The choice of the appropriate Great Cultural Project, as a tool for the realization of strategic development plans of contemporary cities

La elección del Gran Proyecto Cultural como una herramienta para la realización de planes estratégicos de desarrollo de las ciudades

DOI: 10.22530/ayc.2016.10.367

Autor: Anna Maria Biedermann1; Anna Januchta‑Szostak2

Volumen: 5, Número: 10, Año: 2016, Páginas: 75-96

Resumen

Los Grandes Proyectos Culturales (GPC) influyen en el desarrollo urbano multidimensional, en su situación socioeconómica, en la estructura funcional del espacio, en atracciones turísticas, así como en la calidad de medio ambiente. El artículo se centra en la comparación entre los diferentes tipos de los GCP (incluyendo: exposiciones mundiales e internacionales, exposiciones de horticultura, juegos olímpicos y los prestigiosos proyectos de la Capital Europea de la Cultura) y el papel que han desempeñado en el desarrollo de las ciudades. La investigación incluye 183 GPC organizados desde el siglo XIX hasta el comienzo del siglo XXI. Los GPC han actuado como catalizadores para el desarrollo de nuevos barrios y la regeneración de áreas degradadas que se ha traducido no solo en la creación de numerosos iconos arquitectónicos y una nueva imagen de la ciudad sino también en la sensibilización social y la educación global. Las oportunidades, así como las amenazas para los GPC están estrechamente relacionadas con el tipo de proyecto, por lo que la elección apropiada del tipo de GPC y su ubicación puede contribuir en acelerar la realización de los objetivos estratégicos de la ciudad. El objeto del estudio ha sido la definición de las posibilidades de transformación que potencialmente tiene cada uno de los tipos de GPC analizados.

Palabras clave: Gran Proyecto Cultural, creación de marca urbana, expo, mega‑eventos, desarrollo de la ciudad.

Abstract

Great Cultural Projects (GCPs) have a multi‑layer influence on the development of cities, their socio‑economic situation, functional‑spatial structure, tourist attractions as well as their environment quality. The article focuses on the comparison between different types of the GCPs (including: world and international exhibitions, gardening exhibitions, Olympic Games and equally prestigious projects by the European Capitals of Culture) and the role they have played in the development of the cities. The research covered 183 GCPs organized from the 19th till the beginning of the 21st century. GCPs have acted as a catalyst for the development of new districts and the regeneration of degraded areas which resulted not only in creating numerous architectural icons and new city image but also in the social awareness raising and global education. The opportunities as well as the threats of GCPs are closely connected with the GCP type, so the choice of the appropriate GCP can be a tool for the realization of the strategic plans of the city. The aim of the work is to define potential transformation possibilities which each of the GCP has to offer.

Keywords: Great Cultural Project, Cultural Urban Branding, Expo, Mega‑events, City Development.

1. Introduction.

The subject of the research presented in this article is the Great Cultural Projects (GCPs) and the impact of the choice of the right GCP type on the transformation of modern cities. The research was realized as part of the doctoral thesis research presented at Poznan University of Technology in Poland. The important scientific issue was the possibility of exploring the potential of such events for a multi‑faceted urban development and creating tools which could facilitate such a decision‑making process which takes into account the potential risks, benefits and development opportunities, arising from the organization of different types of GCPs.

The development of modern cities is the sum of variety of social, demographic, cultural and economic processes as well as ecological and spatial‑functional ideas related to improving the quality of life, the level of available services and urban infrastructure (inter alia: Chmielewski, 2001). These can be divided further into trends aimed at the creation of a "compact city" (Brown, 2009) which is characterized by high density development, minimization of road transport and spatial limitation of an urbanized and developed area as well as various visions of the so‑called "garden city" (inter alia: Howard, 1902; Czyżewski, 2009), consisting of loose buildings surrounded by green areas which separate various functional areas of the city. Priorities for the urban development presented in the New Charter of Athens (2003) are centered around the concept of creating a coherent city. Apart from spatial aspects, they take into consideration social, economic and environmental issues. Thereby, they fit in the mainstream of sustainable development, embracing numerous diverse trends, nevertheless, they do not form a complete, coherent and widely used urban doctrine (Kochanowski, 2006). Instead, they put variable emphasis on the criteria of form, style and the pace of city life. Also, they differently define the relationship between city inhabitants and both their natural and developed environment: Smart Growth (Hawkins, 2014) Smart City (Townsend, 2013, Alawadhi, 2012, Hollands, 2008), Slow Cities (Pink, 2014), Ditch Urbanism (Provoost, 2006), Everyday Urban Design (Kaliski, 2008), or the so‑called Third Way in the Urban Development (Greenberg, 2009). These trends are a reaction to the processes such as the Urban Sprawl (inter alia: Brown 2009), or the deindustrialization processes (inter alia: Márquez, 2008) and industrial areas revitalization. The processes of cities shrinkage in the developed countries are parallel to the processes of rapid population growth (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, "World Urbanization Prospects, The 2011 Revision", 2012, ST/ESA/SER.A/322, New York), affecting the cities with monofunctional economic structure. This process has been extensively described in the literature, inter alia, by P. Oswalt (2004, 2006), T. Rieniets (2009), D. Haase (2008), or J. B. Hollander (2010, 2011). The researchers of the urban processes occurring at the beginning of the twenty‑first century challenge the possibility of establishing consistent rules for explaining the processes taking place in all cities. Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift (2002) undermine the traditional division between the city and the rest of the world by interpreting the city as a system of relations, a network of influence values beyond its administrative boundaries and identifying the urbanity with the urban lifestyle. Also, Gary Bridge and Sophie Watson (2003) write about the impossibility of analyzing urban processes from a single cultural or economic perspective. On the other hand, cities are becoming increasingly important as dynamic centers where the progress is being made and which compete among one another for their significance, investments, tourism and media attention. At the time of Europe unification when the cities become more global, their residents must redefine their identity. The process of identification often takes place in confrontation with otherness which in turn becomes possible thanks to a meeting with the different. An excellent opportunity for such an international encounter arises owing to temporary international events, in this paper referred to as the Great Cultural Projects. They provide a comprehensive approach to specific problems in urban planning and contribute to technological and scientific progress, as well as social, economic and cultural transformations (Biedermann, 2011).

