European Planning Studies Vol. 19, No.

5, May 2011

Alternative Initiatives, Cultural

Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration:
the Case of La Friche (Marseille)

LAUREN ANDRES
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

(Received June 2009; accepted April 2010)

ABSTRACT This paper discusses the role played by the cultural regeneration of a tobacco factory
known as La Friche in the urban renaissance of Marseille. It builds an analytical framework to
decrypt the extent to which the network and strategy building, the mobilization capacity and the
project-making ability was developed in the two main episodes of governance by the cultural
intermediaries Système Friche Théâtre (the collective in charge of the cultural initiative). This
led to the rise of La Friche as one of the key cultural facilities in Marseille within the project
Euroméditerranée and in the successful application to the 2013 European Capital of Culture
schemes highlighting the sustainable development of this initiative initially supposed to be
temporary.

Culture as a part of urban regeneration schemes has played a significant role in urban
renewal and planning practices since the 1970s and the 1980s in the United States and
from the 1980s and the 1990s in mainland Europe. Boston, San Francisco, Bilbao,
Lille, Barcelona or Birmingham, for example, have undergone and are still undergoing
regeneration programmes in which cultural projects are a key component of economic
and urban strategies.
On the one hand, the relationship between cultural activities, projects and policies is no
more a unique research case: numerous analyses have underlined the importance of culture
as a major output for city renaissance (Hall, 2000; Evans, 2001; Aitchison & Evans, 2003;
Garcia, 2004; Miles & Paddison, 2005; Aitchison et al., 2007). The outputs related to cul-
tural projects and policies have led to major and diverse actions in the field of cultural
planning (Bianchini & Parkinson, 1993; Landry & Bianchini, 1995; Evans, 2001). Simi-
larly, traditional cultural facilities (museums or concert halls, for example) as a component
of both cultural and tourism-led regeneration have also often been decrypted as a key facet

Correspondence Address: Lauren Andres, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. Email: L.Andres@Bham.ac.uk

ISSN 0965-4313 Print/ISSN 1469-5944 Online/11/050795–17 # 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2011.561037
796 L. Andres

of the regeneration of the post-industrial city (Judd, 1994; Holcomb, 1999; Judd &
Fainstein, 1999; Law, 2000; Jones & Evans, 2008; Tallon, 2010).
On the other hand, the way artists and cultural actors have invested in industrial districts
thanks to cheap rents and flexible buildings has also been underlined in numerous research.
From the work of Zukin (1989, 1995) on loft living in the Soho district of Manhattan
(New York), to the work of Ley (1986, 1996, 2003) or that of Cameron and Coaffee
(2005) on the arts-led regeneration strategy adopted in Gateshead (Newcastle), the role
of artists in urban regeneration and as pioneers of a potential gentrification has been
analyzed.
The aim of this paper is both to combine fields of research and to examine the trajectory
of transformation of “La Friche”, a cultural project developed in a derelict tobacco factory
in Marseille from 1991. Particular attention is given to derelict spaces and particularly to
their “watching” and “redevelopment” stages during which cultural actors (and artists)
have a central but substantively transient role. Often cultural uses on brownfields last
only a couple of years and are quickly replaced by other activities or projects. Neverthe-
less, the modification of their status and relations with decision-makers in the governance
process, in other words in the modes and practices of the mobilization and organization of
collective action (Cars et al., 2002 in Coaffee & Healey, 2003), can lead to the perpetu-
ation and transformation of these initiatives. In this context, this paper seeks to decrypt
the role of the cultural actors (Système Friche Théâtre) who organically developed this
temporary initiative on a brownfield site which quickly became a key part of the overall
regeneration strategy of Marseille. Its purpose is therefore to explore the extent to
which the network and strategy building, the mobilization capacity and the project-
making ability developed in the different episodes of governance of the cultural initiative
led to the rise of La Friche as one of the key cultural facility in the city, and a pillar in the
success of the application of Marseille to become the 2013 European Capital of Culture.
After reviewing the literature on culture and brownfield regeneration, the paper will
present the methodology of research and the analytical framework utilized as well as
the case studies of Marseille and La Friche. The role of Système Friche Théâtre within
the different episodes of governance will then be assessed in order to analyse the trans-
formation of La Friche from a peripheral to a strategic project. Finally, the benefits and
constraints of mainstreaming alternative culture for urban renaissance will be discussed.

1. Culture, Brownfields and Urban Regeneration

Culture and urban regeneration have been intrinsically linked since the 1970s. Within
mixed-use projects gathering office, commercial, leisure and housing developments, cul-
tural facilities have been an economic and symbolic driving force in the transformation of
industrial and port cities enabling urban authorities to break their physical decline (Bian-
chini, 1997; Garcia, 2004). Cultural facilities have been used as a catalyst for the rise of a
new competitive and entrepreneurial city, mainly rebuilt within its central areas. As Miles
and Paddison (2005, p. 283) noted “the idea that culture can be employed as a driver for
urban economic growth has become part of the new orthodoxy by which cities seek to
enhance their competitive position”.
Cultural regeneration has been a key part of the strategies of “reimageenering” (Paddin-
son, 1993), which aims to transform the image of many old declining cities to modern and
competitive metropolises. As part of these strategies of “reimageenering” and promotion
 Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration 797

