Fifth Seminar Report Riga Planning Region

USEAct Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions

Fifth Meeting I Implementation Phase Riga Planning Region | Latvia 25th I 26th September 2014

INTERVENTIONS ON “REUSE” OF URBAN REFITTING AND REGENERATING INHABITED BUILDINGS AND AREAS

Lead Partner

Host Partner

USEAct Riga Planning Region Fifth meeting Report Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions 2 Lead Partner City of Naples Urban Planning Department URBACT Projects_and Networks on Integrated Urban Development Policies - Central Direction Urban Planning and Management - UNESCO Site Gaetano Mollura USEAct Project coordinator Anna Arena Finance officer Maria Luna Nobile Communication officer Vincenzo Fusco LSG 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: 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 report written by the thematic expert Pauline Geoghegan refers to the seminar work, with contributions of Gaetano Mollura Lead partner, Vittorio Torbianelli Lead expert and USEAct partners that attended the meeting. Anna Arena, Maria Luna Nobile and Vincenzo Fusco, Lead partner team contributed to the editing of this report.

Cover picture: View of Riga city Š Riga Planning Region All the photos are taken by the USEAct Team. And images are taken from the ppt presented during the seminar.

NB. this report Should be read in conjunction with the Power Points presented during the meeting, which you can download here

Contents 3

1. Introduction and Concept paper 4 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Concept paper 1.3 The USEAct Issues of the Fifth Thematic Seminar 2. Riga Planning Region - the host partner 6 2.1 Welcome of the host partner 2.2 Riga Planning Region Sustainable Development Strategy 2014-2030 and Development Programme 2014-2020 2.3 Urban regeneration- challenges in Riga City 2.4 Riga Planning Region Local Action Plan 2.5 Andrejsala - background and development 2.6 Creative Incubator, Rihards Zariņš, Director of Creative Incubator 2.7 Empty spaces = Public Spaces? The Free Riga movement - a new cultural approach towards urbanity?

3. The USEAct theme: Refitting and regenerating inhabited buildings and areas 13 3.1 Introduction 3.2 USEAct Case studies 3.3 Case study 1: Studies and analysis on the definition of Urban Regeneration: Urban Social and economic indicators 3.4 Case study 2 Naples: the Si.Re.Na. Project 3.5 Case study 3 Viladecans: Urban remodelling of residential Ponent, polygon and renewal of the extension of the Montserratina 4. The life of the network 23 4.1 URBACTII next steps of the programme 4.2 USEAct Local Action Planning 4.2.1 Framework and Improvement of the Local Action Plan Implementation 4.2.2 The EU urban landscape 4.2.3 LAPs Review Cafè 4.3 USEAct future planning and administration 4.3.1 A proposal: New Heroes and USEACT cooperation 4.3.2 Administrative and financial issues and feedbacks on the Project Reprogramming 4.3.3 General issues of the Network Management - Next steps 4.4 USEAct Bilateral/Trilateral meetings 4.4.1 Second B/T meeting “Differentiating Interventions: Real Estate developments based on innovation and knowledge based activities” 4.4.2 Third B/T meeting: “Differentiating Interventions: Urban uses and textures” 4.4.3 The Fourth B/T meeting “Smart data and visualization tools” 4.4.4 Planning the fifth and sixth B/T meeting in Dublin 4.4.5 Capitalisation of the B/T meetings Appendix 1 programme of the meeting and meeting participants 41

4

FIFTH THEMATIC SEMINAR IMPLEMENTATION PHASE INTERVENTIONS ON “REUSE” OF URBAN REFITTING AND REGENERATING INHABITED BUILDINGS AND AREAS

Fourth meeting participants Dagnis Straubergs Chairman of Riga Planning Region Development Council Jānis Miezeris, Head of Administration of Riga Planning Region, Agnese Bīdermane USEAct Project Coordinator,Riga Planning Region Rūdolfs Cimdiņš Riga Planning Region Guntars Ruskuls Head of Strategic Planning Division of City Development Department of Riga City Uldis Apinis, Spatial Planner of Building Board of Ogre City Edgars Pārpucis Spatial Planner of Building Board of Ogre City ULSG member Dace Grīsle Acting Head of Development Department of Ogre City Iveta Zālīte Spatial Planner of Spatial Planning Department of Ķekava ULSG member Zane Koroļa Urban Planner of Tukums ULSG member Pēteris Šķiņķis University of Latvia Gunta Lukstiņa Expert Sandra Plēpe Expert Valters Māziņš “Riga Development Company” Rihards Zariņš Director of Creative Incubator Jonas Buechel Director of Urban Institute | Gaetano Mollura USEAct Coordinator | Vittorio Torbianelli Lead Expert | Pauline Geoghegan Thematic Expert | Germana Di Falco Ad hoc Expert | Ivan Tosics URBACT Secretariat | Paul Pece, Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association | John O’ Hara, Kehinde Olowatosin City of Dublin | Álvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo, City of Barakaldo | Jim Sims, Buckinghamshire Business First | Štefan Lancarič, USEAct coordinator, Kamila Gejdosova, National URBACT Authority, Ministry of Transport City of Nitra | Linda Iren K. Duffy, Local Coordinator, Østfold County | Michela Crevatin Trieste City Council | Enric Serra del Castillo, Sonia Dominguez City of Viladecans | Wouter Goedheer, New Heroes

1.INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPT PAPER 1.1

Introduction

The fifth USEAct thematic meeting took place in the city of Riga, at the heart of the Riga Planning Region, focusing on the theme of residential buildings in the heart of our cities, often in poor conditions: how to create regeneration strategies and on involving residents in refitting strategies through energy efficiency.

In addition to thematic presentations and relevant case studies provided by the USEAct partners, the meeting was enriched by contributions by guest expert Germana di Falco, expert advisor on Structural funds and Local Action Plans, who provided the network partners with valuable guidance on approaching key issues of funding.

Other participants to the meeting were Wouter Goedheer, who presented ‘New Heroes’, and Ivan Tosics, URBACT Thematic Pole Manager who gave an update on the present and future URBACT programme as well as timely pointers to potential

5

EU funding sources, and the participants and other experts from Riga city and region who presented the issues facing the city and its surrounding areas.

On the former industrial site at Andrejsala, a port area close to the city centre, participants visited a creative business incubator site where many new small businesses receive support and fruitful networking. There they were challenged by inputs on the Free Riga movement, a community based NGO promoting new forms of communication within the city sphere.

The Riga meeting was the last of the USEAct thematic seminars: the next meeting, in Buckinghamshire, UK, in January 2015, will focus on involving Managing Authorities, as well as finalising the Local Action Plans in each partner area. This will entail preparing exhibitions in each partner city as well as during the final conference in April, in Naples. In the meantime bi/tri-lateral meetings continue to take place, with the last ones due to happen in Dublin. Outcomes from four bi/trilateral meetings that had taken place in Viladecans and Naples were shared in Riga.

1.2

Concept Paper

USEAct Lead Expert, Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli

The USEAct thematic seminar in Riga was dedicated to “occupied” residential buildings, seen as a potential resource to be optimized and adapted to the requirements of current demand, to reduce the need to build new residential settlements with negative land-take consequences.

Existing buildings placed in historic areas of the cities (or in more recently built urban areas - e.g. developed during the fifties or sixties) that, because of their age or bad physical conditions, are losing appeal, can potentially represent important resources from which to start urban regeneration processes. Frequently, however, the physical conditions of the buildings are just a part of the problem: the physical and/or social qualities of the surrounding areas and public spaces in which the buildings are located are often not good enough to break the process of deterioration of the buildings themselves.

The Riga seminar aimed to tackle this general issue by focusing on two specific aspects. The first was about how to develop «regeneration-oriented" public strategies through refitting and maintenance of existing buildings in the urban fabric, whilst at the same time paying attention to the physical/social conditions of the neighbourhood. The second is on involving flat-owners in integrated refitting

strategies, mainly through promoting energy efficiency or in overall “property management” improvements. Literature is full of “case studies” about successful (and unsuccessful) attempts to structurally modernize inhabited buildings. Several factors appear to be crucial, such as: -identifying the right “scale” of interventions, avoiding both an excessively small scale – e.g. a single building – or a too large one; -developing the capacity to correctly identify the “a priori” economic/financial break-even point of the redevelopment process and the likely availability of public and private funds, given that renovation costs for such kind of interventions, are very relevant (with a high risk of not being affordable if compared to other solutions); -the capacity to couple the best fitting technology (in terms of “value for money”) with effective longterm financial and facility management frameworks; -a strong engagement of inhabitants and citizens, also through securing clear financial returns.

All these above mentioned targets require innovative approaches either from the technical, financial and facility management point of view (e.g. through new “operators” and partnership models) or from the social and cultural perspective. During the UseAct meeting, opportunities and challenges but also limits and difficulties related to interventions in "occupied" buildings were discussed, also through cases studies from other cities. Special attention was given to engaging the inhabitant, which is a very sensitive aspect. With reference to all the above mentioned topics, partners were invited to provide information and comments about each local context.

1.3

The USEAct issues of the Fifth Thematic Seminar

USEAct Lead Expert, Vittorio Torbianelli The importance of the integrated approach was emphasised, focussing on improving housing in the city centre and energy questions. Specific actions use existing housing stocks and identify small areas to focus on. Reducing land take also means an equilibrium between government policies and small scale policies. The meeting was particularly important for the Local Action Plans, supported by the contributed of an external expert.

6

2. THE HOST PARTNER: RIGA PLANNING REGION 2.1 Welcome by the Hosting Partner Dagnis Straubergs, Chairman of Riga Planning Region Development Council Dagnis Straubergs, Chairman of Riga Planning Region Development Council welcomed the participants to Riga, confirming the wish of the region that the exchanges should not only be theoretical but also should aim to be realised.

Chairman expressed importance of knowledge and best practice exchanged in the project network.

2.2 Riga Planning Region Sustainable Development Strategy 2014-2030 and Development Programme 2014-2020 Rūdolfs Cimdiņš, Riga Planning Region Key figures of Riga planning region: area 10 437 km², GDP € 11 690 per capita, population 1,1

Strategic framework

million, population change -1,0 % (2008-2013), coastline 185 km, population density 105 inh./km².

Riga region is a capital region, with an overall stable population: there is an increase in Riga city agglomeration and a decrease in Riga city and peripheral areas of the region. The Region’s natural values are the coast of Gulf of Riga and inland waters. Estimated population change in the region during next 5-10 years: Riga city -10%, Riga region 0%, agglomeration +15%. Planning documents include a sustainable development strategy 20142030 and a development programme 2014-2020.

Public discussions are taking place until the end of October involving politicians and planners from local municipalities, students, entrepreneurs and other stakeholders.

The vision and overall objective of the sustainable development strategy is quality in all spheres of life, becoming humanly attractive, effective, openminded and tolerant and competitive region in the global arena, human life and social environment, economic activities and products, physical space quality.

Development pillars/drivers are: a targeted collaborative process, Riga with metropolis, significant agents (stakeholders) of the strategy implementation, excellent companies and institutions, education and research.

Priorities 2014-2030 = priorities 2014-2020:

7

Priority 1 natural increase and migration, actions: fertility promotion strategies, immigration policy and qualified workforce.

Priority 2 Communities and self sufficiency: social planning, local initiatives, territorial communities, social and energy and self-sufficiency.

Priority 3 Flexible and excellent education: infrastructure for physical activities, professional education and lifelong learning, innovative business, excellent research and higher education linkage.

Priority 4 Globally competitive industries: support for knowledge and technology export, niche products with international attention, culture and creative industries, tourism and marketing strategies Priority 5 High quality transport and logistics: integrated public transport network, connections with international importance, coastal and inland waterways, urban light transport and cycling.

Priority 6 Municipalities a driving force for development: responsibility and financial selfsufficiency, specialized and diverse territories, role of different development actors, sustainable and effective service systems Priority 7 Sustainable living: maintaining balance of spatial structure, urban growth management and regeneration, energy systems based on renewable resources, housing and public space network (needs-based).

Prority 8 Smart development: specializationof riga region: smart …Economy competitiveness), People (social capital) , Governance (participation), Mobility (transport & ICT), Environment (resources), and living (life quality).

Spatial development structure: specalisation of territories, profiled development centres, Riga metropolis, coastline, specific territories.

Spatial development mobility: N-S and E-W connections, differentiated public transport systems.

Time minimisation, quality, hubs Spatial development: landscapes: coastal areas, valley areas USEAct issues linked to the priorities are: urban sprawl, industrial areas, allotments and ‘meadow’ villages, and resort areas.

Development programme solutions include an urban transformation action plan of Riga Metropolitan Area (LAP), policies and tools for urban growth management, suggestions for projects and proposals for actions/interventions in pilot areas, and coordination of urban growth management and knowledge dissemination.

A North South rail line is planned from Helsinki to Berlin: discussions are taking place on how to connect this with the airport, to minimise the time of transfer from car to public transport (including parking). This is mainly a state competency, however transport planning could be a regional role.

Riga has an important role in relation to the whole country.

2.3 Urban regeneration- challenges in Riga City Guntars Ruskuls, Riga Development Department

City

Council

City

Riga is a good communication platform: however the population in the city centre is declining.The agglomeration of Riga (2012) covers 7 297,6 km², with a population of 1 168 453.

8

People are buying private houses outside Riga.

There is a free labour market, and a bad forecast, yet Riga is the biggest city in the Baltics, with a population of 1 168 453. The economic engine has changed from industry (from 22% to 10%): a typical service city; it has a big port, and transportation is important. There is now a need to transfer to new activities, but it has not been successful in attracting businesses. National industry policy is linked to IT policy. It needs an international dimension, for example there is a new library, but no new football stadium or international congress hall. A comfortable urban environment will make the city more attractive to its citizens.

There was a policy for polycentric planning in the

city: the historical city centre is declared as a UNESCO site, with restrictive building regulations, so other development poles are needed; there is also a need for a new bridge across the river Daugava. With the crisis the polycentric model has not been working. Green areas cover 40% of the territory but are not linked together. At the same time a lot of forestry belongs to the municipality.

Regarding housing there is a need to diversify the offer, within a walkable distance to the city centre.

60% live in the suburbs, in housing that is in bad shape. House are needed near the waterfront.

Andrejsala is an area close to the city centre, in a former port area. The port area is moving to the north of the city. The population lives in a poor quality environment, hence it is a priority to improve this environment.They are also seeking a new location for the station in the city centre (referring to the experience of Lille).

Participative planning is popular “Create Riga”, is led by Architects and planners without work during the crisis. It is important to make projects together, using local people, for example the reconstruction of the market place in Agenskalns, and “Radi Rigu” a shared space approach. For the revitalisation of depressed area in the historical area: infrastructure improvements are needed in parallel with private owners.

