10
ABSTRACT The paper examines the growth of a ‘new tourism area’ in Islington, north London — a locality that lacks a large attraction, acknowledged distinctive heritage and has not been planned as a destination. We review supply side changes and link them to the recent literature on economic and spatial trends in cities, particularly the role of amenity. We report on a survey of Islington visitors that shows they are drawn by distinctive qualities of place rather than particular attractions. The visitors have characteristics that distinguish them from visitors to London as a whole, but we speculate that they have similarities to Islington workers and residents in their search for amenity, entertainment and high- level consumption services. In the final section of the paper we explore the consequences of our findings for understanding the growth of urban tourism. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 26 February 2003; Revised 10 June 2004; Accepted 22 June 2004 Keywords: urban tourism; new tourism area; new tourist; amenity and consumption; London. INTRODUCTION O ur interest in this paper is in those areas of cities that attract tourists but which lack large attractions or an acknowl- edged distinctive heritage, and have not been planned as new destinations. We examine an area close to the centre of London where tourism seems to have grown ‘organically’. In a large polycentric city, such as London, the large number of tourists offers the possibility that some visitors may be tempted to leave well-worn paths and ‘discover’ new areas. For the past few years the mayor has been pro- moting dispersal of tourism benefits and cre- ation of new products and destinations outside the central London core. But why have some areas become particularly attractive? One part of the explanation may be sought in recent analyses of urban change that emphasise the spatial impacts of the ‘new economy’ (Hutton, 2004), or new waves of gentrification (Hamnett, 2003) or emergence of new ‘cultural clusters’ (Mommaas, 2004). Over the past 10 or 15 years spaces in central cities and on the fringe of central areas have been transformed through a range of processes. Such changes contribute to making some places distinctive and contrast with the ‘placelessness’ of many planned tourist destinations (Entriken, 1991). News of such change on the supply side, about Hoxton in London or downtown Brooklyn, filters through to visitors looking for a new urban experience. Understanding why some areas develop distinctive qualities and are able to draw visitors away from the core of attrac- tions and hotels has important implications for tourism policy makers. Although the literature Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/jtr.496 Developing Metropolitan Tourism on the Fringe of Central London Robert Maitland 1, * and Peter Newman 2 1 Centre for Tourism, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK 2 School of Architecture and the Built Environment, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK *Correspondence to: R. Maitland, Centre for Tourism, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Uni- versity of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

ABSTRACT

The paper examines the growth of a ‘newtourism area’ in Islington, north London —a locality that lacks a large attraction,acknowledged distinctive heritage and hasnot been planned as a destination. Wereview supply side changes and link themto the recent literature on economic andspatial trends in cities, particularly the roleof amenity. We report on a survey ofIslington visitors that shows they are drawnby distinctive qualities of place rather thanparticular attractions. The visitors havecharacteristics that distinguish them fromvisitors to London as a whole, but wespeculate that they have similarities toIslington workers and residents in theirsearch for amenity, entertainment and high-level consumption services. In the finalsection of the paper we explore theconsequences of our findings forunderstanding the growth of urban tourism.Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 26 February 2003; Revised 10 June 2004; Accepted 22June 2004

Keywords: urban tourism; new tourism area;new tourist; amenity and consumption;London.

INTRODUCTION

Our interest in this paper is in those areasof cities that attract tourists but whichlack large attractions or an acknowl-

edged distinctive heritage, and have not beenplanned as new destinations. We examine anarea close to the centre of London wheretourism seems to have grown ‘organically’. Ina large polycentric city, such as London, thelarge number of tourists offers the possibilitythat some visitors may be tempted to leavewell-worn paths and ‘discover’ new areas. Forthe past few years the mayor has been pro-moting dispersal of tourism benefits and cre-ation of new products and destinations outsidethe central London core. But why have someareas become particularly attractive? One partof the explanation may be sought in recentanalyses of urban change that emphasise thespatial impacts of the ‘new economy’ (Hutton,2004), or new waves of gentrification(Hamnett, 2003) or emergence of new ‘culturalclusters’ (Mommaas, 2004). Over the past 10 or15 years spaces in central cities and on thefringe of central areas have been transformedthrough a range of processes. Such changescontribute to making some places distinctiveand contrast with the ‘placelessness’ of manyplanned tourist destinations (Entriken, 1991).News of such change on the supply side, aboutHoxton in London or downtown Brooklyn,filters through to visitors looking for a newurban experience. Understanding why someareas develop distinctive qualities and are ableto draw visitors away from the core of attrac-tions and hotels has important implications fortourism policy makers. Although the literature

