The City of Turin approved a Regulation for public collaboration on the urban commons in 2016, on the model of the Bologna Regulation with peculiar, context-related adaptation. In 2017, the City of Turin presented a project, admitted to funding within the context of the Urban Innovative Actions (UIA) program. The “Co-City” project builds a policy program for the Co-City starting from the Regulation. The Co-City project builds on both previous experiences of the City with urban regeneration policies, fight against social inclusion, the Neighborhood Houses Network (Ferrero 2012), and on more recent proposals of innovative solutions for governing city commons or implementing a Co-City (Iaione 2016).
In particular, it looks at the transformation of abandoned structures and vacant land in hubs of resident participation, in order to foster the community spirit as well as the creation of social enterprises that will contribute to reduce urban poverty in different areas of the city. The implementation of the Regulation on the urban commons will be driven in Turin by the implementation of “pacts of collaboration” between residents or associations and local authorities, based in most of the cases on taking care of public spaces, or on the reuse of abandoned urban spaces and structures. The creation of new forms of commons-based urban welfare will promote social mixing and the cohesion of the local community, making residents actors of the urban change, while the local authority will act as facilitator of innovation processes already ongoing in the urban context.
The use of innovative ICT platforms, such as the urban social network First Life, developed by the University of Turin, and the active collaboration of the network of the Neighborhood Houses (Case del Quartiere), will contribute to combine virtual and physical dimensions, involving different types of publics in the center, as well as in the suburbs of the city.
The regeneration of abandoned or underused spaces in different areas of the city will contribute to create new jobs in the social economy sector through the creation of new enterprises, which emerged along the process of residents’ participation initiated and facilitated by the city of Turin, together with the network of the Houses of the Neighborhoods. Moreover, the definition and the implementation of several pacts of collaboration will improve the participation of residents in different parts of the city, fostering the commitment of the citizens towards a more inclusive and cohesive city.
The role of the UIA program
It is through the «Co-City» Urban Innovative Actions (UIA) project that the City managed to invest in the urban commons as a lever for addressing key urban governance issues such as poverty, and target the most vulnerable communities in the city. In Turin, the UIA Co-City project is carried out through a partnership with the Computer Science Department and Law School of the University of Turin, the National Association of Municipalities (ANCI) and the Cascina Roccafranca Foundation as the leader of the Neighborhood Houses Network. It aims at coordinating the efforts of different urban actors in promoting the implementation of the Turin Regulation. The project provides the renewal of real estate and public spaces considered as urban commons, as instrument of social inclusion and poverty reduction in many deprived areas of the City. The project is coordinated by the City Department for Decentralization, Youth and Equal Opportunities.
The Neighborhood Houses is a policy and network that the city of Turin is implementing since 2006 (Ferrero 2012), which promotes the diffusion of community spaces all over the city. It represents a key platform for the project’s implementation. In the Neighborhood Houses Network, city inhabitants will find information on the Co-City project and the different opportunities it offers. There, they will find support for drafting proposals of pacts of collaboration as well as the opportunity to meet other city inhabitants interested in establishing a cooperation to take care or regenerate the same urban commons.
The first steps of the Co-City implementation
The first step of the UIA Co-City project was the public call for proposal of pacts of collaboration. The proposal addressed Turin’s city inhabitants. Launched by the City in June 2017, it was aimed at collecting citizens’ proposals for pacts of collaboration and therefore communicating with target beneficiaries and adopting a participative approach.
The call was a great success in terms of rate of civic participation with 115 proposals submitted. This result shows that the project stimulated civic participation and achieved quantitative success from the standpoint of the civic initiative for taking care of the public space. 54 pacts proposals out of the 115 submitted were admitted to the co-design phase. The majority of the proposals falls under measure C of the call, addressing the care of public space; the 37% of proposals falls under measure B, addressing the regeneration of platforms of public infrastructures; and the 6% for the pacts addressing measure A, peripheries and urban cultures. 54 proposals were admitted to the co-design phase. 1 proposal for measure A, 4 proposals for measure B, 12 proposals for measure B “schools”, and 49 proposals for the measure C were admitted to the co-design phase after the evaluation carried out by the City of Turin. The co-design phase started on the 28th of February and is still ongoing. The call for proposals for measure C is still open, so the number of pacts admitted to the Co-design phase will be constantly growing.
