Fabrizio Nevola considers the form, function, and significance of shops and the other commercial spaces contained in the ground floors of the Renaissance palaces of Siena, Florence, and Rome. Home Shopping: Urbanism, Commerce, and Palace Design in Renaissance Italy also investigates the social interaction between the private environment of the home and the public space of the street. Contrary to much that has been written about the palaces of the fifteenth century, their designers did not abandon botteghe (shops), nor more broadly construed commercial functions. The resulting buildings are hybrid structures in which the proud individual façades of private patrons' palaces were configured to serve the needs of trade. Today, urban space is largely experienced as a succession of shop fronts, and commercial activities overwhelm all other functions. Early modern Italy was not much different.

In matters architectural, Lorenzo de’ Medici is widely accepted as having been an arbiter of style among his peer group, shaping the choices of the Florentine elite and forging a “Laurentian style,” although he commissioned fairly little himself.1  In a number of instances, this proxy-patronage had political and economic implications. Thus, by encouraging Filippo di Matteo Strozzi to build his new residence in central Florence on such a grandiose scale in the late 1480s, Lorenzo pushed his rival to invest disproportionate amounts of capital in a showy palace that never could have been considered a sound economic proposition.2  The Strozzi palace sucked up money in construction, prominently declaring Strozzi status at the heart of their neighborhood, while undercutting the financial solidity of the family business (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Lorenzo Bardi, Palazzo Strozzi, first half of the 19th century, hand-colored copper engraving (photo: © Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence)

Figure 1

Lorenzo Bardi, Palazzo Strozzi, first half of the 19th century, hand-colored copper engraving (photo: © Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence)

In his biography of his father, Lorenzo di Filippo Strozzi reported that his father “had decided to make a number of shops under the house as an income for his sons; the which plan was strenuously opposed [by Lorenzo de’ Medici], who demonstrated how ugly and inconvenient, and what an imposition they would be upon the residents [of the palace].”3  In following Lorenzo's advice to exclude shops in an area of prime commercial value, Strozzi was indeed making a generous statement, forgoing considerable rental income in favor of a magnificent and exclusively private residential building. It has been widely suggested that this Strozzi-Medici exchange should be viewed as sociopolitical jockeying for position, but more prosaically it can be understood in the light of Lorenzo's other injunction to Strozzi—that he build “bigger and better”; the shop-free design choice worsened the already unprofitable decision to use a high-value commercial site for residential architecture.4 

If the choice to omit shops from the Strozzi palace may be seen in part as the reinstated family's commitment to their clan and their city's political hierarchies, it did not reflect citywide attitudes toward the mixed use of palace property. Florence and other Italian cities in the fifty or so years before and after 1500 provide a contradictory context for interpreting Strozzi's decision not to integrate shops with the design of his huge residential monolith on via Tornabuoni, a stone's throw from the commercial center of the Mercato Vecchio. In fact, most Italian palace design in this period considered commercial opportunities, and siting was the determining factor.

Consideration of the incidence of the shop space in the ground floors of residential palaces illuminates the complex relationship between the domestic, regulated, and enclosed space of the residential palace and the public realm of the street. Shops (like porticoes and the benches that line the façades of many Renaissance palaces) are architectural articulations of the continual give and take between individual patrons and the urban polity, and they manifest the changing nature of that relationship at different times and in different areas.5 

Rents and Palaces

Rental income was a vital constitutive element of Renaissance urban architecture. Pope Pius II Piccolomini is well known as the patron of the innovative development of the small south Tuscan town of Corsignano, which he transformed into the architectural self-eulogy that is Pienza.6  It has been overlooked, however, that during the 1460s, Pius II provided his new cathedral and bishopric with an income that was to a large extent derived from an endowment created by acquiring numerous rent-producing shops in Siena. Large payments were made through the papal Tesoreria Segreta to Pius's procurator in Siena, Giovanni Saracini, between 1462 and 1463, enabling the acquisition of properties that were expected to produce an annual rent of at least 20 florins.7  Some years later, the pope's nephew Andrea di Nanni Piccolomini specified in his will of 1507 that 150 florins were to be spent to purchase botteghe and thereby endow the cathedral church of Santa Maria di Pienza.8  Not willing to leave the choice of properties to his executors, Andrea ordered that: “the shops should be located from the Piazza Tolomei, along the Strada toward Piazza Piccolomini, turning from that piazza [Piccolomini] toward San Martino, and entering into [via del] Porrione, and along it toward the piazza del Campo, and anywhere on the Campo, so rising to Porta Salaria and following the Strada to the Croce del Travaglio.”9  Andrea Piccolomini's testamentary requirements helpfully define the “golden triangle” of Siena's prime real estate, between the Piazza Tolomei, the Loggia Piccolomini, and the lower end of via di Città (Figure 2).10 

Figure 2

Siena, detail from Francesco Vanni, Sena Vetus Civitas Virginis, etching, ca. 1595 (Biblioteca Comunale degli Intronati di Siena)

Figure 2

Siena, detail from Francesco Vanni, Sena Vetus Civitas Virginis, etching, ca. 1595 (Biblioteca Comunale degli Intronati di Siena)

It is, of course, precisely in this area that the new Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini was erected on land acquired by Pius, beginning in 1469 (Figures 3, 4). The palace is usually described within a framework of Florentine references: Rossellino's Pienza and Rucellai commissions and the later, variously attributed Palazzo Strozzi.11  Such an interpretation of the visual evidence ignores many of the building's distinctive features and fails to accommodate the two-faced nature of the design, with one façade addressing the Campo and via del Porrione, and the other the Strada Romana.12  These features are neglected largely because the economic and political context of the building is not adequately considered.

Figure 3

Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini, “palazzo nuovo,” Strada Romana, Siena (photo: author)

Figure 3

Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini, “palazzo nuovo,” Strada Romana, Siena (photo: author)

Figure 4

Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini, “casmento vecchio,” view from piazza del Campo, Siena (photo: Fabio Lensini)

Figure 4

Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini, “casmento vecchio,” view from piazza del Campo, Siena (photo: Fabio Lensini)

The Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini and the Pienza cathedral endowment have much in common, for the palace design was heavily conditioned by the same factors that motivated Andrea Piccolomini, a resident of the palace, to make the specifications regarding commercial real estate in his will: the desire to produce income from shops. A complex site acquisition campaign, as well as funding problems in the aftermath of Pius II's death, meant that the palace was only begun in 1469; in 1480 the two brothers—Andrea and Giacomo—who had become owners of the ongoing project, split the site in two parts; each completed his section of the palace in the second decade of the sixteenth century. A magnificent travertine all’antica façade toward Siena's principal commercial street and pilgrimage route was constructed by the papal nephew Giacomo di Nanni Piccolomini, while the other half of the building—which adopted the somewhat more severe style favored by Siena's elite patrons around 1500—was commissioned by Giacomo's brother, Andrea. There is one feature that both of the otherwise incongruent halves of the palace have in common: the inclusion of numerous ground-floor botteghe.

Giacomo's part of the palace, the “palazzo nuovo,” was begun in September 1469 with a classically inspired medal-casting ceremony officiated by another brother of the patron, Cardinal Francesco Todeschini Piccolomini, and the foundations were completed in 1471.13  By 1481 Giacomo declared partial income from ten shops “beneath the said palace” which indicates that the slow construction campaign had proceeded upward, floor by floor, rather than laterally, in blocks. It can only be assumed that this was done in order to capitalize on rental income as soon as possible.14  That rentable shop space was viewed as an integral part of the Piccolomini projects adjacent to the Campo is confirmed by the fact that Andrea also created shops below his part of the palace (and bought a number of others), and that the shared maintenance costs of the Loggia Piccolomini were generated by rents from the two botteghe set into its base, at street level.15  There appears to have been no distinction between the placement of shops in the palaces and the loggia, as they faced onto the main street (the Strada Romana), as well as the Campo and secondary streets (via del Porrione and chiasso dei Pollaiuoli).

In designing the Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini a high priority was thus assigned to income-generating shops, which filled the majority of the ground floor, where each bay comprised a shop front and a mezzanine window, located below the first-floor string course (Figure 5). The shops remained separate from the interior of the palace, as each mezzanine was served—as today—by its own stair; Piccolomini coats of arms in the architectural details and in a centrally placed boss in the mezzanine vaults reminded lessees of their landlord's identity and ownership.

Figure 5

Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini, “palazzo nuovo”; shop bay on chiasso dei Pollaiuoli, Siena (photo: author)

Figure 5

Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini, “palazzo nuovo”; shop bay on chiasso dei Pollaiuoli, Siena (photo: author)

The Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini shop arrangements were not unusual in Sienese palaces. In Siena, as in many Italian cities, there was a developed commercial rental market; design solutions for residential architecture acknowledge this. As David Friedman has shown, the earliest residential arrangements in central Italian towns accommodated warehouse or retail activity on the ground floor, with domestic space reserved to the upper levels.16  The typology can still be traced back to numerous surviving eleventh- and twelfth-century masonry shells that once supported extensive wooden structures. Examples abound in Siena's medieval fabric, and it seems clear that they formed the prototype for later palace designs. For example, the well-known written contract and drawing for the fourteenth-century Palazzo Sansedoni shows a ground floor facing the Strada Romana, with shop openings on either side of a central portal, surmounted by mezzanine windows (Figure 6).17  Tax records confirm that these shops were leased throughout the fifteenth century, with a preponderance rented by the cloth merchants who clustered in this area.18  While the tall, narrow, early palace type united home and bottega in one building, it has been widely argued that this double function had been abandoned by the fifteenth century.19  This generalization is largely based upon Florentine evidence, but it is undercut by comparative evidence from other Italian cities.

