Prosuming creative urban areas. Evidence from East London

Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Prosuming creative urban areas. Evidence from East London Ilaria Pappalepore a,⇑, Robert Maitland b,1, Andrew Smith b,2 a b

Anglia Ruskin University, UK University of Westminster, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 13 February 2013 Revised 29 September 2013 Accepted 3 November 2013

Keywords: City tourism Creative industries Cultural quarters Tourist experiences Cultural capital Coolness

a b s t r a c t This research explores the role creative clusters play in the development of tourism. It involves an in-depth study of characteristics, motivations and experiences of visitors to creative urban areas using qualitative analysis of 142 interviews in creative, non-central locations in East London. The data show that the concentration of creative industries affords opportunities for consumption and for the accumulation of cultural capital, leveraging the presence of creative producers and other creative visitors, who are themselves perceived as an attraction. These factors, combined with a particular urban morphology and the presence of everyday activities, contribute to the areas’ perceived authenticity, bohemian atmosphere and cool image. The paper develops typologies of visitors to creative areas and concludes with a discussion of Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital applied to a contemporary urban context. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Creativity is an abstract concept that has inspired much research and theoretical debate in recent years, leading some to suggest the advent of a ‘creative turn in society’ (Richards, 2011, p. 1227). Its definition is contested, although most scholars emphasise novel combinations or unusual associations of ideas, and the social, theoretical or emotional value of creative processes and outputs (Pope, 2005). In economics and urban geography, work has mainly concentrated on the role of creativity in economic development and urban revitalisation (for example, Scott, 2000). However, whilst the presence of consumptive practices in such areas has been recognised (Zukin, 1995), most research on cultural ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 845 196 2488. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (I. Pappalepore), [email protected] (R. Maitland), [email protected] (A. Smith). 1 Tel.: +44 (0) 20 3506 6546; fax: +44 (0) 20 7911 5171. 2 Tel.: +44 (0) 20 350 66658; fax: +44 (0) 20 7911 5171. 0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.11.001

228

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

and creative clusters neglects how these areas are experienced and consumed. The present study addresses this deficiency, paying particular attention to the role of spatial clustering of creative production in the development of tourism. To date, this topic has been discussed theoretically in tourism and urban geography literature but empirical studies are lacking (Evans, 2007; Frey, 2009; Richards, 2011). Our research also contributes to the comparatively under-researched field of city tourism; particularly to the body of knowledge on tourism in peripheral urban areas and in cultural quarters. Ashworth and Page (2011) stress the importance of this research area, noting that the tourism microgeographies of world cities have the potential to challenge traditional views of tourism consumption by blurring the boundaries between tourists, day visitors and residents. According to Edwards, Griffin, and Hayllar (2008) both the tourism industry and academy need more in-depth information on tourist experiences and how tourists use cities. This research explores the relationship between creative production and consumption in developing tourism in non-central urban areas by examining visitors’ characteristics, experiences and perceptions. The work adds to knowledge by extending the conventional view of tourists as consumers, through examining their role(s) as producers of, and as embodied attractions within, creative areas. London provides the ideal conditions for the investigation of this topic thanks to its twofold role as a world tourism city (Maitland & Newman, 2009) and as a creative and cultural capital (Evans, 2006).

Creative areas and their appeal for cultural tourism The demise of Fordist manufacturing production in much of the Western world meant that new modes of wealth creation were required. A new ‘elite economy’ emerged in some cities (Clark, 2002, p. 497), characterised by the increased significance of aesthetic and symbolic qualities of commodities (Lash & Urry, 1994). A critical mass of informational professionals emerged (Castells, 1989); highly educated workers whose jobs mainly dealt with intangible goods. In the UK, creative industries were officially recognised for the first time as a sector in 1998, when the British Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) defined them as ‘. . .those activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent . . . [with] . . . potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property’ (DCMS, 2001, p. 5). As the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) later recognised, ‘creative industries are becoming increasingly important components of modern post-industrial knowledge-based economies. Not only are they thought to account for higher than average growth and job creation, they are also vehicles of cultural identity that play an important role in fostering cultural diversity’ (UNESCO, 2006, p. 3). Within the context of the new post-Fordist economy (Hutton, 2006)—and helped by controversial yet popular cultural economic theories (Florida, 2002)—creative industries have been used by urban authorities to pursue economic, cultural and social objectives (Richards, 2011). Research has noted the geographies and socioeconomic organisation of the creative sector (Scott, 2000). These involve the promotion of innovation and experimentation (Sacco & Segre, 2009), high dependency on social networks (Evans, 2005) and a tendency to cluster (Porter, 1998)—privileging inner city locations (Hutton, 2006; Zukin, 1982). There is still no consistent terminology to identify spatial clusters of creative industries. Various terms, including cultural quarters, creative clusters, creative places and cultural districts, are used interchangeably by different authors with overlapping interpretations (Bell & Jayne, 2010; Evans, Foord, & Shaw, 2005; Montgomery, 2003). Scott (2000) uses the term ‘industrial atmosphere’ (p. 809) to encapsulate the advantages of spatial agglomeration. Faceto-face contacts between creative entrepreneurs produce a particular ‘scene’ (Silver, Nichols Clark, & Rothfield, 2006), also described as a ‘communication ecology’ (Bathelt & Graf, 2008, p. 1947) or local buzz (Storper & Venables, 2004), comprising information and new knowledge, as well as gossip and ‘trade folklore’ (Bathelt & Graf, 2008, p. 1947). Vibrant urban areas with a creative image and stimulating cultural environment are in a privileged position to attract relevant professionals, businesses and talent (Jacobs, 1970; Zukin, 1995). Such conditions—combined with low rents (Zukin, 1982), the physical qualities of ex-industrial spaces (Hutton, 2006) and supportive public policy—have contributed to the transformation of economically deprived areas into places where creative outputs can be nurtured as well as experienced. Some authors see

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

229

creative areas as spaces where the distinction between production and consumption blurs (Pacione, 2005). Reflexivity between producers and consumers (Russo & Arias Sans, 2009) facilitates the development of urban lifestyles that simultaneously represent the result and ‘raw materials’ of the symbolic economy’s growth (Zukin, 1995, p. 826). Cultural activity and the presence of a distribution-consumption value chain are essential pre-requisites of cultural quarters (Montgomery, 2003). The co-location of producers and consumers in creative areas can be mutually beneficial; for producers and retailers it allows proximity to a pool of consumers and an opportunity for knowledge acquisition and sharing. Consumers benefit from ‘street level activity and animation’ (Brown, O’Connor, & Cohen, 2000, p. 444) and the resulting atmosphere (Neff, 2005). Experiences are facilitated by what Michael (2003, p. 188) calls ‘diagonal clustering’, where co-location benefits not only cluster members but also tourist experiences. Tourists contribute through their own ‘performances’ (Rakic´ & Chambers, 2012), adding to the atmosphere and buzz. In this sense, tourists become ‘prosumers’ (Toffler, 1980) who co-produce the consumption experience (Haldrup & Larsen, 2010). Richards (2011) suggests that places use creative resources to reconstruct their function as centres of consumption. The drawbacks of this include gentrification, the commercialisation of space/place, the imposition of state-directed histories (Hutton, 2006) and the serial reproduction of culture (Richards & Wilson, 2006). Whilst issues such as (in)authenticity and commodification are genuine concerns, tourism can have a positive impact on the cultural sector and on creativity. Crang (2004), for instance, refers to tourism as a dynamic force creating places, while Thrift (1997) argues that globalising processes have fuelled (rather than hindered) deep experiences of place, as tourists search for more meaningful experiences and contact with local cultures. Our paper engages with this debate by arguing that during visits to creative areas people seek to deepen their experience by creative engagement with everyday, unconventional destinations.

Cosmopolitanism, coolness and the quest for distinction This paper contributes to contemporary debates by exploring the applicability of Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital to a contemporary urban context by analysing the experiences of cultural tourists and locals within a creative field. This task requires a review of key theories associated with postmodern consumption. More than a century ago, Veblen (1899, 1970) described how upper classes deploy conspicuous consumption as a symbol of their economic power, while Simmel (1900) explained fashion styles as trickle-down imitation of elites by the lower classes. Building on this pioneering work, Bourdieu (1984, 1986) discusses the roles played by different forms of capital in determining consumption preferences; these are used by social actors to achieve status. Although social class is usually viewed as something defined by economic resources, Bourdieu proposes that the powers of elite groups are mainly cultural and symbolic. He maintains that people compete to reach and reproduce social status by drawing on three types of resources: economic, cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986). The ‘new bourgeoisie’, a product of the growing service sector, possess high levels of both economic and cultural capital, whereas ‘new petit bourgeoisie’ (such as creative professionals) are economically weaker so must adopt strategies to lever their cultural capital, thus becoming cultural intermediaries and taste-makers. The acquired dispositions that guide perception and social action constitute a system of classification referred to as habitus. Bourdieu’s work is often criticised for being specific to the place (France) and time (1960/70s) when it was conducted and for lacking methodological reliability (Lamont & Lareau, 1988; Robbins, 2000). More specifically, his notion of cultural capital is challenged because it is formulated imprecisely, making it hard to (con)test. Some commentators have suggested that this aspect of Bourdieu’s work is out-dated because it was conceived before the growth of the cultural industries (Robbins, 2000). Yet others claim his work is even more relevant to the present context where cultural capital is valued more highly than ever (Ley, 2003, p. 2542); especially as Bourdieu anticipated the way economic and cultural capital can be exchanged for one another (Bridge, 2006). One criticism that is particularly relevant to our study is the supposed disrespect shown to the creative potential of the working class (Robbins, 2000). In acknowledging some legitimate criticisms, it should also be recognised that

