The thesis of “creative cities”（Florida，Mellander，& Stolarick，2008；Markusen，2006；Stolarick & Florida，2006），for instance，taking creativity at the centre of the urban networks for entrepreneurship，regeneration，and economic competitiveness，has long been the focus of scholarly and public policy discussions（Cunningham，2012；Florida，2002；Hall & Hubbard，1998；Throsby，2010；UNCTAD，2016）. However，inquiries on the other side of this urbanity-culture relationship，particularly the question of “how does a genuine appreciation of cultural productions and the associated local communities（networks）enable an alternative imagination of urban future？”，are rare and far from being well-understood（Bingham-Hall & Kassa，2017）.

In the Global Report on Culture For Sustainable Urban Future（UNESCO，2016），UNESCO calls for policy-makers，the business community，urban planners，and academics to place heritage and creativity at the centre of a sustainable urban future，particularly the communities of creative entrepreneurs. In a similar vein，The Quito Papers 2016：A Manifesto For Urban Planning in the 21st Century，by UN HABITAT III（Sennett，Burdett，& Sassen，2018；UN-Habitat，2016），calls for an approach to design and make urban space that not only facilitates cultural productions and cultural institutions，but also itself promotes a culture of openness，local improvisation（messy-ness），and public realm. This new agenda，aiming to articulate the reciprocal，more-balanced，two-way relationship between urbanity and culture，marks a paradigm shift of knowledge from the one that of a mixture of neoliberalism，industrial nationalism，and global projection of soft power，to a new one that unlocks the potential of meaningful interaction between traditionality and modernity，harmony and wellbeing，the East and the West.

For more than a decade，China has been promoting the cultural and creative industries as a new engine of growth and urbanisation（Keane，2013；O’Connor & Xin，2006；Xiang & Walker，2014）. The impressive growth of cultural and creative industries has been widely celebrated，albeit with mixed perceptions and judgements. This is in the context of a wider reflection upon the development since 1978（the era of Reform and Opening-up），as well as the historical pitfalls of this period（notably，the environmental disasters，erosion of interpersonal trust and social morality，loss of faith，epidemic corruption）. China nowadays mobilises great efforts and resources to foster a developmental model of sustainability，in which the economy，the environment，and the society can harmoniously work for each other，instead of consuming at the cost of each other. Such transformation cannot be realised without a greater emphasis upon — and a more ambitious expectation of — cultural change and social progress. Cultural and creative entrepreneurship is the pivotal point of such ambitious expectations. The changing demographic，economic，and social patterns of cities urgently require contemporary，new approaches on the planning，provision，and regeneration of urban space，in which the practices of architecture，music and museums，performance arts not only play a part，but more importantly supply new ideas and ideals，new rationale of design and regulatory rules that help reshape the imagination of future sustainable cities（Bingham-Hall & Kassa，2017；Sennett et al.，2018；UN-Habitat，2016；UNESCO，2016）.

The notion of capital has often been narrowly defined on pure economic terms referring to the material means necessary to organize production of valuable goods for market exchange - i.e. land，machines，labour，financial assets，etc. For Pierre Bourdieu，the notion of capital needs to be defined simultaneously as economic and cultural/aesthetic terms. Capital as economic resources means it can be accounted using price signals of markets and made exchangeable with other means of production. In contrast，capital as social/cultural/aesthetic resources must be embedded socially and historically in a society where values emerge out of the common understandings - and aesthetic sensations - of certain aesthetics core，which are not immediately exchangeable but have to be learnt through living experience and education. We suggest any theoretical explanation of creative cities must have good elaborations on the non-economic forms of capital，and how such forms of capital can be appropriated，accumulated，and transformed into economic forms.

In his analysis of the Parisian circles of poetry，painting，and theatre performances of France in the late 19th century，Bourdieu reinvented the notions of “competition”，“advantages”，and “power” in terms of the resources that economic actors manage to accumulate over time in social relations（social），educational and family background（cultural），and the symbolic values of being associated with prestigious institutions（i.e. artistic movements）（Bourdieu，1993）. He used the concept of “field” in order to make sense of the games of a power struggle between actors deploying various strategies of converting social，cultural，and symbolic resources but aiming for the same goals. Competitive advantages，in the field of cultural production，can be gained by converting values between relational，cultural and symbolic resources，and between these non-economic and economic resources. The accumulation of these critical non-economic resources cannot be possible by purely relying on the logic of the homo oeconomicus instead by the social process of studying and acting collectively towards certain abstract ideals of artistic pursuits，“the art-for-art’s sake and pure theory”（Bourdieu，1986）. Bourdieu’s work revealed that economic reasoning and artistic pursuit represent two opposite poles of the purpose rationality which permeates through every aspect of cultural production. This insight into economic-cultural tensions constitutes the theoretical foundation of creative capital.