Riga 2030 structural plan

9

For the revitalization of the Spīķeri Block in a depressed area, part of the historical centre of Old Riga, where buildings are privately owned, with passive social and cultural facilities, there are proposals for lighting installations, planting, skate park construction, placement of benches and the establishment of a cycle path. The success of this project will depend on effective public-private partnership, a strategic approach, expert advice, wider public involvement and a step-by-step approach Another project has been the strengthening of the tourism potential, for example in Grīziņkalns which has a strong cultural and historical heritage: EU money will go towards maintaining historical wooden buildings and Art Nouveau architecture. There is now a wooden architecture centre to learn how to restore wooden houses.

The Local Action Plan therefore covers four themes: urban sprawl areas, allotments/ garden villages, industrial areas and deprived former resort areas.

Case study areas “Meadow” villages: after land reform, owners got their land back, investors came, when land prices were not high. Agricultural land was divided into residential plots without roads or shared services (playgropunds etc). Garden villages were collective units for recreation during the socialist period. Now in areas near the city or the sea collective areas are changing to residential uses: in some areas there is 70% residential use. Rapid development of new residential dwellings is taking place in former gardening allotments located close to the city limits and near the sea.

As for industrial areas, huge factories were built, and are now lying empty, as are the small businesses around them. These big buildings need new uses. Riga was the third biggest industrial city in Czarist Russia.

Previous ‘resort’ areas were on a direct train line from Moscow city. There was a sanatorium with 1200 beds in Jamala, plus the Siguida castle complex.

The former hotel “Liva” is the property of a bank, but following the insolvency of the owner, there is no information about the actual condition of the building, or its potential danger, now used as an extreme place for youth “entertainment”.

2.4 Riga Planning Region Local Action Plan Gunta Lukstiņa,Riga Planning Region Background: at the beginning of 21th century new residential housing expanded on previous agricultural land. This trend if not adequately managed could further/is exacerbating some key problems such as chaotic layout of sprawled urban areas („meadow villages”) in most cases with lack of appropriate infrastructure, a low rate of facilities, and allotment/garden villages illegally and legally turning into residential areas without appropriate infrastructure or planning. A number of formerly industrial sites abandoned after the Soviet Period degraded, vacant or partly vacant areas, need to be re-used, plus former resort areas, popular during Soviet times.

Huge areas are planned for building: some are built, some remain half built and others have not been built on at all. Between 2007 and 2013 some municipalities were growing and others were shrinking. Riga city was declining but the municipality was growing. 85% of the inhabitants of Ķekava municipality live close to the Riga City border; thus twelve villages have merged to form part of Riga agglomeration.

The strategic target of the Local Action Plan is to enhance cooperation, by developing a joint platform and understanding of the need for Urban Growth Management for Riga, and to encourage a participatory and transformation process of pilot areas on alocal level.

Expected outcomes are: acquired knowledge and a cooperation platform for elaboration of an UGM plan and further actions on regional level; local municipalities have identified necessary partnership for elaboration of the Local Action Plan; suggestions for development for pilot areas have been prepared along four project themes: industrial, urban sprawl areas, allotments/garden villages and resort areas, and recommendations for future policies and the actions included in Riga Planning Region (RPR) Sustainable Development Strategy and Development Programme.

The Local Action Plan general structure is based on 3 pillars: 1. Urban Growth Management – knowledge transfer, promotion of UGM and tools,

10

implementation of UGM principles in RPR strategy and program. Addressed to Objective 1,3 2. Cooperation – promotion of cooperation between RPR local governments. Addressed to Objective 1,2 3. Enhance transformation - foster elaboration of LAP`s for pilot areas. Addressed to Objective 2 Two implementation timelines have been agreed: actions started and carried out during project and actions to be carried out after the project.

Objective 1: Policies and tools for urban growth management (UGM) Objective 2: Elaboration and suggestions for LAP projects, proposals for actions/interventions for pilot areas Objective 3: Coordination of UGM and knowledge dissemination

A survey has been carried out on priorities along the four themes in 16 municipalities: 4 ULSG partners, 4 ULSG partners/ members of Pieriga Municipal Cooperation Commision, 6 members of Pieriga Municipal Cooperation Commision and 2 RPR other municipalities.

The themes and priority problem/opportunity areas emerging are industrial, urban sprawl, allotments/garden villages, and resort areas.

As for the Local Action Plan elaboration process ULSG and site visits have involved ULSG meetings in Riga, and ULSG meetings and site visits hosted

by ULSG partners to Ogre town in July, Jurmala city in September and to Kekava municipality in November.

2.5 Andrejsala - background and development

11

Valters Māziņš, Member Development Company”

of

Board,

2.6 Creative Incubator “Riga

A concrete fence divided Andrejsala from the city.

The aim now is to regenerate the area to become part of the city. The history of the area is linked to the port.

Drawings were prepared for planning expansion of the port buildings but never built. The grain elevator was the first building on the site, but was destroyed during World War 2. Rain from the old town still runs through the old drainage tunnel. By 2006 port activities were limited. Discussions took place on the future of the area: 36 hectares “Riga port city”, when Dutch experts and Ove Arup were invited to do a study on how to connect the area to the city. A “conceptual” vision for planning analysed how to reuse existing buildings. For example it was proposed to re-use a power plant for a museum plus a vision for a transportation plan. Development concepts were drawn up, e.g. for water canals etc.

The phase 1 was an initial vision, which was compared with attitudes and feelings of citizens; this led to the creation of a basic structure in 2009, with a description for developers, then a physical model with maximum outside use. This was a functional concept, over 50 years, with 67% residential usage, and preparing the land began. In 2006 the water front area was opened up to citizens. The water is now used partly for port activities, partly for leisure activities. However, people are not using the waterfront so much. Proposals included an art museum (PPP), re-use of old buildings, re-use of an old railway station, for a city library (in Riga libraries are the most visited places after the supermarket), and keeping part of the port structure for cruise ships (they are now closer to the city centre and can access it on foot). This was a proposal for a phased development, starting with the middle section and calculated how much investment was needed.20072010 was a period booming with activities, with artists exhibitions etc. on the site.

They are now getting the ownership together, with a lot of public contribution. The dream is that it will not go bankrupt with the first owner. Investors are beginning to come, and like the area.The vision is a model and planners have to work with developers.

Planning regulations are in place and will not allow some things.

Rihards Zariņš, Director of Creative Incubator The Creative Industries business incubator has been in the building for four years, bringing in tenants, who are companies who have changed the area, and only helping creative companies.

Business Incubators started in the US in 1959. In Latvia there had not been much experience. The first were in 1993, with a cultural programme for 2009-October 2014. Finance will continue until 2015/16. There are now seven Business Incubators in Latvia, with the aim of helping entrepreneurship.

Business Incubators in Latvia are only for creative industries, starting in 2010: 2.5M: mainly ERDF plus Latvian co finance (15%).

They offer environment, services, and opportunities for cooperation (moral support is often necessary, as they are small businesses often started at home.

Here they can create their company and grow their business and provide space (workshops). They contract with the Latvian Investment company, which has a commitment to support companies, provide facilities and external services such as accounting, business advice, photocopying, marketing, export promotion and corporate identity.

Nothing is free of charge but they cover part of the costs: 85% in the first year, 55% in the second year and 30% in the third year. After three years they should be able to work on their own. There is over 25 000 m² of space. It is now full after four years.

They also organise social events, such as concerts, and other events. The main challenges are ideas, the team, sharing information, and creative people/creative thinking (the need to explain the administrative processes). Rental costs are €5/m² for the top floor, plus utilities costs of 15%.

2.7 Empty spaces = Public Spaces?

The Free Riga movement - a new cultural approach towards urbanity?

Jonas Buechel, Director of the Urban Institute The Urban Institute is three years old, bringing together academics and practitioners to find ways of shifting society. They deal mainly with physical space, and society, through community work and democracy, with academics and activists/anarchists.

They train community workers in rural and urban communities, and are connected to the Urban Institute for campaigns, e.g. “occupy me” yellow stickers on abandoned sites or buildings, and projects for using abandoned spaces. Their first project was “empty spaces-public spaces”.City = life

12

+ culture + community. ‘Community’ is a difficult word in Latvian (confusion with ‘communism’…).

There is less and less communication in cities, e.g. cities say “we have told them, that is enough”.

Space means having mental space in and around us. Space is the “final frontier”, we don’t know what to do with development… “where is the devil in this?”. Development only achieves what developers (and city) want to do. “We don’t have to develop”.

“Don’t be rude to the environment”.

Language is important: people have expressions of fear so we must communicate in a different way, to create life experiments, where everything does not have to work. There is a lot of life in culture: culture allows itself to be experimental: communication, curiosity, detail. Start to see things I hadn’t seen before: interact with my environment. Create space: communication “space is dependent on light”. Find a story who creates cities? Performers? Who conducts space? Collaborative space making. “The city is in the hands of an architect” Riga is European Capital of Culture but there is no space, while 15-20% of buildings are abandoned… is this the “European Capital of Empty Space”? The “Free Riga” NGO was started to find ways to deal with abandoned buildings, for example the Bolshevist building used for culture. We ask questions: who needs the city? Who coordinates public spaces? Who plays the city? How to ensure sustainable thinking? Urban development is social cultural life. “A city which does not hate itself cannot love itself”. “HAVE FUN!” They are also working on the quality of spaces in Riga, and have been reaching out to banks etc if they are interested in temporary uses. In the Leipzig model Saxony, the private sector and NGOs are

working together towards temporary residential uses.

13

3. THE USEACT THEME: REFITTING AND REGENERATING INHABITED BUILDINGS AND AREAS 3.1 Introduction.

Vittorio Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert Retrofitting at building and city level

Within the context of the built environment, the term ‘retrofit’ has been used to imply substantive physical changes to a building or buildings (normally, mitigation activities to improve energy efficiency), and often linked to the concept of ‘adaptation’ (i.e. intervention to adjust, reuse or upgrade a building to suit new conditions or requirements).

However, at a city level it can be argued term ‘retrofit’ is distinguishable because the characteristics of urban retrofitting are: comprehensive nature and large scale; integrated nature.

that the defining (1) its (2) its

Deep retrofit costs: multiple measures tend to follow the law of diminishing returns, where energy saving from a combination of measures is not necessarily

Dealing with energy: in the UK despite measures to improve the energy efficiency of dwellings, over the last 40 years the overall household energy consumption has increased by about 12.5%.

Heating is still the dominant energy use in housing; however, in recent years there is an indication of a reduction in heating energy demand. Improvements in heating energy efficiency have been offset by increases in indoor air temperatures, with a shift to whole-house heating (but there is also a considerable increase in electrical demand for lighting and appliances which affects costs).

If the savings through insulation and heating efficiency improvements from 1970 onwards had not been made, then energy consumption would be around twice the current levels…In general, measures have included loft insulation, doubleglazing and more efficient boilers, measures that can be regarded as easy tasks (often colloquially referred to as ‘low hanging fruit’) and natural replacement. These are measures where occupants can generally see cost-effective real benefits, not only in greater energy efficiency, but also in increased thermal comfort. Measures can be implemented at an ‘elemental’ approach: individual measures, such as cavity-wall insulation, or a ‘whole house’ approach, which integrates a number of measures tailored to the specific property. The trend in cost increase associated with going from relatively simple elemental ‘shallow retrofit’ measures to a multifaceted whole-house ‘deep retrofit’ approach is heavy.

the sum of savings from individual measures. An important factor is the ability to predict at a largescale the impact (costs included!) of retrofitting with

14

energy-saving measures. Of particular concern is identifying the most appropriate package of measures to be applied to specific cases.

In order to assess the impact of upgrading the performance of existing housing energy, environmental and cost prediction are required. For example a prediction model (EEP) was used in Neath Port Talbot as a test-bed for its application.

EEP is based around a ‘geographical information system’ (GIS), which contains information on all the housing within a local authority area. It uses an embedded sub-model for predicting domestic energy use, based on the UK Standard.

Standard Assessment Procedures “are needed to categorize buildings. A large programme of energyefficiency retrofitting of existing housing was carried out in Neath Port Talbot between 2004 and 2007.

This programme was carried out by Warm Wales Ltd, a ‘not for profit’ community-interest company that delivers home energy-saving measures, http://www.warmwales.org.uk/. It particularly targets the poorer sectors of the community, and in many cases provides help for those who would otherwise not be eligible for financial support.The main funding was obtained through the utility company National Grid (electricity and gas suppliers were obligated by government to achieve targets in domestic energy efficiency). Other funding sources included the local authority.

All householders participating in the scheme were also eligible to request free benefits advice relating to government financial support (they were offered a home visit and help with the application process).The Warm Wales programme of work included the installation of cavity-wall insulation, EWI*, loft insulation (and loft ‘top-ups’) and hot water cylinder insulation jackets. It also included a replacement boiler or full central heating system and external wall Insulation.

Starting with a Whole House approach….ARBED is an another regeneration programme developed by the Welsh government. http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/e nergy/efficiency/arbed/?lang=en It also aimed to generate employment opportunities for Welsh residents and economic opportunities for Welsh businesses.The ARBED scheme was initially set up to take a ‘whole house’ approach to install energy-efficiency measures and building integrated renewable energy supply systems. Around £60 million of funding was raised from a range of sources, including the government, and direct funding from Registered Social Landlords and local authorities. Twenty-eight projects took place across Wales with work on site starting in April 2010 (more than 6000 homes).

Costs and benefits….»Whole House» or «elemental shallow» retrofit?

…but at the end an elemental approach prevailed.

Although the scheme initially aimed to take a wholehouse approach, the projects within the Warm Wales programme took more of an elemental approach, improving many properties with fewer

measures (the majority adopted only one measure!)

–the law of diminishing returns!

Pay-backs: as the cost of measures rise in relation to predicted savings (partly due to the easy measures having already been applied), reasonable paybacks, assuming some sort of (current) loan

15

system, become difficult to achieve. It is unlikely to comply with strong targets (e.g. a 80% reduction in CO2 emissions) – “right retrofit standard targets” have to be established.Moreover, calculations do not reflect ‘take back’ due to higher temperatures, or ‘in use’ factors resulting in underperformance, both of which would reduce the energy savings in practice and make payback even more problematic.

Lessons from the Wales experience are that: it is important to be able to target the most beneficial combination of packages of energy-saving measures and renewable energy supply, for specific house types or units (no “general approach”); It is important to adopt models for prediction framework (appropriate packages of measures can be targeted for specific house types) to achieve maximum savings in relation to costs, but it is not easy! There are ‘in-use’ factors now being applied, to account for lack of predicted performance in practice, especially solid-wall insulation (better assessment of performance in use are needed); wider benefits of large scale activities should be accounted; there are additional benefits from whole-house retrofitting including improving the general aspects and quality of the building (improved quality of life – not only money).

