The symbolic dimensions of waterfront regeneration projects: inter-referencing, legitimating strategies and circulating practices in three Latin American megaprojects

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative analysis of three symbolic dimensions of waterfront regeneration projects in Latin American cities: the inter-referencing practices alluded to in relation to projects from elsewhere, legitimating strategies that are discursively and materially constructed to present these projects as socially distributive, and subsequent approaches to leverage lessons from these experiences and re-circulate practices to other places. Following recent literature on urban megaprojects, policy mobility and inter-referencing we postulate that urban megaprojects production and legitimation involves material and symbolic, as well as territorial and relational processes, including the mobilisation of symbols, representations and images that generate consensus and mitigate criticism and resistance.

urban megaprojects, waterfront regeneration, symbolic dimensions, policy mobilities, legitimating strategies, Latin American cities

Introduction

Thirty years ago, a Latin American mayor or urban professional looking for inspiration related to urban megaprojects would certainly reference Baltimore, Boston, New York, London and/or Barcelona. Likewise, scholars would have focussed on these few cases to theorise how globalisation was being grounded and driving urban change based on selected cities in the Global North. After a few decades, the urban megaproject landscape has changed and expanded geographically in significant ways, even though theoretical formulation has not kept pace to be informed by a wider array of experiences outside the Global North.

Starting in 1989, the regeneration of Puerto Madero’s port area in Buenos Aires (Argentina) was one of the first Latin American experiences of urban megaprojects, and later initiatives in the region, such as Porto Maravilha in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and Malecón del Río in Barranquilla (Colombia), no longer referred only to the usual European and North American cases but had Puerto Madero itself as a closer reference.

In this paper, we provide a novel comparative analysis of these three Latin American waterfront projects to examine how their symbolic dimension is constitutive of, and constantly mobilised for, their legitimation. Nevertheless, their materialisation is neither linear nor guaranteed, but contested; they require capital and technical management, but also legitimacy and the continuous and permanent mobilisation of symbols, representations and images that guarantee consensus and mitigate criticism and resistance. In this search for legitimacy and in the mobilisation of resources and symbolic capital, megaprojects are territorial but also relational. Although they are deployed within a clearly defined perimeter, the actors, processes, capitals, images, representations and connections with other initiatives show that the boundary between inside and outside of these urban megaprojects is not once and for all defined, but rather porous. Recirculation practices and recognition from abroad are also mobilised as legitimation strategies vis-à-vis material interventions, highlighting the need to develop symbolic perspectives beyond a local-territorial basis by considering the relational–territorial lens of the literature on policy mobility.

Drawing on recent discussions on comparative urbanism (Robinson et. al, 2022), we analyse the symbolic dimensions or urban megaprojects in three different countries by considering inter-referencing, legitimation strategies and circulating practices. This approach avoids treating each case as a mere product of macro-structural processes such as neoliberalisation, urban entrepreneurship and/or financialisation. We analyse each case based on their specificities and transversally to ‘build insights, comparatively, across a diversity of emergent political formations, to open new grounds for conceptualising urban politics from a wide range of urban experiences’ (Idem: 1717). As a result, we unveil the complex and contested processes that lead to the production of megaprojects and not only to analyse them as outputs.

The relational and symbolic dimensions of megaprojects

The transformation of urban landscapes through megaprojects is normally analysed as visible manifestations in cities of the effects associated with globalisation, neoliberalization, financialization and/or entrepreneurialism. These large-scale development projects are justified by urban elites to both solve existing problems and make cities competitive and attractive to investment capital (Swyngedouw et al., 2002).

However, place-bound analyses of megaprojects fail to grasp how they are also relationally produced. A relational approach entails understanding how the social, political, economic and cultural processes leading to place-making draws on relations—flows, connections, networks—that stretch beyond the local or national boundaries and that come together through a particular project (Massey, 1993). This is attentive to the histories, temporalities and to the active circulation of ideas, people, practices, capital and objects that have an influence in the making of places. A ‘fine line’ between the territoriality of the local politics and project delivery as well as a consideration of how policies are relationally produced (Peck and Tickell, 2002) has generated a productive research agenda in urban studies. In reference to megaprojects, analyses have drawn attention to the dynamics of local politics (Cuenya et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2022) to transnational architecture and urbanism (Ponzini, 2020); to the operations of transnational real estate development (Koelemaij and Derudder, 2021); as well as to the agency of mobile developers (Ballard and Butcher, 2020), consultants (Pow, 2018), policy ‘gurus’ (Ebner and Peck, 2022), think tanks (Silva Ardila, 2020) and policy ‘tourists’ (Baker and McGuirk, 2019) to name a few.

