Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: an unbearable cohabitation

Two planning system models currently cohabit in Europe: a more traditional and widespread one, aspiring to ‘conform' single projects to a collective strategy; and a different and less institutionalised one, promoting those projects capable of ‘performing' a collective strategy. Historical and cultural reasons may explain the major diffusion and persistence of the former, but current needs of territorial governance lead to consider the latter as preferable. This is especially so in the light of the EU integration process, such cohabitation is no longer bearable and conforming ambitions should be definitively abandone

Conforming and performing planning: an unbearable cohabitation

Territorial governance in Europe is managed by two models of planning: a more traditional and common one, aspiring to ‘conform' single projects to a collective strategy; a novel and less institutionalised one, promoting projects able to ‘perform' the collective strategy. The present contribution argues that current cohabitation of these two models is no longer bearable and that, particularly, conforming ambitions should be abandone

Why do masterplans fail?

Planning systems are in general addressed to make spatial projects conform to a plan, by assigning use rights in land through legally binding zoning maps and implementation rules, as it was possible to predict and impose sequences of actions and reactions in the realm of urban development. The cultural ideals of hierarchy and of dirigisme, based on the assumption that the State is the keeper of the collective interest, lie at the root of such ‘conforming' setting of modern planning systems. Neither the reiterated evidence of failure nor the acknowledgment that collective interest is usually the primary victim of planning ineffectiveness have led to conceive true alternatives so far. However, the exception of few countries where plans are non-binding and public authorities can evaluate which specific development projects are deserving new land use rights (the UK is one rare but prominent example), on the one hand, and the increasing experience of EU urban and spatial development programmes implying responsible evaluation mechanisms for co-funding projects, on the other, might let reflect about a possible model of ‘performing' planning syste

Whatever happened to planning? Italy after EU intervention

As clearly stated by the Conference's proposal, after a decade of European urban and spatial policies, it seems the time now for a deeper reflection on their influences in spatial and urban planning practices in the EU countries. A brief survey on what concerns Italy allows us to observe that EU planning intervention has affected practically all the levels of territorial government, through many dimensions of what is first and foremost a material innovation, triggered as if by contamination by the arrival on the scene of the new institutional player. Changes are mainly visible in: - the shaping of spatial frameworks for planning policies; - the proliferation of new, different tools for regional and urban planning; - a progressive re-equilibrium between "central" and "peripheral" regions; - new institutional and administrative attitudes to negotiation and partnership; - the cultural way of treating urban problems and conceiving planning; - new emerging competences and "jobs" for planners. A reflection on the deepest meaning of those many changes - and, more generally, on the substantial reasons of the (not institutionalised) EU intervention in planning policies - could contribute to better understanding on what, not only in Italy, can be expected from EU planning and what, consequently, can be improved in European development strategie

Cohesion and subsidiarity: towards good territorial governance in Europe

The message of this paper is twofold: (a) the pursuit of territorial cohesion, the importance of which the new European Constitution recognises, requires coordination of national planning systems; and (b) subsidiarity, a Community principle usually invoked to counteract it, should instead become the principle underlying a feasible and effective form of such coordination at the EU (European Union) level. Indeed, the Constitution should at least encourage planners to discuss principles of good EU territorial governance by addressing the performance of statutory planning systems in the common area of territorial cohesion. In brief, these principles might be termed vertical subsidiarity, horizontal subsidiarity, and the coordination between subsidiarity and cohesion

Piattaforma nord-occidentale: "SiT-In" come strumento di governance territoriale

La "Piattaforma nord-occidentale" è uno dei contesti macroregionali di approfondimento individuati dalla ricerca ITATER 2020, elaborata di recente dalla Società italiana degli urbanisti per conto del Ministero delle infrastrutture nel più ampio quadro di costruzione della politica europea di coesione 2007-2013. Le analisi e le riflessioni sviluppate attraverso tale approfondimento hanno condotto a individuare i SiT-In quali unità spaziali strategiche per uno scenario di prospettiva del contesto in oggetto. Essi contribuirebbero, infatti, tanto a valorizzare le relazioni policentriche sul territorio in un'ottica comunitaria e transnazionale, quanto a favorire la governance multi-livello come approccio di governo dello sviluppo. Il presente contributo è volto, da un lato, a richiamare e a spiegare i contenuti essenziali dell'approfondimento sulla Piattaforma nord-occidentale nell'ambito della ricerca ITATER 2020; dall'altro, a sviluppare il concetto di Sistemi Territoriali Interdipendenti (SiT-In) come strumento virtuoso di politica territoriale nel contesto della governance territoriale europe

Methodological approach for comparative analysis of spatial planning systems: Conformative / Performative Systems

Paper for the ARL - AKADEMIE FÜR RAUMFORSCHUNG UND LANDESPLANUN

Shaping European spatial planning: how Italy's experience can contribute

Despite increasing debate in recent years, it must be admitted that a shared definition of European spatial planning still remains uncertain. As a concept that emerged following the acknowledgement of the progressive and concrete involvement of the European Union in territorial and urban matters, European spatial planning established itself in the making of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), undoubtedly the most significant evidence of a new deal for planning throughout Europe. Italy did not play a primary role in the ESDP drafting process. Nor has ESDP seen exemplary ‘application' in this country so far. Nevertheless, the important changes that have occurred in Italian planning practices in the past decade seem to owe much to the innovations introduced by EU intervention. These experiences would seem to lead to the sharing of a wider framework for European spatial planning, perhaps necessary also to achieve a brighter future for the ESD

Urban transformation processes in Italy since the postwar: a framework for analysis on housing policy

Pape

Repositioning planning in a governance context: a technological perspective

What governance implies for urban and regional planning is the question that this paper tries to address. Of course, this question is not new, but answers in current debate are often led by prejudicial assumptions: pro or contra governance, according to what planning is ideologically expected to be. Generally, being a promoter of bottom-up and more inclusive approaches, governance is appreciated as a driver of innovation in planning practices indeed. Conversely, who embraces a nostalgic idea of planning as a top-down administrative activity tends to refuse governance and innovation as destabilising concepts. The present paper argues that innovation is necessary to planning as to any technology. In this light, however, to consider governance an external factor inducing innovation may prove to be reductive. Rather, a governance perspective is helpful to cast light on the institutional dimension of planning as a technology. Particularly, to consider planning an ‘institutional technology' suggests that social experience, public acknowledgement and institutional codification are interlinked and equally indispensable momentums for the achievement of innovation. In this framework, the increasing recourse to urban and territorial governance practices may bear witness to a shift of social demand of planning activities from ‘conformance' to ‘performance' aim