Skip to content
STARTUP Logo

Glossary

STARTUP provides a shared glossary developed collaboratively with all project partners during the initial phase. The glossary integrates concepts from multiple disciplines and cultural and creative fields, providing a common foundation for the STARTUP project’s multidisciplinary research. It captures explicit knowledge and reflects a shared, informal understanding of key concepts, allowing meanings to emerge through collaboration. The work also introduced original terms, such as “cultural praesidium,”expanding and updating the project’s vocabulary through cross-disciplinary cooperation. The selection of the terms derives from their closer connection to the project’s main issues.

Rossana Galdini, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition 

Adaptive reuse refers to any changes to modify a structure’s or a space’s capacity, function, or performance, providing new meaning to meet contemporary conditions or requirements. This term describes a transformative process where a building is repurposed for a function that differs from its original intended use. 

Unlike simple reuse, which implies the repetition of previous use and primarily focuses on economic reasons, adaptive reuse implies a more significant change in usage. It emphasises “resemantisation”, or the change of purpose. Key elements of adaptive reuse include agency, finality, and creativity. This approach represents an alternative to demolition and reconstruction. It is implemented for various goals, such as reducing carbon emissions and conserving material resources, preventing urban sprawl, or preserving significant heritage values and, to some degree, the townscapes.

Adaptive reuse strategies for cultural heritage offer economic, environmental, and social benefits that align with the Sustainable Development Goals. More generally, adaptive reuse serves as a strategy for sustainable urban regeneration, extending the lifespan of buildings and public or private spaces, minimising demolition waste, and enhancing the value of heritage. A recent definition of adaptive reuse highlights the relationship between innovation and the preservation of earlier forms and expressions of knowledge and aesthetics in the creation of new works (Freschi & Maas, 2017). This process fosters economic and social innovation, promoting social cohesion and participation (Galdini, 2019).

Background information and contemporary debate

Adaptive reuse is as old as architecture. However, in recent decades, it has emerged as a distinct approach to the built environment (Plevoets & Van Cleempoel, 2019). Initially, adaptive reuse mainly was associated with a conservation-orientated approach to planning and architecture. In the 1960s and 1970s, architects began to apply innovative concepts of reusing urban public heritage for social, public, and creative purposes and intellectual production (Chiacchera & Mondaini, 2022). From the 1970s onward, the focus of adaptive reuse expanded beyond monumental structures to encompass broader urban contexts. As a result, it is now recognised not only as a means of protecting our cultural heritage but also as a strategy for creating “a good city” (Lanz & Pendlebury, 2022). Over the past thirty years, adaptive reuse has become increasingly influential. The term “adaptive” has an even deeper meaning, relating to the field of biology and suggesting a comparison with the ability of living beings to adapt to changes and face the challenges of a dynamic contemporary city. While early efforts concentrated on architecturally driven conservation and the reuse of heritage buildings, including former industrial sites, today’s adaptive reuse projects showcase diverse outcomes. These projects can vary from prestigious, high-profile preservation initiatives to more straightforward, temporary and art-based actions. Today, adaptive reuse encompasses creative actions within the built environment and in both public and private spaces. It now refers to tangible and intangible heritage, enhancing a new understanding of adaptive reuse as an architectural intervention and a transformative process. This re-appropriation and re-signification aim to enhance place valorisation through immaterial aspects such as memory, sense of place, identity, and behaviour. The final aim of adaptive reuse is to shape a built environment that safeguards heritage while dynamically contributing to the future, aligned with broader ecological and cultural challenges.

References

Chiacchera, F., & Mondaini, G. (2023). Another chance. Adaptive reuse of the built heritage strategies for circular creativity.  Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 7(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2023.v7n2-5

Douglas, J., (2006). Building adaptation. Routledge. 

Freschi, E., & Maas, P. (2017). Adaptive reuse. Aspects of creativity in South Asian cultural history. Harrassowitz Verlag.

Galdini, R. (2019). Urban re-use practices in contemporary cities: experiences in Europe. Cities, 87. doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.026

Lanza, F., & Pendlebury, J. (2022). Adaptive reuse a critical review. The Journal of Architecture, 27(2-3), 441-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2022.2105381

Plevoets, B., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2013). Adaptive reuse of the built heritage. Concepts and cases of an emerging discipline. Routledge.Yung, H. K., & Chan, H. W. (2012). Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat International, 36(3), 352-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.11.001

Fabio Giglioni, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

Collaborative governance describes an approach to shared management and decision-making between public and private entities, enabling them to undertake activities of general interest on an equal footing. It is a model based on collaboration, dialogue, and the active participation of various actors, including public authorities, businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and citizens, with the aim of improving the effectiveness and legitimacy of public policies and administrative services. The collaborative governance model is in contrast with traditional administration, which is based on the “bipolar paradigm,” characterised by asymmetric, authoritative, and hierarchical relationships. This means that the inclusion of a multitude of actors (public, private or civic) is organised in networks, partnerships or other forms of (hybrid) organisations in order to guide and restrain their everyday affairs and/or to mediate their competing interests or even conflicts. For this, usually, a variety of formal and informal institutions (such as contracts, routines, shared norms, etc.) are used to solve complex, dynamic, and diversified problems.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015, is an example of a collaborative approach at the international level. It encourages cooperation between governments, the private sector, civil society, and other entities to achieve common sustainable development goals.

Collaborative governance, therefore, is based on the sharing of resources and responsibilities between citizens and between citizens and administrations, considering a framework of principles such as mutual trust, publicity and transparency, inclusivity, equal opportunities, sustainability, proportionality, and adequacy. This system promotes the expansion of democracy by strengthening the trust between citizens and institutions.

Collaborative governance is itself an implementation of the principle of horizontal subsidiarity, as outlined in Article 118, last paragraph, of the Italian Constitution, which provided a constitutional basis for this theory, already supported by numerous practical applications. The theory underpinning this model was first presented in an essay by Gregorio Arena titled “Introduzione all’amministrazione condivisa”. Even though the principle of horizontal subsidiarity was incorporated into the Constitution in 2001, it was only with the approval of local regulations that the shared administration model gained full implementation at the national level. On February 22, 2014, the Municipality of Bologna adopted the first local regulation, which served as a template and was followed by approximately 284 Italian municipalities.

This “shared administration” introduces a new relationship between public administration and non-profit organisations engaged in the production of common goods and services. The Italian model is an example that shows variations across the EU/EEA member states in terms of the extent to which requirements or expectations to collaborate are codified in laws and regulations, the nature of the legal infrastructure in terms of scope and content to determine where (in which areas) law and other written rules are concentrated; and finally, the broader trends that can be discerned from legal regulation.

References

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Arena, G. (1997). Introduzione all’amministrazione condivisa. Studi parlamentari e di politica costituzionale, 117-118, 29-65.

Arena, G., & Bombardelli, M. (2022). Amministrazione condivisa. Quaderni della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell’Università degli Studi di Trento.

Batory, A., & Svensson, S. (2019). Regulating collaboration: The legal framework of collaborative governance in ten European Countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(9), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1658771

Ferroni, M.V., Galdini, R., & Ruocco, G. (2023). Urban informality. A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Springer. Labsus & Bright (2022). Rethinking horizontal subsidiarity in the European Union. https://www.labsus.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Bright_Documento_ENG.pdf

Emma Galli, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

Co-creation and co-design processes in urban policies refer to participatory methodologies in which multiple stakeholders—citizens, planners, policymakers, and private actors—collaborate to shape urban environments. These processes aim to foster the development of place- and evidence-based solutions in response to the challenges the community faces, as well as inclusive decision-making, ensuring that urban development aligns with the needs and aspirations of local communities. Co-creation involves engaging residents and experts in the early stages of policy-making, promoting transparency and collaborative governance. However, numerous studies have shown that these concepts encompass different levels of participation (Arnstein, 1969; Bacqué & Gauthier, 2011; Le Maire-Moetwil, 2014). Co-design, a subset of co-creation, applies design thinking methodologies to urban planning, allowing for iterative feedback cycles to refine policies and interventions. These approaches are widely used in areas such as public space design, housing policies, transportation planning, and innovative city initiatives. By integrating diverse perspectives, co-creation and co-design enhance urban resilience, social equity, and sustainability. Their effectiveness depends on structured facilitation, open communication, and a genuine commitment from local governments to empower citizens rather than consult them. The co-creation and co-design processes create preconditions for co-implementation, involving stakeholders in the process of solution implementation. 

Background information and contemporary debate 

The principles of co-creation and co-design in urban policies stem from participatory planning movements that emerged in the mid-20th century. Early urban theorists, such as Jane Jacobs, advocated for bottom-up approaches that prioritise local knowledge over top-down urban planning. By the 1990s and early 2000s, the rise of deliberative democracy and digital engagement tools expanded the scope of participatory urban governance. Scholars such as Ezio Manzini and Charles Landry contributed to the theoretical and practical frameworks supporting co-creative urban development. The proliferation of innovative city initiatives and data-driven governance has further accelerated the adoption of co-design methods in city planning. Many cities today utilise digital platforms, urban living labs, and community workshops to incorporate citizen input into their planning processes. These approaches acknowledge that cities are complex, dynamic systems and that successful urban policies require continuous adaptation, engagement, and collaboration among diverse urban actors.