The analysis of the state of art shows that the studies on various GCPs have been carried out for some time (Ebert, 1981; Essex, 1999; Findling, 1990, 2004, 2008; MacAloon, 1981; Monclus, 2006; Mullin, 1972; Palmer, 2004; Ponzini, 2011; Rydel, 1984, 1993, 2000; Servant, 1996; Theokas, 2004). The impact of the Olympic Games on the cities in which they were held was presented in numerous publications by Essex and Chalkley (1998, 1999, 2003). The relation between the Games and the city planning was also the subject of the research of Gold J.R. and Gold M.M. and their impact on the widely understood development of the city was studied by R. Cashman (2003). A publication, which shows the effect of the ECoCs on the host cities is the study performed by Robert Palmer of RAE Associates as well as Ponzini and Ruoppil. Evans (2001) asked similar questions about the cultural factor as part of urban renewal in his publications. He analyzed the impact of culture on the conscious creation of the image of the city (2006). The relation between the city image strategies and actual revitalization of the urban tissue has been the subject of Carmen Gil de Arriba (2010) studies. The temporality of events and their festive nature has been also examined (Benjamin, 1973; Greenhalgh, 1988; Gold, 2005; Ley and Olds, 1988; Canogar, 1992). An interesting line of research on this trend is the search for common and different elements between the temporary events and their permanent counterparts in the form of theme parks (Sorkin, 1992; Fjellman, 1992; Eliot 1995). Culture was analyzed as a part of the Olympic Games and the complementation of the sporting events (Garcia, 2008; Good, 1998; Brown, 1996; Guevar, 1992; Moragas, 1992). Important part of the research focused on the Great Projects with the regard to their impact on tourism (Hughes, 1993; Leibold, 1997; Verdaguer, 1995; Pyo, Cook and Howell, 1988). The positive as well as the negative impact of the GCPs has been described. However, in the vast majority of cases these studies are devoted exclusively to one category of events while their impact on the transformations and the development of the city is relatively rarely compared between different categories.

This study, in contrast to the case studies, presents an overview of over the 1.5 century of GCP´s history in a cross‑sectional study that reveals the difference and common characteristics of the analyzed GCPs types. The characteristics of each of the GCPs can serve as a tool to help decide on the type of project and also allows to more accurately estimate possible gains and risks concerning transformation possibilities which each of the analyzed types of GCPs potentially involves. The opportunities as well as the threats of GCPs are connected with the GCP type, so the choice of the appropriate GCP can be a tool for the realization of the strategic plans of the city. The aim of the work is to define the potential transformation possibilities which each of the Great Cultural Projects has to offer as well as to present an innovative organizational scheme, focusing on long‑term integration of the transformations resulting from the cultural project with the existing urban tissue.

2. Materials and Methods.

The adopted research method is based on: data collection ‐ analysis ‐ evaluation ‐ synthesis. While the comparative analysis methods based on compilation of statistical data were used in the cross‑sectional studies. In order to define the scope of the research for the needs of the presented work, the GCPs will be limited to the World and International Exhibitions (WIE), the Summer and Winter Olympic Games (SOG, WOG), Horticultural Exhibitions (HE) and European Capitals of Culture (ECoC). The study includes 183 GCPs (72 WIE, 27 SOG and 21 WOG, 19 HE and 44 ECoCs), which took place in the cities around the world in the period from the mid‑nineteenth to the early twenty‑first century.

It covers spatial scale, time and duration of the organization, the attractiveness for the public and the media, the thematic scope and the impact on the urban transformation of the city in particular. The collected data on each type of the GCPs in terms of scale, location, architectural and urban heritage allow to compare and evaluate the transformation of the host‑cities as well as the strengths and differences of various types of the GCPs.

