Application for the title of ECoC 2017

Title: Aarhus 2017 candidate European Capital of Culture 2017, Aarhus 2017 Programme september 2011

1. edition, 2. issue, 2011

Published by: Aarhus 2017

Kulturforvaltningen, Aarhus Kommune

Vestergade 55, 4. sal, 8000 Aarhus C

Phone: 87133355

E-mail: [email protected]

www.aarhus2017.dk

Editor: Trevor Davies

ISBN: 978-87-983982-5-7

//ColoPHon

RETHInK

AARHUS ToWn HAll. nIGHT oF CUlTURE. oCT. 2011

CHAPTER 1 - WHo And WHy 3-107EU QUESTIon IndEx ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3-5FoREWoRd, jACob bUndSGAARd, mAyoR _________________________________________________________________ 7FoREWoRd, mARC PERERA CHRISTEnSEn, AldERmAn FoR CUlTURE ______________________________________ 9FoREWoRd, bEnT HAnSEn, PRESIdEnT oF CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon ____________________________________11REAdERS GUIdE, TREvoR dAvIES, AARHUS 2017 _________________________________________________________ 131.0 FRom US To yoU InTRodUCTIon __________________________________________________________________________________ 17-19 WAlKInG AlonG THE bEACH ____________________________________________________________________ 20-231.1 WHy InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 24-25 WHy EURoPEAn CAPITAl oF CUlTURE ___________________________________________________________ 26-29 WHy AARHUS __________________________________________________________________________________ 30-37 WHy THIS REGIon ______________________________________________________________________________38-441.2 AARHUS A CUlTURAl TImElInE InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 45-46 Fold oUT doCUmEnTATIon, AARHUS1.3 CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon - A HISToRICAl lAndSCAPE InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 47-49 Fold oUT doCUmEnTATIon, CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon1.4 THE CUlTURAl CREATIvE lAndSCAPE, AARHUS And CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon InTRodUCTIon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 50 FIvE lAyERS oF CUlTURAl RESoURCES _________________________________________________________ 51-53 PlACES oF CUlTURAl RESoURCES ______________________________________________________________ 54-60 Fold oUT doCUmEnTATIon, AARHUS Fold oUT doCUmEnTATIon, CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon CUlTURAl InSTITUTIonS _______________________________________________________________________ 61-631.5 THE PRoCESS 2008-2012 InTRodUCTIon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 64 40 monTHS oF onGoInG InvolvEmEnT And dEvEloPmEnT ______________________________________65-71 HoW WE HAvE EnGAGEd dIFFEREnT SECToRS In THE PRojECT ___________________________________ 72-75 TImElInE FoR THE PRoCESS 2008-2012 __________________________________________________________ 76-80 Fold oUT, PRoCESS 2008 2012 Fold oUT, SWoT - STREnGTHS, WEAKnESSES, oPPoRTUnITIES, THREATS PRoCESS doCUmEnTATIon And PUblICATIonS __________________________________________________ 81-83 GlASS ConTAInER ______________________________________________________________________________ 84-851.6 WHAT do CITIzEnS, ARTISTS And CUlTURAl InSTITUTIonS THInK InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 86-87 WHAT do CITIzEnS THInK ______________________________________________________________________ 88-93 WHAT do ARTISTS/CUlTURAl InSTITUTIonS THInK ______________________________________________ 94-971.7 SIx STRATEGIC GoAlS FoR AARHUS 2017 InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 98-99 GoAlS - FRom ECoC To STRUCTURAl CHAnGE __________________________________________________ 100-101 A nEW CUlTURAl PolICy FRAmEWoRK _______________________________________________________ 102-105 QUoTATIonS FRom AARHUS CITy CoUnCIl dEbATE ____________________________________________ 106-107

mEjlGAdE FoR dIvERSITy. 2010.

CHAPTER 2 - WHAT 1-1352.1 THEmE: RETHInK InTRodUCTIon _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 RETHInK _________________________________________________________________________________________2112.2 PRoGRAmmE ConCEPT InTRodUCTIon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 12 PRoGRAmmE STRUCTURE _______________________________________________________________________13-19 PRoGRAmmE bUIldInG _________________________________________________________________________ 20-232.3 THE EURoPEAn dImEnSIon oF AARHUS 2017 InTRodUCTIon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 24 THE EURoPEAn dImEnSIon _____________________________________________________________________ 25-29 PRoPoSEd CollAboRATIon WITH THE SElECTEd CITy In CyPRUS ________________________________ 30-332.4 STRATEGIC PRojECTS InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 34-35 STRATEGy 1 & 2: InvESTmEnT In CUlTURAl And URbAn InFRASTRUCTURE PRojECTS _____________ 36-68 STRATEGy 3: KnoWlEdGE And ComPETEnCE bUIldInG __________________________________________ 69-73 STRATEGy 4: AUdIEnCE dEvEloPmEnT __________________________________________________________ 74-76 STRATEGy 5: InTERnATIonAl CooPERATIon _____________________________________________________77-79 STRATEGy 6: CREATIvE SECToR _________________________________________________________________ 80-81 STRATEGy 7: FESTIvAlS _________________________________________________________________________ 82-88 STRATEGy 8: THEmATIC PRojECTS THE CITy: THE oPEn And lIvInG CITy, THE CITy oF PlAy, CUlTURAl lAndSCAPES, RoUTES And TRACES, CUlTURAl HERITAGE. CREATIvITy: ARTS, CREATIvE IndUSTRIES, dIGITAl CITy. vAlUES. dEmoCRACy, SUSTAInAbIlITy, dIvERSITy, CHIldREn And yoUTH _________ 89-129 PRojECT ovERvIEW __________________________________________________________________________ 130-135

CHAPTER 3 - HoW 1-783.1 oRGAnISATIon InTRodUCTIon _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 bACKGRoUnd, 2017 FoUndATIon, SECRETARIAT, boARdS And PlATFoRmS, PARTnERSHIPS. _______ 2-14 3.2 EConomIC FRAmEWoRK InTRodUCTIon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 15 bUdGET And FInAnCInG ________________________________________________________________________ 16-283.3 CommUnICATIon And ToURISm InTRodUCTIon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 29 CommUnICATIon And ToURISm _________________________________________________________________ 30-453.4 SElECTEd dETAIlEd QUESTIonS STREnGTHS And WEAKnESSES _________________________________________________________________ 46-51 RElATInG To lonG-TERm CUlTURAl dEvEloPmEnT _____________________________________________ 52-53 HoW THE PRojECT IS InnovATIvE _______________________________________________________________ 54-57 monIToRInG And EvAlUATIon _________________________________________________________________ 58-61 InvolvEmEnT CITIzEnS ________________________________________________________________________ 62-63 PRoGRAmmE FoR 2017 _________________________________________________________________________ 64-65 AARHUS 2017 oRGAnISATIon 2008-2012 ____________________________________________________________ 66 PARTICIPAnTS__________________________________________________________________________________ 67-74 PHoTo CREdITS ________________________________________________________________________________ 75-78

bUREAU dEToURS

31. bASIC PRInCIPlES1. Why does the city which you represent wish to take part in the competition for the title of European Capital of Culture?

CHAPTER 1 WHY ______________________________________ 24-37

What, for it, would be the main challenge of this nomination?

CHAPTER 1 WHY AARHUS _____________________________ 30-37CHAPTER 1 WHY THIS REGION ________________________ 38-44 CHAPTER 2 THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION ______________ 24-29 CHAPTER 3 STRENGHTS AND WEAKNESSES __________ 46-51

What are the citys objectives for the year in question?