The pacts’ proposals are varied and rich (for a detailed analysis of the Co-City Turin process and the pacts of collaboration in particular, see the Co-City Project Journals). Among others, the Habitat proposal is aimed at intervening on a building in Via le Chiuse, District 4 of the City of Turin. The first floor of the building is occupied by the local health agency’s offices while the second floor is in disuse. The renovation work could change the internal disposition of the rooms, to host the pact’s activities.
The Casa Ozanam community hub proposal is presented by city inhabitants already active in the very same structure, who have previously revitalized it. The new program would allow to expand their offer, setting as its objective the realization of a new neighborhood house in District 5 of the city of Turin.
The proposals are distributed across Turin’s districts, although the peripheries received special attention. The neighborhoods often host former industrial areas that were interested in previous years by urban regeneration policies, or formerly rural areas turned into high-density residential neighborhoods. The typical case is the Falchera neighborhood, in District 6, that was already subject to urban regeneration policies in the nineties. The Falchera neighborhood is composed of two main areas, the Old Falchera built in the fifties and the new Falchera built in the seventies as part of a development project of the “INA-Casa” program, a state-level housing program which resulted in the creation of an isolated residential area for factory workers.
Christian iaione, UIA expert, carried out an analysis of the way the pacts’ proposals address the goal of counteracting urban poverty through an urban co-governance approach, rooted in the transfer of the governance of the commons theory to the city (UIA Co-City Turin Zoom in). His analysis leads to two observations.
The first observation is that the goal of alleviating urban poverty is pursued through direct and indirect means: direct promotion of social and economic inclusion on the one hand, and urban regeneration on the other hand. The majority of the pacts, in fact, foresees low budget or medium budget interventions for the care of public spaces. This is creating a key resource, namely social capital, which could be the stepping stone for new forms of non-monetary economies, and therefore strategies to fight urban poverty. Other pacts address urban poverty more directly by creating learning and income opportunities for the proponents (i.e. social cooperatives; NGOs involved in migrant’s integration), as well as offering forms of urban welfare to the neighborhoods inhabitants.
The second observation is related to the innovative legal and economic nature of the partnership created through the pacts of collaboration. A key turning point in this regard is the issue of risk aversion, a complex and priority issue faced by public officials at the urban level. The issue is of a primary importance for the EU, as the recently published Draft action plan of the Urban Partnership for Public procurement shows. The need for risk-takers inside any public administration is an issue that several scholars from law, economics, and policy studies are addressing. Mariana Mazzucato recently proposed to the European Commission a mission-oriented and public value approach to public investments to nurture innovation, which could be fruitfully applied to urban innovation processes like the UIA Co-City project.
The Italian scene of activism for the commons increasingly often sees local communities getting organized and starting real estate negotiations with public or private owners to transfer the property of important pieces of real estate in communities’ hands. A recent post on this blog presented the case of the Innesto Community Coop in Val Cavallina, Lombardia. The community coop launched a crowdfunding campaign to buy back from a public authority “La Casa del Pescatore”. This is considered a critical facility for the local community for this is the place where many community activities take place. At the same time this facility is the means through which the micro-economic activities that guarantee the economic sustainability and therefore the social impact produced by the community coop are run.
There at least two similar experiences in Italy. They are carried out in Rome by the Co-Roma project and in Milan by Macao. There might be more cases and we would be happy to discuss this kind of commons-based real estate transactions on our blog more and more if our readers know of similar cases. We have seen this happening also abroad in difficult contexts like in New York City with the REIC and in Germany with the Mietzhauser Sindakat.
