In the ever-evolving landscape of construction and urban planning, the regulatory framework governing these sectors has become increasingly complex and, some argue, counterproductive. This is the central theme explored by Elena Mussinelli, an associate professor at the Department of Architecture, Building Engineering and Built Environment at the Politecnico di Milano, in her recent article published in the journal Techne, translated from Italian as ‘Art’.
Mussinelli delves into the historical context of Italian urban planning and building regulations, tracing their evolution from the mid-19th century to the present day. She highlights the exponential growth in regulations, which, while aiming to protect public interests, often hinder rather than facilitate high-quality, sustainable construction projects.
The crux of the issue, as Mussinelli points out, is the disconnect between the regulatory approach and the reality of the construction sector. “Everything must be regulated so that everything can be conceded,” observed Alessandro Pizzorno in the 1960s, a sentiment that rings true over half a century later. This regulatory inflation, or ‘legislative pollution,’ leads to confusion, increased costs, and delays, ultimately stifling innovation and economic development.
One of the most striking examples of this regulatory complexity is the new Procurement Code, a mammoth text of over 150,000 words, further complicated by the regulatory and procedural innovations introduced by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR). This continuous cycle of correction and integration, Mussinelli argues, is a result of the lack of effective monitoring and assessment of regulatory impacts.
So, what does this mean for the construction and energy sectors? For one, it highlights the urgent need for regulatory reform that prioritizes clarity, simplicity, and effectiveness. As Mussinelli notes, “the challenge to be faced concerns not so much or only regulatory and administrative simplification, but precisely the ‘quality of regulation’.” This involves formulating rules that are precise, clear, and derived from consensual and shared planning.
Moreover, it underscores the importance of education and training in regulatory and normative aspects for new designers and construction professionals. As Mussinelli argues, “it is essential to solicit, from the first year, critical attention to the normative paradigm, also for the ethical, social and professional responsibilities it entails.”
The implications for the energy sector are significant. With the increasing focus on sustainable and energy-efficient construction, a streamlined and effective regulatory framework is crucial. It can facilitate the adoption of innovative technologies and practices, reduce costs, and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Mussinelli’s work, published in Techne, serves as a wake-up call for policymakers, construction professionals, and educators. It calls for a rethink of the relationship between design and regulation, emphasizing responsibility, consensus, and collaboration. As she concludes, “the norm is a tool that provides valid and shared knowledge to the project; and the project itself, as a projective activity, contributes proactively to its definition.”
In the face of a rapidly changing climate and increasing energy demands, the construction and energy sectors cannot afford to be bogged down by outdated, complex, and ineffective regulations. Mussinelli’s insights offer a roadmap for a more efficient, effective, and sustainable future. The question remains: will the industry rise to the challenge?