CRITICAL RECONSIDERATION OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ELEMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE THE CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM OF A CITY EXAMPLES FROM SLOVENIA AND JAPAN 
MATJAŽ URŠIČ 
During urban redevelopment, it is not always completely clear which spaces and groups are the most valuable social and cultural amenities that support creativity and improve the general quality of life in the city. This article uses case studies from Slovenia and Japan to analyze why some spaces are perceived as socially and culturally important whereas others are defined as obsolete and dispensable. Keywords: creative ecosystem, urban redevelopment, tangible/ intangible cultural elements, cultural capital, Slovenia, Japan Med procesom urbane prenove ni vedno popolnoma jasno, kateri prostori in skupine predstavljajo najdragocenejše družbene in kulturne dobrine, ki podpirajo ustvarjalnost in nadgrajujejo splošno kakovost življenja v mestu. Študiji primerov iz Slovenije in Japonske sta podlaga za analizo, zakaj so nekateri prostori dojeti kot družbeno in kulturno pomembni, drugi pa so opredeljeni kot zastareli in nepotrebni. Ključne besede: ustvarjalni ekosistem, urbana prenova, snovni/nesnovni kulturni elementi, kulturni kapital, Slovenija, Japonska 
INTRODUCTION 
The process of globalization and increasing “competitiveness of cities” (Perrons 2004; Short 2004; Taylor 2004) has greatly influenced perspectives on how cities should develop in the future. Today cities strive to set up attractive places with beneficial qualities for resi­dents and visitors seeking a high-quality environment combined with excellent social and cultural amenities. In this sense, the attractiveness of social and cultural resources is of strategic significance for cities and their development. Under such conditions it is increas­ingly important to know what constitutes the ideal mix of different social and cultural amenities that provide the right milieu—that is, a social environment or spatial context that supports the creativity and wellbeing of the different social groups that form a city. 
The importance of the right balance between different social and cultural urban elements has been stressed by various authors in the history of social thought. For exam­ple, Wirth (1938) described “urbanity as a way of life” as a balance of various elements that, among others, include density, population size, and heterogeneity. Simmel (2002) described how cities with their extremely rich and diversified impulses influence individual behavior, and Lefebvre (1974, 1996) described the importance of “urban centrality” as a broad spectrum of elements that include numerous personal encounters, contacts, cultural and ethnical heterogeneity, the arts and artistic artefacts, unpredictability, a playground, exchange of diverse impulses, and so on. Although the discussion about what is essential 
DOI: 10.3986/Traditio2017460203 TRADITIONES, 46/1–2, 2017, 149–170 
for the functioning of urban spaces has been developing for a long time, spatial planning during intense intercity competitiveness sometimes overlooks specific urban elements and is intensely influenced by economization. From this perspective, cities try to secure adequate resources for their development, which increases their dependence on the private sector, or public-private partnerships (Haider 1992; Borja and Castells 1997), which in turn influ­ences how urban spaces are organized and what kind of social and cultural elements are inserted into the city. 
In this regard, it is no surprise that, when analyzing the role of social and cultural elements in urban regeneration schemes, most approaches tend to mainly focus on their role in production or consumption in a city. In terms of creative production, culture and social elements are often regarded as important supportive elements that add to the func­tioning of the society and economy. Bianchini (1999) described such use of social and cultural elements in urban policies as the “age of city marketing,” in which culture was increasingly seen as a valuable tool to diversify the local economic base and to compensate for jobs lost in traditional industrial and service sectors (see DCMS 2001; Howkins 2001; Hesmondhalgh 2002). This “consumptionist” approach (Bianchini 1999), in which the selection of social and cultural elements is based on their direct (i.e., short-term) applica­bility in the economization process, may neglect specific elements that in the long term significantly influence the quality of life for specific groups of residents, users, and visi­tors. Changes in the subtle but complicated balance of social and cultural elements that constitute the base for social networks may have major repercussions and in the long term deeply change the city’s economy. 
Taking into consideration the current prevalent forms of rapid and competitive urban regeneration, it is important to reconsider whether urban planning should be based more on the principle of social and cultural sustainability, heterogeneity, and inclusivity (see Lash and Urry 1994; Landry and Bianchini 1995). Should it strive to ensure a high quality of life for only a specific population group, or for the largest possible majority? Should it focus more on “the quality of public spaces as it is perceived by city-supported initiatives and grassroots practices that resist the city’s vision” (Poljak Istenič 2016: 157)? During the course of intense urban redevelopment, it is not always easy to determine which spaces possess crucial social and cultural amenities that in the long term improve the general quality of life and add not only to the creative milieu but represent the basis for developing any creative economy in the city. In this context, some spaces are too quickly perceived as socially and culturally important, whereas others are perceived as obsolete and dispensable. 
The article not only identifies differences in the perception of places that possess different forms of cultural capital but also points to errors or misconceptions that occur in evaluating these spaces. Discovering which places actually add to the heterogeneity of the city and improve its social and cultural potential helps develop a high-quality creative environment for various groups of residents and city users. These differences in perception are analyzed through case studies from Slovenia and Japan.1 Despite the cases being embed­ded in very different cultural environments, the analysis shows that the consequences of global competitive urban polices, based on the commodification of city spaces, can have similar effects on social and cultural resources in very different societies. 
THE IMPORTANCE OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE SOCIOCULTURAL ELEMENTS IN A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM 
The criteria for defining a place of high social and cultural quality are very fluid and cannot be easily defined. In this regard, Olsson (1999) notes that existing methods for measuring the social and cultural values of a specific locality are mostly linked with economic models that anticipate effective short-term benefits. Due to attempts at cultural commodification, the attitude towards different types of tangible and intangible cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986) is still very ambivalent. According to Bourdieu (1986: 248–250) cultural capital may be found in embodied, institutionalized, or objectified states. Objectified cultural capital is found in material things (i.e., artefacts, works of art, or unique physical features of urban and architectural production). These cultural goods in physical form can be translated into economic capital, and today they are a well-established form of commercial entity.2 The other two dimensions of cultural capital, which are more connected to the notion of intan­gible cultural capital, are much more difficult to evaluate and measure. Cultural capital in the “embodied” and “institutionalized state” (Bourdieu 1986: 248–250) is represented in the individual or group, as a form of socialization that shapes personalities and individual lifestyles. Although people can possess objectified cultural capital by owning a house or a painting, they can only (e)valuate a painting (i.e., understand its cultural meaning) if they have the correct type of embodied or institutionalized cultural capital that is acquired through accumulation of experiences, knowledge, and education in specific places. In this sense, intangible cultural capital is strongly linked to one’s habitus, the spatial context that contains specific social networks in which an individual is embedded and that shape his or her character and way of thinking. Lefebvre (1974) uses a similar analogy when emphasizing that the “production of space” in fact includes unique “spatial practices, representations of space, spaces of representation,” and other collective experiences of space that over time produce a new space that eludes the simple definitions of a physical commodity with an aesthetic value. In this relation, authorities and other interest groups often acknowledge the 
1 The author would like to thank the Japan Foundation (JF) and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for support for this research. 