We will focus here on a brief description of the Macao experience in Milano. We will then suggest this approach could be a possible strategy for contexts that are facing similar issues in Bologna, where the Làbas collective was recently evicted by the police from an abandoned former barracks and in Mondeggi, Tuscany where the Mondeggi as a Commons initiative gathers a diverse network of organic producers, farmers, professors, architects, students and active citizens who want to oppose the selling out of public heritage in favor of private investors, and propose to the City as an alternative to privatization the civic use of the whole property.
The Macao experience
The Macao experience was initiated by a group of artists and creative workers, part of the “Lavoratori dell’arte”, Art Workers movement in 2012. Macao blossomed under the Mayorship of Giuliano Pisapia and the large coalition of left wing parties that he led, that succeeded at the local elections in Milan after decades of right-wing coalitions governing the City. The Macao experience initiated with the occupation of an abandoned skyscraper in the center of Milan, the “Torre Galfa”. The group of activists, artists and creative workers were evicted some days after the occupation, but a few weeks later they managed to occupy and move into a former slaughterhouse, in Via Molise 12, were they are still based. In the initial phase of the path, thousands of people participated to the Macao activity. After the first months of activity, the participation considerably shrank to 120 people in late 2012. The building that Macao is currently occupying is publicly owned, and located in a semi-peripheral area of the city. The occupation is therefore illegal, but the City undertook a strategy based on tolerance and informality. In the early summer of 2014, the City of Milan set up a negotiation board to deal with City-owned abandoned spaces with a potentiality for social innovation purpose. The aim of the negotiation board was to find ways to include even informal associations or autonomous organizations or collectives. Macao accepted to participate to the negotiation. However the dialogue did not produce substantial results. The intense dialogue with the City produced a draft of City Resolution, that takes inspiration from the Bologna Regulation on the Urban Commons with significant adaptation. The Resolution was not approved by the City Government in charge.
Picture from Zero: https://goo.gl/DLd4MC.
The building where Macao is currently based is formally owned by a publicly owned company, Sogemi S.P.A., and is part of a larger complex called Ortomercato. Sogemi board decided to sell the buildings contained in the area including Macao’s headquarter. Macao therefore decided to implement a proactive strategy and proceed with the acquisition of the building, following the successful model of collective property adopted by the Mietzhauser Sindakat, a German reality. After manifesting their interest to buy the property to the City of Milan, who declared that they must proceed with a public contest, Macao launched a fundraising campaign for the acquisition of the building and constituted an open association, composed by individuals and other NGOs that want to contribute to Macao’s activities. The bylaws of the association is available here.
The Mondeggi and Labàs cases
Could the experiences that we just described be a role model for other cases like Làbas and Mondeggi?
Picture from Fuori Binario: https://goo.gl/Q5M8Rw.
The Mondeggi Initiative was recently analysed on our blog. The Mondeggi Bene Comune initiative was born in 2013, out of the Florence Committee for Land as a Common Good (Terra bene Comune Firenze), with the support of Genuino Clandestino, in order to defend the principles of commoning on agricultural lands on the specific site of the Mondeggi farm, a 200 hectares territory situated in the Florence metropolitan region and owned by the Florence Province, who wanted to sell the farm because of a huge dept. a group of around 100 people immediately opposed to the sell the property and proposed biological agricultural projects in the farm. One year after the first manifestation of interest, in 2014, this community decided to occupy one of the colonic houses of the farm. Currently, 20 people are living in the farm and collectively manage it. Recently, the Committee issued a Declaration of Civic Use and proposed to the public actor to manage the whole Mondeggi Farm also launching a petition addressing public intellectuals and academics for supporting this initiative.
In the City of Bologna, the eviction of the Làbas collective from the former Caserma Masini, is stimulating a strong debate on active resistance and occupation of public buildings for social use. Làbas is the political collective that on November 13, 2012, occupied an abandoned military station of 9.000 squared meters, the former Caserma Masini on Orfeo Street n. 46, currently owned by the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (the Italian Soveriegn Wealth Fund, hereinafter CdP). Since the occupation, Làbas regenerated the space and organized a wide set of activities, open to the neighbourhood and the whole city, ranging from political activity such as the campaign #iooccupo, #I occupy, a protest against housing policies of the City of Bologna, that also practice concrete fight against evictions and support realities that promote access to housing for vulnerable groups, also through illegal occupations such as the “Via Solferino 42”, occupation of a building owned by the a Blind Institute, the Istituto Cavazza, that allows 20 families to access housing. Another core issue of Làbas is the migration crisis, that they address through communication activities and volunteering actions, social urban gardening and social economic activities.
