European Capitals of CultureΠοιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » Institution of European Capitals of Culture » ECoC related networks » University Network of European Capitals of Culture » Inclusion through Education and Culture - Pecs Conference 14 - 15 Oct 2010 » Urban Development Planning and Culture: conditions for osmosis by Anna Arvanitaki

Urban Development Planning and Culture: conditions for osmosis by Anna Arvanitaki

Abstract

The paper explores the relationship between strategic urban planning and cultural policy in recent years.

It outlines how culture emerged at the level of urban agendas, at the beginning (‘80s) used by certain cities in the context of urban restructuring, to become later a recognised component of urban regeneration strategies, notably at the level of the EU, which had by then (middle ‘90s) arrived at a well articulated Urban Agenda.

Tracing the institution of European Cultural Capitals, the paper highlights the fact that lessons drawn from the experiences of implemented ECC programmes show a high degree of symmetry between the ingredients of a potentially successful ECC programme and the current idea of  Cooperative Strategic Urban planning.

Therefore it is argued that experiences of ECC organisers on how to encapsulate the vision of the city in drawing objectives, how to mould innovative forms of urban actions through artistic inspiration, how to resolve dilemmas between ‘Culture’ and ‘culture’, how to experiment on ‘smart’ forms of governance ensuring efficiency and inclusion, all these are enough reasons to use the ECC programs as “demonstration projects” of the possible osmoses between Strategic Urban Planning and Cultural Policy, as an instance of the so-called Cultural Planning.

Note :

A previous version of this paper was presented at the ECCM Conference “Productivity of Culture”, Athens, October 2007

Arvanitaki Anna

Architect  – Urban and Regional planner , MSc , Master in Regional Development

She studied in Greece (National Technical University), in UK (UCL) and again in Greece (Panteion University of Political Science). She joined the Ministry of Environment and Planning in 1980, where she gained experience in spatial and Urban planning at all levels. For the last 10 years, she has been dealing with the Law 2508/97 on Sustainable Urban Development, drafting specifications for local Land-use Planning, supervising pilot studies like Urban Regeneration Studies etc.

Since 2006, she is coordinating the Master Plans for the cities of Patras, Larissa, Volos and Ioannina, an initiative which entails strategic spatial planning of medium-sized cities in Greece for the first time.

In parallel, she has been involved in several European projects, advising Greek local / regional authorities on issues of planning and environment.

Since 2003, she is president of the Civil non Profit Company “POIEIN KAI PRATTEIN” (“To Create and to Do”), an NGO dedicated in promoting actions, both scientific/analytic and cultural/artistic, for the improvement of living conditions in Cities and the countryside.

Anna Arvanitaki

Urban Development Planning and Culture

“Modern urbanity means an all encompassing policy. Consequently city planning, city development and city culture are to be perceived as a unity…..”

«Cultural Development Plan for the city of Linz» 2000

Α. The ‘80’s: cultural policy as an emerging component of urban development policies

1.  Analyses conducted at the beginning of the ‘90’s among urban development experts (16) show that already during the ‘80’s, several european city governments ‘use’ or rather integrate cultural components in their policies to instigate their city’s development.

More specifically, after the economic crisis of the early seventies (oil crisis of ’73) and in the midst of post-fordist economic restructuring, the following trends take shape :

a)      the cities become the field of intense physical, social and economic transformations, which on the one hand make them attractive to investments while, on the other hand, provoke serious social tensions and exclusions.

b)      At the same time, cultural policy, faced by budgetary restrictions, shifts from the social objectives of the two first postwar decades to more ‘economically  oriented’ priorities.

In other words,

During this period, the notion of “subsidizing” the cultural sector starts to give way to  the notion of “investing into” the cultural sector.

2. Already in 1994, in an acknowledged book by Parkinson – Biankini (16), there is an extensive presentation of the European cities which managed to use culture in various forms in the context of broader restructuring of their economy and/or international profile.

Frankfurt is mentioned as a characteristic example of a metropolis with high status in the financial field, but very poorly performing in terms of culture. According to the study, the city managed to offset preexisting images (expressed in nicknames like Bankfurt of Krankfurt) and reaffirm its profile through high prestige cultural interventions, made possible thanks to the collaboration between Mayor and the Cultural officer of the municipality.

Barcelona, is among the cities which practiced a sustained cultural policy combined with broader economic restructuring, so as to put into gear a city of modernity and innovation. In this process was inscribed the way the city government prepared for the Olympics of 1992, whereby urban design and innovative planning interventions (eg the well known creation of 160 new squares) were not an isolated attempt, but instead the cornerstones and physical symbols of urban regeneration.

Glasgow, having been found, along with cities like Bilbao and Sheffield, in the turmoil of de-industrialisation, attempted to catalyse its economic restructuring through cultural initiatives and to find a new place in the international division of labor. The efforts culminated in the successful implementation of the ECC program in 1990: the latter, despite usual criticisms, is credited with offering valuable cultural infrastructures, promoting a different image of the city and its cultural institutions and, above all, unifying the citizens under a new vision for the future (“urban unification”).

3. From the book of Parkinson – Biankini becomes obvious that the conception and implementation of a strategic cultural policy linked to the development of a city stems mainly from enlightened and dynamic local leaderships.

Of course, in the case of metropolises of international caliber, the motor for such bold cultural conceptions can also be national governments, as in the case of Paris in the Mitterand era : there, the high profile cultural initiatives, apart from promoting the image of the city, aimed also at leaving a legacy of a whole generation or rather a “cultural cycle”.

As an opposite case to that of Paris, is mentioned (in the above book) the case of London, which during the same period has been deprived of both a ‘culturally minded’ national government ( Thatcher era) and a metropolitan local government (given the dissolvement of GLC), which could promote and refresh the image of London as an international metropolis of economic and cultural innovation.

Β. The ‘90s: culture as an accepted ingredient of urban regeneration, the EU urban agendas and the institution of European Cultural Capital

4. At the turn of the ‘90s, and while budgetary pressures continue on the cultural sector, the latter more and more permeates and mutates activities of the tertiary sector, notably tourism, leisure, advertisement, design.

Policies like those of Glasgow and Barcelona mentioned above, symbolize the emerging realization that the more the cultural sector is organically and heuristically integrated into strategic urban policies the better it can help the latter policies in achieving their objectives.

Thus, cultural policy during the 90s becomes a recognized parameter of urban regeneration, encompassing a wide variety of goals - away from simplistic notions of immediate economic benefits -  like: improving quality of life, fighting social exclusion, strengthening communal spirit etc.

5. It is the period when cities come into focus also at European level, due to the opportunities and challenges they represent.

In this context, the Commission tries to forge a common understanding of the ‘new geography of Europe’ and of ‘where cities are going’: product of this process has been an agenda of common theses and policies ( the “Urban Agenda”).

In the same spirit, the then DG 16 ( Regional development and Cohesion) launches a package of innovative programs (art.10 ERDF), like the Urban Pilots and the program “Culture and Economy”. Likewise, the then DG 12 tries to encourage innovative thinking about the cities through Research and Development programs (ACTVILLE).

6. In 1994, in the context of the International Seminar “Culture, building stone of Europe 2002” organized in Athens by Dr. H. Fischer on behalf of the Flemish community of Belgium, there was included a thematic Workshop on “Urban and regional development and Culture”, for which the undersigned was responsible. (1)

The participants comprised recognized academic figures in the domain of Urban and regional development, like Andre Loeucx, Frank Moulaert, Pavlos Delladetsimas, Araxta Rodrigues, Michael Parkinson. The latter, had been advising the Commission on how to introduce an integrated approach on urban issues, an outcome of which was the European initiative URBAN, just having been launched that year.

Professor Parkinson gave an outline of the main problems of cities and drew a parallel between the dilemmas of urban policies and those of cultural policy. Indeed, urban policies at that moment had to choose between :

while the dilemma of cultural policy had always been between:

To overcome these dilemmas, M. Parkinson considered an EU response necessary and even obligatory, since the achievement of competitiveness by the cities contributes to EU competitiveness, whereas, at the other end, the neglect of social tensions in the cities could undermine the EU edifice itself.

An added reason for EU assuming responsibility on these matters was that, since local and even national governments can be easily tempted to favor an onesided economic success overlooking the need for social and cultural actions, the EU should step in and restore the balance

It has to be noted that the EU, during that period under the leadership of Jaques Delors, was credited, even by non EU minded academics, with the fact that its urban initiatives tended to be far more inclusive and non ‘economistic’ than most of the relevant initiatives at national level (3).

C. The institution of European Cultural Capitals (ECC)

7. The ECC concept was initiated in 1985 by a charismatic politician of national and international appeal, Melina, in order –as Spyros Mercouris puts it (12) – to draw attention not only upon the city of Athens and (upon) culture as the ‘national industry of Greece’ (as Melina believed), but also upon culture as a neglected component of European integration.

This is an important reminder, given that, since then, the European dimension of the ECC programs has been shrinking ( see 13), giving way to the needs of the so called “competition of cities”.

In a very informative, comparative analysis of the ECC institution, mainly in the period 1995-2004 (13), there appears a whole panorama of cities selected as ECC, their respective programs being analysed according to many parameters, which can be grouped in to following categories:

8. The main, for the needs of this presentation, conclusions and lessons from  the above study can be summarized, as follows :

- In terms of objectives

The most commonly referred objective of the ECC programs was to “promote the international image of the city”.

The main suggestions done by respondents to the interviews of the study were: the avoidance of too many objectives as well as the of the rhetorics about the objectives.

Basic advices were: “ Start from what is important for the city”

and

“Develop and implement your actions with and not for the citizens; if you convince your own people, tourists will come..”

- In terms  of cultural program:

“The cultural and artistic program is the heart of the ECC program: artistic autonomy is indispensable”

“Do something creative, something new: no imitations”

“The ECC program is a vehicle for change: be bold in your themes and vision”

Pervasive was the dilemma: how much to concentrate on high profile commercial events and big cultural instutions and how much to opt for decentralized participation of either grass roots institutions and the citizens.

- In terms of technical program:

The dilemma was how much to decentralize the investments done in cultural infrastructures: here, ECC cities left a very positive legacy, since even Athens, with low budget and short planning horizon attempted a bold decentralisaiton of cultural infrastructures, which created afterwards the base of cultural activity of the municipalities in the metropolitan area.

The technical program was not usually the epicenter of the ECC, understandably so given the budgetary and managerial requirements of a complex construction program in the short planning horizon of the ECCs.

Physical cultural infrastructures, new ones or through renovations, was more pronounced in the first cycle of the ECC institution and in special cases of cities characterized by either lack of  infrastructures (Thessaloniki) or bad conditions of existing ones (Weimar).

In all cases, however, the technical program of the ECCs, even in cases of extensive criticism in terms of its basic choices and proper implementation, constitutes a concrete ‘acquis’ for the city, something that only exemplary cultural programs of the ECC can achieve.

Here, the demands are, according to all respondents of the study, very high:

Efficiency, leadership, international experience, dedication to culture are some of the requirements for the director, while for the basic team: professional competence, ambition and creativity.

And the basic advice : “Good organization is better than a lot of money!”

D. The situation today : the broader recognition of culture as prerequisite  for creative and innovative environments. The notion of “Cultural Planning”

9. Until recently, the problematic of urban and regional planning had little to do with the problematic of culture, with the exception of cultural heritage: very often in the past, when dealing with ‘classical’ spatial studies, one could easily forget that the territories are places inhabited by people (let alone people who think and behave according to values…). Even worse, in the case of regional development, studies can make one forget not only about people, but also about territory …

Looking at the recent (2006) 3d Synthetic Report of the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON), one sees that the above paradigm of thought belongs to the past, given that:

Nowadays, the conditions for local and regional development do not depend upon hard infrastructures but on soft infrastructures, among which culture occupies a privileged position.

Today, motors of competitiveness and sustainable development are parameters like: quality of life, natural environment, social solidarity, cultural activities and services and the broad participation in them by social groups, protection and innovative valorization of heritage, the creation of ‘cultural clusters’: such clusters is advisable to be developed around cultural heritage resources.

Likewise, the importance of spatial planning in preserving all these resources is being stressed by the Report.

Last but not least, the prime role of ‘smart’ public administration (local / national) cannot be overstressed, as well as the creation of inclusive partnerships. At this point, the contribution of culture is considered a key factor in mobilizing local structures and building up social consensus.

10. The shift in the approach of local development so as to transform governance into an objective of policy instead of its initiator, should not surprise us, given the deep transformations in society and the economy, under which altogether new types of economic activities are taking shape, e.g. in tourism.

In a very interesting article on ‘new tourism’,  P. Skayannis and Stamboulis (17) describe the shift in the content of touristic services: what is offered today to (or rather demanded by) the tourist is no longer just the accommodation and related facilities, but the realization of a ‘whole new experience’. For the creation of the parameters of this ‘experience’, the individual business is not enough: in the emerging new model, the part of the classical business has to be played by the place: the touristic destination.

In order that an ‘experience’ is materialized and lived, the creation of a ‘myth’, a narrative about the place is necessary. Something which is not material production and also not an individual one: the participants have to be many, including touristic agents, intermediaries, local bodies, various local collectivities.

The key role of culture in developing and sustaining such a model of tourism becomes obvious.

Also obvious become the pressures exercised on local governance by such activities based on knowledge, assisted by new technologies.

11. Art and culture enhance the creative abilities of people from which all other aspects of life gradually benefit: creativity, imagination, intuition are skills of utmost importance for the future. There culture not only enriches the quality of life, but increases the probabilities of a person in creating or finding a job.

Therefore the promotion of culture by the cities, regions and whole countries, as a public policy serving both social and development targets, has become an imperative of our times: how to link development, and particularly local development with culture, this is what Cultural Planning is about.

Specifically about the cities, as the city of Linz declares in its Cultural Development Plan, (18) “modern urbanity means an all encompassing policy. Consequently city planning, city development and city culture are to be perceived as a unity…..”

Likewise, Lia Ghilardi (7) stresses that “ cultural planning has to be part of a broader strategy of local development and to create linkages with urban planning, economic policy, industrial policy etc.

She even clarifies that cultural planning is not about planning culture, but about planning a territory having culture in mind.

Two factors are the basic ingredients of a cultural planning operation, according to Ghilardi:

Both the above require joint thinking, cutting across disciplines, administrative departments, sectoral logics.

The need to overcome these traditional dividing lines, led Guilardi, along with F. Biankini, in an important report to the Council of Europe, to talk about “the need  to experiment with new, more ‘open’, more creative forms of governance” (7)

E. Conclusions or lessons for planners

12. From what has been outlined above, one can draw the following conclusions about the conditions for possible osmosis between the domain of urban planning and that of culture :

For this to happen :

F. Postscript for Pecs or comments of a planner on recent developments in the ECoC arena

As mentioned in the previous pages, already in 2006, recommendations at the EU level about Local Development and Spatial Planning (4) were stressing the importance of ‘soft’ infrastructures among which culture occupies a privileged position and that motors of competitiveness are parameters like “…social solidarity, cultural activities and the broad participation in them y social groups, innovative valorisation of heritage, the creation of cultural clusters …”

This is understood by cities, like Kingston in Canada, when they stress that “ cultural vitality improve and enrich the experience of a place..” (B.6) and we know now that experience is in the heart of the “new economy”, transforming whole economic sectors, like tourism and leisure (17)

However, we should be reminded, here, that experience cannot be ‘served’ through planned events or environments (e.g. malls): it has to unfold and ‘be discovered’ in unpredictable ways by the visitor or user of an area, place, facility.

Therefore, the lesson par excellence for urban planners is to look at soft factors of development, which are not deterministically planned: what you can do as a planner is to create the framework conditions for the cultural vitality of a city to flourish, either through the long-term strategic plans or the short-term projects.

Lia Gilardi calls this lesson: “ Plan, having culture in the mind! ”

Because several of us (planners) have this in mind, we look at the European Capitals of Culture:  with the resonance the institution has acquired through the years, it will increasingly become a topic of debate and a practical example of the osmosis between Urban (Regeneration) policy and Culture.

However, a word of caution is needed here:

From recent bibliography and evaluation on the tendencies of the ECoC programmes, the latter appear to be more and more geared towards competitiveness (competition of cities, image making etc). This is quite troubling:

If the ECoC institution succumbs to this temptation of promoting image at the expense of social and cultural inclusion,

if it facilitates “the displacement of planning by marketing in our cities” (B.7),

if it (through an annual program of increasingly hefty budgets) does not serve the decentralised forces which create living and mutating cultures, able to ‘feed’ the experience of a city,

Then, what message to give to planners?...

If either of the policies, Urban or Cultural, opts for the symbolic, big, centralised investments and neglects social and cultural diversities, then they will be both rejected or resisted by the excluded / underprivileged of our current societies.

In that case, we all stand to loose….

References

  1. Arvanitaki, A. (1994) “Regional / Urban Planning and Culture”  Conclusions of  Workshop, Conference “Culture, building stone of Europe 2002”, Athens 3-5/6/1994. http://poieinkaiprattein.org/conferences-symposiums-workshops/cultural-actions-for-europe/the-workshops/workshop-2-regional-urban-planning-and-culture/
  2. Biankini, F. (1994) “Remaking European cities: the role of cultural policies” in Parkinson M., Biankini, F. “Cultural policy and Urban regeneration” Manchester, University Press
  3. Delladetsimas, P. (1994) “Development rhetoric and the notion of City Culture in Europe”  paper for the Conderence “Culture, building stone of Europe 2002”   Workshop “Regional / Urban Planning and Culture”,   Athens 3-5/6/1994
  4. ESPON (2006) “Territory matters for competitiveness and cohesion” Synthetic Report III
  5. ERDF 2007-2013  (2007) “The Urban Development Network – Programme URBACT II”, CCI 2007 CB 163 PO 948
  6. Fischer, H. (2007) «Strategic Cultural Planning in Volos – a study for the HERMES project” στο “Heritage and Media in Europe – contributing towards integration and Regional development”, D. Hassenpflug, B. Kolbmuller, S.Schroder-Esch (eds), HERMES project, Vol. 3
  7. Ghilardi, L. “Cultural planning and Cultural diversity”, Noema research and Planning Ltd, London
  8. Ghilardi, L. (2005) “Culture at the centre: Cultural planning, a strategic approach to successful and sustainable community-based regeneration in Scotland”, Noema research and Planning Ltd, London
  9. Gospodoni, A. (2003) “Urban waterfront redevelopment: the case of Greek cities” στο “Culture and Regional economic development in Europe” University of Thessaly press, Volos
  10. Kalogirou, N. (2003) “Public architecture and culture: the case of Thessaloniki as European City of Culture 1997”  in “Culture and Regional economic development in Europe” University of Thessaly press, Volos
  11. Lalenis, K.  (2005)  «The legal tools for conservation and management of Built Heritage in Greece: reflections of the antagonism of Institutions»,  AESOP Conference,  Vienna 2005
  12. Mercouris, Sp. (1996) “Culture and the Cultural Capitals of Europe”, Thessaloniki
  13. Palmer/Rae Associates (2004) “European Cities and Capitals of Culture” Study prepared for the European Commission
  14. Paparis, A. (2007) “Cultural Capitals of Europe: The Institution and the Spatial Identity of four Cities (Athens, Glasgow, Lisbon, Thessaloniki)”, paper presented at the ECCM Conference “Productivity of Culture”, Athens 18-20/10/2007
  15. Parkinson M., (1994) “Cultural policy and European cities: towards a European Union policy response”  paper presented at the conference “Culture, building stone of Europe 2002”, Workshop “Regional/Urban Planning and Culture”,  Athens 3-5/6/1994
  16. Parkinson M., Biankini, F. (1994) (edit.) “Cultural policy and Urban regeneration” Manchester, University Press
  17. Skayannis, P. Stamboulis, Y. “Innovation in tourism, technology and institutions” in “Culture and Regional economic development in Europe” University of Thessaly press, Volos  2003
  18. «Cultural Development Plan for the city of Linz , Austria», 2000 (www.linz.at)

 

B.1 Dreezen, Craig “The Community Cultural Planning Handbook: a guide for community leaders”

www.umass.edu/aes

B.2 Gallo, Luis “ Urban poor linger in shadow of Istanbul nouveau”, Hurriyet Daily News, 1.10.2010

B.3 Decathlon SA “PATRAS 2006”, the basic elements of the candidacy study for Patras 2006, 2002 (in greek)

B.4 Mercouris, Spyros “Concept and Spirit of the 25 years of European Capitals of Culture” speech delivered at the meeting of the European Cultural Parliament, 14-15 Sept. 2010, Athens

http://poieinkaiprattein.org/europe/european-cultural-capital-cities/walking-through-the-program/concept-and-spirit-of-the-25-years-of-european-capitals-of-culture-by-spyros-mercouris-2010/

B.5 Palmer/Rae Associates “European Capitals of Culture Report 2”, 2009

B.6 Kingston City Council “Kingston Culture Plan”, Sept. 2010 , www.cityofkingston.ca

B.7  Zukin, Sharon “ The Cultures of Cities” 1995, Blackwell

This paper was given at the conference "Inclusion through education and culture" organised by the University Network of the European Capitals of Culture (UNeECC)-Compostela Group of Universities in PECS,  14 - 15 OCTOBER  2010

For further information please contact

Anna Arvanitaki

Architect-Urban & regional Planner,  Ministry of Environment,  Energy and Climatic Change, General Secretariat for Spatial Planning and Urban Environment, President of  PΟΙΕΙΝ & PRΑΤΤΕΙΝ

Tel. +30 3617792

mobile: +30 6974 609612,

email: a.arvanitaki@dpols.minenv.gr

www.poieinkaiprattein,org

^ Top

« Inclusion through Education and Culture - Pecs Conference 14 - 15 Oct 2010 | Final Dinner in Pecs 2010 »