Local Economy,

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

City Centre Regeneration in

the 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 Culture
event. ‘Porto 2001’ was a year-long programme of arts, cultural events and urban
regeneration activities. The purpose of this article is to discuss the city centre
regeneration operation conducted in conjunction with the European Capital of
Culture initiative in Porto. My objective is to extract a set of lessons learned that
can be useful to other cities pursuing the same designation and strategy. The
key finding is that despite rich and well-participated cultural events, too much
emphasis was put on attracting public investment to regenerate the public space,
replacing infrastructures, and modernizing cultural facilities. This was done at the
expense 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. The
assumptions used to implement these strategies are that once works
are completed, intervention areas will become successful places to work,
live, shop and recreate. While regeneration operations involve many
areas of public intervention, an increasing number of cities are looking
at cultural, retail and entertainment redevelopments to attract people
back 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: Carlos.Balsas@
asu.edu
ISSN 0269–0942 Print/ISSN 1470–9325 Online ß 2004, LEPU, South Bank University
DOI: 10.1080/0269094042000286873
 City Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 ECOC 397

In Europe, the prestigious designation of the European Capital of

Culture 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 second
largest city in Portugal – and the anchor of a metropolitan area with about
1.2 million people, implemented a year-long programme of arts and cultural
events, upgraded and built cultural facilities, and attempted to regenerate
the city centre.
The purpose of this article is to discuss the city centre regeneration
operation conducted in conjunction with the 2001 initiative. My objective
is to extract a set of lessons learned that can be useful to other cities
pursuing similar designations and strategies. My argument is that the
European Capital of Culture in Porto belongs to the category of ‘urban
propaganda projects’ (Boyle, 1997; see also Harvey, 1989; Waterman,
1998) mainly designed to channel public investments and market the city
to the outside world, with the hope that those investments can have a
trickle-down effect, which will ultimately improve liveability conditions in
the city. However, the unintended consequences of swift planning pro-
cesses without due public participation can undermine the expected effects
and 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 cultural
facilities. This was done at the expense of institutional capacity building
and the boosting of civic creativity. This paper is organized as follows. The
next section introduces the city of Porto and shows how its decline as
a 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. And
finally, 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 as
a ‘working city’ and is accused of not having a cultural life, in contrast
to the allegedly flamboyant Lisbon. The Porto region has a long tradition
of commerce and is one of the most important industrial regions in the
country. 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 only
had housing, administrative and service functions, but it was also the city’s
main marketplace.
398 Carlos J. L. Balsas

However, growing levels of out-migration to more peripheral areas of

the city and to surrounding municipalities created new centres of economic
activity (Portas et al., 1998; Vazquez & Pinho, 1998). Boavista, an area
where the first shopping centres and office complexes were built in the
1970s, was the first new centrality. Industry started to locate outside of
the city, while housing was built in great quantity in the 1980s in close
proximity to major roads and highways. Owing to growing income levels
after the 1974 political revolution, automobile ownership rates increased
dramatically. People found it extremely convenient to live in a peripheral
neighbourhood and commute to work or to have recreation outside the
city centre.
More recently, new regional shopping malls were built during the
1990s in the surrounding municipalities to cater to these new suburbanites
(Fernandes, 1997). These new shopping malls had clear impacts on the
economic, social and cultural activities located in the central area. Small
retail stores, mostly family owned and operated, could not compete with
the new formats and started closing their doors. The same happened
with many cafes and old movie theatres.
This situation created a spiral of decline in the city centre, where
buildings remained empty for a long time, became derelict and ended up
collapsing, or remaining as eyesores, giving the city centre a bad image
and increasing the perception of danger, particularly after dark. This urban
development in Porto can be paralleled to the pattern of suburbanization
typical 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 two
public agencies responsible for the physical and social rehabilitation
of the historic district, respectively the CRUARB – Comissariado para a
Reabilitação Urbana da Área Ribeira e Barredo – and the FDZHP –
Fundação para o Desenvolvimento da Zona Histórico do Porto. The
CRUARB was created in 1974 to rehabilitate the historic district. While the
CRUARB never had large budgets, it was able to achieve some
remarkable accomplishments, such as avoiding the partial demolition of
the historic district proposed by the Auzell Plan of 1962. In addition,
CRUARB had an important role in the rehabilitation of many buildings
and public spaces in the historic district and was also responsible for
preparing the application that included the historic district of Porto in the
list 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 of
economic opportunities and in the social integration of the population in
the historic district. Besides this urban and social intervention in the city
 City Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 ECOC 399

centre, it is important to mention also, the public intervention in the

cultural area with the 1989 creation of the Pelouro de Animação 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 array
of 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 led
by this office, together with the designation as World Heritage Site, were
the strongest aspects of the bid application to host the 2001 European
Capital of Culture designation.

