Is it acceptable to close Piazza della Signoria in Florence for a "super VIP" dinner?

Florence ’s municipal administration probably has a soft spot for “VIP” dinners in public spaces. And although it might have been assumed that, after the heated controversy that accompanied the Ferraristi banquets on the Ponte Vecchio in 2013 and Morgan Stanley’s in Santa Maria Novella in 2014 (both occasions when the properties were closed to the public and the municipality made only pocket change) the Florentine administrators had abandoned the pattern of the “very private party in public space,” evidently the exceptional nature of this year’s events has led them to take into account a paradigm that was thought to have remained confined to the past, with no possibility of re-emergence.

Thus we learn from La Nazione, and in particular from an article by fashion and society editor-in-chief Eva Desiderio, that next September 2, on the occasion of Pitti Uomo, Piazza della Signoria is expected to host a gala dinner by Dolce and Gabbana, who will organize a fashion show-event in the city for that day (it is not yet known exactly where, perhaps in the Salone dei Cinquecento where Domenico Dolce had his picture taken together with mayor Dario Nardella and culture councillor Tommaso Sacchi): “as in a Renaissance feast,” Desiderio writes with a profusion of adjectives and similes, “400 super VIP guests called to Florence by Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana will feel a bit like at the Medici court. Scenic magnificent eating in front of the Loggia dei Lanzi and Palazzo Vecchio!” Beyond the fact that the Medici and their court would not have even been able to conceive the idea of dining in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, and beyond the fact that the main symbol of Florentine public life is being reduced to a “magnificent scenography,” reading the journalist’s words makes one wonder what, from Florence’s point of view, is the rationale for the operation.

On similar occasions there is talk, and always in a very general way, of “spin-offs” and “visibility”: now, at least to the writer’s knowledge, there are no in-depth studies on the economic spin-offs of such operations (or at least a case history with data and statistics: and yet, just to limit the examples to the two Sicilian designers, it can be said that the invasion of cities is part of their typical modus operandi, since they are not new to more or less closing down historical centers for their events, as they did in 2016 in Naples, in 2017 in Monreale in 2018 in Bellagio, and always amid the protests of the local population), nor has there ever been a media revival of the localities that hosted the defilés and their annexes and connections (does anyone know or remember that last year Dolce and Gabbana’s “super VIP” event was held in Palma di Montechiaro?).

Florence, Piazza della Signoria

So posited, then, that discussing economic spin-offs (we are talking, of course, about those resulting from the temporary privatization of the location, since, for example, the catering company would still be working), in the absence of data that can prove any benefits, is fine just for the press releases accompanying the event, and given that, in terms of visibility, it is legitimate to raise some doubts about the effectiveness of a single episode, especially when communicated little or poorly (of last year’s Sicilian event, for example, newspapers in Agrigento and its immediate environs spoke almost exclusively), a possible objection could run along three lines: first, Dolce and Gabbana will surely offer a donation to the city (more or less congruous: it will be worth remembering that in Monreale there had been strong protests because, between fees for the occupation of public land and an offer for the restoration of a fountain, the two designers had left the city only twelve thousand euros). Second, Dolce and Gabbana’s two-day event will provide jobs for the people involved in organizing the event. Third, in the year of Covid, even Florence and its arcane square need publicity.

In recent days, attempts have been made to challenge the event by going down the road of legal legitimacy: in particular, the “Perunaltracittà” Group recalled that, according to the Cultural Heritage Code, even a square is a cultural asset (Article 10), that individual use of a public asset should be granted only if the purpose is compatible with the cultural destination of the asset itself (Article 106, paragraph 1), and, even assuming that a private fest falls within the terms of compatibility, that the conditio sine qua non for the issuance of ministerial authorization is the possibility of guaranteeing “the preservation and public enjoyment of the good” (Article 106, paragraph 2-bis). Now, let’s admit that the above three objections are largely agreeable, and let’s also admit that the legal prerequisites are in place (if we are to interpret the “guarantee of public enjoyment of the property” as the guarantee that the event will not affect its future “enjoyment”). Here we are not talking about a museum that, during hours when it is closed to the public, hosts a personality with the precise intent of getting people to talk about the institution: recent operations such as those of the Uffizi, the Egyptian Museum or the Vatican Museums may seem as unpleasant, delayed and useless to us as we like, but they had the precise purpose of promoting the museum and did not prejudice the faculty to visit it. Here we are talking about Florence’s main square closing several hours for an exclusionary dinner.

So it is a matter of recognizing that, even for just a few hours, a public space that should represent the civic values of the city of Florence yields to the demands of two fashion designers who want to close it to throw a party intended for their “super VIP” guests. Let’s imagine the image of a sealed-off Piazza della Signoria, with guards at the gates, a handful of celebrities inside gobbling under the tower of Arnolfo, and everyone else outside, turned away if they try to pass through the square overlooked by the city hall. Here: is an image like this acceptable? Is such an intrusive takeover of public space acceptable, even if of short duration? Is it acceptable to forget, even for a moment, the value of a city’s most important and symbolic common good in the name of some uncertain or all-to-be-assessed benefit? Isn’t a line being crossed with such a case?

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.