city centre regeneration in the context of the 2001 european capital of culture in porto, portugal

http://lec.sagepub.com/Local Economy

http://lec.sagepub.com/content/19/4/396The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1080/0269094042000286873

2004 19: 396Local EconomyCarlos J. L. Balsas

PortugalCity Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 European Capital of Culture in Porto,

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

London South Bank University

Local Economy Policy Unit

Partner Organisation: Centre for Local Economic Strategies

can be found at:Local EconomyAdditional services and information for

http://lec.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lec.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lec.sagepub.com/content/19/4/396.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 1, 2004Version of Record >>

at BAYLOR LIBRARY on June 6, 2014lec.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BAYLOR LIBRARY on June 6, 2014lec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lec.sagepub.com/

http://lec.sagepub.com/content/19/4/396

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/index.shtml

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/lepu

http://www.cles.org.uk/

http://lec.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://lec.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://lec.sagepub.com/content/19/4/396.refs.html

http://lec.sagepub.com/content/19/4/396.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Local Economy,Vol. 19, No. 4, 396–410, November 2004

City Centre Regeneration inthe Context of the 2001 European

Capital of Culture in Porto, Portugal

CARLOS J. L. BALSAS

School of Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

ABSTRACT In 2001, the city of Porto hosted the European Capital of Cultureevent. ‘Porto 2001’ was a year-long programme of arts, cultural events and urbanregeneration activities. The purpose of this article is to discuss the city centreregeneration operation conducted in conjunction with the European Capital ofCulture initiative in Porto. My objective is to extract a set of lessons learned thatcan be useful to other cities pursuing the same designation and strategy. Thekey finding is that despite rich and well-participated cultural events, too muchemphasis was put on attracting public investment to regenerate the public space,replacing infrastructures, and modernizing cultural facilities. This was done at theexpense of institutional capacity building and boosting civic creativity.

KEY WORDS: Urban planning, regeneration, city and Culture, Portugal

Introduction

European cities are actively pursuing urban regeneration strategies. Theassumptions used to implement these strategies are that once worksare completed, intervention areas will become successful places to work,live, shop and recreate. While regeneration operations involve manyareas of public intervention, an increasing number of cities are lookingat cultural, retail and entertainment redevelopments to attract peopleback into the city (Bassett, 1993; Griffiths, 1995; Zukin, 1995; Hannigan,1998; Bianchini, 1999; Law, 2000).

Correspondence Address: Carlos J. L. Balsas, School of Planning, Arizona State University,Main Campus, PO Box 872005, Tempe, AZ 85287-2005, USA. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0269–0942 Print/ISSN 1470–9325 Online � 2004, LEPU, South Bank University

DOI: 10.1080/0269094042000286873 at BAYLOR LIBRARY on June 6, 2014lec.sagepub.comDownloaded from


In Europe, the prestigious designation of the European Capital ofCulture allows cities to capitalize on cultural events to implement regen-eration operations (Hughes, 1999; Hall, 2000; Hitters, 2000; Richards,2000). The city of Porto is one such city. In 2001, Porto – the secondlargest city in Portugal – and the anchor of a metropolitan area with about1.2 million people, implemented a year-long programme of arts and culturalevents, upgraded and built cultural facilities, and attempted to regeneratethe city centre.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the city centre regenerationoperation conducted in conjunction with the 2001 initiative. My objectiveis to extract a set of lessons learned that can be useful to other citiespursuing similar designations and strategies. My argument is that theEuropean Capital of Culture in Porto belongs to the category of ‘urbanpropaganda projects’ (Boyle, 1997; see also Harvey, 1989; Waterman,1998) mainly designed to channel public investments and market the cityto the outside world, with the hope that those investments can have atrickle-down effect, which will ultimately improve liveability conditions inthe city. However, the unintended consequences of swift planning pro-cesses without due public participation can undermine the expected effectsand skew civic agendas (see Eisinger, 2000).

The key finding is that despite rich and well-participated cultural events,too much emphasis was put on attracting public investment to regen-erate the public space, replacing infrastructures, and modernizing culturalfacilities. This was done at the expense of institutional capacity buildingand the boosting of civic creativity. This paper is organized as follows. Thenext section introduces the city of Porto and shows how its decline asa centre for commerce is propelling new urban functions in the tourism,leisure and entertainment industry. The section after analyses the prepara-tory and implementation phases of the urban regeneration operation con-ducted by ‘Porto 2001’. Next, three lessons learned are identified. Andfinally, the last section presents some concluding remarks.