A New Fate for the City Centre

Despite its rehabilitation problems, the city centre’s built heritage has
tremendous appeal and market potential. These characteristics led
several retail developers to invest in the area in the last decade. Also in
the last decade, the historic ambience of the riverfront neighbourhood
of Ribeira has led to the opening of many pubs, bars and restaurants,
which attract crowds of tourists and young people, and constitute the
base of a renovated evening economy in the city centre.
Several art galleries and ateliers for artists have opened recently in
the city centre. Maus Hábitos and Artemosferas are two galleries located
in close proximity to clusters of cultural and educational facilities, such as
the Coliseu and the Graduate School of Fine Arts. They cater to alternative
publics and chose to locate in the city centre due to its urbanity. Other
commercial and residential buildings, such as A Barraca, are also being
converted to mix uses with ateliers for artists.
Despite the desertification of the last decades, a recent survey showed
that the city centre has remarkable appeal as a residence for younger
generations and professionals from the arts and culture industry. Twenty
five percent of surveyed college students, between 20 and 24 years old,
manifested an intention to reside in the city centre after finishing their
degrees. Additionally, 50% of art and culture professionals answered
positively 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 seems
to be experiencing a new future, which illustrates profound transforma-
tions in its traditional role as a marketplace. From, in the main, a place of
commerce, services and housing, the city centre seems to be emerging
as a player in the specialized retail, entertainment and evening economy
arenas.

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 channel
central government and European Union funds to the northern part of
400 Carlos J. L. Balsas

the country. There has been a conviction among the population of Porto
that Lisbon was taking advantage of being the country’s decision-making
and 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 2001
European Capital of Culture in May 1998. The E180 million for the event
was seen as a unique opportunity for the city of Porto not only to celebrate
culture, but also to implement a series of structural projects in the area
of 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 renovation
of the public space, the economic regeneration, and the housing
programme, all three in the city centre area; and the renovation of the
waterfront in the Parque da Cidade and the Caminhos do Romântico. The
second area includes the renovation of the Museu Soares dos Reis,
Auditório Nacional Carlos Alberto, Cadeia da Relação, Mosteiro de São
Bento da Vitória, Coliseu, and the construction of the Biblioteca Almeida
Garrett and of a new music hall, Casa da Música. The music hall is
a modernistic project of the 2000 Pritzker award winner architect Rem
Koolhaas. The third area of intervention includes over 450 cultural events
divided by 11 areas ranging from, music, dance, theatre, fine arts and
architecture, cinema, new technologies, to science and literature, among
others.
Of the three areas, the urban regeneration was the most visible
intervention implemented in 2001. Initially, this ambitious regeneration
operation included the implementation of a new mobility plan with the
re-introduction of a tram system, the renovation of the public space in four
main squares and their adjacent streets, and economic and housing
programmes. To implement such a colossal urban regeneration opera-
tion and the additional programme of cultural events in about two and
a half years, a public corporation was created in 1998 with two partners:
the central government (with more than 90% of the capital) and the
municipality of Porto.
The urban regeneration intervention was referred to as ‘the return to
the city centre’ (Porto 2001, 2000) and its impacts in the city centre were
expected to be bold and, above all, ‘a real process of transformation
and not a constant chasing after problems without ever solving any of
them’ (Fernandes, 2000, p. 373). The major objectives for the new mobility
plan were a new circulation pattern, which gave priority to the pedestrian
and was based primarily on alternative modes of transport, such as
improved mass transit, and the re-introduction of trams and the new light
rail system. Although several underground parking garages were to be
 City Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 ECOC 401

