Care Building(s). Ambivalence and ambiguity in post-welfare urban austerity

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE
Author/s Federica Gatta, Maria Grazia Montesano
Online First 12/22/2025 Issue 2025/Online First
Language English Pages 18 P. 1-18 File size 136 KB
DOI 10.3280/SUR2025-21498
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This article examines the impact of urban austerity on public real estate management and citizen action. Drawing on the notions of ambivalence and ambiguity, it argues that post-welfare urban austerity produces hybrid arrangements in which citizens, associations and public institutions co-manage spaces and services. These practices simultaneously sustain neoliberal governance and generate infrastructures of care. Based on comparative research in French and Italian cities, the article argues that public buildings constitute a crucial arena in which the material, political, and moral dimensions of post-welfare urbanism are negotiated.

Keywords: urban austerity, public asset management, post-welfare, ambivalence, ambiguity, care infrastructure

  1. Montesano M., Cingolani T., Caselli S. (2025). Infrastrutture ibride della cura: l’esperienza del Laboratorio di Salute Popolare di Bologna. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, 1: 91-105. DOI: 10.1447/117547
  2. Mouton M., Guelton S., Poinsot P. (2023). Leveraging Land-Value Capture in Contexts of Ur-ban Austerity: Evidence from the Grand Paris Express (France). European Planning Stud-ies, 32(1): 45-48. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2023.2240843
  3. Nichols G., Findlay-King L., Forbes D. (2020). The Community Asset Transfer of Leisure Fa-cilities in the UK: A Review and Research Agenda. Voluntas, 3: 1159-1172.
  4. Oevermann H., Polyák L., Szemzö H., Mieg H.A. (eds.). (2023). Open Heritage. Community-driven adaptive reuse in Europe : best practices. Basel: Birkhauser.
  5. Peck J. (2012). Austerity Urbanism. City, 16(6): 626-655. DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2012.734071
  6. Peck J., Tickell A. (2008). Neoliberalizing space. In Martin R. (ed.). Economy. Milton Park: Routledge.
  7. Pera M., Bussu S. (2024). Towards Democratisation of Public Administration: Public-Commons Partnerships in Barcelona. International Journal of the Commons, 18(1): 164-176.
  8. Pestoff V.A. (2017). The Social and Political Dimensions of Co-operative Enterprises. In Michie J., Blasi J.R., Borzaga C. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Mutual, Co-Operative, and Co-Owned Business. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks.
  9. Piganiol M. (2022). The Contested Commodification of State-Owned Land. French Politics, 20: 226-243.
  10. Pollitt C., Bouckaert G. (2017). Public management reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Power A., Hall E. (2018). Placing care in times of austerity. Social & Cultural Geography, 19(3): 303-313. DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2017.1327612
  12. Russell B., Milburn K., Heron K. (2023). Strategies for a new municipalism: Public-common partnerships against the new enclosures. Urban Studies, 60(11): 2133-2157. DOI: 10.1177/00420980221094700
  13. Subirats J. (2016). El poder de lo próximo: las virtudes del municipalismo. Madrid: Catarata.
  14. Tonkiss F. (2013). Austerity Urbanism and the Makeshift City. City, 17(3): 312-324. DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2013.795332
  15. Turnbull N. (2022). Community action in austerity: The case of Community Asset Transfer. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.
  16. Turnbull N. (2023). Austerity’s afterlives? The case of community asset transfer in the UK. Geographical Journal, 00: 1-10.
  17. Zielyk I.V. (1966). On Ambiguity and Ambivalence. Pacific Sociological Review, 9(1): 57-64. DOI: 10.2307/1388307
  18. Zukin S. (1995). The cultures of the city. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
  19. Binet A., Houston-Read R., Gavin V., Baty C., Abreu D., Genty J., Tulloch A., Reid A., Ar-caya M. (2022). The Urban Infrastructure of Care. Journal of the American Planning As-sociation, 89(3): 282-294. DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2022.2099955
  20. Boltanski L., Chiapello È. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.
