The skándalon of Milan and the need for a housing plan for the middle classes and students
Necesse est enim ut veniant scandala (For it is necessary that scandals come), says the Gospel according to Matthew. This dense phrase, full of intelligence and historical significance, comes to mind when considering the lessons to be learned from the current judicial and political events affecting Milan, its administration and its development projects, even in the context of our own modest history. Rather than considering our modern understanding of a scandal as an event that causes public outrage, let’s go back to the etymology of the word. The ancient Greek skándalon, meaning ‘stumbling block’ or ‘obstacle’.
Beyond the outcomes of the investigations by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, justice should take its course. Without being distracted by media uproar and the judicial fervour of ‘summary trials’ via social media, it is precisely the ‘stumbling block’ in Milan’s rhetoric of success as an attractive, ever-changing metropolis that forces everyone to reflect deeply on the city’s new characteristics, on whether it is or is not ‘a model’, and on development paradigms that must once again be capable of reconciling productivity and social inclusion, competitiveness and solidarity. Milan can achieve anything, except reduce itself to being, as Alberto Mattioli wrote in La Stampa on 17 July, ‘beautiful without a soul, increasingly sparkling and less and less authentic’.
After all, Milan is not just Milan, but Italy, and our city is more international and economically a heavyweight engine in Europe. Culturally and socially, it is a cornerstone for innovation (including the negative aspects, which must be governed and limited). ‘Milan is an asset; it needs to be defended, and a vision needs to be offered,’ write Emanuele Orsini, president of Confindustria, and Alvise Biffi, president of Assolombarda, in an editorial in Il Sole 24 Ore (25 July). It is a significant political and communicative choice of national scope. Business is not standing by; once again, it is ready to play its part in the recovery and relaunch of the metropolis and the country by ‘working together with institutions, companies, universities and civil society’. Furthermore, Assolombarda’s culture is well established in the harmonies between productivity and solidarity, and between local roots and a global outlook. ‘Insieme’ (Together) is the title of the book, which was edited by the Assolombarda Foundation and published by Marsilio to celebrate its eighty years of history. ‘Far volare Milano per far volare l’Italia’ (‘Making Milan fly to make Italy fly’) was the strategic vision of Gianfelice Rocca, one of Assolombarda’s most ambitious and forward-thinking presidents (2013–2017). An idea that is still relevant.
Therefore, let us try to think more positively about the idea of a skándalon and start with the memory of a date: 1942. On 17 August that year, in a time of war, military tensions and social concerns, the Mussolini government issued Law No. 1150 immediately after the approval of the Civil Code. This law defined a general and uniform urban planning discipline across the national territory, introducing ‘building regulatory plans’ and ‘general regulatory plans’, as well as ‘territorial coordination plans’. More than eighty years later, this law is still in force and continues to serve as the cornerstone of national urban planning legislation, albeit with numerous modifications, integrations and variations that have complicated its application. This is also because, in the meantime, cities have changed; lifestyles and living habits have evolved; and production, economic and social processes have undergone radical transformation. The business models of financial investors and builders have also changed. In short, it’s a completely different world. The rules increasingly struggle to effectively frame and regulate the tensions and trends concerning the development of cities and a primary good for Italians: a home.
Those familiar with Italian political history will remember the ‘Housing Plan’, which from 1949 to 1963 led to significant public housing construction, facilitating profound urban and rural transformation (the ‘Fanfani Plan’, named after its creator, the Minister of Labour). Another measure was introduced in 1962 with Law 167, which was proposed by the then Minister of Public Works, the Christian Democrat Fiorentino Sullo. This stimulated the construction of new public residential settlements for over five million inhabitants.
These were the times of the economic boom. The impetuous force of reconstruction and recovery moved millions of people from southern peasant villages to northern industrial areas in search of better working and living conditions, primarily in Milan and Turin. Politics and public intervention sought to respond to these new social needs.
