Self-organized practices for complex urban transformation. The case of Bagnoli in Naples, Italy

The current political instability and economic uncertainty are making urban transformations and their correspondent decisional processes more and more slow and jumbled. At the same time, something else may be at play. In this paper, we ask whether and how "austerity urbanism" pushes 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 reflectionis developed by investigating different configurations of actors (2002-2016) that have been participating in the over two decades-long, and still incomplete, transformation of a former industrial area in Bagnoli, in western Naples (Italy). 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 characterized 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 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 what they regard as an unchecked (neo-liberal) 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 government's readiness to listen to the grievances and proposals elaborated by social movements and engaged citizens may be 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.