3. Contents
Setting the Stage 2
Contribution to the Long‑term Strategy 11
European Dimension 20
Cultural Artistic Content 23
Capacity to deliver 54
Outreach 62
Management 68
4. 4 Setting the Stage
Setting
the Stage
Bucharest’s paradoxical nature is the source of both its strengths
and its weaknesses. It is what cyclically and abruptly interrupts its
development and what makes for the city’s fantastic potential.
A City Betrayed / ‘Rock This Country’
As of March 14, the death toll from the tragic night of October 30, 2015, when a fire broke out at the
Colectiv club, reached 64. Many others, having miraculously survived the hell, are making a slow
and painful recovery, under medical supervision, in Romania and abroad. In many ways, the Colectiv
fire has become a crucial moment for Bucharest, revealing the depth and complexity of the moral cri‑
ses confronting the city.
Following the tragedy, over 25,000 people took to the streets across Romania, their message clear:
‘We don’t change a name, we change a system’. The messages on placards saying, among others, ‘Your
corruption killed our children’ referred to everyday occurrences in the country where official permits to
run places can be bought with little concern for safety measures, often regarded as unnecessary trifles.
The establishment has reacted by clamping down on many venues, thus penalizing the cultural
environment of the city and flourishing small businesses, without adopting a long term solution. The sit‑
uation has been compounded with closures of earthquake prone and dangerous buildings, which also
reignited the citizens’ invisible yet alert anxieties over the city’s capacity to cope in the event of natu‑
ral hazards or accidents.
During the days people took to the streets, partly in grief, partly in anger, the lyrics of the song The
Day We Die by Goodbye to Gravity, the band playing at the club at the night of the fire, accompanied the
Colectiv protesters in what sounded like a fulfilled premonition of a grief‑stricken city.
The tragedy at Colectiv was shocking and seismic in scale. The protests against the immorality and
corruption inherent in the public sector caused a government to fall. A temporary government formed
by members from the civil society was appointed for one year, having the support of active groups all
over Romania.
The scarce cultural offer in the neighbourhood areas and the lack of cultural space are still unsolved.
This is, in many ways, last call for a generation that has already felt betrayed. With many of the city’s
traumas in the recent past left unsolved or unaddressed, we never anticipated an event that would
leave yet another scar on this city and underline the complexity of the In—visible City. Our bid has met a
severe reality check; now more than ever urgent questions are being raised regarding Bucharest’s abil‑
ity to cope with grief, absorb shocks, and build healthy partnerships to lay the foundations for a cul‑
ture of responsibility.
A City in Transition
Caught between its Western logos and Balkan ethos, its rural and urban identity, its fascination with
the centre while overlooking the vitality of its peripheries, its over‑regulated socialist past and the
neoliberal laissez faire present, Bucharest is in a permanent state of creative chaos due to its unresolved
contradictions. With a population in pendular migration within EU geographical and cultural space, the
city is enriched with these personal experiences, which are neither communicated nor shared enough.
Bucharest is today a city that still balances the pre‑1989 socialist reality and the post‑1989 neolib‑
eral one. Two fundamentally opposed directions intersect and generate patterns and forces that form a
state of extremes and a strongly polarised society. The invisible socio‑economic challenges the city faces
are fast‑paced gated communities, suburbanisation, a strong seasonal migration and extensive privati‑
sation programmes. Urban policies revolve around re‑centring the city and are mostly image over sub‑
stance, discourse over action. Hence there is a total distrust of discourse and rhetoric.
Explain briefly the overall
cultural profile of your city.
Why does your city wish to take part
in the competition for the title of
European Capital of Culture? (see p. 8)
Bucharest is in a
permanent state of
creative chaos due
to its unresolved
contradictions.
5. 5
1 WMF Nomination Form,
February 26, 2015.
Between East and West
Bucharest’s hybrid culture has been shaped by its openness towards influences of other cultures —
Byzantine, Ottoman, Russian, German and French. It was this feature of the city that left it totally
exposed and unprotected in the face of Ottoman and Tatar attacks, which gave its inhabitants the unset‑
tling feeling of volatility.
Located only 70 km north of the river Danube, Bucharest developed from a village located on the
Dâmboviţa river to Wallachia’s seat of power and, later, to the capital of United Principalities of Wallachia
and Moldavia.
The city’s modernisation came late, in the 1830s, under the occupation of the Russian empire’s
army. However, it was only in the 1930s that Bucharest caught up with the rest of Europe and became
the Little Paris, a city with modernist architectural landmarks and a specific joie de vivre infused by its
Balkan lifestyle.
The communist rule abruptly cut Bucharest’s links with Western Europe down to the level of a
total isolation in the 1980s, when the city became literally invisible. The opportunity for reconnection
with its European identity came equally abruptly in 1989, and over the past 25 years Bucharest is still a
city in transition, struggling to find its way back into Europe.
Fragmented City: Bucharest Archipelago
Fragmentation is present in all aspects of the city: the physical space, the transport system, the dis‑
connected institutional and independent sectors, the gap between authorities and the citizens, and
also in the individual’s way of life. One could say it has become a state of mind, as well as a way of work‑
ing and communicating.
The city’s current administrative and territorial structure is part and parcel of this fragmentation.
The city is divided in six districts, each ruled by an independent mayor elected every four years.
The city’s human scale urban planning and architecture was fractured for the first time at the end
of the 19th century by the construction of monumental buildings under plans for modernising the capi‑
tal. In the 1980s, more than one third of the historic centre was demolished to make room for the gigan‑
tic House of the People (now hosting the Parliament). This traumatic fragmentation of the city’s urban
tissue has irreversibly shaped the city, disconnecting the city centre from the neighbouring quarters and
fragmenting the central area into isolated neighbourhoods.
The trend of demolition continued after 1989, this time for commercial and speculative reasons.
Preserving the heritage of the city has become one of the most important factors behind civic initia‑
tives such as ProDoMo and ProPatrimonio, which have nominated Bucharest for the 2016 WMF World
Monuments to Watch.1
The Mahalale:
Neighbourhoods and Cultural Diversity
An important sign of a changing perspective is Bucharest’s Urban Master Plan (under revision) which
puts citizens and communities first in a visionary plan asserting a bottom‑up approach in urban
planning, with 70 neighbourhoods (cartiere) as functional units. To make it work, the neighbourhoods,
to which Bucharest residents are more emotionally attached than to the city's centre, will require both
an administrative and a symbolic consolidation and empowering.
In 2005, between 70–80% of citizens found the city dirty, poor, chaotic, uncivilised, yet 75% of
them were totally satisfied with their neighbourhood. On the other hand, in the recent EU Barometer on
Quality of Life in European Cities (2015), Bucharest scores lowest on the level of trust in the city, espe‑
cially in neighbourhood areas. These inconsistencies suggest that although people feel more attached
to their neighbourhoods and ascribe a more identity‑affirming value to them than to the city, there is lit‑
tle interaction and sense of communality, resulting in a high degree of distrust.
This paradox is one of the city’s most specific traits. In the 18th century Bucharest became a thriv‑
ing town at the intersection of commercial routes from the East and the West, a city that welcomed trad‑
ers and manufacturers coming from the Balkans and other parts of Europe: Greeks, Bulgarian, Serbs,
Armenians, Jews, Albanians and Austrians.
The mahalale (Turkish word for neighbourhood and periphery) became the nucleus of the city’s
ethnic‑centred quarters that are still relevant today, such as Dudești-Cioplea for the Bulgarian commu‑
nity or the Armenian quarter.
Ethnic diversity can today be found embedded in the family histories of individuals that can trace
back among their relatives at least two generations of Bucharest citizens. Today, the impact of newly
attracted ethnic communities such as the Turkish and Arabic ones is visible throughout the city, in a
6. 6 Setting the Stage
widely spread network of kebab shops and restaurants that go deep in the districts’ neighbourhoods.
Bucharest also has a Chinese community and a small number of refugees of different nationalities, such
as Syrian, Pakistani, Afghan, Myanmar, Ukrainian and African that live primarily in dormitory‑style neigh‑
bourhoods such as Pantelimon.
The results of the Intercultural City Index in 20152 shows that Bucharest ranks 74th among the 74
European cities in the programme, with an aggregate intercultural city index of 23%. Although the city
became a partner in the DELI programme, it has not yet made a public statement as an intercultural
city, nor has it adopted a strategy and action plan regarding integration and cultural diversity. To tackle
this issue, we will propose the Municipality to set up a task force and an action plan which would, as
a minimum, provide a framework to address the policies and programmes of the future Museum of
Multiculturality of the city which the Bucharest City Council voted in 2016 to establish.
According to expert estimates, the Roma population in Romania in 2010 was between 6% and 12%
of the total population, compared to the approximately 3% in official figures based on self‑declared eth‑
nicity during the 2011 Census. Bucking the ageing trend of Romania’s overall population, more than one
third (over 37%) of the Romanian Roma population is under 15 years of age.3 The estimated number of
Roma in Bucharest and Ilfov County is between 150,000 and 200,000, making the Bucharest Roma com‑
munity the largest in Europe.
The Roma population are located in both inner city, peripheral areas and rural Ilfov County, with
large concentrations in neighbourhoods such as Ferentari (District 5) and Giulești (District 6). To some
extent, and as a result of generations of marginalisation, these have been parallel societies with few for‑
mal links to the city; however, for the first time a common initiative has been instigated by various Roma
associations to set up a Roma forum in Bucharest — initiated by Romano Butiq, which is a key partner
of Bucharest2021.
The Cultural Scene
The fundamental contradictions and opposing trends in the city are constantly generating a state of
creative chaos. A new type of cultural edginess and specific energy has been born out of the clash
of opposing realities, an underground tension that is constantly fuelling above ground processes and
resulting in a certain type of authenticity.
Bucharest’s cultural life is a rich mix of traditional (elitist) culture, represented by a strong per‑
forming arts sector (theatre, opera, dance, and music), as well as a large and diverse network of muse‑
ums, and a mass (leisure) culture, represented by an increasing number of open air festivals, concerts
and events, and a rapidly developing contemporary arts scene. Moreover, there are a growing number
of cultural operators from the entrepreneurial sector. These include, besides the traditional areas of cul‑
tural industries such as multimedia, cinema, audio‑visual, music, publishing, cinema, the more edgy
domains of video games, interactive media, design, craftsmanship, architecture, etc. Based on recent
evaluations of the creative economy sector in Romania, Bucharest is the national leader in cultural entre‑
preneurship. This potential can be one of the key assets for the ECoC project.
