Microsoft Word - 001-012_GIZZI_Presso Imoco Industrie Grafiche – Treviso - Italy
35° convegno internazionale Scienza e Beni Culturali Collana Scienza e Beni Culturali Volume.2019
ISSN 2039-9790 ISBN 978-88-95409-23-8 IL PATRIMONIO CULTURALE IN MUTAMENTO. LE SFIDE DELL’USO Bressanone, 1 - 5 luglio 2019
In questo volume vengono pubblicati i contributi estesi che sono stati sottoposti a double blind peer review da parte di esperti dello stesso settore. THE CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE PROCESS OF CHANGE. THE CHALLENGES OF USE. Bressanone, 1 - 5 july 2019 This volume includes extensive contributions (Full-paper) that have been subject to double-blind peer review by qualified referees. Tutti i diritti riservati, EDIZIONE ARCADIA RICERCHE Srl Parco Scientifico Tecnologico di Venezia Via delle Industrie 25/11 – Marghera Venezia Tel.:041-5093048 E-mail: arcadia@vegapark.ve.it www.arcadiaricerche.eu È vietata la riproduzione, anche parziale o ad uso interno o didattico, con qualsiasi mezzo, non autorizzata. Le riproduzioni a uso differente da quello personale potranno avvenire, per un numero di pagine non superiore al 15% del presente volume, solo a seguito di specifica autorizzazione rilasciata dall'editore.
IL TEMA DELL’USO NEL RESTAURO DELL’EDILIZIA STORICA E MONUMENTALE ATTRAVERSO L’EVOLUZIONE DELLE CARTE DEL RESTAURO S. Gizzi ..................................................................................................... 1 IL PATRIMONIO CULTURALE IN MUTAMENTO TRA RIGENERAZIONE URBANA E TUTELA DEI CENTRI STORICI C. Crova, M. Eichberg, F. Miraglia ............................................................. 13 A COEVOLUTIONARY APPROACH TO THE REUSE OF BUILT CULTURAL HERITAGE S. Della Torre .............................................................................................. 25 RI-USARE PER CONSERVARE E PER CONOSCERE. S. Pesenti ..................................................................................................... 35 CONSERVAZIONE NELL’USO E NEL RIUSO DELLE COSTRUZIONI STORICHE D. Pittaluga .................................................................................................. 45 BEYOND MUSEUM / NEW STRATEGIES OF PRESERVATION APPLIED TO OVERSIZED ARCHITECTURES E. Vigliocco ................................................................................................. 59 QUANDO L’USO NON CAMBIA. QUESTIONI APERTE SUL RESTAURO DELLA NEUE NATIONALGALERIE DI MIES VAN DER ROHE G. Danesi, S. Di Resta ................................................................................. 69 ANTICHE STRUTTURE PER NUOVI USI (CONDIVISI): “RIEMPIRE SPAZI E TEMPI” PER UNA CONSERVAZIONE INTEGRATA F.Ottoni, S. Celli .......................................................................................... 81 ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE AND RETROFIT MEASURES: THE IMPROVEMENT OF BUILDINGS PERFORMANCE THROUGH PASSIVE COMPATIBLE STRATEGIES M. De Vita ................................................................................................... 91 “VA E RIUSA LA MIA CASA” CHI E COME: RUOLO E COMPETENZE DEL GESTORE DEI BENI CULTURALI, RIFLESSIONI TRA TEORIA E PRATICA A. Pili ........................................................................................................... 101 LE TRASFORMAZIONI DELL’ABITARE. IL CASO DEL QUARTIERE STADERA A MILANO (1929-2018). E. Zenoni ..................................................................................................... 111
THE COMPLEXITY OF CONSERVATION OF OUTFITTING, HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS UNDER EVERYDAY USES. E. Rosina, M. Suma ..................................................................................... 123 VALORIZZAZIONE DEL PATRIMONIO STORICO: ESPERIENZE DI COLLABORAZIONE PUBBLICO-PRIVATA NELLA GESTIONE DEL CASTELLO DI BRIVIO COME POLO ATTRATTIVO DEL SISTEMA CULTURALE DEL TERRITORIO LECCHESE. L.Cantini ...................................................................................................... 133 “NUOVA VITA DELLE AREE INTERNE”. UN ESEMPIO DI VALORIZZAZIONE DEL PATRIMONIO IDENTITARIO DEL TERRITORIO, PROMUOVENDO MODELLI DI RECUPERO MULTIFUNZIONALE E PARTECIPATO B. Scala ........................................................................................................ 145 IDENTITÀ, COMPATIBILITÀ, CONSERVAZIONE. RIFLESSIONI SUL RAPPORTO TRA RIUSO E TUTELA NEL PORTO VECCHIO DI TRIESTE. V. Peron ....................................................................................................... 157 ESQUILINO CHIAMA ROMA! STRATEGIE PER UNA CONOSCENZA CONDIVISA E APPLICATA VOLTA ALLA RIGENERAZIONE URBANA ATTRAVERSO LA FORMAZIONE DI UNA HERITAGE COMMUNITY M. Magnani Cianetti, P. Petraroia, S. M.C. Salvo ...................................... 169 SANTA MARTA AL COLLEGIO ROMANO. RESTAURO APERTO. UN PROGETTO DI RECUPERO E RIUSO PER LA PUBBLICA FRUIZIONE. A. Rorro, C.Udina ....................................................................................... 181 THE CREATION OF A PUBLIC SPACE WITHIN A PRIVATE COMMISSION: THE CASE OF THE FONDACO DEI TEDESCHI IN VENICE AND ITS CHANGE OF USE. C. Boniotti, R. Codello, S. Della Torre ....................................................... 191 PAESAGGIO COSTIERO: PRESSIONE ANTROPICA E TURISMO G Cacudi, M Catalano ................................................................................. 201 RIGENERAZIONE URBANA E CONSERVAZIONE DELLE SUPERFICI ARCHITETTONICHE: IL CASO DELLA GALLERIA PRINCIPE A NAPOLI D Treccozzi ................................................................................................. 211
IL MOORISH KIOSK NEI GIARDINI BOTANICI HANBURY: L’ANIMA CELATA F. L. Buccafurri, M. Abbo, C. Pilati ............................................................ 223 GIARDINI STORICI: DA LUOGHI DI LOISIR A MUSEI EN PLEIN AIR PER IL GRANDE PUBBLICO. QUALI INDIRIZZI PER UNA SOSTENIBILE FRUIZIONE E VALORIZZAZIONE? M. Ferrari ..................................................................................................... 233 ROMA E LA REALTÀ DEL TURISMO C. Bellanca, C. Frigieri ................................................................................ 245 ALTA VAL BREMBANA BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE. UNDERUSED HOLIDAY HOUSES AND SLOW TOURISM AS A POSSIBLE STRATEGY FOR REPOPULATION B. Silva ........................................................................................................ 255 RIUSO COMPATIBILE ED OSPITALITÀ SANITARIA: UNA PROPOSTA PER VILLA LAUDANI (CT) A. Lo Faro, A. Salemi, G. Laudani .............................................................. 265 TERRITORI FRAGILI TRA SPOPOLAMENTO E SOVRAFFOLLAMENTO TURISTICO. IL CASO DI PYRGOS A SANTORINI (GRECIA). C. Circo ....................................................................................................... 