land

Article
Form-Based Regulations to Prevent the Loss of Urbanity of
Historic Small Towns: Replicability of the Monte Carasso Case
Paweł Pedrycz

Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-661 Warsaw, Poland; [email protected]

Abstract: Small towns are a significant component of the landscape in Europe and a key element of
its cultural heritage. Currently, they face socio-economic crisis and spatial disintegration. Against
this background, the spatial transformation of the Swiss town of Monte Carasso is of particular
interest. It was initiated in the 1970s as a design intervention made by the architect Luigi Snozzi and
eventually constituted a local spatial policy with a scope to maintain or even restore town urbanity
and identity. This paper describes the case through its decomposition into primal elements such as
context, main procedure elements, supplementary action, and obtained results. The results were
measured by calculating urban parameters and observations compared with the adjacent town of
Sementina, whereby they proved that the policy is effective. In the next step, a synthetic diagram
was proposed that describes the interrelation between specific elements of the procedure. It was then
modified to serve as a model for other possible contexts. Finally, its main potentials and limitations
were described. It was concluded that the construction of the Monte Carasso urban regulatory
mechanism has the potential to be replicated elsewhere. However, some of its features need to be
rethought—mainly the role of an individual architect, which was highly exposed in the original case.






Keywords: urban morphology; building code; planning law; compact town; urban fabric; town heritage
Citation: Pedrycz, P. Form-Based
Regulations to Prevent the Loss of
Urbanity of Historic Small Towns:
Replicability of the Monte Carasso
1. Introduction
Case. Land 2021, 10, 1235. https://
doi.org/10.3390/land10111235
1.1. Small Towns—Context
Small towns are a substantial component of the landscape in Europe and a key element
Academic Editor: Martina of its cultural heritage. They account for a significant fraction of the total population in
Koll-Schretzenmayr Europe [1,2]. Currently, however, the vast majority of dynamic economic and cultural
processes occur in larger cities [3]. This leads to semi-urban and rural areas (including small
Received: 6 September 2021 towns) facing an economic and social crisis [4]. The problem seems to be common—albeit
Accepted: 10 November 2021 with slight variation in its spectrum—across most regions in Europe [5–9] and beyond [10].
Published: 12 November 2021
As a consequence of this socio-economic decline, the spatial aspect of small towns has
also become endangered. Being deprived of their internal driving forces, they have become
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral dependent on dominant regional centers and have slowly blended into the suburban belts
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
of larger cities. Towns are losing their spatial integrity and identity, which manifests
published maps and institutional affil-
primarily in the decline in public space—toward becoming merely transport infrastructure—
iations.
and a shift in the dominant typology of buildings, toward detached villas surrounded by
gardens. Traditional zoning policy has proven to be ineffective in some contexts [11], and
the need for more active “managerial” spatial policy has been raised by some scholars and
practitioners [12].
Copyright: © 2021 by the author. Despite relatively modest interest in small towns from both academic and professional
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. segments of society [13–15], several solutions were proposed as a remedy to this process,
This article is an open access article
ranging from the disciplinary field of the economy (some interesting proposals include
distributed under the terms and
setting a limit on local market share for supermarket chains, capping the physical size
conditions of the Creative Commons
of supermarkets, creating community land trusts that establish community ownership of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
key tracts of town center land) to urban design (improving pedestrian access, establishing
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
exterior green spaces with more trees, consolidation of cars and parking) [1,16].
4.0/).

Land 2021, 10, 1235. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111235 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2021, 10, 1235 2 of 23

Considering this, the town of Monte Carasso is an interesting case. Its latest trans-
formations (initiated in the 1970s by the architect Luigi Snozzi) have the character of
“re-urbanization”. They are firmly based in architecture and most of the developments
have been purely physical. There have been neither financial operations nor direct social
programs. Nevertheless, the effects of its physical development reach beyond just the built
environment and affect the life of the community. Monte Carasso shows the potential of
architecture and urban design in substantially influencing society, not as a mere aesthetic
add-on but as a real game changer.
As a proven method that has signs of a “finished product”, it is possible that the
method itself can be disseminated and popularized. Indeed, the case has raised the interest
of researchers and critics, and a number of books and papers have been written about
it [17–21]. These materials, however, focus on the individuality of the Monte Carasso case
and the specific role played in it by Luigi Snozzi himself. The procedure itself raised a
smaller amount of interest. As a morphology, i.e., a form-based mechanism, it may seem
conservative, earthbound, and architecture oriented. It is distant from dominant contempo-
rary planning discourse, which is focused on “soft” activities, people involvement, and
big data [22]. However, as Karl Kropf argues [23], the form of urban tissue largely deter-
mines the “character” of towns. In turn, Troger and Eberle [24] claim that urban planning
parameters are responsible for the atmosphere of urban life, including social relations.

1.2. Questions and Goals

In this paper, I argue that the durability of the procedure under consideration (and
its results), allows it to be a potentially effective base for spatial policy in other historic
towns—regardless of specific geographic context. Thus, the two main hypotheses are as
follows:
• The spatial effects achieved in Monte Carasso can be considered better (more consistent
with the place character) than in the neighboring towns;
• The planning procedure and environment of Monte Carasso are replicable, so it is
possible to create an abstract model of them, adaptable to local conditions.
This “universal” aspect seems to be underestimated; therefore, it deserves a closer
examination. It is of particular importance now, as the main actor of considered transfor-
mation passed away in December 2020, whereby there is a need to save and develop his
legacy. The paper aims at bringing the particular procedure to a more abstract, systemic
level.
The possibility of implementing morphology—or form-based planning systems—has
been analyzed, referring to both European [25–27], and non-European contexts [28–30],
but their potential has still not been sufficiently explored [31]. The planning procedure
of Monte Carasso was classified here as form based or morphological, despite not being
referred to as such by stakeholders. In fact, it does not directly use methods from the
Conzenian geographic school, nor from the typo-morphological Caniggian school [32].
However, it is primarily concerned with a form of development, which makes it formal in
its basic idea.

1.3. Content
The body of the paper consists of six sections. After the introduction in Section 1, and
presentation of methods in Section 2, the considered case of Monte Carasso is described—
divided into three main sections. Firstly, in Section 3.1, the context is outlined, which
includes geographic, socio-economic, cultural, and legal conditions, as well as the influence
of an individual—architect Luigi Snozzi. Later, in Section 3.2, the basic elements of the
local system are identified and described. These include regulations, codes, and procedures
directly controlling spatial processes. Finally, in Section 3.3, the supporting elements are
presented, which include consultation, educational, popularization, and exemplification
activities that support positive spatial processes and provide their proper background.
Section 4 contains a description and assessment of the spatial effects of the considered
Land 2021, 10, 1235 3 of 23

regulations. Section 5 explores the replicability potential of the Monte Carasso planning
environment through its synthetic notation in the form of a diagram. In Section 6, the last
section of the study, conclusions are provided.

2. Methods
This study combined both a case study and a comparative approach. Its main goal
is to explore the potential of the Monte Carasso planning environment, and therefore, it
primarily employed a case study method. However, to confirm the validity of the system
adopted in this Swiss small town and visualize its potential, a comparative study was also
included.
The role of the comparative study is secondary, limited to examining visible spatial
effects. The neighboring town of Sementina, which can be considered a twin of Monte
Carasso was chosen as a reference object. Both towns have a similar population area and
location, which is between a mountain massif and a river belt. They are separated by the
straight line of a mountain stream.
The assessment of the Monte Carasso transformation could not be accomplished as
a before–after comparison because of its relatively long time span. The modernization
processes that have occurred worldwide over the last 40 years have had a colossal impact
on the spatial development of towns. It would be difficult to separate the effects of these
processes from the consequences of Snozzi’s planning reform. A comparative element was
included, therefore, to emulate the “natural history of a disease” (i.e., what could be the
appearance and function of Monte Carasso if it was not for Snozzi).
The methodology adopted here was based on the analysis of the Monte Carasso urban
transformation process. Its individual elements were distinguished and positioned within
a scheme. The identification of its mechanics and analysis of its potential were the main
outcomes of this paper.
Their assessment was made both in an objective (numerical) and descriptive manner.
The objective measurement consisted of the following key urban parameters:
• Building density within the urbanized area (as a relation of the total built-up area in
the entire urbanized area);
• Population density (as a ratio of population to the urbanized area);
• The compactness of the town (number of buildings in a zone within a five-minute
walk to the central point in relation to the total number of buildings; the focal point
was designated in two variants: as the town hall and the geometric center of the
urbanized area—“centroid”);
• The scale of buildings (number of buildings with a built-up area exceeding 2000 m2/500 m2).
Data were obtained from the Open Street Map [33]. Analyses were made using QGIS
software [34], with QuickOSM [35] and ORS Tools [36] plugins used for processing.
The subjective description concerned several difficult-to-measure morphological fea-
tures of a small town, recognized in the literature [1,37] as typical for such settlements.
These features include compactness, legible separation from the surrounding landscape,
morphology dependent on topography, clear demarcation of public spaces, slow and small
mobility, etc. The results were compared with the town of Sementina.
Finally, in the Discussion Section, all of the above elements are systematically ordered
within the framework of a diagram reflecting the mechanics of the Monte Carasso case. Its
analysis led to the identification of those features and relations of the system that have the
greatest universal potential.
This study regarded small towns as those understood in terms of urbanism. The
definition of such a category is very difficult given the various academic and administrative
traditions across Europe [3,15]. Regional geostatistical tools have little accuracy here, due
to their coarse resolution (1 km2 ) and rigid urban–rural dichotomy [38]. Small towns, as an
intermediate level between villages and cities, escape this classification (even with having
a high building/population density, they do not always reach the population threshold
of 5000). In some countries, these settlements would be considered villages (due to the
Land 2021, 10, 1235 4 of 23

significant agricultural occupational tendency of inhabitants), while in others, they would

be defined as towns, due to their compactness (as opposed to dispersed villages).
For the sake of this paper, small towns are understood as settlements of historical
origin, initially compact in spatial character, with populations ranging from ~1000 to
~10,000 people. This definition covers three of four criteria of urbanity proposed by
Wirth [39]—size, density, and permanence in time. Threshold values were chosen due to
their simplicity. They corresponded to those proposed by Doxiades [40] for a small town or
township type of settlement.

