In-visible city This application has been prepared by - TheCulturalCentre of Bucharest onbehalf of the City of Bucharest.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
in—visible city Bucharest2021 Candidate — European Capital of Culture 2021 2nd Application This application has been prepared by ARCUB — The Cultural Centre of Bucharest on behalf of the City of Bucharest.
EDITORIAL TEAM: Simina Bădică, Roxana Bedrule, Svetlana Cârstean, Raluca Ciută, Raluca Costache (BDR Associates Communication Group), Simona Deaconescu, Celia Ghyka, Irina Paraschivoiu, Ioana Păun, Oana Radu, Anamaria Ravar, Alexandra Ștef TRANSLATION, PROOFREADING & EDITS: Claudiu Constantinescu, Alexandru Eduard Costache, Simona Fodor, Tim Judy, Lucian Zagan ART DIRECTION, DESIGN & DTP: Alexandru Oriean, Radu Manelici (Faber Studio), Andrei Turenici & Ioana-Alice Voinea (Daniel & Andrew) PHOTO CREDITS: ARCUB Archive, Andrei Bârsan, Irina Broboană, Adi Bulboacă, Călin Dan, Maria Drăghici, Andrei Gândac, Alexandru George, Guillaume Lassare, Ionuţ Macri, Gerhard Maurer, Iulia Popa, Ioana Păun, Claudiu Popescu, George Popescu, Rokolective Association Archive, Mircea Topoleanu, Thomas Unterberger, Cristian Vasile, Dan Vezenţan, Atelier Ad Hoc, Balkanik! Festival Press, Image Archive of the National Museum of the Romanian Peasant, MEDS Meeting of Design Students Archive, National Museum of Contemporary Art Archive, National Dance Centre — Bucharest, Kaare Viemose Bureau Detours Archive, Dong Wong, One World Romania, Polycular, Alina Ușurelu, ZonaD MAPS: “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest PRODUCTION: Master Print Super Offset Bucharest, August 8, 2016 © ARCUB
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
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’
Explain briefly the overall
cultural profile of your city. A s 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‑
Why does your city wish to take part ses confronting the city.
in the competition for the title of
European Capital of Culture? (see p. 8) 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.
Bucharest is in a This is, in many ways, last call for a generation that has already felt betrayed. With many of the city’s
permanent state of traumas in the recent past left unsolved or unaddressed, we never anticipated an event that would
creative chaos due leave yet another scar on this city and underline the complexity of the In—visible City. Our bid has met a
to its unresolved severe reality check; now more than ever urgent questions are being raised regarding Bucharest’s abil‑
contradictions. 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
C aught 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.
4 Setting the Stage
Between East and West
B ucharest’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
F ragmentation 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
A n 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
1 WMF Nomination Form,
attracted ethnic communities such as the Turkish and Arabic ones is visible throughout the city, in a February 26, 2015.
5
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
T he 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
2 Council of Europe/ERICarts,
Compendium of Cultural Policies and events and festivals, due to financial unpredictability.
Trends in Europe, 16th edition, 2015.
Overall Bucharest scores low regarding European and international cultural co‑productions that
3 World Bank Group, Diagnostics and
Policy Advice for Supporting Roma have been held over the past three years, as well as the number of European artists in residence.
Inclusion in Romania, prepared by the
Human Development and Sustainable Among the cultural institutions that have a European profile are: the National Peasant Museum — a mem‑
Development Teams Europe and
Central Asia, February 28, 2014. ber of the International Council of Monuments and Sites ICOMOS and the 1996 European Museum of
6 Setting the Stage
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
B ucharest’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
T he 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
A ccording 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. 4 SUMP, Preliminary Report 1.
More than 80% of the population spend their free time in parks and green areas. Surprisingly, shopping in 5 The Cultural Barometer,
commissioned by ARCUB to the
malls and attending church came in second and third place, respectively. The frequency of social events National Institute for Research and
Cultural Development and developed
and attendance at sport events are also high. However, participation in arts and culture is not as positive. by the local polling institute CURS.
7
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
A t 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?
I n 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.
