Examining Cultural Planning in Vienna: The Discursive Institutionalization of Social Infrastructure in Strategic Planning

Culture and planning have often been connected through issues of culture-led urban development and regeneration or cultural and creative industries. However, cultural provision as a form of social infrastructure has rarely been used to understand the institutionalization of culture within planning practices. I claim that how culture is institutionalized through discursive interactions between different agents reveals the importance of culture for planning practices. I exemplify this notion by analysing the discursive institutionalization of culture within strategic planning in Vienna. The results point to a diametral position of the underlying ideas of culture within planning in Vienna: 1) planning for culture, where culture plays an important role for the social functioning of the city, and 2) planning through culture by using culture as a selling point for the city. The paper analyses cultural planning practices in Vienna since the 2000s, thereby contributing to detailed knowledge on the institutionalization of culture and path-dependent developments of culture within urban planning practices. The paper illustrates the use of culture as a form of social infrastructure for rethinking strategic cultural planning in Vienna.


Introduction
Culture-led planning is often criticised for its underlying ideology, where unquestioned structures in society are consolidated through the instrumentalization of culture, thus paving the way for hegemonic positions of dominant social groups and values (Kirchberg, 1992, Zukin, 1995, Evans, 2001, Garcia, 2004, Horton & Kraftl, 2014. Nonetheless it is implemented as an innovative strategy in many planning policies and has become a central concept in development planning (Young, 2008). Although the importance of culture for society is discussed in many contexts, it is used and understood differently. The spatial context is discussed as an important factor in cultural development throughout different disciplinary backgrounds, as the Cultural Turn in the humanities and social sciences (Berndt, 2007;Horton & Kraftl, 2014) or cultural geography show. Space provides the resources with which culture can form. Thus, how space and culture are developed depends on the application of culture itself (Horton & Kraftl, 2014). Particularly in the urban context, culture is an essential element that has been an important characteristic of urban life for centuries (Kirchberg, 1992).
Many planning policies however promote cultural activities primarily for their economic market value to advertise cities in an allegedly growing global competition often at the expense of existing niche cultures. Concepts like the "Creative Class" (Florida, 2002) or the "Creative City" (Landry, 2000) have been popular frameworks for urban politics. However, these approaches also have an unneglectable effect of commodification of culture on society and the urban space (Florida, 2017;Peck, 2005). Thus, how culture is understood, has tremendous effects on the incorporation into planning policies. It is thus crucial to understand the mechanisms behind the current institutionalization of cultural planning. This paper investigates the institutionalization process of culture within strategic planning policies in Vienna to gain insight into the dynamics of culture-led urban planning and the importance of social infrastructure in current planning policy. Taking an institutionalist perspective provides new insights into the dynamics of cultural planning policies and the path-dependencies of planning ideas. This paper refers to culture as cultural activities, understood within their wider context of social relations and embedded into the political, economic and societal system. As such, culture can be conceptualized as a form of social infrastructure, understood as the foundation for sociomaterial structures in the city (Klinenberg, 2018;McFarlane & Silver, 2017).
Vienna is an interesting case for analysing cultural planning and planning for social infrastructure. Culture plays an important role for the city, for cultural organizations (e.g. international cultural facilities of high culture), and in cultural practices of everyday life (e.g. as decentralized and local cultural activities) (Intergovernmental Agreement, 2015). Moreover, social infrastructure is engrained into planning's self-conception through Vienna's strong social-democratic tradition, as for example the concept of "Red Vienna" at the beginning of the 20 th century and the related ideational foundation of the strong local state responsible for social infrastructure provision shows. The social-democratic tradition of the city has led to a strong focus on social infrastructure in the past to support social equity, also including cultural provision throughout the city, which is however undergoing changes of economic and political restructuring (Kadi & Suitner, 2019;Novy et al., 2001).
The paper applies the concept of discursive institutionalism (Schmidt 2008(Schmidt , 2012 to shed light on the processes of cultural planning in Vienna. The analysis shows how predominant ideas, agents and discursive interactions form collective actions and thus become consolidated through different perceptions of culture in planning policies. Lastly, the discursive institutionalization of culture in Viennese strategic planning is connected to the concept of social infrastructure and reflected critically upon cultural planning in Vienna.

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
To set the stage for the theoretical examination of current cultural planning practice, it is necessary to define a few concepts presented in this paper. Culture as a concept is very hard to grasp, as Raymond Williams wrote, it is 'one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language […] mainly because it has now come to be used for important concepts in several distinct and incompatible systems of thought' (Williams, 1976, p. 87, in: Horton & Kraftl, 2014). Young also states that '[c]ulture is subtle and complex in nature, its concepts are fluid and abstract […]' (Young, 2008, p. 5). To avoid excessive theoretical discussions on the concept of culture, I cite only the definitions important for the understanding applied in this paper, aware of the fact, that these are non-exclusive and there may be many more legitimate definitions.
 Culture can be understood as 'the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity' (Williams, 1976, p. 91, in: Horton & Kraftl, 2014). This definition however implies certain implicit and partly problematic values, which predefine the intellectual and artistic activities accepted as culture and those that are not, reflected in concepts like high culture, low culture, popular culture, folk culture or local culture.  '[Culture] is an immanent construct whose form and substance are comprehensible only in terms of the wider systems of human relationships with which it is bound up' (Scott, 2000, p. 31, in: Evans, 2001. This substantiates the claim of understanding culture in a broad context of societal and spatial surroundings, reinforcing the term of the Cultural Turn (Barnett, 1998;Berndt, 2007;Chaney, 1994;Horton & Kraftl, 2014;Jessop & Oosterlynck, 2008).  'The dialectic tension between ideas of culture [and arts] are encapsulated in three variants: (1) its anti-capitalist critique; (2) the notion of a whole way of life and therefore culture as civilis-ation/-ing; and (3) its specialisation in the forms and practices that make up the canon of the Arts' (Eagleton, 2000, p. 15, in: Evans, 2001).
Culture entails a wide variety of processes, which emphasise its potential role as a critical resource for societal developments as well as a conceptual counterpart to economic exploitation (Miles, 2007;Suitner, 2015;Young, 2008;Zukin, 1995). Thus, culture can be conceptualized as a form of social infrastructure, which formstogether with technical infrastructurethe underlying structure of economy and society, although often being overlooked and taken for granted. McFarlane and Silver (2017) understand social infrastructure as a 'practice of connecting people and things in socio-material relations that sustain urban life' (p. 463) and Klinenberg (2018) talks about social infrastructure being an important foundation of equity, quality of life and social well-being. The concept is rooted in social policy, developing in the first half of the 20 th century as a reaction to industrialization and rising social inequalities (Libbe et al., 2010). Thus, social infrastructure can be conceptualized as 'a symbol of specific normative collective values and cultural meanings of a specific time' (Krisch & Hiltgartner, 2019, p. 363). Also, Dourish and Bell (2007) point to the importance of two perspectives on infrastructure: its structuring role for organizing space and society and its underlying role as part of the collective construction of cultural meaning.
Thus culture, in the sense of the works and practices of intellectual and artistic activities, can be understood as symbols of specific normative collective values and cultural meanings of a specific time. Culture should be seen in the context of the social and spatial surroundings, where cultural practices form social relations, thus forming a practice of connecting people and things in socio-material relations that sustain urban life. As a critical resource, culture can provide the foundation for equity, quality of life and social well-being. Thus, culture can be seen as a form of social infrastructure and as an underlying structure of the economy and society with the potential to form a conceptual counterpart to hegemonic formations. How and AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK why culture as a form of social infrastructure is institutionalized in planning policies is a reflection of the underlying collective values of culture in society. Examining the solidification of specific collective values within cultural planning sheds light on path-dependencies in planning ideas. This paper continues with the next chapter on connecting institutionalization processes to the specific discourse of culture in strategic planning, which provides the framework for the empirical case. After introducing the case study, I describe the discursive foundation and institutionalization of strategic cultural planning in Vienna and discuss the findings of ideas, agents and discursive interactions leading to the collective action of cultural planning. The paper concludes with a reflection on culture as a form of social infrastructure and its implications for future strategic cultural planning policies.

An Institutionalist Perspective on Cultural Discourse in Strategic Planning
Scholars have previously focused on the connection between infrastructure planning and institutionalization processes for technical infrastructure (Star, 1999;Graham & Marvin, 2001;Steele & Legacy, 2017). However, also social infrastructure is a worthwhile case to investigate dynamics of institutionalization within planning. Both technical and social infrastructure are core areas of planning, which demand a strong theoretical framework to understand the complex dimensions and interrelations within these subfields of planning.

Institutionalist perspective as a method of analysis
The concept of Discursive Institutionalism (DI) provides a useful starting point to investigate not only the process of institutionalization initiated by different actors, but also the process of consolidation through their discursive interactions. It emerged as a critique to other forms of New Institutionalism, which often overstate the role of institutions while undervaluing agency, ideas and discourses (Davoudi, 2018). DI however, connects ideas to agents, provides a framework to investigate their discursive interactions, and puts them into their institutional context (Schmidt, 2008(Schmidt, , 2012. DI developed as an approach to understand political processes, in particular to trace how ideas are tied to action. The main argument is that ideas are carried through different agents and form the basis for collective action. The discursive interactions between the agents are placed in a specific institutional context, where ideas have meaning, discourses have communicative force, and collective actions make a difference (Schmidt, 2012) (see Figure 1).