3. The Monte Carasso Case—Components of Urban Transformation

The process of spatial transformation in the town of Monte Carasso was initiated in
the 1970s. Initially, its character reflected the design interventions by the architect Luigi
Snozzi. These were undertaken to prevent loss of identity and cohesion in the community—
considered as possible long-term consequences of spatial decisions [41]. In view of the
favorable preliminary results, the process was continued, and finally, it was constituted as
local spatial policy [42].

3.1. Context
3.1.1. Geographical and Historical Location
The town of Monte Carasso is located in southern Switzerland, in the Canton of Ticino,
Bellinzona Province. The dominant geographical elements are the alpine massifs, among
which the only area available for development is the Ticino river valley. Monte Carasso
stretches from the Mornera Hill in the north to the Ticino River in the southeast. On the
southwestern side, it is limited by the Sementina stream, separating it from the twin town
(also called Sementina).
Monte Carasso’s genesis dates to the 4th century. For most of its history, the town was
a small center. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it experienced rapid demographic
and urban growth due to the development of the ceramics industry.
The historical urban structure of the town is determined by its mountainous loca-
tion. The non-orthogonal street grid is adapted to the topography. The urban fabric is
fragmented—apart from a few large public buildings (town hall, church), it mainly consists
of single-family buildings in the form of small townhouses. The main construction material
is stone, articulated on a facade or covered with plaster. The degree of compactness of the
fabric is considerable, although most of the old buildings are detached or semi-detached.
The density is achieved by small distances between buildings, locating the building directly
on the street line, and by the presence of opaque walls fencing the plots. These walls,
usually made of raw local stone, are characteristic of Monte Carasso’s building culture.
In the second half of the 20th century, following global economic and urban trends,
the town began to transform into the backyard of a larger urban center—Bellinzona. It was
associated with a change in the functioning of the city itself and a gradual abandonment
of traditional ways of living in favor of uniform western models (whose manifestation is
an architectural type of detached single-family villa). The process was reinforced by the
rapid development of road traffic, which resulted in the transformation of street spaces
into roadways and the location of a motorway in the immediate vicinity of the town [43].
These processes, inherent to Monte Carasso, but also to most of the surrounding
localities [44] (Figure 1), led to a gradual loss of identity and distinctiveness. It turned the
localities into an undefined band of suburbs between Bellinzona and Locarno. Apart from
the case of Monte Carasso, this process continues until today [45].
 Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24

These processes, inherent to Monte Carasso, but also to most of the surrounding lo-
Land 2021, 10, 1235 calities [44] (Figure 1), led to a gradual loss of identity and distinctiveness. It turned5 of
the23
localities into an undefined band of suburbs between Bellinzona and Locarno. Apart from
the case of Monte Carasso, this process continues until today [45].

Figure1.1.Topographic
Figure Topographicmap
mapofoftwo
twosettlements
settlements divided
divided by
by the
the Sementina
Sementina stream:
stream: Monte
Monte Carasso
Carasso
(northeast) and Sementina (southwest) successively from 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2018. Source: Swis-
(northeast) and Sementina (southwest) successively from 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2018. Source: Swis-
stopo 2021.
stopo 2021.
3.1.2.Luigi
3.1.2. LuigiSnozzi
Snozziin inMonte
MonteCarasso
Carasso
InInthis
thiscontext,
context,Monte
Monte Carasso
Carasso stands
stands out
out because
because of of its
its extraordinary
extraordinaryurban urbanpolicy,
policy,
conceived and developed by the architect Luigi Snozzi. He is recognized as one
conceived and developed by the architect Luigi Snozzi. He is recognized as one ofof four
four
mainarchitects
main architectsof ofthe
theso-called
so-calledTicino
TicinoSchool
School (along
(along with
with Mario
Mario Botta,
Botta, Livio
Livio Vacchini,
Vacchini, and and
AurelioGalfetti),
Aurelio Galfetti),an aninfluential
influentialmovement
movement in in the
the architecture
architecture of of the
the late
late 20th
20th century.
century. HisHis
legacytranscends
legacy transcendshis hisworks
works and
and stems
stems from
from an an uncompromising
uncompromising moral moral attitude
attitude andand an an
elevated sense of responsibility
elevated sense of responsibility [46]. [46].
LuigiSnozzi
Luigi Snozzistarted
startedhis
hisactivity
activityinin Monte
Monte Carasso
Carasso in in 1979
1979 withwith a municipal
a municipal commis-
commission
sion for an architectural design for a new elementary school (as part
for an architectural design for a new elementary school (as part of a modernist development of a modernist devel-
opment plan). Approaching his task, Snozzi challenged the assigned
plan). Approaching his task, Snozzi challenged the assigned location of the school in the location of the school
in the developing
developing suburbs suburbs of the town—near
of the town—near the highway, the highway,
proposingproposing
to place it to place
in the veryit in the
center
very center of Monte Carasso instead. His objective was to restore
of Monte Carasso instead. His objective was to restore the town to its original structure the town to its original
structure
based on abased
publicon a public
central central space.
space.
Thefirst
The firststep
stepwaswastotoorganize
organize a school
a school ininthethe converted
converted former
former Augustinian
Augustinian monas-
monastery
tery (Figure 2). This initiative also resulted in a series of accompanying
(Figure 2). This initiative also resulted in a series of accompanying public spaces, including public spaces, in-
cluding a central square created from the former monastery cloister.
a central square created from the former monastery cloister. As a result of the favorable As a result of the
approach of the municipal authorities (especially town mayor Flavio Guidotti), in follow-
ing years, Snozzi was able to design and build other facilities, both public (gymnasium,
cemetery, multi-purpose hall), semi-public (bank branch), and prominent private (mayor’s
house), in the center of Monte Carasso. Thus, the previously neglected historic center of
the town was revived [41].
 favorable approach of the municipal authorities (especially town mayor Flavio Guidotti),
in following years, Snozzi was able to design and build other facilities, both public (gym-
Land 2021, 10, 1235 nasium, cemetery, multi-purpose hall), semi-public (bank branch), and prominent private
6 of 23
(mayor’s house), in the center of Monte Carasso. Thus, the previously neglected historic
center of the town was revived [41].

Figure2.2.Ex-Augustinian
Figure Ex-Augustinianconvent
conventconverted
convertedinto
intoaaprimary
primaryschool—the
school—thesymbol
symbolofofMonte
MonteCarasso’s
Carasso’s
urban transformation. Source: Author.
urban transformation. Source: Author.

Thepositive
The positiveresults
resultsofofthis
this project
project paved
paved thethe
pathpath
forfor
thethe formulation
formulation of aof a compre-
comprehen-
hensive
sive concept
concept of theofwhole
the whole of Monte
of Monte Carasso’s
Carasso’s spatial
spatial policy.
policy. Its main
Its main goal goal
was towas to re-
restore
store
the the traditional
traditional character
character of atown
of a small smallwith
town itswith
localits local identity.
identity. Critical Critical for its “ur-
for its “urbanity”,
banity”,
the the initiators
initiators of the re-urbanization
of the re-urbanization process inprocess
MonteinCarasso
Monte Carasso
assumedassumed
that thethat the
social,
social, cultural,
cultural, and economic
and economic processes processes could
could be be stimulated
stimulated by creating
by creating urbanurban conditions
conditions in a
in a purely
purely physical
physical (morphological)
(morphological) dimension.
dimension. ThoseThose conditions
conditions were described
were described as fol-
as follows:
•lows:High building density;
•• Strong
High building density; structure;
and hierarchical
•• Clearly
Strong delineated
and hierarchical structure;
city limits;
•• Clear separation
Clearly delineatedbetween private and public space (symbolic, as well as physical and
city limits;
• visual);
Clear separation between private and public space (symbolic, as well as physical and
• Presence
visual); of a monumental and symbolic public space;
•• Secondary,
Presence of“subordinated”
a monumental role and of natural public
symbolic elements within the urban fabric [42].
space;
• These
Secondary,
values“subordinated”
have been translatedrole ofinto
natural elements
reality throughwithin the urban
the spatial policyfabric
based[42].
on the
local urban code, the establishment of the expert commission, and a number
These values have been translated into reality through the spatial policy based on the of auxiliary
activities.
local urban code, the establishment of the expert commission, and a number of auxiliary
activities.
3.2. Elements of the Planning Environment of Monte Carasso
3.2.1. Spatial Planning
3.2. Elements in Ticino
of the Planning Environment of Monte Carasso
The urban form of settlements
3.2.1. Spatial Planning in Ticino in Switzerland, as in most countries, results from the
interaction of a number of laws [47]. The most important of them are planning law and
The urban form of settlements in Switzerland, as in most countries, results from the
building law.
interaction of a number of laws [47]. The most important of them are planning law and
The Swiss system of spatial (or land use) planning is based on Article 75 of the
building
Federal law.
Constitution of the Swiss Confederation [48] and is regulated by the Federal Spatial
The
Planning ActSwiss system
[49]. of spatial
However, the (or land use) planning
implementation of theisplans
basedison Articlecarried
mainly 75 of the
outFed-
by
eral Constitution of the Swiss Confederation [48] and
cantons [50], which, in turn, delegate part of the tasks to communes. is regulated by the Federal Spatial
Planning Actregulations
Building [49]. However, the implementation
are similarly decentralized.ofThe thespecificity
plans is mainly carried
of the Monte out by
Carasso
cantons [50], which, in turn, delegate part of the tasks to communes.
spatial policy consists of combining the provisions of planning laws and the local (individ-
Building regulations
ual) regulations of buildingare similarly
laws. Such a decentralized. The specificity
construction, where of the
a single town Monte
has Carasso
the mandate
spatial policy consists of combining the provisions of planning laws
to fully control its planning/building laws (not just policy, thus moving beyond the local and the local
zoning/land-use plan) is unique to Switzerland, where national or regional (cantonal)
regulations can be overridden on a local level (also in terms of direct democracy) [51]. The
degree of local autonomy varies between cantons in Switzerland. In Ticino, it is considered
to be relatively wide [52]. Generally, this local autonomy has been criticized for being
unable to efficiently manage the urban growth, which led to urban sprawl [45], but in the
Land 2021, 10, 1235 7 of 23

case of Monte Carasso, it allowed the implementation of an original planning and building
procedure that is the subject of this paper. This procedure is based on two pillars: a written
code and an established expert commission.

