Van Aalst and Van Melik
European Urban
and Regional
Studies
Article
European Urban and Regional Studies
19(2) 195­–206
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0969776411428746
eur.sagepub.com
City festivals and urban
development: does place
matter?
Irina Van Aalst
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Rianne van Melik
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Abstract
After 30 years in the Dutch city of The Hague, the North Sea Jazz Festival (NSJF) has left its birthplace, prompted
by the partial demolition of its venue. Although the current organizer of this premier international jazz festival, Mojo
Concerts, would have preferred to relocate it within the city, the local government was unable to retain it. The move
to Rotterdam in 2006 illustrates the process whereby cities actively compete for festivals. This paper examines the
place dependency of a jazz festival by juxtaposing the perspectives of key actors: the local government of the two host
cities, The Hague and Rotterdam; the festival organizer Mojo Concerts; and the visitors to the NSJF. The relocation
is explained in light of the motives of the stakeholders and the perception of the audience, as gleaned from in-depth
interviews and a large-scale survey held before and after the move. The interviews indicate that local governments
regard festivals as important urban showcases, although the survey reveals that the direct links between the festival
and host city are weak. The conclusions connect insights from the case study to the scant literature on the extent to
which place really matters for a festival and vice versa.
Keywords
North Sea Jazz Festival, place dependency, stakeholders and visitors, urban policy
Introduction
The number of urban festivals has risen sharply in
recent decades (Gursoy et al., 2004). Across Europe,
city councils have been showing greater interest in
organizing mega-events, including festivals (Hiller,
2000; Robinson et al., 2004; Quinn, 2005; Getz,
2008; Johansson and Kociatkiewicz, 2011). Whereas
some cities hold one annual festival, others host over
100 events throughout the year. Individual festivals
differ in their degree of ‘place dependency’. Some
are closely connected to the cultural infrastructure,
whereas others have hardly any relationship with
facilities, activities or events occurring in the city
(Boogaarts, 1992).
Nowadays, the prevailing orientation to culture
and entertainment in society at large is fuelling the
rivalry among cities. Decision-makers feel they need
to mount a festival to be able to compete with other
Corresponding author:
Dr Rianne van Melik, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht
University, PO Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
196
European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2)
cities – preferably an international festival that
attracts media attention and a wide audience. Most
local authorities are convinced that festivals can
improve a city’s image, create place distinctiveness
and draw visitors and tourists – all in order to generate economic benefits (Schuster, 1995; Saayman and
Saayman, 2006). Much research has been done on
the role that festivals play in economic development;
overall, they are deemed to make cities more vibrant
and cosmopolitan (for example, Thrane, 2002;
Moscardo, 2008; Waitt, 2008). Yet, although most
publications on the subject focus on what a festival
can do for a place, few go into what a place can do
for a festival.
Given that gap in knowledge, this paper elaborates on the reciprocal relationship between place
and festival. It queries both the effects of a festival
on a place and the effects of place on a festival. As a
case in point, it examines the North Sea Jazz Festival
(NSJF), which has been researched extensively for
this purpose, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
This festival was held every summer in The Hague
until 2006, when it moved permanently to Rotterdam.
The relocation provides an opportunity to investigate the extent to which festivals are important for a
place (according to local authorities) and whether
place really matters for a festival (according to the
festival’s organizers and visitors). The paper compares the perspectives of actors in these three stakeholder categories.
Before presenting the case study, two theoretical
sections reflect upon how festivals influence their
location and vice versa. After a brief history of the
NSJF and an overview of the research methods, the
focus narrows to the role and opinions of the stakeholders: city authorities; festival organizers; and
festival-goers. As the research findings will show,
these stakeholders have different mindsets regarding
the relationship between a festival and its location.
Festivals in culture-led urban
regeneration
Cities around the world have placed more emphasis
on policies for arts and culture over the past 20 years,
a shift that reflects the centrality of culture in
promoting an urban renaissance. Noting this trend,
many researchers have emphasized the role of consumption-based economic development in cities (for
example, Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993; Hall, 1999;
Judd and Fainstein, 1999; Miles and Paddison, 2005;
Smith and von Krogh Strand, 2011). The consumption of culture has been recognized as a
source of prosperity. In the arena of international
urban competitiveness, cities try to raise their profile by constructing cultural facilities and entertainment complexes or by organizing and hosting special
events and annual festivals (Van Aalst and Boogaarts,
2002; Herrero et al., 2006). Policy-makers tend to see
cultural industries as a source of new jobs. Indeed,
not only does culture enhance urban quality and
multi-functionality, it has also become a key economic sector in itself (Herrero et al., 2006). As various studies show (Hannigan, 1998; Judd and
Fainstein, 1999), cultural functions make an essential
contribution to the urban economy: ‘concentrations
of arts facilities did not only represent aesthetic amenities, they also raised property values and attracted
commercial development’ (Zukin, 1995: 117).
Festivals in particular give strong impetus to the
urban economy; they operate at the interface of art
and culture, the media, tourism and recreation.
