Re Imagining Creative Cities in Twenty First Century Asia Xin Gu All Chapter

Re-Imagining Creative Cities in
Twenty-First Century Asia Xin Gu

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/re-imagining-creative-cities-in-twenty-first-century-asi
a-xin-gu/
Re-imagining Creative Cities
in Twenty-First Century Asia
Edited by
Xin Gu · Michael Kho Lim · Justin O’Connor
Re-Imagining Creative Cities in Twenty-First
Century Asia
Xin Gu • Michael Kho Lim
Justin O’Connor
Editors
Re-Imagining Creative
Cities in Twenty-First
Century Asia
Editors
Xin Gu Michael Kho Lim
School of Media, Film and Journalism School of Journalism, Media
Monash University and Culture
Caulfield East, VIC, Australia Cardiff University
Cardiff, UK
Justin O’Connor
School of Creative Industries
University of South Australia
Adelaide, SA, Australia
Department of Cultural Industry and
Management
Shanghai Jiaotong University
Shanghai, China
ISBN 978-3-030-46290-1 ISBN 978-3-030-46291-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46291-8
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Matteo Colombo / gettyimages

Cover design: eStudioCalamar
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lucy Batrouney from Palgrave Macmillan for her
enthusiasm for this book project. We are grateful for Bryony Burns and
Mala Sanghera-Warren at Palgrave Macmillan for their support and guid-
ance for seeing the book through to publication. We also thank colleagues
at our respective institutions: School of Media, Film and Journalism at
Monash University, School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff
University, and the Faculty of Creative Industries at the University of
South Australia for providing intellectual support. The anonymous review-
ers helped ensure the quality of the publication.
v
Contents
1 Introduction: Re-Imagining Creative Cities in

Twenty-First Century Asia 1
Xin Gu, Michael Kho Lim, and Justin O’Connor
Part I Conceptualising Creative Cities in Asia 11
2 Creative Cities, Creative Classes and the Global Modern 13

Justin O’Connor
3 Global City as Place Branding Strategy: The Case of

Bonifacio Global City (Philippines) 27
Michael Kho Lim
4 Creative Cities, Technological Utopianism and Cultural

Retrofitting 41
Xin Gu
5 Rethinking Creative Cities?: UNESCO, Sustainability,

and Making Urban Cultures 59
Deborah Stevenson
vii
viii Contents
Part II Resisting Creative Cities 75
6 ‘Crisis of Values’ in Rhetorical Architecture: Creative

Cities Discourse and the Urban Landscapes of the
Philippines 77
Janine Patricia Santos
7 From Foreign Community to Creative Town? Creativity

and Contestation in Itaewon, Seoul 95
Hyunjoon Shin
8 Whose Cultural Memory? Disruptive Tactics

by the Creative Collectives in George Town, Malaysia113
Zaki Habibi
9 A Humble Creative City: Tainan City as a Case

Study of Culture-led and Community-supported
Transformation of a Historical City129
Jiun-Yi Wu
Part III Creative Cities and Creative Industries 143
10 From Rubble to the Korean Wave Hub: The Making

of the New Digital Media City in Seoul145
Jun-Min Song and Yu-Min Joo
11 The Role of an Urban Festival: Case Study

of the Pingyao International Film Festival161
Jian Xiao and Lin Jin
12 ‘Behind the Scenes’ of Mumbai’s Bollywood175

Anubha Sarkar
13 Cool Japan, Creative Industries, and Diversity187

Koichi Iwabuchi
Contents ix
Part IV Governing Creative Cities 201
14 Creative Seoul: A Lesson for Asian Creative Cities203

Kim-Marie Spence
15 Re-imaging the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao

Greater Bay Area as a Cluster of Creative Cities221
Desmond Cheuk Kuen Hui, Charmaine Cheung Man Hui,
Patrick Kin Wai Mok, Jason Ka Hei Wong, and Ruijie Du
16 Creative City Policy in Second-Tier Cities: The case

of Chiang Mai, Thailand239
Phitchakan Chuangchai
17 City of Music: Post-Conflict Branding

of Ambon City253
Nyak Ina Raseuki, Zeffry Alkatiri,
and Sonya Indriati Sondakh
Part V Critical Reflections on Creative Cities Policy

Making in Asia 263
18 Creative Cities and Sustainable Development:

A Framework265
Helene George
19 Creative Bandung: Interview with Tita Larasati277

Tita Larasati and Xin Gu
20 UNESCO and Mongolian Cultural Policy:

Interview with Bodibaatar Jigjidsuren283
Bodibaatar Jigjidsuren and Xin Gu
x Contents
21 Creative Cities in Cambodia: An Impossible Idea?

Interview with Milena Dragićević Šešić291
Milena Dragićević Šešić and Justin O’Connor
Index303
Notes on Contributors
Zeffry Alkatiri is Lecturer at History Department, Faculty of Humanities,

Universitas Indonesia. He received his PhD in 2006 from the Faculty of
Humanities, Universitas Indonesia. He focuses on the issues of social and
cultural history. He has written about social issues and cultural diversity in
various national and international journals. Besides his academic works, he
has also written a number of poetry collection that have won awards.
Phitchakan Chuangchai is Lecturer at the College of Innovation,
Thammasat University in Bangkok, Thailand. Her research interests focus
on the implementation and impact of the Creative City discourse in
second-tier cities in Southeast Asia especially those in the Southeast Asian
Creative Cities Network, including Bandung (Indonesia), Cebu
(Philippines), Chiang Mai (Thailand), and George Town (Malaysia).
Ruijie Du is a research Assistant Professor at the Harbin Institute of
Technology, Shenzhen (HIT Shenzhen). She obtained her Ph.D. in archi-
tecture from the Chinese University of Hong Kong with a specialisation in
architectural heritage conservation. Before joining HIT Shenzhen, she
worked as senior research assistant at the Hang Seng University of Hong
Kong. Her research interest ranges from architectural and urban heritage
conservation, urban revitalisation, to cultural and creative industries.
xi
xii Notes on Contributors
Helene George is Founder and Managing Director of Creative Economy,

a company at the forefront of economic development based on culture.
Helene is a sought-after adviser and development consultant by the gov-
ernment and the private sector.
Xin Gu is part of the UNESCO ‘Expert Facility’, supporting the 2005
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Cultural Diversity
(2019-2022). She co-developed and was the director of the Master of
Cultural and Creative Industries (MCCI) at Monash University in
Australia. She has published widely on urban creative clusters and
agglomerations, cultural work, creative entrepreneurship, cultural
and creative industries policy, media cities, maker culture and cyber-
culture in China. Xin has worked with policy initiatives in the UK,
China and Indonesia to support small-scale local creative industries
development services. Her work focuses on the transformation of
creative cities and the creative economy under different social, eco-
nomic and political conditions. Xin’s current research concerns the digital
creative economy, looking at the democratisation of creativity through
vast transformative digital media ecosystems.
Zaki Habibi is a media studies scholar with an interest in the interrelation
between everyday life and media practice in cities. His research covers media
practice, media and memory studies, documentary photography and film,
and creativity in everyday life. Since 2016, he has worked as a Doktorand
(PhD Fellow) at the Department of Communication and Media, Lund
University, Sweden. He is also a lecturer in media and cultural studies at the
Department of Communications, Islamic University of Indonesia (UII).
His current research explores the poetics and politics of mediated urban
creativities and creative voices in Malaysian and Indonesian cities.
Charmaine Cheung Man Hui is Assistant Professor of the BA in
Cultural and Creative Industries in Department of Social Science at The
Hang Seng University of Hong Kong. With an academic background in
comparative literature, architecture and cultural policy, she is interested in
the critical intersection between arts, culture and its wider society. Prior to
joining the HSU, she was consultant and manager of consultancy studies
in the field of heritage and creative industries.
Notes on Contributors xiii
Desmond Cheuk Kuen Hui is Professor and Head of Department of

Art and Design, Director of the BA in Cultural and Creative Industries
and BA in Art and Design at the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong.
He holds a BArch degree from Cornell University, and MPhil and PhD
from Cambridge University. He has held tenured positions at the
University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong from
1990 to 2013. He is a registered architect in both Canada and Hong
Kong and has led many public research and consultancies in the mapping
of creative industries, creativity index, creative clusters, cultural and indus-
trial heritage, urban renewal and regeneration, public art and new tech-
nology. He was curator for the HK Pavilion at the Venice Biennale of
Architecture in both 2008 and 2012, served on various HK government
committees, and part of the ‘Expert Facility’ of the UNESCO 2005
Convention on Cultural Diversity. He is now member of the Country and
Marine Parks Board, Advisory Committee of Built Heritage Conservation
and Museum Expert Advisor for the Hong Kong SAR Government.
Koichi Iwabuchi is Professor of Media and Cultural Studies at Kwansei
Gakuin University in Japan. His main research interests are cultural glo-
balisation and transnationalism, and diversity, multicultural questions, cul-
tural diversity and cultural citizenship in the Japanese and East Asian
contexts. His recent English publications include: Resilient Borders and
Cultural Diversity: Internationalism, Brand Nationalism and
Multiculturalism in Japan (Lexington Books, 2015); “Globalization,
Digitalization, and Renationalization: Some Reflections from
Japanese Cases”, Situations: Cultural Studies in the Asian Context, 12
(1), pp. 1-22; and “Trans-Asia as method: a collaborative and dia-
logic project in a globalized world,” in Trans-Asia as Method: Theory
and Practices, edited by J. de Kloet, Y. F. Chow and G. P. L. Chong
(Rowman & Littlefield International, 2019).
Bodibaatar Jigjidsuren is an art historian who currently works as an
international expert on UNESCO’s Convention and a PhD candidate at
the School of Creative Industries, University of South Australia. He pro-
duced TV programs on contemporary world cinema for Mongolian
National Television, developed and implemented policies for the Ministry
of Culture, lectured at the National University of Mongolia, and advised
on cultural and public policies for the Mongolian government.
xiv Notes on Contributors
Lin Jin is an independent scholar, Nanchang University, Nanchang,

China, researching on the development of creative culture in fringe cities
locally and internationally.
Yu-Min Joo is Associate Professor at the KDI School of Public Policy
and Management in Korea. She also taught at the Lee Kuan Yew School
of Public Policy, National University of Singapore as Assistant Professor
from 2012 to 2019. She is the author of a number of journal articles and
books on urban development and policy, including her latest book
Megacity Seoul: Urbanization and the Development of Modern South
(Routledge, 2019) and an edited volume Smart Cities in Asia: Governing
Development in the Era of Hyper-Connectivity (Edward Elgar Publishing,
2020). She holds a Masters degree in Urban Planning from Harvard
University and a PhD in Urban and Regional Planning from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Tita Larasati is working for Bandung, a UNESCO City of Design. She is
the chair of Bandung Creative City Forum (BCCF), an organisation
responsible for the application to UNESCO. She also teaches industrial
design at the Faculty of Arts and Design at Bandung Institute of Technology
Michael Kho Lim’s career trajectory lies at the intersection of industry
and academia. He has extensive experience in the management of cultural
and creative industries, assuming various roles, such as being a film pro-
ducer, executive director, general manager, and holding creative and man-
agerial positions in content writing and editing for different publications.
He has produced several short and full-length feature films, documenta-
ries, and music videos. He also has several years of university teaching
experience in the Philippines and Australia, handling modules on screen
production, creative entrepreneurship, cultural economy and sustainable
development, among others.
Michael’s research interests include Asian cinema, independent film-
making, film distribution, cultural economy and the broader area of cul-
tural and creative industries. He is the author of Philippine Cinema and
the Cultural Economy of Distribution (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) and co-
author of The Media Kit: A Frame-by-Frame Guide to Visual Production
(Anvil Publishing, 2008). He is also co-editing a forthcoming anthology:
Sine ni Lav Diaz: A Long Take on the Filipino Auteur (with Parichay Patra;
Intellect Ltd. and DLSU Publishing House, 2020). He is presently a
Lecturer in media and cultural policy at Cardiff University.
Notes on Contributors xv
Patrick Kin Wai Mok is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social

Sciences at the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong. His research inter-
ests cover history, cultural studies, and cultural and creative industries.
Before joining the HSU, he was consultant and project manager respon-
sible for developing the Hong Kong Memory Project.
Justin O’Connor is Professor in the School of Creative Industries,
University of South Australia. He is also visiting Professor in the School of
Cultural Industry and Management, Shanghai Jiaotong University. From
2012-2018 he was Professor of Communications and Cultural Economy
at Monash University. Between 2012-18 he was part of the UNESCO
‘Expert Facility’, supporting the 2005 Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of Cultural Diversity. He has advised cities in Europe, Russia,
Korea and China. Under the UNESCO/EU Technical Assistance
Programme, he has worked with the Ministries of Culture in both
Mauritius and Samoa to develop cultural industry strategies. Justin is the
author of the 2016 Platform Paper After the Creative Industries, and a
forthcoming book (with Xin Gu) Red Creative: Culture and Modernity in
China. He is co-editor of the 2015 Routledge Companion to the Cultural
Industries, and with Rong Yueming (2018) Cultural Industries in
Shanghai: Policy and Planning inside a Global City.
Nyak Ina Raseuki is Lecturer and Director of Graduate School of Urban
Arts and Cultural Industry at the Jakarta Institute of the Arts, Indonesia.
She is author of Being Islamic in Music: Two Contemporary Genres from
Sumatra (2017). Besides her academic commitments, she also maintains
and nurtures collaborative relationships with contemporary composers, as
well as popular and traditional musicians across the Indonesian archipel-
ago, in a multitude of performances and recordings. Among her published
recordings are an alternative popular music Archipelagongs (Warner Music
Indonesia, 1999), Music for Solo Performer: Ubiet Sings Tony Prabowo
(Musikita, Jakarta, 2006), a new interpretation of kroncong music, Ubiet
& Kroncong Tenggara (demajors, Jakarta, 2007/2013), and two of her
latest projects, interpreting Eastern Indonesia songs and an interpretation
of S. Abdullah songs, a kroncong singer of hadhrami descent in Indonesia
known in the 1930s.
xvi Notes on Contributors
Janine Patricia Santos is a PhD candidate in Anthropology (KU Leuven,

Belgium). Her foundations in Cultural Economy (Monash University,
Australia) helped her establish research interests in creativity and urbanism,
the political economy of cultural production, culture and development,
and ideology and activism. She is currently involved in the research project
CityLabs—Inventing the Future with the Institute of Anthropological
Research in Africa, which looks at how ‘making’ and creativity contribute
to the development of urban ecologies in African cities. For the project,
she is currently looking at the discourse and practices of ‘technological
democracy’ in Lomé, Togo, as seen through various ways of creatively
‘hacking’ the digital economy and its infrastructure.
Anubha Sarkar has a BA in Journalism and an MA in Mass Communication
and Cultural Economics. She is a PhD candidate at Monash University,
working on the intersections between the Indian film industry, cultural
policy, creative economy and soft power.
Milena Dragićević Šešić is Milena Dragićević Šešić is Head of the
UNESCO Chair on Interculturalism, Art Management and Mediation
and former President of the University of Arts, Belgrade. She is also a
professor of cultural policy, cultural management, cultural studies, and
media studies. She is an expert in participatory approaches for the design
and development of local, regional and national cultural policies. Milena
has developed more than 50 projects in cultural policy and management.
Hyunjoon Shin is Professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences at
Sunkonghoe University. Having received his PhD on the transformation of
the Korean music industry, he has carried out broader research on popular
culture, international migration, and urban space in Korea and East Asia.
He was a Visiting Scholar at the National University of Singapore, Leiden
University in the Netherlands, Leuven University in Belgium, and Duke
University in Durham, USA. He is currently a member of International
Advisory Editors of Popular Music and a member of the Editorial Collective
of Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. His papers appear in Positions: East Asia
Cultures Critique, Popular Music, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, City,
Culture and Society to name a few. He has also been involved in the indie
music scene in Hongdae, Seoul since its inception in the mid-1990s.
Sonya Indriati Sondakh is a PhD Candidate at the Department of
Literature, Universitas Indonesia. She is now researching on an oral tradi-
tion in North Sulawesi called “Foso Rumages Tradition” (a thanksgiving
Notes on Contributors xvii
tradition) for her dissertation. She is now Vice Director at Graduate

School of Urban Arts and Cultural Industries at the Jakarta Institute of
the Arts. She is also a writer and translator for a number of books.
Jun-Min Song is Head at the JACOPS Planning & Design Corp. in
Korea. She holds a PhD in Cultural Policy Studies from the University of
Warwick. From 2017 to 2019, she was a Lecturer at Konkuk University,
Sogang University, and University of Seoul. She teaches and publishes on
urban development and culture, particularly on the topics of urban gover-
nance, urban development, urban design, urban cultural policy, placemak-
ing, and cultural and creative industries. She is a cultural planner and a
founder and director of arts conference CAVARET in Korea. Her latest
book chapter is titled “Making a Sustainable Creative Milieu in a Newly
Built District: Seoul Digital Media City” published by Nanam in 2018.
Kim-Marie Spence is a postdoctoral researcher at Southampton Solent
University (UK) specializing in cultural industries and cultural policy. She
is also an adjunct lecturer in media and communication at University of
the West Indies (Jamaica). She has done significant primary fieldwork
comparing the popular culture industries of reggae, Bollywood, K-pop
and K-drama, as part of her doctoral research at the Australian National
University. She is a former Rhodes Scholar and Head of Creative Industries
in Jamaica. She has also worked with UNESCO on the Representative List
of Oral and Intangible Heritage. She is co-author of Global Cultural
Economy with Routledge Publishers with articles published in Journal of
Arts Management, Law & Society, and Journal of Popular Music & Society.
She is also a contributor to the Policy Forum, the online forum of the Asia
& Pacific Public Policy Society.
Deborah Stevenson is Research Professor of Sociology and Urban
Cultural Research in the Institute for Culture and Society at Western
Sydney University. Her research interests are in arts and cultural policy,
cities and urban life, and the role of gender in shaping creative practice and
cultural consumption. Her publications include the books Cities and
Urban Cultures (OpUP, 2003), Cities of Culture: A Global Perspective
(Routledge, 2017), and The City (Polity, 2013). Her latest monograph
Cultural Policy Beyond the Economy: Work, Value and the Social (Edward
Elgar) is due for publication in 2020, while the co-edited Routledge
Companion to Urban Media and Communication was published in 2019.
xviii Notes on Contributors
Jason Ka Hei Wong is a graduate of History from the Chinese University

of Hong Kong. He also has an EASTICA Postgraduate Certificate in
Archival Studies. He was also part of the Department of Social Science at
the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, and participated in the research
related to cultural and creative industries in the Greater Bay Area.
Jiun-Yi Wu is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Culture and Creative
Industries at the City, University of London. He was a visiting lecturer at
City, University of London in 2018 and 2019, and worked with Network,
Queen Mary University of London’s Centre for the Creative and Cultural
Economy, as a knowledge exchange coordinator in 2019. He used to
work at the Ministry of Culture of Taiwan, which is in charge of the devel-
opment of cultural and creative industries. His research draws on cultural
and social context of clustering in the cultural and creative industries, as
well as their relation to urban and regional development.
Jian Xiao works at the School of Media and International Culture,
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. She has published in European
Journal of Cultural Studies, Chinese Journal of Communication, Journal of
Popular Music Studies, Space and Culture (forthcoming). She has also pub-
lished a monograph titled Punk Culture in Contemporary China with
Palgrave Macmillan. Her research interests focus on new media and cul-
tural studies.
List of Figures
Fig. 7.1 A Gallery turned into a sit-in site, September 5 and December
9, 2015. ‘Stop Psy” and “Stop Gentrification” in English
Roman scripts are clear. Photograph by Hyunjoon Shin 96
Fig. 7.2 A day in the life at an alley of Itaewon in 2016. Photograph by
Hyunjoon Shin 107
Fig. 8.1 The building compound of Hin Bus Depot (inside yellow line)
as seen in this aerial view during day and night, it is a home for
several creative collectives in George Town since 2014 117
Fig. 8.2 Culture on display in the city: the state-commissioned public
sign in Penang International Airport and the diorama in a
private-owned museum 118
Fig. 8.3 The façade in the back side of Hin Bus Depot compound 121
Fig. 8.4 Tourism boost: the state-commissioned street arts projects and
commercial initiatives by hotels and other service industries in
George Town 121
Fig. 8.5 The creative collectives make their own murals in a few hidden
corners of the city 122
Fig. 8.6 Hin’s family: the place, the people and the activities inside 125
Fig. 9.1 A blueprint artwork on Hai’an Road 133
Fig. 9.2 Artworks alongside Hai’an Road 135
Fig. 10.1 DMC © Junmin Song, 2014 152
Fig. 12.1 Keelery, Published by Sandhya, and Jul 7. “India - Box Office
Contribution by Language 2019.” Statista, July 7, 2020.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/948615/india-regional-
box-office-contribution-by-language/ Share of regional box
office contribution across India as of May 2018, by language
xix
xx List of Figures
Rights Holder Name: Statista Acknowledgement/Citation

details: Published by Sanika Diwanji, Sep 23, 2019 https://
www.statista.com/statistics/948615/india-regional-box-
office-contribution-by-language/ Types of licensing: Creative
Commons https://www.statista.com/help/#faq52a743ca29f
8d0f009000013 https://www.statista.com/getting-started/
publishing-statista-content-infographics---creative-commons176
Fig. 12.2 Watson, Amy. “Leading Film Markets Worldwide by Number
of Films Produced 2018,” July 11, 2019. https://www.
statista.com/statistics/252727/leading-film-markets-
worldwide-by-number-of-films-produced/ Leading film
markets worldwide from 2007-2018, by number of films
produced Rights Holder Name: Statista Acknowledgement/
Citation details: Published by Amy Watson, Jul 11, 2019
https://www.statista.com/statistics/252727/leading-film-
markets-worldwide-by-number-of-films-produced/ Types of
licensing: Creative Commons https://www.statista.com/help
/#faq52a743ca29f8d0f009000013 https://www.statista.
com/getting-started/publishing-statista-content-infographics-
--creative-commons177
Fig. 12.3 Sarkar, Anubha. “Bollywood’s Global Affair: The Cultural
Industry and Soft Power.” Dissertation, 2020. Governance of
film policy in India. Tables and division of ministries/
organisations formulated based on my PhD research 181
Fig. 14.1 VIXX Gangnamdol, K-Star Road, 2016 210
Fig. 14.2 2012 Gangnam Style Monument, Gangnam Station 2016 211
Fig. 14.3 Old JYP Building, Cheongdam. Taken from the Dunkin
Donuts. 2016 212
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: Re-Imagining Creative Cities

in Twenty-First Century Asia
Xin Gu, Michael Kho Lim, and Justin O’Connor
The idea of the Creative City is a product of the 1990s. Of course, the
idea has long roots in a Euro-American narrative of the city as a primary
site for commercial and industrial development or ‘modernisation’, and as
a locus for a certain quality of experience we call ‘modern’. The Creative
City involved a reframing of this narrative at a moment when the
X. Gu (*)
School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University,
Caulfield East, VIC, Australia
e-mail: Xin.gu@monash.edu
M. K. Lim
School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University,
Cardiff, UK
e-mail: LimM2@cardiff.ac.uk
J. O’Connor
School of Creative Industries, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Department of Cultural Industry and Management, Shanghai Jiaotong University,
Shanghai, China
e-mail: justin.oconnor@unisa.edu.au
© The Author(s) 2020 1

