Description
The paper aims to examine the role of creative industries in general and the film industry in
particular for place-making, spatial development, tourism, and the formation of creative cities.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Creativity, culture tourism and place-making: Istanbul and London film industries
Bahar Durmaz Stephen Platt Tan Yigitcanlar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bahar Durmaz Stephen Platt Tan Yigitcanlar, (2010),"Creativity, culture tourism and place-making: Istanbul and London film industries",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 198 - 213
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011067592
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 76 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1955 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Marichela Sepe, Giovanni Di Trapani, (2010),"Cultural tourism and creative regeneration: two case studies", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 214-227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011067600
Maria D. Alvarez, (2010),"Creative cities and cultural spaces: new perspectives for city tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 171-175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011067565
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Creativity, culture tourism and
place-making: Istanbul and London ?lm
industries
Bahar Durmaz, Stephen Platt and Tan Yigitcanlar
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to examine the role of creative industries in general and the ?lm industry in
particular for place-making, spatial development, tourism, and the formation of creative cities.
Design/methodology/approach – The article reveals the preliminary ?ndings of two case studies from
Beyoglu, Istanbul, and Soho, London.
Findings – The research found a relation between place and creativity and the positive contribution to
creativity of being in a city center. Among the creative industries, the ?lmindustry plays an important role
in the economic and spatial development of cities by fostering endogenous creativeness, attracting
exogenous talent, and contributing to the formation of places that creative cities require.
Originality/value – The paper raises interesting questions about the importance of place to creativity,
also questioning whether creative industries can be a driver for regeneration.
Keywords Culture, Tourism, Performing arts, Cinema, Turkey, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Along with the new knowledge-based economy, creative industries are of increasing
importance to urban planners, policy makers, and developers (Landry, 2000). Theories of
creativity started to in?uence spatial planning and the impacts of these theories are evident
in many cities’ development strategies (Yigitcanlar et al., 2008a). In particular, many
scholars draw attention to creative industries and cities as signi?cant tools of economic and
spatial growth (Landry, 2000; Florida, 2002; Yigitcanlar et al., 2008b). The contribution of
creativity to cities’ economic and social success has become a hot topic in urban planning
theory and practice as a way of urban restructuring through cultural regeneration
(Yigitcanlar et al., 2008c).
The decline in city centers since the 1980s has impelled policy makers and city authorities to
?nd ways of rescuing city centers by locating creative industries in central locations (Evans,
2005, 2009). Cultural quarters have become the focus of regeneration, gentri?cation and
centers for creative industries (Landry, 2004). The key question is howspatial planning might
help creative industries to ?ourish in these central districts. The literature suggests that
further investigation on the locational and property requirements of these industries is
important in order to respond to their speci?c needs, and to decide whether restructuring
existing cultural quarters or developing new districts is the better alternative (Yigitcanlar
et al., 2008d; Gornostaeva, 2009). The literature indicates a need for further examination of
the prospects and constraints of locating creative industries in inner cities or on peripheries.
The key issues that need investigation include ?rst the dilemma between the positive effects
of clustering on creativity and the ongoing decentralization process from city centers to the
periphery, and second, the requirements of creativity and the new economy and the
PAGE 198
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010, pp. 198-213, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181011067592
Bahar Durmaz is a PhD
Researcher and
Stephen Platt is an
Associate Professor both
based in the Department of
the Built Environment,
University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK.
Tan Yigitcanlar is a Senior
Lecturer at the School of
Urban Development,
Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane,
Australia.
Received December 2009
Revised January 2010
Accepted March 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
potential of cities to respond to these changes (Keeble and Nachum, 2002; Gornostaeva,
2008; WCC, 2007).
Creativity and culture are also important in tourism development and planning as well as
being signi?cant contributors to economic and spatial development. Good practice in
creative city development is seen as a successful catalyst for tourism development
(Yigitcanlar, 2009). Creative production processes are known to attract enterprises and
individuals from the cultural sector. They also have a signi?cant impact on other economic
sectors, particularly tourism, generating important induced effects on city image,
attractiveness and consumption patterns (Harcup, 2000).
Various studies argue that originality and diversity of cultural provision protects local identity,
attracts creative people and promotes sustainable destination competitiveness (Florida,
2002; Richards and Wilson, 2005). Cities worldwide are employing culture and creativity for
branding (Richards, 2001). This branding process is driven by public authorities’ desire to
develop productive resources for their cities. The production of culture has, therefore,
become central to many development strategies worldwide (McCann, 2002). Culture has
become a crucial resource in the new economy, as re?ected in the use of cultural heritage in
the development strategies of the European Union, and creativity is increasingly used by
cities and regions as means of preserving cultural identity and developing socio-economic
vibrancy (Ray, 1998).
This paper aims to scrutinize the role of creative industries in general, and the ?lmindustry in
particular, in place-making, spatial development, tourism planning, and the formation of
creative cities, their clustering and locational decisions. The paper comprises six sections.
Following this introduction, the second and third sections provide a thorough review of the
literature on creative industries, clusters and cultural tourism and also investigate the
relationship between the ?lm industry and creative tourism. The fourth section introduces
successful global best practices that link creativity, tourism and the ?lm industry in the
creative city formation. The ?fth section presents the ?ndings of two case studies of Beyoglu,
Istanbul, and Soho, London, focusing on the attributes of place for ?lm-making and the
locational preferences of the ?lm companies. The ?nal section concludes by discussing the
implications of the preliminary ?ndings of the research reported in this paper on creative
industries and tourism.
Creative industries and clusters
The new economy
The terms of new economy, knowledge-based economy or creativity-based economy point
out to the changing economic, technical and social structures of the twenty-?rst century.
Scott (2006, p. 1) suggests that the new economy is ‘‘shaped due to shifts in technology,
structures of production, labor markets and dynamics in locational agglomeration’’. Through
this shift in the economic structure, social, cultural and spatial forms have also been
changed and have in?uenced the urban development processes. Sassen (2001) indicates
that the new economy pushes cities to seek new spatial organization through urban
restructuring. Therefore, adapting current spatial, economic and cultural systems of cities to
ease the integration with the new economy is important. In restructuring cities, art and
creativity play an important role as the key growth resources of the development process
(Sharp et al., 2005). Montgomery (2007) suggests that successful cities of the new economy
will be the ones that invest heavily in their capacity for creativity and that understand the
importance of locality and cultural heritage.
The new economy raises the issue of ‘‘creativity’’ and its broader translation of ‘‘creative
cites’’. The creativity discourse and the frameworks to develop creative cities are currently in
vogue, although, the importance of creativity and its relation to cities is not a new idea.
Athens in the ?fth century, Florence in the fourteenth, Vienna in the late eighteenth, Paris in
the late nineteenth and Berlin in the twentieth century were the centers of creativity, art and
culture (Hall, 2000).
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 199
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Creative industries
Creative industries are important building blocks of creative city formation (Durmaz et al.,
2008). They offer the potential to meet wider inclusion and diversity of development goals.
Recent literature indicates that creative industry counts as a signi?cant sector of the new
economy (Baum et al., 2008) and its contribution to growth and prosperity has attracted
attention from city authorities, politicians, professionals and scholars. Landry (2007)
believes that creative industries create positive images for cities, help in social cohesion,
attract talent and industry and businesses, and also contribute to the livability and quality of
life and place. Creative industries link production, consumption, and manufacturing
industries in cities (Pratt, 2008), and promote sustainable urban development and
sustainable tourism (Richards and Wilson, 2007). However, Oakley (2004) suggests that the
role of creative industries in economic development is exaggerated and can result in
economic inequality, gentri?cation, and destabilization of the local economy. According to
Hall (2000, p. 642), although, creative industries foster the creativity potential of cities,
‘‘having creative industries is not all the same thing as being creative’’.
Creative clusters
Creative clusters are often at the forefront of urban restructuring and marketing strategies,
through the creation of creative districts based on the idea of clustering (Porter, 1995;
Bagwell, 2008). Creative clusters have several de?nitions in economic geography, but the
most in?uential de?nition of comes from Porter (1998, p. 78): ‘‘a geographic concentration of
interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, associated institutions
and ?rms in related industries’’. Scholars and city authorities advanced the Cluster Theory as
a useful approach to fostering creativity and creative industries. In the USA clustering has
been promoted as a way of encouraging the restructuring of deprived inner city areas
(Porter, 1995). This US-inspired model of business-led regeneration has led to many cultural
strategy initiatives focusing on feeding existing creative clusters in inner city areas (Bagwell,
2008). Research on the topic of clustering suggests that clustering has number of
advantages both for ?rms and regions, such as making a positive contribution to creativity,
higher productivity, new ?rm formation, growth, pro?tability, job growth, innovation and
increased competitiveness (Keeble and Nachum, 2002; Bagwell, 2008). On the other side,
various research also criticize clustering as a ‘‘chaotic concept’’ due to the lack of clarity
over its de?nition (Gordon and McCann, 2000; Martin and Sunley, 2003; Turok, 2003).
The literature acknowledges the power of concentration of specialized industries in
particular localities named as cultural districts. Santagata (2002) suggests that these
cultural districts have become an example of sustainable and endogenous growth. The Los
Angeles motion picture complex is a prime example of this cultural district type clustering.
Santagata (2002) summarizes the key conditions for success in the Hollywood media cluster
as a collection of small independent media ?rms, cooperation of a variety of professionals,
highly quali?ed workers, localities of entertainment, and transaction rich networks of ?rms.
Soho, London is another example of a successful cultural district having various sectors of
clustered creative industries. Film-TV production companies and related service industries
are also linked with other creative industries clustered in Soho. The companies located in
cultural districts reap the bene?ts of being in close proximity to each other and to a
well-developed infrastructure.
The dilemma of periphery and inner city locations
One of the key cultural policy issues within the restructuring process is the dilemma between
investing in inner city areas or urban peripheries (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1994;
Montgomery, 2007). Newman and Smith (2000) highlight the importance concentrating
cultural production and creative industries in inner cities as clustering and co-location offer
advantages. Hutton (2004) puts forward the importance of supporting inner-city investments
to harness rapid growth in the new economy. Yigitcanlar et al. (2008d) emphasizes the
importance of centrality for creativity in a successful inner city regeneration project of
22@Barcelona. On the other, other authors argue the bene?ts of more spacious new
generation knowledge precincts with mixed use patterns of residential and recreational uses
PAGE 200
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
as in the case of One-North Singapore, Helsinki Virtual Village and Zaragoza Milla Digital that
are not located in the inner city areas. Evans (2005) argues the advantages of purpose built
creative precincts with their new infrastructure as providing highly upgraded building
quality, modern power supply grids, telecoms network, centralized climate control,
pneumatic refuse collection systems, energy ef?ciency and noise pollution control.
Although creativity theory stresses the importance of centrality, in practice, creative industry
companies tend to move more towards the periphery or to sub-centers either because of the
problematic nature of the city centers or attractiveness of outer locations (Scott, 2000a;
Gornostaeva, 2008). Nachumand Keeble (2003) underline this paradox between theory and
practice as clustering in city centers versus tendencies for decentralization from city centers
to peripheries.