However, in such a disruptive context, Sullo failed to implement the key urban planning reform in 1963. This was fiercely opposed by large landowners and the right wing, and ultimately renounced by the Christian Democrats themselves. This had a negative effect on the first centre-left government, which was presided over by Aldo Moro. The Italian Socialist Party finally entered the ‘seat of power’’, but its reformist momentum slowed significantly. There was no reform to modernise and simplify the process of providing homes for Italians, nor to curb the demands of those who were then putting their ‘hands over the city’ (as depicted in the film of the same name by Francesco Rosi about real estate speculation, especially in Rome and the cities of the south). It was a daunting task to make incisive reforms in this country.
In summary, as far as construction is concerned, Italy changes, but the laws do not — except for cautious yet confused modernisations and adjustments. Four very different individuals have commented on this Milan skándalon. Firstly, there is Piero Bassetti, a scholar of great acumen and former president of the Lombardy Region, who says that the regulatory package in the fields of construction, building and urban development is ‘old and inadequate’, and that we are faced with ‘a not simple dialectic between new interests and outdated regulations’ (La Repubblica, 17 July; Il Foglio, 22 July). Then there is Gabriele Albertini, a former centre-right mayor of Milan, who initiated urban regeneration on 11 million square metres of land freed up by industrial closures during his two terms in office from 1997 to 2006. He argues, ‘A rule never repealed, although written in 1942: from this political knot all the problems derive’ (Il Sole24Ore, 26 July). Next is Federica Brancaccio, president of Ance (the Association of Builders): ‘In Milan, there is a problem with the interpretation of the Lombardy regional law and the municipal resolutions that refer to it, as well as with harmonising this interpretation with the national regulations dating back to 1942. It is a paradox’ (Il Foglio, 24 July). Finally, Carlo Ratti, an architect, urban planner and professor at MIT in Boston, said: ‘Anyone who has dealt with building permits is well aware of the complexities of Italian bureaucracy. The regulations are an opaque labyrinth that hinders both efficiency and transparency’ (Il Sole24Ore, 27 July).
Setting aside the Milanese judicial affair, the skándalon tells us that there is a legal and administrative problem to address: rules to be rewritten (a responsibility of the national government and Parliament, not the mayors), procedures to be clarified and simplified, and good governance to be encouraged through legislation that meets the needs of the present day (taking into account legitimate interests and new financial techniques and construction technologies). There must also be governance of the territory based on the fact that ‘at the administrative and decision-making level, Milan cannot stop at the municipal perimeter. We must give powers to the metropolitan city’, as Francesco Billari, the demographer and rector of Bocconi University, argues in Corriere della Sera (23 July). Milan must also be governed in terms of the interconnections between services and the movement of people, ideas and capital. In the ideal map of a ‘Greater Milan’, it should be considered in relation to other nearby cities.
It is a matter of efficiency, of the effectiveness of economic, urban and social choices, and of legality in the broadest sense of the term.
There is also a social demand to consider: to provide opportunities for changing social classes and, of course, for the increasing number of students who choose Milan for university and to build a quality professional future. As Carlo Cottarelli, an economist with extensive international expertise, argues, ‘The problem with Milan is not that skyscrapers are being built, but that not enough houses are being built for the middle class’ (Corriere della Sera, 23 July).
So, what can be done? The answer lies in striking a balance between construction projects for wealthy individuals, including international ones attracted to Milan, and those for the middle and lower-middle classes. This approach would offer a return on investment over a longer period than the more demanding profit dynamics, providing tax advantages and careful use of urbanisation charges, which would be borne by large real estate funds. In short, it is a set of political choices.
The point is, the Prosecutor’s Office is doing its job, operating according to the laws in force. But those who govern a city in continuous transformation are also doing their part, trying to provide answers for investors and young people who choose Milan in the hope of a better future, as well as for those who are still drawn to the idea of working, creating, designing and producing. Entrepreneurs want to do their job, and citizens still uphold the values of Milan civil life: competitive, yet inclusive.