The contemporary debate on co-creation and co-design in urban policies centres on their feasibility, impact, and inclusivity. Advocates argue that these processes democratise urban governance, allowing citizens to take an active role in shaping their environment. Successful cases, such as participatory budgeting in cities like Paris and Porto Alegre, demonstrate how direct citizen involvement can lead to a more equitable distribution of resources. Similarly, urban living labs in European cities have facilitated innovation by bringing together policymakers, businesses, and residents to collaboratively test and refine urban solutions. 

However, critics highlight the challenges of implementing co-creation at scale. Research has shown that although these forms of collaboration can lead to social innovations, the results are often contingent, temporary, and challenging to integrate into prevailing structures and practices of governing cities. Moreover, the legitimacy of such actions and their results can be questioned as well as the degree of inclusiveness of diverse social groups. Genuine participation requires significant time, resources, and institutional willingness to cede control, which is not always present. Additionally, power imbalances within communities can result in the dominance of well-organised groups while marginalised voices remain unheard. There is also the risk of co-creation being reduced to a tokenistic exercise, where governments use it as a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive policy-making tool. Another concern is the reliance on digital platforms for participation, which can exclude non-tech-savvy or lower-income residents. As cities continue to experiment with co-creative approaches, the focus remains on improving accessibility, ensuring inclusivity, and embedding these practices into long-term governance frameworks.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 35(4), 216-224.

Bacqué, M.-H., & Gauthier, M. (2011). Participation, urbanisme et études urbaines Quatre décennies de débats et d’expériences depuis. A ladder of citizen participation. Participations, 1(1), 36-66. https://doi.org/10.3917/parti.001.0036

Le Maire-Moetwil, J. (2014). Lieux, biens, liens communs: émergence d’une grammaire participative en architecture et urbanisme, 1904-1969. Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

Eneqvist, E., Algehed, J., Jensen, C., & Karvonen, A. (2022). Legitimacy in municipal experimental governance: Questioning the public good in urban innovation practices. European Planning Studies, 30(8), 1596–1614. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.2015749

Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. MIT Press.

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

Silvia De Nardis, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

Creative placemaking refers to an artist-initiated, culture-driven, bottom-up, and place-based approach to imagining and realising tomorrow’s cities. The concept builds upon over 20 years of research on small cultural actors and their relationships with the place. For these actors, it generally involves long-term engagement with the place in question, and ultimately, their work changes fundamental social relations of the place while avoiding unwanted adverse secondary effects, such as gentrification or exclusion (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; Frenette, 2017). It brings together public, private, civic, and non-profit organisations to develop high-quality places in a strategic alliance with the artists and cultural professionals who initiated the process. Creative placemaking thus assigns a central role to artists and cultural and creative industries in shaping the physical and social character of a neighbourhood, town, city, or region (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Creative professionals in various fields, such as theatre, film, art, music, design, or architecture, are crucial to promoting dialogue with residents, facilitating the emergence of their needs and desires, and strengthening community bonds and social inclusion. Creative placemaking prioritises collaborative and human-centred aspects of city-making by placing people and their relationships with the place at the forefront. As Courage (2021) argues, there is a community imperative in placemaking that unites, fosters connections, and creatively drives urban innovation. Creative placemaking thus contributes to neighbourhoods’ sustainable development by promoting local business while safeguarding community cultural heritage and raising social cohesion, with an increasing focus on green aspects and ecological approaches. 

Background information and contemporary debate 

The term creative placemaking was coined by Markusen and Gadwa and included in the white paper they published in 2010 for the Mayors’ Institute of City Design. Since then, it has had its roots in U.S. American cultural policy, standing out as a well-established funding trend in culture-based economic development programmes. Creative placemaking involves a wide array of private and philanthropic stakeholders, often including cross-sectoral investments in housing, health services, infrastructure, or education (Gadwa, 2013). The simultaneous participation of financial investors, public administrators, citizens and artists gives it a special visibility than the more traditional arts-based economic development or cultural planning solutions (Zitcer, 2020). Today, creative placemaking: “has successfully come into being as a unique intersection where art that is community-based, place-based, collaborative, and participatory is valued as a distinct form of community development, and one that will see continued attention, field building, and funding” (Crisman, 2022, p. 724).

Creative placemaking has spread widely in the United States, supported by strong cultural policies that promote community engagement and grassroots initiatives. In contrast, despite having a rich tradition in culture-focused policies—such as cultural planning and creative city studies (Florida, 2002; Landry, 2003; Evans, 2005)—Europe lacks a robust framework for creative placemaking. However, there are ongoing small-scale, multistakeholder processes in Europe that engage local practices and showcase potential for adaptation and growth. Together with local government, grassroots actors and citizens, the cultural workers are experimenting with innovative place-based processes targeted at economic improvement, spatial recovery, social equity and environmental sustainability. While the application of creative placemaking differs between the U.S. and Europe, the emphasis on locally based, collaborative approaches remains essential for its success in both contexts.

Creative placemaking seems to show promising opportunities for cities, suburbs and smaller towns. Nevertheless, its benefits can be dissipated and not last without strategic thinking and effective tools to mitigate some recurring challenges. Firstly, it is often difficult to measure the impact of placemaking activities, while side effects such as the commercialisation of culture in today’s neoliberal societies, gentrification and social exclusion must be constantly monitored. Moreover, the creation of strong partnerships based on shared objectives can be tricky due to the diversity of interests involved. Different actors, such as policymakers and creatives, also have different backgrounds and viewpoints that usually need time to align.

Such and other barriers to collaborative innovation in culture-led city making, or what Borén and Young (2013) call a “creativity policy gap”, require to be limited or overcome by comprehensively exploring new governance models that are effective in crossing administrative sectors and levels and involve a plurality of stakeholders. This aim aligns with Markusen and Gadwa’s (2010) ambition to build a “collaborative policy platform” that includes community, local government, private, and non-profit agencies, as well as those they refer to as “creative initiators”-artists and cultural practitioners who are crucial in shaping high-quality places through their art.

References

Borén, T., & Young, C. (2013). Getting creative with the ‘creative city’? Towards new perspectives on creativity in urban policy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1799-1815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01132.x

Crisman, J. (2022). Evaluating values in creative placemaking: The arts as community development in the NEA’s Our Town program. 44(4–5), 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2021.1890607

Courage, C. (2017). Arts in place: The arts, the urban and social practice. Routledge.

Evans, G. (2005). Measure for measure: Evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 959–983. doi:10.1080/00420980500107102

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how It’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Basic Books.

Frenette, A. (2017). The rise of creative placemaking: Cross-sector collaboration as cultural policy in the United States. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 47(5): 333–345.

Gadwa, A. (2013). Fuzzy vibrancy: Creative placemaking as ascendant US cultural policy. Cultural Trends, 22(1-4), 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2013.817653

Landry, C. (2003). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. Earthscan.

Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative placemaking. Mayors’ Institute on City Design.

Vivant, E. (2009). Qu’est-ce que la ville créative? Presses Universitaires de France. 

Zitcer, A. (2020). Making up creative placemaking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18773424

Silvia Lucciarini, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

Creative and cultural industries (CCIs) encompass sectors that generate economic and social value through creativity, cultural heritage, and intellectual property. These industries include arts, media, design, publishing, film, music, and digital content creation. They play a vital role in cultural expression, innovation, and economic growth by blending artistic production with commercial objectives. CCIs contribute significantly to employment and GDP in many countries, fostering cultural diversity and social cohesion. The rise of digital technology has further expanded the influence of creative and cultural industries, enabling global distribution and audience engagement through platforms like streaming services, social media, and online marketplaces.

Background information and contemporary debate 

“Creative and cultural industries” gained prominence in the late 20th century, particularly with policy initiatives from UNESCO and the European Union in the 1990s. The UK’s Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) formally defined CCIs in 1998, recognising their economic impact. The origins of the concept date back to the Frankfurt School’s critique of the “culture industry”: they denounced the commodification of culture. Over time, CCIs evolved from being seen merely as cultural activities to essential economic and social innovation drivers. With the digital revolution, traditional creative sectors adapted to new forms of production, distribution, and monetisation, leading to significant transformations in how creative content is consumed and valued globally.

The contemporary debate surrounding CCIs concerns fair remuneration for creators, digital disruption, and cultural sustainability. One primary concern is the impact of the gig economy on creative workers, who often face precarious employment conditions and lack social protections. The dominance of tech platforms like Spotify, Netflix, and Amazon raises questions about revenue distribution, with artists and content creators advocating for fairer compensation models. Another ongoing discussion is the role of AI in creative production—while AI tools enhance creativity and efficiency, they also challenge traditional notions of authorship and originality. Additionally, there are debates about cultural policy and funding, particularly regarding the need to ensure that small-scale cultural enterprises and independent artists receive adequate support. As globalisation and digitalisation continue to shape CCIs, balancing economic viability with cultural diversity and artistic integrity remains a critical challenge for policymakers and stakeholders. In recent times, there has been a tendency to refer to the Cultural and Creative Sector (CCS). It is a significant area of business and employment in its own right and not simply a contributor to the economy and growth in other sectors. There is a danger at times that a focus on what it can contribute to others overshadows its contribution and its own particular policy needs and imperatives. Cultural and creative sectors represent an often-overlooked driver of development. They generate economic wealth, create jobs, promote innovation, and make places more attractive for living, working, and investing. Besides, there is growing evidence that increased levels of cultural participation have positive effects on well-being and encourage social cohesion by supporting the integration and inclusion of marginalised groups.

