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 AUTHORITYByRUSSELL GARRETT TAYLORB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1991A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Fine Arts)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember 1994ØRussell Garrett Taylor, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of therequirements for an advanced degree at the University of BritishColumbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely availablefor reference and study. I further agree that permission forextensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may begranted by the head of my department or by his or herrepresentatives. It is understood that copying or publication ofthis thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without mywritten permission.Department of________________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateiiABSTRACT:Between 1925 and 1937 the Italian car manufacturerFiat initiated three building projects that featured adistinctive architectural form. In two quite differentbuilding types the Fiat designers employed anuninterrupted ascending spiral ramp in a way thatdetermines both the internal volume and the externalform.This paper will argue that Fiat first adopted thisform for practical reasons and then applied it to twobuilding types that represented their wider place incontemporary Italian society. Further the paper willargue that the form was associated with a tradition ofsocial conditioning— parallel with the rigorousorganization of the highly mechanized mass-productionfactory— that would be appropriate in their welfare andrecreation building.It is the main argument of this thesis, first, thatFiat’s factories and children’s health camps wereorganized by the spiral ramp motif representing a clear,palpable imposition of authority, and second, that Fiat’ssocial services were conceived as integral elements inthe process of production — the “Colonie” buildings,111built to house children, were conceived of as a form offactory: evidently the architects who designed Fiat’sColonie buildings intended a formal reference to thefactory since both differ markedly from contemporaryColonie erected under Fascist authority.A brief introduction outlines a historiography ofthe subject. Chapter One gives some background of Italianarchitecture contemporaneous to the projects, introducesthe issues of Fascism and makes reference to the place ofFiat. Chapter Two will focus on the Colonie buildings ofFiat and how they relate to Italian Modernistarchitecture. The institution of children’s health campsin Italy will be defined and Fiat’s examples will becompared with other examples of the type, some of whichwere state—sponsored, and others privately funded.Chapter Three addresses the specific circumstancesunder which the Fiat Colonie were designed andconstructed. In Italy the power of Fiat, and the Agnellidynasty, spanned industry, finance and significantly, thepolitical world. This section seeks to define how thefirm operated within Fascist policy and also how the.Agnelli family, like a feudal barony, sought to defineand sustain traditional networks of power. Although thisis not the main thrust of the thesis it will be suggestedhere that the use of the formal organization of theiv“Lingotto” auto factory may be considered as one of theways in which Fiat sought to divert worker militancy,fabricating buildings with physical as well asinstitutional affiliations that would establish a networkof links to the firm.Chapter Four considers the specific design featuresand functioning of Fiat Colonie. Part of this process, itwill be posited, was the development of a distinctiveformal motif. Fiat—Agnelli’s buildings will be shown tobe a sort of “middle—of—the—road” architecture, indeedthe buildings appear more proto—modern thanrevolutionary, despite their advanced technology. Thisseparates them from contemporary Colonie, which are moreabstract functional in design.VTABLE OP CONTENTS:Abstract .............. .... ....... iiTable of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VLi st of I 11ustrat i ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viAcnow1edgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viiDedication............... .. ...... ,... ixIntroductionHistoriography. . . . . . . 1Chapter OneItalian Architecture 1920—40,BackgroundtotheCommission 5Chapter TwoThe Colonie of Fiat 15Chapter ThreeFiat and Architectural Patronage . . 41Chapter FourConclusions Regarding the SignificanceoftheFiatColonieArchitecture 58Illustrations 73Selected Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . 120Appendices...... . . . . . . . . 130viLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSArchitectural Design 51, 1981, p6.nos. 25.Pranco Albini, Architecure and Design 1934-77. New York:Princeton Architectural Press, 1993, p47.nos. 63.Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol.4, NewYork: Russell and Russell, pp 37—38.nos. 62.Arnaldo Bruschi, Bramante, London: Thames and Hudson,1977pp92, 110.nos. 26, 27.Cities of Childhood: Italian Colonie of the 1930’s, 1988.nos. 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 23,24,34,35,36,37,38,39.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 19thCentury Architecture, New York: Abrams, 1980.nos. 60.Gino Pallotta. Gli Agnelli: Una Dinastia, Ronia, NewtonCompton Editori, 1987.nos. 41,42,43,44,45,46,47, 64.Marco Pozzetto. La Fiat Lingotto, Turin: Centro StudiPieniontesi, 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, l984,p3l.nos. 58.viiACEDThere are many persons to whom I owe thanks for their inputand assistance on this project. Italian Modern Architecture seemedlike 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 afold which I could only dream existed previously, introducing me tothe speakers at the symposium, many of whom are the top scholars inthe area. One paper, that of Maria Stone, then a PH]) candidate atNIT, on the 1937 Mostra Nazionale delle Colonie Estive el’Assistenza all’Infanzia, held in Rome’s Circus Maximus, reallyfascinated me and sparked my initial interest in the Colonie.To that end I am indebted to Stefano de Martino and Alex Wallwho compiled the exhibition catalogue to “Cities of Childhood”,which was my guide through the dark maze of general disinterest inthe works. The scholars of Italian modern architecture whoinfluenced my research such as Thomas Schumacher, Diane Ghirardo,Ellen Shapiro, Francesco Dal Co, and Manfredo Tafuri I owe much, butparticularly Dennis Doordan who’s encouragement was appreciated.Thanks go to the UBC Fine Arts Department and particularly JimCasweii, who allowed me to pursue my work in sometimes unorthodoxways. I am indebted to the many students and faculty who attended myroundtable and offered both support and valuable criticism,viiparticularly Rose-Marie San Juan, Maureen Ryan and Sherry McKay andMarvin Cohodas for clarifying many details which came out of thatexercise. Michael, Jane and Rob in the Slide Library producedbeautiful prints for me and in great numbers. Thanks also to myfellow students who assisted me in this project, particularly SandraSeekins and Carol Denny, Catarina Szmaus, Sean Robertson and SabineWieber who read copy and clarified my ideas.The UBC Department of Italian and Hispanic Languages showedtremendis interest in the work. Marguerite Chiarenza ran downtranslations with me and Carlo Testa ias a pillar of support andinvaluable information, providing several key insights. Joe Pincusin the Architecture Reading Room at IJBC provided me with manyimportant articles, particularly in the area of typology. DeborahWeiner of the UBC School of Architecture made suggestions whichopened up the research considerably and without which this paperwould appear quite differently.Not the least of special thanks to Debra Pincus who pushed andprodded e throughout the project, edited the manuscript andclarified my ideas as well as my prose and whose urging found me atthe 1993 CAA. Without Rhodri Windsor-Lisccmbe and his help,guidance1 leadership, support and friendship over the years andparticularly through the final stages of this paper, completionwould have been unthinkable.ixThis work is dedicated to my childrenEric and Michael and to my wife Denisewho provided my reason for carrying onand the time to do it.INTRODUCTI ONIn April 1988 the exhibition Cities of Childhood:Italian Colonie of the 1930’s, opened in London. Underthe auspices of the Architectural Association of GreatBritain the exhibition introduced the internationalarchitectural community to an institution almost unknownoutside Italy’. The documentary material andpropangandistic photographs presented in the catalogueilluminate a fascinating and distinctive architecturaland sociological phenomenon, thus far tainted byassociation with Fascism2. This despite the fact thatthe Colonie remained in operation until the 1960’s andthat many of the institutions of Italy today, it’s lawsand constitution also derive from the generation underFascism4.The Colonie of Italy lay in obscurity in 1953 whenBruno Zevi first published his monumental Storiadell’Architettura moderna5 and apparently too obscureto warrant mention in G.E. Kidder—Smith’s ItalyBuilds6 in 1955. During the 1950’s scholarly andcultural opinion generally deemed there to be little ofvalue in Italian modern architecture7.In his 1959“Neoliberty” article Reyner Banham stated that:...before the war modern Italy hardly existed2out of earshot of the railway line from Milan toComo...(and even) within that narrow zone “modern”was practised as a style, since it could not bepractised as a discipline”8.This sentiment was widespread and was later characterizedas “orthodox” by Robert Venturi9 while studying at theAmerican 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 PeterEisenman’s fascination for the architect GiuseppeTerragni1°and then in 1976 with Ellen Shapiro’stranslation of the polemical essays of the Rationalist“Gruppo 7n]1• Shapiro’s interest was sparked by thereappearance of the term “archittetura razionale” at the1973 Milan Triennale. Not until the publication of DennisDoordan’s Building Modern Italy:—1914—36 in 1988 was theorthodox view of Italian modernist architecturechallenged12.Two years later Richard Etlin inModernism in Italian Architecture fully examined issuesof architecture in Italy through it’s period ofindustrial development, 1890_194013.One factor in the reluctance of architecturalhistorians to examine Italian architecture of the periodwas the spectre of Fascism, described by Benedetto CroOe3as “that unfortunate incident”4.The only architect tohave largely escaped that taint was the somehow neutralfigure of Pier Luigi Nervi, who was, moreover, regardedmore engineer than architect. Where writers dealt withItalian modernism or Terragni, they usually eradicatedreference to the political context, thereby absolvingthem of Fascist responsibilty and constructing a Partisanidentity, claiming a cultural left—wing’5.ErnestoRogers later said of this relationship:..We based ourselves on a syllogism which wentroughly thus: fascism is a revolution, modernarchitecture is revolutionary, therefore itmust be the architecture of fascism’6.The opprobium attaching to Fascism has contributed to theabsence of analysis of all three buildings discussed inthis paper, the Fiat Lingotto auto factory, but moreso,the Fiat “Torre Ballila” Colonia at Marina di Massa andthe Fiat mountainside Colonia at Salice d’Ulzio. Byextension, the architectural history of modern Italy hasbeen affected negatively by Modernist polemics andfirst—generation histories (Siegfried Giedion’s SpaceTime and Architecture, 1941 for example’7).Recent literature of Italian Modernism has helped4redress this lacuna. Victoria De Grazia, author of TheCulture of Consent: Mass Organization of Leisure inFascist Italy, 1981 focuses on the “dopolavoro” ororganization of leisure time18. She traces a gradualincrease of officially sanctioned leisure activity andtheir endeavours thereby to build a society of consent.No such study of the other large—scale socialorganization, the Colonie, exists.Turning from the broader political spectrum to theFiat company, Martin Clark in Modern Italy 1871_198219has clarified the place of the company in Italianpolitics and society, while in Agnelli: Fiat and theNetwork of Italian Power, Alan Friedman explores thecorporate character and objectives of Fiat from the1890’s2.The publication of these three authors provide anespecially valuable matrix from which to reconstruct themotivation behind the company’s construction of twoColonie buildings and by extension its interpretation ofthe Nationalist agenda espoused by the Fascists. Suchfactors enlighten the evident difference between Italianand international modernism and between Italian Fascismand the other totalitarian regimes of that era inGermany, Russia and Spain.5CHAPTER ONEITALIAN ARCHITECTURE 1920-40,BACKGROUND TO THE FIAT COMMISSIONSThis paper seeks to break down the definition of“fascist architecture. The pervasive sense offrustration in almost every aspect of post—RisorgimentoItaly — culture, politics, art and architecture — weremost evident in the years immediately following The GreatWar’. Seizing upon the political corruption, theFascist party under Benito Mussolini retrieved much ofthe original manifesto of the Risorgimento and inparticular the original promises of national resurgenceand a return to independence and prominence in the worldcommunity. The Fascist party stressed the necessity forpowerful centralized leadership, by contrast with thevacillations of the Giolittian years and allied itselfwith both social and technical revolution, claiming to bethe progressive culmination to the ideals of Garibaldiand Mazzini.Any analysis of “Fascist” architecture must weighthose differences and the fact that, the period ofFascism in Italy ocurred in stages. It spanned almost ageneration and changed with time. Beginning with6Mussolini’s seizure of power with the March on Rome in1922, the next phase was initiated with the kidnappingand murder of Matteotti, the Socialist opposition leaderon June 10, 1924. The abolition of opposition and ofParliament in 1926 marked yet a further phase. Moresignificant change came in October 1935 with the invasionof Ethiopia and the resultant sanctions imposed by theLeague of Nations and “Autarchia”. The proclamation ofEmpire after the fall of Addis Ababa in May 1936 and theracial laws of 1938 mark a decline into a more viciousphase interrupted by the declaration of war on France on10 June 1940. The arrest of Mussolini on 25 July 1943 andthe 45 days when Italy surrendered to the Allies on 8September 1943, then the subsequent German occupation andResistenza culminating in the Liberation in 1945 closethe period2.Italian architecture of the twenties and thirtieswas certainly affected by the system known as Fascism yetthe underlying motivations for both Fascism and modernItalian architecture are to be found in the heightenedNationalism of the Risorgimento in the 19th century andunification under King Vittorio Emmanuel II. The king(Victor Emmanuel III after 1900) represented stabilityand this stability was an important aim of theavant—gardes in Italy of the late 19th and earlytwentieth centuries, between the aesthetic disputes7brought on by the International Style, the “StileLiberty” and the Futurist movement had begun to upsetbourgeoise tastes4. Hence, it is an important notion tounderstand that much of what we see in the inter—waryears in Italy is an attempt to reestablish stability.The Italian blending of influences can best beillustrated by comparing a set of building whose formalproperties as read on their exteriors could be seen tobelie their interior functions.The well—known Casa del Fascio of 1932—36, ofTerragni in plan resembles a Renaissance “palazzo” andwould appear reactionary. The plans of Del Debbio’sSports Complex of 1937 for the Foro Mussolini are typicalof modern plans to be found contemporaneously in Germany,and would appear the more “modern”. In facade the reverseis true. Terragni’s all—white building is stylisticallyfar more modern. Only in Italy would such a confusion ofstylistic intentions be found in the thirties inEurope5. Both buildings merit comparison withcontemporary Northern European Modern architecture anduse the same vocabulary of strip windows, flat roofs andnew materials in glass and metals. But, this was notimmediately apparent to the first generation ofarchitectural writers of the post—war period. There is ageneral tendency evident in the literature to concentrateon Northern Europe (Philip Johnson and H.R. Hitchcock TheInternational Style, MoMA, 19326).8Nonetheless, the modern movement in architecturetruly can be said to have been born in Italy in December1926 with the publishing of the so—called “RationalistManifesto”7.Four articles appeared in “RassegnaItaliana with theoretical statements in admiration ofideas imported wholly from across the Alps, and weresigned by seven young graduates of the Milan Politecnico— the “Gruppo 7”, led by Giuseppe Terragni. Yet when theopportunity to build arrived the group vascillatedbetween the “International Style” of the North andtraditional Italian building traditions, such as thesearch for “stability”. Even though Futurism wasdecidedly the most important Italian movement since theeighteenth century, in Italy it was also the mostde—stabilizing. The Rationalists wrote of Futurism:The Futurist and early Cubist experiences, evenwith their advantages, have stung the public anddisillusioned those who expected better from them...the legacy of the avant—garde that precededus was an artificial impulse — an empty, destructivefury that confused good and bad8.The International Style and Classicism would seem to beat odds but in the aftermath of the Great War there was anatural caution against “excesses”. Classicism finds9fuller expression in the second group of Italianmodernism the “Novecentisti”. Again from Milan, theNovecento movement launched in 1923 allied itself withthe painters Fumi, Sironi and de Chirico. This was theperiod of de Chirico’s most famous paintings in themetaphysical style9. All these currents of thoughtpredated the Fascist era and the state-sponsorship ofModernist Italian architects. The chronology of theseevents is especially important in understanding corporateand professional motives. The Classicism which intriguedthe architects and grew out of the Risorgimento, alsoinfluenced the Fascists. Classicism of course wasassociated with Italian tradition and hence nationalism.Indeed, nationalism, whether in the language of traditionor in the cause of modernization through technology isthe one unifying factor in all Italian architecture ofthe 1930’s. The important Gruppo 7 articles affirmnationalism while simultaneously reflecting ambivalencetowards the revolutionary nature of the Modern Movementin Europe10.Ambivalence is also expressed in the other majorarchitectural production of the 1930’s, as in the work ofMarcello Piacentini, often called Mussolini’s AlbertSpeer, because of the lavish monumentalized statearchitecture most often recognizable as “Fascist”, whosemodernist theory also to some degree affirmed modernism,10but with his own reservations. Piacentini is best knownfor his monumental style, such as the Boizano WarMonument of 1931, calling up associations with Romanarchetypes of the Renaissance and hence Empire. But thisimage is incorrect and incomplete. Piacentini ascribedsuch affinities for monumentality to regionalism:Amongst the Roman predominates, as would be naturalan ample and solemn sense: amongst the Milanese, amajor reserve, a major circumspection..the firstfind inspiration in the art of the cinquecento...their guru is Sangallo... the second disclose theirmost direct relations with the classicism of thelast century that was largely developed innorthern Italy... their guru is Palladio.Further, Piacentini cites the Italian geography andclimate as the main reason for the refutation of GermanModernist practice as eventually typified by theaesthetic and technical purism of Mies van der Rohe:We Italians ultimately cannot accept the new fixedformulas of completely glass walls and low ceilings;we must defend ourselves against burning sun andexcessive heat six months out of the year...we must still use natural and heavy materials12.11Piacentini moreover stressed the evolutionary nature of“our [Italian) modernism”13,clearly representing theoverwhelming Italian distrust of all things German afterthe, still recent, Austrian occupation and ouster ofNorthern Italy. Indeed Italy had been occupied almostentirely for hundreds of years until the Risorgimento.The notion that a clearly identifiable “fascist”architecture existed is dubious in the extreme. DennisDoordan makes the point well in reiterating that:In the absence of any clear contemporarydefinition of what constitutes fascistarchitecture, historians and critics havetried to identify the specifically fascistelements within Italian architecture, as wellas to define the relationship between fascismand progressive architecture...but the difficultyremains the same: the (defining has been done only)in terms of a single set of formal characteristics,that is, in terms of style14.Mussolini certainly fostered the notion of themodernization of Italy, and at such times the modernstyle was used15. At other times the rallying point wasnationalism through cultural identity and then themonumental was used. Fascism meant to be all things to12all people and thereby fascism as represented byarchitecture was meant to be seen as the manifestation ofhopes, ideals and all good deeds of the centralizedstate16. Architects then were called upon to be fluentwith all the languages representative of the symbolicforms of the progressive and yet traditional state. AsThomas Schumacher remarks:If Italian architects had shown the propensity toadopt the Benthamite attitude that architecture wasthe central variable in the creation of social wellbeing for twentieth century Italy, they would havecommitted political suicide’7.The debate in Italy was complex, neither side everclearly won the battle for the Duce’s support. “To themature regime, all philosophies were acceptable, providedthey acknowledged the supreme genius of the Duce”18.The debate, ran essentially unheeded because Mussolinisought to bolster his power by exploiting any idea orpolicy that held the prospect of greater legitimisation.Agnoldodomenico Pica, an architect working in the1930’s summed up the issue in this manner:...it must be said that under Fascism everybodycompeted to prove themselves more Fascist than thenext, from Piacentini to Terragni — the anti—Fascist13propaganda that followed was rubbish. In the endwe were primarily interested in architecture, andwhether a commission was from the Pope, a Turk orMussolini, it did not matter. What was an architectto do — fly around for twenty years?19.Rationalism, Futurism, Monumentalism, Novecentism,Modernism, Nationalism, Internationalism: the disputes ofthe Fascist period resemble a Pirandello play, in whichreality is masked by polemical and structuralambiguities. The definable break from the past thatmodernism is supposed to have effected - and which nevereven occurred in Germany - is a myth fostered byorthodox modernists privileging a machine aesthetic. Theconfusion of style and politics in Italyin the 1930’s underlines the danger of associatingInternational Style Modernism too closely with eitherradical politics or liberal democracy.Such complexity of inspiration and intention will befound in the Fiat Colonie and recalls Vittorio Gregotti’sdiscussion of:...a constant and steady interaction betweenideology and language. There is an attempt, on theone hand, to make them include or grow out of eachother and on the other hand, to contrast them,14giving rise to opposing solutions, outweighingpolitical, technological, methodological, andsocioeconomic considerations which are frequentlyoutmoded or contradictory20.We must recall, in this regard that Italian architectssaw their work as both revolutionary and as participatingin the “Fascist Revolution.” Cesare de Seta in 1972reminds us of the pragmatic reasons for such a response,implicit in Pica’s assertion that architects “competed toprove themselves more Fascist than the next.” de Seta’sevaluation echoes this remark:Le Corbusier’s “availability” was supported by theimmense pride to save mankind; Terragni and the bestItalian (architects), at most aspired to savethemselves”21.The propensity for architecture to be regarded asrepresentatives of a society of social well—being was notpolitically viable to Italian architects of the1930’s22Yet there is one institution for which this was anecessary component, where architects were actuallyencouraged to do so, whether working for the governmentor private industry— the institutional building ofseaside and mountainside camps for children: the Colonie.15CHAPTER TWOTHE COLONIE OP FIATThe Colonie, first established as seaside hospicesat the end of the nineteenth century, were part of atradition of utopias of the Enlightenment and socialexperiments in collective living for the urban poor andthe health concerns of the industrial city. Under fascismthe emphasis shifts from curative to preventative1.This redefinition featured new values on ceremonies,sports and recreation which aspired to foster communityhealth, through physical, spiritual and moraldevelopment. These aims clearly were directed atideological means of anticipating children asparticipants in the “civil life of the collectivity”2.The new desires of thematic structure for theColonie stimulated experimentation within thearchitectural community. As noted above, despite“rational” and “modern” features the Colonie repeattraditional forms, and in facade express staticmonumentality. Giuseppe Pagano, publisher of Casabella,commented of the new projects in 1935:16Modern architecture means first an architecturefor people belonging to contemporary civilization;an architecture which is morally, socially,economically and spiritually tied to conditions ofour country; it means building to representthe ideals of the people, to satisfy their needs,to “serve”, in the true meaning of the word”3.These commissions represented an opportunity for thearchitects to work with the regime in forging thecommodity which, beyond guns, they valued highest: youngmen and women, the future soldiers and mothers andparticipants in the “revolution” under Fascism.The Colonia emerged in Italy in the late 19thcentury as part of a growing medical and social awarenessof the backwardness of the nation and its severe healthproblems. Imbued with “humane and patriotic aims” doctorsand philanthropists advocated isolation from the urbansetting to fight the widespread tuberculosis,malnutrition and malaria4. Along with sun—therapy andsea—water they saw an opportunity to mould the spiritualand moral development of the young and impoverished.At first the church organized such camps, and earlyin the twentieth century public and private industry seetheir interests intertwined with the growing institution.17Until after the second world war the aims of the Coloniawere varying degrees of education, welfare andtherapeutic aid. However until the 1860’s existingstructures were employed and the Colonie were notexpressly built for these purposes. Between 1920 and 1922child welfare conventions were held to determine thepurpose of the institution, the number of attendeeshaving risen, from 2500 to 100,000 since the turn of thecentury5. As there is nothing really comparable to thescale of this enterprise, the Colonie may be seen as asingularly Italian expression of reforming ideals, whichhad an architectural perspective.The Colonie became regulated to monitor the physicaland social effects on children put into an alien, totalenvironment for three to four weeks, removed completelyfrom family. In this institutionalized segragation therituals of communal life, shaped by order and discipline,were flag—raising, roll call, marching, group gymnasticsand ordered ritual sunbathing6.In the buildings now being planned to house suchtherapeutic and pedagogic criteria this segragation wasexpressed internally in rigorous subdivisions of spacesand, equally conventionally, formal, functional andsymbolic divisions of boys and girls. The sites wereisolated further defining a separation from the outside18reality — there was a reluctance to grant family visitswhich when exceptionally granted took place inside thecolonia. The figures of authority were inevitably, thedoctor, the priest, and the teacher. The community