In the place-branding literature the “copy-cat” process is
often promoted as a good strategic policy for urban development.
It is argued that every place can create a uniqueness that
can be promoted through branding, thereby differentiating a city
from other cities and creating positive perceptions of it in the
mind of the “place consumer” (Dinnie 2004; 2011; Kavaratzis
& Ashworth 2005; Jansson & Power 2006; Ashworth 2009).
However, it is also argued that copying successful place
branding strategies risks making cities more and more alike,
creating a “serial reproduction of ‘world trade centers’ or of
new cultural and entertainment centers, of waterfront development
… and the like” (Harvey 1989, 10). This in turn, it is
claimed, creates a paradox of many “equally special places, …
when authorities learn from other cities on attracting investors
and tourists” (Ooi 2011, 57–58).
The present article examines flagship buildings in the context
of best-practice policy recommendations for place branding, in
which flagship buildings are promoted as instruments for local
economic development. I argue that theories on place branding
provide a rather one-dimensional conceptual approach to flagship
buildings, focusing too heavily on deterritorialized aspects of
place branding such as brand perceptions and place attractiveness
and thus failing to acknowledge crucial territorial aspects of how
best-practice examples are created and reproduced.
I argue further that there is a dualism in place branding,
encompassing deterritorialized and territorial processes that in
interplay create what are considered best-practice examples.
By introducing the concept of “flagship space,” I aim to
broaden the understanding of the spatial materialization of place
branding when ideas about prestigious architectural projects
turn into successful flagship developments.
A conceptual framework emphasizing both territorial aspects
and geographically mobile processes and networks is used in this
article. The framework draws on ongoing discussions about the
effects of globalization, and uses concepts of deterritorialization
and reterritorialization presented in urban and economic geography
(Brenner 1999; 2004; McNeill & Tewdwr-Jones 2003;
McCann & Ward 2010). Although the various approaches have
somewhat different starting points and are not entirely compatible,
they share a conceptual deterritorial-reterritorial understanding
of cities. It is argued that globalization has created new types of
deterritorialized geographies, “where space is frequently being
imagined as a product of networks and relations, in contrast to an
older topography in which territoriality was dominant” (Amin et al.
2003, 6). From a reterritorialization perspective, these relational and
deterritorialized geographies are acknowledged, but are at the same
time argued to have spatial implications and outcomes, thus creating
counter-processes of reterritorialization (Brenner 1999). It is
suggested that globalization entails a dialectical interplay between
deterritorialization and reterritorialization, where global flows of
capital and information become reterritorialized in relatively fixed
and immobile spatial configurations, such as investments and
infrastructures (McCann & Ward 2010). The present article has a
conceptual approach that is equally sensitive to relational and
territorial geographies and the interplay between them.
The empirical analysis discusses the development of five
flagship hotels. The intention is not to develop a best-practice
model for flagship hotels, but to use the example of the hotels as a
platform for a wider discussion of a reterritorialized understanding
of flagship buildings and place branding (i.e., flagship space).
In the place-branding literature the “copy-cat” process isoften promoted as a good strategic policy for urban development.It is argued that every place can create a uniqueness thatcan be promoted through branding, thereby differentiating a cityfrom other cities and creating positive perceptions of it in themind of the “place consumer” (Dinnie 2004; 2011; Kavaratzis& Ashworth 2005; Jansson & Power 2006; Ashworth 2009).However, it is also argued that copying successful placebranding strategies risks making cities more and more alike,creating a “serial reproduction of ‘world trade centers’ or ofnew cultural and entertainment centers, of waterfront development… and the like” (Harvey 1989, 10). This in turn, it isclaimed, creates a paradox of many “equally special places, …when authorities learn from other cities on attracting investorsand tourists” (Ooi 2011, 57–58).The present article examines flagship buildings in the contextof best-practice policy recommendations for place branding, inwhich flagship buildings are promoted as instruments for localeconomic development. I argue that theories on place brandingprovide a rather one-dimensional conceptual approach to flagshipbuildings, focusing too heavily on deterritorialized aspects ofplace branding such as brand perceptions and place attractivenessand thus failing to acknowledge crucial territorial aspects of howbest-practice examples are created and reproduced.
I argue further that there is a dualism in place branding,
encompassing deterritorialized and territorial processes that in
interplay create what are considered best-practice examples.
By introducing the concept of “flagship space,” I aim to
broaden the understanding of the spatial materialization of place
branding when ideas about prestigious architectural projects
turn into successful flagship developments.
A conceptual framework emphasizing both territorial aspects
and geographically mobile processes and networks is used in this
article. The framework draws on ongoing discussions about the
effects of globalization, and uses concepts of deterritorialization
and reterritorialization presented in urban and economic geography
(Brenner 1999; 2004; McNeill & Tewdwr-Jones 2003;
McCann & Ward 2010). Although the various approaches have
somewhat different starting points and are not entirely compatible,
they share a conceptual deterritorial-reterritorial understanding
of cities. It is argued that globalization has created new types of
deterritorialized geographies, “where space is frequently being
imagined as a product of networks and relations, in contrast to an
older topography in which territoriality was dominant” (Amin et al.
2003, 6). From a reterritorialization perspective, these relational and
deterritorialized geographies are acknowledged, but are at the same
time argued to have spatial implications and outcomes, thus creating
counter-processes of reterritorialization (Brenner 1999). It is
suggested that globalization entails a dialectical interplay between
deterritorialization and reterritorialization, where global flows of
capital and information become reterritorialized in relatively fixed
and immobile spatial configurations, such as investments and
infrastructures (McCann & Ward 2010). The present article has a
conceptual approach that is equally sensitive to relational and
territorial geographies and the interplay between them.
The empirical analysis discusses the development of five
flagship hotels. The intention is not to develop a best-practice
model for flagship hotels, but to use the example of the hotels as a
platform for a wider discussion of a reterritorialized understanding
of flagship buildings and place branding (i.e., flagship space).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..