European Cities And Capitals Of Culture - Kulturserver Graz
PALMER/RAE ASSOCIATESInternational Cultural AdvisorsEuropean Cities and Capitals of CultureStudy Prepared for the European CommissionPART IPALMER/RAE ASSOCIATES, BRUSSELSAugust 2004Palmer-Rae AssociatesRue de la Croix de Pierre 74, B-1060 Brussels, BelgiumTel. 32 (0)2 5343484 - Fax 32 (0)2 5348161E-mail: info@palmer-rae.com - Web site: http://www.palmer-rae.com
REPORT ONEUROPEAN CITIES AND CAPITALS OF CULTUREPART IProject TeamDirectorResearch ManagerSenior ResearcherAssistantsDatabase ConsultantCover DesignRobert PalmerSusie JonesCaspar WillSofie SweygersSusanna MalzacherRaphael Bosch-JoubertStephanie RacetteJulie DoutrelepontExpert AdvisersTourism PerspectivesSocial PerspectivesEconomic PerspectivesGreg RichardsFrançois MatarassoStuart GulliverExternal AdvisersEric CorijnRod FisherBeatriz GarciaBrit HoltebekkGottfried Wagner
European Cities and Capitals of CulturePreface and AcknowledgementsPreface and AcknowledgementsThis report is based on a six-month study of European Cities and Capitals of Culture. It encompassedthe gathering and compiling of facts and opinions from people in 27 different European countries. Thistask was only possible with the cooperation and help of hundreds of individuals who submitted answersto questionnaires, offered information and views in interviews and discussions and sent in reports anddata. Most were pleased to be asked and expressed deep interest in the terms of the study and itspossible findings.A frustration is that in a report such as this, it is not possible to record every experience and insight, andin an attempt to address the specifications for the study, we have had to focus on specific topics andissues. Because of the scale of European Cities of Culture, there is a wealth of knowledge that cannotbe captured easily.The research uncovered many strongly held viewpoints of people who were directly involved in one ormore of the European Cities or Capitals of Culture, and those who observed from the sidelines. Attitudes(and even perceived facts) sometimes contradicted one another. Whilst some felt an experience to bepositive and problem-free, others expressed disappointment and pointed to major weaknesses of thatsame experience. We recorded faithfully what respondents said and felt and, in the alchemy ofcombining all the responses to questionnaires and in interviews, assessed relative views and madeobservations. Terms such as success and failure, strong and weak, good and poor are value judgments,and in this study we have relied on combinations of such judgements, many of which have beenquantified, to offer a snapshot of what took place in the European Cities of Culture over a ten-yearperiod.We have tried to check and validate facts wherever possible and to seek balance when contradictoryviews emerged. The data contained in the report were gathered from many different sources, and ifcertain information or detail is lacking, it was because we received no responses to our repeatedrequests, or what we did receive was incomplete and, in some cases, inaccurate when compared withother data. We have used our best endeavours to locate and use accurate information, but apologise forany inadvertent errors that have been made.There were many individuals who supported and assisted this study. We owe a debt to the respondentsand interviewees who committed time to respond to our questions and to offer views, and apologise forour persistence with e-mails and telephone calls. Mr. Antonios Kosmopoulos and Mr. Harald Hartung,the former and present Heads of Unit, as well as other staff working within the Directorate-General forEducation and Culture of the European Union, offered advice. Analysis and texts received from GregRichards (Tourism Perspectives), François Matarasso (Social Perspectives) and Stuart Gulliver(Economic Perspectives) were essential to the compiling of this report. Thanks also to Eric Corijn, RodFisher, Beatriz Garcia, Brit Holtebekk and Gottfried Wagner who, as external advisers, offeredsuggestions at various points of the study, and to Karyn Allen for her help in analysing data onsponsorship.The project team for this study had to deal with heavy workloads and pressures, and devoted long hourswith diligence to compile reports and develop the database. In particular, I must record the enormousefforts of Susie Jones, Research Manager and Caspar Will, Senior Researcher. Their relentless workthat involved crowded travel schedules, the recording and analysis of endless data, and the meeting ofnear impossible deadlines was handled with skill and persistence, and is a tribute to the dedication of themany thousands of people who have worked on the programmes of European Cities and Capitals ofCulture over the years. We hope that this report will make a contribution to an important Europeancultural project that has attracted substantial interest and attention.Robert PalmerPalmer/Rae Associates, BrusselsPage 5
