Viladecans third bilateral meeting report by URBACT Napoli / USEAct project

USEAct Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions

THIRD TRILATERAL MEETING REPORT th VILADECANS, 26 June 2014 Meeting Venue: Viladecans Business Park

AND TEXTURES

USEAct Third Trilateral meeting Report Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions Hosting Partner Viladecans City Council Enric Serra USEAct Viladecans City Council Project coordinator Contacts: email eserrac@viladecans.cat

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: phone +39 040 5582749 email vittorioalberto.torbianelli@arch.units.it Thematic Expert Pauline Geoghegan USEAct Project Thematic Expert Contacts: email paulinegeoghegan@hotmail.com www.urbact.eu www.urbact.eu/useact

This Third Trilateral meeting Report is written by Vittorio Torbianelli, UseAct Lead Expert. It refers to the Second USEAct Trilateral Meeting held in Viladecans Gaetano Mollura, Anna Arena, Maria Luna Nobile and Vincenzo Fusco, (Lead Partner team) contributed to editing the report.

Figure 1 Urban Texture, Andy Mercer (fineartamerica.com)

DIFFERENTIATING INTERVENTIONS – URBAN USES AND TEXTURES Meeting Report by Vittorio A. Torbianelli UseAct Lead Expert

People attending the meeting Gaetano Mollura USEAct Coordinator, Vittorio Torbianelli USEAct Lead Expert Marius Ecea, Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Álvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo, City of Barakaldo Beatrice Michovilovich, Trieste City Council Enric Serra del Castillo, City of Viladecans Antoni Chaves, City of Viladecans Francesc Peremiquel, UPC Barcelona Tech Miquel Pybus, Barcelona Regional Agency

1. INTRODUCTION AND MAIN ISSUES 1.1 Introduction and concept paper

The Third UseAct Bilateral/Trillateral meeting, entiled “Differentiating Intervention – Urban Uses and Textures” took place in Viladecan (Spain), on th 26 June 2014. It represents, in some terms, a coherent “continuance” of the Second USEAct Bilateral/Trilateral meeting, held in Viladecand the day before, dedicated to “Differentiating Intervention – Real Estate development”. The general conceptual framework is, in fact, pretty the same, since the general questions that both the Viladecans meetings tried to answer is “how is it possible to support development within urban areas trough approaches that are able to “select” the quality of intervention”. The meeting abour “real estate developments” focused the issue from a more “operational” perspective, tied to the real estate markets, while emphasis of the meeting on “Urban Uses and Textures” is rather given to the “planning framework” and the planning tools. Partners that decided to joint in Viladecans for the Third USEAct Bilateralt/trileateral meeting therefore

had mainly the wish to exchange knowledge on planning tools able to assure, in cities, more favorable outcomes in terms of “energy” and “potentials” for redevelopment, also trough – but not only – promoting “mixed uses”. An ideal link with the first two USEAct thematic meetings (Nitra and Istanbul) can be established, althought the Viladacans meeting specifically focuses on mixed use and on how to go beyond traditional “zoning” in town planning schemes. As widely recognized, mixed use is one of the most promising premises to revitalize derelicted areas and, in general, to promote urban reuse, but often planning frameworks have difficulty to free theirself forom the traditional “zoning” approach. As it is possible to see from the presentatins and from the debate arisen among partners, “planning tools” to overcome zoning have not emerged as an abstract and separated “challenge” of cities tryng to develop mixed use. The meeting, conversely, allowed to clearly recognize the twofold – and often problematical need to “adapt” tools to the real estate market conjuncture, on one side, and on the other side, to need to face the numerous constraints that sometime rigid national urban planning legislations pose to local administrations.

1.2 An example of difficulties in harmonizing local and national frameworks on mixed use: the Italian “urban planning reform” case study

the so called “Piano Strutturale” (Structural scheme), based on the Regional Framework Scheme;



the so called “Regolamento Urbanistico” (“planning rules”)

It only should define general strategies and identify positions and expectations of local communities. It, in particular, should not create «constraints» but integrating limitations and constraints imposed by upper schemes (regional plans, etc). The “Piano Operativo” should be just an operational scheme, with a «limited» life (it should end together with a local government) and it rapresents a timespecific programming scheme aimed at realizing the guidelines of the Structural Scheme. It, in particular, identifies the interventions which have to be considered as a priority by the current political administration and the resources needed Conversely, the third documents, the «Regolamento», has a prescriptive nature: It defines the way to realize interventions in areas already developed (“città consolidata”, historical centres, rural areas) The Italian 1995 Urban Planning Reform represents, in fact, a failed attempt to overcome «zoning». As clearly showed by a recent important position paper (2012) of the Chairman of the Italian Assocation for Urban Plannng, effects of the 1995 Reform are 1 neglectable . The Town Planning General Schemes actually developed in Italy (1995-2012), within the “Regional” frameworks, are, in general:

The Lead Expert shortly presented the 1995 – (partial) reform of Italian Urban Planning Legislative Framework, which sow devolution of some powers to the Regions.



the so called “Piano Operativo” (Operational scheme)

The “Piano Strutturale” is a long term programming scheme, which should not contain «presciptions».

The USEAct Lead Expert, Vittorio Torbianelli, during the first presentation of the meeting tried to focus on the possible difficult relationships between national planning frameworks and local implementation of town planning schemes, focusing on a Case Study, related to “The 1995 Italian Urban Planning Legislation Reform”.

Three «levels» were required by the 1995 legislation, as parts of the “General Town Planning Scheme. These three “levels” are referred to three separate documents:



difficult to be read and too “weighty”. They maintain the traditional “ruling” approach, also within the “structural” sections, that – however - should be not prescriptive.



not capable to overcome, in fact, the “zoning” approach;



not able, in fact, to reduce time required for “sharing” the scheme with other bodies (“coplanning”);



not able to abandon the idea of a “full-ruling” scheme, aimed at providing a full picture of the “final result” for all the areas.

A draft of a new Italian «Urban Planning Law» framework («Principi in materia di politiche 1

See: http://www.inu.it/wpcontent/uploads/Relazione_Presidente_Assemblea_ soci_Inu_2012.pdf

pubbliche territoriali e trasformazione urbana» has been very recently proposed at a governmental level 2 (05-2014) . The first target is to provide a new common framework to overcome the highly fragmented and varied landscape of the «Regional Planning Frameworks». Some tools at a broader area level are proposed, but the traditional “town planning scheme” at municipality level would not be abolished anyway. However, the recent proposal seems to be not fully adequate to face many importants issues, included the “reducing land take” issue, since the proposal seems not to be able to integrate the «land take reduction» iniatitive carried on recently by the government rtrough a separate law framework. A strong reaction reaction by IItalian Urban Planning 3 Institute (INU) is very clear on that aspects . More in general, some weknessess have been stressed. The need, in particular, to design and implement official «structural schemes» not at municipality level but at wider areas level («area vasta») has been underlined. Further question arise, as the following ones. Should municipalities, within the new framework, implement only «operational schemes» and should, on the other side, the «wide area schemes» only define environmental networks, infrastractural networks, housing polcies, industrial and economic activities, landscape and agricaltural policies? As it is possible to see, the new proposls is – since the beginning – would require a closer examination. Once concluded the presentation of the “Urban Planning Reform” in Italy, the Lead Expert proposed a question for the partners developing new general town planning schemes: what are the main problems and critical points referring to the relation between urban planning legislation and “beyond zoning” targest?

1.3 Beyond zoning: transformation of middle size cities in Spain trough urban projects Some answers to the general question posed by the Lead Expert during his presentation found answers in the recent study by CReCE. “Crecimiento Residencial Contemporáneo España”, which represents a significative research on thirty years of Urban development and urban planning in Spain4. Object of study was understanding the rResidential “urban fragments” developed in Spanish middle size Cities over the period 1980-2010. Objectives specifics of the study were mainly: a) studying, across the 1980-2010 period, residential urban interventions (“urban projects”) and describe their fundamental features; b) typifying different strategies, the nature of the projects and the instruments used in their development and the embedding of strategies aimed at reducing energy consumption and limiting environmental impacts; c) evaluating the transformation derived in cities, the effect on the change of scale of them, and the increase in soli consumption, both public and private one; d) evaluation of the impact on the energy consumption of the urban form resulting, establishing useful taxonomies referred to specific cases and situations; e) systematization of structural and urban configuration related to the shape of the residential urban fabric; f) comparison between the standards of the urban projects and, considered the construction cost issue, adequacy of them to the requirements of urban quality; g) citizens' perception towards the projects. Detailed outcomes of the research, for many city, are available on the presentation accessible for USEAct partners at Project Dropbox In general, some “common” conclusions emerged, summarized as follows. Most of the projects occurres within an established legal framework, and are developed trough an urban planning of higher grade, which sets a program with specific objectives and standards to meet. Land parcels are clearly defined and have a defined size.

