Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning

Cecilia Scoppetta

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15

| Peer-Reviewed

Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning

Cecilia Scoppetta

Published in Social Sciences (Volume 3, Issue 4-1)

Received: 16 May 2014 Accepted: 21 May 2014 Published: 14 June 2014

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

On the background of contemporary rescaling process and of the current broad rethinking of some relevant concepts – such as “region”, “territory”, “locality”, and “space” – the case of the Baltic Sea Macro-Region, and of the related place-based EU successful «experimentalist» strategies highlights the emerging of «soft spaces» as new forms of territorial organisations. These clearly appear as a result of EU “soft” (“lateral”) territorial approach outlining a really innovative multileveled spatial pattern. By using a biological metaphor these soft spaces may be intended as «synaptic spaces» clearly claiming for a radical shift in planning approaches, by moving towards soft and synaptic planning practices involving «’soft process’ of negotiation and learning». Features of these spatial configurations drawing new continental geographies are explored by highlighting the role both of images/imaginaries and historical/geographical/cultural roots, to be used (re-interpreted) in the de-construction/re-construction of the contemporary European spatiality. In this sense, we may say that, according to Faludi «geography still matters» (and also history!). In fact, Baltic Sea cooperative networks (that is: the basis of the new EU strategy) can be seen as a return to what once was an important communication channel for thousand of years and flourishing trade in the region. The model is that of the Hanse League, based on flexible not hierarchical (mainly economic) «weak ties» – or «loose coupling» – among autonomous cities (but not exclusively), which share a transnational unbounded Hanseatic “space” (not “territory”) and which are periodically (not always) able to act as a collective actor to achieve local collective competition goods avoiding the «trap of joint decision». It remains to be seen whether such a strategy – which has proved successful in the Baltic area – will be so effectively applied to other specific spatial and cultural contexts (with their differences in challenges and potentials), such as the Danube corridor, or to the much more “explosive” Mediterranean basin.

Published in	Social Sciences (Volume 3, Issue 4-1) This article belongs to the Special Issue Geographical Evidence in Changing Europe
DOI	10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15
Page(s)	46-56
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Spatial-Political Rescaling, EU Macro-Regional Strategies, Images, Networks

References

[1]	Albrechts, L., Alden J. and Da Rosa Pires A. eds., 2001. The Changing Institutional Landscape of Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate.
[2]	Altshuler, A., Morrill, W., Wolman, H. and Mitchell, F. eds., 1999. Governance and Opportunity in America. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[3]	Anderson, P., 1999. Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science, 10(3).
[4]	Atlan, H., 1983. L’emergence du noveau et du sens. In: P. Dumouchel and J.P. Dupuy eds. L’Auto-organisation. De la physique au politique. Colloque de Cerisy. Paris: Seuil.
[5]	Bache, I. and Flinders, M. eds., 2005. Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[6]	Bachelard, G., 1957. La poétique de l’espace. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
[7]	Backzo, B., 1978. Lumiéres de l’utopie.. Paris: Payot.
[8]	Bak, P., 1996. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. New York: Copernicus.
[9]	Berezin, M., 2003. Introduction: territory, emotion and identity: spatial recalibration in a new Europe. In: M. Berezin, and M. Schain, eds. Europe Without Borders: Remapping Territory, Citizenship and Identity in a Transnational Age. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[10]	Borges, J.L., 1952. Otras inquisiciones. Buenos Aires: Sur.
[11]	Brenner, N., 2003. Metropolitan Institutional Reform and the Rescaling of Space in Contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(4), pp. 297-324.
[12]	Brenner, N., 2009. A Thousand Leaves: Notes on the Geography of Uneven Spatial Development. In: R. Keil and R. Mahon, eds. Leviathan Undone? Towards a Political Economy of Scale. Vancouver: UBC Press.
[13]	Brown, T.L., 2003. Making truth: metaphor in science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
[14]	Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
[15]	Castells, M. 2001. The Internet Galaxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[16]	CEC-Commission Of The European Communities, 2009. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Brussels, 10.6.2009, COM(2009) 248 final.
[17]	Cremaschi, M., 2004. The ‘light’ Europeization of spatial development policies, lecture at the University Centre for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, February 2004.
[18]	D’Haenens, A. ed., 1984. Europe of the North Sea and the Baltic. The world of Hanse. Anvers: Mercator.
[19]	Davoudi, S., 2003. Polycentricity in European Spatial Planning: From an Analytical Tool to a Normative Agenda. European Planning Studies, 11, pp. 979-999.
[20]	Davoudi, S., 2005. The Northern Way: a polycentric megalopolism. Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Review, 15, 1.
[21]	Delanty, G. and Rumford, C., 2006. Political globalization. In: G. Ritzer, ed., Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell.
[22]	Dijst, M, Schenkel, W. and Thomas, I. eds., 2002. Governing Cities on the Move: Functional and Management Perspectives on Transformations of European Urban Infrastructure. Aldershot: Ashgate.
[23]	Dollinger, P., 1964. Le Hanse. Paris: Aubier.
[24]	Dubois, A., Hedin, S., Schmitt, P. and Sterling, J., 2009. EU macro-regions and macro-regional strategies – A scoping study. Stockholm: Nordregio.
[25]	Faludi, A., 1996. Framing with Images. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23.
[26]	Faludi, A., 2007. Making Sense of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union. European Journal of Spatial Development, 25.
[27]	Faludi, A., 2008. European Territorial Cooperation and Learning. disP, 172, 1.
[28]	Faludi, A., 2009. A turning point in the development of European spatial planning? The ‘Territorial Agenda of the European Union’ and the ‘First Action Programme’. Progress in Planning, 71, pp. 1-42.
[29]	Faludi, A., 2010a. European Spatial Planning: past, present, future. Town Planning Review, 81(1), pp.1-22.
[30]	Faludi, A., 2010b. Beyond Lisbon: Soft European Spatial Planning. disP, 182.
[31]	Fleck, L., 1980. Enstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenshaftlichen Tatsache. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
[32]	Fritze, K., 1984. The Hanse and Marxist historiography. In: A. D’Haenens, ed., Europe of the North Sea and the Baltic. The world of Hanse. Anvers: Mercator.
[33]	Gabellini, P., 1996. Il disegno del piano. Roma: NIS – La Nuova Italia Scientifica.
[34]	Gramsci, A., 1977. Quaderni dal carcere. Torino: Einaudi.
[35]	Granovetter, M., 1983. The strength of the weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociological theory, 1.
[36]	Gruber, H.E., 1966. Pensée créatrice et vitesse du changement adaptif: le développement de la pensée de Darwin. In: H.E. Gruber, Psychologie et épistemologie génetiques. Thèmes piagé tiens. Paris: Dunod.
[37]	Gualini, E. and Woltjer, J., 2004. The Rescaling of Regional Planning and Governance in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the AESOP annual conference, Grenoble.
[38]	Hambleton, R., 2003. The New City Government: Innovation, Service and Democratic Renewal. Occasional Paper, 5, Brown Institute of Public Affairs, UCLA.
[39]	Haughton, G., Allmendinger, Ph., Counsell, D. and Vigar, G., 2010. The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries. London: Routledge.
[40]	Healey, P., 1998. Building Institutional Capacity Through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(9).
[41]	Healey, P., 2003a. Network Complexity and the Spatial Imaginative Power of Strategic Spatial Planning. Paper presented at the joint AESOP/ACSP Congress, Leuven, July 2003.
[42]	Healey, P., 2003b. Creativity, Governance and the Public Sphere. Paper presented at the conference “Cities, urbanity and urban interventions”, Brussels, February 2003.
[43]	Hirschorn, L., 1980. Scenario Writing: A Developmental Approach. Journal of the American Panning Association, 46.
