How to scale-down (sampling) the vast Alpine brownfield geography resulted from the mapping? Which are the most representative brownfield typologies, based on recurrence and status? What is the basic landscape structure of these representative brownfields? Is it really possible to identify a common structure per site typology? And also, is it possible to associate a certain transformation potential to a specific landscape structure? Based on the mapping results, the characterisation phase focuses on the most representative site typologies of Alpine brownfields. These are identified and analysed according to a structural criterion, which emphasises the role of previous industry-environment interactions as generator of a specific and recurring landscape structure. Through a comparative analysis of aerial views and self-generated figure-ground diagrams, four representative site typologies are selected and described on the basis of their recognisable structural features and their inherent transformation potential.

1 Framework

Focus

To proceed towards the further analytical level, the geography of Alpine brownfields resulting from the mapping phase needs to be scaled down through a sampling process. This is oriented according to the research framework and hypothesis, thus considering the landscape structure of mountain brownfields (both the object and the field of investigation) as the formal result of the functional interaction between the site and the surroundings. A reasonable way to proceed, in decoding the mapping result according to this principle, is to consider the originating function at the base of industrial production in the mountain context. The function always relates, in fact, to a specific industrial process, whose requirements in terms of location, raw materials, technology and production lead to a recognisable, recurring spatial form of related industrial activities. The way in which this spatial form relates to the mountain environmentFootnote 1—or how the latter influences the ‘spatiality’ of industrial sites—is the focus of the characterisation phase. Through the typological analysis of the most representative categories of Alpine industries, the specific landscape structure of related brownfields is identified through the assignment of recognisable spatial/physical characters (form). However, the characterisation process is not limited to the description of landscape structure typologies, but it attempts also to outline the transformation potential inherent to each specific structure. This latter result represents indeed the base for the following phase, in which a foreseeable transformation is developed and tested on real-world case study sites.

Criteria

The shift from the industrial sectors emerged in the mapping process to the most representative landscape structures of Alpine industries is not immediate. The identification and selection of the latter typologies was developed through a two-step procedure and guided by specific criteria. In the first step, the six industrial sectors identified in the mapping, i.e. those covering Alpine heavy and manufacturing industries developed approximately between 1850 and 1960, have been reconsidered according to the following criteria:

  • technological development (process-related), i.e. by focusing on the main technologies at the base of traditional mountain industry. Already identified in Chapter 3, these technologies can be either old (mineral extraction and waterpower) or new (railway and hydropower), depending on the temporal introduction in the mountain context;

  • declining trend, i.e. by considering the overall performance of these sectors, with the aim to ensure a good coverage of the different forms/impacts of industrial decline in the Alpine context.

Accordingly, four sectors have been selected among the previous six:

  • building material industry (mineral-based with occasional energy integration, moderate decline with approx. 50% closed/downsized sites);

  • ferrous metallurgy (integrated mineral-energy-railway, moderate decline with 50% closed/downsized sites);

  • textile industry (integrated water-energy, heavy decline with 80% closed/downsized sites);

  • nonferrous metallurgy (integrated energy-railway, moderate-to-heavy decline with approx. 60% of closed/downsized sites).

Paper industry and chemical industry have been excluded. Concerning the first, this is due to the very low rate of closed/downsized sites (thus not representing a potential source of brownfields) as well as because of the functional and typological resembling of textile industry—both united and shaped by the exploitation of waterpower. In the case of chemical industry, the exclusion is mainly due to the very high heterogeneity of sub-sectors, sites and declining trends/paths, which makes difficult if not useless to focus on a common landscape structure. In addition, chemical industry has in general a high process-related resilience, which makes the few relevant brownfields almost self-standing situations.

Given the aforementioned four sectors, the second selection step aimed at identifying a specific, highly representative site typology within each of them. As said, the site typology is directly related to the production process, being its formal (spatial) outcome. The identification of the right site typologies was done based on:

  • higher recurrence (quantitative criteria);

  • good representativeness of the sector technological background (qualitative criteria).

