Open Heritage Second Consortium Meeting | Barcelona, November 28-29 2018

Open Heritage Second Consortium Meeting | Barcelona, November 28-29 2018

The Open Heritage Second Consortium Meeting will be held on the 28th and 29th of November. Open Heritage is an Horizon 2020 research project that identifies and analyses good practices of adaptive heritage re-use, and tests them in selected Cooperative Heritage Labs in six European cities. Open Heritage is formed by a consortium composed of research institutions, universities, financial organisations, developers and community involvement experts that studies existing policies and legal frameworks, development procedures, multi-stakeholder cooperations, crowdsourcing mechanisms, financial instruments and shared management formats. LUISS is a partner of the Open Heritage project, working on both the comparative analysis of observatory case studies and on field experimentation, with the Rome Collaboratory (Centocelle; Alessandrino; Torre Spaccata).

During the two day Consortium meeting the partners will share the progresses of their research and work together on the challenges. During the meeting there will also be a way to talk about Work Package 2, where LUISS is task leader of the comparative analysis of 16 comparative case studies (the “Observatory Cases”).  This analysis will be very useful to provide new ideas for the six CHLs, the six Cooperative Heritage Labs where the governance model for the adaptive heritage reuse will be tested. One of the CHL will be carried out by LUISS, the “Rome collaboratory” which will work on the footsteps of the Co-Rome process and develop a sustainability mechanism for innovative adaptive re-use of cultural heritage.

Among others, the Consortium will be attended by: Ania Rok and Iryna Novak (ICLEI), Beitske Boonstra and Karim van Knippenberg (UGENT), Heike Overmann and Markus Kip (UBER), Sofia Dyak (Center for Urban History), Hanna Szemző and Andrea Tönkő (MRI), Loes Veldpaus, John Pendlebury (UNEW), Levente Polyák, and Daniela Patti (EUTROPIAN). Representing LUISS Dr. Benedetta Gillio and Professor Christian Iaione will participate to the meeting.

Legacy – a convention in memory of Stefano Rodotà

Legacy – a convention in memory of Stefano Rodotà

L’Università degli Studi di Torino (“Collegio Carlo Alberto”) sarà la sede fisica che ospiterà, nelle giornate che vanno dal 15 al 18 marzo 2018, il convegno Legacy nel ricordo della figura di Stefano Rodotà.

Le quattro giornate lungo le quali si articolerà e svilupperà il dialogo, vedono tra i suoi partecipanti numerosi studiosi di diritto civile, privato e urbanistico.

Come mostra il programma,  il primo tema e focus del dialogo sarà quello delle “ideologie e tecniche della (ri)codificazione del diritto privato”. Dopo l’introduzione del Professore Ugo Mattei (Università di Torino), la suddivisione della prima giornata, presenterà due sessioni più una “tavola rotonda”, come momento partecipativo e di dialogo conclusivo.

Il tema precedentemente menzionato, sarà affrontato successivamente, anche nelle giornate del 16 e 17 marzo, alla fine delle quali si alterneranno due diversi momenti dedicati all’arte, rispettivamente musica e teatro, in onore di Stefano Rodotà.

Tuttavia, sempre nella giornata del 17 Marzo, sarà affrontata e discussa parallelamente e da diversi relatori tra cui Christian Iaione e Franco Bassanini, l’aspetto della conferenza relativo alla “Civitas”. I relatori menzionati affronteranno il tema delle infrastrutture sociali; l’introduzione e il coordinamento sarà a cura di Edoardo Reviglio (IUC Torino). Guido Calabresi e Franco Gallo invece, dialogheranno intorno ai temi di costituzione, cittadinanza e democrazia.

Il dialogo intorno al suddetto tema, continua nella giornata conclusiva del 18 Marzo e verterà sulla città, beni comuni e altri correlativi al tema.

La giornata terminerà con una lectio in ricordo dell’esimio giurista e professore, Stefano Rodotà.