[44]	Hobsbawm, E.J. and Ranger, T.O., 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press.
[45]	Holland, J.H., 1995. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[46]	Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analy-sis.
[47]	Holton, G., 1978. The Scientific Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[48]	Jachtenfuchs, M. and Kohler-Koch, B., 2004. Governance and institutional development. In: A. Wiener and T. Diez eds., European Integration Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[49]	Jouvenel, B., 1964. L’art de la conjecture, Futuribles. Monaco: Ed. Du Rocher.
[50]	Katz, B. ed., 2000. Reflections on Regionalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
[51]	Kauffman, S.A., 1995. At home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
[52]	Keil, R. and Mahon, R. eds., 2009. Leviathan Undone? Towards a Political Economy of Scale. Vancouver: UBC Press.
[53]	Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[54]	Le Galès, P., 1998. Regulation and Governance in British Sites. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(3), pp. 482-506.
[55]	Magnusson, W., 2009. Scaling Government to Politics. In: R. Keil and R. Mahon eds., Leviathan Undone? Towards a Political Economy of Scale. Vancouver: UBC Press.
[56]	March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P., 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.
[57]	Marks, G., Scharpf, F., Schmitter, P. and Streek, W., 1996. Governance in the European Union. London: Sage.
[58]	Miller, B., 2009. Is Scale a Chaotic Concept? Notes on Processes of Scale Production. In: R. Keil and R. Mahon eds., Leviathan Undone? Towards a Political Economy of Scale. Vancouver: UBC Press.
[59]	Mills, C.W., 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
[60]	Morin, E., 1977. La Méthode, t.I: La nature de la nature. Paris: Seuil.
[61]	Palermo, P.C., 1998. L’autonomia del progetto e il problema della ‘visione condivisa’. Urbanistica, 110.
[62]	Patlagean, E., 1978. Histoire de l’imaginaire. In: J. Le Goff ed., La nouvelle histoire. Paris: Retz.
[63]	Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I., 1979. La nouvelle alliance. Paris: Gallimard.
[64]	Rein, M. and Schön, D., 1986. Frame-reflective policy discourse. Beleidsanalyse, 15(4).
[65]	Sabel, C.F. and Zeitlin, J. eds., 2010. Experimentalist Governance in the European Union Towards a New Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[66]	Salet, W., 2003. Rescaling of territorial governance: Recent experiences in Dutch urbanised regions. Paper presented at the international workshop “Territorial governance in a multi-level environment: new forms of institutional action”, University of Amsterdam, 14-15 November 2003.
[67]	Salet, W. and Faludi, A. eds., 2000. The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
[68]	Salet, W., Thornley, A. and Kreukels, A. eds., 2003. Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning: Comparative Case Studies of European City-Regions. London: SPON Press.
[69]	Salez, P., 2009. How EU comes into Spatial Planning: from the birth of regional policy to the Green paper on territorial cohesion, the emergence of the Community as a player over more than 20 years. Downloadable at: http://www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/Related%20Documents/livre%20geographie%202009%20texte%20bis%20EN.pdf .
[70]	Samecki, P., 2009. Speech at the Ministerial Conference on the EU Baltic Sea Strategy, 18 of September 2009, Stockholm. Downloadable at: http://www.eumonitor.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=135429&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 .
[71]	Sartre, J.P., 1936. L’imagination. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
[72]	Sartre, J.P., 1940. L’immaginaire. Psycologie phénoménologique de l’imagination. Paris: Gallimard.
[73]	Sassen, S., 2001. The Global City. Princeton: Princeton University Press (2nd edition).
[74]	Scharpf, F.W., ed., 1993. Games in Hierarchies and Networks. Analytical and Empirical Approaches to the Study of Governance Institutions. Frankfurt am Main: Westview Press.
[75]	Schildhauer, J., 1988. The Hansa: History and Culture. New York: Dorset.
[76]	Schmitt, P., 2010. A Baltic Sea Strategy beyond 2013. Presentation at CoR’s Forum “Europe’s macro-regions. Integration through territorial co-operation”, Brussels, 13th April 2010, downloadable at: http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/EventTemplate.aspx?view=folder&id=177a95fc-ce27-4d76-82ce-457420963ce4&sm=177a95fc-ce27-4d76-82ce-457420963ce4.
[77]	Scholte, J.A., 2004. Globalization and governance: from statism to polycentricity. GSGR Working Paper, 130/04 http://www.csgr.org .
[78]	Scott, A.J., 2001. Global city-regions: Trends, theory, policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[79]	Secchi, B., 1984. Il racconto ur-banistico. Torino: Einaudi. Secchi, B., 1988. Codificare, Ridurre, Banalizzare. Urbanistica, 91.
[80]	Secchi, B., 1989. Un progetto per l’urbanistica. Torino: Einaudi.
[81]	Soubeyran, O., 1988. Vingt and déja: un retour à la case dé part?. Cahiers de Géographir du Québec, 87.
[82]	Starobinsky, J., 1970. Jalons pour une histoire du concept d’imagination. In: J. Starobinsky, La relation critique. Paris: Gallimard.
[83]	Stead, D., 2011. Policy & Planning Brief. Planning Theory & Practice, 12(1), 163-167.
[84]	Storper, M., 1997. The Regional World. New York: Guilford Press.
[85]	Van Foester, H., 1981. Observing systems. Seaside: Intersystem Publica-tions.
[86]	Vigar, G., Healey, P., Hull, A. and Davoudi, S., 2000. Planning, Governance and Spatial Strategy in Britain: An Institutionalist Analysis. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
[87]	Waldrop, M., 1992. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.
[88]	Waterhout, B., 2008. The Institutionalisation of European Spatial Planning. PhD Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft University Press.
[89]	Waterhout, B., 2009. Soft spatial planning – what, why and how?. Unpublished workshop paper.
[90]	Weick, K., 1976. Educational Organizations as Loosely Couplet Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21.
[91]	Williams, R.H., 1996. European Union Spatial Policy and Planning. London: Chapman Publishing.
[92]	World Bank, 2003. World Development Report: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Cecilia Scoppetta. (2014). Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning. Social Sciences, 3(4-1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Cecilia Scoppetta. Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(4-1), 46-56. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Cecilia Scoppetta. Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning. Soc Sci. 2014;3(4-1):46-56. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15,
  author = {Cecilia Scoppetta},
  title = {Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {3},
  number = {4-1},
  pages = {46-56},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.s.2014030401.15},
  abstract = {On the background of contemporary rescaling process and of the current broad rethinking of some relevant concepts – such as “region”, “territory”, “locality”, and “space” – the case of the Baltic Sea Macro-Region, and of the related place-based EU successful «experimentalist» strategies highlights the emerging of «soft spaces» as new forms of territorial organisations. These clearly appear as a result of EU “soft” (“lateral”) territorial approach outlining a really innovative multileveled spatial pattern. By using a biological metaphor these soft spaces may be intended as «synaptic spaces» clearly claiming for a radical shift in planning approaches, by moving towards soft and synaptic planning practices involving «’soft process’ of negotiation and learning». Features of these spatial configurations drawing new continental geographies are explored by highlighting the role both of images/imaginaries and historical/geographical/cultural roots, to be used (re-interpreted) in the de-construction/re-construction of the contemporary European spatiality. In this sense, we may say that, according to Faludi «geography still matters» (and also history!). In fact, Baltic Sea cooperative networks (that is: the basis of the new EU strategy) can be seen as a return to what once was an important communication channel for thousand of years and flourishing trade in the region. The model is that of the Hanse League, based on flexible not hierarchical (mainly economic) «weak ties» – or «loose coupling» – among autonomous cities (but not exclusively), which share a transnational unbounded Hanseatic “space” (not “territory”) and which are periodically (not always) able to act as a collective actor to achieve local collective competition goods avoiding the «trap of joint decision». It remains to be seen whether such a strategy – which has proved successful in the Baltic area – will be so effectively applied to other specific spatial and cultural contexts (with their differences in challenges and potentials), such as the Danube corridor, or to the much more “explosive” Mediterranean basin.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning
AU  - Cecilia Scoppetta
Y1  - 2014/06/14
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 46
EP  - 56
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15
AB  - On the background of contemporary rescaling process and of the current broad rethinking of some relevant concepts – such as “region”, “territory”, “locality”, and “space” – the case of the Baltic Sea Macro-Region, and of the related place-based EU successful «experimentalist» strategies highlights the emerging of «soft spaces» as new forms of territorial organisations. These clearly appear as a result of EU “soft” (“lateral”) territorial approach outlining a really innovative multileveled spatial pattern. By using a biological metaphor these soft spaces may be intended as «synaptic spaces» clearly claiming for a radical shift in planning approaches, by moving towards soft and synaptic planning practices involving «’soft process’ of negotiation and learning». Features of these spatial configurations drawing new continental geographies are explored by highlighting the role both of images/imaginaries and historical/geographical/cultural roots, to be used (re-interpreted) in the de-construction/re-construction of the contemporary European spatiality. In this sense, we may say that, according to Faludi «geography still matters» (and also history!). In fact, Baltic Sea cooperative networks (that is: the basis of the new EU strategy) can be seen as a return to what once was an important communication channel for thousand of years and flourishing trade in the region. The model is that of the Hanse League, based on flexible not hierarchical (mainly economic) «weak ties» – or «loose coupling» – among autonomous cities (but not exclusively), which share a transnational unbounded Hanseatic “space” (not “territory”) and which are periodically (not always) able to act as a collective actor to achieve local collective competition goods avoiding the «trap of joint decision». It remains to be seen whether such a strategy – which has proved successful in the Baltic area – will be so effectively applied to other specific spatial and cultural contexts (with their differences in challenges and potentials), such as the Danube corridor, or to the much more “explosive” Mediterranean basin.
VL  - 3
IS  - 4-1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Cecilia Scoppetta

Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Cecilia Scoppetta. (2014). Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning. Social Sciences, 3(4-1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Cecilia Scoppetta. Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(4-1), 46-56. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Cecilia Scoppetta. Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning. Soc Sci. 2014;3(4-1):46-56. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15,
  author = {Cecilia Scoppetta},
  title = {Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {3},
  number = {4-1},
  pages = {46-56},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.s.2014030401.15},
  abstract = {On the background of contemporary rescaling process and of the current broad rethinking of some relevant concepts – such as “region”, “territory”, “locality”, and “space” – the case of the Baltic Sea Macro-Region, and of the related place-based EU successful «experimentalist» strategies highlights the emerging of «soft spaces» as new forms of territorial organisations. These clearly appear as a result of EU “soft” (“lateral”) territorial approach outlining a really innovative multileveled spatial pattern. By using a biological metaphor these soft spaces may be intended as «synaptic spaces» clearly claiming for a radical shift in planning approaches, by moving towards soft and synaptic planning practices involving «’soft process’ of negotiation and learning». Features of these spatial configurations drawing new continental geographies are explored by highlighting the role both of images/imaginaries and historical/geographical/cultural roots, to be used (re-interpreted) in the de-construction/re-construction of the contemporary European spatiality. In this sense, we may say that, according to Faludi «geography still matters» (and also history!). In fact, Baltic Sea cooperative networks (that is: the basis of the new EU strategy) can be seen as a return to what once was an important communication channel for thousand of years and flourishing trade in the region. The model is that of the Hanse League, based on flexible not hierarchical (mainly economic) «weak ties» – or «loose coupling» – among autonomous cities (but not exclusively), which share a transnational unbounded Hanseatic “space” (not “territory”) and which are periodically (not always) able to act as a collective actor to achieve local collective competition goods avoiding the «trap of joint decision». It remains to be seen whether such a strategy – which has proved successful in the Baltic area – will be so effectively applied to other specific spatial and cultural contexts (with their differences in challenges and potentials), such as the Danube corridor, or to the much more “explosive” Mediterranean basin.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Synaptic Spaces of Europe: A Challenge for Spatial Planning
AU  - Cecilia Scoppetta
Y1  - 2014/06/14
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 46
EP  - 56
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.15
AB  - On the background of contemporary rescaling process and of the current broad rethinking of some relevant concepts – such as “region”, “territory”, “locality”, and “space” – the case of the Baltic Sea Macro-Region, and of the related place-based EU successful «experimentalist» strategies highlights the emerging of «soft spaces» as new forms of territorial organisations. These clearly appear as a result of EU “soft” (“lateral”) territorial approach outlining a really innovative multileveled spatial pattern. By using a biological metaphor these soft spaces may be intended as «synaptic spaces» clearly claiming for a radical shift in planning approaches, by moving towards soft and synaptic planning practices involving «’soft process’ of negotiation and learning». Features of these spatial configurations drawing new continental geographies are explored by highlighting the role both of images/imaginaries and historical/geographical/cultural roots, to be used (re-interpreted) in the de-construction/re-construction of the contemporary European spatiality. In this sense, we may say that, according to Faludi «geography still matters» (and also history!). In fact, Baltic Sea cooperative networks (that is: the basis of the new EU strategy) can be seen as a return to what once was an important communication channel for thousand of years and flourishing trade in the region. The model is that of the Hanse League, based on flexible not hierarchical (mainly economic) «weak ties» – or «loose coupling» – among autonomous cities (but not exclusively), which share a transnational unbounded Hanseatic “space” (not “territory”) and which are periodically (not always) able to act as a collective actor to achieve local collective competition goods avoiding the «trap of joint decision». It remains to be seen whether such a strategy – which has proved successful in the Baltic area – will be so effectively applied to other specific spatial and cultural contexts (with their differences in challenges and potentials), such as the Danube corridor, or to the much more “explosive” Mediterranean basin.
VL  - 3
IS  - 4-1
ER  -

Copy | Download