The redevelopment of waterfront areas is paradigmatic both of the ‘new wave’ of megaprojects as well as of the global circulation of images and strategies (Brownill, 2013; Cook and Ward, 2012; Croese, 2018; Ponzini, 2019). For instance, Baltimore’s pioneering waterfront regeneration in the 1970s became a template for many initiatives elsewhere (Ward, 2006), such as in Barcelona’s Port Vell in the 1980s, which in turn influenced Buenos Aires’ Puerto Madero in the 1990s (Jajamovich, 2016a) that had an impact on Rio de Janeiro’s Porto Maravilha in the 2000s (Silvestre, 2022). The latter would become one of the references for Barranquilla’s Malecón del Río Magdalena in the 2010s—as discussed later in the paper.

Relational place-making is often analysed via two starting points. First, are those studies considering how experiences are rationalised, made mobile and suppliers of knowledge, usually focussing on ‘model cities’ (Silvestre and Jajamovich, 2022, 2023), ‘transfer agents’, or on institutions acting as ‘clearing houses’ for accessing forms of expertise (Peck and Theodore, 2015). Such approaches identify a departure or an intermediary point and track the connections to other places to examine how knowledge gains ‘license to travel’ (Pow, 2014) and ‘lands’ in other places (Gómez and Oinas, 2023). Second, are other studies focusing on how locally based actors ‘world’ their cities by assembling references and knowledge from other places (Connolly, 2019; Montero, 2017), as well as being mobile themselves in forging networks to advance their agendas (McCann, 2013; Silvestre and Jajamovich, 2021; Zhou, 2021). These approaches focus on the demand side of connections and pay attention to ‘how local policies are arrived at’ (Robinson, 2013; Ward, 2018). The aspirational practice of inter-referencing other places by way of the symbolic association with ‘best practices’ or prestigious professionals is often used to legitimise proposals (Keidar and Silver, 2023).

Citation, allusion, comparison, competition or aspiration as inter-referencing practices operate as a pivotal mechanism to legitimate and justify the investments and interventions behind megaprojects (Ong, 2011). Those practices put into circulation landscapes and desirable attributes that contribute to symbolically resituate a city in the world. But inter-referencing is also employed by developers and state actors to shape a political discourse capable of dismantling social or political obstacles to the achievement of their urban transformation project (Shatkin, 2011).

Megaprojects are symbolism-intensive projects (Rego et al., 2017). Their materialisation requires private capital and urban management but also the construction of images, representations and narratives (Duque Franco, 2024; Jajamovich, 2018) that promote the initiatives and counter negative views about them. In other words, it requires the use of legitimising narratives (Ameel, 2021; Yu, 2019), generation of consensus (Balke et al, 2018; Cuenya et al, 2012), and marketing promotion (Van Der Westhuizen, 2007) that present the project in the best interests of the city.

Strategies for legitimising megaprojects are varied. It includes exceptional frameworks that justifies them and the regulatory practices adopted (Duque Franco, 2024); the use of political symbolism—and state’s marketing powers—as a major explanation for the construction of megaprojects (Van Der Westhuizen, 2007; Van Marrewick, 2017); or the aesthetic sublime related to the project outcome and its architecture and design (Flyvbjerg, 2014; Syn and Ramaprasad, 2019). Symbolic, cultural and aesthetic legitimisation of megaprojects also rests on its imaging effects. Flagship projects are employed as key symbols in large-scale programmes to confer a distinctive identity and project an instantly recognisable image to a global audience (Bunnell, 2013; Sklair, 2017). Iconic architecture also operates as a strategy in the post-political city (Balke el al, 2018) and as ‘a global spectacle for local image creation, city branding and real estate marketing’ (Ponzini, 2011, 251). Nevertheless, despite legitimising strategies and expectations of megaproject promoters this kind of operation does not always overcome political confrontation and local community oppositions (Jajamovich, 2016a; Lauermann, 2019; Shatkin 2011).

Methods

The three case studies were based on separate research projects developed independently but focusing on similar aspects: the ‘exceptionality’ of megaprojects to standard planning and delivery processes; their governance and financing mechanisms; their constitution as changing paradigms to urban planning policies; and their connections to other policies and expertise elsewhere. The comparative framework is one developed ‘retrospectively’ or ‘a posteriori’ as recent authors have advocated, ‘once two or more researchers realise the comparative potential of their findings’ (Lancione and McFarlane, 2016; Montero and Baiocchi, 2022, 1541).

