Advertisement

Future Perspectives of Reform for European Urban Welfare

  • Ombretta CaldariceEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
  • 161 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Geography book series (BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY)

Abstract

This chapter presents a summary of the findings of the book and conclusions for the same. In the various shapes urban welfare has taken, it always remained a central issue in the discipline of planning and there are many reasons for continuing to examine it from a European perspective. The central focus of this chapter is to reflect on how to reframe European urban facility planning efficiently, effectively and sustainably to better respond to complex new social problems and deal with fiscal austerity. On the one hand, this situation reveals the need to reshape the traditional approach to urban facility planning in favour of openness and flexibility. On the other hand, it encourages the growth of private initiatives all over Europe for the supply of urban facilities, where citizens are more and more engaged in identifying issues and needs jointly as well as in trying to solve problems with innovative and inclusive responses. This book proposes to reframe urban welfare planning inside a “framework-rule” perspective, i.e. planning of urban welfare does not start from the urban facilities themselves but rather from the regulations connected with them. Briefly, this proposal is based on new rules and responsibilities as a path to change for urban welfare planning. These would enable cities to respond to new circumstances through innovative actions. In light of this, the private sector could promote new ideas, while institutions could innovate themselves by taking on new responsibilities. These dynamics become expressions of urban resilience, i.e., the innate capacity of territorial systems to propose innovative ideas that the public sector will accept among its traditional planning policies. If we reframe urban facility planning in this perspective, urban welfare could actively reduce inequalities and revive social dialogue, leading to more inclusive, collaborative and participative societies in European cities.