Figuring prominently in the development and marketing plans of many cities, festivals are deemed to
foster a positive image as a destination (Schuster,
1995; Quinn, 2005; Getz, 2008; Johansson and
Kociatkiewicz, 2011). Some festivals have a long
history and, if defunct, have been rediscovered or reinvented. Others have been created, usually in response
to myriad social, political and economic realities
(Picard and Robinson, 2006: 2). Given their multiple
meanings and functions, then, it is no surprise that festivals have increased enormously in number, diversity
and popularity (Gursoy et al., 2004).
Several cities have invested in festivals as part of
an urban regeneration thrust and place-promotion
activities. Getz (1989) distilled some criteria to distinguish festivals from permanent cultural events:
their uniqueness, affordability and flexibility. What
are the distinguishing features of a festival? Most
are cyclical (annual or biennial) and transform an
urban place for a short period of time into a ‘festival
space’. They are of a transitory nature (Waterman,
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
197
Van Aalst and Van Melik
1998). Some cater for highly discerning tastes (such
as opera or jazz), whereas others serve more popular
interests. A festival can perform different functions
or roles, sometimes even simultaneously (Boogaarts,
1996). An analysis of the literature and existing
policies suggests that a festival can serve as a showcase, a creative destination and an attraction for
visitors. Here, these functions are used to construct
a tripartite typology to frame the role of festivals in
urban policy.
First, the festival can serve as a showcase for a
city and destinations can be branded by festivals
(Derrett, 2004). When connected to a certain location, a festival provides the city with a particular
image. For this reason, ‘many cities have seen in
festivals a sort of “quick fix” solution to their image
problems’ (Quinn, 2005: 932). Because of their limited duration, they are perceived as ‘fresh’ and special occasions. However, their impact is not always
as obvious as these entrepreneurial perspectives
might suggest. Although urban festivals rely on
place-differentiation and place-specific characteristics, they often offer similar and homogenized experiences (Waitt, 2008) and become ‘formulaic’
(Evans, 2001). Boyle (1997) noted the role of festivals in a re-imaging strategy and civic boosterism –
as a so-called Urban Propaganda Project. Other
urban scholars are critical of this role. Some express
concern that festivals and events amount to instruments of hegemonic power (Gotham, 2005) in
which ‘the façade of cultural redevelopment can be
seen as a carnival mask . . . leaving the social problems that lie behind the mask unseen and uncared
for’ (Harvey, 1989: 21).
Second, the festival can serve as a creative destination or a breeding ground for talent. Festivals
provide an opportunity for specialization and may
attract an audience with special tastes. Festivals can
have a specific focus: a unique artist (such as the
Salzburg Festival celebrating Mozart’s 250th birth
year in 2006); a specific period in history (like
medieval festivals in Italian cities); or a particular
topic or genre (for example jazz music). The specific focus of festivals attracts visitors who are
interested in such particular art forms. By and large,
these visitors do not mind travelling from afar (Frey,
2000). Big festivals can easily alternate popular
performers with new talent (Fuller, 1998). Altogether,
these conditions can turn festivals into meeting
places for creative people – the audience, the makers and the producers. In addition, festivals can
spark a renewal or reinforcement of the existing cultural infrastructure and boost other cultural developments within the city (Boogaarts, 1996). They
attract publicity and media attention, which puts a
city – and notably its cultural facilities and events –
in the spotlight for a short time. This attention might
subsequently foster the development of more breeding grounds for talent.
Third, festivals can be important attractions for
visitors and are usually closely connected to tourism
(for example, Getz, 1989; Frey, 2000). Tourists
account for a large proportion of the people who take
advantage of the arts, culture and entertainment
offerings. City tourism in general – and cultural
tourism in particular – is expected to be one of the
fastest-growing branches of industry (Judd and
Fainstein, 1999). Many festivals take place in summer, when the holidays normally trigger an influx
of tourists. Festivals can play a prominent role in
attracting these tourists and inducing them to spend
money in the local economy. By organizing a special
festival, a city distinguishes itself from other cities
as a tourist destination. Places of interest are not
simply locations; they have to be produced in ways
that enable certain tourist practices. That is, they
have to provide interesting places to go (Bærenholdt
and Haldrup, 2006: 209). The economic impact of a
festival on the host society goes beyond the organized activity (Hiller, 1995). People who do not
ordinarily seek out cultural facilities can be introduced to venues they might not otherwise have visited. For instance, some people might combine going
to the festival with visiting a museum. But combining the festival with an afternoon shopping would
also have a positive effect on the urban economy.
Owing to this multiplier effect, local governments are keen on attracting festivals, well aware
that doing so might have negative consequences.
The growing commercialism (for example, high
admission prices) could be a problem for local people and underpin a perception that the festival is
becoming inaccessible (Quinn, 2005). Indeed, local
politicians feel uneasy when a festival presents itself
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
198
European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2)
as elitist and they may pressure organizers to open up
these events to a wider audience. This is understandable when public scrutiny means that politicians
need to demonstrate a judicious use of public funds.
Nevertheless, when festival organizers respond and
attempt to ‘return’ the festival to the streets, they often
meet with local opposition, for example from police
concerned about public safety (Waterman, 1998).
The city as stage: place-bound and
placeless festivals
The influence of festivals on places is well documented, but little research has considered the importance of places for festivals. This is remarkable,
because festivals have a long-established association
with cities and sometimes become a vehicle for
expressing the close relationship between identity
and place (Quinn, 2005: 928–9). Over time, the festival and the host destination can become inextricably linked (Getz, 2008). It could be hypothesized
that long-standing, cyclical festivals are more successful than newer ones. Because festivals recur at
the same location, it is possible to build up a certain
reputation over the years. Moreover, when they are
successful over time, festivals can become central to
the host city’s identity (Gibson and Davidson, 2004).
By extension, the location of a festival might
influence its content, purpose and success. Placebound festivals, for example, include festivities
organized to honour a particular historical figure,
event or tradition unique to the location. As such,
festivals are generally connected with local culture
and demonstrate what a society believes to be its
essence; thus, it celebrates itself (Gursoy et al., 2004:
173). Place-bound festivals often involve collective
celebrations with diverse aims: building social cohesion by reinforcing ties within the community (Rao,
2001); learning about cultural traditions; celebrating
a collective sense of belonging to a place (Lorentzen,
2009); and drawing on shared histories and local cultural practices (Quinn, 2005). Place-bound festivals
thus offer tangible and intangible experiences that
connect people to places (Derrett, 2003).
However, the level of place dependency differs.
Although many well-known festivals are based in
major cities, some are not. MacLeod (2006) defines
these as ‘placeless’ festivals. This notion emphasizes
the disarticulation between communities and new
types of places – highly standardized and exchangeable – that makes them largely meaningless. This
loss of urban authenticity (also noted by Zukin,
2010) reduces the need for festivals to be located at
a certain place and makes them more footloose.
Ironically, using culture as a tool to achieve wider
economic and restructuring goals (that is, the instrumentalization of culture) has the effect of displacing
local distinctiveness, which in turn weakens the ties
between cultural production and consumption
(Griffiths, 2006). In other words, whereas festivals
are increasingly seen as important means for places
to stand out in inter-urban competition (see previous
section), the importance of places for festivals seems
to be becoming weaker.
Researching the North Sea Jazz
Festival
To investigate the importance of festivals for places,
and of places for festivals, we have examined the
NSJF in the Netherlands. The festival was first organized by its founding father Paul Acket in 1976,
when it attracted about 300 performers and 9000
visitors. From the outset, it was held in the
Netherlands Congress Centre (NCC) in The Hague
(see Table 1). Over the years, the festival became
renowned for the many musical genres it offers,
ranging from traditional New Orleans jazz, swing,
bop and jazz to blues, gospel, funk, soul, hip-hop,
world beat and Latin. The NSJF proved to be a success: it was awarded the title of ‘best Festival in
Europe’ by JazzTimes; it was listed Time Magazine’s
Top Ten Events of the World; and it received an
award from the International Association for Jazz
Education for its efforts to stimulate the development of jazz music. The success has led to the organization of spin-off festivals, including North Sea
Jazz Cape Town in South Africa (2004) and North
Sea Jazz Caribbean in Curaçao (2010). Acket died
in 1992, after which the organization of the festival
was transferred to Mojo Concerts. This company is
one of the biggest providers of concerts and events
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
199
Van Aalst and Van Melik
Table 1. Characteristics of the North Sea Jazz Festival
Factor
North Sea Jazz Festival
Year of origin
Schedule
Location
1976
3 days in mid-July
1976–2005: The Hague (Netherlands
Congress Centre)
Since 2006: Rotterdam (Ahoy’)
Organization
1976–1992: Paul Acket
Since 1992: Mojo Concerts
Performances
15 stages
200 performances
1500 performers
Attendance
23,500 per day
65,000–70,000 during entire festival
Admission price
€75 per day
(in 2009)
€179 3-day pass for entire festival
Municipal subsidies The Hague: €600,000 per year
Rotterdam: €500,000 per year
(10-year contract) Discount on rent
for Ahoy’
Budget
Unknown
in the Netherlands. In 2002, the company became
part of American Clear Channel Entertainment
(CCE). With 65 million visitors and 29,000 events
per year, CCE is the world leader in the production
and marketing of events.
July 2005 was the last time the NSJF was held in
The Hague. The direct impetus for relocating was
the sale of the nearly bankrupt NCC by the municipality of The Hague to a project developer, TCN, in
2002. The local government had committed itself to
arrange for the festival to remain in the NCC. This
turned out to be impossible when the developer
decided to demolish a major part of the conference
centre, including the large Statenhal where the festival had always taken place. Thus, the NCC could no
longer be the venue for the NSJF. Mojo first focused
on the possibilities of relocating within The Hague,
but the alternative sites (Malieveld, Zuiderpark)
offered by the municipality did not meet its expectations. Therefore, Mojo became interested in other
Dutch cities in the Randstad. Cities outside the conurbation were disregarded, as prior experience with
a jazz festival in Maastricht had shown that a less
central location did not attract enough visitors. Nor
Figure 1. Map of the Netherlands indicating the
location of The Hague and Rotterdam
was Amsterdam an option, owing to its complex
political structure with several administrative layers,
which formed a great obstacle. Mojo visited two
potential sites: the Jaarbeurs trade fair complex in
Utrecht – which was turned down because of its
enormous size and inappropriate logistics – and the
Ahoy’ concert hall in Rotterdam. Ultimately, Mojo
decided to move the NSJF from The Hague to
Rotterdam.