Creativity and cultural tourism
Creative places and culture
The close link between creativity and place as a stimulant or catalyst for individual aesthetic
creativity is discussed by many scholars (Landry, 2007; Leadbeater and Oakley, 1999;
Newman and Smith, 2000; O’Connor, 1999). Drake (2003) provides empirical evidence for
the link between place and creativity. To promote creativity, Hospers (2003) stresses the
need for concentration, diversity and instability. According to To¨ rnqvist (1983) creative
places take a long time to evolve and successful cultural quarters are those that have strong
historical and cultural links. Scott (1997) argues that those organically developed cultural
districts like China Town, Little Italy, the Arabic Quarter or the gay villages are the most
creative districts of cities. Hall (2000) suggests that a cosmopolitan structure also fosters
creativity as, ‘‘foreign people do not feel themselves as belonging to the established order of
power and prestige, so behaving and living as they want helps their creative feel.’’ (p. 646).
For Santagata (2002) art draws inspiration from cultural links with their original local
community that translates creativity into culture and contributes to a competitive advantage.
Creativity and cultural heritage tourism
One of the key concepts in tourism management is ?nding attractors for visitors to come to a
city. In de?ning destination competitiveness Richards and Wilson (2005) emphasize the
importance of cities diversifying their cultural offer and animating the tourist by encouraging
creative activities. According to Amin and Thrift (2002) increasing competition in the market
means that goods and services are no longer enough, and producers must differentiate their
products by transforming them into ‘‘experiences’’ which engage the consumer. Scott
(2000b) stresses the importance of supporting creative production and creative industry to
promote cultural tourism.
Cultural heritage not only determines the image of the city, but is also essential for
establishing the context that stimulates creativity. Cultural heritage re?ects the soul of the
city, and contains the essential elements to build a sustainable future. Cultural heritage is a
magnet for the tourists, and newtourism strategies have to offer both tangible and intangible
aspects of cultural heritage that includes monuments, architecture, galleries and museums,
as well as events, music, exhibitions, theatre, ?lm and knowledge, experience and customs
of a community (Fusco Girard et al., 2003). As well as tangible assets like buildings,
infrastructure and upgrading physical quality, intangible aspects of local culture are also
important (Smith, 2007). According to Throsby (2001) tangible and intangible heritage exists
as stock of capital that can be seen, in economic terms, as a capital goods that can be
consumed directly or can be combined in a creative way with other inputs to produce more
goods and services.
Montgomery (2007) de?nes cultural tourism, in terms of cultural industries, as the seeds of
creation and sense of place. Smith (2007) suggests that countries should link tourism
strategies to local cultural heritage and community values and should avoid copy-cat
schemes based on other cities’ experiences and duplication. Miles and Paddison (2005)
stress the positive contribution of cultural heritage tourism on creativity, through increased
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 201
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
prosperity, cosmopolitanism, growth in business services, increased name recognition,
propagation of social and human capital, improved life skills and transformed organizational
capacity. Maitland (2007) suggests that tourists seek organic growth rather than speci?cally
planned places as these tend to have spontaneously evolved and are generally more
attractive. Places where local culture is alive are found more interesting. Shaw (2007) and
Richards and Wilson (2007) point out that the more creative and less formulaic approaches
to tourism development avoid the reductive trap of homogenization and serial monotony.
Montgomery (2007) suggests that to achieve successful and sustainable outcomes, cultural
strategies should be driven from localities.
The ISAACProject (Integrated e-services for Advanced Access to Heritage in Cultural Tourist
Destinations)
One of the key issues facing many European cities is how, in the face of change, can people
protect and enhance their quality of life and well-being. Insights from recent research
suggest that promoting cultural heritage is an important mechanism for sustaining a
community’s self-identity and for generating growth and creative enterprise. The ISAAC
project focuses on cultural heritage tourism and studies visitors’ perceptions of cultural
heritage in three European cities (ISAAC, 2009). The ISAAC study on three cities –
Amsterdam, Genoa and Leipzig – highlights the hidden treasure stories of cities and the
importance of developing creative industries (Marijnissen, 2008). The results of the ISAAC
project show that residents and visitors in all cities value tangible cultural heritage (e.g.
architecture and buildings, museums and galleries) over intangible cultural heritage (e.g.
local traditions and customs). Nevertheless, the key ?nding of the study is that at least half of
the respondents in all three cities value cultural events, festivals, exhibitions almost as highly
as physical aspects of heritage, and they rate local traditions and lifestyle as important. In
fact all aspects of cultural heritage, including the most intangible ones such as local customs
and beliefs, are valued as important by at least a third of the respondents. This ?nding, that
both tangible and intangible cultural heritage are important, is found signi?cant for cultural
tourism management, urban development and creative industry (Table I).
Creativity, tourism and the ?lm industry
This paper reports research that focuses on the ?lm industry of Istanbul and London. This
research aims at understanding the current structure of the ?lmindustry and the dynamics of
the ?lm industry in terms of creativity and the centralization and decentralization dilemmas.
Film industry is one of the major creative industries that has a high level of interaction with the
place. Directors shoot ?lms in places, and they record and represent the localities and cities in
their ?lms. The global ?lmindustry is able to shape the development of cities, and contribute to
the growth of the tourism sector creating tangible and intangible resources for ?lm-induced
tourism, for instance Berlin, Cannes and Los Angeles (Beeton, 2005). Comprising various
sub-sectors – photography, music and video industries, stagecraft, advertisement, motion
picture, and video tape distribution – the global ?lm industry contributes signi?cantly to
economic vitality (Di Persio et al., 2003; Scott, 2005). Films also have a positive impact on
tourism, increase place recognition and have a powerful effect on viewers in terms of dictating
their next vacation destinations (Baker et al., 1998). Auckland, the entertainment city of New
Zealand, is another good example for the ?lm-induced tourism. After the trilogy of the Lord of
the Rings shot in New Zealand, the number of tourists that visited this country and Auckland
signi?cantly increased. Auckland City now focuses on ?lm-induced tourism, and on attracting
more ?lm-makers and related creative industries (Durmaz et al., 2008).
Although the ?lm industry alone cannot make a city creative, the ?lm industry has invaluable
contributions to the formation of a creative city. Film industry needs to have links with other
creative sectors, if it is to be successful and to make an impact on the quality of a cultural
district. Los Angeles (Hollywood), Mumbai (Bollywood), Auckland, Berlin, Rome (Cinecitta),
Cannes, Melbourne, and Vancouver are among the cities that purposefully focus on the ?lm
industry and make this sector a signi?cant catalyst for their creative urban economies
(Durmaz et al., 2008).
PAGE 202
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In some of the creative cities the ?lm industry is located close to the city center and in others
on the periphery. For example, Mussolini opened Cinecitta (Film City) in 1937 speci?cally as
a gated ?lm district to use ?lms to fuel Fascist Propaganda (CineCitta, 2009). The studios
which are 10 kilometers away fromRome’s city center, are nowthe largest ?lm-making facility
in Europe. Cinecitta has all the studio environment, services, and facilities related to ?lm
production as well as social facilities for creative people living and working there. Hollywood
is located on the northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Hollywood’s central location also
helped the ?lmcompanies growthrough connectivity to other sectors. All started with a small
?lm company that started doing business in Hollywood in 1911. Since then many other
companies clustered there and Hollywood became the district where the ?lmindustry initially
concentrated in pre-World War II days. Today the industry has spilled over well beyond this
original core, stretching out to other districts (Scott, 2005). Vancouver took advantage of this
decentralization and lured some of the runaway productions from Hollywood with tax-credit
programs (Durmaz et al., 2008). Vancouver is also a very successful city that focused on the
?lm industry and is a high caliber creative city (Durmaz et al., 2008; Mercer, 2009).
Observations from Istanbul and London
This paper reports research in two cultural districts – Soho, London, and Beyoglu, Istanbul.
Despite the theoretical importance of clustering for creativity, companies, both Soho and
Beyoglu have been decentralizing towards the urban peripheries or other adjacent districts.
However, the current situation is different in Soho.
Table I Key ?ndings of the ISAAC project
Residents Visitors Service providers
Cultural heritage % % %
Amsterdam
Architecture and buildings 73 77 91
Monuments and landmarks 61 60 76
Museums and galleries 70 74 85
Urban landscapes 72 65 64
Cultural events, festivals, exhibitions 68 55 65
Local traditions and lifestyle 43 59 52
Local customs and beliefs 38 48 36
Local knowledge and skills 35 42 36
Other things of local signi?cance 33 46 38
Genoa
Architecture and buildings 86 82 80
Monuments and landmarks 73 70 58
Museums and galleries 73 70 88
Urban landscapes 71 63 72
Cultural events, festivals, exhibitions 59 63 79
Local traditions and lifestyle 48 55 76
Local customs and beliefs 31 47 50
Local knowledge and skills 35 45 37
Other things of local signi?cance 32 41 55
Leipzig
Architecture and buildings 88 85 82
Monuments and landmarks 67 63 74
Museums and galleries 64 66 69
Urban landscapes 87 78 71
Cultural events, festivals, exhibitions 73 61 70
Local traditions and lifestyle 43 49 54
Local customs and beliefs 52 42 55
Local knowledge and skills 62 40 59
Other things of local signi?cance 64 43 61
Source: Platt, 2007
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 203
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Soho is a popular cultural quarter that is within the west end area of London in
Westminister (Figures 1 and 2). Soho is an example of successful cultural reconstruction.
Although some of the ?lm companies moved out in the past and Soho has suffered some
decentralization, ?lm companies are now moving back. Interviewees highlighted that
companies that are already in Soho do not want to move away despite the problems like
high rents, parking and inadequate of?ce space. According to the ?ndings of this study,
?lm companies appreciate the advantage of being in Soho as it is a creative cultural
urban village in the middle of the city. The projects of Westminister City Council seem to
have had a positive effect on this shift.
Westminister City Council developed strategies and encouraged public participation to
attract companies restructuring and refurbishing Soho. There are governments and local
community-based initiatives in Soho which helped rescue Soho, foster the creative
industries in the area and attract the ?lm companies back (WCC, 2007). In the 1960s Soho
was a rundown area due to cultural and social changes which also affected the quality of the
built environment (Sheppard, 1966). The City Council designated Soho as a conservation
area in 1969. Since then conservation has been a strong force in the area and there have
been a whole series of initiatives like Soho Society (1972), Sohonet (1999), Soho
Conservation Audit (2005), Soho Action Plan (2006), I Love Soho Campaign (2006),
Retro?tting Soho (2008) and Westminister Creative Industries Study (2007). This success
story in Soho provides a framework for reconstruction based on art, culture and creativity
that other cities can consider.
