Groups of people or geographical areas can face barriers to accessing culture; existing cultural offers may not include the stories or cultural forms which reach out to current populations. To address these challenges, eight European capital cities have come together through URBACT to form the ACCESS network. Each participating city has committed to working together to include more people in and through culture and to adapting their approach to policymaking to make this happen.
Amsterdam [NL], Dublin [IE], Lisbon [PT], London [UK], Sofia [BG], Talinn [EE], Riga [LV] and Vilnius [LT] each have rich and vibrant cultural offers but have each identified challenges specific to their cities in making their cultural offers more inclusive. In Riga, for example, 70% of all cultural institutions are concentrated in just two of 58 of the city’s neighbourhoods. Amsterdam, now a ‘majority minority’ city (ie most of the population is from a minority ethnic group), culture has not fully adapted to the demographic change. Tallinn has identified a knowledge gap such that they have no qualitative evidence that the city’s cultural offer is actually meeting people’s needs and contributing to wellbeing. Each city found resonance in the others’ challenges. Collectively, the network has therefore identified three areas of common need: to widen participation, to spread cultural infrastructure more equitably across the city and to improve data collection and use around cultural participation.
They have also identified a new approach to policymaking as a central requirement. As Araf Ahmadali, Senior Policy Advisor for Arts and Culture, City of Amsterdam said, “We have to start with a recognition that as civil servants we don’t know all the answers; we’re not at the head of the table, we’re part of the table.” Work to deliver cultural inclusion needed to be genuinely inclusive: not culture for everyone, but culture with everyone.
“Everything we do is based on conversation” Tracy Geraghty, Dublin City Culture Company
Discussions between the partner cities and invited local stakeholders at the inaugural meeting of the ACCESS network in Amsterdam in September identified five key aspects of an inclusive approach to cultural policymaking:
- an ongoing conversation: discussion about culture in the city should be continuous, not occasional. As Tracy Geraghty explained, this is already the cornerstone of the Dublin City Culture Company’s ‘tea and chat’ model of programme development: “Everything we do is based on conversation; we don’t do anything without having spoken to the communities we serve first.”
- be open and accessible: make it easy for people and organisations to get in touch
- listen and learn: many people and organisations have experience of how to share culture more widely and are keen to share their expertise
- reconsider their city ‘centre’: if a different area was the city centre, what cultural offer would you expect to see there? what institutions and support would it need?
- challenge existing definitions: what is talent? what is quality? what is culture? Policymakers must be open to new and different definitions.
Each city has committed to developing this approach for their own cultural policymaking.
The ACCESS network will continue to collaborate and share ideas and practice over the next two years as each city develops its own Action Plan for ‘culture with everyone.’ More policy and practice ideas from the network will be shared in future blogs.
Women and men experience and use the city and its resources and services differently; however gender equality is often not part an explicit part of the consideration behind urban policy and planning, despite the fact that it is a significant factor in the equitable design and delivery of public spaces and services. Moreover, many of the methods for working with gender equality are “one size fits all.” However, the barriers to implementing gender sensitive policies vary widely across contexts as a result of different local policy frameworks, administrative structures, and degrees of openness to the topic of gender. In the URBACT GenderedLandscape Action Planning Network, the seven partners’ common work will therefore focus on two topics: increasing the visibility of the gendered perspective in integrated urban development and the local contextualization and interpretation of tools and approaches for reducing gender inequality in urban policy and development.
To do this, the network will employ the URBACT method, taking an integrated and participative approach to urban challenges with a focus on transnational exchange and learning. Co-learning and peer exchange on the network level will be translated into integrated action plans on the local level and contribute to capacity building among city administrators.
Gender + Equal + Cities
Despite the fact that gender equality has been a fundamental tenet of EU policy since the 1990s and has been explicitly included in United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda, policy implementation on the local and regional levels lags behind. Cities as public organizations have an extremely important role to play in creating conditions for gender equality. In order to do this, however, there needs to be a holistic understanding of how gender inequality is created by the combination of specific local conditions, including social norms, political and administrative structures, and the built space itself.
The starting point for creating public services that are user-sensitive and promote inclusion instead of exclusion is being aware of and taking into consideration the experiences of different groups as well as an understanding of how gendered power structures affect the way women and men feel about, use, and access the city. For example, how fear of violence can unequally restrict urban mobility, the gender segregated labour market and its implications for infrastructure and public transportation, and stereotypical expectations and prescriptive norms regarding responsibility for unpaid care work, just to mention a few examples. The physical structures of the city and public service design can work towards ensuring equal rights and opportunities for both genders, with a focus on ameliorating the negative effects of gender norms, but only when these are a visible, conscious element of planning.
Photo 3: Gender-responsive policies and spaces are only possible if gender is considered during decision-making.
Global, Local, Glocal?
The seven partners will explore both the global and local expressions of gendered power structures and use knowledge gained at the local level to inform and improve policy instruments on the global level. The first step in this process was to analyse the gap between policy and delivery for each city. At the kick-off meeting in Umea on 10 & 11 October 2019, the partners used a gender mainstreaming self-assessment canvas designed for the event to start thinking, among other things, about the political commitment, existing implementation plans, data, and dedicated resources related to their local challenge. These aspects will be examined in more detail during the partner visits over the coming three months.
Photo 4: At the kick-off meeting, partners performed a self-analysis using a canvas designed for the exercise.
We are excited to begin this journey together! You can keep up with our network’s and URBACT’s work on gender equality by following the hashtags #genderequalcities and #genderedlandscape or by subscribing to URBACT’s newsletter.
Ten European cities join forces in the new ‘Thriving Streets’ network. Their approach: transform streets to create people-friendly places, encourage walking and cycling, and reduce car-dependency. In this way they work on a more healthy, attractive, accessible, inclusive and thriving future of their cities.
On September 14th, a remarkable transformation takes place in the Via della Salute in Parma, Italy. For one day, citizens clear the street from the cars that usually dominate the space. Their place is taken instead by huge tables, set for a dinner to host about 200 people from the neighbourhood. As the neighbours start to prepare the event, kids come out of their houses, and started using the street as their playground. Like birds that feel as if spring is coming, the kids just feel it is their time to claim the space.
Two weeks later, Patrizia Marani introduces an international delegation to the street and the wider neighbourhood. The visit is part of the kick-off meeting of the Thriving Streets network, of which Patrizia (working for the Municipality of Parma) is the coordinator. To her, the dinner event is a clear example how the use of streets can encourage social cohesion, create a positive dynamic and increase attractiveness. The next two years, Parma will commit to work together with citizens, shop owners and local organizations to spark a similar dynamic in the whole neighbourhood of Oltretorrente.
