Which heritage beyond UNESCO?

The endurance of the Marxer factory in Loranzè (1959-1960)

The economic and social vision promoted for approximately twenty years by Adriano Olivetti was strongly marked by a communitarian approach to territorial development, extending beyond the scale of individual buildings and the city of Ivrea alone. Olivetti defined urbanism as “the discipline of disciplines”, a scientific instrument for the equitable distribution of welfare. From this perspective, he encouraged studies in several Italian regions, with particular focus on the Canavese area. Here, he promoted in 1952 the Gruppo Tecnico per il Coordinamento Urbanistico del Canavese; supported from 1954 the I-Rur (Istituto per il Rinnovamento Urbano-Rurale del Canavese); and founded in 1955 the Lega dei Comuni. These institutions aimed to foster synergy between agriculture and industry, promoting economic development independent of Ivrea and preventing local backwardness. Within this framework, numerous industrial poles were created in the Canavese, characterized by visionary architectural concepts and advanced construction techniques. Nevertheless, following the economic crisis of the 1970s, many of these sites were progressively abandoned, and their buildings entered a process of decline. The Marxer Pharmaceutical Laboratories in Loranzè (1959-1960), by architect Alberto Galardi and engineer Antonio Migliasso, represent an emblematic example, long overlooked despite their architectural quality. 

In 2018, UNESCO recognized the World Heritage value of Ivrea, Industrial City of the 20th Century; however, the need to define a clear boundary for the Olivetti productive citadel led to the exclusion of several constructions. Today, the heritage recognition and legal protection of the buildings scattered throughout the Canavese still remain an unresolved issue.

Based on an in-depth analysis of the Marxer complex, this paper retraces the conception and construction history of the pharmaceutical laboratories. 

At a time when the redevelopment of the site is under consideration, the research also investigates the causes and consequences of its prolonged and largely unexplained period of neglect. Today, the building is in a poor state of conservation and requires substantial renovation to ensure its long-term preservation. The study draws on extensive and unpublished archival materials, including historical drawings, original photographs, and dedicated interviews with architect Alberto Galardi. The final aim is not only to acknowledge the unquestionable value of a single building, but also to reaffirm the broader significance of a diffuse communitarian project – typically Olivetti-style, yet progressively overshadowed – that extends beyond the boundaries of the city of Ivrea.

Located in northern Piedmont, within the Canavese area, Ivrea still represents one of the most distinctive European examples of a twentieth-century industrial city. Its urban transformation started with the establishment of the Olivetti company in the early decades of the twentieth century and extended over approximately eighty years, transcending the boundaries of Ivrea itself and evolving into a broader territorial system¹. 

Within this context, urban planning and architecture assumed for Adriano Olivetti (1901-1960) a structural and operational role, permitting the mediation between the industrial and the rural realities, between the built and the natural landscape². This view finally generated an extremely diffused, also fragmented, heritage, which could not be easily confined within a rigid perimeter.

From the 1970s onwards, the progressive decline of the Olivetti company, coupled with the rapid evolution of the industrial landscape, resulted in the transformation of numerous production sites in the Canavese region. Over the following years, many buildings became underused or abandoned, gradually losing their original features and materiality³. If on one hand, the inscription of Ivrea, Industrial City of the 20th Century on the UNESCO World Heritage List (2018) undoubtedly represented an international opportunity; on the other hand, it didn’t succeed in fully reflecting the intrinsically diffuse nature of the Olivettian heritage⁴. The necessary definition of a geographical boundary – the so-called Core Zone⁵ – within which 27 buildings were identified, all located within the sole municipality of Ivrea, has resulted in the exclusion of numerous other architectural realizations situated beyond this perimeter. Nevertheless, as ICOMOS has noted, recognizing the heritage beyond the Core Zone is complicated by the heterogeneity of the Canavese area, which is often characterized by recent and uncontrolled development that undermines the authenticity of the original project⁶.

Franco Ferrarotti’s definition of Adriano Olivetti as a “Mediterranean builder”⁷ reflected a design approach deeply rooted in the context in which it operated. Within this perspective, a key role was played by urban planning, defined by Olivetti himself as the “discipline of disciplines”⁸, aiming at a unified strategy for territorial transformation, the redistribution of well-being and the governance of changes induced by industrialization. It was during the post-war period that urban planning took on an operational and experimental form to develop the Canavese area, which was previously characterized by an agricultural economy. Adriano aimed to balance the Olivetti's industrialization by diversifying the sectors, thereby avoiding social disruption or abrupt impacts on existing communities. 

In 1952, Olivetti promoted the creation of the Gruppo Tecnico per il Coordinamento Urbanistico del Canavese (GTCUC), established within the framework of drafting a first Piano Regolatore for the area, thus operating at the territorial scale. The GTCUC introduced a fundamental principle: the development of the industrial city should not have been only concentrated around the core of Ivrea, but should instead have extended to the surrounding areas, promoting smaller industrial centers in a coordinated process of growth. This gave rise to a polycentric vision of the territory, in which Ivrea would retained a driving yet non-exclusive role. Additionally, in 1954, the Istituto per il Rinnovamento Urbano e Rurale del Canavese (I-RUR) was established, bringing together public and private entities, oriented toward the improvement of the region’s economic and social conditions. In 1955, the Lega dei Comuni further complemented this framework by introducing an institutional and administrative dimension. Within this vision, some local initiatives such as the establishment of the Vivai Canavesani⁹, founded by Adriano Olivetti himself in 1957, assumed an emblematic significance, testifying to the aim of integrating the industry into the territorial dimension through the provision of ornamental plants.

The result was a highly articulated territorial system, in which architecture contributed to the construction of a productive landscape that was both coherent and differentiated. As noted in the pages of Comunità:

the architects who were called to work in the Canavese, namely many of the leading Italian figures, perceived as their primary and central challenge that of adapting architecture to a landscape that is among the most singular, episodic, and uneven in our country. The solutions […] are variously interesting and variously qualified¹⁰.

To date, the designation of the industrial city of Ivrea as a UNESCO site has led to a misunderstanding of the relationship between the scale of the original Olivettian project and its actual recognition. By excluding many buildings located beyond the Core Zone from the World Heritage List, the understanding of Adriano Olivetti’s urban vision has been limited, reducing a relational and territorial system to an inevitably partial and monocentric representation. 

This condition is concretely reflected in the poor conservation state of several buildings historically promoted by the I-RUR. Among others, a first example is the Laboratorio di Vidracco (1957-1961), designed by Eduardo Vittoria, where the subsequent additions, the functional redesign and changes over time have progressively altered the building’s original configuration, eroding the initial relationship between architecture, landscape, and production. A similar situation is observed in the complex of the Cooperativa agricola di Montelanghe, designed by Giorgio Ranieri between 1957 and 1958. And again, the same fate has affected the Centro Ricerche di Tecnologia Meccanica (R.T.M.) in Vico Canavese (1963), designed by Nello Renacco, as well as the Argenterie del Canavese (1960-1962) by Carlo Viligiardi in Loranzè.

Within this heterogeneous context, the Marxer Pharmaceutical Laboratories in Loranzè (1959-1962), designed by architect Alberto Galardi with engineer Antonio Migliasso, stand out as one of the most emblematic cases (fig. 1). Abandoned for approximately thirty years, the Marxer buildings have been historically recognized for the quality of their architectural design, engineering construction, and territorial development strategy¹¹. Today, the absence of any form of heritage recognition, together with the exclusion from the UNESCO list, raises potential concerns regarding their material conservation at a pivotal moment marked by the transition toward new ownership and functional reuse.

The architectural design
Historically, the Marxer Pharmaceutical Laboratories were commissioned by two clients: on the one hand the Marxer company, founded in 1949 by Silvia Olivetti¹² and her husband Antoine Marxer¹³; on the other, Adriano Olivetti himself¹⁴. Olivetti supported the company’s growth, identified the Canavese as the site for its expansion, and personally commissioned the architect Alberto Galardi for the design of the new laboratories (fig. 2). The main and shared ambition of Olivetti and Marxer was to create a building set within a large park, far away from roads and noise, in a restorative environment, where researchers and workers could “work with joy, in a human-scale setting entirely enveloped by nature”¹⁵, while also engaging in sport activities. 

The complex, inaugurated on 1st July 1962, was conceived as a unified organism, articulated into closely interconnected volumes. The aim was to “create an ‘environment’ embedded within the Canavese landscape”¹⁶, not so much through mimesis as through “the principle of contrast”¹⁷. Galardi, in fact, while developing the factory blocks horizontally, “did not intend to hide them or articulate them so as to mitigate their geometric prominence”¹⁸, but rather “emphasized their frankness […] employing ‘simple’ materials such as concrete, aluminum, and glass. The relationship with the surrounding settlement is established essentially through the calibration of masses and proportions”¹⁹. Thus, the buildings appear free to “affirm themselves with an imperative presence, without, however, violating the environmental context, so delicate and complex”²⁰.