References

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how It’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Basic Books. 

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). The cultural industries. SAGE Publications.

Power, D., & Scott, A.J. (2010). Consumption, culture and creativity. In A. Pike, A. Rodríguez-Pose, & J. Tomaney (Eds.), A Handbook of Local and Regional Development (pp. 162-171). Routledge.

Power, D. (2011). Priority sector report: Creative and Cultural Industries. 2nd Edition. European Commission. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/615?locale=sv

Pratt, A. C. (2008). Creative cities: the cultural industries and the creative class. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 90(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2008.00281.x

Silvia De Nardis, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

Cultural Heritage (CH) encompasses a diverse range of tangible and intangible cultural and creative expressions, encompassing natural features, landscapes, urban and rural environments, as well as digital products. CH regards the legacy of the past, alongside the cultural signs of the present, including new creations that will become heritage for future generations. It embraces cultural assets such as artefacts, monuments or sites, including traditions, languages, crafts, knowledge and social practices. This notion also contains digital resources, both products/services natively digital and derived from digitisation processes such as virtual museums, videos, podcasts or digital archives (European Commission, 2019). 

CH is interpreted in a dynamic sense as an ensemble of goods to be safeguarded, protected and conserved, but also to be promoted and enhanced to foster positive societal change. It describes a strategic set of shared resources to connect space, people, functions, and activities acting as triggers of sustainable local development. CH refers to a source of collective value, potentially able to meet emerging public needs, promoting cultural diversity, and strengthening identity and social inclusion. It refers to a practice that involves local communities in creatively preserving the past and, at the same time, imagining new ways of thinking, acting, and living. Innovative heritage-led services in education, culture or health arise, promoting new socioeconomic opportunities. This definition implies remaining open to newness and embracing co-creation processes that involve the public and private sectors, cultural and creative industries, civil society, inhabitants, and citizens (Council of Europe, 2005).

Background information and contemporary debate

Cultural Heritage represents a sociopolitical and symbolic concept resulting from historical processes of selection and reassembly of values, ideas, and meanings assigned to human products or environmental attributes. It emerges as an entanglement of physical, functional, and representational properties, as well as a values system socially and politically shaped.

The evolution of the CH notion is conventionally framed within a three-phase periodisation. The first lies in the 19th century, when the idea of national heritage to be protected began to take hold, consolidating protection and preservation objectives of countries’ civil and monumental heritage. During the second half of the 20th century, the broader concept of World Heritage and the vision of heritage as something belonging to the wide humanity beyond national barriers spread, also as a peace action in postwar period. A comprehensive set of policy guidelines and recommendations on tangible, natural and Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) emerge, especially through international organisations such as UNESCO and ICOMOS. The 21st century ushers in a new era for CH by recognising its dynamic and evolving character. As Sonkoli and Vahtikari (2019) note, an ever-expanding notion of heritage is emerging, becoming a field of interest in different disciplinary, policy, and societal sectors. Alongside the identification, conservation and protection activities promoted by experts or public authorities, the idea of pluralisation of heritage values and community involvement in its selection, protection and exploitation arises.

Heritage studies currently investigate heritage as a future-making practice, exploring some emerging issues linked to the transformative nature of culture and CH. Researchers and heritage agencies constantly confront, for example, with the challenging concept of “universal value” still in use today in the CH institutionalisation procedures (Smith, 2006), assuming its extension in favour of community-led designation processes. Moreover, admitting the evolutionary character of heritage and its “social value” means accepting its precariousness, the possibility of its disappearance, transformation, and the betrayal of its authentic sense (Harrison, 2012). CH is alive, dynamic, and fragile in globalised and neoliberal societies, calling for public reflexivity and stronger alliances between local communities, institutions and experts in finding inclusive identification, protection and enhancement measures. Finally, considering CH as a tool for societal change and sustainable development implies developing strategies and methods to enhance cultural spillover in key sectors such as labour, health, environment, and technology, thereby making it an effective vehicle for cohesion, democracy, and social progress.

References

Council of Europe (2005). Framework convention on the value of cultural heritage for society, Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 199, Faro.

European Commission (2019). European framework for action on cultural heritage, Publications Office, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/949707

Harrison, R. (2012). Forgetting to remember, remembering to forget: Late modern heritage practices, sustainability and the ‘crisis’ of accumulation of the past. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.678371

Smith, L. (2006). Use of heritage. Routledge. 

Sonkoli, G., & Vahtikari, T. (2019). Innovation in cultural heritage. Research for an Integrated European Research Policy. European Commission.

Cristina Mateos Mora, Pablo de Olavide University  

Definition

Talking about a cultural scene essentially involves addressing the symbolic dimension of a territory, understood as the set of cultural consumption opportunities that, when located together in the same place, endow that space with distinctive characteristics and atmospheres that make it recognisable.

This concept enables us to identify the tangible elements that shape the development of cultural practices in a given place. It is not simply about identifying the cultural activities that take place or the groups residing in an area but rather about understanding the lifestyles that can emerge based on the opportunities provided by that scene (Silver et al., 2010; Mateos et al., 2022). In this sense, the cultural scene, as a contextual element surrounding individuals—both those who reside in these spaces and those who may visit them- promotes a set of behaviours, cultural practices, and lifestyles.

Background information and contemporary debate

The concept of cultural scenes emerges in a context of profound socio-economic transformations in cities, marked by a shift from a production-based economy to one focused on consumption. This shift in urban development analysis has given cultural scenes particular relevance in less industrialised cities, where leisure, services, and cultural consumption become key factors for social cohesion and interaction between groups (Silver et al., 2010).

From this perspective, cultural consumption has become an integral part of urban studies, leading to research that examines the impact of cultural practices, the arts, and services on quality of life (Markusen & King, 2003; Clark, 2004; Glaeser, Kolko, & Saiz, 2001; Zukin, 1995). These studies have demonstrated how cultural development can contribute to the economic and social revitalisation of territories, generating new opportunities and reshaping the identity of urban spaces.

Far from focusing exclusively on a specific type of cultural consumption (such as music or art), the concept of cultural scenes has evolved into a broader understanding of territory in which multiple symbolic and social elements converge. In this regard, urban space is conceived as a meeting place for social actors, where the production and reproduction of cultural practices are encouraged, along with the creation of face-to-face interactions that give meaning and identity to the territory (Storper & Venables, 2004).

The cultural scenes approach enables the identification of different spatial configurations depending on the symbolic and contextual elements that define a place. Based on this perspective, various types of scenes have been identified—bohemian, community-oriented, or innovative—that influence both the identity of a territory and the way urban space is experienced (Silver et al., 2010; Mateos et al., 2022). This classification facilitates the understanding of territory in cultural terms and allows for analysis of how cultural scenes impact other key dimensions, such as economic growth, health, or individual behaviours and attitudes.

Multiple empirical studies have shown that cultural scenes can be structured along a continuum, ranging from the conventional—characterised by traditional, egalitarian values and a strong sense of authenticity and local rootedness—to the innovative, associated with more expressive, transgressive, and change-oriented cultural practices. These traits influence broader social dynamics, regardless of other contextual factors or residents’ individual characteristics.

For example, previous studies have shown that innovative scenes attract creative and artistic occupations, thereby fostering local economic development (Silver & Miller, 2013; Navarro et al., 2014). They have also been linked to the spread of new cultural and political trends: more innovative scenes promote more liberal political attitudes (Miller & Silver, 2015), support for emerging political parties (Mateos, 2018), and the expansion of emerging cultural practices (Navarro & Rodríguez, 2014). Additionally, research has identified a connection between specific cultural scenes and the adoption of healthier lifestyles (Zapata-Moya et al., 2020).

Cultural scenes not only shape the symbolic identity of territories but also influence economic and social dynamics. Understanding their role in contemporary cities allows us to explore how they contribute to social cohesion, innovation, and urban development.

References 

Clark, T. N. (Ed.). (2004). The city as an entertainment machine. In F. Gotham, K. (Ed.), Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment (Research in Urban Sociology, Vol. 6) (pp. 357-37). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-0042(01)80014-3

Glaeser, E., Kolko, J., & Saiz, A. (2001). Consumer city. Journal of Economic Geography, 1, 27–50.

Markusen, A., & King, D. (2003). The artistic dividend: The arts’ hidden contributions to regional development. University of Minnesota’s Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

Mateos, C. (2018). The effect of cultural aspects on electoral behavior. XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology, Toronto, ON, 15–21 July.

Mateos, C., Navarro, C.J. & Rodríguez-García, M.J. (2022). A guide for the analysis of cultural scenes: A measurement proposal and its validation for the Spanish case. Cultural Tends, 31(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2021.1978816

Miller, D., & Silver, D. (2015). Cultural scenes and contextual effects on political attitudes. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 2(3–4), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2016.1144480

Navarro, C. J., Mateos, C., & Rodríguez-García, M. J. (2014). Cultural scenes, the creative class and development in Spanish municipalities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776412448188

Navarro, C. J., & Rodríguez-García, M. J. (2014). The contextual effect of local scenes on cultural practices. In T. N. Clark (Ed.), Can Tocqueville Karaoke? (pp. 251–268). Bingley.

