The paper considers the basic concepts of perceiving the city, first andforemost its polarization against the country or the village and (much later)polarization between the old "solidary" and contemporary anomic cities. Asidefrom this, the paper considers the basic premises and practice of theapplication of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible CulturalHeritage, which are mostly based on safeguarding/protecting premoderncultural elements and - mostly essentialist - group identities, in order tohighlight the possibilities of reworking the conceptual framework for theapplication of the Convention to - heretofore unknown - urban heritages whichoriginated on completely different premises, as well as the issues anddilemmas which can arise from such attempts. The paper considers... therelationship between the Convention and the Modern age, theperception/perceptions of the city, the city as palimpsest, and, ultimatelythe relationship of the Convention with the city and (potential/possible)intangible urban heritage. Attempts to safeguard specific forms of urbanintangible heritage have, heretofore, been faced with a slew of problems,stemming first and foremost from the insistence on "backwardness" asauthenticity (Hafstein 2013, 45), but also the insistence on exoticism: thatwhich is safeguarded is completely different from contemporary westerncivilization, completely in line with the definition of the exotic asaestheticization which makes pain (of contemporary poverty as opposed tocolonial conquest of yore) into spectacle, and into culture (of globalsociety as opposed to the former colonial empire) (Arac and Ritvo 1991, 3).Every city ever was and always is a crossroads of cultures - in space (thosewith exist simultaneously), as well as in time (past and future). Of course,the reading of such complex heritage, which constantly changes meaning evenif it retains the same or similar appearance, is a daunting task, while its"safeguarding", whatever that may entail in the bureaucratic sense, is almostunfeasible. Culture, definitely cannot be copyrighted (Brown 1998), soneither can "tradition" - not even its material remnants - it cannot stayunchanged whatever we may try. But this does not mean that we should notattempt and keep discovering new ways in which heritage can be built into oureveryday lives - safeguarded in spirit, however much the form may vary.