Memorandum
This memorandum attempts to
express “the
sense of the meeting” growing from the Italo-American City and Regional
Planning and Housing Seminar conducted on the island of Ischia, June
20-30,
1955 under the sponsorship of the Italian “Ministero dei Lavori
Pubblici”,
the “Comitato Nazionale per la Produttività”, and the “Istituto
Nazionale di Urbanistica”, with the cooperation of U.S.O.M.
The Seminar was attended by
governmental
officials, practicing town planners, architects and other professional
people closely allied to planning, by professors of planning in Italian
and American universities, and by editors of seven professional
magazines
in the fields of city and regional planning, housing and architecture.
Many of these individuals made valuable contributions to the
discussions
out of which the present notes have been distilled.
At the beginning of the meetings,
papers
were presented by the following responsible Italian officials: Prof.
Cesare
Valle for the Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici; Dr. Francesco Curato for
the
Cassa per il Mezzogiorno; Ing. Camillo Ripamonti for other public
housing
agencies.
During the Seminar, discussion was
focused
on eleven papers which had been prepared by the American participants,
and by prepared comments on the subjects of these papers by their
eleven
Italian counterparts. These papers, their authors and their Italian
commentators
were the following.
Howard K. Menhinick, The South in
the
U.S.A. Commentator: Manlio Rossi Doria.
Albert M. Cole, The United States
Housing
Program. Commentator: Camil1o Ripamonti.
Girard Davidson, Regional Resource
Planning
by the Federal Government. Commentator: Giovanni Astengo.
Oskar Stonorov, The Coming
Reconstruction
of American Cities. Commentator: Luigi Piccinato.
Lawrence K. Frank, The Human
Dimensions
of Planning. Commentator: Angela Zucconi.
Frederick Gutheim, Plans for Today
and
Tomorròw. Commentators: Ugo La Malfa and Ernesto Nathan Rogers.
Edmund M. Bacon, Philadelphia's
Planning
Program. Commentator: Ludovico Quaroni.
Vernon De Mars, Choice as an
Objective
in Planning. Commentator: Adriano Olivetti.
Douglas Haskell, Roadtown U.S.A.
Commentator:
Bruno Zevi.
Robert B. Mitchell, Transportation
in
Contemporary City Planning. Commentator: Vincenzo Di Gioia.
Paul Opperman, Central City
Planning in
a Metropolitan Context. Commentator: Gino Pollini.
Planning processes at the
national, regional
;and local levels need to be inter-related. They should include
programs
for economic development and for social services and social adjustment
as well as schemes for the physical adaptation of physical arrangements
and facilities. No single element, such as an economic program or a
physical
design should be undertaken in isolation. The continuous practice of
the
process of planning requires a form of organization which can be
related
to government. It should be responsible for the synthesis of the
contributions
of citizens and public officials as well as its technical staff toward
the preparation of plans and programs. Many American city planning
commissions
are examples of such an institution, which might be useful for
adaptation
in other circumstances.
Out of these discussions there
came awareness
of many common problems and opportunities shared by planners in the two
countries. In the midst of varying points of view on techniques and
methods
of application, certain principles came through clearly. In the
conversations
the participants were trying to define these problems and opportunities
rather than to devise universally applicable formulae. The central and
continuing problem; was seen to be that of translating human needs and
aspirations into a fitting environment for modern life, and of
developing
methods and practices so that planning can become a progressively more
useful instrument of democratic choice.
It is clear that urban and
regional planning
is entering a new phase all over the world. In this new phase a
humanistic
approach, which tries to adjust man's environment to these changing
needs
and resources, will supersede a preoccupation with types of urban
structure.
Planning will emphasize not static schemes of physical arrangement but
schemes of development to guide the “creative evolution” of communities.
This new planning requires the
development
of a more profound method and enlarged scientific knowledge of
communities
and regions. It is our hope that through its humanistic approach and
with
the aid of greater knowledge and improved method, planning can produce
more suitable and useful designs of arrangement in the physical sense.
