Giovanni Michelucci (1891–1990), considered to be one of the leading figures in the history of twentieth-century Italian architecture, is renowned nationally and internationally especially for having designed the Santa Maria NovellaC railway station in Florence (1932-1935) and the church of San Giovanni Battista known as Chiesa dell’ Autostrada (1960-1964)D in Campo Bisenzio. But across his lengthy lifetime and professional career, the Tuscan maestro, who was born in Pistoia in the last decade of the nineteenth century and died in Fiesole the day before his one-hundredth birthday, took on many other challenging commissions, experimenting with exemplary architectural solutions, each of them adapted to their context and to the demands of the client.

Michelucci’s prolific production of architectural works included some projects that were studied at length but remained on paper, while many others were successfully brought to completion. One of the latter is undoubtedly the Borsa Merci, the Stock Exchange building in Pistoia, a work that is significant for the architectural language it adopted and for its effective integration into the historical context of the city. Furthermore, the peculiarity underscored by the history of this lost architecture lies mainly in the singular fate that determined its short-lived existence, which came to an end only ten years after its construction, despite its acknowledged value. In synthesis, the Borsa Merci was commissioned in 1948, completed in 1950 and demolished in 1961, but its initial premises, the design approach that determined its spatial configuration and the subsequent proposals for expansion that would finally lead to the decision to replace it with a new building, were by no means inevitable steps. 

Cutting down a sad-looking palm tree

The story of the Borsa Merci began in the late 1940s, when Michelucci, who had by now moved to Florence after living in Rome for a decade, was given the opportunity to design for the historic city centre of Pistoia, his native city. In the early months of 1948, the Cassa di Risparmio di Pistoia e Pescia, as part of a wider plan to reorganise and renovate its real estate holdings in the city centre, commissioned the architect to design a Stock Exchange, a building specifically destined for commercial transactions.

The site designated for its construction, carved out of the ancient urban fabric which had been partially cleared in the 1930s, is located behind the institutional headquarters of the Cassa di Risparmio near the monumental neo-Renaissance building designed and built between 1898 and 1905 by the architect and set designer Tito Azzolini. At the time of the commission, the chosen site was occupied by a barren green area which, in his considerations about the premises that inspired his design, Michelucci remembers as an unfrequented corner of the city that he had always wanted to transform to make it liveable.

“IA remember a median strip with a palm tree in the place where this Borsa Merci later arose. It was one of those desolate ‘Sunday’ median strips, with a sad-looking palm treeA in the middle. (…) When I learned that I would have to build over that median strip, the thought of cutting down that palm tree excited me. I was mainly concerned with bringing that part of the city back to a life that it had obstinately refused until then”.1

As may be inferred from his words, Michelucci’s intent was to approach the design theme with the primary goal of revitalising a neglected part of the city. To achieve this aim, the architect adopted an open approach from an urbanistic point of view, which sought to recreate a friendly and welcoming place that would draw people in.

It is also interesting to note that the work was conceived in the years following World War II, when the architect from Pistoia had just left his position as professor of Composition at the Architecture School in Florence to teach at the Engineering Department in Bologna. It is no coincidence that the design solution adopted in this project, which Michelucci designed jointly with the engineer Alessandro Giuntoli, reflects his renewed interest in the aesthetic value of structure. In the Borsa Merci, the schematic elementary load-bearing structure consisting of seven reinforced concrete portals, emerges from the enclosure of walls, lending dynamism and lightness to the overall design.

The interior hall is a single-volume space of about three hundred square meters, surrounded by the horizontal line of the cantilevered walkways embedded midway up along the walls. The space appears shaped by the tapered profiles of the frames and brackets that support the continuous balcony of the walkways leading to ten cabins reserved for meetings and for the private negotiations of individual companies. The symmetrical regularity of the space is enlivened by the independent structure of the double-flight staircase, positioned off-centre, that leads up to the level of the walkways. A second staircase leads down to the basement floor, which houses the service spaces.

The clarity of the floor plan may be read on the exterior as well, where the sequence of openings along the side elevation is accentuated by the exposed structural frames and enclosed at both ends by a solid wall built of coursed rubble pietra albarese limestone. The strict modularity of this façade, facing the narrow Via dell’Acqua, makes it the most distinctive and defining element of the building. Each bay, defined by the space contained between two consecutive frames, is almost entirely glazed, except for the architraves and parapets, and is articulated vertically by variations that reveal the three floors inside: the lower glass strip rests over the tall parapet of the ground floor; translucent Thermolux glass screens the openings of the reserved mid-level offices; the third glazed section, inclined inward from the vertical plane of the frames, channels light down into the double-height space inside.

The structure of the composition on the main façade overlooking Via San Matteo is explicit in the symmetry dictated by the alternation of solids and voids. The glazed surfaces concentrated in the central section are framed at each end by the thickness of the stone edges of the wide lateral pillars. The two slightly recessed entrances, in addition to creating a covered outdoor waiting area, also highlight the box-shaped central display window, designed specifically to maintain an uninterrupted visual relationship between the inside and the outside. It is dominated by the elegant and essential letters of the sign above it, which in the nighttime photographs of the time lend the architecture a suggestive scenic quality. At the top, the large overhanging eave of the gable roof completes the composition of the elevation and protects the slightly recessed terrace, which like a thin shadow line, outlines the elevation horizontally under the eaves line. The stone cladding in blocks of pietra albarese softens the contrast with the parts in exposed concrete, while simultaneously establishing an expressive and material connection to the rough-hewn surfaces of the historic buildings surrounding it.