Preface and AcknowledgementsPage 6European Cities and Capitals of CulturePalmer/Rae Associates, Brussels
European Cities and Capitals of CultureTable of ContentsPART ITable of ContentsPREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS5SUMMARY OF REPORTIntroductionMethodologyHistory, Procedures, DesignationsAims and ObjectivesOperational FeaturesCultural Programme and ImpactInfrastructureCommunication, Promotion and Media ResponseEuropean Perspectives and DimensionSharing the TitleEconomic PerspectivesVisitor PerspectivesSocial PerspectivesMonitoring and EvaluationLegacy and Long-Term EffectsKeys to SuccessCultural MonthsThe EU Community ActionCity ReportsConclusionsRecommendationsOrganisation of the 22RESUME DU RAPPORTIntroductionMéthodologieOrigines, procédures et nominationMotivations et objectifsCaractéristiques opérationnellesProgramme culturel et impactInfrastructureCommunication, Promotion et Réaction des MédiasPerspectives européennesLe partage du titrePerspectives économiquesLa perspective des visiteursPerspectives sociales2323232323242426272728282930Palmer/Rae Associates, BrusselsPage 7
Table of ContentsContrôle et évaluationConséquences et effets à long termeClés du succèsMois culturelsL’action communautaireRapports de la villeConclusionsRecommandationsOrganisation du rapportEuropean Cities and Capitals of ms of Reference of the StudyTiming and Length of the StudyMethodologyHistory, Procedures, DesignationsSubmission of NominationsEuropean Cities of Culture/European Capitals of CultureEuropean Cultural MonthThe Choice of Cities 1995-200435353536363739404041AIMS AND OBJECTIVESMain MotivationMission and ObjectivesConsultationAdvice4343434546OPERATIONAL FEATURES OF DESIGNATED CITIESGovernance Structures and BoardsProblems and IssuesAdviceInvolvement of Public AuthoritiesAdviceOperational StructureProblems and IssuesAdvice474748484950505253CULTURAL PROGRAMME AND IMPACTIntroductionLocation and TimingProgramme Themes, Orientations and CoherenceProject SelectionScale of the ProgrammeProgramme ManagementProgramme RangeArt and CultureTradition and InnovationCultural Institutions and Independent Groups5454545556575758585859Page 8Palmer/Rae Associates, Brussels
European Cities and Capitals of CulturePublic SpaceBlockbusters and International StarsCommunity Development, Participation and InclusionSupport for Local TalentSpin-offProgramme ExpenditureECOC as an ‘Event’ or a ‘Process’Isolated vs. Integrated PlanningProblems and IssuesAdviceTable of esTypes of msAdvice6767676869697070COMMUNICATION, PROMOTION AND MEDIA RESPONSEObjectives and TargetsTools for Communication and PromotionPress CoverageExpenditureStaff and OrganisationProblemsAdvice7171717475757575EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVESApproachesScope and ScaleThird CountriesProblemsAdviceSharing the TitleFuture7777787979808183ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVESOperating ExpenditureOverall Financial PerformanceCapital ExpenditureTotal ExpenditureIncomeThe Private SectorSponsorshipEconomic Aims and ObjectivesEconomic Benefits85858788899091929494Palmer/Rae Associates, BrusselsPage 9
Table of ContentsEconomic Impact and Economic ImportanceECOC and ‘Megaproject’ EconomicsAdviceEuropean Cities and Capitals of Culture979798VISITOR PERSPECTIVESIntroductionVisitor Related ObjectivesVisitor NumbersLong-term Changes in Visitor NumbersTypes of VisitorsSocio-demographic ProfileMotivation to Visit ECOCImpact on Cultural VisitsVisitor ExpenditureMarketingCollaboration between the Cultural and Tourism SectorsImage ImpactsTrends and Major IssuesFuture ApproachesMethodology for Monitoring and 15115117118119SOCIAL PERSPECTIVESIntroductionAccess DevelopmentCultural InstrumentalismCultural InclusionA FrameworkSocial Aims and ObjectivesOutcomesProblemsMonitoring and EvaluationPossible Future MONITORING AND EVALUATIONMonitoringEvaluationProblems and IssuesAdvice130130130131132LEGACY AND LONG-TERM EFFECTSIntroductionGreatest ImpactOther Important EffectsMinor Effects, Difficulties and Negative EffectsSustaining Long-term EffectsAdvice133133133134135136137Page 10Palmer/Rae Associates, Brussels
European Cities and Capitals of CultureTable of ContentsKEYS TO SUCCESSCritical Success FactorsMost Important Piece of AdviceMost Beneficial Type of Large-scale Event for CitiesRecommendations to Improve the Transfer of Knowledge and Best Practice between CitiesAdvice from Other Cities of CultureNo Simple Key to Success138138139141141142142EUROPEAN CULTURAL MONTHSAims and ObjectivesOrganisation and ManagementCultural Programme and ImpactInfrastructureEuropean DimensionFunding and FinanceCommunicationImpactsLong-term Effects and LegaciesEvaluationThe Future143143143144145145146146146147147147EUROPEAN CITIES OF CULTURE 1985 – 1994IntroductionAthens 1985Florence 1986Amsterdam 1987Berlin 1988Glasgow 1990Dublin 1991Antwerp 1993Lisbon UROPEAN CAPITALS OF CULTURE 2005-2008Cork 2005Patras 2006Luxembourg 2007Sibiu 2007Liverpool 2008Stavanger 2008Future Years158158158159159160160161THE EU COMMUNITY ACTIONSuccessEuropean CommissionAdditional EU SupportRelationship with the CommissionEU Procedures for Nominating, Selecting and Managing the ECOC Action162162163164166166Palmer/Rae Associates, BrusselsPage 11
Table of ContentsChanging the ProceduresThe Role of the EUThe Future of the ECOC ActionEuropean Cities and Capitals of NEXES195Annex I: ECOC BudgetsAnnex II: QuestionnaireAnnex III: List of RespondentsAnnex IV: EU LegislationAnnex V: Bibliographies of Cities and Capitals of CultureAnnex VI: Additional Reading on Cities and Capitals of CultureAnnex VII: Additional Reading on Large-Scale Cultural EventsAnnex VIII: MapsPage 12Palmer/Rae Associates, Brussels
European Cities and Capitals of CultureSummary of ReportSummary of ReportIntroductionThis report is based on the findings of a study that was commissioned by the European Commission(Directorate General - Education and Culture) with the objectives of documenting past European Citiesand Capitals of Culture, making observations on variations between cities, and offering a factual analysisbased on documented information, questionnaires and interviews. The study was completed in sixmonths and has focused primarily on the 21 cities that have held the title of European City of Culture(ECOC) during the period 1995-2004. These cities were: Luxembourg (1995), Copenhagen (1996),Thessaloniki (1997), Stockholm (1998), Weimar (1999), Avignon (2000), Bergen (2000), Bologna (2000),Brussels (2000), Cracow (2000), Helsinki (2000), Prague (2000), Reykjavik (2000), Santiago deCompostela (2000), Porto (2001), Rotterdam (2001), Bruges (2002), Salamanca (2002), Graz (2003),Genoa (2004) and Lille (2004). The study also encompassed to a lesser extent documenting theinitiative of European Cultural Months in the following cities: Nicosia (1995), St. Petersburg (1996 and2003), Ljubljana (1998), Linz (1998), Valletta (1998), Plovdiv (1999), Basel (2001) and Riga (2001). Forcompleteness, the report also refers to the longer-term impacts of the 10 European Cities of Culturedesignated during the period 1985-1994, and to the European Capitals of Culture designated under newEU procedures for 2005-2008.MethodologyThe findings are based on research using the main methods of document search, survey questionnairesand interviews. The quality of data from cities and respondents varied considerably. Based on theCommission’s terms of reference, the study focuses on factual information when it was available andanalysis, reflects the views of respondents and does not include the evaluation, or the relative successor merits, of one ECOC as against another.History, Procedures, DesignationsThe initial scheme of ‘The European City of Culture’ was launched at an intergovernmental level in 1985,and has been amended and altered several times. In 1992 a new event of ‘European Cultural Month’was established; in 1992 a further resolution concerned the choice of future cities. In 1999 ECOC wasgiven the status of a Community Action and new selection procedures and evaluation criteria wereoutlined. The future procedures for the nomination and selection of ECOC after 2009 are the subject ofcurrent debate by the European Parliament.Aims and ObjectivesThe concept of ECOC is open to a number of interpretations and the main motivations behind thenomination for the ECOC title, the key mission and major objectives have varied from city to city. Mostcities had multiple objectives, most often referring to the need to raise the international profile of the cityand its region, to run a programme of cultural activities and arts events, to attract visitors and to enhancepride and self-confidence. Other objectives for some cities included expanding the local audience forculture, making improvements to cultural infrastructure, developing relationships with other Europeancities and regions, promoting creativity and innovation and developing the careers/talents of local artists.The importance of defining and agreeing objectives was considered a significant part of the ECOCprocess, and many of the tensions and problems arose from difficulties in arriving at commonly agreedobjectives by all partners. The methods used for consulting a range of stakeholders about objectiveswere viewed as important.Operational FeaturesGovernance has been a central issue for all ECOC. Most cities chose an autonomous structure withlegal status as a not-for-profit company, trust or foundation; a few managed the operation from within themunicipality. The membership of the governing structures of ECOC varied, although there was strongpolitical representation on most. The key responsibilities of the Board were most frequently cited astaking financial decisions, developing policies and strategies, taking decisions about cultural projects andraising funds and sponsorship.Palmer/Rae Associates, BrusselsPage 13
Summary of ReportEuropean Cities and Capitals of CultureAlmost all cities reported that there were problems with their governance structures, and the mostcommon causes were listed as the domination of political interests, relationship difficulties betweenBoard members and with the operational management team, the absence of representation of culturalinterests and the size of the governance structure.For most ECOC, in addition to the municipality, other public authorities had been directly involved in theorganisation and delivery of the cultural year. Most frequently this included the region or provincesurrounding the city and national governments of the country concerned. The political environment(local, regional and national) had significant impacts on certain ECOC.Almost all ECOC developed special operational management structures that managed the day-to-dayoperations of the cultural year, although the precise functions, levels of responsibility and sizes of suchstructures varied. The most frequently mentioned responsibilities were identified as coordinating thecultural programme, initiating and developing projects, communication, promotion and marketing,finance and budgeting and fundraising. Most cities reported on problems associated with theirmanagement structures such as the changeover of Directors and other key managers during theplanning phase of the project, personality clashes, communication problems, inappropriate experience ofpersonnel and unclear responsibilities and job descriptions. Some cities mentioned excessive workloadsfor personnel and weak management and leadership.For most cities, the operational structure remained in place after the cultural year was finished, mostfrequently for a period of 3 to 8 months to help evaluate the cultural year and finalise accounts. In aminority of cities this structure was continued or developed into another body to continue the workbeyond the cultural year.Cultural Programme and ImpactThe cultural programme was the central element of nearly all ECOC, and represented on average 63%of the operational expenditure of ECOC. ECOC cultural programmes are unique due to their scale,duration, scope and the range of stakeholders and partners. No other large-scale cultural events aredirectly comparable to ECOC, and hosting the event was an unprecedented experience for most cities.This study reveals the complexity of developing an ECOC cultural programme and the large number ofchoices and dilemmas that each ECOC has faced. The task was made much harder if clearly identifiedaims and objectives were not developed through a consultation process. Programme developmentrequired the balance of different and sometimes opposing factors such as artistic vision and politicalinterests, high-profile events and local initiatives, and the involvement of established cultural institutionsand independent groups and artists.The richness but also the challenge of ECOC is that there is no agreed formula for a culturalprogramme, and the unique historical, economic, social and political context of each city cannot beignored. Many ECOC tried to develop their cultural programmes in close cooperation with differentgroups in the city, in an attempt to produce something that not only represented the fabric of the city butalso addressed some of its needs.Although the title of ECOC was given to a particular city, the location of the cultural programme has inmost cases spread beyond city boundaries to include the suburbs and the region surrounding the city. Inmany ECOC the whole country or at least other municipalities in the country were included, and one cityextended the cultural programme to towns in other countries. Regional and cross-border programmesseem to be becoming a more popular strategy of ECOC, especially for cities whose geographicalposition favours this.The length of cultural programmes ranged from 9 to 13 months, the majority lasting between 11 and 13months. Many ECOC tried to develop a rhythm to the cultural year both to make the programme morecomprehensible and to keep public attention over such a long period. Sometimes this was done bydividing the year into seasons, or by carefully planning when events would take place during the year.The planning period for ECOC cultural programmes ranged from 2 to 4 years, with the majority spending3 years planning. However in many cities planning time was lost due to changes in management anddisagreements with the Board. The majority of respondents felt that the ideal planning time for thecultural programme was 3 or 4 years, and a number of ECOC felt that their programmes suffered fromthe lack of planning time.All ECOC developed themes or orientations for their cultural programmes although the visibility andadherence to these varied. Some ECOC develo
European Cities and Capitals of Culture Preface and Acknowledgements Preface and Acknowledgements This report is based on a six-month study of European Cities and Capitals of Culture. It encompassed the gathering and compiling of facts and opinions from people in 27 different European countries. This
European Capitals of Culture 2020 - 2033 Guide for cities preparing to bid December 2014 4 The European Capitals of Culture action By 2019 60 cities would have held the title of European Capital of Culture. (Until 2001 it was the European City of Culture). It is often called the flagship cultural initiative of the European Union.
The European Capitals of Culture remain irst and foremost a cultural event. Cultural activity in these cities increases, new audiences can be reached and the city’s cultural operators can acquire a more international outlook and thus improve their skills and professionalism. The European Capitals of
European Capitals of Culture 2020 to 2033 A guide for cities preparing to bid 5 cities complete this questionnaire in their bid-books. The questionnaire is available on the European Commission's website
been shortlisted to become European Capitals of Culture up to 2021; 22 UNESCO Creative Cities (including winners in 2015); 53 cities hosting at least two regular international cultural festivals. The results of the analysis show a ‘multi-centric’ map of Europe with culture and creativity found across many and diverse cities.
The framework presents only five capitals as being vital in analyzing livelihoods—namely, natural, physical, human, financial, and social capitals. Niehof (2004) and Baumann additionally suggest cultural and political capitals, respectively, that need exclu-sive consideration in understanding and improving livelihoods and agro-food aspects. Thus,
Introduction: European cities and capitals of culture – a comparative approach 3 has always clearly stated that the key characteristic and value of ‘European culture’ is its rich diversity which sits alongside certain common cultural values. The aim has been to respect national and regional diversity while at the same time bringing the
Capitals of Culture An introductory survey Steve Green October 2017 4 Introduction This paper is an introduction to the Capitals, and Cities, of Culture programmes around the world. The European “City of Culture” title started in 1985. It was the first time a phrase
RP-2 ISO 14001:2015 Issued: 8/15/15 DQS Inc. Revised: 5/12/17 Introduction This Environmental Management System Assessment Checklist is a tool for understanding requirements of ISO14001:2015 “Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use”. The Checklist covers Clauses 4-10 requirements with probing questions about how an organization has addressed requirements and .
