Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

ISSN: 0430-5027

doi: 10.18055/Finis36392

Artigo

Published under the terms and conditions of an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

“SEEING LIKE A PROJECT”:

HOW PROJECT-BASED GOVERNANCE SHAPES CULTURE-LED REGENERATION IN EU

POLICY MOBILITY CONTEXTS

MAFALDA CORRÊA NUNES

ABSTRACT – This article seeks to contribute to the academic debate about policy mobility processes in the

field of culture-led regeneration (CLR), focusing on how this policy model is understood and realised through project-

based collaborative governance processes established in the framework of EU projects. It uses the Horizon 2020 project

“ROCK” as a case-study, to explore how particular local and supra-local governance dynamics shaped CLR in Lisbon,

through selective processes of inclusion and exclusion of actors, ideas and practices. Within the EU, CLR is taking place

in contexts where a project logic is prevalent, with associated constraints in the duration, structure and requirements

of specific funding programmes. This case-study shows how this can lead to short-sighted, instrumental, fragmented

and temporary forms of governing CLR, that influence how different actors and perspectives are engaged in these

processes. The current tendency for “seeing like a project” in EU urban development action, is seen to limit what and

who is seen throughout these processes, contributing to the reproduction of biased CLR narratives and fast policy

initiatives that may be unsuited to local realities and capacities. The article suggests a need to move beyond project-

based thinking and to strategically and consistently invest in collaborative governance approaches that open space for

plural visions and practices to influence the speed, the content and shape of CLR initiatives.

Keywords: Policy mobility; culture-led regeneration; EU projects; collaborative governance.

RESUMO – "VER COMO UM PROJETO": COMO OS PROCESSOS DE GOVERNANÇA COLABORATIVA MOLDAM A

REGENERAÇÃO URBANA DE BASE CULTURAL NUM PROJETO DA UE EM LISBOA. Este artigo contribui para o debate

académico sobre a mobilidade de políticas urbanas no campo da regeneração urbana de base cultural (RUC). Em

particular, examinando como o modelo de RUC é entendido e implementado através dos processos de governança

colaborativa estabelecidos no âmbito de projetos da UE. O projeto "ROCK", financiado pelo programa-quadro

Horizonte 2020 é usado como caso de estudo para analisar como dinâmicas de governança local e supra-local

moldaram a abordagem à RUC em Lisboa, através de processos seletivos de inclusão e exclusão de atores, ideias e

práticas. Dentro da UE, as iniciativas de RUC estão frequentemente enquadradas numa lógica de projeto, que está

sujeita a restrições específicas dos programas de financiamento, tal como a uma duração limitada, a uma estrutura

rígida e a requisitos rigorosos. Este estudo de caso demonstra que este modelo pode levar a formatos de RUC e

governança colaborativa que são instrumentais e que impactam a forma como diferentes atores e perspetivas são

envolvidos (ou não) nestes processos. Nomeadamente, através da reprodução de narrativas enviesadas que excluem

diferentes visões e perspetivas de RUC, de forma a alinhar-se com modelos dominantes e com a lógica do projeto.

Assim, a tendência de "ver como um projeto" nas práticas de desenvolvimento urbano da UE pode levar à contínua

replicação de modelos de RUC que não se adequam a realidades locais, uma vez que o leque de atores, ideias e práticas

que informam estes processos é limitado. O artigo defende uma mudança na lógica de projeto e um investimento

estratégico e consistente em processos de governança colaborativa comprometidos, inclusivos e plurais, que possam

influenciar as iniciativas de RUC de forma mais integrada e sustentável.

Palavras-chave: Mobilidade de políticas urbanas; regeneração urbana de base cultural; projetos da UE;

governança colaborativa.

RESUMEN – "VER COMO UN PROYECTO": CÓMO LOS PROCESOS DE GOBERNANZA COLABORATIVA

CONFIGURAN LA REGENERACIÓN URBANA A TRAVÉS DE LA CULTURA EN UN PROYECTO DE LA UE EN LISBOA. Este

artículo contribuye al debate académico sobre los procesos de movilidad de políticas urbanas en el campo de la

regeneración urbana a través de la cultura (RUC), examinando cómo se entiende y se implementa este modelo de

política a través de la gobernanza colaborativa en los proyectos de la UE. El proyecto "ROCK" del programa Horizonte

2020 sirve como estudio de caso para analizar cómo las dinámicas de gobernanza local y supralocal dieron forma a la

RUC en Lisboa. Este análisis se centra en los procesos selectivos de inclusión y exclusión de actores, ideas y prácticas.

Dentro de la UE, las iniciativas de RUC a menudo están enmarcadas por una lógica de proyecto, caracterizada por

restricciones específicas de los programas de financiación, incluyendo duración limitada, estructura rígida y requisitos

Recebido: 16/06/2024. Aceite: 04/02/2025. Publicado: 21/02/2025.

Grupo de investigação Ambiente, Território e Sociedade (SHIFT), Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof.

Aníbal Bettencourt, nº 9, 1600-189, Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: mafalda.nunes@ics.ulisboa.pt

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

estrictos. El estudio de caso ilustra que tales estructuras basadas en proyectos pueden llevar a formas organizativas

de acción RUC y de gobernanza colaborativa que son a corto plazo, instrumentales y temporales. Estas formas

impactan el compromiso de varios actores y perspectivas, a menudo resultando en narrativas de RUC sesgadas e

iniciativas de políticas rápidas que pueden no alinearse con los contextos y capacidades locales. La tendencia de "ver

como un proyecto" en el desarrollo urbano de la UE restringe la visibilidad de diversos actores y perspectivas,

perpetuando ciclos rápidos de políticas urbanas que pueden no ser adecuados para las realidades locales. El artículo

aboga por un cambio de enfoques basados en proyectos hacia inversiones más estratégicas y consistentes en

gobernanza colaborativa. Estas inversiones deberían promover la inclusión y el pluralismo, permitiendo que diversas

visiones y prácticas influyan en las iniciativas de RUC de una manera más sostenible y sensible al contexto.

Palavras clave: Movilidad de políticas urbanas; regeneración urbana a través de la cultura; proyectos de la UE;

gobernanza colaborativa.

HIGHLIGHTS

 Within the EU, CLR is taking place in contexts where project logic is prevalent;

 The project-logic influences how different perspectives are engaged in CLR processes;

 Project’s policy mobility narratives tend to ignore the project’s complexities on the ground;

 This contributes to reproducing fast policy models that may be unsuited to local realities;

 Urban experimental projects need more integrated and democratic collaborative governance

formats.

