Urban Morphology: Gentrification for Better and Worse

Gentrification is the phenomenon when more wealthy people moving into lower-income communities. They often faces opposition, sometimes for the wrong reasons. It is important to consider all benefits and costs when formulating urban development policies.

During  last century, most North American cities experienced urban disinvestment, often called “white flight,” as middle-income households moved to suburbs, leaving concentrated poverty in many urban neighborhoods. it affected population patterns of the continent and created a number of problems, both for impoverished urban communities and for suburbanites living in sprawled, automobile-dependent areas. An increasing number of households now recognize the benefits of urban living, which is attracting more people, businesses, and investment into lower-income urban neighborhoods. While urban redevelopment seems good and desirable, the same phenomena is also called gentrification, which is generally considered undesirable, and some groups actively oppose.

Is urban redevelopment good or bad? On one hand, urban redevelopment can provide significant benefits to the new and existing urban residents. On the other hand, gentrification can impose risks and costs to vulnerable communities. It is important to consider all of these impacts when formulating urban development policies. This column attempts to provide a comprehensive assessment of them.

Gentrification Benefits

Let’s start with benefits. Living in an urban neighborhood improves accessibility and mobility options ; that is, it reduces the distances residents must travel to reach services and activities (education, employment, shopping, recreation, etc.) and tends to offer better walking, cycling, taxi, and public transit services than in suburban, automobile-dependent areas. Urban living reduces the time and money residents must spend on travel, plus the external transport costs motorists impose on others, including traffic and parking congestion, parking subsidies, collision risk, and pollution emissions. In addition, the provision of public infrastructure and services (utilities, roads, emergency response, schools, etc.) tends to be more efficient  in compact urban areas, allowing them to be cheaper and better. Because urban neighborhoods are generally very walkable, residents tend to be fitter and healthier ( not necessarily in Asian Cities).

Urban redevelopment can improve residents’ economic opportunity by increasing local employment options and reducing poverty concentration. It can be noted here that urban poverty is different from rural poverty. Urban neighborhoods have much better job access than suburbs. Urban redevelopment increases neighborhood business activity, which increases local economic development and employment. This can increase the number and variety of businesses in a neighborhood, for example, supporting a grocery or hardware store, that benefits existing residents. This is particularly beneficial to lower-income residents who rely on walking, cycling, and public transit, and so depend on neighborhood services.

Gentrification Costs

There are potential risks and costs to existing lower-income and minority residents that can result if more affluent households move into their neighborhood.

The most obvious risk is that increased demand by wealthier households can drive up housing prices.

If the number of lower-income consumers declines while rents increase, neighborhoods might lose businesses that sell lower-priced goods, such as cheap cafés and used clothing stores. However, this may be offset if increased demand (more total customers) makes local businesses more successful overall.

Opposition to gentrification can also reflect fear of community change. Many urban neighborhoods have distinct cultural identities and strong connections among local friends, businesses, and institutions. Lower-income residents might fear disrespect from more affluent and educated neighbors. Fear of cultural change can be reduced if communities maintain a strong identity, for example, by establishing a neighborhood name and deciding how public facilities are designed and community institutions are managed.

If we take the case of Asia, In Delhi, India gentrification is evident in some old areas. It can be read here in detail.

Source(s) and Link(s):

Planetizen

Ethnoburbs

Advertisements
Posted in earth, urban morphology | Leave a comment

List of renamed Indian cities and states

Many traditional place names were changed in India during British rule, as well as a limited number during earlier Muslim conquests. Ever since the British left India in 1947, many cities, streets, places, and buildings throughout India were changed back to their original names. Certain traditional names that have not been changed, however, continue to be popular.

States or Province

East Punjab to Punjab (change effective from 26 January 1950; state later trifurcated into modern-day Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966; Chandigarhbecomes a Union Territory and the shared capital city of Punjab and Haryana)
United Provinces to Uttar Pradesh (change effective from 26 January 1950)
Madras Presidency’s Telugu region (known as Andhra at the time or Trilingadesa or Andhra in old times) and Hyderabad state’s Telugu region (known as Naizam at the time) were combined and formed as Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Andhra Pradesh was divided in 2014 and Naizam formed as Telangana state and Andhra (with the exception of most of Bhadrachalam Constituency, Munagala enclave, etc which were part of original Andhra of Madras Presidency) is referred to as Andhra Pradesh or Navya Andhra Pradesh.
Travancore-Cochin to Kerala (change effective from 1 November 1956)
Madhya Bharat to Madhya Pradesh (change effective from 1 November 1959)
Madras State to Tamil Nadu (change effective from 14 January 1969)
Mysore to Karnataka (change effective from 1 November 1973)
Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand (change effective from 1 January 2007)
Orissa to Odisha (official as of November 2011)
Change not yet effective
West Bengal to Bangla (approved by West Bengal state legislature during September 2017 after Centre’s refusal to comply with State’s proposal of 3 different names in 3 different languages).
Union territories
Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands to Lakshadweep (change effective from 1 November 1973)
Pondicherry to Puducherry (change effective from 1 October 2006)

Andhra Pradesh
Former names of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh at various times (Pre-Mauryan, Maurayan, Satavahana, Andhra Ikshvaku, Vishnukundina, Eastern Chalukya, Kakateeya, Reddy, etc rule) during the course of history. Andhra was mentioned as An-to-lo by Yuan Chang.

