European Planning Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Building on decay: urban regeneration and social

entrepreneurship in Italy through culture and the
arts

Sara Bonini Baraldi & Carlo Salone

To cite this article: Sara Bonini Baraldi & Carlo Salone (2022) Building on decay: urban
regeneration and social entrepreneurship in Italy through culture and the arts, European Planning
Studies, 30:10, 2102-2121, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2022.2030675

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2030675

Published online: 27 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 395

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceps20
EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
2022, VOL. 30, NO. 10, 2102–2121
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2030675

Building on decay: urban regeneration and social

entrepreneurship in Italy through culture and the arts
Sara Bonini Baraldi and Carlo Salone
DIST - Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, University of Turin, Turin,
Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper focuses on urban regeneration practices based on Received 22 June 2021
adaptive reuse projects in culture and the arts, where new forms Revised 11 January 2022
of social entrepreneurship emerge. Through in-depth qualitative Accepted 12 January 2022
research, we develop three case studies in three different urban
KEYWORDS
contexts in Italy: Turin, a large and highly industrialised city in Urban regeneration;
one of the country’s north-west regions; Terni, a medium-sized adaptive reuse; social
city in central Italy; and Favara, a small town in the province of entrepreneurship; art; Italy
Agrigento on the island of Sicily. Building on the case studies, we
outline a possible taxonomy of urban remains, entrepreneurship,
and adaptive reuse models, reflecting on the role of social
entrepreneurship and its peculiar governance and business
models, the specific features of adaptive reuse and urban
regeneration processes, and the relationship between art and
urban regeneration. Some closing remarks focus on how social
entrepreneurship in the cultural field challenges both scholars
and decision-makers.

1. Introduction
Transformations in declining or post-industrial urban areas are commonly associated
with revitalisation processes that integrate physical rehabilitation of the industrial
legacy, embellishment of public spaces and injection of new economic activities –
mostly cultural and creative industries. In this context, the relationships between art
and urban space have been thoroughly investigated by many scholars (Cooke & Laz-
zeretti, 2019; Markusen, 2006; Paddison, 1993; Scott, 2000; 2006; Zukin, 1995). Litera-
ture has further broadened the analytical spectrum, including the dimensions of
culture and art as key factors in regeneration processes that are examined from
different perspectives. Cities have been viewed as ‘laboratories’ in which the boundaries
between production and artistic and cultural consumption are defined and redefined in
a continuous process, creating the conditions for general urban prosperity (Glaeser,
2000). Alternatively, from a more critical perspective, it can be said that cultural
initiatives are immersed in rhetoric and an aesthetic directly connected to the domi-
nant regime of financial and cognitive capitalism that induces cities to invest in

CONTACT Sara Bonini Baraldi [email protected] DIST - Interuniversity Department of Regional and
Urban Studies and Planning, University of Turin, Viale Mattioli 39, 10125 Turin, Italy
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2103

public art programmes and cultural facilities to reinforce their competitive advantage
(Gibson & Kong, 2005).
‘Ordinary’ regeneration processes take place in large urban areas affected by the post-
industrial transition, and they are driven by real estate players in collaboration with a
public sector-oriented towards market solutions. This paper takes a different approach.
Investigating three urban cases in Italy it aims to investigate the relationship between
urban regeneration needs, adaptive reuse practices, and the emergence of forms of
social entrepreneurship in the wider context of the increasing centrality of social inno-
vation practices. The peculiar situation of many Italian cities, which are still dealing
with fiscal austerity and difficult shrinkage processes, allows us to add a neglected dimen-
sion to the debate on urban regeneration: small-scale interventions led by social entrepre-
neurship initiatives in cooperation - and sometimes in conflict - with government
organisations.
The article is structured as follows: section 2 outlines the theoretical background of the
study; section 3 briefly describes the contextual, methodological and analytical frame-
work; section 4 presents the three case studies in detail; section 5 discusses the
findings from the empirical inquiry; section 6 concludes with some general remarks.

2. Urban regeneration, social innovation, adaptive reuse and social

entrepreneurship
It may seem ‘old hat’ to be discussing urban regeneration. Indeed, the term is in danger of
being conceptualised and trivialised. Many studies in international literature seek to offer
a broad interpretation of the issue, including Leary and McCarthy (2013), who recognise
two pillars on which urban regeneration experiences are based: firstly, the Enlightenment
tradition underlying the Keynesian consensus of the capitalist West after World War II,
which preaches the centrality of public sector intervention in overcoming economic and
social inequalities in urban environments; secondly, the increasingly imposing forms of
urban entrepreneurialism since the 1970s (Harvey, 1989) that have involved large
amounts of private capital in implementing local public policies, in line with the neolib-
eral agenda. These two approaches have been combined differently over the years to
provide the regulatory foundations for intervention policies in cities, according to a
mechanism that has progressively seen the latter replace the former in urban planning
and governance practices.
At the centre of these regeneration policies, cultural assets and processes play a crucial
role in driving public and private investment and as the basis for discourse justifying
radical transformations of urban spaces (Paddison & Miles, 2020). Investments in cul-
tural facilities and cultural districts (Santagata, 2002) are considered crucial for sustain-
ing the economic prosperity and social wellness of urban areas in post-industrial
transition (Scott, 1997) and are seen to promote many aspects of the urban structure
from various points of view (Cuesta, 2004; Gibson & Stevenson, 2004; Tornaghi,
2008): the city image, the attraction of new activities, the material rehabilitation of
urban spaces, and social cohesion. Nevertheless, many critical points have been raised
by numerous authors: uneven social distribution of symbolic contents (Belfiore &
Bennett, 2007; Sharp et al., 2005); installations and public art events, which increase
real estate market values and gentrification (Mathews, 2010); and ‘Disneyfication’, due
2104 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

to the proliferation of stereotyped playscapes (Chatterton & Hollands, 2002). A further

critical assessment addresses a potential blind spot from the Anglo-Saxon perspective
by examining ‘other’ fields of practices, such as the experiences of southern European
cities (Rabbiosi et al., 2020).
Since the 2007 global financial crisis, the widespread effects of the financial collapse of
urban real estate markets and, at the same time, of public sector capacity to fund urban
development policies led to further lacerations of the material fabric and to demographic
and economic impoverishment (Knieling & Othengrafen, 2016). In these circumstances,
‘new’ practices, such as community-led initiatives inspired by the social innovation fra-
mework (McCallum et al., 2009), seem to provide fertile soil for the surge and prolifer-
ation of adaptive reuse experiences in many cities. Social innovation has conveyed ‘an
alternative view of urban development, focused on satisfaction of human needs (and
empowerment, i.e. social economy) through innovation in the relations within neigh-
bourhood and community governance’ (Moulaert et al., 2007: 196) and in the way of
‘using, producing, and exploiting tangible and intangible cultural assets’ (Tricarico
et al., 2020). Its approach is inter-sectoral and embraces several facets of urban life:
(re)use of spatial assets, promotion of new entrepreneurial initiatives, and policy-
making processes. Within such a framework, governance tools also reflect in many
experiences the change of perspective, dismissing the form of pro-market public-
private governance that structures neo-liberal urban policies, and embracing more or
less shared governance arrangements (Iaione, 2016), to the point of being based on
the initiative of citizens (Pradel, 2021).
Public institutions make increasing reference to social innovation and are encouraging
experiences in this direction. However, as for other fashionable concepts that have arisen
in planning debates over recent decades, there is a risk that this set of values may be trans-
lated by public decision-makers into ‘flanking mechanisms’ (Brenner and Theodore,
2002) which weaken their transformative potential (Bragaglia, 2021). Anyway, two
main interspersed families of practices descend from this perspective, offering to
urban scholars a promising field of investigation: on one hand, material interventions
on the physical fabric of the city dubbed as ‘adaptive reuse’ of abandoned spaces and,
on the other, an ample range of economic initiatives gathered under the umbrella of
‘social entrepreneurship’.
According to Douglas (2006), adaptive reuse refers to a significant change in function
of an existing building or space when its previous function has become obsolete.
Although several approaches to adaptive reuse can be distinguished (Pleovets & Van
Cleempoel, 2011), the most relevant cases go beyond simply preserving the external
elements of a building in order to satisfy a physical purpose, and include enhancing
the history of a site and its surroundings to maximise its environmental, social and econ-
omic benefits. Thus, investigating adaptive reuse models through cultural projects
implies understanding the relative weight of different goals, including the market reva-
luation of assets, the achievement of social effects, and the fulfilment of artistic ambitions.
Recent forms of adaptive reuse involve the temporary use of empty buildings by the
community, through a bottom-up approach (Németh & Langhorst, 2014). As such,
various forms of social entrepreneurship emerge, revealing an often ambiguous relation-
ship with both public bodies and official policies. Very broadly, social entrepreneurship
involves society as a whole taking a new entrepreneurial approach oriented towards the
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2105

