UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TORINO
Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche
Programmi di recupero urbano
Convenzione tra Regione Piemonte e
Università degli Studi di Torino, Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche
Responsabile Prof. Mario Dogliani
Summary of the Intermediate Evaluation Report
(February 2001)
Evaluation of the Regional Government of Piedmont’s PRUs
Summary of the Intermediate Evaluation Report (February 2001)
Manuela Olagnero (Turin University), Guido Ortona (University of Eastern Piedmont), Silvia Saccomani (Turin Polytechnic)
Foreword
This summary, and more extensively the Report of which it is the synthesis, illustrates the preliminary results of a detailed analysis of the “Programmi di Recupero Urbano” (PRUs – Urban Redevelopment Programmes) approved and financed from 1993 until the present day by the Regional Government of Piedmont. The document is organised as follows.
Part One introduces the methodology and determines the crucial problems of the evaluation in general and as it relates to the field of urban redevelopment.
Part Two sums up the specific analysis of the four cases that have been examined in detail to date.
Part Three discusses the chief problems common to the different programmes.
Part Four is dedicated to the problems that remain to be dealt with in greater depth they are the questions that we indicate as crucial on the basis of the evaluation we have made, but that are also areas remaining “opaque” to the fact-finding tools we have used. They therefore require supplementary observation and analysis.
In the first phase for the evaluation of each PRU we used the documents collected by the Regional Government in drawing up the programmes: illustrative reports, itemised lists of works, conventions, protocols of understanding and other enclosed material. On this basis, a grid was drawn up on which to tabulate the characteristics of the different programmes and their correspondence to the criteria and goals defined by the Municipal and Regional Governments.
To analyse the implications of each PRU in greater depth, other sources were used, such as interviews with officials of the Municipal Governments in question, as well as interviews with key persons Social Hhousing Agency personnel, professionals, etc.). Lastly, visits of inspection were made to the areas of urban redevelopment.
To date four cases have been examined: Biella, Ciriè, Moncalieri and Turin - Corso Grossetto. Two criteria were used in selecting the cases for evaluation in this initial phase: some cases belonging to the first group of PRUs to which financing was granted (Moncalieri and Turin) and others belonging to the second group (Biella and Ciriè); some cases located in municipalities within the metropolitan area and others outside it.
For each case, the Report presents a reconstruction of the reasons for which that area was chosen and a prospectus summarizing it by tabulating its two fundamental components: the actions component and the goals component (see example).
The goals are subdivided into two blocks: the first, equal for all the PRUs, gives the goals identifiable in the documents of the Regional Government; the second gives the goals of each Municipal Government, explicitly declared or identifiable in the reports accompanying the PRU. In both blocks a further classification of the goals is put forward that aims to clarify their nature: goals that are chiefly social; goals more closely linked to urban renewal. This is clearly a simplification, that originates from the need to throw light on the extent that the PRUs have reflected what the Regional Government proposed as Pilot projects. The evaluation of the extent to which the actions correspond to the different goals is based on the characteristics of the actions themselves and on the conditions for their implementation and management that emerge from the documents and from interviews with local administrators.
1
Prospectus summarising action and goals
goalsactions / goals proposed by Regional Government / goals stated by Municipal Administration
social goals / other regional goals / social goals / planning-social goals / planning goals
Social inclusion and protection of the disadvantaged / Training and employment / Local actors involvement / No-profit sector involvement / Private sector involvement in housing / Private sector involvement in other fields / Funds from different government levels / Social integration / Relationships among inhabitants / Housing quality / Public facilities / Improvement of roads and open spaces / Integration of the district in the city
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 12 / 13 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11
Kindergarten / yes / yes
Shopping centre / yes
Gymnasium * / yes / yes / yes
Meeting centre ** / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes
welfare centre *** / yes / yes / yes / yes
Roads, parking, street furniture / yes / yes
Playground / yes / yes / yes / yes
Urban vegetable-gardens / yes / yes / yes / yes
Park / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes
Social housing maintenance / yes
Production areas (in connection with the park) / yes / yes / yes / yes
New subsidised housing / yes
* required by Polisportiva Chiavazza
** required by local associations
*** required by District Council
1
1. Goal of the evaluation
A first perspective through which the PRUs were evaluated is that of the consistency and adequacy of the actions included in the programmes with regard to the goals – those proposed by the Italian Ministerial Decree, those proposed by the Regional Government, and those set by each Municipal Government.
