To Johannes Novy, Ph.D.

Visiting Professor

Contemporary City: Description and projects

Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU)

Politecnico di Milano

Final Assignment

Take Home Exam - Academic Paper

Student:

Matteo Verdelli

# 786567

September 2013

Assignment #1:

“Why plan?“ - sometimes the simplest questions are the most profound: Discuss, with reference to the

articles by Klosterman (1996) and Marcuse (2011), the main rationales for urban planning and share

your opinion concerning the question why societies need urban planning and what planning’s

appropriate role in society should be.

SPATIAL PLANNING AS A DISCIPLINE AND PLANNERS AS PROFESSIONALS: DO WE STILL

NEED THEM TODAY?

What is urban planning?

What does urban planning mean? Generally speaking we can say that urban planning is at the same

time a science, a profession and a discipline that deals with the city. Probably it involves all the actions

to give a coherent design to the city, to solve its problems and create opportunities and development

occasions for a better future. If it were only that I think anyone would say: “sure, why not! Planning is

essential for any city in the world!” Obviously it is not just that. Probably at first we should ask

ourselves: “what is a city?” I think it’s such a complex entity that seems really impossible to find an

answer to this question. That’s specifically the reason why urban planning itself is a discipline with

uncertain boundaries and every definition of it comes from an interpretation of the city itself. These

interpretations are different: they depend on philosophy, culture, the way in which each community

interpret their world and the historical context within which they are formulated.

If we assume that planning means essentially to take decisions and impose some rules (laws) on the

use of a limited and not replicable resource such as land, probably some troubles will appear.

Basically because these rules will affect the economic structure of the city together with its political

and social organization. Every planning decision is itself a political decision meaning that inevitably

creates some conflicts within the society. (Mazza, 2009).

Among others, Luigi Mazza has underlined the connection between spatial planning and different

typologies of social and political conflicts. If we define spatial planning as a field of (social, technical,

institutional) practices aimed at controlling and ordering space, there are at least three main reasons

explaining the intrinsically conflictual nature of planning activities. (Mazza, 2009).

The first is the competition for space: every time we take a planning decision in some way we include

(or support) someone or something (a specific actor or a specific land use for example) and we

exclude some others. Let’s think for example at the construction of a new highway: probably we are

supporting a better connectivity and accessibility within the city itself but, at the same time, we are

excluding the owners of the land in which the highway will be built from future possible developments.

The second reason is that planning is an activity that distributes economic and symbolic values but

also citizenship rights. As expressed by Mazza:

“planning manifests itself as an asymmetrical relationship of strengths between one party

that has the power to decide (theoretically on behalf of the common interest) and parties or

groups that defend particular interests”

This also states that planning could not be a neutral activity. In some way is always related to the

existing system of power and any planning decision could be taken in order to maintain or change this

power and, consequently, the economic and social structure of the society. (Marcuse 2011)

(Alexander, Mazza, Moroni 2012)

The third one is that spatial planning, especially local land use plans, is a local activity producing

externalities that are not only local but strongly affects the surroundings. Take again the highway

example: a big transportation projects is a complex one because of the involvement of different actors,

municipalities and institutions that aim to different goals.

Plan or Non-Plan? The debate between planning and free market.

Therefore if we agree that planning decisions are inevitably conflictual, why plan? Couldn’t we just

leave the initiative to individual decisions, hoping that the free market alone will create an efficient and

effective city? Wouldn’t the free market eliminate conflicts, focusing just on the fair competition

between the different actors involved? Many economists have always promoted this idea, claiming

that it’s enough to let the initiative to individuals in a contest free market to achieve the maximum

collective welfare. The debate between planning and the free market has been a constant element of

planning theory throughout the twentieth century.

