This research addresses complex issues relating to the innovative aspects of the local urban plan, and makes particular reference to the analysis of equalization models and implementation mechanisms. In the past forty years, the discrepancy between the predicted and the actual results of urban planning has become so great as to raise doubts about the very need for or usefulness of the plan itself. The underlying causes of the current situation are the substantial inadequacies in the implementation procedures envisaged in national legislation, which essentially depend on a system of expropriation, and the incapacity and inertia of successive governments, which have failed to propose alternative solutions that would also entail a reform of property law. The distortions of the current model of urban planning derive from the co-existence of two (conflicting) types of property law, which are the source of the current state of disequilibrium and the unequal treatment of property owners. Overcoming these distortions not only implies the active promotion of “alternative solutions” to the way in which urban development is financed, planned and managed, but, above all, necessitates a complete overhaul of planning mechanisms along with the imposition of a solution that guarantees equality of treatment, juridical certitude and operational flexibility. An analysis of the chief problems that have emerged in the ongoing theoretical and specialist debate reveals a situation that is highly complex, nuanced, and full of contradictions and ambiguities. An examination of the question must steer a middle course between strongly held beliefs in integration and separation, and between opposing views about equalization. A proper analysis must therefore take the time to consider the plethora of interpretations, relations and significations, and recognize that whatever model of equalization is chosen, it must derive from and refer to: the peculiarities of each area, the form and structure of the development, strictly local factors and planning conditions, as well as economic and political aspects, all of which make up elements in the complex reality of urban development today. With this recognition as our point of departure, the main goals of our research should be to outline new categories of analysis and enquiry, make evaluative overviews and carry out forward planning with a view to developing an equalization procedure – i.e., we must identify the logical structures that underpin equalization, so that, irrespective of which particular model of equalization is chosen to fit the needs of a given development context, by following a flexible and interdisciplinary approach we can arrive at a strategy that is consistent with principles of fair distribution and justice and guarantees efficient and effective development, environmental sustainability and environmental protection

Questa ricerca affronta le complesse problematiche inerenti i temi dell’innovazione del piano urbanistico locale con particolare riferimento all’analisi dei modelli perequativi e dei meccanismi attuativi. Nel corso degli ultimi quaranta anni il divario tra previsioni e risultati del piano, tra programmazione ed esiti, è diventato così rilevante da mettere in crisi la necessità e l’utilità stessa del Piano urbanistico. Alla base di questa condizione oggettiva vi è la sostanziale inadeguatezza delle modalità attuative previste dalla legge urbanistica nazionale incardinate prevalentemente sul meccanismo espropriativo, insieme all’incapacità e all’inerzia dei vari governi di fornire soluzioni alternative, correlate ad una riforma del regime immobiliare. Superare le distorsioni dell’attuale modello di pianificazione: il doppio regime dei suoli, fonte di “sperequazione”, di disparità di trattamento, tra proprietari, significa non solo promuovere il ricorso a “soluzioni alternative” di finanziamento, programmazione e gestione delle trasformazioni urbane ma soprattutto, una riforma del piano, strettamente connessa alla soluzione perequativa, per garantire al piano urbanistico certezza giuridica e flessibilità operativa. L’analisi dei principali nodi problematici emergenti dal dibattito teorico-disciplinare in corso, delinea un quadro molto complesso e articolato ricco di conflittualità ed ambivalenze. La ricerca si fa mediatrice della forte contrapposizione esistente tra integrazione e separazione dei vari orientamenti maturati sul tema della perequazione, soffermandosi ad esaminare la pluralità delle accezioni, delle relazioni e dei significati giungendo a riconoscere che l’applicazione di un modello di perequazione deve nascere implicitamente dalle condizioni territoriali, dalla forma e dalla struttura insediativa, dai fattori localizzativi e dagli aspetti pianificatori, dai processi economici e politici, quali fattori della complessità insediativa contemporanea. Partendo da queste premesse obiettivo prioritario della ricerca è quello di definire nuove categorie analitico-conoscitive, sintetico valutative e progettuali utili alla definizione di una procedura perequativa - la “struttura logica della perequazione” - che indipendentemente dal modello di perequazione individuato per rispondere alla specificità di ogni contesto insediativo, si faccia portatrice, a partire da un approccio flessibile e interdisciplinare, di una nuova strategia che garantisca il perseguimento dei principi di equità e giustizia distributiva, l’efficienza e l’efficacia delle trasformazioni, la sostenibilità ambientale, e la tutela ecologica

Modelli perequativi e meccanismi attuativi. Perequazione e innovazione nel piano urbanistico locale / Crupi, Francesco. - (2004 Jan 25).

Modelli perequativi e meccanismi attuativi. Perequazione e innovazione nel piano urbanistico locale

Francesco Crupi
25/01/2004

Abstract

This research addresses complex issues relating to the innovative aspects of the local urban plan, and makes particular reference to the analysis of equalization models and implementation mechanisms. In the past forty years, the discrepancy between the predicted and the actual results of urban planning has become so great as to raise doubts about the very need for or usefulness of the plan itself. The underlying causes of the current situation are the substantial inadequacies in the implementation procedures envisaged in national legislation, which essentially depend on a system of expropriation, and the incapacity and inertia of successive governments, which have failed to propose alternative solutions that would also entail a reform of property law. The distortions of the current model of urban planning derive from the co-existence of two (conflicting) types of property law, which are the source of the current state of disequilibrium and the unequal treatment of property owners. Overcoming these distortions not only implies the active promotion of “alternative solutions” to the way in which urban development is financed, planned and managed, but, above all, necessitates a complete overhaul of planning mechanisms along with the imposition of a solution that guarantees equality of treatment, juridical certitude and operational flexibility. An analysis of the chief problems that have emerged in the ongoing theoretical and specialist debate reveals a situation that is highly complex, nuanced, and full of contradictions and ambiguities. An examination of the question must steer a middle course between strongly held beliefs in integration and separation, and between opposing views about equalization. A proper analysis must therefore take the time to consider the plethora of interpretations, relations and significations, and recognize that whatever model of equalization is chosen, it must derive from and refer to: the peculiarities of each area, the form and structure of the development, strictly local factors and planning conditions, as well as economic and political aspects, all of which make up elements in the complex reality of urban development today. With this recognition as our point of departure, the main goals of our research should be to outline new categories of analysis and enquiry, make evaluative overviews and carry out forward planning with a view to developing an equalization procedure – i.e., we must identify the logical structures that underpin equalization, so that, irrespective of which particular model of equalization is chosen to fit the needs of a given development context, by following a flexible and interdisciplinary approach we can arrive at a strategy that is consistent with principles of fair distribution and justice and guarantees efficient and effective development, environmental sustainability and environmental protection
25-gen-2004
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1122927
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact