in—visible city Bucharest2021 Candidate — European Capital of Culture 2021 This application has been prepared by ARCUB — The Cultural Centre of the City of Bucharest on behalf of the City of Bucharest. Editorial tEam: Sabina Baciu, Roxana Bedrule, Raluca Ciută, Anca Ioniţă translation, Proof rEading & Edits: Svetlana Cârstean, Claudiu Constantinescu, Simona Fodor, Alexandra Fusoi, Tim Judy art dirEction, Design & dtP: Radu Manelici, Ioan Olteanu (Faber Studio); Alexandru Oriean Photo crEdits: Andrei Bârsan, Vlad Bâscă, Octav Drăgan, Tudor Prisăcariu, Ștefan Tuchilă, Cristian Vasile, KotKi Visuals maPs: Ion Mincu University of Arhitecture and Urbanism, Bucharest Production: Fabrik Bucharest October 6, 2015 © ARCUB Contents Setting the Stage Q3 A city in Transition 03 Q2 Bucharest‑Ilfov Region 09 Q1 Building a Case for Bucharest 12 Q4 in—visible city 15 Contribution to the Long-Term Strategy Q1 Cultural Strategy 16 Q3 Long‑Term Cultural, Social and Economic Impact on the City 17 Q2 Connection between Cultural Strategy and ECoC Actions 19 Q4 Evaluation and Monitoring 20 European Dimension Q1 Working with Europe 23 Q2 European and International Public 25 Q3 Cities as Source of Inspiration 26 Cultural and Artistic Content Q1 Artistic Vision 28 Q2 Programming Principles and Programme Structure 28 Q3 Capacity Development Programme 44 Q4 Heritage and Innovation 47 Q5 Program Development 47 Capacity to Deliver Q1 Sustainable Commitment 49 Q2 Viable Infrastructure 49 Q2a Existing Cultural Infrastructure 49 Q2b City’s Accesibility 50 Q2c City’s Absorption Capacity 51 Q2d City’s Plan in Connection to ECoC 51 Outreach Q1 Civil Society 56 Q2&Q3 Sustainable Opportunities for Participation 60 Management Finance 63 Organisation 69 Contingency Planning 73 Marketing and Communication 74 Additional Information 78 Setting the stage Bucharest’s paradoxical nature is the source of both its strengths and its weakness. It is what is cyclically and abruptly interrupting its development and makes for the city’s fantastic potential. 2 A City in Transition aught between its Western logos and Balkan ethos, its rural and urban identity, its fas‑ Explain briefly the overall cultural profile of your city. C cination with the centre while overlooking the vitality of its peripheries, its over‑reg‑ ulated socialist past and the neo‑liberal laissez faire present, Bucharest is in a permanent state of creative chaos due to its unresolved contradictions. With a population in pendular Why does your city wish to take part in the competition for migration within EU geographical and cultural space, the city is enriched with these per‑ the title of European Capital of Culture? (see pg. 12) sonal 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 neo‑liberal one. Two fundamentally opposed directions intersect and generate patterns and forces, which sustain a state of extremes and a strongly polarised society. The invisible socio‑economic challenges the city is currently facing are fast‑paced gated communities, suburbanisation, a strong seasonal migration and an extensive privatisation. Urban policies revolve around re‑centering the city, image more than content, discourse more than action. Hence a total distrust with discourse and rhetoric. Between East and West city with no walls.” This is how a foreign traveller described Bucharest in 1640. “It has “ Aa beautiful and gay location, on a wide plain,” adds the log entry. The complete open‑ ness of the city is maybe at the root of its contradictory and paradoxical nature. It was this quality of welcoming influences of other cultures — Byzantine, Ottoman, Russian, German and French — that forged its rich, hybrid culture. And it was this weak‑ ness, which left the city totally exposed and unprotected in front of the Ottoman and Tatar attacks that gave its inhabitants the unsettling feeling of volatility. Located only 70 km north of the river Danube, Bucharest developed from a village located on a river called Dâmboviţa, to Wallachia’s seat of power and, later, to the capital of United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldova. “Shaped by The city’s modernisation came late, in the 1830s, under the occupation of the Russian various cultural, empire’s army. However, it was only in the 1930s that Bucharest caught up with the rest of historical, Europe and became the Little Paris, a city with modernist architectural landmarks and a and political specific joie de vivre infused by its Balkan lifestyle. influences and The communist rule abruptly cut Bucharest’s links with Western Europe, down to the societal models, level of a total isolation