u r b and its impact on their immediate surroundings a c (p

Edyta MasierekUniversityofLodz,FacultyofGeographicalSciences,InstituteoftheBuiltEnvironment andSpatialPolicy,ul.Kopcińskiego31,90-142Łódź;email:[email protected], ORCID:0000-0002-3148-2503

uRban RegeneRation of bRownfield sites… and itS imPaCt on theiR immediate SuRRoundingS –

a case study of łódź (poland)

Abstract:ThisarticlepresentstheopinionsofresidentsoftheimmediatesurroundingsofthreeBrownfieldSiteUrbanRegenerationProjectscompletedinŁódź(Poland)intheyears2006–2016,i.e.Manufaktura(textileindustryfacilitiestransformedintoamall),“LoftsatScheibler”(aformerspinningplanttransformedintoresidentialbuildingswithaccompanyingservices)andEC1(adap-tationofaformerEC1powerplantforculturalandeducationalpurposes),andtheirimpactontheirimmediateenvironment.Thearticlepresentstheresultsofquestionnairesurveysconductedbytheauthorin2017on587respondentsresidingwithinawalkingdistance,i.e.upto500mfromtheabove-mentionedinvestmentprojects.1

Key words:brownfield,urbanregeneration,Manufaktura,Lofts,Łódź,Poland

Rewitalizacje obszaRów popRzemysłowych i ich wpływ na najbliższe otoczenie – pRzypadek łodzi

Streszczenie:Artykułma na celu zaprezentowanie opiniimieszkańców najbliższego otoczenianatemattrzechzrealizowanychwŁodziwlatach2006–2016rewitalizacjiobszarówpoprzemy-słowych i ichwpływunaotoczenie.Omawianeprzedsięwzięcia to:Manufaktura (zakładyprze-mysłuwłókienniczegoprzekształconewcentrumhandlowo-rozrywkowe), „LoftyuScheiblera”(dawnaprzędzalniaprzeznaczonanafunkcjęmieszkalnąwrazzfunkcjamitowarzyszącymi)orazEC1(adaptacjadawnejelektrociepłowniEC1nacelekulturalneiedukacyjne).Autorkaprzedsta-wiawynikiwłasnychbadańkwestionariuszowychprzeprowadzonychw2017rokunapróbie587respondentówmieszkającychwzasięgupieszymtj.do500modpowyższychinwestycji2.

Słowa kluczowe:obszarypoprzemysłowe,rewitalizacja,Manufaktura,loft,Łódź,Polska

1 Gehl,2014:121;OrderNo.9oftheMinisterofLocalEconomyandEnvironmentalProtec-tionof 29 January1974on indicators andguidelines for residential areas in cities: awalkingdistanceis500m.

2 Gehl2014:121;Zarządzenienr9MinistraGospodarkiTerenowej iOchronyŚrodowiskazdnia29 stycznia1974 r.wsprawiewskaźników iwytycznychdla terenówmieszkaniowychwmiastach,zasięgdojściapieszegorównyjest500m.

Studia Regionalne i LokalneNr 1(83)/2021

ISSN 1509–4995; E-ISSN 2719-8049doi: 10.7366/1509499518303

EDYTAMASIEREK38

1. Introduction

In the last two decadesmany projects that involved the adaptation of for-mer factory facilities into new functions were completed in Poland. The dy-namicpoliticalchangeswhichoccurredafter1989resultedintheclosingdownofmanylargeestablishments.Therefore,thereremainedlargebrownfieldsiteswithin the spatial structuresof citieswhichwere slowlydeteriorating.The is-sueoftheirregenerationhadalreadybecomeasubjectofbroaderinterestinthe1890s(Domański2000;Gasidłoetal.1999;Gasidło1998;Lorensetal.1996;Glumińskaetal.1996;Dresler1995).Suchareasare,ontheonehand,aproblemforcityadministratorsand,ontheother,theymaybeseenasanextraordinarypo-tentialwhichmaybeusedwhendevelopinginterestingprojectswiththepurposeofreinforcingtheidentityandculturalheritageofagivenplacewhiletakingintoconsiderationthecurrentneedsoflocalcommunities(Maciejewskaetal.2019;Moterski2019;Nowakowskaetal.2017;Siwirska2016).Thispotentialwasnoticedbyprivateinvestorswhostartedtocarryoutproj-

ects involvingtheadaptationofpost-industrialareasforcommercialpurposes,e.g. Stary Browar (oldbrewery) inPoznańorManufaktura (industrialmill) inŁódź.Moreover,afterPolandjoinedtheEuropeanUnionin2004,thereappearednew opportunities to apply for financial support to carry out regeneration ofbrownfieldsites.Manylocalgovernmentauthoritiestookupsuchopportunities,thus saving some elements of their cultural heritagewhichwere important tothem.Simultaneously,however, theydecided tobear significant costsof theirmaintenanceinthefuture.In2015,uponadopting theLawonUrbanRegenerationandGuidelinesre-

gardingurbanregenerationintheoperationalprogrammesfor theyears2014–2020,theapproachtofinancingsuchprojectsfromfundsearmarkedforregen-eration changed. Degraded areas3 and areas4 thathaveundergoneregeneration,ascurrentlyindicatedbythecityauthorities,aresupposedtoconstitutesettledareaswherecertain socialproblemscanbe identified.Suchareascertainlydonotincludebrownfieldsites,however,andtheymayconstituteanobjectofurbanregenerationwithintheMunicipalUrbanRegenerationProgramme5 on the con-ditionthattheplannedoperationsarecompatiblewiththeregenerationareaand

3 Adegradedareaisanareainacriticalsituationduetotheconcentrationofnegativesocialphenomena,particularlyunemployment,poverty,crimerates,alowlevelofeducationandsocialcapital,aswellasaninsufficientdegreeofparticipationinpublicandculturallife.Suchanareamaybemarkedasdegradedontheconditionthatatleasttwofromamongthenegativephenomenalistedbelowoccur:economic,environmental,spatial-functional,technical(pursuanttoArt.9(1)oftheLawonUrbanRegeneration,2015).

4 Aregenerationareamayincludetheentiredegradedareaorapartthereof(however,itcan-notexceedthefollowinglimits:20%oftheareaofthemunicipality,30%ofitsinhabitants)(pur-suanttoArt.(1)and(2)oftheLawonUrbanRegeneration,2015)

5 According to the Law on Urban Regeneration (2015), the Municipal Regeneration Pro-grammeisadocumentonthebasisofwhichamunicipalitymayundertakeurbanregenerationactivitieswithinthepreviouslyindicatedregenerationarea.

URBANREGENERATIONOFBROWNFIELDSITES… 39

contributetotheactualpreventionofnegativesocialphenomenapresentedintheanalysis(Art.10(3)oftheLawonUrbanRegeneration,2015).Theinspirationforconductingtheresearchpresentedinthearticleincluded

theabove-mentionedchangesinapproachingbrownfieldsitesasobjectsofre-generation.Thesechangesresultedfromthefactthatsimilarprojectscompletedin theperiodbetween2004and2013(inmanycasesfinancedfromEUfundsforregenerationprojects)didnotaddresstheactualproblemsofdegradedareasortheirinhabitants.Theauthor’sintentionwastodiscoverwhattheinhabitantsof the immediate surroundings of the features which underwent regenerationonbrownfieldsitesthinkaboutthemandwhatchangestheynoticenotonlyasregardsspace,butalsothesocio-economicdimension.Theauthorselectedthepost-industrialcityofŁódźastheareaofstudy,becausethiscityhassignificantregenerationneedsascompared to the restof thecountry.Theauthor focusesonthreeregenerationprojectscompletedinŁódź:Manufaktura(2006),“Loftyu Scheiblera” (“Lofts at Scheibler”) (2010) andRegeneration of EC1 (2012).Thethreeadaptationsselectedforthisstudyconstitutedahugechallengefortheinvestorsas regards thespatial, technologicalandeconomicdimensions.Eachoftheprojectsrepresentsadifferentpurpose.Moreover,theyareprojectswhichhavehadanoticeable impacton thegeneralcitystructure.Currently, theyarerecognisablelocationsnotonlyamongtheinhabitantsofŁódź,butalsoamongtourists.Theaimofthearticleistopresentthethreeprojectsmentionedabovefrom

theperspectiveofaninhabitantoftheirimmediatesurroundings,particularlytheimpactontheirimmediateenvironment.

2. Theoretical background

Urbanregenerationofbrownfieldsitesshouldcontributetotheimprovementofalocalcommunity’squalityoflifeandconstituteanimportantelementofcitydevelopmentpolicy,especiallyinthecaseofcitieswitharichindustrialtradi-tion.Theymayhavegreatpotentialwhich–ifusedappropriately–mayhelptoimprovethesocialandeconomicsphereaswellastorespecttheprinciplesofsustainable development (Klapperich 2002;Grimski et al. 2001; Syms 2001).Dependingonthecountry,itsendogenousfeaturesanditseconomic,historicalorgeographicalconditionsaswellasthepolicypursued,theinterpretationoftheterm“brownfield” isdifferent (Adamsetal.2007;Ganseretal.2007;Olivieret.al.2005;Alkeretal.2000;Yu-Tingetal.2000).PursuanttoastudycarriedoutbyCabernet(ConcertedActiononBrownfieldandEconomicRegeneration),there is no universal definition of brownfields in the EuropeanUnion. SomeEuropeancountriesrefermostlytoecologicallydegradedandcontaminatedar-eas(e.g.Zwicker-Schwarm2007).Themajorityofdefinitions,however,presenttheEuropeanandAmericanperspective.IntheEuropeancontext,thefollowingdefinitiondevelopedwithintheCLARINETnetworkisoffered:(ContaminatedLand Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies): “Brownfield(sites)aresitesthathadpreviouslybeenundertheinfluenceoftheirusersand

EDYTAMASIEREK40

thesurroundingareas,whichareneglectedorunderutilised,whichmayhavepo-tentialproblemswith lackofmaintenance,whichare locatedmainly indevel-opedurbanareasandrequireinterventiontobringthembacktobeneficialuse”(Kurtovićet.al.2014).Pizzol et al. (2016) point out that the regenerationof brownfield sitesmay

contributetocitydevelopment,however,itrequiresgreateffortandfundingbothfromthepublicandtheprivatesectoronaccountofthecomplexityofsuchtypesof undertakings.Therefore, it is important tomake a good choice of the areawhereregenerationactionswillbetakenandtogettoknowwellallthefactorswhichmayhaveanimpactonthesuccessoftheregenerationprocess.Skalski (2009) believes that looking for investors and ways to redevelop

brownfieldareasisaprerequisiteforthesuccessofcitypolicywhichmanagesurban space intelligently and economically. It is particularly important in thecaseofcitiessuchasŁódźwheretherearemanyundevelopedbrownfieldsites.Engagingtheprivatesectorinregeneratingbrownfieldareasandbringingthembacktotheinhabitantsisakeyissue.Manypublications,both foreignandPolish,haveappearedon the transfor-

mationofbrownfield areas andadapting them tonew functions inwhichdif-ferentaspectsoftheissuehavebeendiscussed.Someoftheaspectsdiscussedinliterature,whichintheauthor’sopinionareusefulfromthepointofviewofthisarticle,arethefollowing:protectionofpost-industrialmonumentssimulta-neously taking intoconsideration theneedsofusers (Lenartowiczet al.2012;Wójcik2009;Lenartowicz2010,2007,2006;Legrand2006;Petz2006)techno-logicalandeconomicproblemsoccurringwhenadaptingbrownfieldareas(in-ter alia:Walczak2016;Szewczyk2012;Domański2009;Thorntonetal.2007;Żychowska2006;Ostręgaetal.2005;Stratton2000);architectural-urbanaspectsandaspectsofculturalheritageprotection(inter alia:Cysek-Pawlaketal.2018;Walczak2017;Wojnarowska2012,2013;Kaczmarek2010,2001;Couchetal.2003;Russelletal.2001).Thebrownfieldregenerationprocessgivesthembackanopportunitytooper-

ateeffectivelybycreatinganewmorphologicalandfunctionalunit.Atthesametime,suchaprocesssignificantlychangestheorganisationofurbanspaceandcreatesanewdimensionforurbandevelopment(Kaczmarek2001).Therefore,itisimportantthatthisprocessandprovidingtheseobjectswithnewfunctionsisconsistentwiththeexistingurbanstructureanddoesnotconstitutearevolution,spatial,economicorsocial,intheimmediatesurroundingsthereof.It is alsoworthmentioning that urban regeneration is listed as one of fac-

tors in gentrification. It certainly depends on endogenic features of a particu-lararea,conditioningfactorswithinwhichitfunctions(Lees2019;Górczyńska2015;Zukin2010)aswellasmunicipalpolicy.However,identificationofsuchathreatwhendevelopingaprojectallowsonetopreventitorminimiseitseffect.Asarule,urbanregenerationshouldbeplannedinawaythatallowsittocreatethe so-called socialmix in theareaundergoingurban regeneration so that theincominginhabitantsdonotcausethemovingoutofthelessaffluentmembersofsociety(GuidelinesforUrbanRegeneration...2016).


When transforming historic post-industrial buildings to new functions, it iscrucialtomakesurethattheirlayoutandurbanarrangement,aswellasthechar-acteroftheindustrialarchitecture,aremaintained(Zbiegieni2009).Specificso-lutionsused inproduction facilitiessuchas thespaceandheightofbuildings,roofcovering,materialsandconstruction,engineeringstructuresaswellasar-chitecturalsolutionsthemselves,resultinsuchbuildingsbeingexceptionalandunique.Inthepast,theyconstitutedclearanddominatingspatialandarchitecturalfeatures(Gubański2008).Therefore,theroleofhistoricbuildinginspectorsissoimportant;ontheonehand,theyshouldinsistonmaintainingauthenticitywhenrenovatingbuildings,whereasontheotherhandtheyshouldreachacompromisewithinvestorsinordertousetheirpotentialforthebenefitofurbanregenerationprojects.

3. Area of study

3.1. ThecontextofŁódź

ŁódźislocatedincentralPolandandisthecountry’sthirdlargestcityasre-gardspopulation.6Itisanacademic,culturalandindustrialcentre.Beforethepo-liticalandeconomicchangesin1989,itwasthecountry’scentreofthetextileandfilmindustries.Łódźisanexceptionalplaceduetoitshistoryandanincompa-rablepost-industrialheritage,afactconfirmedbyitsrecognitionasamonument.7 Therearenumerousspatialstructuresandsinglebuildingsinthecitywhichweremostlydevelopedinthetimeofthecity’sprime,i.e.duringthetimewhenitwasthecentreoftheEuropeantextileindustry.IndustrialfacilitiesinŁódźwereanimportantelementofurbanplanningandveryoftentheydeterminedthesizeandshapeofquartersandthelocationofsomestreets:“WithoutadoubtŁódźisacitydevelopedforindustryandbyindustry” (Nowakowskaetal.2017:51).Inthepast,20%ofdowntownŁódźwasmadeupofindustrialareas(Walczak

2017)and,therefore,Łódźisaninterestingcasefromthepointofviewofstudy-ingtheroleofpost-industrialareasinthemorphologicalandfunctionalstructureofthecity(Kotlicka2008).Onecanclearlydistinguishtheformerindustrialdis-trictsdevelopedbyScheibler,Poznański,GrohmanandHeinzlwithin thecitystructure,inwhichhousesforworkersandclerks,administrationbuildings,hos-pitals,schoolsandshopswereerectednexttomansionsandgardensadjoiningfactorybuildings(Sierecka-Nowakowska1999).Theimmediatesurroundingsofbrownfields inŁódźareusually residentialdevelopments,which is significantfromtheperspectiveofconductingresearchontheirperceptionbythelocalcom-munity.Suchfactorsaslocationandgoodcommuting,aswellastheculturalval-ueconnectedwithagivenarea,areimportantwithinthetransformationprocess

6 In2019thepopulationofŁódźwas682,680(http://demografia.stat.gov.pl/bazademografia/Tables.aspx,dataasof24.11.2019)

7 RegulationofthePresidentoftheRepublicofPolandof16February2015onrecognising“Łódź–multicultural landscapeofan industrialcity”asa listedmonument (Journal of Laws 2015,item315).