Like many cities around the world Istanbul has, especially since the 1980s, been subject to
the process of decentralization (Karaman and Levent, 2000; Kurtar?r and Cengiz, 2005). As
Gecer et al. (2008) indicate concentrated city center activities declined after 1980s. City
center functions spread towards sub-centers, and the traditional city center of Beyoglu
fragmented and Istanbul transformed into a polycentric structure. The ?lm industry
witnessed the same process. Beyoglu district is famous for its relation to ?lm industry dating
back to the 1960s. At that time, most of the ?lm companies clustered around a street named
Figure 1 Location of Westminister in London
PAGE 204
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Yesilcam in Beyoglu and eventually the name of the Turkish Film Industry became known as
‘‘Yesilcam’’. However, as this case study highlights, the ?lm industry tends to move to more
prestigious sub-centers like Besiktas, Sisli, Mecidiyekoy and the long standing culture of
?lm-making in Beyoglu is under the threat of decentralization.
The researchers conducted interviews with people working in the ?lm production in order to
understand the spatial requirements of the industry and the relationship between place and
creativity. The methodology combines various qualitative techniques with semi-structured
interviews, observations, questionnaires and content analysis. Companies in Soho were
selected fromthe UK-Local-Search database. In total 50 companies were approached out of
the total of 156 ?lm companies located in Soho. Of these 50 companies, 19 replied (UK,
Local Search, 2009). 11 companies were discarded for various reasons (for example, six
had moved from Soho). The initial pilot study that is reported here includes interviews with
two companies. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with an executive
producer and a location manager and online questionnaires are conducted with freelance
employees (Figure 3).
Beyoglu, is an organically developed cultural district with similar spatial attributes but
different dynamics to Soho. Beyoglu area is the major entertainment and shopping district of
Istanbul located on the European side. The companies in Beyoglu were selected from a
Turkish Cinema Database prepared by the Association of Turkish Film Directors and Internet
Movie Database. In total 147 ?lm production companies are located in Istanbul, and nearly
half (47 percent) are in the historic central area of Beyoglu. The rest are in more peripheral
districts, including 27 percent in Besiktas and 14 percent in Sisli (Sayman and Kar, 2006). Of
the companies in Beyoglu, 21 were contacted and two of them are selected for interview in
this pilot study (Figure 4).
Prospects and constraints
Companies choose to locate in Soho principally because Soho is the historic center of ?lm
production and because the area promotes opportunities for socializing and face-to-face
Figure 2 Location of Soho in London
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 205
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
meetings. Interviewees see the advantages of Soho in terms of proximity, diversity and a
24/7 city where ‘‘everything co-exists, everybody is here, and everything is happening
Figure 3 Location of the major ?lm companies in Soho
Figure 4 Location of the major ?lm companies in Beyoglu
PAGE 206
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
here’’. On the other hand, they also see some disadvantages of Soho as a location, including
congestion, high rents, parking and transportation and accommodation issues including
ventilation, heating, in?exibility and inadequate space (Figure 5).
Interviewees in Beyoglu mention a very similar set of reasons, including Beyoglu’s historic,
authentic and cosmopolitan structure. As in Soho, people mention that ‘‘everything is here,
everybody is here, that’s why we prefer to stay here’’. The highly tolerant atmosphere helps
?lm and creative workers feel free and secure. There are good accommodation
opportunities in and around Beyoglu and a vibrant nightlife. People highlight the
advantages of proximity to commercial and cultural centers and other creative industries
and relatively low rents in some areas. They describe the district as colorful, compact and
providing access to a rich social life. They have the opportunity to go for a drink after work or
to pop into a nearby cafe. Actors live and work here. The disadvantages mentioned include
narrow streets that create dif?culties with transportation, parking and ?lm shooting.
Accommodation is inadequate for storage of ?lm-making equipment like cameras and
lighting equipment. Security problems and high rents in the renovated parts of the district
are mentioned among the disadvantages (Figure 6).
Locational preferences
Being in the city center is important for Soho-based companies. Soho is simply where
‘‘everything is going on in the city, and lots of people pass through the area, there is too much
to see, hear and do’’. In Beyoglu, ?lm companies also preferred to stay in the inner city so
that they can stay in touch with actors, artists and other creative people living and working
around Beyoglu. On the contrary interviewees mentioned that some companies had moved
from Beyoglu to more prestigious places like Sisli and Mecidiyekoy and emphasized that
these places cater better for their needs. One of the interviewees suggested dual spatial
requirements in the ?lm industry. ‘‘Exhibition, consumption and administration should be in
the city center. Studios and workshops should be located on the edges of the city’’. Another
interviewee said that, ‘‘logically the ?lm industry should be in so-called purposefully built
creative districts. However, personally I do not like gated areas with security cards and that
is why I prefer being in Beyoglu, which has a historic and cultural urban living’’.
Figure 5 Soho in the 1980s and 2009
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 207
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Creativity and place
Both Istanbul and London respondents say that the city’s cosmopolitan structure and
diversity made them feel more creative and inspired. They like to be in touch with other
creative people that motivate them. Interviewees say that ‘‘they like being in the city center
where they have the opportunity to go to cafes, bars, cinemas’’. In Istanbul people also
appreciate the chaotic nature of city living. Chaotic environments cause unexpected
circumstances, which impact creativity. They see the city as a chaotic environment that
inspires them and makes them feel that their art is in reaction to this complexity.
Attributes of place for ?lm-making
Interviewees in both London and Istanbul ?nd the effort dif?cult to de?ne the speci?c
attributes of place needed for the industry. They agree that ideally the city should provide
areas with diverse qualities and different types of natural and built areas. These places
should be in close proximity to transportation facilities, especially airports, as the ?lm
industry has strong links with foreign companies and with foreign creative workers.
Companies located in Beyoglu indicate that ‘‘the place should match with the project,
scenario or vision. Sometimes we need high quality well designed and well maintained
places sometimes we need derelict areas’’.
Impact of the technology
Soho is very advanced in its use of technology to aid communication and interaction. Film
companies use Sohonet and Wire drive for online data sharing. Interviewees say that
technology affects post-production companies more than production companies. However,
respondents stress that they still need face-to-face communication when the time comes to
winning business. In Istanbul, technology is less advanced and does not have a big effect
on companies’ location preferences. Some aspects of technology affect the ?lm-making
process such as sound ?lm technology that allows ?lms to be shot in the city. Nevertheless
?lm companies in Beyoglu do not use any online ?lm-making infrastructure like Sohonet.
These facilities do not exist yet in Istanbul. The interviewees had not heard of Sohonet. They
Figure 6 Beyoglu in the 1920s and 2003
PAGE 208
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
use internet, video conference, and email, but as in Soho, they have not given up
face-to-face interactions. Although they use technology, they de?nitely feel the need for
face-to-face contact.
Urban transformation
Another issue which needs to be underlined is the effect of the ?lm industry on spatial
transformation in Beyoglu. The well-known Turkish Director Sinan Cetin established a private
?lm school, the Plato Cinema School, by transforming an old residential building complex
into an education institute. This private school has become a college of a Turkish University
through an agreement between the Turkish Higher Education Institute and Sinan Cetin’s
company (Plato Film, 2009). This initiative is rapidly transforming the area. Sinan C¸ etin has
bought and renovated nearly 30 other old buildings near the school in Cihangir, Beyoglu.
Some of them are used as ?lm production of?ces, studios and sets, and others for costume
and cine equipment storage. This development seems to lead to further development in the
area such as student accommodation, new of?ces, and ?lm studios.
Conclusion
Soho and Beyoglu both witnessed the decentralization process. In Soho, the local
government and community acknowledge the importance of creative industries and
develop strategies to rescue and revitalize the district. In Istanbul, local government and
community initiatives have not yet acknowledged the importance of creative industries and
the need to keep themin clusters. More attempts and policy initiatives are necessary to keep
companies in proximity and clustered in Beyoglu. It is important to understand the reasons of
the shift towards decentralization.
As in Soho, attracting creative industry companies back can be a good strategy to
restructure Beyoglu. Attracting companies back will likely foster the creativity-based
economy of Istanbul and harness the potentials of the place. Attracting ?lm industry back
might be an initial step that might lure other creative industries. Beyoglu has long standing
assets in ?lm culture that might kick-start activity and business formation. Potential buildings
and strategic locations for artists, education and business facilities, workspaces for
start-ups and established ?lm companies should be promoted via local area development
plans of Beyoglu.
The ?lm industry might lead ephemeral activities like festivals, fairs, conferences which have
as much positive contribution as permanent cultural buildings and landmarks (Bianchini and
Parkinson, 1994). Participatory and community-based cultural strategies that focus on
exposing local values are needed for the sustainable development of the district providing
economic bene?t, socio-cultural well being and enhanced creativity (Montgomery, 2007). A
successful creative district will also attract new comers and visitors that will contribute to
tourism and the wider economy. Although tourists may not come to Istanbul because of its
creative industries, this local initiative will possibly create and add value to the climate of
creativity in the city.
The interviews with ?lm company personnel have shown that there is a relation between
place and creativity and that being in a city center positively contributes to creativity. The
case studies also provide insights about creativity and planning. All of the interviewees in
Istanbul and London prefer being in an organically developed historical district, rather than a
planned creative district. This statement matches with the ?ndings of other researchers,
including Pratt (2008), Gornostaeva (2009) and Hospers (2003).
This paper aimed to explore the relation between creative industries, urban restructuring
and tourism. The paper focused on the ?lm industry in Soho and Beyoglu. However, other
creative sectors and their interrelation in these districts, locational and property
requirements will need to be explored if the urban restructuring process is to be
successful. The paper raises many questions that further research needs to address. In
particular, two main areas of enquiry seem to emerge.
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 209
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
First, what is the relation between creativity and tourism? Imagine a tourist visiting Istanbul
for the ?rst time, walking around Beyoglu, having a coffee and then lunch, taking in the
sights. How would a creative tourist behave? Would the creative tourists be more interactive
than the norm – less passive? Would they want to learn or to produce something? Would
they want to experience the city as a whole, wandering at will, sampling places and people,
sights and tastes. Or would they specialize, following a single line of exploration. Would the
creative tourist read a guide or follow their nose? In Istanbul visitors feel inspired – to
explore, to think new thoughts. Cultural experience emerges ephemerally through
conversation, movement, thinking, and people watching. Are people creative tourists in a
creative city? Or would it be more accurate to describe visitors as being inspired?
Second, is it possible to regenerate an urban quarter, such as Beyoglu, without making the
area less attractive for creative people? In Soho a coincidence of interests – residents
wanting to clean up the area, developers seeking to make money and the Borough Council
cracking down on anarchic development and anti-social behavior – combined to halt
decline and deliver regeneration. What makes Soho and Beyoglu attractive to the ?lm
industry are the bene?ts of clustering and the serendipity of constructive chaos. But if a
place is good for creativity and creative industry, is the same place also good for residents
and for tourists? An exciting and stimulating place to visit is not necessarily a good place to
live or bring up a family. And what has this statement to do with creative industry? Visitors like
watching street life, but most creative activity, including ?lm-making, occurs behind closed
doors and does not encourage spectators. Most artists are not high-income earners and
former bohemian quarters that are gentri?ed can be sanitized in such a way that they lose
their creative appeal and become sterile shells.
The research indicates place-making of living areas as a big idea. The objective is to achieve
a synergy between place, economy and culture. However, few cities score well on all three
dimensions and retain an authentic cultural environment. The literature de?nes creative
cities as being cosmopolitan, with an inspiring public realm, clusters of creative activity and
a comparative advantage over other cities in some creative sector. Creative cities do not
attempt to mix culture and tourism, they are not places for tourists, and they would not
necessarily be called ‘‘cool’’ and would certainly not look to an imported class of creative
people to provide the cultural energy. The links between creativity, regeneration and cultural
tourism are not as clear cut as the literature suggests.
References
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (2002), Cities: Reimagining the Urban, 2nd reprint, The Polity Press, Cambridge.
Bagwell, S. (2008), ‘‘Creative clusters and city growth’’, Creative Industries Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 31-46.
Baum, S., O’Connor, K. and Yigitcanlar, T. (2008), ‘‘Creative industries and the urban hierarchy: the
position of lower tier cities and regions in the knowledge economy?’’, in Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K.
and Baum, S. (Eds) Knowledge Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the
Information Era, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Baker, D., Riley, R. and Van Doren, C. (1998), ‘‘Movie induced tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 919-35.
Beeton, S. (2005), Aspects of Tourism: Film Induced Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol.
Bianchini, F. and Parkinson, M. (1994), Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration; The West European
Experience, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
CineCitta (2009), Cinecitta Film Studios, available at: www.cinecittastudios.it (accessed 1 October
2009).
Di Persio, C., Horvath, G. and Wobbeking, R. (2003), ‘‘The impact of the ?lm industry on Colorado,
1-119’’, available at: http://thecreativecoalition,org (accessed 24 January 2008).
Drake, G. (2003), ‘‘This place gives me space: place and creativity in the creative industries’’, Geoforum,
Vol. 34, pp. 511-24.
PAGE 210
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Durmaz, B., Yigitcanlar, T. and Velibeyoglu, K. (2008), ‘‘Creative cities and the ?lm industry: Antalya’s
transition to a eurasian ?lm centre’’, The Open Urban Studies Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
Evans, G. (2005), ‘‘Measure for measure: evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to
regeneration’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 959-83.
Evans, G. (2009), ‘‘Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 46,
pp. 1003-40.
Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It Is Transforming Work, Leisure Community
and Everyday Life, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Fusco Girard, L., Forte, B., Cerreta, M., De Toro, P. and Forte, F. (Eds) (2003), The Human Sustainable
City, Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Gecer, F., Avar, A., Velibeyoglu, K. and Saygin, O. (2008), ‘‘Spatial transformation of Istanbul CBD’’, in
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds), Creative Urban Regions: Harnessing Urban
Technologies to Support Knowledge City Initiatives, Information Science Reference, London.
Gordon, I. and McCann, P. (2000), ‘‘Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/or social
networks’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 513-32.
Gornostaeva, G. (2008), ‘‘The ?lm and television industry in London’s suburbs: lifestyle of the rich or
losers’ retreat?’’, Creative Industries Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 47-71.
Gornostaeva, G. (2009), ‘‘The wolves and lambs of the creative city: the sustainability of ?lm and
television producers in London’’, The Geographical Review, Vol. 99, pp. 37-60.
Hall, P. (2000), ‘‘Creative cities and economic development’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 639-49.
Harcup, T. (2000), ‘‘Re-imaging a post-industrial city: the Leeds St Valentine’s fair as a civic spectacle’’,
City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 215-31.
Hospers, G. (2003), ‘‘Creative cities: breeding places in the knowledge economy’’, Knowledge,
Technology and Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 143-62.
Hutton, T. (2004), ‘‘The new economy of inner city’’, Cities, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 89-108.
ISAAC (2009), Integrated e-services for Advanced Access to Heritage in Cultural Tourist Destinations,
available at: www.isaac-project.eu (accessed 10 July 2009).
Karaman, A. and Levent, T. (2000), ‘‘Globalisation and development strategies for Istanbul’’, paper
presented at 40th Congress of ERSA, Barcelona, 29 August.
Keeble, D. and Nachum, L. (2002), ‘‘Why do business service ?rms cluster? Small consultancies,
clusturing and decentralisation in London and Southern England’’, Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographer, Vol. 27, pp. 67-90.
Kurtar?r, E. and Cengiz, H. (2005), ‘‘What are the dynamics of creative economy in Istanbul?’’, paper
presented at 41st ISoCaRP International Planning Congress, Bilbao, 17-20 October.
Landry, C. (2000), The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, Earthscan, London.
Landry, C. (2004), ‘‘Rethinking creative city’’, available at: www.comedia.org.uk (accessed 5 January
2008).
Landry, C. (2007), Creative Cities, Earthscan, London.
Leadbeater, C. and Oakley, K. (1999), The Independents: Britain’s New Cultural Entrepreneurs, Demos,
London.
McCann, J. (2002), ‘ ‘The cultural politics of local economic development: meaning-making,
place-making and the urban policy process’’, Geoforum, Vol. 33, pp. 385-98.
Maitland, R. (2007), ‘‘Culture, city users and creation of newtourismareas in cities’’, in Smith, M.K. (Ed.),
Tourism, Culture and Regeneration, CAB International, Wallingford.
Marijnissen, R. (2008), ‘‘Creative industries and tourism: the Amsterdam experience’’, available at:
http://b2b.wien.info/data/wtk2008/marijnissen.pdf (accessed 25 June 2009).
Martin, R. and Sunley, P. (2003), ‘‘Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea?’’, Journal
of Economic Geography, Vol. 3, pp. 5-35.
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 211
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Mercer (2009), Quality of Living Survey, 2009, available at: www.mercer.com (accessed 29 September
2009).
Miles, S. and Paddison, R. (2005), ‘‘Introduction: the rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration’’,
Urban Studies, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 833-9.
Montgomery, J. (2007), The NewWealth of Cities: City Dynamics and the Fifth Wave, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Nachum, L. and Keeble, D. (2003), ‘‘Neo-Marshallian clusters and global networks – the linkages of
media ?rms in central London’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 36, pp. 459-80.
Newman, P. and Smith, I. (2000), ‘‘Cultural production, place and politics on the South Bank of the
Thames’’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 24, pp. 9-24.
O’Connor, J. (1999), ‘‘Popular culture, re?exivity and urban change’’, in Verwijnen, J. and Lehtovuori, P.
(Eds), Creative Cities, University of Art and Design Helsinki, Helsinki.
Oakley, K. (2004), ‘‘Not so cool Britannia: the role of the creative industries in economic development’’,
International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 67-77.
Plato Film (2009), Plato Film School, available at: www.plato?lm.com (accessed 25 March 2009).
Platt, S. (2007), ‘‘Users requirements for e-services’’, ISAAC, FP6-CProject Deliverable 1.4, available at:
www.isaac-project.eu/publications
Pratt, A. (2008), ‘‘Creative cities’’, Urban Design, Vol. 106, p. 35.
Porter, M. (1995), ‘‘The competitive advantage of the inner city’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73,
pp. 55-71.
Porter, M. (1998), ‘‘Clusters and the new economics of competitiveness’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 76, pp. 77-90.
Ray, C. (1998), ‘‘Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development’’, Sociologia Ruralis,
Vol. 38, pp. 3-20.
Richards, G. (2001), Cultural Attractions and European Tourism, CAB International, Wallingford.
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2005), ‘‘Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a solution to the serial
reproduction of culture?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, p. 1209.
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2007), ‘‘Creativities in tourism development’’, in Richards, G. and Wilson, J.
(Eds), Tourism, Creativity and Development, Routledge, London.
Santagata, W. (2002), ‘‘Cultural districts, property rights and sustainable economic growth’’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 9-23.
Sassen, S. (2001), The Global City? NewYork, London, Tokyo, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Sayman, A. and Kar, E. (Eds) (2006), Basic Database of the Turkish Cinema 1996-2006, Euromat,
Istanbul.
Scott, A. (1997), ‘‘The cultural economy of cities’’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 323-39.
Scott, A. (2000a), ‘‘The cultural economy of Paris’’, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, Vol. 24, pp. 567-82.
Scott, A. (2000b), The Cultural Economy of Cities, Sage, London.
Scott, A. (2005), On Hollywood, the Place, the Industry, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Scott, A. (2006), ‘‘Creative cities: conceptual issues and policy questions’’, Journal of Urban Affairs,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Sharp, J., Pollock, V. and Paddison, R. (2005), ‘‘Just art for a just city: public art and social inclusion in
urban regeneration’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 1001-23.
Shaw, S. (2007), ‘‘Ethnospaces as cultural attractions in Canadian ‘world cities’’’, in Smith, M. (Ed.),
Tourism, Culture and Regeneration, CAB International, Wallingford.
Sheppard, F. (1966), Survey of London, Vols 33/34, St Anne, Soho, pp, 1-19, available at: www.british-
history.ac.uk (accessed 13 May 2009).
PAGE 212
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Smith, M. (2007), ‘‘Towards a cultural planning approach to regeneration’’, in Smith, M.K. (Ed.), Tourism,
Culture and Regeneration, CAB International, Wallingford.
Throsby, D. (2001), Economics and Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
To¨ rnqvist, G. (1983), Creativity and the Renewal of Regional Life (quoted in Hall, 1998, Cities in
Civilization, Weiden?eld and Nicholson, London).
Turok, I. (2003), ‘‘Cities, clusters and creative industries: the case of ?lm and television in Scotland’’,
European Planning Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 549-65.
UK, Local Search (2009), Film Studios, Production Services in Soho, available at: www.uk-local-search.
co.uk (accessed 19 February 2009).
WCC (Westminister City Council) (2007), Westminster’s Creative Industries, available at: www3.
westminster.gov.uk (accessed 8 March 2009).
Yigitcanlar, T. (2009), ‘‘Planning for cultural tourism: the joined up approach’’, paper presented at Cities as
Creative Spaces for Cultural TourismConference (CCSCT), Bogazici University, Istanbul, 19-21 November.
Yigitcanlar, T., O’Connor, K. and Westerman, C. (2008a), ‘‘The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s
knowledge-based urban development experience’’, Cities, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 63-72.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds) (2008b), Knowledge-based Urban Development:
Planning and Applications in the Information Era, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds) (2008c), Creative Urban Regions: Harnessing Urban
Technologies to Support Knowledge City Initiatives, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2008d), ‘‘Rising knowledge cities: the role of
knowledge precincts’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 8-20.
Further reading
Bassett, K., Grif?ths, R. and Smith, I. (2002), ‘‘Cultural industries, cultural clusters and the city: the
example of natural history ?lm-making in Bristol’’, Geoforum, Vol. 33, pp. 165-77.
Debre, P. (1998), Louis Pasteur, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, WI, London.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Aldine Transaction, Chicago, IL.
Hall, P. (1998), Cities in Civilization, Weiden?eld and Nicholson, London.