satisfaction of social needs. Despite being seen differently by different authors (Peredo
and McLean, 2006; Dees 1998; Sullivan Mort et al., 2003; Short et. al, 2009, Mair and
Marti, 2006), all approaches recognise that it includes the co-presence of both ‘entrepre-
neurial’ and ‘social’ elements (Peredo and McLean, 2006). Being ‘entrepreneurial’ implies
the presence of innovation and financial risk (Schumpeter, 1980; Hagedoorn, 1996, and
Dees, 1998), requiring particular attention to economic sustainability and financial flows
within the business models of organisations (Baden-Fuller and Mangematin 2013; Shafer
et al. 2005). The ‘social’ component, on the other hand, requires entrepreneurs to incor-
porate the achievement of social goals (Peredo and McLean, 2006; Montanari and
Mizzau, 2015). However, the opposite can also be true, meaning that social players –
other than profit-seeking investors – might take a new entrepreneurial approach. In
this regard, in order to investigate governance forms of social entrepreneurship, we
must ascertain the role of civil society in the achievement of collective goals, understand-
ing its relationships with public bodies and the production sector from a network per-
spective (Rhodes, 2007).
As the borders between the state, the market and the third sector become blurred,
specific literature on social enterprises (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001), benefit corpor-
ations (Hiller, 2013), hybrid organisations (Doherty et al. 2014; Secinaro et al 2019)
and social business models (Yunus et al. 2010) is emerging. However, social entrepre-
neurship models and their links with urban regeneration processes are less frequently
studied when investigating cultural initiatives. Some valuable analyses have definitely
contributed to the construction of influential frameworks in the US and the UK (e.g.
Kleinhans et al., 2017; Varady et al., 2017; Imrie and Raco, 2003; Tallon, 2013). Yet, docu-
mented experiences outside the Anglo-Saxon context still remain rare and fragmented
(exceptions include Garcia et al., 2015 and Tremblay and Pilati, 2013, whose analyses
are focused, respectively, on Barcelona and on Montreal). Despite this paucity, we
believe that the European – and specifically Italian – context could be an interesting
field in which to investigate the relationship between adaptive reuse projects and
social entrepreneurship.

3. The contextual, methodological and analytical framework

Over the past decade, Italy has experienced a wide proliferation of adaptive reuse initiat-
ives, mostly initiated by bottom-up processes.1 This phenomenon was influenced by
three major factors. Firstly, the presence of a very high number of disused buildings
and spaces across the country – over one million vacant units/buildings (Campagnoli,
2014; Campagnoli and Tognetti, 2016). Secondly, the overall stalling of real-estate
values in the country, discouraging private investors (although, after a lengthy crisis
and the slowdown caused by Covid-19, the residential property market seems to be reco-
vering: Nomisma, 2021). Thirdly, the financial weakness of the public sector, dating back
at least to the 2008 sub-prime crisis and also reflected in the public building stock vacancy
(Mangialardo and Micelli, 2020; Micelli, 2018).
As a result, adaptive reuses are mostly undertaken by third-sector organisations,
driven both by the need for low-cost spaces and by the desire to recover the socio-
material fabric of specific urban neighbourhoods, inspired by social innovation ideals.
This process is also cultivated by public administrations, interested in involving the
2106 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

third sector as a source of complementary funding and in coming up with innovative

ideas to solve collective problems. In this regard, public support is ensured both by
making material assets belonging to the State available to third sector organisations
and by financially supporting reuse projects at these sites. The recent third sector
reform approved by the Italian government in 2016 (Law 106/2016) is moving in this
direction, introducing fiscal incentives for such initiatives.
While an academic debate on urban regeneration and social innovation in Italy is
fairly well-established (Ostanel 2017; Billi and Tricarico 2018; Cottino and Zandonai,
2012; Battistoni and Zandonai 2017; Calvaresi 2018), studies of social entrepreneurial
initiatives in the cultural field are still few and far between. The most salient experiences
include the cases of ExFadda in San Vito dei Normanni (Apulia) and Periferica in Mazara
del Vallo (Sicily) (Scaffidi, 2019), representing what Tricarico et al. (2020) call ‘Platform
Spaces’, based on multi-player cooperation. Rodighiero et al. (2019) propose an organis-
ational model for planning and managing creative and collaborative spaces in urban con-
texts. Fruitful insights have also been developed on community enterprises as new
infrastructural assets bearing local development (Tricarico, 2016, Tricarico and Pacchi,
2018). The creation and reinforcement of ‘community assets’ via the reuse of vacant
properties and the co-design of activities with marginal people have been successfully
explored (Tricarico, 2016; Ostanel, 2017).
In this context, our inquiry investigates three Italian cases in which artistic and cul-
tural revitalisation concerns small-scale groups of buildings. The case studies are at the
centre of two highly qualitative research projects we conducted from 2015–2018,
which share a common methodological design: in-depth desk analysis of documents,
scientific papers and newspaper articles; field visits to conduct observations and semi-
structured interviews2; and re-construction of cases in a preliminary summary format.
The first research project was conducted between 2015 and 2016 and focused on ‘Barriera
di Milano’ in Turin (Salone et al. 2017). Favara and Terni were part of a second research
project conducted in 2018, focused on the conditions for activating reuse of abandoned
urban spaces (Bonini Baraldi and Salone, 2020).
The material we collected subsequently aroused our curiosity about the connection
between urban regeneration, adaptive reuse and social entrepreneurship models. To
build upon this analysis, we looked at the related literature and, in the spirit of iterative
dialogue between ideas and evidence that characterises case-oriented research (Ragin,
1987), we constructed an analytical framework and attempted to make sense of the
data. We chose these three case studies as they are located in three very different
urban contexts: Turin, a large and highly industrialised city in a north-western region
of Italy (Piedmont); Terni, a medium-sized city located in central Italy (Umbria); and
Favara, a small town in the province of Agrigento (Sicily). These differences allowed
us to posit a taxonomy of urban remains and adaptive reuse projects. The remaining
four cases developed within the second study (Toolbox in Turin, Factory Grisù in
Ferrara, Officine Zero in Rome, and ex Fadda in San Vito dei Normanni) were briefly
used to broaden the perspective of the taxonomy and to open further issues.
While the three case studies used for this analysis differ in many important aspects, in
the next section we examine them within a common framework. Firstly, we focus on how
these urban vacuums came to exist (the urban context, and the need for urban regener-
ation). These ‘urban relics’ grew from the industrial crisis in the western world after the
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2107

1960s: the collapse of the car industry in Turin, the sulphur industry in Favara and the
iron industry in Terni all brought about profound urban changes, with consequent econ-
omic and social impacts on specific areas of the cities. Secondly, we focus on the devel-
opment of adaptive reuse projects (through culture and the arts): in all three cases,
abandoned spaces are chosen as sites for developing artistic and cultural projects.
Thirdly, as a specific contribution from our disciplinary approach, we outline the govern-
ance and business models used in the different initiatives. Although very different, the
three storeys demonstrate that social entrepreneurship plays an important role in adaptive
reuse and urban regeneration processes, and that these players have complex – if not
ambiguous – relationships with public bodies and policies.