built, the private automobile was to be discouraged in the city, particularly

in the city centre.
The goal of the economic regeneration programme was to modernize
small independent retail and other commercial establishments and to
regenerate their adjacent shopping precincts. This was to be done with
European Union funds under the umbrella of a central government
programme called PROCOM, which required the participation of the
chamber of commerce, the regional association of hotels and restaurants
(UNISNOR), individual merchants, the municipality and Porto 2001. The
main concept promoted by the central government, the entity through
which all the European Union investment funds would be channelled,
was the creation of an ‘open air shopping centre’ (Balsas, 2000). On
the other hand, the housing programme was an attempt to create an
institutional arrangement within the existing legislative framework of
the central-government subsidized rent programmes to rehabilitate the
dilapidated housing stock in the city centre.
From the beginning, however, the European Capital of Culture was
marked by institutional changes and conflicts. Santos Silva, the first
president of the corporation Porto 2001, resigned due to disagreements
with the minister of culture, Manuel Carrilho, regarding previously agreed
investment priorities. Minister Carrilho wanted to give priority to the
renovation of the cultural facilities under the umbrella of his Ministry,
while Santos Silva favoured the regeneration of the city centre. The new
Porto 2001 president, Teresa Lago, was appointed in December 1999.
With slightly more than one year to the European Capital of Culture
opening date, there was no time to change or adjust the event’s
programmes, and she was faced with the difficulty of implementing their
proposals within the short time frame.

The Implementation Stage – a ‘NIMBYISM Story’

While the renovation work started during the initial months of 2000, in June
of that same year, a new president was elected for the chamber of
commerce. Laura Rodrigues won the elections, in part, by accusing
the previous president of alleged corruption practices, and on the basis
of demanding public compensation for lost sales revenues, due to the
construction works already started by Porto 2001. The change of president
in the chamber of commerce happened exactly when the proposals
for the economic and commercial regeneration of the city centre were
completed and ready to be submitted for approval by the central
government.
In the meantime, a new law (Portaria 317-B/2000) was passed to
substitute the initial PROCOM Programme by the newly created URBCOM
Programme. This happened because of the terminus of the II European
Union Support Framework (EUSF) and the beginning of the III EUSF – the
new European Union funding package for the period 2000–2006. Although
the requirements of the newly created URBCOM Programme remained
402 Carlos J. L. Balsas

basically the same as the previous commercial urbanism programme,

a subtle change was the possibility of creating a coordination office for
the implementation of the economic regeneration programme. Although
the economic regeneration programme proposed the creation of this office
by Porto 2001, such a coordination office was never implemented due to
organizational conflicts and ‘turf-wars.’
Because the new president of the chamber of commerce was not
involved from the beginning of the realization of the economic regenera-
tion programme, she did not accept many of its proposals. While the
public space projects were being implemented by Porto 2001, the
economic regeneration programme was halted and delayed by disagree-
ments between Laura Rodrigues and Teresa Lago over the new mobility
plan, and the pace and magnitude of the construction works in the city
centre.
Initially, the president of the chamber of commerce argued that the
new circulation plan decreased the total number of parking spaces in
the city centre and did not include enough (un)loading areas. According
to her, such an approach would negatively affect the commercial activities
in the city centre, since ‘the best customers drive to do their shopping in
the 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. This
included several protest parades and other organized actions towards
the Capital of Culture. They argued that the city centre looked like a large
construction site, and that store owners were experiencing high revenue
losses owing to badly planned time frames, too many simultaneous con-
struction fronts, lack of temporary sidewalks and walkways, and – worse of
all – difficult automobile accessibility.
Local residents did not have a very active role in the planning and
implementation of the regeneration strategy. Even though there were
public forums to present the projects, discussions involved mainly pro-
fessionals and politicians. Residents did not formally voice their opinions
concerning the renovation of the public space besides complaining to each
other almost on a daily basis about the constant traffic jams, the difficult
pedestrian mobility, and the slow pace and extensive volume of the works
in the city centre. Despite being sympathetic to the merchants’ complaints,
many residents did engage in organized tours of the renovation works
led by the architects responsible for the projects and marvelled at the
colourful sketches and renderings depicting the future images of the city
centre.
As time passed and as this scenario of continuous construction, dust
and mud, heavy machinery, trucks loading and unloading materials was
being widely reported by both national and international media, and well
as being experienced by residents, workers and shoppers, the European
Capital of Culture event was launched in January 2001. In the meantime
there were also many other ‘turf wars’ between Porto 2001 and the munic-
ipality, mainly due to re-routing of traffic and construction permissions,
 City Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 ECOC 403

and the timing of the construction works. These institutional conflicts, as

well as technical difficulties and an extremely harsh winter, caused several
public space projects to be delayed and not to meet the established closing
time frames.