Silver, D., Clark, T. N., & Navarro, C. (2010). Scenes: Social context in an age of contingency. Social Forces, 88, 2293–2324.

Silver, D., & Miller, D. (2013). Contextualizing the artistic dividend. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00642.x

Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027

Zapata-Moya, Á. R., Mateos-Mora, C., & Navarro-Yáñez, C. J. (2020). Urban scenes, cultural context exposure and contemporary health lifestyles: A multilevel analysis of Spanish sub-municipal areas. In M. Smagacz-Poziemska, M. Gómez, P. Pereira, L. Guarino, S. Kurtenbach, & J. Villalón (Eds.), Inequality and Uncertainty (pp. 273–296). Palgrave Macmillan.

Zukin, S. (1995). The Culture of Cities. Blackwell.

Mireille Diestchy and François Nowakowski, École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Strasbourg  

Definition 

Gentrification can be defined as a social relationship of appropriation of space that pits unequally endowed actors and groups against each other (Chabrol, Collet, et al., 2016, p.24-25). The process of gentrification has been widely observed and described in the central districts of cities, where the urban qualities (heritage, cultural facilities, shops, accessibility to the various transport networks) appear to be at odds with the low property and land values of the assets, to which are often added forms of devaluation of their image (Lussault, 2013). The process of gentrification involves, in a way, realigning property and land values with the urban values of the area by changing the built substance and the image of the area, leading to the eviction of the working classes to the periphery and the arrival of social classes that are culturally (Florida, 2002) and financially better endowed. This transformation involves a variety of agents (artists, developers, local authorities, property owners, etc.) who will contribute to transformations that may affect public spaces and their practices, the tourist visibility of the place (through Airbnb in particular), often based on heritage, or through the promotion of ‘urban art’ practices (Adam & Comby, 2020). These complex factors mean that gentrification can be seen as ‘the social product of a complex game in which sedentary and mobile people live side by side, where population movements, planning decisions, stakeholder strategies and the particular ways in which different social groups live and cohabit combine’ (Lévy, 2002). 

Background information and contemporary debate 

The classic theories of gentrification emerged at the turn of the 1980s and played a significant role in the development of one of the most dynamic fields in international urban studies. These early works theorised gentrification based on studies of British and American cities. They proposed a linear conception of the gentrification process and an analysis of the phenomenon in several phases (stages). In response to these approaches, which were considered too rigid, other works emphasised the diversity of actors involved (Ley, 1996). These classic approaches to the phenomenon have highlighted two areas of analysis:   

  • Gentrification seen as a demand emanating from actors, or ‘pioneers,’ from artistic and cultural circles who seek a form of emancipation by investing in these spaces.  
  • Pointing to the role of capital, other researchers theorise gentrification as a translation of a class struggle in cities (Smith, 1996), which can take the form of a ‘struggle for places’ (Lussault, 2009).

Since then, numerous studies have demonstrated the complexity and complementarity of these approaches, highlighting, in particular, the diversity of the players involved in this phenomenon. The combined and differentiated involvement of various private and public players in gentrification processes, depending on the context, is part of a wider process of neo-liberalisation of urban transformation based on pro-business policies aimed at attracting private investors to urban regeneration projects (Pinson, 2020).   

References 

Chabrol, M., Collet, A., Giroud, M., Launay, L., Rousseau, M., & Ter Minassian, H. (2016). Gentrifications. Editions Amsterdam. 

Adam, M., & Comby, E., (Eds.) (2020). Le capital dans la cité. Une encyclopédie critique de la ville. Editions Amsterdam.  

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books. 

Ley, D. (1996). The new middle class and the remaking of the central city. Oxford University Press. 

Lussault, M., (2013). Valeur spatiale. In J. Lévis, & M. Lussault (Eds.), Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l’espace des sociétés (pp. 1065–1067). Belin.

Lussault, M. (2009). De la lutte des classes à la lutte des places. Grasset.  

Pinson, G. (2020). La ville néolibérale. Presses universitaires de France. 

Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier. Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge. 

María José Guerreo Mayo and María José Dorado-Rubín, Pablo de Olavide University 

Definition

An approach to urbanism that promotes social equity, accessibility, and the participation of all social groups in the urban planning and management process, ensuring that urban spaces are sustainable, accessible, safe, and equitable for all people, regardless of their social, economic, cultural, or physical background. Its goal is to create urban environments that promote active participation and the well-being of all communities, especially those groups that have traditionally been excluded or marginalised (Arnstein, 1969; Harvey, 2008).

It is based on several key principles: universal accessibility, which ensures that the design of spaces is suitable for all people; equity and social justice, which seeks to reduce socioeconomic inequalities, allowing all groups access to quality basic services; community participation, which encourages the active involvement of citizens in the planning and organisation of their spaces; cultural and ethnic diversity, which ensures that urban spaces are sensitive to the plurality of cultures and traditions; and the integration of public spaces, which promotes welcoming, safe, and functional spaces for all people (Jacobs, 1961; Harvey, 1973).

Inclusive urbanism, therefore, seeks to improve the quality of life for residents by creating urban environments that respond to the needs and rights of all people, advocating for affordable housing policies, and offering housing solutions for everyone. It promotes social cohesion by reducing gaps between different groups and strengthening the sense of belonging to the community. It also favours social justice by ensuring that all citizens have access to resources and opportunities and fosters community identity by involving residents in the design of their urban environments.

Background information and contemporary debate

This approach arose in response to the social inequalities and segregation that intensified during the Industrial Revolution when rapid urban growth led to the exclusion of the working classes to the peripheries of cities. At the same time, urban elites resided in central areas with access to better services and quality spaces (Lefebvre, 1991). From the mid-20th century, driven by social movements and struggles for social justice, an interest in urban planning emerged, aimed at making cities more inclusive, sustainable, and accessible, reflecting the diversity of their inhabitants and their needs (Jacobs, 1961; Harvey, 1973). A new approach moved away from the urban model that favoured economic elites, sidelining the needs of the most vulnerable groups.

Despite advancements, the implementation of inclusive urbanism faces various obstacles, primarily economic, social, and political. Globalisation, for example, has transformed the structure of cities, altering their development through new dynamics of economic power and migratory flows. While it can bring benefits such as investments and job creation, it also generates increasing spatial segregation due to the concentration of resources and services in specific sectors, eroding social cohesion and creating a new fragmented spatial order (Marcuse & Van Kempen, 2000). Therefore, a new approach to understanding urban planning in a globalised context is required, promoting more balanced and sustainable urban development through the implementation of social inclusion policies from both local and global perspectives (Sassen, 1991; Marcuse & Van Kempen, 2000).

Another major challenge of inclusive urbanism is the phenomenon of gentrification, which displaces vulnerable communities as neighbourhoods undergo processes of renewal and valuation. Gentrification, while it can bring improvements and investments to urban areas, has adverse effects on low-income communities that cannot cope with the rising costs resulting from urban renewal (Slater, 2006; Lees, Slater & Wyly, 2008; Angotti, 2012). Inclusive urbanism advocates for policies to prevent the displacement of these communities, ensuring equitable access to urban resources and promoting the right to the city, which holds that all residents should have the right to actively participate in the construction and use of urban space, regardless of their social or economic status (Lefebvre, 1996; Harvey, 2008; Angotti, 2012).

The implementation of inclusive urbanism faces significant challenges, such as a lack of political will, resistance from certain economic groups, and a scarcity of resources. However, there are proposals to move towards more inclusive cities, such as creating neighbourhoods that promote diversity and coexistence, with affordable and accessible housing; revitalising degraded areas without displacing original residents; and creating cultural centres and community activities that encourage participation from all (Angotti, 2012). 

Inclusive urbanism is a response to urban inequalities and segregation, promoting accessible, equitable, and participatory cities. While its implementation presents complex challenges, its comprehensive approach to social inclusion, spatial justice, and sustainability represents a crucial step towards creating urban environments that benefit all people, regardless of their background or status.

References

Angotti, T. (2012). New York for sale: Community planning confronts global real estate. MIT Press.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. University of Georgia Press.

Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.

Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2008). Gentrification. Routledge.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). The Right to the City. In E. Kofman & E. Lebas (Eds.), Writings on cities (pp. 147-159). Blackwell.

Marcuse, P., & Van Kempen, R. (2000). Globalizing cities: A new spatial order? Blackwell.

Sassen, S. (1991). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press.

Slater, T. (2011). Gentrification of the city. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City (pp. 571-585). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Manuel Fernández-García, Pablo de Olavide University

Definition

Neighbourhood change refers to the display of socio-spatial processes through which an urban area or neighbourhood undergoes substantial transformations over time. These transformations may involve changes in demographic composition, residents’ socio-economic status, the physical conditions of the built environment, or the neighbourhood’s functional roles within the urban hierarchy. The term captures both trajectories of decline—such as disinvestment, depopulation, and urban decay—and of improvement, including revitalisation and valorisation, processes that may or may not culminate in gentrification.

