How was CAMPOMARZIO born? What is your main focus?
Pietro Vincenzo: Our collective was born in 2012 as a cultural association. After our studies, we all found ourselves back in our hometown — Trento — with many expectations, in a reality that was very different from what we had imagined after university. Even before starting to work, we began to think together, to reflect on the potential meaning of what we were doing—or not doing—since there were not many job opportunities. None of us had a studio to carry on. However, we had the opportunity to use a space that was vacant at the time, and we were fortunate enough to be able to use it for a couple of years with the obligation to promote public activities. So, we founded a cultural association through which we promoted collaborative projects, research, exhibitions, talks, and other similar activities. At the same time, we also started doing small design projects for friends, acquaintances, and relatives.
This space allowed us to deepen our reflections on the theme of public space and the condition of architecture. At the same time, it provided us with a place to physically meet and pursue an activity that still represents one of our main occupations: design competitions.
This approach is our preferred method as it allows us to obtain public commissions, enabling us to engage with public space, relationships, and community spaces.
Furthermore, we believe this is the best and most transparent way to enter the profession, without relying on established positions, but by competing with other colleagues. Thus, we began to pursue both design competitions and research projects, often entirely self-initiated and not commissioned, but born from our own interests. More than “research,” it was a form of “action research”: our projects combined a theoretical component with a very practical one, which in some cases even led to self-construction. It was therefore a type of research that found concrete, visible, and verifiable results in reality.
TTM: Is it accurate to say that your practice emerged from a need for research and then evolved into a more practical approach?
Pietro Vincenzo: Perhaps it all started with a question: What does it mean to be an architect today? We realized that, in our view, the answer to this question was different from what our university studies had conveyed. Additionally, our collective is made up of people with diverse backgrounds: designers, architects, engineers, and Teresa, who is a philosopher and sociologist. It was partly due to this diversity and the sociological perspective that the question arose naturally.
Daniele:In practical terms, at the beginning, the design component was much weaker, partly because there weren’t many opportunities beyond some work done for friends and family and a few competitions. Our activities were mainly focused on research, including self-commissioned projects and exhibitions on public space. Even that phase of research was, in a sense, design work, though it wasn’t tied to commissions or direct assignments. Ten years on, we have many more work opportunities, and the relationship between research and practice has reversed. Reflecting on those early years, characterized by a forced scarcity of work, we remember them as an extremely generative and creative period despite the economic difficulties. The lack of opportunities and the relative void gave us the chance to take time for research.
Enrico: The research we conducted was crucial in the subsequent phase when we focused on design competitions. Everything we initially planted through research and self-initiated work taught us a great deal and was fundamental to our journey. Some of the competitions we won carry the weight of the research we did. Although we weren’t fully aware of it at the time and the intention wasn’t clear, the research work greatly helped us in developing concrete project ideas.
What is your relationship with the territory and with the existing?
Daniele: We are a practice deeply rooted in the local context. It was a deliberate choice to return from abroad to address and change what we felt was not working or was at a standstill.
Enrico: We enjoy studying the history of a place extensively. We are deeply fascinated by modernism and have conducted significant research on local architecture, as well as lesser-known architecture from outside Trentino from the 1960s and 1970s.
When we have the opportunity to work with and intervene in existing structures and encounter something interesting, our best ideas naturally emerge because we have the tools to make them more solid and meaningful. It’s not just a matter of style or taste; there is a strong concept underlying our work that supports it.
For example, in the most recent competition we won for the Graffer refuge, we restored the original image from the 1950s. The refuge was subsequently demolished and rebuilt in a completely different style. We sought to draw on the language that had characterized the refuge and made it more modern in the 1950s compared to the reconstruction done in the 1980s and 1990s.
Working extensively in this region, we quickly became interested in the city of Trento and its local context, attracted by the various urban and architectural themes that define it and have always fascinated us. We were also fortunate to work in Bolzano, in the South Tyrol region, engaging with historic centers and dealing with restorations and refurbishments of existing buildings. This experience allowed us to be directly involved in the construction sites and see our projects realized. It is significant that the first competition we won — Piazza della Mostra in Trento — involves the redevelopment of a place with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history.
Pietro Vincenzo: We have little faith in “global” architecture. We believe that the era of those rather generic projects has passed, and today almost all architects are rooted in the places where they work. This is perhaps the only way to be meaningful to the community.
Do you believe that the “postcard” imagery of Trentino, generally perceived by those who are not familiar with it, accurately represents the reality of this region?
Pietro Vincenzo: I believe there is a gap between the external perception of Trentino and its true reality. The representation of Trentino seen in advertisements does reflect part of the reality — with cows, meadows, and minor architectures that can be interesting and, due to historical reasons, are not very different from those found in the Apennines.
In reality, Trentino also includes a great deal of modern and modernist architecture, given its history of intense development phases. Thus, the region, in addition to its mountainous areas, is characterized by large buildings and constructions, both tourist and residential. This applies to its cities as well, which have developed similarly to those in the Po Valley, with their suburbs, industrial sheds, and degraded industrial areas.
What is your relationship with the vernacular architecture typical of Trentino?
