English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Urban cultural policy has long been framed with a limited geographic focus. Policy predominately targets central city areas where arts amenities and creative services visibly concentrate. This focus stems from a restricted definition of cultural activity, which tends to emphasize cultural consumption over production. This excludes a range of “cultural manufacturers,” which produce specialized products and inputs for the wider cultural economy. Although these industries play an integral role in the cultural ecosystem, their locational attributes have been largely overlooked in urban policy and research. Drawing on the case of Melbourne, Australia, we map location patterns of cultural industries and related manufacturing, revealing co-location in the central city and robust cultural manufacturing concentrations on the urban periphery. Our findings present a potential route for urban cultural policy to affect meaningful change in divided central cities, as well as under-served outer areas where most cultural industries and manufacturing workers live.

Placing production in urban cultural policy: The locational patterns of cultural industries and related manufacturing