The Bologna Model: Origins and Repercussions in the field of integrated conservation

Abstract

To promote the transition from an “old city to a new society,” Bologna, Italy, took on a particular urban planning process for historic cities between the 1960s and 1970s. This article seeks to understand the construction of the conservation agenda of the historic center, which materialized in a social housing policy, with a solid emancipatory and anti-capitalist aspiration. Based on a literature review, the article sought to unravel the various political and technical syntheses related to the issue of heritage restoration, particularly in post-war Italy (1945) until the 1970s. Land and real estate, the nature of the safeguarding policy, and the guidelines for metropolitan planning, with the historic center being its focal point.

Keywords:
Integrated Conservation; Bologna; Social Housing in Historic Centers

Resumo

O desejo de promover a transição de uma “cidade antiga para uma sociedade nova” tomou Bolonha, na Itália, como objeto de um processo singular de planejamento urbano de cidades históricas, entre as décadas de 1960 e 1970. O presente artigo busca compreender a construção da agenda de conservação do centro histórico bolonhês, que se materializou em uma política de habitação social com forte aspiração emancipatória e anticapitalista. Baseado em uma revisão bibliográfica, o artigo buscou desvendar as diversas sínteses políticas e técnicas relacionadas ao tema da restauração patrimonial, em particular na Itália do pós-guerra (1945) até a década de 1970. Foram abordados temas incidentes, como o sistema de regulação estatal e a política fundiária e imobiliária, assim como a natureza da política de salvaguarda e as diretrizes para o ordenamento metropolitano, sendo o centro histórico seu ponto focal.

Palavras-chave:
Conservação Integrada; Bolonha; Habitação Social em Centros Históricos

Introduction

The lack of historical insertion into debates on heritage conservation is one of the reasons for the limitations in its analysis. Frequently, studies on the subject tend to ignore the logic of the unequal development of territory within the context of capitalism and of understanding the speculation process inherent to the investment made in the patrimonial ensemble. A historical-materialist analysis of heritage conservation should understand the value of urban land and the significance of the consolidated urban space represented by historic centers. This explanation occurs when establishing the specific ideological links that articulate the urban space with the economy, politics, and ideology through which the production of space operates.

This article intends to compose a more complex picture of the subsequent discussions on public agendas, especially between 1950 and 1970, related to the heritage conservation of the historic center of Bologna and, based on this, explain the divergences, contradictions, limits, and possibilities of the process for developing a public policy.

1. Urban conservation: a public agenda

According to Bandarin (1979, p. 188), after World War II, large Italian cities faced two problems related to urbanization: (i) the reconstruction of areas devastated by bombing and (ii) the massive wave of migration from the countryside to the city, and from the agrarian South to the industrialized North. The pressure for housing became translated into a constant increase in new homes on the fringes of metropolises and in peri-urban areas. The limits of the urban area were suddenly extended, advancing onto agricultural land, which thereby contributed to increasing the pressure for mobility, the “cinematic element of the city”, according to Giovannoni (2012 [1931]).

Aligned to this, the demolition and reconstruction plans for areas left in ruins by the war and the expansion of the urban road system endangered the integrity of historic centers. Such actions sought to consolidate the regional and metropolitan transport networks in order to facilitate the circulation of automobiles between the old nucleus and the expansion zones.

The inadequacy of the historic city - as a pre-modern structure - in relation to the designs of the new arrangement of capital had been evident for some time, ever since the nostalgic Sitte (1992 [1889]) through to the militant Giovannoni (2012 [1931]). For both, long before the postwar reconstruction, the historic city had been limited to a marginal, subordinate level. Giovannoni (2012 [1931]) had wagered on the functional conversion of the old city into a “center”, so that it ceased to be the totality of the urban in order to acquire roles of convergence and nuclearity. He understood that the old surviving cities were almost inappropriate ways for becoming the center of the new ones. Thus, he believed that the unappealable future of pre-industrial urban centers was their functional marginalization. In his opinion, the only way to reconcile modern urban development with the need to preserve existing urban environments was through the decentralization of external functions that were incompatible with the morphology of ancient cities.

Since the “International Conference on Restoration” (SOCIEDADE DAS NAÇÕES, 1931), the concept of “restoration” evolved from meaning the “return to a previous state” towards the possibility of conceiving different uses of the original. The Italian Charter of Restoration (CONSIGLIO SUPERIORE PER LE ANTICHITÀ E BELLE ARTI, 1932), written by Giovannoni, added the notion of heritage in an approach that went beyond works of art, embracing a concern for the “environment” and the functionality of heritage assets. Ever since the emergence of the Industrial Revolution, Italian cities had undergone a centripetal development and, more particularly, after the acceleration of postwar metropolitan urbanization (1945). Circulation and exchange relations ceased to be primarily endogenous (in the confined space of the old city) and began to respond to exogenous pressures (coming from suburbs and neighboring cities).

