Thessaloniki 1997 Draft City Report

Thessaloniki 1997

GENERAL INFORMATION

Profile of city: Regional Capital - Historic city - Port city - Cultural City
Significant characteristics of the city’s identity:
Important university centre - capital of northern Greece, near Balkans - mixed Classical, Byzantine and Ottoman history - multicultural - shopping centre - convention city
Population during 1997:
City: 1,084,001
Region: (Macedonia) 2,424,765
National: 10,498,836
City ranking in population terms: 2
% Immigrants: 6.2%
% Unemployment: 11.3%
Has the city hosted other large-scale events: yes
Other large-scale events hosted by city: A yearly international trade fair, the Dimitria Festival, annual International Film and Documentary festivals, Biennale, Crossroads of the Mediterranean Festival, Jazz Festival, EU summit 2003.
Would the city like to host other large-scale events: yes
ORGANISATION & MANAGEMENT OF THESSALONIKI 1997

I. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE/ BOARD
Organisation of the formal board structure: Autonomous structure
The organisation was a separate legal entity, an NPID in Greek law. The initial Board however were all local politicians, and three state Ministries had a strong role (see Observations).
Total number of board members: 15
Estimate of number of members from:
City authorities 4
Regional authorities 2
National authorities 3
Cultural institutions 1
Private sector 2
Other (universities etc) 3

Chair(s) of the Board
Konstantinos Kosmopoulos (Mayor of the City)
Primary roles of the Board:
Appoint staff - Develop policies and strategies - Take final decisions about cultural projects and activities – Take financial decisions & have overall financial control - Raise funds and sponsorship - Monitor progress - Evaluate projects and programmes - Resolve problems and/or disputes - Undertake media and public relations

Key issues and problems related to the functioning of the Board:
Dominated by political interests - Responsibilities not clear - Weak leadership - Structure too large - Inability to operate strategically - Poor relationships between Board members - Poor
relationship with operational management team - Too many changes to Board membership -

II. OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE
Primary responsibilities of the operational structure:
Initiation & development of projects - Coordination of the cultural programme - Communication, promotion & marketing - Fundraising/sponsorship - Infrastructural developments - Finance & budget

Basic organisational and reporting structure of the operational team:
In principle, the Managing Director answered to the President of the Board. This director had direct responsibility for the Buildings and Personnel departments. Reporting to him too was the Artistic Director and his/her Programme department. Below the Artistic director came the Administration and Finance departments.

Extent of changes made to management: Major extent
Main changes and reasons: A succession of four Artistic Directors and three Managing Directors, often due to conflicts with the Board (see Observations).
Number of personnel employed at peak of activity: 200 (estimate)
Plus an estimated 2,900 employed on infrastructure works.
Organisational structure: Still continues to function the end of the cultural year. Main role is to finalise Accounts

Key issues and problems related to the operational structure and personnel:
Personality clashes - Different priorities and objectives - Different management styles - Communication Problems - Inappropriate experience/competencies of personnel - Inadequate selection/recruitment procedures - Responsibilities/job descriptions not clear - Dominated by personal interests - Poor management - Poor relationships with the Board - Poor relationships between personnel - Too many changes to personnel.

III. PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
Public authorities that were involved in organisation or delivery of cultural year/month
Municipality of designated city - National governments or state departments -
Main sources of tensions and problems between the different public bodies
Financial issues - Political differences - Conflicts over projects and priorities -

AIMS & OBJECTIVES
Main motivation behind the city bidding to become Capital of Culture:
To demonstrate the Government's committment to decentralisation in Greece by spending state money to develop Thessaloniki into a cultural centre.

