European Capitals of Culture, according to latterday legend, were born at Athens airport in January 1985, a day of high winds and delayed flights. Sitting in the lounge waiting for their planes were glamorous former actress Melina Mercouri, then Greece’s Minister of Culture, and her French counterpart, the charismatic Jack Lang.

They were fresh from a meeting of Europe’s culture ministers, and said it was a shame that there were so few occasions of this kind. They talked about this and that and as they killed time in lively conversation, Mercouri came up with the idea of launching a series of yearly events that would put the spotlight on cities around Europe and their role in the development of European cultures. Lang was keen, and no sooner had they reached their respective destinations than they set the ball rolling.

Twenty-five years later and the European Capitals of Culture are Europe’s most ambitious collaborative cultural project both in scope and scale, with budgets far exceeding those of any other cultural event. Among other things, their aim is to make Europeans aware of what they have in common.

So far, 39 cities have sported the title and the event has acquired considerable prestige among Europe’s citizens.

A study by an independent expert about the 1995-2004 European Capitals of Culture showed that the vast majority of organisers felt the event had been beneficial to the cities both from a cultural point of view and for their long-term development.

Cities designated so far have included national capitals as well as small but symbolically significant places like Weimar and Santiago de Compostela. In 2000, no less than nine cities celebrated the millennium simultaneously, and since 2007 two cities share the accolade every year with the exception of 2010, when three cities are hosting the event.

No two cities are alike and no two cities handle the yearlong jamboree in the same manner. Like a living organism, the event is forever evolving and developing. Even agreeing on what is meant by “culture” can be a programme in itself.

Geography, history, a country’s size, politics, budgets, the cultural scene, the men and women on the board of the project and those organising its artistic side, all mix up into different cocktails of distinct flavours. Some Capitals of Culture are considered resounding successes and serve as role models, others were felt to be missed opportunities.

To a degree, assessment is in the eye of the beholder. European Capitals of Culture don’t compare easily and the after-effects of a cultural year are hard to evaluate.

Their most commonly cited positive offshoot is that they have made a radical contribution to a city’s revitalisation. Even if some cities didn’t take up the challenge of thinking in innovative ways about their own significance and future, there is no denying that the European Capitals of Culture have hit the collective imagination and that their potential as a tool for their own development and the development of a sense of European identity is enormous.

Although not all cities were aware of this potential, some took it fully in their stride.

The first European City of Culture

The first European City of Culture (as they used to be called) – selected by the European Union’s ministers of culture – naturally went to Melina Mercouri’s Greece and in 1985 Athens was the first city to take on the mantle. “It is time for our (culture ministers) voice to be heard as loud as that of the technocrats,” said the forceful Mercouri. “Culture, art and creativity are no less important than technology, commerce and the economy.” Europe’s culture ministers could not but agree that culture can be a transformative power for the good, and that neglecting it is to forget to nourish a nation’s soul.

Only seven months were spent on planning Athens’ year as European City of Culture, and inevitably it was a rushed if buoyant affair. The concept was new and that very first event did not include the experiments in social integration of minorities – foreigners, old people, the disabled – of which later events chose to make a priority. It opened with fireworks on the Acropolis, and vaunted the cultural heritage of Greece mainly through exhibitions.

The process of a yearly designation of European Cities of Culture was launched, and it took no time for a list of 15 cities to be drawn up: Florence in 1986, followed by Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, Glasgow, Dublin, Madrid, Antwerp, Lisbon, Luxembourg, Copenhagen, Thessaloniki, Stockholm and Weimar in 1999.

As of 1992, a European Cultural Month was to focus mainly on cities of eastern and central Europe, starting with Cracow with expectations that they would link up with the European Cities of Culture.

Until 2004, the designation of European Cities of Culture was an inter-governmental affair in the hands of the Council of Ministers, without the involvement of external experts or any formal assessments.

Artistic programmes, organisational structures, funding, what makes or breaks a cultural year, are often radically different.

Glasgow 1990 is deemed to have rejuvenated a city suffering from urban decay, heavy unemployment and a reputation for street crime, with many positive after-effects on the creative scene and a radical boost to its international image. Not only do cafés fill its streets on sunny days, but it is now considered a major cultural tourism destination.

Antwerp 1993, too, had interesting after-shocks: it helped to challenge some of the extremist political tendencies that were emerging there. Key restoration projects were initiated, cultural projects launched and the city has now become synonymous with creativity.

At the other side of Europe in 1997, Thessaloniki’s ambition was to brand itself as the “metropolis of the Balkans”. The planning was stormy: four artistic directors and four managing directors resigned in clashes with the board, which didn’t help for the smooth running of the event, although a number of building projects were launched, from renovating theatres to turning port warehouses into arts venues. Thessaloniki’s cultural infrastructure is now second only to that of Athens.

Not everyone was happy with the EU’s Council of Ministers decision to select nine cities as European Cities of Culture for the millennium year – Avignon, Bergen, Bologna, Brussels, Cracow, Helsinki, Prague, Reykjavik and Santiago de Compostela. Some felt that sharing the title diminished the prestige and increased competition for visitors. Nevertheless, it was an interesting attempt at cross-border cultural cooperation.

Why have cities been so keen to invest large sums of money and energy into organising these cultural years? Answers vary from wanting to make a mark on the world map to launching long-term cultural development to attracting visitors from inside the country and abroad. Some see it as a question of building up local pride and self-confidence, others want to stimulate interest in culture, still others want to have a year-long celebration.

Brussels 2000 named its top priority as creating social cohesion, while Porto 2001 made it clear that economic development was as important as its cultural programme.

The organising of it all

The actual organisation of a cultural year usually takes approximatively four years, although Dublin after a change in government in 1991 had only 14 months to do so. Some cities have big teams working on the cultural programme, others just a handful of organisers, but most of them face the same basic conundrum. How do you establish a good working relationship between the political players in power and the organising committee? Often, several public authorities are involved, including local municipalities, the region or province and the national government.

Indeed, striking the right balance between political support and artistic freedom is one of the main challenges most Capitals face. On the one hand, political commitment is fundamental as most of the funds for the event are public, but this investment inevitably means strong expectations to make political capital out of the year, often to the irritation of the event’s management who may feel put under intense pressure.

On the other hand, artistic and cultural excellence are also fundamental, which require a large degree of freedom from politics. Whatever the personality and style of the person running the cultural programme, he or she naturally has a lot of strong characters to contend with – including their own. A number of artistic administrators have slammed the door and walked out, leaving less time for their successors to get the ball rolling. To some extent this is inevitable due to the nature of the event, but future Capitals can certainly learn from the experiences of those who went before them.

The cultural programmes themselves are born of a complicated alchemy between city, organisers, ambitions, vision and so on. But whether the organisers’ aim is to think in thoroughly urban terms and to intimately integrate their projects into the city’s cultural fabric, or whether they simply plan to put on a series of autonomous projects and events, all have to contend with a number of conflicting pressures, such as creating a balance between “high” and “low” art, traditional and contemporary expressions, high-profile events and local initiatives, big international names and local talent, or simply how many projects to take on.

Different cities define culture differently, although many opt for a wider meaning than the production of art and include sport, gastronomy, and much else besides.

In Graz, the Kitchen cooking project involved the making of ethnic meals cooked by local citizens in a central park of the city; Helsinki had a sauna of the month project and in Rotterdam, Preaching in Another Man’s Parish involved ministers of different faiths preaching in each others’ places of worship.

In 2001, Rotterdam and Porto shared the title, and Basel and Riga held Cultural Months. Bruges and Salamanca were the cities for 2002, Graz had 2003 all to itself, with the cultural month going to St Petersburg, and 2004 was shared between Genoa and Lille. Sharing helps exchanges and cooperation, although this is sometimes easier said than done and cities often went it alone.

In 1999, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union decided to call the European Capital of Culture scheme a Community Action, and set up a new designation process that would apply for the – 2005-2012 titles. Member States were listed in chronological order so that they could take turn to host the event. An international panel was set up to assess the suitability of cities proposed by Member States. Among various criteria, each city had to include a project involving cultural cooperation across Europe’s borders.

For Ireland’s turn in 2005, the Irish government nominated four cities – Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. After hearing all four bids and visiting two of the cities, the selection panel settled its choice on Cork. Their report was then examined by the Parliament and the Commission, before the Council of Ministers gave it the go-ahead.

The British were particularly ambitious in their 2008 bid, launching a major country-wide competition with 12 cities battling for the title. An independent panel studied the bids before recommending Liverpool to the British government. Liverpool’s theme was “the world in one city’, and its stated aim was to become a major tourist destination. This was much more in the spirit of things.

Most cities have used the capital year as an occasion to restore, transform or build new cultural and other buildings.

Weimar 1999 renovated its train station, Copenhagen 1996 developed its former naval yards to house academies, Thessaloniki 1997 and Porto 2001 undertook major urban remodelling, Luxembourg 1995 had the world-renowned IM Pei design their new museum of modern art and French architect Christian de Portzamparc a magnificent new Philharmonic concert hall.

But it isn’t just a question of insfrastructure: often the image of the city changes for the better, thus encouraging investment and tourism, and fostering employment and growth. In some cases, the city’s cultural players discovered new ways of working together, and some new and enduring collaborations were also born at a European level.

Selection panel

From now on, a selection panel made up of experts chosen by the European institutions (Commission, Parliament, Council of Ministers and Committee of the Regions) and by the Member State concerned assesses the proposals and settles its choice on one city. The EU Council of Ministers then officially designates the city. After that, an advisory panel named by the European institutions accompanies the cities in their preparations.

As well as the management of the formal selection and monitoring processes, the Commission has published a guide for candidate cities and fosters the exchange of good practices.

The Commission contributes a small subsidy to European Capitals of Culture. Between 1995 and 2004, the average total budget for a European Capital of Culture has been of €8-74 million with money provided by the State, the region and the city itself. Sponsorship usually represents some 13% of the budget. As of 2010, the Commission’s contribution is allocated via the so-called Melina Mercouri prize of €1.5 million. The money won’t be allocated automatically but on condition that the city has respected its commitments made at the selection stage.

A unique opportunity

After 25 years of European Capitals of Culture, their urban, touristic and economic potential and the role they play towards promoting social cohesion is undeniable. They offer a unique opportunity for urban regeneration and image boosting both at a European and an international level.

At the same time, the criteria for obtaining the title have become more demanding, with the European dimension and the long-term effects increasingly emphasised. Nor is obtaining the title a guarantee of success: success depends on many factors, including how the city prepares the event, ensures funding, organises governance, involves the various cultural operators and designs its programme. Success is also about accurately gauging a city’s identity and creating one for the future.

There are three things, however, that a European Capital of Culture cannot do without: the quality of its cultural programme, support from the business community, and support from the political authorities.

Indeed a key challenge for European Capitals of Culture is to ensure that the project is embedded as part of a long-term political commitment and strategy by the city to using culture to develop itself into – and to remain – a creative city.

Like Europe itself, the project still has plenty of experiments in urban, artistic and communal living ahead of it.