Andhra or Trilingadesa
Amarapura (during Vishnukundin times) to Amaravati
Bhavapuri to Bhaava-pattanato Bhavapatta or Bhavapattu[8] to Bapatla, known for Bhavanarayanaswami Temple (Guntur district)
Birudankaravolu or Birudankitavolu or Birudankinavolu or Birudankitapuram or Birudankinapuram to Bighole or Biccavole to Biccavolu (East Godavari district)
Dasanapura or Darsi
Devapura or Devada (Vijayanagaram district)
Dhamnakada to Dhamnakata to Dhamnakataka to Dhyanakaraor Dhaanyakapura or Dhaanyakataka (Mauryan and Satavahana times) or Dhaanyakatakamu to Dhanakataka to Dharanikota (Guntur district)
Dhandapura or Dhandaprolu or Tsandavolu  to Chandavolu to Chandolu (Guntur district)
Dhakshatapovanaor Dhakshavatikaor Dhaksharamamu to Draksharamam (East Godavari district)
Dugdhapavanapuramu or Upamanyupuramu or Kshirapuramu or Kshiraramamu or Palakota (Palathota) or Palakolanu to Palakollu (West Godavari district)
Durvasapuram to Duvva (West Godavari district)
Ekasilanagaramu or Vontimitta to Ontimitta, known for (Potana wrote Andhra Mahabhagavatam at Ontimitta Ramalayam) (Kadapa district)
Gadapa to Kadapa to Kurpah to Cuddapah (by British) to Kadapa
Garthapuri or Guntur (Guntur district)
Gonkavaram to Gokavaram, East Godavari district. Named after Gonka I, the ruler of Velanati Choda Dynasty.
Govatika to Govada
Gurajala to Gurazala (Guntur district)
Helapuri (Eastern Chalukya times) or Eluru[17] to Ellore by British to Eluru (change effective 1949)
Juvikallu to Julakallu to Zulakallu (Guntur district)
Madhavipattana or Gurindalastha to Gurijala or Gurajala to Gurazala (during British era)
Kakinandiwada to Cocanada (by British) to Kakinada
Kalidindi to Madhurantakacholanalluru (Telugu Choda times) to Kalidindi (Krishna District)
Kanakagiri to Kanigiri (now in Prakasam DIstrict, previously in Nellore District)
Kandanavrolu to Kandenavolu to Kurnool
Kandarapura or Kanteru (Guntur District)
Kantakasela or Kantikossula or Ghantasala
Karmmarashtra (during Pallava period) for Ongole town and surroundings watered by Gundlakamma river.
Kharapuri to Karyampudi (venue of the battle of Palnadu) to Karampudi or Karempudi or Caurampoody (by Europeans) to Karampudi
Kharamandalamu or Karimanal or Cholamandalam or Choramandalam to Choramandala (by the Portuguese) to Choromandel (by the Dutch) to Coromandal (by the British)
Kondapalli to Mustafanagar  (during Qutub Shahi and early Asaf Jahi times) to Kondapalli
Kondaveedu or Gopinathapuram to Murtazanagar (during Qutub Shahi and early Asaf Jahi times) to Kondaveedu
Krövachuru to Krosuru (Guntur district)
Kundinapuram (near Kondaveedu) to Ameenabad (Guntur district)
Mahadevicherla (cheruvu) or Mahadevitataka to Madevicherla to Macherla (Guntur district)
Mahendragiri or Pistapura or Pittapore to Pithapuram (East Godavari district)
Matsyapuri (Mauryan and Satavahana times) or Masolia (as known by Greek and Roman historians) or Chepalarevu (locally) or Machilipatnam or Masulipatam (by British, Dutch) or Bandar (by Qutub Shahis and Asaf Jahis) to Bandaru or Machilipatnam
Nelliooru or Nellipuram or Dhaanyapuram or Vikrama Simhapuri to Nelluru to Nellore by British
Neminadhunuru to Nedunuru (Amalapuram Taluk West Godavri District): It is an ancient Jain town. Named for Neminadha or Neminatha, the 22nd Teerthankara.
Niravadyapuramu or Niravadyaprolu (during Eastern Chalukya times) to Nidadavole to Nidadavolu
Nrusimhapuri to Narasimhapuramu to Narasapur to Narasapuramu West Godavari District
Ongole district to Prakasam district
Pallavanadu or Palanadu or Pallenadu to Palnadu (Guntur district)
Peddapalli to Petapoly by the Dutch settlers to Pettipolee or Pettipoly by British or Nizampatnam (during Asaf Jahi era) (Guntur district)
Puruhutikanagaram, Puruhutikapuram, Puruhutikapatnam, Peethikapuramu or Pistapura to Pithapuram(East Godavari district)
Penuganchiprolu or Pennegentspoel (by Europeans) (Krishna district)
Prathipalapura (Pre-Mauryan era) to Bhattiprolu (Krishna district)
Prolavaram to Polavaram, Krishna district
Prudhvipuram or Prudhilapuram or Podili
Rajamahendravaramu or Rajamahendri to Rajahmundry to Rajamahendravaramu
Rajavolu to Razole (by British) or Rajolu
Samarlakota to Samalkota (East Godavari district)
Skandapuri or Kandukuru (Prakasam district)
Srikakulamu to Chicacole or Sikkolu to Srikakulam
Sriparvata (Maurayan and Satavahana times) or Vijayapuri to Nagarujunikonda or Nagarjunakonda(Guntur District)
Tarakapuri or Tanuku (West Godavari district)
Kandarapura or Skandapura or Tambrapasthana or Tambrapa or Tambrapura or Tamrapuram or Chembrolu (capital of Ganapathideva Gaja Sahiniraya) to Chebrolu (Guntur District)
Vangalaprolu or Vangavolu to Vangolu to Ongolu to Ongole by British (Prakasam District)
Vardhamanapuramu to Vardhamanu to Vaddamanu (Guntur district)
Veligandla or Maarganaarayanapuramu  to Veligandla (now in Prakasam District, previously in Nellore District)
Vengipuram or Pedavegi (West Godavari district)
Vidarbhapuri or Gudiwada (Krishna district)
Vijayavatika (Mahabharata times) to Rajendracholapuram (Telugu Choda times) to Bejjamwada to Bezawada by British to Vijayawada
Vishnukundinapuramu (Vishnukundina times) to Vinukonda (Guntur district)
Waltair to Vizagapatam to Visakhapatnam

