nuclear family was formed: houses were divided into several rooms. The bourgeois house became above all a residence, separated from the place of work: the house became a more private place6. The isolated group of parents and children opposes society and invests all its energy on helping the children to rise in the world as individuals7. A private space was created for the emerging family, through the rearrangement of the house, reform of manners, and exclusion of others. The rooms multiplied, connected through corridors and specialized to cater for different functions. Manners were reformed, so that, for example, calling on a friend or acquaintance at any time of the day and without warning was no longer welcome. Others, i.e. servants, clients, and friends, were excluded from the nuclear family. The house of the bourgeois family became the place of intimacy. During the 18th century the modern family was born as a social unit. The rooms inside the house multiplied and connected through corridors and specialized to perform different functions. In addition to the wide use of corridors, clubs, cafes and other types of public houses emerged: streets and squares were transformed into walks where people met. “Social and spatial change has gone hand in hand from dense heterogeneity to segmented homogeneity, creating intolerance and

[Pic 2.] Drinkers in the-Bower, Pieter de Hooch, 1658 3. Aries P.,1973, Centuries of childhood, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1958, p.363 4. Mandipur A, Public and Private space of the city,Routledge, London, 2003, p.67 5. Rybczynski, Home: A Short History of an Idea, Penguin books, New York, 1986, pp.38–

[Pic 3] Interior with women beside a linen chest, Pieter de Hooch, 1663 6. Mandipur A, Ibidem,2003, p. 67 7. Ariés P., Ibidem, 1973, pp. 389–90

THE COMMONS

insistence on a uniformity that manifests itself in the concepts of family, class, and race”8. Thus, the possible separation of public and private spaces and the functional differentiation of spaces as load-bearing elements were introduced into the domestic scale. Jurgen Habermas mentions the creation of physical distance as a vehicle of the new order, to achieve social distance9. The functional mixture is taken away and depth is added to establish new power relationships. From now on, it seems that each function should be assigned a separate space, also associated with a public-private distinction, using the corridor system as an organizational principle. The house, and the family nucleus that lives in it, undergoes a strong transformation from the forms of the medieval houses seen previously. Before industrialization, the extended family, the village community, dominated the spatial rules of private houses. The slow take-over of the family nucleus from community life is due to an economic and working fraud. The industrial Industrial revolution will give birth to an important debate on the role of the house and its organizational reality as a fundamental indicator for a good productive development. Society model and change of housing-system

8. Aries P., Ibidem, 1973, p.363 9. Habermas J., The Structural transformation of the Publi Space, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1989 10. Maak, Living complex. From Zombie City to the New Communal, Hirmer, Munich, 2015, p.124. The single-family at

home a single individual - home prevailed was due to William Cobbett. In its pamphlet “Cottage Economy” he explains the reasons for the patriarchal family model. “ Cottage Economy “, published in 1822, is one of the most seminal wotks for the history of modern habitation. In it Cobbett explains, among the other things, how to brew beer, hoping that home.brewed beer would pompt men to drink at home rather thantalk politics at the alehouses. Cobett’s view wage labor and its consequences were a threat especially for the patriarchal family model: women were not to act independently, nor be granted the right to vote, as the nature of their gender made exercising this right incopmpatible with he harmony and happiness of society.

The Western city at the turn of the first millennium was propelled primarily by the role of economics: agricultural improvements, the rise of the artisanal industry, and the consequent demographic expansion, which created a new way of living and working. This new form of public interest concerns the primary source of the function of the modern city and modern state: the exchange of commodities and the social domain of work, which is precisely what urbs is now meant to support and expand. The transforamation of transportation technology and urban life in the industrial city encouraged an econommic and spatial analysis of hosuehold work to debate and housing desgin. Industrial capitlism had began to change the economic basis of domestic work, urbanization had began to change environmental basis. In the middle of the nineteenth century, there had two contending idea about how to proceed. One was the large-scale housing project derived form Fourierism and the second was derived from the British tradition of low-density building. This last emphasised the single-family house as the ideal material structure for pursuit the enclosed family life. This idea, that could sum with the short pamphlet “Cottage Theory” by Cobett 10, the man lives for work, while the woman- is responsible for childcare and households. This theory caused occasional protest and the patriarchal oraganisation led the feminist movement to spread during the time arguing that the role of housewife and the design of the domestic workplace must evolve in a more collective direction. Many decisions about the organization

of future society were being incorporated into the built environment, therefore, they identified the spatial transformation of the domestic workplace under women’s control as a key issue linking campaigns for social equality economic justice, and environmental reform. Many architects and urban planners shared the material feminists’ hopes, for the feminists’ concept of the rationale for housing which would be socially, technologically, and aesthetically more sophisticated than the Victoria bourgeois home. The earliest campaign against traditional domestic life in Europe and the United States was launched by communitarian socialists committed to building model communities as a strategy for achieving social reform. They described the communal household as a world in miniature, a concept which at once domesticated political economy and politicized domestic economy11. Frederick Law Olmsted saw the evolving industrial city as an instrument for the household’s liberation as well as the society’s and concluded that more and more women could insist on living in cities, rather than in the country, because of the many advantages to housekeepers offered by new municipal and commercial services. He suggested that public laundries, bakeries, and kitchens would promote “the economy which comes by systematizing and concentrating, by the application on a large apparatus, of processes which are otherwise conducted in a desultory way, wasteful of human strength”12. Olmsted believed that industrial capitalism would provide the transition between “barbarism” and "municipal socialism"13. He saw industrial capitalism as an economic system that could give way to a completely industrialized, socialist society utilizing collective technology to socialize housework and child care. In this regard In England, beginning about 1813, Robert Owen published the first of several plans for ideal communities including collective kitchens, dining rooms, and nurseries. He was the spokesman of the idea that the environment and not heredity shaped the character of the society. Fourier was a central figure in the ideological debate on the type of housing for the masses of the 21st century, who identified primitive housing as one of the major obstacles to improving the position of women and thus to changing of definition of the family unit. In response, Fourier developed his Phalanstère in the early 19th century, which provided a counter-model to the single-family dwelling, with a concept for a housing complex for 1,620 residents 14. The actual concretizations of Furier’s ideology were put into practice later with the realization of Godin’s Familistère first, of the Citè Napoleon and other numerous attempts both in the United States and in England at the same time. Especially the Citè Napoleon was inspired took inspirations from the firsts attempts of British social housing by Henri Robert and by his book “the Dwellings of Labouring Classes”. The Citè napoleon was the first example of specially conceives social housing in France. As an architectural form the estate stood out in the cityscape and some residents

11. Hayden D., The Grand Domestic Revolution: a history of feminist design for American Homes, neighborhood and cities, 1982, p.9.

In most of the experimentation the cooperative housekeeping, initially realized for the working-class and to improve it, was in reality used by the middle class. The servants would live and mainly operate in the communal areas, thus increasing the privacy of the house. A cooperative home implied radical changes in the mode of living and in the image of the self as a member of a wider grouping than the family, the act that family would not be autonomous and self efficient was a major inhibitory factor, especially for the middle.class families. However, all of the projects implemented addressed the middle class needs, either of families or individuals. The intersection of the built and unbuilt projects can be found in their typological transformation regarding the kitchen and the dining room. These two spaces were removed from the house and transferred into a new, collective domain. The collectivization was meant to decrease the cost of housing by centralizing and therefore reducing the housing facilities. The only project significantly extended collectivization was designed by Godwin, a three-story building for 21 families with the communal areas consisted of a central kitchen, a dining room, a recreational room, children’s classes and playroom.

12. Hayden D., Ibidem, 1982, p.11 13. Hayden D., ibidem, 1982, p.11 14. Hayden D., ibidem, 1982, p.11 Fourier's plan echoed that of

the Palace of Versailles: it included a central wing to house a communal dining hall, a library, and a central childcare facility, which enabled women to work.

THE COMMONS

may, therefore, have felt stigmatized, all these factors, as well as the bourgeoise’s fear of concentration the poor in one spot in this way, ensured that small, individual houses for the working classes could be the norm in 19s century France. It was not until the turn of the century that large, collective estates began to be built once more in Paris15. The Familistère instead is universally recognized as the most successful project to realize Fourier’s true idea and to make it work for many years, an iconic example of collective housing in the eyes of architects all over the world. Godin’s architecture could create material living conditions that satisfied everyone. Social or unitary architecture created the setting in which were established solidarities essential for the transformation of society, the essential condition for the emancipation of the working classes and harmonious social progress. It provided the equivalent of wealth to those who could never enjoy it in the free-market world. The collective architecture was a fundamental social solution. However, if Godin’s inspiration is Fourierist the realization of the "Palais social" was completely original. Three juxtaposed parallelograms joined at an angle, form the main body of the building16. The culmination of Godin’s work and the guarantee of its permanence, the Cooperative Association of Capital and Labour operated from 1880 to 1968. The aims of the association, formed for 99 years, were economic: the organization of solidarity between its members, the appropriation of capital by the workers. They were more generally – and almost as a consequence – cultural and political: to make available enduring conditions for the emancipation of the working classes and to organize a system of social democracy within the Familistère community17. Godin model is the final form of the representative public-ness, reduced to the monarch’s court and at the same time receiving greater emphasis, was already an enclave within a society separating itself from the state.

A political structure With the Industrial Revolution, the main actor in the debate around the housing issue revolved around the figures of the worker and the entrepreneur. The economic profit determines a series of changes within the family nucleus that revolutionize the organization of domestic life. Such a revolution needs to adopt witticisms that can solve all the problems created by the distinction of family unity since the 18th century. The capitalist economy itself and the consequent exploitation of workers gave rise to a vision of the revolutionary society in which the social classes had to be eliminated and history, dominated by work, had to evolve eliminating the private accomulation. To understand completly the house revolution we have to go and investigate its transformations induced by ideological and political motivations such as those that occurred in the Soviet context with the Kommulaka and the social condensor as Narkofim. The October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, which led to the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922 after years of class struggle, constitutes the most important, structured and long-lasting attempt to replace the capitalist system. The revolutionary government had to confront the collapse of the economy and the extended destruction of production caused by the Civil War and the First World War. The underdevelopment of the country’s industrial capacity, which in comparison to countries in the West was in an embryonic stage, had caused huge unemployment, while the majority of the population was living in terrible conditions both in cities and agrarian regions. After 1925 the establishment of new industries spurred the formation of new cities in their surroundings, while the population of the existing

[Pic 4.] Illustration of Robert Owen’s ideal community, Stedman Whitwell,1824. 15. Hayden D., ibidem, 1982, p.11. 16. Lallement M., An Experiment Inspired by Fourier: J.B. Godin’s Familistere in Guise, November 2011. 17. Vestbro D., Design for Gender Equality: TheHistory of Co-Housing Ideas and Realities, Mansel, London,

[Pic 5] Inauguration de la Cité Napoléon, 1851

THE COMMONS

urban areas was increasing more rapidly than the available living space the continuous and dense urbanization, labor shortage, and the lack of available living space constituted the housing problem of the USSR and caused extended phenomena of overcrowded house-sharing. The phenomenon had similarities with the Industrial Revolution but forcibly imbued with a political ideology. The housing problem was considered both as a huge economic problem and as one of the most important factors towards the construction of a socialist society. Its political importance created a dense debate among architects and caused the rise of confronting approaches, both architectural and political. The different answers and proposals that were given had a common objective: the transformation of the society through the collectivization of domestic life eliminating social distinction, the class had envisioned since the result was a caricature of the life of their previous oppressor. They were neither an effort to configure a new model of society, not a transformation of the way of living conditions during difficult economic periods, however, this inconsistent situation mobilized a new perception regarding the way of living and housing.

[Pic 6] Kommunalka, Aleksandra Koneva, 2010. 18. Messana P., Soviet Communal Living: An Oral History of the Kommunalka, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 201, p.4

organism—the social condenser of our time”19. The idea of the social condenser20 proposed deploying architecture as a way to forge radical new kinds of human collectivities: collectivities of cohabitation, of coproduction, of intellectual work; as well as collectivities of effect, beauty, empathy, and passion. The social goal of the new worker housing was to coordinate the worker’s individualized family life with the growing demand for collective social life.

In parallel, the housing communes which were developed spontaneously after the revolution were recognized officially by local councils in 1919 as approved method or the use of old dwellings. Communal living emerged spontaneously and informally as an evolution of house-sharing in urban areas and among working-class households, the official housing policies exactly after the revolution embraced these practices and transformed them into an official policy18.

In this new idea, there was a conceptual separation of housing spaces into two domains, the living cell, and the communal space. These two domains defined the beginning of experimentation with the concept of the communal house. Of all the projects, the most innovative typological transformation concerned the rearrangement and diminution of the functions inside the living cells and the shift into complex communal spaces and programs.The communal space emerges through the transfer of conventional domestic facilities and functions to a central area. The innovative nature of this new type of building cannot be detected either in the purely private living cell or in the communal spaces but in the way these distinctive domains work together and create an inseparable whole. The nature of gravity of both domains appertains to this transfer of function between them. As the living cell loses its conventional housing facilities with its transfer to the communal space, the center of gravity in the building moves from the private to the communal domain. Therefore, there is an analogy between the two domains that appertains to these transfers, which defines their nature, the specific form of living and gravity, of the communal domain concerning the private.

The construction of new residential building followed these principles and the design concept marked the begging of innovative typological research was the idea of a social condenser. “… the need for a socialcollective life, for the emancipation of women from the unnecessary household burdens—this is a manifestation of the will of the architect to take her place in the building of a new life, in the creation of a new

Also in Austria, the events of Red Vienna see a strong impetus for the construction of large residential complexes, as the Karl Marx Hof, set on the continuity of the blocks provided by the urban expansion plan and characterized, some by a peculiar expressionist imprint thanks to the contribution of Hoofman, Ehn, Loos, Behrens. The discipline of urbanism emerged from the crisis brought about by industrial development,

[Pic 7] The result of the first five year pla, Varvara Stepanova. 19. Murawski M., Revolution and the social condenser: how the soviet architects sought a radical new society, September 2016, strelkamag.com/en/ article/architecture-revolution-social-condenser. Quotation by Ginzburg Mose, 1917. 20. Murawski M., Introduction: crystallising the social condenser, The Journal of Architecture, 2017.

THE COMMONS

precisely to capitalism’s attempt taking control to labor force, needed for its own development21. This control consisted of the evolution of rational criteria for city planning where rationality is the reduction of urban form to the principles of utility and social control. Karl Marx Hof22 was meant to be a self-sufficient island. Life between the neighborhoods was programmed to be carried out inside the structure, but diversity should have been addressed also to the city not only internally. Porosity is partly underlined by the program of the complex, in fact, only one quarter was built (1400 apartment units for a total of 5,000 dwellers), while the remaining three quarters were destined for green courts for children to play and connection paths. The archetype of the closed monumental courtyard of the Hof clearly separated from the city but fully accessible by the community of workers that inhabited each superblock introduced a type of space that is neither public nor private. European scenario

21. Aureli P.R., City as Political Form: Four Archetypes of Urban Transformation, in Architectural Design n. 81, January/ February 2011. 22. Collotti F., Collotti E., Collective housing and the socialist city, the key-case of the Karl-Marx-Hof in Vienna, Firenze Architettura, 2016, pp. 30-35. [Pic 8] Karl Ehn, Karl Marx Hof, Vienna, 1927-30. Closure and self-sufficiency are monumentalized against the openness and infinity of the bourgeois city

The issue of collective housing and in particular the issue of the relation between the domestic and the public spaces will have to wait for the end of the First World War to take on real centrality all around the world. The high demand for low-cost housing causes the city of the major European nations to carry out large popular housing programs. The “living together” problem is identified with the typological question, trying to maximize functional performance by reducing costs and implementation times. Attention is given to universal parameters (air, light, green, distribution efficiency) rather than to the characteristics of local life. Egalitarianism is resolved with standardization. Seriality, large size, an endowment of services and common spaces, become the tools of a new aesthetic, often fueled by monumental and, at the same time, anti-urban intentions. The scenario in Europe is various, the Netherlands for example, is proposed as a testing ground, first with the Amsterdam School whose

approach favors urban decoration and the design of elevations, then with many related creations in search of density through different heights and types, carried out by designers such as Brinkman, Duiker and above all JJ Oud. In Germany, less concentrated neighborhoods are built, with more generous housing and green standards than the Dutch ones since the availability of vegetable gardens at the time constituted a fundamental resource for integrating the income of families, and sometimes of a particularly large size. The most particular approach goes to the experiences of Ernst May in Frankfurt and Bruno Taut in Berlin, both marked by the involvement of the architects in the political decisionmaking phase, as well as in the design phase. We will analyze how the urban commons began to establish in mainly six case studies in order to see, how the three characteristics previously described (hotspot, porosity and diversity) tempt to emerge. Other important interventions see the light in France such as the contribution of Le Corbusier with the Fruges Houses in Pessac in 1924 and the Etats Unis in Lyon by Tony Garnier, 1919-33. The functionalist or “rational” approach that is consolidated between the two wars continues to cross the architectural reflection of the following decades, even if the further quantitative impulses given at the end of the second world conflict (with the reconstruction and the subsequent economic boom) lead a greater diversification of research and a proliferation of examples. Among the key episodes, there is undoubtedly the creation of the Unitè d’Habitation in Marseille, 1945-52. Here Le Corbusier completes thirtyyear research aimed at the introjection of the space and public equipment inside the building, radically reducing the urban dialectic to the comparison between great architecture and green spaces. The building becomes an isolated object, a unit or a “cell”, to be reproduced in series for larger aggregations. The Unitè in Marseille represents a slice of modern urban and architectural history, built as a prototype it was the result of an experimental diversity solution containing all the facilities required by the people living in community23. It bears the message of what was a radically new hotspot of forceful architecture design. The building’s bare concrete skin and sculptural features are discovering yet at the same time welcoming and enticing, as are the amenities and the apartment inside. The Marseilles Unitè’s community of approximately 1,600 residents is served by communal facilities arranged on three principal public levels: in the ground with other amenities, in the shopping “street” halfway up the block and on the roof deck24 . But the complex is identified as a block unit which is configured as a megastructure, which does not make the building in connection towards the city. The Unitè is a model that lives alone does not seek contacts with the city. It has no relationship with the outside25.

23. Sbriglio J., Le Corbusier: L’Unitè d’habitation de Marseill. The Unitè d’Habitation in Marseilles, Germany, 2004

THE COMMONS

24. Jenkins D., Unitè d’Habitation Marseilles Le Corbusier, Architecture in detail, Phaidon Press Limited, Singapore, 1993 25. It has been declined in countless interventions, for example, Alto West, in Roehampton near London, 1952-58, which scatters white linear objects between the meadows. Or the Interbau ‘57 district in Berlin, where Aalto, Bakema, Gropius, Niemeyer and several other international masters design towers and slats for an exhibition of “liberty” architecture significantly opposed to the urbanism of socialist realism that took place beyond the wall with monumental building curtains aligned to the roadway. Or the long and sinuous volumes of Daneri that follow the level curves of the troubled topography of Forte Quezzi in Genova, 1956-68. Hexagonal links in the large Bijlmermeer district of Amsterdam, 1966-68.

Within the modern movement, there are attitudes of crisis, which manifested itself in the demolition in the early years of the Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project, built in 1956 in Saint Louis by Minoru Yamasaki is indicated by Charles Jencks as a symbol the failure of naive rationalism and the beginning of the postmodern relationship. The failure is to the housing assignment method, the reduced provision of services, the outermost location, ethnic and economic ghettoization; but the key reason is the extent of these settlements, the large number of people of different origins appear to be deported, more a social landfill than a process of aggregation. The architect had no control over the project’s isolated location26, its excessive densities, the elimination of amenities, or the use of high-rise elevator buildings. Their task was limited to providing the form of the individual buildings and incorporating as much amenity as possible, given the restricted budget. The indirect elimination of diversity within the system breaks the balance with the emergence of a new city life of its wellbeing and prosperity, it has eclipsed the essence of urban life, thus becoming a negative hotspot for the crime. The theme of public space is important to underline the excessive porosity of the system. Thus eliminating any border rule, important hierarchies that delimit spaces and activities, exasperating the free spatiality of the void, negative for the quality of the project and for society. Pruitt Igoe’s failure mark the beginning of the postmodernism where is the return to a design dimension linked more to the human dimension, rather than a system that plans to transfer the control of behavior developed in the industrial processes to collective living.

surroundings and successive. Their street gives more privacy to its soldered dwelling by making small gestures at the apartment’s entrances, unlike the Unite’s abrupt transition. They offer continuous network as they define: a cluster of streets which creates a new urban structure that connects to the existing, unlike in the Unitè d’Habitation where the streets are isolated corridors in within the building. They drew their new design without removing the ‘identity’ traces of the bombed area, with a transparent façade that allows the viewer to see the existing city, with correlation to their ‘as found’ concept. They believe that combining old and new will create the new form of collectiveness and public realm. In Robin Hood the ‘streets’ are a lot more narrow and defined by private doors and windows that sit directly on the ‘street’. This concept reduce the sense of privacy for the residents and their sense of ownership on the space28.

In Great Britain, a new consideration of the relationship between accommodation and spaces of relationship to favor a more complex sociality is born. Their proposals become more complex, attentive to local conditions and with a greater degree of tolerance towards unexpected conditions such as, in the Robin Hood Gardens in London in 1966-72. The Smithsons define their own: ‘Street in the Air’27 , wider, open to its

Similar concerns pass through the Italian debate as Giancarlo De Carlo experiments with his ideas in the Villaggio Matteotti in Terni, 197076 which foresees a participatory process such as interpretation of information, involving the requests of future inhabitants and as a work of involvement. Villaggio Matteotti is one of the most participatory housing examples published in the architectural media30. The involvement

In an interview for the BBC, the Smithsons say that they tried to develop social control within the garden. A place where mothers can easily watch their kids while playing. But unlike the entry, the ‘street’ became more like open corridors, exposed to crime and neglect. Second, when in the entry they present a network of clusters streets that connects to the ‘as found’, here their streets are isolated just like in the Unitè which they criticized. Robert Maxwell explains these differences by pointing out: “The two blocks do not join up, they do not demonstrate by combining into a larger entity the potential for a city-wide pedestrian network”29.

27. Smithson A., Smithson P., The Shifts of Ideas from the Golden Lane Proposal to the Robin Hood Gardens (19521972), Liran Malka, April 2014. 28. In Robin Hood the ‘streets in the air’ face the busy roads that surround the site, where in the entry it faces each other and the inner yard. Even in their section photomontage to the Robin Hood Gardens they show the streets facing to the grass hill but it faces to the city and not to the inner garden, and so it still unclear what made them express vague and confusing intentions. 29. The Smithsons even designed an acoustic wall placed on the borders , preventing visual communication to the surroundings. In the interview to the BBC (Johnson, 1970) they will later say that he wall intended to block to noise from the road and offer better quality of life, whereas in real time it contributes to the creation of isolated site. Furthermore, The Smithsons planned and built a grass hill in the inner yard. Initially they proposed to place the project directly on the post-war ruined urban fabric, and by that using the ‘as found’ aesthetics place in order to give the place a sense of identity, but this idea turned to be from effect to became cause. The hill is two floors high and sometimes it blocks the views from one building to the other, reducing visual communication. [Pic 10] The televised demolitions of Pruitt-Igoe. [Pic 11] Aerial photo by the US Geological Survey shows monolithic blocks of Pruitt-Igoe.

26. Bristol K. G.,The Pruitt-Igoe Myth, Journal of Architectural Education, 1991, pp. 163-171. [Pic 9] Children playing at the roof terrace of the Unité d’Habitation

THE COMMONS

30. Díaz R. R., Haugbølle K., (Im)possibilities of participatory housing: revisiting the flexibol system, in Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura, n° 18, Universidad de Sevilla, May 2018. 31. De Jorge-Huertas V., Mat-hybrid housing: Two case studies in Terni and London, , School of Architecture (ETSA-UAH) University of Alcala, Spain, January 2018. 32. Schlimme H., Il Nuovo Villaggio Matteotti a Terni di Giancarlo De Carlo. Partecipazione fallita e capolavoro di architettura. [Pic 12] The Robin Hood Garden ‘Street in the Sky’, 1976

of De Carlo creates participation in architecture. The popular class assumes a decisiverole. The target audience of the architecture becomes the protagonists and, by taking part in the design, they can feel part of the work from the very first moment, personalizing the script and appropriating it. It was thought as a redevelopment of the Cesare Balbo village, a district never completed for the outbreak of the Second World War. The construction system of the building is based on the Italian brutalism architecture characterized by concrete load-bearing walls because it has “three streets in the sky” connecting the common spaces and the facilities in the Villaggio31. It provides a continuous nonlinear street for its “events” and activities, open spaces, and also covered parts inside the buildings, altogether generating a gamut of thresholds. The key to understanding the project probably lies in the analysis of the complexity of the hierarchical organization of spaces which allows a common atmosphere at the urban scale. It plays on a double register: on the one hand, the compactness between buildings and vegetation, on the other, the permeability of the urban quota and the porosity of the connective at altitude32. The idea of the user as the protagonist of the architectural device also pervades the utopian thought of the 50-70s. The mobile inhabited capsules of Archigram’s metabolisms in 1964, the self-designed machines designed by Yona Friedmann in the Ville Spatiale 1958-62; Non-stop city of Archizoom 1969 and Superstudio 1971, for the appropriation and modification of the space; Safdie in Habitat 1967 in Montreal and Bofill in Kafka Castle 1968, speak of a strong connection with social upheavals and the discussions that capitalist development places on the project as an ideology of vertical control. Village form and structure became considered as the epitome of habitat design. In the best cases, design was not the eclectic re-use of vernacular images. The objective was to enable the revival of the art of community living through the recreation, without formal imitation, of certain spatial attributes of the village. Habitat ’67 is in its pioneering the design and implementation of three-dimensional

prefabricated units of habitation. Starting from the type of village and neighbourhood, Safdie wanted to create a dimension favours to human relations and the creation of a community. This coalescence of slab and cluster forms was an attempt to inculcate many of the attributes of ground-based community structures within the high-rise building. It was a statement of the merger of three of the paradigmatic design concepts of its period: the vertical city, Casbah, and the concept of the factorymade house33. The intention had been to achieve a form suitable to its inhabitants, which responded to their cultural needs, which provided personal identity, and which fostered meeting and a sense of community. The space promised some degree of independence and freedom even within the context of public housing, but the effect is controversial: a megastructure too articulate thus forgetting the sense of hotspot that a place should own. From sharing to commons During the nineteenth century, there were the firsts examples of communal living, a whole house gradually dissolved and the home for the nuclear family became a prevailing form of habitation. In the Twenty century, there are two basic forms of sharing/collective housing: apartment-sharing communities consisting of people who do not have enough money for an apartment of their own and utopian or experimental living arrangments joined by people who want to try out new forms of communal life beyond the dominant nuclear family dwellings34. The co-housing35 model breaks down the privacy barriers of the domestic space by introducing a collective and social relationship through cohabitation in terms of space (kitchens, party rooms, laundries) and time (moving towards work, care of common spaces, shared dinners, etc.). Since its birth, this model has undergone various changes and has been redefined in many different meanings, to try to embrace an increasing number of users. In fact, the rigidity of the co-housing system does not make it a mode that can be extended to widespread living, and for this reason the characters that are at the basis of the model have been extrapolated to reorganize them into variants capable of confronting a wider audience. From this, architectural experiences have evolved over the years in the form of eco-villages, housing agglomerations that structure their operation on a reading of the sharing of spaces and services to achieve objectives related to energy and environmental issues, or cohousing specifically for the elderly, which instead sees in this form of close cohabitation with others a solution to break down the barriers of isolation involving the more mature segment of the population. An example of failed and regenerated co-housing for a specific use of the population can be identified in the experimental attempts of the Kollectivhuset in Stockholm36. This idea of the collective unit, with individual apartments around a central kitchen, appeared in history as a specific urban housing model, a typical expression of modernist thinking. In the manifesto

33. Oxman R., Shadar H. and Belferman E.,Casbah: a brief history of a design concept. 34. Maak, Ibidem, 2015, p.142 35. Sandstedt E., Westin S, Beyond Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Cohousing Life in Contemporary Sweden, 2015, p.133.The concept of cohousing

was coined by Charles Durrett and Kathryn McCamant in their book based largely on the study of the Danish bofællesskab (literally “living community”). It should be noted that emphasis is placed on both collaboration and residents’ participation in the design and operation of their neighborhoods, factors that are not at hand in many types of housing with shared facilities.

THE COMMONS

Acceptera (Accept It, referring mainly to industrial society) for the 1930 Stockholm exhibition, the collective housing unit was seen as an important form of housing in the future. In the 1970s and 1980s, bigger cohousing units were built for families in big cities in Sweden, These initiatives were often made with municipal political support, but the interest from the government faded with Sweden’s economic problems in the 1990s. Not all of these units survived as cohousing units. At the beginning of the millennium, for the first time, a new type of cohousing unit appeared namely “cohousing for thesecond half of life”. Today there is a difference between two types of cohousing units: age-integrated cohousing and senior-segregated cohousing. In the age-segregated cohousing, there is no official age limit, but these spaces are created for people in their second halves of life, without children at home. The residents are mostly couples and singles: widows, widowers, former single parents and couples who want to live apart. Always in the line of these processes also place housing solutions such as le viviendas dotacionales, le baugruppen and le habitat groupé. Today, the housing markets of most major cities are shaped by profit-driven developments. Howeverw, there exist new models that offer increased choice and lower costs, and which foster cohesive neighbourhoods and enable adaptable, customised living solutions. These alternatives have been diverse and of a high architectural stan¬dard. They have also allowed selfdetermination: they are initiated by the people who will dwell in them. Baugruppen37,German for ‘building group, stands for a long tradition of selfinitiated, community-oriented living, and the shared responsibility of building. The concept has taken off in Berlin. There is no ‘typical’ model, every project differs in its financing, social make-up, the wishes and desires of the group, and the project’s resulting architectural and urban qualities.

36. Vestbro, Cohousing in Sweden, history and present situation, 2014, p.3 37. Ring, K., “The self-made city. Urban living and alternative development models”, in Arefi, M., Kickert, C., (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Bottom-Up Urbanism, Springer, 2019

Green, open and community spaces have proven vital parts of good neighborhoods, and they are also important here. Common spaces such as rooftop terraces, function rooms, playrooms, guest rooms and even saunas also help to bring people together. Long-term affordability helps to create stable neighborhoods. In collective projects, the future users decide what to invest in and where money can be best saved, redefining the quality-to-price relationship. Alternative models for financing and ownership have offered a new level of long-term affordability within a non-profit ideology. One example of this is the co-op association Spreefeld (pic.13).

is made up of cooperative households. The objective of this continuous research of housing lies in the desire to build a community of inhabitants able to achieve an economic system of solidarity and attentive to the values of environmental sustainability. These new housing structures have challenged the concept of family and apartment, starting from the initial phases of the construction sites with the establishment of building communities, groups of aspiring inhabitants and cooperatives that support the construction . The most significant result of this process is the Cluster-Whonungen, an aggregation of small independent housing units connected to a common space. This typology allows the sharing of common areas and the saving of services costs compared to traditional apartments.As a result of this organization of associations39, Zurich has seen within it a proliferation of abject buildings that follow a community life. One of the most emblematic cases is the Kalkbreite,a citadel open to city, established in 2007 as a combination of potential tenants, neighborhood residents, and the Dreieck and Karthago cooperatives. The key of the successful solutions is the externalization of many functions that do not necessarly have to happen in the private realm, and state funded program.