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jtr.496

Developing Metropolitan Tourism on theFringe of Central LondonRobert Maitland1,* and Peter Newman2

1Centre for Tourism, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, University of Westminster, 35Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK2School of Architecture and the Built Environment, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, LondonNW1 5LS, UK

*Correspondence to: R. Maitland, Centre for Tourism,School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Uni-versity of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, LondonNW1 5LS, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Page 2: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

on supply side change has grown in recentyears, less is known about the characteristics ofvisitors to what we term ‘new tourism areas’.We make an initial attempt in this paper toredress this balance by reporting results froma survey of visitors who have ‘discovered’Islington in north London. We examine howthis group differs from other visitors toLondon and we suggest that whereas studiesof urban tourism have drawn attention to con-flicts between visitors and locals, in this casethere are strong complementarities betweenthe urban amenities demands by residents,workers and tourists alike.

The first part of the paper examines thewider literature on urban tourism in which welocate our study. We then examine a number ofsupply side factors contributing to change inIslington. In the third part of the paper weexamine the survey of visitors and identifywhat appear to be their significant characteris-tics. Following this we return to the questionof complementarity between locals and visi-tors and outline how research into newtourism areas might be developed.

HOW NEW TOURISM AREAS COME TOGETHER

In their discussion of the interaction betweentourism and the character of places Gordonand Goodhall (2000) identify a range of factorsaffecting tourism demand — evolving tastes,holiday behaviour patterns — and importantcharacteristics of the tourism industry. Thisrange of factors joins others, ‘the functioningof labour markets, property development and local politics, as well as issues of placeimage . . . ’, to create tourism places. Someplaces, for example, theme parks and cruiseships, may be under the control of a singleprovider but,

More typically, in ‘real’ places the experi-ence is conditioned by a range of servicesindependently provided within a phy-sical, social and cultural environmentshaped (in both intended and unintendedways) by past patterns of development,as well as by the presence of visitorsarriving independently. (Gordon andGoodhall, 2000, p. 291)

Gordon and Goodhall (2000, p. 292) argue thatthese factors ‘all come together’ to definetourism places. We would include, in thealready long lists, intangible factors such asaesthetics, the ‘buzz’ or ‘atmosphere’ of aplace, alongside the more tangible physicalcharacteristics of social and cultural environ-ments. We are interested in this process of the coming together of very different sets of factors. Making tourism places involvescomplex interactions of differing attributes.Indeed it is the way in which such ‘unlike’ ele-ments connect that defines the distinctive‘character’ of a place (Molotch et al., 2000). Weneed to understand how economic, social,physical and intangible elements are ‘lashedup’ (Molotch et al., 2000) to reveal the distinc-tive character of places. In using this termMolotch et al. stress the importance of thesuccess of connections between elementsrather than the overpowering force of any oneelement. An important part of this ‘lash up’ arethe qualities and expectations of visitors. Weneed to know something about the visitors aswell as the physical attributes of places andeconomic and social factors in order to under-stand how new tourism areas come together.

But what are the core elements in the makingof these new tourism areas? We turn here to therecent work on economic and spatial trends incentral cities. Several authors emphasise thecontemporary importance of the individualconsumer, a more affluent urban class, newdistinctions of taste in the consumption ofhousing and culture and concern with qualityof life (see Glaeser, 2000; Florida, 2002; Clark,2003). The success of cities is argued to deriveincreasingly from qualitative assets or ‘non-market transactions’ (crime rates, educationallevels and aesthetics, for example) and ‘ameni-ties’. For Florida (2002) it is amenity thatattracts talented workers to cities and thusunderpins economic growth. Both intangiblequalities of places and more tangible publicgoods — efficient transport, for example —matter for competitiveness but these are alsothe factors that matter to visitors to cities.Amenity and the unique qualities of placeshelp attract discriminating urban tourists. Ele-ments of the character of places — both tangi-ble and intangible amenities — may be valuedby visitors and residents and workers alike.

340 R. Maitland and P. Newman

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)

Page 3: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

One of the most comprehensive attempts tolink understanding of broader changes inurban economies to the visitor economy isClark’s work on the city as an ‘entertainmentmachine’ (Clark and Lloyd, 2000; Clark, 2003).Clark (2003, pp. 497–8) lists several compo-nents of change: the volatility of taste, nichemarkets and a new affluent class, factors suchas increased travel and the Internet that facili-tate contacts, locational decisions that empha-sise taste and quality of life, and the rise ofleisure and concern about the arts. As a resultwe can assume that the demands of residents,workers and visitors may overlap. Accordingto Clark (2003, p. 500)

A residential population of young profes-sionals with more education and fewerchildren creates a social profile gearedtowards recreation and consumption concerns.