Figure 6

Giovanni di Agostino, design for the Palazzo Sansedoni, Strada Romana façade, 1340 (Collezione Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena)

Figure 6

Giovanni di Agostino, design for the Palazzo Sansedoni, Strada Romana façade, 1340 (Collezione Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena)

At the Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini, four factors seem to have contributed to the patron's decision to include shops: (1) the palace was located in a prime retail district, where civic policies encouraged luxury shops; (2) the district included residential and commercial functions, with a prevalence of the shop-with-mezzanine arrangement; (3) the design generated income with high-rent shops and construction was sequenced for early completion of the shops; (4) no social stigma was attached to the ownership of shops. In light of these considerations, the inclusion of shops in the Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini was not surprising, shaped as it was by socioeconomic and urbanistic considerations. The determinative factors coalesce around location and a collective understanding of the architectural and urban design of the street.20 

Shops and Palaces in Rome

Urbanistic and economic considerations also influenced the development of the palace type elsewhere on the peninsula, and growing attention to consumption in the early modern period has led to increasing research on the practices and location of shopping in Italy.21  Although little attention has been devoted to the question of how the design of shops interacted with the more exclusive typology of the palazzo, which evolved during the fifteenth century along all’antica stylistic lines, the work of Francesca Bocchi and Donatella Calabi shows that the ground floors of palaces lining the principal arteries in Venice and Bologna frequently contained shops or warehouses.22 

The key factor that determined whether a palace would include shops on the ground floor was its location. Palace design thus intersects with the processes of social and professional stratification, sometimes enforced by zoning policies, which increasingly altered the makeup of urban centers starting in the mid-fifteenth century. Municipalities’ growing encouragement of trade was heavily conditioned by urban morphology, so legislation tended to segregate trades on sensory (aesthetic, acoustic, olfactory), rather than purely functional grounds. On the principal urban arteries, where patrons and shop owners competed for visibility, the requirement that the palazzo accommodate rent-generating shops at the ground floor resulted in original, hybrid design solutions.

San Gimignano provides a useful guide to understanding the hierarchy of retail streets developed in relation to location and numbers of users.23  San Gimignano, like Siena, was a “daughter of the road,” a town whose flourishing medieval trade owed everything to its location on the via Francigena trade and pilgrim route linking northern Europe and Rome (Figure 7).24  Thus, as Enrico Fiumi has shown, during the peak of the city's merchant fortunes (from the twelfth into the fourteenth centuries), the ground floor of almost all properties lining the main street were occupied by shops and warehouses.25  The town's location on the most important north-south pilgrimage artery to Rome was instrumental in its medieval economic fortunes, but it is no more surprising to find that shops lined San Gimignano's main street than it is to observe that they flourished around Rialto, or on modern-day High Streets and Main Streets.26 

Figure 7

San Gimignano, street scene along main artery, via San Giovanni (photo: © Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence)

Figure 7

San Gimignano, street scene along main artery, via San Giovanni (photo: © Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence)

Within the Eternal City, the destination of that pilgrimage traffic, the complex network of medieval streets that predated the numerous papal interventions of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, was most easily navigated by its three major axes, the Corso (or via Lata), which entered the city from the north at Porta del Popolo, and the two east-west axes, the via Peregrinorum and via Papalis, which linked the Vatican precinct to the Lateran, passing by various landmarks and piazzas (Figure 8).27  These major routes eased and rationalized the movement of outsiders through the city, so service industries and luxury retail naturally concentrated around these thoroughfares during the fifteenth century, as Anna Modigliani has demonstrated.28  These streets also cut through the abitato—the built and lived-in core of Rome during the Middle Ages—and thus were lined with residential properties of varied social status. As on Siena's Strada Romana, conditions in Rome favored the overlap of commercial and residential property, necessitating buildings that could accommodate both. This was especially the case in Rome during the later decades of the fifteenth and into the sixteenth centuries, when the palazzo type was at the peak of its architectural development.29 

Figure 8

Rome showing major arteries (dotted lines) and the palaces built 1500–40 that contain shops (solid lines). Sampled from the 42 buildings (highlighted) surveyed by Frommel, Der Römische Palastbau. Overlaid on Giambattista Nolli, Map of Rome, 1748 (map: author with Peter Lowe)

Figure 8

Rome showing major arteries (dotted lines) and the palaces built 1500–40 that contain shops (solid lines). Sampled from the 42 buildings (highlighted) surveyed by Frommel, Der Römische Palastbau. Overlaid on Giambattista Nolli, Map of Rome, 1748 (map: author with Peter Lowe)

Perhaps the best-known example of the typology of the Renaissance palace-with-shops in Rome is the Palazzo della Cancelleria (Figure 9). As is well known, Cardinal Raffaele Riario constructed eleven shops in the via Peregrinorum façade of the Cancelleria, as reparation to the chapter of his titular church of San Lorenzo in Damaso, which had owned the shops that were demolished to make way for the new palace.30  Not only did the chapter derive an annual rental income of 240 ducats from the shops, but it seems likely that a number of shopkeepers depended upon those spaces for their livelihoods. Modigliani's research has revealed the high density of commercial activity in the environs, which helps to explain the high rents commanded by the Cancelleria shops.31  The façade along the via Peregrinorum is not the principal elevation of the palace, which addresses a purpose-built piazza running north-south, at a right angle to the Campo dei Fiori. It is nevertheless highly visible, as is acknowledged by the prow-like balcony, adorned with the Riario arms and inscription, that projects into the via Peregrinorum and toward the Campo dei Fiori.32  Far from being relegated to a side street, away from the principal façade, the shops faced the busiest thoroughfare in the neighborhood, one of the city's most important arteries (Figure 10).

Figure 9

Palazzo Cancelleria, from the corner of via dei Pellegrini, Rome (photo: © Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art, London)

Figure 9

Palazzo Cancelleria, from the corner of via dei Pellegrini, Rome (photo: © Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art, London)

Figure 10

Palazzo Cancelleria, showing a bottega on the via dei Pellegrini, Rome (photo: author)

Figure 10

Palazzo Cancelleria, showing a bottega on the via dei Pellegrini, Rome (photo: author)

The commercial potential of a site probably also influenced palace design elsewhere in early sixteenth-century Rome.33  An analysis of the palaces surveyed in Christoph Frommel's monumental monograph on palaces in Renaissance Rome unsurprisingly reveals that the palaces constructed along the city's major thoroughfares, whether old pilgrimage routes or new papal streets, were likely to contain shops on the ground floor (see Figure 8).34  The via Alessandrina or Borgo Nuovo, cut in honor of Pope Alexander VI Borgia in 1498, is perhaps the clearest example of economic policy and architectural design coming together to forge a new form of palace façade (Figure 11).35 

Figure 11

Detail of Figure 8, highlighting the via Alessandrina

Figure 11

Detail of Figure 8, highlighting the via Alessandrina

Among the earliest palaces built along this new street was Bramante's Palazzo Caprini, originally constructed for the bishop of Viterbo, Adriano Caprini, and completed around 1510 (Figure 12).36  The palace that would later be the residence of Raphael sits atop shops on both the piazza Scossacavalli and via Alessandrina façades, and Bramante distinguished between the upper residential floor and the lower (social and physical) level of the palace by employing a rusticated base and introducing the orders only to the piano nobile.37  This innovative solution enabled the prelate-patron to distinguish between his upper-floor residence and the ground-floor shops that catered to the dense curial and pilgrim traffic that the via Alessandrina funneled toward St. Peter's basilica. As can be seen in a drawing of the palazzo formerly attributed to Palladio, the ground floor was designed with a mezzanine, providing the shop tenants with storage and residential space over the shops while isolating these from the palace.38 

Figure 12

Sixteenth-century draftsman, Palazzo Caprini, Rome (© Royal Institute of British Architects)

Figure 12

Sixteenth-century draftsman, Palazzo Caprini, Rome (© Royal Institute of British Architects)

Among numerous ancient Roman examples of retail architectural types, historians have tended to highlight the Markets of Trajan as an important precedent, although the ground-floor shop with mezzanine arrangement was also in widespread use throughout the medieval period (Figure 13).39  Thus Bramante's design would appear to cite an all’antica treatment and a functional arrangement that had been in continuous use since antiquity. It is its perennial aspect that has made the Palazzo Caprini iconic for students and architects of shopping—such as Rem Koolhaas—who start with it in plotting the post-antique chronology of the contemporary shopping mall.40 

Figure 13

Markets of Trajan, Rome (photo: author)

Figure 13

Markets of Trajan, Rome (photo: author)

In the decade or so that followed the construction of Palazzo Caprini, its model was widely imitated and interpreted by Raphael and his followers in Rome, especially in the streets of the Borgo and the Rione Ponte commercial and banking district.41  Scholars have noted the significance of the individual locations of these palaces to explain the presence of shops in their design, although none appears to have recognized the extent to which economic desiderata for the choice of site and palace construction went hand in hand.42  As Kate Lowe argued for Cardinal Francesco Soderini's real estate investments in the Borgo, however, patrons were very much alive to the income-generating potential of shops in well-placed palaces.43  Cardinal Soderini's property in the Borgo filled a large insula, and ground-floor shops and a number of apartments provided rental income. Much the same can be said for Giulio Alberini's palace in via de’ Banchi, near the piazza di Ponte, designed by Raphael around 1515, soon after street widening in the area (1512; Figure 14).44  Acquisition documents indicate that for Alberini, a Roman nobleman who speculated in property in and around the city, the income from rental of the botteghe was crucial to the financial success of the project, and Pier Nicola Pagliara has suggested that the entire ground floor was built first, in order that the shops might be let before completion of the rest of the palace.45 

Figure 14

Lafreri, Palazzo Alberini, engraving (from Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae, 1581–86, A71; Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library)

Figure 14

Lafreri, Palazzo Alberini, engraving (from Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae, 1581–86, A71; Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library)

