Many European cities appear as the combination of very problematic issues that can be easily considered as significant examples of stressful places for which definitions, instruments of intervention and adequate policies seem to be not available. The recent adoption of the concept of resilience within the urban planning theories and practices (Coaffee, Wood & Rogers 2009; Davoudi, 2012) has offered a relevant way to read some important social and spatial phenomena that can be usefully tested like "theories and practices in use" within contexts of critical concern. Many influential contributions, all around Europe, offer good arguments for considering the enormous differences in terms of opportunities for well-being and happiness among the urban cities in the North and South of the world. As well as the Globalization and the economic crisis are regrouping forms of discrimination and social division within the same cities (Secchi 2010) with particularly difficult and uncomfortable housing conditions. Large cities appear as an archipelago where social groups of more or less marginal and distressed people live in. Within this direction of research that problematizes the establishment of a perspective “from the South” (Mabin 2013) oriented to the identification of a map these places (heterotopias , for Magatti 2007) for a future possible spatial transformations and desirable institutional innovations, the Italian case-study allows to present a rich range of possible stressful places within a general condition of the weaknesses of the institutions and public policies, particularly evident in some large metropolitan cities of the Country. So, the paper offers an overview upon stressful places in Rome and Naples by comparing marginal areas (more or less deprived) where a different combination of spatial conditions, resilience factors, agency and social innovation outlines different trajectories "to exit" or "to stay" within an highly problematic areas. In fact, through the comparison of 4 different urban areas of the two cities, the paper tries to develop critically the links between: - degree of resilience (positive , neutral or negative, according with Davis, 2011) and treatability/transformability of critical areas; - physical and institutional preconditions, and effectiveness of place-based policies ; - degrees of social marginalization and spatiality of the “urban suffering” treated by policies. The main objective of this paper is therefore to compare and discuss with the coordinator and colleagues, a contribution to locate and draw a map of the stressful places to interpret trends and guidelines, in the national and international framework, of the most significant and acute form of urban deprivation. Finally, regarding the policies will be proposed some possible strategies for an effective treatment of the most problematic urban issues, that should form the basis of knowledge of EU to define the framework of actions for the city in the next programming phase.
Many European cities appear as the combination of very problematic issues that can be easily considered as significant examples of stressful places for which definitions, instruments of intervention and adequate policies seem to be not available. The recent adoption of the concept of resilience within the urban planning theories and practices (Coaffee, Wood & Rogers 2009; Davoudi, 2012) has offered a relevant way to read some important social and spatial phenomena that can be usefully tested like "theories and practices in use" within contexts of critical concern. Many influential contributions, all around Europe, offer good arguments for considering the enormous differences in terms of opportunities for well-being and happiness among the urban cities in the North and South of the world. As well as the Globalization and the economic crisis are regrouping forms of discrimination and social division within the same cities (Secchi 2010) with particularly difficult and uncomfortable housing conditions. Large cities appear as an archipelago where social groups of more or less marginal and distressed people live in. Within this direction of research that problematizes the establishment of a perspective “from the South” (Mabin 2013) oriented to the identification of a map these places (heterotopias , for Magatti 2007) for a future possible spatial transformations and desirable institutional innovations, the Italian case-study allows to present a rich range of possible stressful places within a general condition of the weaknesses of the institutions and public policies, particularly evident in some large metropolitan cities of the Country. So, the paper offers an overview upon stressful places in Rome and Naples by comparing marginal areas (more or less deprived) where a different combination of spatial conditions, resilience factors, agency and social innovation outlines different trajectories "to exit" or "to stay" within an highly problematic areas. In fact, through the comparison of 4 different urban areas of the two cities, the paper tries to develop critically the links between: - degree of resilience (positive , neutral or negative, according with Davis, 2011) and treatability/transformability of critical areas; - physical and institutional preconditions, and effectiveness of place-based policies ; - degrees of social marginalization and spatiality of the “urban suffering” treated by policies. The main objective of this paper is therefore to compare and discuss with the coordinator and colleagues, a contribution to locate and draw a map of the stressful places to interpret trends and guidelines, in the national and international framework, of the most significant and acute form of urban deprivation. Finally, regarding the policies will be proposed some possible strategies for an effective treatment of the most problematic urban issues, that should form the basis of knowledge of EU to define the framework of actions for the city in the next programming phase.
Sensitive urban areas as stressful place: a comparison between Rome and Naples / DE LEO, Daniela; G., Laino. - ELETTRONICO. - (2014).
Sensitive urban areas as stressful place: a comparison between Rome and Naples
DE LEO, DANIELA;
2014
Abstract
Many European cities appear as the combination of very problematic issues that can be easily considered as significant examples of stressful places for which definitions, instruments of intervention and adequate policies seem to be not available. The recent adoption of the concept of resilience within the urban planning theories and practices (Coaffee, Wood & Rogers 2009; Davoudi, 2012) has offered a relevant way to read some important social and spatial phenomena that can be usefully tested like "theories and practices in use" within contexts of critical concern. Many influential contributions, all around Europe, offer good arguments for considering the enormous differences in terms of opportunities for well-being and happiness among the urban cities in the North and South of the world. As well as the Globalization and the economic crisis are regrouping forms of discrimination and social division within the same cities (Secchi 2010) with particularly difficult and uncomfortable housing conditions. Large cities appear as an archipelago where social groups of more or less marginal and distressed people live in. Within this direction of research that problematizes the establishment of a perspective “from the South” (Mabin 2013) oriented to the identification of a map these places (heterotopias , for Magatti 2007) for a future possible spatial transformations and desirable institutional innovations, the Italian case-study allows to present a rich range of possible stressful places within a general condition of the weaknesses of the institutions and public policies, particularly evident in some large metropolitan cities of the Country. So, the paper offers an overview upon stressful places in Rome and Naples by comparing marginal areas (more or less deprived) where a different combination of spatial conditions, resilience factors, agency and social innovation outlines different trajectories "to exit" or "to stay" within an highly problematic areas. In fact, through the comparison of 4 different urban areas of the two cities, the paper tries to develop critically the links between: - degree of resilience (positive , neutral or negative, according with Davis, 2011) and treatability/transformability of critical areas; - physical and institutional preconditions, and effectiveness of place-based policies ; - degrees of social marginalization and spatiality of the “urban suffering” treated by policies. The main objective of this paper is therefore to compare and discuss with the coordinator and colleagues, a contribution to locate and draw a map of the stressful places to interpret trends and guidelines, in the national and international framework, of the most significant and acute form of urban deprivation. Finally, regarding the policies will be proposed some possible strategies for an effective treatment of the most problematic urban issues, that should form the basis of knowledge of EU to define the framework of actions for the city in the next programming phase.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
