TheGlobalCulturalCity?SpatialImagineeringandPoliticsin the(Multi)culturalMarketplacesofSouth-eastAsiaBrendaS.A.Yeoh[Paperrstreceived,February2005;innalform,March2005]Summary. No longer just epicentres of capital transactions, cities are going global on the basis ofintegratingeconomicandculturalactivityasanurbanregenerationstrategy. Place-warsamongcitiestoattractinvestorshaveintensiedaroundtheproductionandconsumptionofcultureandthearts, oftentakingtheformof theconstructionof mega-projects andhallmarkevents, thedevelopment of a cultural industries sector and an upsurge of urban image-making andbranding activities. This paper rst reviews the discursive underpinnings of the growingaestheticisationof thelandscapeaspartof urban boosterismin thecontextof south-east Asia.Aswith other post-colonial cities which have embraced an entrepreneurial regime, spatialimagineeringinsouth-eastAsiancitiesdrawsonlocalidentitytogainacompetitiveedgeintheglobal marketplace. This is followedbyanexaminationof theemergingspatial politics, socialpolarisationsandsymbolicdiscontent accompanyingcultural regeneration.IntroductionWhile cities have longbeenintegral totheorganisation of space beyond national bound-aries, it isinthepast twodecades, withtheeforescenceoftheageofglobalisation,thatcertain cities have become valorised as criticalnodes and vital powerhouses of the globaleconomy (Yeoh, 1999). Territorial recon-gurations of capitalismunder conditions ofeconomicglobalisationhaveledtoarescal-ingtosub-nationalscales, particularlycities(BunnellandCoe,2001).AsPaulputsit,theglobalcitynowoccupiesacentral analytical positionin the literature on globalisation and thespatial organisation of global capitalism. . . Infact, attractingglobal xedcapitalinvestment (corporate headquarters, pro-duction facilities, downtown skyscrapers)andcirculatingcapital (transport, tourism,cultural events) through an internationalidentity has become a nearly universaleconomicstrategy(Paul,2004,p.572).Such a strategy is by no means a purely econ-omicone, as it is equallydependent onthemanipulation of symbols and the constructionof identities (Kong, 2000; Paul, 2004). AsClammerputsitIt istheculturesof urbanspacesthat aremost immediatelyanddirectlyinuencedbyglobalisation(intermsofconsumptionpatterns and tastes, fashion, architecture,mediaandnewformsofmaterial culture)and equally it is urban cultures (intellectualtrends, economic andtechnological inno-vations and again the media) whichlargely constitute so-called globalisation(Clammer,2003,pp.403404).UrbanStudies,Vol.42,Nos5/6,945958,May2005Brenda S. A. Yeoh is in the Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, 1 Arts Link, Kent Ridge, Singapore 117570.Fax:657791428.E-mail:geoysa@nus.edu.sg.0042-0980Print=1360-063XOnline=05=05-6094514 # 2005TheEditorsofUrbanStudiesDOI:10.1080=00420980500107201 at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from The creation of global cities increasingly restsontheintegrationof economicandculturalactivityaroundtheproductionandconsump-tion of the arts, architecture, fashion anddesign, media, food and entertainment,throughwhat Ley(1996, pp. 910) calls acroissantsandoperastrategy, anupgradedversionofbreadandcircusesintendedfora more afuent andcosmopolitanclientele.Thisisaccompaniedbytheemergenceof anewmodeof entrepreneurial governanceinthe city where the primary task of city ofcialsis toensurethat thecitybecomes ahubofexible production and consumption(Harvey, 1989), resulting in the intensicationof interurban competition or place-wars(Silk, 2002, p. 777) for mobile investors, inter-national talent and cosmopolitan elites. Theseplace-wars are indicative that economicglobalisation is conditioned upon politicalaccommodations within and among nation-states (Hill and Fujita, 2003, p. 209),putting paid to claims regarding the witheringawayof the nation-state andinsteadgivingemphasis to the signicant role of thenation-state in the politics of urban restructur-ing and changing spatial reorganisation inrelation to globalisation. They are also nolonger fought on purely economic groundsbut across the diverse terrain of culturalpolicyincluding: the constructionof presti-gious urbanagshipprojects as part of thecultural regenerationofthecity; production-based strategies, such as the developmentof a cultural industries sector; and,consumption-basedstrategies throughimagepromotingandplacemarketing(Kong,2000;Watkins andHerbert, 2003). Nolonger justepicentres of capital investments andtrans-actions, global cities not only incorporatemanyof thecultural industries but arealsosites of transnational cultural mixing anddynamic social foment (Yeoh, 1999). Inaddition, suchcitiesprovideepicentresfromwhich symbolic ows emanate (Jansson,2003).This paper rst reviews the discursiveunderpinnings of the growing vision ofgoing global adopted by many cities insouth-east Asia as a strategy for urbangrowthandregeneration.Itelaboratesontheway economic and cultural policies havebeen integrated as a means of conservinglocalheritagevaluesandasenseofAsianidentity and, at the same time, advancingurban fortunes and futures amidst intenseintercity, place-based competition. This is fol-lowed by an examination of the emergingspatialpolitics,socialpolarisationsandques-tions of justice accompanying the increasinglysignicant impact of leisure and the aesthetici-sationoftheurbanlandscape(LeyandOlds,1988).The Cultural Imagineering of the City:Visions and Mega-projectsOver recent decades in Asia, many cities haveembraced an entrepreneurial regime andexperienceddramatictransformationsastheyadapt tonew, accompanyingsocioeconomicimperatives predicated on the mobilisingmyth of becoming a global city. As a discur-sive category conjuring up imaginaries of highmodernity, mega-development, 21st-centuryurbanityandprogressiveurbanfuturesinthenewmillennium, the global has becomeaniconoraspatialmetaphor. . .withcon-siderable political power (Kelly, 1997,p. 168). For example, as south-east Asianeconomies became increasingly integratedintoregional andglobal circuitsandrosetoglobal prominence during the 1990s, theircities also began subscribing to the discoursesandlogics of globalisation, investingintheimagineering1of global images as theyjostleforaplaceinthenewurbanutopia.2At the same time, given the colonial contextfrom which many of these cities emerged justa fewdecades ago, the post-colonial enter-priseofcultivatingnationalidentityandpro-motingnational prideremainshighlysalient(Yeoh, 2001, p. 458). Indeed, inmanypartsof south-east Asia, while styles of governancemay range from soft authoritarianism to morethorough-going statism, the cultural pro-ductionof national identityremainsamajorproject of thecapitalist developmental state.Asakeynodeinthepost-colonial state, thecity is often overwhelmed with the onslaught946 BRENDA S.A.YEOH at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from of representational spaces in attempts toproduce the ideal of the post-colonialcitizen (Srivastava, 1996, p. 406). Urbanforms and architecture, in particular, have pro-vided a means by which a post-colonial nationcan construct a dialogue with its past (Kusno,1998). While the post-colonial engagementwith modernity in cities have not alwaysbeen overimaginativesometimes reducedto the question of how to be Westernwithout depending on the Westcitieswrestle with the need to nd a balancebetween cultural self-determination andinternationalmodernity(Vale,1992,p.53).Often, theneedtosignifyglobal connec-tions while promoting nationalist sensibilitiestakes concrete shape on the urban landscape inthe form of prominent agship projects. Theseurban mega-projects (Olds, 1995) are consti-tuted by large, high-prole and self-containeddevelopments designed at least partly as a cat-alyst for urbanregeneration(Beazleyet al.,1996). This was especially the case in theeuphoriaprior totheAsianeconomiccrisisof 199798 when the runaway economicsuccess of Asian tigers and dragons embol-denedregional elites tolocate the leadingedgeofglobal changeinAsia, reimaginingthe [once] mystical, sleepy (post-)colonialOrient, as, at once, a newthreat to Euro-Americansupremacyandanewparadiseofeconomic opportunity (Bunnell, 2004, pp.56). Drawing on publicprivate partner-shipasakeystrategyinurbanregenerationprogrammesinanticipatingthedawnof theAsian century as the old millenniumclosed, cityscapes were spectacularly trans-formedbytheconstructionofmega-projects,including impressive waterfront cities,world-class convention centres, festivalmarketplaces and cultural centres withglobal urban-national visibility, state-of-the-art ofce complexes and other mixed-use commercial developments (MXDs)(Bunnelletal.,2002,p.21).Theacceleratedcreation of newurban forms (Forbes andThrift, 1987) produced Asian mega-projectssuch as the Golden Triangle of KualaLumpurscitycentreandthePetronasTwinTowers,JakartasGatewayPrecinct,thenewcommercial and cultural hub at MarinaCentre in downtown Singapore, TokyosTeleport Town and Yokohamas MinatoMirai 21 project as well as the Luijiazui nan-cial district in Shanghais Pudong New Area(Pow,2002,quotingOlds,1995,1997,1998;Cybriwsky, 1997, 1999; Cartier, 1998; Ford,1998; Bunnell, 1999).3As Olds (1995)points out, these high-prole mega-projectsconstitutebotharealandasymbolicdimen-sionaimedat linkingthecitytotheglobaleconomy and are dependent on a host offactorscloselyassociatedwiththeglobalisa-tion of nance and property markets, thegrowthof transnational corporationsaswellas the creation of social networks betweenpolicy-makers and mobile urban elites andprofessionals.Atthesametime,thesemonu-mental consumerist spectacles (Harvey,1993, p. 24)areoftenabstractedfromlocalculture and translated as symbols of theculture to be promoted beyond a nationsown borders (Firat, quoted in Silk, 2002,p. 779;originalemphasis). Intherestofthissection, I examine some examples of themeta-narrativesof place(ChangandLim,2004, p. 167)oftenwovenaroundsigni-cant nodes such as mega-projectscon-structedbycitiesinAsiaintheir attempt toconnect toaglobal imaginary, whilesimul-taneously appropriatingthe cultural realmasameansofmaintainingasenseofuniqueidentity.Cultural imagineering is sometimes a strat-egyof reconstructionoccasionedbyregimechange. In post-1998 Jakarta,4amidst anunruly urban milieu and the physicaldestructionof theoldurbancore, theurbanelite were anxious to construct a new narrativeof nationalist urbanism as a means to recre-ateorderandauthorityinordertorestorethenations image to tourists and the worldoutside as well as reimagine a coherentimageofthepast toregainpowerandinu-ence (Kusno, 2004, p. 2389). This was predi-cated on producing a nostalgia fororderliness, throughestablishingprojectsofculturalpreservationandurbanbeauticationsuch as the restoration of Batavia, the colonialtown,therenovationofthewaterfountainofTHEGLOBAL CULTURALCITY? 947 at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from the Hotel Indonesia (HI) trafc island (featur-ingthe Welcome Statue built inthe 1960sunder the instructions of President Sukarnoto welcome Asian Games athletes to thecity), the fencing of National Monument(Monas) Parkandtheerectionof statues ofnational heroes at street junctions (Kusno,2004). By drawing on and regeneratingurbanremnantsofthepast,Jakartasgovern-ingeliteattemptedtoprojectthecapitalasacity of centrifugal power, a task of increasingurgency even as city life unravels amidstsocial, economic and political crises inthepost-Suhartostate.Elsewhere,wheremorestablesocio-politi-cal conditions have prevailed, the cultural ima-gineeringof the cityis oftenmotivatedbycompetitiontogainafootholdhigheruptheglobal cities league table. Singapore isthequintessentialentrepreneurialcity, wheretherelentlessdrivetoestablishthecity-stateas an economic powerhouse and internationalbusiness hub through promoting and attractinghigh-growth investments, nancial servicesandvalue-addedserviceshasbeenthemainpreoccupation for the past four decades(Pow, 2002, p. 154). While developingthecity-state as an international base for the head-quarters of transnational corporations in man-ufacturingandserviceswasthepredominantpriority up to the 1980s, the 1990s sawa diver-sication of globalisation strategies5to includedeveloping the arts, culture and entertainmentin the bid to become a world-class city. ThisisastrategyalreadyputtoworkinEuropeancitiessuchasGlasgow,Athens,BrusselsandAmsterdam,whereconceptssuchastheartscity, cityof culture andcultural capitalhave been deployed to attract tourists andcapital investments, create new urban imagin-aries, provideopportunities for employmentandreusedefuncturbanzonesandbuildings,whilst encouraging residents to rediscoverthecitycentre(Bianchini, quotedinChang,2000a, p. 820; see also Bassett, 1993; Grifths,1995; Hubbard, 1996; Crewe and Beaverstock,1998; McCarthy, 1998; Waterman, 1998; Halland Robertson, 2001; Teedon, 2001; Gotham,2002; Watkins and Herbert, 2003; Bayliss,2004).Singapores move into the cultural arena inthe1990s was not entirelyunanticipated. Itwas heralded by a major shift of urbanpolicyinthesecondhalfofthe1980sawayfrom the earlier demolish-and-rebuild philo-sophy responsible for creating a clean, orderlyif somewhat antiseptic environment towards arevalorisation of the older urban fabric such asChinatown, LittleIndiaandKampongGlam(theMalayquarter)ashistoricaldistrictsorheritage areas (Yeoh and Kong, 1994;Yeoh and Huang, 1996; Chang and Yeoh,1999; Chang, 2000b). This policyturnwaspartlydrivenbythestatesinterest inmain-taininglocal cultural heritage as a bulwarkagainstwhatwasperceivedthenastherapidinltration of Western values as Singaporemodernised. At that time, manyamongthegoverning elite were wary that, while Wester-nisation had served Singapore well in itsquest for industrialisation and economicdevelopment, the city-state was also indanger of losing its Asian roots and identity.AsGohChokTong,thenFirstDeputyPrimeMinister,declaredin1988We are part of a long Asian civilisation andwe should be proud of it. We should not beassimilated by the West and become apseudo-Westernsociety. We shouldbe anation that is uniquely multiracial andAsian, witheachcommunityproudof itstraditional culture and heritage (Goh,1988,p.15).Theshift towards heritageconservationandcreation in the city in the mid 1980s wasalsoeconomicallymotivatedbytheneedtoreclaim the citys oriental mystique andcharm in order to arrest falling touristnumbers (Yeoh, 2000, p. 118). As Changetal.observeHeritage conservation constituted oneelement of multi-faceted redevelopmentstrategies designed to cater to touristdemandsfor uniquenessontheonehand,whileprovidinganopportunitytoimproveurban aesthetics on the other (Changetal.,1996,p.294).948 BRENDA S.A.YEOH at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from What isalreadyevident duringthisphaseisthe discursive construction of heritage conser-vationandaestheticconsiderationsasdesir-able urban innovations compatible withdevelopmentalist goals and economic pursuits(although conservationredevelopment ten-sions continue to be very real concerns atthelevelofpolicyimplementation).Bythe1990s, statediscoursesaroundthemultiplyinected, but thought-to-becongru-ent, relationships betweenheritage, cultureand aesthetics, local identity, tourism,economicdevelopment, global reach andthe cosmopolitan city had shifted to ahigher gear in Singapore. In 1992, theSingapore government coined the termGlobal Cityfor the Arts tospearheaditsvisionof cultivatingathrivingarts, culturaland entertainment scene, both to further socio-cultural objectives of enriching the localcultural scene and fostering national pride,aswellasasocioeconomicstrategynotonlyto attract tourists, but also to compete for,welcome and retain foreign talenttransna-tional elites of the entrepreneurial, managerialand professional class who will add toSingaporesvibrancyandsecureourplaceina global network of cities of excellence(Lee Kuan Yew, then Senior Minister,quoted in Yeoh, 2004, p. 2435). In thisvision,theartswasexpectedtocontributetocreating a symbolic economy with threenodes:anartandantiquetradingandauctioncentre;atheatrehubofsouth-eastAsia;and,anentertainment destinationfor touristsandleisure-seekers(Chang,2000a,p.819).Bytheturnofthemillennium,theGlobalCityfortheArtsvisionwasfurthercomple-mented by the notion of becoming a Renais-sance City, a termintroducedbythe thenPrimeMinister, GohChokTonginhis1999National DayRally, andelaborateduponinthe states Renaissance City Report releasedin March 2000. As Lee Yock Suan (2001,p. 2), the thenMinister of Informationandthe Arts explained, the state drewon theterm renaissancetaken to mean thespirit of creativity, innovation and multidisci-plinarylearningandofsocioeconomic,intel-lectual andcultural vibrancytoarticulatea vision for Singapore in the newknowl-edge-based economy and to explain howculture and the arts can contribute to thenational picture as well as project a positiveand well-rounded image of Singapore interna-tionally. As with the earlier discoursesaroundtheinsertionofheritageintothecity,the twin aims of nurturing Singaporeanswith a deep appreciation for the arts andkeensenseofaestheticsanddevelopingandsupportingbothlocal andoverseascreativetalents emphasised the need to appeal to inter-nationaltalentaswellasenhanceourAsianheritage . . . even as weevolve a Singaporeanidentity (Lee Yock Suan, 2001, p. 2).Central tothis visionis the monumentalurbanscape launched in October 2002 andcosting an estimated S$667 million, TheEsplanade-Theatres onthe Bay,6anassem-blage of several theatres and performancespaces of spectacular shape and aestheticdesigncovering6hectaresofprimelandthatvisiblytransformedthecitysskyline, water-front andaerial view. Whilestatediscoursemade clear that the Esplanade is a major econ-omicinvestmentexpectedtogeneratereturnsbyputtingSingaporeonthemapforartsandcultural tourism, it alsoenvisagedanation-building role for such a landscape of spectacu-larity,notleastbyrecallingtheAsianrootsof Singapore arts. The thenPrime MinisterGohChokTong(quotedinKongandYeoh,2003, p. 189)for example, articulatedtheviewthat the Esplanade should evoke inSingaporeans an appreciation and understand-ingoftheoldcivilisationstheyall belongedto, andthepart of theworldtheywerein,especially as Singapore developed andbecame more open to the external culturesandinuences, andasSingaporeanstraveledandabsorbeddifferent values. Asaworld-class performingarts centre, theEsplanadeis built to usher in a new Asian Renaissance(TheStraitsTimes,10November1994).Whileculture-ledurbanregenerationinaclimate of intensied place-based competitionis most manifestly illustrated in the case of thearts and heritage industries (as shown above),theappropriationof thecultural spherealsotakes place in other ways, as part of anTHEGLOBAL CULTURALCITY? 949 at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from urban cosmetics or aesthetics policy, or in theform of cultural markers to assert local differ-entiationandatthesametimereinforcecor-porate power and entrepreneurial schemes.Forexample, place-marketingstrategiespro-moting the S$2 billion agship projectSuntec Citycomprising a mega-size con-vention and exhibition centre, integratedwithvestate-of-the-art ofcetowers anda giant retail mall and entertainmentcentreareelaboratedthroughanappropria-tionof exotic discoursesonAsiansymbo-lism and Chinese geomancy (Pow, 2001,p.118).TakingprideofplaceinSingaporesnew commercial and cultural hub atMarina Centre, Suntec City is said tocombine powerful Asianelements suchasthe Hindu mandala and Chinese ideas offeng shui and yin-yang to provide a geoman-tically auspicious entrepreneurial landscapewhere the notion of an open-handedexchange of prosperity is captured by thearchitectural design of placing a giganticFountain of Wealth (symbolising a goldring)inthemiddleofapalm(representedbythefour ofcetowers (thefour ngers) andthe 18-storey ofce block (the thumb))(Suntec City Commemorative Book, quotedin Pow, 2001, p. 118). For both the HongKongtycooninvestorsandordinaryvisitors,the inwardly cascading, constantly owingwatersofthefountainconjureupavisionofriches pouring in, imbuing speculativereal-estatedevelopment aswell asavisit tothe mall with an aura of divine providence.By consciously manipulating architecturalspectacle andappropriatingcultural myth,entrepreneurial landscapes such as SuntecCity serve as a means of reproducing andlegitimising global capitalist power and inter-ests(Pow,2001).Turning to another example of an entrepre-neurial (as opposedtoanovertlyculturalarts or heritage) landscape, Bunnell (2004)argues that the Kuala Lumpur City Centre(KLCC) mega-project (which includes thePetronasTowers, theworldstallestbuildingwhenitwasbuilt)couldbereadasaformofstate-sponsored architectural nationalism,performingasymboliccivicrolebothinternationallyand domestically: marking the city andnation on global maps as a modern andinvestible metropolis, anddemonstratingthat Malaysia boleh, a can do attitudefreefromthesupposedshacklesof (neo-)colonialinferiority(Bunnell,2004,p.9).Whileearlierattemptsat