Corresponding author
Bahar Durmaz can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 213
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Luciana Lazzeretti, Francesco Capone, I. Erdem Seçilmi?. 2016. In search of a Mediterranean creativity. Cultural and creative
industries in Italy, Spain and Turkey. European Planning Studies 24, 568-588. [CrossRef]
2. Joanne Connell. 2012. Film tourism – Evolution, progress and prospects. Tourism Management 33, 1007-1029. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_880813122.pdf
The paper aims to examine the role of creative industries in general and the film industry in
particular for place-making, spatial development, tourism, and the formation of creative cities.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Creativity, culture tourism and place-making: Istanbul and London film industries
Bahar Durmaz Stephen Platt Tan Yigitcanlar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bahar Durmaz Stephen Platt Tan Yigitcanlar, (2010),"Creativity, culture tourism and place-making: Istanbul and London film industries",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 198 - 213
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011067592
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 76 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1955 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Marichela Sepe, Giovanni Di Trapani, (2010),"Cultural tourism and creative regeneration: two case studies", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 214-227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011067600
Maria D. Alvarez, (2010),"Creative cities and cultural spaces: new perspectives for city tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 171-175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011067565
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Creativity, culture tourism and
place-making: Istanbul and London ?lm
industries
Bahar Durmaz, Stephen Platt and Tan Yigitcanlar
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to examine the role of creative industries in general and the ?lm industry in
particular for place-making, spatial development, tourism, and the formation of creative cities.
Design/methodology/approach – The article reveals the preliminary ?ndings of two case studies from
Beyoglu, Istanbul, and Soho, London.
Findings – The research found a relation between place and creativity and the positive contribution to
creativity of being in a city center. Among the creative industries, the ?lmindustry plays an important role
in the economic and spatial development of cities by fostering endogenous creativeness, attracting
exogenous talent, and contributing to the formation of places that creative cities require.
Originality/value – The paper raises interesting questions about the importance of place to creativity,
also questioning whether creative industries can be a driver for regeneration.
Keywords Culture, Tourism, Performing arts, Cinema, Turkey, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Along with the new knowledge-based economy, creative industries are of increasing
importance to urban planners, policy makers, and developers (Landry, 2000). Theories of
creativity started to in?uence spatial planning and the impacts of these theories are evident
in many cities’ development strategies (Yigitcanlar et al., 2008a). In particular, many
scholars draw attention to creative industries and cities as signi?cant tools of economic and
spatial growth (Landry, 2000; Florida, 2002; Yigitcanlar et al., 2008b). The contribution of
creativity to cities’ economic and social success has become a hot topic in urban planning
theory and practice as a way of urban restructuring through cultural regeneration
(Yigitcanlar et al., 2008c).
The decline in city centers since the 1980s has impelled policy makers and city authorities to
?nd ways of rescuing city centers by locating creative industries in central locations (Evans,
2005, 2009). Cultural quarters have become the focus of regeneration, gentri?cation and
centers for creative industries (Landry, 2004). The key question is howspatial planning might
help creative industries to ?ourish in these central districts. The literature suggests that
further investigation on the locational and property requirements of these industries is
important in order to respond to their speci?c needs, and to decide whether restructuring
existing cultural quarters or developing new districts is the better alternative (Yigitcanlar
et al., 2008d; Gornostaeva, 2009). The literature indicates a need for further examination of
the prospects and constraints of locating creative industries in inner cities or on peripheries.
The key issues that need investigation include ?rst the dilemma between the positive effects
of clustering on creativity and the ongoing decentralization process from city centers to the
periphery, and second, the requirements of creativity and the new economy and the
PAGE 198
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010, pp. 198-213, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181011067592
Bahar Durmaz is a PhD
Researcher and
Stephen Platt is an
Associate Professor both
based in the Department of
the Built Environment,
University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK.
Tan Yigitcanlar is a Senior
Lecturer at the School of
Urban Development,
Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane,
Australia.
Received December 2009
Revised January 2010
Accepted March 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
potential of cities to respond to these changes (Keeble and Nachum, 2002; Gornostaeva,
2008; WCC, 2007).
Creativity and culture are also important in tourism development and planning as well as
being signi?cant contributors to economic and spatial development. Good practice in
creative city development is seen as a successful catalyst for tourism development
(Yigitcanlar, 2009). Creative production processes are known to attract enterprises and
individuals from the cultural sector. They also have a signi?cant impact on other economic
sectors, particularly tourism, generating important induced effects on city image,
attractiveness and consumption patterns (Harcup, 2000).
Various studies argue that originality and diversity of cultural provision protects local identity,
attracts creative people and promotes sustainable destination competitiveness (Florida,
2002; Richards and Wilson, 2005). Cities worldwide are employing culture and creativity for
branding (Richards, 2001). This branding process is driven by public authorities’ desire to
develop productive resources for their cities. The production of culture has, therefore,
become central to many development strategies worldwide (McCann, 2002). Culture has
become a crucial resource in the new economy, as re?ected in the use of cultural heritage in
the development strategies of the European Union, and creativity is increasingly used by
cities and regions as means of preserving cultural identity and developing socio-economic
vibrancy (Ray, 1998).
This paper aims to scrutinize the role of creative industries in general, and the ?lmindustry in
particular, in place-making, spatial development, tourism planning, and the formation of
creative cities, their clustering and locational decisions. The paper comprises six sections.
Following this introduction, the second and third sections provide a thorough review of the
literature on creative industries, clusters and cultural tourism and also investigate the
relationship between the ?lm industry and creative tourism. The fourth section introduces
successful global best practices that link creativity, tourism and the ?lm industry in the
creative city formation. The ?fth section presents the ?ndings of two case studies of Beyoglu,
Istanbul, and Soho, London, focusing on the attributes of place for ?lm-making and the
locational preferences of the ?lm companies. The ?nal section concludes by discussing the
implications of the preliminary ?ndings of the research reported in this paper on creative
industries and tourism.
Creative industries and clusters
The new economy
The terms of new economy, knowledge-based economy or creativity-based economy point
out to the changing economic, technical and social structures of the twenty-?rst century.
Scott (2006, p. 1) suggests that the new economy is ‘‘shaped due to shifts in technology,
structures of production, labor markets and dynamics in locational agglomeration’’. Through
this shift in the economic structure, social, cultural and spatial forms have also been
changed and have in?uenced the urban development processes. Sassen (2001) indicates
that the new economy pushes cities to seek new spatial organization through urban
restructuring. Therefore, adapting current spatial, economic and cultural systems of cities to
ease the integration with the new economy is important. In restructuring cities, art and
creativity play an important role as the key growth resources of the development process
(Sharp et al., 2005). Montgomery (2007) suggests that successful cities of the new economy
will be the ones that invest heavily in their capacity for creativity and that understand the
importance of locality and cultural heritage.
The new economy raises the issue of ‘‘creativity’’ and its broader translation of ‘‘creative
cites’’. The creativity discourse and the frameworks to develop creative cities are currently in
vogue, although, the importance of creativity and its relation to cities is not a new idea.
Athens in the ?fth century, Florence in the fourteenth, Vienna in the late eighteenth, Paris in
the late nineteenth and Berlin in the twentieth century were the centers of creativity, art and
culture (Hall, 2000).
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 199
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Creative industries
Creative industries are important building blocks of creative city formation (Durmaz et al.,
2008). They offer the potential to meet wider inclusion and diversity of development goals.
Recent literature indicates that creative industry counts as a signi?cant sector of the new
economy (Baum et al., 2008) and its contribution to growth and prosperity has attracted
attention from city authorities, politicians, professionals and scholars. Landry (2007)
believes that creative industries create positive images for cities, help in social cohesion,
attract talent and industry and businesses, and also contribute to the livability and quality of
life and place. Creative industries link production, consumption, and manufacturing
industries in cities (Pratt, 2008), and promote sustainable urban development and
sustainable tourism (Richards and Wilson, 2007). However, Oakley (2004) suggests that the
role of creative industries in economic development is exaggerated and can result in
economic inequality, gentri?cation, and destabilization of the local economy. According to
Hall (2000, p. 642), although, creative industries foster the creativity potential of cities,
‘‘having creative industries is not all the same thing as being creative’’.
Creative clusters
Creative clusters are often at the forefront of urban restructuring and marketing strategies,
through the creation of creative districts based on the idea of clustering (Porter, 1995;
Bagwell, 2008). Creative clusters have several de?nitions in economic geography, but the
most in?uential de?nition of comes from Porter (1998, p. 78): ‘‘a geographic concentration of
interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, associated institutions
and ?rms in related industries’’. Scholars and city authorities advanced the Cluster Theory as
a useful approach to fostering creativity and creative industries. In the USA clustering has
been promoted as a way of encouraging the restructuring of deprived inner city areas
(Porter, 1995). This US-inspired model of business-led regeneration has led to many cultural
strategy initiatives focusing on feeding existing creative clusters in inner city areas (Bagwell,
2008). Research on the topic of clustering suggests that clustering has number of
advantages both for ?rms and regions, such as making a positive contribution to creativity,
higher productivity, new ?rm formation, growth, pro?tability, job growth, innovation and
increased competitiveness (Keeble and Nachum, 2002; Bagwell, 2008). On the other side,
various research also criticize clustering as a ‘‘chaotic concept’’ due to the lack of clarity
over its de?nition (Gordon and McCann, 2000; Martin and Sunley, 2003; Turok, 2003).
The literature acknowledges the power of concentration of specialized industries in
particular localities named as cultural districts. Santagata (2002) suggests that these
cultural districts have become an example of sustainable and endogenous growth. The Los
Angeles motion picture complex is a prime example of this cultural district type clustering.
Santagata (2002) summarizes the key conditions for success in the Hollywood media cluster
as a collection of small independent media ?rms, cooperation of a variety of professionals,
highly quali?ed workers, localities of entertainment, and transaction rich networks of ?rms.
Soho, London is another example of a successful cultural district having various sectors of
clustered creative industries. Film-TV production companies and related service industries
are also linked with other creative industries clustered in Soho. The companies located in
cultural districts reap the bene?ts of being in close proximity to each other and to a
well-developed infrastructure.
The dilemma of periphery and inner city locations
One of the key cultural policy issues within the restructuring process is the dilemma between
investing in inner city areas or urban peripheries (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1994;
Montgomery, 2007). Newman and Smith (2000) highlight the importance concentrating
cultural production and creative industries in inner cities as clustering and co-location offer
advantages. Hutton (2004) puts forward the importance of supporting inner-city investments
to harness rapid growth in the new economy. Yigitcanlar et al. (2008d) emphasizes the
importance of centrality for creativity in a successful inner city regeneration project of
22@Barcelona. On the other, other authors argue the bene?ts of more spacious new
generation knowledge precincts with mixed use patterns of residential and recreational uses
PAGE 200
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
as in the case of One-North Singapore, Helsinki Virtual Village and Zaragoza Milla Digital that
are not located in the inner city areas. Evans (2005) argues the advantages of purpose built
creative precincts with their new infrastructure as providing highly upgraded building
quality, modern power supply grids, telecoms network, centralized climate control,
pneumatic refuse collection systems, energy ef?ciency and noise pollution control.
Although creativity theory stresses the importance of centrality, in practice, creative industry
companies tend to move more towards the periphery or to sub-centers either because of the
problematic nature of the city centers or attractiveness of outer locations (Scott, 2000a;
Gornostaeva, 2008). Nachumand Keeble (2003) underline this paradox between theory and
practice as clustering in city centers versus tendencies for decentralization from city centers
to peripheries.
