The second day of co-working session, held on October the 15th begun with Eloisa Susanna’s general outlook about other active projects, similar to #coRome, spread all over Italy.Eloisa,a young architect,rapidly commemorated the G124 project,launched by Renzo Piano in which great relevance is given to peripheral areas and the imperative need of maintenance trough micro-surgical interventions,this is what the Otranto project of 1979 was about.In general,this procedure implies two fundamental principles:first of all it has to be interest-based,secondly it has to be performed through a collaborative process that consist in framing and contextualizing the city of Rome and its surrounding territory,focusing on those areas that constitute a patrimonial identity.
Than,Claudio Gnessi explained the explosive role of the Ecomuseo Casino Ad Duas Lauros (www.ecomuseocasilino.it). This institution owns much to the “comunità di eredità” which actively engaged in several partecipative laboratories,with the common goal to define the space in which cultural and natural sites have previously been identified.The actual plan is focused in Tor Pignattara,a neighborhood where around 130 cultural resources were mapped,thanks to the fruitful work of a social network composed by inhabitants of that neighborhood but also public and private actors.It is important to underline the social consequence brought by this initiative:cooperation was promoted among different religious and cultural realities,unified by a shared interest and motivated by common moral values.
Right after the Labgovers productively engaged in a workshop that consisted in reporting on a widespread map four different topic developed with the aid of expert mentors and of Alessandra and Urio, the co-founders of the newborn Community for the Public Park of Centocelle.The participants were divided into four groups,namely:Mobility, Accessibility, Potentialities and Public Services.
The first group,”mobility”,identified which public transport are easily available both from the center and the outskirt of Rome:the main one are the “trenino laziale” and the tram “19”.Than the participants focused over the potentialities that the park could offer if,in one hand,the pedestrian accessibility was open on both sides of the park’s perimeter and,on the other side,the bicycle route,know as GRAB, could pass trough the park instead of in its proximity.
The second group,”accessibility”,listed more accurately all the potential resources that the park could make available.Surprisingly the V Municipal seems to be blessed by so many cultural sites that could re-animate the entire area from a touristic perspective,but also for the sole purpose of embellish the neighborhood.
A third group ,”potentialities”,brought to light many critical matters such as security and sanitary issues,in fact the park has several abusive occupied zone,not omitting the wasted paper and rubbish that pollutes the park everywhere.
The fourth group;”public services”,classified and mapped all the accessible public services around the PaC zone,such as churches, schools,parks,cultural attractions,theaters and cinemas.-
As it emerges from the images,the V Municipality has extraordinary potentialities,however,due to its marginalized position,its shabby’s first appearance,and the elevate conglomeration of immigrants and religious identities, its efficiency is completely unexploited and its integrity is gradually decreasing and deteriorating running the risk to fall in the oblivion.
The meeting ended up with Stefania Favorito’s speech over the importance of the park from an archaeological point of view,the park is surrounded by historical sites such as the Villa Ad Duas Lauros,il Forte Casino,la Villa della Piscina,la Vecchio Osteria,all dated back from the republican era until the XIX century,plus the natural resources of l’Agro Romano,il Canneto,l’Agri-Fauna and the whole park of Centocelle.It is important to be mature the awareness to understand what this park does symbolize for the cohabitants of the V Municipality, how this zone reflects their feeling of social marginalization and how this project give them the possibility to join a community in which moral and civic values are promoted and cooperation constantly active.( http://parcocentostelle.net )
For a very long time, communities and cities were divided into “digital haves” and “have nots” by whether or not they had “broadband”. Nowadays, although cables and DLS networks cover a large part of urban communities, a new divide has emerged, the gigabit divide (basic vs developed broadband connectivity). Then, according to Internet Association, a national trade group representing leading Internet companies including Amazon, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Paypal and Twitter “Access to the Internet is today the modern equivalent to access to railroads, electricity, highways and telephony in previous eras. And just as the federal government recognized and executed its role in encouraging, promoting, and facilitating universal access to those services, the federal government today similarly recognizes its role in promoting and facilitating access to broadband services.” All these factors lead more and more communities to searching for an active role in shaping the future of local next-generation Internet access.
According to this idea and, given that building such networks is extremely expensive, a growing number of municipalities are turning to public-private partnerships to finance and build broadband networks. The problem is that this kind of deals can also fail. An important paper about that is the new report “Successful Strategies for Broadband Public-Private Partnerships”. The paper studies successful deals and, on the contrary, what causes them to fail. The report is written by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), a group that works with urban actors to provide them with innovative strategies and working models that support environmentally sound and equitable economic policies and community development.