And such concerns may be shared by visitors:‘Tourists expect a city to be memorable.They don’t care about the quality of itsschools.’ (Rybczynski, 2003, p. 3)In some places in the contemporary city

there is a clear complementarity between thedemands of urban visitors and of workers andresidents. Urban space, amenity and culturesare valued commodities for residents, workersand visitors alike. This coincidence of interestsis of course not the only way in which urbantourism has an impact on cities. This accountdiffers for example from that of the ‘touristbubble’, where a new sports stadium, conven-tion centre or cultural attraction stands isolatedfrom the surrounding urban fabric. Suchtourism strategies may be the only option forsome cities. For others, the Chicago of Clark’s(2003) entertainment machine for example, therelationships between talent and employment,gentrification and aesthetics, visitors andamenity offer a potentially useful means ofunderstanding how visitors find their way tonew parts of the city. In Manhattan’s MeatPacking District, Bermondsey in London orMénilmontant in Paris we might meet touristswho have ventured away from popular attrac-tions into fast gentrifying neighbourhoodswith the restaurants and other amenitiesdemanded by young professionals. Thesegeneral arguments linking urban change and

urban tourism appear to have some plausibil-ity. The opening up of new tourism areas is not an inevitable process but rather can beexpected to reveal a multiplicity of causalprocesses. To explore more fully how suchprocesses happen on the ground research isneeded into the interactions between the unlikeelements that combine to define the characterof distinctive places. The purpose of the paperis to contribute to this process by focusing onthe demands of visitors to new tourism areas.

This question of complementarity also con-nects to other debates about contemporarytourism. In niche markets in cities muchtourism depends upon the distinctiveness ofplace, but there is increasing concern that dis-tinctiveness is being lost and that destinationsare becoming more and more similar. Thisprocess of homogenisation and the serialreproduction (Law, 2002, p. 188) of standard-ised places can affect both established andmore recently developed destinations. It can beseen as part of a more general process ofchange that results in standardised environ-ments that are ‘placeless’, whereas visitorsmay be increasingly seeking an authentic ornon-homogenised experience when theychoose a destination. They might be expectedto be drawn to destinations that retain distinc-tiveness, that seem to grow organically andrespond to the aesthetic and cultural demandsof residents. Of course the creation of amenityand revalorised aesthetics may conflict withthe tourist’s search for authenticity. In turnsome residents may feel that the neighbour-hood is no longer recognisable. For othersenhanced amenities meet lifestyle demands.Close analysis of how place characteristicsoperate and develop over time will be helpfulto understanding how such issues of taste con-tribute to distinctive places.

Our discussion of new tourism areas alsohas implications for tourism policy. If ‘realplaces’ are made through ‘independent’service providers and ‘independent’ visitorsthen their emergence may be beyond thecontrol of tourism planners. Independent visi-tors select places and ascribe values to neigh-bourhoods, and these ‘external’ processes areoutside the control of local policy makers. Theambition of policy makers to disperse touristsfrom crowded areas may not be easily met. If

Developing Metropolitan Tourism 341

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)

Page 4: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

we understand new tourism areas to be ‘lash-ups’ of many unlike elements then replicationof successful experiences is clearly impossible.Clark (2003, p. 80) argues that the ‘entertain-ment machine’ is ‘structurally uneven’ andFlorida (2002) that the ‘creative class’ favourscities limited to highly educated creativepeople. Only some parts of the city can betransformed in this way. It is possibly onlylarge polycentric cities that offer the potentialfor opening up new tourism areas in suchunplanned ways. What policy makers canfocus on, however, are the complementaritiesbetween tourists and residents and relativelycheap investment in amenity and environ-mental quality. Clearly we need to know moreabout how the elements creating new tourismareas come together and where complemen-tarity between tourists and others may be acreative force.

The next section offers a brief outline of eco-nomic and social change in Islington before wemove on to examining the particular charac-teristics of visitors to the area.

THE NEW TOURISM AREA: SUPPLY SIDEFACTORS AND URBAN CHANGE

The build up of tourism in Islington is not theresult of the building of a large new attractionor sustained marketing. Change has beengradual. Islington was one of the playgroundsof pre-industrial London. This legacy remainsin numerous (small) theatres and pubs. Newcommercial developments have located onPentonville Road, which links King’s Cross tothe Angel. Although the road is architecturallyuninspiring and traffic relentless, student resi-dences have been refurbished and a site thatlay undeveloped for many years now hosts amid-range hotel. Behind the main roads resi-dential areas divide into either high valueprivate Georgian and Victorian Streets or masshousing blocks of the 1960s and 1970s. King’sCross and the Angel have a rich mix of landuses. The area has very good public transportconnections, to central London in particular.