Rather than arising from a single cause, neighbourhood change results from the concurrency of multiple mechanisms. These include residential mobility (in-migration and out-migration), in situ social mobility (the socio-economic advancement or decline of non-migrants), and demographic shifts (e.g., ageing, household restructuring). Such mechanisms operate unevenly across different neighbourhoods depending on local specificities and broader urban dynamics, and they contribute to deepening or alleviating urban inequalities.

Neighbourhood change manifests as both a material and symbolic transformation. On a material level, it reshapes the housing stock, public infrastructure, and local economy. On a symbolic level, it reconfigures the neighbourhood’s collective identity, perceived status, and socio-spatial dynamics. These changes often redefine the neighbourhood’s relative position within the urban system and influence processes such as segregation, social mobility, and patterns of inequality.

Background information and contemporary debate

The study of neighbourhood change emerged in early 20th-century urban sociology, particularly through the Chicago School. Initial studies emphasised residential mobility and cyclical patterns of decline and renewal, interpreting neighbourhood transformation primarily as a consequence of migratory movements and socio-economic shifts. Over time, however, research perspectives have evolved to acknowledge the multi-causal and context-dependent nature of these transformations.

Since the 1960s, scholarship has increasingly focused on gentrification and suburbanisation, revealing how class, race, and gender inequalities intersect with broader patterns of urban restructuring. Ruth Glass’s (1964) and David Harvey’s (2008) significant contributions critically analyse how capital accumulation, dispossession, and uneven development underpin urban change. These insights have expanded the analytical scope of neighbourhood change to include debates on social justice, spatial inequality, and the commodification of urban life.

More recent research highlights the importance of disaggregating the mechanisms driving neighbourhood change. While earlier narratives prioritised selective migration, contemporary studies (Bailey, 2012; Hochstenbach & Van Gent, 2015; Teernstra, 2014) point to the significant role of incumbent processes—such as income growth among non-migrants—and demographic transformations that can alter neighbourhood profiles even in contexts of low population turnover. These findings are key to understanding how neighbourhoods evolve amid growing urban polarisation and socio-spatial fragmentation.

Current debates centre on the influence of public policies, financial flows, and grassroots activism in shaping neighbourhood trajectories. While some scholars underline the potential of urban regeneration and community-led initiatives to promote inclusive revitalisation, others warn against processes that fuel displacement, erode affordable housing, and exacerbate urban inequalities.

Neighbourhood change remains a contested and dynamic concept that demands context-sensitive analysis. It requires a nuanced understanding of both structural factors and the agency of local actors, particularly in the face of deepening urban fragmentation and inequality.

References

Glass, R. (1964). London: Aspects of change. MacGibbon & Kee.

Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 23-40.

Hochstenbach, C., & Van Gent, W. P. C. (2015). An anatomy of gentrification processes: variegating causes of neighbourhood change. Environment and Planning A, 47(7), 1480-1501.

Bailey, N. (2012). How spatial segregation changes over time: sorting out the sorting processes. Environment and Planning A, 44(3), 705-722.

Teernstra, A. (2014). Neighbourhood change, mobility and incumbent processes. Urban Studies, 51(5), 978-999.

Temkin, K., & Rohe, W. (1996). Neighborhood change and urban policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15(3), 159–170.

Agnese Landolfo, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

The New European Bauhaus (NEB) initiative aims to promote the green transition of our societies and economy. It encourages a collective effort among many actors to envision and create a sustainable and inclusive future that is visually appealing and enriching for both our minds and spirits.

The NEB approach is an initiative that aims to integrate sustainability, inclusivity, and aesthetics into the design of spaces, products, and services. It draws inspiration from the original Bauhaus movement, which emphasised the integration of art, design, and technology. By reimagining how we design and inhabit the built environment, the NEB aims to foster a collective transformation of spaces and communities that is both environmentally responsible and socially inclusive. The aesthetic-sustainability-inclusion triad forms the foundation of these processes.

The New European Bauhaus emphasises creating beautiful, functional, and sustainable environments. It fosters innovation and collaboration to address challenges like climate change, resource efficiency, and social equity. It aims to bridge the gap between science, technology, and culture, shaping a more sustainable and inclusive future for Europe.

The NEB approach is based on the belief that achieving the goals of the European Green Deal and moving towards a more sustainable society requires immediate and multi-level change. The strategy is to engage various actors, including civil society and diverse individuals, and establish an impact network on multiple scales, ranging from global to local. 

Background information and contemporary debate

The New European Bauhaus (NEB) was launched in 2020 by the President of the European Commission, von der Leyen, as part of the existing European Green Deal, a set of political initiatives proposed by the European Commission to achieve climate neutrality in Europe by 2050. 

Drawing on the inspiring values ​​of the Staatliches Bauhaus, the school of art, design and architecture that operated in Germany between 1919 and 1933, the NEB relaunches a culture-driven and multidisciplinary approach to respond to the challenges and demands of contemporary society.

In a time of growing environmental challenges and social inequalities, the NEB aims to bring together creative thinkers, designers, architects, artists, and citizens to rethink how we can live more sustainably while ensuring that beauty and culture are not sacrificed. 

While the NEB has been widely hailed as an ambitious and visionary project, there is ongoing debate about its effectiveness and potential. Some have questioned whether the emphasis on aesthetics and beauty could overshadow the more urgent concerns of environmental sustainability and social justice. There is also the challenge of ensuring that the New European Bauhaus remains inclusive and does not become a top-down initiative that alienates specific communities or reinforces existing power dynamics.

On the other hand, supporters argue that the NEB is necessary to bridge the gap between technological innovation, sustainability, and cultural identity, fostering a deeper connection between people and their environment. They contend that the initiative’s emphasis on collaboration between disciplines and stakeholders offers a unique opportunity to rethink the way we approach urban design and environmental challenges. 

References

European Commission (2021). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, New European Bauhaus, Beautiful, Sustainable, Together, COM(2021) 573 final, Brussels.

European Commission (2021). New European Bauhaus. https://europa.eu/new-european-bauhaus

European Commission (2022). New European Bauhaus Compass. A guiding framework for decision and project makers wishing to apply the NEB principles and criteria to their activities. EC, 21 November 2022.

European Commission (2024). NEB toolbox. EC, 8 January 2024.  

Schellnhuber, H.J., Widera, B., Kutnar, A., Organschi, A., Hafner, A., Hillebrandt, A., Murphy, O., & Nakicenovic, N.  (2022). Horizon Europe-New European Bauhaus Nexus Report: Conclusions of the High-Level Workshop on ‘Research and Innovation for the New European Bauhaus’, jointly organised by DG Research and Innovation and the Joint Research Centre. European Commission, Brussels.

Silvia De Nardis, Sapienza University of Rome 

Definition

Place is a physical and symbolic domain in which personal and/or collective cultural meanings, lifestyles, habits, values and identities are harboured. It refers to multi-scale and multi-faceted contexts that encompass various settings, including rooms, buildings, streets, parks, cities, or entire regions. Nevertheless, the place is more than a locality or an ensemble of material components and geographical coordinates. It differs from the space as geometrically understood, representing a field of relationship and identity foundation, with references that are sometimes ethical, philosophical, and political. The place is steeped with meaning and, therefore, endowed with a sense of place often rooted in community life (Tuan, 1977). The meaning and memory of a place endure long after the place itself has been physically altered (Cox, 1968). The place can be configured as a lived space, a space of memory, or a space perceived and actively practised by people at a particular time in history. A place results from a dynamic psychological and/or social relationship with space. It defines the field in which different subjectivities shape their experiences, social life develops, and the public sphere is built. 

Background information and contemporary debate 

At the end of the 1990s, a vibrant and multidisciplinary debate on the notion of place emerged in academia, prompting sociologists, geographers, architects, planners, and philosophers to question how to interpret the causal relations between space, society, and the human-environmental realm (Gans, 2002). The growing interest in the immaterial and symbolic dimensions of the city stems from the consolidation of a distance from the abstract definition of space based on the recognition of place as a central element in everyday and public life. 

Marc Augé (1992) refers to it as an “anthropological place,” a space constructed symbolically by the community through the cultural process of defining identity and establishing a sense of belonging. It is identitarian, relational and historical and differs from “non-place”, a term the author uses to indicate spatial areas where social ties are hampered or very difficult to build. In Michel de Certeau’s theory (1990), people’s narrative actions, even the seemingly less disruptive ones such as walking, reading or living, transform mere inexpressive materiality into “lived space”. They can overturn established meanings, giving a new social value to space and cultural reality. 

More recently, Gieryn (2000) suggests that a place results from three essential characteristics: a situated and unique geographic location, its material form and an investment with meaning and value. Similarly, Agnew (2011) recognises a location (a site in space), locales (social settings in which everyday life activities take place), and a sense of place (identification of something special tied to the community’s unique space or moral attitude). In this conceptualisation, people are emotionally invested in places where they feel they belong, such as workspaces, churches, homes, and virtual spaces like Internet chat rooms. A third approach to place (Massey, 2005) is to see it as fully relational, meaning that it is formed by social, cultural, and political relations, all more or less power-laden, that often originate from outside the place itself and where their particular local intersection over time is what makes up the place, including local symbols and narratives. From this viewpoint, places are open to change as internal and external relations evolve.  

