To pander to "decorum" fixation, Brunelleschi's churchyard is defaced in Santo Spirito

It is well known that the policies of decorum so dear to bourgeois respectability have produced, over the years, ircocervi that should be monstrous to anyone who does not yet want to surrender to the idea that our cities should be the mirror of the mind of the well-meaning: from the benches that prevent the homeless from lying down, to the ordinances that prohibit eating sandwiches in the street or sitting on the ground, from the more or less extensive fences around the squares, to the vigorous deployments of law enforcement that, especially in this pandemic year, have led to a quasi-militarization of the squares to curb the dreaded phenomenon of “assemblage.” Reducing and shrinking public spaces, cleaning up, and not solving the problem, but merely moving it away from the eyes and ears of the good citizen: the watchwords of decorum.

Now, yet another chapter in the mania for decorum plummets in Florence ’s Piazza Santo Spirito, where in order to prevent the excesses of the so-called “movida” the City Council has thought of installing an ugly cordon with poles resting on large concrete bases covered with steel, spending the sum of eighty thousand euros, directly on the parvis in front of Filippo Brunelleschi’s Renaissance basilica. Much to the jubilation of Santo Spirito residents, although they will have to assess the outcome. In the city council they say the cordon “will signal a buffer zone, a ban on parking and a ban on the consumption of food and drink.” Now, without wishing to go into the annoyance caused by the idea that in a square one cannot even “stand,” are we sure that a cordon will be enough to keep away those who intend to continue exchanging the walls of the basilica for a latrine? And, if so, who is going to oversee the observance of the rules? Will there still be the usual patrols who will have to make sure that people do not cross the cordon? And if then it is simply a matter of controlling people, what was the point of spending eighty thousand euros on a hideous fence?

The cordonade in Piazza Santo Spirito as it is being installed. Photo by Antonella Bundu

But even if the people who frequent the square decide to abide by the ban, either spontaneously (go figure) or because they are forced to by the presence of the police, it is highly unlikely that even expensive cordoning will be enough to solve the problem, which will simply be moved elsewhere: the important thing, however, is not to have it under the house, and who cares if it becomes someone else’s problem. Without calculating that the vexata quaestio of the “noise” complained about by the residents will remain: it’s not as if the frequenters of the square will sit quietly and peacefully just because a pedestrian ban will be introduced on the churchyard. If they stay in the square, then they will quietly continue their usual mess, only they will do it five steps lower. Nailed curbing, as far as we know, still has no anti-noise properties. Thinking of solving the mess problem with a cordonade is like claiming not to let people sit in churchyards by simply watering them in the summer sun: the problem, however, is that the latter solution is part of the measures already tried and tested by the current Florence city administration, and with such precedents it is easy to understand why the cordonade must have seemed like a great idea to limit the inconvenience. Not least because, moreover, bar tables, in the meantime, have come almost to the point of lapping the steps of the churchyard: so if instead of standing on the churchyard, one drinks comfortably seated at a table, is the problem of chaos solved?

Of course, it is a reversible fence, otherwise the superintendence would not have given its endorsement (but at the moment it is not known how long it will remain to disfigure the churchyard of Brunelleschi’s basilica: however removable, it is still an element that deeply disturbs the aesthetics of the square). And, just as certainly, there are nights when the square is indeed unlivable and one can understand all the discomfort felt by the inhabitants. But a cordonade will simply make people move elsewhere: the champions of decorum would perhaps be more pleased that after eleven o’clock at night they would all stay at home and watch television, but the desire for sociability, and especially that which spontaneously arises after months in which we have been forced, willy-nilly, to lock ourselves in our homes, is unlikely to be stopped by a cordonade. More likely, it will find a way around the obstacle, at which point the problem will arise again somewhere else.

The point, however, is that the problem in Santo Spirito has existed for years, has never been dealt with decisively, or when it has been dealt with it has been dealt with through zero tolerance, thus going from no action to the deployment of forces to dislodge those who would even sit on a bench. And now it has been decided to remedy this in probably the least effective way. It is like having certified a defeat, and fortunately, at least, the idea of the residents’ committee, which would have preferred a gate, was not pandered to. And yes, one could have started in stages, as suggested by many citizens and some opposition councilors such as Antonella Bundu and Dmitrij Palagi: for example, with the installation of free public toilets, on which, however, no investment has been made. And on the problem of noise, there are already laws and ordinances in place to prevent a downtown square from turning into the intra-moenia edition of Tomorrowland after a certain hour, either through the fault of the merchants or through the fault of the patrons: it would be enough to know that they are enforced. As one citizen rightly notes on Facebook, Piazza Santo Spirito is a place where “movida” has probably existed since the 16th century. It is one of the historic squares of Florentine sociability. And it will serve and little purpose to fence it off with disdain for the greatest architect the city has known. The real beauty of a city is not to see it “decent” because it is fenced off, but to see it “decent” because its citizens live it well.

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.