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades, the culture-led regeneration (CLR) policy model has been circulating

rapidly, guided by competitiveness-oriented urban agendas and by transnational policy networks

(McCann, 2011; Peck & Theodore, 2015; Prince, 2012). In the context of its cohesion policy initiatives,

the European Union (EU) is playing an important part in the promotion of the use of culture for

sustainable urban development (SUD), through a range of EU projects. The specific formats and ‘best

practices’ promoted through these policy instruments are seen to have a growing influence on the

urban development approaches of EU member states but also outside its borders (Carpenter, 2013).

Recent scholarship, however, has been raising concerns about the specific visions, values and

processes that are informing and contributing to the fast, global circulation of policy models such as

CLR. In their view, these models are being mobilized through a selective assemblage of dominant

visions and interests for SUD, based on experimental project-based governance settings that are biased

and unsustainable. In particular, these are seen to be characterised by fragmented, temporary and

standardized governance procedures that seek to organize ‘policy innovation’ and multi-stakeholder

collaboration, in specific ways, based on normative assumptions that exclude or overlook other ways

of seeing (see Montero et al., 2023; Swyngedouw et al., 2002; Thompson & Lorne, 2023; Torrens & von

Wirth, 2021). In this way, even if CLR actions tend to be associated with collaborative and participatory

modes of governance – including in the context of EU projects, where multilevel partnerships and

collaborative forms of governance are strongly encouraged (see Van den Brande, 2014) – the

operationalization of these governance principles within a project-logic is often quite complex.

In view of this, this article focuses on how CLR is being articulated within EU policy mobility

projects and how that is influencing specific CLR paths that tend to give visibility to dominant actors,

ideas and practices, while making other perspectives invisible. This urban regeneration model has

been gaining relevance over recent years as an approach to SUD that is used to address different policy

goals: from improving the attractiveness and competitiveness of places, to stimulating economic

growth and contributing to social inclusion and cohesion. Considering the importance of EU projects

in directing CLR action in European cities and also the fragmented and power-laden policy mobility

scenario highlighted above, this research explores how CLR is understood and realised through the

collaborative governance processes established in the framework of the project ROCK: Regeneration

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

and Optimisation of Cultural heritage in creative and Knowledge cities. This was an EU project for CLR,

funded by the Horizon 2020 (H2020) programme, which was developed from 2017 to 2020.

Through the establishment of local and international “stakeholder ecosystems”, the project

aimed to develop an “innovative, collaborative and systemic approach to CLR by implementing a

repertoire of “successful heritage-led regeneration initiatives” related to seven 'role model' cities -

Athens, Cluj-Napoca, Eindhoven, Liverpool, Lyon, Turin and Vilnius - in three 'replicator cities' -

Bologna, Lisbon and Skopje

. Using ROCK as a case-study and focusing on how this project was

implemented in Lisbon, my research analyses the characteristics and effects of this type of project-

based governance and the extent in which it leaves space for alternative CLR visions and

interpretations to be explored as possible paths to SUD in cities.

This case-study represents both an example of contemporary policy mobility trends and a

unique case characterised by specific local features. In particular, it enables the understanding of how

these global processes and trends acquire a peculiar form in Lisbon, that is better understood in light

of Portugal's recent efforts to further align with global urban agendas, while taking advantage of EU

funding schemes for SUD. If on the one hand, this is a context where Lisbon is seeking to consolidate

its political and urban branding strategy as a global and cosmopolitan city in times of neoliberal budget

cuts, on the other hand, these ambitions intersect with the highly bureaucratic and centralist culture

that persists in this country in terms of urban policy and governance that make experimental and

collaborative setups like ROCK challenging to fully implement (Ferrão, 2010). Furthermore, the

celebration of cosmopolitanism and of global urban agendas, coexists (sometimes uncomfortably)

with less celebrated city issues such as the high inflation rate, social deprivation, gentrification and the

precarious provision of many public services. Hence, the promotion of global policy models and of

temporary and experimental CLR projects in the city may exacerbate tensions and mismatches

between the development visions and processes that underpin these agendas and more context-

specific needs for local development. This is especially true since the latter may not always adapt to

the same development logic, to the supra-local scale of these projects or to the multidimensional

ambitions and accelerated pace of these interventions.

Hence, through an extended case study approach (Burawoy, 1998, 2009) that draws on doctoral

research developed from 2017 to 2020 in the context of the ROCK project, I used different applied

methods (participant observation, semi-structured interviews, document analysis and a participatory

workshop) to explore how ROCK’s project-logic and the interrelation of local and supra-local

governance dynamics shaped CLR processes and outcomes in Lisbon. My findings show that

contemporary policy mobility projects like ROCK may reproduce in unsustainable ways, by

obfuscating opposing views in its collaborative governance processes, which stay hidden behind a

performance-driven, fragmented and experimental project logic, shaped by fake consensual views and

by discursively mediated ‘success’ narratives, that compromise the promotion of integrated and long-

term CLR responses.

The article is set out in four sections, including this introduction (section I). Section II introduces

the idea of “seeing like a project” that is seen to frame most CLR actions today, characterised by

temporary, experimental and fragmented governance arrangements, developed through project-

based formats like ROCK. Section III discusses the ROCK’s implementation in Lisbon, showing how its

project-logic and the intertwining of local and supra-local governance dynamics, foreclosed the sphere

of CLR debate and action. Section IV puts forward some concluding remarks about how the current

tendency for “seeing like a project” in urban development policy and practice influences CLR

approaches and limits what and who is seen throughout these processes.

II. “SEEING LIKE A PROJECT” IN CULTURE-LED REGENERATION

The search for global policy ‘fixes’ and for specific formulas for sustainable cities has intensified

in recent years, connecting policymakers across the world (Cugurullo, 2021; Peck, 2011). In this

context, the CLR model and its ‘creative city’ vision are considered “one of the more noticeable policy

trends of recent years” (Prince, 2012, p. 327), precipitating a deluge of emulative programmes,

developed in different cities. The exchange of urban policy ideas through EU projects and networks is

contributing to the diffusion of ‘best practices’ and policy benchmarking, with the aim of establishing

a clear reference point of already-proved solutions in order to steer development in an effective and

faster way. Hence, as Temenos and McCann (2012) observe, along with structural pressures towards

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

‘fast policy’ - namely, towards more efficiency, speed, and predictability in the adoption of policies -

this “leads local policy professionals to look for sure bets. That is, policies that have been deemed by

trusted contacts, professional authorities, and the policy consultancy industry, to have been successful

elsewhere and that seem to be easily accessible in packaged, readily consumable, and mobile forms.