Keywords

European urban welfare reform Urban facility planning reform “Framework-rule” perspective Nomocracy Citizens’ power Co-production Rules in urban welfare planning Responsibilities in urban welfare planning Urban resilience 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander ER (2002) The public interest in planning: from legitimation to substantive plan evaluation. Plan Theor 1(3):226–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander ER, Mazza L, Moroni S (2012) Planning without plans? Nomocrazy or teleocrazy for social-spatial ordering. Prog Plan 77:37–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alfasi N, Portugali J (2007) Planning rules for a self-planned city. Plan Theor 6(2):164–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP 35(4):216–224Google Scholar
  5. Balducci A (2012) Planning for the crisis. disP. Plan Rev 48(3):4–5Google Scholar
  6. Beatley T (1994) Ethical land use. Principles of policy and planning. Johnes Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  7. Beito D, Gordon P, Tabarrok A (eds) (2002) The voluntary city: choice, community, and civil society. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben-Joseph E (2005) The code of the city. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Body-Gendrot S, Carrè J, Garbaye R (eds) (2008) A city of one’s own. Blurring the boundaries between private and public. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  10. Boonstra B, Boelens L (2011) Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Res Pract 4(2):99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunetta G (ed) (2015) Smart evaluation and integrated design in regional development: territorial scenarios in Trentino, Italy. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  12. Brunetta G, Caldarice O (2016) Framing urban resilience in underused spaces. The social re-appropriation of urban areas. Paper presented at the International conference on urban resilience. Empowering Local Communities for Local Action, UNAM, Mexico City, 17–20 Feb 2016Google Scholar
  13. Brunetta G, Moroni S (2012) Contractual communities in the self-organising city. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buitelaar E, Galle M, Sorel N (2014). The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands. In: Andersson DE, Moroni S (eds) Cities and private planning, property rights, entrepreneurship and transaction costs. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiodelli F (2011) Re-politicizing space through technical rules. Plan Theor 11(2):115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cognetti F, Conti S, Fedeli V (2014) La terra della città Giardini Coltivati e Giardini Condivisi a Milano. In: Ferraresi G (ed) Il Progetto Di Territorio. Oltre La Città Diffusa Verso La Bioregione. Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di RomagnaGoogle Scholar
  17. Cozzolino S (2015) Il valore dell’azione: condizioni pubbliche per una città aperta all’innovazione. In: Atti della XVIII Conferenza nazionale SIU, Italia ‘45-’45, IUAV, Venezia, 11–13 June 2015, pp 957–962Google Scholar
  18. Cozzolino S, Buitelaar E, Moroni S, Sorel N (2017) Experimenting in urban self-organization. Framework-rules and emerging orders in Oosterwold (Almere, The Netherlands). Cosmos+Taxis. 4(2+3):49–59Google Scholar
  19. Davoudi S (2012) Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? Plan Theor Pract 13(2):299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeVerteuil G, Golubchikov O (2016) Can resilience be redeemed? City 20(1):143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Epstein R (1995) Simple rules for a complex world. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  22. Faludi A (1986) Critical rationalism and planning methodology. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Felice F (2007) Welfare society: dal parternalismo di Stato alla sussidiarietà orizzontale. Rubbettino, Soveria MannelliGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischel WA (2004) An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Urban Stud 41(2):317–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foldvary FE (2009) Urban planning: the government of the market. In: Holcombe RG, Powell B (eds) Housing America. Building Out of a Crisis. Transaction, New Brunswick, London, pp 323–342Google Scholar
  26. Hayek FA (1960) The constitution of liberty. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirst PQ (1997) From statalism to pluralism. Democracy, civil society and global politics. UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Holcombe RG (2004) The new urbanism versus the market process. Rev Austrian Econ 17(2):285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holcombe RG (2013) Planning and the invisible hand: Allies or adversaries? Plan Theor 12(2):199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ikeda S (2012) Entrepreneurship in action space. In: Andersson DE (ed) The spatial market process. Advances in Austrian Economics, vol 16. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 105–139Google Scholar
  31. Judt T (2008) Reappraisals: reflections on the forgotten twentieth century. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Legacy C, March A, Mouat CM (2014) Limits and potentials to deliberative engagement in highly regulated planning systems: norm development within fixed rules. Plan Theor Pract 15(1):26–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lovens A (2016) Private initiatives in forests: sustainable lifestyles (and -why not- Sustainable “Deathstyles”). Paper presented at EURA 2016—City lights. Cities and citizens within/beyond/notwithstanding the crisis, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, 16–18 June 2016Google Scholar
  34. Lovens A, Caldarice O (2017) Spatial planning strategies for multi-sectorial integration and urban metabolism: the experience of Boschi Vivi (Italy). In: Circular urban metabolism: generating co-benefits through urban resilience transition. Springer, Dordrecht (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  35. Massoli L (2011) Citizen participation in public services: the case of civic evaluation. Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche 3:507–532Google Scholar
  36. Mazza L (2004) Progettare gli squilibri. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  37. Mazza L (2010) Limiti e capacità della pianificazione dello spazio. Territorio 52:7–24Google Scholar
  38. Mazza L (2011) Governo del territorio e pianificazione spaziale. In: Dematteis G (ed) Le grandi città italiane. Società e territori, Marsilio Padova, pp 261–315Google Scholar
  39. Mengoli GC (2012) Introduzione al diritto urbanistico. Giuffrè Editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  40. Mizrahi S (2012) Self-provision of public services: its evolution and impact. Public Adm Rev 72(2):285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moroni S (2010) Rethinking the theory and practice of land-use regulation. Towards nomocracy. Plan Theor 9(2):137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moroni S (2011) Land-use regulation for the creative city. In: Andersson DE, Mellander C, Andersson A (eds) Handbook of creative cities. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, pp 343–364Google Scholar
  43. Moroni S (2013) Afterword: ethical problems of contemporary cities. In: Basta C, Moroni S (eds) Ethics, design and planning of the built environments. Springer, Berlin, pp 197–210Google Scholar
  44. Moroni S (2015) Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction: urban codes for self-organising cities. Plan Theor 14(3):248–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Munarin S, Tosi C (2014) Welfare space: on the role of welfare state policies in the construction of the contemporary city. LISt Lab, Rovereto (TN)Google Scholar
  46. MVRDV (2011) Werkboek. Ontwikkelstrategie Oosterwold, Werkmaatschappij Oosterwold, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  47. Needham B (2006) Planning, law and economics. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD (2011) Together for better public services: partnering with citizens and civil society. OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  49. Ostrom E (1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev 24(6):1073–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peterman W (2000) Neighborhood planning and community-based development: the potential and limits of grassroots action. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  51. Pomilio F (2013) Costi, servizi e regole. In: Fregolent L, Savino M (eds) Città e politiche in tempo di crisi. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 236–246Google Scholar
  52. Portugali J (1999) Self-organization and the city. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  53. Rauws W (2017) Embracing uncertainty without abandoning planning. disP. Plan Rev 53(1):32–45Google Scholar
  54. Sandulli AM (1970) L’attività normativa della pubblica amministrazione. Casa Editrice Jovene, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  55. Savini F, Salet W, Majoor S (2015) Dilemmas of planning: intervention, regulation and investment. Plan Theor 14(3):296–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheepers PTJ (2015) Health-related indicators of outdoor air quality. In: Armon H, Hänninen O (eds) Enviromental indicators. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 883–898Google Scholar
  57. Searle JR (2005) What is an institution. J Inst Econ 1:1–22Google Scholar
  58. Taleb NN (2007) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Penguin Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Talen E (2005) New urbanism and American planning: the conflict of cultures. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Talen E (2012) City rules. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  61. Ventura F (2003) Regolazione del territorio e sostenibilità dello sviluppo. Alfani, FirenzeGoogle Scholar
  62. Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilient thinking, sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  63. Warner ME, Clifton J (2014) Marketisation, public services and the city: the potential for Polanyian counter movements. Cambridge J Reg Econ Soc 7(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Webster C, Lai LWC (2003) Property rights, planning and markets. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  65. Wildavsky A (1973) If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sci 4(2):127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and PlanningPolitecnico and Università di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options