of a leisure and cultural economy, traditional cultural facilities have played a key role: the
Guggenheim in Bilbao, the Tate Modern London, the International Maritime Museum as
well as the Elbphilharmonie Concert Hall in Hamburg or the Symphony Hall in Birming-
ham. In addition, the application and organization of specific events, such as annual Euro-
pean Capital of Culture (ECOC) (formally City of Culture), emphasizes the prominent role
given to culture. For example, since 1985, the ECOC scheme has supported cultural regen-
eration in a variety of industrial and post-industrial cities (e.g. Glasgow, Lille, Rotterdam,
Liverpool) as well as reinforcing the status of prestigious European cultural centres (Flor-
ence, Paris, Madrid, Avignon, Geneva, for example) (Garcia, 2004; Tallon, 2010).
In addition to these traditional cultural facilities and events, singular cultural uses and
spaces, organically developed and taking place in derelict areas, have also participated in
cultural regeneration in a medium or more long-term perspective. As disconnected urban
spaces, they offer strategic opportunities for cultural actors and artists to settle at a very
cheap price and develop their activities prior to any regeneration programme. Various defi-
nitions have been given to these alternative spaces highlighting their diversity and their
capacity to welcome numerous uses and users. For example, in their expression
“indeterminate spaces”, Groth and Corjin (2005, p. 503) have insisted on their temporal
discontinuities

left out of time and place with regard to their urban surroundings.(. . .) The unclear
and undetermined status of these urban no-man’s-lands may allow for the emergence
of a non-planned, spontaneous urbanity

The term free zone (Urban Unlimited, 2004) has also been used to describe such derelict
spaces highlighting their use for cultural and artistic uses: “Freezones are associated with a
‘non-conformism’ which strives to assert its own right to exist as well as contributing to
metropolitan life” (p. 12). This idea is also used by Haydn and Temel (2006) in their notion
of temporary urban spaces acknowledging the capacity of these areas to promote interim
uses. They note that even if these areas are seen “as a provisional measure rather than as a
permanent solution” they can be used to demonstrate “a concept’s success in order to con-
vince an investor that the chosen use could also provide a permanent solution” (p. 39). All
these authors agree that these spaces welcome mainly cultural actors (artists) and, to a
lesser extent, economic actors. However, they do use different expressions to qualify
them: “cultural entrepreneurs” (Leadbeater & Oakley, 1999), “culturepreneurs” (Lange,
2006), “informal actors” (Growth & Corijn, 2005), “space pioneers” (Overmeyer, 2007)
or “temporary users” (Haydn & Temel, 2006).

2. Analytical Framework and Methodology

One of the arguments of this paper is that these disconnected urban spaces are “permiss-
ive” and are submitted to a multi-step process of transformation (Andres, 2008) correlating
to three distinct “episodes of governance” (Coaffee & Healey, 2003). The first stage is a
crisis-era which progressively leads to the closure of a factory and the second phase is a
waiting and/or watching period prior to redevelopment during which derelict lands com-
monly get marginalized. Sometimes however, during the watching stage, disconnected
urban spaces are submitted to singular new uses led by cultural or non-cultural actors;
as “temporary urban spaces”, they gather alternative, sometimes innovative, artistic
798 L. Andres

experiences. This stage ends when a project of redevelopment begins raising question
about the future of these initiatives. The way cultural spaces are going to evolve relies
on the relations between decision-makers and cultural actors; the extent to which these
actors will acquire some influence and power will impact the sustainable (or non-sustain-
able) development of the initiative in the process of area redevelopment.
This paper will pay particular attention to the two last stages of the transformation of
urban brownfields. It will explore how the network and strategy building, the mobilization
capacity and the project-making ability developed in the related episodes of governance
have become key conditions in explaining how cultural actors challenge urban authorities
in their strategies of urban regeneration. For this purpose, an analytical framework is
developed in this paper.
This framework is built on the one hand on the work of Coaffee and Healey (2003) on
the role of area governance initiatives influencing mainstream governance discourses and
practices. According to these two authors, governance transformation needs to be under-
stood within three specific levels, one of which being the governance process highlighting
“power relations embedded in organized institutional and deliberately manipulated by
strategic actors”. This paper adopts the same prospect of analysis as Coaffee and
Healey (2003) in focusing on the level of governance processes and questioning how
the alternative experience of La Friche has challenged organized institutional practices
and changed the mainstream of discourse on alternative culture. In addition, it is also
going to decrypt how this innovative initiative (never experienced before in France) has
sought to sustain its existence through modifying the power relations between key
actors, specifically giving cultural intermediaries a major role in the governance process.
On the other hand, this framework rests on the work of Williams (2002), who, taking
into account the various definitions and uses of the notion of “boundary spanners” as
“key agents managing within inter-organizational theatres” (Williams, 2002, p. 103),
offers an in-depth profiling of their key characteristics: their networking skills; their entre-
preneur and innovator status; their ability to engage with others and to be trusted; their
character and the personality of key persons within these groups/communities; as well
as their capacity to engage themselves to others as leaders. These characteristics offer
interesting criteria to assess the role of cultural intermediaries such as Système Friche
Théâtre within wider governance and regeneration in Marseille. In order to access the
role of these cultural intermediaries, Table 1 identifies the criteria used to assess the net-
works, coalitions and engagement of the cultural intermediaries, their selection process,
their personalities, their strategies and discourses and finally their practices.
The main results presented in this paper relate to two stages of research including the col-
lection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data (academic papers, reports,
planning guidance as well as interviews). From June 2005 to June 2006, a first set of 30 inter-
views and fieldwork was conducted in Marseille both with representatives from the City
Council, the EPAEM (Etablissement Public d’Aménagement Euroméditerranée) and cul-
tural actors (including 10 actors of La Friche). These first results and data have been
updated and completed in a second phase of research from September 2008 to March 2010.