Economic and social change

During the 1980s and 1990s Islington Councilencouraged substantial new office employ-

ment at the Angel. To the south design, newmedia and technology support firms haveclustered in Clerkenwell, both in new build-ings and in conversions of Victorian craftworkshops. Conversion of industrial buildingsinto flats has brought a new younger popula-tion and the rapid growth in numbers ofrestaurants and bars serve the new workersand residents. Such new amenities are, as we have noted, associated with the attractionof talent to cities but also draw visitors from elsewhere in London into a renewednightlife.

The area’s private housing market has beencharacterised by long-term gentrification.According to Butler (2001) the middle classrepresents only 20% of the inner London pop-ulation but its visibility and influence are muchstronger than its physical presence. Recentanalysis of the process of gentrification andregentrification has led to the area of Barns-bury, north of Pentonville Road, being charac-terised as a ‘global place’, a residential areawith its associated centre of consumption. Thenew residents engage little with local civicsociety but rather, ‘people on the whole tend to“eat out” rather than “join in”’ (Butler, 2001, p. 3). They also consume local cultural assetsand the aestheticised townscape thereby accu-mulating social and symbolic capital.

Renewing cultural assets

Substantial new funds for investment in thearts have been available in London and otherEnglish cities through government manage-ment of the proceeds of the National Lotteryand through various urban renewal pro-grammes. Current and recent investment in cultural assets in Islington include the following.

In 1999 the Scala cinema was refurbished asa night-club. Having had a dubious reputationas a specialist cinema the club attracts a par-ticular group of relatively older customersmainly as a weekend venue. The building isnow also used as a venue for fashion shows,exhibitions and after show parties. Privatemoney refurbished the Scala but the projectwas partly supported by public funds for workon the facade and lighting to improve its imageat night.

342 R. Maitland and P. Newman

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)

Page 5: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

The Sadler’s Wells theatre closed for 2 yearsbetween 1996 and 1998 for complete refur-bishment, with a £42m national lottery grant.In addition to the physical work the theatre‘rebranded’ itself with a new logo and adver-tising campaign, including banners on Londonbuses saying ‘to and from Sadler’s Wells’. Thetheatre continues to receive revenue Govern-ment subsidy from the Arts Council.

Almeida Theatre (recognised as one ofLondon’s West End theatres) reopened in 2003 following refurbishment funded in partthrough a £1.5m grant from the Arts Council.During the refurbishment the Almeida movedto the Courtyard Theatre in a former busgarage close to King’s Cross station. Part of thecost of the move was covered with an addi-tional £245 000 grant.

Substantial public spending on the area’shigh cultural assets raised familiar concernsabout subsidising a narrow audience, theburden of long-term revenue subsidy follow-ing large capital investments, and an expectedlimited impact on the local economy. The Min-ister of Culture argued that the grant toSadler’s Wells was not to subsidise ‘Toffs’(Smith, 1998, p. 143), but it is difficult to rec-oncile that hope with the theatre’s view of itselfas London’s ‘premier dance venue’ (FinancialTimes, 2002). What is clear in decisions aboutrenewal of these assets is that investment wasmade with a local rather than a tourist audi-ence in mind.

In addition to this investment in the artsover the past 5 years, numerous new bars andupscale restaurants have joined a bustlingIslington nightlife. There has been substantialprivate investment in the entertainment andevening economy of the area.

Public policy

Tourism development in Islington has notresulted from comprehensive planning byeither public or private sectors, but publicfunding and support have played a key role in renewing attractions. Public investmentimproved the transport infrastructure, withcontinuing work on a new regional railwaystation and, longer term, on the internationalChannel Tunnel Rail Link station at King’sCross/St Pancras. However, transport invest-

ment is seen firstly as essential for London’sbusinesses rather than as a tool for developingtourism.

Tourism-related policy in Islington has abroken history. Unusually for an inner city areaof its kind Islington Council financially sup-ported various visitor related initiatives fromthe early to mid-1980s and for a time employeda team of two staff with specific responsibili-ties in this area. Subsequently tourism policydevelopment took place through a series ofTourism Development Action Plans (TDAPs)for Islington, initiated in 1988. The TDAPswere short-term (3 year) programmes thatwere action oriented with an emphasis onimplementation, and designed to foster linksbetween public and private stakeholders. Oneresult of the TDAPs was the creation in 1991 ofthe agency, Discover Islington, as an indepen-dent not-for-profit organisation whose missionwas to develop tourism to create economicactivity and foster civic pride.