We take the term “capital” as a concept referring to the potential of cultural entrepreneurs in mobilising the relational，institutional，and cultural “assets” to transform artistic ideas into ventures of either sociocultural transformation or business development，or both. The fundamental premise of “creative capital” is that cultural entrepreneurs，situated in the dense networks of artists，educators and art critics，appraisal agency，collectors，and market-makers，governments，public audience and media etc.，manage to accumulate capital available to them as they become embedded in the space of creative networks. Such non-economic resources（i.e. reputation，trust，aesthetic understandings，and cultural taste and cultural identity）provide the means with which the cultural entrepreneurs justify their social status of being a member of an exclusive club，and can be further strengthened（reproduced）by continuously interacting with other members of society. To handle the complexity in abstract theorizing，we hinge the essential elements of creative capital to three levels of cultural-economy practices：namely，the everyday practice（the micro-level，embeddedness analysis），the institutional arrangements（the meso-level，ecosystem analysis），and the intellectual milieu（the macro-level，historic analysis）.

The relational capital refers to the capability that actors gain by being well-connected in clusters of social ties，to the extent that they can leverage the positions of high centrality，connectivity（transitivity），or “structural holes” as means to achieve desirable ends — the behaviour Fligstein and McAdam referred to as the “strategic agency”（Fligstein & McAdam，2012）. The benefits of relational capital can be materialized by two categories of social mechanisms：interpersonal trust，and cross-sectional synergy. The former is the basic condition for the formation of any social community. Relational capital in the form of interpersonal trust is accumulated and preserved on the basis of everyday life as community members share the same space of social interaction，work，and living struggles. The effects of high relational capital can take the form of embedded “solidarity”，where individual members of a community assume general interpersonal trust with each other and are motivated to collectively protect the community from behaviour of opportunism，malfeasance，or other kinds of anti-social behaviour. Such community structure is characterized by close-knit，cluster of interpersonal relationship，which leads to the rise of sharing culture among its members. It has been argued that the urban conditions of cultural and creative economy in contemporary cities should place great emphasis on the community-buildings efforts between the artists，the business community，and other stakeholders，for example，by designing public spaces consciously promoting the culture of openness and transparency. The development of cultural and creative economy benefits from the urban conditions conducive to the general accumulation of relational capital of society，so that actors who manage to broker across different clans of social networks are capable of facilitating innovation the draw upon the ideas，talents and trust across the range of sectors，disciplines，and other institutional silos（phenomena referred to as the cross-sectional synergy，or the Medici Effect）. Modern cities that place culture at the centre of its future development strive to become the space for complex social networking and for shaping a consensus/identity of artistic and moral ideals，rather than the space for arms-length marketplace，industrial ‘growth poles’，gentrification and social inequality（Harvey，1992，2013）.

The cultural capital refers to the capability of individuals or organizations to interpret and communicate the meanings of aesthetic experience on sophisticated and theoretical level. The definition of cultural capital stresses the tacit capabilities of people，organizations，and communities living in the urban space，which differs from the economists’ understandings（Throsby，2010）and is not about any tangible or intangible asset to directly generate values of any kind. Possessing cultural capital means that the cultural entrepreneurs can a）discover those opportunities of new or refreshed aesthetic perspectives that was invisible to those lacking such cognitive capabilities；b）develop a coherent and convincing account of art theories（article，talk，interview，lecture，etc.）that help others partake in this novel and transcendental experience of aesthetics. Cultural capital can be in the form of natural talent or human knowledge learnable and transferable across time and space and is best（co-）produced and shared in a close-knit community of artists，educators，critics，public audiences that develop a common identity of aesthetic movement. Like tacit knowledge or craftsmanship，the development of cultural capital takes time，patience，and most importantly，the space for everyday practice and interaction with people of the same worldview and sense of belonging. Cultural capital is accumulated when there is a dynamic social process of teaching and researching，networking，relationship-building，and tacit knowledge sharing. None of these social processes is possible without the existence of appropriate spatial conditions that accommodate the social life of actors and institutions in these interactive networks，in particular，the institutions of education and knowledge production. Inquiries on the spatial conditions that make possible such dynamic process of cultural capital accumulation — the conditions of possibility — are not new in the manufacturing and technological innovation sectors（Amin & Robins，1990；Cooke，Gomez Uranga，& Etxebarria，1997；Saxenian，1994）. Recent discussions on “creative cities” also shed lights on the spatiality of cultural entrepreneurship.

