UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Fiat colonie: architecture of authority Taylor, Russell Garrett 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0630.pdf [ 7.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087386.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087386-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087386-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087386-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087386-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087386-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087386-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087386-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087386.ris

Full Text

THE FIAT COLONIE: ARCHITECTURE OF AUTHORITY  By RUSSELL GARRETT TAYLOR B.A.,  The University of British Columbia,  1991  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLME NT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Fine Arts)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1994 ØRussell Garrett Taylor,  1994  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  ii  ABSTRACT:  Between 1925 and 1937 the Italian car manufacturer Fiat initiated three building projects that featured a distinctive architectural form. In two quite different building types the Fiat designers employed an uninterrupted ascending spiral ramp in a way that determines both the internal volume and the external form.  This paper will argue that Fiat first adopted this form for practical reasons and then applied it to two building types that represented their wider place in contemporary Italian society. Further the paper will argue that the form was associated with a tradition of social conditioning  —  parallel with the rigorous  organization of the highly mechanized mass-production factory  —  that would be appropriate in their welfare and  recreation building.  It is the main argument of this thesis, first, that Fiat’s factories and children’s health camps were organized by the spiral ramp motif representing a clear, palpable imposition of authority, and second, that Fiat’s social services were conceived as integral elements in the process of production  —  the “Colonie”  buildings,  111  built to house children, were conceived of as a form of factory: evidently the architects who designed Fiat’s Colonie buildings intended a formal reference to the factory since both differ markedly from contemporary Colonie erected under Fascist authority.  A brief introduction outlines a historiography of the subject. Chapter One gives some background of Italian architecture contemporaneous to the projects,  introduces  the issues of Fascism and makes reference to the place of Fiat.  Chapter Two will focus on the Colonie buildings of  Fiat and how they relate to Italian Modernist architecture. The institution of children’s health camps in Italy will be defined and Fiat’s examples will be compared with other examples of the type,  some of which  were state—sponsored, and others privately funded.  Chapter Three addresses the specific circumstances under which the Fiat Colonie were designed and constructed. In Italy the power of Fiat, and the Agnelli dynasty,  spanned industry, finance and significantly, the  political world. This section seeks to define how the firm operated within Fascist policy and also how the .Agnelli family,  like a feudal barony, sought to define  and sustain traditional networks of power. Although this is not the main thrust of the thesis it will be suggested here that the use of the formal organization of the  iv “Lingotto” auto factory may be considered as one of the ways in which Fiat sought to divert worker militancy, fabricating buildings with physical as well as institutional affiliations that would establish a network of links to the firm.  Chapter Four considers the specific design features and functioning of Fiat Colonie. Part of this process,  it  will be posited, was the development of a distinctive formal motif. Fiat—Agnelli’s buildings will be shown to be a sort of “middle—of—the—road” architecture,  indeed  the buildings appear more proto—modern than revolutionary,  despite their advanced technology. This  separates them from contemporary Colonie, which are more abstract functional in design.  V  TABLE OP CONTENTS:  Abstract Table  of  .......  ii  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  V  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  vi  .............. .... Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Li st of I 11 us t rat i on s . Acnow1edgments.  .  . . . . .  Dedication...............  . . . . . . . . .  ..  .  .vii  ...... ,...  ix  Introduction H istoriography  . .  . . . . .  1  Chapter One Italian Architecture 1920—40, BackgroundtotheCommission  5  Chapter Two The Colonie of Fiat  15  Chapter Three Fiat and Architectural Patronage  .  .  41  Chapter Four Conclusions Regarding the Significance oftheFiatColonieArchitecture  58  Illustrations  73  Selected Bibliography. Appendices......  . . .  . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  .  .  120 130  vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Architectural Design 51, nos. 25.  1981, p6.  Pranco Albini, Architecure and Design 1934-77. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993, p . 4 7 nos. 63. Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol.4, New York: Russell and Russell, pp 37—38. nos. 62. Arnaldo Bruschi, Bramante, London: Thames and Hudson,1977 pp92, 110. nos. 26, 27. Cities of Childhood: Italian Colonie of the 1930’s, nos. 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 23,24, 34,35,36,37,38,39.  1988.  I,e Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, New York: Payson and Clark, 1923, p287. nos. 51,52,53. Domus 659, March 1985, pplO-35. nos. 20,21,22, 30,31,32,33. Lotus 12, 1976. pp48—56. nos. 59,61. Robin Middleton and David Watkin, Neo-Classical and 19th Century Architecture, New York: Abrams, 1980. nos. 60. Gino Pallotta. Gli Agnelli: Una Dinastia, Ronia, Newton Compton Editori, 1987. nos. 41,42,43,44,45,46,47, 64. Marco Pozzetto. La Fiat Lingotto, Turin: Centro Studi Pieniontesi, 1974. nos. 40, 48,49,50, 50, 54,55,56. Thomas Schumacher, Surface and Symbol, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1990. nos. 1,2,3,4,5. Venti Progetti per Lingotto, Turin: Einaudi, nos. 58.  l984,p3l.  vii ACED  There are many persons to whom I owe thanks for their input and assistance on this project. Italian Modern Architecture seemed like a lonely area to work until the CAA of 1993 seminar, “Art, Architecture and Art History and the Modern Totalitarian State”,  chaired by Richard Etlin who was very warm and welcomed me into a fold which I could only dream existed previously, introducing me to the speakers at the symposium, many of whom are the top scholars in the area. One paper, that of Maria Stone, then a PH]) candidate at NIT, on the 1937 Mostra Nazionale delle Colonie Estive e l’Assistenza all’Infanzia, held in Rome’s Circus Maximus, really fascinated me and sparked my initial interest in the Colonie.  To that end I am indebted to Stefano de Martino and Alex Wall who compiled the exhibition catalogue to “Cities of Childhood”,  which was my guide through the dark maze of general disinterest in the works. The scholars of Italian modern architecture who influenced my research such as Thomas Schumacher, Diane Ghirardo,  Ellen Shapiro, Francesco Dal Co, and Manfredo Tafuri I owe much, but particularly Dennis Doordan who’s encouragement was appreciated.  Thanks go to the UBC Fine Arts Department and particularly Jim Casweii, who allowed me to pursue my work in sometimes unorthodox ways. I am indebted to the many students and faculty who attended my roundtable and offered both support and valuable criticism,  vii particularly Rose-Marie San Juan, Maureen Ryan and Sherry McKay and Marvin Cohodas for clarifying many details which came out of that  exercise. Michael, Jane and Rob in the Slide Library produced beautiful prints for me and in great numbers. Thanks also to my fellow students who assisted me in this project, particularly Sandra Seekins and Carol Denny, Catarina Szmaus, Sean Robertson and Sabine  Wieber who read copy and clarified my ideas.  The UBC Department of Italian and Hispanic Languages showed tremendis interest in the work. Marguerite Chiarenza ran down translations with me and Carlo Testa ias a pillar of support and invaluable information, providing several key insights. Joe Pincus in the Architecture Reading Room at IJBC provided me with many important articles, particularly in the area of typology. Deborah Weiner of the UBC School of Architecture made suggestions which  opened up the research considerably and without which this paper would appear quite differently.  Not the least of special thanks to Debra Pincus who pushed and prodded e throughout the project, edited the manuscript and clarified my ideas as well as my prose and whose urging found me at the 1993 CAA. Without Rhodri Windsor-Lisccmbe and his help, 1 leadership, support and friendship over the years and guidance particularly through the final stages of this paper, completion would have been unthinkable.  ix  This work is dedicated to my children Eric and Michael and to my wife Denise who provided my reason for carrying on and the time to do it.  INTRODUCTI ON  In April 1988 the exhibition  Cities of Childhood:  Italian Colonie of the 1930’s, opened in London. Under the auspices of the Architectural Association of Great Britain the exhibition introduced the international architectural community to an institution almost unknown outside Italy’. The documentary material and propangandistic photographs presented in the catalogue illuminate a fascinating and distinctive architectural and sociological phenomenon, thus far tainted by association with Fascism . This despite the fact that 2 the Colonie remained in operation until the 1960’s and that many of the institutions of Italy today,  it’s laws  and constitution also derive from the generation under . 4 Fascism  The Colonie of Italy lay in obscurity in 1953 when Bruno Zevi first published his monumental Storia dell’Architettura moderna 5 and apparently too obscure to warrant mention in  G.E. Kidder—Smith’s Italy  6 in 1955. During the 1950’s scholarly and Builds cultural opinion generally deemed there to be little of value in Italian modern architecture . In his 1959 7 “Neoliberty” article Reyner Banham stated that:  ...before the war modern Italy hardly existed  2 out of earshot of the railway line from Milan to Como...(and even) within that narrow zone “modern” was practised as a style, since it could not be practised as a discipline” . 8  This sentiment was widespread and was later characterized as “orthodox” by Robert Venturi 9 while studying at the American Academy in Rome during the 1960’s.  The study of what lay beyond Banham’s “railway line” did not begin until the 1970’s, beginning with Peter Eisenman’s fascination for the architect Giuseppe ° and then in 1976 with Ellen Shapiro’s 1 Terragni translation of the polemical essays of the Rationalist “Gruppo 7n]1• Shapiro’s interest was sparked by the reappearance of the term “archittetura razionale” at the 1973 Milan Triennale. Not until the publication of Dennis Doordan’s Building Modern Italy:—1914—36 in 1988 was the orthodox view of Italian modernist architecture . Two years later Richard Etlin in 12 challenged Modernism in Italian Architecture  fully examined issues  of architecture in Italy through it’s period of industrial development,  1890_194013.  One factor in the reluctance of architectural historians to examine Italian architecture of the period was the spectre of Fascism, described by Benedetto CroOe  3  as “that unfortunate incident” . The only architect to 4 have largely escaped that taint was the somehow neutral figure of Pier Luigi Nervi, who was, moreover, regarded more engineer than architect. Where writers dealt with Italian modernism or Terragni, they usually eradicated reference to the political context, thereby absolving them of Fascist responsibilty and constructing a Partisan identity, claiming a cultural left—wing’ . Ernesto 5 Rogers later said of this relationship:  ..We based ourselves on a syllogism which went roughly thus: fascism is a revolution, modern architecture is revolutionary, therefore it must be the architecture of fascism’ . 6  The opprobium attaching to Fascism has contributed to the absence of analysis of all three buildings discussed in this paper, the Fiat Lingotto auto factory, but moreso, the Fiat “Torre Ballila” Colonia at Marina di Massa and the Fiat mountainside Colonia at Salice d’Ulzio. By extension, the architectural history of modern Italy has been affected negatively by Modernist polemics and first—generation histories (Siegfried Giedion’s Space Time and Architecture,  1941 for 7 example’ ) .  Recent literature of Italian Modernism has helped  4 redress this lacuna. Victoria De Grazia, author of The Culture of Consent: Mass Organization of Leisure in Fascist Italy,  1981 focuses on the “dopolavoro” or  organization of leisure time . She traces a gradual 18 increase of officially sanctioned leisure activity and their endeavours thereby to build a society of consent. No such study of the other large—scale social organization, the Colonie, exists.  Turning from the broader political spectrum to the Fiat company, Martin Clark in Modern Italy 1871_198219 has clarified the place of the company in Italian politics and society, while in Agnelli: Fiat and the Network of Italian Power, Alan Friedman explores the corporate character and objectives of Fiat from the . 20 1890’s  The publication of these three authors provide an especially valuable matrix from which to reconstruct the motivation behind the company’s construction of two Colonie buildings and by extension its interpretation of the Nationalist agenda espoused by the Fascists. Such factors enlighten the evident difference between Italian and international modernism and between Italian Fascism and the other totalitarian regimes of that era in Germany, Russia and Spain.  5  CHAPTER ONE  ITALIAN ARCHITECTURE 1920-40, BACKGROUND TO THE FIAT COMMISSIONS  This paper seeks to break down the definition of “fascist architecture. The pervasive sense of frustration in almost every aspect of post—Risorgimento Italy  —  culture, politics, art and architecture  —  were  most evident in the years immediately following The Great War’. Seizing upon the political corruption, the Fascist party under Benito Mussolini retrieved much of the original manifesto of the Risorgimento and in particular the original promises of national resurgence and a return to independence and prominence in the world community. The Fascist party stressed the necessity for powerful centralized leadership, by contrast with the vacillations of the Giolittian years and allied itself with both social and technical revolution, claiming to be the progressive culmination to the ideals of Garibaldi and Mazzini.  Any analysis of “Fascist” architecture must weigh those differences and the fact that, the period of Fascism in Italy ocurred in stages.  It spanned almost a  generation and changed with time. Beginning with  6 Mussolini’s seizure of power with the March on Rome in 1922, the next phase was initiated with the kidnapping and murder of Matteotti, the Socialist opposition leader on June 10,  1924. The abolition of opposition and of  Parliament in 1926 marked yet a further phase. More significant change came in October 1935 with the invasion of Ethiopia and the resultant sanctions imposed by the League of Nations and “Autarchia”. The proclamation of Empire after the fall of Addis Ababa in May 1936 and the racial laws of 1938 mark a decline into a more vicious phase interrupted by the declaration of war on France on 10 June 1940. The arrest of Mussolini on 25 July 1943 and the 45 days when Italy surrendered to the Allies on 8 September 1943, then the subsequent German occupation and Resistenza culminating in the Liberation in 1945 close the period . 