275 RECUPERARE IL SENSO DEL LIMITE? BUONE PRASSI E QUESITI APERTI G.Battista, G. Campanini ............................................................................. 285 UN APPROCCIO METODOLOGICO AL TEMA DELL’INTEGRAZIONE DEGLI IMPIANTI NELLE ARCHITETTURE STORICHE: DALL’ANALISI DELL’ESISTENTE ALLE PROPOSTE DI SOLUZIONI COMPATIBILI PER L’ADEGUAMENTO E IL RIUSO C.Aghemo, M. Naretto, R. Taraglio, L.Valetti ............................................ 295 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT OF LISTED HISTORICAL BUILDINGS THROUGH SHALLOW GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS G. Cadelano, R. Pasquali, N. O’Neill, F. Becherini, F. Cicolin, G. Mezzasalma, G. Dalla Santa, G. Emmi, A. Bernardi ............................. 307 THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN ADAPTIVE REUSE: RESPECTING AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY M. Acri, J.Jokilehto, S. Dobrii ................................................................. 319
CHALLENGES OF SUSTAINABLE REUSE. A RESILIENCE- BASED APPROACH. M. Morandotti, D.Besana, C. Cecchini, A. Chiesa ..................................... 331 RILEVARE UN’OPERA CINETICO-PROGRAMMATA PER GESTIRE LE SUE TRASFORMAZIONI A. Devecchi, F. Gasparetto, L. Baratin ....................................................... 343 TRA CONSERVAZIONE E RIUSO, LE SFIDE DEL MUTAMENTO: IL RESTAURO DI ARCHITETTURE RAZIONALISTE IN ROMAGNA G. Favaretto, M. Pretelli, A. Zampini .......................................................... 355 FERRARA. CASTELLO ESTENSE – LETTURA DEL TEMPO CONSERVAZIONE E DIVULGAZIONE NELLA CONTEMPORANEITÀ A. Ugatti, E. Goberti, B. Pazi, M. Beltrami ................................................ 367 RIFLESSIONI SU POSSIBILI MODALITÀ DI SALVAGUARDIA DEGLI ALLESTIMENTI STORICI. LA PINACOTECA DI BRERA E IL RECENTE INTERVENTO DI RIALLESTIMENTO (2015-2018) G. Di Gangi ................................................................................................. 377 IL MOLINO SCOPPETTA DI PULSANO (TA), DALL’ARTE MOLITORIA ALLA GASTROSOFIA, PER UN PROCESSO DI RIAPPROPRIAZIONE DEL BENE DALLA COMUNITÀ. F. Lupoli, A. Monte, C. Sasso ..................................................................... 387 RE-USE THE ELECTRICITY HERITAGE M. Mattone .................................................................................................. 399 RE-USE OF A MEDIEVAL TOWER BETWEEN CONSERVATION AND TRANSFORMATION F. Fratini, M. Mattone, S. Rescic ................................................................ 411 THE FRIGORIFERO OF FRIULI: CHARACTERISTICS AND REUSE POSSIBILITIES V. Foramitti ................................................................................................. 421 IL RIUSO DEI MERCATI COPERTI DEL NOVECENTO A GENOVA: TEMI E PROBLEMI L. Napoleone, R. Vecchiattini ..................................................................... 431 THE VALORIZATION PROCESS OF THE BASILICA DI SAN LORENZO IN CREMONA: FROM STATIC DYSFUNCTION TO NEW REUSE L. Cantini, G. Cardani ................................................................................ 443
STRATEGIE DI VALORIZZAZIONE CULTURALE E PAESAGGISTICA DELLA CAVA PONTRELLI ANCHE DETTA “DEI DINOSAURI” AD ALTAMURA (BA) A. Disabato .................................................................................................. 453 FIRENZUOLA E LA VALLE DEL SANTERNO. TRACCE PER UN VIDEO DI PAESAGGIO. P. Ricco ....................................................................................................... 463 LA STORICITÀ DELLE MUTAZIONI DEL PATRIMONIO: STUDI PER UN PROGETTO DI VALORIZZAZIONE DI PALAZZO BORGHI TROTTI SEDE DELL’ARCHIVIO DI STATO DI FERRARA. F. Mainardi, F. Babbi .................................................................................. 473 BOLOGNA IL RIUSO DELL’EX-CONVENTO DELLA SS. ANNUNZIATA COME POLO PER I BENI CULTURALI. LA SFIDA, LE RAGIONI E I CARATTERI DEL PROGETTO DI UN NUOVO USO F.Tomba, E.Pozzi ....................................................................................... 485 MEMORY AS TOOL FOR TRANSFORMATION: THE REGENERATION OF URBAN SPACES IN THE CASE STUDY OF PASTURO IN VALSASSINA – LECCO, ITALY L. De Stefani, A. Tognon ............................................................................ 495 MILANO: LE DUE “MANICHE” DI SMISTAMENTO DELLO SCALO FARINI E IL LORO RIUSO A SEDE DELL’ACCADEMIA DI BRERA G. Guarisco, L. Monica ............................................................................... 507 LE CAVALLERIZZE DEL MUSEO NAZIONALE DELLA SCIENZA E DELLA TECNOLOGIA DI MILANO: UN POSSIBILE DIALOGO TRA NUOVO E ARCHITETTURA STORICA D. Lattanzi, F. Conte, P. Savio ................................................................... 519 A SYSTEMIC REUSE FOR ITALIAN ANAS HOUSES C. Bonaiti, A. Silvetti ................................................................................. 531 DALL’ABBANDONO AL RIUSO SOSTENIBILE: IL CASO DEL KURSAAL DI BARI A. Guarnieri, A. Patruno .............................................................................. 541
VALORI E VALORIZZAZIONE: UNA PROPOSTA METODOLOGICA PER LA CONSERVAZIONE DEGLI EDIFICI STORICI ABBANDONATI R. Moioli, S. Capolongo, S. Della Torre, M. Dell’Ovo, M. Morandotti, L. Sdino ....................................................................................................... 551 RIUSO DELLA PERSISTENZA A RUDERE DEL FORTE DI VALLEDRANE A TREVISO BRESCIANO O. Longo, D. Sigurtà ................................................................................... 561 MORANO CALABRO: IL SILENZIO DI UN BORGO. UN’ESPERIENZA DI RICERCA PER LA CONSERVAZIONE E IL RIUSO DI UN PATRIMONIO IN DISUSO B. Canonaco ................................................................................................ 571 IL CINEMA IMPERO A ROMA: ESISTE UN FUTURO PER I CINEMATOGRAFI? M.G. Ercolino .............................................................................................. 581 LA SOLITUDINE DELLE ARCHITETTURE DISMESSE. PROIEZIONI IMMAGINATIVE PER IL PATRIMONIO CARCERARIO STORICO IN SARDEGNA G.B. Cocco, C. Giannattasio, F. Musanti, V. Pintus ................................... 591 A PASSO D’UOMO. USO E VALORIZZAZIONI DI MANUFATTI ALLO STATO DI RUDERE LUNGO IL TRATTO APPENNINICO DELLA VIA ROMEA DI STADE: IL CASTRUM PLANETTI E Ceccaroni, L Salina, A Ugolini ................................................................ 605 STRATEGIE DI VALORIZZAZIONE E RIUSO DEL PATRIMONIO RURALE: ESPERIENZE DELL’AREA METROPOLITANA MILANESE R. Laviscio .................................................................................................. 615 CONTRO L'OBLIO. PER IL RIUSO DEL PATRIMONIO DELL'ARCHITETTURA RURALE DELLE LEOPOLDINE. B.G. Marino, I. Nocerino ............................................................................ 627 RI-USARE PER RI-VIVERE. PARADIGMI PER IL RIUSO DI ARCHITETTURE MINORI IN ABBANDONO M. Bellomo, A. Falotico .............................................................................. 637 IL RIUSO DEI COMPLESSI ABBANDONATI NEI PROCESSI BOTTOM-UP: PROBLEMATICHE E RICADUTE IN TERMINI DI CONSERVAZIONE D. Verde ...................................................................................................... 649
MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARCHEOLOGY, THE CASE STUDY OF LECCO A. Silvetti, M. Alberganti ............................................................................ 659 RESTAURO E NUOVE OPPORTUNITÀ URBANE DEL PATRIMONIO INDUSTRIALE: IL CASO DELL’EX FORNACE SIECI A SCAURI (LT) L. Cappelli, E. Fiore .................................................................................... 673 LA DISTILLERIA NICOLA DE GIORGI A SAN CESARIO DI LECCE. DA "FABBRICA DI SPIRITO" A "FABBRICA PER LA CULTURA" A. Monte ...................................................................................................... 685 LA CARTIERA DUCALE DI FERMIGNANO NEL TERRITORIO MARCHIGIANO: UN ESEMPIO DI PATRIMONIO INDUSTRIALE TRA RESTAURO, RECUPERO, RIUSO E VALORIZZAZIONE L. Baratin, A. Cattaneo ................................................................................ 695 DALMINE: IL RIUSO CONTEMPORANEO DELLA COMPANY TOWN DI GIOVANNI GREPPI A. Cardaci, G. Mirabella Roberti, A. Versaci ............................................. 707 LA “CITTÀ SOCIALE” E L’AREA DELL’EX LANIFICIO MARZOTTO DI MANERBIO: UN PATRIMONIO ARCHITETTONICO E URBANO A RISCHIO DI DISSIPAZIONE C. Coccoli, G. Cavagnini, S. Mondolo ........................................................ 717 USE AND ABUSE OF THE INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE ARCHEOLOGY. COMPARING EXPERIENCES L. Serafini, S. Cacamore .............................................................................. 729 ARCHEOLOGIA INDUSTRIALE: IL RIUSO DI EDIFICI DISMESSI A FUNZIONE “CRUDA” TRA MEMORIA E INNOVAZIONE C. Campanella, M. Suma, C. Dell’Orto, L.M. Sanchez Jimenez ................ 739 IL RIUSO DELLE AREE MILITARI IN ITALIA: ESPERIENZE DI RICERCA E DIDATTICA PER LE CASERME DI BOLZANO E CAGLIARI D.R. Fiorino, P.Iannotti, P.Mellano ............................................................ 749 STRATEGIES FOR DISMANTLED MILITARY SITES AND BUILDINGS OF THE COLD WAR: EXPERIENCES FROM EUROPE S. Bravaglieri ............................................................................................... 761
RE-USE STRATEGIES AND CONSERVATION PRACTICES FOR THE FORTIFIED ARCHITECTURE. AN EXAMPLE FROM LIGURIA REGION: FINALE AND ITS FORTRESSES E. Brusa, C. Stanga ...................................................................................... 773 BUONE PRATICHE DI RICONVERSIONE E RIUSO DEGLI AEREOPORTI MILITARI STORICI: UN CONFRONTO INTERNAZIONALE D. R. Fiorino, M. Vargiu ............................................................................. 785 PAESAGGI FORTIFICATI IN TRANSIZIONE. IL CASO DEI CASTELLI MEDIEVALI IN SARDEGNA V. Pintus, M. S. Pirisino .............................................................................. 799 CONTINUITÀ D’USO E RESILIENZA DEL PATRIMONIO MODERNO. L’"UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASÌLIA" DI OSCAR NIEMEYER R. Maspoli ................................................................................................... 811 RIABILITAZIONE E CAMBIO D’USO DEL PATRIMONIO COSTRUITO. RIFLESSIONI SULL’ESPERIENZA DELLE POUSADAS IN PORTOGALLO. E. Fantini, T. Cunha Ferreira, A. Ugolini .................................................... 821 SPAZI MUSEALI E PREESISTENZA IN OLANDA SPERIMENTAZIONI E CASI STUDIO. G. Proto ....................................................................................................... 831 OPEN-AIR ARCHITECTURAL MUSEUMS: CULTURAL FRUITION, USE AND REUSE OF BUILDING TYPES IN JAPAN F. Gotta ....................................................................................................... 843 ABBANDONO E RIUSO IN ARCHITETTURA. L'USO TRANSITORIO COME PRATICA DI CONSERVAZIONE IN ULSTER. G. De Martino, R. Scognamiglio ................................................................. 855 NON-FINITO ED ESERCIZI NOSTALGICI TRA REMAKE RESTAURO E NUOVI USI PER LE ARCHITETTURE EFFIMERE S. Caccia Gherardini .................................................................................... 865 IL MONITORAGGIO MICROCLIMATICO NELLE AREE ARCHEOLOGICHE: DALLA PROGETTAZIONE ALLA FRUIZIONE. PER UN SISTEMA CULTURALE NELLA NECROPOLI DI TUVIXEDDU A CAGLIARI E. Rosina, A. Pili, M. Suma, E.Romoli, P. Matta ...................................... 875
INDOOR MICROCLIMATE MONITORING: USE AND ISSUES. THE CASE OF THE REALM OF VENARIA REALE. A. Bonora, K. Fabbri, M. Pretelli ............................................................... 885 L’INTERFACCIA-SUPERFICIE COME FATTORE DI VALUTAZIONE DELLA COMPATIBILITÀ DI UN INTERVENTO. PROBLEMATICHE SPECIALISTICHE RIFERITE ALL’USO. S. Massari, M. Pretelli ................................................................................. 895 ADAPTIVE CLOISTERS BETWEEN NEW FUNCTIONS AND EFFICIENCY STRATEGIES E.Petrucci, R. Cocci Grifoni ........................................................................ 907 T'ERA PARK: UN CATALOGO DI STRATEGIE POSSIBILI PER LE MEMORIE DELLE ETEROTOPIE DI NAPOLI EST G. Vannelli .................................................................................................. 917 PROPOSAL OF AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH FOR FIRE SAFETY COMPLIANCE IN PALAZZO VECCHIO T. Giusti, P. Capone .................................................................................... 927 ECONOMIA CREATIVA PER IL RIUSO E LA VALORIZZAZIONE DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURALE IN MUTAMENTO. 10 LABORATORI APERTI PER 10 CITTÀ STORICHE DELL’EMILIA-ROMAGNA. C.Mariotti, L. Signorelli .............................................................................. 937 USO E STRUTTURA NEI CENTRI MINORI ABBANDONATI: SICUREZZA VS CONSERVAZIONE? A. Donatelli ................................................................................................. 951 IL MARE NON BASTA PIU’. LA TUTELA DEGLI STABILIMENTI BALNEARI: INDAGINI E CASO STUDIO S. G. Florea .................................................................................................. 965 LA FERROVIA ROMA FIUGGI: L’ARCHITETTURA DELL’UTILE V. D’Ettore, M. Floridi ............................................................................... 977 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FOR SMALL HISTORIC CENTERS. USE OF CLARENTANO PALACE IN RANDAZZO (CT) AS A HALT IN AN URBAN MUSEUM NETWORK G. Sanfilippo, L. Caruso .............................................................................. 987
