Andrea Catarci, Salvatore Monni
Abstract. Civic Hubs in Rome have emerged as grassroots responses to growing urban inequalities and the retreat of traditional welfare systems. These self-managed spaces provide localized support in areas such as housing, food, education, and healthcare, while promoting inclusion, participation, and social cohesion. Through community-driven initiatives, they regenerate urban spaces and cultivate new forms of solidarity. The cases of Esquilino and Quarticciolo illustrate how diverse socio-spatial contexts can generate effective models of mutual aid. Institutional recognition and recent policies have enabled the expansion of a citywide network. These hubs represent a proximity-based, flexible approach to welfare, grounded in civic engagement and local empowerment.
Inequalities represent one of the most evident and dramatic aspects of the current phase of capitalist development. They manifest in various forms: between states, where disparities in wealth and access to resources are often vast, as well as within individual states. Major metropolitan areas, in this sense, serve as privileged observatories and laboratories where such disparities become most apparent particularly in terms of income, healthcare, education, employment, and public transport. On one side, neighborhoods with efficient services; on the other, marginalized areas suffering from infrastructural deficiencies and social exclusion; on one side, the rich; on the other, the poor. It is, predictably, the marginalized, contradictory, and poor segments that are most environmentally exposed to pollution and extreme weather events (S. Sassen, The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, Einaudi, 2001).
Contemporary cities now play the role once held by states and empires in the 19th and 20th centuries: they are the beating heart of economic, social, and environmental dynamics. Around 4.5 billion people, most of the global population, live in them, drawn by the promise of work, income, housing, and a dignified life. Yet, they also concentrate the most serious contradictions: precarious and underpaid jobs, insufficient incomes, various forms of poverty, inadequate housing, growing social distress, gentrification, and overtourism.
The Crisis of Welfare and the Emergence of Self-Organized Responses
People at the margins of society experience an additional, far from symbolic, form of exclusion: the loss of public voice, political representation, and sense of belonging. Contemporary inequalities thus combine isolation, the erosion of community bonds, and disillusionment with change with economic hardship and difficulties in accessing essential services.
With the progressive retreat of the welfare state, disparities have worsened, making it urgent to rethink spaces for community and solidarity. In many regions, especially where the consequences of exclusion and marginalization are most severe, various self-managed initiatives have emerged, promoted by civic actors and non-institutional entities such as associations, committees, cooperatives, movements, and informal networks. The most significant historical reference for this model is the Case del Popolo (People’s Houses), established in the early 20th century as gathering and socializing centers for the labour movement (A. Cori, F. Linguiti, S. Monni, “The Experience of Cooperative Clubs and Houses of the People in Italy as Places for Developing Social Human Rights, in Economic Systems and Human Rights, ed. F. Vigliarolo, Palgrave MacMillan, 2024).
Though in different forms, this experience has seen a revival in recent years. One only needs to consider the spread of social centers in working-class neighbourhoods of major Italian cities since the 1980s, the expansion of volunteerism and the third sector since the 1990s, and the continuous role played by parishes and religious communities, sometimes the last line of defence against social isolation. They often operate informally and at times beyond legal boundaries in repurposed spaces such as former schools, factories, offices, and hospitals. These groups have regenerated the urban fabric, created value for both direct beneficiaries and the wider community, and promoted social aggregation, trust, participation, sports, culture, and collective practices beyond family or work settings.
At times, these experiences have been stigmatized and labelled as “ghetto-refuges” for marginalized groups, migrants, urban underclass, women, and unemployed youth—as if operating at the border between insiders and outsiders was a flaw rather than a virtue. At other times, however, their value has been acknowledged as concrete, structured responses to the crisis of traditional welfare, and—absent adequate public intervention—they have emerged as grassroots or hybrid models (combining public, private, and civic actors) offering flexible, context-specific, and immediately actionable solutions.
The Pandemic and a New Wave of Civic Innovation
After a period of waning civic engagement, during the pandemic civic and solidarity-based organizations found the strength to reinvent themselves through networked collaboration, developing new coordination and action mechanisms across small, medium, and large organizations. They often became the only active agents addressing the collapse of relationships and social life—organizing food distribution, awareness campaigns, and initiatives aimed at sustaining the foundations of community life. From this effort, new profiles of social responsibility and civic participation emerged, generating public support, activating local governments, and inaugurating a new era of policies oriented around the “care paradigm” (L. Turco, Costruire un nuovo umanesimo Fondazione Nilde Iotti, 2020).
Turin, Milan, Naples, Bologna: Four Cities, Many Responses
In the years following the pandemic, various cities developed different types of networks that carried forward the legacy of those formed in response to the health emergency. Though rooted in specific contexts, these initiatives extended their relevance beyond local boundaries, despite lacking favorable legal frameworks and sufficient central government support.
