Rising East Online

Plan views

Destination East London: brand it and they will come

by Karina Burzins

On the promises and pitfalls of tourism-led regeneration.

Increasingly, tourism revenue is seen globally as a financial prize that countries, and cities, cannot afford to ignore.

Here in London, tourism is viewed as an essential driver for urban regeneration. A catchphrase of the moment, regeneration is viewed as the saviour of the physical landscape of the city and those who live within it. Tourism’s promise for East London in these terms have merit: the establishment of a network of green spaces, quality ‘public realm’ new builds, and the financial capital to fund a diverse range of projects with the potential to provide employment and improve the quality of life for local communities.

It is true that the revenue generated from tourism is a considerable asset; however, as well as promises, there are also pitfalls to tourism-led regeneration.

While it is clear that there is a great need for strategic planning for tourism in East London, one can question whether the thinking underpinning these plans considers enough those with the most to lose - local communities. With their eyes on the prize, it can be very easy for those involved in regional policymaking and planning to ignore local voices. As cities worldwide are increasingly becoming commodified for tourism consumption, they run the risk of becoming staged primarily for tourists, who do not necessarily share the same concerns as the local communities that they visit.

Tourism, quite simply, is big business. The UK Tourism Industry’s annual turnover is £76 billion, and accounts for 4 per cent of the GDP. As a growth industry, this is expected to rise to over £100 billion by 2010, and considerably more if the London Olympic bid is successful (1).

Added to this, the UK Tourism Industry provides 2.1 million jobs, representing 7.4 per cent of all people employed in Great Britain (2). In London itself, tourism accounts for 12 per cent of London’s Gross Domestic Product, and supports 13 per cent of the workforce. Tourism employment ‘is set to become the second most important sector behind financial and business services’ (3).

In terms of employment, however, the statistics form only part of the story. Although this represents a significant portion of the workforce, the types of employment in this sector are largely service-based, sometimes seasonal, non-unionised, and low paid.

It is against this financial situation that Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, the London Development Agency, and other regional stakeholders such as TourEast London have embarked upon a series of strategic plans to ensure that this industry continues to thrive, and helps to offset the continuing job losses from the manufacturing sector. Even a cursory look at the Mayor’s ‘Visit London’ programme is revealing in how it positions London as a product, facing competition from other city-products, particularly in Europe. The Visit London document highlights too the improvements that are needed to provide better ‘quality and value for money’ as London is perceived by its tourists to be expensive and lacking in mid-range hotels.

Alongside this, the Mayor has highlighted the fact that facilities are too centralised (in the west of London), that there is an increasing possibility of skills shortages within tourism, and in a most revealing statement that ‘transport lacks investment and is of poor quality’ (4). Of course it is not only tourists who have noticed the latter; anyone who has lived in London has become increasingly cynical about basic transport provision.

In addressing these concerns, the blueprint for growth relies heavily on a programme of ‘dispersal’ that involves turning the tourist gaze from traditional sites in west London, to other sub-regions, in particular the east (5). The East London Sub-Regional Tourism Development Strategy and Action Plan 2004-2006 represents the latest policy and thinking with regards to tourism in east London.

The drive for dispersal in tourism planning includes a commitment to devolving budgets to a sub-regional level. The idea of a de-centralised tourist industry in London is not a bad one – and in terms of tourism, East London has a lot to offer.

The eastern parts of London have a lively history, and are a unique cultural asset to the city of London as a whole. There is a recognition, however, that ‘East London is too diverse to act under a single brand umbrella’ (6). As a result, ‘destination brands’ (such as Greenwich, Brick Lane, Shoreditch, Spitalfields Market, Canary Wharf, Docklands and the ExCeL exhibition centre) will be supported in this strategy, and joint marketing initiatives seem to be the main thrust to encourage more tourists to look east.

Indeed, the strategic plan talks largely in terms of marketing and branding. There are some serious questions to consider here; after all, east London and its varied mix of cultural heritages and histories cannot easily be reduced to a homogenous product, to be placed on some global shelf next to Barcelona, Paris, Amsterdam or Venice. There are some inherent contradictions to branding places that need exploring.