The resulting selected typologies are, therefore:

  • cement plants (building material industry): 42 sites of which 23 closed/downsized;

  • EAF steelworksFootnote 2 (ferrous metallurgy): 28 sites of which 11 closed/downsized;

  • spinning millsFootnote 3 (textile industry): 35 sites of which 28 closed/downsized;

  • aluminium smeltersFootnote 4 (nonferrous metallurgy): 10 sites of which 9 closed/downsized;

Together, these four site typologies are able to cover, in a concise yet diverse way, the wide range of traditional heavy and manufacturing mountain industries (Fig. 6.1). The heterogeneity of this selection is considered an essential prerequisite to ensure a valid and realistic test-base for the research hypothesis.

Fig. 6.1
figure 1

Mountain industries, technology-based taxonomy

Full size image

Methods

Based on these criteria, a common base for the typological analysis has been generated by selecting six existing industrial sites within each identified site typology. To ensure enough diversity both in terms of context (both regional and national) and status (including, among the six, at least one active site and one completely closedFootnote 5), a heterogeneous set of sites was identified. For each site, a most recent and same-scale aerial photography was at first collected from either Google Earth or national/sectoral geoportals. Based on that, a simple figure-ground diagram is then ‘automatically’ generated, considering site-related main buildings, infrastructures as well as basic topographical elements (main water bodies and slope-plain junction lines). Through the comparative analysis of the aerial views and the related figure-ground diagrams, a detailed typological description can be then outlined, using both a textual and a diagrammatic form. While the text describes and comments essential aspects of the typology-specific landscape structure—such as the size and spatial footprint of sites, the topography, the builtscape composition, the open space pattern, the attached infrastructural network –, the three-dimensional landscape structure diagram shows, through and abstract isometric projection, the simplified spatial interrelations between the constitutive elements and their specific reuse potential (low, medium, high, with attached short description). Supported by these materials—aerial views and related figure-ground diagrams, textual description, ideogrammatic landscape scheme—the four representative site typologies of Alpine industries (cement plants, EAF steelworks, spinning mills and aluminium smelters) are analysed in the following section.

2 Typological Analysis

Cement plants

Analysed sites (Fig. 6.2 and 6.3): Zementwerk Eiberg, Schwoich/A (C)—Colacem, Gemonio/I (A)—Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke, Peggau/A (D)—Ciment Vicat, Montagnole/F (C)—Salonit Anhovo, Deskle/SI (D)—Italcementi, Albino/I (C).

The driving force behind cement production landscapes is mineral extraction and processing. Cement production is organised around a cement production site (the cement plant) and one or more related quarries for the extraction of raw materials (limestone, marlstone, clay). The average spatial footprint of cement plants is rather small and compact, though fragmented in several buildings and stand-alone structures (silos). By including the surrounding quarries and related infrastructures, however, the footprint extends considerably. The topography is often complex and uneven: due to the location and nature of cement production, cement plants have a strong relationship with both natural topographic features (mountain slopes, depressions/canyons, etc.) and artificial ones (quarrying-related surface alteration). The cement plant itself is usually located in flat sites adjacent to the slope-plain junction line (Gemonio, Peggau, Deskle), but it can also be integrated in foothill plateaus (Schwoich, Montagnole) or, more rarely, directly in the mountain slope through terracing (Albino). According to the excavation methods and the natural topography, quarries can be either flat (Schwoich, Gemonio, Montagnole) or slope attached (Schwoich, Peggau, Deskle, Albino), although in both cases these are developed in layers. Built structures are concentrated in the cement production site and usually consist of reinforced-concrete buildings suited for production (kilns, mills, etc.) or storage (silos) activities, with a relatively limited building footprint and an expectably relevant height (vertical-developed builtscape). The open spaces are generally consisting of mineral surfaces in and around production facilities and areas—extensive hard/paved surfaces in the cement plant and its premises and soft/unpaved surfaces in quarries and quarries-to-factory white roads—as well as natural/green surfaces in and around quarrying areas—interstitial spaces of quarry-to-factory road network, leftover/abandoned mining surfaces spontaneously rewilded and artificially renatured slopes. Since cement industry is a typical dry industry,Footnote 6 no significant functional relation with water systems can be identified—though, in some cases, the proximity to rivers and water courses is due to topographical constraints (Schwoich, Peggau, Deskle, Albino). In terms of transport systems, cement production complexes are strongly relying on grey infrastructures (road systems) due to their high flexibility in facing topographic constraints and also because of their adaptability to constantly changing production landscapes (quarries form and location, and quarries-to-plant connections). Indeed, cement production landscapes are characterized by an extensive and complex network of gravel roads connecting the production site to the quarries, and even the quarries together. This network often intercepts, on purpose or not, extensive natural/green ‘unused’ spaces, such as abandoned quarrying sites and interstitial forested areas, thus fostering the integration of these altered landscapes into the semi-natural surroundings. The resulting complexity of this landscape typology is at the same time a major challenge and opportunity with regards to transformation (Fig. 6.4). It is a challenge in relation to its large footprint, whose management often requires a multi-scalar and multi-sectoral planning approach. But it is also an opportunity due to the already existing high level of integration of the (former) productive landscape into a wider environmental context. More than on the cement plant site and the existing buildings, the reuse potential of this typology lies in fact on the extensive landscape alteration caused by mining activities, which can be turned, through nature-based remediation, selective renaturation and increased fruition, into a new and valuable component of the regional ecosystem network.

Fig. 6.2
figure 2

cement plants 1 of 2

Full size image
Fig. 6.3
figure 3

cement plants 2 of 2

Full size image
Fig. 6.4
figure 4

cement plants, typlogical model

Full size image

EAF steelworks

Analysed sites (Fig. 6.5 and 6.6): Ugitech, Ugine/F (A)—Monteforno Acciaierie e Laminatoi, Bodio/CH (C)—Ascometal, Le Cheylas/F (C)—Voestalpine Böhler, Kapfenberg/A (A)—Breitenfeld Edelstahl, St. Barbara im Mürztal/A (A)—SIJ/Acroni, Jesenice/SI (D).

The driving force of mountain iron and steelmaking landscapes shifted through the time from mineral extraction (iron ore) to the large-scale exploitation of hydropower, with the necessary support/inclusion of railway infrastructures. EAF steelworks, which belong to the last and more recent version of mountain steelmaking, are generally organised around a core production area (EAF plant with casting house and one or more rolling mills) and additional ‘service’ spaces for pre and post -production activities. On average, the spatial footprint of EAF steelworks is rather large, although the functional proximity between the production phases makes it also very compact and dense. Due to the size of productive sites and the particular requirements of heavy production processes, the topography of EAF steelworks is always totally flat and detached from reliefs—though in some cases the proximity to slopes is unavoidable, e.g. in narrow valley floors (Ugine, Bodio) or for transport/energy reasons (Le Cheylas, Kapfenberg). In case of very large and early established steelworks (Ugine, Kapfenberg), the inclusion of natural topographic elements such as rivers and slopes and their modification according to production purposes has influenced the spatial organisation of the site itself, which is indeed much more complex and chaotic than average. In terms of built structures, it can be clearly distinguished between production-related structures, i.e. huge steel-framed halls with extensive building footprints, and small-scale service buildings located at the margins of the site. The system of open spaces can be also clearly distinguished by function and form between inner and outer spaces. Within the core productive site, the open spaces are normally acting as mere functional ‘extensions’ of buildings, while also integrating handling/transport infrastructures, thus being concrete paved aprons, roads and parking areas. On the edges of the site and around it, the open spaces are more fragmented and blended into the semi-natural surroundings. These mainly include infrastructural and open-air storage areas, with many interstitial leftover green spaces. A characterising feature of EAF steelworks are temporary or permanent waste and by-product storage areas such as dust landfills or slag heaps, which can be located within (Bodio, Jesenice) or in the proximity of the site (Ugine, Le Cheylas, St. Barbara im Mürztal and, not visible, Kapfenberg). The stop of production activities and the closure of the site causes the progressive abandonment of these peripheral open spaces, which are often subject to rewilding processes and thus camouflaged with the surroundings (especially nearby forested areas). Natural and artificial water infrastructures do not have a strong relevance within EAF steelmaking landscapes, apart from an historically induced proximity for ancient waterpower uses (e.g. hammer mills in Kapfenberg). Hydropower is in fact mostly generated in off-site facilities, such as power station located elsewhere in upper and side valleys, although in a few cases it can also take place within the productive site (Le Cheylas). A strong attachment and influence of railway infrastructures can be instead noticed, as all EAF steelworks are located along railway lines of regional, national and even international importance. The site is usually connected to the main railway line through one or more secondary tracks, which then split up in several sub-tracks within the site ending up into large production halls or in functional aprons (raw material storage areas, finished products storage areas, etc.). In all cases, and clearly in the most complex and larger plants (Ugine, Bodio, Le Cheylas, Jesenice), the internal railway network turns the EAF steelworks site into almost an appendix of the main (external) railway line. This makes the existing infrastructural system represented by the in–out railway network a major asset in terms of reuse potential for EAF steelworks (Fig. 6.7). Linked to the high reuse flexibility of large steel-framed halls (quick and low-cost structural refurbishment and indoor parcelling out), the railway network can be reused as such and thus allow the site to be redeveloped to host other railway-based activities, such as logistic platforms or SME business-industrial parks.

Fig. 6.5
figure 5

EAF steelworks 1 of 2

Full size image
Fig. 6.6
figure 6

EAF steelworks 2 of 2

Full size image
Fig. 6.7
figure 7

EAF steelworks, typological model

Full size image

Spinning mills

Analysed sites (Fig. 6.8 and 6.9): Cantoni ITC, Ponte Nossa/I (C)—Zegna Baruffa Lane Borgosesia, Borgosesia/I (A)—Seilerwarenfabrik, Füssen/D (C)—Linificio Canapificio Nazionale, Villa d’Almè/I (A)—Bombažna Predilnica in Tkalnica, Tržič/SI (C)—Spinnerei Hämmerle, Feldkirchen/A (C).

The driving force behind textile industry landscapes is water, initially used for hydraulic energy production and then for (small-scale) hydroelectric generation too. The required high proximity of all the production phases (spinning, weaving, dyeing, etc.), as well as the scale of facilities and spaces, makes the built footprint of textile spinning mill rather compact and limited, especially if compared to other mountain industries. However, since many water-related infrastructures of different size and footprint (catchment systems, deviations, power canals, etc.) are usually integrated into the productive site, the overall spatial footprint of textile spinning mills can be, in some cases, quite significant. Although not clearly evident at a first glance, topography also plays a key role in shaping the footprint of textile mills, especially in connection to water flows. Many old textile spinning mills are in fact located in direct contact to river courses, either where the latter form strong meanders (Füssen, Tržič) or wider turns (Ponte Nossa, Borgosesia, Villa d’Almè). Such locations are preferred as the difference in height between the upper and lower river course provides faster water flows, suitable for easy catchment and/or direct use. Topographically difficult locations such as gorges (Füssen, Tržič) or very narrow valley floors (Ponte Nossa) can be also linked to the water flow issue. Within the core productive site, built structures largely prevail by footprint and prominence on open spaces, leaving to the latter just the minimum required space to separate buildings and support small-scale handling and pedestrian mobility. The dense builtscape of spinning mills is usually composed by a mixture of stone/brick-made horizontal-developed shed halls and vertical-oriented multi-storey building, often bounded together in a layered ensemble without significant interruptions. In many cases, the ancient origin and the forms of existing buildings leads to a relatively high architectural value, compared to other typologies. On the site edges and surroundings, the prevailing open spaces are often involuntarily created/shaped by site-related water infrastructures, both natural and man-made. This is the case of power canals and other artificial derivations from natural rivers nearby, which are designed to catch water upstream the mill and canalise it directly through the factory (often underneath the buildings, in the underground), bring it back afterwards to the river downstream. Resulting open spaces between the river and the canal system usually host semi-natural environments with spontaneous reforestation on the river shores, grassland and small-scale crops. Such a waterscape makes textile mills to be somehow anchored to the river course via canals, and thus being integrated to different extents into the river landscape. Depending on the topography, the available space and the water required (mill size and capacity), this structural ‘anchoring’ can be relatively extended (Ponte Nossa, Borgosesia, Villa d’Almè, Feldkirchen) or even quite short and compact (Füssen, Tržič). Due to the relatively small size of plants and manufactured outputs, no functional link was established with railway systems, which are indeed often missing in the proximity. On the other hand, textile mills are often located in the vicinity of old town centres and historical settlement, making their location somehow more ‘urban’ than other Alpine industrial typologies. These location advantages, connected to the valuable builtscape and especially the waterscapes, lead textile mills to have a rather complete and equally distributed reuse potential (Fig. 6.10). The symbiotic combination of built and natural heritage characterising textile mills can be enhanced and linked, through adaptive reuse and conservative transformation, to larger processes/projects of cultural landscape valorisation. Furthermore, small-scale hydropower production inherited from the previous industrial cycle can support the establishment of green and creative businesses, which can also profit from existing indoor spaces of high flexibility and architectural value.

Fig. 6.8
figure 8

Spinning mills 1 of 2

Full size image
Fig. 6.9
figure 9

Spinning mills 2 of 2

Full size image
Fig. 6.10
figure 10

Spinning mills, typological model

Full size image

Aluminium smelters

Analysed sites (Fig. 6.11 and 6.12): Constellium, Steg-Hohtenn/CH (C)—Trimet, St. Jean de Maurienne/F (A)—Novelis, Borgofranco d’Ivrea/I (C)—Montecatini-Alumetal, Mori/I (C)—Pechiney, L’Argentière-la-Bessée/F (C)—Salzburger Aluminium, Lend/A (C).

The location and thus the size of aluminium smelters are therefore strongly influenced by either energy sources and railway accessibility, or better by their relationship. Medium-sized sites (Steg-Hohtenn, Borgofranco d’Ivrea, Mori, L’Argentière-la-Bessée) are the rule, but large (St. Jean de Maurienne) or even rather small sites (Lend) are also existing. The spatial footprint is quite diverse and relates to the site size: very small sites are usually rather compact, recalling in some way textile mills or cement factories, while medium-large sites are generally more fragmented, such as steelworks. On the other hand, topographic features play a key role only in relation to energy production. Smelters with detached energy generation facilities (e.g. hydropower stations in side valleys at high altitudes) are usually located in the centre of flat valley floors (Steg-Hohtenn, St. Jean de Maurienne), while smelters with in-house hydropower generation facilities, and thus including water catchment systems (canals, pipelines), shows a significant proximity to steep slopes (Lend, Mori) and/or river courses (L’Argentière-la-Bessée, Borgofranco d’Ivrea). The builtscape of aluminium smelters is also highly heterogeneous and somehow related to each site background (origin, energy source, capacity). A common feature of all smelters is the presence of one or more long-shaped, thin buildings (either with steel-frame or concrete structure) with variable extension, which hosted the electrolysis furnaces. In addition, medium-sized working halls in steel frame for side processing (foundries, casting), concrete silos for alumina storage and minor concrete buildings for various purposes (workshops, administration) are usually present. The open spaces within the site perimeter are normally consisting of extensive paved surfaces functionally organised for internal transport and storage purposes, often integrating a basic railway network for in–out goods transfer. Along the site borders or on unused areas the mineral surfaces leave space to spontaneous and/or leftover green surfaces—in case of prolonged closure even to woodlands (Mori). As previously said, the relationship with water is really variable and mostly dependent on the location of hydropower production (in-house or external), but basically most of the smelters are more or less closely located to water courses. Road and railway connections are essential, with the latter being a constituting element of aluminium smelting and surroundings. The facilities are connected to the nearby railway lines through a single or double tracks with variable extensions depending on the railway proximity. In case of long-time closed down sites the external railway link might have disappeared or even removed (L’Argentière-la-Bessée, Mori, partially Borgofranco d’Ivrea). Compared to the other typologies, the reuse potential of aluminium smelters is not always easy to identify, especially due to the high heterogeneity of sites and facilities (Fig. 6.13). In general, the good adaptability/flexibility of existing buildings (especially of electrolysis halls) make them easily reusable for small-scale production activities and other purposes. At the same time, the existing infrastructural system (transport and energy) might provide in the best cases a ready-made “platform” for the implementation of new built structures. Redundant open and paved surfaces can also be de-sealed, eventually decontaminated, and renatured to function as ecological compensation zones.

