Oblivion “in Plain Sight”

Dante Bini’s Domes in Apulia

This contribution investigates a subtle yet pervasive form of contemporary oblivion: an oblivion that operates “in plain sight”, when fully functioning architectural works fail to generate cultural recognition and become neutralised within the everyday landscape. Considering oblivion as a selective device – one that obscures certain values in order to make others visible – the research examines two hospitality complexes designed by Dante Bini in Monopoli: Hotel Villaggio Torre Cintola and Cala Corvino, both based on the Binishell system and on the monolithic reinforced-concrete dome.

Unlike other works by Bini that have entered the international architectural imaginary – most notably the iconic Villa Antonioni, embedded within the rugged rock formations of a wild portion of Costa Paradiso – the Apulian ones remain marginal within the ways architectural heritage is constructed and told and are largely unrecognised by the local community. The study argues that this marginalisation does not stem from a generic process of “forgetting”, but rather from a set of specific dynamics: the predominance of touristic use and seasonal consumption; the lack of effective conservation and governance measures capable of regulating transformations; and successive renovations and functional adaptations that have progressively reduced the legibility of the original architectural design.

Within this context, the circulation of non-canonical visual sources also plays a role in producing a form of visibility that is not fully recognised. These include selected scenes from the television series Professione vacanze, filmed at the Cala Corvino resort. In this series, Dante Bini’s Binishell domes appear in the background as scenographic elements. Such materials constitute a “complementary archive”, useful for discovering the processes involved in the construction and neutralisation of architectural memory.

Methodologically, the study adopts a historical-critical approach based on the available documentation and the analysis of architectural transformations and media representations. Absences and discontinuities in the sources are treated as integral to the problem itself, in line with broader debates on incomplete archives and on how documentary selection – or loss – shapes partial architectural memories.

In conclusion, the contribution examines the mechanisms through which these architectural works, despite being fully present and operational, have progressively been displaced to the margins of urban memory and heritage discourse.

In architecture, oblivion does not necessarily coincide with material disappearance, abandonment, or ruin, as we are commonly inclined to believe. It may also occur when buildings that still exist, remain in use, and are clearly recognisable cease to be interpreted and appreciated as innovative and experimental artefacts; through use, their association with novelty is gradually severed, and they enter the realm of the ordinary. In such cases, architecture is progressively normalised: having been superseded in typological, constructional, and material terms, it eventually blends in and loses the attributes of novelty. From this perspective, architecture for tourism constitutes a particularly significant field of observation, since it is exposed to the rapid obsolescence of structures, the transformation of tourist flows, and changes in holiday practices.

From this perspective, the complexes of Torre Cintola and Cala Corvino, built in the 60s along the coast of Monopoli, south of Bari¹, offer a significant case through which to investigate this form of oblivion “in plain sight”².

Their history forms part of the broader transformations that, in recent decades, have accompanied the growth of tourism in Apulia. These are, in fact, repurposed buildings which, although still recognisable, remain in use more through the inertia and habits of holidaymakers than through any real attractiveness linked to their architectural value. Both complexes are located on stretches of coastline that are central to local landscape history, marked by shared memories and forms of collective belonging (fig. 1). In the case of Torre Cintola, this stratification is already inscribed in the place name itself, which refers to the coastal tower of the same name, dating from the 16th century and forming part of the viceregal system of maritime surveillance and control³.

The small coves and rocky inlets belong to the affective geography of local inhabitants and, at the same time, are drawn during the summer months into a long-established tourist vocation.

It is within this coastal landscape that hospitality complexes built with reinforced-concrete domes were inserted, produced through the innovative process devised and patented by the architect Dante Bini. Known as the Binishell system⁴, this method involved the on-site preparation of the shells and their raising by means of air pressure (fig. 2). It emblematically expresses Bini’s experimental approach, for which he became renowned precisely through this invention⁵.

The process unfolds through a sequence of successive stages. First, the circular foundation is excavated, and the dynamic pneumatic formwork, also known as the pneumoforma, is anchored to it. The reinforcement system is laid out over the formwork, consisting of peripheral steel reinforcement, springs and steel rods, and is subsequently covered with a concrete pour contained by the perimeter ring beam.

During lifting, a containment membrane, over which vibrating carriages pass, contributes to the compaction of the material. The raising of the shell, achieved by means of air pressure, takes place over a period ranging from 60 to 120 minutes. Once the concrete has cured, the pressure is released, the membrane is removed and the pneumatic formwork is detached from the soffit, so that it can be reused.

In the two Apulian complexes, the aggregation of individual units produces a highly recognisable image and, at the same time, structures the organisation of the coastal tourist space⁶.

Attention can therefore shift from the completed architectural object to the construction process that generates it. From this perspective, Torre Cintola and Cala Corvino may be read both as works defined by a specific morphology and as emblematic outcomes of the Binishell system.

The two cases make it possible to examine the relationship between patent, process, authorship, and cultural memory within the framework of the construction of a modern tourist landscape, as an expression of the economic and social transformations set in motion by mass tourism in the postwar period⁷.

Recent critical reassessments of Bini’s work locate the core of his invention not only in the figurative recognisability of the dome, but also in the interweaving of material, machine and construction site⁸: compressed air guides the self-positioning of the materials, accelerates the erection process and determines the final curvature of the shell.

The dome is therefore the outcome of an operational sequence that tends to coincide with the design process itself. In this sense, Bini occupies an intermediate position between architect, inventor, entrepreneur and builder, corresponding to the profile of the “architect-builder”⁹ highlighted in recent literature.

The cases in Apulia also highlight the issue of authorship, particularly when the Binishell patent was applied by professionals other than its inventor. In these two episodes, the principle developed by Bini intersected with the design work of the engineer Elio Pistoia, with construction supervision entrusted to the architect Domenico Capitanio and, in the case of Cala Corvino, with the structural contribution of the engineer Vito Cardo¹⁰.

The architect’s signature remains recognisable, but responsibility for the individual project is shared amongst a complex network of technical, business and administrative figures.

The spread of this same construction principle is confirmed by other examples of single-family villas built in Monopoli during the same period and attributed to Domenico Capitanio, including the villa designed with Grazia Migliorini and the house in the Porto Marzano district dating from 1968. The mapping of Binishells in Apulia also includes the sports hall in Altamura, built in the 80s. In these cases, the envelope takes the form of a monolithic reinforced-concrete structure “pneumatically formed”, according to the patent held by Binishells S.p.A. (fig. 3), and is adapted to different typological arrangements while remaining referable to the construction principle of the dome.

These projects show how the patented system spread through heterogeneous building programmes, extending experimentation to different typologies¹¹.

It is therefore useful to speak of a form of mediated authorship: these are not “anonymous” works, but architectures in which Bini’s presence operates through the construction system, technical culture and formal matrix, rather than through a design authorship that can be unequivocally attributed to a single name¹².

The history of the Torre Cintola complex unfolded along an articulated chronology: the building application dates to 1970, the start of construction is documented in 1971, a design variation was introduced in 1972, and the final configuration was reached in 1976¹³. Rather than the outcome of a single, unified gesture, this architecture took shape as the result of a process of progressive refinement, in which technical invention was brought into dialogue with a large-scale hospitality programme. Within the typology of the tourist settlement, the accommodation unit and modularity thus became the testing ground for the Binishell system.

The original design provided for a facility accommodating 855 people, with a service centre, 60 domes measuring 12 m in diameter, larger domes intended for collective functions and conventional bungalows¹⁴. The decisive aspect, however, lies not in the number of structures, but in the way the dome became the ordering matrix of the entire complex (fig. 4).

The redefinition documented in 1976 reduced the bed capacity without altering this logic: 40 domes, each 12 m in diameter; one 20-m dome for the lounge and discotheque; and one 32-m dome for the restaurant, hall, kitchens and services, together with rooms, swimming pools and sports facilities¹⁵. The identical units, arranged in rings in three groupings, produced a unified organism and allowed the inflatable formwork to be reused.