EDYTAMASIEREK42

(Latosińska 2010).The distinctive feature ofŁódź is its adaptation of formerfactoryfacilitiesfordifferentpurposes:didactic,commercial,officespace,resi-dential,hotel,cultural,gastronomic,whichhavebeencarriedoutsincethe1890sbyboththepublicandprivatesectors.Thelatestfeatureofthistype,openedin2020,isMonopolis–aformerspiritplanttransformedintoabusiness,entertain-mentandculturalcentre.Łódźisalsoacityforwhichurbanregenerationofthedowntownarea,whereseveralpost-industrialbuildingsarelocated,isakeyele-mentinthecity’sdevelopment.In2015Łódź,alongwithBytomandWałbrzych,receivedgovernmentalsupportasacitywhichurgentlyneedsregenerationac-tivities.Currentlymajorinvestmentsarebeingcarriedoutwithintheurbanre-generationoftheŁódźDowntownArea.

EC1ManufaktraLofts “U Scheiblera”StreetsLimits od Łódź districtsDeagraded area borderRevitalization area

Fig. 1. Location of the projects examined in Łódź and its districtsSource: P. Kurzyk.

AllthethreeprojectsanalysedinthisarticlearelocatedinthedowntownareaofŁódź(Fig.1)andwithintheareaofthesimplifiedlocalurbanregenerationprogrammeofselecteddowntownandpost-industrialareasofŁódź.8 In2016,

8 Resolutionno.XXXIV/568/04ofCityCouncilofŁódźof14July2004asregardsadopting“the simplified localurban regenerationprogrammeof selecteddowntownandpost-industrialareasofŁódźfortheyears2004–2013”,asamended.


thecityauthoritiesidentified9adegradedareaasunderstoodundertheLawonUrbanRegeneration(2015).Thisdegradedareaistantamounttotheurbanregen-erationareaanditincludestheLoftsandEC1.Manufaktura,ontheotherhand,islocatednexttoitsboundary(Fig.1).Itshowsthatthesurroundingsoftheprojectsunderdiscussionhavefeaturesofanareaincrisis,i.e.therearenumeroussocial,spatial-functional,environmental,economicandtechnicalproblems.

3.2. Shortcharacteristicsofprojectsselectedforthestudy

3.2.1. Manufaktura

ThesiteonwhichtodaythereisabusymallcalledManufakturawastowardstheendofthe19thcenturyafactoryownedbyIzraelPoznański.Forsomede-cadesthefactorygeneratedthousandsofjobsfortheinhabitantsofŁódźandwascontributing to the history of Łódź’s textiles.The political transformations inPolandafter1989resultedintheclosingdownofthefactorywhichledtoaslowdeteriorationofthebuildingcomplex.Intheearly2000saFrenchinvestorbe-cameinterestedinthisfacilityanddecidedtorenovateit.In2003aFrenchcom-panyApsysPolskastartedconstructionworks.“Atotalof90000m2ofhistoricinteriorswererenovated.Theentireinvestmentcostapproximately200millioneuros.”10Whentheprojectwasbeingdeveloped,thereweremanydiscussionsregarding

therelativelylargeareaforparkinganddifferentcommutingissues.Byintroduc-ingafacilitygeneratingsomuchtrafficintothecitycentre,onecouldexpectcon-gestionandtrafficjamsinthisarea,whichindeediscurrentlythecase.Inspectorsofhistoricbuildings,ontheotherhand,drewattentiontothefactthattheoriginallayoutofinternalroadshadnotbeenmaintainedbutwasreplacedbyaspacious

9 Resolutionno.XXV/589/16ofCityCouncilofŁódźof10February2016asregardsmarkingthedegradedareaandtheurbanregenerationareainthecityofŁódź.

10 https://www.manufaktura.com/site/478/powstanie-manufaktury/historia,dataasof9.11.2019.* AllthephotosaretakenbytheAuthor.

Figs 2–3. Manufaktura directly after opening (2006)*

EDYTAMASIEREK44

square, tonumerousdemolitions,eliminationof theinternalrail tracknetworkandthehistoricalsettingofthestreetsandthesquare(Hanzl2008;Piątek2006).Thefacilitywasopenedon16May2006.Initially,onlytheshoppingcentre

startedtooperateandslowlytheremainingbuildingswereoccupied(Figs2,3,4).In2009thehistoricspinningplantofIzraelPoznańskiwasputintouseandthefour-starAndelsHotelopeneditsdoors.TheculturalrealmofManufakturain-cludessuchfacilitiesastheMuseumofModernArt“ms2”,theMuseumoftheFactory,andtheTeatrMałytheatre.Thepublicspacedesignatedwithintheproj-ect(thesquare)servesŁódźinhabitantsfordifferentformsofactivitythroughouttheyear(Fig.4).In2017itwasnamedtheŁódźWomenTextileWorkersMarketSquare.Manufakturahasbecomeanimportantplaceonthetourist,culturalandcommercialmapofŁódź.Moreover, inrecentyearsresidentialbuildingshavebeenconstructedinitsvicinity.

3.2.2. “Lofts at Scheibler”

Anotherprojectpresentedherewasestablishedonthesiteofaformerfactorycomplex.Thefactorybuildings,on theonehand, referred toclassicistmodelsandontheotherconstitutedaturningpointinthearchitectureofindustrialŁódź.Theyweremadeofreduncladbrickandbecameasortofcanonforsuchtypesofarchitectureforthenextfewdecades(Kobojek1997).Themonumentalbuildingofthespinningplantitselfwasalmost207metreslongandincludedafour-aislemainbodywithfourstoreys(Popławska1973).In 1994 this enterprise was transformed into a joint stock company called

UniontexS.A.ItsinsolvencywasdeclaredinJuly2003andthereceiverwhowasthenappointedsoldsomeoftherealpropertytoanAustraliandeveloper,OpalPropertyDevelopments,whichundertookregenerationofthebrownfieldsiteandadapteditforresidentialpurposes(Figs5,6).ThiswasthefirstsuchextensiveprojectinPolandinwhichpost-factoryareaswereusedforresidentialpremises.

Fig. 4. Market Square (2018)


Theexistingbuildingswereadaptedtocreateover400loftswithatotaluseableareaof34thousandm2withinthehistoricfacility.Itwaspossibletoimplementchangesinthisareaontheconditionoffollowingtheguidelinesprovidedbytheinspectorsofhistoricbuildings.Itisdefinitelyaprojectdistinguishedbyitsarchi-tecturalform,althoughitisalsobelievedthat“loftsarejustanapartmentbuildinghiddenbehindafactoryfaçade”(Walczaketal.2009,p.150).