230

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

Bourdieu’s work is often misrepresented and misunderstood. For example, many assume wrongly that he sees cultural capital as a direct expression of class position (Robbins, 2000). Further confusion is caused by different interpretations of the term cultural capital in recent work on cities. Writers like Florida (2002) and Landry (2000) have interpreted cultural capital as a resource that can be deployed communally and that exists within certain places—e.g. ‘the summation of all the creative assets of the city’ (Bridge, 2006, p. 721). This sits awkwardly with Bourdieu’s conception of cultural capital as something either ‘incorporated’ within individuals (embodied cultural capital), or bestowed on individual objects (objectified cultural capital) and institutions (institutionalised cultural capital). In our analysis we discuss how Bourdieu’s conceptualisation may be applied to creative areas, bridging existing spatial uses of the term cultural capital (for instance, Bridge, 2006; Florida, 2002; Landry, 2000) with one that fits Bourdieu’s original conception. Creative areas attract people who wear unconventional clothes; desirable artefacts are produced, consumed and displayed there. These styles and objects are given credibility by certain institutions (art schools, galleries, festivals). Accordingly, these areas ‘possess’ embodied, objectified and institutional cultural capital. This capital can be accumulated and displayed by people (including visitors) who acquire the knowledge and ‘qualifications’ that confirm they are hip or cool. The notion of ‘cool’, a very powerful concept in orientating perceptions, taste and consumption choices (Nancarrow, Nancarrow, & Page, 2001), originates from American black counter-cultures in the 1960s. Cool (cold, detached) described the attitude of jazz musicians towards their difficult life work conditions (Nancarrow et al., 2001). Similar ‘bottom-up’ cultural trends have been noted in the case of hip-hop culture (Xie, Osumare, & Ibrahim, 2007), street art (Featherstone, 1991) and underground dance clubs (Thornton, 1995). According to Thornton, underground dance club actors seek to accumulate ‘hipness’ as a form of (sub)cultural capital in order to achieve distinction and status. Intriguingly, hipness can be better defined in relation to what it is not, particularly the ‘perpetually absent, denigrated other—the mainstream’ (Thornton, 1995, p.5, italic in the original). Coolness, about the power of distinctiveness, of being ‘in the know’, is linked to cultural capital. Coolness is regarded ‘partly as an attitude—laid-back, narcissistic, hedonistic—but also as a form of cultural capital that increasingly consists of insider knowledge about commodities and consumption practices as yet unavailable to the mainstream’ (Nancarrow et al., 2001, p. 315). Cultural intermediaries such as creative professionals are emblems of cool (Tokatli, 2011) and use themselves as ‘shop windows’ to sell products as well as lifestyles (Bovone, 2005, p. 371). Contemporary bohemians typically frequent fashionable quarters where urban lifestyles encompassing both consumption and production are initiated earliest and are subject to experimentation (Bovone, 2005). Bohemianism originated in nineteenth-century Parisian society as artists, intellectuals and radicals protested against Western society and sought an alternative (Wilson, 2000). These ‘glamorous outcasts’ lived an eccentric life and challenged social conventions (Wilson, 2000). Some of the values they promoted, such as authenticity, a romantic view of the artist and a rejection of social conventions, are still important in today’s creative milieus. Similarly, the romantic image of the flâneur, a ‘fashionable man of leisure’ (Hubbard, 2006, p. 102) who roamed and gazed at the streets as a source of artistic inspiration and means to understand the city, remains relevant. Whilst some have claimed that today’s manifestations of flânerie are different, mainly revolving around the leisurely exploration of shopping malls or the Internet (Featherstone, 1998), on the contrary we argue that creative areas are ideal venues where contemporary flâneurs can indulge in leisurely walking, exploring, exercising their romantic gaze and accumulating/displaying their cultural capital. Tourist experiences of urban areas The leisurely experience of urban areas is not necessarily a romantic one (Urry, 1990) and is not exclusively based on the visual (Edensor, 2000; Rakic´ & Chambers, 2012). Often, the appeal of a city includes a plethora of sensual stimuli (Edensor, 2000) with crowds being part of the spectacle (Featherstone, 1991). Urban tourist experiences, like all tourism experiences, are subjective and unique to each individual (Uriely, 2005), perhaps even more so as cities are such heterogeneous, complex environments. Opportunities to learn and to exercise one’s own creativity (Richards, 2011) are important components. Such participatory tourism activities may activate a specific state of being, something Wang (1999) refers to as ‘existential authenticity’.

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

231

Traditionally, theorists of tourism have understood leisure travel as a form of escape in search of the unfamiliar and the exotic ‘Other’. Lefebvre’s (1991) concept of all-infusing everyday life and Lash (1990) and Urry’s (1995) idea of de-differentiation between touristic practices and other spheres of cultural experience played a key role in blurring the distinction between tourism and the everyday. Since then, a growing body of empirical and theoretical research has contributed to the conceptualisation of tourism as indelibly intertwined with the mundane daily activities of both the tourist and the destination (Edensor, 2007). While people increasingly ‘touristify’ (Larsen, 2008) their everyday life, tourists tend to take their home behaviours with them when they travel. This process is perhaps best exemplified by ‘visiting friends and relatives’ (VFR) tourism, when guests can experience everyday areas and activities with their hosts, who can indulge in touristy behaviour while at home. Following the same logic, Wynn (2011) suggests that guided tours of Manhattan turn New Yorkers into tourists and tourists into New Yorkers. According to Gospodini (2001, p. 927), urban tourism is a projection of ‘homogenized everyday activities and habits within a mirror of completely different spatial settings’. Similarly, Maitland’s (2008) research on new tourism areas in London pointed out that, for overseas tourists, taking part in the city’s everyday life is often central to the tourist experience. The appeal of daily activities has already been commercially exploited, as demonstrated by ‘like-a-local’ tours offered in various European cities (Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009). Ethnic working-class areas in cities are one example of urban tourism destinations where everyday life and ‘the exotic’ overlap (Shaw, Bagwell, & Karmowska, 2004), allowing tourists to experience a form of ‘mundane cosmopolitanism’ (Edensor, 2007). Similarly, creative areas offer a combination of everyday activities, alternative atmosphere and cultural richness, and can lure tourists who want to get away from tourist bubbles and engage in more creative experiences (Maitland, 2010). These are ideal environments for ‘serious leisure’ (Stebbins, 1979) and thus for tourists in search of intellectually stimulating experiences and contact with local people. For serious tourists, ‘cultural pursuits are a form of identity creation, an extension of general leisure, and a systematic (career-like) pursuit’ (Prentice & Andersen, 2003, p. 8). Everyday urban locations are examples of vernacular space (Urry, 1990) as opposed to tourist bubbles (Judd & Fainstein, 1999) and of heterogeneous space as opposed to highly controlled and separated enclavic spaces (Edensor, 2000). Edensor (2000) describes heterogeneous spaces as locations where tourism has developed organically and tourists are able to mingle with residents and workers. Such ‘amalgamated places’ (Frey, 2009) are characterised by the simultaneous arrangement of spatial elements as opposed to successive arrangement (Gospodini, 2001), which means that tourists are simultaneously provided with multiple choices of sight and movement. This spatial characteristic affords the tourist greater freedom which, according to Gospodini (2001), is a core component of both creativity and leisure. Likewise, Edensor notes that freedom of movement and affordances of space ‘provide opportunities for diverse walking performances and chance encounters’ (Edensor, 2000, p. 331). Although Edensor describes heterogeneous places as typical of non-Western destinations, other authors have later associated this term with East London (Eade, 2002). Summary The extensive literature discussed above illustrates that we now have a good knowledge of why creative quarters have emerged, how culture is used as a tool for social distinction and what tourists are seeking in urban contexts. What is missing is research that brings these themes together whilst avoiding making problematic distinctions e.g. between producers and consumers; cultures and economies; tourists and residents. As highlighted in the introduction, there is also a relative lack of empirical research on the city/tourism/creativity nexus. The intention in the remainder of this paper is to address these deficiencies via a detailed analysis of four creative areas in East London. Study methods This study explores the relationship between creative production and consumption in developing tourism in non-central urban areas. This is achieved via an analysis of visitors’ characteristics, what draws them to these areas and how these areas are experienced. The study also aims to explore the