While it is not possible to survey all palaces built between the commencement of the Palazzo della Cancelleria and the Sack of Rome, where the front or back of a palace faced a major route, shops were likely to appear in that façade. Moreover, even such puzzlers as the shops in Giulio Romano's Palazzo Stati-Maccarani, built on the minor square of Sant’Eustachio, can be explained by the fact that this was one of a number of intersections in the Campo Marzio that emerged as sites for markets; it was densely packed with shops.46  A much later view by Giuseppe Vasi gives some indication of the situation, and the commercial vocation of the area is confirmed by the Palazzetto of Tizio Chermandio da Spoleto (with the frescoed façade), which also accommodated ground-floor shops (Figure 15).47  The same can be said for the palaces along the via del Portico di Ottavia and piazza Giudea, where the late-fifteenth-century Palazzo Santa Croce and the house of Lorenzo Manilio had ground-level shops that served the commercial activity of the fish market area.48 

Figure 15

Piazza Sant’Eustachio (from Giuseppe Vasi, Magnificenze di Roma, 1761, plate 113)

Figure 15

Piazza Sant’Eustachio (from Giuseppe Vasi, Magnificenze di Roma, 1761, plate 113)

The Problem of Florence

If Rome and Siena seem to demonstrate that both patrons and their architects worked to accommodate ground-floor shops, the prevalent argument for Florence is that by the fifteenth century elite residential structures did not allow botteghe on their principal façades.49  This is explained by various factors, ranging from the surplus of residential and commercial property after the Black Death, through tax incentives putatively provided to shop-free palaces in the 1427 catasto, to the aesthetic appeal of a single central portal.50 

As noted, the bottega had been a common feature in fourteenth-century residential architecture in Florence, from the palaces of the noble Cavalcanti and Minerberti, to the regularized shop-front arcades that wrapped around the cathedral and lined the via Calzaiuoli and piazza della Signoria (Figure 16).51  By the end of the following century, however, things had to some extent changed, as Lorenzo de’ Medici's advice to Filippo di Matteo Strozzi about the undesirablity of commercial tenants testifies. By forgoing considerable shop rental income, Strozzi was making a magnificent statement.52  His decision, combined with a few other examples from the same years, have been interpreted as suggesting a Florentine preference for shop-free palace design by around 1500.

Figure 16

Palazzo Cavalcanti, Florence (photo: author)

Figure 16

Palazzo Cavalcanti, Florence (photo: author)

The research of Brenda Preyer and Caroline Elam has shown, for example, that a 1473 property transaction by the Ricasoli specified that their new palace on the Lungarno by the Ponte a Carraia, an area distinguished by many botteghe, should contain no shops.53  Another important case is the via Maggio in the Oltrarno (Figure 17). Here, as Francesco Baldovinetti testified in 1520, in the previous twenty or so years, around sixty woolworkers’ workshops had been removed, making way for “many beautiful houses.”54  Though this transformation came to be explained by the relocation of the Medici to the Palazzo Pitti and the courtly enclave that developed around it, this does not explain its transformation in the late 1490s.55  Tax returns indicate a dramatic reduction of the woolworkers’ activity in via Maggio around 1480, with shop-owners complaining that they could not find tenants for their properties.56  The selection of the via Maggio for Pope Leo X's 1513 triumphal entry route through the Oltrarno was at once a sign of the ongoing transformation of that area, and a notable contributor to that process. Luca Landucci recorded that in order to clear the route “they demolished without any discretion” (“fracassavasi sanza discrezione”) the overhanging structures, mostly the lean-to, cantilevered roofs that protected the entrances to the woolworkers’ shops.57  After demolishing the shops and paving the street, the social ecology of the street had been irrevocably transformed.58 

Figure 17

Via Maggio, Florence, viewed from the piazza Frescobaldi (photo: © Ralph Lieberman)

Figure 17

Via Maggio, Florence, viewed from the piazza Frescobaldi (photo: © Ralph Lieberman)

However, the existence of this debate surrounding shop location suggests that excluding shops from high-rent areas was the exception rather than the rule in Florence. Individual case evidence of the sort described above is intriguing, but this needs to be understood within the wider context of choices made elsewhere in the city. It should also be considered in the light of changes in the legislation that regulated property, and particularly the tax status of citizens’ homes. In fact, quantitative data collected by Crispin Bayley for the Black Lion district in Santa Croce sheds new light on Nicolai Rubinstein's intuitive suggestion that the 1427 catasto legislation in some way altered palace design strategies.59  Bayley argued that the taxation of all rentable property contributed to the withdrawal of much commercial and residential property from the rental market during the half century following 1427.60  This policy had inevitable consequences on the design of elite residences, which increasingly absorbed neighboring properties, swallowing up what had been rental housing and shops, in order to protect the owners from tax liability by registering large blocks of property as principal residences.61  This explains, for example, the Morelli's accrual of property on the corner of piazza Santa Croce and Borgo Santa Croce during the fifteenth century, while Tommaso Spinelli enhanced his lineage through the construction of a conspicuous new palace façade on ancestral family property in the same area (Figure 18).62 

Figure 18

Consolidation of Morelli family property (marked in black) along Borgo Santa Croce, in 1427 (above) and 1495 (below) (map: author with Peter Lowe, redrawn from C. de Courcey-Bailey, “House and Household,” University of York, 1998, 89, 92)

Figure 18

Consolidation of Morelli family property (marked in black) along Borgo Santa Croce, in 1427 (above) and 1495 (below) (map: author with Peter Lowe, redrawn from C. de Courcey-Bailey, “House and Household,” University of York, 1998, 89, 92)

Much of the surviving material evidence of fifteenth-century Florentine palaces corroborates these findings. Preyer has argued that even before the emergence of new design solutions for palace façades, shops were being squeezed out of previously purpose-built ground-floor shop arcading (such as that along via Calzaiuoli and around the piazza Duomo), to be replaced, in the remarkable case of the house of Alberto di Zanobi, by blind arcades reminiscent of Or San Michele.63  As the century progressed, ground-floor façades showed largely closed walls—punctured only by high windows—to the street, sometimes embellished by a bench and/or elaborate stonework.64  It might thus be argued that the all’antica palace, increasingly devoid of ground-floor openings for shops or loggias and instead oriented toward an internal courtyard, provided a new formula for the mediation between the public space of the street and the private realm of the palace. It may have been either a desire to pay less tax or a taste for classically inspired living that led the Florentines to such choices.65  Surviving palaces, literary evidence, and the prevalent scholarly interpretation suggests that already during the fifteenth century a process of aristocratization had altered the morphology of Florentine streets by creating palace enclaves devoid of shops and dominated by massive family monuments to fortune and all’antica lifestyles.

However, such a view may be an anachronism, developed on the basis of sixteenth-century evidence and a narrowly Florentine model of urban process.66  It is worth testing the Florentine case more carefully against the evidence of Siena and Rome, where there was a pragmatic choice based on urbanistic and economic considerations. Where there was potential for considerable rental income, patrons were likely to include rentable space.

This more nuanced interpretation emerges if the Florentine evidence is re-examined more clearly in relation to urban planning considerations, pinpointing the concentration of retail areas and identifying the city's principal thoroughfares. While a comprehensive review has not been completed, a number of findings undermine the common generalizations about the divorce of commercial and residential usage in Florence.

One of the most important bodies of evidence about land use in Renaissance Florence was lost to the modern visitor when, as is well known, Florence's urban core was radically altered in the 1890s by the demolition of both the Mercato Vecchio area and Ghetto, the retail and commercial heart of the medieval and Renaissance city, to make way for the piazza della Repubblica. The campaign saw the destruction of swathes of minor artisanal properties, but also a number of more significant buildings, including churches, public buildings, and palaces.67  Photographic evidence as well as numerous drawings and a remarkable set of architectural studies made by Corinto Corinti give some sense of the area before the 1890s (Figures 19, 20).68  It seems clear from this material that the earlier street morphology of this area was quite different, with palace design continuing to accommodate shops. While additional archival research is required to confirm the visual evidence offered by the Mercato Vecchio, the numerous ground-floor openings that can be seen in properties along the via degli Speziali, via Calimara, and via dei Cardinali, as well as the Borromei house, the Casa Sassetti, the Palazzo di Palla Strozzi and Palazzo della Luna, suggest that the palazzo with street-front shops was the norm for that area.69 

Figure 19

Mercato Vecchio area, Florence; via di Calimala before the demolitions that made way for piazza della Repubblica, (photo: © Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art, London

Figure 19

Mercato Vecchio area, Florence; via di Calimala before the demolitions that made way for piazza della Repubblica, (photo: © Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art, London

Figure 20

Mercato Vecchio area, Florence, via di Calimala before the demolitions that made way for piazza della Repubblica from Corinto Corinti, “Firenze antica e moderna” postcard series (1925–28)

Figure 20

Mercato Vecchio area, Florence, via di Calimala before the demolitions that made way for piazza della Repubblica from Corinto Corinti, “Firenze antica e moderna” postcard series (1925–28)

For example, at the Palazzo Arcivescovile, the presence of numerous shops, some even located under the steps to the palace, is documented; from these rentals the archbishopric had derived income starting as early as the thirteenth century (Figure 21).70  This palazzo is a rare survivor of the nineteenth-century demolition of premodern buildings on the edge of the commercial center of Florence, and its sixteenth-century remodeling retained the shops (resembling those at the Cancelleria, in Rome). The sixteenth-century tenants of these shops included numerous shoemakers and a baker, suggesting that the trades exercised here were long-established and not restricted to elite or luxury products.71 

Figure 21

Palazzo Arcivescovile, Florence. Detail of Stefano Bonsignori, Nova pulcherrimae civitatis Florentiae topographia accuratissime delineata, 1584 (Florence: Museo Firenze com’era)

Figure 21

Palazzo Arcivescovile, Florence. Detail of Stefano Bonsignori, Nova pulcherrimae civitatis Florentiae topographia accuratissime delineata, 1584 (Florence: Museo Firenze com’era)

High-quality residential and institutional properties coincided in the prime commercial district, with the inevitable result that two building typologies fused into one. The 1427 legislation posed no tax threat to the property as a whole, since these shops were sure to generate income.72  In this context, it is worth comparing the location of extant fifteenth-century palaces to the commercial and residential areas of their time. The maps drawn up by Bianchi and Grossi show the density of retail establishments in Florence and indicate what might be termed “commercial” streets.73  It is interesting to compare this with Donatella Calabi's recent mapping of Florentine palaces, which reveals their concentration outside these commercial centers (Figure 22).74  Florence's gridded street plan—derived from its Roman foundation, its multiple points of entry, and relatively large core, combined with the fact that it was not on any major trade/pilgrimage route to reduce the incidence of residential/commercial overlap in the center. A degree of separation was thus exercised, with the majority of palaces located outside the densely packed commercial center.

