Understanding the Geographies of Transport and Cultural Heritage: Comparing Two Urban Development Programs in Oslo

This paper elaborates on how policies and strategies for sustainable urban development can be understood and shows how development programs can be strategically important and flexible tools in the creation of the modern city. We examine two typical contemporary cases for urban development, inner city/waterfront and modernistic suburbs, using the two areas of transport and cultural heritage as prisms to explore divergences or convergences between the two programs, and ask: How come two urban development programs within the same city turn out so differently? By comparing these programs, urban development trends relating to entrepreneurialism are highlighted. There are clear differences between the two programs under study, and the paper tries to grasp their internal logic in order to shed light on their strengths and weaknesses. While the city center program has much to do with realizing the commercial potential of the area and strengthening sustainable transport through large-scale changes in infrastructure, such means seem to be outside the scope of the suburban program. Meanwhile, cultural heritage is interwoven with entrepreneurial projection-strategies in the city center, whereas heritage sites and projects are used more as a means for social cohesion in the suburb. The paper concludes that the programs vary in the two policy fields in accordance with the institutionalized and anticipated potential of the urban areas in question.


Introduction
A focus on urban competitiveness and attractiveness has become an integral part of urban policy. In discussions of urban challenges and opportunities, both attractive historic environments and beneficial transport solutions are high on the agenda. As such, cultural heritage and sustainable transport are central to the attractiveness of cities. This implies that liveability for inhabitants and attractiveness to visitors and investors are influenced by how cultural heritage is maintained and how transport challenges are solved.
Contrasting two cases of urban development, one in the inner city and one in the suburbs of Oslo, the paper seeks to highlight the ways in which transport and cultural heritage are embedded in urban strategies. The use of transport and cultural heritage as prisms to study urban development provides new ways of understanding urban development. The paper illustrates how transport and cultural heritage are being handled differently in accordance to the geographical context of the urban development program in question.
Empirically, the paper investigates two ongoing urban development programs in the Norwegian capital: the Bjørvika and Grorud Valley program. The former is a huge waterfront development program which aims to construct a new urban district along the waterfront in the city center, whilst the latter is a regeneration program with the aim of improving environmental and living conditions in the suburbs of Oslo. In accordance with Burgers and Vranken [1] (p. 3) we define an urban development program as "a set of interrelated projects on a local level to be implemented within a certain period of time within a certain area".
By cultural heritage we mean historical traces such as archaeological and architectural monuments and sites and cultural environments. The concept has both a tangible and intangible dimension. Intangible cultural heritage may include practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills as well as instruments, objects, artifacts and spaces that communities, groups, and in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. Of particular relevance to this paper are the ways in which cultural heritage can be used as a catalyst for reimagining a place [2,3], such as an urban center or an urban district. The re-use or transformation of heritage in the form of buildings or sites have become an important strategy in urban development such as, for instance, in Hafen city in Hamburg, in Liverpool and in Manchester [2][3][4][5][6]. The use of heritage in these developments is motivated both by the purpose of creating a particular spatial identity, based on the visual and material historic character of the existing environment, often in combination with or contrasting new modern architecture and spaces. We have also included modern architecture and cultural institutions, in our analysis of cultural heritage. As such, this verges on the concept of cultural planning, where cultural activities, institutions and creative industries are applied strategically as instruments in developing, redefining and branding urban areas [7][8][9][10].
Also involved in urban transformation are strategies for transport. By sustainable transport we mean transport solutions and mobility patterns satisfying transport demands while avoiding environmental deterioration. The approach takes three sustainability dimensions-social, economic and environmental-into account. This implies that in order to obtain sustainability, it is necessary to approve efficient transport systems that not only avoid emissions and other environmental deterioration but also serve the mobility needs of a wide spectrum of actors and population groups.
When defining sustainable transport, a further specification can be made in terms of environmental effects. These may be local environmental effects, in terms of unhealthy local pollution, noise and barrier effects, or wider climatic impacts caused by greenhouse gas emissions. These two may go hand in hand, which is the case when lower volumes of motorized traffic or alternatives to car use result in less local pollution and greenhouse gases. Notwithstanding, they may also be contradictory. Road restructuration, in terms of relieving urban areas of the negative side effects of traffic, is an example of a beneficial policy for the local environment. Yet, if the same (or larger) volumes of traffic pass through a tunnel system, local air quality may have improved without greenhouse gas emissions having been reduced.
Transport systems need not only produce low volumes of traffic, but also to serve the needs of a wide spectrum of population groups. Suggested policies to reduce emissions combine strategies of urban densification, public transport improvements and restrictions on private car usage [11,12].
In the remainder of the paper, after describing some recent developments in urban policy, we provide a description of the analytical concepts used in the analysis. Thereafter, the methods used and the empirical cases are introduced, followed by a discussion and comparison of the empirical findings. Finally, we pull the threads together and bring the discussion to a conclusion.

