No. 1 (2026): Istituzioni e societa’ civile nello spazio urbano. Apprendimento istituzionale, oltre la dicotomia collaborazione-conflitto
Ricerche

INNOIMMOI. Oltre la buona pratica, un processo del fare città tra conflitto e cooperazione

Valentina Rossella Zucca
Politecnico di Milano, Italia
Davide Simoni
Politecnico di Milano, Italia

Published 2026-08-07

Keywords

  • public sphere,
  • commons,
  • institutions,
  • thirdness,
  • policy mix,
  • institutional learning
  • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Zucca, V. R., & Simoni, D. (2026). INNOIMMOI. Oltre la buona pratica, un processo del fare città tra conflitto e cooperazione. Contesti. Città, Territori, Progetti, (1), 134–157. https://doi.org/10.36253/contest-17090

Abstract

In recent decades, urban planning has increasingly been shaped by practices that challenge the traditional separation between institutional planning and civic initiative, opening up spaces of both cooperation and tension between public administrations and the third sector. This contribution situates itself within this debate by examining the experience of INNOIMMOI, developed in the municipality of Sinnai (CA), not as a paradigmatic best practice but as a situated, uneven, and non-linear process. Through a research-action approach, the authors conceived and accompanied the project by intertwining analysis, design, and interaction with local actors. Several years after the most intense phases of experimentation, the experience is reread ex post by combining an internal perspective on the process with an institutional retrospective, based on an interview with the deputy mayor of Sinnai. The article thus explores what remains when a project does not translate into structured policies: learnings, imaginaries, and latent project resources that, even in the absence of full institutionalization, continue to shape ways of thinking about and practicing city-making.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Balducci A. 1991, Disegnare il futuro. Il problema dell’efficacia nella pianificazione urbanistica, Il Mulino, Bologna.
  2. Davidoff P. 1965, Advocacy and pluralism in planning, «Journal of the American Institute of Planners», vol. 31, n. 4, pp. 331–338. DOI: 10.1080/01944366508978187.
  3. Friedmann J. 1987, Planning in the Public Domain. From Knowledge to Action, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  4. Goodman R. 1971, After the planners, Simon & Schuster, New York.
  5. Purcell M. 2008, Recapturing democracy: Neoliberalization and the struggle for alternative urban futures, Routledge, London–New York.
  6. Savini F. 2023, Maintaining autonomy: Urban degrowth and the challenge of post-capitalist futures, «Urban Studies», vol. 60, n. 7, pp. 1231–1248.
  7. Secchi B. 1996, Ascoltare la città. Laboratorio Prato PRG, Alinea Editrice, Firenze.
  8. Simoni D., Zucca V.R. 2023, Elogio delle vagabondə. Riappropriarsi del diritto al suolo per un patto socio-ecologico, in M. Ranzato, B. Badiani (eds), Il progetto di urbanistica tra conflitto e integrazione. Atti della XXIV Conferenza Nazionale SIU Dare valore ai valori in urbanistica, Brescia, 23–24 giugno 2022, vol. 10, Planum Publisher, Società Italiana degli Urbanisti, Roma–Milano, pp. 148-153
  9. Swyngedouw E. 2014, Insurgent architects, radical cities and the promise of the political, in J. Wilson, E. Swyngedouw (eds), The post-political and its discontents: Spaces of depoliticisation, spectres of radical politics, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
  10. Watson V. 2014, Co-production and collaboration in planning: The difference, «Planning Theory & Practice», vol. 15, n. 1, pp. 62–76. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2013.866266.
  11. Zucca V.R. 2022, Un sasso in uno stagno: Le scuole come spazio di centralità sociale e culturale in contesti in transizione nella Sardegna meridionale, «Archivio di studi urbani e regionali», n. 132, pp. 138–153.
  12. Zucca V.R. 2024, SCHOOLS [NOT] DEAD, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Università Iuav di Venezia.