Furthermore, we adopted a ‘relational comparative approach’ (Ward, 2010) where the focus was not on the similarity or differences between the megaprojects but rather on the processes through which the territorial and the relational were in constant interplay. We focused on the symbolic dimension of waterfront regeneration projects and three different dynamics. First, by comparing how each case inter-references other megaprojects symbolic of ‘a new wave’ of mixed-use inner-city large-scale urban transformation (Diaz-Orueta and Fainstein, 2008). Second, by examining their material aspects and how historical and cultural symbols were mobilised to present potentially divisive interventions as having distributive effects through public space and events. And third, by following how once delivered, the cases became new symbols encapsulated by iconic architecture, international awards and becoming new templates for other places.

Nevertheless, the cases also have important differences. Each case responded to dynamics within the social, political and economic contexts of their time (discussed in the next section). Most notably, Puerto Madero was a result and a symbol of Argentina’s economic liberalisation in the late 1980s and 1990s; Porto Maravilha was a key project of Rio de Janeiro’s Olympic-led transformation, an event of importance to Brazil’s soft power in the 2000s and early 2010s; and Malecón del Río Magdalena is also illustrative of the international projection of the Colombian Caribbean and a continuity of Colombia’s international prestige in urban design experienced previously by Bogotá in terms of mobility and Medellin in terms of ‘social urbanism’. Beyond that, the projects also differ in terms of scale, capital invested, institutional actors and social impacts. We were mindful of these differences while seeking to identify the general contours of the symbolic dimensions indicated. The three studies applied similar methods combining archival research, document analysis and semi-structured interviews with elite actors involved in the processes of planning, mobilising and recirculating political knowledge, though at different timeframes (Table 1). Evidence collected in each study were re-examined to put them into conversation and facilitate the relational and retrospective comparison.

Table 1.

Overview of the research process in the three study cases.

Research projects	Buenos Aires	Rio de Janeiro	Barranquilla
Research period	2010–2016	2013–2015	2020–2022
Objective	Analyse the changing paradigms of urban planning policies in Buenos Aires, its expression through urban megaprojects and its connections to other urban policies and cities.	Examine the governance, institutional and financing architecture of the Porto Maravilha project in the context of transformations for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games	Analyse the urban transformations in the city of Barranquilla due to development of the megaproject Gran Malecón del Río.
Interviews	25	21	15
Profile of interviewees	Professional associations Consultants Senior civil servants	Development authority Consultants Developers Senior civil servants	Professional associations Consultants Senior civil servants Social organisations
Main topics of the interviews	Megaproject aims Contestations to megaprojects Policy and urban model references Changes during the process	Institutional and financing modelling Stakeholders and participation References and expectations Knowledge management	Origins and references Design and development process Actors involved Planning and governance tools Megaproject aims
Sources	Policy documents Puerto Madero Corporation’s archives Newspaper articles Architecture and urban planning magazines	Policy documents Official documents Local newspapers	Policy documents Official documents Local newspapers Multimedia materials

Megaprojects in Argentina, Brazil and Colombia

The three waterfront megaprojects analysed are significant in terms of scale, investment, ambition and as exemplars to other practices. A brief background is necessary to situate the differences and similarities across three varied national and urban contexts (Table 2).

Table 2.

Characteristics of the Puerto Madero, Porto Maravilha and Malecón del Río Magdalena regeneration models.

	Puerto Madero	Porto Maravilha	Malecón del Río Magdalena
City	Buenos Aires	Rio de Janeiro	Barranquilla
Year	1989-	2009-	2016-
Area	2.25 million m2 (estimated)	5 million m2	2 million m2
Development authority	CAMPSA—Porto Madero Corporation	CDURP—Urban Development Corporation of the Port Area	EDUBAR—Urban Development Company of Barranquilla Puerta de Oro—Caribbean Development Company
Costs	USD 2.5 billion (2010)	USD 2.8 billion (2012)	USD 344.5 million (2017)
Financing model	Self -financing via land sales	Self-financing via sales of building rights	Self-financing via land sales
Delivery model	PPP (central and local governments with private companies)	PPP (local government with private companies)	PPP (local government with private companies)
Iconic image	Woman’s Bridge by Santiago Calatrava	Museum of Tomorrow by Santiago Calatrava	Malecon promenade and the sculpture Champion Window by Miguel Angel Cure and Pablo Andres Castellano

Starting in 1989, structural adjustment policies in Argentina were enacted for greater integration with international markets, including the privatisation of national industries and services. It was in this context that the Historic Puerto Madero Corporation (CAPMSA) was created as a semi-public entity, tasked with developing a financial, regulatory, and physical plan that would secure the development of the 170 hectares of the port. CAPMSA incorporated local and national government agents and presented a public–private management model self-financed by the sale of land and developed in phases (Jajamovich, 2016a). Puerto Madero was presented as a tool to attract investments in a context of economic crisis and to reinforce the role of the city’s central area while containing urban sprawl. In the words of the secretary of urban planning at the time, ‘What happened in most Latin American cities was that the centre moved to a new centrality and the whole structure that supported that centrality was dislocated. Buenos Aires was the exception’ (interview, secretary of urban planning, Oct. 2016). The local authority commissioned a master plan to a Barcelona-based consultancy that generated public resistance and was later abandoned. Since 1999, CAPMSA has provided consulting services in different Latin American cities by way of recirculating the experience (Jajamovich, 2016b). Puerto Madero has become the postcard of a modernised Buenos Aires and one of its most expensive and exclusive areas reflected on housing and commercial prices and exclusive shops. According to the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Argentina at the beginning of the operation, ‘Puerto Madero is much more than a real-estate development: it is a new direction charting the future city. It is the way ahead on the road to destiny, and it is the design of urban space which emphasises public benefit’ (Corach, quoted in CAMPSA, 1999). However, in parallel with representations and narratives that emphasise its successful image (CAMPSA, 1999; Garay, 2007), Puerto Madero has been associated with various corruption scandals and questioned for its exclusionary urban and social character (Cuenya and Corral, 2011; Silvestri and Gorelik, 1990). Associations between Puerto Madero and corrupt practices have been deployed in political discourses, the press, academic studies and even fictional literature, permeating the social imaginary of the area (Jajamovich, 2018).

The Porto Maravilha project was officially announced in 2009 shortly after the staging of the 2016 Olympic Games was awarded to Rio de Janeiro. Initially, it covered a dockland area of 500 hectares that suffered from decades of neglect and economic decline. Envisioned as a new district of mixed uses, it promised to enlarge the stock of luxury corporate space, bring middle-class residents, and become a cultural destination with museums, attractions and repurposed warehouses. Making direct reference to megaprojects elsewhere, it was presented as an attempt to follow in the footsteps of successful cases (Silvestre, 2022). In a short space of time -while benefiting from a scenario of national and local economic growth and a multi-level political coalition—public-owned land was assembled from different levels of government and agencies and a self-financed scheme through the sale of building rights was designed (Klink and Stroher, 2017). Despite the much-publicised public-private venture in the delivery of civil engineering works (for example, roads, tunnel) and urban services (for example, waste management, landscaping), the financing of the project amounting to USD 2.8 bi (2012 prices) was only guaranteed through the acquisition of the entirety of building rights by a public bank. New office towers and attractions were delivered but prior to the hosting of the 2016 Games, Brazil and Rio entered a period of economic and political crises with many announced real estate projects suspended. Since then, an investigation found evidence of corruption in the use of public funds and the public-private partnership was dissolved. After a few years of stalled projects, new residences and corporate developments have been gradually delivered in the last two years.

Malecón del Río is a more recent megaproject developed in Barranquilla, the fourth largest Colombian city with 1.2 million inhabitants, known as the most important city in the Colombian Caribbean but distant from the main global city circuits. After failed attempts, the urban intervention on the riverbank became a priority for the city government since 2016. It was framed as an opportunity to make the city competitive, attractive for companies, investors and visitors. A favourable political context with popular support, contributed to the development of the megaproject. It covers an area of over 200 hectares comprising informal settlements, areas of environmental diversity, and a former industrial zone, in decline since the 1990s due to economic restructuring and industrial relocation. Through changes in land use and expanding available land, the project envisages the construction of luxury housing, hotels, shopping malls, office towers, business centres and entertainment complexes. So far, the only interventions materialised were a convention centre and a five-kilometre promenade including commercial and sports spaces. Planning and management are under two quasi-public companies: the Urban Development Company of Barranquilla and the Caribbean S.A (EDUBAR) as planner and operator, and the Caribbean Development Company Puerta de Oro responsible for technical coordination, land management and administration of the built space (Duque Franco, 2024). Following a public investment of USD159.7mi it was expected that it would encourage private investment but progress has been slow. This has been attributed to a slowdown in the real estate sector and the sluggish economic recovery since the pandemic.

Inter-referencing and circulation practices as an attempt to legitimise megaprojects

Inter-referencing practices have different aims and audiences, including the search for technical knowledge, aesthetic inspiration, but also the attempt to legitimise specific megaprojects at national and local levels by alluding to successful experiences. Since the 1990s, the Barcelona model has been circulating in different Latin American cities (Silvestre and Jajamovich, 2021). Both in Buenos Aires and Rio, the presence of Catalan experts was presented as a symbol of prestige and technical validation. At the beginning of Puerto Madero’s project links with Catalan experts were established to propose a plan for the area, the Historic Puerto Madero Strategic Plan. Other international experiences such as London’s Canary Wharf, Paris’ Les Halles, Baltimore’s Harborplace and New York’s Battery Park and Lincoln West were also acknowledged by the mayor and his team.

Despite the expectations of experts and politicians, processes of urban policy circulation and inter-referencing do not guarantee local legitimation and can also generate local conflicts (Ong, 2011). For instance, the Catalan proposal in Buenos Aires drew criticism from local architects and the legitimacy of foreign experts was questioned. Argentina’s Central Society of Architects (SCA) criticised the lack of involvement of local architects and the absence of a citywide comprehensive plan proclaiming that the Catalan proposal was dominated by real estate interests and demanding consensus-building and broader participation. A group of urban planners postulated that the functions of the port should be guaranteed, and that the area should be mainly for administrative and recreational functions. Other stakeholders proposed a metropolitan park for the whole area. The variety of critiques were disseminated in important newspapers and architecture magazines. The parliamentary opposition also criticised the Barcelonian plan. Finally, in 1991, the Catalan proposal was abandoned, and local architects were involved via a competition of ideas. Nevertheless, CAPMSA members learned from the Catalan experts ‘to look how the real estate market works. In an operation of this size, you need to understand who are the ones who build the city and what products they make … we didn’t have to think about this as merely an architectural project, but what conditions you have to have for investors in large buildings to prefer to come here and not to another side’ (interview, former CAPMSA leader, Aug. 2010).

Disputes over Puerto Madero also involved other stakeholders. CAPMSA claimed ownership of the land where the traditional Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires—linked to the University of Buenos Aires—had its sporting activities. This claim led to an urban conflict during the 1990s in favour of the public use of the area in which the student movement played a leading role including demonstrations. Puerto Madero did not involve evictions, as there were no residents in the area. However, in the ecological reserve next to Puerto Madero, a shanty town had grown. Faced with repeated threats of eviction—given the real estate interest in the area—its residents have fought for its permanence.

In Rio, inter-referencing practices with Barcelona have been consistent for decades. Barcelona’s influence ranged from the strategic plan formulation to the elaboration of Olympic bids (Silvestre, 2020). However, in Porto Maravilha, there was a ‘process of multiple referencing’ (Ong, 2011, 18), promoters played with different examples of urban success. Directly referencing the ‘best practices’ of waterfront revitalisation in Baltimore, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Cape Town, Hong Kong, and Rotterdam, the municipality aimed to position the project within a framework of explicit comparison and associate Rio with cities sharing certain symbolic and aesthetic values. In the end, it was the experience of neighbouring Sao Paulo in urban regeneration operations that served as a model for financial and governance designs (Silvestre, 2022).

Similarly, Barranquilla has also appealed to multiple references, albeit with a more eclectic approach depending on its purposes and audiences. Allusions to London or Paris have been employed generically by Mayor Char with an aspirational tone to showcase the harmonious relationship between the city and the river. Meanwhile, citing best practices in waterfront urban regeneration endorsed by multilateral organisations has been focused on demonstrating the feasibility and technical justification of the project. In an initial phase of the megaproject design, in a typical case of policy tourism, a delegation of the municipality travelled to different cities around the world to witness firsthand the experiences of dissimilar projects considered successful such as Puerto Madero, Malecón 2000 in Guayaquil, or the Cheonggyecheon stream in Seoul. The ‘lessons’ served as the basis for the Malecón del Rio design. Through the shrewd use of images and references considered successful, the aim was to evoke urban aspirations and feelings of civic identification with the initiative. As stated by one of the managers of the macro project “those visits served us to learn and see how other cities had done...and here we wanted to show that it was possible, that Barranquilla could be at the height of the great capitals of the world’ (interview, Project Manager Puerta de Oro, Aug. 2021). It was assumed that with this megaproject, Barranquilla could aspire to become a global city. These inter-referencing practices are not without contestation. Leaders of social and environmental organisations who were interviewed ironically questioned these comparisons with other cities and pointed to other investment priorities in Barranquilla.

The three cases denote the configuration of some inter-referencing geographies. While Puerto Madero alluded exclusively to iconic projects in the Global North, in Porto Maravilha and Malecón del Río there is a wider repertoire of references including other Latin American cities and their national contexts. There are also cross-referenced practices where Puerto Madero, becomes a model for both Rio and Barranquilla. This is largely due to a strategy followed by Puerto Madero’s corporation to present and narrate itself—through its own website and publications—as the exporter of a ‘successful formula’ to Latin American cities and as ‘internationally renowned for one of the most successful urban projects in Latin America’ (CAMPSA, 2011).

Inter-referencing practices, as mechanisms for legitimising megaprojects, also manifest different forms of ’performative representation’ (Robin and Nkula-Wenz, 2021). Over time, various material-discursive devices have been employed to engage a dialogue between local projects and planning models. In Puerto Madero, technical documents were used, in Porto Maravilha, the municipality edited the book ‘Porto Maravilha + 6 Successful Case Studies of Waterfront Renewal’, a kind of technical-informative hybrid, and in Malecón del Río, promoters used visual resources that juxtapose project renders with images of reference cities. A common device in all three cases has been official press statements comparing local projects with those in other cities or citing ‘best practices’ to follow. These practices place the press as a translocal dissemination channel for urban models (Duque Franco and Ortiz, 2020) and at the same time as a device for inter-referencing. All these forms of performative representation encapsulate a twofold intentionality: serving as a persuasion strategy for potential investors and as legitimation in the face of critics and sceptics.

Public space, heritage, and culture in megaproject’s legitimation

Megaprojects require large amounts of capital, usually directly facilitated, or subsidised by the state to transform areas of symbolic importance to local communities. Therefore, strategies to legitimise interventions in the public interest are paramount to counter resistances and criticism. In the cases examined, three strategies played a key role: the provision and the rhetoric of public space; the uses of memory and heritage; and the expansion of cultural facilities and programmes.

The rhetoric of creating new public spaces was emphasised across the cases to legitimise the interventions, highlighting the provision of new parks, promenades and squares as evidence of distributive mechanisms. In Puerto Madero, CAPMSA claimed that, unlike gated communities, the area is an open and democratic space; differently from the rest of the city, public spaces are not vandalised and are clean and safe (Benas, 2014). Beyond the perimeter of Puerto Madero, the Costanera Sur area (Southern waterfront) has historically been associated with uses by the wider population on the river and its banks. To address criticism of the elitist character of existing residential and commercial spaces, the corporation invested in the regeneration of the area in search of a popular aura. At weekends, residents from other neighbourhoods appropriate the Costanera Sur for outdoor physical and leisure activities and this is evidenced as an example of the project benefiting wider social groups.

A recurrent discursive practice in waterfront regeneration projects is to ‘reconnect’ the city with the sea or river and ‘recover’ a historical relationship between the population and bodies of water. According to the former President of Argentina, ‘Buenos Aires and its river have created an inseparable relationship’ (Menem in CAPMSA, 1999). Rio de la Plata and Magdalena rivers as well as Guanabara Bay occupy important places in the national histories of Argentina, Colombia, and Brazil respectively. Barranquilla, due to its location on the banks of the Magdalena River and the Caribbean Sea, was Colombia’s first port, and until the beginning of the 20th century, it was the trade epicentre with Europe and the United States, serving as the gateway to modernisation for both the city and the country. Since the mid-twentieth century, different factors associated with the urban growth and modernization of Barranquilla changed the city’s relationship with the river, even affecting the identity of the people of Barranquilla. According to a cultural manager, ‘it was necessary to give all Barranquilleros the opportunity to reencounter their riverside identity, to discover that the river is part of our own sentimental geography’ (interview, cultural manager, Mar 2022). In Malecón del Río that historical relationship has been reinterpreted through the promenade, provoking and sustaining an ‘affective atmosphere’ (Yu, 2019) that combines feelings of nostalgia, identity and pride. The maritime and port activity histories of Puerto Madero and Porto Maravilha are mobilised in the conservation of historical buildings and urban furniture. Warehouses, piers, grain silos and dock cranes are declared historical monuments. In the words of the then mayor of Buenos AIres ‘Recuperating the quality of the landscape the port area is to highlight the very history of the porteño life; it is as a new suit of clothes for the Rio de la Plata; it is as if to put a living and eternal seal on it’ (Grosso in CAPMSA, 1999). An industrial profile is not adequate ‘unless it is mediated by veils of nostalgia or the evidence of time passed’ (Shmidt, 2007, 92).

Nevertheless, it has long been noted that the reappraisal of history and heritage are contested processes (Silverman, 2011), especially when it deals with traumatic events such as the violent legacy of colonial histories (Araujo, 2013). The initial works in Porto Maravilha unveiled the foundations of the long lost Rio’s Valongo Wharf where an estimated 900,000 enslaved individuals arrived through the transatlantic slavery trade from 1811 onwards. According to the archaeologist who led the excavation works, “we brought to light what was wanted to be hidden, so that we can relive this dark past, so that we can learn to deal with it … It is necessary to expose the violence committed there to encourage reflection on the perversion of racism, at a time when prejudice is on the rise in the world” (Lima in Jansen, 2017). Part of the budget earmarked for cultural and social programmes supported demands to create an archaeological site and to promote the ‘Historical and Archaeological Circuit of African Heritage’ in the region by way of reference to ‘Little Africa’ in promotional materials. Valongo Wharf was designated a world heritage site by UNESCO in 2017 but recent neglect with its maintenance raised questions about a potential delisting. Despite the commitment to build a research centre to promote African heritage, the new site is yet to be built, which raised criticism regarding the priorities of the cultural budget considering that two new iconic museums were built during the time (Carneiro and Pinheiro, 2022).

Finally, the cultural offer in newly regenerated areas is central to promote images of iconic facilities and in the uses of public space by the population. In both Puerto Madero and Malecón del Río, the respective management companies offer activities aimed at different audiences to build consensus for the progress of urbanisation and to propose ‘appropriate’ uses of the place. The activities include sporting practices, festivals, concerts, theatre cycles, artistic competitions and free guided tours for target groups as tourists, visitors and public schools. In the Argentinian case there is an explicit attempt to ‘bring Puerto Madero closer to those sectors of the population that traditionally do not go to the neighbourhood’ (CAMPSA, 2004). While in Malecón del Río the cultural offer is mainly oriented towards reinforcing identity features of the Caribbean region, such as music and dance, using the Magdalena River as a backdrop. In this way, the aim is to guarantee the intensive use of the Malecón, to project the image of a diverse, inclusive space and, in short, to maintain interest in the place, attract visitors and, eventually, potential investors who will develop the urban land available along the promenade.

Re-circulation: urban spectacle, image, awards and new policy models

Risk is inherent to megaprojects and the concern with how they are perceived is of vital importance, including for the careers of politicians, to stimulate real estate demand and for attracting new residents and visitors. Megaprojects are carefully developed as ‘success stories’ from early stages. Porto Maravilha was presented as the main legacy of hosting the Rio 2016 Olympic Games despite the area not playing a significant role apart from cultural events. The Malecón project was launched as a strategy to turn Barranquilla into a competitive city, capable of attracting tourists, companies and investors. The success narrative is by no means undisputed, and criticism is often directed at the deepening of inequalities, spatial polarisation and the commodification of heritage and history. An integral element for the construction of these narratives is the image of an urban spectacle—through activities and architecture—and its circulation to both domestic and global audiences (Ponzini, 2019).

The circulation of urban megaprojects serves multiple purposes, and more explicitly with the projects in Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro, three symbolic dimensions are noteworthy. First, in the new spaces, ‘spectacular’ architecture and modern buildings are used in place marketing and to confer a quality of ‘world class’, cosmopolitan spaces, and orderliness. As Zukin (1996) had argued, the use of art in regeneration projects goes along with establishing a place identity for the megaproject as a whole. Puerto Madero and Porto Maravilha became important tourist destinations and event spaces with the buildings designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava used as symbols of the ‘global’ status of the two cities (Figures 1 and 2). Official publications of CAPMSA (1999) emphasise that Calatrava’s bridge was his first work in Latin America. A representative of Porto Maravilha’s development authority recognised during its construction that the Museum of Tomorrow served as ‘a very important signal to show to the market … we prioritised it. That is why it’s Calatrava who is doing the project. It is an icon really…’ (interview, CDURP CFO, Dec. 2013). As Ponzini (2019, 82) argued, ‘starchitect’s’ name is a key marketing element that can “make the real estate product more visible and authoritative for global investors”.

Figure 1.

Puerto Madero Corporation’s Instagram post celebrating the iconic Women’s Bridge: ‘Vanguard architecture in Argentina and in the world’. The post reads: ‘The Spanish architect, engineer and sculptor, Santiago Calatrava, is known worldwide for his large and imposing white structures. This was one of his first works in Latin America. Did you know that?’. Source: CPM, 2018.

Figure 2.

The delivery of the Porto Maravilha project was strongly associated with the hosting of the 2016 Olympic Games. Visitors have free access to the rooftop of the MAR museum from where pictures of the Museum of Tomorrow designed by Santiago Calatrava can be taken. Source: Caca Cambalhota CC BY-SA4.0.

The use of public art as a symbol and attraction is also present in Malecón del Río, although unlike the other cases, these are works by local artists that represent cultural references of the city (Figure 3). Such reimagining strategies can have a wider circulation as iconic spaces feature in media, advertising, and as objects of consumption by way of souvenirs and artwork (Bunnell, 2013; Anonymised; Ponzini, 2019).

Figure 3.

The caiman is the iconic image of the Malecón. The caiman represents the river culture and is part of the identity of the people of Barranquilla. Designed by architect José Pérez Source: Camilofore2, CC BY-SA4.0.

Second, interest from other places and organisations, international awards and recognition are used to legitimise what was achieved while responding to critics. Malecón del Río has received certifications as a sustainable tourism destination and awards such as the Colombian Biennial of Architecture and Urbanism, and the Eurasian Prize International Architecture and Design. For the manager of Puerta de Oro, ‘this award puts Barranquilla on the map as a city that takes advantage of natural resources such as the Magdalena River and defines its economic and social development from spaces such as the Gran Malecón’ (Ricardo Vives in Semana, 2022). Puerto Madero’s corporation website lists a series of partnerships established over the years with cities in Latin America and beyond. Both in Buenos Aires and in Rio, the development corporations created institutional spaces and structures to facilitate ‘policy tours’ and ‘lesson drawing’ for institutional actors from other places. Both received international awards, became case studies themselves and were presented as best practices by the World Bank with associated materials circulating through its website and training programmes (Amirtahmasebi et al., 2016; World Bank, 2020). Such recognition is not limited to recognising an existing reality. It can function as technologies of legitimation and consensus-building with effects on the practices and experiences they reward and signal to. These ‘referential effects’ (Bunnell, 2015) have an impact on a transnational market of urban projects and consultancy as well as on local and national contexts where these experiences emerged (Montero, 2017).

Third, individuals and institutions who once were on the ‘demand side’ of mobilising knowledge and references from elsewhere, may leverage their association with and the prestige of the megaprojects to become ‘suppliers’ of expertise in the prospect of further opportunities (Silvestre and Jajamovich, 2022). In 1999, Puerto Madero Corporation widened the scope of its activities to offer advisory, consultancy and project management services outside the boundaries of the area. This allowed the viability of the institution after the project was completed while aiming to ‘consolidate the image of [Porto Madero Corporation] abroad as a successful large-scale urban developer’ (CAMPSA, 2009, 7). Some examples of such a venture were the institution’s agreement signed with the municipality of Barranquilla to implement its governance model in the waterfront renovation. Although much more recent, the construction companies and consultants linked with Porto Maravilha in Rio have also been active in circulating the regeneration model of certificates of building rights, public-private partnership and state backing, in investment roadshows and direct lobbying to other Brazilian cities.

Therefore, the continuous recirculation of megaprojects as policy models is an active process that involves the mobilisation of not only its material qualities but also narratives, images, awards and the labour of interested actors.

Discussion and conclusion

In this article, we have demonstrated that the material and symbolic character of megaprojects is shaped by their permanent need to generate consensus and legitimacy among different audiences. By engaging in a dialogue between the literature on megaprojects and on policy mobility we were able to establish that the symbolic dimensions of megaprojects also involve relational and territorial processes. Relational processes are expressed, on the one hand, in the practices of inter-referencing successful experiences, even between the projects analysed, and on the other hand, in the circulation of knowledge, symbols and iconic images. Whereas the symbolic dimensions associated with the material and rhetorical production around public space or memory are deeply local, grounded and territorial.

Our comparative research has led us to different conclusions from perspectives that analyse each megaproject as a mere product of neoliberalisation, financialisation and/or urban entrepreneurialism. Following Robinson et al. (2022, 1735) developing comparative analyses from the perspective of the urban as distinctive, or specific, opens the possibility of identifying alternative processes as relevant. Based on a twofold perspective, both a symbolic-material and a territorial-relational, this paper understood each megaproject not as a closed product, a perfect and harmonious operation that has produced exactly the result that was expected of it. On the contrary, we considered them as contested projects, with tensions and many ups and downs. Although some of the megaprojects analysed have been completed, this does not mean that the process has been linear, smooth and predestined to be finalised on its own terms. Precisely because of that, legitimacy strategies are variegated and constant.

Critical perspectives point to urban megaprojects as fragments, isolated from the city and alien to the dynamics that characterise it. However, considering the different megaprojects legitimation strategies, the links between these initiatives and the city are more complex and were addressed in different ways. On the one hand, the megaprojects examined were materially and symbolically presented as different from the rest of the city. Yet, on the other hand, such difference had to be carefully managed by allowing certain uses of public spaces and popular activities to counteract criticism of the projects’ isolated and exclusionary nature.

Lastly, most theoretical contributions to megaprojects come from North American and European experiences and scholars. In this sense, we aimed to theorise based on understudied Latin American experiences. However, the inter-referencing and recirculation practices have shown us the need to overcome dichotomies—such as global North and global South—and to engage in dialogue between the debates of scholars from the North and Latin America, ultimately expanding the geographies of theory on megaprojects.

Acknowledgements

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal Ensino Superior (grant number BEX 0704/12-1); Orlando Fals Borda Scholarship—National University of Colombia, 2019; and by the Urban Studies Foundation—Seminar series award: ‘Alternative circulations? Situating policymaking, decoloniality, and urban models within Latin American cities’.