U.S. Tourism

I find it endlessly interesting that tourism is such a central piece of economic development strategies in cities given the industry’s limited capacity to transform cities. Over the past few decades, big and small cities alike have pursued the same general mix of tourism venues: convention centers, waterfront promenades, festival marketplaces and malls, aquariums, sports stadiums and arenas, nightlife districts and restaurant rows, and, increasingly, gambling casinos. Streetscape beautification, public art, visitors centers, and way finding signage have made central cities more attractive than many of them were even in their early to mid 20th century heyday.

As Hal Rothman pointed out, people will pay for memorable experiences even when they fall away from buying material things. Experiences, not possessions, are the new marker of status. For all the interest people express in getting off the beaten path and seeing something that captures the essence of a place, the majority of tourists are quite content to stick to the main attractions. Thus, although there is pressure to seem unique, cities also rush headlong to copy each other’s tourism infrastructures.

The impact of tourism is different from place to place. We’ve seen that Atlantic City had a bad experience with casino gambling, which failed to bring prosperity beyond the casino walls. Las Vegas, by contrast, banked on its singular reputation (which it has curiously been able to maintain in spite of the proliferation of casinos nationally) and kept crowds coming. Yet the economic collapse of the 2000s brought Vegas’s hothouse tourism growth to a standstill, and only now are there signs of new life. The old Sahara Hotel, which closed down a couple of years ago, is about to get a full-scale facelift and reopen in the hope of a new wave of expansion. New Orleans built a casino a decade ago, prompting concerns of another Atlantic City, but the casino and the city around it have coexisted rather well (probably because New Orleans has so many offerings that a single casino can’t redirect too many people from the city’s offerings). Will a casino boost downtown Cleveland? Let’s just say that it’s much easier for a historian to describe the past than to predict the future.

Elsewhere, tourism has had varied impacts. When Wall Street wealth faltered, New York’s tourist trade kept the city from slipping very much, but this likely had as much to do with the fact that NYC has a well-balanced economy, unlike Las Vegas, whose eggs are in one basket. One thing is certain: cities, states, and even the national government are embracing tourism as a catalyst for economic expansion more than at any time in U.S. history. The campaigns are large, expensive, and ambitious. NYC aims to attract 55 million visitors annually by 2015; Chicago hopes to lure 50 million by 2020; New Orleans is eyeing an increase to 13 million in time for its tercentennial celebration in 2018.

The challenge for cities, it seems to me, is to find ways to turn a larger number of these tourists into new residents. Some cities, including San Antonio, Texas, have campaigns underway to try to entice visitors out of the so-called “tourist bubble” (the zone of concentrated, well-marketed tourist attractions in downtown) and into their neighborhoods. In Las Vegas there have been rumblings of efforts to fund resident-oriented amenities in downtown. Washington, DC, is using scattered public art projects throughout the city to entice visitors to its Cherry Blossom Festival to see more of the nation’s capital than just the attractions around the Mall. Cities must also find ways to make tourism pay off in clear, tangible ways that residents can see close to home. To do so, it seems critical to do more than simply tout cool, hip neighborhoods or public art installations, as compelling as these may be. Building upon a favorable tourist image ultimately depends on having effective public schools, good and affordable housing options, and a range of solid employment opportunities.

For anyone who is interested, I’m also blogging on topics pertaining to American tourism at http://americantourismbook.com. Many of the posts update developments or trends we covered in this course.

The Plain Dealer reports an intent to double Ohio’s tourism budget, still dwarfed by Michigan’s camapign. I did hear visit Michigan messages broadcast in Hawaii!

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/05/ohios_state_tourism_plan_could.html

Intersection and Divide in Monterey

Although a connection between the fishing industry and tourism industry, their intersection has resulted in great divides.  These two industries have coexisted and competed in Monterey for ages raising/creating various social and environmental issues.  Monterey has been a social crossroads of laborers and the elite, and the industries that host them have affected the natural environment.  First settled by the Spanish, Monterey was made home by various immigrants including the Chinese, Japanese, and Italian, all whom gathered there for fishing opportunities.

A peninsula in California, Monterey, provided ample fishing opportunities.  The different cultures had their different ways/styles of how they fished and what species they fished.  They coexisted, yet kept their distances.  The fishing industry grew, and the area became known for its Cannery Row, home to many fish factories to host/produce for consumers.  The fishing industry rose and fell, as did the tourism industry.  The two did not need one another to exist but they caused plenty of friction.

Tension rose especially when the Pacific Improvement Company and various business types saw opportunity for tourist attraction in the pleasant seaside environment of Monterey.  The development of the Hotel Del Monte and all of its grandeur and exoticism was a resort for the elite.  The tourists complained about the fisheries and the odors stemming from them.  The Chinese fisherman/villages were mostly affected by criticism and suppression.  The whites wanted them out.  They viewed them as different class of people, primitive, living in squalor.  Even the women were judged for working equally alongside the men.  The social classism had its ramifications causing segregation and tension.  The Chinese held their own, claim their stake in the area that they made home and supported by their fishing industry.  They also were exploited, filled service positions at the hotel, provided some souvenirs to tourists, and overall provided the hotel with fish.  A real hypocrisy when the white elites complain about the very people who essentially feed their bellies with fresh seafood.

The arrival of the railroads to the area fueled the desire for touring Monterey.  The land/nature itself was a beauty and a getaway for many tourists.  Tourism and fishery’s affected the natural environment.  Waste, sewage, drained into the bay/ocean, causing polluted water with layered sludge.  The elites did not accept the responsibility.  The fishing industry and competition that came with it caused over-fishing.  Some anglers also caught species at the immature stage, which affected procreation.  In addition, in the early 19^th century, whaling was an industry, and we know the ramifications of that.  Fisherman, consumer, tourist, residents, businessmen, transplants, however you look at it, it was people and their industries that changed the natural landscape of Monterey.  For better or for worse.

More social and environmental change occurred later in the 20^th century.  In the 60s, 70s, 80s, people/researchers/historians became more interested in the changes whether social or environmental.  Attention to ecological concerns of the industrialized and abandoned areas a (the once bustling Cannery Row) as well as the natural environs was growing.  Universities, scientists, organizations all were beginning to pay closer attention to the landscape, the damage done, and what needs to be done preventive.  An aquarium was built to in a way bring back species after the fisheries/canneries were long gone (i.e. sardine fishery of WWII).  and to reintroduce the beauty of/to Monterey.  However, anywhere there is tourism, there is change.  It’s the meeting of the natural with the fabricated.  It is the juxtaposition of industries changing the face of an area.  Monterey was once a city settled by a melting pot of cultures all wanting a piece of what they saw as pie, and then overrun by whites, the elite seeking their piece.  The effect was abundant social changes and environmental change.  Where there is a human, there is change.