The arts and culture sector has different types of cultural structures, each with its own organisa‑
tional, economic, and artistic characteristics: municipal and national cultural institutions, independent
organisations, and private ones. Although they are all equally important as part of the cultural ecosys‑
tem of the city, they are in fact separate phenomena. This segmentation of the cultural life is furthered
by the prior absence of an overall cultural strategy and by the lack of common cultural agendas.
The independent scene itself is fragmented, with a growing number of organisations, operators,
and individual artist groups currently active across the cultural spectrum. Their rapidly shifting nature
makes it difficult to estimate a number (more than 300 have applied for funding from the City’s main
project fund at ARCUB). It is especially the case of a wide range of non‑institutionalised creative initia‑
tives that have developed a community‑building component into their projects, which has had a great
impact on local environments.
The independent sector’s rapid growth over the past 15 years is also the result of the annual incor‑
poration of a high number of young arts graduates coming from all over the country, making it the most
active and innovative part of the local cultural scene.
The annual financing pattern of both national and municipal cultural institutions, as well as the inde‑
pendent sectors, has undermined their capacity to develop multi‑annual projects and has reduced dras‑
tically their chances to participate in European‑funded programmes, as well as to co‑produce European
events and festivals, due to financial unpredictability.
Overall Bucharest scores low regarding European and international cultural co‑productions that
have been held over the past three years, as well as the number of European artists in residence.
Among the cultural institutions that have a European profile are: the National Peasant Museum — a mem‑
ber of the International Council of Monuments and Sites ICOMOS and the 1996 European Museum of
2 Council of Europe/ERICarts,
Compendium of Cultural Policies and
Trends in Europe, 16th edition, 2015.
3 World Bank Group, Diagnostics and
Policy Advice for Supporting Roma
Inclusion in Romania, prepared by the
Human Development and Sustainable
Development Teams Europe and
Central Asia, February 28, 2014.
7. 7
the Year; Bulandra Theatre — a member of the European Theatre Union since 1992; Bucharest National
Theatre — a founding member of New European Theatre Action NETA network; Romanian Youth Cultural
Centre — a member of the European Federation of National Youth Orchestras.
Bucharest has the highest number of arts universities in the country (seven), with more than
7,000 arts students. In recent years, there have been a few successful attempts at improving the col‑
laborative aspects of these otherwise traditional institutions with research and experiment platforms.
Some notable examples are the Centre for Electroacustic Music and Multimedia at the National Music
University, which works with cutting‑edge technologies in aural and visual arts, and the CINETIc inter‑
national research centre in creative technologies at the University of Theatre and Film. Both centres are
key partners in our programme.
Bucharest’s Cultural Life
Bucharest’s performing arts sector is historically strong with the National Theatre at its core. Its
diverse networks of museums and public libraries produce more than half of the city’s cultural
output, comprising theatre, dance, and music performances, as well as exhibitions, conferences, and
arts‑driven education events.
Trans‑disciplinary events are mostly produced by the independent contemporary arts scene, which
is less developed both in terms of events and audiences than the institutional scene. Bucharest owes the
development of its contemporary arts scene in large part to the constant efforts of the independents.
At the forefront of this trend has been, since the early 1990s, the local contemporary dance and visual
arts scene, and in particular the Bucharest National Dance Centre (CNDB) and the National Museum of
Contemporary Art (MNAC).
To compensate for the city’s lack of a cultural strategy at that moment, Bucharest has hosted a
large number of festivals over the past 20 years. These have attracted large audiences, with more than
54% of citizens attending them. Industry professionals promoted an increasing number of film festivals
in response to the dramatic decrease in film audiences in the 1990s and the lack of a European film dis‑
tribution network. Independent events and festivals such as Bucharest Design Week (20,000 visitors)
and visual arts fair Art Safari (19,000 visitors in 2015) have educated and drawn new audiences, while
network‑type events such as the White Nights format have proven to be the most popular.
Cultural Infrastructure:
A Spatial Unbalance and a Space Paradox
The cultural infrastructure is unevenly distributed across the city. For instance, recent estimates show
that 68% of museums, libraries and public theatres are distributed in the city centre in an area of
approximately 25 sq. km, 24% add to these inside the inner ring, in an area of approximately 68 sq. km,
and only 8% outside the inner ring, in an extended area of 155 sq. km.4
This over‑centralisation and hyperactive centre hides the reality that almost two thirds of the city
has no cultural facilities and little activity. Many previous neighbourhood cultural centres and cinemas
closed post 1989 due to privatisation of public housing estates. In many neighbourhoods, shopping malls
are now the only alternative for spending free time.
The issue of space in Bucharest is key to understanding the city’s cultural identity and agenda: space
as place, space as room to move, space as territory, space as infrastructure and space as creative space.
Access to formal cultural spaces is strictly limited to state and city institutions. No permanent facil‑
ities exist for the new generation of artists; and many of those few who were associated with the inde‑
pendent scene largely disappeared in 2010, following the financial crisis. The most obvious example is
the Bucharest National Dance Centre (CNDB), which was evicted from the Bucharest National Theatre in
2011 and has found temporary residence in a small garage complex and functions with a minimal budget.
A sign of improvement in CNDB’s space crisis materialised in July 2016 when a government decision (cur‑
rently under debate) proposed transferring a space currently under the administration of the National
Opera House to the administration of the CNDB.
Cultural Participation
According to the city’s first full scale analysis in 20155 instigated for the Cultural Strategy and ECoC,
the mass versus elitist culture dichotomy cannot be applied as a simple formula in Bucharest’s
case, but there are some clear trends and clear strategic issues.
More than 80% of the population spend their free time in parks and green areas. Surprisingly, shopping in
malls and attending church came in second and third place, respectively. The frequency of social events
and attendance at sport events are also high. However, participation in arts and culture is not as positive.
4 SUMP, Preliminary Report 1.
5 The Cultural Barometer,
commissioned by ARCUB to the
National Institute for Research and
Cultural Development and developed
by the local polling institute CURS.
8. 8 Setting the Stage
23% of citizens are classified as ‘non‑users’ or ‘very seldom users’, and 38% as ‘rather seldom users’.
Therefore a total of 51% of the population with a high proportion in the 50+ age bracket. Looking more
closely, there are various groups, with many older citizens (28%), where location, health, limited mobil‑
ity, low income etc. are characteristics, but also a large number of families with low income/ low edu‑
cation levels/ limited mobility.
12% are young non‑seldom users and have low income as a common characteristics, but are also
more engaged in social media. In the motivation of our bid and when proposing engagement for citi‑
zens, these groups will be key to leveraging another level of engagement in not only the arts but in civil
society as such.
The level of average users is 27% and these citizens are usually engaged in specific types of activity,
e.g. pop music and concerts, classical music, etc. The groups of frequent users and very frequent users
who account for only 11% of the population are both highly mobile and also multiple users of many arts
and cultural events.
The transition from a state controlled to a market driven cultural sector has lacked a strategic over‑
view. With no monitoring, but benefiting from the increasingly wide access to the internet, the explo‑
sion of the commercial cultural product in the city has also radically engaged the patterns of cultural
activity. There remains a huge untapped audience potential for the cultural sector. Addressing them will
have to be done from a new perspective, not only marketing‑wise, but also in terms of content and form.
We are currently in the process of conducting a more precise neighbourhood analysis based on 32
neighbourhoods in the city, with 1,200 respondents whom we intend to follow over five years.
Bucharest Citizens and Europe
At present, Romania is confronting a severe demographic decline compared to other European
states, and this is expected to continue over the next decade. Romania’s rapidly changing demo‑
graphics is due to both natural decline and external migration. However, compared to recent years, find‑
ings based on Eurostat migration statistics indicate there is a high level of mobile EU citizens returning
home, especially in Central and Eastern member states.6
Confirming that Bucharest citizens have strong links to European cities, our research shows that 44%
of citizens have a close relative or a member of the family living in another EU country (around 800,000
people), while 30% have friends from other countries, 16% read a foreign newspaper in the original lan‑
guage (around 300,000 people), and 32% watch European TV stations.
How do Bucharest Citizens
Perceive Their Own City?
In the latest EU Barometer on Quality of Life in European Cities (2015), Bucharest ranks 71st (of 83 other
cities) on overall satisfaction on the city, and 26th of the 28 EU capital cities. In general, Bucharest
scores in the bottom ten in most categories regarding satisfaction.
High levels of dissatisfaction are registered on questions about quality of air and noise traffic, but
also in the lack of trust in the city, especially in the neighbourhood areas, where Bucharest scores lowest
(83/83). The only areas where Bucharest ranks average are in the quality of shopping facilities, the availa‑
bility of cheap housing, and the possibilities for employment. Further research on how citizens perceive
their city shows that only 34% of Bucharest residents agree that it is a European city, the same percent‑
age think Bucharest deserves to be a European Capital of Culture, and 66% think that Bucharest is a cre‑
ative and dynamic city. 70% are unhappy with the high number of cars in the city (around 1.12 million
cars were registered in Bucharest in 2013) while 82% agree Bucharest is a crowded city.
6 European Commission, EU
Employment and Social Situation,
Quarterly Review, Supplement: Recent
Trends in the Geographical Mobility of
Workers in the EU, June 2014, p. 17.