This is the context under which the ROCK project was established. More particularly in the

framework of a ‘post-urban regeneration’ scenario (see O'Brien & Matthews, 2015) where cities no

longer follow the previous structure of place-based strategic interventions and partnerships intended

to deliver context-specific and integrated regeneration strategies. Instead, these approaches seem to

become progressively replaced by a hotchpotch of experimental initiatives organized in the context of

temporary projects. These projects are characterised by a specific approach to governing SUD actions,

where the focus is on testing innovative tools and international ‘best practices’, through a combination

of plannable tasks, involving complex and interdependent activities, subject to evaluation on a

predetermined time frame and with pre-defined performance criteria (Torrens & von Wirth, 2021).

This is seen to be an effective and controllable way to organise SUD action in cities, promising clarity,

order and control through the adoption of standardised procedures (ibid).

The embrace of the project-logic can be understood in the context of particular ways of seeing

that emerged in modern societies that assume “that both physical space and the space of governance

are abstract, ﬂat, and homogeneous” and, therefore, can be managed by the same type of rules,

methods and principles (Valverde, 2011, p. 277). Accordingly, by referring to this project-based form

of managing CLR (and other SUD interventions) as a way of “seeing like a project”, the aim is to assert

it as a new variation of the same kind of rigid and myopic view behind the top-down and expert-driven

governmental gaze named by Scott (1998) as “seeing like a state”. As the author explains, this term

refers to “projects of legibility and simplification” – among which the ROCK project approach to CLR

may also be included – which are often “an utopian dream” grounded on “the immanent logic of its

techniques'' (Scott, 1998, p. 18). Despite their compelling stories, they never get to be truly realised in

practice due to the confrontation with contextual factors (human, natural, political, cultural) and with

the values, desires, and objections of their recipients, which are often disregarded and excluded from

project narratives (Scott, 1998, p. 7).

As exemplified below through the description of ROCK’s experience in Lisbon, this kind of fast

and standardised governance approach based on modern expertise is also reproduced through this

type of policy mobility projects, even though their core principles often fail or get reshaped when they

arrive in specific places, due to local interactions, ‘resistances’ or to projects’ internal contradictions.

Yet, this is asserted as a new variation - adapted to the current scenario of global and interconnected

cities and of neoliberal urban governance techniques - because, unlike states, project-based

governance lacks centralized permanence, being characterized by short-term, performance-driven

and fragmented governance arrangements and by its external funding and expertise. However, despite

these differences, just like Scott’s (1998) “seeing like a state” perspective, the project logic is also

blinded by authorative rules, by projects’ complex structure, objective standards and discursive

practices, which prevent them to objectively recognise and to productively engage with the more

relational, contradictory, hybrid and contextual way in which urban governance actually takes place

in specific territories: Through a mix of both old and new gazes and of local and supra-local ideas, with

unpredictable combinations, in a fluid way that Valverde refers to as the way of “seeing like a city”

(Valverde, 2011, p. 281). According to Valverde, this is a more realistic perspective to look at cities’

governance processes that recognizes how cities resist the homogenizing impulses of “seeing like a

state” and “seeing like a project” programs and how these processes are actually marked by much more

contingent and contested governance arrangements.

Hence, building on the insights of “seeing like a state” and “seeing like a city” analysis and on

their contrasting views about how modern powers and governance techniques help shape governance

practices in specific urban settings, I seek to establish “seeing like a project” as an important and

distinctive theoretical contribution to the understanding of contemporary urban policy mobility

contexts, marked by supra-local, fragmented, short-term and experimental governance arrangements.

I do so, assisted by the relational and socio-constructivist perspective behind urban policy mobilities

theory, which helps substantiate my analysis of how ROCK’s project-logic, influenced CLR discourses

and approaches and limited what and who was seen throughout this policy mobility process. Policy

mobility is a useful lens to understand the particular dynamics of policy and governance that assist the

global diffusion and contextual reinterpretations of CLR under a project-logic. This literature pays

attention to the ways in which the global mobilisation of policy models and best practices and their

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

adaptation to specific urban settings, is leading to significant mutations in the shape and outcomes of

policy models when these arrive in specific places, due to the interrelation of local and supra-local

power-relations and governance dynamics (Healey, 2013; Peck; 2011; Peck & Theodore, 2010). Hence,

despite the rationalist and objectivist principles that support the worldwide diffusion of global policies

through project-based formats, this type of policy mobility processes is seen to involve a much more

complex field of selective inclusions, conflicting interests and biased policy outcomes, which are not

acknowledged in official project narratives.

Even so, the development of urban experiments through projects has become a widespread

policy trend for responding to sustainability challenges and to renewed pressures on policy mobility

and governance for more open and collaborative efforts. This is particularly apparent within the urban

policy field where “experimentation” and “projectification” (i.e. project-based forms of organising

urban development strategies) are becoming the commonplace approach for addressing SUD actions

due, to a great extent, to EU directives and funding requirements (Swyngedouw et al., 2002; Torrens

& von Wirth, 2021). ROCK was designed in the framework of this new governance logic, where urban

policy mobility experiments (often implemented through projects as in the case of ROCK), are seen to

accelerate innovation actions and to realise actual changes on the ground (Van den Brande, 2014). The

concept of experimentation that underlies these projects, feeds on attractive notions of innovation and

creativity while reframing the emphasis of sustainability from distant targets and government policies

to concrete and achievable actions that can be undertaken by a variety of urban stakeholders in specific

places (Karvonen & van Heur, 2014; Montero et al., 2023; Thompson & Lorne, 2023). In this way, it

promises the development of collaborative and rigorous knowledge that both reflects and is shaped

by the context of lived experience and which, as a result, can be applied in a faster, more democratic

and successful way (Evans et al., 2016, p. 2).

However, as Torrens and von Wirth (2021, p. 4) note, even if discourses around project-based

“experimentation” point towards a rationalist and neutral process of design and implementation, in

practice, this “depends on a contested process of negotiating priorities, epistemological assumptions,

and normative goals while trying to create viable setups”. Thus, these processes are often seen to

privilege “certain forms of action and certain forms of knowledge as desirable and legitimate,

constituting a political process with biases and normative assumptions”, where specific actors and

visions take centre stage (ibid, see also Whitney, 2022; Thompson & Lorne, 2023).

At the same time, particularly in the EU context, the project logic that frames urban

experimentation (for CLR and other types of urban policy mobility initiatives) can hardly be

dissociated from particular constraints such as the rigid timings and requirements of funding

programmes. This leads to the establishment of restricted and temporary forms of organising policy

mobility actions that influence how different actors engage in these processes (Torrens & von Wirth,

2021, p. 4). According to Torrens and von Wirth, this contributes to depoliticize these types of

experiments and to generate a sort of “organised irresponsibility”, where no one is held accountable

for the outcomes and continuity of project’s efforts (Torrens & von Wirth, 2021, p. 14). Hence, even if

the project logic relies on the assumption that it is possible to ‘scale up’ to other temporal and spatial

contexts, the effective commitments, the ‘learnings’ and the steps that should be followed for

establishing consistent and long-term alternatives are hardly clear nor guaranteed (Evans et. al, 2016,

p. 3) since the support of real ‘innovative’ pathways is “suppressed by the operational pressures of

individual initiatives” (Torrens & von Wirth, 2021, p. 14). In this way, the ability of these policy

mobility projects to be radical in ambition while limited in scope underpins a vibrant debate

concerning their capacity to promote effective and sustainable change (Evans et al., 2016; Karvonen et

al., 2014; Montero et al., 2023; Thompson & Lorne, 2023; Torrens & von Wirth, 2021).

At present, as the experimental project logic guides much CLR action in EU cities, these

interventions are seen to intersect with political, social and economic power relations at a local and

supra-local scale and to be often used as tools to serve specific urban agendas (Duxburry et al., 2012;

Estevens et al., 2019; Peck, 2012; Swyngedouw et al., 2002). Thus, some patterns associated with CLR

discourses and its ambiguous practices, where urban creativity promotion is accused to often

contribute to socio-spatial inequalities like cultural segregation, exclusion and gentrification (Garcia,

2004; Seixas & Costa, 2010) reflect questions over how culture and creativity are being understood

and articulated within particular CLR projects, through their specific policy mobility processes and

over their capacity to effectively address sustainable development goals.

As discussed in the next section, Portugal has been embracing the global ‘creative city’ agenda,

guided by EU directives and with the support of its structural funds for the implementation of specific

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

policy projects. As these agendas privilege CLR visions based on competitiveness, economic growth,

creative entrepreneurship and technological innovation, these may narrow and/or be contradictory

to an inclusive and just interpretation of SUD. Particularly, when CLR meanings and (best) practices

are developed within project-based policy mobility contexts, marked by short-term, performance-

driven and fragmented governance arrangements. The discussion of ROCK’s experience in Lisbon

shows how the intertwining of dominant CLR agendas with the way of “seeing like a project” (i.e. an

approach to urban governance characterized by a ‘fast policy’ approach, by fragmented governance

processes and by instrumental and selective inclusions) contributed to power imbalances in its

collaborative governance processes, foreclosing the sphere of CLR debate and action.

III. THE ROCK PROJECT-LOGIC IN ACTION

1. The project’s fast policy approach

Inspired by global policy ideas in a period where Portugal is seeking to improve its competitive

profile, ‘culture’ and ‘creativity’ have become key vehicles to boost the local economy, to promote

tourist development, to create new products and services for internal and external consumers and to

attract creative professionals from abroad. At the same time, they are being used as resources to

address social exclusion and to improve areas considered declining or unappealing, while seeking to

rebrand the country as a culturally diverse and creative destination (Duxbury et al., 2012). These

trends are particularly evident in the capital city of Lisbon which, over recent years, has become a

popular tourist destination and has been seeking to align with global urban agendas, as part of its

efforts to promote the city as a ‘green’, ‘smart’ and ‘creative’ place to live, work, visit and invest

(Estevens et al., 2019; see also Veheij & Corrêa Nunes, 2020).

Within this context, the Portuguese government recognizes the importance of EU programmes

to improve cities’ profiles and visibility and to advance urban actions in the country, with the help of

EU funds. Therefore, the participation of Portuguese cities in EU programmes is being strongly

encouraged both at a national and municipal level. It is against this backdrop that Lisbon decided to

join the ROCK project’s consortium.

ROCK was created in the framework of an EU call for funding for the H2020 – a research and

innovation programme dedicated to drive economic growth and to achieve smart, sustainable and

inclusive development, while securing Europe's global competitiveness. The project responded to the

instructions of a specific call, focused on the promotion of “Cultural heritage as a driver for sustainable

growth”. The proposals submitted within this topic should address the following requirements:

“actions should develop and deploy via large-scale demonstration projects, novel heritage-led

systemic approaches (...) and solutions for sustainable growth. In order to pave the way for their rapid

replication and up-scaling, a 'Role models' and 'Replicators' approach should be implemented”

The project was, therefore, designed by its consortium members to fit with these principles and

requirements and compacted into a catchy acronym that could be easily mobilised in global policy

arenas. In particular ROCK’s CLR strategy involved replicating a selection of “successful” CLR practices

associated with 10 “role-model” cities (Athens, Cluj-Napoca, Eindhoven, Liverpool, Lyon, Turin and

Vilnius) in 3 selected “replicator” cities (Bologna, Lisbon and Skopje), which were characterised within

the project as “afflicted by physical decay, social conflicts and poor life quality”. The aim was to

transform these places into “creative and sustainable districts” through the collaborative development

of new environmental, social and economic processes.

Towards this goal, a group of SME’s, Universities, consultancy groups, associations and data

managers were engaged in ROCK’s consortium, which included 33 partners from 13 different

countries. The inclusion of a wide range of partners, besides being a requirement of this specific H2020

call (which particularly valued interdisciplinary, intersectoral and inter-city cooperation), was

justified internally by the complexity of the ROCK challenge and the need to cover the skills and value-

chain to address its objectives and maximise its impacts. Accordingly, Lisbon decided to join the

project, motivated by the opportunity to access EU networks and funds and to implement already

proven “successful initiatives”, as explained by one of the project’s local coordinators at Lisbon’s

municipality, what seemed more interesting was the relationship between role models and replicator

cities and the possibility of replicating previously tested models.

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

The interest in ‘learning from approved models’ and in replicating international ‘best practices',

can be understood in the context of the previously mentioned ‘fast policy’ scenario, which exerts an

increasingly dominant role in cities’ policymaking processes. This is marked by a preference for the

adoption of policies that have been internationally branded as “best” and that seem to be easily and

rapidly accessible in packaged forms, allowing a fast and smooth replication (Peck & Theodore, 2015).

Supported by this policy-making paradigm and considering the city’s development agendas, Lisbon

selected an area of Marvila and Beato (two contiguous post-industrial neighborhoods in east Lisbon),

as the ROCK local intervention-site (see fig. 1). This decision was based on the one hand, on the growing

public and private investments in this part of the city, which are strongly in line with the ‘creative city’

imaginary (eg. with the re-conversion of former industrial complexes into ‘creative hubs’, galleries and

startup’ incubators). On the other hand,t was based on an acknowledgement of the existing cultural

potential and the many socio-economic challenges of this area that ROCK could potentially help

address (Falanga & Corrêa Nunes, 2021).