Assam
Nowgong to Nagaon
Gauhati to Guwahati (change effective 1983)
Sibsagar to Sivasagar

Gujarat
Viravati to Chandravati, Chandravati to Vadpatra, Vadpatra to Baroda, Baroda to Vadodara (change effective 1974)
Broach to Bharuch
Cambay to Khambhat
Bulsar to Valsad
Suryapur to Surat
Bhavena (Gohilwad) to Bhavnagar

Haryana
Gurgaon to Gurugram
Himachal Pradesh
Simla to Shimla
Mandav Nagar to Mandi

Goa
Panjim to Panaji
Sanquelim to Sankhali
Rivona to Revana

Karnataka
Bangalore to Bengaluru, the settlement was originally called Bendakalooru.
Mangalore to Mangaluru, the settlement was originally called Mangalooru.
Mysore to Mysuru, the settlement was originally called Mahishasooru.
Hubli to Hubballi, the settlement was originally called Hoobhalli
Tumkur to Tumakuru
Shimoga to Shivamogga, the settlement was originally called Shivana Mogga.
Belgaum to Belagavi
Bellary to Ballari
Gulbarga to Kalaburgi
Marcera to Madikeri, the settlement was originally called Madanayakana Keri.
Bijapur to Vijapura
Hospet to Hosapete
Chikmagalur to Chikkamagaluru.
Kerala
Trivandrum to Thiruvananthapuram (change effective from 1991)
Cochin to Kochi (change effective from 1996)
Calicut to Kozhikode
Quilon to Kollam
Trichur to Thrissur
Cannanore to Kannur
Palghat to Palakkad
Alleppey to Alappuzha (change effective from 1990)
Changanacherry to Changanassery
Alwaye to Aluva
Parur to North Paravur
Cranganore to Kodungallur
Badagara to Vatakara
Tellicherry to Thalassery
Quilandy to Koyilandy
Palai to Pala
Sultan’s Battery to Sultan Bathery
Verapoly to Varapuzha
Cherpalchery to Cherpulassery
Koney to Konni
Sherthalai to Cherthala
Madhya Pradesh
Ahilyanagari/Indur to Indore
Avantika to Ujjain
Bhelsa to Vidisha
Rassen to Raisen
Saugor to Sagar
Jubbulpore to Jabalpur
Bhopal Bairagarh to Sant Hirda Ram Nagar, Bhopal
Bellasgate to Bheraghat
Ojjain to Ujjaini
Mandu to Mandavgarh
Viratnagari to Shahdol
Mhow to Dr Ambedkar Nagar
Maharashtra
Bombay to Mumbai (renamed in 1995)
Nasik to Nashik
Khadki to Aurangabad
Poona to Pune
Thana to Thane
Bhir to Beed
Ratnapur to Latur (Lattaluru)
Mominabad to Ambajogai
Ambanagari to Amravati
Mizoram
Saiha to Siaha
Puducherry
Pondicherry to Puducherry (change effective from 1 October 2006)
Yanaon to Yanam (change effective from merger with Indian Union)

Punjab
Jullunder to Jalandhar
Ropar to Rupnagar
Mohali to SAS Nagar
Nawan Shahar to Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar

Rajasthan
Ajaymeru to Ajmer
Dhedhi Dhani to Mansanagar (District Sikar). (change effective from 27 April 2011)

Tamil Nadu
Tinnevelly to Tirunelveli
Tranquebar to Tharangambadi
Trichinopoly to Tiruchirapalli (change effective 1971)
Trinomalee to Tiruvannamalai
Madras to Chennai (change effective August 1996)
Tanjore to Thanjavur
Karuvur to Karur
Tuticorin to Thoothukudi
Cape Comorin to Kanyakumari
Ootacamund to Udagamandalam
Conjeevaram to Kanchipuram
Virudupatti to Virudhunagar
Porto Novo to Parangipettai
Mayavaram to Mayiladuthurai

Uttar Pradesh
Allygurh to Aligarh
Cawnpore to Kanpur (change effective 1948)
Banaras to Varanasi (change effective 1956)
Kanpur Dehat to Ramabai Nagar district (change effective 2010) and back to Kanpur Dehat (change effective 2012)
Prayag to Allahabad
Muzaffarnagar to Lakshminagar (change effective 1986) and back to Muzaffarnagar

West Bengal
Calcutta to Kolkata (change effective from 1 January 2001)
Burdwan to Bardhaman
Chinsurah to Chuchura

Telangana
Adlapur to Adilabad
Hyderabad to Bhagnagar or Hyderabad to Bhagyanagaram or Hyderabad
Elagandla to Karimnagar
Indur to Nizamabad
Siddapur or Metukuseema or Gulshanabad to Medak
Rukmampet or Palamoor to Mahabubnagar
Orugallu to Warangal to Ekasilanagaram (not to be confused with old Ekasilanagaram of Vontimitta) or Warangal
Bhuvanagiri to Bhongir
Kambhammettu to Khammam

Source(s):

Wikipedia

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The future of social media feels a lot like the past

If you were a Western child born in the 1980s or early 1990s, you probably ran home after school to chat with your friends (who you literally were just talking to in person) on AOL Instant Messenger, or MSN Messenger, depending on your locale. Both were great at letting users know when their friends were…

via The future of social media feels a lot like the past — Quartz

Posted in earth | Leave a comment

Evolution of Tourism: From Antiquity to Modernism

Globalised tourism’s socio-economic place within the framework of the leisure and holidaying opportunities on offer today has attracted much attention. 