X. Gu et al. (eds.), Re-Imagining Creative Cities in Twenty-First
Century Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46291-8_1
2 X. GU ET AL.
Fordist-Keynesian settlement had broken down. That is, where ‘Fordist’

industrial production moved overseas and cities were expected to operate
more independently—and entrepreneurially—inside and outside the
Keynesian planning frame of the nation-state. The Creative City drew
specifically on the cultural, even aesthetic, dimensions of the city, deemed
to have been side-lined by the functionality of the Fordist city, as exempli-
fied by the top-down architectural and planning regimes of Le Corbusier
and Robert Moses. These ‘soft’ cultural capacities—unruly, messy, intui-
tive, iterative, emotional—were now to be the drivers of a new kind of
post-industrial city. On the one hand, this agenda responded to the mul-
tiplying demands to take back control of the city, symbolically represented
by the events of 1968 and articulated conceptually by Jane Jacobs (1985)
and—more robustly—by Henri Lefebvre (1992). Cities were for people,
not the other way around. On the other hand, this cultural dimension not
only made cities liveable but was now set to become a benign economic
driver for a post-industrial future. In this sense, the Creative City and
what came to be known in 1998 as the ‘creative industries’ emerged at the
same time, though they have not always remained so close.
The re-invention of the city mobilised a broad coalition of actors and
aspirations under the shared ‘imaginary’ of the Creative City (Jessop and
Oosterlynck 2008). As such it could take multiple directions. For some it
meant investing in the arts and cultural infrastructure, hoping to attract
global companies and their equally footloose senior staff. Or an iconic
building could be catalytic for the local population, declaring a new future
for the city, and maybe bringing in cultural tourists for good measure.
These could be part of a city’s ambitious bid for international cultural (or
sporting) events, and the ever-growing conference trade—attempts at ‘re-
branding’ which extended to the various ‘city of culture’ programs that
were emerging and, after 2004, the UNESCO Creative Cities Network
(UCCN). Some of these cities sought a deeper and longer-term renegotia-
tion of their identities and aspirations. Very few actioned that full transfor-
mation of urban governance envisaged by Franco Bianchini and Charles
Landry in their 1995 book, in which the language ‘of instrumental, ratio-
nal and analytic thinking’ would to be supplemented by one that could
describe the ‘messy’ aspects of urban life, those ‘which are subjective and
not quantifiable: memory, emotions, passions, senses, desires, all of which
engender motivations and loyalties’ (Landry and Bianchini 1995: 15).
In the early noughties, the Creative City would be increasingly re-
oriented around Richard Florida’s (2002, 2005) concept of the ‘creative
class’. This was a continuation of the strategy of ‘attracting footloose
1 INTRODUCTION: RE-IMAGINING CREATIVE CITIES… 3
talent’ but with economic metrics and analytics, benchmarks and indexes
to back it up. Florida’s account focused on cultural infrastructure but more
in terms of up-market, trendy leisure amenities and the kinds of ‘lifestyle
districts’ that had proliferated in cities across the globe—celebrated in
newspaper travel sections and in-flight magazines. Florida embraced the
vibrancy of urban living—gays, bohemians, multi-ethnicity—but the urban
community it explicitly targeted was a professional-managerial class,
expanded to include artists, but in which ‘blue-collar’ workers (threats to
tolerance and creativity) were not so welcome. Finally, though Florida
eulogized the ‘soft infrastructure’ of creative urban landscapes, the creative
class would require housing, leisure and entertainment amenities, up-mar-
ket hospitality and retail, perhaps a gallery or two—and this required capi-
tal investment and development green-lights. These were enthusiastically
forthcoming, as witnessed by the tsunami of global capital-led urban trans-
formation over the last two decades, whose sheer scale and reach has now
outgrown the quaint term ‘gentrification’. In short, Florida’s ‘creative
class’—socially exclusive, consumption-oriented, capital- intensive, top-
down, and justified entirely by hard economic metrics—helped deliver
almost the exact opposite of that promised in the Creative City imaginary.
Developing new forms of cultural production able to take the place of
the old industries was a more difficult challenge; despite it being presented
as part of the Creative City package it tended to develop in a different
space. Of course, investing in a city’s cultural infrastructure, alongside the
lifestyle zones of the creative class, was essential for any creative industries
strategy; in practice such a strategy required more detailed research and
long-term investment than many cities were capable of providing. Cities
were privileged sites for the creative industries, as these worked within
agglomeration economies and complex ecosystems, where cultural con-
sumption and production would ideally form a virtuous circle. In practice,
however, the returns on consumption were quicker and bigger than those
gained from investing in a set of creative micro-businesses. Up-market
apartments and hospitality ventures drove out creative workspace and
affordable housing. In any event, in the age of neoliberal austerity, few
cities had the capacity for any forward-thinking long-term industrial strat-
egy. A de facto creative industry recipe emerged, which combined ele-
ments of Landry’s creative city and Florida’s creative class with the
‘start-up’ entrepreneurial ethos that now animated much of creative
industries thinking. This is what we call the ‘creativity bundle’.
The ‘creativity bundle’ has three aspects. First, the ‘creative entrepre-
neur’, based on long-standing images of the free creative artist, able to act
4 X. GU ET AL.
and innovate ‘outside-the-box’. Second, the ‘creative milieu’, semi-

autonomous networks of these creative entrepreneurs embedded in local
urban places, and through which new ideas emerge, circulate, mutate and
accelerate. Third, ‘networks of micro-enterprises’, operating in a zone
between the firm and the market, between competition and collaboration,
between the worlds of work and the social, operating as a kind of ‘ecosys-
tem’ not amenable to top-down state planning or corporate control. In
short, creative industries demanded new kinds of cities, which facilitated
new kinds of creative milieus, new kinds of enterprises, and new kinds of
subjects able to autonomously create and innovate. Importantly, though
this could be seen as a city-wide agenda, it could be scaled down to man-
ageable proportions through the idea of the ‘creative cluster’ or ‘hub’—
these two forms combining production, consumption, urban image-making
and high-profile capital projects for public sector and private developers
alike. It was in this form, we suggest, that the idea of the creative indus-
tries or creative economy moved from the cities of the Global North to
those of the Global South.
The Creative City has been seen as ‘fast-policy’ (Peck 2005) an easily
transferable piece of ‘policy-technology’ (Kong 2014). Across the Global
South, it could make multiple appeals to particular interests and collective
aspirations in ways that could assemble powerful local coalitions. The
Creative City covered projects around heritage, building new art galleries
and concert halls, promoting festivals and cultural tourism, developing
housing and up-market retail and leisure facilities, creating start-up and co-
working spaces and so on. These coalitions were animated by a powerful
imaginary, articulated especially by international agencies such as the British
Council and (latterly) the Goethe Institut, as well as supranational agencies
such as UNCTAD and, above all, UNESCO. This imaginary was of a new
kind of development, a new connection to the global, and a new path to a
viable future. To ratify the UNESCO 2005 Convention on the Protection
and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, or to join its Creative
City Network, was to be part of a new global club of moderns, this time
articulated around culture and human creativity, both of which the Global
South possessed in abundance—and Asian Cities were second to none.
The Creative City might be embraced as an Asian possibility, but it was
marked with the provenance of the Global North. As with other develop-
mental agendas issuing from the Global North, the transfer of both the
imaginary and the policy technology of Creative City was fraught with
multiple issues of replication, transposition and translation. There were
familiar problems of ‘catching-up’ with a Western model, one to which the
more one sought to approach, the more it receded into the distance. So
too the well-worn problems of identity—of what ‘creative’ could mean in
the context of an ‘Asia’ that represented a long-standing binary with ‘the
West’ but was also multiple, distributed and diverse. And for many cities
the familiar problem of resources—infrastructure, capital, knowledge,
technology. Were Asian cities to be pulled finally into orbit of Western
modernity, their cities replicated non-places of global consumption? Or
would we see another set of half-finished projects, the semi-ruins of
another failed modernity? Maybe some cities could take it and make it
their own, transform it in their image; or perfect it, run it higher and faster
than any western city had previously imaged?
Was the Creative City, then, about ‘elite dreaming’ (Ong 2011: 17),
local development coalitions seeking to tap into the global modern, or did
it speak to local communities about a new kind of involvement and valida-
tion, a new empowerment? Was ‘creative’ a further iteration of Euro-
American modernism or could it encompass the very different aesthetics
and cultures of Asia, embedded in cities with a very distinct historical tra-
jectory from that of the Western mythos? How were these fault-lines—
some old, some new—to be negotiated at a time when the Global North
itself is in some sort of disarray?
The chapters in this book cannot address all these questions, but will
mostly touch them obliquely through case studies. At the same time, their
Asian location necessarily introduces a new dimension to the Creative City
by locating them within the debates of globalization and cosmopolitan-
ism—both of these mediated by those ‘ubiquitous technologies’ increas-
ingly seen as a necessity in developing creative cities. However, the
tendency of the Creative City discourse to be dominated by economic
rationality and technology-led development cannot simply be equated to
the ‘neo-liberal’ approaches common in Western discourse. This book
suggests a ‘civic’ dimension be added. Many Asian cities are certainly
undergoing top-down planned culture-led urban regeneration, but this is
also developed in many cases via public and private partnerships, setting
new examples for developments in other cultural and creative sectors pre-
viously closed off from public participation. The creative city is an invita-
tion for citizens to renew their cosmopolitan imaginary, facilitated by the
emergence of embedded ubiquitous technologies: this need not always
break in favour of global corporations and authoritarian government, new
possibilies, new sites of contestation and imagination may also emerge.
As opposed to debates in the West on ‘third spaces’ or the ‘public
sphere’, the Asian creative city can be viewed as a new development phase,
6 X. GU ET AL.
a turning point, even an awakening from an industrial and developmental

