Mapping local cultural places
In order to identify local cultural institutions, organisations and activities of interest to STARTUP’s research objectives, all partners have engaged in an extensive mapping process with researchers and creative professionals. The process was supported by an API-mapping tool developed in the project. The resulting maps show a particular layer of urban cultural activities that will form the basis for further empirical research and the selection of case studies. The mapping process was carried out autumn 2025.
View the mapWhat does the map show?
The map shows small cultural institutions and organisations – what the STARTUP project has discussed as “local cultural praesidia” – according to the following criteria:
The focus of STARTUP is on the role of the often neglected but important “local cultural praesidia”, meaning small cultural institutions, local organizations, cultural initiatives or creative spaces representing the finest grained contact points between cultural and creative professionals, and local communities.
In the mapping process we deliberately took a rather broad view of what a local cultural praesidium could be but it was also stated we were especially interested in finding local cultural praesidia that are artist initiated and artist driven since these according to earlier research have a very important role in successful creative placemaking, and may have a good chance of representing transformative change. The map thus includes independent cultural initiatives that are normally not placed on cultural maps.
In addition, most of the mapped local cultural praesidia have set venues but there are also digital and mobile organisations represented in the map.
Aims
A major scientific reason to why we did the map is related to sampling. The aim with producing an original map was thus that it makes possible a better sampling of case studies which are to be studied further in the project. With a comprehensive map of the phenomenon under study a spatially varied sample of case studies may be selected meaning that case studies from different types of urban environments can be included. This was needed as there is a general lack of maps and spatial knowledge in the cities about small cultural institutions and organisations. Without a comprehensive map with all possible and potential cases, the sampling of cases would risk being biased in various ways, e.g. by convenience or limited knowledge (i.e. only those about which there was prior knowledge would be sampled).
A further reason to produce an original map relates to communication. The map is a tool to visualize the locations of this type of cultural actors which also facilitates discussion and debate about for example accessibility to culture for the local populations. A map is furthermore concrete and hence also facilitates for policy makers and urban administrations to relate to the actual situation in the concerned districts. A map would also help them identify partners for collaboration and/or mediation with local communities.
A third reason is that spatial knowledge in form of maps also empower local actors and communities who may use the map as part of their argumentations vis-à-vis other actors. To further strengthen the empowerment dimension of spatial knowledge, STARTUP also shares the method with which the map was produced so any actor could produce their own original maps.
How was the map produced?
The map was produced in the following three main steps:
First STARTUP mutually decided for a number of search terms that were all related to culture and the cultural infrastructure (e.g. theatre, music venue, art space etc). The selected terms, numbering 127, where then used in an API-mapping tool, constructed by the project based on OvertureMaps for searching 200+ open digital databases. This produced a “ground map” with many hits. In Rome, for example, there was almost 10 000 hits. However, far from all would be relevant for the objectives of the map.
Secondly, the ground map was refined by going through – manually – every hit and deleting all hits that were either out of date, a doublet, or that did not fit the original search terms (i.e. it had been misplaced in the original databases). At this stage hits were also added to the map by the experts in the academic and creative teams in each respective city. All in all, this created a cultural map of each city containing both large and small, and independent, private and municipal cultural institutions and organizations.
In the third and last stage, the cultural map was further refined with deleting, again manually, all hits that did not meet the criterion of what STARTUP aimed to identify and map in the respective cities. Also, in this stage the adding of relevant hits continued by the experts (academic and creative) in the respective cities. The result is a map with a clear focus on small cultural institutions and organisations, many with direct relations to local communities, that normally are not comprehensively included in urban cultural maps.
Limitations
Direct comparisons between the cities based solely on the map are not suitable as conditions vary between the cities and also because the mapping teams in the different cities may have interpreted the object to be mapped slightly differently, e.g. more or less broad. A further limitation is that although experts from both academic and creative teams were engaged to add relevant hits to the map, it is also expected that no one can be an expert of every cultural field (such as dance, music, art etc) and relevant places in certain fields may thus have been missed. However, the map is open (see below) to add to by anyone interested to contribute their knowledge of any of the represented cities and hence help correct the map further.
Can I add to the present map?
Yes, please use the form on this link to share a place you think would fit. Once we get it, we will review your suggestion before adding it to the map.