Expansive Cultural Strategy in the Periphery of Europe Example of Tenerife Arts Space and Castelo Branco Cultural Centre Maria Mikaelyan Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU) Polytechnic University of Milan Milan, Italy E-mail: maria.mikaelyan@polimi.it Abstract—The following paper will focus on the way in which European local authorities have dealt with cultural policies, urban regeneration, place branding, and community- building in the last two decades. Following the museological model of multifunctional art centre and adopting it within a peripheral urban context, local authorities aim to carry out a wide range of sociocultural, economic, and urban reforms. The research question is how this model is being applied in the European peripheral context, and what are the results of such cultural interventions. The methodological framework of the research is based on a detailed analysis of two multipurpose contemporary art centres – Tenerife Arts Space and Castelo Branco Cultural Centre – in a variety of aspects, such as architectural project, conceptual programme, key methods of interior design, impact on the local community and existing urban landscape. Keywords—contemporary architecture; urban regeneration; multifunctional art centre; European periphery; cultural policies I. INTRODUCTION One of the most challenging and complex cultural strategies of the last decades is creation of contemporary art museums and multifunctional art centres, capable of catalyzing a wide range of economical, sociocultural and urban reforms (see, for instance, [1], [2], [3]). The postmodern paradigm has generated a new model of a public cultural institution as a multidisciplinary system, which operates across different realms of professional practice, implicating architecture, exhibition design, urban planning, curation and communication, education and entertainment. Through the establishment of these institutions state policies aim to shape the development of cultural identities1 and to set the framework for specific types of cultural consumption. 1. The term „cultural identity‟ is used by the author in accordance with the definition given by Stuart Hall in his publication „Who Needs „Identity‟?‟: “I use „identity‟ to refer to the meeting point, the point of suture, between on the one hand the discourses and practices which attempt to „interpellate‟, speak to us or hail us into places as the social subjects of particular discourses, and on the other hand, the processes which produce subjectivities, which construct us as subjects which can be „spoken‟. Identities are thus points of temporary attachment to the subject positions which discursive practices construct for us” [1, p. 5-6]. This model has undergone a number of important changes during the last two decades, especially in the years following the 2007 – 2008 global financial crisis, when local cultural policies, particularly in the peripheral areas of Europe, have had to face new economic and sociocultural realities, and to become responsive to new needs of local communities. Today‟s post-crisis European museums and cultural centres aim to embody “[…] a broad sense of mission, an expansive identity to communicate, a variety of programs and experiences, and a large, diverse audience to serve” [5, p. 23]. Finally, featuring today a remarkable synthesis of all forms of artistic and cultural activities, museums and centres of contemporary art are destined to become bridgeheads for innovation and experimentation in the cultural realm. According to Manuel Castels, “[…] they should play the same role in the field of cultural innovation as hospitals are currently playing in medical research” [6, p. 7]. To fulfill these objectives, European cultural institutions frequently apply the strategy of the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris (also known as „Beaubourg‟) designed by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers: the strategy of a cultural forum, a high-tech hub of cultural activities [7], [8], [9]. Inaugurated in 1977, the Pompidou Centre established a new paradigm, based on multipronged communication, multiplicity of functions, intense interaction with the urban context, and a high degree of public involvement. Beaubourg‟s architectural innovation lies in the new conception of relationships between architecture and interior design, in mobility and flexibility of its exhibition spaces, and in the predisposition of the architectural organism for a continual development [9], [10]. The western and lateral facades were completely covered with glass, in order to render the building permeable and provide interconnection between the interior and the exterior. All structural elements were placed on the outside, in order to create an empty interior space, a free plan of every level, which allowed to arrange within its boundaries an exhibition project or a cultural activity of any kind. In her article „Architecture or Design? Or Design-Architecture?‟ Larissa A. Zhadova states: “Both the building and its system of equipment and 3rd International Conference on Arts, Design and Contemporary Education (ICADCE 2017) Copyright © 2017, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 144 39