# THE SOCIAL CITY

Urban Development and Housing Projects in Berlin and Naples in the Post-War Era – A Comparison: Theoretical Models, Implemented Projects, Social and Political Impacts Today

*Edited by Antonello Scopacasa*

**Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin**

*Antonello Scopacasa (ed.)* 

# THE SOCIAL CITY

Urban Development and Housing Projects in Berlin and Naples in the Post-War Era – A Comparison: Theoretical Models, Implemented Projects, Social and Political Impacts Today

The book is the outcome of the research and academic exchange workshop *The Social City. Urban Development and Housing Projects in Berlin and Naples in the Postwar Era – A Comparison: Theoretical Models, Implemented Projects, Social and Political Impacts Today* by the Technische Universität Berlin and the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" which took place in June-July 2019.

Organized by Vittoria Capresi (project manager), Elena Manzo (project partner), Francesca Castanò, Antonello Scopacasa

Technische Universität Berlin Department of Architecture School VI Planning Building Environment Chair of International Urbanism and Design – Habitat Unit Strasse des 17. Juni 152, 10623 Berlin, Germany E-Mail: habitat.unit@tu-berlin.de

University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Via S. Lorenzo, 31, 81031 Aversa (CE), Italy E-Mail: dip.architettura@unicampania.it

Financed by DAAD, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, with funds from Auswärtiges Amt (AA) Referat P23 – Kooperationsprojekte in Europa, Südkaukasus und Zentralasien Kennedyallee 50, 53175 Bonn

We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Fund of Technische Universität Berlin.

The publication is also sponsored by STERN Stiftung, Soziale Stadtentwicklung Strassburger Straße 55, 10405 Berlin, Germany E-Mail: gf@stern-berlin.de

# THE SOCIAL CITY

Urban Development and Housing Projects in Berlin and Naples in the Post-War Era – A Comparison: Theoretical Models, Implemented Projects, Social and Political Impacts Today

*Edited by Antonello Scopacasa*

#### **Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek**

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek has listed this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografe; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

**Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2022** https://verlag.tu-berlin.de

Fasanenstr. 88, 10623 Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30 314 76131 / Fax: -76133 E-Mail: publikationen@ub.tu-berlin.de

This work**–**except quotes and where otherwise noted**–**is licensed under the Creative Commons Licence CC BY 4.0. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Additional information about the illustrations in the book concerning their archival location or the source, author or rights holder, exclusion from the Creative Common BY 4.0 standard is provided in Appendices, "List of illustrations and sources."

Scientifc review: Antonello Scopacasa (Chapter 1 and 2); Christoph Bernhardt, Katharina Kreuder-Sonnen, Andrea Maglio, Sergio Pace, Ines Tolic (Chapter 3)

English review: Marc Baldwin/Edit911, Natalia Kvitkova

Redactional style: Chicago Manual of Style

Front and back cover images: Antonello Scopacasa

Printing: docupoint GmbH Layout/Typesetting: Arina Kapitanova

ORCID iD Antonello Scopacasa: 0000-0002-8731-6037 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8731-6037

**ISBN 978-3-7983-3143-3 (print) ISBN 978-3-7983-3144-0 (online)**

Published online on the institutional repository of the Technische Universität Berlin: DOI 10.14279/depositonce-9773 https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-9773

#### **INTRODUCTION**


#### **I DOCUMENTATION**



#### **II COMPARISON**


#### **III IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS**

#### **BERLIN**


#### **NAPLES**



Authors 433

# INTRODUCTION *Antonello Scopacasa*

#### THE TOPIC OF RESEARCH

This book focuses on two closely connected aspects of the recent history of the European city: urban development and social housing. Both fall within the scope of the public that, with the democratic and republican re-founding of European states after World War II, acquired a dimension never reached before and a Europe-wide spread that recalls, at least in its proportions and coherence, the great late Medieval urbanisation. From this point of view, it is both possible and, we hope, useful to compare two cities as diferent as Berlin and Naples, both deeply marked in their history by the housing issue.

This powerful action is based on the reconstruction challenge that followed the physical and moral devastation of a war that revealed the risks and, at the same time, the power of technique, as well as the universalism that human and social rights acquired in the new republican charters. The end of the war, for all parties, was a unique and fnal opportunity for redemption and produced a powerful source of energy. It was the great fault for some, and the ultimate leveller for others that allowed Germany and Italy, emerging defeated from the war, to free themselves from the oppression of dictatorships and to look forward to the future. Broadening the gaze, it was the beginning of an existential, antinomic condition, typically European, founded on universal principles and open to the impulses of identities and democracy.

The city, as the main representative place of every political regime, was one of the stages of the post-war challenge. The issue of distribution of work and of the little wealth available through the reconstruction of the cities and the improvement of housing conditions became an obvious political priority. This was the case with the INA-Casa Plan in Italy between 1949 and 1963, and also in West Germany with the frst and second Housing Laws (*Wohnungsbaugesetz*) of 1950 and 1956. A similar approach, although softened, also occurred in West Berlin with the Hansaviertel, between 1953 and 1957, and with the construction of the frst housing settlement in the central area after the ruins were cleared up, so much so that, as in Italy, prefab construction technology, although well known, was conveniently left on the side. Particularly in East Berlin, this issue was central with the construction of Stalinallee between 1952 and 1958, and then with the powerful programme

FIGURE 1

A street from the Naples city centre in *Le piazze italiane*, photo by Paolo Monti, 1978

of industrialisation of state housing that characterised the entire GDR in the following decades.

The reconstruction was in fact a dual tool, aimed at the economic support of the population and the resolution of the dramatic housing demand: in Naples, because of the contemporary urban drift from the countryside and from the Mezzogiorno (which, however, was mainly directed towards the industrial cities of Northern Italy and Europe) and especially to mitigate the age-old crowding of the central districts; in West Berlin, and in particular in the FRG, because of the migration of millions of Germans coming from the GDR and Eastern Europe due to the forced mobilisation of the German people because of the geopolitical conditions.

Besides the demographic and housing question—40,000 homes were destroyed or heavily damaged by bombing in Naples, and 400,000 in Berlin, in what were respectively the frst and last European cities to be freed by the Allies—with the end of the war, both cities entered a period of geopolitical change. Naples defnitively realised the loss of its status as the capital of the kingdom, whose claim Fascism had temporarily revived after the national annexation, and which was reduced to a super-regional centre. Berlin entered a period of sovereignty transfer that would end only with the national and city reunifcation, while its population decreased by 40 % in comparison to the pre-war period. In this sense, the housing issue was immediately linked to repairing the war damage (many of the citizens had moved to the rural areas) and very soon to the representation of the two regimes that, with the founding of the FRG and GDR in 1949, settled side by side within the same city perimeter.

What remained after this frst, vigorous thrust of reconstruction of the 1950s and sediments stifening during the '60s, in Italy as in Germany, was the large scale of public housing interventions, along with their geographical distinction in the wider city context and their claim to functional self-sufciency. This happened in Naples, with the satellite neighbourhoods of Scampia and Ponticelli, located in the extreme northern and eastern outskirts during the '60s and '70s. The same happened in Berlin, in the West, with the Gropiusstadt and the Märkisches Viertel located at the outer limits of the island city during the '60s, and in the East with the Stadtzentrum project and the Leipziger Straße, and then with the mass-housing neighbourhoods on the outskirts, and primarily Marzahn-Hellersdorf, in the '70s and '80s.

This trend shows a similar over-scaling approach, but also follows diferent interpretations of the urban form. In the West, the choice of the periphery and of isolation for the new neighbourhoods became a distinctive, almost symbolic fgure of the aesthetic-political mood, the manifestation of the new democratic and republican regimes. Particularly in Berlin, the two settlements opportunely faced the Wall, showing the state of art in urbanism to the nearby Eastern sector. In the East, this trend matched an integrated and radical

rethinking process about the whole city: nothing, in fact, more than the city itself, or rather, the particular urbanised environment that was imagined spread uniformly throughout the territory, seemed a guarantee for the realisation of socialism. From this point of view, the construction of the city, as well the social system and the state, fully overlapped.

The approach to the new mega neighbourhoods was well defned by the motto "Urbanity through Density" coined by Edgar Salin and Hans Paul Bahrd. It was typical of many interventions throughout Germany in the 1960s, and it was diferently enacted in Italy in a more monumental and fgurative way (Le Vele of Scampia, Corviale in Rome, Zen in Palermo, "Serpentone" in Potenza, etc.). However, it soon faded during the '70s to open up to diferent, new cultural infuences. The topics of historical continuity and uniqueness of place, the cultural fundamentals of the project, and the private dimensions and the democratic participation in the project all came into play. In the Italian case, the right to market value when buying land soon entered the feld, leading to the unavailability of afordable land for the construction of large public housing complexes.

Starting in this moment of deep refection and city planning revision, with the European Year of the Architectural Heritage, 1975 (which concluded a theoretical elaboration in Italy that had begun with the Gubbio Charter in 1960), the idea of the public city, which meant a city built for the common good, settled into a deeper and more cultural dimension.

The coeval, and from many points of view similar cases of the International Building Exhibition (IBA) between 1979 and 1987 and of the Neapolitan Extraordinary Programme for Residential Building (PSER) between 1981 and 1986 expressed the state of art well, not only in the difused architectural quality they achieved through social housing in the central area of the city, frst, and in the peripheral ancient *casali*, second, but also for the articulated, democratic process they established in the rethinking of the urban form, and for having focused on the city as an inalienable historical issue.

After this period of common action between urban development and social housing, after the frst post-war re-founding push, as in the emergency of the 1980 earthquake in Naples and the era of Berlin's *Spaltung*, starting in the 1990s, the topic of the public and cultural city in urban planning became a lower priority, while its main driving force, social housing, disappeared almost completely from the political agenda. Also, the Berlin and Naples developments increasingly diverged.

In Berlin, the main attention was focused on national and city reunifcation, on the morphological reconstruction of the pre-war urban fabric in the context of the unexpected stabilisation in housing demand and the depreciation of property values. Nonetheless, in the wake of reunifcation, the number of low-density housing estates in the outskirts increased. Starting in 2002, however, the Stadtumbau Ost programme started with a regenerative approach and many urban repair projects to deal with the degradation and depopulation of

#### FIGURE 2 (TOP)

The *Wohnkomplex* Karl-Marx-Allee under construction. Photo by Weiß, 1963

#### FIGURE 3 (BOTTOM)

Märkisches Viertel under construction beyond the Berlin Wal from the Eastern sector l. Photo by Klaus Mehner, 1970

mass-housing complexes, especially those on the Eastern side. It provided for the demolition of part of the building fabric, both residential and service buildings, the renewal of public areas with widespread use of landscaping, and the improvement and modernisation of the residential facilities.

In Naples, that is, in Italy, the cancellation of direct investment in social housing starting in the 1980s in favour of small-scale indirect support, especially the disconnect between urban and architectural design in the absence of a clear sociological projection, overlapped with the great, chaotic phenomenon of urban sprawl that covered the territory behind the coastal city, the large and fertile plain of Terra di Lavoro extending between Naples, Caserta and Vesuvius.

The ongoing dereliction of the large public housing neighbourhoods such as Traiano, Scampia and Ponticelli worsened the peripheral condition: the public city, as imagined at the dawn of the republic, then showed, in a time of political liberalism, all its heaviness, which was the more evident when the urban planning and design had been socially superfcial or weakly implemented. Above all, this condition revealed the distance between the project plans and the real construction and maintenance ability of the community. This is a condition that the generous participation of associations and individual citizens for public good in the same years seems to have balanced from below.

 urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

The research involved a series of historical analyses of the relationship between urban development and social housing for critical refection and to allow an informed evaluation of the contemporary condition. In particular, it investigated housing settlements realised in Berlin and Naples in the frst four decades of the post-war period, which corresponds to the period in which public housing was central in both political and urban planning terms. Some of the questions we put to ourselves were: Which were the theoretical patterns? How were those social housing projects planned, implemented and used? What is their state of conservation today and how are they inhabited? What are the current challenges as regards social conditions, architecture and adaptation?

Considering the period from World War II until fairly recent times allowed us to analyse any completed interventions that still provoke reactions, which historically are still problematic and open, and this also let us experiment on the idea of history as settled experience, as a conscious attitude that, on the one hand, tries to reconstruct sources and witnesses with scientifc detachment and aims to defne the shape of a multiform reality, and, on the other hand, continuously experiments and includes the value of personal and social experience and its sedimentation into personal or common memory.

With all the limits of a small research project, the book focuses on places of living, the city and the house. Consequently, it investigates the scale of the project and that of the intervention, the relationship between innovation and the cultural reception of urban phenomena and, again, between the stage of the project and the realisation and upkeep of the interventions, between democratic expectations and the adequacy of the administration system. These steps have a direct efect on the social identity that inspires, structures and transforms the planned and then built city, that continuous dialogue between form and content (the past) that occurs, in general, through progressive and mutual adaptations.

In the selection of the case studies, we have favoured interventions on the "periphery," which are those in which theoretical and aesthetic trends have best manifested themselves and in which planning and design cultures could develop most widely. However, the

periphery does not necessarily coincide with the geographical edges of the cities: both in Berlin and in Naples, historical events, or the particular topography have naturally shifted the "peripheral" location along a radius that only ideally starts from the city centre and often extends to its inner fringes. Rather, from a sociological point of view, the same interventions generally generate the peripheral condition, that is, marginalisation or social division. This, as we shall see, can be traced both on the large scale of the city and inside the neighbourhood.

To merge the research and refections of diferent authors together was not the aim of this work. Rather, it represents an attempt to combine and communicate a multiple message through a simple framing structure, a common vocabulary and recurring keywords.

The materials are arranged in the following way: the text is introduced by a graphic and synthetic presentation of the historical context in Berlin and Naples and the documentation of the twelve case studies. They provide a short reference to some recurring topics: the historical reasons, the design process, the excursus of realisation, the idea of city and housing, the state of preservation, the infuence on social form.

In the second chapter, Comparison, which was developed as the frst by the young scholars involved in the project, three theoretical issues highlighted during the seminars are better presented: The ability of the project to involve the social level; the experimentalism of the interventions, in particular in construction technology, social approach and democratic participation; the relationship between public and private in the phases of implementation and the upkeep of the programmes.

The third chapter, In-Depth Analysis, includes the contributions of the scientists involved to give a better articulated historical and critical analysis of many of selected case studies and of the wider urban and social context.

The closing editorial paper ofers a brief overview focusing on a selection of the theoretical nodes that emerged from the comparison of the materials from a contemporary perspective.

# INTRODUCTION *Elena Manzo*

#### A DAAD WORKSHOP ON SOCIAL HOUSING AFTER WORLD WAR II THROUGH FIVE NEAPOLITAN EXEMPLARY CASES. PRESENTATION

The 21st century architectonic debate appears to be paying attention to the theme of social housing again, but in a renewed and diferent way. For a long time, in fact, the interest in it had weakened. Investments and state actions had been scarce in this sector. Because of this, much social housing real estate has fallen into a state of neglect and is crumbling. Recently, however, a more conscious and complex approach has characterised the cultural and economic policies underlying the actions taken in this sector. Today, increasingly, social housing is being seen mostly as a response to the changed housing needs of the less well-of classes. Rather, as Claude Lamure pointed out in 1976, social housing is a primary aspect of city planning for future generations.

The challenge, that is, is aimed at flling the current shortage of afordable housing by providing operational programmes that prefgure real neighbourhoods with high environmental sustainability. Therefore, the syncretism between social aspects, economic issues and typological research constitutes a central factor of urban planning, to the point that, in many Western states—especially the American ones—the building of new social housing neighbourhoods in poorly urbanised contexts proceeds parallel with the approach of the topic in terms of community start-ups. Among the Italian cases, for example, there is the *Competence Centre* start-up on Smart Cities, founded in 2015 in Turin. Matters such as the relationship between construction and place, domestic space and landscape, permanent and temporary, are central to the regeneration of social neighbours and suburbs. To this purpose, the redevelopment of pre-existing buildings—and, in particular, those of architectural quality—the restoration of efcient connection networks and the planning of a more adequate number of facilities are primary aims. It is therefore a complex

#### FIGURE 1

Map of Afordable and Social Housing in Naples from 1943 to 2019. Main housing phases:


Being aware of this, the Italian Government has stepped up its legislative policy to support and encourage actions in the social housing sector, considering the changing needs and the topicality of the issues. Among these, we have to mention Law Decree No. 112/2008

issue that, today more than before, involves the theme of so-called "social inclusion" too.

FIGURE 2 The "Vele" by Franz di Salvo with the backdrop of Vesuvius, 2019

FIGURE 3 Art Metro stations in Naples: Piscinola Station and the researchers of the DAAD workshop

and the *Piano Nazionale di Edilizia Abitativa* (National Housing Construction Plan) approved with a DPCM (Decree President Council Ministry) of July 16, 2009, which has allocated over 800 million Euros to three macro-areas of intervention, one of which is specifcally public residential construction. Finally, Law Decree No. 47/2014, which was converted into law on May, defnitively approved the "House Plan."

Starting from these refections, teachers, researchers and scholarship holders of the Technische Universität Berlin and the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" have carried out joint research within the European project *Dialogue with South Europe 2019*, which was fully funded by the Deutschen Akademischen Austauschdienst (DAAD). The research has been entitled *The Social City. Urban Development and Social Housing in Berlin and Naples After World War II: Policies, Models, Emergencies, Achievements, Critical Issues and Perspectives.* Goals and results were shared in two workshops, the frst one in Berlin from June 25 to 29, 2019 and the second one in Naples from July 15 to 18, 2019. Both seminars aimed to assess whether there are elements to compare the two cities with regard to the urban management architectural policies of social housing from the postwar period to the present, highlighting their common characteristics and diferences. The workshops' results revealed some very interesting points of contact. First of all, Rationalism, namely the Italian version of Functionalism. That is, the design of neighbourhood plans based on homogeneous functional zones, on the type of housing and especially on the "minimum dwelling cell."

The Italian and Neapolitan research of the 1950s and '60s in the social housing feld, however, paid a great deal of attention both to the progressive giving up of the stricter aspects of Rationalism, and to a more organic approach to design. Another important aim was fnding inspiration in local contexts.

Agreeing with Stephanie Zeier Pilat, I think these foci are the main diferences we could fnd regarding our case studies in Berlin and Naples.

Just think of the Soccavo District, one of the most interesting examples in Italy—and perhaps in Europe—which started during the second post-war period. It is a large, experimental neighbourhood, made up of the three neighbourhoods Loggetta, CEP-Traiano and Soccavo-Canzanella. It has become a pilot model in Italy because it was designed by combining the placing and typological principles of Functionalism with values such as "human measure" and themes from tradition and environmental awareness. These values were necessary to rebuild the identity of the nation after the dramatic episode of World War II. The plan was supported and partially fnanced by many construction companies for shares, including the *Società pel Risanamento di Napoli* (Corporation for the Renewal of Naples) founded in 1888, the IACP (which is the acronym for the Autonomous Institute for Working Class Housing) founded in 1908 for research in the feld of housing, and INA-Casa (which is the acronym for National Insurance Institute that fnanced the houses). These companies have contributed to building entire neighbourhoods, conditioning the size and the shape of the current city.

#### FIGURE 4 (LEFT)

The workshop researchers during the on-the-spot investigation in Scampia District

#### FIGURE 5 (RIGHT)

On-the-spot investigation in the social community-managed CAP 8012 centre in Soccavo District

Beyond the subsequent national urban planning laws on social housing,1 one cannot ignore the relationship with those events, which determined the premises of their formation. Among these we must mention an important law on afordable housing, which is No. 43, *Provvedimenti per incrementare l'occupazione operaia, agevolando la costruzione di case per lavoratori* (Provisions to Increase the Occupation of Workers by Facilitating the Construction of Houses for Workers), enacted on February 28, 1949. It was preliminary to an impressive programme to build afordable dwellings for social neighbourhoods. This law is known as the INA-Casa plan, and it was in force until 1963. One of the programme's main aims was the achievement of healthy and modern housing, placed in new urban centres or neighbourhoods to ofer the possibility of improved housing conditions to thousands of families. Therefore, the new settlements ofered Italian planners and architects the frst real opportunity to shape the rapid and fragmented expansion that Italian cities were already undergoing.

Nowadays, many neighbourhoods built over the past 14 years still retain their precise identity. They are a signifcant testimony of the Italian twentieth century and constitute relevant parts of our cities. We agree with Zeier Pilat: «INA-Casa projects contributed to the spatial development of Italian cities at both metropolitan and neighbourhood scales».2 On the other hand, if we go «inside the post-war homes constructed under the INA-Casa plan to consider how family life was shaped by the new domestic settings. Through an examination of … INA-Casa foor plans in tandem with INA-Casa design manuals' guidelines for interior, it is possible to understand how both the administration and diferent designers envisioned the post-war working-class home. Domestic designs can refect notions of family, gender roles, class, and modernity through spatial relationships, the provision of amenities, the connection to nature, the arrangement of spaces, and the divisions between private and public spaces.… The preservation and protection of the family was at the heart of the political rhetoric of the Christian Democrats and the INA-Casa plan was a key component of their post-war strategy».3

It should be noted that the INA-Casa plan was funded by a mixed system involving the state, employers and workers. The employees helped their neediest companions through

#### FIGURE 6

The exhibition opening the DAAD workshop at San Lorenzo Abbey in Aversa, headquarters of the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli"

deductions from their monthly salaries.4 The plan, therefore, appealed to the solidarity of all workers. Thanks to his very small contribution, that is, the worker who earned his workday would give others who had not worked the opportunity to return to the consortium to produce and earn. Until 1962, there were 20,000 construction sites scattered throughout Italy, and 40,000 employees worked on them every year.

On April 18, 1962, the *Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori pubblici* (Superior Council of Public Works) issued Law No. 167, which regulated public social housing. This Law was followed by two important legislative actions by the national government: frstly, the GEStione CAse per i Lavoratori, or GESCAL. Such as INA-Casa, it was a fund destined for the construction and assignment of houses to the workers thanks to contributions came from the workers themselves, from companies and partly from government funding. INA-Casa closed when Law No. 60 was enacted on February 14, 1963. Subsequently, the Consiglio Superiore enacted Law No. 765 in 1967. It was called "*Legge Ponte*" (Bridge Law), and it provided for the acquisition of extra-urban areas to build social housing settlements. In the case of Naples, these areas were in Scampia District, to the north, and Ponticelli District, to the north-east.

Houses for 65,000 inhabitants were planned in Scampia. The master plan gave great freedom of typological choice, to adapt the buildings better to the orographic characteristics of the area. Moreover, planning was regulated above all by the infrastructure and by a system of parcelling into "mega-lots" from 1 to 11. There are many diferences between the "Vele" by Franz di Salvo and the houses built in Secondigliano District, along 167 street, which is its main avenue, and which takes its name from the Law.

Finally, another new master plan was elaborated in 1970 and it was approved two years later. Although GESCAL was suppressed in 1973, to date, all its condominiums have been redeemed.

A new construction phase, however, began after the earthquake of November 23, 1980. It was characterised by the *Piano di Recupero delle Periferie* (Recovery Plan of the Suburbs), approved by a municipal resolution of April 16, 1980 and by the PSER, which is the acronym of the *Piano Straordinario di Edilizia Residenziale* (Extraordinary Programme for Residential Building), authorised by Law No. 219 of 1981.5

Operating in this historical-cultural and legislative framework, the Italian unit's researchers of the DAAD project have explored fve exemplary cases, which are:


due to law No. 167 in Scampia District, which was a neighbourhood in Secondigliano District until 1992, since when it has become an autonomous District;

• Monterusciello District (since 1983). Actually, it is in Pozzuoli, which is a city close enough to Naples to be part of its metropolitan district, the so-called "Metropolitan City of Naples."

In particular, Monterusciello is a settlement conceived and designed like a "new city." The plan was born after the bradyseism that in 1983 caused the evacuation of about 20,000 people from the high-risk zone, the so-called "A zone." This zone includes the entire historic city centre and a great part of the populated centre next to it. Ultimately, Monterusciello was born because the authorities decided to build a permanent settlement of about 20,000 rooms in about 5,000 fats quickly, instead of building temporary settlements of light prefabricated houses in safe areas.

Each of the case studies chosen to represent the Neapolitan panorama is an important pilot example of social housing in Europe. The study of the Italian unit was supported by documentary research carried out in the State Archive of Naples, the archive of the Municipality of Naples (specifcally, in the UrbaNa section) and the archive of the Municipality of Pozzuoli.

The workshop days at the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" included an exhibition to illustrate the complex issues concerning social housing in Naples better, above all the issues concerning these fve cases. The scientifc coordination of the exhibition was by Claudia de Biase and Elena Manzo, it was curated by Vincenzo Cirillo and it was carried out with the participation of 3rd-year architecture students of the Degree Course in Architecture of the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania (2018-2019 Academic Year). Specifcally, the students were clustered into fve groups, corresponding to the fve cases.

FIGURE 7 The exhibition's panels about Scampia District

FIGURE 8 Scholars at work during the workshop

The panels exhibited—three for each of the fve exemplary cases—focused on the "historical context," the "urban context," and, fnally, a "focus frst analysis project." Giada Limongi, Ilenia Gioia, Dario Marfella and Vito Capasso were their tutors. Michela Russo led the scientifc secretariat.

As happened in Berlin the previous month, three days of lessons were held by expert teachers on the social housing topics, and on-the-spot investigations took place for two days to use a direct approach to the fve social housing neighbourhoods. Finally, the researchers and scholarship holders worked in group interactions on keywords, which cover the main topics of social housing both in Berlin and in Naples. These three events, the documentation on place, the scientifc investigation, and the dialogic comparison between the two city cases, based on the selected topics, were later developed by the participants to provide a realistic picture of this particular and polyvalent urban condition through this publication.

#### ENDNOTES

1  For an analysis of this, please refer to Claudia De Biase and Adriana Galderisi, "Strengths and Weaknesses of Public Housing Policies in Italy: The Naples Case Study," pp. 359–367.

2  Stephanie Zeier Pilat, *Reconstructing Italy, The Ina-Casa Neighborhoods of the Postwar Era* (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990), p. 76.

3  Ibid., p. 150. The coeval debate on the INA-Casa is recorded in L'INA-Casa al IV Congresso Nazionale di Urbanistica, Venice, 1952 (Rome: Società Grafca Romana, 1953); Giovanni Astengo, "Nuovi quartieri in Italia," *Urbanistica* (1951, n. 7). On the INA-Casa programmes during the Post World War Era, see: Luigi Beretta Anguissola, (ed.), *I 14 anni del piano INA-Casa* (Rome: Staderini, 1963); Paola di Biagi (ed.), *La grande ricostruzione: Il piano Ina-Casa e l'Italia degli anni '50* (Rome: Donzelli, 2001).

4  "Impostazione e caratteristiche funzionali del piano Fanfani," *Civitas* (1951, n. 9): p. 30. 5  Ibid.

# **I DOCUMENTATION**

# DOCUMENTATION: BERLIN

#### MAP OF THE BERLIN CASE STUDIES

TIMELINE

DATA SHEETS

Karl-Marx-Allee II *MinJi Kim*

Leipziger Straße *Antonello Scopacasa*

Märkisches Viertel *Natalia Kvitkova*

 Großwohnsiedlung Marzahn *Martin Spalek*

> IBA-Neubau on Northern Ritterstraße *Antonello Scopacasa*

 IBA-Altbau *Lorenza Manfredi*

**30** DOCUMENTATION

#### ACRONYM LIST


Building site of Karl-Marx-Allee near Alexanderplatz. Photo by Horst Sturm, 1960

# MAP OF THE BERLIN CASE STUDIES

# TIMELINE Wider City History *Antonello Scopacasa*

#### **RESIDENT POPULATION1**

Berlin's administrative territory is presently one of the largest of Europe's main cities (after London, Lisbon, Rome and Amsterdam), and it is the result of the 1920 city border enlargement (\**Gross-Berlin*). Originally administered as a municipality, this territory of about 89,180 ha coincides today with the State of Berlin (*Land Berlin*).

3,274,016 (2,202,241 WB; 1,071,775 EB)

# TIMELINE Social Housing in Politics and Administration

WEIMAR REPUBLIC'S HOUSE RENT TAX AND LAND STOCK POLICY After the Cooperative Act (*Genossenschaftsgesetz*) and the Disability and Old-Age Insurance Act (1889), which help social cooperatives with capitalization and tax benefts from the state for providing homes to employees and marginalised social categories, or to implement non-proft social projects, the Weimar Republic adds the *Hauszinssteuer* (1924) and the *Bodenvorratspolitik* (1925) to help with tax benefts and direct subsidies for land acquisition and the construction and maintenance of social housing projects promoted by cooperative associations—mostly powered by trade unions—and coordinated by municipalities.

#### FRG FIRST HOUSING LAW

1950: The frst *Wohnungsbaugesetz* is promulgated to meet the need for housing and to ensure the free-market principle in a situation of devastation in the main cities (nine million homeless)—but a good state of preservation in the rural centres, where many citizens repair—and immigration of German people from the eastern territories (over twenty million from Poland alone). The pillars of the action are direct funding, low-interest loans, tax credits for private investments (also to direct owners), provision of building land, obligation to rent for landlords and rent ceilings. In six years, the programme exceeds its target of 1.8 million dwellings through the country.

#### FRG SECOND HOUSING LAW

July 1956: The act better articulates the housing policy with a kind of free market as its centre. For public intervention it foresees three levels: (1) publicly subsidised housing (frst subsidy channel) for family or property homes and rented dwellings for low-income tenants; landlords charge rent at cost; (2) tax-privileged housing (second subsidy channel), for a maximum of ten years, until a certain dwelling occupancy rate; rent increases are limited; 3) free-market housing with prevision of a rent ceiling (*Mietspiegel*). The frst and second acts subside about 3.3 million dwellings during the 1950s in parallel to a free market production of about 2.7 million. The frst rate slowly and constantly declines during the decades: ca. 2 million in the 1960s, ca. 1.1 million in the 1970s, ca. half a million in the 1980s.

**1920 1930 1940 1950 1960**

#### FRG BERLIN RECOVERY LAW

The 1964 *Berlinförderungsgesetz* helps to stimulate business and property activity through massive investment grants and tax benefts for the disadvantaged, geopolitically representative West Berlin. As strong enhancement of a previous 1950 act, the law is reinforced in 1971 by the Berlin Funding Act, reviewed in 1983 and in 1990; it remains in force today.

#### FRG HOUSING SUBSIDY ACT

April 1965: The measure overlaps with the gradual reduction of direct state investment in housing projects. It introduces a balance between household size and tenant income with housing costs. Only 1–2 % of households presently receive the subsidy.

#### GDR BUILDING LAW AND SIXTEEN URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

1950: The two funding acts reject the liberal city model and centralise the planning process, which involves technological research as well as building standardisation and regulation. The Building Law (*Aufbaugesetzt*) establishes quick instruments for the public acquisition of areas destined for new public building and primarily for housing, which constitutionally becomes a central target for socialist state policy. The 1958 Building Law incorporates agricultural and industrial production in its application's scope and extends its reach beyond urban boundaries.

**1970**

#### GDR BUILDING REGULATIONS

Main Tasks in Construction (*Die wichtigsten Aufgaben im Bauwesen*), the Guidelines for a Uniform Typological Planning (*Richtlinien für eine einheitliche Typenprojektierung*), both of 1955, and the Type Regulation (*Typenordnung*) of 1956 defne the new prefab processes and implement building types throughout the state.

GDR HOUSING ASSIGNMENT REGULATION

1955 *Wohnraumlenkungsverordnung* regulates the assignment criteria and the providing procedures by the state, municipalities and public housing societies for each citizen category. Tenants' rental costs relate to pre-war average level (ca. 1 mark/m² in Berlin and ca. 3 % of tenant's income elsewhere). Rental costs consequently cover only a quarter of the maintenance costs over time. The 1958 VEB *Kommunale Wohnungsverwaltung* better defnes the municipal agency that is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the housing stock and can be commissioned by the state to issue bonds to fnance housing construction. Replaced in 1970 by the VEB *Gebäudewirtschaft* regulation.

GDR HOUSING PROGRAMME

1973: *Wohnungsbauprogramm der DDR* plans to overcome the lack of adequate housing throughout the state between 1976 and 1990. It foresees, and fully manages, to build ca. three million modern dwellings (for about nine million inhabitants) mostly by building extensive housing neighbourhoods and using prefab construction technology. The 1976 Complex Guideline for Urban Planning and the Design of Residential Areas (*Komplexrichtlinie für die städtebauliche Planung und Gestaltung von Neubauwohngebieten*) completes the regulation context.

#### FRG URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROMOTION ACT

1971: The *Städtebauförderungsgesetz* marks the switch from extensive to cautious urban renewal, in parallel with the Urban Recovery and Development Measures Programme of the same year. The 1976 Building Law (*Baugesetz*) also newly fxes the principle of citizen consultation in the urban planning process.

#### STADTUMBAU OST

2000: The federal programme focuses specifcally on shrinkage and social decay in the middle and main cities of the "new states" after reunifcation (about one million empty dwellings). The wide and complex programme envisages and fnances urban regeneration actions such as preserving historic city centres, demolishing or converting empty buildings in mass-housing neighbourhoods, and repairing and enhancing social contexts and public spaces.

#### HOUSING PROMOTION ACT

2002: The *Wohnraumförderungsgesetz* focuses on the weakness of previous legislation with a general, fnancial disengagement of the public hand from housing production: supporting those who really need social housing (large families, low-income people, special categories); providing greater consideration of the existing housing stock and of its modernisation; subsiding the acquisition of second-hand residential property; and promoting a closer integration of housing and urban development policies.

#### FEDERAL REFORM

2006 *Föderalismusreform*: Social housing competence becomes a shared matter between the country (*Bund*) and the states (*Länder*) with consequences for law making, setting living standards and fnancial support.

# TIMELINE City Planning and Programming

#### KLEIN-BERLIN

Berlin is an administrative unit under royal police control until 1875. Under the 1862 Hobrecht City Masterplan, the very lax 1853 Building Regulation, and the stricter rules of 1897, the city physically grows by half a million inhabitants every ffteen years, following the principles of liberal city—street alignments, height limitations (*Baufuchtlinien*) and free building density (*Baufreiheit*) within blocks and within the existing city boundary. The city develops as the capital and the main industrial centre of the kingdom, with the historical core as its directive and commercial city. In 1912, Berlin eventually becomes the city with the highest (ofcial) population density in the world (2.1 million in 6,700 hectares).

#### VERBAND GROSS-BERLIN

Intercommunal collaboration in urban planning between Berlin, the surrounding municipalities (Charlottenburg, Lichtenberg, Neukölln, Schöneberg, Standau and Wilhelmsdorf) and the Teltow and Niederbarmin districts.

#### GROSS-BERLIN

October 1920: Foundation of the wider communal administrative unit (Neue Stadtgemeinde Berlin) and related politics. The area grows to 87,800 hectares; the resident population in 1920 is 3.8 million.

#### 1925 BUILDING REGULATION AND 1925-29 "BUILDING ZONE" CITY MASTERPLAN

Both exclusively afect new building areas in which housing policy is greatly implemented by City Building Director Martin Wagner, favouring communal and public investments. The city's population steadily increases. Urban dimensional standards (number of foors, covering quote and building quote) are frst introduced. The planning foresees the preservation of wide green areas (Koeppen Plan, 1929) and the spatial separation of residential and industrial areas. Trafc routes do not infuence the whole composition much.

#### WEST BERLIN (WB) 1950 PLAN OF USES

After bombardments, half of Berlin's dwellings are badly damaged. The situation of industry, the directional and commercial buildings in the city centre, and the urban infrastructure is worse. On basis of the 1948 Bonatz Plan, focusing on Berlin as capital of a reunited Germany, the 1950 *Nutzungsplan* covers the entire Gross-Berlin territory, also providing plans for the bordering towns. City functions are strongly detached and homogeneously organised in three felds: living, leisure and work, ignoring the typical multi-purpose historical structure. Trafc planning is of frst importance, while a new radial system organizes the wide urban structure. The urban dimensional standards foresee a structured, loosened up and greened urban fabric.

STALINALLEE/KARL-MARX-ALLEE

	- (WB) CAPITAL BERLIN COMPETITION

1956/58

(EB) ZENTRUM DER HAUPTSTADT DER DDR COMPETITION, STATDZENTRUM BERLIN PLAN

#### 1958/59–1961

(WB) 1960 GREEN PLAN/1961 FUNCTIONAL BUILDING PLAN/ 1963 URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAMME

The 1960 *Hauptgrünfächenplan* foresees a ring-shaped and radial greening system for West Berlin. The 1961 *Baunutzungsplan* acts as a plan of uses and a building plan; The urban approach is similar to the 1950 plan of uses, with provision of a *City-Band* and a *Kulturband* crossing the urban fabric from west to east and hosting the main tertiary and the cultural functions, respectively. An urgent and subsidised housing programme, the 1963 *Stadterneuerungsprogramm*, implements the replacement approach (*Kahlschlagsanierung*) of the 1961 plan in the previously dense built areas of the city centre.

SPEER PLAN

#### (WB) 1965 PLAN OF USES

The 1965 *Flächennutzungsplan* follows on from the previous planning and refects the condition of the walled city. West Berlin develops multi centrally. Building density must be reduced in the central areas and increased in the periphery ("Urbanity through Density"). The functionalistic approach is further implemented, and a trafc rate proportioned to a fve million population results in an overlapping new highway net through the urban fabric.

#### (WB) 1984 PLAN OF USES

Relating to the superordinate Space Development Model, City Development Plan and Landscape Programme, the 1984 *Flächennutzungsplan* radically changes the urban philosophy of 1969 in favour of the intensifcation of existing uses, the preservation and the further development of the urban fabric and the reduction of new urbanization. Multi centrality, public transport, eco-sustainability, recreational and park areas are strengthened. The footprint of the functional separation and of the heavy roadways is reduced.

#### (EB) 1969 CITY MASTERPLAN

The *Generalbebauungsplan* is the frst real urban planning instrument for the GDR capital. It does not consider West Berlin any longer. It is conceived as a complex economic tool, whose plan of uses is the only part that is publicized. After the clearing up of damaged urban fabric, the plan foresees a representative city centre at the political and administrative service of the capital; a large-scale radial and tangent road network to connect this with the self-sufcient and widely greened surrounding neighbourhoods; clear separation between residential and industrial areas. In accordance with the new prefab construction system, and also, according to the principle of "Urbanity through Density," the plan foresees new extensive housing estates and a high population density (up to 600 inhab/ha in the city centre, up to 400 inhab/ha in the surrounding *Wohnkomplexe*). Building renewal projects are limited. The planning is released from 1977–80, and is basis of following, unimplemented 1989 *Generalbebauungsplan*.

#### (WB) 1974 URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAMME

In accordance with the federal 1971 *Städtebauförderungsgesetz*, the 1974 *Stadterneuerungsprogramm* changes the approach of its previous 1963 version and sets the preservation of the existing urban fabric as the priority.

#### IBA BERLIN 1984/87

The International Building Exhibition focuses on the motto, "city centre as living place." It deals with the historical urban fabric, the traditional building types and the local housing forms. On a laboratory area of about 7 km, and starting in 1978–79, it acts on the heavy damaged urban fabric with new building and cautious urban renewal, also serving as the theoretical model for the following plan of uses.

#### LAND BERLIN

After German reunifcation, West Berlin and East Berlin join in the city-state Land Berlin together. Its administrative territory mostly comprises that of pre-war Gross-Berlin, in the middle of surrounding Land Brandenburg. The attempt in 1995–98 at a political and administrative Berlin-Brandenburg unifcation fails.

#### 1994 PLAN OF USES

The 1984 plan is the basis of 1994 *Flächennutzungsplan* of unifed Berlin, where a multi-centre West Berlin matches a mono-centre, radially redeveloped East Berlin. The multi-centre concept prevails and new centralities of lower intensity are planned in the old and new eastern neighbourhoods. The foreseen 400,000 new dwellings must be realized via densifcation of the existing urban fabric, in addition to the mono-functional tertiary areas, as integration into mass-housing neighbourhoods, mostly in East Berlin. Wide green areas on the city outskirts and the Havel lake-wood landscape integrate a system of parks, street greenery and "free (private) gardens" to enforce the leading concept of "Green Berlin." The plan has been revised and consequently upgraded fve times.

#### STADTUMBAU OST

2002: The Berlin programme specifcally focuses on the mass-housing neighbourhoods of East Berlin and their shrinkage and social decay. It foresees the demolition of any unrenewed *Plattenbau* buildings (housing and facilities), the valorisation of public space, and service modernisation.

# KARL-MARX-ALLEE II *MinJi Kim\**

#### LOCATION Mitte district

AGENCY Staatlicher Wohnungsbau der DDR

#### DESIGNERS

Werner Dutschke and Edmund Collein (Urban planning), Josef Kaiser, Klaus Deutschmann (Architectural design)

BUILDING PERIOD 1959–65

SETTLEMENT AREA 64 ha

COVERING QUOTE 14 % (together with pre-existing buildings)

BUILDING STOREYS average 10 (1 to 13 storeys)

DWELLING NUMBER 4,674 for roughly 15,000 residents1

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY mostly prefab

\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

The Karl-Marx-Allee II (hereafter KMA II) is the f rst housing estate built in East Berlin's centre according to the new prefabrication trend envisaged by Khrushchev, the general secretary of the Soviet Union, at the end of 1954: «build cheaper and faster».<sup>2</sup> In response to the post-war housing shortage situation, the industrialised building system, the *Plattenbau* (panel building), was extensively introduced in the completion of the socialist capital's avenue after the conclusion of its f rst sector in 1952–58 (hereafter KMA I), and it became the general system for new housing settlements throughout the country.

The large-scale settlement, with a reach of about one kilometre North-South as well as East-West, was realised at the west end of the working-class Friedrichshain district (nowadays Mitte), where more than 50 percent of the buildings were severely damaged by war bombardment.

The Karl-Marx-Allee, former named Stalinallee from 1949–61, belonged to the central axis (*Zentrale Achse*), from Brandenburger Gate to Strausberger Platz via Museum Island, envisaged by the *Zentrumsplan* of 19523 while the focal point of the new Socialist German capital converged at the city centre after the city's division. Due to its proximity to Alexanderplatz, KMA II accordingly became a centre-of-attention project in post-war social housing in the GDR.4

Along with this central political decision, the severe housing shortage and the economic privation pushed the country to turn to the newly industrialised construction method, so that the housing construction could be realised quickly at a low cost,5 also recalling the standardisation experience in Germany during the 1920s.6

KMA II was planned between 1958 and 1959, but in fact, the design started earlier. In 1957, Hermann Henselmann, architect in chief of the East Berlin Municipality (1953–59), designed a f rst settlement for 4,000 dwelling units as a continuation of the monumental Stalinallee, whose construction was concluding in those years (Fig. 2). The solution drafted an opened-up urban space rendered with point buildings and the prefabrication construction method,7 but strong opposition from the political apparatus, including criticism of the "anarchic character" by Kurt Liebknecht, president of Deutsche Bauakademie, stopped the proposal. This arose from the plausible comparison with West Berlin's Inter-

0 10050 200 500 m

FIGURE 1 Black and white plan of *Wohnkomplex* KMA II at present (ed.)

bau '57 in Hansaviertel and its emphasis on the loosened-up approach to city structure.<sup>8</sup> In September 1958, a decree specif ed a programme without any point buildings for a forthcoming internal competition, which saw the participation of any collectives from Berlin, Weimar and Dresden, the selection of Werner Dutschke's group of the State Planning Of ce Hochbau I at Magistrat Groß-Berlin (Fig. 3) and the f nal assignment to the Dutschke, Edmund Collein collective (Deutsche Bauakademie) and Josef Kaiser. With East Germany's strong commitment to the housing supply, the plan was expeditiously ref ned to f nalise the master plan in the same year and followed by the building plan one year later (Fig. 4).9 In fact, the f nal version was based on Henselmann's f rst concept,10 and it allegedly was not very dif erent from his early plan.<sup>11</sup>

Construction activities started in 1959 and ended in 1965. Part of the building programme remained unf nished owing to the new plan for Alexanderplatz, and the accordingly changed traf c plan, also unfulf lled, still included the demolition of any pre-war buildings on the western side (Fig. 12).12

KMA II was the prototype of the functionally autonomous Socialist *Wohnkomplex*, imagined as more than just a residential area, leading to the city centre by providing a citywide social infrastructure, such as a cinema, hotels, restaurants, and commercial and production spaces. Likewise, the width of Karl-Marx-Allee was broadened from the 70-90 metres of

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 3 Competition mock-up of planning collective Werner Dutschke with Josef Kaiser, selected proposal, 1958

#### FIGURE 2

Hermann Henselmann's proposal for the fulflment of Stalinallee, 1957

KMA I (Stalinallee) to 120 metres, allowing for political propaganda and state events.<sup>13</sup> The neighbourhood also provided a well-connected centre that was densely populated, accommodating 15,000 residents in 4,600 housing units in an area of about 64 hectares.14 Symmetrically located along the central avenue, the public facilities were on the same building line as KMA I.15 The residential area, in accordance with the uniform composition style, consisted of 5-, 8- and 10-storey buildings with slight variations at rigid right angles to one another. Surrounded by high-rises at the southern edge of the settlement, kindergartens, schools and public services were designed and inserted as low-rise buildings in harmony with the widely greened spaces*.* Likewise, the colour concept was uniformly organized according to height: pale ceramic tiles for high-rises and brighter colours for lower buildings. In terms of the urban design concept, the stark diference from the organic style of the West Germany was expected; hence, KMA II could not avoid criticism from the Western newspaper *FAZ*16 and it was described as just a friendlier continuation of the colossal-looking KMA I.<sup>17</sup>

The public facilities, meanwhile, were designed as eye-catching pavilions and realised, albeit not completely, a few years later after housing construction started (1963–64). The characteristic pavilion architecture, such as Theatre Kino International and Restaurant Moscow, which faced each other at the junction with Schillingstraße, had a recessed ground foor covered by the wall and a glass facade with a lattice of steel on the frst foor. The architectural idea derived from Joseph Kaiser's intention, expressing a "modern Berlin building" exuding international folklore as well (Figs. 5–7). Among other buildings, the 13-storey Hotel Berolina, completed in 1963, was best known as the frst panel building with prefabricated decorations on its facade.18

#### FIGURE 4

Approved Building Plan of KMA II by Dutschke, Kaiser, Collein, 1959, with an indication of the public facilities: (1) neighbourhood centre, (2) primary school, (3) after-school care, (4) gymnasium, (5) auditorium, (6) food market, (7) restaurant, (8) laundry, (9) ambulatory, (10) national front, (11) nursery, (12) kindergarten, (14) "Haus des Kindes," (15) "Haus Berlin," (16) lightshow theatre, (17) hotel, (18) "Restaurant Moskau," (20) supra-local stores, (21) administration, (22) "Haus des Lehrers," (23) hall, (26) multi-storey car park, (27) underground garage, (28) workshop, (29) garden-care farm, (30) police station, (31) "Alexanderhaus," (32) "Berolinahaus," (33) Shopping arcade, (P) parking lots

#### FIGURE 5 (LEFT)

Perspective view of Karl-Marx-Allee from Strausberger Platz to Alexanderplatz in a competition sketch by Joseph Kaiser (attributed), 1958

#### FIGURE 6 (CENTRE)

Perspective view of Schillingstraße, sketch by Joseph Kaiser (attrib.), 1958 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 7 (RIGHT)

Aerial view of KMA II *Wohnkomplex*, sketch by Joseph Kaiser (attrib.), 1958 (ed.)

Meanwhile on the architectural scale, the prefabrication technique had been innovatively tested in many pilot projects.19 The QP series (*Querwandplattenbauweise*),20 where the long side of the building wall is the load-bearing element, was accordingly designed by Josef Kaiser for KMA II. This QP series is 3.6 metres wide, providing ca. 33 square metres (one room fat) to about 100 square metres (fve-room fat). The inner distribution of the residences usually contained an internal bathroom and a kitchen of about 6 square metres,21 along with a staircase outside and a cellar in the basement (Figs. 8, 9). In particular, the 5-storey apartments were mainly targeted at small families of four members: the room com-

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 9 QP type construction system (ed.)

position included a half room for the kids and a connecting room for the living room on the western/southern side and a bedroom on the northern/eastern side. In the 8–10-storey buildings, there was also a lift, which was an improvement from the previous Q3 typology. The entrance to most buildings was on the northern side, but also on the eastern side in case the north- and south-oriented buildings.22

The QP series was named by the year of construction, and the number of storeys varied: QP 59 was built in 1959 with f ve storeys; QP 61 and QP 64, in 1961 and 1964, had eight storeys. Later, QP 64 had other variations with nine and ten storeys. The QP series was also one of the f rst *Plattenbau* typologies, together with P1 and P2, which contributed to the

#### FIGURE 10 (LEFT)

Construction site of Karl-Marx-Allee with the new revolving cranes at work on tracks, 1961 (ed.)

FIGURE 11 (RIGHT) Outer walls of 8- to 10-storey buildings before mounting in KMA II, 1961

later WBS 70 construction method, whose size of 1.2 by 1.2 metres enabled a more fexible spatial arrangement.23

East Germany's response to the housing shortage was in fact to exert all its power to provide residential units more quickly and at lower cost. This led to steady technical advancements from Q3 to QS, QP, P1, P2 and the dominant WBS 70 typology, complementing issues regarding the construction manner, the size and quality of the prefabrication elements and the curtailment of expenditure due to fnancial hardship. In particular, WBS 70, which developed on the basis of the KMA II Plattenbau system, was widely used for social housing development in Marzhan and Hellersdorf in the East Berlin Wohnungsbauprogramm der DDR (1976–90) and through the GDR in about 650,000 housing units between 1972 and 1990. Hence, the prefabricated panel building, as an architectural legacy of East Germany, had an impact far beyond its technological aspects. It was not only an element and a construction method, but also a space for living and furthering life, a tool of pressure for social conformity and ideological stifness from the regime's viewpoint (Fig. 15).<sup>24</sup>

After German reunifcation, most of the KMA II housing buildings underwent renovation in the frst 10 years, and they have been designated as heritage buildings, which allows us to recognise the frst Socialistic *Wohnkomplex* with the ceramic tile facade and to conserve it for future generation. Meanwhile, the public functions underwent diverse transformations: Hotel Berolina was demolished in 1995 and replaced by the Mitte District City Hall, a seemingly similar looking building, in 1998; The pavilions and other public facilities,

#### FIGURE 12 (LEFT) Realised (red) and not realised (yellow) buildings of KMA II (original plan at present)

#### FIGURE 13 (TOP RIGHT)

View of Karl-Marx-Allee and Restaurant Moskau from Strausberger Platz. Photo by Horst Sturm, 1963 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 14 (BOTTOM RIGHT)

The public facilities at the intersection between Schillingstraße and Karl-Marx-Allee. Photo by Joachim Spremberg, 1965 (ed.)

CC BY-SA 3.0

CC BY-SA 3.0

#### FIGURE 15 Aerial view of KMA II from the Television Tower. Photo by Rolf Vetter, 1970 (ed.)

which had been neglected and underused, became part of a new experiment involving an ongoing public participation project in the area surrounding Haus der Statistik.

#### NOTES

1  Maria Berning and Michael Braum, *Berliner Wohnquartiere: Ein Führer durch 70 Siedlungen*, 3rd Edition (Berlin: Reimer, 2003), p. 185; Irma Leinauer, "The Second Wave of Post-War Modernism in East Berlin: Karl-Marx-Allee from Strausberger Platz to Alexanderplatz," in *Karl-Marx-Allee and Interbau 1957: Confrontation, Competition and the Co-evolution of Modernism in Berlin*, ed. Jörg Haspel and Thomas Flierl, pp. 45–54; Beiträge zur Denkmalpflege in Berlin, Volume 52. (Berlin: Landesdenkmalamt, 2019), p. 46.

2  This motto was declared at the Building Conference of Socialist Allies in Moscow. See "Besser, billiger und schneller bauen," *Bauzeitung* (1955, n. 9, II): p. 50.

3  Wolfgang Ribbe, *Die Karl-Marx-Allee zwischen Strausberger Platz und Alex*, 1st Edition (Berlin: BWV, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2005), p. 73.

4  Berning and Braum, *Berliner Wohnquartiere*, pp. 182–84.

5  Wolfgang Ribbe, *Die Karl-Marx-Allee*, p. 42; Peter Richter, *Der Plattenbau als Krisengebiet: Die architektonische und politische Transformation industriell errichteter Wohngebäude aus der DDR am Beispiel der Stadt Leinefelde*, PhD Dissertation (Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 2006), p. 30.

6  Since the *Plattenbau* building system originated with military barracks, it was positively adopted in Germany during the 1920s in the period of the Weimar Republic for the Housing Programme (*Wohnungsbauprogramm*)*.* See Peter Richter, *Der Plattenbau als Krisengebiet*, p. 13.

7  Ribbe, *Die Karl-Marx-Allee*, p. 59.


FIGURE 16

View of Karl-Marx-Allee from Alexanderplatz to Strausberger Platz, 2020 (ed.)

FIGURE 17 Pedestrian walkway along Karl-Marx-Allee, 2020

FIGURE 18 Behind Karl-Marx-Allee, 2020

#### 16  Ibid.

17  The architectural design of KMA I refected the aims of the Socialist realism ideology and the stylistic approach inspired by the Berlin Classicism of the turn of the 18th-19th century in full accordance with the proclaimed Urban Design Principles (*Grundsätzte des Städtebaus*). See Wolfgang Ribbe, *Die Karl-Marx-Allee*, pp. 25–33.

18  Leinauer, "Second Wave," p. 52.

19  Before the prefabrication construction method was introduced in KMA II, it had been tested in the suburbs of Berlin and in other cities since the late 1950s, such as in Friedrichsfelde (Lichtenberg), Berlin-Johannisthal and Hoyerswerda. Due to the political and economic situation, the *Plattenbau* system was adopted for 30 percent of housing projects in 1958, increasing to 70 percent by 1960. See Herbert Schwenk, "Die Splanemann-Siedlung," Berlin Geschichte, 1997, accessed March 20, 2020, https://berlingeschichte.de/bms/ bmstxt97/9704detb.htm.

20  For example, the Splanemann-Siedlung, Friedrichsfelde started using the so-called Q3 typology, which in practice followed the conventional construction method by basically using the principle of brickwork (*Blockbauweise*)*.* QP typology has evolved from this model. See Ribbe, *Die Karl-Marx-Allee*, p. 86; Schwenk, *Die Splanemann-Siedlung.*

21  The frst building step for Karl-Marx-Allee (Stalinallee until 1961), the Palace for the Working Class (*Arbeiterpalast*), introduced the concept of comfort into popular housing: plenty of sunlight, spacious rooms, a heating system, fowing water (also hot water), a lift, a caretaker in the entrance and fats of up to 145 m². Wide and clearly defned gardens in front of the buildings were also part of the concept.

22  Ribbe, *Die Karl-Marx-Allee*, pp. 86–7.

23  WBM Wohnungsbaugesellschaft Berlin-Mitte mbH Wire Staff, *Jeder M² Du. Das Plattenbaukulturportal*, last modified 2020, accessed November 14, 2019, https://www.jeder-qm-du.de/index/; Sigfried Kress and Günther Hirschfelder, *Industrieller Wohnungsbau: Allgemeine Grundlagen* (Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1980).

24  Richter, *Der Plattenbau als Krisengebiet*, p. 6.

# LEIPZIGER STRAßE *Antonello Scopacasa\**

#### LOCATION Mitte district

AGENCY Staatlicher Wohnungsbau der DDR

#### DESIGNERS

Collective Peter Schweizer, Dorothea Tscheschner, Dieter Schulze, Lothar Arzt and Ulrich Neubert of Bezirksbauamt-Bereich Städtebau und Architektur at Magistrat Ost-Berlin Hauptstadt der DDR under the direction of Chief Architect Joachim Näther (Urban design); Werner Strassenmeier, Günther Wernitz, Arno Weber, Klaus Berger and Klaus Weißhaupt of VE Wohnungsbaukombinat (Architectural design).

BUILDING PERIOD 1969–81

SETTLEMENT AREA 12 ha

COVERING QUOTE 8 %

BUILDING STOREYS average 10–25 (Housing)

DWELLING NUMBER 2,058 (1-room f at 5 %, 2-room f at 37 %, 3-room f at 27 %, 4-room f at 20 %, 6-room f at 3 %, for ca. 6,200 inhabitants)

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY partly prefab

\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

The Leipziger Straße was Berlin's most important commercial avenue at the turn of the 19th century, bridging the mediaeval city core of Berlin-Cölln and the f rst major railway stations built westwards near Potsdamer Platz between the 1860s and 1870s. It was one of the three main axes of the baroque city and, like the whole Friedrichstadt, it was characterised by a very dense building fabric consisting of multi-courtyard rectangular blocks (75 x 120–150 metres) with prevalent tertiary uses, which towards the end of the nineteenth century had replaced the former residential and boundary building morphology (Figs. 2, 3).

A deep transformation of the area occurred at the turn of World War II, between 1935 and 1955, with the expropriation of many Jewish properties by the Nazi regime, the physical dismemberment of the building substance due to the incendiary bombardments and the resulting clearing up works and, f nally, the death or f ight abroad of the grounds' owners. Lastly the building of the Wall in 1961 two blocks south of the ancient axis had broken the continuity of the surrounding urban fabric, both physical and social (Fig. 4). Also, even before the GDR Building Law (*Aufbaugesetzt*) of 1950, which, among other measures, enabled the immediate expropriation of land for public utility to implement urban programmes throughout the state, the area of ered little resistance to the major interventions foreseen by the grand *Stadtzentrum Berlin* project, which, from the mid-1960s onwards, af ected the historical inner city, the eccentric core of the new socialist capital.

The project was based on the results of the competition *Zentrum der Hauptstadt der DDR* held in 1958 in response to the competition *Hauptstadt Berlin* organised one year earlier for the same central area, but on a larger scale, by the Western administration. It was developed between 1958 and 1961 under the inf uence of the prominent political f gures, Walther Ulbricht, national secretary of the SED, and Paul Werner, secretary of the SED in Berlin. The plan foresaw a central representative core at the service of the capital of a reunif ed Germany under the banner of socialism, imagined as a superordinate centre to the system of *Wohngebiete* and *Wohnkomplexen*, which built up, by areas of interconnected autonomy, and with a refounding approach, the open and measured urban space. Four tangential main roads (*Tangenten*) organised the heavy traf c around the inner city, which hosted the main institutions of the central and local powers. The residence—which in the

0 10050 200 500 m

#### FIGURE 1

Black and white plan of Leipziger Straße housing complex at present

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 3 Crossroad Leipziger Straße-Friedrichstraße. Photo by Waldemar Titzenthaler, 1910

GDR, with few exceptions, was public—was the main tool for the general spatial def nition, as happened in the case of the Marx-Engel Forum (1964–73) built between Alexanderplatz and Marx-Engel Platz along the *Zentrale Achse* in place of the medieval nucleus of Berlin. The plan envisaged Leipziger Straße as the southern tangential main road (*Südtangente)*, where, like the other four main roads, typical high-rises with residential and tertiary purposes marked the skyline of the city centre.1

The planning started in 1961 and implementation began in 1964. After four dif erent versions, the urban planning and the f rst architectural design f nished in 1969, following the approval in 1968 of the new City Masterplan (*Generalbebauungsplan Hauptstadt der DDR*), which f nally envisaged the "compact city" model for the central area and, specif cally for Leipziger Straße, the high-density standard of 600 inhabitants per hectare. The project was developed by the collective Schweizer, Tscheschner, Schulze, Arzt and Neubert of the Department for Building and Urban design in the eastern municipality under the direction of Chief Architect Joachim Näther in collaboration with the housing prefab building company (*VE Wohnungsbaukombinat*) under the direction of Werner Strassenmeier, which led the detailed design and all the construction phases.2

The overall architectural plan foresaw an ensemble consisting of four main residential towers of 22–25 f oors sited in line on the southern side of the street and directly facing the

#### FIGURE 2

"Straubeplan" of the inner city, detail of Leipziger Straße, original drawing scale by Julius Straube 1:4,000, 1910

FIGURE 4 The axis Leipziger Platz-Leipziger Straße after the rubble clearing-up works, aerial view, 1964

urheberrechtlich geschützt

Wall, a broad multifunctional two-foor slab at their basement, three line buildings, each with 10–14 foors on the northern side drawing back from the original limit of Leipziger Straße and enclosing the main historical square, the Gendarmenmarkt (newly named the Platz der Akademie) at their backs. A thirty-foor high-rise for directional purposes had to conclude the complex at the Spittelmarkt crossroad to the east, where the new *Südtangente*, which went to the Ostbahnhof should have joined the Gertrauden-Grünerstraße to the Alexanderplatz.

In the fnal version, the length of the intervention shrank at Charlottenstraße, instead of Friedrichstraße, while the four towers were moved eastwards to enclose the Dönhofplatz and to replace the high-rise at the Spittelmarkt (Fig. 5, 6).

The housing accommodation addressed mostly middle- and high-ranking civil servants, employers and diplomats assigned to nearby embassies, and foreign journalists. Trade, ofces, medical services, gastronomy, leisure and social facilities addressing the wider audience of the city were placed at street level on both sides of the street. An evaluation in 1986 about social facilities throughout the city reported that the Leipziger Straße settlement equalled or overstepped the targets of the original programme.3

The building enterprise started in 1969 and concluded in 1981, expressing the state of the art in construction and in the social organisation of the GDR well. The building technologies of the residential towers on the southern side foresaw a hybrid adaptation of the current *Platten* building system (Fig. 7).4 The pillars and beams were structured around a nucleus of steel-concrete and walled up by prefabricated elements (*Stahlbetonskelett-Montagebauweise, SK-WHH*)*.* Due to the multifunctional use of the basement, a modular and lighter steel structure should have been adopted at ground level. It would eventually be replaced by an easier detached building typology with prefab concrete components and organised on three levels: the cellar for delivery and storage served by an underground street; the ground foor for selling in open space and for preparing goods; the upper foor with a shop area, ofces and a learning area.

The interior distribution of the residential towers on the southern side involves a service nucleus, two street corridors and habitation lines (2–4 room fats) laid out on both sides of the building, counting on a singular viewpoint. Continuous balconies and French windows plastically mark the eastern and western fronts, while prefab hanging and volumetric facade elements turn around the buildings at the frst level opening up the street environment and uplifting the towers' masses (Fig. 8). Tower by tower, colour composition plays with blue and red tones on the generally prevalent white background.

Beside the two commercial pavilions, which are centrally located between the towers (3 and 5 in Fig. 6), a public garden ends at the western side the row of plane trees along Leipziger Straße, while a recreational and sport area occupies the opposite side in place of

FIGURE 5 Masterplan *Stadtzentrum der Hauptstadt der DDR*, detail on Leipziger Straße, released June 1969. Below, the trace of the Wall

#### FIGURE 6

Ground plan of the Leipziger Straße complex with indication of the public facilities: (1, 2) restaurant, (3) trade pavilion, (4) medical clinic, (5) gastronomy, (6) kindergarten, (7) shops, (8) cultural centre, bank, shops, (9) post, chemist, shops, (10) kids store

#### FIGURE 7 (LEFT, RIGHT)

Dossier on the Leipziger Straße project in *Wohnhochhäuser ˊ69*, 1970. The southern residential towers: bearing structure around the steel-concrete nucleus walled up by prefabricated panels (frst page) and the fronts (second page); model view of the complex eastwards

#### the previous Dönhofplatz, hosting the reconstruction of Gonthard's Spittelkolonnaden (1776) and many leisure facilities. Three additional playgrounds are conveniently located at the southern back skirt of the trade pavilions and well detached from the heavy trafc of Leipziger Straße (Fig. 10).

The line buildings on the northern side of the street ofer a wider displacement of the apartments, also providing a singular and double viewpoint (2–6 room fats). Their construction foresaw an adaptation of the current *Platten* building system with a longitudinal disposition of the bearing elements walled up by prefabricated facades (*SK-Bauten*) and cross-braced by staircases of steel-concrete*.* The in-line disposition of the buildings on the north side concludes eastwards with the housing buildings along the Niederwallstraße,

Housing inner distribution in the southern towers (left) and in the northern in-line buildings (right)

#### FIGURE 10 (LEFT)

Playground on the southern side at the back of a trade pavilion, 1986

FIGURE 11 (RIGHT) The residential towers of Leipziger Straße, aerial view eastward. Photo by Barbara Esch-Marowski, 1998

built partly in continuity with the historical urban fabric. In this case, the construction technology foresaw a more usual panel prefab type WBS 70/71.

Also because of the eccentric location in the wider geography of East Berlin, the ensemble had a quite autonomous life in the following years, which continues at the present time. The early 1970s agreements between the Federal Republic and the Eastern-bloc countries, and thus political stabilisation, weakened the dream of a national reunifcation under the banner of socialism, and thus symbolic rule for the inner city. Furthermore, because of a question of socioeconomic imbalance, the large mass housing on the outskirts of the city also overcame the target of *Stadtzentrum*, which deals within the municipal and national political programmes.

With the fall of the GDR in 1989, and until 2001, the housing-estate property of the Leipziger Straße complex was partly transferred to the newly founded communal public company (1990), the Wohnungsbaugesellschaft Berlin-Mitte (WBM), partly split up and privatised. Since 2000, the buildings have been progressively renovated to preserve most of the facades and to improve their energy performance.

For several reasons, the complex appears nowadays as an urban exception and not as part of a coherent, wider system. The functional and social density, especially that of pre-war times, as was the subsequent GDR *Diplomatenviertel*, is mostly lost. Residents take full advantage of the central location, but many of the original public facilities have disappeared, while shops and services at street level remain underused. Also, a visible daily street life, even in the very comfortable promenade proportions on the southern side, is difcult

FIGURE 9 Leipziger Straße once construction is complete. Photo by Gerhard Hofmann, 1977

FIGURE 12 (TOP LEFT) Leipziger Straße view westwards, 2019

FIGURE 13 (BOTTOM LEFT)

Marion-Grafn-Dönhof-Platz view with the reconstruction of the Gonthard's Spittelkolonnaden, 2019

FIGURE 14 (RIGHT) Promenade along Leipziger Straße, 2019

#### NOTES


FIGURE 15 Entrance to a residential tower, 2019

# MÄRKISCHES VIERTEL *Natalia Kvitkova\**

#### LOCATION Reinickendorf district

#### AGENCY

GeSoBau (Gesellschaft für sozialen Wohnungsbau)

#### DESIGNERS

Werner Düttmann, Hans Müller and Georg Heinrichs were responsible for the overall planning. Karl Fleig, Rene Gages, Ernst Gisel, Lothar Juckel, Chen Kuen Lee, Ludwig Leo, Peter Pfankuch, Hansrudolf Plarre, Heinz Schudnagies, Herbert Stranz, Oswald Mathias Ungers, Schadrach Woods, Astra Zarina-Haner, Siegfried Hof e, Erwin Eickhof , Jo Zimmermann and the construction department of DeGeWo provided additional designs.

BUILDING PERIOD 1963–74

SETTLEMENT AREA 3.2 km²

COVERING QUOTE 11 %

BUILDING STOREYS 5–20

DWELLING NUMBER 17,000 apartments across 65 buildings for 40,258 residents (June 30, 2019)

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY partly prefab

\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

The Märkisches Viertel urban redevelopment area is in the Reinickendorf district, bordering the Pankow district in the east, Rosenthal district in the south, Wittenau in the west and Lübars in the north. Along with Gropiusstadt in the southeast and Falkenhagener Feld in the northwest, it was one of three large residential developments of the former West Berlin, as well as one of the largest in West Germany.

Before Märkisches Viertel became a showcase project of West Berlin's ambitious urban renewal programme, it was Berlin's largest (informal) allotment settlement, named Wilhelmsruh. Plots were originally rented out exclusively as gardening allotments for inner-city dwellers but, as a result of huge housing shortages in the wake of World Wars I and II, tenants started to live in their sheds (Fig. 2).1

The Märkisches Viertel settlement (hereafter MV) was redeveloped in accordance with the f rst Urban Renewal Programme passed by the government of West Berlin in March 1963. It aimed to demolish large areas of nineteenth-century tenement housing in the inner city and to resettle inhabitants into satellite settlements. The implementation of this costly programme received generous f nancial support from the Federal Republic of Germany because of its position in the middle of the socialist German Democratic Republic.

To construct the housing estate, the state-operated housing association GeSoBau (Gesellschaft für sozialen Wohnungsbau) bought 430 allotment plots over the course of a decade, evicted the residents and demolished the settlement. This occurred despite protests that characterised the destruction of the allotment homes as unconstitutional. Evicted residents received on average 1,700 marks' compensation.2 Construction on the housing estate began in 1963 under the supervision of DeGeWo (Deutsche Gesellschaft zur Förderung des Wohnungsbaues). Many of the former inhabitants of the allotments were moved onto the estate.3

Märkisches Viertel was planned as a self-suf cient satellite city (*Trabantenstadt*) according to the highly ideologized urban planning of the 1950s and 1960s, which was inf uenced by the principles of the Athens Charter. It stressed the importance of functional separation in the individual f ats, as well as the inclusion of spaces for outdoor recreation, a focus on separating automobile traf c from the buildings and pedestrian routes, and the provision of social infrastructure. This approach to the post-war discussion on urban development

FIGURE 1 Black and white plan of Märchisches Viertel at present (ed.)

<sup>0</sup> 10050 200 500 m in Germany was reinforced by the ideals of "*Urbanität durch Dichte*," or urbanity through density, promoted by planner Edgar Salin and sociologist Hans Paul Bahrd.4 The assumption that urbanity resulted from density supported the move to construct large housing estates that could replicate the social successes derived from the density of the inner-city core.

> Apart from that, the peculiar, newly representative location directly facing the Wall and the Eastern Berlin sector had also played a dealing role in the planning approach. After a long and complex elaboration by the Reinickendorf district that started in 1952

#### FIGURE 2

Landplan of Wilhelmsruh in 1950 with difuse plot system of detached single-family houses (ed.)

#### FIGURE 3 (LEFT)

Masterplan by Reinickendorf City Planning Ofce for the Wilhelmsruh recovery area, March 1962 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 4 (RIGHT)

First version of Märchisches Viertel masterplan by Hans Christian Müller, Georg Heinrichs and Werner Düttmann, July 1962 (original drawing scale 1:10,000). The three branches of high-density buildings, the surrounding greened areas and the detached single-family houses and the crossing natural corridor in the middle are highly recognisable (ed.)

(Fig. 3),5 architects Hans Christian Müller, Georg Heinrichs and Karl Fleig received the assignment for the defnitive urban concept in April 1962 from the Senate of Berlin (Senator for Building and Housing). At the beginning of 1963, Senate Architect in Chief Werner Düttmann replaced Fleig in the team that oversaw the overall planning, while notable architects of the time such as Oswald Mathias Ungers contributed individual building designs.6

The aim was to create a new urban unit with a clear orientation to its own centre and a strong confrontation with the natural elements. In the authors' words: «An attempt will be made to enclose both the preserved and newly planned detached single-family houses, which are to be understood as "greened area," by means of large and comprehensive gestures with multi-storey housing construction; in the central part of Wilhelmsruher Damm

#### FIGURE 5 (LEFT)

Landscape concept for open spaces, with the little tree raster (6 x 6 metres) covering the parking places around the buildings, the wider raster as the greened areas, the widest raster for sports and playgrounds. Design by Elisabeth Kutschera, 1966 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 6 (RIGHT)

Model view of Märchisches Viertel, state of the project, 1970 (ed.)

they will be joined together to form a centre.… The three branches form spaces that are to be developed as green areas».7 After a quick procedure, the planning ended in 1963 and construction began (Fig. 4).8 Landscape designer Elisabeth Kutschera laid out the greened areas, while six artists provided a concept for plastics and playgrounds aiming at variegating the public space (Fig. 5). This concept included the colour plan of Utz Kampmann.

urheberrechtlich geschützt

The resulting structure of Märkisches Viertel was composed of distinct, massive housing blocks with colourful facade designs. The building heights varied and included singlefamily homes, but, on average, they were between fve and fourteen foors with higherdensity buildings up to eighteen storeys staggered on the edges and the middle of the estate (Fig. 6). Among them was the large block nicknamed "*Der lange Jammer*" (The Long Lament), designed by Rene Gages to provide inhabitants with living rooms and balconies that profted from the southern sun.

The individual fats included modern, private bathrooms and kitchens, balconies, district heating and lifts (Fig. 7). These features had all been lacking from the historic tenement quarters from which residents had been relocated. The measures were seen as a way to improve living conditions and to facilitate societal renewal.

A green belt was formed surrounding the buildings; several parks, hilly meadows and a network of small streams linked the artifcial lakes Segelluchbecken and Mittelfeldbecken. Cutting through the middle was the main road, Wilhelmsruher Damm. At the estate's "centre" on an east-west boulevard were the main commercial and cultural amenities.9

Märkisches Viertel incited controversy in 1968 as the result of the exhibition Aktion 507 which was set up by an infuential group of architecture students from West Berlin's Technical University. The exhibition was held at the ffth Bauwochen (Building Fair) in 1968, and it was intended to commend the success of the urban renewal programme.

#### FIGURE 7

Housing interior in a building in northern MV by Hans Müller and Georg Heinrichs. Central core distribution, apartments with single and multiple exposition from 40 to 110 m² (ed.)

#### FIGURE 8 (LEFT)

Panel contesting urban politics at a plot in Wilhelmsruh before the construction of the new settlement. Photo by Johann Willa, 1964

#### FIGURE 9 (RIGHT)

View from the south-west of Märkisches Viertel under construction. Photo by Hans Seiler, 1968

Instead, the group criticised the "*Kahlschlagsanierung*;" the demolition of the fairly intact nineteenth-century urban fabric across Berlin, the displacement of residents of inner-city tenements to housing estates and the subsequent destruction of the existing social coherence of the localised urban networks. The programme and the entire design of Märkisches Viertel was accused of perpetuating top-down, patronising planning instead of collective, resident-led planning. Critics also pointed to the multitude of realisation defciencies that plagued the early days of residents of the settlement.

During these early years of its implementation, the number of residents living in Märkisches Viertel quickly surpassed the capacity of its infrastructure, including shops, restaurants, schools, kindergartens and playgrounds across the estate.

The newly planted green spaces did not have sufcient time to grow, leaving the estate looking bare and dominated by the concrete of the buildings. Criticism also targeted the shoddy workmanship and the monotony of the overall building designs. Media reports exacerbated opinions that residents were sufering from the anonymity of the housing estate and unable to identify with their new environment. It developed a bad reputation as an epicentre of youth crime.

Furthermore, the frst residents of Märkisches Viertel were promised a subway connection by the end of the 1960s. There was already an S-Bahn station in Wittenau, although it was not considered a transport connection. It was boycotted by most of the estate residents because it was operated by Deutsche Reichsbahn, the state railway of the German Democratic Republic until 1984, when the BVG, the West Berlin railway company, took over the line. However, by the mid-1980s, the infrastructure had been sufciently implemented, technical construction defciencies had been rectifed and the negativity surrounding the image of the estate waned.

Today, GeSoBau continues to own 15,000 residential units in Märkisches Viertel. By 2015, it had completely modernised the entire complex, at a cost of €440 million, including support from the Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Afairs for upgrading the energy conservation capacity. This included a new heating system, window replacment, facade insulation and the installation of intelligent electricity meters in 10,000 apartments. GeSoBau also redesigned green areas and outftted paths with better lighting at night.<sup>10</sup>

#### FIGURE 10 (LEFT)

View of the parking areas beside the MV commercial core. Photo by Jürgen Henschel, 1977 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 11 (RIGHT)

Seggeluchbecken, part of the MV inner natural corridor. Housing buildings by Chen Kuen Lee in the background. Photo by Rolf Kohler, 1977

There is ample social infrastructure, commercial and service amenities on the estate, along with 14 crèches and 11 schools. Residents are a mix of social classes and nationalities, with an immigrant population of roughly 13 %, largely comprised of people with Turkish and Polish backgrounds.11

There is a high proportion of senior citizens, largely of German origin, many of whom have lived in Märkisches Viertel for decades. In recent years, more families with young children have been moving to the estate. GeSoBau has worked alongside the district of Reinickendorf to support social and cultural development and to continue to improve infrastructure.

#### NOTES

1  Dieter Voll, *Von der Wohnlaube zum Hochhaus. Eine geografsche Untersuchung über die Entstehung und Struktur des Märkisches Viertels in Berlin (West) bis 1976* (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1983), pp. 5–26.

2  Roughly 4,000 Euros in current value.

3  Florian Urban, "The Hut on the Garden Plot: Informal Architecture in Twentieth-Century Berlin," *Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians* 72, no. 2 (2013).

4  Florian Urban, "Large Housing Estates of Berlin, Germany," in *Housing Estates in Europe. The Urban Book Series*, ed. D. Hess, I. Tammaru, and M. van Ham (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018), p. 103.

5  Voll, *Von der Wohnlaube zum Hochhaus*, pp. 31–73.

6  The anomaly of the commitment is quite remarkable: frst for the direct assignment, second because an architect in chief at Berlin Senate (*Senatsbaudirektor*) entered a planning group formed by an independent designer, third because Düttmann was replaced in 1966 by Müller in his leading role in the Senate. See Jörn Düwel and Niels Gutschow, "Städtebau vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis zu den 'Grenzen des Wachstums' in den frühen siebziger Jahren. 1918–1975," in *Berlin und seine Bauten. Teil I: Städtebau*, ed. Harald Bodenschatz et al. (Berlin: Jovis, 2009), p. 328.

7  Werner Düttmann et al., "Planung," in *Der Städtebau* (1963, n. 14/15), pp. 390–91.

8  In total, more than 35 architects contributed to building designs for the estate: the DeGeWo planning ofce for its own sector, independent architects such as Fleig, Gagès, Ungers and Pfankuch for the GeSoBau sector, and Werner Düttman for the Debausie sector.

9  Thomas Knorr-Siedow, and Christiane Droste, *Large Housing Estates in Berlin, Germany: Opinions of Residents on Recent Developments*, Utrecht: RESTATE (Restructuring Large-scale Housing Estates in European Cities: Good Practices and New Visions for Sustainable Neighbourhoods and Cities), Report 4b, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, 2005, p. 16.

10  *Modernisation of the Märkisches Viertel in Berlin: Integrated Development Concept for a 1960s Era Large Residential Development* (Berlin: GeSoBau, 2009), pp. 9–15.

11  Ibid., p. 21.

#### FIGURE 12

Greened areas around the north-west MV housing designed by Hans Christian Müller and Georg Heinrichs. Atelier apartment are located on the roof, 2019

FIGURE 13

Housing by Chen Kuen Lee near Seggeluchbecken viewed from Senftenberger Ring, 2019

# GROßWOHNSIEDLUNG MARZAHN *Martin Spalek\**

LOCATION Marzahn-Hellersdorf district

AGENCY Staatlicher Wohnungsbau der DDR (GDR Housing Department)

DESIGNERS Roland Korn, Peter Schweizer, Heinz Graf under, Dieter Schulze among others

BUILDING PERIOD main period 1976–85, further additions until 1992

SETTLEMENT AREA about 14 km2

COVERING QUOTE 13 %

BUILDING STOREYS (MIN-MAX) 5–21

DWELLING NUMBER 62,600 in Marzahn; additional 53,000 in Hellersdorf

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY mostly prefab

\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

The *Großwohnsiedlung* Marzahn today counts as one of the largest coherently planned and developed housing projects in Europe. The area was created primarily on previously agricultural land to the east of the city core. Within nine years, a total of 62,600 apartments were developed from south to north, and in later additions to the residential areas north, west and east of the initial residential areas, *Wohngebiete 1–3*. With the later developments in Kaulsdorf-Nord and Hellersdorf, more than 110,000 apartments were built with an industrial production typology in the present-day district of Marzahn-Hellersdorf until 1990 (Fig. 2). While the housing construction in the 1960s created 80 % of the housing in 49 dif erent locations, the residential complexes of Marzahn, Hohenschönhausen and Salvador Allende Quarter were responsible for about 80 % of the housing construction in Berlin from 1981–84. Marzahn's share of the population of Berlin increased from 5.6 % in 1979 to 15.6 % in 1985.

With the decision on an ambitious GDR Housing Programme in 1973 (*Wohnungsbauprogramm der DDR*), the City Council of East Berlin initiated a long-term development concept for the eastern part of the city. The concept followed the reinforced principle of radial development in the 1968 City Masterplan (*Generalbebauungsplan Hauptstadt der DDR*), extending the urban fabric in the direction of existing settlement centres, without creating housing beyond the administrative limits (Fig. 3). The decision to establish the residential area for Marzahn was formally authorised by the highest party organs of the SED in 1975. Before this, the area layout by the chief architect of East Berlin, Roland Korn, emerged as the basis for the development in an internal urban planning competition (Fig. 4). Until 1976, he and fellow architect Peter Schweizer worked with an interdisciplinary working group of experts of the dif erent administrative bodies related to housing and planning (Büro für Städtebau des Magistrats, Bauakademie, Ingenieurhochbaus, and Wohnungsbaukombinats und Tiefbaukombinats of Berlin, as well as the Staatliche Plankommission and the Bezirksplankomission) on detailing the development concept. In the same year Heinz Graf under was appointed chief architect and supervisor of the site. In mid-1977, the f rst *Wohnungsbauserie 70* (WBS 70) slab for a ten-storey residential building was set in southern Marzahn (*Wohngebiet* 1). While the f rst complexes were built as intended in the initial development concept, changes to the plan were made from the early 1980s on.

#### FIGURE 1

Black and white plan of Marzahn's central area (*Wohngebiete* 1-3) at present. Hellersdorf settlement is on the right (ed.)

#### FIGURE 2

Integration of green spaces throughout the district. The Wuhletal Park was set to be the central recreational zone, accessible from all complexes in Marzahn and neighbouring Hellersdorf and Biesdorf

Due to dwindling fnancial resources, restrictions were progressively placed upon further complexes. While density and standardisation increased the efciency of land use at the cost of public space and social infrastructure, cost-cutting measures reduced the amount of concrete used in the slabs and simplifed interior fttings. 1:50000

Marzahn is located about twelve kilometres east of Alexanderplatz–the representative and cultural centre of Berlin-East. Its integration with the overall organism of the city was pursued by the continuation and broadening of the Landsberger Allee and the 1982 extension of the S-Bahn from Friedrichsfelde Ost to Ahrensfelde.As a north-eastern radial, the Landsberger Allee ftted into the historically traced radial system of the city, with the S-Bahn and later U-Bahn connection adding to the intended close functional relationships of Marzahn and Hellersdorf with the historic centre.The expansion of the entire new development area covers a length of almost seven kilometres and a width of up to three kilometres. Housing zones of 1–1.5 km in width were planned to provide quick access to major infrastructure routes into the city and to recreational zones.

The basis of Marzahn's concrete urban planning and all the other residential areas was the complex guideline for urban planning and the design of residential areas (*Komplexrichtlinie* 

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 6 Inner organisation of a *Wohnbereich*. Photo Hubert Link, 1984 (ed.)

FIGURE 3 Overview of East Berlin urban development in a plan by Roland Korn, 1976

#### FIGURE 4 (LEFT)

Proposals at an internal urban planning competition for the frst three *Wohngebiete* of Marzahn: (from the top) collective of Roland Korn, architect in chief of East Berlin's Municipality; collective of E. Henn (Erfurt); collective of R. Lasch (Rostock); collective of H. Siegel (Leipzig)

#### FIGURE 5 (RIGHT)

Extract of plan of Marzahn southern termination: example of a *Wohnbereich* (housing zone) as the primary cell of a superordinate *Wohngebiet*. Residence line buildings enclose the "social centre" on three or four sides hosting the local primary facilities: market (a), restaurant (g), leisure centre (k, *Feierabendheim*) and many kindergartens within the extensive gardening inside the complex. The school (b) is an element of the higher *Wohngebiet* and it is reachable on foot without crossing major roads. Outside the living area, there is plenty of room for mobility

*für die städtebauliche Planung und Gestaltung von Neubauwohngebieten,* 1976). The residential buildings are grouped in three- or four-sided closed block-like forms in residential complexes organised like villages. Each residential complex (*Wohnbereich*) has associated social infrastructures and a centre with basic residential facilities (Figs. 5, 6). This was supposed to ensure that essential facilities are never more than 600 m from the fats and that crossing major roads is not necessary. Several residential complexes form a residential area (*Wohngebiet*) with superordinate residential area centre of recreational and supply facilities. These should be designed as a social core and a central meeting point of a lively neighbourhood. Each building, though, is strictly mono-functional. The residential areas are spatially separated from each other by the main development axes. There is no transit trafc within the residential areas. The residential complexes are thus sources and destinations of residential trafc only. The linking of the residential areas with the regional centres ensures that key access points for public transport and recreational areas connect to a branching pedestrian main axis from south to north (Fig. 7).

The residential development of Marzahn consists mostly of fve to eleven-storey prefabricated WBS 70-type buildings (Figs. 10, 11). The façade elements of the buildings were made with washed concrete, and the balcony railings were cladded with corrugated iron or concrete. The housing plan allowed only standardised foor layouts.Nevertheless, a certain fexibility could be achieved by combining normal and end segments and having diferent assignments of individual rooms. With an average size of about 61 square metres, 40 % of the apartments have one or two rooms; 60 % have three or more. The apartments and living functions were designed so that at least the multi-room apartments have two outer walls with windows. In addition, every fat eventually had a trafc-remote housing site (Fig. 8).

#### FIGURE 7 (LEFT)

Mobility organisation in Marzahn *Wohngebiete* 1-3: avenues (black), metro and tram lines (grey)

#### FIGURE 8 (RIGHT)

Apartment typologies in a line building realised with the WBS 70 prefab system (top) and in an 18-storey high-rise realised with the WHH prefab system in Marzahn *Wohngebiet* 1 (ed.)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 9 Housing buildings along Mehrower Allee. Photo by Monika Uelze, ca. 1982

The construction of prefabricated housing estates exceeded the sole purpose of solving the housing problem for the state. It was also intended to support the creation of the socialist way of life and its deeper ideology. Public housing assignment policies were aimed primarily at the settlement of young families. Older people and people with alternative forms of life were disadvantaged or consciously refused these ideologically charged living situations. As a result of this assignment policy, the large housing estates were largely generational homogenous.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent end of the GDR state-directed planning, a self-reinforcing change began. Refurbished blocks of fats in the previously neglected inner-city areas and new homes in the immediate vicinity of the city presented new alternatives. The subsequent growing vacancy of in some parts up to 30 % had the tendency to self-reinforce and led to a reduced structural and social attractiveness in the residential areas in the following decade.

FIGURE 10 (LEFT) Prefab building types WBS (Wohnungsbauserie 70) and VHH (Wohnhochhaus Serie) in Marzahn *Wohngebiete* 1–3

FIGURE 11 (RIGHT)

Montage of an eleven-storey prefabricated WBS 70 type building in Marzahn. Photo by Heinz Hirndorf, 1983 (ed.)

The urban renewal programme *Stadtumbau-Ost* was an essential program to ensure the future viability of large housing estates in former East Berlin and in the territory of the former GDR. Between 2002 and 2016, the programme supported some 1,200 urban redevelopment measures by the federal government and the Länder. Currently Marzahn-Hellersdorf is tending toward a steady increase in population in connection with Berlin's overall demographic development. Between 2010 and 2015, the population of Marzahn-Hellersdorf increased by 4.1 %. Based on the population forecast of the Senate Department for Urban Development and Housing, further growth of 9.1 % (or 20,000 inhabitants) by 2030 is expected.

#### FIGURE 12

Aerial view of Marzahn district under construction. Photo by Karl-Heinz Schindler, 1981 (ed.)

FIGURE 13 Landsberger Allee, the main trafc axis reaching Marzahn from the city centre, 2019

FIGURE 14 Under ordinate mobility in *Wohngebiet 1*, 2019

FIGURE 15 Public greened areas within two *Wohnbereiche*, 2019

FIGURE 16 Inner greened areas with kindergarten at the core of a *Wohnbereich*, 2019

FIGURE 17 Springfuhl Park at centre of *Wohngebiet* 1, 2019

FIGURE 18 Helene-Weigel-Platz, centre of recreational and supply facilities beside Springfuhl Park, 2019

# IBA-NEUBAU ON NORTHERN RITTERSTRAßE *Antonello Scopacasa\**

#### LOCATION Mitte district

#### AGENCY

Land West Berlin (client), Klingbeil-Gruppe (customer and building contractor)

#### DESIGNERS

Rob Krier (Urban design advisor, 1977); D. Bangert - B. Jansen - S. Scholz - A. Schultes, A. Liepe - H. Steigelmann, E. Feddersen - W. von Herder, J. Ganz - W. Rolfes, Rob Krier, U. Müller, T. Rhode (Overall planning and architectural design, 1978-79); J. Halfmann, C. Zillich (Landscape design); AG Ökologischer Stadtumbau

BUILDING PERIOD 1982–83 (Block 28, southern part), 1988–88 (Block 31, northern part)

#### SETTLEMENT AREA:

ca. 5,5 ha (including the intervention on the southern side of Ritterstraße)

COVERING QUOTE 54 %

BUILDING STOREYS 4–6

DWELLING NUMBER 314 (in 35 blocks of f ats)

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY traditional

\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

Following the approval of the second Urban Renewal Programme (*Stadterneuerungsprogramm*) in 1974,1 housing projects started to promote a new critical approach towards functionalistic and traf c-oriented urban planning throughout West Berlin. They envisaged a return to the legacy of the historical urban fabric and to the traditional building typology, which the international discourse had started to debate during the Sixties, and which the f rst European Architectural Heritage Year in 1975 had of cially envisaged.<sup>2</sup> This was the case for the housing intervention at Vinetaplatz in Wedding (building period 1975–82, whose Block 270 had been designed in 1971 by Josef Paul Kleihues, foreseeing for the f rst time in Berlin a return to the traditional block-enclosed urban typology (Fig. 3); Rollberg-Viertel in Neuköln (1976–82) and Heinrich-Zille-Siedlung in Tiergarten (1976–81). This was also the case for the long-term and participative projects led by Hardt-Waltherr Hämer throughout the districts of Wedding, Charlottenburg and Kreuzberg after 1968 and the promotion of the "cautious urban renewal" of the pre-war building heritage.

The new conditions settled after the 1971 agreements between the Federal Republic and the Eastern-bloc countries, and thus political stabilisation, cooled the representative interest in urban planning, while the idea of a city reunif cation had already become unrealistic. The ef ects on the planning panorama, however, were revealed in the second half of the decade; by 1976, the established *Kahlschlagsanierung*—literally urban renewal through demolition—envisaged by the f rst Urban Renewal Programme in 1963, had produced 18,000 new f ats vs. only 400 renovations; an approach of substitution that had mostly af ected the inner city, which was also suf ering from remoteness and decay due to the closeness of the Wall. Otto-Suhr-Siedlung along Oranienstraße (2,300 dwellings, built from 1956–63), Mehringplatz (1,500 dwellings, built from 1967–75), and Neues Kreuberger Zentrum (367 dwellings, built from 1969–74), all interventions realised in this southern area, represent the theoretical evolution of urban development over time well, especially concerning the "renewal" issue, starting from the mono-functional, well detached, low density and highly greened environment of the Fifties, leading to the motto "Urbanity through density" of the Sixties.

$$\underbrace{\bigcirc\_{\text{2000}}}\_{\text{2000}} \underbrace{\bigcirc\_{\text{2000}}}\_{\text{500}} \underbrace{\bigcirc\_{\text{2000}}}\_{\text{500}}$$

#### FIGURE 1

Black and white plan of wider IBA-Neubau intervention area at present: Southern Tiergarten (left) and Southern Friedrichstadt (right).

FIGURE 2 Extract of the housing intervention on northern Ritterstraße

The discussion about organising a planning demonstrative instrument for this internal, and at same time, marginalised area of the western city, as well as for implementing the theoretical switch from the "cleaning up" approach to the "careful renewal," started in 1976 and ended in 1978, when the West Berlin Senate of cially promoted a new vision for the whole city, which led some years later to the new Plan of Uses of 1984.3 To reach these targets, the Senate founded an external structure at the end of 1978, the public society Bauausstellung Berlin GmbH, commissioning it to develop the master plan for the southern area of the old city centre, to coordinate democratic consultations and the architectural design in collaboration with architects, urban designers, administrators and building stakeholders and to begin to realise it in the context of a long-term International Building Exhibition (IBA) planned for 1984/87.4 The "inner city as living place" was the motto, while the key topic was the rediscovery and recovery of the historic urban fabric (Fig. 5).

To this bridging period also belongs the little housing intervention on northern Ritterstraße. According to the 1965 Plan of Uses, which is still in force, Southern Friedrichstadt was included at the centre of the *City-Band*, the never-implemented city belt of tertiary destinations connecting West and East with a service highway, the *Südtangente*. To explore replacing this plan, the Senate started experimental framework planning in 1976–77, envisaging a mix of functions involving housing and commerce. Invited consultant Rob Krier

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 3 Block 270 at Vinetaplatz by Josef Paul Kleihues. Design 1971, construction 1975–77

FIGURE 4 *Ideal Plan* by Rob Krier, 1977. Master plan proposal for the reconstruction of Friedrichstadt and surrounding areas

proposed an *Ideal Plan*, which referred to the original enclosed baroque structure, embellished it with new plazas and public gardens, reduced the original very extensive block dimensions and fxed the maximum building height at six foors (Fig. 4). The planned area extended beyond the city border incorporating the whole baroque urban system with the «assumption that Berlin would not be divided forever».<sup>5</sup>

The ideal master plan was then adopted as the basis for an architectural competition held in 1978 for subsidised housing for the northern Ritterstraße, on federal state property that had been deeply cleared up during the Fifties and which was presently used as parking place for the nearby Springer publishing company. The programme foresaw a new "piece of city" around a (to be) reconstructed Feilner Haus, previously designed by Karl Friedrich Schinkel in 1829 and demolished in 1956. 6 The site was also delimited by Lindenstraße, the medieval commercial road and eastern boundary of baroque Friedrichstadt, and the parallel Alte-Jacob-Straße, part of Luisenstadt, the frst city expansion of the mid-19th century built on the master plan of the king's gardener, Peter Joseph Lenné.

Open to fourteen invited architects, the competition resulted in the formation of seven planning groups, who were given the task of preparing the master plan and implementing the architectural design, including Rob Krier, who was responsible for the central core. The estate's funding was made possible by dedicated government funding of 50,000 DM for each dwelling unit to fnance the development of new foor plan typologies and by the newly implemented First Funding Channel (*1. Förderungsweg*) introduced in 1972 and last revised in 1977, as the most important and newly very proftable instrument for subsidising social housing.7

#### FIGURE 5

Masterplan Berlin 1984: the frst overall urban development plan which points beyond the International Building Exhibition 1984/87 to possibilities of longer-term urban interventions. Plan made by 70 sheets, original drawing scale 1:5000

The intervention on Ritterstraße was eventually adopted in the wider IBA programme starting in the same year; it became its frst and representative case study, the main site of exposition (the Merkurhaus, which was restored and integrated in the programme) and it was one of the frst to be concluded, even partially, at its opening in 1984. The intervention follows the principles of the previous *Ideal Plan* concerning the recovery of the old baroque plan and proportions and the organisation of green spaces in alleys, courtyards and private gardens, in a continuous but clear and separate grading. The previous Feilnerstraße is replicated orthogonally, generating a pedestrian cruising system of semi-public spaces focusing on the reconstructed Feilner House. The little regular square hosting this city memory can be entered from all four sides through gates, while additional passages from the corners lead to landscaped courtyards (Fig. 6).

In general, the relationship between the buildings' urban disposition and the fats' inner organisation is immediate, resulting in clear urban typologies, among which are the "Cornerhaus" (Fig. 7) or "Double Cornerhaus," the "Courthaus" (Fig. 12) and the "Haus at Gate" or the "Gardenhaus."

#### FIGURE 6 (LEFT, RIGHT)

Overall architectural plan of the southern (31) and northern block (28) at two sides of Feilnerstraße: the little parcelling of the housing units (plan left) and the street and gardening furnishing (plan right). Garden planning by Jasper Halfmann and Clod Zillich. Ritterstraße is on the southern side of the blocks

In the central square designed by Krier, the pre-existence of the Schinkel buildings provides the main reference for the organisation of the frontages; even the Senate eventually decided not to attempt a true reconstruction.8 Terracotta materials and vaulted facades connote the composition of the buildings. A rich apparatus of possible dwelling foor plans characterises the interiors and tries to satisfy diferent kinds of addressee. The living room, for example, is imagined as a meeting place, «accessible from many sides, allowing

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 7 (LEFT, RIGHT)

Cornerhaus (House 19) by Urs Müller und Thomas Rhode. Ground foor and maisonette foor plans. View from Alte-Jakob-Straße crossing Feilnerstraße

# urheberrechtlich geschützt urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 8, 9

Schinkelplatz: Layout of the housing inner distribution, drawing with annotations by Rob Krier, 1978 (left); Double facade-screen system, exploded axonometric projection with sketches by Krier, 1978 (right)

the organisation of the fats to be adopted to any orientation: to the street, to the square, to the courtyard»9 and corresponding to the small central square (Fig. 8). Geometric reduction helps to emphasise the space hierarchy within the fnancial resources provided by the funding system, while the internal complexity, as in a game of hide-and-seek, is articulated by a double facade-screen system, which shields inner life from external view (Figs. 9, 10). The architectural composition and the front materials are clearly inspired—almost as a quotation—by Schinkel's memories.

#### NOTES

1  Harald Bodenschatz et al., *Berlin und seine Bauten. Teil I: Städtebau* (Berlin: Jovis, 2009), p. 414. 2  A public debate about the topic of urban *Sanierung*—how "hard" the renewal should be—started the day after the approval of the 1963 Urban Renewal Programme without providing any relevant results. The frst critical voice was Wolf Jobst Siedler with his *Die gemordete Stadt* (Berlin: Siedler, 1963). See *Berlin und seine Bauten*, pp. 286–93.

