Jacopo Galli and Mattia Bertin are two Italian researchers who specialize in this field. urban destruction: what happens when a war erupts or a hurricane barrels through. Their view is that both kinds of events, though they look different, will become more closely linked as climate change and scarce resources push cities to adapt. They also explore restructuring. Is it worth rebuilding areas that suffer damage whenever it rains? Can cities be planned today with the logic of the past? Are European funds being invested wisely?
Galli and Bertin joined El Periódico de España from the Prensa Ibérica group after taking part in a discussion about two of their books, Cities Under Pressure: Urban Restructuring Strategy and The Impact of Covid on Cities, at the Polytechnic University of Madrid.
What defines a catastrophic event? Could it be a natural disaster, a war, or a form of tourism that reshapes cities in its own way?
Mattia Bertin: That’s a strong question. First, disasters should not be seen as inevitable events. Disasters are the consequence of how places are built. We are facing more extreme episodes, and other destructions, like wars and violent conflicts, have roots in sociopolitics and religion. Tourism is slower to unfold. This links to the way industries shape cities since the mid-nineteenth century. It is a conflict that harms the city, but it is driven by economic forces rather than pure catastrophe.
We watched Ukrainian cities suffer in real time and now the Gaza Strip; what will the rebuilding process look like? How will it differ from the reconstructions after World War II?
Jacopo Galli: Today’s destruction is not the same as in the postwar era. People recall images of Guernica and Stalingrad, but today the scale is vastly larger. The book argues for new solutions because those adopted after the Second World War won’t work now. They were designed for smaller cities centered around historic cores. Now we see widespread physical losses in neighborhoods with poor urban quality, and these areas will require more transformative approaches. Ten-story Soviet-era blocks in Ukraine, for instance, are being removed rather than rebuilt. Different strategies are needed.
For example, how does one rebuild a city when a country remains at war?
We can learn from history. London’s reconstruction plan emerged in 1943, even as the war still raged. It is possible to begin early. Architecture and planning require time, yet a clear blueprint for rebuilding small elements can start the process. In the outskirts of Kiev, areas that were completely destroyed can now be rebuilt thoughtfully.
Graffiti on a Kiev building destroyed during attacks. SERGEI CHUZAVKOV / ZUMA PRESS / CONTACTPHOTO
MB: It’s wrong to assume technology will solve all problems. The consequences of geology, hydrology, and climate change demand careful consideration. Rivers cannot simply be moved for industrial needs.
There are hundreds of thousands of homes in Spain built very close to or above floodplains. Do they need to be demolished, or is there a political option that avoids expected floods and homelessness?
MB: Yes, demolition may be unavoidable. The money to replace repeatedly damaged assets won’t stretch far. If Mediterranean homes sit on rivers and floods grow more frequent and intense, resources for management will be insufficient.
Controlling climate change cannot be purely defensive. In some regions, it will reconfigure entire landscapes. Climatologists warn that some areas may become uninhabitable. In Italy and Spain, conditions will shift so much that the current norms may not hold. The interval between disasters will shorten, making continuous rebuilding impractical.
Extreme events are increasingly common. In Madrid, a recent windstorm felled hundreds of trees, tragically including one that caused a casualty. Are European cities adopting interesting strategies? It was mentioned that Paris could remove up to 40 percent of asphalt in places.
MB: The climate crisis is humanity’s burden, not nature’s. The planet has endured many shifts. The tension lies in how human life is currently organized. A mismatch exists between natural systems and human activity, which tends to push in one direction because of human choices.
Image from a nearby building showing the fallen tree that claimed a life in Madrid. COURT VIEW | @DRAGONEGIGI
If the goal is to protect lives, a principle should be to redesign spaces as the frequency of disasters grows. This means addressing risk, vulnerability, and exposure, with a focus on people and built assets. Reducing vulnerability is essential when danger rises and resources are limited.
Is there anything new that can be done beyond simply removing asphalt and adding greenery?
: Not easy. The current style of heat management in cities is flawed. A modern version of the Cerdá Plan would not pass today’s rules, which makes it harder to implement. These approaches still have value; the rules simply need to be rethought. This is a major urban issue.
MB: It is necessary to adopt fewer constraints and let architects, planners, and policymakers discuss the shared vision rather than clinging to fixed guidelines.
There is also a broader view that destruction is social as well as physical. War often accompanies inequality, but inequality itself can be a form of destruction.
The two researchers note that inequality is rising globally and that spatial tools can shape reconstruction. In many places, reconstruction fuels conflict, and repeated cycles of destruction and rebuilding prevent lasting peace. Some regions experience conflicts every few decades, with new rounds of destruction following every reconstruction. That pattern undermines the goal of durable peace.
MB: The conflict between Israel and Palestine underscores how the organization of a region can trap people in places unable to move, relate, or work. The urban form, including Paris’s banlieues, reveals similar administrative traces. Exclusion becomes a socio-administrative issue that complicates recovery and coexistence.
There is ongoing talk in Spain about urban boundaries and how infrastructure can create barriers to opportunity. Are these barriers intentional? Do they reflect a broader tendency toward inequality?
MB: One professor noted that the planner’s task is to draw a line: on one side, wealth grows, on the other, it does not. A city can become more equal or more unequal depending on where that line is drawn.
There are moments when disconnection is deliberate. Others do not intend it, but climate change will likely intensify such effects. Some argue that resource-driven disputes over water and energy can drive regional divisions, complicating governance.
MB and JG discuss Covid and a sense that change was promised but did not fully arrive. The pandemic did yield practical strategies usable against climate pressures or conflicts. Yet progress remains uneven, and funded programs may be wasted if they do not change core practices. Riverside housing and private ownership are cited as examples of persistent obstacles to reform.
What about private property? In Madrid, for instance, a block with forty neighbors may require shared cooling and expanded communal spaces, a shift that cannot happen if neighbors resist. Private ownership can hinder collective action, especially in dense, heat-prone areas.
Given the scale of the challenges, some feel resigned that resources will be scarce. Yet the authors remain hopeful that humanity will find solutions, even if they come at a social or political cost. Covid showed that drastic measures are possible, and the rapid decarbonization of Europe demonstrated that large-scale change can occur quickly when there is political will. The question remains how swiftly and fairly such changes can be implemented in different regions.
Ultimately, the speakers suggest that transforming urban life requires a rethinking of values—and a willingness to embrace new, less rigid approaches to planning, governance, and community resilience.