wassubdivided into “squads”, which incidentally reflectedthe terminology used on the shop floor in the Fiatfactories and in the military. The militaristic regimenincreased under the fascists and the institution remainedvirtually unchanged until the 196O’s.The chief executive was the doctor, who madescrupulous files on each child upon arrival, in residenceand upon leaving. Corporate operators, such as Fiat,boasted of sending the children home to Turin, “not justclean, brownish, and indoctrinated with respect for theirsurveillants, the Duce and the church” but also, “on theaverage two to three pounds heavier”8.When the Catholic Boy Scouts, a similar butcompeting organization, were closed down by the fascistsin 1928 the children were placed in sports groupsarranged by age reflecting the consensus sought by theregime. The “sons of the she—wolf” was for boys six toeight; the “ballilla” for boys eight to eleven; the“ballilla musketeers” for boys aged eleven to thirteen;the diminuitive “little Italians” denoted girls eight tofourteen and the “avanguardisti” for thirteen to fifteen19year olds, and so on up to the age of twenty—one9.Alarge number were children of Italians living abroad suchas Edoardo Palaozzi in Edinburgh who describes hisexperience of the Colonia:...all of the uniforms were of good quality stuff. Ihad a black shirt, sailor’s hat, white trousers. Wewe also had a kind of workaday thing — buff—coloredlike fatigues. You were allowed to keep theuniform. I remember you too had a shaved head. Itwas wonderful. When you are very young you don’tarticulate experience. I just thought it was a veryhappy atmosphere. I was glad I was sent. It was...awonderful world10.This quote works to dispel some myths about Fascism.Though we today might cringe at children being herded toindoctrination camps, at the time it was an honor and aluxury for many of the poor families whose children went.The bulk of the Colonie were built between 1935 and1939, mostly in the North on either coast centered onTuscany and Romagna. Their plans were divergent and noconsensus of design was reached. Most were low slung andrecognizable as International Style Modernism at a glance— one thing is certain, not a single one displays thepompous monumental style most often associated with20Fascism, again dispelling Fascist myths in a format wherethey so easily could have. Yet it was the language oftechnological innovation which came to best suit mosteducational commissions.The term “colonia” or colony is in itselfinteresting as the buildings did function as completealmost—utopian settlements — acting as school, hospital,town hail and hostel all while attempting to open theeyes of the young urban poor to supposed prospectsfar—removed from their usual reality.Obviously, the two Colonie that Fiat built fitwithin this general outline. Yet they exhibit significantvariations in form and plan. These revolve around themanipulation of the tower and the heliocoidal ramp — acontinuous, rising spiral; an uninterrupted dormitory.This paper emerges from two questions: why are Fiat’sbuildings so similar to each other and unlike any otherColonia buildings and why did no similar repetitions offormal structure occur in the dozens of other examples?The Colonia “Edoardo Agnelli”, named for the firstson of the founder of Fiat was designed by the Fiatengineering department, under the direction ofarchitect/engineer Vittorio Bonade—Bottino and realizedin 1933. The site straddles the Viale a Mare at Via San21Francesco in the small seaside town of Marina di Massalocated on the Tyrrenhian Coast of Tuscany. The propertywas purchased by Fiat specifically for the purpose ofbuilding a seaside summer camp. The site is 55,000 squaremetres and the volume of the building comprises 35,000cubic meters. At capacity, the Colonia could house 750children at one time.The dormitory space is accomodated in a single towerbuilding containing a continuous spiral of reinforcedconcrete, rising uninterrupted to a skylighted ceiling.There are no stairs within this concentric configurationof void surrounded by coiling ramp, which is expresseddirectly on the external form. Each “floor” is punctuatedat regular intervals by small square windows separartedby twenty—eight encircling mullions, reminiscent ofAmerican skyscrapers such as Raymond Hood’s ChicagoTribune Building of 1922, which span the height of thebuilding. The windows actually rotate up the spiral butappear level from the exterior. The optical illusioncreated 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. Thefirst is the entrance, twice the height of a “floor”, thesecond a slightly shorter second storey, whose windows22fill the space between the mullions. Above the entrancein large stylized letters is the Fiat logo: FIAT, withone letter between each rib on the smooth face betweenthe entrance and the second floor. The horizontal themeof the base is echoed on the top of the building, anattic is expressed by a slightly larger horizontal ringabove the last set of windows. Here the mullions endabove the roof line with rounded tops which form the poststo a railing.So as to keep the perfect symmetry, the tower isreserved for dormitory, except for the lower sectionentrance hail and dining hail on the second level —tables fanning out along the radius lines of the slicesand spokes above. All other services, from staff officesand housing to medical clinics, refectory, kitchens andlaundry, are contained separately in two low side wings.The wings rise to the same level as the roofline of thedining hail and continue the ribs punctuated by the samesquare window articulation of the tower on their surface.The main front entrance is more conventionallymonumental and faces the seashore. it is reached up a setof stairs, a kind of plirith, which follow the curve ofthe building, which when viewed with the pilasters aboveis somewhat reminiscent of a peripteral temple. Thisarchetypal allusion is further echoed on the interior of23the entrance hail by a set of plain concrete columnswhich form a cela—like court encircling the circumferenceof, the void of the spiral, two floors up above the secondfloor. Further access is provided at the rear of thebuilding, doors to left and right leading toward twoflanking sets of spiral staircases which span the heightof the tower within a semi—circular mass on the exterior.These units are, likewise, adorned with the mullion motifand engage the tower like two cogs against a massivegear. Within the main tower there is also a lift whichbegins at the base of the dormitory, attached to theoutside wall, between the two stairwells. These stairsfunctioned as the daily access for the children.The beds of the dormitory are arranged in sets offour between the mullions, one on either side of thewindow and two similarly positioned against the edge ofthe central void where each “slice” of the pie—shapedplan meets an interior railing. The only unused space atthe perimeter not used were occupied by the lift, wherestaircase entrances and washroom facilities of each“floor” are contained. Though the ramp creates aningenious use of space and a picturesque symmetry, thecentral void would appear to be essentially dead spacealmost equal to that which is being used. However,although the central well would appear to be “deadspace”, it is a fulfilment of stipulations of the24government regulations for the Colonia buildings, theDirezione Generale della Sanita. A volume of twenty fivemeters per bed was required and easily achieved as thecube roots of each “slice” diminishes at the center,where their volumes is lowest11.Looking up the void from below, however, oneencounters a spiral which recedes into the distantskylight far above — a complex web of concrete ribbingwith a strong central “axle”. Each rib of the ceiling isseparated like the “slices” of the dormitory below. Therectangular windows are thereby separated into two setsof four, echoing the plan’s arrangement of beds,separated into eight squares with thin tracery betweenthem — one rectangle of eight at the centre, then twotogether in the next concentric band, then three, thenfour, then five together at the edges which are onlypartly exposed. This type of expressionist ceilingrecalls such proto-Modernist structures as Max Berg’sCentenary Hall, Breslau of 1913, and more directly ofpierced ceilings in religious buildings.The attached wings are exactly equal in length tothe diameter of the tower block with rounded ends whichif joined would form another circle. That circle isexactly equal to the central void of the dormitory. Sucha complex structure of successive spirals reminds us25again of the historical nature of Italian interest duringthe Renaissance in the manipulation of the circular plan.The wings extend straight out perpendicular to the beachand define the site between Viale a Mare and the seashoreas territory.The remainder of the site was given over to theuninterrupted area of the beach where all the activitiesof the camp, outside of sleeping, eating, washing andmedical and church services, took place. The Coloniabacks directly onto Viale a Mare. On the beach, markingthe length of the building’s wings are displaced at eachcorner, a flag—pole where the morning flag—raisingceremony, the “alza bandiera”12,was held, all thechildren arranged in military like rows singing theFascist song, much as Canadian children used to standbeside their desks in school and sing “God Save theQueen”.In section, the tower is laterally divided in three— the void on it’s ascending slant, flanked on eitherside by the ramp. Inevitably this arrangement recalls thetradition of ascending ramps in Italy in architecture,such as the tower at Pisa or Bramante’s Belvederestaircase in the Vatican. Moreover, the ramps correspondwith earlier structures conceived by the Fiat designers,especially the heliocoidal distribution ramps at thefirm’s Lingotto automobile plant.26The circular form of the Fiat Colonie werenevertheless unique. Quite justifiably the writers of the1988 London exhibition catalogue commented on theuniqueness of the Fiat Colonie in reference to otherbuilt examples:The departure from all other projects lies in therelating of each bed space to the volume of thebuilding so that (the) continuous dormitory...determines both the external form and the internalvolume13.As shown the Fiat Colonie followed more unconventionalplans. They were unique first in that there were very fewColonie built in a tower form and the only employing thisuncommon ramp device.There can be little doubt that the idea ofexperimenting with the tower form in the Colonie derive5from the earlier work of Bonade—Bottino. Witness the 1929ski—lodge! hotel built by Fiat in the mountains at thebase of the Italian Alps at Setrieres. This project marksthe first attempt at marketing ski—holidays in Italy. AtSetrires, however, the floors are flat, adjoining aspiraling staircase in the center. It is said that it wasthe director of Fiat himself, Giovanni Agnelli, who27suggested extending the heliocoidal section into thedormitories themselves after Sestrires. According toBonade—Bottino:Abbozzato un progetto di torre, con rampeeliocoidiale del Lingotto, ii Senatore[Agnelli)propose di estendere la superficie eliocoidaleall’intero settore della corona e svilluparele cabine [camere “dormitore per sciatori”) apiani sfalsati cli una quota del passodell’elica; nacque cosi la Torre di Sestrire. Lasoluzione accertata economica e pratica perl’intensita dello sfruttamento del volume efacilit’a dei servizi suggeri al Senatore leiniziative di un’altra torre—albergo a Sestriree due torn a Sauce d’tJlzio e ad Apuania per lacolonia montana e marina14‘4Between Sestrieres and Marina di Massa, Bonade-Bottinoadded two floors, bringing the number to twelve and addedthe exterior ribs.The uninterrupted room created by the ramp, ifunfolded would stretch 420 meters long and eight meterswide. The floor of the “room” is, of course, on anincline and therefore, placing beds on such an inclinecreates a problem — the beds are all on a slant. This28minor inconvenience was solved however by varying thelengths of the legs of the beds from left to right. Thisis however, “a costructional advantage that remainsextraneous to architecture. We do not know howcomfortable, in practice, it would be to sleep on thissloping floor”15. Perhaps this essentially theoretical“practicality” is due to it’s having been built byengineers and not architects.In terms of function the building is entirelyappropriate. These dormitories were meant for short—term,one month, stays. All other activities took place outsideor at the base of the building. Once the child has slept,the very form of the building encourages them to vacatethe dormitory and join the communal outdoor activities.Activities within the dorm were essential, only in so faras they allowed sleep, which acoustically, they did. Thebuilding also could be seen to reflect Fascist mythologyregarding children in that each child is equal, at leastall the boys, and therefore there was no preferential orrank distribution within the Colonie and the differentage groups used the facilities at different times16.Such a purpose might have been in Bonade-Bottino’smind conceiving the plan of the Fiat Colonie. Thearchitect—engineers, used to designing cars to perform atmaximum performance and their company management wished29to achieve with the buildings a sense within the childrenof massive identical numbers but also possibility andappreciation of design aesthetics, of modern materialsand the process of efficient production. The childrenattending this Colonia were, after all, the children ofthe Fiat plant workers, and would one day take theirfather’s place on the assembly line — all romantic stuff.Further, Bonade-Bottino was probably thinking alongthe lines of the profession, such as architect MarioLab, one of several Colonia architects of the 1930’swith regard to their effect upon the children:Everything in them, from their abstract lines andvolumes to their ground plans, which trace theitineraries of communal life...to make up theplastic form and visual image with which thesechildren will identify the memories of periodsspent in a Colonia. Having come from poor or verymodest homes, the majority of these boys and girlswill feel disposed here, for the first time, toaccept taste; they will be