CULTURAL CAPITALS OF CANADA BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

1983

* June: Greek Culture Minister, actress Melina Mercouri, promotes idea of a city as a cultural entity.  Aim was to bring people of EU member states closer together.  The event would recognize European culture as “having both common elements and a richness borne of diversity.”  Mercouri suggested that it was time “for our (the Culture Ministers’) voice to be heard as loud as that of the technocrats.  Culture, art and creativity are not less important than technology, commerce and the economy.”

 

* November: First informal meeting of the Culture Ministers of the European Union in Athens, Greece and discussion of the idea. “It is generally accepted that culture provides the best way of bridging differences between societies; it is the prerequisite for understanding and, therefore, for effective cooperation between nations.”

  • two objectives: to stress political unity of shared EU heritage AND to promote cultural distinctiveness of individual cities
  • ECC would not be a European Commission program but it be active in funding; the ECC program would match cultural policy concerns of Commission, especially development of networks and sponsorship encouragement

 

Date

European Cities of Culture (ECC)

Notable Events

1985

1986

1987

1988

Athens (Greece)

Florence (Italy)

Amsterdam (Netherlands)

West Berlin (West Germany)

 

1989

Paris (France)

* Timing of cultural year and pairing up with anniversary occasion e.g. France, 1989, bicentenary of French Revolution

* paradox noticed that in large cities, ECC could go unnoticed; in smaller centre, programming is difficult to sustain

* doubling up with other promotion might mean overshadowing one over the other; however, tourism prospects improved

1990

Glasgow (United Kingdom)

* U.K. competitive process and nine cities were short-listed.  Choice of Glasgow as non-capital city was a turning point for other non-capital cities aspiring to make list.

* In preparation for Glasgow ECC, past, present and future organizers began to meet informally to exchange information and experience.  European Commission encouraged this group and gave financial support.

* Kaleidoscope Program established grant towards meeting of the Network of European Cultural Cities and Months

*European Cultural Month launched by EU Culture Ministers in 1990, to accommodate (primarily Eastern European) cities outside of EU e.g. Cracow for 1992, Graz for 1993, Budapest for 1994, etc.

1991

Dublin (Ireland)

* As it developed, ECC impacted on other areas of Commission i.e. urban regeneration, training and tourism

* Dublin’s Temple Bar project studied idea of using culture & environment as engines of economic and social regeneration

1992

Madrid (Spain)

 

1993

Antwerp (Belgium)

 

1994

Lisbon (Portugal)

Network of Cultural Cities of Europe received John Myerscough’s European Cities of Culture and Cultural Months, Part I Research Study

1995

Luxembourg (Luxembourg)

 

1996

Copenhagen (Denmark)

 

1997

Thessaloniki (Greece)

From years 1985 to 1996, national authorities chose first 12 cities that were worthy to offer a cultural case.  Beginning 1997, cities bid for designation.

1998

Stockholm (Sweden)

In June 1998, the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) Final Report of the Working Group on Cultural Policy for the 21st Century recommended “…a Canadian City of Culture project be placed on the agenda of the next federal/provincial meeting of culture ministers for discussion and implementation.”

1999

Weimar (Germany)

 

2000

Reykjavík (Iceland), Bergen (Norway), Helsinki (Finland), Brussels (Belgium), Prague (Czech Republic), Krakow (Poland), Santiago de Compostela (Galicia, Spain), Avignon (France), Bologna (Italy)

In both the 1999 Speech from the Throne, and in the Government Response to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage “Connecting to the Canadian Experience” Report (1999), the government made reference to “a strategic initiative which would be aimed at profiling and promoting the cultural character of cities.”  In February 2000, in association with CCA and Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), DCH officials gave presentation about initiating a cultural city program in Canada.

2001

Rotterdam (Netherlands), Porto (Portugal)

 

2002

Bruges (Belgium), Salamanca (Spain)

Program announced on May 31, 2002 as the Cultural Capitals of Canada, to recognize and support Canadian municipalities’ arts and culture activities.  Program has three levels: Level 1 for a total population over 125,000, Level 2 for 50,000 to 125,000, and Level 3 for less than 50,000.  Level 1 = 75% of total eligible costs to a maximum of $2 million, Level 2 = maximum of $750,000.00, and Level 3 = maximum of $500,000.00.

2003

Graz (Austria)

Level 1: Vancouver; Level 2: Red Deer; Level 3: Thunder Bay, Ontario; Caraquet, New Brunswick; and Rivière-du-Loup, Québec chosen

2004

Genoa (Italy), Lille (France)

Level 1: Regina, Saskatchewan.  Level 2: Kelowna, B.C.  Level 3: Owen Sound, Ontario, Powell River, B.C. and Lethbridge, Canmore, Drumheller, and Crowsnest Pass, Alberta, and Fernie, British Columbia

2005

Cork (Republic of Ireland)

Level 1: Toronto (ON), Level 2: Victoria (BC), Level 3: Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn (ON), Annapolis Royal (NS), and Saint-Jean-Port-Joli (QC)

2006

Patras (Greece)

Level 1: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.  Level 2: St. John’s, Newfoundland.  Level 3: Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce, Quebec, District of West Vancouver, British Columbia, and Wikwemikong, Ontario

2007

Luxembourg (Luxembourg), Sibiu (Romania)

 

 

In John Myercough’s research (1994), he analyzed reasons for receipt of ECC award:

 

I.                Approaches to designation

a.        Individuality: contrasts between cities greater than similarities – common strands include infrastructure initiatives, cultural spreading, cultural conferences – what are unique features?

b.       Differing foci of various ECC: long-term infrastructures: preference given to events that would stimulate long-term economic, social and cultural advantages e.g. festival programming in Florence 86, artistic concepts in West Berlin 88.  Long-term cultural activities need to be specified, listing problems & advantages of expansion, especially focusing on personnel, funding and capital needs.

c.        Listing of cities’ objectives: preference given to incorporation of program with city objectives

d.       Interaction in the Sequence: listing of aspects of cooperation and difficulties among Cities of Culture

 

II.              Operational Features

a.        Merits of Different Models:

                                                                      i.  Government Model: gives political strength & full resources of local authorities, especially focusing on post-event capabilities and political will

                                                                    ii.  Private Company Model: can bring in private sectors more effectively, can focus directly on delivering event, but with this model time is limited & once event is finished, expertise is dispersed and lessons learned are lost

b.       Responsibilities

                                                                      i.  planning of program (time line), co-ordination of program, promotion of event

c.        Framework of Relationships

                                                                      i.  determine criteria for dissension and conflict resolution, and create “probably” problem/solution chart, discuss scenarios with professional and political partners

d.       Intention to follow-up

                                                                      i.  what future cultural provisioning system is in place for long-term benefit?

 

III.            Resources

a.        operational resources over long-term – identify costs over budget

b.       what is average expenditure for other ECC

c.        how does budget compare with city budget for culture

d.       what is the funding percentage breakdown from all sources

e.        how much money will business sponsor for operating and program costs - identify potential sponsors

f.         business plan to entice business to sponsor events both short and long term

g.       public & private partnerships – will corporations donate money and /or expertise to advance city’s cultural plans

h.       sponsorship success – define training roles that corporations can assist art organizations – develop criteria and evaluate “barter” arrangement

 

IV.           Programming

a.        Scope and Scale

                                                                      i.  factors to consider: duration, scope, scale of program, development of parallel programs, building projects

b.       Established Institutions

                                                                      i.  danger of over-extension outside routine creative procedures if funding and space not provisioned for in long-term plan.

c.        Matching of priorities

                                                                      i.  determine long-term foreign “priorities” e.g. Foreign Affairs, international tourism.  Evaluate positive and negative aspects of matching ECC priorities with the “foreign” priorities

d.       Artistic elements

                                                                      i.  identify local “stars”

e.        Opportunities for Artists

                                                                      i.  create a timeline that allows for both short and long-term commissioning and budgeting

 

f.         Opportunities for Arts & Politics

                                                                      i.  invite foreign project that relate to theme but avoid “forced marriages” of events that are artistically suspect but politically “correct”.

g.       Socio-cultural themes

                                                                      i.  identify political cultural themes and investigate through conferences.  Evaluate findings.  Predict future.

 

V.             Impacts

a.        Promotion

                                                                      i.  who should promote cultural tourism and what agendas are promoted?

b.       Images and Branding

                                                                      i.  Is creating an “image” more important than respecting the wishes of the local residents?  Can they be mutually beneficial?  Identify both groups’ priorities.  Generate cause/effect chart.

c.        Media Response

                                                                      i.  identify and develop media interest

d.       Attendance

                                                                      i.  formulate and implement accountability tools.  Interpret data (statistics, funding, etc.) and evaluate

e.        Social Impact

                                                                      i.  identify national / international success stories merging education and social work with arts.  Evaluate and rank their effectiveness.

f.         Constructive International Thinking

                                                                      i.  develop concepts that are catalysts for future investigation: cultural networking sharpened, city’s self-promotion tools improved

g.       Unity

                                                                      i.  political value?

h.       Place of Economic Objectives

                                                                      i.  linking of culture to economic opportunities – strategic investment in creativity, contributes ideas and personnel to other industries, forms a seed bed for spin-off into the cultural industries

                                                                    ii.  arts are powerful magnet for visitors, stimulate spending, improve consumer services quality, hastens urban regeneration

                                                                   iii.  quality of life – strong cultural infrastructure plays a part in attracting commerce, industry and tourism to an area

i.         Cultural Industries

                                                                      i.  while cultural industries not at centre of ECC focus, expansion of opportunities e.g. awards for architecture, fashion, food, etc.

j.         Tourism

                                                                      i.  tourism market / conference trade market / local residents market

k.        Market Response

                                                                      i.  measurement tool for market response to cultural events

l.         Causal Links

                                                                      i.  measurement and evaluation tools for promotional material value

m.      Other city statistics

                                                                      i.  statistical tools to evaluate tourist response e.g. increase in tourist trade

n.       Follow Through

                                                                      i.  continuous engagement mechanisms post-event

o.       Broad Economic Assessment

                                                                      i.  assessment of positive net economic return

p.       Cultural Outcome

                                                                      i.  increased capability to handle major events

                                                                    ii.  willingness to undertake and accept other international, national and local projects

                                                                   iii.  status of cultural sector rose

                                                                  iv.  cultural attitudes changed which resulted in various foreign initiatives


 

VI.           Networking

a.        Related Contacts

                                                                      i.  cross paths with other cultural initiatives e.g. European Film Festival or Prix Europa choose to hold events in ECC cities

b.       Secretariat for network

                                                                      i.  elements of such in place

 

VII.         Conclusion

                         What started as an accolade to existing places of cultural reputation became a tool of cultural policy capable of achieving multiple objectives.

a.        Factors to be borne in mind for ECC:

                                                                      i.  proposals should clarify the cultural purpose of each city seeking the designation

                                                                    ii.  cultural objectives placed at centre of event

                                                                   iii.  clear objectives with appropriate time lines

                                                                  iv.  “shared vision” in public and private sector

                                                                    v.  adequate & professional delivery mechanism

                                                                  vi.  communication plan that includes local residents

                                                                 vii.  tourism professionals who understand international markets

                                                               viii.  foresight given to “follow-up” in long term strategic planning for the cultural sector