innanzi tutto, un rigoroso approccio conoscitivo di
natura storico-critica che, paradossalmente, si fa
più arduo proprio nei confronti dell’edilizia storica
di base, giacché sarà solo la conoscenza dei processi
evolutivi della città ad essere in grado di svelare quei
caratteri (distributivi, strutturali e linguistici) che,
altrimenti, rimarrebbero sconosciuti (fig. 4).
Non c’è chi non veda la distanza considerevole
di un tale approccio rispetto a quello puramente
‘percettivo’ che domina l’attuale cultura
architettonica.
Ma dobbiamo pur sempre rispondere all’incessante
domanda che viene sempre posta in questi frangenti:
La nuova sistemazione del
Mercato di Santa Caterina
a Barcellona, Spagna,
è una delle tante
testimonianze di totale
e gratuita prevaricazione
dell’architettura
contemporanea rispetto
ad una preesistenza (fig. 5)
The resettlement
of Santa Caterina Market
in Barcelona, Spain, is one
of the many examples of free
and total abuse of contemporary
architecture with respect
to a pre-existing (fig. 5)
La risposta è che essa può giocare, con piena
legittimità, un ruolo insostituibile nei processi
ricostruttivi e reintegrativi, laddove venga messa al
servizio della preesistenza enon già l’inverso, come è
largamente dato osservare (Fig. 5).
Ciò si lega, appunto, al tema della valutazione della
‘esigibilità’ del testo mutilo sul quale si interviene;
più precisamente, si lega ai criteri che adotteremo per
la reintegrazione delle lacune, sia architettoniche che
urbane,prodotte dal sisma. Laddove queste possono
essere risolte facendo ricorso al ricco patrimonio
ideale e metodologico proprio della disciplina del
restauro, il problema non deve essere minimamente
può essere esclusa completamente l’architettura
posto; ma laddove questo non fosse possibile, il
contemporanea da tali processi ricostruttivi?
linguaggio contemporaneo può assolvere il compito
reintegrativo o allusivo degli spazi o delle masse
murarie perdute.
Non si tratta, in questi casi, di andare ‘oltre il
restauro’, ma di rimanervi all’interno, nel pieno
rispetto dei principî conservativi nei quali ci
riconosciamo.
Riccardo Dalla Negra
Professore ordinario di Restauro architettonico
presso il Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università
di Ferrara; Direttore del LaboRA – Laboratorio
di Restauro Architettonico – ∙ Professor of Architectural
Restoration at the Department of Architecture, University
of Ferrara; Director of the laboratory of Architectural Restoration,
LaboRA.
new and old has come up.
It is necessary, on the other
hand, to acknowledge how
the theme of reconstructing
historic building heritage,
whenever it is damaged to
a greater or lesser degree,
is typically architectural
restoration, re-integrating
lost parts of a significant
monument for the community,
or reconstructing part of the
urban fabric.
Let’s start, first of all, from a
preliminary consideration that
I believe to be fundamental:
after a traumatic event,
no building can really be
considered 'lost’ as traces of
it, even in the most serious
cases, will always remain.
It follows that the total
cancellation of a building,
or an urban fabric, is always
‘intentional’ and we have
evidence of this in history.
If we accept this preamble,
the prospect radically changes
since the right attitude is
not that of asking ourselves
which architectural forms will
compensate for the lost parts,
which may be 'assonant'
(resorting to falsifying
copies, as much as to the
so-called 'adapted modern'
solution), or 'dissonant' (as
can largely be seen in the
current architectural scene);
on the contrary, we must ask
ourselves to what extent, and
how, the damaged building is
actually ‘in need’.
Obviously the status of
being ‘in need’ (which the
supporters of the 'How it
was and where it was' always
consider possible) must be
subject to a careful critical
assessment and may vary
based on the testimonial
value of what was there
before. Ultimately, we must
ask ourselves on the one
hand about how 'in need' the
remaining parts of a specialist
building also bearing artistic
value are, and on the other
hand about the recomposition
of urban fabrics compromised
by an earthquake. In both
cases, the consequent
design and operative issues
must be approached from
a restoration viewpoint,
hence with exclusively
conservative aims. All this
implies, above all, a rigorous
cognitive approach of a
historical/artistic nature
which, paradoxically, actually
becomes more demanding
in relation to basic historic
building, inasmuch as it is
only the knowledge of the
processes of evolution of
the city that can reveal the
characteristics (distributional,
structural and linguistic)
which would otherwise
remain unknown.
There is no-one who
doesn’t see the considerable
distance of such an
approach with respect to
the purely 'perceptive’ one
that dominates current
architectural culture.
But we still need to answer
the incessant question
that is always posed in
these situations, i.e. can
contemporary architecture
be completely excluded
from these reconstruction
processes? The answer is
that it can, legitimately, play
a full and irreplaceable role
in the reconstruction and
re-integrative processes,
where it is used to serve what
was already there and not the
opposite, as has often been
observed.
This is exactly connected
with how much the damaged
building is 'in need' of
effective intervention; more
precisely, it is connected with
the criteria to be adopted for
the reintegration of the gaps,
both architectural and urban,
caused by the earthquake.
Where these can be easily
resolved by resorting to the
rich ideal and methodological
heritage of the actual
discipline of restoration, the
problem need n