The four major cities of the Netherlands are working hard on their main cultural squares. Each in their own way. In recent years, all four major cities launched new planning processes for their main cultural squares. Some of the most important cultural institutions of the country are located around these four squares. So much more is possible with this potentially enormous resource. The question is: how? What can the cities learn from one another?
These questions led Stipo and Inspiring Cities to organise the Stadslab Programming for cultural squares on 2 July. Thirty-five professionals involved with the squares and/or the institutions housed around the squares met in De Doelen on Schouwburg Square in Rotterdam. The evening was devoted to the issue of programming. This is deliberately distinct from an approach based on design. The professionals from the four squares contribute their knowledge on the spot to provide the other participants with good ideas and tips.
The Squares
Dom Square: In Utrecht, everything revolves around history and the significance of the institutions on the square is mainly city-related. With a smart approach to opening up this layered history and the establishment of links between that history and cultural activities, Utrecht hopes to attract more visitors and to get more people to spend time on the square. How can you transform an intersection (city buses were still literally driving under the cathedral until a few years ago) into a gathering place where people spend time and into a centre of city life? The driving force behind this project is in private hands. This foundation has managed to bind in the politicians and the institutions in such a way that the implementation of the plan is now just around the corner.
Spui Square: The Hague is, or will be, the home for a number of institutions of national importance, such as the new conservatory. The aim is to establish closer links between the square and the surroundings in order to create more colourful routes. The Spui Square Foundation has been in place for some time now and it is a regular meeting place for the leading players. The foundation is attempting to establish central programming but, because of the lack of an independent project manager, time, manpower, finance and a clear line, this goal is not being attained in any structural way.
Schouwburg Square: In Rotterdam, the cinema and the city theatre play a role at the city and regional levels, and De Doelen is important nationally. The square comes to life only occasionally, during the Film Festival for example. This relatively young square, with its controversial structure that is appropriate for the city, needed an update/make-over. More or less fortuitous consultations between the partners involved established a momentum, with the designer of the square being asked to overhaul it. A foundation is also being established for the purposes of programming. The partners on the square have pledged their support for this producer for five years.
In Amsterdam, there are five institutions on Museum Square that, in their fields, are world leaders. One of the issues here is how to exploit this potential much better, not only culturally but also in economic terms. Another challenge is how to get the people of Amsterdam to visit this location. City-dwellers increasingly want open spaces that act as ‘Third Places'. The resulting mixture establishes a more consistent basis for the facilities that you want in the area, and cultural tourists don't want to find themselves in the tourist bubble all the time. Given this background, how can the square be used as a combined, sixth, leading attraction? The background to the move towards joint programming was the combination of the major investments in the institutions, the approach to the physical space and the administrative changes that all these institutions have gone through since 2006. The large investment operations mean that the additional costs to achieve this 'extra' are relatively low.
The G4 squares have completely different characters but, interestingly, there are three challenges that are common to each city and each square.
- How can we transform the square into a destination for city-dwellers instead of a place they just pass through?
- How can we establish the exterior programming needed for this on good and sustainable lines?
- How can we get a major restructuring programme started on the squares so that they deliver the desired quality (as places to spend time in)?
Linking programming to gathering
None of the squares acts as a ‘Third Place' as envisioned by Ray Oldenburg. The idea is here is that these locations are natural places for city-dwellers to arrange to meet, to spend time and to use. They are ‘third places' alongside home and work. There are already numerous activities on those squares, even without the active programming initiatives taken by municipal authorities and institutions. However, the current approach is still too fragmented and not structured enough in terms of the significance for the space of the square, the city and the institutions. This is because the current programming is still not linked to gathering, in other words the role of the squares as ‘Third Places'. The cultural squares are not destinations for local inhabitants in any of the four leading cities. As long as you omit to provide gathering facilities on the squares, such as catering, so that you can establish links between gathering on the square and cultural programming, the programming will continue to have only incidental significance.
Shared programmes for bonding
All four squares have been looking for active approaches to programming in recent years. This is an interesting development because it is certainly not an obvious approach when we look at the history. For example, in the 1990s, the emphasis was much more on eliminating car traffic and establishing a unique, distinctive, design. The emphasis on active programming is not an exclusive Dutch phenomenon. These types of initiative can also be seen in London (Exhibition Road), New York (Bryant Park and Museum Mile), Chicago (Millennium Park), Berlin (Museumsinsel) and Vienna (Museumsquartier). Apparently, the question is not whether you should have joint programming but rather how to go about it.
All four projects in the leading cities are still looking for ways of getting that cultural programming off the ground in a meaningful sense. Utrecht would appear to be the most promising. Here, there is a single foundation, operated by a private individual who can adopt an independent approach to the city authorities and the institutions. The table discussion did look at the issue of whether the square is actually open to all inhabitants because of the fairly strict cultural content. In Amsterdam, the decision has just been taken to establish a joint business plan to regulate the relationships between the institutions, the city and other partners. In The Hague, the institutions were ready to move forward, but the city authorities failed to get on board and, ultimately, the institutions did not think that they had the final responsibility for programming. In Rotterdam, the institutions want to take action, but the form and approach to programming are still very much under development.
Independent organisation as a dependable value
One of the core questions addressed during the evening is one that all four initiatives are struggling with: how can the programming be organised for the cultural squares?
It is important in this respect to distinguish between two types of programming.
Partnerships in the area of programming inside the buildings are something that the institutions themselves can manage very well themselves. This is linked to the economic value of joint programming (inside the buildings): by working together, the partners attract more attention, not only from visitors but also in terms of the economic spin-off (as with the Hermitage in Amsterdam and the accompanying state visit from Medvedev, the India Festival and the visit from a high-ranking Indian official, together with the entire corporate sector).
Responsibilities are less clearly defined when it comes to the joint approach to programming for the shared/public space. This is not the core business of the city authorities (the Thorbecke principle is that government must not get involved in the content of the arts and, furthermore, the city authorities do not have the appropriate organisational structures). However, this is also not the core business of the institutions. One of the directors present pointed out that: "This is out of the question, if only because we have no time in our diaries." If push comes to shove, the institutions will invest primarily, and firstly, in their own programmes, as was pointed out by the MUMOK director from Vienna.
It would appear that an independent person is needed to represent the general interests of the square as a whole. Somebody who is independent with respect to both the city authorities and institutions. They lack the time (and often the financing) to devote adequate attention to the outdoor space. On top of that, the situation in The Hague shows that institutions like to be involved in thinking about, and to play a role in, programming but that the ultimate responsibility does not reside with them.
What is the next step?
It would appear that the conclusion arrived at this evening was that an independent party should be given responsibility for the optimal use of the square. In Utrecht, there was an independent initiative from a private individual with good connections, who uses the Dom Square Initiative Foundation to challenge both the city authorities of Utrecht and the institutions located on the square. The other three cities do not have a single central figure of this kind, at least not yet. The Spui Square foundation in The Hague lacks the resources to do everything on its own; a foundation is being established in Rotterdam for programming.
In any case, everyone can draw on the lessons below from the successful Museumsquartier in Vienna. The readiness of all those present to learn from one another and to share information with one another is a hopeful development. The fact that 35 professionals were prepared to put time aside to learn from one another about how to make better use of squares and programming is a good indication of how topical the issue is and how willing people are to tackle it. A single organisation for programming throughout the area containing the four cities is probably somewhat far-fetched but partnerships, at the least at the level of the individual squares, are the thing of the future.