[Pic 13] Coop Housing at River Spreefeld / Carpaneto Architekten + Fatkoehl Architekten + BARarchitekten, Berlin, Germany, 2013.

A wide-ranging phenomenon of cooperative associations can be seen in Switzerland38, where social welfare initiatives were developed during the 20th century. As a result of the crisis in the 80s and 90s - housing shortages, de-industrialization, de-development and the housing crisis in the private sector - new housing solutions were created due to the work of citizens and social leftist activists. Today, a quarter of the city of Zurich

How to build a Commons

THE COMMONS

Even if the commons is a generic object and it can be created in several occasion and in an infinite number of places, there are some characteristics of spaces, uses and users that can help the settlements of these collective behaviours. Generally, the courtyards are a fertile soil for the creation of the commons as they are ambiguos: the idea of what is private and what is public is blurred. In these in-between spaces communicative contact is allowed and the interlocutors are placed in a situation of equality: this space is not appropriate by anyone, everyone has the same rights, neutral ground1. Van Eyck has defined the “medicine of reciprocity” the ability to find the urban on a small scale and being able to find the domestic sphere on a large scale. It is the attention to the mechanisms of appropriation of space, always different, that allows this diversification of scale.

[Pic. 1] Living room in via Sant’Andrea Milano by Ugo La Pietra, 1989.

This ambiguity between private and public can be created with a series of expedients that considers the space level, the user and the uses one. At a space level this ambiguity is possible blurring the monolithic walls of buildings, creating passages through different areas, thus through the porosity of spaces. Secondly, at a user level the main characteristic necessary for an effective commons is the appropriation: the possibility of people to not merely “use”, but “live” the space. Finally the third characteristic considers the uses of the space and it is the diversity of these functions. The diversity is necessary in order to reach a larger number of users and consequently allows the use of the space during a larger time span.

User level: appropriation At the user level a necessary characteristic for the project is the “appropriation”. With appropriation we mean the attitude of a space of being lived by the users. This concept is strictly bounded to the boundary between what is considered private and what is considered public. The concepts between public and private is developing but find its roots with the raise of feminism and, in particular with the studies of Mery Douglas. However, the concept of appropriation seen as the fall of the boundaries between public and private can be find in Lefebvre theories, that would be argued by Michel de Certeau’s in the ‘80s. In the same periodalso Norberg-Schulz explained his vision about the sense of mutual belonging that then have been considered by Habracken to discuss his theory about territorial control. The boundary between what is domestic and what is not has changed over the centuries, narrowing around the private room and widening towards the street, strengthening its edges or dissolving them into a permeable surface.

1. Mela A., La sociologia delle città, Carrocci, 2006, p. 155. 2. Biraghi M., Damiani G, Passi verso una disciplina configurativa, in Le parole dell’architettura, un’antologia di testi teorici e critici: 1945-2000, Torino, Einaudi, 2008

THE COMMONS

3. Cieraad, I., Domestic space, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2017.

Although the male/female opposition was a common symbolic opposition in tribal spatial arrangements as described by anthropologists, the new domestic/public opposition gave the male/female opposition more of the character of a male conspiracy in secluding women within the home.

4. An exaple is the research carried

on by the geographer Vidal de la Blanche, he has elaborated the concept of genre de vie in order to understand the relation between man and his environment in rural Western Europe. This research was the first one of a long series in which the theorists looked at domestic spaces as production spaces, integrated into a farming economy.

5. Collignon, Domestic spaces and cultural geography, Mercantanti Lorenzo. Percorsi di geografia tra cultura, società e turismo, Patron, Bologna, 2010, pp.131-142. 6. Kent S., Domestic architecture and the use of space, Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge.

Broader assumptions and theoretical analysis on this theme acquire importance during the the 80s and the 90s, mainly through the gender issue first raised by feminist. Thanks to this, the attention shifted from the house structure to the house interiors, for the first time seen as spaces where violence and conflicts can take place3. Before this moment, domestic spaces had been studied from different perspectives, mainly concerning geography and production efficiency, but never involving directly architecture4. Moreover, even if Mary Douglas’s early 70s studies on the theme were at the beginning focused on archaeology, would have been later used as further investigation within the discourse of academic feminist5. Following the traditional anthropological and symbolic interpretation of Douglas, the threshold as the border between the inside and the outside of the house represents an important ritual boundary, which is still obeyed in the old custom of the groom carrying the bride into the house6. As sustained by Aureli, in fact, in archaic time architecture was the directly consequence of rituals. Rituals in this sense are considered as habits and consuetudes, daily practises able to shape the environment. On the other hand, with the more recent shift of scholarly attention toward the internal zoning of domestic space according to use, gender, and age, not only has the threshold as the border between inside and outside lost its importance as a ritual boundary but so too have the walls of the house as the confines of the domestic domain. Consequently, the act of “inhabiting” is only partially related to the actions traditionally associated with domestic space, but goes beyond the defined threshold and seems to be more correlated with the sense of belonging that the subject act on the place. Different scholars of last century investigated on this less traditional way of consider domestic space. According to Henri Lefebvre, the sense of mutual belonging that develops between subjects and the spaces they inhabit is essentially determined by their own process of production, or

by the direct possibility that subjects have to control them, both socially and individually. From this point of view, the nature of urban space can be simply defined by the variable relationship between it being a collective artwork and it being a market product, a difference that lies in their different dynamics of production7. A city is as an artwork when it represents a domain in which space does not respond to the logic of profit, whereas it becomes a product when the mechanism of the industrialisation process excludes its inhabitants from the production of its space, thus repressing their inalienable ‘right to the city’. For this reason, according to Lefebvre, the city has to be reclaimed through a non-violent urban revolution capable of reconnecting people to the space they inhabit, in a symbolic process of collective re-appropriation that, although intellectually fascinating, struggles to find a concrete spatial dimension. A first definition of this process of re-signification can be found in Michel de Certeau’s theory8, which follows Lefebvre’s thesis about spatial belonging but completely reverses the role that everyday life plays in this process: only in everyday life people can subvert the hegemonic sense of space through the different practices of definition, transformation and interpretation that structure the relationship between human beings and the territory to which they belong. According to de Certeau, in other words, the production of urban space is not only determined by the institutional ‘strategies’ of planning, design and management, but it is also made of countless “tactics”, individual and collective, that take the shape of everyday practices aimed at reclaiming public space simply by inhabiting it. Therefore, only in this continuous, repeated and informal act of inhabitation it is possible to find the base of the sense of belonging. Probably the first conscious attempt, from an architectural point of view, to describe in a broad and systematic way the human faculty of inhabiting beyond the domestic borders dates back to a 1984 essay by Christian

7. Lefebvre H., La Production de l’espace. Paris: Anthropos, 1974 8. De Certeau, Michel. 1980. L’Invention du Quotidien.Vol. 1: Arts de Faire. Paris: Union générale d’éditions. In http:// www.traces.polimi.it index.html [Pic 2] Giovanni Emilio Galanello, Anonima Plastica, 2019.

The serie of pictures “tells the story of anonymous design, in particular an object that does not define any space or time. Seemingly disconnected from its surrounding, it operates as a Time-space-Machine: it shows how a shared space - be it private or public - can be generated anywhere and anytime through a simple object, that becomes itself a witness to all the design in the world.” This object left in the most excentric places is symbol of the appropriation: people occupy a space only with a little piece of domesticity. The complete serie is visible at

https://g-e-galanello.it/projects/ ANONIMA-PLASTICA

THE COMMONS

9. Norberg-Schulz C., L’abitare: L’insediamento, lo spazio urbano, la casa. Milano: Electa, 1984. 10. Habraken N.J., The Structure of the Ordinary, MIT Press Cambridge 1998, p.126. [Pic 3] Spangen Quarter Housing, Michiel Brinkman, Rotterdam. In housing this concept is

translated mostly with the extension of the residential units into the shared space of housing complexes. It is clear looking at several projects in the Netherlands and in general in the northern country of Europe. The Spangen Quarter Housing in Rotterdam by Michiel Brinkman developed in the ‘20s. This building is characterized by elevated streets that not only distribute the units, but also is used as an extension of the dwellings: plants, coffee tables and other objects are placed in the shared part, producing a uncanonical hybrid space. The most famous cases where this concept have been exploited are the projects by Alison and Peter Smithsons, that for the first time theorized the “street in the sky”: the different apartments were linked by extremely large covered but openair corridors that reproduce the measures of streets. The idea is clear: bring back the people to the vernacular uses of public spaces to enhance social cohesion creating a more pleasant environment.

Norberg-Schulz9. In Norberg-Schulz’s opinion, in fact, inhabiting has nothing to do with the domestic environment, but it more generally represents the principle of reciprocal belonging between human beings and the environment. It is an act that goes beyond the definitions of scale and typological categorisations and which, more simply, involves the possibility of feeling part of a certain place. In this sense, the space of inhabiting is much more than a physical environment. It is a sort of mental place that can be identified with very different dimensions, although the meanings attributed to it are implicit in the material practices of spatial appropriation. In fact, as Mary Douglas wrote, dwelling does not represent the search of a refuge or the definition of a form of private property, but it begins with the repeated possibility of controlling a portion of space and defining it through practices and habits. The domestic space, in other terms, metaphorically represents the circumscription of a part of the physical reality that surrounds the individual, and its introjection into the manipulative sphere that constitutes the core of everyday. Therefore, its symbolic boundaries are not given a priori, but they change according to the personal attitude to recognise a place through its daily appropriation.

acknowledges three orders that structure the built environment: form and space control, understood as a physical order, seen as place-making, located within a territorial order and finally the understanding of space which helps to determine a more cultural order within the structure. The ever-changing condition of territory in which agents act simultaneously and therefore transform territory, adds another dimension to the concept. As a consequence, territorial control changes continuously, as “forms that seem to indicate territory are constantly tested”12.

Ivan Illich perfectly defines what happens in the community in the contemporary era “People need not only to obtain things, they need above all the freedom to make things among which they can live, to give shape to them according to their own tastes, and to put them to use in caring for and about others.” Thus, if the domestic sphere is not only a spatial typology, but also a very precise modality of territorial control.

To allow territorial control by the users there are several tools that architecture can activate. Generally appling a neighborhood scale to design it is possible to generate the sense of belonging. It is nothing more than the combination of three elements: a sense of collective identification and participation, a sense of social role, a sense of dependence. The first one exists where people have common interests and a group life. The social role occurs when there is a feeling that man belongs to something, that is, when there is a fulfillment of certain functions. Finally, dependence is both physical because most material needs are satisfied by the community and psychic because the community is a kind of home. The neighbourhood plays the role of mutual aid, association to achieve common goals, to guarantee contacts, social control and socialisation. A human being has considerable advantages in being part of a community. Physically, it is through the places of aggregation that a community is born. They have been part of the urban fabric since the city’s existence as a geographical historical phenomenon.

“Territorial control is the ability to exclude, to shut the door, selectively admitting only who and what we desire. (...) Territorial control is the ability to close a space, to restrict entry. It is the most instinctive way by which humans have learned to understand the built environment”10. With this statement N.J. Habracken refers to basic human needs to understand the notion of territory: “At the scale of human inhabitation, territory seems to segregate what physical forms leaves open.”11 The author

“In a big city, you are faced with this enormous mass of housing, which you can’t make anything of…it is tremendously confusing; in a way, you are unhappy with it. In it exists the fragments of old structures, but very often no feeling of their identity”13. The scale of the neighborhood helps to avoid the Generic City. “The Generic City is the city liberated from the captivity of the center, from the straitjacket of identity” 14. On the contrary, they ensure social escape:

11. Habraken, Ibidem, p.141. 12. Habraken N.J., The Control of Complexity, in Places, volume 4, number 2, 1987.

The ability of exclude described by Habracken, generates asymmetrical relationships of selective entry and unrestricted access. Within a horizontal relationship, each owner, each inhabitant or visitor has the same possibilities of entry and exit. “When configurations on the same level relate horizontally, the rules of territory take over, continuing separation by means of boundaries (...) When the higher-level configuration does not separate live configurations on the lower level, territorial structure will. The separation has no technical or functional rationale, it is a matter of control”.

13. Alison Smithson, Team 10 meetings, Rizzoli, 1991, p. 60 [Pic 4] Inner courtyard, Kasbah ,Piet Blom, Henglo.

THE COMMONS

without places of social attraction, without people gathering, then spaces become homogeneous and equivalent at every point. The Generic City “the calmer it is, the more it approximates the pure state” 15. Gehl points out how important it is to acquire the awareness that it is not the buildings,but the people and events that must be brought together. In fact, once people are gathered, a place becomes a place 16. The experience of those who live the space then expresses its value and meaning.

14. Koolhaas R., ibidem, 2006, chapter 1.6 15. Koolhaas R., ibidem, 2006, chapter 3.2 16. Gehl J., Ibidem, 1991. 17. “I luoghi in cui viviamo ci

vengono continuamente imposti. In realtà lo spazio in cui operiamo può esistere solo come modello mentale che viene modificato continuamente dall’esperienza. Occorre cercare la forma che nasce dalle nostre esperienze invece che dagli schemi imposti” . La riappropriazione

della città, Ed. Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1977.

18. C. Stoney’s G., How to Live in a City, youtube. com/watch?v=2Je6Dko6mm4 19. Lynch K., ibidem, 1969, p.67. 20. Sennett R., Costruire e abitare: etica per la città, Feltrinelli, 2018. 21. De Carlo G., L’architettura della partecipazione, Quodlibet Habitat, 2015.

“The places where we live are continually imposed on us. In reality the space in which we operate can only exist as a mental model that is continually modified by experience. It is necessary to look for the form that comes from our experiences instead of imposed schemes”17. This is what La Pietra means when in “La riappropriazione della città” shows the difference that exists between a generic place and an experienced, appropriate place. It contrasts the image of the station in Milan, defining it as “the station”, with that of its parking lot, understood as “my station”. Reality is what we live ourselves, it is what, thanks to the experience, belongs to us. This theme is re-proposed by George C. Stoney in another video entitled “How to live in a city”18. They “are frequently used as clues of identity”19. On the contrary, the absence of reference points does not allow the recognition of places and the sense of belonging. Belonging is manifested through personalization. The most recent studies focus attention on the role that the personalization of space plays in the construction of identity. The meaning is placed on the functions of control, first of all psychological appropriation of the space that territoriality expresses. Individuals, through their more or less structured or finalized actions, using a space, signify it, interpret it, transform it. The practice that occurs in a place is the instrument that puts into action the essence or meaning of that same space, sometimes matching the use with the one originally intended, other times denying that intended use for a new and unexpected one. The space is thus the opportunity to carry out action. Sennett, among the characteristics of his open city, lists the incomplete form, that is the partiality of design 20 . When the form is simple and unfinished, then it becomes flexible and suitable for future developments. In this way an emotional bond with the place is guaranteed, since the owner was involved in the foreground at the time of design. The involvement is what De Carlo hopes by theorizing participation in architecture21. People, not planners, assume an authentic and decisive role in deciding the use and configuration of the land. In this way they finally think “to whom” the project is destined and not just “how”, reconsidering the real needs of the people. The target audience of the architecture becomes the protagonists and, by taking part in the design, they can feel part of the work from the very first moment, personalizing the script and appropriating it. Safety is one of the other advantages that commons brings if it has the right amount of hotspots. As Jane Jacobs reminds us, “everyone knows

that a busy urban street is probably also a safe street, unlike a deserted urban street”22 . Frequency and safety are linked by the concept of eyes on the street. The theory advocates the use of high-density mixed-use communities, which are areas with residential and commercial uses, to stimulate street traffic. Jacobs argues that increased street traffic, day and night, not only help communities flourish socially and economically, but also acts as self policing which deters criminal and anti-social behavior. To conclude, a place that everyone cares about and is interested in, we need a community, whose sense of belonging, enriched by a possible personalization and participation in the activities, ensures that the space is frequented and experienced.

22. Jacobs J., ibidem, 2000, p. 32. [Pic.5 Riconversione progettuale, Ugo La Pietra, Triennale di Milano, 1979.

THE COMMONS

Space level: porosity A second characteristic that is important is the porosity. With porosity we mean a space that admit the flow of people. This characteristic is necessary to reactivate a urban ground. Porosity is a material condition, it describes the propensity of a material to become subject to percolation and infiltration. The theme of porosity concerns the different ways of using urban space and moving within the city by different city users: “An important thing we should clarify about porosity is that it is not equivalent to total transparency, because in a state of total transparency all fluids and flows would be allowed to pass, incurring so in a state of total opennes to external stimuli. Porosity also involves resisting certain flows, speaking about porosity means understanding limitations, being aware of the existence of different bodies and flows. Porosity is instead the possibility to reflect on degrees of transparency, without ever reaching it fully” 23.

23. Viganò P. in TWF, Maas W., Porocity, Nai Publishers, Rotterdam, 2018, pp. 4-6. 24. TWF, Maas W., ibidem, 2018, p. 5. [Pic.6] From 1962 to 1966, André

Bloc produced several Sculptures habitacles, some of which were experimental “pavilions” in his garden in Meudon. Architecture and sculpture are intermingled in organic imbrications, staggered to form several levels and full of holes, opening the visual unity of the form to a physical and spatio-temporal experience. Perception exists in successive views by walking through it, and from this one must develop a mental synthesis. “I allowed light and air to penetrate through simple and complex pathways. The Sculpture habitacle is, to a certain extent, characterized by a continuity of the visual exterior and interior through a system of interpenetration and occupation of space, thereby multiplying contrasts and variations in volume.”

The notion of porosity is mainly used to describe the physical properties of a material, but linked to architecture it can deal with everything that imply a contact between two opposite poles: for example the performance of a façade, the spatial organization of a building, its mass and its voids, or even the emergence of socio-economic interactions24. Architects and urbanists Paola Viganò and Bernardo Secchi introduced porosity as new and liberating operative term with which to model, represent, analyse and design the metropolis of nowadays, and approach the project of urban spaces in a different manner. They invoked the analogy with fluid mechanics and material properties in order to better explain the capacity of porous objects to be penetrated by external bodies and consequently modified and their particular capacity to establish mutual relation with external environment: Citing Ernst Bloch, in his article “Italy, Porosity”, permeability and connectivity are neither good nor bad, but

rather problematic because they concern flows. They concern the contact between bodies that generate flows in space, so they can be also a source of conflict and tension. Whatever we do, the question of the contact between different objects, different dynamics, behaviours and interests is problematic. This combination of conflict, fluidity and impermanence is for me the most fundamental quality of porosity25. On the one hand, porosity is thus a spatial notion that blurs traditional distinction between closed and open, mass and void. But porous architecture is not just an attempt to open up the built environment: on the other hand, it provides the tools to prove that urban porosity is socially, environmentally and economically valuable, through the capacity of establish relations among very different (and sometimes opposite) objects. It is based on the notion of inter-connectivity and on the quality of the space. Solidity, as opposite of porosity and its contrasting pole, is identified by Sennett as the product of Modern Movement planning, which is still today the main driving force of speculative interventions in peripheries of cities26. Between solidity and porosity there are many degrees of variation: any time the public realm extends into a building interior, the city at large become more porous. About this transiction between public and private could be used the term “communality”. The term communality refers to a theory proposed by Habracken that explains the subdivision, physical or mental, of space. This final assumption concern, in fact, the space level and, consequently, is closer to the structural and architectural aspects of the housing units. By degree of commonality, we mean the position of space on a scale ranging from what is considered public to what is the most intimate and private sphere of the individual. In other words, the position of the place considered in the space between the street, the public space par excellence, and the room, understood as a space destined to the most intimate sphere of each individual. It will be noticed how the definition of these spatial juxtapositions can support and encourage the presence of domestic commons, as it can, on the contrary, limit their presence. N.J. Habracken argues a important conceptual distinction between what he called territorial control, that not necessarily obliges physical implications and the Control of space, that involves morphological implications. In this way, N.J. Habracken links this theoretical model of enclosure hierarchy with the idea of public space and private space, the latter being included in the first one, constituting included territories which turns the concepts of public and private space into relative notions. The author stresses that territorial boundaries can be invisible, although clearly defined. On the other hand, walls and gates may not define any territorial meaning at all: a door leading from a house into

25. TWF, Maas W., ibidem, 2018, p. 58. 26. “In my opinion there is one

villain who can explain why cities are closed. The villain is Le Corbusier and his villainy is the Plan Voisin for Paris (1925), which is a perfectly closed system, additive and homogeneous. As an architectural piece, this is fantastic, but as an urban intervention it is amoral. It simply denies people any public life on the ground plane, it isolates them into the towers. Residents have heat, running water and son on. The only thing they don’t have is life. It is a uniform closed city that can be easily reproduced and multiplied everywhere”

Sennett R., Open City, lecture in City Museum of Stokholm, 2014, p. 8.

THE COMMONS

27. N.J. Habraken, “The Control of Complexity” in Places, volume 4, number 2, 1987. 28. Aristotle made a fundamental distinction between politics and economics— that is, in other terms, the distinction between public and private. The polis is the space of the many, the space that exists in between individuals or groups of individuals when they coexist. The private space of the house is the basic social space that ensures the natural reproduction of its members. In the Roman city, an analogous struggle played itself out in the dichotomy between urbs and civitas. The Latin term urbs indicated “city” in a different sense from the Greek word polis. Whereas the polis was founded from a preexisting, latent community, the formation of the urbs transcended any community, and thus could be founded ex novo. By designating the built structure of the city and its functioning without any initial political qualification, the urbs can be interpreted as simply the generic aggregation of people. The form of this aggregation is a “cohabitation,” which means that what is shared is simply the material condition of inhabiting a place. The civitas is the gathering of free individuals who come together by recognizing and sharing a public sphere, the existence of which makes them citizens."

In Aureli P. V., Giudici S.M., The Grand Domestic Revolution: Revisiting the Architecture of Housing, (AA School of Architecture). [Pic 7] An entrance in Milan. Milan

a garden within the same property, does not define territorial meaning. “Control hierarchies help us understand how the artefact predetermines the relation between those who act upon it and how, in turn, the way agents relate to one another, shapes the artefact. The hierarchies we see in our artefacts are the result of explicit tacit agreements among those who act upon them.(...) Understanding the hierarchical structure of the built environment and the control distributions exercised upon them, will help us to organise ourselves when making complex artefacts(...)”27 This theory on territory has obviously a very hierarchical and structural approach: the built environment is seen as a result of included territories, forming various control hierarchies having morphological implications. The usage of the words “public” and “public sphere” betrays a multiplicity of concurrent meanings. On the other hand, the word public sometimes can be related to something that don’t refer to general accessibility, as the expression “public building”. We are dealing here with categories of Greek origin transmitted to us bearing a Roman stamp. In ancient Greece politics is incarnated in the polis, the project of the city, the existence of the polis holds the possibility of conflict and the need for its resolution as its very ontological foundation. On the other hand technè oikonomikè, economy, concerns the administration of private space: the house, or oikos, from which the word oikonomikè derives. Oikonomikè concerns the wise administration of the house and control over the relationships of its members. This difference between politics and economics is absent In Roman times when the term “urbs” define a group of houses rather than a community28. During the Middle Ages in Europe the contrast drawn in Roman law between publicus and privatus was familiar but had no standard usage. Where eas, in the tradition of ancient Germanic law, through the categories “gemeinlich” and “sunderlich”, “common” and “particular”, did generate a contrast that corresponded somewhat to the classical one between “publicus” and “privatus”. That contrast referred to communal elements to the extent to which they survived under the

feudal conditions of production. The commons was public, publica; for common use there was public access to the foundation and market square – loci communes, loci publicis. The “particular” stood opposed to this “common”, which etymologically is related to the common or public welfare ( common wealth, public wealth)29. Among these words coming from different cultures, the urbs extends this realm to the structure intended to support the simple aggregation of houses. This structure lies in the space infra, or in between them. If the infra, as defined by politics, is a trace of the impetus toward separation and confrontation within the city, the infra of the urbs is the space of connection and integration. Habracken focused on these in-between spaces and scale, adding layers to the roman concept and imagining different accessibility patterns within this theoretical model of inclusion, that is, different ways of entering those territorial scenarios, the author defines in a clear way the concept of territorial depth. “Territorial depth is measured by the number of boundary crossings (…) needed to move from the outer space to the innermost territory”30. Besides intensification of use, meaning subdivision of territory, a zone of shared or collective space was created before entering those new individual territories. In this case, territorial depth increases as you cross more boundaries when you “move from the outer space to the innermost territory”31. He is speaking about the idea of sequences. As Aureli explained, “rooms” and consequently the different areas of a house are the product of a process of subdivision. During time, the typology and the shape of the residential spaces changed and, consequently, we can affirm that the depth configuration also changed. The subdivision of spaces is for Aureli the result of the need of accumulation given by the shift to sedentariness in Neolithic time: the morphological configuration of spaces that followed rectangular angles is due to the need to avoid loss of space, while in more ancient times the houses used to be circular as expansion of the fireplace so as spaces constructed for the rituals.

29. Habermas J., Ibidem,1989 30. Habraken N.J., Ibidem, 1998, p.137 31. Habraken, Ibidem, p.137 [Pic.8] Palazzo Serristori in Florence, Massimo Listri.

THE COMMONS

In this latter case, the house was a product of the work of the entire community that gave shape to the rituals of their everyday lives, it was no public or private, but, in this sense it was a common32. After this phase secondary spaces were added as service areas and buffers like entrances, loggias, porches, the spaces that N.J. Habraken collocated conceptually as opposed to functional references we use currently. These spaces in anctient times completed what was a houses with a central plan central representative room, that is the one where ritual still take place, where members of the family interacted within each other, that can be elongated to catch and organize a sort of movement, increase the ceremonial. Around this room a series of smaller rooms are located, where mundane activities take place. This hide a functional distribution and also a gender segregation. This happened in ancient Greek houses where the hierarchical subdivision of spaces was characterized by a courtyard were the kitchen, space devoted to women, overlooks to. The central space was divided by a loggia, the andron, that was the area strictly reserved to men, used for receiving guests, who weren’t allowed to enter in the other parts of the house. The peculiarity of this space was the presence of heavy doors: even if it was the more public space of the house, it was the more private. On the other hand, later in roman era, the domus was a completely public space, open to the public as a forum. Of course there were diverse functionalised spaces, with different degrees of communality: the more private ones were the cubicula, small rooms organized around the courtyard. These spaces were used for sex, reading, concentration, space for solitude in a social space as domus, looking at those spaces it is clear that they have been though for single persons. For Aureli, the cubicula are the anciestry of the monatic cells. The author underlines that Christianity and Monasticism is a turning point as the idea of being alone is negotiated with the idea of being together.

32. Aureli P.V., The Room of One’s Own. A Short History of the ‘Private Room’, 19.12.17, temple talks, Brussel

However, this communitarian way of life loss his importance during time, leaving the floor to the downing of the private way of life represented by the flourishment of the apartment. The result is the shrinking of the communality in the family as enclosure rather than in a community. The apartment is “the sequence of spaces that goes from public to private” and refers to the series of spaces such as rooms and anterooms that, in the Renaissance palace, separated the public space from the private space of the studiolo. Consequently, the renaissance palazzo is the archetype of apartments, based on the proliferation of rooms with clear hierarchy described also in De re aedificatoria, where Alberti explains this ritual procession. The enfilade is the spatial experience that transform the rooms from spaces to stay from spaces of passage, E.T. Hall mentions in a similar way the idea of sensory shifts within a sequence and quotes James Gibson: “Visual impressions which accompany the perceptions of depth over a continuous surface and depth at a contour”. The “apartments” increased the ritual of private space, that indicates an higher status in relation to its proximity to the studiolo. Nevertheless, the studiolo is paradoxical space: the most private space, but the most important guest were welcomed here were the most public image were perfomed.

It should be underlined how those sequences are a strong example of polyvalent spaces, an example of what is for Habracken the already mentioned “historical absence of functional specificity”33, consequently there is a disconnection of levels of privacy from functional references: an intimate space does not necessarily need to be a sleeping room, as it is often planned in recent projects. However, besides spatial qualities there was another element defining depth in domestic sequences: the restriction of access. “ (...) architecture supported inhabitation by offering a varied topography of spaces and forms. At times, the very entities to which people linked their activities -fireplace, window, sleeping alcove were themselves like low-order forms, inhabiting the larger building”34. Drawings or paintings representing daily scenarios within royal palaces or aristocratic residences before the industrial revolution, show the clear indication of private territories within the bigger interior space, seen as a continuous public space with temporal restriction of access. The construction of included territories maintained a certain ambiguity as those areas were not related to activity and because the idea of a corridor as a rational way of organising the domicile was still inexistent. In those projects, it is interesting to see the adjacency of collective and intimate spaces without spatial differentiation, without separating circuits of access by using corridors. Many territorial sequences then depended on subtle access configuration, the presence of abundant sequential gaps, overlap scenarios, but not necessarily showing long predefined territorial transitions. Besides that, we can notice that the most intimate area was not necessarily located at the very end of the domestic sequence or at the deepest part of the spatial structure: here deep territorial structures were combined with short physical and visual depth configurations. Proximity was time dependent and relative. Proximity read as a coherent system of absolute distances, was less important as the spatial set-up was defined by territorial configuration which meant allowing or denying access with an extreme flexibility in time. Considering the theory of Habracken there are two ways of increasing depth: the first ones are top-down actions: the transformation of a singlefamily mansion into apartment buildings or the example of courtyard houses that become small villages, containing a number of individual households. The second one describes bottom-up transformations, where neighbours decide to change the configuration of territorial boundaries without imposing this change from above. Increasing depth is directly related to the creation of collective or shared spaces on different levels within the territorial hierarchy. Shared spaces can be common courtyards, neighbour-shared vestibules, gardens, storage or parking spaces, common playgrounds, corridors or passages. Territorial depth is strongly related to the property structure within the hierarchy, even not exclusively dependent on it. Habracken isn’t the only author that studied the theme of hierarchy in public-private transitioning, doing a step behind we can considering also

33. Scheelinck K., Depth Configuration: Proximity, Permeability and Territorial boundaries in urban projects, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, 2010. 34. Scheelinck, ibidem.

THE COMMONS

the theoretical debate discussed by S. Chermayeff and C. Alexander. They proposed a system composed of six well defined steps: starting from the urban-public, referring to roads and parks, to urban semi-public areas, that we can relate to city halls or service stations for example. The third category is the group-public one, thinking of mail delivery areas, while the fourth one is called group-private, like a community garden. The next level is defined by family-private, with the example of the living room and the final degree is called individual-private, with the individual room as the main example. The authors claim that in some cultures a clear physical expression of need for varying degrees of privacy and integrity of domains correspond to these six mentioned levels. However, as seen in the upper example, contradictions in spaces seems to be the rule rather than the exception: the andron was the most intimate but at the same time the most representative space of the meganov, as well as the studiolo in reinassence. This is the reason why the proposal of Chermayeff could appear as a scheme rather then a reliable abstract description of the reality. Under this light, Habracken is still the author that considered the theme on different levels, trying to merge both the morphology of buildings and the users one.

