"Negotiations and planning in Milan, Italy"

The city of Milan started a new planning process in 2011 which addressed various issues of contemporary land use planning for metropolitan areas. So far, local policies payed little attention to public spaces and community needs (Arcidiacono and Pogliani, 2011) and the strength of Milan economy and its rich society have not prevented an unfair development, increasing social inequalities and a loss of environmental quality. Milan new urban policy intends to renovate tools and goals and to produce a different vision in the still confused stage of transition, undergoing the Italian urban planning. In a time of public welfare shrinking, the national and regional systems are shifting from a legally binding model of comprehensive plan towards a more flexible one largely based on public-private negotiation. This transition has often proceeded too fast and unruled and its outcomes have been perceived unsustainable in many cases. As a consequence, the achievement of a sound balance of public and private rights will hopefully be the primary concern of local governments for the coming years (Curti ed, 2006). Costs recovery, compensation tools and the reduction of building rights, along with facilities investments, are taken into account for a more equitable development of the dense cities such as Milan. The paper focuses on the sustainable issues that are tackled in the new urban Plan through the regulation of property rights as well as the negotiation of public benefits from development. The innovative approach combines a strong public driven strategy with the introduction of basic rules for p/p partnership in every development or re-development project (Healey, 2007), in order to adjust a reasonable mix of charges, in cash and in kind, and to adapt it to a fragmented and mostly private property land and real estate. Charges include infrastructures; extra fees, in addition to the compulsory exactions; substantial land grant requirements to assure the diffusion of green public areas and facilities; finally, an Inclusionary Housing program. By enacting such an incremental policy, local government encourages both land banking and fund raising for social purposes, finally addressing the land value recapture (Calavita and Mallach, 2010). In consideration of the scarcity of new public investment initiatives, the Plan’s goals mainly focus on improving the energy performances of the existing fabric, protecting the morphological features of the urban shape, fostering the environmental quality and social services and regulating private interventions to develop an inclusive city. A betterment in the liveability and quality of life is a way to respond to the citizens’ expectations and to attract national and international investors, as well as to maintain their presence and gain their trust in the long run.