Picture from Il resto del Carlino: https://goo.gl/eHAupH.
The Làbas collective recently started a dialogue with the City Government about the future of the space and established a “Comitato per la Tutela e l’Affermazione del’’ex Caserma Masini Bene Comune”, a Committee for the Care and Affirmation of the former Caserma Masini as a commons, that provides them with a legally recognised infrastructure with currently 700 members. In early August, the Làbas center was evicted and received manifestation of support from a wide array of social actors in the City. What is required for the civic and institutional actors involved in this situation for addressing it is to carry out an exercise of civic imagination, as stated by Matteo Lepore (deputy-mayor for economic development, the commons and civic imagination) that recently proposed for Làbas and other realities active in the neighbourhood to open a dialogue on the possibility to contribute to the regeneration and temporary reuse of the wide abandoned Staveco area, a former military area which is going to be destined for 85% of its space to social use. Also, declarations from the Mayor of Bologna Virginio Merola are open to the dialogue to find an alternative solution for Làbas. On September 9th hundreds of city inhabitants walked the streets of the city center in a peaceful parade aimed to ask the reopening of Làbas and its activities. The peaceful attitude of the participants contrasts the sudden and violent eviction of early August, showing the willingness to restore the pre-existing collaborative atmosphere with public authorities, that was abruptly and wrongly breached, also according to Lepore’ opinion.
Buying back the commons
Is an alternative solution, meaning another building in another place, just good enough for real commons?
Commons is about the social process of commoning as many thought leaders and scholars say. And some of these collectives are not just simple collectives, but a manifestation of what we could call potential “commons enterprises”. Some progressive cities like Bologna are adopting an approach to this kind of experiences that is definitely advanced compared to the average of Italian Cities. As a matter of fact, the institutional strategy to address illegal occupations so far has been two-folded: regularizations where the City Government was led by radical left wing or radical social right wing coalitions and evictions where the City Government was led by liberal, pro-market centre-right and sometimes also centre-left coalitions. Some cities like Bologna have chosen a third path, based on the recognition of the social value produced by those experiences and on a public-commons bargaining process, whereby such collectives in exchange for leaving an occupied space, the social reality involved would have been allowed to find an appropriate arrangement with the support of the City Government. However, even this third far-sighted approach still relies on a role of the local government as an intermediary and not as a platform or enabling actor. Also, the local government exposes itself to the critique that in this way it incentivizes a sort of real estate market of occupations. Last, the political meaning of the urban commons initiative gets lost, generating a loss of social and cultural value produced meanwhile in that specific building not elsewhere.
If the commons want to succeed they need to fight with instruments similar to those that other economic actors use. So, a fourth path, definitely more challenging for both the city government, as well as Labàs and similar commons entrepreneurs, could be to enable them to buy the building. This is a strategy Iaione suggested in 2011. This option is already contemplated somehow by the Bologna Regulation on Civic Collaboration for the Urban Commons, but newer and more refined financing and regulatory tools have been developed meanwhile. Using these newer tools some experimentations on commons-based finance such as the Co-Roma experimentation, the case of Macao in Milan and “l’Innesto” Community Cooperative are carried out.
This strategy seems to be applicable, through a public-private-commons partnership, even to larger infrastructure like the Port of Capri which is facing far bigger risks and a more complex regulatory framework. The Masini Barracks – which according to a formal estimate is valued 12 million Euros on paper – is worth way less then its formal prices in the current market conditions and therefore it seems to be the perfect test bed for a commons-based financing operation. Maybe if the community was provided with the right expertise, it could definitely negotiate on an equal footing and further lower the cost of the deal to get it closer to a threshold that the community can reasonably afford.