Lessons Learned
Table 1 shows a synthesis of the urban regeneration efforts conducted
in the context of the European Capital of Culture in Porto in 2001. More
than 30 streets and squares were subjected to renovation works, including
the replacement of their underground utility infrastructures (water, gas,
sewer, telephone and cable systems) and their pavements, as well as
the widening of their sidewalks and the definition of new travel lanes
and respective parking spaces. Although their design options can be
questioned, a telephone survey conducted by the firm EuroSondagem
in the first week of November 2001 showed that 80.4% of the 322 people
contacted, all residing in the Porto Metropolitan Area, considered the
European Capital of Culture very important, and that 64.4% considered
that the renovation works made the city centre more attractive (Capital da
cultura vale muito a pena, 2001).
The urban regeneration works experienced major delays and while
most cultural facilities were finished on time, the Music Hall was still under
construction well after the end of the 2001 European Capital of Culture
event. The most important programmes to accomplish the real ‘return to the
city centre’ though, were not implemented due to a history of institutional
conflicts and un-collaborative planning practices (see: Só falhou a
revitalização económica, 2001). The application of the economic regen-
eration programmes was only completed recently and no projects for the
modernization of retail establishments had been implemented until
recently. Regarding the housing rehabilitation programme, despite its
depth of analysis and the breath and creativity of its proposals, it was
abandoned basically due to lack of technical resources to implement it.
Despite the survey results mentioned above, my own fieldwork in Porto
showed that the extremely high volume of construction work and the
institutional conflicts reported by the media weakened the image of the
city. This is well illustrated in the most recent audit of the event published
in 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 regeneration

Large investments in infrastructures Abandoned housing rehabilitation programme
Renovated cultural facilities History of un-collaborative planning practices
New music hall Challenged urban image
404 Carlos J. L. Balsas

disturbed the fruition of the event, [. . .] did not secure audiences capable
of portraying the image of a renovated and captivating city, as it was
initially proposed’ (Tribunal de Contas, 2004, p. 14). In addition, this official
assessment also revealed that these urban regeneration works alone
had 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 figures
showed that although the different cultural events hosted by Porto 2001
were well received by the public, with a total number of spectators well
above one million, the number of tourists in the city grew only about 1.5%
in relation to the previous year (see Porto 2001 não atraiu turistas, 2001).
A key question one can ask about the 2001 European Capital of Culture
in Porto, as well as about almost every major public works programme,
is whether the event prompted national government investment in the
city that might not have occurred otherwise, and perhaps the short-term
problems might be outweighed by the longer-term gain in terms of public
investment. The answer to this question seems to depend more on where
one stands in the liberal-conservative spectrum of political ideology than
on any purposefully chosen statistic.
Furthermore, the Portuguese people have been paying more attention
to a recent pattern of cost overruns in major public works programmes
than to a debate between short versus long term impacts. The national
newspaper, Expresso, reported the following list of recent cost overruns
for major public works in its edition of 3 March 2002: Alqueva dam
þ20%; Expo’98 þ23%; main national rail line (i.e. Linha do Norte)
þ37%; Euro ’2004 þ90%; Porto light rail system þ135%; Porto 2001
þ467%; Belém Cultural Centre þ503% (Grandes obras, grandes
derrapagens, 2002). Although cost overruns are part of every major
public works project, an average of 182% for the seven projects
indicated above have created fragile institutional bonds and untrust-
worthy relationships between citizens and the networks of central and
local governments. The Porto 2001 European Capital of Culture was
no exception to the negative perceptions caused by the chronic cost
overruns 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 well
ahead, and consider the territorial equity of the event
The volume of work under the umbrella of the European Capital of
Culture in Porto was too extensive for the existing timeframe. There
was too much construction in a very short period of time and too many
areas of intervention to consider simultaneously. In the launching of the
event, the organizers proudly proclaimed the grandiosity of the regenera-
tion operation, as larger than any others implemented in conjunction with
previous European Capitals of Cultures.
 City Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 ECOC 405