Figure 22

Florence, major palaces (outlined), streets, and piazzas with concentrations of over 30 botteghe as documented in the catasto of 1480, shaded in gray (map: author with Peter Lowe, redrawn from D. Calabi, La città del primo Rinascimento [Bari-Rome: Laterza, 2001], 88–9 and M. L. Bianchi and M. L. Grossi, “Botteghe, economia e spazio urbano,” Arti fiorentine. La grande storia dell’artigianato, vol. 2, ed. Franco Franceschi and Gloria Fossi [Florence: Giunti, 1999] 2: 56–57)

Figure 22

Florence, major palaces (outlined), streets, and piazzas with concentrations of over 30 botteghe as documented in the catasto of 1480, shaded in gray (map: author with Peter Lowe, redrawn from D. Calabi, La città del primo Rinascimento [Bari-Rome: Laterza, 2001], 88–9 and M. L. Bianchi and M. L. Grossi, “Botteghe, economia e spazio urbano,” Arti fiorentine. La grande storia dell’artigianato, vol. 2, ed. Franco Franceschi and Gloria Fossi [Florence: Giunti, 1999] 2: 56–57)

The shop-density maps confirm Isabelle Hyman's assertion that the new Palazzo Medici, although seemingly central, was almost suburban by comparison to the houses and shops in the Mercato Vecchio. The absence of shops on its façade, while in part an aesthetic measure, was surely also dictated by the practical consideration that the palace's location would offer little potential for income.75  Indeed, understanding the location of the Palazzo Strozzi on a major commercial artery entering the Mercato Vecchio leads to a better appreciation of Filippo Strozzi's financial sacrifice. His decision to exclude shops from the palace was made in spite of its income potential.76  Conversely, there is no particular incongruence between Giovanni Rucellai's reminder to his sons that they were first and foremost shopkeepers and the fact that their new palace contained no shops, as via della Vigna Nuova was not a major commercial street.77 

In Florence, as in Rome, Siena, and elsewhere, income potential influenced design choices. Nonetheless, it is also surely true that Florentine tax legislation in 1427 was a disincentive to the construction of shops and so had a powerful effect on the design of palaces in the city. That these tax policies were counterproductive to both the housing and commercial rental market was soon acknowledged by the Florentine government, and as early as 1463 legislation was set in place to reverse the process.78  The successive laws of 1474 and 1489, sponsored by Lorenzo de’ Medici, encouraged the construction of low-cost housing for artisans and indirectly contributed to a new wave of palace building in the early 1490s.79 

Conclusion

Various factors conditioned palace design, including the question of whether to equip elite residences with rent-earning shops. A broader assembly of evidence challenges assumptions based solely on Florentine examples (as Florentine paradigms all too often guide Renaissance studies).80  It can now be determined with some confidence that Siena's Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini was more widely representative than the somewhat exceptional Palazzo Strozzi. Urban placement was a key determinant of the design of palaces, and where prime residential and commercial districts overlapped, palaces tended to have ground-floor shops.

Location was often a non-negotiable matter for palace patrons, whose proud monuments were erected on sites that were often central and that usually had long ancestral associations. Increasingly, in cities organized around axial arteries, palace sites might overlap with areas where municipally enforced zoning provisions encouraged high-end commerce through the clustering of shops for luxury products such as silk, wool, or gold. In such locations design solutions were favored that offered a reconciliation between residential and commercial functions and thus satisfied the economic interests of patrons; where potential rent income was high, shops were usually included. Construction phasing might even—as at the Palazzo Todeschini-Piccolomini and the Palazzo Alberini—favor the completion of the shops in advance of the residential quarters, so that rental income could offset construction costs.

It seems obvious that patrons’ economic interests might have played such a decisive part in architectural design, but it challenges the style-dominated tradition of domestic architecture studies. The proud, somewhat ostentatious term palazzo that is used to denote the architectural type associated with the Italian urban elite of the early modern period should not distort our understanding of what was appropriate or normal for a fifteenth-century palace patron. Indeed, the literary evidence of architectural treatises tends to confirm that a patron's economic self-interests should be reflected in the choices made in the design of domestic architecture. Although Vitruvius's writings were not fully understood in the fifteenth century, his treatise clearly acknowledged a functional hierarchy of residential types responding to the professional needs of their incumbents, so that “those who deal in farm produce must have stalls and shops in their entrance courts,” while more luxurious surroundings were prescribed for bankers and merchants.81  Leon Battista Alberti's somewhat ambiguous comments do not make it clear if he intended fewer class distinctions, but he remarked that “within the city, the shop that lies beneath the house and provides the owner with his livelihood should be better fitted out than his dining room, as would appear more in keeping with his hopes and ambitions.”82  Later in the fifteenth century, Francesco di Giorgio Martini recommended socially stratified housing types and proposed that luxury retail should cluster around the central city streets.83 

None of these authors discussed whether the status of the palace-owner might be affected negatively by the presence of shops, shopkeepers, or their families on the ground floor of their palaces, suggesting that it was not a concern at this period. Somewhat different in nature are the more case-specific comments of Paolo Cortesi, whose De Cardinalatu of 1510, which indicated that the “palaces [of cardinals] should be built in the center of Rome in order to make them more accessible to the many people who have business with the cardinal,” while arguing that they should be far from the sounds and smells of trade.84  Nevertheless, such injunctions had little impact on the cardinals’ choices; the Cancelleria contained shops, as did countless other palazzi, such as those of Francesco Soderini and Francesco Armellini, whose houses were both central and income producing, often from somewhat indecorous professions.85  Cortesi was perhaps the first to express concerns for clerical leaders’ decorum in palace design, which only became an issue for secular patrons after the second quarter of the sixteenth century.86 

During the fifteenth and into the early sixteenth century, however, botteghe remained an integral feature of many palace designs. Although they lacked architectural status, shops under elite housing epitomized the complex and changing relationships between individuals and the public space of the street.

