OPEN ACCESS
Urban regeneration should have a role of integration between planning and design activities; moreover, it very often looks like a single project with detailed proposals and performances, without a general vision of the area. It is therefore necessary to build a reference for the design choices, which primarily concern the city but increasingly involve the surrounding territory. This paper explores the relationship between the plurality of factors that exist on the settlements and productive activities assets which are the elements of the coastal landscape. Our work aims to deal with every aspect of the Re-generation potential, which is an opportunity for enrichment of urban planning, especially in the cases of the Regions – as Molise is – in which really cities do not exist but there is a “continuum” between adjoining Municipalities in a mainly rural territory. Moreover, coastal areas have been in recent years the privi-leged place for interventions guided by the principles of urban regeneration, in the first phase focused on the physical rehabilitation of degraded areas, afterwards including attention to cultural, social, eco-nomic and environmental aspects. In the evolution of this phenomenon, not only we need to highlight the shift from physical rehabilitation to urban regeneration, as an integrated process of actions with a focus on the social aspect, but also we must underline that the so-called “complex programs” – utilized for regeneration projects – are more dynamic than the traditional plans.
sustainability, urban regeneration, waterfronts & harbors.
[1] Quercio, N., Rigenerazione delle aree costiere. Aspetti paesaggistici e progettuali del waterfront, tesi di dottorato in “Analisi e Valorizzazione del paesaggio” coordinatore prof. Donatella Cialdea, Università degli Studi del Molise, 2015.
[2] Cialdea, D. (ed), Research Methodology. Territorial Survey Interreg Reports. Materials for Adriatic Cross Border Project Report no. 1. Progetto GES.S.TER. / Interreg IIIA, Campobasso Arti Grafiche La Regione, 2005.
[3] Cialdea, D. (eds), Land Use Evaluation. Analysis in the Different Landscape Perfor-mances, Interreg Reports. Materials For Adriatic Cross Border Project Report no. 2 Progetto GES.S.TER. / Interreg IIIA, Campobasso Arti Grafiche La Regione, 2006.
[4] Cialdea, D. (eds), Environmental Assessment Interreg Reports. Materials for Adriatic Cross Border Project Report no. 3. Progetto GES.S.TER. / Interreg IIIA, Campobasso Arti Grafiche La Regione, 2007.
[5] Cialdea, D. (eds), A Network for Local Identities Value Interreg Reports. Materials for Adriatic Cross Border Project Report no. 4. Progetto GES.S.TER. / Interreg IIIA, Cam-pobasso Arti Grafiche La Regione, 2013.
[6] Cialdea, D., Planning activities in coastal areas: Italian and cross-border approaches along the Adriatic Sea. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Plan-ning, in press.
[7] Bruttomesso, R., Nuovi scenari urbani per le città d’acqua, Milano, Italia Nostra, 7 marzo 2007.
[8] Bruttomesso, R. & Moretti, M., Città-porto e riqualificazione del waterfront: evolu-zione e scenario di una strategia vincente. In Waterfront d’Italia. Piani, politiche, pro-getti, Franco Angeli, ed. M. Savino, Milano, pp. 18–27, 2010.
[9] Carta, M., Città liquida. I waterfront urbani come generatori di qualità. In Governare l’evoluzione. Principi, metodi e progetti per una urbanistica in azione, ed. M. Carta, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2009.
[10] Lino B., Aree urbane di waterfront in contesti “sensibili”: sostenibilità, pianificazione “multipla” e integrata, in Atti della XV Conferenza Nazionale SIU Società Italiana degli Urbanisti “L’urbanistica che cambia. Rischi e valori, Planum. The Journal of Urbanism, n. 25, vol. 3/2012.
[11] Regione Puglia, Legge regionale 29 luglio 2008 n. 21, Norme per la rigenerazione urbana.
[12] Regione Toscana, Legge regionale 10 novembre 2014, n. 65, Norme per il governo del territorio.
[13] City of Aalborg, Aalborg Commitments Secretariat, The Aalborg Commitments inspir-ing futures, 2004.
[14] ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, European Secretariat, Freiburg, Germania. Linee Guida per l’attuazione degli Aalborg Commitments. Un approccio metodologico a 5 fasi, European Secretariat GmbH, 2007.
[15] Unione Europea, Carta di Lipsia sulle Città Europee Sostenibili, 2007.
[16] Wasser stadt GmbH, Centre Cities on Water (2000), 10 Principles for a Sustainable Development of Urban Waterfront Areas, Berlin: Urban Future (URBAN 21) Confer-ence; July 2000.
[17] Hussein, R.M.R., Sustainable urban waterfronts using sustainability assessment rating system. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, 8(4), pp. 488–498, 2014.
[18] Giovinazzi, O. & Moretti, M., Città portuali e waterfront urbani: trasformazioni e opportunità in TeMA 03.09 Trimestrale del Laboratorio Territorio Mobilità e Ambiente - TeMA Lab, Vol 2 - No 3 - settembre 2009 - pp. 7–16, 2009.
[19] Sepe, M., La trasformazione di un waterfront urbano, in XXXII Conferenza Italiana di Scienze Regionali Rigenerazione Creativa e Sostenibilità, 2011.
[20] Carta, M., Dal waterfront alla città liquida. In Waterfront d’Italia. Piani, politiche, pro-getti, ed. M. Savino, Franco Angeli, Milano, pp. 31–32, 2010.
[21] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Com-merce. Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, USA, 2009.
[22] New York City Department of City Planning, Vision 2020, New York City Waterfront Plan-Comprehensive, 2011.
[23] New York City Department of City Planning, The New York City Waterfront Revitaliza-tion Program, 2002.
[24] New York City Department of City Planning, The New York City Waterfront Revitaliza-tion Program Approved Revisions, 2013.
[25] Consiglio Nazionale dell’Economia e del Lavoro, Rapporto Finale. Indicatori per lo sviluppo sostenibile in Italia, 2005.
[26] Zezza, A., Sviluppo sostenibile e agricoltura biologica. In Abitabile C. e Arzen A. (eds.), Misurare la sostenibilità dell’agricoltura biologica, INEA, 2013.
[27] Consiglio dell’Unione Europea, Nuova strategia europea per lo sviluppo sostenibile, Bruxelles, 2006.
[28] Nazioni Unite, Rapporto della Conferenza delle Nazioni Unite sull’ambiente e lo svi-luppo, Rio de Janeiro, 1992.
[29] Osberg, L. & Sharpe, A., An index of economic well-being for selected OECD coun-tries. Review of Income and Wealth, 48(3), 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-4991.00056
[30] Nordhaus, W. & Tobin, J., Is Growth Obsolete? In The Measurement of Economic
and Social Performance, Studies in Income and Wealth, National Bureau of Economic Research, 38, 1973.
[31] World Bank, World development indicators 1999, Washington D.C., 1999 and succes-sive integrated.
[32] Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W.E., Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New Society Publishing: Philadelphia, 1996.