1950s housing in Milan: Façade design and building culture

History of Construction Cultures – Mascarenhas-Mateus & Paula Pires (eds) © 2021 Copyright the Author(s), ISBN 978-1-032-00202-6. Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license 1950s housing in Milan: Façade design and building culture R. Lucente & L. Greco Universitá della Calabria, Rende, Italy ABSTRACT: During the 1950s, the private residential sector breathed life into Milanese everyday building practice thanks to architects who were the exponents of a cultured professionalism that has rarely been examined in the most well-established historiography traditions. We consider this production to be the avant-garde of an everyday Milanese modern construction laboratory. Taking into account the evolved Milanese cultural context in which there was effective collaboration between designers, builders and producers, this paper gives a summary analysis of 15 buildings (almost all for mixed use) built between the end of the 1940s and the 1950s which are representative of recurring approaches to façade design. The analysis is conducted on the basis of some key construction elements of the façade project (claddings, windows, prefabricated panels), considered for their technological and figurative value, with reference to the historical technical literature (reviews such as L’Architettura,Vitrum, Alluminio, Cantieri, Domus, Casabella and manuals) and more recent studies on Milanese residential architecture of the 1950s. 1 INTRODUCTION After the World War II, the vanguard of the debate on programmes and construction techniques for the national recovery developed in Milan involved designers, builders, manufacturers, and both public and private clients. In the housing sector, at least three factors characterized the Milanese real estate market. First, the birth of economic residential building districts in peripheral areas to accommodate migratory flows from southern Italy. Second, the development of mixed buildings (residence, offices, and small commercial spaces) and, lastly, the demand for luxury apartments in central areas of the city. The private residential sector breathed life into everyday building practice and, gradually, houses designed by architects such as Mario Asnago & Claudio Vender, Vito & Gustavo Latis, began to appear. These architects were exponents of a cultured professionalism rarely examined in the most consolidated historiography, although their work has recently been revaluated (Bettini 2016; Capitanucci 2007; Gramigna & Mazza 2001; Gurrieri 2008; Pierini & Isastia 2017). With the term cultured professionalism, we refer to the work of little known Milanese architects who applied a balanced synthesis between building practice and attention to domestic and international cultural theoretical debate, whose themes they came into contact with in their everyday practice. We consider the production of this cultured professionalism to be the avant-garde of an everyday Milanese modern construction laboratory, where architectural and building research developed a system of realization that became widespread in the city (and not limited to landmarks) and whose effects were more evident than in the rest of Italy. DOI 10.1201/9781003173359-13 This paper considers the evolved Milanese cultural context in which there was effective collaboration among designers, builders and. Starting from this premise, it gives a summary analysis of 15 buildings (almost all for mixed use) built between the end of the 1940s and the 1950s and representative of recurring approaches to façade design. These design techniques concerned the buildings in the following locations: via Broletto by Luigi Figini & Gino Pollini (1949); Condominio XXI Aprile (1951–53) via Velasca (1950), piazza della Repubblica (1954–55) and Corso Sempione (1961) by Asnago & Vender; the apartment blocks on via De Amicis by Vito and Gustavo Latis; via Lanzone (1951–52); and viale Montesanto by Vito Latis (1951–52); via Solferino (1950–51) by Gigi Ghò; via Marchiondi by Anna Castelli Ferrieri, Ignazio Gardella and Roberto Menghi (1951); via Calvi (1950–51) by Gianemilio, Piero and Anna Monti; viale Gorizia (1950–51) by Marco Zanuso; via Fatebenefratelli (1952) by Giulio Minoletti; and via Quadronno (1956–62) and San Siro by Angelo Mangiarotti (1956–59). All the buildings were of different heights ranging from six to ten floors (with the ground floor intended for shops and, in many cases, the first two-three floors destined for offices), with reinforced concrete structures cast on site, external brick walls (sometimes with thermal insulation), and different types of claddings and façade finishes. Analysis of the construction features confirms attention to the design of the façade, as indicated in recent studies conducted on Milanese modern architecture as proof of a domestic space project approach extended to the public dimension of the street and then to urban space design (Pierini & Isastia 2017). 93 The analysis in this paper looks at some key construction elements of the façade design (claddings, windows, prefabricated panels), chosen for their technological and figurative value. The sources used so far have concerned historical technical literature (reviews such as L’Architettura, Vitrum, Alluminio, Cantieri, Domus, Casabella, books and manuals) and more recent studies on Milanese residential architecture of the 1950s. handbooks that had existed in the Lombard city since the 1930s (Griffini 1932; Pagano et al. 1934). After the war, historical reviews such as Casabella and Domus restarted, while others such as Cantieri and Vitrum, were founded with the aim of disseminating technical knowledge on glass manufacturing processes, and on the use of prefabricated products. Alluminio, the review founded in 1932 by the Istituto Sperimentale dei Metalli Leggeri, reopened to spread knowledge on the use of light alloys, manufacturing techniques, anodizing processes of the profiles, requirements of plastic seals and on the types of windows.Vitrum: lastre di vetro e cristallo, was the review published as of 1949 by the Centro Informazioni e Studi per le applicazioni del vetro nell’edilizia e nell’arredamento. The review presented the use of glass products in building construction, industrial design and applied arts with an approach that favoured the aesthetical value of creations and of the material and products in the various fields of arts and industrial production. This cultural milieu took advantage of the activity of the Milan Trade Fair, which restarted in 1947 with the reconstruction of the pavilions destroyed by the war, offering designers, builders and companies the opportunity to promote and learn about new materials, products and techniques (Greco 2012). The Milanese designers profited from production companies that had their headquarters in Lombardy. For example, the major producers of metal frames and curtain walls were involved in the evolution of the design and construction process, as shown by the cases of Greppi, Alsco Malugani, Bombelli and FEAL (Fonderie elettriche alluminio e leghe). In fact, their design departments collaborated with architects in the preliminary stages for the main works. Companies such as Fratelli Feltrinelli, Colombo and Clerici, Conti Giovanni, who had specialized in the production of sash windows in the inter-war years (considered an emblem of rationality and modernity) confirmed Lombardy’s leadership in the production of wooden doors and windows. In the field of claddings, it is worth mentioning the Industria Ceramica Piccinelli of Bergamo, which started the production and marketing of clinker in Italy in the 1930s under the name of Litoceramica; it was subsequently joined by the Litoclinker and Italklinker brands, which were advertised on reviews and at main exhibitions. It is also worth mentioning the Società Ceramica Ferrari of Cremona and the Ceramica Joo of Milan, which in the 1950s produced tiles designed by Gio Ponti. 2 ARCHITECTS, BUILDERS, MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNICAL REVIEWS: THE ACTORS IN THE MILANESE EVERYDAY LABORATORY As indicated by various research studies, Milan represented a unique case in the Italian construction landscape of the 1950s due to a healthy collaboration among the different actors in the design and construction process (Irace 1996; Poretti 1997). In the city, as in the 1930s, cultural, economic and production conditions promoted a progressive transfer of technological advances from landmark works to the everyday building laboratory. This spirit established Milanese technological leadership comparable to Rome and other industrial areas of Northern Italy, such as Turin. Well-known architects and younger architects who emerged in the 1930s breathed life into the lively Milanese laboratory, sharing a cultural background similar to that found in other European contexts. These designers had a good knowledge of both materials and their characteristics, a typical feature of a polytechnic education. Almost all of them were members of the Movement of Studies for Architecture (MSA) founded in Milan in 1945 with the aim of connecting the modern cultural experience of the 1930s with post-World War II reconstruction (Dulio & Rossari 2009). They worked in small offices and were architects who were “aware of construction”, more “builders than designers” (Gorio 1957). Despite the influence of real estate speculation, they could count on the collaboration of a network of traditional builders, with polyvalent and polytechnic labour, which allowed control of all construction processes, almost entirely based on work on site. Architects and builders were faced with the residential and service demand in areas of the historic centre and in the 19th-century fabric of the city, driven by the expanding industrial bourgeoisie seeking to legitimize its socio-economic role through an urban scenography renovated in both materials and aesthetical features. The approach of the Milanese context was favoured by the combined activity of research institutes on innovative materials and technical reviews. These promoted information and updating for designers and builders through the publication of repertoires and technical notes, as well as reviews of Italian and foreign projects. This apparatus of scientific dissemination in the technological and manufacturing sector forged the unique nature of Milan in the Italian context and confirmed the tradition in the field of technical 3 FAÇADE DESIGN AND BUILDING CULTURE As observed in some of the most recent studies on residential Milanese architecture of the 1950s (Bettini 2016; Gurrieri 2008; Pierini & Isastia 2017), the fil rouge that united the houses of Figini & Pollini, Latis, Minoletti and Asnago & Vender was the care taken 94 over façades, defined through design and functional schemes distilled by architects according to common canons. The architects sometimes worked with the façade as a neutral field in which choices of standardization of the windows was applied. In other cases, they favoured a calligraphic approach, based on the aesthetical and construction relationship between the structural frame and the infill walls. Finally, they considered the façade as a continuous facing to be organized with openings placed according to expert construction and figurative devices. The relationship between the window opening and the frame was different: sometimes the frame was advanced into the window opening, elsewhere it was set back. In other cases, screens and balustrades were integrated into the window design. Finally, in some buildings, the insertion of “exceptional episodes”, such as bow-windows or loggias, helped the architects to give depth to the façade and create light and shadow (Bugatti & Crespi 1997, Buratti 1990). The relationship between the structural frame and the infill walls was a key element of the Italian experience of those years, but it was developed differently in the two cultural poles of the country (Rome and Milan). Roman construction realism, expressed by Mario Ridolfi in the towers ofViale Etiopia (1950–54), was flanked by the more sober tones of the Milanese façades. In this second experience the more essential style and the sometimes-abstract intonation of the aesthetical layout, pursued through the treatment of windows and claddings, testified the greatest influence of the building industry (Poretti 1997). In the houses of Vito and Gustavo Latis, the structural frame often guided the design of the geometric grid in which the loggias (as in the house on via De Amicis) were inserted, elsewhere it was concealed with the use of balconies and metal grids which were placed further forward than the walls, as in the houses on via Lanzone and on via Monte Santo by Vito Latis (Figure 1). The most abstract and geometric tones were in the houses of Asnago & Vender. A unique experience, linked to industrial design rather than to building prefabrication, concerned the work of Angelo Mangiarotti, demonstrated by the houses on via Quadronno and in San Siro, presented with interest in L’Architettura and Domus. Even in this case the Milanese cultural milieu, enriched in the mid1950s by the Stile Industria review directed by Alberto Rosselli and by the Association for Industrial Design (ADI) influenced by the Ulm school, affected Mangiarotti’s approach to the curtain wall design, considered by the Italian architect as an industrial design object. In addition to the essential technical information on Vitrum, L’Architettura and Domus, the construction characteristics of these buildings were presented on the Antologia di edifici moderni in Milano by Piero Bottoni (1954) and in Nuove architetture a Milano by Roberto Aloi (1959), which specified techniques, materials, and products, indicating a construction awareness typical of this generation of architects. Figure 1. Building in via Monte Santo by Vito Latis, 1951–52. Source: Aloi 1958. Figure 2. Building in via Gorizia by M. Zanuso, 1950–51. Source: Bottoni 1954. The designers selected stone and ceramic claddings, worked the concrete when exposed, elaborated accurate details of connection between materials and components. Furthermore, the designers collaborated with painters and sculptors, as demonstrated by Marco Zanuso’s house on viale Gorizia in which the architect worked together with the artist Gianni Dova to decorate the front (Figure 2) and the house on via Lanzone 95 by Vito Latis in which the sculptor Lucio Fontana inserted plastic-coloristic decorative elements. This approach shows that “the Milanese houses choose, through the rich collection of building systems and materials used, not to follow the line of continuity of orthodox modernity” (Pierini & Isastia 2017), with the result of the Italian cultural community being closer to the experience of the Modern Movement as of the 1930s. This repertoire of construction choices included claddings, windows and, sometimes, prefabricated panels as essential elements of the façade design. Therefore, we decided to investigate and compare the use of these elements in the 15 buildings studied, to understand their common features and identify the effects on the Milanese building culture of the period. The investigation sought to enrich the analysis developed by Italian architectural historians in recent years with considerations regarding recurrent materials and construction techniques. 4 CLADDINGS: LITOCERAMICA, MOSAICS, MARBLE Figure 3. Building in via Velasca by Asnago & Vender, 1950. Source: Bottoni 1954. Litoceramica (sintered ceramics) and mosaics were the preferred options in the repertoire of Milanese constructions examined in this study. The use of litoceramica in Milan spread for the first time in the main works of Giovanni Muzio (Malugani house and Bonaiti house in 1935), becoming a reference product for post-war designers; the Asnago & Vender buildings on via Velasca and the Condominio XXI Aprile are testament to this, where litoceramica was used together with marble to distinguish the various parts of the building (in the Condominio XXI Aprile, marble covered the block of the offices and clinker was used for the tower accommodating the houses). The mosaic, with ceramic and glass-based mixtures worked into small pieces of different geometry and colours to be applied with mortar, was acclaimed by Gio Ponti in L’Architettura in 1941 as a “perfect” material for modern architecture (Bernardini 2017). In the residential sector it was widely used in the 1950s both in Rome and in Milan, first in main works such as the “Il Girasole” house in Rome (1947–50) and in case albergo (1949–5), the office and housing complex in Corso Italia (1952–56) in Milan by Luigi Moretti, as well as in the office and residential building in via Melchiorre Gioia in Milan (1950–52) by Pietro Lingeri. Subsequently, the 2 × 2 cm tiles were adopted for finishing the walls of many residential buildings in Milan (apartment blocks on via Colonna and on via Plutarco by Asnago & Vender, in via Cassiodoro by Roberto Morisi, on via Moscova by Ezio Sgrelli, on corso Sempione by Gianemilio, Piero & Anna Monti, on via Montesanto and on viaTurati byV. Latis,) as well as in Rome, with their use also spreading to southern Italy in the 1960s. 5 WINDOWS, BOW-WINDOWS AND LOGGIAS Gio Ponti wrote that “The mysterious game of architecture begins with the window”, alluding to the different composition techniques concerning the size, geometry, and technology of windows (Ponti 1957). The relationship between window and wall was fundamental in the design of the façades of the Milanese houses of those years, with different configurations. In some examples the bow-windows favoured the effect of a “folded sheet” of the façades, as evidenced by the building on corso Sempione by Asnago & Vender, the one on Viale Montesanto by Latis and the house on via Marchiondi by Ferrieri, Gardella, Menghi. In other cases, the position of the windows varied with respect to the wall (advanced or set back), as evidenced by the Condominio XXI Aprile and the house on via Velasca (1950) by Asnago & Vender (Figure 3), an example of those “Architectures that make a picture” written about by Raffaello Giolli (Giolli 1943). From a construction point of view, the window frame was one of the characterizing elements of the design of façades of the analysed buildings. In Italy in the post-war period, to support the housing demand and the construction of public housing programs the UNI (Italian National Unification Agency) favoured the unification of doors, windows and balconies, referring first to wooden frames (Ed. 