Many programmes demonstrate the importance of including other socio-economic activities, such as job creation, start-up companies, training and benefits advice, within large-scale retrofit programmes, taking advantage of the opportunities provided through large-scale interventions.The cost–benefits from these additional activities are not generally accounted for in retrofit programmes, but they might be used to better target government support funding.

Many retrofits tend to demonstrate a continuing performance gap between predicted energy savings and actual energy savings. Challenges include: highly variegated housing stock, a low rate of property turnover, disruption and inconvenience to occupants, undesirable payback periods, lack of occupant interest in energy efficiency, and lack of a knowledgeable and competent workforce to advise homeowners and implement energy-efficiency strategies.

It is difficult to standardize processes… every offsite house still has to land on a real site, with mucky ground works and inclement weather. Building construction in a place is always contingent on local climate, natural surroundings, neighbours, history, culture and customs.

There is nothing worse than a backlash of public opinion against poorly executed building industry initiatives. Such a backlash risks undermining policy and loss of public confidence in potentially good

technological solutions. A call for more rigorous inspections and improved workmanship is required.

There is a need to focus on convincing people: retrofitting is a part of a very complex system, with lots of moving parts. And it is not easily reduced to simple explanations (e.g. ‘it’s technology not people’ or ‘people are selfish’) or simply policy approaches (e.g. ‘just get the prices right’ or ‘it’s just that financial incentives are needed’) (Lutzenhiser, 2008, p. 3). Often householders opt for increased temperatures rather than greater energy and cost savings. This suggests that people prioritize their comfort, convenience and aesthetics.It could be said that ‘carbon’ does not show up for some people and cannot, therefore, be a concern… and conversely, things that are important to occupants are often neglected. A research on feelings towards retrofit showed that main concerns were related to:providing access to belongings and clothes (which were stored offsite!) and potential damage to carpets!

The phenomenological concepts of breakdown and ready-to-hand are key elements of the disruption the occupants experienced during retrofit. Energy is not a priority matter for many families!

Retrofit is a significant ‘moment of change’ when the occupants’ activities and perceptions can shift dramatically. They serve as windows of opportunity to reconfigure the complex relations between inhabitants and the built environment but they have to be considered and managed. The social practices approach is particularly useful in recognizing that retrofit is neither simple nor can it be solved with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Also the “sociological” perspective suggest that is important to provide customized solutions to domestic retrofit that follow a community-based social practice approach.The complexity of the retrofit problem means that solutions need to be specifically tailored to the building or group of buildings in question, through community based partnerships (Stafford et al., 2011).

Development and realization of customized solutions to local groups of houses can be through facilitated engagement between occupants, housing providers, community groups, local authorities and construction professionals.

The focus is on changes in the existing sociotechnical configuration of materials, competences and images of domestic energy practices.

Information provision and incentive programmes are an important part of these programmes, but they are complemented in socio-technical programs by surveys (in families) and consultations with homeowners and occupants, community events and activities, cost estimates and energy models at “area” level, coordination of building work and

feedback with the occupants during works and after the work is completed, and long-term performance monitoring.

16

Community Based retrofit: a larger example of innovation through community learning is “UK Warm Zones”, a not-for-profit subsidiary of National Energy Action (Warm Zones, 2013). http://www.warmzones.co.uk/. A «Warm Zone” is a local or regional partnership that includes the local authority, energy suppliers, housing companies and other organizations from various sectors to coordinate and target domestic energy-efficiency strategies.

Policy frameworks are currently fragmented, with different regulations, incentives and programmes.

Large-scale urban retrofitting requires systemic change in the organization of built environment and infrastructure, and the integration of socio-technical knowledge, capacity and responses. In this sense, a focus purely on “buildings” leads to lack of strategic focus, in the long term. Existing infrastructure and the built environment tend to change very slowly because of ‘sunk’ investments that create path dependencies that can only be adjusted through strong and high-level governance and supporting policies. A strategic question is What scale for «energy saving» policies?

“In reality it is impossible to deal with deep “energy strategies” related to buildings without simultaneously tackling energy issues not only at the neighbourhood but also at city levels, if there is to be any sense of coherence across energy policies.” (Stevenson, 2103). Coordination between energy policies at different scales has been hampered by political, operational and incentives regimes! Development of a complete new integrated perspective on long-term deep socio-technological systems innovation is required = a socio technical transition.

The financial challenge: there is a need for realistic loan systems, for example: the use of ‘lifetime mortgages’ funded through a ‘green investment bank’; personal carbon allowances combined with local authority-run ‘Low Carbon Zone’ improvement areas; the difficulty is that such solutions require substantial government intervention and upfront investment for “energy related” infrastructures (funds?). The real challenge here, is how to deliver these initiatives more effectively through the private sector or public– private partnerships. The Australian ‘Green Lease’ scheme is a good example. Generally, the financial sector has not yet linked its existing processes for both commercial and residential buildings (e.g. risk management, assessing buildings’ lending values

and determining financing/insurance conditions) with the need to integrate sustainability aspects. Banks and institutional investors have not yet created the financial instruments and infrastructure to provide external capital with easy access to investments in energy efficiency retrofits of commercial buildings.

Financial stakeholders’ engagement will likely increase in the coming years in order to meet their very own interests and goals – at least this is the authors’ assumption. However, the shifting of more sustainable practices into mainstream operation cannot be expected to happen overnight! First of all, capital will only flow at acceptable terms and price into sustainable building-related activities if financial stakeholders can identify, price and/or mitigate associated investment. This requires not only the further development of appropriate methods and processes for risk assessment and valuation, but also their widespread adoption and application in practice, which is a longer-term process.

Key final messages Refitting is not an easy task (failures are frequent!).

Existing incentives are fragmented and do not always get succesfull results.

Right predictions and right «refitting packages» are required, with improvements of «in use» implementation on broad areas. Very high local-case customization is required, but a broad scale (city level but also governmental) is definetly strategic – integrating different levels.

Paybacks remain a problem: strong public involvement is still required. A socio-technical approach is needed, through community based retrofitting programs; understanding “disruption” is important. Financial markets are not fully ready for the challenge: innovation (and time) is required to “connect” financial operators with the issue (assessing risks, etc.). Structural systemic «transition» (long term!) is needed to get more substantial targets at city level and at financial level.

URBACT and other sources can be found in the Power Point presentation linked to this input on the USEAct web page.

3.2 USEAct Partners CASE STUDIES 3.2.1 Case study 1 Barakaldo Studies and analysis on the definition 17 of Urban Regeneration: Urban Social and economic indicators

regeneration interventions to be defined (energy efficiency, accessibility, underground use of land, building maintenance duties, public services and facilities).

Alvaro Cerezo, Barakaldo USEAct Project Coordinator Integrated regeneration oriented public strategies through refitting and maintenance of existing building includes analysis and diagnostic of vulnerable urban areas, the neighbourhood of Llano in Barakaldo (CEUERS Project, University of Deusto), and quality standards of the urban environment (existing building and urban area).

12 ULSG working groups were defined, with the following particularly relevant to the topic of the case study: ULGS 1: Definition of the general framework. (On going process).

ULGS 2: Studies and analysis on the definition of the Urban Regeneration Interventions: Urban, social and economic indicators. Questions for debate: which methodology allows the definition and helps to limit the Urban Regeneration Interventions?

Which is the right scale to limit the Urban Regeneration area? How should be defined the priorities and how should be focused the efforts and resources of the Urban Regeneration Interventions?

ULGS 6: Quality standards of the urban environment (existing building and urban area).

Other questions to be debated are: which should be the existing building standards? Which should be the urban spaces and equipment standards? Is it possible to measure the real state assets value increase, due to the improvement of the building and urban quality standards?

The research Project covers the analysis and diagnostic of vulnerable urban areas, the neighbourhood of Llano in Barakaldo (CEUERs Project, University of Deusto).

The scope of the research Project involved: definition of vulnerable urban areas (methodology and indicators), pilot case diagnosis (Llano neighbourhood), definition of initial intervention proposal, analysis of the proposed interventions (before and after analysis) and study of the economic viability of the proposal. The hope was to have results that could be helpful to study the rest of pilot cases proposed and for the definition of Barakaldo’s Local Action Plan (also for any Basque Country urban area). Therefore, these results would allow the working procedure for future urban

The research project process 1. Definition of the different ULSG members and their thematic scope, under the new legal terms and concepts introduced by recent legal changes in Spain (Urban Restoration, Regeneration and Renovation Law, L3R).

2. Setting the framework of the research project of the CEUERS course in two of the ULSG and setting the questions for the debate or analysis.

3. Provision of all the available data at the local offices and identifying the most suitable city officers as stakeholders in the process.

4. Research into the different methodologies and sort of indicators available and its adaptation to Basque Country town-area specific conditions.

18

5. Field work and development of the selected methodologies and indicators and establishing the first results of the analysis. Two scales of analysis were used: town scale (general analysis) and neighbourhood scale (urban interventions).

6.Definition of an integral urban intervention proposal in the area of Llano and application of the previous methodology to the proposal, to verify the improvements and its validity (as analytical and practical Methodology).

7.Echanging the methodology and indicators with the city officers with a view to their acceptance for future urban analysis and research projects on already built areas.

The previous situation of the area was that: the general condition of the urban space is correct, there is a shortage of public facilities (cultural, social and sport), there is no covered facility in the area for community activities; the quality of public space is poor (due to wind exposure, humidity, lack of sun), lack of green urban areas, lack of commercial activity and empty basements of the residential blocks, the general condition of the buildings is correct (structural stability), low energy efficiency rate of the buildings, urban space and building accessibility problems, and a homogeneous social profile: old population, highly dependent, low income and low social status index.

Proposals: Urban space quality and facilities: Sports facility roof covering and the surrounding urban space intervention (cultural, social and sport facilities) night time public lighting improvement for security reasons and energy efficiency improvement; transformation of hard spaces into urban green area; redefinition of the parking spots in the area.

Building quality: Solutions to accessibility problems in residential blocks (lifts and removal of accessibility barriers) and improvement of the energy efficiency rate, with special consideration and prevalence to the improvement on the building core.

Economic activities and social tissue: spatial transformation and change of use of the actual commercial retail spaces; promotion of business activities considering the local companies and professionals; urban garden self-management programme; a new apartment block for medical students, linked to the University Hospital located in the surrounding area (with a mix of social profiles and ages); construction and structural viability; energy efficiency; building and population density.

Barriers and opportunities: Barriers: according to the local survey, the residents and owners were unlikely to afford the cost of the intervention, the lack of funds of the local public

administration to face the intervention, financial shortage in the market and among the owners.

Opportunities include the possibility of gathering all the basement retail spaces, the public administration idea of studying, analyzing and managing new ways for urban restoration and regeneration interventions, the owners’ interest and willingness to consider previous operations in other areas (if there was no cost to them), new finance possibilities, considering other possible agents involved (Energy Supply Companies and contractors-promoters), national subsidies programme related to the National Restoring, Regenerating and Renovating Plan, the Basque Government subsidies programme through the Basque Energy Entity for existing urban areas.

Analysis of the proposal: once the proposal was made a new analysis was carried out according to the Second Methodology for neighbourhood scale (described in the Study Case NÂş1). This second methodology established five categories of vulnerability on the neighbourhood scale, considering before/after inputs of compared analysis to determine the benefits of the possible proposals.

The categories were: urbanism, environment, building, social, economic. Parallel to the analysis of the improvement in the neighborhood, a possible planning was defined and also an economic viability study was made, considering all the possible costs, wages, incomes and benefits. The economic viability study was made according to new legal regulations defined in the Urban Restoration, Regeneration and Renovation Law –L3R. Conclusions 1. The urban regeneration interventions are viable considering the new legal definitions. This viability is possible due to the legal mandatory incomes for the building conservation (up to 50% of the construction value) that make the interventions possible, including the urban renewal cost, without any public subsidies (only necessary if there is a high rate of building demolition in order to create new urban spaces).

2. The balance between the costs, wages and incomes is negative. But if we add the benefits, it is positive, due to the restored buildings and empty plot value increase. But in any case, all the possible solutions imply a certain amount of solidarity among the owners.

3. From the technical point of view the new Law allows this type of intervention to be enhanced. But the questions are: are the politicians ready to face the political cost of implementing these types of strategies, instruments and policies? Are the owners ready to face their duties (being an owner implies more than paying a mortgage, there are some

19

private and collective duties to be fulfilled)? Is it worth investing in your own property and in the urban space surrounding your home? The answers might be “Yes”, but there is still a long way to go in promoting and wide spreading the awareness in the necessity and benefits of this type of interventions.

3.2.2 Case study 2 Naples The Si.Re.Na. Project Gaetano Mollura, USEAct Lead Partner Town planning variations from 1998 to 2001 extended the Historical Centre from 730 to 1 917 ha.

Immediate action is one of the principal aims: 97% of building interventions can be directly realized, without executive plans.

SIRENA started its activity preparing and promoting the Programme to Restore Common Parts of Buildings in the Old Town Areas of Naples and outskirts, known as the Sirena Project. In this way a widespread restoration of the architectural heritage of Naples began. The investment of the members of the S.I.RE.NA amounts to the following: Città Storica S.C.p.A.(Naples City Council): 53,460%, Regione Campania 31,470%, the Association of Building Contractors of the Province of Naples 9,520%, Manufacturers’ Association 1,320%, Chamber of Commerce 4,230%.

The Context : 80% of the buildings of the historic center are private properties; the buildings are fragmented in several apartments which are mostly rented; the majority of the properties indicated are “controlled“ rental agreements (very old contracts), therefore the apartment owners have low income and not sufficient to invest in rehabilitation of the buildings; the rental populations of this area also create its cultural identity that must be preserved; most of the private buildings of the historic centre need to be rehabilitated. Buildings are degraded in a social as well as a physical way. The problem is to avoid ‘gentrification’. The grants that do exist only cover common parts, facades etc, of a building.The priorities of the UNESCO Historical Center of

Naples are to preserve the cultural identity of the area and its soul and to rehabilitate the historical centre.

Background and reason of the Si.Re.Na project: the Municipality assigned to the public sector the task to define rules and control methods, identify the strategic actions and the incentives formulas. Tasks that have been assigned to SI.RE.NA. (a non – profit public and private partnership Company) are to promote interventions, establish connections between the administration and building owners and organise the information offices and companies, to promote Protocols of Understanding with sector experts, banks and insurance companies in order to offer to those involved some measures to ease the interventions.

