34 Urban Morphology ( 1997 ) 1 , 34 - 48

Residential building types in Italy before 1930:

the significance of local typological processes
Maria Grazia Corsini
Facolta di Architettura deH ' Universita di Roma 'La Sapienza’,
Dipartimento di Progettazione Architettonica e Urbana,
Via Antonio Gramsci 53 - 00197 Roma, Italy

Revised manuscript received 16 January 1997

Abstract. I tipi edilizi residenziali in Italia fino al 1930: permanenze e

derivazioni dai processi tipologici locali . La maggior parte del tessuto
edilizio dei quartieri progettati in Italia dalla seconda meta dell ' Ottocento
ad oggi e costituito dalla casa plurifamiliare ad appartamenti o ‘ casa in
.
linea La casa in linea dei primi quartieri di espansione rappresenta la
9

codificcizione del tipo plurifamiliare nato nella citta cintica dal riuso
deiredilizia monofamiliare medioevale , attraverso fenomeni di rifusione e
sopraelevazione. Per questo, esaminando in comparazione i quartieri
residenziali di citta italiane progettati e realizzati dalla meta dell ' Ottocento
ai primi decenni del Novecento si rilevano, insieme a caratteri comuni nel
tessuto e ne IPedilizia, accezioni particolari e differenziazioni locali , nella
struttura, nella distribuzione e soprattutto nel sistema di aggregazione della
casa in linea, dovute alia permanenza e continued di processi tipologici
autoctoni ereditati dalla citta antica. La ricostruzione dei processi tipologici
locali diventa indispensabile per giungere al recupero del progetto riferito
all ’ esperienza edilizia storica dell ' area culturale di appartenenza, in stretta
connessione e continued con la cultura dei luoghi. L ' analisi si sviluppa
nella comparazione dei processi tipologici di tre citta italiane , Genova,
Romci , Milano,

Key Words: building types, apartment buildings , historical cities, Italy

Most of the residential areas constructed in
Italian cities since the middle of the last
century consist of apartment buildings. These
purpose- built , multi-family buildings evolved
from the multi-family houses that had been
created in the old cities by converting
existing medieval one-family houses.
The residential areas built between the
middle of the last century and c.1930 show
local differences in structure , layout and ,
above all , the way in which the buildings are
aggregated , reflecting the continuity of local
typological processes inherited from the old
cities. Each city also has its own type of
urban fabric and building design , and these
too reveal the continuity of a local
typological process. The origin of each
process has conditioned the utilization and
form of subsequent building developments.
Since the end of the Second World War,
building design has become more and more
detached from this gradual evolution, with
the result that buildings tend to be the same
everywhere, and everywhere out of keeping
with older buildings. Any attempt to halt this
spreading anonymity will have to start from
an analysis of the local typological processes
of each city , in order to discover exactly
what gives them their historical continuity .
This paper compares the typological