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
Where and when actors say what they are thinking of doing is determined by the institutional context and is thus the pivotal juncture in the process of institutionalization (Schmidt 2012). For Schmidt (2008), 'institutions […] are simultaneously structures and constructs internal to the agents themselves' (p. 314), thereby not only structuring discourse but also structured by it. Discourse in this sense refers to the represented ideas and the interactive processes by which ideas are conveyed. Ideas can either be normative, where guidelines of interest-based logic provide legitimation for political action, or cognitive, where values are attached to political action. Ideas manifest on different levelsas philosophies, programmatic ideas or strategic plans. They are transported through agents, who create, maintain or change their institutional context through the discursive interaction with which they communicate their ideasas communicative discourse, which either takes place among political actors engaged in policy debates with the public (including media, interest groups, public intellectuals, social movements etc.) or coordinative discourse, which is constructed among actors involved in the policy process (such as policy makers, government officials, lobbyists, policy consultants, experts or business and union leaders) (Schmidt, 2008(Schmidt, , 2012. According to Sorensen (2015), analysing institutionalization processes is particularly relevant for infrastructure planning, where path-dependencies are a common phenomenon. Thus, understanding how the institutional context develops within infrastructure planning provides insight into stable phases and critical points of change in urban planning. Investigating how culture is institutionalized within strategic planning unravels these dynamics for culture as a form of social infrastructure. This paper thus begins its investigation with tracing ideas in cultural planning policies and the emergence of strategically relevant urban locations within cultural planning.

The cultural turn in planning
Since the mid-80s of the 20 st century inter-and transdisciplinary discourses became increasingly important and seen in connection with political, economic and social phenomena, subsumed by the term "Cultural Turn" (Barnett, 1998;Berndt, 2007;Chaney, 1994;Horton & Kraftl, 2014;Jessop & Oosterlynck, 2008). As Horton and Kraftl (2014) state: 'Many social scientists began to investigate some apparently new, significant social and cultural changes in contemporary capitalist economies' (p. 13). The Cultural Turn embodies the understanding of culture as a process and a path for (re)producing values, societal rules and communities and therefore (in)equality (ibid.). Not only is culture embedded in social, political and economic processes, culture is also dependent on physical space and the other way around. Urban planning has picked up on these new trends and has increasingly conceptualized culture as a means for urban development.
Economic benefits of culture led urban transformation have been one of these conceptualizations of culture in political debates at the beginning of the 21 st century. García (2004) for instance states, that 'the evolution of a global service-oriented economy has placed culture at the very centre of urban development and has shifted traditional notions of culture […] to a view of culture as an economic asset, a commodity with market value and, as such, a valuable producer of marketable city space' (p. 314). Concepts such as the Creative City (Charles Landry) or the Creative Class (Richard Florida) are popular especially for policymakers since the 2000s. Creativity is considered desirable for politics to secure economic growth, thus making the creative industries increasingly important for local, regional and national economic competition (Horton & Kraftl, 2014). However, the term creative industry emerged only recently and is broadly defined as any economic activity that produces symbolic products that are heavily dependent on intellectual property (UNCTAD, 2010).

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
In contrast, the notion of "culture industries" (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1947) emerged as a critique of cultural mass production in the post-war period, as culture and industrial production were at that time deemed incompatible. Today, cultural industries combine conceptual dichotomies (high versus popular culture, mass versus niche culture etc.) and the widely accepted understanding as a sector producing cultural goods and services (UNCTAD, 2010). Cultural and creative sectors are regarded as growth sectors, even during economic crisis (Horton & Kraftl, 2014;Lewitzky, 2005).
Since the 1980s at 'the age of cultural economic policy' (García, 2004, p. 315), culture was recognized as a driver for economic development, regeneration and transformation of urban space. Since the 1990s culture is an integral part of planning practice, however producing an area of tension between 'an obvious diversity of cultures to be found in cities and the one persistently reproduced in planning' (Zukin, 1995, 1996, in: Suitner, 2015). Zukin refers to the symbolic economy, which coincides with Mattl, who states, that 'it is not the City but the image that has to be planned' (Mattl, 2009, p. 21). The symbolic economy combines two means of production: 'the production of space, with its synergy of capital investment and cultural meanings, and the production of symbols, which constructs both a currency of commercial exchange and a language of social identity' (Zukin, 1995, p. 23). The symbolic economy is based on immaterial goods and emerged from the economic change from Fordism to Post-Fordism and the interrelated decline in traditional industrial branches (Miles, 2007). As a result, the cultural economy and cultural tourism have become important factors for urban economic development, thus shaping the predominant discourse. In this sense, culture has become institutionalized as an economic instrument of urban development planning.

Strategic spatial planning
Urban planning and policy have increasingly linked concepts, such as the entrepreneurial city (Hall &Hubbard, 1998) to creative city approaches (Florida, 2002;Landry, 2000) and have placed culture at the very centre of discourse. Moreover, in the 2000s spatial planning scholars in Europe developed a cooperative approach to connect traditional planning approaches to project development, which reflects the reorganisation of the traditional structure of state, market and society (Faludi, 2000). Strategic planning was adapted from economics to establish a structured framework for the until then often incoherent project planning approaches and is characterised by an integrative and development-oriented approach, consisting of the following main features (ibid.):  Planning is a complex process with various forms of collaboration and instruments, e.g. project development and management. The integration of different disciplines offers learning opportunities, which have previously rarely been seized.  Strategic planning includes a multitude of actors, thus exceeding the public sector by including private and civic actors.  Strategic plans function as orientation, coordination and motivation.  Strategic plans can be categorized into four different types: project plans, urban development plans, selective strategic plans and comprehensive strategic plans.  Since strategic planning does not originate from traditional spatial planning, there is no conventional spatial focal point. Strategic planning provides foremost a structure, a link between different systems of thought. It is based on interconnections, synergies and intersectoral implementation.

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
Strategic plans are criticised for trying to solve their identified urban challenges in a very similar way by promoting key sectors, one of them being the creative industries (Pirhofer, 2005). They may also just provide a grand vision of future developments of a city, wrapped around individual projects, thus providing only a marketing strategy for urban development and often neglecting specific spatial contexts. Thus, providing a structured framework without addressing specific spatial developments, something that strategic planning is often criticized for, risks disregarding power structures within the spatial context.

Cultural planning
The motives to utilize culture for strategic planning often differ. As Evans states, '[h]ow and why culture is planned is […] a reflection of the place of the arts and culture in society, of the approaches to the design and planning for human settlements in the town planning tradition and therefore in the development of urban society' (Evans, 2001, p. 1). Cultural planning is embedded in a broad context of planning strategies and a local-global network. However, the critical question always remains, which culture with which priorities is planned and 'who succeeds with pushing through their vision of a cultural city in politics of planning' (Suitner, 2015, p. 21). Two main types of cultural planning can be identified (ibid.):  Planning through culture aims at the commodification and culturalization of all areas of life. Cultural characteristics are promoted for economic purposes. A certain consumer culture is promoted for international city competition, tourism and cultural industries, effecting urban space especially valuable for cultural planning.  Planning for culture regards culture as a phenomenon relevant for all areas of life, which emerges from a societal context, points out differences and fosters a critical element in society. Planning for culture promotes the acceptance of differences, various cultures and their impact and development in the urban space. 'It endows planners with the ability to reveal niche-cultural expression and to support experimental cultures, empowerment, and cultural citizenship' (ibid., p. 20).
The ideational foundation of culture as a strategic planning instrument is rooted in the 1980s. The idea of culture as a planning instrument originated due to global economic changes at the end of the 20 th century and the subsequent transformation in urban planning. Thus, strategic cultural planning can be understood as a shift in the discursive interaction between agents, where the structure of discourse moved towards communicative interactions to legitimize policies through the integration of a wide variety of actors, including cultural agencies.
Although strategic planning mostly focuses on the development of a comprehensive vision for urban development and thus often lacks a spatial focus, strategic locations of cultural planning still can be identified as conflictive collective actions of valuable urban space for consumer culture vs. niche-cultural locations. Strategic locations of cultural planning policies can therefore be understood as the outcome and a subsequent development of their discursive institutionalization within strategic cultural planning.

