Abstract
The issue of unused buildings figures high on the agenda in many countries. However, a clear-cut distinction is not always drawn between completely different cases: for instance, public and private buildings, or private buildings that are merely empty as opposed to private buildings that are abandoned. This chapter discusses these aspects critically.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Considering the most recent ISTAT census (2014) and assuming (Gentili and Hoekstra 2018) that around 40% of the dwellings classed as “empty or occupied as other than primary residence” are truly empty, there are more than 2,500,000 empty dwellings in Italy according to our definition. This figure is comparable to the one given in a recent report by The Guardian: see https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-empty-properties-enough-house-homeless-continent-twice (accessed February 2019).
- 2.
It is not easy to estimate the number of abandoned buildings (thus defined) in Italy. According to ISTAT data (2014), the percentage of the total building stock which is unused because it is “collapsing, in a state of disrepair or under construction” is 5.2%, giving a total of around 750,000 buildings. The problem is that, on the one hand, it is not possible to separate the figure for buildings under construction from the total and, on the other, that the focus is on situations of severe neglect. Another source is the Italian Agenzia delle Entrate (2017b), which estimates around 474,000 properties defined as “collabenti” (i.e. reduced to ruins). In this case the figure does not include buildings under construction, yet still focuses exclusively on situations of severe neglect.
- 3.
See previous footnotes. Obviously, in this case as in others, any estimate depends to a large extent on how the phenomenon being estimated is defined (Morckel 2014).
- 4.
The Eurostat report (2015), for example, points out with some concern that almost one in six dwellings in the EU is unoccupied. But, according to this report, dwellings are classified as unoccupied “if they are reserved for seasonal or secondary use (such as holiday homes) or if they are vacant (dwellings which may be for sale, for rent, for demolition, or simply lying empty and unused)” (Eurostat 2015: 75).
- 5.
According to the Italian Agenzia delle Entrate (2017a), properties “at their owners’ disposal but not used on a continuous basis” in 2014 accounted for 11.7% of properties owned by natural persons. Dwellings “at their owners’ disposal” accounted for over 20% of the total in 3630 municipalities.
- 6.
These two main categories naturally include other sub-categories (Chiodelli and Moroni 2014). However, it is not our intention here to enter into greater details on this point.
- 7.
An overview and quantification of non-financial assets owned by public authorities in Italy can be found in MEF (2015).
- 8.
An overview and quantification of non-financial assets owned by households and non-financial companies in Italy can be found in Banca d’Italia (2019).
- 9.
- 10.
Of course, efficiency is not everything in this case, but cannot be ignored.
- 11.
Unless, obviously, it is the existence of inadequate public rules that makes, for instance, renting difficult.
- 12.
Could we say that the existence of empty private dwellings and buildings generates systemic problems only above a certain threshold (i.e. percentage), as discussed by Glock and Häussermann (2004) and Huuhka (2016)? But how should such a threshold be calculated? In light of what economic theory or model? And what (empirical and/or evaluational) significance should be attributed to it? Moreover, would it be an identical threshold for each city (whether small, medium-sized or large) and for different national contexts?
- 13.
For an overview of the situation in Europe, see FEANTSA (2018).
- 14.
It should be noted that, paradoxically, it is precisely those who criticise the efficiency-based logic of the market in the name of an idea of social justice (applied by linking the various individual positions linearly and directly: in particular, home owners and homeless people) who end up by adopting the most banal efficiency-based perspective.
- 15.
- 16.
In Italy, there are around one million publicly-owned buildings, totalling around 325 million square metres (MEF 2015). Over 70% of these assets are the property of local authorities.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
As happened for example in the cases of the Ex Fadda project in Brindisi and Farm Cultural Park in Favara (see the other chapters in this book).
- 20.
It should be noted here that, under Italian law, formally non-profit activities may make some profit provided that it does not become the main purpose and scope of the association in question.
- 21.
We therefore do not consider measures that target merely empty buildings. From our perspective it appears neither plausible nor desirable to envisage a special, higher tax rate for merely empty houses. Nor does it seem possible to regulate empty buildings in any specific way insofar as they are empty (see on this Hirokawa and Gonzalez 2010).
- 22.
All of this suggests that it is necessary to rethink the crucial role of local building codes, after decades—particularly in Italy—during which they have been weighed down with rules regarding certain entirely secondary, negligible aspects (Moroni 2015b). To be noted in this regard is that building codes have generally received scant attention in the academic literature (Moroni 2012), including economic studies (as Van Doren 2005, points out).