PHOTO 1: Neighbourhood Dinner in Via della Salute, Parma. Photo by Annarita Melegari
Thriving streets: Thriving Local Economy and Thriving Communities
Each of the partners in the Thriving Streets is exploring how sustainable mobility can lead to local economic and social benefits, by putting people central in the design and use of streets. All these 10 European cities have their own, yet related, challenge as focus. For Parma, the issue can be illustrated with a picture of a street with many empty shops. A depressing sight, but a reality in many cities across Europe. The local shops are challenged by the development of shopping malls and more recently online shopping. By making the streets attractive for people, the (economic) activity can prosper again.
How to strengthen the local economy in city centres and neighbourhoods, and increase their attractivity? This question is key also for other partners. The cities of Klaipeda (Lithuania) and Radom (Poland) are focussing for this question on the historic city centres. The cities of Nova Gorica (Slovenia) and Antwerp (Belgium) instead focus on off-centre neighbourhoods.
Questions of inclusivity also arise when creating thriving streets, for example about how the public space could lessen gender-inequality or how to overcome transport poverty. The cities of Igoumenitsa (Greece) and Santo Tirso (Portugal) identified youth as a vulnerable and underrepresented group. Together with schools, they will work on child-friendly school environments and safe commuting. This means overcoming cultural barriers for the acceptance of walking and cycling by both children and their parents, as well as playing into the health benefits of active mobility.
For the district of Southwark, London (UK), the target is also inclusivity, but focussed on local businesses. Planned developments in the area will bring about 27,000 new homes and 26,000 new jobs. The traffic flowing through a strategic route, Lower Road, competes with the needs of the local neighbourhood. Communities are left disjointed with poor active travel access to local shops. How to make sure the ‘old’ local businesses and communities will not be left out?
Starting point in all cities is a specific street or neighbourhood. The impact of the interventions developed at such place goes beyond its limited spatial scale. The local changes give rise to changing mobility flows in the city, can shake up engrained behaviour patterns, and go hand in hand with improvement of public transport on city level. Two partners in the Thriving Streets network focus on the relation between pedestrianization of the city centre and the related changes in mobility patterns. Not surprisingly, these are both metropolitan authorities, from Debrecen and Oradea.
PHOTO 2: Cycling classes in Santo Tirso – photo by Municipality of Santo Tirso
Working together to make Thriving Streets happen
How attractive the ambition of turning streets into thriving streets might seem, the process is not an easy matter, of course. So… how?
First of all, it is about getting different perspectives and domains on board in the development. Creating thriving streets is not just about mobility or spatial planning, but also very much about health, local economy, social cohesion, equal opportunities, etc. It can help to make benefits of such transformation explicit, by empowering the people who will benefit to raise their voice. It can also be worth trying to translate benefits into ‘hard’ indicators, such as growth in customers or increase in social contacts in a street.
Equally, to get many people to contribute to and support the transformation, a lot of effort will go to co-creation. This helps overcome resistance. Too often, politicians and other decision makers drop their support to ambitious transformations as soon as they are confronted with angry and vocative local business-owners or car-users, who feel passed over. Most importantly, co-creative methods help to create better solutions by tapping into local knowledge and linking to the ambitions and energy of different stakeholders. The example of the dinner-activity in Parma is just one of many.
Join our learning journey
In the coming years, the ten cities involved will work together with local stakeholders on their respective ambitions, sharing a common base: creating thriving streets for a thriving city. The cities will go on a learning journey together, exchanging experiences and inspiration. We don’t start from scratch, but build on the existing experiences of cities around Europe, and take inspiration from other projects such as Living Streets and Happy Streets.
If you want to stay up to date or share your own experiences, please join our learning journey. You can express your interest and subscribe for updates by sending an e-mail to p.marani@comune.parma.it.
PHOTO 3: The city teams involved in Thriving Streets – photo by Municipality of Parma
This URBACT III project is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. Thanks to Nena Bode (DRIFT) for contributing to this article, and the partner cities for their inputs.
City Councillor Kieran McCarthy is a living link between the everyday challenges of his hometown, Cork (IE) – and the international machinery of European policy-making. With a PhD in Geography and a passion for local heritage corkheritage.ie, he is the Committee of the Regions (CoR) rapporteur on the EU Urban Agenda, and a strong advocate for improving Europe’s cities through practical local actions and cooperation.
As a partner in the URBACT Playful Paradigm network, Councillor McCarthy’s city organises pop-up playgrounds in places like temporarily pedestrian streets, public buildings, or empty plots – promoting inclusion, health and sustainability.
Back from a spin on his motor scooter photographing local landmarks for his latest book, Councillor McCarthy found a moment to answer our questions.
Kieran McCarthy (KMC) - What I like about URBACT is that it’s down to earth. It’s like a stepping stone: if you want to do European projects, this is the place to start – there’s a lot of support.
I’ve been looking at the letters that make up URBACT and I know it's not an acronym, but I was thinking what the letters could stand for…
It would be the ‘U’ for about ‘Us’. It’s a citizens oriented programme. We’ve had a new bridge constructed with EU funds in our city… but more people here have heard about URBACT and Playful Paradigm than anything else.
I’d say the ‘R’ in URBACT stands for dealing with very ‘Real’ problems, even at the broader scale of EU politics.
‘B’ would be for ‘Belief’. The URBACT facilitators I’ve met over the years have a real belief that these projects are going to make a difference: “You can go home with ideas from this workshop and you can roll them out in the morning!”
‘A’ would be for ‘Action’. When people go into an URBACT project or workshop they’re working hard to figure out a problem. They return to their hometown with new ideas, vision, collboration skills... that they apply to actionable local projects. URBACT has a fantastic methodology to do that.
‘C’ for ‘Collaboration’. With the Committee of the Regions I’ve done workshops across the EU, on different themes from the Urban Agenda to the digital single market… Some cities are great at collaborating, and some aren’t. It’s not easy to bring people together round a table and suddenly say “talk !”: you need a methodology. URBACT gets people listening and learning from each other.
‘T’ could be for ‘Toolkits’- that I’m a big fan of. All the URBACT projects and toolkits are online at urbact.eu. A lot of local authorities don’t actually realise that.
Recently I was involved in a debate in my own council chamber on dereliction in the city, looking for ideas on how to reboot derelict sites: I quoted from an URBACT document, and it was published in the local newspaper.
I’m passionate about my own city, but I’ve discovered that there are other ‘Corks’ out there, second cities full of ambition and ideas. Most cities are trying to do some sort of inner city renewal, trying to fix their transport, come up with a climate change adaptation plan, get their citizens more engaged… And we’re all asking the same questions: who can we collaborate with? Who can we get ideas from?
