The municipal councilor Sara Beretta-Piccoli, in an interpellation, criticizes the terminology of the municipal master plan, which is already “distant from reality”
«A step back on the Constellations?». This is the title chosen for a question by city councilor Sara Beretta-Piccoli. Which asks the Municipality of Lugano to review the Municipal Master Plan (PDcom) presented at the end of October 2024. The reason? «Numerous critical issues emerge today that call into question the coherence between theoretical vision and concrete reality».
In particular, the choice to divide the city into nine “constellations” – which are the result of the merging of the current 23 master plans -, namely Val Colla, Ronchi, Costa Sinistra, Piana, Monte Brè, Lugano a lago, Città Alta, Monte San Salvatore and Pian Scairolo.
A choice which for the PLR-PVL municipal councilor “appears difficult to understand, poorly rooted in local tradition and difficult to share with the population”, since “neighborhoods represent a strong, historical and social element of identity, which cannot be replaced with abstract and technocratic terminology”. Furthermore, for Beretta-Piccoli, there would also be a problem with the name “constellations”: “This choice of name is even more problematic today in light of the recent events that occurred in Crans-Montana and the fire at the bar Le Constellationwhich make the use of this terminology at least inappropriate and insensitive”.
The Lugano of the future, in its intentions, also looks at sustainable mobility as a pillar and pushes on the ecological, social and cultural transition. «The vehicular speed limit of a maximum of 30 km/h in a large part of the Cassarate plain – and extended to the entire road network, if traffic flows allow it, in a longer time horizon – will guarantee users of slow mobility the possibility of moving safely», we read in the 245 pages of PDcom. «Even on this front, however, there was a clear sign of opposition from the Lugano population, who expressed reservations and opposition to these measures», writes Beretta-Piccoli. The result – concludes the city councilor – is “a framework in which a document defined as strategic, flexible and oriented towards the future risks appearing distant from the daily reality of citizens and poorly anchored to the necessary democratic consensus”.
The questions from the interpellation at the Town Hall: Do you still consider the PDcom vision as presented credible and sustainable, in light of the critical issues that have emerged? Don’t you think it appropriate to abandon the terminology of “constellations”, restoring a clearer, more understandable name that respects the identity of the neighborhoods? In light of the refusal expressed by a significant part of the population towards the introduction of the 30 km/h limit, do you not recognize the need to profoundly review the measures envisaged in the field of mobility? Do you intend to proceed with a possible revision of PDcom, involving the population and local actors? Do you think it is necessary to correct part of the general approach of the project?