ISSN 1027-4278 © International Seminar on Urban Form , 1997

Building types in Italy
processes of three Italian cities: Genoa, Rome
and Milan . It examines, first, the physical
form of the medieval cities; secondly , the
multi-family buildings derived from the
restructuring of the medieval houses ; thirdly ,
the buildings designed in the second half of
the nineteenth century ; and fourthly , those
designed in the first 30 years of this century .
The medieval cities
Caniggia’s studies of typology (Caniggia ,
1986) show that the original Roman fabric
still survives in many ancient Italian cities. A
typical feature of this Roman fabric was the
town house, or domus, a building type
consisting of an enclosed plot of land with a
house in one part of it that influenced the
way in which buildings were used in
medieval times, and conditioned subsequent
building developments. Most Italian cities
have had two main phases of development .
The first , in the medieval period , was
spontaneous, and consisted of adding
one-family houses to the existing domus-type
houses. The second , from the middle of the
nineteenth century to around 1930, was based
on a planned layout of apartment buildings
that derived from the restructuring and
amalgamation of houses in the medieval
cities. There was, therefore, a typological
process common to Italy as a whole, with
local variations reflecting the development of
the original building structures and fabric.
The medieval fabric of Genoa is based on
the single- room building, a pseudo row house
derived from the development of the domus
into insulae, or street blocks ( Figure la). A
street or alley ran through the original domus
enclosure, with one- room independent houses
on each side of it, backing on to the houses
in the adjoining plot . Figure lb shows the
result of this process, with three domus plots
developed into blocks of houses. The main
feature of these houses is that , unlike the
typical row house, they have three , not two,
walls in common with adjacent houses and
front directly onto the street , with no yard or
garden .
The typical Genoese pseudo row house has
35
a frontage of 4-7 m and is 5-8m deep. In its
most evolved form, still common in the old
town , the ground floor has two separate
entrances: a large doorway leading to a shop
or workshop, and a small doorway opening
on to a staircase leading to the living
quarters, called caminata in old documents,
on the first floor, and bedrooms on the
second . The first staircase, perpendicular to
the frontage, runs along the adjacent party
wall , while the one to the second floor is
parallel to the frontage and is built against
the rear wall ( Figure 1 c ).
In Rome, the development into insulae can
be seen in the central areas of the medieval
city, while in what were then the outer areas,
such as Trastevere, the domus survived in the
medieval courtyard house, which was
remodelled into row houses during the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries ( Figure Id ).
Here the process was different from that in
Genoa: the domus plot was divided
longitudinally into independent building lots,
with a main street in front and side streets
(Caniggia, 1986). Row houses were built first
along the main street and subsequently along
the side streets, thus forming the typical
medieval Roman block ( Figure le).
As in Genoa, the row house in Rome,
5-6m wide and 10- 12 m deep, divided into
two rooms, was for a single family ; and
again had a shop or workshop on the ground
floor, with living and sleeping quarters on the
first and second floors. There is usually a
one- ramp staircase in the front room , either
perpendicular to the street and against a party
wall or parallel to the street and against the
far wall ( Figure If ).
In Milan , the domus persisted in the
medieval courtyard house ( Caniggia, 1986).
This consists of an enclosure 12- 18 m wide
by 18-30 m deep. The portion occupied by the
building initially consisted of one room , but
another room was added later to
accommodate increasingly varied housing
functions. This was contiguous to at least one
side of the enclosure, its position dependent
on the terrain and orientation . The entrance
was normally in the enclosure wall , fronting
the main street ( Figure 2a ). As needs grew ,
 a c _
!» ! ir
if
*

T
F
i- - 4f -T F GENOA
4 f
-1
::
3 dLZ-
* »
-
_L_r Tv:

c
s ia Gramsci

ground floor

[ VI!!! !!!!!X]
M

first floor second floor

d f
ROME
11
e
u iUC
via del Mallonato

3
in
n n ! J £4
n
u
f
• ground floor

t
: Z3 ~

S
if s \CO\°
rdo g
Zr

f!
Lc V
first fl < x> r
rJL
—“ JL
i

second floor

.
Figure 1 (a ) Multi- family conversion of domus plot, Genoa ; ( b ) Genoa Pre, medieval
fabric with continuance of block formation ; (c) Pseudo row house, Genoa; ( d ) Medieval
courtyard house remodelled into row houses, Rome; (e) Medieval fabric of Trastevere,
Rome, showing continuance of original domus type; (f ) Roman row house.
Sources: a , b,c - Corsini (1996); e - Masi and Olivieri ( 19S9 ).
 a b
.v.v.y/*:
•>Vw< -

'
V/A
'
A

^4. I1
'V

I
1
I .