 

 

The University College of Torino “Carlo Alberto”, will host from the 15th until the 18th  of March, the Legacy convention, in memory of Stefano Rodotà. The convention will be articulated along four days, where the participant involved (experts in private, civil and urban law) will engage in discussions concerning different topics that range from Private Law Codification to Social Infrastructures, the city and citizenship.

The first topic of discussion (“Ideologies and techniques of (re)codification of private law”) will be introduced and coordinated by Professor Ugo Mattei (University College of Turin); it will further develop in the next two days of the convention.

In parallel with the aforementioned topic, another equally important one will be developed during the 17th and 18th of March. Between the relators, we shall mention Christian Iaione and Franco Bassanini; the two will discuss about social Infrastructures and the commons, after having been introduced and coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (IUC Torino). Guido Calabresi and Franco Gallo instead, will deal with three highly debated topics: constitution, citizenship and democracy.

The epilogue of the convention, will be a lectio in honor of the distinguished lawyer and professor, Stefano Rodotà.

Culturability 2018 in Rome

Culturability 2018 in Rome

Culturability – regenerating spaces to share is starting its tour with the aim of presenting the 2018 call promoted by Fondazione Unipolis in ten italian cities.

On Monday, March 26th, at 5.30 PM, the call we be presented in Rome at Fusolab2.0 (Viale della Bella Villa 94, Rome), in collaboration with LabGov – LABoratory for the GOVernance of the City as a Commons and Legacoop Nazionale.

During the event, the participants will be able to go through and deepen all the details of the call and ask question at a general or more specific level. It will also be an occasion to talk about the themes linked to the initiative – culture, social innovation and cohesion, collaboration and sustainability.

Fondazione Unipolis allocates for this call 450.000 euro for innovative cultural projects with a high social impact, aimed at regenerating and giving new life to abandoned spaces, buildings or ex industrial sites. 15 selected projects will have the opportunity of participating to a training path in June and July. In September, an evaluation committee will select between those the 6 finalists, that will receive 50.000 euro each and will continue the mentoring activity. The remaining 150.000 euros will be used to realize the training activities for the teams’ empowerment, for reimburses and support programmes.

Participants must register on Eventbrite to book a seat: http://bit.ly/2FqFKEF.

The call will be open until April, 20th. The call is open for NGO, private entreprises operating in the cultural field and informal teams with a majority of under 35 members. Projects must be sent online through the dedicated section on the website.  For more information, please visit the official website https://culturability.org/

The initiative is in partnership with MIBACT (whose General Direction for Art, Contemporary Architecture and Urban Suburbs makes available economic resources for the sixth winning project, one more respect to the last call), Avanzi/Make a Cube³ and Fondazione Fitzcarraldo.



Culturability sta iniziando il tour 2018 per presentare il suo quinto bando, promosso da Fondazione Unipolis, in in dieci città italiane.

Il 26 marzo alle 17.30 la call sarà presentata a Roma presso Fusolab2.0, in collaborazione con LabGov e Legacoop Nazionale.

Nel corso dell’incontro sarà possibile approfondire tutti i dettagli della call e fare domande di carattere generale o legate alla propria idea. La serata sarà anche un’occasione per confrontarsi sulle tematiche al centro dell’iniziativa – cultura, innovazione e coesione sociale, collaborazione, sostenibilità – assieme agli ospiti presenti.

La Fondazione Unipolis stanzia 450 mila euro per progetti culturali innovativi ad alto impatto sociale finalizzati a rigenerare e dare nuova vita a spazi, edifici, ex siti industriali, abbandonati o sottoutilizzati. Fra le proposte pervenute, ne saranno selezionate 15 che avranno l’opportunità di partecipare a un percorso di formazione nei mesi di giugno e luglio. Tra queste, nel mese di settembre, una Commissione di Valutazione selezionerà i 6 progetti finalisti che riceveranno 50 mila euro ciascuno e continueranno l’attività di accompagnamento e mentoring. Gli altri 150 mila euro stanziati saranno utilizzati per realizzare le attività di formazione e accompagnamento per l’empowerment dei team, rimborsi spese per partecipare ai programmi di supporto.