Discursive Institutionalization of Culture in Strategic Planning in Vienna
The city of Vienna serves as the empirical case for investigating the discursive institutionalization of strategic cultural planning. Based on discourse analysis, a content analysis is applied to strategic planning documents since 2000, which correlates with the revival of strategic planning (Pirhofer, 2005). In 2000, the planning authorities in Vienna published the first comprehensive strategic plan, the latest one was published in 2014. Urban development plans are published every 10 years since 1984. The analysis focuses on 1) the

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
actors which fill the speaker positions; 2) the representatives, addressees and audience of the discourse, and 3) the phenomena being constituted (Keller, 2011).
The collection of data follows pragmatic considerations, concerning thematic and strategic relevance of the documents for urban planning in Vienna. The data includes five strategic documents, which are selected regarding the following attributes: the strategic documents provide a framework for urban planning, are key elements of the strategic planning policies, are available and lastly, are comparable with regards to their relevance and scope for urban planning in Vienna. The evaluation of the data follows interpretative analytics, which focuses on intensive reading and evaluating of the central concepts derived from the theoretical framework, discussed in section 2. The analysis concentrates on the micro and macro level of the documents. The macro level includes the external and formal structure of the document, the authors and addressees. The micro level contains the line of argument, such as the storyline and key concepts.

Cultural planning in Vienna, Austria
The city of Vienna is the political and cultural centre of Austria, federal capital, federal state and municipality all in one. Therefore, Vienna accommodates both nationwide and municipal organizations and agencies. The city is organized in 23 districts, which are divided into inner (1st-9th district) and outer (10th-23rd district) city by the transit route "Gürtel" (see Figure 2). Under the lead of the "Municipal Department 18 (MA 18) for urban development and urban planning", future developments for the city are prepared. Despite the partly only abstract spatial connection in strategic planning, the following figure displays the strategically relevant urban space within the culture-based discourse in Vienna. These locations within the city are at least mentioned in the analysed documents, although a comprehensive spatial strategy for their integration into planning processes is mostly absent. However, they reflect part of the collective action of the institutionalization of strategic cultural planning in Vienna and are therefore relevant for the subsequent analysis.

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
The connection of the discursive orientation of the strategic planning documents with its spatial context is especially important regarding the cultural discourse, which condenses in specific locations relevant for strategic planning. Strategic locations of the spatially relevant cultural discourse were taken from the documents, whereas rather distant topics such as nature and green spaces were left out of the analysis. As Figure 3 shows, the relevant locations of strategic cultural discourse in Vienna are predominantly located in central areas for urban development and rarely in decentralized areas. This suggests an orientation of cultural planning in Vienna towards marketable city space, such as the city centre, whereas cultural provision in decentralized areas is often neglected.  (2000, 2004, 2005, 2014a, 2014b) and Open Gov Data (2019).

The structure of cultural planning in Vienna
The analysed strategic documents in Vienna all have a rather long impact duration. Urban development plans, like STEP 05, were introduced in 1984 and are since then refined every 10 years. They build on each other's statements and development directions. Comprehensive and selective strategic plans are prepared less often, the first one was introduced in 2000, the last one in 2014. They seek to provide a framework strategy for urban development plans but often fail to connect to the specific configuration of those plans, thus remaining mostly a thematic orientation without specific implementation strategies. Table 1 gives an overview of the analysed documents, their goals, authors and addressees.

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
The structure of the documents suggests a change in the cultural discourse of the strategic plans in the last 15 years from the inclusion of culture in many different areas relevant for planning to a concentration on specific elements of culture for urban development. Particularly in the comprehensive strategic plans of the early 2000s, it is clear from the broad structure of the documents, that it is intended to include as many areas relevant to planning as possible (see main goals of the comprehensive strategic plans Table 1). However, the documents of recent years, such as the Smart City Strategy, tend to concentrate on specific elements of urban development, such as technological development through innovation (see main goals of the selective strategic plan Table 1). Whereas the comprehensive strategic plans consisted of five areas of activity, one of which was dedicated to the "promotion of science, education and culture" (MA 18, 2000, p. 4), the areas of activity in the Smart City Strategy decreased to four, none of which dedicated to culture. The area of activity "innovation" consists only of research, technology, economic development and education (MA 18, 2014a, p. 59). The same is true for the urban development plans, where the areas of activity decreased and the thematic orientation of the cultural discourse moved from the inclusion of different functions for urban space, such as local recreation, social and cultural functions, orientation and identification with the built environment (MA 18, 2005, p. 22) towards innovation, technology, economic and research development (MA 18, 2014b, p. 68).

