One of the strategies put forward by the Hong Kong government for post-Covid economic recovery is to turn the city into a global cultural hub, with pledges to support international exchanges and art projects.

The new positioning would have been unthinkable a few decades ago, when Hong Kong was referred to as a “cultural desert”, even though it was a global leader in manufacturing, trade and finance.

But in recent years, Hong Kong has struggled to redefine itself as it faces challenges to its past identities. It lost its place as the world’s third largest – and Asia’s top – financial city to Singapore in 2022, though it still holds on to fourth position.

Hong Kong also fell off the list of the world’s top 10 busiest ports last year. Six of those spots went to mainland ports, with Shanghai at No 1 since 2010, according to shipping data from Alphaliner.

And in a sharp turn from Hong Kong’s heyday as a shopping and dining paradise, public holidays now see residents flock to neighbouring Guangdong province for the variety and cheaper options on offer.

Excessive pessimism, however, is unwarranted, as all cities worldwide face ups and downs. What is more important should be strategies to remake the city.

The notion of “creative cities” began to emerge in the 1970s as many considered ways to reinvent themselves, and theories about this have developed in the decades since.

Academics and government organisations in Hong Kong have also increasingly cited the term in recent years. However, a closer look shows that the city is still working from an old mindset.

It is a positive step for Hong Kong to invest in big art events, sponsor collaborations with museums or institutes from different countries, build art space along the seashore, and to host events like the Art Basel.

However, these strategies focus on top-down investment in events and a handful of facilities like the Palace Museum and M+. These might help to kick-start the process of reinventing the city, but they are not enough.

Creative city is a much broader concept, though the definitions may differ.

One of the top experts on the creative city, Charles Landry, whose consultant firm led a project to transform the Scottish city of Glasgow, characterises creative cities as places where people can use their imagination to make plans, where heritage goes hand in hand with creativity, and where people can easily and freely connect with each other.

A creative city should also be a place with a distinctive identity, one that allows social, art and technological experiments. It should also be a liveable place because public well-being is key to the capacity for creativity.

Some experts also highlight the importance of cultivating an environment that attracts creative talents to the city. These are not only artists, but also social entrepreneurs and technological innovators willing to find new ways to solve problems.

Hong Kong’s multicultural society, free flow of information, and its long tradition as a centre for East meets West are among its strengths. But it also has many weaknesses.

For instance, Hong Kong’s high cost of living has made it difficult for artists to survive and find creative space. There should be more initiatives to help artists, small shops and social enterprises get access to affordable space.

The city also lacks a distinctive identity. While Hong Kong can tap into a bigger economy by further integrating into the Greater Bay Area, each city in the GBA needs to leverage its distinctive identity to succeed. Hence Hong Kong should embrace its unique cultural heritage and identity.

It should also foster a safe environment for artists and entrepreneurs – whether they are from Hong Kong, the mainland or overseas – to express their ideas, because diversity is key to creativity.

One of the arguments among creative city experts is about how much it can tolerate grass roots art.

And, last but not least, is our education system encouraging unique expression – or punishing mavericks?