theheightoftheNational Cultural Policy of the 1980s todeploy architecture and urban design assigns of national transformation had drawnon supposedly recognisably Malaysiansymbols andstylessuchas a roof shapedintheformofaMalaykerisordaggerinthecase of the Menara Maybank building andthe ve columns representative of the vepillars of Islaminthe case of the LUTHTower, bothinKualaLumpurthePetronasTowers (comprising twin 84-storey towersmade of stainless steel clad in glass andspanned at the 41st oor by a sky bridge)primarily distinguished itself by its record-breakingheight as acultural landmark(aphraseusedbythenPrimeMinisterMahathirMohamad, quotedinBunnell, 2004, p. 70)symbolising the nations world-class prestige,international visibilityandupwardmobility(Bunnell, 2004, p. 72). Instead of simplytacking on ostensibly cultural motifs, thePetronas Towers, like Singapores SuntecCity(promotedastheAsiaPacicregionslargest conventioncentreandthesiteof theworldslargest fountain asrecordedinthe1998 Guinness Book of Records), engagedwell-known international design and planningteamsin ordertocreateprestigious and high-impact signature structures (Ho, 2002) andwhichlinkedthecultural valueofarchitec-t[ure] withtheeconomicvalueof landandbuilding(Zukin, 1991, p. 45). Theclimac-ticeffectsoftheTowerssuperlativeheightwere also multiplied many times over toreach international audiences through FoxFilms, with whom the Malaysian governmentnegotiatedtoshowcasetheTowersinFoxs1999 romantic thriller, Entrapment (Silk,2002, p. 784). Saidthe lms director, JonAmiel950 BRENDA S.A.YEOH at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from After audiences watch Mac [Sean Connery]andGin[CatherineZetaJones] eetheirpursuers byswingingunderneaththe skybridge, 750 feet above Kuala Lumpur, Iexpectthetowerscouldverywellbecomeanewcinematiclandmark(Amiel, quotedinSilk,2002,p.784).Byeschewingethnicallyexclusivearchitec-tural references7and embracing culturallyinnocuoussuperlatives, thePetronasTowersareintendedtosignifythenewMalayinanincreasingly multicultural society engagingthe world of commerce (Kusno, cited inBunnell,2004,p.75).Other entrepreneurial landscapes rangingfromwhole newcities tosports complexestohost hallmarkeventsanduniversitycam-puses may also be read as instances of culturalproduction intended to full the dual functionoffuellingthenationsglobalisingambitionson the one hand and producing newpost-colonial citizens andshapinglocal sensibil-ities on the other. For example, while theSiliconising of the landscape through the cre-ation of the intelligent cities of Putrajaya andCyberjaya along Kuala Lumpurs MultimediaSuperCorridorispartofabroadersymbolicinterventiontoleaveamarkonglobalurbanimaginativegeographies,itisalsopredicatedonculturallyinectedmeta-narrativesaboutprogressive Asian values and the productionof intelligent citizens capable of innovation,self-learningandnavigatingtheInformationAge(Bunnell, 2004; ChangandLim, 2004).Insimilar fashion, the1998CommonwealthGamesheldinKualaLumpur reframedandrepresented cultural symbols and narratives(throughceremonies,choreographyandevenin the choice of colours in the GamesSignature)inordertopressMalaysiascom-petitiveadvantageintheglobal marketplaceandclaimstoworldleadershipaswell astosignify Malaysias aspirations to Vision2020Prime Minister Mahathirs plan tore-engineer the social, political and economicclimate of Malaysia to achieve balancedeconomicgrowth, ahighqualityof lifeandthecreationof oneMalaysianrace(BangsaMalaysia)(Silk,2002).Turning attention to Indonesian attempts toproduce the most appropriate architecturalforms through a selective retrieval of indigen-ous and colonial cultures, Kusnos (1998)study of the architectural design of universitycampusesinBandungandJakartaillustratesthe fundamental split inherent in post-colonialsocietiesbetweenadenial anddisplacementof colonial origins ontheonehand, andarecitation of the coloniality of Indonesianarchitectureontheother, twostrainswhichareperpetuallycontradictoryandyetindisso-lublyintertwined.Insum,theculturalimagi-neeringofthecityinsouth-eastAsiaisbothagrowingenterpriseintimatelyconnectedtocommodityproductionandconsumerismaswell as a fraught terrain, requiring carefulnegotiationbetweenglobal modernity, post-colonial sensibilities andnationalist dreamsofautopianfuture.Cultural Politicsand Contested SpacesCurrent efforts put into urban image-makingandbrandingarebothself-generatingandsomehow peculiar. Since every newmarket-message is contested bythe pluralismofurbansocial life . . .therecanneverbeanal, intersubjectively shared city image.Rather, . . . the more contradiction and nego-tiation there are, the more resources may beput into image-making. And, the moreeffort that is put into the diffusion of a domi-nant image, themoreimage-creationmustactually overlook the authentic complexitiesof social life (Jansson, 2003, p. 478).Inasmuchasthehegemonicscriptsunderpin-ning visionary urban discourses and spectacu-lar mega-projects are legitimised byappropriations of the cultural sphere, theymayalsoberuptured.AsJanssonputsitThe creation of the city image is not only amatter of cultural policy. What the cityactually becomes, and how differentgroupsexperienceit,dependontheactivi-ties of social actors as well as systemicforces. . .[suchas]alternativeandopposi-tional groupings . . . challenging suchpointsofview(Jansson,2003,p.464).THEGLOBAL CULTURALCITY? 951 at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from While the cultural imagineeringof the cityoftenattempts tomasksocial, ethnic, classand gender polarisations by mobiliz[ing]everyaestheticpowerofillusionandimage(Silk, 2002, p. 778), it is by no means anuncontested process (and in fact is adynamic, self-generatingone, asJansson(asquotedabove)indicates).In south-east Asian urban life, the dynamicsofsuchcultural politicsarehighlycomplex.While manyurbancivil societyinstitutionsare mainly products of the middle classes,therearealsoaburgeoningnumberofurbansocial movementsreligious, ideological,cultural, ethnic, gendered and those emergingfrom the experience of the underclasswhichpropel competing visions of urban life that areopposed to, or seek to transcend, civil societyas denedbythemiddleclasses (Clammer,2003).Seldomdoesthegroundswellofcom-petingvisions anddemands coalesceintoaunied collective response (see later);instead, thecontradictoryqualitiesofimagi-neeringthecitytosatisfythetwingoalsofafrming national identity and extendingglobal reachoftenleadtointegration, frag-mentation, polarisation and reterritorialisationof numerous superimposed social spaces(Lefebvre, quoted in Clammer, 2003,p. 416). As cities re-evaluate the nature oftheir relationshipbetweenthelocal andtheglobal they set in motion a simultaneous poli-tics of forgetting and remembering, ofinclusion, exclusionandrevalorisation(LeeandYeoh,2004,p.2298)At the discursive level, despite (and perhapsbecause of) the hyperbole and rhetoric inwhich all-encompassing vision statements(so central