Tourism as a Globalised System

Tourism is seen as a global phenomenon with an almost incomprehensibly massive infrastructure.It influences society, politics, culture and, above all, the economy. This is the branch of the global economy with the most vigorous growth: the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) estimates that in 2007 it encompassed 904 million tourists who spent 855 billion US dollars. There exists a complex, interwoven world-wide structure dedicated to satisfying the specific touristic needs of mobile individuals, groups and masses. Since its inception, tourism has polarised: it reveals numerous views ranging from the total approval of its potential for enriching self-realisation combined with recreation to critical rejection due to the belief that it causes harm through the systematic dumbing down of entertainment and avoidable environmental destruction.

Beginning in the early 1920s, an early theory of Fremdenverkehr – a now obsolete term for tourism – emerged in the German-speaking world that dealt mainly with business and economic problems; since the 1960s, it has been replaced by the ever-expanding field of tourism studies.  Today, tourism studies means the multi-disciplinary bundle of academic approaches in the sense of an undisguised “transdiscipline”, which can find different applications. However, tourism studies does not exist as an integrated field of study. Instead, there are countless empirical accounts, case studies, approaches, theories and perspectives in individual disciplines, including economy, geography, psychology, architecture, ecology, sociology, political science and medicine.

 Early Forms of Travel and Types of Journey

Recreational and educational travel already existed in the classical world and, even earlier, in Egypt under the pharaohs. In the latter, there is evidence of journeys emanating from a luxury lifestyle and the search for amusement, experience and relaxation. The privileged groups of the population cultivated the first journeys for pleasure. Their writings tell us that they visited famous monuments and relics of ancient Egyptian culture, including, for example, the step pyramid of Sakkara, the Sphinx and the great pyramids of Gizeh – buildings that had been constructed a good thousand years earlier.The Greeks had similar traditions. They travelled to Delphi in order to question the Oracle, participated in the Pythian Games (musical and sporting competitions) or the early Olympic Games. Herodot (485–424 B.C.) , the well-travelled writer with an interest in both history and ethnology who visited Egypt, North Africa, the Black Sea, Mesopotamia and Italy, pioneered a new type of research trip.

Classical Rome also gave impetus to travelling and particular forms of holiday. Holiday travel became increasingly important due to the development of infrastructure. Around 300 A.D., there existed a road network with 90,000 kilometres of major thoroughfares and 200,000 kilometres of smaller rural roads. Road development gave an impetus to tourism. These facilitated not only the transport of soldiers and goods, but also private travel. Above all, wealthy travellers seeking edification and pleasure benefited from this system. In the first century after Christ, there was a veritable touristic economy which organised travel for individuals and groups, provided information and dealt with both accommodation and meals. The well-off Romans sought relaxation in the seaside resorts in the South or passed time on the beaches of Egypt and Greece. The classical world did not only have the “bathing holiday”, but also developed an early form of “summer health retreat” in swanky thermal baths and luxury locations visited by rich urban citizens during the hot months. Something that had its origins primarily in healthcare soon mutated into holidays for pleasure and entertainment, which could also include gambling and prostitution. The decline of the Roman Empire caused the degeneration of many roads. Travel became more difficult, more dangerous and more complicated.

The mobility of mediaeval corporate society was shaped by its own forms and understandings of travel tailored to diverse groups, including merchants, students, soldiers, pilgrims, journeymen, beggars and robbers. From the twelfth century, the movement of errant scholars became increasingly important. Journeys to famous educational institutions in France (Paris, Montpellier), England (Oxford) and Italy (Bologna) became both a custom and a component of education. The desire to experience the world emerged as an individual, unique guiding principle. Travelling tuned from a means into an end: now, one travelled in order to learn on the road and developed in doing so a love of travel and life that not infrequently crossed over into licentiousness and the abandonment of mores. With regard to the motivation for travel, one can see here an important process with long-term repercussions – travelling and wandering has, since then, been seen as a means of confronting oneself and achieving self-realisation.”Das subjektive Reiseerlebnis wird zu einem Kennzeichen der beginnenden Neuzeit: auf Reisen erlebt das eigene Ich seine Befreiung.”

The journeyman years of trainee craftsmen can be seen as a counterpart to those errant students “studying” at the “university of life”. The travels of journeymen were part of the highly traditional world of artisan and guild structures, for which documentation exists from the middle of the 14th century. Beginning in the 16th century, the guilds prescribed the common European practice of journeying as an obligatory element of training, often lasting three to four years. This survived as an institution with a rich and highly regimented set of codes well into the 18th century. The fundamental idea was that one could mature and learn while travelling, experience the world and improve one’s craft in order to grow through a test and return as an accomplished man. The fact that not all journeymen were successful and often suffered terrible fates is evident from reports of an “epidemic of journeymen” that circulated in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Precursors of Modern Tourism

An early form and precursor of modern tourism was the grand tour undertaken by young nobles between the 16th and 18th centuries.  This possessed its own, new structures that were clearly defined by corporate status: the original goal was to broaden one’s education, mark the end of childhood and acquire and hone social graces; however, over time, leisure and pleasure became increasingly important. The classic grand tour lasted between one and three years. Route, sequence and contacts, not to mention the educational programme, were planned down to the last detail. The aristocrats travelled with an entourage of equerries, tutors, mentors, protégés, domestic servants, coachmen and other staff. These provided for safety, comfort, education, supervision and pleasure in accordance with their specialised area of responsibility.

