Where Did it Happen? How Did it Happen? Reflections on the Reconstruction of the Historic Cores of Towns Destroyed by the 2016 Earthquake in Central Italy

Before the seismic event in the summer of 2016, the territory of Italy had been hit by at least seven other devastating earthquakes in the last half of the last century: Belice (1968), Friuli (1976), Valnerina (1979), Irpinia and Basilicata (1980), Umbria and Marche (1997), Abruzzo (2009) and Emilia (2012).
The reconstruction work carried out at that time was not of a unitary character, following a series of different guidelines, based on the fund of technical assistance and expertise built up over the years and related to the local problems and objectives faced by the technical experts in each case. The results have been varied - from the stylistic exercise carried out in Gibelina, with the contribution of architects and artists such as Purini, Consagra and Burri (Fig. 1), to the painstaking reconstruction by anastylosis of the historic cores of the towns of Gemona, Artegna and Venzone (Figs. 2a-2b) in the Friuli region.

Compared to previous experiences, the recent seismic event, one of the most extensive in the history of Italian seismology, represents an exceptional phenomenon, given the vastness of the territory concerned, the distinctive features of the historic cores of the affected cities, the unique amalgam of architecture and environment, and the extent of the damage recorded. All these considerations point to the need for preliminary reflections before starting the works, on the trade-off between the preservation of the historic structures in the area and the level of safety required. Particular attention should be paid to certain subjects (conservation, replacement, reconstruction) which seem to have remained in the shadows for some time, generally falling into the category of those issues (sometimes too long discussed) during the last century.
A fundamental factor of particular significance is the seemingly easy integration of these small populated centers into the landscape (Fig. 3), generating a type of unity of architecture and landscape which, by virtue of its resemblance to a system, will always be subject to transformations determined by the historical framework. As a result, the architecture of such sites seems to harbor within itself the signs of these changes activated over time - illustrating a dynamic process of 'adaptation' - leading to a manifest history of metamorphosis which defies prevention, inasmuch as it is an integral part of the continuous evolution of the whole system, and can only be controlled and managed.
There is no doubt that, as in all small urban settlements, built heritage of historical value suffers from a structural fragility attributable to a reluctance to recognize its value as an artefact or to give it a specifically 'monumental' dimension, a shortcoming which jeopardizes the preservation of a heritage which, above and beyond its role as a document of history and architecture, is a legacy of identity and memory. As such, the first step in this direction would seem to be a conscientious documentation of all the construction techniques and seismic prevention criteria used over the centuries, an effort which would contribute considerably to understanding the steps to be taken in the future, before the next catastrophic events, in order to ensure the safety of historic buildings, while also supporting their conservation. Knowledge of traditional building techniques becomes "a necessary ingredient in the rapid development of reconstruction and restoration programs" (Varagnoli, 68).
The subject of post-seismic restoration of built heritage gives rise to an unavoidable question concerning the reconstruction procedures to be applied. There are two operational objectives that must be taken into account: on the one hand, the imminence of rapidly repairing the damage caused by the earthquake that shook not only architectural structures but also the very self-consciousness and identity of the local population; on the other hand, the reconstruction of large stretches of fragile historical fabric which, superimposed over time, form a layered form of memory lost, at least in part, forever. Such an effort, regardless of the high degree of certification of the methodologies that have contributed to the task, must necessarily take into account the unique nature of the material artifacts: each deserves to be analyzed and "listened to" in its own right.
In terms of urban memory, efforts must be made to support the reconstruction process based on the repair, renovation and restoration of elements salvaged after the earthquake, even in cases where only the urban layout (public squares, street and transport networks, housing plans, etc.) remains, while avoiding approaches based on complete demolition and reconstruction from scratch, with the inherent risks of permanent loss of identity and memory.

Prior to the seismic event that occurred in the Summer of 2016, Italian territory had been struck by at least seven other disastrous earthquakes in the course of the last half century: Belice (1968), Friuli (1976), Valnerina (1979), Irpinia and Basilicata (1980), Umbria and the Marche (1997), Abruzzo (2009) and Emilia (2012).
The reconstruction work done on those occasions was not uniform, but rather followed a variety of different guidelines, based on the storehouse of technical support and knowledge that had accumulated over the years, as well as the local problems and aims presented to the technical experts in each instance. The results ranged from the stylistic exercise carried out in Gibellina, with contributions from architects and artists, including Purini, Consagra and Burri (fig. 1), to the painstaking reconstruction by anastylosis of the historic cores of the towns of Gemona, Artegna and Venzone (fig. 2a-2b) in the Friuli region.