1950). The use of standard elements was also promoted by post-war handbooks, as evidenced by Mario Ridolfi’s work on the unification of windows and doors, published in the Manuale dell’Architetto by the National 96 Research Council (1946). As evidenced by the technical notes ofVitrum and Alluminio, Milanese residences of the 1950s preferred casement windows (for smaller openings) and sliding windows with metal or wooden frames. The sash window facilitated movement, cleaning, and maintenance. The most advanced solution, which marked the studied repertoire, was the sliding window. This large element, destined for living rooms and in direct contact with loggias and terraces, was characterized by the use of thin frames that allowed wide panoramic views. Sliding windows were initially affected by air tightness problems, which were subsequently corrected with the use of gaskets and felts and, in some cases, with the revision of the sliding guides. For example, Sergio Pedrazzini’s patent, presented by Vitrum in 1951 and applied in some of the Milanese buildings, was distinguished by its use of coplanar leaves and a good rebate on the sides of the sliding leaf, influencing both the aesthetic features and the technological requirements of the product. The sliding leaf – thanks to a special shaped guide – shifted with a double movement, the first advancing the leaf forward and the second gliding it horizontally (Ed. 1951). The technology of the frame was affected by developments matured in the 1930s. The metal frame used in the 1950s derived from the diffusion of the so-called ferrofinestra frame, with a thin section, recurrent for smaller windows and frequently reserved for façades not exposed directly to the street. The aluminium frame – although it represented only 2% of window production at the beginning of the decade in Italy – was the most promising evolution, frequently used in office buildings. It was also selected by some designers in the residential field. Promoted by Alluminio for aesthetic reasons, lightness, ease of maintenance and good air tightness, it was initially reserved for the most prestigious buildings, with an estimated cost at the time of 15,000 ITL (Italian lire) for a simple window and of 30,000–40,000 ITL for a more advanced window, with an incidence of between 6% and 9% for an area of 18–25 square metres and an illuminating ratio between 1:6 and 1:7 (Goldstein-Bolocan 1952). In cases of greater attention to construction, double glazing was used, as testified by the windows with anodized aluminium and oak wood frames in the office and residential building by Asnago & Vender in via Velasca, in that by Gigi Ghò in via Solferino and in the house in via Fatebenefratelli by Minoletti. Securit tempered glass was typically used for larger windows in communal areas of the buildings. In the Condominio XXI Aprile and in the office and residential building on via Lanzone by Asnago & Vender, we note the use of double windows that defined a buffer space intended as a greenhouse-garden for the apartments (Figure 4). This approach typically concerned large horizontal windows in which the external parts had anodized aluminium frames while the internal ones had wooden frames with double glazing. Figure 4. Condominio XXI Aprile by Asnago & Vender, 1951–53. Source: Aloi 1958. The use of the loggias, as evidenced by the house in via Broletto by Figini & Pollini and that by Latis in via Lanzone, constituted a useful solution to protect the windows from direct contact with rain and solar radiation, to shade inhabited spaces and provide living rooms and/or outdoor services. Loggias were sometimes combined with the use of screens to increase protection and privacy. In the house on via Broletto, there were concrete honeycomb gratings used as parapet and screens (Ed. 1949). 6 ANGELO MANGIAROTTI AND THE PREFABRICATED FAÇADE The diffusion of prefabricated elements in the residential field slowly developed in Italy starting from the early 1960s with the importation of French prefabrication systems (Barets, Balency, Coignet, Camus) mainly by the IACP of Milan (Istituto Autonomo Case Popolari). Italian architects, even those closest to building industrialization, were not interested in prefabrication, despite the theoretical debate of the post-war period (Greco 2020). The Milanese architect Angelo Mangiarotti was an exception. Well known above all for the construction of prefabricated industrial buildings, in the 1950s he designed two houses in Milan using prefabricated façade panels. Trained at the Ulm School directed by Max Bill, he shared the aspiration to respond to the new needs of a highly industrialized