See: http://www.ingenioweb.it/immagini/CKEditor/Bozza_ddl_riforma.pdf

.http://www.ediliziaeterritorio.ilsole24ore.com/pdf20 10/Edilizia_e_Territorio/_Allegati/Free/Infrastrutture2 4/2014/05/VivianiInu.pdf

URBAN RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF INTERMEDIATE (middle size) CITIES IN SPAIN (1980-2010). BIA201233699. Francesc Peremiquel, Isabel Castiñeira, Adolf Sotoca, Julian Galindo, Miquel Coromines, Joaquim Sabate, www.proyectocrece.es (peremiquel@coac.net)

Project implementation requires a limited period of time, and instruments are developed through urban planning and administrative procedures. Meaningful participation of the public has to be recognized togheter with the fact that proposals are by both public and private actors. In general, a high share of public space and free space is common and densities and “intensitiy” of building are in general low, while urbanization level is normally high. Housing is of standardized quality. The property is the more common form of tenure. Some final questions should be answered. The first is if it right to categorize these projects as a really “new urban growth form”, compared to previous urban developments, or not? There is not probably a unique answer.

The second question is: do represent these projects examples of “efficient urban form”? Efficiency is, in general, the relationship between benfits and consumption and there are many specific “efficiency” features. One aspects which seems to be specifically important in relation with the issue of the Bilateral/Trilateral Meeting is the ratio between services provided trouhg the development to the people (users), compred to the owner (property) independently on use. It is rather clear that “mix-use” matters, in this case. With regard to the Spanish study, it is rather clear that the average level of “urban mix” appears to be pratty low. A city "minimum“ should be probably defined and not always, urban planning, has allowed to reach it.

2. PARTNER CONTRIBUTIONS 2.1 The Integrated Urban Development Plan tool in the Baia Mare area After the introductory part of the Meeting, Marius Ecea, Baia Mare Metropolitan Association, Romania, focused on some details of the “Integrated Urban Develment Plan” isse, already mentioned the day before, with lesser detail, during the previous Bilateral/Trilateral Meeting on reale estate development. As already explained, after joining the European Union in 2007, the structural funds have been available for Romania, and the national authorities prepared different operational programmes, the most important, the regional operational programme, financing interventions in urban areas. For this purpose a new tool was designated in order to better support the renewal of the Romanian cities and medium size towns – Integrated Urban Development Plan (IUDP). This tool is based on the development strategy of the urban settlement, but also takes into consideration the general urban plan acting and the opinion of the local community expressed in public meetings organised by the local authority. It must be approved by the Local Council. It shall be considered a public driven tool able to guide the redevelopment/ renewal of the cities, setting the priority intervention zone, the urban spaces & buildings that need regeneration and also the way the future developments (residential & industrial) shall be encouraged (urban development vision). The Integrated Development Plan is thought as an efficient instrument in regeneration and revitalization of urban settlements, by facilitating economic activity (economic growth), the reinsertion of spaces in the social network or as land reserve for future urban developments. This type of approach is not limited at single case objectives, but is targeted on inner city areas of different dimensions, and shall facilitate development of new urban functions, generating positive socio-economic effects, including citizens and investors perception on the areas. The advantage of an integrated approach of social, economic, environmental issues existing in urban

deprived areas consists in the fact that the local authority can simultaneously handle problems that in reality are interconnected and affect both urban and peri-urban areas. Specific content of an Integrated Plan are the following ones: 1) General characteristics of the city It refers to the state-of-the-art of the urban area and can be regarded as an urban audit, consisting in analysis of the development potential of the city zones from demographic, social, economic and environmental perspectives, level of equipment & urban patrimony, with the aim of identifying strengths, specific problems and malfunctions in order to propose, in correlation with different threats and opportunities a development vision and an action plan. Moreover, this general part of the IUDP is linked to the existing urban planning documents such as county landscaping plans, general urban plan, local development strategies, and it relies also on data, information and indicators provided by national and local agencies (statistics, unemployment bureau, chamber of commerce and industry, public services operators). 2) Development strategy/ vision of the city and inner city areas It contains the general & specific targets and objectives, policies, programmes and priorities for the city areas. It describes the process needed for solving the identified problems or for valuing the opportunities of the specific areas by implementing actions/ projects. In order to realise all these, the public administration is urged to organise public debates with local stakeholders. 3) Action plan The action plan represents the most important tool for implementation, control and monitoring of the IUDP and it contains the package of urban projects. The projects’ objectives must be correlated with one another in order to accomplish integrated development effect hoped for. The action plan specifies, also, the methodology of implementation of the entire package of urban actions, in close relation with the development vision and the urban planning restrictions, both at national and local level. 4) Public informing and stakeholders’ consultation. It describes the process of local community consultation and involvement in the design of the integrated plan.

