Abstract
For years, public real estate assets were considered a reserve available to compensate limited financial resources of the central government. When demand ceased to exist, many public buildings were underused or abandoned. Sometimes with illegality forms of employment tolerated by the owner administrations, sometimes with the more or less support of public authorities, communities of various kinds have found in the public assets the place to create new forms of social and economic organization offering hospitality to new formations of urban life, associations and social entrepreneurs capable of economic and social innovation whose collective benefits concern the city as a whole. The paper aims to address the issue by focusing attention to many changes within the Italian context that, from a technical and cultural point of view, appear important in the broader reasoning on the forms of urban regeneration and policies to support it. Although the processes of enhancement of public real estate assets are a well-established procedure, the intrinsic fragility of the phenomenon requires adequate policies, certainly endowed with financial resources, but above all capable of a renewed cultural attitude.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
To know in detail this project please refer to the official website: http://www.fondazioneunipolis.org/progetti/culturability/.
References
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.
Arena, G., & Iaione, C. (2012). L’Italia dei beni comuni. Roma: Carocci.
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.
Bellè, B. (2018). Iniziative bottom-up e riuso temporaneo. Quale valore aggiunto per la valorizzazione di beni immobili pubblici? In CRIOS (vol. 16, pp. 35–44).
Bailey, N. (2012). The role, organization and contribution of community enterprise to urban regeneration policy in the UK. Progress in Planning, 77(1), 1–35.
Bottero, M., Oppio, A., Bonardo, M., & Quaglia, G. (2019). Hybrid evaluation approaches for urban regeneration processes of landfills and industrial sites: the case of the Kwun Tong area in Hong Kong. Land Use Policy, 82, 585–594.
Bruni, L. (2012). The wound and the blessing. Happiness, economics, relationships. New York: New City Press.
Carta, M. (2017). Augmented City. List, Rovereto: A Paradigm Shift.
Cottino P., & Zeppetella P. (2009). Creatività , sfera pubblica e riuso sociale degli spazi. Paper 4, Cittalia, Roma http://www.osservatorioriuso.it/cgi-bin/documentazione/Paper4-09_Cottino_Zeppetella.pdf.
Caliandro, C., & Sacco, P. L. (2011). Italia reloaded. Il Mulino, Bologna: Ripartire con la cultura.
Campagnoli, G. (2014). Riusiamo l’Italia. Da spazi vuoti a start-up culturali e sociali. Gruppo 24 Ore, Milano.
Cerreta M., Poli G., Regalbuto S., & Mazzarella C. (2019). A multi-dimensional decision-making process for regenerative landscapes: A new harbour for Naples (Italy). In S. Misra et al. (Eds.), Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2019, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11622. Cham: Springer.
Cucinella, M. (a cura). Arcipelago Italia. Progetti per il futuro dei territori interni del Paese. Padiglione Italia alla Biennale Architettura 2018, Quodlibet, Macerata.
Dalla Zuanna G., & Weber, G. (2012). Cose da non credere. Il senso comune alla prova dei numeri. Bari: Laterza.
Forte, F., & De Paola, P. (2019). How can street art have economic value? Sustainability, 11, 580.
Gallent, N., & Ciaffi, D. (Eds.). (2014). Community action and planning: Contexts, drivers and outcomes. Bristol: Policy Press.
Maddalena, P. (2014). Il territorio bene comune degli italiani. Proprietà collettiva, proprietà privata e interesse pubblico. Roma, Donzelli.
Mangialardo, A. (2017). Il social entrepreneur per la valorizzazione del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico. Scienze regionali, 16(3), 473–480.
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. (2017). La partecipazione crea valore? Modelli di simulazione per la valorizzazione dal basso del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico. Valori e Valutazioni, 19, 41–52.
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.
Mattei, U. (2011). Beni Comuni. Un manifesto. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Micelli, E., & Mangialardo, A. (2016). Riuso urbano e immobili pubblici: la valorizzazione del patrimonio bottom up. Territorio, 9, 109–117.
Micelli, S. (2016). Fare è innovare. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Moroni, S. (2007). La città del liberalismo attivo. Milano: Cittastudi.
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.
Ostanel, E. (2017). Spazi fuori dal Comune: Rigenerare, includere, innovare. Milano: Angeli.
Ostanel, E., & Attili, G. (2018). Self-organization practices in cities: Discussione the transformative potential. Tracce Urbane, 4, dicembre, 6–17. http://ojs.uniroma1.it/index.php/TU.
Ragozino, S. (2019). Navigating neo-liberal urbanism in the UK. Could a social entrepreneur be considered an activist planner? In F. Calabrò, L. Dalla Spina, & C. Bevilacqua (Eds.), New metropolitan perspectives (pp. 625–634). Cham: Springer.
Sacco, P. L., Ferilli, G., & Tavano, Blessi G. (2012). Sviluppo locale a base culturale: quando funziona e perché? Alla ricerca di un framework di riferimento, in Prisma. Economia, Società , Lavoro, 1, 9–27. https://doi.org/10.3280/PRI2012-001003.
Sennett, R. (2018). Costruire e abitare. Etica per la città . Milano: Feltrinelli.
Tricarico, L. (2016). Imprese di comunità come fattore territoriale: riflessioni a partire dal contesto italiano. In CRIOS (vol. 11, pp. 35–50).
Venturi, P., & Zandonai, F. (2016). Imprese ibride. Modelli d’innovazione sociale per rigenerare valore. Milano: EGEA.
Venturi, P., & Zandonai, F. (2019). Dove. La dimensione di luogo che ricompone impresa e società . Milano: EGEA.
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
Mangialardo, A., Micelli, E. (2020). Participation, Culture, Entrepreneurship: Using Public Real Estate Assets to Create New Urban Regeneration Models. 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_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35550-0_3
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)