We don’t have to do things alone: we can learn from each other! Once you’ve been involved in an URBACT project you’re going to be searching for the next one!
AL - Many cities go on to apply their URBACT-acquired skills in bigger programmes. Have you seen URBACT sparking broader EU improvements in urban development?
KMC - URBACT is one arrow in a huge quiver of arrows all advancing thinking within cities and regions, and ‘communicating Europe’. The Committee of the Regions has toolkits and analysis on themes from bio-economy to IT… There’s also the European Capital of Culture, Interreg, Horizon 2020, the European week of cities and regions, local councillors… It’s a combined effort.
AL - You were appointed to the Committee of the Regions in 2015. What was it like to jump to EU level?
KMC - It’s been a very steep learning curve. It completely changed my life – all of a sudden you’re going from the local council to the hemicycle of the European parliament! Everyone gets their minute to speak up and influence policy. It took me a while to get into debates, and to cut through the European lingo.
In Bucharest recently for the informal discussion with EU ministers on the Urban Agenda, ten minutes before the meeting I was on the phone dealing with a pothole problem, then I got out of the taxi and was shaking hands with the Vice Prime Minister of Romania!
I’m still amazed by the different perspectives the Committee of the Regions brings. And the problems they’re expressing are the same as in your country – you realise “I know this!”. That’s the good thing about the Committee of the Regions, it does give a voice to local and regional reps. I think the Cohesion Alliance has worked.
AL - What has your role been as CoR rapporteur on the EU Urban Agenda?
KMC - I did an assessment of the implementation of the EU Urban Agenda last year. Plus I looked at how we could splice some of the action plans together: housing, environment…
My role is to make sure the action plans are looked after. 12 action plans have emerged from the partnerships, 12 actions in each, so how do we actually roll out these 140 actions? In Bucharest (RO) I spoke on behalf of the Committee of the Regions on where the Urban Agenda should go. There’s a huge fear that some of these action plans may just end up on the shelf. So I’ve been calling for extra financing for implementation, and that the voices of the partnership coordinators be heard a lot more.
The heads of delegation for the Member States were positive about the Bucharest declaration - that was great. And, the German presidency want to champion this EU Urban Agenda, dusting off the Leipzig charter on urban affairs from 10 years ago!
AL - What do you see URBACT contributing to these changes in EU cities?
KMC - Over the last 10 years we’ve seen cities and regions move on – there’s a lot more collaboration – and I think URBACT is at the heart of that debate.
Maybe there’s a political crisis at central government level, but what I’ve actually found on the ground with the Committee of the Regions is that Europe’s cities are thirsty to work together, to learn more, and there’s a bubbling underground evolution towards more citizen-led change. I think URBACT helps with that evolution. People can just open up the URBACT files and look at how collaboration works. It’s not easy but it’s really important.
I’ve seen this in my own city. Playful Paradigm brings together different city departments, but also citizens. On Cork’s marina, giant Connect 4 games were set up, tug of war... It’s empowering local residents’ associations, getting to the local people – which doesn’t always happen with macro-scale European projects. The Committee of the Regions opinions are frontiers of ideas, they’re about connections, partnerships, dialogue, unity, diversity, cross-border interoperability… but you can’t just talk about those buzzwords: we need practical projects, knowledge exchange platforms.
Collaboration breeds further collaboration – even on smaller projects like opening up a tiny street-side park. When people have fun working with each other they’ll work together again. My city is relatively small, 210 000 inhabitants, so people from Healthy Cities projects, age action programmes, refugee programmes, Chamber of Commerce, business associations… all know each other, but they might not have worked with each other before. URBACT is cross-disciplinary, it brings people together, champions citizen innovation – and you discover an electric current in the city, an energy!
MEDINT project MEDINT is an URBACt I Project which studied the integrated approach concept, which has become a characteristic feature of European urban development strategies. The work carried out in European cities shows that this concept has been interpreted and implemented in a variety of different ways (integration of local actors, of different economic sectors, of different initiatives, of different development tools and policies). The conclusions of the MEDINT network are summarized in the form of several pdf files.
Today, locals and tourists — many arriving on cruise ships — enjoy Cartagena’s waterfront and Art Nouveau architecture, as well as archaeological sites, from a Phoenician shipwreck to a huge Roman theatre.
But few visitors venture into the more run-down areas. Cartagena joined the URBACT MAPS network while facing increasing social and economic fragmentation. The city wanted fresh ideas to boost year-round tourism — while becoming more collaborative, inclusive and resilient, with the benefits of tourism reaching even the poorest neighbourhoods.
One such district is Los Mateos, which sits below the abandoned 18th-century fortress Castillo de los Moros. Here, 21% of adults are illiterate, and 24% are unemployed. “As an inhabitant of Cartagena, Los Mateos was a ‘forbidden’ neighbourhood... considered dangerous and insecure. I remember my first visit — for the MAPS project — as a tense moment... I looked around with distrust,” says María Peñalver, Professor at the Polytechnic University of Cartagena. When they joined the network, the city set up a group of local stakeholders (URBACT Local Group) to reflect and act on the use of the abandoned fortress while revitalising the district. Acting as a coordinator of this group, Ms Peñalver soon discovered many people in Los Mateos were enthusiastic about improving their own neighbourhood. “They had determination to change things, generosity... I decided to collaborate with them as much as possible and accompany them in this challenge until the end,” she recalls.
Working with residents and stakeholders — including presidents of local associations, and council representatives — Ms Peñalver helped the local group produce an Integrated Action Plan in line with the city’s strategic objectives. Dubbed ‘Re-starting from heritage’, it defines:
actions to improve social cohesion and inclusion in Los Mateos district. These include sport and painting competitions and a botanic garden around the fortress with the involvement of citizens and students of the district;
reusing the Los Moros fort to increase Cartagena’s cultural offer. Actions include guided touristic and sport tours;
an urban planning reference model based on a participatory approach, to use in other marginalised areas. Actions also include a cleaning campaign at the fortress with the involvement of inhabitants, transformation of three empty urban plots into public spaces.
“The Integrated Action Plan is crucial, because for the first time in history Los Mateos district has an integrated project to work together in the same direction for a better future,” says Francisco Sáez, Municipal Urban Technical Advisor.
Visible changes
After a workshop in Espinho (PT) with MAPS partner cities, Cartagena developed its own urban governance model — now featured in the integrated plan for use across the city. This set of mechanisms link the municipality with local stakeholders and inhabitants, creating a platform for actions to improve the city.
The local group tested the model on designing and implementing mock-up projects involving inhabitants in regeneration efforts in and around the Los Moros fortress.