Official mission or broad aim:
To become the 'metropolis of the Balkans', by upgrading the cultural infrastructure of the city.
Objectives rated as having the highest importance

Highest importance:
Cultural infrastructure improvements

Followed by:
Raising the international profile
Non-cultural infrastructure improvements
Long-term cultural development
Enhancing pride and self-confidence

And then:
Social cohesion/community development
Developing the talent/career of local artists
Developing relationships with other European cities
Attracting visitors from own country
Attracting visitors from abroad

Consultation to define aims and objectives: yes
Who was consulted: Politicians

CULTURAL PROGRAMME & CULTURAL IMPACT
Location of the official cultural programme
Inside city boundaries - Suburbs immediately surrounding the city - The broader region surrounding the city - Throughout the entire country
Start of official programme: 01/01/97
End of official programme: 31/12/97
Seasons with greatest concentration of events
Summer - Autumn
Specific themes/orientations: yes
The programme issued in June 1996 quotes thirty-one separate themes or principles, including "Between East and West", "The Inner City", "The Balkan Dimension", "The Circle of Inferiority", "Land of Jewish martyrs", "City of Foreigners", "International Events", "The Holy Mountain"

Consultation in developing and selecting projects: yes
Who was consulted: Politicians - Cultural organisations and artists - Local residents -
How was the consultation undertaken: Open invitation for proposals in the press.
Cultural sectors within programme:
Classical/Traditional and Contemporary/Modern: Theatre, Dance, Opera, Visual Arts, Film, Literature, Architecture and Music
Plus Crafts, Heritage, Archives, New media/technology, Street festivals and parades, Gastronomy
Four most prominent sectors
#1: Heritage and History
#2: Music
#3: Theatre
#4: Literature

Categories of specially targeted projects
Children - Disabled people - Minorities
Project Numbers Number
Total number of activities: 1,271
Exhibitions: 195
Theatre: 188
Music/opera: 333
Literature: 126
Conferences: 95

Projects that illustrate the range of the programme:
- Exhibition of the Treasures of Mount Athos
- U2 concert at the port
- Concerts by Rostropovich, Agni Baltsa, Budapest Gipsy Orchestra, the Philharmonia of La Scala, Kyoto Symphony Orchestra, several European youth orchestras
- performances by La la la Human Steps ballet, Boris Borisnikov and Boris Eifman
- exhibitions of Goya, Michaelangelo, Caravaggio, Paul Soulikias, Antony Caro
- exhibition on anatomy and Greek technology
- purchase and rehousing of the Costakis collection of Russian avant-garde art
- international architectural design competition for the waterfront
- UNESCO conference on Sustainable development
- “From Far Away" summer perfomances of culture from the Greek diaspora
- Canadian Festival of arts
Projects that attracted the most interest/attention from the public:
- Exhibition of the Treasures of Mount Athos (report gives an audience of some 700,000 people)
- U2 concert (50,000 people)
- Caravaggio exhibition
- Greek-Italian carnival and Carnival of Venice
- Ballet Gala evening
Means/methods used to develop the creative talents of local artists/cultural managers:
Commissioning of new works - Special training to enhance artistic skills
Examples: Workshops in two poor districts of the city to provide artistic opportunities for young people.
Number of published works in relation to the cultural programme paid for or supported by Thessaloniki 1997: 75
Number of works commissioned: total unknown, but included 15 commissions for new music.
Percentage estimate of events and projects originating from outside Thessaloniki:
20% - About 80% of projects involved Greek artists – just under half those involved artists from Thessaloniki alone, and 10% were collaborations with non-Greeks.

Problems and issues related to the official cultural programme
Insufficient planning time - Too many projects - Inadequate communication of programme - Inadequate local interest - Poor relationships with local artists/organisations - Management problems - Financial problems - Programme choice influenced by political/economic interests - Too many interest groups/stakeholders to serve - Variable quality of projects - Venues not built in time

INFRASTRUCTURE
Capital projects stimulated by Thessaloniki 1997:
New cultural buildings - New non-cultural buildings - Refurbishment and restoration of cultural facilities - Refurbishment and restoration of non-cultural facilities - Development of public space - Lighting and signs - Transportation
Five most important infrastructural projects:
Over 300 infrastructure projects. Highlights included the renovation of five theatres and construction of eight new ones, including two new outdoor amphitheatres; homes for existing cultural institutions such as the National Festival of Cinema; completion of some fifteen municipal cultural centres; a series of new museums for refugees, folklore, prehistoric antiquities, Jewish history, water and contemporary art.
Infrastructure projects specifically linked to the architectural heritage or history of the city: yes
Examples: Restoration of amphitheatres, creation of three archeological routes in the city, series of excavations, restoration of a series of neoclassical monuments and listed buildings
Regeneration of districts/aras in the city: yes
Examples: Sea front on either side of the city centre (former Port Authority and Army camp), renovation of several major urban axes, remodelling of several municipal centres