The strategies are 1. To stimulate the active participation of citizens though the use of easy procedures, with an information desk, advertising campaigns and meetings with citizens and operators.

2. To optimise services offered by different operators through: agreements with Banks, Insurance enterprises and Professional Associations, an agreement with the Joint Territorial Committee for Safety to check the safety standards of the building sites, and the “Eurecho Project” for the collection and disposal of construction waste at a cut rate and at controlled dumps 3. Diffusion of the ‘culture of legality’ in the construction industry: transparency in the technical and economic running of a building site, monitoring of the safety standards of a building site, and verification that welfare and employment regulations are being respected by the company.

4. Assessment of the construction work through promotion and assessment of the construction company, access to contracts for all the companies that respect the norms, by creating an open directory and assistance to companies during the execution of their work.

5. To encourage the spread of urban maintenance through adoption of the Building Maintenance Manual.

The contribution granted by Campania Region and Naples City Council amounts to up to 37% of the comprehensive intervention amount. A further contribution of up to 3% is granted to those who adopt the Building Maintenance Manual. The grant cannot exceed the threshold of 130 000.00/160 000.00 euros for each building. Moreover this contribution is cumulative with further incentives and /or easing granted by the Public Authorities.

During the period 2003/2014: 1 260 building sites were financed by the City Council of Naples, 80 million euros of public contribution were assigned, 190 million euros was spent (1/3 public funds and 2/3 private funds i.e. owners of apartment buildings),

20

1200 building sites were opened, 800 building sites were 100% completed, mostly in the UNESCO area, 200 building sites were more than 50% completed and 200 building sites were less than 50% complete, 500 enterprises were involved and about 1000 technicians, wide participation of inhabitants and 3000 building sites were checked/ inspected by S.I.RE.NA.

3.2.3 Case study 3 Viladecans Urban remodelling of residential Ponent, polygon and renewal of the extension of the Montserratina Enric Serra, USEAct Viladecans Project coordinator

The recovery of the Italian quarter in Tianjin In October 2004, Sirena began collaborating with the Tianjin City Council on the renewal of the Italian quarter. With Sirena as consultants, restoration has begun of the main streets and 26 buildings have been opened to date. Among them are two important public buildings: the Italian Barracks “Caserma Carlotto” and the Meng Joss House, the city’s first guest house. At the request of the Tianjin City Council, Sirena has also become the consultant for quality control in relation to other restoration works, not directly planned by Sirena. Sirena has related its experience in Tianjin in various exhibitions both in Italy and abroad. In September, 2006, the permanent exhibition of the history and restoration of the Italian quarter, housed in the Carlotto barracks, was inaugurated in the presence of Prime Minister Prodi.

Conclusions Sirena has been an important tool to renovate the private buildings but unfortunately the project didn’t focus on deprived (material and immaterial) buildings as expected. It has also suffered from the global economic crisis and reduction of public resources. The actual situation is that the Sirena Project has not been confirmed and financed; the building projects just financed are under completion.

The next challenges for Naples City Council will be to improve the governance of Sirena in such a way as to obtain the wide rehabilitation of the UNESCO historical centre avoiding gentrification.

USEACT/URBACT and the implementation of the Local Action Plan in Naples has included a laboratory on the governance of the rehabilitation private buidings promoting innovative policy on social housing, and the B/T meeting on “Real Estate Investments Trust for Housing”.

The Law of Improvement of Neighbourhoods and Urban Areas Requiring Special Attention is a new policy of public intervention answering one of the priorities of the Government of Catalonia: the comprehensive rehabilitation of neighbourhoods to avoid risks and to improve conditions for the people living in these areas. The law, promoted by the Government and approved by the Catalan Parliament in May 2004, provides for the creation of a fund available to municipalities, which finances comprehensive intervention projects aimed at the urban improvement, social and economic, of neighbourhoods that require special attention.

From the start the Law presented neighbourhoods with a new way of intervening in the districts by the government. The fact that the implementing instruments were common and will shelter under the umbrella of a law has allowed it to be extended throughout Catalonia and has driven improvement in operations in all districts, equitably distributing resources to municipalities in need.

However, this improvement of the situation of neighbourhoods not only refers to urban or housing.

To encouragecross-intervention, the Law requires that beneficiaries’ projects to include standards in a number of areas, such as the removal of architectural barriers, social programmes, neighbourhood improvement, improvement of energy and environmental infrastructure, incorporating communication technologies, improvements to common elements of buildings, public facilities and improvement of public space.

Moreover, the implementation of the Law has been the catalyst to attract more investment and stimulate public private entities to invest in rehabilitation, widening the range of the programme districts. In this sense, an increase in housing prices induced investment or other administrations can be observed. With the aim of stimulating cooperation between administrations, the neighbourhoods Law was written with the belief that it had to be the councils themselves, closer to the citizens, which will design and implement the programme directly.

The positive aspect of this system is demonstrated in studies that confirm the convergence between urban and real estate of neighbourhoods and there reference municipalities.

In 2009, a new era began: with the sixth round of the Neighbourhoods Act, has begun a new phase that reflects the will of the Government to ensure continuity of the programme while maintaining the

21

high degree of specific and careful currently engaged in each case. Furthermore the first draft neighbourhoods are a reality and both outcomes and future needs can be evaluated. That is why, from the sixth round of research, the Act is divided into three distinct lines, which allow us to respond to various situations of municipalities: one for new comprehensive intervention projects, one for municipalities with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, and another to accompany those who have already completed their projects (neighbourhood contracts).

Since 2004 calls have been issued for support under the Neighbourhoods Act. The award of grants under the seventh edition of the Law of neighbourhoods has gone from the 117 to the 143 districts with comprehensive regeneration projects underway and the first neighbourhood contracts.

Among the seven calls, â‚Ź1 330 M of public investment has been committed to the overall improvement of neighborhoods throughout Catalonia.

Urban remodeling of the Ponent residential polygon: The area comprising the western districts consists of various types like: low quality urban housing estates, the need to promote social buildings in disrepair and a high concentration of population profiles at risk of social exclusion. These neighbourhoods are Can Sellares, Poblat Roca, Hispanitat and Comerç. However, it can also be differentiated by the type of building and the nature of the promotion, the number of plants and homes.

In this sense, the West sector is characterized by buildings in poor condition, a significant demographic decline, a significant incidence of elderly population, a breakdown of commercial activity, employment issues and a lack of specific facilities for the district.

The comprehensive intervention project is to increase the principal axes of urban and social cohesion and create a central urban area in the Ponent sector. Furthermore, it is proposed to provide the area with new services, facilities and public spaces, improve roads and rehabilitate buildings. All these processes are social and participatory. As for the actions presented in the comprehensive intervention project they include the development of Dr. Fleming Av. which aims to regenerate the urban space to encourage support social relations and open a boulevard to consolidate the sector West and to have a better connectivity between neighborhoods and Can Sellares and Poblat Roca; the extension to Can Palmer Center for Political Equality, which aims to create a new point of care services for children and adolescents, comprehensive services for women and services for neighborhood organizations; the construction of the Center for the Arts, to promote access to public art with exhibitions and educational activities; a programme of cultural revitalization, a functional

plan of the center of arts and culture and local workshops related to the construction of the Center for the Arts; and the Ponent Open Centre programme and playroom.

Monitoring committee: twenty institutions, associations and residents of the Ponent sector are part of the Monitoring Commission for the Comprehensive Improvement Plan. Since January 2008, the committee meets regularly to assess the development and implementation of the plan with the participation of experts and representatives of educational, neighbourhood, commercial, cultural and social institutions Ponent neighbourhoods.

Objectives are to involve citizens and organizations in the project to improve the Ponent sector, identify the main citizens' needs and to obtain views on the activities and programs carried out. Functions are monitoring and evaluating the development of the plan, and to make proposals on the definition of the various projects.

Renewal of the extension of the Montserratina The Monserratina is a large urban area, near the center of Viladecans, considered to be the type of old recent creation, geographically central to the town neighbourhoods, each with its local identity and own centrality. The project aims to provide the basic Montserratina centrality, connectivity and quality of life through the promotion of the commercial revitalization, the generation of green areas and open spaces of attracting young families, support for the elderly and dependent, enhancement of the legacy of participatory residents of the neighborhood, and finally a powerful network of social and cultural facilities to assume a leading role in the economic and cultural life of Viladecans. That is why the city model which works with the city of Viladecans, based on the distribution on the territory of several central areas general and local enhancement of the Constitution Square and the Can Ginestar Park a local centrality area, enhance the centrality of the municipality.

The fields covered are: Improving public space and provision of green spaces, Rehabilitation and equipment of collective elements of buildings, Provision of equipment for collective use, Incorporating information technologies in buildings,

Promoting the sustainability of urban development, Gender Equity, Development of programs involving social, urban and economic improvement.

22

The Monitoring Committee is a permanent framework for dialogue between the authorities and neighbors whom they represent on the one hand and on the other hand the City of Viladecans, represented in this case by the technical office of the neighbourhoods Plan. The monitoring committee has to be a dialogue tool which is more flexible and closer to neighbouring institutions and the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee. It has lead the development of the participation Plan and the assessment team activities for the smooth running of all activities that make up the Neighbourhood Plan. The aim of the commission is that the residents have the information on what will be done and that there is the widest possible consensus on all projects. The members of the monitoring committee are citizens who are part of Neighbourhood organizations or individual citizens because of their activity, whether professional or particular level have a special significance in the life of the neighborhood.

It has an ongoing relationship with the Llei Barris technical office. The monitoring committee is informed of the progress of the various projects, performances and interventions that are made within the Llei Barris. It works closely with the Llei Barris technical office in all participatory processes are in place and carried out. It provides information between City Council and neighbourhood residents and vice versa, extending to other members of neighbourhood organizations and citizens in general, the progress of the various projects and performances. It also collects the opinion of the members of the organizations and citizens, respect the actions and projects to be carried to term and passed this onto the engineering department.

The Barris Llei includes the creation of a Monitoring and Evaluation Committee, composed of representatives of local government, the Government of Catalonia and by representatives of the vecindarias institutions, economic and social partners, and civic associations.

4 THE LIFE OF THE USEACT NETWORK 23 4.1 URBACTII next steps of the programme Ivan Tosics,Thematic Pole Expert Urbact Secretariat The STATE OF PLAY: NETWORKING 15 ongoing networks were approved under the 3rd call, with 150 partner cities working on urban challenges and designing Local Action Plans.

Partners from completed networks are now implementing their respective Local Action Plans.

From call 1, one year later, 90% declare that their Local Action Plan is being implemented; from call 2, three months later, 75% declare that their Local Action Plans are being implemented.Two new types of networks are being piloted: Pilot Delivery networks ofcities implementing integrated action plans, and Pilot Transfer networks of cities re-using a good practice.

The 2014-2015 capitalisation themes include local urban economies, more & better jobs for young people, social innovation, and sustainable regeneration of urban areas.

The URBACT III programme is expected to be approved by the end of 2014, with national seminars between October and December 2014, and the URBACT Conference planned for May 2015. The programme coincides with the programme planning periods and will benefit from an increased budget.

The first draft was completed in February 2014, with consultation via the website until the end of April 2014, submission to the European Commission was in June 2014; final approval by the European Commission is expected during the last quarter of 2014; URBACT III infodays are being held at the end of 2014, with the first call for projects due in February 2015, and the URBACT conference inMay 2015.

URBACT III shall promote «the exchange of experience concerning the identification, transfer and dissemination of good practice on sustainable urban and rural development» (Article 2 (3) b) ETC regulation). The budget has been increased from 53m€ to over 74m€ ERDF. Over 50% of the budget will be committed to exchange activity lead by cities i.e. networks. The remaining budget will go towards indirect support to cities through expertise, capacity building, capitalisation and dissemination.

Draft objectives of the new programme will be to improve the capacity of cities to manage sustainable urban policies in an integrated and participative way, to improve the design of sustainable urban policies in cities, to improve the implementation of

sustainable urban policies in cities and to ensure that practitioners and decision-makers at all levels have access to knowledge & share know-how on all aspects of sustainable urban policies.

70% of the exchange budget is to be dedicated to five Thematic Objectives: strengthening research, technological development & innovation (TO1), supporting shift towards low-carbon economy in all sectors (TO4), protecting environment and promoting resource efficiency (T06), promoting social inclusion and combating poverty (T09) and promoting employment and supporting labour mobility (T08). The remaining 30% will be available for all other themes based on a bottom up approach.

Upcoming URBACT eventsduring the Open Days of the Regions, in Brussels, in October include theURBACT seminar on Integrated approaches and how to make best use of new territorial instruments – ITI and CLLD [Code:08A11], and the „Off” meeting on Workstreams: “URBACT sharing event”.

TheUrban Development Network seminar, on 9 October can acceptup to 350 registrations. Over 300 people are registered. Registrations close on October 2nd.

The URBACT Conference on 6-8 May 2015 in Riga will celebrate the end and beginning of URBACT programmes, with slots for networks: a ’festival of ideas’.

4.2 USEAct Local Action Planning 4.2.1 Framework and Improvement of the Local Action Plan Implementation Germana Di Falco, Guest Thematic expert

“What is most important is not what but why.”

By mid October/November it will be important that the stakeholders be able to present the Local Action Plans during the national training seminars.

Regarding finance this is very general so far in the Local Action Plans: these needs to be more complete: you need something ‘perfect’ to generate funding:

Pertinence Effective

24

Relevance Functionality Efficiency Competency Technology Seek funding not only where ‘urban’ is mentioned, for example the LIFE programme on social innovation, or HORIZON re smart and new materials. ‘Break the fence’. The Local Action Plan needs to describe the project as the best project: the Commission is a clever investor, so needs to measure outcomes. Up to now Europe supported a lot of programmes: now “be at the frontier”.

Capitalisation is important to be relevant: create something new! Avoid a project expiring at the end of a funding programme: it needs to continue. Be efficient in using resources. Use new technologies for communication: something perfect! The budget is €776 billion total of structural funds, of which 60% for thematic programmes (of which URBACT is part).

Managing Authorities can negotiate integrated strategies. As the Operational Programmes are almost defined, discuss how to turn the Local Action Plan into CLDD or ITI, before the end of the year. ITI is a new way of improving effectiveness in cooperation. There are also thematic programmes which have opened a call. For example the HORIZON 2020 smart cities challenges. The LIFE th deadline is October 15 .

With the current programming period 2014-2020 of the Cohesion Policy two new instruments have been introduced in order to achieve the territorial cohesion objective: Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) and Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI). They concern all the Funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework (European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Regional Development, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and Cohesion Fund) which is included as an annex of the Common Provision Regulations

CLLD (Article 32-35 of the Common Provisions Regulation) is a specific tool for use at sub-regional level. It is based on the LEADER experience on community-led local development put in place from the early 90s, which had been an efficient instrument in the delivery of development policies. This tool is based on a bottom-up approach, aims to strengthen synergies between local actors, both public and private, and will match the particular needs of the local area.

ITI (Article 36 of the Common Provisions Regulation) will be a key element when implementing integrated territorial strategies as it allows bundling the funding from several priority axes of one or more Operational Programmes. ITI can deliver actions in any geographical area with similar territorial features; including in cross-border areas in the context of European Territorial Cooperation.

Thematic programmes are HORIZON 2020 : smart cities challenges, LIFE (deadline October 15), COSME: competitiveness of skills: a framework programme, for industrial conversion, regeneration of industrial sites, and clusters of excellence, connecting urban strategies with economic excellence, EASI : on social innovation, especially for Young people and the disadvantaged and ERASMUS + KEY ACTION 2: study open sources, common knowledge involving citizens.Stop considering the Local Action Plan as only urban, find a project pipeline. You will need: clear ideas and actions, a well structured technical proposal.

Focus on seven building blocks 1. Firstly: define mission, vision and targets: sometimes these can be confused!

2. Rationale, background and challenges ‘(SWOT analysis) 3. Be consistent with your strategies: inernal and external: feasibility, upstreaming, how concrete is the Local Action Plan to go further? Involve stakeholders, invest in communication, have a strategy to get people to fall in love with the Local Action Plan! Rational investors need to feel safe, so need external consensus.

4. Action, outputs, resources: need to be credible; actions generate outputs, so outputs need to be visible; a feasibility study is an output. If you can see and touch it this is an output! Public investors love ‘candies’. Put input into the organisdation in order to transform it: you need concrete evidence that the output can affect someone.

5. Outcomes, impacts and risks: outputs and outcomes are under your influence: they need to be seen. Outcomes can lead to impacts: be aware that

25

external risk can affect the link between outcomes and impacts.

6. Stakeholders, partners and particpation: stakeholders include everyone affected by the Local Action Plan, includinjg people with a high level of influence.

7. Going further...

A pathway leading to results 1. Create a shared vision

objectives towards a common objective. A vision is not a mission.

A group’s shared vision communicates a sense of purpose, expresses what is important and why, focuses on the future, reflects the shared values of group members and uses pictures, images and words to bring the vision to life.The shared vision statement should be clear and concise, and create a visual image in the mind of the reader. It may be as brief as a few words or a more detailed collection of points that create the desired visual image.

2. Develop a mission statement 3. Identify goals 4. Set objectives 5. Determine projects and activities 6. Establish a plan of action 7. Create a detailed work plan 8. Assign resources 9. Implement work plan 10. Evaluate results 11. Report accomplishments 12. Review mission 13. Reaffirm mission 14. Repeat from Step 3.

The basic underlying foundation for both the vision and mission are core values. These are the principles and standards at the very center of our character, and from which we will not budge or stray. Core values form the basis for our beliefs about life, ourselves and those around us, and the human potential of ourselves and others. Values and beliefs form our attitudes and guide our behavior.The behaviors we engage in are what people around us see, along with our skills and actions.

How have you involved the Local Support Group?

What are the common values?

The vision… (dream): “The vision embodies people’s highest values and aspirations. It inspires people to reach for what could be and to rise above their fears and preoccupations with current reality. ”Create a shared vision. Be aware of the power of dreams: who you want to be in the future. Single

Blueprint for a Shared Vision. Materials required: blank paper, markers, colored pencils, etc. and wall space to display group work. Take a moment to visualize what your school community would look like if the school had a community garden (fresh produce, outdoor classroom, etc.); draw a picture or list descriptive words that represent your community vision; display all work on an open wall; briefly explain your vision to the community; identify common themes; use themes to craft a shared vision statement.

Developing a Mission Statement (the what and why). How will your group reach a shared vision?

The mission statement could tell us this. For example the vision is “my dream is…”. The Mission is “…so I want to have a vision, for example to make young people the core of my strategy”, not a list of actions. The Mission Statement serves as a tool to communicate the group’s purpose to others. It tells people what you do, for whom do you do it and how you will get it done. A Mission Statement sets the group’s direction is clear and concise is realistic reflects the values and beliefs of the group demonstrates a commitment to serving others; it is inspirational, action-oriented.

Examples of Mission Statements: American Community Gardening Association: “To build community by increasing and enhancing community gardening and greening across the United States and Canada”; Huntington Community Gardens “Create community gardens from vacant dilapidated lots, gardens that foster opportunities for community engagement, education, and support, as well as economic empowerment, to return the community and its resources to the people”.

Blueprint for Mission Statement: write a mission statement using the example below as a guide:

Group Name

26

University

Mission Statement:

What you do

• •

Improve lives Focus on issues and needs

For whom you do it • Maine people

do

How you will get it done

• Through an educational process • By using research-based knowledge

To help people improve their lives through an educational process that uses research-based knowledge focused on issues and needs.

Identifying goals, objectives, projects & activities: a Group goal is a broad statement of something that the group expects to attain or achieve. Goals may be short, intermediate, or long-term in nature. Wellwritten goals are believable, attainable, and based on identified needs. “Think football!”. Inside the goal are the objectives.

Objectives are statements of specific, measurable, and attainable outcomes that contribute to the achievement of a particular goal. Outcome-based objectives focus on changing people’s behavior or circumstances, changing something about the community or establishing a process for achieving a particular goal.

Goals & Objectives are about how much of what will be accomplished by when. Mission and vision are brief statements, broad, encompassing and farreaching. Goals and objectives create the “bite size” pieces, the road map and manageable stepping stones to achieve the mission, make the vision a reality, and navigate the course we have set for our coalition. Goals are all-encompassing; objectives are the small steps through which we achieve our goals: SMART: Specific- they tell how much (e.g. 40%) of what is to be achieved (what behavior of whom or what outcome) by when (e.g., by 2014)?

Measurable- Information concerning the objective can be collected, detected, or obtained from records (at least potentially) AttainableNot only are objectives themselves possible, it is likely that your coalition will be able to pull them off.

Relevant- Your coalition has a clear understanding of how these objectives fit in with the overall vision and mission of the group.

Timed- Your coalition has developed a timeline (a portion of which is made clear in the objectives_ by which they will be achieved. + Challenging- They stretch the group to set its aims on significant improvements that are important to members of the community.

Having well developed goals and objectives also helps maintain focus and perspective, establish priorities, lead to greater job satisfaction and improve contributors’ performance. Objectives must be within your sphere of influence, and should be a bit challenging, but not too much since frustrating if not reachable. Level of performance is highest when Goals are clearly stated and contain specific objectives, Goals are challenging but not unreasonable, Stakeholders accept their goals with a true sense of ownership, Stakeholders participate in setting and reviewing the goal.

Examples of Goals Huntington Community Gardens: “Create safe spaces for community interaction and fun across all ages, cultures, and incomes;Create local sustainable food sources for area residence, food banks and missions; create spaces of beauty by encouraging the creation of a variety of garden types including Flower, Desert & Rock, Art, Butterfly, and Senior/Challenged Accessible;Engage and educate the public on nutrition, environment, stewardship, diversity, and civic responsibility in cooperation with local schools, libraries, and other area organizations; help beautify Huntington to attract new citizens and businesses to the area.

Three types of objectives: 1.Behavioral objectives: look at changing the behaviors of people (what are they doing and saying) and the products (or results) of their behaviors.

Example: a neighborhood improvement group might develop an objective for having an increased amount of home repair taking place (the behavior) and of improved housing (the result).

2.Community-level outcome objectives: product or result of behavior change in many people.

More focused on a community level instead of an individual level. For example: The same neighborhood group might have an objective of increasing the percentage of people living in the community with adequate housing as a community-level outcome objective. (behavior change in lots of people)

27

3.Process objectives: provide the groundwork or implementation necessary to achieve your other objectives. Example: the group might adopt a comprehensive plan for improving neighborhood housing. In this case, adoption of the plan itself is the objective.

Blueprint for Objectives Consider one of your group’s goals. Write a specific, measurable, attainable objective related to the group goal you selected.

Use the example below as a guide.

Goal

Do what

To what extent

To whom

By when

Improve the inhome safety of older adults

Install grab bars for bathtubs

In 30% of the homes in a given town

For adults 60 years of age or older

By the end of this calendar year

Specific, measurable, obtainable objective:

By the end of this calendar year, 30% of homes inhabited by residents 60 years of age or older in our town will have bathtub grab bars.

Developing an action plan (what change will happen; who will do what by when to make it happen). An action planning process helps groups see the “big picture: focus on vision, mission, goals and objectives; build consensus around planned actions; work more efficiently; attract human and financial resources; and establish short-, intermediate-, and long-term plans.A nine-step action planning process can help your group generate the information it needs to develop a plan of action.

1. Describe the goal to be achieved or the problem to be solved; 2. Define specific, measurable and attainable outcome-based objectives; Blueprint for detailed work plan: a work plan format can include Project/activity description Task(s) to be done Who is/are the responsible person(s) Task(s) to be completed by when?

Resources required: Other:

3. Research possible projects or activities to address goals and objectives; 4. Evaluate the pros and cons for each possibility; 5. Select the most appropriate possibility(ies) to implement; 6. Detail the tasks that are required to accomplish the project/activity; 7. Establish a timeline; 8. Allocate resources; 9. Assign responsibilities

28

Once the plan is complete, projects or activities can be staffed, implemented, and evaluated. Shared vision and mission develop the foundation your group needs to productively move into the future.

Periodically develop or review group goals, objectives, projects and activities to keep everyone headed in the same direction. Rationale,

background, challenges should be linked: describe the ‘big why’... the ‘fil rouge’ to face the challenges.Consistency, feasibility, up-streaming: manage the gap: the action plan must be realistic.

The Local Action Plan has to be consistent with external strategies, which may be pulling in different directions: actions, outputs and resources:

Deliverables can be checked. Avoid confusion between outcomes and outputs! Inputs, activities, and outputs are under your control. Outdome is how they perceive the benefits. Impact you cannot control.

Stakeholders, partners, participation: Cooperation is in our nature: Given some of the unscrupulous, self-centered activities in business over the years, it might be hard to believe that it’s actually human nature to work together. A study noted in a recent edition of Scientific American magazine found that of all species humans can be considered “super-cooperators.” It’s this cooperation that has perpetuated the human race. For example: while we compete to “climb the corporate ladder,” we still work together to make sure the company succeeds against competitors. While we work to provide for our families, we are still very philanthropic. When a crisis occurs, we think nothing of dropping our priorities and even sacrificing our personal well-being to help others.

The tool to engage and influence: using tools such as Stakeholder Mapping throughout the project gives project teams an opportunity to assess and validate the scope and assumptions of the project to date. It also gives project teams a chance to assess

stakeholder expectations, assumptions, and attitudes about the project. It’s that analysis that project managers can use to open (or reopen in some cases) dialogue with stakeholders about the project objectives and deliverables. It lets stakeholders know you’ve given consideration for what they are thinking and care enough to explore their thoughts with them which creates an opportunity for cooperation over authoritarian direction.

Stakeholder group identification: for each objective ask the questions below. Each time a stakeholder is repeated as an answer, place an asterisk next to the name. This will establish stakeholder group priority.

Who will receive the product or service delivered by meeting this objective? Who will use it? Who will approve it? Who provides input to the deliverables?

Who is accountable for the deliverables? Who could kill this project or significantly slow it down? Who should be committed early in order to sell the project

to others? Are there any projects underway that should be considered as a stakeholders?

29

Go further, for example public meetings: politicians like them but only the vociferous participate and can lead to conflict. Questionnaires and surveys are useful for getting views of a representative sample

of the population but there is a danger of uninformed comment. Suggestion boxes: at point of service, in village shops for instance. All have their uses but there is a constantly expanding range of more creative approaches. Other methods include interactive displays, street stalls, gaming (street theatre, role plays‌), or reconnaissance trips.

Outcomes, impacts, risks

4.2.2 The EU urban landscape Ivan Tosics,Thematic Pole Expert Urbact Secretariat

Compulsory urban allocation: the ERDF shall support sustainable urban development with at least 5 % of the ERDF resources allocated at national level through strategies that set out integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental, climate, demographic and social challenges affecting urban areas.

(ERDF regulation Article 7) Sustainable urban development shall be undertaken through Integrated territorial investment, or through a specific operational programme, or through a specific priority axis. Cities, sub-regional or local bodies responsible for implementing sustainable urban strategies ("urban authorities") shall be responsible for tasks relating, at least, to the selection of operations. For in this each Member State shall establish the principles for the selection of urban areas where integrated actions for sustainable urban development are to be implemented and an indicative allocation for those actions at national level.

ITI: Integrated Territorial Investment: a designated territory and an integrated territorial

development strategy; a package of actions to be implemented; governance arrangements to manage the ITI. CLLD can be part of an ITI (the other way round would not happen). How does it work?

Bundle funding from different priority axes and programmes (ERDF, ESF, CF, not EFARD), for implementing integrated territorial/ urban development strategy, for a functional area at the appropriate territorial scale (e.g. at the level of neighbourhoods, cities, city-regions, metropolitan areas, rural areas, functional areas), with possible delegation of the management to one or more intermediate bodies (compulsory to delegate for cities in case of 5% for sustainable urban development). Decision on package of operations for integrated strategy – predictability for implementation.

Article 7 – national examples Germany: all potential tools are included in the PA. Thus the Lander can use those tools for Art 7 which they consider the best. Negotiations between Lander and EC are going on, no approved OP exists yet. In the last period 8% of ERDF (1.1 bn eur) was dedicated to integrated urban development. For the next period 11% of ERDF is planned (1.4 bn eur).

Nearly all Lander use Art 7, in most cases in form of mixed priority axis. Only 2 Lander will use ITI.

30

Italy: a dedicated chapter in PA for Art 7. Dedicated urban axis is the main form (only one region will use ITI, Sicily). No OP-s are approved yet. The national programme will exist for the 14 largest cities, these cities will be Intermediate Bodies within this dedicated axis with a more focused approach than in the past. Content: services to the citizens, social inclusion, the national programme will be built up together with the cities.

Poland: ITI will be the tool to implement for Art 7, this choice was made quite early. Compulsory FUA approach regarding the capitals of the 16 regions.

Over 5% of ERDF and ESF is transferred to the ROP from which the ITI-s will be financed. There are also examples for sub-regional level ITI-s. Wroclaw: letter of intent signed in 2013 with 15 local governments. Four different bodies: steering committee, presidium, board, ITI office. Joint strategy is prepared which is part of the ROP of the region.