From England, the tours went on to, for example, France and Italy. Trips to the classical sites of Italy represented the highpoint of the journey, but large cities in other countries were visited: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid, Munich, Vienna and Prague had considerable drawing power. During the tour, the young aristocrats visited royal courts and aristocratic estates for, after all, one goal was to teach them the appropriate etiquette and social graces through practice.The nobles attended princely audiences, learned how to behave themselves at court and took part in parties and festivals:

Therefore, the aristocrats’ political, social and professional concerns determined the destinations, but these also catered to their interest in art, pleasure and leisure.The nobles barely came into contact with other classes and social groups – the social supervision of the entourage ensured this.  This was a specific form of dirigisme that followed strong social norms, was exclusive and elitist, and aimed to preserve the rule of the aristocracy.Two aspects are of importance for the history of touristic travel: the destination and the encounter with foreign countries and sights, interestingly at the interface of a supposed cultural gap between North and South:

From the Enlightenment into the 19th century, Bildungsreisen (“educational journeys”) undertaken by the (upper) middle class were an important stage in the development of tourism. The travels of the educated middle classes imitated those of prominent poets and philosophers, for example Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) , Charles Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755) , Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) , Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781) , Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803)  and many others.  They all travelled to Italy or France in search of edification and discussed the knowledge acquired abroad and their experiences in literary works, travelogues and travel novels. Educational travel expanded with the inclusion of other strata of the population and shorter trips. People journeyed in coaches, explored the countryside and cities, visited landmarks in order to experience nature, culture and art directly on the spot and deepen one’s understanding of them. Alongside middle-class travels in search of education and art, there developed a form of travelling oriented towards culture, industry and technology. These were information-gathering journeys driven by professional interests and economic motivations. The representatives of a middle-class entrepreneurial strata travelled to France, Britain and Germany with the express goal of learning about the technological progress and innovations of industrialisation.  They were interested in current developments in trade, agriculture, industry, technology and manufacturing, which they explored through direct contact with individuals.

There were many travellers like Morco Polo, Huin- Tsiang, Vidal de La Blache, Darwin  who explored for knowledge.

The “early”, “pre-” or “developmental” phase of modern tourism is generally considered to have lasted from the 18th century to the first third of the 19th century.During this stage, touristic travel remained confined to a minority of wealthy nobles and educated professionals. For them, travelling was a demonstrative expression of their social class which communicated power, status, money and leisure. Two characteristics stand out: on the one hand, the search for pleasure increasingly supplanted the educational aspects; on the other, wealthy members of the middle classes sought to imitate the travelling behaviour of the nobles and the upper middle classes. Consequently, aristocrats who wanted to avoid mixing with the parvenu bourgeoisie sought more exclusive destinations and pastimes.This is evident in the fact that they found renewed enthusiasm for bathing holidays and took up residence in luxurious spa towns with newly built casinos. These included Baden-Baden, Karlsbad, Vichy and Cheltenham, where life centred around social occasions, receptions, balls, horse races, adventures and gambling. Here, too, the nobles were “swamped” by entrepreneurs and factory owners. In response, they created a socially appropriate form of holidaying in costal resorts. The British aristocracy enjoyed Brighton and the Côte d’Azur, or wintered in Malta, Madeira or Egypt.

The Foundations of Modern Tourism

In the context of the history of tourism, the term “introductory phase” refers to all the developments, structures and innovations of modern tourism between the first third of the 19th century and around 1950. This had its own “starting phase”, which lasted until 1915. This period witnessed the beginning of a comprehensive process characterised by a prototypical upsurge in a middle-class culture of travel and its formation, popularisation and diversification. It prepared the way for a mass tourism recognisable to modern concepts of spending leisure time. The development progressed episodically and built upon a number of changing social conditions and factors. The most important undoubtedly include not only the advance of industrialisation, demographic changes, urbanisation and the revolution in transportation, but also the improvement of social and labour rights, the rise in real income and the resulting changes in consumer demand.

As early as the beginning of the 19th century, the opening up of the Central European system of transport brought about enormous change that genuinely deserves the designation as a “revolutionary development”. It also improved the mobility of tourists and created new trends. Short-stay and day trips became popular and made use of the modern advances in transport technology. Steam navigation began in Scotland in 1812; the continuous use of steam ships on German watercourses followed in 1820 and, in 1823, Switzerland received its first steam ship on Lake Geneva. Railways also created greater mobility. The first sections of track were opened in England in 1825, in France in 1828, in Germany in 1835, in Switzerland in 1844/1847 and in Italy in 1839. However, the railway’s use and popularisation of touristic routes and destinations only began somewhat later with the introduction of mountain railways towards the end of the 19th century.  The Vitznau-Rigi railway in Switzerland was Europe’s first mountain railway in 1871. The new means of transport enabled not only an increase in transport carrying capacity, but also reduced the cost of travelling. Moreover, ship and rail travel extend tourists’ field of vision, bringing about a distinct form of “panoramatised” perception (i.e. the background replacing the foreground as the centre of attention) and encouraging an interest in travel writing.

Though railway was not created to promote tourism. However, from mid-19th century, the latter employed the convenience of rail transport for its own purposes.  The railway therefore is rightly considered to be the midwife at the birth of modern mass tourism.One must still keep in mind that touristic travel remained the preserve of privileged parts of the population. This travelling acted as a form of middle-class self-therapy, the removal of the middle-class self from its existence in the shadow of the old aristocratic world in order to learn about modernity via a paradigmatic experience. It was another century before the lower middle and working classes could go on holiday. At first, they had to make do with day trips by train and ship in order to escape the city briefly.  The foremost practitioners of middle-class tourism were the manufacturing and trading families, educated professionals working in the state bureaucracy, schools and universities, as well as the new ‘freelance professions’, including writers, journalists, lawyers, artists, who were able to take the first steps out of the corporate society.From the 1860s, there were portentous indications of a popularisation. Travelling became a form of popular movement and an answer to the desire to relax among large sections of the population following the advance of industrialisation and urbanisation.

