Place-making and Urban Development by Pier Carlo Palermo & Davide Ponzini

Author:Pier Carlo Palermo & Davide Ponzini [Pier Carlo Palermo]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781134632756
Publisher: Routledge

Key projects

Due to the chronic lack of effective planning vision in Milan, large-scale development projects have been the main mode of intervention in recent decades (Ponzini, 2013). After a long period of substantial inertia, many observers welcomed the inauguration of new construction sites (Nicolin, 2007, Bolocan Goldstein and Bonfantini, 2007). At the turn of the century, political authorities even stated that a new “urban renaissance” was underway (following the rhetoric of the English experience: Urban Task Force, 1999, Punter, 2010). However, the evaluation is still controversial. In the field of social housing policy, public initiative has been modest and belated. Only in the early 2000s, despite a massive demand, were new programs initiated (Comune di Milano, 2005). The approach seemed sensitive to place-making issues and goals beyond mere quantity and the public sector could drive interesting experiences in terms of architectural design. The effectiveness and quality of the program is, however, less than expected. The marginal position of many of the selected development areas, which often had inappropriate morphological and functional conditions, delays in the implementation process, and the difficulty of the public authority in granting timely and integrated public services generated the risk of creating new housing enclaves.

During the 1990s, an important trend in small- to medium-size brownfield redevelopment took place (in particular, a set of Urban Renewal Programs – PRU – with a total area of 150 hectares). These programs were implemented relative efficiently but they have suffered from an overly simplistic conception of development: traditional and uniform land use mixes (the same model applied almost everywhere) that are not really compatible with a dense, diverse, and lively urban environment. In general it mainly concerned residential uses, green areas, and large retail complexes. In some cases, new residential enclaves without appeal and meaningful relationships with the urban context were created (Bricocoli and Savoldi, 2010). The quality of the architectural and urban projects is generally acceptable but it is evident that a great strategic opportunity for regenerating peripheral areas was partially lost.

The most evident phenomena relate to a number of large-scale urban development projects that appeared over the last 10–15 years, although the problems generally derived from long-term processes that the city has not been able to resolve for many decades. We have already mentioned two emblematic cases in paragraph 2.2: CityLife and Santa Giulia. We can add a few comments on two other major experiments: the Bicocca and Garibaldi Repubblica-Porta Nuova projects.

In the Bicocca area, a major problem arose in the early 1980s when the Pirelli corporation announced its intention to close its historic plant in the city’s northeastern quadrant. The local government did not provide clear strategies but responded to the incumbent economic and social crisis by initiating a profound transformation project. The approximately 500,000 sqm area was initially supposed to host a high-technology district and finally became a multifunctional urban neighborhood (Bolocan Goldstein, 2003). It should be noted that the development of the project, in particular the conception and management of the architectural competition, was mainly driven by the developer (Pirelli Spa).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.