The City of Porto

The Story of a ‘Donut City’

Porto is the capital of the northern part of Portugal. It is well known asa ‘working city’ and is accused of not having a cultural life, in contrastto the allegedly flamboyant Lisbon. The Porto region has a long traditionof commerce and is one of the most important industrial regions in thecountry. The city’s historic district and surrounding areas have experi-enced major changes during the last three decades (Domingues, 2001).Originally, the city centre was the civic centre of the entire city. It not onlyhad housing, administrative and service functions, but it was also the city’smain marketplace.

City Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 ECOC 397

at BAYLOR LIBRARY on June 6, 2014lec.sagepub.comDownloaded from


However, growing levels of out-migration to more peripheral areas ofthe city and to surrounding municipalities created new centres of economicactivity (Portas et al., 1998; Vazquez & Pinho, 1998). Boavista, an areawhere the first shopping centres and office complexes were built in the1970s, was the first new centrality. Industry started to locate outside ofthe city, while housing was built in great quantity in the 1980s in closeproximity to major roads and highways. Owing to growing income levelsafter the 1974 political revolution, automobile ownership rates increaseddramatically. People found it extremely convenient to live in a peripheralneighbourhood and commute to work or to have recreation outside thecity centre.

More recently, new regional shopping malls were built during the1990s in the surrounding municipalities to cater to these new suburbanites(Fernandes, 1997). These new shopping malls had clear impacts on theeconomic, social and cultural activities located in the central area. Smallretail stores, mostly family owned and operated, could not compete withthe new formats and started closing their doors. The same happenedwith many cafes and old movie theatres.

This situation created a spiral of decline in the city centre, wherebuildings remained empty for a long time, became derelict and ended upcollapsing, or remaining as eyesores, giving the city centre a bad imageand increasing the perception of danger, particularly after dark. This urbandevelopment in Porto can be paralleled to the pattern of suburbanizationtypical of the western metropolitan city. In fact, between 1960 and 1996,the city centre of Porto lost 53% of its population (Siza & Pereira, 2001).This is known as the ‘donut effect’ of urban growth (DoE, 1994; Balsas,2001), and this description fits the city of Porto perfectly.

Public Interventions in the City Centre

The municipality attempted to deal with this problem by creating twopublic agencies responsible for the physical and social rehabilitationof the historic district, respectively the CRUARB – Comissariado para aReabilitacao Urbana da Area Ribeira e Barredo – and the FDZHP –Fundacao para o Desenvolvimento da Zona Historico do Porto. TheCRUARB was created in 1974 to rehabilitate the historic district. While theCRUARB never had large budgets, it was able to achieve someremarkable accomplishments, such as avoiding the partial demolition ofthe historic district proposed by the Auzell Plan of 1962. In addition,CRUARB had an important role in the rehabilitation of many buildingsand public spaces in the historic district and was also responsible forpreparing the application that included the historic district of Porto in thelist of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites (CRUARB, 2000, p. 156).

The FDZHP is a foundation created in 1990 to solve the social prob-lems in the historic district. It has had a positive role in the creation ofeconomic opportunities and in the social integration of the population inthe historic district. Besides this urban and social intervention in the city

398 Carlos J. L. Balsas



centre, it is important to mention also, the public intervention in thecultural area with the 1989 creation of the Pelouro de Animacao da Cidade.This is the municipality’s cultural office, which, according to Lopes (2000,pp. 179–180), has had a twofold role in producing and financing an arrayof festivals, and in expanding the network of cultural facilities in the city.In fact, the sedimentation of the city’s rich and varied cultural policy ledby this office, together with the designation as World Heritage Site, werethe strongest aspects of the bid application to host the 2001 EuropeanCapital of Culture designation.

A New Fate for the City Centre

Despite its rehabilitation problems, the city centre’s built heritage hastremendous appeal and market potential. These characteristics ledseveral retail developers to invest in the area in the last decade. Also inthe last decade, the historic ambience of the riverfront neighbourhoodof Ribeira has led to the opening of many pubs, bars and restaurants,which attract crowds of tourists and young people, and constitute thebase of a renovated evening economy in the city centre.

Several art galleries and ateliers for artists have opened recently inthe city centre. Maus Habitos and Artemosferas are two galleries locatedin close proximity to clusters of cultural and educational facilities, such asthe Coliseu and the Graduate School of Fine Arts. They cater to alternativepublics and chose to locate in the city centre due to its urbanity. Othercommercial and residential buildings, such as A Barraca, are also beingconverted to mix uses with ateliers for artists.