35. Maak, N.,Post-Familial Communes in Germany, in, Harvard Design Magazine, n. 41 [online] Available at: http:// www.harvarddesignmagazine. org/issues/41/post-familialcommunes-in-germany. [Pic. 9] Giovanni Battista Nolli (1701-1756),figure-ground map of Rome.

Nevertheless, his theory could act anachronistically as today the functional hierarchies of residential units seems to be dissolved because of the changing in the work market and in the configuration of the house. Even if houses are not constructed to support the new needs, their inhabitants force the environment they live in transforming the role they were designated to. As Maak noticed35 the most public space of the house today may be consider the room itself. It is the space where people, laying on their beds, are more active in social life chatting and posting, making their lives visible to hundreds of people. For sure they are much more “public” than when they are in a crowded street, where, listening to their own music, they walk fast and straight till their destination. For this

reason is important not to consider only the spatial implication but rather it value considering the people occupying and their actions. Avoid the new technologies and this new form of considering our "social" life, facades still constitute the demarcation between inside and outside, between private and public, between mass and void. They represent the assumed disconnection of the inside and the outside and the detachment of the building from the city. Solid buildings risk to become agents for segregation, enclosure and a kind of urban introversion - buildings become like fortresses: suburbsare enclosed and separated, as well as gated communities are created36. For this reason architecture should be porous. Porous architecture is half open and half closed: the outside blends with the inside. Such a city celebrates the architecture of thresholds and transition, as Gaston Bachelard said: “intimate spaces loses its clarity, while exterior spaces loses its void”. Porosity means accessibility: buildings which are permeable could lift up from their basis or open up to allow fast access through their structures. They would thus make up part of the infrastructure of the city, connecting people and activities, combining efficiency and special qualities. The porous space is easy to cross and easy to traverse: access would be visible and become the condition for social encounters, for diversified programme. Moreover, according to Margareth Kohn, a space must be widely accessible in order to facilitate interaction: in fact public space has the potential to facilitate interaction between strangers and acquaintances. Usually this means that it is owned by the government or a nonprofit organization because other proprietors restrict access to members or potential consumers. When looking at accessibility we should consider both the juridical and practical dimensions37. Porosity, in fact, creates connections and spaces of encounter: “The aspect of use is really important. I was very impressed by an idea of space as a practiced place. There is the aspect of the context, of the physical and material construction but in order to be defined ‘place’, it must introduce and then overlap practices, which at the same time generate new spaces”38. Porosity generates views: in cities, sometimes the horizon disappears. Solid buildings become visual obstruction and, constrained by the the opacity of these surroundings, one experiences a sensation of visual enclosure. Porous architecture is an invitation to maximize views since hollowed building method would ensure visual continuity form outside to the inner parts of the building and from the bottom to the top of a structure. The concepts of eyes on the street by Jane Jacobs is a direct consequence of the architectural porosity: relations and contacts created by the architecture space is influencing the behaviour of people. At a primary level, urban spaces are governed by the work of the eye, by strategies of visibility and surveillance. Visual order and public order are closely linked in the regulation of space39. Everyone could state that

36. TWF, Maas W., ibidem, 2018, pp. 17-18. 37. A park located in an exclusive

neighborhood that is not served by public transportation is not very public. Similarly, a public forum located on the outskirts of town is useless if it does not provide speakers with a realistic opportunity to be heard by strangers. Accessibility and ownership alone, however, do not exhaust the definition of public space. A community center run by a nonprofit organization seems more like a public space than a high school football stadium does. The concepts of spectacle and intersubjectivity capture this distinction. In Kohn

M., Brave New Neighborhoods. The privatization of public space, Routledge, London, 2004, p. 85.

38. Petranzan M., Bernardo Secchi e Paola Viganò: opere recenti - Porosità e Isotropia, Il Poligrafo, Padova 2014, p. 24. 39. Hajer M and Reijndorp A., In Search of the New Public Domain, NAi Publishers, 2002 , p. 76.

THE COMMONS

a frequented public space (whose maximum degree is identified with the urban road) is probably also a safe space, unlike a deserted urban road. The sight of people attracts other people: the dense mix of uses of the sidewalks generates direct and continuous surveillance. The urban order easy to maintain when the street is populated with glances40. Porous architecture is hybrid: this kind of space, connected to its surroundings and permeable, goes against this monoculture of programme, in order to enhance frequentation and consequently control. It aims to diversify the programmatic composition of buildings, it is an invitation to intensify the mixed quality and diversification of programme. By proposing a city that is less dense but more intense buildings become hubs for social interactions and they become hybrid. The pores act as the cement for programmatic cohesion, generating spaces that are the synapses of social life and exchanges of ideas. Porous buildings absorb the public realm into architecture. Buildings become programme condenser, increasing synergies between different functions and inviting private developments to provide and integrate public space, aiming diversity 16. Porosity is also the capacity of a urban space to welcome and favor the spontaneous insertion of activities unrelated to the functional program and the management plan that are drawn up before each economic intervention41.

40. Jacobs J., Death and Life of Great American cities, p. 170.

Jane Jacobs lists some principles to achieve a better use of the public street: a) avoid a clear separation between public and private spaces, they must be interpenetrated, not as usually happens in suburban settlements or building complexes b) the area must be monitored by the eyes of those who we could call its natural owners c) sidewalks must be frequented and an essential condition for carrying out this surveillance is that a large number of public places are scattered along the sidewalks.

41. Ruzzon D., Progettare imprevisti in Porosità e Isotropia, Il Poligrafo, Padova 2014, p. 142. 42. Benjamin W., Immagini di città, Einaudi, Torino 2007, p. 20. 43. Benjamin W., ibidem, 2007, p. 20. 44. Amin A., Thrift N., Città. Ripensare la dimensione urbana, Il Mulino, Bologna 2005, p. 28.

Continuous joints between the various building shapes and typologies that compose a complicated succession of connections passing through an infinite urban fabric. Transitivity and porosity are therefore principles that allow cities to continuously model and remodel themselves. Benjamin says: “everything is left to become the theater of new constellations never seen before: the definitive, the codified is avoided. No situation, as it seems, is thought forever, no form imposes it like this and not otherwise” 43.Conceiving the city as a changing entity formed by the interweaving of multiple trajectories allows you to “abandon the idea of the city as an orderly and isolated model of mobility, and to see a myriad of traces of mobility within it”44. Social encounters, public life, meeting and exchange represent the fluid interactions taking place in solid spatial bodies. Thus porosity is described into social relationships within the city and into public and private life, almost entirely both contaminated from each other.

Nolli’s approach and analysis about city permeability were followed by Walter Benjamin in his 1924 fundamental essays “Image of Cities”, written in form of notes, about cities he visited, like Marseille, Paris, Moscow, Naples, together with Asja Lacis. The most interesting comments from Benjamin however regard in particular Naples, the perfect example of Mediterranean city typology, in which they focussed especially on the theme of porosity. They make an interesting analogy between the properties of the stony materials used to build up Naples and the porous aspects of its architecture and its life: “A porous as this stone is the architecture. Building and action interpenetrate in the courtyards, arcades, and stairways. In everything they preserve the scope to become a theater of new, unforseen constellations. The stamp of the definitive is avoided. No situation appears intended forever, no figure asserts its “thus and not otherwise”. This is how architecture, the most binding part of the communal rhythm, comes into being here: civilized, private, and ordered only in the grat hotel and warehouse building on the quays; anarchical, embroiled, village-like in the center”42. Here the notion of porosity is used as a means to apprehend the forms and performances of a city; according to that, Benjamin observes about Naples: “the physically of the rock that makes up the built structures in the city of Naples and nineteen century Neapolitan society itself are connected between themselves”.

[Pic. 10] Palazzo Sanfelice in Napoli, Ferdinando Sanfelice, 1724-1728.

THE COMMONS

Use level: diversity “…the interweaving of human patterns. They are full of people doing different things, with different reasons and different ends in view, and the architecture reflects and express this difference – which is one of the contents rather than form alone. Being human, human beings are what interest us most. In architecture as in literature and drama, it is the richness of human variation that gives vitality and colour to the human setting… Considering the hazard of monotony… the most serious fault in our zoning laws lies in the fact that they permit an entire area to be devoted to a single use”45

45. Raskin E., On the Nature of Variety, summer issue of Columbia University Forum, New York, 1960. 46. Trancik R., Finding Lost Space, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1986. 47. Montgomery J., Making a City: Urbanity, vitality and urban design, Journal of Urban Design 3, 1998. [Pic. 11] Leon Krier’s sketches: the city is not the result of the sum of mono-functional zones. [Pic. 12] Riken Yamamoto & Field Shop, Local Community Area.

Another important characteristic to help the presence of commons is diversity: the more varied and complex the functions and the uses are, the more likely it is that they will attract a greater number of people, especially of different ages and backgrounds. The more space is experienced by people, the more urban life is generated. The aim is to understand how a space can be used at every moment of the day by different kinds of people who carry out different activities. The city is revered because it is place of differences and diversities, and the writings of Fischer, Lefebvre and Harvey have put intellectually rigours spin on this key point. In addition, urbanist Roger Trancik, in Finding Lost Space, calls for mixing uses to ensure greater richness and vitality in cities 46. In the realm of urban planning and design the basic idea is that “the combination of mixtures activities, not separate uses, are the key to successful urban places” 47 . That’s why planning different functions and intensifying programs allow people and activities to meet and converge in ways that the separation of functions does not. Diversity is seen a primary generator of urban vitality because it increases interactions among multiple urban components. A close-grained diversity of uses provides “constant mutual support”, and planning must, Jacobs argued, “become the science and art of catalysing and nourishing these close-

grained working relationships” 48. The importance of analysing diversity as one of the necessary characteristics for defining an urban common, as meant in this research work, lies in the fact that it needs to generate urban vitality. A place that is not lived and used all day long, due to the absence of diversity of activities and functions will not produce the richness that only lies in the points of interaction among people who live these places. Diversity connects people and activities at points of intensity and along thresholds. “Intricate mingling of different uses in cities are not a form of chaos. On the contrary, they represent a complex and highly developed form of order”49 With this sentence, it’s clear that as long as we believe that urban diversity is a chaotic and accidental fact, it will be logical that its sporadic appearance seems mysterious to us. However, it is not difficult to identify the conditions in which urban diversity exists by studying the urban and economic reasons that make it possible. Among the conditions that are essential to create a rich diversity in the streets and neighbourhood of a city, the one that we find more suitable for urban commons, is that the space must serve several primary functions 50 . These functions must guarantee the presence of people on the streets at different times and the presence of whom, although visiting the area for different reasons, have the opportunity to use its equipment in common. The urban diversity is much more improved when two, or more, functions efficiently mix: this brings people to live the space all day long and bring a positive contribution also from an economic point of view. Every time that an urban district presents an exuberant variety and abundance of commercial activities it is likely to be a neighbourhood that contains other kinds of diversity: variety of cultural occasions, variety of aspects, variety of inhabitants and other users. This is not a mere coincidence: the same physical and economic conditions that generate diversity in commercial activities are closely linked to the formation or presence of other types of urban diversity. The more complex, and therefore efficient, the mix of users will be, the higher the number of services and shops in the district will be, and so many more people will also be attracted to the place, creating that urban life that gives value51. “The best urban places have some mixtures or uses. It is the mixture that in part responds to the values of publicness and of diversity that encourages local community identity. Excitement, spirit, sense, stimulation and exchange are more likely when there is a mixture of activities than when there is not. It is the mix, not just the density of people and uses, that brings life to an area. The ultimate in mixture would be for each building to have a range of uses form living, to working, to shopping, to recreation”52. This diversity connects people and activities at points of intensity and along thresholds. Therefore, wherever people move between different urban functions, wherever they move from one function to another or

48. Jacobs J.,Ibidem, 1961. 49.Jacobs J., ibidem, 1961 50.

Jacobs defines them as primary uses, that is, those which in themselves attract people to a specific location: they are places of primary use, offices, factories, houses, as well as certain entertainment centres, education and leisure. in The Death and

Life of Great American Cities, 1961. 51. Jacobs J., ibidem, 1961.

52. Appleyard D., Jacobs A., Toward An Urban Design Manifesto, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, 1982.

THE COMMONS

where the functions that take place inside a building can take advantages in moving out into the open air, it becomes important to establish connections between the interior spaces and the outdoor spaces. Extending these opportunities for open-air stays where daily activities are carried out, it will make a valuable contribution for that function and to the life between buildings, to the life in the buildings, in the districts and in the city53. The cities organized according to these schemes become places where the inhabitants can meet people different from themselves; in the city life should emerge the need for social relationships, in particular, relationships which can be enriched by differences. Only the city can provide a unique meeting ground for this type of activity54. The Aldo van Eyck’s playgrounds in Amsterdam are in this sense an important example: they may be viewed as autonomous, self-consistent, formal compositions; but at the same time, they were intended to be spatially perceived and experienced. Of course, they are playground places that, within the set limits, encourage the development of the child’s imagination and energy. As the number of playgrounds increased, they gradually formed a continuous network of places spread through the urban fabric, occupying the in-between where “the common ground where conflicting polarities can again become twin phenomena”55. Nevertheless, without a high concentration of people no urban diversity it’s possible. It follows that, in the neighbourhoods where people live, there must be a high concentration of dwellings on the ground. Without a sufficient number of people, the other factors influencing the intensity and localisation of diversity would not have much to do with. If the aim is to achieve an efficient urban life, densities should rise to the level needed to stimulate in a neighbourhood the maximum potential of diversity.

53. Gehl J., ibidem, 1991. 54. Sennett R., Uses of disorder: Personal Identity & City Life, Knopf, New York, 1970. 55. Strauven F., Van Eyck A., Shaping the New Reality. From the In-between to the Aesthetics of Number, Mellon Lecture, Canadian Centre for Architecture, 200720 - Talen E., Lee S., Design for Social Diversity, Routledge, New York, 2018. 56. “the state of being polyvant”. https://www.collinsdictionary. com/dictionary/english/ polyvalent.

Considering the single objects or buildings in the city, we can say that in order to ensure diversity they shold be “polyvalent”. The word polyvalent is normally used in the medical field to define an agent “effective against several strains of the same disease-producing microorganism, antigen, or toxin” or, in chemistry, that have “more than one valency”56. In our research we will use this term to indicate something “versatile”. However the word “polyvalent”, closer to the Italian “polivalente", gives to the term this sense of something able to “heal” diverse issues and at the same time it reminds an object able to be displaced in diverse way without change its form. The concept of versatility is a nuance of the character of adaptability that includes a larger number of terms with different nuances. This broad concept of adaptability is summarized, according to Guidarini, in three main characteristics morphologically determined: an idea of home that can be modified in use by the inhabitants, also through different arrangements of the furniture, as in many examples based on the concept of the neutral plan; the provision of additional rooms that can be used in

combination with existing apartment and finally, buildings with flexible systems and technological plants57. However, among those terms related to adaptability, versatility was introduce in the last decades of the XX century by Herzberger, while the most exploited is for sure the term “flexibility”. In the past years several architects have tried to tackle this issue, proposing the “flexible plan” or the “free façade” as the solution to all the spatial problem in architecture58: flexibility allows changings over time, acting as a poison against ageing and degradation. Flexibility allows precise easy changes in the life of a space which takes place after a certain period when the use of the space must necessarily change to meet new needs. Thus it has to be designed to allow the modification through different measures such as, for example, the presence of a punctual structure that permits various conformations of the infill and internal partitions, which enables not only different types of housing but also different future configurations of the interior space. The mentioned success of this approach was also due to its opposition to the hierarchical separation of rationalism. However, flexible plans still conserve servant and served rooms and it need higher costs due to the technological mechanism inserted to allow the changings. In addition, in most European countries, users prefer to rent rather than own their own homes which simplifies to move around if their housing needs change59. Herzberger and Van Eyck stood against the idea of flexibility as seen as amorphous texture and false neutrality, i.e. “a glove that fits all hands and therefore does not fit any of them”. According to Herztberger “neutrality implies a lack of identity” and flexibility is a slogan, the recipe for all those solutions to cure the evils of architecture and is the set of all those solutions that are unsuitable to solve a problem”60. According Herzberger the only possible solution for a adaptable plan is that of polyvalence, thw was firstly used by this author. Polyvalence is “a form that can be subjected to different uses without having to undergo a change itself, so that a minimum of flexibility can still produce an optimal solution”. It is “the only fertile approach to a situation subject to change” and therefore it is necessary to design “a form that starts from this mutability as an essentially static permanent factor”61. The changings in the versatile room don’t act after a certain period of time due to the new need of the users, but are perpetual. The versatile space is fixed but can host diverse uses in the same time, it is not determined by its use, while it is based on the spatial qualities, on the dimensions, on the light, on the atmosphere and thus on the character. In the last century, this concept focused on a single room: a versatile room was considered the one with a defined spatial identity able to support different uses. In the ancient history of architecture the main example of this concept can be found in the Japanese traditional house where the plan is fluid, with defined spaces that are determined only by

57. Guidarini S., Ibidem, 2018, p. 37. 58. Guidarini, Ibidem, p.37 59. Italy is an exception in this scenario: traditionally house is seen as a personal good and most of the Italians have their own dwelling. This of course make more difficult to change house often. 60. Herzberger H., Ibidem,1962, pp. 115-118. 61. Guidarini, Ibidem, p.34.

101

THE COMMONS

the object they contain and that donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have a strong boundary between the inside and the outside. Today the concept is applied to the scale of the entire building, that is, thinking of anti-hierarchical spaces that deny the concept of servant spaces and served spaces, as well as the idea of a load-bearing structure and brought infill. This is clear, for example, in the work of the Japanese firm Sanaa, which not only adopt this concept in the plans but also in the structural system: structure and partitions, doors and connection systems present the same visual weight. This undermine the classical bases of architecture, the necessity of visual separation between parts and the usual relations between the parts. Considering the space through the lens of commons, it is considered as a common pool resource. Thus, a space is a common if, firstly, can be used for different aim and can support the needs of diverse actors at the same time. Secondly it is something able to produce value on different levels: social values due to the presence of unpredictable mix of people, but also economic value due to, for example, the meeting of agents with different skills and capacities. In addition, a single space used for diverse aims is of course something that have effects on the costs of that area thanks to the turning of diverse use that make it always active. Moreover, people should go trough a, more or less explicit, decisional process about what to use that space for, this produce a sort of community that have put rules on an area and that is able to organize it.

and thus covering large areas while intervening on small spaces. The three characteristics of the commons can be found in all the scales observed. It is necessary that these spaces open to the city, promoting different uses without acting with functionalistic rigidity.

[Pic. 13] Bogdan GĂŽrbovan captured different people living in the same apartment on different levels.

Commons can be at different scales and the projects that activate them have different characters. The purpose of these projects is to create aggregation between a group of people who, for different reasons or for different purposes, find themselves having to share the same means, the same places. From this sharing of resources can arise productive situations that benefit a series of factors, including economic and social. At the smallest scale, the one related to furniture and practices, it has been noticed how a group of objects can activate a previously unexploited place. The furniture manages the space and suggests its uses: through elementary or polyvalent furniture, the uses can be different and adapt to the needs of the inhabitants and thus support the processes of appropriation. At the scale of the building, the spatial configuration can limit the net caesuras between "public" and "private" areas, opening the internal spaces of the buildings to a wider public. If the distributive elements are organized as meeting spaces, more areas of the building can be used for the production of aggregation. At the urban scale, it is possible to intervene on the functions of the ground floors of buildings, promoting diversity and porosity in the urban fabric. In-between spaces can also be rethought as areas that, scattered in neighborhoods, unlock spatial resources by acting in a widespread way

103

4. CASE STUDIES Several projects of recent years can be seen through the lens of the commons. Three categories of projects have been identified, respectively furniture and practices, spatial quality, and urban policies. These three categories bring out different but equally important solutions to constitute an efficient space of aggregation, able to balance the passage between public and private space.

105

CASE STUDIES

#1 RuedaPizarro Architects, Almeria, Spain, Europan 5, 1997.

Project for the Europan project. The system of houses presents large thresholds that can be used in different ways that mixed the public with the private uses.

#2 Weiss + Patners studio, Hackeshe Hofe, Berlin, Germany, 1997.

Urban renovation of a housing block transformed into a cultural area with shops and services. The different courtyards are linked creating a system of internal passages.

#3 RPBW, Firenze, Le Murate, 1999.

An ancient monastery has been turned into a housing system with several services and cultural centres. The courtyards are open to the public.

#4 S333 Architecture + Architecture, Monnikhof, Groningen, Netherlands, 2002.

S333 concluded that the urbanisation of the CiBoGa-terrain had to be combined with a comparable ‘in-tensity’ of spatial openness, to enable the site to complete the final missing link in the city’s ecological plan, connecting the Noorderplantzoen city park to the Oosterhamrikkanaal and the outskirts of the city.

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

#5 Mädcheninternat Kloster, Gion A. Caminada, Disentis,Switzerland, 2004.

It is a sort of “hotel for learning” for girls between 14 and 18 years old. At first, they live on the lower floors, gradually moving upwards. According to the architect, the girls must literally “climb” up the hierarchy. At the center of the Boarding school is a solid concrete core that accommodates the lift, the stairs, the kitchen quarters and a rest area.

#6 Javier Terrados, 30 viviendas de promotion publica, Cadiz, Spain, 2005.

Social housing block characterrized by the presence of long inner corridors with patios, typical elements of the architecture of cadiz. The thresholds are extensions of the apartments and the corridors are gathering spaces for the residents.

#7 Atelier d’architecture autogérée, DPVI, APIJ, OPAC, Shipping Pallets Grow Community,

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

Bor-derphonics; RDS,Paris, France, 2007. Two ‘social construction’ projects directed by the atelier d’architecture autogérée for neighbourhoods in Paris that lacked green space. ECOinterstice: An energy-independent recycled construction garden and building inserted in a paved alley between two buildings with mini-plots for local residents. ECObox: A warehouse transformed into a community garden.

#8 Maider López, Paint Grows Soccer Field, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 2007.

As part of the Sharjah Biennial, artist Maider López painted the lines of a soccer field red in a public square of Sharjah, adding goals on either end. Because pre-existing features such as benches and streetlamps were not altered, the square became a strange new site for football matches where spectators relaxed on benches inside the pitch at all hours.

#9 Topotek 1, Market / Parking - KAiAK Art and Architecture, Berlin, Germany, 2007.

Parking area painted in red that become occasionally space for the market. A giant parasol dialogue with the city explaining the on going function.

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

107

CASE STUDIES

#10 Atelier Pa(n)da, Microgiardini urbani, Sesto San Giovanni, Italy, 2008

In-between urban voids rehabilitation thanks to green areas with different identity and functions.

#11 Grávalos & Di Monte Architects, Estenoesunsolar, Zaragoza, Spain, 2009. "this is not an empty site” is an experimental “urban acupuncture” program in Zaragoza that has tur-ned many of the city’s vacant lots into a network of usable public spaces with the help of several associacion. #12 I sette cortili, Farm Cultural Park, Favara, Agrigento, Italy, 2010.

Renovation of an almost abandoned area of the city that has been transformed into a cultural park. Atelier Pa(n)da, Il salotto dell'albicocco, Microgiardini, Sesto San Giovanni, Milano, Italy, 2011. e project "Microgiardini urbani" was conceived as a way of upgrading small urban areas owned by the Municipality. The aim is to give back to the community urban green spaces, retrained through a design inspired by the reading of the history of the neighborhood and using low cost materials.

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

#13 Osamu Nishida, Yokohama apartments, Kanagawa, Japan, 2011.

Yokohama apartments are four residences for artists that at the ground floor present a shared spaces with shared services. This space is extremely open to the city as it acts also as a window to show the works of the artists. The neighbours as well as the costumers are welcome.

#14 Vincenzo Latina, Padiglione Museo artemision, Ortiglia, Italy, 2012.

Urban renovation to enhance the ruins of an ancient temple. Several courtyards have been connected one to each other with the pavillion that create asense of urban cohesion that reintroduces continuity to the façades on Piazza Minerva, "dressed"by a homogeneous layer of limestone blocks.

#15 Camposaz, 1:1 Urban living room,Tonadico, Trento,

Italy, 2013. The aim of the workshop is to design and self-build wooden architectural objects for landscape enhance-ment. The aim of the structure is to provide a multifunctional and comfortable space, creating a gateway and an entrance to a picturesque staircase that leads towards a narrow alley.

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

#16 Muller Sigrist Architekten AG, Kalkbreite Zürich, Switzerland, 2014.

Housing complex by a cooperative. Public courtyard and open roof. Located upon a metro stop. Different services are located at the ground floor and along the corridors.

#17 Orizzontale architecture, Waark, Firenze, Italia, 2014.

The workshop was held in the fourteenth-century "Santa Verdiana" of the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Florence. The project, realized with the participation of thirty students and organized by the students' collective "Ark", aimed at re-functionalizing some unused spaces of the historical complex throu-gh the use of waste materials and simple construction technologies, within the reach of newcomers.

#18 Polisocial, Vuoti a rendere, Milano, Italia, 2014.

A research project that collected the small voids in milanese social housing, considering in particular the dismissed receptions. Some of these spaces have then been turned into services for the community or tem-porary houses for young people.

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

109

CASE STUDIES

#19 Alles Wird Gut, Sozialer Wohnbau WAS, Wien, Austria, 2015.

Social housing complex. The stairs are designed as a large space able to be seen as a vertical connection of the same house. They can be used as extensions of the single apartments.

#20 Benjamin Foerster-Baldenius, Axel Timm, SHABBYSHABBY APARTMENTS, Munich,

Germany, 2015. Urban experiment by constructing small houses with wasted material in different public city spots.

#21 Querkraft, ASP timber residential, Wien, Austria, 2015.

The redisential buildings are connected by different paths that create several situations in the same develop-ment. These paths are gathering spaces for the neighbourhood and the residents.

#22 Zwicky-sud, Kraftwerk1, Zwicky-sud, Zürich, Switzerland, 2016.

#19

#20

#21

#22

#23

#24

#25

#26

#27

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

Urban development by housing cooperative. Distribution corridors became common spaces for th ecommunity.

#23 Adrian Streich Architekten AG, Green city, Zürich, Switzerland, 2017.

Housing project by a cooperative. A econdary staircase connects each floor and acts as an extention of the single apartments. The ground floor is managed by the apartments that face it but it hosts shows and meetings.

#24 Bogevischs Büro Architekten, Heizenholz, Zürich, Switzerland, 2017.

House renovation by a cooperative in a cluster house. An external staircase is added to allow the connection between the different levels and to allow the interaction among th einhabitants. A platform at the ground floor connects the cooperative with the neigh-bourhood.

#25 Duplex Architekten, Mehr als Wohnen, Zürich, Switzerland, 2018.

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

Urban development by cooperatives. Several innovation about housing typologies are present in the different blocks by different architects. Generally the staircases are seen as a meeting area on which common and shared services are located. The buildings are not connected directly to the parking areas to force the residents to walk trough the public spaces between the blocks.

#26 Heide & Von Beckerath, Ifau, IBeB, Berlin, Germany, 2018.

Housing development by a coopertaive part of a larger urban development. The apart-ments are seen both as houses and work spaces, the large corridors connects the also the coliving houses and leads to the upper level where a terrace with a common larger room are located.

#27 What if:, Action OKR, London, England, 2018.

Space for the neighbour that was born in response to the municipal new housing plan. It is dedicated space where residents, businesses, researchers, planners, the council, de-velopers and others can come together to debate and plan the future of this corner of the city.

furniture and practices spatial qualities urban policies

111

CASE STUDIES

Commons in architecture, as seen, can be found in different scales. This chapter shows some eloquent case studies that highlight useful topics in the design phase. In particular we can distinguish three scales of architectural intervention in which the different projects can be inserted: furniture and practices, spatial qualities and urban policies. Furniture and practices concerns furniture interventions, the interventions are mostly triggered in the built environment and aim to reactivate fabrics through urban acupuncture through simple elements such as seats and horizontal supports, playgrounds or for sports activities. Spatial qualities refers to architectural projects, usually built from scratch, which generate spaces that help the aggregation between the inhabitants and the city. Great attention is paid to the threshold and the transition space between public and private. Urban policies include those case studies that are proposed at an urban or widespread level, proposing not only interventions on the built, but going to change the regulations of the area concerned. These are, however, categories that influence each other and, consequently, cannot be considered as watertight compartments. Each of these interventions triggers processes and dynamics that affect all scales: the furnishing of an urban void activates not only the void itself, but also the neighboring streets and the neighborhood in which it is inserted; an architectural space open to the city invites not only residents but anyone who is in the vicinity to approach and "take possession" of it, a project to reactivate a neighborhood inevitably produces processes at a smaller scale, assisting or limiting the presence of certain practices. This chain effect between the various scales is actually implemented at most, if not all, of the projects and practices. In the case of commons, however, this repercussion has a greater scope because it is not limited to focus on the design object, architecture or functionality of the neighborhoods, but especially on the behavior of users. Some projects, therefore, could be considered for all the groups described because the repercussions are visible on the three different scales considered. Despite this, our classification tries to highlight the predominant quality, inserting the projects in the groups that, it can be guessed, have actually resulted in the different dynamics at the other scales. The list in chronological order of the projects chosen highlights what is the gradient with which the different categories are present in the project. Among all the case studies mentioned, only the case studies that are inserted in spaces comparable to inner courtyards have been deepened.

[Pic. 0] Sozialer Wohnbau WAS, Wien, Austria, 2015. [Pic. 1] Scheme that shows the inner vertical distribution of the MĂ¤dcheninternat Kloster, Gion A. Caminada. The niches in the stairs creates spaces for social cohesion and aggregation between the inhabitants.

113

Furniture and practices

CASE STUDIES

#7 AAA, Shipping Pallets Grow Community #8 Maider LĂłpez, Paint Grows Soccer Field #9 Topotek 1, Market / Parking #11 GrĂĄvalos & Di Monte Architects, Estenoesunsolar #15 Camposaz, 1:1 Urban living room #17 Orizzontale architecture, Waark #20 Foerster-Baldenius, Timm, SHABBYSHABBY APARTMENTS #27 What if:, Action OKR The first category is one of the furniture and practices. Furniture and practices are about furniture interventions, the interventions are mostly triggered in the built and are proposed to reactivate the fabrics through "acupuncture" through simple elements such as seats and horizontal supports, playgrounds, or for sports activities. Only by "furnishing" space is it possible to make it accessible, even if it is an area that does not have great spatial qualities or if it is inserted in a context that hinders its use.

[Pic. 1] The playground at Laurierstraat, Amsterdam in the 1960s, one of the 700 that Aldo van Eyck designed for the city. Photo: ÂŠ Ed Suister, Amsterdam City Archives.

