Public buildings’ revitalization and background conditions. Considerations from the Italian case

Journal title TERRITORIO
Author/s Beatrice Maria Bellè
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2023/105
Language Italian Pages 9 P. 106-114 File size 181 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2023-105014
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.

In the last decade, top-down urban regeneration processes have been central to significant and challenging debates, specifically regarding bottom-up practices. Civic engagement and participation in regeneration projects have created a more decentralized power system closer to citizens’ needs. This is true if unused publicly owned buildings are considered. Nevertheless, some of these processes are ambiguous from a normative point of view (overproduction of laws and different limitations), which makes them more urgent than rhetoric frequently points out. The paper aims to discuss some key features of these processes triggered by civic actors within former unused publicly owned buildings and pinpoint five background conditions that make those processes more likely to happen.

Keywords: urban regeneration; publicly owned buildings; background conditions

  1. Abastante F., Corrente S., Greco S., Lami I.M., Mecca B., 2020, «The introduction of the SRF-II method to compare hypothesis of adaptive reuse for an iconic historical building». Operational Research, 22: 2397- 2436.
  2. Abastante F., Lami I.M., Mecca B., 2021, «Performance indicators fra- mework to analyse factors influencing the success of six urban cultural regeneration cases». In: Bevilacqua C., Calabrò F., Della Spina L. (eds.),
  3. New Metropolitan Perspectives. NMP 2020. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies. New Metropolitan Perspective, vol. 2. Berlin: Springer, 886-897. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48279-4_83
  4. Arena G., 2016, «Cosa sono e come funzionano i patti per la cura dei beni comuni». Labsus www.labsus.org (accesso: 2023.10.01).
  5. Bellè B.M., 2017, «Promesse e fallimenti nella valorizzazione degli immo- bili pubblici». Scienze Regionali, 16, 3: 463-472. DOI: 10.14650/87465.
  6. Bellè B.M., 2018, «Iniziative bottom-up e riuso temporaneo. Quale valore aggiunto per la valorizzazione di beni immobili pubblici? ». CRIOS, 16: 35-44. DOI: 10.3280/CRIOS2018-016003
  7. Bellè B.M., 2021, «Unused public buildings and civic actors. A new way to rethink urban regeneration processes». In: Bevilacqua C., Calabrò F., Della Spina L. (eds.), New Metropolitan Perspectives. NMP 2020. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 178. Cham: Springer, 898- 904. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48279-4_84
  8. Bragaglia F., 2021, «Social innovation as a ‘magic concept’ for policy-ma- kers and its implications for urban governance». Planning Theory, 20, 2: 102-120. DOI: 10.1177/1473095220934832
  9. Caramaschi S., Chiodelli F., 2022, «Reconceptualising housing emptiness beyond vacancy and abandonment». International Journal of Housing Policy, 23, 3: 588-611. DOI: 10.1080/19491247.2022.2074268
  10. Cellamare C., 2019, Città fai-da-te. Tra antagonismo e cittadinanza. Storie di autorganizzazione urbana. Roma: Donzelli.
  11. De Franco A., 2022, Abandonment as a social fact. The Problem of Unused and Unmaintained Private Buildings in a Neo-institutional Perspective. Cham: Springer.
  12. Della Porta D., Diani M., 2006, Social movements. An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
  13. Foster S.R., Iaione C., 2018, «Ostrom in the city: Design principles and practices for the urban commons». In: Cole D., Hudson B., Rosenbloom
  14. J. (eds.), Handbook of the study of the commons. London: Routledge, 235-255.
  15. Gerrin J., 2017, Case study research. Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. González, S., Healey, P., 2005, «A Sociological Institutionalist Approach to the Study of Innovation in Governance Capacity». Urban Studies, 42, 11: 2055-2069. DOI: 10.1080/00420980500279778
  17. Granata E., 2021, Placemaker. Gli inventori dei luoghi che abiteremo. Torino: Einaudi.
  18. Hensmans M., van Bommel K., 2017, «Social movements». In: Heath R.L., Johansen W. (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, vol. 8. Hoboken: Wiley, 1-12.
  19. Inti I., Cantaluppi G., Persichino M., 2014, Temporiuso. Manuale per il riuso temporaneo di spazi in abbandono. Milano: Altreconomia.
  20. Kaganova O., Amoils, 2020, «Central government property asset mana- gement: a review of international changes». Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 22, 3: 239-260. DOI: 10.1108/JCRE-09-2019-0038
  21. Labsus, 2022, Rapporto 2021. Sull’amministrazione condivisa dei Beni Comuni. www.labsus.org (accesso: 2023.10.01).
  22. Ladu, M., 2022a, «Patrimonio pubblico e innovazione sociale. La di- mensione strategica del quartiere». In: Gerundo R. (a cura di) Città e piani del rischio pandemico. Napoli: ESI - Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 371-385.
