This long-running event, which opens the doors to hundreds of buildings usually closed to the public, invites us to see architecture not only as a foundation of shared identity but also as a field of competition for attention and funding in a changing Europe.
When the Council of Europe launched European Heritage Days in 1989, and the European Commission joined a decade later, the goal was not only to make historic sites accessible to the public but also to foster a European narrative of community. Every year, around 20 million visitors participate in events ranging from architectural walks to digital workshops, making the initiative a notable socio-cultural phenomenon.
Commissioner Glenn Micallef reminds us that “the identity of every city is shaped by its architecture.” Yet architecture is more than aesthetics; it reflects memory politics and investment choices. During European Heritage Days, participants encounter everything from Gothic cathedrals to modernist apartment blocks—each telling the story of its era while serving as a reference point for contemporary debates about quality of life.
Since 2013, more than 60 sites have received the European Heritage Label, recognizing places of “symbolic value” that have played a pivotal role in Europe’s history. Examples include the Royal Theatre Toone in Brussels, the San Jerónimo de Yuste monastery in Spain, and the “Three Brothers” complex in Riga.
The label aims to go beyond tourism by fostering educational programs and public engagement. Critics, however, warn that focusing on “attractiveness” risks commercialization, where educational purposes may take a back seat. Does symbolic recognition deepen historical awareness, or does it primarily serve city and regional marketing strategies?
Running in parallel, the European Heritage/Europa Nostra Awards highlight around 30 projects annually from over 20 countries, showcasing best practices and innovative methods in preserving tangible and intangible heritage. This year’s ceremony will take place on 13 October in Brussels. While awards incentivize quality preservation, they also raise the question of whether selective recognition creates a hierarchy of memory—spectacular, media-friendly projects gain attention, while local, less visible initiatives risk being overlooked.
The Creative Europe 2021-2027 program remains a key funding instrument, with its budget increased to €2.44 billion from €1.47 billion in the previous edition (2014-2020). This growth reflects the increasing importance of the cultural and creative sectors, as well as the need to respond to contemporary challenges: digitalization, inclusivity, and climate neutrality.
The program focuses on three thematic areas: cultural diversity, the economic potential of creative industries (particularly audiovisual), and support for transformative processes. This raises a critical question: could the emphasis on “competitiveness” sideline intangible values that are harder to measure in market terms?
This year’s theme—architecture—adds another layer to the debate. Buildings are material records of history but also arenas of conflict: between preservation and modern functionality, and between local traditions and global real estate markets. Opening normally inaccessible buildings during European Heritage Days encourages reflection on evolving criteria for valuing spaces. Are modernist landmarks given the same protection as Gothic cathedrals? Does revitalization sometimes serve as a pretext for gentrification? EU initiatives provide frameworks and funding, but local communities ultimately decide the role of architecture in daily life.
European Heritage Days emphasize openness and inclusivity. Free access, workshops, and digital events broaden audiences. Yet there is concern that the growing scale of the initiative may dilute its message. With 20 million visitors, it is difficult to ensure that everyone gains more than a photo in front of a landmark.
The key question remains whether the events themselves are sufficient to build long-term cultural awareness or if more lasting educational and institutional mechanisms are needed. EU programs like Creative Europe can provide funding, but the way it is used will determine whether Europe can “understand its past to protect its future.”
Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.