Agents of cultural discourse in Vienna
The strategic plans attempt to form a basis for exchanging ideas between various agents, which, above all in the cultural policy debate, should initiate an intersectoral effect within city administration and lead to an integration of culture in all areas of life, similar to the claims of the Cultural Turn.
Public actors predominantly determine the discourse. Particularly in earlier strategic plans, a wide variety of actors and groups within the public administration were involved in determining the direction of the discourse, making it possible to pass on information and knowledge directly to the stakeholders relevant for the implementation process. The department for cultural development for instance took part in the preparation process of the strategic plans 2000 and 2004. However, it was no longer involved in the Smart City Strategy development process in 2014 due to changing thematic orientation in favour of technological urban development.
This raises the question if cultural agendas and agencies are no longer classified as relevant for urban development purposes, thus being represented neither in terms of content nor personnel in more recent strategic documents of urban planning. At the same time, however, other actors, such as the tourism agency, are given an important position as authors in the agendas of cultural urban development, which suggests a shift of hegemonic interests in favour of semi-public agents.
The actors who determine or reproduce the discourse reach beyond the public sector. All strategic plans show a certain openness in their constellations of actors. This may provide more scope for action through informal and less defined regulations, however the implementation power and effect of the strategy fades through lacking responsibilities. The strategic plan 2000 for example still defines concrete strategic projects for certain urban locations and thus also distributes responsibilities, whereas the Smart City Strategy lists culture-based projects only as individual activities, such as cultural interim use, strengthening AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK the subcentres and neighbourhoods or the construction new cultural buildings without indicating precise responsibilities (MA 18, 2014a, p. 84). Thus, there is reason to assume, that addressing and reaching a diverse range of private actors is rather a political goal than actual planning reality, particularly in more recent strategic plans.

Storylines of cultural discourse in Vienna's strategic planning
The storylines of cultural discourse are traced through recurring key terms and concepts (Figure 4). The size of the point signature shows the frequency of the recurring key terms linked to culture, either explicitly (e.g. through the notion of the creative industry) or implicitly through the use of synonyms (e.g. education or diversity through cultural development).  (2000, 2004, 2005, 2014a, 2014b).
The comprehensive strategic plans refer to culture as a means for location competition and innovativeness. Vienna's international reputation as a 'city of art, science and life culture' (MA 18, 2000, p. 6) is the main argument for maintaining and developing the quality and prestige of the city by focusing on developing cluster segments, which are 'in fierce competition with other European cities. This competition requires more intensive efforts to improve the quality and image of Vienna ' (ibid., p. 20). Competition and image are decisive driving forces for Vienna's urban development.
In addition to technical and scientific fields, the artistic field is described as part of the production of knowledge, on which innovations of urban society are based that need to be strengthened and further developed to 'create an open climate and support people's creativity

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
and willingness to experiment' (ibid., p. 6). Culture is also perceived as a consumable unit that gives the city a certain quality of experience. The city is described as a 'living and experience space' (ibid., p. 8), which must be further developed. Vienna's strong cultural image and the quality of its urban offerings must be further optimised on a spatial level 'by urban development and urban planning [...] in conjunction with all urban political fields of action such as the economy and housing, urban regeneration, transport, social affairs, culture, health and environment' (ibid., p. 8).
The biggest change within the strategic plan 2004 is the focus on the cultural and creative industries, which are repeatedly treated as main topics throughout the document. By expanding the creative industries, 'the development of unique selling points for Vienna as a quality location should be guaranteed' (MA 18, 2004, p. 53). In addition, the special position of Vienna in the field of culture is emphasized in an international comparison, which has 'not yet been adequately recognized as an economic asset' (ibid., p. 55). This suggests an economic orientation in the cultural sector, which should emphasise Vienna in an international comparison and strengthen the urban economic structure.
In the Smart City Strategy culture is rarely explicitly mentioned. This may be related to a change in the self-conception of planning, where technological developments seem to take on a higher significance than art and culture. However, one passage was adapted from the strategic plan 2000 almost without any changes: 'Art and culture are essential social driving forces and represent an integral part of the Smart City Vienna 2050' (MA 18, 2014a, p. 20). This raises the question if culture is primarily used as an innovative boost for urban development, dominated by international competition and location comparison, suggesting a tendency towards planning through culture. However, the particular modalities of cultural urban planning and the way culture is to become an integral part of the Smart City Vienna 2050 are not clarified.
The urban development plans provide a more concrete spatial strategy for cultural planning. Although in STEP 05, competition between cities is also a relevant topic, it is also noted that economic competition criteria alone are not sufficient to grasp location policy in a long-term perspective. 'It is therefore still necessary to ensure spatial and social accessibility and permeability [...]' (MA 18, 2005, p. 51).
Access is a frequently recurring theme in STEP 05, especially in connection with culture as a factor for the quality of life. All residents should have equal opportunities for a 'meaningful life through access to cultural facilities' (ibid., p. 17). Culture is also understood in the sense of sustainability in order to preserve and further develop the city and its diversity of forms. According to STEP 05, culture and art are important factors that create identity and initiate social developments, making them necessary resources for the future development of the city (ibid., p. 25).
Innovation through cultural development is also important, especially connected to the creative industries, which should help to build Vienna's image and make the city an 'attractive and representative address' (ibid., p. 124). The creative industries are regarded as a field of hope for spatial policy (ibid., p. 85).
A separate subchapter devoted to the topic of "spatial aspects of culture" explicitly defines culture as 'the confrontation with and shaping of the natural and social environment ' (ibid., p. 84). Contrary to all other examined strategic documents, culture is unambiguously defined

