As a follow up to what I mentioned in class about how architecture shapes networks and community, I figured I would post a bit more about the history of the Garbatella. (Over the summer as part of a class we studied modernity and realism in Rome, part of which included a couple of classes held in this neighborhood.) The area was constructed to be low income housing for workers just outside the city of Rome, accessible by public transportation, but far enough outside the boarders of the city that real estate is much cheaper. What was revolutionary at the time, and still is in most places today, was the idea that the architecture informs and shapes how people live and interact in a space. The buildings were made out of cheap materials- tuffa (a local bedrock), stucco, and concrete instead of marble and other types of stone used in the city of Rome, but instead of building identical apartment complexes like the ones that can be seen in the projects of Boston, the architects took the time to make buildings that were tied to the Italian culture. (i.e. instead of statues, intricate staircases and fountains, made out of marble, the architects made concrete gargoyles, and other accents out of the cheaper material in order to make the neighborhood continue the same stylistic traditions that can be seen all over Italy) The idea was that if the space looks unique and beautiful, then the people would be much more likely to respect and want to help keep up their neighborhood. The buildings were also made to incorporate areas of common spaces where residents must necessarily interact with one anther like courtyards, communal laundry lines, gardens, and even a communal bath house, which functioned up into the 1900s. The residents could capitalize on communal parenting of children, since many of them worked long hours in the city. For that to happen, though, they needed to trust and rely on other people in the community. Though the buildings took longer to build than the identical complexes we can see on the boarder of Northeastern, the payoff was big.

In a documentary and according to many other research done on the area, the residents formed tightly knit networks of people who had identities based on which lot they lived in instead of just to their families/history. In fact, many would and still do refer to each other by first name and then "of lot *insert number*" Highly interconnected and closed networks of people were formed, much as there was only one entrance built into the community. As a result, the crime rates were low, and today, a tiny apartment in a building in the middle of the Garbatella that has been privatized is up for sale at over a million dollars. The Garbatella was built to be reminiscent of British Garden Cities, where there were gardens, businesses, and housing in a sustainable mini-city. Traditionally, the Garbatella has a long, liberal history, with a lot of politically charged graffiti about freedom and unionization still up on many of the walls, which was made possible by the ease with which people could discuss their ideas and spread information. Indeed, the Garbatella fosters high social capital. The people trusted each other, created social norms, communal identities, and drew upon the different strengths of the people living there to create a strong sense of community and social ties even though they were not socio-economically well off. Had the architecture been different, the Garbatella would probably have been much similar to the projects in Boston, which are usually viewed as places of higher crime rates, substance abuse, disarray in the school systems, and a general lack of safety.