tocultural imagineeringefforts)arewrapped, theyareoftennot immunetocounter- or mis-representations, sometimesin ways akin to parody. For example, inviewof the Singapore governments visiontoproduceSingaporeastheGlobalCityforthe Arts, critics have coined the termGlobal City for the Borrowed Arts tocapture concerns that the vision privilegeshigh-cost mega-structures andcommerciallydrivenblockbustereventssuchasthestagingofBroadwayshowsandforeignpopconcertstothe detriment of smaller, local andnon-prot productions and Singapore experimen-tal art (Chang, 2000a, p. 826). Reecting theviews of many local artistic practitioners, oneof the most respectedof local playwrights,Kuo Pao Kun asked pointedly, Can wehave a Singapore Arts Centre by just bringingalltheartsoftheworldtoSingaporewithoutourowneducation, withoutourowncreativ-ity? (quoted in Kong and Yeoh, 2003,p. 183). Theseviewswereinturncounteredbythestateasaformoffalsenationalism,aformof protectionismantithetical tothenational spirit whichis a cosmopolitanone (George Yeo, then Minister of Infor-mation and the Arts, quoted in Kong andYeoh,2003,p.184).At the level of specic mega-projects,meanings and symbolisms conferred on entre-preneurial landscapes by state or corporatepowers are not always hegemonic but con-stantlyinected,unsettledandchallengedbythepossibilityof alternativereadingsonthepart of others(consumersandsocial groupswithdifferent interpretations andclaims onthelandscapes). Asenseof parodyis againinvolved in the rechristening of theEsplanade-TheatresontheBayamonglocalswhopreferredtorefer tothetwindomesasdurians, soursops, porcupines or thegigantichouseyseyes, aswell asintheredesigning of the Petronas Towers asthe twindipsticks for air pollutionlevelsinacitywhereresidentsapparentlyput lessfaith in ofcially released meteorologicalgures(particularlyduringheavyhaze)thanin calibrations based on visibility teststrainedontheTwinTowers.8Theconstantreworkingofmeaningisalsopresent in a number of projects whichcombine heritage and enterprise in the pro-duction of new urban spaces in post-colonialnations, often leading to a contest of meaningsandprioritiesaroundquestionssuchaswhatconstitutes history in a multiethnic post-colonialcontext,whatshouldbevalorisedasheritage(andhencewhatshouldbeexcisedas of no heritage value), who shouldcontrol (andbenet from)thewholeprocessof transformingthelandscapeandfor what952 BRENDA S.A.YEOH at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from purpose (such as nationalismand tourism)(Cartier, 1993; Parenteauet al., 1995; Yeohand Huang, 1996; Chang, 2000b; Teo,2003). For example, the designation ofSingapores Kampong Glam HistoricalDistrict as a bounded area enjoying conserva-tionstatus sparkedcontroversial discussionsinsome quarters amongthe Malay/Muslimcommunity as to what constitutes Malay heri-tage and culture. Particularly contentious wasthe eviction of the descendants of SultanHusseinShah, the19th-centurypre-colonialruler of Johor and Singapore, from theirancestralhomeattheistana(palace)intheheart of KampongGlamtomakewayfor aS$16.7 million state-driven restorationprojecttoconverttheIstanaKampongGlaminto a Malay Heritage Centre (opened in2004) to showcase the history, traditions,culture and future challenges of the Malaycommunity (The Straits Times, 16 August2004), for this pits the notionof heritageresiding in the formof bounded heritageobjectsisolatedanddisplayedinamuseumagainsttheclaimsoffamilygenealogyandroyal descent. Not only does the objectica-tion of heritage artifacts reify a particularversion of heritage, the legal codicationand subsequent naturalisation of the entireHistoricalDistrictfurtherservetodemarcatewhat isandisnot heritage, for immediatelyoutsidetheboundarylinedelimitingthecon-servation area, landscapes reecting Malayculture such as a madrasah (religiousschool) andMuslimcemeterylandfacethethreatoferasure.Conictingdiscoursesastowhat constitutes heritage are hence oftengenerated by urban conservation projects thatslice upthe organic formandtexture ofcultural hearths in an arbitrary fashion, leg-islating boundaries between a defendedzoneperceivedtobeofhistoricalvalueandanexcludedlandscapewhichisthreatenedwithexcision(YeohandHuang, 1996, p.421).Competing versions of cultural authenticityalso crop up elsewhere. For example, inorder to illustrate how peoples actual experi-ences of agship projects might divergefromtheboosterismassociatedwithpropertydevelopment and place entrepreneurialism.Pow(2001, p. 131) identiesaspectrumofdifferentiated and often fragmented con-sumption of place images and meaningsheldbydifferent social groupsandusersofSingapores SuntecCity. Theserangefrom:geomancers who came up with a rash ofcounter-representations and disagreementsover the authenticity and accuracy ofSuntecCitysfengshuisymbolism;9toofcemanagers who were more concerned withpractical issues such as the rental cost ofofces,accessiblelocationandthequalityofoor spaces andaloof towhat theysawasmarketing gimmicks; to shoppers, users ofthespaceandotherobserverswhofoundthedesignof themega-complexdauntingandalienating, likening the Fountain ofWealthtoagiganticpieceof kitschandtheenclosedmega-spaces toanurbanfor-tress which turns inwards on itself, trap-pingpeopleinthebuildings andemptyingthesurroundingstreets of meaningful socialactivities(Pow,2001).Whatemergesfromavarietyof urbanencountersisakitchenofmeanings (Barthes, quoted in Pow, 2001,p. 132), where different people drawupontheirsubjectiveexperiencesandpersonalisedexpertisetoengageinthehyper-imagina-tive rescripting of Suntec Citys symboliclandscape.AsinthecaseofSuntecCity,thesymbolicdiscontentandpopular rework-ing of meanings around Kuala LumpursPetronasTowerscannot beexpectedtohaveanycoherent or uniedauthoritativeinten-tionality (Bunnell, 2004, p. 78). Instead,symbolicreworkingwastobefoundamidsteveryday rumours, ranging fromwho wasbehind the project (in particular, queryingthe role of the oil company Petronas) andwhat was beneath the project (the towershaving been moved 50 metres from their orig-inallocation onaccount oflimestonecavernsclose to the surface), to more politicallycharged suspicions that the intelligent build-ing is but a high-tech instrument of statesurveillance(Bunnell,2004,pp.8083).Beyond the level of discursive negotiationsand the circulation of counter-images, the cul-turalpoliticsaccompanyingtheimagineeringTHEGLOBAL CULTURALCITY? 