4. Findings
4.1. FARM Cultural Park – favara
4.1.1. Urban context
Favara is an Italian municipality located in an inland area of Sicily in the province of
Agrigento, with about 30,000 inhabitants. Although enriched by the presence of one of
the most enchanting Greater Greece archaeological sites (Valley of the Temples, a
UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1997), Agrigento Province is one of the poorest
areas of southern Italy, with high levels of unemployment, crime and urban disarray.
Favara itself is a neglected city, where urban settlement has developed chaotically, and
there is little respect for public assets:
‘We have a strange mentality in Favara: what belongs to everyone doesn’t belong to anyone,
this is a rule. We have sumptuous, fantastic, more or less tasteful homes … you can see that a
lot of money has been spent on the interiors, but the façades are left raw’ (interview with
town council member, November 2018).

The old town in particular has suffered significant abandonment, leading to progress-
ive decay of the historical fabric. Following a crisis in the sulphur industry, from 1960, the
old houses of the original settlement – an intricate network of streets and courtyards
typical of the Islamic tradition – gave way to more modern, often unauthorised buildings
in newly-established neighbourhoods. The deterioration reached its height in 2010, when
two buildings collapsed, causing the death of two children.3 Since then, the municipal
administration has been forced to intervene, eventually carrying out preventive demoli-
tion of a large portion of the old town.

4.1.2. Adaptive reuse

At this point, Andrea Bartoli (a notary and art enthusiast) and Florinda Saieva (a lawyer
and architecture lover) enter the story. A cosmopolitan Sicilian couple with strong Chris-
tian values, they returned to Favara to create a sound, warm and stimulating environ-
ment in which to raise their daughters. To do so, they quickly realised they needed to
intervene in the city:
‘It wouldn’t make sense for me to give my daughter a lot of incentives, if she was the only
one to be stimulated: she would always find herself feeling misplaced. So we quickly realised
that we had to aim for growth of the city in general. We were regular visitors at the Palais de
Tokyo in Paris … so we said to ourselves: what is in Favara - the relationships, the family,
2108 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

our traditions - we cannot bring to Paris, but what is in Paris we can try to bring here’ (inter-
view with a representative of FARM, November 2018).

Investing large amounts of their own capital (around a million Euros in total, includ-
ing a mortgage loan), they purchased and renovated a series of buildings within a specific
area of the old town and transformed them into a contemporary art centre: FARM Cul-
tural Park. The initial idea was to undertake a participatory process. However, the
urgency to stop the decay and the demolition meant the couple had to accelerate the
process:
‘We wanted to start in 2012, because we were aiming to complete the purchase steadily in an
attempt to give some stability in the territory, to implement a participatory process. But we
had to completely bypass this phase, as the municipality received many notices of investi-
gation and started demolishing much of the old town’ (interview with a representative of
FARM, November, 2018).

Today, FARM is one of the most outstanding contemporary art and urban regener-
ation projects in southern Europe. The area activated by the project consists of a series
of small historic buildings and adjoining gardens in Arabic style located around seven
courtyards (i Sette Cortili). The heart is FARM XL: a major building that hosts a large
exhibition space, a small bookshop and a reception, as well as Sou, the only children’s
school of architecture in southern Europe. Other buildings around the courtyards are
home to artistic residencies, installations, a co-working space, a children’s museum, a
small restaurant, a shared kitchen and other multifunctional spaces, covering a total of
about 4,300 square metres indoors and 13,200 outdoors. Since 2010, FARM has attracted
an increasing number of artists, architects, designers, politicians, researchers and visitors
from all over the world (Faraci, 2017).
Thanks to FARM, the local economy is experiencing new development opportu-
nities: firstly, within the seven courtyards, where private owners have taken advantage
of the new interest in the area and have developed their own businesses, including
B&Bs and restaurants; secondly, in the old city and the surrounding areas, where
hospitality offerings (B&Bs and hotels) have gone from zero to 150 within five
years, and are likely to increase (tourism inflows – never really previously known
in Favara – now number about 120,000 per year). All in all, FARM seems to have
achieved huge economic and social impacts, although they have not been measured
precisely:
‘ … if you put together the seven or eight interventions that have been carried out, dozens
and dozens of B&Bs that have been generated and numerous premises that have been
opened and try to come up with an average, in these eight years it seems that about 20
million Euros have been spent around FARM. (…) There are also more intangible indi-
cators: the child of the seven courtyards who was a fierce stray cat and today has become
a lamb; the girl who has opened up about her homosexuality and probably would not
have done so’ (interview with a second representative of FARM, November 2018).

4.1.3. Social entrepreneurship

From its early years, FARM had a difficult relationship with the municipality. In 2017, fol-
lowing an objection from a private citizen, an order was issued by the municipal police
against FARM for illegally occupying public space with an art work. There was a risk
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2109

that FARM would be closed, but public opinion, and the involvement of Parliament’s
Culture Commission, led to the administration backing down. Today, FARM’s relation-
ship with the municipality is positive, although the impression is that FARM is seen
merely in terms of its impact on economic development, without being actively supported:
‘Thanks to FARM, we have seen that the key element of economic development is tourism.
With FARM, it has been proven that you can do tourism; nobody thought this was possible
in Favara’ (interview with a town council member, November 2018).

Indeed, FARM is completely privately funded (belonging to the Bartoli family) and
managed by a private association (FARM Cultural Park Association). It finances its
activities through revenues (entrance tickets to the exhibition and fees for special activi-
ties) and the Bartoli family’s personal contributions. It is supported by a cooperative of
private citizens who believe in the project, and is made possible thanks to voluntary con-
tributions of artists, intellectuals and businessmen all over the world.
While the original aim of the project has mostly been achieved – to redevelop an area
of the old town through art and culture – the Bartolis’ dream has grown bigger: to create a
company (Società per Azioni Buone – Company for Good Actions) to manage an exper-
imental fund in which everyone can invest in the old city of Favara, in a ‘common’
perspective:
‘If we have the ability, to make the citizens of Favara understand that by investing (not
donating) even only 10 per cent of their savings in good actions, we could redesign this
city, we could realise a multi-year development project that would benefit children, the
elderly, and integration. It would improve everyone’s quality of life’ (interview with a
second representative of FARM, November, 2018).