2  Italian architecture of the twenties and thirties was certainly affected by the system known as Fascism yet the underlying motivations for both Fascism and modern Italian architecture are to be found in the heightened Nationalism of the Risorgimento in the 19th century and unification under King Vittorio Emmanuel II. The king (Victor Emmanuel III after 1900) represented stability and this stability was an important aim of the avant—gardes in Italy of the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, between the aesthetic disputes  7 brought on by the International Style, the “Stile Liberty” and the Futurist movement had begun to upset bourgeoise tastes . Hence, 4  it is an important notion to  understand that much of what we see in the inter—war years in Italy is an attempt to reestablish stability. The Italian blending of influences can best be illustrated by comparing a set of building whose formal properties as read on their exteriors could be seen to belie their interior functions.  The well—known Casa del Fascio of 1932—36, of Terragni in plan resembles a Renaissance “palazzo” and would appear reactionary. The plans of Del Debbio’s Sports Complex of 1937 for the Foro Mussolini are typical of modern plans to be found contemporaneously in Germany, and would appear the more “modern”. In facade the reverse is true. Terragni’s all—white building is stylistically far more modern. Only in Italy would such a confusion of stylistic intentions be found in the thirties in . 5 Europe  Both buildings merit comparison with  contemporary Northern European Modern architecture and use the same vocabulary of strip windows, flat roofs and new materials in glass and metals. But, this was not immediately apparent to the first generation of architectural writers of the post—war period. There is a general tendency evident in the literature to concentrate on Northern Europe (Philip Johnson and H.R. Hitchcock The International Style, MoMA,  19326).  8  Nonetheless, the modern movement in architecture truly can be said to have been born in Italy in December 1926 with the publishing of the so—called “Rationalist . Four articles appeared in “Rassegna 7 Manifesto” Italiana with theoretical statements in admiration of ideas imported wholly from across the Alps, and were signed by seven young graduates of the Milan Politecnico —  the “Gruppo 7”, led by Giuseppe Terragni. Yet when the  opportunity to build arrived the group vascillated between the “International Style” of the North and traditional Italian building traditions, such as the search for “stability”. Even though Futurism was decidedly the most important Italian movement since the eighteenth century,  in Italy it was also the most  de—stabilizing. The Rationalists wrote of Futurism:  The Futurist and early Cubist experiences, even with their advantages, have stung the public and disillusioned those who expected better from them ...the legacy of the avant—garde that preceded us was an artificial impulse  —  an empty, destructive  fury that confused good and bad . 8  The International Style and Classicism would seem to be at odds but in the aftermath of the Great War there was a natural caution against “excesses”. Classicism finds  9 fuller expression in the second group of Italian modernism the “Novecentisti”. Again from Milan, the Novecento movement launched in 1923 allied itself with the painters Fumi, Sironi and de Chirico. This was the period of de Chirico’s most famous paintings in the metaphysical style . All these currents of thought 9 predated the Fascist era and the state-sponsorship of Modernist Italian architects. The chronology of these events is especially important in understanding corporate and professional motives. The Classicism which intrigued the architects and grew out of the Risorgimento, also influenced the Fascists. Classicism of course was associated with Italian tradition and hence nationalism. Indeed, nationalism, whether in the language of tradition or in the cause of modernization through technology is the one unifying factor in all Italian architecture of the 1930’s. The important Gruppo 7 articles affirm nationalism while simultaneously reflecting ambivalence towards the revolutionary nature of the Modern Movement in Europe . 10  Ambivalence is also expressed in the other major architectural production of the 1930’s, as in the work of Marcello Piacentini, often called Mussolini’s Albert Speer, because of the lavish monumentalized state architecture most often recognizable as “Fascist”, whose modernist theory also to some degree affirmed modernism,  10 but with his own reservations. Piacentini is best known for his monumental style, such as the Boizano War Monument of 1931, calling up associations with Roman archetypes of the Renaissance and hence Empire. But this image is incorrect and incomplete.  Piacentini ascribed  such affinities for monumentality to regionalism:  Amongst the Roman predominates, as would be natural an ample and solemn sense: amongst the Milanese, a major reserve, a major circumspection..the first find inspiration in the art of the cinquecento... their guru is Sangallo... the second disclose their most direct relations with the classicism of the last century that was largely developed in northern Italy... their guru is Palladio.  Further, Piacentini cites the Italian geography and climate as the main reason for the refutation of German Modernist practice as eventually typified by the aesthetic and technical purism of Mies van der Rohe:  We Italians ultimately cannot accept the new fixed formulas of completely glass walls and low ceilings; we must defend ourselves against burning sun and excessive heat six months out of the year... we must still use natural and heavy materials . 12  11 Piacentini moreover stressed the evolutionary nature of “our [Italian) 13 modernism” clearly representing the , overwhelming Italian distrust of all things German after the, still recent, Austrian occupation and ouster of Northern Italy.  Indeed Italy had been occupied almost  entirely for hundreds of years until the Risorgimento.  The notion that a clearly identifiable “fascist” architecture existed is dubious in the extreme. Dennis Doordan makes the point well in reiterating that:  In the absence of any clear contemporary definition of what constitutes fascist architecture, historians and critics have tried to identify the specifically fascist elements within Italian architecture, as well as to define the relationship between fascism and progressive architecture...but the difficulty remains the same: the (defining has been done only) in terms of a single set of formal characteristics, that is,  in terms of style . 14  Mussolini certainly fostered the notion of the modernization of Italy, and at such times the modern style was 15 used At other times the rallying point was . nationalism through cultural identity and then the monumental was used. Fascism meant to be all things to  12 all people and thereby fascism as represented by architecture was meant to be seen as the manifestation of hopes, ideals and all good deeds of the centralized . Architects then were called upon to be fluent 16 state with all the languages representative of the symbolic forms of the progressive and yet traditional state. As Thomas Schumacher remarks:  If Italian architects had shown the propensity to adopt the Benthamite attitude that architecture was the central variable in the creation of social well being for twentieth century Italy, they would have committed political suicide’ . 7  The debate in Italy was complex, neither side ever clearly won the battle for the Duce’s support.  “To the  mature regime, all philosophies were acceptable, provided they acknowledged the supreme genius of the Duce” . 18 The debate, ran essentially unheeded because Mussolini sought to bolster his power by exploiting any idea or policy that held the prospect of greater legitimisation.  Agnoldodomenico Pica, an architect working in the 1930’s summed up the issue in this manner:  ...it must be said that under Fascism everybody competed to prove themselves more Fascist than the next,  from Piacentini to Terragni  —  the anti—Fascist  13  propaganda that followed was rubbish. In the end we were primarily interested in architecture, and whether a commission was from the Pope, Mussolini, to do  —  a Turk or  it did not matter. What was an architect  fly around for twenty years? . 19  Rationalism, Futurism, Monumentalism, Novecentism, Modernism, Nationalism,  Internationalism: the disputes of  the Fascist period resemble a Pirandello play,  in which  reality is masked by polemical and structural ambiguities. The definable break from the past that modernism is supposed to have effected even occurred in Germany  -  -  and which never  is a myth fostered by  orthodox modernists privileging a machine aesthetic. The confusion of style and politics in Italy in the 1930’s underlines the danger of associating International Style Modernism too closely with either radical politics or liberal democracy.  Such complexity of inspiration and intention will be found in the Fiat Colonie and recalls Vittorio Gregotti’s discussion of:  ...a constant and steady interaction between ideology and language. There is an attempt, on the one hand, to make them include or grow out of each other and on the other hand, to contrast them,  14 giving rise to opposing solutions, outweighing political, technological, methodological, and socioeconomic considerations which are frequently outmoded or contradictory . 20  We must recall,  in this regard that Italian architects  saw their work as both revolutionary and as participating in the “Fascist Revolution.” Cesare de Seta in 1972 reminds us of the pragmatic reasons for such a response, implicit in Pica’s assertion that architects “competed to prove themselves more Fascist than the next.” de Seta’s evaluation echoes this remark:  Le Corbusier’s “availability” was supported by the immense pride to save mankind; Terragni and the best Italian (architects),  at most aspired to save  . 21 themselves”  The propensity for architecture to be regarded as representatives of a society of social well—being was not politically viable to Italian architects of the 22 1930’s  Yet there is one institution for which this was a necessary component, where architects were actually encouraged to do so, whether working for the government or private industry  —  the institutional building of  seaside and mountainside camps for children: the Colonie.  15  CHAPTER TWO  THE COLONIE OP FIAT  The Colonie, first established as seaside hospices at the end of the nineteenth century, were part of a tradition of utopias of the Enlightenment and social experiments in collective living for the urban poor and the health concerns of the industrial city. Under fascism the emphasis shifts from curative to preventative . 1 This redefinition featured new values on ceremonies, sports and recreation which aspired to foster community health, through physical, spiritual and moral development. These aims clearly were directed at ideological means of anticipating children as participants in the “civil life of the collectivity” . 2  The new desires of thematic structure for the Colonie stimulated experimentation within the architectural community. As noted above, despite “rational” and “modern” features the Colonie repeat traditional forms, and in facade express static monumentality. Giuseppe Pagano, publisher of Casabella, commented of the new projects in 1935:  16 Modern architecture means first an architecture for people belonging to contemporary civilization; an architecture which is morally, socially, economically and spiritually tied to conditions of our country;  it means building to represent  the ideals of the people, to satisfy their needs, to “serve”, in the true meaning of the word” . 3  These commissions represented an opportunity for the architects to work with the regime in forging the commodity which, beyond guns, they valued highest: young men and women, the future soldiers and mothers and participants in the “revolution” under Fascism.  The Colonia emerged in Italy in the late 19th century as part of a growing medical and social awareness of the backwardness of the nation and its severe health problems.  Imbued with “humane and patriotic aims” doctors  and philanthropists advocated isolation from the urban setting to fight the widespread tuberculosis, malnutrition and malaria . Along with sun—therapy and 4 sea—water they saw an opportunity to mould the spiritual and moral development of the young and impoverished.  At first the church organized such camps, and early in the twentieth century public and private industry see their interests intertwined with the growing institution.  17 Until after the second world war the aims of the Colonia were varying degrees of education, welfare and therapeutic aid. However until the 1860’s existing structures were employed and the Colonie were not expressly built for these purposes. Between 1920 and 1922 child welfare conventions were held to determine the purpose of the institution, the number of attendees having risen, from 2500 to 100,000 since the turn of the . As there is nothing really comparable to the 5 century scale of this enterprise, the Colonie may be seen as a singularly Italian expression of reforming ideals, which had an architectural perspective.  The Colonie became regulated to monitor the physical and social effects on children put into an alien, total environment for three to four weeks, removed completely from family. In this institutionalized segragation the rituals of communal life,  shaped by order and discipline,  were flag—raising, roll call, marching, group gymnastics and ordered ritual sunbathing . 6  In the buildings now being planned to house such therapeutic and pedagogic criteria this segragation was expressed internally in rigorous subdivisions of spaces and, equally conventionally, formal, functional and symbolic divisions of boys and girls. The sites were isolated  further defining a separation from the outside  18 reality  —  there was a reluctance to grant family visits  which when exceptionally granted took place inside the colonia. The figures of authority were inevitably, the doctor, the priest, and the teacher. The community was subdivided into “squads”, which incidentally reflected the terminology used on the shop floor in the Fiat factories and in the military. The militaristic regimen increased under the fascists and the institution remained virtually unchanged until the 196O’s.  The chief executive was the doctor, who made scrupulous files on each child upon arrival, in residence and upon leaving. Corporate operators, such as Fiat, boasted of sending the children home to Turin,  “not just  clean, brownish, and indoctrinated with respect for their surveillants, the Duce and the church” but also,  “on the  average two to three pounds heavier” . 