3  A similar evolution was also established some years later in East Berlin, fxed by the 1978 "*Abrissstop*" (stop to demolitions) and the 1982 implementation of "*innenstädtischen Wohnungsbau*" (inner-city housing) policy,

FIGURE 10 Street view of the Schinkelplatz after construction, 1983

FIGURE 11 (LEFT) Courthaus at Ritterstraße by Rob Krier, 1983

#### FIGURE 12 (RIGHT)

Following: view of the house from the landscaped courtyard, 1983

see Florian Urban, *Berlin/DDR—neo-historisch. Geschichte aus Fertigteilen* (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag-Berlin, 2007), pp. 91–96. During the Seventies, the municipality of East Berlin started recovering corners of the historical fabric, as in Arkonaplatz (1970–84) and Arminplatz (1973–84), Ibid, pp. 74–77.

4  In parallel, the Senate reduced and strictly regulated the areas destined for renewal interventions. See *Berlin und seine Bauten*, p. 414.

5  See monograph journal "Rob Krier. Architecture and Urban Design," *Architectural Monographs* 30, no. 1 (1983): p. 37, also available at http://www.robkrier.de. Krier had been very active since 1968 in the European context with projects and theoretical investigations on urbanism based on the preference for an enclosed, physically well defned urban space conception and on the tradition of the historical European city, especially medieval and baroque. Among other publications, see Rob Krier, *Urban Space* (London: Academy Editions, 1979), frst published in Germany in 1975 and available online at https://robkrier.de/urban-space-engl.php#page-001.

6  The house of the Feilner family of terracotta producers, also designed by Schinkel, was near their factory. Of note is the motto expressed by Harry Ristock, Senator for Building and Bousing, «A living city needs testimonies of its past», in "Vorwort," *Berliner Baubilanz '78* (Berlin, 1978), p. 7.

7  Jo Sollich, "Abschied vom Sozialen Wohnungsbau: Folgen für die IBA-Architektur," *25 Jahre Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987. Ein Höhepunkt des europäischen Städtebaus*, ed. Harald Bodenschatz, Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, and Deutsches Institut für Stadtbaukunst (Salenstein, Switzerland: Niggli, 2012), pp. 85–87.

8  See Andreas Salgo, "Schlüsselprojekte der Neubau-IBA," p. 31–33.

9  "Rob Krier. Architecture and Urban Design," p. 45.

# IBA-ALTBAU *Lorenza Manfredi\**

#### LOCATION Kreuzberg Luisenstadt and SO36

#### AGENCY

Senatsverwaltung für Bau- und Wohnungswesen Berlin, S.T.E.R.N. Gesellschaft der behutsamen Stadterneuerung Berlin mbH

#### DIRECTION AND COLLABORATORS

Hardt-Waltherr Hämer, Thomas Edding. Collaborators working in the Luisenstadt area: Peter Beck, Jörg Forßmann, Günter Fuderholz, Undine Fülling, Michael Kraus, Peter Kurt, Peter Molline, Hilde Pinnekamp, Gabriele Rösler, Christian Schmidt-Hermsdorf, Dietmar Schuf enhauer, Martin Strasburger, Yavuz Üçer, Axel Volkmann, Christiana Weber, Birgit Wend, Theo Winters. Collaborators working in Area SO36: Uli Bülhof , Jörn Dargel, Bahri Düleç, Wulf Eichstädt, Cornelius van Geisten, Kostas Kouvelis, Claudia Mende, Jochen Mindak, Sue Sahin, Monika Taeger, Hans Tödtmann.

BUILDING PERIOD 1979–87

INTERVENTION AREA ca. 320 ha

BUILDING STOREYS as preexistence, 2–6 f oors

\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit); IUAV University of Venice, Department of Architecture, City and Design

The *Internationale Bauausstellung* 1987 (IBA, International Building Exhibition) is part of a tradition of international architecture exhibitions stimulating a debate around the construction of the city and realising exemplary architecture. The specif c objective of the IBA, initially planned for 1984 but subsequently postponed until 1987, was a strategy of enhancement for specif c central areas of West Berlin. In fact, the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961 caused an immediate loss of urban attractiveness in many adjacent areas that suddenly became marginal and lost most of their infrastructural connections, interfering with or preventing the normal f ows of citizens and goods.

Established in 1979 in West Berlin by Hans Christian Müller, the Senate director of the building activities, the project's slogan was "The inner city as a place to live," and its aim was to realise plans and interventions as result of a ref ection on methods and possibilities for the urban renewal.

The search for new models of urban development was also necessary because of the protests of many citizens and students who strongly criticised the model the city authorities used from the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s—the *Kahlschlagsanierung.* This involved creating a tabula rasa by demolishing entire building complexes, making space for the construction of the "new city." The consequences of this path were increases in living costs and resettlement for low-income residents. The f rst Urban Renewal Programme of 1963 clearly encompassed this approach: as Hass-Klau reported, only 30 % of the existing housing stock was seen as worth modernising, leading to the almost total demolition of the old housing stock and the reconstruction of entire areas.1 This dramatic approach, in conjunction with an increase in empty f ats caused by a system of state speculation, soon became an extreme housing problem. As reported in studies on the area produced by the IBA-Altbau, by 1980, one in eight citizens of Berlin was involved in an urban renewal programme,2 while many residential units were left unoccupied: in the area of Kottbusser Tor at the beginning of the 1980s, 1057 of 4612 residential units were empty, and more than 60 % of them were state owned.

The latent protests caused by the housing problem increased to the point of becoming urban riots, with a rapid spread of squatting activities: in January 1981, 36 houses were occupied, but the number increased to 167 in only f ve months.<sup>3</sup>

As an instrument for dealing with this conf ict, the IBA soon became able to stimulate

FIGURE 1 Black and white plan of the intervention area of IBA-Altbau at present

# DWELLING NUMBERS AND OTHER

QUANTITY DATA 360 new f ats, 7,000 renewal f ats; reconstruction and expansion of 10 schools, 27 nursery schools; 30 streets and squares have been reconstructed or plants added to reduce car speeds, 370 backyards have been turned into gardens in consultation with the inhabitants; many social projects, like meeting places for young people and for inhabitants from dif erent cultures, sport facilities.

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY traditional

important policy changes—while the IBA-Neubau brought new attention to the historical city plan, the IBA-Altbau managed to set a new path of dealing with the existing bottom-up urban renewal activities and with the existing fabric of the city.

0 10050 200 500 m

The IBA group working under the concept of careful urban renewal—the IBA-Altbau was coordinated by Hardt-Waltherr Hämer and focused on the district of Kreuzberg, a traditional working-class artisan area with unique problems of decaying tenement housing, large-scale immigration, industrial decline and social tension. The Luisenstadt and the much larger eastern area of SO 36 were selected as testing grounds for the IBA-Altbau, two areas half surrounded by the Berlin Wall but that had not been extensively damaged by the war and that were still densely inhabited. The buildings were in poor condition, but—un-

#### FIGURE 2

Cartographic representation of IBA-Altbau interventions completed in 1992 in the areas of Luisenstadt and SO36 in Kreuzberg. Repair/ modernisation (blue and black), new building (red and orange), social facilities (ochre), refurbishing of public spaces (grey), trade building modernisation/ new building (dark blue)

like other parts of the city—still habitable, ofering an option for lower income inhabitants: students, young people and guest-workers, mainly from Turkey and the former Yugoslavia, began living there. Moreover, the increase in rents after modern renewal interventions in other parts of the city caused the arrival of new inhabitants from surrounding areas. The squatting movement found in this context a fertile terrain—the houses were not just occupied, but there were self-initiated projects to restore individual units. *"Instandsbesetzers"*  (from *instandsetzen*—repair—and *besetzen*—occupy) created a network while sharing material help, skills and technical knowledge for repairing the buildings, as a form of DIY urbanism. Furthermore, the squatters activated abandoned or leftover spaces, proposing a programme of public and shared activities for the neighbourhood—all of this happening in an area with poor living conditions and where social activities were almost absent.

The IBA-Altbau succeeded in entering into contact and working together with this existing network, making studies "fat by fat."<sup>4</sup> Their local interlocutors had been squatters as in-

#### FIGURE 3

The tenant advisory service (*Mieterberatung*) represented the interests of the inhabitants during the whole renewal process

dividual citizens, often organised by associations, such as the Mieterladen Dresdnerstraße, the Mieterrat Waldemarstraße, the Bürgerinitiative SO36 and the Verein SO36.<sup>5</sup> Religious institutions also played a big role—by 1977, the "parish of the workers" led by Klaus Duntze involved the building department senator in the organisation of a citizens' call for proposals for the Kreuzberg area. The *Strategies for Kreuzberg* competition received 129 ideas from the population, ofering a frst overview of the creative energy present in this specifc urban context. The IBA-Altbau studied the existing activities, created a connection with their protagonists and with the associations and, in most cases, was able to support their projects—by providing specifc knowledge and ofering technical skills or by creating coalitions with the institutions.

The ties between the IBA-Altbau and the people and authorities and the singularity of the context of Kreuzberg explain the work of the group coordinated by Hämer, revealed by complicated procedures involved in collaborations: on one side with active citizens and on the other with the city authorities. The main goal was often to coordinate and pilot existing processes, becoming a bridge between those heterogeneous and divergent groups.

#### FIGURE 4 (LEFT, RIGHT)

Meeting in the youth leisure centre in the Reichenberger Straße 44-45 for the renewal process (left) and the establishment of the neighbourhood centre "Regenbogenfabrik" in 1981 (right)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 5 For example, diferent kinds of interventions in Block 10 on Oranienplatz (ed.)

**1** Mariannenstraße 50/Naunystraße 76: Duplex fats, tenants' self-management.

**2** Naunystraße 77: New housing typologies, tenants' self-management, roof, frewall and façade greening.

**3** Naunystraße 78/79: Garden for ecological recovery, adventure playground for neighbourhood use. **4** Naunystraße 80: Tenants' self-management, solar collector as heating support, grey water purifcation and use on site, eco-friendly construction materials. **5** Naunystraße 82: Tenants' self-management of the training workshop Kreuzberg e.V. Low-temperature heating, photovoltaic energy production, eco-friendly construction materials, courtyard greening. **6** Naunystraße 84: Self-help renewal of side-wing

building, roof greening. **7** Naunystraße 86/88: Energy-saving renewal of three post-war buildings, roof greening.

**8** Manteufelstraße 39: New housing typologies, water-saving sanitary technology, eco-friendly construction materials, roof greening.

**9** Manteufelstraße 40/41: New housing typologies, housing and commerce self-management, eco-friendly construction materials, façade and roof greening, playground for block use, connection to the heat-power network.

**10** Manteufelstraße 42: New housing typologies, self-renewal works, eco-friendly construction materials, façade and roof greening, rainwater-saving sanitary technology.

**11** Oranienstraße 3: Central rainwater collector for the water-saving sanitary technology of the entire block.

**12** Oranienstraße 4: New housing typologies, self-renewal works, heat recovery from the service water.

**13** Oranienstraße 5: grey water purifcation and use on site, rainwater recovery and percolation.

**14** Oranienstraße 3/6: solar collector system (240 m² on four roof surfaces) for recovering / exchanging heat.

**15** Oranienstraße 6: Manufacturers and services in the courtyard.

**16** Oranienstraße 7: Ownership model by self-help, housing and commerce use, artists' studios.

**17** Oranienstraße 13: New housing typologies, tenants' self-management, grey water purifcation and use on site, frewall and roof greening, eco-friendly construction materials.

**18** Oranienstraße 14: Tenants' self-management, courtyard greening, eco-friendly construction materials.

**19/20** Oranienstraße 14a/Mariannenstraße 47: Self-help model, courtyard greening, parental kindergarten and pupil care, schoolyard.

**21** Mariannenstraße 48: Roof, façade and frewall greening, parental kindergarten.

**22** Luisenstradt e.G. district ofce, neighbourhood ofce for architecture.

The profound contact with the citizens on a local scale took place with new planning instruments, which revealed the existing spatial and social qualities of the area. The *Mieterberatung* was an advisory service that represented the interests of the inhabitants during the renewal process, independently of the owners' interests and on behalf of the district administration. The *Stadtteilgremien* were diferent kinds of committees that presented

information and requests from the population to the authorities. The Stadtteilausschuß SO 36, which has been operating since 1977, ofered a weekly occasion for discussing the problems of urban renewal, city and infrastructural planning, and it formulated recommendations to the district and the Senate. The Erneuerungskommission Kottbusser Tor (EK) founded in 1982, was a platform for fnding consensus, in which the residents and the representatives of the district and senate administration, the district assembly and the sponsors had equal voting rights.

Besides the 7,000 renewed building units and the 360 new builds,6 the IBA-Altbau succeeded in producing structural changes in the regulations and the planning mechanisms—

FIGURE 6

Isometric drawing of Block 79 showing the buildings to demolish according to the 1979 plan. The IBA renewal concept retained the existing residential and commercial space as far as possible

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 7 (LEFT)

Exhibition boards in the courtyard showing the plans for the conversion of the factory premises into a children's and neighbourhood centre, the "Regenbogenfabrik" in 1981

#### FIGURE 8 (CENTRE)

Projects exhibition and summer party in the Lausitzer Straße, 1981

#### FIGURE 9 (RIGHT)

Summer party of the neighbourhood centre "Regenbogenfabrik" in the courtyard, June 1982 successes it obtained through years of work, dialogue, letters and mediation. The numerous publications released by the IBA itself witness the creation of a new planning culture that is very diferent from the previous one, where stakeholders, politicians, business owners and citizens can interact and work together. Through its local work, case by case, the IBA has been in fact become an incubator, a catalyst and a label under which diferent projects can develop and—against all predictions—continue to survive.

The twelve principles created by the IBA-Altbau in 1982 are a sort of manifest of the careful urban renewal: they give priority to repair instead of demolition, to the protection of the low-income population instead of expulsion, to the active participation of the citizens in the choices regarding the reconstruction of the city. «In contrast [with] planning from a distance, the 12 principles [have improved] the experience of those involved into the crucial basis of decision-making»7 —in this sense planning and building have been really seen as social processes.

#### ANNEX

The 12 principles can be summarised as follows:8


#### NOTES

1  Carmen Hass-Klau, "Berlin: 'Soft' Urban Renewal in Kreuzberg," *Built Environment*, vol. 12 (1986, n. 3): pp. 165–75.

2  Karl-Heinz Fiebig, Dieter Hofmann-Axthelm, and Eberhard Knödler-Bunte, eds., *Kreuzberger Mischung. Die innerstädtische Verfechtung von Architektur, Kultur und Gewerb* (Berlin: Internationale Bauausstellung, 1984).

3  Frank Eichstädt-Böhling, "Zerstörung der Städte, Zerstörung der Demokratie," in *Hauserkämpfe 1872, 1920, 1945, 1982*, edited by Rainer Nitsche (Berlin: Transit, 1981), pp. 210–23.

4  *Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987: Projektübersicht. Aktualisierte und erweiterte Ausgabe* (Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Bau und Wohnungswesen, 1991).

6  Ibid.

7  Interview mit Hardt-Waltherr Hämer in Manfred Sack (ed.), *Hardt-Waltherr Hämer, Stadt im Kopf*, (Berlin: Jovis Verlag, 2002).

8  Harald Bodenschatz, Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, and Deutsches Institut für Stadtbaukunst, eds., *25 Jahre Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987. Ein Höhepunkt des europäischen Städtebaus* (Salenstein, Switzerland: Niggli, 2012), pp. 185–86.

<sup>5</sup> Ibid.

# DOCUMENTATION: NAPLES

#### MAP OF THE NAPLES CASE STUDIES

#### TIMELINE

DATA SHEETS:

 Pilot Settlement Torre Ranieri *Ilenia Gioia*

 Rione Traiano *Giada Limongi*

 Quartiere La Loggetta *Vincenzo Cirillo*

 Quartiere Canzanella *Giada Limongi*

 "Le Vele" in Scampia *Vincenzo Cirillo*

 Monterusciello *Vito Capasso*

**86** DOCUMENTATION

#### ACRONYM LIST


(ed.) Editor

Via Mario Gigante in INA-Casa La Loggetta neighbourhood. Photo by Paolo Monti, 1958

# MAP OF THE NAPLES CASE STUDIES

**1 Pilot Settlement Torre Ranieri** Building period 1947–51; 1955–57 **2 Rione Traiano** 1959–72

**3 Quartiere La Loggetta**

**4 Quartiere Canzanella** 1957–63

**5 "Le Vele" in Scampia** 1965–75

**6 Monterusciello** 1983–84

# TIMELINE Wider City History *Giada Limongi*

#### **RESIDENT POPULATION1**

Unlike Berlin, the territory of the present City of Naples has not changed much in comparison with of its boundaries in the 19th century. Presently, its area is about 11,720 ha, while the wider metropolitan territory, which corresponds to the Città Metropolitana di Napoli, covers about 117,100 hectares and counts 3,129,354 inhabitants in 2014, which is closer to the population of Berlin.

# TIMELINE Social Housing in Politics and Administration

1903: Afrms the right to a home and establishes the Independent Institutes for Social Housing (IACP), under the coordination of the central ICP, implementing housing construction for low-income people

LUZZATTI LAW FOR SOCIAL HOUSING

FANFANI LAW AND INA-CASA PLAN

1949: This centrally coordinates and locally implements a plan to increase employment by building houses for workers and low-income families throughout the country. Garden cities and functionally independent

#### IACP AND THE TRANSFER OF HOUSING COMPETENCE TO THE REGIONS

Law No. 865/1971 better defnes the public housing concept (ERP), establishes a central coordination (CER) and transfers all public and social housing properties to the Independent Institutes for Social Housing (IACP), together with the programming, implementation and maintenance commitment. In 1975 and 1981, state responsibilities are mostly disregarded and eventually transferred to the regions. Later, the 1998 Bassanini Law and the 2001 constitutional reform defne public housing as the exclusive competence of the regions, while territorial governance becomes a concurrent jurisdiction between states and regions. The residual and relevant GESCAL funds are diverted from social housing to state fnance.

#### EQUO CANONE

Law No. 392/1978 parameterises and limits the rent ceiling in public and private housing. In 1998, it is declared unconstitutional.

#### URBAN RECOVERY ZONES

Law No. 457/1978: Beside the ten-year programme for residential building, the act defnes the concept of building and urban recovery and establishes rules and funding channels for enacting recovery plans for consolidated or historical urban fabrics throughout the country on the municipal level. It represents the normative turnaround to a culturally based planning approach.

#### LAW 219

**1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020**

Law No. 219/1981 funds building reconstruction and social development in areas that have been afected by the earthquake of November 1980: Campania, Basilicata and Apulia.

#### NATIONAL HOUSING PLAN

The 2008 *Piano Nazionale di Edilizia abitativa* is intended to support rather than to fund social housing directly through new forms of public/ private partnerships. These partnerships include transfer of development rights to developers that increase the residential stock, density bonuses aimed at enhancing public services and spaces and improving urban quality, and compensation through development rights for the construction of housing for rent at afordable rates or sale to disadvantaged categories.

# TIMELINE City Planning and Programming

#### 1972 CITY MASTERPLAN

This defnitively replaces the 1939 masterplan under the last national legislation. The PRG provides for the zoning and the urban standards approach for new building. It frames and plans adequate metropolitan road development, including a main crossing highway (Tangenziale). Detailing building plans are never produced, compromising the implementation of the plan.

#### PLAN OF THE OUTSKIRTS

The 1978–80 *Piano delle Periferie* focuses on the outskirts of the city, using a more pragmatic approach than the failed Territorial Plan of 1964 and complying with National Law No. 457/1978. It foresees the recovery and a light residential densifcation of the existing rural centres all around the city core.

#### EXTRAORDINARY PROGRAMME FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (PSER)

The 1981 *Programma Straordinario di Edilizia Residenziale* is an outcome of the national programme for earthquake reconstruction. It embeds the Plan of the Outskirts (*Piano delle Periferie*), newly including the construction of afordable and low-income housing in the suburbs. It also aims to repair and equip the city outskirts better and sets the planning approach mostly on the urban architectural scale. It foresees three channels of building intervention: recovery and consolidation of the existent fabric, new building coherent to the historical morphology and other new building. The outcomes of a six-year, well-managed plan implementation are 14,000 new and renewed dwellings, many service infrastructures, social facilities and equipment and over 110 hectares of wide parks and urban gardens.

**1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020**

#### 2004 CITY MASTERPLAN

In general, the PRG foresees a recovery approach to the existing urban fabric to protect its physical integrity and its cultural identities. It also plans to enhance the system of green areas, converting disused areas into new integrated settlements characterised by the formation of large urban parks, regenerating the suburbs by improving the quantity and quality of services and facilities in the neighbourhoods and reforming the mobility system, reorganising it around a modern public rail network.

**95**

# PILOT SETTLEMENT TORRE RANIERI *Ilenia Gioia\**

#### LOCATION Posillipo Hill

AGENCY Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici-Genio Civile

DESIGNER Luigi Cosenza, Francesco Della Sala, Adriano Galli

BUILDING PERIOD 1949–51; 1955–57

SETTLEMENT AREA 1.5 ha

COVERING QUOTE 22 %

BUILDING STOREYS 2–4

DWELLING NUMBER 75 (16 buildings, 248 rooms)

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY partly prefab on site

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design The Pilot Settlement in Torre Ranieri is located on the hill of Posillipo, a place that, thanks to its hilly morphological conformation has been coveted since ancient times for both its strategic position and its panoramic beauty. Thanks to this confguration, the landscape has been less urbanised than the city centre of Naples, and it has maintained a strong vegetational characteristic.

In the 19th century, Posillipo underwent a deep change due to the construction, between 1812 and 1824, of a road from Mergellina, in the west area of the port of Naples, and it then developed in parallel to the coast. In the urban plan of 1939, Posillipo is indicated as a green area to be restricted and protected. Following serious damage caused by World War II bombardments, an unregulated building reconstruction began throughout the Neapolitan territory, transforming Posillipo into a bourgeois residential area and an important link between the centre of Naples and the western suburbs of Bagnoli and Pozzuoli.

The Pilot Settlement in Torre Ranieri, a unique example of experimentation in industrialised building production within the Naples context, was built at the intersection of the three main roads (Via Manzoni, Via Petrarca and Via Torre Ranieri) crossing the new residential area immediately after the War.

Preliminary studies on industrialised construction had already started in 1947, initiated by engineers Luigi Cosenza and Adriano Galli, and architect Francesco della Sala within the Centro Studi per l'Edilizia CESUN.1 One of the main purposes of the programme was to overcome the difculties in introducing construction innovations into the local context, which was lagging behind in Southern Italy, and to help to reduce the backwardness of the local building system.

The research, based on a comparison between various European examples of standardisation,2 led to the creation of modular dwelling with two units for each staircase, which varied in the positioning of services and of front elements such as balconies and terraces. From this point of view, the settlement in Torre Ranieri was an avant-garde laboratory for experimentation on building technology.

The resulting complex had sixteen prototypes, of which a frst group was built between 1949 and 1951 and a second group was built between 1955 and 1957. The new, fully

FIGURE 1 Black and white plan of the settlement at present

residential settlement is on a plot acquired by UNRRA-CASAS, the international organisation that provided economic and civil assistance to countries suf ering for heavy damage after the war and which, in Italy, was managed by the Ministry of Public Works. The plot is steeply sloping; for this reason, the buildings sited in the lower part and facing Via Petrarca lay on a volcanic stone plinth, which also contains private pedestrian accesses and which delimits the entire area at the southern side. The building disposition follows the heliothermal axis, responding to the requirements of maximum thermal and light performance,

#### FIGURE 2, 3

Eastern side of Posillipo Hill (left) and view from the Torre Ranieri top toward the bay of Pozzuoli (right), 2019

#### FIGURE 4 Original project plan by Luigi Cosenza, 1947

with the exception of a single building that is better adapted to the eastern edge of the area.3 Eleven of the blocks have two foors with two fats on each level, one has four foors and four have three foors. The typological conformation is simple and general due to the limited funds for the project, which came partly from the Ministry of Public Works and partly from CESUN, which prefers to invest in experiments rather than in architectural embellishments: the excessively stereometric shape of the buildings is instead better tem-

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6 The settlement in Torre Ranieri at Posillipo Hill facing the Neapolitan gulf on 1956

pered by the plastic articulation of loggias and balconies along the fronts open to the gulf landscape (Figs. 5, 6).

The structural solution foresees two main directions: vertical load-bearing walls made of prefabricated elements, and isolated and industrialised vertical load-bearing elements built in the workshop or on site. The use of prefabricated systems and elements aims at obtaining "free plan" housing and provides a new vision for modern accommodation. The experimentation concerned the organisation and rationalisation of the building workfow on site which, with the introduction of new technological and structural solutions, led to a reduction in production costs of 15 %, 20 % and 40 % in the three diferent settlement cases. In Building 12, for example, the introduction of centrifuged concrete load-bearing SCAC pillars is remarkable, and it also provides a solution for the distribution of electricity (Figs. 7–9)*.* 4

At the end of the work, Cosenza highlighted both the positive aspects of the project and the difculties caused principally by the interaction between industrialised construction and local working traditions: some structural systems failed to meet the precision requirements necessary for building industrialisation; some other systems, instead, could be implemented on site achieving positive results.

The urban set of buildings is fnally articulated within a private ring road that enables access to the entrances of each building; a central fowerbed rich in Mediterranean vegetation

FIGURE 7-8 (LEFT) Building 12 under construction, 1950

FIGURE 9 (RIGHT) Building 12, 2019

FIGURE 10, 11 (LEFT) Building 10 under construction, 1955 (above); f oor-plan type (below) (ed.)

FIGURE 11 (RIGHT) Building 10, 2019 (ed.)

is used as a common space.

Now the settlement, after years of random and poor maintenance, struggles to show the clear language and the modernity of the original project. Over time, the inhabitants of each building have independently changed both the front elements and the internal layout, resulting in a generally poor state of conservation that does not correspond well with the surrounding, rather luxurious environment.

#### NOTES

 1  CESUN: Centro Studi per l'Edilizia, founded in 1947 in collaboration with the Faculty of Engineering of the "Federico II" University of Naples thanks to a collaboration between the engineers Luigi Cosenza and Adriano Galli and the architect Francesco Della Sala. See Luigi Cosenza, *Esperienze di Architettura* (Naples: Macchiaroli, 1950).

 2  Cosenza refers in his article "Architectural Experiences" to developments in industrialised building in England, particularly the research conducted by the Hawksley workshop, and in France to the research of Centre Scientif que et Technique du Batiment. See Cosenza, *Esperienze di Architettura*.

 3  Located on the sloping ground, Bu ilding 10 has a more articulated elevation than the other buildings. It was built with the "Centro Studi" Building System: there are four staggered modules, two f oors with one dwelling per f oor, and silico-calcareous brick masonry. Each f at covers 130 square metres.

 4  Building 12 uses the Ciarlini System: four f oors with two dwellings and a total of forty rooms; SCAC poles, double-lined brick walls with lapillus conglomerate f lling and f oors in pre-compressed beams. The area of each lodging is 92 square metres.

FIGURE 13 The inner ring road and the green area inside the housing settlement, 2019

FIGURE 14 Buildings 5 and 6, 2019

FIGURE 15 Building 15, 2019

FIGURE 16 (LEFT, RIGHT) Building 16 and building 2, 2019

# RIONE TRAIANO *Giada Limongi\**

LOCATION Soccavo district

#### AGENCY

Comitato di Coordinamento per l'Edilizia Popolare CEP

#### DESIGNERS

Marcello Canino (Urban planning), M. Canino, C. Cocchia, F. Della Sala, A. De Pascale, S. Filo Speziale, E. Gentile, E. Lo Cicero, R. Salvatori, S. Paciello, M. Rispoli, G. Nicolosi, P. M. Lugli, D. Andriello, M. Forte, D. D'Albora, P. Sasso, M. Pizzolorusso (Architectural design)

BUILDING PERIOD 1959–72

SETTLEMENT AREA 134 ha

COVERING QUOTE 13 %

BUILDING STOREYS 2–9

DWELLING NUMBER — (25,000 rooms)

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY traditional

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design The Soccavo district is located in the north-western area of Naples, in the foothills of the Camaldoli, in a context of considerable environmental value and of a particular morphology provided by the volcanic origin of the surrounding Phlegrean Fields. The area was classif ed in the 1939 City Masterplan as agricultural, and it maintained this classif cation until the early 1950s, when the historical settlement was concentrated along Via Epomeo and only a few scattered farmhouses occupied the rest of the lush Soccavo basin. After World War II, the area underwent an urban development similar to that of the rest of Naples: to respond to the pressing demand for accommodation, many new settlements were planned and implemented following modern experimental models in opposition to the consolidated characteristics of the historical town, but without a general planning framework.1 Despite several attempts to get a unitary guide to the city expansion, this goal continually failed until 1972.

Rione Traiano is one of the thirty-one self-suf cient settlements programmed for Italian cities by the CEP Committee (Coordination Committee for Social Housing) since 1954 and built by a joint venture of the main public companies for social housing (IACP, INA-Casa, INCIS, Società pel Risanamento) in the southern part of Soccavo, in an area of about 130 ha. The CEP programme represented at the time an absolute innovation for social housing that intended a clear urban approach to the organic development of the territory.

In particular, Traiano's plan had been elaborated contemporaneously to the City Masterplan completed in 1958 but never approved, whose main targets were a clear urban expansion and the construction of the necessary infrastructure to ensure the connection of the city centre and the autonomy of the new districts at the same time. Due to the failure to approve the city masterplan, much planned infrastructure remained on paper for decades or was never built. For these reasons, Rione Traiano remained for many years partially isolated from the rest of the city, and it suf ered a permanent lack of public facilities.

The urban composition was strongly inf uenced by the natural site: the agricultural value of the soil and the morphological complexity of the area, deeply furrowed by a series of rills collecting the rain water descending from the Camaldoli Hill. The main target of the plan

FIGURE 1 Black and white plan of Rione Traiano at present

was to respect the identity of the site through a suitable balance between natural and urban layers (Figs. 2, 3).

The f rst design draft of 1957 envisaged seven residential units on the areas delimited by the existing and deep rills that cross the site (Figs. 3, 4). The plan foresaw a park-road crossing the neighbourhood from east to west, Viale Traiano, and a bridge surmounting the wider and deeper central rill. The master planner Marcello Canino took inspiration from northern European models of the 1950s, in particular from the Vallingy neighbourhood's experience of the 1952 Masterplan of Stockholm:2 the plan envisaged a self-suf cient functional character and foresaw a wide, well-distributed realisation of public facilities such as schools, gardens, social activities, cinemas, theatres and commercial activities.

Canino completed the design in 1959 with some variations (Fig. 5). The construction work

FIGURE 4, 5 Traiano masterplan by Marcello Canino. Version 1957 and 1959

FIGURE 2, 3 Model views of settlement's frst plan (1957) representing the urban synthetic layout (left), and the solution within the natural site (right)

began at the end of the same year, when the original name CEP Cinthia was changed to CEP Traiano because of the discovery of some remarkable archaeological fnds from the Roman imperial period.3 Quite soon waste and rubble resulting from the construction excavations started to be poured into the rills, compromising the morphological structure of the site—which had also been a reference for the urban design—and destroying its lush fora.<sup>4</sup>

The main axis, Viale Traiano, remained unfnished, and the neighbourhood stood divided in two parts for over ten years. Moreover, the growing demand for afordable accommodation in Naples led to an acceleration of the building works, focusing on the residences rather than the other facilities, which progressively increased the lack of public services that deeply characterised Rione Traiano in the following decades. From that time, the neighbourhood turned into a dormitory area, characterised by an increasing population density and by a progressively stronger social disease index.

In 1994 Rione Traiano was included in the Soccavo Urban Regeneration Plan. The agreement was singled out by the State Ministry for Public Works, the Campania Region and the Municipality of Naples. The Programme Agreement aimed at overcoming urban fragmentation by the regeneration of green areas, the completion of the road network and

#### FIGURE 6

The trafc system of Rione Traiano presently: urban railway (red), city highway (green), local main roads (blue)

the implementation of public spaces and facilities. Currently only a small part of the plan has been implemented.

Despite several alterations to the complex over the years, many distinctive features of the original plan are still recognisable:


urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 7, 8, 9 Urban typologies in Rione Traiano: towers, courtyard and square

FIGURE 10 (LEFT) Viale Traiano, 2019

FIGURE 11 (RIGHT) Housing by Michele Capobianco in Viale Traiano, 2019

FIGURE 12 In-line buildings with arcades and shops in Via Antonino Pio, 2019

The main architectural typologies are diferentiated by locations:


Most of the apartments have been bought during the years by residents who had been assigned them as social housing, other buildings are still public, and most of those sufer from lack of maintenance.

The neighbourhood structure refects its functional organisation: local residential services and facilities are mainly concentrated as the main commercial activities in the two cores, while scattered residential services are difusely located as secondary centres for the surrounding residential sectors. In terms of accessibility, these areas are well interconnected through a network of roads that branch of from the main Viale Traiano, while Via Cinthia and Via Giustiniano connect the neighbourhood with the city centre and the nearby districts. Also, the proximity to the city highway—the Tangenziale, built after 1972 in accordance with the new City Masterplan—enables a good private transfer system to the rest of Naples (Fig. 6).

Concerning public transport, the Circumfegrea railway serves the neighbourhood on its northern border through two stations—Traiano and Soccavo—but it also divides Rione Traiano from the older pre-existing settlement along Via Epomeo. To overcome trafc congestion and to increase accessibility to the entire area, a new underground station between Rione Traiano and the nearby university campus will be built in the coming years, which, together with an Art Stations project involving all the underground network of Naples, should represent a good opportunity for urban regeneration, at least to overcome the lack of permeability that characterises the neighbourhood today.

#### FIGURE 13

Piazza Ettore Vitale with San Giovanni Battista church and surrounding in-line buildings, 2019

#### FIGURE 14

Kindergarten in Via Quintiliano and surrounding detached and in-line housing buildings, 2019

#### NOTES

1  See Sergio Stenti, *Napoli moderna: Citta e case Popolari, 1868–1980* (Naples: Clean, 1993); Alessandro Dal Piaz, *Napoli 1945–1985. Quarant'anni di urbanistica* (Milan: Franco Angeli Editore, 1985).

2  Lilia Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli. La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica* (Naples: Electa 2001), pp. 155–58.

3  Gianluca Frediani, "Il quartiere Traiano di Marcello Canino. Distruzione di un modello," in *ArQ n.2, Architettura Quaderni 2, Sperimentazione Progettuale*, Dipartimento di Progettazione Urbana, Università degli Studi di Napoli, December 1989 (Rome: Ofcina Edizioni), pp. 67–77.

4  Adriana Galderisi and Andrea Ceudech, "La mitigazione del rischio idrogeologico attraverso gli strumenti ordinari di governo delle trasformazioni urbane. Il caso del quartiere Soccavo a Napoli." in Maria Cristina Treu, *Città, Salute, Sicurezza. Strumenti di governo e casi studio. La gestione del rischio* (Milan: Maggioli editore, 2009), pp. 474–502.

# QUARTIERE LA LOGGETTA

*Vincenzo Cirillo\**

LOCATION Soccavo-Fuorigrotta district

AGENCY The Municipality of Naples, INA-Casa

#### DESIGNERS

Giulio De Luca (Urban planning). The construction of four lots was entrusted to a group of architects: Carlo Cocchia (west lot), Renato D'Ambrosio and Alfredo Sbriziolo (central lots), Gerardo Mazziotti (north lot). The church of Beata Vergine Immacolata di Lourdes was designed by Michele Capobianco

BUILDING PERIOD 1956–57

SETTLEMENT AREA 11.6 ha

COVERING QUOTE 21 %

BUILDING STOREYS 2–8

DWELLING NUMBER 753 (27 buildings, 3,800 rooms)

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY traditional

La Loggetta is a social housing settlement in Naples located in the west area of the city between the neighbourhoods of Fuorigrotta and Soccavo. Built between 1956 and 1957, it was developed as a project by the architect and urban planner Giulio De Luca for the INA-Casa, the intervention plan conceived in the immediate post-war period aimed at the realization of public residential buildings throughout the national territory and as a result of the National Law No. 43 of February 28, 1949 proposed by Amintore Fanfani to increase occupation by facilitating the construction of houses for workers.

This neighbourhood was born in research on a more suitable building typology for the settlement place and as a concrete opportunity to shape an idea of an autonomous city able

#### FIGURE 2

La Loggetta, plan of approved and realised project, 1956

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

0 50 100 200 400 m

FIGURE 1 Black and white plan of La Loggetta neighbourhood at present

to grow with functionally autonomous parts that were morphologically f nished, to move away from the classic scheme of terraced houses. The ambition was to create complexes of residential units based on a large conscious relationship between man and environment, both on the smaller scale of the dwelling units (grouped and articulated around a nucleus such as a place of education) and on the larger scale of the so-called self-suf cient neigh-

FIGURE 3 Project model, 1956 urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 4

Dwelling foor typology of the terrace houses in the east area by BBPR Banf, Belgiojoso, Peressutti, Rogers

FIGURE 5, 6 Via Mario Gigante eastwards and westwards. Photos by Paolo Monti, 1958

bourhood (for services and for economic, cultural and religious life). All this took place within a confused national frame of reference, in the absence of city masterplans, including that of Naples, which in the early 1950s had still not been ratifed.

As one of the frst large post-war building complexes, La Loggetta was therefore able to confer a unitary character on the building concentration. The project, in fact, provided all the services related to the residence: primary schools, a social centre, religious buildings and recreational spaces for children from the start. There were also numerous merchant and restoration points, which contributed to achieving a reasonable level of commerce, both quantitative and qualitative. With La Loggetta, it was also hoped to solve the problems linked to the dwellings of the so-called "*bassi*" (very common lived spaces in Neapolitan buildings at ground level) of the historical districts and the illicit trafc which was commonly located there.

Thanks to the hilly topography of the lot, La Loggetta has the characteristic shape of a medieval town, enclosed within itself. The southern area, in respect of the natural orography of the land, was designed on a rocky ridge that confgures a jump in altitude, present-

FIGURE 7 Church Beata Vergine Immacolata di Lourdes by Michele Capobianco. Photo by Paolo Monti, 1958 (ed.)

ing a view of the neighbourhood in the area below. This feature metaphorically enhances the closed character of the town. Furthermore, the road system with its particular spindly shape is autonomous with respect to the surrounding city. The road network follows the slightly sinuous track of the contour lines, and the location of public spaces and equipment is subordinated to the requirement for panoramic views. Modern and typical elements of rationalist design are *pilotis*, perfectly combined with the elements of organic architecture.

A national competition was announced for the design and the construction of the new settlement, and the entire structure (built to accommodate about 5,000 inhabitants) was built in a few years. In the central part, the urban project of Giulio De Luca, winner of the challenge, foresees a neighbourhood with a main road comprised of low and continuous building curtains. The main entrances are from Via Terracina (at the Via Cintia intersection) to the west and, from Via Cassiodoro to the east (at the point of convergence of the axes from Fuorigrotta, Soccavo and Vomero). The buildings have a predominant northsouth layout, and the entrances are positioned to ofer sunshine to the main rooms of the accommodation. The architecture has a simple style, with building curtains of irregular heights, interrupted by green spaces (Figs. 2, 3).

There are diferent types of housing, including twenty-fve terraced buildings composed of two, three or four foors; an eight-storey tower building; and semi-detached townhouses. The total amount of housing in La Loggetta is around 753 residences, which can house approximately 3,800 people. The buildings mainly have longitudinal development, adhering to the original terrain (Figs. 5, 6). In the main artery (via Mario Gigante), there are services and shops, while in the areas at higher altitudes, the parish church is located to the east, the nursery school and the social centre are in the centre, and the primary school is in the west. The neighbourhood unfolds in a unifed and coherent manner that seems to have arisen on purpose to produce a homogeneous community, well defned in its characteris-

FIGURE 8 Diferent majolica tiles connoting each INA-Casa building as a "happy place" (ed.)

FIGURE 9 Via Mario Gigante. Raised square of Immacolata Church at the rear, 2020

FIGURE 10 Building façade along Via Mario Gigante, 2020

FIGURE 11 Via Vincenzo Ceravolo, 2020 tics and needs. Moreover, the attention to materials, textures and colours according to the principles of the new aesthetic toward the function and the urban landscape prevents the environment from expressing a certain conformity.

During construction, La Loggetta was divided into several lots, each of which was entrusted to diferent groups of architects: Carlo Cocchia (west lot), Renato D'Ambrosio and Alfredo Sbriziolo (central lots), Gerardo Mazziotti (north lot), Michele Capobianco for the central Church of Vergine Immacolata di Lourdes, which, recognizable from outside due to its tall, brick bell tower, underlines the character of a natural enclosure (Fig. 7). The fats, fnally, built between 1956 and 1957 with fnancing from CECA, were assigned to workers in the iron and steel industries of near Bagnoli.

Nowadays, this neighbourhood does not appear liveable. More and more frequently there are problems of social degradation, such as robbery. The neighbourhood's problems were exacerbated by the construction of the A56 ring road, the Tangenziale, which took place in 1972, and which formed a border for the neighbourhood, creating a limited space in the northern area and blocking access to the Ciaravolo's park, which is the only green space in the neighbourhood.

# QUARTIERE CANZANELLA

*Giada Limongi\**

#### LOCATION Soccavo district

AGENCY INA-Casa

#### DESIGNERS

Giulio De Luca (Urban planning). Master planning and architecture of four sectors was entrusted to a group of architects: M. Fiorentino, G. Sterbini, L. Anversa, I. Insolera, C. Limentani, A. Quistelli, G. Zani, E. Ascione, E. Corona, G. Incorvaia, F. Novelli, S. Volpe (north sector); G. De Luca, G. Bruno, R. De Fusco, L. Mendia, G. Sambito (south sector); D. Maione, L. Carlevaro, E. Mendia, A. Navarra, G. Perrone (north-west sector); M. Canino, S. Filo Speziale, G. Cozzolino, M. Cretella, G. Del Monaco, F. Jossa, G. Di Simone, C. Chiurazzi (south-west sector)

BUILDING PERIOD 1957–63

SETTLEMENT AREA 26 ha

COVERING QUOTE 35 %

BUILDING STOREYS 2–9

DWELLING NUMBER 1,673 (102 buildings, 9,059 rooms)

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY traditional

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design The INA-Casa Soccavo-Canzanella is a social housing neighbourhood built in the Soccavo area, at the same time as La Loggetta and CEP Traiano. Built between 1957 and 1963, Quartiere Canzanella is located in the western suburban area of Naples, characterised by a particularly hilly morphology.

The area had been previously classif ed in the 1939 City Masterplan as agricultural and assigned a very low building density in accordance with the 1935 Building Regulation. Compared to the growing housing demand after the war, this requirement appeared suddenly inappropriate and required a substantial change of perspective in approaching and responding to a housing emergency. Despite that, and the widely recognised inappropriateness of the 1939 City Masterplan, the attempt to approve a new city masterplan failed

FIGURE 2 First plan of the settlement, 1959

FIGURE 1 Black and white plan of Quartiere Canzanella at present

in 1945, and there was a second attempt in 1959. Meanwhile, the common practice of building new social housing settlements without specif c guidelines in the city masterplan was legitimised on national level by the 1949 Fanfani Law, which envisaged and regulated the new public housing INA-Casa programme. The two seven-year plans aimed at encouraging the promotion of building activities all over the country and the employment of numerous people to respond to the pressing housing demand by the poor classes. In this context the INA-Casa Soccavo-Canzanella was designed and built in jointly by the new coming CEP Traiano and the Vomero Hill.

The urban layout of the new neighbourhood derives from an adaptation of the urban structure to the peculiar morphology of the site. The main cross-cutting road separates the sloping lots from the f at area, while another road goes up the slope interconnecting the neighbourhood and the Vomero Hill. The road layout divides the dif erent residential sectors disposed around the central hill where the main residential services and the public facilities are grouped: the church designed by Giulio De Luca with its unusual shape (Fig. 11); the public hall designed by Stefania Filo Speziale and Giorgio Di Simone, volumearticulated to emphasise the contour lines of the hill prof le and located along the crossroad, going further down in line with the church; and the schools and local markets scattered in the various residential sectors and in green areas (Fig. 4).1

#### FIGURE 3

The trafc system: urban railway (red), city highway (green), local main roads (blue)

Diferent groups of designers were involved in the project, in accordance with the urban coordination of Giulio De Luca. Each group was responsible for an autonomous sub-part in terms of both urban and architectural composition:


#### FIGURE 4, 5, 6, 7

North sector coordinated by Mario Fiorentino and Giulio Sterbini, in series: plan of the dwelling foor typologies; (front page) cross sections of Via Piave, view of Via Piave, 1962, ground foor plan type (ed.)

aggregation (Figs. 4–7, 10).3 The facades are brick clad on the frst two foors/basement; further foors are treated with plaster, as are many buildings in the nearby CEP Traiano;

• the western fat sector along Via Giustiniano, designed under coordination of Marcello Canino and Stefania Filo Speziale (south side) and by Delia Maione (north-west side), is characterised by line buildings grouped to form open courtyards with irregular shapes. The whole urban layout of the three sectors refects conformity with the natural site by the diferent schools of architecture the groups represented, at the same time maintaining a feeling of uniformity.

As in the case of nearby CEP Traiano and other settlements from the INA-Casa programme, not all the elements of the urban design were realised as planned, as they usually preferred the construction of residential buildings to public buildings and green areas. In case of Soccavo-Canzanella, the failures included a shopping centre designed by Mario Fiorentino and Giulio Sterbini in 1963 and never built, and the alteration of public hall facades to match the quality of the public space.4 Moreover, many residential buildings were afected by changes over the years during maintenance works or private construction: for

example, the brick or concrete screens inserted to hide drying racks on the building facades of Mario Fiorentino and Marcello Canino sectors, were gradually eliminated.5 The arcades along Via Piave, which were closed up and privatised due to the interventions of the inhabitants over the years, had a similar destiny.

Nowadays, the neighbourhood maintains its role of urban link between the Vomero Hill and CEP Traiano, between lower and upper Naples and its centre. It is also well connected with the rest of the city thanks to the good road network of the western metropolitan area and to the main urban highway, the Tangenziale, bordering the neighbourhood on the south east edge. Also, the Circumfegrea railway and the nearby Piave Station provides a good public transport service to the city centre and the suburban railroad network (Fig. 3). Due to its role as an urban link and its good connections, there is a good social mix and there is no signifcant marginalisation or social disease.

#### NOTES

1  See Benito De Sivo, M. Fumo, F. Polverino, G. Ausiello, and A. Di Gangi, "Il settore nord del quartiere Soccavo-Canzanella a Napoli (1957–1962)," in *L'architettura INA-Casa (1949–1963). Aspetti e problemi di conservazione e recupero*, ed. R. Capomolla and R. Vittorini (Rome: Gangemi Editore, 2003), pp. 315–23. See also Carolina De Falco, "L'INA Casa a Bagnoli, Agnano e Canzanella e gli interventi della Filo Speziale: ripartire dalla Storia per la salvaguardia ambientale," in *La Baia di Napoli. Strategie integrate per la conservazione e la fruizione del paesaggio culturale*, ed. A. Aveta, B. G. Marino, and R. Amore (Naples: Artstudiopaparo, 2017), pp. 206–07.

2  Lilia Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli. La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica* (Naples: Electa 2001), pp. 153–55.

3  "Quartiere Soccavo-Canzanella a Napoli (Settore Nord)," *Casabella Continuità* (1959, n. 228), pp. 17–18. 4  Carolina De Falco, "L'INA Casa a Bagnoli," pp. 206–07.

5  Carolina De Falco, "Case pubbliche e Ricostruzione: Immaginare lo sviluppo di Napoli a Occidente," in *Eikonocity. Storia E Iconografa Delle Città E Dei Siti Europei* (Naples: FedOA Press - Centro di Ateneo per le Biblioteche dell'Università di Napoli Federico II, 2017), pp. 94–95.

FIGURE 8 South sector coordinated by Giulio De Luca: view of Via Piave, 1962 (ed.)

FIGURE 9 South sector: urban typology facing the church in neighbourhood centre (ed.)

FIGURE 10 North sector, Via Piave, 2019

FIGURE 11 Church Nostra Signora di Fatima by Giulio De Luca surmounting the settlement, 2019

FIGURE 12 North sector in the forest landscape of Camaldoli, 2020

FIGURE 13 North sector, Via Adige, 2020

# "LE VELE" IN SCAMPIA *Vincenzo Cirillo\**

LOCATION Scampia, Secondigliano

AGENCY Cassa per il Mezzogiorno

DESIGNER Franz di Salvo

BUILDING PERIOD 1965–75

SETTLEMENT AREA about 1,450 km²

COVERING QUOTE 14 %

BUILDING STOREYS 2–14

DWELLING NUMBER roughly 7,000 in origin

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY mostly traditional

\*University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design "Le Vele" in the Scampia neighbourhood in Naples is a social housing complex in a large free area to the north of the city, beyond Capodichino's airport, and bordered by the ancient Piscinola, Secondigliano, Miano and Marianella hamlets. The term *Scampia*, an expression of Neapolitan dialectal origin, derives from "non-cultivated f eld" or "abandoned f eld." This area, identif ed by the Naples Municipality as an appropriate site to accommodate the urban expansion of the city, became the site of a Plan for Af ordable and Social Housing (PEEP, Piano di Edilizia Economica e Popolare) project pursuant to National Law No. 167/1962. This law permitted municipalities and public companies to use the expropriation for public utility for social such housing plans.

Part of the wider PEEP settlement, and characterised by great conf dence in technological innovations, Le Vele belongs to the cultural design trend known as Mega-Structuralism, which has spread since the end of the 1950s to almost all Western countries. Placed onto two neighbouring plots of land, Le Vele is inspired by the *Unitè d'Habitation* of Le Corbusier (with self-suf cient buildings, raised from the ground by *pilotis*, green roofs and integrated collective facilities, and horizontal and vertical connections inside the buildings to leave the frontages on the streets free), the architectural principles of Walter Gropius (with tall buildings, minimal cells, detached collective facilities and considerable distances between buildings to ensure light and air) and Kenzo Tange's trestles structure (an urban and architectural design was similar to a living organism, using terms such as cell and metabolism).

Born from the need to host thousands of people from various parts of Naples, Le Vele's design began after ministerial approval in 1965 by the Cassa del Mezzogiorno public f nance channel to ensure the social and economic development of South Italy. The project, by the architect Franz di Salvo, involved the construction of approximately 7,000 dwellings distributed across various large buildings. In accordance with the principles of Mega-Structuralism and the urban planning rules, di Salvo placed the buildings in an urban context characterised by wide streets and green f elds, and he placed the buildings at great distances from each other (Figs. 2–4).

Di Salvo articulated the building morphology following two principles: the tower and the

FIGURE 1 Black and white plan of the Vele settlement within "167" Scampia neighbourhood at present

#### FIGURE 2

Le Vele in Scampia. Plan for Afordable and Social Housing, Lots 'M' and 'L' by Franz di Salvo, 1962

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 3 Le Vele, view of the competition model, 1962

tent. Both typologies were characterised in cross section by the combination of two blocks separated by an empty corridor space crossed by long shelters suspended at an intermediate height in accordance with the housing quota and served by centralised vertical connections with several groups of staircases and lifts (Fig. 5). The horizontal connection system enables access to the individual residential units, leaving the external frontages with views and light, and a panorama of Vesuvio and the surrounding green area. The ground foor, inspired by the principles of Le Corbusier's *Unitè d'Habitation*, hosting public facilities and shops, was built on *pilotis*; the underground level, by contrast, contains car parking and storage areas for residences.

According to the original plan, all the dwellings should have been distributed across eight buildings (only seven were built), whose distance should have allowed the sun to shine on the fronts and to enter all the dwellings on both the west and the east sides of the building. To ensure the best sun exposure (east-west), each dwelling unit was designed to be arranged longitudinally in a north-south direction. The Vele's frontages are almost 100 metres long and the height varies from 2–4 foors at the edges to 14 in their centre.

Franz di Salvo did not direct the construction. During building, the distances between the two blocks of each building were reduced and the staircases in the middle corridor space were made of heavier materials than planned. Furthermore, many areas of the building

FIGURE 4 Le Vele, plan of the realised project

#### FIGURE 5 (LEFT)

"Dwelling Floor Typology" in the original project of the Vele, 1962

FIGURE 8 (RIGHT) Vela "A" and "B." Photo by Enzo Abramo, 2007 (ed.)

FIGURE 6 (LEFT) *Le occasioni di Rosa*, movie by Salvatore Piscicelli set in Scampia (1981)

FIGURE 7 (RIGHT) Le Vele in a picture from the 1980s were not reached by sunlight and remained dark. Social areas were omitted (the public facilities on ground foor were never built, and nor was the landscape gardening in surrounding green areas).

There were many reasons for this, including the changes in the design both for economic reasons by construction companies (which changed during the execution phase) and due to a lack of management of the public institution (a discontinuity in project fnancing, the illegal interests of several constructors, and the weakness of public management). In fact, during construction, the light shelter structure designed by di Salvo was replaced by a heavier one, and the housing volume increased due to a reduction in the depth of the front balconies; the public facilities (green, commercial and recreational areas) and the urban infrastructure were never built; the cross section of the hanging corridors was reduced and the multi-foor spaces, which were strategically planned in the less sunny areas, were closed. Thus, the alterations in the project produced a change of form, structure and perception, which deeply compromised the meaning of the intervention. Also, therefore, Le Vele became a dormitory neighbourhood, whose housing was partly illegally occupied by people afected by the earthquake in 1980, and it subsequently became the seat of local Camorra. Fifteen years after the frst housing assignments, the lack of infrastructure connections to

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 9 (LEFT) Le Vele in the Scampia neighborhood with the Ciro Esposto Park at the rear, 2019

FIGURE 10 (RIGHT) Internal walkways in Vela "B," 2019

FIGURE 11 Demolition of Vela "A," 2020 the city centre made the neighbourhood notorious as the most dangerous and degraded in Italy (Figs. 6–10).

Nowadays, only three of the seven buildings still exist, as the other four were demolished between 1997 and 2020. In 2016, the Municipality of Naples approved a regeneration project for the area named *Restart Scampia*, which proposed the demolition of two other buildings (three, including the last demolition in 2020), providing for only the recovery of Vela "B."

At present, in part a result of these interventions, there is a strong desire for social redemption among the residents of Scampia and Le Vele. In the private sector, there are numerous

FIGURE 12 The urban gate of Piscinola-Scampia metro station, 2019 (ed.)

associations of volunteers involved in social action and in promoting a completely new vision for the area: The Albero delle Storie is taking care of children's playgrounds and reading the children fairy tales, Chikù, a gastronomic space curated by neighbourhood and Roma women, as well as associations such as Arci Scampia, Centro Hurtado and GRIDAS, are continually fghting the persistence of a degraded vision of the neighbourhood (in the case of GRIDAS*,* through street art).

In the public sector, there have been several regeneration interventions such as the construction of the new Piscinola-Scampia metro station on the line between Caserta and Naples, which is both an infrastructural and a cultural node, and new gateway to the city centre highlighted by the presence of remarkable street art both inside the metro from Felice Pignataro and outside from Jorit Agoch (Fig. 12). His 2019 painting on the building headboards of Via Gobetti, facing the new metro station, represents Angela Davis and Pier Paolo Pasolini with two red stripes on both cheeks, recalling the unanimous and common consent that all people belong to the human tribe.

FIGURE 13 View of Le Vele from the Ciro Esposito Park, 2019 (ed.)

# MONTERUSCIELLO *Vito Capasso\**

LOCATION Monterusciello, Pozzuoli

#### AGENCY Ministry of Civil Protection, Municipality of Pozzuoli

DESIGNER Agostino Renna

BUILDING PERIOD 1983–84

SETTLEMENT AREA 250 ha

#### COVERING QUOTE1

Buildings with patio: 46 %; Open courtyard buildings: 52 %; Multi-storey buildings: 19 %; commercial buildings: 39 %

BUILDING STOREY 2–5

DWELLING NUMBER 3,757 (from min. 45 m2 to max. 95 m2 )

CONSTRUCTION THECHNOLOGY mostly prefab

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design The Monterusciello district is in the Pozzuoli municipality, part of the metropolitan area of Naples and the wider Phlegraean Fields, rich in archaeological remains, but also afected by frequent volcanic and bradyseismic phenomena. In particular, bradyseism, which manifests itself in a gradual movement of raising and lowering of the soil, has led recently to two events: in 1970 and 1983.2 The frst led to the evacuation of the inhabitants of Rione Terra of the Pozzuoli ancient core and to their resettlement in the new Toiano district, which was not directly afected by bradyseism and were a new housing complex had already been completed, focusing on this purpose. The second and more dangerous event led to the construction of the wider Monterusciello housing settlement, which was necessary to accommodate many inhabitants evacuated from the Pozzuoli city centre.3 Even peripheral,

Map of Monterusciello in the volcanic topography of the Phlegraean Fields: the new district (above), Pozzuoli and its ancient harbour (centre) (ed.)

#### FIGURE 1

Black and white plan of Monterusciello district at present

state government and local authorities chose this inner area because it had a low bradyseism risk and because of its centrality in the context of the wider Phlegraean Fields urbanisation.

The settlement's design had started in 1983, and the Ministry for the Coordination for Civil Protection was responsible for the intervention, derogating from the existing urban planning regulations4 and speeding up the realisation of the intervention. The Ministry programmed two settlements that dif er in size, extent and site organisation. In September

#### FIGURE 3 (RIGHT), 4 (NEXT PAGE)

First plan of the urban structure (the north is downwards) and perspective view (front page) by Agostino Renna, 1984

1983, a frst programme planned the construction of 600 dwellings, named Monterusciello 1, built in an area that had been already urbanised through 1971 National Law No. 475 for Social Housing. The following November, through Ministerial Order No. 54, a second programme foresaw the construction of a further 4,000 dwellings (3,757 realised), named Monterusciello 2, in accordance with the new Extraordinary Programme for Residential Building (*Piano Straordinario di Edilizia Residenziale*) and the 1983 National Law No. 748, fnancing it with a consistent sum of about 220 million euros. In 1984, the ministry agreed with the municipality of Pozzuoli and the University of Naples, entrusting the masterplan to Umberto Siola, director of the Architecture Department.5 The construction proceeded speedily, relying on the wide use of prefab moduls. In March 1986, the primary urbanisation works were completed, and all the housing units were handed over to the 20,000 displaced inhabitants (Fig. 5).

The preliminary design was carried out by the Department of Architecture of the University of Naples and led by the architect Agostino Renna,6 coordinating a large group of designers (Figs. 3, 4).7 The government authorities entrusted the implementation of the project to eighteen diferent contractors. Also, due to the diversity of construction technologies, the settlement area was divided into eighteen units, to which a nineteenth was added focusing the construction of the road infrastructure.8 The urban layout designed by Renna referred clearly to the historical city, and in particular to the *ippodameo* grounding

FIGURE 5 Plan of the approved project (north is downwards),

1984

#### FIGURE 6

Housing unit: plans and fronts by Agostino Renna, 1986

model.9 The regular grid of the residential units enclosed by an east-west main street system oriented buildings and public spaces.10 The urban dimension overrode the architectural. Utilitarian and social purposes were also important, as was the continuous matrix pattern of residential buildings, which were intended as the basic form of further possible selfstratifcation, an urban model that should have become a start-up for the urban development of the surrounding rural environment and its merging with the city centre of Pozzuoli.11

urheberrechtlich geschützt

Due to rapid and continuous construction activity, many planned public buildings and urban facilities remained unbuilt.

The urban structure of the settlement originates from the sloping morphology of the ground. The higher southern area is the core of the settlement, where the most important public destinations, such as the town hall, the medical centre, the main church and the food market are located. The lower northern area hosts commerce, has low building density and is better connected to the metropolitan transport systems, the Via Domitiana highway and the Circumfegrea railway. In between on sloping ground is the wider and more regular organisation of the mono-functional residential blocks.

FIGURE 7 (LEFT) Pathway beside the civic square at centre of the residential upper sector. Photo by Peppe Maisto, 1998 (ed.)

FIGURE 8 (RIGHT) Housing units on the slope surrounded by pergolas. Photo by Peppe Maisto, 1998 (ed.)

The three diferent areas are interconnected by a network of green and public spaces. No single street connects the northern with the southern part directly, but a network of main and secondary streets, as well pedestrian links, follows or crosses the terraced disposition of the residential blocks and of the public spaces. The settlement, in fact, is defned by the overlapping of public and primary elements displaced onto the residential unit pattern.12

Building typologies include multi-storey buildings, open- and closed-court buildings, and autonomous commercial buildings. Prefabricated construction technologies have been adopted for all kind of realisations, such as reinforced concrete structures—composed of structural cores and bracing elements—concrete walls, concrete wall panels, concrete box, steel elements and concrete slabs.13

FIGURE 9 (LEFT) View from the civic square atop the hill, 2019

FIGURE 10 (RIGHT) Civic square and housing units, 2019

FIGURE 11 (LEFT) Connecting pathways and housing units, 2019

FIGURE 12 (TOP RIGHT) Housing units (left), outdoor and indoor markets (right) along Via Umberto Saba, 2019

FIGURE 13 (BOTTOM RIGHT) Connecting pathways arranged into terraces, 2019 The realisation of the Monterusciello housing estate has certainly produced interesting results from the point of view of cooperation between public authorities and construction of a large, permanent settlement in a short period of time, with efcient cost control and reduced use of land.14 However, the new inhabitants still sufer presently from renouncing their original social and economic environment, which was strongly related to the historical background of old Pozzuoli and its harbour tradition. Old and new generations face difculties deriving from their integration into the totally new urban, physical and cultural condition. Furthermore, the lack of urban facilities and the general incompleteness of the image of the city increases their sense of loss. In fact, the wide scale of the layout, the large urban voids, the incompleteness of the secondary urbanisation works, the failure to build many public facilities, and the poor employment situation exacerbate the difculties in building up a sense of identity, of belonging, and social cohesion among the inhabitants.15 To face this critical condition, the Monterusciello district has recently engaged in territorial transformation strategies, such as the Monterusciello Agro-City (MAC) promoted by the European Union, to stimulate the social environment, interconnecting the urban with agricultural and rural areas and to improve job opportunities.16

#### NOTES

1  Francesco Escalona and Dora Francese, *Monteruscello: L'impianto urbano e gli edifci pubblici*, Progetto Pozzuoli, Quaderni di documentazione, n. 3 (Naples: Giannini, 1987), pp. 19–20.

2  The last event was accompanied by over 10,000 earthquakes. See also the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology website: http://www.ov.ingv.it/ov/it/campi-fegrei/attivita-recente.html.

3  Between 1970–72 and 1982–84, there was a maximum total rise of the soil of over 3 m.

4  At that time, Pozzuoli had still no city masterplan, but only building regulations. The ministry invited the local government to remedy this in time to enable the further extraordinary interventions and to frame them into a coherent territorial comprehension. With Order No. 54 of November 7, 1983, the ministry fnally programmed the new settlement autonomously, derogating to national urban legal previsions.

5  Escalona and Francese, *Monteruscello*, pp. 9–18.

6  Renna studied under the guidance of Aldo Rossi, and after his frst experience as an urban planner and architect in Abruzzo, he established a leading position at Naples University and made his name throughout Southern Italy.

7  Renna led a large group of designers including R. Lucci, A. Lavaggi, D. Rabitti, V. Biasibetti, A. Bovier, A. Calligaris, G. De Pertis, A. Dinetti, F. Escalona, D. Francese, F. Iovino, M. La Greca, F. Romano, F. Russo Cardone, V. Patitucci, N. Salvatori, A. Sarto, D. Smarrazzo, S. Volpe, G. D'Angelo and P. Pozzo. See Lilia Pagano, *Agostino Renna*. *Rimontaggio di un pensiero sulla conoscenza dell'architettura. Antologia di scritti e progetti 1964–1988* (Naples: CLEAN Edizioni, 2012), p. 303; Escalona and Francese, *Monteruscello*, pp. 9–18.

8  Pagano, *Agostino Renna*, p. 304.

9  Escalona and Francese, *Monteruscello*, pp. 11–12.

10  Pagano, *Agostino Renna*, p. 310.

11  Escalona and Francese, *Monteruscello*, pp. 11–12.

12  Pagano, *Agostino Renna*, pp. 307–11.

13  Escalona and Francese, *Monteruscello*, pp. 19–20.

14  Pagano, *Agostino Renna*, p. 311.

15  Amalia Signorelli, *Antropologia urbana. Introduzione alla ricerca in Italia* (Milan: Guerini Studio, 1996), pp. 133–53.

16  *Monterusciello Agro-City* (MAC): A project funded under UIA (Urban Innovative Actions), an initiative of the European Union aimed to support innovative ideas and actions to promote sustainable development of urban areas. The MAC project proposed a series of activities aiming to develop the urban environment and social conditions. See also www.macpozzuoli.eu; www.uia-initiative.eu.

# **II COMPARISON**

# COMPARATIVE PHOTOGRAPHIC JOURNEY *Johannes Reinders*

#### URBAN APPROACH

NAPLES: (1) Rione Traiano, (2) Monterusciello, (3) Torre Ranieri

BERLIN: (4) Marzahn, (5) Landsberger Allee near Marzahn, (6) Märkisches Viertel

NAPLES: (7) "Le Vele" in Scampia, (8) Torre Ranieri, (9) Monterusciello

BERLIN: (10) Märkisches Viertel, (11) Marzahn-Hellersdorf, (12) Marzahn

#### TRANSITION ZONES

NAPLES: (13–15) Le Vele

BERLIN: (16–18) Marzahn-Hellersdorf

NAPLES: (19) Scampia "167," (20) Torre Ranieri, (21) Le Vele

BERLIN: (22, 23) Marzahn-Hellersdorf, (24) Karl-Marx-Allee II

#### FACADE

NAPLES: (25) Torre Ranieri, (26) Le Vele, (27) Rione Traiano, (28) Scampia "167"

BERLIN: (29) "Neues Kreuzberg Zentrum," (30) Märkisches Viertel, (31) Marzahn-Hellersdorf

NAPLES: (32) Rione Traiano, (33) Le Vele

#### WINDOWS

NAPLES: (36, 37) Rione Traiano, (38–41) Monterusciello

BERLIN: (42, 43, 45, 46) Marzahn-Hellersdorf, (44, 47) Karl-Marx-Allee II

#### ENTRANCES

NAPLES: (48) Torre Ranieri, (49, 50) Monterusciello, (51) Le Vele

BERLIN: (52-55) Marzahn-Hellersdorf

#### BALCONIES

NAPLES: (56–60, 62) Rione Traiano, (61) Scampia "167"

BERLIN: (63–67) Marzahn-Hellersdorf, (68, 69) Karl-Marx-Allee II

# COMPARATIVE ARTICLES

Back to the Microscale. Berlin IBA-Altbau and Märkisches Viertel, Naples Scampia and Rione Traiano: A Comparison *Natalia Kvitkova, Giada Limongi, Lorenza Manfredi, Dario Marfella*

"The New Man." Interview with Mirella La Magna *Luciano Lauda*

Dynamics of Experimentation by Building the Post-War City in Berlin and Naples *Ilenia Gioia, Lorenza Manfredi, Antonello Scopacasa*

"Fragile Born." Interview with Davide Cerullo *Ornella Zerlenga*

Design and Implementation: Failures of Models and New Opportunities *Giada Limongi, Vito Capasso, Natalia Kvitkova, Martin Spalek*

Taking Social Work to the Streets with Gangway. Interview with Murat Drayef and Mary Brehmer *Ilenia Gioia, Natalia Kvitkova*

**154** COMPARISON

#### ACRONYM LIST


Votive installation on Viale Traiano, Naples. Photo 2019

# BACK TO THE MICROSCALE. BERLIN IBA-ALTBAU AND MÄRKISCHES VIERTEL, NAPLES SCAMPIA AND RIONE TRAIANO: A COMPARISON

*Natalia Kvitkova\*, Giada Limongi\*\*, Lorenza Manfredi\* \*\*\*, Dario Marfella\*\**

# urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 1 IBA-Altbau, autumn meeting in the neighbourhood centre "Regenbogenfabrik." Photo by Kostas Kouvelis, 1982 (ed.)

#### \* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

\*\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

\*\*\* IUAV University of Venice, Department of Architecture, City and Design

#### BACK TO THE MICRO SCALE

Large scale social housing projects, which formed the greater part of urban renewal programmes in Berlin and Naples, were launched in the 1950s in response to the growing housing demand as a consequence of the devastation of World War II and the establishment of new political systems. These sudden and large-scale solutions addressed public needs on a macro scale. Their realisation was afected by dwindling resources, leading to signifcant delays in building infrastructure, residential services and facilities in both Naples, as seen in the case of Scampia, and in Berlin's Märkisches Viertel. These neighbourhoods became dormitories for low-income tenants and other vulnerable groups. The lack of social mix, job opportunities and maintenance of the buildings and public spaces led to progressive urban decay and social segregation. The ongoing neglect of social housing neighbourhoods drove social problems and fostered a sense of disillusionment, political indiference and disintegration of the social fabric that had been characteristic of the districts from which the new citizens had arrived. In the last decades of the twentieth century, the absence of urban regeneration policies exacerbated the problem, generating crime and discouraging the private fnancial investments necessary for their maintenance or renewal. Where the top-down approach failed, local communities were urged by the need to redeem their social status and to respond to the social segregation and urban degradation through the appropriation of abandoned spaces and the reinterpretation of their uses. The numerous examples of bottom-up approaches by citizens and associations we observed during the workshop achieved several objectives, among them:


Very often, the actions are not limited to abandoned spaces, but they involve the whole neighbourhood in activating new processes of urban regeneration.

These objectives were at the heart of the work of the IBA-Altbau in Berlin during the urban renewal of the Kreuzberg neighbourhood. This initiative represented a paradigm

#### FIGURE 2

IBA-Altbau, summer party of the neighbourhood centre "Regenbogenfabrik" and projects exhibition along the street. Photo by Kostas Kouvelis, 1982

urheberrechtlich geschützt urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 3

IBA-Altbau, Hardt-Waltherr Hämer speaking at an information event in front of the shop of the tenant advisory service, the "Mieterladen" in the Dresdner Straße. Photo by Jürgen Henschel, 1984

shift in urban planning from the macro to the micro scale, which emerged during the 1968 student protests. It became increasingly relevant thanks to the activities of critical architects experimenting with this new approach, which has been defned as "*Gegenplanung*" (counter planning).1 It recognised city renewal as a collective achievement of the protest and resistance movement, in which those directly afected played an active and decisive role. The role of the experts was a completely new one—instead of taking advantage of the eventual autonomy derived from their specialised skills, the architects and urban planners acted as «catalysts and professional translators» of the needs and desires of the communities present on the territory, arousing controversies, questioning the status quo and awaking the protest around urban issues.2

To gain a localised knowledge and a deeper connection with the inhabitants of the areas entailed in their planning activity, the architects who were involved in the protests that followed 1968 founded many of their ofces directly in the neighbourhoods. One such example was the *Büro für Stadtsanierung und soziale Arbeit* (Ofce for Urban Renewal and Social Work) located in Oranienplatz, the middle of Kreuzberg. Alongside their planning activities, the ofce organised and hosted a series of debates, discussions and surveys, becoming, therefore, one of the frst ofces to consult with citizens, and defne its work—in contrast to the large-scale projects—as «a real utopia in plan, sections and bird-views».<sup>3</sup> This built up the background towards the IBA-Altbau activities, allowing a new selfawarness to emerge between the protesters and the residents of vulnerable areas (Figs. 1–6).

Hardt-Waltherr Hämer, who later became the director of the IBA-Altbau group, frst experimented with the concept of «careful urban renewal with the pilot project of the Block 118» ("Hämer Block") in Charlottenburg-Klausenerplatz, planned in 1973 and successfully implemented in 1975, which was the contribution of West Berlin to European Architectural Heritage Year. Over the same period, he was expanding the theoretical refection around this topic during his course at the HfBK (today Art University of Berlin) titled "Z.B. Ingolstadt". He recognised the potential of bottom-up actions, including extensive involvement of the residents and other participants in the planning process. As the director of IBA-Altbau from 1979 until 1985, Hämer developed and expanded his ideas to stage large-scale interventions in Berlin through the careful renewal of Luisenstadt

FIGURE 4 IBA-Altbau, workshop in the neighbourhood centre "Regenbogenfabrik." Photo by Kostas Kouvelis, 1982 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 5

IBA-Altbau, women hanging architectural drawings in the courtyard of Naunynstraße 72 for the conversion of the factory buildings to the women's district centre "Schokofabrik." Photo by Jürgen Henschel, 1983

clients.

urheberrechtlich geschützt urheberrechtlich geschützt urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 6 IBA-Altbau, self-construction site on the roof of "Schokofabrik," 1985 (ed.)

in Kreuzberg. Under his coordination, the working group interacted and collaborated with the existing self-started network, associations and activities, such as the squatting movement and the neighbourhood church, which exerted an important infuence in the area.<sup>4</sup> The group investigated the state of the buildings, the ideas, needs and desires of the inhabitants with the efect of a magnifying glass—as Hämer reported afterwards—«through the intensive mediation at house coordination meetings, repeated in every apartment, with every implementation step precisely planned and built quickly with mutual agreement».

To perform this task, they developed methods that are extensively employed in participative architecture and urban projects today, but at the time were highly unconventional, as demonstrated by the fact that the IBA-Altbau quickly became a learning experience all over Germany and Europe.5 The establishment of the "Mieterberatung," a consultancy service for renters, was one of the greatest achievements—it represented the interests of the residents all through the renewal process from the planning to the completion of building6 and it is now a widespread practice for any publicly funded measures. The last of the 12 IBA-Altbau principles, «urban renewal in accordance with this concept must be guaranteed to continue beyond the end of the IBA»,7 acknowledges the importance of forecasting a long-term process when working in the urban context, and it highlights the necessity of ongoing work, even after the ofcial conclusion of the project. The continuation of the IBA work was guaranteed in fact through the foundation of STERN *Gesellschaft der behutsamen Stadterneuerung* (Society of careful urban renewal), which started operating in 1985. Ever since, the range of its tasks has expanded, including taking on the building owner's functions for municipalities and project control tasks for public

The results of the work of the IBA-Altbau clearly denote the importance of working locally and in collaboration with the residential population. While the urban genesis of the Neapolitan cases of Scampia and Rione Traiano, marked by their reputations for social problems and criminality, was completely diferent from the Berlin IBA case, a similar, albeit more dilated path of natural bottom-up reappropriation can be clearly identifed. An engaged, localised, long-term process was not a realistic approach for reacting to the emergency situation presented by the 1980 earthquake in Naples, particularly in the case of Scampia, in which the housing demand represented a point of no return that deeply undermined the constitution of the social environment of a settlement in the midst of its construction process.

The northern countryside of Naples was known as *Terra di Lavoro* (Land of Work) at the beginning of the last century, owing to its many farms and fertile soil. After the end of World War II, the planned construction of new urban settlements in this area entailed an easy, frst connection into the city centre through the historical Corso di Secondigliano axis. There were small interventions to amalgamate the local blocks by connecting the isolated courtyards of the typical *masserie* buildings of Roman tradition.

FIGURE 7 Scampia. Housing complex north of "Le Vele," 1980. Photo 2019 (ed.)

FIGURE 8 The Vele, entrance to internal walkways, 2019 (ed.)

The second phase started in Scampia in 1965, and it settled large numbers of the working-class population. Scampia was a large expanse that developed around two poles: Franz di Salvo's megastructure project, "Le Vele," which underwent several alterations and modifcations to its design during construction, and, a few years later, the public park at the centre of the neighbourhood, the Ciro Esposito Park.

The 1980 earthquake deeply undermined the still fragile social condition of the area: already under construction, the fats were illegally occupied by people who had lost their homes or were already homeless prior to the earthquake. As a result, the completion of the neighbourhood infrastructure and of the public facilities was inconceivable. This exacerbated the already critical overcrowding situation, widely undermined meeting liveability requirements, and transformed Scampia into a centre of organised crime, which ofered employment possibilities in a place forgotten by the state and the local government (Fig. 8). It was only in 1987 that the frst police station was opened in Scampia.

A less extreme, but likewise critical situation unfolded in Rione Traiano. Designed by Marcello Canino in 1957, and inspired by northern European models of the 1950s, the new neighbourhood was imagined as a self-sufcient neighbourhood,<sup>8</sup> well-connected to the rest of the city, as was common in other INA-Casa projects throughout Italy during this time. The contemporary 1958 City Masterplan draft included several infrastructural interventions, which allowed the future Rione Traiano to maintain its autonomy and a strong connection to surrounding areas and the city centre. At the same time, Canino's urban design envisaged public spaces, green urban areas and residential services on a local level.

Despite the promising ideas for the development of Western Naples, the 1958 City Masterplan was not approved, leaving many of the new roads, public services and facilities incomplete. The growing demand for new housing led to an increase in housing construction, which further aggravated the lack of residential services and mobility infrastructures. As a result, Traiano became a dormitory area, characterised by a high social disease index, also due to the lack of social mixing among the inhabitants (Fig. 9).

A frst attempt to try resolve its neglected condition led to Rione Traiano being included within the Soccavo Urban Regeneration Plan of the Ministry, the Campania Region and the Mayor of Naples through the 1994 Programme Agreement.9 The plan underwent many revisions aiming to improve the functional and social conditions—in particular, the sub-area of the multi-functional centre that had been completed before the plan was approved—but in the end it had only limited results. For many years the neighbourhood was considered one of the most degraded suburbs of the city, and this external perception only served to increase its social segregation.

During this time, spontaneous attempts at overcoming the main issues plaguing the neighbourhood and other areas of the city started in response to the lack of residential services, social activities and maintenance of public areas. Despite the failures of the macro-interventions, during the last three decades small associations and initiatives in the neighbourhoods

FIGURE 9 Rione Traiano, Via Catone, 2019 (ed.)

FIGURE 13 Rione Traiano. Urban synergistic gardening at Centro Autogestito Piperno (CAP), 2019 (ed.)

of Scampia and Rione Traiano multiplied exponentially, resulting in micro-interventions, which have slowly tried to mend the wounds engendered mostly by the crime. Starting in 2011, the municipality decided to guarantee the right to and the shared management and upkeep of public assets, defned as *Beni Comuni* (Common Goods), for the community.10 In particular, the local government recognised the value of empowering and driving micro-interventions throughout the city, carried out by citizens and associations in accordance with the logic of self-government, management experimentation and adoption of public spaces, legitimising their actions in ofcial policy and recognising the importance of collective use of urban spaces to beneft the local community. As result, the shared intervention of public institutions and local associations has partially curbed the growing power of criminal networks, but the lack of funds for upkeep and urban regeneration programmes has not permitted these interventions to reverse the situation completely.

Since 1980, associations that regained possession of the common spaces completely abandoned by the institutions have presented new perspectives on the Naples housing estates. One such example on a quest to provide a better life for the people of Scampia is GRIDAS. At its heart was Felice Pignataro, a local artist and architect who launched the Scampia Carnival in 1983 as a way to mobilise people to join in a common purpose. Its success resulted in its founding as an annual event with ever-increasing numbers of partakers. GRIDAS, led today by the wife of Pignataro, Mirella La Magna, also lends support to the production of street art in Scampia as a way to reclaim and humanise the typical environment of the urban periphery (Fig. 10).11

The Pangea project, which began in 2016, brought together associations, high schools and citizens of Scampia to create a small public park alongside one of the main trafc axes of the new settlement. Divided into six areas, each space is planted with fora native to a particular continent or Mediterranean alliance area and cared for in collaboration with local secondary-school pupils. At the same time the project attracts and involves a continuous production of street art. This project is completely fnanced by the participants and through economic and material contributions by the residents (Figs. 11, 12). The contemporary topic of globalisation has reached this sector of the population, engaging people in the social integration of diferent ethnic groups. Aside from the Pangea project, a further example is the Chikù association, which aims to reach a common point of cultural dialogue through food. Operating a restaurant just a few steps from the Vele, women of the local Roma settlements and Scampia showcase a menu that blends typical Roma dishes interpreted with Neapolitan kitchen traditions and ingredients. This is, undoubtedly, a step forward in the stratifcation of the self-regeneration that has taken place in recent years.

This similar, slow process of self-regeneration is also present in Rione Traiano. In this case, the spontaneous response of citizens to the degradation of their neighbourhood has led to many small, self-managed communities that, with the support of the municipality, led to changing conditions and perceptions of life in the neighbourhood.12 Part of this process was the completion of the large public park in the middle of the settlement, which opened

#### FIGURE 10

Scampia. U-Station Piscinola-Scampia, murals curated by the cultural association Let's Think within FELImetrò project promoted by GRIDAS in 2012 (ed.)

FIGURE 11, 12 Scampia. Street art promoted within the Pangea project by local citizen associations, 2019 (ed.)

in 2002,13 as well as the nearby multi-functional centre that also hosted the games of the Universiade of Naples in summer 2019. Nearby, the Centro Autogestito Piperno (CAP) emerged from an initiative by local inhabitants. The CAP's ventures are carried out by multiple generations of locals ofering sports, artistic and cultural activities, legal aid and a community fruit and vegetable garden in a building complex that would otherwise have been abandoned (Fig. 13).

#### DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS ABOUT THE PERIPHERY

Another aspect of existence and place identity for social housing estates is accounting for the discrepancy between the view of residents, often very positive and relating to the strength of their self-perceived sense of community, which is in sharp contrast to views from the outside, which focus on the failures of the estate at large. The implementation of large social housing neighbourhoods has strongly impacted the image of many areas of Naples and, above all, their social conditions.

The identity of a neighbourhood, often established at a very early part of its history, largely rides on the social class and social status of the majority of residents. In the case of social housing, the estates are populated on the instruction of ofcial policy rather than driven by organic resettlement. The identity of a neighbourhood is incredibly resilient to change over time and is, therefore, in many cases entirely directed by local government planning. Re-appropriating identity is part of a long process emanating from micro-interventions by inhabitants.

In the case of the West Berlin *Großsiedlung* Märkisches Viertel, the new housing estate came under criticism quite quickly, despite initial praise for the well-thought-out selfsufciency of the neighbourhood.

The housing district, consisting of 17,000 fats, was built from 1963–74. The main beneft criterion was ofering residents plenty of light and air circulation within the living units, as well as access to ample public services such as shops, schools, playgrounds, sports facilities and green spaces.

FIGURE 14 Märkisches Viertel, Quickborner Straße. Photo by Jürgen Henschel, 1976

FIGURE 15 Märkisches Viertel. "Adventure park" at Senftenberger Ring. Photo by Jürgen Henschel, 1977

The shift in perceptions of the estate began when West Berlin architecture students criticised the design with their exhibit at the ffth Bauwoche (Building Fair) in 1968. The fair was intended to commend the success of the urban renewal programme which had spawned Märkisches Viertel. The students, however, identifed the architecture as «bleak and monotonous,» which discouraged resident appropriation and identifcation, and criticised the patronising nature of its top-down rationalist planning design, which left the neighbourhood a victim of bad planning.14 However, the heart of the problem was directed at the displacement of the working classes in Berlin, who were evicted from their previous tenement quarters that were razed during the renewal of the city, and forced to populate the housing estates.

Märkisches Viertel sorely lacked the social structures of the old tenement neighbourhoods of Berlin. Residents also complained of the incomplete facilities and services during the early years. However, delays plagued the entire urban renewal programme that began in the early 1960s and was intended to last ffteen years, but that continued until the late 1990s (Figs. 14, 15).15

Negative opinions surrounding the project were further emphasised by an article that appeared in *Der Spiegel* in 1968,16 likewise condemning the «depressing» nature of the estate. Further reports of unhappy residents and poor construction ensued in other publications, cementing opinions that Märkisches Viertel was an awful place to live. It is critical to note that only 5 % of West Berliners resided on housing estates, meaning that perceptions of life in social housing were dramatically impacted by media representations.

Life on the housing estate for occupants was a diferent story altogether, and accounts of it being a «concrete hell» were no doubt embellished and were hardly widespread. Rather, inhabitants «generally deemed the Märkisches Viertel an improvement to the substandard tenements where most of them had lived before».17 There were no claims that life was perfect—inhabitants were unhappy with infrastructural shortcomings, green spaces had been appropriated for anti-social behaviour and youth crime was 30 percent higher than in nearby neighbourhoods.18

However, the social exclusion and stigmatisation of Märkisches Viertel inhabitants by outsiders, based on assumptions that estate residents were "criminal rif-raf," was deeply upsetting. Media and outside perceptions of social housing neighbourhoods came to reinforce the existing social exclusion induced by their peripheral urban locations.

Nonetheless, the neighbourhood slowly recovered its reputation thanks to media coverage of inhabitant surveys from the 1980s that revealed that 69 % of residents were pleased or very pleased with living in Märkisches Viertel, and a further 85 % said they would not move away.19

Rather than allowing themselves to be afected and defned by outsiders and media perceptions of the neighbourhoods, residents who continued to inhabit the estate showed their capacity to overcome the bad image of Märkisches Viertel individually.

FIGURE 16, 17 Märkisches Viertel. Gangway Contest on summer 2018 (ed.)

One such initiative, which set out to tackle the issue of anti-social behaviour, is the street social workers of Gangway. They work expressly to stimulate mindfulness in children, teaching them how to tolerate diferences on the playgrounds and fostering a sense of sharing the community. The team also works in the public spaces, such as parks and the stairwells of Märkisches Viertel, where delinquents were aggregating, to support these individuals' development and social integration. A further beneft is that this initiative reopened these public spaces for wider social use by the rest of the community (Figs. 16, 17).

To sum up, in the post-war housing estates of Scampia, Rione Traiano and Märkisches Viertel in Naples and Berlin, building a culture or sense of place identity was undermined by the conditions of community spaces that had been intended to represent the character of the emerging neighbourhoods symbolically. Public spaces, playgrounds, parks or pavements were either entirely absent, subverting the ethos of the neighbourhood planning, or they sufered from neglect and devastation due to a lack of accountability for their upkeep. Anti-social behaviour was encouraged by the visible neglect of common spaces due to an absence of grounds management. The rapid infux of residents onto the estates likewise contributed to a decline in responsibility for management. Newcomers were not apt to appropriate public areas without frst experiencing acceptance by the wider community.

Public spaces on post-war housing estates infuenced by the 1933 Athens Charter were intended to be catalysts for chance encounters among neighbours, supporting long-term activities and social interaction. In-between spaces between the street and the building were meant to create the possibility for the residents to spend time together and to socialise.20 In the case of Scampia, for example, the walkways between the double line buildings were preconceived as a mimic of the streets of Naples's old city where socialising extended onto residents' front doorsteps. The local community culture was derived from this access to social life. As the walkways of Le Vele were built much narrower than was originally intended, they failed to recreate the characteristics of a space that would encourage interaction. This also compromised the intentions of the intended design.

This lack or incomplete state of spaces to support social interaction diminished the potential for long-term neighbourhood vitality and led to feelings of isolation. This was further

#### FIGURE 18

Scampia. Murals by Jorit (2018–19) facing the U-Station Piscinola-Scampia and displaying Angela Davis (left) and Pier Paolo Pasolini (right), 2019 (ed.)

amplifed by the segregation imposed on residents as a consequence of insufcient social infrastructure, including the failure to implement transportation connections fully and a lack of localised services.

#### CONCLUSION

The support of citizens and association initiatives by local governments legitimises their actions to reappropriate the spaces. These are the premises that, after ffty years, are allowing the suburbs to regain possession of abandoned common spaces. The hurried beginnings of the post-war construction, which caused enormous social hardships and, in the frst phase, sanctioned the decline of the utopian suburbs, have today become incubators of new self-regenerative phenomena. The recognition of the agency of housing estate inhabitants connects them to their territory, permitting the maintenance and care of private and common spaces, increasing accessibility and mobility, and fnally changing perceptions of the neighbourhoods. The genesis of micro-scale interventions could be considered an evolutionary step aimed at considering the real needs of small communities in the urban periphery that were not considered in macro-scale projects of half a century ago.

#### NOTES

1  Helga Fassbinder, "Gegenplanung. Das Büro für Stadtsanierung und Soziale Arbeit in Berlin-Kreuzberg," *Bauwelt* (1983, n. 48): pp. 351–54.

4  Klaus Duntze, who was pastor at the evangelical Martha Church in Glogauer Straße, in 1977 launched the frst competition that involved a wider range of participants, from residents to home owners to the Senate—the results of which later became material and inspiration for the work of the IBA-Altbau group.

5  «The achievements of the IBA to date must be seen as an incitement to creativity not only in artistic terms but also, and especially, in organisational terms, in terms of planning and implementation strategies.» in Egbert Kossak, "Von der IBA lernen?" *Stadtbauwelt* (1984, n. 36): pp. 238–41.

6  The "Mietberatung" worked out concepts together with citizens independently of owners' interests on

<sup>2</sup> Ibid.

<sup>3</sup> Ibid.

behalf of the district administration. Its sponsors are initiative groups that have been formed in Kreuzberg since the late 1970s: Verein SO 36, Mieterladen Dresdener Straße e.V., Mieterrat Waldemarstraße e.V., SPAS (Verein für Sozialplanung und angewandte Stadtforschung). In *Schritt für Schritt – Behutsame Stadterneuerung in Kreuzberg – Eine Wanderausstellung* (Berlin: S.T.E.R.N., 1990).

7  Harald Bodenschatz and Cordelia Polinna (eds.), *Learning from IBA – die IBA 1987 in Berlin* (Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2010).

8  Gianluca Frediani, "Il quartiere Traiano di Marcello Canino. Distruzione di un modello," *ArQ n.2, Architettura Quaderni, Sperimentazione Progettuale del Dipartimento di Progettazione Urbana, Università degli Studi di Napoli,* no. 2 (December 1989): p. 70.

9  The acts concerning the Soccavo Urban Regeneration Plan (*Programma di Recupero Urbano di Soccavo*) are available on the ofcial website of the Municipality of Naples, accessed October 11, 2019, http://www. comune.napoli.it/fex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/16204.

10  The acts concerning the management of Beni Comuni campaign are available on the ofcial website of the Municipality of Naples, accessed October 11, 2019, http://www.comune.napoli.it/fex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB. php/L/IT/IDPagina/16783.

11  See "'The New Man.' Interview with Mirella La Magna," pp. 166–171.

12  Gabriella Esposito De Vita and Stefania Ragozino, "Civic activation, vulnerable subjects and public space: the case of the park of Rione Traiano in Naples," *TRIA: Che "genere" di città per il futuro*, ed. by Mario Coletta. Napoli: Centro di Ateneo per le Biblioteche dell'Università di Napoli Federico II, No. 10 (2013): p. 185.

13  The data sheet of Parco Costantino is available on the ofcial website of the Municipality of Naples, accessed February 13, 2020, http://www.comune.napoli.it/fex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/13206.

14  Florian Urban, "Large Housing Estates of Berlin, Germany," in *Housing Estates in Europe. The Urban Book Series*, eds. Daniel Baldwin Hess, Tiit Tammaru, and Maarten van Ham (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), p. 107.

15  Sabine Klingner and Malgorzata Popiolek, "Wedding-Brunnen Street Revitalization Area in Berlin: Planning and Implementation," in *Community Spaces. Conception – Appropriation – Identity*, ed. Maren Harnack (Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2015), p. 66.


# "THE NEW MAN." *Interview with Mirella La Magna by Luciano Lauda\**

*Mirella La Magna was born in Naples. In 1972 she married Felice Pignataro, "the most prolifc muralist in the world" according to E. H. Gombrich. Together, they settled in Scampia, where Mirella still lives today. In 1981, Felice and Mirella founded the cultural association GRIDAS, acronym of Gruppo Risveglio DAl Sonno (the Awakening from Sleep Group), aiming at provide a way to social and cultural improvement of the urban outskirts by art.*

FIGURE 1 Mirella La Magna at *Scampia Carnival*

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

#### *Just after you married, you and Felice Pignataro lived in a farmhouse overlooking Scampia: Was it diferent from today?*

In 1972, Felice and I got married, and we went to live in Scampia in a conversion fat in an old farmhouse with access to the Corso Secondigliano towards Scampia and the ancient Via Appia, which connected Naples to Rome.

In this place, which is now in the district of Scampia, there was a huge area of countryside in which the shepherds took the sheep to graze and the children of Piscinola came to play football, and where there were many remains of ancient Roman villas, which were completely destroyed when the new social housing district was built. In this non-built-up area, the municipality of Naples started its public building works by building the INA-Casa neighbourhood called Monte Rosa. This neighbourhood was designed with four-story residential buildings and it was served by shops and school. This urban settlement allowed people to recognize themselves in the community and to create a social centre. Next, a second group of houses was built (close to Monte Rosa) to house the socalled "*baraccati*" (slum dwellers) who lived in precarious conditions after the Second World War and whose condition

Felice and I were interested in. These houses, however, instead of being assigned to the "baraccati" were illegally occupied and, without services and infrastructures, they became the frst criticality in this urban area.

The municipality, therefore, began to expropriate the Scampia land to build new housing. From our window, Felice and I saw the countryside disappear every day, and houses rose much higher than four foors, with 13–14 foors, without shops, schools, roads or sewers. Following the 1980 earthquake, the emergency building plan continued, and it was signifcantly enlarged. When people started to live in these houses, they found themselves in homes without primary services, without basic shops, without schools and with considerable distances to cover on foot.

#### *The Camorra in Scampia: Why there?*

The lack of services in Scampia (shops, maintenance of public spaces, schools) and work for the large numbers of low-income income residents generated many problems. Applying the exasperated individualism that characterizes the Neapolitan people in the face of difculties, many people began to sell necessities illegally. It was a spontaneous response, which ftted

FIGURE 2 Felice Pignataro street painting nearby G8 in Genoa, 2001 (ed.)

into the culture of the local "art of getting by" ("*arrangiarsi"*), and which consolidated the idea of solving problems without rebelling in people's minds. Similarly, the inhabitants' failure to maintain the public good led them not to recognize collective spaces as their own and to vandalize them further. The absence of schools led to a high degree of school absenteeism. The children lived on the streets, left to themselves, forced to grow up fast and to get by on their own. The 1980 earthquake and the corruption of politicians allowed the Camorra to access special funds for building reconstruction. The liquidity of this money allowed the Camorra to shift focus from prostitution and cigarette smuggling rackets to the drug trade, accessing Colombian and Mexican cartels.

In this context, Scampia was well placed to become one of Europe's most important drug dealing areas thanks to the widespread tolerance of illegality among its inhabitants, the sense of abandonment by the institutions and the cheap labour of children. Men and children were hired by the Camorra and swallowed up by a "system" that replaced the state, supporting families when drug dealers entered prison. For more than twenty years after the 1980 earthquake, this system was consolidated

without anyone "noticing" this social disaster until a bloody feud broke out at the top of the Camorra, which attracted journalists from everywhere. Only then did the world hear about Scampia, oblivious to the many boys who, with few hopes for life, found no other choice than to follow the Camorra and become murderers or die.

#### *GRIDAS, the Scampia Carnival, FELImetrò: What impact did they have on people?*

In 1981, with other people, Felice and I founded the GRIDAS association, a group awakening from sleep, alluding to the phrase of Francisco Goya: «the sleep of reason generates monsters». The purpose of the association was to bring together all people of good will from below to combat the cultural defciencies of the inhabitants of Scampia and to protect public spaces from exaggerated individualism and illegality. From this cultural activity, in 1983 the *Scampia Carnival* was born, a manifestation of denunciation and social criticism using masks with the intention of creating a tradition in a neighbourhood without a history. Since then, GRIDAS and the carnival have worked alongside the weakest, entering schools and engaging children. As Don Lorenzo Milani wrote

FIGURE 3 (LEFT, RIGHT) *Scampia Carnival* in 2006, 1987 and 1997 on the right (ed.)

#### FIGURE 4 (LEFT)

Scampia. Mural in a kindergarten *Raimbow Workshop* by Felice Pignataro, 1993 (ed.)

FIGURE 5 (RIGHT) Scampia. Mural in a primary school *Culture, an Endless Factory* by Felice Pignataro, 1985 (ed.)

fctions in cinema and television have done even more damage to the population of Scampia, as they not only reproduce an outdated image of Scampia, but they are also dangerous because they harbour a deviant imaginary of the weakest.

urheberrechtlich geschützt

On these cultural premises, starting in 2005 (one year after Felice's death) and

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 6 (LEFT)

Piscinola-Scampia U-Station. Murals curated by cultural association Let's Think within FELImetrò project in 2012 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 7 (RIGHT)

FELImetrò project: Arrangement of U-Station interiors reproducing many of Pignataro murals around Scampia

urheberrechtlich geschützt

for eight years we collected signatures so that the Metro station of Line 1, Piscinola-Scampia, which was in a state of disrepair, developed an identity as an "art station" in the historic centre of Naples. The FELImetrò project was born, dedicated to the artistic and social work of Felice Pignataro and inaugurated on September 20, 2013. The works of Felice, who rejected the defnition of an artist and said he was a craftsman, are located along the corridors of the underground station, and they retrace both the history of the Scampia Carnival (with a panel that contains all the posters made by Felice from 1983 to 2003 and several photos of the event) and a history built through murals. Among these, four rounds are particularly

signifcant. The frst two represent the sun

and the moon, themes with which Felice described nature. The third depicts a soap bubble, and it alludes to trust in others and harmony among the people. Resting on a large hand, three diferent houses (a stone house with a sloping roof, an American Indian tent, a house of Asian shepherds) indicate that all cultures have equal dignity. The houses have open doors as a sign of welcome and trust in others. A small wind turbine appears on the stone house, in support of alternative but non-invasive energy sources, and there is also a group of trees and a rainbow (Fig. 8). The fourth round represents the pupil of a human eye in which two intertwined hands are refected, which welcome several children of all races. This design means that the future is represented by the youngest, the children, who

#### FIGURE 8 (LEFT)

Scampia, FELImetrò: Reproduction of a mural in Nola by Felice Pignataro, 1991 (ed.)

FIGURE 9 (RIGHT)

Scampia, FELImetrò: Reproduction of mural in Giugliano *Insight into the Future* by Felice Pignataro, 1992 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 10

Scampia, FELImetrò: Reproduction of mural in Afragola *The New Man* by Felice Pignataro, 1987

must be protected to grow well (Fig. 9). On one of the inner walls of the metropolitan station there is a reproduction of the new man, a mural created by Felice with the students of a school (Fig. 10). The image of the new man, supported by a deck on which workers are busy fabricating the gigantic man, alludes to the creation of Michelangelo's Adam. A door opens in the man's chest from which mechanical gears can be seen and, among these, the symbol

of peace. The face of the man is a smiling sun, which summarizes the ecological man reconciled with nature. In his hand, the new man presents a clod of earth with a fower as a gift: a demanding gift, because the recipient has the task of planting the fower to start a new life. Strengthened by these concepts and a widespread association, today Scampia is aware of its identity and its potential for urban and social growth.