Symbolic capital refers to the capabilities of individuals and organizations to create or re-discover new associations between symbols and cultural meanings. In cultural production fields，symbolic significance such as reputation，fashion brands，school of art/thoughts，academies or universities，is often equivalent to social status，and thereby of paramount importance to actors operating in the fields. As we previously argued，the uncertainty in determining artistic values is relatively high，in comparison to other economic sectors. Symbolic capital，can help keep the fields of cultural production economically efficient and accessible to outsiders（not just market speculators，but also public audience with genuine cultural interests）Symbolic capital，typically exemplified by the academic qualifications，are functional instruments to indicate the quality，the trustworthiness，the risks，the considerations of which are essential to business decision-making. On the individual and organization level，the accumulation of symbolic capital can bring benefits to the brand values and positive recognitions from the society，which can be converted into opportunities of economic profits. On the regional level，such benefits can be in the forms of cultural heritage and cultural identity. Critical theorists have long used the concept of “symbolic violence” to discern the injustice in modern society（whether in gender and feminism issue，the religious freedom issue or the Marxist class-struggles），where schemes of cognitive categorisation，dominated and controlled by a certain group or class of social elites，are used to justify the dominance of their social power. It can be equally argued that those social groups of little power，the underdogs，can also strategically deploy symbolic means to shape the cognitive schemes of society，in order to achieve social justice，as much Marxist literature tends to suggest（Harvey，1992，2013）. In summary，symbolic capital is closely associated with the hierarchies of social power and how actors consciously struggle to resist symbolic dominance and create alternative ways of cognitive understandings. The production of symbolic capital means cultural entrepreneurs and artists are fully engaged in the power struggle of their societies and the ability to offer alternative means of interpretation.

Table 6-1 A Research Framework of Creative Capital

Table 6-1 A Research Framework of Creative Capital-续表

The critical point is that a theory of creative capital is about the content and the forms of cultural production activities at the same time. The discussion on the content of artistic productions，such as the cultural/aesthetic meanings，the social values，the economic values etc，have been often separated by the forms of art（literature，film，painting，poetry，design，music etc），which creates a constant dilemma for the theorizing project of art management — either to focus on the cultural meaning（pure theory，the art-for-art’s sake），or on the process of cultural production（the business management side，the industry，the intellectual property and its associated value chains，the ecosystems etc.）. This analysis can only be done by developing a multi-level framework on the activities of cultural productions：the everyday practice，the institutional nexus，and the modernity reflections.

The development of creative city is not just about policies that incentivise cultural entrepreneurship or creating new industrial parks that contribute to the competitiveness of cities. Rather，the thesis of creative city focuses strategically on the quality and wellbeing of city life，which is predominantly about the cultural progress of learning，networking community-building，and social movements，about how the future cities can provide infrastructure that is focused on the content of aesthetic meanings. The theory of creative capital provides an opportunity for urban planners，policy-makers，and practitioners to address the practical challenges of urban regeneration by tapping into the strength of art and aesthetics；alsoto appreciate the historical legacy of the urban culture by bridging the past with the future.

The theoretical framework of creative capital can be regarded as the beginning of continuous research efforts to uncover the significance of creative cities for future cities. Future research should aim to address a number of important questions whose answers remain largely unclear. For example，we still know little about the patterns of social ties in the space of creativity in Chinese cities，and how such patterns of social networks are associated with the institutional structures in the Chinese space of creativity，and the Chinese ways of interpreting modernity. We know little about the corresponding relationships between the patterns and meanings of social ties（social relations），the institutional arrangements（regional systems of creativity？），and the abstract level aesthetic ideals of artistic and cultural productions，or whether such corresponding relationship can change across time and places，in China or other countries. These theoretical curiosities shall the future research agenda of creative capital，and we look forward to generating more insightful understandings on the space of creativity，and ways to contribute to the discourses on contemporary critique of modernity.