3.2.2. Urban Code

The urban code of Monte Carasso is a set of rules that apply to all new forms of
construction on its territory. It rejects traditionally understood zoning. For the vast majority
of localities, the designation of areas with specific functions and parameters has been
replaced by a set of rules concerning the physical development of the plot.
These rules are relatively simple and straightforward. The following are some of the
most important regulations regarding buildings [53]:
• Buildings can be built if:
◦ ( . . . ) the land is urbanized. The land is urbanized if there is sufficient access to it
and the necessary water, energy, and sewage networks are close enough to be able to
conclude a contract without easement;
◦ The plot must be used rationally and in moderation;
◦ Interventions on the plot ( . . . ) must be carried out taking into account, and respecting,
the nature of the plot and the existing urban and architectural structure;
◦ There must be a reasonable relationship between the built-up and undeveloped areas;
◦ Only surfaces necessary for the use of the property in accordance with its intended use
may be paved.
• Regarding the distance of buildings from the plot boundaries,
◦ New buildings may be situated:
 Without windows—on the border with the neighboring plot;
 With windows—2 m from the border.
◦ From the side of existing buildings, the following distances should be kept:
 If there are doors, windows, and other viewing openings in the wall of the
neighboring building, 4 m;
 If there are windows and other openings that only provide light (not viewing),
or if there are no openings, 3 m.
◦ Owners can agree to reduce the indicated distances ( . . . );
◦ The distance of new buildings from streets, squares in urbanized zones ( . . . ) can be
built directly on plot edge.
• In terms of building height,
◦ ( . . . ) Maximum height of new buildings up to 9 m; in addition, an additional 1.5 m
may be allocated.
• Regarding fences,
◦ From the side of streets and squares, the plots must be fenced with a wall of a minimum
height of 0.8 m. ( . . . );
◦ The maximum height of the walls is 2.5 m ( . . . ).
• As regards parceling recomposition,
◦ Within building zones, where the layout of plots does not allow for their rational use,
an order to modify the ownership system is introduced.
• Regarding expert commission,
◦ The city office appoints a commission of three experts to:
 Provide advice to private owners on the proper use of plots of land for building
purposes;
 Check all public and private projects.
In addition to those mentioned above, there are also some more detailed provisions,
but they concern exceptional cases. As can be seen, these norms are often formulated in
Land 2021, 10, 1235 8 of 23

a subjective way. Terms such as reasonable, rational, and in moderation cannot be easily
parameterized.

3.2.3. Expert Commission

Some rules that are not numerical or accurate, such as those regarding the reasonable
use of land or adjusting to the urban structure, provide the basis for unequivocal decisions
of the expert commission—an advisory body appointed by the town council. For a long
time, the commission was composed of architects Luigi Snozzi, Roberto Briccola, and
Raffaele Cavadini; its task was to advise, evaluate, and approve all construction initiatives
in the town. Each investor, regardless of scale and project type, is invited, together with the
commissioned architect, to a meeting with the expert commission at the town council. The
approval granted by the Commission is necessary to obtain a building permit.
The presence of the human factor is a way to prevent the regulations from being
circumvented (by exploiting loopholes). The dualism of this regulatory process is based on
contrast: on the one hand, there is a closed and indisputable code, while on the other, there
is an open and negotiating committee. Paradoxically, the written norms of the code were
often more liberal than the hard views of the commission.

3.3. Auxiliary Activities

3.3.1. Design of Key Urban Elements
In order to make the intentions of a transformation of Monte Carasso explicit and to
provide momentum, on the initiative of Snozzi, a number of architectural projects were
undertaken on specific places of the town—the center, borders, and the regular spaces
between them.
The restoration of the center (known as the Centro Monumentale) was initiated by
adapting a former convent (at that time already split into private apartments) into a primary
school. Thus, the center of the town was marked by two complementary public functions
that determined its identity: a school, symbolizing community in its modern dimension,
and a church, representing its tradition.
Another activity aimed at defining the town structure was establishing its clear bound-
aries. This was also accomplished through special architectural designs, in particular
massive multi-family housing complexes and landscape designs. The above-mentioned
key projects were created outside the formulated planning regulation system. They did not
obey the described urban code, as their scope was to stand out from the regular fabric and
mark special places in the settlement.

3.3.2. Design Examples of the Ordinary Urban Fabric

To serve as examples of typical town fabric, several single-family house designs were
proposed by Luigi Snozzi and his associates (Figure 3). They fully obeyed the urban code,
but at the same time, they are interesting examples of the “Ticino school” and minimalist
architecture. They are also worth studying for their exceptional spatial and functional
values; however, in this paper, this aspect cannot be covered. These successive projects
contribute to the basic fabric of Monte Carasso. In this context, each of them plays a
quadruple role, one that encompasses the following aspects:
1. Individual shelter—usually house for a single family;
2. Urban context, urban fabric—framing, creating walls and boundaries of public space;
3. Spatial cases, legal precedent—examining the rules of the code;
4. Informative example—educating investors and architects, whereby helping to over-
come the patterns of thought that separate the idea of a private residence and the idea
of a town.
 Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

Land 2021, 10, 1235 4. Informative example—educating investors and architects, whereby helping to9 over-
of 23
come the patterns of thought that separate the idea of a private residence and the
idea of a town.

Figure3.3.Typical
Figure Typicalsmall-town
small-towncul-de-sac
cul-de-sac created
created byby traditional
traditional buildings
buildings with
with thethe significant
significant contri-
contribu-
bution of those regarded as contemporary (at the end is Casa Stefano Guidotti by Luigi Snozzi).
tion of those regarded as contemporary (at the end is Casa Stefano Guidotti by Luigi Snozzi). Source:
Source: Author.
Author.

3.3.3.Design
3.3.3. DesignSeminar
Seminar
AAdesign
design seminar
seminar entitled
entitled “Seminario
“Seminario Internazionale
Internazionale di Progettazione
di Progettazione Monte
Monte Carasso”
Carasso”
creates createsofa urban
a context context of urban development
development of Monte
of Monte Carasso. Carasso.
It has It has
occurred occurred
every every
year since
year It
1993. since 1993.
holds theItform
holds of the form ofschool/workshop
a summer a summer school/workshop aimed atofstudents
aimed at students of ar-
architecture
chitecture
and and young Over
young graduates. graduates. Overof
the course the
14course of 14 days, participants
days, participants work in groupswork in groups
supported
by tutors onby
supported specific
tutorssubjects
on specific fromsubjects
the Monte fromCarasso and Carasso
the Monte Bellinzonaandcontext. The subject
Bellinzona context.
may
The be placemay
subject oriented
be place(proposal
orientedfor (proposal
assigned location) or problem
for assigned location)oriented (proposal
or problem to
oriented
solve certaintoproblems
(proposal such as
solve certain parking).
problems Participants
such analyze
as parking). and provide
Participants urbanand
analyze guidelines
provide
and design
urban the physical
guidelines environment.
and design the physical environment.
One of the aims of the seminar
One of the aims of the seminar is is
toto
disseminate
disseminateknowledge
knowledge about thethe
about design process
design in
process
Monte Carasso and popularize its method. The seminar is a two-week
in Monte Carasso and popularize its method. The seminar is a two-week architectural architectural festival
that integrates
festival young professionals
that integrates and the local
young professionals andcommunity around architectural/urban
the local community around architec-
discourse.
tural/urbanApart from regular
discourse. Apart from research andresearch
regular design activities,
and design a few speciala events
activities, are
few special
organized,
events aresuch as lectures
organized, such from prominent
as lectures fromarchitects and urban
prominent designers
architects (Figure
and urban 4).
designers
(Figure 4).
Equally important, however, is the internal role of this event, which is based on an
open, creative and professional discussion on the entire urban process. The idea is to
crash-test—under controlled conditions—the urban procedure by pushing it to its limits.
This is achieved by simulating a real design problem and checking its potential solutions,
 Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

Land 2021, 10, 1235 both within the existing system and outside it. The ideas and conclusions drawn from
10 of the
23
seminar become the starting points for discussion on real urban, architectural, and legis-
lative projects.

Figure4.4.Public
Figure Publicevent
eventduring
duringthe
thedesign
designseminar
seminargathering
gatheringspecialists
specialists and
and the
thelocal
localcommunity.
community.
Source: Author.
Source: Author.

