From sources of financial value to commons: Emerging policies for enhancing public real‐estate assets in Italy
研究通过分析意大利约50个案例，运用聚类分析识别出预测自下而上公共房地产增值成功的关键条件，包括社会资本、城市位置和合同安排。
Enhancing public real-estate assets has been at the centre of a lively debate in Italy. Public policies have focused on the supply-side, assuming that private demand was ready to develop assets. Yet with the decline in the real-estate market, conditions have greatly changed. Italian authorities begun to experiment new approaches to enhance public assets by supporting the grass-roots participation. The aim of this research is to determine the conditions that can predict the successful outcome of bottom-up value creation dynamics in public real-estate properties. Through a multivariate statistical analysis, the study proposes an interpretation of the elements that determine the successful outcome of bottom-up processes. La mejora de los activos inmobiliarios públicos ha sido el centro de un animado debate en Italia. Las políticas públicas se han centrado en el lado de la oferta, asumiendo que la demanda privada estaba lista para desarrollar dichos activos. Sin embargo, con el declive del mercado inmobiliario, las condiciones han cambiado mucho. Las autoridades italianas comenzaron a experimentar con nuevos enfoques para mejorar los activos públicos, entre ellos el apoyo a la participación popular. El objetivo de esta investigación es determinar las condiciones que pueden predecir el resultado exitoso de la dinámica de creación de valor de abajo hacia arriba en las propiedades inmobiliarias públicas. El estudio usa un análisis estadístico multivariante mediante el que propone una interpretación de los elementos que determinan el resultado exitoso de los procesos de abajo hacia arriba. イタリアでは、公有の不動産資産を強化することが活発な議論の中心となっている。これまで公共政策は、民間需要は開発の準備が整っている資産であるという前提で、供給側に焦点が置かれていた。しかし、不動産市場の低迷に伴い、状況は大きく変化してきている。イタリアの当局は住民の参加を支援することにより公有資産を強化する新しいアプローチの試みに着手した。本研究の目的は、公有の不動産資産におけるボトムアップ型の価値の創出の成功を予測する条件を決定することである。多変量統計解析からボトムアップ型のプロセスの成功を決定する因子の解釈が提示される。 Enhancing public real-estate assets has been at the centre of a lively debate for years, and the attempt to exploit them efficiently is on the agenda of the central government and local authorities in Italy. Attention has long focused on the ways in which a vast, highly diverse amount of public property could be earmarked for uses capable of generating economic and financial value. Legislators’ efforts have aimed at facilitating operations – notably zoning and buildings codes – to better adhere to the demands of investors and developers and to allow for a rapid process of value creation by freeing assets from public sector constraints. Public intervention has focused primarily on the supply side, assuming that private demand was ready to transform and develop assets formerly held by the public sector without technical or financial difficulties. Yet with the decline in the real-estate industry that began in second half of the last decade, conditions have greatly changed. The demand for assets destined for development has fallen dramatically, as attested by the considerable amount of unsold property and stalled operations (ANCE 2015; Fabrizi et al. 2015). The lesson has been clear: moving property from the public to the private sector is no longer enough to trigger a value creation process, either because the demand is not there or because preferences and spending capacity have profoundly changed. In consequence, Italian authorities have begun to experiment with new approaches to enhancing value, by supporting the actions of associations and self-organized groups interested in using property otherwise destined to abandonment. In some areas of the country there has been a significant development in grass-roots participation initiatives, while in others bottom-up property development has not yet taken place. The aim of this research is to determine the conditions that can predict the successful outcome of bottom-up value creation dynamics capable of generating value for both the community and the authorities that own the buildings. In some European countries similar processes have been codified and are already being promoted at the core of several major cities’ agendas (Inti and Inguaggiato 2011; Andres 2013). In Italy, however, the potential for bottom-up property development is a prospect that often leaves administrators and technicians uncertain, suggesting the need for further analysis. This study is divided into four sections. Section 2 addresses some theoretical considerations on the public property development process based on the mobilization of self-organized groups and associations. Sections 3 and 4 present the results of research carried out on empirical evidence in Italy, through the comparison of about 50 case studies. Section 5 highlights the conditions that appear to be crucial for the successful outcome of similar processes. Section 6 concludes. The vast amount of Italian public real-estate property – which includes more than 45,000 areas and buildings – is worth almost 60 billion euro. 1 Yet the severe decline of the real-estate market has led to considerable difficulty in the sale of assets destined for development. The high number of deserted auctions, unsold real-estate property, and stalled projects reflect this radically changed environment. The economic and social conditions at the root of traditional development processes simply no longer apply: supply remains untapped and the financial capacity of demand has highly diminished. Public real-estate property enhancement policies have been supply-centred for years. Intervention has focused on making procedures more effective and efficient so that the assets could correspond to private operators’ needs (Agenzia del Demanio 2015). Like other distinctly neoliberal regional and urban government policies (Camagni et al. 2014), the enhancement of public real-estate assets has been related to simplifying administrative procedures, to increase the flexibility of planning and building regulations, and, finally, to identifying qualified professionals for the efficient development of public assets. 