# DYNAMICS OF EXPERIMENTATION BY BUILDING THE POST-WAR CITY IN BERLIN AND NAPLES

*Ilenia Gioia\*,Lorenza Manfredi\*\* \*\*\*, Antonello Scopacasa\*\**

#### 1 INTRODUCTION

Social housing usually represents a set of architectural and urban interventions possibly aimed at achieving many purposes. These include responding to a housing emergency, compliance with quality of life and energy efciency requirements, the creation of a responsible community for inhabitants and the design of high-quality public spaces, while at the same time remaining accessible and connected with the rest of the city and having a positive impact on the whole neighbourhood.

After the destruction of World War II, the priority in most European cities was to trigger a process of urban reconstruction. The urgent basic need for new housing shifted the interest of architectural culture towards the potential of the construction process that was just starting—a potential for experimentation.

The feld of social housing needed technological innovation to reduce the costs of the already highly demanding construction system, as well as refection on how to accommodate society. Moreover, the establishment of new democratic political systems in West Germany, as in Italy, found in this particular situation a way to accompany the population in the construction of new forms of living together in the city.

By observing the construction of housing estates during these times it is possible to identify signifcant dynamics of experimentation that highlight very diferent, even strong approaches, which the considered case studies well represent. In case of the Torre Ranieri settlement in Naples (1947–57), the experimentation mainly concerned the feld of building construction, and it aimed at including in the consolidated techniques new methods capable of optimising the construction times and building high-quality dwellings. Karl-Marx-Alee in Berlin (1950–65) and its three following and radically diferent realisation moments revealed on a more sociopolitical level the strength of the totalitarian process aimed at manipulating the urban environment as a direct consequence of a political and social project. In contrast, the IBA-Altbau (1979–87) innovated the role of the discipline in initiating and following a process of urban renewal. In the dense and socially highly mixed context of Berlin Kreuzberg, inhabitants and architects experimented with new methods and strategies in defning and developing the built environment in a cooperative way. When compared to the past, all these case studies reveal the difuse trends of post-war

\*\*\* IUAV University of Venice, Department of Architecture, City and Design

<sup>\*</sup> University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

<sup>\*\*</sup> TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

decades in approaching the topics of technology, architectural language or design workfow in the freest way. This fact surely enabled the discovery of many development possibilities and the subsequent statement of best practices on a wider scale. Their multiform, often temporary and place-related relationship compromised also partly an adequate critical analysis, which would deeply enrich the architectural and urban discourse about a wider theoretical common ground.

#### THE PILOT SETTLEMENT IN TORRE RANIERI: LUIGI COSENZA'S CONCEPT OF ARCHITECTURAL EXPERIMENTATION FOR THE MODERN SOCIETY

Located in the Neapolitan area of Posillipo, the Torre Ranieri settlement designed and realised by Luigi Cosenza in 1947–57 can be seen as exemplary of a specifc dynamic, which is quite rare in the immediate Italian post-war panorama, where the typology and the construction elements become central to the whole planning and construction process. Within the post-war reconstruction, this experimentation was designed to create a minimum typological unit which, in its potential repetitiveness, was capable of structuring new urban, functional and hygienic compartments, infuencing therefore the relationship between the built order and the social environment—where the dwelling unit acts as a fundamental cog for the proper functioning of the social system. Moreover, the pressure for reducing the construction time of traditional methods and to create the minimum economic output brought prefabrication and technological experimentation to the process of building.

The Neapolitan engineer Luigi Cosenza was in those years an important member of the Italian Rationalism panorama, underlining his cultural autonomy with respect to Nordic trends, both European and Italian, and with a radical opposition to well-difused functionalism and monumentalism. His interests were closer to the *Existenzminimum* principles, aiming, through his political and social engagement, at a reconciliation between the building and its user.2 As he was particularly attentive to the need of a rapid execution and to the economy of the solutions, he focused on the importance of founding the construction process on scientifc principles, by sizing surfaces in relation to their functions, or by analysing the infuence of the specifc local climate into the intervention adaptation. This

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 1 The pilot settlement in Torre Ranieri at Posillipo Hill in a photo of 1956

FIGURE 2 Type 12, experimental bearing structure, 1950 (ed.)

FIGURE 3 (LEFT) Type 9, masonry under construction, 1949–51

FIGURE 4 (RIGHT) Type 2, axonometric detail of the masonry. Original drawing

meant that the exposure, lighting and ventilation as well as the materials and construction systems were fundamental for a fexible and intelligent building process.

With these aims, in collaboration with architects and engineers from Naples, Luigi Cosenza founded the Centro Studi Edilizia dell'Università di Napoli (CESUN) in 1947,3 aiming at experimenting with new kinds of building technologies and founding an immediate executive laboratory in the construction of Torre Ranieri Pilot Settlement at Posillipo Hill, the only case of applied research and construction experimentation in Southern Italy in those years.

In addition to its productive and economic aspects, the prefabrication system aimed here at the industrialisation of the building process, not as a way to "self-standardise" the architectural design, or as a tool to patent singular building elements. The realisation of the prefabricated elements, moreover, should be seen as an opportunity to develop «a programme of studies and experiences to create a permanent and releasing instrument at the disposal of the construction process, able to elevate it from its current artisan condition to the higher economic and cultural industrial production level*»*. 4 To achieve this target, however, it was necessary to change the production approach: starting from the conceptual project workfow and moving up to the discretisation of the singular building parts by applying the design methods of industrial production to the construction world: millimetric precision in drawing, in realisation and assembly. This was not an easy goal in the Southern Italian context, where hand-made methods were predominant.5

The experiment implemented at Posillipo Hill concerned the horizontal and vertical bearing structure of the detached, two-to-three-foor residential buildings, and in some cases, the service core and the stairs (Fig. 2). Some of the sixteen resulting prototypes provided an innovative response to the technological system, and some others an optimisation of traditional building process. Most relevant examples among them were Type 2 and Type 9, an important step in response to thermal insulation of masonry—obtained mainly through

FIGURE 5 Type 10 under construction, 1949–51

FIGURE 6 Frankfurter Allee and Stralauer Viertel, 2019

juxtaposition of diferent layers of material—as well to natural lighting of the interior spaces (Figs. 3, 4), or Type 10, morphologically diferent from the current solutions of those years with an aerial ramp connecting the roofng foors of the blocks, which are well spaced on the natural slope of the hill (Fig. 5).

After a lengthy construction period (1947–57), the Torre Ranieri settlement unfortunately remained an isolated case, but, despite the various obstacles, including the lack of fnancial resources in those years in Italy for expressly experimental buildings and standardisation targets, some of the implemented experiments remained valid examples of an architectural approach that could overcome mere functionalism*.* Compositional aspects and architectural equipment were almost excluded, in accordance with the superordinate scarnifcation principle of "reduction to the bone" of the building aesthetic, focusing purely on the experimental nature of the process and ignoring the ephemeral embellishment. This was a suitable approach for the suburban, even central and natural beauty of Posillipo location.

#### URBAN EXPERIMENTALISM AND POLITICAL POWER: THE CASE OF KARL-MARX-ALLEE

The topic of experimentation is peculiar to early post-war Berlin, and this is the result of two main elements: the wide devastation of physical and social substance, which was a common condition in many other German cities after World War II, and the level of public signifcance, in a word, the representativity of the political choice in relation to the increasing, strongly manipulated radicalisation of social audience—the Two Blocks system, which had Berlin as a burning centre—which characterises the following decades of divided Germany.

The transformation of Frankfurter Straße, the main eastern radial street connecting the city centre and the dense *Mietkasernenviertel* (tenement neighbourhood) Friedrichshain since the middle of the nineteenth century, in the frst two post-war decades, represents this meta political efort well, and it reveals a peculiar experimental attitude acting directly on the pre-existing physical place as a way of approaching and designing the city.

The street is about fve kilometres long, starting from the S-Bahn belt on the eastern limit and ending with the Alexanderplatz on the western border. This appears now as the result of four diferent approaches that were overlaid quite unconsciously and very rapidly in the immediate post-war decades.

Starting from the eastern part of the street, the historical context of Stralauer Viertel—the middle and older part of the wider Friedrichshain district—survived the war bombardments and the further demolitions well, at least in part because of its distance from the city centre. The site of factories and working-class living areas, it had been a place of property speculation at the turn of the century, as described by Werner Hegemann in 1910 in his *Die Steinerne Berlin*. 6 It was an urban fabric, based on the principles fxed in James Hobrecht's masterplan of 1862, and in compliance with subsequent building regulations; it used straight and clear alignments of buildings along the street sides, general limitations on

CC BY-SA 3.0

FIGURE 7 (LEFT) Construction site panel displays the overall plan of the "frst Wohnzelle Friedrichshain." Photo by Gustav Köhler, 1950

#### FIGURE 8 (RIGHT) "Wohnzelle" along Karl-Marx-Allee, 2019

facade heights, small-scale property parcelling, and a dense—after the war enlarged—inner organisation with micro courtyards inside the blocks and a multi-purpose organisation throughout the foors as well in the block's depth (Fig. 6).

Heading west, not far from Frankfurter Tor—which, with Strausberger Platz and Alexanderplatz, was one of the three main cross squares of Frankfurter Straße, newly named Stalinallee in honour of Stalin's seventieth birthday (1949)—*Wohnzelle Friedrichshain* was the frst Berlin housing enterprise at the dawn of the new post-war era, realised, even partly, in a few months in early 1950.

The settlement was the result of the eforts of Heinrich Stark, East Berlin's building director, and of the planning of Hans Scharoun and his Plankollektiv, aiming at realising a naturalised, cleared up, functionalistic city structure, the *Stadtlandschaft* (Figs. 7, 8). The concept also focused this frst neighbourhood unit as a milestone for the further planning of the whole city, a hygienic disposition of monofunctional buildings into a boundless greened space, and it found wide resonance in the General Reconstruction Plan (*Generalaufbauplan*) published by the Eastern municipality in July 1949. Despite the efciency in planning, as in construction process, this frst housing estate, the Wohnzelle, suddenly fell out of political favour by the establishment in the same year of the socialist republic and remained as an overture without immediate consequences in the Eastern panorama.

After the war bombing, half of Stralauer Viertel's urban substance had been heavy damaged. The frst task therefore was clearing up the ruins and providing work and accommodation for citizens. The division of the city and the increasing political polarisation confrmed by the foundation of East and West Germany in 1949, as well as the strong infuence of the political apparatus on urban planning, quickly brought the Russian urbanism model of the late 1930s into favour, as adapted to Berlin's version of classicism.7 In one year, 1950, the ofcial position of newly founded GDR towards urbanism changed radically, and the previous Generalaufbauplan inspired by Scharoun was rejected. In 1951, the frst prototype of the new "national style" trend—the residence tower in Weberwiese designed by Werner Henselmann, close behind the Wohnzelle—was built, and the com-

#### FIGURE 9

"The establishment of a peace agreement means National Reconstruction Programme throughout Germany." Poster edited by SED Central Committee displaying the urban model of new Stalinallee, 1952

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 10 The "Palace of the Working Class" Stalinallee, today Karl-Marx-Allee, 2019

petition for the construction of the Berlin main avenue of socialism, the Stalinallee, as an enlargement of the previous Frankturter Straße between Poskauer Straße and Strausberger Platz, was launched. This promenade would have hosted workers and political-military parades, provided a magnifcent entrance to the city centre, celebrated the public residence as a central and beautiful feature of the new republic, enabled the participation of inhabitants in the construction process, and reinvested demolition materials directly within a lightly standardised construction site.8

In the jury's eyes, the fnal project highlighted an «urban design which was able to represent the optimism of the new social organisation through a good urban disposition, a balanced variation in the building heights and through an architecture that is no longer dominated by the single apartment type, but by the whole building» (Fig. 9).9 Any of about 45,000 citizens employed in the construction works could win by lottery the right to rent their future home for life (not the property, which remained public), increasing the enthusiasm for the project. One mark per square metre was the renting price, as it was in all the GDR throughout the following decades of the socialistic state.10

The Stalinallee urban complex took a long time to complete, considering the large number of employees, but mostly because of a lack of materials and specialised workers, which always characterised socioeconomic conditions in the GDR. The construction started in 1952 and ended in 1958, resulting in about 2,500 apartments, which were quite luxurious in comparison with previous and subsequent working-class accommodation in the Eastern sector. Each building hosted residences, businesses and services in its fve to ten foors. The backs of the articulated line-buildings along the ninety-metre bright promenade were wide and mostly open gardened courtyards, which overlapped with surrounding urban fabric. The avenue space also received careful attention, with dedicated city furnishing and wellplaced and fourishing garden carpets (Fig. 10).

As an experiment, the Stalinallee remained unique in the Berlin context, further inspiring the foundation of new cities and inner-city interventions throughout the GDR, such as in Dresden, Leipzig and Rostock.11

Stalin's death in 1953 and Khrushchev's prescriptions in 1954, aiming for a "cheaper and faster" housing programme throughout the Soviet Union involving strong standardisation of design and construction processes, changed the political conditions of urban planning and architectural design only fve years after the frst programme had started.<sup>12</sup> This fact consequently infuenced the approach to the most important focus of political apparatus, the Stalinallee, renamed Karl-Marx-Allee in 1961, to an ofcial review of the Stalinist background. The previous aim of focusing on the communication and representation issue—realising the "Living palace of [the] working class instead of renting barracks of the capital"13—changed quickly onto a more technically and economically inspired issue, in which the challenge of modernisation—recently adopted by the Interbau in West Berlin (1956–58) too—got the leading role.

As result, the socialistic *Wohnkomplex* replaced the *Wohnstadt* of socialism as an urban

#### FIGURE 11

"The socialistic layout of Berlin city centre is an issue for all peace-loving Germans." Construction site panel of Karl-Marx-Allee second building step. Photo by Horst Sturm, 1960

FIGURE 12 School trip along Karl-Marx-Allee under construction. Photo by Eva Brüggmann, 1962

FIGURE 13 Karl-Marx-Allee entering Alexanderplatz, 2019

typology to be implemented: city purposes should have been clearly allocated in singular volumes and placed on a Cartesian grid of measured proportions. The complation of Karl-Marx-Allee from Strausberger Platz to Alexanderplatz (1959–65) was clearly infuenced by the new organisation of the construction site and by the newly introduced crane montage. The architectural expression was made by prefabricating a diferent kind of panels, the *Platten*, for both structural and decorative parts (Fig. 11). This design process entered a new dimension of engineering and more complex division of tasks, as the architect's role was mostly reduced to coordination and interpretation, or to designing singular urban exceptions.

These three moments of radical change in approaching the urban, as well the housing topic along Frankfurter Straße—Wohnzelle Friedrichshain, Stalinallee and Karl-Marx-Allee second building step—eventually confrmed the ongoing desire of the political apparatus to provide a coherent and majestic conclusion to the *Magistrale* (Fig. 13), as well a strong attitude to social and urban manipulation. This brought an additional enlargement of the street width up to 120 metres, easily wide enough to host large audiences on both sides and to enlarge the entrance into newly planned city centre Alexanderplatz and to follow the *Zentrale Achse* into the historic inner city.

#### THE IBA-ALTBAU: EXPERIMENTATION AND PLANNING CULTURE – SOCIETY BECOMES PROTAGONIST

On the other side of divided Berlin, and almost ten years after the conclusion of the construction of Karl-Marx-Allee, we can observe another case study in which experimentation in the built structure of the city, with public housing at its centre, was approached from a very diferent point of view and led to diferent results.

The International Building Exhibition (IBA), and in particular the IBA-Altbau, traced the important social, cultural and historical changes that Europe went through in the decades following the 1968 students' protests and that culminated with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Those movements had thoroughly shaken confdence in urban policy, but also into housing construction companies and into new architecture as a whole.14

In this period of general turnover, the main aim of the IBA 1984/87 was to ofer an opportunity to innovate and experiment with new paths and strategies for architecture and urbanism. The IBA-Altbau took the topic of reconstruction and urban renewal as a starting point for discussing how society, with its diverse needs and complexities, could gain an active role in planning activities and the design process in a time of democracy. The acknowledgment that a sense of community was already present in the intervention sites and that several actors who were not ofcially recognised were already involved in making the city led to a wide social engagement by the architects. This led to the transformation of the planning process into a collaborative and participative exchange between the parties, regulated and managed in a composite way.

In 1970s' West Berlin, and in particular in the area of Kreuzberg, the presence of the Berlin

#### FIGURE 15 (LEFT)

Action "Children's farm Mauerplatz" in Kreuzberg SO36, in *Instand-Besetzer-Post*, March 2, 1981

FIGURE 17 (RIGHT) Rehab-squatting in Kreuzberg, 1980

FIGURE 14 (LEFT) Clearance of an occupied building on the Fraenkelufer, Kreuzberg. Photo by Michael Kipp, 1981

FIGURE 16 (RIGHT) Renewal works of an occupied building in Skalitzer Straße, Kreuzberg, 1980

Wall and the extraordinarily large quantity of empty buildings facilitated spatial appropriations. Squatters, associations and individuals started self-initiated projects of urban renewal and restoration of buildings as a reaction to the *Kahlschlagsanierung* strategy pursued by the local institutions, which demolished entire blocks in the inner city with no consideration for the existing urban and human pattern (Figs. 14–17).

The IBA-Altbau was set up as an ofcial public instrument alongside the normal administration, and one of its aims was to deal with the strong protests stimulated by squatters, which reached their peak in the beginning of the 1980s. The presence of engaged architects like its executive director Hardt-Waltherr Hämer, who was already working with the protesters and his university students around the topic of a "soft" urban renewal,15 togeth-

FIGURE 18 IBA-Altbau, press conference at "Backsteinfabrik." Photo by Jürgen Henschel, 1984 (ed.)

FIGURE 19

Cover of a IBA-Altbau publication: Workshop on the renewal works of Block 109 and "Regenbogenfabrik." Photo by Jürgen Henschel, 1982 (ed.)

er with the kind of special role and authority granted to the IBA, allowed new attention towards the qualities of those self-initiated projects and to what they could ofer to the surrounding neighbourhood and the whole city.

This change of approach in the planning culture led to signifcant experimentation with strategies and methods, as well as the politics and bureaucratic system that could support it. On the one hand, the IBA-Altbau group developed a broad range of planning instruments on behalf of the inhabitants who were already engaging in practices of self-renewal, both to convey their energies and to share with them technical knowledge on the city. On the other hand, it pursued a strategy of institutionalisation, whose goal was the acceptance and establishment of the practices of rehab-squatting (*Instandbesetzung*) and the widespread use of participative and cooperative methods, allowing the inclusion of the inhabitants in government administration of the process of urban renewal (Figs. 18, 19).16

The IBA documented a large part of this work by publishing the proceedings and results of research that investigated those questions. At the same time, pictures, leafets and magazines published by the inhabitants provided a rich memory of those eforts at experimenting with a new operational contact with the public.17 Testimonies of this experimental and innovative method can also be found in small but important changes in the planning policies—frst of all the change of status of the IBA itself, agreed by the IBA and the Berlin Senate in January 1981. This recognised and guaranteed the direct intervention of the IBA as coordinator of the renewal process for twelve districts inside the *Sanierungsgebiet*, the area impacted by the recovery interventions. This shift of recognition towards the work of the IBA allowed the process to extend beyond the temporal grid of the international exhibition and to experiment in a much more pragmatic and signifcant way, as initially intended.

Accordingly, the attention towards the self-renewal activities of the citizens could then become more than a theoretical acknowledgment—real intervention paths could be accomplished through strict collaborations between the IBA-Altbau working group and the inhabitants—project by project, one building block (or housing unit) after another. Approaching single cases together led to the emergence of a diferent type of collaboration between stakeholders, politicians, business owners and citizens.18

In the twelve principles the IBA-Altbau promoted,19 it is possible to recognise a sort of manifesto, an attempt by the architects to create a link between theory and practice for a systematic new path for the planning and building activity in the city—a critical self-refection on the roles, functions, tools and organisation that regulate the practices of transformation of the human environment.20 While nothing is prescribed about the forms and construction techniques, the role of interacting with the citizens from the very frst moment of the planning process to its fnal defnition and implementation has been recognised as central in transforming the city space as a proper public issue. A change of perspective, which fully revealed its potential in the results the IBA obtained—its experimental methods became in fact common in the planning praxis, expanding in the following years well beyond Berlin's borders, as, for example, in the advocating and participation techniques—is now unavoidable in most urban planning processes.

#### NOTES

1  In this chapter, which the authors wrote jointly, individual contributions can be identifed as follows: "The Pilot Settlement in Torre Ranieri: Luigi Cosenza's Concept of Architectural Experimentation for the Modern Society" (Ilenia Gioia), "Urban Experimentalism and Political Power: The Case of Karl-Marx-Allee" (Antonello Scopacasa), "The IBA-Altbau: Experimentation and Planning Culture – Society Becomes Protagonist" (Lorenza Manfredi).

2  Giuseppe Giordano and Nunzia Sorbino, *Luigi Cosenza, architettura e tecnica* (Naples: Clean, 2003), pp. 38–45.

3  Sergio Stenti, *Napoli moderna città e case popolari 1868–1980* (Naples: Clean, 1993), p. 23.

4  Luigi Cosenza, *Esperienze di Architettura* (Naples: Macchiaroli, 1950), p. 52.

5  *Luigi Cosenza, l'uomo, il compagno* (Naples: Cooperativa Editrice Sintesi, 1985), pp. 40–41.

6  Werner Hegemann, *Die steinerne Berlin* (Lugano: Jakob Hegner, 1930). This book republishes the Hegemann statement for the exhibition catalogue *Der Städtebau* at *Allgemeinen Städtebau Ausstellung* which took place in Berlin and Düsseldorf in 1910*–*1911. Italian edition with an introduction by Donatella Calabi, *La Berlino di pietra. Storia della più grande città di caserme d'aftto* (Milan: Gabriele Mazzotta editore, 1975).

7  Kurt Liebknecht, "Im Kampf um eine neue deutsche Architektur," *Neues Deutschland* (January 13, 1951): «Against Formalism and Globalism of Modern Architecture, for a Communication in National Tradition.»

8  Amt für Information des Magistrats von Groß-Berlin, "Das neue Gesicht der Stalinallee," in Thomas Topfstedt, *Grundlinien von Städtebau und Architektur der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik 1949 bis 1955* (PhD Dissertation, Leipzig, 1980), p. 57.

9  Edmund Collein, "Wo stehen wir in unserer Architekturdiskussion," *Neues Deutschland* (December 4, 1951).

10  Bruno Flierl, *Gebaute DDR. Über Stadtplaner, Architektur und die Macht* (Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1998), p. 22.

11  Werner Durth, Jörn Düwel, and Niels Gutschow, *Architektur und Städtebau der DDR. Band 1. Ostkreuz. Personen, Pläne, Perspektiven* (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1999).

12  Wather Ulbricht, "Die neue Aufgaben im nationalen Aufbau," contribution at 1st Building Conference of the GDR, April 3, 1955, *Neues Deutschland* (April 6, 1955).

13  Herbert Riecke, "Wohnpaläste im Sozialismus statt Mietkasernen im Kapitalismus," in *Das Berliner Miethaus 1945–1989*, ed. Johann Friedrich Geist and Klaus Kürvers (Munich: Prestel, 1989), p. 344.

14  Harald Bodenschatz and Cordelia Polinna, eds., *Learning from IBA – die IBA 1987 in Berlin* (Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2010).

15  Manfred Sack, ed., *Hardt-Waltherr Hämer, Stadt im Kopf* (Berlin: Jovis Verlag, 2002).

16  Andrej Holm and Armin Kuhn, "Squatting and Urban Renewal: The Interaction of Squatter Movements and Strategies of Urban Restructuring in Berlin," *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 35, no. 3 (2010).

17  Many of these records are preserved and classifed in the Archive of the FHXB Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum Museum in Berlin.

18  Lore Ditzen, "Lernprozesse. Die Internationale Bauausstellung IBA in Berlin," *Archithese* (June 1984): p. 33.

19  See the Data Sheet "IBA-Altbau," pp. 78–85.

20  A refection on the experimentation of the meaning and reason of the profession itself, like those that Marco Biraghi explores in his book *L'architetto come intellettuale* (Turin: Einaudi 2019).

# "FRAGILE BORN." *Interview with Davide Cerullo by Ornella Zerlenga\**

*Davide Cerullo grew up in Scampia, where he lives today. As a photographer and writer, Cerullo is involved in social work with his association L'Albero delle Storie. However, as a teenager David Cerullo was a drug dealer in Scampia because, as one of the many "fragile born" children.*

FIGURE 1 Davide Cerullo in the spaces of L'Albero delle Storie in Scampia (ed.)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

#### *The Scampia of the "fragile born": Why?*

I wanted to go to school. I did go until the ffth grade. I wanted to go to school, but someone decided for me. I didn't go to school after that, because going to school in these "fragile born" neighbourhoods is a sign of weakness. Scampia boasts an unenviable record. It is the district with the highest rate of illiteracy. And do you know why? Because the mafa is more afraid of a school than a judge. School is important. You don't go to school just to get cultured. You don't read books just to get cultured. You go to school and read books so as not to be slaves, because education is the greatest act of democracy and freedom.

I, before being a victim of violence, was a victim of my family, my father and my mother. When her husband left our family, my mother was forced to support a family with 14 children illegally. After my mother was arrested, I became a drug dealer to support the family. When I became a drug dealer, I no longer had a name. I no longer had "my" name. To buy drugs from me and to identify me, they called me "Hello creams," because I looked like a character in a '90s advertisement with "toothbrush" hair and black glasses. I no longer had my name. I was like the people who were killed in concentration camps.

This is the Camorra, it cancels people. It takes children who are defenceless from broken families, from multi-problematic families. The Camorra takes these "fragile born" children and proposes the dream of money, the pleasure of crime, violence that becomes a lifestyle. At that point, you are no longer anyone, you no longer have your name.

In the flm *La vita è bella* by Roberto Benigni, the father defends his son from violence and takes care to keep his hands in front of this child's eyes to prevent him from understanding what is happening. Try to think of the Gomorra television series when it enters the homes of these "fragile born" children and no one protects them. Often for those "fragile born" or for those without an internal framework of values, which allows them to face and overcome negative realities, the television series *Gomorra* has a more ferocious efect than reality itself. A violence that cannot be justifed or compensated for by the justifcation that the fction is very well done. The "fragile born" do not have a family and they do not have a school that protects them from the Camorra.

#### *How do we redeem Scampia?*

First, the person must be placed at the

FIGURE 2 (LEFT) Brothers Cerullo with their herd in Scampia. Photo by Luciano D'Alessandro, 1982 (ed.)

FIGURE 3 (RIGHT) A meeting of the social project L'Albero delle Storie near Vele (ed.)

centre, because the most beautiful place in the world can become the ugliest if there is no care for humanity. People develop more from the encounters they have than from the books they read. It is people who make people. People make relationships, and, in those relationships, there is action. At 18 they arrested me, and I ended up at the Poggioreale Prison, Pavilion 31: twentyfve people in a room. In prison, we had only one hour in the open air a day. One day coming back from this hour, I found a little book on my bed. I took this book, the *Vangelo*. I looked at it, and on the last pages, I found my name written: Davide, Davide, Davide. For a moment I felt part of the story. For a moment, I recovered my identity, my freedom, my dignity. I had a

name again, mine, Davide. I stole some paper. I ripped out the pages where my name appeared in the story, and I kept these pages. My redemption was born from this gesture. I could say that I was reborn from a paper tree, which tells the story of the *Vangelo*. When I left prison, I resumed my old life. Then I met some people who told me things no one had ever told me. I left my family home in Scampia, and I was welcomed in Modena, in the North. After many years, I got married, and fve years ago I returned to Scampia to tell the story of my rebirth. I started photographing the children of Scampia and writing books. I, who only attended school until ffth grade. I, who had been called "unrecoverable," was "recovered." The "unrecoverable" do

#### FIGURE 4 (LEFT)

Workshop with children at L'Albero delle Storie (ed.)

FIGURE 5 (RIGHT, BOTTOM, NEXT PAGE) Pictures from *Visages de Scampia: Les justes de Gomorra* by Davide Cerullo, 2018

not exist. In Scampia, the problem is not the Camorra. The problem is that people do not believe in the possibility of change. We do not need welfare. Welfare imprisons people even more. We need awareness and dignity. We need culture and work. We need action.

#### *L'Albero delle Storie is an action story ... Can we talk about it?*

L'Albero delle Storie is a space, a diferent

way of living where we help mothers and children. Children play, listen to stories, browse through books. The children, when they come here, don't want to go home. Here there are no absences from family and school, which many experience, and which have led people to make this area ugly. Here are the actions and relationships that structure a person. In Scampia, the issue of children is a serious problem. Here children grow up too fast.

urheberrechtlich geschützt

Parents throw them on the street right away, because they learn to defend themselves. Families teach their children to be smart, not honest. A good child is considered an idiot. If you go to school, you are weak. Children are not stimulated. They grow up without trust and they end up in violence. They are "fragile born" children, without hope. I believe that this fragility can be saved by beauty. I believe that we must begin above all with territories such as Scampia. We must combat fragility with beauty.

#### *You lived in Scampia in the "Vele." How do you rate the destruction of the Vele?*

I agree with those who say they must not be dismantled, but only if the conditions of dignity are created to make it possible to live there. The "Vele" have been abandoned, and when you leave a place to itself, it becomes ugly. I have a very strong relationship with the Vele. In my opinion, whoever built the Vele was a genius,

because he thought of them in every detail. The Vele are now known throughout the world for the story of Roberto Saviano, *Gomorra*. But this story crucifes a rebirth instead of reviving people with a new life. Today those who present the Vele as places where only the Camorra or drugs exist make a mistake. Today the Camorra is hiding its trade, and drug dealing squares have been dismantled. Today there are no more overdoses or ambulances that come to rescue them. The drugs are still there, but they are no longer only in Scampia, and they are no longer sold in the light of day. Today we need to free people from this brand. Therefore, demolishing the Vele will not mean defeating the Camorra. The architecture is not wrong. The Vele today have become a symbol. And the people of the neighbourhood have understood this, and they are rolling up their sleeves for the redemption of the territory. Moreover, where evil grows, good also grows.

# DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION: FAILURES OF MODELS AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES *Giada Limongi\*, Natalia Kvitkova\*\*, Vito Capasso\*, Martin Spalek\*\**

#### 1 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING IN BERLIN AND NAPLES: DISTORTED MODELS, SPATIAL CHANGES AND SOCIAL IMPACTS

The design of social housing neighbourhoods in the post-war period has been driven by both an overwhelming demand for new housing and the impulse to create self-sufcient systems, working on the relationships between residential buildings and public spaces and between the neighbourhoods and the rest of the city.

The increasing housing demand and dwindling—or poorly managed—resources have led to the failure of many innovative design ideas altering the landscape, as well as the inhabitants' perceptions of and the habitability of the spaces. Some in-depth examples from Berlin and Naples can show the causes of the failure of these models, as well as the social impact of the spatial changes resulting from a lack of residential services, poor local resources, functional issues and lack of connections with the rest of the city. The cases of Berlin and Naples allow us to observe how the alteration of the original design ideas has compromised the physical, functional and social value of the neighbourhoods. From a spatial planning perspective, these distortions made the investigated neighbourhoods fragmented and fragile systems, unlike the project forecasts. From a social perspective, inhabitants fulfl the conditions of their discomfort through a deviant social environment.

#### FROM THE IDEAL MODEL TO THE CURRENT RIONE TRAIANO: URBAN SPACES, ROAD CONNECTIONS, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURES

The 1950s marked the beginning of numerous social housing experiments throughout Italy to meet the strong housing demand of the post-war period. The urban expansion in Naples occurred outside the historic centre. In particular, the Soccavo area in the western part of Naples appeared at that time as an interesting feld of experimentation for planning settlements well tailored to the morphological conformation and the peculiarities of the sites (hills, valleys, volcanic craters and riverbeds).2 It had been previously classifed as agricultural in the 1939 city masterplan, and there were a few scattered farmhouses in the valleys south of the Soccavo historic settlement. Until the 1950s, it maintained its agricultural focus and its very peculiar orographic conformation, due to its volcanic origin. The frst results of this new attempt at building social housing settlements were the

<sup>\*</sup> University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design \*\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

FIGURE 1 Viale Traiano: The road-park that crosses the homonymous neighbourhood. (Except where otherwise quoted, the following photos were taken in 2019)

FIGURE 2 An example of architecture in Rione Traiano

INA-Casa settlements Soccavo-Canzanella, La Loggetta and CEP Traiano, which still refect the strengths and weaknesses of the planning and implementation processes. Despite the common logic of respecting the site's morphology, the three settlements were developed on diferent principles due to a lack of unitary planning. In addition, the original idea of creating satellite neighbourhoods, which inspired, for example, the Marcello Canino design of Rione Traiano,3 was deeply compromised by the difculties in coherent urban master-planning for the whole city until the early 1970s.4

The frst draft by Canino (1957) envisaged a settlement perfectly placed onto the orographic profle: a winding road-park crossing the neighbourhood composed by small settlements and furrowed by the deep valleys that collect the rainwater descending Camaldoli Hill, a road network connecting the neighbourhood with the surrounding area and the city centre and a system of well-distributed residential services and facilities (Figs. 1, 2). If the original idea had been respected, Rione Traiano would have assumed the characteristics of an self-sufcient—but not isolated–system with a stable counterbalance between natural and artifcial elements. The failure of the 1958 city masterplan approval, and of the related metropolitan road network, to connect the suburbs to the city centre compromised at base the original idea of a satellite neighbourhood, leaving Rione Traiano partially isolated.

After a frst revision of Canino's plan in 1959, the construction work began, disregarding a second founding principle of the plan: the relationship with the site morphology and the enhancement of the existing vegetation. As a matter of fact, the deep valleys were illegally flled with construction waste. Moreover, many residential services and facilities were not built, the green areas were not well maintained and spurious additional housing interventions were built in the following years under pressure for more dwellings.5

In brief, the project implementation greatly contributed to the fragility of the established urban system:


FIGURE 3 Rione Traiano. Barriers and spatial fragmentation beside the multifunctional centre opened in 2002

FIGURE 4 *Wohngebiete 1-2*, Marzahn: Inner organisation of the urban fabric. Photo Hubert Link, 1984 (ed.)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

dormitory for many years;

• the strong alteration of the site morphology degraded the green network the plan envisaged, and this was later exacerbated by a lack of maintenance.6

Despite these failures, a comparison between the Traiano plan and its implementation reveals that many innovative design elements of the project still guide the best urban development practices at present, among them, the need to provide «access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces» and «safe, afordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all»,7 the need for place-based studies8 and the key role of the existing natural environment as a leading element of the design process to help to increase city resiliency in the face of emerging challenges, such as climate change or pandemic events, as we have experienced in recent months.

The Soccavo Urban Regeneration Plan, singled out by the State Ministry, the Campania Region and the municipality, and the related 1994 programme agreement fnally recognised the value of the original design idea and the possibility of achieving some of its crucial aims in further neighbourhood regeneration: reafrming the spatial and functional centrality of Viale Traiano, strengthening the system of connections and public spaces and investing fnancial resources in the construction of the multifunctional centre as a potential main attractor element for cultural and social development.9 As result of this important commitment, but confrming the difculty to implement urban-political agreements in Italy, the multifunctional centre was recently completed, while many public and green surrounding spaces remained abandoned as barriers of spatial fragmentation (Fig. 3). 10

#### AMBITIOUS PLANS AND DWINDLING RESOURCES: 100,000 FLATS IN MARZAHN-HELLERSDORF

In 1971, previously neglected housing development became the «core of social policy» in the GDR with the aim of solving the «housing problem as a social problem» by 1990 and, on the ideological side, of ensuring a housing supply for the working people that was superior to that of capitalism. Due to the necessary volume and standardisation of industrial construction, the housing programmes investments were shifted to the outskirts of the city.11 In Berlin-Marzahn from 1976 to 1985, approx. 62,600 fats were built: this corresponds to a share of more than 61 % of the fats built in Berlin during this period– with an additional 55,000 of comparable typology in nearby Kaulsdorf-Nord and Hellersdorf. Apart from a handful of 20–22-storey high-rises, more than 60 % of the residential buildings were built using prefabricated materials of the Wohnungsbauserie 70 (WBS 70) typology.

The internal urban planning competition for Marzahn in 1974 showed an intention to combine the buildings into spatial units and to make the most of the limited resources for industrialised housing construction. The design of the building structure was determined not only by the desire for a high structural density, but also to assert the claim of a new quality in housing and urban development. In summary, there were three essential premises of planning:

#### FIGURE 5 (LEFT)

An example of industrialised urbanism in Marzahn-Hellersdorf along Landsberger Allee

FIGURE 6 (RIGHT) Hellersdorf. Prefab housing with WBS 70 Typology (ed.)


Even after multiple revisions of the winning design by Roland Korn, the assumptions of the competition remained intact throughout the concept phase and towards implementation.12 However, in the second half of the 1980s, industrialised housing construction increasingly ran out of money. As the political target of 1990 came closer, more and more focus went on building density and reaching housing quotas, following the economic calculations of the construction industry.13

With the strains of a rapidly weakening economy, the additional costs, necessary work resources and complexity of fulflling the ambitious construction programme on the city's edge became apparent.14 Within and next to the coherent early imagined, planned and built *Wohngebiete 1–3* of Marzahn, developments from 1985 on—most notably the additions to Marzahn and in Hellersdorf—can be viewed as approaches to build ambitious housing quantities with dwindling resources—altering initial guidelines in implementation, scale and quality.15 Nonetheless, while the quantities proceeded as planned, alterations over course of time can be seen in the following:

• Keeping pace with an ambitious construction plan led to reduced housing quality in building and maintenance, resulting in a quick decline in tenants' satisfaction: the

#### FIGURE 7 Neighbourhood public spaces in Marzahn-Hellersdorf: sheer size

amounts of materials used were constantly cut, leading to defciencies in structure and simplifed electrical confgurations and interior fttings. Furthermore, the capacities of the building industry were fully engaged in adding new housing, leaving builders nearly incapable of delivering basic repairs or maintenance.


From today's point of view, the construction of large housing estates and the extensive construction of new buildings represents a signifcant improvement in the housing supply even if the building structures were increasingly criticised as early as their inaugurations. Housing in Marzahn and other large housing estates allowed the state-assigned residents in-

FIGURE 8 Marzahn. Springfuhl Park at the centre of *Wohngebiet 1* (ed.)

FIGURE 9 Marzahn-Hellersforf. New panoramic pathway in Kienberg Park by IGA 2017 (ed.)

dividual rooms, central heating and hot water, improvements in hygienic living conditions and above-average access to open spaces. Still, shortcomings in the building fabric soon became apparent, as the infrastructure was insufcient and the necessary transport links were partly built late. Problems set in when a social segregation process began, and inhabitants left the neighbourhood. This process had already started in the last years of the GDR,16 though reunifcation and the following years fostered and fanned the development. The structural defciencies, social segregation and population loss of up to 30 % at the end of the 1990s stigmatised the district as a quarter for social descent. Segregation patterns by income and age became apparent—in alliance with an infux of migrants from the former Soviet Union. With new capital infux from the government programme Stadtumbau Ost starting in 2002, adaptation and completion of the district could be ensured. The programme ofered a methodical mix of working on the quality of public spaces, appropriating infrastructures and dismantling surplus housing to manage shrinking processes. With the longer lifespan of the population and a sense of place-making, the acceptance by the inhabitants grew, despite lasting structural and urban defciencies. Programmes like the German Federal Garden Show (*Internationale Gartenausstellung*) IGA 2017 on the Kienberg recently acted as motors and showcases for a regenerating district (Fig. 9). The processes of both Stadtumbau Ost and the IGA 2017 can at least partly be seen in the tradition of the original planning ideas—keeping the paradigms alive, while overcoming the implementation struggles.

#### MONTERUSCIELLO DISTRICT AND THE TOPIC OF CONTINUITY

Monterusciello is one of the last extensive public housing settlements in Italy. Despite several problems, it has achieved important results thanks to the recognition of previous reconstruction activity after the 1980 earthquake, which also deeply afected the Naples metropolitan area.

The earthquake's efects highlighted the urgency of two courses of actions: to ensure the historical heritage and to develop the degraded and weak suburban belt of the city bet-

#### FIGURE 10 (LEFT) Monterusciello, Pozzuoli. The rational urban structure

#### FIGURE 11 (RIGHT)

Neighbourhood public services in Monterusciello: the civic centre and the sheltered market on the right (ed.)

ter. Focusing on this second target, and fnanced through National Law No. 219/81 for earthquake reconstruction, the Municipality of Naples and the immediately surrounding towns approved a Recovery Plan of the Outskirts (*Piano delle Periferie*) to improve living conditions, urban facilities and public services.17

In this context, the town of Pozzuoli experienced increasing bradiseismic activity at the time, and needed to relocate part of the inner-city population for the second time in recent decades. This condition of continuous emergency left a short period for the conception and the realisation of the Monterusciello housing programme that was enacted as part of the more comprehensive Piano delle Periferie with the ofcial target of lightening the demographic density of the old town and helping to improve living standards with low costs and reduced land use.18

Although the immediate aim of the Monterusciello district was the relocation of inhabitants evacuated from Rione Terra and the city centre, its Chief Designer Agostino Renna conceived the new site, where the settlement should have been built, as the core of a wider and open surrounding territory with agricultural as well as urban use, merging with the city centre of Pozzuoli (Figs. 10–13). In the defnition of the urban structure, the master plan clearly referred to the classic *ippodameo* urban model: a rational mosaic structure, arranged into terraces, consisting of eighteen units to develop an urban generator over and above the simple expansion of an existing town.19

Built as a landmark and a core for the extensive area of Phlegraean Fields, with the aim of representing a strong relationship between the city and the suburbs,20 Monterusciello faced the typical suburban problems, and today it seems to lie in a dormant state, probably awaiting activation by the clamour of voices and the social relationships of the old Pozzuoli. Anthropological studies carried out following the establishment of the district examined the relocation of the inhabitants into the new settlement and the deep alteration of their previous living environment*.* These studies found many changes not only in the emotional sphere of the inhabitants, but also in their condition of self-awareness, their feeling of place belonging and their sense of community.21

The two conditions of old town centre and of the new allocation appear profoundly opposite, already from a simple morphological confrontation: the centre of Pozzuoli is compact and irregular, characterised by short and intense perspectives unlike Monterusciello district, which is extremely wide, is repetitive in its composition and has long-range landscape views.22 Despite the good intentions of the plan, deriving from a close study and careful analysis of urban models by Agostino Renna, to guarantee a theoretical foundation for the urban plan through its main reference to the *ippodameo* Greek *exemplum*, what is defnitively missing in the resulting urban environment is a sense of continuity, which should help the inhabitants to identify with and to appropriate the new place.

In addition, the non-fulflment of some public facilities, the wide, open scale of the urban space and the lack of maintenance in public areas, as well as in residential buildings, weakened the social fabric,23 leaving inhabitants to retreat into their own private dimension and sharpening the sense of semantic emptiness.

FIGURE 13 Monterusciello. The inner space of the upper civic centre, currently underused (ed.)

FIGURE 12 Neighbourhood public spaces in Monterusciello: the main square atop the hill

#### FIGURE 14 (LEFT)

The Märkisches Viertel housing estate: A model of replicative architecture

#### FIGURE 15 (RIGHT)

Packerelgraben and the surrounding park traversing the Märkisches Viertel

However, to counterbalance this condition, in recent years, some citizens' initiatives, such as the adoption of abandoned public spaces, have included activities to increase social integration, citizenship and a sense of community.

Currently, Monterusciello is the subject of new territorial transformation strategies, promoted by the European Union and planned by the Municipality of Pozzuoli, with the aim of developing the urban environment through economic and social development, focusing on the relationship between the new urbanised areas and the surrounding agricultural and rural context to create new job opportunities and to generate a fertile substratum for a new sense of community and belonging.24

#### CONDITIONS OF IDENTITY FOR SOCIAL HOUSING—BELONGING AND THE INDIVIDUAL

The peripheral housing of Berlin and Naples illustrates the spatial characteristics of social problems resulting from poor or badly managed local resources, mobility and functional issues. The conditions of identity have been shaped by their critical social problems, but to what extent can we trace this behaviour to a lack of the aggregation spaces, facilities and connections that were planned but not fully implemented?

Furthermore, how do these critical issues impacting the sense of belonging and identity manifest into a deviant social environment?

Identity is derived from theoretical conceptualisations of space (meanings and feelings we imbue and memories specifc to a place) as well as the exchanges and dialogues that occur during the fulflment of routines and habits related to this environment.25 Identity demarcates spatial boundaries in an urban environment, from the city as a whole down to neighbourhoods, blocks and buildings. Identity is also limited by these boundaries, as we see in social housing whose perimeters both contain and exclude the people who occupy them. Residents of neighbourhoods with easily defned edges are more likely to have stronger emotional bonds to where they live.26 They often experience a dichotomy of feelings by which, on the one hand, they sufer from disorientation and dissatisfaction, while on the other hand they also have a heightened sense of belonging and rootedness.

FIGURE 16 Le Vele of Scampia: Spatial characteristic and social issues in social housing

Residents' identity manifests through social exclusion: a dynamic process by which people experience reduced opportunities due to a lack of localised resources—access to transport, aggregation spaces and basic amenities—which can adversely afect their opportunities outside the boundaries of their own exclusive space.27 This creates the conditions for informal and illegal activities as they form networks and appropriate their environment for survival.28 Social exclusion, in itself, sometimes mitigates its own efects by becoming a coping strategy and ofering social mobility, even if only within particular spatial boundaries. In the social housing cases of Berlin, for example, "Plattenbauten" in the East and the "Wohnblöcke" in the West have very distinct political backgrounds and, consequently, differing social signifcance. In 1990, about one third of East Berliners lived on large housing estates, compared to only 5 % of West Berliners.29 Many of the western *Großsiedlungen* share the formal characteristics of the eastern Plattenbau, but their housing estate identity difers from that of the rest of the population. Social problems occur under diferent circumstances but owing to similar conditions of exclusion resulting in deviant social identities.

The GDR monopoly on housing meant that the Platte was the standard dwelling experience for most of the urban population, regardless of socioeconomic class. Their sense of belonging and identifcation was related to the geographical, cultural and ideological dimensions of housing. The notable decline in economically and socially stable residents by 37 % between 1990 and 2003 in Marzahn30 and its reputation for social problems related to its association with Neo-Nazis and the so-called "Vietnamese mafa" afected the sense of community, social cohesion and identity. However, feelings of attachment to the positive spatial qualities of Marzahn, including abundant public green spaces, child-friendly facilities, good transportation links and afordable rent, recovered its social identity. The impact of quality amenities is likewise emphasised in the Märkisches Viertel housing estate. It was criticised for the monotony of its design, which was felt to discourage appro-

FIGURE 17 Vela B: The bad state of maintenance and the surrounding public spaces (ed.)

priation and identifcation. Furthermore, its poor social reputation emerged while functional services such as playgrounds, public squares and shops were still under construction, but tenants already occupied the fats. Residents felt stigmatised by outsiders based on their housing identity, leading to social exclusion. The eventual provision of these amenities improved its reputation.31

More dramatically, the case of the Vele of Scampia reveals the spatial characteristic of social issues in social housing: not only was the neighbourhood excluded from transportation to the centre of Naples, and therefore, the regional labour market, for many years, it sufered the absence of basic amenities and discrepancies between proposed project design and what was actually built,32 which resulted in acute, long-term social problems including illegal occupation and the persistence of a black-market economy. The implementation of community facilities and the demolition of all but one of the Vele was an attempt to renegotiate the identity of the neighbourhood to solve what remains of its critical social problems. From the cases of Berlin and Naples, we can observe how social problems fourish as residents are excluded from basic infrastructure and fulfl the conditions of their identity through a deviant social environment. To address the social problems, there must be a necessary fulflment of the design and services envisaged by their original plans as well as support for citizen initiatives to reclaim their identity on their own terms.

#### RESPONSES TO FAILURES: ADAPTABILITY OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND URBAN REGENERATION POLICIES

The experimentation with new social housing districts in the second post-war period responded to the idea of creating self-sufcient systems. The original plans were based on some innovative aspects that can still act as starting points for improving urban resilience:33


However, the mistakes made during the implementation—delays and quality of construction of residential services and infrastructure, the lack of social mix, the settlement of a greater number of inhabitants than expected—have compromised the original objectives both in Naples and Berlin. The main critical issues can be summarised as follows:


FIGURE 18 Vela B: Mural on a door of an internal walkway (ed.)

FIGURE 19

Pangea Park in Scampia: Reappropriation of an abandoned "green zone" by local citizen associations (ed.)

The failure of the investigated social housing neighbourhoods—bad management of services and infrastructure, alteration of the spatial features, social segregation—resulted not only from the mistakes made during the implementation, but also from the lack or inappropriateness of urban policies aimed at tackling emerging urban problems in the following years.34 Still, looking at the reverse process starting from the critical points to defne new urban regeneration strategies based on the idea of the original plans can be a starting point for harnessing new opportunities.

The current state and resilience of the presented case-studies reveals diferent conditions in the diferent locations. In Berlin, the fight of inhabitants after the fall of the Wall into quickly available housing alternatives prompted massive vacancies. This condition promoted government-funded regeneration programmes to counter the plummeting of the district into uncertain futures.35 In Naples, we witness self-healing processes in compensation for government responses, as citizens act as the main driver through the reappropriation of abandoned spaces and the creation of a new sense of community and belonging (Fig. 19). Both approaches can be defned as adaptability. To consider sustainable regeneration, bottom-up activation and policy intervention must be integrated into a planned regeneration process to address the issues resulting from the unplanned development and to adapt to the changes ahead.

The complexity of the emerging problems requires a systematic approach to address critical issues interconnected with each other. They need to refer to governance, social and economic aspects and environmental factors alike. Therefore, comprehensive strategies need to be developed, assessed and adapted.

The attributes of the urban development programmes Urban Districts with Specifc Development Need – The Social City (*Stadteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf* – *Die soziale Stadt*) and Stadtumbau Ost that took efect in Berlin-Marzahn can be seen as a jumping-of point for further conceptualisation. From 2002 to 2016 the programmes' investments amounted to more than 250 million euros spread across the felds of activating and vitalising communities, valorisation of public space, dismantling of housing and appropriation of infrastructure (Fig. 20). Reassessments of the processes and outcomes raised some critical success factors, stating that the programmes:


#### FIGURE 20

Marzahn-Hellersdorf. *Integrated Development and Action Concept* project (2002) fnanced by the Stadtumbau Ost programme. (Plan cutout) Analysis of the greened areas (ed.)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

• installed neighbourhood management ofces as intermediary partners between neighbourhoods and administrations.

Despite investments in facilities, infrastructures and the communities, challenges certainly remain. Afordable housing remains by far the predominant type of housing. Therefore, large housing estates—including Marzahn and Hellersdorf—tend to be persistent collecting ponds for low-income workers. The current pressure on the inner-city housing markets forces people with migration backgrounds, non-workers and single-income, single-parent households to Marzahn-Hellersdorf—creating a new set of challenges, especially in the outermost neighbourhoods that have been neglected since construction through regeneration.

In Naples, the case of Rione Traiano has shown how the complex relationship between nature and urban settlements has been seized as a design opportunity, and it still gives a strong meaning to places and infuences the spatial conformation of the neighbourhood and the sense of belonging of the inhabitants today. Unfortunately, the alteration of places during implementation has compromised this balance. The critical and persistent problems in defning the Rione Traiano require a holistic approach to address critical issues interconnected with each other: spatial, social, and environmental aspects.

Therefore, even if the Soccavo Urban Regeneration Plan recognised in the original design idea the best way to address some critical issues, it could not activate further revitalisation processes in a comprehensive strategy:


The outlined situation reinforces the need for integrated approaches across scale and stakeholders. The main opportunity lies in fostering the ability to defne and adapt development strategies on a local level—integrating political, economic and ecological actors and the community. Lastly, community activities could support policies and strategies for creating resilient neighbourhoods starting from memories and knowledge by gaining information on the design/implementation workfows, the realisation defciencies, the dynamics of response and the adaptation of communities to persistent issues.

Therefore, the problems emerging from the analysis of the social housing neighbourhoods in Naples and Berlin could be tackled in four fundamental ways:

• bridging the gap between design and implementation by improving the physical and functional system in terms of connections, residential services, public spaces and housing quality, recovering the unfulflled plan targets;


#### CREATING BELONGING AND CHANGING IMPACTS

From the exasperating conditions of incompleteness and neglect of many social housing neighbourhoods, societal integration and spontaneous development of a sense of community and belonging can arise. Citizens' responses to critical issues persisting from the unfulflled designs and the lack of residential services and facilities, in the form of appropri ation of abandoned and dilapidated spaces, can be defned as adaptability. Furthermore, the recognition and support of bottom-up community initiatives on the part of the authorities have helped to foster social change by providing marginalised communities with a sense of agency.

The social conditions of inhabitants were dramatically impacted by unimplemented designs which were originally supposed to provide «particularly important points of identi fcation for the "new societies" housing estates and redevelopment projects were expected to foster».38 As such, the processes of place identity sufered, from the perspectives of both the inhabitants and outside observers, leading to geographies of exclusion from larger urban identities. In cases where the design plans were partly respected during implementation, in Monterusciello for example, the monotony of the estate buildings was often criticised for discouraging residents from appropriating the space and for detracting from their sense of place identity. Criticism and uncertainties were not as signifcant concerns as the architectural quality of the building projects, their urban design or the ability to interact positively in continuity with the context and actually to work on the set of relationships between those who live in the physical space and material structures, leaving the perceptions of the suburbs unsolved. Indeed, perplexities arise regarding the ability to rebuild not only the material structures and urban space, but especially civil and social coexistence, not referring to the relationships that determine the quality of the building works, but to the quality of the places that constitute and improve the consistency and meaning of the relationships.

As these critical issues progressed, with communal spaces largely left derelict by lack of maintenance budgets and appropriated as sites of illicit activities such as drug abuse and criminal behaviour with little to no ofcial intervention, the dire nature of life on the es -

tates encouraged residents to organise themselves into informal groups as a coping strategy. They countered the long-term neglect of authorities by appropriating housing stock, outside spaces and abandoned facilities for community purposes, often changing the intention of these spaces to suit their own needs.

This kind of bottom-up resident action stimulated overall interaction where such social spaces were lacking, and it generated a supportive network on the estate. This triggered the process of identifcation, emphasised by the shared sense of belonging and pride in their place. These resident-led initiatives helped to derive a sense of great solidarity, dynamism and cultural vitality, which lead to a positive association with their neighbourhood identity, a sense of community and social cohesion. Furthermore, these groups and informal organisations «emerged as unruly political actors»,39 who demanded recognition and support, in the face of political indiference and social exclusion. The results of the spatial activisms of their adaptability and resilience must be integrated into the planned regeneration processes that many social housing neighbourhoods are now facing to rectify the original issues stemming from the unplanned development of the neighbourhoods. In addition, collaboration with these initiatives recognises the unique value of their place identities.

This emergence of social formations derived from the appropriation of social housing neighbourhoods by its inhabitants can be recognised as a sort of spatial agency. In this sense, adaptability to political indiference, socioeconomic abandonment and dereliction have helped to foster a sense of community and belonging.

#### NOTES

1  In this article, which the authors wrote jointly, individual contributions can be identifed as follows: "Design and Implementation of Social Housing in Berlin and Naples: Distorted Models, Spatial Changes and Social Impacts" and "From the Ideal Model to the Current Rione Traiano: Urban Spaces, Road Connections, Green Infrastructures" (Giada Limongi); "Ambitious Plans and Dwindling Resources: 100,000 Flats in Marzahn-Hellersdorf" (Martin Spalek); "Monterusciello District and the Topic of Continuity" (Vito Capasso); "Conditions of Identity for Social Housing—Belonging and the Individual" (Natalia Kvitkova); "Responses to Failures: Adaptability of Local Communities and Urban Regeneration Policies" (Giada Limongi, Martin Spalek); "Creating Belonging and Changing Impacts" (Natalia Kvitkova, Vito Capasso).

2  Lilia Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli. La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica* (Napoli: Electa Napoli, 2001), pp. 155–58.

3  CEP Traiano was conceived as a self-sufcient neighbourhood inspired by the northern European models of the 1950s, among others the Vallingy neighbourhood from the 1952 Stockholm Masterplan.

4  See Alessandro Dal Piaz, *Napoli 1945–1985. Quarant'anni di urbanistica* (Milano: Franco Angeli Editore, 1985).

5  Gianluca Frediani, "Il quartiere Traiano di Marcello Canino. Distruzione di un modello," *ArQ n.2 – Architettura Quaderni, Sezione "Sperimentazione Progettuale" del Dipartimento di Progettazione urbana, Università degli Studi di Napoli* (December 1989): pp. 67–77.

6  Adriana Galderisi and Andrea Ceudech, "La mitigazione del rischio idrogeologico attraverso gli strumenti ordinari di governo delle trasformazioni urbane. Il caso del quartiere Soccavo a Napoli," in *Città, Salute, Sicurezza. Strumenti di governo e casi studio – La gestione del Rischio*, ed. Maria Cristina Treu (Milan: Maggioli Editore, 2009), pp. 474–502.

7  See Targets 11.2 and 11.7 of "Sustainable Development Goal 11: Make Cities Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable." United Nations, *The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development* (New York: United Nations, 2015).

8  Susan L. Cutter et al., "A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disas ters," *Global Environmental Change*, 18 (2008): pp. 598–606.

9  The Soccavo Urban Regeneration Plan is available on the ofcial website of the Municipality of Naples: https://www.comune.napoli.it/fex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/16204.

10  Carlo Gasparrini and Anna Terracciano, *Dross City. Metabolismo urbano e progetto di riciclo dei drosscape* (Trento: List, 2017).

11  See "Urban Space and Housing Programmes in East Berlin Inner City: The Case of Leipziger Straße," pp. 209–224.

12  Jascha Philipp Braun, *Großsiedlungsbau im geteilten Berlin* (Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag, 2018), p. 198. 13  The Principles for the Socialist Development of Urban Development and Architecture in the GDR State (1982). «Realization of the projects in the shortest possible time and with the least construction efort is deci sive in the usefulness of the investment», Frank Betker, *Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit. Kommunale Stadtplanung in der DDR und nach der Wende (1945–1990)* (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005), p. 124.

14  The planners themselves stated that «the necessary division of labour led in part to such an additive under standing of urban design that the shape reference or efect of the individual product within the city as a whole is hardly accepted by various companies». Excerpt taken from Dr. Rolf Walter, VBK-DDR in "Berlin-Marzahn – Anliegen und Notwendigkeit komplexer Stadtgestaltung," *Architektur der DDR* (October 1983).

15  Danielle S. Pensley, "City Planning and State Policy in the GDR: The Example of Neubaugebiet Hellers dorf," *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 19, no. 4 (1995): p. 456.

16  The reunifcation process exacerbated the problematic situation, although Marzahn already had a negative migration balance of 5,030 people in 1989 (infux: 8,474, outfow: 13,504).

17  The authorities in Naples and the surrounding municipalities approved the Recovery Plan of the Outskirts on April 16, 1980 to improve the living conditions in the suburban belt that surrounds the city centre and to provide urban facilities and public services for those areas. The plan was fnanced by Law No. 219/81 for the reconstruction of the earthquake-afected areas and implemented by the Extraordinary Programme for Resi dential Building (PSER, *Programma Straordinario di Edilizia Residenziale*). For further information, see the report of the National Institute of Urban Planning conference regarding the results of the PSER, *Il Recupero dei Centri Storici della Periferia napoletana* (Matera, June 1988). For a deeper understanding, see Alessandro Dal Piaz, *Napoli 1945–1985. Quarant'anni di urbanistica* (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1985); Lilia Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli: La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica* (Naples: Electa, 2001).

18  Lilia Pagano, *Agostino Renna* : *Rimontaggio di un pensiero sulla conoscenza dell'architettura: antologia di scritti e progetti 1964–1988* (Naples: CLEAN Edizioni, 2012), pp. 300–17.

19  Francesco Escalona and Dora Francese, *Monteruscello: L'impianto urbano e gli edifci pubblici*, Progetto Pozzuoli, Quaderni di documentazione, no. 3 (Naples: Giannini, 1987), pp. 9–18.

20  Escalona and Francese, *Monteruscello*, pp. 9–18.

21  The anthropological studies in Pozzuoli were conducted from February 1984 to December 1986 within the framework of the 1983 Convention between the Ministry for the Coordination of Civil Protection, the Municipality of Pozzuoli and the University of Naples "Federico II," to accompany the reconstruction after the bradyseismic events. Amalia Signorelli led a team of experts for research and the results are given in an unpublished report about the outcomes of the research, *Rapporto di sintesi sui risultati della ricerca*, Amalia Signorelli, (Naples, 1985). For further information about the results of the studies see: Amalia Signorelli, *Antropologia urbana. Introduzione alla ricerca in Italia*, (Milan: Guerini studio, 1996). pp. 133–153.

22  Pagano, *Agostino Renna*, pp. 300–17.

23  Signorelli, *Antropologia urbana*, pp. 133–53.

24  Monteruscello is the subject of territorial transformation strategies through the project *Monterusciello Agro-City*. It is a project of the European Union funded under the Urban Innovative Actions umbrella, which aims at promoting innovative ideas and actions for sustainable development in the urban areas. This project proposes a series of activities with the aim of redeveloping the urban environment and, at the same time, improving the social conditions in Monterusciello, where cultural and environmental problems join together. See http://www.macpozzuoli.eu; http://www.uia-initiative.eu.

25  Helmuth Berking at al., N*egotiating Urban Conficts. Interaction, Space and Control* (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2006), p. 188.

26  Douglas Robertson, James Smyth, and Ian McIntosh, *Neighbourhood Identity: People, Time and Place* (Stirling: Stirling University, 2008), p. 37.

27  Alan Murie and Sako Musterd, "Social Exclusion and Opportunity Structures in European Cities and

Neighbourhoods," *Urban Studies*, 41 (2004): p. 1442.

28  Murie and Musterd, "Social Exclusion," p. 1449.

29  Florian Urban, "Large Housing Estates of Berlin, Germany," in *Housing Estates in Europe. The Urban Book Series*, ed. Daniel Baldwin Hess, Tiit Tammaru and Maarten van Ham (Cham: Springer Nature, 2018), p. 100. 30  *Neighbourhood Management in Berlin: Information on the "Socially Integrative City" Programme* (Berlin: Senate Department for Urban Development Communication, 2010).

31  «Once the parks, shops and communal facilities were completed in the 1970s, and once the owner carried out improvements on leaking roofs and defcient insulation in the early 1980s, resident satisfaction was on the rise. Press reports were increasingly positive, commending the parks and playgrounds, the amount of street life and the community spirit.» Urban, "Large Housing Estates of Berlin," p. 108.

32  When the Vele were constructed, many of the original building details were eliminated or changed: interior spaces became smaller; external walls were reduced to 12 cm thickness, causing condensation problems and mould in the walls; external corridors between the two building lines—which were crucially intended to recreate the feel of the backstreets of Naples' city centre—became narrower; lifts were not installed.

33  S. T. A. Pickett, Mary Cadenasso, and Morgan Grove, "Resilient Cities: Meaning, Models, and Metaphor for Integrating the Ecological, Socio-Economic, and Planning Realms," *Landscape and Urban Planning* 69 (2004): pp. 369–84.

34  Francesca Moraci et al., "Making Less Vulnerable Cities: Resilience as a New Paradigm of Smart Planning," *Sustainability*, 10/755 (2018): pp. 11–13.

35  Anja B. Nelle, "Die Anpassungsfähigkeit schrumpfender Städte: Erfahrungen aus dem Stadtumbau Ost," in *Die Anpassungsfähigkeit von Städten. Zwischen Resilienz, Krisenreaktion und Zukunftsfähigkeit*, ed. Uwe Altrock, Thomas Kuder, Nuissl Henning (Berlin: Altrock, 2014), p. 251.

36  Hildegard von Schröteler and Gisella Schmitt, *Stadterneuerung* (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2016), p. 241.

37  Von Schröteler and Schmitt, *Stadterneuerung*, p. 213.

38  Maren Harnack et al., *Community Spaces: Conception, Appropriation, Identity* (Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2015), p. 8.

39  Harnack et al., *Community Spaces*, p. 11.

# TAKING SOCIAL WORK TO THE STREETS WITH GANGWAY. *Interview with Murat Drayef and Mary Brehmer by Ilenia Gioia\* and Natalia Kvitkova\*\**

*Gangway e.V. was founded in 1990 in Berlin in order to cope with an increase in violent youth groups. Today, the gangs are gone but the street work is more imperative than ever before. With 27 street work teams, the association seeks to help adolescents and adults who are not reached by the conventional aid system. Their aim is to enable this vulnerable part of society to lead an independent life.*

FIGURE 1 (TOP, NEXT PAGE) Playgrounds in Märkisches Viertel, 2019

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design \*\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

*Please tell us a bit about your project and its relationship to this area, Märkisches Viertel in Reinickendorf, and this particular square.* 

**Murat:** This square is actually part of our work. It was built in 2013 as a place for youths to meet and hangout. It's a very small square and it serves 40,000 inhabitants. The high density of the neighbourhood often leads to conficts. I've been living here since 1978. My parents came from Turkey and Tunisia and I was born here in Germany. In 1978, when we moved in, there were only Germans living here. Now, fourty years later, there are around 120 diferent nationalities residing here. There's been a big change! Our organization, Gangway, is active in every district in Berlin; in total, there are six people working here in Reinickendorf which has a population of 280,000 people. **Mary:** Our three-person team works here in Märkisches Viertel and the other three guys work in the other neighbourhoods in Reinickendorf. We are one big team, but we divided up in order to be more efcient. **Murat:** We work with young people between 14 and 27 years old. We meet them by hanging out in the public spaces they frequent. We try to work with youths who are not being helped by other organizations and who maybe feel forgotten. The young adults we try to help are people who no longer want to work for various reasons, whether it's because they have sufered racism, discrimination, or were involved in criminal organisations or endured other types of social hardship. Our primary aim is to build relationships; it's critical that the teens are the ones who decide to work with us in order for us to be able to continue helping them long-term. We are guests in their habitat and they decide whether they want us to be part of it or not. Gangway has established this as a routine procedure in our work. This is the approach all the teams take across Berlin but, naturally, every district has its own character and so we adapt it when necessary.

Gangway was created in response to an outburst of violence incited by right-wing associations who felt entitled to "celebrate" the centenary of Adolf Hitler's birth in 1989. During this time, many young people with immigrant backgrounds began to form gangs to protect themselves against right-wing groups. It was, therefore, necessary to intervene among them. From the beginning, we set certain rules: these included working on a volunteer basis, not collaborating with the police but

instead, working alongside the people who needed support and immediately aiming to build a relationship based on reciprocal trust. The organization started out working in three districts; nowadays we are across the whole city.

We are one of the most important organizations in Germany dealing with integration and social crisis situations. Our role is to take care of these youths until they are able to manage their lives independently. **Mary:** We also represent the interests and the voices of the kids at the Senate of Berlin or district meetings.

**Murat:** The core of our activities is hanging out with the kids. It's similar to a youth club. We begin by socializing within the group and getting to know them before we ofer individual support. We only make a move if they express interest and we try to cater to their interests.

For example, there are a lot of kids who would like to ride a BMX bike here on the square, as everyone else does, but maybe they don't have money to buy a bike. We then try to provide a solution so that they can participate. Through this, we are trying to help them integrate themselves among their peers.

*Are there any diferences in the way you work between the former Eastern and* 

#### *Western districts of Berlin? For example, Marzahn-Hellersdorf? What is special about the case of Märkisches Viertel?*

**Murat:** When you go to Marzahn, the architecture is very similar; lots of high-rise buildings built on a small parcel of land. I think the diference between the districts is the nationalities of the people who live on the housing estate. Märkisches Viertel is much more multicultural than Marzahn. **Mary:** Our colleagues in the eastern districts of the city work more with youths with German backgrounds while in Reinickendorf, we encounter more people with immigrant backgrounds, often from Muslim countries.

**Murat:** Historically, before the Wall came down—actually, even more when the Wall fell—the eastern districts were generally more right orientated. People from the east and west mixed, to some extent, although even today this integration hasn't been completely realized. But, the east has been slowly making progress.

Märkisches Viertel was a former Western district. My parents, for example, came at the end of the '60s as guest workers contracted to work for Siemens and AEG. However, most people with Turkish or Arabic origins migrated to Kreuzberg. Few were aforded the privilege to come to the

FIGURE 2 (CURRENT AND NEXT PAGES) Gangway Contest 2019

newly constructed suburban districts. We were among the frst foreigners to live here. The area was built as an afordable, working-class district at the end of the 1960s. At one point, it did have a bad reputation; there was talk about how people would jump of the high-rises, that no one knew their neighbours despite living in very close quarters, and that at night, it was dangerous to go out on the street.

These were largely prejudices and clichés. Having said that, today it's a much nicer place to live. The housing company GeSo-Bau has contributed a lot in the last thirty years to make Märkisches Viertel a respectable district. They modernised the buildings, they added more green spaces to make it more attractive and get people to move here. Today, a lot of people want to move here but there aren't enough apartments. They are having to turn people away because the district has become so popular.

#### *Do you feel that the work you do is sufcient or could you use more support?*

**Murat:** We are an important part of social work. The feld of street social work is very diferent from institutional social work. I

will say, from a political point of view, in the last ten years, more and more money has been cut from youth social work budgets. So from that point of view, no, it's not enough.

However, if you look from another perspective, what we ofer in terms of school support and help to search for jobs, is already greatly benefting the youth. In this neighbourhood, there are around 10,000 children and only two social centres with a capacity of 100 people. There isn't enough space to accommodate all the children who may need support. We are a good addition to social work because we can provide this kind of support directly on the street.

#### *Do you receive funding?*

**Murat:** Our association has a mandate from the Berlin Senate which fnances ⅔ of our costs and the other ⅓ is taken over by the district. Initially, there were three of us, but now we have expanded to six members, all of whom are fnanced. **Mary:** On top of this, there is also special fnancing for supporting young refugees, like in my case. I was contracted, initially for one year, to work tweny hours per week for this purpose.

It was not certain whether my contract would continue to be renewed because they didn't know how the situation with the refugees and immigrants was going to play out; we didn't know how long the refugees would remain since there was a possibility some of them would leave. The majority have stayed. I now have a permanent contract and my work is secure.

#### *How many groups or individuals are you currently supporting?*

**Murat:** We operate in two locations in Renickendorf, one of which is in Märkisches Viertel. We are spread across the whole neighbourhood here; we visit shops, sporting areas and schools to see where kids are either aggregating or isolating, rather than staying put in a single location. We currently work with ten groups, totalling around 680 children. About half of them we work with intensely.

#### *We have just seen the new refugee housing under construction; have you been involved in the process of developing their integration programmes?*

**Murat:** Each district has to provide 5 % of the territory for the construction of temporary houses for refugees. The housing here has been under construction for two years. Citizens are usually the last to be informed about these interventions since they could be frightened or intimidated by the idea of the unexpected refugee reception centres in their neighbourhoods. Three years ago, there was a meeting at which the associations working in the neighbourhood were invited and asked what they could do to make the refugees feel integrated here. Unfortunately, they got everyone involved very late in the process when there was already a lot of tension around the topic. The integration process should have started much earlier and slower.

**III IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS**

# IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS: BERLIN

Urban Space and Housing Programmes in East Berlin Inner City: The Case of Leipziger Straße *Antonello Scopacasa*

The Joint German Competition for the Fennpfuhl Neighbourhood in 1956 and its Outcomes *Andreas Butter*

Yesterday's Utopia and Today's Reality: Post-War Housing Models in West Berlin *Christian Haid, Lukas Staudinger*

Back to the City: The Central Areas of Berlin's Large Housing Estates. Märkisches Viertel and Marzahn as Planning Examples of Late Modern Urban Discourses *Jascha Philipp Braun*

East Germany Under Palm Trees: GDR Housing Projects Abroad *Andreas Butter*

**208** DETAILED STUDIES

IBA-Neubau: Social Housing as a Renewal Generator for the Inner City *Antonello Scopacasa*

#### ACRONYM LIST


# URBAN SPACE AND HOUSING PROGRAMMES IN EAST BERLIN INNER CITY: THE CASE OF LEIPZIGER STRAßE

*Antonello Scopacasa\**

#### INTRODUCTION

With the founding of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1949, East Berlin became the capital of a regional state representing the Soviet Union on a worldwide stage. The state's political structure was downgraded into several districts (*Bezirke*) without political autonomy,1 and most decisions were infuenced or imposed from above by the SED party.2 According to Minister for Building Lothar Bolz in the same year: «the reconstruction has to be, not only an example of the latest technology, but frstly, the construction form of social, economical and cultural principles of the right democracy».3 That led, for instance, to the expression "real socialism."4

To understand the urban politics of East Berlin, it is helpful to consider the relationship between the relevant actors. On the one hand, we can see the two main urban design promoters of the city, the Deutsche Bauakademie, connected to the State Ministry for Building (*Ministerium für Aufbau*) 5 and mostly able to decide on the more representative interventions, and the Department for Building and Urban Design of the Magistrat von Groß-Berlin (a kind of municipality without political autonomy, also under the infuence of the Ministry), able to work on all other municipal interventions. Then, on the other hand, we can see the Soviet Union's political control and the dependent SED party apparatus, which directly acted in Berlin—as well as in the urban planning process—as a free occupation zone until 1971, when the capital of GDR, due to the new trend envisaged by Erich Honecker, fnally started to attain, at least partially, the status of an autonomous administration.6

During the Stalin government, and in the case of East Berlin from 1950 to 1955, the *neue nationale Baukunst* had fnally become prominent. The words of Kurt Liebknecht, architect and director of the Deutsche Bauakademie, are a ftting way to describe this approach: «The reception of classic tradition, unlike the Soviet Union, is still recent for us. We need to convince ourselves that the battle for real German architecture is decisive in the battle for the unity of our people and the conservation of [German] national culture».<sup>7</sup> The Urban Design Principles (*Grundsätze des Städtebaues*) approved in July 1950 were consequently an adaptation of the 1933 CIAM principles to the Stalinist urbanism of the

\* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and Design (Habitat Unit)

#### FIGURE 1

Backyard of Stalinallee in a photo by Gisela Dutschmann, employee at Department for Building and Urban Design of Magistrat von Groß-Berlin, 1953

urheberrechtlich geschützt

1930s and 1940s.8 The call for a common feeling of national belonging—in radical opposition to the Interbau in West Berlin a few years later9 —also matched the ofcial propaganda of these frst post-war years, showing the Soviet Union as the defender of democracy and historical heritage and Anglo-Americans as responsible for the bombardment and destruction of the homeland.10

Shortly thereafter, the Building Law (*Aufbaugesetzt*) became the main legislative reference for reconstruction in the GDR, including the Grundsätze as the main stylistic and urban design link in the following decades. This defnitively rejected the model of the liberal city, based on the maximum exploitation of urban land tenure, which had been the basis of Berlin's great urban expansion of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; it centralised the planning process,11 technological research, as well as building standardisation and regulation; it established quick instruments for the public acquisition of areas destined by the planning process for new building (most of them public), somehow realising in this way the main preconditions of the Rationalist urban model.12

Stalinallee (about 5,500 dwellings built from 1952 to 1958) was the central and unique product of this aesthetical-political tendency and was built after a design competition (1949–51) as the *Magistrale*, connecting the inner city and the eastern, newly central, labour district of Friedrichshain. Following its name, the "new national style" was inspired primarily by the Russian urbanism of the late 1930s,13 even if we consider the urban planning model as the decorative element.14 Berlin Classicism also played an important role as the main "national" stylistic reference.

At around two kilometres in length and seventy to ninety metres in width, the new promenade lent to social housing a heroic, and for the "liberal" Berlin tradition an unknown role on the stage of urban-political representation. The project aimed to produce the "palace for the workers" on the scale of the GDR capital, to provide dignity to the new dominating social class and to represent the triumphal procession of popular will into the city centre. Because of the broad citizen participation in the construction works, it also symbolised the "way of progress" as collective artwork (Fig. 1).15

With the death of Stalin in 1953, Khrushchev, the new head of the Soviet Union, radically changed the goals for urban and building programmes, as well their methodological approach. Instead of historical or national tradition, instead of an economically unrealistic representation of socialism based on elements of architectural classic language—also because of the new critical reception of the fgure of Stalin—he pointed to the new motto of «build cheaper and faster»16 as a target for new urbanism throughout the Soviet Union. The state industrialisation of building production seemed, given the very poor economic condition of the GDR, the only way to realise the functional and political standards for the new socialist society in clearly programmed times.17 Kurt Liebknecht, therefore, had to change his role only one year after his previous assertion: «We made the theoretical mistake of giving art the main role in architecture and staying away from function and building technology and structure.… To promote real socialism, we failed to consider the critical

integration and development of the diferent aspects of building».<sup>18</sup> It was an opening to Functionalist theory, which most of the architects in East Berlin and in the GDR—formed under Bauhaus infuence at the Dessau, Weimar or Dresden schools—preferred to the academic style of Stalinallee and of the Deutsche Bauakademie. Even during the construction of socialism's Magistrale, the following laws: the Main Tasks in Construction (*Die wichtigsten Aufgaben im Bauwesen*), the Guidelines for a Uniform Typological Planning (*Richtlinien für eine einheitliche Typenprojektierung*), both of 1955, and the Type Regulation (*Typenordnung*) of 1956,19 elaborated by the Ministry for Building, defned the new process method for urban construction throughout the GDR. The industrial production of building elements consequently deeply infuenced the formal, spatial and distributive typology in urban design (Fig. 2).20

The design process was organised into three steps. The frst stage was the design of the construction elements and their montage systems, based on collaboration between research institutes (Deutsche Bauakademie, universities, professional schools) and specialised state industries, such as the *Baukombinat*—among them, the *Wohnungsbaukombinat* for residential buildings, the *Schulbaukombinat* for schools, the *Gewerbebaukombinat* for ofces, etc.

The second was the real urban and architectural design after a recurring and openended competition, which in the case of Berlin was mostly conducted by collectives of the Bauakademie or the Department for Building and Urban Design at Magistrat, or rarely by individual architects. This combined the instruction of the political programme elaborated at state level by the SED every fve years—and the personal participation of politicians in the process—with urban planning and its typological, functional and trafc regulations.<sup>21</sup> The third was the fnal planning with instructions for all the construction details, managed again by the Baukombinat, as was the type production.22

This could be considered a bottom-up process, where the "bottom" was the industrial and building level and it went "up" to the political-administrative level responsible for programming and planning,23 a kind of organisation that, in parallel, heavily split the traditional task of the architect.

The frst example of a "*Sozialistischer Wohnkomplex,*" the autonomous urban cell concept resulting from the new approach, was the fulflment of the Magistrale Stalinallee from Strausberger Platz to Alexanderplatz and the surrounding areas (4,600 dwellings, built from 1959 to 1965). The planning process foresaw a design competition with ten proposals, and the selection of two leading urban planners, Werner Dutschke and Edmund Collein of Bauakademie, and one architectural designer, Josef Kaiser of Magistrat. In comparison with the frst stage of Stalinallee, together with the general use of prefabrication and with a strong reduction in decoration, the clearest diference was in the separation of purposes (residence, trade, cultural and free time facilities, etc.) and in their analytical relationship with architectural form. Urban space became a Cartesian pattern in which mono functional line or point buildings were flled and stood physically disconnected, but

#### FIGURE 2

The frst eight-foor building of Stalinallee's second intervention step and its large prefab panels under construction, 1960

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 3

*Wohnkomplex* Stalinallee (Karl-Marx-Allee since 1961): Competition mock-up of planning collective Werner Dutschke, Edmund Collein (Bauakademie) and Joseph Kaiser (Magistrat Groß-Berlin), 1958

conceptually wired, implementing the model of a new socialistic space that was straightforward, rational and uniform.24 This became a model set that would infuence the subsequent GDR building activity for housing over the following three decades (Figs. 3, 4).

#### FOCUSING ON THE CITY CENTRE: ANOTHER WAY TO A COMPACT CITY

«The priority for building our cities is to give the people in a socialist society more means for their work and their life. We need to transform our old residential districts into new residential complexes in which the new social system is planted».25

This political issue was linked to the main topic of the East Berlin urban debate of the 1950s, the city centre of a German capital unifed under socialism, and became the frst goal to realise in the second fve-year political plan drawn up in 1956. That meant the fulflment of Magistrale Stalinallee including the new layout of Alexanderplatz and redesigning the whole historical inner city, the so-called "Stadtzentrum von Berlin," from Alexanderplatz to Brandenburger Tor, which had been of interest in those years only for the recoveries along Unter den Linden and due to the demolition of the royal palace in 1950.

An urban design competition for the centre of the GDR capital (*Zentrum der Hauptstadt der DDR*) 26 was devised in 1958 to deal with this target and to provide an answer to the other competition, named Capital Berlin (*Hauptstadt Berlin*), ofered by West Berlin just one year earlier.27 The design targets were, in this case, more urban and place related, not focusing on a general and mostly aesthetic vision for the whole city, as imagined by Otto Bartning in the Western competition.28 It aimed instead to develop the *Zentrale Achse* originally envisaged by Edmund Collein's city plan in 1950–51 as a chain of representative squares and spaces connecting Stalinallee, Alexanderplatz, Berlin Forum, Unter den Linden and Pariser Platz, and to redesign the surrounding areas after the clearing up of ruins was

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 4 View of Karl-Marx-Allee from Grunerstraße. Photo by Gisela Dutschmann, 1964

#### FIGURE 5 (LEFT)

"The Space of National Celebrations" (red areas). Part of *City Centre, 1958. Fundamentals of the Planning Work for the Socialist Transformation of the Capital Berlin* (ed.), original drawing scale 1:10,000. Pedestrian areas are in pink, greened areas in yellow

#### FIGURE 7 (RIGHT)

*Stadtzentrum Berlin*, December 1960. Final plan approved in 1961 by Magistrat von Groß-Berlin, planning collective Peter Schweizer, original drawing scale 1:6,000

#### FIGURE 6

Competition *Zentrum der Hauptstadt der DDR*, East Berlin 1959, second proceeding 1960: Proposal mock-up of planning collective Joseph Kaiser, Hans Gericke, Peter Schweizer

#### fnished by the middle of the 1950s (Fig. 5).<sup>29</sup>

The proposals for the competition failed to satisfy the diferent political factions, resulting in no frst prize winner, and this led to the usual dialogic confrontation between planning elaboration and political leadership. This confrmed the importance of the historical central area in those years from both the East German and West German points of view, as well as the deterioration of relationships during the Cold War.30 Two positions were represented. On the one hand, Walther Ulbrich, the national secretary of the SED, contesting the exaggerated spacious breadth of the proposals, said: «the collectives do not understand that the GDR is the future of the whole of Germany … and that it is completely wrong not to impose the most representative monument of our battle for labour power on the skyline of the city».31 On the other hand, Paul Werner, the secretary of the SED in Berlin, afrmed: «The new *Stadtzentrum* has to express the idea of socialism to all Germany … with the widest application of industrial resources.… The new Berlin will be characterised by wide squares, large avenues, with plenty of green and space in its centre».32 The resulting keywords of the two positions were consequently urban crown and spaciousness (Fig. 6).

This led to the project for the centre being divided into two parts. On the one hand, the design of the central Berlin Forum (between Alexanderplatz and Marx-Engel-Platz, in place of the Hohenzollern royal palace) incorporated a symbolical landmark in which the main political and cultural institutions were concentrated, and it was adopted by the Bauakademie under the control of Ulbrich.33 On the other hand, the Space Programme (*Raumprogramm*) for the entire central area was assigned to Department for Building and Urban Design of the Magistrat and coordinated by Peter Schweitzer34 and his colleagues

urheberrechtlich geschützt

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 8 (LEFT)

Comparison between the contemporary and the planned Main Road Net of City Centre, 1964

FIGURE 9 (RIGHT) Study for the *Urban Composition of Berlin City Centre* by Kurt W. Leucht, 1959

(Dorothea Tscheschner, Hubert Martinez, Hans Gericke) under the control of Werner. However, the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 put an end to the idea of a central representative building facing the symbolic space of a "socialistic" unifed Germany. It also reduced the scale of the intervention in new Marx-Engel-Platz. The Space Programme took the leading role as proper and future oriented interpretation of "real socialism" becoming the basis, together with the new standardisation trend envisaged by Khrushchev, of the ofcial plan for *Stadtzentrum Berlin*, which the Magistrat adopted in 1961 (Fig. 7).35

This plan envisaged a centre enclosed by four tangential main streets, which would have to cope with heavy trafc and connect the radials of the surrounding city. High residential buildings were positioned on their edges to limit and signify the city centre skyline simultaneously,36 while the inner urban structure had to be redesigned as a homogenous space cleared of its historical original complexity.37 The city core consequently needed to become an open and difused agora, hosting the main public services for the whole capital (Figs. 8, 9).

The historical street grid was largely confrmed, while its in-block enclosed structure was generally substituted by new, isolated buildings to enlarge the street width and to broaden the view. Trafc planning proportioned on the scale of an envisaged unifed Berlin of four and half million inhabitants38 was the major factor in inspiring the urban form and the new breadth of the streets.39 Also, the previous task of Peter Schweizer in trafc planning for the Magistrat infuenced these results: cars were not only a symbol of modernisation for a capital which would have strongly represented the issue of progress, but also a trick to enforce the widening of the urban dimension.40

In the plan, the most important political and cultural destinations had to be on the *Zentrale Achse* between Strausberger Platz and Brandenburger Tor, and they were organised on the cross consisting of the south-north Friedrichstraße and the west-east Unter den Linden-Berlin Forum.41 Commercial destinations were concentrated on Alexanderplatz, Magistrale Stalinallee and four tangential streets surrounding the city core. The main administrative-directional purposes, as well as entertainment, educational and research destinations, were dif usely located, resulting in a dense spread («*enge Verf ächtung*») of residential and social functions, which Schweizer expressively described in his unpublished theoretical work *Strukturanalyse für das Stadtzentrum von Berlin, der Hauptstadt der DDR*. 42 The target of reducing transfer times between living and working places, in accordance with the division between business and private sphere, was generally intended.

FIGURE 10 Leipziger Platz and Leipziger Straße in a postcard of 1934

#### FIGURE 11 (LEFT)

Aerial photo of Friedrichstadt and its building substance after last war bombing, 1945

#### FIGURE 12 (RIGHT)

Crossing of Wilhelmstraße - Leipziger Straße with Air Force Ministry (by Ernst Sagebiel) in the background, 1947

The plan was an example of the hygienic and detached town of the last CIAM prescriptions. Human needs and the main right of habitation, together with the importance of modern mobility to open up the old city structure, aiming also to make it more hygienic, were some of the premises.43 These matched the peculiar political approach to a representative city centre dominating the skyline of the new GDR capital and characterised by a kind of unifying urban-political space, the so-called *Weiträumlichkeit* (wide spaciousness), which started to juxtapose in those years the landscape of fragments the war had left on Berlin's ground.44

#### LEIPZIGER STRAßE, THE SOUTHERN TANGENTIAL MAIN ROAD

Before the catastrophe of World War II, Leipziger Straße was one of the three main axes of the baroque Friedrichstadt area, and it was the most important commercial avenue of Berlin's inner city. It had connected the medieval Berlin-Cölln and the western new districts by the turn of the 19th century. For this reason, it was also one of the most damaged areas during the war bombardments (Figs. 10–12).

While the ruin-clearing programmes continued into the mid-1950s, the urban status of the street changed radically after the city's partition and its further def nitive division by the Wall into an eccentric and eradicated topography (Fig. 13). Nevertheless, because of its

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 13 (LEFT)

By the Wall: The headquarters of Axel-Springer-Verlag under construction. Northward, the Wall strip and Leipziger Straße. Photo by Otto Borutta, 1965

#### FIGURE 14 (RIGHT)

Springer tower under construction beside the path of the Wall. Photo by Gert Koshofer, 1965

#### FIGURE 15

Walter Ulbricht by *Stadtzentrum Berlin* mock-up with Architect en Chief Joachim Näther at the back, pointing to the city centre, his main focus of interest. Bottom right, the planned towers of Leiptiger Straße. Photo by Herbert Hensky, 1968

urheberrechtlich geschützt

historical importance, and because it was very close to the western sector of the city, important state institutions were located on the section near the Leipziger Platz, as were the Haus der Ministerien and Bauakademie in the buildings of the former Air Force Ministry (1935–36) and of Preußisches Herrenhaus (1851, later the German Parliament 1874–75, later the House of Delegates), which had survived the air strikes well, because of its strategic value.45 The GDR itself was ofcially founded on October 7, 1949 in this building.

The architectural planning of the area started in 1961 in the context of the Stadtzentrum Berlin project, and the frst phase began in 1964. The plan envisaged Leipziger Straße as the Southern tangential main road (*Südtangente*) of the inner-city nucleus, where, like the other three main roads, high buildings and representative residences, facilities and commercial buildings marked the skyline of the socialistic city centre.

The recent construction of two towers on Kochstraße on the western side of the Wall, one of which housed the major West German publisher Springer (1961–65), was certainly a signifcant factor infuencing the decision to place towers instead of low-rise buildings on southern side of the street, as frst envisaged in the plan of 1961. Ulbrich did not relish in the fact that Springer could freely look into the core of the capital and that the back of his tower was visible to the crowds during political mass meetings in the Berlin Forum and in central Marx-Engel-Platz (Figs. 14, 15).46 At the same time, the start of the *Kulturforum* project in 1959–61 over the western end of Leipziger Platz increased the attention on the Leipziger Tangente, which consequently received the status of a Magistrale, even though it ended at the city wall.47

After four diferent versions, the urban planning and the frst architectural design fnished in 1969, following the approval in 1968 of the new City Masterplan (*Generalbebauungsplan*), which fnally envisaged the "compact city" model for the central area and, specifcally for Leipziger Straße, the high-density standard of 600 inhabitants per hectare. The project was developed by the collective Schweizer, Tscheschner, Schulze, Arzt, Neubert of Department for Building and Urban design of the Magistrat (*Bezirksbauamt, Bereich Städtebau und Architektur*) in collaboration with the VE Wohnungsbaukombinat*,* under the direction of Werner Strassenmeier, which led the detailed design and all the construction

#### FIGURE 16

Building Plan of *Stadtzentrum Berlin* project, release 1967. Detail of Leipziger Straße area. To the south, the path of the Wall in white

phases.48 As was common in the socialistic design process, artists also collaborated with the planning collective to develop the facade elements and the architectural decorations (Figs. 16, 17).

As in the Space Programme planning process, also in Leipziger Straße project the scale of design and the relationship to the context remained urban.49 The use of mock-up models was very common, as the project could then be shown to politicians and easily arranged into the context of the whole city model. Plastic studies were also adequate as design possibilities the planners could in fact access: on the one hand, the main decisions were taken by the SED apparatus; on the other hand, details, decorations and architectural forms were usually designed or strongly infuenced by the Baukombinat, which oversaw the industrial production of the building components and the fnal construction requirements.

The building enterprise started in 1969 and concluded in 1978. The construction technologies of the residential towers foresaw a hybrid adaptation of the current *Platten* building system for the verticality the project envisaged, also due to the availability of a new and higher crane system.50 The pillars and beams were structured around a nucleus of steelconcrete and walled up by prefabricated elements (*Stahlbetonskelett-Montagebauweise*)*.*  Due to the multifunctional destination of the building basements, a modular and lighter steel structure should had been adopted at ground level for the external two-foor basements. It would eventually be replaced by an easier detached building typology with prefab concrete components.

The fnal ensemble consisted of four main towers of 22–25 foors sited on the southern side of the street and directly facing the Wall and three line buildings, each with 8–14 foors on the northern side drawing back from the original limit of Leipziger Straße and enclosing the main historical square, the Gendarmenmarkt (newly named the Platz der Akademie) at their backs. The thirty-foor tower with directional purposes that was planned at the Spittelmarkt crossroad was fnally not realised. It would have been the main landmark element of the complex and part of the new Stadtzentrum's crown.

FIGURE 17 Model of Leipziger Straße complex in the version of February 1968. Detail of Spiettelmarkt

#### FIGURE 18 (LEFT)

The architectural design of Leipziger Straße complex in a documentation of *Wohnhochhäuser '69*, 1970: Fronts composition with diferent prefab panel elements made by washed concrete, architectural concrete, work stone and mosaic; perspective view from Spittelmarkt

#### FIGURE 19 (RIGHT)

Following: interiors, type foor of one of the southern residential towers

The residential towers respected the existing street line together with their wide two-foor basements for commercial and service purposes, but they closed two of the three crossroads of the original baroque plan. Their interior distribution involved a service nucleus, two street corridors and habitation lines laid out on both sides of the building, counting on a singular viewpoint, but also on spacious and continuous balconies (Figs. 18, 19). There were large full-height French windows on all sides of the tower, along with luxurious balconies, magnifying the panoramic efect of the apartments' views.

On the southern side, two shopping centres and two small parks completed the urban space arrangement at street level between the towers.51 Leisure facilities and extrapolated memories of Berlin history—half of Gonthard's Spittelkolonnaden (1776) and a copy of the old Meilezeige, which had previously been in diferent positions nearby—were arranged within the new uniform pattern beside the street, not to remark on a relationship with a neglected memory, but to indicate the distance of the new socialistic city from the implicit "aristocratic" issues, and to draw attention to the street's historical heritage (Fig. 22).52

#### FIGURE 20 (LEFT)

Leipziger Straße southern side under construction in a fle of the Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv. Photos by Gisela Dutschmann, 1971–73

FIGURE 21 (RIGHT)

Leipziger Straße under construction from a high-rise building of Fischerinsel. Photo by Gisela Dutschmann, 1979

Like previous and representative housing interventions in the Berlin Forum, and also in Leipziger Straße, the mix of functions aimed at reducing the transfer times between living and working places, but also, or primarily, at ofering an important supply of public facilities to the citizens of the whole capital in the context of the new relationship between city centre and surrounding housing districts (*Wohnkomplexe*)—with their housing cells (*Wohngebiete*) 53—and the detached countryside across the city border. This relationship could shortly be recapped as a clear separation between urban space and countryside; a balanced distribution of functions within a limited urban space and inhabitation density; a concentration of representative public purposes into the inner city; a progressive urbanisa-

FIGURE 22 Living the Leipziger Straße complex in a fle of the Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv. Photo by Gisela Dutschmann, 1978

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 23 Kalinina Prospekt in Moscow, 1970

tion of the villages outside the city limit.54

This intervention, like the frst Stalinallee, the Leipziger Straße housing estate—one of the two tangent main roads to be realised—clearly reveals symbolically in its functional and technological composition, as well as in its monumental urban prominence, the elaboration of planning eforts on the topic of "compact city" during the 1960s, juxtaposing it with the Wohnkomplex "standard" model, which was spreading over all the peripheral and semi-peripheral housing estates. It was an attempt at an alternative urban model dedicated to the inner city, with which other communist states were also experimenting or had already implemented, such as Kalinina Prospekt in Moscow (Fig. 23), the Ring of Leipzig and the city centre of Belgrade. It was research that nevertheless amplifed its urban and historical sense in East Berlin's peculiar geopolitical condition: pursuing the construction of a representative and renewed city centre at the "service" of the new GDR capital, by confronting itself with the eccentric topography.

Dorothea Tscheschner, the frst female architect of the GDR, who studied and taught in Weimar, Dresden and Dessau (1945–56), was employed at the Magistrat's Department for Building and Urban Design from 1956–89. She was never enrolled into the SED, but nevertheless she was a leading member of the Leipziger Straße planning collective, and she simplifed this approach with these words a few years ago: «We had been programmed for the future.… Each project of our planning department was contextualised into the whole city. Brasilia was our model.… This wonderful capital was very close to the extensive spaciousness we imagined for our city».55 This was the urban form, which was at the same time a goal for planners, most of whom came from the Bauhaus school and who were infuenced by the CIAM prescriptions, and which also represented the ideal space of the new egalitarianism as a well-controlled community of socialistic, "educative" project.56

#### POSTSCRIPT

Leipziger Straße housing complex survived the last decades of city transformation quite untouched, remaining solitary in a cityscape that largely changed over time. This undoubtedly happened because of its monumental dimension, but also due to the absence of a critical approach to the design from which the lack of theoretical elaboration about the topics of city and of living derived. The designer's task was heavily limited to adapting the prescriptions from pre-war Rationalism as assumed by the political meaning and the indication of a deep, industrialised building production system that was economically wired to the social and urban project. A cultural and autonomous architectural design was lost mostly in centrality.57

This approach subsequently evolved towards an even more mechanical and strictly economic application of the political goals, and a defnitive solution for the housing question, with the subsequent Five-Year Political Programme of 1971–76, the State Housing Pro-

#### FIGURE 24

Air view of Leipziger Straße with the completed housing complex. The tower of Axel-Springer-Verlag on the right, 1976

gramme (*Wohnungsbauprogramm der DDR*) from 1973–90 and the City Masterplan of 1978, which projected building 300,000 new apartments by 1990, defnitively reversing the centripetal tension towards the inner city of the 1960s towards the surrounding urban territory within the city limits.

In this new and diferent condition, the dimensions of the housing districts exploded in the outskirts, with the construction of 115,000 dwellings in Marzahn and Hellersdorf, while the central areas progressively afrmed the more fexible approach with 5- to 6-storey line buildings—because of their low cost—and a modular construction typology based on Plattenbau prefab technology. In the same period, the frst building recovery programmes were also implemented in the previously neglected "liberal city" districts of Prenzlauer Berg, Friedrichshain and Mitte, at least in the areas that had better survived the war bombing and the following demolitions.58

This trend partly reduced the heroic role of the major over-scaled multifunctional housing estates in the inner city of the 1950s and 1960s: the frst such enterprise being the Stalinallee, with the high rhetoric enlargement of the street width and proportions as the best suitable context of Progress, and then that of Leipziger Straße, with the attempt to represent—or to defend—the core of the socialistic capital on the wider landscape dimension, as well as in a fronting dialogue with the other half of Berlin, which lies at its feet.