3. Presentation of the Case Study of Marseille and La Friche

Marseille can be compared to an old industrial crisis city whose traditional local economy
was concentrated on port activities and processing industries, in a similar way as Bilbao,
 Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration 799

Table 1. The transformation of governance processes adapted from Coaffee and Healey
(2003) and Williams (2002).
Dimensions of governance Assessment criteria

Network, coalitions and engagement † Connection to mainstream political and cultural

local, regional, national networks
† Engagement towards the others (users and
beneficiaries) including population and medias
† Agreement based on win –win interests
Stakeholder selection processes † Selection of the key players involved in the
development of the project
† Selection of key players as representatives of key
interest
Personality: selection of key players as † Character, skills, visibility and renown at different
representatives and leaders levels
Strategies/discourses: framing issues, † Ability of formulating ideas and projects
problems, solutions, interests † Strong experience in marketing the place
† Knowledge resources
† Selective and negotiated issues/conflicts over
priorities recognized
Practices: routines and repertoires Accessible, innovative, entrepreneurial, integrative
practices

Liverpool or Genoa. These activities started to suffer from decline in the 1950s. Simul-
taneously, Marseille was affected by a demographic crisis: its population decreased as
middle and upper class families left the city for surrounding suburbs and towns. Peak dein-
dustrialization in the 1970s reinforced economic recession, unemployment and depopula-
tion, which had disastrous consequences on the image of the city: in this era, Marseille was
perceived as an old industrial declining city that was dangerous, insecure, dirty place with
no jobs (Verges & Jacquemoud, 2000). The central core of the city suffered from severe
degradation and social impoverishment and thus industrial brownfields and underused
derelict areas became part of the urban landscape (Donzel, 1998; Dubois & Olive, 2004).
The consequences of these events were even more severe if the situation of Marseille
was compared to the economic and demographic growth experienced by cities located
not more than 20 miles north (for example Aix en Provence) (Motte, 2003). Between
1982 and 1990, Marseille lost 6.7 percent of its population (273,360 inhabitants)
(Motte, 2003). Compared to Lyon or Paris, in the 1970s and 1980s, Marseille did not
manage to overcome its post-industrial transition through tertiary and touristic activities.
During this period, most developers refused to launch any projects in the city due to an
unattractive market in term of housing and office units. Entering the 1990s, regenerating
the city was thus a key priority in order to promote a new economic and demographic
growth.
The regeneration of Marseille became a major project for local and national planning
and political actors in the early 1990s. Competitors such as Barcelona and Bilbao had
already launched several projects to better balance their major urban, social and economic
disequilibrium, it was seen as urgent for Marseille to try to compete with these Mediter-
ranean cities. In 1995, Euroméditerranée was launched and a specific public planning
agency created: the Etablissement Public d’Aménagement Euroméditerranée (EPAEM).
800 L. Andres

The EPAEM relied on a strong partnership and related financial investments between the
French state and local governing authorities (especially the municipality of Marseille even
though the Region and the Department, initially sceptical about the project, got also
engaged). Local economic actors and the Port Authorities (Port Autonome de Marseille)
were two other important partners. Euroméditerranée1 aimed (and still aims) to renew the
economy and the image of Marseille in order to strengthen its status as a Mediterranean
metropolis. The promotion of better connectivity between the port and the city was one
of the key priorities (Rodrigues Malta, 2004). Moreover, heritage has played an important
role as refurbished and converted former industrial buildings were used as flagship pro-
jects to assist the economic, social and symbolic revival of the city.
The perimeter of Euroméditerranée is divided in five specific areas as shown in
Figure 1:

– “Arenc La Joliette”: a new business district,

– “Cité de la Méditerranée”: a new waterfront including renewed public spaces and new
district,
– “Rue de la République”: the renewal of derelict housing and local businesses,
– “Pole de la Belle de Mai”: a centre for cultural and creative industries,
– “Gare Saint Charles”: the refurbishment and extension of the train station.

The perimeter of this site included an old tobacco factory (Manufacture de tabacs de la
Belle de Mai). Since 1991, the factory has been re-used by cultural actors to develop a

Figure 1. Perimeter of “Euroméditerranée” and its different areas of intervention (up to 2007).
Source: Andres (2008).
 Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration 801

new (alternative) cultural space, La Friche, in advance of any kind of formal regeneration
policies. The rise of such an alternative initiative was the result of a combination of two
factors: a “crisis” context and freely available derelict land on the one hand and a new city
mayor on the other hand. The new mayor chose a well-known poet as the deputy mayor for
cultural policies; the latter was a frequent user of alternative venues that had developed on
brownfield sites in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s (especially the Paradiso and the
Melkweg in Amsterdam). Consequently, as part of his cultural programme, he focused
on the capacity to revalorize derelict areas and districts through temporary cultural activi-
ties (Peraldi & Samson, 2005). The main strategy at this time was to use the numerous
derelict areas of the city, moving from one brownfield site to another and developing
short-term projects in each of them. Through this principle of “nomadisme” the “watch-
ing” period—the period prior to redevelopment—of the factory was perceived as a
strategic opportunity to develop a cultural and artistic project.
In 1992, thanks to such financial support from the City Council, cultural actors settled
down in the tobacco factory and gathered themselves into an association Sytème Friche
Théatre. The development of the project and its sustainable inscription in the cultural
policy and regeneration strategy are exceptional. It led to the insertion of La Friche in
the project Euroméditerranée sealing the end of the watching stage of the brownfield.
Clearly, La Friche was used as a catalyst facility for Euroméditerranée; the EPAEM com-
pared the district as the Soho of southern France (Etablissement public Euroméditerranée,
1996). La Friche became one of the three units (see Figure 2) of the cultural pole of La
Belle de Mai (the two other units being dedicated to activities related to heritage and con-
servation and to cultural industries). La Friche, which in 2007 became a Cooperative
Society of Collective Interest (SCIC), is now the legal tenant of the unit for 40 years.
Sytème Friche Théatre is able to rent some plots at different prices and for different activi-
ties (cultural and economic, for example) and is financially autonomous. Not only cultural
activities are and will be developed, but also sport and social facilities.

Figure 2. The three different units of the “Pôle de la Belle de Mai”.