Despite the desertification of the last decades, a recent survey showedthat the city centre has remarkable appeal as a residence for youngergenerations and professionals from the arts and culture industry. Twentyfive percent of surveyed college students, between 20 and 24 years old,manifested an intention to reside in the city centre after finishing theirdegrees. Additionally, 50% of art and culture professionals answeredpositively to the question, would you like to reside in the city centre? (Siza,2001).

The housing stock in the city centre often needs extensive rehabilita-tion, which can be very expensive. Nonetheless, the city centre seemsto be experiencing a new future, which illustrates profound transforma-tions in its traditional role as a marketplace. From, in the main, a place ofcommerce, services and housing, the city centre seems to be emergingas a player in the specialized retail, entertainment and evening economyarenas.

Porto 2001 and City Centre Regeneration

Porto’s eternal rivalry with Lisbon is well known. From the beginning,the European Capital of Culture was seen as an opportunity to channelcentral government and European Union funds to the northern part of




the country. There has been a conviction among the population of Portothat Lisbon was taking advantage of being the country’s decision-makingand administrative centre to fund infrastructures and facilities in its metro-politan area (Holton, 1998; Wilson & Huntoon, 2001).

After long and complex negotiations in Brussels, the city of Porto,together with the city of Rotterdam, was awarded the designation of 2001European Capital of Culture in May 1998. The E180 million for the eventwas seen as a unique opportunity for the city of Porto not only to celebrateculture, but also to implement a series of structural projects in the areaof urban regeneration.

The Preparation Stage – ‘The Return to the City Centre’

The European Capital of Culture had three main areas of intervention:(1) urban regeneration, (2) the upgrade and construction of cultural facil-ities, and (3) cultural events. Among the first area one finds the renovationof the public space, the economic regeneration, and the housingprogramme, all three in the city centre area; and the renovation of thewaterfront in the Parque da Cidade and the Caminhos do Romantico. Thesecond area includes the renovation of the Museu Soares dos Reis,Auditorio Nacional Carlos Alberto, Cadeia da Relacao, Mosteiro de SaoBento da Vitoria, Coliseu, and the construction of the Biblioteca AlmeidaGarrett and of a new music hall, Casa da Musica. The music hall isa modernistic project of the 2000 Pritzker award winner architect RemKoolhaas. The third area of intervention includes over 450 cultural eventsdivided by 11 areas ranging from, music, dance, theatre, fine arts andarchitecture, cinema, new technologies, to science and literature, amongothers.

Of the three areas, the urban regeneration was the most visibleintervention implemented in 2001. Initially, this ambitious regenerationoperation included the implementation of a new mobility plan with there-introduction of a tram system, the renovation of the public space in fourmain squares and their adjacent streets, and economic and housingprogrammes. To implement such a colossal urban regeneration opera-tion and the additional programme of cultural events in about two anda half years, a public corporation was created in 1998 with two partners:the central government (with more than 90% of the capital) and themunicipality of Porto.

The urban regeneration intervention was referred to as ‘the return tothe city centre’ (Porto 2001, 2000) and its impacts in the city centre wereexpected to be bold and, above all, ‘a real process of transformationand not a constant chasing after problems without ever solving any ofthem’ (Fernandes, 2000, p. 373). The major objectives for the new mobilityplan were a new circulation pattern, which gave priority to the pedestrianand was based primarily on alternative modes of transport, such asimproved mass transit, and the re-introduction of trams and the new lightrail system. Although several underground parking garages were to be




built, the private automobile was to be discouraged in the city, particularlyin the city centre.

The goal of the economic regeneration programme was to modernizesmall independent retail and other commercial establishments and toregenerate their adjacent shopping precincts. This was to be done withEuropean Union funds under the umbrella of a central governmentprogramme called PROCOM, which required the participation of thechamber of commerce, the regional association of hotels and restaurants(UNISNOR), individual merchants, the municipality and Porto 2001. Themain concept promoted by the central government, the entity throughwhich all the European Union investment funds would be channelled,was the creation of an ‘open air shopping centre’ (Balsas, 2000). Onthe other hand, the housing programme was an attempt to create aninstitutional arrangement within the existing legislative framework ofthe central-government subsidized rent programmes to rehabilitate thedilapidated housing stock in the city centre.

From the beginning, however, the European Capital of Culture wasmarked by institutional changes and conflicts. Santos Silva, the firstpresident of the corporation Porto 2001, resigned due to disagreementswith the minister of culture, Manuel Carrilho, regarding previously agreedinvestment priorities. Minister Carrilho wanted to give priority to therenovation of the cultural facilities under the umbrella of his Ministry,while Santos Silva favoured the regeneration of the city centre. The newPorto 2001 president, Teresa Lago, was appointed in December 1999.With slightly more than one year to the European Capital of Cultureopening date, there was no time to change or adjust the event’sprogrammes, and she was faced with the difficulty of implementing theirproposals within the short time frame.

