Squandering the territorial capital in the Balkans? Urban megaprojects between global trends and local incentives

Abstract

Throughout its history, but also squeezed between the current challenges of globalisation and sovereignty, the Balkans has been confronted with a number of different political, economic, environmental, and cultural problems. Such a complex social framework inevitably implies spatial degradation, not only in terms of the urban forms as the final planning product, but also in terms of the nature of the planning process and urban governance. Notably, we assume that territorial capital in the Balkans is under serious threat due to the abuse of legal procedures, the neglect of the public interest and the politicisation of planning. To elucidate this, we focus on the megaprojects Belgrade Waterfront (Belgrade) and Hellinikon (Athens) as examples of urban development that require exceptional conditions such as special regulations, additional funding, long-term timeframes, and ad hoc actor networks. Against the conceptual background of multi-level governance and based on in-depth case studies, we examine the nature of vertical cooperation between authorities at different levels (from supranational to local), horizontal cooperation amongst different stakeholders, and the role of planning professionals who are seen as facilitators in this process. Finally, we point out to the most important conditions that enable a democratic social, political and professional framework for urban megaprojects.

Clarifying megaproject complexity in developing countries: A literature review and conceptual study

“…In an ordinary project, a tiered governance system (including laws and regulations), from local to national areas is not an issue due to a few interrelated factors; however, it becomes extremely complex when performed in the context of a megaproject. 109 There are also cases of megaprojects in newly independent developing countries with unstable government systems, 128 which result in a weak institutional capacity for megaproject management, particularly for systems including multi-country partners.…”

“…In an ordinary project, a tiered governance system (including laws and regulations), from local to national areas is not an issue due to a few interrelated factors; however, it becomes extremely complex when performed in the context of a megaproject. 109 There are also cases of megaprojects in newly independent developing countries with unstable government systems, 128 which result in a weak institutional capacity for megaproject management, particularly for systems including multi-country partners. Lack of knowledge and resource capacity of construction organizations or megaproject organizers in handling megaprojects in developing countries: This aspect was the cause of complexity in developing country megaprojects, which is the most studied by researchers for structural considerations. The problems investigated range from local organizations with workforce skills that do not meet work standards, insufficient mastery of technology, unsupported information technology systems, lack of innovation ability, and lack of contract management skills of developing country organizations.…”

Metropolitan pole of Hellinikon – Agios Kosmas: Hierarchization of interventions with the use of the Maximum Difference (MaxDiff) Scaling method

“…Finally, there is also criticism regarding the limited participation of local communities and authorities in the decision-making process of the project [38].…”