Source: Andres (2008).
802 L. Andres

4. The Role of Système Friche Théâtre in Transforming La Friche from a

Temporary Initiative to a Long-term Flagship Project
The transition of the brownfield site from a temporary status to a central role within Euro-
méditerranée and the bid for ECOC 2013 (Andres, 2011) raises several questions with
regard to the engagement of cultural actors with urban regeneration. Particularly, this tran-
sition needs to be related to the role of Système Friche Théâtre in the two episodes of the
governance before and after the insertion of the cultural space in Euroméditerranée in
1995. Despite its insertion, there has been uncertainty regarding the way the project can
be managed in a sustainable way. Whereas the conversion of the Unit 2 (in 2004) was sim-
ultaneous to the achievement of the Unit 1 (from 2001), La Friche is still today the only
unit whose reconversion is not yet completely achieved. The analytical framework devel-
oped in Section 2 enables an analysis of the extent to which the network and strategy build-
ing, the mobilization capacity, and the project-making ability of Système Friche Théâtre
explain the rise of La Friche. Figures 3 and 4 underline the evolution of the governance
processes from a limited number of key actors (1991 – 1995) to a much more extended
and complex system of partnerships.
From the beginning of La Friche, Système Friche Théâtre was composed of influential
members (in particular Philippe Foulquié, Fabrice Lextrait or Ferdinand Richard) who
were and have been able to use their existing, individual and collective networks to
gather other artists/cultural actors in the project and communicate on the initiative;
these networks were both local, regional, national and international and have provided
mainstream connections with political and cultural actors who supported and/or joined
the project. As the initiative evolved, the number of members grew, which increased
and diversified the collective and individual networks on which the project was built.
During episode 1 (Figure 3) of the governance process (crisis in Marseille—watching
period for the factory), while La Friche was not part yet of Euroméditerranée, above sus-

Figure 3. Episode 1 (1991–1995): La Friche, a “temporary initiative”.

 Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration 803

Figure 4. Episode 2 (1995–2010): La Friche a core facility within Euroméditerranée and Marseille
2013.

taining the support they already had from the City Council, Système Friche Théâtre also
quickly focused the attention of local and national media (Achmy, 1993; Buob, 1995;
Bedarida, 1996; Samson, 1997) thanks to various initiatives. La Friche joined an inter-
national network of cultural alternative spaces (TransEuropeHalles) which fostered
their visibility and enlarged their network. Well-known artists such as the dance producer
Armand Gatti or the rap group IAM developed some activities/events in La Friche which
indeed increased the recognition of the cultural space in local and national media.
During episode 2 (redevelopment) (Figure 4), as soon as the insertion of La Friche in
Euroméditerranée was confirmed, Sytème Friche Théatre (in particular P. Foulquié and
F. Lextrait) decided to contact and appoint the architect Jean Nouvel as the president of
La Friche (until 2002). The benefits of having such a personality were immediate as it
strengthened the connections of Système Friche Théâtre to political, cultural and media
spheres at different levels and improved their ability to formulate innovative ideas and pro-
jects. In addition to P. Foulquié, J. Nouvel also brought a strong leadership to the project.
In this respect, having currently Patrick Bouchain (another well-known architect special-
ized in the transformation of industrial buildings), as the chief architect in charge of the
renewal plan of La Friche, confirms also the extent to which Sytème Friche Théatre
used key personalities with individual networks, skills to sustain the visibility of the
project. The national recognition of La Friche led to the appointment of F. Lextrait
(key member of Système Friche Théâtre) as advisor of the State Secretary of Culture.
During his mission (from 2000 to 2002), he was asked to formalize a strategy for the
New Territories of Art in France for which La Friche was positioned as the leader. The
mission of F. Lextrait at the Ministry of Culture obviously strengthened the connection
of Système Friche Théâtre with mainstream political and cultural networks and confirmed
their status of cultural intermediaries.
804 L. Andres

The strategic use of these networks and of key personalities occurred alongside the
ability of Système Friche Théâtre to engage with other stakeholders and build coalitions
based on win– win interests with core members of the governance process in relation to
surrounding strategic regeneration and planning issues. During episode 1, this included
above the financial and political support of the City Council, the agreement of the
owner of the factory. Although the factory ceased production in 1990, the site remained
a private property as the market did not support any sale of the site by the company. Con-
sequently, above its financial interest of having such a project on his property (it was a way
to prevent any kind of illegal uses and secure the plant), the company trusted the capacity
of cultural actors to lead it to a more prosperous future: in other words, they bet on the fact
that the City Council, supporting the project, will probably buy the three units (which they
did2). In episode 2, this enlarged coalition gathering of both the EPAEM and the City
Council clearly took advantage of La Friche as one of the key cultural facilities and flag-
ship projects for Euroméditerranée and Marseille 2013 application. This increased the
influence of La Friche as it became part of the overall long-term regeneration strategy
of the city of which not only the City Council was part. On the other hand, the engagement
of Système Friche Théâtre with the other units and the local population has been less
extensive and led to punctual collaborations3 as it was not a key factor to the penetration
of Système Friche Théâtre within decision-making spheres. This actually has led to a shift
between the different units which, despite sharing a common cultural function, did not and
still do not share common practices. While Système Friche Théâtre needed to adjust and
negotiate its position in the governance process, key actors from Units 1 and 2 had only to
settle in the new offices made available by the City Council and the EPAEM; this
obviously led to very distinct actions and strategies. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of
the different projects and the creation of the “cultural pole of La Belle de Mai” indirectly
enabled the lasting development of La Friche as it reinforced the presence of public actors
(and of their funding).
The coalitions and types of engagement of Système Friche Théâtre during the two main
episodes of governance highlight the very strategic use of key core members of Système
Friche Théâtre—key personalities for some of them—as well as a clear selection of the
actors with whom Système Friche Théâtre decided to engage. In other words, not only
did the core members of Système Friche Théâtre meticulously choose key personalities
according to the benefits and outcomes they could bring and decide to engage with such
or such members so as to sustain the project, they also built strategies, had discourses
and implemented a series of actions themselves.
Whereas episode 1 of the governance process was largely built on a strategy of network-
ing and enhanced visibility thanks to specific events, the core of La Friche’s strategies and
discourses in order to foster an increasingly powerful position within Euroméditerranée
began in 1995. This was correlated with innovative, pro-active and entrepreneurial prac-
tices leading to transformation of the legal status of La Friche in a Cooperative Society of
Collective Interest in 2007—the first one in France. In order to face the issues related to the
cultural transformation of the factory and its sustainable development (financially and
legally speaking) and deal with the various interests of the two main urban authorities
(City Council and EPAEM) within a broader perspective of urban regeneration, Système
Friche Théâtre positioned La Friche as a catalyst for urban regeneration. They chose
not only to focus their practices on a cultural perspective but also to broaden their fields
of action. Based on a credo of promoting “alternative economic culture”, they devised
 Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration 805