The functional program was extensive and highly specialized, as required by a productive and research institute, where “high-level scholars from Italian and foreign universities could gather”²¹. Within the various blocks were offices, laboratories, workshops, and even a library, in keeping with the Olivettian tradition. Yet, as the architect himself recalled, “from the very beginning I gave primary importance to the design of the garden”²², a large park of approximately 7,000 square meters, realized with the support of the Vivai Canavesani. In this regard, Musatti observed that “an essential element for the breathing of the entire complex is the design of the gardens. […] The surrounding vegetation penetrates the site and repeats itself […] but with an intentional variation in intensity and rhythm”²³. Also, Domus noted: “It must be recognized the quality of the garden, that does not detach itself from the natural landscape of the site […] but simply continues it in an ordered and more articulated way”²⁴ (fig. 3). Thus, at the programmatic level, the quality of the landscape design emerges as one of the key elements of the project, closely connected to the opportunities offered by its peculiar territorial location.

The constructive features
Beyond landscape design, a second significant aspect of the buildings concerns their materiality, characterized by the use of exposed reinforced concrete, recognized to be “of greatest relevance in this complex”²⁵. On the one hand, this choice clearly reveals the “young Galardi feel for Le Corbusier”²⁶; but on the other, it should be understood as an “intelligent and coherent reinterpretation, reworking some of the most vital themes and motifs of the great master builder”²⁷. References to Le Corbusier range from Sainte Marie de La Tourette to the architectural works in Chandigarh²⁸, from which Galardi drew the meticulous design of formwork, the plastic force of the gargoyles and the water basins, as well as the expressive value of light, ultimately producing “a clear and balanced composition”²⁹.

At the structural level, the load-bearing grid developed by Antonio Migliasso enabled the integration, along the south-east and south-west façades, of massive brise-soleil screens (fig. 4). Due to their scale and complexity, these elements initially required the production of off-site prototypes, for which “wooden formworks, fir planks 25 mm thick, with parallel sides, carefully planed in order to present a smooth surface in contact with the concrete”³⁰ were employed. Once in place, to optimize the result, the formworks were kept moist throughout the concrete curing process and treated with release soap. Geometrically, the screens consisted of slightly inclined horizontal fins, to facilitate rainwater runoff, and vertical fins set at 45 degrees. Positioned at 90 cm from the glass surfaces, the system regulated solar exposure while simultaneously promoting natural ventilation.

Equal care was devoted to other architectural details that defined, and still define today, the image of the complex. Notable in this regard are the gargoyles, which, “plastically conceived, entailed geometric challenges in their graphic representation”³¹ (figg. 5 and 6). By working on the different sections of the element, Galardi decided to produce an initial 1:10 scale model, subsequently refined into a full-scale prototype made in clay by specialized craftsmen. From this clay model, a plaster mold was created, which was then used to produce all the reinforced concrete elements³². A similar process was adopted for the realization of the external fountain, composed of 40 prefabricated concrete segments³³, as well as for all the drainage basins associated with the gargoyles (figg. 7, 8 and 9).

Along the façades and the roof, the window systems and the zenithal lighting solutions display innovative features for their time. The glazing was realized with primary steel frames and secondary frames in anodized aluminum, covering a total surface of approximately 4,500 square meters. The pivot-opening mechanisms, differentiated according to the modules, allowed for precise control of ventilation. The production building was further covered by a flat slab punctuated by approximately 200 circular Perspex skylights, mounted on deep prefabricated concrete drums “serving as brise-soleil […] allowing light to enter while excluding direct sunlight”³⁴.

From the time of its inauguration, the Marxer complex attracted significant critical attention, with several publications appearing in architectural journals, even overseas³⁵. Alberto Galardi also recalls a visit to the complex by Marcel Breuer, as well as the personal appreciation expressed by Oscar Niemeyer³⁶, who had been intrigued by its publication in the book Architettura Italiana Contemporanea³⁷. Among the other qualities, the landscape design as well as the raw concrete materiality were unanimously recognized as the most defining features of the buildings, still representing today two elements of unquestionable architectural and construction value. From the 1990s onwards, the Marxer laboratories entered a prolonged phase of abandonment following the gradual cessation of production activities and successive changes in ownership. This long period of disuse made the complex increasingly vulnerable to deterioration due to environmental exposure, a complete lack of maintenance and inappropriate use, which has finally compromised its most fragile components. 

