The  ambiguous  place

9.1   The  ambiguous  place  

The  initial  phase  that  I  have  identified  is  based  on  an  ambiguous  discourse  of   place.  To  identify  and  analyse  this  phase  I  have  been  inspired  by  the  concept  of   the  “permanent-­‐provisional  state”  developed  by  Gabriella  Olshammar  (2002).  

This  concept  can  according  to  Olshammar  be  used  as  a  conceptual  tool  for  

describing  an  ambiguous  urban  situation  and  place,  as  well  as  a  form  of  re-­‐use  of   an  industrial  area  (Olshammar  2002:12).  Within  the  concept  of  the  permanent-­‐

provisional  state  is  the  belief  that  this  is  a  state  created  and  sustained  by  the   various  relations  and  discourses  of  the  area,  and  the  way  in  which  these  are  

carriers  of  power  of  shaping  the  image  and  ideas  of  that  place.  When  establishing   a  permanent-­‐provisional  state,  certain  actors  are  actively  reinforcing  a  stigma   connected  to  the  site  by  confirming  various  negative  conceptions  about  the  place.  

An  important  aspect  of  the  permanent-­‐provisional  state  is  the  idea  of  a  kind  of   urban  disorder,  as  a  place  where  the  normative  conceptions  of  an  urban  place   cannot  be  applied.  The  conception  of  this  urban  disorder  is  based  upon  

statements  of  the  place  as  being  in  a  state  of  both  aesthetic  and  social  unrest   (Olshammar  2002:165-­‐169).  In  the  case  study  used  by  Olshammar  to  develop   this  concept,  the  former  industrial  area  that  she  is  examining  is  conceived  as  a   sort  of  “non-­‐place”  lacking  any  real  architectural  values  of  the  existing  built   fabric,  and  the  activities  taking  place  there  as  non-­‐place  specific  and  provisional   to  their  character.  By  doing  so,  the  actors  that  have  the  power  of  constructing  a   dominant  and  stigmatising  discourse  connected  to  the  place,  also  has  the  power   of  carrying  out  their  plans  and  visions.  

9.1.1     A  permanent-­‐provisional  state?  

  Looking  back  at  the  situation  in  Testaccio  during  the  1980s,  this  was  a   period  during  which  a  number  of  regeneration  plans  and  visions  of  the  future   were  put  forward,  but  very  few  actual  interventions  were  carried  out.  The  most   structured  regeneration  plan  of  1987  is  reflecting  a  view  of  an  area  with  a   number  of  problems.  In  this  plan,  traditional  crafts  are  encouraged,  as  they  are   strengthening  the  area’s  brand,  while  car  mechanics  and  similar  activities  does   not  have  any  value  for  enhancing  the  heritage  of  the  neighbourhood  and  might  as   well  be  located  elsewhere  in  the  city  (Murgia  &  Salanitro  1986:58).  Whether  or   not  these  activities  were  useful  for  the  local  community  or  not  is  not  further   discussed,  and  a  wish  is  rather  expressed  that  this  area  should  be  “liberated”  and   be  brought  back  to  a  broader  public  use  (Murgia  &  Salanitro  1986:58).  In  this   instance,  the  material  conditions  as  well  as  the  activities  at  the  site  are  both   portrayed  as  problematic,  and  as  halting  the  regeneration  of  the  area.  The   removal  of  such  activities  would  allow  the  historical  references  to  strengthen  as   well  as  the  future  image  of  the  neighbourhood  to  be  realised.    

This  can  be  interpreted  as  a  strategy  of  stigmatisation,  and  making  the   area  appear  more  problematic  than  it  might  actually  have  been.  In  the  plans  from   the  1980s,  the  poor  material  standard  and  the  “everyday  activities”  are  openly   portrayed  as  the  obstacles  of  regenerating  the  area.  The  problems  of  Testaccio   during  this  period,  with  actual  high  numbers  of  criminal  activity  and  many   inhabitants  leaving  the  neighbourhood,  can  hardly  be  blamed  on  the  illegally   built  sheds  and  car  mechanics  that  had  come  to  establish  in  quite  a  limited  part   of  the  area.  This  brings  me  to  the  interpretation  that  this  is  a  case  of  where  a   problematic  situation  has  been  constructed,  rather  than  a  real  correlation   between  the  materiality  at  the  site  and  the  issues  that  are  conceived  there.  

Considering  the  stigmatisation  of  the  activities  at  the  site,  and  certain  parts  of  the   built  environment,  Testaccio  can  be  said  to  be  a  case  of  a  permanent-­‐provisional   state.  Furthermore,  there  were  no  actors  carrying  any  particular  potential  of   organisation  and  power  in  this  context,  which  could  have  provided  an  alternative   outlook  of  the  situation.  Thus  the  general  stigmatisation  of  the  area,  already   established  through  descriptions  such  as  located  in  a  “historical  periphery”,  are  

easily  strengthening  this  image.    