3. Results.

3.1. Comparison of the characteristics of different types of GCPs.

As the detailed study results show, four of the analyzed GCPs differ significantly from one another despite having much in common, which allows to classify them as the GCPs (they are addressed to a wide audience and usually contain a change that can be achieved at various levels, ranging from those associated with the building of a cultural identity and branding of the city to the profound economic and spatial transformations). These differences are multi‑leveled, and relate to both the procedural issues (the time required to propose candidacies and prepare the GCP, the criteria to be met) and the financial impact they have on the various economic sectors of the city as well as various opportunities and threats which concern different types of the GCPs to some extent. The analyzed examples allow to conclude that the size of the city is not a key criterion for the possibility of the organization of any of the types of the GCPs because each of them was held by cities of different sizes. The average audience size that different types of the GCPs are able to attract is varied and depends on the type of the GCPs. Necessary infrastructure, such as: hotel accommodation, transportation, etc., is connected with the audience size and the duration of the GCP.

The comparison between different types of the GCPs presented in a tabular breakdown may be used by the cities which consider the possibility of hosting a GCP in order to choose the one that best fits in their development strategy.

Table 1. Comparison of the characteristics of different types of GCP (Fuente: elaboración propia).

World and International Expo Olympic Games Horticultural Exhibition A1 European Capital of Culture
Institution BIE IOC AIPH,BIE 13 Experts Commission
Event duration WE‑ Max. 6 months
IE‑ Max. 3 months		 Typically half a month (16 days) From 3 to 6 months Typically 12 months
Preparation period WE ‐ 9‑6 years ‐ candidacy, 5 years ‐ preparation
IE‐ 6‐5 years ‐ candidacy, 4 years ‐ preparation		 10 years ‐ candidacy, 7 years ‐ preparation The country ‐ represented in the AIPH at least 2 years before the candidature which lasts 12‑6 years before the exhibition, 4‐5 years ‐ preparation. 6 years ‐ candidacy, 4 years ‐ preparation
Event frequency WE ‐Every 5 years (at least 15 years between WE in the same country).
IE‐between WE ‐ 2 in a decade		 Every four years, summer and winter Olympics alternately every two years. A1 exhibition can be held in different countries every year and every 10 years in the same country 2 cities every year, countries are determined in advance by the EU commission. 13‑16 years cycle
Geo. scope Theoretically the whole world Theoretically the whole world Theoretically the whole world Europe
Participating countries BIE ‐ 167 countries.
On average, in the last 20 – years: WE‐152 representing countries IE‐106 representing countries		 MKOI ‐ 204 countries.
On average, in the last 20 years: SO ‐ 196 representing countries, WO ‐ 74 representing countries.		 AIPH ‐ 19 countries.
On average, in the last 20 – years: 21 representing countries		 EU countries and countries cooperating with the EU.
On average, in the last 20 – years: 22 representing countries
Participants National teams, international organizations, NGOs, corporations and other institutions. WE‐ in their own pavilions, IE‐ in pavilions prepared by the organizer. National sports teams. Associations and companies representing the given country. Institutions, associations, cultural organizations and, mainly local and foreign, individual agents of culture.
Host cities size WE – 0.5‐23.0 million inhabitants.
IE – 0.003‐7.4 million inhabitants.
On average in the last 20 years: WE‐ 8 million inhabitants. IE‐ 1.8 million inhabitants.		 SOG – 0.1‐11.0 million inhabitants.
WOG – 0.002‐1.0 million inhabitants.
On average in the last 20 years: SOG‐4.27 million. WOG ‐ 0.35 million.		 0.1 ‐3.5 million inhabitants.
On average in the last 20 years: 0.67 million inhabitants.		 0.06‐12 million inhabitants.
On average, in the last two decades: 0.88 million.
Audience On average, in the last 20 ‐ year period: WE ‐ 44.03 million. IE ‐10.21 million. Within a month the number of inhabitants increase of : WE‐ 5.84 times. IE ‐ 3.46 times. On average in the last 20 years: SOG‐6.03 million. WOG‐2.55 million. Within a month the number of inhabitants increase of: SOG ‐ 8.08 times. WOG ‐ 72.12 times. On average in the last 20 years: 4.39 million. The number of inhabitants increased by an average of 4.3 times within the month. On average in the last 20 years: 3.3 million. The number of inhabitants increased by an average of 1.26 times within the month
Area WE‐ any‑size fenced area, restricted access.
IE‐ 25 hectares, fenced area, restricted access.		 The Olympic village and sports facilities in the city, the area defined by the organizer. Over 50 hectares, 10% of which can be used for buildings, fenced area, restricted access. Various objects in the city, the possibility of including a defined region in the event.
Location last 20 years Periphery of the city (processes of expansion or revitalization), waterfront areas, urban transformation of the terrains outside the location of the exhibition. Mainly in peripheral areas, different locations in the city, transformation of areas not directly related to the OG, existing green areas, waterfront and revitalized areas are used. HE are located on the periphery of the cities which often results in the creation of new green areas in areas previously undeveloped or not urbanized. They are located in waterfront areas. Various locations in the city center and in the periphery, green waterfront areas, revitalization and urban transformation of areas not directly related to the ECoC.
Budget WE ‐ 700‐4,000 million € (last 20 years).
IE ‐ 25‐2,500 million € (last 20 years).		 SO ‐ 10‐30,000 million € (last 20 years).
WO ‐ 10‐2,650 million € (last 20 years).		 50‐100 million in the last 20 years. 8‐280 million euro.
Architectural heritage
BoSaC‐ Buildings of Science and Culture
BoPCaS ‐ Buildings of Physical Culture and Sports
BoTCRaE ‐ Buildings of Trade, Catering, Recreation and Entertainment
HaR ‐ Hospitality and Residential
