@inproceedings{OPUS4-2374,
  title     = {Urban Design for Mussolini, Stalin, Salazar, Hitler and Franco During the Interwar Period},
  editor    = {Bauhaus-Institut f{\"u}r Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur und Planung,},
  doi       = {10.25643/bauhaus-universitaet.2374},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:wim2-20150323-23746},
  abstract  = {Urban design played a central role for the European dictatorships during the 20th century, it served to legitimate the regime, to produce agreement, to demonstrate power, efficiency and speed, it communicated the social, as well as design projects, of the dictatorial regimes domestically and internationally, it tied old experts, as well as new, to the regime. Dictatorial urban design also played an important role after the fall of the dictatorships: It became the object of structural and verbal handling strategies: of demolition, of transformation, of reconstruction, of forgetting, of suppressing, of re-interpretation and of glorification. The topic area is, therefore, both historical and relevant to the present day. The discussion of the topic area is, like it or not, always embedded in the present state of societal engagement with dictatorships. In order to even be able to discuss all of these aspects, different conceptual decisions are necessary. In retrospect, these may seem to many as self-evident, although they are anything but. Our thesis is that there are three methodological imperatives, especially, which allow an expanded approach to the topic area "urban design and dictatorship". First and above all, the tunnel view, focused on individual dictatorships and neglecting the international dimension, must be overcome. Second, the differences in urban design over the course of a dictatorship, through an appropriate periodisation, should be emphasised. Third, we must strive for an open, flexible, but complex concept of urban design. The main focus lies on the urban design of the most influential dictatorships of the first half of the 20th century: Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, including the urban design of the autarky periods in Portugal and Spain. After all, urban design is not just a product of specific historic circumstances. It is a form that continues to have long-term effects, which demonstrates its usefulness and adaptability throughout this process. The urban design products undoubtedly still recall the dictatorial rule under which they were created. However, they are more than a memory space. They are also a living space of the present. They can and should be discussed with respect to their spatial and functional utility for today and tomorrow. Such a perspective is a given for the citizens of a city, but also for city marketing, having marvellous consequences. Only when we do not exclude this dimension a priori, even in academic discussions, can we do justice to the products of dictatorships. And finally, the view of the urban design of dictatorships can and must contribute to the questioning of simplified and naive conceptions of dictatorships. With urban design in mind, we can observe how dictatorships work and how they were able to prevail. In Europe, these questions are of the highest actuality.},
  subject      = {Urbanit{\"a}t},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Camerin,
  author    = {Camerin, Federico},
  title     = {THE ROLE OF THE GREAT PROPERTY IN THE EUROPEAN CITY-MAKING PROCESS IN THE LAST THIRD OF THE 20th CENTURY. MILITARY PROPERTY AS REFERENCE},
  doi       = {10.25643/bauhaus-universitaet.4201},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:wim2-20200714-42018},
  school      = {Bauhaus-Universit{\"a}t Weimar},
  pages     = {453},
  abstract  = {The thesis concerns a work of urban history intended not to describe the city but rather to interpret it. By doing so, I have interpreted the city by means of the role played by the so-called 'great property' in the European city-making process during the last three decades of the 20th century, specifically focused on the concrete case of military properties in Italy. I have also considered the role played by other kinds of great properties, i.e. industries and railway, which previously acted in the production of the built environment in a different way respect to the military one. As all of them have as common denominator the fact of being 'capital in land', I analysed great industrial and railway properties in order to extrapolate a methodology which helped me to interpret the relationship between military properties and city-making process in Europe in the late 20th century. I have analysed the relationship between the capital in land and the city-making process on the ground of the understanding the interrelation between the great property, the urban development, and the agents involved in the urban and territorial planning. Here I have showed that urban planning is not the decisive factor influencing the citymaking process, but instead the power held by the capital in land. I have found that is the great property the trigger of the creation of new 'areas of centrality' intended as large areas for consumerism. As far as the role played by great property is concerned, I have also discovered that it has evolved over time. Originally, industrial and railway properties have been regenerated into a wide range of new profit-driven spaces; successively, I have found out that most of the regeneration of military premises aimed to materialise areas of centrality. The way of interpreting this factor has been based on focusing my attention on the military premises in Italy: I have classified their typology when they have been built and, most importantly, when they have been regenerated into new areas of centrality.},
  subject      = {Stadtplanung},
  language  = {en}
}