2 Cities with a rich cultural and historical heritage (e.g., Venice and Florence), important museums (e.g., the Louvre or Prado) or art galleries (e.g., the National Gallery in London) have relied on this type of capital for centuries. By using various marketing and promotional strategies, they convert cultural capital into economic capital. 
importance and potential of tangible cultural capital while neglecting the role of equally important intangible cultural capital. To use the iceberg analogy, during redevelopment the focus is too often on the visible (physical) part of cultural capital, while no notice is taken of the volume of hidden social and cultural factors, veiled ideas, and tacit information that are not revealed on the surface. 
By resorting to a reduced evaluation of tangible cultural capital, which is easier to manage, the authorities diminish the complexity of the urban development process through momentary elimination of a number of hidden social and cultural aspects in space. This simplification (i.e., the reduction of a complex sociocultural spatial process to a mere physical dimension) is described by Kos (2002: 25) as a diminishment in “legality, legitimacy, and practicality” in spatial development. Kos (2002: 29) further asserts that in the long term the “evasion of more complex procedures in spatial development” actually increases the cost of spatial intervention and not the opposite. In this regard, spatial planning is too often “trying to master physical space instead of time” (Kos 2002: 29), which is a neglected but essential factor when it comes to planning in urban space filled with symbols, memories, sociocultural networks, and meanings. The evasion of the “time component” in terms of the time-consuming analysis of tacit sociocultural elements that are unrecognizable in the short term or denial of their presence in urban planning often translates into conflicts and undesirable collateral spatial effects. 
The focus on aesthetically pleasing tangible capital as a supplement to the city (i.e., as a cultural phenomenon that attracts visitors, consumers, and investors) may function as a good short-term economization strategy but could diminish the value of space in the long term. Many cities possess large stocks of tangible cultural capital in terms of architecture, historical heritage, historical quarters, streets, or districts with various layers of industrial, medieval, Baroque, art nouveau, and other architectural styles that are legally protected as important tangible cultural capital. However, in the process of preserving these spaces, many other valuable spaces that might possess important intangible cultural and social capital can be replaced with “safer” sterile environments through economic urban regeneration, which rules out unpredictable but locally embedded social practices, rituals, and events. During urban regeneration, socially important buildings and streets can easily lose part of their “intangible” cultural capital (represented by unique services, the local population and their habits, knowledge, and memories of the place) while preserving part of their original tangible cultural capital in the form of special physical features that attract tourists and temporary city users. Even more, cities often try to eliminate aesthetically unpleasing visual features (i.e., tangible cultural elements), which are also part of the spectrum of urban heterogene­ity. Edensor (2000), Sennet (1996), and James (1999) note that city authorities, political groups, and other interest groups often try to form exclusive spatial demarcations, which extract and marginalize specific cultural elements (artefacts, services, and people) that are defined as external, different, and inappropriate. By attempting to control and limit them, the authorities establish boundaries in the city and try to distinguish between “acceptable” and “non-acceptable” sociocultural elements on the basis of dominating cultural standards, usually set by the majority of population. The consequences of this fragmentary evalua­tion are specific processes that try to mediate only “clean, disinfected” urban impulses and experiences for residents and visitors. 
All possible forms of tangible and intangible cultural capital are an important, complex, and not easily measurable part of “soft location factors” (Murphy and Redmont 2008; Pareja et al. 2009; Uršič and Tamano, forthcoming), which play a significant role in attracting young creative individuals to specific urban areas. Soft location factors usually include contextual elements that enhance social aspects in specific environments. These elements may include a number of social and cultural elements that constitute the character of the neighborhood and help direct the lifestyle of creative individuals. As such, they undeniably add to the creative ecosystem of the city, which can be described as an environment that supports or is “focused on creative-based activities” (Rivas 2011: 4). It comprises places where specialized ways of exchanging, interacting, and communicating between people, social capital, and cultural capital occur. Some of these places possess soft location factors that are especially difficult to measure and include cultural groups and places that thrive on their differentiation from the cultural establishment or represent a form of counterculture and opposition to the processes of commodification and the dominating socioeconomic system. Various authors try to evaluate the presence of these non-standardized location factors in the city and use different measures for this purpose. Although strongly criticized by various authors (Clark 2004; Peck 2005; Krätke 2010) due to selective analysis of cul­tural groups, Florida (2005: 41) utilizes a “bohemian index” that uses census occupation data to measure the number of writers, sculptors, painters, dancers, designers, musicians, actors, directors, and other cultural groups in a region. From a very different perspective, Thornton (1997: 203) describes the cultural capital that is not subsidized or appreciated by the majority as a form of “sub-cultural capital,” whereas Clark (2004) uses the analogy of “scenes dynamics” to analyze the role of social and cultural spaces in cities. 
Regardless of different approaches used to analyze non-standardized cultural capital, it is possible to identify a common denominator based on highly valued heterogeneity and diversity in space. As such, my assumption is based on the conceptualization that any successful creative ecosystem relies on long-term heterogeneity and cohabitation, and the coexistence of very different social and cultural elements in the city space. The fol­lowing empirical part of the article addresses urban spatial transformations (i.e., urban development) that supposedly add to urban creativity from a perspective that analyzes how “hospitable” specific places are for elements of heterogeneity and different creative groups. Based on interviews, questionnaires, and official statistics, it analyzes whether the places and urban conditions in selected cities provide optimal circumstances for forming sustainable creative ecosystems. 
METHODOLOGY 
The empirical part is based on an explorative descriptive analysis of case studies from Ljubljana and Tokyo. Although the cases are based in different socio-spatial contexts, both include aspects of on-location creativity that add to the creative ecosystem of the city. The case of Ljubljana is linked with urban creativity through the use of subcultural spaces for artistic purposes (music, performing arts, etc.), whereas the Tokyo case includes urban creativity in the use of a market by groups that are very important in cuisine. As such, the market is a possible highly creative place where new culinary fusions between traditional and new modes of food preparation occur and later affect the entire food industry. 