9. 9
DN 1
DN 2
DN 3
DN 4
DN 5
DN 5A
DN 5B
DN 41
DN 6
A1
A2
A3
DN 7
DN 1A
MĂGURELE
VÂNĂTORII MICI
GĂISENI
ULMI
CREVEDIA MARE
BOLINTIN-VALE
BUCȘANI
OGREZENI
GRĂDINARI
BUTURUGENI
CLEJANI
LETCA NOUĂ
GHIMPAȚI
SCHITU
STOENEȘTI
CĂLUGĂRENI
IZVOARELE
MIHAI BRAVU
BĂNEASA
DAIA
OINACU
FRĂTEȘTI
STĂNEȘTI
SLOBOZIA
GIURGIU
GOSTINU
PRUNDU
COMANA GOSTINARI
ISVOARELE
GREACA
HOTARELE
CHIRNOGI
CĂSCIOARELE
RADOVANU
CRIVĂȚ
BUDEȘTI
SOLDANU
OLTENIȚA
SPANTOV
ULMENI
MITRENI
CURCANI
LUICA
NANA
CURCANI
FRĂSINET
CHISELET
MÂNĂSTIREA
SOHATU
VASILAȚIFUMUȘANI
BERCENI
JILAVA
1 DECEMBRIE
DĂRĂȘTI-ILFOV
CORNETU
CLINCENI BRAGADIRU
DOMNEȘTI
CIOROGÂRLA
BOLINTIN-DEAL
JOIȚA
COSOBA
SĂBĂRENI
CHITILA
CHIAJNA
DRAGOMIREȘTI
VALE
TĂRTĂȘEȘTI
CIOCĂNEȘTI
CREVEDIA
BUTIMANU
CIOLPANI
CIOLPANI
BALOTEȘTI
CORBEANCA
BUFTEA
MOGOȘOAIA
OTOPENI
TUNARI
MOARA VLĂSIEI
GRUIU
NUCI
GRĂDIȘTEA
DASCĂLU
PETRACHIOAIA
AFUMAȚI
ȘTEFĂNEȘTII
DE JOS
VOLUNTARI
DOBROEȘTI
PANTELIMON
GĂNEASA
SINEȘTI
BRĂNEȘTI
BELCIUGATELE
FUNDULEA
TĂMĂDĂU MARE
SĂRULEȘTI
GURBANEȘTI VALEA ARGOVEI
ILEANA
NICOLAE BĂLCESCU
FUNDENI
PLĂTĂREȘTI
BUCUREȘTI
CERNICA
CERNICA
CERNICAGLINA
POPEȘTI LEORDENI
HERĂȘTI
VALEA DRAGULUI
VĂRĂȘTI
COLIBAȘI
VIDRACOPĂCENI
ADUNAȚII-COPĂCENI
BULBUCATA
MIHĂILEȘTI
IEPUREȘTI
SINGURENI
NICULEȘTI
PERIȘ
FLOREȘTI-STOENEȘTI
Regional Context/
Metropolitan Area
BUCUREȘTI
BUFTEA
OLTENIȚA
BUDEȘTI
BĂNEASA
SLOBOZIA
A1
A2
A3
POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION
PERSONS/ HECTARE
4.1 — 15.0
15.1 — 25.0
25.1 — 50.0
50.1 — 75.0
75.0 — 100.0
150 — Bucharest
BUCUREȘTI
CIOLPANI
BUFTEA
CLINCENI
GIURGIU
CURCANI
COMANA
A1
A2
A3
Employment growth
rate of about 98%
Local administrative
units with economic
growth
Local administrative
units with tourism
facilities
Local administrative
units with agricultural
profile
BUCUREȘTI
PRUNDU
CORBEANCA
PLĂTĂREȘTI
COMANA
IZVOARELE
A1
A2
A3
ECONOMIC
PROFILE AND
WORKFORCE
PROTECTED NATURAL
SITES AREA PER LOCAL
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
(%)
10%
10.1% — 20%
20.1% — 50%
50.1% — 75.0%
75.1%
No data available
‘NATURA 2000’ sites
Cultural points of interest
Local administrative units
Built area of Bucharest
Large unbuilt areas inside Bucharest
ringroad
Urbanization axis A1–A2 highways
Ploiești-București-Giurgiu axis
Bucharest periurban area
Danube river
Argeș-Sabar green corridor
Natural connectivity spaces
National roads
Highways (A1–A2–A3)
Proposed ports/ airports
Existing ports/ airports
Măgurele Research Institute
10. 8 Setting the Stage
Building a Case for
Bucharest
Bucharest is today at a point where it needs to take
stock and act on the invisible aspects that have been
blocking it for the past 27 years. The following points
of departure are the motivation for our bid:
1. Laying the Ground for a
Future Culture of Responsibility
In our previous bid, we focused on the historical, political and social conditions that have hindered
any real progress in the transition to a democratic system of active citizenship. Our first argument
for Bucharest was the need to rebuild citizens’ trust by positioning culture as a key resource in rekin‑
dling an emotional link with the city. We continue to believe that ECoC plays a crucial role in address‑
ing the underlying systemic drawbacks that have been mirrored for so long in people’s disinterest in
the fate of their city.
The tragic events of the Colectiv club fire in October 2015 and their aftermath have deepened the
belief that this city is living on the edge, shifting between creative and self‑destructive chaos.
The present bid upholds the argument that a new model for participatory democracy by position‑
ing the citizen at its centre needs to be imagined and enacted. At the same time, events in the wake of the
Colectiv tragedy showed that a new civil contract is only possible through a commitment to changing the
status quo while also highlighting the need to transform grief into empowering and constructive action.
Now is the time for a change of perspective where a sense of renewal and revival replaces the cur‑
rent vacuum. Building a collective vision of future responsibilities and roles for urban actors is para‑
mount and this needs to be nurtured by an artistic and cultural movement.
The fall of the government and the resignation of an otherwise popular district mayor in November
2015 showed that, for the first time since 1989, the over‑dominant Romanian party system has withered.
Since then, the intuition we have been following in our bid — that a new collective energy is making itself
felt just below the surface, with little or no encouragement from the establishment or traditional poli‑
tics — has become stronger.
Some of this is traceable to the bouts of civic activism focusing on neighbourhoods, showing in a
refreshing and stubborn way that proximity has real political value in Bucharest.
On a different note, this was also visible at the twelfth edition of Bucharest Pride in June 2016, which
saw a record number of 2,500 people, more than double the attendance seen in recent years.
The Văcărești Delta officially becoming the Văcărești Natural Park at the end of a long and tedi‑
ous bureaucratic endeavour reflects, in a similar way, an instance of a real collective determination to
go against the odds.
We have also sensed a readiness for change in the response of many independent, young people in
the process of thematic calls, open workshops, co‑curating processes and micro‑grant schemes, which
have given clear indications of the relevant motivating power of the In—visible City ethos and concept,
as well as a commitment to support originality.
In our bid, we acknowledge and invest in the strong generational propensity for building collec‑
tive stamina. In fact, the programmes and projects play on the realisation that Bucharest is a young city,
where alternative networks of thinkers and doers, connected through informal structures, mobile and
linked to European themes and movements, are on the rise.
Reinventing democracy from the eternal standpoint of party politics will in future years become as
outlandish as the voting urn. What is now read in our bid book as only an intuition will have grown into
a tangible reality by 2021. Our process‑based approach, empowering slow‑paced bottom‑up initiatives,
testing out micro‑tactics of engagement, might sound counter‑intuitive for a city as large as Bucharest,
but in fact follows the invisible, yet powerful promise of a new urban solidarity on the rise.
2. Recovering Bucharest’s Identity as a European City
During our process we returned many times to the question of Bucharest’s identity, which came up
when addressing the issues that define a city of such complexity: the geographical position, the
Why does your city wish to take
part in the competition for the title
of European Capital of Culture?
Explain the concept of the programme
which would be launched if the
city is designated as European
Capital of Culture. (see p. 24)
A new model
for participatory
democracy
positioning the
citizen at its centre
Building a collective
vision of future
responsibilities
and roles for urban
actors is paramount
Bucharest‑Ilfov
Region
Does your city plan to involve
its surrounding area? Explain this choice.
Bucharest and Ilfov County
will be one region by
2021, so it makes sense
to start collaborating.
In the first bid, we explained how the dynamics on local, national, or international
levels are forcing Bucharest to change and how this will only be exacerbated by the
introduction of formal regions in the country by 2021. In terms of urban structure,
regional population movement and mobility patterns, recreation and cultural infra‑
structure, tourism and economic potential, the influence and pull of the city is increas‑
ing and people are now commuting 60 km daily to reach Bucharest with around 3 mil‑
lion inhabitants using the city regularly.
Bucharest and Ilfov County have established a strategic partnership with the
Bucharest-Ilfov Regional Development Agency (BIRDA), the regional strategic author‑
ity that administers strategic funds on both a national and European level. BIRDA is
responsible for the regional strategic investment for the period 2014–2020. The Agency
has agreed to support B2021 by investing in specific programmes that are in line with
EU regional priorities. This is another key reason to structure the project on a regional
level. A regional perspective can significantly strengthen cultural tourism, which is one
of nine strategic priorities for the Regional Fund in 2014–2020. B2021 can play a lead‑
ing role in this strategy.
Ilfov County offers a number of important cultural components to the project,
including the cultural centres of Mogoșoaia and Snagov for residencies and sites of
cultural production, green areas and blue corridors which will link to green initia‑
tives in Greentopia. In Ilfov, there are also pockets of deprivation which include a
number of dense Roma communities. Buftea, Măgurele, and Chitila rank high on the
national scale of marginalised population (13.5%). These are addressed in the Transient
Precarity project.
11. 9
cultural profile and unique traits, the political aspects, the current transition from socialist over‑centrali‑
sation to laissez faire neo‑liberalism, the city’s European identity and its contribution to European values.
The title is the chance to rebuild Bucharest’s lost and unseen connections to the cities with which it
shares a common history and values, such as Vienna and Budapest on the Danube connection, Belgrade
and Sofia on the Balkan connection, Paris and Berlin on the Western Europe connection, as well as cit‑
ies in the Black Sea region. We see ECoC as a wider framework for rethinking Bucharest from the under‑
explored perspectives of a both regional and peripheral geopolitical player in a Europe that itself con‑
fronts a redefinition of the roles ascribed to cities perceived as peripheral from a Western viewpoint.
The candidacy is not only about geographical links, it is also about cultural and artistic ones. We
see ECoC as a strategic tool to reconnect Bucharest’s cultural institutions to European and international
artists, especially in the field of contemporary arts and civic initiatives.
3. A New Perspective on Europe:
Interconnectivity to Change the Status Quo
Fifteen years of major crises and global pressures in Europe have led to a point where we see clear
signs of splintering and imploding of what most people thought could be a common framework for
diversity. Against a backdrop of countries and cities becoming more polarized and reverting to height‑
ened localisation and provincialism, we believe that Bucharest has a role to play in providing a compen‑
dium of experiences and issues that are at the core of all European cities of its size and scale, from spa‑
tial fragmentation to growing inequality in sharing resources and funding.
The heightened focus on urban growth is in fact already showing its downsides, as this dominant
policy has proven unsubstantial for local needs. The increasingly competitive urge of cities to see them‑
selves in a branding paradigm — as tourist destinations, as knowledge cities, as historic ‘monuments’ —
may in fact be counterproductive to actually generating many of the visions the EU promotes for a bal‑
anced urban development.1
In her analysis of the role of cities as drivers of change and development in an increasingly glo‑
balized and interlinked economic and cultural systems, Saskia Sassen, one of the leading expert on glo‑
balisation and cities, highlights the issue of stratification of cities (local — regional — national — super‑
national — continental — global) as not only a question of size but of interconnectivity.2 The insight is
further related to the assumption that in any networked system, the question of nodality is key to influ‑
encing and leading change.
As we have already stated, historically, Bucharest is a well‑connected city, linked to the rest of the
country as its capital and main economic and cultural driver. It is also linked to other cities in the Balkan
region as a major hub for global businesses, digital technology, high level of knowledge and skill flow
on many levels. A third level of connectivity for Bucharest is through its own citizens, who are increas‑
ingly part of a growing diaspora, contributing to the global mental ecology a fluid sense of place, cou‑
pled with issues of displacement and belonging.
We believe that Bucharest, which faces all the major forms of urban maladies that have beset
European cities over the past century, has, at the same time, the potential, resources, skills, and inno‑
vative capacity to deal with these issues. Based on our research, we infer Bucharest is one of five major
cities in the Balkan region that has strong enough connectivity to be able to both benefit from European
and global movements and to influence these. Our case builds on the insight that Bucharest is not only
in a position to involve and indeed engage on a national level, but also has the potential to influence on
a regional and European level due to its connectivity.
By allowing Bucharest to play this role on a larger stage, the ECoC initiative will include these urgent
issues on its agenda and re‑elevate the competition to being again a real stake for major cities. This would
reinforce their roles as citizen‑driven and cultural platforms, as loci of European solidarity, and not only
as the traditionally assigned place for administrative and political representation.
If major European capitals and cities do not lead in the movement to engage with a networked
world and if they do not allow greater devolution of political power to neighbourhoods and communi‑
ties to promote diversity, authenticity, and social innovation, it is questionable whether Europe will in
fact be able to manage to balance these two main forces, which are at the core of the European dream.
It is our wish that Bucharest should play a part in this quest. We believe there is clear evidence the
city is on the verge of changing past patterns. This is partly due to the backlog of urban, social, moral,
and cultural issues it has had to face, and partly due to emerging self‑awareness and active engagement
which has created a sense of expectancy as to what happens after the one year ‘break’ from normal
party politics.
The new perspective and tone of the Bucharest Urban Master Plan anticipates this change by advo‑
cating a people first policy. Similarly, the growing number of small, innovative actions, projects, start‑ups
and initiatives, which have also been fuelled by the ECoC process, have made visible the largest mass of
1 European Commission/ Directorate
General for Regional Policy, Cities
of Tomorrow: Challenges, Visions,
Ways Forward, 2011. The document
advocates for green innovation,
ecological and environmental
regeneration, new forms of
democratic participation, securing
and developing cultural dialogue and
diversity, securing social progress
and cohesion, limited urban sprawl.
2 Saskia Sassen, The Global City: New
York, London, Tokyo, Princeton
University Press, 1991.
Proximity becomes
a real political
value in Bucharest
Empowering
slow‑paced,
bottom‑up
initiatives, testing
out micro‑tactics
of engagement
12. 10 Setting the Stage
potential creativity and innovation in the Balkans. We believe these factors have created the most potently
dynamic conditions for a transformative process.
4. Balancing Cultural
Inequalities
More than two‑thirds of Bucharest’s population lives outside the central area, where some 80%
of the institutions and cultural activity is concentrated. Cultural consumption in the neighbour‑
hoods is largely reduced to commercial movies and shopping malls. It is not only the socialist city that
had turned its citizens invisible; the capitalist city has continued to do so by marginalising many of its
culturally peripheral citizens.
Compared with other European capitals, the level of participation of citizens in the arts and cul‑
tural life of the city (public events and activities) is extremely low. The results from the very comprehen‑
sive Bucharest Cultural Barometer 2015 on citizens’ cultural life clearly underline this. With 53% of the
population only rarely engaging in the arts and cultural offers in the city, there is a documented need to
rethink the cultural agenda, redistribute activities and open further institutons.
We see this rebalancing as critical for the cultural life of the city, and we think ECoC can provide
equal access to culture for all citizens. As we envision to open up new territories of culture, we see
ECoC as an opportunity to increase access to culture in the city’s peripheral quarters and to place more
emphasis on the need to create rather than simply consume. Bucharest has the richest and most active
independent arts scene in Romania. However, this immense creative potential is fragmented and used
to a minimum because of lack of funding, spaces, and of coherent strategies for contemporary artists.
5. Tapping into Bucharest’s Cultural
and Creative Potential
The national and municipal cultural institutions operate as closed units that rarely perform outside
their centre‑located buildings. Their radiating power is limited to the captive audiences they have
been addressing. Very few of these institutions have opened their doors to collaborations: local, national,
or European. We see ECoC as instrumental in opening up cultural institutions and making this immense
potential visible in the city’s neighbourhoods and periphery, as well as at the regional, national, and
European level. We see ECoC as a decisive factor in opening up the numerous vacant spaces and build‑
ings, including larger industrial sites, in the city to both local and European artists.
Bucharest has no tourism strategy, and cultural tourism has (historically) never been a priority. On
the other hand, increasing alternative tourism initiatives, combined with growing interest from inter‑
national media over the past decade, indicate a clear potential. Among the unused cultural assets are
the city’s socialist and modernist architecture, and the Văcărești Natural Park. An increased interest in
these two areas has emerged recently.
Perhaps the greatest resource the city has is the potential of the younger generation (the 260,000
school pupils and 110,000 university students). This is the first generation to be born post-1990; but there’s
also the chance that it will become a lost generation.
Indeed, there is the risk that the city’s innovative potential will not be capitalised on. Some 24%
of all graduates aged between 24–30 are unemployed and 30% leave for Europe. This leaves 46% who
find employment in the city, but many change their professional careers (particularly those who have
received an education in the arts) and take on other work. This situation has been a major focus in our
bid. It explains why we have prioritised major partnerships with the seven art universities in the city, and
also with the Bucharest Education Department, all committed to invest in our common programmes.
Bucharest’s creative brain drain to Europe has accelerated following the economic recession. We
see ECoC as a crucial opportunity to unlock the city’s future possibilities, a platform to create hope, to
encourage new thinking and to engage the creative, socially innovative, and media savvy youth of the city.
Invisible yet
powerful urban
solidarity on
the rise
Re‑thinking
Bucharest in
a Europe that
itself needs to be
re‑imagined
13. 11
Contribution to
the Long‑term Strategy
A parallel and coordinated process between the
Cultural Strategy and ECoC has included common
research and analysis topics, linking of goals and
objectives, and a dialogue with the cultural sector.
On August 1, 2016 the City Council adopted the Cultural Strategy for the City of Bucharest for the next
decade (2016–2026), the first long term strategy that the city has articulated to guide its actions and
investments in the cultural field, and the result of a two‑year participative and evidence‑based process.
The lack of a shared vision and a formal cultural strategy prior to this process limited the response
to the challenges, opportunities and the development of the sector, and has marginalised the cultural
sector in relation to other fields.
The pioneering nature of this first policy‑making process has also appeared in the strategy’s approach
of viewing the city as an ecosystem, whereby the cultural system intersects with the economic system,
the urban dimension, the need to provide a sustainable, clean, friendly, and attractive environment for
Bucharest residents. Culture is seen as a generator of quality of life and as a powerful connector within
the city, which can foster in its inhabitants both a sense of community, and the wish to champion the city.
Thus, the Cultural Strategy puts forward six long‑term goals. The matrix on page 15 details the stra‑
tegic objectives that underwrite each goal, and provides examples of proposed instruments and mech‑
anisms for their implementation.
Ob.1. Embed culture as an engine for sustainable urban development
Ob.2. Provide access and encourage a generalised and balanced participation of all inhabitants in
the cultural system
Ob.3. Establish Bucharest as an attractive cultural capital of the European space
Ob.4. Bring cultural entrepreneurship to the centre from the margins
Ob.5. Reveal and communicate Bucharest as a connective city
Ob.6. Increase the capacity and sustainability of the cultural sector
The Cultural Strategy is the result of a comprehensive long‑term process carried out under the coordi‑
nation of ARCUB, the Cultural Centre of the Bucharest Municipality, in correlation with the application
process for ECoC2021, in order to secure the best possible synergy in their development, implementa‑
tion and sustainability beyond 2021.
This complex two‑year process of research and consultations has also been designed to respond
to the pioneering nature of this endeavour and the complexity of the city's cultural sector, as well as to
provide a solid foundation, based on an informed understanding of the sector and its participation in
decision‑making, for a sustainable long‑term process that integrates culture as a key resource for local
development.
Considering this has been the first endeavour of its kind and given the chronic lack of information
concerning both the cultural sector and the cultural practices of the city's residents, extensive research
was conducted in the first part of this process (June 2014–December 2015), in partnership with 10 research,
education and policy organisations in the city, public and private alike, and 36 individual experts:
• A first exploratory research on the dynamics of the cultural and creative sectors in Bucharest involv‑
ing approximately 550 cultural stakeholders through interviews, focus groups and questionnaires;
• 24 additional reports (diagnosis and policy proposals) on fields and topics relevant for the city's
cultural ecosystem, commissioned to individual experts;
• A survey of the cultural practices, participation, preferences and perceptions of Bucharest res‑
idents, based on a sample of over 1,000 citizens, the first of its kind carried out at the city level;
• A qualitative analysis of the cultural, religious and leisure practices of Bucharest residents;
• A qualitative mapping, based on citizen participation, of needs and ideas for cultural development
of and within city neighbourhoods, targeting 12 cartiere (neighbourhoods);
• A mapping of the public and private financial resources for arts and culture in Bucharest over the
past eight years (2007–2015);
1.
Describe the cultural strategy that is in place
in your city at the time of the application,
as well as the city’s plans to strengthen the
capacity of the cultural and creative sectors,
including through the development of long
term links between these sectors and the
economic and social sectors in your city.
What are the plans for sustaining
the cultural activities beyond
the year of the title?
14. 12 Setting the Stage
• A mapping of the city's deserted or under‑used spaces, which identified over 400 buildings and
public spaces with potential for cultural activation.
All these reports have been made widely available via a dedicated website — a reference tool for the pro‑
cess: www.StrategiaCulturalaBucuresti.ro.
This intensive research phase emphasised the critical needs and laid the foundation for a consistent
long‑term process of research and analysis as a basis for policy development, implementation and eval‑
uation, to be carried out under the Bucharest Cultural Observatory, a platform of education, research
and policy organisations to be set up in 2017.
In order to make cultural planning relevant as a transversal engine for development, the strategy
development process included a correlation with other sectorial policies at national, regional, and local
levels, including urban development, mobility, tourism, digital agenda, etc. The Cultural Strategy and
Bucharest2021 have launched, for instance, a platform of coordination with two crucial undertakings
for the city: the Bucharest Urban Master Plan (PUG), the key urban development regulation for the city
for the next decades, and the Integrated Urban Development Plan (PIDU) for the city centre. As a result,
the Strategy and Bucharest2021 build on these processes and nourish them in return, e.g. by support‑
ing the activation and strengthening of the neighbourhoods, which are slated to become the implemen‑
tation pillars of the new vision of the Bucharest Master Plan.
Last but not least, the Cultural Strategy has been formulated as a result of a wide participative pro‑
cess of consultation, with more than 240 key resource individuals (managers of public cultural institu‑
tions, cultural entrepreneurs, public administration representatives at city and district level, represent‑
atives of NGOs, and citizens interested in this process) taking part in 12 public debates, working groups
and workshops organised from April 2015–May 2016, and the final public consultation in June-July 2016.
This process has also revealed, and at times even accentuated, various fault lines or misconcep‑
tions in the cultural sector, such as those between the public and the NGO sector, between the public and
the for‑profit entrepreneurs, the cultural sector and the administration, the city and the district authori‑
ties, etc. But it has laid the ground for counteracting the segmentation of the cultural sector by bringing
the different actors together in reflecting on the common goals for the city and the cultural sector. The
result is a shared agreement on the critical issues facing the city and on the Strategy goals. Building sus‑
tainable platforms of dialogue and cooperation within the cultural sector and with other sectors is how‑
ever a long‑term process and represents a key element in the Strategy implementation.
The operationalisation and implementation of the Cultural Strategy will be carried out under the
coordination of the Bucharest Mayoralty — the Culture, Sport and Tourism Directorate. It will kick‑off
with the set up in autumn 2016 of a Steering Group of representatives of the public administration, pub‑
lic and private cultural organisations, in charge of the operationalisation of the Strategy, which will
develop an action plan setting short, medium and long‑term priorities, based on a wide array of instru‑
ments and mechanisms proposed, along with actions, budgets and responsibilities. This phase will
also include the development of a set of indicators for evaluation and procedures for monitoring the
Strategy's implementation.
It is important to mention that specific mechanisms and programmes tackling the Strategy’s objec‑
tives have already been launched or planned in the strategy‑development phase by various City institu‑
tions, many of them in synergy between the Cultural Strategy and ECoC, such as culture and education
programmes, integrating some of the objectives into the ARCUB financing line, or capacity building ini‑
tiatives. Capacity building is a crucial element in implementing the Strategy, and has thus been listed as
one of the strategic goals, and initiatives in this field will kick off immediately.
Capacity Development
Platforms
The aim of stimulating and triggering long‑term systemic change requires an acute understanding
of the system’s intricate and evolving nature, and a precise set of tools to be used in specific situ‑
ations. In the case of Bucharest, the challenge is formidable due to the imbalance of the cultural sys‑
tem, the backlog of required investment, and the sheer scale of the city. The ECoC project will provide
an added impetus and need for upgrading the capacity on all levels. Our approach is therefore to initi‑
ate a capacity development programme in a partnership between the Cultural Strategy and ECoC, and
open the actions to participants in the Bucharest2021 programme but also other institutions and cul‑
tural operators and artists. Additionally, capacity development is an important component of many of
the Bucharest2021 programmes.
We have developed several platforms which respond to the needs assessed via the Cultural Strategy
process and also through direct involvement of institutions, artists and community groups in the ECoC
process:
15. 13
Bucharest Arts Platform
In a city with both cutting edge artistic visions implemented by independent cultural organisations, as
well as by some public institutions, and highbrow culture events, it is paradoxical that the staff, infra‑
structure, and equipment are in a perpetual state of shortages.
This core programme, detailed in the table below, is aiming at capacity building, for both independ‑
ent organisations and public institutions, in the Professionals Logistics line, as well as in supporting
Mobility and International exchanges. It also aims to enhance the capacity of the sector to tap into the
new technologies in view of better knowing and connecting with various audiences.
Through high‑quality artistic and cultural management training methodology, the project links
Romanian and international cultural producers and managers, professionals from the academia, activ‑
ists and professionals from cross‑disciplinary fields, technology innovators and key decision‑makers in
a collective effort to invest in an already extremely active cultural sector, and to ensure the necessary
human and tech logistics for the ten‑year cultural strategy implementation. We propose a series of pro‑
jects with both innovative (new working patterns, projects encouraging partnering for innovation and
culture, new Cultural Technology Fund, an Artists and Professionals Mobility Fund, etc.) and more in‑line
methodologies (grants lines, lobby and support for professional post‑graduate studies, etc.).
The cultural operators supported will become change makers to bring forward an already innova‑
tive cultural urban sector and serve as builders of a sustainable future in culture.
Lead: ARCUB
Strategic Partner: University of Bucharest
International Networks Partners:
EUNIC, On the Move, IETM, Culture Action
Europe, Erasmus Plus, EURIOCITIES: European
Cultural Foundation, Sofia Development
Association, Marcel Hichter Foundation,
CEC Artslink, Res Artis, Dutch Culture/
TransArtists, UNESCO Chair in Belgrade (Serbia)
National NGOs: Film ETC. Association,
MetruCub Association, A.T.U. Association,
MATKA Association, Gabriela Tudor
Foundation, Civitas Foundation
European Cultural Institutions in
Bucharest: Goethe-Institute, British
Council, Institut Français, Czech Centre,
Austrian Forum, Polish Cultural Centre, etc.
Business Partners (potential):
UniCredit, Microsoft, HP, Google, Lenovo
Program Activity Participants
KNOW-HOW
Peer to Peer Program
A programme of ongoing sustainable support for cultural institutions and NGOs. A pool of around
20 European specialists will be available for dedicated support on specific programmes and
issues which can transform/ build key players in the cultural sector. All aspects of organizational
development will be covered for max. three‑month intensive mentoring, annual exchange
programme public talks/ meeting integrated in the programme.
10 institutions max. 100
persons annually will work
with 20 European/ RO
specialists
Cultural Diploma Project for curators
Cultural Diploma Project for Teens
An ambitious one/two year part‑time diploma programme for all professionals, working cross
sectorial. In collaboration with UNESCO chairs — University of Bucharest/ Arts University
of Bucharest, and several European cultural management platforms/ courses, the CDP will
raise the bar for ambitious cultural organisers/ curators, who want to work internationally and
interdisciplinary.
A parallel programme aims to launch a two‑year CD for teenagers from high schools in the city and
Ilfov County, including low‑income neighbourhood schools.
25 curators organisers
annually
25 young cultural activists
annually
EUROPEAN
International Curators Visitors Programme
Much of Romanian culture arts remains a secret for international programmers, producers and
curators. A consistent programme of coordinated theme/ sector based visits will map the potential
of the Romanian (contemporary) arts scene for key European partners.
25 international curators
organisers annually
Mobility Grants
To increase and develop intercultural and international collaboration in all aspects of professional
work and to increase levels of interaction, research, coproduction, partnerships and exchanges,
touring, networking in Europe with focus on B2021 projects in this phase. Open for artists and
cultural professionals. The programme will also support European artists/ organisers visiting
Bucharest.
50 artists organisers
annually
CULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Cultural Hubs
Small independent cultural hubs are just starting to emerge in the city, but with no support
mechanisms to kick start. Many fail and fold up. This grant scheme will help to secure emerging
independent initiatives addressing relevant themes — e.g. green makerspaces, intercultural
spaces — with a grant of €4–10,000 annually.
5 cultural hubs annually
EQUIPMENT
Technical equipment
APPdating technology
There is no specific funding for technical support for the cultural sector in the country, while the
need to update technical support/ resources and digital equipment is increasing. A grant scheme to
co‑finance equipment for production events, especially outdoor, e.g. lighting, sound, etc. A shared
mobile resource.
There is a growing need to invest in digital technology within the arts and the needs for lighting/
sound/ 3 D printing, hi‑fi printing etc. is huge. An app dating scheme will award grants of max.
€5,000.
5 sets of equipment annually
5 sets of equipment annually
Arts and Innovation
Holograms, new robotics, laser technology etc. are little known in the Romanian cultural sector and
access to such research facilities can be given to specific experimental projects, which link the arts
to the digital sector.
5 projects annually
NEW AUDIENCES
APPdating
An online platform for the cultural sector with a set of apps which can be used by all institutions/
NGOs.
Open platform
Hackathon Series
A series of Hackathon on various aspects of the city, which will also design new apps, including
health city, design city, cultural heritage, etc.
4 hackathons/ 100 persons
annually
City Hit Spots
Cultural information to download throughout the city with wi‑fi spots also on buses and tramways,
companies web/ intranet, high schools intranet etc. to give access to the arts/ cultural sector.
4–5 open platforms
International Media Platform
A programme to invite leading arts/ cultural bloggers to visit key cultural events/ projects in the
city.
10 int. journalists bloggers
annually
Platform for Kids and Students
An innovative programme aimed at kids and youngsters (under 15) which will collaborate with
established cultural institutions and festivals, including ‘Opera for Babies’, ‘Classic Kids’, etc.
10–15 events annually
16. 14 Setting the Stage
Lead: B2021 and Bucharest Education
Department/ Inspectoratul Școlar
al Municipiului Bucureşti (ISMB)
(Bucharest Education Department)
Partners: Ministry of Education, Ilfov
Education Department/ Inspectoratul
Şcolar al Judeţului Ilfov (ISJI), PROEDUS,
CIVITAS, Casa Corpului Didactic (The Teacher
Training Centre), Bucharest University
(Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogy Faculties)
Private partners: MetruCub — Resurse
pentru Cultură Association, Da’DeCe
Foundation, Dalcroze Foundation,
De‑a arhitectura Foundation, Replika
Educational Theatre Centre.
Lead: B2021, Bucharest Community
Foundation and CeRe
This being said, the paradox is that Bucharest has an extremely vivid 365-day‑a‑year cultural life that is
very diverse (but centralised within the city centre, as the ECoC bid is trying to address), yet hampered
by planning fatigue and systemic dysfunctionality. The situation led to a semi‑arrested capacity build‑
ing mode, where cultural micro‑tactics flourished in the sense of individual orientation, small‑scale solu‑
tions and recycled strategies. Artists are viewed as catalysts of adjustment using physical and imaginary
space in order to create, learn, enhance, and widen the social and ethics of urban life. Even according
to recent European research, Romania’s cultural infrastructure and lack of staff are in a crisis mode.
This programme is aiming to respond to this emergency and articulate in different ways our vision
on the In—visible City into non‑linear projects dealing with cultural operators’ training and cooperation,
with common tactics for staff professional development and tech logistics, and creative strategies for
capacity building.
Thus we are planning to build up in six years’ time a more integrated and consistent investment in
our capacity to strategise our collective approach to culture as an urban identity shaper and social ecol‑
ogy tool of a 21st century city. It is a progressively built up programme, with activities mostly planned
in the preparatory phase of ECoC 2021.
These schemes will be complemented by other capacity development initiatives and mechanisms
put in place in the framework of the Cultural Strategy.
Bucharest Citizens Platform
Asupport scheme designed as a capacity development programme comprising three main sections:
Vocational Training Platform, Cultural Facilitators, Artist as Community Facilitator, which pro‑
vide know‑how and trainings in community organising, cultural facilitation and hospitality related skills
for citizens and local independent initiatives, shaping their role as interface of larger communities (60
pers. annually).
Bucharest Creative Education Platform
As a key pre‑requisite of engaging the public school sector (primary and secondary schools), two
projects have been developed in partnership with the Municipality Educational Department as part
of Bucharest2021: ‘Thinking the city’ and ‘Building the city’. This complementary scheme will involve
a series of training schemes in creative learning for teachers, and will be carried out by artists with the
aim to develop artistic and cultural based education formats. It will also include international partners
with expertise: Scottish, Finnish, and Norwegian Ministries of Education, as they all have integrated
strong aspects of creative learning in their educational system. The training will specifically relate to the
themes of Bucharest2021 — Memory | Exploring | Imagining the city.
The platform will secure an active involvement of artists and will be linked to the implementation
of an existing programme generated by the Ministry of Education. An online resource platform will be
developed to link the training with the two projects.
The annual training scheme over two months will accommodate 100 teachers annually, i.e. 500
teachers in total. The kick off processes have tentatively been integrated in the plans for the school year
2017–2018.
Bucharest Cultural Tourism Platform
Building on the opportunity of developing the first cultural tourism initiative in the city, in partner‑
ship with the Bucharest Tourism Association, the Municipality Tourism Department, and the Ilfov
County Tourism Authority, we are proposing a series of cluster‑based capacity development initiatives
centred around Bucharest2021 projects and themes. This platform will offer development programmes
on different levels and for key sectors and partners, including:
• A core programme of workshops/ courses to involve both cultural operators/ agencies and tour‑
ism/ media sector to develop a common ground for collaboration, methods and instruments to
allow concrete initiatives and partnerships (100 persons annually);
• A series of residencies with international writers/ bloggers in Bucharest 2017–2020 (25 persons
annually);
• Info kits and courses for front line staff of cultural institutions, museums, libraries, theatre concert
halls, festivals, etc. (100 pers. annually);
• Info packs and kits for tourist office staff, hotel and café personnel, taxi drivers, bus/ metro staff
and other gatekeepers (200 pers. annually);
• A series of workshops for community/ neighbourhood/ green initiatives, tourist officers, hotel and
café personnel taxi drivers, police and staff (50 pers. annually).
17. 15
2.
How is the European Capital
of Culture included
in this strategy?
Cultural Strategy
Goals Objectives
Cultural Strategy
Implementation Instruments Mechanisms (selected)
Bucharest2021
Programs Projects (selected)
Bucharest2021
Objectives
Embed culture as an engine for sustainable urban development
1
Activate
neighbourhoods and
support culture in
proximity
• Support cultural and community initiatives in the
neighbourhoods as funding priority.
• Support the development of neighbourhood cultural
centres, and explore innovative and flexible partnership
mechanisms to run and animate cultural infrastructure in
the neighbourhoods.
• The Peripheries theme deals with opening
the city, with programmes and projects
such as: DormStories • 3 Encounters of a
Close Kind
• Bucharest Citizens Platform
• Address urban, social, and
environmental issues of the city
with cross sector relevance
• Develop a strong neighbourhood
participatory programme
• Improve alternative cultural
infrastructure in the city
2
Revitalize and
enhance the built
and the intangible
heritage
• Integrate and promote the areas with urban/ architectural
value which define the city's identity and memory.
• Creatively revitalise the intangible heritage.
• Support the archiving and creative promotion of the
mobile and built heritage, including through digitisation.
• The Lost Found theme is essentially a
project on heritage: In—visible museums
• Future Scars of Bucharest • Noah’s Ark.
Museums on a Human Scale • Golden age
toys • Bucharest Citizens’ Family Album •
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner • NoMap.
Nomad Poetry • Routes and Roots
• Strengthen the awareness of
cultural heritage in/ of the city
3
Enhance the cultural
significance of the
public space and the
built environment
• Support the exploration and participative activation of the
city and re‑appropriate the public space.
• Create a bureau at the City Hall for projects in public
space.
• Microtopia focuses on the use of urban
and green public space: Wetlands of the
Future • Smart River • Green the ’Hood! •
elastiCITY • Reclaiming the City
• Develop use of public space
throughout the city for arts/
cultural activity
Provide access and encourage a generalised and balanced participation of all inhabitants in the cultural system
4
Diversify and
increase the
attractiveness and
accessibility of
the cultural offer,
and encourage
the participation
of citizens not
addressed by the
current offer
• Encourage artistic practices and expression stemming
from various city neighbourhoods.
• Consolidate and extend the branches of the Bucharest
Metropolitan Library and support its transformation into a
local hub for life‑long learning.
• Adapt cultural infrastructure to the needs of citizens with
various disabilities, and support the development of a
cultural offer for culturally‑disadvantaged citizens.
• Encourage and integrate marginal or minority cultural
discourses and practices.
• Creation of the Museum of Multiculturalism.
• Noah’s Ark. Museums on a Human Scale •
Radio B2021 • Bucharest Citizens’ Family
Album • Design Clinic • Temporary City •
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
• Micro‑grant schemes for communities
and associations with 75 grants for 2017–
2022 • Collaboration with 24 community
NGOs
• Commitment of 70% of the programme to
be free and in the public realm
• EURoma programme with five projects
incl. the Itinerant Roma Museum,
Creation Migration • The House —
LGBT Community Centre • Museum of
Multiculturalism
• Develop a strong neighbourhood
participatory programme
• Highlight the Roma culture and
other ethnic cultures as key
aspects of a European culture
5
Encourage the
development and
augmentation of a
culturally competent
public
• Support the development of participative cultural
education programmes at school level.
• Launch a pilot programme of creative practitioners in
Bucharest schools.
• Playgrounds of Reality •
Audience‑development initiatives
• Several major creative education schemes:
Creating the City, Thinking the City,
Open Schools (Education Taskforce),
Bucharest Creative Education Platform
• Engage broader audiences in the
arts and engage more people
actively
• Engage children and young people
as key community groups in
Bucharest2021
Establish Bucharest as an attractive cultural capital within the European space
6
Encourage cultural
exchanges and
partnerships
between Bucharest
and the European
space
• Develop mobility schemes for artists and cultural
operators from Bucharest.
• Launch and support artistic residencies in Bucharest.
• Offer strategic support and multiply the cultural and
creative projects with international visibility.
• Support the participation of cultural organisations from
Bucharest to European projects by an automatic support
scheme.
• Bucharest Arts Platform • European City
Residencies 2017–2020 • Emerging
Europa Debate programme (2017–2021)
• Bucharest Contemporary Choreography
Biennale • International amberArt
and Technology Festival • Catalyst —
Creative Technology Challenging
Reality • elastiCITY • Future Scenarios •
Shrinking Cities in Europe • Temporary
City • Re‑designing the Balkans • Invisible
Bucharest Campaign • Creative Clusters
Campaign • Bucharest Citizens’ Family
Album
• Programmes with strong European
participation quality
• Engage European collaborators/
networks
• Promote key European themes, e.g
migration, urban issues
• Promote key Balkan cultural
collaboration projects
• Improve alternative cultural
infrastructure in the city
7
Develop a network
of attractive cultural
infrastructure
for a competitive
European city
• Create new, attractive and flexible cultural infrastructure
to respond to existing needs, prioritising the activation of
existing un/under‑used infrastructure.
• Encourage and support the integration/ linking of cultural
infrastructure and development of clusters.
• Bucharest Arts Platform — Cultural Hubs
• In—visible Museums
8
Develop a concerted
and strategic
promotion for
culture and tourism
• Develop instruments for integrated cultural promotion at
city level.
• Correlate the Tourism Strategy for Bucharest — in
development — with the Cultural Strategy.
• Bucharest Communication Hub
• Bucharest Cultural Tourism Platform
• Create a strong local and
international communications
platform in the city
• Build up cultural tourism and the
city's recognition as an alternative
destination
Place cultural entrepreneurship in from the margins
9
Encourage an
entrepreneurial
approach
10
Support economic
development via
cultural and creative
sectors
• Support the development of entrepreneurial competences
in cultural management by developing mobility and
training programmes.
• Support the development of existing creative hubs and
the development of new entrepreneurial hubs in the city.
• Commission a distinct action plan for economic
development through creative industries.
• Bucharest Arts Platform including Cultural
Hubs initiative
• Arts Business Bucharest platform for
businesses and the arts
• Catalyst — Creative Technology
Challenging Reality • Re‑designing the
Balkans • Bucharest Living Lab • Design
Clinic • Temporary City
• Develop innovative and cross
sectorial programmes/ processes/
projects
• Develop innovative and cross
sectorial programmes/ processes/
projects
• Develop alternative funding/ arts
sponsorship of the cultural sector
The matrix below highlights the correlation between the Cultural Strategy and Bucharest2021, both
in terms of objectives, and of their translation into action by means of the specific instruments each
has available — a selection of strategy instruments and mechanisms, and Bucharest2021 programmes and
projects. The latter are either part of the Capacity Development Platforms which have been jointly devel‑
oped by the Cultural Strategy and Bucharest2021, or specific programmes and projects in the year itself.
18. 16 Setting the Stage
Reveal and communicate Bucharest as a connective city
11
Bucharest as an
engine for Ilfov
County and other
regions
12
Expand the
digitization of
the city's cultural
resources,
encourage the use of
new technologies
• Develop a platform of information and cooperation with
Ilfov County in view of developing long‑term, integrated
programmes at the regional level.
• Enlarge cultural resources by means of digitisation and
encourage the creative appropriation and use of the digital
content of the city.
• Encourage the transformation of Bucharest into a smart
city; organise a series of hackathons.
• Throughout its programme, ECoC’s scope
is that of Bucharest within the wider
region, including Ilfov County and beyond
• ECoC also promotes Bucharest as a
regional creative engine in the Balkans
• Bucharest Arts Platform
• In—visible Museums • The Living Archives
Programme • Invisible Tours • Energy
Rush • Catalyst — Creative Technology
Challenging Reality • Citizenship and
Democracy 3.0
• Integrate digital technology in
programmes
Increase the capacity and sustainability of the cultural sector within the European space
13
Encourage
collaboration and
the coordination of
the cultural offer
14
Increase the
capacity of cultural
organisations and
administration
15
Promote changes in
cultural legislation
• Support a framework for collaboration between the public
private cultural operators.
• Support the development of skills and competences.
• Improve and increase the flexibility of the existing public
grant‑making schemes and launch new ones.
• Support the sustainability of private cultural organisations
by providing infrastructural support.
• Four Capacity Development Platforms
• Arts and Business Bucharest
• Decentralising the programmes of
Bucharest2021 with min. 200 key
operators in the city/ region.
• Bucharest Futurespotters Lab
• The Open Lab, which generates minimum
100 interdisciplinary projects 2017–2020
• The Catalyst Media Lab
• Engage a wider constituency of
cultural operators and NGOs
• Improve management and
governance of resources in the
cultural sector
• Develop innovative and cross
sectorial programmes/ processes/
projects
16
Encourage the
production and use
of statistics, studies,
and research in
the development,
implementation, and
evaluation of cultural
activities
• Setup and development of Bucharest Cultural
Observatory and initiate, coordinate, and support a
consistent long‑term programme of analysis and research
on the cultural sector and its impact at the city and
regional level.
• Citizens Sounding Board
• Initiate self‑monitoring and evaluation
• Base line studies and surveys
• See also Evaluation and Monitoring
Cultural
Impact
The main benefits of achieving ECoC status include a wider and more balanced access to culture as well
as a stronger civic involvement in the arts culture scene, leading to larger audiences and a more
pro‑active involvement in the initiation, development and production of cultural events. A more diverse,
innovative, inclusive, and process‑based cultural production will also mean greater citizen participation.
ECoC will create a more robust, resilient, and sustainable cultural sector, to include: the rebalanc‑
ing of cultural infrastructure, activities and participation throughout its territory; the establishment of
an ARCUB-managed European Centre of Culture, which will perform as a crucial element in securing
the European legacy of ECoC, and other key platforms in the city — Bucharest Information Hub, Cultural
Observatory, etc.; the strengthening of cultural hubs, laying the foundation for local cultural centres and
for more flexible institutional and infrastructural alternatives; the opening up and revitalising of a num‑
ber of major institutions in the city and the development of long‑term collaborations between the pub‑
lic and private sectors.
ECoC will strongly impact the number and quality of artistic collaborations between Bucharest
and Europe, will contribute to reconnecting Bucharest’s cultural organisations to European and inter‑
national artists, especially in the field of contemporary arts and civic initiatives, and will increase the
role of Bucharest as a regional engine and connector in the Balkans. For Bucharest, as well as European
artists and citizens, the programme will foster an increased awareness of and participation to European
public debates and movements and encourage a re‑thinking of Bucharest in a Europe that itself needs
to be re‑imagined.
Last but not least, the Bucharest2021 programme and its approach will engender stronger and
more innovative means to connect and collaborate, both within Bucharest and at European level. It
will develop links, networks, critical nodes and clusters for creating new ways of working together and
counteracting the chronic fragmentation of the city, on the one hand, and the emerging tensions on a
European scale, on the other.
Social
Impact
The participative, process‑based approach and the programme's focus will foster increased interac‑
tion, engagement and sense of communality among Bucharest citizens, helping to advance a col‑
lective vision of responsibilities and roles that citizens need to take upon themselves, to achieve urban
solidarity and to bolster a sense of pride for their community and city.
3.
If your city is awarded the title of European
Capital of Culture, what do you think
would be the long‑term cultural, social,
and economic impact on the city (including
in terms of urban development)?
19. 17
Bucharest2021 will lead to improved access and participation for marginalised, culturally‑chal‑
lenged groups, will increase the visibility and legitimacy of these groups and, in the long term, lead to
more openness and tolerance for ethnic, religious and gender based (sub)cultural groups. The future
Museum of Multiculturalism, which the city voted in 2016 to establish, will build on this.
The level of cultural awareness and proficiency among children and young students will increase
due to the integrated creative classroom programmes and long‑term cultural programmes in schools.
Urban
Impact
B2021 will produce increased awareness and use of the public space as a cultural space in the city,
as well as a key instrument for social inclusion and civic activism. This will translate in a greater
number of projects and actions taking place within the public domain, increase the public space use in
neighbourhoods, contributing to the long term improvement in the urban environment, quality of life,
and citizenship.
ECoC will also support an increased awareness and valorisation of the city’s heritage, from mon‑
uments to industrial heritage sites or communist architecture, to the history of the city and its various
neighbourhoods, with a clear commitment to sustainable heritage models. ECoC will also instil a new
approach for urban ideas: an open process and call for ideas to generate innovative uses for the many
unused or under‑used spaces.
Green projects will support a more diverse appreciation of the periphery of the city and will open
up new areas for arts and culture.
Economic
Impact
The number and solidity of hubs and platforms for the development and support of creative indus‑
tries is expected to increase, while a restructuring of a more entrepreneurial model for the cul‑
tural sector is expected.
A quantitative and qualitative increase of cultural tourism and of the recognition of Bucharest as a
distinctly strong cultural offer at the European level is envisioned.
The international and improved image of the city will be a factor in attracting new investment,
young people, and companies.
Evaluation
and Monitoring
As the city’s first Cultural Strategy and ECoC2021 are being launched at the same time, we will directly
relate the ECoC process of assessment and monitoring to the Cultural Strategy, considering the
common basis and the set of data used by both. This is done based on extensive common baseline stud‑
ies of the city’s cultural sector, with ECoC seen as a main driver for achieving many of the overall goals
under the Cultural Strategy.
One of the means of doing this is the joint setup in 2017 of the Bucharest Cultural Observatory as
a platform of research, education, and policy organisations as well as the creation within it of a special
unit — the ECoC Evaluation Monitoring Task Force. The latter will include representatives from, among
others, the leading universities in Bucharest (urban studies, economic studies, sociology, anthropol‑
ogy, etc.), the National Institute for Cultural Research and Training, the City of Bucharest, the Cultural
Strategy Implementation Steering Group, Ilfov County, Funky Citizens, the Centre for Public Innovation,
plus one international consultant with experience in ECoC evaluations. Data collection and management
would be externalised, apart from the data from projects managed by Bucharest2021. This joint under‑
taking will secure a strong independent monitoring exercise and the sustainability of the endeavour,
using the ECoC expertise for enlarging and stabilising the evaluation process for the Cultural Strategy.
The baseline for both sets of assessments is 2015, when all the main analyses of cultural operators,
citizens’ cultural engagement, financial and economic resources in the sector, and stakeholder analy‑
ses have been carried out.
The overall timeline of the Cultural Strategy is ten years, i.e. 2016–2026, and we also see this as a
suitable timeframe for ECoC, with a mid‑way report in 2021–2022 that would fit with ECoC’s main evalu‑
ation. As the ECoC2021 project will be developed from 2017, the first of three updates of key data would
be in 2019 and 2021–2022. We expect data to be complete three months after the year of the title.
4.
Describe your plans for monitoring and
evaluating the impact of the title on your
city and for disseminating the results
of the evaluation. In particular, the
following questions could be considered:
• Who will carry out the evaluation?
• Will concrete objectives and
milestones between the designation
and the year of the title be included
in your evaluation plan?
• What baseline studies or surveys —
if any — will you intend to use?
• What sort of information will
you track and monitor?
• How will you define ‘success’?
• Over what time frame and
how regularly will the
evaluation be carried out?
20. 18 Setting the Stage
For 2021 data, the reporting will be done in three phases (1.4, 1.7, and 1.12) as this will be more extensive.
Subsequent reports would be generated in 2022–2023, the key year following the project, and in 2026,
to give a mid‑term (five years) impact evaluation.
We will base the evaluation on the standard methodology for ECoC cities and will structure a cyclic
process of monitoring as an active management tool to support pro‑active project development. As this
will be the first exercise of its kind in Romania, we see this as a key opportunity to develop a practice
of self‑monitoring and evaluation of and by individual project managers/ organisations for all ECoC pro‑
jects, on the basis of common guidelines (to be adapted for the Cultural Strategy monitoring as well). This
will be done on an annual basis, aligned with the main data collection. Monitoring is on the one hand a
control instrument, but on the other hand it can and should be regarded as a catalyst for increasing the
strategic capacity of the cultural sector.
As data collection available is scarce, key data collection tools will be put in place by ECoC (some
jointly with the Cultural Strategy):
• City Cultural Surveys to assess citizen participation, practices, preferences and perceptions (Survey)
(biannually 2015–2024). We are currently in the process of conducting a more precise neighbour‑
hood analysis focusing on 32 neighbourhoods in the city, with 1,200 respondents, a representa‑
tive selection of whom we intend to follow up with yearly, over five years, as part of a Citizens
Sounding Board (see below).
• We will also use specific European Commission Council of Europe methodologies for surveys
every two years.
• Surveys of sample audience participation at ECoC events (Event survey) in 2019 and 2020 in pilot
projects, and throughout 2021, to assess participation, expectations, and evaluation.
• With very scarce and patchy data concerning cultural tourism, we plan to work with the Bucharest
Tourism Association to carry out, starting from 2017, a visitor survey (including in partnership with
Tarom and other partners) and improve data collection.
