Being a Capital of Culture can do wonders for a city's profile. But Henrietta Hopkins warns that without tight planning and financial control the programme can't ever reach its potential Liverpool '08 triumphantly declares, `The capital of culture title will place [Liverpool] firmly on the global map'.
I certainly hope this is so, but reading the Palmer/Rae Associates report, European Cities and Capitals of Culture (Brussels: 2004), it would seem unlikely.
The report commissioned by the Education and Culture Directorate General of the European Commission, documents past European Cities and Capitals of Culture and assesses their impact and importance for the future. The study is comprehensive, covering a wide range of management issues and an evaluation of the cities involved from 1995 to 2004.
The European City of Culture was launched in 1985 and has undergone a number of revisions. In 1992 a new event, European Cultural Month, was set up and a further resolution made regarding the selection of cities in the future.
In 1999 new selection procedures and criteria were outlined and came into force this year, with Cork being the 2005 Capital of Culture. Future procedures are the subject of debate by the European Parliament and will be implemented from 2009.
Until reading this report I had always felt positively towards the European Capital of Culture programme. It seemed to me a hugely important way of giving a city and a region, a profile on the national, European and international stage.
It could engage excluded communities in their city's culture, enabling them to contribute more fully to its future, and bring opportunities for regeneration that would last generations. I am clearly an idealist.
This report sites enormous problems, from personality clashes to organisational mismanagement; and although it allows for the potential for a long-term legacy for the Capitals of Culture, it finds very little evidence that this has been the case so far.
The report says that cities have not been learning from each other's successes and failures. It recommends that the European Commission plays a role in facilitating this knowledge exchange in the future. I would think it more fruitful in terms of long-term collaboration between cities if the cities themselves found ways of building a dialogue.
It would be good to know that Liverpool is talking to Cork. With an operating budget of 13.5m Euro, Cork has has set up an independent company to manage the programme. Liverpool too has established the independent Liverpool Culture Company.
One step that could be taken to help cities learn from each other is to have a requirement that each programme incorporates an element of cultural collaboration across Europe. This could focus on previous Capitals of Culture, which would make sure a dialogue takes place during the planning process.
Operating expenditure across the cities involved ranged from 7.9m to 73.7m Euro. Although funding is an important issue, for managing in the present and guaranteeing sustainability, it seems from the report that there are more significant and fundamental issues that need to be resolved at an early stage in the planning cycle.
The report cites managing difficult relationships as a key issue. It highlights a particularly thorny negotiation between Bergen and a major institution that led to a very public and damaging debate through the media. Respondents to the study often cited tensions between political ambitions and cultural programming.
Obviously it is essential for Liverpool to carefully consider policies and strategies for internal and external communication and advocacy for the programme.
It seems that all of the Capitals of Culture felt they should have been more selective about the projects chosen for the cultural programme. With as many as 500 different events to manage throughout the year, tensions often ran high.
A clear message is that a better balance is needed between big blockbuster events and community and local programmes. Large events often hit political targets, but local events are more likely to be self-sustaining after the year is over.
Cities felt the opening ceremony was vital for their projects' success and said it set the tone for the year. But the report says that a negative impact is the impossibility of maintaining this festival atmosphere after the year ends. But if smaller, more achievable goals are set there are surely huge opportunities for the cities and their citizens.
The cultural programme is vitally important and the requirements highlighted by the report include strong management; a balance between artistic and political requirements; involving all stakeholders appropriately; and ensuring evaluation throughout.
It is interesting that part one of the report does not focus much attention on the content of the programmes but more on management and strategic issues.
It is clear that in order for programmes to have a life after the year is over, there needs to be a better, clearer relationship between the cultural programme and general Capital of Culture objectives.
It will be important for the long-term sustainability of the programmes in Liverpool that they have an influence now on the future strategy and direction of the city, particularly at a time when political interest is high. Some cities mentioned the importance of not programming events, which either in terms of price or location, re-enforce the barriers between the haves and have-nots.
The Liverpool 2008 website makes it clear that it is 'a city of extremes. World-class orchestras, galleries and museums sit alongside some of the poorest wards in the country'. This then is an important message for Liverpool's organisers.
There is a sense in the report that the full potential of the Capital of Culture programme has not been reached, either because of poor planning and financial control; or through inadequate evaluation. But Liverpool can learn from these lessons and build a programme to remember and from which future European Capitals of Culture can learn.
Henrietta Hopkins is a partner in Hopkins Van Mil: Connecting Museums, which offers advice to museums on international marketing strategies
Links: www.palmer-rae.com/culturalcapitals.htm
www.liverpool08.com
The new World Museum Liverpool will be reviewed in Museum Practice issue 31. To subscribe visit www.museumsassociation.org
I certainly hope this is so, but reading the Palmer/Rae Associates report, European Cities and Capitals of Culture (Brussels: 2004), it would seem unlikely.
The report commissioned by the Education and Culture Directorate General of the European Commission, documents past European Cities and Capitals of Culture and assesses their impact and importance for the future. The study is comprehensive, covering a wide range of management issues and an evaluation of the cities involved from 1995 to 2004.
The European City of Culture was launched in 1985 and has undergone a number of revisions. In 1992 a new event, European Cultural Month, was set up and a further resolution made regarding the selection of cities in the future.
In 1999 new selection procedures and criteria were outlined and came into force this year, with Cork being the 2005 Capital of Culture. Future procedures are the subject of debate by the European Parliament and will be implemented from 2009.
Until reading this report I had always felt positively towards the European Capital of Culture programme. It seemed to me a hugely important way of giving a city and a region, a profile on the national, European and international stage.
It could engage excluded communities in their city's culture, enabling them to contribute more fully to its future, and bring opportunities for regeneration that would last generations. I am clearly an idealist.
This report sites enormous problems, from personality clashes to organisational mismanagement; and although it allows for the potential for a long-term legacy for the Capitals of Culture, it finds very little evidence that this has been the case so far.
The report says that cities have not been learning from each other's successes and failures. It recommends that the European Commission plays a role in facilitating this knowledge exchange in the future. I would think it more fruitful in terms of long-term collaboration between cities if the cities themselves found ways of building a dialogue.
It would be good to know that Liverpool is talking to Cork. With an operating budget of 13.5m Euro, Cork has has set up an independent company to manage the programme. Liverpool too has established the independent Liverpool Culture Company.
One step that could be taken to help cities learn from each other is to have a requirement that each programme incorporates an element of cultural collaboration across Europe. This could focus on previous Capitals of Culture, which would make sure a dialogue takes place during the planning process.
Operating expenditure across the cities involved ranged from 7.9m to 73.7m Euro. Although funding is an important issue, for managing in the present and guaranteeing sustainability, it seems from the report that there are more significant and fundamental issues that need to be resolved at an early stage in the planning cycle.
The report cites managing difficult relationships as a key issue. It highlights a particularly thorny negotiation between Bergen and a major institution that led to a very public and damaging debate through the media. Respondents to the study often cited tensions between political ambitions and cultural programming.
Obviously it is essential for Liverpool to carefully consider policies and strategies for internal and external communication and advocacy for the programme.
It seems that all of the Capitals of Culture felt they should have been more selective about the projects chosen for the cultural programme. With as many as 500 different events to manage throughout the year, tensions often ran high.
A clear message is that a better balance is needed between big blockbuster events and community and local programmes. Large events often hit political targets, but local events are more likely to be self-sustaining after the year is over.
Cities felt the opening ceremony was vital for their projects' success and said it set the tone for the year. But the report says that a negative impact is the impossibility of maintaining this festival atmosphere after the year ends. But if smaller, more achievable goals are set there are surely huge opportunities for the cities and their citizens.
The cultural programme is vitally important and the requirements highlighted by the report include strong management; a balance between artistic and political requirements; involving all stakeholders appropriately; and ensuring evaluation throughout.
It is interesting that part one of the report does not focus much attention on the content of the programmes but more on management and strategic issues.
It is clear that in order for programmes to have a life after the year is over, there needs to be a better, clearer relationship between the cultural programme and general Capital of Culture objectives.
It will be important for the long-term sustainability of the programmes in Liverpool that they have an influence now on the future strategy and direction of the city, particularly at a time when political interest is high. Some cities mentioned the importance of not programming events, which either in terms of price or location, re-enforce the barriers between the haves and have-nots.
The Liverpool 2008 website makes it clear that it is 'a city of extremes. World-class orchestras, galleries and museums sit alongside some of the poorest wards in the country'. This then is an important message for Liverpool's organisers.
There is a sense in the report that the full potential of the Capital of Culture programme has not been reached, either because of poor planning and financial control; or through inadequate evaluation. But Liverpool can learn from these lessons and build a programme to remember and from which future European Capitals of Culture can learn.
Henrietta Hopkins is a partner in Hopkins Van Mil: Connecting Museums, which offers advice to museums on international marketing strategies
Links: www.palmer-rae.com/culturalcapitals.htm
www.liverpool08.com
The new World Museum Liverpool will be reviewed in Museum Practice issue 31. To subscribe visit www.museumsassociation.org