stimulated for thefirst time to appreciate architectural form seennot just from the outside, but adapted for livingwithin17.The seaside Colonie, of which Fiat’s Marina di Massa30represents one of hundreds, establish a rapport betweenbuilt form and a relatively flat horizontal band. Theyare in some senses architectures of the strip — notunlike in some ways the built up strip of Las Vegas.As Robert Venturi, the )inerican architect pointsout, the strip is punctuated by signs, which the Fiattowers rising above all else in the strip town can beseen to represent. Not wanting to engage too seriously inthe polemic of post—modern semiotics, the tower at Marinadi Massa can be seen to function as a “dominantsign”8, which stands out above the landscape allaround, much like the giant neon signs of the strip. Thespecific design issues of the mountain Colonia aredifferent and yet also conform to that which we havedefined as generally belonging to the Colonie.The programme remains “a compromise between a hosteland a sanatorium” and like the seaside Colonia, “comescloser to a boarding school”19. The building stilloperates as an evening shelter, however, given the Alpinenature, the building requires more indoor space toaccount for less predictable weather. The coolertemperatures and high winds play a part in determining4’orientation and materials. Bonade-Bottino in designingthe Fiat Colonia, “Torre Ballila” at Salice D’Ulzio in1937, seems to have taken the specific mountain programme31into consideration while at the same time perfecting manyof the experiments we witnessed at Marina di Massa.At first glance, the tower block of the mountainsideTorre Ballila seems to adapt that of the seaside“Edoardo Agnelli” Colonia. Sauce d’Ulzio is just outsideTurin the location of Fiat’s headquarters in the rollinghills between the P0 Valley and the lower Italian Alps.It is located on via della Torre on a hillock above, notcoincidentally, the resort of Sestrieres. Fiat financedthe entire project and again commissioned within theirown firm to chief engineer Bonad—Bottino. In aninteresting switch, suggesting Bonad—Bottino’sconfidence with the scheme and increasing ability tomaximize the efficient use of space, the built volume of28,000 cubic meters exceedes the site area of 25,686square meters. However, whereas Marina di Massa housed750 on twelve floors, Salice d’Ulzio had a maximumcapacity of 494 on nine floors, indicating immediately asignificant shift in the interior use of space,necessaryin the mountains.The original drawings reveal a progression in thearchitect’s concept of the function of the main floor,enlarging this space, which accounts for a compacting ofthe ramp section above. The original drawings revealother details which tell of the evolution of the firm andit’s relationship with the Fascist party in the 1930’s.32The drawings were inscribed “Colonia Tina Agnelli”,referring to Giuseppe Agnelli’s oldest daughter, markinga second nepotist association. The pressure of theFascist government may have played a part in the namechange to one so closely associated with the regime, orit may have been an attempt by Agnelli to mollify theDuce or the Opera Nazionale Balilla, ONB. The Balilla wasthe name given to the Fascist youth groups who used thefacilities and was a term common in many aspects of the“linguaggio” of the regime. The ONB was named in honourof a popular figure of Nationalist mythology stemmingfrom the Risorgimento. Balilla was the name of a youngboy who threw the first stone which, reportedly, hit anofficer of the occupying Austrian army in Genoa in 1746.The officer had ordered common people to help free acannon from the mud. The little boy’s brave action beganthe popular revolt which freed Genoa from the Austriandomination20.The important story exemplifies themythology around children acting as full citizens in theFascist state.At Torre Ballila the tower is again highlydistinctive with similar small square windows and adormitory 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.33First of all, from the exterior, the tower, lessthree floors, is more squat-looking, not coincidentally,a perfect cube. The rib treatment which furthered theperception of height at the seaside is gone and insteadof a white stucco finish, the mountainside Colonia isfaced with a reddish brick. Set in the alpine flowers,the earth color of the finish is quite beautiful. Thereal difference , though, is that the tower is the onlystructure — there are no subsidiary appendages such asthe stairwells and services wings at “Edoardo Agnelli”.Within the building this separation is articulated asthree distinct levels of usage.A sub—basement contains all the services, includingkitchens. A second area is demarcated around theentrance, more contiguous refectory which doubles asrecreation area. The third, accessed by two facingsemi—circular stairwells, is the dormitory ramp occupyingthe bulk of the building. These levels are furtherarticulated on the exterior by brick facing thatseparates the dormitory zone from the lower entranceregister marked out within a peripteral ring of surfacecolumns.Again the tower is visually terminated by an attic,surmounted by a single flagpole centred directly in the34middle of the glass-tracery roof. Within, the arrangementis similar except, no lift, in fact, no stairs at all,only a peripteral ramp ascending to the top, by which thechildren made there way up and down. Significantly, inneither building are the “surveillants” bunked with thechildren but in separate quarters alongside the serviceareas.4Here at Salice d’Ulzio, Bonade’s latest spiralingtower, seems conciously to perfect the form, making ityet more absolute and pure. The purity exceeds therelative functional advantage of the form in the windingmountainside location providing the most efficientsolution for dealing with wind—resistance. However, in anarticle on the Colonie published in an 1941 issue ofCasabella Mario Lab4o attributed the architect’s gravityto aesthetic values:...thjs architectural contrivance, so rigid as tobecome ingeniously simple, reveals more aestheticismthan Rationalism; and this is all the more evidentin this latest variation21.Furthermore, the small windows appropriate to the morerigorous design could have been insufficient in thesometimes dark cloudy valleys between the Col Basset andFraiteve mountain peaks.35There is also one question of a functional naturewhich needs to be addressed. The “Torre Balilla” wascompleted in 1937 but according to records22 neveractually housed anyone until 1981 when the project wastransformed as a residence. Therefore, the “TorreBalilla” was a culmination of design strategies, which,for reasons unknown, never fulfilled it’s promise.However, it’s similarity to “Edoardo Agnelli”, wherechildren of Fiat did attend well past the end of the war,would suggest that it would have operated in very similarways.We can now return to the issue of the differencebetween the Fiat Colonie and those created under theFascist regime. In two 1942 Casabella articles Mario Labodealt with the different “types” of Colonia, in an earlyattempt to define what had been built in thethirties23. As noted before, he made distinctionsbetween the seaside and mountain programmes, as well asthe less frequent, “elioterapiche” Colonie. He classifiesfour basic types which were built for the various uses.First, the “village”, such as that designed by EttoreSotsas near “Edoardo Agnelli” in Marina di Massa, second;the “tower”, such as we have seen, and by Nardi Greco atChiavari, third, the “monoblock”; the most common, suchas Pica’s at Marina di Ravenna and the “open plan”, suchas Lenzi’s at S. Severa. Lab classifies a fifth type as36“contaminations”, where a vertical element finds it’s wayinto a horizontal sceme, such as Peverelli’s scheme atRimini. The essential difference is in “in the debate, ormore exactly, the rivalry, between vertical or horizontaldevelopment”24.The Colonia at Marina di Massa of Sotsas, of the“village” type, is organized and appears like anindustrial factory. It is a very long horizontal buildingwith the “factory” facing the ocean. Four rows ofhorizontal windows stretch the length, equal in height.Behind are secondary buildings, displaced like “auxiliaryplants”25. It was designed in 1938, could house 1O16children and was financed by the Federazione dei Fasci diCombattimento di Torino: the PNF. What is significanthere is that it really does look like an InternationalStyle modernist factory and Fiat, if they had wanted tocould easily have designed their Colonie in such manner —which would be quite fitting. That Fiat did not choosethis more obvious allusion is of decisive importance,because in truth they did design their Colonie toresemble 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 plana rectangle with a semi—circle, similar to the wings at“Edoardo Agnelli”. It was built in 1935, two years after37Fiat 11Edoardo Agnelli”, housed 450 and was commissionedby the PNF of Genova. The possibility that Nardi Greco’sdesign emulated aspects of Fiat’s Colonia is notdocumented but would appear likely. It is nine stories,the floorplan repeated with a concrete spine and sidewings, much like Fiat’s seaside camp. However, thesignature ramp system of Fiat is removed, in favor of atraditional floor arrangement, but the similarity betweenthe two lies in the efficient use of site: 30,000 m3 on2a site of 100,000 m . Labo, in this regard makes aninteresting point:The saving in the built area certainly does notcompensate for the greater cost of foundations andstructure, and the dependance on mechanicalcirculation is substantial26.Fiat’s ramp might have seemed not only expensive butperhaps even eccentric or even functionally irrelevant.W1y then did Fiat build the Lingotto ramps, theSestrieres hotel, and then the two Colonie with thismethod, which with the complex concrete construction ofthe ramps, must have been doubly expensive?A third type was established by A. Pica, one of the38several architects who made submissions for a proposedColonia for the woods near Ravenna in 1936 for 500 childrensponsored by Montecatini. It was never built but Pica’sdrawing eloquently elucidates the third type. It is a singlebuilding without wings, additions or subsidiary “plants”. “Asingle window” faces the sea, “divided only by mullions andhorizontal spandrels”27,rigorous and monumental. In thelovely chiaroscuro drawing, relevant to Fiat’s Colonie, Picabreaks the horizontality of the scheme with anexpressionistic device which recalls the ramps of Fiat — acoiling bridge ramp is his solution for the village childrenaccessing the site without crossing the busy lido strip.This ramp is the closest thing to Bonade-Bottino’sheliocoids in all the Colonie and moreover in all Italiandesign of the 1930’s.Nevertheless, the rounded or tower form is seldom foundin any of the Colonie. Where it does appear, it isincidental such as at Ravenna and non—functioning as atMazzoni’s Calaxnbrone water towers of 1935. Lenzi’s S. SeveraColonia of 1933 has a tower block of four stories but is ofthe “contaminated” type mentioned by Labo, employingcharacteristics of all the types employing series ofbuildings, wings, and a “tower” within an open plan. But thetower is small and integrated into the rest of thehorizontally inclined building, hardly “dominant”. NardiGreco built a second “tower” Colonia at Rovegno in 1934, but39the tower portion of a building primarily of the “monoblock”type is really a stylized clock tower, and not reallyfunctional either. Eugenio Faludi built the Colonia MarinaMontecatini in 1938 with a rectangular open frame watertower with an ascending ramp, and in many senses this is theclosest to what Fiat did, but again it was not a dormitory.This an interesting comparison also because we see thedifferent solutions reached by another private industrialconcern, the giant Montecatini company. In an interview forthe 1988 catalogue, Pica was asked about his unique ramp atRavenna. He said of it:The requirement was specific and functional, becausethere was a need for a ramp to keep the children’scirculation clear of the road28.Therefore it is clear that the intentions of Bonade-Bottinofor Fiat and Pica were different in reagards to their ramps.He was also asked about the Montecatini water tower. Wasthis expressing something? “That” he said, intriguingly,“was for the architect to decide, not the client”29. Wouldthe same assessment hold true for the Fiat commission aswell? What was the input of the firm on such matters?Therefore it is surprising that the literature on theFiat projects is so spare, and these questions of intentionunanswered. The Exhibition Catalogue of 1988 took the first40step toward including these buildings in the history ofarchitecture, and answering these questions. The article.4begins, “The work of Bonade-Bottino represents the mostradical attempt to provide a typological identity for theColonie”30. Though we must be extremely careful when weuse such a term, we should also recall that Labo, writing in1942, used the term, “type”, to define the formal andstylistic differences in the Colonie. The second significantreference to Fiat’s Colonie in the 1988 catalogue concernsonad-Bottino himself. The passage almost reads as mundane,yet it precisely defines the direction of this paper fromthis point forward, for the first time connecting the FiatColonie to the use of the heliocoidal ramps at the Lingottoplant:Bonade—Bottino collaborated with Matte-Trucco on theFiat Lingotto works in Turin (1926-7). This buildingwas to remain an important point of reference, interms both of organization of the programme as aprocess, and of the formal solution of thespiral ramps31.This sets the central question of the remainder of thisthesis, namely the reason why the Fiat company and itsarchitect’s and designers decided to use the circularconfiguration and internal curving ramp against all currentthinking on resolving the design issues of the Colonia.41CHAPTER THREEFIAT AND ARCHITECTURAL PATRONAGEThe Agnelli family, founders of Fiat, were part ofan emergent class— already well established in WesternEurope but practically non—existent in Italy before the1860’s — the petit bourgeoise. The family had been smallland holders around the town of Villar Perosa, thirtymiles from Turin. Their small scale farming wastransformed