SotC ‐ Symbol of the City
CSH ‐ Communication Service Hubs		 • BoSaC‐ museums, exhibition centers, conference centers, cultural centers, opera, school buildings, research institutes, tech.parks. • BoTCRaE ‐ entertainment and shopping centers, theme parks, arenas, aquariums. • CSH ‐ railway stations, subway stations, airports. • HaR ‐ the development of residential areas. • SotC ‐ observation towers. • BoPCaS ‐ stadiums, swimming pools, ice rinks, pavilions. • BoPCaS ‐ SOG: stadiums, swimming pools, sports halls, playing fields. WOG: ice skating rinks, ski jumps, sports centers, ski lifts. • HaR ‐ Olym. villages, residential areas, hotels. • CSH ‐railway stations, airports, bus stations. • BoTCRaE ‐ restaurants, entertainment centers, amusement parks, shopping malls. • BoSaC‐ conference, cultural centers, museums • SotC ‐ SOG: stadiums, swimming pools, observation and telecommunications towers, WOG: ski jumps, ice stadiums. • BoSaC‐ exhibition centers, conference centers, planetarium, • SotC ‐ observation and telecommunications towers. • BoTCRaE – greenhouses, amusement parks. • CSH ‐ subway stations, bus stations. • HaR ‐ residential neighborhoods, hotels. • BoSaC‐ museums and galleries, operas, philharmonics, concert halls, theaters, exhibition centers, conference centers, schools and universities, cultural centers, cultural institutions offices, libraries. •SotC ‐ concert halls and auditoriums. • BoTCRaE ‐ cinemas, performance rooms, shopping centers. • CSH ‐ railway stations, airports • HaR ‐ development of the tourist accommodation center.
Urban transformation • Transformation of the road infrastructure and public transport ‐ construction of new highways, roads, bypasses, bridges, railways, underground and marinas. • The emergence of new and transformation of the existing parks. • Industrial areas revitalization. • Development of the new areas of the city • Transformation of the road infrastructure and public transport ‐ new highways, roads, bypasses, bridges, tunnels, railways and metro. • Postindustrial areas revitalization – WOG • Development of the new areas of the city ‐ mostly wastelands ‐ SOG especially. • The emergence of new and transformation of the existing parks – SOG especially. • The emergence of new and transformation of the existing parks. • Development of the new areas of the city ‐ mostly wastelands. • Transformation of the road infrastructure and public transport ‐ construction of new roads, bypasses, bridges, tunnels, railways and underground. • Improvement of the public spaces quality and their facilities. • The revitalization processes of the downtown areas. • The urban transformation of many different areas of the city.
Intangible cultural heritage • City's development strategy discussion. • Social activation (volunteers). • Technological innovation popularization. • The internationalization of the city brand. • Sport and Olympic values popularization. • Social activation (volunteers). • The internationalization of the city brand. • Promotion of a healthy lifestyle in harmony with the nature. • Popularization of placing green areas in the city, both in public and private spaces. • Cultural life dynamism improvement • Projects and cultural festivals Initiation • Promotion of a new image of the city and cultural tourism.
The main risks • Terrorist threats. • Development of one part of the city only • Difficulties in managing different pavilions. • The property value increase‑ gentrification. • Influence of the political and economic changes on the GCP planning. • The GCP can be used as a propaganda tool. • Terrorist threats. • Difficult to manage specialist sports facilities. • The property value increase leading to gentrification. • Influence of the political and economic changes on the GCP planning. • The GCP can be used as a propaganda tool. • High costs of public green spaces maintenance. • Influence of the political and economic changes on the GCP planning. • Focusing most of the budget planning on cultural purposes of one city only. • If the cultural activity is not continued, the achievements of ECoC may be lost • Lack of artistic independence • Resources allocation, bureaucracy.
The main benefits • Improvement of the cultural city life dynamism • Social activation • Social integration, the creation of public spaces • Tourism promotion and the development of tourist infrastructure • Strengthening or establishing new international contacts. • Creating a development vision of the city. • Accelerating the planned investments ‐ special financial and administrative procedures. • Urban transformation and a change in the structure of land ownership. • Revitalization. • Innovative and experimental architecture. • New functional‑economic profile of the city. • Stimulating economic activity, new jobs. • Raising the brand awareness of the city. • Better public transportation in the city. • Popularization of knowledge and innovation. • Creating a development vision of the city. • Accelerating planned investments ‐ special financial and administrative procedures. • Urban transformation and a change in the structure of land ownership. • Innovative and experimental architectural solutions. • Creation of a new functional‑economic profile of the city, such as: the city of the sports events. • Stimulating economic activity, new jobs. • Raising the brand awareness of the city. • Better public transportation in the city. • Popularization of knowledge and innovation. • Creating a vision for the development of the horticultural industry and the importance of green spaces in the city. • Urban, structural and spatial transformation and a change in the structure of land ownership. • Stimulating economic activity, new jobs. • Better public transportation in the city. • Popularization of knowledge and innovation in the horticultural sector. • Creating a culture development vision of the city. • Revitalization, realization of a comprehensive project of changing the structure and function of the problematic city parts. • Creation of a new functional‑economic profile of the city, such as: the city of culture. • Creating or enhancing the attractiveness of the brand and the image of the city. • Long‑term changes in the cultural sector.