Compared to previous experiences, the recent seismic event, one of the most extensive in the history of Italian seismology, constitutes an exceptional occurrence, given the vast expanse of territory involved, the distinguishing characteristics of the historic cores of the towns struck, the unique amalgamation of their architecture and the surrounding environments, as well as the magnitude of the damage registered. All these considerations point to the need for preliminary reflections, before any work is undertaken, on the give and take between preservation of the historic underpinnings of the areas and the level of safety required. Attention must once again be focussed on topics (preservation, replacement, reconstruction) that for a time appeared to have receded into the background, having essentially been classified among those issues discussed (at times at too much length) during the last century.
An underlying factor of particular significance is the readily apparent integration of these small-scale population centers with the backdrops of their landscapes (fig. 3), giving rise to a unity of architecture and surroundings that, given its resemblance to a system, shall always be subject to the transformations engendered by history, with the result that the architecture of such sites seems to harbour within itself the signs of these changes, or dynamics of 'adaptation', triggered over time, until they form what amounts a visible history of mutations that, for that matter, defy prevention, inasmuch as they are part and parcel of the ongoing evolution of the entire system, but can only be disciplined and governed.
There is no question that this heritage of historic constructions, as occurs in all small-scale urban settings, suffers from an inherent fragility attributable to the scarce propensity to acknowledge its value as an artefact, or to grant it a specifically 'monumental' dimension, a failing that places at risk the preservation of a heritage that, above and beyond its role as a record of history and architecture, constitutes a legacy of both identity and memory. As such, the first step to be taken would appear to be a thorough documentation of all the construction techniques and criteria of seismic prevention followed over the centuries, an effort that would contribute greatly in terms of arriving at an understanding of what initiatives should be undertaken in the future, before the next catastrophic events, so as to ensure the safety of historic constructions while favoring their preservation. A knowledge of traditional construction techniques becomes a "necessary ingredient in the rapid formulation of programs of reconstruction and restoration" (Varagnoli, 68).
The topic of the post-seismic recovery of the heritage of historic constructions gives rise to an unavoidable question, and namely the reconstruction procedures to be employed. There are two distinct operating objectives to be considered: on the one hand, the need for rapid repair of the damage done by an earthquake that shattered not only architectonic structures but the very self-awareness and identity of the local populations themselves; on the other, the reconstruction of extensive portions of a delicate historic fabric that, having cumulated over the centuries, constitutes a form of stratified memory that, at least in part, has been lost forever. Such an effort, no matter how proven the methodologies brought to the task, must necessarily take into consideration the unique nature of the material artifacts, each of which deserves to be attended to, to be 'heard', in its own right. In terms of urban memory, an effort should be made to favor a process of reconstruction based on the repair, recovery and restoration of what has been saved from the earthquake, even in cases where this is nothing more than the urban layout (piazzas, routes of streets and routes, formats of homes etc.), while avoiding, on the other hand, approaches keyed on complete demolition and reconstruction from scratch, with the attendant risks of further and permanent loss of elements of identity and memory.

Moreover, other difficulties arise in relation to the scale of the damage caused by the earthquake: the geological insecurity of the affected areas, the lack of safety of historic structures, in terms of urban layout and individual buildings, and the depopulation of the mountain areas concerned, a phenomenon that has been going on for many decades.
There is no doubt that similar restoration projects need to be tackled at different scales, from individual buildings to populated urban centers or landscapes.
Plans for the reconstruction of the historic cores of cities must be based on a historical-evolutionary assessment of the city, focused on identifying the processes that led to the formation of the urban configuration and the built background and on understanding the effects of these processes on the material components of the built elements in order to prevent earthquake damage. The aim is to ensure that the historical perception of the city's development mechanisms plays an increasingly active role in conservation actions (Fig. 4-5).
"On the other hand, the extension of the notion of historic monument to different sites and scales leads to the emergence of new subjects of criticism and interpretations concerning the 'character of place', which requires the use of appropriate intervention tools from the field of urban planning and spatial planning methodologies in close connection with restoration tools" (D'Avino, 36).