  21. Camerin F., Gastaldi F. (2018). Il ruolo dei fondi di investimento immobiliare nella riconver-sione del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico in Italia. Working papers. Urban@it, 2.
  22. Cottin-Marx S. (2019). Sociologie du monde associatif. Paris: la Découverte.
  23. Davis J. (2022). The caring city: Ethics of urban design. Bristol: Policy Press.
  24. DeVerteuil J. (2016). Resilience in the post-welfare inner city. Bristol: Policy Press.
  25. Dowling E. (2016). Valorised but not valued? Affective remuneration, social reproduction and femi-nist politics beyond the crisis. British Politics, 11: 452-468.
  26. Fairbanks R.P. (2009). How it works: Recovering citizens in post-welfare Philadelphia. Chica-go: University of Chicago Press.
  27. Fitz A., Krasny E., Wien A. (eds.). (2019). Critical care: Architecture and urbanism for a bro-ken planet. Chicago: MIT Press.
  28. Fraser N. (2017). La fine della cura. Le contraddizioni sociali del capitalismo contemporaneo. Milano: Mimesis.
  29. Gabauer A., Knierbein S., Cohen N., Lebuhn H., Trogal K., Viderman T., Haas T. (2022). Care and the city: encounters with urban studies. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.
  30. Gatta F., Montesano M.G. (2024). Experimenting with austerity urbanism through public asset management. The case of Grenoble and Bologna. Métropoles, 35.
  31. Graeber D. (2001). Toward an anthropological theory of value: The false coin of our own dreams. New York: Springer.
  32. Griffith E.J., Uitermark J. (2025). ‘I Learned To Make a Lot More Space in Myself For Other People’: Examining the Negotiation of Hegemonic and Alternative Values in the Urban Commons. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 49(4): 912-928. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.13332
  33. Hall S.M. (2020). Social reproduction as social infrastructure. Soundings, 76: 82-94.
  34. Harvey D. (1989). From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 71(1): 3-17. DOI: 10.2307/490503
  35. Harvey D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. New York: Verso books.
  36. Krinsky J., Simonet M. (2017). Who Cleans the Park? Public Work and Urban Governance in New York City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  37. Larner W. (2003). Neoliberalism?. Environment and planning D: society and space, 21(5): 509-512.
  38. Le Galès P., Robinson J. (2023). Introduction: Comparative global urban studies in the mak-ing: Welcome to the world of imperfect and innovative urban comparisons. In Le Galès P., Robinson J. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Comparative Global Urban Studies. New York: Routledge.
  39. Livi T. et al. (2023). Spazi di comunità. Ricerca valutativa sulle pratiche di riuso di spazi dismes-si a fini collettivi, Nucleo di Valutazione e Analisi per la Programmazione (NUVAP). Roma: Dipartimento per le Politiche di Coesione della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri.
  40. McGuirk P., Dowling R. (2009). Neoliberal privatisation? Remapping the public and the pri-vate in Sydney’s masterplanned residential estates. Political geography, 28(3): 174-185.
  41. Addison F. (2015). De l’aménagement du territoire au réaménagement des terrains de l’État. Politiques et projets de reconversion urbaine du domaine ferroviaire en France et en Ita-lie. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano and University of Paris-Est.
  42. Adisson F., Artioli F. (2019). Four Types of Urban Austerity: Public Land Privatisations in French and Italian Cities. Urban Studies, 57(1): 72-92. DOI: 10.1177/0042098019827517
  43. Alam A., Houston D. (2020). Rethinking care as alternate infrastructure. Cities, 100: 102662.
  44. Alimardanian M. (2024). Ontology and its double: on the nature of ambiguity and lived expe-rience. In Alimardanian M., Heffernan T. (eds.). The anthropology of ambiguity. Manches-ter: Manchester University Press.
  45. Artioli F. (2016). When Administrative Reforms Produce Territorial Differentiation: How Market-oriented Policies Transform Military Brownfield Reconversion in France (1989-2012). Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(8): 1759-1775.

Federica Gatta, Maria Grazia Montesano, Care Building(s). Ambivalence and ambiguity in post-welfare urban austerity in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" Online First/2025, pp 1-18, DOI: 10.3280/SUR2025-21498