The case studies were selected to show how, even in very diverse social and cultural contexts (Japan and Slovenia), competitive urban regeneration strategies still produce similar effects. Regardless of cultural differences between the selected cities, the new restructur­ing of space often questionably influences and reshapes the cities’ tangible and intangible spatial resources. 
It is important to emphasize that the intention of this article is not to compare specific characteristics of the two cities, but to analyze the general effects of global urban competitive schemes in the selected cities. As such, the materials used in this study were mainly gathered for illustrative purposes to present issues linked to urban transformation in selected cases and the roles attributed to their tangible and intangible values. In a more comprehensive comparative study, in which particular attention and research resources would be dedicated to analyzing very specific sociocultural characteristics in selected locales, it would be possible to provide more detailed and complete data for studying the particular phenomena. With this explorative study, I mainly wished to emphasize spatial transformations that affect neglected social and cultural spatial elements, as well as to illustrate how such spaces can be used to stimulate creativity in the city and enhance residents’ capabilities. 
This explorative study gathered different types of quantitative and qualitative data and combined them to illustrate spatial developments in the selected case studies. Combining different methodological approaches is similar to the “mixed research methodology approach” (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003) and “grounded theory approach” (see Holt-Jensen 1988; Glaser 1998) when developing the research process. The grounded theory approach concept presupposes the use of multilayer data leading from very specific (micro) data on terrain to the identification of more general (macro) trends and key theories, which may explain the features reflected in the spatial development of the selected cities. More specifically, the methodological apparatus used in this exploratory research varies from (semi-structured) field interviews and structured questionnaires (i.e., standard survey methodology) to (ethnographic) field observations and (statistical) secondary data analysis. The size and sample features of each set of data used are explained in greater detail in specific sections on the selected case studies. 
ANALYSIS OF INTANGIBLE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ELEMENTS EMBEDDED IN THE SPATIAL CONTEXT OF THE CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM 
SUBCULTURAL SPACES IN LJUBLJANA Often not recognized by the majority as an important part of a “common culture” (Featherstone 1991: 129), subcultures are described as groups of people with a set of behaviors, practices, and beliefs that differentiate them from the larger culture they belong to. Although they are not part of mainstream culture and society, many of the most important and innovative developments in art, fashion, design, film, music, architecture, and literature originated in subcultural fields and places such as occupied brownfields, garages, and squat areas. Such is also the case of two largest subcultural art spaces in Ljubljana; namely, Metelkova City3 and the Rog Factory.4 
Both are located in the center of the city, which makes them extremely attractive for potential developers and investors. The strategic location of subcultural art spaces in Ljubljana is both an advantage and a curse because they are a place where unique cultural services can be offered to a large number of people but also a place that might easily be turned into business or residential premises, or a state-owned institution. These locations also play a very important sociocultural role in the city, which is not fully recognized by the authori­ties. Namely, since their formation in the 1990s there have been several attempts to dismantle or function­ally restructure them. 
The pressures to institution­alize or dismantle subcultural art space at Metelkova and the Rog Factory can be recognized in the way the authorities try to develop the area. The areas surrounding of Metelkova have already been transformed by new housing units, various business buildings, tourist facilities, governmental institu-
The building in Metelkova (Photo: M. Uršič, 2005). 
tions, state-funded museums, and 

3 This is a former Yugoslav army barracks and military prison complex in the center of Ljubljana, bounded by Masaryk, Maister, Tabor, and Metelko streets (Masarykova, Maistrova, Tabor, and Metelkova). The area became a squat occupied by various subcultural groups in September 1993. – In the remainder of this text, Metelkova is used instead of Metelkova City to distinguish it from the city of Ljubljana. 
4 The former Rog bicycle factory near the Ljubljanica River in the center of Ljubljana was closed in 1991 due to high logistics expenses and operations were relocated to the outskirts of town. The loca­tion in the center became a squat for subcultural groups in 2006. 
galleries, but the area has acquired the status of a “gentrification fron­tier” (Smith 1996: 189); that is, an area that cannot be directly econo­mized or turned into housing units or business premises and that has the reputation of being a cultural, bohemian, artistic district. Due to this status, a process of silent trans­formation based on slow, gradual sociocultural transformation of subcultural spaces into mainstream culture has begun. The results of this process can be seen in the renovation of specific buildings in the area, opening new museum units, or relocating some museums and state galleries to this location (e.g., the National Museum of Slovenia, the Slovene Ethnographic Museum, and the Modern Art Gallery), as well as the relocation of cultural governmental institutions into the district (e.g., the Ministry of Culture and the Administration for Cultural Heritage Protection) and remodeling buildings into tourist facilities (e.g., Hostel Celica). The processes of de-subculturalization that are attempting to re-functionalize the areas around Metelkova with museums and tourism by exploiting its subcultural capital have succeeded in institutionalizing a large part of the area. The refurbishment of the Rog Factory is in the early stages; however, the plans anticipate a process similar to that at Metelkova. 
The sociocultural importance of the remaining subcultural spaces in Ljubljana is evi­dent when one looks at the information used to analyze the diversity of urban art settings, cultural happenings, and events in the city center from a spatio-temporal perspective. In a study from 2007, the center of Ljubljana was divided into thirteen areas, in which the authors analyzed diversity, the starting time and duration of activities, happenings, and events. In general, the information shows that subcultural (non-subsidized) spaces (abbre­viated ROM in the following figure) that are not considered to be of special importance for the city and not part of the dominant (subsidized) cultural system in fact contribute an important number of happenings and events to the city center. 
The ROM area, which is defined by the triangle of locations between the Rog Factory, Orto Bar, and Metelkova, contributes a considerable number of art and cultural activities and is ranked third on the overall list of the areas analyzed. Areas boasting more cultural activities than the ROM area include only the old, historical city center of Ljubljana and the TR3 area, where some of the main officially subsidized cultural institutions can be found (e.g., the Cankar Center). 


Number of cultural activities, happenings, and events in selected areas of Ljubljana (Hočevar et al. 2007: 76). 
According to those interviewed in the study,5 the ROM area is especially important for activities that include concerts (84% of all activities in the area), dance performances (13%), public talks (2%), and gallery exhibits (1%), whereas other activities are not as frequent. The majority of activities (96%) in the ROM area take place at night (after 7 pm) and represent approximately one-fifth of all nighttime activities in the city center (Hočevar et al. 2007). 
