Useact newsletter 4 by URBACT Napoli / USEAct project

Lead Partner City of Naples Urbact Project Unit USEAct Lead Partner Team Gaetano Mollura USEAct Project coordinator Anna Arena Finance officer Maria Luna Nobile Communication officer Vincenzo Fusco ULSG Coordinator Contacts: phone +39 081 7958932 - 34 - 17 email gaetano.mollura@comune.napoli.it urbactnapoli@comune.napoli.it Lead Expert Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli USEAct Project Lead Expert Contacts: phone +39 040 5582749 email vittorioalberto.torbianelli@arch.units.it Thematic Expert Pauline Geoghegan USEAct Project Thematic Expert Contacts: email paulinegeoghegan@hotmail.com www.urbact.eu www.urbact.eu/useact The Project Newsletter is produced by the Lead partner team with contribution of Experts and Partners of the USEAct Network and URBACT Programme. Edited by Maria Luna Nobile c graphic layout: Soges Spa for USEAct Thematic Network September 2014, Naples

USEAct News Issue #4

Images: Cover: The image of the cover is a work of the Italian artist Blu, http://blublu.org/

Contents:

Editorial by Gaetano Mollura Lead Partner INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Focus on the Theme

by Linda Duffy Østfold County Project Coordinator

“Quality” and land take reduction policies by Vittorio Torbianelli USEAct Lead Expert “Quality” as a criteria for USEAct Local Action Plans by Pauline Geoghegan USEAct Thematic Expert

Focus on the USEAct Network Focus on the USEAct Bilateral meetings/1: London by Vittorio Torbianelli USEAct Lead Expert Focus on the USEAct Bilateral meetings/2/3: Viladecans by Vittorio Torbianelli USEAct Lead Expert

SPECIAL SECTION Focus on the USEAct Partners / NORWAY Urban Regeneration, from Planning to Management by Micheal Fuller Gee USEAct Ad hoc Expert

FOCUS ON THE CITIES Interview to the Major of Sarpsborg Mr. Sindre Martinsen Evje Interview to the Elected representative Mrs. Siv Jacobsen collected by Linda Duffy

WHO WE ARE and Local Support Group Corner USEAct Team and Local support group in Østfold County

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

The Useact Network 44

The USEACT Partners

Observer Partners

City of Naples (Italy) Lead Partner

BITMAŞ Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (Turkey)

Baia Mare Metropolitan Area (Romania)

London Borough of Southwark (UK)

City of Barakaldo (Spain) Buckinghamshire Business First (UK) City of Dublin (Ireland) City of Nitra (Slovak Republic) Østfold County (Norway) Riga Planning Region (Latvia) City of Trieste (Italy) City of Viladecans (Spain)

USEAct News Issue #4

USEAct Kick off Meeting 27th 28th May 2013, Viladecans (Spain) USEAct Second Thematic Seminar 1st 2nd October 2013, Nitra (Slovak Republic) USEAct Third Thematic Seminar 25th-27th February 2014, Istanbul (Turkey) USEAct Third Thematic Seminar 25th-27th February 2014, Istanbul (Turkey) USEAct Fourth Thematic Seminar 27th 28th May 2014, Østfold County (Norway) Next meeting USEAct Fifth Thematic Seminar 25th 26th September 2014, Riga Planning Region (Latvia)

The Authors Gaetano Mollura is an Italian architect, project manager of the Urban Planning Council Department of Naples and expert in Urban Integrated Approach Development, Gaetano has been involved since 1994 in major European Programmes promoted by the European Commission in the framework of the Urban Development Policies (URBAN I and URBACT I and II). As expert attached to the URBACT I French Secretariat (freelance position) he provided expertise to the cities of new Member States in the framework of the Support for Cities project. Currently he is the coordinator of the USEAct Thematic Network.

Vittorio Torbianelli is Professor in Applied Economics at the University of Trieste. He is the Lead Expert of URBACT II USEAct network. His research is focused on urban and regional economics, transport economics, maritime economics. Expert in planning and evaluating complex forms of intervention aiming at urban and territorial management and development.

Pauline Geoghegan, thematic expert with the URBACT USEAct Thematic network, specialises in social inclusion, urban policy and anti discrimination, with 20 years’ experience of transnational collaboration with European networks and projects of NGOs and cities. Now Paris-based, she has worked and lived in the UK, Dublin and Brussels, after qualifying in architecture from Bristol and Newcastle Upon Tyne universities. In Ireland she worked as architect and community development worker in Dublin’s inner city, and carried out research on housing in urban and rural areas. Within URBACT Pauline has also been thematic expert with the CTUR network, and expert attached to the programme Secretariat, providing support to the creation and animation of thematic networks and the capitalisation process, and within EAPN, The European Anti Poverty Network, she coordinated the coalition of European social NGOs during 2010, the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion.

Mike Fuller-Gee Dip.LA M.A. Urban design, has professional experience from urban planning as well as detail design. He has held positions as a private practitioner, an educator as well as held posts in the public sector. He has in-depth experience and expertise in concept development and evaluation with emphasis on project evaluation. He has extensive international experience in EU programmes, education and research, lecturing, leading field-studies, presenting topics and participating in project evaluation with students, politicians and in professional architect jury’s, as well as chairing seminars and conferences. In his present position he is involved in promoting and evaluating Norwegian Government Policy for Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 as town planner for Arendal, Norway. Mike has lived in Arendal, Norway since 1982.

Linda Duffy Linda works as an advisor in the section for planning and environmental issues in Østfold County Council, mainly with placemaking projects, partnerships for regional development and some transport policy. Graduated as a bachelor in Culture-and Society studies from the University of Oslo. She was elected for the Sarpsborg city council first time in 1995 at age nineteen, and has as a politician amongst other things worked as vice-president of the Norwegian Young European Movement (YEF), party leader and deputy mayor of Sarpsborg, and has been deeply involved in both local and regional development projects. 2008-2011 she was the politician in charge of Sarpsborgs participation in the national “Future Cities” program, for developing more environmentally friendly cities thorough area-policy, transport, waste and consumption, stationary energy use and preparing for the consequences of climate change.

