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:
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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