LE COSTRUZIONI STORICHE DI LEGNO STRUTTURALE PORTANTE. UN CONTRIBUTO AL RIUSO. LA SCHEDA DI CONOSCENZA E VALORIZZAZIONE D. Pittaluga, G. Stagno, L.Secondini, C. Marvaldi ..................................... 997 ARCHITECTURE AND CINEMA: NARRATIVE AND ECONOMIC TOOLS FOR URBAN REGENERATION A. Lancellotti ............................................................................................... 1007 USO, DISUSO, ABUSO: LA TUTELA DEL PAESAGGIO MONTANO E L’ADEGUAMENTO DEI RIFUGI ALPINI C. Bartolomucci........................................................................................... 1017 HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS AS A SUBJECT IN THE RE-USE OF INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE N. Kuban ..................................................................................................... 1027 ATTUALITÀ DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURALE COSTRUITO E STRATEGIE PER UN RIUSO COMPATIBILE: RECENTI INTERVENTI IN ITALIA V. Bernardini ............................................................................................... 1037 DELL'UTILITÀ E DELLA ROVINA DEL MODERNO A. Canziani ................................................................................................. 1047 LA “SPETTACOLARIZZAZIONE” DEI BENI CULTURALI: IL RESTAURO DELLA FIUMARA D’ARTE C. Accetta .................................................................................................... 1057 DIGITAL ANASTYLOSIS OF FRESCOES CHALLENGE (DAFNE) V Cantoni, L Lombardi, G. Mastrotisi, A. Segimiro, A. Setti ..................... 1067 STUDI PER IL RIUSO DELLA FORESTERIA DELL’ABBAZIA DI CHIARAVALLE MILANESE G. Guarisco, N. Lombardini, D. Oreni ........................................................ 1077 IL PATRIMONIO ARCHITETTONICO DELLA CITTÀ STORICA DI CORAL GABLES, FL: CONSERVAZIONE, USO E RIUSO S. Aimar ...................................................................................................... 1089 L'EX NOVIZIATO DEL SAN NICCOLÒ DI PRATO: CONOSCENZA, CONSERVAZIONE E RIUSO M. Lazzari ................................................................................................... 1099 ISTANZE STRUTTURALI NELLA DEFINIZIONE DI USI COMPATIBILI: UN CASO STUDIO NEL COMPLESSO MONUMENTALE DELLA PILOTTA E. Coïsson, F. Ottoni, F. Pagliari ................................................................. 1109
LA TRASFORMAZIONE DEI BENI PAESAGGISTICI INTERPRETATA COME GRAVE COMPROMISSIONE O DEGRADO: UN MODELLO DI LETTURA CONDIVISO TRA MI.B.A.C. E REGIONE TOSCANA PER IL RECUPERO E LA RIQUALIFICAZIONE DEI VALORI IDENTITARI NELL’AREA METROPOLITANA FIORENTINA G. Nannetti .................................................................................................. 1121 THE SYSTEMIC APPROACH FOR NEW USES OF IH AT URBAN SCALE, THE STUDY CASE OF LECCO. R. Pivetta, M. Alberganti, E. Rosina ........................................................... 1133 PERMANENZE NEL PATRIMONIO DI ARCHEOLOGIA INDUSTRIALE DELLE MARCHE: IL RICONOSCIMENTO DELLA DUPLICE VALENZA ESTETICA E PAESAGGISTICA AI FINI DI UNA CORRETTA STRATEGIA DI VALORIZZAZIONE E RIUSO. D. Bravi, D. Licastro ................................................................................... 1143 ARCHITECTURES FROM ARCHITECTURES. THE REUSE OF HERITAGE IN ABANDONMENT C. Verazzo ................................................................................................... 1155 PROPOSTE PER LA RIGENERAZIONE DELL’ANTICO BORGO DI QUERO NELLA PROVINCIA DI BELLUNO. E. Pietrogrande, A. Dalla Caneva ................................................................ 1165 RE-USE AND ENHANCING PLANNING OF THE “MADNESS SPACES”. MEMORY AND FUTURE OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF LUNATICS IN AVERSA. M. D’aprile, L. Lanza .................................................................................. 1175 RESTAURO E PROBLEMI DI CONSERVAZIONE: LA VALLE DEL BELICE IN SICILIA. A. Versaci, A. Cardaci ................................................................................ 1185 CONTINUITÀ D’USO E TRASFORMAZIONI NEGLI EDIFICI RESIDENZIALI PROGETTATI DA GIUSEPPE TERRAGNI A COMO M. Casanova ................................................................................................ 1195 LA STREET ART COME STRUMENTO DI RIGENERAZIONE URBANA? A. Cadetti ..................................................................................................... 1205
MODALITÀ DI INTERVENTO PER IL RIUSO DI AMBIENTI STORICI IN STATO DI NON UTILIZZO: PALAZZO BELLISOMI VISTARINO A PAVIA E. Doria, M. Morandotti .............................................................................. 1215 PALAZZO DUCALE DI SASSUOLO: VICENDE DI TRASFORMAZIONI DA DELIZIA ESTENSE A SALUMIFICIO. RIFLESSIONI PER IL PROGETTO DI RESTAURO DEL FRONTE MERIDIONALE. E. Fain ......................................................................................................... 1225 IL SITO DI SIDI HARZEM DI JEAN FRANÇOIS ZEVACO E LA DIMENSIONE DEL CONSUMO TURISTICO F. Pisani ....................................................................................................... 1235 PMM: DALLA SPOLVERATURA ALLA GESTIONE DELLA COLLEZIONE MUSEALE. E. Antonelli, E. De Marsico ....................................................................... 1245 RESTORATION OF NAVIGATING BOATS. A CHALLENGE TO MAINTAIN USABILITY OF OUR NAUTICAL HERITAGE G. Zappia, M. C. Morozzo Della Rocca ...................................................... 1257 USO ED ACCESSIBILITÀ: COLLEGAMENTI VERTICALI TRA NORMA E ARCHITETTURA. C. Campanella ............................................................................................. 1267 INDIVIDUAZIONE, CONSERVAZIONE E VALORIZZAZIONE DELLE BOTTEGHE STORICHE, DEI LOCALI DI TRADIZIONE E RIFLESSIONI PER UN USO COMPATIBILE NEL TEMPO. SPERIMENTAZIONE E CASI STUDIO A GENOVA E SESTRI LEVANTE. C. Pastor ...................................................................................................... 1279 “UNNATURAL” MATERIALS FOR COATINGS IN THE RESTAURATION PROJECTS. G. Marsili, A. Gutierrez, U. Dainese ........................................................... 1291 FIRENZE, VIA DELLA COLONNA. DAI CAVALLI AL TROTTO AI CAVALLI A MOTORE DEGLI AUTOBUS: LE STESSE PIETRE PER UNA STRADA TUTTA NUOVA G. Signori, M.Deganutti .............................................................................. 1305 DARE UN FUTURO ALLA MEMORIA - RESTAURO CONSERVATIVO DEL SACRARIO MILITARE DI REDIPUGLIA 80 ANNI DOPO LA SUA INAUGURAZIONE G. Signori, G. David, M.Deganutti ............................................................. 1315
SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019