Figs 5–6. The historic spinning plant before adaptation for lofts (2006)

Abuildingpermitwasissuedin2006andconstructionworkslasteduntil2010.Thefirstbuildingsweredeliveredinthesameyear.In2006asalesagencystartedtooperateandalltheapartmentsonofferweresoldveryrapidly.Whenconstruc-tionworkstarted,buyershadtopayasmallpercentageoftheapartment’svalue.Theremainingamountwassupposedtobepaidafterdelivery.Somebuyerstreat-edloftsasaninvestmentandboughtseveralapartments.Whiletheprojectwasbeingbuilt,thecrisishitandsomeofthebuyerswithdrewfromtheirpurchaseofferslosingtheiradvancepayments.Assaleswerescarce,thedeveloperwhohadtakenhugeloansbecameinsolventanddeclaredbankruptcyinApril2012.UnsoldrealpropertieswereheldbythereceiverwhousedthefundsgainedfromthesalesofapartmentstopaytheliabilitiesoftheLoftsownertowardstheircred-itors(Groegeretal.2016).Thankstoasignificantimprovementoftheeconomicsituationalltheapartmentseventuallyfoundtenants(Figs7–9).“LoftsatScheibler”isagatedhousingestate(Tobiasz-Lis2011)whosedevel-

opmentisassociatedwiththeprocessofgentrification(Grzeszczak2010).Theareaisrestrictedandguarded24/7.Itshouldbepointedoutthatboththeoccupa-tionoftheloftsandthedeveloper’sinvestmentscarriedoutinthevicinity(onavailabledevelopmentland)inconnectionwithdevelopmentofarentalmarketresultedintheinflowofmoreaffluentinhabitantstothispartofthecityaswellasthedevelopmentofretailandserviceinfrastructure.

EDYTAMASIEREK46

Figs 7–8. The spinning plant building after adaptation for lofts – view from Tymienieckiego Street (2018)Fig. 9. One of the entrances to the lofts (2018)

3.2.3. Regeneration of EC1 and its adaptation for cultural and artistic purposes

The last of the projects presented in this study constitutes an element ofabroadercityprogrammecalledtheNewCentreofŁódź.11TheprojectinvolvedtheadaptationoftheareaoftheformerEC1powerplant(Figs10,11,12)anditsuseforcultural,artisticandeducationalpurposes.Theplanningprocessstartedin2007.In2008aculturalinstitution,“EC1Łódź–CityofCulture”,wasestab-lishedand,togetherwiththeInvestmentSectionintheCityofŁódź,theycom-mencedworkoncarryingoutchangesinthedevelopmentofthearea.TheprojectwassupposedtobeimplementedtogetherwithFundacja Sztuki Świata(WorldArtFoundation).Afterthecityauthoritieschangedin2010,anotoriousconflictstartedbetweenoneoftheleadersofthefoundationandthecity.Asaresult,thefacilitieswereadministeredexclusivelyby thecity. In2010 renovationworksandmodernisationofthepost-industrialbuildingstarted,however,theyoverranconsiderablygeneratingadditionalcosts for thecity.EC1wasputona listofindicativeprojectsoftheŁódzkieVoivodship,i.e.projectswhosescopeismorethanlocalinscale.Therefore,itwasaprojectaddressedtoawideaudience.Thetotalvalueoftheprojectwasover265millionzlotys,ofwhichover82millionwasprovidedbytheEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFund.12Thecubature,formandmostfaçadeelementswiththeiruniquedetailshave

beenfullyretained(Figs13,14,15).Maintainingthistypeoffacility,however,constitutesachallengeforthecityaswellasalongtermfinancialcommitment.In2016aplanetariumwasopenedintheEC1Eastbuilding.IntheWestwingoftheEC1complex,ontheotherhand,thereisaScienceandTechnologyCentrewithadomed3Dcinema.Łódzka Komisja Filmowa (ŁódźFilmCommission)and Narodowe Centrum Kultury Filmowej (NationalCentre for FilmCulture)

11 ResolutionNo.XII/241/2015of theCityofŁódźCouncilof20May2015amending theresolutiononacceptingtheNewCentreofŁódźProgramme.

12 https://ec1lodz.pl/historia-ec1,dataasof9.11.2019


alsohavetheirheadquartershereaswell.13Bothinitiativesrefertothecity’srichfilmtraditions.Withitsarchitecturalform,EC1dominatesthecitylandscape.Thankstoits

convenientlocation(nexttotheŁódź-Fabrycznarailwaystation)andgoodcom-mutinglinks,newresidentialandofficeinvestmentsareappearingintheneigh-bourhood.

Figs 10–12. EC1 area before changes (2006)

Figs 13–15. The Project “Revitalisation of EC1 and its adaptation for cultural and artistic purposes” after completion (2018, 2015)

4. Data, methods and characteristics of the respondents

ThearticlepresentstheresultsofquestionnairesurveysconductedinŁódźinMay2017onanon-representativesampleof587 respondents.Nonprobabilityandrandomsamplingwasapplied.Therespondentswereinhabitantsoftheim-mediatesurroundingsofManufaktura,the“LoftsatScheibler”complexandEC1wholivewithinwalkingdistance,i.e.withinamaximumdistanceof500m.Itenabledtheresearchertocollectinformationdirectlyfrompersonswhoareactualusersoftheimmediatesurroundingsoftheprojectsthatwereanalysed,whoknowtheareawellandwhoobservetheimpactofthenewprojectsontheneighbour-hoodeveryday.Suchsamplingdidnotrequireacompletepopulationinventoryandmadeuseofpersonswhowereeasilyaccessibleandwillingtocooperate.

13 In2017ŁódźbecameamemberoftheCreativeCitiesNetworkasaUNESCOcityoffilm.TheprojectisoperatedbyNarodowe Centrum Kultury Filmowej(NationalCentreforFilmCul-ture).

EDYTAMASIEREK48

Theappliedsamplingdidnotguaranteesamplerepresentativeness,butitmaybeapremiseforlearningmoreaboutthepopulation(Miszczaketal.2013).The research areawasmarked on themap of Łódź and divided into three

zones,eachdedicatedtoaseparatelocation.Interviewers14wereassignedtotheabove-mentionedzones.Thesurveyswereconductedincompliancewithstan-dardisedtechniquesbasedondirectcommunicationwiththerespondentsusingquestionnaireinterviews(Gruszczyński2003).Anadvantageofthistechnique,whichissignificantfromthepointofviewofthestudy,wastheopportunitytoexplainthequestionsaskedbytheinterviewerandtoreachaparticulargroupofrespondents.Inthequestionnairedevelopedbytheauthor,multiplechoiceques-tionswereused.Forabetterreflectionofthedegreeofacceptanceofaparticularphenomenonor respondent’s opinion,Likert’s scalewas also applied in someinstances.Therespondentswereable:

• toevaluate thedesignsofManufaktura,“LoftsatScheibler”andEC1, theirdevelopmentanddirectimpactonthevicinityandtheimageofagivenplace;

• tosharetheirobservationsasregardstheadvantagesandinconveniencescon-nectedwithcompletedadaptationsoffacilitiesfornewpurposes;

• toindicateeffectswhichtheseprojectshadcausednotonlyasregardsurbanspace,butalsoinsocialandeconomiccircumstances.Alotofinformationusedinthearticlealsooriginatesfromtheauthor’sper-

sonalarchivesdevelopedduringhercooperationontheseprojects.Animportantelementofthisstudyisalsoareferencetothelocalandnationalprovisionsofthelawinforce.Thebackgroundtothepublicationisprovidedbyacademicandresearchachievementsinthefieldofregenerationofpost-industrialareas.Atotalof587respondentstookpartinthequestionnairestudyinthethreelo-

cations.Almost58%ofthemwerewomen.Thebiggestshareofwomenwasob-servedinthecaseoftheEC1location(63%)(Table1).Interestinglyenough,thelargestgroupoftherespondents(34%)werepersonsfromtheagegroupunder25,whereasthesmallestgroupwerepersonsofretirementage(13%)(Fig.16).Most of the respondents had secondary education (45%) or higher education(34%).Thesmallestgroupoftherespondents(8%)declaredthattheyonlyhadprimaryeducation.Itmustbementionedthat31%oftherespondentswerestu-dents/pupils(Fig.17).Asfarasprofessionalstatusisconcerned,thelargestpro-portionoftherespondentsdeclared“remuneratedwork”(38%).Nearly1/5oftherespondentswereoldageordisabilitypensioners.Onetenthoftherespondentsclaimedthattheywereeitherentrepreneursorself-employed.Only2%ofthemwereunemployed(Fig.18).