'
I %

A A
0,1 11 A

C (
I
I
I
I
MILAN 1

1
A

-
;j y

Figure 2. Milan: ( a ) Three types of courtyard house; ( b ) Successive building phases in the
plot of the courtyard house; (c) Subdivision of the courtyard house plot: ( d ) Fabric of the
courtyard house, from the map by A. Barateri ( 1629): (e) Cadastral plan (second half of
.
nineteenth century ). Sources: a - Caniggia ( 1986): d e - ( iambi and Gozzoli ( 1982 ) .
38
further buildings were added against the
enclosure wall ( Caniggia, 1970) ( Figure 2 b).
In a period of intensive urbanization , the
plot was often divided , either lengthways or
crossways, and the number of buildings was
doubled while maintaining the features of the
courtyard house on a smaller scale ( Figure
2c ). The street block of the old city was
formed by aggregating courtyard houses
( Figure 2d ,e).
From medieval houses to multi -family
buildings
With the exception of occasional planned
extensions in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, the medieval cities remained
essentially unchanged until the early part of
the nineteenth century (Caniggia and Maffei ,
1984). Accommodation for the growing
population was provided by converting
one-family houses into multi-family
dwellings rather than by building new houses
around the medieval centre.
This conversion was done in one of two
ways: either by dividing the house into
apartments ( with one on each floor; extra
floors were often added ), or by restructuring
and amalgamating adjoining houses so that
each apartment had the same floor area as a
one-family house. One result was that the
single- ramp staircase now became a double-
ramp staircase.
In Genoa, the first type of conversion was
more common , with the pseudo row houses
extended upwards ( Figure 3a ). In Rome, a
two- room dwelling was commonly created on
each floor, and another two storeys were
usually added ( Figure 3 b ). In Milan , the
usual method was to extend the building into
the courtyard area, often , when the plot was
large, with the creation of additional
staircases. The apartments were usually of
two rooms, with access from external
landings ( Figure 3c ).
The Genoese multi -family building
retained much of the character of the
medieval structure. No matter what position
it occupies in the street block , it usually has
a three- bay layout , with a double- ramp
Building types in Italy
staircase in the central bay and one or two
apartments on each floor (Figure 4a). Each
apartment has a central entrance hall, with
the living rooms and bedrooms looking onto
the street and the bathroom and kitchen at the
rear. The last two rooms are either
windowless, or have small windows opening
on to ventilation shafts.
The method commonly adopted in Rome
was to amalgamate two or more adjoining
row houses while retaining their layout and
structural features. The typical apartment is
two rooms deep, with a double frontage and
a yard or open space at the rear. The more
important rooms are at the front , with the
kitchen and bathroom giving on to the yard
( Figure 4 b ).
The Milanese courtyard - type multi-family
building was created by restructuring and
amalgamating two adjoining courtyard
houses. In some cases the two courtyards
were retained , in others they were
amalgamated into a single courtyard , with
staircases leading off ( Figures 5a, b ). The
original facades were sometimes retained ,
although some were completely redesigned .
Planned urban expansion in the second
half of the nineteenth century
The apartment buildings designed for the
planned urban expansion that took place
between the middle of the nineteenth century
and c.1930 follow the characteristics of the
buildings in the old cities; purpose- built
structures were based on the building forms
that had evolved in the medieval city and had
been systematized in the seventeenth -century
city , incorporating both planned and
unplanned elements. The structure and layout
are in keeping with the evolution of the
multi - family building from medieval times
onwards, but the plan and facade of the
sixteenth and seventeenth century palazzo are
copied : the facades have the typical rhythmic
feeling, created through the regular spacing
of the windows - some of them fake, as they
correspond to an internal dividing wall
between apartments - while the floors are
conceived as a hierarchy , with a ground
 a GENOA b ROME
i
i »
I
i
i
A

0
e o o i

illiiSlilllltl I
I
I
U
l
I

l
I

=5
I

D° t

OD
i

HU
c
i

0 DD i
i
i
I

DD Q
i

A
l

nr A,
vicolo del Leopardo 21 ground floor plan typical floor plan

n_ . nn i
A • .i
I

vico Angeli 15 *
r
vico Angeli 13 I i
if
i

i
i
i
D a I
i
l

A
i
l
l
i
i

i
I
< ] I
/
mesa7-:
I
i '1
m r
typical floor plan I
i
i i
I
»
i

\ —
ground floor plan
7 A
vicolo del Ixopardo 24 ground floor plan typical floor plan

c MILAN
I 31 i
i
i
i
i 4
i
i
i
i
i

M il:i
i
I
.
' "0

| LcL-i
i
r.rr
d ID
i
i

i
i i

i
ZSZD a
i
i i
i
i .
i

corso Garibaldi 60 i

c. I

ground floor typical floor plan

Figure 3. Conversion of one -family houses into multi - family buildings: ( a) Genoa Pre ; ( b)
Trastevere, Rome; (c ) Milan - courtyard house. Sources: a - Corsini ( 1996 );
c - Lippa ( 1993) .
a GENOA

