Uploaded on 2016-10-14 by Davide Maria Zema

Step 1: List the five most liveable cities that you know, based on your own experience and judgment, placing the most liveable city at the top of the list. 1. Copenhagen 2. Vicenza 3. Madrid 4. Milan 5. Berlin Step 2: Describe in your own words five characteristics that according to your opinion make a city liveable. Order them placing the most important at the top of the list. 1. Symbiosis with the own environment 2. Effort in the green areas and public spaces design quality 3. Soft-mobility (cycle-lane, public transportation, exc) 4. Long-term goals 5. 15' policy (as CPH example, every point of the city is at maximum 15' by walk far from an underground station) Step 3: Describe the status of your own city in terms of the five characteristics that you listed above. Propose how your city should/could be transformed in relation to these characteristics in order to be more sustainable. City: Milan, Italy 1. Due to the finance and commercial view of the city I think this is a crucial point to reflect. Actually, signs of a new attention and sensibility for this aspect seems to be born. In fact, in a consciousness way, the dismissed railway yard are currently being studied to establish new behaviour with the origin environment. 2. On the contrary, the existing green areas and public spaces quality are forsaken. It is quite sad to see an unexpressed big potential in this spaces: they could, with a little effort, engage many benefits to the surrounding area and also in the urban system. Only in some academic course the problem seems to be real: I would like to see a cooperation between students and political parties to re-think the space we live as a community. 3. Milan is currently building a new underground infrastructure program. This will, for sure, ensure a strong public transportation but in the other hand it will not respond to the traffic problem. The city is almost empty of cycle-lane and the private mobility is the main cause of the viability problem. Car-sharing seems to be a good alternative but not a solution. I would like to see more efforts in the transforming process of Milan into a soft-mobility city as Copenhagen. 4. Milan, maybe due to the economic centrality it represents, is lost into short-period goals. This political cancer is bringing the city into a very precarious future. Milan need to be followed by people that carry about the benefits the city could give to the surroundings areas and in the country itself. I believe an active participation could be a good experiment to sensitise the parties and to create collaborations with strong long-terms investments. 5. As I affirmed in point 3, I strongly believe in urban planning with liveability as a main goal. CPH is a tangible and present example of this approach and due to its concrete reality it is easier for us to think and verify the same vision into other cities.