The rise of the conservation agenda was not a locally limited phenomenon. In the 1950s, especially in Europe, awareness of the need to go beyond the restoration model of individual and isolated buildings in favor of preserving urban complexes of historic value gained momentum. In Italy, particularly, the defense of cultural and historical heritage took on national importance. Although the scope of the debate was restricted to specific groups of the cultural elite and urban planners, discussions flourished with the intention of safeguarding historic centers from the effects of real estate speculation (DE PIERI; SCRIVANO, 2004, p. 35).

In 1956, the Italia Nostra Association was founded, formed by civil society agents, whose primary task was to sensitize the public to urban conservation and the social reality (NUCIFORA, 2017, p. 252). Another turning point was the National Conference for the Safeguarding and Rehabilitation of Historic Centers. On that occasion, the National Association for Historic-Artistic Centers - ANCSA (ANCSA, 1960) was founded, and a declaration of principles for the protection and restoration of historic centers was approved (The Gubbio Charter, 1960). The abovementioned conference introduced the expression “historic center” into the vocabulary of discussions on urban conservation, and it has since become a common term with which to designate the dense network of small urban centers of historical importance or to identify the central nucleus of larger cities.

The notion of “historic center” however, has been the subject of technical controversies and discussions. Benevolo, when addressing the Italian particularity, proposed a concept: “the only operational definition is of a historical order: it is the pre-industrial city, insofar as - isolated or disordered - it survives amid the current spatial system” (apud CERVELLATI; SCANNAVINI; DE ANGELIS, 1981, p. 37). Successive historical processes in the development of a city have produced a stratified organism, although endowed with a true unity, like a “palimpsest” (HARVEY, 2013 [1982]).

The Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1964) extended the concept of architectural heritage and registered the importance of conserving urban and rural buildings. In this context, there was an appeal for an approximation between urban planning and preservation policies. The prospect of losing the city’s morphological and identificatory exceptionality due to aggressive policies for the production of space was particularly appalling in Bologna, which, like Venice, contains one of the most extensive heritage ensembles in the whole of Italy (BODENSCHATZ, 2017, p. 214). Growing awareness and the adoption of protective regulations delegated the status of an inalienable cultural asset onto the historical heritage, whereby it was the duty of the State and society to protect and maintain it.

Cervellati and Scannavini (1976, p. 1) saw the historic center equally as an “inalienable cultural asset” and a “remarkable built-economic heritage”. However, due to the advance of real estate pressure on the old city, they developed a particular fatalistic perspective: by maintaining the current political and economic ideology that makes the “right” of property coincide with the “right” to build, no proposal, even scientific, will be in a position to put an end to the ruin of the center’s historical sites and areas of environmental interest.

For Cervellati, Scannavini, and De Angelis (1981, pp. 40-41), conservation signified “maintaining in good condition an object that could deteriorate. Conservation, therefore, is necessary so as to avoid loss or damage”. They argued, in turn, to supplant the debate surrounding the protection of heritage from a purely cultural perspective, in which the heritage asset is “threatened by the barbarism of a society insensitive to past values”. The critique suggests that the “culturalist bias” of the discourse engages only a tiny fraction of society, restricted to academic and intellectual circles, “which have the privilege of knowing and appreciating the significance of cultural assets”. The authors concluded that it was not possible to expect a policy for a “historic center” autonomous and marginalized from the broader economic and territorial policy. Therefore, urban conservation acquired an ideological meaning: opposing the economy of abundance and the unrestrained consumption of agricultural land in favor of the peripheral expansion of large cities.

2. Accelerated and massified urbanization: a housing issue

The post-World War II reconstruction work in Bologna extended urbanization beyond its intramural boundaries. With the INA-Casa Plan (1949), numerous housing complexes were built for tens of thousands of inhabitants. Between 1951 and 1961, while the demographic growth of Bologna was 31%, the increase in housing was substantially higher (59%). During the same period, the Italian population grew by only 6.5% (CAMPOS VENUTI, 1971).

When the immediate provision of housing for the growing urban population was the objective to be pursued by the municipality, the ideology of infinite expansion had perfect adherence to reality. The old city was seen as being inadequate for modern functions and unable to absorb the growing demand for decent, good-quality housing. The population transfer to new peripheral residential projects was pursued as a “social benefit” (ULSHÖFER, 2017, p. 232).

In addition to the cheaper unit cost, mainly due to the availability of land whose exchange value was lower, dwellings built in the periurban area had the amenities that the ideology of the time demanded and that, in many cases, were lacking in the old city: private household space, basic hygiene services, and a roadway structure adapted to the automobile. Under these conditions, it was possible to use contemporary construction techniques to produce cheaper large-scale housing at a faster rate.

Cervellati, Scannavini, and De Angelis (1981, pp. 29-33) disputed the narrative of the low cost of expansion. They considered that the social cost would soon appear, since life in the suburbs would quickly deteriorate because the supply of public services would not keep pace with urban expansion. The growth of the metropolis increased dependence on the automobile, with the consequent traffic problems. Politically and socially, the fraying of the community fabric and the perception of strengthening individualistic and consumer values were felt (BARTOLINI, 2017, p. 57).