marginalisation of the cultural public sphere. These new imaginaries, tra-
jectories and narratives contribute to new dialogues and collaborations
between the State, the Public and a range of private actors rather than a
zero-sum opposition of state and market. In order to explore these issues,
this book looks at creative city politics in a global urban context, and at the
different trajectories across Asia, from the multiple terminologies deployed
by creative cities to the different agencies and processes involved in their
implementation. This book also frames these issues in terms of a distinc-
tive urban public space. The adoption and adaptation of different ‘cosmo-
politan imaginaries’ helps structure creative spaces as (often contested)
sites where the local (or regional) meets the global.
This book aims to use the ‘creative cities’ paradigm as part of a wider
process involving first, a rapid de-industrialisation in the region that has
left a void for new development models, resulting in a popular uptake of
cultural economies in Asian cities; and second, the congruence and con-
flicts of traditional and modern cultural values leading to a necessary re-
interpretation and re-imagination of cities as places for cultural production
and cultural consumption.
This book responds to the absence or lack of Asian representation in
the creative cities literature. However, the book does not attempt to cover
all Asian cities but endeavours to represent some of the Asian regions
through various case studies. It seeks to recognise and highlight the rapid
rise of these cities and how they have stepped up to the challenge of trans-
forming and regenerating themselves, especially in the ‘Asian century’. It
also aims to re-define what it means to be an Asian creative city and gener-
ate more dialogue and new debate around different urban issues.
This book is divided it into five parts starting with a set of historical and
conceptual overviews, moving through a series of critical case studies, and
ending with reflections from practitioners in the field.
In Part I, Conceptualising Creative Cities in Asia, we contextualise and
prepare the subsequent empirical chapters by situating Asian creative cities
as sites for political, cultural and social conflicts in the new Asia century.
There are four chapters presenting overviews of the Creative City. Justin
O’Connor, starting out from the policy transfer literature looks at the idea
of a global ‘creative class’ as articulated around a Creative City imaginary.
It locates this imaginary in a particular moment of time, as part of a re-
articulation of US hegemony after the Asian Financial Crisis, as well as an
interpellation of new global youthful subjects seeking a different moder-
nity. The chapter tries to suggest why this creative city moment might be
breaking down. Michael Kho Lim looks at the relationship between the
Creative City and branding strategy, using an ‘imaginary’ global city in the
Philippines as a case study. He argues that the effective application of city
branding to Bonifacio Global City has transformed this space—an imag-
ined global city into something real. It has created an image and public
perception that it is indeed a city by projecting and acting as one when in
fact, this multi-hectare property does not hold a city status and is but a
financial and lifestyle district that forms a small part of a ‘real’ city. Xin Gu
looks at the shift from ‘creative cities’ to ‘media cities’, driven by city gov-
ernments and developers seeking high returns on investment. The shift
not only narrows the scope of the creative imaginary but results in highly
unequal, socially and economically unsustainable development. Gu
observes a tendency towards ‘technological utopianism’ or technology
solutionism in urban cultural policy. Exploring the evolution of new buzz-
words of media cities, smart cities and intelligent cities through the cre-
ative cities’ lens, this chapter is concerned with the acceleration of
neo-liberal governmentality in Asia. Finally, Deborah Stevenson’s chapter
considers the recent statements and initiatives of the UCCN and asks us to
rethink the creative city models in Asia. She suggests that the decision to
affiliate the UCCN directly with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals
is posing a number of challenges for the Network and its member cities,
including those of Asia, not least of which is determining what sustain-
ability might mean for a scheme that implicitly encourages inter-city com-
petition and was formed primarily to support and showcase creativity and
the creative economy.
In Part II, Resisting Creative Cities, we look at one of the key fault-lines
of the Creative City, where the aspiration of the local development coali-
tion encounters the aspirations and anxieties of local communities. Janine
Santos questions the legitimacy of Creative City discourse as a ‘rhetorical
architecture’, as members of the Philippines’ formal and informal cultural
sectors negotiate the discourse given the urban landscapes’ material and
socio-economic conditions. Using the case of Baguio City, Santos explores
how urban poverty and the ‘crisis of values’ have to be considered in the
country’s creative cities re-imagination. Hyunjoon Shin’s chapter enriches
this discussion by challenging another key concept within the creative cit-
ies discourse, that of ‘creative class’. This chapter asks us to pay attention
to the different economic and social status of the creative class rather than
falling into a romanticisation trap of creative place making. Several papers
speak to this point. Zaki Habibi’s chapter offers an interesting case study
of a community-run creative collectives in George Town, Malaysia. The
8 X. GU ET AL.
disruptive tactics employed by the local creative community challenge not

only the globalizing creative cities discourse as applied to different urban
contexts in Asia, but also the defining parameters of this borrowed policy
narrative. Jiun-Yi Wu’s case study of Tainan City in Taiwan presents a
symbiotic relationship between creatives and built environment.
In Part III, Creative Cities and Creative Industries, the focus is on the
intersection of creative cities and creative industries. Junmin Song and
Yu-Min Joo study the case of Seoul’s Digital Media City (DMC). The
predominant focus on global firms and their needs has led to an exclusion
of other smaller firms that are critical for the success of Korean Wave in the
country. Without the understanding of a creative cluster as both a physical
cluster and a soft ecosystem for local creative industries, DMC is unlikely
to be sustainable. Two chapters then look at how film has been a particu-
larly relevant industry for creative cities’ re-imagining. Jian Xiao and Lin
Jin’s chapter asks why emerging urban festival practices and their role in
changing the perception of small cities is underexplored. Taking Pingyao
film festival in China as an example, their chapter explores the tension
between the economic and cultural values of film festivals in the develop-
ment of a ‘creative city’. The authenticity of creative cities, beyond cultural
consumption, contributes to a core concern within the Asian creative cities
of rapid suburban gentrification. Anubha Sarkar’s chapter discusses the
characteristics of the Bollywood film industry in Mumbai, India. This case
deters all existing understanding of strategies in nurturing creative indus-
tries in cities by provoking ‘what can creative cities policy do for an already
successful local film industry?’ Koichi Iwabuchi investigates the operation
and objectives of Japan’s ‘creative industry’ policy through the narrative of
‘Cool Japan’, a national branding policy model that sells Japanese culture
abroad. He suggests a cultural diversity approach extending the discussion
on ‘creativity’ to include a way of facilitating and improving civic dialogue,
sympathy, and inclusion.
In Part IV Governing Creative Cities, we look into international policy
transfer and some of the new ways of governing creative cities in the
region. Kim Spence sees in Seoul an emergent new paradigm of the cre-
ative city. Her study questions the impact of a creative city policy on a city
with a highly recognisable popular cultural industry, that of K-pop. Her
research asks for more nuanced analysis of the creative city realities. It is
taken for granted that creative city celebrates local talents and industries.
But more than often, different objectives between policies and industries
result in limited success. Desmond Hui and his colleagues suggest a rather
different reality in creative city governmance. They take on an urban

mega-project in the shape of a ‘creative region’—the re-imagining of one
of the largest regional creative cities cluster, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-
Macau Bay Area. Their research suggests a new role for governments to
coordinate regional cultural infrastructure projects to achieve competitive
advantages for local creative cities. Phitchakan Chuangchai’s chapter on
Chiang Mai in Thailand points out other issues in the governance of cre-
ative cities in second-tier cities in the developing country context. Despite
the efforts of local agencies, the lack of a shared understanding across
society of what the cultural and creative industries are and what values
they bring to local people can only lead to chaos, a waste of resources and
social exclusivity. This is echoed by Nyak Ina Raseuki, Zeffry Alkatiri and
Sonya Sondakh’s paper on the city of Ambon in Indonesia. Caught up in
a mix of social, cultural and political conflicts, the place marketing of
Ambon as UNESCO’s city of music has faced multifaceted challenges
including lack of material resources, lack of support from the broad society
and lack of a shared understanding of what this new policy agenda means.
This empirical study suggests that there are limitations for creative cities
policy to be impactful beyond economic proxies in a developing country
context at least, despite existing theories claiming otherwise.
In Part V, Critical Reflections on Cultural Policy Making in Asia, we
interview practitioners about their direct experience in the field. Helene
George presents a needs-based model for developing countries in Asia to
align UNESCO’s sustainable cultural development agenda with local eco-
nomic development to maximise the impact of such policy in their respec-
tive cities. Tita Larasati shares her experience as chair for Bandung Creative
Cities Forum, looking at developing a civic engagement model as part of
creative cities policy. Milena Dragićević Šešić, member of the Expert
Facility for UNESCO’s 2005 Convention and who has undertaken the
UNESCO mission in Cambodia, reports the many challenges in develop-
ing a national cultural policy in a post-genocide society. On what basis are
we able to speak about culture is the question that this interview keeps
coming back to. Bodibaatar Jigjidsuren’s reflection further ponders on
this question based on his experience of developing Mongolian cultural
policy based on the UNESCO framework. He observes how post-socialist
society is looking for new ways of re-building cultural infrastructures, ser-
vices and industries.
10 X. GU ET AL.
References
Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
———. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge.
Jacob, Jane. 1985. Cities and the Wealth of Nations. New York: Vintage.
Jessop, Bob, and Stijin Oosterlynck. 2008. Cultural Political Economy: On
Making the Cultural Turn without Falling into Soft Economic Sociology.
Geoforum 39 (3): 1155–1169.
Kong, Lily. 2014. Transnational Mobilities and the Making of Creative Cities.
Theory, Culture and Society 31 (7/8): 273–289.
Landry, Charles, and Franco Bianchini. 1995. The Creative City. London: Demos.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1992. The Production of Space. Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Ong, Aihwa. 2011. Introduction. In Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the
Art of Being Global, ed. Roy Ananya and Aihwa Ong, 1–26. London: Blackwell.
Peck, Jamie. 2005. Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 29 (4): 740–770.
PART I
Conceptualising Creative Cities in

Asia
CHAPTER 2
Creative Cities, Creative Classes

and the Global Modern
Justin O’Connor
Though the Creative City has long roots in both the history of the
European city, and in the post-Sixties transformations of culture, economy
and society, its widespread formulation in the 1990s, and rapid prolifera-
tion owutside of its Euro-American heartlands after 2000, suggest a deep
entanglement with the process of US-led globalization that took off after
1989–91. Already in 1990 Arjun Appadurai had sketched a new global
‘ideoscape’—post-imperial, post-colonial—across which non-isomorphic
flows of ideas, images and texts gave rise to a diverse and hybrid range of
local configurations, not reducible to the straight centre-periphery model
of Western-centric developmentalism (Appadurai 1990). The dissolution
of the Cold War binary seemed to open up a more multiple global space,
one in which the US would have to work hard, using new ‘soft power’
tools, if it were to remain hegemonic in this more complex landscape (Nye
J. O’Connor (*)
School of Creative Industries, University of South Australia,
Adelaide, SA, Australia
Department of Cultural Industry and Management, Shanghai Jiaotong
University, Shanghai, China
e-mail: justin.oconnor@unisa.edu.au

14 J. O’CONNOR
1990). This was the era of what Bruno Latour calls ‘globalisation-
plus’, where,
‘shifting from a local to a global viewpoint ought to mean multiplying view-

points, registering a great number of varieties, taking into account a larger
number of beings, cultures, phenomena, organisms, and people’ (2018:
12–13. Emphasis in original).
A literature of policy transfer emerged in the noughties to reflect this.

