The decision to rebuild Friuli ‘as it
was, where it was’ was immediate. Article 1 of Italian Decree-Law No. 227 dated
May 13 1976, Provisions for the populations of the Municipalities of the Region
of Friuli Venezia Giulia affected by the earthquake of May 1976, clearly
established the approach that was to be taken: «Reconstruction must take place
in the settlement areas of the existing villages». The only permitted exception
was where «prevailing technical reasons» required construction elsewhere. The
State therefore endorsed the ‘Friulian plan’, a principle that had already been
applied to tent city placement in every hamlet of each municipality. This
strategy aimed to keep family units intact and preserve the identity of
existing villages.
However, some well-established
professionals proposed a reconstruction concept that was more consistent with
the prevailing practices of the time. As will be discussed, this approach
involved redesigning the urban layout of the area. Commissioner Zamberletti was
among the first to warn the population of the risks associated with this
approach, as he disagreed with the underlying hypothesis. Despite potentially
being interested in the realisation of a ‘Greater Udine’ plan, the Mayor of
Udine, Angelo Candolini, also expressed concerns. Candolini shared his thoughts
with Corriere della Sera: «Heaven forbid,» he said, «that urban planners are
allowed to come in and 'rethink' our villages».
Those affected by
the earthquake were deeply concerned about a ‘Vajontisation’ of Friuli, meaning
a repeat of the events that occurred in the nearby valley of the Piave River
following the disaster of October 1963. In the reconstruction of Longarone, the
State decided to prioritise town planning and the need to draw up a reconstruction
plan for the destroyed settlement on a territorial scale for the first time in
the post-war period. To this end, it enlisted the support of the IUAV (the
University Institute of Architecture of Venice) through its director, Giuseppe
Samonà. The new version of Longarone was initially designed as a series of
distinct building blocks, tower blocks, and linear buildings, reminiscent of
British new town models. This could have served as a model for the
reconstruction of Friuli, but twelve years after the dam tragedy, it was
already being held up as a failure. «Anyone thinking of calling in urban
planners should instead consider Longarone and all the time and money wasted
after the Vajont disaster», warned Candolini, concluding: «No, no one must come
and redesign our villages. We want to rebuild them ourselves, and as quickly as
possible».
The reconstruction
of the settlements around the Vajont dam was not the only case invoked as a
warning. Another example involved the Belìce valley, which was struck by an earthquake
in 1968. A top-down plan designed by engineers from the Advanced Institute for
Social Housing (Istituto Superiore per l’Edilizia Sociale - ISES) led to the
abandonment of the village of Gibellina and the construction of a completely
new town 18 kilometres away
Among the
best-known proposals for the urban redesign of earthquake-stricken Friuli are
those developed by the Milanese engineer Roberto Guiducci and the
Friulian architect Marcello D’Olivo.
Guiducci, the
founder of Tekne, one of the top engineering companies in Italy, collaborated
on the drafting of the Regional General Urban Plan (Piano Urbanistico Regionale
Generale - PURG) of Friuli Venezia Giulia in the early Seventies. However, in
April 1976, one month before the earthquake, the plan was still awaiting
approval. This scheme identified a ‘strong axis’ with industrial potential and
growth capacity stretching from Trieste to Sacile and passing through Gorizia,
Udine, and Pordenone; this area was seen as a model for the ‘weaker’ areas of
Friuli encompassing the mountainous region and the low-lying plain. According
to the predicted scenario of the engineer, the disadvantaged territories would
inevitably become depopulated in favour of the heart of the area under
development, dividing the regional space into zones for work and others for
leisure. The seismic event, therefore, presented an opportunity to accelerate
this process and relocate 80 thousand inhabitants along the Udine-Pordenone
axis into a ‘Greater Udine’, which was expected to double in population over
time and reach 200 thousand residents.
While Guiducci's
proposal remained confined to the margins of the PURG debate, to the extent
that there are no known design drawings of it, Marcello D'Olivo's work with a
design company based in Rome was more elaborate. The national press also
reported on the debate, questioning why the urban and territorial plans of the
professional team from Udine were being neglected, given the delays to the
start of the reconstruction work. In an initial rebuilding proposal for earthquake-affected
areas, D'Olivo envisaged a 14-kilometre-diameter circular road encircling the
northern outskirts of Udine and the towns of Buja, Majano, Treppo Grande, and
Colloredo di Monte Albano, but not Gemona. A total of six new residential
areas, each with a population of around 2,000, were planned along the
circumference of the road. These districts were designed using the ecological
sustainability criteria that D'Olivo had spent years developing. This first
solution was followed by another that, despite following the same common
thread, was formally different. The circular road route was replaced by one
that respected the existing topography and covered a wider area between Venzone
and Tricesimo. As in the first proposal, each settlement along the route would
have been home to around 2,000 people. In addition to the previous solution,
which corresponded to the 12 existing population centres, D'Olivo designed new
residential areas, all of which were crescent-shaped. This approach was driven
by the clear intention of giving the new population centres a distinct formal
imprint that set them apart from the existing settlement pattern. D'Olivo's
proposals aimed to unify the reconstruction architecturally in the hope of
avoiding widespread, disorderly construction, which ultimately occurred in some
areas.
The solutions
proposed by Guiducci and D'Olivo for the ‘centralised’ reconstruction of
Friuli, particularly D'Olivo's, which was clearly visionary and diverged
greatly from reality, openly contradicted the 'where it was, as it was'
principle. They were immediately perceived as being dictated from above, and
were opposed by both the earthquake victims and the local politicians.
In any case, a new
town was built, albeit on a very small scale. ‘Technical factors’, as
outlined in Article 1 of Italian Decree Law No. 227, forced local
administrators to abandon the historic settlement of Portis, a hamlet in
Venzone situated on the banks of the Tagliamento River, and rebuild it from the
ground up. The landslide that still threatens the area today was the main cause
of this decision. Despite the initial resistance of the inhabitants, who had
placed unequivocal signs at the southern entrance to the town before the
subsequent shocks of September, this new reconstruction project took place. The
signs read «Puartis al reste in Puartis» (Friulan for «Portis has to remain in
Portis») and «Portis must be reborn here». After heated discussions, the
Cooperativa Nuova Portis housing association was founded on December 15 1978,
commissioning the architect Roberto Pirzio Biroli to design the new town.
Construction began in August 1979, and the ceremony for the handover of the
first houses was held on November 28 1981. The following day, the daily
newspaper Messaggero Veneto published an article in which the reporter
presented Nuova Portis as a commendable «example of Friuli's will to recover».
Completed
in July 1985, the Nuova Portis development is a prime example of participatory
reconstruction. This was achieved by consulting the various family units and
respecting the contiguous cadastral plots of the old village. Some years later,
Pirzio Biroli himself emphasised the importance of this experience: «When
working with housing cooperatives and attempting to practise and develop
architecture, I tried to create something human, communicable, transmissible
and inheritable: modest yet tangible goals that could be verified by anyone and
that would encourage participatory processes».
While
the theoretical discussion on the territorial reorganisation of
earthquake-stricken Friuli was still ongoing, reconstruction began. This was
managed by the Regional Government in collaboration with all relevant parties,
including the Provinces, Municipalities, and territorial bodies. In population
centres where the urban structure had largely remained intact despite
significant damage and a high number of destroyed buildings, recovery proceeded
in line with existing regulatory plans or building programmes. Relatively
quickly, detailed redevelopment plans could be prepared for areas that required
it, limiting expropriations and enabling most of the existing infrastructure to
be recovered.
The
Regional Extraordinary General Secretariat was established as the technical and
scientific body responsible for the reconstruction. Directed by Emanuele
Chiavola, an engineer with exceptional technical expertise, as well as human
and political skills, this body played a key role in the reconstruction
process. Despite some tensions and conflicts, a genuine ecosystem was created
in which all the different parties worked together to ensure a consistent
approach and the timely completion of the planned works. The protests,
counter-information, and ‘militant criticism’ representing the demands of the
‘tent people’ were carefully considered. Armed with this capacity for synthesis
and these ideas, Friuli embarked on the path to reconstruction.