Daniele: Like in all Italian tourist areas, we grew up in an environment (Trentino) where there is a very distorted use of vernacular architecture. The more tourist-oriented the area is (such as the Dolomite tourist areas), the more there was, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, a massive use of the concept of “vernacular,” emphasizing traditional features to the point of pastiche or kitsch.
This aspect led us to pay attention to the distorted use of vernacular architecture. On one hand, we prefer to focus on the recovery of modernism, which is itself becoming a historical heritage. On the other hand, we emphasize the value of genuinely rural areas found in many historic centers of less touristy valleys. In these places, traditional/vernacular architecture is often very simple and minimalistic.
We have undertaken several interventions in the historic center of Caldonazzo, where we added very little, instead highlighting what was already there: very austere and simple architectures. Often, we find ourselves working on the reuse of local materials rather than recovering styles or decorative elements of buildings.
What is your initial approach to a project?
Pietro Vincenzo: We probably don’t have a specific style, and this is reflected in the diversity of our projects. We strive to approach each structure or space freely, identifying and highlighting the unique characteristics of each one. Whether it’s a rural building, a nineteenth-century structure in a historic center, or a 1970s social housing tower, our goal is to emphasize the distinct features of each project.
Enrico: Of course, another factor is the intervention location. In historic centers, for example, regulatory protections impose stringent restrictions that often limit the permissible interventions. It becomes necessary to navigate these tight constraints and find the right solution to comply with the regulations while advancing a valid idea.
For instance, when considering our interventions on historic-rural buildings, our approach has always been to add as little as possible to what already exists, perhaps reinterpreting some traditional details in a contemporary way.
Can you tell us about a project you’ve completed that you consider significant for your studio?
Enrico: The San Martino in Passiria sports center was the first competition we won and completed. We highlight it as an example because it represents a virtuous process, facilitated by a series of factors that are likely difficult to replicate, even though competition practices are well established in South Tyrol.
After winning first prize, we met with the administration, particularly Mayor Rosmarie Pamer, who believed in the project from the beginning and continued to support it until its completion, respecting our role and ideas. Rosmarie Pamer did everything necessary to ensure the project was completed in the best possible way, with the conviction that a quality public space can enhance the community’s life.
Furthermore, the sports center serves as the third “iconic” building that was realized during her various terms, following the social center by architect Andreas Flora, then the library with a protected workshop, and finally our building. For us, it was certainly a virtuous process that contributed significantly to our growth. Beyond the awards like the “Young Talent in Italian Architecture” we won last year and various publications, this project has left us with much more on a personal level.
Pietro Vincenzo: In my opinion, it was also politically significant because the project followed the ideal process: a design competition was held (not just a competition of ideas), we participated, and the best proposal was selected, which represents a luxury for a public administration. Subsequently, the project was developed, followed by the bidding phase, and finally, the project management. I greatly appreciated the clarity of the process, especially in a country like Italy, where applying procurement regulations is extremely difficult. Even with the PNRR (National Recovery and Resilience Plan), the focus is often on conducting competitions in the most creative way possible without proper design or planning, partly because almost no public administration is genuinely interested in the quality of what is being designed.
In my opinion, the only way to achieve a high-quality project is through design competitions. Despite attempts to create new regulations, the design competition remains the simplest and most straightforward solution. It already exists and simply needs to be applied. From this perspective, the sports center project is significant because it clearly demonstrated the most appropriate process, regardless of the fact that we were the ones who won it.
What are the challenges you identify in the coordination between designers and administrative entities when it comes to public interventions?
Daniele: The example of the San Martino sports center represents an ideal client case. Unfortunately, in most interactions with public entities, there is often an excessively legalistic approach to managing public works contracts. In these cases, the three fundamental objectives — time, cost, and quality — are often not met, and quality deteriorates, leaving only time and cost as the primary goals. This leads to a bidding approach based on the lowest price, where quality is sacrificed. However, a poorly executed project ultimately results in higher costs and longer timelines.
Pietro Vincenzo: In my opinion, there is no inherent conflict between the two parties; it primarily depends on the final objective. If the goal is to achieve a high-quality project, not only in construction but also in terms of value for the community, then collaboration is not problematic.
Based on our experience, we have often successfully completed projects that included a research component, thanks to the shared objectives between us and the administration. When this shared understanding is lacking, the process gets stuck. If the administration focuses on the lowest bid, the result may be cost-effective for the municipal budget but not beneficial for the community. Therefore, it comes down to the objectives. If the municipal administration has a clear goal, even regulatory issues are managed positively. However, sometimes situations arise where the public administration behaves in an immature way, likely due to a consensus-based system. Similarly, the designer might also act immaturely, refusing to accommodate requests because they consider their design untouchable. I believe this is wrong: architecture is a relational matter, especially for public buildings. It is necessary to be willing to seek compromise to preserve the core of the intervention. We have also had to give up certain design aspects in some cases. However, we felt it was the right choice as long as the main idea of the project remained intact.
In your opinion, will architecture in the future be more focused on renovation, or will new construction continue to play a predominant role?