Place is an essential subject in urban research and a crucial challenge in contemporary city-making. Scholars in different disciplines agree on the central role of spaces’ cultural, relational and social components, recognising that place and people should be at the heart of planning (Cresswell, 2004). This vision represents the founding nucleus of placemaking, a collaborative, place-based and community-centred approach aimed at transforming built environments into vibrant places by enhancing local resources and caring for people’s needs and desires.

References

Agnew, J. (2011). Space and place. In J. Agnew & D. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of geographical knowledge (pp. 316-330). SAGE.

Augé, M. (1992). Non-lieux. Introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité. Editions du Seuil.

Cox, H. (1968). The restoration of a sense of place: A theological reflection on the visual environment. Ekistics, 25, 151, 1968, pp. 422-424.

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Blackwell.

De Certeau, M. (1990). L’invention du quotidien. L’arts de faire. Editions Gallimard.

Gans, H. J. (2002). A sociology of space: A use-centered view. City & Community, 1(4), 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6040.00027

Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463-496. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.463

Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: SAGE.

Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place. The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press.

Andrés Walliser, Complutense University of Madrid

Definition

In general, social infrastructure refers to the spaces, institutions, and services that facilitate social interaction, community well-being, and social cohesion. This aspect includes libraries, parks, community centres, schools, public transportation, hospitals, and other spaces where people can gather, interact, and build relationships. Social infrastructure is key to strengthening the social fabric and fostering resilient communities.

According to Eric Klingenberg, in his book Palaces for People (2018), social infrastructures are defined as:

“The physical and organizational spaces that shape the way people interact. It is the infrastructure that fosters human connections and strengthens communities.”

Klingenberg argues that social infrastructure not only improves the quality of life but is also essential to addressing social problems such as inequality, isolation, and polarization.

Background information and contemporary debate

Klingenberg has generated a broad debate around the importance of social infrastructure in contemporary societies. The author argues that investing in social infrastructure can be an effective solution to problems such as loneliness, social fragmentation, and inequality. This has led to debates about whether governments and institutions are sufficiently prioritizing this type of investment over more traditional infrastructure, such as roads or commercial buildings.

In Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago (1995), the author analyses how social infrastructure can save lives in crises, such as natural disasters. For example, he mentions how neighbourhoods with strong social infrastructure (such as libraries or community centres) tend to be more resilient to extreme events. This has generated debates about how to plan more resilient cities in the context of climate change, as well as new propositions for more livable cities, such as the 15-Minute City or the City of Care. 

Social infrastructures contribute to fighting inequality and make neighbourhoods more integrated. The lack of social infrastructure in disadvantaged communities perpetuates inequality. This has led to discussions about the need for public policies that guarantee equitable access to these spaces. A good example is public libraries, which inspired the title of the book Palaces for People. 

As with the concept of third places (Oldenburg, 1989), social infrastructure spaces can serve as “neutral grounds” where people from different backgrounds and political perspectives can interact and form connections. This has sparked debates about whether these spaces can truly overcome political divides in highly polarized societies. 

In short, Palaces for People has brought the importance of social infrastructure to the forefront of the debate as an essential component for building stronger, more resilient, and equitable communities. It has also raised questions about how to fund it, prioritize it, and ensure universal access in an increasingly unequal world.

References

Klinenberg, E. (2003). Heat wave: A social autopsy of disaster in Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. Crown Publishing Group.

Sabine Weck, Ils Research Ggmbh 

Definition 

For a long time, academic research on innovation was mainly associated with the market sector. In recent years, however, our understanding of the innovation process has evolved, shifting beyond a primarily economic perspective to a more comprehensive concept that encompasses key actors and the nature of innovation. Thus, social entrepreneurs and civil society are also understood as producers or co-producers of innovation. The process of innovation is understood as a cross-sectoral one, creating value where the boundaries between the economic and social spheres are blurred, for example, through new coordination and governance mechanisms. The participatory and capacity-building aspects, as well as the understanding of a participatory society, directly or indirectly underpin social innovation in regional development thinking. Social innovation actors and processes draw on existing social capital and new, participatory and/or collaborative approaches to address a perceived social need or gap in local service provision and/or to respond to wider transformation challenges.

Background information and contemporary debate 

In recent decades, social innovation has emerged as a significant area of research across various disciplines, including management, economics, urban and regional development, and political science. In the context of profound transformations—whether due to climate change, economic crises, or social challenges—social innovation can play a crucial role in facilitating adaptation, resilience, and sustainable development. There are various streams of scholarship on social innovation, some more agentic-centred and others with a more structural perspective (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Moulaert et al., 2017). Authors have defined social innovations as more effective and efficient novel solutions (products, services, models) to meet social and societal needs (Phillis et al., 2008; Mulgan et al., 2007). Moulaert et al. (2005: 1976) emphasise governance and participation aspects and point to three dimensions of social innovation for local development, both analytical and normative, which are interrelated: the satisfaction of unmet human needs, new forms of governance and (civil society) participation, and an increase in society’s socio-political capability and capacity to act. Questions remain about the scalability and transferability of (small-scale) social innovations. However, authors have argued that social innovations can be transformative and support systemic change, as they can challenge and gradually replace dominant institutions in response to social needs and societal challenges (Avelino et al., 2019).

References

Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S. & O’Riordan, T. (2019). Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.0020

Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008

Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1669-1990

Moulaert, F., Mehmood, A., MacCallum, D., & Leubolt, B. (2017). Social innovation as a trigger for innovations. The role of research. Luxembourg. 

Phills Jr., J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.48558/GBJY-GJ47

Silvia De Nardis, Sapienza University of Rome 

Definition

Space generally refers to an objective and tangible portion of reality described as a concrete extension of visible matter endowed with volume, surface area, size or weight, in which people and objects are usually located. However, space is not reduced to a simple collection or container of material elements, neither as a motionless nor static repository for human activities. Spatiality is achieved by an organisation of the co-existence of physical and intangible features, such as values, memories, and identities, and the interrelation of global and local factors that are constantly under construction (Massey, 2005). Space is a social phenomenon, representing a resource for social action and a relational context that hosts social interaction while participating in society’s organisation and development. It is not merely a reflection of social structure but the expression of a historical combination of interacting elements and structures (Soja, 1980). At the same time, space is a socially constructed representation resulting from human practices and an active driver of social change, affecting behaviours and public choices.

Background information and contemporary debate 

In recent decades, a growing interest in the spatial dimension of social phenomena has emerged, contributing to a redefinition of the concept of space itself. Far from considering space in purely geometric and abstract terms, a flourishing field of research focuses on space as a field of intertwined tangible and intangible elements, giving strength to a spatial analysis sensitive to social processes.

In a pioneering way, in the early 1990s, George Simmel (1908) defined space as a significant human activity whose value derives from its capacity to “put in relation” and create forms of association and reciprocity in social life. A few decades later, Henri Lefebvre (1974) explores the idea of ​​“social space” as a producer and product of the dynamics internal to society, using a prolific conceptual triad that includes “spatial practice” (spatially experienced and concretised social formations), “representation of space” (conceptualised by technical and specialised scientists, planners, architects), “representational spaces” (lived and sometimes redesigned by inhabitants and users through symbols, images and codes). Humanistic geography, as a critique of modernism, is concerned with the relationship between space and place, introducing analytical categories such as perceptual, existential, architectural, planning, cognitive, or abstract space (Relph, 1976). Space is also explained as a field of control, conflict and contestation. From a critical theory perspective, Michel Foucault (1984) defines it as a power device and David Harvey (1989) goes in the same direction, underlining the profound correlation between space and neo-capitalist economy. Furthermore, due to globalisation, the dematerialisation of many human activities and technical advancement, space is also defined as a “space of flows” (Castells, 1996) in a network society that influences the modes of social interaction and spatiality, questioning the most consolidated relationships between people and places.

From this brief literature review, an understanding of space as a multidimensional domain emerges, along with its complex relationship with the social world. Since the 1980s, the idea of ​​a “spatial turn” within the Social Sciences and Humanities has been recognised in academia (see Massey, 2005 for a comprehensive review). A common opinion among sociologists, geographers, and urban planners is that space should be explored analytically and addressed practically, considering a relational and dialogic approach (Fuller & Löw, 2017). The issue of space—how it is produced, who produces it, what feedback it entails for social life, and how mutual influences occur—is an ever-open field of study because of its deep, intimate, and historically situated correlation with a changing social world. The assumption of space as a cohabitation of ever-in-the-making material, political, economic, cultural, social, and symbolic influences invites us to adopt a distinctive way of thinking in analytical and empirical work that is specifically socio-spatial. 

References

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Blackwell.

Foucault, M. (1984). Des espaces autres, “Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité”, 5, October 1984.

Fuller, M. G., & Löw, M. (2017). Introduction: An invitation to spatial sociology. Current Sociology, 65(4), 469-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392117697461

Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An inquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell. 

Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l’espace. Anthropos.

Massey, D. (2005). For space. SAGE.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.

Simmel, G (1997). The sociology of space. In D. Frisby & M. Featherstone (Eds.), Simmel on culture (pp. 137–170). SAGE.