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

“The fourth USEAct thematic seminar, held in Norway, began with a focus on the hosting county of Østfold. This included an input on innovative planning tools: the ‘area audit and ‘land accounts’ aiming at balanced development betweenmunicipalities in the County. Partners also heard the results of the first USEAct trilateral meeting on ‘Real Investment Trust for housing’ hosted by Buckinghamshire. The meeting was also the occasion to discuss the outcomes of the USEAct Mid Term Review in which all had taken part, and which had provided helpful pointers towards further deepening the work within the thematic network. The discussion on the second day again focused on interventions to reuse urban areas: management, partnerships, funding, with a specific focus on quality, with the support of guest experts Michael Fuller Gee, on Quality in Transformation and densification projects, and the Naples LAP Stakeholder AUDIS (Associazione Aree Urbane Dismesse - Urban deprived areas Association) on the AUDIS Matrix and Protocol. Relevant partners’ case studies were presented by the Partners. In addition partners gathered in small groups to discuss progress on their Local Action Plans, and the themes of future Bilateral/trilateral meetings.” Introduction to the Fourth Meeting

Editorial Gaetano Mollura Lead Partner

he fourth stage of “USEAct” is Norway / Østfold County, a partner of the network that represents a real added value to partnership because of its special geographic and environmental context and the problems related to the urban sprawl.

orway, although it is not a EU Member State, is nonetheless an active partner of EU initiatives and projects such as USEAct/URBACT through both human and economic resources. This involvement is also confirmed by interviews with representatives of Norwegian political representatives such as the mayor of Sarpsborg, Mr. Sindre Martinsen Evje, and the representative of the Board of the Øsfold County, Mrs Siv Jacobsen. The latter, after participating in the URBACT “Pilot Training for Elected representatives”, confirmed her positive opinion in that the experience was an opportunity to bring together European policymakers to discuss the challenges of sustainable urban development policies and share solutions for our cities. She also pointed to the importance of the URBACT method “that may help in developing our democracies.”

his newsletter aims at outlining the activities carried out during the first 3 months, when bilateral and trilateral meetings were planned and organised in subgroups for the analysis of specific sub-themes related to the development of local action plans. These meetings are to be added to seven meetings already planned as part of the transnational exchange of the network. They focused on: 1. Real Estate Investement Trust for Housing held in London on the 3rd and 4th April 2014 - subgroup formed by Buckinghamshire / Naples / Barkaldo / Nitra / Ostfold and the participation of various local experts 2. Real Estate Development interventions based on Differentiating (residential economic activity) held in Viladecans organized on the 24th and 25th of June 2014 subgroup formed from Baia Mare / Ostfold / Viladecans and with the participation of various local experts 3. Urban Uses and Textures based on Differentiating

USEAct News Issue #4

Introduction interventions (residential economic activity) held in Viladecans on the 25th and 26th of June 2014 - sub-group format from Viladecans / Trieste / Barakaldo / Baia Mare and the participation of various local experts The organization of the seminars was agreed with the partners by taking into account the need to minimize travel and organization costs, as they were additional activities to those originally planned and budgeted. The hosting partners was chosen according to the following elements: 1. Accessibility of the location; 2. Expertise of the partner in organising events related to the topic discussed and identify ad hoc experts and local actors to be involved in the meeting; 3. Deep involvement of all the members of the subgroups and submission of contributions prior to the meeting that were elaborated and presented by the Lead Expert; 4. Identification of the hosting partner as “rapporteur” in charge of coordinating the discussion and presenting the results

T W

he articles are meant to sum up the results of the first 3 meetings. For further information the full report of the 1st trilateral meeting is available. e would like to that thank Norway for its European approach and the Østfold County in particular for its contribution to the USEAct network by hosting the seminar “Intervention to “reuse” urban areas: management, partnership, funding, functions” all around the six Country towns last May, 27th and 28th.

“As during the previous thematic seminar, the USEACT meeting in Østfold was dedicated to the second USEAct theme (“Interventions to reuse urban areas: management, partnerships, funding”). On this occasion, however, specific attention was paid to the following subtheme: “Improving the public administration’s ability to control and manage “high quality” and “sustainable” reuse interventions”. Case studies and crosslearning activities therefore mainly dealt with approaches and tools that public administrations can adopt to define and reach “quality targets” in urban reuse. The quality issue is, in particular, a very sensitive matter for planning and development schemes aimed at urban “densification”. The capacity to control the outcomes (specifically when key roles are played by private bodies) and the ability to set-up appropriate guidelines/procedures/ etc. for reaching specific qualitative targets (from potentially very different points of view, such as energy sustainability, users’ perceptions of the quality of life, economic development targets, etc.) appear as an essential conditions for implementing effective urban growth management policies.” Concept paper of the Fourth Meeting

See the Report of the Fourth Seminar

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

Introduction

Linda Duffy Østfold County Project Coordinator

orway is as most of you will know, not an EU-member state, but we cooperate very closely with the EU, take part in almost all legislation, contribute to the budget and participate in many of the programs.

Østfold has for many years been among the most active Norwegian counties on the INTERREG-arena, but has never before participated in a URBACT project. In fact only two other cities in Norway have, Oslo, who currently has two projects, and Notodden who was a partner city in URBACT I. So, this is very new to us, and it has been a bit of a steep learning curve. The reason we wanted to participate in URBACT II, was that we, on previous European projects, have focused mainly on rural areas, and we now wanted to work with our cities, where most of our population actually live. The USEAct network was a logical choice since land-use, transformation and densification is one of the areas where Østfold County Council has been on the forefront among Norwegian counties. It is also a very important and somewhat controversial issue, where there is often disagreement between us, the municipalities and other authorities. Østfold county has 280 000 inhabitants, about 80% of these live in our 6 towns, Fredrikstad, Sarpsborg, Moss, Halden, Askimog Mysen, and they grow in population every year. In 2009 we finished our last County Master Plan, and it was approved by the national authorities in 2011. In this plan we went further than most counties when it came to providing a clear strategy for land-use, and quite strict limits and guidelines for the municipalities. Many were not very pleased with this, and some places there were strong protests from local politicians. Over time most have realized that there are benefits to a common approach to the issues of area consumption and protecting our agricultural land and natural areas, but many municipalities are finding it hard to find practical solutions to ensure local development under these circumstances. Participating in the USEAct project with planners from the 6 towns working together with Østfold County Council, Østfold County Governorand the Norwegian housing bank in our

USEAct News Issue #4

ULSG, is part of our strategy to implement the area strategy from Østfold County Master Plan. We want to create a network between the towns, discovering, developing and sharing new tools to steer development in a wanted direction and avoid urban sprawl and the other negative consequences of a growing urban population.