9.1.2  Ambiguity  and  potential  

Another  aspect  of  the  permanent-­‐provisional  state  is  the  ambiguous  relationship   to  the  place.  This  is  perhaps  the  dominant  theme  of  the  discourse  on  the  place  of     Testaccio  during  this  early  phase  in  the  regeneration  process.  In  this  case  it  is   primarily  from  the  recognised  historical  and  aesthetic  values  present  in  the   neighbourhood  that  these  ambiguous  views  seem  to  be  originating.  Particularly   the  former  slaughterhouse  complex  is  an  object  for  this  type  of  descriptions.    

  On  one  hand,  there  is  a  clear  understanding  and  expression  of  the  values   inherent  in  these  buildings,  while  their  current  state  on  the  other  hand,  is  

deemed  as  unsuitable,  dirty  and  even  dangerous.  It  was  simultaneously  the  most  

“new  york-­‐esque”  place  of  Rome,  but  at  the  same  time  an  uncomfortable  location   in  need  of  restoration.  A  certain  ambiguity  can  be  seen  as  an  inherent  part  of  any   official  plan  of  urban  regeneration  as  a  condition  of  the  need  of  said  plan,  but  the   ambiguity  during  this  period  also  permeates  the  various  other  descriptions  of   the  area.  As  described  by  Anna  Vos  in  1992;    

 “Nevertheless  Testaccio,  with  its  trendy  bars  and  discos,  which  create  their  own  special   ambiance  in  the  shadow  of  the  hill,  and  with  its  bad  reputation  and  dilapidated  state,   nowadays  attracts  certain  groups  of  Romans,  if  only  for  a  short  visit.”  (Vos  1992:59-­‐60)    

The  attraction  of  the  site  for  “certain  groups”  does  not  seem  to  be  reason  enough   to  valorise  the  area  in  its  current  state,  but  rather  it  needs  structured  

interventions  to  attain  its  full  potential.  One  and  the  same  actor  was  mainly   responsible  for  expressing  these  ambiguous  depictions  of  the  area,  namely  the   municipality  of  Rome,  through  their  various  representatives.  At  this  point  in   time,  the  voices  of  the  less  powerful  actors  in  Testaccio  were  rarely  heard,   making  the  establishment  of  a  dominant  discourse  of  the  place  as  problematic   quite  unchallenged.    

  Although  the  concept  of  the  permanent-­‐provisional  state  is  useful  in   defining  this  particular  phase  of  the  process,  the  future  potential  of  the  place  that   is  continuously  expressed  cannot  quite  be  included  in  this  definition.  The  widely   recognised  architectural  values  of  slaughterhouse,  and  the  classical  heritage  of   the  area  make  it  difficult  to  define  this  as  the  kind  of  everyday-­‐area  that  the   permanent-­‐provisional  state  is  describing.  As  stated  by  Olshammar  in  her  case   study  of  the  Gustaf  Dahlén  area,  the  built  environment  is  described  as  lacking  the   proper  qualities  to  merit  its  valorisation  and  future  safeguarding  (Olshammar   2002:173-­‐174).  Since  the  initial  process  of  historisation  in  Testaccio,  the  value  of   the  slaughterhouse  and  the  historical  built  environment  of  the  neighbourhood  as   a  resource  of  reuse  and  regeneration.  Although  in  order  to  reuse  the  built  

heritage,  it  needs  to  be  part  of  an  overarching  plan,  cleaned  up  and  have  carefully   assigned  new  uses.  Furthermore,  vast  additions  were  planned  to  the  existing   built  fabric,  which  were  envisioned  to  not  only  strengthen  local  identity,  but  also   connect  the  area  to  the  rest  of  the  historical  centre  of  Rome.  Perhaps  this  can  be   interpreted  as  a  strategy  of  breaking  the  historical  periphery  that  Testaccio   seemed  to  have  been  stuck  in?    

  In  any  case,  the  same  need  of  structuring  the  real  or  imagined  disorder  of  

the  area  is  also  noted  by  Olshammar.  An  interesting  aspect  that  she  mentions  is   that  the  need  of  planners  to  envision  the  potential  of  a  place  beyond  the  present   situation,  has  mainly  to  do  with  the  lack  of  practical  knowledge  and  first-­‐hand   experience  with  the  site  in  question  (Olshammar  2002:178).  That  is  to  say,  it  is   difficult  even  for  professionals  seeing  past  the  negative  presuppositions  

connected  to  a  dirty  or  messy  surface.  To  truly  be  able  to  appreciate  the  potential   in  the  already  existing  situation,  a  more  thorough  understanding  is  needed  and   could  possibly  give  a  deeper  understanding  to  the  specific  circumstances  of  the   place  when  developing  plans  for  its  future.    

Having  these  ideas  in  mind,  Testaccio  as  an  ambiguous  place,  on  the   border  of  being  in  a  permanent-­‐provisional  state,  would  remain  in  to  the  1990s   as  none  of  the  suggested  interventions  were  carried  out.  Instead,  this  

development  would  lead  forward  to  what  I  have  identified  as  a  parallel  discourse   being  established,  and  with  that,  a  new  phase  in  the  process  of  regeneration.