2 In light of the profoundly changed economic environment, it is no longer plausible to rely on these instruments, and it seems decisive, instead, to revert to the true characteristics of demand – to the parties who ultimately use the real-estate properties – for more effective policies. This means working with profit and non-profit organizations, professional offices, artist studios, and venues for cultural production – self-organized groups and associations that can exploit the opportunities of unused buildings by transforming them into highly diverse sites and promoting initiatives that would otherwise hardly have the chance to take place (Louekary 2006; Novy and Colomb 2013; Campagnoli 2015; Mangialardo and Micelli 2017). Local and central authorities can create value through completely renewed approaches. They can promote a new demand, fostering projects and entrepreneurship by entrusting resources otherwise destined to remain disused or under-utilized, therein pursuing real-estate projects that, more broadly speaking, represent actions for urban regeneration (Andersson 2009; Inguaggiato 2011; Peck 2012; Andres 2013). The debate on public property enhancement has often – and not merely coincidentally – intersected with that on youth policies (Campagnoli 2015). If traditional operators no longer have the interest, or the resources, to develop real-estate assets, the creative class (Florida 2002; Evans 2009) has the ideas – but not always the resources – that can be at the core of redevelopment projects. Development policies for the recovery of public property can also have an effect on debate regarding the temporary use of real-estate assets. Temporary use may be a means for discovering opportunities that market operators do not consider to be of value (Inti 2011; Colomb 2012; Andres 2013; Nèmeth and Langhorst 2014). In situations in which traditional real-estate operators prove unable to determine a site's final destination, provisional and short-term uses may reveal its future potential (Inti 2011). Public authorities are now accepting the drop in, if not the nullification of, real-estate values and are overturning this prospect by seeking a new approach capable of creating value for the community and, subsequently, for their properties (Nèmeth and Langhorst 2014). Founded on the richness of the city's social capital, bottom-up mobilization can radically transform public property into resources that the community can use to promote innovation in both the profit and non-profit sectors. Abandoned properties are transformed into commons (Arena and Iaione 2015; Soma and Vatn 2014) that public bodies can entrust to whoever has the right project and the capabilities. The aim is no longer that of extracting rent but of experimenting with new forms of economic and social development. In this perspective, some local authorities 3 have formulated a new legal framework for the use of public property. It is no longer considered a reserve of financial value but has become a commons at the service of the city's economic and social development. Since 2014, the central administration has acknowledged the importance of bottom-up mobilization as a potential new governance model (Arena and Iaione 2015; Lepofsky and Fraser 2003). Current legislation allows local authorities to promote and regulate participatory mechanisms ‘for the protection and enhancement of the territory’ 4 through the establishment of specific guidelines for managing public real-estate property at the disposal of the community. To date, over 150 municipalities have adhered to this by setting up their own regulations for public property. 5 This analysis aims at determining the main characteristics of bottom-up development processes. Fifty cases, 6 including nearly all the bottom-up enhancement cases in Italy, were examined. The information acquired for each case is the result of interviews, desk research, and field surveys. The following variables were observed for each case: regional location, city size, the centrality and accessibility of the asset, its size, the resources used for the property's redevelopment, the presence or absence of specific public policies in support of the enhancement process, the nature of the contractual arrangement, and, finally, the management model. 7 The regional location identifies the geographical position of the assets and is differentiated according to northern, central, and southern Italy. The city size defines whether the enhancement process has occurred in a large city (over 50,000 inhabitants) or a small one. The position refers to the location of the asset according to its accessibility: central, semi-central, suburban, or extra-urban. In addition to positional variables, the value of the social capital in the regions in which the bottom-up development of public real-estate property took place was observed. Social capital is understood as the endowment of a rooted civic sense that unites values and cultural aspects with resources and shared projects available to the community (Bordieu 1986; Coleman 1988; Putnam et al. 1993). ISTAT (2015) surveys developed the concept into operational variables, classifying cities and regions according to their social capital endowment. 