Iscrizione obbligatoria su eventbrite a questo link: http://bit.ly/2FqFKEF

La call è aperta dal 22 febbraio alle ore 13 del 20 aprile 2018. Al bando possono partecipare organizzazioni no profit, imprese private che operano in campo culturale ricercando un impatto sociale e team informali con prevalenza di under 35. I progetti dovranno essere inviati online tramite la sezione dedicata del sito Culturability.

L’iniziativa si avvale della collaborazione del MIBACT (la cui  Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura Contemporanee e Periferie Urbane  ha messo a disposizione le risorse economiche per finanziare un sesto progetto vincitore, uno in più rispetto allo scroso anno), e della partnership con Avanzi/Make a Cube³ e Fondazione Fitzcarraldo.

Addressing bottom-linked governance and citizenship through Living Street in the City of Ghent

Addressing bottom-linked governance and citizenship through Living Street in the City of Ghent

In 2010 the City of Ghent, together with other four cities – Aberdeen, Rotterdam, Montreuil, Ludwigsburg – engaged in the European project Music, aimed at catalyzing and mainstreaming carbon and energy reduction in urban policies, activities and the build environment. The project represented an opportunity for decisive local actions to address sustainability challenges. In particular, the City of Ghent pointed at becoming a climate-neutral city. To implement the project, the City gathered around twenty people of Ghent society, who were involved or interested in topics such as pollution, sustainability, urban livability, though in different ways and with different roles. After the first meeting the civil servants in charge of conducting the brainstorming within the group realized that the topics mentioned above were not cause of concerns, while mobility and the way through which urban streets get used by their inhabitants were fundamental in the conception of a livable city. Addressing these topics, indeed, the group found the inspiration to think about different possibilities to approach urban space, reducing parking slots and car access to streets, implementing socialization spaces and outdoor activities. Therefore, new ideas and proposals were presented at the final event of Music, with the hope to see them realized, but the reaction of the City and its representatives was cold and doubtful for a lack of resources and for the proximity to municipal elections.

Therefore, the group of frontrunners decided to set up the organization Lab Van Troje, in order to try out one of their proposals using their own resources and their own energies. The chosen idea was Living Street – Leefstraat in Dutch – with the aim to turn Ghent into a sustainable, liveable and climate-neutral region. Concretely this was translated into planning a different way to live the street of residence for few months: the street was closed, usually during the summer months, reducing the area dedicated to the traffic and the parking but increasing the green areas and creating spaces for socialization activities.

Living Street in Maurice Verdoncklaan, Ghent. Source: interviewed resident.

One of the fundamental aspects of Living Street is the voluntary engagement in the project. The first group of frontrunners gathered by the City accepted to meet and to spend time on the issue for free; as well the citizens were involved only if they were interested in the experiment. Lab Van Troje, indeed, never opens applications or contacts anyone, it just receives the request of citizens. The latter, after a first informative meeting, are asked to ring the bell of all their neighbours collecting dreams and fears related to the street, on basis of which a plan is projected and then proposed again to every resident. If everyone agrees, hence, it is possible to organize the activities to create the Living Street. As the website reports, Living Street functions as a common project and a learning-by-doing process. Citizens, indeed, have to communicate, collaborate and interact with many different actors living and experiencing urban spaces daily. Both the implementation of the idea and the concrete realization of the Living Street become processes of commoning[1], as the practice of the creation, preservation, and use of commons is called.

Citizens working for the realization of structures to install in Kozijntjesstraat, Ghent. Source: interviewed resident.

The activity duration of Lab Van Troje has been settled for five years until 2017, hoping in the meantime to spread its insights into Living Street to the current system of residential street design. In total 50 Living Streets have been experimented from 2012 to 2016, with an increasing involvement of the City of Ghent, that acted more as a spectator in the beginning, while it took part into the project as an active partner in the last few editions. Considering the imminent end of Lab Van Troje, in 2017 the latter and the City of Ghent collaborate for the transition of Living Street under the guide of the City. The Meeting and Engaging Department has been appointed to continue building on the experiment by creating a new Living Street 2.0 project. The intention is to try out the experience implemented by Living Street in different environments or situations, by involving partners with diverse roles and functions and focusing also on the social aspects of urban life. One of Lab Van Troje’s volunteers has been hired by the Department, together with another dedicated civil servant, in order to give continuity to the project. Moreover, citizens who already implemented Living Street in their streets are involved in the transition from Lab Van Troje to the City, during a completely accountable process used to explaining them the reasons of the change and to collect by them past experiences of the experiment, suggestions and ideas for the future, and expectations towards the City.

