Identifying the role of Industrial Heritage in the European Capital of Culture Programme

Extended Abstract There has been increasing recognition of the interaction between mega-events and built heritage in recent years. Despite the perceived distance between the fields of study, Jones and Ponzini (2018) found there was a high incidence of research on heritage and mega-events in terms of their particular forms of governance and intended positive secondary effects of economic growth, tourism and broader societal ramifications. This research laid a framework for further exploring the links and interactions between heritage and mega-events. The importance of this area of research has grown in recent years as cities have begun to reject traditional approaches to hosting mega-events, like the Olympics, which in the past required a majority of new infrastructure and venues. Instead, the re-use of existing urban spaces has become increasingly common – as seen in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games and a key component of the proposals for the 2024 Paris and 2026 Milan-Cortina Olympic Games. Looking beyond sport mega-events, Jones (2020) demonstrated that Cultural Mega-Events, such as the European Capital of Culture (ECoC), have long implemented such strategies and have had significant impacts on their host cities, generating potential synergy or friction with urban heritage areas. Though often smaller in scale and expense then events like the Expo, Olympics and World Cup, they can still have just as significant of an impact on the development of their local contexts and heritage. From

From 2018 to 2021, the HOMEE Research Project (Heritage Opportunities/threats within Mega-events in Europe) specifically explored this intersection of mega-event planning and heritage policy/management (Ponzini et al, 2020).This research project primarily focused on cultural mega-events like the Expo, ECoC and UK City of Culture and uncovered a range of emerging issues in six case studies carried out across Europe.This research work ultimately resulted in the Charter for Mega-events in Heritage-rich Cities (Ponzini & Jones, 2021), the first set of guidelines and recommendations.It assists a wide range of decision makers, event planners and heritage actors to collaborate and ensure the proper planning and implementation of large-scale events within heritage areas.However, the HOMEE research and subsequent charter adopted a wide perspective in its investigation of cultural heritage and did not necessarily distinguish or differentiate between various kinds of tangible and, where relevant, intangible heritage.While this existing research has clearly established the correspondence between cultural megaevents and cultural heritage more widely, there is now a need for more detailed and precise investigation into these issues.The role of industrial heritage within mega-events is one critical area that until now has been underexplored -though some prominent examples are well known.When Turin hosted the 2006 Winter Olympics, the Dora Park was created in conjunction with the Olympic Village, notably retaining former industrial features that have since become the defining elements of this new public space in the city (Bravi, 2006).During the 2010 Essen for the Ruhr ECoC, the UNESCO listed Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen served as one of the key venues for events and activities which had been restored and reopened during the preceding decade (Trettin et al., 2011).
While individual examples like Turin and Essen, amongst others, have been recognized, there is a lacking comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the true scale and involvement of industrial heritage within megaevents.The recognition, and particularly the adaptive re-use, of industrial heritage has become increasingly studied and debated in recent years.It is critical to understand how cultural mega-events like the ECoC have been contributing to these processes and their legacies over time.The topic of industrial heritage has been steadily growing in international research over the last decade, showing the growing concern and interest in the topic (Zhang et al., 2020).With the recent recognition and protection of industrial heritage, it has become nearly synonymous with adaptive reuse, in part as a way to add value to these sites capable of generating economic outputs and promoting local development (Alavi et al., 2022).These tactics often set industrial heritage apart from traditional approaches to recognizing and protecting built heritage that prioritize the memorialization or monumentalization of heritage.Adaptive reuse is framed as especially promising for industrial heritage as it can help to overcome perceptions as being less valuable or important than other kinds of cultural heritage (Bottero et al., 2019).It is hoped that finding new uses can help to retain their symbolic value while inserting them into local pg. 2 circular economies.Community engagement is often framed as a key component within these processes to guarantee their successful integration and realignment with urban development or tourism goals (Della Lucia & Pashkevich, 2023;Firth, 2011).Beyond these value and economic based explanations, Kisiel (2020) proposes several important and interesting hypotheses for this close connection between industrial heritage and adaptive reuse.In his point of view, many industrial sites are technically 'preserved' but are ultimately far removed from their original context and meaning in a way that would not be permissible when dealing with other more traditional cultural heritage sites.He suggests that this may be in part due to industrial heritage as belonging to different social and political classes from the elites who have long championed more ancient cultural heritage.This friction also exists in part for the perception of the modern conservation movement in part originating from the fight against modernization and industrialization (Oevermann & Mieg, 2015).The overall approach towards handling industrial heritage aligns much more with the commodification and commercialization of these spaces than compared to other kinds of cultural heritage.This view proposes that because industrial heritage is less valued or considered 'less European' it can either be more easily ignored or treated in a way that wouldn't be acceptable with other kinds of longer established, traditional heritage.
