La costruzione
Ancora più complesso e lungo è stato l’iter giudiziario. Il progetto, infatti, è stato impugnato presso il TAR e presso il Consiglio di Stato dai proprietari del terreno su cui l’auditorium avrebbe dovuto sorgere (ed è poi sorto), nonché dall’associazione ambientalista “Italia Nostra”. In fine, quando è cambiata l’Amministrazione Comunale, il progetto è stato impugnato anche dalla nuova Amministrazione. Dopo nove episodi giudiziari, di cui otto favorevoli, finalmente l’opera ha imboccato la corsia operativa. Si era, ormai, nel 2006, sei anni dopo la consegna del concept da parte di Oscar Niemeyr a Domenico De Masi.Il progetto è stato cofinanziato dall’Unione Europea con 18,5 milioni di euro, la progettazione esecutiva è stata realizzata dallo Studio Gnosis, Macchiaroli & Partners, Inter Progetti. Ing. Giuseppe Sarubi, Elleti. La direzione dei lavori è stata effettuata dall’Arch. Rosa Zeccato. Nel 2007 lo Studio Gnosis, incaricato di stendere il progetto esecutivo dell’Auditorium, ha pubblicato un libretto in cui riproduceva gli interventi apportati nel progetto di Niemeyer. Poiché tali interventi non sembravano coerenti con lo spirito dell’architettura di Niemeyer e con lo stile da lui adottato nella progettazione dell’Auditorium, il prof. De Masi ha proposto con insistenza che il Pre4sidente del consorzio costruttore, Andrea Pacifico, l’arch. Buonfantino e lo strutturista della Gnosis Giuanpiero Martuscelli si recassero a Rio per discutere il loro lavoro direttamente con Oscar Niemeyer.
L’incontro si è realizzato molti mesi più tardi, dal primo a 4 ottobre 2007 e ha prodotto le seguenti meeting notes: “Participants: Maestro Oscar Niemeyer; eng. Jose Carlos Sussekind; arch. Jair Valera; Mr. Andrea Pacifico; arch. Francesco Buonfantino; eng. Giampiero Martuscelli; First of all , Oscar Niemeyer thanked all Italian team for the kindness of visiting him in Rio. Mr Pacifico introduced the project presentation, explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to check that the final design of Niemeyer’auditorium in Ravello is respecting the preliminary design of the Maestro. Going through the drawings, the following aspects were discussed and agreed upon : - arch. Valera noted that the entrance into the main hall was slightly modified in the “definitivo” design and it is important for it to regain the original shape; - the finishing of the exterior wall was not conceived to be in stones; all architectural conception for the complex is in the sense of giving a sensation of “white concrete”, to all external parts of the project (Auditorium, external walls, etc) ;so, it should be ( the walls) of raw white concrete instead of natural stones as well as the floor of the terrace, which should be done with large square panel (e.g. 5x5m) of white concrete; - the connection between the shell and back wall was drawn in the “definitivo” with a smooth curvature instead of a sharp angle, as it was in the preliminary design; it is fundamental to architectural conception that the original shapes and dimensions of Maestro, in external and internal components of the project are respected; should, during erection, any necessity of punctual changes ( related to shapes or dimensions) appear, Maestro should be glad to receive these specific points through fax or mail and will promptly answer to them; - the aluminium truss supporting the lights ( unacceptable from aesthetic point of view) in the main hall should be eliminated, and lights being hung from the ceiling; - concerning the main glass walls Mr Valera suggests to change the supporting details from mechanic to glued system, and to consider to use darker glass, similar to what they used in the on going construction of the “Caminho” Niemeyer in Niteroi; the glass panel shape could be changed to rectangular 2x4 m panels; - the Maestro, emphatically, does not agree with the acoustic design of the main hall, thinking it betrays the architectural lines of the hall; he requests, therefore, this aspect to be totally reviewed. Mr Buonfantino explains that such acoustic arrangements were already in the “definitivo” design and that in the bid proposal the group proposed all those parts to be movable and transparent. Mr Pacifico proposes to further discuss this topic, involving the acoustic consultants that, at different levels, participated at the auditorium design. Sussekind asked the Italian team the kindness of strong support to this issue as if it was of their own and declared himself ready, if necessary, to participate in any future eventual meetings related to this subject, of central importance to Maestro.
as about the structural executive project, it was agreed, following Sussekind position, that Sussekind won’t review the structural drawings, due to his respect to the capability of his Italian colleague. Sussekind sole additional comment was in the direction that dimensions and shapes of concrete structures shall be compatible to shapes and dimensions of Maestro’s architecture, what was assured by the Italian team. Should, during erection, any problems related to this last issue appear, Sussekind will be glad – in such situation - to give an opinion, after hearing Maestro’s point of view.
The participants agreed to keep in contact for any further topic could arise during construction”. Rio de Janeiro, October 2nd 2007
In sintesi, l’avventura ha richiesto 109 mesi: 6 mesi per progettare, 67 mesi per battagliare, 36 mesi per costruire. Le ruspe sono entrate sul terreno il 23 ottobre 2006, mentre gli operai inchiodavano provvisoriamente il cartello ufficiale e recintavano la superficie interessata (foto 27-31). Da allora, tecnici e operai hanno lavorato senza sosta, persino sotto la pioggia e la neve, per completare l’opera presto e bene. Per seguirne il lavoro e apprezzarne i risultati, niente meglio che guardare le immagini (foto da 32 in poi).