Taking a look at the type of actors involved from the beginning – UE, City of Ghent, Lab Van Troje, research institutes, private companies, citizens – it is notable that the project crossed many different levels, depicting the concept of multi-level governance. In this particular case, I believe it is possible to use the notion of bottom-linked governance, achieved when bottom-up initiatives combine with top-down policies, including alternative mechanisms of negotiation between various groups and networks, potentially empowering local government and embracing alternative creative strategies[2]. I add, though, that the subdivision of society in top-down and bottom-up actors is not sufficient anymore to explain the current complexity and therefore it needs to be substituted by another representation. A complementary and parallel process can be identified in the conception of citizenship: in the last twenty years, debates about the re-scaling of individual rights and duties at transnational[3] or local levels[4] different from the nation-state level, have increasingly arisen; connected with the movement of the right to the city[5], also the vision of citizens claiming actively rights and responsibilities is more acknowledged. However, I argue that neither an idea of citizenship received as a “package” from the State or an idea of citizenship achieved by citizens as consequence of their activation in the making of the city[6] are fully satisfactory. Citizenship is, nowadays, a set of rights/duties co-shaped by different actors, tracing various dynamics at multiple scales to obtain or to concede benefits and responsibilities in the public arena. Thus, it is necessary to find a model that, always maintaining the idea of peer actors, interacting on horizontal basis, with principles of subsidiarity and accountability, in a reflexive and dynamic process, can better help in representing both this type of governance and this perception of citizenship.

 

 

L’articolo riflette su processi di governance urbana e sulle trasformazioni riguardanti il concetto di cittadinanza attraverso il progetto Living Street, implementato dal 2010 ad oggi nella città di Ghent, Belgio. Principale scopo del progetto è trovare soluzioni innovative al fine di rendere la città maggiormente vivibile da un punto di vista socio-ecologico. Dopo aver descritto lo sviluppo del progetto come pratica di commoning, viene sottolineata la necessità di andare oltre sia la ripartizione, ormai inadeguata, tra attori bottom-up e top-down sia l’idea di cittadinanza concessa dallo Stato o ottenuta attivamente dai cittadini. È indispensabile, infatti, trovare un nuovo modello che descriva la complessità attuale delle dinamiche sociali e la diversità degli attori che ne prendono parte.

 

References:

[1] Linebaugh P. 2008, The Magna Carta Manifesto. Liberties and Commons for all, London: University of California Press.

[2] Eizaguirre S, Pradel M., Terrones A., Matinez-Celorrio X., Garcìa M., 2012, Multilevel Governance and Social Cohesion: Bringing Back Conflict in Citizenship Practice, Urban Studies, 49(9), 1999-2016.

[3] Isin, E., 1997, Who is the new citizen? Toward a genealogy, Citizenship Studies, 1, 115–132; Sassen S., 2000, The global city: strategic site/new frontier, in: E. Isin, Ed. Democracy, Citizenship and the Global City, New York: Routledge;

[4] Baubock R., 2003, Reinventing urban citizenship, Citizenship Studies, 7, 139–160; Smith M. P., McQuarrie M. Eds. 2012, Remaking Urban Citizenship. Organizations, Institutions and the Right to the City, London: Transaction Publisher.

[5] Lefebvre H., 1996, Writing on Cities, Cambridge (MA): Blackwell; Harvey D., 2003, The Right to the City, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939-941; Purcell M., 2003, Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimagining the Capitalist World Order, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3), 564-590.

[6] Dahlgren P., 2006, Doing Citizenship. The Cultural Origin of Civic Agency in the Public Sphere. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(3), 267-286.