3.2. A recommended innovative organizational procedure for GCP.

The analysis of numerous examples of GCPs (in terms of the organization of the preparatory process, objectives as well as functional and spatial effects) leads to the conclusion that not every city was equally able to take advantage of large GCP investment expenditure for the city development. Decisions about candidacy to host the GCP often stem more from the ambition of politicians (need for media coverage and prestige associated with the spectacular event) than from the analysis of real needs and opportunities of the city. The GCP planning procedure, used in most cases, involves focusing on the implementation of the project including the future utilization of facilities and installations created for the GCP. According to the author it is necessary to reverse the order of planning, starting form planning and implementing the infrastructure required for the city development and subsequently adapting it for the duration and requirements of the GCP. Such a project will be useful for the city, even if organization of the GCP would not take place and the planned changes would have to be implemented gradually.

A useful tool for enhancing the decision‑making processes and for planning the organization of the GCP can be the following one presented in the Table 2. It assumes a comprehensive assessment of the city needs before selecting the GCP which the city intends to apply for and then checking which changes and to what extent can be implemented using the support effect that the GCP offers. Such a modification of the decision‑making process can reduce risks and exploit opportunities more effectively. An important aspect of the process is to define the areas and strategies in order to monitor and assess the achievement of strategic goals (measures of success). Transformations performed on the occasion of the GCP are multidimensional thus examination of the condition of the city and definition of its needs are essential in many respects. The following table is a proposal of an order of procedures for the GCP organizers. It presents steps corresponding to different plans of the city development and activities attributed to each of the phases. The starting point is a diagnosis of the real condition of the city which makes it possible to define its needs, plan the strategy of transformations and then determine the criteria for selecting the most appropriate GCP. Particular emphasis should be laid on carrying out the first of the proposed stages in the process of public consultation and political consensus. In the era of knowledge‑based economy it is impossible to sustain urban growth based on industrialization. The global economic situation also has a significant impact on the assessment of the final results of the GCP. Despite the risk, the residents of the city and the authorities want to provoke positive changes in their environment and actively influence them. The GCPs are one of the possible tools to achieve that goal.

Table 2. Organization procedure proposal (Fuente: elaboración propia).