Fig. 1 - The ROCK intervention-site in Lisbon.

Fig. 1 - A área de intervenção do ROCK em Lisboa.

Source: CML

However, the imposition of these external agendas and CLR priorities in Marvila (in an area with

limited access to basic goods and services) was not well received by some actors in the field. Their

perception was that the contextual relevance and the concrete impacts of ROCK’s actions seemed to

have secondary importance, while the main concern was if activities could fulfill the H2020 agenda

and requirements and if they conformed with eligible expenditure:

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

I have always felt quite lost with this project. (...) On the one hand this was a

project that we had to replicate, that is, to replicate what seemed to have

happened in the other cities. But on the other hand, none of that was very

adaptable to this specific territory.

According to this interviewee (a representative from a public cultural institution based in

Marvila), several meetings were developed at the start of the project to discuss different possibilities

for CLR in Marvila. However, the ‘options on the table’ seemed to be often limited by the coordinators’

conclusion that “things had to be done in the way they were described [in ROCK guidelines and grant

agreement]”. In this way, even if ROCK’s CLR model was not seen as very effective to address local

challenges, he declared feeling that they “were essentially obliged to replicate what had happened [in

other places] and that was it”. He further added that this performance-driven governance logic (where

pre-defined tasks, objectives and tools had to be implemented based on strict auditing procedures)

affected local actors’ motivation and restrained a wider engagement and support towards ROCK.

Ultimately, they felt limited by its pre-determined model, which restricted the nature and scope of the

CLR interventions that could be developed: “If the basis of the project was this one, what could we

do?”.

Similar views were shared by local residents in Marvila, when some of the project’s initiatives

were presented at a community meeting. Their general understanding was that this development

approach was not being directed to address local needs, but rather to serve “external agendas”:

“Culture is good but I can not live off or eat culture”, “In this neighbourhood ‘culture’ is getting ahead

of other pressing needs”.

The poor receptiveness towards this project in Marvila illustrates some of the consequences of

“seeing like a project” and of its fast policy approach. Instead of investing in structural and integrated

development strategies, these projects are developed within prescribed boundaries, based on a rather

straight-forward replication of dominant policy formulas and tools (Karvonen & Van Heur, 2014).

Leveraged by best-practices’ discourses and framed within an ‘urban experiment’-based logic (such as

the development of policy prototypes within specific piloting processes in the context of local demo-

sites) these projects gain legitimacy and power in global policy networks.

By contrast, on a local scale, this kind of project-based governance does not seem to require

much effort with policy negotiation nor personal engagement with local partners, subjects and

settings. Ultimately, what this logic entails is following standardized procedures that have already

been branded as “best”. Therefore, complying with the project’s discursive structure and approach

seems to be enough to legitimise these actions to the outside and to generally present them as effective

SUD solutions. This is the case, even if the actions, processes and outcomes of these projects in the field

may in fact be rather contradictory, contested or disappointing.

Thus, as fast policy projects like ROCK are often arriving in selected neighborhoods, with

predefined visions and strategies of urban ‘problems’ and needs – based on specific agendas and

imaginaries of what are ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ elements to promote in cities (Amin, 2005; Baeten,

2004) – this often prevents them from “seeing like a city” (Valverde, 2011) and from recognizing and

engaging with contextual particularities and with alternative possibilities for creative and sustainable

cities that may involve other timings, values, processes and practices.

2. The project’s fragmented governance processes

In parallel to the imposition of “external” CLR solutions in Marvila, also the fragmented

governance processes that characterizes the project logic (i.e. its supra-local authority, funding and

expertise) led to challenges when implementing the project in Lisbon. While access to external funding

and networks is generally considered an advantage of EU projects like ROCK, the lack of centralised

permanence and control may lead to difficulties in reaching clear and consensual views between

project partners and, consequently, the effective engagement of people and resources throughout the

process. This was particularly evident in Marvila, where the local “translation” of ROCK`s broad CLR

scope (which included the articulation of environmental, technological and cultural heritage-focused

actions) and of its ambitious supra-local collaborative governance structure, posed significant

challenges. To an extent, this can also be explained by the fact that the integrated and participatory

governance trends that have been reshaping European urban policies were belatedly and complex to

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

implement in Portugal, which is still marked by a hierarchical, bureaucratic and centralist governance

culture (Ferrão & Campos, 2015; Mourão, 2019; Tulumello, 2016, p. 120). Therefore, it was not easy

for this city to smoothly adapt to ROCK`s intersectoral, multilevel and collaborative logic, as

highlighted in an interview by one of the project`s local coordinators:

We could benefit from funding that otherwise was not available, but it has also led to a

great dispersion of technicians and resources (...) In the beginning it was not easy at all

to understand the [ROCK] Grant Agreement. It was too complex (...) and in

municipalities with strict rules you are just adding complexity to more complexity.

Despite the general recognition of the importance of EU programmes to advance certain actions

in cities, this awareness is not always sufficiently followed by the enhancement of existing technical

and organisational capacity in participating municipalities nor by the necessary adaptations in local

bureaucratic and governance processes, to more swiftly adapt to these programmes’ requirements (cf.

Falanga, 2016; Ferrão, 2010; Torrens & von Wirth, 2021). Hence, even if the participation in the H2020

and other similar programmes is becoming more and more common in Portugal, local actions are not

always capable of fully reconciling the integrated, intersectoral and collaborative dimensions of these

strategies (Mourão, 2019), especially in the context of fast policy projects characterized by a high

fragmentation of people, ideas, resources and authority. Therefore, besides the acknowledged

difficulties in understanding and adapting ROCK’s complex Grant Agreement to the local governance

culture and to the specificities of the local intervention-site, there were also supra-local governance

dynamics and conditions that prevented a more integrated approach to CLR in Lisbon.

