intervention strategies for renovation of social housing estates

Laurentino38. Example of deprived social housing estates in Rome. Chapter 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
technologies and focussed at little apartments with simple floor plans. The second
programme (between 1957 and 1963) benefits from the first prefabrication technologies and
higher technical and functional quality of dwellings. The Plan addressed entire
neighbourhoods (Di Giulio in Andeweg, 2007). In total, about 350.000 dwellings were
constructed all over the country during the early post-war years.
In Rome, the ‘quarter effect’ is considered the most successful feature of this programme. It
entailed a proper insertion of the new developments within the consolidated city. This was
possible because of the application of traditional urban and housing concepts (Guccione &
Segarra Lagunes, 2002). Some of the buildings realized in these years, have historical values
and are called ‘modern objects’ 11 .
This coherent adaptation to the existing city also resulted from a national conservative
approach. In fact, although reinforced concrete technologies were already diffused, it was
obliged the use of traditional technologies 12 and in this way it was possible to employ large
segments of the construction sector. Thanks to the quality of traditional building
technologies, most of the blocks realized in this period do not face similar deterioration
processes that are associated with the buildings realized one or two decades later.
From 1965 onwards, the State intervention was committed to GESCAL by means of zoneplans
(Di Giulio in Andeweg, 2007). The neighbourhoods were built in partnership with
prefabrication manufactures. The residential blocks built in this period are larger and more
articulated. Housing types were standardized and different building types were often
combined. The table on the next page summarizes the public housing agencies and theirs
respective law, period, aim, financial sources and housing features.
In Rome, these developments found their way through two consecutive social housing
programmes. These housing programmes were the first comprehensive planned
implementations in Rome directed at both the urban and the building scales. Introduced in
1962 by the national law, the two P.E.E.P 13 covered one third of the expanding developments
of the city. The first was initiated in 1964, the second in 1985. Regardiong urban and
building layout, relationship with the surrounding and experimentation of innovative
technologies, these programmes represent the breakthrough of social housing in Rome.
The law obliged all municipalities with more that 50.000 inhabitants to redact social housing
programmes and fixed regulations to acquire the building sites. In Rome, because of the
urgency in starting building works, available areas were chosen without a clear analysis of
the urban shape and its relationships with the existing city. Therefore, most of the first
neighbourhoods grew without physical connections with the rest of the city. Also
implementation of the programmes was superficially managed. The local authority checked
the application of urban standards without paying attention to the impact of the proposals.
Moreover, since the costs were superficially estimated, it frequently happened that the blocks
were completed without the required urban facilities.
The first P.E.E.P, scheduled for a period of ten years, housed 711.000 inhabitants by means
of 72 urban plans (Piani di Zona). The building sites were mostly chosen among the areas of
the expanding city. Eight neighbourhoods where planned to host 30.000 people (Rossi,
2000). Most of the interventions set by the first P.E.E.P. were realized between 1964 and
1975, the remaining during the implementation of the second program.
IACP, co-operatives, private companies and other groups participated in the construction of
the dwellings.
In a short time, because of the ongoing expansion of the city, the new urban developments
were incorporated into the city itself. Moreover, their innovative character was not much
accepted by the residents, more used to the shape of the ‘traditional city’ (Moranti,
1988).Thus, all of those neighbourhoods designed as independent, mono-housing function
and modern areas experienced a sort of ghettoization.
11 Tuscolano, for example, was designed between 1950 and 1954 by Adalberto Libera, a famous Roman architect. This
quarter is very well-known thanks to experimentation of the “horizontal housing unit”.
12 In the book “INA CASA (1949) Suggerimenti, norme e schemi per l’elaborazione e presentazione dei progetti”, are
listed the guide lines for the traditional production of the first INA-CASA dwellings (1949-1956). Instructions regarding
the second production wave, 1957-1963, are described in “INA CASA (1949) Suggerimenti, norme e schemi per
l’elaborazione e presentazione dei progetti”
13 P.E.E.P. is the acronym of Piano Edilizia Economica e Popolare (Social Housing Programme)
11. G
LATE POST-WAR II
P.E.E.P FIRST
P.E.E.P SECOND