4.2. Barriera di milano – turin

4.2.1. Urban context
Barriera di Milano is a large neighbourhood in the north-east of Turin – once one of the
most industrialised areas of the city – founded in the second half of the nineteenth
century. Its rapid development, together with the presence of large factories linked to
the growing car industry, attracted thousands of inhabitants – especially in the period
from 1950 to 1970 – coming both from the countryside and from southern Italy. After
a population peak of around 110,000 in 1975 (Beraudo et al. 2006), the area lost most
of its residents over time, with many industries left abandoned. In recent years, immigra-
tion flows from Africa and Eastern Europe have led to a repopulation of the neighbour-
hood (currently around 47,100).
Over the years, the municipality of Turin has made great efforts to regenerate Barriera,
especially from 2007 to 2013. The Integrated Urban Development Programme (PISU)
played an important part in this. Its main objective is to improve the quality of public
spaces and mobility in an extremely densely populated area of the city (about three
times the city’s average). Simultaneously, large social housing projects have been devel-
oped, with little attention to green spaces and other environmental amenities (Armano
et al., 2016). Finally, the municipality recently proposed another urban regeneration
project called ‘Variante 200’, planning to use the impending construction of a new
subway line to attract investment for new housing, retail and leisure facilities.
2110 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

4.2.2. Adaptive reuse

The effects of these types of policies take time to develop, and thus to be measured. In the
meantime, Barriera has spontaneously become a beacon for cultural activities and initiat-
ives, so much so that it has earned the nickname of the ‘Chelsea of Turin’. Without being

Table 1. 18 cultural initiatives in Barriera di Milano: content and spaces.

Content of the initiative Spaces
4’33’’ Educational activities and creative workshops for No space. Activities run in other spaces or public
children to raise awareness of diet, sound and spaces
drawing
Antiloco/ Cultural production in the cinema field linked to Municipal spaces granted for use free of charge
piccolo social issues and the attempt to foster three days a week
Cinema widespread inclusive participation of local
citizens
Atelier Heritage Permanent workshop for children focusing on Project hosted in Via Baltea 3 by Su Misura or
active knowledge and aware use of the cultural mobile activities in public spaces
heritage
Bagni Via Agliè ‘Casa del Quartiere’ (‘neighborhood house’) with Former public baths, granted for use free of
public baths. Cultural centre for meetings and charge by the municipality, restructured with
interaction among different generations funding from a banking foundation
Bellissimo Creative design studio for branding and Former Reguzzoni factory, now shared
advertising ownership divided into working area and
show room
Bulgini Visual art Home studio, projects run in the neighbourhood
Bunker Cultural, nature and sporting activities run in a Former industrial site granted for use free of
disused industrial area. Hosts other groups charge by private owner
working in the circus and visual arts
Diogene Residence/studio and operating site for visual Restored tram carriage granted for use by
arts research in a restored tram located on a Gruppo Torino Trasporti
roundabout
Fondazione Social activities aiming to develop the study of Space owned by a cooperative of 40 families in
Amendola the thought of politician Giorgio Amendola. the ground of the ex-Hospital San Giovanni
Exhibitions, library and publications Maggiore
Gagliardi Commercial art gallery, approach including Ex automotive cable factory, space owned by
multiple forms of artistic expression the gallery
Le Ginestre Premises of the Association Valprato15, bar- Space owned by the association
restaurant, jazz club. Organizes music schools
and festivals, commercial activities, concerts,
neighbourhood festivals
MEF Private modern and contemporary art museum. Spaces rented from a real-estate company set up
Exhibitions, educational events and local specifically to purchase the property
projects run with other organizations
Plinto – Casa Group of young architects working in the field of Ex Nebbiolo factory. Granted for use by the
Zera self-construction, design, communication and municipality to the Polytechnic, but managed
urban regeneration by DEGA (private architecture firm)
Saroldi Photographer Home studio
Spazio 211 Musical facilities and rehearsal rooms, supporting Former day centre for the elderly, granted for
independent youth cultural productions and (regulated) use by the neighbourhood council
alternative culture (owner) and the city (protocol of
understanding)
Trad! Theatrical production, music and dance school Former foundry rented by private owner,
enhancing southern popular music. Spaces previously a single room but modified for
rented to other organizations these activities
Via Baltea 3 Commercial activities with making and Space rented from private owner, ex-print shop
citizenship workshops, a social café, lounge restored at the expense of the organization
and kitchen for rent, co-working and two
theatre and jazz schools
Zucca Architecture firm, gym (for rent) and residential Ex brick factory, space owned by the firm
association enhancing public spaces and
industrial architecture
Source: authors’ work
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2111

exhaustive, we have analysed 18 of these initiatives, ranging from architecture to design,

to visual arts to cinema and more, mostly located in abandoned spaces (see Table 1).
Our interviewees moved to Barriera di Milano primarily because of the cheap avail-
ability of appropriate spaces for developing cultural projects. Indeed, all initiatives
were transferred to Barriera after 2007, when the financial crisis began.
‘The buildings in the neighbourhood are easy to buy or rent. They have particular architec-
tural characteristics: lofts, low buildings, workshops offering expressive places for the crea-
tivity present in the city at advantageous prices. […] We noted that many artists have
decided to settle here to take advantage of the economic convenience’ (interview with
MEF Director, January 2015).

However, many initiatives are also implemented to achieve positive social impacts:
‘In this neighbourhood around 70 per cent of the children registered with primary schools
are children of immigrants. I was interested in working with them and for them’ (interview
with Atelier Heritage representative, March 2015).

4.2.2. Social entrepreneurship

Apart from two university projects, private interests drive the transformation of the
neighbourhood. Indeed, the various initiatives all have a high degree of independence.
As such, most of them are not reliant on public funding: some are fully independent,
while others use public funds for specific projects but not for their day-to-day operations.
In many cases, public support comes in the form of a non-financial benefit, such as free
or discounted use of spaces. However, many of our interviewees clearly saw their inde-
pendence as a choice:
‘To remain independent, we never applied for funding. This was an explicit desire right from
the start, which remained part of our everyday action’ (interview with Spazio211 represen-
tative, March 2015).

At the same time, very few of them rely on private grants: while the public sector
seems to have withdrawn, it has certainly not been replaced by private patronage.
Indeed, to achieve financial sustainability, most organisations undertake commercial
or entertainment activities (bars, courses and events). In short, instead of seeking
external funding, those involved in Barriera seem to have chosen the road of
entrepreneurialism.

4.3. Caos – terni

4.3.1. Urban context
The history of CAOS in Terni, a medium-sized city located in Umbria (a central
region of Italy), intersects with the long process of de-industrialisation affecting
many large-scale industrial centres in north-western countries over the past century.
The urban area in which CAOS is located is close to the historical centre and consti-
tutes a modern addition to the city, known as the Garden Town. It is a remarkable
example of industrial archaeology, with its combination of canals and late-nineteenth
century industrial factories. Historically, the site was one of the first industrial initiat-
ives promoted by the Papal State, the pre-unitary state ruling many regions of central
2112 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

Italy, and officially inaugurated in 1793. Iron and chemical production continued from
the nineteenth century until 1985, when the site was closed, which led to a decade of
abandonment and physical decay.

4.3.2. Adaptive reuse

In the mid-1990s, the municipality decided to reclaim the area, reinventing its role within
the changed, post-industrial economy of the city as a location for new cultural functions.
This was funded by EU structural funds available for old industrialised regions and some
national urban regeneration programmes which the central government launched in the
same period:
‘This space was established thanks to the municipality’s decision to use EU structural funds
for the restoration of an industrial archaeological building’ (interview with Indisciplinarte
representative, December 2018).