in the nineteenth century by advances inproduction of silk weaving and in 1853 purchased theYtraditional Villa and holdings of the della Perosa’s, oneof many noble families in Italy who did not make thetransition into industrial production1.Friedmancommented that, “the acquisition of this villa was thestart of a process of upgrading the social status of anhistorically undistinguished family”2. Tomaso diLampedusa’s novel Ii Gattopardo documents the change ofpower that typifies the rise of families like theAgnelli’s and the passing of the traditional aristocraticfamilies. The Sicilian Prince of Sauna recognizes thepassing of the old world to the new with an all importantdistinction— the new man in Italy, he said, “he has morethan what you call prestige, he has power”3.42Intent upon establishing aristocratic credentials,Giovanni Agnelli, the founder of Fiat, served as anofficer in the cavalry of the House of Savoy, centered onTurin, under whose king, Vittorio Emmanuel II, thepeninsula came to be unified4. The Savoy capitalattracted intellectuals and middle—class bougeoisie whobecame statesmen, like Count Cavour. Turin became amagnet for all the new power brokers of RisorgimentoItaly, and Agnelli was soon associated with the futureleaders of the modern Italian state5. That Turin, thefirst capital of modern Italy, in the 1890’s became thehome of Fiat, which soon became Italy’s largestindustrial concern is no coincidence.Thirty years saw Italy go from occupied nation ofbackwardness to bold innovator. The change occurred soswiftly that new fortunes were made by those who rosequickly enough and embraced the future. Until 1861 Italywas, as Metternich said, “only a geographicalexpression”6.In Ii Gattopardo Lampedusa identified this newclass as, “the jackals” who come at the end of a gloriousera of monarchs and dynasties. The Sicilian prince, DonFabrizio, aristocratic protagonist of Lampedusa’s noveltells a man of the “new modern administration”:...it will be different, but worse. We were the43Leopards and Lions, those who will take our placewill be little jackals, hyenas; and the whole lotof us, Leopards, jackals and sheep, we’ll all goon thinking ourselves the salt of the earth7.As the capitol moved south from Turin to Rome, Turinmomentarily seemed to lose it’s centrality, but in 1898came news of a new invention, “the horseless carriage”and in July 1899, four years before Henry Ford set up hisauto company in Michigan, Giovanni Agnelli and hispartners opened Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino:FIAT. Cesare de Seta states:Torino...essa e sopratutto gia dagli inizi delsecolo, la citt della Fiat e di GiovanniAgnelli. Ii capitalismo italiano ha qui leradici piu profonde e presenta ii suo voltopiu efficiente nel campo deli’ industrianeccanica8.Agnelli, the Piemontese, also had extremely goodpolitical foresight and “saw from the start the need tocultivate good relations with the politicians inRome”9. The Turin connections from the heady days ofRisorgimento soon paid off. Agnelli in those days hadbefriended a local politician in Turin. By the 1890’s thefriend, Giolitti, was Prime Minister. This relationship44paid huge dividends in the Libyan conflict in 1911. Fiatwas one of the major manufacturers of war material forthe troops fighting the Ottoman Turks: from trucks andambulances to machine guns and airplane engines in whattranspired to herald a heightened sense of nationhood andachievment of the much desired “great power” status, acentral promise of the Risorgimento10.Fiat thus becameassociated with the great national victory as well asreceiving substantial government orders-1. Therelationship, between industry, power and government grewcloser in 1914 with Italy poised to enter the “GreatWar”.Italian indusrialists in general supported the entryof Italy into the war, seeing even greater profits, andcan be seen as partially responsible for propelling Italyinto a conflict the majority of the populace, outside ofthe “excessive” interventionists, such as the Futuristgroup, did not support12— but such was the power nowheld by the new industrialists. Agnelli, along with manyother industrialists now backed an ex—Socialistinterventionist who equally desired war, anotherconnection on the rise: Mussolini, before he ever came toany great prominence. “Thus began the fat years forFiat”3.With munitions and vehicle orders pouring in, a new45factory was necessary for Fiat and a large plot waspurchased on the outskirts of Turin, in place of theoriginal and now hopelessly outdated plant within thecity on Corso Dante14. The noted historian, MartinClark, says that Agnelli became the “de facto RoyalFamily” with this move, which was sparked after visitingthe new Ford plants in Michigan in 191215. On hisreturn a fellow—industrialist asked him whether hethought the American methods of mass-production of cheapcars and efficient factories would work in Italy.Apparently, “...Agnelli avoided answering. His eyeslighted up briefly but his face which I was scrutinizing,remained impassive. He changed the conversationrapidly”16. This new building was of decisiveimportance, and realizing that, Agnelli built not just afactory but a monument to the moment. Concurrently therecord attests to significant shifts in company policytowards their workers which coincides with the enormousdisruption following the war and the growing labormovement in the factories in the now industrialized northof Italy. Moral and social welfare begins to enter theterminology of the firm, with it’s massive work force nowexperiencing the social ills of nations alreadyindustrialized, such as Germany and England.Fiat begins to show signs of a growing awareness ofliterature to handle these new aspects of the firms46growth. At this early stage it is not clear specificallywhich texts Agnelli came in contact with but there was aplethora of material from which to extract solutions.One such well—known study was the Englishman BudgettMeakin’s 1905 study Model Factories and Villages. Meakin,a self—proclaimed “lecturer on industrial betterment”begins his preface by defining the purpose of such astudy as, to “promote the moral and social welfare of...employees, in hope of provoking others to like goodworks”17. The examples he cites are he says, “theactual experience of money — making men”. Herein weencounter the notion of morality through labor:...the three most important matters for attentionshould be health, morals and education...becausea vigorous employee can do more work18.Though such concerns appear relatively innocuous recentwriters have become increasingly critical of the powerthe new industrialists had to do ill as much as to do“good works”.“The factory is a system of regulation as well as asystem of production,” Robin Evans opens his article“Regulation and Production” in the 1976 Lotus specialissue19 on factories. But the conventional wisdom hasit that the factory came as a consequence of industry,47and the great inventors serving only society’s progress.Challenging this notion, Evans asks, “is it not possiblethat the factory was brought into being as a socialorganization” and that the new machines “only renderedthis arrangement more purposeful and moreprofitable”20?Evans’ article proposes that:...the prisons set out to create a disciplined,orderly and submissive body of labor through the useof authority and force alone, yet the factories werefilled with echoes of this same effort toward moralcontrol2’.The late industrialization of Italy, furthermore offerssome interesting reflections upon this discourse. Thefactory in Italy came as the most potent signal of thenew economy and nationhood, and Agnelli, looking at theBritish and American experiences came to recognize thatwhomever ran these new machines could run the wholenation. Therefore the specific technology for the newfactory and the degree to which it would aid productionwhile engendering regulation was seen by Agnelli as beingof considerable importance in addressing these issues inthe built form.The Fiat Lingotto works was started in 1920 byFiat’s own engineer—architect Giacomo Matte—Trucco. The48main functions were up and running by 1924. It wasclearly influenced by the work of French concretearchitect Auguste Perret,and its multi—storey concreteframe and continuous ramps recall his Paris garages. Itwas controlled, in terms of its interior layout andfacade, by a grid of columns and beams. But it possesseda powerful symbol of modern technology: an ellipticalconcrete test track that encircled the factory roof. Therooftop track became a popular point of reference forNorthern architects and for this reason Lingotto hasfigured to some degree in the development of the machineaesthetic in architectural history. But it’s credentialswere immediately accepted because of the praise of one ofmodernist architecture’s primary figures, Le Corbusier.In 1925 Le Corbusier referred to the factory as “one ofindustry’s most exciting spectacles”22 and it formed animportant starting point for the Radiant City in 1935. In1923 in his seminal work Vers Une Architecture he hadincluded three photographs of the Fiat test trackcelebrating its dynamic, aesthetic virtues— on theconcluding pages. In that respect those underscore one ofCorbusier’s opening sentences. “Aesthetic engineering—Architecture”, Le Corbusier wrote, “two integral, relatedarts, one in full flower, the other in painfuldecline”23.But the Fiat track was moreso especially remarkable49because it surmounted the massive factory, noisilyinhabited by some 10,000 workers laboring in dailyshifts. Hans Hollein the “Postmodern” Austrian architectsaid that “its size can best be judged by combining theground plans of Versailles and the Crystal Palace”24.The sense of Lingotto’s authoritarian allusion had beenstressed in the 1930’s by Italian architect EdoardoPersi’co who saw in it “an ancient order ofobedience”25,while Reyner Banham attached anothermeaning to the track writing that “the Lingotto above allneeds Metal! Petrol! Noise! Smell! ProletarianCurses! ,,26The structure of the factory depended upon a rigidgrid three modules across the width of the building’sground plan. These defined the different shop functionseach linked to “connection and distribution” moduleswhich further connect with each succesive floor,originally by vertical elevators but from 1925, byheliocoidal ramps at each end. Those ramps became key tothe whole production system and by a series ofexperiments aimed at developing further what Fiat musthave seen as being a system of production of the highestpossible efficiency.The assembly process begins at ground with rawmaterials and progresses through body work, coach work,50finishing etc. from north to south, ramp by ramp, endingup a finished product on the rooftop testing track. Herethe car would be put through its paces and then broughtdown to the nearby railyards by way of the flanking,immense south exit ramp. They were large enough to allowthe great number of cars in production to moveefficiently up through the different stages of productionin this unique multi—storey structure. Lingotto receivedso much attention because of the popular image of thetrack and yet the ramps which made it all possible andare equally, if not greater, engineering feats haveremained in relative obscurity, partially explaining theneglect of the later Colonie buildings of Fiat, which areclearly derived from the Lingotto ramps.The reasons for the building of the ramps is equallyimportant in understanding the inherent meaning in thelater multi—storey vertically inclined Fiat buildings. In1923 after a year of production at full speed in the newfacilities:...emerser alcuni inconvenienti di ordinefunzionale, probabile conseguenza dei tempi dicollaudo variabili per le singole autoniobili:il permanere in pista dei veicoli per tempimaggiori di quelli previsti t.eoricamente deveaver provocato ingorghi davanti aimontacarichi e, quel che piu contava, scompensi nei51tempi delle operazioni successsive. Ii fatto nons’accordava con ii rigido “taylorismo all’italiana”,al quale doveva uniformarsi ogni singola operazionenello stabilomento27.The Fiat engineers were set to the task of resolving thebacklogs and Matt-Trucco apparently presented the ideafor the oval-shaped heliocoidal ramps28.The ramps were necessary due to the unique nature ofthe muiti—storey factory which previously had relied onlifts and circular heliocoidal ramps distributedthroughout the plant of a much smaller smaller size. Bothof these designs will be discussed at a later time interms of their contribution toward the eventual use atthe Colonie of simliar ramps.This example of plant organization reflects theindustrial doctrine of “Taylorism”. What later came toknown as “scientific management” was developed byF.W.Taylor while a gang boss in a Philadelphia steelfactory in the 1880’s. A controversy with workers led toan accurate measurement of what constituted a day’s workor any single operation29. The standardized workprocess in Lingotto is an adaptation of this theory,which had an enormous international impact.In the Italian text Venti Progetti: ii futuro per52Lingotto, documenting the 1984 redevelopment process ofthe plant, the production process is described in somedetail. The workers were subdivided into two shifts. Thetotal number would have exceeded ten thousand. In each ofthe main shops, defined by the distribution modules,worked, on average, 1000 employees including thetechnicians (engineers etc.) and the general shopworkers. Above them was a shop foreman in the hierarchyof the plant, the “capo reparto”.Within each department was a production shop withtime tests, the “analisi tempi” which established andverified the pace and production objectives. What isinteresting is the minute detailed specifications foreach process and documentation for workers who rarelyworked in other departments. The work cycles wererecorded on cards “on which each employee signedpersonally for the time of production...in minutes andhundredths of minutes”. Further, those on the assemblylines were required to also mark daily in the obligatory“brogliaccio”, or notebooks, the completed production.Every shop was divided into three or four departments andeach department was formed by 4-8 squads of 50—120shop-workers30.The use of the term squads is the firstsign of Agnelli initiating