CHAPTER 1 SIX STRATEGIC GOALS FOR AARHUS 2017 _ 98-99 CHAPTER 1 GOALS FROM ECOC GOALS TO STRUCTURAL CHANGE ______________________________________________100-101

2. Explain the concept of the programme which would be launched if the city was nominated European Capital of Culture?

CHAPTER 2 PROGRAMME CONCEPT ____________________ 13-19CHAPTER 2 PROGRAMME BUILDING ___________________ 20-23

3. Could this programme be summed up by a slogan?

CHAPTER 2 THEME: RETHINK ____________________________1-11

4. Which geographical area does the city intend to involve in the European Capital of Culture event?

CHAPTER 1 WHY THIS REGION? _______________________ 38-44

5. Please confirm that you have the support of the local and/or regio-nal political authorities.

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK __________________15-28 CHAPTER 3 TABLE 6 _______________________________________20CHAPTER 1 WHY THIS REGION? SECTION REGIONAL SUP-PORT _____________________________________________________ 43 CHAPTER 1 THE PROCESS 2008-2012 __________________ 64-85

6. How does the event fit into the long-term cultural development of the city and, where appropriate, of the region?

CHAPTER 1 THE CULTURAL CREATIVE LANDSCAPE __ 50-63 CHAPTER 2 PROGRAMME CONCEPT ____________________ 12-19CHAPTER 2 PROGRAMME BUILDING ___________________ 20-23

7. To what extent do you plan to forge links with the other city to be nominated European Capital of Culture?

CHAPTER 1 THE PROCESS 2008-2012/ENGAGING WITH EUROPE ________________________________________________74-75CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED COLLABORATION WITH THE SE-LECTED CITY IN CYPRUS _______________________________ 30-33 CHAPTER 2 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION/ECOC PART-NERSHIPS 2013-16 _________________________________________79

8. As regards The European Dimension, how does the city intend to contribute to the objectives?

CHAPTER 2 THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION OF AARHUS 2017 ________________________________________________________ 24-29

9. As regards City and Citizens, how does the city intend to include the citizens in the programme for the event?

CHAPTER 1 WHAT DO CITIZENS THINK_________________ 88-93CHAPTER 2 VALUES/DEMOCRACY ____________________ 116-119CHAPTER 2 VALUES/DIVERSITY _____________________ 124-126 CHAPTER 2 CHILDREN AND YOUTH ___________________127-129

10. How does the city plan to get involved in or create synergies with the cultural activities supported by the European Institutions?

CHAPTER 2 THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION ______________ 24-29 CHAPTER 2 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ___________77-79

11. Are some parts of the programme designed for particular target groups?

CHAPTER 2 VALUES/DEMOCRACY ____________________ 116-119CHAPTER 2 VALUES/DIVERSITY _____________________ 124-126CHAPTER 2 CHILDREN AND YOUTH ___________________127-129

12. What contacts has the city or the body responsible for preparing the event established, or what contacts does it intend to establish,

with cultural operators in the city, cultural operators based outside the city, cultural operators based outside the country?

CHAPTER 1 THE PROCESS 2008-2012 __________________ 64-83CHAPTER 2 PROGRAMME CONCEPT ____________________ 12-19 CHAPTER 2 PROGRAMME BUILDING ___________________ 20-23

13. In what way is the proposed project innovative?

CHAPTER 2 THEME: RETHINK ____________________________1-11

14. If the city in question is awarded the title of European Capital of Culture, what would be the medium- and long-term effects of the event from a social, cultural and urban point of view? Do the munici-pal authorities intend to make a public declaration of intent concer-ning the period following the year of the event?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK/CULTURAL BUDGET AARHUS___________________________________________________23

15. How was this application designed and prepared?

CHAPTER 1 THE PROCESS 2008-2012 __________________ 64-83 CHAPTER 1 TABLE ______________________________________76-77

II STRUCTURE oF THE PRoGRAmmE FoR THE EvEnT1. What structure does the city intend to give to the years programme if it is designated European Capital of Culture? How long does the programme last?

CHAPTER 2 PROGRAMME BUILDING __________________ 20-23

2. What main events will mark the year?

THIS ANSWER IS OPTIONAL AT THE PRE-SELECTION STAGE. WE DO NOT ADDRESS THE MATTER AT THIS POINT.

3. How does the city plan to choose the projects/events which will constitute the programme for the year?

CHAPTER 2 PROGRAMME BUILDING ___________________ 20-23 CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK /TEMPORAL DISTRIBU-TION OF PROGRAMME COSTS ___________________________21-22

EU QUESTIon IndEx

ART PRojECT. lovE AllEy. jUlI 2011.

III. oRGAnISATIon And FInAnCInG oF THE EvEnT III. 1. oRGAnISATIonAl STRUCTUREALL QUESTIONS REGARDING ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ARE ADDRESSED IN THE CHAPTER 3 SECTION ORGANISING __________________________________________________________ 2-13

III. 1.1. What kind of structure is envisaged for the organisation re-sponsible for implementing the project? What type of relationship will it have with the city authorities?

CHAPTER 3 ORGANISING ______________________________ 2-13

III. 1.2. If an area around the city is involved in the event, how will the coordination between the authorities of the relevant local and regio-nal authorities be organised?


III 1.3. According to which criteria and under which arrangements has or will the artistic director of the event been chosen? What is or will be his/her profile? When will he/she take up the appointment? What will be his/her field of action?


2. FInAnCInG oF THE EvEnTALL QUESTIONS REGARDING ECONOMICS AND FUNDING ARE ADDRESSED IN THE CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK _________________________________________________________ 15-27

2.1. What has been the usual annual budget for culture in the city over the last 5 years?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK/CULTURAL BUDGET AARHUS ________________________________________________23 CHAPTER 3 TABLE 9 _______________________________________23

2.2. Please explain the overall budget for the European Capital of Culture project.

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK __________________ 2-13 TABLE 1

2.3. Please explain the operating budget for the ECoC project.

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK _________________ 15-27 CHAPTER 3 TABLE 3 _______________________________________ 17CHAPTER 3 TABLE 7 _______________________________________ 22 CHAPTER 3 TABLE 8 _______________________________________23

2.4. Overall capital expenditure. If appropriate, please insert a table here that specifies which amounts will be spent for what type of ca-pital expenditure over the years from the application to the ECoC year.

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK/CAPITAL INVEST-MENT ____________________________________________________ 16 TABLE __________________________________________________26-27

2.5. Have the public finance authorities already voted on or made fi-nancial commitments? If not, when will they do so?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORKT _______________ 15-27 CHAPTER 3 TABLE 4 _______________________________________ 18 CHAPTER 3 TABLE 6 _______________________________________20

2.6. What is the plan for involving sponsors in the event?

CHAPT. 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK/EU, SPONSORS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS _____________________________ 21

2.7. According to what timetable should the income be received by the city and/or the body responsible for preparing and implementing the ECoC project if the city receives the title of European Capital of Culture?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK _________________ 15-27 CHAPTER 3 TABLE _______________________________________ 5 19

2.8. Which amount of the usual overall annual budget does the city intend to spend for culture after the ECoC year?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK/CULTURAL BUDGET AARHUS ________________________________________________23

Iv. CITy InFRASTRUCTURE1. What are the citys assets in terms of accessibility?

CHAPTER 3 TURISME __________________________________ 42-43

2. What is the citys absorption capacity in terms of tourist accom-modation?

CHAPTER 3 TOURISM ________________________________ 36-49

3. What projects are to be carried out between now and the year for which the city is applying for the title of European Capital of Culture in terms of urban and tourism infrastructure, including renovation? What is the planned timetable for this work?

CHAPTER 3 TOURISM ________________________________ 36-49

v. CommUnICATIon STRATEGyALL QUESTIONS REGARDING OUR COMMUNICATION STRA-TEGY ARE ADDRESSED IN CHAPTER 3 COMMUNICATION ________________________________________________________ 30-35

1. What is the citys intended communication strategy for the Euro-pean Capital of Culture event?

CHAPTER 3 COMMUNICATION _______________________ 30-35

2. How does the city plan to ensure the visibility of the European Union, which is awarding the title?

THIS ANSWER IS OPTIONAL AT THE PRE-SELECTION STAGE. WE DO NOT ADDRESS THE MATTER AT THIS POINT.

vI. EvAlUATIon And monIToRInG oF THE EvEnT1. Does the city intend to set up a special monitoring and evaluation system a for the impact of the programme and its knock-on effects? b for financial management?

CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION AND MONITORING ___________ 56-58

vII. AddITIonAl InFoRmATIon1. What, in your opinion, are the strong points of the citys application and the parameters of its success as European Capital of Culture and what, on the other hand, are its weak points?

CHAPTER 3 STRENGH AND WEAKNESSES _____________44-49

2. Does the city intend to develop particular cultural projects in the coming years, irrespective of the outcome of its application for the title of European Capital of Culture?

CHAPTER 2 INVESTMENT IN CULTURAL AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT __________________________ 34-67AND SOME PROJECTS FROM THEMATIC PROJECTS CITY _______________________________________________________ 89-93VALUES ____________________________________________ 116-126 CHILDREN AND YOUTH _____________________________127-129

3. Please add below any further comments which you deem neces-sary on the subject of this application.

III. oRGAnISATIon And FInAnCInG oF THE EvEnT1. oRGAnISATIonAl STRUCTURE1.1. What kind of structure is envisaged for the organisation responsi-ble for implementing the project?

CHAPTER 3 ORGANISATION _____________________________ 1-14

What type of relationship will it have with the city authorities?


1.2. If an area around the city is involved in the event, how will the co-ordination between the authorities of the relevant local and regional authorities be organised?


1.3. According to which criteria and under which arrangements has or will the artistic director of the event been chosen? What is or will be his/her profile? When will he/she take up the appointment? What will be his/her field of action?