A number of instructional materials, steering mechanisms, innovations and forms of holiday of the 19th century were developed for middle-class travelling and holidaying needs. Guidebooks and travelogues in the form of travel literature acquired increasing importance; this type of text should not be underestimated – they had their precursors in the 18th century and created touristic destinations and perceptions.  The Briefe über die Schweiz (1784–1785) by the Göttingen professor Christoph Meiners (1747–1810)  and Heinrich Heidegger’s (1738–1823)  Handbuch für Reisende durch die Schweiz (1787) set a pattern. In terms of production and sales, Karl Baedeker (1801–1859)  achieved the greatest success as a writer of 19th-century German guidebooks.   He founded his publishing house in 1827 and produced a series of guidebooks with reliable, well-researched content. Their standardised format allowed the reader to find guidance and advice quickly and easily; the books developed their own way of conveying information.”The Baedeker”, however, contained more than information and recommendations; the publisher defined a style of travel and which tourist attractions were worth visiting: Indeed, tourist attractions soon became touristic obligations; sightseeing became a must. John Murray’s (1808–1892)  publishing house in London had a similar goal; in 1836, it successfully brought out the “Red Book” – the first guidebook to Holland, Belgium and the Rhineland. Guidebooks, with their own, prominently normative didacticism occupy a place in the interesting history of functional writing.

The Boom in Mass Tourism in the 19th Century

Organised group holidays offering an all-inclusive price that reduced the travellers’ costs were an innovation of the 1840s. Thomas Cook (1808-1892) , a brilliant entrepreneur from England, is seen as their inventor and thus the pioneer of commercialised mass tourism. His first all-inclusive holiday in 1841 took 571 people from Leicester to Loughborough and supplied both meals and brass music. From 1855, Cook offered guided holidays abroad, for example in 1863 to Switzerland. These catered to a mixed clientele, from heads of state and princes to average representatives of the middle, lower middle and working classes. Cook, inspired by clear socio-political motives, wanted to use Sunday excursions to tempt workers out of the misery and alcoholism of the cities into the green of the countryside. He had more success with inexpensive all-inclusive holidays, often to foreign destinations, for the middle class. His introduction of vouchers for hotels and tourist brochures was highly innovative.

Cook’s pioneering role in the emergence of mass tourism is widely recognised. He influenced the travel agencies later opened in Germany, above all those associated with the names of Rominger (Stuttgart, 1842), Schenker & Co. (München, 1889) and the Stangen Brothers (Breslau, 1863). Carl Stangen (1833–1911)  organised holidays through Europe, then from 1873 to Palestine and Egypt, before extending them to the whole world in 1878. Over this period, the travel agency was able to establish itself as a specialised institution. It channelled ever greater demands for relaxation and variety among broadening social strata: from the 1860s, travelling became a type of “popular movement” that spread throughout society. The German writer Theodor Fontane (1819–1898)  remarked in 1877: “Zu den Eigentümlichkeiten unserer Zeit gehört das Massenreisen. Sonst reisten bevorzugte Individuen, jetzt reist jeder und jede … Alle Welt reist … Der moderne Mensch, angestrengter, wie er wird, bedarf auch größerer Erholung”.

The opening of the Alps  to tourists was an equally important development of the 19th century.  It was preceded by an affinity for nature acquired under the influence of the Enlightenment and Romanticism that sentimentalised the mountains. This created a flock of what would soon be called tourists made up of researchers, nobles, artists, painters, writers and other members of the educated classes, as well as the upwardly mobile middle classes, who followed Albrecht von Haller (1708–1777) , Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (1740–1799)    and Rousseau in their search for natural beauty and the mountains. This romanticisation of alpine harmony replaced the mediaeval fear of the mountains and underwent a “touristisation” over the 19th century. Two groups propelled this process – the aristocracy and the new middle class. The pioneers were enthusiastic British mountaineers who pursued the exclusive sport in Switzerland, charging up the summit and encouraging the development of infrastructure (the construction of hotels, Alpine huts, mountain railways, Anglican chapels and so on) through their continues presence, as well as leaving behind the traces of a cultural transfer. One interpretation of this is that “die als Eroberungen ausgegebenen Bergbesteigungen nichts anderes als die Fortführung imperialer Politik mit anderen Mitteln darstellten, zunächst in den westlichen Teilen, dann … in den östlichen Teilen der Alpen, danach zunehmend in Hochgebirgsregionen außerhalb Europa, vor allem in Asien”

Mountaaineering associations founded across the continent led the way. Significantly, the first was the Alpine Club (1857) in London, followed by the Austrian Alpenverein (1862), the Swiss Alpenclub (1863), the Club Alpino Italiano (1863) and the German Alpenverein (1869). Most of these subsequent associations set themselves broader goals than the British club, which chose to remain an aristocratic sports body. The mountaineering associations soon acquired popularity, although they were somewhat conservative, and their impact was enormous. They produced club reports, almanacs and guidebooks to routes, while membership increased considerably and the infrastructure (hotels, bread and breakfasts, huts, guide, paths and cable cars) was extended. The mountaineering associations and their branches soon stimulated a mass middle-class mountaineering movement that initially centred on Switzerland. A tendency developed whereby the movement increasingly encompassed lower social classes, at the turn of the century finally including proletarian tourist associations such as the Naturfreunde (“The Friends of Nature” – Vienna, 1895) and later the loosely associated organisations of Der Wandervogel (“The Migratory Bird” – Berlin, 1905).  Thus, the enthusiasm for mountaineering underwent first a “bourgeoisification” and then a “proletariatisation”. This early social tourism was characterised by a new collective ethos mixed with non-commercial elements that have been understood as the precursors of “soft tourism”. These intermingled with distinct forms of sociability, the conscious appreciation of the environment and consideration for the local population, countryside and cultural assets.