4. Spatial
EquallyCharacteristics
important, however, is the internal role of this event, which is based on an
open,Thecreative and
spatial professional
effects of Montediscussion on thepolicy
Carasso’s spatial entirewere
urban process.inThe
examined twoidea
groupsis toof
crash-test—under
criteria: numericalcontrolled conditions—the
and descriptive. urban
The first of procedure
these by pushing
were compiled in twoit comparative
to its limits.
This is achieved
tables by simulating
for the town a realAll
of Sementina. design
data problem and checking
were acquired from theitsOpen
potential solutions,
Street Map. A
both within the existing system and outside it. The ideas and conclusions drawn
lack of perfect accuracy in this method can be justified by the non-critical role of the from
cal-
the seminar become the starting points for discussion on real urban, architectural,
culations. They are mainly used to confirm the intuitive perception of space as more andor
legislative projects.
less compact.
4. Spatial Characteristics
4.1. Parameters
The spatial effects of Monte Carasso’s spatial policy were examined in two groups of
Table 1 shows the basic parameters of the examined settlements. Both of them have
criteria: numerical and descriptive. The first of these were compiled in two comparative
a similar population of about 3000 inhabitants, with Sementina being slightly more pop-
tables for the town of Sementina. All data were acquired from the Open Street Map. A lack
ulated. The difference in urbanized areas is far more considerable, which results in a con-
of perfect accuracy in this method can be justified by the non-critical role of the calculations.
siderable difference in population density—the first indicator of settlement compactness.
They are mainly used to confirm the intuitive perception of space as more or less compact.
Sementina has more individual buildings with a larger gross footprint surface. However,
the Parameters
4.1. density of buildings is greater in Monte Carasso, both expressed as the number of
buildings per hectare and built-up surface per hectare. The difference is greater in the
Table 1 shows the basic parameters of the examined settlements. Both of them have a
former case, which suggests more fragmented urban tissue consisting of smaller build-
similar population of about 3000 inhabitants, with Sementina being slightly more populated.
ings. This hypothesis is confirmed by the building footprint statistics (mean and median
The difference in urbanized areas is far more considerable, which results in a considerable
footprint).inBoth results density—the
are greater for Sementina, butsettlement
the difference is more apparent
difference population first indicator of compactness. Sementinain
has more individual buildings with a larger gross footprint surface. However, the density
of buildings is greater in Monte Carasso, both expressed as the number of buildings per
hectare and built-up surface per hectare. The difference is greater in the former case, which
Land 2021, 10, 1235 11 of 23

Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 24

suggests more fragmented urban tissue consisting of smaller buildings. This hypothesis is
confirmed by the building footprint statistics (mean and median footprint). Both results
the former case, as the calculation is influenced by a few large-scale buildings, which are
are greater for Sementina, but the difference is more apparent in the former case, as the
the subject of the last two columns in the table. As the analysis shows, Sementina has twice
calculation is influenced by a few large-scale buildings, which are the subject of the last
as many buildings with a footprint exceeding 500 m2, and it is the only town to have build-
two columns in the table. As the analysis shows, Sementina has twice as many buildings
ings over 2000 m2.
with a footprint exceeding 500 m2 , and it is the only town to have buildings over 2000 m2 .
Table 1. Basic urban parameters of Monte Carasso and Sementina.
Table 1. Basic urban parameters of Monte Carasso and Sementina.
UA P PD NB BpA ƩBA BuD BFmn BFmd NB>500 NB>2000
UA P PD NB BpA ΣBA2 BuD BFmn BF NB>500 NB>2000
[ha] [1/ha] [1/ha] [m ] [m ]
2 [m2]md
[ha] [1/ha] [1/ha] [m 2] [m 2 2
Monte Carasso 46.57 2872 62 495 10.63 82683 0.18 167] [m ]
145 10 0
Monte Carasso
Sementina 46.57
69.61 2872
3217 6246 495
553 10.63
7.94 82,683
117680 0.18
0.17 167
212 145
159 20 10 40
UA—urbanized69.61
Sementina area; P—population;
3217 PD—population
46 553 density;
7.94 NB—number
117,680 of buildings;
0.17 212BpA—building
159 per20hectare; 4
ƩBA—sum of built-up areas; BuD—built-up density; BFmn—mean building footprint; BFmd—median building footprint;
UA—urbanized area; P—population; PD—population density; NB—number of buildings; BpA—building per hectare; ΣBA—sum of
NB>500—number
built-up of buildings
areas; BuD—built-up with BFmn—mean
density; footprint areabuilding
over 500 m2; NBBFmd—median
footprint; >2000—number of buildings with footprint area over 2000
building footprint; NB>500 —number of buildings
m . footprint area over 500 m ; NB>2000 —number of buildings with footprint area over 2000 m2 .
2
with 2

The results listed in the table show some spatial characteristics of Monte Carasso as
The results listed in the table show some spatial characteristics of Monte Carasso as
being generally close to traditional small towns, which can be represented by the historic
being generally close to traditional small towns, which can be represented by the historic
core of the nearby (and more “mature”) town of Giubasco (PpA = 11,44; BuD = 0,19). It is
core of the nearby (and more “mature”) town of Giubasco (PpA = 11.44; BuD = 0.19).
relatively densely populated and urbanized, with smaller buildings and with few me-
It is relatively densely populated and urbanized, with smaller buildings and with few
dium-sized buildings being an exception and a spatial accent. No large-scale buildings are
medium-sized buildings being an exception and a spatial accent. No large-scale buildings
present that would be foreign to the particular building tradition.
are present that would be foreign to the particular building tradition.
Based on the desired pedestrian-oriented town mobility, the fabric of both settle-
Based on the desired pedestrian-oriented town mobility, the fabric of both settlements
ments was examined for five-minute accessibility [54,55] on foot (pedestrian shed) from
was examined for five-minute accessibility [54,55] on foot (pedestrian shed) from the focal
the focal point (FP) (Table 2). The zones of a normal five-minute walk, computed on the
point (FP) (Table 2). The zones of a normal five-minute walk, computed on the street
street network, were traced around town halls in variant 1 and around geometric centers
network, were traced around town halls in variant 1 and around geometric centers of
of urbanized areas (centroids) in variant 2 (Figure 5). These zones were compared with
urbanized areas (centroids) in variant 2 (Figure 5). These zones were compared with the
the urbanized areas.
urbanized areas.

Figure 5.
Figure Figure–groundschemes
5. Figure–ground schemesofofMonte
MonteCarasso
Carassoand
andSementina
Sementinawith
withdelimitation
delimitation
ofof urbanized
urbanized
areas and
areas andfive-minute
five-minutepedestrian
pedestrianaccess
accesszones:
zones:green—from
green—from town
town hall;
hall; red—from
red—from geometric
geometric center.
center.
Source:
Source: Author.
Author.
Land 2021, 10, 1235 12 of 23

Table 2. Pedestrian accessibility parameters of Monte Carasso and Sementina.

A. Town Hall as FP B. Centroid as FP

UA A5min IA5min NB5min A5min IA5min NB5min
[ha] [ha] [1/ha] [ha] [1/ha]
Monte Carasso 46.57 22.72 49% 260 31.88 68% 380
Sementina 69.61 30.11 43% 260 36.42 52% 262
UA—urbanized area; A5min —urbanized area accessible by a five-minute walk from center point; IA5min —percentage of urbanized area
accessible by five-minute walk from center point; NB5min —number of buildings accessible by five-minute walk from center point.

In variant A, the town areas accessible in a short walk are, in both cases, smaller than
half of its total area. This is due to the eccentric location of town halls (especially in Monte
Carasso, where it is placed near the northwestern edge of town). The number of accessible
buildings is equal but encompasses a much smaller isochrone area, which shows the greater
compactness of Monte Carasso. In variant B, the extent of accessible area is greater than
half in both cases, but in Monte Carasso, it is as high as 68%. Additionally, the number of
buildings “served” is relatively high, 380, which is over 75% of the total. In Sementina, on
the other hand, the number of accessible buildings remains on the same level regardless of
focal points. This shows the decrease in compactness in zones further from the town hall.

4.2. Descriptive Assessment

The above numerical examination can be compared and confirmed by the descriptive
analysis.
Analysis of topographic maps (Figures 2 and 6) shows that the area experienced rapid
development of a similar pattern, especially in the decade 1970–1980. Later, the pattern of
development in Monte Carasso and Sementino started to differ, becoming more organic
and denser in the former and more orthogonal and looser in the latter. The contemporary
map (Figure 6) reveals great differences in the urban fabric of the two neighboring towns.
This can be derived both at the level of street pattern and typology of buildings. Monte
Carasso appears more similar to the traditional irregular fabric of medieval towns, while
Sementina is closer to a regular 20th-century development (especially sprawling suburbs).
The direct experience of Monte Carasso space—perceived from the perspective of
pedestrians—reveals more interesting characteristics as follows:
• A visible border, i.e., a separation of the urban structure from its surroundings, which
is a characteristic shared also by Sementina, although there is a visible pressure to
develop lower parts of the hills to the north of both settlements;
• An irregular form of public spaces resulting from the organic development of the
urban fabric;
• The legible enclosure of public spaces perceived as interiors with annexes;
• A clear definition of spatial privacy through physical separation of a building or a
wall;
• Close viewing perspectives provide the ability to perceive details from close distances;
• Spontaneous mobility, without segregating the various modes of transport;
• Exclusive use of large-scale building types for public-use buildings;
• Height of buildings of usually one or two stories, occasionally three;
• “Personalization” of spatial issues, i.e., visibility of individual activity on the scale of
the entire town.
Land 2021, 10, 1235 13 of 23
Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

Figure 6. Contemporary topographic map of Monte Carasso (northeast) and Sementina (southwest).
Figure 6. Contemporary topographic map of Monte Carasso (northeast) and Sementina (southwest).
Source: Swisstopo 2021.
Source: Swisstopo 2021.

