STRATI Densification and Urban Regeneration in Rome by TUM_LSA

STRATI

DENSIFICATION AND URBAN REGENERATION IN ROME

Masterthesis von Marco Magliozzi Wintersemester 2020/21

LSA Lehrstuhl für Städtische Architektur

Texte und Entwurfsprojekte: Copyright bei den Autor:innen. Die Referenzabbildungen wurden als Bildzitate den zitierten Publikationen entnommen.

Revision History RevID

ChID

Change Name

Date

Company Title

#Contact Company #Contact Address1 #Contact City #Contact Country #Contact Postcode

#Project Name

STRATI DENSIFICATION AND URBAN REGENERATION IN ROME

#Site Address1 #Site City #Site Country #Site Postcode Drawing Name

Worksheet Drawing Status

Modified by

Date

Checked by

Date

Drawing Scale

1:500 Layout ID

A.01.2

Revision

TABLE OF CONTENT

WHY DENSIFICATION? LAST CENTURY TRANSFORMATION: THE URBAN SPRAWL (21-27) THE ITALIAN CONTEXT (27-31)

WHY ROME? THE CASE STUDY ROME: THE “CONTINUOUS” CITY (39-47) AGAINST THE UNCONTROLLED EXPANSION: DENSIFICATION AS A FEASIBLE SOLUTION (49-55) URBAN DENSIFICATION IN ROME: A LONG-STANDING PRACTICE (55-64) URBAN SPRAWL EXAMPLES

WHICH METHOD? FLOOR ADDITION AS AN INSTRUMENT OF DENSIFICATION (187-194)

WHICH STRATEGY?

FLOOR ADDITIONS AND THE “PARASITE ARCHITECTURE” (195-200) CASE STUDY: "VILLINO ALATRI"

THE PERIOD OF URBAN REDEVELOPMENT 19091931: A DENSIFICATION ANTE LITTERAM (81-87)

THE “FIRST” ROMAN PARASITE (203-217)

TWO POSSIBLE CHOICES (88-94)

FLOOR ADDITION TODAY

FLOOR ADDITIONS (94-102) “LA PALAZZINA” (102-113) DENSIFICATION: AEREAL VIEWS DENSIFICATION: BUILT EXAMPLES (1910-1960)

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE (223-228) PROJECT LOCATION (229-246) DENSIFICATION PROCESS (246-253)

RÉSUMÉ THE PROGRAMME (257-263)

The Roman “cluster”: one cannot simply say that the city of Rome is organised according to an abstract planning. On the contrary the city is the result of the continuous conglomeration of spaces on next or on top the other

For several decades now, the contemporary debate has been trying to find alternative solutions to the uncontrolled development of large and medium-sized settlements. The 1980s and 1990s saw dispersion phenomena as the predominant urban planning approach. These decades saw the spread of the urbanised countryside, the diffuse city and, eventually, the urban explosion. Large metropolitan cities nowadays have a widespread urbanised fabric, but with many misused spaces within it. This new landscape involves not only lowrise expansions, but also high-density suburbs, which together are dotting the surroundings of the consolidated core. Although some of them still lack primary infrastructure and adequate community services (Examples are the large peripheral expansions of Rome, Paris or Milan), these misused spaces could represent solutions towards an alternative evolutionary process of the urban environment.

At this point it is quite logical to ask the following question: Is there a solution for a more intelligent use of space? One of the answers that is currently generating more and more interest in the community of architects and urban planners is the densification of the built environment. Considered a sustainable response it is also alternative solution to the uncontrolled extension of a metropolitan area into neighbouring rural areas. But how does densification of built-up areas take place? And is it feasible? The following research will explain the forms and mechanisms of this architectural, urban and anthropological manifestation, providing stories and examples from a specific urban context. The aim is to explain the phenomenon and its criticality, which will emerge from an analysis of a case study, which is a specific city its urban surroundings. In order to understand its meaning, it is first of all necessary to figure out the mechanisms that regulate the functioning and evolution of the urban environment in general. Like many other transformative processes of the city, densification is nothing but a mechanism triggered by the needs of the city itself. Going further into the discussion the topic will not only be addressed from a theoretical point of view, but also from a technical and practical one. As a case study, the city of Rome has been chosen, for various reasons. Given its historical and cultural centrality and its millenarian background, it has always played a prominent role in the Italian and European scenario. Throughout its history, the city has never ceased to evolve spatially. To clarify: the city has constantly built itself up and gradually altered its form. If we were to make a series of horizontal sections, as if reading the stratigraphy,

it would be possible to identify the pattern of transformations that have taken place over the centuries. This architectural stratification is therefore proof of the fact that until modern times most of the urban modifications took place first of all in the built environment, and only after on the green free surrounding land. Among all the transformative processes that the city has undergone, densification of the built environment is one of the most interesting and valuable. The one of the densification is a long-standing issue for the city as in ancient times it was already a topic of architectural debate, and today more than ever this discussion is needed to limit the uncontrolled urbanisation that has affected the city since the end of the 20th century. It is therefore by taking up this ancient and somehow traditional technique and concept, but reinterpreting it in a contemporary key, that we wish to provide a sustainable building model to be potentially implemented in the urban environment. The transformations that have taken place in Rome since the ancient times continue in a different form and to a different extent today. In this research we will deal with the topic of densification in general and with its different expressions and forms. More specifically we will deepen into the architectural additions of existing buildings, one of the most popular densification method, giving particular emphasis on vertical additions. In the end I will propose them as a feasible alternative to further land use in highly artificial environment, studying a design proposal which is dealing specifically with this topic. Providing a coherent explanation for all the phenomena underlying the transformations of an urban environment has always been a crucial question for both urban planning and architectural theory in general. Many historians and architects have struggled to find the

best definition of city, a definition that would encompass all its characteristics, its continuous evolution, growth and death. The city is the stage for human events; it is charged with the feelings of generations, public events, private tragedies, new and ancient facts. The city is never static, it always evolves on itself, and although it can be assimilated to a work of art, engineering and architecture, it is never a finished object, or a work for the public to admire. Here the public is also the creator, and the city is the stage on which the events of life unfold. As the human life is constantly evolving and changing over time, it acquires new characteristics, undergoes moments of crisis, forgets certain memories, and becomes more needy, so does a city. The problems that an urban reality experiences are nothing more than human problems reflected in physical space. We can observe such problems, on different scales, in villages, in towns, in cities, in metropolises, because the dynamic forces of urbanism are alive wherever men and things are concentrated, and the urban organism is subject to the same natural and social laws regardless of size. Implying that problems of the city are related to size means that most of the urban solutions project the process of growth outwards, the so-called de-concentration; but the assumption and the solution are both controversial1. It is true that the space that hosts the community grows together with its inhabitants. However, its development does not necessarily have to be understood as an increase in size. A built environment can develop while keeping its dimensions unchanged, but growing in technique, engineering or varying social and public security needs. Examples of this growing process are the medieval fortifications of Nives and Arles, mentioned by Aldo Rossi in Architettura della città. At this point we have 1 Rossi, 1966

established that cities are living entities in constant movement and change, looking different from yesterday and tomorrow. Therefore the following question rises: is there a common thread linking city and time? The city evolves, it acquires consciousness and memory of itself. The French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs demonstrated this assumption in a particularly convincing way. He argued that all memory takes place in a spatial structure and said that we can only understand how to deal with the past if we understand how it is stored in our physical environment2. With its streets and buildings full of deep meanings and old memories, the city can be experienced, as a constructed memory. Development, destruction and reconstruction constantly reshape the modern city and erase memory. The changing shape of the city provides important clues to analyse the changing memories of its inhabitants. Studying society’s multiple interactions with the built environment - how it is built re-built, demolished, preserved, restored and commemorated - helps to shed light on how memory is incorporated into the urban landscape. It is clear that the city is not a container of accumulated memories, but memory and the city influence each other and are constantly changing. For this reason, we can affirm that urban agglomerations are absolutely dynamic realities that, even in their incessant transformation, maintain their original characteristics, the ones that together define the genius loci. These characteristics not only exist at the moment of formation but also persist over time, so much so that they become almost representative of the city’s character. Such primary elements

2 Halbwachs, 1950

become ‘totems’ and acquire an identity value for its inhabitants. In order to understand the intrinsic patterns of a city, it is therefore fundamental to seriously tackle the study of those elements, or as Rossi define them "permanences", i.e. all those urban characteristics that remain "unchanged" over time. It is fundamental to study the city in its consolidated elements because the analysis of the existing drives the evolution towards the not yet built3. As Aldo rossi says, we must pay attention to the study of permanences to avoid the history of the city being resolved solely in the permanences. Actually every constituent element of an urban agglomeration undergoes transformations, albeit sometimes infinitesimal ones, which modify its built substance. But why are Aldo Rossi's words useful? In the research I will prove how the densification technique, regarding the city of Rome, not only represents a social, economic, and environmental need, but it is also a “totem” of its urban development. As I will show it is largely misunderstood and controversial in most of its empirical applications, but still an intrinsic characteristic of the Roman built environment. This discussion will not deal with all the transformations involved in the formation and evolution of the city, as there are too many to consider. However, it will examine the issues and problems relating to the residential sphere, one of the constituent elements of every urban agglomeration. In particular we will examine its presence in the city centre, the typological differences specific oh this category, the variation of density in relation to time and space. It can be said that no city exists or has existed in which the residential component was absent. The residence is one of the protagonists of the urban transformations that take place a city, as it was already 3 Rossi, 1966

observable in ancient Rome. Here the residence, divided quite rigidly between the type of the Domus and the type of the Insula, characterises the city and the 14 regions of Augustus. The Insula almost sums up the city in its very subdivision and evolution; there is more social mixing in them than is commonly believed. The Insulae, whose construction is extremely poor and temporary, are renewed and re-built on top of themselves; they constitute the urban substratum on which the city is being shaped. If we talk functionally, however, changes take place in residence very slowly but still they follow the modifications of the society. The house is certainly what best represents the customs, tastes and habits of the people in the art of architecture. As already demonstrated by the ancients, the concept of residence differs according to its type and location within the city, both factors influencing not only the lives of its tenants, but also the future residential development of the entire urban agglomeration.

Following: Roman stratification: the different epochs overlap each other almost spontaneously

why densification

One of the most striking phenomena of contemporary conurbations of both medium and large size is a fragmentation of the settlement fabric. While in ancient times and the Middle Ages the compact city was widely established, due to population growth and public safety reasons, nowadays the situation has changed. The progressive migration from the old urban centres and the population growth in the peri-urban areas have caused a trend which is currently one of the main topic of discussion in the field of urban planning: the so-called “urban sprawl”. It is useful to find out the true meaning of this manifestation, when and where it occurs, and what form it takes. This is necessary not only to understand the peculiarities of this occurrence, but also to investigate its limits and critical issues, so that sustainable solutions may be found as a valid alternative to an ongoing issue.

“A multiple, floating, limitless world is not the world of freedom, but only that of the lack of design” “Un mondo molteplice, mobile, senza limite non è il mondo della libertà, ma solo il mondo dell’assenza di progetto”

- Vittorio Gregotti, Se la periferia diventa centro, 2004

LAST CENTURY TRANSFORMATION: THE URBAN SPRAWL Since the mid-20th century it has been possible to observe in Europe how many suburbs of large cities are affected by the so-called phenomenon of “diffuse city” or “urban sprawl”. It represents the most typical manifestation of territorial rearrangement from the end of the 20th century until now. It generates from the tendency for some inhabitants to move away from the compact urban centre, and settle in the socalled “hinterland”1. An attempt has already been made in the past to provide a comprehensive definition it. According to R. Ewing2, “sprawl” is the uncontrolled expansion of cities into empty or rural areas, identifiable in some of the following characteristics: discontinuous and scattered settlement development, characterised by voids within built-up areas; the construction of low-density settlement areas, with an extensive land-use development programme and a lack of planning, single-family houses with private courtyards and gardens and therefore an absence of open public spaces; the functional segregation of spaces and a weak infrastructure network. The most immediate consequence is the spontaneous appearance of low rise settlements creating a scattered and dotted semi-urban fabric, with no apparent planning. A more accurate definition of such urban manifestation is given by the EEA in 20063. It has described sprawl as the physical manifestation of low-density expansion of large urban areas mainly into the surrounding agricultural 1 Crisci et al., 2014 2 Ewing, 2008, op. cit. 3 EAA (European Environmental Agency, 2006, in Urban sprawl in Europe: the ignored challenge (Vol. 10). Copenhagen

Low Rise - High Coverage 75 Units

Medium Rise - Medium Coverage 75 Units

High Rise - Low Coverage 75 Units

Relationship between density and urban form: three different settings applying the same residential density of 75 units. What changes in the three schemes is the land use (diagram inspired from Rogers & Urban Task Force, 1999, pg. 62)

areas. Urban sprawl is synonymous with unplanned incremental urban development, characterised by a low density mix of land uses on the urban fringe.” (...) “Urban sprawl is commonly used to describe physically expanding urban areas. Sprawl is the leading edge of urban growth and implies little planning control of land subdivision. Development is patchy, scattered and strung out, with a tendency for discontinuity. It leap-frogs over areas, leaving agricultural enclaves. Sprawling cities are the opposite of compact cities — full of empty spaces that indicate the inefficiencies in development and highlight the consequences of uncontrolled growth. EEA Report , Urban sprawl in Europe: the ignored challenge, EEA, 2006

Urban sprawl actually originated as an American phenomenon which spread around Europe after World War II. As far as it concerns America it also acquires a cultural connotation, becoming in fact the expression of the new suburban bourgeoisie. As the aim was to promote the so-called “American dream”,4 the one-family suburban country villa became its official, most suitable and perfect background. Some examples of this phenomenon are the communities of Los Angeles in California, Washington DC metropolitan area, and Atlanta in Georgia. The new development is often low-density, and metropolises grow horizontally rather than vertically. In Europe, instead, it is considered the opposite model of urban development for main cities, which are normally character4 the ideal by which equality of opportunity is available to any American, allowing the highest aspirations and goals to be achieved, definition privided by Oxford Language

Example of urban sprawl expansion in Italy. Low rise area of Casalpalocco, Rome, Italy Aerela view (Google Earth)

ised by compact, radiocentric structures, and high density5. Unlike their American counterparts, in fact, European cities have a more compact morphology and often share a common ground: a historically and socially consolidated core, around which successive expansions are juxtaposed. This agglomerative process is also influenced by various factors, including landscape values, infrastructure, the social environment and the production system.6 In Europe, the phenomenon appeared later than in America, only at the end of the 20th century. It is no coincidence that we see urban sprawl phenomena only after WWII: the more deeply rooted tradition of systematic planning, in fact, prevented, before the destruction of the Second World War, the spread of disorderly and discontinuous forms of urbanisation7. However, it has subsequently been observed that today European cities are moving towards processes of diffuse expansion. The causes behind are commonly shared and varied. They are economic, demographic, housing and infrastructural. These factors are linked to speculation and the loss of attractiveness of urban centres. A complex combination of all of these factors generates urban sprawl. As the border between city and countryside is blurring, peri-urban agricultural areas are constantly being speculated on by private individuals because of their low cost compared to already built-up areas8. Furthermore, a sort 5 Iacovantuono, 13 6 Ibid., 17 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 21

“

Sprawling cities are the opposite of compact cities — full of empty spaces that indicate the inefficiencies in development and highlight the consequences of uncontrolled growth.