Holidaying Practices in the Interwar Period

The development of tourism in the 20th century can be divided using a number of different periodisations. It is common, and plausible, to identify a “developmental phase” between 1915 and 1945. This covers the stagnation in tourism as a result of the First World War, but also transitional developments that steadily acquired importance. It was preceded by a period of growth in which, for example, the number of stays in a hotel or other form of holiday accommodation in Germany rose about 471 percent between 1871 and 1913, a good seven times faster than the level of growth in the population. The bulk of these belonged to the upper middle class, and soon the entire middle class, who made their way to the newly opened coastal resorts on the North and Baltic Seas, as well as to the spa, health and gambling resorts.  Germans took to bathing holidays relatively late in comparison to the pioneering British and, at first, for health reasons, with socialising and recreation coming later. However, they became increasingly popular, as evident in the development of famous locations, coastal resorts and beaches.  The loss of their former exclusivity and the shift towards entertainment and distraction signified an increase in social accessibility, whereas, for example, the new ski and winter tourism retained its chic clientele at the turn of the century. 

The dominant motif of travelling and holidaying after 1900 was recuperation. However, only those involved in intellectual work had an established right to relaxation; this right was extended from nobles, the middle-class professions and high-ranking bureaucrats to entrepreneurs, merchants, mid-ranking bureaucrats, white-collar workers and teachers.Without doubt, this was connected to the regulation of holidays as part of legal agreements on pay. Most European countries lacked strict holiday rights before 1900: with the exception of a few pioneering cases, paid time off work for more than a day only became established in law after the First World War. In Germany, the Reichsbeamtengesetz of 1873, which outlined the employment conditions of state employees (Beamte), was the beginning. At first, it was only relevant to state employees, and holidays for other employees remained the exception before the First World War, only becoming possible after it, for example in Austria through the Arbeiterurlaubsgesetz (Law on Workers’ Holidays ) of 1919. Similar developments took place in Switzerland: holidays for the civil servants of the federal administration were first subject to regulation in 1879, but only established as a legal right in 1923. In industry, holiday rights were only granted much later. Among 100 Swiss factories, for example, in 1910 only 11.9 percent gave their employees paid holidays; by 1944, this figure had risen to 87.9 percent.The right to holiday enshrined in normal work contracts today is an achievement of the 20th century. In Switzerland, this right was not regulated uniformly. In different cantons, the situation developed independently, although from the 1930s collective work contracts became important; one paid week off was usual. Only after 1945 did most cantons extend their laws on holidays to the entire labour force. Germany did not pass a general law on holiday rights until 1963.

One innovative new form of holidaying that also came to include families with children was the “summer retreat”.  From the 1870s, the term, first used in 1836, referred to a middle-class holidaying practice whose practitioners sought relaxation in the countryside as an alternative to the seaside during the summer. The summer retreat can be understood “als eine über einige Wochen ausgedehnte Serie von Tagesausflügen …, bei denen für diese Zeit die Wohnung in der Stadt mit einem einfachen Gasthof oder Privatzimmer in ländlicher Gegend vertauscht wird, oft nur wenige Bahnstunden vom Wohnsitz entfernt. Sie dient vor allem der Erholung der Familie, insbesondere der Kinder, nicht der Teilnahme an einem kostspieligen Vergnügungsbetrieb oder an gesellschaftlichen Veranstaltungen”. At first, the lower middle and working classes could not afford a summer retreat with the family, while Sunday excursions became a custom for middle-class families before 1914 – these slowly extended to the whole weekend and then several days.

After the crisis of the First World War, the summer retreat offered a simple, healthy and economical holiday, which from the 1920s was accessible to employees and workers on low incomes. Love of the countryside and a desire for the simplicity of rural life inspired by a critical view of the city, preferably in the beauty of low mountain ranges, seem to indicate a particularly German variety of the summer retreat, which differed from trips to Scandinavian or Russian holiday cottages or dachas.  The behaviour of Germans on summer retreat created a repertoire that came to define the practice:

The presence of people on summer retreat left behind the first traces of a touristic infrastructure, for example the designation of walking trails and the construction of guest houses, bothies, forest restaurants, observation towers and recreational opportunities.

Between 1933 and 1939, the National Socialist regime in Germany brought new impulses, an increasing amount of travel and holidaying practices aimed at the masses. These developments overcame the once essentially middle-class nature of travel by creating a social or popular tourism characterised by the state organisation of holidaying and recreation. It goes without saying that tourism served the political system and the National Socialist ideology. The various stages and graduated pattern of use of the new tourism are conspicuous, providing an object lesson in the inherent potential for a totalitarian regime to exploit tourism politically. Mass tourism emerged in the Third Reich. For the historian of tourism, this form of holidaying, guided from above, was characterised by its claim to democratisation on behalf of the general workforce, the Volk. Hitler wanted to grant the worker a satisfactory holiday and do everything to ensure that this holiday and the rest of his free time would provide true recuperation. “Ich wünsche das, weil ich ein nervenstarkes Volk will, denn nur allein mit einem Volk, das seine Nerven behält, kann man wahrhaft große Politik machen.”

The National Socialists implemented this goal through the creation of a body to organise recreation – the Nationalsozialistische Gemeinschaft Kraft durch Freude (“The National Socialist Association Strength through Joy” – KdF) and a ministry Reisen, Wandern, Urlaub (“Travelling, Hiking, Holiday” – RWU), both of which were subordinate to the party. In order to avoid resistance to the social transformation, workers received at first between three and six days holiday per year. From 1937, the majority of wage-earners had from six to twelve days off per year and could benefit from the new, very cheap, opportunities for holidays and travel: walking tours, train journey, cruises with accommodation and meals achieved great popularity. This is evident from record statistics that testify to an unprecedented boom in travel: the 2.3 million journeys undertaken in 1934 rose to five million in 1935, 9.6 million in 1937 and 10.3 million in 1938. In the six years before the outbreak of war, 43 million journey, cruises and walking tours were sold at cheap prices that could not be competed with, for example seven days in Norway for 60 Reichsmark or 18 days in Madeira for 120 Reichsmark.