The importance of subcultural (non-subsidized) spaces remains equally important a decade later. Ule (2012) notes that there is a close connection between youth (sub)culture and young people’s leisure time, which inseparably links those groups with the subcultural spaces analyzed in Ljubljana. The area comprises over two hundred culture producers and activists, who offer a unique cultural program. The program reflects the variety of subcul­tures in Slovenian society because it includes a wide range of events, concerts, exhibitions, performing arts, theatre performances, talks, and workshops related to socially marginal­ized groups such as the gay and lesbian movements, anarchistic groups, migrants, YHD (Association for the Theory and Culture of Handicap) members, punk, electronic music associations, and so on. All of these activities are still performed in specific locations within the area, including cafés, concert halls, clubs (e.g., Gromki, Menza pri Koritu, Gala Hala, Channel Zero, Tiffany, Monokel, etc.), galleries (e.g., Alkatraz Gallery and Mizzart Gallery), libraries (e.g., Škratova Čitalnica and KUD Anarhiv), hostels (e.g., Hostel Celica), and a range of self-organized studios, lecture halls, and other ad hoc social spaces. 
The study, carried out in 2007, included 459 semi-structured interviews with residents based on a snowball sample in selected areas of Ljubljana. 
Although the analysis of the structure of nighttime activities in the center of Ljubljana does not provide the exact number of visitors and users of selected areas, it suggests that subcultural spaces are a very important element of the city’s urban way of life and add to the creativity and diversity of activities in the city center. Some of the actors at Metelkova state that: 
The area has to preserve its distinctive features, otherwise, during the time of gentrification, obsessions with urban culture, creative industries, and artistic centers, someone will argue that our production mode is actually equal to the majority, which is why it does not deserve special treatment. [...] – Each build­ing has some artistic value; besides, we also have many urban art projects, where Metelkova invites its native artists, who have created the working conditions to shape their urban space. . . . – This is the production method we have at Metelkova in relation to the production mode outside it. [...] – People come here even if there is no event. Other spaces in the city do things according to the principle of division of tasks, but at Metelkova we are all doing everything, someone can be everything, a cleaning lady, do technical work, or work behind the bar. [...] – It does not matter what you wear and how you look, it is primarily the activity you do, the modes of work and production, and not the presence of the aesthetic issue itself. (Krajčinović 2013) 
In other words, subcultural places play an extremely important role in the sociocul­tural activities available in the city because they complement official (subsidized) cultural institutions and expand the level of heterogeneity within the city. Ljubljana’s non-official (self-sustaining) subcultural spaces are of key importance for specific alternative creative social and cultural groups (e.g., music and the performative arts) and function as the key point in the wider sociocultural network that covers the entire country. These spaces are an important form of support for young painters, writers, poets, musicians, and other creative individuals seeking to present their work to the general public and experts. Subcultural communities in the inner city provide an important, albeit fragile, base of support for young, provocative, and non-established creative individuals. Because of the very progres­sive, non-subsidized, and intellectually challenging programs produced in these spaces, they are often misunderstood and perceived as improper by the general public, the authorities, and nearby residents. 
RELOCATION OF THE TSUKIJI FISH MARKET IN TOKYO Although the Tsukiji Fish Market is symbolically, historically, and socially one of the most important local consumption spaces in the city, the relocation plans of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG; cf. TMG 2013, 2014) have made it one of the important points of the city’s future redevelopment. The Tsukiji Fish Market is located in the Tsukiji 

Tsukiji Fish Market (Photo: M. Uršič, 2009). 
district, just a few blocks from the glittering lights of Ginza, one of Tokyo’s best-known shopping districts. The Tsukiji district is part of Tokyo’s central ward (Chuo-ku), which is undergoing intensive redevelopment processes. The many brownfields in Chuo-ku are being redeveloped into commercial and business areas following the relocation of indus­trial plants. For example, the headquarters of some of Japan’s leading companies, such as Dentsu and Asahi Shimbun, are located nearby. New business and commercial areas are constantly emerging in the area, and together with the protected Hama-rikyu gardens they now virtually encircle the market. 
The Tsukiji Fish Market is the focal point of the food and culinary industry in Tokyo, which influences the whole chain of seafood distribution in Japan and beyond. It func­tions as the main hub linking Japan’s domestic fishing and food industries to international networks. Every day, tons of fresh fish are delivered to Tsukiji by air from all around the globe, to be sold at auction. The Tsukiji Fish Market has an approximately 15% share of all of the seafood that goes through Japan and helps determine the prices of specific sea­food at the global level. The market functions as a cultural institution in the sense that it promotes specific culinary trends and governs what is fashionable in seafood preparation. In this form, it functions as a central node for accumulating human potential in specific areas of culinary culture and the culinary industry. The Tsukiji Fish Market operates as a delicate structure of social relationships, concentrating a great deal of knowledge about the preparation of seafood in Japan. 
The market is a good example of how unique and complex forms of cultural capital can be. All three forms of cultural capital can be found here. The old functionalist architecture, influenced by Bauhaus and the International Style, stands for objectified or materialized cultural capital. The institutionalized and embodied forms of cultural capital are less visible on the surface, but they are in fact the most important part of the market’s cultural herit­age. Theodore Bestor explains that the market and its provisioning roles are “generators of cultural meaning,” where “traders—both small and large scale—regard themselves as stewards of Japan’s culinary heritage, a significant source of cultural capital” (Bestor 1999: 203–209). In this relation, the traders represent a very tightly connected community, a form of “neighborhood association” (Sorensen 2007: 56) with a significant informal net­work and extensive knowledge. The Tsukiji traders and their knowledge about seafood, accumulated over generations, represents embodied cultural capital that is institutionalized to some extent. As Bestor (1999: 209) describes it, 
Tsukiji traders possess cultural capital through their affiliation with an upscale marketplace that lays claim to great historical venerability. At the same time, their cultural positions are reproduced or reinforced daily by their central involvement in disseminating and creating the distinctions among foodstuffs upon which the restaurant trade as well as amateur connoisseurship depend. 
The role of the traders and the importance of their cultural capital are most evident from the market’s auction system, the principal mechanism determining the prices of spe­cific types of fresh seafood. The auction allows traders to display their unique skills and knowledge as well as to confirm their reputation as primary judges of the quality of fresh seafood. Because of its importance for the cultural and economic structure of Japan, it is not surprising that the discussion about possibly relocating the Tsukiji Fish Market raised a number of problematic issues. 