a development strategy: “a cultural project for an urban project” (Système Friche Théâtre,
1996), which was, and still remains, the driving force for the development of the project.
Indeed, the role given to the architects Nouvel and Bouchain and the use of their knowl-
edge (in addition to the skills of the core members of Système Friche Théâtre) are not
insignificant in the ability of cultural intermediaries to built an urban and cultural strategy
perceived as coherent by local governing authorities. Having such an action plan
reinforced the credibility and visibility of La Friche at a local, regional, national and
even international level, and helped them to engage pro-actively with decision-makers
and lead innovative practices. Moreover, such activities strengthened their press coverage
and their place-marketing strategy. Nowadays, this action plan has been transposed in the
master plan currently guiding the transformation of La Friche (“L’Air2 de ne pas y
toucher”) which again is implemented internally thanks to the supervision of
P. Bouchain as the creation of the specific structure (TAUP) in charge of the management
of the project.
In addition, Système Friche Théâtre actively took advantage of several opportunities
offered by national and European funding: they managed to open the first French cyber
café in 1995, built a project of culture and multimedia in partnership with the Ministry
of Culture, and created, in 1996, the first “Groupement d’Employeurs pour l’Insertion
et la Qualification”. Nowadays, their fields of action address the concerns of various
types of public; they worked closely with the Schools of Art and Architecture and have
recently launched monthly reflective seminars on the key concerns of regeneration of Mar-
seille alongside other local representatives (academics from the University of Provence
and local community groups). Overall, within episode 2, according to the key issues, con-
cerns and interests that should be addressed, a selection was made in the priority given to
the strategies, discourses and practices of Système Friche Théâtre. Obviously, a focus was
given to the overall question of the sustainable development of the project rather than on
more specific and local problems (for example the relation with the local population of La
Belle de Mai and with the other units).
Table 2 summarizes the achievements of La Friche across the two episodes of govern-
ance and highlights the success of Sytème Friche Théatre in penetrating the governance
process whilst also raising a certain number of observations and questions that will
finally be discussed regarding benefits and limits of mainstreaming such an alternative
culture for urban renaissance.

5. Benefits and Constraints of Mainstreaming Alternative Culture for Urban

Renaissance
5.1 La Friche: a Key to the Success of Marseille 2013 and to the Promotion of the New
Territories of Art in France
Currently, La Friche is clearly considered as an important temporary cultural facility
alongside museums and opera in Marseille (Andres, 2011). The existence of La Friche
in addition to other projects (such as “La Cité des Arts de la Rue”) has been considered
as a major asset, a “privileged pole”, a “resource” for the application to 2013 ECOC
(Marseille Provence 2013, 2008). In comparison to its competitors (Lyon, Toulouse or
Bordeaux) Marseille was not able to offer a similar set of traditional cultural facilities.
On the contrary, it benefited from the support and fame of alternative spaces, in particular
806 L. Andres

Table 2. Achievements of La Friche across the two episodes of governance.

Dimensions/assessment criteria Achievements of La Friche

Network, coalitions and engagement † TransEuropeHalles

† Connection to mainstream political and † Use of individual and collective networks
cultural local, regional, national networks † New territories of art
† Engagement towards the others (users and † Media coverage (local and national
beneficiaries) including population and newspapers)
medias † Win-win relation with City Council/EPAEM/
† Agreement based on win-win interests Owner of the factory
† Progressive and strategic engagements with
key stakeholders
Stakeholder selection processes † Core members within SFT (P. Foulquié,
† Selection of the key players involved in the F. Lextrait,F. Richard)
development of the project † Key personalities (J. Nouvel, P. Bouchain)
† Selection of key players as representatives † Selection of engagement with specific key
of key interest players
Personality: selection of key players as † Use of personalities as the president of La
representatives Friche: Jean Nouvel and Robert Guédiguian
† Character, skills, visibility and renown at † Use of personalities as chief architect:
different levels P. Bouchain
Strategies/discourses: framing issues, † “Alternative Economic Culture”
problems, solutions, interests † A Cultural Project for an Urban Project
† Ability of formulating ideas and projects † Marketing strategy
† Strong experience in marketing the place † Use of core members and personalities
† Knowledge resources knowledge
† Selective and negotiated issues / conflicts † Selective strategies and progressive
over priorities recognized engagement with key issues/stakeholders
Practices: routines and repertoires for acting † SCIC
† Accessible, innovative, entrepreneurial, † L’Air2 de ne pas y toucher
integrative practices † Pro-active practices towards various public:
Cybercafé, Groupement d’Employeurs pour
l’Insertion et la Qualification . . .

La Friche, to support the application: the office of the organization committee were
actually located at La Friche, cultural intermediaries were involved in the application
committee, and 2013 ECOC became part of their marketing strategy4 to highlight their
active participation to this short- and long-term cultural strategy. Furthermore, the
action plan “a Cultural Project for an Urban Project” was used as one of the sub-topic
of the application. The utilization of such spaces in bidding for the ECOC is not,
however, unique as highlighted by the success of Liverpool in 2008. In addition to their
spatial and economic context (port city facing similar issues in term of unemployment,
deprivation, re-branding), both cities bet on alternative spaces to win the application
(Jones & Wilks-Heeg, 2004).
Such a role given to La Friche can also be highlighted at a national scale. Being the head
representative of the New Territories of Art, other local authorities have tried to reproduce
the model of La Friche elsewhere in France. In the case of Les Subsistances in Lyon, the
City Council decided in 1998 to create an alternative cultural space, apparently similar to
La Friche. However, in Lyon in contrast to La Friche the entire project has been led by the
local authority in a top-down manner. Artists and cultural actors only started to invest in
 Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration 807

the place once the previous site had been converted, and were not able to take part and
engage themselves in the governance process leading to the development of the initiative.
In this sense, the governance of Les Subsistances is completely different from La Friche;
it is a “false brownfield”, a “phalastere for artists” according to P. Foulquié, in which
no cultural intermediaries emerged. Les Subsistances remains a traditional cultural
space welcoming artists and exhibitions, but clearly not an alternative cultural space.
Nevertheless, this is another example highlighting the influence of La Friche as a flagship
initiative both on a local and a national level. However, this does not mean that the
transformation of La Friche and the creation of the cultural pole of La Belle de Mai
have answered all key concerns, especially at a local scale.

5.2 La Friche and the District of La Belle de Mai: an Anti-model of Neighbourhood

Renewal?
The juxtaposition of the three units within the cultural pole of La Belle de Mai and the
absence of real coherence and partnership rely partly on the fact that the addition of the
tobacco factory was an opportunist strategy within a broad regeneration perspective
rather than a real vision of neighbourhood renewal. This strategy led to a clear scission
between the plant and the neighbourhood of la Belle de Mai which was not part of the
perimeter Euroméditerranée or of any urban policies programmes up to 1999. Now, the
district belongs to the third arrondissement (Belle de Mai-Saint Mauront), the poorest in
Marseille, characterized by a high level of unemployment, poverty and poor housing con-
ditions: 8.1% of unemployed people for 5.3% of the city population live there; the rate of
unemployment reaches 37.5 versus 23.2% in Marseille (AGAM, 2003). This means that
while some investments were made in the factory, no funding was available for la Belle
de Mai until 2001 despite the fact that the closure of the factory led to the loss of thousand
of employments and more largely to the social and economic impoverishment of the
neighbourhood.5
The situation after 2001 did not really change. Even if the district belongs for now on to
the urban policy perimeter Grand Projet de Ville, La Belle de Mai is still not a priority, the
issue of fighting against deprived and slum housing in Saint Mauront being more urgent.
Consequently, the social and economic shift between the cultural policy and the neigh-
bourhood is still salient. The regeneration of the factory clearly has not brought many
local economic, urban or social outputs at a local level. The threat of property-driven
price rise (Brown et al., 2000) as it has been underlined, for example, in Dublin’s
Temple Bar, Manchester’s Northern Quarter, Bristol’s harbourside area, Sheffield’s Crea-
tive Industries Quarter and the Quayside development in Newcastle has not affected la
Belle de Mai which, on the contrary to these districts, is not a cultural quarter.

5.3 La Belle de Mai: a Traditional District but not a Cultural Quarter

The cultural regeneration of the factory has not led to the creation of a proper cultural
quarter, either in a planned or more spontaneously way. No bars, cafes, nightlife scenes
have settled down in the neighbourhood since the mid-1990s. Even if the Belle de Mai
quarter is typical of these old industrial inner city districts characterized by derelict
buildings with cheap rent, artists or cultural actors have not settled in these spaces
despite the favourable location for studios or exhibition spaces, the provision of raw
808 L. Andres

material for creative activities (Drake, 2003), and for the creation of creative human
networks (Montgomery, 1995; Crewe & Beaverstock, 1998).
Several reasons for this can be underlined: First, this quarter has definitively not been
the only one to provide available derelict spaces. Artists and cultural actors have been
dispatched all over the city, which has led to the inexistence of any cultural and creative
quarter. Second, La Friche is, and has predominantly been, a place of work; these artists
that found a workshop at La Friche were not looking particularly for a place to live in the
quarter (mainly characterized by poor quality housing), especially as most of them were
already living in Marseille. Cultural intermediaries of Système Friche Théatre did not
pay a lot of attention to the renewal of the district. Third, the Belle de Mai district has
kept its strong historical and cultural identity (several theatres such as the Gyptis and
the Toursky can be found in the district) apart from La Friche experience. Both cultural
spaces have very distinct networks that have barely not been shared. Eventually, as under-
lined by Barber and Porter (2007), true cultural quarters only come out by paying attention
to the local scale, for example in the recognition of local talent, diversity, history and
context (see also Bianchini, 1993; Booth & Boyle, 1993; Brown et al., 2000; Bailey
et al., 2004; Miles, 2005) and via participatory democracy. This type of democracy
requires a special willingness of policy-makers to engage with local cultural communities
(which was really not the case in Marseille). The cultural regeneration of the factory has
never been inserted in public debate or participation schemes. The local population (its
demands and needs) was completely ignored by those formalizing the renewal of the
three units not part of the same perimeter of action. The recognition of local talent,
diversity, history and context has been made on the scale of Marseille and not on the
scale of the Belle de Mai quarter.
As a result, the ambition of the EPAEM of creating a new Soho in Marseille is far from
being reached and is no longer acknowledged. Today, one can note a few signs of evol-
ution: as new housing developments have been achieved nearby, the price of housing
tends to rise. This tendency might carry on with the development of future educational
facilities (in the Caserne du Muy and in an idle maternity hospital) and could be a sign
of what Wyly and Hammel (2001) relate to a second wave of gentrification. Nevertheless,
such signs of evolution relies currently more on the evolution of the property market in
Marseille rather than on the influence of the “pole de la Belle de Mai”.