Though Jamie Peck and colleagues were sceptical-critical about creative
city policies—especially when linked to the ‘creative class, noting how they
spread meme-like as ‘fast policy’—their idea of policy ‘released into the
wild’, undergoing random mutation from sender to receiver, described a
similarly variegated ‘policyscape’ (Peck 2005; Peck and Theodore 2010,
2012). Perhaps then, whatever its original provenance, the rapid global
adoption of the creative city can be seen as equally wild and non-
isomorphic, with the adapted visions as multiply variegated as those
described to the aging Kublai Khan in Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities.
This, to some extent, is a matter of empirical investigation; the accounts
in this book certainly suggest many such divergent aspirations. Let me
then state bluntly, at risk of violence to the nuances of these accounts, that
in the case of creative city policy, as with the creative industries or econ-
omy with which it is intrinsically linked, the Western provenance is entirely
the point. The creative cities, creative economy discourse is one of mod-
ernisation, the force of its ‘imaginary’ derived from an aspiration to be
Modern. Of course, there may be multiple modernities, as argued force-
fully within the post-colonial literature, and many of the Asian cities in this
book would frame themselves in this light. And yet, as these case studies
here also show, the creative city imaginary has resulted in a growing
homogenisation of city policies, and of the very idea of the modern.
Political scientist Pertti Alasuutari, recently argued that there was a
global ‘synchronisation’ of policy discourses, including those of ‘creative
economy’ and ‘creative city’ (Alasuutari 2016). Global policies, he argues,
are increasingly similar, with policy ideas—neoliberalism, creative econ-
omy for example—rapidly circulating across the globe. This synchronisa-
tion is possible because policy elites share what he calls the ‘isomorphism
of the modern’. Global policy is made by a ‘tribe of moderns’, an elite
‘tribe without a chief’ whose actions cohere as they operate across the
range of government, non-government and international organisations
that have influence over global policy discourse. Ultimately rooted, he
suggests, in the institution of the Westphalian Nation-State, the ‘tribe of
2 CREATIVE CITIES, CREATIVE CLASSES AND THE GLOBAL MODERN 15
moderns’ shares the view ‘that all nations are heading toward ever-
changing modernisation, and that “leading” countries have better knowl-
edge of where modernisation is leading us, which is why they follow their
lead or, if they think they know the way, aspire to become the leading
nation in that area’ (2016: xxi). It is precisely this network of global policy
elites that re-aligned around ‘creative economy’ as a coherent modernis-
ing discourse, as ‘art and culture’ was transformed from ‘being valuable in
its own right’ to being ‘useful for business and economics’ (2016: 156; De
Beukelaer and Vlassis 2020).
The ‘tribe of moderns’ is an ‘epistemic community’, which, as Peter
Haas describes it, is ‘a network of professionals with recognised expertise
and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to pol-
icy relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area’ (Haas 1992: 3).
This epistemic community has a shared set of principled beliefs and values,
which inform the way they link specific policy actions to desired outcomes,
whose success or otherwise is validated by criteria drawn from shared
forms of knowledge, and resulting in a common policy enterprise to which
their expertise is applied ‘presumably out of the conviction that human
welfare will be enhanced as a consequence’ (1992: 3). There are problems
with Alasuutari’s account, mainly around a lack of any (global) political
economy or anything resembling a ‘postcolonial’ analysis of the ‘modern’.
Alasuutari’s singular notion of ‘modernity’, ignores the role the West has
played in enforcing (through economic and military power) a particular
form of modernity over others. However, his account of a global confor-
mity built around a modernising economic discourse has a clear resonance
with the rapid spread of creative economy and creative city policy scripts,
as they held out a promise of new economic benefits from culture. Indeed,
this promise went beyond the direct economic benefits of ‘arts and cul-
ture’ per se; it was a modernising imaginary that also sought the wider
innovation and productivity effects that would flow from newly creative
subjects.
Alasuutari is rather too sanguine about the ‘synchronisation’ of the
‘tribe of moderns’, across which policy ‘fads’ can spread like a virus or
meme. He underplays the deep divides within and between different pol-
icy elites, along with the paradigmatic conflicts within this epistemic com-
munity, and the wider socio-political turbulence to which these global
policy paradigm shifts testify. Russel Prince, in his analysis of creative
16 J. O’CONNOR
industry policy in the UK, has a much looser conception of policy exper-
tise as an ‘assemblage’, one in which a new policy paradigm might change
configurations of power and influence within it (Prince 2010). For Prince,
the rise of the creative industries heralded a paradigm shift, opening up a
knowledge gap, as it moved the debates beyond the established arts and
cultural policy settings. This new uncertainty created a strategic opportu-
nity for a previously peripheral group to come forward, claiming the req-
uisite expertise, seizing the chance to advance themselves. Tracing the rise
of this loose group of experts in the UK, Prince suggests that these same
players have now gone on to become increasingly influential internation-
ally, as we see ‘a global governmental assemblage emerging for the creative
industries’ (2010: 882). The ‘creative industries’ then was not a fad
spreading through an established policy community but the turbulent
reconfiguration of an assemblage, new players and new forms of discourse
jostling for position.
Alasuutari’s ‘tribe of moderns’ embraced the creative economy as a
global epistemic community with a strong, normative modernising vision
of ‘enhancing human welfare’. Prince, adopting a Latourian actor-network
perspective, seems only concerned with describing how experts jostle for
advantage, and the values animating them are not considered at all.1 The
idea of a global epistemic community around ‘modernisation’ does give a
degree of isomorphism to global policyscapes, but this has its limits because
‘the modern’ is inevitably a contested term—not just in terms of a post-
colonial multiple modernities but in the way the West itself conceives of
that modern. The turbulent policy dynamics around the emergence of the
creative econonomy, the sense of a transformation shift from one para-
digm to another, is not to be reduced to the manoeuvrings of ‘outs’
against ‘ins’ (though it is that, too), but testifies to a shift in the normative
idea of ‘the modern’.
We are not dealing here with global policy shifts conceived only as
‘technology transfer’ or ‘fads’, but with something ideational and norma-
tive. And whilst there is, I would argue, an isomorphism around creative
cities and creative economy policies, this is not a singular nor straightfor-
ward process, either in terms of its formulation amongst (competing)
policy elites or amongst those that try to put it into effect at the local city
level. What I want to introduce into this scenario is the Gramscian notion
of ‘hegemony’. This originally referred to the ways in which the ruling
classes of a particular nation-state gained the consent of the governed
(even if ‘objectively’ against its own interests). This involved a range of
institutions, classes and social groups who could (always provisionally)

form a viable ‘historic block’ to stabilise and maintain existing power rela-
tions. Others have applied this to the international arena, in which a lead-
ing international power is able to gain—through non-directly coercive
means—the assent of lesser powers to its continued leadership (Anderson
2017; Saull 2012). Soft power. Since 1945 the US has been a leading
global hegemon; since 1989–91, until the recent rise of China, it has been
the only one. The US set the terms of the post-1945 modern—its produc-
tion systems, its organisation of labour, its validation in terms of the
growth consumer spending power and so on. The crisis of the mid-1970s—
oil, Vietnam, growing overseas competition, labour unrest—challenged
US hegemony; but the combination of the neo-liberal revolution and the
collapse of the USSR placed it squarely back in the driving seat of the
‘tribe of moderns’.
Which is to say, the radical transformation in the global ‘scapes evoked
by Appadurai in 1990 perhaps represented only a moment of possibility at
a time when the meaning of ‘the modern’ was being radically reframed by
a US whose hegemonic block now extended further than ever. The ‘mod-
ern’ was no longer about manufacture but services, about entrepreneur-
ship not collective effort, about meritocracy not equality, about ‘immaterial’
value (including financial return) not necessarily ‘making things’. It was
now the ‘new’ service-driven middle classes, not the industrial working
class, that were the key index of modernisation and development. It is the
ability to draw in other nations (and their own internal hegemonic blocks)
that are willing (or forced, as with the IMF restructures of the 1980s/90s)
to institute economic and social structures in line with the US’s structural
dominance of the global economy, which establishes hegemony. In this
sense, hegemony can be seen to work not just at the international level of
state-to-state relations but at a ‘transnational’ level, cutting across all fron-
tiers at cultural or societal levels’ (Anderson 2017: 151). In his discussion
of this, Anderson refers to Wang Hui, approvingly, that this transnational
level is about ‘globalised market relations’, a ‘market-ideological appara-
tus’ of media, advertising and shopping, where ‘their greatest power lies in
their appeal to “common sense”, ordinary needs which turn people into
consumers, voluntarily following market logic in their daily lives (Wang
2006: 42). I suggest that the creative city and creative economy discourses
fall into this transnational hegemonic space, as a site for the re-imagining
of self, of work, and of everyday life in the city. It is both a site of intense
18 J. O’CONNOR
affective investment, for a particular group of people, just as it is highly

fraught and contested, for just that reason.
This new hegemonic discourse was not simply promoted by a global
elite policy elite, nor a bunch of policy arrivistes, but circulated and worked
at multiple transnational ‘cultural and societal levels’. In this sense, rather
than policy experts, we might use the (somewhat contested) term ‘cultural
intermediaries’ (O’Connor 2015). Cultural intermediaries have figured
intermittently in the literature on cultural and creative industries since the
1980s, as a loose social grouping who exemplified new ‘artistic’ or ‘bohe-
mian’ ways of life. They pioneered new relationships to work, career and
life-course, and opened up new spaces of the city to forms of cultural pro-
duction and consumption. Our usage here foregrounds intermediaries as
an informal network of actors operating along a permeable policy interface
of ‘governance’ rather than in government per se. Cultural intermediaries
claim to give voice to a wider set of social and cultural transformations,
previously marginal, now growing in importance. The ‘creative imaginary’
as it emerged from the late 1960s on, had a wide resonance, drawing in
people from outside the traditional boundaries of urban and cultural pol-
icy. They increasingly engaged with formal policy making processes, as
contesting or co-opted parties, in a policy area where, as Prince noted,
there were significant lacunae. This emerging field was open to newer
actors, coming without established policy track records, introducing a
level of unpredictability and ad hoc into the process. The claims of those
affectively invested in the creative imaginary always threatened to chal-
lenge established government policy—which was part of its attraction! In
this context cultural intermediaries could assert their connections to this
broader social coalition, a ‘creative sector’ that stretched beyond the
established arts and cultural bodies but demanding to be brought into
policy consultations if any creative industries or creative cities project was
to be viable.
These cultural intermediaries increasingly formed a loose global epis-
temic community, one that was peripheral to established policy networks,
yet claimed to speak to those networks in the voice of a transformative
cultural imaginary that was certainly economic but was much more than
this (at least to begin with). They constituted a penumbra operating
alongside the formal global cultural policy players, jostling for influence
and position certainly, but also connecting to a new modern ‘creative’
constituency on whose behalf they were proselytising. Peck and Theodore
describe well the resultant mobile policies, which flowed across the trans-
national global policyscape,
breaching the borders between these policy-making sites, constructing sym-

biotic networks and circulatory systems across and between them, enabling
cosmopolitan communities of practice and validating expert knowledge.
Mobile policies, then, are not simply travelling across a landscape—they are
remaking this landscape, and they are contributing to the interpenetration
of distant policy-making sites (2010: 173).
This aptly describes the emergent, transnational epistemic community

of cultural (and later creative) industries and creative cities experts that
emerged in the 1990s, primarily in Europe, North America and Australia,
and increasingly in Latin America, Africa and East Asia. Its members were
consultants and consultant-practitioners, local and regional government
officers, cultural space managers, academics, festival organisers, creativity
gurus, travel media (city guides and in-flight magazine features) and so
on, all rubbing shoulders with representatives of national governmental
agencies (British Council, Goethe-Institut, Institut Français) and trans-
national cultural agencies (UNESCO, UNCTAD, WIPO, Ford
Foundation, the European Commission, for example). This emergent
community in the making was extended and consolidated across confer-
ences, networks and projects for creative industries and cities. Its not-
quite-recognised field of expertise benefited enormously from the UK
government’s ‘creative industries’ brand, and it was this transnational
epistemic community that was partly responsible for the unexpected (by
the UK government at least) success of this policy across the globe
(O’Connor and Gu 2016).
This emergent transnational epistemic community was linked to local
sites not just through proliferating conference and policy connections but
through contact with local urban cultural ‘scenes’ (Straw and Marchessault
2002; Bennett and Peterson 2004; Silver and Clark 2016). ‘Scenes’ refers
to informal communities of shared interest and participation—music
scenes, arts scenes, poetry scenes, fashion scenes and so on. Such scenes
can be highly mobile and difficult for all but the informed outsider to
penetrate; however, particular areas of the city can become sites for their
more public enactment. The ‘neo-bohemia’ (Lloyd 2006) so central to
the creative city imaginary, provided such sites, and more so as they
became linked to cultural or creative ‘quarters’ that, initially ad hoc, had
20 J. O’CONNOR
increasingly become objects of policy. These spatially embodied urban