The furniture invites the use and is an attractor in the city (appropriation), allowing to activate new spaces of passage (porosity), but also of rest. Simple or basic furniture, such as the famous Playgrounds by Van Eyck, are proposed as games for children, but, in reality, they generate a series of practices that benefit the whole community and allow a differentiated use during different times (diversity). This characteristic has also been widely exploited by the group of radicals who, in design, we're looking for objects that leave infinite possibilities of using open.

[Pic. 2] Enzo Mari in 1974 with the models of its furniture.

The furniture is the most immediate and controllable element to reactivate a spatial resource. Each member of the community can define their own space and the use they want to make of it. The furniture, moreover, because of their simplicity to be organized, lend themselves to be developed through self-constructive processes. These encourage the proximity to a place and facilitate the care over time. An Italian example is the furniture designed by Enzo Mari in the 70s, which anticipates the theme of recycling and can be assembled only with nails and hammer. These interventions can respond to the needs of neighborhoods to have a meeting place and discussion (#27), but can also be open to all citizens

(#15). These are projects of furniture, such as chairs and tables (#17), but also real temporary rooms (#20) or, on the contrary, signs or traces

on the ground that suggest different uses (#8, #9).

115

CASE STUDIES

infrastructure The presence of electic energy allows the use of the technological items. This allows also the presence of the internet. table The table allows infinite number of uses and it can be exploited by different types of people. It can be used both for reading, working or studying, but also for eating and for exhibit items or artworks. sitting The sitting involves an indetermined number of action and indetermined types of users. Considering its location and position it can create settings for different purposes. paint With the paint users can identify areas and thus different uses. It can give to the space a specific identity and function.

shelter The shelter is a recognisible spatial element. It protects from the sun and bad weather allowing the use of the space during a larger span of time. vegetation Vegetation can both create a pleasant environment, considering the view and the smell, but it can be also a productive tool.

playground Playgrounds are activation tools that, attracting children, produce chain effects also to the other members of the community.

sport facilities The sport facilities can be used both by sportman but they can be also game for children.

#11 TOOLS FOR FURNITURE AND PRACTICES

117

#17 Orizzontale architecture, Waark

CASE STUDIES

The project of Orizzontale together with the collaboration of the students of the University of Florence enhances and reinterprets the role of university courtyards as living spaces in which to work. A series of easily constructed seats and supports have been created with the aim of enhancing the role of the court. The location of the objects, at the borders of the courtyards near the walls, allows the uses of the entire available space. The objects haven't got a specific function and they thus don't determine a specific use allowing a large diversity of uses. However they reactivate the unused courtyard, giving identity to the space. The partecipation of the students produce a strong sense of belonging.

WORKING . CHILLING . GATHERING . EATING . PLAYING . SLEEPING . TALKING . GARDENING . WORKINGOUT . BUYING & SELLING . ART AND CRAFTS MAKING . WATCHING

Courtyard

#17

Courtyards

Partecipative design process

119

#27 What if:, Action OKR

CASE STUDIES

The project is constituted by the creation of an urban room inside an empty area within an isoalt overlooking Old Kent Road. Urban Room OKR gives space to locals to engage in the planning process, and developers and designers to listen to the view from the street. The Urban Room supports the future development of the neighbourhood in a productive way, combining London’s need for more housing with improvements for existing residents and businesses. It will also support all aspects of the street’s unique character.

WORKING . CHILLING . GATHERING . EATING . PLAYING . SLEEPING . TALKING . GARDENING . WORKINGOUT . BUYING & SELLING . ART AND CRAFTS MAKING . WATCHING

Urban Room

#27

Partecipative design process

Exhibition for the Urban project of Old Kent Road

121

#11 Grávalos & Di Monte Architects, Estenoesunsolar

CASE STUDIES

The project consists in the valorization and recycling of urban voids in the city of Zaragoza for the different districts of the city. The walls and fences around numerous abandoned public and private lots in the dense historic center have been demolished. The lots have been cleaned up and many have been transformed into small public squares in the neighbourhoods, children’s playgrounds and community gardens integrated into the network of community spaces. All the in-between spaces aquired a strong own identity, the partecipatory processes gave to the spaces more chance to be effectively used and exploited by the inhabitants.

WORKING . CHILLING . GATHERING . EATING . PLAYING . SLEEPING . TALKING . GARDENING . WORKINGOUT . BUYING & SELLING . ART AND CRAFTS MAKING . WATCHING

Solar 18

#11

Solar 1

Solar 5

123

Spatial qualities

CASE STUDIES

#5 Mädcheninternat Kloster, Gion A. Caminada #6 Javier Terrados, 30 viviendas de promotion publica #13 Osamu Nishida, Yokohama apartments #16 Muller Sigrist Architekten AG, Kalkbreite #19 Alles Wird Gut, Sozialer Wohnbau WAS #21 Querkraft, ASP timber residential #22 Zwicky-sud, Kraftwerk1 #23 Adrian Streich Architekten AG, Green city #24 Bogevischs Büro Architekten, Heizenholz #26 Heide & Von Beckerath, Ifau, IBeB The second category concerns those spatial qualities of buildings that support the aggregation of the inhabitants. Through the spatial configuration, in fact, it is possible to organize areas that manage the passage between the public and private area without net divisions, but following the different gradients. The public can enter the private, confusing with it.

[Pic. 1] Herman Herzberger, Student housing Weesperstraat, Amsterdam 1959-1966.

These spaces allow the dwellings to expand towards the public (appropriation) creating areas of interchange with the public part, without precluding the latter the fluid passage in the spaces (porosity) so as to be able to activate not only the ground floors but every area of the building. Moreover, the configuration of the buildings considered allows the presence of different activities (diversity) involving different users.

[Pic. 2] Marie-Gabriel Veugny, Cité Napoleon, 1849-1851. Liveable threshold

Through the use of the ground floors it is possible to create a membrane

that allows the permeability between public and private (#16), then add to the activities that can be done outdoors even those that need closed spaces, the presence of these spaces that overlook the outside makes the outdoor space used in a greater number of occasions. This system of niches and passages can also be implemented on a smaller

scale, considering, for example, only the vertical distribution (#5). Activating not only the horizontal collective space but expanding it over the whole height multiplies the occasions of aggregation. The stairs are in themselves usable as a seating system. The double system of stairs is used in such a way that one of them to be a safe way to move vertically in the building, while the others can be connections

among one residential unit and the others. (#22, #23). Considering the horizontal distribution in the building, the inhabited threshold, supported by Herman Hertzberger, allows the creation of spaces where dwellings can take part in the common area by creating large "shared living rooms" that, however, do not close to a specific function (#6).

125

CASE STUDIES

active groundfloor The ground floors can be used to host several activities that enhance the diverity in function, creating more attracting areas.

liveable threshold Protected or larger threshold can be extension of the house, indetermined spaces that can help the social cohesion

multiple staircases The presence of multiple staircases allow one of them to be a safe way to move vertically in the building, while the others can be connections among one residential unit and the others.

#13

#16 TOOLS FOR SPATIAL QUALITIES

127

#13 Osamu Nishida, Yokohama apartments

CASE STUDIES

The residential project is intended for four young artists who use the common space as an exhibition space. Four triangular volumes, hosting the rooms on the first floor, define this space and its relation with the neighbourhood. On the ground floor they hide the plants and the other shared services to allow a more free use of the other spaces. This shared area can be used as work area but also as a kitchen or more generally for all the activities of its inhabitants they can do in communal space. A sink and stove allows the inhabitants to congregate in this area for a variety of functions.

WORKING . CHILLING . GATHERING . EATING . PLAYING . SLEEPING . TALKING . GARDENING . WORKINGOUT . BUYING & SELLING . ART AND CRAFTS MAKING . WATCHING

Relation with the stret

#13

Common Space

129

#23 Adrian Streich Architekten AG, Green city

CASE STUDIES

The flats are grouped around the courtyard. Living and dining rooms of these flats meander around this interior open space. In addition to the areas facing the shared courtyard, all flats have more private living room areas oriented to the outside. A ring of balconies arranged on the split level serves as a private outdoor space and simultaneously facilitates visits between neighbours. This ring of balconies has no escape route function and can be furnished as desired. Shared conservatories and rooftop terraces on the first upper storey and attic storey are accessible to all residents.

WORKING . CHILLING . GATHERING . EATING . PLAYING . SLEEPING . TALKING . GARDENING . WORKINGOUT . BUYING & SELLING . ART AND CRAFTS MAKING . WATCHING

Terrace

#23

Court

System of external corridors that sorround the court

131

#16 Muller Sigrist Architekten AG, Kalkbreite

CASE STUDIES

Apart from a few small loggias at noise-exposed locations, there are no private outdoor spaces on the Kalkbreite premises. However, the tenants have a 2,500 m2 large green courtyard above the tram hall as well as a1,500 m2 terrace and rooftop gardens at their disposal. The outdoor spaces are on different levels and have different functions and degrees of public access depending on the location. The open staircase rising from Rosengartenplatz and the courtyard on the roof of the tram depot nine meter above street level are open to the public during the day. The courtyard is planted with trees, shrubs and various other plants and is equipped with long benches. A childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s playground, a fountain and sandpit at the back of the courtyard are also open to the public.

WORKING . CHILLING . GATHERING . EATING . PLAYING . SLEEPING . TALKING . GARDENING . WORKINGOUT . BUYING & SELLING . ART AND CRAFTS MAKING . WATCHING

View of the courtyard

#16

View of the walkable roof

View of the services in the courtyard

133

Urban Policies

[Pic. 1] Jardins in Bercelona inside the block of the CerdĂ plan. From up left: Jardins Carme

Biada, Jardins Cesar Martinell, Jardins del Carlit, Jardins d'Emma de Barcelona, Jardins Irene Polo, Jardins Montserrat Roig, Jardins Pepa Colomer, Jardins Puigvert, Jardins Sebastia Gash.

CASE STUDIES

#1 RuedaPizarro Architects, EUROPAN 5 #2 Weiss + Patners studio, Hackeshe Hofe #3 RPBW, Firenze, Le Murate #4 S333 Architecture + Architecture, Monnikhof #10 Atelier Pa(n)da, Microgiardini urbani #12 I sette cortili, Farm Cultural Park #14 Vincenzo Latina, Padiglione Museo artemision #18 Polisocial, Vuoti a rendere #21 Querkraft, ASP timber residential #25 Duplex Architekten, Mehr als Wohnen The last category is the one concerning urban policies, i.e. regulations, on an urban or neighborhood scale, that produces changes in the functional layout of the area under consideration. Most of these changes concern the transition from closed to public areas to areas open to the city through the connection between different parts and the change of use from private or only residential, to mixed, with areas intended for retail. These are "top-down" decisions because they are linked to the municipality or the legal aspect of urban plans. However, in many cases, these rules and guidelines are the formalizations of practices that have already been implemented by citizens.

[Pic. 2]

"Passage" in Lyon.

The interventions of urban policies generally try to make the urban fabric

more porous and accessible or to connect spaces (#2, #14) previously detached so as to allow a continuous flow of users. (porosity) These are also ex-Novo spaces that consider the built environment as an elemenet

that has no clear divisions between public and private (#25, #1). That is, they work on the theme of the threshold and how it can become a place without a specific destination of use, but that rather changes according to need. (diversity). The intervention on the built environment allows us to act in a widespread and targeted way in the urban fabric, entrusting citizens with a sort of "scheme" that can then be adapted according to the use (appropriation). The most emblematic case is certainly that of the urban plan of CerdĂ , in Barcelona at the end of the 19th century, where a grid pattern supported the intrusion of the public inside the blocks, leaving its determination free. Urban policies can also be implemented for buildings considering abandoned or underutilized areas. (#18).

135

#18 Polisocial, Vuoti a Rendere

CASE STUDIES

“Vuoti a perdere” program is a project carried out by the Municipality of Milan in association with Politecnico to reuse the “empty” spaces in the city’s social housing residences. The research divides these spaces into two main entities: the sub-threshold spaces and the voids of the ground floors. The first refers to residential units with a floor area of less than 28.8 square metres, which cannot therefore be included in the standard classification for the allocation of housing, while the second group includes abundant commercial spaces with a direct view of the street or the inner courtyard of the buildings, as well as the former concierges’ offices, places no longer used for their original purpose. The research consists of two main activities: a first aimed at raising awareness of the scale and magnitude of the phenomenon, and a second step related to the implementation, in practice or just on paper, of ideas and practices for solving the problem. These are open experimentations, theoretical bases for future approaches to the theme. In this direction this heritage of voids is not only an urgency, but also an opportunity to redraw one of the frontiers of innovation in policies and urban design. The proposals have found practical applications in different areas of Milan, with initiatives at different scales that concretely have found effective solutions. Although the changes concern a large number of empty spaces of social housing, succeeding in concretely reducing the wasted places of the municipality, the policies adopted do not always correspond to the real needs of the inhabitants. The focus, therefore, seems to shift gradually towards projects that increasingly take into account the social dimension, which places the individual and the group to which he belongs, at the center of research. The need to advance architectural experiments capable of looking at different disciplines now becomes an emergency to solve with care, to solve from every point of view the problem of the social housing districts.

Re used ground floor space in Quarto Oggiaro

#18

Empty concierge service

Revitalize courtyard in Quartoggiaro

137

#10 Atelier Pa(n)da, Microgiardini Urabni

CASE STUDIES

In 2010 the Municipality of Sesto San Giovanni (Milan) promotes the MicroGiardini Urbani initiative with the idea of saving ten public spaces from abandonment and degradation through a competition. The project “Microgiardini urbani” was conceived as a way of upgrading of small urban areas owned by the Municipality of Sesto San Giovanni: in some cases little residues of wasteland, in other cases urban gardens without particular merit. In all cases, areas by giving back to the community as urban green spaces, retrained through a design inspired by the reading of the history of the neighborhood, the involvement of the people and the principles of green design: low cost of installation and management, environmental sustainability technological solutions adopted, enhancement of the genius loci. The project have involved, , eight groups of young professionals under 32 (architects, designers and agronomists) One example is the Apricot Garden, which offers its neighbours a natural extension and extension of domestic space, a semi-public space in which to experiment with new ways of relating on a natural neighbourhood scale.

The apricot tree is the fulcrum of the Atelier Pa(n)da project and connects the long access path, in red gravel, to the large “outdoor room”. Here, a geometric topography modulates the space, accentuating and relating its different characters. The top of the tree marks the coolest and most shady area of the garden with a shaded border, the grassy ramp offers a privileged observation platform and a steep slope for playing, while the last sector, the most secluded and sunny, is an aromatic garden that makes meetings pleasant. In this geometric, decidedly tense field, about twenty mobile chairs in painted steel (Fernanda, Atelier Pa(n)da, 2011) allow constant reconfiguration of the level of relationship between the people present and adaptation to daily and seasonal cycles.

Giardino Montessori

Il salotto dell'albicocco

Atmosfere sonore

4 Corte dei fili

Il salotto dell’Albicocco

#10

La corte dei fili

Atmosfere Sonore

139

#2 Weiss + Patners studio, Hackeshe Hofe

CASE STUDIES

Historically, the courtyards of Hackesche Hรถfe took shape from 1700 onwards, developing in step with the evolution of the city. At the time, the suburb of Spandauer Vorstadt, which already had its church, Sophienkirche, outside the Spandau Gate, stood here. Today Hackescher Markt takes its name from the market realized by Count von Hacke, an official of the city of Spandau. In 1858 the glazier Hans Quiltz obtained the license to use the real estate units of Rosenthalerstrasse 40 and Sophienstrasse 6 for trade. In 1905 Berlin had become the most populous European city with 2 million inhabitants. In 1907 Kurt Berndt and August Endell, a builder and architect, took over the properties. The first courtyard (Hof 1) was beautifully restored with Art Nouveau decorations and ceramics designed by Endell himself. The use of these courtyards in the twentieth century was the basis of the 1990 restoration project, which wanted to highlight how the area, at the beginning of the last century, had managed to combine in the same place such different needs of life: private homes, work, entertainment, gastronomy.

Here, before the last war, an association of expressionist poets called Der Neue Club (in 1909), a committee of Jewish girls (1919), the Cinema Imperial (1921), a place for Jewish students (1913), a wine trade and a family-run supermarket were established, among others. Jacob Michael, who owned the business before the war, was exiled by the Nazis in 1933. His property was confiscated, only to be returned to the heirs of the rightful owner in 1993. In '51 the building became the property of the residents' association, which managed to prevent the destruction of the original Jugendstil facade by Endell. The restoration, which began in 1995, was made possible by a consortium of residents, private investors and local administrators. Weiss Architects' Office was entrusted with the direction of the work. With the restoration, the facade was renovated and the entrance arch was added.

Hof I

One of the entrances to the Hof

Hof VI

141

Reflections Commons can be at different scales and the projects that activate them have different characters. The purpose of these projects is to create aggregation between a group of people who, for different reasons or for different purposes, find themselves having to share the same means, the same places. From this sharing of resources can arise productive situations that benefit a series of factors, including economic and social. At the smallest scale, the one related to furniture and practices, it has been noticed how a group of objects can activate a previously unexploited place. The furniture manages the space and suggests its uses: through elementary or polyvalent furniture, the uses can be different and adapt to the needs of the inhabitants and thus support the processes of appropriation. At the scale of the building, the spatial configuration can limit the net caesuras between "public" and "private" areas, opening the internal spaces of the buildings to a wider public. If the distributive elements are organized as meeting spaces, more areas of the building can be used for the production of aggregation. At the urban scale, it is possible to intervene on the functions of the ground floors of buildings, promoting diversity and porosity in the urban fabric. In-between spaces can also be rethought as areas that, scattered in neighborhoods, unlock spatial resources by acting in a widespread way and thus covering large areas while intervening on small spaces. The three characteristics of the commons can be found in all the scales observed. It is necessary that these spaces open to the city, promoting different uses without acting with functionalistic rigidity.

143

PART III / THE NEW LAW

5. Synecdoche

5.1 Evolution of milan 5.2 Milanese patterns 5.3 Synecdoche

6.Blocks analysis 6.1 NIL 21 6.2 NIL 20 6.3 NIL 19 6.4 Courtyards as residuals: The parking war 7.The project of city courtyards

7.1 Domestic and urban courtyards 7.2 Urban policy 7.3 Give me back my courtyard!

5. SYNECDOCHE In this chapter, we will analyze the evolution of the urban fabric of the city of Milan. By understanding the reasons behind the successive Regulatory Plans, it is then possible to see their actualization in voids and buildings. The different forms of courtyards, the types that dowel the ground, find their roots in the legislative process that has determined the development of Milan in recent centuries. The different â&#x20AC;&#x153;erasâ&#x20AC;? have produced an overlapping of characters that can be perceived when looking at the city. Some of the initial objectives of the different plans are still legible, while others have been transformed by peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s customs and practices. In other words, building regulations have been translated by social and cultural changes.

Evolution of Milan

existing fabric 1884

expansions 1884-1922

transformation of existing fabric 1884-1922

SYNECDOCHE

The city of Milan became a lively commercial and industrial center in the short period between Unity (1870) and the beginning of the century. While in the past the textile industry dominated, at the end of the 19th century the mechanical and chemical industries took over. The emergence of this new capitalist economy is perhaps the most important moment in Milan’s history, giving rise to profound social and morphological transformations. The compact fabric of the nineteenth-century city did not offer space for factories, banks, department stores, and stations as symbols of this new economy, nor could it accommodate the growing number of inhabitants. Despite widespread efforts - welfare programs, a social housing program (1905) and attempts to improve the public transport network - Milan also found itself facing the dark side of its reputation as a modern and industrial economy and at some point seemed unable to cope with the effects of its prosperity. One of the most important interventions in the start of Milan’s evolution was the Beruto Plan of 1884. With this building plan, an attempt was made to reconcile the shape of the existing city with the needs of the expansion of a modern metropolis. The main changes included some replacements of the building fabric, the demolition of the “Cinta dei Bastioni”, the roofing of the San Gerolamo Canal in 1883, and finally, the proposal for the design of large blocks partly reserved. The latter was rejected for a denser and almost completely built road network (Mengoni Plan). The focus is mainly on the road network and sanitary facilities in return for the medieval center. The buildings were modeled according to a design of the city’s infrastructure system which was based on the Haussmann plan, characterized by avenues and long monumental axes. In this way, Beruto’s intentions were to establish an order in the organization of the city’s development in the following century. Due to the radial and monocentric arrangement of the plan, the former Spanish fortifications - similar to those of Vienna Ringstraße - were transformed into a street boulevard, which maintained its definition over the course of the century and left the contours of the fortifications to this day. Another important point of the plan was a series of interventions aimed at public health. From this point of view, the plan focused on the closure of the Navigli system, very unhealthy areas of the city that had already had many problems over the centuries. Over time the canals had gone from being a great resource to a serious problem. Navigation in their waters was scarce, many of the banks and bridges were poorly maintained and dangerous and at certain times of the year, the water collections could be upright and unhealthy for the population. This plan continued the structuring of urban expansions based on the 1884 predecessor plan. Due to the demographic increase in progress, Beruto’s plan, designed to be valid for 25 years, was replaced

1884-1922

[Pic.2] facing page: Morphological developments of a portion of Milan between 1884 and 1922.

149

SYNECDOCHE

existing fabric 1922

expansions 1922-1946

transformation of existing fabric 1922-1946

almost immediately with a new plan in 1912 designed by engineer Angelo Pavia, under the direction of engineer Angelo Masera. The criteria for the expansion of the city were confirmed with an approach equivalent to the previous one, with a new network of roads always crowned around the previous expansion rings. The pivotal elements of the individual urban episodes are reconfirmed and redesigned, such as some squares and some avenues, but above all the railway network of the entire city is redesigned; once the previous one provides the city with new areas of expansion, a new outer ring is defined with new stops and above all with the creation of the new central station in a more backward position than the old one. This infrastructural system, of considerable importance, will condition the development to the present day. After the annexation of 11 neighboring municipalities in 1923, the population of Milan grew dramatically; to develop the city center and the surrounding, recently annexed municipalities, the city council organized a competition in 1926. The competition invited architects (and not only engineers) to participate for the first time, which marked a moment of great importance in the debate on the architectural and urban development of the center of Milan. The first prize was won by Milanese architect Piero Portaluppi (1888-1967), who, together with engineer Marco Semenza, presented a plan under the motto Questo per Amor (“for love”). Portaluppi’s and Semenza’s plans embody the monocentric character of the city as it was created by Beruto. It was finally the municipal engineer CesareAlbertini who was commissioned to further refine the projects of Portaluppi and Semenza. The plan consisted of a dense road network, also maintaining the previous ones, which reached the new municipal limits. The improvement of the infrastructure was necessary to maintain an adequate connection with the center. While only a few transformations of the city center had taken place in Beruto’s plan, the new plan provided for numerous interventions in the city center on a metropolitan scale that depreciated concerning the existing Milanese urban fabric. In the historic center, some demolitions were planned, such as Corso Matteotti or Piazza Diaz, accompanied by the expulsion of the residence, already recorded in previous decades, and the relative construction of new neighborhoods in peripheral areas. The land available in the city center was mainly used for government institutions such as stock exchanges, markets, and courts, or was sold to developers. The latter led to the construction of many mixed-use buildings in the city center, with shops, offices, and facilities in the basement and houses for the richer upper-middle class. After the Second World War, the suspension of the Albertini floor led to the need for further investigation. In 1945 a competition of ideas for the new zoning plan was launched in which several projects and above all the zoning plan proposed alternative development models. A group of architects from the rationalist movement, called Architetti

1922-1946

[Pic.3] facing page: Morphological developments of a portion of Milan between 1922 and 1946.

151

SYNECDOCHE

existing fabric 1946

expansions 1946-1972

transformation of existing fabric 1946-1972

Riuniti, responded to this need with the Piano AR in the immediate post-war period (1944-1945). Contrary to the Albertini plan, the Piano AR hosted the construction of satellite neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city as a decentralized development inspired by CIAM principles. The second version of this project was adopted in 1950 but was approved in 1953. In essence, the 1953 PRG, while introducing new instruments such as zoning and norms, failed to undermine the model of radiometric development that was now rooted in Milanese planning and could only be modified through choices and decisions. The 1953 project is the city’s first official masterplan, both in terms of regulatory definition and development forecast. It is the plan that introduces functional zoning, according to the criteria of the first national urban planning law of 1942, which leads to the construction of the unbuilt areas of the previous plan and outlines the last axes of development of the city. In its development it is possible to identify processes of transformation and expansion aimed at differentiated forecasts: - the building saturation of the free areas of the historic center without particular attention to the aspects of historical and cultural identity The completion of the fabrics designed by the historical expansion plans with high volumetric indexes and complementary functions to the residence; - the forecast of new monofunctional production and tertiary areas; - the construction of new residential districts, first with detailed plans for public and private initiatives within the mesh of the previous plans and then with the construction of self-sufficient residential districts in the outlying areas (the first floor was built in 1963 for economic and social housing, revised in 1969). These large-scale modernist planning policies, however, were very different from what was happening in the city center. There, the demolished fabric that had remained after the Allied bombardments was again completed, without drastically changing the existing morphological structure. The reconstruction “fillings” of the fabric came mostly from individual architects such as Ignazio Gardella, Luigi Caccia Dominioni, Giò Ponti, Luigi Moretti, Mario Asnago, and Claudio Vender and the BBPR studio with Ernesto Rogers. These architects, however, did not literally reconstruct what was there before the war. Instead, the center of Milan has been rebuilt with truly contemporary, innovative architecture that continued the metropolitan scale of the interwar period. At the same time, unlike its post-war modernist equivalents in other parts of Europe, this architecture showed an understanding of the logic of the fabric and the preservation of a sense of history. With the decline in the social, economic, and political power of architecture, the profession found itself in a deep international crisis in the late 1960s. The architectural and urban debate seems to continue both on a more theoretical level and on a larger scale (not necessarily

1946-1972

[Pic.4] facing page: Morphological developments of a portion of Milan between 1946 and 1972.

153

SYNECDOCHE

connected to one or the other), and production built in the center of Milan stagnates. In response to the urgent problems of suburban expansion and the infrastructure network, the role of individual buildings within the city’s historic center has ceased to be a central issue. Moreover, as a result of local and national political changes, the role of the Milanese bourgeoisie as the main client for many of the buildings in the city center has begun to weaken. The period of “Milanese reconstruction” gradually came to an end and with it the period of great transitions in the urban fabric of the center of Milan.

[Pic.5] facing page: City of Milan today.

2020

155

Milanese patterns

The role of the courtyard and the residential courtyard within the city of Milan has long been a constant feature of its urban evolution. The courtyard in the historic center has evolved over the centuries and has been adapted several times as a model during the city’s expansion phases, such as during the 19th-century expansion, and then slowly gave way to large open spaces, often not defined by curtains of buildings but by large isolated bodies, during the expansion of the last 30 years.

Court block

1. Duomo

2. Brera

7.Magenta/ San Vittore

6. Porta Ticinese

11. Isola

21. Buenos Aires/Porta Venezia/Porta Monforte

20. Loreto/ Casoretto/ Nolo

69. Sarpi

10. Stazione Centrale

The image of Milan, of its voids and its full spaces, clearly shows all its areas of expansion and the design attitudes adopted during the city’s growth. Starting from this point it has been possible to identify “models” of the Milanese building with reference to the various Nil (Nuclei d’Identità Locale) in which it is possible to recognize historical and design districts with different characteristics from each other. In this analysis, the attention was mainly focused on the areas of the first circles of the city’s walls, the area of the Bastions, and that of its expansion in the 1960s, excluding the “widespread city” present on the edge of the expansion. The patterns obtained are intended to be a snapshot of the area examined, trying to summarise the identity of the area, both in their morphological structure and in the density of their construction, and finally in their vocation. This analysis made it possible to identify five macro-categories: The courtyard model, the block, the slats, the large production buildings, and finally the urban greenery.

Urban block

4. Guastalla

SYNECDOCHE

79. Dergano

70. Ghisolfa

58. De Angeli/ Monte Rosa

43. Tibaldi

49. Giambellino

45. Moncucco/San Cristoforo

19. Padova/ Turri/ Crescenzago

27. Porta Romana

22. Citt’à Studi

26. XX Marzo

5. Porta Vigentina

25. Corsica

28. Umbria/ Molise/ Calvairate

50. Porta Genova

MILANESE PATTERNS

The first category, the courtyard model, refers to the area of the great density of the historical city, interspersed with the voids of the internal courtyards and public spaces. The blocks, shaped by the streets of the medieval city (as for the NIL “Duomo”) or by the nineteenth-century ones (as for the NIL “Stazione Centrale”) have a prevalence of internal courtyards and C-shaped courtyards. The great density that characterizes the first model of the “courtyard blocks” is subsequently followed by the model of the “urban blocks”, large blocks characterized by perimeter curtains along the road axes. The attention paid to the perimeter area of the blocks has allowed an unregulated expansion inside them, allowing the creation of small buildings serving the various housing units and a fragmentation of the open space inside the curtain. This has allowed the emergence of some types of L-shaped and C-shaped courtyards and between residential blocks which underline the fragmentation of the internal expansion of the blocks which, unlike the “courtyard model”, are much more inhomogeneous. The third category identified refers to the “building blocks”, large buildings isolated from each other. This urban pattern, determined by the constructions carried out since the 1950s, represents a clear transformation in the expansion of the city previously very much linked to the curtain walls. In this model,

157

SYNECDOCHE

the courtyards surround the individual urban blocks and are no longer introverted within the block. Finally, the last two models identified underline two other realities of the city of Milan, the productive areas, dismantled for the most part during the 1970s, and the urban green areas in the city center, which are exceptions within the dense urban fabric.

Urban block

9. Porta Garibaldi/ Porta Nuova

68. Pagano

57. San Siro

52. Bande Nere

12. Maciacchini/ Maggiolina

A first analysis of the Corso Venezia - Corso Buenos Aires - Viale Monza axis touches on the five main patterns identified by the study of the city: the historic center, the green area of the Indro Montanelli park, the urban expansion of the Beruto and Pavia Masera plan in 1884 and 1910 and the transformations of the second half of the twentieth century characterized by the building blocks and buildings of production. This axis is not only characterized by different urban models but also intercepts six different nuclei of local identity and is, therefore, witness to the many cultural spheres of Milan.

51. Porta Magenta

Production building

29. Ortomercato

The “large production buildings” highlight the relationship between the private residential buildings of the 90s and the large production sheds. The courtyards of the private areas surround the buildings to which they belong and do not influence the urban morphology of the area as could be seen in the historic center of Milan and in the Bastioni area. From this general analysis, it was, therefore, possible to understand how the different patterns of the city are arranged radially, following the regulatory plans, and each has its own precise characteristics. Hence the interest in the axes of the infrastructure, the city’s layouts that have witnessed Milan’s expansion. Along these lines, one after the other, the different relationships that the building has with its open spaces, the interior of the block, and the street follow one after the other.

37. Morivone

36. Scalo Romana

67. Portello

59. Tre torri

44. Porta Ticinese

Green Area

8. Parco Sempione

[Pic.6] scheme of the "milanese patterns" in the city of Milan

3. GiardiniP.Venezia

MILANESE PATTERNS

159

Synecdoche

IX cent.