Urban planning Economy Society Administration Environment
Assessment of the Current State of the City Functional and spatial condition of the urban fabric structure along with the transportation infrastructure and regional connections. Finances of the city and its economic profile. Social and cultural situation. Analysis of the current image of the city. Surveys examining the level of satisfaction of the residents of the city. Administrative processes and their impact on the situation and the dynamics of transformations in the city. Environmental conditions.
Map of the City needs The needs of spatial and functional transformations: ‐ Public buildings. ‐ Development of recreational and entertainment buildings. ‐ Housing development. ‐ Road infrastructure and public transport. ‐ Green areas. The needs for economic restructuring (e.g. diversification, strengthening and revival of a particular economic sector). Required social transformations. Residents' participation program in the definition of the city needs. Determination of the desired image of the city. Required modifications in administrative procedures, facilitating change processes. Required modifications of the environment and the requirements for its protection.
City Development Strategy ‐ Prioritization The objectives of urban transformation ‐ spatial and functional infrastructure of the city. Short and long term economic goals. The social, cultural and educational objectives. Strategy for the construction of the desired image of the city and social policy (social inclusion). The role of administration in achieving the defined strategic objectives. Environmental objectives.
The concept of target transformation Concept of the Urban Development Plan of areas identified as requiring transformation on the map of the needs of the city. The definition of the desired financial state and activities leading to the development and dynamics upgrade of certain economic sectors. Social actions program. The program in of residents' participation in the concept of transformation targets. Cultural event program. The definition of the modification of administrative procedures and the role of administration in the objective transformation. The definition of the desired state of the environment in the city.
The analysis of types of the GCPs in terms of the effectiveness of the desired transformation The efficiency and the type of urban planning transformation related to the organization of the type of the GCP. The costs of hosting the GCP. Possible sources of funding and income. The impact of the GCP on the achievement of the economic goals. Social and cultural dimension of the GCP and its adequacy in the implementation of planned social and cultural programs. Identification of the necessary administrative measures and procedures for each type of the GCP; checking the feasibility & credibility of the candidacy for implementation of the given GCP from administrative point of view Determination of the opportunities to improve the environment and environmental risks associated with each type of the GCP.
Candidacy Project of the selected GCP Selecting the location of the selected GCP in the city (which areas are in need of revitalization and whether they have a chance to turn into a dynamically active centers even after the GCP). The advantages of the existing and planned communication. Definition of priority projects. Financing guarantee. The definition of the desired income‐tickets, sponsorship, merchandising, the definition of acceptable costs and funding sources. The involvement and support of the local community. The attractiveness of culture and tourism for domestic and foreign audience. The definition of social, cultural and imagery programs on the occasion of the GCP. Institutional support. Cooperation between the administration and the committee preparing the candidacy of the GCP. The concept of environmental improvements in the area of the GCP and the other ones in the accompanying projects, role determination of these areas within the GCP.
Project of the selected GCP Adjusting the Concept of the Urban Development Plan for Spatial Development to the needs and requirements of the GCP. The overall development plan of the GCP, the detailed design of land development, executive project, operations project (including the duration of the exhibition). Building transformation project for the redevelopment of the GCP's building as defined in the plan target. Funding: ‐budget and its application. ‐definition of the shares necessary to achieve the planned revenue. The program of residents' participation. Volunteering. The program of cultural events during the GCP. The image campaign, branding the GCP and the city. Starting special administrative procedures to make the implementation of the GCP possible. Adaptation of environmental change projects associated with the GCP into the desired state of the environment as defined by the concept of transformation targets. Minimizing the environmental costs.
Evaluation Assessment of Performance Expected. Measure of Success. Evaluation of the implementation of priority projects, the effectiveness of structural and functional transformations. Assessment of financial performance, assessment of compliance of the investment with the adopted budget, the added value of the GCP. Rating of satisfaction expressed by participating in the GCP and satisfaction of city residents from the implemented transformations, cultural program and the created city's image. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the administration activities and special procedures introduced on the occasion of the GCP. Assessment of the impact of investment on the environment (EIA) and environmental conditions of the GCP area and the city compared to baseline and targets defined in the strategy development of the city.

The definite choice of the GCP should follow a thorough analysis of the needs of the city, diagnosis of its problems and definition of long‑term development strategies. Choosing the right GCP has an impact on the effectiveness of the planned transformations and the final evaluation of the realized projects. GCPs not only facilitate the modern city image but, simultaneously, determine the processes taking place in modern cities. These processes, on the other hand, influence the shape, nature and scope of the GCPs in urban culture. The resume of that proposal elements and their relation to different spheres of city life is shown by the Figure 1.

Figure 1 showing the resume of proposal elements and their relation to different spheres of city life
Figure 1 (elaboración propia).

4. Conclusions.

The synthesis of the research results allowed to define possibilities, opportunities and risks connected with the organization of the GCP and to compare different types of the Great Cultural Projects. The differences between them are multi‑leveled and concern the procedural issues and the financial impact they have on the various sectors of the economy of the city as well as key opportunities and threats. As a result of the detailed analysis of the different types of the GCPs (their specificity, scale and effects) the summary was created to facilitate the host city decision making process of choosing the given type of a GCP that best fits in their strategy development.

The above chart is the authorʹs recommendation of the GCP organization procedure which (in contrast to the current practice) advises first to design the desired spatial and functional changes in the selected areas of the city and then analyze which type of the GCP can effectively accelerate the implementation of these objectives (see Table 1). The recommended organizational procedure of the GCP takes into account, inter alia, diagnosis of the state of the city (its problems and needs, opportunities and constraints), analysis of the development priorities and strategic objectives as well as the strengths of the selected GCP and evaluation methods in different spheres of city's functioning: urban planning, economic, social, administrative, and environmental sectors.