6. Conclusion
Without any doubt, La Friche has participated in the regeneration of Marseille and has
given to alternative culture and initially peripheral and temporary initiatives a central
role in the long-term urban renaissance policy of the city. It has been a first catalyst for
the regeneration of the metropolis in a period when there was no developer or investor
interest. Now, in comparison to many alternative cultural experiences, La Friche has suc-
cessfully evolved into a much more sustainable project recognized, supported and valor-
ized by local authorities within broader regeneration schemes (Euroméditerranée—2013
ECOC). The success of La Friche relies on the role of Système Friche Théâtre as a cultural
intermediary who has managed to evolve, negotiate and strategically position its key core
members and personalities in the different episodes of governance.
The analytical framework built in this paper helps to assess such a cultural initiatives,
allowing an in-depth analysis of a micro-analysis of urban governance dynamics with
 Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration 809

broader impacts at local and regional governance levels (2013 ECOC in particular). As
regards the action of Système Friche Théâtre in building networks and coalitions and
engaging with others, mobilizing actors from various backgrounds and with various
interests and building innovative and entrepreneurial strategies and practices, there is no
doubt that La Friche can be considered as a successful initiative. Its trajectory of
transformation has highlighted two main episodes of governance during which cultural
intermediaries have acquired a progressive and decisive power of decision and action.
Such a framework and its substantive results highlight the positive impacts of an enlarged
form of urban governance, which nevertheless remain very singular and unusual in
France in a context dominated by traditional participation processes.
However, the use of La Friche as a flagship project has almost completely denied its
potential impact on the local community and upon neighbourhood rejuvenation. This is
actually not unique to La Belle de Mai but is correlated to the way Marseille is trying
to raise itself as a major European metropolis. As underlined by Bertoncello and Rodrigues
Malta (2001, p. 417), “Euroméditerranée is not a metropolitan project in the sense that it
doesn’t seek to re-position Marseille in its regional environment; however it tries to give to
the city new assets enabling her to raise as a major European and Mediterranean metro-
pole”. Local neighbourhood renewal is a secondary concern with priority being given to
broader and more strategic regeneration concerns.

Notes
1. The perimeter of Euroméditerranée covered 313 hectares in 1995. It has been extended to 483 hectares in
2007.
2. Unit1 was bought by the City Council in 1994 to implement the heritage centre. Unit 2 was bought by the
EPAEM in 1997. Finally, Unit 3 was bought by the City Council in 1998.
3. Even if SFT clearly insisted on the fact that the role of La Friche was not limited to the scale of the neigh-
bourhood of La Belle de Mai, it managed to initiate collaborations with local communities for example
with local schools via the “Réseau d’Education Prioritaire St Mauront – Belle de Mai”.
4. This is particularly relevant on their website.
5. Previous workers left the district and have been replaced by new migrants some of them in illegal situation
and in a (very) weak economic situation.

References
Achmy, H. (1993) Donner une place aux artistes, L’humanité, 22-07-1993.
AGAM (2003) Grand projet de ville: Pole de projet Saint Mauront la Belle de Mai, Marseille.
Aitchison, C. & Evans, T. (2003) The cultural industries and a model of sustainable regeneration: Manufacturing
pop in the Rhondda Valleys of South Wales, Managing Leisure, 8(3), pp. 133–144.
Aitchison, C., Richards, G. & Tallon, A. (Eds) (2007) Urban Transformations: Regeneration and Renewal
Through Leisure and Tourism (Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association).
Andres, L. (2008) La ville mutable. Mutabilité et référentiels urbains : les cas de Bouchayer-Viallet, de la Belle
de Mai et du Flon, Thèse de doctorat sous la direction de M. Vanier (Grenoble: Institut d’urbanisme de
Grenoble, Université Pierre Mendes France).
Andres, L. (2011) Marseille 2013 or the final round of a long and complex regeneration strategy? Town Planning
Review, 82(1), pp. 61–76.
Bailey, C., Miles, S. & Stark, P. (2004) Culture-led urban regeneration and the revitalisation of identities in
Newcastle, Gateshead and the north east of England, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(1),
pp. 47–65.
Barber, A. & Porter, L. (2007) Planning the cultural quarter in Birmingham’s eastside, European Planning
Studies, 15(10), pp. 1327–1348.
810 L. Andres