Dispersion of the built-up areas per country, 2009 Urban permeation per units per m2

Percentage of Build-up Areas, regional level, 2009. Percentage

From top to Bottom: Map of the Dispersion of the built-up areas per country in 2009 Map of the Percentage of Build-up Areas, regional level in 2009 Source: Urban sprawl in Europe, Joint EEA-FOEN report, European Environment Agency, 2016

of “return to the countryside” 9leads people who decide to move out to prefer peri-urban areas to city centres. The above-mentioned 2006 report by the EEA identified the latter as one of the central motivations behind the low rise/ high coverage building tradition in Europe. It also underlined the urgency of a critical reflection on urban sprawl in Europe. As a matter of fact suburbs have grown by about 115 % in the major urban areas of Western Europe, mainly due to the loss of population in the city centres. Even though land use is growing recklessly, the report shows that not in every region of Europe there is a direct proportionality between urbanisation and urban sprawl, where a boosting increase in land consumption happens despite a general decrease in population percentage10. Away from the consolidated core, new urban agglomerations are generated around commercial hubs or along distribution axes, creating a constellation of small buildings, mainly residential. A low-density pattern, voracious for empty land, emerges in a landscape that seems to move in the direction of polycentrism and urban fragmentation. From a social point of view, sprawl can generate income-based residential segregation, loss of identity values in rural contexts that are urbanised and affect the solidity of community ties11. Furthermore, over the last few decades, there has been a gradual and inexorable shift of the population towards the more peripheral areas of the city, a shift which has not been 9 Ibid. 10 Urban and suburban demographic trends from Urban sprawl in Europe, joint EEA-FOEN (Swiss Federal Office for the Environment) report, 2016 11 Ibid.

28 From top to bottom: Percentage of land use in 1950 and 2015 in the italian regions Land use between 2017 and 2018 in total hectares and in square metres per hectare in metropolitan cities Source: ISPRA elaborations on SNPA data and cartography ,2015

followed by an equal relocation of services, economic activities and production. This dynamic has caused not only a significant increase in land use, but also a general deterioration in the quality of life of citizens, in terms of social interactions. Not only the document severely criticises the social and cultural issues attributed to this phenomenon but subsequently it clearly highlights the negative environmental effects. The excessive movement of vehicles, induced by sprawling cities, increases the greenhouse effect due to the polluting emissions produced. The invasiveness of this urban process not only damages the compact city, which loses its inhabitants and primary functions, but, as we have mentioned, has a strong impact on agricultural and natural areas. It is therefore clear that western countries are faced with a new and urgent challenge, which affects the theory of urban planning, architecture and the construction sector. It is indeed essential to understand what is the right direction to orientate further development, because not only the general urban value of a territory but also the psychophysical well-being of its inhabitants will depend on it. One might ask, then, what objectives does the European Union have for tackling this issue? At the moment there are no binding agreements that the EU countries must adopt, apart from a general guideline that states that by 2050 there should be no more building on green land.12 12 Iacovantuono, 23, mentioning the European Commission, 2011, p. 17 According to Iacovantuono the same objective can be found in a later document: Gerbrandy, G. et al. (2011). Working paper for a resource-efficient Europe from the EU Parliament, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

1950

≤ 3%

3 - 5%

2015

5 - 7%

7 - 9%

> 9%

Percentage of land use in 1950 and 2015 in the italian regions

Land use between 2017 and 2018 in total hectares and in square metres per hectare in metropolitan cities

Example of land use, for a dirt road next to a wind farm in the municipality of Potenza, Italy between 2017-2018

Example of land use, for a building site in the municipality of Monsapolo del Trono (Ascoli Piceno), Italy between 2017-2018

Example of land use, for quarrying site in the municipality of Minervino Murge(Barletta-Andria-Trani), Italy between 2017-2018

Example of Land use in different location along Italy between 2017 and 2018 Source: ISPRA report 2016

HE ITALIAN CONTEXT As in the rest of Europe, urban sprawl is becoming the most popular urbanisation strategy in Italy. According to LUCAS13 The proportion of exploited land has been estimated at 7.3 % of the total area, compared with 4.3 % for the EU average14. The phenomenon developed late compared to other parts of Europe but took hold very quickly, especially in the highly industrialized regions of the North (Lombardy and Veneto). Until 2001, the phenomenon also intensely affected the largest population basins (Rome, Milan, Naples and Venice). The phenomenon has aroused the interest of contemporary architects, to the extent that Vittorio Gregotti has defined Italian urban development as diffuse, without form, but also nebulous15. He is also very critical of these processes, as he judges Sprawl as a form of arbitrary world-building. He says that a multiple, mobile, limitless world is not the world of freedom, but only the world of the absence of a project.16 The term used to identify the phenomenon in relation to the Italian context is that of “dispersed city”, the definition of which is undoubtedly due to Bernardo Secchi and Francesco Indovina who, since the 1980s, together with other scholars, have begun to investigate and circumscribe the characteristics of the phenomenon17. The origins of the Italian “diffused city” are well summarised by Indovina: technological development, changes in the lifestyles of in13 Land Use and Cover Area frame Survey 14 Cruciani et al., 2012 15 Gregotti, 2004 op. cit. 16 Ibid. 17 Iacovantuono, 26

dividuals and families, the growing cost of the concentrated city, the structuring of industrial districts, the development of small businesses, of contract and home-based work18. From this description and from what we have stated before, urban sprawl manifestations in Italy seem to be very similar to what is happening elsewhere in Europe. However, urban sprawl in Italian cities presents some discrepancies compared to their counterparts abroad. These differences are to be found, first of all, in the evolutionary history of the Italian cities themselves. Compared to other European countries, analysing their current extension it emerges that the percentage of urban spaces definable as “modern” (dating between the Unification and the 1960s) is considerably lower than the contemporary component (1960s until today)19. This is because Italy, as previously mentioned, experienced a late development compared to the evolution of other European nations. Therefore, today we cannot expect to see in architecture a smooth transition from ancient through modern to contemporary times but there is a much more distinct combination between the old and consolidated urban space and the contemporary diffuse/peri-urban space. The link between the consolidated city and the scattered city in the Italian territories is more intense than ever. Among the cities where this phenomenon can be observed the most, we can certainly include Rome, which will be the object of this investigation. Although in fact the Italian cap18 Indovina, 2005, p. 135 19 Iacovantuono, 26

Following: Urban sprawl and land use in the municipality of Rome, areal view (Google Earth)

ital city has always grown in extension over the centuries, the demographic and financial changes that took place between 1970 and the 2000s led to a very intense and diffuse artificialization of the land. The situation seems to have come to a standstill in the period 2001-2011, which was accompanied by a gradual decrease in the population of the urbanised area. 20 The Eternal City thus appears today as a paradigmatic example of an originally compact urban form, which over time has acquired characteristics of marked fragmentation and "insularisation"21. Urban growth has developed along a number of axes radial to the historic centre, mainly represented by the road system, creating a fragmented landscape at progressively greater distances from the central districts. The transition from the dense city to the diffuse city has involved an ever larger area, well outside the boundaries of the Capitoline municipality, affecting the rural landscape of the Roman countryside, which now appears increasingly compromised and fragmented.22

20 Crisci, 2018, 67 21 the process of habitat fragmentation. The word is usually used in Biaology or Natural Science, but here it refers to human interaction and contacts. cfr. Gestione delle aree di collegamento ecologico funzionale, ndirizzi e modalità operative per l’adeguamento degli strumenti di pianificazione del territorio in funzione della costruzione di reti ecologiche a scala locale , Manuali e linee guida 26/2003, APAT-INU 22 Crisci, 2018

why Rome?

This section explains why Rome was chosen as case study for this investigation. First of all, it is the Italian city which, considering its size, has been affected by the most massive land consumption in the country and is also one of the most impacted cities in Europe. In addition, given its millennial history and its distinctive settlement structure, the city has been involved in a non-stop process of evolution and transformation. It therefore provides an essential starting point for the elaboration of new strategies aimed at the reuse of built space. Finally, it provides a valid example for the exploration and analysis of urban processes which are alternative to urban sprawl and which have already influenced the growth of the conurbation in the past.

“The people of Rome live moving in the layers of the overlapping centuries like fish in the water, both deep down and on the surface” “I romani vivono muovendosi negli strati delle epoche sovrapposte come pesci nell’acqua, in profondità e in superficie”

- Giulio Carlo Argan, Roma Interrotta, 1978

THE CASE STUDY ROME: THE “CONTINUOUS” CITY The tumultuous urban growth of the post-World War II period, supported by massive immigration from southern Italy, has generated a transformative process, which in some areas tends to saturate empty urban spaces and in other areas continues to invade portions of the territory that are still relatively uninfrastructed1. The faliure of high-density peripheral experiments that characterised the social housing of the 1950s and 1960s, which combined post-war reconstruction proposals with the economic impulse derived from the Marshall funds, gave way to a new type of extensive housing development. Already from the first phases of the so-called “urban deconcentration”, peri-urbanisation processes started, and then expanded towards rural areas where a pre-existing settlement fabric of compact boroughs and villages, mainly linked to agricultural and artisan activities, existed2. Between the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, urban sprawl mechanisms involved several areas on the edge of the municipality of Rome, where conspicuous investments previously destined for more central areas of the capital were transferred. A diffuse, extensive and fragmented periphery has thus been created, with an expansionist model that urban planners define in Italian as “macchia d’olio”. 3. The built fabric characterised by settlement dispersion often 1 Erbani 2013 2 Crisci, 2018 3 literally “oil spot”, in English translated as “sprawling". In urban planning, in a figurative sense, it is the natural extension of the city in all directions when some planning criteria does not intervene to direct its expansion in preferential directions. Definition provided by Treccani, Vocabolario online

Approximate size of the city according to Nolli plan 1748 ca. 152.900 people (1748)

suffers from lacks in architectural quality, land consumption and compromised agricultural use. Until the early 20th century, more than 90% of the population lived in the historic city centre. Compared to the compact core, in fact, the residential density outside of the Aurelian Walls was extremely low. The increase population, which started to be relevant after 1911 is concentrated in the historic districts.4 In 1936, when the city exceeds one million inhabitants, 45% of the population lives in the quartieri5, which continue to increase their density level until they reach 60% in the 1960s. In 1951 the urban concentration reached its maximum but the situation was going to change. 1971 is the year that can be considered a "turning point" in the metropolitan process of Rome. From this year on the internal movements within the province are reversed. What seemed to be a continuous push towards urban concentration from small towns to the core, is transformed into dispersive urban phenomena that we experience today. It is the beginning of a gradual and steady process of Redistribution of the population that from year to year empties the quartieri and decreases their demographic weight to 35% in 20076. The development of diffusive phenomena in the urban sur4 Crisci et.al., 2014, 69

5 Following the considerable expansion of the city in the thirty years from 1890 to 1920, new districts called quartieri were established by the administration to distinguish them from the rioni (the fifteen existing historical districts). Deliberation of Giunta Municipale di Roma n 20, 1921, 113. 6 Crisci et.al., 2014, 69

Approximate size of the city 1880-1900 ca. 416.000 people (1901)

roundings surprisingly corresponds to a progressive demographic decrease, which occurred, as we have seen, in the historical city. The centrifugal movement from the centre towards the periphery marked the last decade of the postwar period, and involved those sectors of the population with less opportunity and power in the property market: young people, small families and immigrants7. However, this demographic redistribution has not always been matched by a displacement of services. The territorial redistribution of functions and population was a two-tier process: Residents moved to the peripheries very quickly, while their jobs remained mainly in the city centre. The asymmetry between the two processes has led to an increasing distance between homes and workplaces, with a consequent extension of travel times that is unmatched in any other Italian urban area8. This emergency is often compounded by situations of lack of primary infrastructures: especially in squatter neighbourhoods, but not only there, the “underestimation” of the importance of public spaces has deprived local communities of fundamental spaces for socialisation and condensation of services and functions9. According to what we have stated until now, the spiral of depopulation of the city centre does not seem to end, but that it is not entirely true. It is precisely in a phase of proclaimed decline in the quality of life that the city of Rome has once again begun to attract population. Not only has the number 7 Crisci, 2018 8 Caudo et al.,2006, 97-116 9 Crisci et al., 2014

Approximate size of the city 1900-1930 ca. 916.000 people (1931)

of residents started to grow again after decades of stagnation, reaching the highest level in its millennial history, with 2 million 872 thousand registered at the end of 2014, but the migration of Romans towards the border of the metropolitan area has also been reduced. Between 2001 and 2009, the whole province of Rome experienced a significant demographic increase (+12.2%). However, this dynamic was particularly concentrated in the first metropolitan belt10, where the growth in residents (+22.4%) was almost three times greater than that recorded in the rest of the province (+8.9%)11. Even in a scenario of overall evolution of the city, the urban “growth without planning” of the Roman suburbs has proved over time to be the prevailing development strategy for large portions of the territory. However, it has not been able to bring about a process of modernisation of the economic-productive apparatus of those territories, draining their primary resources (environmental and human). Today, such a paradigm is no longer sustainable, let alone feasible, because it is no longer able to respond to the needs of the social and economic system, or to the discomfort experienced in the daily life of citizens. For the well-being of its social system and the health of its economic one, Rome needs to take back the management of its fundamental characteristics to share and implement a new development model capable of generating economic and social value by focusing on the redevelopment of the urban fabric, on a real 10 the areas of the city around G.R.A Grande Raccordo Anulare (the ring highway of Rome) 11 Crisci et al., 2014

Approximate size of the city 1930-1950 ca. 1.626.000 people (1951)

enhancement of the agricultural and environmental system, on making the city easy to live in for all its users. So, in the light of all the reasons outlined above, what better place to propose a regeneration of the residential structure? Rome has all the right characteristics to be a suitable candidate for the experimentation we want to carry out, which aims at demonstrating how the densification of already built-up areas is a valid alternative to the discontinuous and disordered development of the city towards the outside. Only by replacing this approach with an accurate and careful planning of some specific “depressed” areas, focusing on filling the voids, enhancing but not saturating the existing, can we provide an adequate and attractive solution not only in terms of urban and architectural value and interest, but also in economic and social terms. In the following chapter we will explain what is the deep meaning of the densification process, and understand which consequences it could have on the city fabric. Related to the Roman context, not everybody agree on the matter: Some opponents of this position might argue that perhaps it is better to go along with Rome’s extensive processes, since they have been generated naturally in response to certain historical needs of the city. As a consequence, the densification proposed here is a constraint towards a model of city that is “extraneous” to the nature of the city itself. However, it is necessary to point out that the densification of the built environment is not at all a new practice for the Roman urban fabric; on the contrary, densification has very ancient roots, so much so as to make it almost an “authentic" leitmotiv for the formation of the historical city. As we will see later on, it is possible to trace a proper history of the processes of Roman densification,

52 the compact structure of the historical urban fabric Piazza Campo de’fiori (1870 ca.) Source: Archivi Alinari

Piazza Vittorio (1870 ca.) Urban expansion 1880-1900 Source: Roma Ieri Oggi

Piazza Sassari (today) Urban expansion 1900-1930

Viale Bruno Buozzi (today) Urban expansion 1930-1950 Source: MibAct

which influenced more or less all the long life of the city. Between the period 1910-1960, however, it acquired urban relevance as a new housing typology12 which was oriented towards demographic intensification, was implemented.