953 at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from ofthecityalsoanimatethesocialmaterialityofthecityintheformofsocialconictsandurbanencounters,framedbyexclusion, side-lining, erasure, loss, fragmentaryplacesandout-of-place others onthe one hand, andtheemergentcounter-globalspatialitiesofpower (Bunnell and Nah, 2004, p. 2447)seeking to unmake the processes of marginali-sation, on the other. As Lees (2001) notes, thecultural politics of place entail an engagementwith embodied, everyday social practicesthrough which urban spaces are activelyused and appropriated. As the pre-eminentspaceofencounterswithdifference, thecityis perpetually poised at a moment of transform-ationthis is true of cities witnessing unprece-dented political change, such as Jakarta whereintenserupturehasopenedupspacesfor amore responsible, diverse and democraticurbanism as well as the formation of a newurbanpoliticsthat ismoreegotistic, deliber-ately unpredictable and violent (Kusno,2004, p. 2391), as it is also true of citiescharacterisedby relentless economic make-oversdrivenbytheglobalisingambitionsofstrong states.Given the pluralismof urban social life,reactions to the cultural imagineering ofurbanspaces andthe constructionof urbanmega-projects are seldomunied; instead,theyoftenentail alliances, negotiations andconicts among multiple actors with differentinterests and subjectivities. On the rareoccasion, subterranean tensions betweendifferent groups may culminate into ash-points, as occurred during the 1998 Common-wealthGames at Kuala Lumpur. TwodayspriortotheGamesclosingceremony,politi-cal, ethnic and economic tensions surfacedinthecity,ignitedbythepublicsackingandhumiliation of the then deputy prime ministerIbrahimAnwar. Anwars dismissal for thealleged sodomy of two junior governmentministers acted as a catalyst for anti-government demonstrators whogatheredonthe streets and in Merdeka (Independence)Squarewheretheywerecaughtonlmbyanumberofforeignnewscrewsthathadbeenallowed into Malaysia to cover the Games(Silk,2002,pp.789790).10Morecommonly, collectiveactioncoales-cing around urban projects goes beyondstreet-level confrontations. For example,Bunnell and Nah (2004) examine the way sub-ordinatedgroupsinthiscase, squattersandthe indigenous Orang Asli minority whohavebeendisplacedasaresultoftheglobalreorientation process of greater KualaLumpuractively articulated and demon-strated in-place identities by drawing on awiderepertoireof transnationallynetworkedresources to assert their land rights withinandbeyondMalaysiancourts. Bymobilisinginternational declarations of housing andhumanrights andconnectingupwithotherindigenous peoples beyondthe nation-state,these groups were able to strengthen theirclaimstoremainingin-placeandtocounterthe exclusionary practices of the states globa-lisingvision.Also focusing on Malaysia but furthernorth, Teo (2003) points to the limitsreached in imagineering Penang as theSilicon Valley of the East as well as amajor tourismdestinationofferingsun, sea,heritage and culture. Increasing disillusion-ment amongthepeopleofPenang, whofeltperipheralisedbywhat theysawasthereor-ientationof the citytowards tourists at theexpenseoflocals, reachedaclimaxwiththerepeal of the Rent Control Act in 2000 tomake way for more commercially viablebuildings. Contestory strategies on theground were bifurcated: while the PenangHeritage Trust, an elite non-governmentorganisation, advocated the conservation ofthe urban fabric andthe conversion of oldbuildings into restaurants, boutique hotelsand art galleries, the residents of PenangsChinatownandLittleIndiamanyofwhomareilliterate, working-classorself-employedtenants living in rent-control shophousesorganised themselves into a tenants self-helpgroupcalledSaveOurselvesinordertoappeal against eviction orders and protestagainstthegentricationoftraditionalareas.Thephysicalappropriationofthestreetsasastrategyofreclamationwasalsodrawnuponontheeveof theNewYear of 2001when500tenants gatheredfor a candlelight vigil954 BRENDA S.A.YEOH at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Noordin Street as a display of solidarity intheir quest to save old Penang fromthe bulldo-zersandtheyuppies(Teo,2003,p.559).The terrain of cultural politics around urbanmega-projects mayalsobe traversedbyanunorchestrated array of unintended userswhotraceeverydaygeographies incounter-point to the grand narratives and visionsspunbytheproducersofsuchprojects. Pow(2001)for example, shows howcorporatespaces inSuntecCityarefrequentlyappro-priatedbyall manner of unexpectedconsu-mers: students appropriatingair-conditionedplaces for studying, or hangingout; manualworkers retreating to the benches and sheltersfor afternoon naps; gays frequenting thetoiletsascruisingspots; andmyriadotherswhose ordinary routines become acts of trans-gressionnotinthemselves, butasaresultofincongruous juxtapositionwiththeintendedspectacularity of these spaces. As Pow(2001, p. 150, quotingRaban) putsit, con-cealedbeneaththematerialrealityanddomi-nant representation of Suntec City, thereexists a plethora of interpenetrating softcities made hardthroughtactics of spatialoccupationandappropriation.(Multi)cultural Marketplaces and CulturalJusticeIn Hannerzs (1993) interpretation of theclassic theme of the cultural role of worldcities,hefocusesattentiononworldcitiesascultural marketplaces, places of global cul-tural brokerage involvingahighdensityoflocal as well as transnational relationshipsbetween highly skilled professional andbusiness elites; low-skilled, low-incomemigrant workers; specialists in expressiveactivities;andworldtourists.Asasiteconti-nually renewed by the creative bloodstream(Hall,2000,p.646)oftransnationalowsofdifferent peoples, the contemporary global(ising) city is an absorptive, continuouslychanging terrain that incorporates newcultural elements whenever it can (Hall,quoted in Sassen, 2000, p. 176). Yet, asSassen (2000) argues, such an observationneeds qualication, because contemporaryglobal culture is ina constant state of uxand contestation which is in turn characterisedby diverse work cultures and cultural environ-mentsinwhichthecultural politicsat workareoftencapableoftransformingthecentre.It is precisely the (multi)cultural wealthcreated by the intensity of transnationalurban encounters in the citywhat Jacobs(1996, p. 4) calls the very place of ourmeetingwiththeotherthatmakesthecityaprotableplacewherethegoverningeliteand corporate power could capitalise onimmenseculturalenergyasabasisforecon-omicregeneration. Asthispaperhasshown,asinEuropeandNorthAmerica, culture-ledurbanregenerationhasindeedbeenamajorforce of change in many south-east Asiancities. Unlike the Westerndevelopedworldcontext, however, the use of culturalimagineering, urban mega-projects andiconicarchitectureas anurbanregenerationstrategytends tobe more spatiallyconcen-tratedinthecapitalandlargeregionalcities,further widening the gap between themega-cities intent onextendingtheir globalreachat thepinnacleof theurbanhierarchyandthefourthworldcities(Shatkin, 1998)at the bottomof the hierarchy which areperceivedtobestructurallyirrelevant tothecurrent round of global capital accumulation.11Itishenceinthealready-large,globalisingcities of south-east Asia that governmentshaveinvestedconsiderableresourcestotakethe global imaginary to further heights. Atthe same time, it is also the cultural thicknessof urban encounters that underscores thevitality of cultural politics at work in theglobalisingcity,bothatthelevelofcounter-representations and alternative spatialdiscourses, aswell as intermsof collectivesocial actionandeverydaypractices, as hasbeenrichlyarticulatedincurrenturbanscho-larship on south-east Asian cities. While ques-tions of civility and inclusive notions ofcitizenshipremainfraught terrainsindeeplyplural, post-colonial societies characterisedby authoritarian governments and poorlydevelopedcivilspace,urbanimagineeringasaformof cultural globalisationhas broughtto the fore not only newurban discoursesTHEGLOBAL CULTURALCITY? 