Whose is this street? Actors and conflicts in the governance of pedestrianisation processes

The benefits of pedestrianisation are widely acknowledged. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, cities are increasingly proposing street closures, in some cases as isolated experiments and in others with more structural ambitions. Although generally seen favourably, street closures often give rise to conflicts. Existing literature on conflicts in pedestrianisations focuses on residents', shopkeepers', or road users' opposition to the actual interventions. Less attention is given to the tensions and conflicts related to the governance process adopted or the constellation of actors involved. This paper aims to shed light on the broad range of conflicts likely to undermine pedestrianisation initiatives by studying a series of street closures in a semi-central neighbourhood of Turin, the Torino Mobility Lab project. Based on semi-structured interviews and document analysis, the paper shows how different substantive, procedural and relational conflicts can affect the governance of pedestrianisation processes, undermining their effectiveness. The responsibilities and reasons for the success or otherwise of pedestrianisation initiatives are linked to procedural and relational factors, which often receive less attention than substantive aspects. The inherent political dimension of pedestrianisation, the deep-rooted vision of the street as a space for cars, and the absence of a shared vision placing street closures within a system of actions aimed at undermining the principle of automobility as a right are also highlighted as key underlying factors.