Means – such as time, capital and human resources – are always limited
under normal conditions. But in this type of event, it seems that time
and ambition, vary in opposite directions. Although the short timeframe
for the event limits its scale, its perceived importance seems to justify
many more projects than the ones the organization is capable of handling.
This was particularly true in Porto, where there were only two and
half years between the dates when the European Union communicated
the award of the event to Porto and Rotterdam and the event’s launch
in January 2001. This is probably one of the reasons why the renovation
of the public spaces was only partially complete on time, the economic
regeneration failed, the housing programme was abandoned and still
the total costs associated with the Porto 2001 European Capital of Culture
event 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 (Tribunal
de Contas, 2004, p. 13).
Porto 2001 deliberately targeted the city centre to implement the
urban regeneration operation (Fernandes, 2000). Symbolic squares and
streets were the main object of the renovation work. However, if one
took a detour and went off the main streets and squares into some of
the neighbourhoods in the historic district, one could find many buildings
still in need of rehabilitation and people residing in very poor conditions.
During my fieldwork I found the following statement ‘2001 Capital da
Vaidade e Miséria Esondida!’ (2001 Capital of Vanity and Hidden Misery!)
painted on the walls of many decaying buildings in the city centre. This
shows some resentment towards the urban regeneration activities pro-
moted by Porto 2001, which privileged the main streets and squares in the
city and abandoned the urban fabric of the neighbourhoods.
The fact that the city’s main shopping and administrative centre was
suffering very fiercely the effects of structural forces, pushing residents,
shoppers, visitors and activities out of the centre, was used to justify
the urban regeneration initiative. However, such a localized intervention
without careful consideration of the urban development processes and
outcomes in the metropolitan area can have limited results. If some cultural
events in the neighbouring municipalities were integrated in the official
programme of the European Capital of Culture, the metropolitan scale of
urban 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 competitive
advantages of the 21st century, which can promote social cohesion and
human progress
The type of regeneration projects implemented under the umbrella of
the European Capital of Culture in Porto can be described as belonging
to the ‘hard infrastructure’ of urban development. These are projects that
406 Carlos J. L. Balsas

focus almost exclusively on physical solutions in a tradition of urban deter-

minism. These include underground parking garages, the redesign and
reconstruction of squares and streets, the widening of sidewalks and
the creation of new pedestrian precincts, the defining of on-street parking
spaces, the reintroduction of the tram system, the replacement of under-
ground infrastructures and street furniture, the rehabilitation of cultural
facilities and the building of a new music hall.
These are all important projects, which have the potential to resolve
some of the accessibility problems and contribute to a more pleasing
urban environment and experience in the city centre. Even though they
are needed, they are not sufficient to achieve a vital and viable city centre
that will be able to endure in the 21st century. The urban regeneration
operation seems to have fallen short in the ‘soft infrastructure’ (Bianchini,
1999; Krumholz, 1999), which included projects such as the economic
regeneration of the city centre under the URBCOM Programme.
The absence of this commercial urbanism programme did not contribute
to the strengthening of the entrepreneurial skills of individual merchants,
or to the implementation of any pilot projects capable of demonstrating
good practices and inducing ‘civic creativity’ in the retail, hotel and res-
taurant industry. According to Landry (2000) promoting ‘civic creativity’ is
critical 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’ approaches
to foster institutional capacity building and collaborative planning
Governance is an analytical concept used to look at emerging forms of
cooperation between public and private sectors (Healey, 1997; Vazquez &
Alves, 2004). In the governance context, public–private partnerships
have become the privileged mechanism to implement economic develop-
ment initiatives. Partnerships allow pooling of resources and expertise
from different partners, coordinating their efforts, improving management,
building consensus, and having greater operational flexibility by acting
through non-governmental parties. One of the common assumptions in
the urban planning literature is that public–private partnerships are
important to the success of urban regeneration programmes. An effective
regeneration initiative needs the support and expertise of both sectors
(Gratz & Mintz, 1998; Mitchell, 2001).
Specifically in Portugal, partnerships are being used not only as a
requirement from the European Union, but more and more as a
legitimate way of implementing public policy (Syrret, 1997). The funds
dedicated to the European Capital of Culture event came mainly from
the European Union but through different central government pro-
grammes. In the case of the investment funds from the commercial
urbanism programme URBCOM, which were supposed to pay for the
 City Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 ECOC 407

renovation of the public spaces, their availability required the establish-

ment of a partnership.
The fact that Porto 2001 perceived the regeneration operation as its
exclusive responsibility and adopted a ‘top-down’ planning approach
caused problems of communication and collaboration with the chamber
of commerce. This stance gave the chamber a sense of bargaining power,
which led to institutional conflicts and delays in the implementation of
the regeneration programme. The creation of a centralized coordination
office based on a true public–private partnership with more representa-
tives than just the municipality and the central government, as was the
case with Porto 2001, was not implemented during 2001. Such an office
was proposed in the regeneration programme and would have made
the planning process more transparent, would have created a higher
sense of ownership of the event and empowered the residents, merchants
and the other stakeholders in the city centre.