Fig. 6.11
figure 11

Aluminium smelters 1 of 2

Full size image
Fig. 6.12
figure 12

Aluminium smelters 2 of 2

Full size image
Fig. 6.13
figure 13

Aluminium smelters, typological model

Full size image

3 Landscape Structures

The typological analysis has revealed how each site typology, shaped around a specific production process, generates its own recognisable landscape. The latter can be considered as the layered result of direct and indirect impacts of a certain industrial activity on the mountain environment. Indirect influences relate to the adaptive process occurred/occurring in the surroundings (the hosting environment), while direct impacts derive from the industrial facility itself and its functional composition. The landscape structure shared by many different sites within the same productive typology is influenced by the past and present functional purposes of industrial production, thus resulting in a specific and distinguishable mix of buildings, open spaces and infrastructures. These three categories of spatial elements are arranged everywhere according to the same logic, no matter of the site background, status and context. The complexity of the industrial landscape seems not to be related to the size of industrial facilities, but more to the spatial extent of industry-related infrastructures within the surroundings. Rather huge site typologies, such as EAF steelworks, are almost isolated or detached from the surroundings, as all activities and infrastructures are concentrated within the same, large and circumscribed, area. On the contrary, those typologies with a compact and small-sized footprint, such as spinning mills and cement factories, are far more entrenched with the surrounding topography due to a stronger relation with material resources (e.g. water catchment and quarrying). Since this structural complexity is not limited to the site boundaries, but indeed linked to the site-context influences, the landscapes of early industries are clearly exceeding in this sense those of more ‘recent’ heavy industries. The comparison between sites belonging to the same typology, but differing by their status, shows also how the landscape structure can change during the ‘turn-to-brownfield’ process. Built structures, open spaces and infrastructure cease their original function while acquiring new meanings and purposes in the view of transformation. The attempt to identify, or measure, the reuse potential of the landscape typologies under investigation clearly addresses this issue. A first, interesting finding is that the reuse potential of built structures is connected to their efficient re-usability, which means that reuse is privileged where existing buildings can be easily reconverted for other purposes (especially productive ones). Winning typologies in this sense are those with vast and flexible built spaces, from the large metal-frame halls of EAF steelworks and aluminium smelters to the rational shed halls of spinning mills. If the existing built structures are too strictly related to a specific production purpose, such as in the case of cement plants, a too low functional adaptability can prevent a quick and economically sustainable reuse. With regards to the open spaces, which have equal if not greater relevance compared to built structures, it can be generally noticed that in all the typologies these have a medium-to-high reuse potential as either ecological compensation areas (e.g. former quarries in cement industries, slag dumps in EAF steelworks, riverside areas in spinning mills) and building/densification zones (e.g. large aprons in aluminium smelters and EAF steelworks). The infrastructures, finally, are those with the higher reuse potential in all the investigated typologies. Transport infrastructures such as railway connections and internal networks in heavy industries (EAF steelworks and aluminium smelters) as well as extensive gravel road networks in mining industries (cement plants) can be refurbished for the same purpose or reconverted to different uses. Energy infrastructures connected to hydropower, such as the extensive water catchment systems and energy production facilities as those of spinning mills and aluminium smelters, can also be refurbished for the same purpose (especially in the case of micro-hydropower stations) or converted to recreational and/or touristic scopes (e.g. water cultural landscapes). The characterisation process, conducted by means of a simplified comparative analysis of several sites within specific typologies, has revealed that: a) a certain landscape structure does exist across seemingly different sites; b) this landscape structure is subject to changes over time, being also highly influenced by the contextual ‘environmental’ conditions; c) this landscape structure holds already a transformation potential. In the following chapter, these findings will be concretely tested on four case study sites, selected from the aforementioned ‘characterisation’ typologies.