In particular, in the 30's and 40's, after the economic collapse of Wall Street in the 1929, a strong

debate emerged between the ones still totally convinced of the cyclical crisis of capitalism and a

natural recover in the free market and the ones promoters of a strong intervention of the state in the

economy in order to prevent future possible crisis and re-establish the social and economic order. The

second course of action prevailed and substantial State interventions for social and economical

reforms appeared almost everywhere. This faith in the success of State intervention and therefore in

planning was well established in the 50s and the 60s. Despite some doubts about the neutrality of

planning and the kind of plan should be used (the scale of planning, planning as a profession itself,

characteristics of the laws) a lot of examples of spatial plans were produced in those years. Although

some kind of intrinsic limitations of the top-down comprehensive approach slowly emerged. In 1969,

an interdisciplinary group of scholars (Price, Barker, Banham, Hall) published “Non-Plan: an

experiment in freedom”. The article supported the idea that, looking at the modest results of current

urban planning strategies, the city would get any worse if there was no planning at all. This

provocation created a strong debate among many architects and planners because it went against the

established order and controlled uniformity of the built environment. They saw the city:

“not as an established and cohesive structure but instead as an unstable series of systems, in

continual transformation, constantly reorganizing and rearranging itself through processes of

both expansion and retraction”.

The major premise behind Non-Plan was that when ‘professionals’ were designing communities for

their own, without taking in consideration that every future inhabitants had his own preferences and

ideas. Non-Plan explored ways of involving people in the design of their environments by

circumventing planning bureaucracy and letting the people participate. This approach was essentially

against a professional practice, which dictates blueprint models of planning and obscure the

spontaneity of the transformations.

Those ideas anticipated a period of strong deregulation and liberalization of the planning practices of

the 80s and 90s. Planning was conceived as a discipline essentially based on few public rules in a

context of private market decisions.

But are we so confident that deregulation and competition in a free market contest maximize the

collective welfare? The classical liberal tradition has argued that planning and state intervention

reduces entrepreneurial spirit, slows innovation and imposes financial and administrative limits on

economy. The reality seems much more complex and some state intervention in the economy are

justified from time to time, as long as they remain respectful of private property, individual liberty and

the choices of the free market.

Klosterman has perfectly summed up the rationalities that lie behind the need for state planning,

identifying economic, pluralist, traditional and Marxist arguments. The first category assume that

planning is necessary in order to correct the abstract theory of the perfect competitive market and the

so called market failures; the pluralist arguments justify the intervention of the state in order to avoid

the dominance of specific groups and individuals in govern decisions, promoting a pluralist decision

making process; the Marxist arguments criticize the relation of planners with power, considering

planning profession as serving the interest of capital at the expense of the working class. Marxist

argues that to obtain social improvement the replacement of the existing relations of power must

change; finally, the traditional arguments justify planning as a useful tool to increase the performance

e promote new social values (such as health, security, hygiene) through the imposition of physical

transformation. (Klosterman, 1985).

Looking through these arguments, some of the limits and problematic issues of planning expressed

before are emerging again. I’m referring mainly to the relation of planning with democracy and

pluralistic decision and the relation with the current existing economic, social and political structure. By

the way once and for all it seems that the debate between the position of complete liberalism and top-

down approach to planning is a sterile debate. Planning is not necessarily against the market will and

the approach of clash between the two positions is deeply wrong. A certain form of planning is

necessary to ensure a proper functioning of the market and an appropriate balance of costs and

benefits of urban transformations in terms private and collective results. Market and planning might

and should cooperate.

Assuming that some sort of planning is necessary, is there a correct way to plan?

History shows that for each model or type of plan proposed in the past (comprehensive local land use

plan, strategic planning, framework plan in context of deregulation, regional planning, participatory

planning etc.) there is always a possible reform on the horizon because every form has some

limitations inherent in the discipline. Thus the city is not a fixed, constant settlement but a complex

organism that lives in a process of continuous change. Every form of plan adapt to a certain local

context, a certain period of time and a certain culture and social structure beneath. This leads me to

say that it’s impossible to find a blueprint model applicable everywhere and every time but we need

different forms of planning for different time and space. The type of plan depends on the relationship

with power, the historical context, the role of the designer and so on. (Marcuse, 2012).