TO .s
o
o
o » ts
ll
i
.
1
,i
\
l|
I
6
'A Li, " V
A
oo a
i

o o ri“«

nnn n ~
r\

typical floor plan vice Bottai l

typical floor plan
vico Dora 4

b ROME

/
fc = n
I Wz. =
;r
i
II i I
i g L-
a Ll
= Fi
!j T B g — c

A
L

MCOIO del Ixopardo 10 ground flvHH plan typical floor plan

D
nnmiq
Innnnn
n n r n
J l L
\ uolo del i .copardo 2
••round FWXJI plan typical flix > r plan

Figure 4. Multi - family buildings created by amalgamating one- family houses:

( a ) Genoa ; ( b ) Trastevere , Rome. Source: Corsini ( 1996 ).
 MILAN

a
ss^i
~

B 9 0 El ] 00
BB 0B BJ fflJt
s5 i M,
-3

via Bergamini l piazza S. Stefano via l ^ rga

0
via Bergamini
typical floor plan

A
b \

1 6 \
\
4 * I

1
.--
"J
1 1
i

kitchen and bathroom

Figure 5, Milan: (a) Multi -family courtyard building derived from aggregation of two
adjoining courtyard houses ; ( b ) Layout analysis Source : a - Lippa ( 1993) .
42
floor, three or four residential floors and a
top floor, which acts as a structural link ,
connecting with the roof in various ways.
The new buildings in each city , however,
have distinct features, deriving from the way
in which the medieval house had evolved
locally . In Genoa, the apartment buildings are
detached and situated in plots arranged along
streets radiating from tl\e old city , echoing
the planned streets of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, such as Strada Nuova
and Strada Balbi ( Figure 6a). For both corner
and full -front apartments, the principal
feature is the retention of the three- bay layout
that evolved in the old city , with the entrance
hall in the central bay, the more important
rooms at the front and the kitchen and
bathroom at the rear ( Figure 6b,c ).
The grid pattern in Milan ( Figure 6d ) is
distinctive because of the way in which the
street block is composed. This is by the
aggregation of courtyard buildings in which
the function of the courtyard is to provide
light and access. The result is a palazzo- type
layout , often accentuated by the axiality and
symmetry of the way in which the staircases
are positioned (Figure 6e,f ). There is a
continuous landing on each floor. The
apartments have single frontages on the
courtyard or double corner frontages, served
directly by the staircase.
In Rome, the urban fabric is modelled on
the historical block as standardized in the
sixteenth -century planning of Campo Marzio.
This historical block is reproduced in size,
orthogonal plan and plot pattern , with the
entrances from the street and the divisions of
the facade giving the impression of
one- family row houses ( Caniggia and Maffei ,
1984 ). Other features retained from the row
house are the type of access, the double- bay
structure and layout and the double frontages
on the street and yard ( Figure 7a, b ).
Planned urban expansion from 1900 to
1930
The grid pattern , often with streets running
diagonally , as in Rome, is the most common
plan for the areas built in the first 30 years of
Building types in Italy
this century . A general feature of this period
was the way in which urban planning tended
to assume some of the characteristics of
building design , and vice versa.
In Genoa, the grid pattern of the Foce
area, planned at the end of the nineteenth
century and built in the first decades of the
twentieth , is laid out on pre-existing axes
such as Via della Liberia and Via della
Minerva ( Figure 8a ). The street blocks here,
like their predecessors, consist of double
series of lots, with a common boundary
running down the middle, facing on to
different streets. Each lot contains one
apartment building, with one staircase serving
two or more apartments, either comer or
full -front , on each floor ( Figure 8 b ). The
apartments retain the typical three- bay layout ,
with a central entrance hall ( Figure 8c ).
During the first part of this century in
Rome, it was common for the design of the
urban fabric and the design of the individual
buildings to be integrated , with the result that
the street block appears now as a single
building . Historically , the street block
consisted of a serious of lots, each with its
own individual building, whereas by the early
twentieth century it had become a single unit
with one continuous building (Figure 9a).
Instead of private yards or gardens, there was
now a single large court with communal
green spaces, from which led the various
staircases ( Figure 9 b,c).
The grid pattern in Rome often includes
focal squares from which streets radiate, with
the result that street blocks could become
unduly large. To avoid this, they are divided
into two or three sub- blocks, each with its
own courtyard . Here too the facades combine
to give the appearance of one building,
instead of each building having its own
distinct facade ( Corsini, 1993).
In Milan , a residential area was designed
as a form of large courtyard , surrounded by
and occupied by courtyard buildings, often
with symmetrical layouts and facades ( Figure
10a ). The buildings themselves were
constructed around a central courtyard , with
two or more staircases and continuous
landings on each floor (Figure 10 b). The
 GENOA
b
t fn

