[New Wave] What It Means to Become a Cultural City

Over the past century, many Western cities as well as numerous cities in Korea have been influenced by modernist urban planning. In many cases, non-essential elements rather than people have hindered the functioning of creative communities, resulting in the erasure of culturally rooted stories and historical content of various regions. This is at odds with the current policy emphasis on culturally inclusive cities that highlight 'autonomy,' 'diversity,' and 'creativity.'

Reflecting on these behaviors, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has been actively promoting the Cultural City project. Seven cities, including Bucheon-si in Gyeonggi and Wonju-si in Gangwon, were designated as the first Cultural Cities, with plans to support up to 10 billion KRW per city over the next five years according to their characteristics. Furthermore, there are plans to select about 30 Cultural Cities by 2022. However, there is much debate about whether this approach is correct. The focus is on visible achievements, competition among cities is overheating, and there are moves to promote projects resembling cultural hub cities similar to tourist hub cities. There are also doubts about whether a proper cultural city can emerge with 10 billion KRW over five years. Additionally, some argue that indiscriminate selection as a Cultural City could lead to a loss of meaning and rarity. Suspicions have been raised that this might be a populist policy.

In benchmarking the European Capital of Culture project for the Cultural City policy, it is important to note that it values sustainability based on shared artistic movements and styles, participation in cultural activities and cooperation, creative activities and public engagement, promotion of intercultural exchange, cultural life, and contributions to social development. This perspective prompts much reflection on Korea’s Cultural City policy.

Several considerations should be noted: First, projects must maximize regional sustainability and foster self-sufficiency, as it is problematic if directions change every time a local government head changes. Second, cultural characteristics that differentiate the region must be prominent, and there must be 'content' based on the region’s culture, history, and heritage?humanistic assets that residents can sufficiently access and utilize. Third, the goals and beneficiaries of the Cultural City project must be clearly defined. For example, it is necessary to consider who will benefit from the project’s effects, such as increased cultural awareness among residents. Fourth, 'participation' and 'communication' must be ensured, and cooperative governance structures should be clearly visible. Lastly, the achievements of the Cultural City project should primarily be measured by the degree of attainment of goals autonomously set by the region. Depending on regional characteristics, evaluation indicators may vary, including quality of life, community completion, and sales increase. Consideration of absolute evaluation that allows bottom-up, process-centered self-assessment is necessary. When creating a Cultural City, it is problematic if the focus is solely on hardware?building structures, developing commercial districts, and attracting many tourists. It is important to operate the software that functions within various content, creating places where communities connect and civic discourse occurs?social meeting places. Especially, it is increasingly meaningful in today’s era to create and preserve stories about the environments where ordinary 'people' live so that their presence is not lost. Culture is not created overnight. When short-term programs produce fossilized Cultural Cities and focus on budget allocation, the originally intended goals may disappear, leaving only illusions. Just as the importance of designation as a legal city is significant, a re-examination of philosophy and direction is also necessary at this point.

Byungmin Lee, Professor, Department of Cultural Contents, Konkuk University