Especially today in a context of globalization, often the fate of a city depends neither on planning and

on free market but on contingent factors: to be in the right place at the right time can be just as valid

as rigorous efforts planned to revive and modernize a city (as an example see the explanation of

Miami rising as a world city in Nijman, 2007). This highlights once again that liberalism and planning

are absolutely not to be considered antithetical or exclusive. The free market fails to ensure the

collective well being as demonstrated by various economic theories. Therefore the market must be

framed within a framework of general planning rules that combine general principles with specific local

context. Within this dual frame, the market must not only be left free to act and to propose projects and

innovations, but it must also be helped to appropriately achieved efficiency through various forms of

facilitation of competition, decision-making coordination and reduction of uncertainty. (Camagni, 2005)

Theoretical discipline or professional practice? What is a planner today?

Closely related to the definition (definitions) of "urban planning" is the definition of "planner". This

professional work is formed in relation to the definition and the social role that is assigned to the

practice that characterizes it.

Assumed that urban planning has its raison d'être and involves in it some inherent limitations and

some conflicting aspects (relationship with power, exclusion / inclusion in planning choices, relations

with the existing economic and social structure) and there is not a blueprint model of plan wherever

applicable, what is the role of the planner today? It is a purely technical and professional practice or is

a discipline based on theoretical studies, research and reflections?

The planner of today is not comparable with Hippodamus of Miletus or with the Roman land surveyors

or again with the architects who designed the ideal model of the Renaissance city. His job was created

by the crisis of the industrial city of the 18th century: the crisis, then conflict, dialectic, positive and

negative values that contradicts. It’s a difficult job and I think it’s both theoretical and practical.

Spatial planning inevitably involves a practical dimension formed by rules, planning documents,

requirements and obligations but, at the same time, it is also a theoretical discipline, made of

research, comparisons and studies. This is because, despite being born as a discipline in response to

the environmental and social conditions of the 18th and 19th century city, it has gradually assumed an

increasingly interdisciplinary involving economy and business, social, political and anthropological

sciences and technical and engineering schools. It is no coincidence that to different countries

correspond different schools in which the discipline is proposed: in the Netherlands is offered in the

faculties of social sciences, in the UK it tastes more political and tied to issues of governance and

discretionary decisions between public and private, in recent years in the USA is strictly related to

urban design and the school of New Urbanism.

I think the theoretical approach is today even more required than in the past. This is even truer if we

consider the effects of a specific literature emerging from the end of the 80s and the beginning of the

90s regarding globalization and the so-called world cities. (Sassen, 1991).

Some authors consider globalization as a process in which the global cities all over the world are

becoming more alike, as nodes in a global network of information exchange and world economy.

Some others support the idea that, despite some processes of homogenization, the local peculiarities

and specific differences between world cities still exist. I think the approach of the comparative

urbanism, as “the systematic study of similarity and difference among cities or urban processes”

(Nijman, 2007), should be a fundamental part of the work of any planner today. Understanding

similarities and differences between different cities, sharing good practices, tools and techniques and

promoting successful case studies should be considered as an essential way to support new

experiments of planning practices in this context of globalization.

The Italian debate about spatial planning

In Italy, the discipline of urban and spatial planning emerged under two specific conditions (Benevolo,

2005): first, the recent formation of the State, together with delay the process of industrialization than

the other European countries; second, the presence of a strong historical identity evidenced by the

monumental ruins and the historical centres. What emerges is an idea of spatial planning based on a

positivist conception derived from the natural sciences, supported from a political realism that

proposes a concrete and technical practice.