AGAINST THE UNCONTROLLED EXPANSION: DENSIFICATION AS A FEASIBLE SOLUTION Urban sprawl is therefore one of the phenomena which has most strongly shaped the contemporary city and which is now the object of intense reflection by urban planners. We shall not dwell any longer on urban sprawl, but limit ourselves to stating that, from the brief analysis carried out, the debate today is split between two sides: on the one hand there is a more indulgent one, which admits settlement dispersion as a natural development of contemporary conurbations, and on the other hand there are more judgmental opinions, which look at the damage that sprawl has caused in environmental, economic and social terms, and consider its mitigation to be fundamental. Increasing urban density in already built-up areas, therefore, is intended in the first instance as a way of combating settlement dispersion, constituting a sustainable development strategy for the city of the future. The problem of city densification has its roots in the Modern movement and is particularly present in the cities of Le Corbusier. However, it seems to have been put on the back burner in modern city planning. This is partly 12 this new housing typology is the so-called "palazzina" which was developed as an evolution of the low density residential type

On the following page. Approximate size of the city 1950-2011 ca. 2.617.175 people (2011) Via della Lucchina (taday) Urban expansion 1950-2011

because, while this issue has filled pages and pages of debates and research, it has not yet produced reactions, real experiences, that can be taken as models13. In order to bring back to the debate this theme, which has ancient roots but is still extremely up-to-date, it is necessary to explain clearly what is the deep meaning of densification practices, i.e. what actions should be employed in the city fabric. The main characteristic of this process is its “capillarity”, namely the ability to intervene punctually on the individual pre-existences, based on a well-defined common strategy. This is the meaning of “urban infill”, in other words, to fill some of the least used or least considered parts of the built matrix with new architectural objects14. The aim is still to fully optimise the potential of a built-up area that is currently depressed from a social, economic or architectural point of view. However, the misconception that urban densification results in the saturation of every available space is still widespread, and with it comes concern that it could threaten green areas in the high-density urban fabric. On the contrary, densification rather means intensification of uses through the enhancement of the functions which are already present on site or through the addition of new ones15. Among the voices that have advocated densification as a valid tool for the evolution of the urban environment in the past, Jane Jacobs is one of the theorists who most feared the threat of uncontrolled low-density development. Jacobs strongly supported the design of the compact settlement 13 Marini, 2008 14 cf. Iacovantuono 15 Iacovantuono, 46

Sehr Dipl.-Ing. Univ. Lea Zapf, Sehr geehrte geehrte Atina Mowla, Mein Name ist Maria Terzano und ich bin eine italienische Architektin. Ich habe drei Semester als Erasmus-Student in München studiert und ich habe dann entschieden, nach meinem Master-Abschluss in Architektur (5 Jahre lang an der Universität La Sapienza in Rom) wieder nach München zu kommen. Aus dieser Zeit war ich zuerst bei OSA Ochs Schmidhuber Architekten ( 04.10.2017-31.03.2018) beschäftigt, und seit Februar 2020 arbeite ich bei Schützdeller Architekten. Während meiner Zeit bei OSA arbeitete ich etwa 9 Monate lang im LPH 5, und in den letzten 10 Monaten bei Schützdeller arbeitete ich in den LPH 1-4. Ich schicke Ihnen das Dokument, das mir von der alten Firma ausgestellt ist, und das Diplomzeugnis in englischer Sprache. Ich würde mich gerne in der Bayerischen Architektenkammer anmelden. Dazu möchte ich Ihnen ein paar Fragen stellen: 1.Wie viel Zeit brauche ich noch, um meine Berufsausbildung hier in München zu beenden? 2. Wie ist das Verfahren für die Eintragung bei der Architektenkammer? 3. Welche Dokumente muss ich vorlegen? 4.In dem Büro, in dem ich arbeite, gibt es keine Phase nach dem LPH5. Kann ich für diese Phasen einen Kurs bei der Architektenkammer belegen? VielenTerzano Dank für Ihre Zeit, Maria

62 From top to bottom: Diagram showing the different density levels in three main zones of the city Diagram showing the demographic movements for the inside to the outside between 2001-2010 source: Urban sprawl e shrinking cities in Italia, M. Crisci, R. Gemmiti, E. Proietti, A. Violante

in a position of balance between low density, which she believed to be a threat to the liveability of the city, and the super-density of skyscrapers, which was guilty of extinguishing urban vitality16. What are proper densities for city dwellings? [...] Proper city dwelling densities are a matter of performance [...] Densities are too low, or too high, when they frustrate city diversity instead of abetting it. A healthy densification, which tends to cause the transformation of a low to a medium-high density, promotes the experimentation of multiple solutions of convertibility of the built heritage through “infills” able to transfigure the conditions of the context in a new order. The densification projects can take place, within the consolidated city, in two types of locations: partially or unbuilt urban areas that can involve one or more blocks, or alternatively pre-existing structures that become design opportunities in the compact fabric. The latter could host additions or punctual insertions in limited spaces, between or above the built-up area17. This group of interventions belongs all to the so-called "parasite architecture", which this research is willing to re-evauate, as it could be a useful mean for the reuse of portions of built environment. It is precisely this category, the addition in pre-existing structures, that need to be dealth with more specifically. Applied to our case study, this means also to analyse and which areas of the city of Rome can benefit from this type of intervention, and why.

16 Jacobs, 1961 17 there are different typologies of post operam expansion: floor addition, horizontal expantions for example

Compact city

Increase in the number of inhabitants

Semi-compact city

Low rise / high coverage city

Decrease in the number of inhabitants

Compact city / High Density

Semi-compact city / Medium Density

“Diffuse” city (urban sprawl) / Low Density

65 Transition from the compact city to the low rise / high coverage city From top to bottom: Historical Centre The district of “Monte Mario/Primavalle Northern part of the city The district of “Tor Bella Monaca” Eastern part of the city Source: Roma Moderna, I. Insolera

URBAN DENSIFICATION IN ROME: A LONG-STANDING PRACTICE In the previous chapter we have clarified what is intended by densification today, and above all where this issue comes from. The question that now arises is to what extent one should apply this model to Rome. Actually, in the past, without yet having the consciousness, interventions of “primitive” densification have taken place around the city fabric. Densification in Rome has always been of two kinds: On the one hand new constructions, replacing less dense forms of housing that were planned or already built on a given plot; on the other hand, the floor addition, as a form of urban “infill”, a more informal, spontaneous and often careless solution, dictated by the immediate needs of the property owner. The topic is a long-standing one for Rome:we can say, indeed, that the issue of re-densification and the technique of floor addition are two topics that are very relevant to the culture of the city. Already in the ancient city the Roman constructors in addition to the traditional extensive type of housing, the domus, elaborated a more intensive typology, the insula, in order to cope with the sudden population growth in the city. The insula is therefore a “densified” version of the original domus. It is Vitruvius himself who mentions it, proposing constructive solutions that are functional to the realisation of the “high house”. He informs us that lateres (a type of brick) could not be used much in Rome, precisely because public laws did not allow walls wider than 45 cm to be built in the intensive districts. However, this thickness was not sufficient to support the weight of

several storeys, since the houses in the city had to extend more in height than in width because of the limited space available (hence the creation of the insula)18. Vitruvius therefore shows us how Rome used to expand vertically rather than horizontally19. The insulae themselves, densified versions of the domus, could likewise be intensified. They used to “grow on themselves”, vertically creating extensions or adding new floors. This extensions are what we would call today architectural infills. The additions were at the time mainly made of wood. Due to the crowdedness of the city centre, the buildings grew to a height of up to 10 storeys, despite the attempt to limit their height by law: under Augustus, the maximum height limit was set at 70 feet, or just under 21 metres, but in fact, elevations made of lighter materials were tolerated within certain limits20. Vertical construction has become the practice in the evolution of the city up to modern times, so much so that we can call it a tradition, not to demolish and rebuild from scratch, 18 Original text: Latericii vero, nisi diplinthii aut triplinthii fuerint, sesquipedali crassitudine non possunt plus quam unam sustinere contignationem; in ea autem maiestate urbis et civium infinita frequentia innumerabiles habitationes opus est explicare. Ergo cum recipere non possint areae planatae tantam multitudinem ed habitandum in urbe, ad auxilium altitudinis aedificiorum res ipsa coegit devenire. Itaque pilis lapideis, structuris testaceis, parrietibus caementiciis altitudines extructae contignationibus crebris coaxatae cenaculorum ad summas utilitates perficiunt despectationes. Ergo moenibus e contiguationibus areis alto spatio multiplicatis populus Romanus egregias habet sine inpeditione habitationes. Vitruvius, II, 8, 16-17 19 Lugli 1957, 531-532 20 Priester, 2002

but to add one layer of building on top of another. If one were to make a vertical section of the historic centre, one could observe how some buildings have incorporated beneath them remains of ancient constructions, houses, aqueducts, temples, nymphaea and streets. But even simply observing the city from above, one does not see a well-ordered layout of the built environment, but small additions, expansions, large vertical additions have created over time a gigantic “cluster” of overlapping spaces. Rome’s “genius loci” is not to be found in geometric abstraction, namely in a shape that has been clearly defined by an architect-planner, but in the stratification of spaces, materials and techniques, functions and uses incorporated into the urban structure. An addition is therefore the final layer of a series of overlapping urban levels.21 The building practice of “overlaying” continued until the modern age, but it was not a matter of sumptuous architecture and supreme architects, but rather a practice dictated by necessity, when, as the household expanded, it became necessary to add an extra room, terrace or floor to its own residence. Moreover, although the addition of storeys is, as we have seen, a constant feature of the development of the historic urban fabric, it was not until 1870 that it was accepted by the Roman building regulations. Only in 1886 the maximum height of intensive buildings was fixed at 18 m for the first time, and from this moment on, in the following master plans it was regularly raised up to as much as 35 m22. 21 Argan, 1978, 11-12. In the introduction chapter of the catalogue for "Roma Interrotta" 22 Insolera, 2011

As in ancient times, in the 20th century Rome found itself with two construction “trends” that proceeded simultaneously with great intensity: floor additions, often condemned for their carelessness and lack of architectural quality, suitable for people with limited financial resources, and new modern constructions, attracting the interest of the bourgeois class. As in ancient Rome, also in modern times the phenomenon derives from the need to increase the city’s housing capacity to cope with population growth. The question, however, was not only to build towards the outside, but also to densify the areas already entirely or partly built with extensive construction, transforming the urban fabric and increasing the density of the inner core. This process had its most active moment between 1909 and 1960, when numerous additions, extensions, transformations, substitutions, demolitions and reconstructions took place in areas where there was already insisting a consolidated urban fabric. We will see how these interventions took place in the following chapters.

urban sprawl examples

Aereal view of “Torresina” (Google earth) Following: Schwarzplan M 1:5000

Torresina It is located in the north-west corner of Rome, within the Grande Raccordo Anulare and in the San Giusto/Podere Zara and Quartaccio areas. It is one of the examples of Roman urban sprawl, realised since 2003. The buildings are characterised by medium density buildings, which are not integrated in the urban fabric but, separated from the context by wide green and non-urbanised areas. These architectural objects, given their isolation, demonstrate an incapacity to function decently in relation to the city.

100

Aereal view of “Borghesiana” (Google earth) Following: Schwarzplan M 1:5000

Borghesiana It is located in the eastern part of the municipality, south of Via Prenestina. The suburb grew disproportionately, without any urban development plan for the area, subsequently making it difficult to build the main infrastructure and essential services, such as water and sewage systems, paved and lit roads, and social services essential to community life. In the 1960s, squatting increased considerably and, it also encouraged speculation. A large number of small companies were set up to buy up entire agricultural plots and carry out urbanisation work on them, thereby maximising the cost of the land.

100

which strategy?

The third chapter deals with the densification and demographic increase carried out in some areas of Rome between 1910 and 1960. Actually densification exercises have always been on the agenda in the city but only in this period they acquired a systematic regularity. This process was carried out in two ways: either by enlarging already constructed buildings and thus increasing the number of existing floors, or what here we are calling “floor addition”, or by directly building a new type of housing: the “palazzina”. The characteristics of both methods will be illustrated with examples that are still visible in the city fabric today.

“The construction of “palazzine” instead of “villini” allows greater land use, ensuring the achievement of other requirements in terms of construction, in particular those of ventilation and aesthetics. ” “La costruzione delle palazzine in luogo dei villini [...] consente una maggior utilizzazione del suolo, assicura il raggiungimento degli altri bisogni edilizi, ed in particolare dell’areazione e del decoro. ”

- R.G 1920

THE PERIOD OF URBAN REDEVELOPMENT 1909-1931: A DENSIFICATION ANTE LITTERAM In the time period between 1909 and 1960 the municipality Rome enacted two master-plans that would bring the city up to date with European urban contexts. When Ernesto Nathan became mayor in 1907, he found in his office on the Campidoglio a draft of the 1883 master plan for the expansion of the city of Rome. He decided to entrust the project to someone who was not familiar with the Capitoline environment and appointed Edmondo Sanjust di Teulada1. The plan, approved in 1909, provided for three housing typologies to be built all around the city, called fabbricati, villini and giardini. The differences between the three types are defined in the general building regulations, as follows. Fabbricati are intensive buildings which can be up to 24 m high, while villini must be only two storeys above ground level and surrounded by gardens; giardini can only be built on 1/20th of their area and with luxury buildings2. Alongside the intensive buildings, mainly in the Rioni3, (Prati and Vittorio) the city also expanded outwards. A quarter of the planned buildable area will be taken up by the parcels dedicated to villini and giardini. The former are planned to be built around the fabbricati, while giardini would fill the areas that were still empty all around the villini. However, they underwent several transformations a few years after the plan was approved. For reasons which we will explain 1 Insolera, 2011, 103 2 Ibid., 104 3 The historical districts of the city

Masterpan 1909, by Edmond Santjust-Teulada Contoured black are the areas largely built with the “villino” and “giardino” typology

later, many of the areas designated for villini were not constructed according to the building indications and restriction provided by the law, but instead a more “dense” version of this typology was often implemented, a “new” solution, which soon became widespread. This “dense” villino was built either by adding new floors to the pre-existing buildings, or by a “planned” increase of the buildable surface of a given plot before the construction. This trick led to an increase in the land rent and consequently to the replacement of the villino with a new type, called palazzina. 4 The difference between floor addition and the construction of new buildings (palazzine) will be explained in the next chapter. The 1909 master-plan was replaced by a new plan in 1931, which foresaw the increase of the Roman population from one million to two million inhabitants in 25 years5. The plan shows radical changes from the previous one. It admits the palazzina officially as a new category of medium density housing.6 They are definitively considered a wide4 the owners of existing villini may take advantage of the same benefits, to expand or complete their buildings, as long as, in the opinion of the Administration, the new works of addition do not harm the overall decorum of the neighborhoods Original text: i proprietari di villini giá esistenti potranno giovarsi delle stesse facilitazioni, per ampliare o completare le loro costruzioni, sempreché a giudizio dell Amministrazioni i nuovi lavori non nuociano al decoro d'insieme dei quartieri. R.D. 16.12.1920, n 1937 5 Censimento di Roma 1931, from Capitolium 1931 (year VII) - n 12 6 Already in 1922 it was established that: "it is necessary to definitively integrate the building regulations by defining an intermediate type of building between the intensive housing and the villini, which is given precisely by the palazzina and which has had in recent times considerable development."