955 at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from but also oppositional tactics which chiselawayat theimageandediceoftheglobalcultural city. These may not producecounter-hegemonicvisions powerful enoughtochallengestate-ledplansandprogrammesand reshape urban space, but allow the inhabi-tantsofthecitytocontinuetostakemultipleclaims to the city. Yet, what remains atlargeandthereforewherescholarshipmustsurelyturnits attentionsoonis the broadquestion of cultural justice (Morrison,2003, p. 1629), involving a fundamental reva-luing of diverse peoplesnot only acrossdivisionsof race, class, gender, religionandlanguage,butalsoacrossnationalityandciti-zenship linesencompassing both culturaland economicdimensionsin orderto achievegreater inclusion of cultural differencewhich is, after all, the hallmark of a global city.Notes1. AccordingtoPaul (2004, p. 574), theverbtoimagineer wascoinedbyWalt DisneyStudiostodescribeitsstrategyofcombin-ingimaginationwithengineeringtocreatethe reality of dreams in creating themeparks.2. This does not detract from the fact that manyprimatecitiesintheregioncontinueinthegrip of major urban social and economic pro-blems including fast-growing populations,rapid in-migration, sub-standard housingandinfrastructure, highratesof unemploy-ment and underemployment, ethnic and reli-gious conict, widening socioeconomicinequalities and degraded environments(Clammer,2003,p.406).3. Thedevelopmentofaculturalpolicyoracultural industry as part of civic boosterismandentrepreneurshipis most acutein, butnotconnedto,capitalcitieswithglobalis-ing ambitions. It is also an important strategyinthesmallercities(forexample,seeYangand Hsing, 2001, on Kinmen; Teo, 2003,onPenang).4. The riots of May 1998 in Jakarta were instru-mental to the collapse of Suhartos NewOrdergovernment.5. Otherplansinthe1990s includedestablish-ing Singapore as an e-commerce hub for hi-tech companies, an educational centre forinternational institutions, a regional medicalcentre anda tourismcapital (ChangandYeoh, 1999; Olds and Yeung, 2004).6. The Esplanade-Theatres onthe Bayorigi-natedfromarecommendationmadebytheAdvisoryCouncil onCultureandtheArts,appointed in 1988 to reviewand chart anewdirectionforSingaporesartsdevelop-ment(KongandYeoh,2003,p.178)7. Culturalreferenceswerenotentirelyabsentinside the Towers. Apparently, the oorplans arebasedonamotif of interlinkingsquaresandcirclesrepresentinganancientMuslimsymbol of harmony and strength,and decorated with Malaysian wood andstone(Silk,2002,p.784).8. Also in popular circulation is the comparisonof the Twin Towers to upturned jagung (corncobs),in imminentdangerofcollapseif notfor the sheer force of the then Prime MinisterMahathirs personality propping themup(Bunnell,2004,p.81).9. Pow (2001, p. 136) notesfor example, thatmost of the geomancers referred to theFountain of Wealth as an egotisticalandself-servingmonument of theHongKongtycoons rather thanasymbol of thebenevolenceoftheglobal propertydevelo-persasintendedbythetycoons.10. AlsoseeWaitt (1999) onthewayanotherhallmark sporting event, the SydneyOlympic Games, was deployed as amediumofpoliticaldiscontent.11. Thisdoesnotmeanthatthesecitiesarenotimpacted by global restructuring or inte-gratedinsomewaysintotheworldsystem(seeLeeandYeohs(2004)UrbanStudiesSpecial Issue on Globalisation and thePoliticsofForgetting).ReferencesBASSETT, K. (1993) Urbancultural strategiesandurban regeneration: a case study and critique,Environment and Planning A, 25, pp. 17731788.BAYLISS, D. (2004)CreativeplanninginIreland:the role of culture-led development in Irishplanning, EuropeanPlanningStudies, 12, pp.497515.BEAZLEY, M., LOFTMAN, P. and NEVIN, B. (1996)Downtown redevelopment and communityresistance: an international perspective, in:N. JEWSONandS. MACGREGOR(Eds) Trans-forming Cities: Contested Governance andNewSpatial Divisions, pp. 181192. London:Routledge.BUNNELL, T. (1999) Views from above and below:the Petronas Twin Towers and/in contestingvisions of development in contemporaryMalaysia, Singapore Journal of TropicalGeography,20,pp.123.BUNNELL, T. (2004) Malaysia, Modernity andthe Multimedia Super Corridor: A CriticalGeographyof Intelligent Landscapes. London:RoutledgeCurzon.956 BRENDA S.A.YEOH at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from BUNNELL, T. and COE, N. (2001) Spaces and scalesof innovation, ProgressinHumanGeography,25,pp.569589.BUNNELL, T. and NAH, A. M. (2004) Counter-globalcasesforplace: contestingdisplacementin globalising Kuala Lumpur metropolitanarea,UrbanStudies,12,pp.24472467.BUNNELL, T., DRUMMOND, L. and HO, K. C. (Eds)(2002) Critical ReectionsonCitiesinSouth-eastAsia.Singapore:TimesAcademicPress.CARTIER,C.(1993)CreatinghistoricopenspaceinMelaka, Geographical Review, 83, pp. 359373.CARTIER, C. (1998)Megadevelopment inMalay-sia:fromheritagelandscapestoleisurescapesinMelakastourismsector, SingaporeJournalofTropicalGeography,19,pp.151176.CHANG, T. C. (2000a) Renaissance revisited:Singapore as a Global City for the Arts,International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch,24,pp.818831.CHANG, T. C. (2000b)SingaporesLittleIndia:atourist attraction as a contested landscape,UrbanStudies,37,pp.343366.CHANG, T. C. and LIM, S. Y. (2004) Geographicalimaginations of New AsiaSingapore,GeograskaAnnaler,86B,pp.165185.CHANG, T. C. andYEOH, B. S. A. (1999) NewAsia-Singapore: communicatinglocal culturesthrough global tourism, Geoforum, 30, pp.101115.CHANG, T. C., MILNE, S., FALLON, D. andPOHLMANN, C. (1996)Urbanheritagetourism:the global local nexus, Annals of TourismResearch,23,pp.284305.CLAMMER, J. (2003) Globalisation, class,consumption and civil society in south-eastAsiancities,UrbanStudies,40,pp.403419.CREWE, L. and BEAVERSTOCK, J. (1998)Fashioningthecity:culturesofconsumptionincontemporaryurbanspaces, Geoforum, 29, pp.287308.CYBRIWSKY, R. (1997) From castle town toManhattantownwithsuburbs: a geographicalaccount of Tokyos changing landmarks andsymboliclandscapes, in: P. P. KARANandK.STAPLETON (Eds) The Japanese City, pp.5678. Lexington, KY: University Press ofKentucky.CYBRIWSKY, R. (1999) Changing patterns of urbanpublic space: observations and assessments fromtheTokyoandNewYorkmetropolitanareas,Cities,16,pp.223231.FORBES, D. andTHRIFT, N. (1987) Internationalimpacts on the urbanisation process in theAsianregion:areview,in:R.FUCHS,G.JONESandE. PERNIA(Eds) UrbanisationandUrbanPolicy in Pacic Asia, pp. 6787. Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.FORD, L. R. (1998) Midtowns, megastructures andworldcities,TheGeographicalReview,88,pp.528547.GOH, C. T. (1988) Our national ethic, Speeches: ABimonthly Selection of Ministerial Speeches, 12,pp.1215.GOTHAM,K.