Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Articoli scientifici

No. 30 (2025): U3 iQuaderni. Journal of urban studies

Relational proximity as a new way to co-construct future visions for the territory

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/u3q30-2025oa21027
Submitted
settembre 18, 2025
Published
2026-07-20

Abstract

The debate on the impact of participatory processes centers on a structural tension between top-down approaches and bottom-up practices, highlighting the limitations and potentials inherent in both models. Institutionalised processes, despite often having limited innovative capacity, effectively mobilise civic resources and activate citizenship. Conversely, bottom-up practices, while possessing significant transformative potential, often face challenges in influencing public policies tangibly.

In view of these critical issues, it is necessary to move beyond the dichotomy between these approaches by exploring hybrid forms and intermediate spaces of co-production. Within this theoretical framework, this contribution reflects on the concept of proximity, understood not only in spatial terms but as a relational category that influences the construction of diffuse power and the forging of social bonds.

The analysis is based on an action research experience conducted within the Torrente Mugnone Agreement in the Metropolitan City of Florence, focusing on the participatory device Place of Proximity. This approach aimed to organise the riverside community and facilitate the co-creation of territorial visions among citizens, institutions, and universities.

The author's direct involvement in the process enabled critical analysis, emphasising the enabling conditions for the establishment of territorial alliances and the rebalancing of power asymmetries. The purpose of this contribution is twofold. Firstly, it aims to enrich the debate on the role of proximity as a strategic element in the activation of intermediate collaborative spaces. This is done in order to define shared future visions. Secondly, it aims to explore the potential deriving from the integration of collective learning practices and processes of collective imagination of the future.

References

  1. Allegretti G. (2020). Ricostruire la partecipazione civica nella nuova normalità. Contesti. Città, Territori, Progetti, (2). Firenze: Firenze University Press. 177-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/contest-11935
  2. Alinsky S. D. (1971). Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House.
  3. Alinsky S. D. (1946). Reveille for radicals. Chicago: University of Chicago.
  4. Bastiani M., a cura di (2011). Contratti di fiume. Pianificazione strategica e partecipata dei bacini idrografici. Palermo: Flaccovio editore.
  5. Barca F., Luongo P. (2020). Un futuro più giusto. Rabbia, conflitto e giustizia sociale, Bologna: Il Mulino.
  6. Boschma R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies. Vol. 39.1: 61–74. DOI 10.1080/0034340052000320887
  7. Caruso E. (2024). Prossimità relazionale. Un modello progressista di urbanistica. INU Edizioni.
  8. Caruso E. (2023). Attivare nuove modalità di agire collettivo: una rielaborazione del community organizing. In Belingardi C., Esposito De Vita G., Lieto L., Pappalardo G. & Saija L., a cura di (2023), Agire collettivo e rapporto tra attori nel governo del territorio, Atti della XXIV Conferenza Nazionale SIU Dare valore ai valori in urbanistica, Brescia, 23-24 giugno 2022, vol. 05, Planum Publisher e Società Italiana degli Urbanisti, Roma-Milano 2023.
  9. Cellamare C. e Cognetti F. (2014). Practices of reappropriation in the contemporary city. Processes, places and imaginary. Tracce Urbane. Planum Publisher. 7-12.
  10. Cellamare C. (2019). Città fai da te. Roma: Edizioni Donzelli.
  11. Chambers E.T. (2003). Roots for Radicals: Organizing for Power, Action, and Justice. New York: Bloomsbury Revelations.
  12. Chambers E.T. (2016). The power of relational action. Chicago: Acta publications.
  13. Ciaffi D., Mela A. (2013). Urbanistica partecipata. Roma: Carocci Editore.
  14. Ciampolini T. (2019). Comunità che innovano. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  15. Coenen L., Moodysson J., Asheim T. (2004). Nodes, networks and proximities: on the knowledge dynamics of the Medicon Valley biotech cluster. European Planning Studies. 12:7.1003-1018. DOI 10.1080/0965431042000267876
  16. Coppola A., Diletti M. a cura di, (2020). Radicali all’azione! Organizzare i senza-potere. Roma: Edizioni l’Asino.
  17. Dewey J. (1916). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free press.
  18. Donati P. (2022). La teoria relazionale nelle scienze sociali: sviluppi e prospettive. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  19. Donolo C. (1997). L’intelligenza delle istituzioni. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  20. Dolci D. (1963). Racconti siciliani. Torino: Einaudi.
  21. Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America; a theory of transactive planning. New York: Anchor Press.
  22. Friedmann J. (1979). The good society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  23. Friedmann J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  24. Ganz M. (2010). Leading change: Leadership, organization, and social movements. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. 509-550.
  25. Ganz M. (2011). Public Narrative, Collective Action, and Power. Accountability Through Public Opinion: From Inertia to Public Action. eds. Sina Odugbemi and Taeku Lee: 273-289 Washington D.C: The World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/9780821385050_ch18
  26. Ganz M., Lin E.S. (2012). Learning to lead: a pedagogy of practice. The handbook for teaching leadership: knowing, doing, and being, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. 353-366.
  27. Gecan M. (2004). Going public. An organizer’s guide to citizen action. New York: Anchor Books.
  28. Granovetter M.S. (1973). The Stregth of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology. Vol 78. Issue 6: 1360-1380.
  29. Healey P. (1998). Collaborative Planning in Stakeholder Society. Town Planning Review, 69.1: 1-21 DOI: 10.3828/tpr.69.1.h651u2327m86326p
  30. Healey P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies. Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge.
  31. Innes J. (1994). Planning through consensus-building: a new view of the comprehensive Planning ideal, Berkley: University of California IURD.
  32. Lambert-Pennington K. Saija. L. Franchina A. (2018). From Possibility to Action: An Interdisciplinary Action-Learning School dealing with Waste. Cambio. Rivista sulle Trasformazioni Sociali, Vol. 1.15: 73-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/cambio-23216
  33. Lanzara GF. (1997). Perché è difficile costruire le istituzioni. Rivista Italiana di Scienza politica. XXVII.1: 4-48.
  34. Lingiardi V. et all, (2011). La svolta relazionale. Itinerari Italiani. Milano: Cortina.
  35. Lingua V., Balz V. (2020). Shaping Regional Futures. Springer
  36. Lingua V. (2022). Regional design. Progettare l’area vasta. Trento: List Lab.
  37. Lingua V. Caruso E. (2022b). Futures Literacy as a reading key for strategic spatial planning: A community learning process for defining shared futures in the Ombrone River Agreement. Futures. Vol.140. 102935. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2022.102935
  38. Magnaghi A. (2007). L’arte degli scenari nella costruzione del progetto locale. In Magnaghi A. a cura di, Scenari strategici. Visioni identitarie per il progetto di territorio. Firenze: Alinea.
  39. Magnaghi A., Giacomozzi S., a cura di (2009). Un fiume per il territorio. Indirizzi progettuali per il parco fluviale del Valdarno Empolese. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
  40. Magnaghi A. (2020). Il principio territoriale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
  41. Manzini E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation.
  42. Manzini E. (2021). Abitare la prossimità. Idee per la città dei 15 minuti. Milano: Egea.
  43. Marson A. a cura di (2020). Urbanistica e pianificazione nella prospettiva territorialista. Roma: Quodlibet Studio.
  44. Mascarucci R. (2004). Vision. Territori d’Europa. Roma: Meltemi.
  45. Minervini G., (2016). La politica generativa. Pratiche di comunità nel laboratorio Puglia. Roma: Carocci Editore. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  46. Moreno, C.; Allam, Z.; Chabaud, D.; Gall, C; Pratlong, F. (2021). Introducing the ‘15-minute city’: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities. Vol. 4 (1): 93-111. DOI: 10.3390/smartcities4010006
  47. Moreno, C. (2024). La città dei 15 minuti. Per una cultura urbana democratica. Torino: add editore.
  48. Paba G., Pecoriello A.L., Perrone C., Rispoli F., a cura di (2009). Partecipazione in Toscana. Interpretazioni e racconti. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
  49. Pappalardo G., Saija L. (2020). Per una SNAI 2.0 come occasione di apprendimento istituzionale. Riflessioni a margine di un processo di ricerca-azione. Archivio di studi urbani e regionali. 129/2020: 47-70. Milano: Franco Angeli. DOI 10.3280/ASUR2020-129003
  50. Piaget J. (1970). L'épistémologie génétique. Paris:Presses Universitaires de France. Trad .it. (2016) L’epistemologia genetica. Roma: Stadium.
  51. Reardon K.M. (2006). Promoting reciprocity within community/university development partnerships: lessons from the field. Planning, practice & research. Vol 21.1:95-107. DOI: 10.1080/02697450600901566
  52. Saija L. (2012). La città educativa. Riflessioni sulla funzione pedagogica dell’urbanistica. Acireale: Bonanno Editore.
  53. Saija L. (2016). La ricerca-azione in pianificazione territoriale e urbanistica. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  54. Saija, L., Pappalardo, G. (2021). From Enabling People to Enabling Institutions. A National Policy Suggestion for Inner Areas Coming from an Action-Research Experience. In: Bevilacqua, C., Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L. (eds) New Metropolitan Perspectives. NMP 2020. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies. Vol 178. Springer, Cham.
  55. Schutz, A., and M. Miller, eds. (2015). People Power. The Community Organizing Tradition of Saul Alinsky. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
  56. Torlone F. (2018). Apprendimento istituzionale e politiche educative regionali. Canteramo: Aracne Editrice.
  57. Olivetti A. (2015). Città dell’uomo. Roma: Edizioni di Comunità (ed. or. 1959).
  58. Orioli V., Massari M. (2023). Praticare l’urbanistica. Traiettorie tra innovazione sociale e pianificazione. Milano: Franco Angeli.
  59. Ostanel E. (2020). Spazi fuori dal comune. Rigenerare, includere, innovare. Milano: Franco Angeli.
  60. Ostanel E. (2023). Innovation in strategic planning: Social innovation and co-production under a common analytical framework. Planning and Theory. Sage DOI: 10.1177/14730952231182610
  61. Ozzano L., Fenoglio S. (2022). Concezione del potere e ruolo della religione nell'organizzazione comunitaria. Religioni.13: 837. DOI: 10.3390/rel13090837
  62. Vigar G., Paul C., Healey P. (2020). Innovation in planning: creating and securing public value. European Planning Studies. 28(3): 521–540. DOI 10.1080/09654313.2019.1639400
  63. Voghera A. (2020). The river agreement in Italy. Resilient planning for the co-evolution of communities and landscapes. Land Use Policy. 91. 104377 Elsevier.