A second perspective emerges when the type of urban policies suggested by the Regional Government’s formulation of the PRUs are considered jointly with the urban contexts towards which these programmes are in the main directed. The explicit reference to the European “Urban” programmes and the requisites set for the Pilot Programmes dictate the need to intervene at one and the same time on the physical city and on the social city, while the requirement that a social housing settlement is involved aims the selection towards suburban areas or anyway marginal ones. Thus the PRUs take the form of a set of actions aiming not only at redeveloping existing structures, but also at putting in train development processes rooted in local situations.
An evaluation of the PRUs in this perspective concentrates on questions such as the capability of the proposed actions to construct and consolidate over time networks of active subjects and of relationships within the area, the capability of the investments proposed of acting as multipliers on the local economic and human fabric (in terms of activity, employment, training, etc.), the capability of the planned actions to create interaction with a wider urban context.
A third perspective, linked to the previous one, is that of the effectiveness of the negotiating practices that have accompanied the formation of the PRUs. They belong to that generation of integrated programmes, which have multiplied in recent years in Italy, and which have in common that phases of negotiation are an integral part.
More in general, therefore, the aim of the evaluation is to discover which problems emerge surrounding the PRUs, in order to provide indications for improving the procedures to be adopted in similar future policies. The analysis illustrated here, and rather more fully in the Report, is intended as an introduction to the last part (or to the last chapter of the Report), which examines these problems.
2. Cases considered: the chief specific results
What follows is based on the analysis of four out of eleven PRUs: it is thus possible that examination of the remaining cases will produce changes in the evaluation, or will add others to the list of problems determined. The evaluators nevertheless believe that to be rather improbable.
The graphs that follow express an tentative interpretation of the four PRUs examined on the base of the weight assigned to the various goals.
The graphs appear impressive, but the quantitative indications should not be overestimated: funds were assigned to the various goals by attributing to that specific goal all the funds set aside for specific action if it was relevant for that goal. Clearly this entails counting the funds more than once; but that is not a serious problem. More serious is the fact that, it is not possible to share the funds allocated for actions among the different goals when these actions are relevant to more than one goal. For instance: n liras spent for vocational training are obviously attributed to the goal “training”, but the same will occur for n liras spent for a polyfunctional centre that may also be used for training activities, despite the fact that this centre is less relevant from the training standpoint.
Lastly, a warning is necessary that private funds are given net urbanisation contributions, which in the official documentation are on the contrary considered as being charged to the private individuals. The reason for this different treatment is that what we hope to throw light on here is above all the interest of the private sector in the various types of actions. However, this approach does not allow us to measure the private sector’s actual willingness to spend money, since sums they have in fact paid out are not counted. This exclusion is simply due to the impossibility of assigning these contributions to the different actions; it is also true that in at least one case contributions paid for private works done outside the area are included in the PRU.
The graphs are divided into five zones, starting from the centre top and moving clockwise; the zones are defined in the legends. It should be stressed that the relative size of the zones does not relate to the priorities of the PRU, since it only depends on the number of goals formulated. What is relevant to such priorities is the size of the area between the polygonal lines and the centre of the graph. The two lines indicate the total cost (blue line) and the private share (red line).
Moncalieri
What stands out most clearly here is the emphasis on renewing the area, which indeed is one of the chief points of the PRU philosophy. The other elements of that philosophy, on the contrary, are clearly lacking: in particular the involvement of the private sector and, to a lesser extent, the involvement of local subjects. In particular, it must be pointed out that there is a complete lack of private involvement in activities other than housing. Nevertheless, it is well to remember that, from this standpoint, the Moncalieri PRU is anomalous, being the only case to exploit the possibility, offered by the regulations, of making up for the lack of private funds by using urbanization contributions generated outside the PRU.
Turin - Corso Grosseto
Both the role of the private sector and the sharing of the overall cost are rather more complex in the Turin - Corso Grosseto PRU. However, contributions from the private sector to activities other than housing are smaller than might appear at first sight, since important works that modify the functional mix concern the conversion of existing building for housing use. It should also be remembered that the relationship with the private sector was the source of some conflict.
Biella
The Biella PRU, of those examined to date, is that which best fulfils the plurality of goals that distinguish, or ought to distinguish, the PRUs. Particularly noteworthy is the extensive range of actions, and the presence of a strong commercial projetct fully financed by the private sector. The type of public works too (aimed at renewing the PRU area, for instance by building a park, that should redefine the role of the district itself within the urban area) correspond to the ambition that ought to characterize a PRU.
Ciriè
The graph relating to the Ciriè PRU shows the ample wide scale of the public-sector works here too; again, though, the private sector played a less important role, but not, however, one limited to housing. The PRU appear to have the implementation of rather important projects of the private sector. It is relevant to note here the lack of participation of other public subjects; this also occurred in Biella and Moncalieri, but not in Turin.
3.General indications
3.1Town planning and social actions
The philosophy that the Regional Government proposed in drawing up the Pilot Pprogrammes, in addition to the goals set in by the National Decree for “standard” PRUs, is one of integration between town planning and social actions.
The This first requirement can be measured, to a first approximation, in different ways: in terms of the explicit weight assigned to the various goals; in terms of the multiplicity and complexity of the actions planned; in terms of the resources (financial and organizational) assigned to the two categories of actions.
In terms of the financial resources used, physical redevelopment prevails in all cases; this derives from the fact that the public resources made available under law 493/93, the most generous source of financing, are destined for building or infrastructure works.
As far as the weight assigned to the different goals is concerned, evaluation is not simple. In the reports accompanying the PRUs, social goals are in general strongly stressed in Turin - Corso Grossetto, Moncalieri and Biella, while this is less true in the case of Ciriè. However, in the presentation of the programme pfroposed by the Regional, an order of priority was explicitly required that would take into account the actions’ declared social goals: formally, then, in all cases these have considerable importance, nearly all the renovation and redevelopment actions listed are related to them.
The evaluation of the extent to which the actions correspond to the various goals, whether explicitly declared or identifiable in the programmes, is a different case. In the Turin - Corso Grosseto PRU, more than in the other cases examined, the actions are more complex and greater weight is assigned to actions of a social character in the widest sense. Nevertheless, in terms of financial resources the inequality between the two types of actions is still very marked. In this case, though, different elements are in play. The Corso Grosseto PRU is the product of previous experiences developed within the European network Quartiers en crise; since 1996 the Turin PRUs are managed within a Special Project for the Suburbs (Progetto Speciale Periferie), which attempts to bring an integrated perspective, very close to that proposed by the Regional Government for the PRUs, to the redevelopment of areas of urban malaise.
We suggest the prevalence of redevelopment and renovation actions over the social ones is due above all to the following reasons, which we believe may be generalized to the PRUs not yet examined:
a)the non-existence, among the funds made available by Art. 11 of Law 493/93, of financial resources specifically targeted to activities of the social type that do not take the form of concrete works; or secondarily the lack of “co-ordination” or of “privileged access” to other funds dedicated to such activities in planning the PRU;
b)the availability of an “implicit” knowledge of social problems, given the size of the city and the rather close link between administration and citizens of the district involved, accompanied by the lack of a database, and of specific and continually updated knowledge;
c)the use of the PRU as a tool to implement projects planned since a long time, so that drawing up a programme is subordinated to the “demonstration” of the consistency of such projects with the PRU philosophy: the PRU as an occasion to implement “normal” town-planning policies with “special” funds. In the two cases of Moncalieri and Ciriè, the situation is particular since, though with very different time-frames, the PRU was drawn up at the same time as a new town-planning policy (Variante change of the in force Master Plan), so that the two became objectively consistent. Biella, on the contrary, is undoubtedly a case in which the PRU enabled town-planning decisions, that had already been taken, to be implemented (change of the Social Housing Programme);
d)the greater “visibility”, with the consequent return in terms of image and consensus for the administration, that public works possess compared to social actions, whose effects may in general only be measured over much longer times;
e)the presence within the municipal administration of greater planning machinery for planning of the concrete town-planning type, compared to those required for social actions.
3.2 Choice of area
The areas chosen, in the cases of Ciriè and Moncalieri, were acttually the only ones that could be proposed, and the policies relating to them were to a great extent forced and/or already fixed by the municipal administration. This clearly throws no light on the problems of choice of area where more than one competing area exists.
This choice may be assumed to be based on an informal scale of preferences, as it were stratified in the administration’s history and in the history of projects already under way at the local level. This process may be described in terms of the garbage can model, whereby the participants in a decision do not first identify the problem then seek solutions, but rather the discussion and search for solutions precedes the problem to which they will later be referred.
This type of mechanism may not necessarily be inefficient. The suitability of local public works or policies may be evaluated in two ways: through a technical evaluation (cost-benefits analysis, multi-criteria analysis, etc.) or through a democratic decision, in which specific skills, as well as preferences, underlie the choices. If this process works properly, it may give the same result that would be obtained with the first method, or even a better result, and the costs and time of decision-making may be lower.
In the cases examined, an informal scale of preferences was almost always used. In the case of Moncalieri much depended on the pre-existence of leading social actors; in the case of Biella the presence of initiatives and actions already organized and directed towards specific issues was determinant.