Civic imagination might therefore be conceived not as a new episode of participatory democracy, but rather as that process through which social actors, individually and collectively, are enabled to challenge the ordinary bureaucratic rationality and envision “better political, social, and civic environments and work towards achieving those futures”. Also imagination is civic when it is concerned with society and not, for Instance, with individual aspiration. Civic Imagination should therefore be about transforming utopias, micro-actions, ideas, projects of collectives and active citizens into real “commons enterprises” and “collective institutions” to achieve a real “economic democracy”.
The role of the public sphere (bureaucracy and politics) in this game should change. Primarily, it should avoid any extreme repressive attitudes, understanding the added value coming from such initiatives. As Matteo Lepore recently stated: “while somebody has been busy for a long time placing traps along the way, thinking only in terms of formal rules and formal legality, everyone willing to walk towards the goal of a new policy on these issues have already taken a step forward down this path. We would no longer have this kind of problems, if we were able to turn city inhabitants needs into participatory paths and urban assets into opportunities open to everyone, in a city where there are still many abandoned spaces to be recovered and a third sector already very active and widespread. Over the next few weeks, through the Civic Imagination Office, we will move along this path”.
Both civic and public actors have to change their attitude, adapting their role in order to find appropriate solutions, even through experimental initiatives.
City inhabitants must start thinking in a more entrepreneurial way. They actually have the duty to be entrepreneurial in order to adopt the most appropriate means to safeguard the commons from some backward-looking bureaucracies. Thus, there is also a liability towards future generations, which shall not be considered just as an ethical principle. It can be configured as a constitutional principle in Italy, pursuant to articles 2, 9, 67 e 98. In this regard, the civic buy back of the commons could be a solution perfectly aligned with the new proactive role citizens have to play and successfully achieved in many countries, like in India or The Netherlands, aimed at the protection of the environment as well as other common assets. It is not new even for the Italian scene. Many civil society organizations like WWF, Italia Nostra, FAI, Legambiente, Libera have initiated similar projects investing in the regeneration and/or acquisition or management of common assets at risk. In this perspective, as the Macao collective has announced, it could be adopted the model created by the Mietshäuser Syndikat, a cooperative which manages the collective purchase of occupied properties. It practices the path of private law as a suitable tool for the buy back of the commons, so that the property is taken away from the logic of profit and commercial speculation.
Public authorities should also start upgrading their approach. They need to give up on their role as an intermediary and start acting as an institutional platform enabling civic imagination. For instance Làbas as much as any other informal community does not want to incorporate a legal entity. Policymakers could therefore enable the establishment of a special purpose vehicle, a so-called “Friends of Làbas”, that would act as a trustee, a shepard, a custodian working for and with the Làbas informal community on a solid and credible project for potential investors (in technical terms articulating the project pipeline) that would embed Làbas values and goals in the proposal to the current owners, raise funds for the acquisition, negotiate the terms of the acquisition from the national publicly-owned company that owns the asset, grant rights of perpetual use to the Làbas informal community. The bylaws of such legal entity should provide the destination to use by the Làbas informal community of the building and grant/secure the right to use to Làbas in perpetuity. This would be a great project on which the Civic Imagination Office should work on.
Il panorama italiano dell’attivismo per i beni comuni vede in misura crescente esperienze di comunità locali che si auto-organizzano e avviano negoziazioni immobiliari con i proprietari, pubblici o privati, degli immobili per trasferirne la proprietà nelle mani della comunità. Un recente post su questo blog ha presentato il caso della Cooperativa di Comunità Innesto in Val Cavallina, Lombardia, la quale ha lanciato una campagna di crowdfunding per acquistare dal proprietario pubblico “La Casa del Pescatore”. Possiamo osservare altre due esperienze similari nel panorama italiano: a Roma, con il progetto Co-Roma e l’attività della Comunità per il Parco Pubblico di Centocelle e a Milano, con il caso di Macao. Ci sarebbero molte altre esperienze con cui confrontare questi casi, anche a livello internazionale per esempio a New York City con il REIC e in Germania con il Mietzhauser Sindakat. L’articolo si soffermerà, dopo una riflessione introduttiva su approfondimento di questi casi, in particolare l’esperienza di Macao, connettendoli con la recente vicenda del collettivo Làbas (Bologna), e il caso di Mondeggi (Toscana, Provincia di Firenze), che presentano tratti comuni seppur con rilevanti differenze.