Soja, E. (1980). The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 70(2), 207-225. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2562950

Rossana Galdini, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

Temporary uses represent experimental and innovative solutions to give new life to vacant buildings and unused spaces while conserving their historical, identity and environmental value. These spaces become sites for co-creation practices, unlocking many innovative cultural, social, and entrepreneurial activities, including place-making and support of collaborative practices. Temporary uses are operational strategies that can create new interpretations and formalisations of urban spaces (Galdini, 2019).

Temporality reflects the contemporary utilitarian notion of time, society’s fragmentation, and the need for experimentation and innovation. Temporary urbanism emphasises the role of new actors who are promoters and beneficiaries in shaping places (Henneberry, 2017).

The large number of “temporarily out of use” urban spaces represents potential waiting spaces, i.e., spaces waiting to be turned into opportunity places. These exceptional fragments of the city (De Smet, 2013), functioning as nodes of difference and change, become triggers for urban innovation. The temporary nature of these transformations allows citizens to engage creatively with urban living solutions, involving them in shaping their city’s future (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012). By enabling the assignment of new functions and meanings, the temporary reutilization of under-utilised spaces can strategically foster local development while promoting an integrated approach to broader urban regeneration processes.

As a specific type of spatial planning, temporary uses facilitate dialogue among various public, private, and civil society actors.

In addition to a conservation-oriented approach that seeks to preserve heritage and site-specific identity, temporary uses are conceived as a holistic, integrated strategy that enhances the creativity and resilience of contemporary cities in terms of spatial, social, environmental, and economic conditions.

Background information and contemporary debate

In the past, the term temporary use identified any action that uses a place other than its common use for some time. However, recently, the concept has been defined as those uses that imply a development orientation, i.e., the capacity to explore further potential of the places they are located. Once the binary between temporary and permanent is established, temporary urbanism can be considered a new method for improving urban life quality and putting dialogue across and between professional urban developers and local actor groups into practice.

The spread of urban reuse practices testifies to an emerging innovative approach in which temporary uses are conceived as a holistic, integrated strategy that enhances the creativity and resilience of contemporary cities’ spatial, social, environmental and economic conditions. Temporary urbanism activates a space in need of transformation and has an impact on the surrounding socio-economic environment. The key concepts are time and temporality. This latter defines the contemporary utilitarian notion of time, the fragmentation of society, and the need for experimentation and innovation. Temporary urbanism also includes temporary, informal, and, above all, bottom-up practices. 

Starting from the late 1980s, areas in between have become the subject of several studies and subsequent categorisations. They are considered critical, such as lost spaces (Trancik, 1986), critical spaces, vague terrain, and areas that lie outside urban dynamics (De Solà Morales, 1996). Voids have the potential to become full of meaning, functions, opportunities, and identity. 

Reusing these spaces presents an opportunity to test projects, verify their effectiveness, and make them permanent with the user’s cooperation.  In the last decades, temporary uses have become central and strategic components of urban planning, development and management, with clear input in urban cultural and social policies. Although they may be viewed as transitory and isolated projects, the incremental changes in these practices can form part of a broader, integrated urban regeneration strategy that negotiates between past, present and future development (Galdini, 2020).

References

De Smet, A. (2013). The role of temporary use in urban (re)development: Examples from Brussels. Brussels Studies, 72. https://doi.org/10.4000/brussels.1196

De Solà Morales, I. (1996). Presentey futuros. La arquitectura en las ciudades. Actar.

Galdini, R. (2020). Temporary uses in contemporary spaces. A European project in Rome. Cities, 96 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102445

Henneberry, J. (2017). Transience and permanence in urban development. Wyle & Sons.

Lehtovuori, P., & Ruoppila, S. (2012). Temporary uses as means of experimental urban planning. SAJ Serbian Architectural Journal, 4(1), 29-54. 

Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Andrés Walliser, Complutense University of Madrid

Definition

Introduced by American sociologist Ray Oldenburg in his book “The Great Good Place” (1989). In 2001, he published the sequel Celebrating the Good Place (2001). This term refers to informal social spaces that are neither home (the first place) nor work (the second place), but which play a crucial role in community life and the construction of social relationships.

Third places are spaces where people can meet, interact, and socialize in a spontaneous and relaxed manner. These places foster a sense of community, social cohesion, and the exchange of ideas and are fundamental to individual and collective well-being.

Main characteristics of third places (Oldenburg, 1989):

Accessibility and neutrality: They are spaces open to all, where people feel comfortable and are not subject to social hierarchies.

Inclusiveness: They do not require exclusive memberships or specific conditions for participation.

Conversation is a primary activity: social interaction and dialogue are at the core of these spaces.

Spontaneity: Meetings and activities are not strictly/necessarily planned.

Relaxed atmosphere: These are informal places where people can be themselves.

Presence of “regulars”: Although they are open to all, they usually have a base of regular attendees who create a sense of familiarity. 

Playful character: They promote an atmosphere of fun and relaxation.

Some examples of third places include coffee shops, bars, libraries, public squares, parks, beauty salons, and other community spaces.

Background information and contemporary debate

As mentioned, Oldenburg is the principal author and creator of the concept. His work “The Great Good Place” (1989) and its sequel, “Celebrating the Third Place” (2001), are the fundamental references for understanding this concept—other authors before have referred to similar ideas as the ones contained in the notion of third place. 

Jane Jacobs does not use the term “third place” in her book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” (1961), but she highlights the importance of public spaces and social interactions in urban life, which relates to the idea of ​​third places.

Some years before, Erving Goffman discussed social interaction and “meeting spaces” in “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” (1959), a relevant work to understanding how people relate to each other in informal settings.

Finally, Robert Putnam, in his book “Bowling Alone: ​​The Collapse and Revival of American Community” (2000), analyzes the decline of community life in the United States and the importance of social spaces for social capital, which complements the idea of ​​third places.

There has been a debate surrounding the concept of third place and social infrastructure, as developed by Eric Klinenberg in his book “Palaces for People” (2018).

Third places can be considered a subset of social infrastructure. For example, a library or a park can function as both a third place (where people gather informally) and as part of the broader social infrastructure (providing resources and services to the community). Both concepts emphasise the importance of physical spaces in fostering social connections; however, social infrastructure takes a more systemic and policy-oriented view, while third places focus on the lived experience of social interaction.

References

Oldenburg, R (2001). Celebrating the Third Place. Inspiring stories about the “Great Good Places” at the heart of our communities. ARROW. 

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community (2nd ed.). Berkshire Publishing Group LLC.

Manuel Fernández-García, Pablo de Olavide University

Definition

Urban commons are spaces collectively managed or infrastructures within cities governed and reproduced by communities for mutual benefit. These may include parks, community gardens, housing cooperatives, cultural spaces, squatted social centres or care infrastructures. Unlike public goods provided solely by the state or private commodities regulated by markets, urban commons are based on self-organisation, collective management, and participatory governance.

The concept expands traditional interpretations of the commons, moving beyond natural or rural settings to the complex and diverse contexts of urban life. Urban commons are shaped by negotiation and conflict between multiple actors, including residents, social movements, public institutions, and private entities. Urban commons serve as spaces of cooperation and solidarity, enabling urban communities to maintain social ties, adopt ecological practices, and develop alternative economies. They contest commodification, privatisation, and spatial exclusion processes, contributing to the ongoing struggle for the “right to the city.”

Background information and contemporary debate

Urban commons draw on broader theories of commons governance (Ostrom, 1990) and engage directly with debates on neoliberal urbanisation and socio-spatial inequalities (Blanco et al., 2018). Scholars increasingly frame urban commons as a “third logic” beyond market and state, focusing on self-management, participatory democracy, and non-extractive economies (Dellenbaugh et al., 2015).

Authors such as Huron (2017) and Borch and Kornberger (2015) argue that urban commons are defined not only by their spatial location but also by how urban diversity and interaction produce relational values and shape collective governance. In this sense, the city is not merely a container of commons but an active medium where social practices enhance or transform shared resources.

Despite their potential, urban commons face multiple tensions. Internally, they confront dilemmas around governance and inclusion: balancing openness with sustainability and ensuring equitable participation without reinforcing internal hierarchies. Externally, commons are exposed to risks of exclusion and co-optation by institutional or market-driven agendas and challenges to their long-term sustainability when relying on unstable resources or informal arrangements. These tensions are further deepened by what Martínez (2020) highlights as the danger of depoliticisation when urban commons are reduced to managerial tools, limiting their capacity to challenge capitalist urbanisation. Similarly, the discourse of commons may be mobilised to justify austerity and state withdrawal.

Additionally, there are tensions related to scale: while urban commons often thrive locally, replicating or coordinating them across broader urban systems may weaken their participatory nature or autonomy. Depending on these dynamics, urban commons may foster democratic innovation, or they can be absorbed into institutional governance mechanisms that reproduce existing power relations.

Urban commoning, therefore, is a process of cooperation, negotiation, and conflict. As Hardt and Negri (2009) suggest, urban commons are not only shared resources but also spaces where collective action reshapes urban life—especially in times of ecological and social crises, when they have become central to debates on urban justice, care infrastructures, and the right to the city.

References

Borch, C., & Kornberger, M. (Eds.). (2015). Urban commons: Rethinking the city. Routledge.