EUROPEAN DIMENSION
Consideration given to the European dimension when developing the programme: yes
Definition/interpretation: Bringing the best of European arts to Thessaloniki.
Priority given to European dimension: Medium Priority
Themes specifically reflecting the European dimension: yes
Examples: Collaboration with the Adriatic, exhibition on Alexander the Great and European Art
European dimension reflected through:
Highlighting the city’s European heritage - Engagement of artists from other European countries - Involvement/participation of communities within the city originating from other European countries -
Sector(s) in which there were European cooperation projects
Architecture - Dance - Heritage and History - Music -
European countries involved in cooperation projects
Austria - Belgium - Bulgaria - Cyprus - Czech Republic - Denmark - France - Germany - Hungary - Italy - Luxembourg - Netherlands - Portugal - Romania - Slovakia - Slovenia - Spain - Sweden - Turkey - United Kingdom -
Most prominent European cities/regions/countries in the officially designated cultural programme: Germany, Yugoslavia, Italy, Greek diaspora
Most prominent non-European countries/cities/regions: Canada, Turkey, Japan, Russia, Israel.
Number of projects part-financed by EU funds: 1 (estimate)
Details: Aristeion Prize for European literature and translation
Initiatives/projects specifically to promote dialogue between cultures: yes
Examples: Projects to promote cooperation in the Balkans.
Problems and issues relating to the European dimension of the programme
Insufficient consideration of this aspect/low priority - Insufficient planning time - Financial problems - Decisions influenced by political/economic interests - Lack of experience and expertise - Changes to Board and operational team.

COOPERATION BETWEEN CAPITALS OF CULTURE & CULTURAL MONTHS
Capital of Culture:Thessaloniki
Cultural Month: Ljubljana
Extent of collaboration: Not at all

FUNDING & FINANCE
I. BUDGET (EURO)
Budget for Thessaloniki – 1997 (Budget quoted covers five years, from 1994–1998)
BUDGET (euros)
OPERATING INCOME
1. Public
national government 60,072,058.00
EU (general support) 287,439.00
2. Private
sponsorship 28,744.00
3. Other
ticket sales 431,158.00
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 60,819,399.00

OPERATING EXPENDITURE
wages/salaries 6,240,629.00
overheads 12,844,839.00
promotion and marketing 8,168,245.00
programme 40,162,639.00
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURE 67,416,352.00
CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE 232,639,809.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURE 300,056,161.00
Financial outturn: deficit
Total operational budget: 60,416,352 euros

Financial problems or issues
Inaccurate forecasting - Poor financial management - Exceeding budgeted expenditure - Late confirmation of funding - Accusations of fraud

II. SPONSORSHIP
National sponsors: Panafon (sponsored Borisnikov performance)
European sponsors: Mont Blanc (sponsored Rostropovich concert)

ECONOMIC IMPACT
Elements of strategy to generate economic impact
Developing tourism - Creating special cultural districts - Enhancing the general cultural environment - Building or improving cultural infrastructure - Urban renewal - Improving the external image of the city –
Agencies responsible for the economic strategies:
Ministry of Public Works
Most significant economic outcomes:
3750 people worked on projects directly connected with the Capital of Culture. Another two to five thousand people are estimated to have had jobs indirectly linked to the event.
Problems & issues relating to economic impact
No clear strategy/strategy too limited - Poor management - Insufficient planning time - Political problems - Lack of leadership -

COMMUNICATION, PROMOTION & MEDIA RESPONSE
Main focus of the communication and promotion strategy
Promotion of city image/profile -
New technologies used in promotion
Web site - Electronic information points -
Problems or issues with communication and marketing strategies
Changes in staff

VISITOR IMPACTS
Total number of people attending events in the programme: 1,500,000

Visitor numbers

	Year before	Cultural year	Year after
Total number of visitors in millions	622,51	717,89	675,39
Total number of overnight stays	1,333,661	1,548,013	1,419,688
Total number of overnight stays by foreign tourists	460,63	556,86	453,212
Average length of stay	4	4	4