The properties had been bought partly by the municipality and partly by a private
firm, Coop Centro Italia, operating in the large-scale distribution sector. In 2007 Indis-
ciplinarte – a cultural association that promotes contemporary culture at national level,
but with strong roots in the city – was granted permission to use part of the area tempor-
arily to organise a cultural festival. Thanks to the success of the initiative, the local admin-
istration’s vision shifted from a conventional project for museum facilities to a more
advanced proposal for a cultural district:
‘Initially, in the municipality’s vision, the site was to host the city museum with archaeolo-
gical collections. Then, a council member had the idea of creating a cultural district […] and
decided to choose the contemporary as an investment priority’ (interview with Indiscipli-
narte representative, December 2018).

As a result, Indisciplinarte decided to return to Terni, and started consultative and

planning activities with the municipality. The end product of this collaboration is
CAOS, which promotes cultural production in various artistic sectors from archaeology
to modern and contemporary visual and performing arts, and uses the industrial legacy
of the old factory district. The centre covers approximately 44,000 square metres, includ-
ing 12,000 square metres (6,000 indoors and 6,000 outdoors) of former industrial sites. It
currently includes two museums (for modern and contemporary art), spaces for tempor-
ary exhibitions and workshops, a theatre, a video room, a fab lab, artistic residences, a
guest house, a bookshop, a cafeteria and other spaces hosting a range of cultural services.

4.3.3. Social entrepreneurship

From the governance point of view, CAOS is based on a triple partnership involving a
public administration (the municipality of Terni), a large private company (Coop) and
other private profit and non-profit entities (including Indisciplinarte) working in the cul-
tural or social field. In just a few years – and thanks to the artistic direction of Indisci-
plinarte – it has become a reference point in the field of contemporary theatre at
national and international level.
Compared with the previous two cases, the level of investment and resources are sig-
nificant, both in absolute terms and in terms of local authority funding: according to our
sources, investment in the area totalled 65 million Euros, of which 7,610,000 Euros (from
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2113

the municipality, the region, and the EU) allocated to CAOS, with an additional yearly
contribution of about 500,000 Euros.
Despite this investment, political changes at local level, with the arrival of a right-wing
coalition in 2018, are currently challenging the relationships between the municipality
and the consortium. A reduction in the yearly grant is a possibility:
‘In my opinion, the reasons for redefining the initiative are economic, as the municipality is
in financial disarray and in this situation it is difficult to find 500,000 Euros per year just to
manage those spaces and sacrifice […] other cultural activities in the city’ (interview with
municipal Cultural Services Officer, December 2018).

Indeed, while the local administration’s support was a competitive advantage for the
project, today, after the political change and the new agenda, it is the project’s greatest
weakness.

5. Discussion
The cases reveal three different models of urban regeneration adaptive reuse and social
entrepreneurship in three different contexts, suggesting a simple taxonomy: (1) post-
industrial peripheries in large urban settings: Turin; (2) sites abandoned by public indus-
try in a mid-size city: Terni; (3) historical centres in serious decay in a small town of the
South: Favara. While being neither exhaustive nor deterministic, our taxonomy supports
some reflections on three different levels, which reflect our theoretical focus: the role of
social entrepreneurship and its peculiar governance and business models, the specific fea-
tures of adaptive reuse and urban regeneration processes, and the relationship between
art and urban regeneration. Rather than being separated, the three levels of reflection
are strongly interrelated (see Table 2).
Firstly, in terms of social entrepreneurship, all three cases show how civil society can
self-organise in response to a lack of action in the public sector due to austerity measures.
This is true in Turin, where bottom-up initiatives shaped the new image of an old indus-
trial neighbourhood, and in Favara, where a wealthy, forward-looking couple took on the
municipal administration’s role in preserving the old city. It is also the case in Terni,
where the non-profit partner (Indisciplinarte) played a key role both in terms of

Table 2. A possible taxonomy of social entrepreneurship, adaptive reuse and urban regeneration.
Urban context Social entrepreneurship Adaptive reuse
Historical centres in decay in a small − Governance: family social business − Social improvement as priority aim
historical town (Favara) − Business model: based on private − Art as instrumental to social goals
funds − Market re-evaluation as a non-priority
outcome

Postindustrial peripheries in large − Governance: diffused non-profit − Art as priority aim

urban settings (Turin) entrepreneurship − Social impact and market re-
− Business model: based on evaluation as a non-priority
commercial activity outcome

Sites abandoned by big industry in a − Governance: public–private and − Market re-evaluation as a priority aim
mid-size city (Terni) not-for-profit partnership − Art as instrumental for economic (and
− Business model: based on public social) redevelopment
funds

Source: Authors’ work

2114 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

content and administrative solutions, driving the cultural policies of the city for many
years. In summary, urban crisis and subsequent adaptive reuse seem to stimulate initiat-
ives oriented towards social entrepreneurship.
Moreover, the three cases allow us to deepen our understanding of social entrepre-
neurship, identifying three different models, with different solutions in terms of govern-
ance and business models. As for governance, the Turin case identifies a model of
multiple actions and players – or a ‘diffused non-profit entrepreneurship model’ –
which might reflect the urban and historical complexity of a (big) city. Here, there is
no major, single player but, instead, a plethora of small entities – each with its own
vision/goal/tools – which interact with each other and come together in unexpected
and independent ways. Most of these entities gather revenues through commercial activi-
ties, with a business model where the value created for the final consumer is a mix of cul-
tural, social and market product/services.
Curiously, the other case we analysed in Turin in our wider research project (Toolbox,
a co-working space located in an old fashion company and foundry building) reveals sig-
nificant similarities with the case of Barriera: while being funded and managed by a single
private corporation, its overall value proposition and financial sustainability is based on
the co-presence of a plethora of private partners and individual freelancers who share
common spaces and services, including culture-related workshops and events (Bonini
Baraldi and Salone, 2020). Once again, here, no public support is given.
In Terni, the crisis of the major public company led to a public-led intervention,
although with significant contributions from private partners (both for profit –
Coop – and not for profit – Indisciplinarte), in what could be termed a ‘public-private
and not-for-profit partnership model’. Economic sustainability in this case is guaranteed
by a yearly budget from the municipality, with a business model based on public funds.
Similar experiences can be found in two other cases located in medium-sized cities
(Factory Grisù in Ferrara and Ex Fadda in San Vito dei Normanni) where the private
initiative is matched by an active role of the local administrations in supporting the pro-
jects (Bonini Baraldi and Salone, 2020). The socio-urban morphology of Favara – a
shrinking historical centre in a small southern city – highlights a possible third way:
that of a ‘family social business model’, a sort of postmodern patronage rooted in Chris-
tian values in which personal and social aims converge in an entrepreneurial approach to
the city. Funds – especially investment funds – are obtained from private investments,
with no contribution from public entities and little margin provided by commercial
activities.
In short, responses to the same phenomena – the urban crisis exacerbated by ‘expan-
sionary austerity’ (Rossi, 2017) and the creation of material ‘voids’ in urban contexts –
might engender different governance and business models, according to a city’s
specific history, social capital and fabric. The potential solutions and the extent of this
correlation are, of course, open to debate, and cannot be inferred from our limited
case selection. The Officine Zero case in Rome, for instance, began from the illegal occu-
pation of the former Rail Service Italia buildings by a group of artists and workers,
demonstrating an additional (extreme) case of social entrepreneurship in an exception-
ally conflicted area of the capital city (Bonini Baraldi and Salone, 2020). Our analysis
does, however, expose the simplistic dichotomy around which urban regeneration litera-
ture traditionally moves: on the one hand, Keynesian interpretations that posit a
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2115

