The first step in the political battle, after “over three years of institutional inertia”, was taken in the “small parliament” of the area where it all began, Municipality 5 of Milan. A neighborhood of Milan which on 29 August 2021 was the scene of the Torre dei Moro fire in via Antonini: a huge fire which fortunately caused no victims but left families homeless. Since then the residents’ committee has been moving on several fronts. The reconstruction of the skyscraper has begun, with the symbolic laying of the first stone, while the trial is underway against the designers, builders and suppliers of the materials with which those facades were built, which were engulfed in flames in a few moments. The objective set out in black and white is to “ensure that political decision makers address the issue of fire safety with a view to adapting Italian regulations on permitted construction materials”, also carried out through contacts with the associations of Grenfell residents Tower in London and the Campanar condominiums in Valencia, which survived fires with similar dynamics that caused deaths and injuries, instead collided with a rubber wall. And the monitoring, requested several times, of buildings built with dangerous materials is still awaited.
“There are various regulatory gaps that this event has brought to light and which need to be filled – we read in a report by the Antonini 32 Committee – but after three years nothing has been done to resolve these problems”. The inhabitants of the tower, represented by Mirko Berti, were listened to by the House commission of Municipality 5. They illustrated their proposals summarized in a document drawn up with professional associations, gathering the commitment to urge Palazzo Marino on aspects of municipal competence. The first step of an action in municipal and regional buildings, with the awareness that “the regulatory void can only be filled by Parliament” which has so far remained silent. Just as the Regional Security Councilor Romano La Russa was silent, because the request for a meeting made by the committee still remained a dead letter. Among the regulatory gaps “the lack of a protocol for those involved in a disaster that has no natural origin”, the IMU which remains to be paid even if the building is uninhabitable, the absence of standard measures to “offer a housing solution appropriate for extraordinary situations like ours.”
The committee also illustrated to the area councilors the interventions that could be applied at a national and local level: “Monitoring of buildings that could have panels similar to those in via Antonini as well as those affected by energy efficiency which have used the 110% bonus “, because “in Valencia, just three days after the Campanar fire, they identified another 8 buildings and started cleanup operations”, while in Italy only the prefecture of Varese took action. Then “insert a ban on the installation of combustible materials on the facades and roofs of tall buildings”, a review “of the national fire regulations”, training on fire risk factors “for all operators who access homes for work reasons, in particular of fragile people”, the establishment of the figure of the “fire safety planning manager” and bonuses related to safety. A blanket ban on hazardous materials. “Many good intentions have been expressed since 2021 – concludes Mirko Berti – but it is time to move from words to deeds and overcome inertia, getting the message to Rome”.
In what ways have the identified regulatory gaps impacted the safety of residents, and what measures are being proposed by both the committee and authorities to address these issues?
1. In the context of Torre dei Moro fire and the ensuing political battle, can you talk about the role of the residents’ committee and their key demands from the authorities?
2. What are the main regulatory gaps that the committee has identified, and how have the local and regional authorities responded to their requests?
3. How do you see the process of monitoring buildings for dangerous materials and ensuring safety in the aftermath of the disaster? Are there any challenges or obstacles that need to be addressed?
4. What steps should be taken at the national level to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future, and how can the government support affected communities like Municipality 5 Milan?
5. What role should building codes and fire regulations play in ensuring public safety, and how can we ensure that they keep up with evolving risks and technologies?
6. How can we involve residents and communities in the decision-making process regarding their housing and safety concerns?
7. What is the importance of training and awareness programs for fire safety in preventing future incidents, and how can we ensure that these programs are effective and accessible to all citizens?
8. Should we consider revising our approach to urban planning and development to prioritize safety and sustainability, or is there a way to balance these concerns with other factors like affordability and economic growth?
