Urban morphology and place identity in European cities: built heritage and innovative design

Abstract

In the processes of economic and cultural globalization, European integration and the blur of national identities in Europe, place identity emerges as a central concern of both scholars and other people. This paper examines the ways specific aspects of urban morphology such as built heritage and the innovative design of space may contribute to place identity in European cities. First, it develops a theoretical conjecture that in post‐modern multi‐ethnic and multi‐cultural societies, innovative design of space can efficiently work as a place identity generator in the same ways built heritage has been performing in modern—culturally bounded and nation‐state‐oriented—European societies. This conjecture is then tested by research in the city of Bilbao. The outcome of the research supports the argument that innovative design schemes: (1) may permit divergent interpretations by individuals thereby fitting into the ‘diversity’ and ‘individualization’ of new modernity; (2) may synchronize different ethnic/cultural/social groups by offering themselves as a new common terrain for experiencing and familiarizing with new forms of space; (3) by becoming landmarks and promoting tourism/economic development, may generate new social solidarities among inhabitants grounded on ‘civic pride’ and economic prospects.

Notes

Correspondence Address: Aspa Gospodini, Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos 38 334, Volos, Greece. Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Among all EU programmes concerning built heritage, the most important ones in terms of investment are the programmes launched by General Directorate X: (1) Pilot Projects (1983–95), aiming at introducing new techniques in the conservation of monuments; (2) Flagship Projects (1983–91), aiming at the conservation of major historical monuments; (3) Raphael (1997–2000), aiming at the enhancement of built heritage, the creation of networks among cities for trans‐national cooperation and the promotion of innovative actions and techniques; (4) Cultural Capital of Europe (1984–), aiming at enhancing the variety of cultural and built heritage that European cities exhibit; and (5) Culture (2000–04), aiming at the creation of ‘laboratories’ for the management of cultural and built heritage. Besides these large programmes, there are also smaller programmes for built heritage (e.g. Urban Pilot Projects, CIED, URBAN, Euromed Heritage) that are integrated within different major EU actions and programs such as Community Support Frameworks, Leader, Interrreg, Innovative Actions and others.

As ‘new urban economies’, McNeill & While (2001) present a fourfold typology: agglomeration economies, informational and knowledge‐rich economies, technopoles and urban leisure economies.

Examples are presented and described in detail in Tunbridge (1998), Graham (1998), Ashworth (1998) and Graham et al. (2000).

For instance, the European League of Historic Cities, the Walled Towns Friendship Circle and Quarters en Crise.

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property.

For instance, regarding the second half of the 20th century, the passage from the modern movement to post‐modernism in the late 1970s, and from post‐modernism to deconstruction in the early 1990s.

Among major design schemes by Frank O. Gehry, one should note the Frederick R. Wiesman Museum, Minneapolis, USA (1990), the American Centre, Paris (1994), the Nationale‐Nederlande office building, Prague (1996) and, especially, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain (1998), and the new Guggenheim Museum, New York (2000–).

Among major avant‐garde design schemes by Santiago Calatrava, one may refer to Sondica Airport, Bilbao (1991), the Opera House, Tenerife (1991), the Bach de Roca bridge, Barcelona (1984–87), Satolas Airport's railway station, Lyon (1989–94), the Montjuic telecommunications tower, Barcelona (1989–92), the Campo Volantin bridge, Bilbao (1990–97), the Alamillo bridge, Cartuja, Seville (1987–92), Trinity Footbridge, Manchester (1993–95), Oriente Railway Station, Lisbon (1993–98) and the Kuwait Exhibition Pavilion, Seville, World Expo (1991–92). Among his most recent major works, one should note first, the City of Arts and Sciences in Valencia (1991–), including the Hemispheric building accommodating the planetarium and cinema (1991) and the Museum of Arts and Sciences (1991), and secondly, the Art Museum, Milwaukee, USA (1994–2000).

For instance, Calatrava's projects for the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, for World Expo 1992 in Seville and, recently, for the 2004 Olympics in Athens. In the case of Athens, Calatrava was invited by the Organizing Committee of the 2004 Olympic Games to redesign the main Olympic Stadium in the area of Marroussi as well as the surrounding public open spaces.

For instance, in the case of Bilbao, following the opening of the Guggenheim Museum, there has been a substantial tourism increase supporting the city's economic growth. This increase is considered by Plaza (1999; 2000a, b) a direct effect of the Guggenheim Museum. According to data drawn from the Basque Government's Statistical Authority, the comparison between a time period before the opening of the Guggenheim Museum (January 1994–September 1997) and a time period after the opening of the Guggenheim Museum (October 1997–July 1999) shows that the percentage of foreign travellers has increased by a significant 44.6% whereas the percentage of overnight stays has also increased by a significant 30.8%. Of course, one cannot estimate how long the positive effect of the Guggenheim Museum on tourism will last. As argued elsewhere (see Lengkeek, 1995; Gospodini, 2001), all kinds of ‘counter‐structures’, when incorporated into established reality, lose their specific meaning and, then, the quest of tourists for counter‐structures goes on in a search for new horizons (Lengkeek, 1995). In the case of innovative design of space in particular, when avant‐garde trends are established as common design practices, they lose their pioneering character and, therefore, cannot work anymore as counter‐structures to the familiar morphologies (Gospodini, 2001).

Such a result might also indicate a trend concerning not only European cities but all post‐industrial, multi‐ethnic and multi‐cultural cities in developed countries such as, for instance, cities in the USA. However, in order to argue this, further research is required, investigating the relationships among national identity, place identity and built heritage.

The structure of the questionnaire survey (i.e. the questions addressed to the interviewers, the categories of interviewed people) was discussed with Professor Taner Oc, University of Nottingham, UK, during the AESOP 2002 International Congress, 10–15 July, Volos, Greece. The author would like to thank him for his very instructive comments and advice.

The author would like to thank Professor Beatrice Plaza, who has greatly contributed to this research in various ways: translating the questionnaire into Spanish, providing me with students to carry out interviews in Spanish and also conducting interviews in the Department of Applied Economics, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao.

Codification was done according to the discipline of the architectural and/or urban design artifact the answers referred to, i.e. the formal discipline or the spatial discipline or meaning.

Among the latter were Toyo Ito's large‐scale redesign of the city's waterfront redevelopment, Coop Himmelbau's design scheme of urban sea transportation for the fifth pier, Enric Miralles's design scheme of urban sea transportation for the sixth pier and Reem Koolhas's design scheme of urban sea transportation for the seventh pier. Although the strategic plan of Thessaloniki set up in 1994 to prepare the city as ‘Cultural Capital of Europe 1997’ had included these projects, they were finally dropped, mainly due to the incapability of the city's authorities to develop them well in advance of the events of ‘Cultural Capital of Europe 1997’.

The categories of interviewees were the same as in Bilbao: inhabitants/low‐income people, inhabitants/middle and upper middle classes, inhabitants/educated people, tourists (foreign people on short holidays) and long‐stay visitors (foreign people working or studying in the city for a few months or a year).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Aspa Gospodini

Correspondence Address: Aspa Gospodini, Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos 38 334, Volos, Greece. Email: [email protected], [email protected]