Development of the city centre should be discussed among city officials and various interest groups, especially business owners, rather than on the pages of newspapers. Open and active communication and engage-ment with business owners and property owners as part of the develop-ment project should be an integral part of any developdevelop-ment project.
Based on the survey, the entrepreneur’s dream centre is not such a far cry from that which cities in general want their centres to be. Information gaps cause conflicts. Lack of information can lead to false assumptions, dissatisfaction based on uncertainty and feelings of disrespect. After all, what is at stake here is the business’ immediate operating environ-ment that should, ideally, be an asset for the entrepreneur. This is the entrepreneur’s “turf”. In addition to what is about to be done, it is just as important to impart how and why it is done.
Mutual understanding can be greatly facilitated by having a vision for the city centre, based on the views of the city core interest groups. The principles of sustainable development are not necessarily the driving factors for entrepreneurs, nor do they need to solve local government finance, congestion or transport system problems. Although business people are not necessarily experts in urban and traffic planning, they are an essential city core interest group.
In its most basic form, establishing a line of communication can mean visiting the stores located on the main shopping street. It would be very dangerous to assume that the most vocal interest group member should represent and reflect the opinion of all of entrepreneurs.
To summarize
Communication between entrepreneurs and city officials without any go-bet-weens is crucial for fluent development schemes.
Strenghtening the originality and identity of different areas in the city core serves both shopkeepers and customers as well as the legibility of the city.
City centre may be seen as a shopping and experience centre, which too requi-res co-ordination and systematic deve-lopment in order to function in the best manner. In that case it is worth being aware of ones most important customer groups.
Finding balance between attractiveness and inner and outer accessibility is chal-lenging but rewarding. Good accessibili-ty benefits everyone, pedestrians are an important customer group and attractive-ness raises the value of an area.
It is possible to produce positive effects on pedestrian and customer flows even with smaller measures.
Comprehensive planning creates condi-tions for success in the long run. Pedest-rian culture does not emerge over night.
Vision, consensus, communication, com-prehensive management, originality and identity, both small and large measures, prioritizing, balance between accessibili-ty and attractiveness.
Cultural change
takes time Key words
Recognizing the facts
Small, too, can be beautiful City centre as a
shopping centre
Coexistence of accessibility and attractiveness Communication and
consensus Place-making
Common goal and
vision Comprehensive
development The ideals of city administration and
shopkeepers aren’t far from each other.
Preconditions for fruitful collaboration exist.
Even though the city core always has its focal points, one should not forget the shopkeepers earning their living two blocks from the main street either.
A pedestrian street serves shopping and city life well, but it is not the optimal loca-tion for all kind of businesses.
ses. San Francisco State University, Department of Public Administration.
[2] Wooller, L. 2010. What are the economic and travel implications of pedestrianising a roadway in Takapuna’s shopping precinct. Auckland University of Technology.
[3] City of Copenhagen. 2012. Copenhagen City of Cyclists. Bicycle Account 2012.
[4] Henton, D. & Walesh, K. 1998. Linking the New Economy to the Livable Communi-ty. The James Irvine Foundation.
[5] Local Government Commission. 1998. The Economic Benefits of Walkable Com-munities. Local Government Commission, Center for Livable ComCom-munities.
[6] Department for Transport. 2011. Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon. Making Sustai-nable Local Transport Happen.
[7] TSU & David Simmonds Consultancy. 2003. The Effect of Urban Quality Improve-ments on Business Location – Technical Note 5 Final Report. Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford. David Simmonds Consultancy, Cambridge.
[8] Montgomery, J. 2003. Cultural Quarters as Mechanisms for Urban Regeneration.
Part 1 & 2. Journal of Planning, Practice & Research.
[9] Hass-Klau, C. 1993. A Review of the Evidence from Germany and UK.
Transport Policy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 21-31.
[10] Sandahl, J. & Lindh, C. 1995. Impact of improving the attractiveness of town cent-res. Transport Policy, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 51-56.
[11] Santasalo, T. & Heusala, H. 2002. Erikoiskauppa kaavoituksessa. Tuomas Santa-salo Ky, Helsinki.
[12] Ryan, B. 2003. Economic Benefits of a Walkable Community. Center for Commu-nity Economic Development, University of Wisconsin-Extension.
[13] Wright, L. & Montezuma, R. 2004. Reclaiming public space: The economic, envi-ronmental and social impacts of Bogota’s transformation.
[14] CABE Space. 2005. Does Money Grow on Trees? Cabe Space.
[15] Kumar, S. & Ross, W. 2006. Effects of Pedestrianisation on the Commercial and Retail Areas: Study in Khao San Road, Bangkok. World Transport Policy & Practi-ce, Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 37-50
[17] Cortright, J. 2009. [WWW] Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in US Cities. Available at: http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/walking-the-walk/
[18] Genecon. 2010. Research and Evaluation of Public Realm Schemes. Available at:
http://www.integreatplus.com/sites/default/files/genecon_public_realm_evaluati-on_sheffield.pdf
[19] Rush, N., Actman, L., McMahon, P. & Renski, H. 2010. [WWW] Street Redesign for Revitalization – West Palm Beach FL. Available at: http://www.walkinginfo.org/
pedsafe/casestudy.cfm?CS_NUM=16
[20] Yiu, C. 2011. The Impact of Pedestrianisation Scheme on Retail Rent – an Empiri-cal Study in Hong Kong. Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 231-242.
[21] Transport for London. 2011. Town Centre Study 2011. Transport for London, Mayor of London.
[22] Söderholm, D. 2008. The Commercial Structure of Pedestrian Streets and Shop-ping Districts - Three Cases From Finland. University of Helsinki, Department of Geography.
[23] Kalenoja H. & Tiikkaja H. 2013. Tampere Regional Travel Survey 2012. Passenger traffic survey. Tampere region, Tampere 2013.
[24] Kalenoja, H. 2010. Jyväskylä Regional Travel Survey, 2009. Detailed report 1:
Passenger traffic survey. City of Jyväskylä. ELY Centre, Central Finland. Regional Council of Central Finland.
[25] Kalenoja, H. 2010. Oulu Regional Travel Survey, 2009. Detailed report 1: Travel survey. Oulu region. ELY Centre, North Ostrobothnia. Ministry of Transport and Communications.
[26] Thull, J. & Mersch, M. 2005. Accessibility and attractiveness – key features to-wards central city revitalisation – a case study of Christuchurch, New Zealand.
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, pp. 4066-4081.
[27] Sauter, D. 2009. Das Limmatquai vor und nach der Neugestaltung. Aufenthaltsnut-zung, Fuss- und Veloverkehrsaufkommen im Vergleich der Jahre 2004-2005-2008.
Stadt Zürich, Eine Dienstabteilung des Tiefbau- und Entsorgungsdepartements.