Blanco, I., Gomà, R., & Subirats, J. (2018). El nuevo municipalismo: derecho a la ciudad y comunes urbanos. Gestión y Análisis de Políticas Públicas, 20, 14-28.

Dellenbaugh, M., Kip, M., Bieniok, M., Müller, A., & Schwegmann, M. (Eds.). (2015). Urban commons: Moving beyond state and market. Birkhäuser.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Harvard University Press.

Huron, A. (2017). Theorising the urban commons: New thoughts, tensions and paths forward. Urban Studies, 54(4), 1062-1069.

Martínez, M. A. (2020). Urban commons from an anti-capitalist approach. Participation and Conflict, 13(3), 1390-1410.

Fabio Giglioni, Sapienza University of Rome

Definition

Urban regeneration is a complex process aimed at satisfying general interests, open to the participation and active collaboration of citizens, and focused on caring for managing urban spaces that have lost their original function, either due to degradation or because they have fallen into partial or complete disuse, with the goal of generating utility and social well-being. Unlike simple urban reuse, urban regeneration does not limit itself to the restructuring of buildings, but adopts an integrated approach aimed at improving the quality of life for residents, in the context of sustainable development. 

Urban regeneration can be seen as a cross-cutting goal for achieving integrated sustainable development objectives in its environmental, social, and economic dimensions, also promoting integration among different cultures by creating inclusive public spaces to encourage interactions between communities.  

At the international level, urban regeneration is linked to sustainable development goals and it’s useful to fight against climate change, making regeneration a fundamental tool for improving the quality of life in urban areas worldwide.

Goal 11 of the 2030 Agenda takes inclusivity as a central goal, aiming for the creation of “sustainable cities and communities.” At the same time, the 2016 Amsterdam Pact for the EU Urban Agenda identified challenges for urban areas, which serve as guidelines for urban policies, contributing to their strengthening from the local to the European level. The “Intercultural Cities Programme,” launched in 2008 by the Council of Europe, is a significant example, as it encourages cities to promote public urban policies through intercultural dialogue.

Tate Modern in London is another important example of urban cultural regeneration for collective use. This transformation project is an excellent example of the regeneration of an historic industrial site, the Bankside Power station, which was a disused industrial area, into a space for collective use, accessible and focused on culture. This example illustrates how an intervention on an historical cultural area can transform an entire urban area, offering a cultural resource, which is educational and engaging for the local and international communities.  

Furthermore, a model of proactive participation in urban regeneration can be identified, focusing on citizen initiatives in the management of urban common goods. This model is centered on the principle of collaboration, according to which public administrations should support citizens’ autonomous initiatives for managing spaces of common interest.

In the considerations about urban development, the concept of sustainability should be broadened, adding a fourth dimension, namely inclusiveness to the classical three dimensions, environmental, social, and economic.

Background information and contemporary debate 

Urban regeneration policies have sometimes been seen as the urban incarnation of the neo-liberal turn in urban policies from the 1980s onwards. These so-called “area-based policies” are based on specific programs designed to tackle social and urban problems in an area identified on the basis of economical and socio-spatial indicators.  The way in which these policies are applied and the balance between social and political issues vary from country to country and from program to program, and may evolve over time. In France, for example, the 2003 launch of the PNRU (national program for urban renewal) marked a shift in urban reservation policies towards a spatial approach. The policies initiated by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and subsequently implemented in France and the United States, aim to transform certain neighbourhoods by reintegrating them into the local real estate markets, known as “market-led regeneration”. These policies, which affect working-class neighbourhoods, clearly assert a desire to deconcentrate poverty by attracting new, higher-income social classes and spreading poverty more widely across the city. This dynamic of social change, referred to as gentrification, has been the subject of an abundance of scientific literature, which has highlighted the role played by artists and cultural players in these transformations – with varying degrees of support from public policy, depending on the context. The emergence of new cultural venues in certain so-called “underprivileged” neighbourhoods may be the starting point or one of the signs of an ongoing gentrification process, which does not therefore aim to involve existing residents whom we hope to bring in through urban regeneration projects.  

References

Anderssin, R., & Mustard, S. (2005). Area-based policies: a critical appraisal. Tijdschfrit voor economische en sociale geographie, 96(4), 377-389.  

Calabrò, M. (2024). Participatory urban regeneration models: the inclusive dimension of sustainability. Nuove Autonomie, 1-2.

Di Lascio, F., & Giglioni, F. (2017). La rigenerazione di spazi e beni urbani. Il Mulino.

Giusti, A. (2018). La rigenerazione urbana. Editoriale scientifica.

Kirszbaum, T. (2018). La rénovation urbaine aux Etats-Unis: une politique néolibérale? Métropolitiques, 26 mars. https://metropolitiques.eu/La-renovation-urbaine-aux-Etats-Unis-une-politique-neoliberale.html

Mari, C. (2021). Rigenerazione urbana e città informali nel contesto europeo. Federalismi, 27/2021, 56.

Pattaroni, L. (2020). Art, Espace et politique dans la ville gentrifiée. La contre-culture domestiquée. MétisPresses.

Primerano, G.A. (2022). Il consumo di suolo e la rigenerazione urbana. Editoriale scientifica.

Pinson, G. & Morel Journel, C. (2016). The neoliberal city. Theory, evidence, debates. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(2), 137‑153.

Angelo Bertoni, École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Strasbourg 

Definition 

An urban wasteland typically refers to areas within a city that are neglected, underused, abandoned, or degraded. These spaces often include vacant lots, derelict buildings, disused industrial sites, and areas left behind by urban decline or failed development. They may appear desolate or overgrown and are often perceived as unproductive or unsafe, though they can also be seen as opportunities for regeneration or ecological renewal. 

Background information and contemporary debate 

The professional practices of certain architects had already demonstrated, since the pioneering work of Alison and Peter Smithson during the 1960s and 1970s, an interest in building urban wasteland, considering the ‘void’ material within the design process (Smithson & Smithson, 2001, 2005). The proposals by Rem Koolhaas and his firm OMA for the Parc de la Villette competition in Paris (1982) and the redevelopment of the Melun-Sénart town centre (1987) illustrated the contextual dimension of the void, which had become an operative tool in the dialectical relationship between site and project. This aspect has led to a diversified use of terms such as wasteland, brownfield, void, interstice, or residual space, often treated as synonyms to describe urban—or even architectural—spaces that are minor, forgotten, or marginal yet possess significant potential for the city’s future. These types of spaces, frequently enclosed and thus removed from view, constitute both a site of resistance to the regulated and homogenised urban fabric and a site for expressing needs that are unmet by proposed transformations (Groth & Corijn, 2005). Such transitional spaces are often accompanied by stigma or negative preconceptions, associated more with marginality than with freedom of expression or the experimentation of new urban practices. Spatial and temporal dimensions may help to better understand and distinguish among them. The duration of vacancy varies greatly depending on the complexity of the projects intended to fill these urban voids—voids that urban stakeholders often struggle to define or even name. Legal frameworks appear insufficient, as do analytical tools capable of identifying and characterising these spaces, which are often residues of past planning operations or vanished activities. Urban wastelands are increasingly emerging as privileged grounds for such experimental practices. They may thus serve as the starting point for a collective reflection on the city’s future—one that can lead to the formulation of a shared urban project. These vacant spaces appear, in this sense, to offer places of freedom and expression for urban dwellers, preserving the essential qualities of public space—qualities that are increasingly threatened by normative, and at times restrictive, approaches to urban governance, potentially losing their flexibility of use (Franck & Stevens, 2007). Architectural and urban wastelands have often given rise to a specific artistic and architectural imagination. Several types of approaches can be observed. Some imagine scenographic uses based on the specific poetics of the sites for often ephemeral transformations (shows, concerts, rave parties.). Others develop new architectural styles through more permanent transformations that are often flexible and transformable. The transformation of the former Pompeïa factory in Sâo Paulo in 1977 by the Italian architect Lina Bo Bardi is an emblematic example of how rational industrial architecture was turned into a ‘dream factory’ and turned into a ‘living, vibrant body’ in the megalopolis (Lextrait, 2023). Urban wastelands can also respond to the social demand for urban nature, contributing to residents’ well-being, environmental education, urban biodiversity, and the development of green networks (Di Pietro & Robert A., 2021).

References 

Di Pietro, F. & Robert A. (Eds.) (2021). Urban wastelands as a form of urban nature. Springer. 

Franck, K., & Stevens, Q. (Eds.) (2007). Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. Routledge. 

Groth, J., & Corijn, E. (2005). Reclaiming urbanity: Indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda setting. Urban Studies, 42/3, 503-526. 

Hatzfeld, H., Hatzfeld, M. & Ringart, N. (1998). Quand la marge est créatrice: les interstices urbains initiateurs d’emploi. Éditions de l’Aube. 

Lextrait, F. (2023). Architecture. In M.-P. Bouchardy, & F. Lextrait (Eds.), (un) abécédaire des friches, laboratoires. Fabriques, squats, espaces intermédiaires, tiers-lieux culturels, Sens & Tonka.  

Smithson, A. & Smithson, P. (2001). The charged void: Architecture. The Monacelli Press. 

Smithson, A. & Smithson, P. (2005). The charged void: Urbanism. The Monacelli Press.