232

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

applicability of Bourdieu’s notion of distinction through symbolic capital to contemporary urban tourism. The primary research involved 142 face-to-face interviews in creative, non-central locations in East London. London hosts large numbers of day visitors and internal tourists, as well as people that match official definitions of tourism (Maitland, 2010). Therefore, our interviewees included any person undertaking a non-routine leisure visit to the area lasting three or more hours. To avoid confusion, subsequently all interviewees are referred to as visitors. Interviewees were approached at different times, and in a variety of locations, using a convenience sampling approach. Interviews were semi-structured; an approach that facilitated comparability, yet provided rich, descriptive data—allowing a deep exploration of possible interconnections between experiences and attitudes (Jordan & Gibson, 2004). Interviews were recorded and later transcribed verbatim. The interviews continued until preliminary analysis revealed theoretical saturation, i.e. until a point when nothing new was emerging (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005). During the fieldwork large concentrations of younger people were observed and this is reflected in the final sample. All the interviews were conducted by one investigator who discussed a consistent range of topics, including the respondent’s characteristics (e.g. profession, interests, travel habits), their reasons for visiting, and their perceptions and experiences of the area. For instance, questions included: What have you have done/seen during your visit? How would you describe this area to someone who has never been here? If you could change something about this area to make it more appealing to you, what would you change? Interviews lasted between 15 minutes and one hour. The qualitative data collected was transcribed, coded and analysed in accordance with accepted procedures (Flick, 2006).

Interview locations Inner East London features large concentrations of artists, designer-makers and new media practitioners, as well as growing design and architecture sectors. Following a review of relevant literature, and discussions with academics and creative professionals, four locations widely acknowledged within the cultural field as creative were selected for the study: Spitalfields/Brick Lane, Hoxton/Shoreditch, London Fields and Deptford. Three criteria guided this choice: high concentrations of creative industries, a developed or developing leisure and entertainment sector, and deprivation mixed with gentrification. The four chosen areas have different levels of tourism development; something that aids comparative analysis. The Spitalfields/Brick Lane area (close to the City of London) is the most developed for tourism. Though not an established part of conventional tourist itineraries, it has grown in popularity in recent years (Eade, 2002). From the 1950s, and particularly after the decline of traditional local industries in the 1970s, Spitalfields became a magnet for Bangladeshi immigrants, and ethnic restaurants and shops transformed part of the area into the Bengali heart of London. The development of a creative cluster started when a circle of artists, writers and architects purchased those Georgian houses that had escaped modern urban renewal (Jacobs, 1996). A revalorisation of the area’s heritage meant the refurbishment of the wholesale vegetable market (now a craft market) and the reconversion of disused industrial buildings into artists’ studios and cultural and leisure consumption spaces. Hoxton/Shoreditch is known amongst Londoners for its vibrant nightlife and for spawning an artistic group known as Young British Artists. Between the 1970s and 1990s many artists settled in the area, followed by other creative professionals in the media, fashion and advertising industries. Derelict buildings were redeveloped into artists’ studios and cultural spaces, and in the early 2000s a branch of the famous White Cube gallery opened in Hoxton Square. By that time, the area was already considered the ‘epicentre of the new media industry in the UK’ (Pratt, 2009, p. 1047), property prices had risen and artists were moving to cheaper areas further east. London Fields has seen a slow process of gentrification since the 1980s, when the area—already popular with artists thanks to the availability of affordable studio space—started to appeal to young professionals (Green, 1999). Despite the lack of a formal cultural strategy, cultural consumption continued to grow in the following years, with the opening of several galleries and a weekend food and craft market. Deptford is located in South East London. From the 16th century, it was an important port area and when shipbuilding and dockworks moved further downstream it developed as an indus-

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

233

trial hub. Following post-war redevelopment and deindustrialisation, the area suffered economic decline and, since the early 1990s, several regeneration projects have been implemented. The proximity of one of London’s most prestigious arts universities, together with the availability of cheap studio space, attracted many artists. Of our four case studies, Deptford has the least developed leisure and tourism sector.