fundamental role for government and public policies in urban regeneration policies; on
the other hand, neoliberal approaches (Harvey, 1989) that highlight private capital,
mostly from for-profit developers, as the only alternative to public intervention (Leary
& McCarthy, 2013). Indeed, our cases highlight the possible spectrum of solutions,
with the emergence of an urban entrepreneurialism which – also in the cultural field –
clearly distances itself from the current neoliberal perspective. Instead, we find initiatives
oriented towards philanthropy (the FARM model in Favara) or to diffuse social entrepre-
neurship (the Barriera Model in Turin), which seek economic sustainability rather than
profitability. Paradoxically, it is precisely CAOS – the only public-led solution – that is
most fragile, while Favara and Barriera, although fluid, seem more resilient.
The peculiar social entrepreneurship models in which urban regeneration processes
have taken shape in our three cases lead us to a second reflection, related to the role
of adaptive reuse in urban regeneration. Indeed, our cases reveal that adaptive reuse
can have many different goals and urban regeneration can take different forms. In
Terni, for instance, there is a clear commercial objective for the reuse initiative, where
the private for-profit partner (Coop) and the public partner (the municipality) are
both interested – albeit with other actors – in the market values of the area. Art, in
this case, is seen ex-ante as a tool for the economic redevelopment of an abandoned
building/area. In Favara and Turin, however, the aim is not to increase the market
value of specific assets; rather, it constitutes a non-priority (unexpected?) outcome. In
Turin, reuse initiatives seek primarily to develop cultural projects, while in Favara, art
and cultural projects specifically seek to improve the social conditions in the city.
Indeed, compared with traditional adaptive reuse projects, where the history of the arte-
fact is a central aspect of the work (Robiglio, 2016), our experiences reveal a very different
approach. Here, the material asset remains in the background: the starting point is not
the restoration of physical structures, but the restoration of a social condition or the
enablement of a cultural process. The preservation of the building appears in this
sense to be instrumental and not the primary purpose. Curiously, the social entrepre-
neurship model based on public funds (Terni) is the only one in which the primary
goal is speculative, while the two privately funded projects (through philanthropy or
the market) have little interest in commercial goals.
Finally, our case studies also trigger an observation on the role of art in urban regen-
eration. Critical contributors have underlined the elite character of urban policies centred
on cultural and creative industries, which are blamed for being frequently exploited to
justify more or less radical processes of social substitution and gentrification (Peck,
2005; Ponzini & Rossi, 2010). While this may be true in large urban regeneration pro-
grammes based on top-down processes (Harvey, 1989; Swyngedouw et al. 2002), it is
not so in our cases. In all three, art is the pivotal factor around which the ‘rebirth’ of
spaces takes place, even when it is not intended as the primary goal. Precisely due to
their bottom-up nature (personified in Indisciplinarte in Terni), what emerges is the
ability of these initiatives to reinterpret art – even the most ‘difficult’ and sophisticated
language (such as contemporary art) – and steer artistic projects towards political and
social meanings that are closely linked to those emerging in a specific spatial context
and strongly felt by its inhabitants. The effect is that of grasping the attention of
people uninterested in art itself or who have limited cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1979;
Rota & Salone, 2014). Paradoxically, if it is true that art makes social issues intelligible,
2116 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

the opposite is also true: social themes can bring people closer to art – with an unexpected
win–win result.

6. Final remarks
Like many other examples of urban actions, urban regeneration practices are also highly
differentiated according to both their spatial characteristics and historic circumstances.
This basic observation acquires more clarity and significance when considering experi-
ences realised in ‘ordinary cities’ (Robinson, 2006), where opportunities for urban devel-
opment are less favourable to the major players than in more affluent cities. Our three
case studies fall within this category, allowing us to observe the surge of social entrepre-
neurship as a response to urban regeneration needs in areas where material voids create
interesting opportunities for social initiatives (Rabbiosi et al., 2020).
However, social entrepreneurship itself does not follow a single model: the analysis
reveals different governance/business models for adaptive reuse interventions. At the
same time, there is no single approach to adaptive reuse: while the social aim is
always present, it might be overtaken by commercial purposes (asset market values)
or merely artistic goals, according to the origin of the initiative. Art itself can be a
primary goal or an instrumental tool for urban regeneration, on the one hand,
and/or for influencing asset market values on the other hand. Indeed,
different social entrepreneurial models are linked both to the social context and to
the urban fabric, with consequent opportunities in terms of adaptive reuse, in the
sense that socio-spatial characteristics trigger site-specific responses from organisations
and influence their modus operandi. While establishing deterministic correlations is
not the aim of this paper, the link between governance solutions, adaptive reuse pro-
jects, and the typology of regeneration processes might be an interesting field to
explore.
Several implications for public policies ensue from our analysis. Firstly, simplifying
regulations are no longer sufficient to address the decreased dynamism of the property
markets. Confirming what Mangialardo & Micelli (2017) already state, it appears necess-
ary to focus on demand – i.e. those who ultimately use the real estate – to develop more
effective policies. Secondly, the need for actions focused on the demand side is now facing
radically new conditions engendered by the COVID-19 emergency. Even though any
prediction is currently unreliable, many signs seem to herald that the macro-geographical
patterns of urbanisation are unlikely to change (Florida et al. 2021). Nonetheless, at local,
micro-urban scale some transformations are already unfolding, affecting the spaces of
work and consumption and, above all, the functional organisation of the urban space.
The short-term tendency of the high-income population to leave urban cores for
upscale suburbs or well-equipped medium-sized cities due to health scaring as a result
of the pandemic, and the decline of central commercial districts might trigger a signifi-
cant decrease in real estate values in central areas and encourage the arrival of young
people, artists and creative spirits, with an increased trend towards revitalising aban-
doned buildings (Florida et al., 2021). This could open new opportunities for alternative
uses that can stimulate new regulatory frameworks to avoid the deterioration of urban
spaces and encourage local initiatives in the domain of social and cultural services
(Scott, 2020).
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2117

Notes
1. For an extended overview, see www.riusiamolitalia.it (last access: 6/12/21)
2. The number of field visits varied according to the complexity of the case. We spent two days
in Favara and Terni, and made 18 part-time visits to Turin. Each interview at the three sites
was recorded and transcribed by the authors.
3. https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2010/01/23/news/favara_crollo-2047962/ (last access:
May 2021).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Sara Bonini Baraldi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6853-8075
Carlo Salone http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9112-541X