AREAS LARGELY BUILT WITH LOW DENSITY BUILDINGS

1. NORTH

District: Pinciano, Parioli Salario, Nomentano

High density buildings (fabbricato typology) planned in 1909

Low density buildings (villino typology) planned in 1909

2. SOUTH - EAST

District: Tuscolano, Labicano, Appio Latino

Very low density buildings (giardini typology) planned in 1909

3. WEST

District: Gianicolense, Monteverde

areas which were largely built with “villini” and “giardini” after 1909

CENTRE District: Aventino

Masterpan 1931, by Boncompagni Ludovisi Giovannoni, Piacentini, Muñoz, et al. In comparison with the Master-plan of 1909, here we can find a new tipology: the medium density” palazzina

spread building type, while the plans for villini are reduced. The height of intensive buildings is increased to 30 m and will remain so until the 1934 Building Regulations, which will set it at between 25 and 35 m depending on the width of the streets. If conditions permit, then, it is therefore possible to raise the height of intensives to a maximum height of 35 m. 7 According to the 1931 master-plan, the essential housing categories, which are responsible for accommodating the expected increase in population, include fabbricati, palazzine and villini. According to the zoning for each type of construction, it is possible to estimate a distribution of the population foreseen by the master-plan: 580 ha for fabbricati (intensive buildings) (estimated population with a density of 500/600 inhabitants/ha = 290,000/348,000; 1,260 ha for palazzine (estimated population with a density of 350/450 inhabitants/ha = 4,000/348,000). 350/450 inhabitants/ha = 441,000/567,000; 1,140 for villini (estimated population density 100 inhabitants/ha = 114,000)8. It can therefore be estimated that palazzine and intensives buildings would have had to accommodate more than three quarters of the new population envisaged by the plan. Initially, palazzine were planned in one or more belts along the edges of the main roads, as if to mediate, morphologically and functionally, the Original text: é necessario integrare definitivamente il regolamento edilizio definendo un tipo di fabbricato intermedio fra le abitazioni intensive e i villini, che é dato appunto dalle palazzine e che ha avuto in questi ultimi tempi notevole sviluppo. R.G 02.04.1922 n 528 7 Insolera, 2011 8 Piano regolatore della cittá di Roma, Approvazione, norme generali, prescrizioni tecniche, norme integrative, 1936

High density buildings (fabbricato typology) planned in 1931

Low density buildings (villino typology) planned in 1931

Medium density buildings (palazzina typology) planned in 1931

non-urban areas planned in 1931

Typology of Fabbricato - High density building-

Typology of Palazzina - Medium density building -

Typology of Villino - Low density building -

Diagrams of the different housing typologies implemented by the two master-plan s of 1909 and 1931 From top to bottom: The Fabbricato, the Palazzina and the Villino typology

relationship between these and the buildings behind, which were originally still planned to be villini. From 1960 onwards, the subsequent increase in building density on these same plots of land thwarted this design, and so palazzine began to cover the area uniformly9. However, even in the construction of palazzine, the Building Regulations’ standard for the number of storeys is often not strictly applied, so that the effective density of the plot is often higher than planned. The vagueness of the rule linking building height to the ground level, not clarifying whether one should refer to the lower or higher point of the ground to start constructing, nevertheless allowed massive construction.10 This means that it was easier to obtain a higher number of floors and flats than the usual standard for apartment blocks. In this case too, as we have illustrated, the rules of the palazzina laid down in the master-plan were somehow eluded, and often buildings that were much denser than what was envisaged on paper were raised up. In many areas the difference between the palazzina and the intensive block was reduced to a difference of class: the greater finishing, the double services, the decoration of the entrance and the stairs confirmed the palazzina as the typical bourgeois house, but basically both typologies had sometimes the same level of housing density.11

9 Passeri, 2016, 181-185 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

From top to bottom: Population of the Rome between 1871 and 1931 The number of rooms dedicated to housing from 1911 to 1931. Source: Censimento di Roma 1931, Capitolium 1931, Anno VII - n. 12

TWO POSSIBLE CHOICES

The 1909 plan attempts to use differentiation in building typology to prevent the indiscriminate spreading of housing in all directions by alternating high-density areas with low-density ones.12 The size of the various neighbourhoods was also based on the chosen residential typology, and also services and road-sections were proportionate to it. Although the 1909 master-plan was valid in theory, it was not matched by practice, and the resulting effect was exactly the opposite of what was planned. The biggest mistake was to underestimate the demographic impulse of the city on the one hand, and on the other the speculative power of the small and medium-sized Roman entrepreneurs, who also deserved to be controlled or at least advised. In the following years and with the establishment of the fascist regime, the population of Rome increased disproportionately: not only did the surrounding countryside suddenly become empty, but also a huge migration from southern Italy started. In the 1920s the population was close to one million, and the plan was simply not calibrated to such big numbers. The pressure of migratory flows and the demographic increase, and the speculative push of developer-entrepreneurs, have thus outlined a well-defined but at the same time very unpredictable pattern. The most considerable consequence for the building sector has been a general increase in the volume of buildable space. This happened interestingly in areas where the master-plan had set a max12 Insolera, 2011, 105

The increase of the roman population between 1911 and 1931, according to each Rione or Quartiere The quartieri “Salario-Nomentano-Flaminio-Parioli” were the most affected by densification Source: Censimento di Roma 1931, Capitolium 1931, Anno VII - n. 12

imum limit, which is systematically overstepped. What happened was a this sort of densification intervention, and in the end the population increased radically in some of the newly established quartieri13. These areas are often saturated, because the increase in the percentage of inhabitants is not matched by an improvement in private services, roads and parking. The increase of building capacity has manifested itself in two ways, as I have hinted in the previous chapter. On the one hand there are those people who added one or more rooms, or even floors to their private property, thereby incrementing their living space in an uncoordinated manner. On the other hand those who, as owners of land planned to be occupied by the low density villino typology, decided to build a denser one, the so-called palazzina. These two densification strategies can be found especially in plots intended for villini and giardini. As a matter of fact, these two categories were the ones that, according to plan, should occupy less land. The villino was a one- or two-family dwelling which was, as predictable, economically less profitable than a fabbricato. There was, therefore, an enormous economic gap between the profits of the different land owners according to the assigned residential category. As a consequence the most disadvantaged ones (the ones that were assigned with a villino) tried to gain as many economic benefits as possible from the land subdivision made by the master-plan. Many entrepreneurs and owners decided then, when there was an existing villino on their own 13 his increase of population and the relative residential capacity happened mostly in the north part of the city, in the quartieri Pinciano, Salario, Parioli, Nomentano, Appio Latino

92 The densification process seen through examples: From left to right: The Villino Alatri in 1929, a typical roman Villino Source: Archidiap The floor addition of M. Ridolfi and W. Frankl, which added 4 Floors to the original structure

The densification process seen through examples: From left to right: The Villa Caracciolo di Brienza in early 1900, a typical roman Villino Source: Rerum Romanum The partial sobstituition of the existing structure with a palazzina of G. Persichetti, F. Baliva, A. de’ Rossi, E Rampelli

Schematic diagram of a floor addition Source: URBAN INFILL L’interpretazione dei vuoti nella città compatta, A. Iacovantuono

land to extend it ,or, when the ground was empty, directly to build a brand new palazzina14. This new housing category consequently appeared as the perfect compromise between the intensive building and the villino. When this practice became common, some land owners even decided to demolish the pre-existing villino and to build a palazzina in its place. The years 1909-1931 saw a strong impulse towards the conversion of extensive housing, towards a more intensive solution. This transformation, although not guided by a general regulation, took place on a large scale and over time became an urban characteristic of the areas around the historic centre. Both floor addition and construction of palazzine are in any case linked from the legislative point of view: a raised or enlarged villino is accepted by the legislation, as long as it respects the indications given for the construction of a palazzina, even if the edificatory process is different if we talk of an addition or an expansion.

FLOOR ADDITIONS

For the first time in 1909, the master-plan signed by Teulada not only envisaged the expansion of the city outside the Aurelian Walls, but also established the increase of the maximum building height for high-density buildings from 18 to 24 metres, with prior approval by the municipality15. 14 Insolera, 2011, 109 15 Ibid., 104

Some floor additions interventions in Rome From top to bottom: Collegio Germanico Ungarico, (1776) Pietro il Camporese il Vecchio und Pasquale Belli, Piazza delle Cinque Lune, Rome. Floor addition by Antonio Sarti (two floors), 1860

Complesso Edilizio “Lotto XI” (1884), Carlo Tonelli, via Aldo Manuzio, Rome, Floor addition by unknown (one Floor), 1910 Palazzo dell’Unione Militare, (1900), via Tomacelli, Rome Floor addition by Massimiliano Fuksas, (one floor) 2008-2013

For some of these buildings, built and/or designed between 1870 and 1881, it is therefore possible to increase the residential capacity. The most immediate response to the legislators’ willingness to increase the buildable volume on each plot was through floor addition. Such interventions occur mainly on the initiative of private individuals and take on the appearance of “parasites” within the city. Structures, or rather superstructures, that often have no connection with the underlying object, but are linked to it for reasons of necessity (shared surface installations, etc.)16. Such parasitic architecture spreads without any planned logic, and is often a clumsy attempt to imitate the identity of the pre-existing building, without however achieving convincing results. It has to be said that these architectures do not strive for the Vetruvian venustas, but often reflect the immediate needs of the everyday life17. Additions are widespread where the city is not completely saturated, and although they are often not the work of illustrious architects, they represent a significant intervention in the growth of Rome in these years. The history of modern architecture is populated by such interventions, which as a result, densify the spaces within the compact fabric of the city .These architectures could assume a paradigmatic role for contemporary design, helping to find among them some “good examples” to re-elaborate an idea of contemporary architectural “infill”. Indeed, what happens in Rome is that the fabric of the consolidated city, and to a certain extent also the historic dis16 Marini, 2008 17 Ibid.

tricts, increase in population density. Such an information is reported by the document “Ventennio di attività edilizia a Roma“ (Twenty years of building activity in Rome). The document delivers a detailed report on building activity in Rome between 1909 and 1929, showing the number of rooms built year by year, and specifically how many were belonging to new buildings and how many extensions or additions. It is estimated that between 1922 and 1930 between 10 and 15% of the entire volume built in the city was in the form of an addition18. Mainly all those citizens who needed to enlarge their dwelling but did not have enough money to tear down their building and rebuild it from scratch turned to this expedient. The result is an "adaptation" of existing buildings (those built before 1909) to the new standards set by the new master-plan. Legislation has also favoured this type of intervention to some extent, since the subsequent master-plans have regularly raised the maximum height of buildings. Further on-top extensions occurred when the master-plan was updated in 1931, and when the maximum building heights reached 28, 30 and 34 metres. . Those who had the opportunity therefore did not hesitate to increase the available space of their habitation. It should not be forgotten that under Italian law of the time, the owner of the top floor of a building, in the case of an intensive residence, or in any case of a multi-storey building, is also the owner of the roof surface and of the one immediately below. This means that, within the limits of the legislation and with the approval of the municipality, he can freely dispose of it. Consistently, Italian law has always recognised a value in 18 Un ventennio di attività edilizia a Roma, 1929

the private property of individuals and therefore recognises their right, in this case, to raise the top floor19. And so in a matter of a few years Rome is covered in extensions and vertical additions, which are often carried out by individual owners in moments of immediate need to increase the space in their homes. Small interventions, often of no architectural value whatsoever, but nevertheless with a strong spatial value, begin to pile up on the roofs of the city, interventions that critics have often described as disfiguring the proportion of the building, or disrespectful of the historical image20. This is sometimes true, but the spontaneity of the phenomenon must nevertheless be recognised as a strong need expressed by each citizen. The immediacy and naturalness of this process makes it so deeply embedded in the fabric of the city that today, if you look up and look at the tops of these tall buildings, you can recognise additions, sometimes incongruous, sometimes interesting. The graft [...] can also be "rude" [...] but in any case it is capable of measuring the dialectical distance that separates it from 19 The Italian law recognises to each land owner the possibility potentially to build a skyscraper on his own parcel Insolera, 2011, 109 20 The projects for " filling the holes " should not be considered for what they appear to be - extemporary games of architects in search of commissions - but for the danger they contain. This is a superficial approach to the themes, little responsibility towards historical and functional structures, an incredible desire to place one's own signs next to or - what is more serious - above those of the past. Original text: l progetti per ‘tappare i buchi’ non vanno considerati per ciò che appaiono - giochi estemporanei di architetti alla ricerca di incarichi bensì per il pericolo che essi contengono. Che è superficialità di approccio ai temi, poca responsabilità nei confronti delle strutture storiche e funzionali, incredibile voglia di porre i propri segni accanto o - ciò che è più grave sopra quelli antichi. Tafuri 1984 cited in Iacovantuono

100

Floor addition example informal extension of a building

101 Floor addition example (two floors) here one can see two different strucutre methods implied

102

Schematic diagram of Palazzina building process

"good manners"21. Floor additions, which are not always quality architecture, are mainly small-scale projects, in most cases consisting in the addition of one or more rooms, but the phenomenon is widespread and successful. We can observe the additions applied to all the types of housing envisaged by the master-plan of 1909: both in fabbricati and in villini. These are punctual interventions, but it happens sometimes that they are of larger scale and in some examples even three floors are added to the original volume. It must be said, however, that this type of interventions was not carried out in a systematic way, i.e. with a plan identifying the areas in which to realize super-structures or, more generally, extension works, but this type of construction was left to the free will of private individuals or entrepreneurs.