It is at this stage that the case acquires a specific historiographical relevance, since the use of the patent does not correspond to a series of exceptional or formally iconic episodes, but to a technical-construction device capable of adapting to different architectural programmes. The reuse of the pneumatic membrane and the replication of identical modules optimised execution, reduced costs and made the Binishell system particularly suited to a serial hospitality structure.

From this perspective, the comparison with Casa Cupoletta, built in the early 70s by the Milan-based Binishell company to a design by the architect Luigi C. Olivieri, who also designed its furnishings, highlights the shift from an autonomous modular domestic prototype to the use of the dome as the matrix of a complex organism¹⁶. In the case of Torre Cintola, indeed, the repetition of the unit structures the very functioning of the hospitality settlement.

This logic was applied to the 40 accommodation units, which reprise solutions already tested in the Cupoletta: the cutting of the shell by means of vertical planes, the insertion of orthogonal partitions and the use of standard door and window components, serving access, internal distribution and the definition of openings.

The distinctive feature of the Torre Cintola case lies in the coexistence of construction experimentation and the programme of use of the complex: the settlement retains a strong formal recognisability, yet its presence has sedimented within the holiday landscape to the point of being perceived more as an element of context than as an autonomous architectural episode. In this form of oblivion “in plain sight”, the case acquires critical relevance because it invites a rereading of collective architectures that have remained at the margins of established narratives, in which construction innovation, local authors, changing uses and shared memory are intertwined.

While the Torre Cintola complex conveys the image of a serial translation of the patent, Cala Corvino instead brings its processual character to the fore. In this case, the Binishell system is inscribed within a series of adjustments, through which topography, distribution and planning control were mutually redefined.

The project began in 1970 with a group of sixteen 12-m domes, two 15-m domes and one larger 30-m dome, arranged over several levels for collective functions¹⁷. Unlike the organisation of Torre Cintola, the layout is not based on horizontal seriality, but on a hierarchical composition in which the smaller units are arranged around a central core. In this way, the Cala Corvino complex adopts the Binishell system according to a less extensive and more compositional logic (fig. 5).

From the outset, the project had to engage with the planning framework and with the need to bring the intervention within the categories permitted by the master plan. The initial refusal, followed by reconsideration and approval, shows how the project’s realisation depended on a precise technical-administrative classification and on the relationship between covered area, plot size and land-use designation¹⁸.

The design variations of 1972 and 1973, prompted by the need to improve distribution, rationalise services and adapt the complex to the slope of the site, clarify this processual logic¹⁹. The archival documentation from 1973 records a general redefinition of the architecture, which preserved the function, construction system and essential characteristics of the project while adapting them to new functional requirements²⁰.

In 1975, the inspections carried out during construction made visible the gap between the approved design and the built configuration: this emerged in the modifications to the canopies, external connections, cisterns and internal distribution, where the relationship between domes, terrain and building use was progressively renegotiated²¹.

The 1977 survey, which documents new underground portions, changes to access points, alterations to openings and staircases, and a greater emergence of the built volumes above ground level, shows that the issue concerned the very form of the architecture. The ground itself therefore assumed a design role and actively contributed to the construction of the building complex²².

The lowering of the ground level and the external arrangements affected the measurement of the volume, the perception of the levels and the final image of the work. Its legibility therefore depends not only on the morphology of the domes, but also on excavation and backfilling operations, external levels, elevated pathways and underground volumes.

In 1977, the Cala Corvino complex was still in the process of definition; only with the subsequent amnesty variation and the overall recalculation of the volume did its configuration reach a final stabilisation²³.

With the 1978 final inspection, the complex assumed its definitive layout: two 15-m domes in the first group; one 36-m dome containing 60 accommodation units and general services in the central group; and four 15-m domes in the third group, together with a swimming pool, wastewater treatment plant and tennis court. The architectural organism thus reached its final form through a sequence of successive corrections, inspections, conflicts and adjustments²⁴.