We believe that planning is a new
democratic
function. The institutions of planning must have a functional
continuity.
Planning represents a technical,
social
and human service to the community which requires a competence in the
formulation
and the implementation of long-term programs, beyond day-to-day
decisions
which may be dictated by political expediency.
We believe that with the
increasing social
responsibility of the technical planning process the work of the
politician
and the administrator will be placed in a broader context and will be
facilitated.
Regional planning for the wise
conservation
and utilisation of all of the resources of a territory was recognized
as
a most important device for raising the standard of living of the
people,
especially in depressed areas. The development of all of the resources
of a region in a unified manner, with active participation of the
people
directly affected, to produce “not a planned region but a planning
region”
has been successfully demonstrated.
The reconstruction, conservation
and preservation
of central cities is a matter of high importance, and the conditions of
modern life give it an urgent status in the community, its public
administration,
its economic productivity are concentrated in these centers.
Reconstruction must be based upon
a sensitive
respect for cultural treasures of past generations to conserve that
which
may be maintained and fitted to the life of the present and new uses of
the land areas of such communities.
The relation of “core city” to the
metropolitan
area, ought to meet requirements of the numbers of the inhabitants to
be
served, and their economic purposes. The scale and character of the
community
as a whole, likewise, should receive an appropriate architectural
design
to create worthy cultural symbols of the qualities and purposes of the
people.
The need for a sense of community
both
functionally and visually was felt desirable by the representatives of
both countries. Some felt that the need for center or focus of
neighborhood
living at the human scale is one of the major problems of our times. At
this scale, the possibility of a variety of choices on the part of the
individual as to how he wishes to live is a positive objective of
planning;
not a mere accidental by-product.
In the whole field of housing,
some major
problems of housing credit and finance, were identified and the door
opened
for further exploration of Federal Housing Administration mortage
insurance
and of other type of financing to meet the special problems of Italy.
Furthermore, it, was agreed upon
that
in housing programs it is necessary to adopt, measures under which a
part
of the allocations goes toward the establishment and operation of
collective
social services, because such services constitute an integral and
essential
part of a program for the elevation of the living standard of
low-income
people.
We have identified specific
planning techniques
which should be further explored to adapt and introduce them into the
planning
structure and practice of our respective countries. Among these are the
advance acquisition of sites for community facilities and public works
through reservation and dedication procedures as well as by direct
purchase,
the preparation of capital programs and budgets on the basis of
detailed
study of planning offices in collaboration with operating departments
of
local governments, and processes of “mandatory referral” to insure that
specific project proposals will be judged in the context of general
plans.
Other examples could be cited.
In the important field of planning
education,
major shortages of qualified personnel exist in both countries. Current
developments in the two countries are complementary to each other.
In Italy every young architect is
given
training in community planning. Many engineering schools also teach
courses
in planning. This has resulted in a high level of housing and
neighborhood
design not generally achieved in the United States, where such a policy
of planning training does not exist in all architectural schools. The
United
States might emulate Italy in this respect.
In the United States the
profession of
planning is recognised as a subject in its own right. Within the
structure
of twenty American universities, post-graduate courses in planning have
been established, leading to a Master’s degree. While the contribution
of many disciplines, including architecture, engineering, economics and
sociology has been recognized, the planning instruction is carried on
independent
of domination by any of these specialities. The training is designed to
produce persons competent to carry on planning as a broad correlative
force,
bringing into play the full potential of the many contributory
professions.
This concept of planning education may present suggestions which
Italian
universities might want to consider.
In both countries, close
relationships
between practitioners in planning and planning schools should be
encouraged,
and the student exchange program should be strengthened.
In conclusion, we regard this
Seminar
and its results as a distinct success. We have built a bridge of
friendships
and understanding among a group of students of two nations. We have
laid
the foundation for future cultural collaboration. As an institution,
the
Seminar has proven to be a communications device which, properly
conceived
and utilized, has great utility. As such it should be further
exploited.
We believe that future regional and town planning work and housing
programs
in both our countries will be enriched by the understanding which these
conversations have given us.