1/ Yesterday, while writing about a 1888 rail plan for Rome, I qualified the city as a "capital by chance that never quite assumed it's role seriously, at least planning-wise".
Here is the reason why I say that and why Rome is not in a way like other big Western capital cities
2/ First, a bit of history. The Kingdom of Italy came about more rapidly than expected between 1859-61, after Piedmont's war against Austria and the expedition of the Thousands led by Garibaldi that resulted in the annexation of the Kingdom of two Sicilies.
3/ The first capital of Italy in 1861 was Turin, an already established little capital of the tiny but rapidly modernizing state of Piedmont. The city had it's Royal Palace, a small Parliament building, ministries etc., but insufficient for the capital of a much larger country
4/ But nothing was done to improve Turin because, even if Rome was not available yet, the capital was meant to be moved anyway out of Turin as an engagement with Napoleon III that supported Piedmont against Austria. The choice fell on Florence, where the capital was moved in 1865
5/ To transform Florence, a small city of 150k, still closed in its 14th century walls, in the new capital of (what they considered) a major European power, a new urban plan designed by Giuseppe Poggi was approved, with new boulevards, monumental squares, government quarters etc.
6/ But, well, only 5 years later the 1870 defeat of Napoleon III, protector of whet remained of the papal state, opened the way for a quick annexation of Rome to Italy. The capital was moved in 1971, leaving the poor Florence in the middle of an unfinished transformation
7/ So Rome became the capital almost unexpectedly overnight. There were no plans ready for the second moving of the whole State apparatus in a decade, that was done in a rush under popular pressure. Tens of thousands of bureaucrats moved to the city in a couple of years.
8/ The main institutions were simply put in available buildings: the King took over the Quirinale palace, the former city residence of the Pope. the Parliament was installed in a temporary structure in the courtyard of Montecitorio, an expropriated aristocratic palace.
9/ The Senate got an even less remarkable building on a narrow secondary road, waiting for a more monumental location that never came about. New large buildings were built without a comprehensive plan in the following years, to host the Treasury, the Ministries of War, Justice...
10/ Again, those buildings were placed here and there, following the speculative logics of politically connected large landowners pushing to attract development in their respective land. The newborn state lacked the will and the ressources to engage with grandiose plans.
11/No large baroque design of modern new capitals like Washington. No grandiose Ring lined by large public buildings as in Vienna. No Haussmann's monumental boulevards and axes as inParis. No Madrid's Paseo nor Berlin's Unter den Linden. No huge parliament building as in Budapest
12/ The Kingdom of Italy just superimposed hastily a modern capital on a medieval and Baroque small city whose real center, Saint Peter and the Vatican, was still "occupied" by a very different kind of power the newborn Italian state was in conflict for years
13/ Plans to provide Rome with a proper Parliament building or some grandiose public space failed or were depotenziated. Immense ressources were put in useless gigantic monuments, like the unloved nicknamed giant "typewriter" or "wedding cake", celebrating Vittorio Emanuele II
14/ The ruling class of the liberal era (1861-1922) was busier in trying to keep together a deeply diverse nation, modernizing a lagging economy and wasting money in dreams of colonial grandeur in Africa to assert the country's status among the "Great Powers" of Europe🤭
15/ The result is a capital city that never expressed its role properly in its urban form, burdened with the vestiges of a great past and the rich heritage of Renaissance and Baroque papal urbanism since with Sixtus V and that nobody dared really to touch (fortunately).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I'm re-reading one of the great classic of planning literature in Italy, Italo Insolera's "Modern Rome", an urbanistic history of Rome since Napoleon I.
After doing further research I happened upon the never realized railway plan of 1888, a quite bold rail reorganization
2/ Designed by Mazzanti Frontini, it is one of the several grandiose plans to modernize a city that became the capital almost by chance and never quite assumed its role seriously, at least planning-wise. There is no government quarter, no magnificent building for the Parliament.
3/ Since the modern city was already growing toward the Termini station since even before annexation ti Italy in 1870, this plan encourages this growth and propose to demolish Termini station and build a new grandiose building for the Parliament in its place
1/ I keep asking myself why, despite a lot of talking about electric mobility, there aren't more new trolleybus lines around. But there are a few.
The recently opened Rimini's BRT, or better TRT (Trolleybus Rapid Transit) is an interesting experiment in intermediary systems
2/ The city of Rimini (151k inh. and birthplace of Federico Fellini) is the center of a linear urban area of some 350k, that developed along the coastline. It emerged as a major seaside destination during the 1950-60s economic boom. Population can soar to 1M during summer months.
3/ The city already has a 12.2 km mixed traffic trolleybus line, opened in 1939 and connecting Rimini railway station to Riccione, along a boulevard lined with hotels and resorts, very close to the beach. But commercial speed is low and inner areas are poorly served.
I know many are skeptical, but let's do an imagination exercise and imagine going around Québec 10 years from now with a comprehensive province-wide transit network.
In this scenario, you have hourly or bi-hourly regional trains connecting Montréal to Sherbrooke, Québec via North and South shore, Ottawa, Shawinigan, etc., but also Sherbrooke to Quebec and to a certain extent on the south shore.
More importantly, these connections calls at important regional hubs, like Drummondville, Granby, Saint-Jean sur Richelieu, Joliette, Trois Rivières, where a local bus network allows you to reach villages and natural parks that today are off-limits for care-less people
I had a couple of exchanges here about a planned development in Jersey City
One thing that helps understand my criticism is to put it in the light of the centrality of urban design in the European planning approach, especially in continental Europe. I'll give you some examples
When I qualified, maybe a bit too hastily, that particular design in Jersey city as uninspiring it's because what I have in mind is a type of approach where what we call "la città pubblica", the public domain, is designed together with private development
Take the ZAC Paris Bercy, a 1990s redevelopment of former depots in Paris with a parc, housing, commercial spaces etc. Buffi's detailed plan didn't simply mandated FAR, heights or alignements, it went in detail on the relationship between public and private spaces.
1/ I❤️Lyon.
You know why? Apart the fact of being a nice city and the only place outside of Italy and (maybe) Spain having acceptable cured meat, it boasts one of the most interesting and diverse transit system, with metro, tramways, funicular, trolleybuses, tram-train, etc.
2/ The métro is a modern creature, the first being built in France after Paris at the same time of Marseille in the 1970s. It has now four lines, line C being the conversion+extension of a former rack rail to the working class neighborhood of Croix-Rouge
3/ The cheesy trainset design, especially 1980s MPL 85 for the automated line D is simply😍, especially in the full orange livery. Station design reminds me Montréal, somehow: large, colored. A pleasant brutalism.
We are back in a mild lockdown here in Montréal. As a reaction, I decided to do regular walks around my area, one of the fastest changing among the central neighborhoods.
Here is the first one to the MIL campus of UdeM, in the former site of Outremont rail yard
The masterplan is a rather plain. They basically just moved the rail and extended the existing grid, with a new main E-W street, that is already getting well patronized by cars. A lost opportunity for a car-free connection in a transit rich area.
The main features of the public realm are the triangular central square and the connection across the rail to Acadie metro station, right in the middle of the new UdeM building. With the university closed, the area is pretty deserted