A COEVOLUTIONARY APPROACH TO THE REUSE OF BUILT CULTURAL HERITAGE
STEFANO DELLA TORRE Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Architettura, Ingegneria delle Costruzioni e Ambiente Costruito stefano.dellatorre@polimi.it
Abstract. The reuse of existing buildings has been often described as the adaption to an evolving environment and the related needs. Coevolution is a metaphor coming from biology science, related to Darwinian processes affecting species, which have strong relationships with each other. Coevolutionary models have been applied outside the biology field, namely in economics, aiming at the development of models for change management. The proposed implementation of a coevolutionary approach enlightens the potential influence that the presence of heritage produces on the environment and the society. The author’s thesis is that all the choices in conservation and reuse processes can be seen under a different perspective, after the step from “adaptation” to “conservation of the coevolutionary potential”. The awareness that the presence of an historic building or its features could produce future benefits going far beyond its mere use values, gives more reasons for conservation and/or modifications that are evaluated on the long terms and not just for the present needs. The expected change should concern the attitude to choice and the awareness about the reason why something has to be conserved instead of being sacrificed. On the other hand, in this perspective reuse becomes a tool for a richer evolution and changes, which are not necessarily negative for the historic building. The ultimate target of the paper is to clarify the benefits, which conservation discipline could get by opening the mindset to a wider variety of theoretical sources.
Keywords: Reuse, Coevolution, Circular Economy, Planned Conservation, User Experience
26 SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019
Introduction
Architectural reuse has been the topic of an extremely wide debate over the last decades. Besides being somehow present in the classical books on the art of building, it is an old problem connected to the long durée of the built environment. Reuse and rehabilitation were a hot topic in Italy in the 1980s, when books still deserving to be carefully read were written (Di Biase et al. 1981). Also at international level the issue became more and more central as outside Europe the awareness of the cultural and identity values of urban artefacts arose. A huge mass of experiences and studies has therefore been produced searching for methods and decision criteria.
Perspectives surely changed: nowadays reflections are framed into the vision of Circular Economy and a more mature understanding of sustainability. Decision making became then more complex, because the problem is no longer the comparison between the net actual value of the investment in the reuse operation and that of the new construction on the area. Now decision has to take into account also social, cultural and environmental issues on the long run.
Therefore, new issues are introduced in the discussion about conservation and reuse, which has seen also a large and undeserved fortune of the theme as the object of a research by design often devoid of any epistemological foundation.
The coevolutionary approach
Coevolution is a powerful metaphor that helps to understand issues related to time and changes. It comes from biology science, related to Darwinian processes affecting species, which have strong relationships with each other. However, coevolutionary models have been applied in many fields outside the sciences of life, as at the epistemological level they offer a powerful logic for transcending any determinisms and developing cross-disciplinary approaches in the study of different systems.
The implementation in cultural anthropology, archaeology and human history to explain trends and changes was quite obvious, as it was a way to enrich the understanding of evolution processes, in which the Darwinian thinking could clearly help (Ames 1996; Mesoudi, Whiten, Laland 2006). The implementation in economics has been more similar to the problem we deal with. Coevolution has been invoked to explain trends in ecology and resources (e.g. Norgaard 1994, Kallis G., Norgaard 2010), to investigate reasons for location competitive advantage, and above to develop models for innovation and change management
SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019 27
(e.g. Van den Bergh, Stagl 2003). These studies tried to understand changes as the results of forces often antagonist to each other, and of events that sometimes are definitely random. However, some authors observed that while it is possible to describe coevolution processes, which are definitely emergent from the complexity of the systems, in other processes coevolution is somehow guided by external actions (Cuervo-Cazurra A., Martin de Holan P., Sanz 2014).
Among the fields, in which the concept of coevolution has been used as an interpretation tool, the cultural landscape sector is maybe the closest to historic preservation. In Italy the “territorialist” approach used to treat the territory as a highly complex living system, developing sophisticated methods to deal with ecosystems (Magnaghi 2017). The definition of cultural landscapes as complex adaptive systems encompasses both the concepts of emergence and coevolution (Rescia et al. 2012). Implementing the concept of “extended evolution” (Laubichler and Renn 2015), Niles and Roth propose to understand traditional agriculture landscapes as “living knowledge systems”, to be preserved not as the relics of a time gone by, but as resources for development through the interaction with new actors and societal processes (Niles, Roth 2016). They observe that preservation of cultural heritage looks simpler, even if the relationship between the conservation of tangible and intangible heritage does not yet look perfectly working. What we are proposing in the present paper is that built cultural heritage as well should be understood as a living knowledge system. Just 20 years ago, at the Bressanone conference on maintenance, a first draft of an epistemological foundation of conservation was proposed, referring to the coevolution concept and to the cognitive step “from being to becoming” (Della Torre 1999). It is worthy notice that Coevolution and Coevolutionary Economy have been inspiring for modelling preventive conservation as a system (Della Torre 2010; Vandesande 2017), while the concept of historic buildings as living knowledge systems is fundamental to the debate on traditional techniques vs. new technologies, which should not be a comparison of ideologies, but a positive opportunity for the development of a coevolutionary work (Vandesande et al. 2018).