“LA PALAZZINA” The palazzina was born as a residential typology immediately after the drawing up of the master-plan of 1909, even if at the time it was not officially accepted, and it began to be allowed to replace the residential type of the villino. As we have already observed, the main reason given for the “palazzina” operation22 was the housing crisis and the consequent need to achieve an intense exploitation of the buildable areas. The supporters of this idea were convinced that the 1909 master-plan was not a tool to achieve, through an adequate 21 Zucchi, 2014 cited in Iacovantuono 22 Insolera 2011, 109

103

104

From top to bottom: Villino Cappellini, Mario de Renzi (1928) Source: Fondo Mario de Renzi Palazzina in Via Panama, Mario de Renzi (1930) The two building are designed by the same architect, Mario de Renzi, and both

are showing a similar architectural language. It is also clear how the “palazzina” is a more dense and compact version of a “villino”. The “palazzina” has an increased airspace and it is raised up to 25 meters.

application, the resolution of the crisis, but an impediment to it. Moreover, as the master-plan was not accompanied by a revolution in Italian legislation, the owners of lands destined to villini and giardini were not compensated for the lower profit. Those who saw their land designated to be used for villini or giardini therefore felt almost cheated and the tradition of Italian private law proved them right23. By not considering the right to build as a collective property that was then shared out among the individuals, Italian law potentially allowed every owner to build a skyscraper on his own land, and every floor less appeared to the owners as an impairment24. The 1909 plan immediately became the object of pressing attempts to transform the villini into a more profitable type of building which was given the name of “palazzina”. What can be called the “palazzina operation” began before the Great War, but reached its climax in the 1920s, when it was allowed to build palazzine instead of villini in order to meet the building crisis following the war. According to the legislation of the time (R.G 1920), considering that the present acute housing crisis calls for prompt measures to alleviate it [...] the construction of palazzine instead of villini, while allowing greater use of land, ensures that other building needs are met, and in particular ventilation and decorum25. The palazzine therefore also corresponds, according to the norms of the time, to an improvement in technology and housing standards, and also for this reason it was justified to be built. Initially, the replacement of the villini with a palazzina was of a transitory and “emergency” 23 Ibid. 111 24 cf. Insolera or Footnote n19 25 R.D. 16.12.1920, n 1937

105

106

107

Examples of Palazzone-fabric in the city From top to bottom: View of Viale parioli in 1950 (aereal view) Source: Roma Moderna, I. Insolera View of Via Archimede in 1950 Source: Roma Sparita

nature, in relation to the period in which Rome was living. For this reason it was not to be extended beyond 1922. This emergency situation stopped in 1925, when the palazzina ceased to be a temporary solution. A definitive integration in the building regulations was established in 1931, as with the word "palazzina" was used to define a type of building somewhere between intensive housing and villini. The practice of building palazzine instead of villini quickly caught on among Roman builders who had realised its economic potential, and was not prevented by the administrators because of the resulting increase in density. Within a few years entire neighbourhoods were redesigned, and completely transformed from the original idea. What happened was a sort of ante litteram re-densification of the areas that had already been built or were planned to be covered with villini. We call it “ante litteram” precisely because it is wrong to think of a densification process as we do today. What is missing in this operation is an overall vision of the whole project, which is necessary today for such an urban intervention. 26The building process is carried out considering what could be done lot by lot: one always thinks of the substitution of a villino by a palazzina, not of the transformation of a villino area into a palazzina area, with a consequent increase in density, traffic, services, etc. The palazzina is the second most widespread building intervention together with the floor addition in this period in Rome, to increase the density of the lots around the historic centre. It is therefore an alternative solution to the repetitive garden-cities on the one hand, and to intensive experiments in social housing on the other. The building’s characteristic feature is 26 Insolera, 2011, 109

108

in fact its “originality”: the building, as it was originally conceived, was to have four independent façades, presenting four different architectural solutions. This not only allowed for the development of highly articulated designs, but also for a strong stylistic differentiation and a lot of creative freedom for the architects. It also demonstrated on paper several advantages from a social point of view: being a medium-density type, it avoided on the one hand the social segregation typical of intensive housing, and on the other hand the dispersion and difficulty in accessing services of isolated garden-cities27. The eight or nine apartments usually contained in a palazzina create a quantitatively smaller housing context in which relations with neighbours are easier. The building type is therefore a compromise between high and low density, and is the most popular among the working class. The declared aim is to increase construction through greater use of the building area, without completely abandoning green areas and the need for lighting, ventilation and decorum, and reducing the cost of public services for the municipality. However, the palazzina has also proved to be a risky building type: the fact that this building type implies a certain freedom of action for the builder-entrepreneur also represents one of the easiest possibilities for land and building speculation. This statement is certainly true, just as the danger of navigating through technical rules and building regulations that are not very logical and explicit in order to take the maximum possible advantage.28 If the objective of the palazzina is to exploit the building area to the maximum, it is natural to find it where the master-plan, had foreseen the construction of villini and giardini. As an intermediate build27 Passeri, 2016, 18-19 28 Ibid.

109

ing type between the villino and the fabbricato, it could be 4 storeys high plus the attic (19 metres high) and had to have a small garden all around it: it was therefore much more than a villino and much less than an intensive building. It was characterised by views on all sides, minimum distances of 5.8 m from the boundaries of neighbouring lots, possible alignment with the street level, and possible partial elevation to make the building harmonious and varied.29 In a city like Rome, the palazzina had enormous success. It became the typical building type in Rome, and everyone who could chose inevitably settled in a palazzina. It was not only successful among buyers and speculators, but also among architects who studied and appreciated its potential, which was certainly larger than that of the other two categories. The interest they showed in the typology is evident from the fact that in Rome today there are about 250 “ signature” buildings30, by architects who are now part of history, and who represent innovative and stimulating solutions for the city’s architecture. Alfredo Passeri boldly states that “almost all (perhaps all) architects of the last century designed palazzine”. Important architects were said to have contributed to the success of the palazzina already in the peri29 Palazzine must have the following characteristics: they may have a larger surface area [...] but must have free elevations on all sides and be at least 5.80 meters away from the boundaries of adjacent lots. The extension of the street facades may not exceed 25 meters in length, so that they do not become too large to alter the type of construction. Original text: Le palazzine dovranno presentare le seguenti caratteristiche: esse potranno avere una superficie superiore [...] ma dovranno avere vedute a prospetto su tutte le fronti ed essere distanti almeno 5,80 metri dai confini dei lotti attigui. La estensione delle fronti sulle strade non potrá eccedere la lunghezza di metri 25, sicche in ogni modo non assumano proporzioni troppo vaste da alterare il tipo delle costruzioni. R.D. 16.12.1920, n 1937 30 cf. Insolera, 2011

110

Layout and Space: Axial symmetry in roman Palazzine From left to right: Palazzina Frumanik,Palazzina Antares, Palazzina Via S. Valentino, Palazzina in via Archimede, Palazzina Bornigia, Palazzina Salvatelli

od of its first realisations. Marcello Piacentini31 was among the first to grasp the significance of the typology. Dario Barbieri32 was against the type of villino and fabbricato of the 1909 Plan, and was decidedly in favour of the palazzina. He criticised, for aesthetic reasons, the dark, dense blocks of the Esquilino and San Lorenzo districts33, and also for economic reasons, the socalled garden-villages of Garbatella or Montesacro with large, isolated family houses. In the following we will look at some illustrated examples of apartment blocks, whose characteristics and criticalities we will observe later on. In terms of layout, the palazzine are often very similar to each other: they usually have one or two flats on each floor, of large size, usually available to accommodate families of 4/5 people, guests, and staff.The flats receive light from several sides, also because the building cannot have its external walls coinciding with other buildings. They often have internal courtyards for reasons of ventilation and lighting. In order to guarantee that the flats have the same characteristics, so that the inhabitants do not become dissatisfied, architects often construct the internal partitions symmetrically. The axis of symmetry generally divides the entrance hall and the main staircase, a representative distributive element which then leads to the individual flats. The apartments, generally equipped with all the latest comfort and technology, have different areas of the house dedicated to the staff, with doubling of the distribution paths, entrances, flyers, vertical connections, both stairs and elevators. 31 cited in Passeri, 2016, 18 32 two quartieri planned mostly with intensive residential buildings 33 cited in Passeri, 2016, 18

111

112

Palazzine in Lungotevere Flaminio , Rome

113

Palazzine in Viale delle Medaglie d’oro, Rome

Densification: aereal views

Buildings which were already existing in 1943

Significant transformations of the existing buildings (demolition/ recostruction, expantions) happened after 1943

New constructions on empty ground (palazzina)

Urban transformation of the quartieri "Pinciano-Salario-Parioli-Nomentano" between 1943 and today

Parco Virgiliano The park was designed by Raffaele de Vico, director of the Garden Department at the time, who succeeded in combining the requirements of a ‘neighbourhood’ park, with leisure facilities and children’s games, with a simple but refined design inspired by landscape and natural models. The area around the park has undergone a massive densification operation. The villini built according to the 1909 plan are gradually being replaced by palazzine, or enlarged (with floor addition or other extensions) . There are few survivors today that give an idea of the initial layout.

Aereal views of the area of “Parco Virgiliano”. From left to right: View of the area in 1926, historical photo Source: Roma ieri Oggi View of the area today (google earth)

Viale Bruno Buozzi The two pictures depict the evolution of Viale Bruno Buozzi, initially an arera dedicated to “ville”, “giardini” and “villini”, according to the master-plan of 1909. In the first picture it is visible how the existing buildings are onlya few and all around, still free, of construction, the hills. From the 1930s onwards, the area underwent intense densification, mainly involving the construction of palazzine, which covered the whole area.

Aereal views of Viale Bruno Buozzi From left to right: View of the area in 1930, historical photo Source: Roma ieri Oggi View of the area today (google earth)

Densification: built examples (1910-1960)

125

22 23

21 20

17 15 16 1 4 3 5

8 13 14

24 7

FLOOR ADDITIONS Villino Alatri

Via Giovanni Paisello 21, Rome

Palazzina Pincherle

Villino Astaldi

Via Niccoló Porpora 1, Rome

Via Giacomo Carissimi 30, Rome

Villino in Via Giacomo Carissimi, 37

Ex-Villa Caracciolo di Brienza

Villino in Via Lazzaro Spallanzani

Building in Via Novara

Via Giacomo Carissimi 37, Rome

Via Ulisse Aldovrandi 9, Rome

Via Lazzaro Spallanzani, 24, Rome

Via Novara 31-35, Rome

Building in Viale Regina Margherita

Viale Regina Margherita 109, Rome

Viale Regina Margherita 183, Rome

Building in Via Catania

10.

Via Catania 19-21-23, Rome

Building in Via Udine, 36 Via Udine 36, Rome

11.

PALAZZINE 12. 13.

Palazzina de’Salvi

Piazza della Libertà 20, Rome

Palazzina Nebbiosi Lungotevere Arnaldo da Brescia 9, Rome

14.

Palazzina in Via Pisanelli 1

15.

Palazzina Furmanik

Via Giovanni Pisanelli 1, Rome

Lungotetvere Flaminio 18, Rome

16.

Palazzina in Via dei Monti Parioli 13

17.

Palazzina Il Girasole

18.

Palazzina Colombo

19.

Palazzina in Via S. Valentino 16

Via dei Monti Parioli 13, Rome

Viale Bruno Buozzi 64, Rome

Via San Valentino 21, Rome

Via San Valentino 16, Rome

20.

Palazzina Antares

21.

Palazzina in Via Archimede

22.

Palazzina Bornigia

23.

Palazzina Salvatelli

24.

Palazzina Rea

Via San Valentino 4, Rome

Via Archimede 148, Rome

Piazza delle Muse 6-7, Rome

Via Eleonora Duse 35, Rome

Via di Villa Massimo 39, Rome

Floor Additions

Floor addition of Villino Alatri, view from the street (via G. Paisello) Following: West Elevation (via G. Paisello) M 1:250 Floor Plan, 02. Storey, M 1:250

Via Giovanni Paisello 21, Rome

Villino Alatri

M. Ridolfi, W. Frankl, M. Fiorentino

Floor addition of Villino Pincherle, view from the street (via G. Paisello) Following: North Elevation (via N. Porpora) M 1:250 Detail of the floor addition, miming the “style” of the pre-existent manufact.

Via Niccoló Porpora 1, Rome

Palazzina Pincherle C. Pincherle

Floor addition of Villino Astaldi, view from the street (via G. Carissimi) Following: South-West Elevation (via S. Mercadante) M 1:250 Floor Plan, 03. Storey M 1:250

Via Giacomo Carissimi 30, Rome

Villino Astaldi M. Ridolfi, W. Frankl

Floor addition of a Villino in via Carissimi, view from the street (via G. Paisello) Following: West Elevation (via G. Paisello) M 1:250 Floor Plan, 03. Storey, M 1:250

Via Giacomo Carissimi 37, Rome

Palazzina in Via G. Carissimi

Partial substitution of villino Caracciolo di Brienza with a palazzina, view from the street (via U. Aldovrandi) Following: East Elevation (via U. Aldovrandi) M 1:250 Detail of the floor addition: dealing with the old construction

Via Ulisse Aldovrandi 9, Rome

Ex-Villa Caracciolo di Brienza G. Persichetti, F. Baliva, A. de’ Rossi, E Rampelli

Floor addition of a Villino in via Lazzaro Spallanzani, view from the street (via L. Spallanzani) Following: West Elevation (via L. Spallanzani) M 1:250 Detail of the addition: the tower

Via Lazzaro Spallanzani 24, Rome

Villino in Via L. Spallanzani

Floor addition of a residential intensive building, view from the street (via Novara) Following: Street facade (via Novara) M 1:250 Detail of the floor addition: dealing with the old construction

Via Novara 31-35, Rome

Building in Via Novara

Floor addition of a residential intensive building, view from the street (viale Regina Margherita) Following: Street facade (viale Regina Margherita) M 1:250 Detail of the floor addition: dealing with the old construction

Viale Regina Margherita 109, Rome

Building in Viale Regina Margherita

Viale Regina Margherita 183, Rome

Building in Viale Regina Margherita

Floor addition of a residential intensive building, view from the street (via Catania) Following: Street facade (via Catania) M 1:250 Detail of the floor addition: dealing with the old construction

Via Catania 19-21-23, Rome

Building in Via Catania

Floor addition of a residential intensive building, view from the street (via Udine) Following: Street Facade (via Udine) M 1:250 Detail of the floor addition: dealing with the old construction

Via Udine 36, Rome

Building in Via Udine

Palazzine

Palazzina de’ Salvi, view from the street (Piazza della Libertà) Following: South Elevation (Piazza della Libertà) M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Piazza della Libertà 20, Rome

Palazzina de’ Salvi P. Aschieri

Palazzina Nebbiosi, view from the street (Lungotevere A. da Brescia) Following: West Elevation (Lungotevere A. da Brescia) M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Lungotevere Arnaldo da Brescia 9, Rome

Palazzina Nebbiosi G. Capponi

Palazzina in Via Pisanelli, view from the street (via G. Pisanelli) Following: North Elevation (via G. Paisello) M 1:250 Floor Plan, 01. Storey, M 1:250

Via Giuseppe Pisanelli 1, Rome

Palazzina in via G. Pisanelli B.Zevi, S. Radiconcini

Palazzina Furmanik, view from the street (Lungotevere Flaminio) Following: West Elevation (Lungotevere Flaminio) M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Lungotevere Flaminio 18, Rome

Palazzina Furmanik M. De Renzi, G. Calza Bini, P. Sforza

Palazzina in via Monti Parioli, view from the street (via Monti Parioli) Following: South-East Elevation M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Via dei Monti Parioli 13, Rome

Palazzina in via dei Monti Parioli B.Zevi, L. Piccinnato, S. Radiconcini

Palazzina Il Girasole, view from the street (viale Bruno Buozzi) Source: Mibact 2018 Following: South-East Elevation M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Viale Bruno Buozzi 64, Rome

Palazzina Il Girasole L. Moretti

Palazzina Colombo, view from the street (via S. Valentino) Following: South Elevation M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Via di S. Valentino 21, Rome

Palazzina Colombo M. Ridolfi, W. Frankl

Palazzina in Via S. Valentino, view from the street (via S. Valentino) Following: Detail of the facade Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Via di S. Valentino 16, Rome

Palazzina in Via S. Valentino A. Luccichenti, V. Monaco

Palazzina Antares, view from the street (via S. Valentino) Following: North Elevation M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Via di S. Valentino 4, Rome

Palazzina Antares A. Luccichenti, V. Monaco

Palazzina in via Archimede, view from the street (via Archimede) Following: South-West Elevation M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Via Archimede 185, Rome

Palazzina in Via S. Archimede U. Luccichenti

Palazzina Bornigia, view from the street (piazza Muse) Following: North Elevation M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Piazza delle Muse 6-7, Rome

Palazzina Bornigia U. Luccichenti

Palazzina Salvatelli, view from the street (piazza Muse) Following: North Elevation M 1:250 Floor Plan, Ground Floor, M 1:250

Via Eleonora Duse 35, Rome

Palazzina Salvatelli G. Ponti

Palazzina Rea, view from the street (via di Villa Massimi) Source: Archidap Following: South-West Elevation M 1:250 Floor Plan, Standard Storey, M 1:250

Viale di Villa Massimo, 39, Rome

Palazzina Rea M. Ridolfi, W. Frankl

which method?