An analysis based on qualitative research (i.e., interviews) with various stakeholders6 identified a number of views regarding the relocation process. The analysis does not cover all possible stakeholders included in the urban transformation process, but focused only on particular groups in order to emphasize the differences in perception of the Tsukiji Fish Market. Analyzing the potential effects of relocating the Tsukiji Fish Market is actually an investigation into the discourse strategies used by the various actors to support their arguments. In this article, the discourse of the TMG officials is contrasted with that of other important city actors involved in the spatial transformation of Tokyo. Each group or actor used a series of different types of discourses to support their arguments or reject their opponents’ opinions. The structure of numerous discourses is complex and cannot be presented in full in this article. Therefore only the most common discourses associated with TMG officials—which could be identified as safety, economic discourse, and profes­sional (functional) discourse—are briefly presented below. 
The interviewees included traders at the Tsukiji Fish Market (intermediate wholesalers), experts on Tokyo’s and Japan’s spatial issues (urban sociologists, planners, and architects), TMG (Tokyo Metropolitan Government) officials involved in spatial issues, adjacent residents (up to 500 meters from the location), residents from other parts of Tokyo (outside Chuo-ku), and representatives of the civil initiative for preserving the Tsukiji Fish Market. Each group interviewed consisted of five or six persons, and altogether thirty-four in-depth interviews were carried out. 
One of the most common rhetorical strategies in safety discourse was the use of terms associating the market with a process of irreversible deteriora­tion. During the interviews, the emphasis was strictly on the pro­cess of the market’s degradation, whereas terms associated with the renovation and regeneration of the Tsukiji Fish Market were more or less absent. The safety discourse was often linked with the professional discourse, focus­ing on functional aspects of deterioration and perceiving relocation as an improvement that would eliminate dysfunctional elements (i.e., “improve the market’s performance”). During the interviews, some TMG officials identified these dysfunctional and “disturbing elements” as “bad hygienic conditions” or inappropriate “security standards in case of fire, earthquakes, or other natural disasters.” 
The use of economic discourse was also strongly present in interviews with TMG officials. The importance of economic arguments and the financial welfare of all of the actors involved were frequently stressed. Superficially, TMG officials agreed that the Tsukiji Fish Market is an important economic entity with a long tradition, but that this would be respected and recreated at the new site in Toyosu. According to them, changing the location of the economic activity will not influence the market’s basic functioning, but on the contrary benefit the traders due to improved working conditions, better technical infrastructure, sanitary standards, tourist facilities, and expanded shopping and storage space. The aspect of tourism recreated at the new facility and location was perceived as the fish market’s great economic potential by this group. The interviews revealed that the members of this group imagine the potential in the form of a standardized mass tourism attraction: “clean, safe, comfortable, and specialized tourist facilities” separated from the actual market, which at present integrates a mix of production, trading, and auction areas. To support their arguments, they often resorted to professional (functional) discourse, trying to convince the other discussants to accept facts based on “professional, expert” knowledge. This rhetorical strategy is based on the presumption that the other discussants will accept expert opinions without questioning them and single out this group as the “people who know the truth.” However, it is not clear who exactly is supposed to be part of the profes­sion (expert team) that demands certain measures. Comparisons between TMG officials and other groups reveal huge discrepancies in the perceptions and orientations on how to continue with the redevelopment of this market (see Table). 

Interviewed groups, actors  Support/ Indifference/ Opposition to relocation  Types of recognized cultural capital by specific group  
a) TMG officials involved in spatial issues  - strong support for relocation  * weak materialized  
b) residents from non-central wards of Tokyo7  - strong support for relocation  * weak materialised * weak institutionalised  
- indifference  
c) experts in the field of spatial  - indifference  * weak materialised * weak institutionalised * weak embodied  
issues in Tokyo and Japan  - opposition  
d) residents in close vicinity (500 m) of the TFM  - opposition  * weak materialised ** strong institutionalised ** strong embodied  
e) traders at the TFM  - opposition  ** strong materialised *** very strong institutionalised *** very strong embodied  
f) civil initiative for the TFM  - opposition  *** very strong materialised *** very strong institutionalised *** very strong embodied  

Table: Groups interviewed and their perceptions in relation to the market’s relocation.8 
One part of the group of Tokyo residents from non-central wards voiced support for relocation based on information gathered from the mass media. To justify their support for relocation, they mainly relied on consumer discourse, emphasizing the reasons that would offer them a comfortable, reliable, clean, and safe shopping experience at the fish market. Another part of the group of Tokyo residents, together with some of the experts on Tokyo’s and Japan’s spatial issues, was much more indifferent towards the market’s relocation. Their members showed a lack of adequate information and, due to their dependence on the avail­ability of mass-mediated news, were indifferent about the market’s relocation. To some members of these two groups, the situation at the Tsukiji Fish Market is ambiguous and confusing. Aware of their ambiguous perception, the members of these groups gave points of approval to both the advocates and opponents of relocation. During the interviews they 
7 In the case of residents from other (non-central wards) of Tokyo, the analysis surprisingly showed that the majority of the interviewed did not show particular emotional attachment (empathy) towards Tsukiji Fish Market. Instead, they viewed the location as an economic category, i.e. as a pure market where specific economic transactions occur, and did not recognize its social and cultural value for a wider society. Possible reasons include strong materialistic perceptions of the market’s function, rare usage of its specific services, and different evaluation of (sub)cultural capital in a society. 
8 The intensity of shading or the number of asterisks suggests the level of affirmative perception of the categories listed: a greater intensity of shading or more asterisks indicates that representatives from a specific interest group are more in favor of the category or proposal. 
therefore relied on lay discourse, frequently stating that they were not competent enough to voice a proper opinion, that they “could not properly judge” the relocation issue. 
The analysis of the interviews showed that some groups did not fully recognize the importance of the Tsukiji Fish Market’s institutionalized and embodied cultural capital. Although the analysis showed a complex network of ideological discourses and reasons why specific groups support or oppose the relocation, only brief examples of discourse from specific groups have been shown as illustrative cases. In this regard, my analysis paid special attention to the group of TMG officials and placed less emphasis on other groups. The advocates of relocation substituted the notion of “market” as a heterogeneous, crea­tive, and socially situated place with the notion of “market” as a limited economic space that is not embedded in the current networks of personal relationships (Granovetter 1985; Bestor 2004; Knorr-Cetina 2006). The advocates of relocation perceived the Tsukiji Fish Market as an instrumental and non-reflexive, non-creative space that can be transferred to another location without losing much of its standardized qualities, or, as one of the TMG officials stated: “In the case of the fish market, the location does not matter.”9 The stance of relocation advocates is contrasted with the opinion of other city actors, who emphasize that the processes of redevelopment might at the same time transform socially and culturally diverse local consumption places into standardized or non-distinctive spaces, deprived of the historical meaning and social character that shaped them in the past. By emphasizing the importance of the market’s economic dimensions and improved functioning at the new location, the advocates of relocation played down the role of the market’s subtle cultural environment, which constantly renews its embodied and institutionalized cultural capital. Similarly, the traders at the Tsukiji Fish Market were not perceived as generators of cul­tural meanings or “cultural intermediaries” (Urry 1995: 90), but as personnel involved in economic transactions. When the traders voiced their objections to this purely commercial categorization, the advocates of relocation often described them as sentimentalist and their attachment to the Tsukiji Fish Market as a form of nostalgia without real substance. 
The redevelopment of the Tsukiji Fish Market is a typical example of a unilateral redevelopment process that in the long run leads to a decrease in heterogeneity and the value of social and local cultural assets, and consequently ends in lost urban attractiveness for specific groups of creative individuals and other users that seek diversity, differen­tial elements, services, and practices. The current redevelopment schemes are based on 
In this regard, the stance of TMG officials regarding location is understandable to a certain extent because the establishment of the Tsukiji Fish Market itself was a result of a relocation from the previ­ous location of the fish market in the Nihonbashi area. In this context, Tokyo has been subjected to numerous redevelopment projects in recent history (e.g., complete redevelopments occurred in the decades after 1868, again after the Great Kanto earthquake in 1923, and finally after extensive air raids in 1945). Regardless of previous historic relocations and numerous redevelopments, it is possible to problematize the planned new relocation of the market from the perspective of its complex socio-spatial embeddedness, cultural distinctiveness, and cultural capital that links the market to its present location. – I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for the data on Tokyo redevelopments. 
standardization of spaces that suit global urban competitiveness and reduce the advantages of the rich cultural heritage that Tokyo has in comparison with other global cities. The most attractive and picturesque scenes in a city are usually found in places with the highest contrast between apparently non-compatible ingredients, which in the case at hand is the clash between traditional market practices and Ginza’s business district functions. Such a concentration of extremes, unique sociocultural characteristics, and diversity is undoubtedly highly problematic and potentially conflictive. Regardless of their potentially conflictive position, such places also represent the differential cultural capital that cities need to dif­ferentiate themselves from other cities. For these reasons, specific spatial transformations undoubtedly have to be in place—not with the intention to exclude, but to integrate and enable the coexistence of various sociocultural elements, groups, institutions, and services that constitute the milieu of the creative ecosystem. 
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON CREATIVE CAPACITIES OF CITES 
The intent of the article was to complement or extend current perspectives on crea­tivity and to reveal some aspects of creative ecosystem in Ljubljana and Tokyo that are invisible at first glance. In this regard, I analyzed combinations of formal and informal aspects of creativity, which can be found in very versatile contexts and between various groups of people outside the prevalent definitions of creative industries that concentrate on creative production (see DCMS 2001). I believe that specific micro and macro aspects of creativity are inseparable and cannot be separated into specific isolated parts without collateral damage for the entire creative ecosystem. The inseparability of the formal and informal dimensions of creativity can also be described as the “creative capacity” of the city (Lazzaretti 2012: 2). From this perspective, the city functions as “an informal, collective open space that can absorb and recombine” (Lazzaretti 2012: 2) sociocultural elements, leading to novelty and renewing. Creative capacity presumes that resilience in creativity includes not only the capacity to absorb shocks and maintain short-term function, but also a second aspect concerning the capacity for renewal, re-organization, and development to be taken into consideration for long-term functioning (Holling 1973). As such, it includes the capability of contextual reflexivity, or active transformation, and response to external pressures, generating opportunities for local development and growth. 
During the analysis of the two case studies, I tried to emphasize the need for better inclusion of “hidden” or less noticeable environmental aspects that might increase contextual reflexivity in the future and add to the creative capacity of both cities. Although the two cases have two very different sociocultural contexts at first glance, they have many common denominators, which puts them in a similar position within the framework of competitive urban policies occurring on a global scale. Both cases have elements that show the presence of specific subcultural elements, which are not recognized or adequately valorized by the established cultural system, both cases occupy very valuable land in central city areas and are thus perceived as highly desirable locations for potential gentrification, and both cases are highly valued by specific groups of users and visitors from abroad. The question of their value in this relation is not based simply on their purpose (e.g., market or art space) but function in relation to general heterogeneity and uniqueness in the city in relation to other cities. Although the function of these spaces was the simple consequence of a spontane­ous process of socio-spatial restructuring that took place on many occasions in history, it is legitimate to ask whether over time these spaces accumulated unique forms of cultural capital that should be preserved in the wake of the homogenization processes that are occurring in the central areas of the cities due to commodification for business or tourism. 
The future development of creativity and general development of a city thus depends not only on formal and top-down planned strategies, but the equally important appropri­ate inclusion of heterogeneity elements that are embedded in the local, informal, hidden context of micro city spaces. The creative capacity of a city is thus constituted not only by creativity produced within the creative sectors but by equally important social and cultural elements that constitute the creative climate embedded in a very local context. Both dimensions of creativity constitute the fundamental for “creative absorptive capacity,” which Lazzaretti defined as 
the ability to transform generic creativity (exploration) into a goal oriented one (exploitation), so as to generate and transfer ideas and innovations. Such a capacity depends on the tacit knowledge accumulated within a creative habitat and on the path dependence from creative actors.” (Lazzaretti 2009: 292) 
This article described both aspects of creativity and emphasized the need to integrate them more intensely to create a better creative climate and improve the creative absorptive capacity of both cities. 