scenes, ‘cool’ zones linked to refurbished ex-industrial spaces, became an
informal itinerary on the travels of this epistemic community.
These ‘cool’ areas were not the older museum, monument and gallery
quarters, nor the traditional or classical cultural cities, they were cities and
spaces that had to be sought out by an international epistemic community
in the know. Greg Richards and Julie Wilson began to talk of ‘creative
tourists’, those who looked for non-standard tourist sites (they resented
being called ‘tourists’) and were often cultural practitioners themselves
(Richards and Wilson 2007; Richards 2014). They headed for sites where
‘experiences’ involving interaction with locals could be had. The ‘clusters’
or site-based scenes formed an ideal destination, providing a more authen-
tic experience and the possibility of glimpsing a new, youthful creative
culture hidden from mainstream tourists. As global mobility increased,
these global flows could bring enhanced visibility of particularly ‘cool’
urban areas. Indeed, these creative tourists could often seek out longer
periods of residence, working remotely and locally, entering deep into the
scene (Lagerkvist 2013).
Their local impact should not be underestimated, as they formed a kind
of cosmopolitan micro-site in which global flows of images, sounds, texts,
ideas (and people) could be accessed, creating links between similar sites
elsewhere. These sites could attract flows of policy makers, consultants,
practitioners and cultural consumers in a way that had real impact on the
local and carried this local back to the transnational level (often via
PowerPoint slides or guest speaker invites extended to managers or own-
ers of these sites). These milieus had a particular relationship to the global,
in which a certain cosmopolitan sensibility was fostered through these
flows. They helped structure, and were structured by, a certain cosmopoli-
tan sensibility, a habitus oriented both to the local and to the horizon of
the global. We might see it as a form of global modernity that was cer-
tainly not a slavish copy of some imagined metropolitan origin but was
more than the random mutation envisaged in Appadurai’s ‘indigeniza-
tion’. It was an ideational response to a vision of modernity experienced as
an affective identification with the promise of a global creativity. It was
more than simply ‘culture as resource’ in Yúdice’s sense, where arguments
for cultural funding could utilize its various social benefits (Yúdice 2003).
It was culture as a resource, but for a different kind of future, both local
and global at once.2
Perhaps one way of approaching the challenge set by the Creative

City, and as reflected in many of the chapters in this book, is to think
how it articulates both utopian aspiration and the most brutal gentrifi-
cation; the grassroots looking to the global as a possibility of local
change, and local elites seeking to share the development dreams pro-
moted by global capital; the liberation of creative work and its milieu,
and the outcome of precarity, eviction and digital surveillance. So, to
the multiplicity of globalisation-plus, we must also add the possibility of
globalisation-minus,
a single vision, entirely provincial, proposed by a few individuals, represent-

ing a very small number of interests, limited to a few measuring instruments,
to a few standards and protocols, has been imposed on everyone and spread
everywhere (Latour 2018: 13. Emphasis in original).
Neo-Gramscian theory locates the international hegemonic block in

terms of the class composition of the internal national blocks. So, the rise
of finance to its dominant position within the US has radically inflected
the ways in which the US secures its ‘structural dominance’ globally,
through financial means. This also would apply to the emergent new
blocks in the countries increasingly drawn into its orbit in the 1990s.
Though US-dominated global finance is central here, the specific modality
of a country’s interconnection with the US is specific and complex—
depending on whether this is around resource extraction, outsourced
manufacture, business services or data-extraction (all of which are domi-
nated by finance of course). The cultural economy is not an exception.
The paradox in this case is that the US is almost completely absent from
the debates around creative cities, creative economies—not only with-
drawing from UNESCO but simply not concerned with cultural policies
or ‘creative’ industries per se. Yet it is globally dominant in the cultural
industries. The paradox is explained by the fact that the US dominates
both the hard and soft infrastructures of the global cultural economy—
satellites, fibre optics, telecom mergers, efficient enforceable intellectual
property regimes, weakened state broadcasting monopolies, exclusive dis-
tribution deals, digital platforms, proprietary algorithms, liquid capital
(Hesmondhalgh 2019). The neoliberal revolution happened also in the
realm of culture and communications, rolling back the ‘New World
Information Order’, a new global order under its own tutelage (Sparks
and Roach 1990; Carlsson 2017; Garner and O’Connor 2019).3 The
22 J. O’CONNOR
cynical adage can be applied to soft power: grab them by the hardware,
hearts and minds would follow. The US does not have to promote its
‘creative industries’ sector per se, just ensure that ‘free trade’ extends as far
as possible to ‘cultural goods’. UNESCO’s 2005 Convention, which
sought to promote global cultural diversity through enshrining the right
of member states to treat culture as a non-commodity—the ‘exception cul-
turelle’—can be seen as a late attempt to seize the utopian moment that
floated in the space between one hegemonic order and the new. The 2005
Convention has been turned de facto into a vehicle to promote the cul-
tural economy as a modern path to development (Garner and
O’Connor 2019).
Though UNESCO, as the leading forum for global cultural policy, pro-
motes the cultural economy as a development opportunity for all, it also
provides the local context in which governments can promote a creative
milieu—that ‘creativity bundle’ outlined in the Introduction—through
which, if feasible, cities can connect with global and regional media and
entertainment corporations, as well as the various companies controlled
through the digital platforms of ‘FAANG’. From this perspective we
might see creative cities, especially in their highly capitalised media and
digital versions (Xin Gu, this volume), as akin to how Timothy Mitchell
describes the ‘technological zones’ in the oil industry: ‘a set of coordi-
nated but widely dispersed regulations, calculative arrangements, infra-
structures and technical procedures that render certain objects or flows
governable’ (Mitchell 2011: 40). Or in less capitalised creative cities, akin
to Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing’s (2015) account of how capitalist value (in
the Matsutake mushroom industry) is extracted from a dispersed, non-
capitalist periphery, from actors whose main motivations are not about
profit. Insertion into a global cultural economy does require state legisla-
tion and assent—in terms of intellectual property regulation, deregulation
of state broadcasting, opening up of the communications infrastructure to
competitive international bidding, tax breaks for media companies and so
on. At the same time, it requires the coordination of actors who share a
certain transnational professional understanding, which in this highly tac-
tile and iterative sector, is in fact a shared transnational habitus. This is
produced not within or between global firms but within and between local
milieu, as we suggested above. This articulation of production and extrac-
tion at the global level also requires an affective buy-in, via the imaginary
of a creative city, and the new modern subjects it validates.
Yet such a loose, transnational ‘block’, should it exist (and we are spec-
ulating), would be much more complex and unstable than a state-to-state
international block—especially in such a fissiparous and fiercely contested
field as culture. The scenes and zones of the creative city could also be seen
as a version of what Saskia Sassen calls ‘micro-sites in a global civil society’
(2002). In these zones, unorthodox lifestyles, marginalized and some-
times suppressed, received a certain degree of acceptance. New gender
roles, expressions of sexuality, or counter-cultural views associated with
the residents of these areas could acquire the validity of ‘resource’.4 These
sites could claim to speak for a younger, aspirant ‘new middle class’,
invested in educational and cultural capital, as opposed to the incumbent
powers of property and capital. These youthful groups would assemble
around ‘creative industries’ and ‘creative cities’ in ways that could resonate
with the kinds of more radical political interventions that followed the
various ‘Twitter’ and ‘colour’ ‘revolutions’ over the last decade (Therborn
2014). Here we might imagine, with Akbar Abbas, a modern cosmopoli-
tanism, which ‘involves not so much imagining a transnational state as
reimagining the city’, involving ‘less privileged men and women placed or
displaced in the transnational space of the city and who are trying to make
sense of its spatial and temporal contradictions’, the cosmopolitan as ‘arbi-
trageur/arbitrageuse’, capable of ‘creating a global culture worthy of the
name’ (Abbas 2000: 786).
Conceived in this way, these cosmopolitans are not the global elite but
exemplars of the local-plus, who reject the singularity of the global-minus,
wanting ‘to preserve, maintain, ensure one’s belonging to a land, a place,
a soil, a community, a space, a milieu, a way of life, a trade, a skill?… to
remain capable of registering more differences, more viewpoints’ (Latour
2018: 15). Yet why do these transnational exemplars of local-plus
cosmopolitan-plus, seem in retreat everywhere?
First, neo-liberal financialization, which provided the material and ide-
ational basis of the new global middle class, has begun to create severe
problems of inequality and social unrest (Saull 2012; Piketty 2020). The
idea that a new ‘rising’ middle classes would spend countries like Brazil,
Russian, China and India into the modern has become increasingly unten-
able, at least outside of China. Since at least 2016, as the more coercive
and extractive globalisation-minus has been pursued by the US, many
parts of the global have seen a re-assertion of the local-minus of blood,
soil, culture, religion in authoritarian form. This has adversely impacted
many of those zones of creative tolerance, with many ‘populist’ blocks
24 J. O’CONNOR
linking the older property and capital-invested middle classes with the dis-
possessed urban working and peasant classes—these days a fluid set of
boundaries (Luttwak 1994; Babic 2020). The flows of global finance that
did so much to facilitate the new ideoscapes have increasingly shifted the
terrain away from educational and cultural capital—the embodied promise
of creative labour—towards those with assets in property and finance.
These same flows have undermined public services—free education, pub-
lic health, affordable housing—in such a way as to increasingly exclude
younger middle-class people from the modern future on which their aspi-
rations so relied (Davies 2020). This is exacerbated by the routinisation of
creative labour, the increase in work disciple, the commodification of the
creative commons, and the other travails of the younger global ‘creative
class’ (O’Connor and Gu 2020).
All these would suggest an on-going ‘buy-out’ from the promise of the
creative city—at least amongst the young who are very aware of its failed
promises. Where this goes politically is beyond the capacity of this chapter
to speculate, other than to say that as the transnational hegemony block
around the creative class breaks down, new possibilities will emerge that
may not bear the name ‘creative’.
Notes
1. Though in the very last lines Prince calls for research into policy forms ‘not
interested in reproducing the status quo, providing a rejoinder to represen-
tations of the tyranny of expertise and pointing to the possibility of its
redemption in alternative governmental visions’ (2010: 883). We can only
guess what these might be.
2. This was exemplified in the new global visibility of contemporary art, whose
galleries rapidly shouldered out concert halls and opera houses from their
emblematic position in the global cultural city. The example of Bilbao and
the Guggenheim played a part, its success in attracting tourists and global
media attention representing the old industrial city’s re-invention of itself.
But it is easy to miss the ways in which contemporary art had become articu-
lated to forms of popular culture and lifestyle, becoming an important
marker of a contemporary global subject. The ability to interpellate such
subject positions became increasingly important for global cultural cities,
the latest example being the spate of contemporary art museums in Dubai
and Abu Dhabi, not to mention Shanghai and Singapore. The art gallery,
increasingly associated with urban gentrification, was also a portal into a
cosmopolitan modernity (for practicing artists and visitors alike), as well as
providing its local flagship presence.
3. This was part of a wider global defeat of the ‘Third World’. Cf. Quinn
Slobodian (2018) Globalists. The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism,
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
4. Similar things happened with ‘gay villages’ throughout the Global North, or
indeed with the China Towns of previous eras, parlayed into tourism sites.
References
Abbas, Ackbar. 2000. Cosmopolitan De-scriptions: Shanghai and Hong Kong.
Public Culture 12 (3): 769–786.
Alasuutari, Pertti. 2016. The Synchronisation of National Policies. Ethnography of
the Global Tribe of Moderns. London: Routledge.
Anderson, Perry. 2017. The H-Word. The Peripeteia of Hegemony. London: Verso.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1990. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural
Economy. Theory, Culture and Society 7 (2–3): 295–310.
Babic, Milan. 2020. Let’s Talk About the Interregnum: Gramsci and the Crisis of
the Liberal World Order. International Affairs, iiz254. https://doi.
org/10.1093/ia/iiz254.
Bennett, Andy, and Richard A. Peterson. 2004. Music Scenes: Local, Translocal and
Virtual. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Carlsson, Ulla. 2017. The Rise and Fall of NWICO. Nordicom Review 24
(2): 31–67.
Davies, William. 2020. Bloody Furious. London Review of Books 42: 4.
De Beukelaer, Christiaan, and Antonios Vlassis. 2020. Creative Economy and
Development. International Institutions and Policy Synchronisation. In The
Cultural Turn in International Aid. Impacts and Challenges for Heritage and
Creative Industries, ed. Sophia Labadi, 17–36. London: Routledge.
Garner, Ben, and Justin O’Connor. 2019. Rip It Up and Start Again? The
Contemporary Relevance of the 2005 UNESCO Convention on Cultural
Diversity. Journal of Law, Social Justice and Global Development 24: 8–23.
Haas, Peter M. 1992. Epistemic Communities and International Policy
Coordination. International Organization 46: 1: 1–1:35.
Hesmondhalgh, Dave. 2019. The Cultural Industries. 4th ed. London: Sage.
Lagerkvist, Amanda. 2013. Media and Memory in New Shanghai: Western
Performances of Futures Past. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Latour, Bruno. 2018. Down to Earth. Politics in the New Climatic Regime.
Cambridge: Polity.
Lloyd, Richard. 2006. Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City.
London: Routledge.
Luttwak, Edward. 1994. Why Fascism is the Wave of the Future. London Review
of Books 16: 7.
Mitchell, Timothy. 2011. Carbon Democracy. Political Power in The Age of Oil.
London: Verso.
26 J. O’CONNOR
Nye, Joseph. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power.
New York: Basic Books.
O’Connor, Justin. 2015. Intermediaries and Imaginaries in the Cultural and
Creative Industries. Regional Studies 49 (3): 374–387.
O’Connor, Justin, and Xin Gu. 2016. Creative Clusters in Shanghai: Transnational
Intermediaries and the Creative Economy. In Making Cultural Cities in Asia:
Mobility, Assemblage and the Politics of Aspirational Urbanism, ed. Jun Wang,
Tim Oakes, and Yang Yang, 21–35. London: Routledge.
———. 2020. Red Creative. Culture and Modernity in China. Bristol: Intellect.
Peck, Jamie. 2005. Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 29 (4): 740–770.
Peck, Jamie, and Nik Theodore. 2010. Mobilizing Policy: Models, Methods and
Mutations. Geoforum 41: 169–174.
———. 2012. Follow the Policy: A Distended Case Approach. Environment and
Planning A 44 (1): 21–30.
Piketty, Thomas. 2020. Capital and Ideology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Prince, Russell. 2010. Fleshing Out Expertise: The Making of Creative Industries
Experts in the United Kingdom. Geoforum 41: 874–884.
Richards, Greg. 2014. Creativity and Tourism in the City. Current Issues in
Tourism 17 (2): 119–144.
Richards, Greg, and Julie Wilson. 2007. Tourism, Creativity and Development.
London: Routledge.
Sassen, Saskia. 2002. “Global Cities and Diasporic Networks: Micro-sites in Global
Civil Society.” In Global Civil Society 2002, edited by Marlies Glasius, Mary
Kaldor and Helmut Anheier, 217-238. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saull, Richard. 2012. Rethinking Hegemony: Uneven Development, Historical
Blocs, and the World Economic Crisis. International Studies Quarterly
56: 323–338.
Silver, Daniel, and Terry Clark. 2016. Scenescapes: How Qualities of Place Shape
Social Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Slobodian, Quinn. 2018. Globalists. The End of Empire and the Birth of
Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sparks, Colin, and Colleen Roach. 1990. Farewell to the NWICO? Media, Culture
and Society 12 (3): 275–281.
Straw, W., and J. Marchessault. 2002. Cities/Scenes. Public, 22/23. Toronto:
Public Access/York University.
Therborn, Göran. 2014. The New Masses? Social Bases of Resistance. New Left
Review 85: 7–16.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2015. The Mushroom at End of the World. On the
Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wang, Hui. 2006. Depoliticised Politics, From East to West. New Left Review
41: 20–45.
Yúdice, George. 2003. The Expediency of: Uses of Culture in the Global Era.
London: Duke University Press.
CHAPTER 3
Global City as Place Branding Strategy:

The Case of Bonifacio Global City
(Philippines)
Michael Kho Lim
Introduction
The concepts of creative cities, smart cities, and global cities have largely
been adopted in the Global North, but these buzzwords have yet to be
widely and effectively applied in the Global South. There was initially a
slow uptake of these ideas in Southeast Asia, but it has gradually picked up
in the last five years due to its growing popularity. In fact, the initiative to
establish the Southeast Asian Creative Cities Network (SEACCN) only
came into fruition in 2014—a decade after the UNESCO Creative Cities
Network (UCCN) was organised. SEACCN members are working
towards having more cities join the UCCN.
As of 2019, 11 out of 246 cities (or five out of 84 countries)—roughly
five per cent of the UCCN members are from ASEAN (Association of
Southeast Asian Nations). Thailand has the most number of UCCN
M. K. Lim (*)
School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
e-mail: LimM2@cardiff.ac.uk

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
ALBATROSS
Charles Baudelaire.
[Tätä runoa käänteessäni olen käyttänyt hyväkseni Toivo Mähösen

ansiokasta mukaelmaa. — Suom.]
Kas, pyydystetyks merimiehet huviksensa saa joskus

albatrossin, laivaa saatelleen veen yli suolaisen. He taajoin
parvinensa tuon ympäröivät vieraan, ylhäält' eksyneen.
Ja kannel!' avutonna, häpeissänsä laahaa

nyt lintu ruumistaan — tuo veikko pilvien.
Kuin raskait' airoja, niin kupeillansa raahaa
se taakkaa hervotonten valkosiipien.
Nyt horjut, ylväs lentäjä, kuin oma varjos,

viel' äsken ihana, nyt rujo, irvokas.
Mies sulle julkeana piippunysää tarjos,
ja toinen matkii sua, ilmain kuningas.
Oi, nähkää runoilija linnuss' uhmakkaassa: hän nuolta

nopeammin myrskyyn rynnistää, mut parvess' ihmisten kun
alhaall' on hän maassa, hän siipiensä painon alle rammaks
jää.
ISÄ JA POIKA
Erik Lindorm.
Kuu pilvijuomakas värjyy syväll' alla tumman veen. Ja

uniset sirkat soittaa läpi heinän kaatuneen. Kuin harmaa
tuhka sataa hämy päivän hehkuhun. Me kuljemme kivistä
rantaa, minä, pieni poikani mun.
Hän katsoo, viittoo ja loruu.

Kivet joskus livettää.
Minä hyväilen hänen kättään
pient', aivan pehmeää.
Hänen lapsen-ihmettelynsä
ei väsy utelemaan.
Ovat ajatukseni poissa,
minä tuskin vastaankaan.
Miten kauan saanen pitää sinun pientä kättäs näin, tuki olla
sulle ja turva, opas matkallas eteenpäin? Miten kauan lienee
mulla sija lämmin sielussas? Sinä kasvat ja rinnaltani menet
yhä kauemmas.
Sinun tahtosi uhmaan paatuu, pojan-ujona piileilet. Ja
katseemme eroo. Ja sieluus idut kasvavat salaiset. Käyt
synkin, polttavin tuntein salateitäs kulkemaan. Minun täytyy
syrjässä seistä, vain ääneti katsoa saan.
Jos tietäisit, poikani, kuinka yli vuotees uneksin. Minä

kirjoituspöytäni kätköön ens sukkasi piiloitin. Ne pienet, pienet
sukat koviks, suuriks kengiks saa, ne polkevat omaa tietään,
isän, äidin ne musertaa.
Se täytyy kärsiä, kestää, jos kohta se raskast' ois. Miten

puserrankin, irtoo kätes kädestäni pois. Menet kuitenkin
luotani kerta, ken estäis kasvamisen? — Tule nyt, me
kiiruhdamme pian kotiin, poikanen!
VANHA TALO
Ragnar Jändel.
Koditon raukka, maailmassa harhaan ma repalein ja kengin

visaisin. Ei mulla maata, taivast' eikä luojaa, vain köyhä äiti
mull' on jossakin. Niin kuljen, tuijottelen tähtiin, hullu, ja veri
palaa. Kaiken sulkea ma tahdon syliini — mut muistan: täytyy
pimennon lasna hylyn kulkea.
Mut usein, arimmin kun värjyy sydän, kun helle teki

uuvuttavaks tien, kun seutu hukkuu sinertävään hämyyn, ma
vanhan talon luokse tullut lien. Ja kuulen laulun, nuoren
käden tiedän pianon näppäimillä leikkivän — juon nälkäisinä
soinnut, hiiskumatta, peläten painaudun seinähän.
Ja nuoren, tumman, hennon tytön siellä nään nuotteineen.

Ja divaanilla nään sävelten, kirjojen ja valon luona myös
tumman pojan, miehen vieressään. Nään, että lapset ovat
sisarukset; heit' uneen valkokehdoss' äiti on hyväillen tuutinut.
— Ja outo pakko mun vetää ikkunoiden valohon.
Ja katso … luona pianon se lapsi, mi kieliin koskee sormin
hentoisin, hän — nään sen nyt — on oma sisareni, ja poika
sohvall' itse olenkin. Ja hän, jok' aurinkoiseks lapsuutemme
on hyväillyt, mun äitini hän on; myös talon, suojat lämpöiset
mä tunnen, mä tunnen oman isän kartanon.
— Mut koira haukkuu… Hitto, uneksinhan! — On kotini Ei-

missään, täällä ei! Mun pieni sisareni kuoli viluun, ja elon
kurjuus äidin voimat vei. On isänikin kuollut — entä sitten! —
Mä otan pussin, alan laputtaa ja kysyn joltain kiiltonappiselta,
koditon raukka mistä majan saa.
SATAA
Ragnar Jändel.
Rakkahin, herää, tule ulos kuistiin!