14 The interviewswith the inhabitantswereconductedbystudentsof theSpatialEconomyMajorintheFacultyofGeographicalSciencesandtheFacultyofManagementoftheUniversityofLodz.


Tab. 1. Share of respondents as regards sex (in %)

Men Women

Total 42.2% 57.8%

EC1 37.2% 62.8%

Lofts 46.0% 54.0%

Manufaktura 44.2% 55.8%

Source: own study.

34.5%

28.4%

23.8%

13.4%under 25

26–40

41–65

over 66

34.0%

44.9%

13.5%

7.7%higher

secondary

vocational

primary

Fig. 16. Respondents’ age Fig. 17. Respondents’ educationSource: own study. Source: own study.

37.6%

10.9%18.2%2.4%

31.0%

remunerated work

entrepreneur

old age/disabilitypensionerunemployed

pupil, student

Fig. 18. Respondents’ professional statusSource: own study.

Mostrespondents(46%)withashortperiodofjobexperience(lessthan10years)liveinthevicinityofthelofts.Itisaresultofquiteasignificantexpansionofnewhousinginvestmentsinthisarea.InthecaseofEC1andManufaktura,ontheotherhand,manyrespondents(38%inbothcases)claimedlongresidenceintheparticularlocation(Fig.19).Whenjuxtaposingitwiththeagestructureofalltherespondents,aconclusionmaybedrawnthatformanyofthemithasbeentheironlyplaceofresidencesofar.Morethanhalfoftherespondents(58%)declarethattheyarenottheowners

ofthepremiseswheretheylive.Tenantsofresidentialpremisesformthelargestpercentage(62%)oftherespondentsinthevicinityofManufaktura.Thebiggest

EDYTAMASIEREK50

numberofapartmentowners(50%)wereinterviewedinthevicinityofthelofts(Table2).

38.5%25.0%

38.2%

31.5%

29.3%

25.5%

30.0%

45.7%36.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EC1 Lofts Manufaktura

under 10 years

10–20 years

over 20 years

Fig. 19. How long have you been living here?Source: own study.

Tab. 2. Division into apartment owners and tenants

Owners Tenants

Total 42.4% 57.6%

EC1 43.7% 56.3%

Lofts 49.6% 50.4%

Manufaktura 37.5% 62.5%

Source: own study.

5. Results

Atthebeginningoftheinterviewtherespondentswereaskedabouttherea-sonsbehindtheirchoiceofplacetolive.Theycouldprovideamaximumofthreereasons.The responseswere quite varied, however the biggest number of therespondentsinthecaseofallthreelocationsindicatedthatthemainreasonwasthefactthat“theirfamilylivehere/usedtolivehere”.Ineachcase,approximately15%oftherespondentsindicatedtheresponse“duetolocation”and“it’snearmyworkplace”.InthecaseofManufakturamanyrespondentsmarkedtheanswers:“becauseofgoodcommutinglinkswithotherpartsofthecity”(11%)or“shopsnearby” (9%). In thecaseofEC1andManufaktura, approximately4%of therespondentsindicatedthattheyhadnootheroption(e.g.theyobtainedacouncilflathere),whichconfirmsthatintheimmediatesurroundingsoftheinvestigatedprojectstherearelow-standardpremises.Accordingtothevastmajorityofthe


respondents(c.80%),theexecutionofalltheprojectsselectedforanalysiswasnecessaryforthecityandingeneraltheinvestmentswereevaluatedpositively.Inthenextpartofthestudy,thetaskoftherespondentswastoevaluatedif-

ferent aspectsofdeveloping the lofts,ManufakturaandEC1 (Table3). In thecaseofallthreeprojects,thehighestscorewasachievedinthecategoryofbuild-ingaestheticsandarchitecturalform,howeveritwastheresidentsoftheLoftsneighbourhoodwhopaidthebiggestattentiontothisfactor.Positivereceptionbytheinhabitantsalsoreferredtogoodcommuting,spatialdevelopment,thequal-ityofspaceandagoodchoiceoffunctions.Theadvantageofgoodcommutingwas particularly emphasisedby the respondents interviewed in the vicinity ofEC1andManufaktura.ThechoiceofappropriatefunctionswashighlightedinthecaseofManufaktura.Oneinthreerespondentsalsoevaluatedthetypeofser-vicesofferedandthebusinessactivitiespursuedinparticularlocationspositively.Themostnegativeopinionsreferred to theorganisationofparkingspacesandgreenareas(Table3),whereastheworstopinionregardinggreenareasrelatedtoManufakturaandnegativeopinionsregardingtheorganisationofparkingspacesprevailedinthecaseofLoftsandEC1.Itclearlyindicatesshortagesandunsatis-fiedneedsinthoseareas.

Tab. 3. Evaluation of particular aspects of the area’s development

EVALUATION COMPONENTS

EVALUATION SCALE [%]

Definitely bad

Rather bad

So-so (neither good nor bad)

Rather good

Definitely good

No opinion

Aesthetics of buildings 1.2 1.6 10.1 28.6 57.5 1.0

Architectural form 0.5 1.4 10.3 31.6 51.2 4.9

Aptness of the function introduced

1.4 2.1 15.4 30.5 43.2 7.4

Commuting 1.7 2.3 16.7 30.0 47.6 1.7

Type of services offered /business activity pursued

1.4 3.2 17.0 35.6 34.2 8.6

Quality of space 0.9 1.6 13.1 33.8 45.5 5.1

Area development 0.9 2.3 14.4 32.2 45.7 4.6

Organisation of parking spaces

6.1 13.9 23.2 21.1 22.5 13.3

Green areas 4.0 9.5 23.6 30.7 27.4 4.7

Source: own study.

Next,therespondentswereaskedifintheiropiniontheimplementationoftheprojectsanalysedalsocontributedtosocialandeconomicchangesinthearea.Intotal,60%oftherespondentsbelievedthat therewassuchanimpact,whereas37%responded:“definitelyyes”.16%oftherespondentsbelievedthattheimple-mentation“didnot”or“ratherdidnot”contributetosocialandeconomicchange(Fig.20).

EDYTAMASIEREK52

6.4%

9.8%

14.0%

37.4%

23.0%

9.3%no

rather not

so-so

yes

definitelyyes

Fig. 20. Did the construction of the analysed projects contribute to social and economic change in the area?Source: own study.

Therespondentswhonoticedthattheinvestmentanalysedhadanimpactonthesocialandeconomicenvironmentwereaskedtoidentifysuchchangesandassesstheirscopeanddegree(Table4).Accordingtotherespondentstheimple-mentationoftheprojectsdefinitelycontributedtoanincreasedattractivenessofthecityfortouristsaswellastoanincreasednumberofplacestospendfreetime,

Tab. 4. Identification and evaluation of social and economic changes in the area which occurred, according to the respondents, as a result of the construction of the investigated projects

EVALUATION COMPONENTS

EVALUATION SCALE [%]

Definitely not

Rather not So-so Rather

yesDefinitely yes

No opinion

Creation of new jobs 1.4 3.2 9.4 31.8 30.1 24.1

Development of local entrepreneurship

1.7 5.6 13.2 27.6 22.9 29.0

Enrichment of local cultural offer

0.9 2.8 11.6 27.5 34.5 22.8

More opportunities for spending free time

0.3 3.5 8.4 25.3 41.2 21.1

Improved attractiveness to tourists

1.4 1.9 9.7 24.6 40.8 21.7

Increased value of property in the neighbourhood

0.7 4.3 12.1 23.4 25.2 34.4

Improved safety 3.9 9.9 24.5 20.6 12.3 28.8

Improvement of living conditions

3.9 14.8 20.9 19.0 12.2 29.1

New investments thanks to the new surroundings

1.7 3.9 12.6 34.6 22.0 25.1

Larger number of new business enterprises

3.3 3.3 14.1 30.7 20.0 28.6

Source: own study.