2. FInAnCInG oF THE EvEnTALL QUESTIONS REGARDING ECONOMICS AND FUNDING ARE ADDRESSED IN THE CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK

2.1. What has been the usual annual budget for culture in the city over the last 5 years?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK _____________________23CHAPTER 3 TABLE 9 _______________________________________23

2.2. Please explain the overall budget for the European Capital of Culture project.

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK __________________15-28CHAPTER 3 TABLE 1 _______________________________________ 17

2.3. Please explain the operating budget for the ECoC project.

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK __________________15-28CHAPTER 3 TABLE 3 _______________________________________ 17CHAPTER 3 TABLE 7 _______________________________________22CHAPTER 3 TABLE 8 _______________________________________23

2.4. Overall capital expenditure. If appropriate, please insert a table here that specifies which amounts will be spent for what type of capi-tal expenditure over the years from the application to the ECoC year.

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK/CAPITAL INVESTMENT____________________________________________________________ 16CHAPTER 3 TABLE 10 ___________________________________26-27

2.5. Have the public finance authorities already voted on or made fi-nancial commitments? If not, when will they do so?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK __________________15-28CHAPTER 3 TABLE 4 _______________________________________ 18CHAPTER 3 TABLE 6 _______________________________________20

2.6. What is the plan for involving sponsors in the event?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK/EU, SPONSORS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS ______________________________ 21

2.7. According to what timetable should the income be received by the city and/or the body responsible for preparing and implementing the ECoC project if the city receives the title of European Capital of Cul-ture?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK __________________15-28CHAPTER 3 TABLE 5 _______________________________________ 19

2.8. Which amount of the usual overall annual budget does the city intend to spend for culture after the ECoC year?

CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK/CULTURAL BUDGET 23

Iv. CITy InFRASTRUCTURE1. What are the citys assets in terms of accessibility?

CHAPTER 3 TOURISM _________________________________44-45

2. What is the citys absorption capacity in terms of tourist accom-modation?

CHAPTER 3 TOURISM _________________________________44-45

3. What projects are to be carried out between now and the year for which the city is applying for the title of European Capital of Culture in terms of urban and tourism infrastructure, including renovation? What is the planned timetable for this work?

CHAPTER 3 TOURISM _________________________________ 38-45

v. CommUnICATIon STRATEGy1. What is the citys intended communication strategy for the Euro-pean Capital of Culture event?

CHAPTER 3 COMMUNICATION _________________________ 29-37

2. How does the city plan to ensure the visibility of the European Union, which is awarding the title?

THIS ANSWER IS OPTIONAL AT THE PRE-SELECTION STAGE, WE DO NOT ADDRESS THE MATTER AT THIS POINT.

vI. EvAlUATIon And monIToRInG oF THE EvEnT1. Does the city intend to set up a special monitoring and evaluation system: for the impact of the programme and its knock-on effects? for financial management?

CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION AND MONITORING __________ 58-61

vII. AddITIonAl InFoRmATIon1. What, in your opinion, are the strong points of the citys application and the parameters of its success as European Capital of Culture and what, on the other hand, are its weak points?

CHAPTER 3 STRENGHTS AND WEAKNESSES __________ 46-51

2. Does the city intend to develop particular cultural projects in the coming years, irrespective of the outcome of its application for the title of European Capital of Culture?

CHAPTER 2 INVESTMENTS IN CULTURAL AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS __________________________ 36-68AND SOME PROJECTS FROM THEMATIC PROJECTS CITY _ 89-93VALUES ______________________________________________ 116-126CHILDREN AND YOUTH _______________________________127-129

3. Please add below any further comments which you deem necessary on the subject of this application.

SCUlTPTURE by THE SEA. jUnE 2009.

7Arhus 2017 is a key strategic priority for Aarhus City Council and an important part of the citys development strategy. On August 24th. 2011 a unanimous city council approved the essential elements of this bid and also approved 100 million kroner to the project as the budget indicates.

Our application to become European Capital of Culture is based on the citys many qualities. Aarhus has in fact many strengths and qualities and the most important are integrated in the bid. However, this project has an-other point of departure. When we in fact map our burning platforms, it becomes clear that they are much alike other European cites. At the same time, we are also aware, that we are in competition with many other cities not just in Europe but in fact in the whole world. Aarhus must continue to attract and retain talent students, researchers, artists and also companies.

Aarhus new brand statement: Aarhus Danish for progress, express our double points of departure ; partly our strengths and partly our vision and future orientation. We address challenges which are facing our city and we also address issues we want to put on an agenda, which are not only relevant in our city and Central Denmark Region, but in the whole of Europe.

The theme of Rethink which has been chosen for the ECoC 2017 project, is not a specific answer to the mange challenges we are facing in our city: our housing areas, our harbour, or climate and environment challenges, our education and health services, our integration strategy, our way of adapting both the public space in the city and the surrounding nature, and not least the challenge of modernising the public sector and health sector.

This theme is also a proposal as to how we can create change in a time dominated by financial crises, climate crisis, as well as ethnic and religious conflicts. Our theme addresses key points in the overall development agenda of the city, It is necessary to rethink! We have actually already started and we hope that Aarhus 2017 will bring us further. At the same time, we hope that Aarhus 2017 can also support change and development in a far broader European context.

We have been very successful in organising major events and also in managing major infrastructural invest-ments. The ECoC is a new challenge which we feel we are ready to take on. We want to take on a more central role in the current European development by focussing on challenges which are the same for other cities. A common European agenda.

Jacob Bundsgaard Mayor, Aarhus City Council

RETHInKInG SolUTIonS

8ARoS. yoUR RAInboW PAnoRAmA. olAFUR ElIASSon. jUnE 2011

9Rethink with Aarhus.

The city of Aarhus is under the continual influence of creative anarchy. This enables the city to create solutions which are well thought through and also innovative. The hunger to experiment and rethink is visible throughout the city. For local citizens though, experimenting does not necessarily mean tearing up the text books and starting from scratch, but rather a question of doing things differently - no matter what the scale. This also applies to this application to become European Capital of Culture in 2017.

As a citizen in Aarhus, I am proud to live in a city which has insisted on a process with focus on dialogue and involvement and that our candidature starts with unanswered questions rather than being based on a series of certified answers. This application has been put together based on the same principles we will use for the project itself. Widespread participa-tion, a high degree of involvement and a focus on innovation in the process itself. Therefore, our choice of theme came as the natural conclusion of this inclusive and exploratory process rather than being predetermined.

This approach has already given us an extremely strong foundation for the project and also generated new ideas, new partners and a strong engagement. We believe that ECoC2017 theme of rethink can be inspirational for ourselves, for Europe and for the wider world. Rethink is for Aarhus more than a theme - it is a way of thinking! The concept of rethink is already influencing the cultural sector of the city. Our museums are rethinking the concept of the museum. The historical museum of Moesgaard is not only expanding with a remark-able new wing to accommodate major exhibitions, but new media technology and digital information formats will also create interactive and more involving exhibition formats.

AROS Contemporary Art Museum has become the pedestal for Olafur Eliassons Your Rainbow Panorama which lightens up the city but also gives the public a totally new perspective of the city at the same time and really challenges our notion of both art and city. Urban Media Space will be a new central library for the 21st century, positioned in the spot where the city of Aros was founded where the river meets the sea. This symbolically highlights ARoS as a city of knowledge, but also provides a framework for future sharing of knowledge, future innovation and future development of local democracy. Many local citizens have taken part in extensive workshop focus groups together with professionals to look critically at existing libraries, develop models, enrich ideas and correct ingrown mistakes.

Over the previous decades, Aarhus has invested substantially in the arts and in culture. An investment, which has had a huge significance for the city, the citizens and the business community. Culture is the pulse of our city and an integral part of the basis for the citys continued development. The citys energy and development potential is dependent on our continued investment in arts and culture and in a continued development of the culture of this city. The drive behind our application is the will to continue to strengthen the es-sential quality of innovation and change which is embedded in the arts and cultures but also to implant this to other aspects of the city. This is another reason to want to be Eu-ropean Capital of Culture.

Aarhus 2017 will not just be a project for the city but a project with the city and for Europe.

Marc Perera Christensen Alderman for Culture, Aarhus City Council

FoCUS on dIAloGUE And InvolvEmEnT

lIGHT, voICES And lAndSCAPE. EllEmIE EjdRUP HAnSEn. SEPTEmbER 2011

11

Central Denmark Region is one of the five regions of Denmark which were created in 2007 as the result of local government reform. One of our main functions is to take a strategic overview across the region and to support initiatives which can have a positive impact on the future economic sustainability of our region. Our decision to support and indeed be a partner to the City of Aarhus is rooted in the knowledge that investment in the cultural sector does naturally generate tourism, can be linked positively to health, attracts international attention and supports the creative sector - all of which have influence on the future of our region and is part of the Growth Forums Business Development Strategy for 2020 in the Central Denmark Region.

Central Denmark Region have supported and participated in this project since it was launched in 2008 and in my view it has already a proven success, as it has managed to engage all 19 local authorities in the region, and indeed the regional council. We are convinced of the sincerity of the project to include vital regional agendas and to work it with an open, creative mindset. We in the Central Denmark Region and the council of Aarhus have worked hard to make the ECoC 2017 a project for collaboration across the region and its individual councils, and are now proud to see it flourish.

In the Central Denmark Region we see that our engagement in ECoC 2017 is also to emphasis the importance of the width within the region, among other things reflected in some of our most successful and innovative global companies, that are in fact rooted in smaller villages such as Struer and Bjerringbro and some of our smallest rural towns such as Lemvig with seven local cultural centres and Skive and Sams which lead the way in sustain-able energy. We believe that ECoC 2017 can create a consensus of the necessity to ensure that there is a deep rooted interdependence between creative communities no matter how they are defined in order to create a balanced society where the bond between the urban and the rural is one of our major challenges.

When we state that our regional goal for 2030 is to be an international growth region in a coherent Denmark. One offer our support and also encourage our local authorities to ensure that all the rethinking which goes on over the next 5 years will indeed be readily incorporated in our everyday lives. Almost astonishingly, all the local authorities in the Central Denmark Region are supporting the project. Not only this, they are also willing to invest in the project in times which are difficult and where local budgets are being cut. This in itself is a huge gesture and a commitment which also makes it clear to us, that we must back this initiative.

Central Denmark Region look forward to a collaboration based on the same open process and open mind set which has borne the process and we are convinced that the European Capital of Culture will be in the best pos-sible hands if the title lands in Aarhus.

Bent Hansen, President of Central Denmark Region

An oPEn And CREATIvE mIndSET

AARHUS CATHEdRAl. AARHUS FESTIvAl. SEPTEmbER 2010.

13

Dear reader

We have decided to structure this application in order to present our project logically, and this means that we have not followed the order of the statutory questions as given in the application guide.

We have however tried to answer all the obligatory questions, and we have indicated at page 5 where you can find the relevant sections for the specific questions.

We have indicated, that we have chosen to answer some questions in detail in the second bid. In particular we will present our detailed programme for the year in the second bid as well as develop aspects of management marketing, financing and monitoring / evaluation.

As regards our programme presentation, we have chosen to focus on our strategic programmes and projects which build up over four years from 2013-2016, as these are key to our concept and many will also generate key programmes which culminate in 2017.

The main structure of the document is in three main chapters: Why?, what? and How?. There are three layers. A series of short overviews at the start of each section. Secondly, the main text, which has all the key elements of our bid. Thirdly, a number of detailed fold out sections which we have decided to include in the bid for when you have a little extra time. They literally fold out our process, give you an overview of the historical and cultural landscape of the region and the city and introduce you to our ways of working.

Since the Aarhus Council agreed on a strategic plan for the application process a secretariat for Aarhus 2917 has had the responsibility to prepare the project and this application. In this process more than 8,000 individuals have participated. This simple fact of a collective process is the reason for choosing to write in the we-form and naturally an attempt to capture the strong sense of common ownership in the project, which the Aarhus 2017 secretariat has interpreted.

Trevor Davies, Project manager Aarhus 2017 secretariat

dEAR REAdER

jEnS SndERGAARd mUSEUm. APRIl 2010

CHAPTER 1 - WHo And WHy 3-107EU QUESTIon IndEx ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3-5FoREWoRd, jACob bUndSGAARd, mAyoR _________________________________________________________________ 7FoREWoRd, mARC PERERA CHRISTEnSEn, AldERmAn FoR CUlTURE ______________________________________ 9FoREWoRd, bEnT HAnSEn, PRESIdEnT oF CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon ____________________________________11REAdERS GUIdE, TREvoR dAvIES, AARHUS 2017 _________________________________________________________ 131.0 FRom US To yoU InTRodUCTIon __________________________________________________________________________________ 17-19 WAlKInG AlonG THE bEACH ____________________________________________________________________ 20-231.1 WHy InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 24-25 WHy EURoPEAn CAPITAl oF CUlTURE ___________________________________________________________ 26-29 WHy AARHUS __________________________________________________________________________________ 30-37 WHy THIS REGIon ______________________________________________________________________________38-441.2 AARHUS A CUlTURAl TImElInE InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 45-46 Fold oUT doCUmEnTATIon, AARHUS1.3 CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon - A HISToRICAl lAndSCAPE InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 47-49 Fold oUT doCUmEnTATIon, CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon1.4 THE CUlTURAl CREATIvE lAndSCAPE, AARHUS And CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon InTRodUCTIon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 50 FIvE lAyERS oF CUlTURAl RESoURCES _________________________________________________________ 51-53 PlACES oF CUlTURAl RESoURCES ______________________________________________________________ 54-60 Fold oUT doCUmEnTATIon, AARHUS Fold oUT doCUmEnTATIon, CEnTRAl dEnmARK REGIon CUlTURAl InSTITUTIonS _______________________________________________________________________ 61-631.5 THE PRoCESS 2008-2012 InTRodUCTIon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 64 40 monTHS oF onGoInG InvolvEmEnT And dEvEloPmEnT ______________________________________65-71 HoW WE HAvE EnGAGEd dIFFEREnT SECToRS In THE PRojECT ___________________________________ 72-75 TImElInE FoR THE PRoCESS 2008-2012 __________________________________________________________ 76-80 Fold oUT, PRoCESS 2008 2012 Fold oUT, SWoT - STREnGTHS, WEAKnESSES, oPPoRTUnITIES, THREATS PRoCESS doCUmEnTATIon And PUblICATIonS __________________________________________________ 81-83 GlASS ConTAInER ______________________________________________________________________________ 84-851.6 WHAT do CITIzEnS, ARTISTS And CUlTURAl InSTITUTIonS THInK InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 86-87 WHAT do CITIzEnS THInK ______________________________________________________________________ 88-93 WHAT do ARTISTS/CUlTURAl InSTITUTIonS THInK ______________________________________________ 94-971.7 SIx STRATEGIC GoAlS FoR AARHUS 2017 InTRodUCTIon _________________________________________________________________________________ 98-99 GoAlS - FRom ECoC To STRUCTURAl CHAnGE __________________________________________________ 100-101 A nEW CUlTURAl PolICy FRAmEWoRK _______________________________________________________ 102-105 QUoTATIonS FRom AARHUS CITy CoUnCIl dEbATE ____________________________________________ 106-107

FACAdE PAInTInG, bAlTICAGAdE, AARHUS

17

Formally, this document is an application forwarded by Aarhus City Council, with the support of the Central Denmark Region and eighteen local authorities of our region to The Danish Ministry of Culture and The European Union under the programme European Capital of Culture for 2017.

This document tries to capture the essence of a three year open and searching process together with hundreds of skilled and committed individuals in the cultural, social, political and business sectors who perhaps do not otherwise engage or act together.

The document is hopefully a signal for these new relationships to continue working together in the coming six years. Although there has never been the expectation that these voices become one voice on the contrary - there has nevertheless been a common sense of urgency, concern and positive spirit which seems to go far beyond the simple task of preparing this application and in fact reflects an urge to engage and make a difference.

We hope we have communicated this engagement and the countless contributions - whether participating in countless meetings, in workshops and seminars, or in analysing needs and fi-nally in developing proposals.

This document is therefore also their document and we hope we have not misused or misjudged their engagement.

Without their generous contributions, this bid would never have found its current form and re-gardless of what happens in the formal process, we are convinced that Aarhus will be a stronger city of culture in 2017, that the region will be both more interconnected and meaningful and that our dialogue with Europe will be less abstract.

But most of all, we can certainly conclude that we have begun to rethink and that is something we all need to do in a time where many essential questions abound but where there seems to be also a shortage of ready made answers.

//InTRodUCTIonFRom US To yoU CHAPTER 1.0

AARHUS HARboUR. nATIonAl ExPoSITIon. mAy 1909.

AARHUS HARboUR. URbAn mEdIA SPACE. mAy 2009.

20

Aarhus is the second city of Denmark as the tourist books always introduce the city and how the city has therefore inevitably come to introduce itself. True perhaps but a clich and a very limited perception of how to describe a city and what a city represents as a more complex phenomena.

The second statement usually made about Aarhus is with a history tracing back to the year 770, Aarhus is among the oldest in the Nordic countries. And even today, Aarhus is located around the same spot where it was founded in the early Viking Age.

Yes, true but again a clich, which is something to perhaps react against rather than simply reiterate again and again.

In reality, we believe that the citys self perception has more to do with the future than the past. Aarhus has in fact never been an historic city in the classic sense for the phrase and it will never be. Whilst history is of course omnipresent, the city has never defined itself primarily with a reference to history nor with refer-ence to fate as defined by historic events nor indeed by a linear line of consequences.

Aarhus has always tried to define and determine its own future.

Aarhus is in fact a young city young in the historic sense, young in the demographic sense and young in a psychological sense and young in this sense the future has always been more formative in the mindset of the city than the past.

If one wants to pinpoint a single act or event which captures the essence of this city there is only one option, and this also gives us a natural starting point at this time of re-invention.

THE WHITE CITY 1909If you had been walking along beach to the south of the city on a spring morning in 1909 with beech woodlands covering the steep costal slopes and a panorama extending along the gentle bay ahead, you would have sensed a disturbance of this idyllic setting and landscape.

The first decade of the 20th century was a time of change and of transformation with visions of progress fuelled by invention and produced by industrial endeavour. This was the citys defining moment.

Concrete, coal and steel materialized human ability to change and define its own circumstances. Aeroplanes conquered the sky. Electricity defeated the darkness. And steadily, railroad tracks and telegraph lines were cutting through the landscape, making any destination seem within reach.

WAlKInG AlonG THE bEACH//Anno 1909 And Anno 2009

PoRT oF AARHUS

21


Looking towards Aarhus on this spring morning, the usual vista of the towns neat layout of red brick build-ings facing the sea would have been disturbed by the sight of constant movement of people, horses and carts, boats, cranes and scaffolding near the shore. A new city was being constructed near the mouth of the river, and hundreds of construction workers were working day and night in order to finish the creation of a spec-tacular white city by the sea.

From May through October in 1909, The National Exposition was held in Aarhus. Local visionaries, who had experienced the rapid evolution of the city over the last decades of the 19th century, argued that Aarhus was both ready and eager to assume a more central role in rep-resenting the nation.

They proposed an exhibition to celebrate industrial and technological ingenuity, arts and architecture. Not only a presentation for the city of Aarhus, but a presentation on behalf of the entire nation to signal the embracing of the century of industrialisation and modernism where the city might take on a leading role.

To some, the mere notion of a large, national event outside the capital sounded almost preposterous. And alongside satirical remarks, taunting the countrys largest capital outside Copenhagen, the project had to withstand persistent and sceptical campaigns from national newspapers, who were hardly convinced by the confidence of its proponents.

However, with the support of local and national authorities, this vision became a reality and built on an empty building lot, chosen for both its scenic and symbolic setting between the city, the port and the ocean.

This extraordinary temporary city of magnificent, white-painted exhibition halls, towers and pavilions was planned, designed and constructed. The White City, as the exhibition was soon nick-named, opened for visi-tors on May 15th.

Over the next 140 days, people from all social layers could experience the magic of telegraphy and electrical light, the incredible marvels of automobiles and aeroplanes. They could study the beauty of contemporary sculptures, paintings and classical music, and they could enter full-scale demonstration models of contempo-rary architecture and urban environments as well as a complete reconstruction of an authentic sixteenth century courtyard.

The National Exposition of 1909 attracted over 600.000 visitors. For a city of just 60.000 inhabitants this was a remarkable accomplishment. At the closing of the event, the National Fair was widely claimed a tremendous success. Not only as an inspiring interpretation of the contemporary and the modern, but also as a manifesta-tion of confidence and competence as promising indications of the future.

22

Indeed, this temporary event in 1909 actually did become the starting point for permanent change. The recon-structed historical courtyard was moved to another site, where it became the foundation of The Old Town, the worlds first open-air museum dedicated to urban history.

The many examples of contemporary architecture became an important step in establishing the movement Better Building Practices that radically changed Danish architecture in the following decades. And even in the foundation of the University in Aarhus in 1928, the organisation behind the National Exposition played a vital role. Following the exhibition, the harbour became the hub of t he citys wealth with its heavy industry, refin-ing and reprocessing of regional agricultural products, its shipbuilding and shipping activities.

Last but not least, the self confidence of the city was boosted and the role of the city as a city closely linked to innovation and the ability to motivate and mobilise both decision makers and citizens was clearly mani-fested.

THE WHITE CITY VERSION 2.0 Today, the sounds and sights of the city are different than a hundred years ago. Throughout the twentieth century Aarhus has continued to grow, but the scenery framing the city has stayed the same. The landscape the wooded hillsides, traces of glacial ages and signs of time and cultivation. The seascape - the horizon, the sense of endless possibility and the journeys yet to be commenced.

Standing on the beach in May 2009 at precisely the same place, one would have seen over 60 sculptures set up along the shore, celebrating art which reflects a global context and celebrates nature. Apparently 600,000 people visited these sculptures set up by artists from many different countries.

The horizon of the harbour is again marked by constant activity and buzz of movement, and construction work on the foundations for a new pavilion and the new white city for the 21st century in the harbour, where state of the art technology and knowledge will be at the centre.

This pavilion will be the citys library for the 21st century Urban Mediaspace to be opened in 2015. Looking at the designs for this new white city, which is being built on the vacated harbour site after a century, we once again find drawing for a series of spectacularly designed buildings which will house both new centres of knowledge, post-industrial innovation production and residents.

After one hundred years the city must redefine itself once again in a new century, with new technologies and in a new European and global context rather than a national context.


23

The starting point this time is hardly the same unrestrained positive expectancy and positive expansive atti-tude, but rather a questioning of how new technologies can provide solutions to results of one hundred years of urbanism, industrialisation and modernism.

There is though once again the belief that Aarhus has a role to play in this new century and providing a plat-form where innovation, technology, art, and architecture all have a role but where value, values and visions are just as important.

Once again, Aarhus must decide between the well known, provincial city comfortably snuggled between the sea and the green slopes and a role as the European metropolis taking on the responsibility not only to show the best but also to engage in a new century where value, values and visions are highly debated, where an-swers to dilemmas and challenges of the time are perhaps not only a question of mechanics.

It is here we find our perspective(s).

We believe therefore that the ECoC can have just as much significance for the city of Aarhus as The National Exposition in 1909 which defined its position and its mindset for decades in modernity. Our belief is that can once again be a defining moment for the city and as in 1909 defined not by historic circumstances but by the will to engage with the future and with the world.


WHyCHAPTER 1.1

Naturally, to be European Capital of Culture is an honour and a privilege. It is often antici-pated as a promise of more vibrant times and increased international visibility, and can be a revealing test of local strengths and ambitions. But above all, being European Capital of Culture is about rising to the occasion and meeting a challenge in an explicit and defining way.

More than 25 years of history has shown us the potential of this programme. Being Euro-pean Capital of Culture can change a city. The project can strengthen and even transform the cultural sector of a region. And the title can lead to an improved intercultural dialogue on both a local and a European level. But it can also lead to inflated egos, broken promises and endless hyped events.

And after some forty cities have carried out the event, the possibilities appear endless and the pitfalls likewise.

There is no blueprint for success and no correct motivation. Instead, those cities that have succeeded seem to have understood and connected the essence of their city and the es-sence of this title. This can define a point of departure:

A successful project demands that we stay true to the core qualities and heritage of the programme. It also demands that we carefully consider the characteristics that define our culture in the specific context of time and place. And finally, for a European Capital of Cul-ture to reach its full potential, the project needs to be aware of its role as an intermedium between these two perspectives.

We argue that our city is on the verge of change and possibly of transformation, which makes Aarhus particularly receptive and adaptive .

25

Our perspective is that we see The European Capital of Culture as a generator of change, a suspension of normality, a disturbance of the landscape - which for Aarhus arrives at just the right time.

Our motives are many and some even divergent. There are the logical motives of cultural development and the culmination of decades of investment as a city of culture. There are also the strategic motives of wishing to be less anonymous.

However, the motivation of finding and confronting the tipping points of our own condi-tion and our own time weigh heaviest as these tipping points are certainly not just rel-evant for ourselves but concern many European cities.

Indeed our city must redefine itself as a metropolis in a European context and not hide in its relatively privileged and protected context. In relation to these motives, the ECoC pro-vides the urgency and the openness which is necessary.

We argue that positioning Aarhus at the focal point of a networked region is an ideal cul-tural, historical and structural background for our project. This, in the many ways the con-structed region of Central Denmark Region, is a perfect social laboratory for the kind of open, collaborative, exploratory process, which the European Capital of Culture strives to become.

Finally, we argue for a project which contributes to the legacy of the European Capital of Culture. Not just a celebration. Not just a strategic opportunity. Perhaps an act of belief and perhaps daring to ask essential questions without necessarily knowing the answers.

26

In order to understand why this project is relevant important to Aarhus, we must understand the essence of the ECoC initiative. What it once was, what it has become and indeed what it might become. Otherwise this might be just another wasted opportunity.

We will therefore highlight the qualities of the European Capital of Culture programme as we see them as being relevant.

For the sake of simplicity, the history of the initiative can be divided into three general and somewhat overlap-ping periods. These are constituted neither by success nor scale, but rather by how and to what extent the project was integrated in the local structural planning as well as the cultivation of the citys profile and sense of identity.

Whilst some readers may view this as redundant, others will hopefully appreciate the perspective. To us, ac-knowledging the legacy of the title and understanding how any European Capital of Culture, intentionally or unintentionally, contributes to the history of the programme is central to our proposed project.

CELEBRATING CULTUREIn 1985, Athens was the first European City of Culture - a vision concieved by Greek Minister for Culture Melina Mercouri and the French Minister for Culture Jack Lang. During the first few years, the project was predomi-nantly implemented as an international arts festival. The cultural year became an occasion to carry out events highlighting the cultural hallmarks of the country, often with natural emphasis on cultural heritage. And as most European Cities of Culture were national capitals, they were more or less expected to merely represent the country, and the city itself was often the stage for the event rather than the substance of the cultural dialogue and activities throughout the year. While the representative aspect is perhaps no longer essential, the celebratory aspect of the project is far from irrelevant.

STRATEGICALLY UNIQUEBy the mid nineties, demonstrations of the programmes value for city profiling had provided an argument for a more strategic approach to the title, now including infrastructural projects, urban development as well as long term development of local networks and international partnerships within the cultural sector. And fol-lowing an emerging trend of city branding, European Cities of Culture gradually became more explicit in utiliz-ing the project as an opportunity to raise awareness internationally as well as influence image perception within the country. Accordingly, the focus of the cultural programme shifted towards a more specific attention to the city itself and its historical and contemporary identity. As the nomination procedure in 1999 was changed to involve a national bidding process, cities now had to convince a jury that their particular city was the most suited for the title. Thus, besides celebrating the diversity of European cultures, and besides utiliz-

WHy EURoPEAn CAPITAl oF CUlTURE

blU on IConS FoR noW

27


ing the project as a strategic opportunity, presenting and promoting the city as unique and distinct from other cities became central strategy and an implicit premise for European Capitals of Culture.

ENTERING NEW ARENASIn recent years, neighbouring cities and regions have increasingly been included in the projects. Partly because cities nominated in general are smaller than previously and need a larger platform for sustaining the activi-ties. But also, in a more qualitative perspective, because the modernist perception of the city as an entity is being replaced by an integral understanding of the city and in a renewed sense of interdependence - eco-nomically, socially and culturally - with both other cities and with its immediate context. This trend also re-flects the concept of a Europe of regions.

The continued broadening of strategic aims has further stimulated the incorporation of sectors outside the arts, such as creative industries, education, new media, social innovation, interculturality or the environment. With this wider definition of culture, how can we keep focus?

European Capitals of Culture now seem to advocate the notion of cultural planning to a larger extent, appre-ciating the cultural resources of society as a whole - and not only the refined skills of artists and cultural professionals. One might say that cultural capital is replacing capital of culture as the main driving terminol-ogy.

This more open and inclusive approach, besides raising the level of public interest, hopefully creates the basis for a far more diverse and culturally sustainable platform for both action and debate. And in the context of the European Capitals of Culture, this expanded understanding of culture has substantially enriched the vision of a common platform i an increasingly diverging landscape of the European cultures, constantly entering new areas.

REVISITING THE PURPOSEThe formal purpose of the European Capital of Culture is rather specific. Highlighting European cultural diver-sity as well as our common identity, and promoting the interest and participation of the public remain at the core of the vision. However, as more than 40 European cities have explored the boundaries of this programme and showed us their interpretation of what a European Capital of Culture is, we should recognise that the privilege of being nominated comes with an obligation to explore, revisit and - if possible - extend what it means to be European Capital of Culture.

Therefore, as we prepare this project and define the arenas of our proposed activities, as we formulate and pursue our goals and aims, and as we find and present our overall themes, we have to be aware of the inher-

ASH on IConS FoR noW

28

ent qualities of the European Capital of Culture programme. We believe that three characteristics are the es-sence of the European Capital of Culture:

The cultural year is a one time opportunity. The title calls for a clear focus, a joint effort and an unprecedented level of ambition which is normally unlikely to harnes.

The project is a change of perspective. The dynamics of a local and a European perspective can be both liberating and reaffirming. We should use the project to strengthen as well as challenge our core beliefs.

The nature of the project demands that we make it our own. The thematic and structural framework is open, and in formulating our project, we need to be both original and honest.

Thus, the title calls for both a sense of urgency and a sense of authenticity and requires that we take a cultural perspective seriously, rather than simply defining a programme of culture. Being European Capital of Culture is about meeting a challenge in an explicit and defining way, because only by clearly confronting the issues of our time, by trying to redefine our place in the world, and by coming together on a project that thrives from the exchange of cultural perspectives do we release the full potential of the title.

We must never fail to se our project as part of a much larger conversation and journey - a continuing dialogue on the state and condition we call a European City of Culture in Europe.

Our obsession of with the ECoC is the potential from the creation of not only a moment of amazement, but that the project can also create a prolonged sense of change and transformation. It is where simple and indi-vidual experience of events, of situations and of moments can give way and lead to a common sense of pos-sibility and a common will to take a leap without necessarily knowing the outcome

In this sense, the level of strategic planning is not only positive. Despite ten years of planning, Aarhus must not overplan and rationalize. To maintain a sense of acuteness or simply relevance, the project must therefore have a sense of openness as a core and constant factor.

Secondly, introducting the competitive element in the application process has improved the level of reflection, but has also introduced a risk of designing the project in the context of a competition. We must not sacrifice edge and diversity for the sake of winning a title.

On the contrary, our project must be located at the many tipping points of our society. We must be able accept the ordinary as well as the extraordinary as our arena. We must be able to embrace both abnormal and normal


mGEKySSET

29

as our constituents. For a European Capital of Culture, problems, disagreements and conflicts are not weak-nesses. Without them there is only compromise and consensus.

Thirdly, restricting our efforts to a well-defined cultural sector would be ignoring the evolution of this title. The European Capital of Culture is no longer a matter of widening the fields of cultural production. For us, it is about managing intertwining layers of social cultivation. This is not for culture. This is with culture.

The European Capital of Culture is where known and unknown, past and future, matter and vapour, thought and action, planned and random meet. What seems like just a moment, a sleight of hand or a flash of colour can signal a change of state. The European Capital of Culture should be a suspension of normality or a diseque-librium - creating a state of hyper sensitivity and awareness.


FljTESPIllTEREn

30

A SENSE OF URGENCY AND DESTINYLet us begin where we left off, walking along the beach. We have already suggested that a sense of challenge and destiny is itself a clear motivation.

Any city with self respect wants to place itself in the path of destiny, and for Aarhus this would not be the first time. Unfortunately, the meeting of rational logic and an irrational moment is nothing one can simply decide in a meeting or print in a document. And though this is perhaps the essential condition for such a venture, the simple logic - or fate - of history is not enough, as we describe our motives for this candidacy.

Some of the motives and reasons are rooted and fuelled by history, others strategically thought through and are part of the long terms aims of the city. Some have been politically voiced and promoted, and others have been conclusions of informal meetings. Some are stimulated by dreams and visions of the future, others by the will to challenge the status quo. Some motivations have been formulated explicitly, others referred to implicitly. And some are in fact still unwritten and even undiscovered.

This sense of urgency and destiny is at the basis of our motivation and has been clearly present in our process. Many impassioned statements of vision were made by 600 individuals at the start of each of our thirteen vision seminars when each was asked to make a 90 second statement of why should Aarhus become the ECoC.

Individual points of departure were naturally different, but the sense of urgency was clear, and the sense of wanting the city to dare to break through its comfort zone to act and engage in the world - in order to make a difference - was also clear.

This sense of urgency and destiny has also been very much present in our political debates. In the final coun-cil debate i Aarhus on August 24th, all 31 councillors supported the bid and pledged their share of the budget. On the same day, the regional council also pledged their support. At the 18th. regional council debates, more than 250 councillors voted for engagement and financial support to the project against a few who are not convinced. This almost unanimous sense of will again reflects possibly many motivations - but the sheer will is unusually deepter and far more convincing than both the size of the budget and normal voting patterns on cultural issues would suggest.

WHy AARHUS

AARHUS ToWn HAll. AARHUS 2010.

31

WHy AARHUS

A SENSE OF OUR LEGACYWhen the Aarhus City Council announced the citys candidacy for the European Capital of Culture in August 2007, it was hardly an unpredictable move. Just after the completion of a film production centre, a new art museum and a considerable expansion of the concert hall - and with further large scale cultural investments on the way - the desire to reposition Aarhus by means of an ambitious cultural strategy was already quite evident.

And though there has never been an obligation to win this nomination, there certainly was an obligation for the city to make a whole-hearted attempt. One might say that there was no choice. In fact, to argue that Aarhus should not aspire for this title would have been difficult and in fact a negation of the true nature of the city and perhaps even a betrayal to the cultural sector and even to the cultural-political ethos of the city.

The first debate on the European Capital of Culture by the city council took place, on the occassion of the presentation of the citys cultural plan for 2008-2012. The European Capital of Culture was cited as a clear motivating factor for continued investment in culture - economically and mentally.

However, there was also a clear conviction that this process was not only about staying the course. Flemming Knudsen, then alderman for culture: Aarhus has to find its own way to meet this challenge. A way that calls for self criticism, but also openness and vision. There is no fixed recipe - only endless possibility.

A SENSE OF TRANSFORMING THE CITYAarhus is in a stage of both forced and potential transformation. Large monolithic residential areas of social housing from the 70s are subject to renewal and regeneration. Former worn out industrial areas are being turned into ecologically sound neighbourhoods and socially aware workspace. New public transport systems will generate new movement patterns and connect forgotten places. Over the next two decades, urban plan-ners expect, Aarhus will welcome 75.000 new inhabitants, making this period one of the most intense times of change in this citys history - surpassed only by the years preceding 1909.

When walking through the city of Aarhus today, when reading a local newspaper or listening to politicians and other opinion formers, the sense of change and transformation is not just some abstract part of the universal urban condition. It is present, and it is tangible.

When the public transportation office introduces plans of a light rail system, discussions of infrastructural planning become accessible to people outside the realm of political debate and technological analysis, and the motives and consequences of city planning are now within our grasp.

AARHUS CATHEdRAl. AARHUS 2010.

32

When an entire quarter of residential complexes, educational institutions and business offices is being con-structed at the grounds of the former docklands, the transition from industrial era to a knowledge based economy is highly evident, ready for us to either celebrate or protest.

And when a huge and costly work of art, a colourful halo of 275 tonnes of glass and steel, is emerging on top of the art museum in the centre of Aarhus, the narrative of a cultural city is to an extreme degree exposed to renegotiation.

A skyline of cranes and sound scape of construction engines is positive to some, but discomforting to others. While some welcome the new and ambitious plans and strategies as long awaited signs of resolve, others worry that the city risk loosing its edge or intimacy along the way. This discussion can be traced back to 1909, and question of determining if Aarhus is a large provincial town or small metropolis is for locals a well-known theme.

Our city has always balanced between the provincial and the metropolis. This balance is now tipping, and the city is forced to re-define itself as an urban city, and this recognition is not just one of size but also of mental approach, of psyche and of character.

The will to engage with the challenge of the metropolis is a threshold and not just a gradual expansion or growth. This is the complexity, the dynamism where the notion of interculturality in its broadest sense will be tested. The motivation of daring to take this step. At this threshold, Aarhus needs a mentor who push us over the edge at the right time.

Aarhus must accept the challenge of re-defining itself as a European metropolis rather than coninuing defin-ing itself as a provincial city. The city needs a platform to challenge itself and its own provincialism.

THE SENSE OF CULTIVATING THE CITYThe clearest and perhaps the most obvious motivation. For decades, Aarhus has continually invested in the arts and in culture. In fact, one can say that 2017 would mark some fifty years of redefining the city as a city of arts, culture and knowledge. The citys major festival was launched in 1965, following an expansion of the university. The citys Concert Hall opened in 1982 as the first major cultural institution outside of the capital and for many years had some to symbolise the cultural quality of the city.

The prominent role of rock music and alternative theatre and youth culture in the 80s and 90s gave the city its alternative cultural profile. This has been followed up the breakthrough of architecture, design, new media

WHy AARHUS

GEllERUP, AARHUS 2010.

33

and contemporary culture, which have all played a key role in the creation of the citys current psyche and reputation.

With the current wave of investment which is currently being launched with five major cultural centres in the city all to be completed by 2017, the ECoC will cement this constant focus on the creative potential of the city.

Naturally, the motive of pride and achievement cannot be ignored, as in fact Aarhus has always been regarded as the city with arguably most progressive cultural policy in the country,.

There is a clear sense of cultural renaissance in the city. Becoming ECoC will support the political will to keep our focus on cultural investment, despite massive pressure to reduce our cultural budgets, which is inevitable in a time of economic crisis. Our council and other councils are facing having to make drastic cuts for the sec-ond year, and cultural budgets are under pressure from the social, educational, health and environmental sectors.

After 50 years as a cultural and knowledge city, there are now challenges and agendas which demand new approaches and where there is a clear motivation to define new creative arenas. The illusive character of a city of creativity and innovation where pressing social agendas and increasing social polarisation, alternative learning and knowledge requirements, growing health agendas, insisting environmental and climatic issues and intercultural agendas are on the immediate horizon.

This process of transformation demands a change in perspective, a change in public-private relationships, a change in our definition of arts - culture - creativity and indeed the understanding of how to connect creativ-ity and innovation in all aspects of our society.

In this context, the ECoC could have a pivotal role as a natural focus where forces can be seen in cohesive context but also ensuring that the process is culturally driven and cultural contextualised.

Here, the motivation is to keep a cultural balance and perspective.

SENSING EUROPEAarhus national role has always been oppositional, if not provocatory and alternative. Clearly defined as being the city where culture is pivotal to the image and the identity of the city, and the only city to challenge the dominance of the national capital. However, this project is not a matter of national repositioning. As we have remarked, we have always been and always will be the 2nd city in Denmark.

WHy AARHUS

bAzAR vEST, GEllERUP. AARHUS 2010

34

This is the motivation of replacing national notoriety with European anonymity and the motivation and will to engage in Europe and to define oneself as a European city rather than just a city in Europe.

Aarhus is not counted among the creative centres in Europe like London or Berlin, but in spite of Aarhus rela-tive anonymity in Europe, Aarhus already boasts an international profile and international perspective. Aarhus University is counted among the 100 best universities in the world. Some 30 institutions for higher education are based in the city, and between them count several thousand exchange students. The local business sector represents a wide range of enterprises especially knowledge based and creative enterprises that are inter-nationally renowned in the fields of design, architecture, energy, food and health.

Changing the name of the city from rhus to Aarhus was part of a strategic effort to strengthen the profile of the city. Another part of this effort was engaging international companies in an analysis of the citys strengths, in order to use the outcome to develop a new international brand. Aarhus new brand is Aarhus, Danish for Progress. It summarizes a pledge from Aarhus to the world into one singular sentence.

The brand emphasizes Aarhus courage and urge to experiment and cooperate. Aarhus combines the virtues of Danish design minimalism, functionalism and ethical integrity with a flair for the unexpected. The brand makes it possible for Aarhus to generate progressive ideas and solutions to rethink.

The notion of Aarhus as an idyllic, provincial town symbolized for decades by the smile is challenged through this new brand. It signifies that city can and will. The people of Aarhus are challenged to think progressively meanwhile we are signalling to the world. In Aarhus we do not hope for progress, we expect it.

The question of identity of the city is increasingly complex. The more diverse the city becomes, the stronger the need to project the city internationally, the greater the need to avoid superficial conclusions. With a pro-cess of five years, the ECoC offers the ideal platform where the diversity of this city - its neighbourhoods, its sub cultures and its generations - can be supported as a positive aspect of the citys overall identity alongside the testing and application of the citys extremely open and adaptable branding strategy.

We see the ECoC as this platform for a citizen driven and participatory reflection and re-identification process over the next five years.

These international aspirations means exposing ourselves to a far more dynamic and unknown landscape. Rather than being second in a national context, we enter total European anonymity. But a level of entrance can be engaging Europe as a middle city. The future of Europe lies not only in Amsterdam, Berlin and Copen-hagen. These cities have always been European cities. The 600 cities with a population of 100.000 - 500.000

AARHUS vIEW. 2011

WHy AARHUS

35

and account for 60 % of European urban citizens have to strive for their right to be European and then have to find their role.

Aarhus has as a city has never been automatically written into the European history books and our geography has never positioned the city as a natural bridge between the local and the other. Our connections with the world have always been differentiated and changing.

Again, another so-called tipping point has arrived. Our clichs must be put away for all time. The challenge to be the 321st city in Europe which offers on the one side far more dynamic and unknown landscape with more opportunities and space, where anonymity can protect and we do not need to cling on to old symbols. The freedom of anonymity is an interesting burning platform.