S
0
nn
n n o

- Slr
m -
s r "

s-

1
I

typical floor plan

MILAN
e
BISBSIBM

8M81
XBC
f 1

m i

t
i
i
i

m
i i

i
i

—- S r
111 ground floor

Figure 6. (a ) Via Assarotti ( 1860), Genoa - planned urban expansion along axes radiating
from the old city; ( b ) Corso Firenze 16, Genoa ( 1880 ) - a planned apartment building; (c )
Layout analysis, Genoa; (d ) Grid pattern of the Lazzaretto district , Milan ( 1885 ); (e ) Via
Tadino 6, Milan ( 1887 ) - a planned courtyard building; ( f ) layout analysis, Milan .
Source : d ,e,f - Corsini ( 1996 ) .
 ROME
n '
g. H

f rn tii n n naan
-3 nc T n n _ _ _ _
L 'n fT, lTl n n
3 p ltjcticiiJnlln
I O Q Q O Q O O
mim n i nnn 991 Q 0 r a i n g n ~n r i r n m mniD a a
Hfl n n Hfjtf ;
'

” w w

i Mi n n nnn
l i i o on o D 0 g 0 0 in n rr r n r rr
ii a
nI ic in m GOOD
,
I I II 0 C 0
nnrum
via larini
- nn nnnnn
via Pr Amedeo
,

AAAA A (l n n
I
ID
1n
Q
n
0 n m 0 nl
n mrnUliiiinm
, II II H '
n n
an ru m n n r ~ (ju |
ITT
c n|
n
UilK
» n
n n II I
DOC
j ] M M P M J

via Gioberti via Manin

a
via I V Amedeo
p" V u 1717
LOT
JL JLl
n J

<

D
T
®
-J u=H *
<
5
O
o
Ss
St
i
LlJ a r »
in
A

!}. - Di G> ~<

rf
one ay =“0 * =
I p-
<3 »
=c
**
4- <
>
I A! A Q. \ r - -
P. /
J moR ^>

via l arini ground floor plan typical floor plan

a
b
j'lTT A- —
r_i r*
J-
S
— PI
J ,

nw <
I

\
/ u i J
TO
\ v< C>

m . i
K- T21 kitchen and bathroom

Figure 7. Rome, Esquilino ( 1876): ( a ) Plan and elevation of street block between Via
Manin , Via Principe Amedeo, Via Gioberti and Via Farini ; ( b ) Analysis of ground floor
and standard floor layout Source: a - AA VV. (1977). . .
 GENOA
CO «SO TORINO
a
O '
1
a 0 0 0 Q I . 0 0 ; a

N
o
2

o
| pq
VI *
nnn 01 HA
° i a I 0
i r-n
11 E N T*
f

i Id H ED Z
o C
° ITf E 0 D -

E pE G[1 E
^
D f m DH nrfE

!
t n n n n n n n l
! .

!
= 3

i n n n n n n n

via della Libert 19-21

^ typical floor plan

0X0 2 cr T3
::: c.

a X3

.
Ct

ground flexor [Tj bathroom

Figure 8. Genoa: (a ) Grid pattern of Foce district , planned at the end of the nineteenth
century ; ( b ) Via della Liberta ; (c ) Analysis of layout .
Source: Corsini ( 1996 ).
 ROMP. b Cl ra
'

k UT D ID
n n JELD m
i
IL n nacjm n
.

-
1 ’
CU m - I
VIA IJIANCIII

ii’S'i iTHiTiiiTi’Ti ii s
Off n ^
ODD ^ CD
ra 0 D CQ
ra p ra )

tii ra
.f
M Him
PI nr rr frr
~
ZJ
\ I A U K A WA

-J

ground floor

.m .