#### NOTES

1  A District (*Bezirk*) is a middle administrative level between municipality (*Stadtkreis*) and state, both with political autonomy, even under the control of a single party. This organisation was implemented by the administrative reform of 1952: East Berlin was turned into a district without the status of an autonomous municipality. Even though it had formerly been the GDR capital, the city's status changed over the decades from belonging completely to the Soviet Union as an occupation free zone to becoming an integral part of the GDR (1957, 1961, 1971). Its administration maintained the old name of Magistrat von Groß-Berlin until 1976, when it took the name of Magistrat von Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR.

2  The Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Socialist Union Party of Germany [SED], 1946–89), was founded as joint venture of the socialist (SPD) and the communist parties (KPD) to participate in the national election of 1948. The initial permanence of diferent political currents within the SED representing the two parties loosened up after a few years, resulting in total control by the communist section, which initially was in the minority.

3  Lothar Bolz, "Aktennotiz von Bolz vom 18.11.1949," in *Regio doc. Dokumentreihe des IRS*, titel "Reise nach Moskau" (Berlin: Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung, 1995), p. 20.

4  On the relationship between urban design, architecture and the political goals of the GDR, see Bruno Flierl, *Gebaute DDR. Über Stadtplaner, Architekten und die Macht* (Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1998), pp. 52–72.

5  The Institut für Städtebau und Hochbau (Institute for Urbanism and Construction), which was also dependent on the Ministry for Building, was also involved. The ministry name changed to the Ministry for Construction (Ministerium für Bauwesen) in 1958, symbolizing the following change of approach.

6  Dorothea Tscheschner, "Der Wiederaufbau des historischen Zentrums in Ost-Berlin," in *Hauptstadt Berlin* (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1990), p. 217.

7  Speech of Kurt Liebknecht at the "X Plenartag" of the Deutsche Bauakademie, in *Neues Deutschland* (1955, n. 37), p. 4.

8  "Grundsätze des Städtebaues," in *Regio doc*, *Dokumentreihe des IRS*, titel "Reise nach Moskau" (Berlin: Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung, 1995), pp. 185–86. For a deeper understanding, within a large literature concerning this topic, see Werner Durth, Jorn Düwel, and Niels Gutschow, *Architektur und Städtebau der DDR*, Vols. 1-2, (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1999). On Traditionalism and Stalinism, see Anders Aman, "Die osteuropäische Architektur der Stalinzeit als kunstistorisches Problem," in *Städtebau und Staatsbau im 20. Jahrhundert*, ed. Gabi Dolf-Bonekämper and Hitrud Kier (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1996), pp. 131–50.

9  See in this book "IBA-Neubau: Social Housing as a Renewal Generator for the Inner City," pp. 279–293. 10  Incipit of "Gesetz über den Aufbau der Städte in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik und der Hauptstadt Deutschlands, Berlin (Aufbaugesetz). Vom 6. September 1950 (Reconstruction Law for the Cities in the GDR and in the German Capital, September 6, 1950)," in *Regio doc*, "Reise nach Moskau," pp. 182–84. 11  Starting from the higher planning level: Plan of Uses (*Flächennutzungsplan*), City Masterplan (*Stadtbebaunngsplan*), Building Plan (*Aufbauplan*), Local Masterplan (*Teilbebauungsplan*), ibid., art. 9.

12  The Building Law followed the Land Reform (*Bodenreform*) introduced in 1945–46 by the Soviet Occupation Government, which expropriated the property of all landlords (*Junkers*) whose land exceeded one hundred hectares, distributing the land in plots of 10–20 hectares to individual farmers or citizens who had moved into the countryside.

13  A training journey to Moscow (April–May 1950) involved the Ministry for Building's Lothar Bolz with a delegation of Bauakademie including its President Kurt Liebknecht. See *Regio doc*, "Reise nach Moskau."

14  Bundesarchiv Berlin, sign. DH 1/44475, Hans Scharoun's text for the Ministry for Building, June 3, 1950 and the answer of Minister Lothar Bolz to Scharoun, in *Regio doc*, "Reise nach Moskau," p. 151.

15  Amt für Information des Magistrats von Groß-Berlin (ed.), *Das neue Gesicht der Stalinallee* (East Berlin, 1951), pp. 2f. See also Flierl, *Gebaute DDR*, pp. 12–33. Other information in "Dynamics of Experimentation by Building the Post-war City in Berlin and Naples," pp. 172–181.

16  "«Besser, schneller und billiger bauen»," in *Bauzeitung* (1955, n. 9, II), p. 50, also mentioned and better presented in Durth et al., *Architektur und Städtebau der DDR*, Vol. 1, p. 300.

17  Most of the industrial infrastructure of East Germany, if not bombarded during the war, was transferred to Russia en masse as war reparations. Also, the availability of specialised workers was and remained continuously low. Dorothea Tscheschner, interview with the author, March 7, 2006.

18  *Neues Deutschland* (1955, n. 42), p. 4.

19  Thomas Topfstedt, *Städtebau in der DDR 1955–1971* (Leipzig: VEB E.A. Seemann,1988), p. 11.

20  Flierl, *Gebaute DDR*, pp. 9–11. See also Christine Hennemann, *Die Platte: Industrialisierter Wohnungsbau in der DDR* (Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2005); Klaus Ronneberger and Georg Schöllhammer, "Monumentaler und minimaler Raum. Die sowjetische Moderne in Architektur und Städtebau," in *Arch+* (2006, n. 175).

21  Aldo Rossi, "Aspetti della tipologia residenziale a Berlino," *Casabella Continuitá* (1964, n. 288): pp. 11–20.

22  Manfred Lamm, "L'industrializzazione dell'edilizia per la residenza ed i servizi," *Casabella* (1979, n. 446), pp. 56–59; Flierl, *Gebaute DDR*, pp. 9-11. See also Hennemann, *Die Platte* .

23  Kurt Liebknecht, "Berlino est. La ricostruzione del centro," *Casabella Continuità* (1964, n. 28): p. 43.

24  Flierl, *Gebaute DDR*, pp. 25–26. Bruno Flierl, "La concezione della città e il progetto dello 'Stadtzen trum,'" *Casabella* (1979, n. 446): pp. 23–34.

25  *Protokoll V Parteitag der SED* (Berlin 1958, part I), p. 83.

26  "Ideenwettbewerb zur sozialistischen Umgestaltung des Zentrums der Hauptstadt der Deutschen Demokratische Republik Berlin," in Topfstedt, *Städtebau in der DDR.* pp. 69–73; Tscheschner, "Der Wieder aufbau," pp. 224–28.

27  See the dedicated *Hauptstadt Berlin*, edited by Berlinische Galerie (Berlin. Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1990). The Western competition followed a similar development to the IBA "Interbau" at Hansaviertel of 1956–57. The leading fgure was Otto Bartning (director of the West Germany Architects Chamber and West Berlin Architect in Chief at the time), and the president of the jury was Walter Gropius (later replaced by Herbert Jensen). The participation of Eastern Bloc architects was expressly excluded, even though the GDR had opened the Fennpfuhl new settlement competition one year earlier to Western architects, resulting in Ernst May winning the frst price. The area of intervention also included the eastern sector of Berlin, and consequently, the historical inner city. See in this book "IBA-Neubau: Social Housing as a Renewal Generator for the Inner City," pp. 279–293.

28  The comprehensive approach to the socialistic city, the "city as a whole," moreover appears in the correspondence on "production" (socioeconomic issues) and "reproduction" (sociocultural issues) whose control had to be managed by the political apparatus. See "Grundsätze des Städtebaues," pp. 182–84. See also Franco Stella, "Dalla Siedlung al Wohngebiet," *Casabella* (1979, n. 446): p. 52.

29  Durth et al., *Architektur und Städtebau der DDR*, Vol. 2, pp. 230–31.

30  *Aktenvermerk über die Beratung im Politbüro vom 11. April 1961, Vorlage für den Wiederaufbau des Stadtzentrums von Berlin*, in *BArch*, SAPMO, ZPA, IV 2/606/4.

31  See *BArch* (1960, n. 1031).

32  See *Aktenvermerk*; Flierl, *Gebaute DDR*, pp. 121–71.

33  Durth et al., *Architektur und Städtebau der DDR*, Vol. 2, pp. 267, 273–74.

34  Peter Schweizer (1921–2009) took part in the Stalinallee project under the guidance of competition winner Egon Hartmann. He was latter employed at Ministry for Building in 1953 and he was substitute architect en chief at Magistrat Groß-Berlin, Department for Building and Urban Design from 1959 to 1964. Later he organised many urban projects in the city centre, mostly in collaboration with Joachim Näther (chief architect from 1964 to 1974) and the collective of the Department.

35  Landesarchiv Berlin (LAB), sign. A 663, plan "Stadtzentrum Berlin," 1961 and text "Beschluss der Stadtverordnetenversammlung Groß-Berlin über den Aufbau des Zentrums del Hauptstadt der DDR;" see also *Deutsche Architektur* (1961, n. 10), pp. 417–19; Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung (IRS), Wissenschaftlicher Sammlung Tscheschner (hereafter WST), Zentrumsplanungen, General Bebauungsplan 1964, *Die städtebauliche Komposition und die architektonische Gestaltung der Hauptstadt Berlin. Planungsprinzipien zum Generalbebauuungsplan.* See also Flierl, "La concezione della città," pp. 23–26*.*

36  In many design reports and magazine articles, it is easy to fnd the word *Kontur* (border) signifying the urban role of the high buildings in the inner-city belt, on the four tangential main roads. See Liebknecht, "Berlino est. La ricostruzione del centro," p. 43; Peter Schweizer and Gunther Schulz, *Strukturanalyse für das Stadtzentrum von Berlin, der Hauptstadt der DDR*, unpublished manuscript (Berlin, 1959); IRS, WST, *Über Fragen der Veränderungen in der städtischen Siedlungsstruktur, unter dem Einfuß der Weiterentwicklung unserer Gesellschaft – erörtert am Beispiel von Groß-Berlin*, unpublished manuscript (Berlin, 1957); Peter Schweizer, "Der Aufbau der Leipziger Straße in Berlin," *Deutsche Architektur* (1969, n. 9), pp. 526–29.

37  Liebknecht, "Berlino est. La ricostruzione del centro," p. 43: «This enables the arrangement of the internal nucleus as a great space, coherent and homogeneous, and highlights it in accordance with the other city parts».

38  Tscheschner, "Der Wiederaufbau," p. 217; *Aktenvermerk*; IRS, WST, *Über Fragen*, pp. 5–8.

39  Stella, "Dalla Siedlung al Wohngebiet," p. 52. See also Schweizer and Schultz, *Strukturanalyse.*

40  IRS, WST, *Planungsdirektive für das Zentrum von Groß-Berlin* (gekürzt), Magistrat von Groß-Berlin, Stadtbauamt, Räumliche Planung, December 3, 1959, pp. 5–6; IRS, WST, *Über Fragen der Veränderungen*, pp. 5–8. In Schweizer's words at p. 9: «the city is only the shell of a living organism whose cells can change, decay, regenerate and transform at certain intervals.… [These are] extensive agglomerations, which in their composition represent only an addition of individual, separately planned urban expansions, which lack any inner connection to the whole». See also Schweizer and Schultz, *Strukturanalyse*.

41  IRS, WST, *Planungsdirektive*, pp. 2, 4 and 5.

42  See also Schweizer, "Der Aufbau der Leipziger Straße in Berlin," p. 526. This wide distribution of inner-city functions opposed the concentration of prevalent directional and commercial functions in the "capitalistic city." See IRS, WST, *Planungsdirektive*, p. 2; IRS, WST, Peter Schweizer, *Über Fragen der Veränderungen*, p. 11: «The loosening up and sprawling of the chaotically formed and swollen body of historical settlements and the general reorganisation of urban life functions in accordance with the progressive development of society and the associated continuous improvements in technology, especially in transportation as in industrial production, as well as the knowledge in the feld of urban hygiene».

43  See Thomas Topfstedt*,* "Die Nachgeholte Moderne. Architektur und Städtebau in der DDR während der 50er und 60er Jahre," in *Städtebau und Staatsbau im 20. Jahrhundert*, edited by Gabi Dolf-Bonekämper and Hiltrud Kier (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1996), pp. 39–54.

44  IRS, WST, *Über Fragen*, pp. 5–9 and 11; Carlo Aymonino, "Una città 'aperta,'" *Casabella Continuitá*

(1964, n. 288): pp. 52–55; Stella, "Dalla Siedlung al Wohngebiet," p. 52.

45  One of the few buildings completed during the Nazi period in the inner city, it remained untouched dur ing the war bombardment because of its strategic relevance.

46  Dorothea Tscheschner, interview with the author, March 7, 2006.

47  The Kulturforum was built without a masterplan but with continuous additions under Scharoun's guidance. The design and construction periods were Scharoun's Philharmonic Concert Hall (1959–63), Mies's New National Gallery (1962–68) and Scharoun's National Library (1963–78).

48  LAB C Rep.780.2, *Wohnhochhäuser '69*, catalogue, edited by VE Wohnbaukombinat (Berlin, 1969).

49  Carlo Aymonino, "La 'città socialista,'" *Casabella* (1979, n. 446), p. 13. See also Holger Barth, ed., *Gram matik sozialistischer Architekturen. Lesarten historischer Städtebauforschung zur DDR* (Berlin: Dietrich Reiber Verlag, 2001); Holger Barth, ed., *Projekt Sozialistische Stadt. Beiträge zur Bau- und Planungsgeschichte der DDR* (Berlin: Dietrich Reiber Verlag, 1998).

50  Dorothea Tscheschner, interview with the author, August 29, 2006.

51  Schweizer, "Der Aufbau der Leipziger Straße in Berlin," p. 527.

52  Ibid. Schweizer speaks of "valorisation" (*Aufwertung*) and "protection" (*Rettung*).

53  The functionally autonomous, dimensionally uniform, trafc-free neighbourhood cell (*Wohngebiet*) of the socialistic city, unifed into the wider and also on a higher-level autonomous housing district (*Wohnkomplex*), was an evolution of Neues Bauen *Groß-Siedlung*; see Stella, "Dalla Siedlung al Wohngebiet," pp. 50–52: «On the specifc nature of the respective tasks, the housing construction in the city centre difers from that in the areas outside.… Architecture is here called to bear evidence [of] the new social order and the superiority of the socialist idea».

54  Aymonino, "La 'città socialista,'" p. 11: «The general aims of socialist planning, which were to correct the evils inherited from the capitalist era and to develop a new form of the city, corresponding to the classless society … are, however, identifable, in theory and practice, four guiding principles that allowed a frst partial diversifcation of the settlements of capitalist society: standardisation (of the indexes and methods of imple mentation), as an essential instrument for an urban uniformity; the right size of a city, as a balance of the rela tionship between the total population and the working population; the city centre as a directional element … [both] political and administrative; the structuring of the city on the basis of the district units [*Wohnkomplex*], with tasks of representativeness and decision making.… Principles that have largely been elaborated through the political centralisation of decisions and that, perhaps, have not allowed the clarifcation—mainly theoretical of alternative urban models». See also Bruno Flierl, "Problemi per la trasformazione socialista della città nella Repubblica Socialista Tedesca," in *Per una ricerca di progettazione 2*, ed. Gruppo Architettura IUAV (Venice: IUAV, 1970).

55  Dorothea Tscheschner, interviews with the author, March 7, 2006 and August 29, 2006.

56  Aymonino, "La 'città socialista,'" pp. 11, 13; Bruno Flierl, *Zur sozialistischen Architekturentwicklung der DDR. Theoretische Probleme und Analysen der Praxis*, unpublished PhD research (Berlin, 1979), p. 16. See also Bernhard Wilczeck, ed., *Berlin-Hauptstadt der DDR 1949–1989. Utopie und Realität* (Zürich: Elster Verlag, 1997); Hans Schmidt, president of Institut für Typisierung del Ministerium für Aufbau, cited in Stella, "Dalla Siedlung al Wohngebiet," p. 52.

57  Stella, "Dalla Siedlung al Wohngebiet," pp. 54–55. See also Siegfried Kress and Werner Rietdorf, *Wohnen in Städten: Planung und Gestaltung der Wohngebiete*, ed. Bauakademie der DDR and Institut für Städtebau und Architektur (Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1973), pp. 218, 261; Gerhard Krenz, *Architektur zwischen gestern und morgen* (Berlin: VEB Verlag für Bauwesen, 1973), p. 129; Flierl, *Gebaute DDR*, p. 54: «from [the] Ministry for Building down to the construction site … [the] building topic [w]as national econom[ic] policy (*Bauwesen als Zweig der Volkswirtschaft*)», p. 56.

58  IRS, WST, *Projectserläuterung* (Project Report), p. 3; Flierl, "La concezione della città," p. 24: «This conception of a "compact city" became difcult to realize in particular for two reasons. First of all, the desired concentration would have required a massive transformation of the pre-existing interior areas in a short time … with a high degree of demolition of the existing buildings. In fact, it was clear that the material and technical prerequisites for this transformation would not be realised as quickly as imagined.… On the other hand, from the conclusions of the VIII Congress of the SED (1971), new targets emerged, in a unifed vision of scientifc, economic and social policy: the solution of the housing question was placed at the centre. Focusing on this target, the housing programme 1973–1990 was defned based on the model of [the] housing complex (housing with all the infrastructure in each district), with a population density of 250 inhabitants/hectare, for the whole GDR».

# THE JOINT GERMAN COMPETITION FOR THE FENNPFUHL NEIGHBOURHOOD IN 1956 AND ITS OUTCOMES

*Andreas Butter\**

#### INTRODUCTION: A RAPPROCHEMENT UNDER DIFFICULT CONDITIONS

With the Moscow All-Union Building Conference of December 1954, there were demands for the comprehensive industrialisation of the building industry in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). In the context of the "period of thaw" after Stalin's death, this allowed architects to seek stylistic connections to Western developments.

The competition for the residential and recreational area around the Fennpfuhl lake was the only one in which the contributors and the members of the jury from both parts of Germany were selected on a parity basis.1 The results reveal diferences and similarities in the approach, whereby criteria for the specifc socialist character of the spatial image and the social institutions were only found in the course of the evaluation (Fig. 1). In addition to the question of the motives and the professional networks that made this project possible and the internal and public reception of the event, a fundamental confict of modernisation in the GDR also attracted attention.

Since the founding of both states in 1949, communication with colleagues from the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) had never completely come to a halt because of continuous eforts by the Federation of German Architects and participation in international associations like the UIA. On July 9, 1956, Hermann Henselmann, at that time chief architect of East Berlin, spoke at the Hamburg artists' Club "die insel" in front of an invited circle of Hamburg colleagues about the architecture of the present. This was preceded by a visit by his colleagues Richard Paulick and Kurt Liebknecht, during which the latest settlement projects in Hamburg were examined.2 The concept of the decentralised *Stadtlandschaft*, which had been opposed since the proclamation of the soviet-induced, traditionalist 16 Urban Design Principles (*Grundsätze des Städtebaues*) in 1950, continued to be viewed critically by the GDR Building Academy (Deutsche Bauakademie). However, many shared modernisation issues emerged. It was agreed that an all-German competition would clarify the positions. Hermann Henselmann is regarded as the initiator of the invitation to tender, and Ernst May, who came from Hamburg and was the eventual winner, was to play a signifcant part in its creation (Fig. 2).

<sup>\*</sup> Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS), Erkner, Department for Historical Research/Scientifc Collections

FIGURE 1 Selman Selmanagić and Werner Hebebrand discussing the competition, 1957

Two months after the meeting in Hamburg, the council of the Lichtenberg district announced the competition for the residential and recreational area around Fennpfuhl. The area, which until then had mainly consisted of allotments, was now divided into four future residential complexes (*Wohnkomplexe*) (Fig. 4). Together, they were intended to accommodate 17,300 people. It was planned to build predominantly four-storey buildings in a typifed construction method that would enable industrial construction (Fig. 3). The layout should reveal a «clear principle of order in urban planning»; it was demanded that the «relations of the individual to society are being organised in such a way that an enrichment of life», a «harmonious design of their way of life»<sup>3</sup> become possible. This programmatic statement was not reproduced in the publication on the competition probably because it was taken for granted*—*but it was precisely these points that launched the discussion about the project's efect. In the end, Henselmann had to admit that the main task, as party chief Walter Ulbricht had formulated it towards him, had not been outlined concretely enough in the call: «How is the co-habitation of people in a socialist society structured?».4

In concrete terms, the organisers developed a broad programme on commerce, culture, education and childcare. The facilities were to be distributed evenly between the four residential complex centres and the district centre, with its supra-regional services. The landscape aspect was given special emphasis by means of two green corridors, which were to shield the area from the south east, and a north-south corridor, which forms a cultural park around the existing ponds in the north, supplemented by smaller green areas. Previous research, when mentioning the competition, almost completely focused on the greening question5 or subsequent critics' bafement.<sup>6</sup> In contrast, this paper addresses the intended shaping of a socialist community through modern design.

The Fennpfuhl competition took place against a background of events that were not conducive to cooperation: the Hungarian crisis, which almost brought the preparations to a standstill on the Western side, and the West German plans for the "Capital Berlin" (*Hauptstadt Berlin*) competition. The call was regarded by the GDR government as a provoca-

FIGURE 2 Henselmann (left), Deputy Mayor Waldemar Schmidt, and Otto Englberger discussing Engelberger's contribution, 1957

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 3 (LEFT) Standard foorplan from the Fennpfuhl tender, 1956

FIGURE 4 (RIGHT) The Fennpfuhl planning area, including southern built up neighbourhoods. *Deutsche Architektur*, May 1957

tion because of its inclusion of the East Berlin centre, excluding the participation of local authorities, as well as the eastern planners. At the same time the West Berlin International Building Exhibition (IBA) "Interbau," took place, focusing at the southern Hansaviertel in the Tiergarten district. It was intended to show solutions for the loosened up and green city, and it was critically evaluated by the planning experts of the East Magistrate under Henselmann's leadership. According to the report, the design expressed «the individualistic confusion of the western world».7 Clearly, the Fennpfuhl tender benefted from the worldwide attention the IBA attracted to Berlin. However, the organisers had to avoid attempts at appropriation by the West German press; the idea of the East trailing Western tendencies was considered extremely undesirable.

#### THE NETWORK OF POSITIONS AND BIOGRAPHIES

Eight contributors each from the GDR (Hanns Hopp, Kurt W. Leucht, Otto Englberger, Selman Selmanagić, Werner Oehme, Georg Funk, Hellmuth Bräuer and Franz Reuter) and the FRG (Ernst May, Wils Ebert, Wolf von Möllendorf, Alexander Hunecke, Hans Bernhard Reichow, Otto Gühlk, Ludwig Lemmer and the architectural association Herbert W. Sprotte/Peter Neve) were invited.

Two of the judges, Henselmann and Edmund Collein, came from the East; Werner Hebebrand and Rudolf Hillebrecht represented the West German side. The fact that some of the contacts and shared beliefs reached back to the time of Neues Bauen in the Weimar Republic proved helpful to the establishment of this project; they had also not been extinguished by various decisions on adaptation to the conditions of Stalinism and National Socialism.

The relationships between them were manifold: Ebert, Selmanagić and Collein came from the Bauhaus, which did not rule out diferent infuences at the school. Ebert and von Möllendorf, who lived in the West, had already worked for East Berlin agencies in the early post-war years. In the project work for the Soviet Union, the working relationship between Hebebrand and May from the days of the "New Frankfurt" had deepened and

#### FIGURE 5 Contribution by Selman Selmanagić, the lake shore as a constitutive feature, no prize

Contribution by Alexander Hunecke, focused at the

Contribution by Otto Englberger, second prize

recently found its continuation in the reconstruction of Hamburg. Also, Reichow, Gühlk, Sprotte and Neve worked in West Germany's port metropolis. Among the West Germans, the political spectrum ranged from social democrats such as Gühlk, May, Hebebrand and Hillebrecht (the latter two knew each other from Albert Speer's construction staf) to Hunecke, the urban planning advisor to the conservative West Berlin CDU. Hebebrand, through his intensive contacts in the United States, Western Europe, the USSR and China, brought knowledge of the actual international discussions, while Hillebrecht expressed his strong interest in cooperation with the GDR leadership in confdential talks with Henselmann. All of them could be regarded as experienced urban planners. Also, in the selection of the Eastern participants, a clear urban development competence profle was evident with specialists such as Leucht, Funk and Oehme, who were already involved in professional controversies among themselves. One criterion for the invitation,

urheberrechtlich geschützt

however, seemed to be a proportion of the architecture colleges involved.

FIGURE 6 (LEFT)

sub-centres, no prize

FIGURE 7 (RIGHT)

FIGURE 9 Ernst May's proposal for the centre of the Fennpfuhl residential area

#### BETWEEN ORDER AND ORGANICITY

In the run-up to the competition, the jury had defned three essential cornerstones for the evaluation*—*the rejection of a monotonously perceived line arrangement (*Zeilenbau*), the exclusion of one-sided design maxims and the need to coordinate private and social functions harmoniously. Henselmann considered this an important success.8 In addition to the overall structure of the residential area, the spatial arrangement of the central areas played a key role.

The competition was evaluated three times, with diferent efects: Immediately afterwards, the jury's decision was announced; a little later Hermann Henselmann, in an internal re-

FIGURE 8

Contribution by Ernst May, frst prize. Master plan (right) and model (2006), photo by Florian Seidel (left)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 10 Hans Scharoun: The centre of "Wohnzelle Friedrichshain" neighbourhood, 1948

port, expressed some personal, harsher views. However, the discussion at the 17th plenary session of the Building Academy proved decisive for further action.

Henselmann's statements suggest, contradictorily, that the result of the competition was a great victory for the GDR urban planners; at the same time, it said that they had adopted too much of the fashionable gimmickry of Western architecture.

Parallel arrangements strictly aligned to the exposure, as in the case of von Möllendorf, and rectangular squares set with lines, as in the case of Hopp, were rejected as a whole. Also, Selmanagić's plan with scattered high rises and a centre stressing the recreational character with a pool and restaurant on the shore of the ponds did not meet with the approval of the jury. However, his contribution to the competition best responded to the demands for leisure facilities, and in the long run development, his typology of high rises became infuential in the area (Fig. 5).

Reichow, Gühlk and Hunecke brought into play slants and curved confgurations (Fig. 6). Their focus was on introverted community units, ftting an allegedly quantifable "human scale" and striving to overcome the anonymity of urban "mass-society." By rejecting hierarchical arrangements and ideas of "blood community" that had been attached to similar ideas in Nazi Germany, they made reference to social-democratic Sweden where the American concept of "urban ecology" was incorporated to nurture a "democratic" type of human.9 These approaches were rejected because of their alleged lack of overall spatial cohesion.

Only Otto Englberger, the second-placed contributor, was able to meet the ideas of the jury with regard to a lively yet clearly aligned overall structure; Henselmann, however, disliked the many sophisticated special solutions (Fig. 7).

The frst prize went by a considerable margin to Ernst May's proposal with groups of buildings arranged at right angles, consisting of lines and individual blocks, and thus partially enclosed, which together created a strict, yet lively rhythm (Fig. 8). In particular the «clear spatial structure» without schematism, the integration of water surfaces into the landscape and a limited structural expenditure were appreciated. It was important to note that the social institutions were conceived in a minimalist typifed way and that the author had integrated the residential district centre well into the «structural play»10 (Fig. 9). Henselmann emphasised internally the outstanding quality from the point of view of socialist urban development.11

However, May here had taken up the typology of the American shopping centre based on mass motorisation and developed in the United States in the 1930s. Here, as realized in Silver Spring MD, a theatre was incorporated, but May strove for an even wider range of functions, such as a library, a youth club and a dormitory.

#### THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COMMUNITY CENTRE

In the search for the shape-forming elements that were important in the discourse about the specifcally socialistic character of building, Henselmann had to separate them from those aspects that would not have class character, such as sunlight, greening or the operational range of the crane.

At the core of the considerations were questions of an idealistically proclaimed, yet in practice multiform coexistence, or better: the living together of people in socialism and the resulting spatial-body representations. Discussed were, among other things, the connection to the site and the question of an actualisation of the 16 Urban Design Principles with their emphasis on urban unity. Special relevance was ascribed to the communal qualities of the residential complexes and their centres. This discussion had its prelude in May's additive planning schema for Magnitogorsk around 1930,12 and it continued around Scharoun's 1949 project for the East Berlin neighbourhood "Wohnzelle Friedrichshain." Scharoun compared didactically an «externally given» (monumental) and a «functional» (serial) solution with his own «emphasis on content»,13 a casual but interrelated character of the community centre (Fig. 10). The question arose once more in the GDR in view of the simultaneous competitions to the Fennpfuhl and the chemical workers' town of Hoyerswerda.

At the 17th plenary, the speakers claimed that this question should not be sacrifced to commerce, as practised in the West, and that the centres should not be too detached from the residential areas by the streets. With special attention to the Fennpfuhl, Hermann Henselmann emphasised the questions that, in his view, constituted the socialist character of planning: The quality of society would not be decided by formal questions, but rather the fulflment (and development) of material and cultural needs by the ruling class.<sup>14</sup> Only the planned economy would make the city «plannable and clear» in its entire spatial structure; the «spatial control» of the city from the centre to the entire organism had again become possible.

At this point, we come to the idealistically proclaimed, but de facto conficting, concept of communal life in socialism, and its possible resulting spatial-architectonic representations. A helpful hint is given in the title of a novel written by a close friend of Henselmann, Brigitte Reimann, *Ankunft im Alltag* (*Arrival to Everyday Life*, 1961). The story deals with the character development of three students deployed to build a gas combine plant, *Schwarze Pumpe* near Hoyeswerda. Despite the connotation of ofcial party indoctrination, the title of Reimann's novel became widely recognised as a catchphrase for a gradual turn from Stalinist pathos and «crude symbolism»15 towards a sensitive engagement with the demands of practical life. It stood for a «normalisation» that afected planning discourses in those years. When Mary Fulbrook compared the concepts of normalisation applied widely as analytic tools to West German society in the late 1950s to 1970s (concerning stabilisation of the economy, of life plans and daily routines) and Eastern Europe (stabilisation of communist power), she described a conjunction of both aspects in the GDR of what contributed to an international contextualisation of GDR history. This interplay «of "social pacifcation" through a combination of the stick of forcible repression and the carrot of consumerism»,16 according to a politically imposed ideal of "normality," became efective to its full extent after the Wall was built in 1961, and it was rooted in the frst post-Stalin years.

Further discussion on the future of the Fennpfuhl as a case study for urbanism in the GDR

oscillated between an emphasis on everyday needs and questions of a political urban form. Franz Reuter, calling the family the «basic measure of society», identifed increased com muting as an obstacle to establishing social relationships.17 Henselmann took up the matter and demanded, with regard to trafc and the allocation of workplaces, an enforcement of ties to location (*Sesshaftigkeit*).18 The residential complex with 5,000 citizen, because of its walkability and even more its «proximity of contact», evinced the «basic cell of socialist self-administration».19 According to Henselmann, typifcation would colour the entire spatial image of the city, it would set standards: «The way apartment blocks and public buildings interact … is important for the manifestation of the socialist way of life.»20

#### IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSEQUENCES

The realisation of the winning design, as suggested by Henselmann *—*under his own leadership*—*did not take place after Kurt Liebknecht, the president of the Building Academy, ofcially announced that the question of the centre and its relations to the whole had not been satisfactorily resolved.

Nevertheless, the contribution had a stimulating efect on the genesis of an aesthetics of industrial construction in the GDR: (1) the problem of dealing with seriality in spatial formations without monotony, (2) the entanglement of the intended community-forming spatial areas of diferent magnitudes, i.e., from the house to the residential area, and (3) the reformulation of the theory of refection (*Widerspiegelungstheorie* ) *—*about the nature of a socialist neighbourhood *—*from pathos formulas to a perception developed from life processes.

In the Fennpfuhl area, the May plan obviously left its traces. Under the direction of Werner Dutschke, between 1958 and 1960 the preliminary planning for a frst residential complex took place.21 Three blocks were built on the western edge of the area between Erich-Kut tner-, Arthur-Weisbrodt- and Storkower Straße in accordance with the north-south line planned by May. Originally envisaged for three storeys, they now got fve. To the west of this, as the area's "shielding" against the Landsberger Allee/Storkower Straße intersection, an eight-storey residential block was built, derived from May's version with fve storeys.<sup>22</sup> It had originally been planned as a "large block construction," i.e., made of brick concrete elements that did not enclose complete walls. Instead, the more advanced large panel or "slab" construction type QP ("transverse wall panel") with prefab wall-high and wall-wide elements was used. The reinforced concrete panels were welded together; this remained the predominant construction technology until the end of the GDR.

Shortly thereafter, a change in urban planning happened: The next assembly of three blocks was to move much closer to the frst, which would have meant the elimination of the cul-de-sac with the turning circle and the courtyard-like structure that would have resulted (Fig. 11).23 In the execution, however, more weight was given to blocks arranged from west to east, which now led to the formation of a courtyard within the assemblies. Even if the building layout of May's suggestion was abandoned, the execution was in line with his basic idea of creating manageable units and, thus, with his open space concept. Furthermore, in 1962, in the courtyard of the old buildings, the prototype of the later

#### FIGURE 13 (RIGHT)

The residential area Leninallee and Ho-Chi-Minh-Straße am Fennpfuhl, planning model, 1974, seen from the east. In the background left, the previous building sectors from the 1960s

 urheberrechtlich geschützt

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 12 Dwelling model P 2 by Wilfried Stallknecht

widespread panel series (*Tafelbauserie*) P 2 by Wilfried Stallknecht, Achim Felz and Herbert Kuschy was built. This type, used in various sizes and variants, was distinguished by its economy of space: staircases and kitchens were moved inwards in favour of the 6-metre-wide living room (Fig. 12).

urheberrechtlich geschützt

Due to the high groundwater level, further development for the planning area did not take place until a new invitation-only competition in 1972. Achim Felz believed it was critical that, among other things, the contributions provided by state-owned planning bureaus had not solved the relationship between the main centre and the secondary centres and the green space, and that the «experimental value» had not attained the intended signifcance. Finally, three residential areas for 50,000 inhabitants were developed in the north-eastern area, with buildings and open spaces much larger than in the 1950s. Housing blocks were constructed, many of them eleven storeys high, enclosing spacious green areas in which the children's facilities were located (Fig. 13). Vertical accents were set by free-standing and doubled high rises in large panel and skeleton construction, of up to 23 storeys. In the northern and eastern extensions of the planning area, the P 2 technology made it possible to loosen up the perpendicularity of the older parts by means of curves and bends in the building structure. In 1985, Wolf-Rüdiger Eisentraut's "Seeterrassen," one of Berlin's most

FIGURE 14 The centre of the Fennpfuhl housing district: department store (left), restaurant "Seeterrassen" (right). Photo 1989

urheberrechtlich geschützt urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 15 The "Passage" shopping centre, Berlin-Lichtenberg. Photo 1966

striking modern restaurant buildings, was built on the bank of the Fennpfuhl lake (Fig. 14).

Unfortunately, some of the original amenities have been lost over the years: The restaurant had been disused since 1996, and it was demolished in 2008; the adjacent department store now contains apartments. However, several kindergartens and a medical centre, built in the 1960s and '70s, are still in operation; the neo-modernist neighbourhood centre "Storkower Bogen," featuring shopping and ofce space, was added in 1997 at the southern edge of the area (Fig. 16).

As a result of the 1956 Fennpfuhl competition, it became clear how decisive the functional range and the embedding of the residential area centres were—for the quality of life and the cohesion of the neighbourhood. Until the end of the GDR, the design of social facilities remained a feld that could produce functional and aesthetically satisfying solutions. An evaluation of the realisations of this task area on a broad scale is becoming increasingly difcult in view of the disappearance of many buildings. In 2003, a residential area centre was also demolished, which May's ideas had begun to realise: the "Passage." It was located in the Lichtenberg "Hans-Loch-Viertel" just four kilometres from Fennpfuhl. The centre was designed by the Hermann Klauschke collective in 1963 and built by the Wolfgang Radke collective with completion in 1966 (Fig. 15).24 In contrast to the accentuating residential high rises and deliberately reversing the hegemony of the social institutions, the wings were fat and restrained in design. Although there was no hall for cultural purposes, a school was attached to the shopping and service centre. The building complex, with its discreetly enclosed open spaces, a green courtyard and the lined-up stores, remained one of the few of its type to have been realised. Beside the Lijnbaan in Rotterdam, the pedestrian shopping lane from the book *Die Raumstadt* from 194925 was probably a model for the project; the author of the West German publication, Walter Schwagenscheidt, had worked in the early 1930s in the May Group in the Soviet Union. In contrast to the Western publication, which stated that the shops should not look uniform, but that «every architectural feature» was possible, the designers in the GDR attached importance to minimalism, which unifed the appearance and illustrated the industrial production method in its segmentation.

Looking back on the Fennpfuhl competition of 1956, the joint search of the participants for urban development concepts in a phase of détente during the Cold War remains exceptional. Both Westerners and Easterners tried to pattern spatial arrangements that helped the inhabitants*—*without structural dominant gestures*—*to enter into bonds with the place where they live, but especially with their fellow human beings. However, in the realisation process after almost two decades and despite all its design qualities, the massive demand for afordable housing and the paradigm of industrialised construction led to a leap in dimensions far beyond the rather intimate building scale of 1956.

FIGURE 16 Storkower Bogen, 1997. Photo 2019

#### NOTES

1  Another article by the author reveals more details about biographical networks and discussions: Andreas Butter, "West und Ost im Ringen um den sozialen Stadtraum." In *Städtische öfentliche Räume,* ed. Christoph Bernhardt (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016), pp. 61–98.

2  Kurt Liebknecht and Richard Paulick, "Hamburger Eindrücke," *Deutsche Architektur* (March 1956): pp. 140–41.

3  Landesarchiv Berlin (hereafter LAB), C Rep. 110-01, no. 48, p. 2 (sheet 3, Wettbewerbsausschreibung).

4  LAB, C Rep. 110 no. 533, p. 1 (sheet 95, Aktennotiz, Hermann Henselmann, 21 May 1957).

5  Werner Durth, Jörn Düwel and Niels Gutschow, *Architektur und Städtebau der DDR. Vol. 1, Ostkreuz. Personen, Pläne, Perspektiven, Frankfurt* (New York: Campus, 1998), pp. 477–78.

6  Elmar Kossel, *Hermann Henselmann und die Moderne. Eine Studie zur Modernerezeption in der Architektur der DDR*, ed. Adrian von Buttlar and Kerstin Wittmann-Englert (Königstein: Langenwiesche, 2013), (PhD Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin, 2008).

7  LAB, C Rep. 101, no. 533 (Kurzanalyse by Hermann Henselmann, Erhardt Gißke, Helmut Hennig, Peter Schweizer, Peter Senf und Klaus Sbresny, 18 November 1957).

8  LAB, C Rep. 101, no. 533, p. 3 (sheet 157, Bericht von Hermann Henselmann über den Ablauf der Angelegenheit Wettbewerb am Fennpfuhl in Lichtenberg, 17 April 1957).

9  For approaches in both countries, see David Kuchenbuch, "Eine Moderne nach 'menschlichem Maß,' Ordungsdenken und social engineering in Architektur und Stadtplanung – Deutschland und Schweden, 1920er bis 1950er Jahre," in *Die Ordnung der Moderne, Social Engineering im 20. Jahrhundert*, ed. Thomas Etzemüller (Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2009), pp. 109–28.

10  Bundesarchiv Berlin (hereafter BArch), DH 2, no. 20268, p. 5 (Niederschrift des Preisgerichts, 30 March 1957), partially published with pictures: "Städtebaulicher Ideenwettbewerb 'Wohn- und Erholungsgebiet für die Umgebung Fennpfuhl,'" Supplement, *Deutsche Architektur* (May 1957).

11  LAB, C Rep. 101, 533, pp. 3–4 (sheet 157–158, Bericht Henselmann, 17 April 1957).

12  See Thomas Flierl, "'Vielleicht die größte Aufgabe, die je einem Architekten gestellt wurde.' Ernst May in der Sowjetunion (1930–1933)" in *Ernst May 1886–1970*, exhibition catalogue, ed. Claudia Quiring, Wolfgang Voigt, Peter Cachola Schmal, Eckhard Herrel (München: Prestel, 2011), pp. 157–95.

13  See Andreas Butter, *Neues Leben, neues Bauen* (Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2006), p. 53.

14  LAB, C Rep. 101, no. 533 (Hermann Henselmann, "Gedanken über den sozialistischen Städtebau,"

 5 Apr. 1957); see also BArch, DH 2, no. 20767, p. 36 (Hermann Henselmann, "Wandel des Raumbildes"). 15  Kurt Junghanns, "Zur Monumentalität im Städtebau – eine Erwiderung," *Deutsche Architektur* (August 1957): pp. 422–23.

16  Mary Fulbrook, "The Concept of Normalisation in the GDR in Comparative Perspective." In *Power and Society in the GDR. The 'Normalisation of Rule?',* ed. Mary Fulbrook (New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books 2009), p. 12.

17  BArch, DH 2, no. 20767, statement by Reuter at the 17th plenum of the Bauakademie, 2f.


20  Ibid, p. 51.

21  LAB, C Rep. 110-01, No. 1915, p. 3 (Erläuterungsbericht zur Überarbeitung des Teilbebauungsvorschlages, Werner Dutschke, Oktober 1958).

22  Several planning changes included its cancellation and execution as a ten-storey building, LAB, C Rep.

110-01, No. 1915 (Erläuterungsbericht by Alfred Schilinski, 2 June 1960).

23  Bebauungsvorschlag, 21 April 1960, ibid.

24  See Andreas Butter and Ulrich Hartung, *Ostmoderne* (Berlin: Jovis, 2004), pp. 64–67.

25  *Walter Schwagenscheidt/Tassilo Sittmann: Die Raumstadt von ihren Anfängen bis heute*, exhibition catalogue (Albstadt 1949/1986), p. 13.

# YESTERDAY'S UTOPIA AND TODAY'S REALITY: POST-WAR HOUSING MODELS IN WEST BERLIN

*Christian Haid\*, Lukas Staudinger\**

"*Die Utopie ist die Realität von morgen*." Oswald Mathias Ungers on Märkisches Viertel (1969)1

When city planning and urban development are expected to solve societal problems, it has often led to planners conceptualising utopian models for the city of tomorrow. Those promises for a better future—a better society—have often been driven by new technological possibilities and imaginaries of new forms of living together. As for housing development models, the island city of West Berlin in particular served as a fertile laboratory for utopian solutions. Due to its unique history and geopolitical signifcance during the 20th century, Berlin shaped its inner-city landscape as we know it mainly in the aftermath of World War II. This could specifcally be observed over the course of the

1960s, 1970s and 1980s—decades that produced a series of landmark prototype projects developed to solve the key challenges of contemporary urban planning. Moreover, the division of Berlin and subsequent Cold War era led to a strong East Berlin-West Berlin urban development rivalry that saw both sides equally heated up in a race for technological and social superiority.

This paper discusses in particular three utopian housing schemes of the post-war era in West Berlin that became realities: Märkisches Viertel (hereafter MV), a planned city built on vacant land that would provide homes for up to 50,000 residents; Schlangenbader Straße, a linear city model built atop a highway to create an even denser urban landscape; and Neues Kreuzberger Zentrum, a controversial architectural outlook into the city of the future that was meant to be the frst step in the endeavour to replace the city's former 19th-century block structure with modernist housing ideals.

With Berlin as the epicentre of the Cold War, the conditions that stimulated such utopian realisations can be found in contemporary global trends of urban development, as well as both very localised policies and an atmosphere of political rivalry between East and West. For example, West Germany received money to rebuild Berlin via the Marshall Plan and the so-called *Wirtschaftswunder*, a rapid period of post-war economic development. Moreover, \* Poligonal Ofce for Urban Communication Berlin projects like these underlined and added to the status of West Berlin as a display of the West

#### FIGURE 1

City map with the three large-scale housing utopias in West Berlin:

**1** "The Snake": Schlangenbader Straße (SBS) **2** Neues Kreuzberger Zentrum (NKZ) **3** Märkisches Viertel (MV)

(*Schaufenster des Westens*) and turned into an operative instrument to demonstrate Western supremacy and radical modernisation.

#### BULLDOZING THE 19TH-CENTURY CITY AND HIGH MODERNISM

The High Modernism of Western urbanisation had an enormous impact on the isolated city of West Berlin. Urban planning models from the United States were particularly infuential, and the results of these strategies can still be seen in today's urban landscape. The modernist principle of the division of urban functions also impacted planning policies in post-war Berlin on a general level. Both politicians and infuential planners stigmatised historic, mixed-function neighbourhoods as breeding grounds for social decay and poverty. The buzzword of the time was *Flächensanierung*, the concept of urban regeneration via complete demolition followed by new construction, a model inspired by slum clearance projects in the United States and frst introduced by West Berlin's mayor Willy Brand in 1963 as the *Erstes Stadterneuerungsprogramm*, or First Urban Renewal Programme.2

At that time, there were around 900,000 homes in the city, 470,000 of which had been constructed before 1914. Of these, 320,000 had no bath, and 190,000 had no toilets.3 The Senate slated more than half the pre-1914 homes for demolition, particularly 19th-century tenement blocks in the districts of Kreuzberg, Wedding, and Neukölln. These particular types of tenements, called *Mietskasernen*, were targeted as they were deemed to be too dense and too heterogeneous (a mix of housing and working), which led to a reputation for fostering poverty, crime and unhealthy conditions. Tenants were resettled in newly built

FIGURE 2 Märkisches Viertel at background of the Wall, viewed from the eastern sector. Photo by Mathias Donderer, 1974 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 3 (LEFT)

Scheme of Märkisches Viertel masterplaned by Hans Christian Müller, Georg Heinrichs and Werner Düttmann for the Senate of Berlin, July 1962. Front cover of project's documentation *MV Plandokumentation. Märkisches Viertel*, Berlin 1972 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 4 (RIGHT)

Urbanity by density: Concept for a block in Märkisches Viertel by O. M. Ungers, axonometry, 1964 (ed.)

satellite towns in the outer parts of West Berlin, which lead to the development of new monofunctional and modernist city quarters like Märkisches Viertel, Gropiusstadt and Falkenhagener Feld, which were developed in the 1960s and 1970s.4

Built between 1964 and 1974, MV was the largest and, eventually, the most controversial of the modernist housing developments in West Berlin (Figs. 3–6). Built on farmland on the north-eastern fringes of the Western part of the city, MV was planned as a new town that would house 50,000 tenants from the bulldozed tenements of the inner city. It promised renters much better living standards than their former inner-city housing, such as toilets in the fats and central heating—modern standards that were unimaginable in the old 19th-century tenement blocks. But the choice to move was not as free as it might have seemed: People from far-away Kreuzberg and, particularly, Wedding were partly forced to move to the newly built housing blocks, which in turn disconnected them from their local social networks and destroyed communities that would take time to revive in the new city quarter.

FIGURE 5 Märkisches Viertel. Children playing with garbage bins. Photo by Gerhard Ullmann, 1974

The decisive actors in the planning process of MV were also actors in the West Berlin political and planning elite that brought the US-inspired concepts of slum clearance to the island city. For example, Werner Düttmann, who co-developed the urban plan, was also a key fgure in the bulldozer regeneration of Kreuzberg around Mehringplatz and Kottbusser Tor.

Both the inner-city areas of Kreuzberg and MV on the outskirts of the city soon became hotspots of resistance against the High Modernism-spurred destruction of communities and the failed establishment of socially acceptable new towns. While in Kreuzberg, the resistance railed against the destruction of long-established, well-functioning neighbourhoods and communities, in MV, activist groups critiqued the lack of social infrastructure and public transport, as well as the high rents. Protest culture in MV, in fact, was a burgeoning force even while the quarter was still under construction. In 1968, the "Diagnose"

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 6 (LEFT, RIGHT) Märkisches Viertel. Landscaped inner yard (left). Photo by Jürgen Henschel, 1977 (ed.). Housing on Dannenwalder Weg (right). Photo by Rolf Kohler, 1966 (ed.)

exhibition at the Technical University put criticism of MV in the spotlight and condemned the quarter's development as an investment project driven by modernist utopian visions of architects and planners—visions that completely ignored the needs and wishes of residents.5 The contributors of "Diagnose" posited that architects had approached the planning with a "complete lack of reality."6 While the architects talked about wishing to build "fowers and fairy tales […] and applied sun," residents said it "looks brutal, and quite nasty […] it deadens you," depicting life in the new quarter as a "grey hell." "The courtyards are spaces for leisure. Each green yard has character," explained the architect, while the resident complained, "There is nothing here, nothing but boredom."7 This complete detachment of planners' utopian visions from residents' needs strengthened the activists' call for more residential participation in urban planning, a process only catalysed in the decades after "Diagnose."

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### THE CAR-FRIENDLY AND LINEAR CITY: AN INTERNATIONAL MODEL PLOUGHING THROUGH BERLIN

In the 1950s and 1960s, West Berlin's planning departments imagined a city connected through an expanded system of highways consisting of both ring structures and northsouth and east-west axes. Within that plan, the division of the city between East and West was completely ignored; instead, the planners' utopian idea was to unify the city with highways. Yet again, West Berlin looked to the United States for inspiration: The international hallmark for large-scale urban regeneration processes was Robert Moses's massive car-based restructuring of New York City in the 1950s and 1960s.8 The international modernist canon of building car-friendly cities with separated functions had a lasting impact on the form of West Berlin, but also on many other West German cities (which had to be rebuilt after sustaining massive destruction in World War II).

While East Berlin continued to rely on public transport, West Berlin transitioned from a society where car owners were the minority to developing infrastructures for a new transportation policy prioritising automotive travel. Car ownership grew from 100,000 in 1950 to 165,000 in 1965.9 The frst highway development in West Berlin was located in the southwest of the city, and it led to the demolition of the existing urban fabric. In 1965, the land-use plan envisaged a system of interconnected highways through densely populated areas (e.g., Schöneberg, Wedding, and Kreuzberg), but this was only partially implemented due to local resistance. Urban planning emphasised car-dominated streets: Buses replaced trams until 1967, and pedestrian walkways were often implemented below ground to allow for fuid car trafc.10 The downscaling of public transport and the simultaneous expansion of car-based infrastructure also resulted in consequences for those in West Berlin's newly built neighbourhoods: MV, for example, was not planned with strong public transit connections to the city centre, a fact that many new residents resented and complained about. Planning relied on individuals to own a car, yet many of the new MV residents could not even aford the higher rents, much less a private car.

This city-wide implementation of car-based infrastructures cumulated in the plans for one specifc large-scale housing project, the *Autobahnüberbauung Schlangenbader Straße* (hereafter SBS). This typological hybrid is considered a visionary project: It integrates a linear highway into a massive housing development. But the idea of building linear cities on top of highways or railways was not new when the idea for SBS was developed in the early 1970s. Earlier examples date back to Eugéne Hénard's "City of the Future" ("Rue Future") from 1910 or Edgar Chambless's *Roadtown*, which dates back to the same year. Chambless's vision was a linear city built on top of a railway line meandering through the countryside and farmland, housing 1,000 people per mile. The Roadtown concept epitomises the modernist fascination with technology and new models of mobility, as Chambless explained in 1910: «The Roadtown is a scheme to organize production, transportation, and consumption into one systematic plan. In an age of pipes and wires, and high speed railways, such a plan necessitates the building in one dimension instead of three—the line distribution of population instead of the pyramid style of construction».11

Linear cities projects experienced a revival in the 1960s and early 1970s—oftentimes alongside a frst critique of suburbanisation. The *Jersey Corridor Project* (1965) by Michael

FIGURE 7 *Jersey Corridor Project* by Michael Graves and Peter Eisenman, 1965 (ed.)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 8

Site plan of *Bandstadt Grunewald* proposed by Ralf Schüler and Ursulina Schüler-Witte between West Berlin city centre and Havel lakes, 1973 (ed.)

Graves and Peter Eisenman was a proposal for two 20-mile-long parallel strips: one catering to industry, the other one to a mixed-housing scheme with shops, services, and fats featuring highways in the basement that, out of the city, would run through an unspoiled landscape (Fig. 7). The *Lower Manhattan Expressway* (1972) by Paul Rudolph was a proposal for a multi-level development below and a transportation corridor above (the proposed Lower Manhattan rail expressway) consisting of pedestrian plazas, parking and commercial facilities. Rudolph envisaged that transportation networks could also unite instead of separating existing neighbourhoods if integrated and framed correctly.

These American examples also found their counterparts in Berlin during that period. The *Bandstadt Grunewald* (1973) by German architects Ralf Schüler and Ursulina Schüler-Witte was a proposal for a linear city on top of the 9.5-kilometer-long AVUS highway in Berlin-Grunewald (Fig. 8). It was commissioned by BASF12 to stimulate the use of new plastics in the building industry, and it envisaged a terraced housing complex 30 metres tall and 100 metres long with integrated public transport for the circulation of tenants between its buildings. The scheme was developed for the study "Housing in the Year 2000," and the architects collaborated with psychologists and social scientists to develop diferent tenant profles.

But the West was not alone: In the Eastern part of Germany, similar concepts had been also developed: The *Großhügelhaus* (1967) by German architect Josef Kaiser (1910–91) was a proposal for a *sozialistische Stadt als Modellfall,* or a "socialist city as model project," integrating small-scale production units in the core of the A-shaped building with housing units stacked along the outer skin of the building (Fig. 9). The building itself would be a feat, measuring one kilometre long and 100 metres high, containing an estimated 22,000 tenants and providing 10,000 jobs.

FIGURE 9 *Großhügelhaus* by Josef Kaiser (1967) in a collage drawing by Dieter Urbach, 1971 (ed.)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 10 (LEFT)

Sleeping on top of a highway: Housing experiment *Schlangenbader Straße*, 2019

FIGURE 11 (RIGHT) Building's cross section of "The Snake" Utopian ideas like these inspired a whole generation of planners, including Wolf Bertelsmann, one of the architects of *Schlangenbader Straße*. In a recent interview, he acknowledged that the idea to build housing over the stretch of highway at SBS was, of course, inspired by an international discourse on the linear city and the car-based city, as well as megastructures of housing developed by Japanese Metabolists.13 Yet, while all these projects remained utopian urban visions solely on paper, SBS is one of the very few examples that materialised in reality—a fact of which Bertelsmann is very proud (Figs. 10, 11).14 Despite its high costs, the construction of the "Snake" was economically possible only because it was built as a so-called *Demonstrativbauvorhaben*—a form of case-study building—to work out whether buildings constructed over and above highways could realistically prove feasible. Within the political sphere of that time, following such bold ideas was considered a way to underscore West Berlin's position of power and Western supremacy during the Cold War.

#### BERLIN HILFE: LAS VEGAS BY THE RIVER SPREE AND THE ATMOSPHERE OF "ANYTHING GOES"

In the aftermath of World War II, the political and economic isolation of West Berlin prompted many businesses and companies to leave the city. Investment was stagnant. Consequently, West German transfer payments for residents and businesses were designed to bolster West Berlin's crumbling economic situation. At the same time, the Federal Republic of Germany massively subsidised its former capital. Moreover, to revive private investment and to foster employment, a system of tax preferences and subsidy schemes was installed. In 1964, the Berlin Recovery Law (*Berlinhilfegesetz*) was passed, which helped to stimulate business through massive investment grants.15 In 1971, the Berlin Funding Act gave employees in West Berlin an 8 % bonus on their wages—an attempt to help to reduce

#### FIGURE 12

A notorious counter-draft to the 19th century Berlin block: Neues Kreuzberger Zentrum, 2019

the labour shortage by stimulating migration to the city. This *Berlinzulage* also entitled married couples and newcomers to interest-free loans, with repayment lowered for each child they had. This led to a general atmosphere of anything goes—sweeping up in its spirit investors, architects, and construction companies. Many of them took advantage of the government's subsidisation and, therefore, they also took higher risks when it came to architectural typologies and utopian approaches, particularly as they planned West Berlin's social housing. The fnancing model of publicly subsidised housing as a private investment saves taxes and at the same time brings in money, though there is a side efect of the system, too: The higher the cost, the higher the loss write-of, the higher the tax savings—and thus the proft.

The building industry subsequently boomed, and a kind of gold-rush mood developed, leading to the popular saying that Berlin had become "Las Vegas on River Spree."16 In 1960 the construction volume was 1.5 billion marks (approximately 0.75 billion euros without considering the monetary revaluation) which tripled to more than 4 billion marks (approximately 2 billion euros) in 1970.17 At the same time, this had the efect that the construction costs in West Berlin of the 1970s and '80s were driven to absurd heights, which heavily burdened the public households of West Berlin and would, in the long run, drive the city into debt.

One of the benefciaries of these subsidies was Heinz Mosch. In the 1960s and '70s, Mosch was one of the largest private property developers in Germany. After the introduction of the Berlinhilfegesetz and the associated signifcant tax depreciation subsidies, Mosch developed over 100 building projects worth 660 million marks in West Berlin.18 One of the projects he was particularly keen on developing was the SBS, a social housing endeavour only possible within Berlin's highly subsidised environment. However, Mosch went bankrupt in 1974, and the city-owned housing company DeGeWo took over the project: it had become a prestige project that was also in the national interest to complete. The massive building costs translated into a rental cost of 28 marks/m2 (approximately 14 euros), which was subsidised by the city to reach an efective rent of 5.24 marks (approxi-

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 13 Neues Kreuzberger Zentrum, axonometric scheme of the northern area of intervention

FIGURE 14 Terraced basement of Kottbusser Tor square in NKZ, 1987 (ed.)

FIGURE 15 Behind Kottbusser Tor square in Dresdner Straße, 1982 (ed.)

mately 2.60 euros).19

Like SBS, the area around Kottbusser Tor in Kreuzberg was also being developed. The plans for *Neues Kreuzberger Zentrum* (NKZ), and the rhetoric surrounding them, were rooted in a social utopia when they were presented in 1970: The neglected Kreuzberg was to receive a "glitter thing," a "European centre of the East." It would be a "Beletage" of Kreuzberg's industry; with a reading yard, swimming pool, studios, department stores, terrace café, smoke-and-dine cinema, and a "green park wall."20 "Commercial, cultural and residential areas should form an informal unit with artists, court singers, organists and library visitors."21 In this social paradise, tenants could fnally fnd happiness for 4.50 marks (2.25 euros) per square meter.

Günter Schmidt, the initiator of NKZ, began a limited partnership for the project with 80 partners from West Germany with a looming depreciation rate of 200 %. The project, designed by architect Johannes Uhl, was meant to be a taste of the future, but it quickly turned out to be a provocation (Figs. 12–15). Existing buildings were bulldozed, and tenants were cleared out of their dwellings. A twelve-storey concrete building was erected that shielded the south from the noise of the prospected highway in the north (which never got built).

Regeneration by bulldozing as the alternative to the 19th-century mixed-use city blocks caused massive protests by local Kreuzbergers. What would follow is a rather successful story of community resistance: Buildings were squatted, bulldozing was stopped and careful urban renewals were instigated by the IBA. The NKZ was considered a failure.

#### FROM UTOPIAN VISION TO FAILED URBANISM

Just like the Neues Kreuzberger Zentrum, Märkisches Viertel and Schlangenbader Straße were also widely considered examples of failed urbanism. The verdicts were issued at two distinct times: For MV, as it was under construction; for SBS and NKZ, immediately after construction. Initially at MV, the new standards of living in these monotonous housing blocks (the aforementioned private toilets and in-fat baths) were embraced, but soon enough, the downsides of this planned urbanism were called into question. MV was considered a dinosaur, an artefact of no-longer-contemporary architectural ideas, even as it was being built. Critics pointed to a lack of social infrastructure and of public transport; too few schools, kindergartens, and playgrounds; and the growing dissatisfaction of its inhabitants, whose growth outpaced MV's construction and planning of social infrastructure. This earned the quarter a bad reputation as a ghetto even beyond West Berlin's city limits.22 The previously mentioned "Diagnose" exhibition and numerous newspaper articles23 destroyed the utopian vision and the reputation of the newly developed neighbourhood. A number of suicides that happened contributed to this narrative, as well as images of kids playing inside garbage bins, and movies like Helga Reidemeister's *Von wegen Schicksal*, which depicted the neighbourhood as grey, dire, bleak and inhospitable.24

Similarly, SBS became the target of a lot of negative attention, and public opinion was shaped by press articles25 that blamed SBS as a hugely expensive social housing failure,

focusing on the bad investment, the massive costs, and the problems during construction. In his analysis, Hans Stimmann from TU Berlin described it as "bad urban planning," an "economic failure," and a "political scandal."26

Increasing crime rates contributed to the bad reputation of all three housing estates, and they have continued to stigmatise them over subsequent years.

#### FROM UTOPIA TO DYSTOPIA AND BACK

All three large-scale housing estates—NKZ, MV and SBS—were praised as forward-think ing and revolutionary projects promising to solve the housing crisis at the time. However, not long after their completion, planners faced criticism from both civil society and their peers in the professional world. The discrepancy in perceptions between architects and the people who lived in the buildings could not have been more divergent. Whereas planners insisted on the model character of the estates, inhabitants had to live with stigmatisation (NKZ), a lack of infrastructure and community (MV), and a bad reputation as a costly white elephant with technical faws subsidised by the taxpayer (SBS). The utopian char acter of those milestone projects vanished rapidly and made place for a rather bleak image fuelled by the media and popular culture.

MV, for instance, has served as a dystopian backdrop for the representation of a corrupted urbanity: The well-known rapper Sido, who grew up in MV, repeatedly flmed music videos between the concrete towers of his childhood neighbourhood (*Mein Block*, Album Maske, 2010). It has to be pointed out, however, that his portrayal of MV is oscillating between that of a problem area and a place of heart and home, a sense of community and belonging. In recent years the inhabitants' satisfaction has increased, due to local social initiatives, renovation measures and a rebranding strategy by the communal housing company GeSoBau, led by Helene Böhm from the department of social neighbourhood development. Waiting lists for fats are long, and there is an infux of people moving to the area from other neighbourhoods in Berlin.27

While the area around NKZ is still mainly portrayed as one of the most notorious neigh bourhoods in Berlin, the media have also discovered other aspects of the building, presenting it in more nuanced portrayals, as a legacy of the protest culture and civil resistance of the 1960s and '70s. NKZ has become a hotspot for rent protests and anti-gentrifcation movements, with organisations and institutions clustering in the building and the area around. These initiatives have created an alternative connotation and have rendered the building a beacon for the negotiation of urban space.

In contrast to NKZ, the rehabilitation process of SBS has been in full swing for a couple of years, as many critics and commentators focus on the model character and uniqueness of the estate. Despite the technical difculties and high costs, SBS is now viewed as a bold undertaking that tackled the housing crisis in a city with very limited spatial resources. Its one-of-a-kind typology and technological extraordinariness even led to the listing of the building as a heritage site in 2017.

Oswald Mathias Ungers, one of the architects of MV, said "Utopia is tomorrow's reality," pointing at the agency of architecture and urban planning to solve societal problems. All three examples discussed in this paper show diferent developments in terms of reputation, stigmatisation and reception from their planning phase up until today—promoting the city of tomorrow, a society of the future, and optimistic belief in what is to come and the possibilities of humankind. Taking a closer look at those projects, one sees the intentions, strategies and agendas the planners sought to apply to create their version of utopia. However, the reality of today impressively shows those utopian visions' limits and potentials.

#### NOTES

1  "Utopia is tomorrow's reality," in "Oswald Mathias Ungers, town planner" (ORTF, September 23, 1969), TV broadcast.

2  Martina Dase, Jürgen Lüdtke, and Hellmut Wollmann, *Stadterneuerung im Wandel: Erfahrungen aus Ost und West* (Basel: Birkhäuser, 1989), p. 16.

3  Heinrich Kuhn, *Armutszeugnisse. West-Berlin vor der Stadtsanierung in den sechziger Jahren,* ed. Sabine Krüger (Berlin: Braus Verlag, 2014).

4  Harald Bodenschatz, *Städtebau in Berlin: Schreckbild und Vorbild für Europa* (Berlin: DOM, 2013), pp. 77–84.

5  Aktion 507, *Diagnose zum Bauen in West-Berlin – Manifest – Materialien zur Diskussion* (Berlin, 1968).

6  Aktion 507, *Diagnose zum Bauen*.

7  Ibid.

8  Annika Levels, "*Rethinking the Street: Politics, Processes, and Space of Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Friendly Street Transformations in New York and Berlin*" (Dissertation, Technical University, Berlin, 2017), pp. 49–50.

9  Levels, "*Rethinking the Street*."

10  Ibid.


14  Ibid.


ed. Gail Finney (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006), pp. 83–100.

17  "Berlin Förderung: So exzessiv und schamlos," *Der Spiegel* (May 28, 1973), https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-41986676.html.

18  "Die Großen im Baugeschäft," *Die Zeit* (November 19, 1971, n. 47).

19  "Durchlöcherte Schlange," *Der Spiegel* (October 27, 1980), https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14323733.html.

20  Deniz Göktürk, David J. Gramling, and Anton Kaes, *Germany in Transit: Nation and Migration, 1955–2005* (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), p. 366.

21  Klaus Hartung, "Unternehmen Kreuzberg," *Die Zeit* (August 02, 2001),

https://www.zeit.de/2001/32/Unternehmen\_Kreuzberg.

22  Christine Reinecke, "Am Rande der Gesellschaft? Das Märkische Viertel – eine West-Berliner Großsiedlung und ihre Darstellung als urbane Problemzone," *Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History* 11, no. 2 (2014): pp. 212–34.

23  "Slums Verschoben," *Der Spiegel* (September 9, 1968).

24  Helga Reidemeister, *Von wegen Schicksal* [Film] (Berlin: Deutsche Film und Fernsehakademie Berlin, 1979). Another film depicting life in MV is Helga Reidemeister. *Der gekaufte Traum* [Film] (Berlin: Deutsche Film und Fernsehakademie Berlin 1974–1977).

25  "Durchlöcherte Schlange."

26  Hans Stimmann, *Verkehrsfächenüberbauung, Dissertationsschrift TU Berlin* (Berlin: Arbeitshefte 15/16 des Instituts für Stadt- und Regionalplanung, 1980).

27  Helene Böhm, interview with the authors, June 05, 2019.

# BACK TO THE CITY: THE CENTRAL AREAS OF BERLIN'S LARGE HOUSING ESTATES. MÄRKISCHES VIERTEL AND MARZAHN AS PLANNING EXAMPLES OF LATE MODERN URBAN DISCOURSES1

*Jascha Philipp Braun\**

FIGURE 1 Model of the Märkisches Viertel project, 1970

\* TU Berlin, Institute for Art Studies and

Historical Urban Studies

Around 1960, the guilds of architects and urban planners in both the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR) began to engage in an animated debate about the accepted principles of urban planning.2 This change was founded in the fact that the residential neighbourhoods that had been newly built since the end of the war were being perceived as monotonous and lifeless by more and more people, and, as a consequence, the previously dominant anti-urban model of the *gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt* ("structured and low-density city") was caught in a crossfre of criticism.3 Edgar Salin, who focused his statements on the demand for urbanity at the 11th Annual General Meeting of the German Association of Cities (11. Hauptversammlung des Deutschen Städtetags) in 1960, came up with the pivotal keyword.4 From that moment on, urban planning—without completely abandoning the premises of modernity such as functional separation and green spaces—was increasingly concerned with developing an urban environment. The most important buzzwords had now become "interweaving" and "densifcation," used, as it were, as the counterproposal to the way housing had been envisaged in the 1950s.

One result of this change in attitude was the central areas of Berlin's large housing estates Märkisches Viertel in the West and Marzahn in the East (Figs. 1, 2). The Märkisches Viertel was built under the direction of the Berlin Senate on a 390-hectare site in the West Berlin district of Reinickendorf from 1963–1976. The Senate's Building Director, Werner

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 2

urheberrechtlich geschützt

Sketch of Marzahn, pencil on paper by Dieter Urbach, 1977

#### FIGURE 3

Overview of the spatial concentration of facilities in the Märkisches Viertel

Düttmann, and the freelance architects Georg Heinrichs and Hans Christian Müller, were in charge of the overall urban design. Numerous domestic and foreign architects were responsible for the architectural development of the individual construction phases, with a total of almost 17,000 apartments for around 45,000 people. The masterplan for the large East Berlin housing estate Marzahn was largely developed by Roland Korn, chief architect of Berlin, and Peter Schweizer, a member of the Magistrate's Urban Development Ofce. The planners divided the 560-hectare site, circa 12 kilometres from the historical centre of Berlin, into three residential areas. The implementation and further development took place under the supervision of Heinz Grafunder, who became chief architect of Marzahn's construction management in July 1976. After the construction of residential buildings was completed in 1989, the urban expansion area, which had been extended by additional construction sites in 1980, comprised almost 60,000 residential units.

For the layout of both large housing estates it was of fundamental importance that the planners placed multiple public amenities for the residents in a central location (Fig. 3).5 In the Märkisches Viertel, these were two department stores spread over several buildings, as well as several retail shops, service businesses and doctors' surgeries (the so-called Märkisches Zentrum). To centre's west, the planners furthermore placed cultural and social attractions in very close proximity to each other, including the multi-purpose building Fontane-Haus which was, among other things, furnished with an event hall, exhibition

hall, library and restaurant, a comprehensive school and the Catholic Church of St. Martin with its community centre, kindergarten and old people's home. The design of the most important central area in Marzahn—two further important core areas were developed in the south at Springpfuhl and in the north (Ringkolonnaden) of the sprawling housing estate—included the construction of the shopping street Marzahner Promenade (Fig. 4). At its southern end, centrally located at the suburban railway station Marzahn, stood the Marzahner Tor, a commercial centre housing the area's main post ofce, a large clothing store, a large store for household goods and electronics and a building dedicated to workshops and service facilities. Its functional counterpart was the multipurpose recreational facility Freizeitforum at the other end of the shopping street; it accommodated cultural and sports facilities such as Marzahn's main library, a large event hall, a studio stage, four club rooms, a swimming pool and a gym.

This unusual combination of commercial, cultural and social amenities in Marzahn and the Märkisches Viertel did not happen by accident. As various statements made by those involved in the planning process prove, the planners' initial aim was to create attractions that would radiate across the entire housing estate, generate a high pedestrian frequency and, as a result, create lively neighbourhoods. For example, these sentiments can be found in the publication *Dokumentation komplexer Wohnungsbau* when describing the cluster of facilities available at Marzahner Tor:

«This space has outstanding potential for ofering a variety of experiences and ways to move about. A post ofce, two department stores with large shop windows and cafés on the ground foor, located next to a building housing a restaurant and an ice cream parlour, a café with a dancefoor and a night bar—all this will facilitate the development of urban life.»6

By these means the East Berlin planners aimed at recreating the qualities of life that could be found, for example, in the traditional shopping street Schönhauser Allee in Prenzlauer

FIGURE 4 Amenities around the central area Marzahner Promenade

FIGURE 5 Collection of terms compiled by the planners of Marzahn on the demands for the main centre

Berg, an urban district mainly developed in the 19th century.7 The motivation behind the construction of the central area at Wilhelmsruher Damm in West-Berlin's Märkisches Viertel was very similar. A brochure on the Märkisches Zentrum (when still in its planning stage) read:

«Restaurants, cafés and other places of social activity will be scattered throughout the main business centre, a cinema and a bowling alley will ensure that the centre … remains alive even after business hours.»8

#### SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES AS DECISIVE FACTORS

There were important reasons why the urban planners aspired to create a lively atmosphere in both West and East. According to Wolf-Rüdiger Eisentraut, who was in charge of the urban design that shaped the centre around Marzahner Promenade, such an approach was based in sociological theories.9 Evidence for this can in fact be found in the surviving planning documents dating from Marzahn's very early planning phase. In October 1973, a "debate outline" on the new district's urban planning requirements drawn up by Roland Korn and a dedicated team recruited from the Institute for Urban Planning and Architecture at the Bauakademie der DDR stated:

«When planning the communal facilities of the city, our premises ought to be to a much greater degree that [planning] is not only a question of fnding solutions posed by the technical problems of upholding a supply relationship from the producer to the consumer. We must recognize that the centre used for shopping, service, education and recreation is simultaneously and often primarily the social space of the city: public space in which the citizens of the city meet, gather together, get to know each other, "communicate," in short: urban space from which community-promoting impulses should emanate.»10

Similar statements were made by experts from the feld of sociology who had contributed to the design of Marzahn's development concept from the outset. A study on sociological and environmental problems that had arisen in the course of planning of the new district in Biesdorf-Marzahn, which was presented three years before the start of construction, praised the spatial combination of shopping and cultural facilities proposed in the frst drafts, because it promised to create a very lively, interesting and heavily frequented centre.11 Three years later, sociologist Fred Staufenbiel, who had been commissioned for an expert opinion on the sociocultural quality of life in the last planned Residential Area 3 (*Wohngebiet 3)*, wrote in more specifc terms:

«In our opinion it should be emphasized that the distribution of the cultural facilities and those for hospitality and services in the central areas is an attempt to stimulate social contacts between the residents of diferent residential areas, to promote socialising and encounters between the residents and to stimulate a lively communication throughout the entire residential area.»12

These statements illustrate why the planners described the central areas planned in Marzahn as «social centres» and «high-ranking places of communication»13 (Fig. 5). Such direct cooperation with sociologists is not documented for the planning of the Märkisches Viertel. However, comments made on the spatial programme envisaged for the shopping centre show that interpersonal contacts and communicative exchange were to be stimulated there too, while the overall design aimed at establishing not only a lively centre for the new city, but also its genuine social core.14 Equally important in this context is the creation of a square in the middle of the centre quarter as the focal point of all surrounding commercial and non-commercial facilities. Giving the square the name *Marktplatz*  (market square) was deliberate, because it was meant to act as a central meeting place. Waldemar Poreike, who was involved in the planning of the Märkisches Zentrum, said: «A marketplace as a spatial link between cultural and commercial buildings should activate and stimulate the possibilities of communication in this area».15 Werner Düttmann had a similar view, and he called it an ensemble «whose diversity is based on hustle and bustle, on encounters and actions of all kinds».16

#### HIGH DENSITY INSTEAD OF LOW DENSITY

The sought-after urbanity was closely related not only to attracting a wide range of shops and leisure facilities, but also to the intention to achieve an expressive spatial formation in the central areas. If the building structures show a vertical increase towards the centre, it is because they are used frst and foremost to strengthen the urban character envisaged for

FIGURE 6 Isometric drawing of the Märkisches Viertel by Georg Heinrichs, around 1970

FIGURE 7 View into a shopping street of the Märkisches Zentrum, photo by Günther Metzner, 1973

this location (Fig. 6). One can infer from Werner Düttmann's comments on the design for the later Gropiusstadt in south-east Berlin that the planners were concerned with visually emphasising the core area of the large housing estate, based on the model of the historical city, replicating its many steeples and spires by means of residential high-rise blocks.

«The centre today», explained the building director of [West] Berlin « ... actually consists of all kinds of things that are prudently unfolded on the plain. So if you want to make the centre visible now, you have to resort, for better or for worse, to functional parts that are inherent to the whole area, namely apartments. In other words, I do not stack the apartments vertically, but in order to form a centre, I stack them horizontally.»17

Hans Christian Müller, who spoke retrospectively of the objective of erecting an imposing city and fnding an expression of metropolitan monumentality, probably also had this image in mind.18 The theatrical design of Wilhelmsruher Damm, the central trafc road of Märkisches Viertel, whose southern border consists of residential buildings that were ofcially called *Citybebauung* ("city buildings") clearly illustrates how the central area as the urban centre of the new district was also structurally emphasised.19

That is why, for the reasons cited, the actual central area of the Märkisches Viertel within the area bounded by Packereigraben, Senftenberger Ring, Wilhelmsruher Damm and Königshorster Straße is mainly covered by low-rise buildings. Nevertheless, spatial density was still an important planning objective (Fig. 7).

«Following the traditional human attitude when faced with a real market situation», a brochure explained the one- and two-storey building structures of the Märkisches Zentrum, «the buildings bordering the market place are connected by shopping lanes, which consciously strive for a spatial narrowness. Each passage opens a new interior space to the visitor; under each passage a new impression is conveyed.»<sup>20</sup>

In addition to visual accents, the noticeably dense building structures aimed at generating a high population density, which was considered highly important to achieve the targeted urban atmosphere. The centrally located neighbourhood *Allgemeines Wohngebiet* ("general residential area") had up to eighteen storeys and was directly adjacent to the Märkisches Zentrum to its east. It also aimed at «contributing to the revitalisation of the centre» by being its «densest development».21 In this case, density meant a high number of storeys. An overview of the planned densities from 1963 shows an area of 8.7 hectares and a number of 1,000 apartments for this area. From this we can take that—at a value of 1.1—the highest foor space index in the entire Märkisches Viertel was planned here, which was to rise to a value of up to 2.26 by increasing the number of apartments during the construction process.22

Achieving a certain structural density also played an important role in the planning of the large housing estate Marzahn, where, after completion of Residential Areas 1 to 3, a population density of around 290 inhabitants per hectare was achieved.23 According to Heinz Grafunder, this was an essential prerequisite for the intended urbanisation of the large housing estate:

«Every discussion about garden cities or something like that, or that many citizens comment that it's so narrow and dense here, or some complain that there is still a house directly in front of their own little living room, we simply have to answer with the fact that we are building a city here, a piece of Berlin, and that is subject to all urban requirements.»24

However, the design of the built structures in Marzahn was not only determined by the desire for a comparatively high population density. As emphasised by a study submitted by the state-run housing construction company Volkseigener Betrieb (VEB) Bau- und Montagekombinat (BMK) Ingenieurhochbau Berlin in 1983, Marzahn's main centre was required to create an urban layout and architectural structure that emphasised its overriding social function as the district's centre.25

The backbone of the erected structures is formed by (modifed) seven- and eleven-storey residential buildings of the serial construction system Wohnungsbauserie 70 along Marzahner Promenade. These blocks, which were erected parallel to the street's perimeter, created a set of buildings whose coherence was not achieved anywhere else in the large housing estate. Another striking feature of the architectural design applied to the district's centre was the development of the Marzahner Tor area between the suburban railway station Marzahn in the southwest and the beginning of the shopping street in the northeast. The area—clearly defned on three sides by multi-storey, partly stepped residential buildings was populated by a group of partially interlinked buildings in a low-rise and nested construction that opened up to form small squares in various places. As Eisentraut explained,

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 8 Sketch by Rolf Walter for the design of the Marzahner Promenade, around 1980

the dense design—described in the *Dokumentation komplexer Wohnungsbau* as being on a narrow urban scale26—created an urban quality and strengthened the qualities of space.27 Marzahn's chief architect made similar comments, saying that the resulting characteristic squares and promenades were conceived as «areas of instantaneous experience».<sup>28</sup> Like the Märkisches Viertel, Marzahn's core areas aimed at being visible from afar.

«It was said about the urban planning objective of high-rise construction [that the vertical dominants] are there to mark these social attractions and draw attention to them; this is also relevant for creating a skyline.»<sup>29</sup>

This context can also be applied to the construction of two 18-storey residential towers near the commercial centre Marzahner Tor. The tallest buildings of the entire large housing estate were up to 25 storeys high and they were built in the form of three double residential towers near the central Helene-Weigel-Platz at the core area of Springpfuhl.

#### NEW DEMANDS FOR EXTERIOR DESIGN

In addition to multifunctional interweaving and structural densifcation, the aim was to infuence the creation of urbanity in the sense of a communication-promoting environment by means of an attractive exterior design.30 Consequently, the central areas had to be designed as places inviting passers-by to linger by applying appropriate measures. This efort was frst refected in the design of the core areas, which are strikingly pedestrian-friendly. Motorised trafc was largely banned from the central area of the Märkisches Viertel, resulting in car-free streets and squares for strolling. In addition, Wilhelmsruher Damm was given particularly wide pavements planted with rows of broad-crowned plane trees, which further strengthened the planning objective of designing the central street as a boulevard.31 Unlike in Märkisches Viertel, the term used to describe the central core areas in Marzahn was neither market place nor boulevard, but promenade. With regards to content, however, this term also implied the desire to create a pleasant environment for pedestrians. The Marzahner Promenade, for example, was designed as an elevated pedestrian zone further shielded from Franz-Stenzer-Straße to the north by planting trees and shrubs. The squares formed by the nested buildings at Marzahner Tor were also reserved for pedestrians.

Another important aspect of the central areas' exterior design was the artistic design, which further emphasised and supported the concept of the core areas as meeting places.32 The planning basis for this was a design concept created especially for the Marzahner Promenade in collaboration with artists Rolf Walter, Peter Hoppe, Ingeborg Hunzinger and Wolfgang Weber. This concept stipulated that numerous works of art, including two large-format exterior wall paintings by Walter Womacka and the fountains adorned with plant motifs made of sandstone on the stair landings (Fig. 8) were to be installed in various locations on and around the Promenade.33

The painter and sculptor Joe Tilson designed an artistic design scheme for the Märkisches Zentrum in 1967. Since Tilson's conception was never realised and there is almost no information on it,34 the role assigned to art in the Märkisches Viertel cannot be deter-

FIGURE 9 Coloured buildings along Wilhelmsruher Damm, photo by Uwe Rau, 1971

FIGURE 10 The Eastgate shopping centre. Photo 2019

mined quite as clearly as in Marzahn. However, even if there are no defnite statements, it is obvious that the planners in East and West were essentially concerned with the same thing: art (and exterior design in general) was primarily used to accentuate and individualise the respective location, thus creating cross-references within urban space and shaping the location's perception according to the planners' intentions. An example of this is the installation of a historical fountain on the eponymous fountain square (Brunnenplatz) in the middle of the Märkisches Zentrum, which quickly developed into a popular meeting place. The intentions of the planners can be seen even more clearly from the colour scheme drawn up by artist Utz Kampmann. Similar to the generous artistic scheme used in the central areas in Marzahn, the central core area along Wilhelmsruher Damm was to be given a clear visual marker (Fig. 9). These eforts focussed on using a coordinated colour scheme to—as it were—stage the central access road, which was conceived as a boulevard. Georg Heinrichs and Hans Christian Müller explained this:

«The so-called «roadside movement» of area W1 which comprises the buildings of architects Fleig, Leo, Gagès, including the school and church of Plessow as well as the general residential area to the north—AW—together with the central area is to be given a bold colour design in order to increase intensity and consequently the appeal of this area.»35

#### WHAT REMAINS?

Like Kampmann's colour scheme, many eforts to create an "urban city," both in the Märkisches Viertel and in Marzahn, are no longer visible today. Renovations, demolitions and new buildings have considerably changed the appearance of these two large housing estates in the meantime. This is all the more regrettable, as some measures have indeed had contrary efects. The Eastgate shopping centre, which opened in 2005 in place of the demolished Marzahner Tor, was hermetically sealed of from its surroundings and it destroyed all urban public life in its environs, thus obliterating any trace of urbanity (Fig. 10). This is also a less than praiseworthy development, because large housing estates are time and again accused of ignoring urban qualities, which, however, had been specifcally planned and implemented in these locations. As illustrated above, three main aspects were crucial in this connection. First of all, the planners focussed on planning central areas with varied commercial, cultural and social attractions for the residents. Secondly, they designed dense building structures, and fnally, they aimed at an attractive exterior design. Noteworthy is above all, that, despite all the political and social diferences between West and East, the diferences in urban development in the period that is considered here were not as great as usually assumed. Since the design of both the Märkisches Viertel and Marzahn incorporated "interweaving" and "densifcation" without abandoning premises of modernity such as functional separation and green spaces, both projects represent outstanding examples of late modern housing.

#### NOTES

1  This article was frst published as "Zurück zur Stadt. Die Zentrumsbereiche der Berliner Großsiedlungen Märkisches Viertel und Marzahn als Planungsbeispiele spätmoderner Urbanitätsdiskurse," in *Betonsalon. Neue Positionen zur Architektur der späten Moderne*, ed. Tino Mager Bianka and Tröschel-Daniels (Berlin: Neofelis Verlag), pp. 195–207.

2  A condensed description of the general reorientation during that time in the FRG can be found in Tilman Harlander, "Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik," in *Geschichte des Wohnens, Von 1945 bis heute: Aufbau, Neubau, Umbau* (vol. 5), ed. Ingeborg Flagge (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt DVA, 1999), pp. 287–91. For further information see also Dieter Hanauske, *«Bauen, bauen, bauen…!» Die Wohnungspolitik in Berlin (West) 1945–1961* (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1995), pp. 377–81 and with reference to West Berlin pp. 406–12. There is still no focused, systematic analysis of developments in the GDR. Numerous valuable hints, however, are provided in Thomas Hoscislawski, *Bauen zwischen Macht und Ohnmacht. Architektur und Städtebau in der DDR* (Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1991) and Achim Palutzki, *Architektur in der DDR* (Berlin: Reimer, 2000).

3  The epitome of the *gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt* are the statements in the book of the same name by Johannes Göderitz, Hubert Hofmann und Roland Rainer (Berlin: Wasmuth 1957).

4  Cf. Edgar Salin, "Urbanität," in *Erneuerung unserer Städte. Vorträge, Aussprachen und Ergebnisse der 11. Hauptversammlung des Deutschen Städtetages Augsburg 1.–3. Juni 1960,* ed. Deutscher Städtetag (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960), pp. 9–34.

5  The centre of the Märkisches Viertel was created in a clearly defned rectangular area directly north of the most important access road Wilhelmsruher Damm. In Marzahn, the superordinate central area between the suburban railway station Marzahn runs north up to Raoul-Wallenberg-Straße along the Marzahner Promenade, an approximately 700-metre-long street to the north of the main street Leninallee (today renamed Landsberger Allee).

6  *Dokumentation komplexer Wohnungsbau 1971–1985*, ed. Bund der Architekten der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Bezirksgruppe (Berlin: self-published, 1986), p. 40.


7  Cf. *Wettbewerb Berlin-Marzahn. 5 Studien. Wohngebiet 3, 7. und 9. Bauabschnitt*, ed. VEB BMK Inge nieurhochbau Berlin Betrieb Projektierung (Berlin: self-published, n.d.), sheet 12 (Studie A).

8  Werner Limberg, *Neubau der Geschäftszentren in Berlin-Reinickendorf Wilhelmsruher Damm (Märkisches Viertel). Raumprogramm für das Hauptgeschäftszentrum und die Nachbarschaftszentren im Märkischen Viertel* (n.p.: self-published, 1963), p. 10.

9  Wolf-Rüdiger Eisentraut, "Der gesellschaftliche Hauptbereich in Berlin-Marzahn. Ein neuer Stadtbezirk erhält seinen Mittelpunkt," in *Architektur der DDR* 37, 12, (1988): pp. 9–19.

10  Bundesarchiv (hereafter BArch), DH 2/21389, Diskussionsgrundlage zu städtebaulichen Anforderungen an die Planung des Stadtteils Biesdorf /Marzahn, p. 7.

11  "Studie über soziologische und umweltgestalterische Probleme der städtebaulichen Planung des neuen Stadtteiles in Biesdorf-Marzahn. Ausgearbeitet von einer zeitweiligen interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe des Arbeitskreises Kultursoziologie im wissenschaftlichen Rat für soziologische Forschung in der DDR und des Rates für Umweltforschung der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR bestehend aus Fritz Böhme, Bruno Flierl, Siegfried Grundmann, Heinz Kroske, Harry Wersenger, Fred Staufenbiel," p. 18. The study presented in October 1974 is in the historical archive of the district museum of Marzahn-Hellersdorf (Regionalgeschichtliches Archiv des Bezirksmuseums Marzahn-Hellersdorf, hereafter BMH /archive).

12  "Leben und Lebensumwelt im Wohngebiet 3 des 9. Stadtbezirkes der Hauptstadt der DDR, Berlin. Gutachtliche Stellungnahme zu sozial-kulturellen und baulich-räumlichen Problemen nach dem Stand der städtebaulichen Planung vom März 1977," p. 7 (BMH /archive).

13  Compare for example "*Information zur Bebauungskonzeption im Maßstab 1:2000 für den neuen Stadtteil in Biesdorf* /*Marzahn,*" Draft Resolution for the Magistrates Meeting on July 10, 1974 (Landesarchiv Berlin (hereafter LAB), C Rep. 100, Nr. 1561, p. 3).

14  *Märkisches Zentrum im Märkischen Viertel*, ed. Werner Limberg & Co. KG (Berlin: self-published, 1967).

15  "Die Bauherren stellen ihr MZ vor," *Der Nord-Berliner* (September 8, 1967): p. 8.

16  Werner Düttmann, "Der andere Raum," in *Werner Düttmann. Verliebt ins Bauen. Architekt für Berlin 1921–1983*, ed. Haila Ochs (Berlin: Birkhäuser, 1990), p. 158.

17  "Demokratisches Wohnen? Ausschnitte aus Diskussionen und Vorträgen auf einer Tagung der Evangeli schen Akademie Berlin, November 1961," *Bauwelt* 53, 1 (1962): pp. 7–22, here p. 10.

18  "«Es ist unglaublich, ein solches Viertel gebaut zu haben. **»** Ein Gespräch mit Hans Christian Müller im Juli 2004," in *40 Jahre Märkisches Viertel. Geschichte und Gegenwart einer Großsiedlung*, ed. Brigitte Jacob and Wolfgang Schäche (Berlin: Jovis, 2004), pp. 162, 170.

19  Cf. *MV Plandokumentation*, ed. Senator für Bau- und Wohnungswesen (Berlin: Kiepert, 1972), p. 42.

20  *Märkisches Zentrum im Märkischen Viertel Berlin. Die neue Wohnstadt im Norden Berlins und ihre Versorgung*, ed. Werner Limberg & Co. KG (Berlin: self- published, n.d. (probably 1963).

21  Werner Düttmann, Georg Heinrichs andHans Christian Müller, "Märkisches Viertel, Berlin-Reinickendorf," *Bauwelt* 54, 14-15, (1963): pp. 390–93, here p. 392.

22  Compare the overview on the plots of land developed until 1968 in Dieter Voll, *Von der Wohnlaube zum Hochhaus. Eine geographische Untersuchung über die Entstehung und die Struktur des Märkischen Viertels in Berlin (West) bis 1976* (Berlin: Reimer, 1983), p. 105.

23  After tenants moved in, residential area 1 had 293 inhabitants per hectare, residential area 2 about 285 per hectare and residential area 3 about 292 per hectare. Compare the figures in Günter Peters, *Hütten, Platten, Wohnquartiere. Berlin Marzahn – ein junger Bezirk mit altem Namen* (Berlin: MAZZ-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1998), p. 188.

24  Comment by Grafunder during a lecture at the 12th Seminar of the Central Working Group on Architecture and Fine Arts (*Architekur und bildende Kunst*) of the Association of German Architects of the GDR (*Bund Deutscher Architekten der DDR*) and of the Association of Visual Artists of the GDR (*Verband Bildender Künstler in der DDR*) in November 1980.

25  *Studie Berlin-Marzahn. 3. Wohngebiet. Gesellschaftlicher Bereich*, ed. VEB BMK Ingenieurhochbau Berlin, Betrieb Projektierung (Berlin: self-published, 1983), p. 3.

26  *Berlin, Hauptstadt, DDR. Dokumentation komplexer Wohnungsbau 1971–1985*, ed. Bund der Architekten der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (Berlin: VEB BMK IHB, 1986), p. 40.

27  Wolf-Rüdiger Eisentraut, "Der gesellschaftliche Hauptbereich in Berlin-Marzahn," p. 11.

28  Heinz Graffunder, "Berlin-Marzahn – Gebaute Wirklichkeit unseres sozialpolitischen Programms," *Architektur der DDR* 33, 10 (1984): pp. 506–603, here p. 603.

29  *Gesellschaftspolitische und volkswirtschaftliche Zielstellung für den komplexen Wohnungsneubau im Stadtteil Biesdorf/Marzahn*, p. 43 (LAB, C Rep. 100, No. 1576/1577).

30  This claim can be found in the fundamental statements on open space design. Compare the Märkisches Viertel with the statements of the SAL-Planungsgruppe, which was commissioned with designing the open spaces in *Sal-Planungsgruppe e Astra Zarina a Berlino* (Rome: IN/ARCH e Ofcina Edizioni, n.d. (probably 1969) and with regard to Marzahn the design concepts for the individual residential areas worked out under the direction of Rolf Walters in 1975, 1976 and 1979 (BMH /archive).

31  Cf. Lothar Juckel, "MV – Märkisches Viertel in Berlin-Reinickendorf," *Baumeister* 66, 1 (1968): pp. 59–61, here p. 60.

32  Cf. for example *Investitionsgebiet Berlin-Marzahn. Gesellschaftlicher Hauptbereich BA 7.2. Dokumentation zur Aufgabenstellung*, ed. VEB Projektierung im VEB WBK Berlin (Berlin: self-published, n.d. (around 1981), p. 5.

33  Rolf Walter,Peter Hoppe andIngeborg Hunzinger, *Berlin-Marzahn, 3. Wohngebiet Gesellschaftlicher Bereich. Gestaltungskonzeption Architekturbezogene Kunst* (Berlin: self-published, 1984).

34  The only references to Tilson's involvement in the design of the Märkisches Viertel are in an article published in *Baumeister* by Lothar Juckel, in which the name is mentioned only briefly (Juckel, MV–Märkisches Viertel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, p. 60), as well as in *MV Plandokumentation*, ed. Senator für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, p. 146. I could not determine in which context the design for the Märkisches Zentrum depicted there was created.

35  "Berlin, Märkisches Viertel – Ein Zwischenbericht," *Bauwelt* 58, 46-47 (1967): pp. 1189–211, here p. 1193.

# EAST GERMANY UNDER PALM TREES: GDR HOUSING PROJECTS ABROAD *Andreas Butter\**

#### INTRODUCTION

Over the years, a catchword became prevalent for residential architecture in the German Democratic Republic (GDR): *die Platte* (the slab), a harsh abbreviation of *Plattenbau*. For most of its users, this term signifed a socialist setting and something monotonous and anti-individualistic; architecture slimmed down to meet basic demands at minimal cost. Moreover, according to Postmodern discourse, the functionalist approach of *die Platte*, in particular when applied abroad, acquired a constraining, Eurocentric, cultural-imperialistic connotation.

However, when discussing East German housing concepts and their export between 1949 and 1990, our analysis has to consider a number of specifc dependencies, such as post-war depletion, a self-serving Soviet supremacy, and rivalry with West Germany. Induced by external factors—directives from Moscow, but also global cultural trends—and growing expert knowledge, architectural concepts changed over four decades. This article represents only one feld of activity, examined in our recently completed research project about GDR architecture abroad,1 funded by the Gerda-Henkel Foundation. Focusing on housing projects, we fnd, even in the heyday of prefab-conformism during the 1960s–70s, distinct approaches in applying concepts around the world. Since the tight format of the whole research project (with some exceptions)2 limited the scope to domestic sources, we started by focusing on the contrasting juxtaposition of the four mentioned cases studied so far. These subjects, until now, had been discussed in an isolated way and needed further embedding in East German architectural history. By conducting archival research and interviews with East German stakeholders, we discovered lesser or unknown projects in Arab countries and Europe. They are presented here for the frst time to complete the picture.

For the transnational dimension, meaning the inclusion of other exporting countries' practices, we could only scratch the surface. Moreover, another issue, emerging in the wake of post-colonial theories, has become crucial in recent debates: the active role of the actors from the target countries. So far as we had access to information, we tried to embed the formerly underrepresented "importers" in our "exporters"' perspectives, and we believe, like Joe Nasr and Mercedes Volait, that this does not necessarily need «to replace one paradigm with another».3 In this feld of building activities, which is still not well

\* Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS), Erkner, Department for Historical Research/Scientifc Collections known, our aim is to show how architects mastered the adaptation of socialist housing design to diferent countries, incorporating the actual political guidelines and the climatic and cultural requirements—observed from a comparative point of view.Keeping in mind the compulsions and inspirations the East Germans received from outside, the discussion about their work abroad may correct the impression of one-way transmission and replace it in a broader historic context with a model of an international circulation of ideas.

#### EAST GERMAN ARCHITECTURE—INTERNATIONALLY EMBEDDED Industrial Mass Housing and Identity

The worldwide circulation of architectural concepts gained a new quality in the age of Modernism. In fact, concrete large-panel construction turns out to be an American invention, applied for the frst time in 1909 in Forest Hills Gardens, NY by Grosvenor Atterbury. During the Weimar Republic, the approach inspired Germans such as Martin Wagner and Jacobus Goettel to realise a project of 138 fats for Berlin-Karlshorst in 1926. After being temporarily out of date because of a preference for on-location concrete casting by infuential planners like Ernst Neufert after the Nazis had taken power, modular prefabrication in housing was taken into account by the East German authorities even before the ofcial establishment of the state in October 1949.<sup>4</sup> Ideas for prefabrication grew stronger because of the need for lodging after the devastation of the cities during World War II, while in the meantime, building in rural areas was set back to clay cabins. Yet, the implementation of new technologies was delayed by an ideologically based focus on a Soviet-inspired, traditionalist doctrine, called *Nationale Traditionen*. In 1951, the East German Building Academy had been established to make architects conform to the new ofcial line. It demanded the adoption of historical forms from "progressive" contexts in history, mainly referring to the period around 1800, rooted in Stalinist aesthetic theories. In particular, it combined ideas about inspiring people ethically with splendid and concerted classical forms, with building on their need for identity through the use of familiar motives from the region. When the frst block of fats made with panel construction was erected in 1954 in Berlin under the supervision of Karl-Heinz Schultz, it was covered with a neoclassical façade designed by two former Walter Gropius collaborators, Richard Paulick and Carl Fieger, completely concealing the grid of the panels (Fig. 1). Despite being paternalistic-authoritarian, this historicist strategy transcended the quality of a Soviet «colonial architecture», fnding its «soundboard»5 in the emotional disposition of many Germans, and it had consequent efects on architectural export projects of its time.