Notes

Notes
1.
This essay owes much to discussions with Georgia Clarke, Caroline Elam, Richard Goldthwaite, Richard Ingersoll, Amanda Lillie, and Brenda Preyer, whom I thank for their advice and comments; I am also grateful to David Brownlee and the anonymous reader for their incisive comments. My thanks go to the British Academy for funding some of the archival research and photographic costs for this article. Earlier versions of this work have been presented at the Victoria and Albert Museum conference “A Casa: People, Spaces and Objects in the Renaissance Interior” (May 2004), at Villa I Tatti (June 2005), at the Italian Renaissance seminar at St. Catherine's College, Oxford (January 2008) and at the University of Edinburgh (November 2009). Unless noted otherwise, translations are my own.
Much has been written on the development of a Laurentian style, see for architecture
,
Tafuri
Manfredo
Ricerca del Rinascimento. Principi, città, architetti
(
Turin
:
Einaudi
,
1992
),
90
97
,
esp. 93; and
Elam
Caroline
“Lorenzo's Architectural and Urban Policies,”
in
Lorenzo il Magnifico e il suo mondo
, ed.
Garfagnini
Gian Carlo
(
Florence
:
Olschki
,
1994
),
357
84
; also
Hemsoll
David
“Giuliano da Sangallo and the New Renaissance of Lorenzo de’ Medici,”
The Early Medici and Their Artists
, ed.
Ames-Lewis
Francis
(
London
:
Department of History of Art, Birkbeck College
,
1995
),
187
205
;
L’architettura di Lorenzo il Magnifico
,
exh. cat. (Florence, Spedale degli Inncoenti, April–July, 1992) ed.
Morolli
Gabriele
Cristina Acidini
Luchinat
and
Marchetti
Luigi
(
Milan
:
Silvana Editoriale
,
1992
).
2.
Various interpretations have been made of this exchange, which is discussed here only in relation to the practical issue of the inclusion or not of shops in the palace design
.
Kent
Francis William
“‘Più superba di quella di Lorenzo’: Courtly and Family Interest in the Building of Filippo Strozzi's Palace,”
Renaissance Quarterly
30
(
1977
),
311
24
, esp.
316
17
for Lorenzo urging to build on a large scale
;
Goldthwaite
Richard
“The Florentine Palace as Domestic Architecture,”
American Historical Review
77
(
1972
),
977
1012
, esp.
993
97
for low capital investment returns on palace building, an issue worthy of further exploration in its own right. The present article focuses specifically on shops included in elite residential architecture (palaces); the income-generating potential of property portfolios that included shops as well as houses for the rental market cannot be addressed in this context but will be examined further in
Nevola
Fabrizio
Street Life in Renaissance Italy
(
New Haven and London
:
Yale University Press
, forthcoming).
3.
The statement, reported Lorenzo di Filippo Strozzi in his biography of his father, was first published by
Gaye
Giovanni
Carteggio inedito d’artisti dei secoli XIV, XV, XVI
(
Florence
:
G. Molini
,
1839
),
3
vols.,
1
:
355
. That the interlocutor,
“chi reggeva”
(
he that ruled), is Lorenzo de’ Medici is confirmed by
Kent
“‘Più superba di quella di Lorenzo,’”
316
.
The negative connotations of servitù seem to refer to the effort of managing the letting, as well as the problems inherent in tenants occupying part of the palace. The remark has been frequently cited to explain the Florentines’ architectural choices, which appear to have been biased against the inclusion of ground-floor shops in palaces, an issue that will be returned to below; an early scholarly reference is
Goldthwaite
“The Florentine Palace,” 994, note 43
.
Thanks to Caroline Elam for inviting me think more carefully about the implications of this oft-cited injunction
; see also
Lowe
Kate
“A Florentine Prelate's Real Estate in Rome Between 1480 and 1524: The Residential and Speculative Property of Cardinal Francesco Soderini,”
Papers of the British School at Rome
59
(
1991
),
259
82
,
265
.
4.
Kent
“‘Più superba di quella di Lorenzo,’”
316
17
; see also
Bigazzi
Irene
“Palazzo Strozzi: l’architettura, la situazione urbanistica, i restauri,”
in
Palazzo Strozzi. Cinque Secoli di arte e cultura
, ed.
Bonsanti
Giorgio
(
Florence
:
Nardini
,
2005
),
20
24
.
5.
Elet
Y.
“Seats of Power: The Outdoor Benches of Early Modern Florence,”
JSAH
61
, no.
4
(
2002
),
444
69
;
Bocchi
Francesca
“Un simbolo di Bologna: i portici e l’edilizia civile medievale,”
in
Simbolo e realtà della vita urbana nel tardo medioevo
, ed.
Miglio
Massimo
and
Lombardi
Giuseppe
(
Manziana, Rome
:
Vecchiarelli
,
1993
),
119
32
;
useful comments on loggias and their use are in
Burroughs
Charles
“Spaces of Arbitration and the Organization of Space in Late Medieval Italy,”
in
Hanawalt
Barbara A.
and
Kobialka
Michal
, eds.,
Medieval Practices of Space
(
Minneapolis and London
:
University of Minnesota Press
,
2000
),
64
100
, esp.
70
81
.
6.
Adams
Nicholas
“Pienza,”
in
Storia dell’architettura italiana: il Quattrocento
, ed.
Fiore
Francesco Paolo
(
Milan
:
Electa
,
1998
),
314
29
; also
Nevola
Fabrizio
“L’architettura tra Siena e Pienza: architettura civile,”
in
Pio II e le arti. La riscoperta dell’antico da Federighi a Michelangelo
, ed.
Angelini
Alessandro
(
Cinisello Balsamo–Milan
:
Silvana Editoriale
,
2005
),
182
213
.
7.
ASR
,
Camerale 1: Tesoreria Segreta (Entrata Uscita), 1288
(1461–62), fol. 96 (31 March) and fol. 129v (6 Nov.). Further payments are in ASR
,
Camerale 1: Tesoreria Segreta (Entrata Uscita)
,
1289 (1463–64), fol. 60 (17 Jan. 1463)
.
8.
ASS
,
Consorteria Piccolomini
17
:
Contratti di Andrea di Nanni Piccolomini (1464–1519), fol. 87 ff (28 Jan. 1507)
.
9.
Ibid
.
10.
Siena's commercial property is discussed in
Nevola
Fabrizio
Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City
(
New Haven and London
:
Yale University Press
,
2007
),
124
28
.
11.
The palace is discussed in
Nevola
Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City
,
76
83
and
169
73
.
For attributions and Florentine frame of references, see
Rubinstein
Ruth
“Pius II as Patron of Art,”
PhD thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London
,
1957
,
69
73
;
Mack
Charles R.
“Studies in the Architectural Career of Bernardo di Matteo Ghamberelli Called Rossellino,”
PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
,
1972
,
333
40
;
Lawrence
Jenkens A.
“Pius II and His Loggia in Siena,”
in
Pratum Romanum: Richard Krautheimer zum 100. Geburtstag
, ed.
Colella
Renate L.
(
Wiesbaden
:
Reichert
,
1997
),
199
214
.
12.
Extended discussion of the stylistic distinctions between the two parts of the palace can be found in
Nevola
Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City
,
165
73
,
whose interpretation is somewhat at variance with the political determinism favored by
Lawrence
Jenkens A.
“Pius II's Nephews and the Politics of Architecture at the End of the Fifteenth Century in Siena,”
Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria
,
106
(
1999
[
2001
]),
58
114
.
13.
Allegretti
Allegretto
Ephemerides Senenses ab anno MCCCCL usque ad MCCCCXCVI italico sermone scriptae, in Rerum Italicarum Scritptores
, ed.
Muratori
Ludovico
(
Milan
:
Società palatina
,
1733
)
23: col. 773 (12 Sept. 1469)
.
14.
ASS
,
Lira
192
,
fol. 202; clearly ten shops fill more than the five bays on the chiasso dei Pollaiuoli, suggesting that at least some of the eight façade bays flanking the main entrance were also originally occupied with shops
.
15.
ASS
,
Lira
192
,
fol. 159 (1481: Andrea di Nanni Piccolomini); again, Andrea's shops were on the piazza del Campo as well as on via del Porrione, where they flanked the entrance to his palace
.
16.
Friedman
David
“Palaces and the Street in Late-Medieval and Renaissance Italy,”
in
Urban Landscapes, International Perspectives
, ed.
Whitehand
Jeremy W. R.
and
Larkham
Peter J.
(
London
:
Routledge
,
1992
),
69
113
, esp.
82
86
.
17.
See now essays in
Gabrielli
Fabio
, ed.,
Palazzo Sansedoni
(
Siena
:
Alsaba
,
2004
);
the classic account, however, remains
Toker
Franklin
“Gothic Architecture by Remote Control: An Illustrated Building Contract of 1340,”
Art Bulletin
69
(
1985
),
67
95
.
18.
E.g.
,
ASS
,
Lira
144
, fol.
339
and
360
(
1453
).
On the palace see now
Nevola
Fabrizio
“Palaces, Shops and Clientage Clustering in Early Modern Siena,”
Città e Storia
2
(
2007
),
special issue
,
Shopping and Housing
, ed.
Welch
Evelyn
and
Tamborrino
Rosa
365
79
.
19.
This contention is implicit is
Friedman
“Palaces and the Street,”
98
99
and is expressed by
Saalman
Howard
“The Transformation of the City in the Renaissance: Florence as Model,”
Annali di Architettura
2
(
1990
),
73
82
. See also
Preyer
Brenda
“The Florentine Casa,”
in
At Home in Renaissance Italy
, ed.
Ajmar-Wollheim
Marta
and
Dennis
Flora
(
London
:
V&A publications
,
2006
),
34
49
,
36 and 41 for the limited use of palace space for business and commercial purposes
.
20.
On the
Romana
Strada
, see
Nevola
Fabrizio
Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City
,
91
146
.
The economic issues of zoning and clustering of trades is further examined in
Nevola
Fabrizio
“‘Più honorati et suntuosi ala Republica’: Botteghe and Luxury Retail along Siena's Strada Romana,’”
in
Buyers and Sellers: Retail Practices in Medieval and Early Modern Europe
, ed.
Blondé
Bruno
et al. (
Turnhout
:
Brepols
,
2006
),
65
78
,
a volume that contains other useful essays on these issues; see also
Ackerman
James
and
Rosenfeld
Myra
“Social Stratification in Renaissance Urban Planning,”
in
Urban Life in the Renaissance
, ed.
Zimerman
Susan
and
Weissman
Ronald F. E.
(
Newark
:
University of Delaware Press
,
1989
),
21
49
.
21.
From a growing literature see
Calabi
Donatella
ed.,
Fabbriche, piazze e mercati. La città italiana nel Rinascimento
(
Rome
:
Officina
,
1997
) and
Calabi
Donatella
The Market and the City: Square, Street and Architecture in Early Modern Europe
(
Aldershot
:
Ashgate
,
2004
);
Welch
Evelyn
Shopping in the Renaissance: Consumer Cultures in Italy
,
1400
1600
(
New Haven and London
:
Yale University Press
,
2005
);
also bibliography in the notes that follow
.
22.
Important new work on this subject was carried out by an Italian research team led by
Calabi
Donatella
addressing
“Il palazzo del mercante, la bottega, i siti della mercatura tra Medio Evo ed Età Moderna.”
Initial and somewhat fragmentary results have been published as
Calabi
Donatella
, ed.,
Il mercante patrizio. Palazzi e botteghe nell’Europa del Rinascimento
(
Milan
:
Mondadori
,
2008
). See also
Welch
Shopping in the Renaissance
,
123
63
; and essays in
Shopping and Housing
, ed.
Welch
and
Tamborrino
.
Calabi
Donatella
and
Morachiello
Piero
Rialto.le fabbriche e il Ponte
(
1514–1591
) (
Turin
:
Einaudi
,
1987
);
Calabi
Donatella
The Market and the City
,
103
12
.
Bocchi
Francesca
“Città e mercati nell’Italia padana,”
in
Mercati e mercanti nell’alto medioevo: l’area euroasiatica e l’area mediterranea
(
Spoleto
:
Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo
,
1993
),
139
76
and
I portici di Bologna e l’edilizia civile medievale
, ed.
Bocchi
Francesca
(
Bologna
:
Grafis
,
1990
).
23.
The power of the street to focus movement is discussed by Joseph Rykwert
,
“The Street: The Use of Its History,”
in
On Streets
, ed.
Anderson
Stanford
(
Cambridge
:
MIT Pres
,
1978
),
15
; also
Kostof
Spiro
The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History
(
London
:
Thames and Hudson
,
1992
),
189
213
. See also the essays contained in
Streets. Critical Perspectives on Public Space
, ed.
Celik
Zeynep
Favro
Diane
and
Ingersoll
Richard
(
Berkeley
:
University of California Press
,
1994
). On the semantic distinction of a hierarchy denoted by the variants of strada, via, and chiasso, see
Balestracci
Duccio
and
Piccinni
Gabbriella
Siena nel Trecento. Assetto urbano e prassi edilizia
(
Florence
:
CLUSF
,
1977
),
41
43
.
24.
For Siena as “figlia della strada,” see
Sestan
Ernesto
“Siena avanti Montaperti,”
Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria
68
(
1961
),
3
49
rept. in
Sestan
Ernesto
Italia Medievale
(
Naples
:
Edizioni scientifiche italiane
,
1968
),
151
92
.
For a more general consideration of urban morphology as determinant and indicator of urban types, see
Kostof
Spiro
The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings through History
(
London
:
Thames and Hudson
,
1991
).
For San Gimignano and the via Francigena as a determinant factor in its economic expansion, see
Fiumi
Enrico
Storia economica e sociale di San Gimignano
(
Florence
:
Olschki
,
1961
),
28
33
,
149
52
:
“l’area fabbricabile si articolò, dunque, nel solo senso longitudinale, ai margini della via Francigena” (149)
.
25.
Fiumi
Storia economica e sociale di San Gimignano
,
152
53
.
26.
Ibid
.,
28
:
“la fioritura del borgo di San Gimignano fu in gran parte determinato dal tracciato della via Francigena.” A useful summary of pilgrim routes to Rome can be found in Isa Belli Barsali, “Le strade dei pellegrini,”
in
Roma Sancta. La città delle basiliche
, ed.
Fagiolo
Marcello
and
Madonna
Maria Luisa
(
Rome/Reggio Calabria
:
Gangemi Editore
,
1985
),
218
32
.
For Rialto, see Calabi and Morachiello, Rialto. le fabbriche e il Ponte; on the development of the shop in English urban architecture
, see
Morrison
Kathryn A.
English Shops and Shopping: An Architectural History
(
New Haven and London
:
Yale University Press
,
2004
).
27.
On these and other streets in the ceremonial life of Rome
, see
Fagiolo
Marcello
ed.,
La festa a Roma dal Rinascimento al 1870
(
Rome/Turin
:
Allemandi
,
1997
),
2
vols.,
with numerous essays, including
Fagiolo
Marcello
“L’effimero di Stato: dal Conclave al Possesso,”
2
:
8
25
;
also on the ritual and processional uses of the streets, Richard Ingersoll, “Ritual Use of Public Space in Renaissance Rome,” PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1985.
28.
Anna Modigliani, Mercati, Botteghe e spazi di commercio a Roma tra Medioevo ed eta moderna (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento inedita 16, 1998; see for example the minute survey of all shops in the vicinity of the Campo dei Fiori, illustrated with helpful maps and detailing 148 shops in the immediate vicinity of the square and along the adjacent portions of the via Peregrinorum (211–59). Further studies of rental patterns and income in Rome are Manuel Vaquero Piñeiro, La renta y las casas. El patrimonio inmobiliario de Santiago de los Españoles de Roma entre los siglos XV y XVII (Rome: L’erma di Bretschneider, 1999) and
“Propiedad y renta urbana en Roma entre la Edad Media y el Renacimiento,”
in
Mercado inmobiliario y paisajes urbanos en el Occidente europeo
, ed.
Quesada
Miguel Ángel Ladero
et al. (
Pamplona
:
Gobierno de Navarra
,
2007
),
203
67
.
29.
Brief comments on the determinant role of urban placement to palace design are in
Conforti
Claudia
“Palazzi con botteghe nella Roma moderna,”
in Calabi,
Il mercante patrizio
,
133
.
30.
Schiavo
Armando
Il Palazzo della Cancelleria
(
Rome
:
Staderini
,
1964
),
75
76
and notes that document prolonged debate over income from the shops, guaranteed by successive incumbents of the Cancelleria to the chapter
. See also
Frommel
Christoph L.
“Roma,”
in
Storia dell’architettura italiana: il Quattrocento
, ed.
Fiore
Francesco P.
, (
Milan
:
Electa
,
1998
),
411
16
;
Modigliani, Mercati, Botteghe, 198
.
31.
Ibid.
,
176
209
and
map XIX; the via Peregrinorum façade is evidently secondary to that addressing the piazza in terms of architectural style and adornment, although it would have seen much more through traffic
.
32.
On ceremonial balconies as privileged sites along processional routes
, see
Tamburini
Elena
“Palchi e teatri effimeri,”
in
La festa a Roma
,
2
:
185
90
;
Frommel
“Roma,”
413
14
highlights the projecting balcony and corner tower element at the Cancelleria
.
33.
A wider survey of this phenomenon, based also on unpublished archival sources, forms a part of my ongoing research, funded by the British Academy. Interesting findings in the regard have also been made by Guendalina Ajello Mahler, pertaining to the Orsini properties in the Campo de’ Fiori area; I thank the author for discussing with me parts of her forthcoming PhD thesis
,
“The Afterlife of Rome's Ancient Theaters,”
Institute of Fine Arts
,
New York University
.
34.
Frommel
Christoph L.
Der Römische Palastbau der Hochrenaissance
(
Tübingen
:
Verlag Ernst Wasmuth
,
1973
),
3
vols.,
from which the following contain shops: Palazzo Alberini-Cicciaporci, Palazzo Branconio dell’Aquila, Palazzo del Banco di Santo Spirito, Palazzo di Jacopo da Brescia (Costa), Palazzo Caffareleii-Vidoni, Palazzo Caprini (Raphael's house), Palazzo Ferrari (del Pozzo), Palazzo Gaddi-Strozzi-Niccolini, Palazzo Luca Massimo, Palazzo Pichi, Palazzo Cancelleria, Rapahel's house in via Giulia, Palazzo Sacchetti (unexecuted alternative plan, by Aristotele da Sangallo), Palazzo Stati-Maccarani, Palazzo dei Tribunali, Palazzo Vescovo di Cervia. This is a full 50 percent of the palaces covered in the study
.
35.
Petrucci
Giulia
“L’apertura della via Alessandrina: idee e progetti, realizzazione, ‘derivazioni’ cinquecentesche,”
in
Guidoni
Enrico
and
Petrucci
Giulia
Urbanistica per i giubilei. Roma, via Alessandrina: una strada “tra due fondali” nell’Italia delle corti (149–1499)
(
Rome
:
Edizioni Kappa
,
1997
),
27
72
; also
Howe
Eunice D.
“Alexander VI, Pinturicchio, and the Fabrication of the Via Alessandrina in the Vatican Borgo,”
in
An Architectural Progress in the Renaissance and Baroque: Sojourns In and Out of Italy. Essays in Architectural History Presented to Hellmut Hager on His Sixty-Sixth Birthday
, ed.
Millon
Henry A.
and
Munshower
Susan Scott
Papers in Art History from the Pennsylvania State University
8
(
1992
),
1
:
64
93
.
See now also the thorough study that considers the Borgo, and the via Alessandrina palaces in particular
,
d’Ameilo
Maria Grazia
“Edilizia commerciale e abitativa nel Borgo vaticano a Roma (XV–XVII secoli),”
in
Calabi, Il mercante patrizio
,
139
66
.
36.
Bruschi
Arnaldo
Bramante architetto
(
Bari
:
Laterza
,
1969
),
1040
46
and
“Edifici privati di Bramante a Roma. Palazzo Castellesi e palazzo Caprini,”
Palladio
2
(
1989
),
5
44
;
Tafuri
Manfredo
“Prospetto di casa in via Giulia,”
in
Frommel et al.
,
Raffaello architetto
, ed.
Frommel
Christoph L.
Ray
Stefano
and
Tafuri
Manfredo
(
Milan
:
Electa
,
1984
),
239
40
.
37.
Bruschi
Bramante architetto
,
604
;
Ackerman
James S.
“The Tuscan/Rustic Order: A Study in the Metaphorical Language of Architecture,”
JSAH
42
,
no.
1
(
1983
),
15
34
,
esp. 33
; also
Clarke
Georgia
Roman House-Renaissance Palaces: Inventing Antiquity in Fifteenth-Century Italy
(
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2003
),
187
194
,
who points out that such stonework had no “rustic” connotations in the fifteenth century
.
38.
Bruschi
Bramante architetto
,
1043
.
39.
On the model of the Markets of Trajan, in particular for Raphael's Palazzo Branconio dell’Aquila, see
Pagliara
Pier Nicola
“Palazzo Branconio,”
in
Frommel et al.,
Raffaello architetto
,
197
211
and
Hemsoll
David
“A Question of Language-Raphael, Michelangelo and the Art of Architectural Imitation,”
in
Raising the Eyebrow: John Onians and World Art Studies
, ed.
Golden
L.
(
London
:
Archaeopress
,
2001
),
123
31
,