The malaise of mass urbanization, albeit under different conceptual and ideological bases, united the “culturalists” and the nascent critical geography. The “indistinction” of the modern city, its “monotony and boredom of building geometry”, which contradicted Giovannoni (2012 [1931]), gained a new reading with Henri Lefebvre’s (1974) conception of produced space. He considered that the “space of modernity” had precise characteristics: homogeneity, fragmentation, and hierarchy. Approved in 1955, the Bologna Master Plan (COMUNE DI BOLOGNA, 1955) followed the expansionist logic, although it had an ambiguous relationship with the so-called “old city nucleus”. Campos Venuti (1974, apud BANDARIN, 1979, p. 189) stated that:

In the post-war period, no serious attempt was made in Bologna to change the traditional land policy of the Italian prefectures, essentially dominated by speculators. On the contrary, the approved plan allowed for a substantial residential expansion on the periphery, did not plan the necessary services, allowed demolitions in the historic center, and favored the expansion of private residences in the “green” areas on the hills that surround the city.

In the PRG 55, there were two definitions for historic areas: the “old center”, an area corresponding to the most central nucleus, limited by the layout of the eleventh century city walls; and the “old city nucleus,” which corresponded to the broader area and, roughly speaking, to the city limits established by the fifteenth century walls. Despite considering that the center was overcrowded, decadent, and unsuitable for current needs, the PRG 55 recognized the artistic, aesthetic qualities of the monuments and the vernacular architecture. In this respect, the plan echoed the conclusions that Giovannani had inferred three decades earlier regarding the destination of the old nucleus of cities.

The conservation agenda was subtly gaining ground, even though it lacked a sense of integrity, with no clearly defined intervention methodology. It remained an “isolated phenomenon and not an essential principle of city organization” (CERVELLATI; SCANNAVINI; DE ANGELIS, 1981, p. 23). The plan generically mentioned a limitation on the right to build in “areas with particular environmental and constructive characteristics” (id., ibid., p. 232) and provided partial or complete isolation of selected monuments.

If, on the one hand, there was a concern for preserving streets with scenic value, mostly due to the presence of the famous arcades and the exceptional attention given to protecting the facades, on the other, areas that contained fragmented lots and a irregular road layout would either be rectified or demolished. Furthermore, the plan was unclear regarding both the fate of the traditional population and the approach to property rights in such areas. There was even a forecast of a slight drop in the number of inhabitants in the center.

It was not long before the first changes in attitude took place regarding the patrimonial agenda. When, in 1958, the national authorities finally endorsed the PRG 55, Bologna received a warning as to the plan’s incongruity with the requirements of more contemporary urban planning (ULSHÖFER, 2017, p. 23)

In 1962, Bologna joined ANCSA two years after its formation (id., ibid., p. 237). Although the Gubbio Charter (1960) served as an inspiration for what came to be known as the “Bologna model” - especially concerning its methodological principles of restoration - the lack of ambition in the economic and social field was criticized by Cervellati and Scavannini (1976, pp. 3; 7-9). While the traditional form of conservation, which they dubbed “conservative restoration,” had positive practical effects on heritage preservation, it did not seek to oppose the eviction of traditional residents and social degradation. According to these authors (1976, p. 18):

It is necessary to say that while conservative restoration (in the sense indicated in the Gubbio Charter and other agreements) is the only therapy for historic centers, it is not enough. Restoration must, in a programmed manner, encompass the city, not isolated buildings and episodes, and, for that, the planning of the historic center, its destination, its use, are closely linked to and derive from the general planning of the territory, both from a social and technical point of view. [...] The lack of rigor and the renunciation of historical-critical understanding reduces the problem of the historical center to mere scenography and functional restructuring (Ibid., p. 18).

The very qualification of “conservative restoration” seems to contain a pun, which the authors do not duly clarify. Is it conservative because it only conserves the constructed object - and disregards the economic-social structure and power dynamics in the territory - or because it is politically conservative and, therefore, does not envisage acting to reverse the relations of domination and dispossession?

For Cervellati and Scavannini (1976, p. 8), “restoration conserves, but only the physical structures, the morphological ordering, not the social structure and, in short, it does not conserve the city”. By not discussing the logic of capital accumulation related to dispossession, investment policies in historic centers only repeat the pattern of segregation and expulsion of vulnerable populations, effectively replacing demolitions with more refined intervention techniques.

For David Harvey (2014), capital accumulation by dispossession is part of the cyclical nature of surplus-value production in urbanization instruments. The physical degradation process of the heritage stock is a vital part of the project’s solvency and the realization of profits following the revalorization of the assets.

The revalorization process, which excludes economically vulnerable actors, is socially tolerated through the ideological control of the urban regeneration banner. The concerted action of financial capital with state engagement promotes stability in order to realize the long-term urban surplus value (id., ibid., 2014). It is common for requalification projects to appropriate terminologies linked to culture and heritage, under the appeal of “cultural initiatives”, so as to facilitate financialization and real estate speculation.