The debate between planning and the free market in Italy has followed roughly the same path as

expressed earlier. After the first comprehensive planning law approved in 1942, many scholars have

argued in favour of a comprehensive and detailed discipline of spatial planning, essentially based on

zoning constraints, local land use regulations and public imposed rules on the possible uses of the

land. However, over the years, after some failures, the discipline has initiated a process of progressive

deregulation and opening to private so as to facilitate, with easier and less restrictive practices, the

transformation of distressed urban settlements and stimulate the regeneration of neglected areas,

largely industrial. Despite a first phase (early 90s), characterized by a good degree of success

planning so-called negotiated, we are now faced with a new crossroads between planning and the free

market. This is because the policy of large private projects within the context of strategic planning (few

rules imposed, some lines of development and public decisions negotiated) has been proved not as

successful as it’d be: not always the city gains in terms of quality and efficiency from private

transformations, especially in relation to failure and bankruptcy of major urban projects. (Goldstein,

Bonfantini 2007)

From 2000s new debates about planning and free market emerged. Despite the position of some

authors that focus mainly on the economical aspects of planning and the role of land use regulation in

the free market (Camagni, 2007) (Moroni, 2007), a recent document proposed by INU (National

Institute of Urban planning) is actually asking for a reform of the overall planning system, still blocked

at the national law of 1942 (despite some regional reforms of the 2000s), in which planning must be

seen as a complementary part of the market and the two forces must work together for efficient result.

(INU, 2013). In particular INU is proposing a simple and structural idea of planning able to guide the

processes of territorial transformation in act and prevent some recent negative trends. The new reform

asked by INU should create a sort of just plan with the main goals of creating new social housing

opportunities, control the economical inefficiency of urban sprawl and create occasions of investments

and innovation for the market and the grassroots initiatives of the population. This document highlights

a new idea of planning based on social justice, forms of negotiation between public and private able to

create high quality environmental settlements and public spaces for the public city and efficient real

estate development for the private city. I think that INU’s position highlight once and for all that a

juxtaposition between planning and market is wrong: in such a complex contemporary urban scenario

the two elements must have a dialectic relationship in which both private and public gain from the

general development of the urban settlements.

References

Alexander, E.R., Mazza, L. & Moroni, S. "Planning without plans? Nomocracy or teleocracy for social-spatial ordering", Progress in Planning, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 37-87.

Benevolo, L. 2005, Le origini dell'urbanistica moderna, Laterza.

Camagni, R. 2007, Liberalismo contro pianificazione? Una idiosincrasia non autorizzata dalla teoria economica, Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, 90/2007.

Goldstein, M.B. & Bonfantini, B. 2007, Milano incompiuta: interpretazioni urbanistiche del mutamento, F. Angeli.

Klosterman, R.E. "Arguments for and against planning", The Town planning review : TPR, vol. 56, no. 1.

Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica, 2013, “Per un rilancio del governo del territorio”, www.inu.it

Marcuse, P. 2011, "The Three Historic Currents of City Planning" in The New Blackwell Companion to the City Wiley-Blackwell, , pp. 643-655.

Mazza, L. "Centenary Paper: Plan and constitution – Aristotle's Hippodamus: towards an 'ostensive' definition of spatial planning", Town Planning Review, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 113-141.

Moroni, S. "Planning, liberty and the rule of law", Planning Theory, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 146-163.

Moroni, S. 2007, La città del liberalismo attivo: diritto, piano, mercato, Città Studi Milano.

Nijman, J. "Comparative urbanism", Urban Geography, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1.

Nijman, J. "Place-Particularity and " Deep Analogies": A Comparative Essay on Miami's Rise as a World City", Urban Geography, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 92-107.

Sassen, S. 1991, The global city : New York, London, Tokyo / Saskia Sassen, Princeton, N.J.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Assignment #2:

Globalization is widely perceived as a defining issue of contemporary urban change. Describe what

"globalization" means; give some examples of the key ways through which Milan or the hometown you

are from is impacted by globalization and identify (some of) the implications for urban planning that

result from them.