XV cent.

XVI cent.

1884

1910 - ...

NIL

SYNECDOCHE

Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which you use a part of something to stand for the whole thing.

Coring

1. Duomo 3. Giardini di Porta Venezia 4. Guastalla 21. Buenos Aires - Porta Venezia - Porta Monforte 20. Loreto - Casoretto - Nolo 19. Padova - Turro - Crescenzago 18. Cimiano - Rottole - Q.re Feltre

The choice of the axes Considering the analysis of the Milanese patterns, carried out to a scale of 1:15.000, it is noticed like the evolution of Milan has proceeded for concentric expansions that enclose the historical center. It is noticed as, consequently, the patterns of the different expansion bands, are repeated in the different areas of the city, without great differences between north, south-east, or west area. Therefore, each section that identifies a radius that opens from the center to the outskirts of Milan involves all the major historical stratifications of the city. In the urban fabric, some axes are established precisely on these rays, these are the major traffic arteries. The network of roads has developed in Milan following a radial route that over the centuries has gradually branched out, becoming, moving away from the center, an increasingly widespread system. Walking along these axes we cross all the historical periods that have followed one another in Milan, a temporal path whose stages are defined and distinguishable from each other. Among the axes that radiate from the center, we have chosen to deepen the study of the one on which are grafted Corso Venezia, Corso Buenos Aires, and Viale Monza. 18

The choice of the blocks To better analyze this axis we have considered the subdivision into NIL made by the municipality of Milan. These are Nuclei of Local Identity that identify, that is, homogeneity of the character of the environment. Not only as far as the buildings are concerned, but, above all, considering the socio-economic side. The NILs do not match with the so-called "neighborhoods", but try to propose a more updated and attentive to the real dynamics of the places.

19 20

The axis in question crosses 6 NILs. Nevertheless, only 3 NILs will be analyzed. The NIL 1, 3, and 4 which correspond to the historical center, have a consolidated urban fabric and are organized in closed courtyards well defined and recognizable character. Each court has a visible historical value or architectural qualities. On the contrary, NIL 16, on the edge of the city, is composed of a sparse urban fabric where the individual blocks determine areas of relevance that are rarely divided into courtyards. The two "extremes" of the axis have therefore been excluded to avoid that the data obtained in one and the other case would deflect the purposes of research for the design directives.

225 75

CORING

450 m

161

SYNECDOCHE

Block

Instead, the NIL 21 Buenos Aires - Porta Venezia, NIL 20 Loreto, and NIL 19 Turro - Gorla - Precotto were analyzed. The fabric of each NIL was then analyzed at a scale of 1:10000. For each NIL was then identified several "type" isolates, which have peculiar characteristics considering the density of solids and voids. Besides, the preponderant functions in the block, whether commercial, productive, residential, or tertiary, were also taken into consideration. Therefore, two "type" blocks have been identified in Nil 20 and 21, while Nil 19, more homogeneous, has only one "type" block.

NIL

NIL 21. Block 1

NIL 20. Block 2

NIL 21. Block 2

NIL 20. Block 1

The identified blocks are therefore five and represent an "average" of the different characteristics present on the axis and, consequently, in the Milanese urban fabric.

NIL 19. Block 1

This procedure of generalization and search for a "type" is the basis of the design intentions. The intention is to find the lowest common denominators that can be general indications for all the blocks considered, and not only. It is possible, that is, to consider a part for the whole. To then expand to the whole of the characters of the part.

225 75

BLOCKS TYPE ALONG THE CORING

450 m

163

.6 BLOCKS ANALYSIS REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

Moreover, the use of the ground floors as parking spaces eliminates several other functions that these spaces could have, spaces, in general, at the service of the community or inhabitants. In the following chapter we will analyze the three Nil intercepted by the axis. The five blocks of the chosen axis, to get to the definition of the "Pilot Block", are studied from different points of view, considering the analysis of the space and the surface, the enclosure and the character of the skin that defines it and the proximities. The uses that emerge from the studies on the blocks highlight the consequences of certain legislative measures affecting courtyards: the courtyards and ground floors were used as parking spaces to deal with the emergencies of parking spaces in the 1990s. However, to date there are other emergencies, health and environmental emergencies, which can use the space of the courtyards to be, even in a small part, marginalized.

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

1, Study and analysis of NIL. NIL is analysed according to demographic developments during 20120 and the 2030 forecast.

Population of Milan Population of NIL 21

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

Surface of Milan

1,0 %

3,3 %

Surface of NIL 21

/ 1910

18-24

14-

25-34

-64

6-1 0 3-5

33,7 %

>85

5 % 10 %

The area of Milan north of Piazzale Loreto, which develops along with Viale Monza and Via Padova, has historically been populated following the demographic development of the city, to satisfy the demand for housing due to the migratory waves of those seeking work. While Milan was widening its borders, on the northern route the buildings and residential areas increased. Suburban area, just off the outer ring road of Milan, after the Second World War, developed demographically hosting workers from all over Italy and later, with the migration flows of the 21st

Average age of population in 2030 Italian popoluation in “NIL 20” Foreign population in “NIL 20”

Courtyard C Building

Courtyard_ L Building

/ 1972

Courtyard between blocks

In-line courtyard

/ 1990

Isle Courtyard

/ 2020

Historical background

Average age of population in 2017

Courts

/ 1965

75-8

0-2

/ 1956

Corso Buenos Aires/ Viale Monza

4 -7 65

10 % 5 %

/ 1948

.NIL 20

35-

-13

/ 1930

1884

1930

1948

1956

1965

The buildings in the examined area are not detectable before 1910. The presence of expanses of countryside gives way to the expansion of the

At this stage the block is almost completely covered by built. The empty areas present are configured as courtyards and some courtyards of C buildings.

The changes of the block are very few compared to previous years

In this period there is the emptying of some areas previously built and the annexation of some urban voids with each other.

There are changes

1972 no

major

1990

There are changes

major

15 5

30m

2020

There are changes

major

There is the enlargement of some internal voids in the northwest area of the block

6-7. Historical and typological evolution of the courtyards within the block. the first analysis is aimed at the typological evolution of the courtyards. The courtyards modified between one historical phase and another and indicated according to the following categories are highlighted: Courtyards, courtyards of C-shaped buildings, courtyards of L-shaped buildings, Courtyards between blocks, Courtyards of in-line buildings, Cortyards of isle buildings. In the second analysis (7) the morphological modifications of the block are highlighted. The study of this analysis was made thanks to the maps of the "Archivio di Stato di Mlano" for the historical band 1884-1910 and the Gis portal of Milan for the following years.

BLOCK 2. HISTORICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL EVOLUTION URBAN ANALYSIS

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

2. Study and analysis of NIL.Study and analysis of Nil.The use of the land within the NIL and the services present is nalysed.

century, numerous multi-ethnic communities. Via Padova, in particular, has transformed itself becoming in the 2000s an area at risk of security,but also a place of meeting and cooperation between Italians and foreigners. The area between Piazzale Loreto and the railway, unlike other neighborhoods identified with a name, such as Turro, Gorla and Casoretto, although developing homogeneously, has never had a real name, later identified as Pasteur area or Rovereto area (from the Milan Metro stops), or simply via Padova. In 2012 the name NoLo was invented by architects Francesco Cavalli, Luisa Milani, and Walter Molteni, a name then circulated by word of mouth by the inhabitants of the neighborhood, becoming already in 2016 part of the common lexicon, label accepted and name used for social groups, events, names of clubs, until its final ratification, with the approval on October 14, 2019, of the PGT (Piano di Governo del Territorio per Milano 2030) by the City of Milan.1

Sport Health Technological infrastructure Education University and research Social services Housing services Commercial services Security Culture

Religious facilities

Administrative

Population and community

Market

We must not forget that the soul of this neighborhood is cultural diversity, which for years has been one of the principal causes of the marginalization suffered by its inhabitants, who today find themselves sharing streets and habits with new people, in search of a future and an identity. They risk having to move away from their homes again, because of the rise in prices that new trends could trigger. Projects and visions

Soil components

Prevailing land use

The boundaries of Nolo are delimited to the south by Viale Brianza, to the north by the station tracks and the Turro district, to the west by the station tracks (Via Aporti and Via Sammartini) and to the east by Via Leoncavallo. The area includes various places of interest such as the churches of Santa Maria al Beltrade and San Gabriele Arcangelo in Mater Dei, the Cinema Beltrade (oratorial cinema that has become the home of independent cinema, see paragraph “Cinema”), the historical covered local market in Viale Monza, the warehouses connected under the tracks leading to the Central Station. Piazza Morbegno becomes the nerve center of Nolo, supported by the presence of historical premises and numerous new activities as well as the Tram 1 stop. The area also abounds in Art Nouveau buildings, built in the first twenty years of the 20th century.

Destinations and changes of use 2012

2030

Urbanized soil (93,4)

Built fabric (41,1)

Receptive (4)

Receptive (2)

Land for urbanisation (6,6)

Other ( 24)

Private services (1)

Mobility (27,1)

Residential (2)

Residential (89)

Green area (7,9)

Productive (37)

Productive (2)

Commercial (32)

Commercial (3)

Tertiary (23)

Tertiary (2)

One of the symbols of the district of Loreto in Milan is the Trotter Park, dating back to the 20s and recently included by FAI among the Environmental Heritage of Milan to be preserved and enhanced. From September 2019, within the project of tactical urban planning Open Squares2 of the City of Milan, was born also the colorful Piazza Arcobalena3, “whale-shaped traffic circle” closed to traffic with equipped

[Pic.3]Symbol of the neighborhood is a mural 3 meters wide depicting a sperm whale (but called more simply whale) with a city on its back and the inscription "NoLo" under the belly the whale, painted in 2015 in Via Pontano.

Scheme of the empty and full spaces of the block both at the planimetric level and at the elevation level. The separation between the properties occurs a few times with small buildings and walls and therefore often the courtyards are interspersed with buildings of different floors.

[Pic.4] Whale shape traffic cirlle, Milan.

1. PGT adottato - Milano 2030 - Comune di Milano, on www. comune.milano.it. 2. Milano e l’urbanistica tattica, la nuova piazza aperta a NoLo, on teknoring.com 3. Piazze Aperte - Comune di Milano, on www.comune.milano.it

150 75

8-9. The analysis is focused on the study of full and empty spaces within the block. A first elaboration takes as reference the map of Nolli. The access, the rising systems and the courtyards within the block have been marked both in plan and elevation by means of volumetric sections (9).

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

375 m

15 5

URBAN ANALYSIS

40m

BLOCK 2. FULL AND EMPTY SPACES

3. Choice of isolates to be analysed along the coring

The analysis focuses on the qualitative characteristics of the courtyards. In the first analysis (10) the courtyards were redesigned in their original features: the flooring materials, the green areas present and the access systems.

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

areas and ping pong tables, at the intersection of Via Venini, Via Spoleto and Via Martiri Oscuri. Study of blocks

Via delle Leghe 2

The NIL 20 was part of the Pavia- Masera plan and it has been completed in the following years during 30s- 50s. The neighborhood, born from the demand of creating new accommodation for an increasing number of people who moved to Milan for work, has two main arteries of the city, Viale Monza and Viale Padova, both characterized by buildings of the twentieth century to the present day. The character of a working-class neighborhood and work is underlined by the presence of numerous artisan warehouses and productive activities present within the blocks. The latter, characterized by marginal buildings along the streets have large internal voids occupied by work activities as in the case of the block that stands on Piazza Loreto and which had in the ‘end facing the square the Palazzo di Fuoco by Giuseppe Minoletti.

In the second analysis (11) the walls surrounding the courtyards were studied.This analysis has highlighted different types of facades that make up the edges of the courtyards: facades of railing houses, facades of Berutian blocks, blind facades, facades of productive buildings and, finally, avarage facades, i.e. those facades that are part of the ordinary building construction of the middle of the last century to the present day.

Via delle Leghe 10

The block examined results to be highly built internally because of the numerous presence of work activities leaving minimum space for the courtyards for the houses arranged along the margin. This phenomenon, as you walk along with Viale Monza, is less and less. The sheds remain but decrease in quantity, the empty areas inside the blocks expand and the blocks become less and less compact inside them. This is the case of the second block examined, located right in the heart of NoLo, and close to the main services of the neighborhood.

Via delle Leghe

Via delle Leghe 12

The courtyards of the block show a uniformity in the quality of the materials detectable by the inspection. Often the surfaces of the courtyards are covered with stone and asphalt pavements. Few times, however, it is possible to identify gravel and green spaces. 0

150 50

300m

Via Sant’Alessandro Sauli/ Via delle Leghe/ Via Luigi Varanini / Viale Monza

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

Area: 19200 mq

4-5. The study of the block starts from a small identikit on the block and three levels of analysis: density, presence of additions inside the voids of the cortyards and division property of the block.

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

SQUARE

RECTANGULAR

5 SMALL BUILDINGS

12 OWNERSHIP DIVISION

30 10

15 5

POLYGONAL

with additions

For all these causes, the internal voids are larger and more extensive, interspersed with some smaller buildings present in them and which mainly provide the function of garages or warehouses.

BUILD 0

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

60m

Sport

Health

Technological infrastructure

Education

University and research

Social services

Market

Security

Culture

Religious facilities

Administrative

Green areas

Housing services

12-13. Finally the courtyards are analysed for the shape of their voids: square, rectangular, rectangular with additions and polygonal shapes (12). The last analysis zooms out from the courtyard to the block making a study of the proximity of the services in function of the project of reuse of the courtyards (13).

35 15

50m

40m

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF VOIDS

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF PROXIMITIES

PLANIVOLUMETRIC

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

4 NIL 20 Block 2

40m

BLOCK 2. MATERIAL AND QUALITIES

Block 2

15 5

CHOICE OF BLOCKS

METHODOLOGY

167

Population of Milan Population of NIL 21 Surface of Milan

1,6 %

4,5 %

Surface of NIL 21

14-

18-24

25-34

.NIL 21

35-

44 55

-13

-64

-7

6-1

Corso Buenos Aires/ Porta Venezia

3-5

4 75-8

12 %

0-2

>85

The NIL 21, with its large extension, includes an important part of Milan’s modern expansion. Situated to the north west of the city, in it you can find the districts of Porta Venezia, Lazzaretto and Baires, substantially modified with the building plans from 1884 and the centre of important events during the Austro-Hungarian occupation.

10 % 5 % 0

5 % 10 %

Historical background The area of Porta Venezia- Corso Buenos Aires was divided, until the completion of the Beruto plan, by the Spanish walls. The ramparts, which could be covered on foot according to Piermarini’s project, were later demolished to unite the area of the “Corpi Santi” with the rest of the historical centre, while the nature of the infrastructure is fundamental and dominates all Corso Buenos Aires, which has been used since the beginning of the city’s birth for trade on wheels and on which the first

Average age of population in 2017 Average age of population in 2030 Italian popoluation in “NIL 20” Foreign population in “NIL 20”

225 75

URBAN ANALYSIS

450 m

169

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

tram networks were built. In 1906, on the occasion of the Universal Exhibition which had as its theme that of Transport, it was decided to change the name of the road axis of Porta Venezia, previously called Corso Loreto, to Corso Buenos Ayres, then Aires. The name was chosen by the Mayor of that time, Ettore Ponti, not only to promote an international image of the city, but especially to commemorate the massive Italian immigration in South American countries. Thus was born Piazza Argentina, to commemorate the emigrants in that country, and Piazzale Lima for those who emigrated to Peru. Sport Health Technological infrastructure Education University and research Social services

The NIL of Buenos-Aires and Porta Venezia is therefore characterized by a building of the end of the 19th and 20th centuries of an ordinary nature. The only exceptions can be found on the Art Nouveau facades of Via Malpenghi, on the Rasini Tower and the house of Vico Magistretti and on the remains of some elements of the Spanish walls and of the old Lazzaretto district such as the Orthodox church of San Nicola.

Housing services Commercial services

Population and community

Security

The heterogeneity of the architecture and the international names assigned to important urban elements of the area still underline the great heterogeneity that can be seen walking through the streets of the neighbourhood. Buenos Aires is a multi-ethnic neighborhood. Living it you have the feeling of an “elsewhere” in which you can hardly recognize the features of Milanese culture in the colorful cultural stratification. The physical structure, all Milanese of Buenos Aires, is today a place “of living” for those who are not, or rather were not, Milanese. Buenos Aires was born from the demolition of the fifteenth-century lazaret of Manzoni’s memory. From Porta Venezia, the Porta Orientale, Renzo Tramaglino entered Milan.

Culture Religious facilities Administrative Market

Soil components

Prevailing land use

Destinations and changes of use 2012

Urbanized soil (97,9%) Land for urbanisation (2,1%)

Corso Buenos Aires is one of the busiest shopping streets in the city, an overlapping of new shops and old shops, gates and sidewalks, a disorderly, almost inconclusive movement. Since 1974, the Eritrea community has occupied a large part of the Buenos Aires district, so much so that the new Asmarina is now well known to the residents of Milan, which is flanked by the streets populated by Chinese and Japanese restaurants and the Milanese LGBTQ nightlife.1

2030

Built fabric (39,6%)

Receptive (3)

Receptive (8)

Projects and visions

Other (22,9%)

Private services (3)

Private services (0)

Mobility (32,5%)

Residential (28)

Residential (127)

Green area (4,9%)

Productive (51)

Productive (2)

Commercial (44)

Commercial (9)

Tertiary (57)

Tertiary (40)

With the approval of the “Piano Quartieri”2, an urban redevelopment project that starts from San Babila and runs along the Corso VeneziaCorso Buenos Aires axis, the City of Milan intends to enhance the commercial and cultural character of this part of the city. The project includes the renovation, by 2020, of the former archiepiscopal seminary of Corso Venezia 11, the conversion of the former Spazio Oberdan by Carlo Ratti, the intervention in Palazzo Bocconi-Rizzoli-Carraro, which will

225 75

URBAN ANALYSIS

[Pic.1] Porta Venezia, Van Loon collection: Traffic almost exclusively tramway in Porta Venezia. Behind the ramparts, on the edge of the public gardens, stands the Rasini Tower (Emilio Lancia and Giò Ponti, 1932-1935), which replaced the historic Palazzo Batthyany. In the distance, almost in axis, the Snia Tower under construction (Alessandro Rimini, 1935-1937), considered the first skyscraper in Milan.

[Pic.2] Project site located at the courts of Baires, Corso di Bueno

1.L’Asmarina di BUENOS AIRES,www.milanocittàstato. com 2. Piano quartieri, comunedimilano.it

www.

450 m

171

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

host the new Etruscan Museum thanks to a project by Mario Cucinella, the redevelopment of the former Astor cinema and the renovation of the historic Courts of Baires2, which will bring in 2020 new houses and shops in front of which will be built the first tree-lined block. The cultural melting-pot that Corso Buenos Aires and the surrounding blocks are experiencing is not only a contemporary event but reflects the identity of an area that has always welcomed travelers from all over the world with its proximity to a city gate. Study of blocks Nil 21, thanks to its rapid transformation during the nineteenth century, is the accumulation of two urban projects close to each other: on the one hand the Beruto plan which sees its first stage in the area immediately adjacent to the Lazzaretto, and the Masera-Pavia plan, its successor. The Pavia-Masera plan expands the intervention promoted by the previous plan due to the accelerated expansion of the city of Milan. In the case of Nil 21, the plan adopted the same urban planning principles that had inspired the old plan, which in fact was configured as a simple expansion: the road structure and the size of the blocks was expanded to support the expansion of the population of the city. In this regard, it is possible to see the clear boundary between the original blocks of Beruto’s plan and those of his successor. Excluding the southeast strip of the NIL, which includes the Porta Monforte area, it is possible to see two types of blocks along the Corso Buenos-Aires road axis. In the southwest area of the Nil, near Porta Venezia, it is possible to identify the small blocks densely built and designed by Beruto’s plan. In particular, the area covers the area that was previously occupied by the Lazzaretto and is now known as the “little Asmara”, an area of a small Eritrean and multi-ethnic community of the neighborhood. Going along the axis, approaching the Loreto area, the blocks undergo a rapid expansion of their surface. The buildings are limited along the edge, the internal voids of the blocks expose themselves and their boundaries become more jagged. Along with the coring, it is, therefore, possible to identify two types, on the one hand, the compact block, on the other the block with closed marginal manufacture. From here it is possible to start from an analysis of the blocks of Nil 21 along the Corso Buenos-Aires and Viale Monza axis. 3. Milano: le Corti di Baires rinascono con negozi e appartamenti, www.larepubblica.it

150 50

CHOICE OF BLOCKS

300m

173

Block 1

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

Block 1 involves the study of the block born with the Piano Beruto and later transformed during the expansion of the city. Along the axis of Corso Buenos Aires was taken the block bounded by Via Panfilio Castaldi / Via Alessandro Tadino, Via Lazzaro Palazzi, and Corso Buenos Aires. At the height of the street, the block is occupied by numerous commercial activities to which the entrance halls to the buildings alternate. The block is densely built, interspersed with the voids of the courtyards often occupied by small service buildings of the inhabitants for this reason the footprint of the built areas occupy most of the surface of the block except the voids of the courtyards and cavities. Small buildings can be seen inside the courtyards used as garages and warehouses. The latter occupy 5% of the total surface of the block.

NIL 21 Block 1

Via Panfilio Castaldi/ Via Alessandro Tadino Via Lazzaro Palazzi/ Corso Buenos aires

Area: 34334,58 mq

BUILD 0

PLANIVOLUMETRIC

SMALL BUILDINGS

OWNERSHIP DIVISION

15 40m

175

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

Courts

/ 1884

/ 1910

/ 1930

/ 1946

Courtyard C Building

Courtyard_ L Building

Courtyard between blocks

/ 1965

In-line courtyard

Courtyard of isle building

/ 2020

15 5

30m

1884

1910

1930

1946

1965

2020

It is documented the presence of a building in line along Corso Buenos Aires and the definition of another small L-shaped building. The areas of the courtyards are delimited and drawn

The block is a compact curtain, built-in all its sides according to Berutoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan. At the typological level, the courtyards are closed and delimited by both their four sides.

There were no significant changes in the past 20 years. There were small changes regarding the expansion and shrinking of the voids inside the block. These changes in the courtyards and interstitial areas had not change the typological character.

There are no significant changes. In this map, it is possible to review a court present in the year 1910 and disappeared in the maps of 1930. Probably over the years, it has been expanded several times.

There are no significant changes. The courts and interstitial areas are widened or narrowed without changing their typological character

BLOCK 1. HISTORICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

177

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VE

CED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

15 5

40m

179

BLOCK 1. FULL AND EMPTY SPACES PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Lazzaro Palazzi 5

Via Lazzaro Palazzi 3

Corso Buenos Aires 5

Corso Buenos Aires 3

9 3

BLOCK 1. MATERIAL AND QUALITIES

18m

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Berutian building

Avarage facade

A ringhiera bulding

Blind facade

Productive building

181

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

Via Panfilio Castaldi 41

Via Panfilio Castaldi 39

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Panfilio Castaldi 37

via Alessandro Tadino 6

Via Panfilio Castaldi 39 Scheme of homogeneous and heterogeneus courtyards deduced from facade analysis. heterogeneous courtyard homogeneous courtyard

Avarage facade

A ringhiera bulding

Blind facade

Productive building

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION BLOCK 1.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Berutian building

183

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

SQUARE

RECTANGULAR

RECTANGULAR with additions

POLYGONAL

35 15

BLOCK 1. STUDY OF VOIDS

80m

Sport

Health

Technological infrastructure

Education

University and research

Social services

Market

Security

Culture

Religious facilities

Administrative

Green areas

Housing services

35 15

BLOCK 1. STUDY OF PROXIMITIES

50m

185

Block 2

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

Block 2 involves studying and understanding the urban changes that have been involved with the Pavia-Masera plan. The area is surrounded by Via Almicare Pinchielli, Via Alessandro Tadino, Corso Buenos Aires and Via Vitruvio. The block covers a higher surface area than the previous one and is configured as a block consisting of buildings marginal to the street that over time have had their expansion within the inner void of the block. For all these causes, the internal voids are larger and more extensive, interspersed with some smaller buildings present in them and which mainly provide the function of garages or warehouses.

NIL 21 Block 2

Via Vitruvio/ Corso Buenos Aires/ Via Almicare Ponchielli/ Via Alessandro Tadino

Area: 19477,24 mq

BUILD 0

PLANIVOLUMETRIC

SMALL BUILDINGS

OWNERSHIP DIVISION

15 40m

187

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

Courts

/ 1884

/ 1910

/ 1930

/ 1965

Courtyard C Building

Courtyard_ L Building

Courtyard between blocks

/ 1990

In-line courtyard

Courtyard of isle building

/ 2020

15 5

30m

1884

1910

1930

1965

1990

2020

The area of interest is sparsely urbanized and has only an inner courtyard construction and two other Moorish buildings in the northeast. In the map is already visible the drawing of the block layout

the buildings have filled most of the surface of the block except for a void left in the southwest area. The internal voids are in all their sides closed by buildings .

There are some extensions and unions of internal voids as well as the addition of new courtyards.

The block becomes more porous, the voids widen. The presence of a road that connects the inside of the block with Corso Buenos Aires is instead witnessed

There are no significant changes. The courts and interstitial areas are widened or narrowed without changing their typological character. The road surveyed in 1965 is closed and replaced by the presence of an edficio

There are no significant changes. The courts and interstitial areas are widened or narrowed without changing their typological character

BLOCK 2. HISTORICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

189

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

15 5

BLOCK 2. FULL AND EMPTY SPACES

40m

191

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Alessandro Tadino 48

Via Alessandro Tadino 50

Via Alessandro Tadino 52

10 5

BLOCK 2. MATERIAL AND QUALITIES

25m

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

193

Corso Buenos Aires 49

Via Domenico Scarlatti 7

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Domenico Scarlatti 5

Via Domenico Scarlatti 3

Via Domenico Scarlatti 5

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Corso Buenos Aires 45

Via Alessandro Tadino 48

Corso Buenos Aires 45

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION BLOCK 2.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

195

The block has a great heterogeneity of characteristics in the materials and design of the facades. The courtyards are surrounded by railing buildings, production activities, or residential buildings built in the mid 900 until today.

Corso Buenos Aires 45

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Corso Buenos Aires 45

Corso Buenos Aires 43

In this case, the study of facades has allowed us to find an interpretation key of the courtyards. For this reason, it was possible to detect some courtyards that have heterogeneous facades inside them, although in a small number compared to the presence of courtyards whose walls are made up of homogeneous facades of building blocks.

Corso Buenos Aires 43

Scheme of homogeneous and heterogeneus courtyards deduced from facade analysis. heterogeneous courtyard homogeneous courtyard

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

Berutian building

Speculative bulding

A ringhiera bulding

BLOCK 2.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

Blind facade

Productive building

197

BLOCKS ANALYSIS / NIL 21

SQUARE

RECTANGULAR

POLYGONAL

with additions

35 15

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF VOIDS

80m

Sport

Health

Technological infrastructure

Education

University and research

Social services

Market

Security

Culture

Religious facilities

Administrative

Green areas

Housing services

35 15

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF PROXIMITIES

50m

199

Population of Milan Population of NIL 21 Surface of Milan

1,0 %

3,3 %

Surface of NIL 21

14-

18-24

25-34

-64

Corso Buenos Aires/ Viale Monza

-7

6-1

3-5

75-8

33,7 %

>85

0-2

44 55

-13

10 % 5 %

.NIL 20

35-

5 % 10 %

Among the most populated and rapidly changing neighborhoods of Milan is Loreto, a district with a strong multi-ethnic vocation where young people, artists, architects, and creative people are committed to open many activities to give a more commercial face to the area. Historical background The area of Milan north of Piazzale Loreto, which develops along with Viale Monza and Via Padova, has historically been populated following the demographic development of the city, to satisfy the demand for housing due to the migratory waves of those seeking work. While Milan was widening its borders, on the northern route the buildings and residential areas increased. Suburban area, just off the outer ring road of Milan, after the Second World War, developed demographically hosting workers from all over Italy and later, with the migration flows of the 21st

Average age of population in 2017 Average age of population in 2030 Italian popoluation in “NIL 20” Foreign population in “NIL 20”

URBAN ANALYSIS

201

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

Sport Health Technological infrastructure Education University and research Social services Housing services Commercial services Security Culture

Religious facilities Administrative

Population and community

Market

Soil components

Prevailing land use

Destinations and changes of use 2012

Urbanized soil (93,4) Land for urbanisation (6,6)

Built fabric (41,1)

Receptive (4)

2030

Receptive (2)

Other ( 24)

Private services (1)

Mobility (27,1)

Residential (2)

Residential (89)

Green area (7,9)

Productive (37)

Productive (2)

Commercial (32)

Commercial (3)

Tertiary (23)

Tertiary (2)

From September 2019, within the project of tactical urban planning Open Squares2 of the City of Milan, was born also the colorful Piazza Arcobalena3, “whale-shaped traffic circle” closed to traffic with equipped

[Pic.4] Whale shape traffic cirlle, Milan.

150 75

URBAN ANALYSIS

One of the symbols of the district of Loreto in Milan is the Trotter Park, dating back to the 20s and recently included by FAI among the Environmental Heritage of Milan to be preserved and enhanced.

375 m

203

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

areas and ping pong tables, at the intersection of Via Venini, Via Spoleto and Via Martiri Oscuri. Study of blocks The NIL 20 was part of the Pavia- Masera plan and it has been completed in the following years during 30s- 50s. The neighborhood, born from the demand of creating new accommodation for an increasing number of people who moved to Milan for work, has two main arteries of the city, Viale Monza and Viale Padova, both characterized by buildings of the twentieth century to the present day. The character of a working-class neighborhood and work is underlined by the presence of numerous artisan warehouses and productive activities present within the blocks. The latter, characterized by marginal buildings along the streets have large internal voids occupied by work activities as in the case of the block that stands on Piazza Loreto and which had in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;end facing the square the Palazzo di Fuoco by Giuseppe Minoletti. The block examined results to be highly built internally because of the numerous presence of work activities leaving minimum space for the courtyards for the houses arranged along the margin. This phenomenon, as you walk along with Viale Monza, is less and less. The sheds remain but decrease in quantity, the empty areas inside the blocks expand and the blocks become less and less compact inside them. This is the case of the second block examined, located right in the heart of NoLo, and close to the main services of the neighborhood.

150 50

CHOICE OF BLOCKS

300m

205

Block 1

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

Along the axis of Viale Monza was taken the block bounded by Viale Padova, Via Luigi Pasteru, Viale Monza and piazzale Loreto. At the height of the street, the block is occupied by numerous commercial activities to which the entrance halls to the buildings alternate. The block is densely built, interspersed with the empty courtyards often occupied by craft sheds and production activities. The built areas occupy the majority of the surface of the block, except for the voids of courtyards that are near the edge of the block. Inside the courtyards, you can see small buildings used as garages and private warehouses, especially in the northwest part of the block.