Creativity and cultural tourism
Creative places and culture
The close link between creativity and place as a stimulant or catalyst for individual aesthetic
creativity is discussed by many scholars (Landry, 2007; Leadbeater and Oakley, 1999;
Newman and Smith, 2000; O’Connor, 1999). Drake (2003) provides empirical evidence for
the link between place and creativity. To promote creativity, Hospers (2003) stresses the
need for concentration, diversity and instability. According to To¨ rnqvist (1983) creative
places take a long time to evolve and successful cultural quarters are those that have strong
historical and cultural links. Scott (1997) argues that those organically developed cultural
districts like China Town, Little Italy, the Arabic Quarter or the gay villages are the most
creative districts of cities. Hall (2000) suggests that a cosmopolitan structure also fosters
creativity as, ‘‘foreign people do not feel themselves as belonging to the established order of
power and prestige, so behaving and living as they want helps their creative feel.’’ (p. 646).
For Santagata (2002) art draws inspiration from cultural links with their original local
community that translates creativity into culture and contributes to a competitive advantage.
Creativity and cultural heritage tourism
One of the key concepts in tourism management is ?nding attractors for visitors to come to a
city. In de?ning destination competitiveness Richards and Wilson (2005) emphasize the
importance of cities diversifying their cultural offer and animating the tourist by encouraging
creative activities. According to Amin and Thrift (2002) increasing competition in the market
means that goods and services are no longer enough, and producers must differentiate their
products by transforming them into ‘‘experiences’’ which engage the consumer. Scott
(2000b) stresses the importance of supporting creative production and creative industry to
promote cultural tourism.
Cultural heritage not only determines the image of the city, but is also essential for
establishing the context that stimulates creativity. Cultural heritage re?ects the soul of the
city, and contains the essential elements to build a sustainable future. Cultural heritage is a
magnet for the tourists, and newtourism strategies have to offer both tangible and intangible
aspects of cultural heritage that includes monuments, architecture, galleries and museums,
as well as events, music, exhibitions, theatre, ?lm and knowledge, experience and customs
of a community (Fusco Girard et al., 2003). As well as tangible assets like buildings,
infrastructure and upgrading physical quality, intangible aspects of local culture are also
important (Smith, 2007). According to Throsby (2001) tangible and intangible heritage exists
as stock of capital that can be seen, in economic terms, as a capital goods that can be
consumed directly or can be combined in a creative way with other inputs to produce more
goods and services.
Montgomery (2007) de?nes cultural tourism, in terms of cultural industries, as the seeds of
creation and sense of place. Smith (2007) suggests that countries should link tourism
strategies to local cultural heritage and community values and should avoid copy-cat
schemes based on other cities’ experiences and duplication. Miles and Paddison (2005)
stress the positive contribution of cultural heritage tourism on creativity, through increased
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 201
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
prosperity, cosmopolitanism, growth in business services, increased name recognition,
propagation of social and human capital, improved life skills and transformed organizational
capacity. Maitland (2007) suggests that tourists seek organic growth rather than speci?cally
planned places as these tend to have spontaneously evolved and are generally more
attractive. Places where local culture is alive are found more interesting. Shaw (2007) and
Richards and Wilson (2007) point out that the more creative and less formulaic approaches
to tourism development avoid the reductive trap of homogenization and serial monotony.
Montgomery (2007) suggests that to achieve successful and sustainable outcomes, cultural
strategies should be driven from localities.
The ISAACProject (Integrated e-services for Advanced Access to Heritage in Cultural Tourist
Destinations)
One of the key issues facing many European cities is how, in the face of change, can people
protect and enhance their quality of life and well-being. Insights from recent research
suggest that promoting cultural heritage is an important mechanism for sustaining a
community’s self-identity and for generating growth and creative enterprise. The ISAAC
project focuses on cultural heritage tourism and studies visitors’ perceptions of cultural
heritage in three European cities (ISAAC, 2009). The ISAAC study on three cities –
Amsterdam, Genoa and Leipzig – highlights the hidden treasure stories of cities and the
importance of developing creative industries (Marijnissen, 2008). The results of the ISAAC
project show that residents and visitors in all cities value tangible cultural heritage (e.g.
architecture and buildings, museums and galleries) over intangible cultural heritage (e.g.
local traditions and customs). Nevertheless, the key ?nding of the study is that at least half of
the respondents in all three cities value cultural events, festivals, exhibitions almost as highly
as physical aspects of heritage, and they rate local traditions and lifestyle as important. In
fact all aspects of cultural heritage, including the most intangible ones such as local customs
and beliefs, are valued as important by at least a third of the respondents. This ?nding, that
both tangible and intangible cultural heritage are important, is found signi?cant for cultural
tourism management, urban development and creative industry (Table I).
Creativity, tourism and the ?lm industry
This paper reports research that focuses on the ?lm industry of Istanbul and London. This
research aims at understanding the current structure of the ?lmindustry and the dynamics of
the ?lm industry in terms of creativity and the centralization and decentralization dilemmas.
Film industry is one of the major creative industries that has a high level of interaction with the
place. Directors shoot ?lms in places, and they record and represent the localities and cities in
their ?lms. The global ?lmindustry is able to shape the development of cities, and contribute to
the growth of the tourism sector creating tangible and intangible resources for ?lm-induced
tourism, for instance Berlin, Cannes and Los Angeles (Beeton, 2005). Comprising various
sub-sectors – photography, music and video industries, stagecraft, advertisement, motion
picture, and video tape distribution – the global ?lm industry contributes signi?cantly to
economic vitality (Di Persio et al., 2003; Scott, 2005). Films also have a positive impact on
tourism, increase place recognition and have a powerful effect on viewers in terms of dictating
their next vacation destinations (Baker et al., 1998). Auckland, the entertainment city of New
Zealand, is another good example for the ?lm-induced tourism. After the trilogy of the Lord of
the Rings shot in New Zealand, the number of tourists that visited this country and Auckland
signi?cantly increased. Auckland City now focuses on ?lm-induced tourism, and on attracting
more ?lm-makers and related creative industries (Durmaz et al., 2008).
Although the ?lm industry alone cannot make a city creative, the ?lm industry has invaluable
contributions to the formation of a creative city. Film industry needs to have links with other
creative sectors, if it is to be successful and to make an impact on the quality of a cultural
district. Los Angeles (Hollywood), Mumbai (Bollywood), Auckland, Berlin, Rome (Cinecitta),
Cannes, Melbourne, and Vancouver are among the cities that purposefully focus on the ?lm
industry and make this sector a signi?cant catalyst for their creative urban economies
(Durmaz et al., 2008).
PAGE 202
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In some of the creative cities the ?lm industry is located close to the city center and in others
on the periphery. For example, Mussolini opened Cinecitta (Film City) in 1937 speci?cally as
a gated ?lm district to use ?lms to fuel Fascist Propaganda (CineCitta, 2009). The studios
which are 10 kilometers away fromRome’s city center, are nowthe largest ?lm-making facility
in Europe. Cinecitta has all the studio environment, services, and facilities related to ?lm
production as well as social facilities for creative people living and working there. Hollywood
is located on the northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Hollywood’s central location also
helped the ?lmcompanies growthrough connectivity to other sectors. All started with a small
?lm company that started doing business in Hollywood in 1911. Since then many other
companies clustered there and Hollywood became the district where the ?lmindustry initially
concentrated in pre-World War II days. Today the industry has spilled over well beyond this
original core, stretching out to other districts (Scott, 2005). Vancouver took advantage of this
decentralization and lured some of the runaway productions from Hollywood with tax-credit
programs (Durmaz et al., 2008). Vancouver is also a very successful city that focused on the
?lm industry and is a high caliber creative city (Durmaz et al., 2008; Mercer, 2009).
Observations from Istanbul and London
This paper reports research in two cultural districts – Soho, London, and Beyoglu, Istanbul.
Despite the theoretical importance of clustering for creativity, companies, both Soho and
Beyoglu have been decentralizing towards the urban peripheries or other adjacent districts.
However, the current situation is different in Soho.
Table I Key ?ndings of the ISAAC project
Residents Visitors Service providers
Cultural heritage % % %
Amsterdam
Architecture and buildings 73 77 91
Monuments and landmarks 61 60 76
Museums and galleries 70 74 85
Urban landscapes 72 65 64
Cultural events, festivals, exhibitions 68 55 65
Local traditions and lifestyle 43 59 52
Local customs and beliefs 38 48 36
Local knowledge and skills 35 42 36
Other things of local signi?cance 33 46 38
Genoa
Architecture and buildings 86 82 80
Monuments and landmarks 73 70 58
Museums and galleries 73 70 88
Urban landscapes 71 63 72
Cultural events, festivals, exhibitions 59 63 79
Local traditions and lifestyle 48 55 76
Local customs and beliefs 31 47 50
Local knowledge and skills 35 45 37
Other things of local signi?cance 32 41 55
Leipzig
Architecture and buildings 88 85 82
Monuments and landmarks 67 63 74
Museums and galleries 64 66 69
Urban landscapes 87 78 71
Cultural events, festivals, exhibitions 73 61 70
Local traditions and lifestyle 43 49 54
Local customs and beliefs 52 42 55
Local knowledge and skills 62 40 59
Other things of local signi?cance 64 43 61
Source: Platt, 2007
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 203
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Soho is a popular cultural quarter that is within the west end area of London in
Westminister (Figures 1 and 2). Soho is an example of successful cultural reconstruction.
Although some of the ?lm companies moved out in the past and Soho has suffered some
decentralization, ?lm companies are now moving back. Interviewees highlighted that
companies that are already in Soho do not want to move away despite the problems like
high rents, parking and inadequate of?ce space. According to the ?ndings of this study,
?lm companies appreciate the advantage of being in Soho as it is a creative cultural
urban village in the middle of the city. The projects of Westminister City Council seem to
have had a positive effect on this shift.
Westminister City Council developed strategies and encouraged public participation to
attract companies restructuring and refurbishing Soho. There are governments and local
community-based initiatives in Soho which helped rescue Soho, foster the creative
industries in the area and attract the ?lm companies back (WCC, 2007). In the 1960s Soho
was a rundown area due to cultural and social changes which also affected the quality of the
built environment (Sheppard, 1966). The City Council designated Soho as a conservation
area in 1969. Since then conservation has been a strong force in the area and there have
been a whole series of initiatives like Soho Society (1972), Sohonet (1999), Soho
Conservation Audit (2005), Soho Action Plan (2006), I Love Soho Campaign (2006),
Retro?tting Soho (2008) and Westminister Creative Industries Study (2007). This success
story in Soho provides a framework for reconstruction based on art, culture and creativity
that other cities can consider.
