Edilizia popolare a Roma. Tradizione, sperimentalismo e qualità urbana nell’architettura del primo Novecento

At the beginning of the twentieth-century, Italian architectural debate focused on the definition of a ‘national style’. The purpose of the discussion was the identification of an architectural language appropriate to celebrate a newly founded kingdom made of different states and populations. Indeed, this new style should have informed the design of both public services and private residences in order to improve citizens’ sense of belonging to Italy. In Rome, while monuments and government buildings should have been monumental, adopting a sort of eclecticism based on historicism, housing seemed a more freely business, where architects could experience innovative typologies without restrictions. Therefore, during the twenties many professionals experimented unexpected combinations, taking inspiration also from ancient Ostia’s remains, thanks to the articles published by the director of the archeological park Guido Calza (1888-1946) and his consultant Italo Gismondi (1887-1974). Especially the imperial age insulae fascinated the architects due to their aspect, which was very similar to the intensive buildings promoted by European advanced research groups. On the other hand, modernity could have been also interpretated as a continuation of the tradition. This was the so-called Barocchetto, which took advantage of Roman craftsmanship grown up throughout the previous centuries. This articulated situation can be observed in detail considering the activity of the local Istituto per le Case Popolari (i.e. Social House Institute). Established in 1903 to satisfy the needs of the less well-off classes settled in Rome, enjoying successfulEuropean models such as the garden cities, this public department became the reference point of so much of modern residential architecture, employing many workers and young designers, later famous. The chief engineer Innocenzo Costantini (1881-1962), Innocenzo Sabbatini (1891-1983), Camillo Palmerini (1893-1967), and Mario De Renzi (1897-1967) are just some of the professionals involved, also including some prestigious protagonists of that time like Gustavo Giovannoni (1873-1947), Marcello Piacentini (1881-1960) and Alberto Calza Bini (1881-1957). Analyzing several case studies introduced by a more general reflection, this paper aims to offer an overview on the urban design achievements of this moment to understand the quality upcoming from the projects proposed by these professionals and their role in the development of Italian contemporary architecture.

Il dibattito italiano post-unitario si coagulò attorno alla definizione di uno ‘stile nazionale’. E se per i palazzi del potere si privilegiò il monumentalismo, nell’edilizia i progettisti poterono agire con libertà, conciliando le novità internazionali con la tradizione locale. Ad esempio, l’archeologismo sospinto dagli scavi condotti ad Ostia Antica da Guido Calza e Italo Gismondi ebbe significative ricadute, poiché le insulae imperiali sembravano anticipare a tutti gli effetti gli edifici intensivi moderni. Fu perciò l’architettura popolare a testare possibilità espressive innovative: una sperimentazione ripercorribile attraverso l’attività dell’Istituto per le Case Popolari di Roma il quale, istituito nel 1903 per provvedere ai bisogni delle classi meno abbienti, operò con disinvoltura fino al secondo conflitto mondiale. Al di là degli episodi più noti, il volume indaga quindi i quartieri meno conosciuti, ampliando quell’orizzonte critico dell’«altra modernità» al cui successo collaborarono tanto Gustavo Giovannoni, Marcello Piacentini e Alberto Calza Bini, quanto Innocenzo Costantini, Innocenzo Sabbatini e Camillo Palmerini.