The New Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
In his influential article, "From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism", Harvey [13] claims that entrepreneurial forms of actions have become increasingly important in urban development processes, seen in, among other things, a stronger appeal to market rationality and public-private relationships. In accordance with these changes, local authorities have become more oriented towards business, innovation and entrepreneurship. From this viewpoint, urban entrepreneurialism can be seen as "the introduction of growth-oriented policies and new organisational modes within local governments" [14] (p. 355). Development strategies relating to urban entrepreneurialism often imply improvements in physical/material structures, such as enhancement of transport infrastructure, urban regeneration and the building of new districts. Examples include brownfield developments and regeneration of waterfronts, as covered in numerous case studies [14][15][16][17][18].
According to Harvey [13] (p. 6), entrepreneurialism in urban governance needs to be examined via a variety of spatial scales, amongst them, the city center and the suburbs, which is our focus in this paper. This entrepreneurial turn is also recognized in the Norwegian context [19,20] and empirical studies on these topics will broaden the understanding of how international trends in planning theory are translated into practice. The entrepreneurial urban policy is partly related to people and capital having become more mobile. As reasons for settling or investing have changed, so too have the strategies for attracting both people and capital. Urban policy has therefore become more oriented towards creating different sorts of lures aimed at bringing capital into town [13] (p. 5). However, the position of cities in this competitive race is never a safe one, as many adopt the same development strategies. The quest to stand out as unique is therefore a continuous process.
In addition to the physical development of city centers, brownfields and waterfronts, there is a discursive dimension of entrepreneurialism. This implies that an urban development discourse is operating via a dialectical relation to material, non-discursive realities [21] (pp. 77-78). In order to become an entrepreneurial city, an entrepreneurial discourse that narrates the city must be adopted alongside social and cultural, economic and physical upgrading [14] (pp. 355-356). Analogously, Nyseth [22] (p. 5) uses the term "strategic place-reinvention" to describe the conscious construction and development of images related to place. Cities try to project a distinct city identity-often forcibly applied in cities acknowledged to have an image problem [23] and seek to develop images which suit their goals for urban development. While place promotion is not a new phenomenon, what is done now is qualitatively different from earlier approaches. Whereas previous strategies were simply about marketing or branding the city, Holloway and Hubbard [24] (p. 166) see present strategies as typically trying to reinvent the city in order to make it attractive to external investment.
Expanding the argument outlined above, an analytical distinction can be made between what Löfgren [25] (pp. 505-507) calls the "competitive" and the "clientist" approaches to urban development. The competitive approach is entrepreneurially oriented and its goal is to attract new economic activity; this is sought through infrastructural investments, for example, in areas like transportation and education. Investments are accompanied by place-marketing and image-building strategies creating narratives of present successes and future potentials of the city. Here urban qualities play an important role, with vibrant culture and the creation of an appealing urban atmosphere central to competitive strategies [25]. Consequently, place and culture are intertwined and images are used as a competitive advantage [26]. In such cases, culture may be harnessed for entrepreneurial ends and used instrumentally. Culture becomes both a commodity and a public good, and cultural strategies are employed as means for branding the city [27]. However, cities may also undergo urban development through campaigns, interventions or other efforts initiated or funded by the government. This leads to Löfgren's second relevant concept-the clientist approach to urban development [25] (p. 507). This option differs from the competitive approach by resting on a patron-client relationship between cities and state government. The goal of cities applying the clientist option is to portray the city as successful, and therefore the best choice, or contrarily, to assume a victim role, and thereby making the city the most worthy choice.
We will also like to briefly introduce an analytical distinction between two types of interrelationships in policy measures advanced by Givoni, Macmillen, Banister and Feitelson [28] (pp. [8][9]. The first relationship between policy measures concerns facilitation links. In this situation, a measure may perform adequately in isolation, but its functional capacity is enhanced by the presence of another measure. The second relationship advanced by Givoni et al. [28] (p. 8) concerns precondition relations. This situation implies that the successful implementation of one policy measure is wholly contingent upon the prior successful implementation of another one.
In order to grasp different modes of governance, Aarsaether et al.'s [29] (p. 308) distinction between entrepreneurial and collaborative networks may be useful. In the former, urban economic growth is at the forefront, and action is taken to enhance the position of the city in a global-urban hierarchy. The term public-private partnership, loosely defined as a cooperative institutional arrangement between public and private actors, characterizes such entrepreneurial networks [30]. Collaborative networks, on the other hand, are formed as a response to difficult and complex problems [29]. Typically, these will be used to enhance the "capacity to work across sectorial divisions and single-issue politics" [31] (p. 282). To sum up, and for analytical purposes, we have made a schematic display of the key entrepreneurial approaches and their relation to cultural heritage and transport, based on the theoretical foundation laid out in this section, see Table 1.