However, after the 1954 all-union conference in Moscow, when Nikita Khrushchev blamed contemporary design practices for wasting resources, a utilitarian-socialist shift towards Modernism began. In the years to come, the GDR authorities fostered the industrialisation of construction. Experts became inspired by developments in the USSR and Czechoslovakia, but in particular by technological groundwork and mass application of concrete panel technologies in France, taking into account the lack of types for mass production in that capitalist country.6 East German architects like Richard Linnecke and

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 1 Berlin, Engelhardstraße 11/13. First GDR panel building, 1954. Photo 2013

#### FIGURE 2 (LEFT)

Berlin-Marzahn: In the foreground housing estate II, Murtzaner Ring, including type WBS 70 and high rise, type WHH GT 18. Photo by Zimmermann, 1984

CC BY-SA 3.0

#### FIGURE 3 (CENTRE)

Berlin-Marzahn: Allee der Kosmonauten. Type WBS/QP 71-R, also applied in the Fennpfuhl housing estate in the 1970s. Photo by Erwin Schneider, 1979

#### FIGURE 4 (RIGHT)

Berlin, centre of the housing estate Greifswalder Straße: The restaurant "Zur Mühle", built according to a template, included a cofee shop, a dance hall, and a bowling alley. Demolished in 1996. In the background houses are WBS 70 and WHH GT 18/21. Photo by Rainer Weisfog, 1979

Wilfried Stallknecht, under theoretical guidance from Hans Schmidt who came from Switzerland, followed Paulick and developed subsequent—but concurrently used—types of panel buildings. When architecture in East Germany had come adrift from the bounds of traditionalism by the second half of the 1950s, its mainstream started to establish a metaphorical signifcance described by Ulrich Hartung as revealing «that for almost all purposes standardized buildings as functionally specifed types [centrally provided blueprints] or at least standardized constructions were devised and industrially reproduced. The obvious equal functionality harmonized with the collectivist ideal of equality.… Diferent functional and representative requirements generated a complex aesthetics of the industrialized building».7 By the 1970s, modularisation had made such progress that social facilities were also built of housing elements (Fig. 4). Unanimously and embedded in an international exchange of ideas, modern construction technologies like concrete shells and framework systems pushed forward, occasionally providing contrasting charm within the housing complexes.

By imposing the development of new residential neighbourhoods predominately consisting of a range of apartment blocks types such as P 2 and WBS 70, the state accepted the obsolescence of leftover old neighbourhoods, which resulted in mass demolition. Throughout the 1970s, these losses turned out to be counterproductive for the housing stock in total. Moreover, a crisis of identity had struck the population, intensifed by increasing problems with the economy, as mitigation in urban planning, a return to a spirit of local (rather than national) nature and attachment to history seemed inevitable. The last chapter of East German architecture is marked by small-scale approaches in the inner cities and Postmodern/neo-historicist designs, carried out in outwardly modifed, precast building types, mostly with large panel technology.

#### MOTIVES AND PRACTICES OF THE SOCIALIST HOUSING EXPORT

East German exportation of housing started immediately after the end of the war with the delivery of precast wooden lodges, requested by Soviet authorities as reparation goods for destroyed Russian cities and to shelter ofcers of the occupation forces in Germany.<sup>8</sup> Then, for twenty years following the founding of the GDR in 1949, the state had to promote political relations, in particular since West Germany's Hallstein doctrine until

1972 obstructed its diplomatic recognition worldwide by claiming sole representation. The notion of the export suggests a one-sidedness in the approach that should be challenged. Veteran planner Karlheinz Schlesier denies that the term is appropriate, because the East Germans, motivated by anti-imperialist solidarity, were primarily interested in capacity development.9 Indeed, many developing world students were taught at the Weimar architectural school—Hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen—bringing their own experience in two directions: to the school and back to the Global South.10 Furthermore, a spirit of helpful comradeship prevailed among East Germans when carrying out projects in foreign countries, as American researcher Christina Schwenkel confrms with reference to the testimonies of Vietnamese workers.11 For the researcher, shifting the perspective «be yond the colonial dialectics between the metropolis and its 'architectural laboratories'» by focusing on «knowledge production»12 may help to explain international engagement as an interaction and a process of learning in the «periphery». Furthermore, it may broaden the perspective, as Nasr and Volait suggest, to keep track of «power relationships» between «locals» and foreign experts (and amongst themselves) and to admit revolving, conficting ideas about modernisation.13

On the other hand, there was also a clear focus on the economy. East Germany urgently needed revenue in convertible currency and there was a good potential to get it: Highly specialised equipment manufacturers (e.g., for cement works or planetariums), now run by the state, had kept their pre-war networks. They, together with planning bureaus for industrial facilities, generated a large amount of currency—much more than housing planners who usually were more entangled in the "solidarity" commitments of the state. However, in the long run, GDR ofcials also expected fnancial benefts in this feld. When trading with socialist but also with Western countries, the economic deals were often realised as compensation business or barter—exchanging construction with the USSR for oil, with Cuba for oranges, with West Germany for cars. The Ministry of Foreign Trade initiated and supervised most of the important projects, acting as a switch point but also as a bureaucratic obstacle. Architectural projects were often conceived in the abstract, as many architects were blocked by their management or the Stasi (*Staatssicherheit*: the secret police) from travelling to explore sites or to meet customers and constructors.14 Projects abroad in general were not excluded from the described specifc approach towards

the aesthetics of standardised mass production, but they often gained more creative originality to sustain in the international market.

As a consequence of the long-term priority of housing for the GDR after WWII and its practice of coping with restricted resources, East German architects were seen as experts, able to adapt to the conditions abroad. This was promoted through contributions at international conferences and competitions of the Union Internationale des Architects. Admittedly, Werner Roesler's Metabolist structure from a 1972 competition for an urban redesign of Santiago de Chile, including mass housing, had no chance of being realised.15 But the design shows how the authors tried to refer to Salvador Allende's cybernetic adFIGURE 5 East German housing export: Aspects of a comparative analysis

ministrative concept, visualised much more radically than ever in the GDR itself. With accumulated experience abroad, it was, in the last years of the GDR, possible for students and architects to achieve a new degree of mindfulness. In 1987, Sabine Wendt from the HAB elaborated a paper to be discussed at the conference of International Congress of Architecture and Town Planning in Malmö.16 It was dedicated to the Year of the Homeless, proclaimed by the UN. Her outcomes—demands for a deepened focus on sustainability and response to the local context, featuring aspects of economy, ecology, society, organisation, space, design and technology—showed a strong linkage to the problems of building in developing countries.

#### PARAMETERS FOR AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH

However, to clarify the aspects that directly afect the building process in the feld of housing, a model of three dimensions, representing the practical conditions, the addressees' characteristics and the operating principles of design, may help (Fig. 5). Thinking about multiple cross-references might illustrate how actors dealt with the needs of the future users through four decades. The aim of the diagram was not to establish an overarching theory of architectural export. Considering political and ideological motives, world trade networks or specifcs of other architectural felds would aford a wider and more detailed visualisation. This short contribution discusses the following succession of projects without explicitly mentioning them for every single point.

The vertical z-axis refers to an understanding of available/afordable resources and physical conditions, based on Hassan Fathy's term, *appropriate technology—*an approach that is mostly relevant for non-industrialised regions. Regarding natural preconditions such as remote locations, tropical rain and available skills and materials, the question arises: to what extent does the transfer of prefabrication-paradigms make sense? When including problems such as compact or modular and multi- or just ground foor design, the practical aspects widen towards typologies and therefore they should be captioned *appropriate construction*.

Typologies relate directly to local specifcs defned by users' characteristics: The y-axis represents social structures, i.e., whether privacy or the family's integration into a greater community prevails, including generation mix, family size and family dynamics. The issue of religion afects questions on the fats' cardinal directions and an acceptable arrangement of functional spaces. Did the plans respond to certain ways of life—for example, rural vs. urban—or a social hierarchy of building typologies? These cultural aspects should not be understood as holistic but to some degree as heterogeneous and changing. The third axis, x, deals with actors' practices and how they had to comply with political agendas from the GDR and those from the target countries as well—by executing topdown decisions or by allowing the participation of locals. How are institutional frameworks or those of the planners' generation (following a specifc design philosophy, the same professors at university) meaningful for assessing their analytical approaches? Considering the rising self-confdence of fresh revolutionary governments, it also becomes crucial to examine their own ideas of progressiveness and representation. *Interdependencies*, fnally, concerns the working method—grounded in the ratio between individual creativity, teamwork (within the guest collective or with the hosts) and executing pre-existing patterns. All three axial dimensions describe basic parameters relevant for the housing projects' impacts on quality of life and sustainability. The following explanations have been adjusted to these aspects, trying to confate existing evidence and yet to provide dispersed or unnoticed footage from the construction period.

#### FROM CLAY TO CONCRETE PANELS: PROJECTS BY COUNTRY AND PERIOD

#### North Korea

Between 1954 and 1962, East Germany sent architects, urban planners and construction workers to North Korea to rebuild the destroyed industrial city of Hamhung and its harbour Hungnam, appointed as a substitute for WWII reparations to the Soviets.17 The city of 157,000 inhabitants was subdivided into fve districts, further partitioned into 5–10 neighbourhoods (*Wohnkomplexe*) providing shelter for about 3,500 people each.18 Also, public schools and a technical university were projected. Despite preliminary studies on local landscapes and historical settlement forms,19 Soviet grid-like patterns prevailed.

At the beginning, in the rural outskirts, one-storey, free-standing detached typologies were applied; the architects, following ideas of the *Wachsendes Haus* (Growing Home) from the 1920s, conceived subsequent extensions (a bathroom and an additional bedroom)20 (Fig. 6).

They were followed by two-storey terraced houses and blocks with three storeys, with layouts inspired by types used in the GDR, also gallery houses with one-room fats for singles, and fnally small tower blocks (Fig. 7). The technology started with wood and clay bricks, then it advanced to precast concrete beams and jumbo blocks, a transitional stage in

FIGURE 6 (ALL ABOVE) Hamhung, North Korea. One-storey houses and blueprint for extensions, mid 1950s

FIGURE 7 (ALL ABOVE)

Hamhung. Gallery house (above), house built with jumbo blocks (centre), house built with concrete panels (below), ca. 1950

FIGURE 8 Kikwajuni, Zanzibar. Photo by Hubert Scholz, 1969

the way to full prefabrication, which was used until the end of the GDR. In 1958, the frst houses in a 2-Megapond panel construction had been realised, also providing the architects from Rostock with good recognition for their further work in the GDR.21 Typical Korean roofs and indigenous patterns on the balconies in the early years were provided as a tribute to national traditions, but they were succeeded by cubic modernist forms (less clearly at the Plattenbauten than the houses with jumbo blocks: the building technology is not obvious to those who are not familiar with it, because the houses have been plastered or at least painted). Besides urban planning, landscape design and housing, East Germany exported factories to Hamhung, including a plant for concrete panels, which supplied the construction sites within the city.

A crucial point was the difcult application of *ondol* heating, a traditional Korean hypocaust system. Disagreements arose over the increased involvement of Korean planners, who decided that an electrical connection in every room would be too expensive and too energy-consuming.22 Despite close and fruitful cooperation through the years, there must have been deep lows in the relationship, according to a reported remark that the Germans «made the former Japanese rulers pale in comparison».23 With regard to practical outcomes, there was a strong advance towards industrial prefabrication, watered down in respect of comfort for economic reasons.

#### Tanzania

In 1964 the newly established People's Republic of Zanzibar and Pemba (in the same year becoming part of Tanzania) was the frst African country that recognised the GDR. As a reward, near the island capital, the project of Kikwajuni featuring 150 homes, conceived by Egon Gladitz, Walter Sieber, Gerhard Brösgen and Fritz Ritter was realised.24 They met the expectations of President Abeid Karume, who wanted houses made of a permanent material in an urban setting. Here we see a mix of Le Corbusier-inspired features, such as the pilotis and split levels, with an additive alignment and German pre-war window formats (Fig. 8). The material, hollow concrete masonry units, was shipped from the GDR.

A second neighbourhood was based on an increasingly analytic approach. Fortunately, urban planner Hubert Scholz convinced Karume to refrain from the planned demolition of the old Arabic city of Stone Town, a UNESCO world heritage site today. The new houses in Kilimani, providing 403 fats, were arranged around semi-open courtyards, featuring two variations of annexed open staircases (Fig. 9). Each fat has a separate reception room removed from the family sphere. The design thus follows Islamic expectations of decency. Loggias as workspace, covered with structured elements, admit fresh breezes, secure privacy, and hide drying laundry. Railings provide safety for those spending the night on the roofs in summertime. However, fat roofs proved troublesome during heavy rain; in some houses in Kiwajuni, pitched corrugated sheet roofs have been added.<sup>25</sup>

At the construction sites, workers from the GDR, sent by the communist youth organisation Freie Deutsche Jugend, trained local workers. Experiments with clay mortar failed due

#### FIGURE 9 (LEFT)

Kilimani, Zanzibar. Photo by Heinz Willumat, 1969 (above), foorplan of a dwelling type (below)

FIGURE 10 (RIGHT) Bambi, Zanzibar. Photo by Heinz Willumat, 1969

the high humidity; however, producing concrete elements out of local coral gravel secured self-supply. Beside of the multi-storey typology, the Germans realised villas for politicians and rural one-family homes—bigger than those delivered by the West Germans to mainland Tanzania26—for farm workers in the village of Bambi (Fig. 10).

urheberrechtlich geschützt

The last phase, starting in 1969, revealed the alienation and diminishing role of the East German planners, due to the radical visions of President Karume (who intervened directly like Walter Ulbricht in the GDR) concerning urban renewal. The new Michenzani complex, which was intended to replace the Ng'ambo neighbourhood consisting of smaller traditional houses, had two crossing main roads. The dominating urban typology of the famed *Magistrale* with a circular square that had been applied at the Karl-Marx-Allee in Berlin, but was becoming outdated at that time, appeared here. Originally conceived by Heinz Willumat and Scholz for a varied development, the two axes were built at the base of modifed house types from Kilimani, providing 1,100 smaller fats, the blocks standing lengthwise to the streets, uninterrupted and mono-functionally, nicknamed "the train" (Figs. 12, 14). Their height was, against the Germans' objections, raised up to seven or eight foors, which worsened the problem of water supply to the upper levels. Only these monumental avenues have been realised, standing in stark contrast to the surrounding texture of small streets. The new planners, Walter Wendorf and Ludwig Brambach, were banned from the site, and local propaganda presented the project as a purely national achievement.27 Due to severe decay over many years, Michenzani is rated as a socially disruptive failure by foreign visitors.28 However, taking Michenzani's oversimplifed approach as *pars* 

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 11 Dakawa, Tanzania, in *Architektur der DDR* 9, 1989

Michenzani housing complex, Zanzibar. Street view by Sigrun Lingel, 2012 (right); Southwestern part, completed 2005, photo by Africa-Press (left above); Aerial view, photo ca. 2007 (left below)

*pro toto* by ignoring the earlier attempts and Scholz's work for the preservation of Stone Town creates a negatively biased picture, boosted by the incorrect term *Plattenbau*29 (the houses are traditionally bricked). Furthermore, partial renovation and even completion of some half-done blocks in Michenzani after thirty years turned them into middle-class residences (Fig. 13). The x-axis of the diagram—the focus on actors' practices—thus helps us to see that aspirations of top-down modernisation still confict with the persistence of social disparity and unequal cultural patterns.

A good example to illustrate the balancing act between altruism—or, rather, support for political allies—and valorisation, can be found in the case of the UNCHS/HABITAT project for exiled South Africans of the African National Congress (ANC) in Dakawa, on the Tanzanian mainland (Fig. 11).30 The plan encompassed ten villages of about 5,000 people. In 1984, a Western partner, NORPLAN from Norway, developed the land-use plan. Meanwhile, the East Germans developed a simplifed concrete prefabrication system, called wall-panel-column. To apply this technique, another prefabricated system, a factory-hall type with joined concrete wall-roof supporters (also realised by the GDR for a textile plant in Mbeja, Tanzania)31 was chosen to accommodate the panel production, conducted by local workers. Finally, the hall, small dwellings and two nursery homes were constructed in 1988. The last years of the decade saw the GDR in a desperate fght for economic consolidation. Despite the HABITAT regulations prohibiting the pursuit of commercial interests through its projects, an internal concept paper demanded bilateral business ofers based on the HABITAT work until December 1989.32

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 15 (LEFT)

Vinh, Vietnam. Gallery house, photo by Heinz Stelzig, ca. 1978; foorplan of one-/two-room apartments

#### FIGURE 16 (RIGHT)

Hanoi, Vietnam. Front page of *Tropenbaubriefe*, 1985. Housing proposal by Folke Dietzsch, Jürgen Arnold and Ingo Gräfenhahn

#### Vietnam

The Quang-Trung housing project for the centre of Vinh, Vietnam—like Hamhung a war-ravaged city—was organised state to state in 1973, led by planning professionals like Karlheinz Schlesier, former chief architect of Halle-Neustadt. They started with four houses of existing Soviet-based types to allow time to develop their own solutions and to train local experts. They were followed by sleek gallery houses, well adapted to the climate, with eight types of fats, ranging from one to four rooms (mostly two) (Fig. 15). The district was only 70 % built until 1980. Panel building technology was not applied in Vinh. Indeed, a concrete panel factory in Dao tu was built by VEB Betonprojekt Dessau corporation in 1979, and it provided housing projects in Haiphong—but no GDR house types are verifable there.33 Tim Kaiser considers Vinh less the «transplantation of East German mass construction practices» than an «adjustment of already existing plans».34 He rates the result as a «failure of a modern project», since it never provided the qualities of the promised socialist living. According to the Germans, most problems during construction were caused by «over-challenged» Vietnamese authorities and «inadequate fnancial regulations».<sup>35</sup>

Visitors in Vinh today fnd many makeshift installations by tenants, like wooden oriels for keeping animals and extending living space, or alterations because bathrooms had been oriented towards the traditional locations of religious shrines.36 According to Schlesier, the planners' focus to provide practical amenities under determinant economic restraints left no space for those subjects; «huts never had been a choice».37 While many urban dwellers welcomed their new homes and still retain their appreciation, others, accustomed to life in the countryside (among them many former city people displaced during war time), felt

alienated.38 A couple of years ago, the demolition of the overcrowded and poorly maintained houses began. In Vinh, as in Zanzibar, there were no fnancial reserves for building preservation. Instead, there is occasional evidence that locals assumed that the German builders had an extended responsibility for keeping the houses intact for the sake of their own reputation. This belief was expressed by representatives in Vinh in the 1980s.39 Recently, after a student group from Potsdam conducted a small-scale beautifcation project in Zanzibar, the inhabitants began to hope that they would continue another year.40 In Vinh, at least, there is, despite all the problems, still an attachment by many people to the builders and their accomplishments, and it is refected in an ofcial publication.<sup>41</sup>

However, metamorphosis by appropriation, disturbing the functional and aesthetic entity of the original design instead of preserving it, is not restricted to certain regions or periods, though it attracts more attention when appearing in modernist buildings that claim an aura of neat simplicity. In the socialist countries in the 1980s, tenants created their own living spaces by using colour, wood, tin, glass and fabric (from the mild examples in Poland later in this article to the more drastic cases in the USSR42). This also happened in the 1980s GDR, in impressive 11-storey P 2 blocks in Berlin with their agglomeration of patchwork-like modifed balconies. The planning and building, perfectionist but infexible as it was, had become alienated from many people's attitudes towards life, and they felt the desire to intervene.

Hence, ideas of participatory–bottom-up–practices spread in the GDR, in particular to save old towns. These initiatives were not intended by state authorities, and they ranged from strongly critical, even subversive attitudes to institutionalised "reform" discourses.43 For a Union Internationale des Architects contest, Folke Dietzsch, Jürgen Arnold and Ingo Gräfenhahn, students from Weimar, for example, turned towards the idea of cooperative yet individually fexible planning practices. They chose the case study of Hanoi and conceived in 1985 a (not realised) contribution that was much more oriented to specifc local conditions than previous approaches (Fig. 16). The plan was to use smaller concrete elements like hollow blocks, lintels and roof-tiles, but no big panels. This smaller dimensioned self-made housing system required systematic research about neighbourhood relations and the elaboration of the building workfow through a co-op, but admittedly it aligned with the state and the party.44

#### Mozambique

When in 1981 the GDR Ministry of Housing promoted the urban development of some cities in remote areas of Mozambique, such as the mining town of Tete,45 to be realised with precast panels, the ofcials had to learn about the impracticality of their aspirations, and not only because of transportation issues and rebel activities. From the beginning, criticism came from Mozambique's housing commissioner José Forjaz, who had promoted self-sustainable technologies.46 Finally, Walter Krüger and his team from the Experimental Project Department of the Bauakademie were commissioned to develop a neighbourhood for foreign university teachers in the capital Maputo, later to be provided to Mozambi-

#### FIGURE 17 (LEFT, RIGHT)

Maputo, Mozambique. Bairro Residencial Universitário in *Architektur der DDR 8*, 1984: construction site, photo by Wagner (left), foorplan of a dwelling type (right)

cans: the Bairro Residencial Universitário.47 Here, in varying terraced house types, they applied European spatial patterns inside, according to the expectations of the customer. As a tribute to African practices, a place for doing the laundry at the rear was added (Fig. 17). By decision of Mozambique's government, a new manufacturing site for precast concrete elements—just beams, not large panels yet—started production in Umbeluzi. The Germans also experimented with clay construction, bringing experience from their immediate post-war practices, but it turned out not to be fnancially feasible.48 The project's completion process (at 80 %) outlasted the existence of the GDR by years, resulting in a neat, consistently structured district for a privileged class of academics.

#### Arab Countries and Iran

The same team was responsible for a plan in socialist South Yemen. Here, fve diferent types were employed for 1,000 planned apartments at four villages in the Abyan region, half of them to be built on the basis of prefabrication. The units had to accommodate the

#### FIGURE 18 (LEFT, RIGHT)

Abyan district, South Yemen. Housing design and layout for a new neighbourhood in Al-Kod in *Architektur der DDR* 8, 1984

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 19

Cherkassy, Ukraine. Type "Erfurt" under construction. Photo by Thomas Billhardt, 1978

necessity of a *haram* (private) area separated from the sphere accessible for visitors. Their typology was varied, from block to terraced houses, and arranged in a staggered manner. All the designs show terraces on the roofs and a stark cubature to create as much shadow as possible (Fig. 18).49 The architects did not get any information about further progress. Due to political turmoil in the region, the houses seemed unrealised. However, because of similarities in façade design found at later buildings in the same villages, they probably became infuential on the local scale;50 satellite photos even indicate a partial implementing of the German planning. Other projects remained unrealised ofcially: the panel houses in Biskra at the northern border of Algeria's desert region—however, similar blocks emerged some years later—and a project in Dowlatabad near Isfahan in Iran, from which a prototype was presented to the public.51 The same happened to a comprehensive project by Jörg Streitparth from 1982 for Kuwait.52 Four types of villas in a mixed construction of masonry and precast parts, like concrete arches and protruding window frames (similar to features in the Zanzibar project) were conceived. Generously sized, following slightly Brutalist aesthetics and technologies usual at this time at the location,53 they represent a predominantly commercial, high-profle approach.

#### Europe: Precast Designs Following Domestic Patterns from East Germany

Around 1980, after the supervising city planner for Nigerian Abuja, Heinz Schwarzbach, had vainly proposed panel construction for housing54 and the subsequent experiences in Mozambique, it became clear that strict prefabrication would not be the formula for third-world countries going forward. But it had been and still was widely applicable under European conditions—in the East and partially in the West.

In the Soviet Union and Poland, the blueprints could follow GDR specifcations. Therefore, the Erfurt-style high-rise panel building type PH 16 was applied in 1978 in Cherkassy, Ukraine (Fig. 19). Construction workers from the Freie Deutsche Jugend who were deployed in the area to build the *Drushba* (friendship) gas pipeline also realised housing projects for prospective pipeline staf.55 When between 1984 and 1987 they erected twelve blocks in Tchaikowsky,56 Perm region, the collaborating building companies WBK (Wohnungsbaukombinat) Potsdam and WBK Cottbus had to adapt their common WBS 70 house type to a precarious building ground and the harsh climate, but they kept the typical appearance. Diferent variations of the type, produced by the panel factory in Brandenburg and shipped via the Baltic Sea, appeared in nearby Izhevsk around the same time57 (the logistic challenges were seen as a training for inner GDR panel delivery to Berlin).58 Their heat insulation ran from the standard 60 mm to almost 90 mm, and some of the gable walls were decorated with simplifed folkloristic ornaments. Meanwhile in Kungur, some 200 km north-east, the German construction crews were advised to take an easier way and to assemble Soviet-made types.59 Some of them had similarities: On the whole, the builders had a political awareness for the approaches of the other side, and it was stated that the Soviet partners used GDR experience with WBS 70 for their own type series (*Basisserien*).60

In Poland, in the Upper Silesian coal-mining area around Jastrzębie-Zdrój, housing complexes, commissioned by the mining company, were executed around 1970 according to the East German type P 2, featuring a large balcony front, an inner staircase, and a kitchen serving hatch. When buying the panel technology from Eilenburger Baustofmaschinenwerk, the customers expected to get the blueprints, but they had to negotiate to get the licence as well. 61 The Polish added the urban planning, applying a dynamic diagonal block layout (unusual in the GDR), and they took care of the assembly. Over time, this highly conformist type of panel building required some individualisation in the eyes of the inhabitants, and, therefore, they applied colourful varnish to the loggias (Fig. 20). Today, they have been renovated. Other examples of the P 2 type can be found in former Yugoslavia, today Montenegro, in the towns of Podgorica and Nikšić. Because there are only a few original realisations but a variety of similar ones, with broader balconies and integrated garages, there had to be local derivatives. This practice was confrmed by Karlheinz Schlesier, who was involved in the deal in 1967.62

There were ironic misconceptions: In Sweden, a country with an outstanding record of social housing, there are unproven claims about the GDR having made panel buildings in Malmö, probably because of some formal similarities.63 The opposite is true. In 1971–72 East German experts travelled to that city to study the Swedish mixed panel and in-situ concrete Allbeton system64—which, afterwards and despite a sceptical assessment, was used for high rises in Halle-Neustadt.65

The last and in a way most surprising projects in this presentation were conceived for West German developers. Planning for those well-funded Western customers and not too distant locations fuelled hopes on the Eastern side when companies received attention for their ofers at the Leipzig Trade Fair. In 1971 VEB (K) Bau Oranienburg gained orders for its ORA bungalow type in *Raumelementebauweise—*prefabricated units for each room including polyurethane wall elements.66 The technology was inspired by the Swiss EL-CON system.67 For the passer-by—and thus, unlike the similar house type Luckenwalde, used inside the GDR—the roofs made from serial concrete-shell elements (HP-Schale: hyperbolic-paraboloid, developed by Herbert Müller) were concealed by a coping (Fig. 21). French partners considered buying the license, and arrangements were also made to deliver 125 one-family homes annually to West Germany. In the end, only eight houses were built at diferent locations in West Berlin. The failure was caused by capacity problems in the Eastern companies and low-quality installation. However, after some improvements over almost 50 years, the layout and the structure have gained the satisfaction of users.68

There are many rumours about ordinary East German panel construction applied in West Germany, since the technology itself was not uncommon there. However, after having made advances to sell the WBS 70 type for one-family homes,69 the Easterners learned that the GDR approach of prefab sandwich elements (a static load-bearing concrete slab on the inside, in front of it a mineral wool insulation, followed by a concrete weather protection

FIGURE 20 (LEFT, RIGHT) Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Poland. Type P 2, photo 2008

FIGURE 21 (ALL ABOVE) West Berlin, Benekendorfstraße. Air photo ca. 1989 (above); foorplan, 1972 (below)

FIGURE 22 that for Hanoi. Bad Segeberg, West Germany. Housing with Type P Halle. Photo by Winfried Hohmann, 1985

shell on the outside) was supposedly not compatible with Western practices of on-location wall insulation.70 However, in reality, sandwich technology was applied in the West too.71

Therefore, there was no objection when Wohnungsbaukombinat Halle in 1984–85 realised a smaller housing project in Bad Segeberg in panel construction (Fig. 22). The managers decided to use the P Halle type, conceived twenty years before as a variation of the widespread P 1 type and adapted by Bernd Czych to Western expectations. The panels were delivered across the border by truck, assembled by GDR workmen on location and completed with Western ftments. Still in excellent condition today,72 they show the sustainability of Plattenbau, when executed according to high standards, which was, in this case, confrmed by the West German Supervisory and Certifcation Board of the State Agency in Nuremberg.73 On the other hand, it refers to one of East Germany's fundamental weaknesses: the state's paranoid, politically induced mistrust of its citizens that afected every export project for forty years. The decisive hint that the houses were an East German project came from a Stasi fle concerning an observation programme to keep the GDR construction workers under control in the land of temptations.74

#### CONCLUSION

It became clear that, in consideration of solidarity and mutual knowledge accumulation efects, the term export is applicable75 and that the appropriation by the importers started during the planning process. As a part of global knowledge transfer, large-panel construction itself was an import to Germany. Its predominance in the GDR for thirty years was embedded in a changing economic and cultural framework, but it continuously acted as a more or less strong paradigm for housing export.

For the GDR, planning abroad was always interlocked with issues of national identity during the heyday years of Modernism, primarily reinterpreted as physically yet regionally adapted consideration. While trying to learn to adapt to climate and cultural conditions, architects had to address their government's commercial interests and need for political self-assertion, but also the expectations of radical modernisation insisted upon by the foreign partners. Their agenda of empowerment required the inclusion of local partners, but in a top-down framework. Having the best intentions in mind—raising the quality of living for everybody—architects had to trim back aspirations for high efciency and quick technological advances, and to accommodate social peculiarities. However, export projects gave them the opportunity to fnd or test innovative design solutions, in some cases very specifc for the location, but sometimes helping to gain practice for an application at home. Diferent typologies and technologies were applied, and their sustainability depended on both the degree of understanding of users' needs and their ability to maintain the buildings. In some cases, appreciation of the functional qualities outlived socialist aspirations. Due to the collapse of the GDR, we have no way of knowing which practical outcomes would have resulted from the fresh and participatory contributions of the 1980s, such as

#### NOTES

1  The present article is based on a paper presented at the 71st SAH Annual International Conference in Saint Paul, MN, in April 2018. For a broader approach see Andreas Butter, "Showcase and Window to the World: East German Architecture Abroad 1949–1990," *Planning Perspectives* 2 (February 2018): pp. 249–69, https:// doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2017.1348969. For over 100 selected projects, see our IRS Erkner online database with pictures and localisation: http://ddr-planungsgeschichte.de/auslandsprojekte/.

2  For another article, on the export of industrial architecture, "Shell Sheds for China," publication is planned for 2021. The author was supported by the South Eastern University, Nanjing to visit factories and to talk with locals.

3  Joe Nasr and Mercedes Volait, "Introduction: Transporting Planning," In *Urbanism: Imported or Exported?*, ed. Joe Nasr and Mercedes Volait (Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2003), p. XI.

4  See Andreas Butter, *Neues Leben, Neues Bauen. Die Moderne in der Architektur der SBZ/DDR 1945–1951* (Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2006), pp. 147–67.

5  Simone Hain, "Kolonialarchitektur? Die Stalinallee im Kontext internationaler Ästhetikdebatten," In *Karl-Marx-Allee, Magistrale in Berlin*, ed. Helmut Engel and Wolfgang Ribbe (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1996), p. 101.

6  See Hans Mucke, "Industrieller Wohnungsbau in Frankreich," *Deutsche Architektur* (June 1956): p. 342. See also Gerhard Zilling, "Zum Entwicklungsstand des industrialisierten Wohnungsbaus in einigen kapitalistischen Ländern," *Deutsche Architektur* (September 1956): pp. 432ff.

7  Ulrich Hartung, "Zur Spezifik des Modernen in der DDR-Architektur. Thesen," in *Denkmal Ostmoderne, Aneignung und Erhaltung des baulichen Erbes der Nachkriegsmoderne*, ed. Mark Escherich (Berlin: Jovis, 2012), pp. 32 and 38.

8  Museum Niesky (ed.), *Der Holzhauspfad. Holzbauten der Firma Christoph*  & *Unmack* (Niesky: Museum Niesky 2009), p. 28.

9  Interview with Karlheinz Schlesier, April 9, 2014.

10  See *Tropenbaubriefe 1 and 2*, Hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen Weimar, 1986.

11  Christina Schwenkel, "Afective Solidarities and East German Reconstruction of Postwar Vietnam," in *Comrades of Color: East Germany in the Cold War world*, ed. Quinn Slobodian (New York: Berghahn, 2015), p. 280; "Traveling Architecture: East German Urban Designs in Vietnam," *International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity* 2 (February 2014): pp. 162f.

12  Łukasz Stanek, "Introduction: The 'Second World's' Architecture and Planning in the 'Third World,'" *Journal of Architecture* 17 (June 2012): p. 302.

13  See Nasr and Volait, "Introduction," p. XV.

14  Interviews with Wilhelm Schulze and Birgit Heidenreich (formerly VEB Industrieprojektierung Dessau), July 2013.

15  The Santiago project is in the IRS Erkner archive, legacy of Werner Rösler. See http://www.digipeer.de/ index.php?id=711641464.

16  Sabine Wendt, "IKAS'87 in Malmö/Schweden im UNO-Jahr 'Unterkünfte für die Obdachlosen,'" *Architektur der DDR* (January 1988): pp. 46f.

17  Rüdiger Frank, "Lessons from the Past: The First Wave of Developmental Assistance to North Korea and the German Reconstruction of Hamhùng," *Pacifc Focus* 1 (2008): p. 57, https://www.academia.edu.

18  Dong Sam Sin, *Die Planung des Wiederaufbaus der Städte Hamhung und Hungnam in Nordkorea durch die DAG-Städtebaubrigade der DDR von 1955–1962 – Eine städtebaugeschichtliche Abhandlung aus der Sicht eines Zeitzeugen* (Dissertation, HafenCity Universität, Hamburg, 2016).

19  Hideo Tomita, "A Survey of Korean Settlements by Konrad Püschel, a Graduate of the Bauhaus," in *The 13th Docomomo International Conference Seoul Expansion*  & *Confict*, *September 19-29, 2014, in Seoul, South Korea*, conference proceedings (Seoul: DOCOMOMO Korea, 2014), pp. 416f. https://www.academia. edu/8359821/Hideo\_Tomita\_A\_Survey\_of\_Korean\_Settlements\_by\_Konrad\_P%C3%BCschel\_a\_Gradu ate\_of\_the\_Bauhaus\_The\_13th\_Docomomo\_International\_Conference\_Seoul\_2014\_Korea\_Session\_17\_ Asian\_Modernity\_September\_27\_2014.\_National\_Museum\_of\_Modern\_Art\_and\_Contemporary\_Art\_ Seoul\_pp.\_416-418.

20  The extension foorplan was published in Sin, *Die Planung*, p. 120, but with no record of realisation.

21  Matthias Schubert, the last three pictures and commentaries, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Deutsche\_Arbeitsgruppe\_Hamh%C5%ADng?uselang=de.

22  Young-Sun Hong, "Through a Glass Darkly: East German Assistance to North Korea and Alternative Narratives of the Cold War," in *Comrades of Color: East Germany in the Cold War world*, ed. Quinn Slobodian (New York: Berghahn, 2015), pp. 56ff.

23  Doreen Mende, "Hamhŭngs Zwei Waisen (Für Konrad Püschel). Ein ostdeutscher Internationalismus

in Nord-Korea durch einen chrono-politischen Blick," n. 31, quoting Young-Sun Hong from *Cold War Germany*, p. 69, http://www.bauhaus-imaginista.org/articles/6100/hamhungs-zwei-waisen-fur-konrad-puschel/ de?0bbf55ceffc3073699d40c945ada9faf=7fcd255faf1ed4ed7ee57c771f4a464d).

24  For an analytic review of the GDR planning history in Zanzibar, see Ludger Wimmelbücker, "Architecture and City Planning Projects of the German Democratic Republic in Zanzibar," *Journal of Architecture* 17 (June 2012): pp. 407–32. As sources from the period see H. D. Bräuer and H. R Schulze, "Ngambo – Nicht mehr die andere Seite," *NBI* 39 (September 1966): pp. 36–39; Günter Hirschfelder, "Bauten der DDR im Ausland: Sansibar – Wohnungsbau," *Deutsche Architektur* (September, 1964): pp. 544–45; Hubert Scholz, "Sansibar – Eine Stadt verändert ihr Gesicht," *Deutsche Architektur* (December 1969): pp. 736–41; Karl-Heinz Bochow, "Bauen in Tansania," *Deutsche Architektur* (December 1969): pp. 742–49. The author of this paper interviewed Hubert Scholz in June 2013 and Heinz Willumat in January 2018.

25  Friendly advice from Sarah Methner and Maximilian Hanisch, who visited the location in 2019 for a theatre project on modern housing worldwide, took pictures and were informed by servicing engineer Abubakar Ahmad Shani.

26  For a broader context, particularly concerning the East-West-competition in Africa, see Tom Avermaete, "'Neues Bauen in Afrika': Displaying East and West German Architecture During the Cold War," *Journal of Architecture* 17 (June 2012): pp. 387–405.

27  Wimmelbücker, "Architecture and City Planning," p. 427.

28  See Antoni S. Folkers and Belinda A. C. van Buiten, *Modern Architecture in Africa* (Berlin: Springer, 2019), pp. 68f. They refer to Garth A. Myers, *Reconstructing N'gambo. Town Planning and Development on the Other Side of Zansibar* (PhD Thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, 1993).

29  Antoni Folkers, "Michenzani, Häusermeer und Plattenbauten," *Tec* 21 (September 21, 2012), https:// www.espazium.ch/michenzani-husermeer-und-plattenbauten. This contains harsh critical assessments on Michenzani the author had heard during the closing conference for our IRS Erkner research project from an American colleague who had visited Zanzibar. Also, Walter Krüger was confronted with its negative image when talking with East African experts in the early 1980s (reader's letter to the editor referring to Wibke Schmidt's article "Paradies und Drecknest," in EPOC, January 2009), https://www.spektrum.de/magazin/paradies-und-drecksnest/979178.

30  Peter Wurbs, "Aufbau des ANC-Entwicklungszentrums Dakawa, Tansania," *Architektur der DDR* (August 1989): pp. 51–54.

31  Interview with Birgit Heidenreich, July 2013.

32  IRS Erkner, archive, A\_1, No. 88.

33  Interview with Karlheinz Schlesier, February 5, 2020. Pictures of the factory at the IRS Erkner archive (not inventoried yet).

34  Tim Kaiser, *Transnational Impact on Urban Change. Modern Projects in Vinh, Vietnam* (Dissertation, University of Passau, September 2013), revised edition 2016, pp. 124f, https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-uni-passau/frontdoor/index/index/docId/227.

35  Kaiser, *Transnational Impact*, p. 122.

36  Schwenkel, "Traveling architecture," pp. 167f.

37  Interview with Karlheinz Schlesier, February 11, 2020.

38  Schwenkel's key lecture, "The Afterlife of Aid: On the Repurposing of GDR-Architecture in Vietnam," June 21, 2018.

39  Kaiser, *Transnational Impact*, p. 123.

40  Records of talks with locals by Sarah Methner und Maximilian Hanisch.

41  Nguyen Sy Thuy, Le Quoc Hong, Ngo Van Yem, Nguyen Van Luc, and Ngo Xuan Phung, *Vinh. Spuren der Geschichte vietnamesisch-deutscher Freundschaft beim zeitigen Wiederaufbau der Stadt Vinh in den Jahren* 

*1973–1980* (Hanoi: Thế Giới, 2011).

42  See Philipp Meuser, *Die Ästhetik der Platte. Wohnungsbau in der Sowjetunion zwischen Stalin und Glasnost* (Berlin: DOM, 2015), pp. 568–90.

43  See the project *Stadtwende* (https://stadtwende.de/) and Christoph Bernhardt, Thomas Flierl, and Max Welch Guerra, eds., *Verborgene Reformdiskurse: Städtebaudebatten in der DDR* (Edition Gegenstand und Raum) (Berlin: Theater der Zeit, 2012).

44  See *Tropenbaubriefe 1 and 2*.

45  See http://www.digipeer.de/index.php?sf=0&al=tete.

46  Nikolai Brandes, "DDR-Architekten in Mosambik. Das Beispiel des Bairro Residencial Universitál 1979– 1986," paper presented at the 14th workshop on GDR-Planning History at the IRS Erkner, January 21, 2016.

47  Walter Krüger and Bernd Stich, "Wohnungsneubau in der Volksrepublik Moçambique," *Architektur der DDR* (August 1984): p. 473; interview with Walter Krüger, January 2019.

48  Interview with Bernd Stich and Wolf-Rüdiger Schwarz, January 2018.

49  Walter Krüger, Wolf-Rüdiger Schwarz, and N. Schmidt, "Governorat Abyan: Wohngebiete in Zingibar, Al Kod, Al Ja'ar, Al Makhzan," *Architektur der DDR* (August 1984): pp. 468–71.

50  Picture in Günter Mosler, *Zwischen Dschungel, Taiga, Savanne, Wüste und Heimat: Ein DDR-Auslandskader erzählt* (four volumes: Vietnam, Yemen, Mozambique, Siberia) (Leipzig: Engelsdorfer, 2013-14).

51  Interview with Walter Krüger, January 2019.

52  http://www.digipeer.de/index.php?sf=0&al=kuweit.

53  According to photos in "Spiegel der Umma," Kuwait, May 30, 1979.

54  Interview with Heinz Schwarzbach, January 2018. See also Tassilo Neuber, "Abuja – Die neue Hauptstadt Nigerias," *Architektur der DDR* (February 1983): pp. 107–12.

55  See Thomas Billhardt and Peter Jacobs, *Die Drushba-Trasse* (Berlin: Verlag Neues Leben, 1978).

56  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chaikovsky.JPG; see also Landeshauptarchiv Potsdam, Rep.

401 20825, Reisebericht Tschaikowsky, March 16, 1987, and Bericht, Feb. 2, 1985.

57  Friendly advice by Dr. Philipp Meuser. Further information given by Gerhard Brock, former chief of Wohnungsbaukombinat Potsdam, February 2019. Pictures available via Google Street View, geodates: 56.866034, 53.225735.

58  Interview with Karlheinz Schlesier, February 2020.

59  Interview with Günter Mosler, January 2019.

60  Koordinierungsrat DDR/UdSSR, ed., *Neue Wohnkomplexe in der DDR und UdSSR* (Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen/Moscow: Strojizdat, 1987), p. 273.

61  Interview with Karlheinz Schlesier, April 9, 2014.

62  Interview with Karlheinz Schlesier, February 2020.

63  Statement by Rolf Buch in Alexander Jung and Anne Seith, "Wir haben Fehler gemacht," *Spiegel* 38 (September 14, 2018), http://www.spiegel.de/plus/vonovia-chef-rolf-buch-wollen-sie-ihre-alten-mieter-vergraulen -a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000159428643.

64  Bundesarchiv, DC 20/17246. For earlier approaches, see Richard Paulick, "Eigene Beobachtungen über den Wohnungsbau in Schweden," *Deutsche Architektur* (April 1964): p. 239.

65  https://www.bbr-server.de/bauarchivddr/archiv/plarchiv/02449-0835/akten-mappen-pdf/02449-0835 ktlg-wohnhaeuser-69-3-04-wohnheimscheibe-e-halle.pdf.

66  Landeshauptarchiv (hereafter LHA) Potsdam, Rep. 401, 30812/3, Report from the trade fair, internal protocols and correspondence with partners in West Berlin.

67  According a presentation by Anne Kluge, "Das Interhotel ′Motel Dresden′ und die Entwicklung der Raumelementebauweise in der DDR," at the 16th Werkstattgespräch at the IRS Erkner zur DDR-Planungsgeschichte, January 23, 2020. See also Waldemar Gude, "Raumelemente – eine neue Bauweise," *Deutsche Architektur* (January 1974): pp. 28–31.

68  Statement of Mr. and Mrs. Meurer, owners of one of these houses, in September 2018.

69  LHA Potsdam, Rep. 401, 14760: Report by Bezirksbaudirektor Klein, September 9, 1983.

70  Interview with Gerhard Brock in August 2018.

71  Claudia Hildner, "Fugenabdichtung bei Fertigteilbauten. Koloss mit neuen Fugen," *db-Metamorphose* (November 7, 2009), https://www.db-bauzeitung.de/db-metamorphose/schwachstellen-aus-bauschaeden-lernen/fugenabdichtung/.

72  Actual photos: http://www.machmaplazda.com/wbs70in\_westdeutschland.html.

73  Issued January 23, 1985, collection of Winfried Hohmann, former manager of Wohnungsbaukombinat Halle; copy in author's collection.

74  https://www.stasi-mediathek.de/medien/auftragsersuchenzu-ermittlungen-im-grossraum-bad-segeberg/ blatt/22/.

75  Proven not least by the name of the East German holding organisation: LIMEX Bau-Export-Import.

# IBA-NEUBAU: SOCIAL HOUSING AS A RENEWAL GENERATOR FOR THE INNER CITY

*Antonello Scopacasa\**

The IBA Berlin 1984/87 has been the main expression of critical positions towards Modernist urban planning in Berlin. The complex phenomenon which the International Architectural Exhibition promoted saw social housing as a fnancial motor and a regenerating instrument for the inner city. Reconstruction and recovery in continuity with the historic urban substance were the goal.

Beginning ofcially in the late 1970s and becoming active during the '80s, the IBA did not at the time constitute a revolutionary theoretical statement in general, but it represented a radical and important turning point for the complex, heavily contrasted Berlin situation. Moreover, the long-term and multi-level articulated organisation of the event, together with the strong artistic leadership of Josef Paul Kleihues and Hardt-Waltherr Hämer, made a major statement on the international scale and continued to infuence Berlin city master planning well into the frst years of this millennium.

Proceeding from the whole into detail, the article focuses on the political programme and the main intervention in central Southern Friedrichstadt. A detailed description of a case study on the Ritterstraße is presented in the Documentation section of this book.

#### IBAs: A HISTORY OF REALISED MANIFESTOS

The International Building Exhibition (*Internationale Bauausstellung*, IBA) actually goes back to an old, well-established German tradition aimed at focussing on a particular topic: the direct research and the development of the architectural discourse in a real situation, resulting in a manifesto for a specifc urban condition.

The frst IBA manifestation was the Künstlerkolonie Mathildenhöhe, directed by Joseph Maria Olbrich in 1899–1901 in Darmstadt: as an avant-garde part of the Life-Reform project, it aimed at counterbalancing the condition of industrialised society and resulted in an aesthetical refuge for a privileged community of artists (Fig. 1). The second was the Weißenhofsiedlung in Stuttgart, directed by Mies van der Rohe and part of the Werkbund Exhibition *Die Wohnung*, which opened in 1927. It presented a model for a middle-class, spacious neighbourhood and the built manifesto of Modernism in architecture (Fig. 2). In a totally diferent and more complex political context—the core of the Cold War years—a divided and heavily damaged Berlin hosted the third IBA in 1956–57: the Interbau, led by Otto Bartning and Karl Otto.<sup>1</sup> The project was intended as a message represent- \* TU Berlin, Chair of International Urbanism and

Design (Habitat Unit)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 1 (RIGHT)

*Darmstadt Künstler-Kolonie*: Three-Houses-Group by Joseph Maria Olbrich. Coloured photo in a postcard of 1904

#### FIGURE 2 (LEFT)

Werkbund Exhibition *Die Wohnung* in Stuttgart, Weißenhofsiedlung, 1927: House Le Corbusier. Photo 1928

urheberrechtlich geschützt

ing "the city of tomorrow" sent to a worldwide audience but also clearly, if not expressly, to the eastern city sector and to its political representative, newly fnished Stalinallee.<sup>2</sup> On both sides of the city the residence became central, and not only due to the enormous lack of accommodation resulting from the war destruction: on the east side, because of the socialist political programme and of the model identity of the new capital of the German Democratic Republic (GDR); on the west side because of its new showcase identity in name of Western democracy. Somehow, architecture and city planning were climbing unconsciously into a new politically inspired dimension, quite passively on a new playground in which existing characters, such as Modernism, Historicism, Democracy, Socialism or Freedom were stressing their purpose of representation. Mies's attempt to "save" architecture and urban planning from politics was clearly a distant memory.3

Financed with Marshall Plan Funds4 and resulting from a 1953 urban design competition won by Willy Kreuer and Gerhardt Jobst—but re-elaborated by Bartning through the collaboration of many of the international architects involved, and primarily by Gropius5 —the Interbau aimed at promoting a shared faithfulness, teaching Berlin citizens about their ability to restart from ground zero.6 For these reasons, but also because the cultural occupation of the Allies needed to represent an eradication of a sense of continuity in the

#### FIGURE 3 (LEFT)

Interbau '57, Berlin: Nine-storey residential building of Walther Gropius in Hansaviertel. Photo by Horst Siegmann, 1957

#### FIGURE 4 (RIGHT)

Visitors to Interbau '57 around the panorama balloon of "Exhibition Crane." Photo by Horst Siegmann, 1957

#### FIGURE 5

Drawing of Oswald Meichsner projected as a diorama during the exhibition *Die Stadt von Morgen* (The City of Tomorrow) and part of Interbau '57

German people,7 the plan replaced the previously existing and heavy damaged urban structure, as well as its property parcelling near the central Tiergarten, with the settlement of detached housing buildings of diferent typologies, two churches, three cultural buildings and one commercial centre. The new neighbourhood based on the modern principles of structured and loosened up city theory, *Die gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt*, 8 in which the "anti-bombardment" urban prescriptions of the Nazi period converged easily into the new city landscape theory of Hans Scharoun,9 under the ofcial acceptance of a political, technique-inspired neutrality.10 One of the political targets of the project was to host and to represent an ideal and transparent community on the stage—not only aesthetical but clearly psychological—of an open green feld (Figs. 3–5).<sup>11</sup>

About thirty years later, in a less radicalised world political situation, but also due to a softer political involvement in architecture, Berlin hosted the IBA a second time. The programme this time focused on the West Berlin eastern border, in the inner-city districts of Tiergarten, Friedrichstadt and Kreuzberg.

In clear opposition to Interbau 1957—which had aimed at a radical change in the traditional block urban structure and in building technology,12 and which had given high importance to autonomous mobility and to separation of functions13—the key topic of IBA 1984/87 was the rediscovery and recovery of the historic inner city. This also semantically revealed the problem of its destruction following the war bombing, the further clearing-up demolitions of the 1950s, the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 and the realisation of new housing settlements in the '60s and '70s (Figs. 6–8). The "inner-city as living place" was the motto, as the lever, and the topic of public housing provided the chance for a theoretical, political and aesthetic turnaround.

#### FIGURE 6 (LEFT)

The Friedrichstadt urban fabric at the end of 19th century. Extract of *Situationsplan von der Hauptund Residenzstadt Berlin und Umgebung*, Wilhelm Liebenow, 1888

#### FIGURE 7 (RIGHT)

Aerial view of Southern Friedrichstadt from the south. The Berlin Wall is behind the gold-coloured tower of Axel-Springer-Verlag. Photo by Otto Borutta, 1967/68

FIGURE 8 Walled "West Sektor," 1961

#### THE TURNING POINT

The early 1970s agreements between the Federal Republic and the Eastern-bloc countries, and thus political stabilisation, on the socio-political level, had led indirectly to a good shared position in favour of the rehabilitation of the historic inner city, mainly infuenced by the increasing criticism of functionalism and the idea of a continuous but unverifed urban growth.14

After completing the major West Berlin building projects around the Zoo, the Kulturforum and the bulk of social housing in Gropiusstadt (1962–75, 17,000 dwellings) and Märkisches Viertel (1963–74, 16,000 dwellings),15 clearing-up projects had started in accordance with the 1963 Urban Renewal Programme (*Stadterneuerungsprogramm*) 16 authorised by Mayor Willy Brandt and Chief Architect Werner Düttmann to act heavily in the city centre, the so-called *Kahlschlagsanierung*—literally the demolition and renewal. This caused many protests from inhabitants because of the loss of much afordable housing within the central area.

The petrol crisis revealed in the meanwhile how important the dependence on natural resources could be: fast—i.e., private—mechanical mobility gradually lost its prominence. Long-term programmes and socioeconomic plans became unstable, and together with these, the organisation of urban development: the way of planning and thinking about the city had to be redefned into a more fexible and target-orientated mode. Human connections and inhabitants' involvement became therefore essential for achieving public targets.

At this turning point, the West Berlin Senate adopted the second Urban Renewal Programme in 1974, which was inspired and led by Hardt-Waltherr Hämer (1922–2012), promoter in those years of a new "cautious urban renewal" and initiator of some experimentations in Wedding, Kreuzberg and Charlottenburg.17 Preservation and modernisation therefore came slowly, and still not generally, together, while in many European countries the discussion about the legacy of old inner-city substance, and its residential and multi-

FIGURE 9

IBA 1987 team with directors Hardt-Waltherr Hämer (above centre) and Josef Paul Kleihues (right centre). Photo by Ludwig Leo, 1983

functional original aim, was concluding with the European Architectural Heritage Year (1975) or, for example in Bologna, the frst social housing programmes within the historical city core led by Pier Luigi Cervellati in 1969–73.

The discussion about organising a second IBA in West Berlin as a demonstrative planning instrument dedicated to the internal area along the Landwehrkanal started in those years,18 fxing for the frst time in Germany the topic of *Stadtreparatur*, of city recovery.19 In June 1978, the Senate stimulated a new vision for the whole city, focusing on the critical inner-city area as an experimentation feld for the new Plan of Uses (*Flächennutzungsplan,* 1984). To reach this goal the Senate founded the public society Bauausstellung Berlin GmbH20 in 1978–79, commissioning it to develop a master plan, to tender and lead design competitions, to coordinate audits and participation by the inhabitants in collaboration with architects, urban designers, administrations and building stakeholders and to follow up the programme until its conclusion. It began to realise the programme in the context of an international exhibition, an IBA, frst planned for 1984, later moved to 1987 and fnally closing in 1991.

Four directors started the enterprise in 1978, each in charge of a city sector. In 1980, two of them remained, resulting in a clearer geographical and theoretical delimitation: Josef Paul Kleihues (1933–2004), leading the major programme "IBA-Neubau," focussing the reconstruction of the previous urban structure of Tiergarten and Southern Friedrichstadt with new buildings, and Hardt-Waltherr Hämer curating the "IBA-Altbau," encouraging and coordinating the building restoration in Luisenstadt and the SO36 area of Kreuzberg through the engagement of local inhabitants.21

The newly founded external society had neither administrative nor normative jurisdiction, and it was conceived as a planning, fnancing and building coordinator as well as a facilitator between the diferent public and private levels. The tendering of the construction work

FIGURE 10

Inner-city intervention areas of IBA 1984/87: IBA-Neubau in Southern Tiergarten (blue) and Southern Friedrichstadt (red), IBA-Albau in Luisenstadt and SO36, Kreuzberg (green)

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 11 "Critical reconstruction." Front cover of one of several IBA catalogues, *Models for the city*, 1984

urheberrechtlich geschützt

was laid out in accordance with the legal provisions for public contracts. The Berlin Senate was the frst founder, with 100 million German marks, the Wohnungsbau-Kreditanstalt, the most important social housing fund of West Germany, which provided most of the 3.4 trillion marks in about twelve years of programme workfow, was the largest contributor. The management structure could count on eighty internally employed and around two hundred external professionals coming from throughout Germany and from a wide international and well-established context, as the case of Aldo Rossi with his *The Architecture of the City* as theoretical leading reference.22 An external political coordination of the IBA workforce established in 1981 fnally enabled the two directors, Kleihues and Hämer, to focus more on their scientifc, theoretical and professional tasks.<sup>23</sup>

#### FORM FOLLOWS LIFE

Major theoretical and planning principles of the IBA double programme profoundly infuenced by the urban topic24 were a mixture of compatible functions and services (living, working, culture, leisure), thus providing an adequate environment for life and work; public space as the major driving player and ordering principle of urban composition, developed on classic urban patterns of streets, squares and parks, namely on clearly physical and semantically defned places; and the conception of architectural form as an autonomous artistic expression which had to be much more than merely "following function." Looking in more detail, considering mainly the outcomes of IBA-Neubau on its core in Southern Friedrichstadt, and starting from the approach to the site, the main issues were the importance of the previous city structure and its historical traces as the main reference for further urban development, which led to an urge to rebuild public spaces (streets and squares) with careful attention to the historical site plant but also without any aesthetic limitations in architectural composition;25 the rehabilitation of the block model and the related separation between public and private sphere; and the return to a building size control and a difuse uniformity with the restoration of the fronts height limits of the old 1862 Building Regulation.

The mix of functions became as central in the building programme as in the design workfow. New social housing settlements with complementary services were substituted for the 20,000 workplaces in the executive branch foreseen in the 1965 Plan of Uses, which was still in force.26 The provision of supralocal facilities, such as research institutes, foundations and cultural services, helped to reduce the remoteness of the area in the contemporary and divided city context. Social facilities were articulated to diferent addressees in terms of foor plan distributions and ways of life, considering new co-housing forms and diferent social and ethnic backgrounds, promoting cultural integration. Accordingly Berlin's mediaeval block model, where living, working, free time and social-cultural purposes existed side by side, and its later and denser version of late nineteenth-century urban fabric, based on a multifunctional street level and residential upper foors on the street side, as well as inside the densely built inner space, easily became the sintagma of new master planning (Figs. 12–15).27

#### FIGURE 12 (LEFT)

IBA-Neubau, Prager Platz, Block 131: Carlo Aymonino proposal (1981) within the master plan of Gottfried Böhm and Rob Krier (1978–79). Axonometric projection, ink and pencil on transparent paper

#### FIGURE 13 (RIGHT)

IBA-Neubau, Invitation for competition "Living and working in the Southern Friedrichstadt/Kochstraße/Friedrichstraße/Block 4," 1981: MBM Architectes, Martorell, Bohigas, Mackay, Capdevila and Gual proposal (a price). Perspective drawing of Kochstraße westwards, pencil on transparent paper

The relationship between artifcial and natural elements had to be progressively articulated to establish a sense of continuity from the public to the inner and private living areas, as the planning process goes from city to building: a series of district parks, block parks, squares and alleys, public-private gardens in courtyards, private little felds was the proposed theoretical planning framework. On the one hand, the "green areas" had to "belong" to residential buildings; on the other hand, they had to insert themselves into the local urban structure «without destroying it, as in recent times».<sup>28</sup>

Half the total available area for the IBA intervention on Southern Friedrichstadt was dedicated to parks, gardens or leisure purposes, one third to residential issues, and fve hectares for open-air services directly connected to housing. As a compromise with the previous city landscape theory, the *Stadtlandschaft*, but also infuenced by contemporary social and cultural trends, the ecological approach became central and the trafc lost its previous dominance: depending on the situation, street width reduction and intersections ensured a braking efect on the trafc and a beneft to city life.<sup>29</sup>

Finally, the way the process unfolded was also innovative in relation to West Berlin planning methods. There was no general plan that anticipated the architectural design moment: the previous city structure stands clearly as a basic reference. The general concept, the master plan and the detailed design of the blocks and the buildings run parallel, as did the functional solution.

Seven urban design competitions and some specialised councils, such as that on city plan study of Oswald Mathias Ungers developed by Kleihues with Gernot and Johanne Nal-

#### FIGURE 14

IBA-Altbau in SO36, Block 121: (from above) kindergarten and apartment house "Bonjour Tristesse" by Alvaro Siza, cooperative restoration of two hundred existing dwellings, unifcation and new gardening design of the courtyards. Wood mock-up, 1986

#### FIGURE 15 (LEFT)

IBA-Neubau, Southern Friedrichstadt, Block 7: Masterplan (1984) on urban study by Oswald Mathias Ungers and Bernd Faskel (1981). Garden design by von Müller, Webberg, Knischild

#### FIGURE 16 (RIGHT TOP)

Block 7, House 7on Schöneberger Straße by Kleihues, 1985–86, completed 1990. Photo 2020

FIGURE 17 (RIGHT BOTTOM) Block 7, Dessauer Straße. Photo 2020 bach for the Dessauer Straße area (Figs. 15–17), or that led by Rob Krier in the Ritterstraße,30 marked the start and took on a leading role. On the block level an architect—usually the winner of the competition, urban or architectural—coordinated other colleagues in detailed design. This made for an iterative horizontal process, which continuously redefned itself as well as the balance between aesthetic shapes and practical issues. This also testifed to the theoretical position, which Kleihues named "critical reconstruction," and the relativism that lead the whole process, which was defnitively oriented against the *a priori* method of functionalistic approach and its logic series "problem–technical investigation–solution."31

#### OUTCOMES

The interventions in Southern Friedrichstadt covered one third of the entire surface, of which 80 % was public property.32 Of about the 5,000 dwellings planned in the entire IBA programme, 2,500 new dwellings with diferent interior organisations were built in this area: 35–40 % were two-room fats, 40 % three-room fats, 20 % four-room fats, 5–10 % large fats. The accompanying public services covered around twenty hectares: little parks in the squares, the landscape arrangement of the canal and furnished courtyards, two elementary schools, one special school, four nurseries, one centre for young people, and one multi-sports feld (Fig. 19).

Except in some specifc samples and special locations—as in case of the Rem Koohlaas, Peter Eisenman and Kleihues interventions in the Friedrichstraße—the need to respect the standards and requirements of German social housing legislation, which were strongly infuenced by the functionalistic approach,—and the fact that the main fnancing channel

FIGURE 18 IBA-Neubau: Block split and numbering in Southern Friedrichstadt and Southern Tiergarten

urheberrechtlich geschützt

was related to it—eventually undermined the target of multi-functionality. In this way, it also partially compromised the aim of having the historical Berliner block as the basic syntagma of social arrangement within the inner city. In fact, many of the commercial or tertiary destinations on the ground foor could be presented only as exceptions to the general programme. For these reasons, many IBA interventions of this area appear nowadays as socio-functionally unsolved.

Broadening the gaze, the realisation of the IBA programme took more time and much more money than planned due to the time-consuming articulation of the planning structure, the absence of building standardisation, and the infuence of the contractors' cartels in West Berlin and its heavily subsidised housing market.33 By 1990, the ofcial closing year of the IBA, only 80 % of the programme had been completed. Given the level of invested funds, this project was only possible in the subsidised reality of West Berlin. Compared with other mass social housing programmes of preceding years, the international reach of the IBA and its infuence on further Berlin city planning and development was anyway extraordinary. This was also due to the lifelong engagement of the two leaders, Kleihues and Hämer, and their international and theoretical engagement. However, the main contribution of the IBA lies probably in its procedure: the ability to introduce and collect real data, in the extended timeframe of project implementation, from 1978 to 1990, an approach to urban planning anchored in the aesthetic-social real site and

not in axiomatic rules (separation of functions, trafc fows, and demographic and eco-

FIGURE 19 IBA-Neubau: Southern Friedrichstadt master plan, release 1983

#### FIGURE 20 (LEFT, RIGHT)

Southern Friedrichstadt in Plan of Uses 1965 and 1984 (mostly confrmed by Plan of Uses 1994): *Kerngebiet* (directional/management purposes) turns into *Mischgebiet* (mix of functions)

nomic prescriptions). A relativistic method, inspired by direct and simultaneous participation between diferent political levels, from the administrative to civil action, resulted in a very democratic meaning of urban transformation and spread the idea that the city, even in the planning process, can be properly conceived as a collective and shared expression of daily life and social memory.

That this efort of rethinking the city was founded on public housing clearly contributed to this goal, as did the fact that it was a matter of "recovering" the historical urban plan (IBA-Neubau) through the motto of "critical reconstruction" and the existing building heritage (IBA-Altbau) through the motto of "careful urban renewal." The international resonance and acceptance, which Kleihues was able to build around the IBA and which only an international building exhibition with deep historical background could guarantee, helped the programme to cross over several political-administrative changes and locked it down against several attacks.34

Beyond this, it is remarkable that a long workfow process, planned as early as 1978, was able to infuence the re-elaboration of the general West Berlin Plan of Uses published in 1984, and subsequently that of 1994—the frst for the re-united Berlin—with the cancellation of many of planned highway links through the inner city and the "re-multiplication" of functions throughout the urban fabric, from the large to the small scale (Fig. 20).35

In addition to the declared IBA issues—the permanence and resiliency of historical city fabric—the multiscale approach and the diferent conception of continuity fed from the programme into following Berlin's urban design processes, particularly into the Planwerk Innenstadt of the 1990s and the wider city and master planning.36 If the topic of continuity had previously (1965 Plan of Uses) been more visible on the physical ground and imposed from above on the wide scale—for example, in the case of partly realized *City-Band* (City Belt), hosting commercial and directional purposes, between the east and west central areas, and of the *Kulturband* (Culture Belt), stretched further north between the Charlotteburger Palace and the Kulturforum via Tiergarten—the new IBA approach replaced this with a completely diferent space-time and social attention, with a respectful and continuous review of existing urban and architectural substance, juxtaposing the diferent scales of space perception and conception and experimenting anew with a continuity between city and life.37

The fnal result, observable today, is probably tied to its historical moment and it fails, perhaps precisely because of its relativism, to emerge from this demonstrative and polemical dimension against Modernism. Likewise, the frst step towards normalisation in conceiving and planning the city development and a return to the human scale had been taken.

#### POSTSCRIPT

#### Josef Paul Kleihues: A Personal Approach

I worked with Kleihues for two years, and I always keep in mind from this special design and human experience the moments when he resolved complex problems with quick, deeply conscious marks on the foor plan, the pencil on the drawing sheet. This power of synthesis made the diference for me, as did the comprehension of the local urban situation and the urge for a clear solution. He designed always with joy, I saw, as if he never had doubts.

Fundamental for his experience as director at IBA-Neubau programme was the awareness that architecture and urban design together formed a specifc way to rethink and to coordinate the construction of life space: a proud claim for a social-artistic independent centrality. Second to that was the idea that architecture is part of its own historical, geographical and cultural context, in short, of the city.

Some Kleihues quotes from the numerous IBA catalogues he edited may help to illuminate this approach and to highlight his strong theoretical leadership in the Berlin discourse in the 1980s and in the 1990s.

 «It will be always ignored that urban design and not the architectural single project is in [the] foreground of our work. The urban plan should be considered the master plan for each singular plan, for the dwelling, the house, the block, for streets and squares, for gardens and parks.»

 «Concerning architectural and urban planning, several conventions with a universal character have established themselves over the centuries. Nevertheless, each city has in addition its peculiarity, its own history and its own conventions, and where these are ignored, urban culture and the idea of "the city as a place of life" are run down. Several of these conventions were repressed or made invisible by the culture of industrialisation, a rushing growth and war disaster. And this caused a deep uncertainty in our relationship with nature, in the planning culture of our cities [such] as in housing design.

 Starting from this consideration, the following appeared so clear to us the necessity to re-discovering the legacy of the historical city and its availability as reference for further planning …, the critical reconstruction of the city as a logical confrontation with the self-made "elements" of the city: the ground plan (*der Stadtgrundriss*)—which is the permanent genetic substrate—, the elevation of the building (*die Stereometrie*) and the image of the city (*die Physiognomie*). Here resides the sense of the city, of its parts as well of its whole.»

 «Critical reconstruction of the city means a dialogue between tradition and modernity, it researches into the contradictions inside modernity not as a break, but as a continuous process involving place and time.

 The real weak point of urban design in the '50s and '60s was its failure to rationally control the process and conception of making art. This review is actually only possible if grounded on a personal intention, i.e., if we refer ourselves to the legal and established structures of the place and to the way of life.... In contrast, the Modern Movement, successful as it was, dragged these well-established conventions into a peculiar "dialectics of enlightenment," which produced a paradox situation: Modern architecture, which stood against Historicism, immediately transformed the dialectics into a mere negation. It is no coincidence … that the modernity stood against tradition, that it tried to lay down its categories as mere quantifable versions of the human experience.

 The simple negativity of functionalism remains … a closed and defensive position: closed because of the self-defence mechanism which strives for self-building and self-meaning and which also continuously needs an enemy to destroy and a front to attack for reinforcing its authority, … unless discovering at the end that this enemy cannot be seized because that would involve self-destruction. This is the latent condition of the negative and uncritical reliance on tradition, in which the Modern Movement still is caught.»38

«The comprehension of urban design and architecture cannot be separated from the context of political and fnancial infuences. Nevertheless, it is not possible to reduce their realisation to historic or aesthetic criteria. The generating of ideas, the development of design as well as particular decision-making conditions contribute to a unique, complex and steadily increasing process. From this awareness, we have conceived the IBA as a truly specifc experience and as an interaction, focussing not primarily on the major intentions which have naturally infuenced the process and the outcomes, but also on the fnal amount of decisions on detail, random results, unexpected dependencies which evolved in the course of the process».39

FIGURE 21 Joseph Paul Kleihues, 1996

#### FIGURE 22

Haus 7 on Schöneberger Straße: Façade design by Kleihues, ink and pencil on paper, 1985

#### NOTES

urheberrechtlich geschützt

1  From 1955 to 1960, Otto Bartning was West Berlin's *Generalbaumeister* (chief architect).

2  See Karl Mahler, "Internationale Bauausstellung 1956. Wiederaufbau eines inneren Stadtviertels," *Bauwelt* (1953, n. 35): pp. 681–83; Harald Bodenschatz et al., *Berlin und seine Bauten. Teil I: Städtebau* (Berlin: Jovis, 2009), p. 266.

3  «Is urban planning essentially a political issue?» asked Mies at the opening of the 1931 Special Congress of CIAM in Berlin. See Philipp Oswalt, "Berlin 1931: Diverging Modernism," in *Kollektiv für sozialistisches Bauen: Proletarische Bauausstellung 1931/Collective for Socialist Architecture: Proletarian Building Exhibition, 1931*, ed. Jesko Fezer et al. (Berlin: Haus der Kulturen der Welt, 2015), p. 86.

4  By the start of Marshall Plan in 1947 and its local instrument Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau in 1949, German socioeconomic conditions were still very poor in comparison with other European countries. The Berlin fulflment of the programme also concluded late in 1952, worsening the city's dependency. See Johanna Tiedtke-Brachos, *Bauen als Politikum: Der Umgang der Politik mit Bauprojekten im Deutschland des 20. Jahrhunderts* (Marburg: Tectum Verlag, 2015), pp. 252–54.

5  The most important invited architects were Le Corbusier, Max Taut, van der Broek and Bakema, Oscar Niemeyer, Werner Düttmann, Alvar Aalto and Hans Scharoun. See Senator für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, and Bund Deutscher Architekten BDA, *Wiederaufbau Hansaviertel. Interbau Berlin 57* (Darmstadt: Das Beispiel, 1957).

6  The exposition should promote «the faith of man into Tomorrow, the hope for a future as primary condition… and show a way to overcome despair»: see "CIAM-Gespräch über 'Die Stadt von Morgen,'" *Bauen und Wohnen* (January 1958), p. 1, through a «uniform design... light, cheerful, homely, festive, colourful, radiant, secure»: see Erich Kühn, *Programvorschlag für die Bauaustellung Berlin 1956*, Landesarchiv Berlin (hereafter LAB), Rep. 9, Acc. 2427, No. 42.

7  See Georg Sebald, *Luftkrieg und Literatur* (Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1999).

8  Mahler, "Internationale Bauausstellung 1956," p. 681. See the most important theoretical work: Johannes Göderitz, Roland Rainer, and Hurbert Hoffmann, *Die gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt* (Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth, 1957).

9  Paul Wolf, "Luftschutz und Städtebau," *Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung* (1935, n. 55): pp. 21–30, 446–47; Karl Otto, "Luftkrieg und Städtebau," *Raumforschung und Reichsordnung* (1940, n. 9): pp. 341–44; Karl Otto, "Ein Städtebauer betrachtet die Lage," *Bauwelt* (1949, n. 2): p. 22.

10  See Mary Dellenbaugh-Losse, *Inventing Berlin: Architecture, Politics and Cultural Memory in the New/Old German Capital Post-1989* (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2019), pp. 38–39. On political propaganda in Germany see Emily Pugh, *Architecture, Politics and Identity in Divided Berlin* (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014), pp. 55–60.

11  Opening talk of Berlin major Otto Suhr in *Bauwelt* (1957, n. 28): pp. 705–06. See also Walter Rossow, "Zur Internationales Bauausstellung," *Garten und Landschaft* (October 1957): p. 256. About space symbology in post-war Berlin, see Dellenbaugh-Losse, *Inventing Berlin*, pp. 38–39; Pugh, *Architecture, Politics and Identity*, p. 59.

12  However, the architectural design of particular buildings raised the topic of standardisation more theoretically and aesthetically than coherently, without relying on a developed industrialised production system that was still not as easily available in Germany as a whole as in isolated West Berlin after the war disaster.

13  The main theoretical, even critical work is Hans Bernhard Reichow, *Die autogerechnete Stadt. Ein Weg aus dem Verkehr-Chaos* (Ravensburg: Otto Maier Verlag, 1959).

14  By the early 1960s, Wolf Jobst Siedler was speaking about realising «the imagination of cities with new instruments and old living fgures», in Wolf Jobst Siedler and Elisabeth Niggemeyer's famous and well-illustrated critique, *Die gemordete Stadt*. *Abgesang auf Putte und Straße, Platz und Baum* (Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1964).

15  Difuse criticism, mostly focusing on the bad construction quality in mass housing programmes, started in the newspapers in the late 1960s: «Crumbling even before the paint was fully dry», as *Der Spiegel* magazine wrote about newly fnished Märkisches Viertel. See Florian Urban, *Tower and Slab: Histories of Global Mass Housing* (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012), pp. 59–65.

16  Under Mayor Willy Brandt and Hans Scharoun's planning direction, the plan envisaged and realised the following interventions: Otto-Suhr-Siedlung in the Oranienstraße, 2,300 dwellings (1956–63); Mehringplatz, 1,500 dwellings (1967–75); Neues Kreuberger Zentrum, 367 dwellings (1969–74); Brunnen-/Bernauer Straße, 16,000 dwellings (1963–66). The main theoretical reference about the topic of urban fabric's substitution in Berlin is Harald Bodenschatz, *Platz frei für das neue Berlin. Geschichte der Stadterneuerung seit 1871* (Berlin: Transit, 1987).

17  Rudolf Schilling, "Behutsame Stadterneuerung," in *Stadt im Kopf. Hardt-Waltherr Hämer*, ed. Manfred Sack, p. 179 (Berlin: Jovis, 2002).

18  The urban design competition "Landwehrkanal-Tiergartenviertel" had already focused on this topic and this area in 1973.

19  See Josef P. Kleihues and Heinrich Klotz, eds., *Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987. Beispiele einer neuen Architektur*, exhibition catalogue (Frankfurt am Main: Klett-Cotta, 1986), p. 9. The main critical works about IBA are Harald Bodenschatz, Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, and Deutsches Institut für Stadtbau kunst, eds., *25 Jahre Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987. Ein Höhepunkt des europäischen Städtebaus* (Salenstein, Switzerland: Niggli, 2012); Harald Bodenschatz and Cordelia Polinna, *Learning from IBA - die IBA 1987 in Berlin* (Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2010); Harald Bodenschatz and Cordelia Polinna. *Perspektiven einer IBA Berlin 2020. Ein strategisches Gutachten (Learning from IBA - die IBA 1987 Teil II)* (Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2011).

20  Cordelia Polinna, "Die IBA als Organisation und Prozess," in Bodenschatz, Lampugnani, and Deutsches Institut für Stadtbaukunst, *25 Jahre Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987*, pp. 39–53.

21  On Kleihues and Hämer's positions on the topic of building conservation and city recovery, see Akos Moravánszky, and Torsten Lange, eds., *Re-Framing Identities: Architecture's Turn to History, 1970–1990* (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2016), p. 286; Josef P. Kleihues, *Berlin-Atlas zu Stadtbild und Stadtraum. Band 2: Versuchsgebiet Kreuzberg* (Berlin: Senator für Bau und Wohnungswesen des Landes Berlin, 1973), pp. 7–9.

22  Among others, alphabetically: Carlo Aymonino, Gottfried Böhm, Mario Botta, Stephan Braunfels, Klaus Theo Brenner and Benedict Tonon, Max Dudler, Peter Eisenman, Giorgio Grassi, Vittorio Gregotti, Zaha M. Hadid, John Hejduk, Hermann Herzberger, Thomas Herzog, Hilmer & Sattler, Hans Hollein, Arata Isozaki, Hans Kolhoff, Rem Koolhaas, Rob Krier, Daniel Liebeskind, Richard Meyer, Martorell and Bohigas, Charles Moore, Frei Otto, Gustav Peichl, Jürgen Sawade, Axel Schultes, Alvaro Siza, James Stirling, Heinz Tesar, Owald Mathias Ungers, and Gino Valle.

23  Polinna, "Die IBA als Organisation und Prozess," p. 212.

24  See Josef P. Kleihues, ed., *Südliche Friedrichstadt. Rudimente der Geschichte, Ort des Wiederspruchs, Kritische Rekonstruktion* (Berlin: Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin, 1987), pp. 12–26.

25  In Kleihues's words: «the historical foor plan of the city must become the constant reference for urban de velopment» in Josef P. Kleihues, "Die Stadt. Ort der wiedergefundenen Zeit," in *Südliche Friedrichstadt*, p. 12. 26  The prescription had already led to the total clearing up of the area from 1967–75 and to the building programme around baroque Mehringplatz under the direction of Hans Scharoun (Masterplan) and Werner

Düttmann (Architectural design).

27  Josef P. Kleihues, "Der Block. Mikrokosmos Stadt," in *Südliche Friedrichstadt*, p. 21.

28  Josef P. Kleihues, "Garten und Parks. Spiel von Licht und Schatten," in *Südliche Friedrichstadt*, pp. 24–25. 29  Josef P. Kleihues, "Straßen und Plätze. Bewegungslinien, Stadträume, Lebensräume," in *Südliche Friedrichstadt*, pp. 22–23.

30  The assignment of the master plan to the Luxemburg architect—at frst as planning counsel—dates from 1977. See, for more details, "IBA-Neubau on Northern Ritterstraße," pp. 70–77.

31  Kleihues, "Die Stadt," in *Südliche Friedrichstadt*, p. 15.

32  Many central lots had been confscated by Nazis before the war or remained vacant after the war because of the escape or death of the original, commonly Jewish, owners.

33  See Polinna, "Die IBA als Organisation und Prozess," pp. 44–47.

34  Especially in 1981. See Bodenschatz et al., *Berlin und seine Bauten*, pp. 367–69. The long-term and quite strong "confrontation" between planning and political actors partially enabled a separation between the two spheres, which also refected the ongoing separation between urban planning and urban and architectural design.

35  This new acceptation of city master planning is also found in the important Building Law (*Baugesetzbuch*, BauGB) of 1987, which refects the discourse about urbanism of those years and envisages a clear articulation in three levels, from the wider, "structural" Space-Control Plan (*Raumordnung*), Mobility Plan, Plan of Uses, and Landscape Plan to an intermediate level focusing on the diferent district realities (*Bereichentwicklungsplan*) to a fnal planning level detailing local urban shape and use (*Bebaungsplan, Planwerk, Landschaftsplan*). A synthetic or visionary design approach to city shape as in "glorious modern times" becomes therefore less relevant. See ibid., pp. 357–58.

36  See Luisa Pedrazzini, *Sotto il cielo di Berlino. Piani, progetti, strategie per lo sviluppo sostenibile* (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1999).

37  In reality, the pause in worldwide geopolitical confict over German/Berlin territory since 1972 has led to both halves of the city renouncing their claims to becoming the capital of a unifed Germany. The consider ation of the "other" Berlin side in a general comprehensive urban planning process also ran out of steam. Thus, the great projects of the *City-Band* and the *Kulturband* between the western centre and the old city centre, which was at the eastern sector, automatically declined in importance, freeing up a useful space for action for

new "restorative" trends. See ibid., p. 365.

38  Joseph P. Kleihues, "Die Gebiete des Stadtneubaubereichs, Bauten und Projekte," in *Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987. Projektübersicht*, ed. Josef P. Kleihues (Berlin: Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin, 1991), pp. 6–7.

39  Kleihues, *Südliche Friedrichstadt*, p. 295.

# IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS: NAPLES

Social Housing and Building Communities in Naples from the Second Post-War Era to Date. Quality, Involvement and Open Processes Between Segregation and Boundaries *Elena Manzo*

Neighbourhood Churches in the Post-War Reconstruction: Projects and Achievements by Marcello Canino *Riccardo Serraglio*

Luigi Cosenza's Experiments: From City to Prefab *Francesca Castanò*

The Scampia Park and the Gentle Urban Renewal of the Eighties *Anna Giannetti*

Demolishing "Vele" Buildings by Franz di Salvo. The Reasons for Saying NO *Ornella Zerlenga*

The Post-Earthquake Reconstruction. The Recovery of the *Casali* In the Northern Suburbs of Naples *Chiara Ingrosso*

Strengths and Weaknesses of Public Housing Policies in Italy: The Naples Case Study *Claudia De Biase, Adriana Galderisi*

**294** IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

Regeneration and Socioeconomic Dynamics in Public Housing. Focus on the Outskirts of Naples *Fabiana Forte*

#### ACRONYM LIST


# SOCIAL HOUSING AND BUILDING COMMUNITIES IN NAPLES FROM THE SECOND POST-WAR ERA TO DATE. QUALITY, INVOLVEMENT AND OPEN PROCESSES BETWEEN SEGREGATION AND BOUNDARIES

*Elena Manzo\**

#### FIGURE 1

Naples, Map of *Piano pel Risanamento e Ampliamento della città di Napoli* by Adolfo Giambarba and Gaetano Bruno, 1885

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

#### INTRODUCTION

In Naples, the issue of social housing was tackled with a unifed programme only following an outbreak of cholera in the summer of 1884. The dreadful epidemic highlighted the need to restore the unhealthy neighbourhoods, improve roads, water and sewage networks and plan the development of the city. To this purpose, the municipal engineers Gaetano Bruno and Adolfo Giambarba designed a masterplan, known as *Piano pel Risanamento e Ampliamento della città di Napoli* (Masterplan for the Renewal and Development of the City of Naples), which was approved on July 25, 1885, on the basis of National Law No. 2892 of January 15, 1885 (Fig. 1). The law paved the way for the involvement of the State in the matter of planning of joint and homogeneous actions regarding urban planning and, therefore, indirectly, addressing the issue of house planning for the working and lower classes.1

Therefore, the urban and settlement evolution of the entire city of Naples is closely linked to *Risanamento's* events, so that it is not possible to analyse a specifc period of Naples's urban history without referring to it.2 This also applies to afordable housing. The *Risanamento* masterplan set principles and objectives on which the shape of the present city was built. The main player was the *Società pel Risanamento di Napoli* (Corporation for the Renewal of Naples), a consortium of companies unrelated to the city, mostly from Northern Italy which was founded in 1888 and which continues to operate to this day.

In terms of size, intent and number of planned interventions, it was undoubtedly the largest urban planning operation of that time, not only for Naples, but also for Italy.3 However, if new neighbourhoods were created and others took on a more defned physiognomy, on the other hand, there was a change in the social distribution of the population and a greater diferentiation between neighbourhoods for the lower, middle and upper classes. This discrepancy was mainly the consequence of both the temporary or defnitive transfers of masses of people from the areas to be reclaimed to the new neighbourhoods, and the change of typologies of new and restored housing.

Almost all the poorest inhabitants, who were displaced from the so-called "*Sezioni*" (a type of neighbourhood) of S. Brigida and S. Lucia, went to settle in Fuorigrotta, a village close to the western part of the city, which became a district at that time*.* The upper middle class and the wealthier classes, instead, gravitated to the Sezioni of Chiaia and Posillipo, and the middle bourgeoisie settled mainly in Vomero. To the east, the peripheral areas of the reclamation zones, towards the Arenaccia area and along Via Stella Polare, were mainly for workers, and the popular Sezioni included Arenaccia-Orientale, Vasto and Piscinola. 4 Based on these premises and according to such an analytical perspective, therefore, it can be concluded that the social vision was lacking and that the masterplan deliberately pursued a strategy of redistributing the various social classes across many urban areas. 5 Namely, it would have been necessary to consider the problems associated with the transfer of large masses of individuals, who had lived in the historic centre and who had settled their craft work or activities there, and bore a close relationship between place of residence and place of work.

For the frst time, Naples began to see some of its traditional social vocations altered, such as the coexistence of diferent social classes in the same area or even in the same block, and the indiscriminate mingling of urban functions. 6

The "therapeutic" cuts for the reclamation and replacement of crumbling buildings also led to several social changes in the old neighbourhoods in the historic core of the city. At the same time, there was not an adequate number of low-cost housing compared to the displaced people, since the demolition of rundown homes and *fondaci* was not accompanied by equally efcient and rapid building replacement programmes.

On this occasion, however, people began to think of public housing with a unifed vision in both the new and the renovated neighbourhoods. Unit types of afordable and social hous ing were also designed based on the number of people who made up an average family. 7

#### THE ISSUES WITH NEIGHBOURHOODS OF AFFORDABLE AND WORKING-CLASS BUILDINGS FROM THE *RISANAMENTO* TO THE SECOND POST-WAR ERA

The *Risanamento*, therefore, should have been carried out not only with the philanthropic spirit and the logic of the "hygienist" culture of the time, but also and above all beyond the economic interests of the large construction companies involved in the transformation of the city. Instead, one of the main social consequences was the deterioration of the ancient and historical distinction between *ville* and *cité*, as Richard Sennet outlined in his semantic analysis of the two words: «Sometime in the sixteenth century the *cité* came to mean the character of life in a neighbourhood, the feelings people harboured about neighbours and strangers and attachments to place». 8

Specifcally, most of the districts of the city, especially the new ones, lost one of the main characteristics of Naples, which had always been, above all, a *cité*. In other words, each of its neighbourhoods was the place of sociality, informality and collective live, where social and racial inequalities decreased. The squares and alleys were transformed into temporary markets with "illegal" vendors; the ground foor rooms became homes, rather than shops or places for commercial activities; even laundry was hung in the alleys. Naples, like Sen nett's Nehru Place in Shanghai, was preparing to become a hybrid between *cité* and *villas*

at the end of the nineteenth century, because the dynamics of integration had weakened in the new neighbourhoods, deprived of both the usual relationship between home and place of work, and craft activities.

Meanwhile, the foundation of the *Istituto Case Popolari* (Institute for Working Class Housing, IACP) in 1903, and National Law No. 351 concerning "Measures for the Economic Revival of the City of Naples," approved on July 8, 1904, contributed to the development of further issues of popular settlements.9 Among other things, in fact, the law established two new areas for clusters of industrial plants in Naples: Bagnoli on the north-west side, and San Giovanni a Teduccio on the east side, around which working-class neighbourhoods developed.

The IACP, on the other hand, proposed a new model based on a block scheme without courtyards, fewer foors—no more than four storeys—with four fats each with two or three rooms without a hallway and with two separate staircases. Commercial shops, schools, social areas, etc. completed these settlements to make them completely autonomous. This model was a reference until the 1960s, when the experimentation with "mega-structures" started joining it, as in the case of the *"Vele"* (Sails) in Scampia, designed by Franz di Salvo.

A new masterplan plan was designed in 1926, during the Fascist period. Although it had never been approved in its entirety, from time to time parts of it were excerpted from the plan, and most of its main goals were achieved, including the construction of many new affordable and social housing units. Their construction was supported by national laws, notably Royal Decree No. 386, which came into force on March 10, 1926 and Consolidated Law No. 1165 enacted on March 24, 1938. Special institutes, public building cooperatives and state institutions were founded and the IACP was renamed *Istituto Fascista Autonomo Case Popolari* (that is, the Autonomous Fascist Institute for Working Housing, IFACP), and later reverting to IACP, a state body and the main protagonist in the housing sector.10 In addition, the housing foundations were laid for urban decentralisation as well as for the new districts and the neighbourhoods of expansion to the west*.* One notable such district is Fuorigrotta, which was previously an autonomous village. Here, the IACP built the neighbourhoods of Duca D'Aosta (1913–46) and Miraglia (1928–41).

The theme of urban decentralisation was taken up in the masterplan designed between 1933 and 1936 by the commission chaired by Luigi Piccinato (Fig. 2). It was the frst to be approved, thanks to Law No. 1208 of May 29, 1939, although most of its main guidelines were mystifed by the infuence of power brokers. Its development pattern re-proposed the urban decentralisation of the 1926 masterplan; however, it was mostly innovative from a metropolitan viewpoint because it was designed both on a regional scale, and in connection with the capital. Specifcally, the betrayal of its most important goals exacerbated the tension between the centre and the periphery, as well as among the diferent social classes. Indeed, the original project aimed to create a new kind of public space, returning to values

FIGURE 2 (LEFT, RIGHT) Naples, 1939 City Masterplan by the commission chaired by Luigi Piccinato (1933–36). Naples, 1958 City Masterplan, never approved

of liveable neighbourhoods that deliver a range of services and functions.11 The project also aimed to improve the links between the inner parts of the city and its outlying districts, rethink the road network, improve interconnections and increase the level of autonomy and efciency of suburban areas. It also included setting green spaces and park, led by standard building restrictions and protected green areas.

On this basis, the way was opened to widen the scale of interventions for afordable buildings for the lower classes. The opportunity arose when on August 12, 1944, with World War II coming to an end, the Government Municipal Administration of Naples decided to set up a technical commission to develop a new masterplan that would address both the problem of rebuilding areas destroyed by bombing, and the new urban development. The masterplan was drawn up in December 1945 and approved in 1946.12 Returning to the idea of urban decentralisation, but with a more modern perspective, the 1946 masterplan established three diferent autonomous expansion areas: to the east, under the slopes of Vesuvius, for the industrial area; to the north, for the development of agriculture; and to the west and north-west, where there were still small villages, a large area for the expansion of the city and for new housing for homeless people.

In the meantime, while ministerial decrees authorized the transformation of the city not uniformly, but in parts, the Mayor of Naples changed. Gennaro Fermariello was replaced by Achille Lauro and power brokers, who endorsed a new design for the city. The resulting masterplan, however, was rejected by the Ministry of Public Works in 1962, because it favoured private entrepreneurship at the expense of the interests of citizens. Meanwhile, in less than ffteen years, thirteen new housing settlement districts were planned and built in the peripheral belt, where in many cases there had been small villages or countryside. In

the absence of valid urban planning tools, the city continued to grow under the pressure of private interests and the political class up to 1972, when a new masterplan was fnally approved (Fig. 3).

This was one of the darkest periods in the urban history of Naples. Despite this, some ethical principles that had guided the professionals of the 1950s remained.

THE CEP-TRAIANO NEIGHBOURHOOD AND THE "SOCIAL-TRADE CENTRE" BY MARCELLO CANINO. AN EXEMPLARY SETTLEMENT OF AFFORDABLE AND SOCIAL HOUSING OF THE 1950s

Looking at the principles of the previous masterplan, the 1946 plan proposed the return to the values of liveable urban neighbourhoods that deliver a range of services and functions. Primarily, it focused on Scandinavian regions and their housing achievements. Here, it was possible to fnd values, such as "human measure," and themes derived from tradition and awareness of the environment, which were necessary to rebuild the identity of the nation after the war disaster. The 1946 masterplan refected the crisis of the Modern Movement and the overcoming of the *Existenzimunimun*. Especially for social housing, it recovered the so-called "Regionalism," which is the architectonic language and the living habits of the native traditions. Despite the obstructionism during the tenure of Mayor Lauro, the principles that guided the plan were repeated in the designs for the construction of the Soccavo district. It was composed of the three neighbourhoods: La Loggetta (1955–58), CEP-Traiano (1957–58) and Soccavo-Canzanella (1957–63), and today it is one of the thirty districts of Naples (Fig. 4).

Soccavo had kept its vocation as an agricultural village until the 1939 masterplan. In the Second Post-War Era, it was identifed as one of the city's expansion areas.

#### FIGURE 4 (LEFT, RIGHT)

CEP-Traiano neighbourhood. Plans showing the centre by Canino (in red) and the settlement around the Quintiliano Primary School (in blue). The map on the left shows the areas during construction, the one on the right, those areas in 2019

The whole Soccavo district was the frst example in Naples of a settlement of afordable and social housing to be conceived on an urban scale, and it marks an important step in the search for new ways of designing building settlements so that the quality of housing standards improved. The master plan of the Soccavo district was inspired by the principle of placing great importance to the morphology of the place of the new settlements and bringing out its natural qualities. It became a popular model of housing in Italy. It was designed partially on behalf of many construction companies, including the Società pel Risanamento, the IACP and the INA-Casa. The master plan was supported and partially fnanced by those companies.

#### FIGURE 5 (LEFT, RIGHT)

CEP-Traiano neighbourhood in the Soccavo district. The "social-trade centre" by Marcello Canino: sketch of the frst project of the main church with its square (left), overall plan of the centre (right)

In Soccavo, the so-called "banality" of integral Functionalism was denied, and a "sensitive," "human" Functionalism was preferred, as some of the main architects of its urban plan highlighted in *Casabella* magazine in 1959, while the district was under construction.13 In truth, looking at tradition did not mean returning to Historicism, but rather to the

functional and ethical values of rural traditions, and producing an architecture that was understandable to the masses. It aimed to guarantee the functions of daily life and to obtain spaces to foster hands-on relations between the inhabitants, commercial spaces for aggregation, buildings with a simple shape and a careful study of the construction details. Furthermore, the project was inspired by new housing projects that were very innovative and that introduced unprecedented building types.

These better developed themes, such as the clear geometric form, the symmetrical mass composition and modern systems, but with vernacular accents, borrowed from Mediterranean vocabulary, as well as the main IACP criteria. On the other hand, more attention was given to the study of the Minimum Dwelling, as Rationalism was taught in both architecture and urban planning.

All three sections of the Soccavo district—namely the neighbourhoods of La Loggetta, CEP-Traiano and Soccavo-Canzanella—followed in the wake traced by Giovanni Astengo in 1951, when he wrote the editorial "Nuovi quartieri in Italia" in *Urbanistica* magazine, n. 7. These refections were followed by those of Ludovico Quaroni, among which the essays "Pianifcazione senza urbanisti," which appeared in the *Casabella-Continuità* magazine of 1954, n. 201, and "Politica del quartiere," published in 1957 in *La Casa* magazine are notable. Specifcally, Quaroni had emphasised that the attention of the most avant-garde architectural debate, following the example of Scandinavian (especially Swedish) urban planning policies, had increasingly shifted from the construction of the city into portions—or "slices"—that were not in organic relationship, to a more unifed urban system. The modern concept of the neighbourhood was closely connected with this latter interpretation, and it dominated the 1950s.

This emphasises the idea of the neighbourhood as the unitary and interrelated set of multiple *rioni* (a sort of smaller neighbourhoods), each with autonomous facilities and urban equipment. These neighbourhoods should have characterising contents, such as the

CEP-Traiano, No. 10 building placed in the "social-trade centre" by Marcello Canino: the centre during construction (left), the building in a 1960s picture (right), plan of a foor type in a 1966 drawing (below)


#### FIGURE 7

CEP-Traiano, ground foor plan and elevation of the cinema-theatre by Elena Mendia Carrile

urheberrechtlich geschützt

#### FIGURE 8 (LEFT)

CEP-Traiano, view of the square of the "social-trade centre" by Marcello Canino, 2019

#### FIGURE 9 (RIGHT)

CEP-Traiano, view of the main church with its square close to the "social-trade centre," 2019

hub of shopping, residential areas, and the main church with its square. Drawing the city mainly meant drawing its spaces and those of its neighbourhoods, identifying the social "fulcrums" around which they had to rotate.

Specifcally, the plan for the CEP-Traiano neighbourhood was designed by a team coordinated by Marcello Canino. It was one of the 31 settlements planned in Italy by the CEP, the Committee for Public Housing. It planned 25,000 rooms and a centre for shopping, business and social activities.14 The social space, designed largely on behalf of the Società pel Risanamento, developed around a large trapezoidal square with gardens, the sides of which widened towards the main church of the neighbourhood (Fig. 5). In this way, a perspective view was created, which emphasised the symbolic value of the religious building, and its façade became the backdrop for this space for socialising. One could say that Canino planned it as the main centre of the neighbourhood.15

Unpublished drawings and photos taken during the construction of the centre document that it also consisted of one post ofce, the social centre, one cinema-theatre, shops and the headquarters of the municipality with its ofces.16 These separated the main square from another, smaller one, which placed in line. Basing on these documentations, it is possible to say that the project was carried out in accordance with the original idea, and, the municipal ofces are still there, and they still delimit the two squares.17 The cinema-theatre by Elena Mendia Carrile (Fig. 7), conversely, no longer exists, and the original design of the church's façade by Marcello Canino was very diferent from its today appearance. In fact, in a sketch published in 1964, we can see that it was inspired by rural churches, with a trussed roof, and it was connected to an elegant, slender bell tower by means of four spans (Fig. 5, left). Today, instead, the church has a Neo-Romanesque shape.

Furthermore, a fascinating settlement had been built since the late 1950s and 1960s very close to the centre designed by Canino. It is formed by three, fve-storey buildings placed all around one primary school (today it is the Quintiliano Primary School), which has a round shape. This school was innovative compared to other school projects built in Naples in that period (Fig. 10).

Nevertheless, the CEP-Traiano plan was carried out without supporting facilities and equipment.18 Consequently, these areas slowly became unhealthy slums and dangerous ghettos, and the city underwent a disastrous period.19

#### FIGURE 10 (RIGHT)

CEP-Traiano, the settlement around Quintiliano Primary School: map (below, left), school ground foor plan (below, right); view of the settlement (above left), view of Quintiliano Primary School (above right), 2019

In the 1960s, the Italian Government enacted several very important laws to regulate public social housing, above all Law No. 167, which was followed by other two important legislative actions: frstly, the so-called GESCAL, which was enacted in 1963 to promote new houses for workers, and subsequently, Law No. 765, the so-called Legge Ponte, enacted in 1967.

Thanks to Law No. 167, the acquisition of extra-urban areas to build social housing settlements was permitted. These areas were the Scampia neighbourhood, to the north of Naples, where planners intended 65,000 inhabitants to live, and the Ponticelli district, to the north-east, where planners expected 60,000 inhabitants. Scampia became a *Municipalità*, that is a district, in 2006.

Both urban plans left a great freedom of typological choice, in order to enable architects to adapt the buildings to the orographic characteristics of the area more efectively. The plan of Scampia was based on the facilities and equipment, and by a system of parcelling to "mega-lots," from 1 to 11. There were many diferences between the houses built along 167 Street in Secondigliano, which is the main avenue of the district and which is named after the law, and those in the Vele by Franz di Salvo, built between 1962 and 1975.

The Vele is the most important Neapolitan "mega-structures" project, a series of experiments in Italy during the 1970s as an answer to the problem of social housing. An example is the Corviale by Mario Fiorentino. The Vele therefore, was the idea of mega-structure as a

FIGURE 11

CEP-Traiano, typologies of housing: four and fve-storey buildings on Viale Traiano. Photo 2019 utopian and prospective urban proposal.

As a faithful and fair interpreter of Le Corbusier's lesson, di Salvo had adhered above all to the updated translation of the Swiss Master by Alfred Roth. In fact, he included *Nouvelle architecture* as a rich apparatus for renewed design solutions among his main references for a better, personal interpretation of European Rationalism in a Mediterranean key. Nevertheless, the "new urban dimension," oriented by research on large popular residential settlements, was where he also experimented with the combination using a series of new and innovative solutions for the technological-functional organisation of the housing cell. The project of the Vele in Scampia is undoubtedly the work of di Salvo that best illustrates this. It reopens the dialogue between the city and nature in terms of a utopia of social hous ing that can be concretely achievable, connecting to the aims of the research pursued in the 1950s in the Soccavo district.

However, even the Vele project was, unfortunately, disfgured by interests of power bro kers, and by municipal malpractice, especially as regards to the facilities and the connecting networks.

#### NOTES

1  On "Risanamento," see Giuseppe Russo, *Il Risanamento e l'ampliamento della città di Napoli* (Naples: Società pel Risanamento di Napoli, 1960); Giancarlo Alisio, *Napoli ed il Risanamento. Recupero di una struttura urbana* (Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 1980); Renato De Fusco, "Architettura e urbanistica a Napoli dalla metà dell'Ottocento a oggi," in *Storia di Napoli* (Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 1972), vol. X, pp. 275–332. A critical comparison between similar activities in several major Italian cities is proposed by Elena Manzo, "Città e territori urbani. Le trasformazioni durante il Governo unitario tra 'Espropri per pubblica utilità' e 'Risanamento igienico,'" in *Architettare l'Unità. Architettura e istituzioni nelle città della nuova Italia. 1861–1911*, ed. Fabio Mangone and Maria Grazia Tampier (Naples: Paparo, 2011), pp. 365–77.

2  Rocco Papa, *Napoli. Un secolo di urbanistica* (Naples: Università degli studi di Napoli, Dipartimento di Pianifcazione e Scienza del Territorio, 1990), p. 110.

3  Ibid., p. 82

4  Francesco Carrelli, *Sul bonifcamento di Napoli* (Naples: Tip. Giannini, 1885); Alberto Marghieri, *Intorno al problema edilizio della città di Napoli* (Naples: Tip. Trani, 1911); Real Commissione d'Inchiesta per Napoli, *Relazione sull'amministrazione Comunale* (Rome: Farzani e C. Tipograf del Senato, 1901).

5  Elena Manzo, "Il 'Risanamento' di Napoli. Dal progetto urbano alla scala architettonica," in *Atti e Rassegna Tecnica della Società degli Ingegneri e degli Architetti in Torino* (LXXII, n. 1, June 2018): pp. 113–22.

6  Dario Biocca, *Urban Renewal and Economic Crisis in Naples: 1884–1904* (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).

7  Ibid. See also Maria Rosaria Dell'Amico, "*Nuove fonti archivistiche sull* '*opera del Risanamento e dell* '*Am pliamento di Napoli,* " in *Storia dell'ingegneria*, ed. Salvatore D'Agostino, Conference proceeding, Naples, April 19–21, 2010 (Naples: Cuzzolin Editore, 2010), pp.1004–14.

8  Richard Sennett, *Building and Dwelling. Ethics for the City* (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018), Italian version: *Costruire e abitare. Etica per la città*, trans. Cristina Spinoglio (Milan: Feltrinelli, 2018), p. 1. See also Jaques Le Gof, *La civilisation de l'Occident médiéval* (Paris: Flammarion, 1997), Italian version: *La civiltà dell'Occidente medieval*e, trans. Adriana Menitoni (Florence: Sansoni, 1969).

9  The original name of the IACP was Istituto per le Case Popolari (Institute for Working-Class Housing), and the acronym was ICP. The Neapolitan section of the IACP was founded in 1908 as Istituto Autonomo per le Case Popolari (Autonomous Institute for Working-Class Housing) with the acronym IACP. Law No. 351 is entitled *Provvedimenti per il risorgimento economico della città di Napoli* .

10  Sergio Stenti, *Napoli Moderna. Città e case popolari. 1968–1980* (Naples: Clean, 1993).

11  A general view of urban history of Naples in the twentieth century is in Pasquale Belfore and Benedetto Gravagnuolo, *Napoli. Architettura e urbanistica del Novecento* (Rome-Bari: Laterza, 1994). On the 1926 city masterplan, see Andrea Pane, "L'infuenza di Gustavo Giovannoni a Napoli tra restauro dei monumenti e urba - nistica. Il piano del 1926 e la questione della 'vecchia città,'" in *Restauro, monumenti e città. Teorie ed esperienze del Novecento in Italia*, ed. Rafaele Amore, Andrea Pane, and Gianluca Vitagliano (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2008), pp. 13–93.

12  Arnaldo Venditti, "Breve storia dei piani regolatore," in *Napoli dopo un secolo* (Naples: ESI, 1961), p. 222.

13  "Quartiere Soccavo-Canzanella a Napoli (settore nord)," *Casabella* (1959, n. 228): pp. 27–32; B.B.P.R, "Case CECA nel quartiere La Loggetta," *Casabella* (1959, n. 231): pp. 56–60; Giulio De Luca, "Quartiere La Loggetta," *Casabella* (1959, n. 231): pp. 52–53.

14  Belfore and Gravagnuolo, *Napoli*, pp. 251–53.

15  Elena Manzo, "Urban Change. The Western Area of Naples (Italy), from Agricultural Villages to Municipalities: Plans, Infrastructure and Architecture from the 'Risanamento' to the Second Post War," in *Boundaries, Encounters, Connections*, ed. Claus Bech-Danielsen, Marie Stender, and Sighvatur Sveinn Davidsson, Danish Building Research Institute (Copenhagen: SBI Forlag, 2015), pp. 28–39,

https://sbi.dk/Pages/Boundaries-Encounters-Connections.aspx.

16  *Società per Risanamento di Napoli*, July 25, 1964.

17  *Società per Risanamento di Napoli*, July 28, 1966. 18  Carlo Cocchia, "Le vicende del Piano Regolatore di Napoli," *Urbanistica* (1957, n. 15-16): pp. 100–09; Carlo Cocchia, *Edilizia a Napoli dal 1918 al 1958* (Naples: L'Arte Tipografca, 1960).

19  Dal Piaz, *Napoli 1945–1985*.

# NEIGHBOURHOOD CHURCHES IN THE POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION: PROJECTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS BY MARCELLO CANINO

*Riccardo Serraglio\**

Once World War II was over, the heavy damage sufered by Italian cities determined the conditions for a radical renewal of many urban and territorial contexts. In the years of post-war reconstruction, Italian architects and planners faced the problem of inserting new buildings into the environments of historic cities. In the same period, the political authorities decided to expand the cities with new suburban settlements close to industrial districts. Thus, urban planners designing the new working-class neighbourhoods were required to provide low-cost housing for the mass of immigrants that had moved to the cities from the countryside.1 The aim was to build popular neighbourhoods where the living conditions were guaranteed to be at least dignifed. Accordingly, the new suburbs had to include essential social services such as schools, sports facilities and parish centres. The presence of ecclesiastical complexes in the middle of new neighbourhoods derives from a political choice. The Italian government, led by the political party Democrazia Cristiana, pursued the goal of uniting social development to the practicing of Catholicism to avoid any dangerous propensities towards the communist ideology of the working classes. For this reason, a law was issued in 1952—promoted by the public works minister Salvatore Aldisio—to allocate state funds to Italian dioceses for the construction of parish churches in new residential districts.2

The new parish complexes, spiritual meeting points in growing and rapidly expanding cities, needed to be buildings of the highest architectural quality in suburban neighbourhoods. Consequently, some of the most important architects and urban planners of the time faced the difcult issue of designing innovative shapes for new ecclesiastical buildings while still responding to traditional types. It was decided that the new residential districts scattered among the suburbs of cities and metropolises should refect the typical settlements of ancient Italian cities, aggregated around the churches but in a modern key. Regarding the architectural language of the ecclesiastical buildings, the designers were allowed to operate with a certain freedom of expression, but their choices were submitted for the approval of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.3 The bishops, heads of the dioceses, were the commissioners of the new ecclesiastical buildings and could choose projects that were inclined towards either traditional or modern solutions. Once the plans of the new parishes had been drawn up according to the preferences of the bishops, they were submitted to a

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

#### FIGURE 1 Marcello Canino, Plan of the Parish Church of the Vergine del Rosario in Serramazzoni

central commission—the Pontifcia Commissione Centrale per l'Arte Sacra in Italia—that could approve, reject or request further changes.4

Many bishops were concerned primarily with the speed and cost of construction; a few others, endowed with a sensitivity for art and architecture, carefully paid attention to the aesthetics of the new ecclesiastical buildings, which should have been compliant with the architectural language of the surrounding environment. Among the Italian bishops who built new churches in the 1950s and '60s, Giacomo Lercaro, the Archbishop of Bologna, and Giovanni Battista Montini, the Archbishop of Milan, were distinguished for their interest in modern architecture. They considered the suburbs as mission lands and, in agreement with talented architects such as Giuseppe Vaccaro, Luigi Figini, Giò Ponti, Giovanni Michelucci and many others, they decided to adopt a contemporary architectural language to realise ecclesiastical buildings representing the collective identity in the uneven peripheral fabric of the city.5

Other Italian dioceses were also carrying out interesting projects of designing new ecclesiastical spaces. Among the ecclesiastical building projects realised in the post-war reconstruction period, there is no unitary or predominant path, but it is possible to recognise some architectural works that are very diferent from each other.<sup>6</sup> In a cultural milieu characterised by contrasts between tendencies prone to either tradition or modernity, the absence of guidelines and prevailing cultural orientations allowed architects not only to try to achieve an optimal use of the ecclesiastical space, but also to express their creativity in diferent forms. Many architects decidedly embraced a modern path. Among these, some developed

the aesthetic qualities of reinforced concrete structures combined with exposed brick walls, as in the nearby residential buildings. Others gave expressive autonomy to ecclesiastical buildings made of reinforced concrete frames and sails, thus diferentiating them from the surrounding urban environment. On the other hand, some architects remained faithful to the Fascist architecture principles by continuing to take inspiration from the works of famous architects such as Marcello Piacentini or Giovanni Muzio. Others developed projects inspired by Romanesque, Renaissance and Baroque architecture, in the best cases managing to articulate models derived from the past into original forms.

Marcello Canino (Naples, July 3, 1895–October 2, 1970) is distinguished among architects who were inspired by the past in the search for new types of ecclesiastical buildings. He was a professor of architectural design from 1930 to 1969 and Dean of the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Naples from 1943 to 1952. He can be considered one of the masters of twentieth-century Neapolitan architecture and, in addition to his academic work, he was engaged in intense professional activity.

As an interpreter of an architectural renewal in the direction of a balance between the permanence of forms and languages derived from classicism and the introduction of the constructive rationality of the Modern Movement, he realised buildings of great architectural signifcance and urban impact.

During the Fascist period, he participated in the urban renewal of Naples by drafting buildings projects of the Province (1935–36), the Financial Ofces (1935–37) and the Istituto Nazionale Assicurazioni (1935–37). In 1940, he supervised the plan of the "Mostra delle Terre d'Oltremare" in the eastern part of the city. During the post-war reconstruction period, his commitment to the profession was equally productive. The best works of this second phase of his career include the Thermae Building in Castellamare di Stabia (1946–55) and the Bank of Italy Building (1951–56), along with some residential buildings in Naples (1950–53) and the Courthouse in Avellino (1962–77). In the same period, during the 1950s and '60s, he produced some interesting projects for new neighbourhood churches.<sup>7</sup> In the feld of ecclesiastical architecture, he separated his personal design research from the national trend tending towards innovation. He chose to revisit in a modern and personal key typologies and languages derived from the Italian architecture of the Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque periods. He interpreted the models of the basilica, the central and oval plan, inspired by the history of Italian architecture, in the forms of a modern classicism. He cleverly used the expressive potential of new construction materials, in particular reinforced concrete, to lighten the load-bearing structures to defne new proportions between the architectural elements of the buildings.

For the Bishops of Caserta, Pozzuoli, Modena, Teggiano and Sant'Agata de' Goti, Canino designed about ten ecclesiastical buildings, half of which were actually realised. In the spring of 1954, on commission from the Bishop of Modena, Cesare Boccoleri, he drew up the plans for the new parish churches of San Lazzaro in Modena and the Vergine del Rosario in Serramazzoni, but only the second one was built.8 The architect set out the plan

FIGURE 2 Serramazzoni, by Modena. Parish Church of the Vergine del Rosario, interior view

FIGURE 3 (LEFT) Limatola, by Benevento. Parish Church of San Biagio, external view

FIGURE 4 (RIGHT) Frasso Telesin, by Benevento. Parish Church of Santa Giuliana, external view

of the Church of the Vergine del Rosario with a central octagonal space, longitudinally dilated by a narthex on the entrance side and a polygonal apse on the opposite side. The centrality of the architectural system, altered by the stretch of the central octagon, was recovered from four radial chapels arranged around the ecclesiastical hall (Fig. 1). It can be assumed that the singular structure of this small parish church, tending towards the typological hybridisation between the central and longitudinal scheme, was aimed at an efcient layout of the architectural space to have the congregation close to the main altar. As for the architectural language, it does not seem correct to look for references to ancient monuments near the new church–such as the Romanesque Cathedral of Modena–but it is possible to recognise a personal interpretation by the architect of typically Medieval or Renaissance elements (Fig. 2).

On commission from the Bishop of Caserta, Bartolomeo Mangino, Canino designed the new parish church of the rural centre of Limatola, starting in 1952.9 The project of this church, dedicated to San Biagio, required several modifcations due to the instability of the foundation soil.10 In 1957, the architect drew up the fnal design, and the building was completed in 1962. He chose the traditional shape of a three-nave basilica with a polygonal apse and a lateral bell tower (Fig. 3). The exterior of the building consists of a masonry of exposed stones; the main façade is decorated with a motif of three large blind arches, while the sides and the bell tower are decorated with sequences of double and triple arch windows; the internal spaces are covered by cross vaults and a series of classical *aediculae* develops on the side walls. In Frasso Telesino, not far from Limatola, Canino designed the Church of Santa Giuliana, built between 1958 and 1964 after the demolition of an earlier ffteenth-century building.11 The demolition of this building allowed the architect to develop a single-nave basilica plant concluded by a large rectangular apse in the area. As in the

#### FIGURE 5, 6

Caserta. San Pietro in Cattedra Parish Church: Marcello Canino's project of the parish complex (left), interior view (right)

church of San Biagio in Limatola, the architectural language of the new church manifests a historicist matrix elaborated by simplifying stylistic elements referring to Romanesque and Renaissance architecture (Fig. 4).

In 1966, on commission from Bishop Vito Roberti, Canino designed the Church of San Pietro in Cattedra in Caserta, in the low-cost housing district known as "Rione Tescione;" the project was probably a resumption of a previous one.12 This project is particularly interesting since it presents a signifcant interpretation of the elliptical system, already attempted by the famous architect Marcello Piacentini in the Roman Church of the "Divina Sapienza" in 1947.13 Canino may have been inspired by the Roman Baroque architecture in the design of the Church of San Pietro in Cattedra, just like Piacentini in the "Divina Sapienza." In the internal space of the Church of San Pietro, the insertion of the main altar at the end of the short side of the ellipse allowed for the presence of the congregation near the celebrant during the holy mass, as was required by the Second Vatican Council. The sequence of blind arches that articulates the external brick wall and the array of niches framed by the slender circular pillars that support the windowed dome indoors are architectural solutions with a considerable impact (Figs. 5, 6).

The main church of the Rione Traiano, Naples, dedicated to San Giovanni Battista, designed in 1966 in collaboration with Filippo Alison, stands out due to the urban significance of the building.14 The parish complex, overlooking a large square, constitutes the centrepiece of a new residential district for 30,000 inhabitants. The neighbourhood master plan was commissioned to Canino by the Coordinamento per l'Edilizia Popolare in 1957.15

FIGURE 7 Marcello Canino, Plan of the Parish Church of San Giovanni Battista in the Rione Traiano

FIGURE 8 Façade of the Parish Church of San Giovanni Battista

This master plan foresaw a system of tree-lined avenues inspired by the Scandinavian suburbs and North American parkways. It was designed to be a model for modern low-cost residential neighbourhoods, but unfortunately, it took on the signs of the dehumanising degradation of the worst metropolitan suburbs within a few years. The Church of San Giovanni can be considered the full expression of the research on ecclesiastical architecture carried out by Marcello Canino. As with the Church of San Biagio in Limatola, he chose the traditional shape of the three-nave basilica (Fig. 7). The façade with three cusps recalls the Cathedral of San Giorgio in Ferrara (Fig. 8). The external wall surfaces are enlivened by geometric duotone designs inspired by Florentine Romanesque architecture (Fig. 9). The imposing bell tower, inspired by that of San Marco Square in Venice, dominates the neighbourhood square. In the internal space of the church, the area of the choir is delimited by three radial apses and a series of cross vaults covers the ecclesiastical hall (Fig. 10).

All the buildings described have relevant architectural qualities. They are the result of architectural research whose aim was to achieve a balance between the permanence of forms and languages derived from classicism and the introduction of the constructive rationality of the Modern Movement. In his ecclesiastical buildings, Marcello Canino has managed to modernise the classic typologies of Romanesque, Renaissance and Baroque architecture, simplifying the forms of decorative elements, while using reinforced concrete to streamline the load-bearing structures. These buildings represent the work of a prominent protagonist of twentieth-century Italian architecture and, therefore, deserve not only to be protected, but also to be valorised. By contrast, at present the parish churches designed by Canino during the post-war reconstruction period have not received adequate recognition of their real value. They represent the centres of social life in important areas of urban expansion, but their use for such a large population has often required transformations and adjustments. In many cases, the state of social emergency of the peripheral neighbourhoods represented a reason to neglect the care of these buildings despite their architectural signifcance. However, the enhancement of these particularly interesting architectural complexes could represent the starting point for an overall revaluation of the surrounding built environment. For this reason, the competent authorities and habitual users of these community buildings should take care to preserve their original architectural features. The tutelage of the Superintendence of Architectural Heritage, along with an appropriate maintenance and restoration, could represent opportune instruments for the conservation of these important testimonies of the Italian ecclesiastical architecture of the twentieth century.

#### NOTES

urheberrechtlich geschützt urheberrechtlich geschützt

1  Gabriele De Rosa, *Fanfani e la casa. Gli anni Cinquanta e il modello italiano di welfare state. Il piano Ina-Casa* (Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino, 2002); Paola Di Biagi, *La grande ricostruzione: Il piano Ina-Casa e l'Italia degli anni cinquanta* (Rome: Donzelli, 2010).

2  Salvatore Aldisio, *Concorso dello Stato nella costruzione delle nuove chiese: Legge 18 Dicembre 1952, n. 2522* (Rome: Tipografa A. Staderini, 1953).


#### FIGURE 9, 10

Rione Traiano. San Giovanni Battista Parish Church: external view (left), internal view (right) lectanea Archivi Vaticani, 2013), pp. 1-88.

5  Maria Beatrice Bettazzi, Giuliano Gresleri, and Glauco Gresleri, *Chiesa e quartiere. Storia di una rivista e di un movimento per l'architettura a Bologna* (Bologna: Editrice Compositori, 2004); Claudia Manenti, *Il cardinale Lercaro e la città contemporanea* (Bologna: Editrice Compositori, 2004); Massimo Zorzin, *Giovanni Battista Montini: Un'idea di chiesa le sue chiese* (Rome: Edizioni Studium, 2018).

6  Andrea Longhi and Carlo Tosco, *Architettura, chiesa e società in Italia (1948–1978)* (Rome: Studium, 2010).

7  Sergio Stenti, *Marcello Canino 1895/1970* (Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2005).

8  Archivio della Commissione per l'Arte Sacra in Italia (hereafter ACASI), Diocesi di Modena, *Serramazzoni: Nuova chiesa parrocchiale e locali di ministero parrocchiale*, Folders 3-4, 1954–57; Archivio Privato di Marcello Canino (hereafter APMC), *Progetto della chiesa parrocchiale della Vergine del Rosario a Serramazzoni*, undated drawings.

9  ACASI, *Diocesi di Caserta, Limatola: Nuova chiesa parrocchiale di San Biagio, casa canonica e locali di ministero pastorale*, folders 1-2, 1953–59.

10  Archivio del Genio Civile di Benevento, *Progetto strutturale della chiesa di San Biagio a Limatola*, uncatalogued documents, 1953–62.

11  ACASI, *Diocesi di Sant'Agata de' Goti, Frasso Telesino: Nuovo complesso parrocchiale di Santa Giuliana*, folders 1-3, 1957–67.

12  ACASI, *Diocesi di Caserta, Caserta: Nuova chiesa parrocchiale di San Pietro in Cattedra, casa canonica e locali di ministero pastorale*, folders 1-2, 1961–66; Archivio dell'Ufcio Tecnico della Diocesi di Caserta, *Progetto del complesso parrocchiale di San Pietro in Cattedra*, drawings, 1966.

13  Claudia Conforti, *Cristo Re di Marcello Piacentini 1934/2014* (Rome: Texmat, 2014).

14  ACASI, *Diocesi di Pozzuoli, Napoli: Chiesa madre del quartiere "Traiano,"* folder 9, 1960; APMC, *Progetto della chiesa parrocchiale di San Giovanni Battista al Rione Traiano*, undated drawings.

15  Gianluca Frediani, "Il quartiere Traiano di Marcello Canino. Distruzione di un modello," *ArQ: Architettura Quaderni* (1989): pp. 67–77.

# LUIGI COSENZA'S EXPERIMENTS: FROM CITY TO PREFAB *Francesca Castanò\**

#### INTRODUCTION

A major theme that has characterised the city of Naples is inconstant growth. In the evolution of Neapolitan urban planning between the end of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, there was a strong separation between project ideas, political choices and the parts of the city that were realised. It has been an important factor in the new systems of property income and building speculation since the end of the nineteenth century, when the collaborative process was managed not only by urban planners, but also by the construction industry.

On the one hand there is the great Naples designed by Fascism, the queen of the Mediterranean, the dynamic city leaning towards the hill, the orderly garden city imagined far beyond the metropolitan boundaries. On the other hand, there was construction by urban fragments, resolved with partial solutions, characterised by a state of perennial emergency, and especially by the speculation of large banking groups and large construction companies that occupy the most interesting land in the city, especially the hilly areas, which are very panoramic.1

Between the two wars there were many good intentions for development and regulated growth that, however, never materialised, such as the great plan of 1936, approved in 1939.2 This great and important plan was based in the frst instance on the industrial paradigm, an expression of the entrepreneurial part of the city, which managed the electricity, the aqueducts (SME Group, Southern Electricity Company) and the large infrastructure (Group IRI–*Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale*–the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction), and which was created to ensure the management of the construction industry, which it went some way to defne. In this phase of development, the East and West in Naples, in a growing phase of urbanisation, assumed a strategic role, becoming the largest production districts of the new city, with concentrations of big industries: steel, cement, mechanical industries, engineering, etc.3

The macro interventions of public building, for the workers of the great Neapolitan industry (the IACP–*Istituto Autonomo per le Case Popolari*–the Independent Institute for Social Housing, and the *Società pel Risanamento di Napoli*–the Corporation for the Renewal of

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

FIGURE 1 Luigi Cosenza, *Neapolis*, Urban planning study for the coastal area of Naples, 1937–1940

Naples), are concentrated above all in these areas. But the value of this plan consisted mainly in the territorial dimension and in the regional vision that for the Neapolitan urbanism assumed for the frst time, in terms of tourism, the economy, landscape, and communications. It drew on the great theme of the railroad to free the eastern area, to encourage industrial growth and services related to it.

The 1939 city masterplan predicted development for the next 50 years, with a projected population increase to 1,300,000 in 1986. Greenery was also an important component, because it exponentially increased the surface area of public parks, in particular including hilly areas, such as Posillipo. For the frst time, it included the territories of Campania and Naples in a very modern development inspired by international models. The war, the radical change in the political scene and the National Urban Law of 1942, which called for a substantial rethink of all previous programmes, essentially cancelled this instrument, subjecting it to heavy manipulation that transformed all the hilly areas around the city into building areas in a single day, with serious legal consequences.4 In any case, before the severe consequences of the war, this plan opened up many perspectives.

#### FOR A NEW *NEAPOLIS*

This strong design interest involved the main Neapolitan designers, among whom we fnd in particular Luigi Cosenza, who had been involved in urban planning since before the war.

«Knowing the interest of Your Excellency in everything related to Naples, I would like to present the results obtained, after a few years of study, on particular solutions to urban problems, with the practical application to an area of Naples, within the framework of the Town Plan. I therefore ask Your Excellency to grant me a hearing to judge the directives followed and the results achieved with my collaborators. I [would be] pleased if you would like to ask in advance for clarifcation on my person, and for

FIGURE 2 Luigi Cosenza, *Neapolis*, detail with new housing lots in the park, 1940

FIGURE 3 *Neapolis,* street view of the housing in the park. Drawing by Luigi Cosenza, 1937

FIGURE 4 *Neapolis,* the model of the intervention

this purpose I would like to indicate some names of Neapolitans who will be able to do so.»5

This is the request that Luigi Cosenza submitted to the prefect of Naples in 1940. It shows the intense planning associated with the initiatives of the city masterplan approved in the previous year, for which it was necessary to compile detailed plans of execution.6 Published in *Casabella* in the same year, *Neapolis* was the sample study for the area between the coast and the city centre, with a vertex in the square of the Central Station (Fig. 1). The «fresh utopian matrix», in the words of Giovanni Astengo,<sup>7</sup> of the urban vision of the Neapolitan engineer begins with this project, aimed at afrming rational methods and radical solutions. This project was striking for its clear and orderly vision, with which Cosenza intended to solve the problem of housing, using the geometric grid system to build high towers overlooking the sea, despite the mainly low-rise and compact historical fabric along the coast (Figs. 2–4).8

His idea was that following «the guidelines of modern urban planning», Cosenza explained «[the city] can be transformed for the better and simultaneously create wealth».<sup>9</sup> This approach put him in the wake of the most up-to-date progressive thinking. Financial issues, carefully addressed in the project and exposed with pragmatic punctuality, related to the changes in society and the economy, in which nothing was worth «false monumentality» and the principles of order of the past, in the face of an undisputed increase in «disorderly speculation» that the city intended to stop with new legal devices.10

Two years later, in 1942, with the war still going on, Adriano Olivetti privately entrusted Cosenza with conceiving a regional plan for Campania in parallel with what had been requested of Luigi Piccinato for Valle d'Aosta.

Anticipating the theme of regional planning systematically, which was presented only in 195211 on the occasion of the fourth Congress of the National Institute of Urban Planning, in this experimental work Cosenza confrmed the positions already taken in *Neapolis*, extending them to the entire Campania region, in a careful survey of its natural qualities, cultural tradition, landscape values, socioeconomic resources and untapped potential for growth.12

This presented a fascinating visual story, consisting of a large map which includes sketches, photographs, observations, statistics and documents on which it traces the directions of the regeneration of the forthcoming Campania Region,13 redefning the rural scene and the productive environment, the vocation of craftsmanship and industrial skills.14 Luigi Cosenza worked on this project through the construction of the grid: a large mesh of information, images and themes that produced a continuous descriptive narrative, a real work in progress on which to fx the regional identity elements. His study went beyond the borders of Naples, a Mediterranean city, to invest the agricultural landscapes of the hinterland, the emerging social characters, the gastronomic documents, and the archaeological presences in search of the vital memory of the places and the reciprocal relationships between the diferent contexts of the region. It is an important document because between the centre of the city and the countryside, he wisely reconstructed the pre-war environment of Campania, protecting local practices and knowledge and the diferences between the communi ties. The culture of the sea in Naples corresponds in the hinterland with that of the vast plain, Vesuvius and the mountain environment.

Observing the city-region according to new coordinates, he went beyond the physical idea of functions concentrated in the metropolitan area of Naples, imagining an orientation of economic life towards a constellation of smaller towns and the hinterland, rather than within the maritime space. The diferent view of the region reveals that «every city is part of a geographical, economic, social, cultural and political entity on which its development depends», as Josep Lluís Sert also said at the same time in 1943,15 and that, therefore, the reasons for modern planning can be found along the large territorial layouts and the smallest urban textures.

In the defnition of the qualities of this dilated anthropic space, the historical and cultural depth of the Neapolitan people, apollonian and solar, on the side of the sea, tireless and introverted into the rural hinterland, emerged. Cosenza was convinced that «it is necessary to take care to drive out unhappiness and to strive to create happiness» and that «any restoration presupposes a great ideal force».16

The destructive results of World War II interrupted the regional experiments, which were recovered in subsequent years within the programmes of the National Institute of Urban Planning—the INU. Cosenza's active participation in the feld of town planning, fu elled by communist ideology, continued when the political scene was overthrown by the liberation of Naples from Fascism in the autumn of 1943. In the following ffteen months, the state of emergency required the rapid planning of Naples, as heavy bombardments destroyed neighbourhoods, monumental complexes, infrastructures, cultural institutions, or production plants.

#### A HARD RECONSTRUCTION

Naples is the second most bombed city in Italy (after Milan) with extensive destruction of the most populated districts and strategic sites, such as the port, communication routes, power plants and factories to the east and west of the city.17 According to a 1950 estimate, one hundred thousand rooms were destroyed, which is more than double the estimate of the commission established by Mayor Achille Lauro.

There was a vast production of housing after the war. Until then, the city of Naples had developed at a pace proportional to the growth of the needs of the population, rather than through spontaneous initiatives. The response to the need for housing did not result in new types of housing, but it started as a quantitative rather than qualitative phenomenon. Physical growth was characterised by the absence of an ordinal design and the absence of a model in which the public and the private sector could dialogue in controlled ways and forms. Consequently, private construction, even when it made up 90 % of residential production, involved speculation and spontaneity. The process that has marked Naples has been a continuous addition of houses to houses. This quantitative phenomenon has been interpreted as an improvement in the quality of the home only and not in the sense of residence, including all the social meanings indispensable for a high quality of life. This is why public intervention has tried in the following years to rebalance this situation through the provision of infrastructure and primary services.

In 1945, mayor Gennaro Fermariello's council appointed a commission of technicians18 to prepare a new city masterplan, which it completed in one year. The plan was again drawn up by Luigi Cosenza.19

This emergency plan ofered the opportunity to achieve a more ambitious design involving the physical rearrangement of neighbourhoods, equipment and facilities. The "reconstruction," at least in the intentions of the planners, involved a broad vision of development, following the guidelines elaborated between the two wars.20 In-depth critical analyses were carried out to demonstrate the urgency of radically resolving the criticality of the city and the responsibility to heal the terrible lacerations inficted by the war led the commission to act with daring concreteness.21

The plan framed Naples as a new city expanding to the east with the construction of new factories and the restructuring of existing ones; to the north with the creation of two satellite poles in the areas of Secondigliano and Frattamaggiore for «industries related to agriculture»;22 to the west between Fuorigrotta and Bagnoli with the construction of new production plants and research institutes connected to the future seat of the Faculty of Engineering, designed by Cosenza himself.23

For the historical city, Cosenza interpreted the renewal through the experimentalism of prefabricated buildings. The Centre for Building Studies (CESUN) he founded together with Michele Pagano and Adriano Galli, in fact, gave an international dimension to the theme of prefabrication, in line with the pilot experience of Q8 in Milan by Piero Bottoni.24 The planned recourse to industrialised building was directly connected to the need for houses and the design of the renovated city. Logical constructions that added refned variations to the theme of the multi-storey block in line, exemplary from a technical and typological point of view, were inserted organically into the urban morphology. Along the coastline, this innovation was expressed in the high towers of the new Maritime area as designed in the Plan of Reconstruction for the Porto, Mercato and Pendino areas, signed by Cosenza.25 In the social housing in the Via Consalvo in Fuorigrotta, as well as in the houses for the homeless in Viale Augusto in the same district, Cosenza used prefabrication systems, recalling elements of Neapolitan tradition, such as open staircases and large loggias that give direct access to the dwellings through balconies shielded by metal brises-soleil. Or even the "experimental" district in Torre Ranieri (1947–57), with Francesco Della Sala and Adriano Galli, which remains one of the most advanced public building projects in Italy.26 Here, the application of prefabrication takes place in a landscape of renowned beauty in Naples, the hill of Posillipo.

1946 was a year full of design fervour. Cosenza and the other designers for the future of Naples looked to the contemporary experiences of Patrick Abercrombie and John Henry FIGURE 5 Luigi Cosenza, *Marittima Plan of Reconstruction*, part of the City Masterplan 1945–46

Forshaw, authors of the Greater London Plan, and to the vision of a metropolitan area that projected far beyond urban boundaries into the rural landscapes of the suburbs and the surrounding green belts. The main idea of the reconstruction plan was to start a decentralisation of new productive activities to human scale centres with reduced housing rates. The "heart of the city," named after an essay by Ernesto Nathan Rogers, was thus transformed into an «organism expressed by urban planning integrated with architecture and the other arts» in which «destroying or passively preserving are—in apparent opposition—the results of the same mental aridity: they are moral sins for the city in the same way». Reconstruction was to be an act of responsibility and an opportunity at the same time.27

The horizons opened by the plans promoted by the municipal administration expressed the common will to lay the structural foundations for a palingenesis of the city and the entire Campania region. The high towers of the new Marittima represented the emblem of this desired modernity (Figs. 5, 6). Tall, slender, simple, austere buildings that embodied the conventional image of European rationalism, but in dialogue with the historical urban fabric of the city. Ideally placed by Cosenza on the coastal front near the port area of Naples, they were divided into isolated blocks to allow penetration into the urban space behind.28

However, at the same time, many political voices contested the criteria of these choices, raising bitter criticism and much controversy, with particular reference to the Via Marittima project. In their opinion, it involved too many demolitions of historic buildings, encouraging building speculation and introducing a language too modern for the context.29

Beyond the contrasts it generated, the plan of the seafront presented the image of a very modern Naples: a diferent description of the Mediterranean city capable of containing in a single vision the space of history and that of its future. On this waterfront, Cosenza defned an unusual skyline, characterised by towers and low houses that were grafted onto the ancient body of the historic city, up to the square of the Madonna del Carmine, famous for the revolt of Masaniello, the Neapolitan hero of 1699. On the war damage, which was greater in this area, Cosenza imagined creating a dynamic and productive executive city, crossed by fast roads and a navigable waterway, near the new, expanded port.30 A renewed and functional Naples lay between the coast and the hills, consistent with the contemporary prescriptions of the Congress Internationaux de l'Architecture Moderne–CIAM.

#### THE GRID OF NAPLES AT CIAM VII

In this vision, CIAM played a fundamental role and in 1949, when it was organised in Italy. Cosenza was one of the protagonists of the meeting, animated by Le Corbusier. Friends of Capri's time, present at the partisan events in Paris, met in Bergamo together with many Italian architects and professionals to experiment with the grid method that the Swiss architect had proposed as a topic for debate at the Congress. A methodological code applied from the architectural project to that of the city found Luigi Cosenza culturally aligned, thanks to his experiences of plans for Naples.31

The grid theme, announced at Bridgewater in 1947, was subsequently developed by the French group ASCORAL in agreement with Le Corbusier in the autumn of the same year. In June 1948, the ASCORAL volume, *Grille CIAM d'urbanisme*, was published, setting out the criteria for the graphic organisation of the project.32 It was the intention of Le Corbusier that the congress in Bergamo would discuss a series of urban projects, presented in a homogeneous and comparative way, but created within the idea of a real city.33 The grid would be the main structure of a common language. If the Athens Charter had laid the foundations of a new Urbanism, in Bergamo it was necessary to systematise the contents.34

There were three main guidelines for the harmonious development of the city of the future: the social foundations of urban planning and territorial mobility, which some coun-

FIGURE 6 Luigi Cosenza, *Marittima Plan of Reconstruction*, the prospective view

FIGURE 7 Poster of CIAM VII in Bergamo

FIGURE 8 The grid of Naples by Cosenza exhibited at the exhibition for the fftieth anniversary of the CIAM Congress of Bergamo

tries had already introduced into legislation and implementation; the scientifc research applied to the built environment, which had enabled rapid progress in building technology and prefabrication; the unity of the plastic arts—architecture, sculpture, and painting, led in a shared way to new forms of expression.

At CIAM VII in Bergamo in 1949, the grid was presented as an analytical method to compare the various topics and projects discussed in previous CIAM congresses, with particular attention to the points contained in the Athens Charter in practice. The main objective of the meeting was to consider the challenges that modern society poses to urbanisation.35 The Athens chart was simplifed into four supporting functions, each of which was assigned a colour, placed on the ASCORAL grid, according to the following scheme: living in green, working in red, cultivating the body and mind in yellow, circulation in blue. For the CIAM of Bergamo, Cosenza elaborated and presented the grid for Naples, using the masterplan he designed for the reconstruction. He collected a lot of material for the scheme, choosing suitable contents in relation to the four fundamental themes as formulated by Le Corbusier. He flled the horizontal lines of the enormous table, inserting in the vertical columns the objectives for the renaissance of Naples (Fig. 8). Cosenza's proposals for Naples presented the many faces of the city, framed through a selection of subjects and specifc works from the natural environment and the geographical and physical characteristics in reference to the main activities of the population up to the most signifcant construction work of the last season.

This research ofered Cosenza the opportunity to bring to the attention of a wide audience of experts the many projects developed for Naples, but also the best works that the city had produced until then.36 The intersection of the four main themes with the categories of analysis studied for Naples resulted in an articulated grid, where the critical issues (unemployment, the black market, lack of housing, housing density) were combined with the possibilities of change and redemption as glimpsed in the reconstruction. The grid presented itself as a large rational map in which the essential elements were well described and represented. On it, Cosenza, in relation to the four main points, afrmed the need to refound the destroyed industrial plants, hygienically restore the city, strengthen the infrastructure, focusing on road and rail transport. He emphasised the need to equip the city with parks, schools, universities and places for socialising,37 and to promote the extensive construction of public housing, the construction of neighbourhoods for the working classes, through a careful analysis of costs and construction times.38 Luigi Cosenza's participation in CIAM put Naples in an international context. The adherence to the grid scheme and the codes of extreme rationalism never distracted him from the need to refer to a traditional and Mediterranean approach.39

#### CONCLUSIONS

The Bergamo experience ofered Cosenza the opportunity to demonstrate how urban and architectural works were frmly interconnected. He had devised a new Naples in which so-

#### FIGURE 9

Pilot housing settlement in Torre Ranieri at Posillipo Hill, panoramic view of Neapolitan gulf, 1956

cial housing played a fundamental role. In these experiments, he had concentrated research on the production and application of innovative construction techniques. Prefabrication was able to meet residential needs, limiting construction times and above all construction costs. From a social point of view, it ofered solutions consistent with the functional characteristics of rationalist architecture, making all the comforts otherwise inaccessible to the less well-of classes available quickly. Just like Bottoni at the Q8 in Milan, Cosenza in the Neapolitan context had developed and used avant-garde construction technologies with high-quality standards.

The prefabricated systems of Cosenza did not simply develop the theme of the standardisation of the elements, but also the relationship between residence and services and between construction and environmental context. Moreover, his collective houses presented particularly successful formal solutions, where attention to detail was meticulous and the dialogue with the landscape was always consistent with the theme of the Mediterranean.

The architectural and urban planning project took on a signifcance in Cosenza that went beyond the technological, engineering and compositional aspects. Related to each other, they refected the ideas of solidarity, life commitment and coherent modernisation on both scales. The experimental afordable housing that he conceived within the grid of the postwar urban development plan exhibited an extraordinary capacity for building planning and a rapid response to the need for housing in a city destroyed by war. The pioneering modular components of prefabrication supported the sense of place and enhanced the views of the landscape. Cosenza avoided the regularity of rationalist neighbourhoods by creating organically arranged sets within the environmental frame and where space fows freely between the buildings. He imagined a very modern Naples in which social housing played a fundamental role. Read in a broader perspective, Cosenza's work in relation to the international context assumes great importance for having brought Naples into the international discourse, for having intuited and put into practice the potential of prefabrication and for having concentrated his main interests on the project of the social house.

This is how Giulio Carlo Argan summarised his lesson: «Cosenza's rationalism was of the same type: his capacity of perception was all the more clear and exact because it was so intense that it eliminated any suspicion it might be wrong. It is evident that the extreme formal simplicity of Middle-European architectonic rationalism was deeply felt by Cosenza as an emotion, as something inherent to both the landscape mythology of Campania and contemporary social needs».40

#### NOTES

1  Elena Manzo, "Napoli nel Novecento: Progettare per frammenti," in *La città che si rinnova. Architettura e scienze umane tra storia e attualità: prospettive di analisi a confronto* (Milano: Franco Angeli, 2012), pp. 267–82. On the many urban projects drawn up for Naples and never realised, see the volumes in the series *La Napoli mancata* by Fabio Mangone, especially Fabio Mangone and Gemma Belli, *Posillipo Fuorigrotta e Bagnoli* (Naples: Grimaldi, 2011); *Capodimonte, Materdei, Vomero. Idee e Progetti Urbanistici per la Napoli Collinare 1860–1936* (Naples: Grimaldi, 2012). See also Francesca Castanò and Ornella Cirillo, *La Napoli alta. Vomero, Antignano, Arenella da villaggi a quartieri* (Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 2012). 2  Essential references remain: Vezio E. De Lucia and Antonio Jannello, "L'urbanistica a Napoli dal dopoguer ra a oggi: Note e documenti," *Urbanistica* (1976, n. 65): pp. 6–22; Attilio Belli, *Il labirinto e l'eresia. La politica urbanistica a Napoli tra emergenza e ingovernabilità* (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1986); Benedetto Gravagnuolo, "La città tra piani e progetti," in *Fuori dall'ombra. Nuove tendenze nelle arti a Napoli dal '45 al '65* (Naples: Elio De Rosa, 1991), pp. 503–18; Daniela Lepore, "Guida ai piani," in *Napoli. Architettura e urbanistica del Novecento*, ed. Pasquale Belfore and Benedetto Gravagnuolo (Rome-Bari: Laterza, 1994), pp. 313–34; Vezio E. De Lucia, *Se questa è una città* (Rome: Donzelli, 2006).

3  Francesca Castanò, "La crescita incostante. Il motore industriale nei piani per la 'grande Napoli' dall'alba del Novecento agli anni settanta," *Storia e Problemi Contemporanei* (2014, n. 65): pp. 139–62; Roberto Parisi, "Tra acciaio e petrolio. Storia dello spazio urbano-industriale di Napoli (1945–1985)," *Italia Contemporanea* (2017, n. 285): pp. 21–48.

4  Commissione intersindacale per il Piano Regolatore Generale della città di Napoli, *Piano regolatore generale della città di Napoli. Relazioni* (Naples: Tipografa Trani, 1936); Alessandro Dal Piaz, "Le intenzioni e gli 'atti' di un piano per Napoli. Il Prg del 1939," *ArQ. Architettura Quaderni* (1990, n. 3): pp. 57–59; Lilia Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli: La geografa. Il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica* (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2001), pp. 50–61.

5  Asna, Archivio di Stato di Napoli, State Archive of Naples, Gabinetto di Prefettura, II versamento, b. 423, f. 9, April 17, 1940, letter by Luigi Cosenza addressed to the Prefect of the Province of Naples; among the Neapolitan friends he lists are Federale Fabio Milone, the lawyers Vincenzo Tecchio, Carlo Minozzi and Mattia Limoncelli, the Superintendent Giorgio Rosi, the engineers Alfonso Mafezzoli, Antonio Limoncelli and Giu -

seppe Cenzato and, fnally, the King's Prosecutor, Paolo de Notaristefano. 6  Articles 3 and 6 of National Law No. 1208 specify the characteristics of the detailed plans: De Lucia and Jannello, "L'urbanistica a Napoli," p. 81.

7  Giovanni Astengo, "L'attività urbanistica," in *Luigi Cosenza. L'opera completa*, ed. Giancarlo Cosenza and Francesco Domenico Moccia (Naples: Electa Napoli: 1987), p. 26.

8  On the *Neapolis* project, see Giancarlo Cosenza and Francesco Domenico Moccia, eds. *Luigi Cosenza. L'opera completa* (Naples: Electa Napoli: 1987), pp. 115–16.; Rossano Astarita, "Luigi Cosenza un protagonista isolato della cultura architettonica napoletana tra le due guerre: opere realizzate e fash-back," in *L'architettura a Napoli tra le due guerre*, ed. Cesare de Seta (Rome: Laterza: 1978), pp. 69–76; Paolo Giordano, "Luigi Cosenza e l'architettura disegnata tra le due guerre," in de Seta, *L'architettura a Napoli*, pp. 77–82. Cosenza himself noted the close relationship between these early studies and the post-war plans: "Un napoletano proto-razionale. Colloquio di Benedetto Gravagnuolo con Luigi Cosenza su Napoli e il razionalismo, la tradizione mediterranea del costruire, le catastrof e il nuovo piano di ricostruzione della città," *Modo* (1983, n. 60): pp. 22–25.

9  Luigi Cosenza, "Studio urbanistico per una zona di Napoli," *Costruzioni-Casabella* (1940, n. 146): pp. 9–16.

10  Ibid., p. 16.

11  Eirene Sbriziolo is a central fgure for regional planning in Campania who animated the groups of partic ipating professionals, including Cosenza. Among his main studies are Eirene Sbriziolo De Felice, *Il problema della pianifcazione regionale e la sua evoluzione dal 1942 ad oggi in Italia: Orientamenti degli studi di pianif cazione in Campania* (Naples: Ministry of Public Works, 1961) and Eirene Sbriziolo De Felice, *La pianifcazio -* *ne territoriale in Campania dal 1952 al 1972: Studi, esperienze, proposte* (Naples: L'arte tipografca, 1972), p. 149, which gives a list of the many professionals involved in the enterprise.

12  For an updated analysis of Olivetti's urban planning and the related bibliography, refer to Carlo Olmo, ed., *Costruire la città dell'uomo. Adriano Olivetti e l'urbanistica* (Turin: Edizioni di Comunità, 2001).

13  The Italian Constitution in 1947 fully implemented the decentralised model of diferentiated regionalism. 14  On the Plan of Campania, see Giancarlo Cosenza, "Proposte urbanistiche: Introduzione allo studio di un Piano regionale della Campania (1943)," in *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, ed. Alfredo Buccaro and Giancarlo Mainini (Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006), p. 360; Alfred Buccaro and Giancarlo Mainini, *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005* (Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006), p. 123.

15  Josep Lluís Sert, *Can Our Cities Survive? An ABC of Urban Problems, Their Analysis, Their Solutions* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942), p. 10.

16  Cosenza, "Proposte urbanistiche," p. 123.

17  For a historical overview of those difcult years of the immediate post-war period, it is necessary to refer to the text of Ferdinando Isabella, *Napoli dall'8 settembre ad Achille Lauro* (Naples: Guida, 1980); Benedetto Gravagnuolo, "L'Architettura della Ricostruzione tra continuità e sperimentazione," in *Napoli e la Campania nel Novecento. Diario di un secolo*, ed. Alda Croce, Fulvio Tessitore, and Domenico Conte (Naples: Liguori Editori, 2006), http://na.architetturamoderna.it/pdf/001.pdf (accessed December 2019).

18  UrbaNa (Urbanistica Napoli Archivio: Urban Planning Naples Archive), *Commissione del Piano Reg. 1945. Relazione al Sindaco* (Naples, 1945), typewritten copy. The Consultative Commission, chaired by Mayor Fermariello, was composed of Federico Biraghi of Genio Civile; Giovanni Cafero of the Camera del Lavoro; Luigi Cosenza, Silvestro Dragotti, Mario Origo and Filippo Mellia of the Association Aniai; Domenico Filippone of Polytechnic University; Riccardo Fiore and Antonio Mazzoleni e Tommaso Gualano of the municipal ofces; Giorgio Rosi of the Ofce of the Superintendence of Artistic Heritage; Nicola Rivelli of the Industrial Union; and Camillo Porzio of the Chamber of Commerce. In addition, there were more than 30 consultants and 50 other collaborators (pp. 4–9).

19  Bianca Petrella, *Napoli, le fonti per un secolo di urbanistica* (Herculaneum: La Buona Stampa, 1990), p. 468.

20  De Lucia and Jannello, "L'urbanistica a Napoli," pp. 14–15; Carlo Cocchia, *L'edilizia a Napoli dal 1918 al 1958* (Naples: Società pel Risanamento, 1961), pp. 174–75; Arnaldo Venditti, "Breve storia dei piani regolatori," in *Napoli dopo un secolo* (Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 1961), p. 223; Giulio De Luca, *I problemi urbanistici di Napoli. Un progetto possibile* (Naples: Ste Edizioni, 1987), p. 39f.

21  Salvatore Bisogni, "Il contributo alla cultura del piano a Napoli," in Buccaro and Mainini, *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, pp. 30–47; Gravagnuolo, "La città tra piani e progetti," pp. 503–05; Pasquale Belfore, "Dal dopoguerra ad oggi," in *Napoli*. *Architettura e urbanistica del Novecento*, ed. Pasquale Belfore and Benedetto Gravagnuolo (Rome: Laterza, 1994), pp. 80-83; Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli*, pp. 77–78, 138–41, and 246–48; Giancarlo Cosenza, "La pianifcazione a Napoli negli anni '40, Meridione," *Sud e Nord nel Mondo* (2010, n. 4): pp. 171–82.

22  UrbaNa, *Commissione del Piano Reg. 1945*, p. 163. Extensive extracts from the report are reproduced in Buccaro and Mainini, *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, pp. 124–30.

23  Bisogni, *Il contributo*, p. 37; Maria Dolores Morelli, "Facoltà di Ingegneria," in Belfore and Mainini, *Napoli*. *Architettura*, pp. 246–47. The Faculty of Engineering became the object of new studies following the removal of the university town on the hill assumed in the 1939 plan. Cosenza drew up a frst project with Camillo Guerra and Gennaro De Martino as early as 1948 and a second one in 1955, which he then carried out between 1956 and 1980. See also "Architetture per la formazione: I progetti per il Politecnico e la nuova sede della Facoltà di Ingegneria di Napoli (1948–1980)," in Buccaro and Mainini, *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, pp. 332–49.

24  The Centre for Building Studies–CESUN was founded in 1947 at the Faculty of Engineering as part of the activities of the Fondazione Politecnica del Mezzogiorno to promote the development of technical culture and experimental initiatives. In this research centre, Cosenza studied new residential typologies to be built using the most innovative building technologies, with the support of tables drawn up by Alexander Klein. The design methodology was applied for over ten years on the site of the experimental housing settlement of Torre Ranieri in Naples, created to activate a process of industrialisation of the building sector for southern areas; Eleonora Trivellin, *Storia della tecnica edilizia in Italia: Dall'unità ad oggi* (Florence: Alinea, 1998), p. 112; Salvatore Bisogni, "L'idea della residenza: Il Quartiere sperimentale di Torre Ranieri a Posillipo," in Buccaro and Mainini, *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, pp. 142–72.

25  Buccaro and Mainini, *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, pp. 131–33; Federico Biraghi, "La nuova via marittima di Napoli," *Rassegna dei Lavori Pubblici* (1954, n. 5): pp. 1–4. Cesare de Seta, *Città, territorio e Mezzogiorno d'Italia* (Turin: Einaudi, 1977), pp. 67–84; Gravagnuolo, "La città tra piani e progetti," pp. 503–05;

Giancarlo Cosenza, "La pianifcazione a Napoli," pp. 176–82.

26  See the Data Sheet "Pilot Settlement Torre Ranieri," pp. 96–101.

27  Fabrizio Brunetti, *L'architettura in Italia negli anni della ricostruzione* (Florence: Alinea, 1986).

28  Francesca Castanò, "Per un'identità moderna della città mediterranea: Luigi Cosenza e la pianifcazione a Napoli e in Campania,» in *Citta mediterranee in trasformazione. Identità e immagine del paesaggio urbano tra Sette e Novecento*, Proceedings of the VI International Conference of Studies CIRICE 2014, Naples, March 13– 15, 2014, ed. Alfredo Buccaro and Cesare de Seta (Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 2014), pp. 1219–24.

29  Amadeo Bordiga was among the convinced opponents of the reconstruction plan and of that of the Via Marittima; on the contrasts that followed, see Asna, Gabinetto di Prefettura, III versamento, F. 1495, fs. 1 e Ivi, F. 937. See also the detailed analysis of Luigi Gerosa, *L'ingegnere "fuori uso." Vent'anni di battaglie urbanistiche di Amadeo Bordiga Napoli 1946–1966* (Latina: Fondazione Amadeo Bordiga, 2006), pp. 47–66; Elena Manzo, "Note su Amadeo Bordiga, professionista e teorico dei problemi urbanistici," in *Proceedings of the II National Congress of Italian Free Professional Engineers*, Ercolano, November 26, 1999 (Naples, 2000), pp. 9–13.

30  Paola Di Biagi, "I CIAM verso Atene: Spazio abitabile e città funzionale," in *El Gatcpac y su tiempo, politica, cultura y arquitectura en los anos treinta*, V Congreso Internacional Docomomo Iberico, Barcelona, October 26–29, 2005.

31  Asna, Private Archive Luigi Cosenza, Documents, AS 6, *CIAM Congresso Internazionale di Architettura Moderna.*

32  CIAM VII took place in Bergamo from July 22–31, 1949; the theme was the Application of the Athens Charter, through the use of the CIAM grids developed by the ASCORAL group led by Le Corbusier: ASCORAL (Assemblée des Constructeurs pour une Rénovation Architecturale), *Grille CIAM d'urbanisme* (Paris: Edition L'Architecture d'aujourd'hui, 1948).

33  The text of the presentation of Le Corbusier's grid at the Congress of Bergamo is reproduced in the appendix in Ernesto N. Rogers, Josep Lluís Sert, and Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, eds., *The Heart of the City* (Hoddesdon: British and American Publishers, 1951).

34  Bruno Zevi, "Messaggio al Congrés International d'Architecture Moderne. Della cultura architettonica." *Metron* (1949, nn. 31-32): pp. 5–30; "VII CIAM. Il Settimo Congresso Internazionale di Architettura Moderna. Bergamo. Les actes ofciels du VII CIAM," *Metron* (1949, nn. 33-34): pp. 48–72.

35  Eric Mumford, *The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), pp. 183–88; Paolo Nicoloso, "Il CIAM di Bergamo, Le Corbusier e le verità discutibili della Carta d'Atene," in *L'Italia di Le Corbusier*, ed. Marida Talamone (Paris: Editions de la Vilette, 2012), pp. 297–312.

36  Luigi Cosenza, *Habiter: 10 ans d'experiences de Naples (1943–1953)*, Asna, Private Archive Luigi Cosenza, Documents, AS 6, *CIAM Congresso Internazionale di Architettura Moderna*, with the list of all the cases realised in Naples that Cosenza presented as examples of adherence to the modern language of architecture.

37  Sara Protasoni, "Il Gruppo italiano e la tradizione del moderno," *Rassegna* (1992, n. 52), pp. 28–39. 38  Giancarlo Cosenza, "La 'griglia' per il VII Congresso CIAM a Bergamo (1949)," in Buccaro and Mainini, *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, p. 361; Maria Pia Fontana and Miguel Y. Mayorga, *Luigi Cosenza. Il territorio abitabile* (Florence: Alinea, 2007), pp. 22-25. The grid of Naples was again shown in the 1999 exhibition for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Congress of Bergamo: Francesco Tentori "I CIAM: Per il Cinquantenario del Congresso di Bergamo l'architettura, l'arte e l'importanza decisiva della libertà," *Rivista di Bergamo* (1999, n. 18): pp. 10–21.

39  Alfredo Buccaro, "Il razionalismo critico di Lugi Cosenza come 'altra modernità,'" in *L' architettura dell'"altra" modernità. Atti del 26. Congresso di storia dell'architettura*, Rome, April 11-13, 2007, ed. Marina Docci and Maria Grazia Turco (Rome: Gangemi, 2010), pp. 539–48.

40  Giulio Carlo Argan, "L'architettura ragionata di Luigi Cosenza," in *Luigi Cosenza. La fabbrica Olivetti a Pozzuoli*, ed. Giancarlo Cosenza (Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006), pp. 232–33.

# THE SCAMPIA PARK AND THE GENTLE URBAN RENEWAL OF THE EIGHTIES *Anna Giannetti\**

The events in Scampia Park can be read in two ways. On the one hand, we can note the relationship between its vast area, conceived as the heart of the district of Secondigliano, and the two large residential blocks that helped to defne it. The "Vele" is not the only reality surrounding it, despite its media impact. The relationships with the policies of the Municipality of Naples since 1981, when the park was created, are arguably more important. In the following years, the participatory management that still characterises Scampia Park gave rise to a dialogue about a "Scampia model." Its inauguration in 1994 concluded an intense phase of rediscovery of the role of parks and public gardens in urban planning that characterised the "extraordinary" interventions in urban and social recovery of the city after the earthquake of 1980. On the other hand, it should be emphasised that this phase established connections with the major rethink of urban policies that characterised many European countries in the 1980s.

#### SCAMPIA PARK

The Scampia Park, currently the Ciro Esposito Park, has nothing to do with Act 167/62, the national law on residential, public housing. It was this act that in 1962 started a series of interventions involving 200 hectares in the north and northeast of Naples, of which 132 were occupied by huge buildings housing a forecast 63,000 people, which then became 100,000. The "167" foresaw the growth of the former Bourbon capital in this direction towards the inland areas of the Vesuvian plain, and in 1977, a system of peripheral urban centres was established.

In the original project, the current area of 14 hectares occupied by the park was destined to house a neighbourhood centre, never built, which should have served as a meeting and gathering place. In fact, this area was included in a zonal plan, with no major constraints, no design, and no form within the central ring of the fast-fowing road system, an empty esplanade that faced the condominiums of a dormitory area (Fig. 3). And yet, social utopias, architectural utopias, and struggles for the home were the origin of many of the blocks, especially in the Vele, designed by architect Franz di Salvo. Common adherence to the idea of using industrial processes for public housing, aligning with what seemed an imperative of architectural Modernity and the only way to try to make a dwelling modern in conception,

if not in the services it provided, was also a factor. 1 At this time, too many people could not aford houses. In this view, this centre of a multipurpose neighbourhood was the most modern idea one could conceive.

No less important was the idea of putting a stop to the fragmentation of the suburbs. Naples is a seaside city located on its gulf but anchored to the super-productive plain inland, densely urbanised by an irregular and chaotic mosaic of new and ancient settlements in which the plan imagined replacing the new dormitory quarters of low-cost and low-income buildings with high-density housing.

The relationship between Naples and its surroundings had been very close for centuries. The network of small towns and farms guaranteed the supply of food to the metropolis of the kingdom. They were called "*Casali*" and "*Ville*" and, from the frst decades of the nineteenth century, "*Dintorni*," surroundings, a defnition that implied new administrative relationships within "Greater Naples" and a clear improvement in the network of connections. This orderly agricultural land became the chaotic suburbs of the 1950s and '60s, devoid of services and infrastructure, and densely inhabited.

In these decades, the true wealth of Italy was the very low cost of labour, and therefore, moving people from traditional agriculture to modern industry was the common goal of the national government and the opposition. It naturally shifted the labour force towards the industries of the North, towards the countries of northern Europe, towards the excapital Naples. In the last case, the focus was exclusively on a fast-fowing road network which, while supporting the internal car market, contributed to the "modernity" of a neighbourhood like the "167." In 1959, the tramway that connected Scampia to Naples closed. Only in 1995 was Scampia's subway station opened.

The vast esplanade chosen for the "167" was located near the hills which embrace the Naples city core. By combining lots outside its borders, taken from the nearby neighbourhoods of Miano and Piscinola, it gave life to what could only be defned as a dormitory area with a variegated social composition. Moreover, it was shattered by the impressive fast-fowing road network that was supposed to transform Secondigliano into Los Angeles. Previously, Scampia had been a farmhouse, a Casale, like nearby Piscinola, or rather, as the name suggests and etymologically means "without felds." In other words, it was a vast green, uncultivated area where sheep grazed. The middle of the "167" area was and remains empty. It contains tenements without services, rich in wide streets, and romantic connections inspired by the myth of "neighbourhood" and of the idyllic social relations present in the alleys of the ancient city.

On April 16, 1980, left-wing politicians headed by Mayor Maurizio Valenzi unanimously launched the *Piano di Recupero Urbano*, the Urban Recovery Plan, for the suburbs to make the most degraded neighbourhoods liveable, including Scampia. By applying several legal instruments together, the *Piano Regolatore Generale*, the City Masterplan of 1972, was partially reformed, and an updated notion of recovery was introduced in response to

FIGURE 1 The Troisi Park at Taverna di Ferro, aerial view by Riccardo Siano, 2019 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 2

The Troisi Park: The artifcial lake now with the social housing at the rear. Photo by Riccardo Siano, 2019 (ed.)

the needs of urban and environmental requalifcation.

In November, a disastrous earthquake hit Campania. Still, while the historic centre of Naples sufered limited damage due to the traditional material used, the tuf and the insular shape of the urban fabric, where the buildings supported each other, the bad public housing of the suburbs was thrown into crisis. The Urban Recovery Plan adopted the tools of National Law No. 219/81 "*per la ricostruzione delle aree terremotate*," the law for the reconstruction of the earthquake areas, to implement the programme. In the same year, the *Programma Straordinario di Edilizia Residenziale*, the Extraordinary Programme for Residential Building, was launched, and recovery and redevelopment took place, closing the long chapter of the expansion-substitution of the torn fabric of the suburbs.

In the gentle urban planning that followed, the idea was to rebuild, mend and equip, and to create 80 hectares divided between parks and public gardens throughout the city produced by diferent strategies: small parks on a neighbourhood scale, recovering the fragments of historic estates that survived, and large parks on an urban scale. Few such projects were in the city centre; most were in the peripheral areas. The aim was to make parks and gardens elements of social aggregation, using them to integrate new buildings, providing activities and services that were absent in these peripheral areas.

#### GENTLE URBAN RENEWAL

One of these projects was Troisi Park at Taverna di Ferro, which was conceived as part of the complex recovery of a series of courtyards, partly restored, partly reconstructed, which were more or less legible elements of the ancient villa named Casale di Villa near the San Giovanni a Teduccio district. This careful intervention was accompanied by a completely new block of public housing. The park was inserted into the new settlement. Before this, there were 12 hectares of greenhouses for the cultivation of fowers, partly recovered within a project that was very attentive to the quality of the selected essences, mixing autochthonous and exotic plants, within a regular pattern of paths centred on a lake and an artifcial mound. The neighbourhood was involved in the choices and identifcation of the activities to be hosted,2 with the intention of optimal management. This only occurred for the frst few years. Still, since then, the difcult maintenance of the lake has lead to a slow degradation, together with a reduction in the few and traditional common activities it housed (Figs. 1, 2).

The other huge intervention was the "central park" of the "167" of Secondigliano or the municipal public garden of Scampia, inaugurated in 1994. The project was developed by a team formed by G. Fioravanti, F. Borzetti, I. Calzavara, M. Del Signore, P. Laudati, and M. Tosi. The plan of the municipality should have reorganised the district, which had already become a national emergency, by providing green spaces and urban equipment that could have contributed to its rebirth (Fig. 5).

In harmony with European experiences, beginning with Oriol Bohigas's Barcelona, parks and public gardens were identifed as places of collective identity to be reconstructed as

#### FIGURE 3 (LEFT)

Zonal Plan "167" Secondigliano for social housing, 1965: the areas for housing (white) and for green and public facilities (black)

#### FIGURE 4 (RIGHT)

"167" plan with the Scampia Park planned within the central ring in 1981

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 5 The Scampia Park original project, 1981

spaces of integration and social interchange, capable of incorporating the complexity of urban fabrics that had to be "restored."

Despite the premises, the result was the division of the enormous plate of Scampia into an external area called a road-park, a screen close to the residential compartments, lined with poplars, Neapolitan alders, and *Sophora*. 3 In the "park exterior" there were tufa escarpments, like ancient bastions, enriched with vegetable elements of great value and strength, such as the *Teucrium fruticans* used for hedges, while the "inner park" was protected by a fence. The characterising element, in this case, was the presence of water, which fowed from an artifcial hill, placed at one end of the plate, and cascaded, feeding one of the two lakes connected by canals in the "real" park, designed as an island of peace inside the tumultuous reality outside. The aggregation of spaces was formed by a longitudinal square with a high fountain in the centre and, in a decentralised position, pergolas with *Wisteria* and *Jasminum* (Figs. 6, 7).

The "inner park," conceived as a protected and enclosed green area, refected a typically Italian design concept based on which the architectural intervention was still 'total fgural invention' and to which the "green" was the background and decoration, efectively replicating the image of Le Corbusier's *Ville Contemporaine* with its large roads. It opened

CC BY-SA 4.0

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 6 (LEFT) The Scampia Park under construction

FIGURE 7 (RIGHT) The Scampia Park and the pergolas to the work completion, 1994

in 1994,4 the same year in which the Vele had been declared uninhabitable. It immediately "took charge" of the enormous problems of the world that surrounded it, confrming the Freudian analysis: parks and nature reserves in the modern metropolis are assimilated to the psychic realm of fantasy where «everything can grow and proliferate as it wants, even the useless, even the harmful»5 and this was exactly what had quickly happened. Leberecht Migge in 1926 had gone further, theorising that the big city was a «mother of gardens» and that without them, it could not survive either physically or mentally,6 even if it entrusted them with all the tensions that tore the lives of its inhabitants apart. In 1995, the Scampia regeneration plan was approved foreseeing the gradual demolition of the Vele. Still, in 1997, demolitions and clearing-up works started, so that the municipal villa remained suspended without any further role or function, contested between the neighbourhood committees and the many who wanted to appropriate what had returned to be a void. The difcult management of the waterfall and ponds had, in this case, contributed signifcantly to the degradation and abandonment, transforming it into an urban jungle.

Starting in 2000, the coordination of the "Piazziamoci" associations was committed to the redevelopment of the existing squares against any idea of creating new ones. Slowly the line of surveillance of the spaces entrusted to their occupants by associations and committees had established itself. Since 2012, thanks to various forms of partnership between associations and the Municipality of Naples, the park became transformed into a catalyst for the reborn social life of the neighbourhood and a participatory management model (Figs. 9–11).

FIGURE 8 Cloister of Santa Chiara, the pergolas. Photo by Paolo Monti, 1965 (ed.)

#### FIGURE 9 (LEFT)

The Scampia Park, aerial view, 2019: the community centre and the new Faculty of Medicine under construction in place of the demolished Vela H at the rear, right

#### FIGURE 10 (RIGHT)

The Scampia Park, view of the "inner park" from the perimetral tufa escarpments, 2019

FIGURE 11 The Scampia Park and the Vele on the background, 2019

#### BARCELONA AND BERLIN: TWO MODELS

If Oriol Bohigas, superintendent of Urban Planning Services of Barcelona from 1980 to 1984, had used new methods and tools, his Parc de la Creuta del Coll (1985–87) was one of the frst environmental and social redevelopment interventions (Fig. 12). The Parc was a disused quarry in a district on the extreme periphery of the city. It drew inspiration from Berlin, which had assumed the role of the European model for urban policies since the mid-1970s, to promote a diferent relationship with the city, developing "careful planning methods."

The Kreuzberg district had been the symbol of this new approach, and the new Internationale Bauausstellung of 1984/87 was an opportunity to question the dogmas deriving from Modernism, promoting "critical reconstruction" and "gentle urban renewal"7 that denied the inheritance of a decision-making process imposed from above without consultation. It insisted on the importance of planning a single block and not a neighbourhood block, step by step, and no longer through large-scale operations. It took account of the needs emerging from processes of participation with the inhabitants to create a framework for a pleasant life.8 It was not a question of starting "embellishment" operations, as had happened with the Parc André Malraux in Nantere (1971–81), or of defning experimental urban landscapes as Bernard Tschumi had done in the Parisian Parc del la Villette (1982–97), the most famous and innovative, deconstructivist manifesto, to recover the great area of imperial abattoirs. Baron Haussmann had carried out a similar operation with the Buttes-Chaumont dump, changing it into a romantic park with a lake and clifs.

Thus, densely built neighbourhoods become privileged places for the opening of new gardens and public parks, which have become cultural condensers, renouncing the Modernist idea of a rational social and spatial organisation in favour of accepting the discontinuous and of multiplicity.

At the same time, the cancellation of any formal research on the natural components imposed by the Modern Movement was set aside, reducing the architectural design domain. The landscapes to be recovered, preferably from below, clearly could only be those of the

FIGURE 12

The Parc de la Creuta del Coll by Josep Martorell and Oriol Bohigas on place of an old cave at the outskirt of Barcelona. Photo by Lluis Casals, end 1980s

suburbs distorted by the profound economic transformations of those decades. The race for the tertiary sector and a service-based economy could not but start again by looking at the world where everything had originated, the Paris of the Second Empire, the frst to use squares, parks, and gardens as urban planning tools and economic fywheels, and to hypothesise that the landscape gardener was responsible for urban planning.9

#### NOTES



<sup>3</sup> Ibid., p. 48.

# DEMOLISHING "VELE" BUILDINGS BY FRANZ DI SALVO. THE REASONS FOR SAYING NO

*Ornella Zerlenga\**

In 1997, 2000 and 2003 three of the seven residential buildings located in the northern suburbs of Naples and considered a media symbol of hellish living conditions, the so-called "*Vele*" (Sails) of Scampia, came crashing to the ground after being dynamited. In 2020 a fourth Vela was demolished. These buildings identifed one of the most problematic suburbs of Naples, Scampia, and the centre of a highly degraded and dangerously deviant socio-environmental context. They immediately became one of the most coveted mafa "squares" for selling drugs.

The Vele were built in a large open area (about 1,450 km²) located north of Naples, bordered by the ancient farming villages of Secondigliano, Piscinola, Marianella and Miano. The area was called "Scampia," from the dialect phrase *campo abbandonato* (uncultivated feld). The local authorities deemed the area suitable to accommodate an urban expansion through a Plan for Afordable and Social Housing.

#### FRANZ DI SALVO AND THE ORIGINAL PROJECT

Between 1962 and 1975, the *Cassa per il Mezzogiorno* (National Fund for South Italy) commissioned the architect Franz di Salvo to design about 7,000 rooms for residential use to be built on two lots in Scampia. The resulting project fully complied with the 1950s design genre known as mega-structuralism. The theoretical, cultural and methodological foundations of the project all lay in the Modern Movement. At the CIAM congresses

FIGURE 1 The Vele in a picture of *Casa Vogue*, November 1983

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

#### FIGURE 2

The Vele: original project drawings and model by Franz di Salvo

of 1929 and 1930, the design criteria to build *homes for all* by ensuring quality through the so-called *minimum accommodation* were discussed. Gropius theorised the rationalist neighbourhood, and Le Corbusier developed the *Unitè d'habitation*.

The project by di Salvo combined both ideas. The fats were distributed over eight buildings (only seven buildings were actually built), with the distance between each allowing for sunlight on the frontages. Every dwelling unit was designed by «combining the buildings in pairs back to back»1 and arranging them longitudinally in a north-south direction to ensure the best east-west insolation. The morphology of the buildings was twofold: *torre* and *tenda* (tower and tent). This is due to the unusual longitudinal profle that the designer likened to «portions of branches of hyperbola with vertical and horizontal asymptotes»,<sup>2</sup> with the latter being compared in the contemporary historiography to the *ziggurat*, the monumental Babylonian tower-temple. With respect to the poetics of mega-structuralism and planning regulations, di Salvo distributed the accommodation «in such a way, for the beneft of future populations, that there are large distances between the buildings».<sup>3</sup> The distances between the «front units» ranged from «100 metres for small localised areas, 200 metres for larger corners, and for many foors of the *tenda* buildings increasing up to 400–500 m and more».4 This solution realised «a volume generally suitable to ofer, either from the ground or at the level of any accommodation, wide views and a particularly efective perspective»5 (Fig. 2).

The vertical connections were centralised with groups of stairs and elevators. A horizontal platform connection system started from the centre with access to individual residential

units, placed in the void between the two buildings side by side. This left the external fronts free. The ground foor was on *pilotis*; the basement intended for parking and storage for the residences. The fronts were almost 100 metres long and the height varied from 2–4 foors at the ends up to 14 foors in the central part.

The Vele project was based on a macro-structural cultural choice with autonomous dwelling units served by collective infrastructures and facilities. The use of a generative matrix simultaneously controls the shape, structure and function of the plan-volumetric confguration of the buildings. The orthogonal grid square, arranged according to the cardinal directions, identifes a geometric-compositional matrix that orders the entire project and allows it to «achieve meaningful results released by the traditional succession of episodic manufactured blocks, also achievable through the constant repetition of contact units to a common matrix that, used as a unit of composition on a large scale, in our view allow[s] for the coexistence of the concepts of number and variety».6

In project documents, there was always a square mesh grid, outlined in blue ink. The modular grid refers every point of the project to an orthogonal coordinate system. The use of the square module of 1.20 x 1.20 metres was chosen by the designer «in adherence to the guidelines that are being set out in several European countries [and was] adopted for the basic housing schemes, intended as the fundamental suggestion for the unifcation and dimensional coordination of both the architectural design [and] its subsequent construction».7 The multiple 3.60 x 3.60 metres allocated housing longitudinally and transversely, and the designer called the measurement of 3.60 a *campo* (feld, unit). Along the east-west direction, the doubling of the module (3.60 x 2 = 7.20 metres) set the depth of the houses and the building. The modular matrix organised the distribution pattern of the front units. The open-air interior space was for horizontal connections ("hanging streets" to be built with lightweight technologies) that gave access to the housing in line. This interior space was reduced from 10.80 to 8.40 metres during the construction phase and the lightweight technologies were replaced by heavy concrete prefabrications. This modifcation damaged the original design, because the internal space became narrow and dark. The graphical analysis examines the project drawings and the report drawn up by Franz di Salvo to reveal that the realisation of the project (of which the architect was not part) profoundly changed the size and distribution ratios, introducing heavy prefabricated "tunnels" that were unable to accommodate the design requirements of adaptability and fexibility (Figs. 2–4).

The height between one foor and another was 3.00 metres «as is now practiced in the rest of Europe».8 To design the apartments, di Salvo defned the *campo* as a «unit of measurement for the calculation of rooms, houses and volumes»9 and introduced the index "rooms/campo." The ordering criteria of the buildings was modulated with «a grid layout of 1.20 x 1.20 m; with apartments consisting of multiple grids 3.60 x 3.60 m; formed by the succession of upright prisms variously and repetitively superimposed; divided into facades according to the felds of 3.60 x 3.60 m, each of which corresponds to the average value of 1,703 rooms/campo».10

Franz di Salvo organised the entire project with simple ratios and the interaction of geometric shapes: the square (in plan) and the rectangle (in front). To avoid areas of shade and poor housing quality, he identifed the campo as excluded from the residential function, using them for secondary stairs as well as social and collective activities.

« [To determine] the beneft for future residents, large distances between the buildings [expected] as well as the environments of individual housing are contained within two adjacent areas, both running parallel to the fronts of the buildings, one of which was for the lounge and living areas and a second for the bathrooms. This would have made it possible to place pairs of buildings back to back, in correspondence of the bathrooms, substantially concentrating and reducing the apparent total volume and maximising the mutual distances.… The general distribution pattern provided a range of accommodation in line with access to hanging roads, contained within buildings with north/south longitudinal axes so that every apartment was, [for] all the living areas, full of sunlight for half of the day.»11

The hanging streets were placed at an intermediate height with respect to the height of the housing. On the internal fronts, the high windows provided privacy, while on the external fronts, there were windows and French windows with access to the balconies with guardrails. The internal distribution of the houses was possible using a free scale model and it provided an innovative solution with the kitchen open towards the living area.

Di Salvo's project was never carried out as described. During its realisation, many modifcations were introduced that altered the quality and functionality of the original design. The changes were: (1) the areas intended to accommodate social services (recreational spaces

#### FIGURE 4

(A) Comparison between original and realised project; (B, D) internal and external fronts, "hanging streets" designed with lightweight technologies, dwelling foor typologies; (C) 1:1 model of the living room-kitchen

for children and the elderly) and the free spaces left inside the buildings were destined for housing, increasing the index of full spaces to empty spaces (23 % more houses compared to the original project, at the expense of common spaces and services); (2) the width of the cross-section of the hanging roads was reduced, making them narrow and dark; (3) the kitchens were placed internally, becoming dark and dingy; (4) heavy "tunnel" prefabrication reduced the size of the hanging roads, making the visual image even heavier; (5) the urban infrastructure and equipment plan sufered a substantial delay that compromised the quality of social life: schools, food stores, bars and pharmacies were not built, as also the infrastructure network of smaller roads aside the main motorway network to service residential buildings.

From a social and administrative point of view: (1) most of the houses were illegally occupied by families afected by the 1980 earthquake; (2) the Vele were inhabited by only one social class, the poorest one, and not by more social classes to favour integration; (3) the municipal administration did not take care of the ordinary maintenance of the buildings and the neighbourhood; (4) the poverty of families, the absence of work, school absenteeism, the absence of the police and, sometimes, its corruption provided a fertile ground for the Camorra (criminal organisation of mafa connotation originating in Campania), which introduced the local population to delinquency and drugs. The neighbourhood became insecure and dangerous and therefore isolated from the city core and left to itself. The Vele, as well as other condominiums in Scampia, became the headquarters of the Camorra, which inhabited the higher foors to control the neighbourhood and to monitor the arrival of the police better. The *camorristi* also deactivated the lifts, which had been realized in the

FIGURE 5 Demolition of Vela A, February 2020

> buildings, to obstruct the police by preventing them from quickly searching the apartments where weapons, cigarettes, drugs and fghting dogs were kept for illegal activities.

The "faida di Scampia" (Scampia's revenge) in 2003–05, during which Scampia became the scene of constant deadly Camorra ambushes, and the publication in 2006 of the book *Gomorra* by Roberto Saviano12 brought this neighbourhood and the Vele into the national limelight. Between murders and illegality (often with the support of some politicians), public opinion "discovered" the Vele, a residential complex that was now degraded, abandoned, and maintenance free: little more than a slum.

#### DEMOLISHING THE "VELE." THE REASONS FOR A CLEAR "NO"

For all these reasons, this avant-garde urban and residential project, which was a rationalist ensign whose design method would guarantee quality accommodation "for all," has become a hellish ghetto and a stronghold of the Camorra. The Vele have been held up as a national scandal and transformed into negative media icons: abnormal and alienating containers; urban cells out of context and placed in an insulating road system, aimed only at travelling distances fast; a single-use district, dormitory for the marginalised, those unft to play a functional role in the growth of the city. The Vele have become the sacrifcial lamb that has hidden the signifcant changes made to the original project by architect di Salvo and the lack of political and administrative responsibility. The local neighbourhood committees attracted public attention, dividing residents into two: should the Vele be torn down or not? Is it the type of construction or ungovernability that has transformed Scampia (and the Vele) from an opportunity for social redemption into a hell for the marginalised?

In 1995, the city of Naples drew up a frst Programme of Urban Renewal for Scampia (*Piano di Riqualifcazione "Vele-Scampia"*), promoting the demolition of the Vele. To date, four of the seven buildings have been torn down. The abatement plan of the fourth Vela started on February 20, 2020; however, the cultural debate remains open: conclude the demolition or recover the remaining blocks?

In 2000, the Neapolitan architect Cherubino Gambardella envisioned a restoration project of Vele safeguarding «the mighty outline» with the addition of stairs and lifts, hanging roads to drive cars to the higher foors, spaces for commerce, schools, gardens and green spaces. With *Supernapoli*, he imagined «an imperfect but possible redemption [that] transforms the symbol of a failed dream in its most intense iconic opportunity in the present city».13 With a visionary project, he raised the Vele with architectural "hats," intended for public and private activities, and returning the *Vele* to the region of Campania as «the frst inhabited sculpture of *Supernapoli*, an absolute plastic form which is open to any transformations and changes, adductions and extraordinary panoramic views»14 (Fig. 6).

But, is the Vele project a typological or managerial error? If it had been built elsewhere and if it had been managed diferently, would have it have been more successful? In 1960 in Villeneuve Loubet, a small town on the French Riviera, the promoter Jean Marchand and the architect André Minangoy presented a project to transform an abandoned coastal space into a luxury residential complex. *Baie des Anges* is now a coastal settlement of sixteen hectares with a marina and four ziggurat towers with twenty-three foors and with about 1,500 apartments overlooking the sea. They seem to be Vele of the French Riviera and they have become *Patrimoine du XXe siècle*, labelled by the Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication.

In the 1960s, architect Jean Balladur (1924–2002) built the seaside resort of *La Grande Motte* on a sandy desert. After a trip to Mexico, Balladur designed an urban settlement with buildings in the shape of truncated and stepped pyramids like the Mayan pyramids of Teotihuacan. Today La Grande Motte represents "une vision globale de l'architecture," and

FIGURE 6 The Vele in the *Supernapoli* project by Cherubino Gambardella, 2000

FIGURE 7 *The Cardillo of Scampia* by Simon Jung and Paul and Hanno Schweizer, 2009

it is a residential settlement of about 9,000 inhabitants and one of the most popular seaside resorts in the Camargue, which attracts about two million vacationers each year. In 2010 it was also awarded the label *Patrimoine du XXe siècle* by the Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication.

In his best seller *Gomorrah*, the writer and journalist Roberto Saviano stated that «chronic unemployment and a total absence of social growth projects have meant that [Scampia] has become a place capable of storing quintals of drugs, and a laboratory for the transformation of the money invoiced with the canteen into a living and legal economy».15 Yet, despite this statement, it was *Gomorrah* itself that spread the negative image of Scampia and the Vele, so much that this image was reinforced in the homonymous flm by Matteo Garrone (2008), in the three television series of the same name from 2014 to 2017 and in the flm *Ammore e Malavita* by Marco and Antonio Manetti (2017). In this flm, an international group around the tourist icon of the Vele is taken from their scooters by kidnappers. After the scare, the tourists say that it is «very cool to be mugged in Scampia», and, with this "ultimate touristic experience," they dance to the rhythm of *Scampia Disco Dance* while the underworld tourist guide says: «Today in Naples we sell only Scampia!»16 In this sense, this flm highlights the fame of the Vele all over the world, so much so that the fear of robbery has become a tourist experience.

However, there have been many changes since 1980 that have constructed a more positive image of Scampia and the Vele in the artistic, social and associational felds. For example, the culture of mural and carnival by Felice Pignataro (both present in Scampia) and the artistic-cultural association GRIDAS, founded in 1981, have brought the local population into a growth of social awareness.17 From these actions, *Scampia Felix*, a documentary by Francesco Di Martino (2017) on the history of the place, the rural roots, the neighbourhood carnival as a party and a protest against the social marginalisation of the periphery, was born.18 In 2009, artists Simon Jung and Paul & Hanno Schweizer received permission from the inhabitants of Scampia to paint a goldfnch on the Vele. *The Cardillo of Scampia*

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 8 *Matrici* by Marco Petrus, 2017

#### FIGURE 9

View of the Vele from Scampia's Park and a performance by Davide Cerullo against the demolishing of the Vele, 2017

is a large mural visible from the large square of Scampia and Mammut, a very important cultural centre for children and adolescents in Scampia. The goldfnch, therefore, looks towards this social centre as a sign of hope (Fig. 7).19 In 2016, David Diavù Vecchiato and Gianluca Raro produced a mural inside the basement of a Vela titled *Totòbolik* to bring the idea of positivity to a degraded neighbourhood thanks to the image of the Neapolitan comic actor Totò.20 In 2017, Ernest Pignon-Ernest (an authoritative fgure in urban art) projected a flm for the fortieth anniversary of Pier Paolo Pasolini's murder inside the Vele. The event was titled *Se torno*. *Ernest Pignon-Ernest and the fgure of Pasolini* and it was accompanied by the installation of a famous stencil in which Pasolini carries his own corpse in his arms: this image of Pasolini represents the sacrifce of an abandoned population.21 In the *I\_RIDE* exhibition by Daniele Galdiero (2017), the *Vele* are refected in the eye of the beholder and they represent an opportunity for social awareness.22 In 2018, in the *Divina Section* exhibition at Reggia di Caserta, the architect Massimiliano Rendina imagined *The Purgatory of Scampia* as a reality that can still be saved.23 In 2018, in a Facebook post, street artist Gianluca Raro imagined the clash between Perseus and Medusa according to the characters of *Gomorrah*, Genny Savastano and Scianel: in this way, he ironized the negative culture of the *Gomorrah* TV series.24 In the books of the Jesuit Walter Bottaccio, the grafti on the covers is a drawing made by a boy from Scampia, who remembers his friend who died in 2005 from an overdose and who he calls "honest." Bottaccio says: «Scampia is a symbol: if something improves here, other similar neighbourhoods may have hope for change».25 In the book *A Jesuit in Scampia* (2017), Fabrizio Valletti, founder of the Hurtado Centre in Scampia, describes the silences and faults of too many political classes on a «badly created and poorly managed» urban territory.26 In 2017, Marco Petrus presented the *Matrici* exhibition in Naples. The Milanese painter, intentionally, had never been to Scampia. Petrus returned what the collective imagination has never seen: the beauty of the Vele (Fig. 8).27 Davide Cerullo, a former drug dealer and now a writer, is among the opponents of demolition. Cerullo coordinates the L'albero delle Storie Centre in Scampia, an association of social and cultural promotion for children, and he is organising an awareness campaign through newspaper articles, television presentations, photographs and drawings (Fig. 9).28

To end this quick overview, on September 28, 2019, the Touring Club of Italy (the famous national non-proft association, which has been involved in tourism, culture and the environment for over a hundred years) organised a guided tour of Naples entitled *L'altra faccia di Scampia*. The choice was thus motivated: «Everyone seems to know Scampia's life, death and miracles, the object of attention and media narrative built on the problems of this place and not on its resources. Scampia is a neighbourhood of about 40 thousand inhabitants where 50 % of people are under 25, the unemployment rate is around 60 % and scholastic dispersion is very widespread».29

This artistic, social and cultural activity that took place in Scampia in these years is leading to a re-evaluation of the identity of the Vele. The main merit of these interventions is that they built a critical position on the possibility of rebirth and redevelopment of the neigh-

FIGURE 10

Children's drawings against the demolition of the Vele

bourhood and they softened local and national opinion on the value of Franz di Salvo's project and on the construction events that transformed the quality of the project. In this sense, a new civil conscience is growing, which also expresses itself against the demolition of Vele. Many inhabitants of Scampia believe that the Vele have become the symbol of the identity of this neighbourhood, and that the restart can be built around them, so much so that they associate the Vele with colours (green, light blue, yellow, red) instead of with their original letters (A, B, C, D).

Many architects are also against the destruction of the complex, and more than 130 of them signed a document saying this in March 2018: Gaetano Troncone (municipal councillor), Massimo Pica Ciamarra, Aldo Capasso, Vito Cappiello, Luigi de Falco (Italia Nostra association and former councillor for urban planning in the Municipality of Naples), and the Vulcanica study association (Marina Borrelli, Eduardo Borrelli, Aldo di Chio), while the petition addressed in 2017 to the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and the Municipality of Naples and launched on Change.org by Luigi de Falco, *Salviamo le Vele di Scampia dalla demolizione*, gathered many supporters.

The signatures collected are against the *Restart Scampia* project, presented by the Municipality of Naples in June 2019. This project foresees the demolition of the last Vele and the redevelopment of only one (intended for accommodation), reallocating the spaces resulting from the demolitions to new social housing and public facilities. The intervention will cost about 27 million euros.

#### CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the reasons for opposing the demolition and the *Restart Scampia* project are many. First, the Vele were the result of a failure of politics and not a failure of architecture, instead representing a great lesson for modern Neapolitan architecture. In Scampia, there are other degraded residential areas (for example, the Corto Maltese Park) but they are not scheduled for demolition. Despite this, the Vele have become a symbol of degradation due to the physical and social abandonment of buildings and inhabitants. They were well de-

FIGURE 11 The Vele: original sketch by Franz di Salvo signed but poorly built in a neighbourhood that was born as a solution to a housing emergency and, devoid of legality, schools and areas for socialising, that was mainly inhabited by a destitute and jobless population. Therefore, it did not represent an immediate investment opportunity for the future.

On February 20, 2020, Roberto Saviano gave an interview to ANSA, stating that «today politics competes with those who put their faces on demolition, those who head it. Wouldn't it be better to register the reconstruction and the true redemption of the suburbs of Naples and the South, the eternal periphery of Italy?»30 Finally, leaving a single Veladoes not make sense, because it cancels the urban dimension of the original volumetric system designed by Franz Di Salvo.

Even the children of Scampia are against erasing the Vele. A provocative drawing, made by a child of Davide Cerullo's L'albero delle Storie Centre, represents the Vela being broken down: regenerated and abandoned. The message is clear: erecting buildings without maintaining them means abandoning them to their destiny. At the Hurtado Centre,31 another child made a drawing of the Vele entitled "Thought of the week," below which we read: «Scampia is not just Gomorrah: [the] Vele say it. Scampia is beautiful. Don't condition us. Scampia is also happiness and love, and if you believe that by breaking down the Vele [you will save and improve] Scampia, you are wrong because you [will] cancel the story of Scampia»32 (Fig. 10).

In my opinion, the story of the Vele of Scampia (albeit linked to an era celebrating the poetry of great dimensions) leaves open the judgment on the typical model of the neighbourhood and architecture. Behind the Vele, there is Vesuvius, from where the sun rises. With a perspective drawing, in which the Vele are covered by the orange-yellow-gold light of the rising sun, Franz di Salvo gave the city a new dream that, like a sunrise, lasts a mere moment. But, like me, many think that this dream can come true.

NOTES

1  Di Salvo's Archive, *Franz di Salvo, Relazione illustrativa* (Project illustrative report), May 28, 1968.


12  Roberto Saviano, *Gomorra. Viaggio nell'impero economico e nel sogno di dominio della camorra* (Milan: Mondadori, 2006).

13  Cherubino Gambardella, *Supernapoli. Architettura per un'altra città* (Syracuse: LetteraVentidue, 2015), p.

47.

14  Ibid.

15  Saviano, *Gomorra*, p. 75.

16  Marco and Antonio Manetti, dirs. *Ammore and Malavita* (Roma: Rai Cinema, 2017); *Scampia Disco Dance*, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXV1fEAvLHQ.

17  *Il GRIDAS – Felice Pignataro*, http://www.felicepignataro.org/home.php. See also in the book *"The New Man." Interview with Mirella La Magna* by Luciano Lauda, pp. 166–171.

18  Ibid.

19  *Cardillo of Scampia*, https://streetartandgrafti.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-cardillo-of-scampia.html.

20  *Totò Diabolik nelle Vele. Intervista con l'artista Gianluca Raro*, https://www.identitainsorgenti.

com/a-scampia-toto-diabolik-nelle-vele-intervista-con-lartista-gianluca-raro/.

21  *«Se torno», Pier Paolo Pasolini sulla strada con Pignon Ernest*,

https://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corriere.it/napoli/arte\_e\_cultura/17\_aprile\_11/se-torno-pignon-ernest-viaggio-pierpaolo-pasolini-35ec5ece-1ec7-11e7-8744-a20bd6e13595.shtml.

22  *I\_RIDE* exhibition, http://www.danielegaldiero.it/web/i\_ride-2/#; *"I Ride." A Napoli una mostra dell'artista Daniele Galdiero*, http://press.russianews.it/press/i-ride-a-napoli-una-mostra-dellartista-daniele-galdiero/. 23  *Divina Sezione: Mostra di architettura*, https://reggiadicaserta.cultura.gov.it/iniziative/mostra-divina-sezione-larchitettura-italiana-per-la-divina-commedia-reggia-di-caserta/.

24  *Gianluca Raro, Clash Between Perseus and Medusa*, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=157202 3282866950&set=pb.100001778798222.-2207520000..&type=3&theater &type=3&theatre.

25  Walter Bottaccio, *Giubileo delle periferie. Partendo da Scampia* (Naples: Marotta & Cafero Editori, 2016); Walter Bottaccio, *È partito. Per una nuova Scampia* (Naples: Marotta & Cafero Editori, 2017).

26  Fabrizio Valletti, *Un gesuita a Scampia. Come può rinascere una periferia degradata* (Bologna: EDB, 2017).

27  *Matrici, 2017 – Marco Petrus*, http://www.marcopetrus.com/portfolio\_page/matrici-2017/.

28  See https://www.facebook.com/alberodellestorieassociazione/. See also in this book "'Fragile Born.' Inter view with Davide Cerullo," pp. 182–185.

29  *L'altra faccia di Scampia,* https://www.touringclub.it/evento/napoli-laltra-faccia-di-scampia.

30  *Abbattimento Vele di Scampia, parla Saviano: "Le Vele non hanno colpa. Simbolo loro malgrado del degra-*

*do*,*"* http://www.napolitoday.it/cronaca/vele-scampia-roberto-saviano.html.

31  The Alberto Hurtado Cultural and Professional Training Centre has a strong link with the Scampia area in which it operates. The centre is managed by the Jesuit Fathers, present in the neighbourhood since the 1990s. The Centre is dedicated to pastoral activity with a strong social sensitivity to ofer citizenship, cultural and work opportunities and to raise awareness of the territory of sociocultural change.

32  Original text: «Scampia non è solo Gomorra, lo dicono le Vele. Scampia è bella. Non condizionateci. Scampia è anche felicità e amore e se credete che, abbattendo le Vele, salvate e migliorate Scampia, vi sbagliate perch é levate la storia di Scampia».

# THE POST-EARTHQUAKE RECONSTRUCTION. THE RECOVERY OF THE *CASALI* IN THE NORTHERN SUBURBS OF NAPLES *Chiara Ingrosso\**

#### INTRODUCTION

During the early 1980s, the refection on the "consolidated city" assumed a central role in the theoretical refections and in European planning contexts and beyond. Indeed, "making the city" became a theme that numerous urban plans and projects, from Barcelona to Berlin, confronted to give identity to vague fabrics, from the centre to the periphery. In Italy, the debate on historic centres dates back to the 1950s, when the opposing positions of Cesare Brandi, Roberto Pane and Ernesto Nathan Rogers confronted each other. Each proposed a diferent approach for the insertion of new buildings into the historical centres, from the more conservative and normative approach of Brandi to the "case by case" approach of Rogers. Saverio Muratori and the Roman school, along with Gianfranco Caniggia, expert in historical-typological *morphogenesis*, also made a great contribution to the typological study.1

The Charter of Gubbio (1960), the studies (1963) and the plan (1973) for the historic centre of Bologna by Leonardo Benevolo and Pier Luigi Cervellati, and the promulgation of the national law of the Piani di Recupero (1978) constituted other essential steps in the refection and the intervention on the processed fabrics.

In Naples, in the 1980s, to satisfy social demands, the most modern theories on recovery were applied in the suburbs, on the historical *casali*, courtyard-based and productive building units that are widely spread over the agrarian inland of the city. With the earthquake and the funds and special procedures that followed, it was possible to proceed rapidly, engaging the scientifc support of experts, who in some cases had already dealt with similar projects in other contexts, including Caniggia and Benevolo.2 The theoretical debate that marked the operation was, therefore, based on the "tradition of the new," in the name of the revaluation of the historic centres of the *casali*, that is, of the peripheral centres, too long neglected due to an urban-centric interpretation, which was historically outdated and was the harbinger of serious damage to the territory that surrounds the city of Naples.

#### EARTHQUAKE

The end of the 1970s and the beginning of 1980s was an extraordinary moment in the history of architecture and of the city. The cultural, professional, political and social ferment (also linked to the struggles of the Committees for Housing and rent controls) that was

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design generated in Naples found, after the earthquake of 1980, and with the commissioner of the city and the special funds for the reconstruction, a huge opportunity to make transformations all over the city, involving professional resources with very high profles. As Michele Capobianco said: «The Commissariat has implemented the most incisive programme in Naples since the demolitions of Depretis after the cholera of 1884. The periphery has been redesigned and transformed with the tools of architecture, in the name of an urban re-signifcation in the interventions of reconstruction: a sort [of] city-laboratory, evident for all to see». 3

The urban instrument behind these transformations was the *Programma Straordinario di Edilizia Residenziale* (Extraordinary Programme for Residential Building), the PSER, launched with National Law No. 219 of 1981. The PSER re-proposed the *Piano delle Periferie* (Plan of the Outskirts), a plan approved unanimously by the city council in April 1980, seven months before the earthquake. The work carried out between 1978 and 1980 headed by Mayor Maurizio Valenzi and based on a wide social consensus. The Piano delle Periferie applied both National Law No. 167/1962 for the *Piani di Zona* (Zonal Plans) and National Law No. 457/78 for the *Piani di Recupero* (Recovery Plans). This foresaw an important urban recovery plan for the historical centres of twelve Neapolitan *casali*, which occupied the outskirts of the city, and annexed them to the city, among which were Soccavo, Pianura, Chiaiano, Piscinola, Marianella, Miano, Secondigliano, San Pietro a Patiero, Sant'Antimo, Ponticelli, Barra, and San Giovanni a Teduccio. 4

The Irpinia earthquake of November 23, 1980 caused enormous damage to the urban fabric of the city of Naples: more than 10,000 buildings were damaged, of which 6,000 were unft for use, and 112,000 people were moved from their dwellings. 5 The seismic event, as Vezio De Lucia said, acted as a potent accelerator of the longstanding process of degradation, worsening the already precarious living situation.6

After this further emergency, the administration added some areas for new building near the recovered urban fabric, already planned by the Piano delle Periferie, to complete the ancient *casali*. The recovery criteria were maintained in many cases also for the areas of new building, which were designed, also typologically, from the pre-existing architecture and above all giving value to the historic fabric. On the relationship between the Piano delle Periferie and PSER, Antonio Cederna wrote: «If the earthquake accelerated the decadence of the abandoned city, the extraordinary plan of reconstruction did not follow the logic of the emergency and accelerated an ordinary intervention. The earthquake emergency was not used to disrupt the general plan, but to create a programme that was already established and available. In Naples, therefore, the largest programme of urban requalifcation ever carried out in Italy is developing and the modalities are interesting». 7

The PSER was an extraordinary instrument in the sense that it could take advantage of an urgent procedure and of extraordinary funds. Maurizio Valenzi was appointed extraordinary commissioner of the government to carry out the programme. Overall, the plan was based on the Piano delle Periferie, addressing the longstanding lack of houses, acting for at least 2/3 in the outskirts and foreseeing 20,000 new dwellings all over the city, with punctual rebalancing interventions in the urban centre as well.8 Further to the new building to rebalance the high living density and to create an efective requalifcation, new infrastructure was planned for the historical "167" of Scampia and Ponticelli, the building of 4,000 new dwellings was foreseen with infrastructure and services, following a thorough analysis of the standards.9

The programme was carried out in two phases: the frst phase was new building, which started soon after the earthquake, and the second was when the recovery started after 1983. During the last phase, the technical ofce of the municipality was supported by an *equipe* of experts and scholars of cultural and scientifc value, among whom were Leonardo Benevolo, Gianfranco Caniggia, Cesare De Seta, Rafaele Giura Longo, and Italo Insolera. The recovery was the most innovative part of the PSER. A fundamental point of departure was the historical-typological analysis of Gianfranco Caniggia, who, continuing the tradition of the Roman School from Gustavo Giovannoni to Saverio Muratori, gave a theoretical basis to intervene on consolidated fabric. On the basis of the idea that the typology was considered the fruit of a process that was always *in feri*, the study of the *morphogenesis* guaranteed a method capable of directing the project. The "courtyard house" was recognised as the recurrent typology of the Neapolitan *casali* to be valued, and from which the whole fabric had to be redesigned.

The procedure of the whole project was very efcient. The intervention area was divided into fourteen compartments, and each one was given to a building consortium, which dealt from the expropriation to the delivery, while the state guaranteed the whole process through the in-house Technical Ofce. The latter, headed by Vezio De Lucia, put into practice a series of rules, capable of giving coherence and fexibility to each single project. There were three phases of intervention: conservation, that is complete recovery, restoration; substitution, that is the demolishing and redesign with the recovery of the existing morphology; and completion, that is new dwellings in the free areas, in general that have the tradition typology of the courtyard. On the categories of intervention, De Lucia commented: «The criteria and constraints defned for the interventions of substitution and completion recognise a primary value to the pre-existing urban typologies. The respect of the lots that make up the urban fabric, of the division inside the courtyard, of their typologies, of their distribution and size is requested. This imposition makes the choice between conservation and substitution substantial indiferent: the latter modality prevails when reasons of cost or non-remediable conditions of static of the buildings make the conservation impracticable».10

The historical-scientifc analysis that was the basis of the formulation of the Piano delle Periferie aimed at overcoming the theories of the previous planning, on which Piani di Zona of Secondigliano (with Scampia) and Ponticelli were built, but also the *Piano Regolatore Generale* (City Masterplan) of 1972. The defects identifed in these urban planning

urheberrechtlich geschützt

FIGURE 1 A courtyard in a Miano's *casale* before the recovery

intervention

instruments led to the periphery becoming a sort of neutral ground, without particular value, on which to try a series of functions from time to time, from the residential and infrastructural to the productive, regardless of the situations of these territories. This trend had led to completely neglecting the potential of the historic centres of the Neapolitan *casali*, often generally considered as needing restoration. The projects implemented in the Neapolitan suburbs tried to reverse this custom, evaluating the reconstruction hypothesis and the validity of the recovery tools case by case, always working between the categories of substitution and completion.11

The post-earthquake programme associated the "new" with the "pre-existing" by means of a range of clear rules for recovery, triggering redevelopment processes that, by not breaking everything down indiscriminately, were even more advantageous economically. As noted by Cesare De Seta, the aim was to «restore autonomy to the old settlement *nuclei* of the *casali*, now incorporated in the disorderly and disqualifed construction of the suburbs, without having completely lost the ancient role of "epicentres" of the overall ancient suburban settlement. To this end it is necessary to break their independence from the centre of the city even for the most elementary services and to seize the specifc opportunities for social development that each nucleus can express once it is armed with the necessary equipment, reorganised with regard to the infrastructures, redeveloped in the building heritage»12 (Fig. 1).

#### THE RECOVERY OF THE *CASALI* IN THE NORTHERN SUBURBS AND MICHELE CAPOBIANCO'S PROJECTS

Four compartments included in the PSER occupy the northern suburbs and they correspond to the *casali* of Piscinola-Marianella, Miano-Mianella, Secondigliano, and San Pietro a Patierno.

The compartment of Piscinola-Marianella (M. Pica Ciamarra, coordination, L. De Rosa, R. Ruggiero, G. Falomo, 1983–88) includes the two *casali* of Piscinola and Marianella. The new pedestrian axis in Marianella was designed by Massimo Pica Ciamarra. It constitutes a backbone that unites the existing building with the expansion areas, along which a series of small squares and meeting places are located, as well as shops and commercial activities.

In Piscinola, the project of Franco Purini and Laura Thermes was created for a new residential complex that around a series of squares and triangular courts and is based on a completely new interpretation of the traditional typology. The presence of an enclosing wall in tufa that follows the original perimeter limit of the lot, the pointed crowning of the stairwells in the centre of the courtyards surmounted by a transparent pyramid, and the clear geometry of the plan, give the complex a fairy-tale appearance.13

In the sector of San Pietro a Patierno, Francesco Venezia created a new square as part of the overall completion and recovery of the *casale* along its northern edges, by creating a new east-west route and a system of new buildings with a courtyard. The connection between empty and built, between old and new buildings was solved through a clever game of connecting positions. As the author himself says, «the theme of urban regeneration is devel-

#### FIGURE 2

The master plan for Miano-Marianella with the four project areas

oped through a unique architectural artefact, in which the parts are conceived according to their urban role and in which the functional programme has been adapted to the internal articulation, in the hierarchy of bodies that compose it».14

In the Secondigliano sector, the recovery involved the so-called "Censi" (L. Pisciotti, coordination, A. Lavaggi, G. Buontempo, P. Catanzaro, C. Cotrone, L. Milan, 1982–91). At the margins of the oldest part of the *casale*, the Censi needed to be preserved and safeguarded above all for their urban layout and not for the value of the extremely degraded buildings. The designers, referring to the morph-typological readings of Caniggia, decided to leave the road layout intact and to replace the artefacts with new courtyard buildings, leaving only some fragments of the pre-existing buildings. The buildings surrounding the courtyards are of diferent heights and have diferent volumes. The project thus alludes to a diachronic morphogenesis for which several condominium buildings have over time aggregated to form enclosed courtyards with a public-private character.15

To focus now on the case of Miano, this is the frst *casale* on the north of the city, which occupies the valley near the Parco di Capodimonte. The construction of the Royal Palace between 1738 and 1834 changed the role of the old settlement; from that moment, a direct connection with the axis from Capodimonte led straight to the city centre. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the *casale* was connected to Naples by the bridge of Bellaria and, in 1848, it was also annexed administratively to the city.16

FIGURE 3 (LEFT) Sub-Area 1, Miano, Vichi Parise, aerial view

FIGURE 4 (RIGHT) Sub-Area 1, Miano, Vichi Parise, view under the portico of the central block

Due to its very close location to the city, from the early 1940s many public building interventions were built, like the Rione di Case Minime San Tommaso D'Aquino (1941–42), followed in the post-war period by Case per i Senzatetto (1952–53), then the INA-Casa settlement Ponti Rossi in Miano designed by Stefania Filo Speziale (1962–63) and the INA-Casa Rione in Marianella designed by Gerardo Mazziotti (1962–69).17 The public housing development went hand in hand with the establishment in the mid-ffties of the Peroni beer factory, in an area between Miano and Mianella, on the basis of a long-awaited industrial development advocated during the frst reconstruction by the City Masterplan drawn up by Luigi Cosenza in 1946.

Outside these "modern" episodes, the fabric of the old *casale* was mostly made up of buildings with courtyards, whose layout, however, was generally not homogeneous and in any case was in a state of severe degradation. Gianfranco Caniggia himself hypothesised that the frst settlement of Miano was Roman and it was formed by ten courtyards placed at the sides of a stretch of straight road in a north-south direction.18

FIGURE 5 Sub-Area 1, Miano, Vichi Parise, study drawing of the sport centre by Michele Capobianco

#### FIGURE 6 (LEFT)

Sub-Area 2, Miano, Vichi Ponte, before the intervention

#### FIGURE 7 (RIGHT)

Sub-Area 2, Miano, Vichi Ponte, plan of the settlement

The plan for Miano-Mianella, one of the most successful and convincing of the post-earthquake programmes, including four areas around the former Peroni beer plant, was coordinated by Corrado Varano and was designed by a team that included Michele Capobianco and Costantino Dardi. The direction of Capobianco guarantees an intervention "by points," without thoughtful road infrastructures (Fig. 2).

The master plan and the projects in the Vichi Ponte area (Sub-Area 2, 1983–85), the Vichi Parise area (Sub-Area 1, 1983–85) and the area of Mianella called "La Quadra" (Sub-Area 3, 1983–85) were designed by Capobianco. However, the "8 courtyard" housing complex in Mianella, adjacent to "La Quadra" (Lot L, Sub-Area 3, 1983–86), was designed by Costantino Dardi (with Carlo Carreras). All the projects were based on reconstructing the courtyard module. The latter project by Dardi is a new neighbourhood that completely replaced the existing one, in which the courtyard was repeated and translated to follow plot boundaries. Overall, the presence of balconies and vertical connection systems that cross the various buildings, even at high level, represented a more complex development of the traditional typology.19

The settlements by Capobianco reinterpreted the theme of the courtyard in yet another way, completely new and modern, succeeding in integrating masterfully with the historical buildings and in recalling the same Mediterranean origins of the courtyard typology. The undisputed master of post-war Neapolitan architecture, Capobianco, fully expressed the cultured and international soul of research into architectural modernity, not lacking in local peculiarities; his architecture, still to be enhanced within a wide-ranging discussion, refects indeed an open modernity, full of organic and anti-urban suggestions. Vichi Parise and Vichi Ponte are in the centre of Miano, incorporated into the dense urban plot, made

FIGURE 8 (LEFT) Sub-Area 2, Miano, Vichi Ponte, aerial view

FIGURE 9 (RIGHT) Sub-Area 2, Miano, Vichi Ponte, aerial view

urheberrechtlich geschützt

up of buildings with large courtyards overlooking narrow streets. Vichi Parise is a renovation of the existing building, completed with new larger courtyard houses (Figs. 3–5). The settlement design started from a transversal ordering path that ended with a sport centre. In contrast with the existing fabric, a block of more than one hundred metres siting on *pilotis* was designed. The recovery interventions were integrated with the new project in a very balanced way. Overall, the language is highly modern, with white residential blocks, glass block walls and porticos of *pilotis*, but the scale of the urban composition, the interconnection of the public spaces and their relationship with the houses (also through the presence of external stairs) reminds one strongly of the local tradition.

Vichi Ponte was obtained by replacing the existing buildings with a completely new neighbourhood. It is composed of a series of houses that develop around a system of courtyards and a building for social services consisting of two blocks of fve and ten foors (Figs. 6–10). The houses have a maximum of three foors and are plastered with diferent colours, mostly with bright colours, reminiscent of the Mediterranean constructions. The typologies are varied, ranging from houses with communal balconies and condominiums to terraced houses, as well as a range of courtyards, which in many cases act as real little squares. It has been noted, «the court is assumed as a basic matrix of a fabric that is profoundly reinterpreted in the paths as in the relations between public and private».20

No longer as a semi-public space enclosed between the buildings, as in Vichi Parise or in Vichi Ponte, the "La Quadra" residential block in corso Mianella reinterprets the courtyards as a central element around which the ancient farms developed. Here there are two types: terraced on three sides and condominium on the fourth. The courtyard is divided into quadrants, in which are the garden, the area for children, and a lowered square on which a supermarket and bar overlooks are designed. Stairs rotating at 45° mark the three corners, while the fourth lacks a housing module, instead having a full-height portal with an open

FIGURE 10 Sub-Area 2, Miano, Vichi Ponte, details of a new courtyard

staircase, which is a flter between the community space of the courtyards and the public spaces. The use of colour emphasises the diferent volumes (Figs. 11, 12).

The projects of Michele Capobianco in Miano ft admirably into the fabric of the *casali*, giving recognition and relevance to individual pieces of the urban layout. The typology of the courtyards is reinterpreted to design new neighbourhoods. According to Emanuele Carreri, «all the eforts of Capobianco seem directed to the formulation of a syncretic building type, obtained through a reciprocal recasting of house with courtyard and condominium, of individual and collective project, of Modernity and Conservation.… The architecture of Capobianco in Miano and Mianella is built from a sincere and profound meditation on the theme of the "modern courtyard house," conducted without saving design energy. Capobianco has renounced elaborating a courtyard-module, to reinterpret or deform just enough to adapt it to any situation. The result is an authentic epiphany of courtyards, all beautiful, all diferent, all new ... even older».<sup>21</sup>

In the Neapolitan suburbs the research on the "neighbourhood unit" that Capobianco had the opportunity to deepen in Sweden, through the examples of the Ärsta (1943–44), Vällingby (1950–55) and Farsta (1952–56) settlements in Stockholm, is also applied. Here, Capobianco worked to realise what Lewis Mumford said about neighbourhood units to create communities: the presence of communitarian or commercial services, like facilities for sport and aggregation or shops, the way to design public spaces in relationship with the dwellings, using the courtyard both as a public and private square, show us how the organic lesson, mediated by the Swedish experience, can be applied to public housing. The aim was to build democratic spaces for democratic communities, giving value to the history through the project of architecture.22

Capobianco demonstrated how the project of architecture can be used as antidote to the homologation of the periphery; a project that can be modern and efective at resolving degradation and at the same time respectful of traditions. As he pointed out, «the answer to an anonymous intervention, which belongs to the monotonous repetition of the elements, cannot be opposed to the abstract logic of the conservative intervention, directed to the protection of now disappeared realities that are no longer recoverable in terms of quality of life and the environment, standardised construction, parts of cities with unique character and original identity. Therefore, the intervention of architecture is the practicable way, which privileges the recognisable features of the place in the quality of the design and the organisation of the environment, promoting its potentialities entrusted to its history».23

#### CONCLUSION

The interventions on the *casali* after the earthquake were, with very few and isolated exceptions, the last episode of public architecture in the suburbs of Naples; above all, they represented the only wide-ranging occasion on which the administration was confronted with timely and widespread planning around and within the city. After Valenzi, Naples saw a series of political administrations that allowed a substantial

distortion of the reconstruction programme to occur, and a new phase commonly called

FIGURE 11

Sub-Area 3, Mianella, "La Quadra" by Michele Capobianco and on the back the "8 courtyard" housing complex by Costantino Dardi (with Carlo Carreras)

FIGURE 12 Sub-Area 3, Mianella, "La Quadra" "second reconstruction" started, for which huge roads, braces and elevated roads were built.24 The instrument of the building licence was interpreted illegitimately, and many interventions ended up being investigated by Tangentopoli.25 The modifcations to the City Masterplan drawn up from 1994, under the administration of Antonio Bassolino until 2004,26 and only partially implemented, were in continuity with the interventions of the post-earthquake plan, and many of the protagonists involved

in that season (belonging to the same political spectrum) were recalled in the following one. This has contributed to creating a sort of continuity (with the interruption of the so-called "second reconstruction"). Still, a balance needs to be drawn between distance and temporal detachment, however difcult this may be.

The quality of the architecture, as well as the theoretical and practical methodology, that led to inserting the new architectures into the context, according to the best tradition of urban design, are the most important legacies of PSER. If a weakness can be traced in some interventions, it coincides with a certain formalism for which, for example, the courtyard typology, deprived of its original productive function, ended up being distorted by its true essence, perhaps to the detriment of other needs, such as privacy or security. The suburbs of Naples, moreover, precisely as a result of the enormous unemployment of its inhabitants, have experienced an increase in crime since the earthquake, mostly linked to the Camorra, and the Scampia district is the best-known witness of this problem. In the face of these employment and social problems, the quality of architecture can do little.

Today almost forty years have passed since the frst interventions, and it is clear that architecture, whatever its quality, cannot be expected to last if it is not updated and maintained. While the residences and parks are still in good condition, the equipment has been misused over the years, and it has become obsolescent and degraded. Recovering the post-earthquake architecture now, starting from the new problems of the Neapolitan suburbs, would be an important challenge.

#### NOTES

1  Renato De Fusco, *Napoli nel Novecento* (Naples: Electa Napoli, 1994), pp. 226–34.

2  Leonardo Benevolo, "Introduzione," *Edilizia Popolare* (1982, n. 166): pp. 1–2.

3  Michele Capobianco, "'La città che cambia,' Il programma straordinario di edilizia residenziale a Napoli (1981–91)," *ArQ* (1991, n. 6-7): p. 13.

4  Ibid.

5  Michele Bonuomo, "Napoli: ricostruire la città," *Domus* (1982, n. 631); Red, "Adhocismo da terremoto," *Domus* (1981, n. 622); "Terremoto, quale ricostruzione," *Casabella* (1982, n. 470).

6  Vezio De Lucia, *Se questa è una città* (Rome: Donzelli, 2006), p. 149.

7  Antonio Cederna, "Napoli: Lo scudetto della ricostruzione," *La Repubblica* (May 20, 1987).

8  Elena Camerlingo, "Dal Piano delle periferie al Programma straordinario," in *Recupero e riqualifcazione urbana nel Programma straordinario per Napoli,* ed*.* Filippo Ciccone (Milan: Giufrè Cresme, 1984): pp. 23–33.

9  Carlo Gasparrini, "L'intervento nella periferia," *Domus* (1986, n. 83): pp. 92–101; Cesare De Seta et al., "*Napoli 1983,*" *Spazio e Società* (1986, n. 23): pp. 64–71.

10  De Lucia, *Se questa è una città*, p. 162.

11  "Napoli: costruzione e ricostruzione della città," *Domus*, dossier (1986, n. 83); "Il recupero urbano nel programma straordinario di Napoli," *Recuperare*, dossier (1983, n. 7): pp. 360–77; "Napoli Terremoto," *Edilizia Popolare* (1982, n. 166): pp. 10–21.

12  Cesare De Seta, *I casali di Napoli* (Bari: Laterza, 1989), p. 71.

13  Paolo Giordano, "Franco Purini, Laura Thermes. Isolato residenziale a Napoli-Marianella," *Domus* (1988, n. 693).

14  Francesco Venezia, "Architectonic report of the executive project of the square of S. Pietro a Patiero" (Naples, 1988).

15  Pasquale Belfore and Benedetto Gravagnuolo, *Napoli. Architettura e urbanistica nel Novecento* (Bari: Laterza, 1994), pp. 289–90.

16  Arturo Rigillo, "Miano," in De Seta, *I Casali di Napoli*, pp. 133–42.

17  Lilia Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli* (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2001), pp. 174–214.

18  Gianfranco Caniggia, "Analisi tipologica: La corte matrice dell'insediamento," in Ciccone, *Recupero e riqualifcazione urbana*, pp. 76–110.

19  Sebastiano Brandolini, "Costantino Dardi. Isolati residenziali a Napoli," *Casabella* (1987, n. 538).

20  Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli*, p. 211.

21  Emanuele Carreri, "Ricostruire non vuol dire costruire di nuovo la stessa cosa. La 'ricostruzione dei casali di Miano e Mianella, tra Conservazione e Modernità,'" *ArQ. Il programma straordinario di edilizia residenziale a Napoli (1981–91)* (1991, n. 6-7): p. 73.

22  Michele Capobianco, "Il mito sociologico dell'identità comunitaria. L'unità di vicinato," *ArQ* (1989, n. 2): pp. 7–22.

23  Michele Capobianco, "Fiera," *Cultura e Attualità* (1984, nn. 11-12): p. 63.

24  De Lucia, *Se questa è una città*, pp. 162–66.

25  "Tangentopoli" names the peculiar period in the 1990s of judicial inquiries towards the political class, which involved the entire national territory, see Roberto Giannì, "Illegalità e disordine urbanistico," *La città nuova. Rivista di cultura politica* (1993, n. 3-4): pp. 27–37.

26  Comune di Napoli, *Variante generale al Prg della città di Napoli* (Napoli, 2004).

# STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PUBLIC HOUSING POLICIES IN ITALY: THE NAPLES CASE STUDY

*Claudia de Biase\*, Adriana Galderisi\**

#### 1 THE EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC AND SOCIAL HOUSING POLICIES IN ITALY: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

In the wake of general estimates circulating since the 1990s, the system of public housing fnancing—which in Italy has been able to beneft systematically from direct or indirect contributions to the construction of social housing since the 1950s—has slowly exhausted its programming and redistributive power, leaving the coverage of public housing needs almost completely unresolved. Today, unless there are rules on fnancial incentives (housing plans and social housing), in Italy, there is no funding for the construction of public housing districts. Yet, to date, neighbourhoods, especially public ones, are still among the most difcult parts of the city for which to fnd solutions to the challenges they face daily. However, there are diferent programmes, processes and strategies in place to improve the quality of life in these neighbourhoods.

The history of residential public construction in Italy began in 1903 with the Luzzatti Law, which established the Institutes for Social Housing (IACP). For the frst time with this law, the state encouraged private subjects, such as credit institutions, savings banks, charities, public authorities and municipalities, to build social housing.

The priority objectives of the law were varied, ranging from counteracting private speculation to providing for ordinary people, craftsmen, small settlers and small rural owners through the creation of new neighbourhoods with rents appropriate to the income of workers.

This norm certainly had the merit of afrming that «the house is a right, and it is the task of society to work so that the house becomes accessible even to segments of the population that, for various reasons, are marginalized».2 The Luzzatti Law3 was then transformed into the Consolidated Law (CL), Royal Decree (RD) No. 89 of February 27, 1908, which clarifed who was in charge of operating in public housing. In Naples, there are many examples of neighbourhoods built in those years, such as Diaz (two buildings), Poggioreale, Vittorio Emanuele (eight buildings) and Fuorigrotta Duca D'Aosta (eight buildings + ten). After this rule, the phase of reforms after World War I and the Fascist period began: the CL on afordable and low-income housing, approved by RD of November 30, 1919, and the CL No. 1165 of March 24, 1938, were issued. In the period between the issue of these two

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

#### FIGURE 1

Location and construction periods of the Neapolitan public housing neighbourhoods: circled are the three selected case studies

decrees, RD No. 386 of March 10, 1926, was approved, which fnanced (100 million lire) the construction of social housing by municipalities and autonomous institutes.

The real turning point occurred, however, in 1938, the year in which (due to the CL) public housing was distinguished from low-income housing; it was, in fact, clarifed that public housing is houses «built to be leased by entities and companies … and that remain … the inalienable and undivided property of the entities and companies themselves» (Art. 48) and that commercial housing is houses «built by private individuals or by institutions, companies and bodies … to be leased or assigned to them» (Art. 49). It was during this period that the neighbourhoods of Bagnoli, Posillipo, Cariati and Chiatamone were built in the city of Naples.

Until World War II, therefore, municipalities and autonomous institutes could build districts of commercial and social housing. The size was small, and the location was chosen within the urban fabric of the city. With WWII, the problem became reconstruction and therefore the so-called "Reconstruction Plan" was issued, which provided, among other things, that «the homeless [due to] war damage can rebuild; if they do not, they [can be] expropriated (or [there can be a] public auction) and … social housing [can be built]». In short, there was a return to the logic of the building plans of 1865.

Once the post-war reconstruction had begun, it was decided, in any case, to build new social housing through the Fanfani Plan (which established a committee for the implementation of a plan to increase employment through the construction of houses for workers), that is, the INA-Casa (National Insurance Institute-Housing) programme. It was a plan that drew on the experiences of "European neighbourhoods," through the presentation of four fles of recommendations and suggestions, including standards and schemes for the preparation and presentation of projects, examples and standards for urban planning and a guide for the examination of projects. In particular, the frst dealt with the confguration of districts in a perspective of extensive urban planning.

While the INA-Casa Plan was aimed at employees, in the same year, the Tupini Law was issued (National Law No. 408 of July 2, 1949) which completed the Plan: it was aimed, in fact, at all citizens, regardless of the type of work they did, provided they needed a home and met certain requirements. At that moment, the boom in social housing construction started: in fourteen years, interventions were carried out in 5,036 Italian municipalities out of 8,000 for a total of 355,000 housing units.

An interesting mention, in this brief overview, must also be made of the case of Naples: with Special Law No. 200/1952, there was authorisation for the expenditure of 6 billion lire to construct ultra-low-income houses in Naples.4 There were six districts to accommodate families living in buildings that were cleared for the implementation of the reconstruction plan of Porto-Mercato and for those who lived in caves, shelters and ruins. During this period, for example, San Giovanni a Teduccio was built: a district for 2,000 inhabitants, close to the railway track, a rivulet and two other working-class districts, surmounted by a raised platform that provided for the concentration of services in the central area.

After this phase, in 1957, there was another change: the Public Housing Committee (CEP) was established by combining the IACP, INA-Casa, the National Institute for Civil Servant Houses (INCIS) and the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA-CASAS). Above all, there was new thinking about the planning of large self-sufcient neighbourhoods, with the simultaneous design of residences, equipment and services. In Naples in 1960, the CEP-Rione Traiano, the largest of the 28 Italian CEPs, was planned. It is a district for 24,000 inhabitants, divided into four residential areas, schools, parks and commerce (Figs. 1, 2).

The 1960s began with two major innovations: National Law No. 167/62, which introduced the Plan for Afordable and Social Housing (PEEP), and Law 60/63, which replaced the INA-Casa programme with the GESCAL fund, the pact for afordable housing to be self-fnanced by the workers. Law 167 aimed at framing the districts of afordable and social housing in the logic of planning and, above all, ensuring that these new plans were not episodic. This is the peculiarity of PEEPs: these plans, in fact, are mandatory for a number of municipalities and the percentage of housing to be allocated to public housing is established as "167/62."5 The decision to include the PEEPs in the municipal planning established that «the interventions in the feld of afordable and social housing must not be episodic; they must be organic and articulated with the town planning policy of the municipality and must identify and qualify, on the basis of ten-year needs, both residential areas and those for services and equipment for public interest».6

#### FIGURE 2

CEP-Rione Traiano. Location of most relevant public services in the neighbourhoods

With Law 167, numerous mega-neighbourhoods were born throughtout Italy, located in peripheral areas and, often, without public services. The most emblematic Neapolitan case is Secondigliano: a district for 72,000 inhabitants with thirteen residential units of 5,000 inhabitants, plus 7,000, with equipment and services of the frst and second levels. Law 167 was followed, one year later, by Law No. 60/1963, which replaced the management of INA-Casa with management by the workers and promoted a ten-year housing construction plan. The main positive innovations were that funding was allocated to the construction of equipment and services for spiritual, recreational and social activities as well as sports facilities and equipment; the adoption of detailed technical standards for the execution of construction and, above all, funded operational research on residential construction and experimental building projects (Fig. 3).

After this phase, which lasted throughout the 1970s, with the 1981 earthquake, the Extraordinary Programme for Residential Building (PSER) envisaged the intervention in the suburban areas. With it in the city of Naples, ten suburbs and some interventions in the city centre were planned, and there was an increase of approximately 10,000 housing units (new and refurbished) and the provision of services.

This period saw the conclusion of the construction of new districts of public housing; from the end of the seventies, in fact, with National Law No. 457/78 the phase of recovery

#### FIGURE 3

Scampia-Secondigliano. Time evolution of the post-war interventions. Fuchsia: housing before Law 167/62, Light blue: "167/62" housing, Orange: post-earthquake housing

began, frst of degraded areas and, then, from the nineties, the public districts that remain the parts of the city in which social tensions, cultural marginality and poor environmental conditions are concentrated.

#### PUBLIC HOUSING NEIGHBOURHOODS IN NAPLES: CRITICALITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR SUSTAINABLE REGENERATION

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, public and social housing policies in Italy underwent large changes in two diferent periods:


Moreover, in the case of Naples, a further impulse to build up new public housing neighbourhoods was provided by the earthquake that hit the city in 1980. Following the seismic event, the Italian Parliament issued Law No. 219/1981, which promoted an extraordinary residential building programme leading to a signifcant transformation of the whole city and particularly its eastern area, due both to an extensive recovery of the existing building stock and to numerous new building developments.

Although built at diferent times and in response to diferent needs, all public housing neighbourhoods in Naples—mostly located in the peripheral areas of the city—have numerous common criticalities. First, they were all built up well before the sustainability paradigm became a guiding principle of planning and building practices, with standards of urban quality and quality of life very far from those currently required. Hence, starting in the late eighties, the need for a sustainable regeneration of these neighbourhoods, capable of integrating physical, social, economic, environmental and cultural issues, 7 emerged, in addition to following the numerous integrated programmes the European Union launched to cope with the decline of urban neighbourhoods, and particularly the most deprived ones. These programmes, although not compulsory, pushed many European cities to launch, and sometimes to conclude, large-scale projects to renew and transform public housing neighbourhoods. 8

Based on these premises, we highlight here the main criticalities of large public housing estates in Naples, showing the steps forward that have been made and those still to be made towards their sustainable regeneration. We focus in detail on three peripheral high-rise estates built in diferent periods: the Traiano neighbourhood, on the western periphery of Naples, whose construction began in 1957, following the Fanfani Law, and was completed only twenty years later; the Scampia neighbourhood, located in the northern periphery, which started in 1962 following Law 167 and was completed in 1975; and the Ponticelli neighbourhood, in the eastern area, which is the most heterogeneous one, built in diferent stages and mostly since the 1980 earthquake (Fig. 1).

In particular, with reference to the main goals a sustainable regeneration programme should address—established by the numerous institutional documents on sustainable urban development as well as on urban regeneration 9 —we explore current features, ongoing plans, projects and initiatives, focusing on some key issues related to the diferent and interrelated environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability.

In respect to the environmental dimension, we focus in particular on sustainable mobility: all the above-mentioned documents clearly note the need for a sustainable neighbourhood to reduce private motorised transport, by promoting mixed uses, prioritising soft mobility (walkable and cyclable) and favouring public railway transport networks.10 Turning towards a model of sustainable mobility in urban areas is now considered crucial to reducing urban pollution (atmospheric, acoustic), to mitigating climate change by limiting carbon emissions11 and to increasing the quality and liveability of urban areas.

In respect to the social and economic dimensions, we focus on the *ghettoization* that often characterises public housing neighbourhoods all over the world, so that they are generally bywords for spatially concentrated poverty and crime.12 Numerous public residential neighbourhoods, and in particular the selected case studies, show a signifcant lack of diversity, in both social and functional terms, combined with limited access to quality public services and reduced and often totally absent maintenance. Hence, a sustainable regeneration of these neighbourhoods requires, primarily, actions aimed at enhancing diversity and the mix of users, uses, building types and public spaces, above all based on an active participation of local residents. As remarked by some scholars,13 social sustainability

FIGURE 4 The Piscinola-Scampia station, 2019

goals can be achieved only through an efective partnership with citizens and neighbourhood-based groups.

#### Environmental Sustainability: A Focus on Mobility Issues

Due to their peripheral location, the three selected case studies have for long been marginal in respect to the city centre, and they have mostly relied on private car transport. Accessibility to the Traiano neighbourhood is still largely based on private cars: it is also served by the Circumfegrea railway line, linking it to the city centre, although the station is some way from the core area of the neighbourhood. However, the new Line 7, still under construction, should signifcantly improve the railway-based accessibility to this area by linking the Circumfegrea and the Cumana railways. Along this line, the new station of Monte Sant'Angelo, designed by Anish Kapoor,14 should serve both the university complex of Monte Sant'Angelo and the Traiano neighbourhood, where a secondary exit is planned.

In Scampia, railway-based public transport has been signifcantly improved since the nineties, thanks to the urban railway line M1, connecting the city centre to the northern periphery. The Piscinola-Scampia station was opened in 1995, and, since 2005, it has also represented a fundamental junction between urban and metropolitan railway lines, linking the city to the surrounding northern municipalities (Fig. 4). Furthermore, Scampia will soon be connected also to the airport and the central station, thanks to a new branch of the urban railway system, still under construction.

The Ponticelli neighbourhood was cut of from the city centre for a long time, due to the numerous physical and functional barriers that divided the historical centre from this neighbourhood: the railway central station, a large industrial and nowadays partially demolished area, the presence of highways or high-speed roads. Even car-based accessibility was difcult, and this improved only in the late nineties while rail-based accessibility improved, thanks to a railway line connecting the eastern part of Naples to the city centre that became operational only in 2004.

Summing up, since the nineties signifcant progress has been made in Naples in improving the urban railway system, connecting the historical city to its peripheral neighbourhoods, and linking urban and metropolitan railway systems better. Moreover, in most cases, the building of the new stations represented an opportunity to improve the surrounding public spaces. Unfortunately, few interventions have created cycle-pedestrian networks, which to date are essentially limited to the historic city and the waterfront.

#### Social Sustainability: A Focus on Diversity and Community Engagement

Although they have diferent features and intensities, all the three neighbourhoods are well known for their physical, functional and social degradation and for the strong presence of organised crime, leading the local and international media to defne them as *ghettos*, dominated by crime, of-limits neighbourhoods in which the state has given up being obeyed.

FIGURE 5

Rione Traiano. Several activities performed in the community-managed centre CAP 80126, opened in 2016 and run by young people, students, workers, unemployed and retired people

In particular, Scampia is one of the most famous icons in Europe of physical and social decay: a monofunctional residential area characterised by a large concentration of low-income people, whose problems were further worsened, after the 1980 earthquake, by the displacement of large numbers of people. Moreover, it is known to be the headquarters of the Camorra in the North of Naples and one of the largest drug markets in Europe. Even though both Traiano and Ponticelli have been improved by urban recovery programmes drawn up and approved, the foreseen interventions—largely addressed to improving public open spaces, basic facilities and primary urbanisation works—have so far only been partially implemented. More complex is the Scampia case, where a largely disputed regeneration project, *Restart Scampia*, has been recently approved and its implementation is expected to run from June 2019 to December 2023.15

Despite the physical and social decay that characterises these neighbourhoods, combined with the difculties and delays of public/private actors in triggering efective urban regeneration processes, it is worth noting that in all these neighbourhoods, bottom-up practices aimed at promoting a reappropriation, sometimes even temporarily, of the many unused or underused public spaces by the citizens is increasingly common. These practices, which refect the phenomenon, widespread in many European and international cities, of using, albeit temporarily, public spaces (everyday urbanism, temporary urbanism, *guerrilla* urbanism etc.),16 testify to the strong willingness of local residents to participate actively and to reveal community needs and desires that should be taken into account in future institutionally led projects for the integrated sustainable regeneration of large public estates in Naples.

#### NOTES

1  In this chapter, which the authors wrote jointly, individual contributions can be identifed as follows: *The Evolution of Public and Social Housing Policies in Italy: Strengths and Weaknesses* (Claudia de Biase), *Public Housing Neighbourhoods in Naples: Criticalities and Opportunities for their Sustainable Regeneration* (Adriana Galderisi). Ettore M. Mazzola, *La città sostenibile è possibile/The Sustainable City is Possible* (Rome: Gangemi Editore, 2010).

2  See Caterina Gironda, "Politiche urbane e forme dell'abitare per la città contemporanea," in *Atti della XIV Conferenza SIU – 24/25/26 Marzo*, http://www.planum.net.

3  See Paolo Urbani, "L'edilizia residenziale pubblica tra Stato e autonomie locali," *Istituzioni del Federalismo, Rivista di studi giuridici e politici*, no. 3/4 (2010): pp. 250–51.


6  See Bianca Petrella, *L'edilizia residenziale negli ultimi quarant'anni. Due città emblematiche: Milano e Napoli* (Naples: Fondazione Ivo Vanzi, 1989), p. 61.

7  See the concept of integrated urban regeneration as introduced by the *Toledo Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development Declaration* (June 22, 2010), pp. 14–17, https://www.ccre.org/docs/2010\_06\_04\_toledo\_declaration\_fnal.pdf.

8  See Milena de Matteis, "Introduzione," in *Rigenerare la Città. Il social Housing come opportunità di rinnovo urbano e sociale*, ed. Milena de Matteis, Barbara del Brocco, and Angelo Figliola (Venice: Università IUAV, 2014), pp. 7–8; see also Sonia de Gregorio Hurtado, "25 Years of Urban Regeneration in the EU," *TRIA,* no.18 (2017): pp. 15–19.

9  See in particular the principles of the Aalborg Commitments issued in 2004 (https://sustainablecities.eu/ fleadmin/repository/Aalborg\_Commitments/Aalborg\_Commitments\_English.pdf); the previously mentioned Toledo Declaration; Goal 11 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development issued in 2015 (https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for% 20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf).

10  See Adriana Galderisi and Andrea Ceudech, "Soft Mobility and Pedestrian Networks in Urban Areas," *TeMA – Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment*, no. 2 (2010): pp. 21–28.

11  See David Banister, "Cities, Mobility and Climate Change," *Journal of Transport Geography* 19, no. 6 (2011): pp. 1538–46.

12  See Paul Watt, "Social Housing and Urban Renewal: An Introduction," in *Social Housing and Urban Renewal. A Cross-National Perspective*, ed. Paul Watt and Pear Smets (Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2017), pp. 1–36. 13  See Juliet Carpenter, "'Social Mix' as 'Sustainability Fix'? Exploring Social Sustainability in the French

Suburbs," *Urban Planning* 3, no. 4 (2018): pp. 29–37.

14  See http://anishkapoor.com/216/subway-station-monte-s-angelo.

15  The technical and economic feasibility project Restart Scampia is available at https://www.comune.napoli. it/fex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/32659.

16  See, on this issue, Florian Haydn and Robert Temel, *Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces* (Basle: Chronicle Books, 2006); see also Paula Chiu, *Temporary Urbanism and a Research-Based Design Proposal* (2011).

# REGENERATION AND SOCIOECONOMIC DYNAMICS IN PUBLIC HOUSING. FOCUS ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF NAPLES

*Fabiana Forte\**

#### INTRODUCTION

Nowadays the role of cities in determining housing policies and, ultimately, the housing conditions of their inhabitants has become a key policy topic.1 Specifcally, *afordability* in housing represents, in accordance with Eurocities,2 one of the main challenges European cities share today in their attempts to achieve social cohesion. *Afordable housing* is also at the heart of achieving the new urban agenda under Habitat III, which calls upon member countries to «ensure access for all to adequate, safe and afordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums [by 2030]»<sup>3</sup> as part of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Afordable housing, generally understood as a «permanent accommodation for individuals and families who cannot otherwise access or aford free-market housing»,<sup>4</sup> is characterised by the wide diversity of national housing situations, conceptions and policies across member states.

Despite these diferences, a common characteristic of the housing markets in the European Union is the high share of home ownership, particularly in southern European countries. In Italy, it represents 72.4 % of the total housing stock, while, according to Nomisma, about 18.5 % of households are rented, of which 15.8 % are owned by private parties and 2.7 % are in public housing (*Edilizia Residenziale Pubblica*).5

Furthermore, most of the dwellings in many regions of the EU were constructed from 1946-70, the period of reconstruction after World War II, characterised by both economic and demographic growth (Fig. 16 ). In the Italian housing estate stock, more than a third of housing was realised between 1946 and 1971, when the size of families was more consistent (an average of fve rooms for dwellings). Much of it is in a very bad state of conservation, in particular, several public housing districts on the outskirts of the metropolitan area of Naples.

Traditionally, in Italy there are three main forms of public supported housing: subsidised housing (*edilizia sovvenzionata*), assisted housing (*edilizia agevolata*) and agreed housing (*edilizia convenzionata*). Financing is provided by the regions. Municipalities, together with regions, co-fnance personal aids for the rental sector and allocate land to providers. The central government is responsible for macro-programming and co-fnancing projects through housing allowances, co-funding of urban renewal programmes and programmes

\* University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design

to support social rental housing.7 The frst National Housing Plan (*Piano Nazionale di Edilizia abitativa,* art. 11, Decree Law No. 112/2008; National Law No. 133/2008) must be placed in this perspective. According to the law, *social housing* consists «mainly of dwellings rented on a permanent basis; also to be considered as social housing are dwellings built or rehabilitated through public and private contribution or the use of public funding, rented for at least eight years and also sold at afordable price, with the goal of achieving social mix».8 The plan is signifcantly innovative in its approach to fnancing social housing through new forms of public/private partnerships (such as *transfer of development rights* to developers that increase the residential stock, *density bonuses* aimed at enhancing public services and spaces and improving urban quality, and *compensation* through development rights of the construction also of council housing to be rented at afordable rates or sold to disadvantaged categories). However, to date, social housing in Italy has been difcult to start, as in the Campania Region.9

#### PUBLIC HOUSING AND URBAN REGENERATION

In Italy, the issue of social housing is of signifcant interest from the perspective of urban regeneration programmes. Over the last few decades, the transformation of Italian cities has been characterised more by a policy of infrastructures, public facilities and services than by the housing dimension. Nowadays, social housing is part of this issue, but not as much

as in the past. For example, the Fanfani Housing Plan, in which the low-income housing was the only defnition, came after World War II. Nowadays, social housing policies aim to satisfy a demand from diferent people emerging from varied situations: the so called "grey area" in which incomes are too low for market housing and too high to qualify for public social housing. This area is highly consistent in Italy (comprising single adults, young couples, the elderly, students, foreigners, single-income families etc.). In the absence of direct public funding, social housing initiatives tend to focus on the intermediate segment between public housing conditions and standard market rates.

Regarding *public housing*, one of the milestones in Italy was National Law No. 167/1962, which instituted the Zonal Plans for Afordable and Social Housing, PEEPs, «the frst planning tool to create a relationship between public authorities, private actors and cooperatives to build new housing.… It defned specifc rules about the expropriation of areas for social housing and their economic values [;] this mechanism constituted an important improvement in those years to support social housing growth».10 The operator was Istituto Autonomo Case Popolari, now Agenzia Campana per l'Edilizia Residenziale in the Campania region*.* In this period, many public housing districts sprang up on the outskirts of several Italian cities: the Corviale in Rome (1972), the Zen in Palermo (1969) and the Vele in Scampia in Naples (1962–75). All were peripheral areas, densely populated, and characterised by degradation, marginality, social disease, insecurity and poverty. According to the government department Casa Italia, the public housing stock in poor condition or very poor condition constitutes a meaningful proportion of the existent housing stock (40 % in Naples, 39.9 % in Reggio Calabria, 26.6 % in Palermo, between 10 % and 20 % in cities such as Bari, Genoa, Florence, Venice and Rome and less than 10 % in Milan and Bologna). The causes are multiple: frst, the planning choices (the idea of self-sufcient city neighbourhoods) together with high-density settlements, bad quality construction, an absolute lack of maintenance, the absence of community facilities, social degradation and insecurity.

The basic corrective strategy, moreover, practiced across Europe, is *urban regeneration* through programmes that aim to improve social, economic and physical conditions for a given location, to satisfy the housing and services demand, to increase employment and to improve the productive structure. This category covers the fnancial opportunities ofered by the 2020 European Strategy, centred on urban regeneration and social innovation.

In Italy, an integrated approach for the regeneration of public housing stock has emerged since 1990 in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, through a series of physical and socioeconomic regeneration programmes fnanced with EU funds (URBAN I 1994–1999; UR-BAN II 2000–2008). Furthermore, additional programmes, the so-called "complex programmes" promoted by the Ministry of Public Works (Programmi di Recupero Urbano, Programmi di Riqualifcazione Urbana, Contratti di Quartiere, PRUSST) were also put in place.

TABLE 1 Municipalities in the City of Naples

1. Chiaia, Posillipo, S. Ferdinando 2. Avvocato, Montecalvario, Mercato, Pendino, Porto, San Giuseppe 3. Stella, San Carlo all'Arena 4. S. Lorenzo, Vicaria, Poggioreale, Zona Industriale 5. Arenella, Vomero 6. Ponticelli, Baerra, San Giovanni a Tedducio


Most recently, the Italian government, with the last two stability laws (Law No. 190/2014 and Law No. 208/2015), has promoted two national programmes for poor urban areas and the urban periphery respectively. The extraordinary programme of intervention for urban regeneration and the security of the suburbs (DPCM of May 25, 2016), forecasted projects and actions to enhance the urban regeneration of the metropolitan outskirts (see next section). With specifc reference to the regeneration of public housing, the *Programma di recupero di immobili e alloggi di edilizia residenziale pubblica* was activated by Legislative Decree No. 47/2014 (modifed by Decree Law No. 80/2015, Art. 4), which allocated 468 million euros for the regeneration of the public housing stock, and which was reformulated recently (Ministerial Decree of May 16, 2019).

In the Campania region, a new regional programme titled *Abitare sostenibile: Case sicure in ambienti rigenerati* (Regional Council Resolution 26 of June 17, 2019) puts the right to the house, the regeneration of the outskirts, safety measures and energy efcient buildings in the centre of the regional policies; the initial allocation for the programme was 250 million euros.

#### SOCIOECONOMIC DYNAMICS AND PUBLIC HOUSING IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF NAPLES

According to the National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), in the last sixty years, the population of Naples grew until the census of 1971, reaching a high of 1,226,594. Then, the population began to decrease, reaching 962,003 in 2011 and 959,188 in 2018. If we analyse the distribution of the population, from the 1950s, the areas close to the centre became saturated, with growing concentrations in the northern and eastern outskirts. In fact, with reference to the ten municipalities into which Naples is administratively subdivided (Table 111), in recent decades, there has been a steady decline in the population of the central municipalities and a substantial increase in the peripheral districts. This phenomenon is particularly evident in three main peripheral areas: Municipality 9 (with the neighbourhoods of Soccavo and Pianura), Municipality 8, in the northern outskirts (with the neighbourhoods of Piscinola, Chiaiano and Scampia) and Municipality 6, in the east (with the neighbourhoods of Ponticelli, Barra and S. Giovanni a Teduccio). There, analysing the population in censuses, from 1951 to 2011, it is possible to verify a substantial population growth.

The analysis of the age structure of the population highlights the greater presence of young people in the peripheral neighbourhoods: in particular, in the municipalities mentioned above, where, at the same time, the level of education is lower and the unemployment rate is higher than in the other districts of the city. Table 2<sup>12</sup> gives statistical data on Naples. The frst column refers to 2016 (the most recent ofcial data), and the others refer to 2011 (the last Italian census, by ISTAT).

According to the 2017 ISTAT annual report on the Italian social and economic situation, in the metropolitan city of Naples,<sup>13</sup> there is a clear preference for low-income areas, with young families renting (44.1 % of the population) and low-income areas at risk of degrada-

#### FIGURE 2

City of Naples, classif cation of the census areas by socioeconomic typology (source ISTAT). Dark blue: residential areas with medium-high census prof le, Light blue: middle-class areas, Yellow: areas with a prevalence of older people, Orange: areas with low-income housing and young families, Red: social housing under decay risk, Green: greenery and low-density areas

tion (23.2 % of the population). As Figure 2 shows,14 these areas are next to a large, middle-class area (from the hilly area to the coastal area, to the west of the port). The Social Discomfort Index15 (*Indice di Disagio Sociale*, IDS),16 shows that socioeconomic discomfort particularly af ects the neighbourhoods in the northern, eastern and north-eastern outskirts of Naples. First, the Scampia district (Municipality 8), which contains the Vele public housing complex,<sup>17</sup> one of the most troubled suburbs in Naples. There, the IDS is the worst of all the municipalities and districts.

The complex is the object of an urban regeneration project by Naples City Council,<sup>18</sup> *Restart Scampia*; it foresees the establishment of the new headquarters of the metropolitan city and the metropolitan council in one of buildings of the Vele, and the removal of the others. This is an area that is not only urban, but above all metropolitan in nature, considering its excellent accessibility and connections with both the city centre and the outskirts of Naples thanks to the railway. Unfortunately, one of the main impediments is that the




'metropolitan city' idea in Naples, to date, has not taken of. At the same time, it should be pointed out that in the last ffteen years (and in spite of *Gomorrah*, the hit TV series based on Saviano's book on Neapolitan crime that is set in Scampia), the neighbourhood has become a fertile feld for social innovation, the central theme of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Specifcally, in the regeneration of the suburban neighbourhoods, social innovation is increasingly becoming an efective and valid alternative to the traditional territorial governance tools, as in the Scampia case.<sup>19</sup>

Another problematic area is in the peripheral district of Soccavo (Municipality 9), where the public housing complex Rione Traiano, built from 1957–72, anticipated the characteristics and dimensions of the Zonal Plans for Afordable and Social Housing, PEEP (167/1962). The intervention, conceived for 24,000 inhabitants on an area of 130 hectares, despite its strongly experimental character, was afected by the incompleteness of its urbanisation and public facilities and its functional marginality, becoming another symbol of urban decay and social discomfort. Since 2010, it has been the object of a programme of urban renewal, for Soccavo-Rione Traiano, adopted by the City Council of Naples in 2010.

Finally, another unresolved area is Ponticelli (Municipality 6), which contains the public housing complex Parco Merola. This area was built in the early 1990s, according to the provisions of the Extraordinary Programme for Residential Building, PSER, in Naples

of 1981–86 to deal with the housing emergency following the 1980 earthquake, with the dwellings being assigned in 1997. The complex is characterised by severe physical and social degradation; the process of regeneration has gained more from spontaneous phenomena such as street art than it has from public administration. Thanks to the initiatives of the Arteteca Association and the contributions of the International Network on Writing Art Research and Development Project, many severely physically degraded buildings are regaining an identity because of the socially powerful charge of the street art.<sup>20</sup>

All the unresolved areas analysed, characterised by the presence of public housing complexes, refect the socioeconomic discomfort in the property market. Although most of the properties are in an low-income area and on public land, an analysis of the property market of the municipalities in which they fall confrms the critical socioeconomic conditions of these areas. In fact, when one analyses the distribution of values of the residential segment for the ten areas, as subdivided by the Territorial Agency, on the basis of the ofcial data,21 a certain distance between the centre and the outskirts emerges (Table 3<sup>22</sup>). In general, the recovery trend that began in 2015 is confrmed, especially in terms of trade in the urban macro areas. However, the quotations appear substantially stable, if in a slight decline, particularly in the areas furthest from the centre. Conversely, in areas more characterised by positional rent, the market values remain high. In or near the centre of the city, as well as in its west periphery (Bagnoli or Nisida), the environmental features and the presence of the sea explain the higher values. Table 3 highlights the positional rent in the city of Naples.<sup>23</sup> The distribution of the residential values in the peripheral municipalities shows a gradient from the centre to the periphery, not only in terms of market values, but also in terms of the perception of liveability and settlement quality.

#### NOTES

1  See Housing Europe, *The State of the Housing in the EU* (Housing Europe, Brussels, 2019).

2  Eurocities, *Cities Approaches and Recommendations*, Position Paper on Afordable Housing (2009). http:// www.eurocities.eu.

3  HABITAT III, *New Urban Agenda* (United Nation, 2017).

4  Eurocities, *Cities Approaches and Recommendation.*

5  Nomisma, *Report per Federcasa, Dimensione e caratteristiche del disagio abitativo In Italia e ruolo delle Aziende per la casa,* sintesi del 13-01-2016 (Bologna: Nomisma, 2016).

6  Eurostat, "Dwellings by Most Common Period of Construction, by NUTS 3 Region, 2011," in *Urban Europe Statistics on Cities, Towns and Suburbs Housing in Cities* (Eurostat, June 29, 2016).

7  See Housing Europe, *Social Housing in Europe, Italy* (Housing Europe, Brussels, 2010).

8  Ministerial Decree, *Defnition of social housing*, April 2, 2008, Rome.

9  See Fabiana Forte, "Edilizia Residenziale Sociale: Aspetti valutativi ed esperienze in Regione Campania," *Rivista SIEV, Valori e Valutazioni, teorie ed esperienze*, vol. 11 (Rome: DEI, 2013): pp. 87–98.

10  See Nadia Caruso, *Policies and Practices in Italian Welfare Housing* (Wiesbaden: Springer Briefs in Geography, 2017).

11  http://www.comune.napoli.it/le-municipalita.

12  Comune di Napoli, Sistan, *La struttura demografca della popolazione residente nella città di Napoli al 31 dicembre 2016. Dati comunali* (Statistiche demografche, 2016); ISTAT, *Rapporto annuale 2017. La situazione del paese* (Rome: ISTAT, 2017).

13  ISTAT, *Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sulle condizioni di sicurezza e sullo stato di degrado delle città e delle loro periferie*. *Allegato Statistico* (Rome: ISTAT, 2017). The metropolitan city of Naples, instituted by National Law No. 56/2014 on January 1, 2015, in substitution for the province, includes 92 municipalities, with more than 3 million inhabitants on a total area of 1,771 km2 . Its geographical and administrative area is the third largest in Italy by number of inhabitants and the frst for population density.

14  ISTAT, *Rapporto annuale 2017*.

15  The Social Discomfort Index was introduced by the ministerial Directive 249 10/26/15, with the "Ban for the presentation of proposals for the predisposition of the national plan for the cultural and social requalifcation of degraded urban areas."

16  Comune di Napoli, Sistan, *La struttura demografca della popolazione residente nella città di Napoli al 31 dicembre 2016. Dati comunali* (Statistiche demografche, 2016).

17  See Gaetano Fusco, ed., *Franz di Salvo. Opere e progetti* (Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2003); Elena Manzo, "Franz di Salvo. Verso un razionalismo mediterraneo," in *Dossier: Difendere le Vele di Scampia*, part of magazine *ANANKE, cultura, storia e tecniche della conservazione per il progetto*," edited by Marco Dezzi Bardeschi, numero monografco, n.s., n. 62, (Florence: Alinea Editrice, 2011), pp. 50–51; Ornella Zerlenga, "Icone mediatiche: Dal megastrutturalismo alla demolizione," in *Disegno e città: Cultura Scienza Arte Informazione*, conference proceeding of UID, 37° Convegno internazionale dei docenti della rappresentazione (Turin: Gangemi Editore, 2015).

18  With the Restart Scampia project in 2016, Naples City Council took part in a government competition for the presentation of projects for access to the Extraordinary Programme of Intervention for the urban redevelopment and safety in the suburbs of the metropolitan cities and provincial capitals (Prime Minister's Ofce, May 25, 2016).

19  Fabiana Forte and Luciano Lauda, "Scampia tra innovazione sociale e rigenerazione urbana," in *Conference Proceedings of the 21st IPSAPA/ISPALEM International Scientifc Conference*, Venezia (Italy) July 6–7, 2017, pp. 433–43. (Udine: IPSAPA/ISPALEM, 2018)

20  See Ornella Zerlenga, Fabiana Forte, and Luciano Lauda, "Street Art in Naples in the Territory of the 8th Municipality," in *Graphic Imprints. The Infuence of Representation and Ideation Tools in Architecture*, conference proceeding of EGA 2018, XVII International Conference, edited by Carlos L. Marcos (Alicante: University of Alicante, 2018); Fabiana Forte and Pierfrancesco De Paola, "How Can Street Art Have Economic Value?," *Sustainability* 2019, 11, 580, MDPI, 2019.

21  Agenzia delle Entrate, OMI Osservatorio del Mercato Immobiliare, *Statistiche Regionali. Il mercato immobiliare residenziale, Campania* (Rome: Agenzia elle Entrate, 2019).

22  Agenzia delle Entrate, OMI Osservatorio del Mercato Immobiliare, *Statistiche Regionali*, 2019.

23  Fabiana Forte, "Valore della città e rendite urbane," in *La città che si rinnova. Architettura e scienze umane tra storia e attualità: prospettive di analisi a confronto*, edited by Elena Manzo (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2012), pp. 205–16.

**IV CONCLUSION**

# CONCLUSION *Antonello Scopacasa*

*In the following, I briefy try to compare the two city situations and the selected case studies, together with the many inputs collected during the two workshops in Berlin and Naples to highlight some theoretical nodes from a contemporary outlook. These are the relationship between urban and social projects, the democratisation of the planning and design process, and the relationships between public and domestic space. I close thereafter with a few comments about the contemporary situation.*

#### SOCIAL PROJECT AND URBAN PROJECT

A recurring theme in this research is the relationship between the political level and the urban form. This dialogue, which sometimes seems so formalised it appears codifed, found in the housing emergency, which was dramatic at the end of the war, an opportunity and a boost that the new republican regimes openly grasped and addressed.

In the German context of the early twentieth century, living evolved along a quite clear line: initially, it was part of the communitarian philosophy that inspired, for example, the Darmstadt Exhibition directed by Olbricht at beginning of the century, and then, during the 1920s and '30s, it consolidated into the core of the Neues Bauen, as part of the great social machine whose heart is industry. Housing was a central issue of the exhibitions organised by the Werkbund in '27 in Stuttgart and in '29 in Breslau, or of the juxtaposition of Deutsche and Proletarische Bauausstellung in Berlin in '31, in conjunction with the CIAM conference at which, realising the deep political changes taking place in those years, Mies asked the participants, "Is urban planning essentially a political issue?"

At the end of World War II, industry, as well as technology, eventually became an acquired fact that did not demand a socio-semantic defnition as had been the case between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The alliance between art and science—of which the Bauhaus is the greatest interpreter—was not enough to guarantee autonomy of action. Instead, it was politics that was legitimised by the democratic claim of the new regimes that occupied the semantic feld and vigorously picked up the fag of progress. The housing topic, as well as architecture, thus acquired and maintained for over thirty years, in the case of Berlin, a position of autonomy that was strongly conditioned by the opposing powers that settled in the city. This defnitely freed it from the previous condition of "facility" for the industry, but also delivered it into the representative and politicised dimension.

#### The Socialist City

Looking in particular at the case of East Berlin, after the establishment of the GDR and the frst years of the post-war period characterised by the housing emergency, the housing question did not really result from the demographic situation any longer, as it was basically stable, and because social mobility between rural areas and the city was strongly regulated by the government. Rather, it was linked to the all-central and political desire to improve the housing condition of the population through the satisfaction of certain standards of hygiene and neighbourhood services. Above all, it was linked to the broader plan of refounding urban space for educational purposes, and it was representative of the new republican status and the technological progress achieved.

For this reason, above all, the "new city" and prefab construction technology prevailed over the historic city and the recovery approach, even against the evidence, always debated, of the higher fnancial cost. It was a system, moreover, of centralised production of building components and rationalisation of the process of design and execution, which arose as a must for an urban and national reality that sufered from a chronic lack of raw and fnished materials, and a shortage of specialised workers.

The interest in social housing thus accompanied the historical evolution of the GDR, just as it did in the rest of the Soviet bloc. It was present in the period of the "national tradition," in which the opposition to the principles of the liberal city became clear with the Bodenreform of 1950—and the substantial collectivisation of urban grounds—the widespread reference to the light-air-sun principles of the Neues Bauen, the centrality of public space, of high mobility, of green space and the urban garden. However, this tension reached its ultimate and systemic scale in the following period of industrialisation of building construction. Housing became the central political issue of national and, as a result, municipal

FIGURE 1 (LEFT) "Ministery for Building, Architects with Model." Photo by Klein, 1954

#### FIGURE 2 (RIGHT)

Opening of a kindergarten in Berlin-Marzahn, Allee der Kosmonauten. Photo by Erwin Schneider, 1978

urban planning. Under this meaning, the concepts that were central to the CIAMs—with the exception of high mobility, which had a similar ideological value to that in the western sector—acquired a very special meaning, as functional to the realisation of the new society.

Also, from this point of view, it was possible to imagine the radicality that some of the theses of the Neues Bauen—for the "spread out and interconnected city," and, in particular, those of the CIAM for the separation of urban functions on the small and large scale, and their interconnection via large arteries of motorised mobility—found fertile ground in the socialist context, since both positions were based on the claim of re-foundation of society. Both opposed, in fact, the liberal and speculative city of the nineteenth century, based on the private management of land and property, and the restriction of the rights of workers.

Zoning and urban standards thus acquired a role that was no longer preventive and regulatory, as in the western sector or in Italy, but was properly prescriptive and design oriented, aimed at organising the city parts in a context of the overall nationalisation of public activities. The city, then, was not only the main tool for the realisation of socialism, alongside the planning of production (precondition) and political propaganda (communication), but it was also conceived as the most economical form of social living and the richest in culture, the most efcient for the construction of a society that was intrinsically self-reliant.

The resulting urban form was well structured and uniformly spread through the many settlements realised throughout the GDR and abroad: there was a clear separation between urban space and countryside; a balanced distribution of functions within a limited urban space and inhabitation density; a concentration of representative public purposes in the inner city; and a progressive urbanisation of the villages outside the city limit. Within each neighbourhood, of which Marzahn in Berlin is one of the more consistent example, the residential buildings were grouped in three- or four-sided closed block-like frames. Each residential unit (*Wohnbereich*) had associated social infrastructures and a centre with basic residential facilities. Many units formed a residential area (*Wohngebiet*) with a superordinate centre of recreational and supply facilities, which worked as social core. Trafc speed was reduced within the residential unit while the main trafc corridors remained outside and detached from the residential areas, in which there was no transit trafc. Each building was strictly mono-functional.

The issue to realise the further political vision materially joined the other issue of realising egalitarian life conditions in this way by providing a modern, analytical dimensioned dwelling to each individual or family unit as part of a uniform, educational, urban space. For this reason, the relationship between city development, urban planning, social housing, architectural design and building construction joined uniformly together and determined a homogeneous new cityscape. It is doubtful that this also led to a shared sense of community, of mutual belonging among the inhabitants.

FIGURE 3 At the corner of Via Mario Gigante, INA-Casa Quartiere La Loggetta. Photo by Paolo Monti, 1959

FIGURE 4 Park road Viale Traiano in Rione CEP-Traiano, 2019

#### The INA-Casa Village and the Case of Scampia

If we now look at the Italian post-war situation, in particular at the two most efective moments in the Neapolitan case, the INA-Casa Plan of 1949 and Law 167 of 1962, social housing shifted from a condition of localised public intervention in the frst case, from a sort of social provision for the damage caused by the war, a model of economic and social reconstruction anchored to certain national historical values, and in the second case to a broader condition of self-celebration of the public city, which remained mainly on the theory level and only superfcially, or rather negatively, afected the issue of housing. Both cases, however, faced up to the powerful push towards urbanisation coming from the less industrialised areas of the country in those years and, especially in case of Naples, to ensure better living standards for the inhabitants of the overcrowded central areas. In both cases, the right to a home remained central but there were two radically opposing interpretations of this.

The INA-Casa experience directly joined the challenge of post-war reconstruction and the feeling of collective renewal that inspired Italy. The ways the plan was enacted interpreted the ethical values that inspired the Christian Democrats, the party that promoted the programme and that consolidated its position after the elections of '46. The projects for the many residential neighbourhoods scattered throughout Italy, as well as the design handbooks produced by Gestione INA-Casa to guide planners, referred to the cultural features supposed to be widespread among the masses moving to the city. These were urban and architectural models mostly focusing on vernacular architecture, which were in turn fltered through rationalist aesthetics and simple forms of aggregation with strong community connotations. This layout clearly aimed to welcome and help the "resettlement" of peoples coming from diferent places and traditions, mostly rural, evoking a vague semantic continuity.

The fgure of family was then proposed on the compositional level, the idea of a society made up of small nuclei, extremely cohesive within themselves, and in turn able to aggregate in freer forms (Canzanella and Traiano, for example). The church, the school and the market square returned as aggregating and ordering elements of the general layout, which adapted and enhanced—also for economic reasons—the topography of the site and the landscape setting (La Loggetta). The space of the street and the square, although open and communicating, clearly organised the composition of the buildings, which were generally isolated and composed of variously in-line, tower or terraced buildings. The inhabitation density (200–300 inhabitants/ha) and the building index (2–3 mc/sqm) were commonly low, as was the number of foors. The question of inserting the neighbourhoods into the wider urban infrastructure was often overlooked: the externally directed and still emergency logic of the process generally prevailed, as well as the idea of autonomy of the "village" and the need to fnd low-cost building areas not too far from existing urban areas. The policy of simplifcation and the strong state coordination allowed the INA-Casa Plan to combine national vision, representation of social values and relationships with the territory. This is a level of coherence that is no longer achievable on a large scale in Italy, due in part to the slow and eventually incomplete transfer to the municipalities—and then to the regions—of competences in the feld of social housing that started in the 1960s, as well as, later, in the feld of territorial and city planning.

The frst of these acts was Law No. 167 of 1962, dedicated to plans for social housing, which assigned municipalities the responsibility for their planning, established a discounted value compared to the market value for the acquisition of building areas, did not provide for fnancial transfers for the acquisition of land, and defeshed the urban project, reducing it to the prescription of a few, simple standards. This condition, in the midst of the economic boom and the major push towards urbanisation, immediately translated into the substantial dismissal of the social project by politicians.

In this context, the "167" Zone Plan for Secondigliano was conceived, the large Scampia neighbourhood, in parallel with the more comprehensive Territorial Plan drawn up by Luigi Piccinato in 1964, which was eventually not approved. With the aim of achieving a strong decentralisation of the residential and directional functions of the Neapolitan historic centre, which had been burdened by overpopulation for centuries, this plan envisaged a skeleton of large-scale road infrastructures extending to the Neapolitan hinterland and the identifcation of areas for afordable and low-income housing, public facilities and the tertiary sector. The Zone Plans concentrated these destinations in two areas, to the north (Scampia) and to the east (Ponticelli) of the historic coastal city.

The resulting Scampia master plan mostly foresaw a general road network, consisting of a central ring hosting public and directional uses and concentric sectors allocated to social housing and neighbourhood facilities. Major national corporations such as Cassa del Mezzoggiorno and IACP, along with private cooperatives, were involved in the programme and followed up separately with their own housing programmes. The results were the physical and semantic oversizing of the building dimensions, the lack of control over the urban form, and the banalisation of living in the basic cell of the new and superordinate satellite organism. An idea of society, if not dystopian or disaggregated, or all within the architectural scale as in the case of Franz di Salvo's Vele, is difcult to pinpoint.

The process coped with the overlapping of conficting conditions: the changed legislative framework; the shift to the territorial scale; the absence of a social project and reference; the depletion of the urban project and its splitting between the territorial and architectural scale; above all, the coastal city's disinterest in inland areas, Terra di Lavoro, properly Land of Work, and the opposition of the city's owners to an urban development that drained land and property value from the coastal areas.

#### The Progressive Disengagement

As we see, the parallelisms between Berlin and Naples in the evolutionary dynamics of urban development and social housing in this frst post-war phase are many, but they manifest themselves in diferent expressive forms.

In the following period there was a return to the linguistic theme—the theme of the continuity of urban and architectural form—that overwrote the social issue, or tried to replace it, now lightened by the celebratory function. This is particularly true of the PSER in Naples and the IBA-Neubau in West Berlin, while the IBA-Altbau aimed rather at the direct participation of citizens and the self-construction of the city.

While the worst social consequences of the Scampia project were properly revealed after the illegal occupation of many dwellings following the 1980 earthquake, a critical awareness of the entire urban planning process was in fact already prevalent during the 1970s. This infuenced the Piano delle Periferie (1978–81) and the Extraordinary Programme for Res idential Building (1981–86), the PSER, which, by channelling the considerable funds for post-earthquake reconstruction, with a prevalently morphological approach, envisaged an articulated mending action adherent to the territory around the Neapolitan city core and based on social housing. The complex programme did not always show the same sociological attention, which it mostly displayed in the punctual interventions around the old *casali,*  and their inhabitant groups. The case of Monterusciello, even though it was separately managed, is one of these.

A similar, morphological approach also prevailed in case of the International Building Exhibition in Berlin. Social care was mostly translated here from the project level to a diferent level. Society, in this form, was freely able to fnd its own form of cohabitation, even more if, as happened in the IBA-Altbau, the citizens' participation was well fostered and followed up during the comprehensive process of city making. The same historical urban structure was generally adopted as a model of cohabitation and as a reference for project design.

From the 1990s onwards, there was a defnitive distancing on the political level from the housing issue, and thus from the semantic representation of urban form itself, especially in Italy. In the case of the newly unifed Berlin, and with the start of large projects of a strictly private character for the central area, the topic of the upkeep of the existing fabric slowly prevailed, also in part due to the unexpected stabilisation of housing demand and the depreciation of property values linked to the German fnancial crisis that lasted until 2006. Between 1989 and 2000, in fact, the resident population remained unchanged, or rather, entered a period of substitution, with many Berliners leaving the city, and just as many West Germans and other Europeans settling there. The thousands of unmodernised fats in the old centre of East Berlin, which the inhabitants had previously left in favour of new suburban mass-housing neighbourhoods such as Marzahn, were at that moment suffcient to cover the demand for low-cost housing, particularly from the new, mostly young migrants.

In the Neapolitan case, on the other hand, the private-law tendency that infuenced and continues to infuence national policy has reduced the organisation of and fnancial sup - port for social housing, and consequently the constructive approach to urban planning action, to a minimum, if not to a mere regulatory tool for the property market. Public subsidies are instead invested in the infrastructuring of the metropolitan nebula of over three million inhabitants, that Naples metropolis has become, as a result of the loss of inhabitants from the city centre, regional immigration and disorderly economic and building expansion.

In this condition of crisis of the city—above all, the public city—if we look back at the periphery of Naples, many responses for social self-construction developed, promoted by cultural associations, citizens and the cultural vanguard. They set themselves tasks that the state and local administration had slowly neglected during the republican consolidation: personal care, the cleaning and management of the city's public spaces, the care and education of children after school, and the discouragement of social deviance. These are not spontaneous or automatic phenomena, and nor are they uniformly distributed through the territory, but they are rather forms of common sense and widespread civilisation that safeguard the original aim of the public city.

#### PARTICIPATION AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

The scale of the social housing projects carried out in the post-war period and their direct referent, the citizen, put the issue of participation at the forefront of the decision process. Consequently, the organisation of decision-making responsibilities by specialists and politicians in the feld of city planning and urban and architectural design is also relevant.

If we go beyond the frst period of the post-war emergency, in which the diferent theoretical, political and even military visions converged on the same table of work of the still undivided Berlin administration, the successive urban planning of the socialist capital followed a quite well-structured arrangement. This was specialised work, and at the same time it could lead to confrontations between the involved administrations, i.e., the strict circle of experts and political delegates. The design of the settlement was usually based on a competition between collectives from diferent institutes and public ofces or, in rare cases, the participation of independent architects. Politicians played a decisive and interfering role in the management of urban and architectural phenomena, as well as, obviously, in the preliminary political programming. The integration of industrial prefabrication, i.e., *Baukombinat*, in the design process deeply conditioned the process of the detailed design and works supervision. The participation of artists and landscape architects in the fnishing of the urban and architectural decoration was eventually provided for.

The situation in West Berlin was more diversifed. In the case of the Märkisches Viertel, the largest public housing complex in West Germany in the frst half of the 1960s, for example, the group of architects who draw up the master plan (replacing a much less ambitious plan prepared by the municipality of Reinickensdorf) was chosen without a competition. Chief Architect Werner Düttmann himself joined the planning team and led it. The architectural

FIGURE 5 Märkisches Viertel, "The Long Lament." Photo by Rolf Kohler, 1971

design of the diferent settlement parts was entrusted to young, renowned German and foreign architects, including those responsible for the master plan. This had efects on the design of the buildings, the colour plan, the general landscaping, and the street furniture; all aspects were taken care of. There was no public consultation during the design process, even though building new neighbourhoods involved the relocation of well-known social groups from the central areas that had to be cleared and the settlement of new immigrants coming to Berlin.

IBA 1984/87 revolutionised this approach from many points of view and entrusted the process coordination to two architects outside the administration. Hämer (who had already been involved in the 1974 Urban Renewal Programme) for the recovery of the existing buildings in Kreuzberg district, and Kleihues for the renewal of the historic urban fabric by new building in Mitte and Tiergarten. A management agency that counted on eighty internally employed and around two hundred external architects coming from throughout Germany and from a wide international context, acting as a planning, fnancing and building coordinator, was created. In case of IBA-Neubau, the master plan—assigned generally by competition invitations to independent designers—and the detailed design of the blocks and the buildings ran parallel. In case of IBA-Altbau, the management of the renovation was open to the residents themselves, providing for participatory forms in the project, opportunities for public consultation and technical and fnancial support for self-construction.

In the Berlin case, more generally, an external factor, the political rivalry due to the geopolitical situation, infuenced urban planning and the housing issue decisively. In the Neapolitan case, the consequences of state legislation, fnancing and overall coordination lasted for many years. Starting in the 1960s, giving responsibility to lower levels of government without ofering a comprehensive fnal solution started to impose a not syncretic and destabilising agenda on local urban programming and planning.

The frst was the case for the public housing projects of the reconstruction carried out in Naples by the Ministry for Public Works, the ICP and the Genio Civile in the meshes of the urban fabric in the early post-war years, the so called *Ricostruzione*, and it was also the case for the INA-Casa Plan later. The headquarters of INA-Casa were in a small structure in Rome, where the whole process was centrally followed up: directly or through a competition it entrusted groups of designers with the drafting of master plans, design and supervision of works; it prepared handbooks that overlapped with local building and city-planning rules, if available. In this way, the programme achieved a compromise between urban layout, architectural design, housing issues and economic management. The structure followed the entire settlement process, from the acquisition of the building land to the ranking of the eligible applicants, to their introduction to the new living accommodation and to the related cohabitation rules.

In La Loggetta, Canzanella and Traiano (INA-Casa here joined the wider CEP pro-

gramme), for example, we observe a pyramidal distribution of the planning process in which the architect in charge subdivided and coordinated the urban design of the sublots among groups of professionals who also dealt with the architectural design. This was a process that did not provide for information or democratic participation, but which guaranteed fuid and articulated control over the diferent scales of the project.

The Scampia mega-neighbourhood experimented with a very diferent kind of organisation, following the tendency, as in CEP-Traiano, to increase the dimensions and the complexity of the settlement and to join many social housing partners together. With the aim of realising a new self-sufcient city core, interconnected to the Neapolitan hinterland and to the coastal city by the foreseen high mobility net, the related "167" Zone Plan elaborated by the municipality set itself as an open, agile plan that strictly restricted its prescriptions to a few quantitative standards (maximum height, inhabitation density, building density, respect bands), to the uses and to a general street layout. The architectural design within the single lots was clearly split from the urban plan and was carried out by the designers who were separately entrusted by the diferent housing companies joining the project. The work supervision was carried out by the company ofce itself, as happened in the case of the Vele by Franz di Salvo.

This allowed and encouraged the tendency to cut construction costs, eventually compromising the quality of the building in many cases. In parallel, the non-approval of the Territorial Plan by Luigi Piccinato isolated the Zone Plan at the wider planning level, resulting in its double detachment from both the architectural and the urban levels.

In the wake of this experience, the PSER, launched under the emergency following the 1980 earthquake, provided for the government commissioner for reconstruction, Mayor Maurizio Valenzi, to be fanked by a team of experts of cultural and scientifc value and by a

FIGURE 6 Scampia "167" neighbourhood, 2019

FIGURE 7 The Ciro Esposito Park at centre of the Scampia neighbourhood, 2019

planning ofce directed by architect and urban planner Vezio De Lucia, which also verifed the projects and the state of advancement. The ofce tendered the construction works to preselected companies on the basis of fxed prices, at least for new buildings. The interventions were punctually localised in areas where the housing need was higher. At the end of the process, which completed 70 % of its targets in the six years of its existence (1981–86), about one thousand designers and technicians were involved.

Scaled locally, this approach had many similarities with the INA-Casa model. The complex and versatile coordination structure held together the political, urban planning and architectural levels in dialogue with the concessionary companies. On the twelve diferent areas of the wider metropolitan territory in which it acted, it was able to manage the quite complex programme, which was well articulated by recovery interventions, reinterpretation of the historical fabric and new construction, and the widespread use of landscaping and garden architecture.

#### THE SOCIAL FRONTIER: THE NEW IDEA OF HOME

Focusing now on the present, I take up the line traced in the introduction to the book and follow the interpretation of the home recently proposed by the philosopher Emanuele Coccia in *Filosofa della casa* (Turin, 2021), and his antithetical projection of public space as an authentic manifestation of the modern city, intended as an all-European urban form that began in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, through the era of absolutism, consolidated with the infrastructuring of the libertarian city between 19th and 20th century, and concluded, or at least emerged on a wider scale, with the era of liberal democracies after World War II.

This is the all-modern dichotomy between the public and private dimensions, and the physical and semantic prevalence of the frst over the second. According to this perspective, the recent pandemic, by emphasising the domestic dimension over the urban one—which has become inaccessible and dangerous at times—has revealed a transformation of the

public environment that has actually been taking place since the beginning of the millennium and is closely connected to the widespread consumption of digital mass media. In this perspective, public space, in addition to being the deputed location of community facilities and the place of social life, becomes an extension of domestic space, while the home itself acquires urbanity.

Beyond this interpretation, which omits for clarity the various and local historical inertias (each city is a particular conglomerate of this ongoing sedimentation), it is undeniable that the domestic space, especially that of large cities, has gained a centrality that is residential, productive and commercial. It is not, therefore, only the city, as a culturally living organism, that opposes the analytical simplifcations of the modern functionalistic plan, as has been revealed over time, but it is also the domestic cell itself that constitutes a widespread antinomy and that makes the urban project more complex and articulated.

The digital interconnection of private dwellings and the ubiquitous distribution of services in fact relativises urban space as the place assigned to the communal dimension and, consequently, of its constitution as a public place. Evidently, the conditions and fgures of its architectural representation, the street or the square, as developed in the modern era, are changing. The same life of the people, moreover, is becoming in the long run less stationary and is marked by labour mobility and income instability, facts that erode the strong link between person and physical place that, strengthened by habit and communication, usually merges into the cultural place.

All this casts a new light on urban space, both that of the historical city—which develops a morphology of Medieval origin—and that of the city of the 20th century—spread out and open, articulated by separate functions and interconnected by the channels of mass mobility. What in fact breaks through is the meta scale—not very human and at the same time intimate—of the digital metropolis. A dimension that acts by expanding and relativising local identities, concepts of living and hosting, organising and planning life. If this scale of action does not directly afect the physical limits of space, and thus the separation between domestic and urban space, it certainly changes its perception and individual and collective consciousness and, consequently, its projection in the project.

This modifcation also acts on the concepts of "public" and "social", and there is certainly a rebalancing between the domestic dimension (less private than before) and the urban dimension (less public and also less collective). Many assumptions of the recent modern city of productive-industrial origin, therefore, fade: *Existenzminimum*, at least theoretically, if understood as a form of maximum compression of the private living dimension to the biological function; or zoning, as a reduction of urban parts to specialised organs, in the broader zoomorphic fguration of the city. However, all those aspirations to a life in contact with nature that translates into the desire for homes better equipped with threshold zones (patios, balconies, gardens, etc.) and urban spaces of proximity that are attractive from a naturalistic point of view (fat complex gardens, neighbourhood gardens, city parks, etc.) remain. Nevertheless, democratic participation persists in the conceptual and design process; also in the mixing and confrontation between specialised roles and social partners, the democratic participation in the city transformation process.

If, then, on the one hand, housing acquires new centrality, more objective than semantic, as a precondition for the life of the individual and for his or her own working and social environment, on the other hand, urban space blurs its semantic clarity and its political representation to become primarily, or simply, a place of social proximity. It too, like housing, is necessarily available to diferent uses, even non-specialised and temporary ones, and it is openly accessible to several social categories. It is intended as an efective expansion of the domestic sphere, perhaps by degrees of hierarchy and increasing neutrality on the metropolitan level, also to integrate all the non-residential functions that homes, as imagined and eventually built so far and for reasons of cost, cannot satisfy.

From this new perspective—from inside to outside, from private to public—both the physically defned spaces of the historical city and the open spaces of the twentieth-century city reveal a wide and varied range of interpretative and regenerative possibilities that allow many sensibilities or needs to fnd their personal traces.

#### "IS URBAN PLANNING ESSENTIALLY A POLITICAL ISSUE?"

Summarising in conclusion any inputs for a better city policy, it is clear that the right to a home appears today in all its urgency (domestic place and social place) in the wider and real context of privatisation of the city organism. As observed, it should not be separated from the services a residence and working from home need and, consequently, it should afect the urban spaces of the neighbourhood, of which the living space is integral part. Moreover, the geographical distribution of social housing, its parcelling out and difusion among every social class and part of the city, its urban "absorption", should be fostered, as efects of a widespread social fact and of a particular condition of life, temporary or not, that can afect anyone.

It is an action that must balance the efects of the wealth concentration the city is not able to ofer today as it did in the past, at least comparing the frst four decades of the post-war period with subsequent periods, also thanks to the extensive work on public social housing that characterized Italy as well as Germany. The issue of access to wealth—which is the urban issue—remains in fact constitutive of the republican and democratic condition. After all, like language, the city is the frst physical and cultural site of social integration.

To achieve this object, a new interpretation of the public city, at least, a good practice, would consist in a proximity of social housing and a democratisation of urban space that afect the arrangement of and relationship between city parts on the large scale, and the provision of and care for living environments on the scale of neighbourhoods.

FIGURE 8 Naples city centre, Piazza Sant'Anna a Capuana. Photo by Paolo Monti, 1978

CC BY-SA 4.0

The ecological issue is equally important. In 1965, and later in 1975, (West) Germany organised the entire federal planning system on the basis of the integration of the diferent planning levels: territorial, socio-economic and cultural. Since 1976 (Bundesbaugesetzbuch and Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) it has updated this system of responsibilities by focusing on ecological factors, in the awareness that the natural good, in particular land consumption, is not infnitely available. This complex organisation of the planning environment, which still applies in Germany with much greater stability and coherence than in Italy, and which afects the general structural plan up to the local project, sometimes shows little sense of proportion and objectivity but has fostered an urban development that is coherent and respectful of the natural datum.

In Italy, on the contrary and depending today on each region, the levels of territorial and landscape planning, of social projects as well as of safeguarding nature, in fact take diferent paths, or do not run coherently, due mostly to the unresolved and not consistent reorganisation of institutional responsibilities in recent decades between state and local administrations. This overlaps with the gradual supplanting of the public city by the private one as the main and virulent urban agent, as is also the case for the Neapolitan hinterland. This has led to a complete loss of control over the consumption of virgin soil spreading over any communal border, which then infuences both the ecological and the economic management of the city organism.

The historical city, the compact city, for all its intrinsic condition of social density, remains clearly the most sustainable among the urban models, from both an ecological and an economic point of view. From this perspective, Naples itself is an exemplary case, for better or for worse. Living in the historic centre—today less crowded than in the past, and without considering here the problem of delinquency that afects some areas—in fact, means fnding what can be necessary for daily living a few metres from home, at least in terms of food, personal care and home, tertiary services, and handicraft products. The proximity of services (rather than public facilities) that is economically possible due to the high inhabitation density and building is also a critical aspect of the model.

For the same reason—the high inhabitation density—a kind of similar condition of sustainability can also be achieved in large mass-housing neighbourhoods such as Scampia and Ponticelli, if the large reserves of free public space are integrated with the facilities necessary for residence and their main lack, social proximity, is compensated.

The parallel development of the extensive high-road infrastructure, and the specialisation and concentration of uses along the wider inner belt of coastal Naples during the 1980s and '90s, together with the urban sprawl that developed in the same years around many hinterland towns, has made rebalancing and intervention socially and economically complex today. If, for example, the businesses inhabiting the historic centre, although less numerous and lucrative than in the past, partially sufer from the proximity of the large shopping centres of the city belt, and are substantially resilient to change, this is not the case for activities in the large mass-housing suburbs, where, for example, the problem of

#### (IN THE FOLLOWING PAGE) Children in the Neues Kreuzberg Zentrum. Photo by S.T.E.R.N., 1986

long walking distances prevails and where urban regeneration necessarily requires large investments for the realisation of nearby facilities.

From this point of view, it would be helpful to reorganise the mobility system and to rethink the layout of the public space deeply, on the one hand, but on the wider and more complex scale to restructure the hubs of commerce and craftsmanship—the centres of the privatised city—to return activities and economic sense to the neighbourhoods, where housing can cohabit with compatible production and trade. The new light and shared mobility, together with the enhancement of the public transport network on the scale of neighbourhoods, such as at the metropolitan one, are available tools to increase ecological sustainability and to support the regeneration of public spaces economically.

Accordingly, it is not just a question of mending the gaps in the city's form and sense, its morphology, but rather of reconstructing, or supporting where it exists, the strict link between building and life, place and experience. The social city, after all, is that simple permeable and permeating condition that counteracts the specialisation of uses and the concentration of wealth, and that promotes an equal distribution of services, opportunities and beauty. It is what makes the *habitus* of the city a comfortable outft.

urheberrechtlich geschützt

# BIBLIOGRAPHY

#### **I DOCUMENTATION**

#### **BERLIN**

I-01 Karl-Marx-Allee II

#### *MinJi Kim*

Berning, Maria, and Michael Braum. *Berliner Wohnquartiere: Ein Führer durch 70 Siedlungen.* 3rd Edition. Berlin: Reimer, 2003.

Engel, Helmut. *Karl-Marx-Allee – Magistrale in Berlin: Die Wandlung der sozialistischen Prachtstraße zur Hauptstraße des Berliner Ostens*. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996.

Kaufmann, Katharina. *Die Platte im Wandel: Vitalisierung und Neuorganisation am Beispiel der Wohnungsbauserie 70*. Master's Thesis, Technische Universität Graz, 2014.

Kaulen, Charlotte*. Erkennen, Erhalten, Erweitern: Die Karl-Marx-Allee in Berlin*. Bachelor's Thesis, HafenCity Universität Hamburg, 2012.

Kress, Sigfried, and Günther Hirschfelder. *Industrieller Wohnungsbau: Allgemeine Grundlagen*. Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1980.

Leinauer, Irma. "The Second Wave of Post-War Modernism in East Berlin: Karl-Marx-Allee from Strausberger Platz to Alexanderplatz." In *Karl-Marx-Allee and Interbau 1957: Confrontation, Competition and the Co-evolution of Modernism in Berlin*, edited by Jörg Haspel and Thomas Flierl, pp. 45–54. Beiträge zur Denkmalpfege in Berlin, Volume 52. Berlin: Landesdenkmalamt, 2019.

Ribbe, Wolfgang. *Die Karl-Marx-Allee zwischen Strausberger Platz und Alex.* 1st Edition. Berlin: BWV, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2005.


Schwenk, Herbert. "Die Splanemann-Siedlung. Berlin im Detail*.*" *Berlingeschichte.* 1997. https://berlingeschichte.de/bms/bmstxt97/9704detb.htm (accessed March 20, 2020).

WBM Wohnungsbaugesellschaft Berlin-Mitte mbH Wire Staff*. Jeder M² Du. Das Plattenbaukulturportal*. Last modifed 2020. https://www.jeder-qm-du.de/ index/.

#### I-02 Leipziger Straße

#### *Antonello Scopacasa*

For a complete bibliography see "Urban Space and Housing Programmes in East Berlin Inner City: The Case of Leipziger Straße," pp. 405–406.

*Berlin Hauptstadt der DDR.* Berlin, 1986.

Ortmann, Wolfgang. "Wohnhochhäuser mit gesellschaftlichen Funktionsbereichen – Berlin, Leipziger Straße." *Architektur der DDR* (1986, n. 9): pp. 29–33.

Schweizer, Peter. "Der Aufbau der Leipziger Straße in Berlin. Eine neue Etappe der sozialistischen Umgestaltung der Hauptstadt der DDR." *Deutsche Architektur* (1969, n. 9): pp. 526–29.

Straßenmeier, Werner. "Wohnkomplex Leipziger Straße in Berlin." *Architektur der DDR* (1979, n. 1): pp. 12–17.

*Wohnhochhäuser '69*. Catalogue edited by VE Wohnbaukombinat, pp. 4–11. Berlin, 1970.

#### I-03 Märkisches Viertel *Natalia Kvitkova*

Braun, Jascha Philipp. *Großsiedlungsbau im geteilten Berlin: das Märkische Viertel und Marzahn als Beispiele des spätmodernen Städtebaus*. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2019.

von Brauchitsch, Boris. *Licht, Luft und Luxus. West-Berliner Wohnträume der 1960er- und 1970er-Jahre*. Berlin: Be-Bra Verlag, 2017.

Düttmann, Werner et al. "Planung." *Der Städtebau* (1963, n. 14/15): pp. 390–91.

Düwel, Jörn, and Niels Gutschow. "Städtebau vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis zu den 'Grenzen des Wachstums' in den frühen siebziger Jahren. 1918–1975." In *Berlin und seine Bauten. Teil I: Städtebau*, edited by Harald Bodenschatz, Jörn Düwel, Niels Gutschow, and Hans Stimmann, pp. 328–34. Berlin: Jovis, 2009.

Knorr-Siedow, Thomas, and Christiane Droste. *Large Housing Estates in Berlin, Germany: Opinions of Residents on Recent Developments.* Utrecht: RE-STATE (Restructuring Large-scale Housing Estates in European Cities: Good Practices and New Visions for Sustainable Neighbourhoods and Cities) Report 4b. Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, 2005. http:// restate.geo.uu.nl/results/Report4/4bgermany.pdf.

*Märkisches Viertel, Plandokumentation.* Berlin, 1972.

*Modernisation of the MärkischesViertel in Berlin: Integrated Development Concept for a 1960s Era Large Residential Development.* Berlin: GoSoBau, 2009. https://www.gesobau.de/fileadmin/user\_upload/03\_Wohnen/3.1\_Rund\_ ums\_Wohnen/Wohnquartiere/Maerkisches\_Viertel/GESOBAU\_Modernisierung\_des\_Maerkischen\_Viertels\_2009\_web.pdf.

Urban, Florian. "The Hut on the Garden Plot: Informal Architecture in Twentieth-Century Berlin." *Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians* 72, no. 2 (2013): pp. 221–49.

Urban, Florian. *Tower and Slab: Histories of Global Mass Housing*. London: Routledge, 2013.

Urban, Florian. "Large Housing Estates of Berlin, Germany." In: *Housing Estates in Europe. The Urban Book Series*, edited by D. Hess, T. Tammaru, and M. van Ham, pp. 99–120. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018.

Voll, Dieter. *Von der Wohnlaube zum Hochhaus. Eine geografsche Untersuchung über die Entstehung und Struktur des Märkisches Viertels in Berlin (West) bis 1976*. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1983.

# I-04 Großwohnsiedlung Marzahn

#### *Martin Spalek*


#### I-05 IBA-Neubau on northern Ritterstraße *Antonello Scopacasa*

For a complete bibliography see "IBA-Neubau: Social Housing as a Renewal Generator for the Inner City," pp. 408–409.


"Vorwort." *Berliner Baubilanz '78* (Berlin, 1978).

#### **Sitography**

http://www.f-iba.de/ http://www.robkrier.de/

#### I-06 IBA-Altbau

*Lorenza Manfredi*


*Schritt für Schritt – Behutsame Stadterneuerung in Kreuzberg – Eine Wanderausstellung*, exhibition catalogue. Berlin: S.T.E.R.N., 1990.

#### **NAPLES**

I-07 Pilot Settlement Torre Ranieri

*Ilenia Gioia*


I-08 Rione Traiano

#### *Giada Limongi*


#### I-09 Quartiere La Loggetta *Vincenzo Cirillo*

Belfore, Pasquale, and Maria Dolores Morelli. "La tenuta urbana di due quartieri d'autore." In *Città architettura edilizia pubblica, Napoli ed il piano INA Casa*, edited by Ugo Carughi, pp. 132–40. Naples: CLEAN, 2006

Bertoli, Barbara. *Giulio de Luca 1912–2004. Opere e progetti.* Naples: Clean, 2013. De Fusco, Renato. *Napoli nel Novecento*. Naples: Electa Napoli, 1994.

De Luca, Giulio. *I problemi urbanistici di Napoli: un progetto possibile*. Naples: La Buona Stampa, 1987.

Ina-Casa. *Suggerimenti, norme e schemi per la elaborazione e presentazione dei progetti. Bandi di concorso*. Rome, 1949.

Mangone, Fabio, and Michele Capobianco. "La cellula e il quartiere, 1949–63." In *Città architettura edilizia pubblica, Napoli ed il piano INA-Casa*, edited by Ugo Carughi, p. 157. Naples: CLEAN, 2006.


#### I-10 Quartiere Canzanella

#### *Giada Limongi*

Bertoli, Barbara. *Giulio de Luca 1912–2004. Opere e progetti.* Naples: Clean, 2013.


#### I-11 "Le Vele" in Scampia

#### *Vincenzo Cirillo*


Cerullo, Davide. *Poesia cruda. Gli irrecuperabili non esistono*. Naples: Marotta & Cafero, 2017.


#### I-12 Monterusciello

#### *Vito Capasso*


II-01 Back to the Microscale. Berlin IBA-Altbau and Märkisches Viertel, Naples Scampia and Rione Traiano: A Comparison

*Natalia Kvitkova, Giada Limongi, Lorenza Manfredi, Dario Marfella*

Bodenschatz, Harald, and Cordelia Polinna, eds. *Learning from IBA – die IBA 1987 in Berlin*. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2010.

Dal Piaz, Alessandro. *Napoli 1945–1985: Quarant'anni di urbanistica*. Milan: Franco Angeli, 1985.

Der Spiegel. "Slums verschoben." *Der Spiegel* (September 9, 1968): pp. 134–38.


Gehl, Jan. *Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space*. London: Island Press, 2011.


### II-02 Dynamics of Experimentation by Building the Post-War City in Berlin and Naples

#### *Ilenia Gioia, Lorenza Manfredi, Antonello Scopacasa*

Amt für Information des Magistrats von Groß-Berlin. "Das neue Gesicht der Stalinallee." In Thomas Topfstedt, *Grundlinien von Städtebau und Architektur der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik 1949 bis 1955*, p. 57. PhD Dissertation, TU Leipzig, 1980.

Belfore, Pasquale, and Benedetto Gravagnuolo. *Napoli: Architettura e urbanistica del Novecento.* Rome: Laterza, 1994.

Biraghi, Marco. *L'architetto come intellettuale*. Turin: Einaudi, 2019.

Bodenschatz, Harald, and Cordelia Polinna, eds. *Learning from IBA – die IBA 1987 in Berlin*. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2010.

Collein, Edmund. "Wo stehen wir in unserer Architekturdiskussion." *Neues Deutschland* (December 4, 1951).

Cosenza, Luigi. *Esperienze di Architettura*. Naples: Macchiaroli, 1950.

Cupelloni, Luciano, ed. *I materiali del Moderno. Campi, temi e modi del progetto di riqualifcazione.* Rome: Gangemi, 2017

Cutolo, Davide. *L'altra IBA – L'Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1984/1987 e il Behutsame Stadterneuerung di Kreuzberg*. PhD Dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, 2012.

Ditzen, Lore. "Lernprozesse. Die Internationale Bauausstellung IBA in Berlin." *Archithese* (June 1984): p. 33.

Durth, Werner, Jörn Düwel, and Niels Gutschow. *Architektur und Städtebau der DDR. Band 1 and 2.* Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1999.

Flierl, Bruno. *Gebaute DDR. Über Stadtplaner, Architektur und die Macht*. Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1998.

Giordano, Giuseppe, and Nunzia Sorbino. *Luigi Cosenza, architettura e tecnica*. Naples: Clean, 2003.

Hegemann, Werner. *Die steinerne Berlin*. Lugano: Jakob Hegner, 1930.

Hegemann, Werner. *La Berlino di pietra. Storia della più grande città di caserme d'aftto*. Milan: Gabriele Mazzotta editore, 1975.

Holm, Andrej, and Armin Kuhn. "Squatting and Urban Renewal: The Interaction of Squatter Movements and Strategies of Urban Restructuring in Berlin." *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 35, no. 3 (2010).

Liebknecht, Kurt. "Im Kampf um eine neue deutsche Architektur." *Neues Deutschland* (January 13, 1951).

*Luigi Cosenza, l'uomo, il compagno*. Naples: Cooperativa Editrice Sintesi, 1985.

Riecke, Herbert. "Wohnpaläste im Sozialismus statt Mietkasernen im Kapitalismus." In *Das Berliner Miethaus 1945–1989*, edited by Johann Friedrich Geist and Klaus Kürvers. Munich: Prestel, 1989.

Sack, Manfred, ed. *Hardt-Waltherr Hmer, Stadt im Kopf*. Berlin: Jovis Verlag, 2002.

Stenti, Sergio. *Napoli moderna città e case popolari 1868–1980*. Naples: Clean, 1993.

Ulbricht, Wather. "Die neue Aufgaben im nationalen Aufbau." *Neues Deutschland* (April 6, 1955).

#### II-03 Design and Implementation: The Failures of Models and New Opportunities

#### *Giada Limongi, Vito Capasso, Natalia Kvitkova, Martin Spalek*

Altrock, Uwe, Nico Grunze, and Sigrun Kabisch. *Großwohnsiedlungen im Haltbarkeitscheck: Diferenzierte Perspektiven ostdeutscher Großwohnsiedlungen*. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 2018.

Berking, Helmuth, Frank Berking, Sybille Frank, Lars Frers, Martina Löw, Lars Meier, and Silke Steets. *Negotiating Urban Conficts. Interaction, Space and Control.* Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2006.

Betker, Frank. *Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit. Kommunale Stadtplanung in der DDR und nach der Wende (1945–1990).* Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005.

Berning, Maria, Michael Braum, Jens Giesecke, Engelbert Lütke Daldrup, and Klaus-Dieter Schulz. *Berliner Wohnquartiere. Ein Führer durch 70 Siedlun-* *gen*. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 2003.

Braun, Jascha Philipp. *Großsiedlungsbau im geteilten Berlin: Das Märkische Viertel und Marzahn als Beispiele des spätmodernen Städtebaus*. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2019.

Cutter, Susan L., Lindsey Barnes, Melissa Berry, Christopher Burton, Elijah Evans, Eric Tate, and Jennifer Webb. "A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disasters." *Global Environmental Change* 18 (2008): pp. 598–606 (online magazine).

Dal Piaz, Alessandro. *Napoli 1945–1985. Quarant'anni di urbanistica*. Milan: Franco Angeli, 1985.

Escalona, Francesco, and Dora Francese. *Monteruscello: L'impianto urbano e gli edifci pubblici*. Naples: Giannini, 1987.

Frediani, Gianluca. "Il quartiere Traiano di Marcello Canino. Distruzione di un modello*.*" *ArQ, Architettura Quaderni* (1989, n. 2): pp. 67–79.

