At the local level, the main achievement is the kick-start of pacts of collaboration. 50 pacts of collaboration between the City Administration and city residents (i.e. NGOs, social organizations) have been signed. The pacts enable inhabitants’ organizations to work closely together and with City officials, reinforcing trust in institutions, social cohesion, long-term commitment of the entire administrative machine. They were critical in keeping urban spaces safe and alive during the pandemic. Social bonds created by the pacts helped preserve the social interaction.
CO-CITY pacts aim at bringing together city communities, governments, knowledge institutions, social and private operators. CO-CITY is a good guidance for policymakers and social actors willing to build public-community cooperation. The regeneration of abandoned or underused spaces in different areas of the city is expected to contribute to the creation of new jobs in the “social economy” sector through the creation of new enterprises at the neighborhood level. These enterprises are expected to result from the close collaboration and working relationship between the local government, residents, and a network of Neighborhood Houses (Case del Quartiere) in the city. These Neighborhood Houses consist of eight neighborhood community centers located in formerly distressed or abandoned spaces that were regenerated and made available to the local community for civic, cultural, and educational uses that meet the needs of residents. The networking of these houses is promoted and supported by the City and other public and private stakeholders to foster cooperation and free exchanges between the houses and to generate neighborhood level responses to the needs of vulnerable individuals, specific groups and the community. To facilitate the construction of collaborative economies, the neighborhood houses are a critical institutional tool further enabled by the UIA Co-City as illustrated in previous journals. The eight Neighborhood houses are highly differentiated institutions, supported by public (city, regional, EU) and private funding (private and philanthropic foundations).
The previous journals and zoom-ins provided a detailed analysis of the pacts of collaboration through the lens of the so-called quintuple helix urban co-governance approach, aimed at stimulating neighborhood-based cooperation. The analytical grid, presented in The Co-City Zoom in 2, is based on 5 design principles for the co-governance of the commons in the city, briefly summarized below:
- Co-governance refers to the presence of a governance approach based on multi-stakeholder collaboration;
- Enabling State is the design principle that expresses the role of the City acting as a platform for facilitating and enabling collective action;
- Social and economic urban pooling. Creation of co-economies based on co-production and distributive/solidarity and social justice concerns;
- Urban experimentalism is the adoption of a methodology approach for designing institutional processes built to enable scientific discoveries, social and economic innovations, testing of new technologies and true solutions for challenges related to the urban context in which the commons are inserted; and finally
Tech Justice highlights the potential of access to the use, management and ownership of technology for vulnerable people and communities, as an enabling factor of inclusive and sustainable urban development.
When analyzing the six pacts of collaboration studied and the five design principles, we noticed that the urban co-governance and enabling state dimensions are the strongest. It is quite significative as these are the design principles for which the City of Turin could have more impact. The enabling state criterion is particularly relevant for cities in general, but the strength of the urban co-governance also shows that they did not monopolize the process. On the contrary, the pacts of collaboration enabled a multi-stakeholder collaboration at the various stages of the process, which is a key step towards the Co-City. Social and economic pooling as well as experimentalism evolved from moderate to strong for several pacts, comparing the beginning and the end of the implementation phase. Lastly, the Tech justice design principle is apparently the most difficult variable to retrieve in the pacts of collaboration examined. Despite an apparent willingness to include digital solutions, the pacts of collaboration struggled to stimulate interest in the signatories of the pacts of collaboration to implement technological and digital innovations. The City is strongly committed to improve its performance under this standpoint, also through the work of the To-Nite UIA project that is aimed at improving security of public spaces by building a shared digital storytelling process.
Overall, the most complex and therefore one of the more relevant pacts of collaboration, for the purpose and impact of the Co-City project is the CUMIANA15 pact, which foresees the transformation of a former car-manufacturing factory requiring significant physical renovation into a hybrid indoor-outdoor space (half renewed industrial building, half covered square) functioning as a co-managed cultural-creative activities community hub.
 See http://www.retecasedelquartiere.org/. See also Tiziana Caponio and Davide Donatiello, Intercultural policy in times of crisis: theory and practice in the case of Turin, Italy, Comparative Migration Studies, 2017.
 See Anne Marie Brady and Lauren Burke, "Vibrant Neighborhoods Forum: Leveraging Civic Engagement for Social Impact." (2021), Retrieved 20 April, 2021 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep28524.pdf; Sheila Foster and Christian Iaione, “Ostrom in the City: Design Principles for the Urban Commons”, 2017, Retrieved 20 April, 2021 from https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2017/08/20/ostrom-city-designprinciples-urban-commons/; Polyak, Levente, Daniela Pattia and Bahanur Nasya. “Cascina Roccafranca”, Open Heritage: People, Places, Potential, Retrieved 29 Nov, 2020 from https://openheritage.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1_OpenHeritage_Cascina-Roccafrance_Observatory-Case.pdf; Patti, Daniela. “Regulating The Urban Commons – What We Can Learn From Italian Experiences”, 2017 from https://cooperativecity.org/2017/11/21/urbancommons-learning-from-italy/; Valeria Vacchiano, Tiziana Eliantonio and Fabrizio Barbiero, “Social Inclusion Successful initiatives in Turin”, 2018, Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://urbact.eu/social-inclusion-successful-initiatives-turin
 See The role of the neighborhood Houses Network within the Co-City project is outlined in the Co-City Turin Journal n. 1, available here: https://www.uia-initiative.eu/sites/default/files/2018-03/Turin_CO-City_UIAExpertJournal1%28Jan2018%29.pdf
 S. Foster, Collective Action and the Urban Commons, 87 Notre Dame Law Review 57 (2011) (voted one of the 5 best law review articles on land use for 2011-12 year and republished in the Land Use and Environmental Law Review); see also Christian Iaione, The Right to the CO-city, in Italian Journal of Public Law, 2017, 1.
 C. Iaione, E. De Nictolis and A. Berti Suman The Internet of Humans (IoH): Human Rights and Co-Governance to Achieve Tech Justice in the City., in Law and Ethics of Human Rights, 37:13, 263-299, 2019.