The Entrepreneurial Paradigm and Sustainability
The relevance of sustainable transport in entrepreneurial development strategies is emphasized by Jessop [32], claiming that the former is one kind of entrepreneurial innovation. Here, local authorities may promote a greening of transport as part of a strategy of facilitating urban economic growth. One example is the potential positive relationships between the compact city ideal and urban entrepreneurialism. The compact city approach is based on the ability to reduce both travel lengths and the use of private cars in dense areas, compared to where urban development is more dispersed [12,33]. Such planning ideals have for long been emphasized in Nordic countries, among others exemplified by the 1993 Norwegian guidelines for coordinated land-use and transport system development [34]. In the Norwegian context, Falleth and Saglie [35] have found a shared interest between market actors and planning authorities for compact city development. Despite their different rationales, with one emphasizing densification as it results in higher profits and the other from environmental concerns, Falleth and Saglie find the output often to be the same: high-density developments.
Culture is regarded as the fourth environmental dimension, and may contribute to sustainable development in several ways. Use and re-use of heritage sites and buildings may contribute to sustainable urban development in a material sense, related to re-use of infrastructure and building materials and reduced greenhouse gas emissions [36,37]. In addition, historic character and place identity contribute to quality and accessibility, forming experiences and meeting places in public spaces. This affects urban inhabitants and their social life, and adds to human well-being as well as urban attractiveness.
With the entrepreneurial paradigm being so focused on the quality of places as an attribute to attract people and capital, the ways of using heritage in urban development must be explored. While some entrepreneurial projects mainly focus on the rise of modern glass facades, there will also be cities more incorporating history and cultural heritage in the regeneration schemes and make cultural heritage one of the attributes of the geographical area being developed.
However, there may be a clash of interest between those seeking to preserve heritage sites and buildings and real estate developers seeking to build as tall and compact as possible. Cultural heritage sites may thus be under pressure in entrepreneurial urban regeneration processes.

Methods and Empirical Data
In the analysis of the two programs, we have drawn on case methodology. Two cases from the same city provide a unique setting for a comparative study [29] (p. 311) because the overarching context is the same. They operate within the same territorially defined institutional configuration, that is, the city of Oslo as a political and administrative system. Although we did not apply a strict "most similar" or "most different" approach to case selection, our two cases show similarities along some dimensions and variance along others. They resemble one another in the sense that both programs are being carried out within the same time period. However, although both programs address issues relating to cultural attractions and transport, their mandates differ significantly. In accordance with the "relational approach" to comparison [38] (p. 480), we have therefore selected to compare the two programs because they raise interesting questions in relation to one another. In our understanding the differing geographical context between the two urban development programs is among the things making comparison interesting. As mentioned, our claim is that the different contexts of the city and the suburb influence on strategies for cultural heritage and transport.
A central basis for empirical data in this paper is a mix of various textual sources such as strategic and political documents. We have also used the white paper on land-use and transport, "The National Transport Plan" [39] in the document analysis. A zoning plan related to the Bjørvika program has also constituted important background material [40]. To understand what this comprehensive regeneration program is about, a culture follow-up program and an environmental follow-up program have further been used [41,42]. In addition, a draft of a municipal architectural policy for Oslo has been important as background, as it illustrates Oslo's aspirations for the future [43].
A source for self-evaluation and reflections on the programs has been the internal reports, annual reports and accounts, action plans and evaluations. In particular this was the case for the Grorud Valley program, which has incorporated a large degree of reporting and evaluation in its program structure. Bjørvika do not have a similar structure of reporting, therefore hearings about the Bjørvika program [44,45] and newspaper articles have been central to grasp opinions and discussions. The newspaper data are collected by means of "Retriever", that is, the Nordic region's service provider for news monitoring, applications for editorial research and media analysis. This method for data collection was also carried out for the Grorud Valley program as well. The Retriever service provides access to all printed newspapers, magazines, TV, radio and Internet. We have used strategies to confine and expand the search results, such as the use of quotation marks, conjunctions between keywords (i.e., AND/OR) and wild card symbols to capture a range of different word endings. Examples of keywords include "baerekraft" (sustainability), "baerekraftig transport" (sustainable transport) and "kulturminne" (cultural heritage).
The hearings and the newspaper discussions have been important to get an overview of the objectives and reasoning behind the two programs. This involves insight to the more problematic sides and dilemmas. In contrast, policy documents and self-reporting will necessarily be influenced by desires of legitimizing the program in question. For this purpose we have supplemented the text analysis with two interviews with administrators in Oslo municipality, one representing each program. The interviews were conducted in May 2012 and were semi-structured containing about 25 rather open-ended questions. The interviews lasted for about 90 minutes each and they were captured by means of hand notes. The interviewees are anonymised and referred to by their organizational localization. In addition, 16 interviews and 6 focus group interviews were carried out in relation to another project, where the effects of the Grorud Valley project were evaluated. These interviews were mainly carried out in May-September 2011. The semi-structured design involved in both rounds of interviewing was important in the sense that it enabled the researchers to ask follow-up questions. This design facilitates a focused exploration of specific topics [46]. The anonymity guaranteed for the informants is also believed to have facilitated freer reflections concerning dilemmas and conflicts.
We have also conducted field observation at the sites in question and participated in popular meetings where both Bjørvika and the Grorud Valley have been discussed. Therefore, a level of ethnographical data has been collected to gain knowledge about the two urban regeneration programs; however, the main corpus is based on existing documents supplemented by interviews. Not all of these sources are quoted in the paper, but all sources have been important in our understanding of the two cases.
We believe qualitative case studies are necessary to generate specific insight and that qualitative data "provide a valuable way to examine the world" [47] (p. 300). We have chosen to present our analysis in a jargon-free narrative style.

Case Description: The Grorud Valley
The Grorud Valley is the largest suburban area of Oslo (see Figure 1). Consisting of four administrative urban districts, it has a population of 130,000, representing about one-fifth of Oslo's total populace. Until the 20th century, the valley was dominated by small agricultural farms; however, from the second half of the 19th century, industrial activity developed along the river running through the bottom of the valley. After the Second World War, it was the main area in Oslo for developing residential settlements. Spacious residential areas, with sizeable green areas, were built along the slopes of the valley, with industry located at the bottom. With three main transport corridors running from north to south in the valley, transportation and road systems are considered a main constitutive element in the spatial organization of the area.
For decades, the Grorud Valley has faced challenges related to environmental and living conditions, for instance, highways and railways creating spatial barriers and local environmental problems (pollution, noise) due to a substantial rise in traffic. There are also social challenges, as the inhabitants of the valley have lower education and income levels and shorter life expectancies than in other parts of the city [48] (p. 41). Moreover, the area has a multi-ethnic population and faces integration-related challenges. As a response to these various challenges, a 10-year program was initiated in 2007 called the "Grorud Valley Integrated Urban Regeneration Program" (hereafter "the Grorud Valley program"). The Grorud Valley program is funded with a 50-50 national-city share of 13 million euro per annum. This makes it one of Norway's largest environmental and living condition interventions to date, in both economic and spatial terms. The program includes "sustainable urban development, visible improvements to the environment, higher standards of living, and overall better living conditions in the Grorud Valley suburb" [49] (p. 12). From this follow activities targeting numerous fields and involving many actors within the environmental, transport, education and immigration policy sectors at the governmental, city and urban district levels.

Case Description: Bjørvika
Bjørvika is located in the city center of Oslo, where the city meets the fjord. Since the 17th century, the area has been occupied by industry, transport infrastructure and harbor facilities, but these are now being removed and transformed, creating a new cityscape. The waterfront in Bjørvika verges on a medieval park, packed with ruins and cultural remains underground, in the east, and the medieval fortress, Akershus, in the west.
The area of Bjørvika is close to 700 acres, with a planned total building volume of almost one million square meters. The program represents one of the most extensive urban regeneration schemes in the Norwegian capital in modern times. It involves transforming the waterfront from an active harbor and transport hub into a modern urban district characterized by housing, commerce, culture and recreation. It is estimated that 30,000 people will live and work in Bjørvika after its completion.
A prerequisite for the program has been comprehensive reorganization of the traffic infrastructure. A 1100-metre-long underwater tunnel has been built and large road infrastructures on the ground have been removed, freeing up space for new purposes and making the area more accessible via public transport, walking and cycling. The transformed urban landscape thereby provides excellent opportunities for sustainable transport. Situated next to Oslo's Central Station-the transport hub for train, bus and metro-the potential for more environmental patterns of transport after the completion of Bjørvika is high.

Key Features of Transport and Cultural Heritage in the Two Programs
The programs presented above both aim to increase the attractiveness of a defined geographical area. However, given the different characters of the city center and suburb, there are marked differences as to which measures are being applied to increase the attractiveness. While the Bjørvika program emphasizes releasing the commercial potential of the central city area, the Grorud Valley program strives to increase environmental and living conditions in the suburb, which do not hold such potential. This provides different opportunities and strategies related to our two cases.

Changes in Transport Strategies: Facilitating Sustainable Solutions
One ambition in the Bjørvika program is to entice more people to travel by public transport by means of improving its quality, along with restrictions on the use of private cars. Local authorities in Oslo state that a central location close to the busiest traffic junction in Norway is a prerequisite for this, and the Director of the Oslo City Agency of Planning and Building Services, Ellen de Vibe, is an advocate of this conviction when stating that a "central location close to the busiest traffic junction in Norway makes for sustainability and a good city development with a dense population in Bjørvika-by reducing the pollution caused by car traffic, which is a burden on the city environment" [50] (p. 14). The logic of the argument is that concentrating housing and jobs in the center will generate more journeys to and from work on foot and bicycle, as research on the topic has suggested [51,52].
This strategy rests on a fundamental change in the Bjørvika area, however, in that it had to be relieved from the massive volumes of traffic passing through. Road restructuration, seen in the aforementioned replacement of large road structures on the ground with an underwater tunnel, is a cornerstone and a prerequisite to the program. The tunnel does not in itself reduce volumes of traffic, rather it enables new urban development with dense building structures, new tram lines, pedestrian areas and recreational facilities to be built. In this way important improvements for sustainable transport can be carried out on the ground. The tunnel was financed by the government, the municipality and car users through toll road taxes.
With the underwater tunnel, Bjørvika was made available for new urban development. Not surprisingly, the strategies applied entail the kind of waterfront development characterizing entrepreneurial strategies of cities worldwide. Moreover, similar to those of local politicians across the world, the hopes for its future potential are high, as according to the local authorities, Bjørvika is to become "a gateway to the world, a vital city center, with businesses, culture and attractions" [41].
Consequently, the quality of the urban environment is not only recognized by the inhabitants of Oslo, instead the program is appreciated at the national political level.
It can be claimed that the large-scale transformation in Bjørvika, which has reduced the local burden on the environment from traffic, is related to the desire to develop Bjørvika in a commercial way. This is not equally valid for the Grorud Valley project. Strikingly, transport strategies here do not include changes in the road structure, and the Grorud Valley program is more about regeneration and repairing what already exists than starting from scratch, as has happened in Bjørvika. As one of our informants from the City of Oslo puts it: "Large changes and substantial actions are obviously lacking for the Grorud Valley program-the Grorud Valley is still seen as a backyard", and "…radical reconstruction and big changes would be too expensive (for the program)." The goal is to enhance the environmental quality and living conditions for the inhabitants in the valley. In this way, the program is located at the level of local politics. The transport infrastructure leading traffic in and out of Oslo through the Grorud Valley, on the other hand, involves national politics. At this level, claims of transport efficiency seem to prevail over voices advocating for local environmental quality. Restructuration of the main transport system in the Grorud Valley-the three main longitudinal transport corridors-thereby falls outside the scope of the program. Yet, the need for a restructured transport system long has been stressed by local authorities as a key measure to improving living conditions in the valley [53][54][55]. In particular, it has been emphasized that the various road and rail structures create physical barriers and fragmented landscapes, while the volumes of traffic cause problems related to noise and local air pollution. Specific measures suggested have been reduction of roads capacity and building tunnels where large roads pass by densely populated areas.
Despite the stated intentions, such projects tend to be continuously delayed and downgraded in the Grorud Valley [49] (p. 54). Issues of large-scale changes in transport appear to be significantly weakened in the transition from overall policy documents to action in the Grorud Valley program. The lower attractiveness and the role of the area within the urban fabric seems to set other premises for policy compared to Bjørvika.
The different characteristics of the urban areas also result in different approaches to car use restrictions. In Bjørvika, the introduction of car restrictions appears to be facilitated by factors such as centrality, public transport accessibility and the attractiveness of the area. Bjørvika is highly attractive, seemingly allowing parking restrictions without frightening real estate developers away from investing. In contrast, the Grorud Valley program is about offering incentives not restrictions. Sustainable transport is sought only by improving facilities for walking and cycling, as well as enhancing public transport services. In terms of the latter, the doubling of the frequency on the metro lines represents one of the greatest achievements in recent years.
This "positive", incentive-based approach also applies to the rest of the Grorud Valley program. Whether it is education, employment, social mobilization or patterns of transport that are being targeted, in all cases, stimulating measures are employed. Although a combination of stimulating and restrictive transport measures would be beneficial for sustainable transport [56] (p. 20), such measures have not been utilized. Curbed car use is not on the agenda in the Grorud Valley Program [21]. The different characters of the urban areas thereby seem to set distinct premises for policy in the two case areas. Here, the importance of connections between environmental policy making and economic structures is made clear [56]. Different geographical areas are contextually different, and this influences the urban development strategies applied. This geography of difference between the center and the suburb is therefore significant in terms of how transport is being handled.

Cultural Heritage: Commodification and Social Cohesion
The re-use or transformation of cultural heritage in the form of buildings or sites has become an important strategy in urban development [3,4,[57][58][59][60]. The uses of heritage in these regeneration projects are motivated by the desire to create a particular spatial identity based on the visual and material historic character of the existing environment, often in combination or contrasting with new modern architecture and spaces. In line with Nyseth and Sognnaes [58], our two cases illustrate how cultural heritage is involved in processes of reimagining places. The ways in which cultural heritage is used, or its roles in urban development strategies, vary nevertheless.
In both cases, cultural heritage strategies are involved in strategic place-reinvention and place-marketing strategies, but for different purposes. In Bjørvika, culture is involved in wide marketing strategies to entice capital. The strategy has employed a broad definition of culture that includes cultural heritage, local traditions, art, entertainment, recreation, architecture and design [59]. The use of culture in Bjørvika has been a deliberate tool in the branding and marketing of the new urban district. Already at an early stage in the planning of the project, cultural planning strategies were developed and implemented in order to establish creative alliances, partnerships and models for future development of the area [48,60,61]. Central to this strategy were the establishment of an organization called "Bjørvika Kultur og Naering" (Bjørvika Culture and Business, authors translation), governed by a board of members representing artists, local business and property developers and politicians. The most important tasks of this organization were to anchor the cultural dimension in the visions and plans of the Bjørvika development, and serve as a meeting place and network builder between culture and business. Another important function has been to serve as a think tank for cultural urban development in Bjørvika, which also proved to have had positive effects on the general debate on urban development outside of Bjørvika, and Oslo.
Among the first buildings to be completed here was the new Opera House, an iconic white marble building which immediately became an international attraction. Serving a national function, the Opera House is an important cultural arena. In addition, numerous cultural activities, such as festivals and events, take place in the aforementioned medieval park located in Bjørvika. Here, cultural events have the additional frame of being conducted at a site of historic ruins. The Bjørvika area will be further strengthened as a node for culture when important institutions such as the Deichmanske Main Library and the Munch Museum are relocated here.
Situated in the historic center of Oslo, with heritage sites highly present, the Bjørvika case illustrates urban development which combines cultural heritage with the construction of prestigious cultural attractions in the form of new spectacular signature buildings. It is noteworthy, however, that the manner in which heritage values and qualities are to be secured and given prominence has been contested. After rounds of negotiations on how to combine strategies of urban densification with cultural heritage qualities, a compromise on how to develop the area has now finally been reached. In line with Harvey's argument [13], cultural heritage is part of the lure aiming at attracting capital investments to Bjørvika. Cultural heritage and new cultural signature buildings are thereby integrated with the goal of increasing attractiveness to tourists, visitors, dwellers and investors. This illustrates a level of commodification of culture in entrepreneurial strategies on a national and global scale [61,62].
The lures constructed in the Grorud Valley, are not directed to attract private capital, but rather to ensure that people thrive and stay in the area. As such, cultural heritage is actively used to increase its attractiveness and to strengthen a sense of belonging and place identity. Central to the strategies are rehabilitation of buildings and cultural landscapes. As stated in the program: "Cultural heritage is to be protected and used, and an understanding of the history of the valley is to be strengthened" [63] (p. 4). Protection and restoration are not being targeted for commercial purposes or for the sake of "preserving to preserve"; rather, they are used to obtain positive synergies within different policy fields. Concerning the walking and cycling trail system in the valley, an interesting link between the two policy fields under study is revealed-cultural heritage is used to strengthen sustainable transport-and vice versa. The trail system is continuously being improved through the program, and efforts are put down to preserve and communicate cultural heritage along the routes. Cultural heritage is used to increase the attractiveness of the trail system in the same way that the improvements of the trail system make cultural heritage sites and information about them more accessible.
Cultural heritage is also central to strategies of creating good meeting places and attractive environments in the Grorud Valley. In several cases, designated farms have been restored and preserved, and use and maintenance of the properties are often arranged in a partnership between local organizations such as sports clubs, immigrant organizations, local history associations and the local municipal administration Emphasis is placed on the use of these sites as meeting places for two reasons. First, there is a lack of assembly rooms in the valley and the cultural heritage sites are being launched for such purposes. As large-scale investments to restructure the road system have proven difficult to obtain in the valley, so have investments for culture facilities. Again, a gap between goals and reality is observed. Local authorities have long stated that there is a "need for assembly rooms for larger cultural arrangements (> 200 persons), and a need for a signature building or other large attraction that can profile the Grorud Valley" [53] (p. 10). So far, however, little has been done. Second, the emphasis on cultural heritage sites is based on goals for social cohesion and integration. As stated in one annual report "With a focus on the unique nature, diversity and cultural heritage of the valley, we hope to facilitate a situation in which inhabitants of the urban districts can meet and get to know each other across age, ethnicity and cultural differences" [62] (p. 7).
Strikingly, the rehabilitation of the cultural heritage sites appears to promote social cohesion between new groups of local inhabitants [49]. This implies that the rehabilitated farms are taken into use not only by the groups using the facilities prior to the restoration, but also by new groups such as youths and immigrants. The findings from the Grorud Valley program illustrate how cultural politics has "become part of an active social welfare policy in line with socio-economic policies aimed at improving living conditions" [63] (p. 68). Such an understanding of culture is seen to improve the quality of life by contributing to the formation of stronger neighborhood identity and community participation.

Discussion: The Two Programs Compared
The account of cultural heritage and sustainable transport above, illustrates significant differences between the two urban development programs in the Grorud Valley and in Bjørvika. In the following sections, their differences in terms of scope and organization will be discussed, before the uneven opportunities offered to inhabitants in the two areas under study are considered.

Diverse Organizational Modes
Löfgren's [25] aforementioned distinction between the clientist and competitive approaches to urban development is useful when it comes to exploring the differences between the programs. The Grorud Valley program seems to be based mainly on a clientist approach. Positive synergies are sought as ripple effects of municipal and governmental interventions. Although the program garnered the entrepreneurial praise for its attractive suburban environments and signal buildings, it is not growth or market oriented as such. One can observe an entrepreneurial discourse focused on the need for revitalization of the area which has been mobilized, and place-marketing strategies are an integral part of the program. In this sense, the Grorud Valley program is similar to the Bjørvika program. However, in contrast to typical urban entrepreneurialism, the Grorud Valley program is rather weakly linked to business [64] (p. 11), see also Table 2. The entrepreneurial approach here seems somewhat rhetorical: Lures are created to make people come, thrive and stay, but not to attract private capital. In comparison, the Bjørvika program follows the competitive approach; the creation of an appealing urban atmosphere is actively used to attract new dwellers, visitors and private capital investments.  [29] (p. 308) distinction between entrepreneurial and collaborative networks, the Bjørvika program can clearly be classified under the former. Here, cooperation between local authorities, state agencies and real estate developers is based on a shared interest in waterfront regeneration. This type of public-private partnership illustrates new organizational modes within local governments, which were described above as a typical characteristic of urban entrepreneurialism [14]. The Grorud Valley program, in contrast, typifies more what Aarsaether et al. term a collaborative network-formed as a response to the complex challenges experienced in the valley. The collaborative approach is here particularly evident in the inclusion of a wide set of public actors across administrative levels and in the strong involvement of inhabitants and local organizations. In this sense, the Grorud Valley project represents something innovative. It has activated a broad governance network addressing issues of urban development. It has "…given a platform to meet other (policy) actors who otherwise would not have met", to cite one of our informants within the program.
In addition, the involvement of four urban districts represents a new type of institutional structure in a Norwegian context. As such, the program transcends traditional urban district boundaries. Built on an understanding that the central challenges of the valley are not solvable within the boundaries of each urban district, the challenges of the valley as a whole are addressed. In this way, the program represents a strategy of upscaling, implying that administrative units within different localities work together towards a common end [65] (p. 192). While this paper has pointed towards the larger willingness of granting large resources to the highly entrepreneurial program in Bjørvika, this upscaling in the Grorud Valley is important when it comes to making it one of the largest combined environmental and living condition interventions in Norway.

Uneven Geographies of Scale
The Agency for Planning and Building Services in the City of Oslo states that "the changes along the shoreline will tell us and the world who we are and how we want to be understood" [40] (p. 7). This illustrates not only the global aspirations of the Bjørvika program, but also its central position in the urban policy and political vision of Oslo. Former Governing Mayor Erling Lae and Vice Mayor Torger Ødegaard share this ambitious goal and state that: "The Bjørvika plan will help put Oslo on the map as a cultural city of European standard (…) There might be a need for several mutually enhancing institutions. Artistic and cultural institutions are an important driving force along the Oslo waterfront" [66] (p. 47). The Grorud Valley, on the other hand, is not part of these projection-strategies. This raises questions over the options available for the two types of programs and their reference to scale. While et al. [67] (p. 556) once made a distinction between what they term a "high-octane" versus "steady-burning" types of urban development. Such a distinction is applicable for the two cases under study in this paper, with Bjørvika representing the former and the Grorud Valley the latter. Based on a belief in the potential of creating economic growth, the high-octane urban development in Bjørvika has opened for a complete transformation of the area. It is a grand process of place re-imagination, where changes to transport are accompanied with emphasis on cultural institutions and cultural heritage. An entrepreneurial narrative combining future prospects with historic traces from the past is being laid out, revealing the international ambitions of Bjørvika. The ambitions of the Grorud Valley program are more local and less about generating economic growth. This in turn influences on the resources made available and the orientation of policy strategies. It illustrates the importance of understanding the geographies of transport and cultural heritage in urban development schemes.
As described above, the analysis shows different levels of willingness when it comes to developing the two areas in terms of investments in road restructuration to reduce local environmental burdens from traffic. The willingness to invest in Bjørvika may not necessarily be directly related to a zero-sum game and the lack thereof in the Grorud Valley. Even from the Grorud Valley perspective it can sympathetically be noticed that "…the urban center is prioritized-simply because the problems are larger here". As stated by Dannestam [14] (p. 364), "the promotion of one area of policy does not automatically result in the disfavouring of another." However, as she notes, politics is still about setting priorities.
Harvey, however, raised the notion of [13] (p. 16), who uses "the dual city" as a concept to describe how social problems may lie behind the mask of many successful projects. It is the problem of "feeding the downtown monster" at the expense of other public programs [68] (p. 141). Systematically privileging some territories as sites for capital accumulation may create patterns of core-periphery polarization and socio-spatial inequality [69]. In other words, it could create uneven urban development.

Added Value
Despite the lack of huge investments in the Grorud Valley program, much has been achieved with the resources made available. Important in this regard is the organizational structure, which unites a range of actors to work among other things on issues of cultural heritage and sustainable transport. Also important and particularly innovative, also in the Norwegian context, is the extensive combination of physical and social measures. As such, it is a wider urban development program compared with programs that apply only physical measures, the latter of which has been criticized for having too limited a scope [70] (p. 387). An added value is expected from combining physical and social measures within the Grorud Valley program. Rehabilitation of green spaces is combined with information about cultural heritage, physical regeneration with educational strategies. Thus the Grorud Valley program illustrates an environmental and living condition program applying a wider set of urban development strategies. Moreover, while not directly market oriented, entrepreneurial notions of place marketing and emphasis on creation of attractive suburban environments are nevertheless present.
Similar to the traces of entrepreneurialism found in the Grorud Valley program, environmental strategies are clearly present in the growth-oriented program of Bjørvika. This illustrates how environmental policy may be interwoven with competitive entrepreneurial policies [71] (pp. [15][16]. Like in the Grorud Valley, Bjørvika also strives for added value by combining physical and social measures. The removal of the large road structures has increased the attractiveness of the area and enabled cultural and urban life to flourish. Cultural institutions, activities and heritage sites are important attributes in the area, and are actively used in its re-imagining. The complete renewal of the area has also created a window of opportunity for urban densification, the use of car restrictions and improvements in public transport, walking and cycling facilities.
There are many examples of facilitation links in the two urban development programs. The Bjørvika area would have become more attractive solely by the greening of the transport infrastructure. However, its attractiveness is enhanced by these changes coupled with extensive emphasis on culture and cultural heritage attractions. Similarly, in the Grorud Valley, there is an added value from combining physical improvements of the walking and cycling trails with measures emphasizing cultural heritage qualities. This illustrates how both programs-in different ways-make use of synergies between measures, and between sustainable transport and cultural heritage.
The second relationship advanced by Givoni et al. [28] (p. 8) concerns precondition relations. This situation implies that the successful implementation of one policy measure is wholly contingent upon the prior successful implementation of another one. In the Bjørvika area, the multitude of policy measures and decisions transforming patterns of transport can be seen as a precondition for the type of urban development sought. The localization of the Opera House, as well as the planned Munch Museum and the city's new Main Library, is unlikely to have happened if the transport structures in the area had not been substantially changed. While observing the fundamental changes of an urban area on the Oslo waterfront, it can be asked whether the ambitious goals of the Grorud Valley program can be obtained given the lack of fundamental changes related to transport. Despite the acknowledged need to reduce the negative consequences of traffic, few large-scale changes have occurred.

Conclusions
By comparing the urban development program in Bjørvika with the environmental and living condition program in the Grorud Valley, this paper has demonstrated how using transport and cultural heritage as prisms provides new ways of understanding urban development. We find that both transport and cultural heritage is highly relevant in local authorities' strategies aiming at increasing urban attractiveness. As such they are also relevant to the notion of urban entrepreneurialism, which is characterized by its emphasis on improvement of urban qualities as means to create economic growth.
While elements of urban entrepreneurialism are found in both programs, the ways in which it is being applied varies. This has consequences for strategies involved and the resources made available. As such our comparison shows how the different contexts of the city and the suburb influence on strategies for cultural heritage and transport. The comparison reveals a peculiar mix of differences and similarities. While there is a total restructuring of the road system in Bjørvika, willingness to invest is lower in the Grorud Valley. Significant differences can also be observed regarding the use of cultural heritage in the strategies. In both programs, the use of heritage is involved in seeking to increase the attractiveness of the geographical area in question. It is also involved in the projection or place marketing strategies, illustrating the presence of entrepreneurialism in both programs. Nevertheless, the instrumental use of cultural heritage for entrepreneurial ends is not found in the Grorud Valley program, where it is more used for social cohesion purposes. A respondent from the Municipality of Oslo argued that: "In many ways they are trying to do the same in the Grorud Valley as in Bjørvika, but on their terms." This illustrates how the geographies of transport and cultural heritage are influenced by the physical, political and social realities and the conceived prospects for the future.