Gdańsk School of Mural.

  • Investor (key institution): Office of Gdańsk 2016 - European Capital of Culture 2016
  • Contact person: Rafał Roskowiński,
  • Year of implementation: 2009
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Poland
  • Region: Pomorskie
  • Town: Gdańsk – Zaspa, Large Housing Estates area
  • Impact: municipal

    Total costs: EUR

    Source per every institution

    • national: Biuro Gdańsk 2016 – Europejska Stolica Kultury 2016 - Ministry of Culture and National Heritage EUR
    • regional: Group of artists and students from the Fine Arts Acadamy of Gdańsk; „Plama” Gdański Archipelag Kultury – municipal cultural institution; EUR
    1. Improved provision of local cultural and social events.
    2. Improved support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats.
    3. Improved involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter.
    4. Identified new functions for structures from the era of socialism in 1945 - 1989).
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. A group of artists (mural painters and designers) as well as students from the Gdańsk Fine Arts Academy were engaged into the project through th system of seminars and workshops (e.g. murals painting). Additionally, several people living in the neighbourhood were trained to serve as a local guides for tourists visiting this excetional open galery of monumental art.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. No, however it might be very important and meaningful for inhabitants as a space of theirs everyday life. Generally large housing estates like Gdańsk Zaspa are not perceived in terms of heritage but it doesn’t mean that they are placeless. Creation of the murals might add another meanings, especially that they very often refer to the recent history.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. social, behavioral and humanistic

    7. Was the building or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making process about its rehabilitation or conversion?
    8. The inhabitants were broadly informed about the activities undertaken within the framework of Gdańsk School of Mural through local media (neswpapers, regional television).

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. -

    11. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns achieved reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    12. -

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. -


    Web site: