Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
economy (see N. Smith, 2002); this evolves traditional explanations, which assume it is
either supply-
or
demand-side factors that drive gentrifi cation. Tourism gentrifi cation is
therefore connected to processes of globalisation but also has new institutional connections
(Lees
et al.
, 2008).
Gentrifi cation and tourism
According to Huning and Novy (2006):
empirical evidence[s] suggest[s] that tourists don't only 'push' into neighborhoods
beyond the beaten path but are also increasingly 'pulled' into these areas. On the one
hand, policymakers and other actors concerned with urban development, tourism
marketing and planning have started to recognize the potential of places left over
from tourism, i.e. places normally not inhabited by tourists and therefore lacking
the infrastructure common to tourist areas, as tourist infrastructure has become a
critical asset in the heightened competition among cities to position themselves.
(p. 2)
Huning and Novy's piece represents a departure from previous tourism and regeneration liter-
ature in that it focuses on neighbourhoods not formerly present in tourism circuits. In a similar
vein, Maitland (2007) noted a tendency for visitors to reach outer districts in major cities, with
empirical studies of tourism's increasing presence in London's Islington and Bankside. The
fl ipside of this, as Gladstone and Préau (2008: 138) argue, is that although tourism-led redevel-
opment can increase opportunities for employment, leisure, and culture for urban residents, it
can also have dramatic and unpredictable effects on their lives, often involving the repercus-
sions of renovation and redevelopment that transform working-class neighbourhoods into
middle- or upper-class areas catering to tourists (Fainstein and Gladstone, 1999).
While research to date from urban scholars on gentrifi cation has not extensively consid-
ered the role of tourism therein, there is an emergent interest in tourism and neighbourhood
change and various studies have begun to analyse the two processes in parallel. As Huning
and Novy (2006: 4) maintain, 'given urban studies' rather sceptical stance towards tourism in
low-income neighbourhoods, there is still relatively little research regarding the sector's
possible economic benefi ts for low-income neighbourhoods and their vulnerable population
groups'. Most policy-related outcomes, however, do fl ag up the issue that the synergy between
tourism and gentrifi cation is coming undone as friction between visitors and residents grows
(Terhorst
et al.
, 2003) and that through the commodifi cation of culture and subsequent
revaluation of urban space, sense of place and the needs of neighbourhood residents are often
compromised (Zukin, 2010).
The central theme within studies of tourism and regeneration continues to be the inequitable
nature of the process, particularly the direct and indirect displacement of lower status social
groups and lower order businesses. Neighbourhood-based urban tourism promotes and encour-
ages high spending within luxury and specialty commerce, leisure and retail. Cosmopolitan
urban tourism and the renewal of residential areas have links with lifestyle consumption, shifts
in tourism, elite consumption, gastronomy and fashion tendencies. Tensions continue in terms
of the needs of residents and the requirements of tourists in regenerated city spaces, linking
housing with consumption. In parallel with the lifestyle consumption tendency, there is an
emergent academic interest in so-called 'hipster' post-tourists. Johannes Novy, having researched
Berlin (interviewed in Braun, 2011, online), notes that 'their' presence is most felt 'in areas that