The opposite of “conservative restoration” would therefore be “structural conservation”. Respect for the historical past would constitute the main objective so that the basic premise for elaborating a conservation plan would be the historical-morphological reading of the existing structure and its interrelationship with the post-industrial city. In elaborating the plan, a structural reading replaced a purely formal and romantic valorization of the old city; the problem of the urban form was considered in its totality, analyzing it as a dialectical organization, between the permanence of original installations and organisms and the successive morphological changes (CERVELLATI; SCAVANNINI, 1976, p. 20). “Structural conservation”, thereafter integrated conservation, antagonized the notion of urban scenography, identified as part of the strategy of conservative restoration. The historic center acquires the dimension of a cultural, economic, and social asset.

3. Democracy, society and the role of the urban planner

The essential divergence between the consensus disseminated by ANCSA and the conception expressed by Cervellati, Scannavini and De Angelis (1981, pp. 69-71) lies in the political dimension given to territorial planning. They state that there is no neutrality of urbanism and urban planners, nor the in prominence and autonomy of technical areas in relation to social agendas. As a discipline and set of techniques, urban planning has a subordinate role and helps to achieve democratically forged societal objectives.

Within this reasoning, the “right to the city” applies to political ends since they are beacons for planning, defined a priori, although not carved in stone. It changes as the material, historical and social conditions of a specific collectivity, in a particular space, produce a new paradigm. Recognizing the non-neutrality of the technical profession and the demand for political action by the urban planner seems to consider that the conservation of heritage, as a form of production of space, has an intrinsic purpose. Therefore, the urban planner must adopt a political posture and no longer that of a “technical performer of a well-defined task” (id., ibid., p. 71). In the field of action, the interpreter is the formulator of a proposal, which, in turn, does not magnanimously reflect the conception of the city, but is the materialization - via participatory procedures - of the expectations, claims, and diffuse demands of society. This conduct will necessarily lead to vigilant responsibility so that the technician does not replace the citizen. Within this context, the exercise of social synthesis is shared between the constitutional structures of power (the Legislative and Executive branches, who are responsible for political legitimacy) and participatory decision-making bodies, taking the “neighborhood” as the elementary nucleus.

For De Pieri and Scrivano (2004), the Bologna experimentalism was possible because having been kept from power on the national stage, the Italian communists used local administration as a showcase for “good administration”. By presenting the city as a success story, the party gathered popular support to take over the nation’s reins and implement its redistributive policies and vision of governance based on egalitarian ideals.

This vision reflected a significant shift in political orientation in the discourse of the Italian Communist Party (PCI), which took place primarily in the 1950s, but which would bear fruit over the following decades (ULSHÖFER, 2017, pp. 236-237). The emerging reality was that of a revolutionary party at its birth, but that would renounce the violent seizure of power and adapt its platform and ideals to the parameters of electoral democracy. For its leaders, even if the perspective of class struggle as an interpreter of the imbalances of the capitalist system were to be maintained, this mediation could only be victorious if the notion of the exploited were to extend beyond the working class and seek the support of the urban middle classes (BARTOLINI, 2017, pp. 55-58).

In 1956, the party adopted a reformist political alignment known as the Italian road to socialism, and, within this context, the urban reform agenda became part of the structural reform program sponsored by the PCI. With the recomposition of cadres, the party renewal process took effect in Bologna from 1959, with special mention to the appointment of Giuseppe Campos Venuti as Secretary of Urbanism in 1960.

The arrival of this new generation of municipal managers (Campos Venuti, Leonardo Benevolo, Pier Luigi Cervellati, Italo Insolera, Carlo Aymonimo, among others) brought about a radical change in the conduct of the Bologna municipal agenda. Economic planning and the systematic implementation of a policy of budget deficits received major attention, aiming for quality over quantity and being concerned with measures to regulate the weight of land income.

The team’s analysis echoed the criticism of the spatial segregation and unequal distribution of public services across the territory but introduced other issues that had been overlooked. Among them was the recognition of the “neighborhood” as a privileged space in which the working-class forms social alliances (challenging the primacy of the workplace as a space of sociability and ideological diffusion, as defended by communist orthodoxy), in addition to the need for cultural and civic reform, and the mobilization for a new urban condition (BARTOLINI, 2017, p. 60).

4. Planning the historic center

The 1960s marked the insertion of a housing policy into the process of urban reform and of preserving the historic center. A prospective study was published in 1966 by a team of architect-urban planners led by Leonardo Benevolo, in which Pier Luigi Cervellati participated, which served as the basis for preparing, in 1969, the “Plan for the Historic Center” (ULSHÖFER, 2017, p. 236). In the view of the researchers, there would be a fracture between the “modern city” and the “city of the past”, which would define the ancient fabric as standing in opposition to the modern city, and that there could be no continuity between them (CERVELLATI; SCAVANNINI, 1976, p. 19). The document reflected that the past had ceased to communicate through the continuity of tradition, assuming its relationship with the present based on historical reflection, hence historic preservation was a means of safeguarding the concrete testimony of the past and its values (DE PIERI; SCRIVANNO, 2004, p. 38).