The space
The directofexperience
the town of of Monte
Monte Carasso
Carasso space—perceived
stands out from the from the perspective
surrounding towns,of
pedestrians—reveals more interesting characteristics as follows:
which, similar to Sementina and Giubiasco, have undergone significant spatial decline.
•
Their A visible
public border,
space has i.e., a separation
especially lost itsofconsistency
the urban structure
and has beenfromdominated
its surroundings, which
by transport
is a characteristic
infrastructure (transformedshared also
into by Sementina,
exclusively although
car lanes between there
theisbuildings)
a visible pressure to
(Figure 7;
below).develop
Montelower
Carassoparts
wasof the
the only
hills town
to theto north of both
maintain settlements;
a compact urban character typical
• a historic
of settlement
An irregular form (Figure
of public7; spaces
above).resulting
It is still a traditional
from the organic mountain
developmenttown ofwith
the
winding streets
urban fabric; and alleys, with the only atypical element being the aesthetic features of
•
individual buildings.
The legible Their of
enclosure minimalist
public spacesor brutalist
perceivedarchitecture
as interiorscontrasts in style with the
with annexes;
•
ordinary localdefinition
A clear urban fabric. Whileprivacy
of spatial brutalistthrough
volumes of raw concrete
physical separation may
of be shockingorina
a building
such an environment, the space they create is actually very coherent. Despite modernized
wall;
•
“language”, most features
Close viewing of the provide
perspectives traditional thetown
abilitywere maintained.
to perceive detailsThese
frominclude a
close dis-
hierarchical
tances; structure with a clear center and small and fragmented buildings, defined
•
public space, irregular
Spontaneous shapewithout
mobility, of the plots, typologythe
segregating ofvarious
buildings, functional
modes structure, etc.
of transport;
• The most common building program—single-family
Exclusive use of large-scale building types for public-use buildings; houses—was adopted to con-
•
struct the compact
Height tissue. of
of buildings This is unlike
usually one Sementina
or two stories,and occasionally
in other surrounding
three; settlements,
where
• houses generate suburban
“Personalization” of spatial settings, and
issues, i.e., they doof
visibility not relate to the
individual public
activity onspace.
the scale of
Itthe
should be mentioned,
entire town. however, that a number of issues in Monte Carasso have not
yet found a satisfactory solution—first and foremost, individual car parking and everyday
The space of the town of Monte Carasso stands out from the surrounding towns,
shopping (most of the supplies are provided in the neighboring town of Sementina in a large
which, similar to Sementina and Giubiasco, have undergone significant spatial decline.
supermarket, which would not be allowed in Monte Carasso, what creates a controversial
Their public space has especially lost its consistency and has been dominated by transport
situation).
infrastructure (transformed into exclusively car lanes between the buildings) (Figure 7;
The noticeable functional scarcity in Monte Carasso highlights the limitation of purely
below). Monte Carasso was the only town to maintain a compact urban character typical
“architectural” regulations present in the examined case. The mere use of existing housing
of a historiccoupled
typologies, settlementwith(Figure 7; above).
an organic urban It structure,
is still a traditional
does not mountain town with
grant “urbanity” perwind-
se to
ing streets and alleys, with the only atypical element being the aesthetic
the settlement. It needs to be supported other policies (e.g., incentives) on an economic features of indi-
or
viduallevel.
social buildings. Their minimalist or brutalist architecture contrasts in style with the or-
dinary local urban fabric. While brutalist volumes of raw concrete may be shocking in
such an environment, the space they create is actually very coherent. Despite modernized
“language”, most features of the traditional town were maintained. These include a
 Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

Land 2021, 10, 1235 14 of 23

hierarchical structure with a clear center and small and fragmented buildings, defined
public space, irregular shape of the plots, typology of buildings, functional structure, etc.

Figure7.7.Typical
Figure Typicalspace
space of
of Monte
Monte Carasso
Carasso (above)
(above) and
andSementina
Sementina(below).
(below).It It
is is
clear that
clear in in
that thethe
for-
mer case the built fabric contributes to demarcation of public space and creates much “richer” rela-
former case the built fabric contributes to demarcation of public space and creates much “richer”
tions [56], while in the latter case, the relationship between buildings and space between them is
relations [56], while in the latter case, the relationship between buildings and space between them is
merely functional. Source: Author.
merely functional. Source: Author.
The most common building program—single-family houses—was adopted to con-
Nevertheless, the spatial characteristics of Monte Carasso could certainly be judged as
struct
good and thedesirable.
compact tissue. This is unlike Sementina and in other surrounding settlements,
where houses generate suburban settings, and they do not relate to the public space.
It should be mentioned, however, that a number of issues in Monte Carasso have not
5. Discussion
yetMechanics
5.1. found a satisfactory
of the Montesolution—first andEnvironment
Carasso Planning foremost, individual car parking and everyday
shopping (most of the supplies are provided in the neighboring town of Sementina in a
Given the positive results of the Monte Carasso experiment, its replicability potential
islarge
worth supermarket,
considering.which
To makewould not be the
it possible, allowed in Monte
abstract Carasso,
mechanics of thewhat
whole creates a contro-
process need
versial situation).
to be revealed. The diagram below (Figure 8) was designed to be such a representation.
Thescheme
The noticeable functional
was divided scarcity
into in Monte(columns),
three categories Carasso highlights the limitation
as in the presented paper.of
purely
Basic “architectural”
relations betweenregulations
the elements present in the examined
are presented case.threads.
as labeled The mere Inuse of existing
pre-existing
housing typologies, coupled with an organic urban structure, does not grant “urbanity”
geographic, cultural, legal, and urban conditions, the first step of the process was to involve
perarchitect
the se to theLuigi
settlement.
Snozzi,Itwho
needs to be supported
assumed the role ofother policies
the leader. The(e.g., incentives)
visible effect ofonhisan
economic or social level.
involvement was the implementation of a number of special projects, which built trust and
Nevertheless,
readiness the spatial
for future changes characteristics
(political consensus).of Monte Carasso
This enabled thecould certainlyofbe
introduction thejudged
core
ofasthe
good and desirable.
planning system based on the urban code and expert commission. At the same time,
Snozzi designed a number of exemplary projects to illustrate the intended direction of the
5. Discussion
reform. This triggered the real processes of transforming the town’s tissue. Already during
the
5.1.process, it has
Mechanics been
of the enriched
Monte by Planning
Carasso a design Environment
seminar.
Given the positive results of the Monte Carasso experiment, its replicability potential
is worth considering. To make it possible, the abstract mechanics of the whole process need
to be revealed. The diagram below (Figure 8) was designed to be such a representation.
Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 24
Land 2021, 10, 1235 15 of 23

Figure 8. Mechanism of the Monte Carasso spatial regulatory environment with the sequence of
Figure 8. Mechanism
elements. of the Monte Carasso spatial regulatory environment with the sequence of
Source: Author.
elements. Source: Author.
The relevance of the particular elements of the scheme are analyzed as follows:
1. The scheme was
Geographic anddivided
culturalinto three categories
conditions: As Snozzi (columns), as in the followed
himself claimed, presentedby paper.
schol-
Basic relations between the elements are presented as labeled threads.
ars [41,57], the civic culture of Switzerland, immersed in geographic context, played In pre-existing ge-
ographic, cultural, legal,
an important and
role in theurban conditions,of
implementation thethe
first step of the process
revolutionary planning was to involve
procedure. Its
the architect
most relevant elements included trust in institutions, respect for the law, good of
Luigi Snozzi, who assumed the role of the leader. The visible effect his
organi-
involvement
zation, was the implementation
and individual of a number
modesty. Climatic of special
conditions, which projects,
could be which built trust
considered as an
and readiness for future changes (political consensus). This enabled
important factor influencing the morphology (determined distances and parameters), the introduction of
the core
hadof some
the planning system
significance, butbased
they on the hardly
could urban code and expert
be proven commission.
as decisive for the At the
success
same time,
of theSnozzi
project.designed
This isabecause
numbersimilar
of exemplary projects
traditional to illustrate
compact centersthe canintended
be found di-in
rectionvarious
of the reform. This triggered the real processes of transforming
geographical locations. The overall influence of these contexts is generally the town’s tissue.
Already during
hard the process,
to assess it has
objectively. beencan
They enriched by a design
be considered seminar.
favorable but not determinant.
2. The
Legal conditions: In particular, the substantial autonomy ofanalyzed
relevance of the particular elements of the scheme are as follows:
local (cantonal, municipal)
governments
1. Geographic andincultural
the Swiss Confederation
conditions: enabled
As Snozzi the claimed,
himself use of thefollowed
described byprocedure.
scholars
While the
[41,57], thecivic
localculture
municipal mandate to immersed
of Switzerland, control its in territory by the
geographic planning
context, process
played an
important role in the implementation of the revolutionary planning procedure. Itsis
is generally a standard in most countries, the differentiation of construction law
much
most less frequent.
relevant elementsThis internal
included differentiation
trust in institutions, includes
respectbasic “technical”
for the law, good norms
or-
such as building distances and their relation with the public
ganization, and individual modesty. Climatic conditions, which could be considered space. This element
asseems crucial infactor
an important the procedure
influencing under consideration,
the morphology as it coulddistances
(determined not be carried
and pa- out
without the possibility of overriding central building laws
rameters), had some significance, but they could hardly be proven as decisive for the and regulations. The
morphological
success provisions
of the project. This isof because
the buildingsimilarcode in Montecompact
traditional Carassocenters
concerncan issues
be
traditionally considered as “planning” (and most often under
found in various geographical locations. The overall influence of these contexts the authority of local
is
government)
generally hard such as land-use
to assess functions
objectively. Theyandcanparameters,
be considered butfavorable
also (and mostly)
but not include
deter-
building regulations, which are usually regulated at the national level.
minant.
3. Existing
2. Legal urban fabric:
conditions: With itsthe
In particular, legible morphological
substantial autonomyfeatures,
of local the historical
(cantonal, tissue
munici-
was
pal) a direct inspiration
governments in the Swissfor the formulationenabled
Confederation of rulesthe within
use ofurban code. The
the described most
proce-
important spatial characteristics, such as building typology and
dure. While the local municipal mandate to control its territory by the planning pro- its dimensions, the
close proximity of buildings, direct access to the buildings from the street, presence
cess is generally a standard in most countries, the differentiation of construction law
of high opaque walls were abstracted and parameterized within the provisions of
is much less frequent. This internal differentiation includes basic “technical” norms
the local law. The latter, despite the fact that it contains universal features for many
Land 2021, 10, 1235 16 of 23