 M. D’Ovidio, & A. Cossu, Culture is reclaiming the creative city: The case of Macao in Milan, Italy, in City, Culture and Society, 2016, Vol. 1, n. 6, (doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2016.04.001)
 C. Iaione, The Platform State, available here: www.commoning.city.
 Sheila R. Foster, Urban Informality as a Commons Dilemma, 40 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 261 (2009).
 D. Graeber, The Utopia of Rules, Melville House (2016).
G. Baiocchi et al., Civic Imagination: Making a Difference in American Political Life, Routledge (2014).
 Tom Malleson, After Occupy: Economic Democracy for the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, (2014).
 R. Bifulco, Diritti e generazioni future. Problemi giuridici della responsabilità intergenerazionale, Milan (2013).
 Baiocchi et al., Civic Imagination: Making a Difference in American Political Life, Routledge (2014).
Participatory budgeting is a democratic practice that was first implemented in Latin America in the late 80’, traveled the world and it’s now been instituted in 1500 cities worldwide. Several scholars highlights the positive impact of participatory budgeting for the quality of life in cities and for democratic legitimacy and in particular his potentiality to include vulnerable communities. On the other side, scientific studies also reveals limits of this democratic innovation, due for instance to the intensity of worldwide diffusion, and put the lights on the riks of transforming a democratic process into a sterile set of procedures.
In the European Union Context, a relevant example is the Paris case, the bigger in the EU, and in Italy this experiment is been conducted in some middle size and small size cities, mainly through the Bipart platform.
Participatory budgeting in New York City
In the USA and Canadian context, participatory budgeting in recently been implemented, in Toronto, Chicago and New York City. The PB in New York was first implemented as a pilot project from 2011 to 2012 and was initiated by four members of the New City Council, three Democrats and one Republican: Brad Lander, Melissa Mark-Viverito, Eric Ulrich, and Jumaane D. Williams. They’ve chosen to allocate for Participatory Budgeting the discretionary funds (capital money) of their budget. The four council members decided to put a part of their budget directly in the hands of their constituency, for an amount of at least 1 million dollars.
After the pilot project was realized, Participatory budgeting in New York City expanded dramatically and it’s been adopted by 28 council members. In 2016, 67,000 New Yorkers voted to allocate $38 million for locally-developed capital projects across 28 Council Districts in New York City. Currently, the sixth cycle of PB is ongoing.
There are several kind of projects that can be proposed: improvements to schools, parks, libraries, public housing, and other public or community spaces. The process is designed to meet needs of communities and to ensure involvement of all the local actors. The first phase of the process consist in public discussions, the Neighborhood Assemblies, realized in each district were people can learn more about the process and discuss the needs of the neighborhood. At the end of this phase, volunteers from the community, the Budget delegates, are selected and the first ideas are collected also though the Idea Collection Map. Budget Delegates, work on the ideas in order to turn them into real proposals for a ballot, with input also from city agencies, that ensure feasibility and coordination of proposals. These proposals will be up for a community-wide vote. The Council Members then submit the projects with the most votes to City Council for inclusion in the final city budget. Community members evaluate the process, and oversee the implementation of projects.
More information about the phases of the project are available here: http://labs.council.nyc/pb/ and here: http://ideas.pbnyc.org/page/about-. To see research on the impact of Participatory Budgeting, you can have a look at the annual research reports published by the Community Development Project of the Urban Justice Center:
The participatory budgeting process in NYC is supported technically by the Participatory Budgeting Project, a non profit organization that create and support participatory budgeting processes in several context in the United States of America and in Canada. On the basis of their large experience, both theoretical and on the ground, they developed Guidelines and Tools to implement Participatory Budgeting in cities: http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/resources/sample-materials/ .