As both types of cities have irreducibly different morphology, typologies, and organizational principles, the historic city deserved to be the object of a particular planning policy that defined its function within the metropolis (Ibid., p. 38). Thus, safeguarding the old city was only one aspect of a more significant issue: the organization of city functions on a metropolitan scale.

Benevolo’s sectorial study and the work of Cervellati both echoed Giovannoni’s (2012 [1931]) proposals concerning the place of city centers in the context of the contemporary metropolis. For them, the old city was incompatible with certain functions demanded by the economic development of the modern city. Thus, it would be natural to recognize alternative centralities. Therefore, they imagined a territorial organization that would bring about the coexistence of different centralities, preserving the historic center from functions that generated discomfort and mass movements of people, seen as incompatible with the old nucleus. The idea of recovering the historic center also signified slowing down urban expansion towards the peripheries, of reversing speculative processes. In short, it was a matter of including the requalification of historical heritage as an integral part of territorial planning and not simply a sectorial issue linked to culture and restoration.

Nevertheless, a distinction was established between the intact zones and those that were transformed, so that not all heritage built on the limits of the historic center was considered worthy of preservation. The study divided the building stock into three categories: scientific restoration, exterior feature preservation, and demolition (ULSHÖFER, 2017, p. 238). In such a diverse city, in which historical development produced successive alterations and countless construction stratifications, some areas had suffered so much de-characterization that they no longer had any historical value.

Ulshöfer (2017, p. 238) speculated that the possible effects on the residents with the redevelopment of the historic center were not discussed in detail. However, they did anticipate that renovating the heritage complex would produce a population drop of around 20 percent in the historic area, in addition to causing a solid social recomposition. For Cervellati and Scannavini, however, “the vitality (or revitalization) of the historic center is, thus, closely linked to the right of the low-income social classes to inhabit it” (CERVELLATI; SCAVANNINI, 1981, p. 3). Therefore, at that time, a social commitment to combine heritage conservation with a strategy of providing affordable housing was not evident.

Also, in the 1960s, a decentralization process of municipal functions began, emerging as a type of “district democracy” (BODENSCHATZ, 2017, p. 213). The municipality adopted policies to increase citizen participation in the public sphere. In 1960, the City Council approved the division of the city into 14 districts, whereby each neighborhood council representing around 30,000 inhabitants had consultative functions, a forum for elaborating public policies and intermediation between citizens and the municipality (BANDARIN, 1979, p. 191). Bologna was the first city in Italy to adopt such an institution. The formation of the councils not only sought to strengthen political consensus but also to contribute to expanding the city’s image as a stronghold of new democratic experiments, made possible by a favorable context, in which the consensus encompassed managers, unions, housing cooperatives, and citizens (DE PIERI; SCRIVANNO, 2004, p. 38).

After years of political maturity, the Plan for the Historic Center was approved in 1969 (COMUNE DI BOLOGNA, 1969), and instituted as a modification to the 1955 PGR, and was specifically applied to the delimited area of the historic center. In general terms, the plan proposed a new framework for the historic center within the scope of territorial planning, rigidly defining land use and occupation, preservation and restoration criteria, and intervention proposals to direct the functions considered “appropriate” for the center. The plan also proposed converting large structures for contemporary use, increasing the socioeconomic value of the area, and improving the provision of public services. As an intervention measure, 13 priority renewal sectors were identified (ULSHÖFER, 2017, p. 239). The studied spatiality included the territory defined as the “historic center” and its immediate periphery and the surrounding agricultural lands. The document repeated the definition of “historic center” and indicated the various historical and economic processes that had brought considerable transformations to the pre-modern urban fabric and each prominent building. Its technical objectives coincided in one single purpose: preserving the historic center and incorporating it into the city’s structure as a differentiated and qualified part through its specialization.

Supported by the innovations brought by Benevolo’s exploratory studies, the concept of “typology” was enshrined as the central idea of the restoration and adaptation methodology. It was a methodological tool - but not exclusively analytical - in order to separate elements of construction that were constant (related to the original structure) from those that were “variable” (elements collected over the centuries and that reflected the uses and customs adjusted to the structure to ensure its adaptability). The purpose of this tool was to understand the formation processes of architectural structures and how they could influence their suitability for contemporary use (BANDARIN, 1981, p. 194).

The Plan for the Historic Center of Bologna (1969) was, above all, a census and identification of the existing buildings, accompanied by regulations that defined a limited set of possible transformations. Planners saw the service sector (tertiary and quaternary) as a threat to the city, especially because of its power to induce the realization of speculative surplus value (gentrification).

4.1 A housing plan for the center: Peep Centro Storico (1973)

The idea of the historic center as a place that concentrated investments and services and the official characterization of its morphological and architectural homogeneity camouflaged territorial inequalities and deep spatial segregation. There was considerable social segregation within the old city. In the same territory, high-value properties contrasted with homes in a severe degree of environmental and structural degradation. This situation of abandonment was particularly dire in the 13 renovation sectors already identified by the 1969 Plan. The nuanced spatial reading enabled the territory not to be treated in a uniform manner. Another essential factor was to identify that the lack of public services in the old city was similar to that of newly built suburbs.

Facing the logic of ruin as a natural predecessor, in the capitalist dynamic, one of dispossession and expulsion of the most vulnerable population, Cervellati’s team presented, in 1973, the Plan for Economic and Affordable Building in the Historic Center (PEEP Centro Storico) (COMUNE DI BOLOGNA, 1973). This was the urban planning instrument that served to plan, manage, and execute all interventions related to social housing in the old city.

Although in 1963, Campos Venuti had already sought to insert two central zones into the first PEEP of Bologna, his efforts had only a symbolic character to induce the debate on affordable housing in the center (ULSHÖFER, 2017, p. 243). A specific affordable housing plan for the old city was about to be attempted. From among the 13 intervention sectors inscribed in the Plan for the Historic Center (1969), the PEEP Historic Center (1973) only incorporated 5. These territories (Santa Caterina, Solferino, Fondazza, San Leonardo, and San Carlo) had a population of 6,000 inhabitants out of the 32,000 residents in the 13 original sectors. These locations were chosen because of the precarious living conditions, in terms of both structure and health.

From the viewpoint of the restoration policy, PEEP sought a pragmatic approach to the 1969 Plan methodology. It borrowed the category of typological reconstruction (ripristino tipologico), as a way of constructing new buildings in the historic center. Here there is a distinction: while in the 1969 Plan, the historic center was seen as a “completed historical process”, from the viewpoint of land occupation, PEEP (1973) proposed the construction of temporary residences (case Albergo) on lots where there were no constructions. This heterodox solution made it possible for residents not to leave their neighborhood - therefore, their community and social network - during housing renovation works (ULSHÖFER, 2017). This aspect raised strong criticism regarding the loss of authenticity of the buildings, precisely because of extemporaneous materials, techniques, and typologies, resulting in an architectural pastiche.

These proposals seemed to be inspired by the idea that Giovannoni (2012 [1931]) had defended to rebuild the historical fabric with new buildings, without contrasting colors, shapes, and volumes with traditional architecture. Such “non-conservative acts”, according to him, would be guided by the principle of minimum necessary intervention and linked to cultural actions (KÜHL, 2013, pp. 22-23). Although the 1969 Plan provided the typological reconstruction, it was intended for buildings in a state of ruin or partially modified, not for new constructions.

The novelty of PEEP Centro Storico (1973) was not confined to being Italy’s first housing program involving heritage requalification (BANDARIN, 1979). The most audacious aspect of the plan was to seek an extensive interpretation of the Urban Reform Law (1971) and to classify affordable housing as a “public service” (ULSHÖFER, 2017, p. 242). Thus, by changing the legal nature of the intervention, it would be possible for the municipality to expropriate properties for social housing purposes more quickly and cheaply.

The “creative” solution was much more a choice of technicians than a political option by the PCI (ULSHÖFER, 2017, p. 242). After building renovation, granting collective property titles without individualized ownership proved particularly unpopular and contentious with the middle class and modest apartment owners. Two aspects emerged: first, the monetary sum discriminated by the municipality to the owners would be substantially less than the actual market value since the municipality used the calculation of the commercial value, disregarding the fluctuations arising from real estate speculation. Furthermore, there was uncertainty regarding the extension of rights and duties arising from “cooperative property” titles - an instrument initially intended in PEEP (BANDARIN, 1979). The cooperative configuration did not allow renovated properties to be usurped by real estate speculation, thereby limiting the social outreach of the plan.

The emphasis on coercive instruments of urban reform found its limits when class contradictions were explored. There was opposition even within the working class between those without property and the owners. To appease the opposition, in 1975, a new instrument of agreement between public authorities and property owners was approved: the “convention”. This was a solution for political compromise, which would allow the owners to maintain their right in rem, while, in exchange for public financing for the renovation, they would comply with the terms of the housing policy for their property, determined by the City Hall and approved by the Neighborhood Council.

5. La festa è finita! - a superação do modelo (1980-)

The dependence of the conservation policy in Bologna on the city’s budgetary instruments was decisive in deflating public policy during the period of fiscal austerity experienced in Italy from 1976 onwards (BODENSCHATZ, 2017). Budget control and tax expansion measures, designed to combat the high public deficit, forced the interruption of subsidies and investments, which compromised the policy’s result at the exact moment when its planning had reached a high level of maturity.

It should be noted that Italy has a unitary government system, and local administrations have no fiscal autonomy. This signifies that the capacity for collection originates from the revenues amassed by the National State and distributed to subnational entities (municipalities, provinces, regions). In addition to the lack of autonomy, the economic crisis that affected the country after the 1973 oil crisis severely damaged the ability of local governments to finance housing programs and expand services.