NIL 20 Block 1

Viale Monza/ Via Luigi Pasteur/ Viale Padova/ Piazzale Loreto

Area: 134226,24 mq

BUILD

PLANIVOLUMETRIC

SMALL BUILDINGS

OWNERSHIP DIVISION

30 60m

207

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

Courts

/ 1884

/ 1910

/ 1930

/ 1946

/ 1956

Courtyard C Building

/ 1965

Courtyard_ L Building

Courtyard between blocks

/ 1990

In-line courtyard

Courtyard of isle building

/ 2020

15 5

30m

1884

1910

1930

1946

1956

1965

1990

2020

Historical maps testify to the presence of a building at the end of the block.

The area becomes very urbanized with large open spaces not yet occupied by buildings.

The empty areas of the block, especially in the central part, become narrower.

The transformations of the block give rise to the creation of two voids between blocks always in the central area of the block.

The block is completed in its margins by a curtain of buildings and inside a few courtyards are detectable.

During this period the most evident transformations concern dilations and compressions of the empty spaces already present in the other historical phases.

no significant changes are noted.

BLOCK 1. HISTORICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

209

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

30 10

BLOCK 1. FULL AND EMPTY SPACES

60m

211

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Monza 4

Viale Padova 3

Viale Padova 5

21 7

BLOCK 1. MATERIAL AND QUALITIES

42m

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

213

Viale Monza 10

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Monza 6

Viale Monza 8

Viale Monza 10

Viale Padova 7

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION BLOCK 1.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Monza 10

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Padova 5

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

215

Viale Padova 23

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Monza 12

Via Luigi Pasteur 1a

Viale Padova 25

Via Luigi Pasteur 5

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION VERSION PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESKBY STUDENT VERSION PRODUCED AN STUDENT BLOCK 1.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Padova 17

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Padova 13

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED PRODUCEDBY BYAN ANAUTODESK AUTODESKSTUDENT STUDENTVERSION VERSION

Viale Padova 9

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

217

Via Luigi Pasteur 19

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Guido Guinizelli 6

Via Luigi Pasteur 19

Via Luigi Pasteur 23-25

Viale Monza 26

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION BLOCK 1.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Guido Guinizelli 5

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Luigi Pasteur 7

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

219

Viale Monza 24

Viale Monza 20

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Monza 24

Viale Monza 22

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Monza 18

Viale Monza 20 Scheme of homogeneous and heterogeneus courtyards deduced from facade analysis. heterogeneous courtyard homogeneous courtyard

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION BLOCK 1.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

NIL 20

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

221

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

SQUARE

RECTANGULAR

POLYGONAL

with additions

30 10

BLOCK 1. STUDY OF VOIDS

60m

Sport

Health

Technological infrastructure

Education

University and research

Social services

Market

Security

Culture

Religious facilities

Administrative

Green areas

Housing services

35 15

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF PROXIMITIES

50m

223

Block 2

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

NIL 20 Block 2

Via Sant’Alessandro Sauli/ Via delle Leghe/ Via Luigi Varanini / Viale Monza

Area: 19200 mq

The area is surrounded by Via Sant’Alessandro Sauli/ Via delle Leghe/ Via Luigi Varanini / Viale Monza. The block covers a higher surface area than the previous one and is configured as a block consisting of buildings marginal to the street that over time have had their expansion within the inner void of the block. For all these causes, the internal voids are larger and more extensive, interspersed with some smaller buildings present in them and which mainly provide the function of garages or warehouses.

BUILD 0

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

SMALL BUILDINGS

OWNERSHIP DIVISION

15 5

40m

PLANIVOLUMETRIC

225

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

Courts

/ 1910

/ 1930

/ 1948

/ 1956

Courtyard C Building

/ 1965

/ 1972

Courtyard_ L Building

Courtyard between blocks

/ 1990

In-line courtyard

Courtyard of isle building

/ 2020

15 5

30m

1884

1930

1948

1956

1965

1972

1990

2020

The buildings in the examined area are not detectable before 1910. The presence of expanses of countryside gives way to the expansion of the

At this stage the block is almost completely covered by built. The empty areas present are configured as courtyards and some courtyards of C buildings.

The changes of the block are very few compared to previous years

In this period there is the emptying of some areas previously built and the annexation of some urban voids with each other.

There are no major changes

There is the enlargement of some internal voids in the northwest area of the block

BLOCK 2. HISTORICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

227

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

15 5

BLOCK 2. FULL AND EMPTY SPACES

40m

229

Via delle Leghe 2

Via delle Leghe 10

Via delle Leghe

Via delle Leghe 12

15 5

BLOCK 2. MATERIAL AND QUALITIES

40m

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

231

Via delle Leghe 14

Via delle Leghe 24

Via delle Leghe 16

Via Luigi Varanini 9

Via delle Leghe 18

Via Luigi Varanini 7

Via delle Leghe 22

Via Luigi Varanini 5

Berutian facade

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

233

Via Luigi Varanini 1

Viale Monza 55

Viale Monza 61

Viale Monza 53-51

Viale Monza 59

Viale Monza 49

Viale Monza 57

Via delle Leghe 47

Berutian facade

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

235

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

Via delle Leghe 45

Via delle Leghe 2

Via delle Leghe 2 Scheme of homogeneous and heterogeneus courtyards deduced from facade analysis. heterogeneous courtyard homogeneous courtyard

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

Blind facade

Industrial facade

237

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 20

SQUARE

RECTANGULAR

POLYGONAL

with additions

30 10

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF VOIDS

60m

Sport

Health

Technological infrastructure

Education

University and research

Social services

Market

Security

Culture

Religious facilities

Administrative

Green areas

Housing services

35 15

BLOCK 2. STUDY OF PROXIMITIES

50m

239

Population of Milan Population of NIL 21 Surface of Milan

1,1 %

2,7 %

Surface of NIL 21

14-

18-24

25-34

44 55

-13

-64

Viale Monza

-7

6-1

3-5

4 75-8 >85

The NIL consists of the districts of Turro, Gorla, and Precotto and is located in the northwest area of Milan. The areas until the second half of the nineteenth century were part of the municipality of the Holy Corps, annexed to the City of Milan in 1876.

34,1 %

0-2

.NIL 19

35-

10 % 5 % 0

5 % 10 %

Historical background Average age of population in 2017 Average age of population in 2030 Italian popoluation in “NIL 20” Foreign population in “NIL 20”

125

URBAN ANALYSIS

150

The present neighborhoods until the first twenty years of the twentieth century were constituted as an autonomous municipality. The district of Turro at the beginning of the twentieth century had a very different aspect compared to the present one; in fact, a good part of the land was occupied by lawns and fields, cultivated by the workers of the farmsteads present on the territory. 1

1. Cascine a Milano, on www.ilponte.it

450m

241

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 19

Sport Health Technological infrastructure Education University and research Social services

Commercial services

In ancient times Turro was crossed by a system of irrigation ditches and canals that took water from the Naviglio Martesana and drew routes to the center of the city. This system of irrigation ditches was important for the agricultural economy of the ancient villages, in the context of a "city of water" as Milan was until the last decades of the nineteenth century. The Acqualunga irrigation ditch was born just above the Naviglio Martesana and reached the gardens of Porta Venezia, continuing south.

Security Culture Religious facilities Administrative Market

Housing services

The area of Gorla, instead, was reached at the end of the 19th century by the building development, becoming an area dedicated to industries and services, especially for the big industrial factories that were rising in the immediate vicinity in the municipality of Precotto. In 1920 the municipality of Gorla Primo annexed the neighboring municipality of Precotto, changing the name of the municipality in Gorla-Precotto, to avoid the annexation to Milan as it had instead happened in Turro, a place to which Gorla was historically linked in the ecclesiastical field2. Population and community The NlL 19 is a corner of working-class suburbs that saw the workshops, the workshops, the southern emigrants worked in the factories of the nearby Sesto San Giovanni quickly disappear. Today, in those popular buildings, small communities of South American, Bengali and Arab origins have settled there.3 Project and visions Soil components

Prevailing land use

2012

Urbanized soil (92,5%) Land for urbanisation (7,5%)

In recent years some projects have been formulated for the three neighborhoods that have the intent to redevelop housing areas. In particular, the project "Rivivi" whose objectives are to rehabilitate and involve the inhabitants of the public housing complex of Sant'Erlembaldo with social and territorial animation activities aimed at the target audience, composed mainly of large families and people with disabilities.5

Destinations and changes of use 2030

Built fabric (29%)

Receptive (2)

Receptive (0)

Other (40,01%)

Private services (0)

Private services 1)

Mobility (22,4%)

Residential (4)

Residential (51)

Green area (8,4%)

Productive (33)

Productive (2)

Commercial (13)

Commercial (0)

Tertiary (4)

Tertiary (2)

[Pic.5]Symbol of Gorlo and Turro is the Martesana. 2. Gorla Primo, on www.vecchiamilano.wordpress.com 3. Viaggio tra le contraddizioni di Turro il quartiere che parla tutte le lingue , on www.repubblica.it 3. Politiche abitative. Il Comune si aggiudica 28 milioni di finanziamento Cipe per riprogettare i quartieri popolari di Corvetto e Gorla, on www.comunedimilano.it

150 75

URBAN ANALYSIS

The aim is to strengthen the community with a view to integration and social cohesion of social housing, with a high population density, with the surrounding area of Gorla/Precotto, just the same district also affected by another municipal project that more directly concerns the redevelopment of the spaces of the Erp complex in Via Sant'Erlembaldo and the park of Villa Finzi.

375 m

243

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 19

Study of blocks The Nil 19 extends for a good portion of the city of Milan but reduced is the area around the street of Viale Monza. The street, which is part of our investigation together with Corso Buenos Aires, flanks several blocks within the NIL that have similar characteristics compared to the NIl we have already seen in the previous pages. The first buildings that can be traced back to the plans of the city of Milan can be attested since 1920. Precisely for this reason, the compactness of the blocks that we noticed in the previous NIL here is missing. Around the area of Viale Monza the blocks are increasingly characterized by marginal buildings and large empty spaces inside and in some cases, modern tower buildings with large green spaces appear. The choice of the block along the axis of Viale Monza has tried to take together all these characteristics, both the productive aspect that distinguishes the area and many of its blocks, and the residential aspect trying to favor an analysis of the study of the courtyards within the block.

150 75

CHOICE OF BLOCKS

375 m

245

Block 1

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 19

Along the axis of Viale Monza was taken the block bounded by Via Vitruvio, Corso Buenos Aires/ Via Almicare Ponchielli/ Via Alessandro Tadino. The block is built mainly along its edges leaving space for large empty areas inside. Many are the productive activities inserted inside the block. On the ground floor of the block there are few commercial activities, mainly located near Viale Monza

NIL 19 Block 1

Via Vitruvio/ Viale Monza/ Via Almicare Ponchielli/ Via Alessandro Tadino

Area:23726,53 mq

BUILD 0

PLANIVOLUMETRIC

SMALL BUILDINGS

OWNERSHIP DIVISION

15 40m

247

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 19

Courts

/ 1930

/ 1946

/ 1956

/ 1965

Courtyard C Building

Courtyard_ L Building

Courtyard between blocks

/ 1972

In-line courtyard

Courtyard of isle building

/ 2020

15 5

30m

1930

1946

1956

1965

1972

2020

The first historical investigations of buildings within the block both have with the maps of 1930. the ara presents some building blocks that have remained currently and large open spaces.

The surface of the block is occupied more. The edge overlooking Viale Monza is better defined and you can see the insertion of a large area built in the central area of the block.

Small changes are noticed. the definition of the margin overlooking Viale Monza is revised and some internal courtyards are redesigned.

In this period further courtyards are closed and the southern edge of the block is redefined.

The courts and interstitial areas are widened or narrowed changing their typological character.

BLOCK 1. HISTORICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

249

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 19

15 5

BLOCK 1. FULL AND EMPTY SPACES

40m

251

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Privata della Torre 16

Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 11

Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 19-21

15 5

BLOCK 1. MATERIAL AND QUALITIES

40m

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

253

Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 27

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION BLOCK 1.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Privata della Torre 32

Via Gerolamo Rovetta 25

Via Gerolamo Rovetta 23

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 27

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 25

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Privata della Torre 32

Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 23

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

255

Viale Monza 114

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 33

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Gerolamo Rovetta 17

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Viale Monza 116

Via Privata della Torre 2

Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 33

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION BLOCK 1.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Via Gerolamo Rovetta 21

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

Blind facade

Industrial facade

257

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 19

Via Privata della Torre 8 - Via Matteo Maria Boiardo 7

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

In this case, the study of facades has allowed us to find an interpretation key of the courtyards. For this reason, it was possible to detect few courtyards that have heterogeneous facades inside them. Most of the non-productive courts, however, have similar characteristics within them.

Scheme of homogeneous and heterogeneus courtyards deduced from facade analysis. heterogeneous courtyard homogeneous courtyard

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Berutian facade

Avarage facade

A ringhiera facade

BLOCK 1.STUDY OF ENCLOSURES

Blind facade

Industrial facade

259

BLOCK ANALYSIS / NIL 19

SQUARE

RECTANGULAR

POLYGONAL

with additions

30 10

BLOCK 1. STUDY OF VOIDS

60m

Sport

Health

Technological infrastructure

Education

University and research

Social services

Market

Security

Culture

Religious facilities

Administrative

Green areas

Housing services

35 15

BLOCK 1. STUDY OF PROXIMITIES

50m

261

Courtyards as residual: the parking war

1. I proprietari di immobili possono realizzare nel sottosuolo degli stessi ovvero nei locali siti al piano terreno dei fabbricati parcheggi da destinare a pertinenza delle singole unità immobiliari, anche in deroga agli strumenti urbanistici ed ai regolamenti edilizi vigenti. Tali parcheggi possono essere realizzati, ad uso esclusivo dei residenti, anche nel sottosuolo di aree pertinenziali esterne al fabbricato, purché‚ non in contrasto con i piani urbani del traffico, tenuto conto dell’uso della superficie sovrastante e compatibilmente con la tutela dei corpi idrici. Restano in ogni caso fermi i vincoli previsti dalla legislazione in materia paesaggistica ed ambientale ed i poteri attribuiti dalla medesima legislazione alle regioni e ai Ministeri dell’ambiente e per i beni culturali ed ambientali da esercitare motivatamente nel termine di 90 giorni. I parcheggi stessi ove i piani del traffico non siano stati redatti, potranno comunque essere realizzati nel rispetto delle indicazioni di cui al periodo precedente. (i comma così modificato dall’art. 17, comma 90, legge n. 127 del 1997; "Tali parcheggi possono essere realizzati, ad uso esclusivo dei residenti, anche nel sottosuolo di aree pertinenziali esterne al fabbricato, purchè non in contrasto con i piani urbani del traffico, tenuto conto dell'uso della superficie sovrastante e compatibilmente con la tutela dei corpi idrici") poi dall'art. 37, comma 1, legge n. 472 del 1999) 2. L’esecuzione delle opere e degli interventi previsti dal comma 1 è soggetta a segnalazione certificata di inizio attività. 3. Le deliberazioni che hanno per oggetto le opere e gli interventi di cui al comma 1 sono approvate salvo che si tratti di proprietà non condominiale dalla assemblea del condominio, in prima o in seconda convocazione, con la maggioranza prevista dall’articolo 1136, secondo comma, del codice civile. Resta fermo quanto disposto dagli articoli 1120, secondo comma, e 1121, terzo comma, del codice civile. (comma così modificato dall’art. 17, comma 90, legge n. 127 del 1997; dopo le parole: "sono approvate", sono inserite le seguenti: "salvo che si tratti di proprietà non condominiale".) 4. I comuni, previa determinazione dei criteri di cessione del diritto di superficie e su richiesta dei privati interessati o di imprese di costruzione o di società anche cooperative, possono prevedere, nell'ambito del programma urbano dei parcheggi, la realizzazione di parcheggi da destinare a pertinenza di immobili privati su aree comunali o nel sottosuolo delle stesse. Tale disposizione si applica anche agli interventi in fase di avvio o già avviati. La costituzione del diritto di superficie è subordinata alla stipula di una convenzione nella quale siano previsti: (comma così sostituito dall'art. 10, comma 2-ter, legge n. 30 del 1998 : Il primo periodo del comma 4 dell'articolo 9 della legge 24 marzo 1989, n. 122, e' sostituito dai seguenti: "I comuni, previa determinazione dei criteri di cessione del diritto di superficie e su richiesta dei privati interessati o di imprese di costruzione o di societa' anche cooperative, possono prevedere, nell'ambito del programma urbano dei parcheggi, la realizzazione di parcheggi da destinare a pertinenza di immobili privati su aree comunali o nel sottosuolo delle stesse. Tale disposizione si applica anche agli interventi in fase di avvio o gia' avviati".) a) la durata della concessione del diritto di superficie per un periodo non superiore a novanta anni; b) il dimensionamento dell’opera ed il piano economico-finanziario previsti per la sua realizzazione; c) i tempi previsti per la progettazione esecutiva, la messa a disposizione delle aree necessarie e la esecuzione dei lavori; d) i tempi e le modalità per la verifica dello stato di attuazione nonché le sanzioni previste per gli eventuali indadempimenti. 5. Fermo restando quanto previsto dall'articolo 41-sexies, della legge 17 agosto 1942, n. 1150, e successive modificazioni, e l'immodificabilità dell'esclusiva destinazione a parcheggio, la proprietà dei parcheggi realizzati a norma del comma 1 può essere trasferita, anche in deroga a quanto previsto nel titolo edilizio che ha legittimato la costruzione e nei successivi atti convenzionali, solo con contestuale destinazione del parcheggio trasferito a pertinenza di altra unità immobiliare sita nello stesso comune. I parcheggi realizzati ai sensi del comma 4 non possono essere ceduti separatamente dall'unità immobiliare alla quale sono legati da vincolo pertinenziale e i relativi atti di cessione sono nulli, ad eccezione di espressa previsione contenuta nella convenzione stipulata con il comune, ovvero quando quest'ultimo abbia autorizzato l'atto di cessione. (comma così sostituito dall'art. 10, comma 1, legge n. 35 del 2012: "5. Fermo restando quanto previsto dall'articolo 41-sexies, della legge 17 agosto 1942, n. 1150, e successive modificazioni, e l'immodificabilità dell'esclusiva destinazione a parcheggio, la proprietà dei parcheggi realizzati a norma del comma 1 può essere trasferita, anche in deroga a quanto previsto nel titolo edilizio che ha legittimato la costruzione e nei successivi atti convenzionali, solo con contestuale destinazione del parcheggio trasferito a pertinenza di altra unità immobiliare sita nello stesso comune. I parcheggi realizzati ai sensi del comma 4 non possono essere ceduti separatamente dall'unità immobiliare alla quale sono legati da vincolo pertinenziale e i relativi atti di cessione sono nulli.".) 6. Le opere e gli interventi di cui ai precedenti commi 1 e 4, nonché gli acquisti di immobili destinati a parcheggi, effettuati da enti o imprese di assicurazione sono equiparati, ai fini della copertura delle riserve tecniche, ad immobili ai sensi degli articoli 32 ed 86 della legge 22 ottobre 1986, n. 742.

LEGGE TOGNOLI

From the reliefs of the courtyards made it is evident that these spaces are considered to be backs, the remnants of space. Passage and functional spaces, mostly occupied by cars and parking lots. Courtyards rarely show elements that make the space usable. Courtyards seem to lose the diversity of functions and elements of attraction the further you move away from the city center. Looking for a legal justification for the presence of secondary buildings in the courtyards, as well as the use of parking spaces on the ground floors, this can be found in the Tognoli Law, enacted in 1989. ComL'art. 9, paragraph 1, of Lawn. 122/1989, so-called Tognoli Law, containing the "Provisions on parking, a three-year program for the most populated urban areas, as well as amendments to some rules of the Single Text on road traffic regulations", provides that: "The owners of buildings can build underground or in the premises located on the ground floor of the parking of the building lots to be allocated to the individual units, also in derogation of urban planning instruments and building regulations in force." The law was initially enacted to avoid the large number of cars parked in pedestrian or driveway areas, but the consequence was precisely to gather vehicles in the pertinent spaces of the houses, removing the possibility of being used for other purposes. It 'happened therefore a progressive process of privatization of collective areas of housing, which has taxed and divided areas often already small. This process has decreased the spatial quality of the courtyards, discouraging the permanence of the inhabitants and its use. Moreover, the use of the ground floors as parking spaces eliminates a number of other functions that these spaces could have, spaces, in general, at the service of the community or inhabitants. For the specific Milanese case, reference can also be made to the Regolamento Edilizio of Milan dating back to 1999 (art. 74 "appurtenant parking lots" and art. 75 "non-appurtenant parking lots"): "In the subsoil of the buildings or on the ground floor of existing buildings, as well as basement and raised floors. parking spaces may be created to be allocated to the individual building units" and "Above ground parking spaces may be created on a single floor above ground, where they comply with these Building Regulations as well as with urban planning instruments. including urban planning implementation agreements. These parking lots may also be made for the exclusive use of residents on the surfaces of areas outside the building located at a distance not exceeding 500 m., with the limits set out in the second paragraph of this article." These regulations tried to deal with an important emergency of the '90s, which is the need to have parking spaces for each condominium to allow everyone to have their autonomy in moving. Nowadays, however, we are faced with different emergencies, if not contrary. On the one hand, the health emergency that calls for more accessible and usable open spaces (see Chapter 1). On the other hand, the ecological emergency that requires

263

trees and green areas to restore the environment of cities. As already mentioned, the area occupied by open spaces related to housing is not to be underestimated and occupies a rather large percentage in the urban fabric of the various cities. The volume that could occupy the trees could have a positive impact both at the city level, but especially considering the improvements in the air quality of the spaces directly overlooking them. Considering the environmental emergency, several cities, including Milan, are trying to make the necessary services available to citizens in all areas of the city with the so-called "15-minute city" (see chapter 1). The objective of the municipalities is in fact to reduce pollution produced by the means of transport used by the inhabitants for the necessary journeys. Art. 74. (Parcheggi pertinenziali) I.Nel sottosuolo del lotto su cui preesistono fabbricati possono essere realizzati. al servizio di edifici localizzati nell'isolato o negli isolati contigui. parcheggi pertinenziali; fern10 il disposto degli articoli 21. 22 e 23. gli stessi non sono assoggettati alle disposizioni di cui agli art1. 12. 27 e 28. 2.Nel sottosuolo degli immobili ovvero al piano terreno dei fabbricati esistenti, nonché ai piani seminterrati e rialzati. possono essere realizzati parcheggi da destinare a pertinenza delle singole unità immobiliari. anche in deroga al presente Regolamento edilizio nonché agli strumenti urbanistici ed alle convenzioni attuative delle previsioni di P.R.G Tali parcheggi possono essere realizzati ad uso esclusivo dei residenti -anche nel sottosuolo di aree pertinenziali esterne al fabbricato, poste ad una distanza non superiore a m. 500, purché non in contrasto con il piano urbano comunale del trattato. avuto riguardo all'uso della superficie sovrastante e compatibilmente con la tutela dei corpi idrici.

This policy in Milan is very much felt today and, in particular, on the chosen axis, changes are being made to facilitate this transformation process. Besides, an increasing number of citizens are giving up the car, for an excessive cost, for an ecological choice or because they can take advantage of public transport. Certainly the municipality, not only that of Milan, still has to take great steps to reach a city without a car. But the goal is on the agenda. The aim is perhaps the new housing interventions (often, once again, organized mostly by Swiss cooperatives) that accept only tenants who do not own a car or that assign more green areas and play areas for each unbuilt parking lot.

3.In soprassuolo possono essere realizzati parcheggi pertinenziali di un solo piano fuori terra, ove si tratti di interventi conformi al presente Regolamento edilizio nonché agli strumenti urbanistici. ivi comprese le convenzioni urbanistiche attuative. Tali parcheggi possono essere realizzati ad uso esclusivo dei residenti anche sulle superfici di aree esterne al fabbricato poste a distanza non superiore a m. 500, con i limiti di cui al secondo comma del presente articolo. 4.Possono essere realizzati. quali interventi edilizi autonomi, parcheggi pertinenziali anche pluripiano in soprassuolo ovvero all'interno di volumi preesistenti, purché gli interventi risultino conformi al presente Regolamento e agli strumenti urbanistici. comprese le convenzioni attuative. 5.Nei casi di deroga, di interventi in soprassuolo e di interventi all'interno di volumi preesistenti. all'atto della presentazione della comunicazione di inizio lavori occorre dimostrare la pertinenzialità delle opere. mediante atti di vincolo registrati e trascritti. Tale dimostrazione consisterà in un atto unilaterale, ove il proprietario del bene principale e il proprietario del bene secondario coincidano, m un atto bilaterale o plurilaterale, ove le proprietà non risultassero coincidenti. 6.Gli interventi descritti nel presente articolo sono realizzati mediante gli specifici provvedimenti di cui al capo 2 del presente Titolo IV. Arl 75. (Parcheggi non pertinenziali) I.Nel rispetto delle vigenti N.T.A. del P.R.G. e delle norme di cui agli articoli 12.27 e 28 del presente Regolamento, possono essere realizzati, anche in strutture pluripiano, parcheggi non pertinenziali, soggetti a concessione edilizia onerosa, che non concorrono a formare volume e superficie lorda di pavimento, così individuati: 1.1. nel sottosuolo delle aree e degli edifici esistenti: 1.2. in soprassuolo, purché l'edificazione riguardi esclusivamente la chiusura della cortina edilizia tra due fronti nudi; l'intervento può essere esteso anche al sottosuolo; 1.3. in soprassuolo, ove l'edificazione consista in opere realizzate all'interno di volumi preesistenti; anche in tal caso l'intervento può essere esteso al sottosuolo: 1.4. per tutti gli altri casi in soprassuolo. a condizione che l'area sia stata dichiarata idonea dagli uffici comunali prima della presentazione della domanda di concessione edilizia ovvero del progetto preliminare di cui all'Art. 112 .. anche nel caso di integrazione dei parcheggi di cui al punto I .1.

[Pic.1] Additional building inside courtyard

REGOLAMENTO EDILIZIO / COMUNE DI MILANO 1999

265

1. The owners of real estate can realize in the subsoil of the same or in the premises located on the ground floor of the building parking lots to be allocated to the pertinence of the individual units, also in derogation to the urban planning instruments and building regulations in force. These parking lots can be realized, for the exclusive use of residents, also in the subsoil of pertinent areas outside the building, as long as they are not in contrast with urban traffic plans, taking into account the use of the surface above and compatibly with the protection of water bodies. In any case, the constraints provided for by the landscape and environmental legislation and the powers granted by the same legislation to the regions and ministries of the environment and cultural and environmental heritage to be exercised within 90 days. The parking lots themselves, where the traffic plans have not been drawn up, can in any case be made in compliance with the indications of the previous period. (i paragraph as amended by art. 17, paragraph 90, Law No. 127 of 1997; "These parking lots may be built, for the exclusive use of residents, even underground areas outside the building, as long as not in conflict with urban traffic plans, taking into account the use of the surface above and compatible with the protection of water bodies") then by art. 37, paragraph 1, lawn. 472 of 1999) 2. The execution of the works and interventions provided for in paragraph 1 is subject to certified notification of the start of activities. 3. The resolutions concerning the works and interventions referred to in paragraph 1 are approved unless they are non-condominium property by the condominium's shareholders' meeting, in the first or second call, with the majority provided for by article 1136, second paragraph, of the Italian Civil Code. The provisions of articles 1120, second paragraph, and 1121, third paragraph, of the Italian Civil Code remain unchanged. (paragraph thus modified by art. 17, paragraph 90, the law no. 127 of 1997; after the words: "are approved", the following are inserted: "except for noncondominium property").

Art. 74. (Appurtenant parking lots) I.In the subsoil of the lot on which there are pre-existing buildings can be realized. at the service of buildings located in the block or the adjacent blocks. appurtenant parking lots; fern10 the provisions of articles 21. 22 and 23. the same is not subject to the provisions of art. 1. 12. 27 e 28.

4. The municipalities, after determining the criteria for the transfer of the surface right and at the request of the individuals concerned or construction companies or companies, including cooperatives, may provide, as part of the urban parking program, the construction of parking lots to be allocated to private property on municipal areas or underground. This provision also applies to interventions in the start-up phase or already started. The constitution of the surface right is subject to the stipulation of an agreement in which they are provided for:

In the subsoil of buildings or on the ground floor of existing buildings, as well as basement and mezzanine and mezzanine floors. parking spaces may be provided for individual units. also in derogation of these Building Regulations and urban planning tools and agreements implementing the provisions of the P.R.G. These parking lots can be realized,1 1ti -for the exclusive use of residents - even in the subsoil of pertinent areas outside the building, placed at a distance not exceeding m. 500, as long as not in conflict with the urban municipal plan of the treaty. having regard to the use of the surface above and compatible with the protection of water bodies.

(paragraph thus replaced by art. 10, paragraph 2-ter, Law no. 30 of 1998: The first sentence of paragraph 4 of Article 9 of Law No. 122 of 24 March 1989, and 'replaced by the following: "The municipalities, after determining the criteria for the transfer of the surface right and at the request of private individuals or construction companies or companies including cooperatives, may provide, as part of the urban program of parking, the construction of parking lots to be allocated to private real estate on municipal areas or underground of the same. This provision also applies to interventions in the start-up phase or already started). a) the duration of the concession of the surface right for a period not exceeding ninety years; b) the sizing of the work and the economic-financial plan envisaged for its implementation; c) the times envisaged for the executive design, the provision of the necessary areas, and the execution of the works; d) the times and methods for verifying the state of implementation as well as the penalties provided for any default. 5. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 41-sexiest, Law August 17, 1942, n. 1150, and subsequent amendments, and the unchangeability of the exclusive destination to parking, the ownership of the parking lots built following paragraph 1 may be transferred, even as an exception to what is provided in the building title that legitimized the construction and subsequent acts of agreement, only with the simultaneous destination of the parking transferred to another real estate unit located in the same municipality. The parking lots built under paragraph 4 can not be transferred separately from the real estate unit to which they are linked by appurtenant bond and the related deeds of transfer are null and void, except as expressly provided in the agreement entered into with the municipality, or when the latter has authorized the deed of transfer. (paragraph thus replaced by Article 10, paragraph 1, Law No. 35 of 2012: "5. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 41-sexiest, Law August 17, 1942, n. 1150, and subsequent amendments, and the unchangeability of the exclusive destination to parking, the ownership of the parking lots built following paragraph 1 may be transferred, even as an exception to what is provided in the building title that legitimized the construction and subsequent acts of agreement, only with the simultaneous destination of the parking transferred to another real estate unit located in the same municipality. The parking lots made according to paragraph 4 can not be sold separately from the real estate unit to which they are linked by appurtenant bond and the related acts of transfer are null and void). 6. The works and interventions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 4 above, as well as the purchases of real estate intended for parking lots, made by insurance agencies or companies, are treated, to cover technical reserves, as real estate following articles 32 and 86 of Law no. 742 of 22 October 1986.