Despite Aarhus being positioned second in the Smart Cities Index ranking, mapping our future in a constantly changing European landscape is our greatest challenge and our greatest motivation. Dare we take the leap from our secure position as nr. 2 in Denmark to a very insecure position as nr. 321 in Europe. In this, the ECoC is a lifeline.

And we believe that the ECoC will provide a platform for redefining ourselves and for locating our role in this ever enlargening and complex Europe.

SENSING OPEN SPACEThe theme for the Aarhus Festival is this year Beautiful Mistakes. This refers specifically to the nature of the arts as a space for experimentation. At the final debate in our Council Chambers, alderwomen Laura Hey motivated our bid for the ECoC with precisely this argumentation. We must be prepared to take risks, to experiment and to see what might happen. This is not just the role of Aarhus as a city of innovation, but it is a necessity of our times.

The motivation to make space for the unknown and to encourage free research and free thinking is becoming more and more difficult. Our artists, our architects, our researchers, our youth and social workers and our young people, have underlined this again and again that in a world of increasing rationality and logic, there is a desperate need to reflect and to reconsider, and to be allowed to create.

The need to create spaces for unrestricted creativity and originality is something which motivates and mobi-lises our project and where we see the ECoC as being open also to make mistakes.

AARHUS vIEW. 2011

WHy AARHUS

36

This is the will to remain open, the will to adapt, the will to be ready to change standpoint and the will to think and act freely.

Without the ECoC, we would surely not be able to offer this platform and framework, as this would be an illu-sion in a time when public budgets are being cut drastically, and where results are being demanded immedi-ately. We see the ECoC as our defence against the mediocre.

THE MANY MOTIVES OF AARHUSThere are many reasons for wanting this project. Some are motivated by hopes of growth, some by local pride, some by artistic visions. In Aarhus, this project makes sense no matter who we ask. These many levels of reasoning do not negate each other. Rather, they underline the consensus and the vision of 2017 as a common cause and a natural challenge for the city. Aarhus 2007 would have been an empty gesture without anything to loose. Aarhus 2027 would have been to late, a mere celebration without anything to win. Aarhus 2017, on the other hand, can be where agendas, perspectives, motivations collide and converge.

As the city council manifasted their support in August 2011, the vision of a project of curiousity, uncertainty, exploration and fundamental questioning was intact.

To dare is to loose ones footing momentarily. Not to dare is to loose oneself, said Henrik Vestergaard (Liberal Party), quoting Danish philosopher Sren Kierkegaard.

Jette Skive (Danish Peoples Darty) cautioned that a time of crisis was not an excuse to be passive or introvert: No, now is the time to be visionary, to be global minded!

And Lone Norlander Smidt (Socialist Peoples Party) emphasized the project as an investment in the critical thinkers among us: What I hope we manage to integrate is children. Children have very special conditions for creating something which is intirely theirs, on their own terms.

In the same way, motivation for this project has been both clear and very diverse during our dialogue with local cultural agents. This is of course difficult to illustrate. However, during our series of visions workshops in 2010, each of the workishop participants (more than 400 pesons) presented their personal vision for 2017. A few examples:

The Central Denmark Region is one of three European centres for contemporary performance, art and culture. (Jesper de Neergaard, Entrscenen)


WHy AARHUS

37

Young visual terror! From institution to explosion. Theyre 14 today, 21 in 2017. (Jannik Broz, Billedskolen Hors-ens)

Zwischennutzung. Less control and regulation. More freedom and unique opportunity. (Klaus Krienke, Bureau Detours)

To promote a happy, healthy and inspiring city for economic, social and environmental sustainability (Nicolas Blok, KaosPilots)

Create and facilitate new meetings and experiences between the average citizen and the homeless, the sub-stance abusers and other social outsiders. (Henriette Andersen, social services, Aarhus)

Nature is designed and manipulated into a space of reflection and an open platform for a community of modern beings. (Helga Hjerrild, Randers Kommune)

Aarhus is the place in Denmark and the world where young people meet and create cultural projects which move the boundaries, culturally and individually (Anna Margrethe Andersen, F16)

2017 changes from the individual perspective. But a common belief in this project has been clear throughout proces of preparing this bid. Both in the explicit statements and visions formulated by participants and indeed in the participation and level of commitment itself.

For any European city with ambitions of something more, for any city with the desire to make an impact and the willingness to make a difference in a larger context, this title is a compelling opportunity. And history has shown us that with the right approach and a strong foundation, being European Capital of Culture can bring about changes otherwise unlikely to achieve.

This is the reason for our candidacy. We argue that Aarhus is both ready and eager to assume a larger role in a European context.

We embrace the inherent qualities of the title and the significant impact it could have in this particular local context. And we believe in our proposed project as something that will indeed contribute to the vision of the European Capital of Culture.


WHy AARHUS

38

ON THE EDGES OF CENTRAL DENMARK REGIONThe Central Denmark Region - a cross section of the Jutland Peninsula - is truly a composite of sceneries. Split in half by the Jutland Ridge, marking the glacial ice front, the region contains a variety of different landscapes. From the North Sea to the Kattegat, vast plains, moraine hills and glacial tunnels form a detailed prehistoric document, that for thousands of years has been cultivated and overwritten by those occupying the land.

In 2007, a comprehensive structural reform of public administration changed the map of Denmark. No city was moved, no coastal line was changed. But 13 counties were replaced by five regions and 271 municipalities be-came 98.

With new neighbours and within new borders we find new challenges as well as new resources. And as the maps of our world are changing, horizons widened and territories redefined, we need a process of reexamining our sense of belonging and of the internal and external connections and relations that uphold our sense of self. Collectively and individually.

Over the last three decades, considerations like these have been cardinal to the vision of the European Capital of Culture as a way of unfolding the European community as something more than just an economic and political alliance. In the same way, attaining a sense of connection as we feel the ground beneath us shifting is a prominent part of the reason for presenting this bid as a regional project.

It was not given, however, that Aarhus should opt to work within these rather new and politically constructed borders. Alternatively, Aarhus - with a population of 300,000 - could have opted to go alone. Or chosen to extend its natural hinterland to the Eastern Jutland, corresponding to its commuting zone with around 600.000 inhabitants within an hour of the city. Both a traditional and manageable choice.

Another option was to highlight the Eastern corridor the major growth zone outside Copenhagen, with Aarhus in a central position and with links to Randers in the north and to the Tri-cities in the south also around 1 million inhabitants. This would make economic and logistic sense. So what is missing?

There are a number of reasons for finally opting for the Central Denmark Region as the geographical platform for this project.

A natural context for Aarhus is Jutland, whose historical, geographical, cultural and political substance de-pends largely on the east coast and the west coast, both as boundaries and as opposites. And in the age of globalisation where the periphery is becoming an increasingly marginalised phenomenon - and in a political

WHy THIS REGIon

FR ClIFFS. 2011

39

climate where the geographical margins is indeed at the centre of our attention - this project suddenly be-comes far more potent and nationally relevant.

Secondly, the settlement pattern in the region has an almost perfectly balanced system with an interlinked hierarchy: One main city, which is Aarhus. Six medium sized thriving cultural cities with 35.000 60.000 in-habitants, each with a regional function. And 22 smaller towns of 5-20.000 inhabitants, many with a surpris-ingly clear cultural profile - and certainly all potential arenas for this project. With a region of almost 1.2 million people this project will have a far greater relevance, impact and support.

Cities have not only formal and political spheres of influence, but cultural, ethical and moral spheres of influ-ence as well. In a steadily networked society, cities no longer exist alone. The time has come to reestablish meaningful relationships between cities and the rural. In this region, independence is no longer interesting. Interdependence is what we have to support. And if there is a place to test the concept of balanced urban-rural systems in a post-industrial reality, it is here in our region.

A third reason is to accept that Aarhus cannot grow and sustain itself on its own. Aarhus cannot on its own attract sufficient amounts of tourists. Aarhus cannot sustain major cultural institutions without regional public media. Aarhus cannot sustain an airport on its own. Aarhus cannot sustain a regional television and radio channel on its own. Aarhus cannot make international impact on its own.

Forthly, Past experience has suggested that it is vital to ensure sufficient capacity of cultural infrastructure, which can support a high quality programme throughout the year. It is questionable whether Aarhus could sustain this alone. Thus, working within a regional context ensures a high level of cultural infrastructure and know-how - and the danger of a post-ECoC exhaustion scenario is considerately lessened.

Fifthly, we have carefully studied the experiences of a number of models in the history of the European Capi-tal of Culture. We have looked at a many models, in particular Stavangers embracement of nature, Marseilles attempt to connect independent cities, Ruhrs efforts to convert a common history to a common future, Lilles expansive transnational strategy. And we have, of course, looked at Copenhagen 96 as an inclu

Documents

Application for the title of ECoC 2017