When
discussing the success of the post-earthquake reconstruction in Friuli, many
observers and the majority of those involved agree that urban planning,
considered in the broadest sense of the concept and not just in terms of the
scale of a city, played a fundamental role: «The Friuli Model is essentially an
urban planning model that prioritises preserving and strengthening existing
infrastructure rather than abandoning it (D. Carpenedo)».
Before the
shock of May 1976, the Province of Udine presented certain particularities in
this regard. Notably, the Detailed Reconstruction Plans following the Second
World War warrant mention, as the need for these plans had already sparked
debate about the merits of the old versus the new. It is also important
to note that, compared to other regional areas, almost all of the Municipalities
affected by the earthquake had approved, or at least adopted, Municipal urban
planning instruments thanks to Regional Law No. 12 dated June 14 1967,
which provided for their financing. While these were primarily construction
programmes, they nevertheless included some general guidelines for organising Municipal
territories.
In the mid-1960s, Italy was
undergoing a strong economic and demographic transformation. Against this
backdrop of intense discussion about the necessity of territorial planning, the
newly formed Region with special status embarked on the process of creating a
Regional Urban Plan (Regional Law No. 17, dated August 27 1965). However, the
discussions about drafting the necessary regulations and policies were
prolonged to such an extent that, on the eve of the earthquake in April 1976,
the General Regional Urban Plan (Piano Urbanistico Regionale Generale - PURG)
had still not been approved. Nevertheless, the project was based on a large
body of research and provided information on services and the distribution of
urban centres across the territory that proved useful for updating local urban
planning instruments.
A fundamental
step in this direction and also to the structuring of the territory was taken
immediately after the initial shock with Regional Law No. 33 dated July 21
1976. This legislation provided for the identification of areas for urgent
intervention and set out the general principles for the reconstruction of the
destroyed historic centres. Specifically, Article 2 provided for the adoption
of a «perimeter definition, with simultaneous preparation of transitory
building standards, for the destroyed urban settlements in which reconstruction
by means of specific Detail Plans is considered necessary». Architect Giorgio
Dri observed that, while the slogan ‘from tents to houses’ raged in the tent
cities, just over two months after the earthquake, the lucidity of the
«regional legislators was evident in their decision to plan new housing
settlements to accommodate those left homeless[…], and to give order and logic
to the reconstruction of destroyed or demolished buildings affected by the
earthquake».
As outlined
previously, Regional Law No. 63 dated December 23 1977, dictated the
rules relating specifically to urban planning. The text contained numerous
provisions, including concise articles addressing topics such as District
Reconstruction Plans, procedures for revising current urban planning
instruments, and Detail Plans for damaged or destroyed urban areas, as well as
their implementation. The procedures for approving these plans, which were
considered non-deferrable and urgent measures, were also streamlined.
Indeed, in the
absence of an overall territorial scheme or general strategic design, the Detail
Plans drawn up by each Municipality for the destroyed built-up areas were
authorised. From the outset, these schemes were guided by the principle of ‘as
it was, where it was’. This local redesign of the urban planning layout,
which was drafted with the help of professionals, occurred through original
mechanisms of ‘grassroots’ involvement. Later, Giovanni Pietro Nimis, the
architect who oversaw the reconstruction of the historic centre of Gemona,
recalled that «the Municipal Council would not deliberate until the citizen
assemblies had reached a sufficient level of agreement». It would, however, be
wrong to view the Detail Plans as a sort of anti-historical freeze-frame of an
archaic situation: in the process of distributing space, where it was necessary
to balance collective needs (road networks, public services) with individual
requirements, property boundaries were redrawn, and rights were renegotiated,
with significant implications for both families and the value of their properties
and assets.
The responsibility given to the
Municipalities for managing the reconstruction also presented a drawback. By
encouraging the expansion of buildings at the expense of agricultural land, it
«will encourage the wasteful fragmentation of land into small plots of fields,
vegetable gardens and smallholdings, as well as the ambiguous, schizoid modern
passion for detached villas» (G.P. Nimis).
It is
difficult to assess the overall and definitive effectiveness of this system, in
which the hierarchical pyramid was overturned in the absence of general rules.
The fragmentation of the decision-making process led to a variety of
experiences. Alongside some Detail Plans limited to a few housing units, there
were others extended to entire urban centres, yielding a range of urban
planning (and consequently architectural) outcomes. Some were exceptional,
while others exhibited severe deficiencies. Combining this process with the
great freedom granted to individuals resulted in «a ‘planning on one's needs’
approach that functioned incredibly efficiently in terms of the quantity [and
speed of reconstruction, to say the truth] in Gemona. However, this method
lacked a shared vision, leading to excessive urban development and accelerating
the individualistic tendencies of widespread and uncontrolled urbanisation» (P.
Valle).
Alongside
these legislative instruments, once the post-earthquake emergency phase was
over, the General Regional Urban Plan was adopted on May 5 1978 (and approved
on September 15 1978), the first example in Italy of large-scale regional
planning. Over time, however, its impact on the dynamics of the reconstruction
proved to be very limited: the pre-eminence of Municipal planning, which
remained firmly in place throughout the decade of reconstruction, over the
instrument of the higher-scale District Plan (already provided for by Regional
Law No. 63 dated December 23 1977), compromised its initial design. The
topic was the subject of discussion at the ‘Regional Conference on the
Territory’ held in Udine on June 5 and 6 1981, where the Municipalities that
had adapted their regulatory plans to the General Regional Urban Plan (PURG) issued
in 1978 were surveyed: only just over a third (82 out of 219) were found to be
compliant. Throughout the 1980s, the Municipal authorities carried out
specific, case-by-case revisions to the plans adopted during the initial
reconstruction phase. They achieved these updates through targeted amendment or
adjustment measures. Only in 1991, with Regional Law No. 52 dated November
19 1991, did urban and territorial planning undergo a definitive revision
and modification.
A
comprehensive evaluation of the urban planning response to the earthquake in
Friuli in 1976 remains an ongoing topic of study and debate. Like many other
parts of Northeast Italy, the hilly and foothill areas of Friuli have
experienced rapid and uncontrolled urban expansion, which is typical of
economically active areas with a high concentration of small and
micro-enterprises. The measures taken by local Municipal councils and the
regional instruments deployed in the destroyed or partially destroyed areas
were not designed to curb this type of territorial development. This was partly
due to limited awareness of the issue, and partly because an understanding of
the transformation of the land into a metropolitan area was never properly
formulated. Consequently, the ‘as it was, where it was’ approach also carried
the risk of exposing the historic Friulian territory to the kind of disorderly
expansion that would most likely have occurred in any case.