5. References.

Obras citadas

  1. AMIN, A; THRIFT, N. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Polity Press. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Cambridge.
  2. BIEDERMANN, A. (2011) "Wpływ wystaw międzynarodowych na kształtowanie wizerunku i tożsamości miast", Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Poznańskiej, nº 24.
  3. BRIDGE, g; Watson, S (2003) A Companion to the City, Blackwell Publisher.
  4. BROWN L.J., DIXON D., GILLHAM O., (2009) Urban Design For An Urban Century. New Yersey.
  5. CASHMAN, R., (2003) "Impact of the Games on Olympic Host Cities", Fundamental Olympic Lessons. Olympic Studies Centre, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (http://blues.uab.es/olympic.studies/dir/fl.html).
  6. CHMIELEWSKI, J.M (2001) Teoria Urbanistyki w Projektowaniu i Planowaniu Miast. Politechnika Warszawska. Varsovia.
  7. EBERT, J. (1981) "Olympic von dem Anfangen bis zu Coubertin". Leipzig. N. Müller Von Paris bis Baden‑Baden. Die Olympische Kongresse 1894‑1981 Niederhausen.
  8. ESSEX, S; CHALKLEY, B. (1998) "The Olympics as a catalyst of urban renewal: a review". Leisure Studies, Vol.17, No.3, pp.187‑206.
  9. ESSEX, S; CHALKLEY, B. (1999) "Urban Development through hosting international events: a history of the Olympic Games". Planning Perspectives, 14, pp. 369‑394.
  10. EVANS, G. (2001) Cultural Planning. An Urban Renaissance? London. Routledge.
  11. FINDLING, J; PELLE K. (1990) Historical Dictionary of Worldʹs Fairs and Expositions 1851‑1988. New York, London. Greenwood.
  12. GIL DE ARRIBA, C. (2010) "European Cultural Capitals. The European concept of culture in relation to some recent processes of image‑remaking strategies and urban revitalization". Scripta Nova.
  13. GREENBERG K. (2009) "A Third Way for Urban Design". Krieger A., Saunders W.S., Urban Design, Minneapolis –Londyn.
  14. HAASE, D. (2008) "Urban Ecology of Shrinking Cities: An Unrecognized Opportunity?". Nature and Culture, Nr 3, Nr 1, Spring, pp. 1‑8.
  15. HAWKINS, C. (2014) "Competing interests and the political market for smart growth policy". Urban Studies, Volumen: 51 Número: 12 pp: 2503‑2522.
  16. HOLLANDER J.B. (2010) "Moving Toward a Shrinking Cities Metric: Analyzing Land Use Changes Associated With Depopulation in Flint, Michigan". Cityscape V. 12, N. 1, HOPE VI, pp. 133‑151.
  17. HOWARD, E. (1902) Garden Cities of Tomorrow. S. Sonnenschein & Co. London.
  18. KALISKI J. (2008) "Everyday Urban Design: Towards default urbanism and/or urbanism by design?". KELBAUGH D., MCCULLOUGH K.K., Writing Urbanism, Routledge, Londyn ‐ New York.
  19. KOCHANOWSKI M., (2006) "Stan doktryny urbanistycznej w Polsce". Publicted in OSSOWICZ T, ZIPSER T., Urbanistyka w działaniu. Teoria i praktyka. Materiały II Kongresu Urbanistyki Polskiej. Varsovia.
  20. MACALOON, J. (1981) This Great Simbol. Pierre de Coubertin and the Orgins of the Modern Olympic Games. Chicago and London.
  21. MÁRQUEZ LÓPEZ, L.; PRADILLA COBOS, E. (2008) "Desindustrialización, terciarización y estructura metropolitana: un debate conceptual necesario". Cuadernos del Cendes V: 25 N: 69 PP: 21‑45.
  22. MONCLUS, F. (2006) International Exhibitions and Planning. Hosting Large‑scale Events as Place Promotion and as Catalysts of Urban Regeneration. Ashgate.
  23. MULLIN, J.R. (1972) "World's Fairs and Their Impact Upon Urban Planning", Monticello, Ill: council of Planning librarians, exchange bibliography, n. 303.
  24. OSWALT, P. (2004) Shrinking Cities, v. 1: International research, Hatje Cantz Publishers
  25. PALMER, R. (2004) European Cities and Capitals of Culture. Brussels. Palmer‑Rae Associates. Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/culture/pdf/doc654_en.pdf
  26. PINK, S; LEWIS, T. (2014) "Making resilience: everyday affect and global affiliation in Australian Slow Cities". Cultural Geographies V: 21 N: 4 pp: 695‑710.
  27. PONZINI, D.; RUOPPILA, S. (2011) "What's the "city" in the design and implementation of the European Capital of Culture?". An open issue, Tafter Journal nº 42.
  28. PROVOOST M., VANSTIPHOUT W. (2006) Facts on the Ground, Urbanism from Mid‑Road to Ditch, Harvard Design Magazine.
  29. RIENIETS, T. (2009) "Shrinking Cities: Causes and Effects of Urban Population Losses in the Twentieth Century", Nature and Culture, Vol. 4, Nº 3, pp.231‑254.
  30. RYDEL, R. (1984) All the World's Fair‐ Visions of Empire at American International Expositions 1876‑1916. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
  31. SERVANT, C. TAKEDA, I (1996) Study on the impact of International Expositions. Paris. BIE.
  32. THEOKAS, A. (2004) Grounds for Review. The Garten Festival in Urban Planning and Design. Liverpool University Press.
  33. TOWNSEND, A. (2013) Smart Cities: big data, city hackers and the quest for a new utopia. W. W. Norton & Company. New York.