The Implementation Stage – a ‘NIMBYISM Story’

While the renovation work started during the initial months of 2000, in Juneof that same year, a new president was elected for the chamber ofcommerce. Laura Rodrigues won the elections, in part, by accusingthe previous president of alleged corruption practices, and on the basisof demanding public compensation for lost sales revenues, due to theconstruction works already started by Porto 2001. The change of presidentin the chamber of commerce happened exactly when the proposalsfor the economic and commercial regeneration of the city centre werecompleted and ready to be submitted for approval by the centralgovernment.

In the meantime, a new law (Portaria 317-B/2000) was passed tosubstitute the initial PROCOM Programme by the newly created URBCOMProgramme. This happened because of the terminus of the II EuropeanUnion Support Framework (EUSF) and the beginning of the III EUSF – thenew European Union funding package for the period 2000–2006. Althoughthe requirements of the newly created URBCOM Programme remained




basically the same as the previous commercial urbanism programme,a subtle change was the possibility of creating a coordination office forthe implementation of the economic regeneration programme. Althoughthe economic regeneration programme proposed the creation of this officeby Porto 2001, such a coordination office was never implemented due toorganizational conflicts and ‘turf-wars.’

Because the new president of the chamber of commerce was notinvolved from the beginning of the realization of the economic regenera-tion programme, she did not accept many of its proposals. While thepublic space projects were being implemented by Porto 2001, theeconomic regeneration programme was halted and delayed by disagree-ments between Laura Rodrigues and Teresa Lago over the new mobilityplan, and the pace and magnitude of the construction works in the citycentre.

Initially, the president of the chamber of commerce argued that thenew circulation plan decreased the total number of parking spaces inthe city centre and did not include enough (un)loading areas. Accordingto her, such an approach would negatively affect the commercial activitiesin the city centre, since ‘the best customers drive to do their shopping inthe city centre’ (Rodrigues, personal communication, May 2001).

Later, however, she and several other merchants fiercely assumed a‘Not In My Back Yard – NIMBY’ approach to the regeneration works. Thisincluded several protest parades and other organized actions towardsthe Capital of Culture. They argued that the city centre looked like a largeconstruction site, and that store owners were experiencing high revenuelosses owing to badly planned time frames, too many simultaneous con-struction fronts, lack of temporary sidewalks and walkways, and – worse ofall – difficult automobile accessibility.

Local residents did not have a very active role in the planning andimplementation of the regeneration strategy. Even though there werepublic forums to present the projects, discussions involved mainly pro-fessionals and politicians. Residents did not formally voice their opinionsconcerning the renovation of the public space besides complaining to eachother almost on a daily basis about the constant traffic jams, the difficultpedestrian mobility, and the slow pace and extensive volume of the worksin the city centre. Despite being sympathetic to the merchants’ complaints,many residents did engage in organized tours of the renovation worksled by the architects responsible for the projects and marvelled at thecolourful sketches and renderings depicting the future images of the citycentre.

As time passed and as this scenario of continuous construction, dustand mud, heavy machinery, trucks loading and unloading materials wasbeing widely reported by both national and international media, and wellas being experienced by residents, workers and shoppers, the EuropeanCapital of Culture event was launched in January 2001. In the meantimethere were also many other ‘turf wars’ between Porto 2001 and the munic-ipality, mainly due to re-routing of traffic and construction permissions,




and the timing of the construction works. These institutional conflicts, aswell as technical difficulties and an extremely harsh winter, caused severalpublic space projects to be delayed and not to meet the established closingtime frames.

Lessons Learned

Table 1 shows a synthesis of the urban regeneration efforts conductedin the context of the European Capital of Culture in Porto in 2001. Morethan 30 streets and squares were subjected to renovation works, includingthe replacement of their underground utility infrastructures (water, gas,sewer, telephone and cable systems) and their pavements, as well asthe widening of their sidewalks and the definition of new travel lanesand respective parking spaces. Although their design options can bequestioned, a telephone survey conducted by the firm EuroSondagemin the first week of November 2001 showed that 80.4% of the 322 peoplecontacted, all residing in the Porto Metropolitan Area, considered theEuropean Capital of Culture very important, and that 64.4% consideredthat the renovation works made the city centre more attractive (Capital dacultura vale muito a pena, 2001).

