I LOVE NH campaign

I. IDENTIFICATION
  • Investor (key institution): NOWA HUTA LOVERS AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
  • Contact person: Paweł Derlatka, coordinator
  • Year of implementation: 2005

    • Implementation venue

  • Country: Poland
  • Region: Małopolska
  • Town: Kraków

    • Impact: municipal

    Total costs: EUR

    Source per every institution

    Important stakeholders concerned

    • other: Nowa Huta Lovers and Development Association, NH Style Agency, www.nowahuta.org; local community
    II. TYPOLOGY
    1. Improved provision of local cultural and social events.
    2. Improved involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter.
    III. DESCRIPTION
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?

      2. (300 - 600 characters)

    2. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?

      3. (300 - 600 characters)

    3. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?

      4. (300 - 600 characters)

    4. 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?

      5. (300 - 600 characters)

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

      6. (300 - 600 characters)

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

      7. I LOVE NH campaign significantly changed the Nowa Huta residents perception of the district. More often than before they began to talk loudly about the place they come from. The project also provoked positive reactions among the inhabitants of other city districts. It was the first important action that significantly influenced on the Nowa Huta image.

    7. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.

      8. (300 - 600 characters)