In Turin, the neighborhood houses (case di quartiere) model took shape, starting in 2012 from existing self-managed practices and evolving into a more structured organizational form. This transformation was facilitated by the synergistic involvement of citizens, associations, third-sector organizations, the City of Turin, the Compagnia di San Paolo Foundation, and other philanthropic bodies (E. D’Alessandro, R. Rizza, “The Neighbourhood Houses: New Forms of Community Welfare in Turin,” Innovation and Social Research, 2015; F. Benini, Politiche del quotidiano: il modello delle Case di Quartiere a Torino, 2025). These are multifunctional civic hubs offering a wide range of services, from cultural activities and welfare initiatives to educational programs, job orientation, support for vulnerable groups, and the promotion of arts and sports participation. They are distributed across all 8 districts of the city, with significant impact: they strengthen community ties, generate employment opportunities, and promote the reuse and enhancement of public assets.
In Milan, a complex network of hybrid and mutual aid spaces has emerged (rete articolata di spazi ibridi), focused on inclusion, solidarity, and cultural promotion. Initiated by grassroots actors and supported by foundations and the municipal administration, these spaces function as social enterprises providing employment opportunities for disadvantaged individuals while simultaneously serving as neighbourhood-based welfare labs. Notable examples include Rob de Matt and Olinda, the latter symbolically located in the former Paolo Pini psychiatric hospital. Additionally, Milan boasts numerous other community welfare spaces: neighbourhood houses, historic “social centers” like Leoncavallo, neighbourhood labs, and association hubs, testifying to the city’s vibrancy.
In Naples, the Network of Commons and Civic Uses has fostered a process of reclaiming and reactivating unused public assets based on principles of participatory governance. Collectives, associations, and citizens promote inclusive management models founded on universal accessibility and the self-governance of commons. Notable examples include Ex OPG Je so’ pazzo, Ex Asilo Filangieri, and Scugnizzo Liberato, which serve as socio-cultural and mutual aid hubs in socioeconomically vulnerable neighborhoods (G. Micciarelli, L’uso civico e la rete dei beni comuni emergenti Comune-info, 2018). The City of Naples has endorsed this shift by institutionalizing civic use mechanisms, incorporating bottom-up practices into legal frameworks to support these efforts.
In Bologna, since 2014 the shared administration model has reinvigorated existing collaborations between active citizens and institutions through the use of collaboration pacts. Ten years after the original regulation, the model has been relaunched with an integrated use of pacts, co-programming, co-design, and public asset management—designed synergistically to enhance their impact.
Despite differing legal structures, political contexts, and interaction models, these networks share a key trait: the ability to generate use value and social capital (D. Warr, T. Tacticos, M. Kelaher, “Neighbourhood Houses: Building Social Capital through Neighbourhood Renewal,” Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2007) through proximity-based practices aimed at rebuilding belonging, strengthening community bonds, and countering fragmentation, isolation, and mistrust. Moreover, they serve as incubators of skills, creativity, and intangible production, experimenting with alternative work models, solidarity-based economies, ecological and feminist practices, and surpassing, in many ways, the dominant logics of the market and traditional governance.
In Rome, post-pandemic activism has fostered the emergence and consolidation of Civic Hubs for Solidarity-Based Mutualism, expressions of active citizenship and collective responses to economic, social, and housing inequalities (LabSU DICEA e Fairwatch, 2022; Romasette, 2023; Cellamare, 2024).
In an urban context marked by stark disparities, where central neighborhoods such as Parioli and Quirinale exceed €70,000 in average annual income and benefit from high-quality infrastructure, in stark contrast to peripheral areas like Tor Cervara, Tor Bella Monaca, Borghesiana, and Acilia that often do not reach €20,000 and suffer from poor services (Lelo, Monni, Tomassi, 2019 e 2021) these Civic Hubs go beyond merely functioning as assistance centers. They aim to serve as localized social infrastructures, experimenting with community-based welfare models, rebuilding social bonds, and fostering hope for the future.
The Esquilino and Quarticciolo Civic Hubs were pioneering cases distinct in context, origin, and development path, yet united by their capacity to foster inclusion, mutualism, and active citizenship.
The Esquilino Civic Hub (Polo civico Esquilino), active in Rome’s most multiethnic neighbourhood, is structured as an integrated ecosystem made up of 42 organizations, collectives, social cooperatives, mutual aid networks, and legal and housing support groups. Among its components, Spin Time Labs stands out a self-managed social, housing, and cultural center housed in an occupied building where 150 families live. It brings together activists, educators, cultural mediators, students, and artists, promoting a model of inclusive and intercultural citizenship (Cacciotti, 2024). Its openness and numerous collaborations with schools, universities, startups, parishes, associations, and committees, have strengthened a sense of belonging and contributed to the regeneration of a centrally located area often stigmatized as degraded. The Esquilino Civic Hub is recognized as a cutting-edge platform for innovation, weaving together hospitality, cultural production, educational support, training pathways, and social economy initiatives. Institutional support from Rome’s First Municipality, which provided a headquarters, significantly boosted activities and participation.