The Expansion of Tourism and Globalisation

The last phase embraces the developments in tourism during the post-war period up to the present. Depending on one’s perspective, this is the apex of tourism or the phase of practice and consolidation These are justified labels for the period’s combination of infrastructural construction and renovation, streams of tourists and holidaying as a common form of recreation: indeed, over the last few decades, tourism has become an important branch of the global economy and is a defining characteristic of modern industrial nations. Tourism crosses borders: spatial, temporal, social and cultural. This is its common denominator. There is a consensus that the enormous boom during the post-war period was bound up with economic growth, technological progress, a high level of competition and the creation of new destinations and travelling styles. The increase in recreational mobility among broad strata of society should be seen against this background. Various factors brought about this boom, including rising affluence, urbanisation, the unprecedented construction of transportation and communication networks , and the increase in leisure time as a result of shortening working hours, all of which shaped socialisation.

However, this growth in tourism after the war only came slowly and in Germany, Austria and Switzerland remained confined to domestic destinations.  Involved in this were, alongside trade union bodies, the holiday organisations and travel agencies, as well as the large travel companies, which acquired increasing importance. Subsidised “social tourism” for families and young people, which helped those parts of the population on low incomes to go on holiday, was a noticeable trend in several countries. Social policies, holiday funds, subsidies, charities and entire holiday camps and villages for workers and low-income employees can be found in France, Austria, Germany and, above all, in Switzlerand.

The apex of European tourism began in the 1960s: in response to the economic situation and strategic innovations in the market economy, commercial tour operators and travel companies transformed the nature of competition through increasingly cheaper offers, propelling it in the direction of mass tourism, introducing new destinations and modes of holidaying. Here, tourism produced its own structures and secondary systems.Many travel agencies and tourist organisations were set up, while department stores also offered package holidays, for example Neckermann in Germany from 1963 und Jelmoli in Switzerland from 1972. The replacement of bus and rail travel with journeys by car and caravan, and later by air, provided a powerful stimulus. Charter tourism occupied a flourishing market sector and established itself with cheap offers for foreign holidays. Foreign tourism first affected neighbouring countries and then more distant destinations – Austria and Switzerland were popular among German holidaymakers, but Italy and Spain later gained increasing prominence: From about 1970, journeys abroad clearly represented the majority; this trend towards foreign holidays has recently grown even stronger. In general, the number of teenagers and adults taking foreign holidays rose more than threefold over the 40 years before 1991 – from nine to 32 million.

However, the researcher must differentiate between the varying levels of intensity that this boom possessed in different European countries. To do this, one must look at the frequency, forms of travel, trends and destinations, as well as countless statistics and market studies, the results of which indicate social and cultural holidaying traditions. In the mid-1970s, 70 to 80 percent of the Scandinavia’s adult population went on holiday, while in Britain, the Netherlands and Switzerland this figure was 60 percent and in Italy about 25 percent. Foreign tourism dominated this phase and many resorts and beaches on the Mediterranean and regions in the newly opened up Alpine countries became magnates for holidaymakers that, later, developed into strongholds of tourism.  On the supply side, the infrastructure underwent intensive construction: some Alpine villages (St. Moritz, Zermatt, Lech) were entirely transformed into tourist and skiing resorts; rural provinces (Provence, Côte d’Azur, Tirol), cities (Venice,  Salzburg), costal areas  (on the Adriatic Sea, Kenya) and islands (Mallorca, Rhodes, the Maldives, Sylt) increasingly mutated into holiday areas, resorts and complexes.

However, the increase in touristic traffic hints at another social and structural expansion, the impact of which has been gaining strength since the 1990s. Holidays and travel are becoming accessible to ever broader strata of the population; not only “traditional” holidaymakers – i.e. state employees, white-collar workers, graduates and urban workers – have benefited. The rural population and social groups defined by age and gender (women, singles, pensioners) have taken advantage of tourism,something which is evident from the specific products tailored to their various demands. This picks up on a central characteristic of modern tourism – diversification and specialisation as a result of globalisation . This corresponds to tourism’s apparently unbridled potential, regardless of the facts that little structural development has taken past over the last decade and that touristic tastes and behaviour have been reasonably stable since the Second World War, albeit with some changes in emphasis.

On the one hand, this view is contradicted by the institution of “club holidays” such as the “Club Méditerannée” (1955), the “Club Soleil” (1966), the “Robinson Club” (1970), the “Club-Aldiana” (1973) and others, which have very successfully put into practice their own holidaying formulas and philosophies. On the other, artificial holiday worlds in the form of amusement parks and theme parks are becoming increasingly important:Disneyland,  Europa-Park, Port Aventura, Sun City and many others have annual visitor numbers in the tens of millions and are still experiencing constant growth.  These are made up of post-modern pseudo-events, simulated worlds and hyper-realities which the tourists internalise as adventure, fun, game and competition, despite the fact that the visitors see through their artificiality. Such experiential constructs come and go. For the historian of tourism, this represents a shift that is noteworthy on account of its systematic nature: the traditional touristic consumption of symbols (sights, other worlds) have been extended or replaced by an experience-laden entertainment culture that is part of a new way of perceiving the world. This has global characteristics; it is breaking down boundaries by mutating and is thus moving towards a globalised system with specific, increasingly interchangeable forms and modes of experience.Only time will tell what structures will emerge from this innovative potential.

 

Source(s):

European History Online

 

Posted in Class Notes, earth | Leave a comment