Experiencing creative areas in East London The 142 participants in the research included overseas tourists (38), domestic tourists (15) and visitors coming from other parts of London (89). Many of the latter were expatriate professionals living in London, while domestic and overseas tourists covered a wide range of nationalities including some former London residents. Our sample thus highlights the complexities arising from the mobility of visitors and the associated limitations of conventional definitions of tourism (McCabe, 2005). Most interviewees travelled often and stressed their interest in discovering new places and getting to know other cultures. This also involved experiencing local cultures through the exploration of everyday urban areas, which they saw as a way to differentiate themselves from more conventional ‘tourists’. Interestingly, Londoners perceived these areas (particularly Spitalfields/Brick Lane and London Fields) as unique, whereas for overseas tourists they represented ‘typical London’. In Spitalfields/Brick Lane tourists sought to emulate what they thought ‘real Londoners’ did; in contrast, Londoners explored and experienced these areas in a consciously touristic manner. Almost all the participants expressed a keen interest in art and culture, with a minority naming a specific exhibition or cultural activity as the main reason for their visit. With the exception of Deptford, the presence of a concentration of creative industries generates a variety of consumption opportunities, which constitute an important draw. Other reasons to visit included meeting up with friends, exploring, relaxing in the local cafes, and visiting the markets. Interestingly, 48% of interviewees were employed in, or students of, creative industries. This is a high proportion: a comparable study conducted in one of London’s most touristy areas, Covent Garden, found that only 9% of tourists were employed in the creative sector (Guachalla Gutierrez, 2011). A person’s profession seemed to influence their decision to visit the area, especially in Spitalfields/Brick Lane and Hoxton/Shoreditch. Some, for example, were there for a specific reason related to their job, such as checking the latest fashion trends or getting inspiration for an artistic project. For many respondents the opportunity to draw creative inspiration from the visit was a key component of their experience. As one of the interviewees eloquently expressed it: It’s very inspiring, it’s like a documentary of the everyday (. . .) and it’s a very crowded place, vibrant. Every time I’m here people are different. I like especially artists, it’s inspiring, maybe I’ll go home and something will happen (artist from Poland, female, aged 18–29, interviewed in Spitalfields/Brick Lane).

The appeal of creative areas The spatial characteristics of these areas are, according to some interviewees, conducive to individual creativity. The lack of conventional tourist attractions, the narrow streets and the small consumption spaces that—as noted by an interviewee—‘encourage diversions’, facilitate an exploratory visit. For some, this proved very inspiring. One Londoner visiting Spitalfields/Brick Lane commented: ‘I walk because I like walking and thinking, so I walk and think, I get lost and then look for the way back’. In Spitalfields/Brick Lane and Hoxton/Shoreditch several interviewees were on a self-organised tour looking for graffiti or hidden corners. In some cases their tour included more than one creative area, often Spitalfields/Brick Lane and Hoxton/Shoreditch and/or London Fields. The visible presence of residents and workers who, along with tourists, take advantage of local facilities and participate in leisure activities, combined with the presence of independent shops and ‘shabby looks’, contributed to the perception of authenticity:

234

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

In the beginning I was not sure with all these little streets, how it spreads over, all the multinational people, a big change, and then I realised this kind of people they really lived here, they were not tourists (. . .) I really like this kind of. . . how do you say . . . real people (student from Germany, male, 18–29, Deptford). Authenticity seemed to play a key role in the experience except in Hoxton/Shoreditch, where it was less important. In Deptford and London Fields, small local shops contributed to what interviewees described as a ‘villagey feel’. Several interviewees commented that these two areas felt more like small villages than parts of a large city. In the case of London Fields, the canal and the local park play an important role in the perception of villaginess. As one interviewee in London Fields noted, ‘you don’t feel you are in London [you feel] somewhere far away’. Atmosphere was mentioned by the majority of interviewees as the most appealing place characteristic. We interpret atmosphere as the sum of the intangible qualities that make up the overall mood or feel of a place. In Spitalfields/Brick Lane, the atmosphere was often described as vibrant and unique, two qualities linked to the mix of ethnic diversity and creativity. In Hoxton/Shoreditch the atmosphere was derived from exaggerated trendiness, extravagant haircuts and alternative music, and it was described as arty and exciting but not very family-friendly. London Fields appears to have a dual image: quiet and relaxed like a village on one hand, and young, vibrant and creative on the other. Leisure, cultural and night-life venues such as bars, cafes, music and art exhibition spaces contributed to the perception of a relaxed yet vibrant atmosphere. These venues are normally located at street level and are easily visible. In Deptford, however, there are fewer leisure spaces, whilst cultural spaces (such as art galleries) are often not visible from the street. As a consequence, the atmosphere is less vibrant and, as some interviewees noted, the arty feel becomes apparent only to those who know about the existing art studio blocks and cultural venues. For example, a Canadian tourist staying at a Deptford youth hostel was pleasantly surprised to discover the area’s vernacular architecture and hidden corners: You can go into the main part of London and see what everyone else sees there, but coming here you see things you would never see, (. . .) the graffiti around here are pretty cool you can catch it on buildings just the old buildings (. . .) poverty, dilapidated (. . .) lots of different things that you might be in, art scene, creative, hidden (waitress from Canada, female, 18–9, Deptford).