8  When the Catholic Boy Scouts, a similar but competing organization, were closed down by the fascists in 1928 the children were placed in sports groups arranged by age reflecting the consensus sought by the regime. The “sons of the she—wolf” was for boys six to eight;  the “ballilla” for boys eight to eleven;  the  “ballilla musketeers” for boys aged eleven to thirteen; the diminuitive “little Italians” denoted girls eight to fourteen and the “avanguardisti” for thirteen to fifteen  19 year olds, and so on up to the age of twenty—one . A 9 large number were children of Italians living abroad such as Edoardo Palaozzi in Edinburgh who describes his experience of the Colonia:  ...all of the uniforms were of good quality stuff. I had a black shirt, sailor’s hat, white trousers. We we also had a kind of workaday thing  —  buff—colored  like fatigues. You were allowed to keep the uniform. I remember you too had a shaved head. was wonderful. When you are very young articulate experience.  It  you don’t  I just thought it was a very  happy atmosphere. I was glad I was sent. It was...a wonderful world . 10  This quote works to dispel some myths about Fascism. Though we today might cringe at children being herded to indoctrination camps, at the time it was an honor and a luxury for many of the poor families whose children went.  The bulk of the Colonie were built between 1935 and 1939, mostly in the North on either coast centered on Tuscany and Romagna. Their plans were divergent and no consensus of design was reached. Most were low slung and recognizable as International Style Modernism at a glance —  one thing is certain, not a single one displays the  pompous monumental style most often associated with  20 Fascism, again dispelling Fascist myths in a format where they so easily could have. Yet it was the language of technological innovation which came to best suit most educational commissions.  The term “colonia” or colony is in itself interesting as the buildings did function as complete almost—utopian settlements  —  acting as school, hospital,  town hail and hostel all while attempting to open the eyes of the young urban poor to supposed prospects far—removed from their usual reality.  Obviously, the two Colonie that Fiat built fit within this general outline. Yet they exhibit significant variations in form and plan. These revolve around the manipulation of the tower and the heliocoidal ramp  —  a  continuous, rising spiral; an uninterrupted dormitory. This paper emerges from two questions: why are Fiat’s buildings so similar to each other and unlike any other Colonia buildings and why did no similar repetitions of formal structure occur in the dozens of other examples?  The Colonia “Edoardo Agnelli”, named for the first son of the founder of Fiat was designed by the Fiat engineering department, under the direction of architect/engineer Vittorio Bonade—Bottino and realized in 1933. The site straddles the Viale a Mare at Via San  21 Francesco in the small seaside town of Mari na di Massa located on the Tyrrenhian Coast of Tuscany. The property was purchased by Fiat specifically for the purp ose of building a seaside summer camp. The site is 55,000 square metres and the volume of the building com prises 35,000 cubic meters. At capacity, the Colonia coul d house 750 children at one time.  The dormitory space is accomodated in a single tower building containing a continuous spiral of reinforced concrete, rising uninterrupted to a skylighte d ceiling. There are no stairs within this concentric conf iguration of void surrounded by coiling ramp, which is expressed directly on the external form. Each “floor” is punctuated at regular intervals by small square windows separarted by twenty—eight encircling mullions, remi niscent of American skyscrapers such as Raymond Hoo d’s Chicago Tribune Building of 1922, which span the height of the building.  The windows actually rotate up the spiral but  appear level from the exterior. The optic al illusion created by the recession into depth on the round form, masks the fact that the windows are several feet above, from the left side to the right.  The tower rises out of a two storey block. The first is the entrance, twice the height of a “floor”, the second a slightly shorter second storey, whose windows  22 fill the space between the mullions. Above the entrance in large stylized letters is the Fiat logo: FIAT, with one letter between each rib on the smooth face between the entrance and the second floor. The horizontal theme of the base is echoed on the top of the building, an attic is expressed by a slightly larger horizontal ring above the last set of windows. Here the mullions end above the roof line with rounded tops which form the posts to a railing.  So as to keep the perfect symmetry, the tower is reserved for dormitory, except for the lower section entrance hail and dining hail on the second level  —  tables fanning out along the radius lines of the slices and spokes above. All other services, from staff offices and housing to medical clinics, refectory, kitchens and laundry,  are contained separately in two low side wings.  The wings rise to the same level as the roofline of the dining hail and continue the ribs punctuated by the same square window articulation of the tower on their surface.  The main front entrance is more conventionally monumental and faces the seashore.  it is reached up a set  of stairs, a kind of plirith, which follow the curve of the building, which when viewed with the pilasters above is somewhat reminiscent of a peripteral temple. This archetypal allusion is further echoed on the interior of  23 the entrance hail by a set of plain concrete columns which form a cela—like court encircling the circumference of, the void of the spiral, two floors up above the second floor. Further access is provided at the rear of the building, doors to left and right leading towa rd two flanking sets of spiral staircases which span the height of the tower within a semi—circular mass on the exterior. These units are, likewise, adorned with the mullion motif and engage the tower like two cogs against a massive gear. Within the main tower there is also a lift which begins at the base of the dormitory, attached to the outside wall, between the two stairwells. These stairs functioned as the daily access for the child ren.  The beds of the dormitory are arranged in sets of four between the mullions, one on either side of the window and two similarly positioned again st the edge of the central void where each “slice” of the pie—shaped plan meets an interior railing. The only unused space at the perimeter not used were occupied by the lift, where staircase entrances and washroom facilities of each “floor” are contained. Though the ramp creat es an ingenious use of space and a picturesque symme try, the central void would appear to be essentially dead space almost equal to that which is being used. Howev er, although the central well would appear to be “dead space”,  it is a fulfilment of stipulations of the  24 government regulations for the Colonia buildings, the Direzione Generale della Sanita. A volume of twenty five meters per bed was required and easily achieved as the cube roots of each “slice” diminishes at the center, . 11 where their volumes is lowest  Looking up the void from below, however, one encounters a spiral which recedes into the distant skylight far above  —  a complex web of concrete ribbing  with a strong central “axle”. Each rib of the ceiling is separated like the “slices” of the dormitory below. The rectangular windows are thereby separated into two sets of four,  echoing the plan’s arrangement of beds,  separated into eight squares with thin tracery between them  —  one rectangle of eight at the centre, then two  together in the next concentric band, then three, then four, then five together at the edges which are only partly exposed. This type of expressionist ceiling recalls such proto-Modernist structures as Max Berg’s Centenary Hall, Breslau of 1913, and more directly of pierced ceilings in religious buildings.  The attached wings are exactly equal in length to the diameter of the tower block with rounded ends which if joined would form another circle. That circle is exactly equal to the central void of the dormitory. Such a complex structure of successive spirals reminds us  25 again of the historical nature of Italian interest during the Renaissance in the manipulation of the circular plan. The wings extend straight out perpendicular to the beach and define the site between Viale a Mare and the seashore as territory.  The remainder of the site was given over to the uninterrupted area of the beach where all the activities of the camp, outside of sleeping, eating, washing and medical and church services, took place. The Colonia backs directly onto Viale a Mare. On the beach, marking the length of the building’s wings are displaced at each corner,  a flag—pole where the morning flag—raising  ceremony, the “alza bandiera” , was held, all the 12 children arranged in military like rows singing the Fascist song, much as Canadian children used to stand beside their desks in school and sing “God Save the Queen”.  In section, the tower is laterally divided in three —  the void on it’s ascending slant, flanked on either  side by the ramp.  Inevitably this arrangement recalls the  tradition of ascending ramps in Italy  in architecture,  such as the tower at Pisa or Bramante’s Belvedere staircase in the Vatican. Moreover, the ramps correspond with earlier structures conceived by the Fiat designers, especially the heliocoidal distribution ramps at the firm’s Lingotto automobile plant.  26  The circular form of the Fiat Colonie were nevertheless unique. Quite justifiably the writers of the 1988 London exhibition catalogue commented on the uniqueness of the Fiat Colonie in reference to other built examples:  The departure from all other projects lies in the relating of each bed space to the volume of the building so that (the) continuous dormitory... determines both the external form and the internal . 13 volume  As shown the Fiat Colonie followed more unconventional plans. They were unique first in that there were very few Colonie built in a tower form and the only employing this uncommon ramp device.  There can be little doubt that the idea of experimenting with the tower form in the Colonie derive5 from the earlier work of Bonade—Bottino. Witness the 1929 ski—lodge! hotel built by Fiat in the mountains at the base of the Italian Alps at Setrieres. This project marks the first attempt at marketing ski—holidays in Italy. At Setrires, however, the floors are flat, adjoining a spiraling staircase in the center.  It is said that it was  the director of Fiat himself, Giovanni Agnelli, who  27 suggested extending the heliocoidal section into the dormitories themselves after Sestrires. According to Bonade—Bottino:  Abbozzato un progetto di torre, con rampe eliocoidiale del Lingotto,  ii Senatore[Agnelli)  propose di estendere la superficie eliocoidale all’intero settore della corona e svillupare le cabine [camere “dormitore per sciatori”) a piani sfalsati cli una quota del passo dell’elica; nacque cosi la Torre di Sestrire. La soluzione accertata economica e pratica per l’intensita dello sfruttamento del volume e facilit’a dei servizi suggeri al Senatore le iniziative di un’altra torre—albergo a Sestrire e due torn  a Sauce d’tJlzio e ad Apuania per la  colonia montana e marina 14  ‘4  Between Sestrieres and Marina di Massa, Bonade-Bottino added two floors, bringing the number to twelve and added the exterior ribs.  The uninterrupted room created by the ramp,  if  unfolded would stretch 420 meters long and eight meters wide. The floor of the “room” is, of course, on an incline and therefore, placing beds on such an incline creates a problem  —  the beds are all on a slant. This  28 minor inconvenience was solved however by varying the lengths of the legs of the beds from left to right. This is however,  “a costructional advantage that remains  extraneous to architecture. We do not know how comfortable, in practice,  it would be to sleep on this  sloping floor” . Perhaps this essentially theoretical 15 “practicality” is due to it’s having been built by engineers and not architects.  In terms of function the building is entirely appropriate. These dormitories were meant for short—term, one month,  stays. All other activities took place outside  or at the base of the building. Once the child has slept, the very form of the building encourages them to vacate the dormitory and join the communal outdoor activities. Activities within the dorm were essential, only in so far as they allowed sleep, which acoustically, they did. The building also could be seen to reflect Fascist mythology regarding children in that each child is equal, at least all the boys, and therefore there was no preferential or rank distribution within the Colonie and the different age groups used the facilities at different times . 16  Such a purpose might have been in Bonade-Bottino’s mind conceiving the plan of the Fiat Colonie. The architect—engineers, used to designing cars to perform at maximum performance and their company management wished  29 to achieve with the buildings a sense within the children of massive identical numbers but also possibility and appreciation of design aesthetics, of modern materials and the process of efficient production. The children attending this Colonia were, after all, the children of  the Fiat plant workers, and would one day take their father’s place on the assembly line  —  all romantic stuff.  Further, Bonade-Bottino was probably thinking along the lines of the profession, such as architect Mario Lab, one of several Colonia architects of the 1930’s with  regard to their effect upon the children:  Everything in them, from their abstract lines and volumes to their ground plans, which trace the itineraries of communal life...to make up the plastic form and visual image with which these children will identify the memories of periods spent in a Colonia. Having come from poor or very modest homes, the majority of these boys and girls will feel disposed here, for the first time, to accept taste; they will be stimulated for the first time to appreciate architectural form seen not just from the outside, but adapted for living . 17 within  The seaside Colonie, of which Fiat’s Marina di Massa  30 represents one of hundreds, establish a rapport between built form and a relatively flat horizontal band. They are in some senses architectures of the strip  —  not  unlike in some ways the built up strip of Las Vegas.  As Robert Venturi, the )inerican architect points out, the strip is punctuated by signs, which the Fiat towers rising above all else in the strip town can be seen to represent. Not wanting to engage too seriously in the polemic of post—modern semiotics, the tower at Marina di Massa can be seen to function as a “dominant , which stands out above the landscape all 8 sign” around, much like the giant neon signs of the strip. The specific design issues of the mountain Colonia are different and yet also conform to that which we have defined as generally belonging to the Colonie.  The programme remains “a compromise between a hostel and a sanatorium” and like the seaside Colonia,  “comes  closer to a boarding school” . The building still 19 operates as an evening shelter, however, given the Alpine nature, the building requires more indoor space to account for less predictable weather. The cooler temperatures and high winds play a part in determining 4’  orientation and materials. Bonade-Bottino in designing the Fiat Colonia,  “Torre Ballila” at Salice D’Ulzio in  1937, seems to have taken the specific mountain programme  31 into consideration while at the same time perfecting many of the experiments we witnessed at Marina di Massa.  