Obras consultadas

  1. ALAWADHI, S.; ALDAMA‑NALDA, A; CHOURABI, H; GIL‑GARICA, J.R; LEUNG, S; MELLOULI, S; et al. (2012) "Building understanding of Smart City initiatives". Electronic Government, 7443, pp. 40–43.
  2. BROTCHIE, J, BARRY, M, BLAKELY, E, HALL, P and NEWTON, P (eds.) (1995) Cities in Competition: Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century. Longman Australia, Melbourne.
  3. CZYŻEWSKI, A. (2009) Trzewia Lewiatana. Miasta‑Ogrody i Narodziny Przedmieścia Kulturalnego. Państwowe Muzeum Etnograficzne. Warszawa.
  4. DUFFY, H (1995) Competitive Cities: Succeeding in the Global Economy. Spon, London.
  5. ESSEX, S; CHALKLEY, B. (2003) "Las transformaciones urbanas a raíz de la celebración de los Juegos Olímpicos: lecciones universitarias Olímpicas". Barcelona: Centre d'Estudis Olímpics (UAB). Cátedra Internacional de Olimpismo (CIO‑UAB).
  6. EVANS, G. (2006) Branding the City of Culture‐ The Death of City Planning? Ashgate.
  7. FINDLING J; PELLE K. (2004) Encyclopedia of the Modern Olympic Movement. Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑publication Data, Greenwood publishing Group, USA.
  8. FINDLING, J.; PELLE, K. (2008) Encyclopedia of Worldʹs Fairs and Expositions. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, North Carolina and London.
  9. FLORIDA, R (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Book.
  10. FLORIDA, R (2005). Cities and the Creative Class. Routledge, New York.
  11. GOMEZ, M.V. (1999) "Reflecting images: the case of urban regeneration in Glasgow and Bilbao". International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22 (1), 106–121.
  12. GOSPODINI, A (2004) "Urban space morphology and place identity in european cities; built heritage and innovative design". Journal of Urban Design 9 (2), 225–248.
  13. HALL, P (1998). Cities in Civilization: Culture, Innovation, and Urban Order. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
  14. HILLER, H (2000) "Mega‑Events, Urban Boosterism and Growth Strategies: An Analysis of the Objectives and Legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid". International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24 (2), 439‑458.
  15. HOLLANDER J.B. (2011) "Can a City Successfully Shrink? Evidence from Survey Data on Neighborhood Quality" Urban Affairs Review, January, v. 47 n. 1 pp. 129‑141.
  16. HOLLANDS, R.G. (2008) "Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial?". City, 12 (3), pp. 303–319.
  17. HOWKINS, J. (2002) The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas, Penguin Global.
  18. JANUCHTA‑SZOSTAK, A; BIEDERMANN A.M. (2014) "The impact of Great Cultural Projects on the transformation of urban water‑side spaces". Technical Transactions Architecture. Issue1‑A (111). Wydawnictwo Politechniki Krakowskiej.
  19. JENSEN‑BUTLER, C (1997) "Competition between cities, urban performance and the role of urban policy: a theoretical framework". European Cities in Competition, (eds.) C. JENSEN‑BUTLER, A. SHACHAR and J. VAN WEESEP. Ashgate, Aldershot.
  20. LANDRY, C. (2000) The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. Comedia. London.
  21. NEIROTTI, P; DE MARCO, A; CAGLIANO, A; et al. (2014) "Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts". Cities Vol. 38, June 2014, Pages 25–36.
  22. OSWALT, P. (2006) Shrinking Cities, v. 2: Interventions, Hatje Cantz Publishers.
  23. RICHARDS, G and WILSON, J (2004) "The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam, cultural capital of Europe 2001". Urban Studies 41(10), 1931–1951.
  24. ROCHE, M (2005) Mega‑events and Modernity. Olimpics and expos in the growth of global culture. Routledge London, New York
  25. RYDELL, R. (1993) World of fairs. The century ‐of‑Progress Exposition.The University of Chicago Press.
  26. RYDELL, R.; FINDLING, J; PELLE, K. (2000) World's Fairs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
  27. SASAKI, M (2010) "Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion: Rethinking creative city theory through a Japanese case study", Cities, 27 (S1), pp. S3–S9.
  28. VOASE, R. (1997) "The role of flagship cultural projects in urban regeneration: a case study and commentary". Managing Leisure 2, 230–241.
  29. YUEN, (2008) "Sport and urban development in Singapore". Cities 25 pp. 29‑36.
1 Department of Design and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Zaragoza - Campus Río Ebro, Zaragoza, Spain. A research group member at Observatorio Aragonés de Arte en la Esfera Pública. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8313-1628
2 Department of Design and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Zaragoza - Campus Río Ebro. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7411-9280