‘We work it out’: Roma settlements in Rome and the limits of do-it-yourself

Abstract

This article examines forms of do-it-yourself (DIY) urbanism practised by two Roma communities in Rome. The groups live in self-made camps that exist in a legal limbo determined by municipal policies that fluctuate between ‘tolerating’ and threatening to demolish them. We argue that it is the simultaneous solidity and temporaneity of residents’ DIY interventions that have delayed their eviction. We analyse how residents have sought to create dignified conditions through the informal architecture of their homes, to access water and electricity, and to create areas of beauty and safety around themselves. In doing so, they practice a form of tactical urbanism, generating environments for sociality and forging public spaces in apparent ‘non-places’: on a highway exchange and in a parking lot. Their DIY is accepted by the authorities as long as it is ‘light’, does not engage urban infrastructure and remains within abject locations.

Keywords:

• DIY
• tactical urbanism
• informal urbanism
• Rome
• Roma camps
• self-made housing

Notes

1. The term ‘Roma’ is widely used in Europe to refer to various groups who describe themselves as Roma, Sinti, Travelers, Gypsies, Manouches, Gitanes etc. and who often experience intense discrimination and housing segregation (European Commission, n.d.). Despite the common use of this umbrella term, they are not a single unified entity. The two groups discussed in this article call themselves Rom (the Italian for Roma); the first consider themselves part of the Xoraxané group, but our interviewees rarely used the term in discussion with us. The second group refers to itself frequently as Kalderasha, so we use this term in our writing. The two are very dissimilar in terms of religion, languages spoken, social organization and cultural practices. Italy does not formally collect ethnic data, so exact numbers of Roma and Sinti are unavailable, although estimates put them at 140,000–160,000 (Bravi and Sigona 2009). Around half are Italian citizens; the other half can be divided into two main (but significantly diverse) groupings: (1) citizens of successor states of the former Yugoslavia, who mostly migrated (or whose parents and grandparents migrated) to Italy between the 1970s and the late 1990s, first for economic reasons and later to escape ethnic conflict. Despite their long history in Italy, many have been unable to get residency rights or citizenship; and (2) Romanians who have arrived since the late 1990s and who, as European Union citizens, have greater residency, employment and voting rights. Estimates of the size of Rome’s Roma population are equally unreliable, but the most plausible figure is between 12,000 and 15,000 (Amnesty International 2010). At least 2000 Italian Roma live in standard housing. The remainder – mostly from the former Yugoslavia and Romania, but also some Italians – live in camps of varying sizes and conditions of precariousness. It should be noted that most foreign Roma lived in standard housing before moving to Italy.

2. In 2001, 1471 people officially lived in ‘improper housing’. However, Mudu (2014) notes that categorization and data-collection methods changed in the 1980s, overlooking much larger numbers living in substandard housing.

3. Although in the 1980s some Italian Roma were given public housing in Spinaceto.

4. Legge regionale N. 82/85 Regione Lazio ‘Norme a favore dei rom’. Italian authorities commonly still refer to Roma and Sinti as ‘nomads’. Many groups did practise nomadism in the past; however, this diminished radically as industrialization in the post-Second World War era reduced demand for their services and goods. Some Roma and Sinti still relocate seasonally for commercial reasons (e.g. with travelling fairs) and many foreign Roma practise circular migration between Italy and other countries (Solimene 2014).

5. The law (Decreto legge n. 122/2008) concerned the regions of Lombardy, Campania and Lazio (where Milan, Naples and Rome are located, respectively) and was later extended to two other regions.

6. Note that overcrowding is not a feature of our case studies, although it does exist in numerous other Roma camps.

7. See Burgess (1984), 73–5, on the role of key informants in field research.

8. For anthropological literature on camp-dwelling Roma, see Piasere (1996, 1999a, 1999b, 2000), Solimene (2014) and Daniele (2011).

9. This ‘village’ was completed in 2012 and conditions there are problematic. As Amnesty International (2012, 12) points out, ‘La Barbuta is sandwiched between railway tracks, Rome’s orbital road and the runway of Ciampino airport. Local NGOs are concerned that air and noise pollution due to the proximity of the airport could put the health and safety of inhabitants at risk.’

10. This is based on longstanding relationships of trust with various priests. In addition, they have worked extensively for hotels and restaurants, but recently this has diminished, creating economic difficulties.

11. See Angotti (2012) and Pagano (forthcoming) for a discussion of who benefits and who loses out when neighbourhoods gentrify.

12. Regional Law No. 18/2008 requires that halting sites provide shade, connection to electricity, drinking water, at least two toilets and a septic tank.