These are all issues that apply to Milan, but they also apply to other cities. ‘Urban planning laws are written by politicians; magistrates must limit themselves to fighting crime,’ summarises Claudio Martelli, a former socialist politician and minister (including of Justice), who has a particular focus on Milan, his home city (La Stampa, 22 July). However, the trouble is that, as we have seen, politics has not yet taken responsibility for urban planning laws.
‘Milan, it is time to think about the second act,’ concludes architect Ratti, who is well aware of the economic and ethical values that must inspire a smart city.
How? The discussion about the Housing Plan has returned, recalling (with all due differences) Minister Fanfani’s approach of providing public resources for private residential construction.
The Municipality of Milan has launched its own ‘Housing Plan’ to build 10,000 affordable housing units over ten years (with a rental price of around 600 euros per month for a 100-square-metre apartment). ‘In September, we will put out the first tender call,’ announces Emmanuel Conte, Councillor for Budget, State Property, and indeed the Housing Plan (Corriere della Sera, 26 July).
Looking beyond Milan, Federica Brancaccio of Ance considers more general needs, arguing that a Housing Plan of 15 billion euros is needed (Il Sole24Ore, 23 July) to be financed with state and EU resources to leverage robust private investment. She is also evaluating which projects deserve regulatory and tax benefits. ‘Let’s imagine a social impact rating, a grid of requirements to ensure the possibility of bringing affordable housing to market and restoring the city to what it should be for its citizens: a forge of stimulation and growth, where young people, the elderly and families can live and social mobility can flourish’ (this will be discussed in October at the “Cities in the Future 2030-2050” conference, under the guidance of Francesco Rutelli).
Even during this skándalon, Milan is demonstrating the strength of its character, built over a long history (as discussed in last week’s blog): an attitude of openness to discussion and criticism, and a willingness to propose solutions to problems, even the most difficult ones. In these controversial times, this is how we move forward.
Necesse est enim ut veniant scandala (For it is necessary that scandals come), says the Gospel according to Matthew. This dense phrase, full of intelligence and historical significance, comes to mind when considering the lessons to be learned from the current judicial and political events affecting Milan, its administration and its development projects, even in the context of our own modest history. Rather than considering our modern understanding of a scandal as an event that causes public outrage, let’s go back to the etymology of the word. The ancient Greek skándalon, meaning ‘stumbling block’ or ‘obstacle’.
Beyond the outcomes of the investigations by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, justice should take its course. Without being distracted by media uproar and the judicial fervour of ‘summary trials’ via social media, it is precisely the ‘stumbling block’ in Milan’s rhetoric of success as an attractive, ever-changing metropolis that forces everyone to reflect deeply on the city’s new characteristics, on whether it is or is not ‘a model’, and on development paradigms that must once again be capable of reconciling productivity and social inclusion, competitiveness and solidarity. Milan can achieve anything, except reduce itself to being, as Alberto Mattioli wrote in La Stampa on 17 July, ‘beautiful without a soul, increasingly sparkling and less and less authentic’.
After all, Milan is not just Milan, but Italy, and our city is more international and economically a heavyweight engine in Europe. Culturally and socially, it is a cornerstone for innovation (including the negative aspects, which must be governed and limited). ‘Milan is an asset; it needs to be defended, and a vision needs to be offered,’ write Emanuele Orsini, president of Confindustria, and Alvise Biffi, president of Assolombarda, in an editorial in Il Sole 24 Ore (25 July). It is a significant political and communicative choice of national scope. Business is not standing by; once again, it is ready to play its part in the recovery and relaunch of the metropolis and the country by ‘working together with institutions, companies, universities and civil society’. Furthermore, Assolombarda’s culture is well established in the harmonies between productivity and solidarity, and between local roots and a global outlook. ‘Insieme’ (Together) is the title of the book, which was edited by the Assolombarda Foundation and published by Marsilio to celebrate its eighty years of history. ‘Far volare Milano per far volare l’Italia’ (‘Making Milan fly to make Italy fly’) was the strategic vision of Gianfelice Rocca, one of Assolombarda’s most ambitious and forward-thinking presidents (2013–2017). An idea that is still relevant.