8 Setting the Stage
Regional Context/
Metropolitan Area POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION
PERSONS/ HECTARE
A3
4.1 — 15.0
15.1 — 25.0
BUFTEA
25.1 — 50.0
A3
A1
50.1 — 75.0
BUCUREȘTI
A2
75.0 — 100.0
150 — Bucharest
CIOLPANI NUCI
GRUIU
BUDEȘTI
PERIȘ CIOLPANI
BUTIMANU NICULEȘTI
DN 1A GRĂDIȘTEA
OLTENIȚA
MOARA VLĂSIEI
CIOCĂNEȘTI BALOTEȘTI
CREVEDIA BĂNEASA
DN 1 DASCĂLU
CORBEANCA PETRACHIOAIA
TĂRTĂȘEȘTI SINEȘTI
TUNARI
A1 OTOPENI
DN 7 BUFTEA ȘTEFĂNEȘTII
DE JOS AFUMAȚI
MOGOȘOAIA DN 2
COSOBA SLOBOZIA
GĂISENI SĂBĂRENI
CHITILA VOLUNTARI ILEANA
FLOREȘTI-STOENEȘTI GĂNEASA
JOIȚA BELCIUGATELE
VÂNĂTORII MICI ULMI
DRAGOMIREȘTI DN 3 TĂMĂDĂU MARE
VALE DOBROEȘTI
PANTELIMON FUNDULEA NICOLAE BĂLCESCU
CHIAJNA BRĂNEȘTI
CREVEDIA MARE BOLINTIN-DEAL A2
BOLINTIN-VALE BUCUREȘTI SĂRULEȘTI
CIOROGÂRLA
CERNICA
CERNICA
FUNDENI
OGREZENI DOMNEȘTI
ECONOMIC
GRĂDINARI CLINCENI BRAGADIRU
GLINA CERNICA GURBANEȘTI VALEA ARGOVEI PROFILE AND
A3
WORKFORCE
BUCȘANI POPEȘTI LEORDENI PLĂTĂREȘTI
MĂGURELE SOHATU
BUTURUGENI
CORNETU CIOLPANI
JILAVA
NANA
Employment growth
FRĂSINET
CLEJANI
DN 6 DĂRĂȘTI-ILFOV
BERCENI
rate of about 98%
1 DECEMBRIE FUMUȘANI VASILAȚI
MIHĂILEȘTI
DN 4 CURCANI BUFTEA
LETCA NOUĂ COPĂCENI VIDRA
LUICA
Local administrative
BULBUCATA
A1 units with economic
IEPUREȘTI ADUNAȚII-COPĂCENI VĂRĂȘTI
BUDEȘTI
SOLDANU BUCUREȘTI
growth
CURCANI MÂNĂSTIREA A2
COLIBAȘI
SINGURENI HERĂȘTI
DN 5A
VALEA DRAGULUI
CLINCENI Local administrative
CRIVĂȚ
MITRENI
ULMENI
units with tourism
RADOVANU CHISELET
GHIMPAȚI
COMANA GOSTINARI
HOTARELE CURCANI facilities
CĂLUGĂRENI ISVOARELE
SCHITU SPANTOV
STOENEȘTI CĂSCIOARELE Local administrative
DN 5 MIHAI BRAVU
GREACA units with agricultural
OLTENIȚA COMANA
CHIRNOGI profile
DN 41
DN 5B
BĂNEASA PRUNDU
IZVOARELE
DAIA
GOSTINU GIURGIU
FRĂTEȘTI
STĂNEȘTI OINACU
GIURGIU
SLOBOZIA
PROTECTED NATURAL
SITES AREA PER LOCAL
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
A3
(%)
CORBEANCA < 10%
10.1% — 20%
A1
20.1% — 50%
BUCUREȘTI
A2 50.1% — 75.0%
Local administrative units Argeș-Sabar green corridor PLĂTĂREȘTI
> 75.1%
No data available
Built area of Bucharest Natural connectivity spaces
‘NATURA 2000’ sites
Large unbuilt areas inside Bucharest National roads
Cultural points of interest
ringroad COMANA
Highways (A1–A2–A3)
Urbanization axis A1–A2 highways PRUNDU
Proposed ports/ airports IZVOARELE
Ploiești-București-Giurgiu axis
Existing ports/ airports
Bucharest periurban area
Măgurele Research Institute
Danube river
9
Bucharest‑Ilfov Building a Case for
Region Bucharest
Bucharest and Ilfov County Bucharest is today at a point where it needs to take
Does your city plan to involve
its surrounding area? Explain this choice. will be one region by Why does your city wish to take
part in the competition for the title stock and act on the invisible aspects that have been
2021, so it makes sense of European Capital of Culture?
blocking it for the past 27 years. The following points
to start collaborating. of departure are the motivation for our bid:
1. Laying the Ground for a
Future Culture of Responsibility
I n 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,
Explain the concept of the programme
which would be launched if the
city is designated as European
Capital of Culture. (see p. 24)
I n 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‑
regional population movement and mobility patterns, recreation and cultural infra‑ dling an emotional link with the city. We continue to believe that ECoC plays a crucial role in address‑
structure, tourism and economic potential, the influence and pull of the city is increas‑ ing the underlying systemic drawbacks that have been mirrored for so long in people’s disinterest in
ing and people are now commuting 60 km daily to reach Bucharest with around 3 mil‑ the fate of their city.
lion inhabitants using the city regularly. The tragic events of the Colectiv club fire in October 2015 and their aftermath have deepened the
Bucharest and Ilfov County have established a strategic partnership with the belief that this city is living on the edge, shifting between creative and self‑destructive chaos.
Bucharest-Ilfov Regional Development Agency (BIRDA), the regional strategic author‑ The present bid upholds the argument that a new model for participatory democracy by position‑
ity that administers strategic funds on both a national and European level. BIRDA is ing the citizen at its centre needs to be imagined and enacted. At the same time, events in the wake of the
responsible for the regional strategic investment for the period 2014–2020. The Agency Colectiv tragedy showed that a new civil contract is only possible through a commitment to changing the
has agreed to support B2021 by investing in specific programmes that are in line with status quo while also highlighting the need to transform grief into empowering and constructive action.
EU regional priorities. This is another key reason to structure the project on a regional Now is the time for a change of perspective where a sense of renewal and revival replaces the cur‑
level. A regional perspective can significantly strengthen cultural tourism, which is one rent vacuum. Building a collective vision of future responsibilities and roles for urban actors is para‑
of nine strategic priorities for the Regional Fund in 2014–2020. B2021 can play a lead‑ mount and this needs to be nurtured by an artistic and cultural movement.
ing role in this strategy. A new model The fall of the government and the resignation of an otherwise popular district mayor in November
Ilfov County offers a number of important cultural components to the project, for participatory 2015 showed that, for the first time since 1989, the over‑dominant Romanian party system has withered.
including the cultural centres of Mogoșoaia and Snagov for residencies and sites of democracy Since then, the intuition we have been following in our bid — that a new collective energy is making itself
cultural production, green areas and blue corridors which will link to green initia‑ positioning the felt just below the surface, with little or no encouragement from the establishment or traditional poli‑
tives in Greentopia. In Ilfov, there are also pockets of deprivation which include a citizen at its centre tics — has become stronger.
number of dense Roma communities. Buftea, Măgurele, and Chitila rank high on the Some of this is traceable to the bouts of civic activism focusing on neighbourhoods, showing in a
national scale of marginalised population (13.5%). These are addressed in the Transient refreshing and stubborn way that proximity has real political value in Bucharest.
Precarity project. 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,
Building a collective as well as a commitment to support originality.
vision of future In our bid, we acknowledge and invest in the strong generational propensity for building collec‑
responsibilities tive stamina. In fact, the programmes and projects play on the realisation that Bucharest is a young city,
and roles for urban where alternative networks of thinkers and doers, connected through informal structures, mobile and
actors is paramount 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
D uring 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
8 Setting the Stagecultural 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 Proximity becomes
shares a common history and values, such as Vienna and Budapest on the Danube connection, Belgrade a real political
and Sofia on the Balkan connection, Paris and Berlin on the Western Europe connection, as well as cit‑ value in Bucharest
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
F ifteen 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 Empowering
European cities over the past century, has, at the same time, the potential, resources, skills, and inno‑ slow‑paced,
vative capacity to deal with these issues. Based on our research, we infer Bucharest is one of five major bottom‑up
cities in the Balkan region that has strong enough connectivity to be able to both benefit from European initiatives, testing
and global movements and to influence these. Our case builds on the insight that Bucharest is not only out micro‑tactics
in a position to involve and indeed engage on a national level, but also has the potential to influence on of engagement
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.
1 European Commission/ Directorate
It is our wish that Bucharest should play a part in this quest. We believe there is clear evidence the General for Regional Policy, Cities
of Tomorrow: Challenges, Visions,
city is on the verge of changing past patterns. This is partly due to the backlog of urban, social, moral, Ways Forward, 2011. The document
advocates for green innovation,
and cultural issues it has had to face, and partly due to emerging self‑awareness and active engagement ecological and environmental
regeneration, new forms of
which has created a sense of expectancy as to what happens after the one year ‘break’ from normal democratic participation, securing
and developing cultural dialogue and
party politics. diversity, securing social progress
and cohesion, limited urban sprawl.
The new perspective and tone of the Bucharest Urban Master Plan anticipates this change by advo‑
2 Saskia Sassen, The Global City: New
cating a people first policy. Similarly, the growing number of small, innovative actions, projects, start‑ups York, London, Tokyo, Princeton
University Press, 1991.
and initiatives, which have also been fuelled by the ECoC process, have made visible the largest mass of
9Invisible yet potential creativity and innovation in the Balkans. We believe these factors have created the most potently
powerful urban dynamic conditions for a transformative process.
solidarity on
the rise 4. Balancing Cultural
Inequalities
M ore 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
Re‑thinking ECoC as an opportunity to increase access to culture in the city’s peripheral quarters and to place more
Bucharest in emphasis on the need to create rather than simply consume. Bucharest has the richest and most active
a Europe that independent arts scene in Romania. However, this immense creative potential is fragmented and used
itself needs to be to a minimum because of lack of funding, spaces, and of coherent strategies for contemporary artists.
re‑imagined
5. Tapping into Bucharest’s Cultural
and Creative Potential
T he 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.
10 Setting the StageContribution 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.
O n 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.
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,
The lack of a shared vision and a formal cultural strategy prior to this process limited the response including through the development of long
term links between these sectors and the
to the challenges, opportunities and the development of the sector, and has marginalised the cultural economic and social sectors in your city.
What are the plans for sustaining
sector in relation to other fields. the cultural activities beyond
the year of the title?
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);
11• 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
T he 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:
12 Setting the StageBucharest Arts Platform
I n 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.
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
This core programme, detailed in the table below, is aiming at capacity building, for both independ‑ Association, Marcel Hichter Foundation,
CEC Artslink, Res Artis, Dutch Culture/
ent organisations and public institutions, in the Professionals & Logistics line, as well as in supporting TransArtists, UNESCO Chair in Belgrade (Serbia)
National NGOs: Film ETC. Association,
Mobility and International exchanges. It also aims to enhance the capacity of the sector to tap into the MetruCub Association, A.T.U. Association,
MATKA Association, Gabriela Tudor
new technologies in view of better knowing and connecting with various audiences. Foundation, Civitas Foundation
European Cultural Institutions in
Through high‑quality artistic and cultural management training methodology, the project links Bucharest: Goethe-Institute, British
Council, Institut Français, Czech Centre,
Romanian and international cultural producers and managers, professionals from the academia, activ‑ Austrian Forum, Polish Cultural Centre, etc.
Business Partners (potential):
ists and professionals from cross‑disciplinary fields, technology innovators and key decision‑makers in UniCredit, Microsoft, HP, Google, Lenovo
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.
Program Activity Participants
KNOW-HOW
A programme of ongoing sustainable support for cultural institutions and NGOs. A pool of around
10 institutions & max. 100
20 European specialists will be available for dedicated support on specific programmes and
persons annually will work
Peer to Peer Program issues which can transform/ build key players in the cultural sector. All aspects of organizational
with 20 European/ RO
development will be covered for max. three‑month intensive mentoring, annual exchange
specialists
programme & public talks/ meeting integrated in the programme.
An ambitious one/two year part‑time diploma programme for all professionals, working cross 25 curators & organisers
Cultural Diploma Project for curators
sectorial. In collaboration with UNESCO chairs — University of Bucharest/ Arts University annually
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.
25 young cultural activists
Cultural Diploma Project for Teens
A parallel programme aims to launch a two‑year CD for teenagers from high schools in the city and annually
Ilfov County, including low‑income neighbourhood schools.
EUROPEAN
Much of Romanian culture & arts remains a secret for international programmers, producers and
25 international curators &
International Curators Visitors Programme curators. A consistent programme of coordinated theme/ sector based visits will map the potential
organisers annually
of the Romanian (contemporary) arts scene for key European partners.
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,
50 artists & organisers
Mobility Grants touring, networking in Europe with focus on B2021 projects in this phase. Open for artists and
annually
cultural professionals. The programme will also support European artists/ organisers visiting
Bucharest.
CULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
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
Cultural Hubs 5 cultural hubs annually
independent initiatives addressing relevant themes — e.g. green makerspaces, intercultural
spaces — with a grant of €4–10,000 annually.
EQUIPMENT
There is no specific funding for technical support for the cultural sector in the country, while the 5 sets of equipment annually
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
Technical equipment
mobile resource.
APPdating technology
There is a growing need to invest in digital technology within the arts and the needs for lighting/ 5 sets of equipment annually
sound/ 3 D printing, hi‑fi printing etc. is huge. An app dating scheme will award grants of max.
€5,000.
Holograms, new robotics, laser technology etc. are little known in the Romanian cultural sector and
Arts and Innovation access to such research facilities can be given to specific experimental projects, which link the arts 5 projects annually
to the digital sector.
NEW AUDIENCES
An online platform for the cultural sector with a set of apps which can be used by all institutions/
APPdating Open platform
NGOs.
A series of Hackathon on various aspects of the city, which will also design new apps, including 4 hackathons/ 100 persons
Hackathon Series
health city, design city, cultural heritage, etc. annually
Cultural information to download throughout the city with wi‑fi spots also on buses and tramways,
City Hit Spots 4–5 open platforms
companies web/ intranet, high schools intranet etc. to give access to the arts/ cultural sector.
A programme to invite leading arts/ cultural bloggers to visit key cultural events/ projects in the 10 int. journalists & bloggers
International Media Platform
city. annually
An innovative programme aimed at kids and youngsters (under 15) which will collaborate with
Platform for Kids and Students 10–15 events annually
established cultural institutions and festivals, including ‘Opera for Babies’, ‘Classic Kids’, etc.
13You can also read