While in the 1980s staying in these complexes was inscribed within an imaginary of modernity, freedom and well-being, today it refers to a different cultural horizon, in which changing uses and meanings deposited over time become legible. The complexes of Torre Cintola and Cala Corvino preserve the figurative force of the domes in the relationship between constructional artifice, coastal nature, and the tourist device, without this persistence automatically translating into full architectural value. It is in this discrepancy between material permanence and the attenuation of critical legibility that oblivion “in plain sight” is defined: the complexes continue to be inhabited, crossed and photographed, while their assimilation into the imaginary of the holiday has progressively obscured their understanding as historically determined works; this is especially the case in relation to the superseding and normalisation of their principal innovative feature, namely the uniqueness of the Binishell patent and its constructional possibilities.

It is therefore unsurprising that, while in the 1980s these architectures were adopted as elements of an imaginary of progress and, for this reason, identified as a television backdrop for a futuristic tourist imaginary, today that same image has been largely superseded by other anthropological and architectural models.

In the case of Cala Corvino, the seriality of Bini’s domes entered the idea of mass tourism when the complex, chosen in 1986 as the set of the successful television series Professione Vacanze, became the backdrop for the rituals, forms of consumption and sociability of Italians on holiday.

Architecture thus acted as a figurative device capable of making recognisable an idea of modernity that was both domestic and spectacular, while its media circulation prolonged its persistence within the collective imaginary beyond the historical context of its initial diffusion.

This shift is particularly significant, as it shows how the domes, originally born from radical research into the building process, in-situ prefabrication and the reduction of construction time, were progressively assimilated as markers of the everyday.

In a different but complementary way, Volker Sattel’s documentary La Cupola, made in 2016 around the house designed by Dante Bini in Costa Paradiso for Michelangelo Antonioni and Monica Vitti between 1969 and 1970²⁵, restores centrality to the Binishell forms (figg. 6 and 7).

While in Professione Vacanze the dome functions as the backdrop to a collective and popular narrative of the holiday, in Sattel’s documentary the building is instead isolated and slowed down, removed from its role as setting in order to become the centre of the discourse (figg. 8 and 9).

This discrepancy between visual popularity and historical-critical recognition allows us to appreciate the varying cultural legacy of the famous villa commissioned by Antonioni on the Gallura coast.

Within the reception of Dante Bini’s work, the Costa Paradiso villa undoubtedly occupies an exceptional position, owing to the singularity of the site, the fame of the client, the iconic force of the episode and the clear recognisability of design authorship, evident in its conception, construction and interior definition. Even its subsequent abandonment has paradoxically reinforced its aura, fixing it as a highly legible modern ruin (fig. 10).

The complexes of Torre Cintola and Cala Corvino are no less present within the landscape, yet they persist there through different forms of sedimentation in memory, to which the circulation of the domes on the screens of Italian homes from the late 60s onwards also contributed.

The lateral diffusion of images, uses and representations constitutes a complementary documentary repertoire: films and architectures can be read as archival sources, capable of revealing not only a form, but also the ways in which it has been transformed over time. From this perspective, architecture offers itself as a “document”, and its context as the “material archive” of a layered history.

Cultural permanence does not depend only on the intrinsic quality of a work, but also on its narratability, the clarity of its authorial status, its capacity to condense into a powerful image, and the existence of interpretative and heritage devices capable of sustaining it over time. The Apulian cases thus show that normalised use can produce oblivion just as much as abandonment.

Bringing these cases back to the centre of the discourse does not simply mean filling a gap in the history of Italian architecture of the second half of the 20th century. It also means recognising, from a perspective close to microhistory, the cognitive value of lateral histories capable of illuminating the relationships between construction innovation, distributed authorship, changing uses and collective memory.

Oblivion “in plain sight” does not indicate only a loss, but also a field of research through which historical depth may be restored to what remains visible, inhabited, and yet only partially recognised as part of the condition of the contemporary.