European cities: local societies and collective actors? in Bagnasco A., Le Gals P.

(eds), Cities in Contemporary Europe In the introduction of the book Cities in contemporary Europe, the authors discuss about some topics but I try to focus my attention to one important point (that involved some other points treated by Bagnasco and Le Gales): the definition of a model of European city, in order to illustrate some typical characteristics of European cities, and to understand if in a globalized world the European model is obsolete or not. (To analyse these important points) the two authors start from a neo-Weberian point of view, considering the city as a complete society in the same way as a state. In Europe, more than in other parts of the world, cities are very important in the history and in the development of the area: its impossible to think the continent without its cities. Although there are some differences among European cities (because of the influence of the different states), a model of European city can be defined, essentially in contrast to the American city, focusing on 4 aspects: morphology and age characteristics of the urban system political and social structures state intervention About morphology and age of European cities, 3 are the main aspects: - unlike the American geometrical plan (grid), European cities are built up around a centre which contains public buildings, squares and open space (for political and trade uses) etc. - the density of construction is coupled with growing population density: this is very different from the horizontal model of North America (with vacant spaces, open spaces suggesting neglect, etc.) - Stability of the urban system. Most cities were born in first wave of urbanization (more or less in medieval age) and their structure remained stable during the centuries. Moreover the major waves of urbanization are similar in Europe (medieval age, the period of industrialization, and the passage to a post-industrial economy) The European urban system is characterized by two things. The first is the very large number of cities, near and close to one another; the second is the prevalence of medium-size towns; on the contrary American cities are very big (metropolises) and far apart (from one another).

Regarding the political and social structures, there are some differences connected with the influence of the national state: currently the state, even though it plays a less central role, continues to exercise a sort of influence. Nevertheless some European common traits in the political and social structure could be identified. These peculiarities are: lower population mobility in Europe than in US the general positive impact of the state to reduce inequalities and favour education and employment Public employment at present represents almost a third of all jobs Ghettos (in American sense) and spatial segregation are rare in Europe Historically, the European lite prefers to stay in the centre of cities So in general two are the characteristics of state intervention: the development of infrastructures and of public utilities (water, electricity, transport etc.) the existence of forms of town-planning in more or less all countries After that we have to talk about how globalization changes the city and its role. So the central question is whats happened to the city in a time characterized by an increased population mobility, communication networks and high flows of capitals, information and people. These processes seem to decrease the citys importance but its the contrary: cities are still and again both nationally and internationally actors. As matter of fact, the crisis of the state led to a space, to an historical interlude that seems to bring some political space to cities. So cities are becoming a sort of collective actors: they may be one of the intermediate levels at which actors, groups and institutions are structured. So we are in front of two types of processes, acting in the same time: 1. flows and networks that run through cities make social coherence or territorial politics illusory 2. Emancipation from the state has allowed certain cities and regions to become political and social actors Finally we have to try to answer the central question: in the age of globalization, is the European city an obsolete model? Can we speak of the end of the European city? About this question the authors, even though they consider the model of European city still useful, say rightly that the European situation is now more complex, because of the different paths of cities in front of globalization: as matter of fact there are cities in which the preservation of social services, the limit of urban segregation etc. dominate urban policies. But in some other cases there are the tendency to follow the American model of strong recourse to economic development and limited concern

for the poor and the lower-class. So the empirical evidences show different modes of urban governance in Europe. Another important consideration (introduced by Saskia Sassen in Sociology of globalization, 2007) is that there is a new urban geography, which cuts across the old division between rich and poor countries, and so the power of cities is no longer related to the importance of the global area where they are located, but the destiny of the cities is related to its ability to enter in the transnational circuit of major cities. This consideration could mean, for me, that cities in the same position in the new urban geography, become more and more similar, and so their urban, social and economic structure not still depends to the geographical position. These considerations are true but, if we want to answer the central question of this class (end of European city?) we have also to consider that "Although profound changes now affecting the physical form and social structure, these transformation do not show a new entity, a new type of city [...], even though we discuss of new phenomena and new urban spatial forms and social structures that city shows [...], however, cities present a substantial and inevitable continuity with its past" (Vicari Haddock, La citt contemporanea, Il Mulino, 2004 p. 7). And also Hausserman say that Still there are obvious indicators of big differences between European cities and big cities elsewhere: the physical structure is distinct as the political system and social coherence as well" (Haussermann, The end of the European city?, 2005 p. 8) So, in conclusion, in my opinion speaking of a European model of city is still correct: when we analyse some important aspects of cities (for example: polarization, urban segregation, forms of self-segregation -gated communities-, inequalities etc.) we could find some differences among European cities but we find always more differences between European cities and cities of other continents