References
Adair, A., Berry, J., McGreal, S., Deddis, B., & Hirst, S. (2000). The financing of urban regeneration. Land Use Policy, 17(2), 147–156.
Adair, A., Berry, J., & McGreal, S. (2003). Financing property’s contribution to regeneration. Urban Studies, 40(5–6), 1065–1080.
Agenzia delle Entrate. (2017a). Gli immobili in Italia. Available at http://www.mef.gov.it/documenti-pubblicazioni/altri-documenti/index.html#cont6. Accessed December 2018.
Agenzia delle Entrate. (2017b). Statistiche catastali 2016. https://wwwt.agenziaentrate.gov.it/mt/osservatorio/Tabelle%20statistiche/Statistiche_Catastali_2016_12072017.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
Banca d’Italia. (2019). La ricchezza delle famiglie e delle società non finanziarie italiane 2005–2017. Available at https://www.bancaditalia.it. Accessed May 2019.
Benedikter, R. (2004). Privatisation of Italian cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(4), 369–389.
Bova, M. E., Dippelsman, M. R., Rideout, M. K. C., & Schaechter, M. A. (2013). Another look at governments’ balance sheets: The role of nonfinancial assets. IMF working papers, no. 13/95. International Monetary Fund.
Brophy, P. C., & Vey, J. S. (2002). Seizing city assets: Ten steps to urban land reform. Washington: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Carapella, P. (2018). Il patrimonio immobiliare della pubblica amministrazione. Available at https://osservatoriocpi.unicatt.it/cpi-Patrimonio_immobiliare_pa_new.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
Caroli, M. G. (Ed.). (2018). Evidenze sull’innovazione sociale e sostenibile in Italia. Milano: Angeli.
Chiodelli, F., & Moroni, S. (2014). Typology of spaces and topology of toleration: City, pluralism, ownership. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(2), 167–181.
Cohen, J. R. (2001). Abandoned housing: Exploring lessons from Baltimore. Housing Policy Debate, 12(3), 415–448.
Constantin, D. L., Mitrut, C., Grosu, R. M., Profiroiu, M., & Iosif, A. E. (2018). Municipal real properties and the challenges of new public management. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1), 122–143.
Cottarelli, C. (2016). Il Macigno. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Eurostat. (2015). People in the EU: Who are we and how do we live? Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat. Accessed April 2019.
Evans, A., & Hartwich, O. (2005). Unaffordable housing. London: Policy Exchange.
Farris, N. (2015). What to do when main street is legal again: Regional land value taxation as a new urbanist tool. University of Pennsilvanya Law Review, 164, 755–777.
FEANTSA. (2018). Third overview of housing exclusion in Europe. Available at https://www.feantsa.org. Accessed May 2019.
Foldvary, F. E., & Minola, L. A. (2017). The taxation of land value as the means towards optimal urban development and the extirpation of excessive economic inequality. Land Use Policy, 69, 331–337.
Gaeta, L., & Savoldi, P. (Eds.). (2013). Orientamenti per la gestione del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico. Società Italiana degli Urbanisti.
Gentili, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2018). Houses without people and people without houses: a cultural and institutional exploration of an Italian paradox. Housing Studies, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2018.144709.
Glock, B., & Häussermann, H. (2004). New trends in urban development and public policy in eastern Germany: Dealing with the vacant housing problem at the local level. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), 919–929.
Goldstein, J., Jensen, M., & Reiskin, E. (2001). Urban vacant land redevelopment: Challenges and progress. Working Paper. Cambridge (Mass.): Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Gordon, P. (2012). Spontaneous cities. In D. Andersson (Ed.), The spatial market process (pp. 181–209). Emerald: Bingley.
Holcombe, R. G. (2013). Planning and the invisible hand: Allies or adversaries? Planning Theory, 12(2), 199–210.
Hollander, J. B. (2009). Polluted & dangerous: America’s worst abandoned properties and what can be done about them. Lebanon: University Press of New England.
Hillier, A. E., Culhane, D. P., Smith, T. E., & Tomlin, C. D. (2003). Predicting housing abandonment with the Philadelphia neighborhood information system. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(1), 91–106.
Hirokawa, K. H., & Gonzalez, I. (2010). Regulating vacant property. The Urban Lawyer, 42(3), 627–637.
Huuhka, S. (2016). Vacant residential buildings as potential reserves: A geographical and statistical study. Building Research & Information, 44(8), 816–839.