toaricherlocalculturalprovision,whichwasparticularlyhighlightedinthecaseofManufakturaandEC1.Approximately60%oftherespondentsbelievethattheprojectsgeneratednewjobs(particularlyManufaktura)andhadaninfluenceonthedevelopmentofentrepreneurship.Inthecaseofallthreeprojects,morethanahalfoftherespondentsnoticedthatnewinvestmentshaveappearedintheareaduetothenewsurroundings.Itisalsoimportanttomentionthatthenumberofsuccessfulbusinessenterpriseshasincreasedandthatthevalueofrealpropertyintheneighbourhoodhasalsogrown,whichwasparticularlyemphasisedinthecaseofLofts.Theeconomicaspectof the impactof theadaptations thatwerecarriedoutontheirsurroundingswashighlighted.Only1/3oftherespondentsmentionedtheimprovementoflivingconditionsorsecurity.Thenextquestionreferredtotheinfluenceoftheadaptationscarriedouton

theimprovementoftheneighbourhoodimage(Fig.21).Avastmajorityoftherespondents(78%)believethattheprojectshadapositiveinfluenceonhowtheareaisperceived.Theopinionthattherewasnosuchinfluenceorthattherewasrathernosuchinfluencewasexpressedbyonlyapproximately7%oftherespon-dents.

3.9%2.9%

12.9%

36.6%

41.6%

2.2% no

rather not

neither no nor yes

rather yes

yes

no opinion

Fig. 21. Impact of the projects on the image of the surroundingsSource: own study.

30.6%

37.3%

16.0%

16.1%a few times a week

a few times a month

a few times a year

rather never

Fig. 22. Frequency with which the respondents use the space generated within the projectsSource: own study.

EDYTAMASIEREK54

Thenextquestionreferredtothefrequencywithwhichtherespondentsusedthespacecreatedwithintheexaminedprojects(Fig.22).Mostoftherespondents(37%)usethesesitesafewtimesamonth.Oneinthreerespondentsusesthemfrequently,i.e.afewtimesaweek.Approximately16%oftherespondentsdonotusetheanalysedsitesatall.Next, the respondents were asked if they noticed any inconveniences con-

nectedwiththeareainthevicinityofthecompletedprojects.Over70%oftherespondentsanswered“no”or“rathernot”.Theremaining30%oftherespon-dentswereaskedtoidentifytheinconveniences.Thegreatestnumberofpersonsindicatedtheanswer“trafficjams”,mostlyinthecaseofManufakturaandEC1,and,next,alackofparkingspace,whichwasmostlymentionedinthecaseofLofts.Heavytrafficwasalsomentioned,aswellasmanyeventsorganisedthere,whichwasparticularlyemphasisedbytherespondentsinthecaseofManufakturaandEC1.OneinfourrespondentsfromthevicinityofEC1mentionedthatnoiseisanuisance.Anincreaseinrentintheneighbourhoodwasalsonoticedbytherespondents fromall three locations.Afewpersonsmentioned theproblemoflitteringandadecreasedsenseofsecurity.

6. Conclusions

Uponanalysisoftheliterature,casestudiesandresultsofthesurveysdescribedabove,thefollowingconclusionsmaybedrawn:1) TheprojectscarriedoutinŁódźandanalysedinthisarticleareperceivedpos-

itivelybytheinhabitantsoftheirimmediatesurroundings.Theyareperceivedasnecessaryforthecity,whichmakesoneoptimisticaboutfutureprojects.

2) Itisbelievedthatthenewfunctionshavebeencorrectlychosen,whichwasparticularlyvisibleintheopinionsexpressedaboutManufaktura.Thismeansthatthefacilitymeetstheneedsoftheinhabitantsasfarasitspurposeiscon-cerned.

3) Inspiteofunfavourableopinionsof the inspectorsofhistoricbuildings, inthecaseofalltheprojectstherespondentspositivelyevaluatedtheaestheticsofthemodernisedbuildingsandtheirarchitecturalform.TheassessmentofLoftswasthebestinthisrespect.

4) Certainshortageswereindicatedasregardsgreenareas(especiallyinthecaseofManufaktura) and parking spaces (particularly in the case of Lofts andEC1).

5) Itwasobserved that thechangeswhichoccurredasa resultof implement-ingallthreeprojectshadanimpactonthesocialandeconomicenvironment.UsingthemappropriatelymaysupportsustainabledevelopmentofthecityashighlightedbyKlapperich(2002),Grimskietal.(2001)andSyms(2001).

6) Theimpactonthecity’sattractivenesstotourists,aswellasontheimprovedimage of their immediate surroundings,was emphasised in the case of allthree locations.

7) Thevastmajorityoftherespondentsmentionedpositiveeffectsoflivinginthevicinityoftheprojectsanalysed.Theprojects,particularlyManufaktura


andEC1,becamenewplacestospendfreetime;theyenrichedthecity’scul-turallifeandcreatednewworkplaces.

8) Thedisadvantagesmentionedbytheinhabitantsincludedtrafficjams,par-ticularlynearManufakturaandEC1,aswellasnotenoughparkingspacesneartheLofts.NoisewasthebiggestnuisanceforpeoplelivingclosetoEC1.Therefore, it is important thatsuchprocessesandprovidingfacilitieswithnewfunctionsbeinscribedintheurbantissueandnotcauseanyrevolution,eitherspecial,economicorsocial,intheimmediateenvironment.

9) Inthevicinityofallthethreeprojectsanalysedinthisarticle,newinvestmentprojectsappearedthankstotheadvantageofagoodneighbourhood.

10) Anincreaseinsuccessfulbusinesseslocatedinthevicinityoftheprojectsisnoticeable.ItisparticularlythecaseinthevicinityofLofts.

11) Theprojectsdiscussedinthearticlehadlittleinfluenceonthegeneralim-provementinthelivingconditionsoftheinhabitantsoftheimmediatesur-roundingsoronimprovedsecurity,whichconfirmsthattheprojectsfailedtoaddresstheproblemssufferedbytheurbanregenerationareaanditsinhabit-ants.

12) Thankstothenewprojects,newinhabitantsandusersappearedinthedown-townarea,whichcontributed to its revivaland the introductionof theso-calledsocialmix in theŁódźregenerationarea.Apotential threatmaybethe “pushing out” of the current inhabitants of these neighbourhoods, forexampleduetotheincreasedvalueofpropertyandrentalcosts.Lees(2019)pointsoutthatthegentrificationprocessislessintensiveinPolandthaninthecitiesofWesternEurope,howeveritisanissuewhichshouldbetakeninto consideration when developing projects for brownfield regeneration.Identificationofsuchathreatenablesonetopreventitoratleasttominimiseitseffects.

Summingup,localauthoritiesshouldhaveaclearpolicyonbrownfieldareadevelopment, inparticular in suchcitiesasŁódź.Theyshouldcooperatewithinvestorswhenpreparingprojectsof adaptationsofbrownfield sites,which isemphasisedbySkalski (2009) andPizzol et al. (2016); they should cooperateinfindingoptimalfunctionsand,atthesametime,takeactionswiththeaimoflimiting thegentrificationprocess (Lees2019;Górczyńska2015).ThecaseofŁódźshowsthaturbanregenerationofbrownfieldareasmaytriggerchangesintheimmediateenvironmentandhaveavisibleimpactonit.Astheheritageanditspotentialareimmense,suchprojectsmayconstituteanimportantelementofcitydevelopmentandthecity’surbanregenerationpolicy.

References

Adams,D.,DeSousa,C.,andTiesdell,S.,2010,“Brownfielddevelopment:Acompari-sonofNorthAmericanandBritishapproaches”,Urban Studies,47(1),75–104.

Alker,S.,Joy,V.,Roberts,P.,andSmith,N.,2000,“Thedefinitionofbrownfield”,Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,43(1),49–69.

EDYTAMASIEREK56

Couch,C.,Fraser,C.,andPercy,S.(eds.),2003,Urban Regeneration in Europe,Oxford:BlackwellSciencePublishing.

Cysek-Pawlak,M.M.,andKrzysztofik,S.,2018,„Thenewurbanismprincipleofqualityarchitectureandurbandesignversusplaceidentity:AcasestudyofVald’EuropeandManufakturacomplex”,European Spatial Research and Policy,25(2),99–115.

Domański, B., 2009, “Rewitalizacja terenów poprzemysłowych – specyfika wyzwańi instrumentów”, in:W.Jarczewski(ed.),Przestrzenne aspekty rewitalizacji – śród-mieścia, blokowiska, tereny poprzemysłowe, pokolejowe, powojskowe(pp.125–138),Kraków:InstytutRozwojuMiast.

Domański, B., 2000, “Restrukturyzacja terenów poprzemysłowych w miastach”, in:Z.Ziobrowski(ed.),Rewitalizacja, rehabilitacja i restrukturyzacja – odnowa miast,Kraków:InstytutGospodarkiPrzestrzennejiKomunalnej.

Dresler,Z.(ed.),1995,Restrukturyzacja obszarów poprzemysłowych,Kraków:AgencjaRozwojuKrakowskiego.

Ganser,R.,andWilliams,K.,2007,“Brownfielddevelopment:Areweusing therighttargets?Evidence fromEnglandandGermany”,European Planning Studies,15(5),603–622.

Gasidło, K., 1998, “Problemy przekształceń terenów poprzemysłowych”, Zeszyty Naukowe. Architektura,37,1–199.

Gasidło,K.,andGorgoń,J.(eds.),1999,Modelowe przekształcenia terenów poprzemy-słowych i zdegradowanych,Katowice:UNDP.

Gehl,J.,2014,Miastadlaludzi(transl.Sz.Nogalski),Kraków:WydawnictwoRAM.Glumińska, J., Martysz, C., Podgórski, K., and Taniewska-Peszko, M., 1996,

Zagospodarowanie terenów poprzemysłowych (wybrane zagadnienia prawne, ekolo-giczne, finansowe i społeczne),Katowice:ProgramUNCHS(Habitat)HarmonijnegoRozwojuMiastAglomeracjiKatowickiej.

Górczyńska,M.,2015,“Gentryfikacjawpolskimkontekście:krytycznyprzeglądkon-cepcjiwyjaśniających”,Przegląd Geograficzny,87(4),589–611.

Grimski,D.,andFerber,U.,2001,“UrbanbrownfieldinEurope”,Land Contamination & Reclamation,9(1),143–148.

Groeger,L.,Dzieciuchowicz,J.,2016,Nowa przestrzeń mieszkaniowa. Lofty i rezydencje w Łodzi,Łódź:WydawnictwoUniwersytetuŁódzkiego.

Gruszczyński,L.A.,2003,Kwestionariusze w socjologii. Budowa narzędzi do badań su-rveyowych,Katowice:WydawnictwoUniwersytetuŚląskiego.

Grzeszczak, J., 2010, Gentryfikacja osadnictwa. Charakterystyka, rozwój koncep-cji badawczej i przegląd wyjaśnień,Warszawa: InstytutGeografii i PrzestrzennegoZagospodarowaniaim.StanisławaLeszczyckiegoPAN.

Gubański, J., 2008, “Obszar poprzemysłowy w strukturze miasta”, Czasopismo Techniczne. Architektura,105(6-A),332–337.

Hanzl,M.,2008,“ManufakturaŁódź–geniuslociakomercyjnawartośćprzestrzenipu-blicznej”,in:P.Lorens,E.Ratajczyk-Piątkowska(eds.),Komercjalizacjaprzestrzeni–charakterystykazjawiska(pp.202–215),Warszawa:Urbanista.

Kaczmarek, S., 2010, “Proces rewitalizacji terenów poprzemysłowych a organizacjaprzestrzenimiejskiej Łodzi”, in:T.Markowski et al. (eds.),Rewitalizacja terenów poprzemysłowych w Łodzi (s. 7–17),Warszawa: PolskaAkademia Nauk, KomitetPrzestrzennegoZagospodarowaniaKraju.

Kaczmarek,S.,2001,Rewitalizacja terenów poprzemysłowych. Nowy wymiar w rozwoju miast,Łódź:WydawnictwoUniwersytetuŁódzkiego,Łódź.


Klapperich,H., 2002, “Interdisciplinary approach for brownfields”, in: C.A. Brebbia,D.Almorza,H.Klapperich(eds.),Brownfield Sites: Assessment, Rehabilitation and Development (pp.1–13),Southampton,UK:WITPress.

Kobojek,G.,1997,Łódź. Promocja Miasta. Informator Miejski,Łódź:„Marrow”S.A.AutorskaAgencjaPromocji.

Kotlicka, J., 2008, Przemiany morfologiczne terenów przemysłowych Łodzi, pracadoktorska,promotor:S.Liszewski,UniwersytetŁódzki.

Kurtović,S.,Siljković,B.,andPavlović,N.,2014,“Methodsofidentificationandevalu-ationofbrownfieldcities”,International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science,3(2),105–120.

Legrand,Ch.,2006,“Revitalisationofpost-industrialareasandtheirintegrationwithinurbanplanning”,in:B.Walczak(ed.),Revitalisation of Post-Industrial Towns and the Role of Industrial Heritage(pp.169–172),Łódź:ŁódzkaOkręgowaIzbaInżynierówBudownictwa;InstytutArchitekturyiUrbanistykiPolitechnikiŁódzkiej.

Latosińska, J., 2010, “Rozmieszczenie obszarów poprzemysłowych na terenie Łodziiichwartośćkulturowa”,in:T.Markowski,S.Kaczmarek,andJ.Olenderek(eds.),Rewitalizacja terenów poprzemysłowych w Łodzi (pp. 19–40), Warszawa: PolskaAkademiaNauk,KomitetPrzestrzennegoZagospodarowaniaKraju.

Lees,L.,2019,“Planetarygentrificationandurban(re)development”,Urban Development Issues,61,5–13.

Lenartowicz,J.K.,andOstręga,A.,2012,“Revitalisationofpost-industrialareasthroughthe preservation of technical heritage in Poland”, AGH Journal of Mining and Geoengineering,36(2),181–192.

Lenartowicz,J.K.,2010,“Partycypacja,kultura,rewitalizacja”,in:L.Nykaetal.(eds.),Kultura dla rewitalizacji – rewitalizacja dla kultury(pp.93–110),Gdańsk:CentrumSztukiWspółczesnejŁaźnia.

Lenartowicz, J.K., 2007, “Polish experiences of REGENTIF Project, InternationalConferencePRO-REVITAŁódź29.06.-01.07.2006”,in:Revitalisation as a Vehicle of Identity and Development of Metropolitan Areas(pp.121–128),Łódź.

Lenartowicz,J.K.,2006,“Ospołeczeństwieobywatelskim,partycypacji i terenachpo-przemysłowych”,Czasopismo Techniczne,z.8-A,361–381.

Lorens,P.,andZałuski,D.,1996,“Obszarypoprzemysłowe–problemyrestrukturyzacji”,w:M.Kochanowski(red.),Nowe uwarunkowania rozwoju i kształtowania miast pol-skich,BiuletynKomitetuPrzestrzennegoZagospodarowaniaKrajuPAN,175,129–144.

Maciejewska, A., and Turek, A., 2019, Rewitalizacja terenów poprzemysłowych,Warszawa:WydawnictwoNaukowePWN.

Miszczak,A.,andWalasek,J.,2013,“Technikiwyborupróbybadawczej”,Obronność – Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania i Dowodzenia Akademii Obrony Narodowej,2(6),100–108.

Moterski,F.,2019,Dziedzictwo poprzemysłowe jako element zintegrowanego zarządzania miastem,Łódź: WydawnictwoUniwersytetuŁódzkiego.

