Spazi urbani inclusivi versus spazi "protetti": un nuovo paradosso per la città contemporanea = Inclusive urban spaces vs “Protected” Areas: a new paradox for the contemporary city

The city has always been the privileged place of human relationships, in which collective activities and social life are nourished. Indeed, public spaces represent the natural scenario where people can walk, stand, talk, hear (Gehl, 1991) and everyone should have the right to live it according to their own needs - physical, cultural, relational. In recent decades, cities - particularly historic ones - have been adopting a series of solutions to face people physical needs, solving accessibility issues of public spaces not only for people with disabilities and elderly, but also for other citizens – like parents with strollers or bikers – in order to increase healthy and friendly communities. However, nowadays we are witness to an emerging urban paradox: while the architectural barriers are solved, new protective barriers are located in the places of sociality to guard them against the new dangers that are threatening the contemporary cities. Anti-bomb barriers, bollards, flowerpots and gates are placed to defend public spaces against terrorist attack and vandalism but also against overtourism. In particular, this last phenomenon has almost compromised the relationship between the public space and the local community, with the consequent limitation of its fruition by the inhabitants (Lauria, 2017). The new protective barriers create a different and antithetical dimension of the urban space, often hindering its use, but above all denying its own essential qualities of “openness” and “plurality”. This paper will address this new urban paradox to promote a debate on the wellbeing of people in cities via new governance policies, in order to give back to the public space its own role of catalyst of collective activities (Fusco Girard, 2006) and of place of inclusion and freedom.