The urban regeneration works experienced major delays and whilemost cultural facilities were finished on time, the Music Hall was still underconstruction well after the end of the 2001 European Capital of Cultureevent. The most important programmes to accomplish the real ‘return to thecity centre’ though, were not implemented due to a history of institutionalconflicts and un-collaborative planning practices (see: So falhou arevitalizacao economica, 2001). The application of the economic regen-eration programmes was only completed recently and no projects for themodernization of retail establishments had been implemented untilrecently. Regarding the housing rehabilitation programme, despite itsdepth of analysis and the breath and creativity of its proposals, it wasabandoned basically due to lack of technical resources to implement it.

Despite the survey results mentioned above, my own fieldwork in Portoshowed that the extremely high volume of construction work and theinstitutional conflicts reported by the media weakened the image of thecity. This is well illustrated in the most recent audit of the event publishedin July 2004: ‘the urban regeneration works did not benefit, instead

Table 1. Synthesis of the urban regeneration efforts under the umbrella of the Porto 2001

Prospects Pitfalls

Refurbished public spaces Failed economic/commercial regenerationLarge investments in infrastructures Abandoned housing rehabilitation programmeRenovated cultural facilities History of un-collaborative planning practicesNew music hall Challenged urban image




disturbed the fruition of the event, [. . .] did not secure audiences capableof portraying the image of a renovated and captivating city, as it wasinitially proposed’ (Tribunal de Contas, 2004, p. 14). In addition, this officialassessment also revealed that these urban regeneration works alonehad a cost of E80 million, E16.6 million more than was initially estimated,even though 14% of the works planned were not executed.

Regarding the cultural offer of the European Capital of Culture, the figuresshowed that although the different cultural events hosted by Porto 2001were well received by the public, with a total number of spectators wellabove one million, the number of tourists in the city grew only about 1.5%in relation to the previous year (see Porto 2001 nao atraiu turistas, 2001).

A key question one can ask about the 2001 European Capital of Culturein Porto, as well as about almost every major public works programme,is whether the event prompted national government investment in thecity that might not have occurred otherwise, and perhaps the short-termproblems might be outweighed by the longer-term gain in terms of publicinvestment. The answer to this question seems to depend more on whereone stands in the liberal-conservative spectrum of political ideology thanon any purposefully chosen statistic.

Furthermore, the Portuguese people have been paying more attentionto a recent pattern of cost overruns in major public works programmesthan to a debate between short versus long term impacts. The nationalnewspaper, Expresso, reported the following list of recent cost overrunsfor major public works in its edition of 3 March 2002: Alqueva damþ20%; Expo’98 þ23%; main national rail line (i.e. Linha do Norte)þ37%; Euro ’2004 þ90%; Porto light rail system þ135%; Porto 2001þ467%; Belem Cultural Centre þ503% (Grandes obras, grandesderrapagens, 2002). Although cost overruns are part of every majorpublic works project, an average of 182% for the seven projectsindicated above have created fragile institutional bonds and untrust-worthy relationships between citizens and the networks of central andlocal governments. The Porto 2001 European Capital of Culture wasno exception to the negative perceptions caused by the chronic costoverruns in the country.

Lesson 1

Scale and Location of the Event : be realistic about different means(capital, time and human resources) and how they affect ends, plan wellahead, and consider the territorial equity of the event

The volume of work under the umbrella of the European Capital ofCulture in Porto was too extensive for the existing timeframe. Therewas too much construction in a very short period of time and too manyareas of intervention to consider simultaneously. In the launching of theevent, the organizers proudly proclaimed the grandiosity of the regenera-tion operation, as larger than any others implemented in conjunction withprevious European Capitals of Cultures.




Means – such as time, capital and human resources – are always limitedunder normal conditions. But in this type of event, it seems that timeand ambition, vary in opposite directions. Although the short timeframefor the event limits its scale, its perceived importance seems to justifymany more projects than the ones the organization is capable of handling.This was particularly true in Porto, where there were only two andhalf years between the dates when the European Union communicatedthe award of the event to Porto and Rotterdam and the event’s launchin January 2001. This is probably one of the reasons why the renovationof the public spaces was only partially complete on time, the economicregeneration failed, the housing programme was abandoned and stillthe total costs associated with the Porto 2001 European Capital of Cultureevent experienced an overrun from E182.3 million in the initial budget(i.e. 1999) to E300.9 million at the time of the official audit in 2004 (Tribunalde Contas, 2004, p. 13).