This has so far, been a very positive, although strenuous experience. We have learnedso much about the thematic content from the experts, our partners and from each other in our ULSG, but we have also gained valuable experience in working in this type of international project. The high point, so far has been holding the thematic seminar here in Østfold, and having the chance to show the other partners our county with its qualities and challenges and getting point of view from people seeing it from a new perspective. Other high points have been the URBACT II Summer University in Dublin, and getting to know so many talented people from all over Europe. In our ULSG we are currently struggling with putting together a dynamic, holistic and realistic Local Action Plan. With six towns, about eight quite complex cases and hundreds of stakeholders this is a challenge. We are however confident that with the help and support of our European network, we will manage to make something that can be a real contribution to an environmentally- sociallyand economically- sustainable future for Østfold.

Focus on the Theme “Quality” and land take reduction policies

and stakeholders, because are their perceptions about “quality” that, in conclusion, determine the political possibility to concretely implement “land take reduction” schemes.

Vittorio Torbianelli USEAct Lead Expert

An example of a frequently misunderstood aspect of “urban quality” is related to urban functions: majority often rejects using vacant (or not used) urban spaces for new economic activities, preferring to (ideally) preserve open spaces or – in general – to avoid such kind developments.

uality is a “relative” and “subjective” term. There is “quality” when an user is (fully) satisfied by a product or a service. But what does “quality” mean in urban settings and, in particular, how “quality” and “land take reduction policies” are interconnected? These questions are not trivial, and the UseAct Thematic Meeting organized in Østfold allowed exploring this intriguing issue, which in some “Northern” countries, where people like a lot to leave in detached single houses – as Norway – is particularly challenging. Mr.Fuller Gee, during his presentation, highlighted that, in general, more dense city centres are loved by people, in Norway too: compared to some years ago, more people live, workand have fun in the centres, that are, in fact, the centres of local communities (”villages”). However, although people demonstrate growing interest for “concentration”, planning is mainly still unable to provide solutions to this density challenge, also because society itself remains “diversified” and this potential conflict tend to preserve status quo. This challenge, emerged in a very clear way during the Østfold meeting, fully explains the attention paid by UseAct partners to “visualization tools”, a matter faced during the Bilateral/trilaleteral meeting in Naples. Visualization tools allow, if appropriately used, to let emerge “rationales” that are potentially able to changes perceptions about quality. Reducing land take is a complex and multifaceted challenge, but UseAct project clearly demonstrates that local authorities are particularly sensitive to the position of local communities

However, it is rather evident that during the present, critical, period of the European history, words such as “creating employment” or “promoting re-industrialization” should be coupled with “positive” quality values. A long term sustainable development perspective should be able to recognize positive values and impacts economic activities generate for local communities in the long term. It is interesting that numerousUseAct partners (see, for Instance, Østfold, Riga, Buckingamshire, Viladecan) are focusing “quality issues” in relationships to the need to develop land for economic activities. Norway (Moss and Konsberg) and UK cases studied (Aylesbury) presented during the Østfold meeting, show that a “high quality and vibrant urban density” in towns can also works as attractor for people and, therefore, support long term economic local development. Aylesbury has started to manage a regeneration process of some deprived areas of the city centre, paying specific attention to the urban quality issue, as an opportunity to enhance values. The Kongsberg “densification” strategy, with 2.500 new flats and 5.000 new inhabitants in the town centre, within a one-kilometer radiusis another successful example. “Less Aestethics More ethics” was the title of a past international exhibition “Biennale di Architettura” in Venice: this statement could likely be an effective “way out” to solve the root of the conflicts between the different “quality concepts” that are relevant from the “land take reduction” point of view.

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

Quality as a criteria for USEAct Local Action Plans

10 10

See the Report of the Fourth Seminar

Pauline Geoghegan USEAct Thematic Expert

uring the USEAct meeting in Østfold, the importance of quality interventions was highlighted by the Lead Expert Vittorio Torbanielli, the Guest Expert Michael Fuller Gee and the project partners. Vittorio Torbanielli recalled that “Quality is a vehicle to promote ‘efficient developments’ within the community. Densifying means preserving the soil, but for what quality?” He also asked partners to consider what can be the role of the public administration in promoting quality development? Proposals and design, administration, legal, skills, are all related to the quality issue. What are the most important challenges in terms of quality? Politics/ community, quality in the adminsitrative process, and design issues all arise. What are your challenges in managing quality? Michael Fuller Gee (Norway) chose to discuss the concept of ”attractive towns”: ”Attractive towns are all about people, and the concentration of people using and enjoying their city, town or village centre. ”People like people”. This means: ”minimum distances to maximum pleasures and minimum distances to maximum activities” so we should focus on walking distances – not driving distances!” Drawing on Norwegian experience Michael Fuller Gee referred to the ”Village planning strategy” which is to concentrate development and activities within a defined area, thus coinciding with the goals of urban densification of the USEAct project.

Earlier in the project (during the Baseline Study) the partners defined the quality issues that they were concerned with. In particular they highlighted: reinforcing the community, participation, and communication. As the partners move towards the finalisation of their Local Action Plans, during the meeting in Østfold some partners have already set out the quality issues they are facing: USEAct partners tackling the issue of quality In Viladecans, the quality of public spaces is important (Barcelona has high standards of public spaces), as are the quality of building (energy consumption etc and the quality of citizen particpation. The strategic target of the Viladecans Local Action Plan is the transformation of the industrial area “Center” to enhance the relationship with the city and define a new area of economic activity based on smart specialization to ensure its future competitiveness. In Trieste a new Town Plan has been adopted, with the aim of improving quality, with a new code to get private sector interest in abandoned areas, to improve the quality of what is built and a balance between new and old. The LAP is mainly focused on tools for urban densification in specific areas, by volumetric credits which are granted for energy restoration in buildings. This process aims to supports the restarting of the construction sector in the city. The strategic focus of the Trieste Local Action Plan is Reducing soil consumption through the tools of the new General Town Plan focused on the improvement of local economy, reducing road traffic, enhancing the cultural and the scientific aspects of the city. In Riga balance is needed between investment in business and interest in quality. There is also an issue on how to maintain quality in unused open spaces. Østfold has no experience of urban quality to date plus a negative experience of densification, so they need evidence of how it can be done. There is fragmented ownership so no incentive for quality. In particular in rental housing ownership there is a low interest in quality. In any event, developers often move to next municipality if too much pressure for quality. Bringing quality to new areas is as important as in older areas. The goals of the Local Action Plan are: reducing area consumption, higher quality in transformation and