Like many cities around the world Istanbul has, especially since the 1980s, been subject to
the process of decentralization (Karaman and Levent, 2000; Kurtar?r and Cengiz, 2005). As
Gecer et al. (2008) indicate concentrated city center activities declined after 1980s. City
center functions spread towards sub-centers, and the traditional city center of Beyoglu
fragmented and Istanbul transformed into a polycentric structure. The ?lm industry
witnessed the same process. Beyoglu district is famous for its relation to ?lm industry dating
back to the 1960s. At that time, most of the ?lm companies clustered around a street named
Figure 1 Location of Westminister in London
PAGE 204
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Yesilcam in Beyoglu and eventually the name of the Turkish Film Industry became known as
‘‘Yesilcam’’. However, as this case study highlights, the ?lm industry tends to move to more
prestigious sub-centers like Besiktas, Sisli, Mecidiyekoy and the long standing culture of
?lm-making in Beyoglu is under the threat of decentralization.
The researchers conducted interviews with people working in the ?lm production in order to
understand the spatial requirements of the industry and the relationship between place and
creativity. The methodology combines various qualitative techniques with semi-structured
interviews, observations, questionnaires and content analysis. Companies in Soho were
selected fromthe UK-Local-Search database. In total 50 companies were approached out of
the total of 156 ?lm companies located in Soho. Of these 50 companies, 19 replied (UK,
Local Search, 2009). 11 companies were discarded for various reasons (for example, six
had moved from Soho). The initial pilot study that is reported here includes interviews with
two companies. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with an executive
producer and a location manager and online questionnaires are conducted with freelance
employees (Figure 3).
Beyoglu, is an organically developed cultural district with similar spatial attributes but
different dynamics to Soho. Beyoglu area is the major entertainment and shopping district of
Istanbul located on the European side. The companies in Beyoglu were selected from a
Turkish Cinema Database prepared by the Association of Turkish Film Directors and Internet
Movie Database. In total 147 ?lm production companies are located in Istanbul, and nearly
half (47 percent) are in the historic central area of Beyoglu. The rest are in more peripheral
districts, including 27 percent in Besiktas and 14 percent in Sisli (Sayman and Kar, 2006). Of
the companies in Beyoglu, 21 were contacted and two of them are selected for interview in
this pilot study (Figure 4).
Prospects and constraints
Companies choose to locate in Soho principally because Soho is the historic center of ?lm
production and because the area promotes opportunities for socializing and face-to-face
Figure 2 Location of Soho in London
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 205
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
meetings. Interviewees see the advantages of Soho in terms of proximity, diversity and a
24/7 city where ‘‘everything co-exists, everybody is here, and everything is happening
Figure 3 Location of the major ?lm companies in Soho
Figure 4 Location of the major ?lm companies in Beyoglu
PAGE 206
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
here’’. On the other hand, they also see some disadvantages of Soho as a location, including
congestion, high rents, parking and transportation and accommodation issues including
ventilation, heating, in?exibility and inadequate space (Figure 5).
Interviewees in Beyoglu mention a very similar set of reasons, including Beyoglu’s historic,
authentic and cosmopolitan structure. As in Soho, people mention that ‘‘everything is here,
everybody is here, that’s why we prefer to stay here’’. The highly tolerant atmosphere helps
?lm and creative workers feel free and secure. There are good accommodation
opportunities in and around Beyoglu and a vibrant nightlife. People highlight the
advantages of proximity to commercial and cultural centers and other creative industries
and relatively low rents in some areas. They describe the district as colorful, compact and
providing access to a rich social life. They have the opportunity to go for a drink after work or
to pop into a nearby cafe. Actors live and work here. The disadvantages mentioned include
narrow streets that create dif?culties with transportation, parking and ?lm shooting.
Accommodation is inadequate for storage of ?lm-making equipment like cameras and
lighting equipment. Security problems and high rents in the renovated parts of the district
are mentioned among the disadvantages (Figure 6).
Locational preferences
Being in the city center is important for Soho-based companies. Soho is simply where
‘‘everything is going on in the city, and lots of people pass through the area, there is too much
to see, hear and do’’. In Beyoglu, ?lm companies also preferred to stay in the inner city so
that they can stay in touch with actors, artists and other creative people living and working
around Beyoglu. On the contrary interviewees mentioned that some companies had moved
from Beyoglu to more prestigious places like Sisli and Mecidiyekoy and emphasized that
these places cater better for their needs. One of the interviewees suggested dual spatial
requirements in the ?lm industry. ‘‘Exhibition, consumption and administration should be in
the city center. Studios and workshops should be located on the edges of the city’’. Another
interviewee said that, ‘‘logically the ?lm industry should be in so-called purposefully built
creative districts. However, personally I do not like gated areas with security cards and that
is why I prefer being in Beyoglu, which has a historic and cultural urban living’’.
Figure 5 Soho in the 1980s and 2009
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 207
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Creativity and place
Both Istanbul and London respondents say that the city’s cosmopolitan structure and
diversity made them feel more creative and inspired. They like to be in touch with other
creative people that motivate them. Interviewees say that ‘‘they like being in the city center
where they have the opportunity to go to cafes, bars, cinemas’’. In Istanbul people also
appreciate the chaotic nature of city living. Chaotic environments cause unexpected
circumstances, which impact creativity. They see the city as a chaotic environment that
inspires them and makes them feel that their art is in reaction to this complexity.
Attributes of place for ?lm-making
Interviewees in both London and Istanbul ?nd the effort dif?cult to de?ne the speci?c
attributes of place needed for the industry. They agree that ideally the city should provide
areas with diverse qualities and different types of natural and built areas. These places
should be in close proximity to transportation facilities, especially airports, as the ?lm
industry has strong links with foreign companies and with foreign creative workers.
Companies located in Beyoglu indicate that ‘‘the place should match with the project,
scenario or vision. Sometimes we need high quality well designed and well maintained
places sometimes we need derelict areas’’.
Impact of the technology
Soho is very advanced in its use of technology to aid communication and interaction. Film
companies use Sohonet and Wire drive for online data sharing. Interviewees say that
technology affects post-production companies more than production companies. However,
respondents stress that they still need face-to-face communication when the time comes to
winning business. In Istanbul, technology is less advanced and does not have a big effect
on companies’ location preferences. Some aspects of technology affect the ?lm-making
process such as sound ?lm technology that allows ?lms to be shot in the city. Nevertheless
?lm companies in Beyoglu do not use any online ?lm-making infrastructure like Sohonet.
These facilities do not exist yet in Istanbul. The interviewees had not heard of Sohonet. They
Figure 6 Beyoglu in the 1920s and 2003
PAGE 208
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
use internet, video conference, and email, but as in Soho, they have not given up
face-to-face interactions. Although they use technology, they de?nitely feel the need for
face-to-face contact.
Urban transformation
Another issue which needs to be underlined is the effect of the ?lm industry on spatial
transformation in Beyoglu. The well-known Turkish Director Sinan Cetin established a private
?lm school, the Plato Cinema School, by transforming an old residential building complex
into an education institute. This private school has become a college of a Turkish University
through an agreement between the Turkish Higher Education Institute and Sinan Cetin’s
company (Plato Film, 2009). This initiative is rapidly transforming the area. Sinan C¸ etin has
bought and renovated nearly 30 other old buildings near the school in Cihangir, Beyoglu.
Some of them are used as ?lm production of?ces, studios and sets, and others for costume
and cine equipment storage. This development seems to lead to further development in the
area such as student accommodation, new of?ces, and ?lm studios.
Conclusion
Soho and Beyoglu both witnessed the decentralization process. In Soho, the local
government and community acknowledge the importance of creative industries and
develop strategies to rescue and revitalize the district. In Istanbul, local government and
community initiatives have not yet acknowledged the importance of creative industries and
the need to keep themin clusters. More attempts and policy initiatives are necessary to keep
companies in proximity and clustered in Beyoglu. It is important to understand the reasons of
the shift towards decentralization.
As in Soho, attracting creative industry companies back can be a good strategy to
restructure Beyoglu. Attracting companies back will likely foster the creativity-based
economy of Istanbul and harness the potentials of the place. Attracting ?lm industry back
might be an initial step that might lure other creative industries. Beyoglu has long standing
assets in ?lm culture that might kick-start activity and business formation. Potential buildings
and strategic locations for artists, education and business facilities, workspaces for
start-ups and established ?lm companies should be promoted via local area development
plans of Beyoglu.
The ?lm industry might lead ephemeral activities like festivals, fairs, conferences which have
as much positive contribution as permanent cultural buildings and landmarks (Bianchini and
Parkinson, 1994). Participatory and community-based cultural strategies that focus on
exposing local values are needed for the sustainable development of the district providing
economic bene?t, socio-cultural well being and enhanced creativity (Montgomery, 2007). A
successful creative district will also attract new comers and visitors that will contribute to
tourism and the wider economy. Although tourists may not come to Istanbul because of its
creative industries, this local initiative will possibly create and add value to the climate of
creativity in the city.
The interviews with ?lm company personnel have shown that there is a relation between
place and creativity and that being in a city center positively contributes to creativity. The
case studies also provide insights about creativity and planning. All of the interviewees in
Istanbul and London prefer being in an organically developed historical district, rather than a
planned creative district. This statement matches with the ?ndings of other researchers,
including Pratt (2008), Gornostaeva (2009) and Hospers (2003).
This paper aimed to explore the relation between creative industries, urban restructuring
and tourism. The paper focused on the ?lm industry in Soho and Beyoglu. However, other
creative sectors and their interrelation in these districts, locational and property
requirements will need to be explored if the urban restructuring process is to be
successful. The paper raises many questions that further research needs to address. In
particular, two main areas of enquiry seem to emerge.
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 209
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
First, what is the relation between creativity and tourism? Imagine a tourist visiting Istanbul
for the ?rst time, walking around Beyoglu, having a coffee and then lunch, taking in the
sights. How would a creative tourist behave? Would the creative tourists be more interactive
than the norm – less passive? Would they want to learn or to produce something? Would
they want to experience the city as a whole, wandering at will, sampling places and people,
sights and tastes. Or would they specialize, following a single line of exploration. Would the
creative tourist read a guide or follow their nose? In Istanbul visitors feel inspired – to
explore, to think new thoughts. Cultural experience emerges ephemerally through
conversation, movement, thinking, and people watching. Are people creative tourists in a
creative city? Or would it be more accurate to describe visitors as being inspired?
Second, is it possible to regenerate an urban quarter, such as Beyoglu, without making the
area less attractive for creative people? In Soho a coincidence of interests – residents
wanting to clean up the area, developers seeking to make money and the Borough Council
cracking down on anarchic development and anti-social behavior – combined to halt
decline and deliver regeneration. What makes Soho and Beyoglu attractive to the ?lm
industry are the bene?ts of clustering and the serendipity of constructive chaos. But if a
place is good for creativity and creative industry, is the same place also good for residents
and for tourists? An exciting and stimulating place to visit is not necessarily a good place to
live or bring up a family. And what has this statement to do with creative industry? Visitors like
watching street life, but most creative activity, including ?lm-making, occurs behind closed
doors and does not encourage spectators. Most artists are not high-income earners and
former bohemian quarters that are gentri?ed can be sanitized in such a way that they lose
their creative appeal and become sterile shells.