Both The Hague and Rotterdam are located in the
south-west of the Netherlands, only 20 kilometres
apart (see Figure 1). Although this distance might
seem negligible from a European or US perspective,
it does make a difference in the Netherlands.
Moreover, these two cities vary considerably in terms
of their historical character, dominant economic
function and urban policy. As for size, after
Amsterdam and Rotterdam, The Hague is the country’s third-biggest city, with nearly 490,000 inhabitants. Although Amsterdam is the capital, many
important institutions are located in The Hague,
including the national government, ministries,
embassies and the International Court of Justice.
Although not a university city, The Hague is home to
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
200
European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2)
many expats and large international companies.
Rotterdam is altogether different; it has about 590,000
inhabitants and is best known for its world-class seaport. A bombing raid during the Second World War
destroyed the historic core, and after reconstruction
Rotterdam had a modern centre unlike that of any
other old city in the country. In recent decades,
Rotterdam has worked hard on its image and wants to
present itself as an event city. It aims to attract visitors from the middle and upper classes to compensate
for the relatively low educational level and purchasing power of its resident population.
The relocation of the NSJF has been investigated
quantitatively by conducting two large-scale surveys
as well as qualitatively by interviewing the key
actors in the relocation process. The surveys were
held during the festival in July 2005 (in The Hague:
716 respondents) and July 2006 (in Rotterdam: 837
respondents). With more than 23,000 visitors a day,
it was impossible to approach everyone. The 2005
and 2006 surveys were conducted on all three festival days by about 20 pollsters spread equally over
the concert halls. They were instructed to approach
every fifth visitor to ensure a random sampling. Still,
the sample is not representative of the population of
The Hague or Rotterdam. Indeed, it could not be,
because the festival attracts many foreign visitors
from Germany, the United Kingdom and the United
States, among other countries. Table 2 presents the
characteristics of the 2005 and 2006 visitors alongside those attending previously (in 1995 and 2000).
It shows little variation, suggesting that the NSJF
attracts a typical jazz-loving audience, regardless of
where the festival is held.
Similar to Oakes’ observation (2003), the jazz
audience at the NSJF is predominantly male. The
average age fluctuates around 40 years, which is
rather high compared with other music events in the
Netherlands. The average age of people going to
dance parties is 26, to pop music concerts 33 and to
musicals 37 (SCP, 2005). Jazz music is said to have
a high cultural status, which might explain its attraction to relatively older people. In addition, visitors to
the NSJF often have a high level of education and an
income above the modal level (that is, more than
€30,000). The majority have a paid job. Again, the
high cultural status of jazz music might explain these
high figures. The relatively high price of admission
to the NSJF (see Table 1) could also discourage lowincome people from visiting the festival.
While the surveys were aimed at visitors to the
festival (the ‘demand’ side), semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the ‘supply’
side. The aim was to elicit the motives and objectives of the key actors involved in the organization
and relocation of the NSJF. For this purpose, interviews were held with the former director of the festival, a project manager of Rotterdam Festivals,
and two public sector representatives of The Hague
and Rotterdam. The interviews were recorded and
transcribed so that the results could be reread and
reinterpreted. The next two sections outline the relationship between the NSJF and its host city, first discussing to what extent the festival affects its location
and then how the location affects the NSJF.
The NSJF as showcase, creative
destination and tourist attraction
The interviews with key actors involved in the relocation reveal that the local governments of The
Hague and Rotterdam actively competed to host the
NSJF because they were convinced of its positive
spin-offs. Both cities used subsidies as weapons in
their battle to host the festival. The Hague had
always subsidized the NSJF to the amount of
€600,000 per year. Yet Rotterdam’s municipal council made an offer that was hard to refuse. Although
the subsidy was seemingly less (€500,000 per year),
it appeared more attractive because Mojo received
an additional ‘veiled’ subsidy in the form of a discount on the rent for Ahoy’. The local government of
The Hague is convinced that the offers were decisive
in the relocation process:
‘Festival organizers look for profit maximizing; if they
can get more subsidy elsewhere, they leave.’ (Alderman
for economic affairs, of The Hague, 2006)
The relocation may be attributed to the swift and
persuasive negotiations between Rotterdam’s local
government and the director of Ahoy’. The director
of Ahoy’ seemed highly motivated to attract the
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
201
Van Aalst and Van Melik
Table 2. Characteristics of NSJF visitors in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2006
Age (years, average)
Gender (percent)
Male
Female
Level of education (percent)
Low
Middle
High
Employment status (percent)
Student
Employed
Unemployed/retired
Level of income (percent)
Below €30,000
€30,000 or more
Residence (percent)
The Netherlands
Europe (excl. NL)
Outside Europe
Number of prior NSJF visits (percent)
None (‘newcomers’)
One to four
More than four (‘regulars’)
Number of days at NSJF (percent)
One
Two
Three
Main reason to visit NSJF (percent)
Music in general
Atmosphere
Specific performer/band
Specific music style
Meeting people
Other
1995
The Hague
n = 706
2000
The Hague
n = 656
2005
The Hague
n = 716
2006
Rotterdam
n = 837
36
39
41
41
69.2
30.8
59.5
40.5
62.7
37.3
3.2
33.9
62.9
3.1
31.6
61.7
6.5
31.2
61.9
11.8
81.7
6.5
12.1
78.1
7.0
9.3
83.2
5.5
12.2
65.8
28.0
50.2
27.9
52.4
80.1
20.3
5.7
76.7
15.8
7.6
77.6
15.4
7.1
31.5
31.0
37.5
29.3
34.4
36.1
25.0
31.7
42.9
60.1
15.6
24.3
52.6
14.8
32.1
47.2
12.2
40.6
60.9
15.3
13.4
9.9
0.5
0.0
47.2
23.4
13.4
9.3
1.0
5.8
51.5
20.7
6.3
8.9
1.9
10.7
61.8
38.2
3.2
18.1
78.2
10.2
81.7
6.1
32.5
50.6
81.3
13.8
4.9
23.8
35.7
40.5
51.1
9.8
39.0
62.7
15.0
7.5
2.8
0.6
10.9
Notes: source for 1995 data – De Vries (1995); source for 2000 data – NSJF organization (2000).