At first glance, the tower block of the mountainside Torre Ballila seems to  adapt that of the seaside  “Edoardo Agnelli” Colonia. Sauce d’Ulzio is just outside Turin the location of Fiat’s headquarters in the rolling hills between the P0 Valley and the lower Italian Alps. It is located on via della Torre on a hillock above, not coincidentally, the resort of Sestrieres. Fiat financed the entire project and again commissioned within their own firm to chief engineer Bonad—Bottino.  In an  interesting switch, suggesting Bonad—Bottino’s confidence with the scheme and increasing ability to maximize the efficient use of space, the built volume of 28,000 cubic meters exceedes the site area of 25,686 square meters. However, whereas Marina di Massa housed 750 on twelve floors, Salice d’Ulzio had a maximum capacity of 494 on nine floors,  indicating immediately a  significant shift in the interior use of space,necessary in the mountains.  The original drawings reveal a progression in the architect’s concept of the function of the main floor, enlarging this space, which accounts for a compacting of the ramp section above. The original drawings reveal other details which tell of the evolution of the firm and it’s relationship with the Fascist party in the 1930’s.  32  The drawings were inscribed “Colonia Tina Agnelli”, referring to Giuseppe Agnelli’s oldest daughter, marking a second nepotist association. The pressure of the Fascist government may have played a part in the name change to one so closely associated with the regime, or it may have been an attempt by Agnelli to mollify the Duce or the Opera Nazionale Balilla, ONB. The Balilla was the name given to the Fascist youth groups who used the facilities and was a term common in many aspects of the “linguaggio” of the regime. The ONB was named in honour of a popular figure of Nationalist mythology stemming from the Risorgimento. Balilla was the name of a young boy who threw the first stone which, reportedly, hit an officer of the occupying Austrian army in Genoa in 1746. The officer had ordered common people to help free a cannon from the mud. The little boy’s brave action began the popular revolt which freed Genoa from the Austrian . The important story exemplifies the 20 domination mythology around children acting as full citizens in the Fascist state.  At Torre Ballila the tower is again highly distinctive with similar small square windows and a dormitory section raised above the ground on a plinth. Regarding the interior, the ramp system is identical, culminating in a similar web of concrete tracery. However, there are important changes as well.  33  First of all, from the exterior, the tower, less three floors,  is more squat-looking, not coincidentally,  a perfect cube. The rib treatment which furthered the perception of height at the seaside is gone and instead of a white stucco finish, the mountainside Colonia is faced with a reddish brick. Set in the alpine flowers, the earth color of the finish is quite beautiful. The real difference structure  —  ,  though,  is that the tower is the only  there are no subsidiary appendages such as  the stairwells and services wings at “Edoardo Agnelli”. Within the building this separation is articulated as three distinct levels of usage.  A sub—basement contains all the services,  including  kitchens. A second area is demarcated around the entrance, more contiguous refectory which doubles as recreation area. The third, accessed by two facing semi—circular stairwells,  is the dormitory ramp occupying  the bulk of the building. These levels are further articulated on the exterior by brick facing that separates the dormitory zone from the lower entrance register marked out within a peripteral ring of surface columns.  Again the tower is visually terminated by an attic, surmounted by a single flagpole centred directly in the  34 middle of the glass-tracery roof. Within, the arrangement is similar except, no lift,  in fact, no stairs at all,  only a peripteral ramp ascending to the top, by which the children made there way up and down. Significantly, in neither building are the “surveillants” bunked with the children but in separate quarters alongside the service areas.  4  Here at Salice d’Ulzio, Bonade’s latest spiraling tower, seems conciously to perfect the form, making it yet more absolute and pure. The purity exceeds the relative functional advantage of the form in the winding mountainside location providing the most efficient solution for dealing with wind—resistance. However, in an article on the Colonie published in an 1941 issue of Casabella Mario Lab o attributed the architect’s gravity 4 to aesthetic values:  ...thjs architectural contrivance, so rigid as to become ingeniously simple, reveals more aestheticism than Rationalism; and this is all the more evident in this latest variation . 21  Furthermore, the small windows appropriate to the more rigorous design could have been insufficient in the sometimes dark cloudy valleys between the Col Basset and Fraiteve mountain peaks.  35 There is also one question of a functional nature which needs to be addressed. The “Torre Balilla” was completed in 1937 but according to records 22 never actually housed anyone until 1981 when the project was transformed as a residence. Therefore, the “Torre Balilla” was a culmination of design strategies, which, for reasons unknown, never fulfilled it’s promise. However,  it’s similarity to “Edoardo Agnelli”, where  children of Fiat did attend well past the end of the war, would suggest that it would have operated in very similar ways.  We can now return to the issue of the difference between the Fiat Colonie and those created under the Fascist regime.  In two 1942 Casabella articles Mario Labo  dealt with the different “types” of Colonia,  in an early  attempt to define what had been built in the . As noted before, he made distinctions 23 thirties between the seaside and mountain programmes, as well as the less frequent,  “elioterapiche” Colonie. He classifies  four basic types which were built for the various uses. First, the “village”, such as that designed by Ettore Sotsas near “Edoardo Agnelli” in Marina di Massa, second; the “tower”, such as we have seen, and by Nardi Greco at Chiavari, third, the “monoblock”; the most common, such as Pica’s at Marina di Ravenna and the “open plan”,  such  as Lenzi’s at S. Severa. Lab classifies a fifth type as  36 “contaminations”, where a vertical element finds it’s way into a horizontal sceme,  such as Peverelli’s scheme at  Rimini. The essential difference is in “in the debate, or more exactly, the rivalry, between vertical or horizontal 24 development . ”  The Colonia at Marina di Massa of Sotsas, of the “village” type,  is organized and appears like an  industrial factory. It is a very long horizontal building with the “factory” facing the ocean. Four rows of horizontal windows stretch the length, equal in height. Behind are secondary buildings, displaced like “auxiliary . It was designed in 1938, could house 1O16 25 plants” children and was financed by the Federazione dei Fasci di Combattimento di Torino:  the PNF. What is significant  here is that it really does look like an International Style modernist factory and Fiat,  if they had wanted to  could easily have designed their Colonie in such manner  —  which would be quite fitting. That Fiat did not choose this more obvious allusion is of decisive importance, because in truth they did design their Colonie to resemble a factory  —  their own.  A tower form was used on only for one other Colonia, Nardi Greco’s Chiavari. Nardi Greco’s building is in plan a rectangle with a semi—circle, similar to the wings at “Edoardo Agnelli”.  It was built in 1935, two years after  37  Edoardo Agnelli”, housed 450 and was commissioned Fiat 11 by the PNF of Genova.  The possibility that Nardi Greco’s  design emulated aspects of Fiat’s Colonia is not documented but would appear likely. It is nine stories, the floorplan repeated with a concrete spine and side wings, much like Fiat’s seaside camp. However, the signature ramp system of Fiat is removed,  in favor of a  traditional floor arrangement, but the similarity between the two lies in the efficient use of site: a site of 100,000 m 2  .  30,000 m 3 on  Labo, in this regard makes an  interesting point:  The saving in the built area certainly does not compensate for the greater cost of foundations and structure, and the dependance on mechanical circulation is substantial . 26  Fiat’s ramp might have seemed not only expensive but perhaps even eccentric or even functionally irrelevant.  W1y then did Fiat build the Lingotto ramps, the Sestrieres hotel, and then the two Colonie with this method, which with the complex concrete construction of the ramps, must have been doubly expensive?  A third type was established by A. Pica, one of the  38 several architects who made submissions for a proposed Colonia for the woods near Ravenna in 1936 for 500 children sponsored by Montecatini. It was never built but Pica’s drawing eloquently elucidates the third type. It is a single building without wings, additions or subsidiary “plants”. single window” faces the sea,  “A  “divided only by mullions and  horizontal spandrels” , rigorous and monumental. In the 27 lovely chiaroscuro drawing, relevant to Fiat’s Colonie, Pica breaks the horizontality of the scheme with an expressionistic device which recalls the ramps of Fiat  —  a  coiling bridge ramp is his solution for the village children accessing the site without crossing the busy lido strip. This ramp is the closest thing to Bonade-Bottino’s heliocoids in all the Colonie and moreover in all Italian design of the 1930’s.  Nevertheless, the rounded or tower form is seldom found in any of the Colonie. Where it does appear,  it is  incidental such as at Ravenna and non—functioning as at Mazzoni’s Calaxnbrone water towers of 1935. Lenzi’s S. Severa Colonia of 1933 has a tower block of four stories but is of the “contaminated” type mentioned by Labo, employing characteristics of all the types employing series of buildings, wings, and a “tower” within an open plan. But the tower is small and integrated into the rest of the horizontally inclined building, hardly “dominant”. Nardi Greco built a second “tower” Colonia at Rovegno in 1934, but  39 the tower portion of a building primarily of the “monoblock” type is really a stylized clock tower, and not really functional either. Eugenio Faludi built the Colonia Marina Montecatini in 1938 with a rectangular open frame water tower with an ascending ramp, and in many senses this is the closest to what Fiat did, but again it was not a dormitory. This an interesting comparison also because we see the different solutions reached by another private industrial concern, the giant Montecatini company. In an interview for the 1988 catalogue, Pica was asked about his unique ramp at Ravenna. He said of it:  The requirement was specific and functional, because there was a need for a ramp to keep the children’s circulation clear of the road . 28  Therefore it is clear that the intentions of Bonade-Bottino for Fiat and Pica were different in reagards to their ramps. He was also asked about the Montecatini water tower. Was this expressing something? “That” he said,  intriguingly,  “was for the architect to decide, not the client” . Would 29 the same assessment hold true for the Fiat commission as well? What was the input of the firm on such matters?  Therefore it is surprising that the literature on the Fiat projects is so spare, and these questions of intention unanswered. The Exhibition Catalogue of 1988 took the first  40 step toward including these buildings in the history of architecture, and answering these questions. The article .4  begins,  “The work of Bonade-Bottino represents the most  radical attempt to provide a typological identity for the . Though we must be extremely careful when we 30 Colonie” use such a term, we should also recall that Labo, writing in 1942, used the term,  “type”,  to define the formal and  stylistic differences in the Colonie. The second significant reference to Fiat’s Colonie in the 1988 catalogue concerns onad-Bottino himself. The passage almost reads as mundane, yet it precisely defines the direction of this paper from this point forward,  for the first time connecting the Fiat  Colonie to the use of the heliocoidal ramps at the Lingotto plant:  Bonade—Bottino collaborated with Matte-Trucco on the Fiat Lingotto works in Turin (1926-7). This building was to remain an important point of reference,  in  terms both of organization of the programme as a process, and of the formal solution of the spiral ramps . 31  This sets the central question of the remainder of this thesis, namely the reason why the Fiat company and its architect’s and designers decided to use the circular configuration and internal curving ramp against all current thinking on resolving the design issues of the Colonia.  41 CHAPTER THREE  FIAT AND ARCHITECTURAL PATRONAGE  The Agnelli family, founders of Fiat, were part of an emergent class  —  already well established in Western  Europe but practically non—existent in Italy before the 1860’s  —  the petit bourgeoise. The family had been small  land holders around the town of Villar Perosa, thirty miles from Turin. Their small scale farming was transformed in the nineteenth century by advances in production of silk weaving and in 1853 purchased theY traditional Villa and holdings of the della Perosa’s, one of many noble families in Italy who did not make the transition into industrial production . Friedman 1 commented that,  “the acquisition of this villa was the  start of a process of upgrading the social status of an historically undistinguished family” . Tomaso di 2 Lampedusa’s novel Ii Gattopardo documents the change of power that typifies the rise of families like the Agnelli’s and the passing of the traditional aristocratic families. The Sicilian Prince of Sauna recognizes the passing of the old world to the new with an all important distinction  —  the new man in Italy, he said,  than what you call prestige, he has power” . 3  “he has more  42 Intent upon establishing aristocratic credentials, Giovanni Agnelli, the founder of Fiat,  served as an  officer in the cavalry of the House of Savoy, centered on Turin, under whose king, Vittorio Emmanuel II, the peninsula came to be unified . The Savoy capital 4 attracted intellectuals and middle—class bougeoisie who became statesmen, like Count Cavour. Turin became a magnet for all the new power brokers of Risorgimento Italy, and Agnelli was soon associated with the future leaders of the modern Italian state . That Turin, the 5 first capital of modern Italy,  in the 1890’s became the  home of Fiat, which soon became Italy’s largest industrial concern is no coincidence.  Thirty years saw Italy go from occupied nation of backwardness to bold innovator. The change occurred so swiftly that new fortunes were made by those who rose quickly enough and embraced the future. was, as Metternich said,  Until 1861 Italy  “only a geographical  . 6 expression”  In class as,  Ii Gattopardo Lampedusa identified this new “the jackals” who come at the end of a glorious  era of monarchs and dynasties. The Sicilian prince, Don Fabrizio,  aristocratic protagonist of Lampedusa’s novel  tells a man of the “new modern administration”:  ...it will be different, but worse. We were the  43 Leopards and Lions,  those who will take our place  will be little jackals, hyenas; and the whole lot of us, Leopards, jackals and sheep, we’ll all go on thinking ourselves the salt of the earth . 