Giuseppe Terragni and Fascism [Casa del Fascio]

Justin Fye

ARCH 20113

Spring 2012

Giuseppe Terragni and Fascism

As has been seen many times throughout the course of history, the political sphere can significantly influence architecture. Since the beginning of significant architectural achievement in the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian empires, it has been consistently used by leaders as a tool to display power and wealth. The Fascist Party rule of the 1930’s in Como Italy was certainly not to be any different, and the party found a suitable architect to carry out their design. Giuseppe Terragni, an Italian rationalist, was an important part of the modern movement in architecture and believed that “fascism was actively engaged in supporting modern art and architecture.”[1] This belief of Terragni was important to the leaders of the fascist party, especially Mussolini, considering he was a proponent of modern architecture and had declared “that without art there is no civilization. Therefore, the new art of our time, the art of fascism,” must be created.[2] These words had a profound effect on the young modernists of Italy, such as Giuseppe Terragni. “After fifty years of political and cultural stagnation, Italy once more had a strong government… Thus in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s modernists multiplied their efforts to secure Mussolini’s patronage for modern art.”[3] It became the top priority of the young modernists to ensure associations were made between the artistic revolutionary movement of classical to modern art and architecture and the political revolutionary movement of the Fascist Party. Giuseppe Terragni contributed to the Italian modernist’s effort of creating these associations and developing a state architecture through his commission for the Casa del Fascio, using fascist influence to facilitate his design work.

Because of the often association of architecture and power it was, of course, architecture, and the architects of the era, that stood most to gain from a possible association of modernism and fascism. According to Da Costa Meyer, “the cultural policy of the regime crystallized slowly, and on numerous occasions, particularly during the first decade of fascist rule, Mussolini markedly favored modern architecture.”[4] The favoring of modern architecture by the political leader of Italy proved to be significant, as it resulted in the majority of architectural commissions at the time being given to those who were associated with the fascist party. Regardless of this fact, I agree with Schumacher when he states, “although some authors and associates have attributed Terragni’s registration in the [fascist] party to opportunistic motives, the rhetoric of his various writings, reports, and letters display either the fervor of a true believer or the duplicity of a truly calculating personality, and, since Terragni was something of a moralist in other areas, it is difficult to believe he played politics for opportunistic reasons.”[5] Although I do not doubt his receipt of the commission for the Casa del Fascio was related to his membership in the party, and was helped by his brother’s political relevance as the mayor of Como, I find it hard to believe he joined the party for only architectural benefits since he allowed it to have such a great influence on his work, and joining such a revolutionary party would take a true belief in the cause.

Surely Terragni was, however, aware of the possibilities of a fascist architecture in Italy, as he became absorbed in the attempt to make it modern and successful. Terragni, speaking about the premise of fascist architecture, stated “the style, direction, and mark of the architecture will be a natural result of the spiritual translation of these political and social premises. We now have the great satisfaction of propagandizing and spreading the new architecture in works designed to this order of thought for the regime.”[6] He also stated “in this political moment the contribution to a renewed architecture is obvious and of vast significance. If it does not frame the fascist era, it will be the sure testimony of a powerful intellectual effort achieved by the revolution in that entrenched field of art.”[7] In these two quotes one can see the extreme confidence Terragni has in the power of fascism, and the effect he feels it will have on modern architecture. Also noticeable is the feeling of responsibility for the young architects of Italy to use this style of architecture to spread the modern movement. The leaders of the Fascist party recognized the influential possibilities of spreading modern architecture and realized they could use it to spread the political ideals of fascism as well. Through these quotes one can see how, for Terragni, it had become just as important for the architecture of the time to define fascism, as it was for fascism to define the architecture. These ideas of fascism, and how it should be used to define the era, became evident in many of Terragni’s works, especially his Casa del Fascio in Como Italy.

After choosing a site for construction in 1932 “behind the Como cathedral, the Casa del Fascio opened in 1936,” and became the headquarters for the Federation, the fascist party of Como.[8] The building, a simple composition of a, “one-half cube divided first via a nine square platform,”[9] is a beautiful example of modern architecture in the 1930’s. The Casa del Fascio met immediate criticism, however, not because of the type of radical architecture, but because it was thought by political leaders and architectural critics alike that the public would not be able to “discern the political importance and social significance” of the marble building and would mistake it for any ordinary office block.[10] Schumacher also stated “the Casa del Fascio lacked some of the symbolic punch that Terragni believed would issue directly from its rationalist composition.”[11] I, however, agree more with art historian Paolo Fassati and his description of Casa del Fascio as a “triumph of individualism and an objective expression of reality,” in both political and civil life.[12] This is because Terragni’s work, as described in Object and Relationship II, always had a conceptual ambiguity and proceeded from the constructive to the abstract. He typically achieved this formally, by using “two basic and opposing conceptions of space,” one subtractive, cutting away from a solid volume, and the other additive, having many layers.[13] Terragni seemingly used the additive method here in a conceptual way, however, allowing his idea for the building as a whole to continuously layer up throughout the work, with the subtle inclusion of fascist influence in nearly every piece of the building composition.

