URBAN GARDENING AS INFORMAL PLANNING IN ...

A NEW SEASON FOR PLANNING

‘A NEW SEASON FOR PLANNING’: URBAN GARDENING AS INFORMAL PLANNING IN ROME by Chiara Certomà

CERTOMÀ, C. (2016): ‘“A new season for planning”: urban gardening as informal planning in Rome’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 98 (2): 109–126. ABSTRACT. This article investigates the relationship between urban gardening and planning by building upon the results of field research on gardening initiatives in the city of Rome, Italy. The work is aimed at suggesting that, while often associated in geography and planning literature with urban informality practices (e.g. accidental city or self-made urbanism), urban gardening actually presents the character of a distinctive form of people’s interaction with urban space, here defined as “informal planning”. This includes practices that are intentionally put forward by local dwellers with the intention of urban space planning and organizing public life in the absence of legal definition, guidance and funds provided by public authorities or the private sector. Urban gardening cases in Rome exemplify the emergence of informal planning and show how, by questioning the counterplanning tradition that understands urban gardening as an antagonist spatial practice opposing institutional planning, informal planning can open up collaborative possibilities. A new mode of interaction between citizens’ agency and the formal planning initiatives of local administration can lead to creative solutions to address some of the problems associated with the neoliberal transformation of the city space, most notably the decrease in public space and its deterioration. Keywords: urban gardening, informal planning, urban informality, Rome, counterplanning

Introduction This article explores the emergence of citizens’ informal planning initiatives with regard to institutional strategies advanced by local administration, and considers their potential integration. In the panorama of current international research on urban studies and cultural geography the issue is particularly timely and relevant. A significant number of recent contributions have focused on citizen-led modes of organizing and using public urban space by presenting them as expression of resistance against institutional planning. In particular, urban gardening has been generally interpreted as a manifestation of urban informality, providing alternatives to official city planning, often emerging from the negotiation between public administrations and building companies. Thanks to the analysis of the development, the characteristics and the achievements of urban

gardening initiatives in Rome, this article suggests a different understanding of gardeners’ planning practices by exploring the following research hypotheses: 1. urban gardening is not an expression of urban informality, but rather of grassroots intentional planning processes, here defined as “informal planning”; 2. urban gardening exemplifies how informal planning practices do not simply oppose the institutional ones, but rather advances a new collaborative mode of planning. The two research hypotheses are tested against the collected evidence in order to support an inductive process of theory building, leading to the definition of the concept of informal planning; and to the consideration of informal planning as a complementary approach to official planning exemplified by urban gardening in Rome. This envisages the restoration and care of residual or mismanaged public green spaces by local dwellers and includes a set of diverse grassroots initiatives aimed at planning the structure and functioning of the city space in the absence of institutional planning strategies. The article is intended to contribute to the broader debate on the transformation of participatory planning through citizen-led innovations, with the ambition of inspiring engaged scholars and research-informed citizens and administrators. Urban gardening beyond urban informality Urban gardening is a global movement aimed at engaging people in collectively designing, organizing, realizing and taking care of public gardens in their own cities (Reynolds 2008) through a broad array of spontaneous or loosely formalized practices, which transform urban void and neglected spaces into pleasant, engaging and vibrant places (Hou 2010). The forms and organization of urban gardens are highly context dependent (Ferris et al.

© The author 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography

109

CHIARA CERTOMÀ

2001), but in general these encompass community gardens (McKay 2011), guerrilla gardening spots (Tracey 2007), and urban allotments (Crouch and Ward 1997). Gardens are intended for education, leisure and socialization (Purcell 2002); for contrasting food insecurity (McClintock 2008; Pinkerton and Hopkins 2009; Milbourne 2012) and social disadvantages (Emmet 2011); for community building (Hinchliffe and Whatmore 2006; Beckie and Bogdan 2010); for health promotion (Barker 2000; Wakefield et al. 2007); for involving marginalized social groups in city life (Flachs 2010); and for advancing environmentally friendly lifestyles (Barton 2000; Miller 2005; Bendt et al. 2013). In order to reach their goals, gardeners often establish links with similar grassroots initiatives, including for instance alternative economic networks (Kurtz 2001), transient cities programmes, urban green renovation projects (Pagano and Bowman 2000), or initiatives in sustainable mobility (Calori 2009). Urban gardening is commonly understood as an expression of citizens’ dissensus towards institutional planning performed by professional planners, most often with the intervention of private building companies (Staeheli et al. 2002). Together with cognate countercultural practices, urban gardening is largely regarded as an opportunity for contrasting, by means of people’s empowerment and the alternative use of public spaces, the dominant neoliberal transformation of the city which has been extensively described in geography and planning literature (Harvey 1989; Schmelzkopf 1995; Brenner and Theodore 2002).1 There are scholars who offered a different interpretation and claimed urban gardening is part of the neoliberal strategy for outsourcing public space maintenance and complementary services to voluntary citizens (Knigge 2009; Rosol 2012); for reinforcing exclusivist trends (Pudup 2008; Weisman 2009); and for advancing gentrification processes (Smith and DeFilippis 1999; Bin and Voicu 2006). However, despite some dissonant voices, there is quite a broad consensus among scholars in interpreting the urban gardening movement as the ultimate offshoot of the 1970s counterplanning tradition, originating from Lefebvre’s work (2014), and in welcoming this as a manifestation of the increasing power of alternative urban culture against the pervasiveness of neoliberal order (Purcell 2002; Whitehead 2013). Community gardens, street garden actions and even contemporary allotment gardens are frequently depicted as legacies of the “right to the city” culture 110

(Purcell and Tyman 2014; Certomà and Notteboom forthcoming); that is, as spontaneous expressions of urban counterculture whose aim is to contrast the coercive power of technical planning (Schmelzkopf 1995). It is quite common to find references to urban gardening initiatives as forms of “contested spaces” or “right to space” claims (Schmelzkopf 2002), existing commons (Eizenberg 2012; Tornaghi 2012) or counteracting and resistance acts against rigid social doctrines (McKay 2011) or even means for contrasting social injustices (Reynolds 2014). In a recent contribution, Adams et al. (2013) clearly argue, for instance, that, against the planners and decisionmakers’ ordering and managing of space, there is an urgent need for rethinking the disintegrated spatial planning theory. Interesting suggestions on this may come from ‘groups [that] choose to deliberately eschew interaction with planners and the planners’ visions enshrined in development plans predicated on the neat compartmentalization and ordering of space’ (Adams et al. 2013, p. 383) for the sake of advancing alternative visions. In general, gardening the city is portrayed as a creative form of opposition towards institutional planning and an expression of urban informality. The latter includes a plethora of spontaneous practices of appropriation of public (and in some cases private) buildings, infrastructures and land for private use, without the formal permission of local authorities or former owners (Robinson 2002; Transen Hansen and Vaa 2004; Nuissl and Heinrichs 2011). Urban informality practices are performed in general with no comprehensive plan defined in advance and most often in open contrast to institutional planning bodies, as a critical response to the government’s incapacity to satisfy people’s most pressing needs (De Soto 2000; Perera 2009; Potsiou 2010). They generate the extemporaneous and transient spatial configurations of self-made urbanism (Donovan 2008; Becker et al. 2013) and produce a sort of accidental city (Ashton 1993; Powell 2012). In recent years, the academic debate on urban informality increased and international scholars debated on the possibility of including this latter in the institutional planning agenda (Gehl 2010; Potsiou 2010; Vestbro 2013; Mukhija and Loukaitou-Sideris 2014). In fact, urban informality is understood as a state of exception in the formal order of city (‘as a space of marginality and irrelevance’ Mukhija and Loukaitou-Sideris 2014, p. 2) that can be, nonetheless, strategically used by institutional planners for mitigating some of the social vulnerabilities (Roy and AlSayyad 2004;