Katras harmaita pilviä peittää taivaan.
Tuoksuvassa, himmeäss' yössä hiljaa
sade valuu.
Ojenna kätes, tunne: suloisesti

pilvet tihkuvat vilvaita pisaroita.
Tunne syvään, rakkahin, mullan kiitos
taivaan puoleen!
Kuivat lehdet vienosti kahisevat,

yrttien ruumiit paisuvat nautinnosta.
Kiitost' uhoo vainiot, jotka väikkyy
hämyn läpi.
Alkaa ehtynyt puro solinansa,

oikealla, pähkinäpensastossa
harmaiden pilvien alla laulaa harmaa
satakieli.
KUMMITTELIJAT
Dan Andersson.
Majass' yksin jos valvot, kun ilta saa, älä salpaa oveasi
Ovat yllämme tähdet, ja hanki kimaltaa, kun tulemme,
tuttavas.
Luut vanhat nää jo kolkassa kirkkomaan

levoss' olleet kauan on —
havahtuin sinitaivasta katsomaan
saamme kujille kuutamon.
Alla tähtien silmäin me käymme käräjiin,

kun tuuli on raivokas,
ja me istumme tuomari-istuimiin
sinun miilumajallas.
Nyt rauhatonna sielumme harhaa vain:

meidät hautahan nälkä vei.
Syvä rauha oli yllämme, mutta lain
viha sammunut meistä ei.
Viha tää, viha kuolleiden, nyt vaeltaa
ajast' aikahan, kummitus;
emme kyynelen lohtua maistaa saa,
eikä pääty vaikerrus.
Voi meitä! Jo myöhäistä kiskurin on tuomio langettaa:

kipusauvamme vuolijat itsekin nyt aaveina vaeltaa.
ANGELIKA
Dan Andersson.
Minä kuulin pauhua myrskyn ja ääntä pasuunain, minä

kupeeni vyötin kohta ja nousin haudastain, valoss' auringon
paisui rintani mun, käsivarteni jännitin, toi ihana tuuli itämaan
kuin viiniä suonihin.
Ja rankkana lämmin sade minun huuhteli rääsyjäin,

minä avasin silmäni uudet ja tuomiopäivän näin.
Oli kanssani myös Angelika, jota kovin rakastin,
mut jota en saada ansainnut, minä arvolta alhaisin.
Ja kolmekymmentä päivää minä vuottelin vuoroain,

kevät uus oli ympärillä, sini taivaalla vanha vain.
Minä vihdoin mieleni rohkaisin, menin käden nostaen:
"Olen nimeltä William Andersson, ja suuri syntinen.
Ja tässä on hän, Angelika, jota kovin rakastin,

mut jota en saada ansainnut, minä arvolta alhaisin.
Me olimme miltei kihlatut, mut tietenkin salaa vaan,
emme toisiamme pettäneet, minun tieteni ainakaan.
Lihan synti on syntimme ollut, mut liha on kuollut pois,
ei tuomitse henkeä henki, vikapää jos ruumis ois.
Sinun veljiäs pienimpiä olen kohdannut varrella tien.
Kun näkivät nälkää, nälkää näin, kun uupuivat, uupunut lien.
Välist' emme leipään kajonneet, jos paastoa toiset sai,

ja se oli hengestä, Herra, sen sentään myönnät kai?
Me kuulimme enkelikuoroas, kun kuolevat vaikersi vain.
Menehdyimme kaikki nälkään, oi Herra, rinnakkain.
Ja pienet, pienet naiset tuli joskus leirihin,

ja he kylvivät sen naurullaan kuin pienin kukkasin.
Me otimme heidät silloin, vajosimme kurjuuteen.
Mut se oli ruumiista, Herra, vika ruumiin hävinneen."
Kadult' Ebalin portin luota tuli saatana virkkaen:

"Niin, Herra, he itkivät, antoivat — vain minua peljäten.
Mut kysyhän heiltä, Herra", hän puhui kumartain,
"mitä tekivät vaioisimmin öin, kun ei pelkoa ollut lain."
Minä huusin: "Pelkomme, Herra, piti alati murinaa,

söi meitä se syödessämme, se säikytti nukkujaa.
Hädän tautta me surmasimme, nälän pelosta varastain
ja me kieltäydyimmekin toisinaan, mut taivasta muistaen vain."
Mut Herra näin: "Minä tiedän tuon, kai parhaiten tiedänkin —

jotakin toki oppinut minäkin lien vuosimiljoonin —.
Oli rakkaus pelon vuoksi, vanhurskaus suosion,
mitä teitte, kun pelkonne vaientui, se kiimassa tehty on."
Minä vastasin: "Henki ol' altis, mut liha heikko vain,

ja kun synnissä mässäsi liha, ei katunut henki lain.
Tais saattaa ne meidät, ne kaksi, alas synkkään Ebaliin;
enin ruumiista sentään oli, ja ruumis haudattiin.
Ylipäänsä me olimme, Herra, lian peitossa kokonaan,

ja ruumista henki raahas kuin kahletta jalassaan.
Ja nyt anon tuomiotas, sen alle tyytyen.
Olen nimeltä William Andersson, ja suuri syntinen."
Mut Herra näin: "Ota impes sun, joka rakas sulle on,
mut jota et saada ansainnut, sinä säädyltä arvoton.
Suven taivaan alla uudestaan koetellaan teitä nyt,
ja pyydän, te kaikki lähtekää, olen teihin väsynyt."
Niin menimme jälleen kaikki pois, alas Mamren tammistoon

koeteltaviks kerran vieläkin, kunis tulemme tuomioon.
Mut saatana nauroi portillaan, nämä sanat kuulla sain:
"Sinä sait, sinä sait Angelikan vuoks pelkuruutes vain!"
RAKKAUS
Dan Andersson.
Sanotaan, että profeetta uskossaan, jonk' ääni kuin malmi,

kuin symbaali soi, rakkautta jok' ei tule tuntemaan, hän on
turhaa, hän hukkua voi.
Sillä profetia kokonansa häviää,

kuin tuuli, savu kuolee se, voimaton,
mut kaikki, min rakkaus täyttää, se jää
ja niinkuin jumala on.
Teet, rakkaus, kaunihiks ohdakkeen, sinä kuin sade käyt yli

nääntyvän maan, kukan tuot, puron vihreine äyräineen aron
hiekkahan polttavaan.
DOONEYN SOITTAJA
W. B. Yeats.
Kun Dooneyssa viulua soitan, kaikk' alkavat karkelon.

Kilvarnetin pappina serkku, veli Greenogen pappina on.
Veli, serkku, he jälkeeni jääden

tavas rukouskirjaa vain.
Luin itse mä laulujen kirjaa,
min kaupungista sain.
Ja kun aika täyttyy ja tullaan

pyhän luokse Pietarin,
hän hymyää kolmelle meille,
enin minulle kuitenkin.
Ilo aina on tuttava hyväin,

ilon suuri päihtymys.
Rakas iloisille on tanssi
sekä viuluni helähdys.
Menen portista, taivaassa syntyy
väentungos tavaton:
"Hei täällä on soittaja Dooneyn!"
Ja he alkavat karkelon.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SILMÄSTÄ
SILMÄÄN ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

Re Imagining Creative Cities in Twenty First Century Asia Xin Gu All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re Imagining Creative Cities in Twenty First Century Asia Xin Gu All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-Imagining Creative Cities in

Twenty-First Century Asia Xin Gu

ISBN 978-3-030-46290-1 ISBN 978-3-030-46291-8 (eBook)

Cover illustration: Matteo Colombo / gettyimages

1 Introduction: Re-Imagining Creative Cities in

Part I Conceptualising Creative Cities in Asia 11

2 Creative Cities, Creative Classes and the Global Modern 13

3 Global City as Place Branding Strategy: The Case of

4 Creative Cities, Technological Utopianism and Cultural

5 Rethinking Creative Cities?: UNESCO, Sustainability,

Part II Resisting Creative Cities 75

6 ‘Crisis of Values’ in Rhetorical Architecture: Creative

7 From Foreign Community to Creative Town? Creativity

8 Whose Cultural Memory? Disruptive Tactics

9 A Humble Creative City: Tainan City as a Case

Part III Creative Cities and Creative Industries 143

10 From Rubble to the Korean Wave Hub: The Making

11 The Role of an Urban Festival: Case Study

12 ‘Behind the Scenes’ of Mumbai’s Bollywood175

13 Cool Japan, Creative Industries, and Diversity187

Part IV Governing Creative Cities 201

14 Creative Seoul: A Lesson for Asian Creative Cities203

15 Re-imaging the Guangdong-Hong Kong-­Macao

16 Creative City Policy in Second-Tier Cities: The case

17 City of Music: Post-Conflict Branding

Part V Critical Reflections on Creative Cities Policy

18 Creative Cities and Sustainable Development:

19 Creative Bandung: Interview with Tita Larasati277

20 UNESCO and Mongolian Cultural Policy:

21 Creative Cities in Cambodia: An Impossible Idea?

Zeffry Alkatiri is Lecturer at History Department, Faculty of Humanities,

Helene George is Founder and Managing Director of Creative Economy,

Desmond Cheuk Kuen Hui is Professor and Head of Department of

Lin Jin is an independent scholar, Nanchang University, Nanchang,

Patrick Kin Wai Mok is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social

Janine Patricia Santos is a PhD candidate in Anthropology (KU Leuven,

tradition) for her dissertation. She is now Vice Director at Graduate

Jason Ka Hei Wong is a graduate of History from the Chinese University

Rights Holder Name: Statista Acknowledgement/Citation

Introduction: Re-Imagining Creative Cities

Xin Gu, Michael Kho Lim, and Justin O’Connor

© The Author(s) 2020 1

Fordist-­Keynesian settlement had broken down. That is, where ‘Fordist’

and innovate ‘outside-the-box’. Second, the ‘creative milieu’, semi-­

a turning point, even an awakening from an industrial and developmental

disruptive tactics employed by the local creative community challenge not

different reality in creative city governmance. They take on an urban

Conceptualising Creative Cities in

Creative Cities, Creative Classes

© The Author(s) 2020 13

‘shifting from a local to a global viewpoint ought to mean multiplying view-

A literature of policy transfer emerged in the noughties to reflect this.

institutions, classes and social groups who could (always provisionally)

affective investment, for a particular group of people, just as it is highly

breaching the borders between these policy-making sites, constructing sym-

This aptly describes the emergent, transnational epistemic community

increasingly become objects of policy. These spatially embodied urban

Perhaps one way of approaching the challenge set by the Creative

a single vision, entirely provincial, proposed by a few individuals, represent-

Neo-Gramscian theory locates the international hegemonic block in

Global City as Place Branding Strategy:

Michael Kho Lim

© The Author(s) 2020 27

1 Introduction: Re-Imagining Creative Cities in

Part I Conceptualising Creative Cities in Asia 11

2 Creative Cities, Creative Classes and the Global Modern 13

3 Global City as Place Branding Strategy: The Case of

4 Creative Cities, Technological Utopianism and Cultural

5 Rethinking Creative Cities?: UNESCO, Sustainability,

Part II Resisting Creative Cities 75

6 ‘Crisis of Values’ in Rhetorical Architecture: Creative

7 From Foreign Community to Creative Town? Creativity

8 Whose Cultural Memory? Disruptive Tactics

9 A Humble Creative City: Tainan City as a Case

Part III Creative Cities and Creative Industries 143

10 From Rubble to the Korean Wave Hub: The Making

11 The Role of an Urban Festival: Case Study

12 ‘Behind the Scenes’ of Mumbai’s Bollywood175

13 Cool Japan, Creative Industries, and Diversity187

Part IV Governing Creative Cities 201

14 Creative Seoul: A Lesson for Asian Creative Cities203

15 Re-imaging the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao

16 Creative City Policy in Second-Tier Cities: The case

17 City of Music: Post-Conflict Branding

Part V Critical Reflections on Creative Cities Policy

18 Creative Cities and Sustainable Development:

19 Creative Bandung: Interview with Tita Larasati277

20 UNESCO and Mongolian Cultural Policy:

21 Creative Cities in Cambodia: An Impossible Idea?

Fordist-Keynesian settlement had broken down. That is, where ‘Fordist’

and innovate ‘outside-the-box’. Second, the ‘creative milieu’, semi-