Coevolution vs Adaptation
To apply the coevolutionary metaphor to historic preservation and reuse in the field of the built environment it is necessary to compare the concept of coevolution with another concept, that is adaptation. Adaptation is a more trivial word, whose meaning is clear to ordinary people, but it has as well a technical meaning in the
28 SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019
scientific field. In general, according to a popular English dictionary, adaptation means the process of changing to suit different conditions; but in biology it means the process in which a living thing slightly changes over time, to be able to continue to exist in a particular environment. So we see two kinds of evolution processes, differing because of the action an evolving thing produces on the environment: in adaptation the thing has no influence on the environment, in coevolution the environmental evolution is influenced by the presence of the living thing.
Are words like stones? Does the choice of words matter? If it does, the adjective “adaptive” should someway qualify a process, telling its special character: not simply a reuse, but an adaptive one. The word refers to adaptation and compliance, putting the emphasis on the capability to adapt, suit, comply with changing conditions, not on the capability to influence the change. Put otherwise, if someone tells me that a reuse operation is adaptive, I understand that the performance standards required by the new function are implemented in the existing building without any debate, as the building will be modified in order to suit the new needs. Otherwise, if the new utility is chosen on the basis of the performances the building can provide, minimizing the change and taking into account the recognized values, the word “adaptive” does not fully describe the process, as the building is influencing the process and the change happens both in the building and in the requirements: then the correct metaphor is not adaption, but coevolution.
Historic examples of adaptive reuse
In the huge existing literature, “adaptive” reuse is advocated as always carried out in the history of architecture. This is true, and we are often happy to see the complexity born by the insertion of new functions in reused buildings. The gothic Cathedral of Nicosia turned into a mosque, or the Doric temple of Syracuse turned into a Christian Cathedral are fascinating examples, often cited, but maybe they are so outstanding that cannot be really useful to the reasoning we are developing here. Instead, if we look at the generalized process of reusing convents and monasteries in the age of Empires, and we exclude exceptions, we can observe that buildings belongings to the same typology, similar to each other, were turned indifferently into schools, military barracks, factories, prisons, warehouses, the choice depending less on the features of the buildings than on the location in the urban context. The only recognized value was the use value, as the building technologies were not changed yet, so that spaces and loadbearing walls could be used in a very
SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019 29
economical way. The change was therefore not so disruptive, it is perfectly possible to recognize what we call the “historical thickness” of the structures, and in many cases further change of the functions turns into celebrated recovery restorations.
These examples show what we could correctly call adaptive reuse: operations carried out almost unthinkingly, on the basis of the ignorance of all the historic values apart from use value, triggered by scarcity of resources that leads to prefer reuse to demolition and new construction. Nowadays, in the frame of lifecycle thinking and circular economy, these kind of processes could find a new actuality: the choice of reusing could be evaluated because of environmental and economic reasons, calling societal and cultural arguments to strengthen operational strategies, more than to inspire architectural design (Fusco Girard, Gravagnuolo, 2017).
Evolving significance
Historic reuse produced many fascinating buildings, which during their “life” (keeping into the metaphor) faced many changes and were used for different purposes. Sometimes they were just adapted to the new needs, in some cases their strong character was considered and the required changes were adapted to the pre- existing structures. We have to look not only at the carried out alterations, but at the evolving significance of these complex buildings: we are referring to the concept of significance, but adding the adjective evolving. Therefore, we are introducing a very important step from an expert-centred to a user-centred perspective.
The problem is twofold: the role of material conservation in the perception of historic buildings, and the role of users in defining the significance. How far did they conserve the original sense of place, how far the place got a new sense, how much the survived material traces enable to understand the historic complexity?
To take an example, the convent of the Serviti in Koper (Capodistria) after the suppression was turned into the maternity hospital of the city. The physical alterations were heavy, but did not erase the Venetian character of the building; nevertheless, the relationship of the building with the local community life became so strong thanks to this function, that the next change of the function will face a difficult alternative in identifying the significant elements to keep and valorise (ebron Lipovec 2015; ebron Lipovec et al. 2017). We are moving the focus from what happened in the past and what happens in the phase of the reuse design, to what happens on the long run, when diverse and evolving communities will be
30 SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019
called to inhabit the reused building, change their needs, and ask new adaptations. Shall the reused building bring a message to future users? Will it be able to influence the needs?
Coevolutionary thinking has undoubtedly an effect on the understanding of the past, fuelling a taste for hybrid, complex and layered images, just the ones that traditional restoration tended to simplify choosing the “right” phase. Paradoxically, the experts who decide to simplify the text use to say that such action aims at presenting to the public something ordinary people can understand. It’s the climax of the expert-centred, or top-down approach. Instead, a community-centred approach works on the user’s background to build an experience that could be more intriguing just playing on the richer keyboard constituted by the legacy of a deeply investigated evolution.
But the awareness of the evolving and dynamic character of significance does not only reshape the understanding of the past, it is also a very important reason to implement a responsible attitude toward the future. Once the reuse operation is based on the recognition on several values beyond the use-value, also in the frame of circular economy vision, the principle of responsibility entails an attitude, both in decision making and in designing the interventions. The latter will surely put in the forefront the nonmaterial issues (Fiorani 2014), but not in the terms of identifying an “immaterial significance”, which should hold forever as interpreted by an architectural design based just on the methodology of “research by design” (Plevoets, Prina 2017). As Pietro Matracchi frankly wrote, “It is naïve to think that some particular sensitivity might emerge, nourished by mysterious knowledge and skills deriving from newly imagined design principles, that could (eliminating uncertainties) introduce changes into our architectural heritage, bringing it into a better future” (Matracchi 2017, pp. 189-190). It seems incredible that such a naïve and unthinkingly methodology could have been proposed as an emerging autonomous discipline (Plevoets, Van Cleempoel 2013).
The approach to places with values exceeding the availability for use should overtake the expert-centred approach and its authorized heritage discourse, to get aware of the central role of users and their diversity. Significance is not an immutable attribute of things and places, nor can it be defined by a hegemonic statement. Instead, it is continuously re-produced through users’ experiences. Cultural significance is emergent, and the designer’s responsibility is to keep and enhance the potential of historic buildings for co-creation of meanings in the future.
SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019 31
The coevolutionary reuse
The sense of place is and will ever be changing and emerging, so the aim of keeping it must be dealt with by the designer paying the highest attention to the different experience components. The often alleged necessity to keep the same function in order to maintain the spirit of the place leads into unsolvable problems, because the functions through time tend to increase the requirements. For instance, the microclimate requirements for a dwelling house or an office are today definitely higher than in the past, so that if the same function is kept an upgrade of the building performance is required, which could be devastating for the historical components. Therefore, the reasons of material conservation require the introduction of a new different utility in the building, whose requirement should be compliant with what the building can give with regard to its testimonial values.
The question then moves to the possibility of perceiving the authentic values of an historic building not through the original use, but through a different one, given that architecture is not understood by the sight, but living the spaces. It is not an easy question, as really the number of the publics opens to a diversity of experiences, which cannot be ignored.