COULD WE CONSIDER MILAN AS A GLOBAL CITY?

THE MUTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBALIZATION AND URBAN PLANNING

EXPLAINED THROUGH AN ITALIAN EXAMPLE.

0. Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the mutual relationship and the negative and positive effects of

globalization and urban planning and development. Four different chapters compose this paper. Each

chapter starts with a different question that is then explained and deepened through some arguments

and references. The first part is an introductory part to the topics of globalization: using different ideas

and sources, a possible neutral and comprehensive definition of globalization is given. In the second

part I will try to underline different kinds of effects that globalization exercise among different cities in

different part of the world. The third part focuses on Milan, my hometown, investigating some recent

urban development projects and policies in response to the challenges of globalization. The last part

represents the conclusion in which I will try to give some answers about the possible role of planner in

this global perspective and future scenario.

1. Introduction: What is “globalization”?

The term globalization is widely popular in many different environments such as academies, scholars,

mass media, and political and decisional arenas. At the same time an unambiguous and clear

definition of the term is still under debate: different scholars proposed different connotations and

specifications and, simultaneously, diverse opinions pro and con the phenomenon is widespread. The

aim of giving a shared and comprehensive definition seems more and more difficult, as well as stating

a precise time of beginning or end of the globalization process. Within the countless quotable

definitions, the one that I consider as neutral and interdisciplinary is cited by Thomas Larsson in his

book “Race to the top: the real story of Globalization” (2001): “Is the process of world shrinkage, of

distances getting shorter, things moving closer. It pertains to the increasing ease with which

somebody on one side of the world can interact […] with somebody on the other side of the world.”

First of all, it is important to note that globalization is stated as a process and not an outcome or a

conclusive product. This means that is something still on going, evolving and changing everyday. This

is the main reason why it is not possible to declare a beginning or an end.

Secondly, this definition tries to take in consideration different sides of the process itself. It’s first of all

an economic process that refers to the diffusion of a world global economy, founded on the

suppression of trading borders and on the freedom of interaction among firms, cities, national

governments and supranational institutions (EU, World Bank etc.) (Richardson, H. W. 2005). The

former definition also takes in consideration cultural aspects of this shrinking world: people are moving

faster across all over the world thanks to technological improvements (airport hubs, faster airplanes).

As a consequence different cultures enter in contact sometimes with a positive integration,

occasionally with struggles and conflicts. Meanwhile workers from different countries (especially

through the so-called developing countries) migrate searching for better working conditions,

opportunities and salaries, then mass tourism and the diffusion of an economy based on consumption,

together with production, is widespread in many cities all over the world. Last but not least,

globalization means also a global diffusion of knowledge and information thanks again to new

technologies (internet, mobile phones, world wide web etc.) that can give instant access to global

networks. (International Monetary Fund, 2000).

Finally, I think that the definition presented by Larsson could be defined as neutral. It addresses

globalization has a process conduct by a generic “somebody” without charging specific players as

main actors responsible of shaping the phenomenon. Many authors discussed about the responsibility

of this process: some consider globalization as a process shaped with a top-down approach by

governmental institutions, banking and finance corporations etc.; others consider a possible and

sometimes unconscious bottom-up approach in which, thanks to technology, tourism, working and

study movements for example, each of us enter in contact with global networks all over the world.

2. How does globalization affect the contemporary urban scenario?

As clearly stated in the previous paragraph, globalization is a process that’s affecting many disciplines

(economy, sociology, humanities etc ) and aspects of contemporary societies. But in reality the places

in which everyone can see the real effects (both positive and negative) of globalization is the place in

which more than half of the world population is actually living: the cities. Understanding and outlining

the impacts of globalization in the contemporary urban scenario seems as difficult as write a common

accepted definition of the term. Starting with the assumption that there’s not an universal model of city

but each city maintains his own characteristics coming from historical backgrounds, integration of

cultures, basic economy and physical structure and size, it should be widely accepted that

globalization affects in different ways different cities, even if certain similarities can be found and

different similar models can be investigated. (Nijman, J. 2007)

