The decision of AS Roma to renounce the stadium project in Tor di Valle is, beyond the content and quality of the initiative, a failure for everyone: for the sports club which, as in the game of the goose, returns to starting square; for the entrepreneurial realities involved (including financial subjects), which see the investments made up to now fade; for the municipality of Rome and the other bodies involved, considering the enormous array of measures and assessments of merit carried out; for politics, local and national; without thinking of the fans, who see a dream vanish. But, more extensively, for the city, for its economy and even worse for the strengthening of the image of a motionless Rome, “with the handbrake on” and that goes on groping in the dust raised by the inevitable judicial inquiries.
In spite of this, the new ownership of the sports club seems intent on a restart. And therefore today the questions posed at the beginning of the affair are being proposed to the administration and to the city. How and where to choose the site of the new stadium
Why here and not the
E therefore, what method to use after that of the “concerted urban planning” ingloriously failed
Method, the latter, adopted by the Marino council (with the negotiation of new cubic spaces / public works) and continued, after an initial rethinking, also by the Raggi junta with the request for containment of the hated cement.
The dilemma that then arises is how and where to grant the Roma sports club (and perhaps not only) the possibility of building the stadium. This time, however, according to the new wishes of the company which, contrary to the past, proposes the “English” solution. That is a stage and that’s it. Without real estate “annexes” to follow it and therefore feasible even in the consolidated city.
Unmissable, after the meeting last Tuesday between the mayor Raggi and the new ownership of AS Roma, the toto-areas started: Pietralata, Tor Vergata, Ostiense and, a little detached, the Flaminio or Fiumicino hypotheses.
Whatever the choice and the method to adopt it will be, it is certain that the heavy bankruptcy experience of a project that has been in gestation for over 7 years will exert a certain pressure both on the Capitoline Administration and on the sports club, to avoid new missteps. In this sense, it is certain that the choice of creating an English stadium where one already exists, however in a state of decay and neglect for years, would perhaps be the most sensible choice. Except that the Flaminio hypothesis seems to have already been discarded: too many constraints, the Superintendency would not allow the construction of the roof, there is a veto right on the part of the heirs of the architect Nervi, there would not be enough space to park and so on.
But it really is
On closer inspection, neither the 2018 constraint decree nor the related report provide for absolute and preventive prohibitions, indeed they hope that the original function will be maintained, and in particular “that the interventions must respect the structure, the original system, as well as the finishes and how these factors must be considered strongly identifying and non-modifiable in a strategy of enhancement of the plant and how, at the same time, the vocation and the original intended use are respected both as regards the function of the stadium and the spaces, intended for secondary services “.
Moreover, this requirement should be read in the light of the exceptions provided for by paragraphs 1-bis and 1-ter of art. 62 of the Law Decree n. 50/2017, to ensure the adaptation and functionality of sports facilities.
Likewise, copyright does not appear to be a problem. The jurisprudence, in particular the administrative one, has recognized that the moral right of copyright “can be exercised exclusively by its owner, being only able to evaluate the compatibility of new works with the original artistic design, possibly coordinating them with the latter “, Not being able to be imputed even by the heirs (See Council of State, sentence no. 1749/2008).
In conclusion, it is not clear why the hypothesis of regenerating, as we say today, the Flaminio stadium, which in any case cannot remain a ruin as it is now, is rejected a priori. And therefore the important thing is that the various options are all evaluated “cards in hand”.
By technically deepening every aspect free from preconceived judgments, whether positive or negative, and allowing this sprint the real possibility for the city to give itself an opportunity for growth through a private investment that gives it a new sports facility worthy of a European capital and, at the same time , redevelop an existing neighborhood.