Nowakowska,A.,andWalczak,B.,2017,“Dziedzictwoprzemysłowejakokapitałteryto-rialny.PrzykładŁodzi”,Gospodarka w Praktyce i Teorii,45(4),45–51.

Olivier,L.,Ferber,U.,Grimski,D.,Millar,K.,andNathanail,P.,2005,“ThescaleandnatureofEuropeanbrownfields”,in:L.Oliver,K.Millar,D.Grimski,U.Ferber,andP. Nathanail, CABERNET. Proceedings of CABERNET 2005: The InternationalConferenceonManagingUrbanLand,Nottingham:LandQualityPress:,pp274–281.

EDYTAMASIEREK58

Order No. 9 of the Minister of Terrain Economy and Environmental Protection of 29 January 1974 on indicators and guidelines for residential areas in cities.

Ostręga,A.,andUberman,R.,2005,“Formalno-prawneproblemyrewitalizacjiterenówpoprzemysłowych,wtympogórniczych”,Górnictwo i Geoinżynieria,29(4),115–127.

Petz,U.,2006,“ThepromotionofanewlandscapeintheRuhr:TheInternationalBuildingExhibition(IBA)EmscherPark1989–1999”, in:B.M.Walczak(ed.),Rewitalizacja miast poprzemysłowych – rola dziedzictwa kulturowego(pp.456–461),Łódź:ŁódzkaOkręgowaIzbaInżynierówBudownictwa.

Piątek,G.,2006,“ManufakturawŁodzi.AdaptacjaXIX-wiecznej fabrykinacentrumhandlowe”,Architektura Murator10(145),46–55.

Pizzol,L.,Zabeo,A.,Klusáček,P.,Giubilato,E.,Critto,A.,Frantál,B.,Martinát,S.,Kunc,J.,Osman,R.,andBartke,S.,2016,“Timbrebrownfieldprioritizationtooltosupport effectivebrownfield regeneration”,Journal of Environmental Management,166,178–192.

Popławska,I.,1973, Architektura przemysłowa Łodzi w XIX wieku,StudiaiMateriałydoTeoriiiHistoriiArchitekturyiUrbanistyki,11,Warszawa:PWN.

Regulation of the President of the Republic of Poland of 16 February 2015 on recog-nizing as a listed monument “Łódź – multicultural landscape of an industrial city” (Journal of Laws 2015, item 315).

Resolution no. XXV/589/16 of City Council of Łódź of 10th February 2016 as regards marking the degraded area and the urban regeneration area in the city of Łódź.

Resolution No. XII/241/2015 of the City of Łódź Council of 20 May 2015 amending the resolution on accepting the New Centre of Łódź Programme.

Resolution no. XXXIV/568/04 of City Council of Łódź of 14th July 2004 as regards adopt-ing “the simplified local urban regeneration programme of selected downtown and post-industrial areas of Łódź for the years 2004 – 2013” as amended.

Russell, J.S., and James, S., 2001, “A new new urbanism renewsDutch docklands”,Architectural Record,189(4),94–105.

Sierecka-Nowakowska, B., 1999, Rozwój przestrzenny Łodzi przemysłowej u progu XXI wieku w oparciu o dziedzictwo przyrodniczo-kulturowe, Łódź:WydawnictwoPolitechnikiŁódzkiej.

Siwirska,M.,2016, “Włączenie terenówpoprzemysłowychwstrukturę funkcjonalno- -przestrzennąmiasta–naprzykładzieŻyrardowa”,Konwersatorium Wiedzy o Mieście,1(29),67–74.

Skalski,K., 2009,Rewitalizacja we Francji. Zarządzanie przekształceniami obszarów kryzysowych w miastach,Kraków:InstytutRozwojuMiasta.

Stratton,M.,2000,Industrial Buildings. Conservation and Regeneration,London:TaylorandFrancis.

Syms,P.,2001,Releasing Brownfields,York,UK:JosephRowntreeFoundation.Szewczyk,A., 2012, “Sowliny – ostatni ośrodek przemysłu naftowego naKarpacko-

-Galicyjskim Trakcie Naftowym – stan istniejący, problemy rewitalizacji”, in:A. Ostręga (ed.), 1-sze Polsko-Niemieckie Forum „Rekultywacja i rewitalizacja obszarów pogórniczych”, Wisła-Jawornik, 8-9 marzec 2012 (pp.93–105),Kraków:WydawnictwoAknet.

Thornton,G.,Franz,M.,Edwards,D.,Pahlen,G.,andNathanail,P.,2007,“Thechallengeof sustainability: incentives for brownfield regeneration inEurope”,Environmental Science and Policy,10,116–134.


Tobiasz-Lis,P.,2011,“OsiedlagrodzonewŁodzi.Przyczynyikonsekwencjezjawiska”,Space – Society – Economy,10,99–114.

Walczak,B.,2017,“Przekształceniaterenówiobiektówprzemysłowych.PoprzemysłowareinkarnacjaŁodzi”,Kronika Miasta Łodzi,1(77),9–22.

Walczak,B., 2016, “Czy zabytki techniki i inżynierii tow Polscewciąż dziedzictwo‘drugiejkategorii’?Ryshistorycznyorazaktualneproblemy”,in:B.Szmygin(ed.),Klasyfikacja i kategoryzacja w systemie ochrony zabytków, Warszawa: MuzeumŁazienkiKrólewskie.

Walczak, B., amd Szygendowski, W., 2009, “Adaptacje zespołów zabytkowych wewspółczesnych realiach społeczno-gospodarczych na przykładzie dziedzictwa po-przemysłowegoŁodzi”, in:B. Szmygin (ed.),Adaptacja obiektów zabytkowych do współczesnych funkcji użytkowych,Warszawa –Lublin:WydawnictwoPolitechnikiLubelskiej.

Wojnarowska,A.,2013,“Revitalizationofhistoricworkers’estatesasaninstrumentofachievingspatialandsocialcohesionofcity–thecasestudyofKsiężyMłyninLodz”,Studia Regionalia,38,105–119.

Wojnarowska,A., 2012, “Drugie życie obiektów i terenów poprzemysłowych, cz. I”,Ecomanager,1–2,46–48.

Wójcik,M.,2009,“Centrumhandlowo-rozrywkowe jako‘miejsce’wprzestrzenispo-łecznejŁodzi.Przykład‘Manufaktury’”,Space – Society – Economy,9,133–142.

Yu-Ting,T.,andNathanail,P.C.,2012,“Sticksandstones:Theimpactofthedefinitionsofbrownfieldinpoliciesonsocio-economicsustainability”,Sustainability,4,840–862.

Zbiegieni,A.,2009,“Wyzwanieczasu–odadaptacjiirewitalizacjidotworzeniacentrówinterpretacji dziedzictwaprzemysłowego”, in:S. JanuszewskiS. (ed.),Dziedzictwo postindustrialne i jego kulturotwórcza rola: materiały konferencji, Warszawa, 4–5 czerwca 2009 r.,Warszawa:FundacjaHereditas.

Zukin,S.,2010,Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Zwicker-Schwarm,D.,2007,Wege zum nachhaltigen Flächenmanagement. Themen und Projekte des Förderschwerpunkts REFINA,Berlin:ProjektübergreifendeBegleitungREFINA,DifU.

Żychowska,M.J.,2007,“Obiektypoprzemysłoweiichnowefunkcje”,in:Revitalisation as a Vehicle of Identity and Development of Metropolitan Areas, Intermational Conference PRO-REVITA Łódź 29.06.-01.07.2006(pp.215–220),Łódź.

Internet sources:http://demografia.stat.gov.pl/bazademografia/Tables.aspx(accessed:24.11.2019).https://ec1lodz.pl/historia-ec1(accessed:9.11.2019).https:/manufaktura.com/site/478/powstanie-manufaktury/historia(accessed:9.11.2019).

u r b and its impact on their immediate surroundings a c (p

Documents