Generally speaking the first difference we can analyse is the dissimilar impact of globalization in the

global north and the global south of the world. Stating that we could discuss deeply about the notions

of global north, or the so-called developed countries, and global south, or the so-called developing or

under-developed countries, it seems clear that globalization has affected in different ways the two

different sides: on one side, most of the so-called developed countries has started from the 60s and

the 70s to change the basic economic structure passing from an economy especially based on

production to an economy chiefly based on high-quality services and consumption. On the other side,

many under-developed countries started to take advantages from this process of globalization offering

good opportunities for the relocation of firms coming from the developed countries and searching for

less costs and new market opportunities. The freedom given to global trades and new technologies

helped this course, transforming deeply the many cities on the global south from local markets for the

agricultural surrounding to huge megalopolis connected to global exchange markets.

At the same time, not every process of transformation in the global north happened in the same way in

every place. A sub-process of competition emerged among different cities in most of the development

countries: widely different cities compete to attract multinational companies and firms in new highly

planned business districts and mega-projects through a series of urban policies and projects aiming at

regenerating neglected brownfields and industrial areas. Some cities are now defined as global cities

(Sassen, Saskia 1991) because of their peculiar capacity of attracting global trends and their centrality

in the overall global networks; some others result as less able to adapt to these changes in the

economical structure and are still trying to recover from the relocation of the industrial activities.

Sometimes cities, which have based their economical success only on industrial activities, organized

around a big central firm or company (e.g. the case of Detroit which has based his past success on

the industrial production of cars) have been totally unable to respond to the reallocation of the

factories in a global exchange market. This is the case of the so called shrinking cities in which a large

percentage of the population abandon housing blocks and neighbourhoods, migrating looking for

better work conditions and new opportunities of life. (Martinez-Fernandez, C. 2012)

Globalization has taken another major change in the economical structures of many cities: a growing

attention to the economy of consumption and commerce. In most of the Western capitals new

shopping streets and big shopping malls has appeared, changing the shape and the characteristics of

many historic centres, especially in Europe. Those shopping street and malls looks all more or less the

same because local shops has left space to big multinational shopping chains in search of profit and

new attractive locations. This fact has happened almost everywhere in a peaceful manner, but

sometimes struggles between local populations and national entrepreneurs and local governments

emerged. The recent protests of Istanbul in 2013, in which the local government was promoting the

demolition of Gezi Park in order to leave place to a new big shopping mall, are a clear example of the

fact. (Durusoy, C. 2001)

A big component of potential users of this consumption economy are played by mass tourism.

Globalization has contributed to the formation of new touristic opportunities in many cities all over the

world. To be part of this new urban economy some components are essential: first, even if the

technological development of the last decades has reduce the perception of distance among different

centres, probably the space-located component of accessibility has never been so important as it is

today. Airport hubs efficiently connected with a well-organized network of public transport and healthy

street grids are indispensable elements to compete in a global market and encourage both tourism

and the location of multinational firms.

Another important effect of globalization within the urban settlements is the cultural integration of

different population, especially through migration. The migration flows of people in search for better

work conditions are probably one of the first effects on this growing global network. The relationships

between local populations and immigrants are somewhere positive, with well-known examples of

social integration and multi-ethnic activities diffused and spread through cities, and somewhere

negative with the creation of isolated enclaves and growing inequalities and qualities of life.

Although, as a student, I like to think to migration and cultural mix not just as a direct consequence of

the mass migration of populations coming from the global south and the underdeveloped countries in

search of better work conditions, but also to more common type of migration and movements through

different countries: specifically I’m referring to business men, that flights almost daily across the world

using the urban settlements as a background of their economic activities, but also to students, that,

thanks to the growing internationalized programmes of the universities, are becoming an important

factor for the cultural mix and integration of many cities in the world, especially as regard the

integration between developed and developing country in the future decades. In this sphere, cultural

activities together with festivals, concerts and artistic performances are essential components for

stimulating the touristic and cultural charm of a global city and society.

