This article investigates the meanings of the public space, specifically addressing urban marginalized areas. It explores the issue of inequality in relation to public space and how this is reflected in urban policies. Starting from a theoretical framework based on three heuristic dimensions regarding practices, imaginaries, and norms, the authors will analyze through a multidisciplinary approach—that brings planning and cultural anthropology into dialogue—three cases related to some resignification and re-appropriation dynamics within a neighborhood of social housing located in Milan. The three cases concern: a regeneration project of a road accomplished through an experimental municipal device; a recently renewed square located on the border of the neighborhood; the organization of a public event to clean up waste. The public space of San Siro will emerge as an arena where several social actors and their conflicting interests clash, thus affecting the everyday life of its residents and the possibilities for planning an inclusive city as a whole.
AernoutsN.CognettiF.MaranghiE. (Eds.). (2023). Urban Living Lab for Local Regeneration. Beyond Participation in Large-scale Social Housing Estates. Springer.
2.
AernoutsN.MaranghiE.RyckewaertM. (Eds.). (2020). Towards a definition of socially-oriented urban living labs. Soholab.
3.
AminA. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning, 34, 959–980.
4.
AppaduraiA. (2004). The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In RaoV.WaltonM. (Eds.), Culture and public action (pp. 59–84). Stanford University Press.
5.
AppaduraiA. (2013). The future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. Verso.
6.
BarthF. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Little Brown.
7.
BrighentiA. (2010). The publicness of public space: On the public domain. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, 49, 1–56.
8.
CancellieriA. (2014). Signs of publicness: Public access, public encounter and public appropriation. In CellamareC.CognettiF. (Eds.), Practices of reappropriation. Planum, 147–152.
9.
Capanema AlvaresL.BarbarosaJ. L. (2018). Urban public spaces: From planned policies to everyday politics. Springer.
10.
CarmonaM. (2015). Re-theorising contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new normative. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(4), 373–405.
11.
CarmonaM.HanssenG. S.LammB.NylundK.SaglieI-L.TietjenA. (2019). Public space in an age of austerity. Urban Design International, 24, 241–259.
12.
CognettiF.PadovaniL. (2018). Perché (ancora) i quartieri pubblici. Un laboratorio di politiche per la casa [Why (again) public neighbourhoods? A laboratory for housing policies]. Franco Angeli.
13.
ConcilioG. (2016). Urban living labs: Opportunities in and for planning. In ConcilioG.RizzoF. (Eds.), Human smart cities: Rethinking the interplay between design and planning (pp. 21–40). Springer.
14.
De BiaseA.ZaniniP. (Eds.). (2018). Esplorazioni temporali di un quartiere [Temporal explorations of a neighbourhood]. LAA recherché.
GehlJ. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space. Island Press.
17.
GrassiP. (2018). Le fantôme du terrorisme dans une banlieue de Milan [The spectre of terrorism in a suburb of Milan]. Journal des Anthropologues 154–155, 215–236.
18.
HouJ. (2010). Insurgent public space: Guerrilla urbanism and the remaking of contemporary cities. Routledge.
19.
IngoldT. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology, 25(2), 152–174.
20.
KnowlesC. (2000). Bedlam on the streets. Routledge.
21.
LefebvreH. (1974). La production de l’espace [The production of space]. Anthropos.
22.
LowS.SmithN. (2006). The politics of public space. Routledge.
23.
LowS.TaplinS.ScheldS. (2005). Rethinking urban parks: Public space and cultural diversity. The University of Texas Press.
24.
LydonM.GarciaA. (2015). Tactical urbanism: Short-term action for long-term change. Island Press.
25.
MadanipourA. (2019). Rethinking public space: Between rhetoric and reality. Urban Design International, 24, 38–46.
26.
MadanipourA. (Ed.). (2010). Whose public space? International case studies in urban design and development. Routledge.
27.
MasseyD. B. (2005). For space. SAGE.
28.
MitrašinovićM.MehtaV. (Eds.). (2021). Public space reader. Routledge.
29.
MoiniG. (2012). Teoria e critica della partecipazione. Un approccio sociologico [Theory and critique of participation. A sociological approach]. Franco Angeli.
30.
OlmoC. (2018). Città e democrazia. Per una critica delle parole e delle cose [City and democracy. Towards a critique of words and things]. Donzelli.
31.
PisanelloC. (2017). In nome del decoro. Dispositivi estetici e politiche securitarie [In the name of “decorum.” Aesthetic dispositive and securitarian policies]. Ombre Corte.
32.
van MelikR.van der KrabbenE. (2016). Co-production of public space: Policy translations from New York City to the Netherlands. The Town Planning Review, 87(2), 139–158.
33.
WacquantL. (2008). Urban outcast: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Polity Press.
34.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.