Citizen engagement in Science and Policy-Making: the EU Joint Research Center Perspective

Citizen engagement in Science and Policy-Making: the EU Joint Research Center Perspective

The idea of proactive citizen engagement in Science and Policy-Making has recently attracted the institutional interest at the European Union level. In particular, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has often dealt with the topic in recent years. Worth to be quoted is the JRC Science for Policy Report “Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making” released in 2016 [1]. The report shows an open and welcoming approach from the Commission towards citizen-driven contributions to science and policy. The JRC explicitly affirms (JRC, 2016, 3) that citizen engagement in heavily ‘expert-based’ sectors can “boost in democratic legitimacy, accountability and transparent governance”. Furthermore, the JRC acknowledges the potential of citizen involvement for enhancing “trust building among citizens and institutions as well as ownership of policy outcome. The Centre recognizes a shift from the mere “info-giving” to increasingly participatory deliberation practices “at each stage of the policy-making process” (JRC, 2016, 3) and, even more relevant, a push from “asking the citizens” to “co-creating with citizens” (JRC, 2016, 32).

Apart from increasing legitimacy and trust, the JRC stresses the benefits for the EC’s strategic planning itself, by underlining that people’s inputs “can offer a unique understanding of societal concerns, desires and needs” and thus a better targeting of EC’s actions. Moreover, the value of this contribution is identified in the provision by citizens of “evidence for policy-making and evaluation of policy decisions” as well as “ideas for new policies or services.”

The JRC in its report (JRC, 2016, 4) identifies also the main challenges to a proper inclusion of inputs from laymen’s knowledge in science and policy. First, the Centre stresses how the “predominant paradigm for policy-making is based on expert inputs (evidence based) in detriment of non-expert or lay knowledge coming from other parts of society.” The advice from the JRC to the Commission seems encouraging for more participatory practice and for a reconsideration of the “usefulness and validity of non-traditional inputs coming from citizens, communities or other groups”.

However, data quality and reliability of the knowledge fed by the lay people when it comes to inclusive science and policy seems crucial, together with transparency and disclosure of possible conflicts of interests. The modalities for gathering laymen’s input should be clearly defined and integration strategies properly agreed. Lastly, the need to go “beyond usual suspects” (the tech-connected wealthy citizens) in this inclusive science and policy is underlined by the report. At p.9 of the document (JRC, 2016, 9) a series of practical examples of citizen engagement in EU’s policy and science are illustrated, such as the initiatives ‘MakingSense’, ‘MyGEOSS’ and ‘DigitalEarthLab’.

The call of the JRC for a “dialogue across co-existing worldviews and knowledge production spaces in science, society and policy” (JRC, 2016, 7) seems particularly timely in present times in which the need of a dialogue between top and bottom stakeholders seems increasingly urgent. Facing Science and Policy-Making challenges through an inclusive and open-minded approach would contribute to the establishment of this dialogue. In the end, both top and bottom players share common interests or, at least, can constructively face each other’s needs to reach together a compromise, towards the establishment of a shared interest. In cases of post-normal science problems, the achievement of this shared or common interest will be even harder. However, those problems are highly of public interest and demand for the inclusion of all the concerned stakeholders in their governance.

[1] Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. 2016. Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. EUR 28328 EN, doi: 10.2788/40563.

Il presente articolo illustra la crescente necessità di coinvolgere il cittadino nei processi politici e scientifici, come percepita dalle istituzioni a livello europeo. In particolare, l’articolo focalizza l’attenzione sulla prospettiva del Joint Research Center (JRC) dell’Unione Europea sul tema. Viene illustrata la posizione del JRC, il quale incoraggia la creazione di un dialogo condiviso nell’interazione tra scienza, società e politica. Tale appello sembra di particolare attualità oggigiorno, in considerazione della complessità dei problemi che la nostra società deve affrontare. In effetti, le sfide odierne spesso riguardano interessi comuni a più attori sociali, ed il compromesso tra loro, come anche il reciproco ascolto, sembrano gli unici mezzi per raggiungere una definizione di “interesse comune”.