3. The effects of globalization in Milan

Some of the effects of globalization expressed before could be highlighted in Milan and in some of the

transformation trends that are now affecting the city. Located in the central sector of the northern part

of Italy, Milan and his metropolitan urban region has been considered since the end of the WWII as

one the economic growth machine of the entire country. Although, since the end of the 70s, some of

the process highlighted in the previous paragraph started to appear little by little. As many other

European cities based on an industrial background, Milan has tried to change his economical structure

competing and attracting new firms and creating new big development projects all over the city. The

whole structure of the historic centre, for example, has little by little changed over the years: big

shopping malls appeared together with multinational brands and most of the houses still located in the

city centre have left space to offices for firms, companies and professionals. (Oliva,F. 2002).

In recent years a dozen of megaprojects completely changes the skyline of the city: new skyscrapers

were built next to the city centre or near strategic nodes very accessible through public transportation.

Nevertheless, just few of this megaprojects were completed with success; many of them are still on

going or interrupted due to an overestimation of the attractive capacity of the city and the economical

bankruptcy of some of the entrepreneurs. (Goldstein, M.B. 2007).

Meanwhile in the 1990s the new international airport hub of Malpensa was built in the northwest of

Milan metropolitan area to solve problems of congestion in the existing airport of Linate, to attract new

opportunities of investment in a global scenario and to stimulate the already growing trend of mass

tourism toward the city. However also in this case the potentiality of the new airport has been highly

overestimated due to some territorial negative impacts not taken in consideration (especially the

exaggerated distance from the city centre of Milan and the weak connection with efficient public

transportation facilities) and some serious economic problems of the first Italian flight company.

(Malighetti, Paolo 2009).

Another recent debatable event that is occurring in Milan with reference to globalization issues is the

candidacy of the city to host the EXPO 2015. In a globalized perspective, EXPO 2015 is a perfect

occasion for cultural integration and for stimulating the attractive image of the city in a world

perception. Nonetheless, the economic crisis of 2008 and the general crisis of the real estate market

have severely reduced the ambition of the preliminary project presented for the bid. Actually EXPO

2015 seems more a citadel outside the urban atmosphere and it will probably be unable to stimulate

the regeneration of social capital and to encourage new possibilities of investment and regeneration of

the metropolitan and urban structure.

Finally, I think Milan represents even a good example of the so-called cultural integration or cultural

globalization. I’m referring to the neighbourhood of via Paolo Sarpi commonly know as China Town.

Despite the fact that Chinese immigration in that area has started from the 1920s but from 1990s on

has grown considerably, via Paolo Sarpi represents today an exemplar mix of flourish Italian and

Chinese activities settled one next to the other. That area, far no more than 2 km from the city centre,

has become recently so prosper that the Municipality has decided to create a car-free zone to

stimulate shopping and street lifestyle. (Cologna, D. 2002)

All these episodes demonstrate that Milan has struggle in the last twenty years in the aim of becoming

a global city and, except some positive experiments, without adequate success so far. Which are the

reasons for this failure? What planning can do to rehabilitate the global image of the city?

4. Urban planning and globalization: what can a planner do?

The case of Milan demonstrate that, even if the consequences of globalization could be similar to

some other European cities, the capacity of translating this consequences in effective positive

opportunities is different from one city to another. Which are the reasons of this fact? Why Milan hasn’t

been able so far to compete for a leading role in a global perspective? Is it just fault of wrong policies

and planning choices at local level or the ranking of some cities in this process of globalization is

something inevitable and unpredictable?

The real problem is investigating if the decisions of local governments (city councils, municipalities,

local institutions etc.), especially planning decisions at local level, are still important. The effects of

globalization proposed in Milan prove that the local planning institutions are less and less important.