(2002)MarketingMardiGras:com-modication, spectacle and the politicaleconomy of tourismin NewOrleans, UrbanStudies,39,pp.17351756.GRIFFITHS, R. (1995)Cultural strategiesandnewmodes of urban intervention, Cities, 12, pp.253265.HALL, P. (2000) Creative cities and economicdevelopment,UrbanStudies,37,pp.639649.HALL, T. and ROBERTSON, I. (2001) Public art andurbanregeneration:advocacy, claimsandcriti-cal debates, Landscape Research, 26, pp. 526.HANNERZ, U. (1993) Thecultural role of worldcities, in: A. P. COHEN and K. FUKUI (Eds)Humanising the City? Social Contexts ofUrbanLifeat theTurnof theMillennium, pp.6784. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.HARVEY, D. (1989)TheConditionofPostmoder-nity.Oxford:Backwell.HARVEY,D.(1993)From spaceto placeandbackagain: reections on the condition of postmoder-nity,in:J. BIRD, B. CURTIS,T.PUTNAMETAL.(Eds) Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures,GlobalChange,pp.329.London:Routledge.HILL, R. andFUJITA, K. (2003) Thenestedcity:introduction,UrbanStudies,40,pp.207217.HO, K. C. (2002) Globalization and SoutheastAsian urban futures, Asian Journal of SocialScience,30,pp.17.HUBBARD, P. (1996) Urban design and city regen-eration: social representations of entrepreneuriallandscapes,UrbanStudies,33,pp.14411461.JACOBS, J. M. (1996) Edge of Empire: Postcoloni-alismandtheCity.London:Routledge.JANSSON, A. (2003) The negotiatedcity image:symbolic reproduction and change through urbanconsumption,UrbanStudies,40,pp.463479.KELLY,P.F.(1997)Globalization,powerandthepolitics of scaleinthePhilippines, Geoforum,28,pp.151171.KONG, L. (2000) Introduction: culture, economy,policy: trends and developments, Geoforum,31,pp.385390.KONG, L. and YEOH, B. S. A. (2003) The Politics ofLandscape in Singapore: Constructions ofNation. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UniversityPress.KUSNO, A. (1998) Beyond the postcolonial: archi-tecture and political cultures in Indonesia,PublicCulture,10,pp.549575.KUSNO, A. (2004) Whither nationalist urbanism?Public life in Governor Sutiyosos Jakarta,UrbanStudies,12,pp.23772394.LEE, Y. S. (2001) SpeechbyMinister for Infor-mationandtheArts, onthecompletionof theRenaissance City Report, delivered in Parlia-ment on9March2000, Press Release(http://www.mica.gov.sg/pressroom/press_000309.htm).THEGLOBAL CULTURALCITY? 957 at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from LEE, Y. S. and YEOH, B. S. A. (2004) Introduction:globalisation and the politics of forgetting,UrbanStudies,41,pp.22952301.LEES, L. (2001) Towardsacritical geographyofarchitecture: the case of anersatz colosseum,Ecumene,8,pp.5186.LEY, D. (1996) The NewMiddle Class andtheRemakingof theCentral City. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.LEY, D. and OLDS, K. (1998) Landscape as specta-cle:worldsfairsandthecultureofheroiccon-sumption, EnvironmentandPlanningD, 6, pp.191212.MCCARTHY, J. (1998) Reconstruction, regener-ation and re-imaging: the case of Rotterdam,Cities,15,pp.337344.MORRISON, Z. (2003) Recognisingrecognition:social justice andthe place of the cultural insocial exclusionpolicyandpractice, Environ-mentandPlanningA,35,pp.16291649.OLDS, K.(1995) Globalizationand theproductionofnewurbanspaces:PacicRimmegaprojectsin the late 20th century, Environment andPlanningA,27,pp.17131743.OLDS, K. (1997) Globalizing Shanghai: the globalintelligencecorpsandthebuildingofPudong,Cities,14,pp.109123.OLDS,K.(1998)Globalizationandurbanchange:talesfromVancouverviaHong Kong, UrbanGeography,19,pp.360385.OLDS, K. and YEUNG, H. (2004) Pathwaysto global city formation: a view from thedevelopmental city-stateof Singapore, Reviewof International Political Economy, 11, pp.489521.PARENTEAU, R., CHARBONNEU, F., TAAN, P. K.ETAL. (1995) Impact of restorationinHanoisFrench colonial quarter, Cities, 12, pp. 163173.PAUL, D. (2004) World cities as hegemonicprojects: thepoliticsof global imagineeringinMontreal, Political Geography, 23, pp. 571596.POW, C. P. (2001)Urbanentrepreneurialismanddowntown transformation in Marina Centre,Singapore: a case study of Suntec City. MAthesis,NationalUniversityofSingapore.POW, C. P. (2002) Urbanentrepreneurialismanddowntown transformation in Marina Centre,Singapore: acasestudyof SuntecCity, in: T.BUNNELL, L. DRUMMOND and K. C. HO(Eds) Critical Reections on Cities in SoutheastAsia, pp. 153184. Singapore: Times AcademicPress.SASSEN, S. (2000) Analytic borderlands: economyand culture in the global city, in: G. BRIDGE andS. WATSON (Eds) ACompanion to the City,pp.168180.Oxford:Blackwell.SEO, J. K. (2002) Re-urbanisationinregeneratedareas of Manchester and Glasgow: Newresidents and the problems of sustainability,Cities,19,pp.113121.SHATKIN, G. (1998) Fourthworld cities intheglobal economy: the case of Phnom Penh,Cambodia,22,pp.378393.SILK, M. (2002) Bangsa Malaysia: a global sport,the city and the mediated refurbishment of localidentities, Media, CultureandSociety, 24, pp.775794.SRIVASTAVA, S. (1996) Modernity and post-coloniality: themetropolisasmetaphor, Econ-omic and Political Weekly, 17 February, pp.403412.TEEDON, P. (2001) Designing a place called Bank-side:ondeninganunknownspaceinLondon,EuropeanPlanningStudies,9,pp.459481.TEO, P. (2003) The limits of imagineering: acase study of Penang, International Journalof Urban and Regional Research, 27, pp.545563.VALE, L. J. (1992) Architecture, Power andNational Identity. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-sityPress.WAITT, G. (1999) Playing games with Sydney:marketing Sydney for the 2000 Olympics,UrbanStudies,36,pp.10551077.WATERMAN, S. (1998) Carnivals for elites?Thecultural politics of arts festivals, Progress inHumanGeography,22,pp.5474.WATKINS, H. andHERBERT, D. (2003) Culturalpolicy and place promotion: Swansea andDylanThomas,Geoforum,34,pp.249266.YANG, M. C. andHSING, W. C. (2001)Kinmen:governingthecultureindustrycityinthechan-gingglobalcontext,Cities,18,pp.7785.YEOH, B. S. A. (1999) Global/globalizingcities,Progress in Human Geography, 23, pp.607616.YEOH, B. S. A. (2000) Fromcolonial neglect topost-independence heritage: the housingland-scape in the central area of Singapore, CityandSociety,12,pp.103124.YEOH, B. S. A. (2001) Postcolonial cities, ProgressinHumanGeography,25,pp.456468YEOH, B. S. A. (2004) CosmopolitanismanditsexclusionsinSingapore,UrbanStudies,41,pp.24312445.YEOH, B. S. A. and HUANG, S. (1996) The conser-vation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore:the case of the Kampong Glam Historic District,Cities: The International Quarterly onUrbanPolicy,13,pp.411442.YEOH, B. S. A. and KONG, L. (1994) Readinglandscape meanings: state constructions andlived experiences in Singapores Chinatown,HabitatInternational,18,pp.1735.ZUKIN, S. (1991) Landscapes of Power: FromDetroit to Disney World. Berkeley, CA: Univer-sityofCaliforniaPress.958 BRENDA S.A.YEOH at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on August 2, 2012 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from