Discover Islington was funded by publicand private sectors, and its governing boardcovered a range of stakeholders, with localpoliticians in a minority. It was always vulner-able to borough politics, however, and to afree-rider problem in getting local businesseson board, in particular specialist shop andrestaurant owners. Cuts in borough councilspending forced the closure of Discover Isling-ton in 2000. Its office is now another specialistrestaurant.

Some of the expertise developed in DiscoverIslington transferred to new partnership agen-cies. The King’s Cross Partnership was fundedby a £37.55m government grant for the1996–2003 period. It has invested in local cul-tural assets and in safety and environmentalimprovements. The agency also providesinformation on local activities both electroni-cally and through promotional leaflets. A seriesof leaflets marking walks through the areaemphasise historical and aesthetic qualities.Such visual strategy making is a well under-stood aspect of the process of reimaginingcities (see Zukin, 1995) in the minds of resi-dents and workers as well as tourists.

Environmental improvements have alsobeen sponsored by the City Fringe Partnership(1998) that links local governments in the Cityof London, Islington and the neighbouring

Developing Metropolitan Tourism 343

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)

Page 6: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

borough of Hackney. The Partnership pro-moted more visits from City employees intoIslington, with an emphasis on the quality ofrestaurants and night life in addition to envi-ronmental projects to civilise pedestrian routesinto the ‘fringe’.

These new partnership bodies are aware oftourism issues but Islington has not been con-sistently branded and marketed as a destina-tion. The recent renewal of cultural assets hasnot been undertaken with the purpose ofattracting tourists. The promotion of the area’shistorical assets and aesthetic quality is tied inwith attempts to attract workers from the Cityas much as boosting tourism.

The cultural and consumer economy servesresidents, workers, other Londoners and visi-tors from further afield. These groups are noteasily distinguished. For example, the growingnumbers of European resident workers(Flavell, 2004) means that polyglot streets ortheatre audiences may not tell us much abouttourism. Indeed, in subsidised cultural attrac-tions differentiating audiences may not beprofitable. Government subsidy comes withqualifications about developing local audi-ences, and there is little incentive therefore toherald or even reveal increasing numbers ofoverseas visitors.

Tourism has increased (Carpenter, 1999).This is an area undergoing change withrenewed assets and investment in entertain-ment economy. The growth of urban tourismmay be partly explained by the lash-up ofsupply side factors but we also need to under-stand the particular characteristics of visitorsto this part of London. Our survey of visitorsaimed to identify those characteristics of visi-tors that might distinguish them from the massof the London tourist market.

THE TOURISTS

Understanding of the development of newareas for tourism in London is made difficultby familiar problems of lack of data at theLondon and particularly the local level (Bulland Church, 2001). There are some data onoverseas visitors to London as a whole derivedfrom the International Passenger Survey (IPS)and on domestic visitors from the UnitedKingdom Tourism Survey. Both are annual

samples with sizes that should be large enoughto allow accurate estimates of tourist numbersto London. Fuller information on overseas vis-itors can be obtained from the Survey of Over-seas Visitors to London (SOVL), which iscarried out annually on behalf of Visit London(formerly the London Tourist Board). TheSOVL provides the most detailed informationon the characteristics, actions and motivationsof London’s overseas visitors. It is based on asample of around 1300 and provides longitu-dinal data. The major data deficiencies are atthe more local level. There is no requirementfor data on visitors to be collected at the levelof the London Borough (let alone smallerareas) so regular series are not available. Whenresearch is undertaken, it may be for advoca-tive rather than investigative purposes. Theoutcome is that visitor surveys tend to be spo-radic and ad hoc, and do not use consistentmethodologies and questions.

A further problem is that it is difficult orimpossible to define with clarity the areas thattourists may visit, especially when one movesaway from the immediate surroundings ofclearly defined attractions such as the Tower ofLondon. We are not aware, for example, of anypublished data on the characteristics of the vis-itors attracted to areas of London that might bedescribed as tourist bubbles. Still less is knownabout the activities of London workers and res-idents in the development of tourism areas —in terms of visits to attractions, bars andrestaurants, and their role in ‘discovering’ andcreating ‘new’ areas. This is despite the factthat there is considerable internal tourism inLondon: Bull and Church (2001) point out thatin 1995, 3.33 million domestic tourist visits(which include an overnight stay) to Londonwere by people whose normal place of resi-dence was in London.