One of the important questions that arose from the case studies analyzed is how to adequately balance the poles of productivity (i.e., the economy) and creativity in such a way that they allow the city and the local community to engage in a sustainable form of development. At the moment, the discussion about city creativity is dominated by two critical approaches, which to a large degree evade the post-implementation analysis of the actual social, cultural, and economic impact of urban transformations. The first approach, which may be described as “productionist” (Hall and Robertson 2001: 19) is typical of much writing stemming from economists, urban planners, and city administrators. It reflects their concerns with the production and capitalization of creativity. The second, “semiotic” (Hall and Robertson 2001: 19) approach, on the other hand, critically evaluates creativity within the ideological realm of the postmodern city embedded in a consumerist society. This approach offers a sophisticated critical theoretical elaboration of the precarious meaning of creativity but, on the other hand, is unable to adequately elaborate the role of creativity in urban space. Neither of the approaches adequately evaluates the long-term impact of creativity on the city. The present conditions of postmodern, globalized environments that today’s cities are embedded in make the task even more difficult. Nevertheless, future approaches to urban regeneration will have to integrate both productivity and the socio­cultural perspective and try to integrate both sides of the coin so that the relation between the cultural, social, and economic value of creativity balances rather than deteriorates. 
CONCLUSIONS 
The analysis of the case studies revealed the fragility and sensitivity of specific types of cultural capital that is not recognized by prevalent and established cultural systems. The case of Ljubljana showed the sensitivity of subcultural capital, whereas the Tokyo case exposed the vulnerability of historical forms of cultural capital. The preservation of (sub) cultural capital in both locations is a difficult task because it is mainly embodied in the knowledge, practices, rituals, and social networks of their communities and thus more dif­ficult to protect in the media and among the public. Furthermore, intangible cultural capital is portable by nature: it can “move” with the individual, providing supporters of urban redevelopment with a useful pretext. Their opponents have the difficult task of defending intangible cultural capital on the basis of the argument that an inseparable link between the built environment and its embodied cultural capital can only exist at the locations described. The unique spatial organization of the places analyzed is the product of both physical and social conditions that accumulated over the years. In their defense, Bachelard (1969) mentions that memories are materially localized and their persistence depends on the actual place where they were formed. The relocation or restructuring of both places would destroy part of the collective memories that accumulated at the locations and may deeply affect the social networks and spatial practices of the communities described. 
To conclude, from this perspective both places are embedded in a much wider and currently hidden tacit environmental context, which would be difficult, if not impos­sible, to recreate at another location and keep the current creative milieu intact. The case studies suggest that during the transformation of an existing creative milieu important qualities may be lost and more attention should be dedicated to methods trying to meas­ure the non-monetary and intangible values of a specific locality. In this respect, a shift in the paradigm of what is presumed to be a socially and culturally worthy space should be implicit. Transformation of unique but nonetheless standardized and locally embed­ded places in accordance with obsolete symbolic hierarchies, or even their use as bridging gentrificators for various political and economic interests, is defined by Berman (1988) as a form of “urbicide,” in which resistance to any transformation of existing urban relations blocks the potentials of developing socially and culturally more inclusive mechanisms of spatial planning for sustainable city creativity. 
REFERENCES 
Bachelard, Gaston. 1969 (1958). The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press. Berman, Marshall. 1988. All That Is Solid Melts into Air. New York: Penguin Books. Bestor, C. Theodore. 1999. Wholesale Sushi—Culture and Commodity in Tokyo’s Tsukiji Market. In: 
Setha M. Low (ed.), Theorizing the City: The New Urban Anthropology Reader. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 201–242. 
Bestor, Theodore C. 2004. Tsukiji: The Fish Market at the Center of the World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 
Bianchini, Franco. 1999. Cultural Planning for Urban Sustainability. In: Louise Nyström (ed.), City and Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability. Kalmar: The Swedish Urban Environment Council, 34–51. 
Borja, Jordi and Manuel Castells. 1997. Local and Global: The Management of Cities in the Information Age. London: Earthscan. 
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. The Forms of Capital. In: John G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 241–258. 
Clark, Terry Nichols. 2004. The City as an Entertainment Machine. Boston: Elsevier. 
DCMS. 2001. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. London: DCMS. http://www.culture.gov.uk/ index.aspx, September 5th, 2017. 
Edensor, Tim. 2000. Moving through the City. In: David Bell and Azzedine Haddour (eds.), City Visions. Harlow: Pearson Education, 121–140. 
Featherstone, Mike. 1991. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage. 
Florida, Richard. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge. 
Glaser, Barney. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussion. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481–510. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228311 
Haider, Donald. 1992. Place Wars: New Realities of the 1990s. Economic Development Quarterly 2 (6): 127–134. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124249200600202 
Hall, Tim and Iain Robertson. 2001. Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, Claims and Critical Debates. Landscape Research 26 (1): 5–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390120024457 
Hesmondhalgh, David. 2002. The Cultural Industries. London: Sage. 
Hočevar, Marjan et al. 2007. Raznovrstnost vsebin: Kulturno, turistično, storitveno in družabno oživljanje središča [Diversity of Contents: Cultural, Tourist, Functional and Social Revitalization of the City Centre]. Ljubljana: Mestna občina Ljubljana and Center za prostorsko sociologijo FDV. 
Holling, Crawford Stanley. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1): 1–23. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 
Holt-Jensen, Arild. 1988. Geography: History and Concepts. 2nd ed. London: Paul Chapman. 
Howkins, John. 2001. The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. London: Penguin Books. 
James, Donald. 1999. Imagining the Modern City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 2006. The Market. Theory, Culture and Society 23 (2–3): 551–558. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276406062702 
Kos, Drago. 2002. Praktična sociologija za načrtovalce in urejevalce prostora [Practical Sociology for Spatial Planners and Managers of Space]. Ljubljana: FDV. 
Krajčinović, Nina. 2013. Zapiranje Metelkove z definicijami ni potrebno [No Need for Limiting Metelkova by Definitions]. Delo, September 7th, 2013. http://www.delo.si/novice/ljubljana/zapiranje-metel­
kove-z-definicijami-ni-potrebno.html, September 15th, 2017. 
Krätke, Stefan. 2010. “Creative Cities” and the Rise of the Dealer Class: A Critique of Richard Florida’s Approach to Urban Theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34 (4): 835–853. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00939 
Landry, Charles and Franco Bianchini. 1995. The Creative City. London: Demos. 
Lash, Scott and John Urry. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage. 
Lazzaretti, Luciana. 2009. The Creative Capacity of Culture and the New Creative Milieu. In: Giacomo Becattini, Marco Bellandi and Lisa De Propris (eds.), The Handbook of Industrial Districts. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 281–294. 
Lazzaretti, Luciana. 2012. The Remarkable Resilience of Florence, City of Art. Regional Studies Association European Conference “Networked Regions and Cities in Times of Fragmentation: Developing Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Places”. Delft: Delft University Technology. http://www.regional­
studies.org/uploads/funding/conferences/presentations/european-conference-2012/presentations/ lazzeretti.pdf, August 15th, 2017. 
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991 (1974). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. 
Lefebvre, Henri. 1996. Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell. 
Murphy, Enda and Declan Redmont. 2008. Location Factors of Creative Knowledge Companies in the Dublin Region: The Managers’ View. Amsterdam: AMIDSt (ACRE Report 6.13). http://acre.socsci.uva. nl/results/documents/wp6.13_Dublin-FINAL.pdf, August 15th, 2017. 
Olsson, Krister. 1999. Cultural Built Heritage as a Strategy. In: Louise Nyström (ed.), City and Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability. Kalmar: The Swedish Urban Environment Council, 430–443. 
Pareja - Eastaway, Montserrat et al. 2009. Approaching the Barcelona Metropolitan Region—The Views of High-Skilled Employees, Managers and Transnational Migrants. Amsterdam: AMIDSt. (ACRE Report 8.2) http://acre.socsci.uva.nl/results/documents/wp8.2barcelona-FINAL.pdf, August 15th, 2017. 
Peck, Jamie. 2005. Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (4): 740–770. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00620 
Perrons, Diane. 2004. Globalization and Social Change: People and Places in Divided World. London: Routledge. 
Poljak Istenič, Saša. 2016. Reviving Public Spaces through Cycling and Gardening: Ljubljana—European Green Capital. Etnološka tribina 39 (46): 157–175. http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.15378/1848-9540.2016.39.06 
Rivas, Miguel. 2011. From Creative Industries to the Creative Place. Refreshing the Local Development Agenda in Small and Medium-Sized Towns. URBACT Creative Clusters Project Report. http://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/import/Projects/Creative_Clusters/documents_media/ from_creative_industries_to_the_creative_place.pdf, August 15th, 2017. 
Sennett, Richard. 1996. Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. 
Short, John Rennie. 2004. Global Metropolitan: Globalizing Cities in a Capitalist World. London: Routledge. 
Simmel, Georg. 2002 (1903). The Metropolis and Mental Life. In: Gary Bridge and Sophie Watson (eds.), The Blackwell City Reader. Oxford and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–19. Available at: http:// blogs.stlawu.edu/saintsinlondon/files/2015/01/Simmel_211.pdf, August 15th, 2017. 
Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London: Routledge. 
Sorensen, André. 2007. Changing Governance of Shared Spaces: Machizukuri as Institutional Innovation. In: André Sorensen and Carolin Funck (eds.), Living Cities in Japan: Citizens’ Movements, Machizukuri and Local Environments. London: Routledge, 56–90. 
Tashakkori, Abbas and Charles Teddlie. 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Taylor, J. Peter. 2004. World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis. London: Routledge. 
Thornton, Sarah. 1997. The Social Logic of Subcultural Capital. In: Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton (eds.), The Subcultures Reader. London: Routledge, 200–209. 
TMG. 2013. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of Urban Development. Tokyo no Kokusaikyosoryoku no isso no kyoka ni muketa Toshisaisei no Suishin [Promoting Urban Regeneration toward Higher International Competitiveness of Tokyo]. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan Government. 
TMG. 2014. Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Tokyo-to Choki Vision [Long-Term Vision of TMG]. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan Government. 
Ule, Mirjana. 2012. Spremenjene podobe mladosti in prehodov v odraslost [Changed Images of Youth and Transitions to Adulthood]. In: Petra Javrh and Manuel Kuran (eds.), Temeljne zmožnosti odraslih [Basic Capabilities of Adults]. Ljubljana: Andragoški center Slovenije, 90–103. 
Urry, John. 1995. Consuming Places. London: Routledge. 
Uršič, Matjaž and Kazushi Tamano. Forthcoming. The Importance of Green Amenities for Small Creative Actors in Tokyo: Comparing Natural and Sociocultural Spatial Attraction Characteristics. Acta Geographica Slovenica. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4710 
Wirth, Louis. 1938 (2000). Urbanism as a Way of Life. In: Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout (eds.), The City Reader. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 115–123. 
KRITIČNA REFLEKSIJA DRUŽBENIH IN KULTURNIH ELEMENTOV, KI SESTAVLJAJO USTVARJALNI EKOSISTEM MESTA. PRIMERA IZ SLOVENIJE IN JAPONSKE 
Sodobna mesta si prizadevajo za ureditev čim privlačnejših krajev s kakovostno kulturno ponudbo, ki vsebuje koristne značilnosti tako za prebivalce kot obiskovalce mest. Privlačnost socialnih in kulturnih urbanih resursov je v tem smislu strateško pomembna za mesta in njihov razvoj. S tega vidika je za mesta vse pomembnejše vedeti, kaj je idealna mešanica različnih družbenih in kulturnih dobrin, ki zagotavljajo ustrezno družbeno okolje ali prostorski kulturni kontekst, ki spodbuja ustvarjalnost in blaginjo čim različnejših družbenih skupin. Čeprav se razprava 
o tem, kaj je bistvenega pomena za delovanje mest, razvija že dolgo časa, je treba poudariti, da prostorsko načrtovanje v obdobju intenzivne medmestne globalne konkurenčnosti zaradi intenzivnih vplivov komodifikacije mestnih prostorov včasih zanemarja specifične družbeno­kulturne urbane elemente. Nekateri prostori v mestu so prehitro dojeti kot družbeno in kulturno pomembni, medtem ko se druge dojema kot zastarele in nepomembne. 
Članek ne razkriva samo razlik v zaznavanju oz. identifikaciji krajev z različnimi oblikami kulturnega kapitala, temveč skuša opozoriti na napake ali, bolje rečeno, napačne predstave, ki se pojavljajo pri ocenjevanju teh prostorov. Z uporabo študij primerov iz Slovenije in Japonske skušamo pokazati, kateri kraji v mestu dejansko predstavljajo dodatek k heterogenosti mesta in nadgrajujejo njegove družbene in kulturne potenciale ter pomagajo razvijati kakovostno in ustvarjalno okolje za različne skupine prebivalcev in uporabnike mesta. Izbrane študije primerov se nanašajo na zelo različni kulturni okolji: s tem smo pokazali, da imajo posledice globalno navzočih konkurenčnih urbanih razvojnih politik, ki temeljijo na komodifikaciji mestnih prostorov, lahko podobne učinke na socialne in kulturne vire v zelo različnih državah. 
Matjaž Uršič, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; matjaz.ursic@fdv.uni-lj.si