8 The variable related to architectural typology provides an indication of the type of redeveloped asset: barracks, theatres, schools and industrial buildings. The size variable indicates, by size-class, the surface area covered by the buildings (small for a surface area up to 5,000 m2, average between 5,000 and 20,000 m2 and large from 20,000 m2 and above). The type of funding specifies the provenance of the economic resources used to enhance the building. There were two possibilities: funds provided by self-organized groups/associations or other resources. The variable linked to the presence of specific public policies clarifies whether dedicated policies have recently been promoted at the local level. The contractual arrangement reflects the type of legal relationship employed for the reuse of the assets. It is differentiated according to lease, bailment, and, when the property has been occupied without authorization, no contractual arrangement. The management model identifies the management solutions through which the asset has been enhanced. There are three possibilities: ‘sole administrator,’ when a single party coordinates and manages the entire redevelopment operation; ‘consortium,’ when more organizations are involved in the project's implementation; ‘direct assignment,’ when the local authority directly entrusts the asset to the buildings’ end users. The information observed was re-processed in quantitative terms and the main descriptive statistics are reported for each variable (see Table 1). Significant similarities emerged from the processing performed, highlighting common patterns in the enhancement logic. The characteristics of the case studies seem to follow a shared pattern, and it becomes necessary to understand whether, and how, it is possible to aggregate the different features in significant profiles marked by similarity. The most suitable technique for this type of investigation is cluster analysis, a multivariate descriptive statistical methodology that is able to divide a set of dissimilar elements into more homogenous sub-groups (Fraley and Raftery 1998). With cluster analysis, each case study is part of a group that is, in turn, contained in a larger size-class until one single set is obtained that contains all the units analysed. The process can be represented in the form of a dendrogram that identifies, according to increasing order, the of of the The of the dendrogram (see the of two while the position of these the at which these are and 2014). In operational the cluster analysis is divided into four The in the of cases and variables in the form of a the variables considered were taken into for the case for the architectural which was not considered to be significant in light of the processing carried The second the of methodology to the – or the of – between the statistical In this the and most technique was which the between the elements through the and 2014). The the of a suitable for the of the similar units observed. The methodology used is each is a group and, through of and more similar are into a was used in the specific This the groups to be through the of their to the the of the process, when each cluster is by a single the is to two into a single a of is that is destined to as a of the cases in the group and The last is the of the number of to be obtained and 2014). the of the and in to the of the analysis, the groups the cases into three (see Table than the average than the average than the average than the average than the average than the average The the is by cases of the The group and clarifies the from the analysis. development public property that is in large cities and in areas marked by high social of the bottom-up mobilization place in urban central areas which have better accessibility and the presence of significant The large cities that are the most in social and diverse and are the cities in which bottom-up mobilization with in with the endowment of social capital et al. The size of the real-estate asset and the features are not The buildings have contained and are by In these self-organized groups covered the redevelopment for most of the operations Local authorities financial resources have and through the of and by the with different solutions The of at no is the most used if there are some without a management the of the initiatives are by a single The second of case studies of the can be considered a of the operations take place in areas of with high social capital The properties are in the centre of the cities and most of these cases are to the the buildings are in small cities the administration has not promoted to similar development processes The of cases a of at no and the directly these This cluster includes cases in small it was possible to bottom-up development processes to the of the local in the absence of support from the The and final of cases of the is differentiated from the The properties are in the southern areas of the country in the urban of large cities in areas with a social The buildings are small and redevelopment actions were in by and In most cases, over of the local authorities specific public policies to self-organized initiatives to enhance public real-estate property. The at no is the most used most by a single as it was in the In to traditional for enhancing public real-estate property, self-organized are or buildings by promoting bottom-up in the most diverse economic and social sectors. Through the analysis