The Quarticciolo Civic Hub, located in one of Rome’s historically most complex suburbs, is a virtuous example of urban regeneration through cultural, sports, and social engagement (Pontiero, 2024). A key player is the Popular Gym of Quarticciolo, which offers accessible (or free) wellness and sports activities like boxing, dance, and yoga, integrated with orientation, training, health mutualism, and empowerment programs. Attended by people of all ages, it serves as a hub for care and social interaction, supported by a wide network of local actors, committees, associations, and the residential occupation of a former police station. In response to urgent unmet needs, this collaboration has led to after-school programs, a grassroots clinic, and micro-enterprises in crafts, catering, and brewing—all aiming to combat marginalization, crime, and neighbourhood abandonment. Like at Esquilino, the Quarticciolo Civic Hub is not merely a space, but a catalyst for transformative processes.
In both cases, we see self-managed initiatives that emerged independently, rejecting a top-down welfare model and instead fostering grassroots welfare rooted in the idea of “shifting agency” to local communities. These initiatives show that, even in very different contexts, one central and multiethnic and the other peripheral and working-class, it is possible to build infrastructures of possibility, where inequality is countered through relationships, rights, culture, and solidarity.
Other Civic Hubs have since emerged, inspired by the Esquilino and Quarticciolo models, and are growing with support from Rome’s City Government and local municipalities. Since 2022, activity hubs have taken root in seven neighborhoods: Casale Caletto (District V), Torre Maura (VI), Quadraro/Don Bosco (VII), San Paolo/Garbatella (VIII), Laurentino Fonte Ostiense (IX), Casaletto/Pisana (XII), and Giustiniana/Bastogi (between XIII and XV). In 2025, three more are planned in Districts III, IV, and X in the form of intermediate local networks and communities, under the “Rome Unites 2025” program by the City’s “Jubilee of People and Participation” office. This includes various local engagement and enhancement initiatives.
Despite differences in structure and focus, based on local context and grassroots actors, all Civic Hubs include food banks, housing and health help desks, nutrition education, participatory workshops, education and job orientation, and project support. Activities are held both in association-run spaces and in public areas like streets and squares, aiming to foster belonging and community. Networking among centers has enabled the use of shared forms and tools for case management and referrals to nearby public services, improving accessibility and communication. The willingness of some beneficiaries to take on active roles has expanded the outreach list, increased the number of solidarity stores, and improved coordination in distributing necessities.
A major step came in late 2024, when the City Council of Rome approved the regulation for Integrated Civic Hubs for Solidarity-Based Mutualism (regolamento dei Poli civici integrati di mutualismo solidale), pushed forward by Mayor Gualtieri’s majority. This measure officially recognized these centers as participation institutions, created a coordinating body, and established a dedicated section in the Registry of Active Citizenship (Albo della Cittadinanza attiva).
Despite the importance of these measures, the story is still unfolding. The search for empathy, effective language, and content capable of countering fragmentation, distrust, and despair is ongoing—along with structural challenges like securing continuous funding and overcoming the fragility of many micro-organizations. Nevertheless, the Civic Hubs are emerging as dynamic actors, with non-institutional players continuing to take the lead—balancing conflict and cooperation, advocacy and shared responsibility, participation and innovation.
Looking ahead: As inequalities deepen and the welfare state continues to retreat, cities are becoming key laboratories for experimenting with alternative welfare models. In Rome, the Civic Hubs for Solidarity-Based Mutualism represent a proximity-based response to emerging needs, grounded in the rebuilding meaningful, reassuring relationships. Despite structural fragility, they can generate social capital, activate latent resources, and promote participatory citizenship.
The City Council’s recognition—with the adoption of a regulation, registry, and coordination mechanism—is not an endpoint but rather the beginning of a new phase. In it, cooperation between the administration and civic actors could pave the way for a new kind of welfare system one centered on rights, participation, and social justice. From this perspective, grassroots practices fill gaps and act as engines of democratic innovation, redefining the relationship between citizens, institutions, and local territories.
The sustainability, expansion, and impact of this social infrastructure will largely depend on the ability to consolidate interventions, expand their scope, and refine strategies and coordination. This will require ongoing, effective dialogue with ever-changing local communities and with other initiatives launched by the City in related areas—such as the six neighbourhood labs in Corviale, Tor Bella Monaca, Santa Maria della Pietà, Centocelle-Mistica, Quarticciolo, and Bastogi promoted by the Department of Urban Planning and the 15-Minute City; the 114 “Open Schools” serving the community in various districts; and the nine new multifunctional cultural Civic Hubs being established by the Department of Culture, echoing the same community-driven spirit and connected with the city’s public library system.
Finally, to consolidate the Civic Hub for Solidarity-Based Mutualism, it will be crucial for city and municipal institutions to identify sustainable forms of collaboration, support, and resource-sharing, without undermining the autonomy and local rootedness that are essential to unlocking the generative power of local communities.
—————
The present article was originally published in Italian in two parts in Il Menabò, issues no. 239 and 240 (2025).