NSJF. Ahoy’ and Mojo were already doing business,
since a number of events organized by Mojo were
being hosted there. Ahoy’s director soon introduced
Mojo to Rotterdam’s mayor and the alderman for
economic affairs. They acted decisively and made it
very clear to the NSJF director that they wanted to
host the festival in Rotterdam:
‘When I was in the alderman’s office, he had a budget in
front of him, and told us that it didn’t have a single weak
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
202
European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2)
spot, and then asked when we would sign. That slightly
frightened me; that was really quick. It shows that you
have to act fast in this kind of business, and Rotterdam
is simply good at doing that.’ (NSJF director, 2006)
questionable and difficult to measure. The visitors
were mainly confined to the festival site itself rather
than spreading through the whole city. As a result,
the economic spin-off was limited:
Rotterdam’s local authorities were keen on
attracting the NSJF because it fitted well within the
leisure and festival policy that they had developed to
regulate the proliferation of cultural festivals and
sporting events. The trigger for this policy was the
rather disappointing celebration of the city’s 650th
anniversary in 1990. The events that had been organized were not well received. Consequently, the
local government decided to establish an external
agency that would be responsible for developing an
event policy. A relatively autonomous foundation –
Stichting Rotterdam Festivals – was set up in 1993.
Through this foundation, the city wanted to subsidize and coordinate diverse events in the busy summer season. Since then, about 20 small-scale events
are held in the summertime, all facilitated by
Rotterdam Festivals under the auspices of the local
government, mostly to encourage social interaction
and cohesion. Large-scale happenings that serve an
economic and promotional goal also occur in the city
but are not organized by Rotterdam Festivals. These
big events ‘sell’ themselves and are to a large extent
financed by sponsoring; these include Batavia City
Racing, the Volvo Ocean Race and the Red Bull Air
Race. By hosting the NSJF, Rotterdam hoped to polish its historic image as a jazz city and to generate
revenue from the festival visitors.
This presumed economic impact of the NSJF is
debatable. Each year, the festival attracts about
70,000 visitors in three days (see Table 1). Research
conducted in 2002 has shown that 18,000 people visited music events held prior to the festival and 15,000
people visited the free performances that took place
on outdoor stages and in cafés in The Hague’s city
centre. In addition, the festival generated about
20,000 overnight stays and over €9.6 million in revenues. The festival also led to an increase in parttime jobs (ZKA Consultants and Planners, 2003).
Nevertheless, the alderman for economic affairs of
The Hague is not convinced of the positive spin-offs
of the NSJF, stating that, although the festival was
important for the city, its economic value was
‘The junior speed skating championships have resulted
in more overnight stays than the NSJF has ever done.’
(Alderman for economic affairs of The Hague, 2006)
This bitter conclusion, which was drawn after the
festival left the city, is typical of The Hague’s critical
stance on the process leading up to the relocation. The
city blamed both Mojo and Rotterdam – the former for
making unrealistic demands regarding the size of the
accommodation and the amount of subsidy, the latter
for luring the festival away without involving The
Hague in the negotiations. City officials in Rotterdam
retorted that The Hague has only itself to blame.
The 2006 survey results reveal that two-thirds of
the NSJF visitors spent the night at home or with
friends or family. Only 19 percent stayed in a hotel in
Rotterdam. The alderman of The Hague might thus
be right in claiming that the NSJF does not result in
many overnight stays. Nevertheless, the festival
undoubtedly serves as a showcase for the host city. Its
presence in Rotterdam confirms the city’s reputation
as an event and jazz city. According to the survey
held in 2005 (the last time the event was staged in
The Hague), 75 percent of the respondents believed
that the NSJF would have positive effects on
Rotterdam’s image in the future. A year later, during
its first staging in Rotterdam, the optimism was even
greater (85 percent). The line-up of well-known performers and new talent suggests that the festival also
serves as a creative destination or breeding ground
for talent. This mission is emphasized on the organization’s website: ‘This is what makes North Sea Jazz
so unique – a festival where for three days the past,
the present and the future of jazz music are presented,
all under one roof’ (http://www.northseajazz.com).