society through scientific knowledge, the matrix approach and the use of diagrams as analytical tools to manage the issues of seriality, repetitiveness and randomness as arguments of architectural composition. Mangiarotti was passionate about the flexible use of prefabricated façade components to manage the 97 These articulated solutions used by the architects to obtain a wealth of colours, materials and textures were affected by the organic approach of Northern Europe (use of colour, different material textures) according to a custom that differentiated this production from the contemporary Roman buildings (Buratti 1990). The window frame was the most innovative construction element in the design of the façades of the buildings analysed. The metal frame used in the 1950s derived from the 1930s, but was updated after World War II, with the use of aluminium in the residential sector and care taken over water tightness and thermal insulation problems. These choices, when adopted in other cities, characterized luxury buildings in the central areas, confirming the nature of a construction culture reserved for bourgeois urban residences. This relationship between construction features and socio-economic position of users made the Milanese experience studied comparable to the case of the palazzina that played similar role in Rome in the 1950s in defining a different building repertoire with typological and construction characteristics related to the Roman building culture (Lucente 2000). On the other hand, the use of prefabricated panels proposed by Mangiarotti in his two Milanese houses is to be considered a unique experience. It is linked to the Italian designer’s culture, but was not transferred to other contexts. Mangiarotti’s two Milanese houses were examples of a “non-designed façade” (Ed. 1962), predisposed to continuous changes, which influenced two of Mangiarotti’s subsequent projects: the apartment block in Monza (1968–75) and the one in Arosio (1974–78) (Graf 2015). The basic rules were shared by the four buildings and highlighted the unique character of Mangiarotti’s contribution to the Milanese scene and, more generally, to the Italian one; namely, his use of the prefabricated component in the residential sector as a design object that translated different ways to inhabit the domestic space in multiple geometric and figurative combinations. process of user participation in the project. In fact, industrialized prefabrication, and user participation (involved in the design of the interior spaces, with the free arrangement of internal walls and of windows on the façades) were themes that coexisted in Mangiarotti’s design process. The house on via Quadronno and the one in San Siro, designed by the Italian architect with Bruno Morassutti, had an articulated plan which corresponded to a unitary layout of the façade composed of opaque modular panels and wooden window panels (Ed. 1963). All components, connected to the reinforced concrete slabs to allow internal flexibility and the articulation of the façades, were freely arranged on the various floors, according to the functional needs of the users. 7 CONCLUSIONS Ultimately, the originality of the Milanese building laboratory was supported by both the cultural spirit dating back to the 1930s concerning the work of technical reviews and cultural associations, as well as by the advanced socio-economic milieu that favoured the network of manufacture. The experience presented in this paper involved a group of architects who designed a total of almost 100 buildings of the approximately 13,400 (residences and mixed buildings) built in Milan in the period between 1948–61 (Dulio & Rossari 2009). These are a small number of buildings which nevertheless contributed to the urban image of those years, as recent studies have indicated. We believe that in terms of construction we can identify specific aspects related to a common approach to façade design. Unlike what typically happened in other European countries such as France and Belgium (Bullock 2007; Bullock 2008; Graf & Delemontey 2012; Van de Voorde et al. 2015), the walls of these buildings were built on site, with brick blocks and masonry bricks; concrete blocks and panels were not very common while light sandwich panels were absent. These characteristics link Milan to the rest of Italy and to a construction culture which was mainly based on on-site building techniques. On the other hand, there were original elements that, starting from these buildings, spread throughout the city and, slowly, throughout Lombardy and other Italian cities (including those in southern Italy) in the 1960s: the use of colour