Czech Republic: ITI will be the tool to implement Art 7. Central government selected the 7 largest cities for ITIs. € 2,5 bn will be allocated among the metropolitan areas of these cities, taking the quality of the ITI strategy into account. The cities will be responsible for the ITI, which has to be adopted on metropolitan area level. This means that the cities will be the Intermediate Bodies. No sub-regional level ITI-s are allowed.

France: the new Contract de Ville includes the integrated urban approach. Municipalities have to define theirdeprived areas on the basis of nationwide indicators. 10% of ERDF (and 1.8% of ESF) will be dedicated to Art 7. Regional authorities will become the MA-s (this is decentralization in France!). Subsidiarity: the inter-municipality level gets a large role. In the PA it is not specified whether ITI or urban axis – it is a choice for the regional level. There is no multi-fund financing. In Ile-de-France: Article 7 will be implemented through ITI, concentrating on sensitive urban areas. 20% of ERDF+ESF will be devoted to urban areas. 10-12 ITI-s will be implemented with a minimum budget of 5 million € for each ITI. Netherlands: the ITI will be focused on the Randstad area. This focus is needed as the ERDF budget is 40% lower than earlier. The cities can select their focus according to their needs. Multifund approach. 25% of money delegated to cities has to go for ITI. Rotterdam is the IB and the MA at the same time for the Randstad case. With the West programme: 4 cities and 4 provincesdevelop one joint OP.

The question of delegation: it is only the Netherlands where full delegation to the local level is a usual approach (there is no „delefobia”). The Czech Republic also plans substantial delegation. In Poland project selectionis the minimum of required delegation. ITI association is formed, led by the core city. Project ranking, each project has to affect at least 2 municipalities, has to have soft and hard items. ITI strategy has to be the starting point. In England there is one national programme, only one IB, London. Core cities were lobbying for some delegation with little success.

National structures for article 7 are mostly oriented towards large cities (except for England), with explicit requirement to include the FUA level: in France and Poland. There is full delegation in the Netherlands, project selection by metropolitan associations in Poland, and no delegation at all in Germany and England. They are thematically broad in England and Poland, narrow (deprived areas) in France and Germany.

Another angle of analysis is RURBAN, Rural-urban links can take different forms: conventional contiguous city-hinterland forms: morphological, functional area, broader economic area, urban-rural region including also the rural hinterland, or Aspatial forms (Andrew Copus): generic areas: not requiring contiguity in urban-rural links, or organized proximity: translocal globalization of rural business for which proximity is irrelevant. The OECD study on RURBAN discusses only the first forms. The traditional concepts of cities and rural areas, based on administrative boundaries, are no longer coherent with the actual economic and social organization of the territory. From a socio-economic point of view, territory is organized in functional regions.

Other EU tools for metropolitan cooperation include EGTC as a bottom-up cooperation form. Since 2007 the EGTC is an European legal instrument designed to facilitate and promote cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. As a legal entity the EGTC enables regional and local authorities and other public bodies from different member states to team up and deliver joint services, without requiring a prior international agreement to be signed and ratified by national parliaments. Member States must however agree to the participation of potential members in their respective countries. Some countries are particularly active in supporting EGTCs. In France there is a French ministerial institution (MOT) to help cross-border cooperations to become EGTC. From 39 existing EGTC-s officially accepted by today 15 are established with the participation of Hungary. Only one exists in the Centrope area (Győr).

4.2.3 USEACT Local Activities WORKSHOP “LAPs Review Cafè!”

31

Vittorio Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert Partners are reminded that by October it is important to complete the road maps for the Local Action Plans, and that they should take into consideration the national training days in their respective countries to encourage members of their Local Support Groups to attend. Definitive versions of the Local Action Plans should be ready to present during the meeting in January in Buckinghamshire, in view of the final conference in April.

The LAP Template: partners are asked for feedback to the latest proposal for the template for Local Action Plans, which is based on proposals from the URBACT secretariat. Information on funding is very important, as is the definition of indicators of success. Stakeholders should refer to those who are involved in the Local Action Plan but also those who are affected by it.

LAP discussion Baia Mare: Need a policy for efficiency of land use.

Studying a common vision, and recommendations on land use. The vision is an industrial park for Baia Mare.

Arguing that a stronger framework for metropolitan areas is needed, using potential EU funding as an incentive. More is needed on tools.

Viladecans: aiming at a common vision. In November a plenary to approve the Local Action Plan. December: finalise Local Action Plan, with presentation and looking for new funding. Possibly focusing on energy issues. How to phase objectives, and working towards excellence.

Riga: The general structure of LAP has based on three pillars: urban growth management (UGM) knowledge transfer, promotion of UGM tools, implementation of UGM policies in Riga Planning Region (RPR) Strategy and Development Program; improved cooperation between RPR local governments; enhanced transformation of pilot areas.

The strategic target of the LAP is to enhance cooperation developing joint platform and understanding of common UGM necessity for Riga Metropolitan Area (RMA), encourage participatory and transformation process of pilot areas on local level. LAP has three objectives: policies and tools for urban growth management; suggestions, proposals for actions/interventions for pilot areas; coordination of urban growth management and knowledge dissemination. The implementation of the LAP actions will be under responsibility of Riga Planning Region administration and local municipalities.

The LAP is looking at “land take” and reuse issues in urban sprawl areas, garden villages, industrial and resort areas. Work is going on according these four themes in pilot areas of the USLG member municipalities. The current task is to continue pilot area site visits - ULSG partner meetings in November, December (urban sprawl – Ķekava municipality, garden villages – Olaine municipality).

Closer studies done preparing these site visits promote USLG members common understanding of problems in each place. More precise actions, interventions enhancing pilot area transformation can be included in the LAP (under objective 2).

ULSG and experts have defined recommendations for future policies and actions concerning the urban growth management. These recommendations are included in Riga Planning Region Strategy and Development Program (documents are in final stage).

Buckinghamshire: Aimed at defining new models of collaboration and shared plans between the economic, environmental partners for delivering sustainable economic development. In today’s current tight financial environment ‘traditional’ models of collaboration are no longer fit for purpose and Buckinghamshire needs to find new ways of supporting partners to collaborate on the achievement of shared goals.

Dublin: The aim is enhancement of uses of uses and buildings along the tram transport corridor, increase the engagement of elected members, and more members in the Local Support Group. A proposal for a vacant land levy is getting support.

Policy on the development plan is for a “compact city”. Sites and building have been identified. The Local Support Group includes market traders, parks department and owners of heritage buildings. Need to expand outcomes, outputs and impacts.

The Art Tunnel involved installations on a waste site. Students from an art college in the US held a virtual consultation on using the space: 50 tweets were analysed with feedback to the council. Also

32

used the city website to get feedback. The vacant sites project will also use this feedback.

Nitra: Aim to improve city centre, with a pedestrian zone, transport modes, and uses for vacant plots.

Goals need to be restructured into a pyramid: need more ‘Smart’ objectives, involve the university in the Local support group SWOT analysis, and use newsletters. Synergy between natural programmes to get feedback to USEAct: a book of ideas. “Urban intervention” was invented by an architect’s studio to communicate the challenges faced by the municipality, regarding problems, and upload feasibility/case study of the place: collected 54 design proposals and inspirations, placed on the map and open to the public for feedback. From the voting they got a clear feedback of popularity of interventions, though it is not possible to do everything, due to ownership issues etc. Examples of proposals are flower beds, a pedestrian bridge across a busy road, and a space for physical exercise.

Naples: aiming for tools for rejuvenation, avoiding gentrification. Seven Smart objectives, in an area with 9/10 social deprivation. Need to reduce overlap in objectives; in future they plan to obtain endorsement from local representatives. All members of the Local Support Group have met: a bottom up approach is emerging, including artists, youth and the church, and there is now more energy and excitement. Goals are Ok. To be improved: reduce overlap in objectives, more concrete feedback from politicians, and more planning policy.

Regarding involving stakeholders, the website promotes the city through the eyes of its inhabitants: working with the Local Action Plan to create a map of the area, with proposals for action and asking stakeholders to describe their ideas: an interactive tool is needed Trieste: a participation process has been designed.

Goals are OK. Some actions may need to be redefined, may need to decide how to apply guidelines. LSG activities may need to be more defined. Østfold: more regional, aiming at more growth and less sprawl. Good and coherent; some doubt, as municipalities are competing. The difficulty is to know how they can apply for funds; the Local Support group members are all involved in the Local Action Plan, with a busy schedule.

Barakaldo: Need to redefine the targets in the Local Action Plan, identify methodology, and set out interventions. Potential: new law must be implemented. SWOT to relate targets to analysis.

Also need to reshape outcomes and output etc, and identify funds to implement the Local Action Plan.

The Local Support Group involves public authorities and citizens.

Viladecans: The LAP is being defined through four strategic lines to define and identify actions that should guide the transformation of Polygon Center.

These lines concerning infrastructures, the integration in the city, economic activity and sustainability, still need further definition to improve their service to the comprehensive project to transform the sector.

Germana recalls that the Local Action Plan is a mix, not a book, of dreams… for every action, identify at least one source of funding!

33

4.3 General issues of the Network Management. USEAct future planning and administration

4.3.2 Administrative and financial issues and feedbacks on the Project Reprogramming Gaetano Mollura, LP City Council of Naples

4.3.1 A proposal: New Heroes and USEACT cooperation Managing Director Wouter Goedheer The aim of involving New Heroes in the USEAct project is to find new tools to explain the Local Action Plans, and to give visibility to USEAct, and a way to organise an exhibition of all the Local Action Plans around all the partner cities.

New Heroes develops creative concepts to create encounters between people, for example in Skopje, the “burning question”, “we light Amsterdam” and “Project Eye” in Den Bosch. In the “Sketch” project, artists asked people what they missed; the Seismic project dealt with social innovation needs. In each city they research sketch artists to become involved, and for example draw places that are needed or wanted.

The partners are asked to consider what collaboration with URBACT/USEAct could entail, for example visualising the Local Action Plans.

Activities carried out from June to September 2014 have included the closure of the Mid Term review procedure, submission of Reprogrammed Application From on July 11, and ERDF II quota: transfers.The reporting session is now in progress with the financial documents (Certificates, Payment claim, Financial Contributions Summary) and the progress Report of the activities implemented from January to June 2014.

At the end of the year if not enough has been spent, spending will be cut!!

The URBACT II Monitoring Committee has officially approved the re-programming request submitted arising from the Mid Term Review. Changes included in the Approved Reprogramming submitted on July 2014 were changes in the total budget for 2 Partners (Naples and Trieste) and changes in the breakdown per budget category at project level (as result of the modifications in the individual partner budget agreed during the Mid Term Review process).

Modifications to the Joint Convention, considering the following Session 18 of the Joint Convention: “18.2 Modifications to the project (time schedule, budget) that have been approved by the Monitoring Committee can be carried out without amending this agreement.” If there are partners who request it, the Lead Partner will send an official letter describing the agreed modifications on the individual partner budget.

See the NEW breakdown per year and budget category in attached powerpoint.

3rd Reporting Session.

Activities already carried out include uploading the incurred costs, validation and certification. Next steps include the deadline of 30th September 2014 for the Submission of the following documents, for the LP: Progress Report of all the activities implemented from January to June 2014; Partners Certificates; Payment Claim;Financial Contributions Summary.

3rd Reporting Financial Session: certified costs: an overview of the shared costs included in this 3rd Payment Claim will be sent to all partners as soon as the FLC of the LP will certify them (by September 30th 2014). Partners are strongly reminded that all documents are to be archived until 2020 for Audit.

34

Shall be considered eligible to be refunded with ERDF only expenditures linked to activities implemented between the project’s starting date and the closing date (as indicated in the application form) i.e. 30 April 2015, together with exceptionally, costs to cover participation to the URBACT Riga event (6-8 May 2015), and staff/external expertise costs linked to administrative closure within the 2 months following the project closing date i.e. 30 June 2015.

All costs must be paid within the 2 months following the project closing date i.e. 30 JUNE 2015. We have to keep in mind that it's better to try to have everything (or as much as possible) paid by April!!!

At the end of 2014 the projects that did not fully spend could have a small reduction in the budget operated by the Secretariat. Within the next months the possibility will be evaluated of transferring the underused amounts from the partners who are spending worse (lower %) to the partners who are spending better in order not to lose possible further European co-financing!

4.3.3 General issues of the Network Management - Next steps Lead Expert, Lead Partner The fourth meeting report and newsletter are online, plus the first bilateral meeting report, the first thematic paper and the draft second thematic paper on “Interventions to reuse urban areas: management partnership funding function”, and case studies.

Four bilateral/trilateral meetings have already taken place and the last two will be held in Dublin.

During the next seminar we will discuss how to organise the final conference: we need to define the Local Action Plans wherever possible, as well as explain the work in progress. To create dialogue with Managing Authorities, partners are encouraged to invite Managing Authorities to attend the January meeting (for which they have a budget line in the project budget).

It is important to understand how Managing Authorities are involved in this issue. In previous programmes Managing Authorities made some recommendations on the URBACT programme.

Also we need to organise dissemination of the Local Action Plans to the media at national level, for example, organise an event with stakeholders, to highlight the Local Action Plan. The January meeting could be organised with the first day

focussed on our own activities and the second day with the Managing Authorities. The Managing Authorities represent a dedicated access for transnational cooperation: present the project as an opportunity to invest and to find out how to find funding. Also ask someone to come from Brussels?

It would also be helpful if partners could inform on how successful they are regarding funding opportunities.

Partners are reminded about the national training seminars: in Italy: 13-14 November in Rome, for Latvia: 23-24 October in Riga, for Norway 25 November in Oslo, for Romania: 29-30 October in Bucharest, for Slovakia: 20-21 January, 2015, Spain: 24-25 November in Madrid and for UK and Ireland: 02-03 February, London.

For the Final conference it is suggested to invite the director of the programme which we would like to be financed, maybe knit together common threads across the Local Action Plans. In any case for this we need to share the final version of the Local Action Plans, within the next one or two months.

Partners are reminded to share their ideas on dissemination: how and when? Meetings should also take place with stakeholders to get feedback.

Local Action Plan local exhibitions: two panels for the final conference but more than two are possible for the local exhibition. In order to have a common graphic across the partners, the lead partner will send a proposal for the layout of the panels by the end of October.

The budget available for the communication activities (with the exception of some differences and changes made by individual adjustments at partner level.) is as follows: Under the €2.500 Budget line for "communication and dissemination tools" (Budget category "Communication and Dissemination") the following costs can be reported: for Intermediate local outputs: providing a website page/blog/social network in local language, printing the USEAct INITIAL brochure in local language and printing the USEACT FINAL brochure in English and local language.