This chapter deals more specifically with the issue of vertical additions and their value within the cityscape. It analyses the aspects which nowadays place this type of intervention at the centre of the debate on regenerative strategies and densification of the city. Floor additions, or more generally defined as architectural parasites, are linked to the existing and establish with them a dialectical relationship on the heritage, as well as on the material and intellectual value of the single urban place. In this chapter their qualities and limitations are illustrated. The aim is to pave the way for a future strategy for the reuse of the existent to define a clear design proposal in the context of Rome.

“The on-top-structure re-activates architectural objects and urban systems without chasing Vetruvian firmitas [...] but trying to establish a more dialectical and articulated relationship between built and time.” “La sovrastruttura riattiva oggetti architettonici e sistemi urbani senza inseguire la firmitas vetruviana [...] ma cercando di istituire un rapporto più dialettico e articolato tra costruito e tempo.” - Sara Marini, Architettura Parassita: Strategia di riciclaggio per la città, 2008

187

FLOOR ADDITION AS AN INSTRUMENT OF DENSIFICATION The enactment of regulations in several European countries, which set limits to new edification, encourages the transformation of existing buildings. This phenomenon has triggered a search in the architectural debate for alternative recycling strategies to the process of museification on the one hand and the principle of tabula rasa1 on the other. The tendency to build the city outwards, as we have already stated in the previous chapters, and to create new boundaries, is accompanied by the tendency to “musealize” the historic centre, depriving it in some way of all the propulsive and generative force of new city matrices. What this research wants to propose, therefore, is an alternative approach, which has already been experimented in some way in the established urban fabric, but always in a more or less unconscious way. In a country such as Italy, and in a city such as Rome procedures very often make the programme of “renovating” a more realistic and economical one than that of “demolishing and rebuilding”2. In Italy, a new draft national law has been proposed3 which highlights the importance of the reuse of existing land. It stipulates that new land consumption for settlement and infrastructure purposes is only allowed when there are no alternatives for the reuse and reorganisation of existing settlements and infrastructure4. 1 the principle of building from scratch, without considering the contextual affordances 2 Marini, 2008, 11 3 the text of the proposal is reported by Gibelli et al., 2006, and in the website www.eddyburg.it 4 the proposal finds actually a predecessor in the regulations of Regione Toscana: The Regione toscana states that "new uses of land for settlement purposes are allowed only if there are no alternatives for the reuse and

188

189

Different excercises of a manipulation of a building, Cedric Pirce, the capacity of Linkages, form Architettura parassita, strategie di riciclaggio per la città , Sara Marini, 2008

The limitation of land consumption towards the city boundaries has also a socio-cultural value, i.e. to facilitate the use of the consolidated areas of the city by the different cultural milieus, and to prevent social segregation of the different social classes. The hope is therefore to find a way of urban growth that limits spatial dispersion and at the same time allows the most disadvantaged to live in the city. Accepting this premise, it is much more difficult and not sustainable to destroy what has been built and build new, or even to parcel out the parts of the city left free and build there. The strategy that has been pursued in past years, as we have seen, in a more or less planned way in Rome, i.e. to build clusters of palazzine in low-density areas of the city, thereby increasing the density of the entire zone, is not feasible. It also raises an “ethical” question: eliminating pre-existing structures in order to build new ones would mean eliminating the traces of time, removing all those “layers” that have been slowly built up in the city. This procedure therefore represents a negation of the evolutionary processes of conurbations that were so glorified by Aldo Rossi5. However, given the need to densify the consolidated urban fabric instead of continuing to build the suburbs, the question to be asked is what strategy and methodology should be pursued in order to carry out a compelling densification intervention in the city? A second alternative is proposed, of which we have amply shown examples in the previous chapter, namely the floor additions. The strategy of “over-layering” or “parasitizing” is mainly adopted in order to reorganization of existing settlements and infrastructures." L.R. 3-1-2005, n 1, articolo 3, comma 4 5 Rossi in The Architecture of the City, 1966

190

Different interpretation of a super-imposition From top to bottom: Superstudio, il monumento continuo, Grand Hotel Colosseo, 1969 Nils-Ole Lund , The Future of Architecture, 1979

meet the needs of the individual, to offer him an extra space, but also to allow him to stay in the city and not to consume any more land.6 We are witnessing the reintroduction of an architectural practice, that of building “on-top”, which takes on all the characteristics we might associate with the term “parasite of the existing”. Nowadays in Europe, in addition to the laws that lead to the re-use of existing buildings, the regulations that allow vertical extensions of buildings represent a way of densification, and in some cases become opportunities for architectural reflection. The roofs of the central European metropolises in general will not be idyllic refuges for much longer, homes to be desired for the sake of the wide horizon. The constant increase in real estate prices in several large cities and the growing desire for an urban lifestyle according to Ludwig Hilberseimer’s idea of the vertical city - above living below working - increasingly polarise the interest in millions of unused square metres. 7 Floor addition involves the introduction of architectural organisms into pre-existing buildings and urban structures. The parasite organism is linguistically and spatially distinct from the host, but linked to it by a state of necessity. As we have seen in Rome between 1910 and 1960, alongside the widespread subdivision of land for villini and the construction instead of the corresponding palazzine, the practice of floor addition underwent an upsurge. For the first time, then, it emerged as a possible model for urban growth. It turns out, however, that this practice has little interest for the architects of the time, 6 Marini, 2008 7 Kaltenbach, 2006 cited in Marini 2008

191

192

who were at that time involved in the stylistic experiments of the 1950s. It appears in the end as a collection of informal exercises that nevertheless require spatial translations to the sudden changes of the ordinary. Even if this alternative strategy did not attract the attention of the architectural debate in the years of the economic boom, we have to wait for less heroic and optimistic times to find new traces of a new architectural approach on this topic based on disenchantment and a subtle, productive pessimism. The fuse was lit by French post-modernist philosophers (Lyotard, Derrida, Virilio, etc.) who ask architects for urgent, innovative responses in terms of the relationship between subject, object and context 8. Subsequently, many voices were raised in favour of a new reading of the architectural object in relation to its surroundings. For example, Peter Eisemann, in his proposal for the Cannaregio area in Venice, presents a manifesto project of a new concept in which the existing is no longer considered as a spatial arrangement to be replaced but as a text on which (and within which) to place new forms, a new layer of meaning9. The theme of stratification is therefore today imbued with a new meaning, not only referring to the past, which therefore implies a logic of preservation of the distinct levels of the city, but also looking to the future, as a logical evolution of the city itself. It is a model of stratification that in its constitutive and compositional principle differs from the reuse and restoration of buildings. By freeing design action from the need to interpret and update the pre-existence, this strategy re-establishes the relationship between planning and the growth of the city. The 8 Marini, 2008 9 Ibid.

193

floor additions, whether informal or designed, show us a different way of working in the consolidated fabric: they propose, in the first place, the strategy of dialectical dialogue between two counterparts, between old and new, between dissimilar forms, structures and construction techniques. The additions, or architectural parasites, have their own identity, sometimes mystified or hidden behind the presence. Not only does it become an architectural object charged with its own sense, but the interaction between two bodies, one existing and one added, allows a new form to emerge from the dialogue of the two. In this way a “second identity” is made evident, different from that of the single entities that very often marks the built landscape. It points us towards a strategy of intervention aimed at preserving the memory and traces of history. It represents a disturbance of the established order, an alteration or a mutation of “good” design, aiming to stimulate the system and, to remind the definition of the city to those who, building new borders every day, have forgotten it10. Informal architecture is a model for these experiments, and starting from them we want to draw a path for the constitution and development of the urban fabric that combines common sense, market logic and sustainability. In this way, the legacy of ideas, documentation and reflections put together in this research is almost automatically transformed into an intervention strategy, into a design device capable of bringing together space and meaning with surprising naturalness.

10 Ibid.

194 C.J. Vernet - I giardini della Villa Ludovisi, 1749 M. Stara e G. Pennestri Palazzina sul Lungotevere delle Armi, 1976-78 . Media: mixed, multi-layered, assembled, hand-finished (Handmade collage).

R. Hubert - Veduta immaginaria del Porto di Ripetta con Pantheon e Palazzo Nuovo del Campidoglio, 1766 F. Di Fausto e R.Morandi Mercato Metronio, 1956-57 . Media: mixed, multi-layered, assembled, hand-finished (Handmade collage).

195

Different interpretation of a super-imposition From top to bottom: Capriccio # 9, Robocoop, 2019 Capriccio # 3, Robocoop, 2019

FLOOR ADDITIONS AND THE “PARASITE ARCHITECTURE Floor additions or “infills” are nowadays a valid exercise in densification. By their very nature, and due to their structural conformation and spatial conception, those interventions, as previously said, work on the existing as architectural parasites. A parasitic attitude is assumed by those constructions and projects that relate to pre-existing structures with which they establish a link of spatial and/or structural dependence, but not necessarily functional11. In an intervention of vertical addition, different identities, different temporalities and different functions coexist. The parasitic process of a floor addition works and interrelates with the existing on several levels: a dialectic relationship is established in relation to the identity of the single architectural object and time. The parasitic attitude of new constructions on the existing one allows to maintain unchanged the sense and the image of the object or of the architectural “corpse” with which it interacts. The architectural “superstructure” reactivates objects and urban systems without pursuing the Vetruvian canons of beauty and proportion, but seeking to establish a relationship between the built and time. The parasite demands to relate to time as a design component, as an engine of transformation, which is rapid and ordinary. In the parasitic mode the coexistence of different epochs is implemented through the concretisation of differently dated spatial conceptions. But the utilitarian and even cynical character that definitively belongs to the parasitic attitude distances it from possible his-

11 Marini, 2008

196 Realized examples of floor additions From top to bottom: Floor addition of a bank in via Verdi, BBPR Group, 1966 Source: Iacovantuono A. Urban Infill Legal studio, Floor addition in Falkenstr., Coop Himmelb(l)au, Vienna, 1988 Source: Divisare

torical artifices or mystifications12. The objective is therefore on the one hand to restore the distance between past and present, and on the other to act on architectural corpses in order to revive them or on living bodies that need a new role, new functions, new meaning or new spaces. It is a process of vertical parasitism that goes through practices of self-construction, artistic procedures, informal occupation of places, and comes to define strategies of architectural recycling. The need to maintain the identities of the past is also intertwined with the economic interests of private individuals who accelerate parasitic processes in consolidated cities. This possibility is explored in response to limited economic capacity. Tiny economies, opposed to large speculative drives that push for further land consumption, drive the integration of new structures into the existing. Specifically, a floor addition project can be placed on top of the existing building in two ways. The first is through a light overwriting, using the top of the building as a project area without altering its character in the least, with a process of addition that places the new volume on the building below. The second method appropriates the underlying building, for example through hybridisation with its load-bearing structure or by modifying the articulation of its interior spaces, and then manifesting itself in its top. The boundary between this technique and that of building inside/outside is often subtle, but the substantial difference is the unaltered character, even if only externally, that the latter guarantees to the building be-

12 Ibid.

197

198

Proposal for the expansion of the Grand Central Station, New York, Marcel Breuer, 1960

neath the new infill13. In the history of architecture it is possible to recognise, besides the more or less informal examples observed in Rome, projects of densification by floor addition (also called more generally, as we already said, urban infill). These ones are precursors of many proposals on top of buildings which can be recalled today both in design practice and in the theory of urban consolidation. The “sopralzo” built in Milan by the BBPR group in Via Verdi, an important artery in the city centre, following the demolition of an earlier floor addition designed by Pier Giulio Magistretti in the Thirties, is deliberately modern in comparison with the building that constitutes its base. The elevation of the superstructure traces alignments in the rhythm of the windows of the historic building14. Similar examples can be found in a more or less widespread way in other European cities. In Vienna we have seen, and are still seeing, the construction of truly independent bodies without linguistic mediation with the existing buildings and, as a consequence, the development of a lively architectural debate. The Viennese case, of which the project by Coop Himmelb(l) au for the extension of a law firm in Falkenstraße remains emblematic, underlines the possibility that changes in the building law are no mistakes but opportunities to activate new architectural research pointing to the growth of the city15. The re-use of underused or unused roof areas not only presents technical and legal aspects, as i have said before, but also formal issues. A uniform and unobtrusive extension is not always the best solution. In some urban locations of particular importance or where a specific use is required, spectacular 13 Iacovantuono, 124 14 Ibid. 15 Marini, 2008

199

200

Proposal for the expansion of the Grand Central Station, New York, Marcel Breuer, 1960

unconventional roof structures can be a defining element that defines an identity and triggers a development process for an entire neighbourhood16. In the United States, Breuer’s project for the building of a superstructure above the Grand Central Terminal is also emblematic. It consists of a skyscraper over the train station, an intervention already contemplated in the construction of the building itself, with a structural system and spaces for lift shafts to accommodate an extension or vertical addition, to form an office tower . The proposal is rejected by the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission. The reasons for rejection refer to the aesthetic choices made. Breuer’s project, an iconic case of the relationship between the new and the old, is an example of modern architecture which decides to establish a relationship with the existing, taking advantage of the structural and technical aspects, inserting a skyscraper which looks to Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building as an archetype17.

16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.

201

case study: Villino Alatri

202

203

Villino Alatri (1928, 1952) Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo, Mario Ridolfi, Wolfgang Frankl Via Paisiello 38, Rome

THE “FIRST” ROMAN PARASITE: VILLINO ALATRI As in other parts of Italy and Europe, also in Rome parasitic architecture defies the dogmas of technique and style. As we have seen, this method of construction is not in itself an extraordinary achievement, but rather a more "humble" form of architecture, lacking the spatial nobility of a palazzina, and often dictated by immediate necessity rather than by architectural and residential refinement. However, it must be said that there are exceptions in Rome, as we have seen in Milan and Vienna. The superstructure of the villino Alatri, by Ridolfi, Frankl and Fiorentino, is one of these. That is because not only it aims to create new ways of living, but most importantly to develop new and unprecedented ways of establishing a dialogue between the new and the old, and to give new significance to the concept of stratification, a theme that is very dear to a city where historically the processes of urban evolution have never stopped. In Rome every construction has been extended (architects use the horrible term "superimposed"18) one or more times, so in its definition Ridolfi's group project is certainly not a novelty or a break with the rules. However, there is a difference between the thousands of added floors, covered terraces and the via Paisello building: unlike all the others, Ridolfi does nothing to conceal or harmonise or integrate the new body with the existing geometry and language. The addition looks like some kind of strange house resting on a higher ground, absolutely indifferent to the architec-

18 it. Superfetato, italian translation, Marini 2008

204

205

Views of the building From top to bottom: View from the street (via Francesco Bellini) View from the street (via Giovanni Paisiello)

tural and structural parties of the villino below.19 Ridolfi's accomplishment will remain unique for a long time, not because it is an isolated example of floor addition in Rome, but because the architectural mastery with which the project is realised remains unrivalled. The project of extending the villino becomes an opportunity for the group of architects for a strong stylistic affirmation. What Ridolfi's operation achieves, therefore, is not an architectural work that stands out for the materials or techniques used, but for its success in articulating a dialogue with the existing, which consists in contradiction and discontinuity. In order to outline the history of the building we are going to examine here, we can say that it underwent two construction phases: the first one between 1923 and 1928 in which V. Ballio Morpurgo built the villino, according to the canons identified by the master-plan of 1909; the second phase consisted of the extension by Ridolfi, Frankl and Fiorentino20. From stylistic and design point of view, Morpurgo was inspired, both for the internal distribution and composition of the façade, by the Roman barocchetto21, a style already present in those years in the Pinciano district and which was spreading in particular in the middle-high 19 Marini, 2008 20 Cellini, 2005 21 the roman barocchetto is an architectural style that became popular in Rome in the early years of the twentieth century. The style takes its inspiration from the last baroque, of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. It was designated as the preferred architectural language when constructing new buildings by the master-plan of 1909 in order to have harmonious and elegant facades, and to give the city a more homogeneous appearance.