You can already see results: Los Moros hill is a new a green area for the city, with new accesses to the fortress; colourful facades decorate the streets; attractive public areas have replaced empty urban plots. Los Mateos is a place to visit.
Above all, says Ms Peñalver, MAPS showed Cartagena “a new way to improve the urban quality of neglected areas, placing the inhabitants as the epicentre of change”.
Without MAPS, she believes decision-makers and citizens would still be ignoring Los Mateos, underestimating the castle’s potential to boost integrated urban regeneration — and the benefits of working collaboratively. Los Mateos’ inhabitants would be unaware of their own potential to improve their quality of life, given the necessary support.
“Everything learned from the URBACT approach has been new for the city of Cartagena, and useful for developing our vision for the Integrated Action Plan,” Ms Peñalver explains.
Political backing
The mayor Ana Belén Castejón supports the Integrated Action Plan, encouraging all political parties to approve it at an upcoming council Plenary Session. Next, Cartagena hopes to apply for a new URBACT call to focus on Los Mateos’ regeneration
***
You can find the Cities in Action - Stories of Change publication just here.
Right before the start of this year’s URBACT City Festival in Lisbon I found myself sitting at the waterfront at Praça do Comércio, enjoying the atmosphere with people and boats passing by. Later, I discovered this beautiful area around Largo Corpo Santo and Porta do Mar, just a few minutes walk from Praça do Comércio, too. I was surprised to learn during the festival workshops that just a few years ago, my perception of Lisbon’s urban spaces would have been very different. Where people now meet and linger, cars were parked – far from creating a charming atmosphere! So, what happened over the years? asks Claus Kollinger
Planning for people and not for vehicles – how urban mobility becomes an integrated part of our city development
Lisbon (PT) is seeing a paradigm shift in urban space use. Public space is no longer seen as an asset for car traffic on a large scale. Instead, it is dedicated to a multitude of use embracing transport with more sustainable mobility options.
“Cars evaporate” is what Prof. Tiago Farias told us at the City Festival workshop dedicated to urban mobility planning. Lisbon’s recent and longer term experience prove him right. And, Lisbon is not alone in its endeavour to take traffic out of the urban space to create a more liveable city. More and more cities in Europe are turning their transport planning approach on its head – abandoning the idea of providing space to growing traffic volumes in favour of putting the actual city’s and citizens’ needs at the centre of development.
Planning for people and with people
The idea of putting people at the centre of urban mobility planning emerged with the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) concept over the last ten years across Europe. Now, it is a success story thanks to an integrated planning approach to urban mobility development. The SUMP concept innovates transport planning in a range of areas, like putting emphasis on accessibility for all, quality of life and supporting cleaner transport options. They place mobility in the frame of the city ‘s very fabric, cooperating with diverse sectors and within overall development goals. They do not stop at city limits but consider commuting in and out too. They cater for goods and people’s movement employing all available transport services. But most of all, they apply an integrated planning approach involving citizens and all concerned stakeholders to truly plan for people with people.
SUMPS mean a giant leap in transport planning. While transport planning focused on providing space for the emergence of cars during the last century and then saw the re-emergence of public transport and cycling, SUMPs now seek to answer the needs of a complex dynamic of societal, economic and technological changes cities are facing thanks to a well-structured planning process. They identify the current state of play connected to existing challenges, looking at future development pathways to create a development vision and select fitting priorities and actions to this vision. The plan details resources, responsibilities, timelines as well as monitoring and evaluating schemes. SUMPs are the blueprint of a comprehensive policy for urban mobility development. But as is often the case, the step from theory to practice is the hardest one, how do we match the SUMP idea with life in cities?
Many roads lead to Rome
This challenge was at the heart of URBACT’s CityMobilNet network. Facing 11 different locations, conditions and development histories, it quickly became clear that there is no “one-fits-all” solution at hand. The diversity ranged from small cities of 15.000 inhabitants to larger metropolis of more than half a million, from experienced SUMP practitioners to complete newcomers, from mobility cultures valuing public transport to cycling or walking dominated cities - as well as centralised planning traditions to participation practitioners... The network partners needed to apply solutions tailored to their local conditions for their SUMP development.
Where to start?
Identifying the right problem turned out to be crucial. The City of Slatina (RO) worked with the interlinkage of effects and causes and involved the entire URBACT Local Group: 97 people from public officials, security services, educational representatives, NGOs, local and international businesses and the media. The novelty was in quality and quantity of the community point of view received and integrated to the problem description. For Slatina, working methodologically at identifying the city’s problem jointly with the city society proved a new and positive experience.
The Greek city of Agii Anargyri & Kamatero (GR) took another road by approaching the problems and challenges from the view of children and families. The local team went back to school and talked with pupils, teachers and parents to identify their mobility related needs and challenges. Starting with schools, they could map the requirements to accommodate the mobility needs of local families.
The town of Morne-a-l’Eau (FR) again based the start of their SUMP development on well-existing resources: work groups, objectives and knowledge out of the Local Agenda 21 process, especially in relation to the town’s plan for its eco-quartier. Taken from there, the necessities to develop a sustainable urban mobility scheme for Morne-a-l’Eau were developed jointly with the local stakeholders and citizens.
Going step by step or taking it all at once?
The actual planning process took different formats in the network cities, too. In Gdansk (PO), the technical topics of urban mobility were processed one by one, starting with the most eminent challenge of parking space management and then continuing to public transport, cycling and other areas of urban mobility. The local CityMobilNet partner employed a large set of workshops for this step-by-step approach always involving a core group to all topics and extending it to interested persons and concerned stakeholders. Political buy-in was taken care of by presenting to the group of Vice Mayors and thorough citizen involvement by going to the city districts focussing on people’s needs and concerns there.
The City of Bielefeld (DE) contrasts to Gdansk by taking a global view of planning urban mobility. Here, a careful analysis of the entire mobility network and services was put in place including a
survey on current mobility choices and behaviour used to create a detailed picture ranging from city-wide to single locality challenges. The Bielefeld URBACT Local Group elaborated the global vision and six priorities out of this covering all aspects of relevance to Bielefeld’s urban mobility development. The policy field cross-connecting nature of a SUMP is clearly visible by the choice in priorities: “liveable city and road space”. Bielefeld continued its global approach by applying a “Future Workshop” to establish actions and measure packages to the vision and priorities: stakeholders from Bielefeld, but as well outside the area worked with maps, statistics and the pre-work results gathering knowledge as well as the opinions of cyclists, automobile-federations, public transport bodies, teachers, doctors and police personnel. Another speciality of Bielefeld’s comprehensive planning process was to continuously include all political parties present in the city council on the progress and the next steps of the planning process.
