Reconstruction of the public spaces in the locality of Fibichova, Chrudim

  • Investor (key institution): City of Chrudim
  • Contact person: Mgr. Petr Řezníček, Mayor of Chrudim,
  • Year of implementation: 1
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Czech Republic
  • Region: Pardubice district
  • Town: Chrudim
  • Impact: municipal

    Total costs: 1 EUR

    Source per every institution

    • EU fonds: ERDF (1088 000 EUR) EUR
    • regional: City of Chrudim (192 000 EUR) EUR
    1. Improved provision of local cultural and social events.
    2. Improved condition & quality of the public space between the blocks of flats.
    3. Improved attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings.
    4. Improved involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter.
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. This project is one of the subprojects of the Integrated Urban Development Plan (acronym IPRM) of the Integrated operational programme (IOP). In the preparatory phase of the project the training manual was created. Requirements of this manual were discussed within the city council, concerned public and other project partners, which are organizations operating in the IPRM locality. Created manual was submitted to the Ministry for Regional Development to assess the conditions of the program.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. There are three block of flats from the seventies, which are located in the revitalized area of this project. None of them was identified as a valuable socialist heritage.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. Not applicable.

    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. This locality is important for achieving the project objectives within the whole IPRM. Before creating the project documentation, revitalization plans were discussed with the public. The citizens had an opportunity to comment on the purpose of the project in the form of discussion. Common consensus was reached on the basis of the negotiations. The actual implementation was carried out in a close cooperation with the public. Therefore no serious problems that would hinder the successful implementation of the action appeared.

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. IPRM project as well as the planned sub-project is in line with the strategic plan of the city. The revitalization of public spaces is aimed at improving living standards of the locality and at increasing the range and quality of leisure time activities. Revitalization of public space will help to improve the comprehensive environmental and cultural character of the city.

    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. This project intends to develop friendly and good conditions for life, healthy and safe housing, attractive offer of leisure-time activities, education and affordable and quality social services in the zone. An attractive happy zone without negative effects represents a popular place for living and encourages people and entrepreneurs to carry business. The goal is a long-term strengthening of the attractiveness of the zone by enhancing the quality of life of all citizens and by effective suppression of socio-pathological phenomenon, so that the zone of the city would become a safe and pleasant place to live with a diverse and attractive range of leisure activities. These visions and goals are both a common goal of the whole IPRM and of individual sub-projects, such as "Renovation of public spaces in the locality Fibich, Chrudim.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. (300 - 600 characters)