In view of the characteristic building patterns present in the historic cores of cities affected by earthquakes, approaches involving complete demolition and reconstruction from scratch and the associated risks of permanent loss of elements of identity and memory should be avoided. The restoration process should be based on the recovery and restoration of elements that have survived the earthquake, even if it is only the urban layout (squares, street and transportation networks, housing layouts, etc.). The reconstruction plan for Venzone stated that even the simple walls left standing should be preserved, because "they provided a coherence of place, a material and moral landmark to start afresh, tangible proof of the continuity of place within place itself (...); above all, they represented an extremely precise boundary" (Doglioni, 72).
Similarly, and by virtue of the fact that the main objective is to preserve the significance of a given place, it goes without saying that any operations that alter the road network or land parceling are forbidden, as they represent a solid, recognizable and extremely valuable document that provides the most legitimate evidence of the original anthropic structure of the site. The relationship between the city and its environment determines and shapes its entire structure, from the street and transportation network to the form of the housing, buildings and spaces with which they interact.
No urban organism should be seen simply as the sum of its parts, but analyzed in the light of the complex relationships between its different constituent elements, which means that cities should be seen as the result of a series of processes, a series of changes over the years, all contributing in an identical way to the authenticity of the city and the identity of the place (Fig. 6).
The critical understanding must be broadened to take into account the spirit of the place, trying to determine the architectural vocation, the links with the context and the spatial relations with the surrounding environment, all of which, analyzed separately from the geometrical, mathematical or rational conception of space, prove more incisive thanks to intuition and emotion.
Thus, expanding the framework of analysis is a good thing, because it facilitates the links with urban design and spatial planning, but with the main aim of assimilating the most expressive figurative and spatial features and, as a result, a more precise formal control of the efforts made: basically, "a link between urbanism and architecture different from the one promoted by official culture" (Portoghesi, 45), in which transformations are not planned on the scale of "aerial perspectives".
In such a vast and fragile context, there can be no single urban cell or group of buildings that can serve as a catalyst for the realization of a reformulation; in fact, such entities must be seen as part of a whole, of a wider context, with a value that reverberates further, as "elements of a language, like a word placed within a prepositional locution: it serves to construct the meaning of the phrase without having a meaning in itself" (Cacciari, 11). Seen as elements of language, urban entities have to accept change, transformation, reuse, adaptation to changing conditions or the critical-perceptive sensibility of modern life.
Another subject for reflection is the preservation of the site, its slow sedimentation within the surrounding environment, an illustration of what Lewis Mumford called the "soul of the city", certainly valid for small urban centers such as Cerasola, Chiavano (fig. 7) or Castel Santa Maria. In Umbria, where settlement nuclei are characterized by a long history of context and a distinctive morphology of routes and geometries, diversified and stratified over the centuries, the preservation of the original site is of paramount importance.
Their rebuilding-relocation following the destruction caused by the 1979 earthquake permanently wiped out any trace of evolutionary memory, as well as an important part of the technical culture of the region; on the other hand, conservation based on historical selection would not have been acceptable in this case either, given that an urban core is by its very nature an evolving historical present, existing outside of time, or characterized by a historical vision tributary to the diachronic concept of evolutionary change. This is the contextual history rendered by the material artifacts still organized in accordance with morphological and spatial systems, constituting the testimonies that make it possible to retell the past.
Moreover, Cesare Brandi also disagrees with "disassembling and reconstructing a monument in a place other than the one on which it was built, considering that such a lack of legitimacy would contribute more to undermining the aesthetic arguments than the historical aspect, that altering the spatial characteristics of a monument would compromise it as a work of art" (Brandi, 78).

Further perplexity arises with regard to the extent of the damage caused by the quake, the geological insecurity of the zones struck, the lack of security of the historic structures, in terms of both the urban layout and the individual constructions, as well as the depopulation of the mountain areas in question, something that has been occurring for a good many decades.
There can be no question that similar restoration projects must be approached at scales that can vary, ranging from individual buildings to an entire urban population center to the landscape as well.
A plan for the reconstruction of the historic cores of towns should be inspired by an historical-evolutionary assessment of the city or town focussing on recognition of the processes that led to the formation of the urban layout and the constructions, as well as acquisition of knowledge of the effects of these processes on the material components of the constructed elements, so as to prevent damage triggered by earthquakes. The objective is to ensure that historical knowledge of the mechanisms through which the city or town developed play an increasingly active role in activities of preservation (fig. 4 - 5).
"Extension of the status of monument to different settings and dimensions, on the other hand, gives rise to new issues of criticismand interpretation regarding the 'sense of place' and requiring, as a result, the use of suitable tools of intervention tied to the discipline of urban planning and to the methodologies of territorial planning, to be used hand in hand with the instruments of restoration" (D'Avino, 36).
Precisely on account of the distinctive construction formats found in the historic cores of the towns struck by the earthquake, care should be taken to avoid approaches involving complete demolition and subsequent rebuilding from scratch, with the risk of a further and lasting loss of elements of identity and memory. The process of restoration must be based on the recovery and restoration of what has survived the earthquake, even when this means nothing more than the urban layout (piazzas, routes of streets and roads, formats of homes etc.). The plan for the reconstruction of Venzone specified that even simple walls were to be preserved, seeing that "they provided a consistency of place, a material and moral support from which to start anew, tangible proof of the continuity of the place within the place itself (...); above all else, they constituted an extremely precise boundary" (Doglioni, 72).
In the same way, and precisely because the chief objective is preserving the meaning of a given place, it goes without saying that operations which modify the existing layouts of roads or land divisions cannot be allowed, seeing that they still represent a permanent, recognizable and highly valuable document, providing the most authentic evidence possible of the initial manmade structuring of the site. For the relationship that the town or city established with its surrounding context effects and molds its entire structure, from the layout of roads and ways to the form of blocks of buildings, even the forms of the buildings themselves and the spaces within which they interact.
No urban organism can be considered the mere sum of its parts,but must be seen in the fullness of the complex relations between its various constituent elements, meaning that towns and cities must be viewed as the outcome of a series of processes, of a sequence of modifications that occur over a lengthy span of time, with all of them contributing in indistinguishishable fashion to the authenticity of the town or city, as well as to the formation of its identity of place (fig. 6).
Critical understanding must be extended to take into consideration the sense of place, attempting to determine the architectonic vocation, the connections with the surrounding context and the spatial relations with the environment, all of which, apart from any geometric, mathematical or otherwise rational conception of space, prove to be more incisive, by dint of both intuition and emotion.
And so an extension to broader settings is in order, links to urban design and planning, but with the primary focus on the assimilation of the more expressive figurative and spatial characteristics and, as a result, a more accurate formal control of the entire effort: almost "a different liaison of urban planning and architecture than that endorsed by official culture" (Portoghesi, 45), under which transformations are not planned on the scale of 'aerial views'.
Within such a vast yet feeble context, there can be no single urban cell or block of buildings that serves as the catalyst for carrying out a reformulation, but rather such entities must be viewed as a part of a whole, an entire context, possessing a value that reaches even further, as "elements of a language, as a word placed within a prepositional phrase: serving to construct the meaning of the phrase, but without any meaning in and of itself" (Cacciari, 11). And as a language, it must accept change, transformation, reuse, adjustment to changed conditions, the different critical-perceptive sensibility inherent to modern life.
Another topic for reflection is the preservation of the site, of its slow sedimentation within the surrounding context: what Lewis Mumford referred to as "the soul of the town". In particular, as is especially true for small-scale urban centres such as Cerasola, Chiavano (fig. 7) or Castel Santa Maria, in Umbria, whose core settlements are characterized by a lengthy history of context and distinctive morphology of routes and geometries that has been diversified and stratified in the course of centuries, preservation of the original site is of key importance.
Their reconstruction-relocation following the 1979 earthquake cancelled for all time any sign of evolutionary memory, together with significant portion of the region's technical culture, nor would preservation grounded in historical selection be acceptable, seeing that an urban core is, by its very nature, a continually evolving historical present, existing outside of time, or rather characterized by an historical outlook tied to a diachronic concept of evolutionary change. This is the contextual history presented by the material artefacts still organized in accordance with authentic morphological and spatial systems, constituting evidence that can be used to recount the past.
For that matter, even Cesare Brandi is not in agreement with the "dismantlement and reconstruction of a monument on land other than where it was built, seeing that a similar lack of legitimacy would do more to undermine aesthetic considerations than the historical aspect, seeing that the alteration of the spatial features of a monument is bound to compromise it as a work of art" (Brandi, 78).