Italian reforms: a recent law may open a new era for quality architecture

 

A new important revolution is silently taking place with regards to how the Italian Government and its Ministry of Culture (Mibact) tend to protect from real estate business’ interests the extremely delicate artistic and architectonic heritage of the country. Along with the new 20 super museums and their brand-new directors, since last 4 August the Italian artistic community has to face the problem of a law (n. 124/15; 7 Aug. 2015) saying that all those local offices now in charge of approving, for instance, the building of a new skyscraper or the restoration of a historical Palazzo are going to be joined in with a new “Ufficio Territoriale dello Stato” (the former “Prefettura”).

 

According to the experts, this positive de-regulation process may affect also the “Soprintendenze dei Beni Culturali”, that are the Mibact’s local offices dedicated to the protection of the artistic and architectonic heritage. If the Government interprets this law in the wrong way the Ministry of Culture will no longer be able to stop a project that its officers may consider disrespectful of the pre-existent architecture or landscape. The “Ufficio Territoriale” will decide by itself and – that is supposed to be even more dangerous – its silence will be enough to approve a project; the Office has 60, 90 or 120 days to stop the project, but if it doesn’t officially deny it in this period of time, the project will be considered practically approved.

 

Following up the protest of a considerable part of the Italian art community and the on-line petition signed by some influential Italian intellectuals such as Nobel Prize Dario Fo and international acclaimed archaeologist Salvatore Settis, the Mibact has replied to this serious threat to its own existence with an official motion asserting that this law shouldn’t put at risk the scientific and technical activity of the Soprintendenze that, on the contrary, should be provided with more staff to better operate. Moreover, in a recent interview given to La Repubblica the Minister of Culture himself, Dario Franceschini, claimed that the Government is going to preserve the key role of the Soprintendenza and that the so called “silenzio-assenso”, the dangerous tacit approval, will be valid only between institutions, not for private people or companies.

 

After the words spoken by Franceschini, things seem to have quieten down, but the problem concerning new architecture still exists and it will become clear in occasion of the first significant contemporary building to be built in Venice, Rome, Florence or Pisa, thus when the ideology of preservation will make the protests spark again. As it happened a few weeks ago when a new hotel, a big white cube structure, popped up near the Piazzale Roma railway station in Venice, a few steps from the awkward and extremely slippery bridge designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava. Citizens who are protesting today are totally right. The building was not necessary, and doesn’t have any architecture quality. In spite of everything, the hotel has been approved by all local authorities, including the Soprintendenza of course, and now it will stay there, for many years, offending the landscape and the people who love it. And that just for the sake of a private interest.

 

At this point one may say that no new architecture should be built in certain areas, no exception: just keep buildings such as the Ara Pacis (Richard Meyer) or the MAXXI (Zaha Hadid) out of Rome, and people will be happy. Perhaps tourists will be happy too. But would it be right? Not at all. Italy is not just Rome, Venice, Gubbio, or Vernazza. This is just a small part of the country, and you can’t stop it growing, and producing new valuable architecture like any developed country has been doing since the end of the Second World War. The aim shouldn’t be just that of frustrating architects and real estate developer with bureaucracy and inconsistent rules, but to promote architecture of good quality. In fact it is quality that makes the difference, not the style of it.

 

The problem with the new hotel in Venice is not that the building looks modern and detached from the surrounding, but that it is really miserable – take, for instance, the Dancing House designed by Frank Gehry in Prague, or the Peter Zumthor’s Therms in Vals winner of the Pritzker Prize in 2009. Aren’t they very nice buildings however totally detached from the surrounding? And, after all, what would have been if Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, or Palladio had to face powerful public institutions blindly convinced that what had already been built was to be protected and preserved at all costs? Would they have had the opportunity to design all the beautiful buildings we are so proud of today? Weren’t they contemporary archistars at their time? Yes they were, but following a real obsession for preservation Italy has lost at least fifty years of architecture and, with the exception of some remarkable historical towns, it has been filled with poor buildings, generally pale-yellow painted, only apparently respecting the landscape, but effectively devastating it with their poorness. In the meantime many talented young Italian architects can’t even find a job, and the few who made it, like Italian Senator Renzo Piano, have built their masterpieces in New York, London, or Paris, instead of Milan or Rome. Is that the great result of having art historians – those who work in the Soprintendenze – in charge of asserting what is nice and what is not? In medio stat virtus.

August 31, 2015