Galderisi, Adriana, and Andrea Ceudech. "La mitigazione del rischio idrogeologico attraverso gli strumenti ordinari di governo delle trasformazioni urbane. Il caso del quartiere Soccavo a Napoli." In *Città, Salute, Sicurezza. Strumenti di governo e casi studio – La gestione del Rischio*, edited by Maria Cristina Treu, pp. 474-502. Milan: Maggioli Editore, 2009.

Gasparrini, Carlo, and Anna Terracciano. *Dross City. Metabolismo urbano e progetto di riciclo dei drosscape*. Trento: List, 2017.

Hannemann, Christine. *Die Platte. Industrialisierter Wohnungsbau in der DDR*. Berlin: Schelzky & Jeep, 2000.

Harnack, Maren, Sebastian Haumann, Karin Berkemann, Mario Tvrtkovic, Tobias Michael Wolf, and Stephanie Herold, eds. *Community Spaces: Conception, Appropriation, Identity*. Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2015.

Kirsten, Thomas. *Stadtplanung und Stadterneuerung in der DDR*. Kassel: University Press 1988.

Lindemann, Christina. "Wohnungsbau als Stadtentwicklung in Berlin Ost." In *Wohnungsfrage und Stadtentwicklung*, edited by Harald Bodenschatz and Werner Brake, pp. 108–24. Berlin: Lukas Verlag, 2017.

Moraci, Francesca, Maurizio F. Errigo, Celestina Fazia, Gianluca Burgio, and Sante Foresta. "Making Less Vulnerable Cities: Resilience as a New Paradigm of Smart Planning." *Sustainability* 10/755 (2018) (online magazine).

Murie, Alan, and Sako Musterd. "Social Exclusion and Opportunity Structures in European Cities and Neighbourhoods." *Urban Studies* 41 (2004).

*Neighbourhood Management in Berlin: Information on the "Socially Integrative City" Programme*. Berlin: Senate Department for Urban Development Communication, 2010.

Nelle, Anja B. "Die Anpassungsfähigkeit schrumpfender Städte: Erfahrungen aus dem Stadtumbau Ost." In *Die Anpassungsfähigkeit von Städten. Zwischen Resilienz, Krisenreaktion und Zukunftsfähigkeit*, edited by Uwe Altrock, Thomas Kuder, Nuissl Henning, pp. 251–70. Kassel: Altrock, 2014.

Pagano, Lilia. *Periferie di Napoli. La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica*. Naples: Electa, 2001.

Pagano, Lilia. *Agostino Renna: Rimontaggio di un pensiero sulla conoscenza dell'architettura: Antologia di scritti e progetti 1964–1988*. Naples: CLEAN Edizioni, 2012.

Pensley, Danielle S. "City Planning and State Policy in the GDR: The Example of Neubaugebiet Hellersdorf." *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research*, 19, no. 4 (1995): pp. 549–75

Pickett, S. T. A., Mary Cadenasso, and Morgan Grove. "Resilient Cities: Meaning, Models, and Metaphor for Integrating the Ecological, Socio-Economic, and Planning Realms." *Landscape and Urban Planning* 69 (2004):

pp. 369–84.


#### **III IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS**

#### **BERLIN**

III-01 Urban Space and Housing Programmes in East Berlin Inner City. The Case of Leipziger Straße *Antonello Scopacasa*


*Bauzeitung* (1955, n. 9, II): p. 50.


*Deutsche Architektur* (1961, n. 10): pp. 417*–*19.


*Wohnhochhäuser '69*, catalogue, edited by VE Wohnbaukombinat. Berlin, 1969.

#### III-02 The Joint German Competition for the Fennpfuhl Neighbourhood in 1956 and its Outcomes *Andreas Butter*

Butter, Andreas, and Ulrich Hartung. *Ostmoderne*. Berlin: Jovis, 2014.

Butter, Andreas. *Neues Leben, neues Bauen. Die Moderne in der Architektur der SBZ/DDR 1945–1951*. Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2006.


Flierl, Thomas. "'Vielleicht die größte Aufgabe, die je einem Architekten gestellt wurde.' Ernst May in der Sowjetunion (1930–1933)." In *Ernst May 1886–1970*, exhibition catalogue, edited by Claudia Quiring, Wolfgang Voigt, Peter Cachola Schmal, Eckhard Herrel, pp. 157–95. München: Prestel, 2011. https://www.exc16.uni-konstanz.de/uploads/media/Arbeitsgespraech-Flierl-Ernst-May-121108.pdf.

Fulbrook, Mary. "The Concept of Normalisation in the GDR in Comparative Perspective." In *Power and Society in the GDR. The 'Normalisation of Rule?'*, edited by Mary Fulbrook, pp. 1–30. New York/Oxford: Berghahn books, 2009.

Kossel, Elmar. *Hermann Henselmann und die Moderne. Eine Studie zur Modernerezeption in der Architektur der DDR*. PhD Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin, 2008. Edited by Adrian von Buttlar and Kerstin Wittmann-Englert. Königstein: Langenwiesche, 2013.

Kuchenbuch, David. "Eine Moderne nach 'menschlichem Maß.' Ordungsdenken und social engineering in Architektur und Stadtplanung – Deutschland und Schweden, 1920er bis 1950er Jahre." In *Die Ordnung der Moderne, Social Engineering im 20. Jahrhundert,* edited by Thomas Etzemüller, pp. 109–28. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2009.

*Walter Schwagenscheidt und Tassilo Sittmann: Die Raumstadt von ihren Anfängen bis heute*, exhibition catalogue, edited by Stadtverwaltung Albstadt, Albstadt, 1986.

#### III-03 Yesterday's Utopia and Today's Reality: Post-War Housing Models in West Berlin

*Christian Haid, Lukas Staudinger*

Aktion 507. *Diagnose zum Bauen in West-Berlin – Manifest – Materialien zur Diskussion*. Berlin, 1968.

"Berlin Förderung: So exzessiv und schamlos." *Der Spiegel* (May 28, 1973). https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-41986676.html.

Bodenschatz, Harald. *Städtebau in Berlin: Schreckbild und Vorbild für Europa*. Berlin: DOM, 2013.

Chambless, Edgar. *Roadtown*. New York: Roadtown Press, 1910.

Dase, Martina, Jüregen Lüdtke, and Hellmut Wollmann. *Stadterneuerung im Wandel: Erfahrungen aus Ost und West*. Basel: Birkhäuser, 1989.

"Die Großen im Baugeschäft." *Die Zeit* (November 19, 1971, n. 47).

"Durchlöcherte Schlange." *Der Spiegel* (October 27, 1980). https://www.spiegel. de/spiegel/print/d-14323733.html.

Göktürk, Deniz, David J. Gramling, and Anton Kaes. *Germany in Transit: Nation and Migration, 1955–2005*. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

Hartung, Klaus. "Unternehmen Kreuzberg." *Die Zeit* (August 2, 2001). https:// www.zeit.de/2001/32/Unternehmen\_Kreuzberg.

Kuhn, Heinrich. *Armutszeugnisse. West-Berlin vor der Stadtsanierung in den sechziger Jahren,* edited by Sabine Krüger. Berlin: Braus Verlag, 2014.

Levels, Annika. "Rethinking the Street: Politics, Processes, and Space of Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Friendly Street Transformations in New York and Berlin." Dissertation, TU Berlin, 2017*.*

Reinecke, Christine. "Am Rande der Gesellschaft? Das Märkische Viertel – eine West-Berliner Großsiedlung und ihre Darstellung als urbane Problemzone." *Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History* 11, no. 2 (2014): pp. 212–34.

Reidemeister, Helga. *Der gekaufte Traum.* Film. Berlin: Deutsche Film und Fernsehakademie Berlin, 1974/1977.

Reidemeister, Helga. *Von wegen Schicksal.* Film. Berlin: Deutsche Film und Fernsehakademie Berlin, 1979.

"Slums verschoben." *Der Spiegel* (September 9, 1968).

Stimmann, Hans. *Verkehrsfächenüberbauung, Dissertationsschrift TU Berlin*. Berlin: Arbeitshefte 15/16 des Instituts für Stadt- und Regionalplanung, 1980.

Ward, Janet. "Las Vegas on the Spree." In *Visual Culture in Twentieth-Century Germany: Text as Spectacle,* edited by Gail Finney, pp. 83–100. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006.

III-04 Back to the City: The Central Areas of Berlin's Large Housing Estates. Märkisches Viertel and Marzahn as Planning Examples of Late Modern Urban Discourses

#### *Jascha Philipp Braun*

"Berlin, Märkisches Viertel – Ein Zwischenbericht." In *Bauwelt* 58, 46-47 (1967): pp. 1188–214.

Boeddinghaus, Gerhard. *Gesellschaft durch Dichte: Kritische Initiativen zu einem neuen Leitbild für Planung und Städtebau 1963/1964*. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1995.


"Wettbewerbe Berlin-Marzahn. Studien für den gesellschaftlichen Hauptbereich." *Architektur der DDR* 28, 6 (1979): pp. 334–45.

#### III-05 East Germany under Palm Trees: GDR Housing Projects Abroad

#### *Andreas Butter*

Avermaete, Tom. "'Neues Bauen in Afrika': Displaying East and West German Architecture During the Cold War." *Journal of Architecture* 17 (June 2012): pp. 387–405.


Koordinierungsrat DDR/UdSSR, ed. *Neue Wohnkomplexe in der DDR und UdSSR*. Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1987.

Krüger, Walter, and Bernd Stich. "Wohnungsneubau in der Volksrepublik Moçambique." *Architektur der DDR* (August 1984): pp. 472–74.

Krüger, Walter, Wolf-Rüdiger Schwartz, and N. Schmidt. "Governorat Abyan: Wohngebiete in Zingibar, Al Kod, Al Ja'ar, Al Makhzan." *Architektur der DDR* (August 1984): pp. 468–71.

Mende, Doreen. "Hamhŭngs Zwei Waisen (Für Konrad Püschel). Ein ostdeutscher Internationalismus in Nord-Korea durch einen chrono-politischen Blick." http://www.bauhaus-imaginista.org/articles/6100/hamhungszwei-waisen-fur-konradpuschel/de?0bbf55ceffc3073699d40c945ada-9faf=7fcd255faf1ed4ed7ee57c771f4a464d.

Meuser, Philipp. *Die Ästhetik der Platte. Wohnungsbau in der Sowjetunion zwischen Stalin und Glasnost.* Berlin: DOM, 2015.

Mucke, Hans. "Industrieller Wohnungsbau in Frankreich." *Deutsche Architektur*  (June 1956): pp. 342–45.

Mosler, Günter. *Zwischen Dschungel, Taiga, Savanne, Wüste und Heimat: Ein DDR-Auslandskader erzählt* (four volumes: Vietnam, Yemen, Mozambique, Siberia). Leipzig: Engesldorfer, 2013–14.

Museum Niesky, ed. *Der Holzhauspfad. Holzbauten der Firma Christoph* & *Unmack*. Niesky: Museum Niesky, 2009.

Myers, Garth A. *Reconstructing N'gambo. Town Planning and Development on the Other Side of Zanzibar*. PhD Thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, 1993.

Nasr, Joe, and Mercedes Volait. "Introduction: Transporting Planning." In *Urbanism: Imported or Exported?*, edited by Joe Nasr and Mercedes Volait, pp. XI-XXXVIII. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2003.

Neuber, Tassilo. "Abuja – Die neue Hauptstadt Nigerias." *Architektur der DDR* (February 1983): pp. 107–12.

Nguyen Sy Thuy, Le Quoc Hong, Ngo Van Yem, Nguyen Van Luc, and Ngo Xuan Phung. *Vinh. Spuren der Geschichte vietnamesisch-deutscher Freundschaft beim zeitigen Wiederaufbau der Stadt Vinh in den Jahren 1973– 1980*. Hanoi: Thế Giới, 2011.

Paulick, Richard. "Eigene Beobachtungen über den Wohnungsbau in Schweden." *Deutsche Architektur* (April 1964): pp. 236–39.

Scholz, Hubert. "Sansibar – Eine Stadt verändert ihr Gesicht." *Deutsche Architektur* (December 1969): pp. 736–41.

Schwenkel, Christina. "Afective Solidarities and East German Reconstruction of Postwar Vietnam." In *Comrades of Color: East Germany in the Cold War world*, edited by Quinn Slobodian, pp. 267–92. New York: Berghahn, 2015.

Schwenkel, Christina. "Traveling Architecture: East German Urban Designs in Vietnam." *International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity* 2 (February 2014): pp. 155–74.

Sin, Dong Sam. *Die Planung des Wiederaufbaus der Städte Hamhung und Hungnam in Nordkorea durch die DAG-Städtebaubrigade der DDR von 1955–1962 – Eine städtebaugeschichtliche Abhandlung aus der Sicht eines Zeitzeugen*. PhD Dissertation, HafenCity Universität, Hamburg, 2016.

Stanek, Łukasz. "Introduction: The 'Second World's' Architecture and Planning in the 'Third World.'" *Journal of Architecture* 17 (June 2012): pp. 299–307.

Tomita, Hideo. "A Survey of Korean Settlements by Konrad Püschel, a Graduate of the Bauhaus." In *The 13th Docomomo International Conference: Seoul, Expansion* & *Confict*, *September 19-29, 2014,* in *Seoul, South Korea*, conference proceedings, pp. 416-19. Seoul: DOCOMOMO Korea, 2014. https://www.academia.edu/8359821/Hideo\_Tomita\_A\_Survey\_of\_Korean\_Settlements\_by\_Konrad\_P%C3%BCschel\_a\_Graduate\_of\_the\_Bauhaus\_The\_13th\_Docomomo\_International\_Conference\_Seoul\_2014\_Korea\_Session\_17\_Asian\_Modernity\_September\_27\_2014.\_National\_Museum\_of\_Modern\_Art\_and\_Contemporary\_Art\_Seoul\_pp.\_416-418.

*Tropenbaubriefe 1 and 2*. Hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen Weimar, 1986.

Wendt, Sabine. "IKAS'87 in Malmö/Schweden im UNO-Jahr 'Unterkünfte für die Obdachlosen.'" *Architektur der DDR* (January 1988): pp. 46–47.

Wimmelbücker, Ludger. "Architecture and City Planning Projects of the German Democratic Republic in Zanzibar." *Journal of Architecture* 17 (June 2012): pp. 407–32.

Wurbs, Peter. "Aufbau des ANC-Entwicklungszentrums Dakawa, Tansania." *Architektur der DDR* (August 1989): pp. 51–54.

Zilling, Gerhard. "Zum Entwicklungsstand des industrialisierten Wohnungsbaus in einigen kapitalistischen Ländern." *Deutsche Architektur* (September 1956): pp. 432–37.

III-06 IBA-Neubau: Social Housing as a Renewal Generator for the Inner City

#### *Antonello Scopacasa*

Bodenschatz, Harald. *Platz frei für das neue Berlin. Geschichte der Stadterneuerung seit 1871*. Berlin: Transit, 1987.

Bodenschatz, Harald, Jörn Düwel, Niels Gutschow, and Hans Stimmann. *Berlin und seine Bauten. Teil I: Städtebau*. Berlin: Jovis, 2009.

Bodenschatz, Harald, Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, and Deutsches Institut für Stadtbaukunst, eds. *25 Jahre Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987. Ein Höhepunkt des europäischen Städtebaus*. Salenstein, Switzerland: Niggli, 2012.

Bodenschatz, Harald, and Cordelia Polinna. *Learning from IBA 1987 in Berlin*. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2010.

Bodenschatz, Harald, and Cordelia Polinna. *Perspektiven einer IBA Berlin 2020. Ein strategisches Gutachten* (*Learning from IBA - die IBA 1987. Teil II)*. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2011.

Bollè, Michael, and Karl-Robert Schütze, eds. *Hardt-Waltherr Hämer. Architekt HBK. Behutsame Stadterneuerung.* Berlin: Universität der Künste, 2007.

"CIAM-Gespräch über 'Die Stadt von Morgen,'" *Bauen und Wohnen* (January 1958): p. 1.

Dellenbaugh-Losse, Mary. *Inventing Berlin: Architecture, Politics and Cultural Memory in the New/Old German Capital Post-1989*. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2019.

Freestone, Robert, and Marco Amati, eds. *Exhibitions and the Development of Modern Planning Culture*. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge, 2016.

Göderitz, Johannes, Roland Rainer, and Hurbert Hofmann. *Die gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt*. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth, 1957.

Hoffmann-Axthelm, Dieter. *Strassen-Schlachtung. Geschichte, Abriss und gebrochenes Weiterleben der Admiralstrasse*. Berlin: Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin, 1984.

Kleihues, Josef Paul. *Berlin-Atlas zu Stadtbild und Stadtraum. Band 2: Versuchsgebiet Kreuzberg*. Berlin: Senator für Bau und Wohnungswesen des Landes Berlin, 1973.

Kleihues, Josef Paul. "1984. Die IBA vor dem Hintergrund der Berliner Architektur und Stadtplanung des 20. Jahrhunderts." In *Die Neubaugebiete. Dokumente, Projekte. Modelle für eine Stadt*, edited by Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani (Schriftreihe zur Internationalen Bauausstellung Berlin), pp. 24–36. Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1984.


Niggli, 2012.


Scheer, Thorsten, Paul Kahlfeldt, and Josef Paul Kleihues, eds. *Stadt der Architektur. Architektur der Stadt*. Berlin: Nicolai, 2000.


#### **NAPLES**

III-07 Social Housing and Building Communities in Naples from the Second Post-War Era to date. Quality, Involvement and Open Processes Between Segregation and Boundaries

#### *Elena Manzo*


fche Italiane, 1972.

De Luca, Giulio. "Quartiere La Loggetta." *Casabella* (1959, n. 231): pp. 52–53.

Dell'Amico, Maria Rosaria. "*Nuove fonti archivistiche sull*'*opera del Risanamento e dell*'*Ampliamento di Napoli.*" In *Storia dell'ingegneria*, edited by Salvatore D'Agostino. Conference proceedings, Naples, April 19-21, 2010. Naples: Cuzzolin editore, 2010, pp. 1004–14.

Le Gof, Jacques. *La civilisation de l'Occident medieval*. Paris: Flammarion, 1997.


Manzo, Elena. "Il 'Risanamento' di Napoli. Dal progetto urbano alla scala architettonica." In *Atti e Rassegna Tecnica della Società degli Ingegneri e degli Architetti in Torino* (LXXII, June 2018, n. 1): pp. 113–22.

Marghieri, Alberto. *Intorno al problema edilizio della città di Napoli.* Naples: Tip. Trani, 1911.

Pane, Andrea. "L'infuenza di Gustavo Giovannoni a Napoli tra restauro dei monumenti e urbanistica. Il piano del 1926 e la questione della 'vecchia città.'" In *Restauro, monumenti e città. Teorie ed esperienze del Novecento in Italia*, edited by Rafaele Amore, Andrea Pane, and Gianluca Vitagliano, pp. 13–93*.* Naples: Electa Napoli, 2008.

Papa, Rocco. *Napoli. Un secolo di urbanistica.* Naples: Università degli studi di Napoli, Dipartimento di Pianifcazione e Scienza del Territorio, 1990.


*Società per Risanamento di Napoli*, July 25, 1964.

*Società per Risanamento di Napoli*, July 28, 1966.


#### III-08 Neighbourhood Churches in the Post-War Reconstruction: Projects and Achievements by Marcello Canino

#### *Riccardo Serraglio*

Aldisio, Salvatore. *Concorso dello Stato nella costruzione delle nuove chiese: Legge 18 Dicembre 1952, n. 2522*. Rome: Staderini, 1953.

Bettazzi, Maria Beatrice, Giuliano Gresleri, and Glauco Gresleri. *Chiesa e quartiere. Storia di una rivista e di un movimento per l'architettura a Bologna*. Bologna: Editrice Compositori, 2004.

Conforti, Claudia. *Cristo Re di Marcello Piacentini 1934/2014*. Rome: Texmat, 2014.

De Marchis, Daniele. *Archivio della Commissione per l'Arte Sacra in Italia. Inventario*. Vatican City: Collectanea Archivi Vaticani, 2013.

De Rosa, Gabriele. *Fanfani e la casa. Gli anni Cinquanta e il modello italiano di welfare state. Il piano Ina-Casa*. Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino, 2002.

Di Biagi, Paola. *La grande ricostruzione: Il piano Ina-Casa e l'Italia degli anni cinquanta*. Rome: Donzelli, 2010.

Frediani, Gianluca. "Il quartiere Traiano di Marcello Canino. Distruzione di un modello." *ArQ: Architettura Quaderni* (1989, n. 2): pp. 67–77.

Longhi, Andrea, and Carlo Tosco. *Architettura, chiesa e società in Italia (1948– 1978)*. Rome: Studium, 2010.

Manenti, Claudia. *Il cardinal Lercaro e la città contemporanea*. Bologna: Editrice Compositori, 2010.

Stenti, Sergio. *Marcello Canino 1895/1970*. Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2005.

Valenzano, Crispino. *Architetti di chiese*. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2005.

Zorzin, Massimo. *Giovanni Battista Montini: Un'idea di chiesa le sue chiese*. Rome: Edizioni Studium, 2018.

#### **Archival References**

Archivio della Commissione per l'Arte Sacra in Italia (hereafter ACASI). *Diocesi di Caserta, Caserta: Nuova chiesa parrocchiale di San Pietro in Cattedra, casa canonica e locali di ministero pastorale*. Folders 1-2, 1961–66.

ACASI. *Diocesi di Caserta, Limatola: Nuova chiesa parrocchiale di San Biagio, casa canonica e locali di ministero pastorale*. Folders 1-2, 1953–59.

ACASI. *Diocesi di Modena, Serramazzoni: Nuova chiesa parrocchiale e locali di ministero parrocchiale*. Folders 3-4, 1954–57.

ACASI. *Diocesi di Pozzuoli, Napoli: Chiesa madre del quartiere "Traiano"*. Folder 9, 1960.

ACASI. *Diocesi di Sant'Agata de' Goti, Frasso Telesino: Nuovo complesso parrocchiale di Santa Giuliana*. Folders 1-3, 1957–67.

Archivio del Genio Civile di Benevento. *Progetto strutturale della chiesa di San Biagio a Limatola*. Uncatalogued documents, 1953–62.

Archivio dell'Ufcio Tecnico della Diocesi di Caserta. *Progetto del complesso parrocchiale di San Pietro in Cattedra*. Drawings, 1966.

Archivio Privato di Marcello Canino (hereafter APMC). *Progetto della Vergine del Rosario a Serramazzoni*. Undated drawings.

#### III-09 Luigi Cosenza's Experiments: From City to Prefab *Francesca Castanò*

Argan, Giulio Carlo. "L'architettura ragionata di Luigi Cosenza." In *Luigi Cosenza. La fabbrica Olivetti a Pozzuoli*, edited by Giancarlo Cosenza, pp. 232–33. Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006.

ASCORAL (Assemblée des Constructeurs pour une Rénovation Architecturale). *Grille CIAM d'urbanisme*. Paris: Edition L'Architecture d'aujourd'hui, 1948.

Astarita, Rosanna. "Luigi Cosenza un protagonista isolato della cultura architet-

APMC. *Progetto della chiesa parrocchiale di San Giovanni Battista al Rione Traiano*. Undated drawings.

tonica napoletana tra le due guerre: opere realizzate e fash-back." In *L'architettura a Napoli tra le due guerre*, edited by Cesare de Seta, pp. 69–76. Rome: Laterza: 1978.

Astengo, Giovanni. "L'attività urbanistica." In *Luigi Cosenza. L'opera completa*, edited by Giancarlo Cosenza and Francesco Domenico Moccia, p. 26. Naples: Electa Napoli: 1987.

Belfore, Pasquale. "Dal dopoguerra ad oggi." In *Napoli*. *Architettura e urbanistica del Novecento*, edited by Pasquale Belfore and Benedetto Gravagnuolo, pp. 80–83. Rome: Laterza, 1994.

Belfore, Pasquale, and Benedetto Gravagnuolo. *Napoli. Architettura e urbanistica nel Novecento*. Bari: Laterza, 1994.

Belli, Attilio, *Il labirinto e l'eresia. La politica urbanistica a Napoli tra emergenza e ingovernabilità*. Milan: Franco Angeli, 1986.

Biraghi, Federico. "La nuova via marittima di Napoli." *Rassegna dei Lavori Pubblici* (1954, n. 5): pp. 1–4.

Bisogni, Salvatore. "Il contributo alla cultura del piano a Napoli." In *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, edited by Alfredo Buccaro and Giancarlo Mainini, pp. 30–47. Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006.

Bisogni, Salvatore. "L'idea della residenza: Il Quartiere sperimentale di Torre Ranieri a Posillipo." In *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, edited by Alfredo Buccaro and Giancarlo Mainini, pp. 142–72. Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006.

Brunetti, Fabrizio. *L'architettura in Italia negli anni della ricostruzione*. Florence: Alinea, 1986.

Buccaro, Alfredo. "Il razionalismo critico di Lugi Cosenza come 'altra modernità.'" In *L'architettura dell'"altra" modernità. Atti del 26. Congresso di storia dell'architettura*, Rome, April 11–13, 2007, edited by Marina Docci and Maria Grazia Turco, pp. 539–48. Rome: Gangemi, 2010.

Buccaro, Alfredo, and Giancarlo Mainini, eds. *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*. Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006.

Castanò, Francesca. "La crescita incostante. Il motore industriale nei piani per la 'grande Napoli' dall'alba del Novecento agli anni Settanta." *Storia e Problemi Contemporanei* (2014, n. 65): pp. 139–62.

Castanò, Francesca. "Per un'identità moderna della città mediterranea: Luigi Cosenza e la pianifcazione a Napoli e in Campania." In *Città mediterranee in trasformazione. Identità e immagine del paesaggio urbano tra Sette e Novecento*, Proceedings of the VI International Conference of Studies CIRICE 2014, Naples, March 13–15, 2014, edited by Alfredo Buccaro and Cesare de Seta, pp. 1219–24. Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 2014.

Castanò, Francesca, and Ornella Cirillo. *La Napoli alta. Vomero, Antignano, Arenella da villaggi a quartieri*. Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 2012.

Cocchia, Carlo. *L'edilizia a Napoli dal 1918 al 1958*. Naples: Società pel Risanamento, 1961.

Commissione intersindacale per il Piano Regolatore Generale della città di Napoli. *Piano regolatore generale della città di Napoli. Relazioni*. Naples: Tipografa Trani, 1936.

Cosenza, Giancarlo. "La 'griglia' per il VII Congresso CIAM a Bergamo (1949)." In *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, edited by Alfredo Buccaro and Giancarlo Mainini, p. 361. Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006.

Cosenza, Giancarlo. "Proposte urbanistiche: Introduzione allo studio di un Piano regionale della Campania (1943)." In *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, edited by Alfredo Buccaro and Giancarlo Mainini, p. 360. Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006.

Cosenza, Giancarlo. "La pianifcazione a Napoli negli anni '40, Meridione." *Sud e Nord nel Mondo* (2010, n. 4): pp. 171–82.

Cosenza, Giancarlo, and Francesco Domenico Moccia, eds. *Luigi Cosenza. L'opera completa*. Naples: Electa Napoli: 1987.

Cosenza, Luigi. "Studio urbanistico per una zona di Napoli." *Costruzioni-Casabella* (1940, n. 146): pp. 9–16.

Cosenza, Luigi. "Un napoletano proto-razionale. Colloquio di Benedetto Gravagnuolo con Luigi Cosenza su Napoli e il razionalismo, la tradizione mediterranea del costruire, le catastrof e il nuovo piano di ricostruzione della città." *Modo* (1983, n. 60): pp. 22–25.

Cosenza, Luigi. "Architetture per la formazione: I progetti per il Politecnico e la nuova sede della Facoltà di Ingegneria di Napoli (1948–1980)." In *Luigi Cosenza oggi 1905/2005*, edited by Alfredo Buccaro and Giancarlo Mainini, pp. 332–49. Naples: Clean Edizioni, 2006.

Croce, Alda, Fulvio Tessitore, and Domenico Conte, eds. *Napoli e la Campania nel Novecento. Diario di un secolo*. Naples: Liguori Editori, 2006.

Dal Piaz, Alessandro. "Le intenzioni e gli 'atti' di un piano per Napoli. Il Prg del 1939." *ArQ. Architettura Quaderni* (1990, n. 3): pp. 57–59.


De Lucia, Vezio E., and Antonio Jannello. "L'urbanistica a Napoli dal dopoguerra a oggi: Note e documenti." *Urbanistica* (1976, n. 65): pp. 6–22.


Di Biagi, Paola. "I CIAM verso Atene: Spazio abitabile e città funzionale." In *El Gatcpac y su tiempo, politica, cultura y arquitectura en los anos treinta*, V Congreso Internacional Docomomo Iberico, Barcelona, October 26–29, 2005.


Giordano, Paolo. "Luigi Cosenza e l'architettura disegnata tra le due guerre." In *L'architettura a Napoli tra le due guerre*, edited by Cesare de Seta, pp. 77–82. Rome: Laterza: 1978.

Gravagnuolo, Benedetto. "La città tra piani e progetti." In *Fuori dall'ombra. Nuove tendenze nelle arti a Napoli dal '45 al '65*, pp. 503–18. Naples: Elio De Rosa, 1991.

Gravagnuolo, Benedetto. "L'Architettura della Ricostruzione tra continuità e sperimentazione." In *Napoli e la Campania nel Novecento. Diario di un secolo*, edited by Alda Croce, Fulvio Tessitore, and Domenico Conte. Naples: Liguori Editori, 2006. http://na.architetturamoderna.it/pdf/001. pdf (accessed December 2019).


Mangone, Fabio, and Gemma Belli. *Capodimonte, Materdei, Vomero. Idee e Progetti Urbanistici per la Napoli Collinare 1860–1936*. Naples: Grimaldi, 2012.

Manzo, Elena. "Note su Amadeo Bordiga, professionista e teorico dei problemi urbanistici." In *Proceedings of the II National Congress of Italian Free Professional Engineers*, Hercolaneum, November 26, 1999, pp. 9–13. Naples, 2000.

Manzo, Elena. "Napoli nel Novecento: Progettare per frammenti." In *La città che si rinnova. Architettura e scienze umane tra storia e attualità: Prospettive di analisi a confronto*, pp. 267–82. Milan: Franco Angeli, 2012.

Maria Dolores Morelli. "Facoltà di Ingegneria." In *Napoli*. *Architettura e urbanistica del Novecento*, edited by Pasquale Belfore and Benedetto Gravagnuolo, pp. 246–47. Rome: Laterza, 1994.

Mumford, Eric*. The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.

*Napoli dopo un secolo.* Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 1961.

Nicoloso, Paolo. "Il CIAM di Bergamo, Le Corbusier e le verità discutibili della Carta d'Atene." In *L'Italia di Le Corbusier*, edited by Marida Talamone, pp. 297–312. Paris: Editions de la Vilette, 2012.

Olmo, Carlo, ed. *Costruire la città dell'uomo. Adriano Olivetti e l'urbanistica*. Turin: Edizioni di Comunità, 2001.

Pagano, Lilia. *Periferie di Napoli. La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica*. Naples: Electa Napoli, 2001.

Parisi, Roberto. "Tra acciaio e petrolio. Storia dello spazio urbano-industriale di Napoli (1945–1985)." *Italia Contemporanea* (2017, n. 285): pp. 21–48.

Petrella, Bianca. *Napoli, le fonti per un secolo di urbanistica.* Hercolaneum: La Buona Stampa, 1990.

Protasoni, Sara. "Il Gruppo italiano e la tradizione del moderno." *Rassegna* (1992, n. 52): pp. 28–39.

Rogers, Ernesto N., Josep Lluís Sert, and Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, eds. *The Heart of the City*. Hoddesdon, UK: British and American Publishers, 1951.

Sert, Josep Lluís. *Can Our Cities Survive? An ABC of Urban Problems, Their Analysis, Their Solutions*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942.

Sbriziolo De Felice, Eirene. *Il problema della pianifcazione regionale e la sua evoluzione dal 1942 ad oggi in Italia: orientamenti degli studi di pianifcazione in Campania*. Naples: Ministry of Public Works, 1961.

Sbriziolo De Felice, Eirene. *La pianifcazione territoriale in Campania dal 1952 al 1972: Studi, esperienze, proposte*. Naples: L'arte tipografca, 1972.

Talamone, Marida, ed. *L'Italia di Le Corbusier*. Paris: Editions de la Vilette, 2012.

Tentori, Francesco. "I CIAM: Per il Cinquantenario del Congresso di Bergamo l'architettura, l'arte e l'importanza decisiva della libertà." *Rivista di Bergamo* (1999, n. 18): pp. 10–21.

Trivellin, Eleonora. *Storia della tecnica edilizia in Italia: Dall'unità ad oggi*. Florence: Alinea, 1998.

UrbaNa (Urbanistica Napoli Archivio: Urban Planning Naples Archive). *Commissione del Piano Reg. 1945. Relazione al Sindaco*. Naples, 1945.

Venditti, Arnaldo. "Breve storia dei piani regolatori." In *Napoli dopo un secolo*, p. 223. Naples: Edizioni Scientifche Italiane, 1961.

"VII CIAM. Il Settimo Congresso Internazionale di Architettura Moderna. Bergamo. Les actes officiels du VII CIAM." *Metron* (1949, nn. 33-34): pp. 48–72.

Zevi, Bruno. "Messaggio al Congrés International d'Architecture Moderne." *Della Cultura Architettonica*, *Metron* (1949, nn. 31-32): pp. 5–30.

III-10 The Scampia Park and the Gentle Urban Renewal

of the Eighties

*Anna Giannetti*

Bassolino, Antonio. *La Repubblica delle città*. Rome: Donzelli, 1996.

Berruti, Gilda, and Maria Federica Palestino. "Le politiche della partecipazione. Scampia." In *Lo Stato della Città, Napoli e la sua area metropolitana*, edited by Luca Rossomando, pp. 395-402. Naples: Monitor, 2016.

Bodenschatz, Harald, and Cordelia Polinna. *Learning from IBA. Die IBA in Berlin.* Berlin: Senatsverwaltng für Stadtentwicklung, 2010.

Bocquet, Denis, and Pascale Laborier. *Sociologie de Berlin*. Paris: La Découverte, 2016.

Campolo, Vincenzo, and Rosa Stefanelli. "I nuovi parchi e giardini pubblici." In *Parchi e giardini di Napoli*, pp.137–48. Naples: Electa Napoli, 1999.

Cappiello, Vito. "Il progetto moderno del giardino." In *Il giardino e la città. Il progetto del parco urbano in Europa*, edited by Giovanni Cerami, pp. 168–86. Rome: Laterza, 1996.

Castagnaro, Alessandro, and Antonio Lavaggi. *Le Vele di Scampia che fare?* Naples: Giannini, 2011.

De Muro, Pasquale, Paola Di Martino, and Lucia Cavola. "Fostering Participation in Scampia. Let's make a Piazza." In *European Urban and Regional Studies,* 13, no. 3 (2007): pp. 223–37.

Freud, Sigmund. "Introduzione alla psicanalisi." In *Opere*, vol. 8. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri-Einaudi, 1977.

Giannetti, Anna. "Il parco pubblico da modello a necessità." In *Il giardino e la città. Il progetto del parco urbano in Europa*, edited by Giovanni Cerami, pp. 47–88. Rome: Laterza, 1996.

Stenti, Sergio. *Napoli moderna: Città e case popolari (1868–1980)*. Naples: Clean, 2017.

#### III-11 Demolishing "Vele" Buildings by Franz Di Salvo. The Reasons for Saying NO *Ornella Zerlenga*

Belfore, Pasquale, "Reperti di architetture moderne in interni urbani antichi. *Le petit grand tour*." *Casa Vogue* (November 1983): pp. 194–97.

Bottaccio, Walter. *Giubileo delle periferie. Partendo da Scampia*. Naples: Marotta & Cafero Editori, 2016.

Bottaccio, Walter. *È partito. Per una nuova Scampia.* Naples: Marotta & Cafero Editori, 2017.

Cerullo, Davide. *Dal Vangelo secondo Scampia*. Genoa: Edizioni Tigulliana, 2016.

Cerullo, Davide. *Poesia cruda. Gli irrecuperabili non esistono*. Naples: Marotta e Cafero, 2017.

Cerullo, Davide. *Visages de Scampia: Les justes de Gomorra*. Paris: Gallimard, 2018.

Cerullo, Davide, and Alessandro Prozzato. *Ali bruciate. I bambini di Scampia*. Rome: Paoline Edizioni, 2009.

Di Salvo's Archive. *Francesco Di Salvo, Relazione illustrativa*. May 28, 1968.

*Francesco di Salvo. Opere e progetti*, curated by Gaetano Fusco. Naples: Clean, 2003.

Gambardella, Cherubino. *Supernapoli. Architettura per un'altra città*. Syracuse: LetteraVentidue, 2015.

Lauda, Luciano. *Erratici percorsi: Da Marillenellum a Scampia. Dalla linea all'anello*. Master thesis, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," 2016-17.

*Marco Petrus. Matrici*. Curated by Michele Bonuomo. Venice: Marsilio, 2017.


#### **Sitography**


*Cerullo, non è esaltando la violenza che si salverà Scampia*. http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/napoli/cerullo-non-esaltando-violenza-che-si-salver-scampia-1737728.html.

*Chi Rom e … chi no*. http://chiromechino.blogspot.it/.


*Il GRIDAS – Felice Pignataro*. http://www.felicepignataro.org/home.php.


*Scampia Disco Dance*. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXV1fEAvLHQ. *Scampia Felix*. https://www.scampiafelix.it/.


#### III-12 The Post-Earthquake Reconstruction. The Recovery of the *Casali* in the Northern Suburbs of Naples *Chiara Ingrosso*

Belfore, Pasquale, and Benedetto Gravagnuolo. *Napoli. Architettura e urbanistica nel Novecento*. Bari: Laterza, 1994.

Benevolo, Leonardo. "Introduzione." *Edilizia Popolare* (1982, n. 166): pp. 1–2. Bonuomo, Michele. "Napoli: ricostruire la città." *Domus* (1982, n. 631).


Caniggia, Gianfranco. "Analisi tipologica: La corte matrice dell'insediamento." In *Recupero e riqualifcazione urbana nel Programma straordinario per Napoli. Milano*, edited by Filippo Ciccone, pp. 76–110. Milan: Giufrè Cresme, 1984.

Capobianco, Michele. "'La città che cambia.' Il programma straordinario di edilizia residenziale a Napoli (1981–91)." *ArQ* (1991, nn. 6-7): p. 13.

Capobianco, Michele. "Fiera." *Cultura e Attualità* (1984, nn. 11-12): p. 63.

Capobianco, Michele. "Il mito sociologico dell'identità comunitaria. L'unità di vicinato." *ArQ* (1989, n. 2): pp. 7–22.

Carreri, Emanuele. "Ricostruire non vuol dire costruire di nuovo la stessa cosa. La 'ricostruzione dei casali di Miano e Mianella, tra Conservazione e Modernità.'" *ArQ. Il programma straordinario di edilizia residenziale a Napoli (1981–91)* (1991, nn. 6-7): p. 73.

Cederna, Antonio. "Napoli: lo scudetto della ricostruzione." *La Repubblica* (May 20, 1987).

Ciccone, Filippo, ed. *Recupero e riqualifcazione urbana nel Programma straordinario per Napoli*. Milan: Giufrè Cresme, 1984.

Comune di Napoli, *Variante generale al PRG della città di Napoli* (Naples, 2004).

De Fusco, Renato. *Napoli nel Novecento.* Naples: Electa Napoli, 1994.

De Lucia, Vezio. *Se questa è una città*. Rome: Donzelli, 2006.

De Seta, Cesare, Pietro Barucci, Vezio De Lucia, Maurizio Valenzi, and Giulio De Luca. "*Napoli 1983." Spazio e Società* (1986, n. 23): pp. 64–71.

De Seta, Cesare, ed. *I casali di Napoli*. Bari: Laterza, 1989.

Gasparrini, Carlo. "L'intervento nella periferia." *Domus* (1986, n. 83): pp. 92–101.

Giannì, Roberto. "Illegalità e disordine urbanistico." La città nuova. *Rivista di Cultura Politica* (1993, n. 3-4): pp. 27–37.

Giordano, Paolo. "Franco Purini, Laura Thermes. Isolato residenziale a Napoli-Marianella." *Domus* (1988, n. 693).

"Il programma straordinario di edilizia residenziale a Napoli (1981–91)." *ArQ*  (1991, n. 6-7).

"Il recupero urbano nel programma straordinario di Napoli." *Recuperare*, dossier (1983, n. 7): pp. 360–77.

"Napoli: Costruzione e ricostruzione della città." *Domus*, dossier (1986, n. 83).

"*Napoli Terremoto." Edilizia Popolare* (1982, n. 166): pp. 10–21.

Pagano, Lilia. *Periferie di Napoli. La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica*. Naples: Electa Napoli, 2001.

Red. "Adhocismo da terremoto." *Domus* (1981, n. 622).

Rigillo, Arturo. "Miano." In *I casali di Napoli*, edited by Cesare De Seta, pp. 133–42. Bari: Laterza, 1989.

"Terremoto quale ricostruzione." *Casabella* (1982, n. 470).

Venezia, Francesco."Architectonic report of the executive project of the square of S. Pietro a Patiero." Naples, 1988.

III-13 Strengths and Weaknesses of Public Housing Policies in Italy: The Naples Case Study *Adriana Galderisi, Claudia de Biase*

Banister, David. "Cities, Mobility and Climate Change." In *Journal of Transport Geography* 19, no. 6 (2011): pp. 1538–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.03.009.

Carpenter, Juliet. "'Social Mix' as 'Sustainability Fix'? Exploring Social Sustain-

ability in the French Suburbs." *Urban Planning* 3, no. 4 (2018): pp. 29–37. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i4.1675.

Chiu, Paula. *Temporary Urbanism and a Research-Based Design Proposal*. 2011. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067& context=crpsp.

De Biase, Claudia. *Un toolkit per le piccole e grandi trasformazioni urbane*. Rome: Aracne, 2007.

De Gregorio Hurtado, Sonia. "25 Years of Urban Regeneration in the EU." *TRIA* 18, no. 1 (2017): pp. 15–22. https://doi.org/10.6092/2281-4574/5318.

De Matteis, Milena. "Introduzione." In *Rigenerare la Città. Il Social Housing come opportunità di rinnovo urbano e sociale*, edited by Milena de Matteis, Barbara del Brocco, and Angelo Figliola. Venice: Università IUAV, 2014.

Galderisi, Adriana, and Andrea Ceudech. "Soft Mobility and Pedestrian Networks in Urban Areas." *TeMA – Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment*, no. 2 (2010): pp. 21–28. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/119.

Gironda, Caterina. "Politiche urbane e forme dell'abitare per la città contemporanea." In *Atti della XIV Conferenza SIU – 24/25/26 Marzo 2011*, conference proceedings. http://www.planum.net.

Haydn, Florian, and Robert Temel. *Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces*. Basle: Chronicle Books, 2006.

Mazzola, Ettore M. *La città sostenibile è possibile/The Sustainable City is Possible*. Rome: Gangemi Editore, 2010.

Petrella, Bianca. *L'edilizia residenziale negli ultimi quarant'anni. Due città emblematiche: Milano e Napoli*. Naples: Fondazione Ivo Vanzi, 1989.

Urbani, Paolo. "L'edilizia residenziale pubblica tra Stato e autonomie locali." *Istituzioni del Federalismo, Rivista di studi giuridici e politici*, no. 3/4 (2010): pp. 250–51.

III-14 Regeneration and Socioeconomic Dynamics in Public Housing. Focus on the Outskirts of Naples *Fabiana Forte*

Agenzia delle Entrate, OMI Osservatorio del Mercato Immobiliare. *Statistiche Regionali. Il mercato immobiliare residenziale, Campania*. Rome: Agenzia delle Entrate, 2019.

Caruso, Nadia. *Policies and Practices in Italian Welfare Housing*. Wiesbaden: Springer Briefs in Geography, 2017.

Eurocities. *Cities Approaches and Recommendations*. Position Paper on Afordable Housing, 2009. http://www.eurocities.eu.

Eurostat. "Dwellings by Most Common Period of Construction, by NUTS 3 Region, 2011." In *Urban Europe Statistics on Cities, Towns and Suburbs Housing in Cities*. Eurostat, June 29, 2016.

Forte, Fabiana. "Valore della città e rendite urbane." In *La città che si rinnova. Architettura e scienze umane tra storia e attualità: Prospettive di analisi a confronto*, edited by Elena Manzo, pp. 205–16. Milan: Franco Angeli, 2012.

Forte, Fabiana. "Edilizia Residenziale Sociale: Aspetti valutativi ed esperienze in Regione Campania." *Rivista SIEV, Valori e Valutazioni, teorie ed esperienze*, vol. 11, pp. 87–98. Rome: DEI, 2013.

Forte, Fabiana. "New Needs vs. 'Desired' Values into Personalization of (Social) Housing." In Proceedings of the International Scientifc Conference *Utopias* 

Watt, Paul. "Social Housing and Urban Renewal: An Introduction." In *Social Housing and Urban Renewal. A Cross-National Perspective*, edited by Paul Watt and Pear Smets. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2017.

*and dystopias in landscape and cultural mosaic. Visions Values Vulnerability*. SABIEDRIBA, INTEGRACIJA, IZGLITIBA, vol. III, p. 157–64, 2013.


# LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND SOURCES

#### PUBLIC ARCHIVES

**Akademie der Künste**, Berlin (AdK) https://www.adk.de/de/archiv/archivabteilungen/baukunst/

**akg-images** https://www.akg-images.de

**Archivi di UrbaNa - Urbanistica Napoli**, Naples (UrbaNa) https://www.comune.napoli.it/urbana/

(Archivio) **Luigi Cosenza in digitale**, Naples (LC in ASN-MIBACT) https://www.archivioluigicosenza.it/ Located in the Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Ministero per i Beni e le Attività culturali e per il Turismo

#### **Archivio Digitale NAN, Napoli Architettura Novecento**, Naples (NAN)

**Archivio Storico IACP di Napoli**, Naples (ArchIACP)

**Archivio Storico Municipale di Napoli**, Naples (ASMN) https://www.comune.napoli.it/fex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/1355

**Baukunstarchiv NRW**, Düsseldorf (BArchNRW) https://baukunstarchiv.nrw/

**Berlinische Galerie**, Berlin (BG) https://berlinischegalerie.de/

**Bildarchiv Foto Marburg** https://fotomarburg.de

**bpk-Bildagentur**, Berlin **(**bpk-Bildagentur) https://www.bpk-bildagentur.de/

**Bundesarchiv**, Koblenz **(**BArch) https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv/de About CC-BY-BA 3.0 standard see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bysa/3.0/de/legalcode.

**Denkmalarchiv Darmstadt, Mathildehöhe Darmstadt** https://www.mathildenhoehe.eu/

**FHXB Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum**, Berlin (FHXB Museum) https://www.fhxb-museum.de/ RR-F Licence

#### **Fondo Paolo Monti, BEIC**, Milan (FPM-BEIC)

https://www.beic.it/it/articoli/fondo-paolo-monti.html Servizio fotografco Paolo Monti is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 / The images comes from the Fondo Paolo Monti, owned by BEIC and located in the Civico Archivio Fotografco of Milan. About CC-BY-SA 4.0 standard see https://www.beic.it/it/articoli/copyright. html.

**Landesarchiv Berlin**, Berlin (LAB) https://landesarchiv-berlin.de/

**Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung**, Erkner (IRS) https://leibniz-irs.de/

**S.T.E.R.N. Gesellschaft der behutsamen Stadterneuerung GmbH**, Berlin (S.T.E.R.N.) https://www.stern-berlin.com/

**UAA Ungers Archiv für Architekturwissenschaft**, Cologne (UAA) https://www.ungersarchiv.de/

#### ILLUSTRATIONS

Following fgure numbers or position are shown in bold. The order of description is: Archive, catalogue / Author or rights' holder / Copyright standard for further use.

On the copyright issue, "No CC-BY 4.0" means that the related illustration is excluded from the Creative Common BY 4.0 standard which covers the book parts in general and that it remains within the competence of German copyright law.

Despite careful research, it was not possible to identify all the rights' holders or the related archives of the illustrations. The authors and the editor, each relating to their personal contributions, remain available for any relief. Valid claims are covered within the framework of the usual agreements.

Abbreviations: cit. (cited), attr. (attributed), ed. (editor)

#### **BOOK COVER, INTRODUCTION**

**Front and back cover:** Photo by the editor, 2019.

**1.** Fondo Paolo Monti, BEIC at Civico Archivio Fotografco / Paolo Monti / CC BY-SA 4.0; **2.** Bundesarchiv, Bild\_183-B0828-0006-001 (https://www.bild. bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Bild+183-B0828-0006-001) / Weiß / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **3.** bpk-Bildagentur, Nr. 70372138 / Klaus Mehner / No CC-BY 4.0.

**1.** Osservatorio Casa by UrbaNa available at http://www.comune.napoli.it/fex/ cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/1101; **2, 3, 4, 5.** Photo by Elena Manzo; **6.** Photo by Vincenzo Cirillo; **7.** Students of the University of Campania

#### **I DOCUMENTATION**

"Luigi Vanvitelli"; **8.** Photo by Giada Limongi. **BERLIN**

**Cover**

**p. 31.** Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-74896-0007 / Horst Sturm / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **Map of the Berlin case studies**

**p. 32, 33.** Map drawing by Arina Kapitanova.

#### **I-01 Karl-Marx-Allee II**

**1.** Elaborated by the editor of *Karte von Berlin 1:5000 (K5)*, v. 2020 (Geoportal Berlin/3895823, 3935823); **2.** Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Hermann-Henselmann-Archiv, Nr. 878 Bl. 14a / Hermann Henselmann / No CC-BY 4.0; **3.** Berlinische Galerie (hereafter BG), Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-002346 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; *.***4.** Archive and author not found / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-002389 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-002390 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, BG-AS 1436-002388 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0;**8**. Archive and author not found, source: Sigfried Kress and *Günther Hirschfelder, Industrieller Wohnungsbau: allgemeine Grundlagen* (Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1980) / No CC-BY 4.0; **9.** Archive and author not found, source: *Der Montagebau. Großblockbauweise, Streifenbauweisen, Plattenbauweise und Skelettbauweise* (East Berlin, 1961) **/** No CC-BY 4.0; **10.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, BG-AS 9/2015,31 / unknown photographer. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **11.** Archive and author not found, source: *Deutsche Architektur* (1961, n. 6-7) **/**  No CC-BY 4.0; **12** Archive and author not found / No CC-BY 4.0; **13.** Bundesarchiv (hereafter BArch), Bild 183-E0830-0002-002 (https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Bild+183-E0830-0002-002) / Horst Sturm / Steffen Ritter / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **14.** BArch, Bild\_183-D0807-007-004 (https:// www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Bild+183-D0807-007-004)

/ Joachim Spremberg / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **15.** Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung, Wissenschaftliche Sammlung, Bildarchiv (Berlin-Mitte, D1\_1\_1\_16A-001) / Rolf Vetter / No CC 4.0 BY; **16, 17.** Photo by the editor; **18.** Photo by MinJi Kim.

#### **I-02 Leipziger Straße**

**1.** Elaborated by the editor of *Karte von Berlin 1:5000 (K5)*, v. 2020 (Geoportal Berlin/3895817); **2.** Landesarchiv Berlin (hereafter LAB), https://www.histomapberlin.de / Julius Straube; **3.** LAB, F Rep. 290-01-04 Nr. 169 / Waldemar Titzenthaler / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** Archive not found, source: Berlinische Galerie, ed. Platz und Monument (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1992) / cit. Paul von Waldthausen / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** source: *Deutsche Architektur* (1969, n. 9): p. 526 / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** source: *Architektur der DDR* (1979, n. 1): p. 18 / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** LAB, C Rep. 780, Nr. 2, *Wohnhochhäuser '69* (Berlin, 1970), pp. 4, 11 / No CC-BY 4.0; **8.** source: *Berlin Hauptstadt DDR* (Berlin, 1986): p. 6, 7 / No CC BY 4.0; **9.** LAB, F Rep. 290 (01) Nr. 0355338 / Gerhard Hoffmann / No CC-BY 4.0; **10.** source: *Architektur der DDR* (1986, n. 9) / unknown photographer / No CC-BY 4.0; **11.** LAB, F Rep. 290 (01) Nr. 0399076 / Barbara Esch-Marowski / No CC-BY 4.0; **12, 13, 14, 15.** Photo by the editor.

#### **I-03 Märkisches Viertel**

**1.** Elaborated by the editor of *Karte von Berlin 1:5000 (K5)*, v. 2020 (Geoportal Berlin / 3855826, 3855829, 3895826, 3895829); **2, 3.** Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung von Berlin / Bezirksamt Reinickendorf von Berlin / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** source: Senator für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, ed., *MV Plandokumentation. Märkisches Viertel* (Berlin: Kiepert, 1972), p. 46 / Senate of Berlin / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** Ibid., p. 140 / Senate of Berlin / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** Ibid., p. 64 / Senate of Berlin / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** source: Presse- und Informationsamt des Landes Berlin, 1971, p. 46 / Senate of Berlin / No CC-BY 4.0; **8.** LAB, F Rep. 290 (01) Nr. 0095048 / Johann Willa / No CC-BY 4.0; **9.** LAB, F Rep. 290 (01) Nr. 0132286 / Hans Seiler / No CC-BY 4.0; **10.** FHXB Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2017/4436 / Jürgen Henschel / No CC-BY 4.0; **11.** bpk-Bildagentur, Nr. 40018515 / Rolf Kohler / No CC-BY 4.0; **12, 13.** Photo by the editor.

#### **I-04 Großwohnsiedlung Marzahn**

**1.** Elaborated by the editor of *Karte von Berlin 1:5000 (K5)*, v. 2020 (Geoportal Berlin / 3975817, 3975820, 3975823, 4015817, 4015820, 4015823, 4055817, 4055820); **2.** Elaborated by Martin Spalek of the plan by Geofabrik GmbH and Open Street Maps Contributors; **3.** source: *Architektur der DDR* (1976, n. 9): p. 549 / Roland Korn / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** Ibid., p. 550 / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** Extract of a plan in Joachim Schulz, *Berlin. Architektur von Pankow bis Köpenick* (East Berlin, 1987) / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** Bundesarchiv (herafter BArch), Bild 183-1984- 1102-415 / Hubert Link / No CC-BY 4.0; **7, 10.** Elaborated by Jascha Philpp Braun of a plan by Kollektiv der Bezirksgruppe Berlin of Bundes der Architekten der DDR, 1986, p. 32; **8.** Archive and author not found, source: *Der Neunte* (March 2, 1978): p. 4 / No CC-BY 4.0; **9.** Archiv not found / Monica Uelze / No CC-BY 4.0; **11.** BArch, Bild 183-1983-0706-032 / Heinz Hirndorf / No CC-BY 4.0; **12.** BArch, Bild 183-Z0611-006 / Karl-Heinz Schindler / No CC-BY 4.0; **13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.** Photo by the editor.

#### **I-05 IBA-Neubau on Northern Ritterstraße**

**1, 2.** Elaborated by the editor of *Karte von Berlin 1:5,000 (K5)*, v. 2020 (Geoportal Berlin/3855820, 3855817, 3895820, 3895817); **3.** Archiv not found / Josef Paul Kleihues / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** Courtesy of Rob Krier / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** Baukunstarchiv NRW, Archiv Josef Paul Kleihues / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** Archive

and author not found, source: Josef Paul Kleihues, ed., *Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1987. Projektübersicht* (Berlin: Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin, 1991), p. 194 / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** Archive and author not found, source: Josef Paul Kleihues, ed., *Südliche Friedrichstadt. Rudimente der Geschichte, Ort des Wiederspruchs, Kritische Rekonstruktion* (Berlin: Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin, 1987), p. 268 / No CC-BY 4.0; **8, 9, 10, 11, 12.** Courtesy of Rob Krier / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **I-06 IBA-Altbau**

**1.** Elaborated by Lorenza Manfredi of *Karte von Berlin 1:5000 (K5)*, v. 2020 (Geoportal Berlin / 3895817, 3895820, 3935817, 3935820); **2, 3, 5, 6.** S.T.E.R.N. Gesellschaft der behutsamen Stadterneuerung mbH (hereafter S.T.E.R.N.) / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** (left and right) FHXB Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum (hereafter FHXB Museum), Inv.-Nr. 2016/1047 / Kostas Kouvelis, S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/1050 / Kostas Kouvelis, S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0; **8.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/1054 / Kostas Kouvelis, S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0; **9.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/665 / Kostas Kouvelis, S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **NAPLES**

#### **Cover**

**p. 87.** Fondo Paolo Monti, BEIC at Civico Archivio Fotografco / Paolo Monti / CC-BY-SA 4.0.

#### **Map of the Naples case studies**

**p. 88, 89.** Map drawing by Arina Kapitanova.

#### **I-07 Pilot Settlement Torre Ranieri**

**1.** Elaborated by Ilenia Gioia of *CTR* (*Territory Plan of the Campania Region*), 2004; **2, 3.** Photo by the editor; **4.** Elaborated by Ilenia Gioia of *CTR*, 2004; **5.** Drawing by Ilenia Gioia of *CTR*, 2004; **6.** Luigi Cosenza in digitale. Custodia presso Archivio di Stato di Napoli, MIBACT (hereafter LC in ASN-MIBACT), Quartiere sperimentale a Torre Ranieri, Napoli - 1947–1957 (hereafter QSTR), P25\_QUA\_SPE\_RANI\_0025 / No CC-BY 4.0; **7, 8.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, QSTR, P25\_QUA\_SPE\_RANI\_0037 / No CC-BY 4.0; **9.** Photo by the editor; **10.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, QSTR, P25\_QUA\_SPE\_RANI\_0009 / No CC-BY 4.0; **11.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, QSTR, P25\_QUA\_SPE\_RANI\_0042 / Luigi Cosenza / No CC-BY 4.0; **12, 15, 16.** Photo by Johannes Reinders; **13, 14.**  Photo by Ilenia Gioia.

#### **I-08 Rione Traiano**

**1.** Elaborated by Giada Limongi of *CTR* (*Territory Plan of the Campania Region*), 2005, Sheet nos. 447113, 447151, 447154; **2, 3.** Archive and author not found, source: Lilia Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli. La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica* (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2001) / No CC BY 4.0; **4, 5.** Drawing by Giada Limongi of original plans, Archivio Storico IACP di Napoli; **6.** Elaborated by Giada Limongi of *CTR*, 2005, Sheet nos. 447113, 447151, 447154; **7, 8, 9.** Archive and author not found, source: Lilia Pagano, *Periferie di Napoli. La geografa, il quartiere, l'edilizia pubblica* (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2001) / No CC-BY 4.0; **10.** Photo by Giada Limongi; **11, 13, 14.** Photo by the editor; **12.** Photo by Johannes Reinders.

#### **I-09 Quartiere La Loggetta**

**1.** Elaborated by Vincenzo Cirillo of *CTR* (*Territory Plan of the Campania Region*), 2011; **2, 3, 4.** Archivio Storico IACP di Napoli (hereafter ArchIACP) / No CC-BY 4.0; **5, 6, 7.** Fondo Paolo Monti, BEIC at Civico Archivio Fotografco / Paolo Monti / CC-BY-SA 4.0; **8.** ArchIACP / No CC BY 4.0; **9, 10, 11.**  Photo by Giada Limongi

#### **I-10 Quartiere Canzanella**

**1, 3.** Elaborated by Giada Limongi of *CTR* (*Territory Plan of the Campania Region*), 2005, Sheet nos. 447113, 447151, 447154; **2, 4,** Drawing by Giada Limongi of original plans; **5, 6, 7, 9.** Archivio Storico IACP di Napoli, sezione Duca d'Aosta / No CC-BY 4.0; **8.** Archive and author not found, source: Barbara Bertoli, *Giulio de Luca 1912–2004. Opere e progetti* (Naples: Clean, 2013) / No CC-BY 4.0; **10, 11, 12, 13.** Photo by Giada Limongi.

#### **I-11 "Le Vele" in Scampia**

**1.** Elaborated by Vincenzo Cirillo of *CTR* (*Territory Plan of the Campania Region*), 2011, Sheets nos. 447111, 447124, 447072, 447083; **2, 3.** Archivio Franz di Salvo / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** Extract of *CTR*, 1994, Sheets nos. 447111, 447072; **5.** Archivio Franz di Salvo / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** Film frame by Salvatore Piscicelli (flm director), *Le occasioni di Rosa* (1981) / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** Photo by Ellis Cresswell / No CC-BY 4.0; **8.** Photo by Enzo Abramo, https://www.publicdomainpictures.net / No CC-BY 4.0; **9, 10.** Photo by Vincenzo Cirillo; **11.** Photo by Ornella Zerlenga; **12, 13.** Photo by the editor.

#### **I-12 Monterusciello**

**1.** Elaborated by Vito Capasso of *CTR* (*Territory Plan of the Campania Region*), 2011, Sheets nos. 447091, 447104, 447092, 447103; **2, 3, 4, 5, 6.** Archivio Digitale NAN, Napoli Architettura Novecento / No CC-BY 4.0; **7, 8.** Photo by Peppe Maisto / No CC BY 4.0; **9, 10, 11, 12, 13.** Photo by the editor.

#### **II COMPARISON**

#### **Comparative Photographic Journey**

**1–4, 7-9, 11, 13–29, 31–69.** Photo by Johannes Reinders; **5, 6, 10, 12, 30.** Photo by the editor.

#### **Cover**

**p. 155.** Photo by Johannes Reinders.

#### **II-01 Back to the Microscale. Berlin IBA-Altbau and Märkisches Viertel, Naples Scampia and Rione Traiano: A Comparison**

**1.** FHXB Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum (hereafter FHXB Museum), Inv.-Nr. 2016/1057 / Kostas Kouvelis, S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0; **2.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/1054 / Kostas Kouvelis, S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0; **3.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2017/2460 / Jürgen Henschel / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/1050 / Kostas Kouvelis, S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/894 / Jürgen Henschel / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/1142 / S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** Photo by Andreas Butter; **8.** Photo by Johannes Reinders; **9, 10, 11, 13.** Photo by the editor; **12.** Photo by Johannes Reinders; **14.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2017/4217 / Jürgen Henschel / No CC-BY 4.0; **15.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr.

2017/4377 / Jürgen Henschel / No CC-BY 4.0; **16, 17.** Courtesy of Gangway / No CC-BY 4.0; **18.** Photo by the editor.

#### **"The New Man." Interview with Mirella La Magna**

**1–10.** Courtesy of Mirella La Magna and GRIDAS association / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **II-02 Dynamics of Experimentation by Building the Post-War City in Berlin and Naples**

**1.** Luigi Cosenza in digitale. Custodia presso Archivio di Stato di Napoli, MIBACT (hereafter LC in ASN-MIBACT), Quartiere sperimentale a Torre Ranieri, Napoli - 1947–1957 (hereafter QSTR), P25\_QUA\_SPE\_RANI\_0025 / Luigi Cosenza / No CC-BY 4.0; **2.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, QSTR, P25\_QUA\_ SPE\_RANI\_0014 / Luigi Cosenza / No CC-BY 4.0; **3.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, QSTR, 209–PR8 / Luigi Cosenza / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, QSTR, A11–11 / Luigi Cosenza / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, QSTR, P25\_QUA\_SPE\_RANI\_0009 / Luigi Cosenza / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** Photo by the editor; **7.** Bundesarchiv (hereafter BArch), Bild 183-S94252, https:// www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Bild+183-S94252 / Gustav Köhler / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **8.** Photo by the editor; **9.** LAB, F Rep. 260-02, Nr. A\_0133 / No CC-BY 4.0; **10.** Photo by the editor; **11.** BArch, Bild 183-74896- 0008 / Horst Sturm / No CC-BY 4.0; **12.** BArch, Bild 183-94276-0003 (https:// www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Bild+183-94276-0003) / Eva Brüggmann / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **13.** Photo by the editor; **14.** https://www. berlin-besetzt.de, accessed September 23, 2020 / Michael Kipp / No CC-BY 4.0; **15.** *Instand-Besetzer-Post* (March 2, 1981) / No CC-BY 4.0; **16, 17.** https:// www.berlin-besetzt.de, accessed September 23, 2020 / No CC-BY 4.0; **18.** FHXB Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum (hereafter FHXB Museum), Inv.-Nr. 2017/2394 / Jürgen Henschel / No CC-BY 4.0; **19.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2015/2731 / Kostas Kouvelis, S.T.E.R.N. / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **"Fragile Born." Interview with Davide Cerullo**

**1, 3, 4, 5.** Courtesy of Davide Cerullo and L'Albero delle Storie association / No CC-BY 4.0; **2.** Courtesy of Davide Cerullo and L'Albero delle Storie association / Luciano D'Alessandro / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **II-03 Design and Implementation: The Failures of Models and New Opportunities**

**1, 3, 16.** Photo by Giada Limongi; **2, 5-12, 14, 15.** Photo by the editor; **4.** Bundesarchiv (hereafter BArch, Bild 183-1984-1102-415 / Hubert Link / No CC-BY 4.0; **13, 17, 19.** Photo by Andreas Butter; **18.** Photo by Johannes Reinders; **20.** Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung / Bezirksamt Marzahn-Hellersdorf von Berlin. Autors: Gruppe Planwerk-Analyse und Konzepte, Becker, Mohren, Gieseke, Richard. Title: *Freiraumentwicklung - Typologie der öfentlichen Grünfächen (Bestand)*, 2002 / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **Taking social work to the streets with Gangway. Interview with Murat Drayef and Mary Brehmer**

**1, 2.** Courtesy of Gangway / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **III IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS**

#### **BERLIN**

#### **III-01 Urban Space and Housing Programmes in East Berlin Inner City: The Case of Leipziger Straße**

**1.** Berlinische Galerie (hereafter BG), Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436.004456 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **2.** Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-74896-002 / Horst Sturm / No CC-BY 4.0; **3.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-002349 / Gisela Dutschmann / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-005839 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** source: Magistrat von Groß-Berlin, Stadtbauamt, September 1958, *Zentrum, 1958. Grundlagen des Planungswerkes für die sozialistische Umgestaltung der Hauptstadt Berlin*, Blatt 12 / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-00779 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** Archive not found / Magistrat von Groß-Berlin, Stadtbauamt / No CC-BY 4.0; **8.** Archive and author not found / No CC-BY 4.0; **9.** Archive not found / Kurt W. Leucht / No CC-BY 4.0; **10.** (original b/w photo) bpk-Bildagentur (hereafter bpk), Nr. 30005874 / unknown photographer / No CC-BY 4.0; **11.** LAB, F Rep. 290 (02) Nr. 0178700 / unknown photographer / No CC-BY 4.0; **12.** LAB, F Rep. 290 (01) Nr. 0268475 / unknown photographer / No CC-BY 4.0; **13.** BG, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 42/2016,150b / Otto Borutta. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **14.** bpk, Nr. 00078094 / Gert Koshofer / No CC-BY 4.0; **15.** bpk, Nr. 30008176 / Herbert Hensky / No CC-BY 4.0; **16.** Author and archive not found / No CC-BY 4.0; **17.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-002127 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **18.** LAB, C Rep. 780, Nr. 2, *Wohnhochhäuser '69* (Berlin, 1970), p. 10 / No CC-BY 4.0; **19.** Ibid., p. 3 / No CC-BY 4.0; **20.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-007091 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Kai Annett Becker-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **21.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-007096 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Kai Annett Becker-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **22.** BG, Ost-Berliner Fotoarchiv, Inv.-Nr. BG-AS 1436-007098 / Gisela Dutschmann. Repro: Kai Annett Becker-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **23.** Archive and author not found / No CC-BY 4.0; **24.** LAB, F Rep. 290 (02), Allgemeine Fotosammlung (02), Nr. 0293326 / unknown photographer / No CC-BY 4.0.

#### **III-02 The Joint German Competition for the Fennpfuhl Neighbourhood in 1956 and its Outcomes**

**1.** Selmanagić's private archive / unknown photographer / No CC 4.0 BY; **2.**  Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung (hereafter IRS), Wissenschaftliche Sammlung / unknown photographer / No CC 4.0 BY; **3.** Landesarchiv Berlin (hereafter LAB), C Rep. 110-01, no. 48, Sheet 21, Wettbewerbsausschreibung / No CC 4.0 BY; **4**. source: *Deutsche Architektur* (May 1957) / No CC 4.0 BY; **5.** Selmanagić's private archive / No CC 4.0 BY; **6.** Berlinische Galerie, BG-AS 1436.002673 / No CC 4.0 BY; **7.** IRS, Wissenschaftliche Sammlung, Bildarchiv A-12 / No CC 4.0 BY; **8.** (plan) IRS, Wissenschaftliche Sammlung, Bildarchiv A-12 / No CC 4.0 BY; (model) Florian Seidel / No CC 4.0 BY; **9.** IRS, Wissenschaftliche Sammlung, Bildarchiv A-12 / No CC 4.0 BY; **10.** Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Hans-Scharoun-Archiv, Nr. 3788 F. 170/64a / No CC 4.0 BY; **11.** LAB, C Rep. 110-01, Nr. 1915 / No CC 4.0 BY; **12.** IRS, Wissenschaftliche Sammlung, C22, Nachlass Wilfried Stallknecht / No CC 4.0 BY; **13.** source:

*Architektur der DDR* (1976, n. 4): p. 202 / No CC 4.0 BY; **14.** Berlinische Galerie, BG-AS 1436.005599 / Gisela Dutschmann / No CC 4.0 BY; **15.** IRS, Wissenschaftliche Sammlung, Bildarchiv D1\_1 / unknown photographer / No CC 4.0 BY; **16.** Photo by Andreas Butter.

#### **III-03 Yesterday's Utopia and Today's Reality: Post-War Housing Models in West Berlin**

**1.** Drawing by Christian Haid and Lukas Staudinger; **2.** Archive not found / Mathias Donderer / No CC-BY 4.0; **3.** source: Senator für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, ed., *MV Plandokumentation. Märkisches Viertel* (Berlin: Kiepert, 1972) / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** UAA Ungers Archiv für Architekturwissenschaft / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** © Bildarchiv Foto Marburg / Gerhard Ullmann / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** (left) FHXB Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum (hereafter FHXB Museum), Inv.-Nr. 2017/4436 / Jürgen Henschel / No CC-BY 4.0; (right) bpk-Bildagentur, Nr. 40018523 / Rolf Kohler / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** Courtesy of Peter Eisenman Architects Archive / No CC-BY 4.0; **8.** Berlinische Galerie (hereafter BG), Ralf Schüler and Ursulina Schüler-Witte. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **9.** BG / Josef Kaiser, Dieter Urbach. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **10.** Photo by Christian Haid and Lukas Staudinger; **11.** Archive and author not found / No CC BY 4.0; **12.** Photo by Christian Haid and Lukas Staudinger; **13.** Archive and author not found / No CC BY 4.0; **14.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/441 / S.T.E.R.N. / No CC BY 4.0; **15.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2016/837 / S.T.E.R.N. / No CC BY 4.0.

#### **III-04 Back to the City: The Central Areas of Berlin's Large Housing Estates. Märkisches Viertel and Marzahn as Planning Examples of Late Modern Urban Discourses**

**1.** source: Senator für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, ed., *MV Plandokumentation. Märkisches Viertel* (Berlin: Kiepert, 1972), p. 43 / Senate of Berlin / No CC 4.0 BY; **2.** Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung, Wissenschaftliche Sammlung, Fotoarchiv (Berlin-Marzahn) / Dieter Urbach / No CC 4.0 BY; **3.** source: Senator für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, ed., *MV Plandokumentation...*, p. 54 / Senate of Berlin / No CC 4.0 BY; **4.** source: Joachim Schulz and Werner Gräbner, *Berlin: Architektur von Pankow bis Köpenick* (Berlin: Verl. für Bauwesen, 1987), p. 161 / No CC 4.0 BY; **5.** source: *Städtebaulich-architektonische Konzeption für das Hauptzentrum des 9. Stadtbezirkes Variante* "*Stern*"*,* ed. VEB BMK Ingenieurhochbau Berlin Betrieb Projektierung (Berlin: self-published, 1977), Sheet 3 / No CC 4.0 BY; **6.** Private archive of Georg Heinrichs / No CC 4.0 BY; **7.** LAB / Günther Metzner / No CC 4.0 BY; **8.** source: Rolf Walter, "Gestaltungskonzeption architekturbezogene Kunst," *Bildende Kunst* 5 (1986), p. 201 / No CC 4.0 BY; **9.** Photo by Uwe Rau, source: *Das Märkische Viertel. Ein neuer Stadtteil in Kommentaren, Plänen und Bildern,* ed. Presse- und Informationsamt des Landes Berlin (Berlin: Presse- und Informationsamt, 1971), p. 17 / No CC 4.0 BY; **10.** Photo by Jascha Philipp Braun.

#### **III-05 East Germany under Palm Trees: GDR Housing Projects Abroad**

**1.** Landesdenkmalamt / Wolfgang Bittner / No CC 4.0 BY; **2.** Bundesarchiv (hereafter BArch), Bild 183-1984-0601-008 (https://www.bild.bundesarchiv. de/dba/de/search/?query=Bild+183-1984-0601-008) / Zimmermann / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **3.** BArch, Bild 183-U0809-0017 (https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/ dba/de/search/?query=Bild+183-U0809-0017) / Erwin Schneider / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **4.** BArch, Bild 183-U1015-0038 (https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/ de/search/?yearfrom=&yearto=&query=Bild%2B183-U1015-0038) / Rainer Weisfog / CC-BY-SA 3.0;

**5.** Drawing by Andreas Butter / No CC 4.0 BY; **6.** (above) courtesy of Rainer Ressel / No CC 4.0 BY; (below) Konvolut C. P. Werner, p. 2, no. 1, collection Dong Sam Sin / No CC 4.0 BY; **7.** (above) courtesy of Rainer Ressel / No CC 4.0 BY; (centre) Fotoarchiv Matthias und Hannelore Schubert DAG, Wismar / No CC 4.0 BY; (below) courtesy of Andreas Sommerer / No CC 4.0 BY; **8.** Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung / Hubert Scholz / No CC 4.0 BY; **9, 10.** Heinz Willumat / No CC 4.0 BY; **11.** source: *Architektur der DDR* (1989, n. 9) / No CC 4.0 BY; **12.** Sigrun Lingel, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Datei:Wohnungsbau\_der\_DDR\_in\_Stone\_Town.jpg#; **13.** Africa-Press.net / No CC 4.0 BY; **14.** https://alchetron.com/Michenzani / no author provided / CC BY-SA; **15.** (above and below right) Heinz Stelzig / No CC 4.0 BY; (below left) Bundesarchiv, Berlin, DH1 28561 / No CC 4.0 BY; **16.** source: *Tropenbaubriefe* (Weimar, 1985) / No CC 4.0 BY; **17.** (left) Bundesarchiv, 1984/0410/19 N / Wagner; (right) source: *Architektur der DDR* (1984, n. 8) / No CC 4.0 BY; **18.** source: *Architektur der DDR* (1984, n. 8) / No CC 4.0 BY; **19.** Thomas Billhardt, courtesy of Camera Work / No CC 4.0 BY; **20.** Photo by Andreas Butter; **21.** Courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. Meurer / No CC 4.0 BY; **22.** Winfried Hohmann / No CC 4.0 BY.

#### **III-06 IBA-Neubau: Social Housing as a Renewal Generator for the Inner City**

**1.** Denkmalarchiv Darmstadt / unknown photographer; **2.** Courtesy of Mercedes-Benz Classic / unknown photographer / No CC-BY 4.0; **3.** Landesarchiv Berlin (hereafter LAB), F Rep. 290 (01) Nr. 0056086 / Horst Siegmann / No CC-BY 4.0; **4.** LAB, F Rep. 290 (01) Nr. 0055971 / Horst Siegmann / No CC-BY 4.0; **5.** source: Catalogue "Die Stadt von Morgen" (Berlin, ca. 1957), not available / Oswald Meichsner / No CC-BY 4.0; **6.** LAB, F Rep. 270 Nr. 8162 / No CC-BY 4.0; **7.** Berlinische Galerie, BG-AS 42/2016,156b / Otto Borutta. Repro: Anja Elisabeth Witte-Berlinische Galerie / No CC-BY 4.0; **8.** Archive and author not found / No CC-BY 4.0; **9.** S.T.E.R.N. Gesellschaft der behutsamen Stadterneuerung mbH (hereafter S.T.E.R.N.) / Ludwig Leo / No CC BY 4.0; **10.** Plan elaborated by the editor; **IBA logo.** LAB / No CC-BY 4.0; **11.** Archive and author of the drawing not found, source: Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, ed., *Modelle für eine Stadt. Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin. Die Neubaugebiete, Dokumente und Projekte, Band 1* (Berlin: Siedler, 1984) / No CC BY 4.0; **12.** LAB, B Rep. 168 (Karten) Nr. 108 / Carlo Aymonino / No CC-BY 4.0; **13.** LAB, B Rep. 168 (Karten) Nr. 537 / Courtesy of MBM Architectes, Martorell, Bohigas, Mackay, Capdevila e Gual / No CC-BY 4.0; **14.** FHXB Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum (hereafter FHXB Museum), Inv.-Nr. 2016/412 / No CC BY 4.0; **15.** LAB, B Rep. 168 (Karten) Nr. 1190 / O. M. Ungers, Bernd Faskel, von Müller, Webberg, Knischild / No CC-BY 4.0; **16, 17.** Photo by the editor; **18.** Archive and author not found / No CC BY 4.0; **19.** FHXB Museum, Inv.-Nr. 2015/3518 / No CC BY 4.0; **20.** Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung des Landes Berlin; **21.** © akg-images / Bruni Meya / image is not offered under CC license, all rights remain with the copyright holder; **22.** Courtesy of Kleihues + Kleihues Architekten / No CC BY 4.0.

#### **NAPLES**

#### **III-07 Social Housing and Building Communities in Naples from the Second Post-War Era to Date. Quality, Involvement and Open Processes Between Segregation and Boundaries**

**1.** Archivio Storico Municipale di Napoli (hereafter ASMN); **2.** Archivi di Urba-Na-Urbanistica Napoli, Servizio Pianifcazione urbanistica generale e beni comuni (hereafter UrbaNa), available at Osservatorio Casa by UrbaNa (https://www. comune.napoli.it/fex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/14374); **3.** UrbaNa, available at Osservatorio Casa by UrbaNa (https://www.comune.napoli. it/fex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/16674); **4, 5.** source: *Società per Risanamento di Napoli*, July 25, 1964 / No CC BY 4.0; **6, 7.** source: *Società per Risanamento di Napoli*, July 28, 1966 / No CC BY 4.0; **8, 9, 11.** Photo by Elena Manzo; **10.** (plans) courtesy of Comune di Napoli, XIX Municipalità, "Servizio Prevenzione e Protezione del Comune di Napoli" and "Servizio Tecnico"; photos by Elena Manzo.

#### **III-08 Neighbourhood Churches in the Post-War Reconstruction: Projects and Achievements by Marcello Canino**

**1.** Private archive of Marcello Canino, courtesy of Isabella Canino / No CC BY 4.0; **2, 3, 4, 6.** Photo by Riccardo Serraglio; **5.** Episcopal Archive of Caserta / No CC BY 4.0; **7, 8.** Private archive of Marcello Canino, courtesy of Isabella Canino / No CC BY 4.0; **9, 10.** Photo by Riccardo Serraglio.

#### **III-09 Luigi Cosenza's Experiments: From City to Prefab**

**1, 2.** source: *Costruzioni-Casabella* (1940, n. 146) / No CC BY 4.0; **3.** Luigi Cosenza in digitale. Custodia presso Archivio di Stato di Napoli, MIBACT (hereafter LC in ASN-MIBACT), Neapolis, studio urbanistico per una zona di Napoli – 1937 (hereafter Neapolis-1937), P130\_neapolis\_0004 / No CC BY 4.0; **4.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, Neapolis-1937, P130\_neapolis\_0005 / No CC BY 4.0; **5.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, Piano di ricostruzione dei quartieri Porto, Mercato, Pendino – 1946 (hereafter Mercato-1946), R5\_55 / No CC BY 4.0; **6.** LC in ASN-MIB-ACT, Mercato-1946, R5\_56 / No CC BY 4.0; **7.** Archive and author not found / No CC BY 4.0; **8.** source: *Rivista di Bergamo* (1999, n. 18), p. 15 / No CC BY 4.0; **9.** LC in ASN-MIBACT, Quartiere sperimentale a Torre Ranieri, Napoli - 1947-1957**,** P25\_QUA\_SPE\_RANI\_0025 / No CC BY 4.0.

#### **III-10 The Scampia Park and the Gentle Urban Renewal of the Eighties**

**1, 2.** Courtesy of Riccardo Siano / No CC BY 4.0; **3, 4, 5.** Archivi di UrbaNa - Urbanistica Napoli (hereafter UrbaNa); **6.** source: Anna Giannetti, "Il parco pubblico da modello a necessità," in *Il giardino e la città. Il progetto del parco urbano in Europa*, edited by Cerami Giovanni (Rome: Laterza, 1996) / No CC BY 4.0; **7.** UrbaNa / No CC BY 4.0; **8.** Fondo Paolo Monti, BEIC at Civico Archivio Fotografco / Paolo Monti / CC BY-SA 4.0; **9.** Wikipedia, accessed 2019; **10.** Photo by the editor; **11.** Photo by Andreas Butter; **12.** Courtesy of MBM Architectes, Martorell, Bohigas, Mackay, Capdevila e Gual and of author Lluís Casals / Col-legi Ofcial d´Arquitectes de Catalunya, Arxiu Historic, MBM Architectes / No CC BY 4.0.

#### **III-11 Demolishing "Vele" Buildings by Franz di Salvo. The Reasons for Saying NO**

**1.** source: *Casa Vogue* (November 1983, n. 146): p. 197 / No CC BY 4.0; **2.** Di Salvo Archive / No CC BY 4.0; **3.** (left) Di Salvo Archive / No CC BY 4.0; (right) drawing by Ornella Zerlenga / No CC BY 4.0; **4.** (A) drawing by Ornella Zerlenga / No CC BY 4.0; (C) drawing by Gaetano Fusco with graphic analysis by Ornella Zerlenga / No CC BY 4.0; (B, D) Di Salvo Archive / No CC BY 4.0; **5.** Photo by Ornella Zerlenga; **6.** source: Cherubino Gambardella, *Supernapoli. Architettura per un'altra città* (Syracuse: LetteraVentidue, 2015), pp. 47–53 / No CC BY 4.0; **7.** http://ilovegraffiti.de/rusl/2010/03/15/the-goldfinch-ofscampia/ / No CC BY 4.0; **8.** source: *Marco Petrus, Matrici*, ed. by Michele Bonuomo (Venice: Marsilio, 2017), pp. 36–37 / No CC BY 4.0; **9.** (left) Photo by Ornella Zerlenga; (right) picture by Davide Cerullo; **10.** (left) Courtesy of L'Albero delle Storie / No CC BY 4.0; (right) Courtesy of Centro Hurtado / No CC BY 4.0; **11.** Di Salvo Archive / No CC BY 4.0.

#### **III-12 The Post-Earthquake Reconstruction. The Recovery of the** *Casali* **in the Northern Suburbs of Naples**

**1-12.** Michele Capobianco Archive / No CC BY 4.0.

#### **III-13 Strengths and Weaknesses of Public Housing Policies in Italy: The Naples Case Study**

**1.** Osservatorio Casa by UrbaNa, Public residential neighbourhood in Naples, Database on the building heritage (http://www.comune.napoli.it/fex/cm/pages/ ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/14438); **2, 3.** Elaborated by the students of Laboratorio di Tecnica e pianifcazione urbanistica 2018/2019; **4.** Photo by Corinne Buonocore; **5.** Courtesy of Centro Autogestito Pipierno, elaborated by Giada Limongi.

#### **III-14 Regeneration and Socioeconomic Dynamics in Public Housing. Focus on the Outskirts of Naples**

**1.** Eurostat; **Table 1.** Comune di Napoli; **2.** Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, ISTAT; **Table 2.** Comune di Napoli, SISTAN. **Table 3.** Agenzia delle Entrate, OMI Osservatorio del Mercato Immobiliare.

#### **IV CONCLUSIONS**

**p. 380.** Archive and author not found / No CC-BY 4.0

**1.** Bundesarchiv (herafter BArch), Bild\_183-27387-0001 (https://www.bild. bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Bild+183-27387-0001) / Klein / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **2.** BArch, Bild\_183-T0519-0006 (https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/ dba/en/search/?yearfrom=&yearto=&query=Bild%2B183-T0519-0006) / Erwin Schneider / CC-BY-SA 3.0; **3.** Fondo Paolo Monti, BEIC at Civico Archivio Fotografco / Paolo Monti / CC BY-SA 4.0; **4.** Photo by the editor; **5.** bpk-Bildagentur, Nr. 40018518 / Rolf Kohler / No CC-BY 4.0; **6, 7.** Photo by the editor; **8.** Fondo Paolo Monti, BEIC at Civico Archivio Fotografco / Paolo Monti / CC BY-SA 4.0.

**p. 395.** FHXB, Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum (herafter FHXB Museum), Inv.-Nr. 2016/735 / S.T.E.R.N. / No CC BY 4.0

# INDEX OF NAMES: BERLIN

This diagram is intended as a reading aid representing the geography of the contents of the book. It contains the names of persons as well as the titles of projects, programmes, act, laws or norms, which often recur in the treatments. Names are usually set in italics in the original language and in roman when translated. In single-version case, the typesetting in the text follows CMS norms. Contents and page positions are otherwise organized in two blocks on the ordinates, Berlin and Naples, and for book chapters on the abscissa.





# INDEX OF NAMES: NAPLES




# INDEX OF PLACES: BERLIN



# INDEX OF PLACES: NAPLES



# AUTHORS

**Jascha Philipp Braun** studied recent/modern history and political science in Berlin, Potsdam and Stockholm. His main focus was on history of architecture and history of urban development. After fnishing his master´s thesis about Eisenhüttenstadt as socialist model city he worked on his doctoral thesis about the large housing estates Märkisches Viertel and Marzahn in Berlin (graduation 2017) publishing it with the title *Großsiedlungsbau im geteilten Berlin* (Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2019). Today he is employed at the LVR-Amt für Denkmalpfege im Rheinland. He deals with questions of preserving historic urban quarters and cultivated landscapes.

E-Mail: jascha.braun@gmail.com

**Andreas Butter**, born in 1963 in Dessau, Saxony-Anhalt, is an art historian, specialising in the feld of twentieth-century Modernism. He has worked as a freelance expert for several monument authorities, the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation, Berlinische Galerie, and IFA Stuttgart, and he taught for ten years at the IES Berlin. As an author/curator (*Ostmoderne*; *Neues Leben, neues Bauen*, etc.) he has promoted regard for post-war architecture. Since 2010, he has been working as a senior researcher at the Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS) Erkner on subjects such as urban renewal history and East Germany's international interdependencies.

OrcID: 0000-0002-9527-7090 E-Mail: andreas\_go@hotmail.com

**Vito Capasso** is an architect who graduated from the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design at the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" with a thesis in the history of contemporary architecture. After a period of study in New York focusing on the themes of neo-Renaissance architecture, the reasons that underlie this architectural period, its main architectural forms and its ongoing legacy, his current feld of interest is contemporary architecture and city development in the metropolitan area of Naples.

E-Mail: capassovito@gmail.com

**Francesca Castanò** is Architect, PhD and Associate Professor of History of Architecture at the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli." Her teaching activity is on the History of Contemporary Architecture and Design. She has participated in national and international conventions with contributions and articles on the history of architecture with particular regard to the history of industrial heritage from the modern age to today. In the same feld she has published numerous articles; her last monograph was *Angelo Mangiarotti e la fabbrica Siag. La storia di una costruzione infnita* (Lettera Ventidue, 2017). She is a member of the teachers' board for the doctorate course in Environmental Design and Innovation at the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli."

OrcID: 0000-0001-6315-6465 E-Mail: francesca.castano@unicampania.it

**Vincenzo Cirillo**, architect, holds a PhD in Architecture, Industrial Design and Cultural Heritage and is currently postdoctoral researcher in Drawing and Representation of Architecture at the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli." His research interests include geometric analysis of architectural space, digital

representation of architecture and environment, graphical analysis of design and visual communication projects.

OrcID: 0000-0002-8965-4865 E-Mail: vincenzo.cirillo@unicampania.it

**Claudia de Biase** is Architect, PhD and Associate Professor of Technical and Urban Planning at the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," teaches in the Bachelor and Master of Science in Building and Architecture Sciences and Techniques courses. Her research interests include the analysis and regeneration of illegal settlements in Southern Italy and Campania. To this end, she has proposed a procedure for setting perimeters on illegal settlements, distinguishing them from illegal building. She has authored several papers for national and international conferences and ca. 100 publications including monographs, chapters in books and scientifc articles.

OrcID: 0000-0001-9495-1373 E-Mail: claudia.debiase@unicampania.it

**Fabiana Forte** is Architect and Associate Professor in Appraisal and Evaluation at the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli." In 1997, she gained a PhD in "Evaluation Methods in Urban Planning and Urban Design." Occasions for confrontation with the national and international scientifc community include research projects, participation at conferences and publications. Some scientifc results of her research have been verifed by means of evaluations conducted via practical experience of urban planning and urban design.

OrcID: 0000-0002-2248-7193 E-Mail: fabiana.forte@unicampania.it

**Adriana Galderisi** is Associate Professor at the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli." Graduated cum laude in Architecture in 1989, PhD in Urban and Regional Planning in 2000. Member of the Coordinating Board of the Thematic Group Resilience and Risk Mitigation Strategies of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP). Research experience comes from a number of EU-funded projects and has been mostly focused on urban resilience in the face of multiple threatening factors and sustainable solutions for urban regenerations. She has authored several papers presented at national and international conferences and about 110 publications (monographs, chapters in books and scientifc articles).

OrcID: 0000-0003-0565-4313 E-Mail: adriana.galderisi@unicampania.it

**Anna Giannetti** has been a full professor of History of Architecture at the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" since 2001. From 2008 to 2011, she was Dean of the IDEAS Department. In 1994, she wrote her frst book about Neapolitan villas and patronage; the last in 2017. Her research interests also include nineteenth-century urban history (since 1985), the history of gardens (with the frst book in 1994), and monastic architecture. Her last book in 2019 was *The History of the Kitchen. Architecture and Social Behavior.*

OrcID: 0000-0001-5483-7074 E-Mail: anna.giannetti@unicampania.it **Ilenia Gioia** is an architect and PhD student at the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli." She is the author of several contributions to the conference proceedings concerning architectural drawing and the valorisation of cultural heritage. The theme of modern and experimental neighbourhoods is the subject of her ongoing research.

OrdID: 0000-0001-7719-2141 E-Mail: gioia.ile@hotmail.it

**Christian Haid** is an urban sociologist, architect and researcher, and he has experience in academic education and research in city planning, urban design, architecture, urban sociology and urban management. His thematic focus is on urban theory, critical urban research, informal urbanism, everyday urban practices and process-oriented city planning in Berlin and elsewhere. Christian holds a PhD in Sociology and he is Senior Researcher at the Habitat Unit of the TU Berlin and lecturer at the Urban Management Masters Programme of the TU Berlin. In 2018, he co-founded the Berlin practices POLIGONAL Ofce for Urban Communication.

OrdID: 0000-0002-8197-1620 E-Mail: c.haid@tu-berlin.de

**Chiara Ingrosso** is Architect and Assistant Professor in History of Architecture at the Department of Architecture and Design of the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," where she teaches History of Architecture and Design. Her research interests are related to issues and multidisciplinary projects in which contemporary architecture and the city are analysed within the economic, political and social processes. She has won scholarships and taught at various international universities for which she has held seminars and workshops, including Barcelona, Madrid, Istanbul, Beijing and Johannesburg. She is the author of essays and monographs published in Italy and abroad, and her recent monographs include *Barcelona. Architecture, City and Society 1975-2015* (Skira, 2011); *Barcellona 2011. Storie urbane* (Clean, 2011); *Condomini napoletani. La 'città privata' tra ricostruzione e boom economico* (LetteraVentidue, 2017), and *On the Road City Barcelona* (Forma, 2019).

OrcID: 0000-0002-8064-4134 E-Mail: chiara.ingrosso@unicampania.it

**MinJi Kim** is a PhD candidate at Habitat Unit, TU Berlin, where she received a master's degree in Urban Design. Focusing on rapidly transforming Indian Ocean cities, her research explores activist approaches to the emerging heritage conficts in a multicultural context. Since her bachelor's programme in Architecture in Seoul, she has been involved in international projects in South Korea, China, Egypt and New York.

OrcID: 0000-0002-7697-8289 E-Mail: minjikim834@gmail.com

**Natália Kvítková** (MSc Design Research) is a Berlin-based urban researcher and writer. She has published work on marginalised post-war architecture, ideologically contaminated heritage, and social theories of demolition.

E-Mail: natalia.kvtk@gmail.com

**Luciano Lauda** is an architect, who graduated at the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" with a thesis on the current and future territory development of the VIII Municipality of Naples (Chiaiano-Marianella-Piscinola-Scampia). His present PhD research is entitled *Bene Culturale: Municipalità VIII di Napoli*  *"capoLavOro*,*"* dealing with the topic of the periphery with an interdisciplinary approach and an integral vision. OrcID: 0000-0002-7038-8149 E-Mail: luciano.lauda@unicampania.it

**Giada Limongi** is Engineer and PhD student in Architecture, Industrial Design and Cultural Heritage at the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli." The issues related to disaster risk reduction, urban resilience, and sustainable development are some of the main topics of her ongoing research. These issues are addressed from the point of view of methods and tools for guiding urban development through more efective knowledge frames.

E-Mail: giada.limongi@unicampania.it

**Lorenza Manfredi**, architect, is presently conducting a joint PhD project in Urban Planning at the IUAV University of Venice and the TU Berlin. She collaborated on an urban planning course and a master's degree course in Architecture and City Construction at the Polytechnic of Turin. In Berlin, she collaborates with the studio 100Landschaftsarchitektur and manages the project space Ofcina Neukölln. Her theoretical and design research observes and promotes transformations of contemporary public space in European cities.

OrcID: 0000-0003-4728-5878 E-Mail: lore.manfredi@gmail.com

**Elena Manzo** received a PhD from the Polytechnic University of Turin in 1995. She is an architect and full professor of History of Architecture at the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" where she is the dean of High-Quality Presidium. Her research interests are in the history of modern and contemporary architecture, with a focus on Southern Italy. She also conducts research on Danish architecture and thermal bath architecture.

She has won national and international awards and fellowships, is an honorary member of many institutions and is UNESCO Chair on Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Territorial Governance. She holds lectures and conferences at many Italian and foreign universities. She is the author of several books and essays, which have been published in leading national and foreign magazines.

OrcID: 0000-0001-6558-5431 E-Mail: elena.manzo@unicampania.it

**Johannes Reinders** holds a Bachelor of Arts in Architecture and Interior Design and is currently studying a dual degree: a Master in Urban Design at TU Berlin and a Master of Architecture at Tongji University, Shanghai. In 2019, he won the 1st Prize in the student design competition *Election Rooms* with the project *(Un)Framing Political Participation*. His research is mostly concept and design based with a special focus on resiliency through sustainability by means of holistic design concepts.

OrcID: 0000-0002-0123-7072 E-Mail: johannesreinders92@gmail.com

**Antonello Scopacasa** is an architect based in Potenza, Italy, and Berlin. He was educated in Architectural and Urban Design at Florence University and received his PhD in History and Theory of Architecture at University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" for research on city space development in the central area of Berlin. His research topics are urban space in divided Berlin, Berlin's city history, handcraft culture, traditional wooden framed building in South Italy. After frst practicing in architectural ofces in Berlin, Naples and Paris, he founded his own ofce,

Studio ideale, in 2008. His current professional experience includes projects in urban and landscape design, restoration of architectural heritage, exposition and commercial set-up design, industrial design. He has received awards and conducted project expositions in urban and landscape design since 2004 in Berlin, Venice and Potenza.

OrcID: 0000-0002-8731-6037

E-Mail: antonello.scopacasa@campus.tu-berlin.de; info@studioideale.eu

**Riccardo Serraglio** is Architect and PhD in the History of Architecture. He is currently Associate Professor at the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Department of Architecture and Industrial Design. His main feld of interest is the architecture of the eighteenth century, in particular the Bourbon architecture of the Kingdom of Naples. Also, he deals with the history of social architecture and in this area, he has conducted research on social housing in the 19th and 20th centuries. He participates in national and international research groups and publishes his studies in important architecture journals. He has written monographs on the Royal Site of San Leucio, the Carolino Aqueduct of Caserta and the workers' houses built in southern Italy at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century.

OrcID: 0000-0001-8362-2400 E-Mail: riccardo.serraglio@unicampania.it

**Martin Spalek** holds a Bachelor of Arts in Architecture and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and Engineering. He is co-founder and research associate at urbanes.land, a research and transfer initiative focussing on urbanisation processes outside dense cities at the Hochschule Biberach.

E-Mail: martin.spalek@posteo.de

**Lukas Staudinger** is an architect, sociologist and architectural communicator. He has taught at universities for several years and he is an expert in historical and contemporary housing, post-war urban planning, architectural heritage and everyday urban life. In 2018, he founded the Berlin practice POLIGONAL Ofce for Urban Communication. In that capacity he plans and moderates workshops, seminars, city walks and architectural events.

E-Mail : lukas@poligonal.de

**Ornella Zerlenga** is PhD architect and full professor of Architectural Drawing and Survey, Graphic Design. Vice-Director of Department of Architecture and Industrial Design at University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli." She has received the "Luigi Vagnetti" Award (1989), the "Storia del Disegno di Architettura" Award (1992) and the Silver Plaque UID Award (2008). She is a member of many national research projects, such as PRIN 2000–2011, Culturability 2018, and Valere 2019. She is a founding member of the journal *Eikonocity*, a member of the Scientifc Committee of the Unione Italiana Disegno (UID), and director of the series "Themes and Frontiers of Knowledge and the Project" (La scuola di Pitagora).

OrcID: 0000-0002-4093-708X E-Mail: ornella.zerlenga@unicampania.it

ISBN 978-3-7983-3143-3 (print) ISBN 978-3-7983-3144-0 (online)

Research project by: Funded by: Publication sponsored by: