The
interventions and procedures followed for the reconstruction of the historic
centres of Gemona and Venzone best encapsulate the approach taken to maintain
the urban layout of the earthquake-stricken area and thus contribute to its
rebirth, becoming one of the distinctive elements of the Friuli Model.
After establishing the criteria and procedures for
allocating funds, the Regional Government suspended the approval process for
the General Regional Urban Plan (PURG) in the earthquake-stricken area. They
then set out the steps to be taken by approving the Regional Laws No. 33 in
1976 and No. 63 in 1977. Both provisions envisaged reconstruction guided by
urban planning instruments, particularly the Detail Plans drawn up by the
Municipal technical offices. Regional Law No. 63 introduced several
innovations. Firstly, as architect Giorgio Dri explained, it assigned the «function
of making amendments and variations to the regulatory plans or building
programmes to the Detail Plans when these were determined to be non-conforming
with the provisions of higher-level instruments already in place. Similarly,
approval of the Detail Plans was equivalent to a declaration of public utility
and the non-deferrability and urgency of all works and installations they
provided for».
Research conducted by the National Research Council
(Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - CNR) on behalf of the Regional Consortium
of Design Cooperatives of Friuli Venezia Giulia (Con-Coop) proved the vital
role of urban planning in the reconstruction phase. The study recognised the
importance of professionals and public administrations working together to draw
up plans that took into account land ownership and the historical development
of the area. The ‘cascade’ planning approach simplified the entire process.
According to the Regional Councillor for Reconstruction, Salvatore Varisco,
this strategic method enabled implementation processes to begin immediately,
thus «freeing it from its subordinate relationship to general urban and
district planning within the framework of the guidelines and methodologies of
the Regional Urban Plan».
In Gemona, for example,
the plan that was enacted defined the allocation of properties and the
morphological prefiguration of the building project. In Osoppo, however, the
urban planning instrument was structured as a framework plan, moving on to a
level of urban specification and planovolumetric definition before addressing
the layout of land ownership. Similar procedures were implemented in Artegna
and Buja. In Tarcento, however, the reconstruction of the ‘Comparto B2’ area of
the historic centre was the subject of a competition of ideas. A consortium of property
owners, including the Municipality, was formed and invited four renowned
professionals to submit a proposal. The project by the architect Gianni Avon
from Udine was chosen, and he was subsequently entrusted with the construction
of one of the buildings.
The specific Detail Plan
for the reconstruction of the central zone of Gemona adopted the ‘where it was,
as it was’ principle. It respected the line of the building fronts (with
hatching or continuous lines indicating whether they had indicative or prescriptive
value for constructing new volumes), the shape of the plot, and the street
frontage. This approach configured the context both vertically and
horizontally. The plan favoured coherent and linear building elements,
establishing the orthogonal shaping of building volumes to encourage continuous
frontage alignment and regular roof construction. It also stipulated stone
framing for openings to determine their dimensions, and the ratio of solids to
voids in façades according to traditional proportions. External finishes were
restricted to basic, plain plaster.
The aim was not to rebuild the old version of Gemona: «The
extraordinary, fluid, exceptional time after the catastrophe, explained the
architect who signed the Plan, Giovanni Pietro Nimis, suggested avoiding
‘closed’ solutions, which would have proved arbitrary in the delicate task of
reconstructing a city razed to the ground while preserving its memory.» The
Plan conceived by Nimis addressed the essential urban elements, for example,
the internal usability of the volumes, and postponed decisions that were neither
necessary nor urgent in order to instead specify the works to be carried out
inside the building volumes, given that the granting of public funding demanded
a greater level of detail. In order to overcome the complexities arising from
the high level of property stratification in the historic centre, a
morphological grid was defined, based on the analysis of Municipal cadastral
sheets and maps, into which localised and unitary interventions were inserted.
These could aggregate several plots within a single perimeter, in what were
defined as unitary zones.
The start of participatory building design was equally
decisive for the rebirth of Gemona. After a series of meetings, the property
owners in each area quickly decided to award a joint contract to a single firm.
The architects played a central role, mediating and reconciling many individual
requests, gathering the needs expressed by citizens and presenting them in
practical forms so that everyone could recognise them as their own. According
to many professionals, it was a unique experience that forced them to move
beyond the conception of design as a two-dimensional aesthetic concept to
transform it into a kind of social therapy that provided reassurance against a
sense of ‘anxiety’.
The medieval village of Venzone, designated as an Italian
national monument in 1965, is another example of successful reconstruction.
Razed to the ground by the earthquake, it was rebuilt entirely ‘as it was’,
using the same stones following a process known as anastylosis. The rubble was
first sorted by building and by area, according to the criteria established in
a comprehensive recovery plan, before being transferred to the Rivoli Bianchi
area outside the town. Every stone, including the 3,000 pieces from the
cathedral, was catalogued and reused in the reconstruction of the historic
settlement.
Public involvement was also instrumental in the
‘philological’ rebirth of Venzone. In August 1977, the townspeople initiated a
petition, establishing a committee on March 19 of that year and forming the
Coordinating Committee for the Recovery of Cultural Heritage (Comitato di
Coordinamento per il Recupero dei Beni Culturali - CCRBC) on May 7 1976.
Professor Remo Cacitti, teacher Miriam Calderali and a group of extraordinary
intellectuals led this popular movement. Without their contribution, the
reconstruction would probably have taken a different path.
Bolstered by the Ministerial Protection Order in place since
1965, as well as pre-existing documentation and the decision taken by the
Sector Committee of the National Council for Cultural and Environmental
Heritage in December 1977, the Municipality rejected the idea of rebuilding the
town centre using prefabricated residential units. Instead, it adopted the
sample project proposed by the Committee on March 19, in opposition to the
proposal that had emerged from the competition for ideas announced by the Province
of Udine and the Italian Prefabricators Association. The ‘Detail Plan for the
reconstruction of the historic centre of Venzone’, drawn up by Professor Romeo
Ballardini, a former member of the Sector Committee of the National Council for
Cultural Heritage, was adopted on April 23 1980 and definitively approved by
the Regional Government on July 19 1980. By December 1979, the Historic Centre
Office, which was responsible for coordinating the reconstruction directed by
Ballardini himself, had also become operational.
The final plan was based
on a meticulous survey of the settlement, derived from historical cadastral
maps and pre-earthquake documentation, compared with the surveys carried out
after the destruction. The detailed design of the insulae of the historic centre
addressed every detail of the works, from the foundations and masonry to the
construction details, window frames and floorings of the hallways. To avoid
delays and ensure the uniformity of interventions within the insulae, the
Detail Plan had provided for proceeding with the temporary expropriation of
properties, the execution of the works and the re-assignment of the dwellings,
upon completion of the work, to those entitled, who, however, received their
homes much later compared to other earthquake victims.
The reconstruction of the
cathedral in Venzone was another exemplary project. The few surviving parts
were consolidated and restored. The stone blocks of the perimeter walls were
recovered from the rubble, identified using existing photogrammetric surveys,
and repositioned in their original locations. This integrated the
reconstruction of the portions of the structure that were left, but with the
recovery of the masonry and the use of new materials, including reinforced
concrete.
Venzone remains a relevant case study to the extent that
today it has become an open-air laboratory, as evidenced by the establishment
of the International Anti-seismic School (the SERM Academy: Seismic Emergency
Response Management), which was promoted by the Regional Government, the
University of Udine, the Association of Earthquake-stricken Municipalities and
Mayors of the Reconstruction of Friuli, and the National Fire Brigade. The
School was inaugurated ten years ago in the old village of Portis, which was
abandoned due to the threat of landslides. It uses the ruins of buildings
destroyed by the earthquake to enable experts to refine emergency response and
site safety and security techniques.