in the 1980s, when the city became literally invisible. The opportu‑ Bucharest counts nity for reconnection with its European identity came equally abruptly in 1989, and over the as one of the past 25 years Bucharest is still a city in transition, struggling to find its way back into Europe. most important European centres Fragmented City: Bucharest Archipelago in the midst of a process ragmentation is present in all aspects of the city: the physical space, the transport sys‑ of change” F tem, the disconnected institutional and independent sectors, the gap between author‑ ities 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 working and communicating. The city’s current administrative and territorial structure renders official the frag‑ Mapping Bucharest: mentation. The city is divided in six districts, each ruled by an independent mayor elected Art, Memory, and every four years. Revolution 1916–2016 The city’s human scale urban planning and architecture was fractured for the first time ViEnna BiEnnial, MaK at the end of the 19th century by monumental building construction, under the plans of modernising the capital. In the 1980s, more than one third of the historic centre was demol‑ ished to make room for the gigantic House of the People (now hosting the Parliament). This traumatic fragmentation of the city’s urban tissue has irreversibly shaped the city, discon‑ necting the city centre from the neighbouring quarters, and fragmenting the central area in isolated neighbourhoods. The demolishing trend continued after 1989, this time for commercial and speculative reasons. Preserving the heritage of the city has become one of the most important factors of coagulating civic initiatives such as ProDoMo and ProPatrimonio, which have nominated 1 WMF Nomination Form, 2/26/2015 Bucharest for the 2016 WMF World Monuments to Watch.1 3 The Mahalale — Neighbourhoods and Cultural Diversity ucharest’s new urban master plan identifies 70 neighbourhoods, while recent anthropo‑ B logical studies done by the National School of Political Science and Public Administration (nSPSPa) identified more than 100. According to the same studies, Bucharest citizens are more emotionally attached to the neighbourhoods they live in, than to the city’s centre. In 2005, between 70–80% of the citizens found the city dirty, poor, chaotic, uncivilised, yet 75% of them were totally satisfied with their neighbourhood.2 This paradox is one of the city’s most specific traits. In the 18th century Bucharest became a thriving town at the intersection of commercial routes from the East and the West, a city that welcomed traders 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 community or the Armenian quarter. Ethnic diversity can be found today embedded in the family histories of individuals that can trace back among their relatives at least two generations of Bucharest citizens. Today, the impact of newly attracted ethnic communities such as the Turkish and Arabic ones is visible throughout the city, by a 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 neighbourhoods such as Pantelimon. Based on EU statistics there are 1.3 million Roma in Romania, with around 150,000 reg‑ istered and non registered in Bucharest and Ilfov County. This is backed up by data from local councils with 100,000 registered Roma. The Roma population are located mainly in two neighbourhoods of the city: Ferentari (District 5) and Giulești (District 6). This has been a parallel society with few links to the city; but for the first time a common initiative has been instigated by various local groups to set up the European Roma Institute. The Cultural Scene he fundamental contradictions and opposing trends that act in the city are constantly T 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 between traditional (elitist) culture, represented by a strong performing arts sector (theatre, opera, dance and music) and also by a large and diverse network of museums, and a mass (leisure) culture, represented by an increas‑ ing number of open air festivals, concerts and events, and a rapid developing contempo‑ rary arts scene. The arts and culture sector has different types of cultural structures, each with its own organisational economic and artistic characteristic: municipal and national cultural insti‑ tutions, independent organisations and private ones. Although they are all equally impor‑ tant in the cultural life of the city, they are in fact separate phenomena. This segmentation of the cultural life is maintained by the absence of an overall cultural strategy and by the lack of common cultural agendas.