Pietro Vincenzo: I believe our generation cannot afford the luxury of building new structures. A great deal has already been constructed, and processes of historicization and re-signification have been initiated. While it is sometimes necessary to demolish and rebuild buildings that may no longer be adequate, architecture will undoubtedly be more focused on what already exists.
Projects should remain very open and adaptable: the meaning of a project does not end with the completion of its details. Instead, it should remain a mutable palimpsest, especially in public spaces or areas designated for collective use. Thus, there may be less new construction and more creation of relational frameworks. This is a somewhat radical concept, and we are conducting research on it for a European competition in Rovereto. From this work, the idea of a “light” project is emerging—one that is minimalistic, built with only the essentials.
Enrico: With the new provincial law promoting zero land consumption, the aim is to redevelop compromised areas and enhance what already exists. Beyond the architectural trend, there is also a clear political direction: in a region rich in historical value like ours, efforts are focused on valuing historic centers and restoring existing structures.
Given that our territory is highly fragile, easily devastated, and further threatened by climate issues, preserving existing structures becomes crucial compared to creating new buildings, symbols, and icons.
Could you tell us about your intervention for the “Unfolding Pavilion” in 2018?
Daniele: The Unfolding Pavilion is one of the initiatives through which we engaged with 1970s architecture and public housing. It involved the temporary reuse of an apartment within the public housing complex designed by Gino Valle in Venice. We delved into research on Hejduk and the layering of the city through both built and unbuilt projects.
On the site where Gino Valle’s beautiful social housing project was realized, Hejduk had conceived a highly poetic project. We often find ourselves working not only with built structures but also with designed and unrealized projects, finding inspiration in these layers for our own work.
For example, in Piazza della Mostra, we worked on a site also designed by Adalberto Libera and Giancarlo De Carlo. In this context, even unbuilt projects contribute to the layering and enrichment of the place. Building something new on a blank slate can be excessively ambitious for architects, who often desire to be the first to make a mark in unexplored spaces. In reality, it is more interesting to work in contexts characterized by layers of objects, symbols, and unrealized projects from which to draw inspiration.
Could you tell us about your project “Bolzanism”?
Pietro Vincenzo: Bolzanism is a rather unique project: initially started as a research inquiry into public housing, it has evolved into a museum dedicated to these residences, perhaps one of the first of its kind in Italy.
The public housing in Bolzano represents, in our view, a tangible symbol of a particular kind of development in South Tyrol. This development began with the fascist period and the forced Italianization of the Alto Adige and continued to evolve throughout the 20th century.
We were fascinated by this building and began exploring it by speaking with its residents, wandering through the courtyards, and creating an informal database of stories, anecdotes, and archival research.
In the first year, we took a somewhat militant approach: we roamed the courtyards with a large infographic telling the building’s history, while the residents shared their memories of the house with us.
This evolved into an open-air museum, which includes a small info point from which guided tours start. These itinerant tours through the courtyards, designed as theatrical performances by a playwright, are based on the material collected over the years.
This project fosters a broader reflection on what is often defined as the periphery, highlighting its value in terms of memory, built heritage, and the relationships that have developed over time in these places.
We’ve always found it intriguing to reflect on what it means to live in the periphery and in collective housing. Our focus has been on the processes of heritage-making and re-signification of these large structures, which are often seen as candidates for demolition.
Italy is rich in public housing projects that, up until the 1970s, produced buildings of significant historical importance. These places deserve more attention to highlight their value and contribution to our history.
The project tackles a broad theme but presents it to the public in a very accessible and engaging way.
We’ve been working on this project since 2017 in a somewhat informal manner. We observed that a gigantic condominium designed by Carlo Mollino, housing around 1,500 people, responded very positively to the initiative. The residents themselves have also welcomed the project with enthusiasm.
In the second year, we collaborated with the residents of this condominium to create a welcome kit for new tenants. This initiative was driven by the high turnover rate in public housing due to fluctuations in the ISEE, which often leads to communities that are constantly disintegrating and reforming.
This frequent change creates significant mental strain for residents trying to build stable relationships. To address this, we developed a welcome kit that long-term residents hand over to newcomers. The kit includes useful information about the building and the community. As we accumulated a substantial amount of material, we decided to launch the open-air museum initiative.
In which areas do you have the opportunity to explore and adopt a more experimental language?
Daniele: Looking back, the most consistent theme in our research has been public space. In every project, our experimentation primarily focuses on the issue of public space and how to rehabilitate and regenerate it through various approaches. These range from urban research to self-construction, which allows for immediate interventions that may later lead to more permanent changes.
This focus extends to interior projects or any initiatives that can create public space even within domestic environments. Furthermore, self-construction represents a highly stimulating aspect of our research. With minimal budgets and timelines, typically limited to a week or so, the temporary nature of these projects offers substantial freedom for experimentation.
Because the project is temporary, we can pursue solutions that might not work without facing excessive risks. This opens up significant possibilities for experimentation, especially regarding collaborative approaches. In self-construction, collaboration is more instinctive: working together on a project allows for hands-on involvement, often leading to unexpected results.