in the claddings (plasters, mosaics and litoceramica), large sliding windows, aluminium frames and metal grids. The materials and cladding techniques used referred to the modern repertoire developed in the 1930s. Their use was marked in the residential sector by the general conservation of masonry construction as the favoured option, even when updated in its completion and finishing systems (Poretti 2004). The combination of colours and materials, however, marked an evolution with respect to the heritage of the 1930s and differentiated the new buildings from the sober tones of the monochromatic walls of the interwar years. REFERENCES Aloi, A. 1959. Nuove architetture a Milano. Milan: Hoepli. Bernardini, V. 2017. Mosaico. Autori e opere. In L. Cupelloni (ed.), Materiali del Moderno. Campi, temi e modi del prog etto di riqualificazione: 163–167. Rome: Gangemi editore. Bettini, G. 2016. La città animata. Milano e l’architettura di Asnago e Vender. Milan: Libraccio. Bottoni, P. 1954. Antologia di edifici moderni in Milano. Milan: Editoriale Domus. Bugatti, A. & Crespi, L. 1997. Sapienza tecnica e architettura. Milano-Pavia. Florence: Alinea. Bullock, N. 2007. You assemble a Lorry, but you build a House. Noisy-le-Sec and French Debate on Industrialised Building 1944–49. Construction History Journal 22: 75–95. Bullock, N. 2008. 20,000 Dwellings a month for forty years: France’s industrialised housing sector in the 1950s. Construction History Journal 23: 59–76. 98 Greco, L. 2012. Exhibitions in Italy: an expression of Italian engineering. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering history and Heritage 165: 167–177. Greco, L. 2020. La costruzione a secco nel dibattito sulle tecniche costruttive in Italia nel secondo dopoguerra. Note sull’attività della rivista “Cantieri” (1946–1950). In S. D’Agostino & F. R. d’Ambrosio Alfano (eds.), History of Engineering. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference: 346–354. Naples: Cuzzolin Editore. Griffini, E. A. 1932. Costruzione razionale della casa. I nuovi materiali. Milan: Hoepli. Gurrieri, M. 2008. Figura e sfondo. Tettonica della facciata in un’opera di Asnago e Vender. Palermo: Caracol. Irace, F. 1996. Milano moderna. Architettura e città nell’epoca della costruzione. Milan: Motta. Lucente R. 2000. L’architecture de la “palazzina” à Rome 1945–1960. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Pagano, G. et al. 1934. Repertorio dei materiali per l’edilizia e l’arredamento. Milan: Domus. Pierini, O. M. & Isastia, A. 2017. Case milanesi. 1923–1973 Fifty years of residential architecture in Milan. Milan: Hoepli. Ponti, G. 1957. Amate l’architettura. Genoa:Vitali e Ghianda. Poretti, S. 1997. La costruzione. In F. Dal Co (ed.), Storia dell’architettura italiana. Il secondo Novecento: 268–293. Milan: Electa. Poretti, S. 2004. Modernismi e autarchia. In G. Ciucci & G. Muratori (eds.), Storia dell’architettura italiana. Il primo Novecento: 442–475. Milan: Electa. Van de Voorde, S. et al. 2015. Post-war building materials in housing in Brussels 1945–1975. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Buratti, A. C. 1990. L’architettura ideale nella Milano della ricostruzione. In G. Rumi et al. (eds.), Milano ricostruisce 1945–1954: 173–206. Milan: Cariplo. Capitanucci, M. V. 2007. Vito e Gustavo Latis. Frammenti di città. Milan: Skira. Dulio, R. & Rossari, A. 2009. Milano tra cultura architettonica e crescita edilizia. In E. Cogato Lanza & P. Bonifazio (eds.), Les experts de la Reconstruction. Figures et stratégies de l’élite technique dans l’Europe de l’après-guerre. Genève: Metispresses. Ed. 1949. Una casa civile a loggiati. Vitrum 2: 2–5. Ed. 1950. I serramenti unificati dell’UNI. Vitrum 7: 41–44. Ed. 1951. Finestra-balcone ad ante scorrevoli. Vitrum 25: 36–37. Ed. 1962. La casa a tre cilindri. San Siro, Milano. Domus 387. Ed. 1963. Sul principio della continuità dei prospetti. Domus 398. Giolli, R. 1943. Architetture che fanno quadro. Costruzioni Casabella 191/192: 36–42. Goldstein-Bolocan, A. 1952. In tema di estetica e di funzionalità dei serramenti. Vitrum 38: 17–26. Gorio, F. 1957. A proposito degli architetti Monti e Gandolfi. Casabella 217: 56. Graf, F. & Delemontey, Y. (eds.) 2012. Understanding and conserving industrialised and prefabricated architecture. Lausanne: Presse polytechniques et universitaires romandes. Graf, F. 2015. The ethics of prefabrication: Archaism and universality. In F. Graf & F. Albani (eds.), Angelo Mangiarotti. The tectonics of Assembly: 21–38. Milan: Silvana editoriale. Gramigna, G. & Mazza S. 2001. Milano. Un secolo di architettura milanese dal Cordusio alla Bicocca. Milan: Hoepli. 99