In short, our knowledge of which visitors go to particular localities, why they go there,and what they like is extremely limited. Ourresearch was designed to begin to assemblesome information on visitors and their charac-teristic and perceptions at the local level, inIslington. We chose initially to focus on over-seas visitors because of their perceived impor-tance in London tourism, and because of betterdata availability at the London level. Wewanted to be able to identify the characteristics

344 R. Maitland and P. Newman

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)

Page 7: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

of visitors in Islington and to compare themwith the characteristics of visitors to London asa whole. In order to make this possible, manyquestions were designed to be compatible withthe SOVL, allowing us to read across local andall London characteristics. Although thisinevitably restricts what can be explored in thesurvey, it is necessary in order to determinewhether the characteristics of visitors to thenew tourist area (NTA) we identified differfrom those of visitors to London as a whole.Further, qualitative research will be required toexplore visitor characteristics in more detail.

The Islington research questioned people ata series of locations in the King’s Cross andIslington areas of London in summer 2001.Interviews took place during the workingweek and at weekends, and at different timesof the day and evening. People who perma-nently lived or worked in the area wereexcluded, as were those staying for less than aday or over 3 months. A total of 172 usableresponses from overseas visitors was achieved.The findings discussed below compare char-acteristics of overseas visitors to London as a whole, derived from the 2001 SurveyAmong Overseas Visitors to London (LTBCB,2002), with overseas visitors to King’sCross/Islington.

Socio-demographic characteristics

There is no systematic variation in the visitors’country of origin, with origins of Islington vis-itors similar to those of all London visitors asmeasured by SOVL. The visitors we surveyed,however, were older than all London visitors:45% of Islington visitors were over 45, com-pared with 30% for London. The gender splitin the sample was 50% males and 50% females(London 46% males, 54% females). In oursurvey, 23% were categorised as SEG A/B; 43%C1; 30% C2; and 4% D/E. The SOVL does notinclude SEG data.

Purpose and frequency of visit

There are some notable differences. Whereas65% of London visitors are on a weekend breakor longer holiday, the proportion falls to 48%for Islington. Conversely, the proportion ofVFR (Visiting Friends and Relations) visitors in

London is 15%, but in Islington it is 35%.Islington also has more business and educa-tional visits.

There are differences too in visitors’ experi-ence of London. Whereas 55% of all overseasvisitors to London have been to the city before,83% of Islington visitors are on a repeat visit.Over half (53%) of Islington visitors have madethree or more previous visits (this of courselinks to the higher proportion of older visitors).When asked about visits to the area, 51% of theIslington visitors said they had been therebefore, and 30% were quite frequent visitors,having been there three times or more.

Sources of information encouraging the visit

There was variation in the sources encourag-ing the visit. The most important sources forLondon visitors were the Internet (38%) andtravel agents (22%). When it came to sourcesencouraging the visit to the areas of Islington,however, the most important sources were rec-ommendations by a friend or relative (21%)and guidebooks (19%). The Internet was unim-portant (5%), and most (87%) visitors to Isling-ton would themselves recommend the areas tofamily or friends as good places to visit.

Visitors’ likes and dislikes

What did visitors like about the area? Visitorswere asked what they most liked, and thenasked to rank their responses in order of pri-ority. The responses were analysed to seewhether visitors had come to the area to visita specific attraction — an activity place — orbecause of the qualities of the area as awhole — the leisure setting (Jansen-Verbeke,1986). In Islington 34% of visitors identified theelement they most liked as an aspect of theleisure setting — either physical (e.g. archi-tecture, trees, canals, river) or socio-cultural(e.g. ‘bohemian’, ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘atmosphere’,‘quaint’). If a wider definition of leisure settingis taken to include the range of bars, restau-rants and shops (rather than a specific bar,restaurant or shop), the leisure setting is themain priority for 57% of Islington visitors.

Finally visitors were asked if they wouldreturn to the area, and the responses were veryclear: 60% said they would definitely return to

Developing Metropolitan Tourism 345

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)

Page 8: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

Islington, and 34% said they would possiblyreturn. In other words, only some 6% said theywould not return.

This survey represents an initial attempt toexplore the characteristics of visitors to Isling-ton and how far they differ from those toLondon as a whole. This is a difficult process,as discussed above, but despite this the surveyhas generated some useful findings.

The visitors in our surveys have distinctivequalities. They differ from London visitorsoverall. Compared with all London visitors,they tend to be older, they are considerablymore experienced travellers to London andthey are more likely to be visiting friends orrelations. The link with friends and relativesseems to be important, because it was friend-ship networks and guidebooks that were mostimportant in making the decision to visitIslington — whereas all London visitors werereliant on information from travel profession-als. Some of these characteristics are consistentwith more generally observed changes in typesof tourists (the ‘post-tourists’ or ‘new tourists‘identified by Poon (1993) and Urry (2001)). Ifthese categories of tourists are increasing innumber then it is all the more important tounderstand their interactions with newtourism areas.