First of all, in order to create a true partnership between public and private sector, ILSR report clarifies that public entities and private companies must both have “skin in the game”, i.d. both need to take on the same level of risk. Thus, fully public – for example: Chattanoga, Tennessee; Lafayette, Louisiana and Wilson, North Carolina – and fully private systems – such as US Internet in Minneapolis and Ting in Charlottesville, Virginia – are not considered PPPs because they merely involve both the public and the private sector and they should not be considered a partnership.
ILSR identifies three types of public-private cooperation that get very close to true balanced partnership.
- Private-Led Investment with Public Support is, in fact, dominated by the private sector and the public sector’s involvement and control is very limited. Google Fiber is an example of this private-led cooperation. In this case, Google Fiber network is designed, owned and operated totally independent of public sector partners.
- Public-Led Contracting concerns local network projects where the public actor has most of the project’s responsibilities: financing, constructing and owning the network infrastructure. Unlike the Private-Led Investment pattern, here the private sector engagement is generally limited to specific tasks. An example is Leverett, Massachusetts.
- Public Assets and Open Access. The network may have some components owned by the public sector and some by the private sector. For example Huntsville, Alabama.
Anyway, the central focus of the report is on true, balanced partnership where public and private sectors share their risk and reward fairly evenly. Although private companies and municipalities have different goals (municipalities can afford a longer payback period in order to meet social goals, private companies are looking for a faster return of investment), yet it is possible to create balanced PPPs. There is no “magic bullet” but it is crucial the result of honest and respectful negotiation. According to Westminster City Council President Dr. Robert Wack: “There has to be a shared sentiment that ‘we are in this together. We will fail together or we will succeed together.’ Whether it is the debt service guarantee or some other thing, the specific detail is not as important as shared willingness to make sacrifices to reach this common goal. That is the key of a successful public-private partnership”.
Then the report explains why those communities have preferred to seek partners:
- Share Costs: PPPs can spread project’s costs across the partners.
- Address Risk: no PPP is entirely risk-free and it should not be used merely for the public sector to hide risk from voters. PPPs can introduce new risks that are not present in fully public models, for example to forego some public goals.
- Digital Self-Determination: PPP can be a way to promote important public interest outcomes that may not occur under private projects such as universal access to high-quality infrastructure Indeed, advocates of municipal broadband argue it’s necessary to ensure cities’ networks reach all residents at an affordable price.
- Building Expertise: Communities that do not have expertise could develop it or embrace models that require less in-house skills.
An example of municipality that has implemented successfully this kind of deal, is Westminster, Maryland. First of all, the municipality partner with a new fiber company called Ting to connect every home and business using fiber. Secondly, the city owns the infrastructure and Ting has an exclusive contract for an initial period. Risk is shared between public and private sector because Westminster and Ting share the burden if revenue does not match the debt to build out the network ($21 million general obligation bond). Lastly, universal access to the infrastructure is provided by the city and Ting is protected if the city decides to sell the network.
On the contrary, not all P3s projects are successful. Wireless Philadelphia was an agreement to purchase bulk discounted internet subscriptions for low-income areas n Philadelphia. The system was shut down in four years later, after cost overruns, lack of community support and poor service because Wireless Philadelphia selected a partnership model that was not balanced.
A key lesson from the paper is that PPPs are increasingly viable but are not a panacea, which is why we discuss some failed PPPs. Partnerships can introduce additional risks while minimizing others. This is precisely for this reason that any PPP has risks and communities should be extremely wary of any potential partner that claims there are no risks with their preferred approach.
Il futuro della diffusione di Internet nelle città dipenderà in gran parte dalla capacità dei governi locali di saper costruire partnership con gli attori privati in modo da giungere ad uno sviluppo locale co-progettato che tenga contro delle esigenze di tutti coloro che vivono nella città. Il report dell’Institute for Local Self-Reliance cerca di fare luce su questo tema.
“L’intelligenza della città partecipata: competenze, risorse e regole per l’innovazione urbana” is the title of an event on collaborative governance and urban innovation that will take place in Rome on the 24th May 2016. This event was organized in the framework of the ForumPA 2016, that will also foster other events on the subjects of sustainability and sharing economy.
Digital skills and services, Resources and sustainability, Collaborative administration: these are the three subjects that will be discussed in the working groups, with the aim to move from single experiences and experiments to national proposals, to be addressed to the Government or to the Italian municipalities network.
Assessors, directors and experts will join the working groups.
The events will take place at Palazzo dei Congressi, Roma EUR, in Favignana Hall – CREATIVITY CCIAA ROMA- I° floor. Read the related ForumPA article here.