The final brochure will include some information about each partner’s LAP (Nov- Dec 2014) Possible printing of other project outputs for your local dissemination events (if you think that can be useful for you): Newsletters, Meeting Reports, Thematic Papers, Bilateral meeting reports (you can find all the produced documents on the Project minisite) Providing possible local newsletters (you can see here an example:

http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/USE_ACT/outputs_media/ def_f_1_localnews_10.13.pdf ).

35

Under the €2.500 Budget line "COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION TOOLS" (Budget category "Communication and Dissemination"), for the Final local outputs: in order to disseminate the Project results, you must print enough copies of your Local Action Plans (once concluded) in English (and in Local Languages if you want), particularly for your Final Local Dissemination Meeting! Please also consider that we need 15 copies of your LAP document for the FINAL Conference. Copies of the general USEAct final outputs will be provided by the LP Under the €2000 Budget line "TRASLATION" (Budget category "Communication and Dissemination") each partner has at his own disposal an amount for translating the project documents (mainly the, USEACT final brochure and LAP posters for the Exhibition).

To disseminate the results of the Project and to share your LAP you have at your disposal the following budget the €500,00 Euros Budget line "FINAL DISSEMINATION MEETING" (Budget category "Meeting organization"). This meeting must be held after the Buckinghamshire meeting (January 2015) and before the Final Conference in Naples (April 2015). The budget line can include costs for the meeting venue, catering, possible printing of working documents…

The €600,00 Budget Line "LAP EXHIBITION" (Budget category "Communication and Dissemination") must include all the costs for printing the posters of your LAP and all communication tools for your Exhibition (to be organized in occasion of the Final Local Dissemination Meeting).

The USEAct LAP exhibition is an opportunity to involve politicians and media and local citizens so  organize a PRESS CONFERENCE! It is planned that the exhibition material will consist of 2 general panels, drafted by the Lead Partner and to be eventually translated by each partner in their own national language, describing the URBACT II Programme (the first one) and the USEAct project (the second one), 1 or 2 panels for each partner describing strategy aim and results of their Local Action Plan and Urbact Local Support Group. For the Final Exhibition in Naples, a description of the partner’s context and priorities / Description of LAP methodology, objectives through maps/ photos/ infographics, LSG members, and main results/actions implemented.

Format: a common graphic code and layout framework will be sent to the partners at the end of October 2014. Partners are asked to prepare the panels or eventually other communication materials (for example video). Deadline for final panel layout: th January 2015 (7 Capitalization meeting). The partners’ exhibition will be held in your own city between February and April 2015 (before the Final Conference). A general Exhibition of the Local Action Plans will be held during final conference in Naples on 23-24 April 2014.

Don’t forget that all project documents must have the USEAct LOGO and URBACT LOGO! We recommend you to keep us updated about your communication activities!

NB: in case of exceptional new changes from one category to another (more than 20%) a reprogramming exercise is possible.

USEAct next Bilateral Trilateral meetings calendar ACTIVITY

PARTICIPANTS

THEME

OUTPUTS

5th b/t meeting Dublin (IRELAND) th th 4 -5 Nov ’14

Dublin/ Nitra/Riga/ Buckinghamshire

NEW USES FOR HERITAGE (residential) BUILDINGS

b/t meeting Report

6th b/t meeting Dublin (IRELAND) th th 5 -6 Nov ’14

Baia Mare/Dublin/ Buckinghamshire

“(UP FRONT) INFRASTRUCTURES FINANCING

b/t meeting Report

USEAct next transnational meetings calendar

36

ACTIVITY

THEME and FORMAT

MAIN OUTPUTS

Capitalization and MAs Workshop Buckinghamshire (UK) th th 26 -26 Jan 2015

FORMAT: Steering committee and MAs/ management contents and LAP results

Capitalization and MAs Workshop Report

Final Conference Naples (ITALY) th 23th 24 April 2015

FORMAT: Open meeting / dissemination event

Final Conference Report

4.4 USEAct Bilateral/Trilateral meetings 4.4.1 Second B/T meeting “Differentiating Interventions: Real Estate Developments based on innovation and knowledge based activities” Viladecans, 25th June 2014 Baia Metropolitan Area, Østfold, Viladecans Alvaro Cerezo, Barakaldo Local Coordinator

Mare

Related to the 2nd Bi-Trilateral Meeting topic (Real Estate), we must address the efforts to focus how to attract investors and funds to renewal works. It will be very interesting to know innovative approaches such as KPMG’s Competitive Alternative (2014). We must study their Guide to International Business Location Costs and perhaps we will try to apply this method to evaluate our current situation. (http://www.competitivealternatives.com/).

Host city partner contribution Learning from unsuccessful proposals: The Aerospatial Park in Viladecans presented by Enric Serra: In order to find high value added uses to attract, the Municipality worked together with the Regional government and also the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and to find an economical sector with this profile. It was the aerospatiale and mobility industry. The goal was to settle a cluster for these companies in a new urban area. All the technical work was done: urban planning, infrastructure projects … But both the economic crisis and an excessive up-down process led to the breakdown of the initiative. An early conclusion is that in spite of the fact all the process has not been evaluated yet, there are several aspects to manage to avoid failure: work in a more co-participative process or establish more subsidies in case of topdown process (bonus taxes…).

The Spanish context / Contribution on the theme

The Influence of the structure of the system of open spaces in the transformation of urban environments.

By Enric Batlle: From the detailed analysis from the local study area (Sector Centre) compared with new areas in the city and in the surroundings (22@BCN), we can establish some rules to guide the new patterns for the urban renewal. The open spaces will contribute to renewing the urban landscape and also allow improving the infrastructures and the mobility.

The main difficulty is how to compact the current land consumption to obtain enough public space. It will be very important to attract new uses and companies to improve the current mix. The work with the USLG and the LAP are also valued tools to enrich the discussion and also the solutions. It will allow us to introduce other very important issues such as energy topic (we are fostering a near Zero Energy District) and a RIS3 process (see further explanation below) to attract new business.

Partners’ contributions were: Baia Mare Metropolitan area association by Marius Ecea and Østfold County Council by Linda Duffy, in a workshop on comparing the strategies of partner cities to attract business, and a workshop on how could we link the outcomes of the meeting with the Local Action Plans and Workshop/3 – Reporting the meeting to the USEAct Community.

Other considerations, especially for economic activity development: it will be useful to know and study the Guide on Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3 Guide).

Briefly, Smart Specialisation or RIS3 (Research and Innovation strategies for Smart Specialisation) is a strategic approach to economic development through targeted support for research and innovation. It involves a process of developing a vision, identifying the place-based areas of greatest strategic potential, developing multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms, setting strategic priorities and using smart policies to maximize the knowledge-based development potential of a region, regardless of whether it is strong or weak, high-tech or low-tech. RIS3 is the core for Cohesion policy

2014-2020. The Council of the European Union formally adopted in December 2013 the new rules and legislation governing the next round of investment of cohesion policy of the EU for the

37

period 20142020.(http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ris3faq).

To go deeper we prepared a SWOT about the theme

SWOT Strengths • Strategic Location related BCN • Strong political leadership • Problem situation shared with other municipalities around • Hard work done related to analyses and documentation • Involvement of stakeholders

Opportunities • Tensile capacity of the new upcoming areas: Business Park, New retail area…

• Several co-funding programs to improve the current situation in declining areas • Facing the new challenges of sustainability: energy vector, green economy….

• Facing the challenges of smart city: ICT infrastructures, innovative management…

• The new government focusing on business development and functional city-regions

• Good availability of analyses and documentation • Strong legal framework • Good location • Good development in some central sectors • Some finance through infrastructure packages • Resources in the local communities

• “the attraction project” conducted with research institute-Telemarksforskning • The “rewards for better public transport” and Citypackage funding new infrastructure with impact on development and attractiveness.

• Government part-funding of new business strategy for Moss • Cooperation vertically and horizontally across municipalities and sectors • The new government focusing on business development and functional city-regions

Weaknesses • Low profile of economic situation • Lack of funds private/ public • Very complex legal framework to establishing businesses • Stiffness of the planning regulations in front of the changing needs of economic activities • Few incentives for establishing businesses • Difficulty to attract big companies (most are small or very small companies) Threats • The national government policies don’t support some of European goals • Complex political situation. Next year elections can create ineffective local governments • Difficulty aligning local objectives with the objectives of the different administrations supra (in Viladecans case: we have 3 supralocal administrations + regional level + national level + European level) • Social stability on the survival of the middle classes and the recovery of consumption

• Few incentives for establishing the businesses we want, where we want them • Lack of communication between planning and business development, not speaking the same language • Lack of vision, not thinking big/international • Low level of education by comparison to neighbouring regions • Weak culture for entrepreneurship • Lack of a specific citypolicy on the regional level • The new government leaving more area policy up to the municipalities • Competition between the municipalities • Political shortsightedness and alliances with local developers • Ruling by giving dispensation and exemptions because plans are not flexible enough • Turning into dormitory towns for Oslo

Questions to explore further Viladecans • Flexible design in terms of urban planning to attract new business • Tools to push public/private initiatives • Tools to appear in external markets from the local initiatives • Proper subsidies to push the urban renewals in a integrate and an innovative watch • “Thematizing” and specialization are the only outlets for the renovation of the city?

• Preservation of traditional (critical) values of each city

Østfold • Working locally to attract business in an international market • Regional policy to differentiate business development between municipalities • Incentives to encourage business development • Using traditional knowledge/skills in the area in new ways • Creating visions for development • How to develop a culture for entrepreneurship • Creative ways to use infrastructure investments to promote business development

Relevance to the Local Action Plans Viladecans • The complexity of the renovation of Sector Centre has been set the LAP through the definition of four lines of objectives.

These lines have their own dynamics that form an integral part of the stated renewal (urban integration, infrastructures, business, energy).

• One of them is precisely the attraction of business through the strategy RIS3 consensual tool at European framework. For this reason there is a close relationship between the content of the LAP and the issue of Real State and the new areas of economic activity operator engaged in the whole process: planning, design and construction.

• Therefore, a thorough understanding of the framework of public private partnership is required to collect sufficient funds to undertake the entire renewal

Østfold • Working locally to attract business in an international market • Regional policy to differentiate business development between municipalities • Incentives to encourage business development • Using traditional knowledge/skills in the area in new ways • Creating visions for development • How to develop a culture for entrepreneurship • Creative ways to use infrastructure investments to promote business development

4.4.2 Third USEAct bilateral meeting: urban uses and textures

38

Viladecans, 26th June 2014 Baia Mare Metropolitan Area, Østfold, Viladecans Alvaro Cerezo, Barakaldo Project Coordinator Related to the 3rd Bi-Trilateral Meeting topic (Urban Uses and Textures), we must address the scale as the key factor to analyze the different solutions and approaches for each partner. Therefore, we have regional planning scale (Baia Mare), general planning scale (Trieste) and intervention planning scale (Barakaldo and Viladecans).

Thematic presentations: Industrial land studies. Some cases: Barcelona and San Francisco. Miquel Pybus. Some examples to study and characterization of the industries of economic activity in Barcelona and San Francisco.

Both cases focused on the analysis and planning proposal through new ways of organizing applications activity in the city. In early 2000’s during the .com boom, San Francisco decided to protect its primary industrial land in front of the pressure of other uses (residential, commercial, etc…)

BCN Constrains and approaches. Stigmatitzation of the industrial areas (specially the primary industrial areas). Need for new methodological approaches.

Understanding the economic metabolism of the urban system. Generic solutions are needeed SFO define a new relation between city and industry through the definition of the PDR (Production, Distribution, Repair) approach, a new methodology to understand the economic functions located in the industrial areas of the city, to redefine the land use code of the city (from industrial to PDR), to rezone the whole industrial area of the Eastern Neighborhood.

Urban residential project in the transformation of Intermediate (middle size) cities in Spain (19802010). Jaume Peremiquel. Study in the period between 1980-2010 residential urban interventions and describe its fundamental characteristics. Typify different strategies, the nature of the projects and the instruments used in their development and the incorporation of strategies aimed at the optimization of energy consumption and to the limitation of environmental impacts. Evaluate the transformation derived in the cities, the effect on the change of scale of them, and the increase in consumption, both public and private. The fit of the operations with the pre-existing supports and their environments.

Evaluation of the impact on the energy consumption of the urban form resulting, establish useful taxonomies referring to, in any case, the individuality of the cases and situations.

Systematization of structural and urban configuration related to the shape of the residential urban fabric in the processes of urban development

in the intermediate cities. Comparison between the standards of the urban projects. Adequacy to the requirements of urban quality due to acceptable costs. Citizens' perception in relation to them.

Synthesis and proposals for each partner.

Baia Mare: any planning or building activity must be driven by some kind of public control and authorization in order to preserve the public interests and the balanced urban growth. Regional or metropolitan planning should define the main guidelines and constrains for the general municipal planning. Public participation must be addressed at every stage of the planning process. The integrated approach to the urban development must be the key issue for analysing features: strategic development vision for the urban sprawl control, mixed and alternative uses of land, management of resources, sustainable mobility and heritage preservation.

Trieste´s General Town Plan approach proposes to overcome the classic zoning definition and to apply an overlapping system approach. Therefore, they have defined a public participation process to identify the general interest, address the planning management tools and procedures from the early stages of the process, with a flexible tool to redefine the city planning for the future needs, economy and sustainability as the key issues for the planning viability. So that planning cannot be foreseen as something static, but just the opposite, the “time” concept must cross the processes and the results of the dynamic planning.

Barakaldo´s intervention plan is focused on urban renewal versus regeneration processes. These types of interventions require the enhancement of the PPP mechanisms to overcome the public vs. private duality, such as expropriation with beneficiary management models, considering the economy and sustainability as the key issues for the planning viability, to introduce the city transformation sustainability debate in the decision taking processes, a deep knowledge of the pre-existing city and built areas, the definition of the built areas and urban spaces quality standards (the “city minimum”), considering the integrated sustainability (physical, environmental, social and economic integrated approach), the definition of proper and flexible urban planning determinations, applied financial tools, redefinition of public participation processes, not only based on public budget distribution but also on the private and direct economic contributions of the citizens, under a collective agreement and addressing public Social Housing policies.

Viladecans’s intervention plan is focused to maintain at least the same ability to accommodate economic activity today.

Encouraging the introduction of a mix of uses (housing, commercial, office) in addition to industrial one is a strategy that promotes integration in the city of this sector in

39

process of degeneration. The urban tranformation of this type are rare because operators prefer to have plans with a less complex mixture of uses. It should generate new building types capable of building in the same ground various compatible uses sharing the built space. It is a very interesting challenge to deepen these approaches.