Further exploration of the literature reveals a tendency to frame and discuss industrial heritage in a distinctive way.Terms like 'obsolete' become attached to industrial heritage as a way of justifying their commercialization and economization (Della Lucia & Pashkevich, 2023).These tendencies are not limited only to the European context but can be observed as well across Asia (Cho & Shin, 2014;Chow et al., 2017).While historic palaces or castles no longer retain their same traditional use in our contemporary political and economic systems, they would not typically be described with the same terminology and instead referred to as being 'in need of repair' or 'in a state of disuse'.The language used in relation to industrial heritage reinforces the justification of the need to convert these spaces to productive spaces ahead of focusing on their conservation or preservation first and foremost.While the adaptive reuse of industrial heritage sites has many well documented successful examples, it does not come without risk.Firth (2011) found that the adaptive reuse of an industrial heritage site in Sydney, Australia succeeded in generating a new tourist destination, but only 10% of visitors surveyed understood the site had a historical significance and had been regenerated.While the reuse of industrial structures can succeed in regenerating them, they can also clearly jeopardize their unique value and heritage by prioritizing the new functionality over the history of the site.A recent review of the literature confirms an embedded focus on reuse and reconstruction as one of the main tenets of industrial heritage (Han & Zhang, 2022).There has been little questioning as to whether such widespread approaches are in fact responsible for overshadowing or even erasing 'industrial culture' and the wider intangible aspects attached to the physical built elements (Harfst et al., 2018).
These trends reveal a tendency to approach industrial heritage merely as a container waiting for some new function to be inserted.In these processes, cultural activities are functionally deterministic within the container of industrial heritage to achieve a certain goal -attract tourism, regeneration of an urban area, create jobs, etc. (Lusiani & Panozzo, 2016).Of course, one of the main arguments in support of the adaptive re-use of industrial heritage is the implied sustainability of activating existing structures and spaces rather than constructing new structures.In Europe, the idea of culture as a potential force of urban regeneration has been highly promoted over the last three decades and has played a key role in transitioning out of post-industrial cities to the development of serviceoriented economies (Bianchini & Parkinson, 1993).Several cities have also actively used their industrial heritage as a key part of their bid or promotion in hosting events like the ECoC, either as an element which they had already begun to valorize or which they intend to use the occasion of the event to initiate these processes (Trifa, 2018).This review of the existing state of the art highlights the complex nature of Industrial Heritage and the diverse reflections on the appropriate way to protect and potentially reactivate it.While we do not posit a dichotomy between the restoration and adaptive reuse of industrial heritage, we take note of these challenges and use them to explore and better understand the current contribution of cultural mega-events to these trends.
The ECoC represents an important event to study as it is one of the longest standing Capital of Culture programmes in the world with a significant record of investment and urban transformation (Green, 2017).It has inspired several spinoff events around the world at regional, national, and even the city scale.With the first edition held in 1985, it has been hosted by more than 65 cities across Europe, thus providing it with a long-term legacy to study and examine.The provision of consistent and comparable data in the form of the candidature files and evaluation documents also provide a clearer picture of the development and evolution of the program over time.While budgets between cities can vary from a couple million to hundreds of millions of euros invested in the program and associated infrastructure, they typically represent a significant period of investment for host cities and regions (García & Cox, 2013).With thoroughly developed candidature dossiers, 4-5 years of implementation, and 1 year of event celebrations the ECoC represents a significant opportunity for urban transformation at multiple levels.Other Capitals of Culture have not yet necessarily arrived to such a degree of development and are thus more difficult to evaluate holistically.

pg. 3
Jones and Zhang (forthcoming) expandsthe current state-of-the-art by surveying and categorizing the inclusion of industrial heritage within the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) programme from 2006 through the 2023 host cities.This research allows us to better understand the relationship and interaction between the ECoC and industrial heritage.This survey represents 36 host cities and regions spread across Europe and will provide the most comprehensive understanding to date of the specific forms of interaction between industrial heritage and ECoC.The categorization will better describe the kinds of relationships that have taken place, on one hand seeing how the event was used as a trigger to recognize and protect industrial sites as heritage, expanding local conceptions of urban image and branding.On the other, it will also explore how the existing presence of recognized industrial heritage sites impacted and formed the narratives and policies used to legitimize hosting the mega-event as well as the new uses introduced.The following section will present the survey and categorization of the 36 cases examined.From these, several cases will be explored in depth to better understand the findings of the survey.Finally, the main emerging issues will be discussed, and the conclusions will overview the importance of this expanded understanding of industrial heritage within cultural mega-events like the ECoC, highlighting the issues for future host cities to consider in developing programmes as well as areas for future research to explore.
Keywords: Cultural mega-events; Industrial heritage; European Capital of Culture; Adaptive re-use