Martedì 24 Maggio al Palazzo dei Congressi di Roma si terrà l’evento “L’intelligenza della città partecipata: competenze, risorse e regole per l’innovazione urbana”, nel quadro del ForumPA 2016. I Tavoli di Lavoro vedranno coinvolti assessori, dirigenti ed esperti, per discutere di amministrazione collaborativa delle città.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016 from 17:00 PM, the event “Per una nuova cultura della città: la periferia come bene comune”organized by Giovani per Roma Association will be held at Sala Quaroni , placed in via Ciro il Grande in Rome EUR. Professor Christian Iaione from LabGov will partecipate to discuss the role of urban common as the engine for the regeneration of the suburbs. The main theme of the conference is urban innovation: how current urban dimensions could represent challenges fostering original future models of governance? In fact, the idea that lies behind this new critical way to organize the city is to build together a robust yet innovative system and to rethink the spaces and services putting at the centre stage the role of the citizenship. Other crucial issues will be addressed: the respect for the environment, the enhancement of the territory and the quality of life.
The event will be opened by Andrea Santoro, President of Municipio Roma IX. The conference will be attended by the following experts: Massimo Alvisi from Alvisikirimoto+Partners, Francesco Marsico from Caritas Italia, Davide Lottieri as President of Campus Bio-Medico Spa, Maurizio Gubbiotti as Special Commissioner for RomaNatura, Roberto Setola as Founder of the Italian Association for experts in Critical Infrastructures, Nicola Ferrigni for LinkLab and Francesco Limone as Director of ELIS Corporate School.
Here the full program of the event.
To participate please send a message to: INFO@GIOVANIXROMA.ORG.
Il 27 Aprile 2016 ore 17:00 LabGov prenderà parte grazie all’intervento del Professor Christian Iaione all’incontro “PER UNA NUOVA CULTURA DELLA CITTÀ: LA PERIFERIA COME BENE COMUNE”. L’evento avrà luogo presso la Sala Quaroni – Via Ciro il Grande, 16 – Sede EUR- Roma. Il tema principale dell’incontro sarà come le attuali dimensioni urbane pongono nuove sfide al futuro della città ed ai modelli di governo.A seguito del convegno verrà istituito un gruppo di lavoro multidisciplinare per la stesura di un documento programmatico per lo sviluppo e la valorizzazione del ruolo delle periferie nel contesto urbano e sociale di Roma Capitale. Per prendere parte al convegno scrivere a INFO@GIOVANIXROMA.ORG
An Ecomuseum is a dynamic way in which communities preserve, interpret, and manage their heritage for a sustainable development. An Ecomuseum is based on a community agreement. Introduced by the French museologist Hugues de Varine in 1971, the word ecomuseum has often been misused and the definition of an ecomuseum is still a controversial matter for contemporary museology.Many museologists sought to define the distinctive features of ecomuseums, listing their characteristics.Following a complexity approach, in recent definitions, ecomuseums are more properly defined by what they do rather than by what they are.
The ecomuseum phenomenon has grown dramatically over the years, with no one ecomuseum model but rather an entire philosophy that has been adapted and molded for use in a variety of situations. As many more ecomuseums are established across the world the idea has been growing and the changes in the approach towards the philosophy are reflected in the reactions of the communities involved. In recent time particular significance is the rise in ecomuseology in India, China, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia, with significant increase in Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic and Turkey.Ecomuseums are an important medium through which a community can take control of its heritage and enable new approaches to make meaning out of conserving its local distinctiveness.
The Urban Ecomuseum Casilino “Ad duas Lauros” is located inside the Centocelle park, on via Casilina. In this urban reality, in the east of Rome and within G.R.A., there are various types of landscapes:
- The archaeological landscape that goes from the Mausoleo di Sant’Elena to the Catacombe di SS. Marcellino e Pietro, from Villa Imperiale di Centocelle inside the Parco Archeologico, to Villa Gordiani, through the Acquedotto Alessandrino and the Terme di Largo Irpinia.
- The landscape of spirituality ,this heritage is in fact part of the historic path of the Via Francigena that crossed Europe to reach the main cultural centers of Christianity
- The agricultural landscape of the Roman countryside with houses, towers, fields and pastoral areas.
- The natural landscape created by the presence of green areas
The Ecomuseum is an intangible infrastructure that brings together these landscapes, bridging them through extraordinary walking and cycling paths, which link together realities anciently connected by these modern views, in order to attract tourists to that area from all over the world.
For decades, urban planning in Rome does not take into account the needs of residents, but only those of profit and speculation, the Ecomuseum is now a new model of “development”. A new way to see the city.It promotes urban planning that incorporates the particularities with territorial wealth to use them to the fullest way, an urbanism that has as its main topic of community health. An easy and effective city, a citizen-friendly neighborhood where livabilityis the central theme.