206

Architectural drawings From top to bottom: Floorplan, Ground floor 1:250 Floorplan, middle floor 1:250

bourgeoisie22. The façades and the interiors are enriched with statues, niches and loggias, which were also used as a reference by Ridolfi, Frankl and Fiorentino for the subsequent intervention. The pre-existing building was tall only two floors above ground, with a third attic floor for the servants and an open quadrangular rooftop loggia on the part on Via Bellini. Ballio Morpurgo built an L-shaped structure positioned at the intersection of the two streets (via G. Paisello and via F. Bellini)23. The height of the building was dictated by the city general master-plan of 1909. In 1931, the Master Plan of Rome allowed the possibility to increase the cubic volume and maximum height of buildings, comes the desire on the part of the owners to increase the airspace of Villino Alatri24. Looking at all the contemporary examples of floor additions also built after the concession made by the master-plan of 1931, we can say that the general trend is to harmonize the new addition with the pre-existing. The result is often an extension without its own identity, which more or less clumsily tries to adapt to the existing. An undefined structure between the new and the old, which does not generate dialogue between the two counterparts, but confusion. The choice of Ridolfi, Frankl and Fiorentino goes completely against this logic. The added structure not only actively succeeds in the dialogue with the pre-existence, by contrast rather than analogy, as we have seen, but also succeeds in preserving and enhancing that concept of stratification25. If in fact on the one hand the aim of the 22 Calisi, 2017 23 Cellini, 2005 24 Calisi, 2017 25 The rediscovery of the parasite strategy represents one of the declina-

207

Revision History RevID

ChID

Change Name

Date

Company Title

#Contact Company #Contact Address1 #Contact City #Contact Country #Contact Postcode

#Project Name #Site Address1 #Site City #Site Country #Site Postcode Drawing Name

Worksheet Drawing Status

Modified by

Date

Checked by

Date

Drawing Scale

1:500 Layout ID

Revision

A.01.2

Revision History RevID

ChID

Change Name

Date

Company Title

#Contact Company #Contact Address1 #Contact City #Contact Country #Contact Postcode

#Project Name #Site Address1 #Site City #Site Country #Site Postcode Drawing Name

Worksheet Drawing Status

Modified by

Date

Checked by

Date

Drawing Scale

1:500 Layout ID

A.01.2

Revision

208

Architectural drawings From top to bottom: Floorplan, 02. Storey 1:250

South Elevation, 1:250

Floorplan, 04. Storey 1:250

Cross Section, 1:250

On the following pages: West Elevation, 1:250

Section across the courtyard 1:250

contemporary additions is to hide, on the other hand in the villino Alatri it is to display itself. The design choice is to break into a distinctive stylistic contrast with Morpurgo's pre-existence. The contrast is evident from every point of view. The construction techniques used are different: in the pre-existence we have load-bearing masonry while the new structure is a concrete grid structure. The materials are different: on the one hand brick, plaster and stucco, on the other concrete, glass and steel. Obvious differences can also be seen in the shape: not only Ridolfi frankl and Fiorentino extended the building in height, but transforming the base body from an "L" to a "C" shape26. The layout is based on the theme of compositional symmetry, with the attic floor tending to present itself as a compact volume in relation to its surroundings27. Despite the fact that in the floor addition of the villino Alatri each floor contains only one flat, Ridolfi, Frankl and Fiorentino make use of symmetry to divide and partition the spaces. This approach, as we have seen, is very recurrent in the design of the palazzina, but only because this type of architecture was very dear to Ridolfi, who appreciated its inhabitation qualities and comfort, so much so that many of them in Rome bear his signature. In fact we can say that, as far as the interior layout is concerned, many of the peculiarities of tions of the architecture-time relationship that have been consolidated today. The fracture in the process of stratification of the city demanded by modernity is the starting point for this reflection on one of the factors that today have the greatest impact on the construction of space. Marini, 2008 26 Calisi, 2017 27 Cellini, 2005

209

Revision History RevID

ChID

Change Name

Date

Company Title

#Contact Company #Contact Address1 #Contact City #Contact Country #Contact Postcode

#Project Name #Site Address1 #Site City #Site Country #Site Postcode Drawing Name

Worksheet Drawing Status

Modified by

Date

Checked by

Date

Drawing Scale

1:500 Layout ID

Revision

A.01.2

Revision History RevID

ChID

Change Name

Date

Company Title

#Contact Company #Contact Address1 #Contact City #Contact Country #Contact Postcode

#Project Name #Site Address1 #Site City #Site Country #Site Postcode Drawing Name

Worksheet Drawing Status

Modified by

Date

Checked by

Date

Drawing Scale

1:500 Layout ID

A.01.2

Revision

210

211

Revision History RevID

ChID

Change Name

Date

Company Title

#Contact Company #Contact Address1 #Contact City #Contact Country #Contact Postcode

#Project Name #Site Address1 #Site City #Site Country #Site Postcode Drawing Name

Worksheet Drawing Status

Modified by

Date

Checked by

Date

Drawing Scale

1:500

Layout ID

Revision

A.01.2

Revision History RevID

ChID

Change Name

Date

Company Title

#Contact Company #Contact Address1 #Contact City #Contact Country #Contact Postcode

#Project Name #Site Address1 #Site City #Site Country #Site Postcode Drawing Name

Worksheet Drawing Status

Modified by

Date

Checked by

Date

Drawing Scale

1:500 Layout ID

A.01.2

Revision

212

Villino Alatri, M. Ridolfi, W. Frankl, M. Fiorentino, Functional scheme 1:200

Revision History RevID

Distribution

ChID

Change Name

ServiceCompany area Title

Living area Sleeping area

#Contact Company #Contact Address1 #Contact City #Contact Country #Contact Postcode

#Project Name #Site Address1 #Site City #Site Country #Site Postcode Drawing Name

Worksheet

Date

213

Villino Alatri, M. Ridolfi, W. Frankl, M. Fiorentino, internal views Source: Fondo Ridolfi-Frankl-Malagricci

FOYER

LIVING ROOM

VERANDA

LIVING ROOM

Detail 02

214

Detail 01

DETAIL 01 1:20

DETAIL 02 1:20

215

Structural system of floor addition of the Villino Alatri the new grid system implemented by Ridolfi, Frankl, Fiorentino grafting on the old masonry structure

the "Alatri superstructure" are precisely those of a palazzina apartment: a clear division between living and sleeping areas, large spaces dedicated to balconies, verandas, and outdoor spaces, large areas dedicated to service personnel, and a doubling of the distribution: two staircases, two lifts, entrances and corridors. As well as the contrast in style and architectural language, one of the most striking features of the Alatri house is its structural logic. Ridolfi did not choose to continue the existing load-bearing masonry, but to challenge the logic of statics by proposing a different type of structure for the floor addition. The two different structures, the old load-bearing masonry one and the new concrete grid system, are not independent, but the new one has a parasitic attitude towards the old one: it leans on it and uses it to raise four storeys. The increase in the airspace is made with an armored concrete frame grafted into the supporting masonry of the Morpurgo building, using the latter as a foundation element. To allow this structural hook, reinforced with the use of steel beams, Ridolfi had to eliminate the penthouse and the altar and the lodge on Paisiello street28.

28 Calisi, 2017

216

View from the street Dealing with the old: detail of the pre-existing Loggia and the new modern balconies

217

View from the courtyard Dealing with the old: detail of joint between the pre-existing external wall in masonry construction and the new concrete supporting beam

218

floor addition today

The fifth and last chapter intends to illustrate a pos-

219

sible scenario in order to actively carry out a densifi-

cation intervention inside Rome. The chosen area has to correspond to the indications given in the previous chapters. First of all it has to be a scarcely used space within the urban fabric. In addition it must necessarily respond to some further characteristics: it must be a low-density area but characterized by high land consumption, it must be close to the city centre, but not affected by particular architectural and conservation constraints. The objective is therefore to propose a strategy of densification that reflect on the one hand the need to avoid consuming further land, and on the other hand the possibility of providing decorum and architectural innovation through a systematic renovation of the existing buildings.

"While everyone else was talking about bigness, our concern was with the small scale. We propagated acupuncture instead of tabula rasa,[...] and augmenting of the existing. While everyone else was working on mass-produced housing we were concerned about individual expression, about discrete urban densification rather than wholesale urban expansion."

- Mechthild Stuhlmacher, Afterparty/Afterparasites, OASE 67, 2005

223

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE Even though nowadays we have the instruments to define which areas of the city are less or poorly exploited than others, a densification process can only be performed when the social conditions allow it, and above all if the residents are willing to accept such a modification of their lifestyle and way of inhabitation. It is true, as we have already stated, that densification does not mean saturation of space, but it is undeniable that it involves radical changes for the urban environment that embraces it. Starting from the general premises that a densification strategy always takes into account areas where land has been extensively consumed, the first necessity is to limit further land consumption, but at the same time to develop it in the most efficient way. However, not only environmental sustainability can benefit from it. Densification should mean also to improve the life quality of both those who will settle in the given area, and the ones who already live there. This settling process presupposes a relationship of cohabitation and mutual exchange where all the people involved have something in return. The residents, indeed, have likely to give up some of the advantages that low-density settlement entails, like low traffic and low noise pollution levels, and consequently accept some of the difficulties related to more intensive urbanisation processes such as crowding, increased traffic, parking difficulties, and a less square metres of green space per person. ndeed, all these challenges, must then be accepted and resolved. Densification must therefore bring tangible benefits, not only by encouraging a strategy of urban regeneration and recycling, but also on a more "human" scale it should lead to an improvement of the living standards. But what are

224

225

Location of Cooperative Housing “Cooperativa Termini” within the city fabric

the benefits that it could possibly bring? First of all, as we already said, densifying a place means requalification of an urban space. In the case of Rome, it also means rediscovering age-old building strategies, such as the floor additions and parasitic architecture in general, reinterpreted from a more contemporary perspective. They represent a humbler, more basic, but still very common, and no less significant way of doing architecture, one that links the new and the old, one that encourages the buildings to continually evolve. But while listing these "architectural" and urban perks, we must also mention the benefits that individual citizens can draw from densification. A strategically thought-out process cannot be bound to a single isolated building, but it rather affects entire built-up areas, as even a single addition will affect the surrounding. This means that an architectural recycling strategy for a neighbourhood also implies first and foremost the improvement of existing services. Recycling is also an opportunity to add public activities that have never been built in that specific area. in this case the extensions can host new public facilities along with the new residential units. Speaking of a vertical addition this means that the new and the existing do not have to coincide functionally. In Rome, a fortiori, densification therefore wish to re-proposes that mixité typical of the ancient compact city, that variety of uses that distinguishes the ancient districts from the new purely residential neighbourhoods. Densification strategies can also represent an improvement of social interactions between the individual inhabitants. By increasing the density of certain buildings in a punctual and capillary way, on the one hand the heavy crowding typical of an intensive building is avoided, on the other hand the social isolation associated with low-density extensive housing.

226

227

100

228

229

Schwarzplan of Cooperative Housing “Cooperativa Termini”inside the city fabric, on the other side of quartiere Esquilino. 1:1000

PROJECT LOCATION The area which I chose to formulate a project proposal, locates itself in the south-east quadrant of Rome. It does not belong to the historical centre, as it is not to be found in one of the rioni, but it is located in the quartiere Esquilino, characterized by high density residential building, with alternating low density “islands”. As one can see here it is a group of villini, built around 1920 after a master-plan of Attilio Rossi. The original plan was to build residential housing cluster for a cooperative called “Cooperativa Termini” which still exists and operates today, of around 200 inhabitants. We can therefore undoubtedly speak of extensive or super-extensive architecture around the city centre. The Cooperative, was created, as we can read in the first statute deposited in 19191, both by "permanent railwaymen" and by "retired railwaymen" of "proven honesty and solvency", who asked, in 1920, to the Mayor of Rome a license to build 250 villini in an area not far from Porta Maggiore owned by the Serventi family. The project included, in addition to housing, the construction of an elementary school , which is the only existing public facility, with an adjoining gymnasium and the renovation of an existing building (called the "Tower") to be used as the headquarters of the Cooperative. The Municipal Council deliberated the concession of the license on August 20, 1921, when the "first stone" had already been laid by none other than Vittorio Emanuele III. The land and the building works cost the cooperative 1 the statute is deposited in the Cooperative headquarters in Piazza Copernico 14, Rome

230

231

232

233

234

235

236 Aereal view of the Cooperative Housing “Cooperativa Termini" On the following pages: Prototype A, B, C Floorplans, 1st floor 1:200 South-West elevations 1:200

237

238

PROTOTYPE A

PROTOTYPE B

PROTOTYPE C

239

240

241

Examples of villini built in Rome in the same period. It is clear that the prototypes of Cooperativa Termini did not represent a unicum: From top to bottom: Villini of via Vetulonia Villini of Montesacro

20,867,075 italian lira, obtained from a loan (with a fifty-year maturity) granted by the Railway Administration of the Kingdom of Italy. From the chronicles of the time we learn that the problems faced by the Cooperative Termini were many, not least that of the discharge of "dirty" water. The bombings of July and August 1943 seriously damaged many villini (some of which bore for years the marks left by the bombs and machine-gun bullets of the American P 38 fighters)2. The area was built following the model of the garden cities which were, in early 20th century spreading around Italy. This case study is one of the smallest low-density residential district realized, as entire quadrants of the city were designated by the 1909 master-plan to accommodate larger Garde-cities, such as the neighbourhoods of Montesacro and Garbatella. Examples of areas destined for villini with a very similar morphology to the villini of Cooperativa Termini can still be seen in the areas around Via Vetulonia, and the Parco Nemorense. Many of these villini were later replaced by palazzine as a result of the densification measures allowed by the 1931 master-plan, but some of them are still visible today despite the numerous superfetations. The villini do not stand out from an architectural point of view, as they consist of a repetitive pattern of two-family houses for the middle and lower classes. At the time of the realization, much space was reserved for the private interest, trying to profit the most from the land rent, while ignoring the interests of the community at large. The individual members of the cooperative were entitled to 2 Source: Archivio storico della cooperativa Termini

242 From top to bottom: Aereal view of the Cooperative Housing “Cooperativa Termini" immediatly after the construction Source: Archivio storico Cooperativa Termini The villini under construction Source: Archivio storico Cooperativa Termini On the following page: OOriginal design proposal attributed to Attilio Rossi, 1919

244

Densification proposal made in 1970 of the Cooperative Housing “Cooperativa Termini” Master-plan, 1970 M 1:1000

large private gardens in which to make their own vegetable gardens flourish, but at the time no consideration was given to the possibility of dedicating land to define some space for community life. This lack is still present today, as basic public facilities and spaces are missing for the inhabitants of the area, such as community areas, library, kindergarten etc... A project of reuse and regeneration of the area would guarantee on the one hand the increase if residential capacity of the area, and on the other hand the enhancement of the public space conception and reorganization. The cluster of villini actually consists of three prototypes of dwellings repeated over the whole area dedicated to them. The prototypes are characterised by a basement, a ground floor and a first floor, in which two families are accommodated. The internal partitions are distributed symmetrically with respect to the central axis, as both dwellings have entrances on the short side, and doubled independent vertical distributions and connections. The total floor area varies from 90 to 130 square metres. The interiors of the three prototypes do not present substantial differences, but the main one is certainly the position of the staircase, which varies in each of the three. Each apartment is allocated a large private garden, in which the owners have the possibility of building a detached garage and a small annexe with and additional kitchen and bathroom. One of the features to be mentioned about these prototypes is the choice of window frames. In fact, this is one of the first cases in Rome where the blinds are replaced by shutters, which will later become the most popular technology among the inhabitants of the palazzine to create shadows and protect themselves from the summer heat.

IX IX

IV IV IV IV

IV IX

II II

II IV

IV II

II II

Number of storey of each building

Original buildings

Extensions on empty ground

Floor additions

Substitutions with a palazzina

247

“Informal” densification process in Cooperative Housing “Cooperativa Termini” Master-plan M 1:1000

DENSIFICATION PROCESS Immediately after its construction, the neighbourhood of “Cooperativa termini” was identified by the city planners as a concentration of low-density buildings, which occupied too much space in proportion to the number of inhabitants. As a consequence it was concluded that this land could be used in a better way. Already in 1931 the new city plan changed the colour of this area from green (area for low density houses) to pink (area for palazzine)3. This means a shift from low to medium density. The members of the cooperative, who were allocated individual houses, were given the opportunity to increase the buildable volume available to them, and the first expansions began to take place. However, it was only after the Second World War that the intervention measures became more massive, so much so that in 1970, in an attempt to give a new definition to the place, a new proposal for densification was put forward. It envisaged the transformation of the neighbourhood from low to high density area, conforming with the intensive housing recently built on Via Casilina. The proposal implied the entire demolition of the district and the relocation of all the members of the cooperative and their families to one of the high-rise houses which were to be built. The new flats in which they would live would be equipped with all comforts, including lifts (still not present in the villini), improved natural lighting supply and ventilation from all sides. The proposal envisaged the construction of two-storey in-line blocks, nine-storey high houses and four-storey palazzine. 3 it refers to the master-plan of 1931, as it is visible on page 85

248

view of the 3 prototypes that will be taken into account for the project proposal

249

250 Examples of floor additions, extensions, and “palazzina” substitution around the area

251

252

253

Examples of floor additions, extensions, and “palazzina” substitution around the area

In order to be approved, the project required the acceptance of all cooperative members, but only half were convinced by the project. The densification proposal made in 1970 was thus dropped. The urban landscape of the neighbourhood continued to evolve in a spontaneous and 'informal' way, as some 'halves' of the villini were raised, others were demolished and rebuilt in the form of a palazzina. In general we can say that extensions and other small additions massively multiplied on the scattered land. Today the landscape is very different from the original idea, so much so that its conformation is difficult to read. Uncontrolled densification processes have therefore occurred, most of the time without the supervision of a designer or an architect. This evolutionary process of the neighbourhood, even if spontaneous, informal and of little architectural quality, is here taken as a model to develop a paradigm of densification that instead follows logic and systematicity. Even if not the the most valuable architectural references, these interventions are here taken into account for the following reasons. They are the architectural "humility" showed in spaces and forms, and the "human" approach according to which the parasites have been realised. Those qualities represent a valuable starting point to think of a contemporary densification project, as the given area would benefit from it on an architectural and human level.

It was decided to focus on prototype A for the project. The building has some characteristics that have to be taken into account for the subsequent extension project. The whole house consists of two residential units. Each of

254

them accommodates a family of 3-4 persons and is on two levels. The internal organisation is symmetrical to the central load-bearing wall, which is why the two dwellings have their own independent staircase, a kitchen on the ground floor and a bathroom on the upper floor. The building does not have a lift and the entrances on the two short sides are accessible directly from the facing garden. Each apartment is approximately 80 square metres. The building has a compact appearance with openings on all 4 sides, the living-dining room and the kitchen are located towards the south-east, while the bedrooms are exposed to the north.

résumé

In order to bring the research to a conclusion, it is now necessary to identify the common points that all the examples collected and illustrated so far offer, so that a useful programme plan can be drawn up for the execution of a floor addition project today. These architectural objects share a number of characteristics and the main ones will be illustrated below.

259

THE PROGRAMME To sum up what has been said so far, it can be stated that the primary objective of these interventions is to increase the available space. This then translates into an increase in housing density, which in the case we want to analyse, that of a low-density house, translates into the transformation of a villino into a palazzina, without demolishing the existing part. As it has emerged from the previous research and especially from the analysis of the floor addition of the Villino Alatri, these densification interventions are very diverse, each of them specific to the plot they occupy as they establish a unique relationship with the existing. However, it is still possible to identify a series of common characteristics that bring these interventions together and that, above all, can provide guidelines for the further project. The following points therefore analyse step by step the shared traits deriving from the analysis of the previous examples. No additional land consumption The first clear characteristic of these interventions is that they all manifest themselves in the creation of new spaces which, however, do not occupy free land, but aim to develop the building in height. In the most crowded urban fabric it is practically impossible to occupy additional land, and therefore vertical development is the only direction. But this is also the case in buildings with lower density, even two-storey villino like the one in via L. Spallanzani, have vertical additions despite the fact that they often also have a garden or a private courtyard to use. The inhabitants are therefore unlikely to give up their private open spaces.

260

From top to bottom: Full or partial re-use of the roof surface in the two examples of Villino Alatri and Villino Astaldi Location of the staircases in the two examples of Villino Alatri and intensive building in via Catania

Full or partial use of the roof surface Extending vertically, additions naturally have a main surface limit, namely that of the roof surface. As a matter of fact, additions cover completely or partially the area of the top floor. As in the examples shown in the photos and images, it is not uncommon for part of the surface to be used to accommodate terraces or balconies, which are often absent in the building below, as long as the floor addition intervention does not impose itself directly on the existing façade and still allow the buildings around it to receive light. The villino Astaldi, for example, shows an addition, which is carried out only in the centre of the floor-plan and the rest of the surface is left as a terrace. This is usually the case when the owner of the existing house also owns the new spaces added in place of the roof. However, when the existing house is converted into a palazzina, it can be observed that the buildable space tends to be maximised. Re-use of staircases and circulation systems In the case of floor addition works, in order to maximise the capacity of the volume, there is a tendency to reuse the same staircase as the existing one, adding new stairways above it. Even the lift, where present, is in the same position as the floors below. In the case of a villino, however, it is often the case that the only staircase present is private, i.e. for the exclusive use of the owner of the villino, who generally has free access to both the ground floor and the first floor. All villini in fact function as duplexes, housing the living rooms on the ground floor and the sleeping areas on the first floor. Even in this cases it is rare to see the additions of new staircases, internal or external.

261

262

263

From top to bottom: location of the services (bathroom and toilets) both in the plan of the existing floor and the added one of villino Alatri Demolitions (blue) and additions (red) made to the existent floor of villino Alatri

Stacking of basic utilities (bathrooms, toilets) Again in the interests of saving and maximising space, the reuse of the same staircase elements also corresponds to the stacking of services. New bathrooms are usually arranged in line with existing ones so that installations and shafts can be shared. When the new addition is built with the same structure as the old one, even the other functions as well as the distribution and bathrooms of the new floors correspond to the old ones. This is visible, for example in the extension of via G. Carissimi. Reorganisation of the existing space In the transformation from a villino to a palazzina what often happens is a reorganisation of the existing space to allow for the necessary adaptation to the new structure being erected above it. But these changes are deliberately marginal, and tend not to radically alter the interior space. This means that the position of walls or the size of rooms is not changed, because very often the structural system does not allow it. Since almost all Roman villini are made of load-bearing masonry, this is difficult as well as damaging to the building itself. Rather, it is the functions assigned to the individual rooms that are changed, the addition of new openings that are necessary, doors to connect the spaces or windows on the outside. The villino in via Paisello was entirely owned by the Altari family before Ridolfi's work. However, following the floor addition work, three new families moved into the building. The two floors of the existing building were separated and a new independent flat was created on each floor. The existing staircase was reused and extended.

264

As little destruction as possible The reorganisation of interior spaces generally takes place by destroying as little of the built substance as possible. Rather than demolishing, the action is that of adding. This usually involves non-load-bearing walls, partitions or panels that divide and shape the interior space. Absence of structural changes Precisely because, as we have already said, the Roman villini that became widespread from 1920 onwards were built mainly of load-bearing masonry, the choice of the designers is almost always oriented towards not altering the structure, which is left as much as possible as it is, not only to avoid damaging it but also to weaken it in view of the new construction that will be built on top of it. Reuse and reinterpretation of the existing structure From the analysis carried out we can distinguish between two categories of interventions: those that use the same structure as the existing one and those that are different. In Villino Alatri, for example, Ridolfi uses a foundation concrete slab on the existing masonry on which pillars are then inserted. The interventions in Via Catania or Viale Regina Margherita, or Via Carissimi present an evident continuation of the existing structure. The masonry is load-bearing both in the old and in the new floors. In any case in both categories the new structure always rests on the old one. When the structure is not continuous, a concrete ring beam is used on which the work of addition can be grafted. In such cases, the new pillars are placed in correspondence with the old load-bearing masonry in order to distribute the weight appropriately.

265

Increased space for existing inhabitants This internal reorganisation usually corresponds to an optimisation of space. Often, in order to make the new structure homogeneous with the old one, space is added to the existing one, so that the inhabitants of the building can benefit from the intervention. With an increase in available space, the inhabitants can also benefit from the intervention. In addition, the building will be upgraded to include all the functions the tenants would need and which were not included in the original design. Despite the fact that one might think that a vertical extension might limit the original capacity of the old building, it often corresponds to a modification of the interior spaces and an acquisition of new ones. In the villino Alatri, of which we still dispose of the drawings of the existing building before and after the addition, we can observe how the existing floor is enlarged and new rooms are added to it. The carport area is converted into living space and the garage is relocated to the other side, and new services are added so that each floor can function individually.

Improving the quality of life for new and old tenants Improving the quality of life for tenants means creating spaces or services which were previously absent. In villino Alatri, as previously said, a garage and a lift were added to serve all the interior floors, so that they could be used by all the tenants in the building. In order to do this, Ridolfi did not add an external block but used a space which could be suitable to host these new modern facilities, close to the existing staircase.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Argan G. C. et al. (1978) Roma Interrotta, catalogue of the exhibition Roma Interrotta 1978, for Incontri internazionali d’arte, Rome: officine edizioni

G., (2012) Una stima 2001-2011 dell’ Urban Sprawl in Italia attraverso l’uso di dati geografici, conference paper of XXXIII conferenza italiana di scienze regionali

Calisi D., Molinari M. (2017) Unusual geometries in Ridolfi's stair design. The case study of Villino Alatri in Rome

Gibelli C., Salzano E. (2006) No Sprawl, Florence: Alinea

Caudo G., Coppola A. (2006) Periferie di cosa? Roma e la condizione periferica, Rome: Carocci, pp. 97-116 Censimento di Roma 1931, from Capitolium 1931 (year VII) n 12 Cellini F., D'Amato C. (2005) Le Architetture di Ridolfi e Frankl, in Documenti di Architettura, Milano: Mondadori Electa

Governatorato di Roma, IV Ripartizione (1927) Dizionario Topografico, updated 1927 Governatorato di Roma, ufficio di statistica (1929) Un ventennio di attività edilizia a Roma 1909-1929, Rome: Tip. L. Cecchini EAA (2006). Urban sprawl in Europe: the ignored challenge (Vol. 10). Copenhagen: EAA. EEA-FOEN (2016) Urban sprawl in Europe, report

Comune di Roma (1936) Piano regolatore della cittá di Roma, Approvazione, norme generali, prescrizioni tecniche, norme integrative, Rome: Istituto poligrafico dello Stato Libreria Coppola A., Punziano G. (2018) Roma in Transizione. Governo, strategie, metabolismi e quadri di vita di una metropoli, Rome-Milan: Planum Publisher Crisci M., Gemmiti R., Proietti E., Violante A. (2014) Urban sprawl e shrinking cities in Italia Trasformazione urbana e redistribuzione della popolazione nelle aree metropolitane, CNR -IRPPS Istituto di ricerche sulla popolazione e le politiche sociali Cruciani S., Lipizzi F., Mugnoli S., Arcasenza M., Endennani

Erbani F. (2013), Roma. Il tramonto della città pubblica, Rome-Bari: Editori Laterza. Ewing R.H. (2008) Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of Sprawl: A Literature Review. In: Marzluff J.M. et al. (eds) Urban Ecology, Boston: Springer Farina M. (2013) La casa versatile. Esperimenti abitativi in una palazzina degli anni cinquanta Via Vetulonia, Roma in Storie di case Abitare l'Italia del boom, Rome: Donzelli Maurice H. (1992) On collective memory, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Jacobs J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities,

New York: Vintage Books

531-532

Kaltenbach F. (2006) Mansarde, Parasit oder Symbiont? Strategien zur Nachverdichtung auf dem Dach, Detail 12 /06

Marini S. (2008) Architettura Parassita, strategie di riciclaggio per la cittá, Macerata: Quodlibet Studio

Kramer S. (2018) Design Solution for urban densification, Berlin: Braun Publishing AG

Passeri A. (2016) La Palazzina...irruente e sbadata, Rome: dei Merangoli editrice

Iacovantuono A., URBAN INFILL, L’interpretazione dei vuoti nella città compatta, Phd Thesis, Dottorato di ricerca in architettura - teorie e progetto (cycle XXIX) Tutor: O. Carpenzano

Priester S., (2002) Ad summas tegulas. Untersuchungen zu vielgeschossigen Gebäudeblöcken mit Wohneinheiten und insulae im kaiserzeitlichen Rom, Rome: L’Erma Di Bretschneider

Indovina, F. (2005). La metropolizzazione del territorio: nuove gerarchie territoriali. In A. F. Arellano, F. Indovina, N. Portas, L. Fregolent, & M. Savino, L'esplosione della città: Barcellona, Bologna, Donostia-Bayonne, Genova, Lisbona, Madrid, Marsiglia, Milano, Montpellier, Napoli, Valencia, Veneto centrale, Bologna: Compositori.

R.D. 16.12.1920, n 1937

Insolera I. (2011) Roma moderna. Da Napoleone I al XXI secolo, Torino: Einaudi

Stuhlmacher M. (2005), Afterparty/Afterparasites, OASE 67

Rossi A. (1966) (ed. 2018) L'Architettura ddella cittá (The Architecture of the city), Milan: Il Saggiatore R.G 02.04.1922 n 528

ISPRA (2016) Consumo di suolo, dinamiche territoriali e servizi ecosistemici, Report

Tafuri, M. (1986). Intervista a Manfredo Tafuri (Valeriani, E.). Controspazio. 'Roma: i problemi di una metropoli, la nuova architettura', 4, 90-92

Lanfranchi F. (2006) Il linguaggio romano del disegno architettonico tra le due guerre, Roma: Aracne editrice

Vidotto V. (2001) Roma Contemporanea, Rome-Bari: Editori Laterza

L.R. 3-1-2005, n 1, articolo 3, comma 4

Zucchi, C. (2014). Innesti/Grafting. La Biennale di Venezia. 14. Mostra Internazionale di Architettura (Vol. 1). Venezia: Marsilio

Lugli G. (1957) La tecnica edilizia romana. Con particolare riguardo a Roma e Lazio, Rome:Giovanni Bardi Editore, p.

NOTES

Marco Magliozzi