esp. 125. It is also worth considering the way ancient buildings were cannibalized in subsequent periods, with a blurring of the hierarchies of architectural distinction, e.g., the use of the Theater of Marcellus ground-level exterior arcading as shops right up to the nineteenth century
.
40.
Koolhaas
Rem
et al.,
Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping
(
London
: Taschen, 2001).
41.
These were areas typified by dense commercial activity, with the streets of the Vatican Borgo serving the varied needs of the resident and pilgrim visitors, and the Rione Ponte area the focus of above all Tuscan merchants and bankers
; see, e.g.,
Lee
Egmont
“Gli abitanti del rione Ponte,”
in
Roma Capitale, 1447–1523
, ed.
Gensini
Sergio
(
Rome
:
Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali
,
1994
),
317
43
,
esp.
326
29
.
42.
It is not necessary to chart all the examples here, although it should be noted that modern studies have highlighted issues of urban placement in relation to their inclusion of shops, without drawing any topographical unifying conclusions; a rare exception is Conforti,
“Palazzi con botteghe,”
133
,
although this is not explored further
. See also
Welch
Shopping in the Renaissance
,
134
37
.
43.
Lowe
“A Florentine Prelate's Real Estate,”
264
68
,
where an annual rent income/shop of 20
carlini
is reported.
44.
Pagliara
Pier Nicola
“Palazzo Alberini,”
in
Frommel et al.
Raffaello architetto
,
171
87
; on the urban reordering of the area, see
Tafuri
Manfredo
Ricerca del Rinascimento. Principi, città, architetti
(
Turin
:
Einaudi
,
1992
),
109
13
and
“‘Roma Instaurata.’ Strategie urbane e politiche pontificie nella Roma del primo Cinquecento,”
in
Frommel et al.
,
Raffaello architetto
,
56
106
.
On the area
, see also
Burroughs
Charles
“Below the Angel: An Urbanistic Project in the Rome of Pope Nicholas V,”
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
45
(
1982
),
94
124
.
45.
Pagliara
“Palazzo Alberini,”
171
and
179
181
;
this construction method, which allowed for the immediate rental of ground-floor shops before completion of the rest of the building was also used for the Palazzo Todeschini Piccolomini in Siena, see above
.
46.
For Sant’Eustachio as a site commercial activity and the office of the Dogana della Terra
, see
Modigliani
Mercati, Botteghe
,
122
;
on the palace
, see
Frommel
Christoph L.
“The Roman Works of Giulio Romano,”
in
Giulio Romano
, ed.
Tafuri
Manfredo
(
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
1998
),
77
83
and
150
4
,
who notes the inclusion of shops without commenting on why they might have been included in the design
.
47.
For the decoration of this palace
see,
Luchinat
Cristina Acidini
Taddeo e Franceso Zuccari, fratelli pittori del Cinquecento
(
Rome
:
Jandi Sapi Editori
,
1999
),
1
:
110
12
,
who notes that Tizio's relative Valerio was a merchant in the Dogana (see 133 note 51)
.
48.
On the markets at Sant’Angelo in Pescheria
, see
Modigliani
Mercati, Botteghe
,
161
76
; also
Piñeiro
Manuel Vaquero
“La banca del mercato di S. Angelo in Pescheria: un profilo di lungo periodo,”
in
Scritti per Isa. Raccolta di studi offerti a Isa Lori Sanfilippo
(
Rome
,
Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo
,
2008
),
867
85
;
on the casa di Lorenzo Manilio
, see
Clarke
Roman House—Renaissance Palaces
,
229
30
and for an exhaustive account of the shops there
Tucci
Pier Luigi
Laurentius Manlius. La riscoperta dell’antica Roma. La nuova Roma di Sisto IV
(
Rome
:
Quasar
,
2001
),
23
33
,
103
17
,
which reports that Manilio used one of the shops for his own business activities
.
49.
Paradigmatic statements to this effect can be found in
Preyer
Brenda
“The ‘chasa overo palagio’ of Alberto di Zanobi: A Florentine Palace of About 1400 and Its Later Remodeling,”
Art Bulletin
,
65
(
1983
),
387
401
; also
Goldthwaite
Richard
The Building of Renaissance Florence
(
Baltimore
:
Johns Hopkins University Press
,
1981
) and
Goldthwaite
Richard
“The Florentine Palace as Domestic Architecture,”
994
.
A first criticism to this argument is in Lowe
,
“A Florentine Prelate's Real Estate,”
265
.
50.
On the effects of the
catasto
, see
Rubinstein
Nicolai
“Palazzi pubblici e palazzi privati al tempo di Brunelleschi (Problemi di storia politica e sociale),”
in
Filippo Brunelleschi. La sua opera e il suo tempo
(
Florence
:
Centro Di
,
1980
),
1
:
29
,
who also noted the coincidence of the “building boom” with the reduction of the fiscal pressure of war, following the Peace of Lodi
.
51.
Fourteenth-century precedents are discussed by Preyer
,
“The ‘chasa overo palagio,”
391
; see also
Hyman
Isabelle
Fifteenth Century Florentine Studies: The Palazzo Medici and a Ledger for the Church of San Lorenzo
(
New York
:
Garland
,
1977
),
21
.
On the arcade system see Marvin Trachtenberg
,
Dominion of the Eye: Urbanism, Art and Power in Early Modern Florence
(
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
1997
),
66
72
and
111
40
. See also
Bianchi
Maria L.
and
Grossi
Maria L.
“Botteghe, economia e spazio urbano,”
in
Arti fiorentine. La grande storia dell’artigianato
,
vol.
2
, ed.
Franceschi
Franco
and
Fossi
Gloria
(
Florence
:
Giunti
,
1999
),
43
48
for discussion of the distribution of shops
. See now also
Belli
Gianluca
“I luoghi di mercato a Firenze fra Medioevo e Rinascimento,”
in
Calabi, Il mercante patrizio
,
79
97
.
52.
The predominantly commercial use of ground-floor property is revealed by the 1498
portate
describing the buildings removed to make place for the palace, as discussed in Bigazzi
,
“Palazzo Strozzi,”
24 and note 24
.
53.
I thank Brenda Preyer for discussing this document with me. The document—a parchment in the Archivio Ridolfi, Florence—is a sale by the city authorities of a small “piazza” at the foot of the Ponte alla Carraia, and states, “dictus Rainerius super dicta platea non possit ibidem edificare et seu edificari facere aliquam apotecham aptam ad aliquod exercitium, sed ibidem hedificare domum habitabilem.” Nonetheless, shops abounded elsewhere on the piazza by the bridge; this can be confirmed into the sixteenth century; see ASF, Decima Granducale (1561), 3780, fols. 95v–96r and 152r–v for shops around Ponte a Carraia on the Santo Spirito side and for example ASF, Decima Granducale (1561), 3784, 28r for the north bank. For Lorenzo de’ Medici's assistance in assembling the site for the palace, see also
Elam
“Lorenzo's Architectural and Urban Policies,”
361
.
54.
Thanks to Caroline Elam for bringing to my attention the reference to Francesco Baldovinetti's
“Memoriale,”
which reports on the building done in his time between ca.1490 and 1520
; cited in
Lisci
Leonardo Ginori
I palazzi di Firenze nella storia e nell’arte
(
Florence
:
Giunti
,
1972
),
2
:
801
.
For a document reporting the great density of woolworkers in the fourteenth century and their request to spread their activity to other adjacent streets
, see
Saalman
“The Transformation of the City,”
82
and discussion in
Atwell
Adrienne
“Ritual Trading: Florentine Wool-cloth Botteghe,”
in
Paoletti
John T.
and
Crum
Roger
Renaissance Florence: A Social History
(
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2006
),
182
214
and especially
198
99
. See also
Goldthwaite
“The Florentine Palace,”
988
.
55.
Saalman
“The Transformation of the City,”
79
; also
Najemy
John
“Florentine Politics and Urban Spaces,”
in
Paoletti and Crum
,
Renaissance Florence, 41–42
.
The completion of this transformation is well documented in the property census of the 1561
, contained in
ASF
Decima Granducale
(
1561
),
3780
84
.
This useful source has proved difficult to use as the mass of data is ordered somewhat idiosyncratically and thus is hard to analyze systematically
. Particularly interesting is
ASF
Decima Granducale
,
3784
“Ricerca delle botteghe di Firenze”
;
initial comments in
Battara
Pietro
“Botteghe e pigioni nella Firenze del Cinquecento. Un censimento industriale e commerciale all’epoca del granductao mediceo,”
Archivio storico italiano
,
1937
,
3
28
,
and more recently
,
Belli
Gianluca
“Le botteghe di Firenze nel 1561,”
in
Calabi, Il mercante patrizio
,
99
102
.
56.
Bianchi
and
Grossi
“Botteghe, economia e spazio urbano,”
53
and note 46 on the decline of the fortunes of the Arte della Lana in the “convento” di via Maggio, citing decline in the rental market from document in ASF Catasto (1480), Vipera 1008, fol. 325r
.
57.
On the entry
see
Ciseri
Ilaria
L’ingresso trionfale di Leone X in Firenze nel 1515
(
Florence
:
Olschki
,
1990
),
which discusses the via Maggio route, and Landucci's comments as well as those of Piero di Marco Parenti (37, 69)
cites
Masi
Bartolomeo
Ricordanze di Bartolomeo Masi, calderaio fiorentino dal 1478 al 1526
, ed.
Corazzini
O.
(
Florence
:
Sansoni
,
1906
),
for the removal of roof and jetty overhangs
.
58.
The urban renovation and social stratification resulting from overhang demolitions is discussed at length for various Sienese streets (Strada Romana, via del Casato and via del Pellegrino)
in
Nevola
Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City
,
99
107
,
202
.
For the paving and improvement of piazza S. Apollinare (now S. Firenze) and other spaces in Florence for ritual use
, see
Elam
“Lorenzo's Architectural and Urban Policies,”
360
,
366
.
59.
I thank Crispin de Courcey-Bayley for providing me with a copy of his
“House and Household: A Study of Families and Property in the Quarter of Santa Croce, Florence during the Fifteenth Century,”
PhD thesis, University of York
,
1998
.
60.
Ibid.
,
105
14
.
61.
This thesis was proposed by Rubinstein, “Palazzi pubblici e palazzi privati,” 29 although it was only corroborated with convincing tax evidence by
de Courcey-Bayley
“House and Household,”
115
16
.
62.
Ibid.
,
70
84
;