People as attractions Some interviewees were attracted to the non-central areas because they were cheap or convenient places to stay. But others deliberately visited because they were ‘run-down’. The arty or creative vibe, linked to creative people, alternative fashion and creative spaces, in combination with the scruffy look of the physical environment, provides what some interviewees saw as a ‘bohemian feel’. This links to Lloyd’s (2006) ideas about ‘grit as glamour’. The people who frequent these areas are a very important element of the tourist experience. Fashionable people, with their extravagant clothes and haircuts, play a fundamental role in providing what respondents described as a cool and ‘cutting edge’ atmosphere. This is illustrated by a German tourist: [I like] the people, the bars and the atmosphere . . . [the people] are cool and trendy and I try to be like them [laughs]. . . it’s just a nice place (. . .) unique, quite cutting edge (. . .) and people have pretty haircuts, this is what I like, really (physiotherapist from Germany, female, 18–29, Hoxton/Shoreditch). Bars seem to be important, reaffirming Lugosi, Bell, and Lugosi’s (2010, p. 3097) view that these act not merely as ancillary services in creative areas, but as focal points and ‘reservoirs of cultural capital’. Crowds and crowdedness were not necessarily seen as problematic, but judgements were made about the area’s authenticity based on the nature of the crowd. For some, a crowd of creative, arty young people is seen as attractive, whereas the presence of mainstream tourists (typical of more central areas) is not. However, judgements were also made about fashionable people. Whereas certain interviewees expressed their desire to learn the latest fashion trends, others associated ‘pretty haircuts’ with contrived fashionability:

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

235

Trendy dresses. Wacky headed. Tight jeans. You know what is a Hoxton person (...) they really try hard, too hard (music PR from West London, female, 30–39, Hoxton/Shoreditch). Some interviewees affirmed a sense of superiority through the overt disdaining of fashionable people and of anything they considered ‘contrived’, such as eccentric hairstyles and clothing. A musician from Birmingham, for example, talking about Spitalfields/Brick Lane commented: It’s very trendy, which I don’t like (...), it’s the fashionable part of town and I find it a bit intimidating (...) it annoys me just that everyone is in their gear, and they like to go to fashionable bars and all that. (musician from Birmingham, UK, male, 18–29, Spitalfields/Brick Lane).

Discussion The opportunity to exercise creativity represents an important reason to visit these areas. For many who are employed in creative professions, their visit can be seen as a leisurely extension of their day job (Richards, 1994) or a form of serious leisure (Stebbins, 1979). Tourists are motivated by a desire to learn—highlighting that they visit creative areas to acquire, as well as to exhibit, cultural capital. In contrast to Richards and Raymond’s (2000) interpretation of creative tourism, this does not happen through a formal learning experience such as a cooking or pottery class but rather through a process of creative inspiration. This inspiration is derived from tangible and intangible place qualities such as a visually stimulating urban environment, a vibrant atmosphere and the presence of models of (perceived) creativity such as artists and creative products. Such a creative experience facilitates a form of ‘existential authenticity’ (Wang, 1999): the opportunity for tourists to be in contact with their true self (perceived as creative) and to create their own narratives (Richards & Wilson, 2006). Most tourists display characteristics of a cosmopolitan lifestyle (Hannerz, 1990). Accordingly, they value non-staged encounters with other cultures as important to their personal development and speak about this with a certain pride, suggesting they view cosmopolitanism as a form of social distinction. In line with Urry’s aesthetic cosmopolitans (2005), they are willing to take risks and travel outside the tourist bubble, often aiming to differentiate themselves from mainstream tourists and affirming a sense of superiority. As Rofe (2003) suggests, gentrifying spaces represent the ideal environment for the cosmopolitan persona, providing a space where identities constructed through the development of aesthetic and cultural sensibilities can be displayed as forms of cultural capital. Our findings also confirm Shields’ view (1994) that the condition of native-ness of city dwellers has changed in contemporary European cities, as the roles of insiders and outsiders are reversed so that ‘the stranger is (. . .) a foreigner who becomes like a native, whereas the flâneur is the inverse, a native who becomes like a foreigner’ (p. 68). Unlike the postmodern flâneurs described by Featherstone (1998), many of our interviewees still engage in roaming on foot as a means to visually explore and understand the urban. Our analysis suggests that there are different ways of affirming superiority in the creative social field. For some a sense of superiority emerges through their knowledge of the latest trends in alternative fashion, niche artists and counter-cultural venues (what Thornton, 1995, named sub-cultural capital). Others, on the contrary, seem to look for distinction through overt disdaining of fashion and of anything they consider ‘contrived’. The qualitative data highlight different approaches to differentiation which reflect visitors’ characteristics and different perceptions of what is cool. Cool (an adjective often used by interviewees) appears to be something that is distinct from the mainstream—achieved through possession of insiders’ knowledge (Nancarrow et al., 2001) of specific trends and styles which are started and developed within the creative environment of East London. Detailed analysis of visitors’ perceptions and experiences of these areas has allowed us to propose a typology of tourists to creative areas encompassing five categories. These categories emerged following the analysis of visitors’ interviews, and in particular respondents’ varying levels of engagement with creative production and consumption; their tendency to pioneer and explore areas off-the-beaten track; and their individual ways of affirming superiority. Building on the work of McKercher and du Cros (2002) and Griffin, Hayllar, and Edwards (2008), we call these ‘trendsetters’, ‘detached fashion critics’, ‘cool seekers’, ‘cultural browsers’ and ‘accidental creative tourists’. Such categorisations, as