Porto 2001 deliberately targeted the city centre to implement theurban regeneration operation (Fernandes, 2000). Symbolic squares andstreets were the main object of the renovation work. However, if onetook a detour and went off the main streets and squares into some ofthe neighbourhoods in the historic district, one could find many buildingsstill in need of rehabilitation and people residing in very poor conditions.During my fieldwork I found the following statement ‘2001 Capital daVaidade e Miseria Esondida!’ (2001 Capital of Vanity and Hidden Misery!)painted on the walls of many decaying buildings in the city centre. Thisshows some resentment towards the urban regeneration activities pro-moted by Porto 2001, which privileged the main streets and squares in thecity and abandoned the urban fabric of the neighbourhoods.

The fact that the city’s main shopping and administrative centre wassuffering very fiercely the effects of structural forces, pushing residents,shoppers, visitors and activities out of the centre, was used to justifythe urban regeneration initiative. However, such a localized interventionwithout careful consideration of the urban development processes andoutcomes in the metropolitan area can have limited results. If some culturalevents in the neighbouring municipalities were integrated in the officialprogramme of the European Capital of Culture, the metropolitan scale ofurban development did not seem to have been considered by Porto 2001.

Lesson 2

Type and Economic Impact of the projects: balance ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ com-ponents and consider that innovation and creativity are the competitiveadvantages of the 21st century, which can promote social cohesion andhuman progress

The type of regeneration projects implemented under the umbrella ofthe European Capital of Culture in Porto can be described as belongingto the ‘hard infrastructure’ of urban development. These are projects that




focus almost exclusively on physical solutions in a tradition of urban deter-minism. These include underground parking garages, the redesign andreconstruction of squares and streets, the widening of sidewalks andthe creation of new pedestrian precincts, the defining of on-street parkingspaces, the reintroduction of the tram system, the replacement of under-ground infrastructures and street furniture, the rehabilitation of culturalfacilities and the building of a new music hall.

These are all important projects, which have the potential to resolvesome of the accessibility problems and contribute to a more pleasingurban environment and experience in the city centre. Even though theyare needed, they are not sufficient to achieve a vital and viable city centrethat will be able to endure in the 21st century. The urban regenerationoperation seems to have fallen short in the ‘soft infrastructure’ (Bianchini,1999; Krumholz, 1999), which included projects such as the economicregeneration of the city centre under the URBCOM Programme.

The absence of this commercial urbanism programme did not contributeto the strengthening of the entrepreneurial skills of individual merchants,or to the implementation of any pilot projects capable of demonstratinggood practices and inducing ‘civic creativity’ in the retail, hotel and res-taurant industry. According to Landry (2000) promoting ‘civic creativity’ iscritical to generating a continuous flow of innovative solutions to problems,which have an impact on the public realm.

Lesson 3

Governance Practices: balance ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approachesto foster institutional capacity building and collaborative planning

Governance is an analytical concept used to look at emerging forms ofcooperation between public and private sectors (Healey, 1997; Vazquez &Alves, 2004). In the governance context, public–private partnershipshave become the privileged mechanism to implement economic develop-ment initiatives. Partnerships allow pooling of resources and expertisefrom different partners, coordinating their efforts, improving management,building consensus, and having greater operational flexibility by actingthrough non-governmental parties. One of the common assumptions inthe urban planning literature is that public–private partnerships areimportant to the success of urban regeneration programmes. An effectiveregeneration initiative needs the support and expertise of both sectors(Gratz & Mintz, 1998; Mitchell, 2001).

Specifically in Portugal, partnerships are being used not only as arequirement from the European Union, but more and more as alegitimate way of implementing public policy (Syrret, 1997). The fundsdedicated to the European Capital of Culture event came mainly fromthe European Union but through different central government pro-grammes. In the case of the investment funds from the commercialurbanism programme URBCOM, which were supposed to pay for the




renovation of the public spaces, their availability required the establish-ment of a partnership.

The fact that Porto 2001 perceived the regeneration operation as itsexclusive responsibility and adopted a ‘top-down’ planning approachcaused problems of communication and collaboration with the chamberof commerce. This stance gave the chamber a sense of bargaining power,which led to institutional conflicts and delays in the implementation ofthe regeneration programme. The creation of a centralized coordinationoffice based on a true public–private partnership with more representa-tives than just the municipality and the central government, as was thecase with Porto 2001, was not implemented during 2001. Such an officewas proposed in the regeneration programme and would have madethe planning process more transparent, would have created a highersense of ownership of the event and empowered the residents, merchantsand the other stakeholders in the city centre.