,v
1

;
.
AS

l\
r or
f A

picsil Hoot plan

-5[ kitchen and bathroom
j
^ V I A M R \ \r \

Figure 9. Rome: ( a ) Testaccio district; ( b ) Plan and elevation of street block between
Via Branca , Via Bianchi, Via Vespucci and Via Gessi ; (c) Analysis of ground floor and
.
standard floor layout Source: a - A A. VV. ( 1984).
 MILAN

—
b
naa
[
:
cm HJU or
n D d o ooen
tjqJl!augiflliljnugiltojJ
To o ;
500
^
HMM
IHMM II II II II
: i

viaGrigna 6

V
rnr v y nm
’ km < 1
•
"

) 3 BO
^
“f ILf T
M P 1 M-
M
I b
~di r~d Ml
n L: M
/ 7
1 ^! hH } ~ri h- 1
life1 "

ur
r
i mi m — i 3
U JC
c ground fliH > i plan typical floor plan

P% a
Vb,
r 4 4
a 1
a-
;i 1
'
• E I
srs 1
. .m.
«rOLZ +-t
1
it
t IS
-
tii i

] kitchen and bathroom

Figure 10. Milan: ( a ) Mac-Mahon district ( 1909 ); ( b ) Mac- Mahon apartment building ; ( c )
layout analysis . Source: a , b - Lippa ( 1993) .
48
apartments retained their traditional
composition : two or three bays, double
frontages, with living room and bedrooms
along the street and kitchen and bathroom
facing the courtyard ( Figure 10c ).
Conclusion
This analysis of the evolution of domestic
architecture in Genoa, Rome and Milan
clearly shows the continuity of distinct local
typological processes . Such an analysis,
involving the reconstruction of how buildings
evolved in a given area, eventually giving
rise to the apartment buildings that
predominate today , is an essential tool for
providing historical continuity when planning
future developments.
From the reconstruction of the typological
process, we can discover the rules and laws
through which the urban landscape developed
and to which any new design must be related .
These rules govern the place of a building in
the urban fabric - the relationship between
building and plot , building and street ,
building and its location in the street block -
and the architecture of the building itself - its
type, plan , structure, facade, components and
materials. The more closely a development
follows these Riles, the better it will fit in
with existing buildings; forming, in turn , the
basis for future variations.
Note
Where the source of an illustration is not given in
Building types in Italy
the caption , the illustration is previously
unpublished and is by the author.
References
AA . VV . ( 1977 ) Problemi ed ipotesi di recupero
urbano ( Facolta di Architettura, Universita di
Roma ‘ La Sapicnza’, Roma).
AA . VV . ( 1984 ) Case romane (Clear, Roma ).
Caniggia, G . ( 1970) ‘ Ricerca storico tipologica’,
in La citta murata di Como (Comune di
Como ) .
Caniggia, G . and Maffei , G.L. ( 1984 ) II progetto
nelPedilizia di base ( Marsilio, Venezia ).
Caniggia , G . ( 1986 ) ‘La casa e la citta dei primi
secoir in Maretto , P. La casa veneziana nella
storia della citta dalle origini alVOttocento
( Marsilio, Venezia ).
Corsini , M .G . ( 1993 ) il tipo residenziale a corte
.
nei quartieri deiri.C.P a Roma ’ , Ricerca e
Progetto no. / , Bollettino del Dipartimento di
Progettazione Architettonica e Urbana
( Universita di Roma ‘ La Sapienza’, Roma ).
Corsini , M .G. ( 1996 ) La casa in tinea a Genova.
Tipo e progetto nelPedilizia residenziale
( Kappa , Roma ).
Gambi , L. and Gozzoli , M .C. ( 1982) Milano
( Laterza, Bari ).
Lippa, D . ( 1993) ‘ Permanenze del tipo a corte
nelPedilizia milanese del XIX- XX secolo’,
unpublished thesis, Rome.
Masi , R . and Olivieri , A . ( 1989 ) ‘Intervento di
recupero architettonico in Trastevere’,
unpublished thesis, Rome.