At a supra-local scale, partners had to follow a Grant Agreement which was allegedly too

complex and ambitious and where the CLR approach being proposed was not always clear and

consensual. This has led to difficulties in establishing inter-partner trust, exchange and collaborations,

as noted in an interview by one of ROCK’s international coordinators:

Even a solution that seems simple and fantastic, if you do it, you will realise that there

are contrasting interests and maybe that is not the best one to everybody. So this was

for sure something that we would have taken more into account. But when you write

[these] proposals you are required to put so much stuff into the proposals, you know…

Indeed, although all ROCK partners had some kind of interest in CLR actions, there were limited

previous connections between the actors involved, and the scope and substance of their common

ground varied considerably. Furthermore, there were several imposed formats and instrumental

decisions that conditioned the type of partnerships, processes and CLR ‘solutions’ being proposed, that

were essentially made to conform to the H2020 programme’s requirements. This contributed to

generate a kind of “fake consensus” (Brulin & Svensson, 2011) around ROCK’s CLR strategy, where

both the project’s consortium and the local partners in the field did not necessarily fully agree with the

CLR approach being followed but, nevertheless, complied with the project-logic since that was what

was expected and required by the project funders. This was pointed out during an interview with a

representative of an association hired to implement one of ROCK actions in Lisbon:

It was not a prototype because we thought that a prototype is the best thing in the

world. It was a prototype because that was what was possible (...) We don’t have the

importance, throughout the process, of changing the way in which things are made.

Hence, even if the ROCK model assumed “collaborative governance” and the engagement of a

“local ecosystems of stakeholders” as central components in its circular structure and action plan, its

concrete operationalization under this project-logic was difficult and/or disappointing for most of the

partners involved. While the international consortium felt poorly engaged and quite overwhelmed by

the complexity of the project, the “local ecosystems” felt obliged to conform with a pre-defined CLR

model that was not seen to be adapted to local dynamics and needs.

In this regard, Ferrão (2010, p. 136) has noted how contemporary urban governance

mechanisms are often characterised by overly ambitious [collaborative] approaches that end up

hindering the efficient and just application of specific policy instruments. Namely, by offering “a very

linear perspective towards the principles of collaboration between different actors and of coordination

and integration of policies, without previously guaranteeing the necessary institutional, organisational

and instrumental requirements. That is, without sufficiently acknowledging the need to build contexts

of cooperation”. He further adds that “while ignoring the unequal power and resources that are held

by each of the actors involved and the asymmetrical relations that may be established between them,

a high level of complexity is created that is unlikely to be proportionally translated in terms of the

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

efficiency of their actions and also in terms of justice and democracy of their results and impacts”.

According to Ferrão, within time, this tendency contributes “to demobilise the involved actors and to

damage the credibility of these [governance] instruments” (Ferrão, 2010, pp. 136-137).

These concerns are particularly pertinent in the context of project-based governance, which is

marked by high levels of fragmentation (of authority, actors and resources) and by high collaborative

ambitions, developed within a fast policy framework, where the adoption of specific processes is not

treated as important for results. Instead, the project logic – with its specific processes, practices and

tools for urban experimentation - is seen as working clearly, fairly and effectively irrespective of the

context and regardless of the time and effort invested in establishing trust and consistent relationships

with people and places.

In the case of Lisbon, given an overall non-conformity between the initial expectations about the

transformative potential of a project like ROCK (with its transnational scale and the wide amount of

resources, expertise and skills involved) and its tangible local results – a gradual sense of delusion and

frustration was installed between local residents and partners, who started to lose trust in ROCK’s

capacities to promote relevant and sustainable change. The quotes below, from interviews with

representatives of organisations involved in ROCK actions in Lisbon, illustrate this general feeling:

I think that a great expectation was generated about what ROCK could be and the level

of transformation that it could bring to the territory and, right now, that perception and

expectations are falling short of what is visible to the people (...) this is a shame because

it could actually have quite a big importance. It is a shame to waste a big part of a big

opportunity.

Projects such as ROCK and Horizon 2020 are very huge [structures] and they have such

an underlying network and bureaucracy (…) it is a pity the limits that are created to the

implementation of activities. It is a project that becomes a bit theoretical: “Let's create

some prototypes and see what comes up”. [That is,] these are projects that always look

better on paper. And then it all depends a lot on the actors [involved].

In fact, the operationalization of ROCK principles and practices in Lisbon resulted in selective

inclusions (of actors, ideas and CLR elements) and disconnected processes and activities, which lacked

follow-up and had limited institutional impact. CLR actions were developed as temporary prototypes

with limited impact and poor articulation with ongoing development efforts in Marvila. Against this

backdrop, the coherence and efficacy of ROCK’s CLR vision and strategy was much better articulated

through compelling project narratives in public presentations and reports (see fig. 2), rather than

through its efficient realisation and perception in the Lisbon intervention-site.

Fig. 2 - Sketchnote created during “ROCK Open Knowledge Week”, the project’s final conference where ROCK’s results

were shared with the public.

Fig. 2

–

Sketchnote criado durante a “ROCK Open Knowledge Week”, conferência final do projeto, onde foram

apresentados os resultados finais do ROCK.

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

Source: ROCK project

3. The project’s instrumental and selective inclusions

Based on ROCK guidelines, the CLR approach that was followed in Lisbon focused on developing

temporary prototypes that could foster local dynamics of transformation, creativity and innovation.

Namely, by testing and validating new CLR products, services, systems and technologies to be applied

in Marvila. The way in which these actions were selected and implemented evidenced, however, some

limitations of this project-based approach to collaborative governance. Specific CLR ideas were pre-

selected, according to ROCK’s requirements and to the local coordinators’ interests and preferences

for the area. The local partners involved throughout the process were essentially selected

‘stakeholders’ that were only invited to participate in specific moments and actions while local

communities' perspectives and their effective participation in the CLR process appeared to be of

secondary importance (Falanga & Corrêa Nunes, 2021). This resulted in a selective ‘curation’ of

participation and collaboration in specific moments and contexts of the project, without seeing the

inherent contradictions of this logic in what concerns the democratic quality, the engagement capacity

and the sustainability potential of the project (Thompson & Lorne, 2023). The consequences of this

approach were made evident in an interview by a representative of a public institution based in

Marvila:

Well, I think that it all started by imposing some ideas. And then some attempts to

organise meetings with residents had very bad results because people could not

understand very well what was being proposed.

Ultimately, the participatory process envisioned in ROCK’s for the selection and implementation

of local activities (operationalized through the concept of ROCK Living Labs

iii

), was commissioned to a

selected group of experts (namely local NGO’s and urban practitioners with a track record in

participatory UR projects in Portugal), invited by the project’s coordinators in Lisbon to develop ROCK

key actions in Marvila, based on previously identified priority intervention topics: i) “urban voids”

(focused on the activation and rehabilitation of unused spaces and ground floors in Marvila); ii)

“ecological networks'' (focused on improving access to and quality of urban greening in the area); iii)

“territories of continuity” (focused on improving urban mobility and connectivity within and to/from

the neighbourhood); iv) and “local communities under gentrification” (focused on promoting local

tangible and intangible cultural heritage and on preserving local cultural identity and memories).