Perhaps most important is what visitorsliked about the area (and what, we assume,influences their intention to return). They weredrawn not to major individual attractions, butto the broader qualities of place — the physi-cal environment created by architecture, build-ings, streetscape and physical form, and thesocio-cultural environment they perceived —the atmosphere, cosmopolitan people, a sensethat the place was ‘not touristy’. Places to eat,drink and shop were key elements in what vis-itors liked, but it was not particular ‘destina-tion’ shops or restaurants that drewthem — rather the broader landscape of con-sumption that the area provides.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In cities of the scale of London, with substan-tial cultural assets and rich resident communi-ties, some tourists may be more able todiscover places that offer both unique urbanexperiences and familiar landscapes of con-

sumption. The world city advantages ofLondon offer what appears as a seamlessdevelopment of tourism with the grain of localdevelopment. Change in Islington has not beendramatic but rather a mundane process of gen-trification, consumption, aestheticisation andcultural investment in which both tourists, andresidents and workers have played parts.Tourists contribute to the way the area devel-ops and mark out the cultural and consump-tion qualities of the area.

Visitors to Islington differ from otherLondon tourists. Whereas they may differ fromother visitors to the city we can speculateabout their similarity to residents and workersin the area. The types of ‘high-level consump-tion services’ (Fainstein and Judd, 1999, p. 262)found in Islington serve both a resident middleclass and visitors. Tourists fit into the times ofthe area — the antiques market days, theatreand night life. They share the bars and cafesand high cultural attractions with residentsand workers.

Of course the middle class population ofIslington is a minority. The visibility of middle-class consumption does not hide the extensiveareas of public sector housing, large working-class population and new communities ofrecent immigrants. There are clear physicalboundaries between residential communitiesand between housing and places for play andconsumption. There is no need to stray frommain routes when moving between attractions.Residents, workers and tourists share andnegotiate spaces and maintain distance fromthe working class resident population andother groups, such as the workers in the sexindustry at King’s Cross. Where these commu-nities have met, such as during the relocationof the Almeida Theatre close to the station, theKing’s Cross Partnership has invested inincreased surveillance. The reputation of KingsCross for prostitution, begging and poor envi-ronmental quality has not entirely beenexpunged despite substantial public expendi-tures. These are the qualities of the area leastliked by the visitors we surveyed (and wewould expect residents to agree), but they donot amount to sufficient reason for visitors notto return (94% say they will return). Urban‘grit’ continues to contribute to the distinctivequalities of the area.

346 R. Maitland and P. Newman

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)

Page 9: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

Writers on tourism recognise the importanceof ‘atmosphere’ and the intangible qualities ofplaces (see Jansen-Verbeke, 1996). Althoughreputation and the feel of the place mayenhance the urban experience and distinguishsuccessful places this should not distract usfrom trying to identify the tangible contribu-tions to the attractiveness of an area. The intan-gible needs to be ‘lashed-up’ with those moretangible elements of change. In Islington thesetangible factors include the concentration ofemployment, gentrification, the flexible plan-ning that allowed hotel development and funshopping, the timing of national lottery invest-ments and other public funding of culturalassets, and some safety and environmentalimprovements. These factors create a distinc-tive place that attracts particular types of visitors. Tourism supports culture and consumption and aesthetic appreciation of thetownscape. We can also see renewal of culturalinstitutions, expansion of bars and restaurantsand environmental improvements as productsof local social and economic change. Ratherlike central Amsterdam, tourism in Islingtonhas been ‘built into the architectural and cul-tural fabric’ (Deben et al., 2000, p. 2) and intothe uses of space by residents and workers.

The growth of tourism was not planned andindeed could not be planned. The housingmarket transformed outside public sectorcontrol and it was laissez-faire planning thatallowed the new land uses and new opportu-nities for fun shopping and entertainment.Cultural assets were not renewed with touristsin mind. Some of the environmental improve-ments have responded to growing awarenessof tourism but it is probably important to theimage of the area that it has not been sanitisedin the manner of, say, Times Square, and thatit continues to offer a unique and differentexperience of London. The area has changedbeyond the ‘real London’ promoted someyears ago by Discover Islington, but continuesto offer the cultural and consumption servicesthat our older, independent and perhaps dis-cerning visitors seem to be looking for.

