«The Milan model is dangerous because it generates inequalities in all cities»

In the hearings that have just concluded in the Senate Environment Committee, dozens of critical voices have alternated, asking to trash or modify the so-called Salva Milano, the law that would legitimize the easy skyscrapers of the Milanese style throughout Italy. On March 6, the text will arrive in the chamber loaded with amendments and in all likelihood, if the right does not vote for it alone, it will return to the Chamber. Criticisms of the law have come from the vast majority of urban planners, landscape architects, some constitutionalists, unions, environmental associations, criticisms that have convinced several senators of the Democratic Party to change the text. Among the critics of Salva Milano is Legambiente. Domenico Fontana is the head of urban regeneration of the environmental association.

In the Environment Committee you said that this rule is harmful, why? It is a law that can have negative effects throughout the country. It risks making the model of Milanese urban regeneration a national model, and it is a model driven almost exclusively by real estate income. Urban regeneration as we understand it is an efficient, fair city that does not expel the impoverished. But we will never achieve it if we legitimize a model driven by real estate income. This law may save real estate business but it undermines the virtuous idea of ​​urban regeneration.

Are you also afraid of pouring concrete? It is not a problem of pouring concrete. Today the problems of land consumption are linked to logistics warehouses, to other things, certainly not to the construction of new neighborhoods within cities.

So you're not afraid of land consumption? What alarms us most is that urban regeneration, which is the fundamental tool with which we will modernize our cities, must put the citizens who live in the cities first. It must put the need to make cities more efficient and liveable first. We must start from the needs of the city, not from the interests of real estate speculation, as happened in Milan. So if I take this model and make it national, I will forever throw overboard the virtuous idea of ​​urban regeneration.

There is talk of modifying the text to limit its effects only to Milan. Is it conceivable to limit a national law to a territorial scope? In my opinion, no. It cannot be said that national rules apply only to Milan and not to other cities. To solve the problem of Milan without messing up other cities, however, there would be a way: the amnesty.

Aren't you against amnesties? It would be a way to remedy an abuse that is more formal than substantial. We should have the courage and seriousness to admit that we have created a problem of illegal building. An illegal building, I repeat, more formal than substantial. As per definition, substantial illegal building is when I build a house without a building permit, or in violation of a building permit, or in violation of the constraints that exist on the area on which I have built. For the moment, in Milan we are not in this case. We are in a case where entrepreneurs, technicians and officials have found themselves in the situation of having to apply the building regulations in force at a national level, integrating them with the regional ones in harmony with the local regulatory plan. There is an important factor: over the years, the Lombardy government has made regional urban planning laws that are in contrast with the national regulations and favorable to real estate developers. Therefore, all politicians should admit that they have made a mistake and take responsibility for remedying what they have done. We are always against all amnesties – we would be in this case too – but there is no point in hiding behind a finger.

So what do you hope for at this point? Let's find a solution to the Milan problem without making it a national problem, because if we say that Milan and Lombardy have done everything well, that model becomes the model for Rome, Florence, Turin, Bologna and all the other cities. I don't know if it's clear. And then the urban regeneration of the cities will fail, and it would be very serious. We therefore hope that the senators will reconsider in the best possible way.