Likewise, these priority intervention topics were also pre-defined by the local coordinators, based on

ROCK’s goals and on the local coordinators’ vision and agenda for the area.

In this way, it was ensured that the overall focus of the project kept being on the promotion of

‘progressive urban planning’ ideas for urban experimentation, developed by “trendy urbanists”

(Whitney, 2022, p. 15). In particular, the ‘options on the table’ were reduced towards the preferences

of local coordinators and towards the best practices celebrated by global policy networks, which tend

to focus on market-led priorities such urban entrepreneurialism, competitiveness and technological

innovation. At the same time, the efforts with CLR negotiation and participation were overcome by

directly inviting urban ‘experts’ to implement pre-defined actions and by reducing wider participation

to specific moments and contexts of the project. However, this specific project-based approach to

urban experimentation whilst simplifying collaborative governance procedures, is inevitably biased

towards “particular ways of seeing”. As Whitney (2022) points out, it reflects specific privileges and

instead of promoting sustainable urban responses can perpetuate inequities by benefiting dominant

interests and some city residents over others.

Indeed, instead of using ROCK to effectively explore new paths towards a ‘better’ city for all, the

project entailed a continuation of CLR decision-making controlled by privileged actors in Lisbon. At

the same time, while focusing on following a ‘progressive’ CLR ‘script’ and on engaging with global and

‘trendy’ CLR visions, actors and tools, the project failed to “see” and to engage with other existing actors

and visions that propose alternative CLR responses in Marvila. Among these are local actors and

creative expressions that were less in line with the “progressive” CLR vision that the project wished to

promote. Namely, cultural agents, which were never involved in ROCK but which shared their

impressions about the prevailing CLR agendas being followed in the area, during a participatory

workshop in Marvila:

Marvila and Beato are subjected to a city-branding strategy that can be misleading in

what concerns the true state of culture in this territory.

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

There is a need to overcome dominant perspectives about what ‘local development’,

‘urban regeneration’, ‘culture’ and ‘cultural heritage’ are and to open the debate to

different points of view.

However, even if the exclusion of alternative CLR visions and actors generated resistance to

ROCK’s CLR model in Marvila, the existence of conflicting views was never acknowledged in the

project’s official narratives, which continued to sustain the consensual validity of its CLR model. In this

way, the project’s collaborative governance logic seems to have been largely performative and

ultimately based on instrumental and selective inclusions, focused on validating a pre-defined CLR

format, framed by specific discourses, practices and tools for “seeing like a project.

Against this backdrop, the way in which fast policy projects like ROCK are reproducing

themselves by excluding alternative views and by obfuscating a lot of their real impacts on the ground

was made particularly evident during ROCK’s final conference, in the (success) stories shared with the

public. In particular, the project’s efficacy and ‘upscaling’ potential was strongly reinforced in the

“take-home message” shared by the European Commission’s DG Research & Innovation Policy

Officer’s, which was widely diffused in the project’s networks and communication platforms: “(...) The

ROCK project proved heritage’s role as a catalyst for urban transformation; now let’s work together

and scale up its ambition”.

IV. CONCLUSION

The analysis of ROCK`s experience in Lisbon improves the understanding of current processes

of CLR policy mobility and governance established in the framework EU projects for urban policy

experimentation. The idea of “seeing like a project” is introduced as an approach to urban governance,

marked by a specific structure and organisational logic that affects how urban policy experiments

(such as CLR) are mobilized and reshaped in the context of projects. The promotion of collaborative

and participatory forms of governance plays an important part in legitimising the continuation of these

kind of experimental and “progressive” urban policy approaches, by helping to justify their democratic

quality. However, this case-study showed how project-based governance can be limited by constrained

rationales, formats and requirements imposed by fast policy frameworks that favour an instrumental

and selective inclusion of actors, ideas and practices. These limitations are likely to narrow the scope

of urban policy experiments, falling short of engaging sources of knowledge other than those

predefined by the formal logics of projects.

Hence, dominant policy perspectives maintain their legitimacy, credibility and power in global

policy arenas, since most of the “real stories” about project’s policy mobility processes stays hidden

behind discursively mediated project`s narratives that obfuscate ambiguity, resistance and opposing

views. This contributes to a biased reproduction of policy models that may be unsuited to local

realities, potentially exacerbating inequities in cities like Lisbon, with limited collaborative governance

culture and which increasingly rely on these projects to direct and fund local urban development

actions. As the EU and other major international institutions currently play an important part in the

global mobilisation of urban policy experiments through project-based governance formats, this

article sought to highlight key characteristics and challenges of the project logic and how it can shape

the scope, the processes and the results of urban experimentation in specific places. While suggesting

a need to strategically invest in governance processes that open space for plural visions and practices

to influence the speed, the content and shape of projects like ROCK, this research opens relevant

perspectives for further exploring issues of governance and power in project-driven policy mobility

contexts.

ORCID ID

Mafalda Corrêa Nunes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7080-7841