The quantitative assessment will be accompanied by a qualitative assessment of processes and outcomes,
using the following tools:
• The Citizens Sounding Board (CSB) will be engaged, over a five‑year period, on various questions
to give in‑depth feedback to strategic issues, questions, and to reflect on possible actions or poli‑
cies in a more participative and informed format.
• Engaged Observers (Observers). We plan to invite a diverse group of 50 citizens (artists and arts pro‑
fessionals, philosophers, sociologists, journalists, business strategists, etc.) to observe, interact with
people over a five‑year period and regularly reflect in blogs, articles, interviews, debates, and other
formats on happenings in the city and if and how ECoC is influencing communities and the city.
• Open Diaries (Diaries) will involve selected participants and/ or target groups in ECoC projects (art‑
ists, communities, etc.) to reflect on whether and how these processes are influencing their daily
life, based on creative methodologies developed in partnership with project leaders.
• Bucharest Connectivity Maps aim to creatively translate and reveal through maps hidden pro‑
cesses and connections within the city, including the connections, networks and nodes that are
being formed via ECoC programmes. Self‑evaluation, qualitative assessment, data gathered as well
as other open data available, will be made available for creative use and interpretation.
• Additionally, via the Cultural Observatory, we will encourage and integrate PhD and research pro‑
jects connected to specific themes or programmes of Bucharest2021.
The above tools will guide our evaluation not only at the level of each project and of the overall ECoC pro‑
gramme, but also at the level of targeted neighbourhoods, of a cluster of projects, or of specific themes.
We will monitor our progress and evaluate our impact (as per Q3), by looking at a set of key indicators
(both quantitative and qualitative) which we present in the table on next page, in correlation with the
overall ECoC and Bucharest2021 goals and objectives. On the basis of this methodology, and in alliance
with the Cultural Strategy, specific targets for each indicator will be defined, upon detailed analysis of
2016 follow‑up surveys.
21. 19
ECoC
Goals
Objectives
B2021 Goals B2021 Objectives Source of Data
CULTURALIMPACTSOCIALIMPACTURBANIMPACTECONOMICIMPACT
B2021 Indicators and key
areas for monitoring
Attendance levels of Bucharest citizens to arts culture events Survey
Self‑evaluation
Survey
Self‑evaluation
Diaries
Engagement and participation of citizens in the creation,
production, organisation of cultural events
Event survey
Diaries
Observers
Media monitoring
Artistic quality and innovation, including new art forms and
formats, e.g. interdisciplinary
Self‑evaluation
Survey
Number, diversity, and distribution of cultural infrastructure and
offering at the level of the city
ECoC monitoring
Self‑evaluation
Quality of the collaboration with other organisations and sectors,
assessed by operators. Number of collaborations continued after
2021
Self‑evaluationAssessment of skills and capacity
ECoC monitoring
Self‑evaluation
Media monitoring
Number and quality of international artistic collaborations,
including collaborations beyond 2021
Self‑evaluation
Observers
Media monitoring
Diaries
European themes in cultural programmes and public debate,
including awareness and engagement of citizens in European
debate
Self‑evaluation
Survey
Diaries
Observers
Level of participation in community, neighbourhood and civil
society
Survey
CSB
Observers
Diaries
Perception regarding neighbourhoods and city
Survey
CSB
Observers
Intercultural Cities
Study (CoE-based)
Level of tolerance and interaction with minority groups
Survey
Event surveys
Observers
Levels of participation of culturally‑challenged groups
Media monitoring
Observers
Presence of subcultures and alternative cultures in the public
realm
ECoC monitoring
Self‑evaluation
Bucharest
Education Dept.
Level of cultural creative programmes in schools, including
programmes beyond 2021
ECoC monitoring
Self‑evaluation
Observers
Level of cultural activity in the public space, including green areas
Survey
CSB
Frequency and qualitative use of the public space, including green
areas
Self‑assessment
Survey
Event survey
Level and quality of activity in cultural heritage sites
Survey
Observers
Tourist surveys
Perception of inhabitants and tourists on heritage in the city
ECoC monitoring
Self‑evaluation
Level of activity of creative industries, start‑ups, hubs and
development support platforms
INSLevel of employment in cultural and creative sectors
ECoC monitoring
Self‑evaluation
Level of private investment and engagement in the cultural and
creative sectors
Tourist survey
Event survey
Level of national and foreign tourists/ visitors
Tourist survey
Media monitoring
Perception on the attractiveness of the city by international
media/ opinion and tourists/ visitors
Quality of Life
Survey (EU
survey‑based)
CSB
Measurement of quality of city life
Engage European
collaborators/ networks
Programmes with strong
European participation
quality
Highlight the Roma culture
and other ethnic cultures as
key aspects of a European
culture
Promote key European
themes, e.g. migration, urban
issues
Promote key Balkan cultural
collaboration projects
Strengthen the awareness of
cultural heritage in/ of the city
Build up cultural tourism and
the city's recognition as an
alternative destination
Create a strong local
and international
communications platform in
the city
Develop a strong
neighbourhood
participatory programme
Engage broader audiences
in the arts and engage more
people actively
Engage children and young
people as key community
groups in Bucharest2021
Develop use of public space
throughout the city for arts/
cultural activity
Integrate digital technology
in programmes
Improve alternative cultural
infrastructure in the city
Engage a wider constituency
of cultural operators and
NGOs
Improve management and
governance of resources in
the cultural sector
Develop alternative funding/
arts sponsorship of the
cultural sector
Develop innovative and
cross sectorial programmes/
processes/ projects
Address urban, social and
environmental issues of
the city with cross sector
relevance
To safeguard and promote
the diversity of cultures
in Europe, highlight the
common features they share,
and to increase a sense of
belonging
To enhance the range and
quality of European
dimension of the cultural
offering
To raise the international
profile of cities through
culture
To widen access and
participation in culture
To strengthen the capacity
of the cultural sector and its
links with other sectors
To foster the contribution
of culture with other
sectors to the long term
development of cities
To build meaningful and
strong cultural links with
Europe based on acceptance
of multiple and complex
identities
To support a new vision
of the city as a European
metropolis, based on
redefining the narratives
of the city — past, present,
and future — where both
heritages and utopia is
activated and re‑activated
To support an inclusive
citizens and community
social life of the city
To support new cultural
activity and infrastructure
in the city which supports
decentralisation, accessibility
and urban revitalisation, with
increased opportunities for
the independent and the
young
To develop a sustainable
strategic cultural platform
in the city based on an
holistic approach to culture
and based on values of
authenticity, transparency
and innovation
To experiment with new
cultural formats and hybridity
based on interdisciplinary,
intermedial and intersectoral
synergy which can also
offer alternatives for cultural
institutions
22. The Invisible Europe Debate Platform
Year: 2017–2021
Lead: ARCUB
Budget: 500.000 €
Curators B2021: Philipp Dietachmair,
Roxana Bedrule
20 European Dimension
European
Dimension
Bucharest has to find its voice in a Europe which
needs capital cities to lead in a time of increasing
segregation, marginalisation and provincialism.
Strategy 1 Working with Europe
Firstly, we will develop a number of concrete collaborations on the level of capacity building and on
generating stronger links between the cultural sector in the city and European partners. Examples
are the mobility and international exchange schemes, residency programmes and network building
initiatives. Running from 2017–2019, these support schemes will mobilise between 250–300 individuals
between Europe and Bucharest.
These would increase and develop intercultural and international collaboration and will contrib‑
ute to an enriched professional environment by supporting co‑productions, partnerships, touring and
networking in Europe with focus on B2021 projects.
Involvement of European curators in the Curatorium has significantly contributed to enriching
international collaborations and co‑productions in the programme. We have decided to take a major
step to formally secure this European approach in the proposal to maintain a collaborative Curatorium
with 12 European and 12 Romanian members.
Strategy 2 The Europe of Bucharest
We believe the regional Balkan context of Bucharest cannot be ignored and is highly relevant when
positioning Bucharest in a regional tourism and geo‑cultural context. To B2021 this is ”the near
Europe” defined geographically, culturally, and historically.
Some of our projects have been designed in response to the expectation that Bucharest can play a
leading role in this highly complex regional re‑definition. See especially the Balkan Expresses programme
cluster (p. 30–41), comprising large scale projects working with artists and professionals in design, archi‑
tecture, dance, and alternative music from peripheries, testing collaborative formats. All the projects
have a strong component of network building and research and a touring presentation phase.
Examples of international partners are: the Balkan Design Network, the Balkan Museums Network,
One Design Week (BG); Mikser House (SR); Croatian Design Superstore (CR); Derida Dance Center
(BG); Brainstore Project Antistatic Festival (BG); Quasi Stellar Company (GR); Station — Service for
Contemporary Dance (BG); amber Platform (TR); CAPa — DeVIR, Danse House Lemessos; Dance Days
Chania Festival (GR); Exodus (SL).
Strategy 3 Engaging in European themes
Through key projects in each theme and through dedicated cross‑thematic public platforms and res‑
idency schemes based at ARCUB, B2021 will focus on a number of key themes which are central to
the European agenda.
The Invisible Europe Debate Platform
Based on succesful trial experiences during the bidding phase, ARCUB has commited to develop its
venue towards an open space for debate, aiming to gradually morph into a hub for critical reflection
and discussion. The initiative capitalises on Bucharest’s position as an interface city, the capital of an EU
state hosting all relevant political institutions, national media and public voices, by making an exploratory
inquiry, through a string of debates, conversations and conferences, into the Romanian contribution to
ongoing debates in the European arena. This will also prompt the ECoC to take a more active role in the
European debate.This will also support and mirror the 2017–2020 kinetic process, culminating in 2021.
1.
Elaborate on the scope and
quality of the activities:
• Promoting the cultural diversity
of Europe, intercultural dialogue
and greater mutual understanding
between European citizens;
• Highlighting the common
aspects of European cultures,
heritage and history, as well
as European integration and
current European themes;
• Featuring European artists,
cooperation with operators and
cities in different countries, and
transnational partnerships. Name
some European and international
artists, operators and cities with
which cooperation is envisaged and
specify the type of exchanges in
question. Name the transnational
partnerships your city has already
established or plans to establish.
2.
Can you explain your strategy
to attract the interest of a broad
European and international public?
3.
To what extent do you plan to develop links
between your cultural programme and the
cultural programme of other cities holding
the European Capital of Culture title?