historical towns, also has particular features that are typical for this alpine location
(e.g., fencing walls). It is, therefore, a certain synthesis of the local building tradition.
4. Political consensus: This element was specified as a separate factor in the diagram
despite its partial randomness and dependence on the cultural and legal context
described above. The urban transformation of Monte Carasso could only have hap-
pened with the full support of local authorities. The relationship between an architect
(Snozzi) and a politician (Guidotti) is often considered exemplary in this case. It
was characterized by the absolute trust in each other’s competence, which made
possible and even caused several controversial features of the process: the absence
of fair competition among local professionals, top-down approach, and scarcity of
local consultations/community engagement practices. It needs to be noted that the
political consensus factor is dynamic, i.e., it changes over time. A minimum amount
of political consensus is required to start the process, but it is being strengthened with
establishing procedures and with its first positive effects. Despite the good results,
however, the political consensus is prone to external interference and needs to be
taken care of.
5. Leader: The role of Luigi Snozzi in the described urban transformation was absolutely
central, especially in the first phase. This role consisted of conceiving the whole
mechanism as well as developing and organizing it, monitoring and assessing its
effects, as well as participating in it as a designer, tutor, and member of an expert
commission. On the other hand, the exposed position of an architect may raise some
doubts. It can even be seen as authoritarian. However, when assessing its importance,
one must take into account that we are not dealing with a typical urban policy but
with a pioneering experiment that required high discipline. Indeed the role of Luigi
Snozzi was mitigated with time, as the procedure established itself. Partly embedded
in this factor is the architect–politician relationship, which is described above. The
possibility of such a relationship, however, was the result of the unique approach and
moral attitude of Luigi Snozzi.
6. Urban code and expert commission: These are key elements and the heart of the
entire mechanism. Their main importance lies in their departure from the practice
of detailed building regulations toward a model in which general town planning
provisions are accompanied by the ad hoc opinions of experts. The relations between
objective and subjective criteria are interesting—the code includes both rules with
specific parameters (“three floors”, “two meters”, etc.) as well as expressions such
as “correct proportions” and “character of place”. Such a construction allows the
enrichment of the planning process with the concepts that are difficult to parameterize,
such as harmony or spatial order. In addition, it is somewhat reminiscent of the
historical, vernacular way of creating towns, where the regulations mainly concerned
dimensions and distances, while the typology, form, and detail resulted from tradition
(well-established collective construction knowledge).
7. Special projects: Carrying out large projects had a double role. Firstly, it allowed
the most important spatial problems of the city to be addressed in a precise and
coordinated way. With the help of the larger resources involved, the key places in
the town were developed, in both its center and outskirts. Secondly, these projects
had a symbolic meaning, i.e., they allowed for a “new opening” and gave impetus to
the planned reform. For this reason, they were crucial to the widespread acceptance
and success of the project. In addition, the positive architectural effect of the special
projects encouraged individual investors to commission their house designs to Luigi
Snozzi.
8. Sample projects: It seems that the exemplary implementation of a number of ordinary”
projects to visualize the functioning of the new urban code was equally important.
Designs of regular urban fabric have proven that it is possible to move away from the
typical suburban pattern of single-family housing and that the traditional town form
is not outdated. This example allowed the community to accept the new regulations.
Land 2021, 10, 1235 17 of 23

However, the mere commissioning of Snozzi’s projects was not obvious, and it seems
that it was only possible due to the earlier success of his architectural intervention in
the center of the town.
9. Design Seminar: The role of the seminar for the very process of Monte Carasso’s
transformation seems to be secondary. It facilitated the testing of a number of solu-
tions, but they would have probably been implemented without it. It was of greater
importance for the popularization of the Monte Carasso case outside its geographical
context.
10. A new urban fabric: The existence of a certain amount of new (based on the urban
code) urban fabric at a specific point in time was critically important. It gave confi-
dence in the new law and allowed the entire construction initiative to be shifted onto
new tracks. This created a situation in which investments based on new rules became
normal and natural in their context, as opposed to the (previously obvious) suburban
types of buildings.
11. Outcomes: Recognition and appreciation of the Monte Carasso case beyond its orig-
inal geographical context were important for its internal acceptance. Even if not
immediately understood, controversial urban processes were more easily accepted by
residents when they were awarded or presented at prestigious exhibitions.
After understanding the importance of individual elements of the system for the
success of the Monte Carasso case, we can now reflect on their potential of replicability.

5.2. Potential of Adaptation

This section describes the system’s individual elements in terms of their potential
utility beyond the original environment. It was considered how each of them could be
applied in different contexts. This comparison was discursive in nature, with questions
asked rather than ready-made answers being provided. The description indicates the
doubts and potential paths toward further exploration. It is not a detailed analysis, as this
would have to be carried out separately for each of the target contexts.
1. Geographic and cultural conditions: As stated, a similar morphological character
could be found in most small-town centers in Europe. Therefore, if historically it was
possible to produce compact urban organisms in various geographical conditions, it
should also be possible today. Some details, such as the numerical values of parame-
ters or rules regarding the opacity of walls would probably be different depending on
the climate and culture, but they would not undermine the essence of the system. The
next factor, civic culture, may be of greater importance, as it determines the way of
perceiving the top-down regulations. Depending on the tradition of a given country,
it would require adapting the methods and schedule of introducing new regulations
for each of the target contexts separately.
2. Legal conditions: Certain legal autonomy of the local administrative entity is a condi-
tion for the application in an individual planning procedure. The mere introduction
of unique urban codes for the area of a single town would have to be associated
with granting it considerable legislative independence. It seems that it would be
easier at the planning level than at the system level. This means that, under the local
law, it would be possible to override general building regulations (e.g., exemption,
derogation from the need to maintain minimum fire distances). An alternative would
be to introduce top-down special technical regulations for the entire settlement cate-
gory of small towns. Such regulations would take into account the fragmented and
compact spatial character of towns (as opposed to large cities or dispersed rural areas).
A more complex issue is the possibility of appointing and conferring competences
on an expert commission. This moves beyond the planning sphere (even broadly
understood along with technical and construction regulations) and concerns the form
of the self-government system itself. In summary, it seems that granting considerable
decision-making independence to local governments would be the optimal way.
Land 2021, 10, 1235 18 of 23

3. Existing urban fabric: Examined and analyzed and then synthesized and parameter-
ized, this should be the basis for formulating the principles of local urban law. Such a
process should begin with historical research identifying the characteristic features
and evolution of the local building culture over time. It would be a morphological
study because it concerns the built-up fabric itself, as well as invisible elements, in
particular the system of public spaces and the property structure (parcellation). Only
in relation to the latter should the three-dimensional form of the city be analyzed—
starting from typological issues, through architectural issues (forms and details), and
ending with the construction patterns (techniques and materials). Such an analysis
necessarily includes some elements of valorization, as not all urban facts are equally
relevant (in the context of establishing or revealing patterns).
An important issue is to identify the manner in which the various functional programs
of the development were manifested. In the absence of some of them in the tradition
(large-size objects), perhaps some elements of critical foresight will be needed. Within
the identified forms of development, key features should be distinguished, such
as relations with public and private space, the location of buildings on the plot,
characteristic dimensions, and a set of details. Some of these principles may be
similar within the group of small towns on a more general level, e.g., striving for
compactness and clear delimitation of public and private space, but may differ in
terms of the location of buildings, their specific features, and numerical parameters.
This all depends on the specific characteristics of the local building culture.
4. Political consensus: The introduction of innovative planning regulations that would
change the rules of local investment must be fully supported by the local authority. In
that sense, it must, in part, be a political project, requiring initial trust and possibly
an endorsement of the central government. Political consensus may be considered
as the main challenge when a non-standard regulatory solution is introduced [26].
However, with a relatively smaller “decision structure”, small towns may overcome
this problem more easily, because fewer people need to be convinced initially. When
this occurs, effects could be achieved in a perspective longer than a single term of
local government. Ensuring the continuity of the process would be the task of an
independent body, a substantive multipartisan commission that would have the
capacity to build support around the project, regardless of the ruling option. The
feasible mode of functioning of such a commission is one of the main challenges of
adapting the described system.
5. Leader/expert commission/architects: The process of spatial redevelopment of towns
needs a guide, especially in the initial phase. In the case of Monte Carasso, the
leader was, in a way, self-proclaimed, but in order to replicate such a procedure, his
systemic role should be provided. This means that he must be appointed to a specific
formal and legal position with substantial power granted. In different European
contexts, various positions are devised, such as chief urban architect, urban planner,
chairman of the town planning, and architectural commission. It depends on the
legal and political structure considered earlier. As in the Monte Carasso case, the
leader should be the head of the expert commission. In fact, his/her duties could be
distributed among members of the commission. The challenge is to find professionals
with sufficient experience, competence, and attitude to sit in the expert commission.
An issue worth discussing is the possible sharing of such a body with a group of
neighboring towns.
An important issue is the role of local architects, who are, in a way, a natural expert
base in particular areas. While in Monte Carasso the group was dominated by Snozzi
himself and his followers, in the adapted environment, the involvement of architects
could be used more fully. This applies to their direct participation in the expert
committee, but also to their wider involvement in pilot urban and architectural
projects (special projects).
Land 2021, 10, 1235 19 of 23