Planning a city in a global world means at first having to deal with a complex metropolitan structure,

consisting of several centralities, cultures and institutions, which must work together to overcome their

differences and manage the metropolitan urban region in the most efficient way. In this context it

seems very wired that the Municipality of Milan has recently approved a local planning document

(Piano di Governo del Territorio PGT 2013, local land use plan) that aims to shape the future of the

city for the next twenty years outlining strategies for the only municipal territory, totally forgetting the

metropolitan urban region.

It is also true that in the competition among cities to attract new firms and companies, local planning

policies such as incentives or tax reliefs and flexible land use regulations still play some kind of role.

But it is even truer that among the different criteria to establish the location of multinational firms, other

questions result more crucial: the financial policies, the general state of the economy, the costs of

labour etc.

However, there are other situations where planning decisions continue to play a key role in the fate of

the city itself. For example through the creation of commercial attractiveness in the city centres, the

promotion cultural activities for tourist, the design of good quality public spaces and efficient public

transportation networks, the creation of a reasonable housing market able to accommodate new

migrants and workers.

Nevertheless, some of the elements highlighted in the previous paragraph didn’t come from planning

decisions; more often popular initiatives from below encourage better results and provide new forms of

experimentation. I’m thinking for example to the gradual transformation proposed by immigrants or

private entrepreneur even by initiatives from below, from the gradual transformations of the urban

fabric that have much to do with spontaneous initiatives and with very little with top-down planning

decision.

In summary, I think that planning could still play a basic role in the contemporary globalized urban

scenario in three ways: first, using planning not as regulative instrument for local land use regulation

but as a strategic instrument for the management of complex metropolitan areas and urban regions;

second, being able to catch and stimulating the grassroots efforts of regeneration through policies and

bottom-up projects; third, working on the quality of public spaces, public transportation and cultural

public facilities as a tool to appeal tourist., migrants and new companies and firms.

References

International Monetary Fund 2000, Globalization: Threats or Opportunity. 12th April 2000 : IMF Publications

Canavero, A. 2011, Milano tra ricostruzione e globalizzazione: dalle carte dell'archivio di Piero Bassetti, Rubbettino.

Cologna, D. 2002, La Cina sotto casa: convivenza e conflitti tra cinesi e italiani in due quartieri di Milano, Franco Angeli.

Goldstein, M.B. & Bonfantini, B. 2007, Milano incompiuta: interpretazioni urbanistiche del mutamento, F. Angeli.

Larsson, T. 2001, The Race to the Top: The Real Story of Globalization, CATO Institute.

Malighetti, P., Paleari, S. & Redondi, R. 2009, "La crisi di Alitalia e il futuro di malpensa: lezioni da casi internazionali", ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE, .

MARTINEZ-FERNANDEZ, C., AUDIRAC, I., FOL, S. & CUNNINGHAM-SABOT, E. 2012, "Shrinking Cities: Urban Challenges of Globalization", International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 213-225.

Newman, P. & Thornley, A. 2005, Planning World Cities: Globalization, Urban Governance and Policy Dilemmas, PALGRAVE USA.

Nijman, J. "Place-Particularity and " Deep Analogies": A Comparative Essay on Miami's Rise as a World City", Urban Geography, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 92-107.

Oliva, F. 2002, L'urbanistica di Milano: quel che resta dei piani urbanistici nella crescita e nella trasformazione della città : con sei itinerari, U. Hoepli.

Richardson, H.W. 2005, Globalization and Urban Development / edited by Harry W. Richardson, Chang-Hee Christine Bae, Berlin, Heidelberg : : Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Sassen, S. 1991, The global city : New York, London, Tokyo / Saskia Sassen, Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Smith, M.P. 2001, Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization, Wiley.

Durusoy, Cemre 2001, Gezi Park Kampanyasi: Resurfacing an urban park/Istanbul/2002--2006.