Douglas 2014). Nonetheless, the task of formalizing the informal as part of mainstream planning processes (Robins 1993) seems quite a difficult (and rather paradoxical) one as urban informality exactly aims at subverting the rationale of the commodified, privatized or programmed contemporary city (Bishop and Williams 2012). The erasure of public space in the contemporary metropolis represents a core issue for urban planners (Hackworth 2000). Since the 1970s, public space shrinking has been denounced as a sign of fracture in the relationship between people and places (Sennett 1970; Tornaghi 2007), bringing together the issue of urban dwellers’ collective and democratic commitment with urban space production (Merrifield 1996; Amin and Thrift 2002), and addressing matters of ownership, distribution and use (Soja 1985; Harvey 1990; Castells 1996). The prevailing rhetoric of 1970s insurgent urbanism (Holston 1998, 2008; Miraftab 2009) builds, in fact, upon the empirical evidence that the most common way for getting people involved is by gathering them into coalitions that oppose the normative strength of hegemonic institutional planning and reclaim a “differential” space (Lefebvre 1991) conditioned by its users (Boudreau 2007); left aside is the recognition that in some cases insurgent urbanism has been entangled with the formal system it was aimed at challenging (Holston 1998). Urban gardening has been read as rooted in 1970s counterplanning culture (Certomà and Notteboom forthcoming) and thus is closely associated with cognate urban informality practices. Despite the affinities (e.g. the spontaneity of action, the collective nature of people’s agency, or the often unauthorized use of public space), there are some remarkable differences between the two. As a matter of fact, in contrast to urban gardening, urban informality practices are not forms of public space planning, as they generally do not envisage any comprehensive plan for the future development of public areas. In many cases they do not focus on public space at all, or on collective engagement, which is often sought as a means for better achieving individual goals, rather than an end in itself (Becker et al. 2013). Moreover, urban informality initiatives are often unable to attract a large number of people and keep their interest alive over time, with the consequence that they do not significantly impact on the future urban development agenda. Therefore, the description of urban gardening as a mere form of urban informality (or counterplanning) does not do justice to its revitalizing and

progressive social and political function; a different interpretation is thus probably useful. This can build upon some recent contributions suggesting that a specific kind of grassroots initiative is put forward by urban dwellers in order to autonomously reshape and organize urban space, to create or restore public areas and infrastructures (Shatkin 2004; Groth and Corjin 2005; Roy 2005), and to gain a relevant role in the urban dynamic (Banerjee 2007; Jiménez 2014). The case of urban gardening in Rome helps to explore this emerging informal mode of planning and its relationship with the institutional one. A relationship that, rather than falling into one of the two dichotomous options of opposing or being assimilated to the established orthodoxy of planning order, suggests a further interpretation of the contemporary transformation of planning theory, which emerges from vernacular practices of urban gardening and affects the administration’s way of planning. An exploration of urban gardening practices in Rome To test the research hypotheses an analysis of urban gardening initiatives in Rome has been conducted. Rome provides an interesting case study for two reasons. First, Rome’s urban gardening initiatives, despite being massive in number, are rather unknown in the international academic literature. Second, Rome’s urban structure is characterized by urban informality and, thus, differences with cognate informal planning practices emerge more clearly. A general exploration of the development and character of urban gardening in Rome is preferred to an indepth description of a few single cases because this can better help theory building. Urban gardening in Rome has been analysed from 2011 to 2014 on the base of scientific and grey literature (including newspaper and journal articles, dedicated website, flyers, video and radio outputs, etc.),2 complemented by notes taking, transect walks with some key informants, and multimedia materials collection on the occasions of major initiatives (e.g. during the realization of the Orto Errante; the weekly meetings held at the Hortus Urbis; or some guerrilla gardening actions performed by the Giardinieri Sovversivi Romani group; all mentioned below). A participant observation approach engaged the researcher in documenting the processes while collaborating with gardeners in the preparation and realization of the initiatives.3


111

CHIARA CERTOMÀ

The emergence of urban gardening in a context of urban informality The urban gardening movement emerged in Rome against the background of a long-lasting tradition of urban informality (Oecumene 2013). The relationship between institutional planning and urban informality in Rome has a complex history. By limiting this to the most recent developments, from the 1920s up to World War II, Fascist law forbade the occupation of agricultural peri-urban areas and foresaw no plan for the city outskirts crowded by a growing population (Insolera 2011). At the same time, as in other European Countries, supported by the rhetoric of autarchy, many people appropriated and cultivated available parcels of land in the inner city under the pressure of food shortages. From the 1950s onwards, thanks to massive investments in post-war reconstruction plans, uncontrolled and unplanned city sprawling occurred and raised the power of the private building sector over the city space. Rome expanded from the city centre, close to the Tiber river, first on the East side and then towards the South and South-West areas, the North side being the most recently urbanized area after World War II. While most public spaces were granted by the administration to private companies under the auspices of greater economic development (Porro 1993), marginalized spots of public land were entirely neglected and occupied by private citizens for their personal use in the absence of any regulatory plan. More than eighty neighbourhoods, called borgate, popped up on the outskirts of Rome (ASud 2012) with no regulatory plan. A large number of formerly rural people from the countryside became established in Rome, attracted by the economic boom; some of them wished to have their own piece of land on the periphery of the city to keep their rural roots alive. However, as this possibility was not granted by the administration, their desire turned into spontaneous and unregulated appropriation of unused lands. As a consequence, in addition to the remaining war gardens, post-war family gardens were legally or even illegally established (including under gentlemen’s or rental agreements) on the urban fringes. It is very difficult to assess the numerical relevance of this phenomenon, as no statistics are available. In the 1980s the first amnesty for infringement of existing regulations legitimized unauthorized buildings and private occupation of public soil (ASud 2012). The General Regulatory Plan approved in 2003 (Comune di Roma 2003) shows figures documenting that one-third of the settled area of Rome was 112

erected by its future inhabitants without any consistent regulatory plan (Aureli et al. 2010); and still in 2011, more than 2500 non-authorized private gardens have been mapped in both the peripheral and central areas of the city (Comune di Roma 2011). The unregulated urban development went hand in hand with a significant level of environmental degradation, economic deprivation and social marginality that still today disproportionately affect diverse areas of the city (d’Albergo and Moini 2013), driving many inhabitants to opt for the do-it- yourself approach when looking for places to establish a home or business (Becker et al. 2013). Several researches document today the pervasiveness of urban informality, the accidental character of Rome (Urban Transcripts 2011), and the self-organization practices in loose spaces (Careri 2002; Technische Universitaet Berlin and Nexus 2002; Franck and Stevens 2006). The first contemporary urban gardens were established in Rome about fifteen years ago (interview with Cecilia, Orti Urbani Garbatella, 4 November 2011). At the beginning, these were understood by gardeners themselves and by administrators as a further manifestation of urban informality (interview with Silvia, Zappata Romana, 26 May 2012), in continuity with the tradition of non-authorized post-war gardens (Comune di Roma 2011). However, significant differences recently signalled that they need to be considered as an expression of a new relationship between citizens, urban space and official planners (Cioli and D’Eusebio 2011). They do not share the autarkic and survivalist inspiration of war gardens, and they also differ from the post-war vegetable gardens in their public inspiration. They have their roots in the renovated attention of environmentalist or landscape associations (e.g. Legambiente, WWF or Italia Nostra) for urban green areas and the one-shot gardening initiatives they promoted. These were intended as exemplar acts of civic engagement able to attract public attention due to the lack of available green areas and their degradation; and envisaged, for instance, cleaning up works, planting trees, and organizing socio-environmental events in brownfield areas (e.g. the campaigns Puliamo il mondo [Clean up the world] and the Festa dell’albero [Tree festival]).4 All of them were intended as ecological citizenship gestures, performed by middleclass educated people, citizen associations, schools or scout groups; and contributed to the diffusion of gardening culture, supported spontaneous civic initiatives, and established contacts with relevant


Picture 1


Figure 1. A screenshot of the map of urban gardening initiatives in Rome realized and updated by Zappata Romana. The shamrocks represent community gardens; the butterflies represent Guerrilla Gardening permanent spots; the pumpkins represent allotment gardens; the houses represent urban farms. Source: Available from ttp://www.zappataromana.net/mappa/.

Picture 2

administrations (e.g. Italia Nostra, one of the oldest Italian landscape associations in the country, which in 2013 signed an agreement to promote urban gardening with ANCI, the national association of Italian municipalities; Italia Nostra 2013). Characters of urban gardening in Rome On 4 November 2011, on the occasion of the international Guerrilla Gardening day, more than twentyfive gardening groups of Rome met for the first time in Santa Croce, a central area of the city, where the roman fringe of the Occupy movement was camping, in order to realize the Orto Errante, portable vegetable gardens in wooden boxes (Fig. 1). The

gatherers represented the diversified panorama of the urban gardeners’ world, including local citizens’ informal committees (e.g. Insieme per l’Aniene; Eutorto), community garden projects groups (e.g. 100celle aperte; Stalker), allotment gardeners (e.g. Orti Urbani Garbatella), environmental and social associations (e.g. O come Orto; Amici della Terra; Legambiente), extemporaneous gardeners and guerrilla gardeners (e.g. Giardinieri Sovversivi Romani; Flottiglia gardening) (Gnessi 2012).5 The promoter of the initiative was the network called Zappata Romana [Roman Hoeing] (Zappata Romana 2013a), which plays a fundamental role in the development of the urban gardening movement in Rome; from 2010 it has researched and practiced


113

CHIARA CERTOMÀ

collective design of public space with low-tech architectural solutions, and alternative bottom-up and loosely structured public participation processes. It collects information and links together gardening experiences in Rome to advance a dialogue with the local administration by inviting traditional stakeholders (institutional planners, private owners, companies etc.) to take part in the garden planning process. While on a daily basis the network is managed by four people, Zappata Romana counts on a large number of volunteers (about 200 people) and represents an unusual experiment in coordinating the work of the different groups in the city. For this reason, the rest of the article will focus in particular on the work of this network as it constitutes a source of information and represents, better than anything else, the character of the urban gardening movement in Rome. Since 2010, Zappata Romana has mapped and documented the existing urban gardening initiatives in Rome through a dedicated web-based social map for supporting prospective gardeners with open learning and networking opportunities (Havard 2013). Up to 2015, despite the lack of official regulation, more than 150 projects (including community gardens, urban allotments and permanent guerrilla gardening spots) have been established in Rome. Today the map reports 214 initiatives. These include 102 urban allotment sites characterized by the massive presence of small parcels (generally about 10 m2) of land for individual cultivation of vegetables and flowers in a larger allotment area, with common facilities for watering and tool storage; 67 community gardens that allow a variety of collective uses of green space, ranging from traditional parks to venues for cultural events en plein air, food production, transformation and consumption areas and similar; and finally, 31 guerrilla gardening spots, including extemporaneous actions (which in Rome generally has the unusual character of lasting for years and often turning into collective gardens) in derelict areas of urban green spaces, including traffic islands or flower beds, inviting citizens to collectively take care of them. Rome is characterized by a massive presence of urban voids (most of them being residual portions of the roman countryside, the Agro Romano) (Saggio 2013), in between high-density population areas and extensive parks (covering approximately 68% of the total urban surface; Comune di Roma 2012a), often downgraded by the lack of care to unpleasant and desolate areas for illegal trafficking, hovels and 114

dumping (Cioli and D’Eusebio 2011). It is not, therefore, the need for green areas per se that inspired the inhabitants of Rome to engage in urban gardening, rather the need for well kept public spaces in which to experience social relationships and place attachment, a sense of togetherness and purposiveness, and the pleasure of caring for the polluted and derelict urban fringes of the city (interview with Cecilia, Orti Urbani Garbatella, 4 November 2011). The distribution of urban gardening initiatives in Rome is interestingly resonant with some spatial and social characters of different urban areas (Gadenz 2011). Specifically, when comparing the distribution of gardens with existing statistical data it emerges that a large number of initiatives are located in the Central and East districts, which are most affected by demographic pressure (Comune di Roma 2012a, 2012b), environmental hazardous facilities6 and building expansion (Provincia di Roma 2012). Particularly, the historical peripheries on the East side (together with the city centre) are also those presenting the highest level of grassroots political and civil participation in the city (Comune di Roma 2012a), most notably in terms of spatial and environmental conflicts.7 On the contrary, urban gardening initiatives are comparatively few in southern Table 1. On the left, an elaboration of the data about weighted total welfare from the report on life quality in districts of Rome (De Muro et al. 2011). On the right, the number of gardening initiatives according to the Zappata Romana (source: Zappata Romana map, January 2012; Zappata Romana 2013d).16 Rome district number

Assessment of total welfare

I XVII II XV III

Positive Positive Positive Medium Medium

XIX XIII X IV V

Medium Medium Critical Critical Critical

XVIII XII XI XX XVI

VII IX VI VIII

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Critical Critical Critical Critical

Number of gardening initiatives 11 0 5 4 5

4 11 4 2 4

2 2 5 1 13

6 8 10 7


Picture 2


Figure 2. Wooden boxes for the Orto Errante, 5th of November 2011. Source: Photo by Fermenti di Terra.

districts of Rome where dormitory buildings mushroomed in vacant lands, often inhabited by tem porary migrants; and they are virtually absent in wealthier and more recently developed areas on the West and North sides. Notably, according to a recent academic study mapping life quality and welfare in districts of Rome (De Muro et al. 2011),8 people living in eastern districts (i.e. number X, IV, V, VII, VII, IX, VI, VIII) have a lower quality of life compared with central and western areas. The authors also noted the comparatively higher number of gardening initiatives. This evidence confirms that urban gardens in Rome have many socio-environmental functions rather than simply “pimping up” the neighbourhood, as they bring back public space and community life in degraded and marginal areas. The geographical location of urban gardening projects in Rome (Fig. 2) shows that they are means for people to re-commit to the construction of daily space in peripheral areas that are more subject to gentrification processes, displacement of local residents, and socio-spatial conflicts. Table 1 shows the correspondence between the total relative welfare in the different districts of Rome as presented in 2012 (De Muro et al. 2011)

on the left; and on the right the number of total gardening initiatives in January 2013 according to the Zappata Romana map. As people discovered that a garden is a good place for engaging in social life (interview with Silvia, Zappata Romana, 9 January 2013), local dwellers soon became involved in providing the city with playgrounds (e.g. San Lorenzo garden), spaces for performing art (e.g. Cinorto!), learning (e.g. Dame D’Erbe), cooking together (e.g. PratoFiorito), experimenting with alternative and sustainable modes of life (e.g. Orto maestro), and organizing activities for people with disabilities (e.g. Coltivatorre). A large number of gardening projects emerged thanks to the cooperation between informal gardening groups and social centres (e.g. Ortofficina popolare Ex-SNIA), park management offices (e.g. Hortus Urbis), schools (e.g. Ortolino and Anna Magnani), senior centres (e.g. Parco delle Palme), migrant communities (e.g. Sar San and Azadi park), or job-seeker associations (e.g. Eutorto). Zappata Romana itself planned and realized some gardens in peripheral areas of Rome by gathering together different social groups. For instance the Parco di


115

Picture 3

CHIARA CERTOMÀ

Figure 3. The first draft of the collective plan for Parco di via delle Palme, Roma [caption says: “Block capitals signal priority interventions: school vegetable garden, partial fencing, dog area, children playground, youth area, art-performing area, street furniture”]. Source: Coordinamento Parco (2013).

Picture 4

via delle Palme, East side, was realized thanks to the unexpected cooperation between squatters from the social centre FortePrenestino, the frequenters of a senior centre, children from nearby primary schools, neighbourhood citizens’ associations, and small local organizations for socially disadvantaged people (Coordinamento Parco 2013). After decades, people brought life back to this abandoned park with a new sense of belonging and reciprocal trust (interview with Silvia, Zappata Romana, 26 May 2012). They today enjoy the collectively planned dogs area, skating area, red paths and vegetable garden (interview with Luca, Zappata Romana, 22 November 2012). The project was granted the support of the local district administration (InfoBuild 2013) after a plan for restoration was elaborated through an informal participatory process led by Zappata Romana (Fig. 3). Since 2011, with the aim of supporting the 116

increasing gardening initiatives, Zappata Romana has provided gardeners with a manual titled How to Start a Community Garden (Zappata Romana 2011), which can be regarded as a sort of manifesto of the urban gardening movement in Rome. It suggests an original view of public space planning as emerging from the grassroots, rather than from traditional planning agents (e.g. administration or building companies); and, while dealing with a practice potentially conflicting with official planning, it points out the capability of people’s commitment to transform planning itself. In order to organize a community garden, the manual suggests the following steps: – assemble a group of interested people together with knowledge, expertise and vision in common; – list practical suggestions for creating a garden (e.g. who is going to be involved; who has to be-



–

–

–

– –

–

nefit from it; what activities are to be performed; and what resources could be used); consider some practical needs for performing gardening activities, including choosing the right place and making sure it is available (and when it is not, the manual provides tips for making it available); analyse the neighbourhood masterplan in the municipal office, and collect environmental, historical, environmental and social information through direct observation, organized talks with residents or searching archives; organize collective planning processes by inviting all local citizens to take part in public assemblies and design forums; in some cases administration representatives can be invited too; publicize the project in the neighbourhood to gather local consensus and deal with potentially opposing views; ask for permission and support from relevant administrative authorities or private owners by presenting and describing the community- elaborated projects; start gardening; this step can be performed independently from the approval of local authorities, however the manual states that the point is not just to oppose but rather to disclose the power connections that impose an order on the urban space and untangle them by adopting a mode of planning which avoids the risk of gardens being reported as illegal actions and thus stopped.9

Zappata Romana’s manual clarifies that in order to make a change in the urban space, the planning phase is fundamental. This means that at least a very rough design of the prospective garden, after considering the neighbourhood context, is necessary and everybody should have the opportunity to have a say. Over several years, gardening initiatives mushroomed in the city, and in October 2013, Zappata Romana released a press release stating that urban gardening initiatives had increased by 50% in one year, with virtually every neighbourhood having a community garden looked after by local dwellers (Zappata Romana 2013b). A few months later, on 4 May 2014, Rome hosted the first national meeting of guerrilla gardeners who gathered in one of the most densely populated areas of the city, Centocelle neighbourhood, on the East side, to exchange practices, experiences and contacts (Guerrilla Gardening 2014). The event established the base for vibrant

networking between different gardening groups and civil society associations; it made the movement visible to media and inhabitants, and fuelled neighbourhood relationships (interview with Vanessa, Giardinieri Sovversivi Romani, 4 May 2014). Discussion Discovering informal planning through gardening This section describes, first, the basic character of informal planning practices. Second, it analyses the information retrieved by the case study in the light of relevant literature in order to understand how urban gardening in Rome confirms the initial research hypothesis. It states that urban gardening is not an expression of urban informality, but rather an expression of grassroots intentional planning process, that is, informal planning. As the counterplanning tradition of urban informality, informal planning is a means for collectively reinterpreting space and society relationships in the urban context in order to address some of the principal issues generated by the neoliberalization of city space (e.g. the erasure of public spaces, the gentrification of suburbs, the decrease in social cohesion, the spatial segregation processes etc.). However, in contrast to the former, the latter generally does not adopt a contrastive approach towards institutional planning (although sometime it does) and advances a new collaborative mode of planning, which integrates the work of both vernacular and professional planners. In general, a process of informal planning starts from the analysis of the initial conditions of the area and the collection of information on legal ownership, destination and possibilities of intervention, social acceptability of the project and available support. The following step requires access to the place itself; this may require negotiation with public authorities or private owners, resulting in formal or informal agreements. In some cases occupation of the land is an option. The focus on the public is fundamental because it differentiates informal planning practiced in the public space for public goals from urban informality envisaging the appropriation of public spaces or building for private needs. Moreover, in contrast to urban informality,10 informal planning does not necessarily adopt a contrastive mode of interaction with official planners, and rather seeks their support to provide citizens with new participative opportunities in the production of public space. In so doing, informal planning often works


117

CHIARA CERTOMÀ

Figure 4. Workflow of urban informality compared with informal planning (dashed lines signal optional steps). Source: author’s compilation.

as a powerful means for attracting the administration’s attention and recognition of neglected areas of the city (Fig. 4). The public and collective character of urban gardening initiatives in Rome considered here as a key element for defining them as an expression of informal planning.11 Against the Rome context characterized by a large number and variety of unregulated, temporary and contrastive urban informality processes, the informal planning of urban gardeners represents a sort of revolution in the counterplanning tradition. Zappata Romana defines this as the last season of urban planning in Rome (Cioli and D’Eusebio 2011). In fact, urban gardening projects in Rome were recently characterized not as sporadic answers to the lack of administrators’ attention for public space, but as part of grassroots, network-based and socially committed efforts to collectively plan public space before materially transforming it (Formisani 2012). Different gardening groups enter into reciprocal connection, meet in diverse parts of the city and plan together larger interventions for revitalizing abandoned green areas and derelict brownfields, while forging alliances with sympathetic district administrators (together with the central administration, each district in Rome has its own council endowed with a limited degree of autonomy in terms of territorial 118

planning). As such, urban gardening envisages a creative, community-led mode of public space generation, through practical interventions in the materiality and spatiality of daily life (Schmelzkopf 1995; Hou et al. 2009). Informal planning as collaborative planning The second research hypothesis suggests that urban gardening shows how informal planning can advances a new collaborative mode of planning with the local authority. While for a long time most people had little comprehension of how planning actually influences their lives, and institutional planners themselves provided few opportunities for the involvement of people (Maier 2001), with the recognition that spatial planning is intrinsically political (Nawratek 2011) it became imperative to consider the public role in decision-making processes. This nonetheless requires stepping away from classic participatory planning processes, intended as a set of techniques to be added to the institutional planning strategies by participation-experts, and granting people the opportunities to have their say in(already structured) top-down processes (Greenwood and Levin 1998; Ledwith and Springett 2010); but also from a viewpoint of participation as a way of putting



pressure on institutional planners by advancing small-scale local projects that always emerge in opposition to institutional planning (Richardson et al. 1998; Sandercock 1998). Both these approaches, in fact, do not erase the divide between those who are vested with the planning power and those whose role is, at best, restricted to providing comments or objections. Urban gardening projects in Rome demonstrate that a third way is possible by seeking integration and consensus through the performance of real bottom-up planning processes. The informal mode of planning put forward by the network of gardeners in Rome suggests that institutional planners and administrators can be involved as co-producers in socio-spatial innovation. It reverses the arrow of participation because citizens invite planning experts and administration to plan with them, rather than being invited, as occurs in the traditional planning process. While aware of the risk of neoliberal normalization of alternative practices of urban space re-appropriation (with citizens’ voices relegated to a marginal role, or even appropriated by more powerful actors), this article is not a plea for formalizing the informal but for accommodating institutional and informal modes of urban development together. Since 2006, Rome City Council adopted a legal provision that prescribes urban development plans to be validated through participatory planning processes before approval (Comune di Roma 2006) as participatory tools had been explicitly envisaged in the General Regulatory Plan (Comune di Roma 2003). In this context, Rome administration particularly welcomed gardening initiatives as they signal citizens’ willingness to be involved in urban restoration projects and contribute to the maintenance of public space (for instance, the Hortus Urbis which is intended to take care of an abandoned area of the Appia Antica Park) (RedazioneOnline 2010; Hortus Urbis 2013). A new central office in the Municipal Hall, named Orti Urbani [Urban Allotments] opened in 2010 and a first call for the voluntary restoration of derelict areas in the eastern and southern districts of the city was issued some years later (Comune di Roma 2013b). In 2010 the city council financed the realization of the first municipal urban allotment in Via della Consolata [Consolata Street], south-west of Rome, with about 300,000 euros (Zanichelli 2013). This includes 21 allotments on about 18,000 m2, facilities (parking, tool boxes, toilets etc.) managed by a neighbourhood association and destined for older people.12 Four further projects

are under evaluation costing approximately 70,000 euros each (Cioli and d’Eusebio 2013); and a huge plan for transforming the Tangenziale Est (a 2 km long abandoned route on the East side) into an allotment garden has been recently been discussed by the City Council (Repubblica 2014). Nevertheless, some of these initiatives have been criticized by urban gardeners for their excessive realization costs, while a more modest investment could have been destined to support already existing projects (Cioli and d’Eusebio 2013). A second related critique is that most of the initiatives already undertaken by the public administration actually envisage traditional participatory processes, while the sudden popularity of informal planning practices for urban gardens signal people attach a different meaning to the word “collaboration”. Several gardener associations in Rome jointly suggested to the City Council in an open document that people do not need to be involved in already designed requalification programmes led by the municipal planning office, but rather need to be provided with the necessary legal and political opportunities for advancing autonomous projects to be later negotiated with the administration. Particularly Zappata Romana notes that the first form of collaboration and support the administration can easily provide is the facilitation of processes and procedures for accessing and cultivating abandoned public land (Zappata Romana 2011; Cioli and d’Eusebio 2013), through removing administrative, economic and social obstacles. The gardeners’ request for establishing bottom-led collaborative planning processes has already been adopted by some neighbourhood councils, especially in the socio-political vibrant eastern periphery of Rome (Barraco 2014; CGRN 2014).13 Thanks to a certain degree of autonomy in territorial planning, neighbourhood councils approved local rules for inviting proposals for new gardens, or for the maintenance of existing ones. At the municipal level, the Orti Urbani office has adopted the same approach by making available on in its website the basic information and the procedure to be followed for presenting new gardening projects, and getting the support of the administration of Rome.14 In recent years it also started a process of recognition, support and regulation of urban allotments and community gardens (Ansa 2013; ColtivareOrto 2013; CGRN 2014) and the City Council elaborated the regulation for urban allotment and community garden management (Ansa 2013). This brand new regulation (Giunta Comunale 2015) recognizes the


119

CHIARA CERTOMÀ Table 2. Milestones in urban gardening development in Rome from the perspective of urban gardeners and local administration. Urban gardeners’ initiatives 1995–2009 2010

2011 2012

Administrations’ initiatives

First urban allotments and community gardens established (e.g. Coltivatorre in 1997; Eutorto in 2008; Orti Urbani Garbatella in 2009)

Birth of Zappata Romana network and creation of online map (including about 50 gardening projects) First actions of the Giardinieri Sovversivi Romani, the larger guerrilla gardening group in Rome

Established the Orti Urbani office First municipal allotment garden in Via della Consolata (July) The Mayor’s garden established in the City Council courtyard (July)

Realization of the Orto Errante and first meeting of all roman urban gardeners during the International Guerrilla Gardening day

Urban gardens map includes about 100 projects Launch of the Urban Allotments General States by the network of roman gardeners

Call for restoration and management of green areas issued by the district X (East area) Call for restoration and management of green areas issued by the district VII (East area) Call for restoration and management of green areas issued by the district V (East area)

2013

Urban Allotments General States Agreement between Italia Nostra association and ANCI and launch of the Orti Urbani project in Rome (February) First national meeting of guerrilla gardeners in Rome on the occasion of the International Guerrilla Gardening day

2014

Urban gardens map includes about 150 projects; Second national meeting of Guerrilla Gardeners in Rome Guidelines for urban allotments and gardens presented by the network of urban gardening association to the City Council

Guidelines for urban allotments presented and discussed by the Town Council (still under evaluation) General call for urban allotments issued by the Orti Urbani office Call for restoration and management of green areas issued by the district VII (East area)

Call for restoration and management of green areas issued by the district XI (West area) Public assembly discussing urban allotments rules in Municipio XIV (West area) Public assembly discussing urban allotments rules in Municipio V (East area) Presented and discussed the project for urban allotments on the Tangenziale Est route

2015 (up to July)

Urban gardens map includes about 214 projects

Municipal Council approved the Regolamento degli orti e giardini condivisi [Regulation for allotment and community gardens]

environmental, social, productive and educational role of urban gardening, and allows civic organizations to apply for a free loan of non-used green areas or abandoned sections of existing parks for cultivation.15 An interesting point of difference with cognate regulation in Europe resides in the possibility for citizens to suggest areas for allotments and community gardens, rather than the administration having the exclusive authority to select them. Table 2 displays some milestones in the recent development of the urban gardening movement in Rome. The interplay of citizen and administration initiatives testifies that a constant dialogue between gardeners and the administration has been generally sought from both sides. The Rome example suggests that a sort of bricolage planning mode (Uzzel 1990) or adaptive 120

management approach (Adams et al. 2013) is actually emerging so that informal and institutional modes of planning can highlight and supplement each other’s grey zones (Roy 2005). Urban gardeners as informal planners (Hou 2014) are in fact gaining a key role in the definition of city space: armed with grassroots networks, political capital, and financial and technical know-how, [they] no longer operate solely in modes of protest and resistance. Instead, they have become important players in transforming physical and social spaces in the interests of communities and neighborhoods (Hou 2010, p. 19). As a matter of fact, the inherent value of informal planning does not reside in its being an antagonistic



force towards institutional planning, or in merely raising citizens’ consciousness to ‘gradually facilitate their … participation in mainstream planning’ (Maier 2001, p. 716); rather in its working as a complementary mode of planning that can offer a better understanding and more effective tools for urban space design. Obviously, in some cases the interest of city inhabitants and administration may happen to be in contrast to informal planning, for its own nature implies some rule breaking – or, at least, some acting in the absence of rules. Informal planning does not avoid conflicts; rather it builds on them (Havard 2013) by softening the antagonistic attitude of urban informality. It signals the need to get out of the binary code of planned formal/non-planned informal (Dehane 2012). This does not necessary imply – as some authors have warned against (Pudup 2008; Weisman 2009) – the institutionalization of urban gardening, but rather that the tension between formal and informal can be turned into something productive. Conclusions This article is inspired by the belief that between indeterminacy of urban informality practices and overdeterminacy of the neoliberal city planning there is a broad spectrum of spatial registers and modes of interaction (Dehane and Vervloesem 2011); the new challenge for citizens and urban planners resides in discovering and valuing them. In order to attempt a first exploration, the presented case outlines the prerogatives of urban gardening that can help us to appreciate the function and character of an emerging mode of grassroots planning, and the relationship this has with institutional planning. First, the article questions the common understanding of urban gardening as an expression of urban informality, influenced by counterplanning culture and opposing planning tout court as a tool of neoliberal power in the city. By exploring gardening projects in Rome, it describes a new emerging mode of planning, which is here named informal planning; it specifies how it differs from urban informality; and explains how this can act as a collaborative, but critical, force towards the professional and decision-maker planning model. Second, the article, while recognizing the influence of the counterplanning tradition of the urban gardening movement, suggests that planning does not need to be totally refused and contrasted as a tool of the oppressive city government’s power; rather it claim that planning per se has creative,

empowering and inclusive potentialities if negotiation between citizens and administration is adopted. This does not exclude open contrasting or violent acts of space transformation, but it first considers the possibility of creating a dialogic relationship. In light of the increasing relevance and strategic role of citizens’ movements in city planning and management, local administrations themselves acknowledge the need to engage with them – not simply by gathering their consensus through traditional participatory processes on decisions already taken, but by letting them inspire official planning decisions. Urban gardening examples in Rome show, in fact, that informal planning initiatives are now integral parts of the urban structure and they carry out important functions (ecological restoration, proximity food chain creation, social policies advancement, support and integration for disadvantaged, marginalized and minority social groups etc.), complementing official planning activity. Thus, gardening projects in Rome exemplify the potentiality of informal planning to positively challenge and engage institutional planning authorities in detecting and understanding relevant spatial and social needs, and in experimenting with innovative spatial solutions by taking the move from ordinary people-led planning processes. It challenges the meaning of participation insofar as it is not a top-down process from professional bodies but rather a process led by the people. This radically subverts the functioning of democratic institutions as it prefigures – at least for the limited field of planning – a direct form of political participation; and requires official planners to engage in a more proactive dialogue with people. These considerations suggest new future lines of research. For instance, a broader exploration of further examples of informal planning (e.g. restoration of abandoned infrastructures for public use or of large buildings for cultural and social services provision, maintenance of residual areas for community enjoyment, etc.); or an investigation of their effective innovativeness compared with traditional urban informality processes; or an analysis of vernacular planning procedures. Again, considering whether urban gardening emerged as a manifestation of informal planning in other geographical areas will make it possible to appreciate the real diffusion of informal modes of planning and to determine what socio-geographical characters support their emergence.