Bedarida, C. (1996) Les ruines urbaines renaissent grâce à la création artistique, Le Monde, 16– 10-1996.
Bertoncello, B. & Rodrigues Malta, R. (2001) Euroméditerranée: les échelles d’un grand projet de régénération
urbaine, in: A. Donzel (Ed) Métropolisation, gouvernance et citoyenneté dans la région urbaine marseillaise
(Paris: Maison-Neuve et Larose).
Bianchini, F. (1993) Culture, conflict and cities: Issues and prospects for the 1990s, in: F. Bianchini &
M. Parkinson (Eds) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience,
pp. 199–213 (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Bianchini, F. (1997) Culture and Neighbourhoods: A Comparative Report (Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing).
Bianchini, F. & Parkinson, M. (Eds) (1993) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European
Experience (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Booth, P. & Boyle, R. (1993) See Glasgow, see culture, in: F. Bianchini & M. Parkinson (Eds) Cultural Policy
and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience, pp. 21–47 (Manchester: Manchester University
Press).
Brown, A., O’Connor, J. & Cohen, S. (2000) Local music policies within a global music industry: Cultural
quarters in Manchester and Sheffield, Geoforum, 31(4), pp. 437–451.
Buob, J. (1995) Marseille ou l’ambition artistique retrouvée, Le Monde, 11.01.1995.
Cameron, S. & Coaffee, J. (2005) Art, gentrification and regeneration – from artist as pioneer to public arts,
European Journal of Housing Studies, 5(1), pp. 39–58.
Coaffee, J. & Healey, P. (2003) ‘My voice: my place’: Tracking transformations in urban governance, Urban
Studies, 40(10), pp. 1979–1999.
Crewe, L. & Beaverstock, J. (1998) Fashioning the city: Cultures of consumption in contemporary urban spaces,
Geoforum, 29(3), pp. 287–308.
Donzel, A. (1998) Marseille: l’expérience de la cité (Paris: Anthropos).
Drake, G. (2003) This place gives me space: Place and creativity in the creative industries, Geoforum, 34(4),
pp. 511–524.
Dubois, J. & Olive, M. (2004) Euroméditerranée: négociations à tous les étages, Les Annales de la recherche
urbaine, 97, pp. 103–111.
Etablissement Public Euromediterranee (1996) Euroméditerranée (à Marseille: un grand projet d’aménagement
et de développement, Marseille).
Evans, G. (2001) Cultural Planning: An Urban Renaissance? (London: Routledge).
Garcia, B. (2004) Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European cities: lessons from experience,
prospects for the future, Local Economy, 19(4), pp. 312–326.
Groth, J. & Corijn, E. (2005) Reclaiming urbanity: indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda
setting, Urban Studies, 42(3), pp. 503–526.
Hall, P. G. (2000) Creative cities and economic development, Urban Studies, 37(4), pp. 639–649.
Haydn, F. & Temel, R. (2006) Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of the City Spaces (Basel:
Birkhauser).
Holcomb, B. (1999) Marketing cities for tourism, in: D. R. Judd & S. S. Fainstein (Eds) The Tourist City,
pp. 54–70 (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Jones, P. & Evans, J. (2008) Urban Regeneration in the UK (London: Sage Publications).
Jones, P. & Wilks-Heeg, P. (2004) Capitalising culture: Liverpool 2008, Local Economy, 19(4), pp. 341–360.
Judd, D. (1994) Promoting tourism in US cities, Tourism Management, 16(3), pp. 175–187.
Judd, D. R. & Fainstein, S. S. (Eds) (1999) The Tourist City (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Landry, C. & Bianchini, F. (1995) The Creative City (London: Demos).
Lange, B. (2006) From cool Britannia to generation Berlin? Geographies of culturepreneurs and their creative
milieus in Berlin, in: C. Eisenberg, R. Gerach & C. Handke (Eds) Cultural Industries: The British Experi-
ence in International Perspective Online, Humboldt University Berlin, Edoc- Server. Available: http://edoc.
hu-berlin.de (accessed 17 March 2009).
Law, C. (2000) Regenerating the city centre through leisure and tourism, Built Environment, 26(2), pp. 114–129.
Leadbeater, C. & Oakley, K. (1999) The Independents: Britain’s New Cultural Entrepreneurs (London: Demos).
Ley, D. (1986) Alternative explanations of inner city gentrification; a Canadian assessment, Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 76(4), pp. 526–535.
Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Classes and the Remaking of the Central City (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Ley, D. (2003) Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification, Urban Studies, 40(12), pp. 2527–2544.
 Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration 811

Miles, M. (2005) Interruptions: Testing the rhetoric of culturally led urban development, Urban Studies, 42(5– 6),
pp. 889–911.
Miles, S. & Paddison, R. (2005) Introduction: The rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration, Urban Studies,
42(5– 6), pp. 833–839.
Montgomery, J. (1995) The story of Temple Bar: Creating Dublin’s cultural quarter, Planning, Practice and
Research, 10(2), pp. 135–171.
Motte, A. (2003) Marseilles-Aix metropolitan region (1981–2000), in: A. Salet, W. Thornley & A. Kreukels
(Eds) Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning (London: Routledge).
Overmeyer, K. (Ed.) (2007) Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin (Berlin: Jovis).
Peraldi, M. & Samson, M. (2005) Gouverner Marseille: enquête sur les mondes politiques marseillais (Paris: La
découverte).
Rodrigues Malta, R. (2004) Une vitrine métropolitaine sur les quais: villes portuaires au sud de l’Europe, Les
Annales de la recherche urbaine, 97, pp. 93–101.
Samson, M. (1997) Du groupe IAM au cirque Plume, en passant par les bières irlandaises Marseille, Le Monde,
08/07/1997.
Systeme Friche Theatre (1996) Friche la Belle de Mai: un projet culturel pour un projet urbain, Marseille.
Tallon, A. (2010) Urban Regeneration in the UK (London: Routledge).
Urban Unlimited (2004) The Shadow City, Rotterdam.
Verges, P. & Jacquemoud, V. (2000) Marseille, écrin d’azur ou métropole ? La pensée de midi, 1, pp. 108–113.
Williams, P. (2002) The competent boundary spanner, Public Administration, 80(1), pp. 103–124.
Wyly, E. K. & Hammel, D. J. (2001) Gentrification, housing policy, and the new context of urban redevelopment,
in: Kevin Fox Gotham (Ed) Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment (Research in Urban Sociology,
Volume 6), pp. 211–276 (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited).
Zukin, S. (1989) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change (New York: Rutgers University Press).
Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities (Oxford: Blackwell).
Copyright of European Planning Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.