Slow Cities - Theme Cities: Solutions for Urban Problems - page 565

15﻽5 Cittaslow: A Varied and Fluid Movement

Given that scope exists for (re)defining and applying the criteria for membership,
it may not be surprising that a 'typical' Cittaslow defies definition. Indeed, earlier
case studies of Cittaslow members point to the movement being varied and fluid.
Miele claimed that the members are “ordinary towns and each one differs from
the others” (2008, p. 141). These 'ordinary towns' come from a range of national
and regional contexts, have a variety of resources to draw on, and vary consider-
ably in size. This can be from 1,500 people in Casalbeltrame (Piedmont), up to the
self-imposed size limit of 50,000. Yet in an urban context they are all small towns,
many are the historic market centres of distinctive regions that had shown relatively
little growth in recent decades due to the expanding influence of larger cities in the
area, evidenced by longer commuting and shopping trips on new road networks.
The policies and projects they pursue are correspondingly varied. Many towns have
promoted the following Cittaslow policies: shared meals, the provision of informa-
tion on the range of local shopping facilities, food festivals, the setting up of food
cooperatives, farmers' markets, initiatives for taste education, annual censuses of
typical local products, training young people in 'traditional' skills, campaigns for
the use of low energy light bulbs, the installation of sewage treatment systems, car-
free Sundays, free alternative transport services and projects for the development of
local sites of land or the refurbishment of buildings (Parkins and Craig 2006 ; Mayer
and Knox 2006 ; Miele 2008 ; Pink 2008 , 2009 ). However, the Cittaslow towns vary
in the degree to which these policies are advanced.
Such a policy variety, both in terms of cultural contexts and approaches to
developing an alternative development strategy, could lead to the charge that Cit-
taslow is too heterogeneous to comprise a single movement. However, it is from
this heterogeneity that Cittaslow finds some unity, primarily in two features. First,
the fact that each member sets out to protect the unique quality of its town is seen
as a way of bringing the movement together. Second, the individual members
each use a variety of means to create alternative development strategies. Indeed,
Beatley ( 2004 , p. 335) argued that although the towns may be pursuing a variety
of goals they are united by the desire to protect their unique and distinctive com-
munities.
So the use of a range of alternative development strategies by each of the Cit-
taslow members may also be considered—somewhat paradoxically—as a unifying
theme. Rather than setting out to endorse a single alternative plan, membership
gives official recognition to Cittaslow diverse approaches, both within a town—
where a range of strategies are brought together and recognized in the process of ap-
plying for and renewing membership—and across the movement, when alternative
developments are compared. By officially recognizing diverse approaches between
and within towns, Cittaslow makes it a defining characteristic of the movement as a
whole and of the individual members.