TOGNOLI LAW

3. The above-ground can be realized parking appurtenant of a single floor above ground, where it is a matter of interventions following these Building Regulations and urban planning tools. including urban planning conventions implementation. These parking lots may also be built for the exclusive use of residents on the surfaces of areas outside the building located at a distance of no more than 500 m, with the limits set out in the second paragraph of this article. 4.Can be carried out. such as independent building interventions, parking spaces also multi-story above or within existing volumes, provided that the interventions are following these Regulations and urban planning instruments. including the implementing agreements. 5.In cases of exception, of interventions on the ground and interventions within existing volumes. at the time of presentation of the communication of the start of work must demonstrate the pertinence of the works. through registered and transcribed acts of constraint. This demonstration will consist of a unilateral act, where the owner of the asser main and the owner of the secondary property coincide, m a bilateral or plurilateral act if the properties do not coincide. The interventions described in this article are carried out through the specific measures described in Chapter 2 of Title IV. Arl75. (Non-appurtenant parking lots) I. In compliance with the current N.T.A. of the P.R.G. and the rules of Articles 12.27 and 28 of these Regulations, can be realized, even in multi-story structures, non-appurtenant parking lots, subject to onerous building permits, which do not contribute to forming volume and gross floor area, identified as follows: 1.1. underground of existing areas and buildings. 1.2. above ground, provided that the building only concerns the closure of the building curtain between two bare fronts; the intervention can also be extended to the subsoil; 1.3. above ground, where the building consists of works carried out within pre-existing volumes; even in this case, the intervention can be extended to the underground: 1.4. for all other cases above ground. provided that the area has been declared suitable by the municipal offices before the submission of the application for building permit or the preliminary project referred to in Art. 112 .

REGOLAMENTO EDILIZIO / COMUNE DI MILANO 1999

267

GIVE ME BACK MY COURTYARD! Anti-Tognoli law

paragraph 1 Art. 9, paragraph 1, Law no. 122 of 1989 is amended as follows:

“The owners of buildings cannot realize in the premises located on the ground floor of the buildings parking lots to be allocated to the individual units.” paragraph 2

It is expected the opening of passages between the courtyards, without changing the use of properties, where possible according to the characteristics of the courtyard. paragraph 3

The reuse of the ground floor areas is encouraged both outside and inside the buildings for purposes of commercial activities or community services as established by the characteristics of the courtyards.. paragraph 4

With reference to paragraph 1, the creation of green areas to replace the parking buildings previously present is encouraged. paragraph 5

With reference to paragraph 2 it is possible the insertion of public paved areas where possible according to the characteristics of the courts

7. URBAN POLICIES Rethinking the courtyards of the city means rethinking the role that these spaces have had throughout history, made of common practices and uses regulated by laws and customs. As a first act for a new project of courtyard is necessary an urban policy that can eliminate the negative uses to which we have become used over the last century and characterized in Italy by the approval of the Tognoli law in 1989 in which it allowed the inclusion of areas and small buildings for parking inside the courtyards. The anti-Tognoli “law” eliminates the possibility of using courtyards for parking and suggests the opportunity of a series of actions and alternatives based on the characteristics of the courts (domestic and urban).

Domestic and Urban courtyards.

URBAN POLICIES

The new regulation of city courtyards is based on the characteristics of such courtyards defined as domestic and urban characteristics. The courtyards are private collective spaces that, from the number of inhabitants who have access to them, present different degrees of collectivity. As we have described in the qualitative analysis made so far, the court is not only defined beyond its character of the use, but the courtyards also have aesthetic and typological characteristics that have adapted with the internal transformation of the blocks over the centuries. The courtyards were analyzed according to 3 criteria: the characteristics of the buildings to which they attest, the shape of the space, and the proximity of the block with the services of the city related to the new Milan project of “15 minutes city”1.

1. HETEROGENOEUS COURTYARD

1.URBAN COURTYARD

The courtyard supports buildings with different aesthetic and typological characteristics.

The courtyards thus identified can be described as urban courtyards.

The “edges of the courtyards” give quality to these spaces that can be defined as open-air rooms whose walls are made up of the buildings on which they stand. For this reason, the character of heterogeneity and homogeneity of the buildings around the courtyards is a fundamental character, whether they are courtyards for railing houses, for the construction of the twentieth-century speculative building, for production sheds or for Berutian buildings, they have different thresholds privatization and collectivization. In particular, we have focused on the difference between courtyards whose “borders” have similar characteristics and courtyards whose edges are heterogeneous. The latter become small glimpses of cities where you can see railing houses and speculative buildings united by the same empty area. The same logic for the other types of “borders” identified (productive facades, blind facades, facades of speculative buildings, facades of railing houses, facades of the Bertian block) and put together among them from the same void. The heterogeneous courts have strong urban characteristics being small urban squares enclosed within the building curtain of the block. For this reason, such courtyards have been defined as “urban courtyards” unlike the homogeneous courtyards that instead are “domestic courtyards” whose character is more private. The domestic courtyards are instead spaces whose characteristic of homogeneity of the facades is witness to a rootedness of the shape of the courtyard during the evolution of the block and its more private and collective property only to users who have direct access to it.

2. HOMOGENEOUS COURTYARD

2. DOMESTIC COURTYARD

The courtyard supports buildings with same aesthetic and typological characteristics.

The courtyards thus identified can be described as domestic courtyards.

URBAN COURTYARD AND DOMESTIC COURTYARD

From these considerations, it is possible to define two strategies for the urban design of the courtyards of the city. The urban policy of the courtyards is based on the definition of domestic and urban courtyards within the blocks.

1. The term refers to the “Strade aperte” project started by the municipality of Milan with the pilot projects of Lazzaretto ad isola. site. https://www.comune. milano.it/-/quartieri.-con-strade-aperte-nuove-aree-pedonali-ciclabili-zone-30-e-spazi-pubblici

271

2. LINK THE COURTYARDS

Urban courtyards divided by property walls

Rethink the dividing walls between the courtyards to create possible paths and connections

SEMI-PUBLIC

PUBLIC/COLLECTIVE

> PHYSICALLY PERMEABLE > VISUALLY PERMEABLE

< PHYSICALLY PERMEABLE > VISUALLY PERMEABLE

> IMPERMEABLE SURFACE < PERMEABLE SURFACE

< IMPERMEABLE SURFACE > PERMEABLE SURFACE

> PERMEABLE SURFACE

PRODUCTIVE SERVICES ( shops, bar and restaurant, galleries) SOCIAL SERVICES ( clinics, study and coworking spaces)

SOCIAL SERVICES ( laundry, sharing kitchen) RECREATIONAL SERVICES ( children and elderly center)

SOCIAL SERVICES ( laundrym sharing kitchen) RECREATIONAL SERVICES ( children and elderly center)

3. DEFINITION OF FLOWS

4. GRADIENDT OF PUBLICNESS

Connect courtyards through paths generate differnt flows inside the block

The pedestrian flows determine gradient of publicness in the system of urban courtyards.

URBAN POLICY IN URBAN COURTYARD

GROUND FLOOR

SURFACE

1. STATE OF ART

PUBLIC

WALL

GRADIENT

URBAN POLICIES

2. VISUAL CORSSING THOURH WALLS

Domestic courtyards divided by property walls

The walls are maintained but become taxing barriers in which visual permeability is possible

COLLECTIVE/PRIVATE

PRIVATE

VISUALLY PERMEABLE

IMPERMEABLE SURFACE PERMEABLE SURFACE

> PERMEABLE SURFACE

SOCIAL SERVICES (extra room, laundry, sharing kitchen)

3. CONSIDER CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF USERS Domestic courtyards have a private character related to the amount of residents who have access to them

4. GRADIENDT OF COLLECTIVNESS Courtyards are redefined according to the amount of users using them

URBAN POLICY IN DOMESTIC COURTYARD

GROUND FLOOR

SURFACE

1. STATE OF ART

COLLECTIVE

WALL

GRADIENT

URBAN POLICIES

Give me back my courtyard!

URBAN POLICIES

The urban policies are supported by a tool-book that is distributed to the inhabitants. The manual indicates the possibilities referred to the meta-project concerning walls, surfaces, and revitalization of the ground floors. The use of the courtyard is also suggested thanks to furniture and objects of common use. Thanks to this manual, individual users can apply the policy indications independently, but it can also be a tool that directs professionals to design. The first part indicates what kind of characteristics the courtyard has, if it refers to urban or domestic space. Thanks to this first indication, it is possible to understand the various levels of intervention that can be implemented in the courtyard regeneration project according to the urban policy indicated. In the following pages, specific materials and systems are inserted according to the characteristics of the courtyard (urban, domestic): indications are given of the surfaces (permeable, waterproof), walls (physically permeable, visually permeable), and ground floors. For each of these three categories, specific materials and functions that can be applied are given. In the second part, the Toolbook shows the possible functions that can be applied inside courtyards with simple furnishing elements. the courtyard can become a projection room, a sports area, a study area, etc. Finally, the last part indicates how to manage the courtyards as a common good for all inhabitants and citizens by referring to the 10 points that Elinor Ostrom explains in her book "Governing the Commons".

URBAN POLICY

277

URBAN POLICIES

URBAN POLICY

279

PART IV / NOLO BLOCK

8. NoLo courtyards

281

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

8. NOLO COURTYARDS

After the morphological study of several blocks along Corso BuenoAires and Viale Monza axis, the Nolo block was chosen as the starting point for the redesign of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residential courtyards. The project is divided into two design scales: The urban scale, linked to urban policy, defines the strategy of the domestic and urban courtyards of the Nolo block. The architectural scale shows a possible interpretation and application of the Tool-book. 0 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

NOLO BLOCK

15 5

40m

Choice of pilot block

NOLO COURTYARDS

Density of the block NIL 21. Block 2

NIL 21. Block 1

76 %

72 %

45 %

66 %

80 %

40 %

Every void is a resource. Every unbuilt space allows the imagination of infinite possibilities for its realization in place. As seen in the previous chapter, in other words, every space in between is a fertile ground for the creation of commons. For this reason we have adopted as a parameter for the choice of the block pilot the density of the built. Residential courtyards Since the approach is closely related to the domestic sphere, one of the parameters for the choice of the block was precisely the number of courts about housing in relation, however, to those about commercial or tertiary activities.

NIL 20. Block 2

NIL 20. Block 1

homogeneous vs heterogeneous courtyards Another parameter for choosing the pilot block was the amount of heterogeneous shorts compared to homogeneous ones. This quantity must be comparable to have an â&#x20AC;&#x153;averageâ&#x20AC;? situation between the two options and then be more adaptable in other contexts.

70 %

68 %

62 %

71 %

20 %

40 %

NIL 19. Block 1

60 % 55 % 40 % Voids percentage

68 % Residential density at ground floor Homogeneous cortyards 0

30 10

DATA COMPARASIONS BETWEEN BLOCKS

60m

71 % 40 %

NOLO COURTYARDS

15 5

NOLO STATE OF ART

40m

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

NOLO COURTYARDS

Domestic courtyard Domestic courtyard

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

The NoLo block is characterized by a system of buildings that line the streets and leave a space inside them where smaller or isolated buildings were later built. For this reason the empty space of the block where it is possible to intervene is greater than that of the other blocks considered. Moreover, always in comparison with the blocks examined, most of the courts are adjacent to residential spaces. Finally, homogeneous and heterogeneous courts are distributed equally in the block. The homogeneous and heterogeneous courts define the domestic and urban character of the pertinent spaces of housing. Urban courtyards are organized into two distinct areas, one south, comprising 8 properties, and one north with 7 distinct properties. Although the number does not differ much, the southern part has a significantly larger area than the northern part. Domestic courts, on the other hand, are aggregated in blocks of three to four courts, for a total of 11 courts. Afterwards the urban policies will be applied to the block chosen as pilot.

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

Density of the block

Residential groundfloor Residential

Homogeneous and heterogeneous courtyards heterongenous courtyards homogeouns courtyards

40 m

0 20

CHARACTER OF THE COURTYARDS IN NOLO BLOCK

289

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

2. Links of courtyards

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

wall

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

open wall

courtyards

public fluid

3. How many people are in the buildings?

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

public fluid

semi-private

semi-public

wall

hotspost

public

family nucleos 40 m

0 20

STRATEGY FOR URBAN COURTYARDS

4. Gradient of collectivness

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

4. Gradient of publicness

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

3. Definition of flows

2. Visual corssing through walls

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

1. Mantaining the enclousure

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

1.The barrier of the wall

flows

NOLO COURTYARDS

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

small groups

medium groups

big groups

public

private

semi-pivate small groups

semi collective medium groups

collective big groups

public 40 m

0 20

STRATEGY FOR DOMESTIC COURTYARDS

291

REALIZZATO CON UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK VERSIONE PER STUDENTI

Urban policy in Nolo block

public

colelctive

NOLO COURTYARDS

The research and considerations made on the courtyards are summarized and translated into â&#x20AC;&#x153;practicalâ&#x20AC;? indications for users in the document of urban policies. The urban policies are, therefore, general indications that describe the changes to be made concerning the walls, surfaces, and functions of the ground floors.

private

Basements

The urban policies are identified as different gradients of public and private that organize the positioning of different devices accordingly. These gradients involve both urban courtyards as well as domestic ones. However, the method by which gradients are defined in the two types of courtyards is different: if in domestic courtyards we consider the number of inhabitants using the court in question (i.e. how many different apartments overlook it), in urban courtyards we consider the openings and the flow amount that is generated accordingly. This process leads to identify before the project is implemented, which will be part of the character of the spaces in question, whether they are frequented, lively, and productive, or more reserved corners. However, there is no clear boundary, and the interventions tend to emphasize this blurred quality. Therefore, three places of intervention have been identified that see an intermediate band shared by both urban and domestic courtyards. The urban policies are therefore divided into three bands: public, semipublic, and collective. The last band, the private one, refers to the courts owned by a single-family and therefore is not considered in the policies.

PUBLIC

SEMI-PUBLIC

COLLETICTIVE

Wall permeable physically

Wall visually permeable

Void impermeable surface

Void Permeable surface

The walls prescribed for public spaces are physically permeable to allow the porosity of the spaces and the consequent flow of people. For semipublic and collective spaces, on the other hand, permeable walls are provided but only visually to allow the space between the courtyards and avoid isolated places.

The surfaces are treated in a waterproof way along the most frequented path, while the surface is waterproof moving towards the semi-public areas. In the collective areas, no rule determines the character, so the placement is made according to the case. However, the use of green and therefore waterproof surfaces is promoted.

PRIVATE

Void > impermeable surface

Social functions are suggested for all three public-private gradients. However, there is a differentiation of services according to the band: if in the most public area you indicate the inclusion of functions such as co-working spaces, in collective spaces you can think of using the free ground floors as temporary extra rooms. Moreover, in the public area, it is suggested the insertion of stores and workshops that can benefit from the visibility of the most frequented route, while in the intermediate areas it is suggested the activation of functions such as common kitchens or play areas for children.

< permaeable surface

/ Basement functions - productive (shops, laboratories, restaurants, galleries); - social services ( clincs, study and co-working spaces)

Basement functions - recreational services ( senior center, childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s centre) - social services ( laundry, sharing kicthen)

Basement functions - social services ( extra room, laundry, sharing kicthen)

40 m

0 20

URBAN POLICY

293

Meta-project: urban courtyards

NOLO COURTYARDS

By meta-project we mean the application of urban policies on the courtyards considered. Therefore the indications are not design or drawn but indicate qualitatively the characteristics of partition walls, surfaces and ground floors respectively. The meta-project shows how dividing walls are indicated as vertical surfaces that are visually or physically permeable. Reusable ground floors are also identified: these are mostly car boxes, warehouses or guards no longer in use. The soil is divided into permeable and impermeable parts, partly according to active use and partly according to the needs of the inhabitants. From the meta-project the individual inhabitants can choose how to carry out the actual project at a later date, whether with the help of a specialist figure such as the architect or use this tool as a basis for DIY interventions.

Urban permeable surface Urban impermeable surface Reactivated ground floor Wall physically permeable Wall physically permeable (storage-wall) Wall physically permeable (roofed-wall)

15 5

META-PROJECT

40m

295

NOLO COURTYARDS

The walls we are proposing act as elements of separation that are, at the same time, elements of connection: the passages between one courtyard and another are treated by walls designed to be elements that maintain the division of ownership but that, instead of emphasizing the distance between the courts, become devices of social cohesion, strengthen the union of the two courtyards, leading to the creation of a single community space. The three walls used in the NoLo project activate not only the threshold itself but also the surface of the courtyards.

All the three walls (swiveling wall, storage wall, roofed wall) are characterized by systems that allow different uses during the day, the year, or for different users to ensure a high diversity and variety of functions. There are no walls dedicated to a particular user, but they can be managed by different groups over time. They are systems that support processes of appropriation by the inhabitants thanks to flexible or polivalent structures, that is, left “open” to the choice of users.

The walls are able, thanks to the materials used, to emphasize the spatial hierarchies between one courtyard and another, underlining the porosity of the spaces or their closure to the public.

WALL

SURFACE

297

In the ground floors left free, underused, or previously used as car boxes, new functions are inserted to reactivate the fabric of the block. These are compartments of various sizes in which are included activities of different types, aimed at all citizens or more devoted to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. The various functions are in any case managed in such a way as to not only reactivate the courtyards but also to strengthen the economic fabric of the block, stimulating the local economy and the initiatives of the residents. The spaces on the ground floor support the functions that take place in the courtyards and are organized in such a way as to always allow the presence of various groups of inhabitants in the same place or groups of people who can help each other. The ground floors are designed as spaces that can be extensions of private homes, living rooms, workspaces, but also kitchens and games rooms that can accommodate a larger number of people but that try to create a cozy and domestic atmosphere.

GROUND FLOORS

URBAN COURTYARDS

A stroll in the urban courtyards

NOLO COURTYARDS

In the southern part of the NoLo urban courtyards, the urban promenade links four different courtyards creating a public path that crosses different environments. The systems of designed walls create liveable thresholds between the different properties, both in the most public area as well as in the more intimate ones. The degrees of publicness are underlined by these structures together with the drawing of the ground and the different materials of the flooring. The first courtyard is characterized by a vegetable garden and a wooded area furnish with thables as sitting. In this courtyard, a laundry and a bar are located on the empty ground floors. The bar creates a covered link between the main hallway and the area of the wood. The second and more intern courtyard can be reached both by a coworking area as well as by the present passage. This space is characterized by Meditteranean vegetation that frames a small exhibition area and it is divided by the subsequent property, devoted to a bowling club, thanks to a swiveling wall. The wall allows the flow of a large number of people and invites people to go in the last courtyard that intercepts the main way. Together with the outdoor path, a dance club creates a link between these two properties. In the eastern courtyard is positioned a curved table that is mainly used together with the common kitchen on the ground floor. Sports facilities are scattered along the urban promenade to create a health path. From this main path, a series of secondary ways branch off. In the northern area, a narrow passage leads to a quiet place furnished with a circular table-flowerbed and to an â&#x20AC;&#x153;open living roomâ&#x20AC;?. These two spaces are divided, and linked, thanks to a roofed wall that can be used for different purposes. On the other side, in the southern area, a corridor leads to a library that is linked to another courtyard characterized by the presence of high trees. The library creates with the space in front of it a unique continuous free area. In the entire site area, the storage walls are added also to the existing walls: it allows the exploitation of the limit itself.

URBAN COURTYARDS

0 7.5 m

NOLO COURTYARDS

In this courtyard is organized a vegetable garden, an outdoor living room in front of the entrance of the houses dedicated to the inhabitants that at the same time act as a threshold for the public. A semi-circular sitting hides partially the secondary entrance to the houses and creates a more intimate space that overlooks the greener spot. This bench encourages the entrance to a previous open passage that has been transformed into a co-working space. The gardening tools are contained in the storage wall that divides the courtyard from the adjacent property, here are hidden also some water harvesting systems. The wall can be used as a gathering spot. A bar overlooks the hallway that is used as a covered space for the tables. This space is mainly used by the inhabitants as the vegetable garden defines who is taking care of the area. However, all the people that walk through the courtyards can enjoy the smell of the aromatic plants and sit on the circular bench. The spaces at the ground floor are open to everyone too.

[Pic.1] View of the vegetable garden with the storage wall on the background and the semicircular sitting at the front.

2 1

GARDENING AREAS

303

NOLO COURTYARDS

This courtyard is bordered by a storage wall on one side and by a roofed wall on the facing side. This space is organized with a circular flowerbed that can contain mediumheight trees. The border of the flower bed is designed as a table that overlooks the green. A large platform hides an outdoor kitchen. The unused concierge is transformed into a laundry that faces the garden, here a desk and other furniture create a pleasant environment where work or study. All the public can use this space and take advantage of the table. However, the presence of the narrow passage produces a sense of intimacy and the people are almost encouraged to choose a different way. This is a place for peace and silence, but it can be transformed into a large dining room when the kitchen is active.

[Pic.2] View of the forest table from the roofed wall. On the background the storage wall.

2 1

FOREST TABLE

305

NOLO COURTYARDS

This courtyard can be completely isolated thanks to the roofed wall, or it can be open and leave the passage free. This space is characterized by a flowerbed, a sandbox, and an outdoor kitchen. The courtyard can work together with the roofed wall creating a safe and controlled area devoted to children. However, everyone can use the devices when the wall is left open.

[Pic.3] View of the open living room, the roofed wall, and the adjacent courtyard are visible

2 1

OPEN LIVING ROOM

307

NOLO COURTYARDS

The gathering wood welcomes the people entering from the hallway. The closed border is furnished with a storage wall that contains also a kitchen. A playground that can be also used as sports furniture is located near the platforms. The empty floor plan is transformed into a large laundry. Also, a bar overlooks this courtyard. This space, close to the public promenade, is completely open to the city. It can gather people of different ages thanks to the variety of the object inserted. The laundry is open to everyone and this creates a secondary public path in the courtyards.

[Pic.4] View of the platform with the tables.

2 5m

GATHERING CARPET

309

NOLO COURTYARDS

This courtyard is thought of as a Mediterranean spot in the city. There are some sports facilities scattered on the grass: these objects create a health-path with similar furniture in the open courtyards. A small area for exhibitions or gatherings is settled among the flowers, while a storage wall limits the border with the domestic courtyard. The second threshold is organized with a swiveling wall. The corridor transforms into a coworking space and leads to this garden creating a pleasant work view. The courtyard is open to the city and the furniture allows the space to be used both by sportsmen and children. However, the flowers create a pleasant environment for everyone that wants to spend some time in the small theatre.

[Pic.5] View of the flower field with the exhibition area.

2 5m

FLOWER FIELD

311

NOLO COURTYARDS

This courtyard is characterized by a long table that, thanks to its curves, allows a large number of people to be seated in the same place. The table surrounds the existing flower bed, while the previous dividing wall is covered with a storage wall. The two rooms on the ground floor that havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t been exploited before the intervention, are now used as an art-workshop and as a common kitchen. This court is open to everyone, the proximity with the public promenade exposes the art workshop to a large public, while the kitchen, used by the neighbors and separated with a grass carpet from the promenade, is positioned closer to the houses. View of the courtyard with the curved table and the existing flower bed. The door of the shared kitchen can be seen behind the tree.

[Pic.7] View of the large table, on the background the forestlike treatment of the ground.

2 5m

COMMON KITCHEN

313

NOLO COURTYARDS

This courtyard is divided from the courtyard of the library thanks to a swiveling wall. In this area, a playground, that can be used also as a sports facility, organizes the eastern part, while the western area is filled with high trees. Under their shadows sittings, a large table and a kitchen are positioned.

The warehouse in this courtyard is transformed into a library. There are two accesses, one from the â&#x20AC;&#x153;flower fieldâ&#x20AC;? courtyard and another from the hallway of the courtyard. The library is thought of as a continuous space with the front courtyard. A storage wall leans on the existing wall of the northern side of the courtyard.

This courtyard is open to everyone. It is well controlled and protected, for this reason, the playground can be easily controlled. The less public area is treated as a forest, where high trees create a more intimate atmosphere. Consequently, even if open to everyone, the tables and the kitchen is thought to be used mostly by the inhabitants.

The courtyard is open to the city but tries to create a quiet place, where people can read, work or study in a pleasant environment.

2 5m

LIBRARY

2 5m

OPEN LIVING ROOM

315

NOLO COURTYARDS

This courtyard is limited on two sides by the designed walls: on one side there is a swiveling wall designed to allow the passage of a quite large number of people, it faces a roofed wall equipped with services and a kitchen. In the courtyard is located a platform underlined by framed sittings and a flowerbed with fruit-trees. The most private area of the courtyard is outdistanced to the most populated passage thanks to the presence of the trees and a small wild field of flowers and herbs. The platform can be used by different groups of people during the day for diverse purposes, small groups can do gymnastics or it can simply be a gathering spot.

[Pic.10] View of the platform. On the back of the flower field.

2 5m

GATHERING CARPET

317

NOLO COURTYARDS

This courtyard is characterized by high trees that create an intimate atmosphere. The platform wall divides the garden from the adjacent property and allows a large number of uses. In the previous car box on the ground floor, a closed playground is activated. This function is also spread outdoors thanks to the presence of a playground and a sandbox.

This courtyard is characterized by an elevated grass field in which a skate park is inserted. Sittings run along the northern wall through the grass till a wooded area. This â&#x20AC;&#x153;audienceâ&#x20AC;? space is useful both for the skatepark but mostly it can be used as an outdoor cinema as the overlooking wall is high and blind and can be used as a screen. In the park, some outdoor showers are scattered. In the area closer to the street is located an outdoor kitchen and a playground.

This area is easy to control and far from the main flow of people, for this reason, can be considered devoted to children. However, it is open to everyone that is searching for a wooded calm area.

This courtyard can be used by a large variety of users and it can be considered an important gathering spot in the block.

2 5m

PLAYGROUND

2 5m

SECRET GARDEN

319

NOLO COURTYARDS

This courtyard is characterized by the presence of a co-working area inserted in a previous depot on the ground floor. The area that faces the windows of the room can be furnished with movable tables. The courtyard also presents a bike-rack and it is divided from the adjacent courtyard with a swelling wall. This court is particularly used by the co-workingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; s users, however, it is thought to allow a high flow of people.

[Pic.12] Picture of the view visible from the co-working area.

2 5m

CO-WORKING FIELD

321

NOLO COURTYARDS

A large platform is located in this courtyard that can be used for different sports activities. A storage wall with an outdoor kitchen occupies the eastern wall, while a platform wall divides the courtyard with a southern secret garden. The empty rooms on the ground floors are used as a laundry and as a shop. The platform can be used by sportsmen or children, however, it can act as space for an open-air market where the shops and the workshops of the block can sell their items. The large table can be used both as a dining space, considering that a kitchen is located near it, but it can be used also during all the day as support for different activities.

[Pic.13] View of the platform from the entrance hall. The platform wall is visible behind it.

2 5m

OPEN LIVING ROOM

323

Meta-project. Domestic courtyard

NOLO COURTYARDS

By meta-project we mean the application of urban policies on the courtyards considered. Therefore the indications are not designed or drawn but indicate qualitatively the characteristics of partition walls, surfaces, and ground floors respectively. The meta-project shows how dividing walls are indicated as vertical surfaces that are visually permeable. Reusable ground floors are also identified: these are mostly car boxes, warehouses, or guards no longer in use. The soil is divided into permeable and impermeable parts, partly according to active use and partly according to the needs of the inhabitants. From the meta-project, the individual inhabitants can choose how to carry out the actual project at a later date, whether with the help of a specialist figure such as the architect or use this tool as a basis for DIY interventions.

Domestic permeable surface Domestic impermeable surface Reactivated ground floor Wall visually permeable

DOMESTIC COURTYARDS. META-PROJECT

325

A stroll in the domestic courtyards

NOLO COURTYARDS

The design of the domestic courtyards is not characterized by a linear path between the courtyards. The project is characterized by precise interventions aimed at suggesting possible reuse of the courtyards in the new spaces for the residence. These pages show the interventions in the individual courtyards of the block.

DOMESTIC COURTYARDS

0 7.5 m

327

NOLO COURTYARDS

The courtyard is characterized by a large green area. Visually permeable walls have been inserted along the edges

The courtyard can be used by a wide variety of users thanks to the inclusion of a green area and a corner for playground and sports tools. The large number of people who could use the courtyard has led to the inclusion of a long table. The curved shape of the modules allows the use of the support for a large number of people.

2 5m

Via delle Leghe, 2

2 5m

Via delle Leghe,18

329

NOLO COURTYARDS

The courtyard is used by a smaller number of users. The area has been treated with both permeable and waterproof surfaces. The ground floor, overlooking the courtyard, becomes an area for a common kitchen, a small laundry and a study area.

[Pic.15] View of the courtyards

2 5m

Via delle Leghe, 6

331

NOLO COURTYARDS

In the courtyard a wider area has been used for the insertion of a green area equipped with sports facilities and playground

Inside the courtyard a large green area has been inserted. On the evening floor, the presence of a small covered passage has allowed the insertion of a kitchen open to all residents.

2 5m

Via delle Leghe, 6

2 5m

Via delle Leghe, 14

333

NOLO COURTYARDS

The courtyard has two reusable voids on the ground floor for condominiums. A laundry room and a study room have been inserted for this purpose given the large number of residents who can make use of these spaces. On one side of the courtyard a visually permeable wall has been inserted which serves both as a separation of the courtyard from the other properties and as a small storage space for the residents.

The courtyard is adjacent to another domestic courtyard. for this reason, a visually permeable wall has been inserted which also serves as storage for the residents.

2 5m

Via delle Leghe, 16

2 5m

Via delle Leghe, 14

335

NOLO COURTYARDS

The courtyard has both a green area and a paved area to allow the courtyard to be as versatile as possible.

The courtyards are in communication with a visually permeable wall. The areas have both permeable and impermeable surfaces

2 5m

Via delle Leghe, 16

2 5m

Via delle Leghe, 24 -Via Luigi Varanini, 9

337

NOLO COURTYARDS

The surface of the courtyard has underneath an underground car park for this reason large green or permeable areas are not possible. In any case, palygrounds have been included.

2 5m

Viale Monza, 59

339

Details

NOLO COURTYARDS

System The division walls as well as the main furniture that organize the space of the courtyards are composed by the same elements in order to achieve a uniformation of the intervention. All the objects are in fact composed using three materials: steel for structures, wood for opaque infills, polycarbonate for translucent infills. Moreover, also the same basic objects are used to compose all the elements. The walls are all composed by the same modular panel: it a structure composed by metal cross profiles (basic measure 300mm), metal L profiles (basic lenght 20mm), anchored together thanks to screws. This basic structure can be closed with three diverse types of infills: wooden planks, milled wooden boards, or polycarbonate sheets. A metal tube act as pivot

Frame module

The milled wooden board with the cross metal profile is the horizontal support for tables and sittings. The same tube that is used for the pivot in the modules is the vertical supports for the board. A second module for the horizontal supports is a wooden milled ashlar in order to create organic shapes. All these systems are modular and can be repeated composing different shapes to allow different actions and behaviours. Sviweling wall

Storage wall

Furnitures

ELEMENTS

341

NOLO COURTYARDS

0. MODULE FRAME The swiveling wall is a fence composed of modules of different widths that rotate around central pins allowing the opening of the wall. The sizes of the panels are variable and are chosen according to the degree of physical permeability desidered, that is, the flow of users that is presumed to cross the threshold marked by the wall: the wider the modue, the greater the opening that can be obtained in the wall. The opening is also obviously influenced by the positioning of the pivot on the width of the module.

scale 1:50

= type B. 01 metal cross profile 30mm t 2mm

= type C.