This work proved to be a significant experience for Michelucci, an episode that would mark the start of a new creative period in which the clear intent of creating a continuity between inside and outside becomes evident; conceived as a part of the city, it mitigates the difference in scale between architectural design and city planning.

A critique of excessive modernism

The Borsa Merci has been acclaimed by critics precisely because it was considered to be an example of proper adaptation to the context, aligned with the figurative values of the site but without emulating its language. It fits in naturally with the urban fabric of the medieval city and harmoniously with the dominating proportions of the Neo-Renaissance building and the small Church of San Leone located across Via dell’Acqua. It even establishes a sort of affinity with the latter, based on their common size, volume and orientation.

Despite the many acknowledgments it received, as soon as construction was completed on the work, the building caused something of an uproar in public opinion and was criticised for being excessively modern. The innovative use of glass, the transparency of which made the almost entirely perforated building appear audacious and project the enclosed interior space toward the outside, was not well understood by the inhabitants of Pistoia. In some local newspapers, the detractors condemned the building as offensive to architecture and to the city and called it “la gabbia dei grilli” (the cage for crickets),2 borrowing the cultured example of the epithet coined by Michelangelo to belittle the latticework walkway wedged by Baccio d’Agnolo above the drum of the Dome of Santa Maria del Fiore.

However, fifteen years after construction was completed, the Borsa Merci turned out to be unsuited for the new needs and inadequate in terms of size. The need for additional space initially forced the owners to consider an addition to the building, and in 1957 Michelucci began to study a series of design solutions to add one more storey and new volumes to it. But the existing building was structurally incompatible with the solutions he proposed, and they were discarded. In 1961, the decision was made to demolish it and to build a new and more appropriate structure in its place. The extreme solution to tear down the building, rather unconventional for a building that was only fifteen years old, was fully approved by the architect himself, who believed that not only did it solve the problem, but that this was the only feasible solution.

“The validity of some of my constructions lies for me in the fact of satisfying the citizen’s hope that his wishes have been considered. This is what interests me most; what my greatest commitment as a builder aims for. It is of relative importance to me now whether a building is beautiful or not. What’s important is that it attracts life, that it enlivens the city. And only if it remains vibrant over time can it justify being preserved: otherwise, it should be demolished. I am faithful to this principle and have been consistent given that I preferred the Borsa Merci in Pistoia to be demolished rather than see it decline in its functions because it no longer fulfilled the changed requirements of the city. I therefore shed no tears when it was torn down, because from the moment that I saw it was neglected and insufficient, I decreed its death in my own mind.”3

With these simple but exhaustive considerations, in an interview published in 1976, Michelucci clearly explained the conviction and serene state of mind with which he greeted the demolition of the Borsa Merci and the consequent design of the new bank building that would replace it.

A new relationship with the city

So, after discarding the idea of expanding the Borsa Merci, in 1959 Michelucci began to study a building to be built anew, that could serve as the bank headquarters for the Cassa di Risparmio di Pistoia e Pescia (1957-1965). The studies for the project developed in the early months of 1960, which delineate an original new organism, draw indirectly and from a critical perspective from another successful commission for a bank designed by Michelucci during those years, the prestigious central headquarters of the Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze (1953-1947)E in Via Bufalini in Florence.

The detailed design project for the second building in Pistoia, which was definitive by April of 1961, would later be subject to variations and changes during the construction phase. After solving critical issues that came up during construction, caused in part by the complexity of installing the metal frames, the building would not be completed until five years later. The new larger building not only incorporated the space previously occupied by the Borsa Merci, it also extended further to the rear of the site, occupying areas reclaimed from the demolition of residual constructions; it also gained more space on the side by being built right up against the neo-fifteenth century building, which was the historic headquarters of the Cassa di Risparmio. Where the two buildings met, the architect inserted a glazed space,B a sort of gallery that housed a secondary entrance, while the main entrance remained on the façade facing Via San Matteo.

The new bank headquarters, which roughly occupied the same volume and exhibited the same rectangular floor plan as the Borsa Merci, displayed a different formal characterisation on the outside that modified its relationship with the urban space.

Compared to the earlier building, which was distinguished by the transparency between the inside and the outside, at first glance this architectural work appears more hermetic and impenetrable. The composition of the elevations and the material particularity of the rusticated blocks of the San Giuliano stone cladding, extracted from the quarries of the nearby province of Pisa, make the volume look more compact and reserved.

A more careful reading reveals the sophisticated design of the façade layout, which establishes a harmonious rhythm: the stone surface features an alternation of deep-set cuts for the window openings, plastered bands, exposed concrete beams and metal frames. The continuity of the wall on the articulated main façade ends at the top at the roof plane, which is cantilevered over the deeply recessed top floor.