The influence of fascism in the design of the Casa del Fascio is noticed immediately, even in the choice of site location. A site just outside the city wall was chosen to symbolically represent the new fascist government, and its direct orientation facing the apse of the cathedral of Como is significant as well in an attempt to “resurrect the church-state dialogue of the Renaissance city-states.”[14] The choice of a meaningful site was important because the Casa del Fascio was “to embody the hierarchy of the Party and of Fascism itself; it was not enough for it to be a convenient building.”[15] Every part of the building had to be about fascism for it to be a success among the Italian leaders of the time, which was extremely important to Terragni considering his relationship with the party and the power of the regime. This was not always easy for Terragni from a design aspect, however.

Some difficulties in design became evident to Terragni in attempting to design around the concept of Fascism, as well as Mussolini’s preconceived ideas of what a house of Fascism should be. Mussolini stated the house of Fascism should be a “glass house, into which everyone can peer, giving rise to the interpretation which is a continuation of the former: no obstacles, no barriers, nothing between the political leader and his people.”[16] Terragni, however, seemed more concerned with the functionality of the building than its form, and defined the Casa del Fascio as a place “to gather together where the activities and programs of the revolutionary party could be activated.”[17] Although there is a slight similarity in their thoughts about what the Casa del Fascio should be functionally, Terragni does not directly acknowledge Mussolini’s thoughts of the Casa del Fascio as the glass house of fascism. This difference in formal and functional importance is probably what gave rise to much of the criticism the building received in its early years as not being distinct enough in its role as the house of Fascism. Regardless of the qualms over the Casa del Fascio’s formal composition and its lack of fascist flare, the functional derivation of fascist concept runs rampant throughout its interior construct.

            In order for one to understand the inclusion of fascism throughout the interior of the Casa del Fascio, knowledge of the concept of the building is an absolute necessity. Schumacher states, “The predominant concept in the Casa del Fascio was visibility, with an instinctive verification between public and Federation employees. Thus artificial planimetric solutions aimed at setting up a complex of stagnant compartments limiting the public’s access to certain parts [that were used in the past] fell by the wayside.”[18] This resulted in a great deal of difficulty and complications for Terragni in the design of the interior layout that required unprecedented ingenuity. Unlike previous structures of this type, the “Casa del Fascio was not the place for long hours in vast or commodious waiting rooms.”[19] There, the public had to be able to circulate throughout the entire building because it was important they have a direct relationship with the various offices. “Added difficulty was found in the arrangement of the four superimposed floors which established the double necessity of connection and horizontal and vertical circulation.”[20] This connection, necessary because of the public interaction in all parts of the building, was established through the inclusion of an interior atrium in the center of the construction. On the interior this “glass brick covered atrium dominates the composition.” [21] Originally intended as a glass walled meeting hall, Terragni changed this room in the last iteration of the building, making it a more generalized and open space. The more open ground floor not only better expressed Terragni’s desire to create the glass house of Fascism, but also allowed for more flexibility of the space there. The importance of flexibility in this space is easily understood when one realizes the components of the public forum which were to be located there on the ground floor. “Two thirds of the ground floor house[d] the hall, foyer, and the sanctuary to the fallen heroes, the spiritual and ceremonial center of the entire building. This [was] the more symbolic part as [implied] by the glass wall entrance on the outside.”[22] The glass wall entrance helps with the Casa del Fascio’s representation as the glass house of fascism because it allowed the leader of the fascist party to speak to his immediate followers inside, while still allowing the masses to hear him from the plaza on the exterior, an idea which became even more important at the revolutionary Fascist party continued its rise to power.