6. Urban code and expert commission: The two are designed to work together in order
to take full advantage of their complementary nature. It seems that in the context of
repeating this method elsewhere, it is absolutely necessary to stick to this combination
with its fragile balance. The provisions cannot be too rigid so as to not marginalize
the role of the committee and reduce it to the role of an “ornament”. They cannot be
too open either, as this would give the committee too much power and risk abuse.
Considerable caution is required when formulating specific provisions. It seems that
the Monte Carasso set of rules can serve as a starting point that could be adapted
to local conditions. However, creating a much-nuanced adaptation of these rules
could be counterproductive, because the strength of the Monte Carasso urban code
lies in its concise synthesis, which is only supplemented by the contribution of the
expert commission. The danger of unification of the built environment in many
towns as a result of applying similar provisions is a potential problem. However, it
seems that despite the significant differences in geographical and cultural contexts,
urban/architectural patterns at a basic level (such as those governed by the urban
code) are very similar across Europe. Therefore, it should not be a problem for similar
provisions to regulate many towns within one region or even a country. It is the role
of a commission to skillfully guide it toward distinguishable identities.
7. Special projects: The implementation of the new planning procedure accompanied by
significant special projects proved to be an effective method that is worth repeating.
The necessity to invest public money in this type of project is facilitated in the Euro-
pean context by the possibility of applying for targeted subsidies from the European
Union (EU). Subsidies for this type of project (particularly the renovation of public
spaces in small towns) have been (and are) awarded, as part of a Cohesion Fund [58]
or Regional Development Fund [59], particularly in the poorer regions of the EU.
Moreover, projects financed in this way were often carried out randomly, without
substantive justification [60–62], which resulted in questionable quality. Including
them in a larger, more structured, and well-thought-out procedure could be bene-
ficial. Such public realizations could become part of a larger project and could be
continued in the form of a sophisticated urban policy. It could ensure long-lasting
results. Such sustained results, which may be called revitalization, are the intended
goal of EU financial support. In the proposed scheme, the role of the leader and the
advisory committee would be to prepare this type of investment. This could be accom-
plished by consulting and selecting its location, organizing a competition, or through
a design process, until the commencement of implementation. This means that the
creation of an appropriate committee should precede any design and implementation
activities—unlike in Monte Carasso.
8. Sample projects: The existence of appropriate individual projects could be difficult, as
it would require encouraging private investors to break down established patterns
of thought and action, and experiment by themselves. The model of compact living
within the core of a historic town is now less acceptable (or even considered obsolete)
than the scattered and suburban model. Perhaps a chance for such exemplary projects
in the first phase would be municipal social housing.
9. Design Seminar: The emergence of a substantive—and at the same time open—
discussion on the town spaces provided by student workshops is important from
the point of view of the durability of the effects and appropriate social acceptance of
the policy pursued. Certain involvement of the local community in these seminars
is especially desirable. It would be helpful in reaching a democratic consensus that
could counterbalance, to a certain extent, the predominant role of a single leader
(Snozzi in the original case).
The existence of such a seminar as part of the planning environment is realistic,
although it seems that in view of the potentially wider application of the procedure
it would not be essential. The more common, repetitive nature of such a policy
would allow a more systemic (rather than individual) way of conducting such a
Land 2021, 10, 1235 20 of 23

discussion, e.g., through constant cooperation with universities, rotating architecture

festivals, and summer schools. The process of professional education is related to
another challenge of innovative planning, which is the shortage of staff [26]. Technical
offices that deal with planning are often insufficiently staffed and their responsibilities
are broad. As a result, the decisions made are schematic and conservative. At the
same time, the educational background of officials is diverse; therefore, adequately
addressing the substantive scope of their education is a challenge. In such a situation,
rather than looking for the respective study programs to be modified, the better option
would be the introduction of new planning content through post-graduate training,
for example, described seminar-type courses.
10. New urban fabric: An important condition for the success of the process is a critical
mass effect. This means a moment when new investments created under the urban
code (together with the carried-out special projects) create a compact space or at least
a fragment of it. They could be perceived as examples of a renewed, urban quality.
Only a promising initial effect would allow the operation to continue. Therefore, a
necessary condition is the pre-existence of a certain investment dynamic. Firstly, this
means that towns suitable for the introduction of the new planning policy are those
characterized by a significant construction initiative, and secondly, that there must be
certain restrictions on the expansion of the urbanized zone in order to stimulate their
internal compaction.
11. Outcomes: Cooperation between municipalities is also important, mainly as an
exchange of experiences, mutual support, and encouragement. It is also important in
the context of the stiffness of the mechanism—while introducing initially controversial
compactness, the challenge is to avoid unconvinced investors turning away to build
in neighboring towns, where such regulations would not exist.
Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
This analysis leads to subtle modification of the previous scheme (Figure 9). A21further
of 24

refinement would require the adoption of a specific local context as a reference point.

Figure 9. Proposal of adaptation Monte Carasso spatial environment’s mechanics to the general
Figure 9. Proposal of adaptation Monte Carasso spatial environment’s mechanics to the general
context of other small towns. Source: Author.
context of other small towns. Source: Author.

6. Conclusions
The success of Monte Carasso’s urban transformation can be proven through its
maintenance or recreation of typical compact small-town character (measured both in nu-
meric values and immeasurable, yet perceivable, features). In Monte Carasso, it was pos-
Land 2021, 10, 1235 21 of 23

6. Conclusions
The success of Monte Carasso’s urban transformation can be proven through its
maintenance or recreation of typical compact small-town character (measured both in
numeric values and immeasurable, yet perceivable, features). In Monte Carasso, it was
possible to face the threats typical of today’s developed world, including suburbanization
and the blurring of the identity of small towns. It is a rare example of modern single-family
housing contributing to a town’s “urbanity” through a set of rules, uncompromisingly
referring to the traditional morphology of a small town. As Roger Diener writes, “the town
evolves while maintaining its authenticity. New forms express its authenticity” [17].
Importantly, the new urban regulations (especially the urban code) were accepted
by the inhabitants and even gained their recognition. Residents appreciate the spatial
uniqueness of Monte Carasso and identify it with the intervention of Luigi Snozzi, which
was reflected in the award of honorary citizenship given to him [63].
The most distinguishing features of the Monte Carasso spatial regulatory environment
can be summarized as follows:
• Two-stage urban regulation: universal written rules and decisions of an expert com-
mission;
• Simplicity: low number of rules and clear wording;
• Regulatory humanism: precise (numerical) provisions, apart from imprecise ones
(referring to general concepts and subject to interpretation);
• Subjectivity: making the shape of the space dependent on the subjective opinions of a
group of experts;
• Form-based orientation: treating the built form (urban morphology) as the most
important planning goal that eventually determines usage and social character;
• Limited manual control: individual special design for priority locations within the
town (center and suburbs);
• Specific understanding of heritage: priority of structure (topography, urban patterns,
parceling geometry) and typo–morphology (the relationship between building and
open space) in relation to form, style, and substance;
• Opening the professional discussion on the town’s urban development to the architects
and students of architecture.
These features, as well as the whole mechanics of the system, could be adopted in
other European regions (and possibly beyond). Detailed analyses of possibilities and
limitations of its application within specific contexts should be undertaken. These would
cover their adaptation to local climatic, cultural, and legal conditions.
An analysis of the whole regulatory “ecosystem” of Monte Carasso reveals its univer-
sal potential—a possibility of being replicated in other geographical and cultural contexts.
This process would require careful adaptation of specific elements of the original case. This
paper traced a framework for such a process.
First of all, understanding and appreciating the key role of the leader, Luigi Snozzi,
necessitates realizing his uniqueness and unreplicability. Thus, the adaptation of the Monte
Carasso planning procedure to a wider application must systematically replace the person–
leader with more complex entities and their interactions. It means, in a way, “disarming”
the role of a leader and expanding their competences to a wider group of stakeholders. At
the same time, the process of adaptation would need to face and deal with some drawbacks
of the original case—namely, top-down approach, insufficient citizen participation, partial
marginalization of the architects’ community, excessive monumentality, and simplification
of urban projects.
It seems that some of these problems may be solved by the aforementioned easing of
the importance of the process leader (however, this does not diminish the importance of
Snozzi’s legacy).
In addition, strict, regulatory problems remain to be solved, such as the mentioned
difficulties in adapting the rules to a contemporary lifestyle with its characteristic artifacts
(large-area stores, cars). In this respect, a solution should be sought in the very method of
Land 2021, 10, 1235 22 of 23