The research indicates place-making of living areas as a big idea. The objective is to achieve
a synergy between place, economy and culture. However, few cities score well on all three
dimensions and retain an authentic cultural environment. The literature de?nes creative
cities as being cosmopolitan, with an inspiring public realm, clusters of creative activity and
a comparative advantage over other cities in some creative sector. Creative cities do not
attempt to mix culture and tourism, they are not places for tourists, and they would not
necessarily be called ‘‘cool’’ and would certainly not look to an imported class of creative
people to provide the cultural energy. The links between creativity, regeneration and cultural
tourism are not as clear cut as the literature suggests.
References
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (2002), Cities: Reimagining the Urban, 2nd reprint, The Polity Press, Cambridge.
Bagwell, S. (2008), ‘‘Creative clusters and city growth’’, Creative Industries Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 31-46.
Baum, S., O’Connor, K. and Yigitcanlar, T. (2008), ‘‘Creative industries and the urban hierarchy: the
position of lower tier cities and regions in the knowledge economy?’’, in Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K.
and Baum, S. (Eds) Knowledge Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the
Information Era, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Baker, D., Riley, R. and Van Doren, C. (1998), ‘‘Movie induced tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 919-35.
Beeton, S. (2005), Aspects of Tourism: Film Induced Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol.
Bianchini, F. and Parkinson, M. (1994), Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration; The West European
Experience, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
CineCitta (2009), Cinecitta Film Studios, available at: www.cinecittastudios.it (accessed 1 October
2009).
Di Persio, C., Horvath, G. and Wobbeking, R. (2003), ‘‘The impact of the ?lm industry on Colorado,
1-119’’, available at: http://thecreativecoalition,org (accessed 24 January 2008).
Drake, G. (2003), ‘‘This place gives me space: place and creativity in the creative industries’’, Geoforum,
Vol. 34, pp. 511-24.
PAGE 210
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Durmaz, B., Yigitcanlar, T. and Velibeyoglu, K. (2008), ‘‘Creative cities and the ?lm industry: Antalya’s
transition to a eurasian ?lm centre’’, The Open Urban Studies Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
Evans, G. (2005), ‘‘Measure for measure: evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to
regeneration’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 959-83.
Evans, G. (2009), ‘‘Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 46,
pp. 1003-40.
Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It Is Transforming Work, Leisure Community
and Everyday Life, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Fusco Girard, L., Forte, B., Cerreta, M., De Toro, P. and Forte, F. (Eds) (2003), The Human Sustainable
City, Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Gecer, F., Avar, A., Velibeyoglu, K. and Saygin, O. (2008), ‘‘Spatial transformation of Istanbul CBD’’, in
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds), Creative Urban Regions: Harnessing Urban
Technologies to Support Knowledge City Initiatives, Information Science Reference, London.
Gordon, I. and McCann, P. (2000), ‘‘Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/or social
networks’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 513-32.
Gornostaeva, G. (2008), ‘‘The ?lm and television industry in London’s suburbs: lifestyle of the rich or
losers’ retreat?’’, Creative Industries Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 47-71.
Gornostaeva, G. (2009), ‘‘The wolves and lambs of the creative city: the sustainability of ?lm and
television producers in London’’, The Geographical Review, Vol. 99, pp. 37-60.
Hall, P. (2000), ‘‘Creative cities and economic development’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 639-49.
Harcup, T. (2000), ‘‘Re-imaging a post-industrial city: the Leeds St Valentine’s fair as a civic spectacle’’,
City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 215-31.
Hospers, G. (2003), ‘‘Creative cities: breeding places in the knowledge economy’’, Knowledge,
Technology and Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 143-62.
Hutton, T. (2004), ‘‘The new economy of inner city’’, Cities, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 89-108.
ISAAC (2009), Integrated e-services for Advanced Access to Heritage in Cultural Tourist Destinations,
available at: www.isaac-project.eu (accessed 10 July 2009).
Karaman, A. and Levent, T. (2000), ‘‘Globalisation and development strategies for Istanbul’’, paper
presented at 40th Congress of ERSA, Barcelona, 29 August.
Keeble, D. and Nachum, L. (2002), ‘‘Why do business service ?rms cluster? Small consultancies,
clusturing and decentralisation in London and Southern England’’, Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographer, Vol. 27, pp. 67-90.
Kurtar?r, E. and Cengiz, H. (2005), ‘‘What are the dynamics of creative economy in Istanbul?’’, paper
presented at 41st ISoCaRP International Planning Congress, Bilbao, 17-20 October.
Landry, C. (2000), The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, Earthscan, London.
Landry, C. (2004), ‘‘Rethinking creative city’’, available at: www.comedia.org.uk (accessed 5 January
2008).
Landry, C. (2007), Creative Cities, Earthscan, London.
Leadbeater, C. and Oakley, K. (1999), The Independents: Britain’s New Cultural Entrepreneurs, Demos,
London.
McCann, J. (2002), ‘ ‘The cultural politics of local economic development: meaning-making,
place-making and the urban policy process’’, Geoforum, Vol. 33, pp. 385-98.
Maitland, R. (2007), ‘‘Culture, city users and creation of newtourismareas in cities’’, in Smith, M.K. (Ed.),
Tourism, Culture and Regeneration, CAB International, Wallingford.
Marijnissen, R. (2008), ‘‘Creative industries and tourism: the Amsterdam experience’’, available at:
http://b2b.wien.info/data/wtk2008/marijnissen.pdf (accessed 25 June 2009).
Martin, R. and Sunley, P. (2003), ‘‘Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea?’’, Journal
of Economic Geography, Vol. 3, pp. 5-35.
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 211
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Mercer (2009), Quality of Living Survey, 2009, available at: www.mercer.com (accessed 29 September
2009).
Miles, S. and Paddison, R. (2005), ‘‘Introduction: the rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration’’,
Urban Studies, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 833-9.
Montgomery, J. (2007), The NewWealth of Cities: City Dynamics and the Fifth Wave, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Nachum, L. and Keeble, D. (2003), ‘‘Neo-Marshallian clusters and global networks – the linkages of
media ?rms in central London’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 36, pp. 459-80.
Newman, P. and Smith, I. (2000), ‘‘Cultural production, place and politics on the South Bank of the
Thames’’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 24, pp. 9-24.
O’Connor, J. (1999), ‘‘Popular culture, re?exivity and urban change’’, in Verwijnen, J. and Lehtovuori, P.
(Eds), Creative Cities, University of Art and Design Helsinki, Helsinki.
Oakley, K. (2004), ‘‘Not so cool Britannia: the role of the creative industries in economic development’’,
International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 67-77.
Plato Film (2009), Plato Film School, available at: www.plato?lm.com (accessed 25 March 2009).
Platt, S. (2007), ‘‘Users requirements for e-services’’, ISAAC, FP6-CProject Deliverable 1.4, available at:
www.isaac-project.eu/publications
Pratt, A. (2008), ‘‘Creative cities’’, Urban Design, Vol. 106, p. 35.
Porter, M. (1995), ‘‘The competitive advantage of the inner city’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73,
pp. 55-71.
Porter, M. (1998), ‘‘Clusters and the new economics of competitiveness’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 76, pp. 77-90.
Ray, C. (1998), ‘‘Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development’’, Sociologia Ruralis,
Vol. 38, pp. 3-20.
Richards, G. (2001), Cultural Attractions and European Tourism, CAB International, Wallingford.
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2005), ‘‘Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a solution to the serial
reproduction of culture?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, p. 1209.
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2007), ‘‘Creativities in tourism development’’, in Richards, G. and Wilson, J.
(Eds), Tourism, Creativity and Development, Routledge, London.
Santagata, W. (2002), ‘‘Cultural districts, property rights and sustainable economic growth’’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 9-23.
Sassen, S. (2001), The Global City? NewYork, London, Tokyo, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Sayman, A. and Kar, E. (Eds) (2006), Basic Database of the Turkish Cinema 1996-2006, Euromat,
Istanbul.
Scott, A. (1997), ‘‘The cultural economy of cities’’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 323-39.
Scott, A. (2000a), ‘‘The cultural economy of Paris’’, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, Vol. 24, pp. 567-82.
Scott, A. (2000b), The Cultural Economy of Cities, Sage, London.
Scott, A. (2005), On Hollywood, the Place, the Industry, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Scott, A. (2006), ‘‘Creative cities: conceptual issues and policy questions’’, Journal of Urban Affairs,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Sharp, J., Pollock, V. and Paddison, R. (2005), ‘‘Just art for a just city: public art and social inclusion in
urban regeneration’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 1001-23.
Shaw, S. (2007), ‘‘Ethnospaces as cultural attractions in Canadian ‘world cities’’’, in Smith, M. (Ed.),
Tourism, Culture and Regeneration, CAB International, Wallingford.
Sheppard, F. (1966), Survey of London, Vols 33/34, St Anne, Soho, pp, 1-19, available at: www.british-
history.ac.uk (accessed 13 May 2009).
PAGE 212
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Smith, M. (2007), ‘‘Towards a cultural planning approach to regeneration’’, in Smith, M.K. (Ed.), Tourism,
Culture and Regeneration, CAB International, Wallingford.
Throsby, D. (2001), Economics and Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
To¨ rnqvist, G. (1983), Creativity and the Renewal of Regional Life (quoted in Hall, 1998, Cities in
Civilization, Weiden?eld and Nicholson, London).
Turok, I. (2003), ‘‘Cities, clusters and creative industries: the case of ?lm and television in Scotland’’,
European Planning Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 549-65.
UK, Local Search (2009), Film Studios, Production Services in Soho, available at: www.uk-local-search.
co.uk (accessed 19 February 2009).
WCC (Westminister City Council) (2007), Westminster’s Creative Industries, available at: www3.
westminster.gov.uk (accessed 8 March 2009).
Yigitcanlar, T. (2009), ‘‘Planning for cultural tourism: the joined up approach’’, paper presented at Cities as
Creative Spaces for Cultural TourismConference (CCSCT), Bogazici University, Istanbul, 19-21 November.
Yigitcanlar, T., O’Connor, K. and Westerman, C. (2008a), ‘‘The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s
knowledge-based urban development experience’’, Cities, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 63-72.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds) (2008b), Knowledge-based Urban Development:
Planning and Applications in the Information Era, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds) (2008c), Creative Urban Regions: Harnessing Urban
Technologies to Support Knowledge City Initiatives, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2008d), ‘‘Rising knowledge cities: the role of
knowledge precincts’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 8-20.
Further reading
Bassett, K., Grif?ths, R. and Smith, I. (2002), ‘‘Cultural industries, cultural clusters and the city: the
example of natural history ?lm-making in Bristol’’, Geoforum, Vol. 33, pp. 165-77.
Debre, P. (1998), Louis Pasteur, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, WI, London.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Aldine Transaction, Chicago, IL.
Hall, P. (1998), Cities in Civilization, Weiden?eld and Nicholson, London.
Corresponding author
Bahar Durmaz can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 213
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Luciana Lazzeretti, Francesco Capone, I. Erdem Seçilmi?. 2016. In search of a Mediterranean creativity. Cultural and creative
industries in Italy, Spain and Turkey. European Planning Studies 24, 568-588. [CrossRef]
2. Joanne Connell. 2012. Film tourism – Evolution, progress and prospects. Tourism Management 33, 1007-1029. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_880813122.pdf