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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.