specifically Fascistterminology if not ideas onto the shopfloor.53The analysis of the Fiat factory must also includeanalysis of the broad political context and the impact oflabor unrest, especially to comprehend the huge disparitybetween the financial status of the Agnelli and theirworkforce. The Anglo—American social history of modernItaly tends to portray factory labor as what historianVictoria de Grazia calls, “freely accepted and heroicallyexperienced discipline”31.There was, however, notedexamples of labor unrest denoting an awareness of thedeep exploitation.In July 1919 Fiat workers took part in rioting,demonstrations and strikes, subsequently in April 1920Fiat workers took part in the ten-day “generalstrike”32. At the time, the Marxist leader AntonioGramsci wrote that, “Turin is a modern city. Capitalistactivity throbs in it with the crashing din of massiveworkshops which concentrate tens of thousands ofproletarians into a few thousand cubic meters... thehuman race is here divided into two classes ...we don’thave democrats and petty reformists”33.By far “themost famous example of labour militancy was the“occupation of the factories”.In September 1920 over 400,000 workers “took overtheir factories or shipyards and expelled their managersand carried on working — sometimes at making barbed wire54or guns”34. The occupation of Lingotto forced the newworking class into a more powerful position than they hadever experienced before, and implies a new conception ofthe relations between the worker and the factory35.This was because, paradoxically, it concentrated in onelarge space what was scattered and unorganized outside itin the ghettos. It seemed at the time a heroic victoryfor the workers. So few years after the Russianrevolution, it appeared the same might happen in Italy.The reaction of industrialists was predictably the“call to order” which shortly found expression in theFascist “squadristi” who broke workers rallies with clubsand fists36. The “padrone”, who beforeindustrialization had controlled the peasant farmer hadnot been lost in the shift to the factories, and nowbegin to reappear when the masses were roused by militantSocialism. The tradition of the “padrone” has carried onright up to the present labor situation in Italy, then asnow, still part feudalist in many ways. The monopoly onpower is what Italians call “strapotere”—all—encompassing power.Among the methods of control, there were severalmethods of “persuasion” available to the employers andthe most discussed was “Fordism”37.Agnelli and Fordpaid visits to each other’s factories over the years.55Ford had accustomed his workers to the drudgery of thestandardized work process using his “doctrine of highwages”. Many Italian employers, unwilling or in manycases , unable to pay more, rejected the ideasoutright38.Agnelli was one of the few to see a wayaround the issue by exploiting another aspect of“Fordism” — the provision of social services, of whichthe Colonie would become the largest. After the collapseof the workers movement after the 1920 factoryoccupations and the onset of Fascism, Fiat’s managementcan be seen slowly beginning to implement socialinitiatives as incentives39.However, now wanting tocontrol more firmly the workers and erradicate workslowdowns and strikes, Agnelli implemented more Fascistinitiatives— as Victoria de Grazia has said, “no longerin the context of liberal reformism, but as powerfulextensions of an authoritarian system of laborcontrol”40.Agnelli can be seen as allied with Fascism,and for this relationship after the war was hunted downby vigilante bands of the Resistenza, narrowly escapingthe same fate as Mussolini.During the war however, the workers could not beallowed to disrupt the production of the plants becauseAgnelli’s “modus operandi” was to reap the maximum fromthe unprecedented oportunity for profit presented by thewar. All other considerations were secondary and he56insisted that his workers were totally loyal to Fiat. Asa further example of this corporate philosophy, duringthe war Fiat apparently also maintained contacts with notjust the Fascists and the Nazis, but later the Allies andeven the Resistance gained substantial financial supportafter Mussolini’s arrest and the German occupation in194441. There was no consideration of ideology, scuplesor morality: the company’s profits were all and Agnelliwas in contact with whomever might need his product.By the late 1930’s Fiat had become a virtual statewithin a state, in many ways above mere governments42.They used Giolitti for his influence when he was inpower. Mussolini the same. When the regime faltered, likethe Christian Democrats, they were already brokering withthe members of the next likely power base in the positionto grant favors next. To maintain its position Fiat usedpolitics, financial protection and legislation43.AFiat executive during the Fascist era has said, “we wouldbe good Germans, we would be good Fascists, but we had tosave Fiat. That was the company policy”44, thinkingback to Ii Gattopardo the shift from aristocraticprestige to economic power it seems did produce what DonFabrizio saw as the successors to the “lions andleopards”, what he called “hyenas and jackals”.By the 1930’s the power wielded by Fiat and Agnelli57was, like an “arlecchino” in the Commedia masked by manylayers. The House of Agnelli in Turin could be seen asmore powerful than the Turin-based House of Savoy, who’sking, Vittorio Emmanuel III, was a puppet to the Duce.Indeed the Agnelli were viewed the naturalsuccessors45.The family was becoming so powerful thatthey rivalled not only the Savoys but even the Medici,the Gonzaga, Sforza or Visconti dynasties. The automobilebecame so successful a product that the powerful wealthaccumulated by Giovanni Agnelli, by his death in 1945 was$1 Billion46.The state within a state of Agnelli is like a feudalbarony, a clan. They became the most powerful of the“Razza Padrone”- the race of patrons, who’s positionwithin Italy is below the surface, not unlike a mafia,but equal to the Catholic Church, the corruption ofpatronage politics, or the masonic lodge. This is anation which places it’s ultimate faith, not ingovernment, but in the structure of the family and by1945 the most powerful of all was the Villar PerosaAgnelli’s47.Fiat’s built statements of the inter—warperiod, the Lingotto and the Colonie, reflect this newpower and contain other currents which might disruptproduction. Production, being the main theme of Fiat, wasto read in their buildings from a distance, toweringabove even the local church spires.58CHAPTER POURTHE SIGNIPICNCE OF THE FIAT CO)Q(ISSIONThese buildings, in the final analysis, must be seenas Agnelli’s buildings. Through the insular design teamof Bonade—Bottino and Matte—Trucco, Fiat’s architecturewas haute—bourgeois, defending in their built form theconservatism of Agnelli’s class against revolutionarytendencies and radicalism. This architecture is notunlike Piacentini’s — a sort of middle ground betweenrevolutionary and traditional1.Yet Agnelli’sconvervatism was Northern and Piacentini’s that of Rome.Therefore the values the buildings upheld were unique tothe emerging bourgeoise of Turin. Thomas Schumacher saidof Piacentini:...[hej praised the “older generation” of modernarchitects over the young International Stylearchitects, Bonatz, Bohm, Ostberg, Saarinen, Perretarchitects who from the thirties onward, have beenconsidered transitional figures in the history ofthe Modern Movement2.Perhaps this is what is also at work beneath the surfaceof the Colonie buildings of Fiat — that the designnotions which inform them reflect Perret, and are59therefore Proto—modern, despite their late date. Perhapsthis is what separates them from the dominantly Rationalaspect of the institution. Fiat’s Colonie are complex,Northern and radical technologically — but also not toomodern, needing to contain such tendencies due to theclass of the projected users and the ever presentpotential of Socialist uprising. The buildings, then area political statement? Liberal thought was intended to beextracted from them. The use of precedents, such asPerret’s multi—storey garages is not just stylistic butpart of a deeply entrenched political philosophy, andhistorical tradition.Piacentini published only one building by thepredominantly abstract functionalist Gruppo 7, and ithappened to be a Colonia project — Carlo Rava’s 1928Colonia Pavillion at the Milan Fair but, as Schumacherpoints out, “shown at night to minimize the whiteness ofthe volumetric expression”3.Agnelli and the Fiatarchitects similarly advocate a “middle of the roadarchitecture” - advocating change while adhering totraditional, politically stable values. This distinctionbrings to mind Piacentini’s oft—repeated phrase, thatthere be, “two architectures, one in underwear, the otherin evening dress”4. Fiat’s Colonie’s association withthe more monarchist, state-oriented Piacentini buildingsare a statement of political and philosophicalpreservation of conservative mores.60Yet the association of values goes deeper than thissurface comparison of the Fiat buildings and those ofPiacentini. In his article, “Where Rational Architectureis Unreasonable,” Piacentini argues for the symbolicassociations of the vertical versus the horizontal5.The vertical was the direction of traditional styles, thehorizontal was the direction of the modern style, madepossible by the cantilever and frame construction. “Thehorizontal suits domestic architeture, intimate, modest;the vertical suits monumental architecture”6.This isthe type of statement which so enraged the modernmovement and caused Piacentini to be cast as Mussolini’slackey. In the light of “post—modernism”, the statementhas a new resonance. Piacentini also argued for the useof reinforced concrete- all of Fiat’s buildings revel intheir love for the material.Now, when turning back to Fiat’s buildings of thethirties, the same arguments seem to hold. The verticalwas stressed and the nature of such height necessitatedthe building of ramps. The very nature of the FiatColonie is verticality. Is this another politicalstatement that theirs was a “traditional” architectureand therefore, legitimate? The concrete preferenceequally looks back to the stable association of Perretand the proto—modern stance. If nothing else, the Fiat61buildings were expressions of confidence for the ductilematerial. Again, without it the ramp structures and theverticality would not have been possible.The dilemna, is of course, how to maintain modernityin technology without adopting a machine aesthetic, forreasons of political association, but also, that it notdevour national characteristics. This was, curiously,also the debate we recall from the “RationalistManifesto”7 and in this sense such a characteristiccould be considered a generally Italian dispostion.However, the way in which the groups resolved the issuewere entirely different.Obviously the ramps at Lingotto informed the FiatColonie buildings, even if no such connection has beenexplicated. Significantly, while the Lingotto plant wasdesigned by Matte, few people have recognized that theramps, added in 1925, were designed in tandem with thearchitect of both the Fiat Colonia buildings, VittorioBonade-Bottino. In his book Centenario Bonade makes astatement, which seems to confirm my suspicions:Mi pare abbastanza curioso che questa“affiliazione” (tra)...le rampe alla Coloniadi Marina di Massa..e Lingotto non abbiatrovato posto in tutte le stonedell’architettura italiana...questa affiliazione62rapprasenta uno degli aspetti insospettadi cui8...Yet, it is in the original source for these ramps and themulti—storey design of Lingotto itself where it ispossible to deconstruct the meaning and intention behindtheir use in a type it had never been used in before: thetower. Or had it?As noted, there is a strong Italian tradition ofrevolving ramps. An early example of a similar structureis in Bramante’s revolving stair at the Belvedere.Palladio did similar constructions and drawings as didthe 18th Century Venetians. Of course, Turin itself wouldhave been a source for its centrally-planned buildings byGuarini, such as at San Giovanni— part of theconservative bourgeoise culture of Fiat and it’sarchitects that would undeniably inform theirphilosophical and their design aesthetics. There is astrong northern Italian tradition of interchange which ispart of the “stable” vocabulary of forms to which themodern architects in Italy in general looked to, with theRisorgimento mentality as their inspiration. Indeed, thearchitectural culture of the day would have had a rich4%history of the form. Specific to Matte and Bonade,though, the form reached them in a very specific way.63The specific technology for building the ramps inreinforced concrete and the affinity for the multi—storeyor intensive building belongs to the engineer EnricoBonicelli, a teacher at the Turin School of Engineering.The importance of Bonicelli we find in Matte’s firstdesign for Lingotto of 1914, designed on Bonicelli’s“wheel system”, which has enormous implications in thelater buildings. The similarity in the Bonicelli drawingsand the Matte proposal are undeniable. Such a radialconfiguration also was part of the traditionalphilosophical and design history.Thinking back to the similarity in prison andfactory designs, which were being developedsimultaneously in Italy as institutions in the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars ofarchitectural history will immediately recognize asimilarity in Bonicelli’s plan to 19th century workhousesand prison plans such as Baltard’s 1829 example from hisArchitectonigraphie. These well—distributed ideas wouldequally have been part of the material taught to thearchitectural and engineering professions also emergingas institutions at the same time.The notion of a commonality of design betweenprisons, workhouses and factories would pose gravequestions as to the purpose and specifically the64treatment of worker and inmate were the commonalities ofthe types not already part of a discourse which relatesregulation and production. To repeat for emphasis, RobinEvan’s 1976 article asks, “is it not possible that thefactory was brought into being as a form of socialorganization and that the new machines of the industrialrevolution only rendered this arangement more purposefuland profitable?” Could it be that the built statements ofAgnelli—Fiat engendered methods of “persuasion” whichmade little distinction between modern factory and modernprison — perhaps the only two modern institutions theworking class of Turin might ever set foot in?But did the prison and by extension the factory formFiat’s children’s Colonie? At Marina di Massa whatpossible sources could Bonade, trained and schooled underBonicelli and Matte, have possibly referenced for theunique form of this building? One historical precedent inradial plans, in the prison type, which looks uncannilysimilar is William Cubitt’s Radial Prison Plan of 1824.We see a similar articulation on the surface reminiscentof “Edoardo Agnelli”’s pilasters, similarity in thedivision and distribution of the interior and a centralopening. Looking at the Colonia at Salice d’Ulzio, againwe see a similar distribution and articulation.Another indirect source which enjoyed widespread65print was Jeremy Bentham’s Penetentiary Panopticon of1791. The Panopticon had originally been devised byBentham in 1787 for a factory at Critchef in Russia. Thepanopticon’s great claim was the universal surveillanceof the prisoner work force by the master in the centralkiosk9. The character of a convict judged by thequantity and value of their work: profit, therebybecomes the measure of redemption. Similarly profit wasAgnelli’s measure of the factory worker’s worth to Fiat.Where the plans of the Fiat Colonie and Panopticondiffer is in the central kiosk and the discreetsurveillance — but as has been seen already the Colonia,particularly Fiat’s with their regimentation andmilitarized atmosphere was a place of intense scrutiny atall times; so perhaps the comparison is valid in thisregard also. But, what is important is being cognizant ofa vocabulary of forms available to Bonicelli and passedon to his students Matte and Bonade, one of which theysurely would have known being the panoptic option. Suchtypes would have formed the basis of traditional thoughtwhich industry, in the 1920’s still grappling withtechnology, would have entertained as a resolution of howto deal with the new institutions, arriving all at oncein Italy, and the changing technological needs for thevarious building programmes, while at the same timeneeding to stay clear of the revolutionary language ofform and style inherent in the International Style.66These comparisons are not to say that Bonicelli,Matte or Bonade studiously applied Cubitt or Bentham totheir plans but that they were trained in anarchitectural theory and practice which worked withmodels of successful and distributed plans of the past,and that they were all aware that maintenance of thestatus quo had been powerfully affected by the use ofsuch forms. The issue, after the International Style,with a supposedly new canon of forms, is that suchantecedents were part of a discredited past, associatedwith a culture undermined by the war. The issue todaycould be that they were part of an architectural culturewhich found such associations acceptable. Theseassociations have been seen to further exemplify theunwillingness or inability of traditional positions, evenamong the supposed avant—garde within architecturaldiscourse to substantially address the role ofarchitecture as economic and cultural commodities10.If the ascending ramp is the leitmotif of Fiat,further symbols of production can be read on the exteriorof the 1933 tower at Marina di Massa where the centralaxle seems inserted into giant cogwheels in the low wingsin which are located the services and communalfacilities: the abstraction to a giant machine if notintended is certainly read as such, to say nothing of the67phallic reference of this “dominant sign.” The wholefacility functions at peak engineering efficiency whileincorporating a formal abstraction Fiat felt to be notonly efficient but engendering regulation and minimizingdisruptions of the system of any kind. Therefore the FiatColonie must be seen as a form of factory building. Whyelse would they use such a loaded but encoded industrial“linguaggio”?The 1937 tower at Sauce d’Ulzio furthers theabstraction to a pure geometry by accomodating thefacilities in the semi—basement, so that here we seeBonicelli’s “wheel system” having been integrated intothe function of dormitory by way of the factory functionramps of the 1914 Matte design, the 1922 circularheliocoid distribution modules, the 1925 North! Southramps, the Sestrieres ski—lodge and the first FiatColonia at Marina di Massa in 1933. The central voidallows low ceilings thereby permitting a maximum numberof revolutions of the ramp. Intending the maximumefficiency, the maximum production must be the endresult. Bonade with his spiral towers now seeminglycapable of containing any function seemed to march hisaesthetic and social goals higher with each attempt.Indeed the unrepeatable opportunities for totalenviromerit afforded by the design of these buildingsseemed to embody the reformatory hopes of Colonia68architecture as a whole, and to a certain degree, themodern movement generally.However, the technology of Lingotto was outmoded in1939 with the building of the horizontally plannedMirafiori plant. The inefficiency of the ramps versus thecontinuous conveyor was acute within ten years. Did Fiatsuddenly become less endeared with what until 1937 seemedthe embodiment of Fiat’s corporate philosophy? Could thisexplain Sauce d’Ulziio’s abandonment? The shift tohorizontal structures, necessarily represents a shift inthe corporate philosophy, which requires some speculationas to why such a shift occurs. Albert Kahn designed astructure similar to Lingotto for Ford using the“intensive” factory, but his Highland Park was a reverseof Lingotto. Goods flowed downwards, in “gravityfeed”, where Lingotto worked up to the roof, HighlandPark started at the top and worked down. Yet by the mid—twenties Ford can be seen shifting to horizontalfactories. Did Agne].li first build in this manner inemulation of Ford and American—Taylorism? Kahn’s FordHighland Park could be seen as Fiat’s model formulti—storey buildings, but Fiat seems to have adoptedthe concept too late. By the time Lingotto was underway,Ford had begun The Glass Plant in 1922, which with thehorizontal emphasis was of another era entirely than the“intensive” type. Nonetheless Fiat built in the intensivemanner until 1937.69That Fiat’s 1939 replacement for Lingotto, thehorizontal Mirafiori, rejected the tower and the rampsystem would suggest that by that time they had becomeaware of the drawbacks of the once revolutionary designsystem. The years of Fiat’s “intensive” buildings roughlyparallel those of the Fascist regime — 1923 to 1937. By1939, the climate had changed dramatically in Italy, theFascists like the heliocoidal ramp were in decline.Neither could Lingotto withstand the increased loadsimposed by the modern heavy machinery on itsmulti—layered floors, and after 1939 and until itsclosure in 1984 manufactured only body parts12. Thetechnology had begun to pass Fiat by, and, if for noother reason than what we understand to be the companyphilosophy, “do anything to save Fiat”, it would beprobable that by 1939 the war against union militancy wasperceived to have been won and the practicalities ofbusiness demanded practical responses over morephilosophical ones. After the Colonie no other Fiatbuilding took this form, and since the war only one otherItalian building, Franco Albini’s 1950 INA Offices, tookthis unique form. There was, it seems, a period of 10—15years where this technology appeared to Fiat the peak ofefficiency and the embodiment of the age.70Italy between the years 1925 and 1937 witnessed apassage from the control of company productivity to thecontrol of social productivity — buildings of this periodare documentary evidence of the capitalist monopolies inItaly in formation, and during the period of Fiat’sintensive buildings they became Italy’s largest. Soperhaps in the final analysis they were indeed theembodiment of the age specific to Italy and perhaps thecorporate form of Fiat’s interwar buildings did make theimpact that they were designed to. The buildings of Fiatsignify, in this sense, a unique treatise on the socialand ideological shift in the nature of modern Italy. ForFiat each phase of plant reorganization and expansionduring the period was accompanied by a correspondinggrowth in the company’s welfare and recreationalfacilities’3.Fiat’s social services were conceived asintegral elements in the production process. The FiatColonie at Marina di Massa and Sauce d’Ulzio advocated amilitary—like discipline consistent not only with their,and the regime’s, notion of an orderly society, but alsowith the rigorous organization deemed necessary in thehighly mechanized mass—production firm. This is a classicideological clash from which the capitalist—imperialistFiat emerged, like the Fascists, almost—totalitarian,equating their proletarian elite employees with thefront—line soldier in battle on the front—line ofclass—warfare: the factory. However, the Fascists passed71into history, whereas Fiat grew more powerful with eachpassing year. Fiat’s social welfare constructions were asecond front: where even organized rest became work.The children of Fiat workers attending such camps inessence perform the factory functions of both worker andproduct, inhabiting the structure in a microcosmic mannernot unlike their father’s in the factory and coming downthe ramp a “finished product”, as the paternalisticemployer prepares the next generation of assembly lineworkers for the realities of the “new Italy” whilesimultaneously developing the consumption cycle toward anaffluent society.“Lingotto” in Italian means, “ingot of gold”.Agnelli obviously did think of his corporation as aprecious commodity. Fiat’s buildings of the Fascistperiod 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 whichpatronized Italian art had always represented. Thesebuildings represented precious valuables and investmentsin the family fortune. The social hierarchies set up bythese buildings with their working class users reinforcethe fabric of traditional values by displaying theunattainable aspect of their abstract value. With a fewpieces of “gold” Fiat reestablishes the “razza padrone”,looking down from the villa on the laborers toiling inthe fields.Perhaps the unique nature of the Fiat Colonie withinthe institution of the Colonie as a whole can be betterunderstood if the ideological attitudes of the firm andit’s founder are taken into account. And perhaps thesignificance of these hitherto poorly documentedbuildings can not only illuminate the intentions of theFiat system and the firm’s place in Italian culture ofthe inter—war period but also better explain the natureof industrial power during the Fascist period.73fig.1 Giuseppe Terragni, Casa del Fascio,Como, 1932—36. Fascist rally in front ofbuilding 1936.74fig.2 Enrico del Debbio, Sports Complex,Rome, Foro Mussolini, 1937.fig. 3 Enrico del Debbio, Sports Complex,Rome, plan.q__Hit•-- •1It II___IIi:i______it0fig.4 Terragni, Casa del Fascio, Como,plan.._ .—. .. 4—S.—75fig.5 Marcello Piacentini, Boizano warMonument, 1928—31.76a--.I-rfig.6 Open air gymnastics at the Colonie.F—1-I-.-l.0) IL 114.,1?-J(ti-hCDcPQ I CD—179fig.9/1O/11 (top) Uniformed marches,(middle) hygienic cleansing,(bottctn) free dental work at the ColoniaMarina Fbntecatini, Cervia, 1938, EugenioFaludi architect.80ff9.12 Sterilizers at the ColoniaClimatico—Baj.neare, Formia, 1937, GiulioMinoletti architect.fig.13/14 canteen and Wash basins at theColonia Rosa Naltoni Mussolini,Calambrone, 1925-35, Angiolo Mazzoniarchitect.82fiq.15 Outdoor showers at the ColoniaElioterapica, Legnano, 1938, BBPRarchitects.a.- -,.---:,b—-— z£I-’-I-’.HHp-ano0)H‘-ttIHI-’-(0LQC)01H-ctD0H1-9-‘-‘in0) 0)(Onown(DO)Ct ‘-4‘.001wits‘.00)(A)84fig.17 Sculptor Edoardo Paolozzi in groupphoto at. the colonia )QCVIII Ottobre at.Cattolica, 1932, Clemente Bursiri—Viciarchitect.85fig.18 Children at play before the towerof the Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli,Marina di Massa, 1933, VittorioBonade-Bottino architect.fig.19 Site of Fiat Colonia EdoardoAgnelli, Marina di Massa from thebeacbfront with tower rising on the right.—Sr.r• air,I-s.I.i.l.a.CDWzjCtI-’ hi. C)l-•01 l-J Cl) CtU) 0 0)ct0) 1.1.01 1•1 CDl-’ I-IZ:’ Cl) I-..CD C-I- l- I-• l-’cO I-hUiI•1—‘—r’4—‘\‘—.—,:::.iiaaaaasjsaaaamsauaø—————mI’..—————/87HH•/ t*4Cameraie/Dormitoricsfig.21 Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli,ground plan at left and tower section atright.fig.22 Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli,Section.Sezione IonitudnakLong!tudInaI senon88fig.23 Fiat Colonia Edoa.rdo Agnelli,interior view showing “room” sections andbed arrangement.fig.25 Max Berg, Centenary FchibitionHall, Breslau, 1913. Interior view lookingup to pierced concrete roof.fig.24 Fiat Colonia Edoardo Agnelli,looking up to skylight roof throughcentral void.P• _;‘.•nfig.26 Donato Brainante, Staircase at theBelvedere, Vatican, Rome. Interior viewlooking up central void.OH V I;. I091fig.28 The cerenony of the “Alza Bandiera”as carried out on the beach at all theMarine Colonie of the 1930’s.- r. I—92fig.29 Fiat Colonia “Torre Balilla”,:Sauce d’tJlzio, 1937, VittorioBonade-Bottino architect.93rr‘\\---‘%çA’I iIftOPe%Yx\I 1fTtfN 0111 Ia a<waw 4--- —a — ‘—_fig.30 Fiat Colonia Torre Balilla,interior view looking up central void tothe segmented skylight roof.fig.31 Fiat ColOnia Torre Balilla,interior view iooking onto aiiingS atedge of the central void with bedrangeItlent in the ckgroUnd.-J••1-_____,.,.,———-.t—-—..-—---———.-..—..—.———P)H s.d.Wtzj1I-’.LQuCDciH)-I. DiQOctJI,CDi-’•cl-I-’ Pbi-’CDCDDl‘Dl 1 I1I-’LQi-’.D)cliCDb-’I-’ I-’ Dl•1Ui96fig.34 Colonia Marina )QCVIII Ottobre,Marina di Massa, 1938, Ettore Sotsas andAlfio Guaitoli architects. Aerial viewshowing site with beach in front and Vialea Mare between.97fig.35 Colonia Marina, chiavari, 1935,Camillo Nardi-.Greco architect.fig.36 Colonia Montecatini Competition1936, Agnoldodomenico Pica architect,project drawing..etv C• •:.IDifltfiI1•I.’.C)CflLQCDI-I.Wt-0Cl) •wI-’CDI-a.Cl-I..PILQC)I-s.i-..oiDi-a.QJQJClCDQU)t1‘-a.CD I-.’