Conclusions

Usually, the most frequently asked question after a European Capitalof Culture event comes to an end is whether the event was able to createlasting cultural dynamics and urban transformations (Sjoholt, 1999;Richards, 2000). This question is very complex and will likely receivecontradictory responses depending on who answers it. During thetimeframe of the event, marketing campaigns showed, among others,the following slogans: Maos a Obra Porto! (let’s lend a hand to the worksPorto), Viver a Cidade, Viver o Comercio Tradicional! (live the city, livethe traditional retail), Uma Nova Cidade Esta a Nascer! (a new city isborn). They all emphasized the extensive urban transformation the citywas experiencing and how it would help to bring people and activitiesback to the city centre.

There should be few doubts, even among most sceptics, that adeliberate planning intervention was able to change the face of Porto.Priority was given to physical interventions in the public space. A newmobility model, which favoured the pedestrian and public transportationover the private automobile, was implemented. Underground infrastruc-tures were replaced, the most important cultural facilities were upgradedand a new music hall was constructed. On the other hand, a huge buildingstock is still in desperate need of urgent rehabilitation and a history ofun-collaborative governance practices seemed to have weakened institu-tional capacity building.

In the case of Porto, were the regeneration works able to overcomethe still remaining urban problems and to partially fill up the hole in the‘donut city’? And did the ‘overdose’ of performances and cultural exhi-bitions serve to expand and create new cultural audiences? The answerto both questions is a reserved yes, since more return on the investmentcould have been possible if there had been a better planning framework,less political conflict and a better use of public funds. This is even more




acute when we compare it with the same 2001 event in Rotterdam, which,according to Richards et al. (2002) invested far less and obtained morebenefits in terms of image change and economic impact (see also Richards& Wilson, 2004).

Nevertheless, three years after the event, the new streetscape andthe improved public spaces have made the city centre, to some extent,more inviting and pleasant, thus inducing new urban dynamics and live-ability. Even though cultural audiences were found to be very hetero-geneous and with different patterns of cultural preferences, frequentattendance of the many performances and exhibits showed that thePorto 2001 event succeeded in widening the cultural audience in the city.In addition, the event was also responsible for the creation of new domesticand international networks in the areas of programming and training ofa new generation of cultural agents (Santos et al., 2003).

I anticipate that the arguments, pro and con, for the 2001 EuropeanCapital of Culture in Porto will not end in the near future. That was notthe ultimate purpose of this paper either. It is my conviction that citieshave to avoid copy-paste events, and instead, should maximize theircultural idiosyncrasies, develop endogenous regeneration strategies andfoster institutional capacity building and civic creativity. I expect that theycan only do that effectively if they are aware of the lessons learned withthe implementation of previous events. The recommendations in this papershed some light on the pitfalls that can be hidden in the designation ofEuropean Capital of Culture.

Acknowledgement

Different versions of this article were presented at the 2001 ‘Euro-ConferenceConsumption and the Post-Industrial City’ at the Bauhaus University in Weimar,Germany and at the 2002 ‘Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association’in Boston, USA. Miriam Fujita and Gloria Jeffery read and gave constructivecomments on this specific paper.

References

Balsas, C. (2000) City centre revitalization in Portugal, lessons from two medium size cities, Cities,

17(1), pp. 19–31.

Balsas, C. (2001) Commerce and the European city centre: modernization, regeneration and

management, European Planning Studies, 9(5), pp. 677–682.

Bassett, K. (1993) Urban cultural strategies and urban regeneration: a case study and critique,

Environment and Planning A, 25 – special issue, pp. 1773–1788.

Bianchini, F. (1999) Cultural planning for urban sustainability, in: L. Nystrom (Ed.) City and Culture –

Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability, pp. 34–51 (Stockholm: The Swedish Urban

Environment Council).

Boyle, M. (1997) Civic boosterism in the politics of local economic development – ‘institutional positions’

and ‘strategic orientations’ in the consumption of hallmark events, Environment and Planning A,

29, pp. 1975–1997.

Capital da cultura vale muito a pena (2001) Jornal de Notıcias, 20 November.

CRUARB (2000) Porto Patrimonio Mundial (Porto: CMP).




DoE (1994) Vital and Viable Town Centres: Meeting the Challenge (London: HMSO).

Domingues, A. (2001) Baixa em baixo? Publico, 8 January.

Eisinger, P. (2000) The politics of bread and circuses, building the city for the visitor class, Urban Affairs

Review, 35(3), pp. 316–333.

Fernandes, J. (1997) Porto, Cidade e Comercio (Porto: Arquivo Historico – CMP).