These visitor figures relate to: Prefecture of Thessaloniki

Familiarisation trips organised for travel agents/tour operators:Yes
foreign press: Yes
domestic press: Yes
Promotion programmes developed jointly with other organisations
National tourist office - Regional/local tourist office - Hotels and restaurants - Tour operators and travel agents - Cultural venues -
Promotional means used in tourism markets
Local tourist offices - Tourist offices abroad - National newspapers/magazines - National TV/radio - Foreign newspapers/magazines - Foreign TV/radio - Tourism trade fairs - National tourism trade press - Foreign tourism trade press -

SOCIAL IMPACTS
Issues for which projects/programmes were specifically developed
Social cohesion or social inclusion - Education (about culture and cultural values) - Training or employment programmes for excluded groups - Cultural diversity - Migration, asylum and human trafficking -
Examples: Projects with the gypsy population - Centres established in for immigrant Greeks returning from other countries, with language and computer courses as well as an arts programme - Youth centres in poorer districts of the city for cultural initiatives
Problems and issues related to social impacts
Insufficient planning time - Lack of visibility of social programmes

LEGACY & LONG-TERM EFFECTS
Intention to deliver long-lasting benefits: yes
Legacies rated as having the greatest effect on the development of the city/region
Greatest effect:
Cultural infrastructure improvements:
Non-cultural infrastructure improvements:
Followed by :
Economic development:
New cultural organisations still in existence:
A more developed programme of cultural activities and arts events:
And then:
Social cohesion/community development:
Enhanced innovation and creativity:
Long-term cultural development for the city/region:
Increasing visitors to the city/region from other countries:
Opening up of new visitor markets for the city/region:
Raised international profile of the city/region:
Development of local cultural management and support
Organisations established for the cultural year that continued to exist
Mt Athos Civil Company (collaboration between the city and monks on cultural projects) - state museums for Modern Art, Photography and Cinema - a new chamber opera - a literature archive for the city.
Problems and issues related to the legacies and long-term impacts
Negative media coverage - Absence of leadership
Negative impacts: Lack of ownership by local population - Political arguments and fallout with negative consequences
How effects of legacies have changed over time:
Infrastructure projects have been gradually completed in the years following the Capital of Culture.

MONITORING & EVALUATION
MONITORING
Monitoring systems put in place: yes
Who was responsible: Deloitte and Touche accountants
Problems and issues regarding the monitoring of progress: Monitoring began too late
EVALUATION
Evaluation systems put in place: yes
Aspects evaluated
Cultural Programme
Who did the evaluation: Euroconsultants (independent)
When the evaluation took place: 1996 to May 1998
Economic impacts
Who did the evaluation: as above
Tourism/visitor impacts
Who did the evaluation: as above
Methods of evaluation used
Quantitative surveys and/or questionnaires -
Problems and issues regarding evaluation
Highly sensitive nature of the results