.0co. Ii H ct(D •l.J. p-i. cic0 ‘.0100fig.39 Vittorio Bonad-Bottino,architect/engineer, b. Thrin 1889, d.Turin1979.I-,.I-’.CflçtJ.f.I-’O (OCD0)II:CtI-i.0)CDCtI-’1 I—IlIIDO0)t’30 ot’(ti-ho 9:.0 CDiIILQl-o 00102fig.41 1892: Lieutenant Giovanni Agnelliis third from left in the back in thisItalian Cavalry “quadro storico”.103fig.42 1899: The first Fiat car produced,the “3½ H.P.”. The driver is Tina deLorenzo a we11—knon actress of the day.104fig.43 The Libyan war; attack on theTurkish fort at Ain—Zara.105---J i* sL-.- -—-—.- 4.— r_________; I_-“:I-fig.44 The Fiat factories on Corso Dantein 1912, Turin.fiq.45 Agnelli visiting Detroit with HenryFord in 1928, with 1om he had tremendousrapport.106fig.46 October 1922, the Fascists Squadreenter Rome onto the Piazza del Popolo.107fig.47 Mussolini visiting Fiat Lingotto in1932, with him is Senator Agnelli. Neitherwears the black shirt.I108fig.48 Giacomo Matte-Trucco,architect/engineer designer of Lingotto,in 1925.oI.hC.,..u1CDOctI•1.tg Cl.‘-0‘.0-.t%)•I-a. I(J1I.b- Ok)CMl!I.’.I.’.O3cICD l-I.QI1.11l1I‘*CD80 CDCD0Hi 4.m1fj_[Luhjijjjj_u.}ijI-I. CO CD II11t’JZHop-a.I—’2’J;o•=wCD•CDp3 0— CD— 0I--,C--.I-CDCDDi<03.3-3Di_WCDN-.CD6CDCD2.CD33o-.0CDZ CDQC 0o00=—CDCDwwrsjr)r’J0CDoir3g:CCDCD0&!.CD0CDCDCD0—CC-C0CD.,0C-C CD 0.0 CDC’.C)OcD•..IDCUiC.iJ0 CDIIJillin 0COCDCDNNorCCDD.CDDCDCD CD0 CDCDtt1HI-i.00III.J-Lct-aoiiCD1ctcttl0)çt0(D0Orn-Hi-1L.•0)PJl—ctDCDja.U) 1Z0)ctI-’•I0)I-a.00)t%) CtZQ..::rI-b1-t(0o U) iQgfl.pyo 0 CD0 0.CD a CD Di CD 0. CD 0 CD DCCD CD 3 CD D 3 CD CD1156’’// 8 // \/G/ \\\ /// \e\/ / 1.?! \ \// 8 \\_/ t\7/ \.•.6 5___ffig.59 Bonicelli ‘s “Nheel System” forfactory production with a centraldistribution node.) nm;\N 4/4fig.60 Baltard’s “Prison Design” from 1829rchitectonographie, plan.116fig.61 William Cubitt’s “Radial PrisonPlan”, 1824, plan.14•.p,a ?.117fig. 62 Jeremy Bentham’ s “PanopticonPrison”, plan, 1791.118— I I I I — — U—riI I — I I I I ———i!:11111111— U •1111111— U—I I I I j I I — •fig.63 Franco Albini, INA Office Building,Parma, 1950-4. Section showing the use ofan uninterrupted ramp device at the backof the building.r119C-__7 ;;;:: %:ç______-,_*-_-I —-- -—-<‘4 -----‘r4j —— .—-----—-------::>fig.64 Fiat Mirafiori, 1939.120BIBLI OGRAPHYAllardyce, Gilbert. “What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on theDeflation of the Concept.” The American Historical Review84 (April 1979): 367—398.Apollonio, Umbro,ed. Futurist Manifestoes. London:Thamesand 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 “Relazione delconsiglio di amministrazione e dei sindaci”, 20 March1923.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 theAdvancement of Science and Art, 1986.Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age2nd ed. Thames, London: 1966.Banham, Reyner. “Neo—Liberty, or the Italian Retreat Frommodern architecture”, Architectural Review, Apr. 1959.Barnes, James Strachey. The Universal Aspects of Fascism.1928 2nd. ed. London, 1929.121Benevolo, Leonardo. History of Modern Architecture.Tr.H.J. Landry, Vol.2 Cambridge, Mass., 1971.Bentham, Jeremy. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4., NewYork: Russell and Russell, 1968.Borsi, Franco. The Monumental Era: European Architectureand Design, 1929— 39. London: Lund Humphries, 1987.Bruschi, Arnaldo. Bramante. Fwd. and Trans., Peter Murray.London: Thames and Hudson, 1977.Cannistraro, Philip V. “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, 12—15.Ciuccio,Giorgio. “Italian Architecture During the FascistPeriod: The Any Souls of the Classical,” The HarvardArchitecture Review 6 (1987); 76-87.Cities of Childhood: Italian Colonie of the 1930’s.Exhibition Catalogue to coincide with the Exhibition atthe Architectural Association, 1988.Clark, Martin. Modern Italy, 1871— 1982. New York,Longman, 1984.Clark, T.J. “On the Social History of Art”, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkley:1983.dough, Shepard and Salvatore Saladino. A History ofModern Italy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968.122dough, Shepard. The Economic History of Modern Italy. NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1965.Croce, Benedetto. A History of Italy 1871—1915. Oxford,1929.De Grazia, Victoria. How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy1922—1945. New York: Princeton University Press, 1992.De Grazia, Victoria. The Culture of Consent: MassOrganization of Leisure in Fascist Italy. Cambridge,1981.De Seta, Cesare. Architettura Italiana di Novecento,Milan: 1978.De Seta, Cesare. La Cultura Architettonica tra le DueGuerre. 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: ItalianArchitecture 1914—1936. New York, 1988.Doordan, Dennis P. “Changing Agendas: Architecture andPoliticste in Assemblage, vol.8 , 1989 p.61.Doordan, Dennis P. “The Political Content in ItalianArchitecture During the Fascist Era.” Art Journal (Summer1983), 121—31.Eisenman, Peter. “Casa Del Fascio.” Perspecta no. 13/14(1971), 62—65.123Eisenman, Peter. “From Object to Relationship II: GiuseppeTerragni Casa Giuliani—Frigerio.” Perspecta no. 13—14(1971), 36—61.Etlin, Richard. “In Memorium: Giovanni Muzio: 1893—1982.”Skyline (November 1982), 17.Etlin, Richard. “Italian Rationalism.” ProgressiveArchitecture (July 1983), 86—94.Etlin, Richard. Modernism in Italian Architecture,1890—1940Cambridge: M.I.T. Press,1991.Etlin, Richard. [Review article of) “Precursors ofPost—Modernism: Milan 1920’s/1930’s.” Skyline (November1982), 20—23.Etlin, Richard. “Turin 1902: The Search for a ModernItalian Architecture.” The Journal of Decorative andPropaganda Art no.13 (Summer 1989), 94—109.Evans, Robin. “Bentham’s Panopticon” in A.A.Quarterly,vol.3, 1971, 21—37.Evans, Robin. “Regulation and Production” in Lotus 12.Milan, Sep 1976.Fogacs, David. ed, with Geoffrey Novell—Smith. Translatedby William Boelhower. Antonio Gramsci: Selections fromCultural Writings. Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1975.2Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A CriticalHistory. 1980, 2nd ed. New York, 1985.124Fred, W. “The International Exhibition of Decorative Artat 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 ofthe Prison. Trans from the French.. Vintage,New York:1977.Gargus, Jacqueline,ed. “From Futurism to Rationalism: TheOrigins of Modern Italian Architecture.” ArchitecturalDesign 51(January—February 1981): 1—80.Ghirardo, Diane. “Architecture and Theatre: The Street inFascist Italy.” In Stephen C.Foster, ed.,”Events”Arts andEvents. Ann Arbor,1987, 175- 99.Ghirardo, Diane. Building New Communities: New DealAmerica and Fascist Italy. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1989.Ghirardo,Diane. “Italian Architects and Fascist Politics:An Evaluation of the Rationalist’s Role in RegimeBuilding.” Journal of the Society of ArchitecturalHistorians 39 (May 1980): 109—127.Ghirardo, Diane. “Politics of a Masterpiece: The Vicendaof 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. 5th Rev.ed. Cambridge, Mass:1967.125Golden, Miriam A. A Rational Choice Analysis of UnionMilitancy with Application to the Cases of British Coaland Fiat. Cornell studies in International Affairs.Western Society Papers, Cornell: 1990.Goode, Terence. “Typological Theory in the United States:The Consumption of Architectural “Authenticity” “ Journalof Architectural Education 46/1. September 1992, 2—8.Gregor, James. Italian Fascism and DevelopmentalDictatorship. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.Gregor, James. Young Mussolini and the IntellectualOrigins of Fascism. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1979.Gregotti, Vittorio. New Directions in ItalianArchitecture, New York: Braziller, 1968.Gruppo 7, “Architecture (1926), and Architecture II: TheForeigners (1927).” Translated by Ellen Shapiro.Oppositions, no.6 (Fall 1976): 86—102.Gruppo 7, “Architecture III:TJnpreparedness-Incomprehension—Prejudice(1927), andArchitecture IV: A New Archaic Era (1927).” Translated byEllen Shapiro. Oppositions, no.12(Spring 1978): 88—104.Hearder, Harry. Italy: A Short History. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1991.Hildebrandt, Grant. Designing For Industry: TheArchitecture of Albert Kahn. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1972.Irace, Fulvio. Precursors of Post—Modernism. Milan1261920s—30s Exhibition Catalogue, The Architectural League.New York,1982.Jacobitti, Edmond E. Revolutionary Humanism andHistoricism in Modern Italy. Mew Haven, 1981.Kidder—Smith, G.E. Italy Builds. London: The ArchitecturalPress, 1955.Koon, Tracy H. Believe, Obey, Fight: PoliticalSocialization of Youth in Fascist Italy, 1922—1943. ChapelHill, 1985.Kostof, Spiro. The Third Rome 1870—1950: Traffic andGlory. 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: Paysonand Clark, 1923.Longatti, Alberto and Luciano Caramel. Antonio Sant’Elia:the Complete Works. New York: Rizzoli, 1988.Lotus 12. A Special Issue Devoted To Factories. 1976.Machiavelli. The Prince.Mack Smith, Denis. Italy and its Monarchy. New Haven andLondon: Yale University Press, 1989.127Mack Smith, Dennis. Mussolini: A Biography. New York:Vintage, 1982.Mack Smith, Denis. Society and Politics in the Age ofRisorgimento. New York: Vintage, 1991.Marinetti, Filippo Tommaso. Selected Writings. Ed. R.W.Flint. Trs. R.W. Flint and Arthur A. Coppotelli. New York,1972.Meakin, Budgett. Model Factories and Villages: IdealConditions of Labour nad Housing. London: Fisher, 1905.Meeks, Carroll L.V. Italian Architecture 1750-1914. NewHaven, 1966.Millon, Henry A. “Some New Towns in Italy in the 1930’s”In Henry A.Millon and Linda Nochlin, eds. Art andArchitecture in the Service of Politics. Cambridge, Mass.,1978.Nillon, Henry A. “The Role of Architecture in FascistItaly.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians24 (March 1965), 53—59.Mussolini, Benito. Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions.Rome; 1935.Organski, A.F.K. “Fascism and Modernization.” In TheNature of Fascism. Edited by S.J. Woolf, 39-41. New York:Random House, 1968.Piacentini, Marcello. L’Architettura d’oggi. Rome: PaoloCremonese, 1930.Piacentini, Marcello. “Town Planning and Architecture.” In128the four—language special issue “l’Espozione Universale diRoma 1942.” Architettura 17 (December 1942), 728—29.Pozzetto, Marco. La Fiat Lingotto: un architetturatorinese 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 HistoricalReview 75 (April 1970): 1029—1045.Schumacher, Thomas L. Surface and Symbol: GiuseppeTerragni and the Architecture of Italian Rationalism. NewYork: Princeton Architectural Press, 1990.Shapiro, Ellen. “The Emergence of Italian Rationalism.”Architectural Design 51 (January—February 1981): 5—9.Signorelli, Bruno. “Architetti della Fiat” in Civilta delPiemonte: Studi in Onore di Renzo Gandolofo. Centro StudiPiemontesi, Torino: 1975.Springer, Carolyn. The Marble Wilderness: Ruins andRepresentations in Italian Rationalism, 1775—1850.Cambridge, England, 1987.Tafuri, Manfredo. “The Subject and the Mask, AnIntroduction to Terragni.” Lotus, no. 20 (September 1978):5—29.Taylor, F.W. The Principles of Scientific Management. NewYork : 1911.129Thayer, John. Italy and the Great War: Politics andCulture, 1870—1915. Madison: University of WisconsinPress, 1964.“The 1942 Universal Exhibition.” In the four—languagespecial 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, 1990Trabaizi, Ferrucio. “Low Cost Housing in 20th CenturyRome” in Diane Ghirardo Out of Site, New York: PrincetonArchitectural 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 ItalianRationalism.” Architectural Design 51(January— February1981): 41—43.130rEsIntrodxticn1.Cities of Childhood: Italian Colonie of the 1930’s. ExhibitionCatalogue to coincide with the Exhibition at the ArchitecturalAssociation, 1988, p.8.2.Gilbert Allardyce, “What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on the Deflationof 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 ModernArchitecture”, Architectural Review, April 1959: 232.9. Robert Venturi, Denise Scott-Brown and Steven Izenour. LearningFrom Las Vegas. Cambridge ?ss.: NIT Press, 1972.10.Peter Eisenmen, “From Object to Relationship II: Giuseppe TerragniCasa 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 Architecture1914—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 theArchitecture of Italian Rationalism. New York: Princeton ArchitecturalPress, 1990.16.Ernest.o Rogers, 1962. Source: Dennis Doordan, p.129.17.Siegfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture, 5th rev. ed.Cambridge, 1967.13118.De Grazia, Victoria. How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy 1922—1945. NewYork: Princeton University Press, 1992.19.Martin Clark, op. cite.20.Alan Friedman, Aqnelli: Fiat and the Network of Power. Penguin,London: 1989.apter e1.Nartin Clark, p. 203—210.2.Ibid.3.Harry Hearder, Italy: A Short History. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity 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.Scumacher19.Agnoldodomenico Pica in Cities of Childhood:9.20.Vittorio Gregotti, New Directions in Italian Architecture, NewYork: Braziller, 1968.13221.Cesare de Seta, Ia Cultura Architettonica tra le Due Guerre. Ban:Laterza, 1972.22.Thauas Sdh.mcher, op. cite:36.Chapter 1,o1.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 torineseavanquardia. Torino: Centro Studi Pienontese, 1974:35.15.Cities of Childhood, op. cite:74.16..Dr. Carlo ‘lèsta, U.B.C. DepartnEnt of Italian Studies17.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 diaimninistrazione e dei sindaci”, 20 March 1923, and Domus 659, March1985, 10—35.13323.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. Ibidapter Three1.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.13417.Budgett Meakin, Model Factories and Villages: Ideal Conditions ofLabour 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 andClark, 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 WilliamBoelbower. 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:363.13542.Alan Frieduan, op. cite.43.Ibid.44.Ibid.45.Ibid.46. Ibid.47. Ibid.Chapter Pourl.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.8.Vittorio Bonad—Bottino, Centenario, p.8 and in M. Pozzetto.9The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4. New York: Russsell and Russell,1968:37—38.1O.l’erence Goode, “Typological Theory in the United States:Theconsumption of Architectural “Authenticity” “, JAE 46/1 Sep. 1992,pp2—7.11.Grant Hildebrandt, Desiqning For Industry: the Architecture ofAlbert 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