Ikeda, S. (2007). Urbanizing economics. The Review of Austrian Economics, 20(4), 213–220.
Ikeda, S. (2010). The mirage of the efficient city. In S. A. Goldsmith & L. Elizabeth (Eds.), What we see. Advancing the observations of Jane Jacobs (pp. 24–33). Oakland: New Island Press.
Ikeda, S. (2017). The city cannot be a work of art. Cosmos and Taxis, 4(2/3), 79–86.
ISTAT. (2014). Edifici e abitazioni. Available at https://www.istat.it/it/files//2014/08/Nota-edifici-e-abitazioni_rev.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
Kaganova, O., & Nayyar-Stone, R. (2000). Municipal real property asset management: An overview of world experience, trends and financial implications. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 6(4), 307–326.
Kraut, D. T. (1999). Hanging out the no vacancy sign: Eliminating the blight of vacant buildings from urban areas. New York University Law Review, 74, 1139–1177.
Mallach, A. (2006). Bringing buildings back: From abandoned properties to community assets. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Mangialardo, A., & Micelli, E. (2016). Social capital and public policies for commons: Bottom up processes in public real estate property valorization. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 175–180.
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.
Marona, B., & van den Beemt-Tjeerdsma, A. (2018). Impact of public management approaches on municipal real estate management in Poland and The Netherlands. Sustainability, 10(11), 1–15.
MEF (Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze). (2015). Rapporto sui beni immobili delle Amministrazioni Pubbliche. Available at http://www.dt.tesoro.it/export/sites/sitodt/modules/documenti_it/patrimonio_pubblico/patrimonio_pa/RapportoImmobili_DatiAnno2015.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
Micelli, E., & Mangialardo, A. (2016). Riuso urbano e immobili pubblici: la valorizzazione del patrimonio bottom up. Territorio, 79, 109–117.
Morckel, V. (2014). Predicting abandoned housing: Does the operational definition of abandonment matter? Community Development, 45(2), 121–133.
Moroni, S. (2012). Why nomocracy: Structural ignorance, radical pluralism and the role of relational rules. Progress in Planning, 77(2), 46–59.
Moroni, S. (2015a). Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction. Planning Theory, 14(3), 248–267.
Moroni, S. (2015b). Libertà e innovazione nella città sostenibile. Ridurre lo spreco di energie umane. Roma: Carocci.
Moroni, S. (2018). Property as a human right and property as a special title. Rediscussing private ownership of land. Land Use Policy, 70, 273–280.
Moroni, S., & Minola, L. (2019). Unnatural sprawl: Reconsidering public responsibility for suburban development in Italy, and the desirability and possibility of changing the rules of the game. Land Use Policy, 86, 104–112.
Olivadese, R., Remøy, H., Berizzi, C., & Hobma, F. (2017). Reuse into housing: Italian and Dutch regulatory effects. Property Management, 35(2), 165–180.
Palmberg, J. (2013). Spontaneous orders and the emrgence of economically powerful cities. Cosmos and Taxis, 1(1), 21–29.
Rawdanowicz, L., Wurzel, E., & Ollivaud, P. (2011). Current issues in managing government debt and assets. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 923, OECD Publishing.
Shoked, N. (2014). The duty to maintain. Duke Law Journal, 64, 437–513.
Tanzi, M. V., & Prakash, T. (2000). The cost of government and the misuse of public assets. International Monetary Fund working paper. IMF: Washington.
Trojanek, M. (2015). Strategic municipal real estate management. Journal of International Studies, 8(2), 9–17.
Van Doren, P. (2005). The political economy of urban design standards. In E. Ben Joseph & T. S. Szold (Eds.), Regulating place. London: Routledge.
Vermiglio, C. (2011). Public property management in Italian municipalities: Framework, current issues and viable solutions. Property Management, 29(5), 423–442.
Vincent, J. (2012). Neighborhood revitalization and new life: A land value taxation approach. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 71(4), 1073–1094.
Vitale, T. (2009). Socialità, mobilitazione e innovazione sociale nelle città europee. In G. Anomale (Ed.), Il dire e il fare: volontari creativi per il bene comune (pp. 11–21). Bine: Milano.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moroni, S., De Franco, A., Bellè, B.M. (2020). Vacant Buildings. Distinguishing Heterogeneous Cases: Public Items Versus Private Items; Empty Properties Versus Abandoned Properties. In: Lami, I. (eds) Abandoned Buildings in Contemporary Cities: Smart Conditions for Actions. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 168. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35550-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35550-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35549-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35550-0
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)