References
Armano, E., C. A. Dondona, and F. Ferlaino. 2016. Postfordismo e Trasformazione Urbana. Casi di
Recupero dei Vuoti Industriali e Indicazioni per le Politiche nel Territorio Torinese. Torino: IRES-
Regione Piemonte.
Baden-Fuller, C., and V. Mangematin. 2013. “Business Models: A Challenging Agenda.” Strategic
Organization 11 (4): 418–427. doi:10.1177/1476127013510112.
Battistoni, F., and F. Zandonai. 2017. “La Rigenerazione Sociale nel Dominio dei Commons:
Gestione e Governo dei Community Asset Ferroviari.” Territorio 83:121–127.
Belfiore, E., and O. Bennett. 2007. “Rethinking the Social Impacts of the Arts.” International
Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (2): 135–151. doi:10.1080/10286630701342741.
Beraudo, G., A. Castrovilli, and C. Seminara. 2006. “Storia Della Barriera di Milano dal 1946.”
Grugliasco (TO), Associazione Culturale Officina Della Memoria.
Billi, A., and L. Tricarico. 2018, May. “Regional Development Policies in Italy: How to Combine
Cultural Approaches with Social Innovation.” In International Symposium on new Metropolitan
Perspectives, edited by Springer 277–287. Cham: Switzerland.
Bonini Baraldi, S., and C. Salone. 2020. “Governance, Economic Sustainability and Socio-Spatial
Relationships.” In Abandoned Buildings in Contemporary City. Smart Conditions for Actions,
edited by I. Lami, 133–145. Cham: Switzerland.
Borzaga, C., and J. Defourny, ed. 2001. The Emergence of Social Enterprises. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. 1979. “Les trois états du capital culturel [The three states of cultural capital].” Actes de
la recherche en sciences sociales 30 (1): 3–6. doi:10.3406/arss.1979.2654.
Bragaglia, F. 2021. “Social Innovation as a ‘Magic Concept’ for Policy-Makers and its
Implications for Urban Governance.” Planning Theory 20 (2): 102–120. doi:10.1177/
1473095220934832.
Brenner, N., and N. Theodore. 2002. “Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing
Neoliberalism”.” Antipode 34 (3): 349–379. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00246.
Calvaresi, C. 2018. “Urban Agenda and Community Hub.” Territorio 84: 105–110. doi:10.3280/
TR2018-084016.
Campagnoli, G. 2014. Riusiamo L’Italia: Da Spazi Vuoti a Start-up Culturali e Sociali. MIlano:
Gruppo 24 ore.
Campagnoli, G. Tognetti, R. 2016. Italia da riusare. La nuova ecologia, 10: 42–44.
Chatterton, P., and R. Hollands. 2002. “Theorising Urban Playscapes: Producing, Regulating and
Consuming Youthful Nightlife City Spaces.” Urban Studies London 39 (1): 95–116. doi:10.1080/
00420980220099096.
2118 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

Cooke, P., and L. Lazzeretti, ed. 2019. The Role of Art and Culture for Regional and Urban
Resilience. New York: Routledge.
Cottino, P., and F. Zandonai. 2012. Progetti d’Impresa Sociale come Strategie di Rigenerazione
Urbana: Spazi e Metodi per l’Innovazione Sociale (Projects of Social Enterprise as Strategies of
Urban Regeneration: Methods and Spaces for Social Innovation).
Cuesta, J. 2004. “From Economicist to Culturalist Development Theories: How Strong is the
Relation between Cultural Aspects and Economic Development?” The European Journal of
Development Research 16 (4): 868–891. doi:10.1080/09578810412331332677.
Dees, J. G. 1998. The meaning of social entrepreneurship. http://www.redalmarza.cl/ing/pdf/
TheMeaningofsocialEntrepreneurship.pdf [Last access: 20 October 2020]
Doherty, B., H. Haugh, and F. Lyon. 2014. “Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review
and Research Agenda.” International Journal of Management Reviews 16 (4): 417–436. doi:10.
1111/ijmr.12028.
Douglas, J. 2006. Building Adaptation (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Spon Press.
Faraci, G. 2017. “FARM Cultural Park: An Experience of Social Innovation in the Recovery of the
Historical Centre of Favara.” Procedia Environmental Sciences 37: 676–688. doi:10.1016/j.
proenv.2017.03.054.
Florida, R., A. Rodríguez-Pose, and M. Storper. 2021. “Cities in a Post-COVID World.” Urban
Studies, 1–23. doi:10.1177/00420980211018072
García, M., S. Eizaguirre, and M. Pradel. 2015. “Social Innovation and Creativity in Cities: A
Socially Inclusive Governance Approach in Two Peripheral Spaces of Barcelona.” City,
Culture and Society 6 (4): 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2015.07.001.
Gibson, C., and L. Kong. 2005. “Cultural Economy: A Critical Review.” Progress in Human
Geography 29 (5): 541–561. doi:10.1191/0309132505ph567oa.
Gibson, L., and D. Stevenson. 2004. “Urban Space and the Uses of Culture.” International Journal
of Cultural Policy 10 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1080/1028663042000212292.
Glaeser, E. L. 2000. “The New Economics of Urban and Regional Growth.” The Oxford Handbook
of Economic Geography 37 (3): 289–302.
Hagedoorn, J. 1996. “Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Revisited.” Industrial and
Corporate Change 5 (3): 883–896. doi:10.1093/icc/5.3.883.
Harvey, D. 1989. “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban
Governance in Late Capitalism.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 71 (1): 3–
17. doi:10.1080/04353684.1989.11879583.
Hiller, J. S. 2013. “The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Journal of
Business Ethics 118 (2): 287–301. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1580-3.
Iaione, C. 2016. “The CO-City: Sharing, Collaborating, Cooperating, and Commoning in the
City.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 75 (2): 415–455. doi:10.1111/ajes.12145.
Imrie, R., and M. Raco, ed. 2003. Urban Renaissance?: New Labour, Community and Urban Policy.
Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Kleinhans, R., D. Reuschke, M. van Ham, C. Mason, and S. Syrett. 2017. “Unravelling the Nexus
between Entrepreneurship, Neighbourhoods and Communities–Introduction.” In
Entrepreneurial Neighbourhoods, edited by Edward Elgar Publishing, 1–17. Cheltenham, UK
and Northampton, MA, USA.
Knieling, J., and F. Othengrafen, ed. 2016. Cities in Crisis: Socio-Spatial Impacts of the Economic
Crisis in Southern European Cities. Abingdon: Routledge.
Leary, M. E., and J. McCarthy, ed. 2013. The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration.
Abingdon: Routledge.
MacCallum, D., F. Moulaert, J. Hillier, et al. 2009. Social Innovation and Territorial Development.
Farnham: Ashgate.
Mair, J., and I. Marti. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation,
Prediction, and Delight.” Journal of World Business 41 (1): 36–44. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.
002.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2119

