B I P V i n t h e R e c o v e r y o f M i n o r H i s t o r i c a l C e n t e r s
463
BIPV in the context of historicized buildings
The intervention on historic building fabric, rich in cultural, environmental, architectural
and landscape values, poses higher-order issues that go far beyond simple agreement
with normative references or performance. It need, on the other hand, a broader vision
and greater complexity to carry the theme of "building on the built" and, in the specific
case the BiPV, to cover a series of verifications of
integrability
, related to several
intervention scales and to a
multicriteria
dimension of the concept of integration. It is
obvious that monumental historical centres in which the artistic and historical value
and/or landscaping is vital, should be recognized the inopportunity of an invasive
intervention of "technological implementation". It’s thinkable to refer this respect to cases
of emblematic cities of art like Florence where regulation, dividing the city into sections
(Centre, 19th-century area suburbs), decided:
"No photovoltaic in the bounded area of
the centre, panels of the same color of the roofs perfectly camouflaged in the avenues
areas and around, no limitation to plants in the suburbs".
Thus, in ordinary conditions of
well-preserved villages, a possible intervention strategy is that of
"zero hypothesis"
or
of the "no-intervention" and of total conservation. Less rational appears instead
widespread prohibition of local building regulations, in cases of "historical" perimeters
where the monumental value is objectively well lower or else limited to isolated
emergencies. In such cases there is therefore the possibility, and perhaps the need to
intervene in improving-key on the performance and on the language of the artifacts,
often outdated, degraded, unhealthy and unsafe, as well as ecologically very impacting.
Figure 4: Comparison of a well-preserved village and a compromise one
caused from the earthquake of 2009 in the area of L'Aquila
But apart from the ordinary cases where should be evaluated ad hoc opportunities and
compatibility of the intervention, which may be the approach in contexts where the
earthquake destroyed all traces of pre-existence? Without going into the merits of
disciplinary debate on the "how to reconstruct", it is however obvious in these situations,
the necessity to find innovative and sustainable "ways to intervene" on building and
urban contexts, often deprived of any material and testimonial value of pre-existence due
to the collapse suffered. It is in this context that, once having excluded the demagogic
operations of "in style" restoration and the historical false of "as it was", can certainly find
