AbstractThe progressive diffusion in Italy of practices of strategic planning, on its way in great and averages city of the northern and central Italy from the end of the years '90, have produced a remarkable debate, both in the world of whom practises the urban planning and among the experts of politics of development of the territory. The importation of conceptual models from the Anglo-Saxon world has produced some confusion on the same sense of the diction “strategic planning”. The English meaning of the expression is in facts partially different from the Italian pianificazione (urbanistica), which have a mostly correct translation in urban design, while the term planning is more near to the Italian term of programmazione. It goes considered however that, also modifying the Italian denomination of the practical one in strategic programming (that is finalized to specific and important objectives) remain however several complex relations between this and the activities of urban planning. It is for this partial semantic shifting that some witnesses of law of the greater Italian regions has gradually inserted the “strategic” attribute, reporting it to the planning of structural level. Also sharing the general judgment that attributes great importance to the strategic planning, it marks it however the great differences that notice between this and the structural planning. Like already authoritatively supported (Avarello, Piroddi), the “strategic” attribute is suitable better, very to see, to practical of transformation concerted between private and public sectors, who in '90 years has given body to the season of the complex programs, that is to the cases better than the negotiated territorial programming and of programming for local development, rather than not to the structural planning, species if to this the value of “fondativa description” is attributed. The answer to the dilemma if to more attribute strategic valence to the structural member, that is that operating one of the planning, is contained in the assumption of a different intellectual perspective. It is conceptually wrong to try to attribute strategic valence to a single one of the two members who the “urbanistic reforming policy” has by now for a long time indicated like the more corrected model for the territorial and urban planning. On the contrary, the contents, the operating abilities and the relational qualities that characterize in particularly meaningful way the strategic planning, rectius strategic programming, are just the elements that lack in the traditional urban-territorial planning, above all in assuming the amplitude and the variety of registry keys that they correspond to the concept of “governance/government of the territory”. Although the large one to speak that of ago, the activities of government of the territory are of fact (and unfortunately) little practiced from the majority of the political class that of the administrative staff of the territorial agencies. To govern the territory means to face new problems every day, to put in issue the own knowledge and identity, to study and to learn continuously, to converse with wide groups, to construct consent, to know to say yes and not in argued and convincing competent way, and continuingly discuss the own convictions. The present time instead is crowded, not only of persistent zonings with exclusively building purposes, but also of operative plans totally predetermines and incapable to define regimes of competition among private subjects to increase the resources quota to dedicate to the production of the public assets. And of conceived “structural” plans designed with such meticulous detail to often turn out much more rigid of the older general plan replaced, and able to strangle the indispensable autonomy of the operative plan. And, at last, of strategic plans in which is possible to meet crowdy alarms to you for a contemporarity perceived like unknown and threatening, but also cognitive pictures unable to complete deepened prospectings of the resources (of those human’s) that they characterize the local contexts. And without an understanding of the “points of strength”, that transformation necessary in order to pick new opportunity. The extreme variety of the experiences is to demonstrate that defined relationships between the various shapes of planning doesn’t exist, but that all serve indispensably to build up the government of the territory. Therefore a structural outline of along period, indispensable to clarify the ties between the essential resources presents, and evidencing their availability, to which eventually couple expectations of development and transformation. And so also the formation of an agenda of the greater strategic options shared from the greater number (and the more important) stakeholders that they characterize the local milieu. And at last operative instruments flexible and express, in a position to give back to the urban planning management the effectiveness and the conviction that are indispensable bases of the credibility of the public action. If these reasonings turn out convincing, it would have some to derive that the insertion of the strategic modality to flank of that structural one and that operative one is an essential task of whichever engagement of writing of one new law picture for the government of the territory. Above all because just the strategic modality is the carrier of the strongest requests than selectivity and effectiveness, and of a stronger anchorage to the shared will of the subjects. From a certain point of view the fact that the strategic planning, been born like a voluntary activity, does not have a prefixed legal frame can be a great good, species in a Country in which the legislator it is plagued from normative excess, and expects to exactly fix by law the behaviors of all, rather than to limit to shield the operativity and the effectiveness of the guarantee rules that must be valid for all. Also the fact that the tries to introduce criteria of operativity and effectiveness in the legislation must be testifies nearly only from the awkward ones today and unconstitutional apparatuses of the Law-objective I find it personally unpresentable, and symptom of an immaturity of the Country to undertake the way towards the modernization, that is claimed as a general objective towards which to move the active forces of the Country.