7  As the capitol moved south from Turin to Rome, Turin momentarily seemed to lose it’s centrality, but in 1898 came news of a new invention, and in July 1899,  “the horseless carriage”  four years before Henry Ford set up his  auto company in Michigan, Giovanni Agnelli and his partners opened Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino: FIAT. Cesare de Seta states:  Torino...essa e sopratutto gia dagli inizi del secolo, Agnelli.  la citt della Fiat e di Giovanni Ii capitalismo italiano ha qui le  radici piu profonde e presenta ii suo volto piu efficiente nel campo deli’  industria  . 8 neccanica  Agnelli,  the Piemontese,  also had extremely good  political foresight and “saw from the start the need to cultivate good relations with the politicians in . The Turin connections from the heady days of 9 Rome” Risorgimento soon paid off. Agnelli in those days had befriended a local politician in Turin. By the 1890’s the friend, Giolitti, was Prime Minister. This relationship  44  paid huge dividends in the Libyan conflict in 1911. Fiat was one of the major manufacturers of war material for the troops fighting the Ottoman Turks: from trucks and ambulances to machine guns and airplane engines in what transpired to herald a heightened sense of nationhood and achievment of the much desired “great power” status, a central promise of the Risorgimento . Fiat thus became 10 associated with the great national victory as well as receiving substantial government orders. The 1 relationship, between industry, power and government grew closer in 1914 with Italy poised to enter the “Great War”.  Italian indusrialists in general supported the entry of Italy into the war, seeing even greater profits, and can be seen as partially responsible for propelling Italy into a conflict the majority of the populace, outside of the “excessive” interventionists, group, did not support 12  —  such as the Futurist  but such was the power now  held by the new industrialists. Agnelli, along with many other industrialists now backed an ex—Socialist interventionist who equally desired war, another connection on the rise: Mussolini, before he ever came to any great prominence.  “Thus began the fat years for  . 3 Fiat”  With munitions and vehicle orders pouring in, a new  45 factory was necessary for Fiat and a large plot was purchased on the outskirts of Turin, in place of the original and now hopelessly outdated plant within the city on Corso Dante . The noted historian, Martin 14 Clark, says that Agnelli became the “de facto Royal Family” with this move, which was sparked after visiting the new Ford plants in Michigan in 191215. On his return a fellow—industrialist asked him whether he thought the American methods of mass-production of cheap cars and efficient factories Apparently,  would work in Italy.  “...Agnelli avoided answering. His eyes  lighted up briefly but his face which I was scrutinizing, remained impassive. He changed the conversation 16 rapidly . ” This new building was of decisive importance, and realizing that, Agnelli built not just a factory but a monument to the moment. Concurrently the record attests to significant shifts in company policy towards their workers which coincides with the enormous disruption following the war and the growing labor movement in the factories in the now industrialized north of Italy. Moral and social welfare begins to enter the terminology of the firm, with it’s massive work force now experiencing the social ills of nations already industrialized, such as Germany and England.  Fiat begins to show signs of a growing awareness of literature to handle these new aspects of the firms  46  growth. At this early stage it is not clear specifically which texts Agnelli came in contact with but there was a plethora of material from which to extract solutions. One such well—known study was the Englishman Budgett Meakin’s 1905 study Model Factories and Villages. Meakin, a self—proclaimed “lecturer on industrial betterment” begins his preface by defining the purpose of such a study as, to “promote the moral and social welfare of ...employees, in hope of provoking others to like good . The examples he cites are he says, 17 works” actual experience of money  —  “the  making men”. Herein we  encounter the notion of morality through labor:  ...the three most important matters for attention should be health, morals and education...because a vigorous employee can do more work . 18  Though such concerns appear relatively innocuous recent writers have become increasingly critical of the power the new industrialists had to do ill as much as to do “good works”.  “The factory is a system of regulation as well as a system of production,” Robin Evans opens his article “Regulation and Production” in the 1976 Lotus special 19 on factories. But the conventional wisdom has issue it that the factory came as a consequence of industry,  47 and the great inventors serving only society’s progress. Challenging this notion, Evans asks,  “is it not possible  that the factory was brought into being as a social organization” and that the new machines “only rendered this arrangement more purposeful and more ? Evans’ article proposes that: 20 profitable”  ...the prisons set out to create a disciplined, orderly and submissive body of labor through the use of authority and force alone, yet the factories were filled with echoes of this same effort toward moral control ’ 2 .  The late industrialization of Italy, furthermore offers some interesting reflections upon this discourse. The factory in Italy came as the most potent signal of the new economy and nationhood,  and Agnelli, looking at the  British and American experiences came to recognize that whomever ran these new machines could run the whole nation. Therefore the specific technology for the new factory and the degree to which it would aid production while engendering regulation was seen by Agnelli as being of considerable importance in addressing these issues in the built form.  The Fiat Lingotto works was started in 1920 by Fiat’s own engineer—architect Giacomo Matte—Trucco. The  48  main functions were up and running by 1924. clearly influenced by the  It was  work of French concrete  architect Auguste Perret,and its multi—storey concrete frame and continuous ramps recall his Paris garages. It was controlled,  in terms of its interior layout and  facade, by a grid of columns and beams. But it possessed a powerful symbol of modern technology: an elliptical concrete test track that encircled the factory roof. The rooftop track became a popular point of reference for Northern architects and for this reason Lingotto has figured to some degree in the development of the machine aesthetic in architectural history. But it’s credentials were immediately accepted because of the praise of one of modernist architecture’s primary figures, Le Corbusier. In 1925 Le Corbusier referred to the factory as “one of industry’s most exciting spectacles” 22 and it formed an important starting point for the Radiant City in 1935.  In  1923 in his seminal work Vers Une Architecture he had included three photographs of the Fiat test track celebrating its dynamic, aesthetic virtues concluding pages.  —  on the  In that respect those underscore one of  Corbusier’s opening sentences.  “Aesthetic engineering  Architecture”, Le Corbusier wrote,  —  “two integral, related  arts, one in full flower, the other in painful . 23 decline”  But the Fiat track was moreso especially remarkable  49 because it surmounted the massive factory, noisily inhabited by some 10,000 workers laboring in daily shifts. Hans Hollein the “Postmodern” Austrian architect said that “its size can best be judged by combining the ground plans of Versailles and the Crystal Palace” . 24 The sense of Lingotto’s authoritarian allusion had been stressed in the 1930’s by Italian architect Edoardo Persi’co who saw in it “an ancient order of , while Reyner Banham attached another 25 obedience” meaning to the track writing that “the Lingotto above all needs Metal! Petrol! Noise!  Smell!  Proletarian  Curses! ,,26  The structure of the factory depended upon a rigid grid three modules across the width of the building’s ground plan. These defined the different shop functions each linked to “connection and distribution” modules which further connect with each succesive floor, originally by vertical elevators but from 1925, by heliocoidal ramps at each end. Those ramps became key to the whole production system and by a series of experiments aimed at developing further what Fiat must have seen as being a system of production of the highest possible efficiency.  The assembly process begins at ground with raw materials and progresses through body work, coach work,  50 finishing etc.  from north to south, ramp by ramp, ending  up a finished product on the rooftop testing track. Here the car would be put through its paces and then brought down to the nearby railyards by way of the flanking, immense south exit ramp. They were large enough to allow the great number of cars in production to move efficiently up through the different stages of production in this  unique multi—storey structure. Lingotto received  so much attention because of the popular image of the track and yet the ramps which made it all possible and are equally, if not greater, engineering feats have remained in relative obscurity, partially explaining the neglect of the later Colonie buildings of Fiat, which are clearly derived from the Lingotto ramps.  The reasons for the building of the ramps is equally important in understanding the inherent meaning in the later multi—storey vertically inclined Fiat buildings.  In  1923 after a year of production at full speed in the new facilities:  ...emerser alcuni inconvenienti di ordine funzionale, probabile conseguenza dei tempi di collaudo variabili per le singole autoniobili: il permanere in pista dei veicoli per tempi maggiori di quelli previsti t.eoricamente deve aver provocato ingorghi davanti ai montacarichi e, quel che piu contava, scompensi nei  51 tempi delle operazioni successsive. Ii fatto non s’accordava con ii rigido “taylorismo all’italiana”, al quale doveva uniformarsi ogni singola operazione nello stabilomento . 27  The Fiat engineers were set to the task of resolving the backlogs and Matt-Trucco apparently presented the idea for the oval-shaped heliocoidal ramps . 28 The ramps were necessary due to the unique nature of the muiti—storey factory which previously had relied on lifts and circular heliocoidal ramps distributed throughout the plant of a much smaller smaller size. Both of these designs will be discussed at a later time in terms of their contribution toward the eventual use at the Colonie of simliar ramps.  This example of plant organization reflects the industrial doctrine of “Taylorism”. What later came to known as “scientific management” was developed by F.W.Taylor while a gang boss in a Philadelphia steel factory in the 1880’s. A controversy with workers led to an accurate measurement of what constituted a day’s work or any single operation . The standardized work 29 process in Lingotto is an adaptation of this theory, which had an enormous international impact.  In the Italian text Venti Progetti:  ii futuro per  52 Lingotto, documenting the 1984 redevelopment process of the plant, the production process is described in some detail. The workers were subdivided into two shifts. The total number would have exceeded ten thousand.  In each of  the main shops, defined by the distribution modules, worked, on average,  1000 employees including the  technicians (engineers etc.) and the general shop workers. Above them was a shop foreman in the hierarchy of the plant, the “capo reparto”.  Within each department was a production shop with time tests, the “analisi tempi” which established and verified the pace and production objectives. What is interesting is the minute detailed specifications for each process and documentation for workers who rarely worked in other departments. The work cycles were recorded on cards “on which each employee signed personally for the time of production...in minutes and hundredths of minutes”. Further, those on the assembly lines were required to also mark daily in the obligatory “brogliaccio”, or notebooks, the completed production. Every shop was divided into three or four departments and each department was formed by 4-8 squads of 50—120 30 shop-worker . s The use of the term squads is the first sign of Agnelli initiating specifically Fascist terminology if not ideas onto the shopfloor.  53  The analysis of the Fiat factory must also include analysis of the broad political context and the impact of labor unrest, especially to comprehend the huge disparity between the financial status of the Agnelli and their workforce. The Anglo—American social history of modern Italy tends to portray factory labor as what historian Victoria de Grazia calls,  “freely accepted and heroically  experienced discipline” . There was, however, noted 31 examples of labor unrest denoting an awareness of the deep exploitation.  In July 1919 Fiat workers took part in rioting, demonstrations and strikes, subsequently in April 1920 Fiat workers took part in the ten-day “general . At the time, the Marxist leader Antonio 32 strike” Gramsci wrote that,  “Turin is a modern city. Capitalist  activity throbs in it with the crashing din of massive workshops which concentrate tens of thousands of proletarians into a few thousand cubic meters... the human race is here divided into two classes ...we don’t have democrats and petty reformists” . By far “the 33 most famous example of labour militancy was the “occupation of the factories”.  In September 1920 over 400,000 workers “took over their factories or shipyards and expelled their managers and carried on working  —  sometimes at making barbed wire  54 or guns” . The occupation of Lingotto forced the new 34 working class into a more powerful position than they had ever experienced before, and implies a new conception of the relations between the worker and the factory . 35 This was  because, paradoxically,  it concentrated in one  large space what was scattered and unorganized outside it in the ghettos.  It seemed at the time a heroic victory  for the workers. So few years after the Russian revolution, it appeared the same might happen in Italy.  The reaction of  industrialists was predictably the  “call to order” which shortly found expression in the Fascist “squadristi” who broke workers rallies with clubs and fists . The “padrone”, who before 36 industrialization had controlled the peasant farmer had not been lost in the shift to the factories, and now begin to reappear when the masses were roused by militant Socialism. The tradition of the “padrone” has carried on right up to the present labor situation in Italy, then as now, still part feudalist in many ways. The monopoly on power is what Italians call “strapotere”  —  all—encompassing power.  Among the methods of control, there were several methods of “persuasion” available to the employers and the most discussed was “Fordism” . Agnelli and Ford 37 paid visits to each other’s factories over the years.  55 Ford had accustomed his workers to the drudgery of the standardized work process using his “doctrine of high wages”. Many Italian employers, unwilling or in many cases  ,  unable to pay more, rejected the ideas  . Agnelli was one of the few to see a way 38 outright around the issue by exploiting another aspect of “Fordism”  —  the provision of social services, of which  the Colonie would become the largest. After the collapse of the workers movement after the 1920 factory occupations and the onset of Fascism, Fiat’s management can be seen slowly beginning to implement social initiatives as incentives . However, now wanting to 39 control more firmly the workers and erradicate work slowdowns and strikes, Agnelli implemented more Fascist initiatives  —  as Victoria de Grazia has said,  “no longer  in the context of liberal reformism, but as powerful extensions of an authoritarian system of labor . Agnelli can be seen as allied with Fascism, 40 control” and for this relationship after the war was hunted down by vigilante bands of the Resistenza, narrowly escaping the same fate as Mussolini.  