Architectural restoration is not a 'rewriting' but a critical act, argues Riccardo Dalla Negra

Riccardo Dalla Negra critiques Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi's view of architectural restoration as 'overwriting' and akin to functional adaptation. Dalla Negra asserts restoration is not an interpretive act but a translation of conservative principles balancing material and formal authenticity, as per the Venice Charter (1964). He rejects the equation of restoration with maintenance, and criticizes two scenarios: 'presepe' (imaginary historical reconstruction, e.g., Brunello Cucinelli's post-earthquake rebuilds) and 'Indiana Jones syndrome' (fantastical interpretation, e.g., Rem Koolhaas at Fondazione Prada Milan, David Chipperfield at Procuratie Vecchie Venice). Dalla Negra notes that Prestinenza Puglisi favors transformation over static image, even justifying Santiago Calatrava's intervention at San Gennaro in Capodimonte. The alternative model cited—Carlo Scarpa, Franco Albini, BBPR, Ignazio Gardella, Franco Minissi, Andrea Bruno, Guido Canali—is problematic as their 1950s-60s interventions (Castelvecchio Verona, Palazzo Rosso Genoa, Castello Sforzesco Milan, Uffizi Florence) were heavy architectural overwritings. Dalla Negra distinguishes restoration from renovation and adaptive reuse, arguing that restoration stops at evaluating use vocations based on pre-existing potential, not political will, and does not extend to installations. He debunks the myth of reversibility, noting that technical loads always leave deep incisions. The article appears on Artribune.