he provides unique detailed analysis of the process of property consolidation in the Santa Croce district of Leone Nero, tracked through a sequence of catasti and corroborated by full documentation of property transfers through notarial records. See also, for one family living in this area
,
Jacks
Philip
and
Caferro
William
The Spinelli of Florence: Fortunes of a Renaissance Merchant Family
(
University Park
:
Pennsylvania State University Press
,
2000
),
91
114
,
documenting the creation of the site for a palace (which is shop-free)
.
63.
Preyer
“The ‘chasa overo palagio,’”
392
93
;
here, architectural design lagged behind socioeconomic changes, so that an arcaded design was simply adapted by closing up the ground-floor arcades
.
64.
The development and articulation of the palace “face” is explored
in
Friedman
“Palaces and the Street
,
93
99
and
developed extensively, although in quite different ways, in
Burroughs
Charles
The Italian Renaissance Palace Facade: Structures of Authority, Surfaces of Sense
(
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2002
) and
Clarke
Roman House—Renaissance Palaces
,
179
ff
.
65.
The growing need for space in domestic arrangements is a key theme
in
Goldthwaite
The Building of Renaissance Florence
,
13
14
;
see also Leon Battista Alberti's remarks (in Bk 5.18), that the cooler ground floor of a palace should serve as summer quarters
,
Alberti
Leon Battista
On the Art of Building in Ten Books
,
trans.
Rykwert
Joseph
Leach
Neil
, and
Tavernor
Robert
(
Cambridge and London
:
MIT Press
,
1988
),
153
; also
Howard
Deborah
“Seasonal Apartments in Renaissance Italy,”
Artibus et Historiae
,
22
(
2001
),
127
35
.
66.
The move away from mixed use in palace design
is discussed by
Belluzzi
Amedeo
“Residenze di mercanti fiorentini del Cinquecento,”
in
Calabi, Il mercante patrizio
,
117
29
,
which largely focuses on the second part of the sixteenth century, and argues that the absence of shops in palaces “dissimulated” the professional commercial identity of most owners (128). The process of social stratification of streets and the architectural consequences on palace design is widely documented in the sixteenth century in other cities; see for example
,
Gorse
George L.
“A Classical Stage for the Old Nobility: The Strada Nuova and Sixteenth-Century Genoa,”
Art Bulletin
79
(
1997
),
301
27
and
Tafuri
“‘Roma Instaurata,’”
64
76
.
More generally
, see
Ackerman
and
Rosenfeld
“Social Stratification,”
21
49
.
67.
Quite a rich bibliography traces the campaign
; see
Carrocci
Guido
Il mercato vecchio di Firenze: ricordi e curiosità di storia e d’arte
(
Florence
:
Tip. della Pia Casa di Patronato
,
1884
);
Eclettismo a Firenze: L’attività di Corinto Corinti. I progetti del Palazzo Poste e Telegrafi
, ed.
di Firenze
Comune
(
Florence
:
Quaderni del Centro di Documentazione e Informazione
:
1
,
1985
);
“Firenze antica nei disegni di Corino Corinti,”
L’Universo: rivista bimestrale dell’Istituto Geografico Militare
(
Florence
:
Istituto Geografico Militare
,
1976
),
vol.
56
;
Orefice
Gabriella
Rilievi e memorie dell’antico centro di Firenze (1885–1895)
(
Florence
:
Alinea
1986
);
Tempestini
Elena
Il mercato vecchio. Quaranta immagini del centro di Firenze com’era sino al secolo scorso
(
Florence
:
Cesati
,
1997
).
Traces of architectural elements salvaged from the demolitions are still preserved in the lapidario of the Museo di San Marco, Florence
.
68.
A good collection of Alinari and other photographs
is in
Orlandi
Giulio Lensi
Il palazzo dei Sassetti
(
Florence
:
Vallecchi
,
1990
);
Corinti was clearly an exponent of revival-style architecture, but his drawings are nonetheless helpful documents
as
Boccia
Vieri
“I rilievi di Corinto Corinti tra storia e architettura,”
in
Eclettismo a Firenze
,
75
90
and
Orefice
Rilievi e memorie
,
argue
.
69.
An issue may be the extent to which palaces continued to be lived in by their owners; thus, for the Borromei house Belli
,
“I luoghi di mercato,”
91
,
has noted that the family let this palace out and chose to live near the Canto de’ Pazzi (as reported in 1427 tax returns). As noted in note 55 above, though the Decima Granducale documents allow us to identify the innumerable shops in the area, it is very difficult to triangulate this information with the residential uses recorded in other volumes
.
70.
Miller
Maureen
The Bishop's Palace: Architecture and Authority in Medieval Italy
(
Ithaca and London
:
Cornell University Press
,
2000
),
105
and
Dameron
George
Episcopal Power and Florentine Society, 1000–1320
(
Cambridge
:
Harvard University Press
,
1991
),
154
57
.
There were as many as fifty shops in the palazzo Arcivescovile in the fifteenth century
, for which see
Belli
“I luoghi di mercato a Firenze,”
84
.
A number of these shops appear to have benefited from mezzanines, see for example the case cited in the following note. The subsequent remodeling of the palace in the 1570s have altered its appearance, although the building continues to be lined with ground-floor shops
; see
Barletti
Emanuele
Il Palazzo Arcivescovile di Firenze: vicende architettoniche dal 1533 al 1895
(
Florence
:
Il Torchio
,
1989
).
71.
ASF
,
Decima Granducale 3784, fols. 30, 141–42
,
e.g., fol. 142r, item no. 567 for a shop with an oven under the vaults of the arches of the archbishop's palace. The proximity to the via Calzaiuoli suggests that the shops here shared the primary vocation that lent its name to that street
, see
Bianchi
and
Grossi
“Botteghe, economia e spazio urbano,”
48
and
map on 56–57. The façade toward the baptistery was cut back 10 m as part of the 1860s reordering of the area
; see
Ingersoll
Richard
“Tabula Rasa in Florence. The Case of Mercato Vecchio,”
an unpublished paper which I thank the author for sharing with me
.
72.
Many other such examples exist. For example, for shops on piazza San Lorenzo and in the della Stufa palace
, see
Hyman
Fifteenth-Century Florentine Studies
,
241
44
;
for the palace
see
Lisci
Ginori
I palazzi di Firenze
,
1
:
337
40
. See also
ASF
,
Decima Granducale
(1561), 3784, 125r–v
.
73.
Bianchi
and
Grossi
“Botteghe, economia e spazio urbano,”
with helpful maps 50–57
; also
Bianchi
Maria L.
“Le botteghe fiorentine nel catasto del 1427,”
Ricerche Storiche
,
30
(
2000
),
3
56
and
Grossi
Maria L.
“Le botteghe fiorentine nel catasto del 1480,”
Ricerche Storiche
,
30
(
2000
),
119
70
.
74.
Calabi
Donatella
La città del primo Rinascimento
(
Bari-Rome
:
Laterza
,
2001
),
88
89
;
a similar distribution
can be seen in
Lisci
Ginori
I palazzi di Firenze
,
1
:
12
.
75.
Hyman
Fifteenth Century Florentine Studies
,
52
also documents the absorption of a number of shops and other properties into the façade, 54–89 and figs. 1–2
.
76.
The continued usage of this area for commerce is testified through the tax returns of the Tornabuoni, residents in the same area
, as extensively transcribed in
Plebani
Eleonora
I Tornabuoni. Una famiglia fiorentina alla fine del Medioevo
(
Milan
:
FrancoAngeli
,
2002
),
196
222
,
where houses with ground-floor shops are recorded throughout the fifteenth century
.
77.
Rucellai
Giovanni
Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone. I, ‘Il Zibaldone Quaresimale,’
ed.
Perosa
Alessandro
(
London
:
Warburg Institute, University of London
,
1960
),
19
.
78.
De Courcey-Bayley
“House and Household,”
116
, cites
Ricordi storici di Filippo di Cino Rinuccini dal 1282 al 1460 colla continuazione di Alamanno e Neri suoi figli fino al 1506
, ed.
Aiazzi
Giuseppe
(
Florence
:
Stamperia Piatti
,
1840
),
vol.
90
,
in favor of a 1463 provision of subsidized accommodation to the city's less wealthy citizens, as the palace construction boom had led to the reduction of available rentable housing
; also discussed by
Ela
“Lorenzo's Architectural and Urban Policies,”
369
.
79.
Tafur
Ricerca del Rinascimento
,
90
94
and
Elam
C.
“Lorenzo de’ Medici and Urban Development in Renaissance Florence,”
Art History
1
(
1978
),
43
66
,
with revisions
“Lorenzo's Architectural and Urban Policies,”
357
82
,
esp.
368
71
.
80.
For a comment on the Florentine bias in Renaissance studies
, see
Nevola
F.
“Review Essay,”
Renaissance Studies
22
(
2008
),
589
94
.
81.
Vitruvius
The Ten Books on Architecture
, ed. and trans.
Morgan
Morris H.
(
New York
:
Dover
,
1960
),
182
(
6.5
).
82.
Alberti
Leon Battista
On the Art of Building
,
152
(
5.18
).
83.
Martini
Francesco di Giorgio
Trattati di Architettura, Ingegneria e Arte Militare
, ed.
Maltese
Corrado
(
Milan
:
Edizioni il Polifilo
,
1967
),
2
:
364
65
(
3
).
84.
Weil-Garris
Kathleen
and
d’Amico
John
“The Renaissance Cardinal's Ideal Palace: A Chapter from Cortesi's De Cardinalatu,”
in
Millon
Henry A.
, ed.,
Studies in Italian Art History I
(
Rome
:
Edizioni dell’Elefante
,
1980
),
71
.
85.
Lowe
Kate
“Questions of Income and Expenditure in Renaissance Rome: A Case Study of Cardinal Francesco Armellini,”
in
The Church and Wealth, Studies in Church History
,
24
(
1987
),
175
88
and
Lowe
Kate
“A Florentine Prelate's Real Estate in Rome.”
86.
The debate on the appropriateness of including shops in the ground floor of buildings rumbled on, and a fascinating instance of it was pointed out to me by Joe Connors, in the discussions led by Virgilio Spada, recorded in the 1639 minutes of the meetings of the Oratorian congregation of Santa Maria in Vallicella in Rome regarding plans for the Oratorio dei Filippini
, for which see
Incisa della Rocchetta
Giovanni
and
Connors
Joseph
“Documenti sul complesso Borrominiano della Vallicella, 1617–1800,”
Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria
104
(
1981
),
203
4
,
doc.
139
.
See also notes 66 and 67 above
.