During the war however, the workers could not be allowed to disrupt the production of the plants because Agnelli’s “modus operandi” was to reap the maximum from the unprecedented oportunity for profit presented by the war. All other considerations were secondary and he  56 insisted that his workers were totally loyal to Fiat. As a further example of this corporate philosophy, during the war Fiat apparently also maintained contacts with not just the Fascists and the Nazis, but later the Allies and even the Resistance gained substantial financial support after Mussolini’s arrest and the German occupation in 194441.  There was no consideration of ideology,  scuples  or morality: the company’s profits were all and Agnelli was in contact with whomever might need his product.  By the late 1930’s Fiat had become a virtual state within a state,  in many ways above mere governments . 42  They used Giolitti for his influence when he was in power. Mussolini the same. When the regime faltered, like the Christian Democrats, they were already brokering with the members of the next likely power base in the position to grant favors next. To maintain its position Fiat used politics, financial protection and legislation . A 43 Fiat executive during the Fascist era has said,  “we would  be good Germans, we would be good Fascists, but we had to save Fiat. That was the company policy” , thinking 44 back to Ii Gattopardo the shift from aristocratic prestige to economic power it seems did produce what Don Fabrizio saw as the successors to the “lions and leopards”, what he called “hyenas and jackals”.  By the 1930’s the power wielded by Fiat and Agnelli  57 was, like an “arlecchino” in the Commed ia masked by many layers.  The House of Agnelli in Turin could be seen as  more powerful than the Turin-based Hou se of Savoy, who’s king, Vittorio Emmanuel III, was a pupp et to the Duce. Indeed the Agnelli were viewed the natu ral . suc 4 ces 5 sors The family was becoming so pow erful that they rivalled not only the Savoys but even the Medici, the Gonzaga, Sforza or Visconti dynasti es. The automobile became so successful a product that the powerful wealth accumulated by Giovanni Agnelli, by his death in 1945 was $1 4 . Bil lio 6 n  The state within a state of Agnelli is like a feudal barony,  a clan. They became the most powerful of the  “Razza Padrone”  -  the race of patrons, who’s position  within Italy is below the surface, not unlike a mafia, but equal to the Catholic Church, the corruption of patronage politics, or the masonic lodg e. This is a nation which places it’s ultimate fait h, not in government, but in the structure of the family and by 1945 the most powerful of all was the Villar Perosa . Ag 4 nel 7 li’s Fiat’s built statements of the inter—war period,  the Lingotto and the Colonie, reflect this new  power and contain other currents whic h might disrupt production. Production, being the main theme of Fiat, was to read in their buildings from a dist ance, above even the local church spires.  towering  58 CHAPTER POUR  THE SIGNIPICNCE OF THE FIAT CO)Q(ISSION  These buildings, in the final analysis, must be seen as Agnelli’s buildings. Through the insular design team of Bonade—Bottino and Matte—Trucco, Fiat’s architecture was haute—bourgeois, defending in their built form the conservatism of Agnelli’s class against revolutionary tendencies and radicalism. This architecture is not unlike Piacentini’s  —  a sort of middle ground between  revolutionary and traditional . Yet Agnelli’s 1 convervatism was Northern and Piacentini’s that of Rome. Therefore the values the buildings upheld were unique to the emerging bourgeoise of Turin. Thomas Schumacher said of Piacentini:  ...[hej praised the “older generation” of modern architects over the young International Style architects, Bonatz, Bohm, Ostberg, Saarinen, Perret architects who from the thirties onward, have been considered transitional figures in the history of the Modern Movement . 2  Perhaps this is what is also at work beneath the surface of the Colonie buildings of Fiat  —  that the design  notions which inform them reflect Perret, and are  59 therefore Proto—modern, despite their late date. Perhaps this is what separates them from the dominantly Rational aspect of the institution. Fiat’s Colonie are complex, Northern and radical technologically  —  but also not too  modern, needing to contain such tendencies due to the class of the projected users and the ever present potential of Socialist uprising. The buildings, then are a political statement? Liberal thought was intended to be extracted from them. The use of precedents, such as Perret’s multi—storey garages is not just stylistic but part of a deeply entrenched political philosophy, and historical tradition.  Piacentini published only one building by the predominantly abstract functionalist Gruppo 7, and it happened to be a Colonia project  —  Carlo Rava’s 1928  Colonia Pavillion at the Milan Fair but, as Schumacher points out,  “shown at night to minimize the whiteness of  the volumetric expression” . Agnelli and the Fiat 3 architects similarly advocate a “middle of the road architecture”  -  advocating change while adhering to  traditional, politically stable values. This distinction brings to mind Piacentini’s oft—repeated phrase, that there be,  “two architectures, one in underwear, the other  in evening 4 dress” Fiat’s Colonie’s association with . the more monarchist, state-oriented Piacentini buildings are a statement of political and philosophical preservation of conservative mores.  60  Yet the association of values goes deeper than this surface comparison of the Fiat buildings and those of Piacentini. In his article,  “Where Rational Architecture  is Unreasonable,” Piacentini argues for the symbolic associations of the vertical versus the horizontal . 5 The vertical was the direction of traditional styles, the horizontal was the direction of the modern style, made possible by the cantilever and frame construction. horizontal suits domestic architeture,  “The  intimate, modest;  the vertical suits monumental 6 architecture” This is . the type of statement which so enraged the modern movement and caused Piacentini to be cast as Mussolini’s lackey.  In the light of “post—modernism”, the statement  has a new resonance. Piacentini also argued for the use of reinforced concrete  -  all of Fiat’s buildings revel in  their love for the material.  Now, when turning back to Fiat’s buildings of the thirties, the same arguments seem to hold. The vertical was stressed and the nature of such height necessitated the building of ramps. The very nature of the Fiat Colonie is verticality.  Is this another political  statement that theirs was a “traditional” architecture and therefore,  legitimate? The concrete preference  equally looks back to the stable association of Perret and the proto—modern stance.  If nothing else, the Fiat  61 buildings were expressions of confidence for the ductile material. Again, without it the ramp structures and the verticality would not have been possible.  The dilemna, is of course, how to maintain modernity in technology without adopting a machine aesthetic, for reasons of political association, but also, that it not devour national characteristics. This was, curiously, also the debate we recall from the “Rationalist 7 and in this sense such a characteristic Manifesto” could be considered a generally Italian dispostion. However, the way in which the groups resolved the issue were entirely different.  Obviously the ramps at Lingotto informed the Fiat Colonie buildings, even if no such connection has been explicated.  Significantly, while the Lingotto plant was  designed by Matte, few people have recognized that the ramps, added in 1925, were designed in tandem with the architect of both the Fiat Colonia buildings, Vittorio Bonade-Bottino.  In his book Centenario Bonade makes a  statement, which seems to confirm my suspicions:  Mi pare abbastanza curioso che questa “affiliazione”  (tra)...le rampe alla Colonia  di Marina di Massa..e Lingotto non abbia trovato posto in tutte le stone dell’architettura italiana...questa affiliazione  62 rapprasenta uno degli aspetti insospetta di 8 cui . ..  Yet, it is in the original source for these ramps and the multi—storey design of Lingotto itself where it is possible to deconstruct the meaning and intention behind their use in a type it had never been used in before: the tower. Or had it?  As noted, there is a strong Italian tradition of revolving ramps. An early example of a similar structure is in Bramante’s revolving stair at the Belvedere. Palladio did similar constructions and drawings as did the 18th Century Venetians. Of course, Turin itself would have been a source for its centrally-planned buildings by Guarini,  such as at San Giovanni  —  part of the  conservative bourgeoise culture of Fiat and it’s architects that would undeniably inform their philosophical and their design aesthetics. There is a strong northern Italian tradition of interchange which is part of the “stable” vocabulary of forms to which the modern architects in Italy in general looked to, with the Risorgimento mentality as their inspiration.  Indeed, the  architectural culture of the day would have had a rich 4%  history of the form. Specific to Matte and Bonade, though,  the form reached them in a very specific way.  63 The specific technology for building the ramps in reinforced concrete and the affinity for the multi—storey or intensive building belongs to the engineer Enrico Bonicelli, a teacher at the Turin School of Engineering. The importance of Bonicelli we find in Matte’s first design for Lingotto of 1914, designed on Bonicelli’s “wheel system”, which has enormous implications in the later buildings. The similarity in the Bonicelli drawings and the Matte proposal are undeniable. Such a radial configuration also was part of the traditional philosophical and design history.  Thinking back to the similarity in prison and factory designs, which were being developed simultaneously in Italy as institutions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars of architectural history will immediately recognize a similarity in Bonicelli’s plan to 19th century workhouses and prison plans such as Baltard’s 1829 example from his Architectonigraphie. These well—distributed ideas would equally have been part of the material taught to the architectural and engineering professions also emerging as institutions at the same time.  The notion of a commonality of design between prisons, workhouses and factories would pose grave questions as to the purpose and specifically the  64 treatment of worker and inmate were the commonalities of the types not already part of a discourse which relates regulation and production. To repeat for emphasis, Robin Evan’s 1976 article asks,  “is it not possible that the  factory was brought into being as a form of social organization and that the new machines of the industrial revolution only rendered this arangement more purposeful and profitable?” Could it be that the built statements of Agnelli—Fiat engendered methods of “persuasion” which made little distinction between modern factory and modern prison  —  perhaps the only two modern institutions the  working class of Turin might ever set foot in?  But did the prison and by extension the factory form Fiat’s children’s Colonie? At Marina di Massa what possible sources could Bonade, trained and schooled under Bonicelli and Matte, have possibly referenced for the unique form of this building? One historical precedent in radial plans,  in the prison type, which looks uncannily  similar is William Cubitt’s Radial Prison Plan of 1824. We see a similar articulation on the surface reminiscent of “Edoardo Agnelli”’s pilasters,  similarity in the  division and distribution of the interior and a central opening. Looking at the Colonia at Salice d’Ulzio, again we see a similar distribution and articulation.  Another indirect source which enjoyed widespread  65 print was  Jeremy Bentham’s Penetentiary Panopticon of  1791. The Panopticon had originally been devised by Bentham in 1787 for a factory at Critchef in Russia. The panopticon’s great claim was the universal surveillance of the prisoner work force by the master in the central . The character of a convict judged by the 9 kiosk quantity  and value of their work: profit, thereby  becomes the measure of redemption. Similarly profit was Agnelli’s measure of the factory worker’s worth to Fiat.  Where the plans of the Fiat Colonie and Panopticon differ is in the central kiosk and the discreet surveillance  —  but as has been seen already the Colonia,  particularly Fiat’s with their regimentation and militarized atmosphere was a place of intense scrutiny at all times; so perhaps the comparison is valid in this regard also. But, what is important is being cognizant of a vocabulary of forms available to Bonicelli and passed on to his students Matte and Bonade, one of which they surely would have known being the panoptic option. Such types would have formed the basis of traditional thought which industry,  in the 1920’s still grappling with  technology, would have entertained as a resolution of how to deal with the new institutions, arriving all at once in Italy, and the changing technological needs for the various building programmes, while at the same time needing to stay clear of the revolutionary language of form and style inherent in the International Style.  66  These comparisons are not to say that Bonicelli, Matte or Bonade studiously applied Cubitt or Bentham to their plans but that they were trained in an architectural theory and practice which worked with models of successful and distributed plans of the past, and that they were all aware that maintenance of the status quo had been powerfully affected by the use of such forms. The issue, after the International Style, with a supposedly new canon of forms,  is that such  antecedents were part of a discredited past, associated with a culture undermined by the war. The issue today could be that they were part of an architectural culture which found such associations acceptable. These associations have been seen to further exemplify the unwillingness or inability of traditional positions, even among the supposed avant—garde within architectural discourse to substantially address the role of architecture as economic and cultural commodities . 10  If the ascending ramp is the leitmotif of Fiat, further symbols of production can be read on the exterior of the 1933 tower at Marina di Massa where the central axle seems inserted into giant cogwheels in the low wings in which are located the services and communal facilities: the abstraction to a giant machine if not intended is certainly read as such, to say nothing of the  67 phallic reference of this “dominant sign.” The whole facility functions at peak engineering efficiency while incorporating a formal abstraction Fiat felt to be not only efficient but engendering regulation and minim izing disruptions of the system of any kind. Therefore the Fiat Colonie must be seen as a form of factory building. Why else would they use such a loaded but encoded indu strial “linguaggio”?  