236

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

Edensor (2000, p. 322) suggests, should be understood as ‘varieties of practice rather than types of people’. We use these categories to illustrate and exemplify, firstly, who creative tourists are, and, secondly, how these areas change over time. Trendsetters are cultural intermediaries employed in the creative sector (especially media, fashion and arts). They are early adopters of fashion trends who search for distinction through the accumulation of sub-cultural capital such as insider knowledge of niche artists and musicians, latest alternative fashion trends and counter-cultural venues. They visit creative areas often—‘[it’s] vibrant, every time I’m here people are different’—and look for undiscovered edgy spaces where they can feel like a real pioneer and be ‘inspired’. Detached Fashion Critics are generally employed in the creative sector and derive social distinction from their knowledge of niche forms of culture and non-mainstream travel/leisure. Their identifying characteristic is their disdain for anything which they perceive as contrived and inauthentic. Being able to discriminate between what is ‘cool’ and what is ‘naff’ is a form of embodied cultural capital and involves judgements about the levels of cultural capital possessed by others. Indeed, what detached fashion critics dislike above all is the presence of Trendsetters, ‘the fashionable crowd’—who are deemed the personification of contrived and commercialised creativity: ‘it annoys me just that everyone is in their gear’. Instead, they stress their interest in what they consider authentic, such as expressions of ethnic diversity, products made by emerging artists and run-down spaces such as music venues, an old local pub or a deserted side-street. Cool Seekers, in contrast to Detached Fashion Critics, openly justify their visit with their desire to soak up the trendy atmosphere and pick up new trends. In most cases Cool Seekers are overseas tourists consciously visiting London’s creative areas to observe fashion styles or music/art trends. Often, they have an idealised image of London as the creative and alternative fashion capital; thus they see creative areas as the stereotypical ‘Real London’. Unlike Detached Fashion Critics, they admire Trendsetters, who they consider the main attraction: ‘[the people] are cool and trendy and I try to be like them [laughs]’. Alongside these three types there are also people who are not motivated primarily by a desire to experience and exhibit creativity. They can be divided into two main categories: ‘cultural browsers’ and ‘accidental creative tourists’. Cultural Browsers are often unfamiliar with contemporary art or alternative fashion; they are more generally interested in culture and seek to discover new places, looking for authenticity and ‘real people’. Cultural Browsers are generally new to the area and they have come following the advice of a friend, magazine or guide book. They seek cultural capital in the form of knowledge; for example, of local cultural expressions, vernacular architecture or ethnic products. Accidental Creative Tourists do not visit because of the specific place characteristics of the area; generally they are staying in local accommodation (such as a youth hostel or visiting friends or relations who happen to live there). Although not deliberate, their experience is not shallower than previous types, as they often spend more time in the area and try to experience it as a local would— ‘coming here you see things you would never see’. The opportunity to accumulate cultural capital seems to be a fundamental element of the tourist experience of creative urban areas. Alongside simply acquiring cultural capital our research demonstrated that interviewees sought to display, or consume this capital. For example, Trendsetters in East London were more likely to be exhibiting their cultural capital, whereas Cool Seekers were motivated by the desire to be amongst those perceived to have higher levels. In this sense they were consuming the cultural capital possessed by others. The places we examined offer access to forms of objectified cultural capital, ranging from a hard-to-find music record to a photograph of Banksy’s latest piece of street art. As Bourdieu acknowledges, objectified cultural capital exists independently of persons. But many of the forms of cultural capital uncovered by our research were ultimately intellectual dispositions. Our interviewees mainly sought/exhibited embodied cultural (and subcultural) capital, in the form of knowledge (of the latest fashion trends, cool venues or alternative bands). Knowing a shop, a fashion style, or even a whole area unknown to the mainstream is a way of exhibiting distinction in their social field. Even when cultural capital was objectified—e.g. cool clothes—it was significant that visitors were more interested in the clothes other people were wearing than those they could purchase. Again this emphasises the importance of embodied cultural capital to creative areas. Bourdieu’s notion of institutionalised cultural capital did not seem particularly significant. However, certain visitors (mainly Cultural Browsers) were attracted by the presence of a slightly different form of institu-

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

237

tionalised cultural capital: the presence of revered institutions (such as the White Cube Gallery in Hoxton or the Rough Trade record store in Spitalfields) or certain events (for instance First Thursdays). However, this was still linked to embodied cultural capital as it was the associated artists and participants that were the main draw. Our study also shows the temporal and relative nature of cultural capital: knowing and embodying cool lifestyles and attitudes is important but knowing them before others in one’s own social field is even more important. Perceptions change over time, due both to changes in the areas (such as tourism development and image) and in themselves, for instance as they grow older or start to know the areas better. Whilst any of our study’s four creative areas may be perceived as cool, authentic and off-thebeaten-track by a first time tourist, more frequent patrons distinguish between Spitalfields/Brick Lane (more popular, thus less cool) and areas such as London Fields and Deptford (less explored and so more cool). Equally, different purposes for the visit and different levels of experience of the city often correspond to very different—at times contradictory—perceptions and interpretations. For instance, Detached Fashion Critics consider trendy, pretentious and touristy areas intimidating and totally unappealing; they are interested in ‘undiscovered’, edgy and bohemian places.

Conclusion This paper contributes to current debates by analysing visitors’ experiences of four non-central creative areas in London. Although space limitations mean it has been difficult to reflect the full range of data from which themes emerged, clear conclusions can be drawn from the 142 interviews. Our qualitative data show that creative production benefits the visitor experience in a number of ways, attracting people to creative areas. A concentration of creative industries: provides opportunities for consumption and for the accumulation of cultural capital; leverages the presence of creative producers and other creative visitors (perceived as an attraction); and contributes to the development of an arty urban environment (e.g. street art, posters). All these factors contribute to an area’s atmosphere and cool image. The study also allowed some reflections on the applicability of Bourdieu’s notion of distinction to a contemporary urban context. Featherstone (1991) states that places may display objectified cultural capital, for example in the form of well-preserved buildings and monuments. He further notes that in western postmodern societies a wider range of objects (such as graffiti art and pop culture) are perceived as culturally valuable, so a wider range of places can compete with more traditional historic destinations in the race for status. Following our analysis we claim that urban areas not only display objectified cultural capital (in a diverse range of forms) but they can also possess and accumulate embodied cultural capital, for instance in the form of coolness and cultural diversity. We may also add that places exhibit institutionalised cultural capital, facilitated by the presence of certain organisations or particular events. If atmosphere, the overall mood or feel of a place, thus represents a place’s habitus (as argued by Frey, 2009), tourists may be drawn to urban areas whose habitus is consistent with their cultural preferences, in order to accumulate and display cultural capital. Our analysis helps to reconcile contradictory interpretations of cultural capital. Whilst the notion that cities can possess cultural capital sits awkwardly with Bourdieu’s original ideas, we assert that urban areas can have cultural capital—but via the people they host rather than the assets they possess. By adopting the Shakespearian principle ‘what is the city but the people?’ (Coriolanus) we can see how Bourdieu’s notion of embodied cultural capital can be applied to places rather than merely individuals/ groups. Indeed, an important finding of this research is that people are a fundamental attraction; cool cultural intermediaries (such as artists, musicians and designers) attract visitors in search of style models and a certain ‘arty vibe’. In this sense, consumers (tourists, visitors, workers, residents) become prosumers (Toffler, 1980) who simultaneously consume and construct the place (Rakic´ & Chambers, 2012), co-creating the value that can be derived from the experience of these areas (Haldrup & Larsen, 2010). In the previous section we discussed the temporal and relative dimensions of cultural capital and their particular relevance in relation to the concept of cool. If coolness consists of insider knowledge of consumption practices as yet unavailable to the mainstream (Nancarrow et al., 2001), its value cer-