Lucina Napoleone suggested not to overlook the theme of aesthetics, pointing out that mere conservation risks to turn into a flee from responsibilities, and referring to the interesting concept of “trace” as introduced by Maurizio Ferraris (Napoleone 2008; Napoleone 2016). But which times are required for a correct perception of interiors bearing traces of previous uses? How many users/visitors could be engaged in an experience of the place pivoting not on distraction but on the investigation of the traces? And how tourists perceive a monumental church or a mosque, seen as mass tourism destinations?
The point is that the designer of the reuse operation does not control the processes that are going to emerge in the future. If coevolution can be guided, or at least influenced, certainly the reuse project has the possibility to orient the possible forms of future co-creation of contents, simply deciding whether some features of the building will be maintained or given up. Therefore, the designer has the responsibility of limiting or widening the freedom of the future coevolution processes. The target should be to respect and not to reduce, but to enhance the complexity of the place, through investigation aimed at multiplying the approaches and the interpretations.
When Lucina Napoleone asks what to conserve, my answer, given twenty years ago, is “the coevolutive potentialities”. This means to avoid any reduction, to take
32 SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019
care of the imperfection of objects, as in a Darwinian logic diversity and imperfection are the foundation of a new ecology, new ethics, new aesthetics (Bocchi, Ceruti 2004, p. 171), and the lack is a generative condition (Varchetta 2002, pp. 92-93). These epistemological reflections may seem loose from practice: instead, they have already found applications, clearly identified in the last years.
Conclusions: Coevolution and the long-term vision
The expert’s (i.e. the architect’s) role is definitely new in the perspective of a community-centred or user-centred design of the future use of historic premises. The task is no longer the recognition of those values, which can inspire the project and the culturally correct understanding of the place, but the investigation of the multiple approaches that legitimate the diversity of the possible recognitions. Besides the sustainable compliance with the requirements related to the chosen function, the success of the reuse project will be demonstrated by the richness of the co-creation actions, in which different communities will be keen to be involved.
Also in the research on tourism co-creation has been identified as a key factor for the satisfaction of the users, in the logic of the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore 2008). Even if heritage users should not be thought as customers but as citizens, there is something to be learnt from the research on user’s experience and satisfaction (e.g. Buonincontri et al. 2017). The suggestion that the experience should mix the four E (Education, Aesthetics, Entertainment, Escapism) could explain why we can find intriguing unusual distance points produced by added floors, which traditional restoration would remove for pure architectural reasons (see the example of the frescoes in the Jesuits’ College in Genoa quoted by Musso 2017, p. 219).
On the other hand, it is necessary to include in the agenda the availability of digital tools and the opportunities given by performing arts for community engagement, working out the idea that “aesthetic perception and creation of architecture cannot be achieved without the inclusion and application of digital interactive technology” (Pekol 2009). The ante and post intervention management, including both planned conservation and the promotion of smart valorisation activities, is crucial to make these kinds of contamination possible. Thus the reuse operations should be framed into a sound management plan in order to have a complete vision of the intervention on the long run, also in the perspective of opening to a free coevolution in the future (Della Torre 2014).
SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019 33
Bibliography 1. Ames K., Archaeology, Style and the Theory of Coevolution, in Maschner H.D.G.,
Herbert D.G. (eds.), Darwinian Archaeologies, New York, Plenum Press, 1996, pp. 109-131
2. Bocchi G., Ceruti M., Educazione e globalizzazione, Milano, Cortina, 2004 3. Buonincontri P., Morvillo A., Okumus F., Van Niekerk M., Managing the experience
co-creation process in tourism destinations: Empirical findings from Naples, “Tourism Management”, 62, 2017, pp. 264-277
4. ebron Lipovec N., ‘I’m Telling the Story of the Town’: Places in a Contested Space, in Hrobat Virloget K., Goussef C., Corni G. (eds.), At Home but Foreigners, Population Transfers in 20th Century Istria, Koper, Annales, 2015, pp. 189-207
5. ebron Lipovec N., Kavur B., Osojnik M., Zanier K., Rosina E. (eds.), The convent of the Servites. An architectural and archaeological monument in the heart of Koper, Milano, PoliScript, 2017
6. Cuervo-Cazurra A., Martin de Holan P., Sanz L., Location advantage: Emergent and guided co-evolutions, “Journal of Business Research”, 67 (2014), pp. 508–515
7. Della Torre S., “Manutenzione o “Conservazione”? La sfida del passaggio dall’equilibrio al divenire, in Biscontin G., Driussi G. (eds.), Ripensare alla manutenzione, Venezia, Arcadia Ricerche, 1999, pp. 71-80
8. Della Torre S., Preventiva, integrata, programmata: le logiche coevolutive della conservazione, in Biscontin G., Driussi G. (eds.), Pensare la prevenzione. Manufatti, usi, ambienti, Venezia, Arcadia Ricerche, 2010, pp. 67-76
9. Della Torre S., La programmazione degli interventi: qualità, modello di gestione, riconoscimento delle esternalità positive, “Materiali e strutture”, n.s., anno III (2014), 5-6, pp. 87-97
10. Di Biase C., Donati L., Fontana C., Paolillo P.L., Riuso e riqualificazione edilizia negli anni '80, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1981
11. Fiorani D., Materiale/Immateriale. Frontiere del restauro, “Materiali e strutture”, n.s., anno III (2014), 5-6, pp. 9-23
12. Fusco Girard L., Gravagnuolo A., Circular economy and cultural heritage/landscape regeneration, “BDC”, Vol. 17, 1/2017, pp. 35-52
13. Kallis G., Norgaard R.B., Coevolutionary ecological economics, “Ecological Economics”, 69, 2010, pp. 690–699
14. Laubichler M.D., Renn J., Extended evolution: A conceptual framework for integrating regulatory networks and niche construction, “Journal of Experimental Zoology (Part B, Molecular and Developmental Evolution)”, 324 (7), 2015, pp. 565-577
15. Niles D., Roth R., Conservation of Traditional Agriculture as Living Knowledge Systems, not Cultural Relics, “Journal of Resources and Ecology”, 7(3), 2016, pp. 231- 236
16. Magnaghi A., La storia del territorio nell’approccio territorialista all’urbanistica e alla pianificazione, “Scienze del territorio”, 5, 2017, pp. 32-41
17. Matracchi P., Changes and Continuity in material and immaterial Values: Experiences of accidental Conservation, in Fiorani D., Kealy L., Musso S.F. (eds.), Conservation- Adaptation, EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education n. 65, Hasselt, EAAE, 2017, pp. 181-190
34 SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI.2019
18. Mesoudi A., Whiten A., Laland K.N., Towards a unified science of cultural evolution,
“Behavioral and Brain Sciences”, 29, 2006, pp. 329-383 19. Musso S.F., Permanencies and disappearances, in Fiorani D., Kealy L., Musso S.F.