2.2 Spanish principles and rules for urban interventions at local level: the potential conflict between renewal and regeneration After the presentation of Mr. Marius Ecea, Mr. Alvaro Cerezo, Project and ULSG Coordinator from the City of Barakaldo, focused a very sensitive issue of the current urban planning legislative framework in Spain, trough a presentation entitled “Urban Expropriation with beneficiary, a PPP instrument”. Urban expropriation – Mr Cerezo started - is potentially a very promising tool to manage urban redevelopment and “selecting” urban uses, altought it is clear that any urban intervention must justify the general interest and the social function, in order to considerer the expropriation tool as a valid system. It should also be recalled that in Spain, a very “robust” legislation entered in force to promote urban renewal, requires promoters (and in general owners) to contribute to the renovation process. The benefit of urban intervention must be guaranteed – Mr. Cerezo added - and the promoter should comply with the financial burdens of the operation, since the promoter itself receive important benefits from the development. Legislation states that: a) the preexisting owners, tenants and possible rights must be protected (fair and legally based compensations, relocation, affordable rents, etc.); developers should assume the costs for reurbanizing the area, including the decontamination of the area and the reusing of all the plots; they have also to built the houses and public facilities included in the urban plan and to preserve the legal binding for public housing

percentage or rate (at least 20% of the total must be social housing and the rest should be price limited housing). Developers, have also to pay to the public administration the legal mandatory “fee” for the community participation on the urban surplus generation (15% of the total built rights must be paid to the administration, free of charge). All developments, withinh the recently modified Spanish legal framework, must attend the compulsory “public bidding process”, where the promoters have the possibility of improving their offers or bids. As an example of mentioned, is the intervention.

intervention, Mr. Cerezo “Retuerto” Neighborhood

The intervention can be summarized as follows: total surface, 56.500 m2 (including the demolition of industrial building and 90 preexisting houses); new 720 houses, 76.000 m2 of housing over 9.000 m2 plot area. It includes 576 social houses, at affordable price (80% of the total) and 144 restricted sales housing, VPO (20% of the total). New green and recreational areas amount to 40.000 m2 and new streets and pedestrian areas to 7.500 m2. The public bidding procedure, to select the developer, established that the proposals, beside the legal determinations, should consider specific objectives and goals. They are: increasing of the social housing percentage offered (initially 20%), specific architectural and urban quality standards; improvement of the relocation conditions and lowering of the housing prices; inclusion of providing new building plots outside the development, in order to pay the Administration legal mandatory “fee”; transparency and financial aid for the future owners; reduction of the development schedule.

Conditions to realize such interventions are, in fact: a) existence of finance for the promoter and the future buyers; low value of the intervention area (preexisting buildings), due to the degradation processes (low compensation expenses); The “FAR” or a density ratio redefinition is requested, without risking the urban quality of the spaces. It is clear that the above mentioned framework poses difficult challenges and questions for the debate, regarding the urban uses and PPP models. A first question is: can, in general, PPP models be improved through legal changes and flexibility enhancements regarding urban law determinations? A second question is: could non-profit entities (such as Housing Associations) to be considered as potential bidders for these types of interventions? A third question is – if possible – at a strategic level, since it refers to potential “contraposition” between renewal and regeneration. May this urban management model induce, at the end, urban degradation, due to the exchange of new house for the older one, precluding “urban regeneration” and the common urban tissue conservation? Is such behavior physically, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable?

2.3 The “General Town Plan of Trieste”: a new approach beyond zoning Mrs. Beatrice Michovilovich, Municipality of Trieste, faced the “urban uses” issue trough presenting the newly proposed “General Town Plan” scheme of Trieste, as a case study of a new generation planning scheme aimed at gong beyond zoning and adopting clear norms and simplification of procedures. Supported by some pictures taken from the new plan, Mrs. Michovilovich started from explaining how an urban analysis based on the concept of “urban system” was carried out, with the aim of redeveloping the existing city. The analysis recognized – Mrs. Michovilovich told different “tipologies” of city (e.g. the “city of objects” – these are part of the city with relevant buidings the “city of gardens”) and other systems in relation, for instance, to building height, density, technological networks, and derelicted areas. More in detail, the analyisis of urban setting recognized the following “systems”, represented trough thematic maps: settlement system, facilities and community spaces system, productive systems (for business, research, tourism and maritime activities), mobility system and some specific area with high transformation potentials.

The analytic framework adopted to “read” the city is only one aspect of the innovative potential of the new General Town Plan. Further innovative aspects are related to: 

 

the process used to build the Plan: the listening stage for plan building process thought questionnaires for citizens, topic and technical groups with stakeholders for answering city questions together; clear norms, simplification of procedures, development of management capacity of Municipality offices; providing images and visions for the future.

This latter aspect is strictly related to the issue discussed during the meeting – Mrs Michovilovich said – since the plan idea is to not to use zoning, preferring a clear imagine of city development for the next 15 years. In downturn periods, it is essential, for a city, to have a prospective of being able to guide choices - both large and small, public and private - that will transform the city and the neiborghood. Private investors are definitely more willing to invest when a local authority has and shows clear ideas about its territory development. As already pointed out above, the scheme identifies a set of “systems” to overcome the zoning concept, where a zone is dedicated to a unique function group. The “system” introduces, rather, a more complex and appropriate vision of the city nature and supports urban transformation visions. The systems identify a functional mixture, (which is reviewed from time to time), and allows to recognize what it is compatible and what is not, to assure the plan objectives are reached. Each system has its own boundaries and extension, which defines relations with territories more or less extended, focusing on specific variables: for instance, environmental enhancement for residential and production; ecological working and sustainable agricultural production for the environmental system; networking and defining the role of the system of central places; sustainability and efficiency for the mobility system. Each part of the city is included in a system, which, in turn, is divided into subsystems, which represent the system components and the normative reference for the areas. The systems and sub systems described before, form the General Town Plan. They identify and “create” relations among areas and priority themes, consistent with the objectives and strategic vision defined by the Plan. In the Plan, the environmental and landscape system plays a mayor role of integrators and “networking device”, both within the city core and between the “Carso” highlands and the sea-coast An other important “connectivity texture” is defined by the Mobility System (which includes re-using the exiting railway lines, today abandoned or under used.

The environment and landscape systems and the mobility system work as a support for the development proposed by the plan. The Productive system for business, research, tourism and maritime activities draws new opportunities for development. If the activities related to the sea, the port facilities and logistics represent ome of the main driving force for employment increase, an equally important role is assigned to enhance the tourist vocation and to strengthen of interaction between research centers and businesses. The Plan also pays particular attention to the conservation of historical and architectural heritage in the city and in the “Carso” villages, the redevelopment of the seafront and the Old Port, the rehabilitation (also in terms of energy and environmental) of strategic and important urban areas, topics included in the Settlement System and in the Area of great transformation System. The Facilities and “Spaces for community” System works for improving the daily life conditions of Trieste citizens trough reinforcing the accessibility of urban, territorial and local district services (equipment, public spaces and green areas). The reduction of land consumption is another focus of the Trieste General Town Plan. The scheme is thought as an engine for the rehabilitation of the existing areas and reuse of deprived sites. Re-use of underutilized areas is an opportunity for urban regeneration and for making the city more sustainable. That presupposes specific knowledge about several urban textures and historic urban fabric and valuables areas. The urban analysis carried out in occasion of the new city plan, puts in evidence the transformation potential of buildings and neighborhood. The target is developing a coherent changement of urban and building standards, fitting the contemporary urban needs. Moreover, where necessary, the Plan is aimed at promoting radical replacements of existing buildings and entire city blocks through demolition and reconstruction. These issues came out from focus and technical group during participatory process as an important opportunity for city development and environmental enhancement, which correspond with Local Authority policy program. As already explained in the USEAct Third Thematic seminar, held in Istanbul , there are furher sections of the plan which define measures and methodologies aimed at reducing the land consumption. Main strategies are the following ones. a) “Areas of urban rehabilitation” - the General Town Plan provides rules allowing radical replacements of existing buildings and entire city blocks and areas of rural villages in Carso highland, through demolition and reconstruction encouraged by the simplification of procedures, improving

energetic standards, giving more facilities b) Upgrading urban areas trough incentive tied to "volumetric awards for improving the energy efficiency" - this tool is aimed at reviving the construction sector and promoting “urban density” where possible, against land consumption. In particular the plan is oriented to rehabilitate buildings in the historical heritage areas built in the Sixties and in the Seventies. A volumetric award will be provided for green roofs built.