            As far as the organization of the interior spaces are concerned, it is only fitting that there too the concept of fascism was used extensively. According to Schumacher, for the Casa del Fascio to be successful, they “must [have been] aware that a Fascist, a citizen, the enrolled masses, and the assembled populous [would] receive from the outside world the confirmation of entering a house, and they find the organization of the departments logical and simple.”[23] It is also important to note, for Terragni, “the statute of daily experience with the workings of the various sectors of the fascist federation were helpful in resolving problems of distribution, interrelationship, and organization of spaces in relation to the independent activities often coordinated by other departments.” The plans of each of the four floors are arranged differently, occupying the 1101 square meters of the building. The organization of the spaces on those floors was a result “of the greater or lesser hierarchical dependence on the federal secretary’s offices, and the frequency of their relationship with the public.”[24] This strategic organization is immediately noticeable in the hall off of the atrium on the ground floor. The hall is not on a symmetrical axis with the entrance, as a result of a passage on the right side which was used as the public and service staircase for Federation employees. This asymmetry, however, adds to the function of the building, “indicating public circulation at the group of stairs,” at the culmination of the hall.[25] The two departments most utilized by the public at the time, the women’s branch and the offices for rural homemakers, were also located on the ground floor as a way to give direct access to those offices for those who only want to visit those offices.[26] The political federation’s offices occupied the remaining portion of the first floor. This was the most important collection of rooms, and they had “vast halls, waiting rooms, and essential services” because of the number of people who would be interacting in that space.[27] Terragni’s organization of the interior spaces in the Casa del Fascio was done brilliantly programmatically, while maintaining an extreme undercurrent of fascist influence.

The built work unequivocally succeeded in uniting this house of fascism in Como Italy, with its great number of requirements and standards, into one Casa del Fascio. As was the wish of the young Italian modernists of the time, “Architectural order [became] fixed on a political plane which coincide[d] with the new order won by the Italian fascists,” and was forever enriched by the designs of Giuseppe Terragni.[28] The Casa del Fascio, in the end, served two great political purposes. “On the one hand, [it] gave testimony to a new national organization attempting to complete Italian unification by establishing outposts of the central authority in every town.”[29] The architecture assisted in the political prominence of the Fascist Party, and drew the lines of communication from town to town in order to strengthen the party. “But the Casa del Fascio, with its town hall configuration, also symbolically gathered the fragmented village and provincial loyalties under the umbrella of a supreme power, [with] each small community having immediate access to the national state through the offices of the Casa del Fascio.”[30] In every meaning of the word, the Casa del Fascio occupied a position of symbolic significance in the fascist regime. The success of modern architecture in Italy was also undeniably contingent upon the success of Terragni’s commission for Casa del Fascio. And although it met stark opposition from the start, with a deeper understanding of the architectural concept behind the Casa del Fascio, today one can easily see proof the early criticisms of the leaders of the Fascist Party were unwarranted, and the building can be appreciated for the true masterpiece it was.

            Terragni’s work on the Casa del Fascio displayed the possibilities of incorporating modern architecture with Fascist rule, especially under a willing and supporting leader such as Mussolini. According to Ghirardo, “the Fascist state in Italy patronized modern architecture far more than did Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or the United States during a period of time when all were heavily involved in Government-subsidized buildings of all types.”[31] She went on to say:

“Modern architecture seems to have been viewed as a suitable State architecture in Italy and not elsewhere during the 1930's, but to say this is not to credit the Fascist State with an unusual appreciation for modern architecture or a keen prescience with respect to its future developments. Because Fascism offered itself as an entirely new and modern phenomenon, it could readily align itself with modern architecture, amply buttressed by references to the "romaniti" and "mediterraneiti" that these constructions presumably projected. In practice, this meant that architects such as Terragni, Adalberto Libera, Mario de Renzi, and Giuseppe Pagano could design solely within their own aesthetic restraints, confident of no official interference and, occasionally, as with Sabaudia and the Stazione S. Maria Novella in Florence, with polemically active support from the regime. The very vagueness and improvised nature of an elusive Fascist "doctrine" at once allowed a wide variety of interpretations and expressions, including Modern architecture.”[32]

This quote beautifully represents what was taking place with the fascist revolution at the time in Italy, and how the young modernists were able to capitalize on the political desires of the nation by providing them with architecture nearly as revolutionary an idea as fascism itself. The concept which Terragni concerned himself with on a regular basis, and thus at the Casa del Fascio as well, was to bring together the two aspects of the new order: art and politics; and he successfully achieved this with a regimen of regularity unmatched by others in his architectural generation.