Rotterdam has tried to embed the festival in its
local economy by developing a programme called
North Sea Round Town. The NSJF’s venue, Ahoy’,
is located outside the city centre. To make sure that
local entrepreneurs, other cultural institutions and
the city’s inhabitants would also benefit from the
festival, Rotterdam Festivals Foundation decided to
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
203
Van Aalst and Van Melik
support several events (on 10 outdoor stages and at
60 different sites throughout the city). The roster
included a jazz and cinema festival, a summer
school, a photo exhibition, warm-up concerts and
young talent concerts. Many of these side-events
were free of charge. Local entrepreneurs took the
initiative to organize Round Town and their efforts
were sponsored by the local government, which has
set aside €50,000 per year for this purpose. Mojo
supported Round Town by offering its expertise but
was not involved in the organization.
The main aim of Round Town was to attract local
inhabitants to the NSJF and to induce non-locals to
combine their visit to the festival with other activities and thereby bring in extra revenue for the city.
However, research on other festivals has shown that
the underlying assumption may be false: many nonlocal festival-goers return home immediately afterwards (Saleh and Ryan, 1993). This is also true of
the NSJF audience. The 2006 survey shows that
nearly 80 percent did not visit any other places in
Rotterdam before or after the festival. Combination
visits mainly included going to a restaurant or café
(28.4 percent), shops (16.4 percent) and tourist
attractions (13.2 percent). Only 3 percent of all
respondents visited Round Town. Nevertheless,
Round Town was considered a success. Many people attended the events, but these were mainly citizens of Rotterdam rather than festival-goers. The
NSJF thus draws two kinds of audience: the more
elitist visitor to the festival in Ahoy’ (mostly male,
middle aged, higher educated, and employed) and
local citizens taking in the side-events in the city
centre. Round Town is thus successful in ‘returning’
the festival to the streets: local authorities devote
public funds (in this case subsidies) to events that
attract a limited audience but, compensating for
this, offer free events that serve a broader public.
The NSJF and the importance of its
location
What the discussion above illustrates is that cities
actively compete for festivals because they are
convinced of the importance of a festival for their
city. But is their city also important to the festival?
The NSJF attracts a very loyal audience who will
keep going to the festival regardless of whether it is
being held in The Hague or Rotterdam. In 2006,
more than 75 percent of the audience consisted of
returning visitors; and over 40 percent had visited
the festival more than four times and can thus be
regarded as ‘regulars’ (see Table 2). It appears that
the relocation of the festival did not affect their
attendance. At the same time, there was a steady
stream of ‘newcomers’: 23.8 percent of the respondents attended the festival for the first time in 2006.
The share of newcomers was similar to that in 2005,
yet their origin differs considerably. Focusing on the
Randstad, the share of visitors from Amsterdam and
Utrecht has hardly changed, whereas there are large
differences in the visitors coming from The Hague
and Rotterdam. During the final festival in The
Hague, more than half of the Randstad visitors came
from The Hague. After the relocation to Rotterdam
in 2006, only 24 percent came from The Hague,
while the share from Rotterdam increased from 13 to
34 percent. The place of a festival can thus be important in attracting visitors, but this applies mostly to
newcomers rather than to regulars.
Many of the visitors in 2005 were sceptical about
the impending move to Rotterdam. Nearly half of the
respondents did not regard Ahoy’ as a suitable venue
for the NSJF. A similar-sized group agreed with the
statement that the emotional tie between the festival
and The Hague would hamper the festival’s success
in Rotterdam. For these visitors, place is important
for a festival. Nevertheless, the majority (56 percent)
indicated they were planning to visit the festival
again in Rotterdam. By the next year, at the 2006
festival in Rotterdam, the scepticism had largely disappeared: the share of people who did not regard
Ahoy’ as a good venue decreased from 46 percent to
only 7 percent. For 43 percent, the NSJF had
remained the same despite the move. Both in 2005
and in 2006, about 50 percent of the respondents
regarded the location of the NSJF as a less decisive
factor than its programming. These visitors were
attracted by the music rather than by any particular
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
204
European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2)
location. The Rotterdam Festivals Foundation had
expected this attitude:
‘I think the people have to get used to Rotterdam as
host city, but I don’t think the relocation will lead to a
decrease in visitors. After all, it is the programming
that attracts the visitor rather than the location.’ (Project
manager, Rotterdam Festivals, 2006).
The organizers of the NSJF share the visitors’ opinion, though not entirely. Obviously, place does matter
for the NSJF: it should be held at a central location (to
be able to attract enough visitors) with adequate space
(to accommodate 15 stages, 1500 performers and
70,000 visitors) and preferably a lucrative festival policy (including subsidies). However, the NSJF did not
relocate from The Hague to Rotterdam simply because
the latter would be better suited to the festival. On the
contrary, closely connecting the NSJF to Rotterdam
was not the organization’s main aim:
‘If people are in Rotterdam in Ahoy’, they should not
have the feeling they are actually in Ahoy’ but at NSJF,
and we need to achieve that by decor, catering, etc.’
(NSJF director, 2006)
For the organizers, location thus seems to be
moderately important to the success of a festival.
Instead of putting the emphasis on place, they give
priority to creating an atmosphere that is typical of
the festival, regardless of where it is held.
