General purpose:

Given the number and complexity of involved agents, one of the hardest obstacles to cope with while dealing with urban transformation strategies derives from the non-linearity of the functions activated by the process. The anticipation of the possible implications of a specific intervention onto the various dimensions – social, economic, environmental, … - that are implicated in the transformation, follows logical procedures that require the intersection of both computational and argumentative activities.

The purpose of the Workshop – dealing specifically with the case study of Mirafiori in Torino – is thus to simulate the series of possible implications that involve, sequentially, the various branches implicated within the process. Each student, employing their own specific disciplinary skillset, will have to foresee the highest possible number of implications and aim to a specific combination that is considered positive within the larger frame of the urban transformation.
 

Participants are divided into groups of 5 to 8 “designers” with heterogeneous expertise and disciplinary backgrounds.

 

 

Object of the workshop:

The Mirafiori area is at the core of the group work. The area is divided into various zones, for each of which a series of information (quantitative data, ties, issues, suggestions and specific inclinations for transformation) is provided.

 

 

Workshop objectives.

Physical urban transformations constitute a field of action that require an increasing range of expertise, which, though, often work separately, and even come into play only after the “project” as final objective and vision has been defined. The fundamental objective of our work is to build a long-term transformation scenario for the whole area, produced by many ‘designers’ with different disciplinary backgrounds, and  organized as a succession of incremental effects: i.e., a project for intermediate phases. Nonetheless, global scenarios of the general future that the transformation should aspire to, will be initially considered in order to make the work smoother.

 

 

Step 1: Building the sequence-scenario

Each group will have to construct its project strategy, by proposing a transformation scenario in the form of a zone-by-zone sequence. The rules that will guide the building of the sequence are the following:

• Each transformation interval can last five years at the most

• It is possible to include in the transformation two zones at the most in the same interval

• It is only possible to transform each zone once

• The sequence-scenario can be modified in the course of the project.

   

 

Step 2: Defining alternative hypotheses on the area, according to various disciplinary approaches

Having defined the sequence for the transformation of the zones, each group will attempt to draw such transformation starting from the first zone – according to different criteria.

The specific approach employed in the transformation will depend on the specific competencies of the group’s components. For the sake of this guide, four distinct approaches can be identified:

 

• Architectural proposal (morphology, distribution, typologies, etc.)

• Business proposal (land transformation, market logics, financial-economic analyses, etc.)

• Infrastructural proposal (technical networks, viability infrastructure, electrical and sewage networks, etc.)

• Environmental proposal (ecological networks, land reclamation, land quality, inundation belts, etc.)

 

Within each group 1 or 2 experts for each area of interest will be nominated at the beginning of the workshop session. These experts will design – autonomously – the best transformation for the area according to the criterion they were assigned.

Each proposal involves a perspective that is consequence of a specific approach, but each group will develop – with the tools they deem best appropriate – a transformation hypothesis of the zone, in a span of time amounting to up to five years, within the larger frameworks of the sequence-scenario they have already defined.

 

As a result, there will be 4 transformation drawings (complete with all deliverables, tables, diagrams, that are deemed useful), one for each approach.

 

 

Step 2 bis: Hierarchization of alternatives

The four disciplinary hypotheses must be organized into a hierarchy, in order to define one transformation scenario that derives from the contribution of each approach through internal vote (with the rule that those that elaborated the four proposals cannot vote for their own).

The final purpose of this step is to obtain a ranking of the four alternatives (a, b, c, d). Once the ranking is obtained, the alternatives are modified according to the following indications:

 

• The winner decides the general design

• The second runner-up has the right to impose two objections/modifications

• The third runner-up has the right to impose one objection/modification

• The fourth runner-up has no right to objections or modifications.

 

The discussion leading to the integration of objections and modifications into the final project has as a final deliverable a drawn proposal, which is then submitted to the approval of the Validation Committee.

All design phases and intermediate passages have to be archived, and supplied with a brief report explaining the decisions that the group undertakes.

 

 

Step 3: Obtaining approval from the Validation Committee

Each group submits the design to the Validation Committee. The Committee can:

• Deny approval -> the group can decide to either submit the project again in order to obtain approval, or proceed. It is not possible to  be denied approval twice. In this case the group will have to modify the drawing until it is approved (possibly with reserve)

• Approve the document with reserve -> the group can decide to either submit the document again to obtain full approval, or proceed.

• Approve the document; full support from the Validation Committee to the work.

 

The Committee considers each transformation proposal, evaluating solely the final project that is the result of successive integrations of previous alternatives.

 

Important:

The Validation Committee is subject to strict opening hours in the course of the day. It will be necessary to take turns and possibly take the risk of elaborating various successive steps before obtaining approval for each of them.

 

 

Step 4: Replicating the project procedure to successive zones, according to the sequence-scenario initially envisioned

Once the opinion of the Validation Committee has been obtained, the same procedure applied on the first zone will be applied to the following ones, according to the sequence envisioned by each group in Step 1.

The following drawing, thus, will include the transformation of the first as well as of the second zone.

 

Depending on the efficiency of internal discussions, on the results of each encounter with the Validation Committee, on the willingness to modify (or not) the sequence-scenario along the way, a changing number of intervals and zones will be elaborated.

 

 

Awaited results: producing a diachronic project of the transformation, according to a multiplicity of disciplinary approaches.

At the end of the workshop, the final required deliverable is a ‘tree of possibilities’ that traces the incremental sequence of transformations. For each interval there will be:

• (At least one) cycle of elaboration and classification

• An approved project

• Possible discarded projects

• A report of internal discussions

 

At the most, the group will have exhausted the transformation of all areas, within a time span comprehended between 25 and 50 years.

 

 

Winners:

The group that will be able to design the maximum number of zones in the sequence, with the minimum number of reserves, and that will obtain the highest evaluation on the final project according to the 4 different disciplinary approaches, will be considered the winner.