of cases study in Italy, this study proposes an interpretation of the elements that determine the successful outcome of bottom-up process by identifying three specific The the social and economic features of the regions and cities in which similar cases In bottom-up mobilization is linked to the presence of a significant endowment of social capital and a urban The results of the cluster analysis are and out a significant between social capital and bottom-up public real-estate property enhancement processes. The empirical research that over 60 of the cases are in Italy, in areas that, have a more significant presence of social capital in comparison to southern 2015). The the endowment of social capital, the more the initiatives by community the and the of bottom-up development initiatives are with the endowment of the social of a community. public policies in support of bottom-up mobilization have the of social capital that would otherwise be in self-organized regeneration projects. The cluster highlights the of public policies social and economic conditions are not to self-organized processes – this is the case in different areas in the of – and specific support are are and are more to and to and to and the social and capital present et al. et al. It is not that the presence of self-organized is to and which are more a social and economic 2011). There are also cases of bottom-up development in but are and, in take place in areas to large urban The second the features of the public assets. that have large and considerable the conditions that are better to the of initiatives place in bottom-up development processes transformed into and venues for temporary industrial buildings used for creative or offices, and covered into are some of the of bottom-up redevelopment, the of the initiatives To different and the need to be and the of and their reuse represent a and a and, an to redevelopment for in bottom-up development processes the reuse of that are to solutions (Campagnoli 2015). The of the nature of promoted the buildings the of and that can be to needs and to be for future uses when the become of this have become for social which an for local The of the enhancement process it possible to and uses at the available The architectural for reuse also an creative to in the often their specific features 2003). The that the public properties for redevelopment were small and in were but their was not The properties are at the without is to be over without that would prove to be with the financial resources of the parties that aggregate into similar The the legal framework used to promote the bottom-up development processes. in appear significant for the successful outcome of bottom-up In most cases the buildings are through the legal terms of at no This type of is for the and the who can from the at The high of the and legal If the property a more and suitable or if the is not with the both have the right to from the at In most cases, the do not a for the buildings’ It from a to a years, for enough to for uses There are two for the of the The to as as the of the and to the nature of participatory which are not in but developed over the of the 2011). The second to the of the relationship between and self-organized The the of the occupied with the of specific public the of a property for a a could be with the of the In most cases, the is by a single party that is for the This for the of the process, the its and the that take therein for the property's and has a social in promoting profit and non-profit and, at the the necessary to the redevelopment is defines this as a social 2012; Mangialardo Mangialardo and Micelli 2017). The presence of a who is able to promote between the and to and initiatives that are not with the site's regeneration to be a of successful The importance of a a of initiatives with to other forms of traditional real-estate development 2003). the or do not appear to be suitable to the of bottom-up development processes. from the of real-estate assets and by entrusting public property to parties capable of social and economic public real-estate assets are being through new solutions on participatory processes promoted by self-organized profit and non-profit deserted and at the values have the of traditional approaches market conditions have led to new opportunities for solutions promoted by self-organized groups and associations involved in highly diverse have to value by simply their assets to the private sector through real-estate and urban planning in with market They have instead, to promote that entrust parties capable of on highly diverse projects to develop properties otherwise destined to be or The development of public property through participatory processes is however, always and destined to It is necessary to determine the conditions that it possible to predict the of participatory processes capable of generating new economic and social value. The presence of a community capable of self-organized the location of the buildings in urban specific building characteristics in terms of type and of the presence of a party – other than the public administration – with the to a in the and a legal relationship between the administration and private parties are all that predict the successful outcome of bottom-up research may on diverse aspects of the In terms of urban the is represented by the of similar cases in more solutions for economic and social European – as in (Louekary and (Inti – and the actions of some Italian cities seem to the of bottom-up development for transforming public real-estate property into social and economic