(eds.), Conservation-Adaptation, EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education n. 65, Hasselt, EAAE, 2017, pp. 217-226
20. Napoleone L., Che cosa conservare? L'oggetto del restauro, tra opera d'arte, monumento, bene culturale, ambiente, in Casiello S., Pane A., Russo V. (eds.), Roberto Pane tra storia e restauro. Architettura, città, paesaggio, Venezia, Marsilio, 2010, pp. 145-148
21. Norgaard, R.B., Development Betrayed: the End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future, London, Routledge, 1994
22. Pekol B., Interactive bodily Experiences of Architectural History and its Perceptual Implications, in Spurr S. (ed.), Spatial Phrases, Sidney 2009, pp. 140-148
23. Pine B.J., Gilmore J.H., The Experience Economy, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 2011
24. Plevoets B., Van Cleempoel K., Adaptive reuse as an emerging discipline: an historic survey, in Cairns G. (ed.), Reinventing architecture and interiors: a socio-political view on building adaptation, London, Libri Publishers, 2013, pp. 13-32
25. Plevoets B., Prina D.N., Introduction, in Fiorani D., Kealy L., Musso S.F. (eds.), Conservation-Adaptation, EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education n. 65, Hasselt, EAAE, 2017, pp. 1-8
26. Rescia A.J., Perez-Corona M.E, Arribas-Ureña P., Dover J.W., Cultural landscapes as complex adaptive systems: the cases of northern Spain and northern Argentina, in Plieninger T., Bieling C. (eds), Resilience and the Cultural Landscape. Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 126-145
27. Van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Stagl S., Coevolution of economic behaviour and institutions: towards a theory of institutional change, “Journal of Evolutionary Economics”, 13, 2003, pp. 289-317
28. Vandesande A., Preventive Conservation Strategy for Built Heritage Aimed at Sustainable Management and Local Development, PhD. Dissertation, KU Leuven, 2017
29. Vandesande A., Van Balen K., Della Torre S., Cardoso F., Preventive and planned conservation as a new management approach for built heritage: from a physical health check to empowering communities and activating (lost) traditions for local sustainable development, “Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development”, 2018, 8(2), p. 78-81
30. Varchetta G., Cambiamento organizzativo e istituzioni della cultura e dell’arte, in Morelli U. (ed.), Management delle istituzioni della cultura e dell’arte, Milano, Guerini, 2002, pp. 85-94
TESTI DI
Abbo M. 223 Accetta C. 1057 Acri M. 319 Aghemo C. 295 Aimar S. 1089 Alberganti M. 659, 1133 Antonelli E. 1245 Babbi F. 473 Baratin L. 343 Baratin L. 695 Bartolomucci C. 1017 Battista G. 285 Becherini F. 307 Bellanca C. 245 Bellomo M. 637 Bernardi A. 307 Bernardini V. 1037 Besana D. 331 Bonaiti C. 531 Boniotti C. 191 Bonora A. 885 Bravaglieri S. 761 Bravi D. 1143 Brusa E. 773 Buccafurri F.L. 223 Cacamore S. 729 Caccia Gherardini S. 865 Cacudi G. 201 Cadelano G. 307 Cadetti A. 1205 Campanella C. 739,1267 Campanini G. 285 Canonaco B. 571 Cantelli M. 367 Cantini L. 133, 443 Cantoni V. 1067 Canziani A. 1047 Capolongo S. 551 Capone P. 927 Cappelli L. 673 Cardaci A. 707,1185
Cardani G. 443 Caruso L. 987 Casanova M. 1195 Catalano M. 201 Cattaneo A. 695 Cavagnini G. 717 Ceccaroni E. 605 Cecchini C. 331 Celli S. 81 Chiesa A. 331 Cicolin F. 307 Circo C. 275 Cocci Grifoni R. 907 Cocco G.B. 591 Coccoli C. 717 Codello R. 191 Coïsson E. 1109 Conte F. 519 Crova C. 13 Cunha Ferreira T. 821 D’aprile M. 1175 D’Ettore V. 977 Dalla Caneva A. 1165 Dalla Santa G. 307 Dainese U. 1291 Danesi G. 69 David G. 1315 De Marsico E. 1245 De Martino G. 855 De Stefani L. 495 De Vita M. 91 Deganutti M. 1305,1315 Dell’Orto C. 739 Dell’Ovo M. 551 Della Torre S. 25, 191,551 Devecchi A. 343 Di Gangi G. 377 Di Resta S. 69 Disabato A. 453 Dobrii S. 319 Donatelli A. 951
Doria E. 1215 Eichberg M. 13 Emmi G. 307 Ercolino M.G. 581 Fabbri K. 885 Fain E. 1225 Falotico A. 637 Fantini E. 821 Favaretto G. 355 Ferrari M. 233 Fiore E. 673 Fiorino D.R. 749, 785 Florea S.G. 965 Floridi M. 977 Foramitti V. 421 Fratini F. 411 Frigieri C. 245 Gasparetto F. 343 Giannattasio C. 591 Giusti T. 927 Gizzi S. 1 Goberti E. 367 Gotta F. 843 Guarisco G. 507, 1077 Guarnieri A. 541 Gutierrez A. 1291 Iannotti P. 749 Jokilehto J. 319 Kuban N. 1027 Lancellotti A. 1007 Lanza L. 1175 Lattanzi D. 519 Laudani G. 265 Laviscio R 615 Lazzari M 1099 Licastro D. 1143 Lo Faro A. 265 Lombardi L. 1067 Lombardini N. 1077 Longo O. 561 Lupoli F. 387
Magnani Cianetti M. 169 Mainardi F. 473 Marino B.G. 627 Mariotti C. 937 Marsili G. 1291 Marvaldi C. 997 Maspoli R. 811 Massari S. 895 Mastella M. 367 Mastrotisi G. 1067 Matta P. 875 Mattone M. 399,411 Mellano P. 749 Mezzasalma G. 307 Mirabella Roberti G. 707 Miraglia F. 13 Moioli R. 551 Mondolo S. 717 Monica L. 507 Monte A. 387,685 Morandi E. 367 Morandotti M. 331,551,1215 Morozzo Della Rocca M.C. 1257 Musanti F. 591 Nannetti G. 1121 Napoleone L. 431 Naretto M. 295 Nocerino I. 627 O’Neill N. 307 Oreni D. 1077 Ottoni F. 81, 1109 Pagliari F. 1109 Pasquali R. 307 Pastor C. 1279 Patruno A. 541 Peron V. 157 Pesenti S. 35 Petraroia P. 169 Petrucci E. 907 Pietrogrande E. 1165 Pilati C. 23
Pili A. 101,875 Pintus V. 591,799 Pirisino M.S. 799 Pisani F. 1235 Pittaluga D. 45,997 Pivetta R. 1133 Pozzi E. 485 Pretelli M. 355,885, 895 Proto G. 831 Rescic S. 411 Ricco P. 463 Romoli E. 875 Rorro A. 181 Rosina E. 123,875,1133 Salemi A. 265 Salina L. 605 Salvo S.M.C. 169 Sanchez Jimenez L.M. 739 Sanfilippo G. 987 Sasso C. 387 Savio P. 519 Scala B. 145 Scognamiglio R. 855 Sdino L. 551 Secondini L. 997 Segimiro A. 1067 Serafini L. 729 Setti A. 1067