Urban transformations and social spaces. The relational dimension as an engine of local development

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE
Author/s Federica Viganò, Donatella Padua
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2018/116
Language Italian Pages 14 P. 45-58 File size 190 KB
DOI 10.3280/SUR2018-116004
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 article focuses on the relation between the relational dimension and contemporary urban transformation processes. Starting from the analysis of the main urban transformation phases, from the fordist to the post-fordist city, new evidences and practices of social governance territorial based will be described.Thanks to the model it will be possible to highlight how intangible resources (such as social networks, relations, communication) play a major role than tangible resources (like built and natural environment) in driving sustainable urban transformation processes in different phases. The paper undermines the direct correlation between density of relationships, stakeholder engagement at local level and the efficacy of urban transformation processes as a response to territorial needs.

Keywords: Urban regeneration, urban transformation processes, relationships, stakeholder engagement, intangible resources, local development.

  1. Becattini G. (1987) (a cura di). Mercato e forze locali. Bologna: il Mulino.
  2. Becchetti L., Londono B., Trovato G. (2005). Income, relational goods and happiness. CEIS, Working paper. Tor Vergata.
  3. Bergamaschi M., Colleoni M., Martinelli F. (a cura di). (2009). La città: bisogni, desideri, diritti. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  4. Bergamaschi M., Castrignanò M., Landi A. (2014). Urban farming and transition towns initiatives: practices and paths of urban regeneration. Journal of Nutritional Ecology and Food Research, 2: 128-133.
  5. Bruni L., Naimzada A.K., Randon E. (2006). Beni relazionali: un modello dinamico. Bologna: il Mulino.
  6. Bruni L. (2006). Reciprocità. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.
  7. Camarinhas C.T.F. (2011). The construction of modern scientific urban planning: Lisbon under French urbanisme influence (1904-1967). Planning Theory and Practice, 12: 11-31. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2011.546667
  8. Castells M. (2010). Globalisation, networking, urbanisation: reflections on the spatial dynamics of the information age. Urban Studies, 13: 2737-2745. DOI: 10.1177/0042098010377365
  9. Castrignanò M. (2012). Comunità, capitale sociale, quartiere. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  10. Ciaffi D., Mela A. (2011). Urbanistica partecipata. Roma: Carocci.
  11. Cusinato A. (2005). Una ipotesi interpretativa della frammentazione urbana. Scienze Regionali. 1, 107-137.
  12. Dargan L. (2009). Participation and local urban regeneration: the case of the new deal for communities (NDC) in the UK. Regional Studies, 43: 305-317. DOI: 10.1080/00343400701654244
  13. Davoudi S., Healey P. (1995). City Challenge: sustainable process or temporary gesture?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 1: 79-95.
  14. Dicks B. (2014). Participatory community regeneration: a discussion of risks, accountability and crisis in devolved Wales. Urban Studies, 51: 959-977. DOI: 10.1177/0042098013493023
  15. Dillon D., Fanning B. (2011). Lessons for the big Society. Farnham: Ashgate.
  16. Donati P. (1991). Teoria relazionale della società. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  17. Donati P., Terenzi P. (2005). Invito alla sociologia relazionale: teoria e applicazioni. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  18. d’Ovidio M. (2010). Network locali nell’economia cognitiva-culturale. Il caso di Milano. Rassegna italiana di sociologia, 3: 459-484. DOI: 10.1423/32950
  19. Evans G. (2009). Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban studies, 5-6: 1003-1040. DOI: 10.1177/0042098009103853
  20. Finocchiaro, E. (2006). Identità, coesione e capitale sociale nella città. Sociologia urbana e rurale, 81: 51-94.
  21. Ferilli G., Sacco P.L., Tavano Blessi G. (2016). Beyond the rhetoric of participation: New challenges and prospects for inclusive urban regeneration. City, Culture and Society, 2: 95-100.
  22. Forrester J. (2012). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12: 5-22. DOI: 10.1177/1473095212448750
  23. Giovanola B. (2007). Quale sviluppo? Felicità, beni relazionali e ricchezza antropologica. Etica ed economia, 1: 107-121.
  24. Glaeser E.L., Laibson D., Sacerdote B. (2000). The economic approach to social capital. NBER Working Paper 7728. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  25. Guidicini P., Pieretti G. (1996). San Patrignano: terapia ambientale ed effetto città. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  26. Gui B. (2000). Beyond transactions: on the interpersonal dimension of economic reality. Annals of public and cooperative economics, 2: 139-169. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8292.00137
  27. Healey P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2: 101-123. DOI: 10.1177/14730952030022002
  28. Lemmi E. (2012). Dinamiche e processi nella geografia delle città in Italia. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  29. Marra E., Mela A., Zajczyk F. (2004). Tempi difficili per la città. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  30. Nienhuis I., van Dijk T., De Roo G. (2011). Let’s collaborate! but who’s really collaborating? Individual interests as a leitmotiv for urban renewal and regeneration strategies. Planning Theory and Practice, 12: 95-109. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2011.546671
  31. Jacobs K. (2004). Waterfront redevelopment: a critical discourse analysis of the policy-making process within the Chatham maritime project. Urban Studies, 4: 817-832. DOI: 10.1080/0042098042000194124
  32. Park R.E. (1926). The urban community as a spatial pattern and a moral order. The urban community, 2: 3-18.
  33. Pares M, Bonet-Martí J., Martí-Costa M. (2012). Does participation really matter in urban regeneration policies? Exploring governance networks in Catalonia (Spain). Urban Affairs Review, 48: 238-271. DOI: 10.1177/1078087411423352
  34. Pieretti G., Grossi E., Ferilli G., Tavano Blessi G. (2012). Aree urbane, ambiente naturale e benessere. Il caso della città di Milano. Sociologia urbana e rurale, 99: 134-146. DOI: 10.3280/SUR2012-099011
  35. Putnam R. (1993). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
  36. Roberts P. (2000). The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. In Roberts P., Sykes H. (ed.) Urban Renaissance: A Handbook. London: SAGE.
  37. Tavares R.M., Mendelsohn A., Grossman Y., Williams C.H., Shapiro M., Trope Y., Schiller D. (2015). A Map for Social Navigation in the Human Brain, Neuron, 1: 231-243.
  38. Sacco P.L., Zamagni S. (2006) (a cura di). Teoria economica e relazioni interpersonali. Bologna: il Mulino.
  39. Sacco P.L., Tavano Blessi G. (2009). The social viability of culture-led urban transformation processes: evidence from the Bicocca District, Milan. Urban Studies, 5-6: 1115-1135. DOI: 10.1177/0042098009103857
  40. Sguglio A. (2009). Nuovi percorsi di socialità e di relazione nello spazio urbano contemporaneo: l’esperienza delle “televisioni di strada”. Sociologia urbana e rurale, 90: 147-164. DOI: 10.3280/SUR2009-090009
  41. Uhlaner C. (1989). Relational goods and participation: incorporating sociability into a theory of rational action. Public Choice, 3: 253-285. DOI: 10.1007/BF02337745

  • Between Old and New Needs: The Issue of Inclusion of the Elderly before, during and after COVID-19. The Case of Rural Areas in Canada-Québec and Italy Marco Alberio, Rebecca Plachesi, in Interventions économiques /2024
    DOI: 10.4000/11qw5

Federica Viganò, Donatella Padua, Trasformazioni urbane e spazi sociali: la dimensione relazionale come piattaforma di sviluppo locale in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" 116/2018, pp 45-58, DOI: 10.3280/SUR2018-116004