Fernandes, M. (2000) Intencoes Programaticas, in: Porto 2001 (2000) Porto 2001: Regresso a Baixa

(Porto: FAUP).

Grandes obras, grandes derrapagens (2002) Expresso, 9 March.

Gratz, R. & Mintz, N. (1998) Cities Back from the Edge, New Life for Downtown (New York: Wiley).

Griffiths, R. (1995) Cultural strategies and new modes of urban intervention, Cities, 12(4), pp. 253–265.

Hall, P. (2000) Creative cities and economic development, Urban Studies, 37(4), pp. 639–649.

Hannigan, J. (1998) Fantasy City, Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis (New York:

Routledge).

Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneuralism: the transformation in urban governance

in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler, 71-B, pp. 3–17.

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning – Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London:

Macmillan Press).

Hitters, E. (2000) The social and political construction of a European cultural capital: Rotterdam 2001,

International Journal of Cultural Policy, 6(2), pp. 183–199.

Holton, K. (1998) Dressing for success – Lisbon as European cultural capital, Journal of American

Folklore, 111(440), pp. 173–196.

Hughes, G. (1999) Urban revitalization: the use of festive time strategies, Leisure Studies, 18,

pp. 119–135.

Krumholz, N. (1999) Equitable approaches to local economic development, Policy Studies Journal,

27(1), pp. 83–95.

Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City, a Toolkit for Urban Innovators (London: Earthscan).

Law, C. (2000) Regenerating the city centre through leisure and tourism, Built Environment, 26(2),

pp. 117–129.

Lopes, J. (2000) A Cidade e a Cultura, um estudo sobre praticas culturais urbanas (Porto:

Edicoes Afrontamento).

Mitchell, J. (2001) Business improvement districts and the ‘new’ revitalization of downtown, Economic

Development Quarterly, 15(2), pp. 115–123.

Portas, N., Domingues, A. & Guimarais, A. (1998) Portugal, in: L. Berg, E. Braun & J. Meer (Eds)

National Urban Policies in the European Union, pp. 290–324 (Brookfield: Ashgate).

Porto 2001 (2000) Porto 2001: Regresso a Baixa (Porto: FAUP).

Porto 2001 nao atraiu turistas (2001) Publico, 28 August.

Richards, G. (2000) The European Cultural Capital event: strategic weapon in the cultural arms

race? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 6(2), pp. 159–181.

Richards, G. & Wilson, J. (2004) The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam, Cultural

Capital of Europe 2001, Urban Studies, 41(10).

Richards, G., Hitters, E. & Fernandes, C. (2002) Rotterdam and Porto, Cultural Capitals 2001: Visitor

Research (Arnhem: ATLAS).

Santos, M., Gomes, R., Neves, J., Lima, M., Lurenco, V., Martinho, T. & Santos, J. (2003) Publicos do

Porto 2001 (Lisbon: Observatorio das Actividades Culturais).

Siza, R. (2001) Artistas e jovens querem viver na Baixa, Publico, 19 January.

Siza, R. & Pereira, A. (2001) Baixa do Porto e uma realidade a duas velocidades, Publico, 25

November.

Sjoholt, P. (1999) Culture as a strategic development device: the role of ‘European Cities of Culture’

with particular reference to Bergen, European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(4), pp. 339–347.

So falhou a revitalizacao economica (2001) Publico, 14 July.

Syrret, S. (1997) The politics of partnership, the role of social partners in local economic development

in Portugal, European Urban and Regional Studies, 4(2), pp. 99–114.

Tribunal de Contas (2004) Relatorio N�25/04 Auditoria: Casa da Musica/Porto 2001 SA, Vols 1 and 2

(Lisbon: Tribunal de Contas).

Vazquez, I. & Alves, S. (2004) The critical role of governance structures in Oporto city centre renewal

projects. Paper presented at the International Conference ‘City Future’, Chicago, 8–10 July.




Vazquez, I. & Pinho, P. (1998) Regeneracao Urbana na Area Metropolitana do Porto. Paper presented

at the VIII Congresso Iberoamericano de Urbanismo. Porto, September.

Waterman, S. (1998) Carnival for elites? The cultural politics of arts festivals, Progress in Human

Geography, 22(1), pp. 54–74.

Wilson, M. & Huntoon, L. (2001) World’s fairs and urban development: Lisbon and Expo ’98, in:

J. Williams & R. Stimson (Eds) International Urban Planning Settings: Lessons of Success,

pp. 373–394 (New York: JAI).

Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers).




city centre regeneration in the context of the 2001 european capital of culture in porto, portugal

Documents