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392 
 
 
13 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
This work was supported by a grant from the ROCK project (H2020 Grant Agreement: 730280) and by the 
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (https://doi.org/10.54499/2020.07618.BD). 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Brulin, G., & Svensson, L. (2016). Managing sustainable development programmes: A learning approach to 
change. Routledge 
Burawoy,  M.  (1998).  The  extended  case  method.  Sociological  theory,  16(1),  4-33. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00040  
Burawoy, M. (2009). The Extended Case Method: Four Countries, Four Decades, Four Great Transformations 
and One Theoretical Tradition. University of California Press. 
Carpenter,  J.  (2013).  Sustainable  urban  regeneration  within  the  European  Union:  A  case  of 
‘Europeanization’?  In  R.  Imrie,  L.  Lees  &  M.  Raco  (Eds.),  The  Routledge  companion  to  urban 
regeneration (pp. 158–167). Routledge. 
Cugurullo, F. (2021). Frankenstein Urbanism: Eco, Smart and Autonomous Cities, Artificial Intelligence and 
the End of the City. Routledge. 
Duxbury, N., Fortuna, C., Bandeirinha, J. A., & Peixoto, P. (2012). Em torno da cidade criativa [In turn of the 
creative city]. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, (99), 05-08. https://doi.org/10.4000/rccs.5089  
Estevens, A., Cocola-Gant, A., Calvo, D. M., & Matos, F. (2019). As artes e a cultura nas práticas hegemónicas 
e  alternativas  na  cidade  de  Lisboa.  O  caso  do  Largo  do  Intendente.  [The  arts  and  culture  in 
hegemonic and alternative practices in the city of Lisbon. The case of Largo do Intendente]. Fórum 
Sociológico, II(35), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.4000/sociologico.7826  
Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Raven, R. (2016). The experimental city: New modes and prospects of urban 
transformation.  In  J.  Evans,  A.  Karvonen  &  R.  Raven  (Eds.),  The  experimental  city  (pp.  1–12). 
Routledge. 
Falanga,  R. (2016). From citizens' participation to co-governance: Is the road to hell paved with good 
intentions?  In  R. Falanga  (Ed.),  PROJECTS  for  an  inclusive  city:  Social  integration through  urban 
growth strategies (pp. 122–134). DINÂMIA’CET-Iscte. 
Falanga, R., & Corrêa Nunes, M. (2021). Tackling urban disparities through participatory culture-led urban 
regeneration.  Insights  from  Lisbon.  Land  Use  Policy,  108,  105478. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105478    
Ferrão, J. (2010).  Governança e ordenamento do  território:  reflexões para uma governança  territorial 
eficiente, justa e democrática [Governance and territorial planning: reflections for an eficient, just 
and democratic, territorial governance] Prospectiva e planeamento, 17, 129-139.  
Ferrão, J., & Campos, V. (2015). O Ordenamento do Território em Portugal: uma perspetiva genealógica 
[Territorial  planning  in  Portugal:  a  genealogical  perspective].  Instituto  de  Ciências  Sociais  da 
Universidade de Lisboa. Lisboa. 
Garcia  B.  (2004).  Cultural  Policy  and  Urban  Regeneration  in  Western  European  Cities:  Lessons  from 
Experience,  Prospects  for  the  Future.  Local  Economy,  19(4),  312-326. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0269094042000286828  
Healey, P. (2013). Circuits of knowledge and techniques: the transnational flow of planning ideas and 
practices.  International  Journal  of  Urban  and  Regional  Research,  37(5),  1510-1526. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12044  
Karvonen, A., & Van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. International 
Journal  of  Urban  and  Regional  Research,  38(2),  379-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2427.12075  
Karvonen,  A.,  Evans,  J.,  &  van  Heur,  B.  (2014).  The  politics  of  urban  experiments:  Radical  change  or 
business as usual? In J. Evans, A. Karvonen & R. Raven (Eds.), After sustainable cities? (pp. 116–127). 
Routledge. 
McCann, E. (2011). Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. 
Annals  of  the  Association  of  American  Geographers,  101(1),  107-130. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.520219  
Montero, S., Whitney, R. A., & Peñaranda, I. (2023). Experimental Urban Planning: Tensions Behind the 
Proliferation of Urban Laboratories in Latin America. Planning Theory & Practice, 24(4), 473-488. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2023.2262420  
Mourão,  J.  F.  (2019).  Regeneração  urbana  integrada,  proteção  do  património  cultural  e  eficiência 
ambiental como objetivos divergentes nas políticas urbanas em Portugal (2000–2020) [Integrated 

Côrrea Nunes, M. Finisterra, LX(128), 2025, e36392

urban regeneration, safeguarding cultural heritage and environmental efficiency as conflicting

objectives in Portuguese urban policies (2000-2020)]. Cidades. Comunidades e Territórios, (38), 29-

39.

O'Brien, D., & Matthews, P. (Eds.), (2015). After urban regeneration: Communities, policy and place. Policy

Press.

Peck, J. (2012). Recreative city: Amsterdam, vehicular ideas and the adaptive spaces of creativity policy.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(3), 462-485.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01071.x

Peck, J. (2011). Global policy models, globalizing poverty management: international convergence or fast‐

policy integration?. Geography Compass, 5(4), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-

8198.2011.00417.x

Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism.

University of Minnesota Press.

Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum, 41(2), 169-

174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.01.002

Prince, R. (2012). Metaphors of policy mobility: fluid spaces of “creativity” policy. Geografiska Annaler:

Series B, Human Geography, 94(4), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12001

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.

Yale University Press.

Seixas, J., & Costa, P. (2010). Criatividade e governança na cidade contemporânea: a conjugação de dois

conceitos poliédricos e complementares. [Creativity and governance in the city. The conjugation of

two complementary polyhedral concepts]. Cidades, Comunidades e Territórios, 20/21, 27-41.

Stone, D. (2008). Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their networks. Policy Studies

Journal, 36(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00251.x

Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large–scale

urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3), 542-577.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00254

Temenos, C., & McCann, E. (2012). The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the

production of a municipal sustainability fix. Environment and Planning A, 44(6), 1389-1406.

https://doi.org/10.1068/a44314

Thompson, M., & Lorne, C. (2023). Designing a New Civic Economy? On the Emergence and Contradictions

of Participatory Experimental Urbanism. Antipode, 55(6), 1919-1942.

https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12962

Torrens, J., & von Wirth, T. (2021). Experimentation or projectification of urban change? A critical

appraisal and three steps forward. Urban Transformations, 3(1), 1-17.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-021-00025-1

Tulumello, S. (2016). Reconsidering neoliberal urban planning in times of crisis: urban regeneration policy

in a “dense” space in Lisbon. Urban Geography, 37(1), 117-140.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1056605

Valverde, M. (2011). Seeing Like a City: The Dialectic of Modern and Premodern Ways of Seeing in Urban

Governance. Law & Society Review, 45(2), 277–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

5893.2011.00441.x

Van den Brande, L. (2014). Multilevel Governance and Partnership-The Van den Brande Report. Special

Report prepared at the request of the Commissioner for Regional and Urban Policy Johannes Hahn.

EC.

Verheij, J., & Corrêa Nunes, M. (2020). Justice and power relations in urban greening: can Lisbon’s urban

greening strategies lead to more environmental justice? Local Environment, 26(3), 329-346.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1801616

Ward, K. (2018). Urban redevelopment policies on the move: Rethinking the geographies of comparison,

exchange and learning. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(4), 666-683.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12604

Whitney, R. A. (2022). Trendy Urbanists, Innovation Laboratories, and Best Practices: In Pursuit of

‘Progressive’ Urban Planning in Mexico City. Town Planning Review, 93(1), 15–35.

https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2021.12

See https://rockproject.eu/ (accessed 4/10/2022)

See: https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/id/H2020_SC5-21-2016-2017 (accessed 07/09/2022)

iii

Different LL formats are being increasingly used in urban regeneration contexts for collaborative designing and testing new services, products or

processes (of social, cultural or technical character) in real-life settings, with real potential users. By making use of lo-fi technologies (such as pop-up

initiatives, university-led activities, civic-hacking events, etc), different co-creation workshops are organised with citizens and stakeholders, aimed at

‘solving’ local issues in a collaborative and participatory way.