OBSERVATIONS
General information
- Patras will be the European Capital of Culture in 2006.
- Thessaloniki 97 was the first time a Greek municipal government had been responsible for a major cultural project.
- According to respondents, the municipality had little coherent cultural policy in the years before the nomination as Capital of Culture, which came in 1992.
Organisation & Management
- The project benefitted from strong support from the state. This took the form of lobbying for the nomination, huge financial contributions, political support from Melina Merkouris and other political figures, the close involvement of three Ministries (of Culture, Public Works, and for Thrace and Macedonia). However, despite the intended symbolic gesture towards decentralisation (see below), the Ministries tried to keep close control over preparations, which contributed to long arguments within the Board.
- The original Board of seven grew to fifteen members. Originally composed of local politicians and headed by the provincial Governor or Prefect, the body eventually included representatives of the three Ministries, politicians from the region and surrounding municipalities, people from the cultural sector, from the Greek heritage/planning department, and both employers and emplyees unions. These changes on their own contributed to delays in creating the organisation and allocating funds.
- Many respondents pointed to a lack of political leadership from the Mayor as a key problem.
- Conflicts within the Board destabilised the organisation and created a bad atmosphere. Many members of the original Board resigned over the course of preparations.
- The operational team for Thessaloniki 97 experienced major changes in personnel over the course of preparations: three different Managing Directors in turn; four different Artistic Directors; three different managers of the Press office; numerous other resignations. One factor seems to have been the lack of clear responsiblities within the organisation, especially between the Board, its many sub-committees, and the operational team. Besides the operational directors, influential figures included the Minister of Culture at the time, the Vice-President of the Board of Directors, and the Secretary of the Board (also Director of the Administrative department).
- The organisation itself was run like a Ministry, with a complex hierarchy and bureaucratic procedures, which further delayed preparations. In 1997, for example, over 30 people were employed simply to process invoices.
- A key problem was with the management of infrastructure, which was contracted out to three or four private companies. The Thessaloniki 97 organisation itself had no technical department to monitor their progress until very late in the preparations, and then only a small one. As a result the office had very little control over the infrastructure programme (see also below under Infrastructure).
Aims & Objectives
- The project was driven by the state’s determination to work with a provincial city in Greece and demonstrate their commitment to decentralisation, an issue which had been debated in Greece for years before the event. The size of the budget and the legacy of infrastructure was intended as a clear sign of their desire to promote Thessaloniki.
- This was joined in Thessaloniki with a degree of rivalry with other provincial centres, such as Crete or Patras.
Cultural programme & cultural impact
- A highlight of the programme was publishing 75 books and magazines, on architecture, religion, history, folk art, literature and archeology, many of a very high standard. Just under five percent of the programme budget was spent on publications.
- Some six thousand proposals were received by the organisation. Objective criteria for selecting projects were not clear, and the programme was contested by Board members on personal grounds as well as by the artistic committees and director. This debate contributed to the resignation of at least one Artistic Director. The repeated changes in that post delayed programmation – the last Director was appointed just eight months before the start of the year. As a result many projects either had to be cancelled or put together at short notice.
- There was a high percentage of free events: all activities in the fields of architecture, disability, immigration, education, literature and conferences were free; well over seventy percent of sports, visual arts, cinema and music events were also free. Free food was also supplied at many events.
- Nevertheless, many projects were poorly attended – only one-fifth of ticketed events had 75% capacity or more, while over a third sold less than 35% of their seats. Even big-name events could not be sure of a high turn out. It seems likely that the audience was simply saturated by events - in 1997 Thessaloniki was host to a cultural programme six times as large as in previous years.
- As with other cities in this report, some flagship projects may have happened without the Capital of Culture, for example the exhibition of the treasures of the monasteries on Mt Athos. The project was nevertheless very popular, and also saw the unusual collaboration of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Defence.
- Just over twenty percent of projects in 1997 occured outside Thessaloniki. This included projects in Chalkidiki, a summer holiday region for many Thessaloniki residents, as well as regions on the old Roman “Egnatia” route close to Bulgaria, Albania and Turkey. While they were relatively expensive (roughly forty percent of the programme budget), they only account for seven percent of performances.
- Municipalities outside central Thessaloniki also benefitted from projects. This was partly the result of an intentional strategy to involve different parts of the population, but was encouraged by the fact that many venues were not ready by 1997, forcing the cultural programme to relocate to open air venues and venues further outside Thessaloniki.
Infrastructure
- The building programme was the major focus of Thessaloniki 97. Following feasibility studies and several revised plans, a programme of 310 projects was drawn up. This was originally budgeted at approximately 66 billion drachma (190 million euros). The evaluation by Euroconsultants in May 1998, mid-way through the building process, gives expenditure to date at 54 billion drachma (156 million Euros). They then estimated the amounts needed to finish the programme, and projected final figures of:

Type of Project	Drachme	Euro	percentage
Large Buildings	19.516.118.552	56.096.920	24.1%
Estension or restoration of existing urban buildings	20.563.144.399	59.106.480	25.4%
Outdoors and public spaces	18.941.276.360	54.444.600	23.4%
Listed monuments	3.291.906.400	9.462.220	4.1%
Cultural infrastructure for municipalities	6.425.676.466	18.469.895	7.9%
Other (harbour restoration, airport, Mt Athos monuments)	12.197.267.444	35.059.694	15.1%
Total	80.935.389.622	232.639.809	100%