Bottom-up and “top-down”?
Does size matter? The clear answer from the CityMobilNet network is “yes”, since it directly impacts conditions and opportunities at hand. The Metropole Aix Marseille Provence (FR) had the task of breaking down its regional sustainable mobility strategy – the regional SUMP – detailing the local level. Acting as the responsible planning and implementation entity for the mobility development in their area, the Metropole employed local knowledge and needs of Cassis, La Ciotat and Ceyreste to design the future urban mobility network and services in these municipalities. They needed to align the regional objectives to the diverse local conditions of a tourist destination, a former shipyard town and a residential dominated community. Local knowledge and positions were key to come up with fitting measures for the areas by the supra-local administration of a Metropole.
The South East Region of Malta (MA) used a very much “bottom-up” approach for its planning process including direct talks with citizens and stakeholders of the many local regional councils to establish the picture of mobility development needs. Engaged local politicians employed their local networks to virtually include all interested persons in problem analysis and solution development. It is best to talk to people directly to learn what they need and then think about it, is what local politicians like Lawrance Attard stressed. This open-minded policy of citizen participation works by keeping council meetings public – by physical presence or online streaming.
Don’t be afraid to go your own way
Applying the SUMP concept and process is very much worthwhile for any town and city. But, towns and cities have different local backgrounds and capacities and might not be used to run a complex integrated planning process. Here are some tips for the journey ahead:
Make it fit
Don’t be afraid to tailor the concept and process to your local conditions. The product of the planning process needs to suit your city development. Stick to the SUMP concept and process, but not at any cost.
Take care and time to identify the problems at hand as done by Slatina involving stakeholders and citizens on assessing problems, causes and effects.
Communicate with stakeholders
Take care of participation and be clear on which role stakeholders and citizens should take in your case. Should they be sources of ideas, concerns and opinions? Or advisors? Or decision makers having a say? They are clearly a valuable resource to involve but be clear in communication! Urban mobility is a complex topic with many interrelations and specialist knowledge at hand. Stakeholders and citizen need to understand what they are discussing and working on.
Cities are always evolving, as are the variety and availability of urban data. Antwerp (BE) invests in a smart city strategy and strives to be a “walkable city” with mixed, high-quality neighbourhoods. To do so, for nearly a decade Antwerp has been using an “urban data scan” which maps out specific needs, problems and opportunities. Multitudes of geo- and statistical data are structured around different themes to provide a clear overview of the most relevant data. This allows policymakers to develop substantiated visions and make informed spatial decisions. Progress can be monitored for all kinds of projects and developments. Two online platforms share these data and maps with city employees, citizens, companies, project developers and other cities. The urban scan is all about optimising and sharing data, preparing good spatial decisions, and building a better city for all our citizens and partners.
The solutions offered by the good practice
Urban data scans provide a method to map out needs and shortages specifically for local amenities (e.g. schools, sport, green spaces, culture, commerce, well-being, youth). First, the capacity is gauged by analysing the number or area of amenities per target group. Next, the reach, or relative proximity and distribution of these amenities, are determined based on walking distances. Local amenities differ in reach, functioning either at the level of the neighbourhood (400 metres), a residential quarter (800 meters) or urban quarter (1 600 metres). This twofold approach creates a clear picture of needs and shortage zones, allowing policymakers to balance the distribution of amenities, based on walking distances and target groups. Simulations also allow us to take into account future residents in project areas and to calculate effects in terms of new needs or required new amenities. This enables informed policy decisions and provides a strong base for financial and strategic negotiations with all the parties involved.
For example, an urban scan has led to the decision to provide a 17-hectare park (Park Spoor Noord) in the densely populated Antwerpen-Noord quarter. New green spaces, but also schools, nurseries and sports facilities were incorporated in projects such as Nieuw Zuid, Groen Kwartier and Eilandje after thorough urban scans. The urban quarters outside of the inner city, across the Singel and Ring roads, are mapped out extensively as well.
Building on the sustainable and integrated approach
The urban scan enables a horizontally integrated approach. It involves structuring large sets of data according to a multitude of themes and provides insight into socio-demographics, economy, housing, the legal context, mobility, environment, well-being and built and unbuilt amenities. As such, urban scans form a strong base for sustainable and integrated policies, not only in the field of spatial planning, but for other policy domains as well. The right amounts of green and open spaces, schools, sport, culture, children’s and youth’s amenities, commerce and well-being are crucial in promoting attractive urban environments. Moreover, walking and cycling distances stimulate sustainable urban mobility. The city has user-friendly tools to help make all these data and maps available for its own employees, citizens, entrepreneurs, research agencies, project developers, other cities and higher-level governments. The latter enables a vertically integrated approach. The integrated use of statistics and maps further increases the importance of data sharing.
Based on a participatory approach
The urban scan is a participatory and flexible instrument that has developed organically in close consultation with several partners. Fifteen years ago, the main goal was to analyse the city’s green structure. Evolving insights, amenities, data and users’ experiences have ensured that the urban scan is still an innovative tool today. Air and noise pollution, for instance, have become important themes and are now included in the scan. The platforms that share the maps and data with citizens, companies, research agencies, project developers and other cities and governments are important communication and sensitisation tools. City neighbourhoods and even cities can be compared, knowledge is shared, ambitions and goals are monitored and other governments and partners are stimulated to analyse and share their own data.
Stad in cijfers (“city statistics”) is Antwerp’s interactive online data platform. Since 2009, it has amassed more than 5,000 layers of data, structured according to themes, scales and dates. The data can be presented in tables, charts and maps and can be consulted, analysed and compared in space and time. Other Flemish and Dutch cities use the same system. Since 2013, the city also has an intranet platform for geo-data, a GIS-viewer with more than 1,000 data layers. Stad in Kaart (“city maps”) allows city employees to request information and to perform simple spatial analyses. Combinations of geo-data often provide more insight than data organised in tables.
What difference has it made?
Urban scans increase policymakers’ awareness of shortages and needs in terms of green spaces, nurseries, sport, culture, commerce, well-being and youth. Statistical data and maps indicate areas to invest in and enable the right choices. This method is used for up to 90% of urban development projects in Antwerp. Apart from amenities, the scan also sheds light on the demographic, social and economic dynamics in residential quarters. Environmental quality, mobility and housing are taken into consideration as well. And because the scan has existed for a number of years, evolutions can be traced.
In the district of Hoboken, for example, a project for low-skilled employment targeted residential areas with many unemployed citizens. Likewise, measures in the Ring Road area are focused on reducing air and noise pollution. In former port area Eilandje a new tram line brings public transport within walking distance for residents. And urban scans also lead to the development of new green spaces. The importance of the scan has even increased in the past year because it has become mandatory for large private developments. The desired programme needs to be negotiated and must be implemented or financially compensated. The urban scan thus has an important potential impact on the choices that are made within projects.
Why should other European cities use it?
Because cities are continuously evolving, they are always first to face new challenges and problems, such as demographic evolutions, urban mobility, air and noise pollution, inclusion of migrants and refugees, housing, urban poverty and the digital transition. Throughout these evolutions, it is crucial to strive for optimal functional mixes (living, working and recreation) and mixed neighbourhoods with local amenities within walking distance of citizens. Because the urban scan touches upon all the relevant themes for the ambition of a walkable city with liveable and healthy neighbourhoods, it forms a perfect tool for sustainable urban projects. Urban scans consistently take into account new insights and data, making them a flexible instrument for evolving and complex cities. The systematic method of the urban scan enables policymakers to make the right choices and brings order in the increasing amounts and availability of data.
The online data platforms enable comparisons with other cities of similar sizes. Those cities can exchange relevant data and knowledge. Most cities already have a platform or collection method for data about city quarters and neighbourhoods. The urban scan can help broaden European instruments such as the Urban Audit, substantially as well as in terms of their scope (city quarters and neighbourhoods). If the required competencies and political support are present, the method is certainly applicable in other cities.
Tackling climate change was never going to be easy. But in the afterglow of the Paris COP21 Agreement, at least it seemed that we were moving in the right direction. By late 2016, the biggest polluters were signed up, and there appeared to be consensus on the scale and urgency of the problem, as well as on what needed to be done. What a difference a year can make. From where we are now, feels like we have another mountain – or two – to climb.
In all of this, perhaps the biggest battle is taking place within citizen’s heads. Given the magnitude and complexity of the global warming challenge, it’s easy to feel that, as individuals, we can make little difference. At times like this, mobilising public interest and stimulating civic action is critically important. But making the threat of climate change real is a complicated business – especially when so many people are worried about jobs, housing and other pressing daily issues.
It’s in cities where this battle will be won or lost. That’s one of the reasons why URBACT networks like Freight Tails, Resilient Europe and, previously, EVUE are so important. The late Benjamin Barber was right when he recently underlined the key role cities play in addressing climate change. As he notes, there is a lot to take encouragement from, as cities introduce all sorts of creative ways to improve the urban environment. Medellin’s Metrocable, Oslo’s Tesla taxis and Seoul’s electric bus fleet are amongst them.
Yet, many of these urban initiatives reflect a top-down approach to imposing solutions. This week saw the publication of another gloomy set of World Health Organisation statistics relating to air quality. This shows that apart from the Nordic countries, our urban air quality levels remain dangerously high across much of the EU. Most citizens worry about this, but many feel disempowered to do much about it. So, what can city authorities do?
Reframing the discussion
Civic participation can be an ambivalent issue for city administrations. People power, once unleashed, can be an irresistible force, and not always for good. However, it is clear that we are living in a period where the relationship between politicians and the people is being redefined. It is also clear, for many city authorities at least, that with diminishing rates of electoral participation, the legitimacy of their actions can be questioned. We also know is that it is at the local level, where new trusted connections between citizens and government are best created.
Consequently, cities across Europe are exploring new ways to involve citizens in their decision-making processes. Within URBACT, many cities, including Amersfoort and Gdansk, have tested new mechanisms. Current networks such as CHANGE! are also exploring this theme, which was also well represented in the response to the recent URBACT call for good practices.
In specific relation to the climate change debate, the city of Nantes – an URBACT city and active Eurocities member – has been pioneering work in this field with some success.
Situated in northwest France, Nantes has a population of 630,000 inhabitants, 36% of whom are aged under 25. Enjoying a reputation for a healthy work-life balance, it was the first French city to be awarded the status of European Green Capital, in 2013. An active member of Energy Cities, Nantes has a commitment to reducing carbon emission rates by 50% by 2030 (compared to a 2003 baseline) and to triple its production of renewable energy in the same timeframe.
During the past eighteen months the city has been on an innovative journey that will conclude in the autumn of 2017. This has taken the form of a Grand Débat, or Big Debate, about the city’s future energy transition. The end point will be a Citizens’ Commission report that will inform a new energy transition roadmap adopted by the Nantes Metropolitan Authority. But Nantes’ real end point is much more ambitious – a genuinely participative approach to managing the city’s energy transition.
The Big Debate
The Big Debate has been a thoughtful and well-planned process. Prior to the launch in September 2016, there was one year of preparation, and a commitment to invest €630,000 (€1 per citizen) in the process, supported by a project team of five over an 18 month period. Alongside them, an independent commission of four volunteer citizens has overseen the process. Their role has included guaranteeing the openness of the debate and producing the final Commission Report.
The Big Debate focused on four key questions:
What lifestyle transitions do we have to make?
What new urban planning opportunities and tools are available?
What extent of local energy ownership should there be?
What are the opportunities for innovation, employment and inclusion?
So, what steps did Nantes take to encourage citizen involvement? Following a high profile publicity launch, made alongside key stakeholder organisations throughout the city, a number of tools were used. Individuals could attend know-how sessions that outlined new energy developments. They could also submit suggestions online or via social media #NantesTransitions. More tangibly, a huge pink travelling container gave the chance to walk in and talk in person.
In addition, a series of interest-groups was set up, including Hikers, Crowd-funders and Pioneers. Participation in these groups allowed citizens with particular interests to examine the issues through a particular lens. The Crowdfunders eventually raised more than €100,000 for experimental projects that included food events, an acquaponics pilot and a shared solar energy roof. The pioneers generated a series of challenges that were taken up across the city by families as well as schools and other organisations.
The deadline for responses to the Big Debate was 31 March 2017. A total of 53,000 people participated in the process in some way, with 11,000 citizens very actively involved. The experience involved 270 local organisations, and Grand Débat social media platforms attracted 4,400 followers. In terms of outputs, 760 written solutions were posted, whilst 160 journals were written by a variety of stakeholders – each contributing their ideas and suggestions.
Ultimately however, the success of the Big Debate will come down to the quality of the final Commission Report and its contribution to the changes required to achieve Nantes’ low carbon future goal. In the coming months, the final part of the story can be followed on the project’s website.
The personal is (always) political
From discussions with those leading the Nantes process, it is clear that one of the key drivers was a commitment to raising awareness of the energy and climate change challenges, as well as promoting a sense of ownership and responsibility for the solutions. It is often easier to say what other people should be doing, than to examine our own behaviours and identify what needs to change for the wider good.
The Big Debate also opened up a discussion about respective stakeholder roles. Certainly, city authorities have a key role to play in establishing a low carbon future. But they cannot do it alone. Nor is punitive legislation the solution. There is a huge amount that cities can achieve through their governance levers, but a codesigned approach is more likely to succeed, as the URBACT Programme underlines. This is because as well as mobilising collective brainpower, it encourages the shifts in attitude and behaviour that make a positive outcome more achievable. It is also because the proposed solutions can feel shared.
The potential realignment in the relationship with citizens around this complex urban challenge will perhaps be the most important legacy of the Big Debate itself. Ultimately, it will be people, not technology, that will decide our future. That’s why Nantes has adopted this approach to getting its citizens on board.
Viaggio tra le esperienze di riuso temporaneo realizzate a Ravenna, punto di partenza dell'azione di rigenerazione creativa del territorio al centro del network URBACT Creative Spirits
According to the definition proposed by the CIVITAS Initiative, urban freight logistics concerns “all movements of goods in to, out from, through or within the urban area made by light or heavy vehicles, including also service transport and demolition traffic, as well as waste and reverse logistics”[i]. It is the critical life support system of the city that – as long as everything is working fine – remains almost invisible. It is probably not one of the issues that first come to mind when we think about the quality of life in urban areas and yet, as the story above illustrates, it has a direct impact on our wallets, lungs and nerves.
“Cities are places for the exchange of goods and information which are at the heart of our economy and way of life. For cities to be successful they need to optimise the exchange of goods and information while remaining attractive places to live and work.”[ii]
The estimates provided by the CIVITAS Initiative[iii] are helpful in grasping the sheer scale of freight movements in European cities. An average European city would see 300-400 vehicle trips per 100 inhabitants every single day, with 30-50 tons of goods per person being transported annually. Urban freight accounts for:
10-15% of kilometres travelled,
3-5% of urban land use (reserved for logistics activities), and
6% of all transport-related GHG emissions.
From an environmental policy perspective, cleaning up urban freight logistics is an important step towards achieving local and European goals, particularly with regard to air pollution, CO2 emissions and resource efficiency. If we add to this the economic importance of the sector plus its social impacts (such as e.g. noise or traffic safety), it becomes clear that cities need to get urban freight logistics right.
Source: Nightime deliveries, CIVITAS Policy Note, CIVITAS Initative 2015, p.22
Destination is clear but we are moving too slow
The European Commission strongly supports the shift towards sustainable urban freight logistics, not only through policy documents but also through related funding opportunities and research. The 2011 Transport White Paper set the goal of achieving essentially CO2-free city logistics in major urban centres by 2030[iv], encouraging the exchange of best practice, development of integrated strategies and improved public procurement procedures. The 2013 Urban Mobility Package proposed further actions to improve efficiency and reduce environmental impact of urban freight logistics, e.g. integration of urban logistics into Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs).
However, despite a clear policy direction and a number of possible measures identified, the implementation is lagging behind. The 2013 Commission Staff Working Document recognizes that “efficient urban logistics is essential for the economy and the quality of life in cities where most European citizens live but is largely neglected in urban transport policy and planning”, adding that “despite the general agreement on the problems, and in many cases the solutions, there is a broad lack of attention to urban logistics issues”[v]. The document identifies 3 major gaps to be addressed:
lack of focus and strategy on urban logistics,
lack of co-ordination of urban logistics actors,
lack of data and information.
Compared to the mobility of people, the mobility of goods is an even more complex governance challenge. First of all, we are dealing here with multitude of actors: from multinational companies to local microentreprises, from invidual residents to large private and public sector institutions[vi]. Secondly, freight movements operate on different scales, from global to very local, often just passing by through a city in question. Lastly, the sector is not only an important economic player but also essential to the economic success of the city and its surroundings. Add to this the changing urban form, such as increased density in some areas and urban sprawl in others, plus growing popularity of online shopping (shopping might be online but deliveries are usually very real!) and you end up with an urban planner’s nightmare.
How to move forward with the much-needed implementation of sustainable urban logistics? The URBACT programme, with its focus on integrated strategies and stakeholder engagement, can offer a valuable contribution to the European community of planners and mobility experts.
Freight TAILS to the rescue
Freight TAILS (Tailored Approaches for Innovative Logistics Solutions) is an URBACT Action Planning Network dedicated to taking sustainable urban logistics one step further, exploring innovative freight solutions in various geographic, socio-economic and policy contexts. The network is a partnership of 9 local and regional authorities:
City of Westminster – Cross River Partnership (London, UK)
Brussels – Capital Region (Belgium)
Municipality of Gdynia – ZDiZ Gdynia (Poland)
La Rochelle Urban Community (France)
Maastricht – Maastricht Bereikbaar (Netherlands)
Comune di Parma (Italy)
City of Split (Croatia)
Suceava (Romania)
City of Tallinn (Estonia)
Umeå Kommun (Sweden)
Cities embark on this project to "review what is working and why to improve city logistic activity patterns, to identify obstacles and re-evaluate solutions, to explore real transferability, to focus on developing appropriate packages of complementary and jointly reinforcing measures"[vii]. Most of the partners have considerable experience in addressing urban freight issues, raising high expectations for what they can achieve together.
Sticks, carrots and strategic plans
European cities have long experimented with various measures designed to improve the efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of freight movements. The tricky part here is to find the balance between boosting economic gains and satisfying customer needs on one side, and safeguarding the environment and providing good quality of life on the other. Luckily, many of the measures tested can provide both economic and environmental benefits, e.g. urban consolidation centres, eco-driving programmes or real-time information systems.
Source: "Smart choices for cities. Making urban freight logistics more sustainable”, CIVITAS Policy Note, CIVITAS Iniative 2015
CIVITAS Initiative distinguishes between 6 types of measures[viii], ranging from market-based ones (e.g. tax incentives for clean vehicles) to regulatory ones (e.g. various types of access restrictions), from sticks to carrots, from low-hanging fruit to advanced schemes. However, the challenge is to find the right mix for a particular urban context and mobilise political leadership needed to secure implementation.
The 2013 Strategic plan for goods traffic[ix] in the Brussels-Capital region (one of the Freight TAILS partners) provides an interesting example of how to approach urban freight logistics in an integrated manner. The plan, developed with participation of various regional stakeholders, includes 36 actions organized in 5 priority areas that – if successfully implemented – will turn Brussels into a model for sustainable and efficient urban distribution of goods by 2050. The following priority areas have been included:
organise the urban distribution structure, a framework allowing to group and transport goods more cleanly and efficiently;
integrate urban distribution in regional land-use planning and development;
quickly improve the efficiency of urban deliveries and reduce nuisances;
encourage research and innovation and collect regional data;
develop a regional framework favourable to an efficient, sustainable urban distribution.
Today goods traffic only represents 14% of the overall traffic in Brussels, even if that already translates to 16.000 lorries and 26.000 vans entering every day. However, with an 80% increase of merchandise flows expected by 2050, it is clear why Brussels-Capital Region is intent on addressing the issue before the city suffocates.
In preparing and implementing the plan, Bruxelles Mobilité – the public body responsible for its development, has been drawing heavily on best practices coming from cities across Europe and hopefully this spirit of collaboration will continue with the Freight TAILS project. The first transnational meeting that took place in Brussels in February 2016 was definitely a good indication, with all partners visiting Brussels’ Urban Consolidation Centre (UCC), operated by City Depot and discussing its business model.
The establishment of the UCC is a pilot project, with plans to create a multi-centre network across Brussels. The trial was implemented as part of the European project LaMiLo that aimed to improve the “last mile” in a logistics supply chain journey.
The Freight TAILS morning: visit to the Urban Consolidation Centre in Brussels. Source: Freight TAILS
5 questions to be answered by Freight TAILS
So where next for Freight TAILS cities? During the start-up phase of the project, the partners have identified 5 common challenges to be addressed by the network:
how to overcome technical, economic and political factors limiting integrated freight management?
how to encourage public sector, businesses and consumers to demand more sustainable freight services?
how to use sustainable public procurement practices to stimulate the market, reduce costs and achieve better environmental outcomes?
how to promote zero emission vehicles for fossil fuel free urban logistics?
what kind of smart management solutions work best at the local level?
Source: Charlotte Knell (Lead Partner, Cross River Partnership, UK) and Philipp Stein (Freight TAILS Lead Expert) representing the project during URBACT meeting in Paris. Source: Cross River Partnership
If these questions resonate with you, if you have good (or even better, bad) experiences you would like to share, please get in touch with the Freight TAILS network. You can follow @freight_tails on Twitter or get updates on their progress via the URBACT website.
The consequences of the unleashed urbanization process before the real estate crisis are today very explicit on the building stock as well as on the spatial configuration of cities. As for the building stock, the number of vacant dwellings in Spain, for instance, amounts to a total of 3.443.365, as recorded in the 2014 census. Besides that, uncountable extensions of already urbanized but not built neighborhoods are filling the outskirts of our cities.
However, we should also consider planning initiatives that, if not fully coherent and complete, at least configured initial attempts to readdress the urbanization process that occurred in Europe during the first decade of 2000`. A set of planning tools and initiatives were approved during the period, thus seeking to manage urban growth in a more rational way. They may be grouped according to three main strategic approaches: PRESERVATION, CONTAINMENT and IMPROVEMENT.
Preservation: rural land custody
Fig. 1: A Revolta, Pontevedra. A typical image of the outskirts of a Spanish city before and after the Real State bubble (source: www.nacionrotonda.com)
During the first decade of this century, the awareness of natural landscape values grew among professionals and decision-makers, thus becoming a very relevant topic in the planning agenda in Europe. Many planning authorities drafted several Sectorial and Regional Plans whose main goal was the preservation of natural values and landscape identity of rural land. Those plans widely prevented new urban developments, which were considered as the main threat for rural land. Either by preservation zooning plans or as landscape catalogs, they soon became effective tools for urban growth management (UGM). The latest constitute a complex and holistic approach, since they establish criteria and actions able to integrate landscape into the spatial and urban planning, based on a morphological diagnosis. They identify the values of the rural landscape from the heritage, cultural, aesthetic, environmental and economic point of view.
Urban growth containment
UGM was tackled from the qualitative point of view by applying the preservation policy (that is to say constraining areas of potential growth and programming the timeline of their implementation). However, the impact of new developments needs to be assessed in terms of density and critical mass of newly proposed dwelling units. This is precisely the goal of plans and actions seeking containment.
Successful containment plans work on a regional scale, thus determining regulations and actions on the supramunicipal units. Rational distribution of resources and development potentialities are, therefore, relevant issues. These plans set very clear limits for urban developments without defining their specific morphology neither their very precise physical location. Regional plans often dictate the potential growth for masterplans at municipal level. They usually need to assess the needs of housing in a mid-term horizon (10-15 years) according to the demographic prognosis. Furthermore Masterplans, in southern European tradition, opt for morphological patterns in urban extensions. They have the capacity to readdress the spatial impact of future urban extensions.
Improvement of already urbanized areas
The regeneration of existing compact and dense urban environments has a direct impact in diminishing the flow of population from mature urban areas to newly developed extensions on the outskirts of the city. Not only the physical conditions of the dwelling unit but also the quality of public spaces, the sufficient provision of facilities and the mixed offer of non-residential activities are proved to be key factors in attracting residents to central urban cores. Based on that assumption urban regeneration is usually committed in improving the basic infrastructure and services, public space and collective facilities.
Three approaches, one goal: beyond preventive planning
The recent experience constitutes a paradigmatic example of the urban & regional planning dynamics in relation with the economic cycles. The plans and urban policies facing UGM have the common goal of addressing the pressure that the real state market had on the physical spatiality of cities. The planning apparatus is unfortunately seen too often as a mean to validate autonomous urbanization processes once they are consummated. However, some interesting conclusions can be learned from more recent and innovative planning initiatives.
UGM needs to be tackled from different approaches. Preservation of rural landscape, containment of new developments or improvement on the existing urban fabrics are appropriated UGM strategies but not powerful enough when applied separately. An integrative UGM policy considering the three strategies simultaneously might be the most efficient and rational approach.
UGM must be a long-term will. However this long-run vision should prove to be efficient in giving short-run solutions when required by urban dynamics. Distinguishing between urban policies and planning tools overcome the apparent paradox between long and short term planning. On the one hand, urban policies should have the largest possible scope, thus capitalizing on durable, regional and long-term urban policies. Planning Tools, on the other, should constitute the means of urban policies implementation, flexible and closely attached to specific problems.
As seen we face simultaneously the regional and the local, the general and the specifics, the long term and the short run. In this context, URBACT USEACTnetwork seems the ideal framework where to come up with some answers to future challenges. URBACT, being the most prominent urban program in Europe, is capable to feed the European planning framework with criteria for long-term urban policies. USEACT, on the other hand, is currently sharing and exploring different planning tools that, at the local scale, will deal with the specifics of Urban Growth Management in several and diverse local contexts. The challenge of dealing with both approaches is ahead of us. The solution is, hopefully, at our hands. Let’s work!