USEAct News Issue #4

Focus on the Theme densification projects, creating attractive town-centers in Østfold and better quality of life for our inhabitants. Nitra is seeking to achieve quality: investors have their own opinion of quality of architecture; ownership is also an issue, as the municipality does not own many plots, so it is hard to set conditions. Understanding is needed of the ‘rights’ to build in a certain way. In Naples the challenge is to connect quality with context: how to attract investors? Strict control in historical areas may deter developers so there must be a balance of interest of community with economy. The target of the Naples Local Action Plan is the redevelopment of public and private buildings in the historical centre of Naples, avoiding consumption of land and gentrification – promoting the economic and social development of the deprived areas. In Dublin densification/density is perceived as a reduction in quality. What new model for social housing? The aim is to invest in infrastructure linked to housing very early, e.g. transport, schools, social/community. Different typologies are needed for different mix of housing. In particular low quality appartment blocks must be overhauled. An important question is how to provide green infrastructure/diversity. The strategic aim of the Dublin Local Action Plan is to provide interventions that will revitalise the LUAS Red Line public transport corridor with a variety of uses and increase the residential population, employment and cultural activity in the area

needs the definition of the precise tools and indicators; therefore the target of the LAP is the definition of the integral regeneration (physical, urban, environmental, social and economic) indicators for the future urban interventions. Baia Mare has to identify neighbourhoods with a policy on energy economy. Investment entails redeveloping the economy with private public investments; raising the quality of land and investment is very important. The strategic target of the Nitra LAP is Elaboration of the land use policy in the metropolitan area of Baia Mare City, with emphasis on the solutions to increase the utility of the plots situated in the first development area, especially, in the metropolitan development corridor. As a theme running across the USEAct partners, the quest for ‘quality’ must be considered as a vital thread linking their efforts to reduce land consumption.

In the United Kingdom (Buckinghamshire) the national institution for overseeing the quality of the built environment (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment CABE) has come under budgetary pressures, brought about by the economic crises, and therefore struggles to have the desired reach. Development Plans guide development but, at present, few local authorities have agreed plans. Because of this, planning is more ‘reactive’ than might be desired. Quality is often traded against development, so negotiations are needed. The overarching goal of the Buckinghamshire LAP has been to develop a shared understanding, and to improve the alignment between the high level ‘Spatial Planning’ goals of the major economic development partners, the natural environment partners, the social partners and local residents. Barakaldo has a lack of available space for new development so quality for built areas is a key issue. Urban quality is linked to maintenance, accessibilty, and urban space, including the quality of public equipment. The strategic target of the Barakaldo Local Action Plan is mainly focused on city transformation interventions, specifically on urban regeneration areas, considering the definition of strategies of no soil consumption. With this focus in mind, any strategy

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

11 11

A window on the... BILATERAL MEETINGS 12 12

“Real Estate Investment Trust for Housing” | London Vittorio A. Torbianelli USEAct Lead Expert

The first UseAct Bilateral/Trilateral meeting, dedicated to innovation in funding social housing, took place in London, on 3rd and 4th April 2014, just in the core of the “City”, one of the urban areas more vibrant (and more dense) of the UK Capital. Kindly and impeccably hosted by Trower and Hamlins, in their London Head Quarter, the meeting has been structured and organized by Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP and the Lead Partner and Lead Expert. The meeting has been an extraordinary occasion to meet UK leading professionals involved, with different functions, in the social/affordable housing sector, as Mr.Joseph Carr, Finance Policy Leader of the UK National Housing Federation, Mrs. Kathryn Mallet, KPMG Senior Manager, Mrs. Alison Haddon (Paradigm Housing) and Mr. Piers Wiliamson (Housing Finance Corporation). As clearly emerged from the meeting, UK context is an essential reference for exploring the opportunities to innovate policy in the field of social housing delivery, a major way to “reuse urban spaces”, both vacant land and existing housing. The UK situation is rather dynamic at present, as their developer community is probably more active/mature than other EU member states. The reason for this is because, in addition to the traditional private sector players, they also have an active Not-for Profit Sector, in the form of ‘Housing Associations’ or ‘Registered Providers’. As explained by their representatives, these Housing Associations were formed under the previous Conservative government in the late 1980’s to try and encourage the transfer of publicly owned housing stock out to market, under the then governments drive to try and make it possible for every individual in the country to realise a goal of owning their own home. Since this time, Municipalities have been encouraged to transfer what housing stock they did own out to Housing Associations.

USEAct News Issue #4

See the Report of the Bilateral Meeting Thanks to this active ‘supply side’ Housing Development Community, the UK, over the last 20 years, has also broadened the range of funding available for the development of Affordable Housing: in the UK, the Housing Community Agency (HCA) operates a number of grant schemes to encourage the development of Affordable Housing. In addition to the above mentioned funding systems, a mayor role is played by the Housing Finance Corporation (THFC) - an independent, specialist, not-for-profit organisation that makes loans to regulated Housing Associations, that provide affordable housing throughout the United Kingdom – provides finance to Housing Associations by issuing bonds to private investors and by borrowing from banks (debt aggregation function). In delivering this programme of work, THFC works closely with the European Investment Bank.THFC, through its subsidiary, Affordable Housing Finance is the delivery partner for the Affordable Housing Guarantee Scheme. Mr. Williamson explained in details mission and “rules” adopted by his institution. Not only do Retail Investors provide a potential new source of finance for the Housing Sector, but the returns that retail investors potentially want are less than Institutional Investors.One of the most under-developed tools for securing funding from retail investors, which is attracting interest across Europe are Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS).• Real Estate Investment Trusts are quoted companies that own and manage income-producing property, which provide a way for investors to access property assets without having to buy property directly. Current use (and future potential) of REITS for social housing purposes has been focused on during the meeting, trough evidences related to different European Countries (UK, Spain, Italy, Norway, Slovak Republic). As emerged during the London meeting, innovation in social/affordable housing is a multifaceted issue. Each country and each local administration is called to reason, from an open minded perspective, about how to follow the innovation path, picking up the most adaptable models and solutions. The London meeting thanks to the very high quality of speakers, (proceeding published on the USEAct website) represented a superb example of how information and knowledge can be communicated and shared to let innovation circulate among cities and countries.