02 metal L profile 15x40mm t 2mm 03 metal plates t 50mm 04 iron rod d 15mm 05 MDF slats

= type D.

06 polycarbonate sheets 07 polycarbonate sheets 08 metal sheets t 2 mm 09 metal tube d 60mm t 5mm 10 plinth 11 screws

plan

12 concrete screed 13 IPE 80mm

sez aaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

14 IPE 100mm

02 03

15 metal support

16 metal plate t 10mm 17 larch planking t 2 w 14 18 larch sublistel

plan

sez aaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

scale 1:5

DETAILS

19 flooring support 20 metal tubes d 10mm t 2mm 21 metal tubes d 20mm t 5mm

343

NOLO COURTYARDS

1. SVIWELING WALL The swiveling wall is a fence composed of modules of different widths that rotate around central pins allowing the opening of the wall. The sizes of the panels are variable and are chosen according to the degree of physical permeability desidered, that is, the flow of users that is presumed to cross the threshold marked by the wall: the wider the modue, the greater the opening that can be obtained in the wall. The opening is also obviously influenced by the positioning of the pivot on the width of the module.

scale 1:50 01 metal cross profile 30mm t 2mm 02 metal L profile 15x40mm t 2mm 03 metal plates t 50mm 04 iron rod d 15mm

05 MDF slats 06 polycarbonate sheets 07 polycarbonate sheets 08 metal sheets t 2 mm 09 metal tube d 60mm t 5mm 10 plinth 11 screws 12 concrete screed

plan

13 IPE 80mm 14 IPE 100mm

sez aaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

02 03

15 metal support 16 metal plate t 10mm 17 larch planking t 2 w 14

plan

sez aaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

scale 1:5

DETAILS

18 larch sublistel 19 flooring support 20 metal tubes d 10mm t 2mm 21 metal tubes d 20mm t 5mm

NOLO COURTYARDS

2. STORAGE WALL The storage wall is thought of as storage that can be used by both the properties that border on it. The wall can be equipped inside with different devices to allow several uses that can be modified during the time and indulging the inhabitants’ needs. Although the wall cannot be physically crossed except through specially designed openings or only if there are no horizontal supports between the two membranes, this device provides the ideal conditions to trigger social cohesion systems and to support any groups of people. The table, in case both yards are usable, creates a space for exchange and sharing between neighbors, if both yards are public, invites you to enter and discover the less public courtyard. The same mechanisms are activated thanks to other elements such as the kitchen, usable from both courtyards, which allows the transformation of the wall from a divider to an element able to strengthen the union of the two courtyards, leading to the creation of a single community space that can be used, for example, as a large outdoor dining room. In case this type of wall is leaning against a pre-existing wall, it allows the exploitation of the limit itself with the same functions listed above and is in any case able to activate the space of the courtyard that delimits.

scale 1:50

08 06

The storage wall consists of a metal structure anchored to the ground with vertical elements and horizontal reinforcements. The horizontal reinforcements act as lining for supports that can be used as shelves and that can be added or removed.

01 metal cross profile 30mm t 2mm 02 metal L profile 15x40mm t 2mm 03 metal plates t 50mm 04 iron rod d 15mm 05 MDF slats 06 polycarbonate sheets 07 polycarbonate sheets

Type A

08 metal sheets t 2 mm 09 metal tube d 60mm t 5mm 10 plinth 11 screws 12 concrete screed plan

13 IPE 80mm 14 IPE 100mm

12 16

sez aa’

15 metal support 16 metal plate t 10mm 17 larch planking t 2 w 14

18 larch sublistel 19 flooring support

sez aa’ plan

Type D

scale 1:5

DETAILS

20 metal tubes d 10mm t 2mm 21 metal tubes d 20mm t 5mm

347

NOLO COURTYARDS

3. ROOFED WALL The roofed wall can be used either as an element of separation between a courtyard and the other, having at the extremes the walls that delimit the boundaries, or can be positioned at the end of a hallway, so that the space of the inhabited wall can be used as an extension of the hallway itself. The system of fixtures and infillings is designed in such a way as to allow the use of the central space of the wall as a separate room, accessible from one side or both: the side gates can close inwards leaving two side passages free and organizing, in fact, a closed internal space.In the roofed wall can be inserted into various services, not only toilets but also kitchen and storage for the most voluminous objects. The supporting structure is composed of metal pillars anchored employing plates to a platform of aggregates at the base. The pillars support a system of metal beams hidden by a false ceiling and covered with protective sheaths.

01 metal cross profile 30mm t 2mm 02 metal L profile 15x40mm t 2mm 03 metal plates t 50mm 04 iron rod d 15mm 05 MDF slats 06 polycarbonate sheets 07 polycarbonate sheets 08 metal sheets t 2 mm

scale 1:50

09 metal tube d 60mm t 5mm 10 plinth 11 screws 12 concrete screed

13 IPE 80mm

14 IPE 100mm 15 metal support 16 metal plate t 10mm

17 larch planking t 2 w 14

19 flooring support

20 metal tubes d 10mm t 2mm

18 larch sublistel

21 metal tubes d 20mm t 5mm

Type D

16 17 18

plan

sect

scale 1:5

DETAILS

NOLO COURTYARDS

3. FURNITURES The furniture system was designed using the same components as the wall elements. The frame module is turned upside down and becomes a support for wooden planks. The furniture system consists of two elements, tables and benches, that can be placed inside the courtyards. For this system a special curved panel has also been inserted, designed to create a furniture that can be used by a large number of people even in small spaces.

300cm

100cm

scale 1:50

01 metal cross profile 30mm t 2mm

type B cross section system + profiles

02 metal L profile 15x40mm t 2mm

03 metal plates t 50mm 04 iron rod d 15mm

05 MDF slats

06 polycarbonate sheets 07 polycarbonate sheets 08 metal sheets t 2 mm 09 metal tube d 60mm t 5mm 10 plinth 11 screws 12 concrete screed 13 IPE 80mm 14 IPE 100mm 15 metal support 16 metal plate t 10mm 17 larch planking t 2 w 14 18 larch sublistel 19 flooring support

20 metal tubes d 10mm t 2mm

DETAILS

21 metal tubes d 20mm t 5mm

FOR FUTURE STUDIES

The pandemic has had a significant impact on the value of the space in our homes. The small extensions of the house outside helped to maintain a pleasant environment even during the lockdown period. We noticed how a series of practices were established in the courtyards and the pertinent spaces of the house that were previously carried out only outside the domestic space: those who used the garden for sport, to let the dog walk, to play, to relax. The inhabitants have noticed the presence of these inbetween spaces between the domestic and urban scales, is it possible to think about using these spaces even at the end of the health emergency? The social dynamics in the post-pandemic era will be modified and open spaces will have to play a key role in the management of relationships between people. It is necessary, in fact, a process of extension of public space that, however, does not dilute its character. By focusing on the microgeographic of the neighborhood, it is possible to strengthen the neighborhood networks and avoid overcrowding of central public spaces. Courtyards in ordinary construction have over time acquired a character of subordination to the buildings to which they are linked and have often been considered mere servant spaces. To this day, they are often a remnant of space without an identity character. However, courtyards can be necessary resources to cope with two other emergencies besides the pandemic: the housing issue and the ecological environmental one. On the one hand, trends in the real estate market show that the supply does not match the demand for housing. Rethinking the spaces in housing-related environments, emphasizing the role of sharing, can help to stem current problems. Moreover, it is necessary to face an ecological emergency that is changing the planet: courtyards can be useful to radicalize green spaces in response to climate change. A series of laws in the course of Italian legal history has allowed the inhabitants to cement the pertinent spaces of the house to be used as parking spaces (among others, the Tognoli law). A few decades ago, when these measures were enacted, it was necessary to allow each citizen their independence through car ownership support. Today the emergency is the opposite. An attempt is being made to go to cities where citizens can find all the services they need just a few minutes' walks from their home, the place of work possibly included, thus limiting the use of means of transport and, consequently, reducing pollution. In this ambitious program, the ground-floor rooms overlooking the courtyards, already used as car parks or abandoned, also play a fundamental role in the settlement of services to citizens. In today's panorama, the courtyards are still locked resources. Through the lens of commons, it is possible to see the potential of these spaces and understand the mechanisms and key points that to "unlock" them and make them "productive" spaces in the city. The commons is a concept originally applied to the economic sphere that has recently been compared to architecture. It does not ignore, however, other disciplines such as the social one.

355

FOR FUTURE STUDIES

During the Final Design Studio with a research group on the subject, the commons has been analyzed from three different points of view: at the level of space, user, and use. The characteristics of the three subjects taken into consideration were then identified, which support the inclusion of the commons: respectively porosity, appropriation, and diversity.

city is promoted, making the blocks porous spaces that can be crossed, thus complying with the spatial characteristics of the commons. The walls dividing the property between one courtyard and another remain to allow control of the spaces, but they become surfaces that can be crossed, physically, or just with the eye according to the policy's indications.

The city needs interconnected spaces to allow the reactivation of the urban fabric, the "porous" city allows the insertion and supports the social interaction between the inhabitants. At the level of the user, it is necessary to establish a sense of belonging that makes the space inhabited and habitable and consequently controlled. It is necessary, finally, considering the uses, a functional mix to allow spaces to be exploited over time, and by a greater number of people. This can develop thanks to the inclusion of multi-purpose spaces, which accommodate different functions and practices without changing shape. The commons, however, mainly concern the managerial sphere of resources. The application of this concept to architecture therefore also implies considerations at this level, i.e. regarding the management and development of resources, in this case spatial, over time.

The surfaces become paths grafted onto green areas, which house trees and plants, forming "secret gardens" in the courtyards, green areas that make the space more healthy and pleasant. Here we promote the inclusion of simple, multi-purpose furnishings that can attract users by encouraging their participation and appropriation.

As part of the research, architectural case studies have been analyzed through the lens of commons on three different scales: furniture and practices, spatial qualities, and urban policies. This was done in order to identify a clearer panorama of action for design purposes that included every level of intervention, from the most minute one of furniture, through a more properly architectural scale, considering the qualities of the space, and finally arriving at regulations that allow interventions on an urban scale. The common goal of the projects analyzed is the ability to manage aggregation among users. The study of the projects has led to the definition of tools and practices that allow the exploitation and organization of spaces comparable to courtyards. The conclusions and knowledge acquired as a result of the research laid the foundations for the definition of the project proposal. The project proposes the implementation of innovative urban social practices that contribute to meet human needs for socialization, producing changes in the social and urban fabric of post-pandemic cities. It is proposed as a set of tools and strategies for participatory design processes or to allow the possibility of flexible space for change. Imagine the promulgation of an "anti-Tognoli" law, or rather a legislative instrument that reverses the tendency to occupy courtyards with car parks, which take possession of collective space and divide it into fragments that are difficult to use. The law is combined with urban policies, aided by explanatory manuals to be distributed to the inhabitants, which manage the space of the courtyards on three different fronts: the walls, the surface, and the ground floors overlooking the inner space of the courtyards. The walls are made permeable: the openness of the courtyards to the

The disused ground floors, because they were former guards or warehouses or car boxes, are reactivated with the inclusion of services useful to the community or the inhabitants. This not only promotes diversity in the urban fabric, attracting different types of users but also gives the inhabitants the possibility to create a local productive fabric that can also support them economically. The interventions are diversified according to the character of the courts, domestic and urban, and according to the gradient that indicates the space on a scale that goes from the most "public" to the most private. The character of the courtyard concerns the enclosure: if a courtyard has homogeneous facades a domestic character will prevail, while if the facades are different the atmosphere could be comparable to that of an urban place. The gradient is identified by considering the character itself and the flows generated by imagining the crossing of spaces. The design process consists of a succession of changes of scale, of continuous "controls" which are then applied to a general scale from the focus of a typical block. Although reference is made to a specific place, the design indications are imagined for a system that can also be adapted to other contexts. In fact, the NoLo block in Milan is chosen as the pilot block. It is an example, but the specific applications are then expanded to the urban scale. The choice of the block takes into consideration a series of "average" characteristics that allow for easier application of the project's fundamentals to a wider scale. After an analysis of the patterns of the building in Milan, the Corso Venezia - Corso Buenos Aires - Viale Monza axis is taken as a section of territory capable of crossing the different eras of the city's history. The intercepted Nil is examined and in particular, the isolated types of each nucleus are analyzed, and then, precisely, the pilot block is defined. At the NoLo block, urban policies are implemented and projects are proposed for three different types of walls and furniture. These are objects that share the construction system and therefore techniques and materials: a system of cross-shaped metal profiles is used to create a framework capable of supporting different infills. This module, if placed horizontally, becomes a support, a table, or a seat. The walls can

357

FOR FUTURE STUDIES

be swiveling wall, storage wall, and roofed wall: the three permeable divisions share the system of the modules and their opening through a pivot and they differ in the structure which, however, sees the use of the same elements. These objects are designed to be organized in different spaces and to adapt to different locations. They are supports that make the space accessible, allow its use and appropriation, without defining it completely. On the contrary, they are inserted as supports for sociality and aggregation, letting the atmosphere of each courtyard and the uses that will be established in the space define its general character. The system, therefore, sums up the characteristics of the commons even on this minor scale. The design of the law may seem like a provocation, but the benefits that would be gained from opening up the courtyards, or part of them, to the city are many. It would be possible to revitalize a part of the urban fabric in disuse, making it a useful space to deal with issues related to the pandemic, housing, and environmental problems, generating new economic and productive opportunities for the inhabitants, as well as encouraging social aggregation. Through the commons, it is possible to identify the characteristics able to manage the project at different scales, from the city to the retail one. The courtyards can therefore be the subjects of a new type of public space, halfway between the domestic and urban scales, and therefore able to manage the ambiguous balance between the two contexts. Courtyards, especially the ordinary ones, have not been the subject of study so far. For this reason, this research would like to be a study from which, in the future, further reasoning and proposals for the revitalization of courtyards can be developed. It does not pose itself as a defined and definitive stance, but, as in the case of the project itself, leaves room for future adaptations and modifications.

A GLIMPS IN URBAN COURTYARD

359

PROJECT ALONG THE CORING

361

PART I/ Courtyards

www.domusweb.it (2020, August, 12)

BIbliography

O'Sullivan F., Paris Mayor: It's Time for a '15-Minute City', 2020. www.bloomberg.com (2020, August, 12)

Biraghi M., Damiani G., Aldo Van Eyck, Passi verso una disciplina configurativa, in Le parole dell’architettura, un’antologia di testi teorici e critici: 1945-2000, Torino, Einaudi,2008

PART II/ Commons

Canniggia G., Gian Luigi Maffei Lettura dell'edilizia di base, Saggi Marsilio, Venezia, 1979. Cannigia G., Ragionamenti di tipologia, G.L.Maffei, Firenze, 1997 D'Alessandro D, Gola M, Appolloni L, et al. COVID-19 and Living space challenge. Well-being and Public Health recommendations for a healthy, safe, and sustainable housing. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(9-S):6175. Published 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.23750/abm.v91i9-S.10115. De Boeck L., De Geyter X., After-Sprawl. research for the contemporary city, NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2002 Lathouri M., The city as a project: Types, Typical Objects and Typologies, Published 2011 Jan 15 doi:10.1002/ad.1185 Moneo R., On typology, in Oppositions,MIT Press, Cambridge,1978 Piccinno G., Lega E., Spatial design for inbetween urban spaces, Maggioli Editore, 2012

BIbliography Abalos I., Il buon abitare. Pensare le case della modernità, Editorial Hustavo Gili, Barcelona, 2000, Cristian marinotti edizioni, Milano 2009 Aureli P.R., City as Political Form: Four Archetypes of Urban Transformation, in Architectural Design n. 81, January/February 2011 Amin A., Thrift N., Città. Ripensare la dimensione urbana, Il Mulino, Bologna 2005, Aries P.,1973, Centuries of childhood, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1958 Avermaete, T., Constructing the commons, TU Delft, Delft, 2016 Alloway L., Banham R., Lewis D., This is tomorrow Exhibition Catalogue, Whitechapel Art Gallery, London, 1956 Bollier D., Commoning as a Transformative so-cial paradigm, April 2015, thenextsystem.org/com-muning-as-a-transformative-social-paradigm

Russi N. Coricelli F., Quaglio C., Rolfo D., Rehousing: La casa come dispositivo di integrazione, Quaderni, Torino 2017

Biraghi M., Damiani G, Passi verso una disciplina configurativa, in Le parole dell’architettura, un’antologia di testi teorici e critici: 1945-2000, Torino, Einaudi, 2008

Russi N., Background. Il progetto del vuoto, Quodlibet, Macerata, 2019

Cacciari M., La città, Pazzini Editore, Rimini, 2004

Secchi B., Progetto di suolo, in: “Casabella” n. 520-521, jan.-feb. 1986

Cieraad, I., Domestic space, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2017.

Smithson A., Team 10 meetings, Rizzoli, 1991

Collotti F., Collotti E., Collective housing and the socialist city, the keycase of the Karl-Marx-Hof in Vienna, Firenze Architettura, 2016,

Smithson A., Smithson P., The Charged Void: Architecture, The Monacelli Press, NewYork, 2001 Strauven F., Aldo Van Eyck. The Shape of Relativity, Architectur a & Natura, Amsterdam, 1998 Zucchi C., L’architettura dei cortili Milanesi 1535-1706, Electa, Milano, 1989 Sitography Sennett R., Come dovremmo vivere? La densità nelle città del postpandemia, Domus 1046.

Collignon, Domestic spaces and cultural geography, Mercantanti Lorenzo. Percorsi di geografia tra cultura, società e turismo, Patron, Bologna, 2010, De Angelis M., Stavrides S., An Architektur- On the Commons: A Public Interview, De Carlo G., L’architettura della partecipazione, Quodlibet, Macerata, 2015 Foucault M, The order of the discourse, in Un-tying the text: A poststructuralist reader, Boston, Routledge, and Kegan Paul, 1981 Gehl J., Vita in città. Spazio urbano e relazioni sociali, Maggioli Editore,

Santarcangelo di Romagna, 1991. Guidarini S., New Urban Housing: l’abitare condiviso in Europa, Skira, Milan, 2018 Habermas J., The Structural transformation of the Public Space, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1989 Habraken N. J., Supports, An Alternative to Mass Housing, I ed. Amsterdam, 1961. Hardin G., The Tragedy of the Commons, 1968. Helfrich S., Bollier D., Patterns of commoning, Commons Strategy Group and Off the Common, Press , 2012 Jacobs J., Vita e morte delle grandi città. Saggio sulle metropoli americane, Edizioni di Comunità, Torino, 2000 Kent S., Domestic architecture and the use of space, Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge Kollhoff H., Costruzione urbana contro alloggio / Urban building versus Housing, in Lotus n.94, Electa, Milan, 1997 Lefebvre H., La Production de l’espace. Paris: Anthropos, 1974 Lynch K., L’immagine della città, Marsilio, Padova, 1969 Maak N., Living complex. From Zombie City to the New Communal, Hirmer, Munich, 2015 Mandipur A, Public and Private space of the city,Routledge, London, 2003 Montgomery J., Making a City: Urbanity, vitality and urban design, Journal of Urban Design 3, 1998. Muller M., Niggli D., Together! The new Architecture of the collective, Ruby Press, città 2017, p. 39. Murawski M., Introduction: crystallising the social condenser, The Journal of Architecture, 2017 Ostrom, Governing the Commons: the Evolution for Collective Action, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1990 Ostrom E. and Hess C., Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2011 Illich I., Silence is a Commons, Tokyo, Japan, March 21, 1982 Piccinno G., Lega E., Spatial design for in-between urban spaces, Maggioli Edizioni, Santarcangelo di Romagna, 2012

Puigjaner A.,Wheelwright Prize Lecture: “Kitchen Stories”, Cambridge, 2018 Raskin E., On the Nature of Variety, summer issue of Columbia University Forum, New York, 1960 Risselada M., van den Heuvel D., Team 10 1953-81 in Search of a Utopia of the Present 1953-1981, Nei Publishers, Rotterdam, 2005 Rybczynski, Home: A Short History of an Idea, Penguin books, New York, 1986 Russi N., Background. Il progetto del vuoto, Quodlibet, Macerata, 2019 Ruzzon D., Progettare imprevisti in Porosità e Isotropia, Il Poligrafo, Padova 2014, Secchi B., Progetto di suolo, in Casabella n. 520-521, jan.-feb. 1986 Sennett R., Open City, lecture in City Museum of Stokholm, 2014 Sennett R., Costruire e abitare: etica per la città, Feltrinelli, 2018 Sennett R. in TWF, Maas W., Porocity, Nai Publishers, Rotterdam, 2018 Sbriglio J., Le Corbusier: L’Unitè d’habitation de Marseill. The Unitè d’Habitation in Marseilles, Germany, 2004 Stavrides S., Common Space as Threshold Space: Urban Commoning in Struggles to Re-appropriate Public Space in Commoning as Differentiated Publicness Footprint, Spring 2015 Strauven F., Aldo Van Eyck. The shape of relativity, Architectura and Natura Press, Amsterdam, 1998 Smithson A., Smithson P., The Shifts of Ideas from the Golden Lane Proposal to the Robin Hood Gardens (1952-1972), Liran Malka, April 2014. Smithson A, The Charged Void: Architecture. Alison and Peter Smithson, The Monacelli Press, New York, 2001 Smithson A. and P., Cluster City. A New Shape for the Community, in The Architectural Review, November 1957 Sert J.L., Ciam VIII: the Hearth of the City. Toward the Humanization of Urban Life, Lund Humphies, London, 1952. Strauven F., Aldo Van Eyck. The Shape of Relativity, Architectur a & Natura, Amsterdam, 1998 Trancik R., Finding Lost Space, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1986.

Venturi R., Complessità e contraddizioni nell’architettura, Dedalo, Bari, 1980 Vestbro D., Design for Gender Equality: TheHistory of Co-Housing Ideas and Realities, Mansel, London, 2012. Vestbro, Cohousing in Sweden, history and present situation, 2014

Regolamento edilizio, Comune di Milano, 1999 Vecelloni V., Atlante storico di Milano: città di Lombardia, L'archivolto, Milano, 1987 Van der Westerlaken M., La Casa Urbana: dwelling and the urban condition in Milan, Sitography

Sitography C. Stoney’s G., How watch?v=2Je6Dko6mm4

Live

City,

youtube.com/

Maak, N.,Post-Familial Communes in Germany, in, Harvard Design Magazine, n. 41 [online] Available at: http://www.harvarddesignmagazine. org/issues/41/post-familial-communes-in-germany. Este no es un solar, https://estonoesunsolar.wordpress.com/, (2020, June, 20) Orizzontale architetti, http://www.orizzontale.org/ (2020, June, 20) What If Architcture studio, http://www.what-if.info/ (2020, June, 20)

Dazzi Z., Viaggio tra le contraddizioni di Turro il quartiere che parla tutte le lingue , www.repubblica.it, (2020, April, 24) Milano: quel che resta dei Piani Urbanistici, Ordine Architetti di Milano www.ordinearchitetti.mi.it (2020, April, 8) Milano e l’urbanistica tattica, la nuova piazza aperta a NoLo, www. teknoring.com Gallione A. Milano: le Corti di Baires rinascono con negozi e appartamenti, www.larepubblica.it, (2020, April, 21) Geoportale comune di Milano, Studio NIL, https://geoportale.comune.milano.it(2020, April, 10) Gorla Primo, www.vecchiamilano.wordpress.com (2020, April, 24)

PART III/ A new law BIbliography Canniggia G., Gian Luigi Maffei Lettura dell'edilizia di base, Saggi Marsilio, Venezia, 1979. Cannigia G., Ragionamenti di tipologia, G.L.Maffei, Firenze, 1997 Bovati M. ( a caura di),Cities in Transformation Volume 1, Il Poligrafia, Padova, 2014 De Finetti G., Milano, Costruzione di una cittò, Hoepli, Milan, 2002

L’Asmarina di Buenos Aires, ,www.milanocittàstato.com , (2020, April, 21) Legge 24 marzo 1989, n. 122 Disposizioni in materia di parcheggi, programma triennale per le aree urbane maggiormente popolate, nonché modificazioni di alcune norme del testo unico sulla disciplina della circolazione stradale, www. bosettiegatti.eu, (2020, April, 19) Quartieri.Con Strade aperte nuove aree pedonali, ciclabili, zone 30 e spazi pubblici, Comune di Milano: www.comune.milano.it (2020, April, 21)

Liesegang J.,Bader M., Building the city together, ZK/U press, Berlin, 2015

Piano Quartieri, Comune di Milano, www.comune.milano.it, (2020, April, 21)

Kostof S., The city shaped: urban patterns and meanings through history,Thames&Hudson, London, 2014

Piazze Aperte - Comune di Milano, on www.comune.milano.it (2020, April, 21)

Moughtin c., Urban Burlington, 1992

design: Street and Square, Architctural Press,

PGT, Documento di Piano Allegato 1, Comune di Milano, 2018 PGT Milano 2030, Comune di Milano, 2019

IMAGE INDEX QUARANTINED COURTYARDS Quarantined Courtyards [Pic. 0] first page of the chapter: flyer for “Rear Window”, italian version. [Pic 1] backstage picture of “Rear Window”, Alfred Hitchcock, 1954. [Pic 2] facing page: schemes of maps of the courtyards that we collected during our research on Instagram. @ordinary courtyards https://www. instagram.com/ordinarycourtyards/?hl=it [Pic 3] facing page: pictures of the courtyards that we collected during our research on Instagram. @ordinary courtyards https://www.instagram. com/ordinarycourtyards/?hl=it [Pic. 4] Room, Lenny Abrahamson, 2015. For health emergency, for housing [Pic 1] Orizzontale, 8° giorno di quarantena al Mandrione, Roma, 2020. In Domusweb, Come abbiamo abitato in quarantena: un diario (16 marzo-8 maggio 2020). https://www.domusweb.it/it/notizie/2020/03/16/ come-abitiamo-in-quarantena-un-diario-dei-giorni-del-coronavirus.html [Pic 2] Francesca Magnani, On the stoop, 2020. Series of pictures taken in New York during the lock-down. [Pic. 3] Saul Steinberg, The art of living, Harper & Brothers, 1949. COURTYARDS Courts and Courtyards [Pic 1] Villa of Livia or the Villa ad Gallinas Albas on the Palatine Hill. 1st cent. BC. Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome. [Pic 2] Delacroix, Matrimonio Ebraico, 1839. [Pic 3] Palazzo ducale a Milano, veduta della corte (da S. Latuada Descrizione di Milano, Milnao , 1737-38.) Courtyards evolution in housing [Pic. 0] drawing that shows only the spaces of the courtyards in a portion of Milan. [Pic 1] Gianfranco Canniggia, Gian Luigi Maffei Lettura dell’edilizia di base, Saggi Marsilio, Venezia, 1979. [Pic. 2 ] Pictures of Corrales de vecinos in Sevilla, Spain. [PIc. 3] Erster-Hof, Meyerischer Hof, Berlin, first years of the 20th century. [Pic. 4] Meyerischer Hof, Berlin, Plan. [Pic. 5] Dal trattato De Shepaerd della Biblioteca di Modena, seconda metà del ‘400. THE COMMONS What is a Commons [Pic 0] Des glaneuses, Jean-François Millet, 1857. [Pic 1.] The oak in summer , Edward Fox, 1866

[Pic. 2] Boston Common, James Kidder, 1829 [Pic 3] Les Promenades de Paris, Jean Charles Adolphe Alphand, 1867. [Pic. 4] Silence is a Commons, Ivan Illich: “An oak tree might be in the commons. Its shade, in summer, is reserved for the shepherd and his lock; its acorns are reserved for the pigs of the neighbouring peasants; its dry branches serve as fuel for the widows of the village; some of its fresh twigs in springtime are cut as ornaments for the church - and at sunset it might be the place for the village assembly.” [Pic.5] Irrigation comunities represented by syndic/ Miniatura Tribunal de les Aguas de Valencia, Bernardo Ferrándiz Bádenes, 1885 Housing and commons [Pic. 1] Paolozzi E., Smithson P., Smithson A., Henderson N. in This is Tomorrow, 1956. [Pic. 2] Smithson A. and P., Cluster City, 1956. [Pic. 3] Smithson A. and P., Urban Re-identification Grid, 1953. [Pic. 4] Van Eyck A., Playgrounds, Amsterdam, 1947-1955. [Pic. 5] Playgrounds and open public spaces in Duplex Architekten, Mehr als Wohnen, Zurich, 2018. [Pic.6] - Models in Together! The new architecture of the collective, Vitra Design Museum, 2017 [Pic.7] Student housing, H. Herzberger It has no defined function, people can easily occupy it doing different activities and it is both open to the city but controlled. [Pic. 8] Haarleemmer Houttinen Housing. [Pic. 9] Heinzholz, cooperative Krafwerk1, Adrian Streich Architekten. Commons over time [Pic 1.] Allegory and effects of Good and Bad Government, Ambrogio Lorenzetti, 1339 [Pic 2.] Drinkers in the-Bower, Pieter de Hooch, 1658 [Pic 3] Interior with women beside a linen chest, Pieter de Hooch, 1663 [Pic 4.] Illustration of Robert Owen’s ideal community, Stedman Whitwell,1824. [Pic 5] Inauguration de la Cité Napoléon, 1851 [Pic 6] Kommunalka, Aleksandra Koneva, 2010. [Pic 7] The result of the first five year pla, Varvara Stepanova. [Pic 8] Karl Ehn, Karl Marx Hof, Vienna, 1927-30. [Pic 9] Children playing at the roof terrace of the Unité d’Habitation [Pic 10] The televised demolitions of Pruitt-Igoe. [Pic 11] Aerial photo by the US Geological Survey shows monolithic blocks of Pruitt-Igoe. [Pic 12] The Robin Hood Garden ‘Street in the Sky’, 1976 [Pic 13] Coop Housing at River Spreefeld / Carpaneto Architekten + Fatkoehl Architekten + BARarchitekten, Berlin, Germany, 2013. How to build a Commons [Pic. 1] Living room in via Sant’Andrea Milano by Ugo La Pietra, 1989. [Pic 2] Giovanni Emilio Galanello, Anonima Plastica, 2019. [Pic 3] Spangen Quarter Housing, Michiel Brinkman, Rotterdam. [Pic 4] Inner courtyard, Kasbah ,Piet Blom, Henglo. [Pic.5 Riconversione progettuale, Ugo La Pietra, Triennale di Milano, 1979. [Pic.8] Palazzo Serristori in Florence, Massimo Listri.