Mangialardo, A., and E. Micelli. 2017. “Simulation Models to Evaluate the Value Creation of the
Grass-Roots Participation in the Enhancement of Public Real-Estate Assets with Evidence from
Italy.” Buildings 7 (4): 100. doi:10.3390/buildings7040100.
Mangialardo, A., and E. Micelli. 2020. “Participation, Culture, Entrepreneurship: Using Public
Real Estate Assets to Create New Urban Regeneration Models.” In Abandoned Buildings in
Contemporary Cities: Smart Conditions for Actions, edited by Springer 19–27. Cham:
Switzerland.
Markusen, A. 2006. “Urban Development and the Politics of a Creative Class: Evidence from a
Study of Artists.” Environment and planning A 38 (10): 1921–1940. doi:10.1068/a38179.
Mathews, V. 2010. “Aestheticizing Space: Art, Gentrification and the City.” Geography Compass 4
(6): 660–675. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00331.x.
Micelli, E. 2018. Enabling real property : how public real estate assets can serve urban regeneration,
Territorio, 87 (4): 93–97.
Montanari, F., and L. Mizzau. 2015. “Rigenerazione Urbana, Cultura e Innovazione Sociale: Stato
Dell’arte e Dibattiti in Corso.” In (a Cura di) Laboratori Urbani. Organizzare la Rigenerazione
Urbana Attraverso la Cultura e L’innovazione Sociale, Quaderni Della Fondazione Brodolini,
edited by F. Montanari, and L. Mizzau, 13–23. Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini: Rome.
Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, S. González, and E. Swyngedouw. 2007. Introduction: social innovation
and governance in European cities: urban development between path dependency and radical
innovation.
Németh, J., and J. Langhorst. 2014. “Rethinking Urban Transformation: Temporary uses for
Vacant Land.” Cities 40: 143–150. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.007.
Nomisma. 2021. 3° Rapporto sul mercato immobiliare, Bologna https://www.nomisma.it/
andamento-mercato-immobiliare-2021-nel-3-rapporto-nomisma/
Ostanel, E. 2017. “Urban Regeneration and Social Innovation: The Role of Community Based
Organisations in the Railway Station Area in Padua, Italy.” Journal of Urban Regeneration &
Renewal 11 (1): 79–91.
Paddison, R. 1993. “City Marketing, Image Reconstruction and Urban Regeneration.” Urban
Studies 30 (2): 339–349. doi:10.1080/00420989320080331.
Paddison, R., and R. S. Miles, eds. 2020. Culture-led Urban Regeneration. New York, NY, USA and
Canada: Routledge.
Peck, J. 2005. “Struggling with the Creative Class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 29 (4): 740–770. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00620.x.
Peredo, A. M., and M. McLean. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept.”
Journal of World Business 41 (1): 56–65. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007.
Plevoets, B., and K. Van Cleempoel. 2011. “Adaptive Reuse as a Strategy Towards Conservation of
Cultural Heritage: A Literature Review.” Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of
Heritage Architecture XII 118 (12): 155–163.
Ponzini, D., and U. Rossi. 2010. “Becoming a Creative City: The Entrepreneurial Mayor, Network
Politics and the Promise of an Urban Renaissance.” Urban Studies 47 (5): 1037–1057. doi:10.
1177/0042098009353073.
Pradel, M. 2021. “Analysing the Role of Citizens in Urban Regeneration: Bottom-Linked
Initiatives in Barcelona.” Urban Research & Practice 14 (3): 307–324. doi:10.1080/17535069.
2020.1737725.
Rabbiosi, C., R. Coletti, and C. Salone. 2020. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Between Practices
and Policies. Rethinking Urban Regeneration in Southern European Cities after the Crisis.”
Urban Research & Practice 14 (3): 1–6.
Ragin, C. 1987. The Comparative Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rhodes, R. A. 2007. “Understanding Governance: Ten Years on.” Organization Studies 28 (8):
1243–1264. doi:10.1177/0170840607076586.
Robiglio, M. (2016). The adaptive reuse toolkit. How Cities Can Turn Their Industrial Legacy into
Infrastructure for Innovation and Growth. GMF Urban and regional policy paper. 30: 1–32.
Robinson, J. 2006. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. London, UK: Psychology
Press.
2120 S. B. BARALDI AND C. SALONE

Rodighiero, S., L. Mizzau, and F. Montanari. 2019. “Making Room for Creativity: Toward an
Organizational Model for Creative and Collaborative Spaces.” 19th euram (European
academy of Management) annual conference. BEL.
Rossi, U. 2017. Cities in Global Capitalism. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Rota, F. S., and C. Salone. 2014. “Place-Making Processes in Unconventional Cultural Practices.
The Case of Turin’s Contemporary art Festival Paratissima.” Cities 40: 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.
cities.2014.03.008.
Salone, C., S. Bonini Baraldi, and G. Pazzola. 2017. “Cultural Production in Peripheral Urban
Spaces: Lessons from Barriera, Turin (Italy).” European Planning Studies 25 (12): 2117–2137.
doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1327033.
Santagata, W. 2002. “Cultural Districts, Property Rights and Sustainable Economic Growth.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26 (1): 9–23. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.
00360.
Scaffidi, F. 2019. “Soft Power in Recycling Spaces: Exploring Spatial Impacts of Regeneration and
Youth Entrepreneurship in Southern Italy.” Local Economy 34 (7): 632–656. doi:10.1177/
0269094219891647.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934, 1980. The Theory of Economic Development. London: Oxford University
Press.
Scott, A. J. 1997. “The Cultural Economy of Cities.” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 21 (2): 323–339. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00075.
Scott, A. J. 2000. The Cultural Economy of Cities: Essays on the Geography of Image-Producing
Industries. London: Sage.
Scott, A. J. 2006. “Creative Cities: Conceptual Issues and Policy Questions.” Journal of Urban
Affairs 28 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.0735-2166.2006.00256.x.
Scott, M. 2020. “Covid-19, Place-Making and Health.” Planning Theory and Practice 21 (3): 343–
348. doi:10.1080/14649357.2020.1781445.
Secinaro, S., L. Corvo, V. Brescia, and D. Iannaci. 2019. “Hybrid Organizations: A Systematic
Review of the Current Literature.” International Business Research 12 (11): 1–21. doi:10.5539/
ibr.v12n11p1.
Shafer, S. M., H. J. Smith, and J. C. Linder. 2005. “The Power of Business Models.” Business
Horizons 48 (3): 199–207. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.014.
Sharp, J., V. Pollock, and R. Paddison. 2005. “Just Art for a Just City: Public art and Social
Inclusion in Urban Regeneration.” Urban Studies 42 (5-6): 1001–1023. doi:10.1080/
00420980500106963.
Short, J. C., T. W. Moss, and G. T. Lumpkin. 2009. “Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past
Contributions and Future Opportunities.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3 (2): 161–194.
doi:10.1002/sej.69.
Sullivan Mort, G., J. Weerawardena, and K. Carnegie. 2003. “Social Entrepreneurship: Towards
Conceptualisation.” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 8 (1):
76–88. doi:10.1002/nvsm.202.
Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert, and A. Rodriguez. 2002. “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe:
Large–Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy.” Antipode 34 (3): 542–
577. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00254.
Tallon, A. 2013. Urban Regeneration in the UK. London, UK: Routledge.
Tornaghi, C. 2008. Questioning the Social Aims of Public Art in Urban Regeneration Initiatives.
The case of Newcastle upon Tyne and Gateshead (UK), Unpublished manuscript, University of
Newcastle.
Tremblay, D. G., and T. Pilati. 2013. “Social Innovation through Arts and Creativity.” The
International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and
Transdisciplinary Research, Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton,
MA, USA. 67–79.
Tricarico, L. 2016. “Imprese di Comunità Come Fattore Territoriale: Riflessioni a Partire dal
Contesto Italiano.” CRIOS 11: 35–50. doi:10.3280/CRIOS2016-011004.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2121

Tricarico, L., Z. M. Jones, and G. Daldanise. 2020. “Platform Spaces: When Culture and the Arts
Intersect Territorial Development and Social Innovation, a View from the Italian Context.”
Journal of Urban Affairs, 1–22. doi:10.1080/07352166.2020.1808007.
Tricarico, L., and C. Pacchi. 2018. “Community Entrepreneurship and Co-Production in Urban
Development.” Territorio 87: 69–77.
Varady, D., R. Kleinhans, and M. Van Ham. 2017. “The Potential of Community Entrepreneurship
for Neighbourhood Revitalization in the United Kingdom and the United States.”
Entrepreneurial Neighbourhoods 9 (3): 253–276.
Yunus, M., B. Moingeon, and L. Lehmann-Ortega. 2010. “Building Social Business Models:
Lessons from the Grameen Experience.” Long Range Planning 43 (2-3): 308–325. doi:10.
1016/j.lrp.2009.12.005.
Zukin, S. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.