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
here and, in the sense of the Cultural Turn, regarded as a unit that permeates all areas of life and represents an essential determinant for the quality of life, linking it directly to social infrastructure. This understanding of culture can also be seen in the promotion of district culture, where decentralised cultural work is given high priority (ibid., p. 85) in order to guarantee social and spatial accessibility to cultural provision.
In the latest urban development plan, STEP 2025, creative work in Vienna is given high priority due to the central location and international network of the city. 'Regional cooperation and international networking strengthen the metropolitan region of Vienna as a central European area' (MA 18, 2014b, p. 11).
The key concept of location competition is again particularly present. Not only is Vienna 'one of the fastest growing metropolises in the German-speaking world [...] and in international comparison [...] a city worth living in' (ibid., p. 14), it is also 'an economic and cultural hub in the centre of Europe' (ibid., p. 14). Therefore, its 'position in the competition of European cities [...] can be rethought ' (ibid., p. 14). 'It is no coincidence that Vienna is among the leaders in a number of international rankings' (ibid., p. 18), but partly because of its outstanding cultural urban life. 'Cultural activities are an important factor in urban development ' (ibid., p. 21).
This outward oriented strategy for cultural planning is also supported by statements such as 'space for education in good places', fostering an "attractive city" (ibid., p. 22) to draw in 'talents from all over the world' (ibid., p. 23). The focus on the international recognition of the city gives the impression that the manifold forms of lifestyles, the different offers of learning, cultural exchange and social commitment as a location factor for the international city and location competition are much more significant for urban planning than the promotion of the endogenous potentials of cultural diversity to enable cultural development.

The institutionalization process of culture in Vienna's strategic planning
As the analysis of the strategic planning documents showed, culture is an important concept in strategic planning in Vienna. The ideational foundation of cultural strategic planning in Vienna has changed in the last 20 years from including culture in many aspects of planning (e.g. in the strategic plans 2000 and 2004 or STEP 05) to focusing on culture as a means to attract tourists and investors (e.g. in the Smart City Strategy and STEP 2025). These changing ideas of culture as a means for national and international city competition, boosting innovation and creative industries have intensified over the years. Although these ideas solidify a grand vision for the development of the city by reinforcing planning through culture, the conflicting position of planning for culture through the promotion of culture as a reflexive and empowering tool for more diversity is also present. Culture is often seen as a contributor to society's sense of identity, which influences the perception and association with the city and empowers people to reflexive and innovative potentials. This diametral planning position towards culture as a driver for urban transformation can be repeatedly found in cultural planning in Vienna.
Culture seems to be a suitable instrument for developing common perspectives in all analysed documents. However, tangible planning strategies for political administrations are often lacking, hence making cultural planning a political desire without tangible implementation. The focus is primarily on image planning and creative industries to promote the economy, rather than developing planning strategies for urban culture. Thus, these policies fostering the image of a creative city can only add a lifestyle component to the already established system of the city's competitive strategy, which, however, does not affect the fundamental challenges of a modern city.

AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK
Lastly, only STEP 05 offers an explicit definition of the concept of culture and connects it to social infrastructure whereas all other examined strategic documents lack a common understanding, thereby leaving the planning process open and flexible for unpredictable developments and experimental cultural projects but simultaneously risking arbitrary prioritisation based on power asymmetries among stakeholders. The critical question remains, if mostly decision-makers profit from this lack of differentiation and if cultural planning is therefore steered in the direction of the most promising discourse.
The empirical and content-related foundations of ideas in strategic cultural planning have decreased over the last 20 years, suggesting a less comprehensive basis for the discursive institutionalization of culture within strategic planning. Similar tendencies can be found in the representation of agents, where the multitude and diversity of involved municipal departments and other stakeholders was reduced with each strategic plan. These dynamics suggest a changing dynamic of discursive interactions between agents towards a coordinative discourse, where the focus is on the coordinative construction of cultural policies opposed to the initial objective of strategic planning to open up the discursive decision-making process to a wide variety of actors. Thus, the institutional context of strategic cultural planning in Vienna provides a setting of predominantly economic-led cultural development for promoting Vienna as the cultural capital in an allegedly growing global competition, communicated through the coordinative discourse between mostly policy-makers, thereby solidifying strategic cultural locations mostly in the city centre and established cultural urban space.