Therefore, let us try to think more positively about the idea of a skándalon and start with the memory of a date: 1942. On 17 August that year, in a time of war, military tensions and social concerns, the Mussolini government issued Law No. 1150 immediately after the approval of the Civil Code. This law defined a general and uniform urban planning discipline across the national territory, introducing ‘building regulatory plans’ and ‘general regulatory plans’, as well as ‘territorial coordination plans’. More than eighty years later, this law is still in force and continues to serve as the cornerstone of national urban planning legislation, albeit with numerous modifications, integrations and variations that have complicated its application. This is also because, in the meantime, cities have changed; lifestyles and living habits have evolved; and production, economic and social processes have undergone radical transformation. The business models of financial investors and builders have also changed. In short, it’s a completely different world. The rules increasingly struggle to effectively frame and regulate the tensions and trends concerning the development of cities and a primary good for Italians: a home.
Those familiar with Italian political history will remember the ‘Housing Plan’, which from 1949 to 1963 led to significant public housing construction, facilitating profound urban and rural transformation (the ‘Fanfani Plan’, named after its creator, the Minister of Labour). Another measure was introduced in 1962 with Law 167, which was proposed by the then Minister of Public Works, the Christian Democrat Fiorentino Sullo. This stimulated the construction of new public residential settlements for over five million inhabitants.
These were the times of the economic boom. The impetuous force of reconstruction and recovery moved millions of people from southern peasant villages to northern industrial areas in search of better working and living conditions, primarily in Milan and Turin. Politics and public intervention sought to respond to these new social needs.
However, in such a disruptive context, Sullo failed to implement the key urban planning reform in 1963. This was fiercely opposed by large landowners and the right wing, and ultimately renounced by the Christian Democrats themselves. This had a negative effect on the first centre-left government, which was presided over by Aldo Moro. The Italian Socialist Party finally entered the ‘seat of power’’, but its reformist momentum slowed significantly. There was no reform to modernise and simplify the process of providing homes for Italians, nor to curb the demands of those who were then putting their ‘hands over the city’ (as depicted in the film of the same name by Francesco Rosi about real estate speculation, especially in Rome and the cities of the south). It was a daunting task to make incisive reforms in this country.
In summary, as far as construction is concerned, Italy changes, but the laws do not — except for cautious yet confused modernisations and adjustments. Four very different individuals have commented on this Milan skándalon. Firstly, there is Piero Bassetti, a scholar of great acumen and former president of the Lombardy Region, who says that the regulatory package in the fields of construction, building and urban development is ‘old and inadequate’, and that we are faced with ‘a not simple dialectic between new interests and outdated regulations’ (La Repubblica, 17 July; Il Foglio, 22 July). Then there is Gabriele Albertini, a former centre-right mayor of Milan, who initiated urban regeneration on 11 million square metres of land freed up by industrial closures during his two terms in office from 1997 to 2006. He argues, ‘A rule never repealed, although written in 1942: from this political knot all the problems derive’ (Il Sole24Ore, 26 July). Next is Federica Brancaccio, president of Ance (the Association of Builders): ‘In Milan, there is a problem with the interpretation of the Lombardy regional law and the municipal resolutions that refer to it, as well as with harmonising this interpretation with the national regulations dating back to 1942. It is a paradox’ (Il Foglio, 24 July). Finally, Carlo Ratti, an architect, urban planner and professor at MIT in Boston, said: ‘Anyone who has dealt with building permits is well aware of the complexities of Italian bureaucracy. The regulations are an opaque labyrinth that hinders both efficiency and transparency’ (Il Sole24Ore, 27 July).