Cities, countries, sub-regions and even destination attractions (like Docklands, Brick Lane or Shoreditch) are not empty, nor are they uninhabited. These places are lived in, worked in, travelled through - not only by tourists, but also by those of us for whom London is not a destination, but a lived experience. The varieties of lived experience that a city offers to its inhabitants cannot, for us, be reduced to marketing and advertising materials. The millions of stories that people live each and every day cannot be homogenised and made glossy, manufactured to fit some expected tourist gaze. Where will the local exist in a city that has become a catalogue of destinations?

When tourism and regeneration become linked the most obvious concern is that areas will be regenerated only if they provide some destination brand that can be easily packaged and resold by these industries. The concerns here for east London echo the concerns over the Olympic bid, and its promise of regeneration for the communities in the east, that somehow there will be ‘trickle-down benefits’ for local populations. In both cases the drivers for regeneration sit outside of local communities’ hands. In both cases the regeneration of urban areas is not staged for those who inhabit these places, but for those who consume them as visitors.

The best example of the tension between lo-al communities’ visions of their city, and the conflicting versions found in the market led approach of the tourist industries in these plans can be seen through one of the more controversial proposed projects for East London. ‘An upscale hotel (five star) is planned adjacent to the redeveloped Dome complex on the Greenwich peninsula and depending on the changed in gaming legislation the site may include a casino.’ (7)

After the recent derailing of proposed changes to the gaming legislation promoted by Tessa Jowell, a watered-down version came into effect on 8 April that allowed for only one super-casino (at the time of writing this is earmarked for Blackpool). However, many fear that a third New Labour term will force the issue once more, and that policymakers will bow under pressure from international gaming consortia with the millions of pounds of investment they promise and allow a number of super casinos to move ahead.

In fact, despite the uncertainty over the legislation, as far back as July 2004, ‘Kerzner announced that it has entered into an agreement with Anschutz Entertainment Group for the development and operation of a $350 million casino and hotel resort at the Millenium Dome. The Dome will open as a world-class 26,000-capacity entertainment and sports arena, with surrounding leisure and entertainment facilities’ (8).

The Dome itself is a perfect symbol of the top-down, market-led approach to urban regeneration. While it is true that the Dome is now truly an icon of London, and is seen by tourists as such, for local communities the Dome is a symbol of something else - mismanagement at best, and political betrayal at worst.

There is another problem inherent in the way these strategic plans view the city of London. East London is only one of five sub-regions identified by this planning process. This carving up of London on the one hand can be seen to protect the diversity of localisms that exist in the city, but on the other hand it forces these regions into direct competition with each other over the tourist pound. How can a region with only a fledgling industry compete with the more established destination brands in the west?

While the strategic plan for the development of tourism in east London is a welcome step in the right direction, much research must still be undertaken. The document highlights the many areas for which there is a lack of clear figures. In terms of marketing east London, the action plan calls for a brand mapping exercise, and a recognition that ‘successful brands are market-led, customer-focused, and research-based’ (9).

While this may be true, I hope that policymakers realise that east London is more than a collection of destinations and attractions. Put simply, tourisms aspirations must be fused with local aspirations for effective regeneration to take place, and the challenge here for strategic planners is to enable local communities to find their voice. With tourism as the main driver behind urban renewal, there is a real danger that regeneration will be left to market forces, rather than being assessed and evaluated on the needs of local communities in east London.

Karina Burzins is a researcher at the School of Social Sciences, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of East London.

Tomorrow’s Tourism Today , (2004) DCMS

Great Britain Labour Statistics (June 2002)

East London Sub-Regional Tourism Development Strategy and Action Plan 2004-2006 , (2004) Mayor of London, London Development Agency & TourEast London, page 39.

Visit London (September 2002), Mayor of London, page 4.

For an academic discussion of how the tourist gaze operates, see Urry, J., (1990) The Tourist Gaze, London:Sage

East London Sub-Regional Tourism Development Strategy and Action Plan 2004-2006 , (2004) Mayor of London, London Development Agency & TourEast London, page 5

East London Sub-Regional Tourism Development Strategy and Action Plan 2004-2006 , (2004) Mayor of London, London Development Agency & TourEast London, page 26.

London Gaming Opportunities (January 2005) Think London, page 1.

East London Sub-Regional Tourism Development Strategy and Action Plan 2004-2006 , (2004) Mayor of London, London Development Agency & TourEast London, page 15.

Return to top

---

© 2004·05