Thankfully the modern rationalist work of Terragni was not entirely absorbed by his fascist influences and interests, and by the 1970’s a more positive stance was taken by both the public and architectural critics on his Casa del Fascio. “It is significant that Terragni’s name does not appear in any of the influential books on modern architecture published in English between 1940 and the mid-1960’s,” as that was a period when Giuseppe Terragni was not looked upon favorably in the architectural world, at least internationally. Even today, however, when his influence is at its strongest, Terragni remains a relative unknown, “a surprising fact considering that he has been a veritable growth industry of Italian scholarship in the past decade.”[33] This is also surprising due to the fact that although he practiced a generation later than Le Corbusier and Mies Van Der Rohe, like them he was in part a classical architect in all of his projects and build works, at least to the extent that an interest in proportion, massing, regularity of ground plan, and cubical massing are classical ideas.[34] Terragni also predetermined a system similar to the type of construction done by Le Corbusier and defined as “tres genereaux,” where the structure is totally independent of perimeter walls and internal divisions, leaving vast internal spaces for programmatic freedom.[35] Terragni was at least acknowledged during his brief professional life as one of the leading figures of the Italian modern movement, and was often considered the most gifted of the young modernists there. “Terragni’s twenty-six completed buildings are [also] among the most important of their age in Italy.”[36] His Novocomum Apartment house in Como has been cited as the first rationalist building to be built in Italy, while the monument to the Como war dead of WWI is the best known monument of its kind in Italy. And his “Room of 1922” in the 1932 exhibition marking ten years of Fascism in Rome is often considered one of the top masterpieces of propaganda in Italy between the world wars, while he was also able to contribute on a work known as the Casa Rustici in Milan, which has been considered as a seminal model for housing in a modern urban context.[37] Clearly, the importance of Giuseppe Terragni in Italy cannot, and must not, be ignored any longer. Today, if an author writing a survey of architectural history of the twentieth century wanted a single image to showcase the Italian contribution to modernism, that image would undoubtedly be Terragni’s Casa del Fascio. That in itself shows the vast influence Terragni has had, and will continue to have, on the world of modern architecture.

Works Cited

da Costa Meyer, Esther. The Work of Antonio Sant'Elia: Retreat Into the Future. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Eisenman, Peter D. "From Object to Relationship II: Casa Giuliani Frigerio: Giuseppe Terragni Casa Del Fascio." Perspecta 13/14 (1971): 41.

Ghirardo, Diane. "Politics of a Masterpiece: The Vicenda of the Decoration of the Facade of the Casa del Fascio, Como, 1936-39." The Art Bulletin 62 (1980): 470.

Schumacher, Thomas L. Surface and Symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the Architecture of Italian Rationalism. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991.

Schumacher, Thomas L. Casa del Fascio, Como, Italy, 1932-36: Asilo Infantile Antonio Sant'Elia, Como, Italy, 1936-37. Edita, Tokyo: A.D.A., 1994.

---

[1] Esther da Costa Meyer. The Work of Antonio Sant’Elia: Retreat Into the Future, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, p. 192

[2] Da Costa Meyer, p. 192

[3] Da Costa Meyer, p. 192

[4] Da Costa Meyer, p. 192

[5] Thomas L. Schumacher, Surface and Symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the Architecture of Italian Rationalism, New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991, p. 37

[6] Schumacher, p. 153

[7] Schumacher, p. 154

[8] Thomas L. Schumacher, Casa del Fascio, Como, Italy, 1932-36 : Asilo Infantile Antonio Sant’Elia, Como, Italy, 1936-37, Tokyo: A.D.A. Edita Tokyo, 1994, p. 5

[9] Schumacher, p. 5

[10] Schumacher, p. 5-6

[11] Schumacher, p. 5

[12] Schumacher, p. 5

[13] Peter D. Eisenman, “From Object to Relationship II: Casa Giuliani Frigerio: Giuseppe Terragni Casa del Fascio,: Perspecta, vol. 13/14 (1971), p. 41

[14] Schumacher, p. 160

[15] Schumacher, p. 159

[16] Schumacher, p. 143

[17] Schumacher, p. 152

[18] Schumacher, p. 147

[19] Schumacher, p. 147

[20] Schumacher, p. 147

[21] Schumacher, p. 7

[22] Schumacher, p. 157

[23] Schumacher, p. 157

[24] Schumacher, p. 159

[25] Schumacher, p. 157

[26] Schumacher, p. 157

[27] Schumacher, p. 158

[28] Schumacher, p. 159

[29] Diane Ghirardo, “Politics of a Masterpiece: The Vicenda of the Decoration of the Façade of the Casa del Fascio, Como, 1936-39,” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 62, No. 3, (Sep., 1980), p. 470

[30] Ghirardo, p. 470

[31] Ghirardo, p. 468

[32] Ghirardo, p. 469

[33] Schumacher, p. 12

[34] Schumacher, p. 69

[35] Schumacher, p. 149

[36] Schumacher, p. 4

[37] Schumacher, p. 4