Setting aside the Milanese judicial affair, the skándalon tells us that there is a legal and administrative problem to address: rules to be rewritten (a responsibility of the national government and Parliament, not the mayors), procedures to be clarified and simplified, and good governance to be encouraged through legislation that meets the needs of the present day (taking into account legitimate interests and new financial techniques and construction technologies). There must also be governance of the territory based on the fact that ‘at the administrative and decision-making level, Milan cannot stop at the municipal perimeter. We must give powers to the metropolitan city’, as Francesco Billari, the demographer and rector of Bocconi University, argues in Corriere della Sera (23 July). Milan must also be governed in terms of the interconnections between services and the movement of people, ideas and capital. In the ideal map of a ‘Greater Milan’, it should be considered in relation to other nearby cities.
It is a matter of efficiency, of the effectiveness of economic, urban and social choices, and of legality in the broadest sense of the term.
There is also a social demand to consider: to provide opportunities for changing social classes and, of course, for the increasing number of students who choose Milan for university and to build a quality professional future. As Carlo Cottarelli, an economist with extensive international expertise, argues, ‘The problem with Milan is not that skyscrapers are being built, but that not enough houses are being built for the middle class’ (Corriere della Sera, 23 July).
So, what can be done? The answer lies in striking a balance between construction projects for wealthy individuals, including international ones attracted to Milan, and those for the middle and lower-middle classes. This approach would offer a return on investment over a longer period than the more demanding profit dynamics, providing tax advantages and careful use of urbanisation charges, which would be borne by large real estate funds. In short, it is a set of political choices.
The point is, the Prosecutor’s Office is doing its job, operating according to the laws in force. But those who govern a city in continuous transformation are also doing their part, trying to provide answers for investors and young people who choose Milan in the hope of a better future, as well as for those who are still drawn to the idea of working, creating, designing and producing. Entrepreneurs want to do their job, and citizens still uphold the values of Milan civil life: competitive, yet inclusive.
These are all issues that apply to Milan, but they also apply to other cities. ‘Urban planning laws are written by politicians; magistrates must limit themselves to fighting crime,’ summarises Claudio Martelli, a former socialist politician and minister (including of Justice), who has a particular focus on Milan, his home city (La Stampa, 22 July). However, the trouble is that, as we have seen, politics has not yet taken responsibility for urban planning laws.
‘Milan, it is time to think about the second act,’ concludes architect Ratti, who is well aware of the economic and ethical values that must inspire a smart city.
How? The discussion about the Housing Plan has returned, recalling (with all due differences) Minister Fanfani’s approach of providing public resources for private residential construction.
The Municipality of Milan has launched its own ‘Housing Plan’ to build 10,000 affordable housing units over ten years (with a rental price of around 600 euros per month for a 100-square-metre apartment). ‘In September, we will put out the first tender call,’ announces Emmanuel Conte, Councillor for Budget, State Property, and indeed the Housing Plan (Corriere della Sera, 26 July).
Looking beyond Milan, Federica Brancaccio of Ance considers more general needs, arguing that a Housing Plan of 15 billion euros is needed (Il Sole24Ore, 23 July) to be financed with state and EU resources to leverage robust private investment. She is also evaluating which projects deserve regulatory and tax benefits. ‘Let’s imagine a social impact rating, a grid of requirements to ensure the possibility of bringing affordable housing to market and restoring the city to what it should be for its citizens: a forge of stimulation and growth, where young people, the elderly and families can live and social mobility can flourish’ (this will be discussed in October at the “Cities in the Future 2030-2050” conference, under the guidance of Francesco Rutelli).
Even during this skándalon, Milan is demonstrating the strength of its character, built over a long history (as discussed in last week’s blog): an attitude of openness to discussion and criticism, and a willingness to propose solutions to problems, even the most difficult ones. In these controversial times, this is how we move forward.