The 1937 tower at Sauce d’Ulzio furthers the abstraction to a pure geometry by accomodating the facilities in the semi—basement, so that here we see Bonicelli’s “wheel system” having been integrated into the function of dormitory by way of the factory functio n ramps of the 1914 Matte design, the 1922 circular heliocoid distribution modules, the 1925 North! South ramps, the Sestrieres ski—lodge and the first Fiat Colonia at Marina di Massa in 1933. The central void allows low ceilings thereby permitting a maximum number of revolutions of the ramp.  Intending the maximum  efficiency, the maximum production must be the end result. Bonade with his spiral towers now seemingly capable of containing any function seemed to march his aesthetic and social goals higher with each attempt. Indeed the unrepeatable opportunities for total enviromerit afforded by the design of these build ings seemed to embody the reformatory hopes of Colonia  68 architecture as a whole, and to a certain degree, the modern movement generally.  However, the technology of Lingotto was outmoded in 1939 with the building of the horizontally planned Mirafiori plant. The inefficiency of the ramps versus the continuous conveyor was acute within ten years. Did Fiat suddenly become less endeared with what until 1937 seemed the embodiment of Fiat’s corporate philosophy? Could this explain Sauce d’Ulziio’s abandonment? The shift to horizontal structures, necessarily represents a shift in the corporate philosophy, which requires some speculation as to why such a shift occurs. Albert Kahn designed a structure similar to Lingotto for Ford using the “intensive” factory, but his Highland Park was a reverse of Lingotto. Goods flowed downwards,  in “gravity  feed”, where Lingotto worked up to the roof, Highland Park started at the top and worked down. Yet by the mid— twenties Ford can be seen shifting to horizontal factories. Did Agne].li first build in this manner in emulation of Ford and American—Taylorism? Kahn’s Ford Highland Park could be seen as Fiat’s model for multi—storey buildings, but Fiat seems to have adopted the concept too late. By the time Lingotto was underway, Ford had  begun The Glass Plant in 1922, which with the  horizontal emphasis was of another era entirely than the “intensive” type. Nonetheless Fiat built in the intensive manner until 1937.  69 That Fiat’s 1939 replacement for Lingotto, the horizontal Mirafiori, rejected the tower and the ramp system would suggest that by that time they had become aware of the drawbacks of the once revolutionary design system. The years of Fiat’s “intensive” buildings roughly parallel those of the Fascist regime  —  1923 to 1937. By  1939, the climate had changed dramatically in Italy, the Fascists like the heliocoidal ramp were in decline.  Neither could Lingotto withstand the increased loads imposed by the modern heavy machinery on its multi—layered floors, and after 1939 and until its closure in 1984 manufactured only body parts . The 12 technology had begun to pass Fiat by, and,  if for no  other reason than what we understand to be the company philosophy,  “do anything to save Fiat”,  it would be  probable that by 1939 the war against union militancy was perceived to have been won and the practicalities of business demanded practical responses over more philosophical ones. After the Colonie no other Fiat building took this form, and since the war only one other Italian building, Franco Albini’s 1950 INA Offices, took this unique form. There was,  it seems, a period of 10—15  years where this technology appeared to Fiat the peak of efficiency and the embodiment of the age.  70 Italy between the years 1925 and 1937 witnessed a passage from the control of company productivity to the control of social productivity  —  buildings of this period  are documentary evidence of the capitalist monopolies in Italy in formation, and during the period of Fiat’s intensive buildings they became Italy’s largest.  So  perhaps in the final analysis they were indeed the embodiment of the age specific to Italy and perhaps the corporate form of Fiat’s interwar buildings did make the impact that they were designed to. The buildings of Fiat signify,  in this sense, a unique treatise on the social  and ideological shift in the nature of modern Italy. For Fiat each phase of plant reorganization and expansion during the period was accompanied by a corresponding growth in the company’s welfare and recreational . Fiat’s social services were conceived as 3 facilities’ integral elements in the production process. The Fiat Colonie at Marina di Massa and Sauce d’Ulzio advocated a military—like discipline consistent not only with their, and the regime’s, notion of an orderly society, but also with the rigorous organization deemed necessary in the highly mechanized mass—production firm. This is a classic ideological clash from which the capitalist—imperialist Fiat emerged,  like the Fascists, almost—totalitarian,  equating their proletarian elite employees with the front—line soldier in battle on the front—line of class—warfare: the factory. However, the Fascists passed  71 into history, whereas Fiat grew more powerful with each passing year. Fiat’s social welfare constructions were a second front: where even organized rest became work.  The children of Fiat workers attending such camps in essence perform the factory functions of both worker and product,  inhabiting the structure in a microcosmic manner  not unlike their father’s in the factory and coming down the ramp a “finished product”, as the paternalistic employer prepares the next generation of assembly line workers for the realities of the “new Italy” while simultaneously developing the consumption cycle toward an affluent society.  “Lingotto” in Italian means,  “ingot of gold”.  Agnelli obviously did think of his corporation as a precious commodity. Fiat’s buildings of the Fascist period are crafted as if by hand by a master goldsmith’ spinning the ductile materials into a work of great art, with all the inherent political messages of power which patronized Italian art had always represented. These buildings represented precious valuables and investments in the family fortune. The social hierarchies set up by these buildings with their working class users reinforce the fabric of traditional values by displaying the unattainable aspect of their abstract value. With a few pieces of “gold” Fiat reestablishes the “razza padrone”,  looking down from the villa on the laborers toiling in the fields.  Perhaps the unique nature of the Fiat Colonie within the institution of the Colonie as a whole can be better understood if the ideological attitudes of the firm and it’s founder are taken into account. And perhaps the significance of these hitherto poorly documented buildings can not only illuminate the intentions of the Fiat system and the firm’s place in Italian culture of the inter—war period but also better explain the nature of industrial power during the Fascist period.  73  fig.1 Giuseppe Terragni, Casa del Fascio, Como, 1932—36. Fascist rally in front of building 1936.  74  fig.2 Enrico del Debbio, Sports Complex, Rome, Foro Mussolini, 1937.  ._  .—.  4  ..  —S.—  fig. 3 Enrico del Debbio, Sports Complex, Rome, plan.  H  q  it •--  •1  It  II  II  i:i  it 0  fig.4 Terragni, Casa del Fascio, Como, plan.  75  fig.5 Marcello Piacentini, Boizano war Monument, 1928—31.  76  a-  -.  I -  F  r  fig.6 Open air gymnastics at the Colonie.  —  1-  11  IL  0)  -l.  I-.  1  ?  4.,  -J  CD  I  cPQ  CD  (ti-h  —1  79  fig.9/1O/11 (top) Uniformed marches, (middle) hygienic cleansing, (bottctn) free dental work at the Colonia Marina Fbntecatini, Cervia, 1938, Eugenio Faludi architect.  80  ff9.12 Sterilizers at the Colonia Climatico—Baj.neare, Formia, 1937, Giulio Minoletti architect.  fig.13/14 canteen and Wash basins at the Colonia Rosa Naltoni Mussolini, Calambrone, 1925-35, Angiolo Mazzoni architect.  82  a.  -  -  -:,b—-  —  -,.-  z  fiq.15 Outdoor showers at the Colonia Elioterapica, Legnano, 1938, BBPR architects.  wits ‘.00)  ‘-4 ‘.001  Ct  (DO)  own  0) (On  1-9) 0 ‘-‘in  LQ C) 01 H-ct D 0 H  H ‘-t tI H I-’- (0  no 0)  H H p-a  £ I-’- I-’.  (A)  84  fig.17 Sculptor Edoardo Paolozzi in group photo at. the colonia )QCVIII Ottobre at. Cattolica, 1932, Clemente Bursiri—Vici architect.  85  —S  r. r  • air,  fig.18 Children at play before the tower of the Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli, Marina di Massa, 1933, Vittorio Bonade-Bottino architect.  fig.19 Site of Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli, Marina di Massa from the beacbfront with tower rising on the right.  Z:’  1•1  I-h Ui  lI-•  I-.. CD  l-’cO  C-I-  Cl)  I-I  CD l-’  1.1.01  l-J Cl) CtU) 0 0) ct0)  C) l-• 01  hi.  Ct I-’  CDWzj  I-s. I.i. l.a.  I  .  ,:::  — ‘  — ‘—  ‘—  .  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  m  —  —  —  —  /  I’..  a aa a asj  \  saaaamsauaø  ii  r’4  •1  87  HH  • /  t  * 4  Cameraie/Dormitorics  fig.21 Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli, ground plan at left and tower sec tion at right.  Sezione IonitudnakLong!tudInaI senon  fig.22 Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli, Section.  88  fig.23 Fiat Colonia Edoa.rdo Agnelli, interior view showing “room” sections and bed arrangement.  fig.24 Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli, looking up to skylight roof through central void.  fig.25 Max Berg, Centenary Fchibition Hall, Breslau, 1913. Interior view looking up to pierced concrete roof.  P  •  fig.26 Donato Brainante, Staircase at the Belvedere, Vatican, Rome. Interior view looking up central void.  _;‘.•n  I;I .  V  OH  0  91  -  r.  I  —  fig.28 The cerenony of the “Alza Bandiera” as carried out on the beach at all the Marine Colonie of the 1930’s.  92  fig.29 Fiat Colonia “Torre Balilla”,: Sauce d’tJlzio, 1937, Vittorio Bonade-Bottino architect.  93  r rA’  ‘\\ ‘%ç  -  -  I iIftOPe%Yx\  1fTtfN 0111 I  I a a  a  <waw —a ‘  4---  —  a  —_  fig.30 Fiat Colonia Torre Balilla, interior view looking up central void to the segmented skylight roof.  _____  -  J••  1 -  ,.,.,———  -.t—-—..-—  ---——  —.  -  ..—..—  .—  fig.31 Fiat ColOnia Torre Balill a, interior view iooking onto aiiingS a t edge of the central void with bed rangeItle nt in the ckgroUnd.  ——  -I.  Di  P  cl-I-’  CD i-’•  ctJI,  QO  H)  CD ci  Wtzj 1 I-’. LQu  s.d.  P)H  CD  •1  b-’  I-’ I-’ Dl  cli  LQ i-’. D)  ‘Dl 1 I1I-’  b i-’ CD CD Dl  Ui  96  fig.34 Colonia Marina )QCVIII Ottobre, Marina di Massa, 1938, Ettore Sotsas and Alfio Guaitoli architects. Aerial view showing site with beach in front and Viale a Mare between.  97  fig.35 Colonia Marina, chiavari, 1935, Camillo Nardi-.Greco architect.  .etv •  •  :.  I  fig.36 Colonia Montecatini Competition 1936, Agnoldodomenico Pica architect, project drawing.  C  w I-’  0  i-a.  QJ QJ  Di  I-.’.  ‘-a. CD  Q U) t1  Cl CD  o  I-s. i-..  CD I-a. Cl- I.. PILQ C)  •  Cl)  t-  Di fltfi I1 • I.’. C) CflLQ CD I-I. W  0  •  ci  p-i.  l.J.  ct(D  H  Ii  co.  c0 ‘.0  100  fig.39 Vittorio Bonad-Bottino, architect/engineer, b. Thrin 1889, d.Turin 1979.  f.  I-’.  II  (OCD  :I-i. 0)  0  l-o  IILQ  CD i  0  9:.  o  (ti-h  ot’  DO 0) t’30  I—Il II  CD CtI-’ 1  Ct  0)  I-’O  J.  Cfl çt  I-,.  0  102  fig.41 1892: Lieutenant Giovanni Agnelli is third from left in the back in this Italian Cavalry “quadro storico”.  103  fig.42 1899: The first Fiat car produced, the  “3½  H.P.”. The driver is Tina de  Lorenzo a we11—knon actress of the day.  104  fig.43 The Libyan war; attack on the Turkish fort at Ain—Zara.  105  --  .-  -  -J i*  s  —.-  4.  —-  —  L  :  ;  I  I_-“  r  -  fig.44 The Fiat factories on Corso Dante in 1912, Turin.  fiq.45 Agnelli visiting Detroit with Henry Ford in 1928, with 1om he had tremendous rapport.  106  fig.46 October 1922, the Fascists Squadre enter Rome onto the Piazza del Popolo.  107  I  fig.47 Mussolini visiting Fiat Lingotto in 1932, with him is Senator Agnelli. Neither wears the black shirt.  108  fig.48 Giacomo Matte-Trucco, architect/engineer designer of Lingotto, in 1925.  •  I  I-a.  ‘.0-. t%)  ‘-0  Cl.  .tg  •1  CDO ctI  u1  C.,..  oI.h  Ok)  -  (J1I.b  C  1.1  cI  CD  CD  0 8 ‘*CD  1l1I  l-I.QI  CD  O3  Ml ! I.’. I.’.  0  4.  Hi  m1fj_[Luhjijjjj_u.}ij  CD II  CO  I-I.  11 t’J  ZH  op-a.  I—’  CD  CD  0  0  CD —  —  p3  •  o  • =w  2’J;  CD  0  CD  CD  !.  0 CD  0.  CD  C-C  CD CD 0 — C C-C 0 CD.,0  0  &  0 CD  3 g: CCD  0CD  wwrsj  OcD  C’.C)  -, C--. IDi < 0  CD  C.iJ  CD  —  o  Q  CD  0  CD  3 CD  CD D  3  CD CD  oir  CD  =  C 0 0  0 Z CD  3  -.  3 o CD  2.CD  CD  - .  CD  6  N  .3 -3 3 Di_WCD  CD  I-  Ui  r)r’J  CD  •..IDC  a  DC  0 CD  CD  0.  CD  Di  CD  0  0. CD  D CD CD  CD  o  0 CD N  in  CD  0  yo  0 CD  CD  D.CD  N  rC  CO CD  I Jil  I-b1-t( 0  Ct  p  iQgfl.  U)  ::r o  ZQ..  0)  a.  L  -  Hi-1 . • 0) PJ l— ctD CD j U) 1Z 0) ct I-’• I I-a. 0 0) t%)  rn  0(D0O  CD 1 ctcttl 0) çt  o  H 1 tt I-i. 0 0 II I.JL ct-a ii  115 6’’  /  8  /  \\\  /G/ / /  //  \  // \e\ /// \ \ 1.?!  \\  8  _/  \.•. ___f  t\7/ 6  5  fig.59 Bonicelli ‘s “Nheel System” for factory production with a central distribution node.  ) N  fig.60 Baltard’s “Prison Design” from 1829 rchitectonographie, plan.  nm;\  4/4  116  •.p,a  14 fig.61 William Cubitt’s “Radial Prison Plan”, 1824, plan.  ?.  117  fig. 62 Jeremy Bentham’ s “Panopticon Prison”, plan, 1791.  118  —  I  —  I  I  I  I  I  — —  I  I  I  I  ri — —  11111111  1111111  U  —  —  i! : •  —  U  —  U  —  I  I  I  I  j  I  I  — •  r  fig.63 Franco Albini, INA Office Building, Parma, 1950-4. Section showin g the use of an uninterrupted ramp device at the back of the building.  119  ;;;::  7  _*-_  -  I  —--  -<‘4  —  %:ç  ,  --‘r4j  ---  -  —  C-  .—-----—----  —  -  :>  fig.64 Fiat Mirafiori, 1939.  --:  120 BIBLI OGRAPHY  Allardyce, Gilbert.  “What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of the Concept.” The American Historical Review 84 (April 1979): 367—398. Apollonio, Umbro,ed. Futurist Manifestoes. London:Thames and Hudson, 1973. Architectural Design 51,  1981, 4—8.  Architectural Design 54,  1984, 29.  Architecture and Urbanism, Sep 1984, 8—10. ACSF: Archivio Storico Centro Fiat “Rel azione del consiglio di amministrazione e dei sind aci”, 20 March 1923. Architettura Italiana vol 38, January 1943, 6—10. Ashton, Dora, and Guido Ballo, eds. Antonio Sant’Elia. Milan and New York: Mondadori and the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, 1986 . Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age 2nd ed. Thames, London: 1966. Banham, Reyner.  “Neo—Liberty, or the Italian Retreat From modern architecture”, Architectural Revi ew, Apr. 1959. Barnes, James Strachey. The Universal Aspects of Fascism. 1928 2nd. ed. London, 1929.  121 Benevolo, Leonardo. History of Modern Architecture. Tr.H.J. Landry, Vol.2 Cambridge, Mass.,  1971.  Bentham, Jeremy. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4., New York: Russell and Russell,  1968.  Borsi, Franco. The Monumental Era: European Architecture and Design, 1929— 39. London: Lund Humphries,  1987.  Bruschi, Arnaldo. Bramante. Fwd. and Trans., Peter Murray. London: Thames and Hudson, Cannistraro, Philip V.  1977.  “Mussolini’s Cultural Revolution.”  The Journal of Contemporary History 7 (July—October 1972): 115—140. Casabella 85, January 1935, G. Pagano ed. Casabella December 1982, Ciuccio,Giorgio.  12—15.  “Italian Architecture During the Fascist  Period: The Any Souls of the Classical,” The Harvard Architecture Review 6 (1987); 76-87. Cities of Childhood: Italian Colonie of the 1930’s. Exhibition Catalogue to coincide with the Exhibition at the Architectural Association,  1988.  Clark, Martin. Modern Italy, 1871— 1982. New York, Longman,  1984.  Clark, T.J.  “On the Social History of Art”, University of  California Press, Berkley:1983. dough, Shepard and Salvatore Saladino. A History of Modern Italy. New York: Columbia University Press,  1968.  122 dough, Shepard. The Economic History of Modern Italy. New York: Columbia University Press,  1965.  Croce, Benedetto. A History of Italy 1871—1915. Oxford, 1929. De Grazia, Victoria. How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy 1922—1945. New York: Princeton University Press,  1992.  De Grazia, Victoria. The Culture of Consent: Mass Organization of Leisure in Fascist Italy. Cambridge,1981. De Seta, Cesare. Architettura Italiana di Novecento, Milan:  1978.  De Seta, Cesare. La Cultura Architettonica tra le Due Guerre. Ban: Laterza,1972. Di Lampedusa, Tomasi. Ii Gattopardo. Knopf, New York: 1991. Domus 651,  June 1984, 25—6.  Domus 659. March 1985,  10—35.  Doordan, Dennis P. Building Modern Italy: Italian Architecture 1914—1936. New York, Doordan, Dennis P.  “Changing Agendas: Architecture and  Politicste in Assemblage, vol.8 Doordan, Dennis P.  1988.  ,  1989 p.61.  “The Political Content in Italian  Architecture During the Fascist Era.” Art Journal (Summer 1983),  121—31.  Eisenman, Peter. (1971),  62—65.  “Casa Del Fascio.” Perspecta no.  13/14  123  Eisenman, Peter.  “From Object to Relationship II: Giuseppe  Terragni Casa Giuliani—Frigerio.” Perspecta no. (1971),  13—14  36—61.  Etlin, Richard.  “In Memorium: Giovanni Muzio:  Skyline (November 1982), Etlin, Richard.  1893—1982.”  17.  “Italian Rationalism.” Progressive  Architecture (July 1983),  86—94.  Etlin, Richard. Modernism in Italian Architecture, 1890—1940 Cambridge: M.I.T. Press,1991. Etlin, Richard.  [Review article of)  “Precursors of  Post—Modernism: Milan 1920’s/1930’s.” Skyline (November 1982),  20—23.  Etlin, Richard.  “Turin 1902: The Search for a Modern  Italian Architecture.” The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Art no.13 Evans, Robin. vol.3,  (Summer 1989), 94—109.  “Bentham’s Panopticon” in A.A.Quarterly,  1971, 21—37.  Evans, Robin.  “Regulation and Production” in Lotus 12.  Milan, Sep 1976. Fogacs, David. ed, with Geoffrey Novell—Smith. Translated by William Boelhower. Antonio Gramsci: Selections from Cultural Writings. Lawrence and Wishart, London,  1975.2  Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History.  1980,  2nd ed. New York,  1985.  124 Fred, W.  “The International Exhibition of Decorative Art  at Turin: The Italian Section.” The Studio 27 (1902—03), 273—79. Friedman, Alan. Agnelli: Fiat and the Network of Power. Penguin, London:  1989.  Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punishment: the Birth of the Prison. Trans from the French.. Vintage,New York: 1977. Gargus, Jacqueline,ed.  “From Futurism to Rationalism: The  Origins of Modern Italian Architecture.” Architectural Design 51(January—February 1981): Ghirardo, Diane.  1—80.  “Architecture and Theatre: The Street in  Fascist Italy.” In Stephen C.Foster, ed.,”Events”Arts and Events. Ann Arbor,1987, 175- 99. Ghirardo, Diane. Building New Communities: New Deal America and Fascist Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press,  1989.  Ghirardo,Diane.  “Italian Architects and Fascist Politics:  An Evaluation of the Rationalist’s Role in Regime Building.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 39 (May 1980): Ghirardo, Diane.  109—127.  “Politics of a Masterpiece: The Vicenda  of the Decoration of the Facade of the Casa del Fascio, Como,  1936—39.” The Art Bulletin 62(September 1980):  466—478. Giedion, Siegfried. Space, Time and Architecture. ed. Cambridge, Mass:1967.  5th Rev.  125 Golden, Miriam A. A Rational Choice Analysis of Union Militancy with Application to the Cases of British Coal and Fiat. Cornell studies in International Affairs. Western Society Papers, Cornell: Goode, Terence.  1990.  “Typological Theory in the United States:  The Consumption of Architectural “Authenticity” of Architectural Education 46/1. September 1992, Gregor, James.  Journal  “  2—8.  Italian Fascism and Developmental  Dictatorship. Princeton:  Princeton University Press,  1979.  Gregor, James. Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of Fascism. Berkeley: University of California Press,  1979.  Gregotti, Vittorio. New Directions in Italian Architecture, New York: Braziller, Gruppo 7,  1968.  “Architecture (1926), and Architecture II: The  Foreigners (1927).” Translated by Ellen Shapiro. Oppositions, no.6 (Fall 1976): 86—102. Gruppo 7,  “Architecture III:  TJnpreparedness-Incomprehension—Prejudice(1927),  and  Architecture IV: A New Archaic Era (1927).” Translated by Ellen Shapiro. Oppositions, no.12(Spring 1978): Hearder, Harry.  88—104.  Italy: A Short History. Princeton:  Princeton University Press,  1991.  Hildebrandt, Grant. Designing For Industry: The Architecture of Albert Kahn. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972. Irace, Fulvio. Precursors of Post—Modernism. Milan  126 1920s—30s Exhibition Catalogue, The Architect ural League. New York,1982. Jacobitti, Edmond E. Revolutionary Humanism and Historicism in Modern Italy. Mew Have n, 1981. Kidder—Smith, G.E. Press,  Italy Builds. London: The Architectural  1955.  Koon, Tracy H. Believe, Obey, Fight: Political Socialization of Youth in Fascist Italy, 1922—1943. Chapel Hill, 1985. Kostof,  Spiro. The Third Rome 1870—1950: Traffic and Glory. Berkeley, 1973. Kurzweil, Edith. Italian Entrepreneurs. New York: Praeger, 1983. Labo, Mario and Attilio Podesta. “Colonie Marine, Montane, Elioterapiche” in Casabella 167/168, 1941 . L’architettura 161.  1930.  Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture. New York: Payson and Clark, 1923. Longatti, Alberto and Luciano Caramel. Antonio Sant’Elia: the Complete Works. New York: Rizzoli, 1988. Lotus 12. A Special Issue Devoted To Fact ories.  1976.  Machiavelli. The Prince. Mack Smith, Denis. Italy and its Monarch y. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989.  127 Mack Smith, Dennis. Mussolini: A Biography. New York: Vintage,  1982.  Mack Smith, Denis. Society and Politics in the Age of Risorgimento. New York: Vintage, Marinetti, Filippo Tommaso.  1991.  Selected Writings. Ed. R.W.  Flint. Trs. R.W. Flint and Arthur A. Coppotelli. New York, 1972. Meakin, Budgett. Model Factories and Villages: Ideal Conditions of Labour nad Housing. London: Fisher, Meeks, Carroll L.V. Haven,  1905.  Italian Architecture 1750-1914. New  1966.  Millon, Henry A.  “Some New Towns in Italy in the 1930’s”  In Henry A.Millon and Linda Nochlin, eds. Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics. Cambridge, Mass., 1978. Nillon, Henry A.  “The Role of Architecture in Fascist  Italy.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 24 (March 1965),  53—59.  Mussolini, Benito. Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions. Rome;  1935.  Organski, A.F.K.  “Fascism and Modernization.” In The  Nature of Fascism. Edited by S.J. Woolf, Random House,  39-41. New York:  1968.  Piacentini, Marcello. L’Architettura d’oggi. Rome: Paolo Cremonese,  1930.  Piacentini, Marcello.  “Town Planning and Architecture.” In  128 the four—language special issue “l’Espozione Universale di Roma 1942.” Architettura 17 (December 1942), 728—29. Pozzetto, Marco. La Fiat Lingotto: un architettura torinese d’avanguardia. Torino: Centro Studi Piemontese, 1974. Procacci, Giuliano. History of the Italian People. London: Thames,  1991.  Sarti, Roland.  “Fascist Modernization in Italy:  Traditional or Revolutionary?” The American Historical Review 75 (April 1970):  1029—1045.  Schumacher, Thomas L. Surface and Symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the Architecture of Italian Rationalism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, Shapiro, Ellen.  1990.  “The Emergence of Italian Rationalism.”  Architectural Design 51 Signorelli, Bruno.  (January—February 1981):  5—9.  “Architetti della Fiat” in Civilta del  Piemonte: Studi in Onore di Renzo Gandolofo. Centro Studi Piemontesi, Torino:  1975.  Springer, Carolyn. The Marble Wilderness: Ruins and Representations in Italian Rationalism, Cambridge, England, Tafuri, Manfredo.  1775—1850.  1987.  “The Subject and the Mask, An  Introduction to Terragni.” Lotus, no. 20 (September 1978): 5—29. Taylor, F.W. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York : 1911.  129 Thayer, John. Culture, Press,  Italy and the Great War: Politics and  1870—1915. Madison: University of Wisconsin  1964.  “The 1942 Universal Exhibition.” In the four—language special issue “L’Esposizione Universale di Roma 1942.” Architettura 17 (December 1942), 723-24. Tisdall, Caroline, and Angelo Bozzolla. Futurism. London: Thames and Hudson,  1977.  Toniolo, Gianni. An Economic History of Liberal Italy: 1850—1918. London: Routledge, Trabaizi, Ferrucio.  1990  “Low Cost Housing in 20th Century  Rome” in Diane Ghirardo Out of Site, New York: Princeton Architectural Press,  1991.  Turner, Henry R.,ed.,Reappraisals of Fascism. New York: New Viewpoints,  1975.  Venti Progetti Per Lingotto. Turin: Einaudi,  1984.  Zevi, Bruno. Storia dell’Architettura Moderna. Turin: Einaudi,  1950.  Zevi, Bruno.  “Gruppo 7: The Rise and Fall of Italian  Rationalism.” Architectural Design 51(January— February 1981): 41—43.  130  rEs Introdxticn 1.Cities of Childhood: Italian Colonie of the 1930’s. Exhibition Catalogue to coincide with the Exhibition at the Architectural Association, 1988, p.8. 2.Gilbert Allardyce, “What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of the Concept.” The Anrican Historical Review 84 (April 1979): 367—398. 3.Cities of Childhood, p.9. 4.Martin Clark, Modern Italy, 1871—1982. New York: Longman, 1984, p.260. 5.Bruno Zevi, Storia dell’architettura moderna, Turin: Einaudi, 1950. 6.G.E. Kidder—Smith, Italy Builds. London: The Architectural Press, 1955. 7.Ibid. 8.Reyner Banham, “Neo—Liberty, or the Italian retreat from Modern Architecture”, Architectural Review, April 1959: 232. 9. Robert Venturi, Denise Scott-Brown and Steven Izenour. From Las Vegas. Cambridge ?ss.: NIT Press, 1972.  Learning  10.Peter Eisenmen, “From Object to Relationship II: Giuseppe Terragni Casa Giuliani—Frigerio.” Perspecta no. 13—14 (1971), 36—61. 11 .Gruppo 7, “Architecture (1926), and Architecture II: The Foreigners (1927).” Translated by Ellen Shapiro. Oppositions, no.6 (Fall 1976): 86—102. 12.Dennis P. Doordan, Building Modern Italy: Italian Architecture 1914—1936. New York, 1988. 13.Richard Etlin, Modernism in Italian Arcitecture, !890—194O. Canibridge:M.I.T. Press, 1991. 14.Benedetto Croce, A History of Italy: 1871—1915. Oxford, 1929. 15.Thcinas SchunBcher, Surface and Symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the Architecture of Italian Rationalism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1990. 16.Ernest.o Rogers, 1962. Source: Dennis Doordan, p.129. 17.Siegfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture, 5th rev. ed. Cambridge, 1967.  131  18.De Grazia, Victoria. How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy 1922—1945. New York: Princeton University Press, 1992. 19.Martin Clark, op. cite. 20.Alan Friedman, Aqnelli: Fiat and the Network of Power. Penguin, London: 1989. apter e 1.Nartin Clark, p. 203—210. 2.Ibid. 3.Harry Hearder, Italy: A Short History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.  4.Richard Etlin, op. cite:3—129. 5.Thomas Schumacher, op. cite. 6.Philip Joimson and H.R. Hitchcock, The International Style, ?‘bMA, 1932. 7.Ellen Shapiro, trans. Gruppo 7 op. cite. 8.Ibid. 9.Schumacher, op. cite. 10.Eflen Shapiro, Oppositions 6:90. 11.Narcello Piacentini, Architettura d’oqgi, Rome: Paolo Cremonese, 1930:57. 12.Ibid. 13.Ibid. 14.Dennis P. Doordan, op. cite:130. 15. Ibid. 16.Nartin Clark, op. cite:242. 17. Ths Schunacher, op. cite:24. 18.Adrian Lyttleton, The Seizure of Power:382 and in T.Scumacher 19.Agnoldodomenico Pica in Cities of Childhood:9. 20.Vittorio Gregotti, New Directions in Italian Architecture, New York: Braziller, 1968.  132 21.Cesare de Seta, Ia Cultura Architettonica tra le Due Guerre. Ban: Laterza, 1972. 22.Thauas Sdh.mcher, op. cite:36. Chapter 1,o 1.Cities of Childhood, op. cite. 2.Ibid. 3.Giuseppe Pagano in Casabella, 85 Jan. 1935. 4.Cities of Childhood, op. cite:10. 5.Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7.Ibid. 8.Ibid. 9.Martin Clark, op. cite:243. 1O.Cities of Childhood, op. cite:1O. 11.Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13.Ibid. 14.Marco Pozzetto, La Fiat Lingotto: un architettura torinese avanquardia. Torino: Centro Studi Pienontese, 1974:35. 15.Cities of Childhood, op. cite:74. 16..Dr. Carlo ‘lèsta, U.B.C. DepartnEnt of Italian Studies 17.Nario Lab and Attilio Podesta. “Colonie Marine, Montane, Elioterapiche” in Casabella 167/168, 1941. 18 .Robert Venturi, op. cite. 19.Cities of Childhood, op. cite:78. 20.Ibid, p.78. 4.  21.Nario Labo, op. cite. 22.ACSF: Archivio Storico Centro Fiat “Relazione del consiglio di aimninistrazione e dei sindaci”, 20 March 1923, and Domus 659, March 1985, 10—35.  133 23.Mario Läbo, op. cite. 24.Thcqnas Schumacher, op cite:27. 25.Cities of Childhood, op. cite:20. 26.Mario Lat, op. cite. 27.Cities of Childhood, op. cite. 28.A. Pica in Cities of Childhood, op. cite:75. 29.Ibid. 30.Cities of Childhood, op. cite:20. 31. Ibid  apter Three 1.Martin Clark, op. cite:17. 2.Alan Friedman, op. cite:24.  3.Tcmaso di Lampedusa, II. Gattopardo. New York: Knopf, 1991:145. 4.Martin Clark, op. cite:38. 5.Alan Friedman, op. cite:22.  6.Ibid, 12. 7.Tomasi di Lampedusa, op. cite:148. 8.Cesare de Seta, op. cite:57. 9.Alan Friedman, op. cite:38.  1O.Nartin Clark, op. cite:153—6. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13.Alan Friedman, op cite:38. 14.Thid. 15.Thid. 16. Ibid.  134 17.Budgett Meakin, Model Factories and Villages: Ideal Conditions of Labour nad Housing. London: Fisher, 1905. 18.Ibid. 19.Robin Evans, “Regulation and Production”, Lotus 12, 1976. 20.Ibid. 21 .Ibid. 22.Architecture and Urbanism, Sep. 1984, p.8.  23.I.e Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture. New York: Payson and Clark, 1923. 24.Domus 651, June 1984, p. 25. 25.Ibid. 26.Ibid. 27.Cesare de Seta, op. cite:24. 28.Marco Pozzetto, op cite:37. 29.F.W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Managtnt, New York, 1911, Rome, 1915. 30.Venti Progetti: ii futuro per Lingotto, 1984:16. 31.Victoria de Grazia, op. cite:31. 32.Martin Clark, op. cite. 33.David Fogacs, ed, with Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Translated by William Boelbower. Antonio Gramsci: Selections from Cultural Writings. Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1975:33. 34.Martin Clark, op. cite:207—9. 35.Robin Evans, op. cite. 36.Mertin Clark, op. cite:192. 37.Victoria de Grazia, op. cite:64. 38.Ibid. 39.Ibid. 40.Ibid. 41.Martin Clark, op. cite:363.  135 42.Alan Frieduan, op. cite. 43.Ibid. 44.Ibid. 45.Ibid. 46. Ibid. 47. Ibid. Chapter Pour l.Thomas Schumacher, op. cite:28—32. 2.Ibid. 3.Ibid. 4.Marceilo Piacentini, op. cite. 5.Th1d. 6.Ibid. 7.Ellen Shapiro trans. Gruppo 7, op cite. in M. Pozzetto. 8.Vittorio Bonad—Bottino, Centenario, p.8 and York: Russsell and Russell, 9The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4. New 1968:37—38. United States: The 1O.l’erence Goode, “Typological Theory in the JAE 46/1 Sep. 1992, “, ” icity hent “Aut consumption of Architectural pp2—7. the Architecture of 11.Grant Hildebrandt, Desiqning For Industry: . Albert Kahn. Canthridge, Mass.: NIT Press, 1974 12.arco Pozzetto, op. cit.e:775. 13.Victoria de Grazia, op. cite:86.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087386/manifest

Comment

Related Items