creating a local urban code. This process (without losing its strength of simplicity) must be
multifaceted and inclusive, open to interdisciplinary discussion.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Knox, P.; Meyer, H. Small Town Sustainability: Economic, Social, and Environmental Innovation; Birkhauser: Basel, Switzerland, 2013.
2. Servillo, L.; Atkinson, R.; Hamdouch, A. Small and medium-sized towns in Europe: Conceptual, methodological and policy
issues. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2017, 108, 365–379. [CrossRef]
3. UN-Habitat—United Nations Human Settlements Programme. World Cities Report; United Nations Human Settlements Pro-
gramme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2020.
4. Strijker, D. Marginal lands in Europe—Causes of decline. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2005, 6, 99–106. [CrossRef]
5. Bănică, A.; Istrate, M.; Tudora, D. (N)ever Becoming Urban? The Crisis of Romania’s Small Towns. In Peripheralization; Fischer-
Tahir, A., Naumann, M., Eds.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013. [CrossRef]
6. Bartosiewicz, B.; Kwiatek-Sołtys, A.; Kurek, S. Does the process of shrinking concern also small towns? Lessons from Poland.
Quaest. Geogr. 2019, 38, 91–105. Available online: https://doi-1org-1000098l80ac7.eczyt.bg.pw.edu.pl/10.2478/quageo-2019-0039
(accessed on 7 May 2021).
7. Fonseca, M.L. New waves of immigration to small towns and rural areas in Portugal. Popul. Space Place 2008, 14, 525–535.
[CrossRef]
8. Lazzeroni, M. Industrial decline and resilience in small towns: Evidence from three European case studies. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc.
Geogr. 2020, 111, 182–195. [CrossRef]
9. Pirisi, G.; Trócsányi, A. Shrinking small towns in hungary: The factors behind the urban decline in” small scale”. Acta Geogr. Univ.
Comen. 2014, 58, 131–147.
10. Wirth, P.; Elis, V.; Müller, B.; Yamamoto, K. Peripheralisation of small towns in Germany and Japan–Dealing with economic
decline and population loss. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 62–75. [CrossRef]
11. Powe, N.; Hart, T. Planning for Small Town Change; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017.
12. Gerber, J.-D. The managerial turn and municipal land-use planning in Switzerland—Evidence from practice, Plan. Theory Pract.
2016, 17, 192–209. [CrossRef]
13. Bell, D.; Jayne, M. Small cities? Towards a research agenda. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2009, 33, 683–699.
14. Mayer, H.; Knox, P. Small-town sustainability: Prospects in the second modernity. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2010, 18, 1545–1565. [CrossRef]
15. Steinführer, A.; Vaishar, A.; Zapletalová, J. The Small Town in Rural Areas as an Underresearched Type of Settlement. Editors’
introduction to the Special Issue. Eur. Countrys. 2016, 8, 322. [CrossRef]
16. Meili, R.; Mayer, H. Small and medium-sized towns in Switzerland: Economic heterogeneity, socioeconomic performance and
linkages. Erdkunde 2017, 71, 313–332. [CrossRef]
17. Disch, P. Luigi Snozzi: Costuzioni e Progetti; ADV Publishing: Lugano, Switzerland, 1994.
18. Snozzi, L. Monte Carasso: La Reinvenzione del Sito; Birkhauser: Basel, Switzerland, 1995.
19. Bologna, A. Luigi Snozzi e l’utopia realizzata a Monte Carasso (Canton Ticino): IL villaggio rurale divenuto centro: 1979–2009.
Storia Urbana 2014, 95–112. [CrossRef]
20. Lazzati, G.; Lo Conte, A. Luigi Snozzi a Monte Carasso; Maggioli Editore: Milano, Italy, 2014.
21. Pedrycz, P. The role and responsibility of an architect in small town. In Education for Research—Research for Creativity; Słyk, J.,
Bezerra, L., Eds.; Wydział Architektury Politechniki Warszawskiej: Warszawa, Poland, 2016; pp. 266–272.
22. Batty, M. Big data, smart cities and city planning. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2013, 3, 274–279. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Kropf, K. Urban tissue and the character of towns. Urban Des. Int. 1996, 1, 247–263. [CrossRef]
24. Tröger, E.; Eberle, D. Density & Atmosphere; Birkhäuser: Berlin, Germany; München, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 2014. [CrossRef]
25. Samuels, I. A typomorphological approach to design: The plan for St Gervais. Urban Des. Int. 1999, 4, 129–141. [CrossRef]
26. Samuels, I.; Pattacini, L. From description to prescription: Reflections on the use of a morphological approach in design guidance.
Urban Des. Int. 1997, 2, 81–91. [CrossRef]
27. Oliveira, V.; Silva, M.; Samuels, I. Urban morphological research and planning practice: A Portuguese assessment. Urban Morphol.
2014, 18, 23–39.
28. Ye, L. Chinese Urban Design: The Typomorphological Approach. Urban Policy Res. 2015, 33, 127–130. [CrossRef]
29. Ünlü, T. Planning Practice and the Shaping of the Urban Pattern. In Teaching Urban Morphology; Oliveira, V., Ed.; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2018; pp. 31–49. [CrossRef]
30. Xie, S. Learning from Italian Typology- and Morphology-Led Planning Techniques: A Planning Framework for Yingping, Xiamen.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1842. [CrossRef]
31. Talen, E. Design by the rules: The historical underpinnings of form-based codes. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2009, 75, 144–160. [CrossRef]
Land 2021, 10, 1235 23 of 23

32. Oliveira, V. The Study of Urban Form: Different Approaches. In Urban Morphology; The Urban Book Series; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2016. [CrossRef]
33. Friedman, A. Planning Small and Mid-Sized Towns: Designing and Retrofitting for Sustainability; Routledge: New York, NY, USA,
2014.
34. Open Street Map. Available online: https://www.openstreetmap.org (accessed on 14 October 2021).
35. QGIS Software. Available online: https://qgis.org (accessed on 14 October 2021).
36. QuickOSM. Available online: https://docs.3liz.org/QuickOSM/ (accessed on 14 October 2021).
37. ORS Tools Plugin. Available online: https://github.com/GIScience/orstools-qgis-plugin/wiki/ (accessed on 14 October 2021).
38. Eurostat. Statistics Explained: Urban-Rural Typology. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php?title=Glossary:Urban-rural_typology) (accessed on 7 May 2021).
39. Wirth, L. Urbanism as a Way of Life. Am. J. Sociol. 1938, 44, 1–24. [CrossRef]
40. Doxiadis, C.A. Ekistics: An Introduction to the Science of Human Settlements; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968.
41. Croset, P.A. Luigi Snozzi and Monte Carasso: A long running experiment. Luigi Snozzi, sul progetto di Monte Carasso. Casabella
1984, 506, 122–124.
42. Snozzi, L. Auf den Spuren des Ortes; Museum für Gestaltung: Zuerich, Switzerland, 1996.
43. Schwick, C.; Jaeger, J.A.G.; Bertiller, R. Urban Sprawl in Switzerland—Unstoppable? Quantitative Analysis 1935 to 2002 and Implications
for Regional Planning; Haupt: Bern, Switzerland, 2012.
44. TUM, Gruppo di lavoro VAI. Modelli di Insediamento Alpino. Progetti Urbanistici Modello|Qualità Esemplari Specifiche; Comunita di
Lavore delle Regioni Alpine: Bolzano, Italy, 2007.
45. Klaus, J. Do municipal autonomy and institutional fragmentation stand in the way of antisprawl policies? A qualitative
comparative analysis of Swiss cantons. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2020, 47, 1622–1638. [CrossRef]
46. Diener, R. “ . . . al di là dell’orizzonte c’è la città”—Omaggio a Luigi Snozzi; Lecture. Available online: https://vimeo.com/5195
63182 (accessed on 7 May 2021).
47. Larsson, G. Spatial Planning Systems in Western Europe: An Overview; IOS Press: Delft, The Netherlands, 2006.
48. Swiss Confederation. Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation, of 18 April 1999 (Status as of 7 March 2021). Available
online: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#art_75 (accessed on 2 November 2021).
49. Swiss Confederation. Federal Act on Spatial Planning (Spatial Planning Act, SPA), of 22 June 1979 (Status as of 1 January 2019).
Available online: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1979/1573_1573_1573/en (accessed on 2 November 2021).
50. IL Gran Consiglio della Repubblica e Cantone Ticino. Legge Cantonale di Applicazione della Legge Federale sulla Pianificazione
del Territorio (del 23 Maggio 1990). Available online: https://www.lexfind.ch/tolv/120246/it (accessed on 2 November 2021).
51. Muggli, R. Spatial Planningi Switzerland: A Short Introduction; Swiss Planing Association VLP-ASPAN: Bern, Switzerland, 2004.
52. Mahaim, R. Le Principe de Durabilite’ et L’ame’Nagement du Territoire. Le Mitage du Territoire àL’épreuve du Droit; Schulthess: Geneve,
Switzerland, 2014.
53. Comune di Monte Carasso. Norme di Attuazione del Piano Regolatore del Comune di Monte Carasso; REGNAPR. 1992. Available
online: https://www.bellinzona.ch/downdoc.php?id_doc=50491&lng=1&i=1&rif=0f0fe771bb (accessed on 14 October 2021).
54. El-Geneidy, A.; Grimsrud, M.; Wasfi, R.; Tétreault, P.; Surprenant-Legault, J. New evidence on walking distances to transit stops:
Identifying redundancies and gaps using variable service areas. Transportation 2014, 41, 193–210. [CrossRef]
55. Mehaffy, M.W.; Porta, S.; Romice, O. The “neighborhood unit” on trial: A case study in the impacts of urban morphology. J.
Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2015, 8, 199–217. [CrossRef]
56. Snozzi, L.; Merlini, F. L’architettura Inefficiente; Edizioni Sottoscala: Bellinzona, Switzerland, 2014.
57. European Commision. Cohesion Fund 2014–2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/
cohesion-fund/2014-2020 (accessed on 14 October 2021).
58. European Commision. European Regional Development Fund 2014–2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_
policy/en/funding/erdf/2014-2020 (accessed on 14 October 2021).
59. Bradley, J. Evaluating the impact of European Union Cohesion policy in less-developed countries and regions. Reg. Stud. 2006, 40,
189–200. [CrossRef]
60. Komornicki, T.; Szejgiec-Kolenda, B.; Degórska, B.; Goch, K.; Śleszyński, P.; Bednarek-Szczepańska, M.; Siłka, P. Spatial planning
determinants of cohesion policy implementation in Polish regions. Eur. XXI 2018, 35, 69–87. [CrossRef]
61. Medeiros, E. Assessing Territorial Impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy: The Portuguese Case. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 22, 1960–1988.
[CrossRef]
62. Carasc. Luigi Snozzi Cittadinanza Onoraria. Available online: https://www.carasc.ch/Luigi-Snozzi-cittadinanza-onoraria-2e233
c00 (accessed on 7 May 2021).
63. Cullen, G. Concise Townscape; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2012.