121

CHIARA CERTOMÀ

Chiara Certomà Research Fellow Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies Piazza Martiri della Liberta’ 33, 56127 Italy Email: [email protected] Acknowledgments This article is dedicated to my brother Filippo, and to the Centocelle neighbourhood, East side of Rome: home. It has been inspired by the work of the Zappata Romana network and the thought-provoking discussions on the fate of public space in Rome with architects Silvia Cioli and Luca D’Eusebio. I would like to thank both of them and the anonymous reviewers and journal editor whose comments significantly improved the quality of my work. The usual disclaimers apply. Notes

1. Neoliberal planning is in general said to be determined by the increasing influence of technocrats and private companies on local and central administrations (Sennett 1970; Zukin 1995), for instance by lobbying local decision-makers to create public spaces which are apparently public while actually being private (e.g. shopping malls or gated communities). 2. For an international audience a large repository of material can be found in English in the “Press” section of the Zappata Romana website (Zappata Romana 2013b); pictures and video presentations are available in the “Stories” section on the same website (Zappata Romana 2013c); and case descriptions are available in English in the “Map” section (Zappata Romana 2013d). 3. A broad collection of interviews with urban gardeners in Rome has been carried out by Métilde Havard and is available by writing to Zappata Romana (Havard 2013). 4. Information on these initiatives is available (in Italian only) on dedicated websites: http://www.puliamoilmondo.it/; http:// www.legambiente.it/contenuti/campagne/festa-dellalbero. 5. A complete list of gardening initiatives with updated information is available on the Zappata Romana map (https://www. google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zUIBnB0zY420.kdsamr6bo vgYandie=UTF8andoe=UTF8andmsa=0). 6. These include waste treatment plants (Comune di Roma 2012d), main extractive sites, and areas of relevant industrial accident risk (Comune di Roma 2012c). 7. The most relevant ones are concentrated in the East and SouthEast districts (ASud 2012), including the regeneration project in Tor Bella Monaca (East area), the air and acoustic pollution of the Ciampino Airport (South-East side), the opposition towards the realization of a new highway close to the Pontina road (South side), the opposition towards the realization of subterraneous private parking areas in several neighbourhoods of Rome (Comitati NoPup 2012), and the opposition towards the edification plan for 2 billion m3 in the last available green area in Casilino 23 (East side) (Cianciullo 2012). 8. From an administrative point of view, the city is divided into 19 districts (numbered, for historical reasons, I–XIII and

122

XV–XX), called municipi, with some degree of autonomy from the central administration in terms of territorial planning and social services provision. 9, The manual advises prospective gardeners to be ready to negotiate with authorities, but it also recognizes that ‘In some cases it has happened that citizens and associations have first taken possession of the land, opened it to the public and only afterwards have begun a negotiation with the risk of being fined but with an increased negotiation power’ (Zappata Romana 2011, p. 26). 10. In the real life of the city, the distinction between urban informality and informal planning is fuzzier than in theory, as the former, in some cases, is not without intention or purpose, despite generally not being displayed in the form of a plan. 11. Despite private terraces, backyard gardens (Oldroyd 2011), or even urban farms (Mougeot 2005), are, literally, expressions of gardening in urban space; they nonetheless lack the key distinctive element of publicity. 12. Further information on the Via della Consolata garden are available on the Comune di Roma website: http://www.comune.roma.it/wps/portal/pcr?contentId=NEW109034andjp_ pagecode=newsview.wpandahew=contentId:jp_pagecode 13. The general call for restoration and management of green areas in Rome issued by the Municipal Council and serving as a base and model for the local district calls is available at: https://www. comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/.../aree_verdi_BANDO.pdf 14. Documents are available on the Comune di Roma website: http://www.comune.roma.it/wps/portal/ pcr?contentId=NEW240829andjp_pagecode=newsview. wpandahew=contentId:jp_pagecode 15. The maximum length of the contract is six years and specific details about the duty to maintain the area, to remove waste, to care for the allotments are included, in line with other European cities. An interesting repository of cases has been provided by European scholars involved in the COST Action TU1201 “Urban Allotment Gardens in European Cities” (http://www. urbanallotments.eu/index.php). 16. Two outlier observations show that the districts I and XII present a high number of gardening initiatives, despite the quality of life being high in district I (historical city centre) and medium in district XII (south of Rome). This can be explained by considering that the city centre is often used to showcase gardening initiatives performed by associations and institutions; while district XII is geographically located close to the East district and it is influenced by a sort of “proximity effect”, with gardening groups moving from one neighbourhood to another.

References

Adams, D., Scott, A. and Hardman, M. (2013): ‘Guerrilla warfare in the planning system: revolutionary progress towards sustainability?’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B 95 (4): 375–387. Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (2002): Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Polity Press, Cambridge. Ansa (2013): Regolamento per orti urbani a Roma, solo bio esenza lucro. Ansa, 15 November 2013 [WWW document]. URL http://www.ansa.it/terraegusto/notizie/rubriche/istituzioni/2013/11/15/Regolamento-orti-urbani-Roma-solo-biosenza-lucro_9627062.html [accessed 15 October 2014]. Ashton, P. (1993): Accidental City: Planning Sydney since 1788. Hale and Iremonger, Sydney. ASud (2012): Capitale immobile. Speculazioni e resistenze sociali a Roma [WWW document]. URL http://asud.net/wp-content/ uploads/2013/04/libro_bianco.pdf [accessed 15 October 2014].


A NEW SEASON FOR PLANNING Aureli, P. V., Mastrigli, G. and Tarrata, M. (eds) (2010): Rome: The Centre(s) Elsewhere. Skira, Milano. Banerjee, T. (2007): ‘The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places’, Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (1): 9–24. Barker, G. (2000): Ecological Recombination in Urban Areas. The Urban Forum/English Nature, Peterborough. Barraco, M. R. (2014): ‘Orti urbani, a lavoro per il Regolamento. Municipio XIV: “Noi siamo pronti”’, Roma Today , 5 May 2014 [WWW document]. URL http://www.romatoday.it/green/life/ orti-urbani-a-lavoro-per-il-regolamento-municipio-xiv-noi-siamo-pronti.html [accessed 15 October 2014]. Barton, H. (ed.) (2000): Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods. Earthscan, London. Becker, J., Cellamare, C., Hanussek, C., Perin, A. and Perin, S. (2013): Self-made Urbanism Rome Informal Common Grounds of a Metropolitan Area. NGBK, Berlin. Beckie, M. and BOGDAN, E. (2010): Planting roots: urban agriculture for senior immigrants. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development, 1/2. Bendt, P., Barthel, S. and Colding, J. (2013): ‘Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 109: 18–30. BIN, V. and Voicu, I. (2006): The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values. Law and Economics Working Papers, 46, New York University. Bishop, P. and Williams, L. (2012): The Temporary City. Routledge, London. Boudreau, J. (2007): ‘Making new political space: mobilizing spatial imaginaries, instrumentalizing spatial practices, and strategically using spatial tools’, Environment and Planning A, 39 (11): 2593–2611. Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002): ‘Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”’. Antipode 34/3: 349–379. Calori, A. (2009): Coltivare la città. Terre di mezzo-Altreconomia, Milano. Careri, F. (2002): Walkscapes. Walking as an Aesthetic Practice. Editorial Gustavo Gili, Barcelona. CASTELLS, M. (1996): The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Certomà, C. and NOTTEBOOM, B. (forthcoming): ‘Informal planning in a transactive governmentality. Re-reading planning practices through Ghent’s community gardens’, Planning Theory, doi: 10.1177/1473095215598177. CGRN (2014): ‘Municipio V. Tutti pazzi per gli orti urbani’, Roma notizie, 18 April 2014 [WWW document]. URL http://www. romanotizie.it/municipio-v-tutti-pazzi-per-gli-orti-urbani.html [accessed 15 October 2014]. Cioli, S. and d’Eusebio, L. (2011): ‘Zappata Romana!’, L’architetto italiano, 42. CIOLI, S. and D’EUSEBIO, L. (2013): ‘L’orto urbano è solo autogestito’, Comune Info, 11 April 2013 [WWW document]. URL http://comune-info.net/2013/04/lorto-romano-e-solo-autogestito/ [accessed 15 October 2014]. ColtivareOrto (2013): Giardinieri Sovversivi Romani: guerrilla gardening nella capitale! [WWW document]. URL http:// www.coltivareorto.it/consigli-orto/giardinieri-sovversiviromani-guerrilla-gardening-nella-capitale.html [accessed 15 October 2014]. Comitati NoPup (2012): Tutti i parcheggi [WWW document]. URL http://www.comitatinopup.it/index.php?section=1 [accessed 15 October 2014].

Comune di Roma (2003): Piano regolatore generale. [WWW document]. URL http://www.urbanistica.comune.roma.it/uourbanistica-prg.html [accessed 15 October 2014]. Comune di Roma (2006): Regolamento per l’attivazione del processo di partecipazione dei cittadini alle scelte di trasformazione urbana. Delibera 57/2006 [WWW document]. URL. http://www.comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/cms/documents/DelibCC_n57_06_regolamento_della_partecipazione. pdf [accessed 15 October 2014]. Comune di Roma (2011): Relazione sullo Stato dell’Ambiente [WWW document]. URL http://comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/cms/documents/RSA2011_Presentazione.pdf [accessed 9 September 2016] Comune di Roma (2012a). Relazione sullo Stato dell’Ambiente – Natura e Verde pubblico [WWW document]. URL http:// www.comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/cms/documents/ RSA12natura.pdf [accessed 9 September 2016] Comune di Roma (2012b): Annuario Statistico [WWW document]. URL http://www.comune.roma.it/wps/portal/ pcr?contentId=NEW439162andjp_pagecode=newsview. wpandahew=contentId:jp_pagecode [accessed 15 October 2014]. Comune di Roma (2012c): Relazione sullo Stato dell’Ambiente – Suolo e sottosuolo [WWW document]. URL http://www.comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/cms/documents/RSA12suolo. pdf [accessed 15 October 2014]. Comune di Roma (2012d): Relazione sullo Stato dell’Ambiente – La gestione dei rifiuti urbani [WWW document]. URL http://www.comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/cms/documents/ RSA12rifiuti.pdf [accessed 9 September 2016] Comune di Roma (2013a): Mappa dei Processi Partecipativi [WWW document]. URL http://www.urbanistica.comune. roma.it/mappa-partecipazione.html [accessed 15 October 2014]. Comune di Roma (2013b): Bando ricognitivo per l’affidamento in forma volontaria delle aree a verde pubblico [WWW document]. URL http://www.comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/ cms/documents/BANDO_RICOGNITIVO_CUSTODIA_4_ AREE.pdf [accessed 15 October 2014]. Coordinamento Parco (2013): Parco di Via delle Palme [WWW document]. URL http://www.parcodiviadellepalme. org/ [accessed 15 October 2014]. Crouch, D. and Ward, C. (1997): The Allotment: Its Landscape and Culture. Five Leaves, Nottingham. d’Albergo, E. and Moini, G. (2013): Politics, power and the economy in Rome: continuity and change in an urban regime. Métropoles 12: 1–24. Dehane, M. (2012): ‘From participation to commoning. Cultivating the distance between urban design’, in LATITUDE PLATFORM FOR URBAN RESEARCH AND DESIGN (ed.): Living with Water. Latitude, Venice. Dehane, M. and Vervloesem, E. (2011)‘When urban design leaves some room shifting degrees of indeterminacy in Rotterdam-Zuid’, Oase 85: 17–32. De Muro, P. et al. (2011): Benessere e qualità della vita nei municipi di Roma. Presented 19 July 2012 at the University Roma Tre [WWW document]. URL http://www.uniroma3.it/news2. php?news=550andp=1 [accessed 15 October 2014]. De Soto, H. (2000): The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Basic Books, New York. Donovan, M. G. (2008): ‘Informal cities and the contestation of public space: the case of Bogotá’s street vendors, 1988–2003’, Urban Studies, 45 (1): 29–51.


123

CHIARA CERTOMÀ Douglas, G. C. C. (2014): Do-it-yourself urban design: the social practice of informal “improvement” through unauthorized alteration. City and Community 12 (3). Eizenberg, E. (2012): ‘Actually existing commons: three moments of space of community gardens in New York City’, Antipode, 44 (3): 764–782. Emmett, R. (2011): ‘Community gardens, ghetto pastoral, and environmental justice’, Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 18 (1): 67–86. Ferris, J., Norman, C. and Sempik, J. (2001): ‘People, land and sustainability: community gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development’, Social Policy Administration 35 (5): 559–568. Flachs, A. (2010): ‘Food for thought: the social impact of community gardens in the Greater Cleveland area’, Electronic Green Journal 1 (30): 1–9. Formisani, E. (2012): ‘Ai cantieri verdi basta una zappata’, Paese Sera, July–August. Franck, K. A. and Stevens, Q. (2006): ‘Tying down loose space’, in Franck, K. A. and Stevens, Q. (eds.): Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. Routledge, Abingdon. Gadenz, I. (2011): ‘Road to gardens’. Artesera I (7). GEHL, J. (2010) Cities for People. Island Press, Washington. Giunta Comunale (2015): ‘Regolamento per l’affidamento in comodato d’uso e per la gestione di aree a verde di proprietà di Roma Capitale compatibili con la destinazione a orti/giardini urbani’, Dec. G.C. del 17 ottobre 2014 n. 91 [WWW document]. URL http://www.comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/ cms/documents/Proposta_185_2014.pdf [accessed 15 October 2014]. Gnessi, C. (2012): ‘Orto Errante per l’accampata a S.Croce in Gerusalemme’, Romanotizie.it, 5.11.2012 [WWW document]. URL http://www.romanotizie.it/orto-errante-per-l-accampataa-s-croce-in-gerusalemme.html [accessed 15 October 2014]. Greenwood, D. J. and Levin, M. (1998): Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Sage, London. Groth, J. and Corijn, E. (2005): ‘Reclaiming urbanity: indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda Ssetting’, Urban Studies 42: 2349–2370. Guerrilla Gardening (2014): Raduno Intergalattico di Guerrilla Gardening [WWW document]. URL http://www. guerrillagardening.it/ [accessed 15 October 2014]. Hackworth, J. (2000): The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology and Development in American Urbanism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Harvey, D. (1989): ‘From manageralism to entrepreneuralism: the transformation of urban governance in late capitalism’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B 71 (1): 3–17. Harvey, D. (1990): The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford, Blackwell. Havard, M. (2013): Etude sur les jardins et les potagers urbains partagés à Rome. Plan du Rapport de Stage. Unpublished manuscript, Universitè de Caen. Hinchliffe, S. and Whatmore, S. (2006): ‘Living cities: towards a politics of conviviality’, Science as Culture 15 (3): 123–138. Holston, J. (1998): ‘Spaces of insurgent citizenship’, in Sandercock, L. (ed.): Making the Invisible Visible. A Multicultural Planning History. University of California Press, London. Holston, J. (2008): Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

124

Hortus Urbis (2013): News [WWW document]. URL http:// www.hortusurbis.it/blog/ [accessed 15 October 2014]. Hou, J. (2010): Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. Taylor and Francis, New York. Hou, J. (2014): ‘Making and supporting community gardens as informal urban landscape’, in Mukhija, V. and Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (eds): The Informal American City. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hou, J., Johnson, J. and Lawson, L. (2009): Greening Cities Growing Communities: Learning from Seattle’s Urban Community Gardens. University of Washington Press, Washington and London. InfoBuild (2013): Riqualificazione del Giardino delle Palme. Progettazione ambientale [WWW document]. URL http:// www.infobuild.it/progetti/riqualificazione-del-giardino-dellepalme/ [accessed 8 September 2016] Insolera, I. (2011): Roma moderna. Da Napoleone I al XXI secolo. Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, Torino. Italia Nostra (2013): Orti Urbani [WWW document]. URL http://www.italianostra.org/?page_id=209 [accessed 15 October 2014]. Jiménez, A. C. (2014): ‘The right to infrastructure: a prototype for open source Urbanism’, Environment and Planning D 32: 342–362. Knigge, L. (2009): ‘Intersections between public and private: community gardens, community service and geographies of care in the US City of Buffalo, NY’, Geographica Helvetica 64: 45–52. Kurtz, H. (2001): ‘Differentiating multiple meanings of garden and community’, Urban Geography 22 (7): 656–670. Ledwith, M. and Springett, J. (2010): Participatory Practice: Community-based Action for Transformative Change. Policy Press, Bristol. Lefebvre, H. (1991): The Production of Space. Blackwell, London. Lefebvre, H. (2014): ‘Dissolving City, Planetary Metamorphosis’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32: 203–205. Maier, K. (2001): ‘Citizen Participation in Planning: Climbing a Ladder?’, European Planning Studies 9 (6): 707–719. McClintock, N. (2008): From industrial garden to food desert: unearthing the root structure of urban agriculture in Oakland, California. Institute for Study of Societal Issues Working Papers [WWW document]. URL http://escholarship.org/uc/ item/1wh3v1sj [accessed 8 September 2016]. McKay, G. (2011): Radical Gardening. Frances Lincoln Limited, London. Merrifield, A. (1996): ‘Public space: integration and exclusion in urban life’, City, 5–6: 57–72. Milbourne, P. (2012): ‘Everyday (in)justices and ordinary environmentalisms: community gardening in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods’, Local Environment 17 (9): 943–957. Miller, J. (2005): ‘Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (8): 261–268. Miraftab, F. (2009): ‘Insurgent planning: situating radical planning in the global South’, Planning Theory 8 (32): 32–50. Mougeot, L. (ed.) (2005): Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. EarthscanIDRC, London [WWW document]. URL http://www.idrc. ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails. aspx?PublicationID=187 [last accessed 15 October 2014]. Mukhija, V. and Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2014): The Informal American City. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.