Conclusions
The relocation of the NSJF is illustrative of the
increasing inter-urban competition for large-scale
events. But to what extent does place really matter
for this festival, its visitors and its host city? The
research results indicate that local authorities are
convinced of the positive relationship between festivals and the city. Representatives of both The Hague
and Rotterdam regarded the NSJF as an important
urban showcase. Rotterdam managed to attract the
jazz festival by offering the organizer, Mojo
Concerts, an attractive building, a trustworthy and
comprehensive festival policy and an appealing
subsidy. With a guaranteed 10-year subsidy for the
NSJF, the city appears to have been successful in
attracting and retaining the event. The NSJF now
figures prominently in the marketing of Rotterdam.
Tellingly, the city authorities are trying to embed the
festival within the North Sea Round Town programme. Not only does the joint programming offer
inhabitants and visitors alike free jazz events all
around town but it also reinforces Rotterdam’s image
as a jazz city while boosting other cultural facilities
and jazz clubs.
Place seems to be less important to both the visitors and the festival organizers than to the authorities. At first glance, the NSJF seems to be successful
in Rotterdam: the number of visitors has largely
remained the same, indicating that a substantial part
of the audience has moved with the NSJF from The
Hague to Rotterdam. However, these people tend to
stay at the festival site and do not venture into other
parts of the city. They are attracted by the festival
itself (the programme, the musicians, the setting and
the atmosphere) rather than by the characteristics of
its venue. As long as the festival is located centrally
in the country (that is, in the Randstad rather than on
the country’s periphery), its location does not seem
to make a difference to the visitors. The link with
Rotterdam is not overt at the festival site, since the
organizers have tried to keep the atmosphere as similar as possible. The decor and catering, for example, are the same as they were in The Hague. The
NSJF is global in appearance, not really grounded in
local identity, and therefore more or less placeless.
It is a destination in itself. Prentice and Andersen
believe that this character is part of the ‘experience
of gregariousness’ which may ultimately ‘be independent of any specific place or location . . . it is
place-nonspecific’ (2003: 12–13). Other researchers
too have shown that festival visitors are attracted by
the quality of a festival’s programming rather than
by its location (Crompton and McKay, 1997).
Consequently, festivals such as the NSJF might be
increasingly footloose or ‘on the move’.
This risk is particularly high when the initiators
retreat or die, like the NSJF’s founder Paul Acket,
and multinational corporations like Mojo (CCE)
take over. These big players on the music scene are
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
205
Van Aalst and Van Melik
not as attached to a place as the initial founders were.
Therefore, the location of a festival might come to
depend on corporate decisions rather than on a
founder’s tie to a particular place, a convincing festival policy or a city’s unique characteristics. In the
case of the NSJF, the decision to relocate to
Rotterdam was to a large extent inspired by Mojo’s
previous experience in organizing concerts in Ahoy’
rather than by Rotterdam’s festival policy or image.
The NSJF case is illustrative of how commercial
interests can take over a festival. This corresponds to
the wider situation in the cultural realm, where art,
music and sport have been commandeered by marketing agencies and managers and have been transformed from arts and culture into arts and culture
industries (Waterman, 1998).
The level of ‘place dependency’ thus differs not
only among festivals, as stated in the introduction,
but also according to the main actors. The festival’s
organizers and its visitors are less convinced than the
host cities of the importance of a specific location to
a festival. In their view, the destination is the festival, not the city. This does not imply that the local
authorities are naive about the benefits of bringing
festivals to their city. Like Saleh and Ryan (1993),
we found that the NSJF attracts many ‘out-of-region’
visitors who are primarily interested in the festival
itself and not in extending their visit beyond the festival. Yet, even if people come to the NSJF rather
than to Rotterdam and stay at the festival site, they
will still be visiting the city and becoming acquainted
with it. Festivals might become more footloose and
less place dependent, but this does not imply that
they no longer have a connection to the host city.
Even footloose festivals such as the NSJF use the
cultural facilities and public spaces of a particular
city and – as such – are re-embedded in the local
infrastructure after relocation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to our Master’s
students Richard Buijtendijk, Rudo Verhoef, Arjan
Broekstra and Taco Kreeftenberg, our former colleague
Inez Boogaarts, all respondents, and the anonymous
reviewers.
References
Bærenholdt J and Haldrup M (2006) Mobile networks and
place making in cultural tourism: Staging Viking ships
and rock music in Roskilde. European Urban and
Regional Studies 13: 209–224.
Bianchini F and Parkinson M (eds) (1993) Cultural Policy
and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience. Manchester: University Press.
Boogaarts I (1992) Food, fun en festivals: De festivalisering van de stad. In: Burgers J (ed.) De uitstad: over
stedelijk vermaak. Utrecht: Jan van Arkel.
Boogaarts I (1996) Festivalisering van de stad: Het cultuurfestival als middel ter verlevendiging van het openbare leven. Idee 17: 14–16.
Boyle M (1997) Civic boosterism in the politics of local
economic development: ‘Institutional positions’ and
‘strategic orientations’ in the consumption of hallmark
events. Environment and Planning A 29: 1975–1997.
Crompton J and McKay S (1997) Motives of visitors
attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research
24: 425–439.
Derrett R (2003) Making sense of how festivals demonstrate a community’s sense of place. Event Management 8: 49–58.
Derrett R (2004) Festival, events and the destination. In:
Yeoman Y, Robertson M, Ali-Knight J, Drummond
S and McMahon-Beattie U (eds) Festival and Events
Management: An International Arts and Culture Perspective. London: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann,
32–51.