Austerity did not only affect investments since it ultimately conditioned all public action and weakened the spirit of reformist innovation. The current tone during the 1960s was the consistent expansion of public services and the strengthening of the counterculture of collective use over individualistic consumption. Austerity brought down these initiatives by limiting the growth of public spending, increasing public tariffs for gas, electricity, and transport, and reducing the hours and scope of services.

Bandarin (1981, p. 201) stated that the PEEP Centro Storico (1973) would be just the beginning of a process that would, step by step, include the entire city in a renewal program under the control of the administration. Despite the restrictions, in 1977, PEEP already presented results in the acquisition of land and buildings, the renovation of approximately 200 apartments for 500 people, the implementation of public services, and the restoration of historical monuments (ibid. p. 200). According to Ulshöfer (2017, p. 246), in 1980, the General Plan was broken down into five specific plans for each intervention zone and finalized in 1983, ceasing to exist as a public policy.

Final considerations

This article has highlighted the “Bologna model” as a policy of social housing and urban planning focused on rehabilitating the old city. This policy was the materialization of a series of public agendas that coincided, articulated, and gained strength over a number of decades. The argument developed remains current: for the historic center to survive and be relevant, in the context of the contemporary metropolis, its function must be compatible with its structures, respecting the peculiarity of its community networks and, in a continuous effort to conserve, never withdraw its social responsibility toward its traditional population.

The voluntarism of the Bologna City Council in opposing the logic of real estate speculation, even though its economic structure was immersed in the capitalist production system, found its limit precisely when the public deficit policy could no longer artificially undo speculation through public financing. When the money ran out, planning died.

However, the delivery of public assets was only one aspect of the experience. From an ideological point of view, the intervention in the historic center represented a substantial change in posture: it moved from the defensive perspective of restoration to wager on an offensive and purposeful attitude, as a force for transforming urban space into a culturally and architecturally significant environment.

The example of Bologna, with its strong social and participatory content, inspired the Declaration of Amsterdam (CONSELHO DA EUROPA, 1975), adopted by the Council of Europe as a guideline for urban planning for the continent’s historic centers. It outlined the first systematic formulation of Integrated Conservation, whose principles largely mirror the Bologna experience. For Zanchetti (2003, p. 108), this first formulation of Integrated Conservation was restricted to intervention in the historic centers and claimed as an approach or way of conceiving and guiding intervention action in historic urban areas.

Despite the differences, the critical elements for understanding and safeguarding heritage are similar to those of Cervellati and Giovannoni: the historic city constitutes a formal, organic unit, the structures of which and the population that inhabits it are, in their dialectical relationship, testimony to the history and condition for its vitality, permanence, and relevance in contemporaneity. Hence, we maintain that the “Bologna model” did not constitute a rupture but rather a continuous synthesis of the social, political, and economic agendas imposed on the city in previous decades. Lastly, we understand that the proposal was not only concerned with revitalization or rehabilitation, with a social nature, in degraded central areas. It went beyond and enabled a reading of a different city, emancipatory and a driving force for alternative urban practices.

Referências

• ANCSA. Associazione Nazionale per i Centristorico-Artistici. Convegno Nazionale per la Salvaguardia e il Risanamento dei Centri Storici (Carta di Gubbio), 1960. Disponível em: https://www.italianostra.org/nazionale/la-carta-di-gubbio-del-1960 Acesso em: 20 ago. 2021.
  » https://www.italianostra.org/nazionale/la-carta-di-gubbio-del-1960
• BANDARIN, F. The Bologna experience: Planning and historic renovation in a communist city. In: APPLEYARD, D. (ed.). The conservation of European cities Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: The MIT Press, 1979.
• BARTOLINI, F. Changing cities. An urban question for the Italian Communist Party. In: BAUMEISTER, M.; BONOMO, B.; SCHOTT, D. (ed.). Cities contested: Urban politics, heritage, and social movements in Italy and West Germany in the 1970s. Frankfurt-am-Main: Campus Verlag, 2017.
• BODENSCHATZ, H. Bologna and the (Re-)discovery of urban values. In: BAUMEISTER, M.; BONOMO, B.; SCHOTT, D (ed.). Cities contested: Urban politics, heritage, and social movements in Italy and West Germany in the 1970s . Frankfurt-am-Main: Campus Verlag , 2017.
• CAMPOS VENUTI, G. La administración del urbanismo Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1971.
• CERVELLATI, P. L.; SCANNAVINI, R. Bolonia: política y metodologia de la restauración de centros históricos. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili , 1976.
• CERVELLATI, P. L.; SCANNAVINI, R.; DE ANGELIS, C. La nouvelle culture urbaine: Bologne face à son patrimoine. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1981.
• COMUNE DI BOLOGNA. Piano Regolatore Generale della Città di Bologna [S.l.: s.n], 1955.
• COMUNE DI BOLOGNA. Assessorato ai problemi urbanistici dell’assetto territoriale del comune del comprensorio Variante al piano regolatore generale. Piano per il centro storico. Norme tecniche di attuazione adottate con deliberazione consiliare del 21 luglio 1969, n. 74 dell’O.d.G. [S.l.: s.n], 1969.
• COMUNE DI BOLOGNA. Il piano per l’edilizia economica e popolare relativo al centro storico di Bologna (Peep Centro Storico). [S.l.: s.n], 1973.
• CONSELHO DA EUROPA. Carta Europeia do Patrimônio Arquitetônico (Declaração de Amsterdã), 1975. Disponível em: https://bityli.com/krpKcakTf Acesso em: 20 ago. 2021.
  » https://bityli.com/krpKcakTf
• CONSIGLIO SUPERIORE PER LE ANTICHITÀ E BELLE ARTI. Carta Italiana del restauro, 1932. Disponível em: http://brescianisrl.it/newsite/public/link/Carta_restauro%20_1932.pdf Acesso em: 20 ago. 2021.
  » http://brescianisrl.it/newsite/public/link/Carta_restauro%20_1932.pdf
• DE PIERI, F; SCRIVANO, P. Representing the “Historical Centre” of Bologna: Preservation policies and reinvention of an urban identity. Urban History Review, 33(1), p. 34-45, 2004. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.7202/1015673ar Acesso em: 10 out. 2018.
  » https://doi.org/10.7202/1015673ar
• GIOVANNONI, G. Vecchie città ed edilizia nuova. Nuova Antologia, v. CLXV, fasc. 995, p. 449-472, 2012 [1931]. Tradução: Renata Campello Cabral e Carlos Roberto M. de Andrade. Disponível em: https://docplayer.com.br/57343920-Velhas-cidades-e-nova-construcao-urbana.html Acesso em: 15 ago. 2021.
  » https://docplayer.com.br/57343920-Velhas-cidades-e-nova-construcao-urbana.html
• HARVEY, D. Os limites do capital Tradução: Magda Lopes . São Paulo: Boitempo, 2013 [1982].
• HARVEY, D. Cidades rebeldes: do direito à cidade à revolução urbana. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2014.
• ICOMOS. Carta Internacional sobre a Conservação e o Restauro de Monumentos e Sítios (Carta de Veneza), 1964. Tradução de Flávio Lopes e Miguel Brito Correia. Disponível em: https://bityli.com/rPlrtlMEu Acesso em: 15 ago. 2021.
  » https://bityli.com/rPlrtlMEu
• ITÁLIA. Legge 22 ottobre 1971, n. 865 Programmi e coordinamento dell’edilizia residenziale pubblica; norme sulla espropriazione per pubblica utilita’; modifiche ed integrazioni alle leggi 17 agosto 1942, n. 1150; 18 aprile 1962, n. 167; 29 settembre 1964, n. 847; ed autorizzazione di spesa per interventi straordinari nel settore dell’edilizia residenziale, agevolata e convenzionata. (Gazzetta Ufficiale Della Repubblica Italiana n.276 del 30-10-1971).
• KÜHL, B. M. Observações sobre os textos de Gustavo Giovannoni traduzidos nesta edição. In: KÜHL, B. M. (org.). Gustavo Giovannoni - textos escolhidos São Paulo: Ateliê Editorial, 2013.
• LEFEBVRE, H. La Production de l’espace Paris: Anthropos, 1974.
• NUCIFORA, M. Protection of cultural heritage and urban development. Catania and Syracuse in the seventies: A comparative approach. In: BAUMEISTER, M.; BONOMO, B.; SCHOTT, D. (ed.). Cities contested: Urban politics, heritage, and social movements in Italy and West Germany in the 1970s . Frankfurt-am-Main: Campus Verlag , 2017.
• SITTE, C. A construção das cidades segundo seus princípios artísticos Org. e apres.: Carlos Roberto Monteiro de Andrade. Tradução: Ricardo Ferreira Henrique. São Paulo: Ática, 1992 [1889].
• SOCIEDADE DAS NAÇÕES. Carta de Atenas Atenas: Escritório Internacional de Museus, 1931. Disponível em: http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Carta%20de%20Atenas%201931.pdf Acesso em: 18 ago. 2021.
  » http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Carta%20de%20Atenas%201931.pdf
• ULSHÖFER, J. From “Vechio Nucleo Cittadino” to “Centro Storico” On Bologna’s preservation policies and the social cost of urban renewal (1955-1975). In: BAUMEISTER, M.; BONOMO, B.; SCHOTT, D (ed.). Cities contested: Urban politics, heritage, and social movements in Italy and West Germany in the 1970s . Frankfurt-am-Main: Campus Verlag , 2017.
• ZANCHETTI, S. M. Conservação Integrada e planejamento urbano: uma revisão. Cadernos de Estudos Sociais (Fundaj), Recife. v. 19, n. 1, p. 107-124, jan./jun. 2003. Disponível em: https://periodicos.fundaj.gov.br/CAD/article/view/1312/1032 Acesso em: 11 jun. 2018.
  » https://periodicos.fundaj.gov.br/CAD/article/view/1312/1032

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  19 Dec 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  10 Oct 2021
• Accepted
  13 May 2022