The current crisis impacts cities in different and often contradictory ways. Increasingly seen as the centres of economic growth, cities are on the one hand expected to pull their national economies out of the recession. On the other hand, cities face diminishing transfers from austerity-minded central governments. This hinders their capacity to manage the spatial consequences of the crisis, let alone their ability to create growth. This creates sets in motion a distinct way of managing urban space, usually defined as "austerity urbanism". Yet how useful is this concept? In this paper, we argue that "austerity urbanism" should not be seen merely as a narrowed-down version of "normal" urban politics. Rather, we argue that economic constraints may push cities to explore alternative policies, to include new actors in the policy network, and to experiment unorthodox approaches that might better address the needs expressed by the citizenry. This argument is based on the analysis of different configurations of actors (2002-2016) that have been participating in the over the two decades-long, and still incomplete, transformation of a former industrial area in Bagnoli, in western Naples. During the 90s, the transformation was managed with a traditional, top-down approach, with limited and largely ceremonial attempts to listen to the local population. This phase was also characterised by a good degree of cooperation between municipal, regional, and national authorities. Since the mid-2000, however, the transformation has come to an impasse. Evident discrepancies between local, regional, and national levels of government, emerged in that period, last until today. The stalemate was worsened by the city's decreasing spending autonomy. In 2015, the central government has averted the city's planning competences over the area, and has appointed a government commissioner to oversee its transformation. When compared with the initial constellation of actors (until 2014), the most striking changes are the spectacular rise of a new and powerful government agency, which has absorbed most of the relevant competences at the expenses of the city government. On the other hand, several social movements have grown in visibility and have intensified their action against the perceived risks of an unchecked (neoliberal) transformation of the area. The compatibility of the respective views, and pragmatic considerations on both sides, led to an alignment between movements and the city government and to their joint opposition to the government's intervention. While the city's readiness to listen to the complaints and proposals elaborated by social movements and engaged citizens seems more a context-specific remedy to a highly compromised situation than a form of "best practice" that emerge from the crisis, we should also be alert to the fact that similar configurations are currently being experimented in other crisis-stricken cities. Such configurations make room for actors that are usually side-lined in traditional policy-making approaches, and thus represent an innovative way of urban policy making. We leave open the normative question whether this type of innovation benefits or damages cities in crisis.
Bottom-up urbanism? A multi-scalar investigation of urban transformation in Naples, Italy
Stefania Ragozino;Gabriella Esposito De Vita;
2016
Abstract
The current crisis impacts cities in different and often contradictory ways. Increasingly seen as the centres of economic growth, cities are on the one hand expected to pull their national economies out of the recession. On the other hand, cities face diminishing transfers from austerity-minded central governments. This hinders their capacity to manage the spatial consequences of the crisis, let alone their ability to create growth. This creates sets in motion a distinct way of managing urban space, usually defined as "austerity urbanism". Yet how useful is this concept? In this paper, we argue that "austerity urbanism" should not be seen merely as a narrowed-down version of "normal" urban politics. Rather, we argue that economic constraints may push cities to explore alternative policies, to include new actors in the policy network, and to experiment unorthodox approaches that might better address the needs expressed by the citizenry. This argument is based on the analysis of different configurations of actors (2002-2016) that have been participating in the over the two decades-long, and still incomplete, transformation of a former industrial area in Bagnoli, in western Naples. During the 90s, the transformation was managed with a traditional, top-down approach, with limited and largely ceremonial attempts to listen to the local population. This phase was also characterised by a good degree of cooperation between municipal, regional, and national authorities. Since the mid-2000, however, the transformation has come to an impasse. Evident discrepancies between local, regional, and national levels of government, emerged in that period, last until today. The stalemate was worsened by the city's decreasing spending autonomy. In 2015, the central government has averted the city's planning competences over the area, and has appointed a government commissioner to oversee its transformation. When compared with the initial constellation of actors (until 2014), the most striking changes are the spectacular rise of a new and powerful government agency, which has absorbed most of the relevant competences at the expenses of the city government. On the other hand, several social movements have grown in visibility and have intensified their action against the perceived risks of an unchecked (neoliberal) transformation of the area. The compatibility of the respective views, and pragmatic considerations on both sides, led to an alignment between movements and the city government and to their joint opposition to the government's intervention. While the city's readiness to listen to the complaints and proposals elaborated by social movements and engaged citizens seems more a context-specific remedy to a highly compromised situation than a form of "best practice" that emerge from the crisis, we should also be alert to the fact that similar configurations are currently being experimented in other crisis-stricken cities. Such configurations make room for actors that are usually side-lined in traditional policy-making approaches, and thus represent an innovative way of urban policy making. We leave open the normative question whether this type of innovation benefits or damages cities in crisis.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