Focus on the USEAct Bilateral meetings “Differentiating interventions” | Viladecans Vittorio A. Torbianelli USEAct Lead Expert

Muncipality of Viladecans (Spain) hosted, on 25th and 26th June 2014, the second and third B/T meeting of the UseAct projects The meeting was dedicated, to the following main issue: “Differentiating interventions – residential / economic activity”, articulated into two further sub-focuses: a) “Real Estate Developments”, with Baia Mare Metropolitan Area, Østfold and Viladecans as participants; b) “Urban Uses and Textures”, with Baia Mare Metropolitan Area, Barakaldo, Trieste, and Viladecans. The rationale of the title refers to the idea that, in general, “urban reuse” should be clearly targeted to specific outcomes, in terms of“nature”of intervention and, consequently, of social/economic impacts. Housing or social/housing, industry, services activities and retail are, in fact, not the same thing and a strong capability, by local administrations, to control planning and development processes, with the purpose of selecting the best development formulas and the most promising “formulas” and “mixes” of urban uses to reach the best (long term) results, appears to be a remarkable value added. Such a challenge has to be faced along each phase of the decisional process, from the strategic and general planning phases until the implementation ones. Partners involved in the Viladacans meetings, also supported by “external experts” invited by the Municipality of Viladecans, had the opportunities to discuss the issues with several sub focuses, starting from local experiences.

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

13 13

14 14

Attracting business activities into vacant areas Lessons from the Second B/T Meeting The second UseAct “B/T meeting”, held in Viladecans (Spain), focused on how to attract economic activities into the cities, with specific attention to vacant areas. Attracting businesses into vacant urban areas is one of the most challenging opportunities of urban “redevelopment”: schemes aimed at establishing businesses guarantee – usually more than other types of developments as residential settlements or retail - long term sustainable social economic impacts, in terms of employment and local value added, although local communities do not always fully realize all the positive effects of this kind of development. It is rather recurrent, for communities interested in developing business location opportunities, paying great attention to the specific features of the area to be redeveloped: however, it shouldn’t forgotten that business activities tend to select locations by looking, as a first, at the general attraction potential of the city/place as a whole and only on a second moment to the specific features of the site. A recent report (2014) published by KPMG, entitled “Competitive alternatives – KPGM guide to business location costs” ( available on http://competitivealternatives. com/) is extremely clear. During the Viladacans meeting, the KPMG report has been used, by the Lead Expert, as a starting point for discussing the business attraction issue and to try to identify main drivers . The title of the report is meaningful in itself: location costs are a main driver of the choice, and public administration that want to attract business should have a clear global vision of the matter and carefully “benchmark” the city location with other national and international competing settings. Due to current high openness degree of global location market, it is important benchmarking itself with very different and distant contexts as well.

Facility costs count, but, among key cost factors, not only play a primary role: labour costs, utility costs, transportation costs are further fundamental drivers, although influence can remarkably vary among business sectors. Facility costs – which are potentiallytied to the land redevelopment costs – are more important, as choice factor, for service business than for industrial activities (9% vs. 4% of the total relevance). Utility costs (e.g. energy) play also a relevant role, demonstrating the importance of implement advanced re-development schemes, with advanced/efficient utility provision embedded. Taxes (income taxes but also property-based taxes) represent another essential cost factor, whereas this factor is only partially under control of local administrations. As already noted, sensitivity towards different factors varies noticeably among typologies of business. Local administration interested in attracting businesses into a specific location should therefore have a clear idea of the relative importance of each cost factor for specific business activities before focusing a specific segment. This would allow to market the site to the most appropriate businesses, avoiding, as often unfortunately happened many times (within the UseAct community as well), to hunt for “wrong” businesses without many results. The not very happy-end attempt to attract, to Viladecans, aviation industry into the local area can be mentioned as a typical example of approaches lacking a sound “integrated” appraisal of location attractiveness. It is however clear that, beyond costs, further site selection factors are considered by the business while they evaluate the attraction of a site . The below table, taken from the KPGM work, shows the whole set of relevant factors individuated by the KPGM report. The circled terms represent factors that, more than others, are potentially tied to the “urban planning” and “real estate development” schemes. Please, note that also housing factor (availability and affordability) emerges as a relevant driver.

Source: KPMG, 2014 (elaborated by UseAct Lead Expert)

USEAct News Issue #4

In conclusion, a close look at the technicalities contained in the KPGM report could support any city or local administration interested in improving its business attraction strategy, but the key message is pretty clear: administrations should start from identifying its own general competitiveness position in the competitive market arena for business locations, before starting any enthusiastic real estate (re)development scheme oriented to attract to vacant areas business activities.

Focus on the cities 15 15

Useact Partners in Norway

Østfold County Council

See our partners page on www.urbact.eu/useact Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

16 16

The point of view of the City of Sarpsborg by the Major Interview, by Linda Duffy, of the Major of Sarpsborg Mr Sindre Martinsen Evje

hat is the importance and the priority level your city organization ascribes to the development of “Urban Growth Management” and strategies for reduction of soil consumption? What are the expected benefits from your administration? educing area consumption and increasing transport efficiency in our municipality is the basis for out territorial planning strategy and our municipal plan. In the plan that has a 40 year horizon, 90% of new development is going to be next to the main public transport axis, 50% through densification of existing areas, and no residential housing is allowed to be built further than 2 km. from a school. he benefits of this is of course our global environmental responsibility with less need for transport, and keeping our agricultural land and natural areas, but there are also some local and more short term benefits. Cooperating with our neighbor Fredrikstad and Østfold County Council we have recently gotten substantial national infrastructure funds for reducing car use and encouraging the use of public transport, bicycles and walking. To continue getting this funding we need to show results. In order for this to work we not only have to focus on the transport system, but on making our residential areas, sevices and businesses “dense” enough for public transport, bicycling or walking to be realistic alternatives for people, living, working and shopping there. n addition to this, developing and densifying our city center is fundamental to make it more active and attractive for modern urban people, and to strengthen our identity as a town when we approach our 1000 years jubilee in 2016.

R T

hat is the role played by your organization to develop planning tools for “Urban Growth Management” with the aim of less land use and what is, in general, the degree of strategic and operational cooperation with the other authorities (national, regional, local) on the specific “Land use” issue? What are the most positive and the problematic aspects of territorial cooperation? erritorial planning is one of the core duties of the Norwegian municipalities, and we have a relatively strong position when it comes to our own land-use. Our planners are very competent and creative and we often try out new tools. The regional and national authorities can object to our plans or to elements in them, so it is important that we cooperate closely with them. We also cooperate with our neighboring municipalities, in particular Fredrikstad with whom we have a special cooperation agreement on transport and area use (also including Østfold County Council and the Public Roads administrations) These two towns are despite a certain element of competition between us in reality one functioning city-region.

USEAct News Issue #4

Focus on the cities 17 17

he main benefit of this we have seen through our cooperation agreement where we have been able to have a much stronger voice when communicating with the National Government, and through “putting our heads together” we hope to become a much more attractive city-region for businesses and talent. he main challenge is that there still, maybe because of historical conditions, is an element of competition between the two towns, and it is difficult to accept that one of them has something the other has not. e feel we cooperate well with Østfold County Council even if we don’t always agree on area policy. They have an approach that is regional rather than local and at times is also useful for us to be presented with a broader view. It is more difficult with the National Government through the Østfold County Governor, as we sometimes feel they don’t take our specific local challenges into consideration, but after all it is their role to make sure that general national policy is followed by all.

W T

hat are tools and strategies for “urban growth management” Land Use/Reuse/Refitting, how they are used to support urban regeneration(s) in your city? he issues of «Urban growth management», Land Use/ Reuse/Refitting area in our municipal plan, and specified further in our plan for the city center, and down into all building plans, demanding less new land being used, higher density, and a high standard of quality. The last few years we have tried out many new ways of interacting with different

groups of our citizens, land- and business-owners, developers and real estate agents to come up with better solutions.

W W

hat would be your request to the European Commission for a real support on policies on land use? hat would be useful in the local context would be greater incentives for using wood as a building material. The big concrete structures that often are the result of transformation and densification processes often look and feel very foreign and out of place in a town that traditionally has consisted of small wooden houses, but the developers say they can’t make anything else profitable. Encouraging wood as a building material and an architecture that is in harmony with the surroundings would give a greater acceptance in the local people for the changes that must come as a result of a growing and changing population.

W F

hat would be your request to your National and Regional authorities for a real support on policies on land use? or Sarpsborg the most important request to National and Regional authorities is a large degree of consistency. We need to think long term, and that is difficult when regulations and policies change frequently. Also from these authorities we would like a focus on alternative building materials, and creating positive incentives for greener, more attractive cities. Sarpsborg, August 2014

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

18 18

The point of view of the Østfold County Council by the Elected Representative Interview, by Linda Duffy, of the elected representative Mrs Siv Jacobsen

W I

hy is it important for cities and regions to cooperate internationally? nternational cooperation is first and foremost important in order to get new impulses and to learn from others. Different cities have different advantages and have expertise in different areas. Through cooperation we can contribute with our own knowledge and experience and learn something ourselves in the process. International cooperation often offers access to international expertise, examples of best practice and skills development. This gives you “extra muscles” in development work. In addition to this participation in international programs are often a way to part-finance your development work. It is important that the international projects you are involved in contribute to strengthening the core tasks of the city or region and pushes it further in the directions it would have wanted to move anyway, in this way, the project can be an integrated part of the development work.

W E

hat makes URBACT different from other international projects and networks? ven if the URBACT program often does not offer significant financing, it is a very attractive program. URBACT is not a “financing machine”, but a way of thinking, which is actually even more important. Through participation in a URBACT project you learn some brad new methods to approach urban development. In addition you get access to highly qualified international expertise. URBACT is a useful and tight-knit network with many cities and experts that have been involved with the program for a long time. As an URBACT-city you are not so much taking part in a project as becoming part of a new family of cities.

W I

hat are your experiences from the pilot training for elected representatives? t was first and foremost exiting to meet elected representatives from all over Europe, and to brand new methods and approaches with them. This contributed to a heightened consciousness about the shared challenges of most European cities, and how this should to a larger extent be met with a thematic approach, rather than a geographical one. As an elected representative I also learned completely new methods to mobilize the inhabitants, to make it less a question of “them” and “us”. In this way we can contribute to inhabitants and politicians pulling in the same direction, making the people a resource rather than an obstacle for development. In addition to being a tool for urban development I believe the URBACT method can contribute to develop our democracies.

USEAct News Issue #4

W I

hy is it important that politicians are involved in these projects? n my opinion, political participation in international projects is vital. Ultimately it is the politicians that are going to approve the suggestions for actions and changes that will be the results of the process. If the politicians do not feel ownership, or understands why these actions are suggested, they are likely to oppose the whole process or at least the actions suggested, making the participation in the project largely a wasted effort.

Special section Quality interventions: Focus on Norway Urban Regeneration, from Planning to Management Michael Fuller Gee USEAct Ad hoc Expert

ost planners and politicians in Norway are realising that they have to make dramatic changes in their focus of how to plan sustainably for the future. The existing attitude has enabled and encouraged developers and their planning consultants to convince local politicians to make master plans that spread development. Their focus has been on exploiting new motorway access points and to ensure that large undeveloped natural areas, mainly forests and woodland, are zoned for future residential and business development.