De Vries M (1995) Cultureel kapitaal en jazz: Publieksonderzoek North Sea Jazz 1995. Rotterdam: Erasmus
University Rotterdam.
Evans G (2001) Cultural Planning: An Urban Renaissance? London: Routledge.
Frey B (2000) The rise and fall of festivals: Reflections on
the Salzburg Festival. Working Paper No. 48. Institute
for Empirical Research in Economics, Zurich.
Fuller C (1998) Travelling jazz: Labels set up marketing
through European festivals. Billboard 110: 44–46.
Getz D (1989) Special events: Defining the product. Tourism Management 10: 125–137.
Getz D (2008) Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and
research. Tourism Management 29: 403–428.
Gibson C and Davidson D (2004) Tamworth, Australia’s
‘country music capital’: Place marketing, rurality, and
resident reactions. Journal of Rural Studies 20: 387–404.
Gotham K (2005) Theorizing urban spectacles: Festivals,
tourism and the transformation of urban space. City 9:
225–246.
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
206
European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2)
Griffiths R (2006) City/culture discourses: Evidence from
the competition to select the European capital of culture 2008. European Planning Studies 14: 415–430.
Gursoy D, Kim K and Uysal M (2004) Perceived impacts
of festivals and special events by organizers: An
extension and validation. Tourism Management 25:
171–181.
Hall P (1999) The future of cities. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 23: 173–185.
Hannigan J (1998) Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in
the Postmodern Metropolis. London: Routledge.
Harvey D (1989) Down towns. Marxism Today 33: 21.
Herrero L, Sanz J, Devesa M, Bedate A and del Barrio
M (2006) The economic impact of cultural events: A
case-study of Salamanca 2002, European capital of
culture. European Urban and Regional Studies 13:
41–57.
Hiller H (1995) Conventions as mega-events: A new
model for convention–host city relationships. Tourism
Management 16: 375–379.
Hiller H (2000) Mega-events, urban boosterism and growth
strategies: An analysis of the objectives and legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic bid. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24: 439–459.
Johansson M and Kociatkiewicz J (2011) City festivals:
Creativity and control in staged urban experiences.
European Urban and Regional Studies 18: 392–405.
Judd D and Fainstein S (eds) (1999) The Tourist City. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lorentzen A (2009) Cities in the experience economy.
European Planning Studies 17: 829–845.
MacLeod N (2006) The placeless festival: Identity and
place in the post-modern festival. In: Picard D and
Robinson M (eds) Festivals, Tourism and Social
Change: Remaking Worlds. Clevedon: Channel View
Publications, 222–237.
Miles S and Paddison R (2005) Introduction: The rise and
rise of culture-led urban regeneration. Urban Studies
42: 833–839.
Moscardo G (2008) Analyzing the role of festivals and
events in regional development. Event Management
11: 23–32.
NSJF organization (2000) Publieksonderzoek North Sea
Jazz Festival 2000. Delft: NSJF.
Oakes S (2003) Demographic and sponsorship considerations for jazz and classical music festivals. The Services Industries Journal 23: 165–178.
Picard D and Robinson M (eds) (2006) Festivals, Tourism and Social Change: Remaking Worlds. Clevedon:
Channel View Publications.
Prentice R and Andersen V (2003) Festival as creative
destination. Annals of Tourism Research 30: 7–30.
Quinn B (2005) Arts festivals and the city. Urban Studies
42: 927–943.
Rao V (2001) Celebrations as social investments: Festival
expenditures, unit price variation and social status in
rural India. Journal of Development Studies 38: 71–97.
Robinson M, Picard D and Long P (2004) Festival tourism: Producing, translating and consuming expressions of culture(s). Event Management 8: 197–189.
Saayman M and Saayman A (2006) Does the location of
arts festivals matter for the economic impact? Papers
in Regional Science 85: 569–584.
Saleh F and Ryan C (1993) Jazz and knitwear: Factors that
attract tourists to festivals. Tourism Management 14:
289–297.
Schuster J (1995) Two urban festivals: La Mercè and
First Night. Planning Practice and Research 10:
173–188.
SCP (2005) Het actieplan cultuurbereik en cultuurdeelname, 1999–2003. The Hague: Social and Cultural
Planning Office.
Smith A and von Krogh Strand I (2011) Oslo’s new Opera
House: Cultural flagship, regeneration tool or destination icon? European Urban and Regional Studies 18:
93–110.
Thrane C (2002) Jazz festival visitors and their expenditures: Linking spending patterns to musical interest.
Journal of Travel Research 40: 281–286.
Van Aalst I and Boogaarts I (2002) From museum to mass
entertainment: The evolution of the role of museums
in cities. European Urban and Regional Studies 9:
195–209.
Waitt G (2008) Urban festivals: Geographies of hype, helplessness and hope. Geography Compass 2: 513–537.
Waterman S (1998) Carnival for élites? The cultural politics of arts festivals. Progress in Human Geography
22: 54–74.
ZKA Consultants and Planners (2003) Economische
betekenis North Sea Jazz Festival 2002. Breda: ZKA.
Zukin S (1995) The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Zukin S (2010) Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York: Oxford University Press.
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016