The presentation of AS Roma’s new stadium project, initially scheduled for April 22, has been postponed by a few days. The delay was caused by the death of Pope Francis, which has affected the national schedule across Italy.

What about archaeological research?

News that the stadium project in Pietrala would be unveiled on April 22 sparked discussions last week. In Pietralata, archaeological work has been suspended, and without completing these studies, the Soprintendenza (State Heritage Authority) will not grant approval. A major obstacle remains the disputed woodland area, which continues to stir controversy. It appears the project to be presented will not be final.

Rome’s mayor, Roberto Gualtieri, mentioned only important updates regarding the stadium in Pietralata but did not confirm it would be a final project. He stated: The club informed us that an important update will happen in the coming days. We are waiting. They are working on the final project. This is a key moment we are following with respect and anticipation.

But what exactly does more information mean? Is AS Roma really going to present a definitive project? That seems unlikely—both for formal and substantive reasons. Most importantly, the results of archaeological surveys may require relocating the stadium. The developers hope nothing valuable lies underground, but until the surveys are conducted, nothing is certain. Additionally, the 2022 public interest resolution from the City Assembly requires a complete project; partial submissions are not allowed.

© AS Roma

The forest dispute continues

The forest in Pietralata has been documented in drone footage, and experts from Rome’s administration are now analyzing whether it should be protected. An investigation is underway by the Rome Prosecutor’s Office, and two local committees have confirmed the forest’s existence and its associated environmental protections. The forest police have also raised concerns. This dispute is currently blocking archaeological work, which is a prerequisite for approval by the Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio di Roma.

So far, the Soprintendenza has approved only phase 1 of the work—covering the stadium site itself. Phase 2, which includes parking lots and surrounding infrastructure, has been postponed. Before the final project can be submitted to the City Assembly (to confirm public interest) and then to the Services Conference, results from phase 1 are required—but these remain on hold due to the forest issue.

The public interest resolution also mandates prior archaeological review, per Article 25 of Legislative Decree No. 50/2016. Additionally, it requires the project to comply with preliminary and technical committee recommendations before the Services Conference can begin.

© AS Roma

A legal shortcut?

AS Roma will likely present a large portion of the project in the coming days, to be completed later with archaeological findings. It will then go to the City Assembly, and if approved, to the Services Conference. However, who will evaluate the project without completed surveys? City technical departments are not supposed to assess incomplete proposals.

Some suggest there may be a workaround: stadium legislation does not require two separate City Council votes. Once a public interest declaration is issued, the process shifts to a technical-administrative level. However, in Rome, an additional regulation requires formal project verification before the Services Conference.

© AS Roma

Opposition continues the fight

Because of this, opposition groups have filed complaints with ANAC (anti-corruption agency), the Court of Auditors, the Rome Prosecutor’s Office, and the Lazio Regional Administrative Court. Mayor Gualtieri and Councillor Veloccia intend to allow project verification despite the lack of required archaeological studies. This is another attempt to bypass regulations and push through a poorly managed project, one statement reads.

Lega councillor Fabrizio Santori added: If AS Roma really presents a so-called final project, as the mayor claims, it would be a serious institutional breach. The City Assembly would be reduced to a rubber stamp, unable to properly evaluate what it’s approving. We call for a complete restart of the process and clear procedures—without shortcuts or tricks.