Speaker
Description
As societies deal with increasingly turbulent urban conditions, the role of creative city policies as potential catalysts for change becomes more urgent than ever. The concept of the Creative City has become a central framework in the urban policy of developed countries (Cooper and Florida, 2005; Pratt, 2011; Landry, 2012), often positioned as a driver of economic growth, cultural vibrancy, and urban regeneration. However, the policies and their implementation frequently overlook the socio-spatial inequalities they can generate as well as the shifting focus on design quality, small-scale public art projects and long-term impacts (Boddy and Parkinson, 2004; Evans, 2005), particularly in the Global South, where urban cultures and heritage become contested arenas for transformation (Molho et al., 2020). This research critically examines creative city policies and projects in Indian urban centres, focusing on their inclusivity, sustainability, and transformative potential for marginalised communities.
India’s urban landscape presents a compelling case for exploring the creative city discourse. With rapid urbanisation and increasing socio-economic disparities, gentrification (Jaglan and Rajeshwari, 2021), cultural and creative projects have been integrated into planning strategies to foster urban renewal and development, especially after India underwent liberalisation in the 1990s. While these initiatives often claim to promote inclusivity and community engagement, their real-world implications remain underexplored. This study addresses three key questions: (1) What is the content of Indian policies and strategies dealing with the principles of the creative city agenda since the 1990s? (2) What has been the typology of projects dealing with principles of the creative city agenda in India since the 1990s? (3) How do selected projects impact local communities, particularly vulnerable groups such as low-income populations, informal workers, and historically disadvantaged communities?
This research employs a qualitative approach, including (a) a content analysis of central, state, and municipal policies, (b) a typological analysis of creative city projects, and (c) an in-depth case study of representative projects. The (a) content analysis explores policy narratives and their alignment with principles of access equity and sustainability. The (b) typological analysis categorises creative city projects based on their spatial characteristics, governance structures, and objectives, distinguishing between economic-driven creative industries and community-oriented cultural amenities. The (c) case study examines selected urban transformation initiatives, assessing their social and spatial outcomes through interviews, field observations, and photography.
Preliminary findings suggest that while creative policies in India aim to generate inclusive urban spaces, their implementation often accelerates the loss of lived heritage and intensifies socio-spatial disparities. Large-scale flagship developments, such as cultural districts and creative hubs, contribute to gentrification, displacing existing communities and eroding cultural landscapes. Conversely, smaller-scale community-driven initiatives—such as public art projects and adaptive reuse of historic sites—demonstrate a stronger capacity for fostering inclusive urban transformations when adequately supported. These initiatives illustrate how urban cultures foster moments of engagement with the unknown and unpredictable, enhancing the capacity for creative action in shaping urban environments.
This study contributes to the discussion on planning for equitable and just futures on urban cultures and heritage as dynamic and contested processes by offering a critical perspective on the adaptation of the creative city model in the Global South. It calls for participatory urban strategies that prioritise social inclusion, accessibility, and sustainability. By situating India’s creative city policies within broader global urban debates, this research highlights the need for context-specific, community-anchored planning approaches that genuinely address the aspirations and needs of diverse urban populations.
References
Boddy, M. and Parkinson, M. (eds) (2004) City matters: competitiveness, cohesion, and urban governance. Bristol: Policy Pess.
Cooper, R.N. and Florida, R. (2005) ‘The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent’, Foreign Affairs, 84(5), p. 170. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/20031721.
Evans, G. (2005) ‘Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Culture’s Contribution to Regeneration’, Culture-Led Urban Regeneration [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500107102.
Jaglan, M.S. and Rajeshwari (eds) (2021) Reflections on 21st Century Human Habitats in India: Felicitation Volume in Honour of Professor M. H. Qureshi. Singapore: Springer Singapore (Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3100-9.
Landry, C. (2012) ‘The creative city : a toolkit for urban innovators’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772945.
Molho, J. et al. (2020) ‘Cultural policies in cities of the “global South”: a multi-scalar approach’, International Journal of Cultural Policy [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2020.1811256.
Pratt, A.C. (2011) ‘The cultural contradictions of the creative city’, City, Culture and Society, 2(3), pp. 123–130. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2011.08.002.
| Keywords | creative city; policy; Global South; India |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