The interior space also mirrors the layout of the earlier building and is configured as a spacious hall, cut across lengthwise by the extended counter of teller windows that separates the public area from the employee area. A walkway spans the double-height interior space, supported by robust concrete beams resting on four pairs of massive pilasters projecting from the perimeter walls. The bank teller hall seems to evoke the setting of a scenographic gallery enlivened overhead by aerial walkways and the elegant double-flight staircase clad in red marble located at one end of the hall. The architect also designed the wood furniture, though the current interiors are the result of a subsequent renovation.

This singular and intricate story, which led to the construction of two highly regarded works of architecture built within a short span of time on the same site, undoubtedly arose from the concurrence of several favourable factors, including a strong rapport with the client and the endorsement of both public opinion and industry critics.

Principle of variability

But in the first instance, the dual metamorphosis of this urban space tangibly embodies the principle of variability, clearly articulated by Michelucci, with which he refers to the idea of a new city conceived as a mutable organism responsive to the genuine needs of the community. A city to be understood as new in terms of its spatial structure and social fabric. In this vision of the city, in which change is not just an inevitable phase but above all a welcomed improvement, Michelucci’s architectural stance may be clearly recognised. It may be worth noting, in fact, that between the first building – unanimously acclaimed by critics for its formal autonomy and clarity in distribution – and the realisation of the second design solution, the architect developed that pragmatic approach that sought the deepest meaning of city life in the renewal of every space and every building. Through his professional experiences during this time, he consolidated within him the idea that architecture should consider the surrounding urban fabric not as a passive recipient on which to project an aesthetic message, but an active counterpart with which to engage in a meaningful exchange of relations.

Michelucci’s primary objective in designing a building lay in his pursuit to make the built space liveable, conceived in continuity with the city and without distinction between the architectural and the urban space. Michelucci conceived his buildings as fragments of a city in which the total possibility of circulation was the fundamental component not only of the layout and distribution of the interior spaces but also of its external orientation, ensuring the connection with the surrounding environmental context. The depth of this approach reveals the nature of Michelucci’s architecture, regardless of its typology or function: whether it be house, church, hospital, school, office building or bank, the aim of the design is the material and spiritual wellbeing of those who use these places, and by extension, of all the inhabitants of the city. When he speaks of spaces of wellbeing, he clearly refers to the imperative to design in harmony with human nature.

Ethics and design

Michelucci holds the relationship between ethics and design in high consideration and attributes an exacting role of social responsibility to the profession of architect. Michelucci considers a work to be valid only when it is conceived and built with the participation of a community. He firmly believes in the importance of cooperation and active listening, in every phase of the design and construction process, with collaborators, with the workers and the people who will live and work in the built space. After navigating the process of ideation, which is often tormented with changes of heart, Michelucci regularly visited the construction site every day to monitor the genesis of his architectural works. During construction, he would establish a dialogue with the craftsmen, acknowledging the knowledge and experience of each artisan and praising their contribution.

He firmly believed in the importance of participation and shied away with humility and modesty from a role in which he felt uncomfortable, that of absolute protagonist of his architecture. Free from any professional ambition, he felt no need to assert authorship over his work and expressed complete indifference toward any criticism suggesting that his work lacked a distinct and identifiable stylistic signature. It is undeniable that his prolific and long-lasting architectural production eludes any attempt at classification and rejects labels that might be directly linked to any trend, current or movement.

His research, which was never linear and at first glance might appear discontinuous – driven as it is by the tenacious desire to provide fresh solutions for every project without ever resting on past achievements – reveals, as mentioned earlier, a constant and invariable theme in the concept of space-circulation, of urban passage, of the covered gallery as an integral element of the city and a hub of attraction for community life. In many of his works, as in the case of the two bank buildings analysed here, the introduction of walkways makes the space fluid and totally open to circulation. The interior space is composed along lines of convergence that play a specific role in facilitating the relationships indispensable to the spontaneous fulfilment of functions. Michelucci envisions the circulation route not as just a means of distribution, but as an element that informs the sequence of interior spaces, connecting them within a complex organism that is one with the city.

Furthermore, in his work on both projects in Pistoia, he never demonstrated any concern or uncertainty in proposing solutions that were innovative even when they might stand in contrast to the given historical context. An example to remember – because it is emblematic of this modus operandi but unfortunately was never built, causing the architect a great deal of bitterness and disappointment – is the reconstruction of the historic city centre of Florence after World War II.F In that case, Michelucci distanced himself from the widespread and prevailing conception of the need for mimetic interventions, sustained by the principle of rebuilding Florence “dov’era e com’era” (where it was and how it was). To defend his stance, he developed bold and innovative projects that went in the opposite direction. In the dramatic vision of the ruins, he perceived an opportunity to regenerate the medieval urban fabric by introducing a new architectural matrix that would infuse light and spaciousness, featuring modern stepped buildings, walkways and streets developed on different levels. His futuristic studies for the reconstruction of the area around Ponte Vecchio are a manifesto for Michelucci’s idea of a new city, one that could vary and adapt to change, such as the transformation occurring in that specific phase of forced transition that the city of Florence was destined to undergo at that time.