The issue is been studied also from an institutional standpoint. The World bank, European Union and the United Nations have worked intensely on this issue, given his relevance for democracy and his great diffusions, and developed opinions and toolkit.
 Wampler, B. “A Guide to Participatory Budgeting” In. Participatory Budgeting edited by Shan, A. Washington DC, The World Bank (2007); Smith, G. Democratic Innovations. Cambridge, CUP (2009); G. Baiocchi, P. Heller, and M. K. Silva Bootstrapping Democracy: Transforming Local Governance and Civil Society in Brazil, Standford University Press (2011).
 E. Ganuza and G. Baiocchi, The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory Budgeting Travels the Globe Journal of Public Deliberation Volume 8 Issue 2 Article 8 (2012).
 See generally H.R. Gilman, Democracy reinvented, Brookings, (2016).
 The list of the winning projects and the amount of funds spent per district are available here: http://labs.council.nyc/pb/results/.
LabGov will participate at the Trento Green Week, a forum for discussion on the major issues of the green economy. The three-day festival, that will take place from the 4th to the 6th of March, includes several sessions, debates, meetings and events on sustainability.
LabGov will intervene during the panel on “The collaborative economy in the city (and beyond)”, organized by the ENI Enrico Mattei Foundation. It will gather noteworthy speakers among the most notable leaders of innovative researches and projects about the collaborative economy in Italy. After an introduction by Flaviano Zandonai, from Iris Network and an intervention by Matthew Bina, from the Manager Incubator Fabri, LabGov will present CO-Bologna. The forward-looking significance of the collaborative economy is indeed one of the most important issues of the CO-Bologna program, which aims to prototype – through a process of experimentation in urban collaborative living labs moderated by LabGov experts – collaborative/polycentric governance devices at the neighborhood level. This process will contribute in turning neighborhoods in collaborative ecosystems that enable the proliferation of innovations such as the pooling economy. The panel discussion that will follow immediately after those intervention will see Francesco Gabbi, founder of Abito and Ilaria Lenzi, coordinator of the research program “Sustainability and Social Innovation”, at the Eni Enrico Mattei Foundation and Angelo Rindone, founder of “Produzioni dal basso”.
Non solo green – LabGov parla di economia collaborativa alla Green Week di Trento.
LabGov parteciperà alla Green Week, forum di discussione sui grandi temi della green economy. La manifestazione, organizzata dall’Università di Trento, sarà suddivisa in due percorsi differenti: dall’ 1 al 3 marzo un tour porterà i partecipanti alla scoperta delle aziende d’eccellenza delle Venezie; dal 4 al 6 marzo, un festival di tre giorni sarà animato da una ricca serie dibattiti, incontri, eventi, sul tema della sostenibilità ospitati dalla città di Trento.
LabGov prenderà parte alla sessione dedicata a “L’economia collaborativa nelle città (e non solo)”, curata dalla Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, che vedrà il contributo dei protagonisti delle più rilevanti ricerche e sperimentazioni dell’economia collaborativa in Italia. Dopo l’introduzione di Flaviano Zandonai, segretario Iris di Network e gli interventi di Matteo Bina, Incubation Manager Fabri, LabGov racconterà i successi di CO-Bologna. Il tema dell’economia collaborativa è infatti uno dei temi più importanti del programma CO-Bologna, che ha l’obiettivo di prototipare, a valle di un processo di sperimentazione in laboratori urbani collaborativi, dei dispositivi di governance collaborativa/policentrica a livello di quartiere che contribuiscano a rendere le città degli ecosistemi collaborativi che abilitano il proliferare delle innovazioni come la pooling economy. La tavola rotonda che seguirà subito dopo prevede la partecipazione di Francesco Gabbi, fondatore di Abito e Ilaria Lenzi, coordinatrice del programma di ricerca “Sostenibilità e Innovazione Sociale”, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei ed infine Angelo Rindone, fondatore di Produzioni dal Basso.