Baia Mare had a more general approach, Trieste had a new approach, with a flexible time line.

Barakaldo’s case was summarised in the Case Study: not so much renewing, more regenerating, defining quality standards, and the economic relation of planning and decision-making.

4.4.3 The Fourth B/T meeting “Smart data and visualization tools”

leadership & a desire to work with others! ‘Downstream’ consumer model – issues about free vs ‘paid for’ data (driven by regulations, Open Data Initiative etc)

Participants: Buckinghamshire, Naples, Riga, LE Jim Sims, Buckinghamshire Business First Issues addressed concerned the lack of skills and funds to improve the sector, and priorities: the aim must be not only to attract investors but also to create value.

Place-based data/visualisation tools have a strong potential role to play in understanding where to intervene, driving better outcomes, informing/communicating with the public, democratizing the planning process, improving regulatory enforcement, improving development design, and understanding biodiversity & habitat impacts.

However, at present GIS’ use in planning is largely related to producing thematic maps and simple analyses, though there is some small use for public participation and special projects; availability of utilities and understanding. Because of this, the benefits of GIS for planning are often not easily quantified. But the model is changing ...: it is not necessarily about 2D, 3D of 4D visualisation: it’s about building ‘Data Warehouses’ (Big Data), It’s about understanding how the relationship between data-sets and building business cases for new service models (Developing Use Cases), working with public/private partners and residents to develop IT platforms which can deliver new service models/benefits/financial models. The challenge is keeping the old model going while developing a new model.

An evolving model: The key data sources are Data Warehouses, Secondary Data - GIS, Boundary Data, LIDAR etc, Primary Data - Space Syntax, Sentiment Analysis, Smart Meters etc.

What benefit are we seeking to deliver? How can different data sets combine to improve residents’ lives? How can we find new ways of using IT to transform public services? How can we build stronger feedback loops into service delivery and incentivise behaviours?

The new financial Model? ‘Upstream’ Government Grant – a broken model? Partnering – requires

Procuring the solution? Single Procurement – only 1 in 1000 Apps succeed! Open Innovation ‘Platform’.

What visualisation tools will we use?

Modelling, 3D Modelling, 4D Modelling

2D

Implementation Challenges include the important interrelationships between spatial and social data; professionals needing a new mindset; professionals needing new skills: organisations needing to learn to collaborate; the Public Sector often needs to link these developments to service transformation models; business models often need a strong ‘invest to save’ approach; organisations often need to think in a cross disciplinary way (energy, planning, land use etc.); organisations need to identify use cases with strong cost/benefit returns; organisations need to find ways of monetizing peoples interaction with these new systems.

Case Study: Designing a one-M2M-based Open Eco-system for Transport Modal Shift. Funding Opportunities could be: H2020-REFLECTIVE-7-2014: Reflective societies: cultural heritage and European identities.

Deadline 30-09-2014.

Budget€14,000,000. Topic: Advanced 3D modelling for accessing and understanding European cultural assets H2020-SCC-2015: CALL – SMART CITIES AND COMMUNITIES . Deadline 03-032015.Total Call Budget €108,180,000.

Topic: Smart Cities and Communities solutions integrating energy, transport, ICT sectors through lighthouse (large scale demonstration - first of the kind) projects H2020-EURO-SOCIETY-2015: Overcoming the Crisis: New Ideas, Strategies and Governance Structures for Europe.

Deadline 07-01-2015. Total Call Budget €5,000,000 Topic: ERA-NET on Smart Urban Futures

H2020-EURO-6-2015: Overcoming the Crisis: New Ideas, Strategies and Governance Structures for Europe.

Deadline 21-04-2015 Total Call Budget €12,000,000 Topic: Meeting new societal needs by using emerging technologies in the public sector

40 •

ESIF

•

INTERREG IVC

•

URBACT

•

ESPON

4.4.4 Planning the fifth and sixth trilateral meetings in Dublin: New uses for heritage buildings: Dublin have their own expert. A second person will present the grant systems in Ireland: the “Living city” initiative, with workshops.

Upfront infrastructure financing: with Dublin, Baia Mare and Buckinghamshire: we can discuss the problems. What models such a PPOPs? Each partner will need to identify the contribution from each partner; it is important to connect the subject to the Local Action Plans: a contribution from a high quality research could be useful. An example could be the NAMA model for releasing funds in areas that are half built. Models of maintenance of open

space…“public realm” financing could be useful?

Also a model to counter large shopping centres outside the city centre.

4.4.5 Capitalisation of the Bilateral and trilateral meetings There was discussion on how to work more on the subjects of the bi and trilateral meetings? For example in Horizon 2020? The lead expert and lead partner wish to hear from the partners about the interesting subjects emerging from this project that they would wish to follow up, for example: • •

• •

Use of data for future activities Innovation in social housing, a very political issue: connect with the Commission, and involve them in a meeting, maybe before the January meeting.

Interreg 5C: can involve all of Europe.

Trailblazing SMART cities?

Focus on the governance of the process, find ways of working with financial institutions, start from innovation in financial tools. Need to find common issues. Send ideas, to share agreement on what we want. For example one day before the Buckinghamshire meeting, invite Germana, all ideas welcome.

41

APPENDIX 1 PROGRAM OF THE MEETING AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

42

USEAct Thematic Network Fifth Thematic Seminar Refitting and regenerating inhabited buildings and areas Implementation Phase Riga Planning Region (Latvia) 25th 26th September 2014

USEAct partners Riga Planning Region (Latvia) hosting partner City of Naples (Italy) / Lead Partner Baia Mare Metropolitan Area (Romania) City of Barakaldo (Spain) Buckinghamshire Business First (UK) City of Dublin (Ireland) City of Nitra (Slovak Republic) Ă˜stfold County (Norway) City of Trieste (Italy) City of Viladecans (Spain) Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality BIMTAS/IMP (Turkey) observer partner

th

43

24 September 2014 Arrival of participants Hotel “Gutenbergs” Doma laukums 1, Riga; www.gutenbergs.eu 19:30

Meet and greet in the lobby Informal dinner

th

25 September 2014 Meeting Venue: Hotel “Gutenbergs” 09:00 Welcome of the hosting partner Dagnis Straubergs, Chairman of Riga Planning Region Development Council 09:15 Introduction USEAct Thematic Network: presentation of the programme and outline of network activities Gaetano Mollura, City of Naples, USEAct Lead Partner 09:30 URBACTII next steps of the programme Ivan Tosics,Thematic Pole Expert Urbact Secretariat 09:45 The USEAct issues of the Fifth Thematic Seminar Vittorio Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert 10:00 – 11:00 Focus on host partner Riga Planning Region Sustainable Development Strategy 2014-2030 and Development Programme 2014-2020 Rūdolfs Cimdiņš, Head of Spatial Planning Division of Riga Planning Region Peteris Sķiņķis, University of Latvia Topical Issues of the Riga City Development and Urban regeneration Guntars Ruskuls, Head of Strategic Planning Division of City Development Department of Riga City Riga Planning Region Local action Plan Gunta Lukstiņa, expert Discussion with ULSG members / Riga LAP and the network led by Vittorio Torbianelli, Lead Expert 11:00 Coffee break 11:15 VISIT ON THE SITE: ANDREJSALA (20 min. walk) 11:40 – 12.10 Andrejsala - background and development Valters Māziņš, Member of Board, “Riga Development Company” 12:10 – 12:40 Creative Incubator Rihards Zariņš, Director of Creative Incubator 12:40 – 13:30 Site visit 13:30

Lunch break

14:15 – 14:30 Empty spaces = Public Spaces? The Free Riga movement - a new cultural approach towards urbanity?

Jonas Buechel, Director of Urban Institute 14:30 Fifth THEMATIC WORKSHOP - PLENARY WORKING SESSION: Moderator : Vittorio Torbianelli. Lead Expert 14:30 Interventions on “Refitting and regenerating inhabited buildings and areas” Vittorio Torbianelli, Lead Expert Discussion with the network Led by Pauline Geoghegan, Thematic Expert 15:00 Focus on the Fourth USEACT Seminar Theme and related partners case studies Barakaldo: Quality Standards of the urban environment (existing building and urban areas) CUERs Project (10 min)

Naples: Sirena Project (10 min) Viladecans: Urban remodeling of residential Ponent, polygon and Renewal of the extension of the Montserratina (10 min)

44

Discussion with the network led by the Lead Expert, Vittorio Torbianelli 15: 45 Coffee break 16:00– 17:30 PLENARY WORKING SESSION 16:00 Waiting for the final seminar / ideas for capitalisation and sissemination local activities Gaetano Mollura, LP City Council of Naples, Vittorio Torbianelli, LE 16:15 A proposal: New Heroes and USEACT cooperation Managing Director Wouter Goedheer http://companynewheroes.com/about-company-new-heroes/ Discussion with the network led by the TE Pauline Geogheganl 16:45 Administrative and financial issues and feedbacks on the Project Reprogramming Gaetano Mollura, LP City Council of Naples Discussion with the network 17:30

End of the first day

20:00

Meeting in lobby Dinner

th

26 September 2014: Meeting Venue: Hotel “Gutenbergs” 09:00 – 13:00 PLENARY WORKING SESSION: “LAPs Review Cafè” group 09:00 Introduction second day USEACt seminar - Gaetano Mollura , Lead partner 09:10 Presentation of the LAP Template - Vittorio Torbianelli , Lead expert 09:20 Framework and Improvement of the LAP Implementation - Germana Di Falco ,Guest Thematic expert 10:00 – 12:15 PARALLEL WORKSHOPS : USEACT Local Activities WORKSHOP “LAPs Review Cafè!” (guidelines to follow). Moderators TE Germana Di Falco, 3 tables ( clouds) lead by Vittorio Torbianelli , Pauline Geoghegan, Gaetano Mollura; cross tables review Thematic Pole expert Ivan Tosics 12:15 – 12:45 PLENARY WORKING SESSION: Reporting feedbacks of each “LAPs Review Cafè” group Rapporteurs and outputs of the workshop (15 minutes each) 12:45 – 13:00 Lap Session Feedbacks Ivan Tosics, Thematic Pole Expert 13:00

Lunch break

14:00 – 15:20 PLENARY WORKING Bi/Trilateral Meetings SESSION: OUTCOMES outcomes of the Viladecans and Naples meetings by Partner rapporteurs 14:00 Vittorio A. Torbianelli - USEAct Lead Expert: Recalling the targets of second, third and fourth B/T meetings 14:20 Enric Serra de Castillo (Viladecans Municipality) - Main results of the Second B/T meeting (10 min) “Differentiating Interventions: Real Estate Developments Based On Innovation And Knowledge Based Activities” Participants: Baia Mare, Viladecans, Østfold, LP, LE

14:30 Discussion with the network (10 minutes)

45

14:40 Alvaro Cerezo (Barakaldo Municipality) - Main results of the Third B/T meeting (10 min) “Differentiating Interventions: Urban Uses and Textures” Participants: Baia Mare, Barakaldo, Viladecans, Trieste, LP, LE 14:50 discussion with the network (10 minutes) 15:00 Jim Sims (Buckinghamshire Business First)- Main results of the Fourth B/T meeting (10 min) “Smart data and visualization tools” Participants: Buckinghamshire, Naples, Riga, L E 15:10 discussion with the network and conclusion (10 minutes) 15:20 Next steps Lead Expert 15:30 Coffee break 15:45 – 16:45 PARALLEL WORKSHOPS - Bi/ Trilateral Meetings , Programming , capitalization , next steps One group: Programming next Fifth and Sixth B/T Meetings on ”New uses for heritage and buildings” – and “Up Front Infrastructure Financing”. Session organized by Dublin City Four groups ( First, Second Third Fourth B/T Meeting): next steps , capitalization and dissemination results.

16:45 PLENARY WORKING - Further general issues of the Network Management - Next steps Lead Expert, Lead Partner 17:15 Closure of the USEACT Fifth seminar

List of participants

46

Thematic Experts Vittorio A.Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert Pauline Geoghegan, USEAct Thematic Expert Germana Di Falco, USEAct Guest Expert Ivan Tosics, Thematic Pole Expert Urbact Secretariat City of Naples (Italy) - Lead Partner Gaetano Mollura USEAct Lead Partner, Coordinator of URBACT Projects and Network on Integrated Urban Development Policies Unit, City Council of Naples Wouter Goedheer, Company New Heroes, Managing Director Baia Mare Metropolitan Area (Romania) Paul Pece, USEAct Project Coordinator, Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association City of Barakaldo (Spain) Álvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo – USEAct ULSG Coordinator Municipality of Barakaldo Buckinghamshire Business First (UK) Jim Sims, USEAct Project Coordinator, Buckinghamshire Business First City of Dublin (Ireland) John O’Hara, Planning Department, Dublin City Council Kehinde Oluwatosin, Planning Department, Dublin City Council City of Trieste (Italy) Michela Crevatin, ULSG Member, Municipality of Trieste City of Nitra (Slovak Republic) Štefan Lančarič, USEAct Project Coordinator, City architect Department, Conception of City Greenery, Municipality of Nitra Kamila Gejdosova, National URBACT Authority, Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic DG Housing Policy and Urban Development Østfold County (Norway) Hosting Partner Linda Iren K. Duffy, Local Coordinator Østfold County Council Marianne Aune, ULSG Member Østfold County Council City of Viladecans (Spain) Enric Serra del Castillo, USEAct Project Coordinator, Municipality of Viladecans Sonia Dominguez, Local coordinator, Municipality of Viladecans Riga Planning Region Hosting Partner (Latvia) Dagnis Straubergs, Chairman of Riga Planning Region Development Council Jānis Miezeris, Head of Administration of Riga Planning Region Agnese Bīdermane, USEAct Project Coordinator, Riga Planning Region Rūdolfs Cimdiņš, Head of Spatial Planning Division of Riga Planning Region, ULSG member Guntars Ruskuls, Head of Strategic Planning Division of City Development Department of Riga City, ULSG member Uldis Apinis, Spatial Planner of Building Board of Ogre City, ULSG member Edgars Pārpucis, Spatial Planner of Building Board of Ogre City, ULSG member Dace Grīsle, Acting Head of Development Department of Ogre City Iveta Zālīte, Spatial Planner of Spatial Planning Department of Ķekava, ULSG member Zane Koroļa, Urban Planner of Tukums, ULSG member Pēteris Šķiņķis, University of Latvia Gunta Lukstiņa, Expert Sandra Plēpe, Expert Valters Māziņš, Member of Board, “Riga Development Company” Rihards Zariņš, Director of Creative Incubator Jonas Buechel, Director of Urban Institute

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

financed by ERDF and the Member States.

www.urbact.eu/useact

jointly