ew shopping centres, workplaces, light industry and housing have been established on unbuilt land in areas that drain the old traditional local central areas of much needed investment in renewal and activity. New housing areas, schools and kindergartens have been built in the countryside creating childfree central areas. These new developments are often away from local roads with the result that public transport has been dramatically reduced or eliminated and created the need for private car use. Norway is at the top of global car ownership. Many families have to own two cars to be able to drive to and from all daily activities. his development strategy has created a huge need and investment in new infrastructure, such as roads, services, recreation and sport amenities, new schools and kindergartens. opulation growth has been achieved by offering young families new houses in virgin territory far from existing centres and infrastructure. This has made it virtually impossible for many of the old peoplein the community to sell their homes to these young people. Many wish to move from their large family homes with large gardens to new smaller flats centrally located near shops, amenities and services. They therefore are trapped in old, cold houses which are not universally designed so they can use bathrooms or kitchens if they are in wheelchairs or unable to go up and down steps indoors or outdoors. Providing help and care to the growing numbers of old and infirmed people in Norway who live in these houses, spread and far from facilities has become a major expense for Municipalities. With the fast approaching huge increase in this group planners, politicians and developers require insight and understanding to make plans for a sustainable future for their inhabitants and the public budget.. he resulting picture today is that most town centres in Norway lack normal urban activities and enough people to support shops and amenities. One sees in the central areas a mixture of abandoned and neglected buildings, empty shops

and an abundance of disused wasteland. OTS of local authorities in Norway will – and have decreased in population .Some of the consequences for these communities are: • Young people (mainly women) leave and do not return. • The old remain. They are trapped in houses they cannot sell. • Companies move away as staff is not available. • Shops and schools close. • Buildings and spaces are abandonded and deteriorate. he properties in urban areas that have the potential for transformation and densification have a complex patchwork of ownership. New project proposals to redevelop these areas by individual owners often meet opposition protests and campaigns. Developers therefore become reluctant to invest in planning of these sites and choose instead to focus on virgin land where they have control over large areas with few if any neighbours. Most municipalities have not involved themselves in the complex and timeconsuming planning processes required to coordinate the development of these areas as they often do not own any of the land involved. Transformation and densification projects within the existing central zone and streets leading into the town are necessary . he goals for the new urban-focused Town Plans in Norway are to re-create effective and healthy societies. The focus is on the following: • Making people friendly, safe and viable local communities where a LOT more people can live, work, recreate and meet each other in the heart of the town or village. • Creating ”Critical Mass” through densification, building higher and closer together. Synergy must be created between many different functions in the buildings. Traditional functions need to be relocated back into the central zone, side-by-side and on top of each other. he community must also define who is the real target group for their investments. The target groups are many but there is a growing awareness that their own young people are the most important group - and the easiest to influence. Young people are mobile and are searching for the opportunities to enable them to achieve a rich and interesting lifestyle, work and a chance to meet a partner and make friends. They know that attractive towns and cities offer them these opportunities. This group has also understood that it is generally a waste of their time to try to change their town if those in power, i.e. their politicians, have not and do not priority their needs. These needs include the quality of their teachers, schools and playgrounds, and what youth clubs and after-school activities are available. When asked in planning processes the local youth generally say that too much emphasis and resources are used for sport buildings and grounds and almost nothing on other more popular informal cultural activities Many say they are lonely and have nowhere to meet their friends or get together informally with the opportunity to make friends. This is the reason why many young people in Norway have

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

19 19

22 20

chosen not to return to their hometown after completing education and with work experience. They do not want their own children to grow up in under the samepoor conditions as they have had. They know they can get a far better lifestyle by moving to another town that has the qualities and life stylethey are looking for. ities like Olso are planning for another half a million inhabitants. Arendal, a coastal town in southern Norway with 43 000 inhabitants is now planning for another 6 000 people by 2023. These municipalities know they need to provide many new jobs, offices, houses, leisure, parks and services for these people. Transportation must be environmentally friendly with better public transport, bicycle and walking. Not with a growth in private car ownership. All this new development is also being planned within the existing central areas. Not by expanding into the countryside. The land required will come from a series of transformation and densification projects. o achieve these growth goals these municipalities have to be attractive and provide the type of amenities and housing that immigrants are looking for. Industry is now dependent on recruiting the right people with the necessary qualifications. These people are moving to attractive places with good schools and recreation amenties - and business and investment is following them.

T I

n conclusion modern urban planning is all about people â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and the concentration of people using and enjoying their city, town or village centre. The focus must be on walking distances â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not driving distances - between home, work, shopping and recreation. This will create a foundation for better public health and opportunities for people to see and meet each other in streets and the public realm.

INIMUM DISTANCES TO MAXIMUM PLEASURES. MINIMUM DISTANCES TO MAXIMUM ACTIVITIES

USEAct News Issue #4

Focus on the USEAct Bilateral meetings Online Outputs: USEAct Baseline Study USEAct brochure

USEAct Newsletter #1st Issue USEAct Newsletter #2nd Issue USEAct Newsletter #3rd Issue USEAct Newsletter #4th Issue

USEAct Thematic Seminar Report 1/ Viladecans USEAct Thematic Seminar Report 2/ Nitra USEAct Thematic Seminar Report 3/ Istanbul USEAct Thematic Seminar Report 4/ Ostfold

Next Outputs: USEAct Newsletter #5th Issue USEAct Newsletter #6th Issue USEAct Newsletter #7th Issue USEAct Thematic Seminar Report 5/Riga USEAct Capitalization and MAs Ws Report 6/BBF USEAct Thematic Seminar Report 7/Naples USEAct Third Thematic PAPER USEAct Fourth BT meeting REPORT /Naples USEAct Sixth BT meeting REPORT /Dublin USEAct Seventh BT meeting REPORT /Dublin Final Outputs: USEAct Thematic Booklet USEAct Final Case studies Catalogue Final Report and Good practices guide Next Events:

USEAct First Thematic PAPER USEAct Second Thematic PAPER

USEAct First BT meeting REPORT / London USEAct Second BT meeting REPORT / Viladecans USEAct Third BT meeting REPORT / Viladecans USEAct Case studies Catalogue useact.wordpress.com/case-studies-catalogue

USEAct Fifth Seminar 25th 26th September 2014 Riga Planning Region (Latvia) Refitting and regenerating inhabited buildings and areas Fifth Bilateral Meeting 4th 5th November 2014 Dublin Sixth Bilateral Meeting 5th 6th November 2014 Dublin Capitalisation and MA’s workshop January 2015 - Buckinghamshire (UK) Capitalization of the project results and Managing Autorities Workshop Final Seminar April 2015 - Naples (Italy) USEAct Final Event and Local Action Plan Exhibition

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

23 21

Who we are 20 22

Østfold County team Linda Duffy Project coordinator

Contacts: Østfold fylkeskommune p.b. 220 1702 Sarpsborg Norway Tel. +47 952 32 640 Email address: Linkar14@ostfoldfk.no

Østfold County team Mari Anne Dyrlie Financial officer

Linda works as an advisor in the section for planning and environmental issues in Østfold County Council, mainly with place-making projects, partnerships for regional development and some transport policy. Graduated as a bachelor in Culture-and Society studies from the University of Oslo. She was elected for the Sarpsborg city council first time in 1995 at age nineteen, and has as a politician amongst other things worked as vice-president of the Norwegian Young European Movement (YEF), party leader and deputy mayor of Sarpsborg, and has been deeply involved in both local and regional development projects. 2008-2011 she was the politician in charge of Sarpsborgs participation in the national “Future Cities” program, for developing more environmentally friendly cities thorough area-policy, transport, waste and consumption, stationary energy use and preparing for the consequences of climate change.

Mari Anne holds a Master degree in Economical Engineering and has worked in Østfold County Council since 2012, prior to this she has worked in both the private and public sector. She manages the economy for the Department for Community Planning in Østfold County Council, among this the financial reporting of the project in PRESAGE-system and works with budget and financial controlling.

Contacts: Østfold fylkeskommune p.b. 220 1702 Sarpsborg Norway Email address: mardyr@ostfoldfk.no

Østfold County team Line Helene Nilsen International advisor

Contacts: Østfold fylkeskommune p.b. 220 1702 Sarpsborg Norway Email address: Linnil15@ostfoldfk.no

USEAct News Issue #4

Line holds Masters degrees both in International Studies from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, and Development studies from the Norwegian University of Environment and Life sciences. She has worked for Østfold county Council since 2011 as an international advisor in the department of regional Development. Before this she has worked with research and as an independent consultant to several development projects in Africa. She plays a part in most of the international projects that Østfold County Council is involved in. In USEAct her role is mainly to give advice on project organisation, formal documents and working within the EU-framework.

The Local Support group corner developing public spaces, and urban renewal. One of her main tasks is working with temporary projects, to shed light on the main qualities of the town center, and to get the citizens to look at their environment with different eyes She is also in charge of the plan for the Sandesund-Greåker area, which is an old industrial area beautifully located along the river, ready to be transformed. She participated at the Thematic seminar in Istanbul in February 2014. Ingeborg Langeland Degnes ULSG Member/Planner Askim municipality | Landscape architect MNLA Presently works with territorial planning and town-center development, she also works with planning solutions for care and housing for the elderly, quarries and mass deposition, activity areas for children and lighting in the town center. She participated at the Thematic seminar in Nitra. Kai Roterud ULSG Member/Planner Eidsberg municipality (town of Mysen) Has a background in economy, finance and tourism, currently in charge of developing the new municipal master plan for Eidsberg municipality and the town of Mysen. He also works with local partnerships for developing the town center. Espen Sørås ULSG Member/Planner Halden municipality With a long background in territorial planning, but most of all from working in the cultural sector, he is involved in most things going on in Halden, and is in charge of their new plan for the town center. He participated at the URBACT.Summer University in Dublin. Marianne Aune ULSG Member/Planner Fredrikstad commune Architect in charge of many of the new developments in the town center, and for transforming the main transport corridors of Fredrikstad. Vibeke Arnesen ULSG Member/Planner Moss municipality She has a Master degree in biology and has worked as a planner in Oslo and Vestby before coming to Moss. She works out of the city-lab on the main pedestrian street, and is in charge of the new plan for the town center. Terje Pettersen ULSG Member/Planner Moss municipality Landscape Architect, chairman of the National forum for municipal planners in Norway, he has worked both in the private and public sector, and at both national, regional and local level. He works both with plans for Moss municipality, and with the overall planning for the wider Moss region. Karoline Bergdal ULSG Member/Planner Sarpsborg municiplality She is educated both as a building architect and in urbanand landscape planning. Works with urban planning and developing the town center in Sarpsborg. She has in several periods functioned as the town-architect for Sarpsborg and as this she was in charge of the plan for the town center, where important topics were quality in densification projects,

Kjersti Aune ULSG Member/Planner Sarpsborg Municipality She has a master degree in sociologi and works at the Planning Unit at the Municipality of Sarpsborg. Her primary tasks are municipal housing policy and a social development project in a disadvantaged area of the town centre, with a strong focus on citizen participation. In addition, she is involved in various cross-sectorial and strategic planning processes. She participated at the URBACT-NTS November 2013 Emilie Cosson-Eide ULSG Member/Planner Sarpsborg municipality She has a masters degree in Urban planning and works at the Planning Unit at the Municipality of Sarpsborg. It involves work on various transport and urban planning projects, including developing and implementing a parking policy for the town centre, revising the municipal plan that defines land use and conditions for development in various areas in Sarpsborg, as well as revising the bicycle master plan that defines cycle routes and physical standard on these routes. She participated at the URBACT-NTS November 2013. Kjersti Stenerød ULSG Member/Acting agricultural director Østfold County Governor The Østfold county governor is the national governments representative into the county to make sure national policy in followed. Working in agriculture Kjersti Stenerød is particularly concerned with reducing land-take, and making better use of our areas. Siri Sandbu ULSG Member/County contact, Norwegian National Housing bank The Norwegian National housing bank is the most important financial institution for social housing and public buildings in Norway. Siri Sandbu is the Østfold towns contact there and has a lot of experience in many of the thematic issues, in particular when it comes to renewing socially challenged areas. She participated at the URBACT –NTS November 2013. Siv Jacobsen ULSG Member/Elected representative, Østfold county council As leader of the position in she has a hand in most policies that come out of Østfold county council, but her main areas of interest is urban development, business development and entrepreneurship. She has a master degree in international relations from the University of South Carolina-Columbia and has worked as a journalist and communications advisor before becoming a full time politician. She has participated in the URBACT Pilot Training for elected representatives, URBACT-Summer University in Dublin and is a very active member of our ULSG.

Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: Magement, Partnerships, Funding, Functions II

21 23

URBACT is a European exchange and learning programme

promoting

sustainable

urban

development. It enables cities to work together to develop solutions to major urban challenges, reaffirming the key role they play in facing increasingly complex societal changes. URBACT helps cites to develop pragmatic solutions that are new and sustainable, and that integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions. It enables cities to share good practices and lessons learned with all professionals involved in urban policy throughout Europe. URBACT is 500 cities, 29 countries, and 7,000 active participants. URBACT is jointly financed by ERDF and the Member States.

www.urbact.eu/useact Read more on: useact.wordpress.com Follow us on: www.facebook.com/USEAct www.twitter.com/USEAct www.flickr.com/useact