A NEW SEASON FOR PLANNING Nawratek, K. (2011): City as a Political Idea. Short Run Press, Exeter. Nuissl, H. and Heinrichs, D. (2011): ‘Fresh wind or hot air? What spatial planning can gain from the governance discourse’, Journal of Planning Education and Research 31 (1): 47–59. Oecumene (2013): Citizenship, Orientalism and the Commons. Workshop, 25–28 September 2013, Rome. Oldroyd, E. (2011): Manual for Growing Food in Front Gardens. Infra, Leeds. Pagano, M. A. and Bowman, A. (2000): ‘Vacant land in cities: an urban resource’, The Brookings Institution Survey Series, 8. Perera, N. (2009): ‘People’s Spaces: Familiarization, Subject Formation and Emergent Space in Colombo’, Planning Theory, 8 (1): 51–75. Pinkerton, T. and Hopkins, R. (2009): Local Food. How to Make it Happen in Your Community. Green Books, Totnes, Devon. Porro, N. (1993): Il cemento e la ricotta. Per una sociologia del sistema politico romano (1946–1992). Edizioni SEAM, Roma. Potsiou, A. C. (2010): Informal Urban Development in Europe – Experiences from Albania and Greece. United Nations Printshop, Nairobi. Powell, L. (2012): The Accidental City: Improvising New Orleans. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Provincia di Roma (2012): Crescita Urbana. I territori della metropoli [WWW document]. URL http://capitalemetropolitana.provincia.roma.it/ dati-territoriali-2/i-territori-della-metropoli Pudup, M. B. (2008): ‘It takes a garden: cultivating citizensubjects in organized garden projects’, Geoforum 39 (3): 1228–1240. Purcell, M. (2002): ‘Excavating Lefebvre: the right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant’, GeoJournal 58 (2–3): 99–108. Purcell, M. and Tyman, S. K. (2014): ‘Cultivating food as a right to the city’, Local Environment, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2014.903236. Redazione Online (2010): ‘L’orto biologico del sindaco (e consorte). Sbarca a Roma la moda di Michelle’, Corriere della Sera 21 July 2010 [WWW document]. URL http://roma.corriere.it/roma/notizie/cronaca/10_luglio_21/orto-urbano-campidoglio-1703426281858.shtml [accessed 15 October 2014]. REPUBBLICA (2014). Ex tangenziale, ecco il progetto dell’orto urbano, Repubblica.it, 28 lug 2014. Available: http://roma. repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/07/28/news/ex_tangenziale_ ecco_il_progetto_dell_orto_urbano-92597847/[last accessed 15.10.2014] Reynolds, R. (2008): On Guerilla Gardening: A Handbook for Gardening Without Boundaries. Bloomsbury, London. Reynolds, K. (2014): ‘Disparity despite diversity: social injustice in New York City’s urban agriculture Ssystem’, Antipode 47 (1): 240–259. Richardson, T., Dusik, J. and Jindrova, P. (1998): ‘Parallel public participation: an answer to inertia in decision-making’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18: 201–216. ROBINS, K. (1993): Prisoners of the city: whatever could a postmodern city be?, in Carter, E., Donalds, J. and Squires, J. (eds): Space and Place: Theories of Identity and Location. Lawrence and Whisart, London, pp. 303–330. Robinson, J. (2002): ‘Global and world cities: a view from off the map’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26 (3): 531–554. Rosol, M. (2012): ‘Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy? Green space production in Berlin’, Antipode 44: 239–257.

Roy, A. (2005): ‘Urban informality: toward an epistemology of planning’, Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (2): 147–158. Roy, A. and AlSayyad, N. (eds) (2004): Urban Informality: Transnational Perspectives from the Middle East, South Asia and Latin America. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD. Saggio, A. (2013): ‘UrbanVoids: conflicts, user supports and design principles for microprojects in the periphery of Rome’, Lectures [WWW document]. URL http://www.arc1.uniroma1. it/saggio/Conferenze/Tirana/2UrbanVoids.htm [accessed 8 September 2016]. Sandercock, L. (1998): Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Schmelzkopf, K. (1995): ‘Urban community gardens as a contested space’, Geographical Review 85 (3): 364–381. Schmelzkopf, K. (2002): ‘Incommensurability, land use, and the right to space: community gardens in New York City’, Urban Geography 23 (4): 323–343. Sennett, R. (1970): The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life. Knopf, New York. Shatkin, G. (2004): ‘Planning to forget: informal settlements as “forgotten places” in globalising metro Manila’, Urban Studies 41 (12): 2469–2484. Smith, N. and DeFilippis, J. (1999): ‘The reassertion of economics: 1990s gentrification in the Lower East Side’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23: 638–653. Soja, E. (1985): ‘The spatiality of social life: towards a transformative retheorisation’, in Derek, G. and Urry, J. (eds): Social Relation and Spatial Structures. Macmillan, London. Staeheli, L. A., Mitchell, D. and Gibson, K. (2002): ‘Conflicting rights to the city in New York’s community gardens’, GeoJournal 58: 197–205. Technische Universitaet Berlin and Nexus (2002): Urban catalysts: strategies for temporary use – potential for development of urban residual areas in European Metropolises [WWW document]. URL http://www.templace.com/thinkpool/attach/download/1_UC_finalR_synthesis007b.pdf [accessed 8 September 2016]. Tornaghi, C. (2007): Implementing the urban Italia regeneration programme in Cinisello Balsamo (Milan): change and continuity in the pattern of local governance’, Journal fur Entwicklungspolitik 23: 75–97. Tornaghi, C. (2012): ‘Public space, urban agriculture and the grassroots creation of new Commons: lessons and challenges for policy makers’, in Viljoen, A. M. and Wiskerke, J. S. C. (eds): Sustainable Food Planning. Wageningen Academic Publisher, Wageningen. Tracey, D. (2007): Guerrilla Gardening: A Manualfesto. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC. Transen Hansen, K. and Vaa, M. (2004): Reconsidering Informality. Perspectives from Urban Africa. Grafilur Artes Gráficas, Vizcaya. Urban Transcripts (2011): Rome, the accidental city. International Workshop on the City, Rome, 13–17 December [WWW document]. URL http://urbantranscripts.org/our-work/ ut-2011/ [accessed 8 September 2016]. Uzzel, D. (1990): ‘Dissonance of formal and informal planning styles, or can formal planners do bricolage?’ City and Society 4 (2): 114–130. Vestbro, D. U. (2013): ‘Development aspect of formal and informal urban types’, Planum. The Journal of Urbanism 26 (1).


125

Rep R c o

CHIARA CERTOMÀ Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J. and Skinner, A. (2007): ‘Growing urban health: community gardening in south-east Toronto’, Health Promotion International 22 (2): 92–101. Weisman, E. L. (2009): ‘Cultivating community: the governance of community gardening in Syracuse, NY’, paper presented at 2009 Joint Meeting of AFHVS and ASFS 2009, College Park, PA, May. Whitehead, M. (2013): ‘Neoliberal urban environmentalism and the adaptive city’, Urban Studies 50: 1348–1367. Zanichelli, M. (2013): ‘Inaugurato il primo parco per gli orti urbani Comune di Roma’, Comune di Roma 21 July 2013 [WWW document]. URL http://www.comune.roma.it/wps/ portal/pcr?contentId=NEW [accessed 15 October 2014]. Zappata Romana (2011): How to Start a Community Garden [WWW document. URL http://www.zappataromana.net/images/guide%20En/Default.html [accessed 15 October 2014].

126

Zappata Romana (2013a): ZappataRomana [WWW document. URL http://www.zappataromana.net/download/articoli/ zappata%20romana.pdf [accessed 15 October 2014]. Zappata Romana (2013b): Stampa [WWW document]. URL http://www.zappataromana.net/stampa-2/ [accessed 15 October 2014]. Zappata Romana (2013c): Storie [WWW document]. URL http://www.zappataromana.net/video/ [accessed 15 October 2014]. Zappata Romana (2013d): Mappa [WWW document]. URL https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8andoe=UTF8and msa=0andmsid=105212681860407729485.00049556940081 352d852 [accessed 15 October 2014].