From the materiality point of view, degradation mainly regards the exposed reinforced concrete. Recent surveys³⁸ reveal widespread corrosion of the reinforcing bars, leading to concrete spalling and extensive oxidation phenomena. Although this process affects the entire complex, it is especially evident in the brise-soleil elements and upper cornices, where the reduced thickness of the material has increased its vulnerability. By contrast, the gargoyles and the large fountain remain in relatively good conditions. 

The above-mentioned phenomena are also accompanied by cracking, and chromatic alterations due to weathering and surface deposits, as well as the proliferation of biological growth. In addition, the complex faced an almost total loss of its glazing components and interior finishings. The original window systems have essentially disappeared, while the Perspex skylights are severely compromised. The interior spaces are entirely altered, with only the self-supporting staircases in wood and granite remaining. Externally, the landscape design – so important in the original design of the complex – has become largely illegible due to the uncontrolled proliferation of invasive and spontaneous vegetation (fig. 10).

However, despite these conditions, an essential core of authenticity can still be identified in the concrete materiality and some historical elements, such as the “monumental gargoyles”³⁹ and the fountain, recognized for their quality as “the most significant features”⁴⁰. In parallel, the potential for a renewed landscape design in line with Adriano Olivetti's original vision and territorial integration is observed. Today, the complex faces a dual challenge: on the one hand, its heritage value has not yet been formally recognized within protection frameworks; on the other hand, reuse strategies capable of engaging with the site’s complexity should be defined. In this context, conservation should be understood as a dynamic instrument capable of guiding a transformative process and avoiding the crystallization of the structure and the loss of its authenticity. Since 2024, in conjunction with recent changes in ownership, there has been a renewed interest in the site, with minor interventions and a partial reopening to the public. However, these initiatives remained episodic and have not yet been translated into a comprehensive project of reuse and enhancement⁴¹.

This contribution aims to demonstrate that the architectural landscape of the Canavese area was historically conceived as part of a broader territorial project, deeply rooted in the development vision promoted by Adriano Olivetti. It was not merely a sum of isolated episodes, but rather a diffuse network of realizations – productive, as well as residential and social ones – that still reflects an integrated model of relationships between industry, territory, and community. The UNESCO recognition, which has undoubtedly contributed to consolidating the value of the Olivetti experience at the international scale, has nevertheless inevitably produced a partial representation of a peculiar phenomenon that is far more complex. 

The definition of a circumscribed Core Zone has, in fact, failed to capture the intrinsically territorial nature of the Olivettian project, leaving a significant portion of its heritage at the margins. 

Within this context, the Marxer Pharmaceutical Laboratories emerge as an emblematic case. The complex has historically been recognized for its architectural values, attributable on the one hand to its successful integration within the rural landscape, and on the other to its distinctive formal and material expression of exposed concrete. These qualities, though attenuated over time, remain still legible today, demonstrating the resilience of the Marxer Laboratories, capable of enduring beyond the purely administrative boundaries of the UNESCO site of Ivrea. The recent interest, further reinforced by the ongoing transition to new ownership, opens towards new perspectives for renovation. The challenge today is to make of the complex an exemplary pilot-case of reuse, valorizing the recognized historical, architectural, constructive, and relational qualities, while also integrating operational guidelines for future transformations in accordance with the conservation objectives.

Such a systemic acknowledgement of values, potentially extendable to several other buildings across the Canavese area, demonstrates the efficacy of a serial recognition of a diffuse heritage, intended as an alternative strategy to the perimeter-based heritage recognition that is too frequently adopted. Examples in this sense are already existing and can be observed within the UNESCO list itself, particularly in the context of the so-called transboundary or transnational sites. Among others, it is worth citing the 17 sites that compose the serial heritage of Le Corbusier’s work⁴² or, at a bigger scale, The Great Spa Towns of Europe"⁴³. In this sense, valorizing Adriano Olivetti’s original and broader vision, which goes beyond any rigid administrative boundary, may help in assessing the relevance of more comprehensive urban and social policies, needed today for several neighborhoods outside the Core Zone. Also, the recognition of a porously diffused heritage may finally restore those existing – albeit weakened – territorial interrelationships among numerous Canavese buildings

that honor Italian industry and architecture. If only for the commitment of their patrons, for the dedication of their designers, and for the seriousness with which efforts were made to enrich and to shape, always in an acceptable, if not excellent manner, the natural environments whose harmony has been […] too often compromised and irreparably destroyed⁴⁴.