Interpreting contemporary urban complexity: the fluid city paradigm

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE
Author/s Rossana Galdini
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/128 Language Italian
Pages 13 P. 14-26 File size 170 KB
DOI 10.3280/SUR2022-128002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The fluid city is one of the recent conceptualizations used to identify the processes cross-ing the contemporary city. Its innovative spatial and structural characteristics contrast with a formal idea of a city, built and organized according to rules, principles and univocal determina-tions. The transposition of the fluidity concept in urban planning allows us to observe how dynamism, temporariness, flexibility are increasingly adopted as categories for re-functionalization, re-signification of spaces, creation of places and dissemination of new prac-tices. The contribution suggests reflections on a multidisciplinary, multidimensional and inter-scaling approach to urban planning that can manage fluidity and urban complexity. It focuses on the potential of temporary uses fostering an emergency and on their possibility to promote social reinvention of public spaces.

Keywords: fluidity, adaptability, flexibility, transformability, complexity, temporary uses

  1. Adobati F., Garda E. (2019). Dalla Regional Review OECD-Bergamo un’agenda per le politiche territoriali. In Moccia F.D., Sepe M. (a cura di). Urbanistica Informazioni 278 Special Issue. INU Edizioni.
  2. Amendola G. (2010). Tra Dedalo e Icaro. La nuova domanda di città. Roma: Laterza.
  3. Balducci A., Boelens L., Hillier H., Nyseth T., Wilkinson C. (2011). Introduction. Strategic spatial planning in uncertainty: Theory and exploratory practice. The Town planning review, 82 (5): 481-501.
  4. Bauman Z. (2011). Modernità liquida. Roma: Laterza.
  5. Borsacchi L. (a cura di). (2019). Sustainable and circular re-use of spaces and buildings - Handbook.
  6. Cacciari M. (2004). La città infinita. Torino-Milano: Paravia Mondadori Editore.
  7. Carta M., Ronsivalle D. (2016). The fluid city paradigm: Waterfront regeneration as an urban renewal strategy. Switzerland: Springer.
  8. Carvalho R. (2020). Coranavirus e nuova visione dello spazio personale, sociale e geopolitico. -- Testo disponibile al sito https://friuli.vimado.it/storia-cultura/storia/coronavirus-e-nuova-visione-dello-spazio-personale-sociale-e-geopolitico.
  9. Castells M. (2000). The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  10. Ciaffi D., Crivello S., Mela A. (2020). Le città contemporanee. Prospettive sociologiche. Roma: Carocci.
  11. Colleoni M. (2019). Mobilità e trasformazioni urbane. La morfologia della metropoli contemporanea. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  12. Corrado M. (2014). Il sentiero dell’architettura porta nella foresta. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  13. Crawford M., Chase J.R., Kaliski J. (1999). Everyday urbanism. New York: Monacelli.
  14. Davoudi S., Zaucha J., Brooks E. (2016). Evolutionary resilience and complex lagoon systems. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12(4): 711-718.
  15. Deas I., Martin M., Hincks S. (2020). Temporary urban uses in response to COVID-19: Bolstering resilience via short-term experimental solutions. Town Planning Review, 92(1): 81-88.
  16. De Certeau M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. London: University of California Press.
  17. Donzelot J. (2008). The social policy of competition. Esprit, 11: 51-77.
  18. Durkheim E. (1899). Morphologie sociale. L’Année sociologique, 2: 520-521.
  19. Foucault M. (2001). La pensée du dehors. In Defert D., Lagrange J. (eds.). Michel Foucault. Dits et écrits, vol. 1: 1954-1975. Paris: Gallimard.
  20. Franck K., Stevens Q. (2006). Loose Space. Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. London: Routledge.
  21. Galdini R. (2017). Terapie urbane. I nuovi spazi pubblici della città contemporanea. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
  22. Geertman S. (2020). From formal to fluid. Introduction. The city at eye level. -- Testo disponibile al sito: https://thecityateyelevel.com.