Conclusions
Usually, the most frequently asked question after a European Capital
of Culture event comes to an end is whether the event was able to create
lasting cultural dynamics and urban transformations (Sjoholt, 1999;
Richards, 2000). This question is very complex and will likely receive
contradictory responses depending on who answers it. During the
timeframe of the event, marketing campaigns showed, among others,
the following slogans: Mãos à Obra Porto! (let’s lend a hand to the works
Porto), Viver a Cidade, Viver o Comércio Tradicional! (live the city, live
the traditional retail), Uma Nova Cidade Está a Nascer! (a new city is
born). They all emphasized the extensive urban transformation the city
was experiencing and how it would help to bring people and activities
back to the city centre.
There should be few doubts, even among most sceptics, that a
deliberate planning intervention was able to change the face of Porto.
Priority was given to physical interventions in the public space. A new
mobility model, which favoured the pedestrian and public transportation
over the private automobile, was implemented. Underground infrastruc-
tures were replaced, the most important cultural facilities were upgraded
and a new music hall was constructed. On the other hand, a huge building
stock is still in desperate need of urgent rehabilitation and a history of
un-collaborative governance practices seemed to have weakened institu-
tional capacity building.
In the case of Porto, were the regeneration works able to overcome
the 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 answer
to both questions is a reserved yes, since more return on the investment
could 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
408 Carlos J. L. Balsas

acute when we compare it with the same 2001 event in Rotterdam, which,
according to Richards et al. (2002) invested far less and obtained more
benefits in terms of image change and economic impact (see also Richards
& Wilson, 2004).
Nevertheless, three years after the event, the new streetscape and
the 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, frequent
attendance of the many performances and exhibits showed that the
Porto 2001 event succeeded in widening the cultural audience in the city.
In addition, the event was also responsible for the creation of new domestic
and international networks in the areas of programming and training of
a new generation of cultural agents (Santos et al., 2003).
I anticipate that the arguments, pro and con, for the 2001 European
Capital of Culture in Porto will not end in the near future. That was not
the ultimate purpose of this paper either. It is my conviction that cities
have to avoid copy-paste events, and instead, should maximize their
cultural idiosyncrasies, develop endogenous regeneration strategies and
foster institutional capacity building and civic creativity. I expect that they
can only do that effectively if they are aware of the lessons learned with
the implementation of previous events. The recommendations in this paper
shed some light on the pitfalls that can be hidden in the designation of
European Capital of Culture.

Acknowledgement
Different versions of this article were presented at the 2001 ‘Euro-Conference
Consumption 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 constructive
comments 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 Notı́cias, 20 November.
CRUARB (2000) Porto Património Mundial (Porto: CMP).
 City Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 ECOC 409

DoE (1994) Vital and Viable Town Centres: Meeting the Challenge (London: HMSO).
Domingues, A. (2001) Baixa em baixo? Público, 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 Comércio (Porto: Arquivo Histórico – CMP).
Fernandes, M. (2000) Intenções Programáticas, in: Porto 2001 (2000) Porto 2001: Regresso à 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 práticas culturais urbanas (Porto:
Edições 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 à Baixa (Porto: FAUP).
Porto 2001 não atraiu turistas (2001) Público, 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., Lurenço, V., Martinho, T. & Santos, J. (2003) Públicos do
Porto 2001 (Lisbon: Observatório das Actividades Culturais).
Siza, R. (2001) Artistas e jovens querem viver na Baixa, Público, 19 January.
Siza, R. & Pereira, A. (2001) Baixa do Porto é uma realidade a duas velocidades, Público, 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.
Só falhou a revitalização económica (2001) Público, 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) Relatório N
25/04 Auditoria: Casa da Música/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.
410 Carlos J. L. Balsas

Vazquez, I. & Pinho, P. (1998) Regeneração Urbana na Área Metropolitana do Porto. Paper presented
at the VIII Congresso Iberoamericano de Urbanismo. Porto, September.
Waterman, S. (1998) Carnival for élites? 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).