Culture as social infrastructure to rethink strategic cultural planning in Vienna
Culture is an important factor in planning policies in Vienna, as the analysis has shown. Simultaneously, social infrastructure is ingrained in urban policy as Vienna has a strong sociodemocratic tradition. However, culture is only implicitly connected to social infrastructure in reference to cultural development for educational purposes and rarely explicitly mentioned as a form of social infrastructure itself, despite both concepts being important factors for urban and social life. The irresistible attraction of the creative city is overpowering the notion of social infrastructure, as the urge for measurable growth represents hope in the knowledge economy and for a socially inclusive and sustainable development and prosperity.
The notion of social infrastructure however makes its essential and necessary character of mostly unnoticed structures in society visible, which cannot be measured in exact terms. It points to its indispensable position in society and the city and to the need for an overarching planning strategy to make structures of social infrastructure accessible for all by all. Thus, instead of promoting urban locations with the highest economic benefits, such as the city centre, acknowledging culture as a form of social infrastructure may foster an understanding of the importance of decentralized cultural provision and access for all.
By recognizing culture as a form of social infrastructure, strategic planning has the potential to provide a framework, where culture as a complex image of different social realities is met by a differentiated spatial planning strategy through the incorporation of the notion of social infrastructure. As for technical infrastructure, where for example transport routes are uncontested essential structures for everyday life, cultural provision and activities are essential structures for social cohesion and exchange of different positions and thus the social functioning and development of a city. The framework of strategic planning in this respect seems promising through its open structure. However, it needs further reflexion on its purpose and implementation strategies. The concept of social infrastructure and its roots in social policy AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK could be a starting point to bring the importance of culture for social well-being back to the centre of planning debates and foster a more inclusive planning position towards planning for culture. Moreover, it could enable planners to promote niche-cultural and experimental expression to foster a diverse cultural urban life.

Conclusion
Culture has become an important factor in urban planning since the 1980s. Particularly for strategic planning, culture provides a useful tool since the 2000s to institutionalize specific planning ideas. The paper examined the institutionalization of culture within strategic planning in Vienna, the solidification of specific collective values within cultural planning policies and path-dependencies within cultural planning practices. The concept of discursive institutionalism proved to be a useful tool to uncover specific dynamics from different perspectives by placing equal emphasis on ideas, agents and discursive interactions.
The analysis uncovered path-dependencies of commodifying culture for urban policy purposes since the 1980s in Vienna. Although since the beginning of the 2000s, rather elaborate strategies were prepared to direct cultural urban development, the reoccurring concepts of national and international city competition, innovation, creative industries or diversity have rarely changed since then. The decrease in empirical and content-related foundations and diversity of actors reinforces the chosen path of planning through culture by commodifying cultural development. The underlying philosophy of strategic cultural planning was pushed by economic changes, which triggered socio-cultural and socio-economic changes and facilitated the institutionalization of newly emerging values of culture for economic growth and marketable urban development. The programmatic idea of strategic planning as a framework for future urban development made the conflation of traditional planning approaches with project planning possible. These dynamics were invigorated by the changing constellations of agents shifting towards a decreasing range of policy-makers and private actors, and coordinating policies through self-reinforcing interactions. Thus, planning through culture shows path-dependent structures within the Viennese planning policies, which are rooted in the economic shifts of the 1980s and were intensified through political shifts in the 1990s and 2000s.
However, also the opposite position of planning for culture is path-dependent upon the critical stance of the Cultural Turn, which prevailed throughout the last 40 years and was present in every analysed planning document in Vienna, at least until the Smart City Strategy, where a different thematic orientation of technological-led urban development took over. Due to an increase in agents supporting the technological arguments of urban development since the 2000s, there is reason to assume, that the cultural agenda will even further diminish in the years and strategic plans to come.
In today's cultural strategic planning in Vienna, culture is predominantly seen as an economic resource and rarely as a critical and democratizing element in society. Reflecting on culture as a form of social infrastructure and its origins in social policy may help to strengthen the position towards planning for culture in future urban planning policies, thereby facilitating a change in planning itself. Through engaging in the critical, reflexive and empowering role of culture, the underlying collective values of culture as a form of social infrastructure could lead to a different institutionalization process in planning policies. Opening the discursive interactions towards a more communicative discourse by involving a wider range of actors, perspectives and urban locations may foster a planning reality for planning for culture rather than a grand narrative for marketing the city to the outside world.