Enabling real property. How public real estate assets can serve urban regeneration

Journal title TERRITORIO
Author/s Ezio Micelli
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2018/87
Language English Pages 5 P. 93-97 File size 120 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2018-087015
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.

For some time now much of Italy’s public real estate has ceased to be the object of market valorization and is accommodating highly diversified initiatives that substantiate the idea of horizontal subsidiarity and have a significant impact on urban regeneration processes. This paper addresses five major points: the new dimensions of the value of public real-estate assets; the new forms of participation and their evolution; the central importance of production induced by the emerging role of the social entrepreneur in the regeneration of real property assets and the city; the role of culture in grassroots regeneration processes; the implications of all of this on urban policy and the need for enabling rather than regulatory actions.

Keywords: Public real estate; urban regeneration; enabling policies

  1. Antoniucci V., Marella G., 2018, ≪Is social polarization related to urban density? Evidence from the Italian housing market≫. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177: 340-349.
  2. Arena G., Iaione C., 2012, L’Italia dei beni comuni. Roma: Carocci.
  3. Artioli F., 2016, ≪Le aree militari nelle città italiane: patrimonio pubblico e rendita urbana nell’era dall’austerity e della crisi≫. Rivista delle Politiche Sociali-Italian Journal of Social Policy, 1: 89-113.
  4. Bailey N., 2012, ≪The role, organisation and contribution of community enterprise to urban regeneration policy in the UK≫. Progress in Planning, 77, 1: 1-35.
  5. Belle B., 2018, ≪Iniziative bottom-up e riuso temporaneo. Quale valore aggiunto per la valorizzazione di beni immobili pubblici?≫. CRIOS, 16: 35-44.
  6. Bruni L., 2012, The wound and the blessing. Happiness, Economics, Relationships. New York: New City Press.
  7. Caliandro C., Sacco P.L., 2011, Italia reloaded. Ripartire con la cultura. Bologna: il Mulino.
  8. Calvaresi C., 2018, ≪Agenda urbana e community hub≫. Territorio, 84: 105-110.
  9. Campagnoli G., 2014, Riusiamo l’Italia. Da spazi vuoti a start-up culturali e sociali. Milano: Il Sole-24 Ore.
  10. Carta M., 2017, Augmented City. A Paradigm Shift. Rovereto (tn): List.
  11. Cottino P., Domante D., 2017, Innescare la rigenerazione. Spazi alle comunita come ‘driver’ di sviluppo delle aree dismesse. Pisa: Pacini.
  12. Cottino P., Zeppetella P., 2009, ≪Creativita, sfera pubblica e riuso sociale degli spazi≫. Cittalia. Fondazione Anci ricerche, Paper 4. -- http://www.osservatorioriuso.it/cgi-bin/documentazione/Paper4-09_Cottino_Zeppetella.pdf (accessed on: 2018.02.14).
  13. D’elia A., 2018, Manifattura Milano. Un programma per le nuove economie urbane innovative e inclusive. -- http://www.legiornatedibertinoro.it/manifattura-milano-nuove-economie-urbane-innovative-inclusive (accessed on: 2018.10.30).
  14. Dalla Zuanna G., Weber G., 2012, Cose da non credere. Il senso comune alla prova dei numeri. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
  15. Forte F., Fusco Girard L., 2009, ≪Creativity and new architectural assets: The complex value of beauty≫. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 12, 2-4: 160-191.
  16. Laino G., 2018, ≪Community hub a Napoli fra creativita e divari≫. Territorio, 84: 98-104.
  17. Maddalena P., 2014, Il territorio bene comune degli italiani. Proprieta collettiva, proprieta privata e interesse pubblico. Roma: Donzelli.
  18. Mangialardo A., 2017, ≪Il social entrepreneur per la valorizzazione del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico≫. Scienze regionali, 16, 3: 473-480. DOI: 10.14650/87466
  19. Mangialardo A., Micelli E., 2017, ≪Simulation models to evaluate the value creation of the grass-roots participation in the enhancement of public real-estate assets with evidence from Italy≫. Buildings, 7, 4:100.
  20. Mangialardo A., Micelli E., 2018, ≪From sources of financial value to commons: Emerging policies for enhancing public real-estate assets in Italy≫. Papers in Regional Science, 97, 4: 1397-1408.
  21. Mattei U., 2011, Beni Comuni. Un manifesto. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
  22. Micelli E., Mangialardo A., 2017, ≪Recycling the City. New Perspective on the Real-estate Market and Construction Industry≫. In: Bisello A., Vettorato D., Stephens R., Elisei P. (eds.), Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions, Berlin: Springer, 115-125.
  23. Moroni S., 2007, La citta del liberalismo attivo. Torino: Cittastudi.
  24. Moroni S., 2015, ≪Beni di nessuno, beni di alcuni, beni di tutti: note critiche sull’incerto paradigma dei beni comuni≫. Scienze regionali, 14, 3: 137-144. DOI: 10.3280/SCRE2015-003008
  25. Ostanel E., 2017, Spazi fuori dal comune. Rigenerare, includere, innovare, Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  26. Ostanel E., Attili G., 2018, ≪Self-organization practices in cities: discussing the transformative potential≫. Tracce Urbane, 4: 6-17. DOI: 10.13133/2532-6562_2.4.14444
  27. Ragozino S., 2019, ≪Navigating Neo-liberal Urbanism in the UK. Could a Social Entrepreneur Be Considered an Activist Planner?≫. In: Calabro
  28. F., Dalla Spina L., Bevilacqua C. (eds.), New Metropolitan Perspectives. Berlin: Spinger, 625-634.
  29. Sacco P.L., Ferilli G., Tavano Blessi G., 2012, ≪Sviluppo locale a base culturale: quando funziona e perche? Alla ricerca di un framework di riferimento≫. Prisma: economia, societa, lavoro, 1: 9-27.
  30. Tricarico L., 2016, ≪Imprese di comunita come fattore territoriale: riflessioni a partire dal contesto italiano≫. Crios, 11: 35-50.
  31. Van Meerkerk, I., Kleinhans R., Molenveld A., 2018, ≪Exploring the durability of community enterprises: A qualitative comparative analysis≫. Public Administration, 96, 4, 651-667.
  32. Venturi P., Zandonai F., 2016, Imprese ibride. Modelli d’innovazione sociale per rigenerare valore. Milano: Egea.
  33. Zamagni S., Venturi P., Rago S., 2017, Valutare l’impatto sociale. La questione della misurazione nelle imprese sociali. -- http://www.rivistaimpresasociale.it/rivista/item/141-misurazione-impatto-sociale.html (accessed on: 2019.02.01).

  • A Methodological Approach for the Assessment of Potentially Buildable Land for Tax Purposes: The Italian Case Study Fabrizio Battisti, Orazio Campo, Fabiana Forte, in Land /2020 pp.8
    DOI: 10.3390/land9010008

Ezio Micelli, Enabling real property. How public real estate assets can serve urban regeneration in "TERRITORIO" 87/2018, pp 93-97, DOI: 10.3280/TR2018-087015