- The infrastructure programme was shared with 13 municipalities surrounding Thessaloniki, as well as some buildings further away, such as renovations to the monasteries on Mt Athos, Byzantine remains and amphitheatres outside the city.
- Contracts were signed very late (most building started in 1996), allowing the private companies to demand higher prices. When signed, the contracts encouraged clients to complete projects on time, sometimes at the cost of quality of design or construction - at least one theatre had to be closed for repairs after it had been opened.
- Several respondents commented that sufficient thought had not been put into planning. One example given was the lack of adequate transport and parking so that people could use the new buildings.
- The late start contributed to the decision to use restricted tenders for infrastructure contracts. It also meant that few projects were completed on time, although most are now complete.
European dimension
- Thessaloniki emphasised the importance of bringing big name European and international artists to the city, including U2, Rostropovitch, Goran Bregovic, Borisnikov, Peter Brook and Robert Wilson. Such events represent an important part of the programme budget – the U2 concert alone cost 3.2 million euros – although some respondents felt they were a low priority for many Board members.
- The project of turning the city into a “Balkan metropolis” was reinforced by staging projects in Greek regions on the national border, the announcement of a Balkan cultural agreement, and a new initiative by the Patriarch around the Black Sea.
Funding & finance
- Some respondents said that state funds were slow to arrive, creating delays in contracts and payment to contractors. This may have been of the reasons for the late completion of both infrastructre and the programme.
- It seems that some contributions from the state are still to be paid. This is one of the reasons keeping the Organisation open, still employing core staff seven years after the event (though salaries are in arrears) and still owing money to third parties.
- One respondent estimated court costs of 40 million euros on about 300 cases arising from the management of the Capital of Culture, including accusations of mismanagement and fraud.
- In contrast to many Capitals of Culture, Thessaloniki won sponsorship from just two companies. Both were for specific, high-level performances (Borisnikov and Rostropovich), and seem to have had little connection with the Thessaloniki 97 project.
Communication, promotion & media response
- The Capital of Culture suffered from very negative media coverage during its preparations, and had difficulty escaping that during 1997. Besides the ready supply
of controversial stories, respondents suggested several reasons why coverage might have been more negative than it deserved: one respondent thought several businessmen who had not won infrastructure contracts then used their positions in media companies to influence the coverage; another respondent argued the Board had no understanding or strategy for dealing with the press, treating them as more as public liaison officers; finally, the report points to the frustration of some artists whose projects were cancelled.
Visitor impacts
- The composition of the tourist market for Thessaloniki changed in the 1990s, although there is no clear link to the Capital of Culture event. While Germany has been a consistent market, visitors from Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Russia decreased dramatically from 1994 to 2000, whereas numbers from Cyprus, the USA and Italy increased.
- 1997 saw an increase in passenger numbers by air to Thessaloniki of 9% on the previous year, followed by (smaller) rises in 1998 and 1999.
- According to the official evaluation, the event had greatest exposure in Germany, followed by USA, Canada, Chile and Japan.
Social Impacts
- The year helped to develop relations with Mount Athos, including the creation of Mt Athos Civil Company (collaboration between the city and monks on cultural projects).
- Several other groups including the immigrant, Jewish and Armenian communities, won greater attention in the city.
Legacy & long-term effects
- The finished works have given Thessaloniki a cultural infrastructure second only to Athens. Several cultural institutions were founded and continue in the city: state museums for Modern Art, Photography and Cinema; a new chamber opera: a literature archive for the city.
- However many instutions do not have the funds to put on a full programme, and together have a capacity several times larger than the city’s regular theatre audience. Some respondents also thought new venues still owned by the Ministry of Culture in Athens have difficulties developing local programmes.
Monitoring and evaluation
- The Board employed Deloitte and Touche as auditors late in the preparations.
- A full evaluation by Euroconsultants was published in May 1998. Having worked on the project since 1996, the firm produced an exhaustive report covering the cultural programme, infrastructure and economic impact of the event.

^ Top

« Thessaloniki 1997: a lost opportunity | Thessaloniki '97: the regime approach by Anestis D. Mantatzis »

European Capitals of CultureΠοιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation

Thessaloniki 1997 Draft City Report