  23. Groth J., Corijn E. (2005). Reclaiming urbanity: Indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda setting. Urban Studies, 42(3): 503-526. DOI: 10.1080/00420980500035436
  24. Gwiazdzinski L. (2011). La ville malléable. In Adaptable city. Inserting the urban rhythms. Oslo: Suède.
  25. Honeck T. (2017). From squatters to creatives. An innovation perspective on temporary use in planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(2): 268-287.
  26. Indovina F. (2017). Ordine e disordine nella città contemporanea. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  27. Lefebvre H. (1970). Le droit à la ville. Vers la sociologie de l’urbain. Paris: Ellipses.
  28. Lydon M., Garcia A. (2015). Tactical urbanism: Short-term action for long-term change. Washington DC: Island Press.
  29. Maciocco G., Sanna G., Serreli S. (a cura di). (2011). The urban potential of external territories. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  30. Maggioli M. (2015). Dentro lo Spatial Turn: luogo e località, spazio e territorio. Semestrale di studi e ricerche di geografia, 2: 51-66. DOI: 10.13133/1125-5218.15090
  31. Marchiori A. (2020). I fondi europei per la rinascita di imprese e città. In Le attività economiche nelle città post-covid. Riflessioni sulla rigenerazione urbana. Confcommercio Imprese per l’Italia.
  32. Mehrotra R. (2003). Static spaces, kinetic places. Public Space in the Mega City of Bombay. Cities and Market Conference, IFHPWorld Congress. 5-8 October, Vienna.
  33. Mela A. (2020). La città postmoderna. Spazi e culture. Roma: Carocci.
  34. Miraftab F. (2009). Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global South. Planning Theory, 8(1): 32-50. DOI: 10.1177/1473095208099297.
  35. Moreno C. (2020). Paris mayor unveils ‘15-minute city’ plan in re-election campaign. The Guardian, February 7.
  36. Nyseth T. (2012). Fluid planning: A meaningless concept or a rational response to uncertainty in urban planning? In Burian J. (ed.). Advances in Spatial Planning. Rijeka: InTech.
  37. Oswalt P., Overmeyer K., Misselwitz P. (2013). Urban catalyst: The power of temporary use. Berlin: Dom Publishers.
  38. Prakash G. (2008). Introduction. In Prakash G., Kruse K.M. (eds.). The spaces of the modern city. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  39. Ricci L., Crupi F., Poli I. (2020). Nuova questione urbana e nuovo welfare. La città pubblica per il diritto alla salute. In Talia M. (a cura di). Le nuove comunità urbane e il valore strategico della conoscenza. Atti della Conferenza internazionale Urbanpromo XVII Edizione Progetti per il Paese. Roma-Milano: Planum Publisher.
  40. Sandercock L. (2011). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(1): 11-28. DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000057209
  41. Sassen S. (2011). Open source urbanism. Domus, 59.
  42. Secchi B. (2010). La città del XX secolo. Roma: Laterza.
  43. Sennett R. (2018). Costruire e abitare. L’etica per la città. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  44. Simonsen K. (2004). Networks, flows, and fluids - reimagining spatial analyses? Environment and Planning A, 36: 1334-1340.
  45. Soja E.W. (2010). Postmetropolis: Critical studies of cities and regions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  46. Trancik R. (1986). Finding lost space: Theories of urban design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  47. Urry J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.
  48. Vazquez Pizzi D. (2015). La fine della città postmoderna. Milano: Mimesis.
  49. Wu Y., Galdini R., Hui E.C.M., Long H. (2020). Urban regeneration and re-use: China and Europe. Cities, 106: 102863.

  • Urban informality and users-led social innovation: Challenges and opportunities for the future human centred city Rossana Galdini, Silvia De Nardis, in Futures 103170/2023 pp.103170
    DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2023.103170

Rossana Galdini, Interpretare la complessità urbana contemporanea: il paradigma della città fluida in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" 128/2022, pp 14-26, DOI: 10.3280/SUR2022-128002