as open spaces or pubblic services. The General Town Plan scheme also identifies some so called “Great Transformation Areas” (Campo Marzio, Banne village, the abandoned military district of Rossetti street and fair area). Urban regeneration will occur through redesign these urban spaces to turn them into new urban “cores” for social, economic and cultural city enhancing, and at the same time, to guarantee new room for scientific and research organizations. Both private and public intervention and funding is expected for the re-development of these areas.

3. CONCLUSIONS Mr. Alvaro Cerezo, at the end of the meeting, proposed some final considerations on matters discussed during the meeting. “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 adopted byeach partner Mr. Cerezo told. We have regional planning scale (Baia Mare), a general town plan scale (Trieste) and intervention planning scale (Barakaldo)”. Baia Mare In 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 (mandatory urban determinations). - Public participation must be address at any stage of the planning process. The integrated approach of the urban development must be key issue: analyzing features and developeing strategic vsions are essential activities to promote urban sprawl control, mixed and alternative uses of land, management of recourses, sustainable mobility and heritage preservation. A detailed action plan definition is needed togheter public information, consultation and direct participation. Trieste´s General Town Plan approach proposes to overcome the classic zoning definition and to apply an “overlapping” system approach. Therefore, they have defined: public participation process to identify the general interest and to address planning management tools and procedures from the early stages of the process. The General Town Plan appears a a flexible tool aimed at redefining the city planning for the future needs. “Economy” and sustainability are key issues for the planning viability. An important message is 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 Barakaldo´s intervention plan is focused in the 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. They also consider 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 is required, togheter a clear definition of the built areas and urban spaces quality standards (the “city minimum”). At the same time, considering the integrated sustainability (physical, environmental, social and economic integrated approach) is required with a clear definition of proper and flexible urban planning determinations. Financial tools and redefinition of public participation processes, not only based on public budget distribution but also on private and direct economic contributions of the citizens, under a collective agreement are required. Addressing public Social Housing policies is an another essential matter.

THIRD USEACT BILATERAL MEETING

Meeting Venue: Viladecans Business Park

BAIA MARE METROPOLITAN AREA|BARAKALDO|TRIESTE|VILADECANS

DIFFERENTIATING INTERVENTIONS (RESIDENTIAL/ECONOMIC ACTIVITY): URBAN USES AND TEXTURES ACTIVITY PROGRAM th

26 June 2014/ Meeting Point: Lobby of the Sidorme Hotel 8.45 9.00 – Gaetano Mollura, Lead Partner, The targets of Bilateral Meeting 9.15 – Vittorio Torbianelli, Lead Expert, Beyond traditional zoning: principles and examples Host city partner contribution: 9.30 Enric Serra, City Council of Viladecans – Host city partner: Some considerations on laws, plans and reality in relation to the uses and the urban textures (in the Spanish and Catalan framework) The Spanish context/Contribution on the theme: 9.50 Miquel Pybus, geographer. Department Urban Strategies. Barcelona Regional Agency. Web : Some cases: San Francisco and Barcelona 10.10 Discussion 10.20 – Coffee Break 10.35 Adolf Sotoca, Francesc Peremiquel, UPC Barcelona Tech Urbanism and Planning Department Evaluation of residential urban tissues in the recent transformation of the cities in Spain. The energetic efficiency as measure criteria. CRECE project 11.00 Discussion Partners contribution: 11.15 Marius Ecea, Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association 11.25 Alvaro Cerezo, Barakaldo City Council 11.35 Beatrice Michovilovich, Trieste City Council 11.50 Discussion 12.00 Workshop/1 – Challenges and ideas to “differentiate” the interventions in partner cities

13.00 Lunch 14.00 Capitalization of the B/T meeting results, identifying the main topics and suggestions 14.40 Workshop/2 – How could we link the outcomes of the meeting with the Local Action Plans?

15.10 Coffee Break 15.30 Workshop /3 - Reporting the meeting to the USEAct Community 16.45 Conclusions : How to valorize the meetings results

17.30 End of the third BT meeting / departure of the participants

URBACT

European

exchange

and

learning

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