More than 60 years ago, the Bologna Plan ushered in a period in which the issue of historic centres was at the heart of urban planning debates in Spain. This largely reflected the debates that had been taking place in Italy since around 1960. Other notable contributions to these debates included the plans for Assisi and Urbino, led by Giovanni Astengo and Giancarlo de Carlo respectively.

Although much research has highlighted the morpho-typological analysis carried out as part of the ‘Bologna experience’ to propose actions for the building, one of the main objectives of the work carried out by Pier Luigi Cervellati and his team was undoubtedly the social issue. In particular, these experts aimed to prevent the expulsion of the working classes from the historic centre, while maintaining its social residential function and supporting the existing population. The Bologna Plan quickly became a model both inside and outside Italy. Over the following years, urban planning practice and research focused on dealing with the issues affecting historic centres in a comprehensive and holistic way. However, although this term is widely used in many contexts, it is ambiguous. In Spain, for example, it refers to pre-industrial urban areas assuming the role of hosting the central functions of contemporary cities, resulting in their evolution diverging from that of other old neighbourhoods that retained their character as ordinary habitats.

This is often exacerbated by differences in how certain values are recognised as urban heritage. In other countries and languages, the term ‘historic centre’ (or centro storico in Italy) has not been used, but nevertheless, there has been a strong interest in preserving the cultural, architectural and environmental values of the city prior to the major modern transformations. This interest has taken various forms, such as secteurs à sauvegarder in France and sítios urbanos patrimoniais in Brazil, and these areas have been given different categories of protection, such as ‘cultural heritage sites’ or ‘heritage towns’, depending on the country. There has also been interest in the differential socio-spatial transformations that urban centrality imposed on these inherited areas in the context of the formation of the industrial city. In parallel with this reflection, various urban intervention tools were developed to address the problems arising from this process. These include planes especiales de protección o de reforma interior (special protection or interior renovation plans) in Spain, the piano particolareggiato del centro storico in Italy and the plan de sauvegarde et de mise en valeur in France.

Looking back several decades, the issue of historic centres appears to have ultimately been overshadowed in urban planning debates. On the one hand, they have lost importance compared to other issues and urban spaces, such as suburbs and vulnerable neighbourhoods. Conversely, research appears to prioritise the sectoral and isolated analysis of processes such as gentrification, touristification, heritage-making, financialisation, de-industrialisation, abandonment, verticalisation and densification, which affect historic centres, among others, over the specific and multidimensional evolution of historic centres. Considering that historic centres tend to be both the privileged object of urban heritage protection and the effective ‘liquidation of traditional space’, thus expressing their role in the context of neoliberalisation and global interurban competition, it is not surprising that signs of a revival of the issue are beginning to emerge.

This issue of the Ciudades journal seeks to further the debate on historic city centres in Europe and Latin America, exploring the critical, global and complex perspectives on the transformations these spaces have undergone in cities across the two continents. This follows on from issue 14, published in 2011, which was entitled ‘The recovery of historic city centres’. This new issue questions the socio-spatial evolution of these areas, as well as the agents and interests that have operated within them since the 1960s. Particular attention should be given to analysing changes in historic city centres in countries where the Bologna model was disseminated and (seemingly) adopted, paying special attention to the processes of social change associated with physical and functional evolution. The social dimension of urban processes was central to the discourse of the renowned Bologna experience, and it is important to revisit this aspect in the ongoing discussion about the future of historic centres.

The ultimate goal is to contribute to the development of a contemporary vision of historic centres, examining their issues from the perspective of the intrinsic complexity of urban processes. This approach transcends commonplace ideas and the analysis of isolated processes and sectoral developments. Rather than understanding the consequences of a process affecting a centre (such as gentrification, heritage preservation, tourist rentals, abandonment, etc.) in isolation, the challenge lies in analysing these processes in relation to the other dynamics that simultaneously or sequentially cause the transformation of that central space. The heritage status of Budapest, for example, cannot be considered separately from its ideological and political dimensions. The decline of the city centres of Havana, Cartagena de Indias and others cannot be understood without taking into account touristification and global capital investment, nor can it be considered separately from their links to urban centrality, as seen in Seville, Buenos Aires and Mexico City. Similarly, the decline of certain historic centres in small Spanish towns (such as Villalón de Campos) cannot be understood in isolation from the demographic and cultural processes affecting rural areas.

Articles coulCANd focus on three areas of research, while also considering other related topics or perspectives that may be of interest, in order to provide a comprehensive view of the centres.

1. The disciplinary construction of the ‘historic centre’. Contributions could address the birth, evolution, stages and circulation of the ‘historic centre’ question in Europe or different countries, considering not only the term ‘historic centre’, but also the terms used in different urban cultures. Taking a historical or comparative perspective on this issue and the disciplinary debates and experiments it has sparked is particularly timely at the present moment. For example, the original discourse of the Bologna Plan on the expulsion of the working classes from historic centres seems to have declined in favour of a more ubiquitous notion of gentrification. The very concept of the ‘historic centre’ should also be questioned, as should its existence, use and history in different European and Latin American countries. Its dimension and scope as an administrative and urban planning category should also be considered. Urban culture linked to historic centres exists in Spain and Italy, for example, but not in France, where centre historique is not commonly used in urban planning. There is also no other term that specifically designates historic areas that have become urban centres with the advent of the industrial city. Here, secteur sauvegardé is an administrative and planning category focused on conserving the built environment. Given the diversity of terminology, could urban interventions or certain types of planning in fact recognise specific characteristics in certain areas that would be categorised as historic centres in other countries? The aim is not to restrict the articles to cases where the term ‘historic centre’ is used, but rather to open up the debate on how these urban spaces have been conceptualised, the terms used to describe them, and the effects this has had at social and urban planning levels, among others.
2. What has happened to the working classes in historic city centres? A comparative perspective on the social evolution of historic centres. This call for papers is particularly interested in the defence of the working-class character of historic centres, which was central to the Bologna model. Various questions arise concerning socio-spatial transformations, urban and town planning policies, and the urban agents that operate (or have operated) in the historic centres of comparable cities (i.e. cities of the same type or rank in a country’s urban hierarchy, or cities in different countries, or even different types of cities). It may be interesting to discuss how this social dimension has been considered, the conflicts it has been subject to, how it has been treated and how it has evolved, as well as the different ways it has been received and appropriated in different contexts. The articles to include in this call for papers could also examine the connections between receiving contexts, ruptures and dislocations in the circulation of this social issue in historic centres, and the originality of certain cases. Beyond morphotypological analysis, what remains of the basic principles of the Bologna model in urban planning and the social and economic policies being or having been implemented in historic centres? In a radically different context where neoliberal urban policies are spreading on a global scale, how is the social issue addressed (or avoided)? How is its absence acknowledged or explained? How has the importance of historic city centres changed, and what impact has this had on their ability to accommodate residents, particularly those on low incomes? Are there any responses or acts of resistance to these processes, or have they become ‘naturalised’? Who are the agents involved, what meanings do they attach to the changes they promote, and how are they connected?
3. Is it an issue that is still relevant? What issue? This call for papers raises the relevance of the issue of historic centres and the possibility of an implicit reformulation of this issue in urban planning. What is the focus of debates on urban intervention in historic centres? Beyond theorising, what can current urban policies and plans for historic centres tell us about what constitutes an issue or ‘public problem’ in them today? In light of the ‘issue of historic centres’ that stirred up urban planning debates in the last decades of the 20th century, what significance do the questions raised in the early decades of the 21st century take on? What does planning historic centres mean today, and what questions does it raise?