  23. Ladu M., 2022b, Patrimonio immobiliare pubblico. Prospettive di rigener- azione per una città accessibile e di prossimità. Cagliari: UNICApress. Lami I.M., 2020, «Shapes, rules and values». In: Lami I.M. (ed.), Abandoned buildings in contemporary cities: smart conditions for actions. Cham: Springer, 149-162.
  24. Mangialardo A., 2017, «Il social entrepreneur per la valorizzazione del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico». Scienze Regionali, 3: 473-480. DOI: 10.14650/87466
  25. Micelli E., Mangialardo A., 2016, «Riuso urbano e immobili pubblici: la valorizzazione del patrimonio bottom-up». Territorio, 76: 109-117. DOI: 10.3280/TR2016-079017
  26. Montanari T., 2015, Privati del patrimonio. Torino: Einaudi.
  27. Moroni S., De Franco A., Bellè B.M., 2020a, «Vacant buildings. Distinguishing heterogeneous cases: Public items versus private items; empty properties versus abandoned properties». In: Lami I.M. (ed.), Abandoned buildings in contemporary cities: Smart conditions for actions. Cham: Springer, 8-19. Moroni S., De Franco A., Bellè B.M., 2020b, «Unused private and public bu- ildings: re-discussing merely empty and truly abandoned situations, with particular reference to the case of Italy and the city of Milan». Journal of Urban Affairs, 42: 1299-1320. DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2020.1792310
  28. Ostanel E., 2016, «Culture, rigenerazione urbana e innovazione sociale: il caso del quartiere multiculturale di Charlois, Rotterdam». Crios, 12: 21-32. DOI: 10.3280/CRIOS2016-012003
  29. Ostanel E., 2017, Spazi fuori dal comune. Rigenerare, includere, innovare. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  30. Ostanel E., 2021, «Can social innovation transform local governments? The experience of Naples». In: Fregolent L. (ed.), Social Movements and Public Policies in Southern European Cities. Cham: Springer, 137-149. Ostrom E., 1990, Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Ostrom E., 1996, «Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development». World Development, 24, 6: 1073-1087. DOI: 10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
  32. Pacchi C., 2020, Iniziative dal basso e trasformazioni urbane. L’attivismo civ- ico di fronte alle dinamiche di governo locale. Milano: Mondadori Bruno. Rihoux B., 2013, «Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Reframing the comparative method’s seminal statements». SPSR – Swiss Political Science Review, 19, 2: 233-245.
  33. Rodotà S., 1990, Il terribile diritto. Studi sulla proprietà privata e I beni comuni. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  34. Savini F., Bertolini L., 2019, «Urban experimentation as a politics of niches». Economy and Space, 51, 4: 831-848. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X19826085
  35. Savini F., Dembski S., 2016, «Manufacturing the creative city: Symbols and politics of Amsterdam North». Cities, 55: 139-147.
  36. Seth Abrutyn S., Turner J.H., 2011, «The old institutionalism meets the new insitutionalism». Sociological Perspectives, 54, 3: 283-306.
  37. Singhal S., McGreal S., Berry J., 2013, «An evaluative model for city com- petitiveness: Application to UK cities». Land Use Policy, 30, 1: 214-222.
  38. Sorensen A., 2017a, «New institutionalism and planning theory». In: Madanipour M.G., Watson A.V. (eds.), Handbook of Planning Theory. London: Routledge, 250-263.
  39. Sorensen A., 2017b, «Institutions and urban space. Land, infrastructure, and governance in the production of urban property». Planning Theory and Practice, 19, 3: 21-38. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2017.1408136
  40. Tricarico L., 2019, «Innovazione sociale». In: AA.VV., Cittadini, terri- tori, economie alla prova del digitale: Linee guida per trasformare la rivoluzione tecnologica in opportunità. Milano: Fondazione Feltrinelli. https://fondazionefeltrinelli.it/app/uploads/2019/12/Cittadini-territo- ri-economie.Cortona2019-3.pdf (accesso: 2023.10.01).
  41. Tricarico L., Jones M.Z., Daldanise G., 2020, «Platform spaces: When culture and the arts intersect territorial development and social inno- vation, a view from the Italian context». Journal of Urban Affairs, 44, 4-5: 545-566. DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2020.1808007
  42. Tricarico L., Pacchi C., 2018, «Community entrepreneurship and co-pro- duction in urban development». Territorio, 87: 69-77. DOI: 10.3280/TR2018-087011
  43. Vitale E., 2013, Contro i beni comuni. Una critica illuminista. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
  44. von Schönfeld K.C., Tan W., Wiekens C., Salet W., Janssen-Jansen L., 2019, «Social learning as an analytical lens for co-creative planning». European Planning Studies, 27, 7: 1291-1313. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1579303
  45. Weck S., Madanipour A., Schmitt P., 2021, «Place-based development and spatial justice». European Planning Studies, 30, 5: 791-806. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2021.1928038

Beatrice Maria Bellè, Rivitalizzazione di edifici pubblici e condizioni di contesto. Riflessioni a partire dal caso italiano in "TERRITORIO" 105/2023, pp 106-114, DOI: 10.3280/TR2023-105014