Takling Urban Seriously: a call for papers
by Marco Cremaschi

In 1994 the European Commission launched the Urban Programme (see the Commission communication 94/C 180/02) which was aimed at urban distressed areas, and fostered an innovative integrated approach (for more information, see the official web-site of the programme: http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int/urban/initiative).
Urban is a Community initiative, a special instrument conceived by the Commission and proposed to member states in order to tackle special issues. Funding comes from both form the Regional and Social Cohesion Funds, but are directly addressed to cities and local municipalities, in an attempt of mobilising local networks and attaining a greater effectiveness.
Urban is then a sound example of how public policies have changed in the last ten years. European wide plagues as unemployment, poverty, the down-grading of urban fabric are dealt with at the local level; yet, a new impulse to tackle urban regeneration comes from the "federal" level of government.
Urban policies have been implemented in several countries since the Sixties, with different aims and contrasting results. The European Community also gained previous experience through the Urban Pilot Projects (UPPs) on one side, and through the Poverty programme on the other.
Eventually, the European Parliament decided to promote a second round, validating then the results of the on-going programmes (a Community communication is waited for the end of 1999). Actually, thanks also to the URBAN Initiative, a special attention for urban issues has been paid in the reform of the Structural Funds regulations for the period 2000-2006, and in the 1998 Urban Forum in Wien.
Urban is then a good window on the innovation in urban policies. First, because it is a continent-wide programme. Several cities tried to present a proposal to the entitled national authority, and 118 were finally selected, basically medium size cities, 90% of which with more than hundred thousands inhabitants. This is an excellent starting point to contrast different processes of urban deprivation. Second, because models of urban deprivation are unevenly spread across European countries. Among the basic "models" targeted by the Urban Initiative, the most frequent is the inner-city area, while large social housing estates or abandoned industrial sites are more usual in continent Europe, and historic city centres have been selected mostly in Latin countries. What is at stake, however, is the "visibility" of urban deprivation, how does it really matters in the local debate.
Finally, Urban clearly focuses on a spatial related approach. Basically, it focuses on three assumptions: a) targeting small areas guarantees more visible outcomes and a more efficient implementation (programmes cover less than 6 sq. km. on the average; 90% affects one single neighbourhood); b) a cumulative process grows out of the "integrated" approach, the stress being on improving accessibility, enhancing communication, attracting visitors and private investment; c) managing successfully a programme enables the local system of governance to assimilate all the 'problem' areas and to further growth.
Thus Planum regards Urban as a sensitive test for the policies of the next decades.