«We have learned that the City Council is being asked to approve three changes of intended use which would, in fact, reduce the availability of urban greenery. For the sake of brevity we believe it is appropriate to focus attention on the urban transformation of the green area of the Carella elementary school, in via Buozzi. Green area which would unfortunately be sacrificed for the construction of a new gym, serving students and local sports clubs, to be added to the existing school gym. Apparently a good motivation but when we delve deeper, notable contradictions emerge.” Thus Laura Chiappa, of Legambiente Piacenza, intervenes in a note.
«It is not at all clear – he writes – whether the school’s requests, in light of the Municipality’s proposal (PNRR funds), are to satisfy a real additional need of the school or to guarantee independent access and parking for the use of the gym by sports clubs. Also because, as was specified in the Council Commission, the need for the gym seems more attributable to the future growth of inhabitants following the approval of the operating agreement for the former Camuzzi area in Corso Europa. In conclusion: private individuals exploit tens of thousands of square meters of currently permeable area for residential and commercial purposes, while the new gym would be built in the school area, taking away the precious greenery currently reserved for students and residents of the neighbourhood: where is the public interest in the operation? Cementing this green area to build a new gym seems to completely ignore the new directions in outdoor teaching, capable of offering new learning opportunities. Furthermore, this proposal was not discussed in the neighborhood at all, excluding even the slightest form of participation; instead indispensable for such significant urban planning interventions”.
«The new gym – continues the Legambiente note – would be designed exactly where in recent years the Municipality has created new planting, which would therefore be eliminated, producing not only environmental but also economic damage. It is really difficult to understand the legitimacy of the Urban Building Regulations which do not provide, in the face of this transformation, an urban planning variant. Variation that would no longer be possible following the end of the transitional period of the new urban planning law n.24 of 2017″.
«The gym could be used in the morning by the school but in the afternoon by the sports clubs. A common good such as a green area is therefore transformed into an eminently privately managed structure. We do not question the need for sports clubs to have new facilities, but we do not believe it is right to sacrifice one of the few public green areas serving the neighborhood for this reason. It goes without saying that all cities, but ours in particular, need greenery and oxygen. The new regional urban planning law places great importance on the theme of urban regeneration, the permeability of soils, even in urbanized areas, even providing for some de-sealing interventions (removing the concrete where it is present) while in this case it would be added. For example, the art. 32 paragraph 6 C, establishes that: “the areas and spaces left vacant and intended for collective urban uses cannot be made buildable”.
«In conclusion we believe that, regardless of the curious loopholes provided by the Rue, it would be politically incomprehensible to approve a project that conflicts with the need to protect greenery, which we immensely need, just because PNRR funds are potentially available. Do we make more money with greenery and trees or with a new concrete gym that could instead be built in another already waterproofed area?