Particular types of tourists are attracted toplaces like Islington. The changing nature oftourism demand offers part of the explanationand the supply side renewal of cultural assetsand expansion of opportunities for consump-

tion are also important factors. To understandthe development of such NTAs we need to seetourism not as a separate but as an integralpart of processes of urban change. The NTAalso expresses the aesthetic values and con-sumption demands of residents and localworkers. We suggest that the potential affinitybetween residents, workers and visitors maybe a central element in explanations of howparts of cities, and in particular large ‘world’cities, are changing. If, as Clark and Lloyd(2000) argue, the city has become an ‘enter-tainment machine’ then, in some distinctiveplaces, it offers entertainment and publicgoods for residents and visitors alike. Visitorsto Islington appreciate distinctive aestheticqualities and a familiar array of consumptiongoods. The development of other NTAs inLondon and elsewhere may depend on howwell they can respond to new urban con-sumers, whether residents or visitors. There isa lesson for public policy in this process of‘organic’ rather than planned growth. New‘exotic’ urban environments may be waiting tobe discovered but they also need to offer arange of opportunities for consumption. Howwell they can do that depends on the demandsexpressed by locals and tourists. Furthermore,this type of urban tourism may help sustainthe contribution of tourism to the economies oflarge cities.

REFERENCES

Bull P, Church A. 2001. Understanding urbantourism: London in the early 1990s. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research 3: 141–150.

Butler T. 2001. Cities Summary: the Middle Class andthe Future of London. www.cwis.livjm.ac. uk/cities/fs.publications.htm

Carpenter H. 1999. Islington: The Economic Impact ofVisitors. Discover Islington: London.

City Fringe Partnership. 1998. Bridging the Gap: SRBChallenge Fund Bid. CFP: London.

Clark TN. (ed.). 2003. The City as an EntertainmentMachine. Elsevier: Oxford.

Clark TN, Lloyd R. 2000. The city as an entertain-ment machine. Paper Presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Sociological Association.12–16 August, Washington DC.

Deben L, Terhorst P, van de Ven J. 2000. Amsterdam’sInner City as a Tourist Center: it’s all in the Mix. Uni-versity of Amsterdam, mimeo.

Developing Metropolitan Tourism 347

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)

Page 10: Developing metropolitan tourism on the fringe of central London

Entriken JN. 1991. The Betweenness of Place: Towardsa Geography of Modernity, Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Fainstein SS, Judd D. 1999. Global forces, localstrategies and urban tourism. In The Tourist City,Judd D, Fainstein SS (eds). Yale University Press:New Haven; 1–20.

Fainstein SS, Judd D. 1999. Cities as places to play.In The Tourist City, Judd D, Fainstein SS (eds). YaleUniversity Press: New Haven; 261–272.

Financial Times. 2002. Bums on seats. Creative Busi-ness Section 19 February: 11.

Flavell A. 2004. Eurostars and Eurocities: freemoving professionals and the promise of Euro-pean integration. European Studies NewsletterXXXIII(3/4): 1–3.

Florida R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. BasicBooks: New York.

Glaeser E, Kolko J, Saiz A. 2000. Consumer City. Dis-cussion Paper 1901, Harvard Institute of EconomicResearch.

Gordon I, Goodall B. 2000. Localities and tourism.Tourism Geographies 2: 290–311.

Hamnett C. 2003. Unequal City. Routledge: London.Hutton T. 2004. The new economy of the inner city.

Cities 21(2): 89–108.

Jansen-Verbeke M. 1986. Inner city tourism:resources, tourists and promoters. Annals ofTourism Research 13: 79–100.

Jansen-Verbeke M. 1996. Cultural tourism in thetwenty-first century. World Leisure and Recreation31: 6–11.

Law C. 2002. Urban Tourism. Continuum: London.LTBCB. 2002. Survey Among Overseas Visitors To

London — Summer 2001. London Tourist Boardand Convention Bureau: London.

Molotch H, Freudenburg W, Paulsen K. 2000.History repeats itself, but how? City character,urban tradition, and the accomplishment ofplace. American Sociological Review 65: 791–823.

Mommaas H. 2004. Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: towards the remapping of urbancultural policy. Urban Studies 41(3): 507–532.

Poon A. 1993. Tourism, Technology and CompetitiveStrategies CAB International: Wallingford.

Rybczynski W. 2003. Why we are all Venetians now.Financial Times 25/26 January(Weekend): I and III.

Smith C. 1998. Creative Britain. Faber and Faber:London.

Urry J. 2001 The Tourist Gaze. Sage: London.Zukin S. 1995. Cultures of Cities. Blackwell: Oxford.

348 R. Maitland and P. Newman

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 339–348 (2004)