11. Conclusion

Urban megaprojects are no longer novelties and exceptions. Many projects already carried out, or in progress, serve as examples, advice and preventive tools. Europe is a land of opportunity and especially fierce economic and visual competition, so the creation of these projects is only exponentially given the direction of economic policy turned towards the international. Every city wishing to increase its attraction must improve its connection to Europe. It is with this in mind that these two projects have been established. Create urban spaces of quality, innovative, modern, ecological and especially turned towards Europe and the world trade. There is therefore a need for the existence of these projects, they are mandatory to stay in the European and world economy. But as we have seen, initiating such projects is not easy and takes time. Even planning several years in advance with the meticulousness of a watchmaker, they are not a guarantee of success and can become in the rush of economic and urban disasters. As Ørestad, which in contrast to its original purpose which was to create a new breath to the Danish capital by becoming the Scandinavian economic centre plunge it the financial economy of Copenhagen to the lowest. The history of these two projects teaches us first of all the importance of a political and social context favourable to the initiation of these. Ørestad failed on this point by becoming a district boycotted by several associations and citizens. Ignoring these inhabitants and the unfavourable opinions, building on a protected area the project took a departure on the bad rails and continued there for a long time. In addition, the project was facing something important, he had to create his story unlike Nantes, which already had his own.

Urbanistic visions tended to create territories hyper connected to the world. Transport facilities being one of Ørestad's main arguments, in order to attract investors. But this vision cantered on hyper connectivity makes this project forget the importance of urban wellbeing. The project quickly turned into a huge untapped piece of life, entertainment and recreation focusing on its profitability. The economic pressure was only stronger, strategic choices that had to be made in a rush and it is the landscape and urban environment that suffered the consequences. The failed attempt to create the Field's shopping centre is the best example. Nantes is to be taken as an example of its urban planning in terms of infrastructure. Its landscape environment was able to blend in with its history and gave the impression of having always existed. Its European dimension was less consistent and decided to concentrate its efforts on the quality of urban life. In addition, unlike Ørestad the project was done in collaboration with these citizens and allowed them to have a better involvement and therefore better understanding of it. It

is clear that Ørestad suffered of this problem from the front and took time to determine a strategy that could improve its image. Additionally, the financial context to contribute to the failure of the project. With the 2008 crisis severely weakening the economy, investors shifted their interests to lower-risk and smaller-scale projects. After 27 years of existence, the project begins to take a different turn and is slowly appropriated by its inhabitants, giving it the chance of a second wind. So can we say that these projects have reached their targets and goals? Over the years, Nantes has been able to blend in with its environment and grow at its own pace. The project is on track and is one of the most attractive and active cities in France. They therefore, from ash, managed to make it one of the most attractive cities of the territory and achieved their goal. Ørestad turns his eyes towards fair and logical initiatives. Despite the difficulties the project is on track to succeed. Time is the most important factor to the success of these projects, we do not create the neighbourhood of tomorrow in one day. Having known for a few years how to make the right decisions by restructuring its urban plan and giving it a more human dimension by playing with shapes, sizes and materials, Ørestad is back on track with its first goals. In my opinion it is not possible to determine whether a project will succeed or not, but it is also possible to identify many targets that give us clues to success. The social and political context, the master urban lines, the financial plan adopted, the number of actors, are all factors that greatly influence the projects and allow us to identify the weaknesses.

If Ørestad failed to develop as planned, it was one of the most innovative experiments of his time in large-scale urbanization and we can only learn from mistakes to do better next time.