For a city globally recognized for its creativity, Baguio has been slow to establish the institution that would safeguard and strengthen that creativity. Nearly a decade after receiving the UNESCO Creative City of Crafts and Folk Art designation, the city still relies on the City Tourism Office to run most creative programs, from festivals to artisan markets and cultural coordination. This arrangement worked for a while, but its limitations have become evident. Tourism can support creativity, but it cannot shoulder the full responsibilities of a creative city.
The call to create a dedicated Baguio Creative Office is not a new idea. It was championed early on by no less than National Artist Kidlat Tahimik, who immediately understood what the Creative City designation required. Right after Baguio received the UNESCO title, he wrote a letter to the Mayor urging the city to establish a permanent office that would serve as the implementing arm for creative programs. He stressed that a creative city cannot rely on temporary committees or borrowed manpower. It needs a real institution. His advocacy has been consistent for years, grounded in his deep understanding of culture, community and the fragile ecosystems that sustain artistic life. It is important to honor this early vision and recognize that the proposal traces its roots to one of Baguio’s most respected cultural leaders.
At the same time, it is also important to express gratitude to the City Tourism Office for carrying the creative sector during a period when no dedicated office existed. Despite being mandated primarily to manage tourism, its staff took on tasks far beyond their scope. They coordinated creative festivals, supported artisans, partnered with cultural groups and kept Baguio’s creative identity visible both locally and internationally. They did this with limited resources and under conditions that required extraordinary flexibility. Their dedication deserves sincere praise. They held the line and ensured that the creative community was never forgotten, even when the city had not yet built the structure that such work truly needed.
But good intentions cannot replace proper governance. Tourism offices are structured to promote destinations and manage visitor experiences. They are not equipped to address the deeper needs of the creative sector. Creativity involves livelihood advancement, artisan market regulation, intellectual property concerns, skills development, cultural conservation, fair permitting systems, zoning considerations, and long-term creative-economy growth. These are issues that sit at the intersection of culture, economics, law and planning. They require specialized staff, continuous research and policy consistency. They cannot be permanently attached to an office whose primary mandate is tourism.
UNESCO’s Creative Cities framework emphasizes continuity, data gathering, youth involvement and sustainable creative-industry development. Without a dedicated office, Baguio struggles to meet these expectations. Programs vary year to year. Research is sporadic. Creative mapping is not updated. Policy initiatives restart whenever personnel change. A Baguio Creative Office would solve these gaps by becoming the permanent engine of creative-sector development. It would serve as the implementing arm of the Creative Baguio City Council and ensure that plans are carried out consistently. It would support the Ibagiw Festival, artisan markets and training programs in a more sustainable way. It would coordinate with universities, CHED, TESDA, NCCA and private cultural organizations. It would create institutional memory, a vital element of any long-term creative program.
Some may fear that establishing a Creative Office would diminish the role of the City Tourism Office. In reality, it would strengthen it. By letting the new office take full responsibility for creative programs, the Tourism Office can focus its energy on destination management, strategic promotions and working with the Baguio Tourism Council. The separation of roles creates clarity and efficiency. Tourism becomes more effective. Creativity becomes more protected. Both sectors benefit.
Baguio takes pride in its unique cultural identity, its indigenous heritage, and the artistic traditions that give the city its soul. But cultural identity does not preserve itself. It requires governance that respects the realities of the creative sector. A Creative Office can ensure that public spaces, urban development and tourism practices align with local character. It can help prevent the rise of bland and commercialized spaces that disregard heritage. It can guide growth so that it remains rooted in mountain culture and the local spirit that made Baguio worthy of its UNESCO title.
Creating a Baguio Creative Office is not a radical move. It is responsible and necessary governance. It is a step that many creative cities around the world have already taken. It has been advocated for by artists, cultural leaders and community organizations. And most importantly, it was envisioned early by National Artist Kidlat Tahimik, who saw clearly that without a permanent institution, Baguio’s creative city status would rest on shaky ground. The city has the chance now to fulfill that early vision.
This is not merely a reward for the creative sector. It is an investment in Baguio’s future. It strengthens tourism, protects culture, expands creative livelihoods and fulfills our commitments to UNESCO. If creativity is truly one of Baguio’s pillars, then it deserves a structure of its own and not borrowed space in an office never designed for such a complex mandate.
A city known for creativity must also be known for creative governance. Baguio stands at a moment where vision must finally meet structure. The creative sector has shown its importance. Now the city must build the institution that will allow it to thrive. The world already recognizes Baguio as a Creative City. It is time for City Hall to establish the office that makes this vision real every day of the year.