238

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

tainly has a temporal and relative nature. Similarly, our analysis of visitors’ perceptions of creative non-central areas in London shows that the same area (like Spitalfields/Brick Lane or Hoxton/Shoreditch) may be seen as edgy and bohemian by some (for example, Cultural Browsers or Cool Seekers) while others (for example, Detached Fashion Critics or Trendsetters) perceive it as popular and commodified, thus no longer cool. For this reason, creative areas are difficult to promote as their attractiveness lies in the absence of commercialisation and big attractions, as well as in their diversity, authenticity and everyday activities. Forms of tourism development policy such as marketing, theming, facilities aimed at tourists and signposting carry the risk of turning these areas into tourist enclaves, perceived by creatives and tourists as the very antithesis of creativity and coolness. Soft approaches to policy, however, can be appropriate: for instance, the provision of opportunities (including space) for creative entrepreneurs to network, showcase their work and sell their products, as well as mingle with tourists. Creative markets and events such as open studio days are, for example, important occasions where production, consumption and the exercise of people’s own creativity (via the inspiration process) come together. Small and micro businesses are not only seen by visitors to creative areas as more authentic and appealing but they are also places where innovation and new creative work can be best developed (Jacobs, 1970). Further research is needed to establish whether the qualities of successful creative areas can be sustained, or whether—because higher cultural capital ushers in economic capital—their evolution is inevitable. References Ashworth, G., & Page, S. (2011). Urban tourism research: Recent progress and current paradoxes. Tourism Management, 32, 1–15. Bathelt, H., & Graf, A. (2008). Internal and external dynamics of the Munich film and TV industry cluster and limitations to future growth. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1944–1965. Bell, D., & Jayne, M. (2010). The creative countryside: Policy and practice in the UK rural cultural economy. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 209–218. Binkhorst, E., & Den Dekker, T. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18, 311–327. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital (pp. 241–258). In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood. Bovone, L. (2005). Fashionable quarters in the postindustrial city: The Ticinese of Milan. City and Community, 4(4), 359–380. Bridge, G. (2006). Perspectives on cultural capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 43(4), 719–730. Brown, A., O’Connor, J., & Cohen, S. (2000). Local music policies within a global music industry: Cultural quarters in Manchester and Sheffield. Geoforum, 31, 437–451. Castells, M. (1989). The informational city: Information technology, economic restructuring, and the urban regional process. Oxford: Blackwell. Clark, T. N. (2002). Amenities drive urban growth. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(5). Crang, M. (2004). Cultural geographies of tourism (pp. 74–84). In A. A. Hall, C. M. Lew, & A. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism. London: Blackwell. DCMS (2001). Creative industries: Mapping document, department of culture. London: Media and Sport (DCMS). Eade, J. (2002). Adventure tourists and locals in a global city. Resisting tourist performances in London’s ‘East End’. In S. Coleman & M. Crang (Eds.), Tourism: Between place and performance. Beghahn Books. Edensor, T. (2000). Staging tourism: Tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 322–344. Edensor, T. (2007). Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism. Social and Cultural Geography, 8, 199–215. Edwards, D., Griffin, T., & Hayllar, B. (2008). Urban tourism research: Developing an agenda. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4), 1032–1052. Evans, G. L. (2005). Measure for measure: Evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5/ 6), 959–984. Evans, G. L. (2006). Strategies for creative spaces: Case study London. London: London Development Agency. Evans, G. L., Foord, J., & Shaw, P. (2005). Creative spaces: Phase I report. London: London Development Agency. Evans, G. (2007). Creative spaces, tourism and the city. In G. Richards & J. Wilson (Eds.), Creativity, tourism and development. London: Routledge. Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture and postmodernism. Calif., London, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.. Featherstone, M. (1998). The flâneur, the city and virtual public life. Urban Studies, 35(6–6), 909–925. Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it is transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Frey, O. (2009). Creativity of places as a resource for cultural tourism (pp. 135–154). In G. Maciocco & S. Serreli (Eds.), Enhancing the city, urban and landscape perspectives 6. Berlin: Springer. Gospodini, A. (2001). Urban design, urban space morphology, urban tourism: An emerging new paradigm concerning their relationship. European Planning Studies, 9(7), 925–934. Green, N. (1999). Artists in the East End 1968–1980. The space of change. Rising East, Journal of East London Studies, 3(2), 20–37.

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

239

Griffin, T., Hayllar, B., & Edwards, D. (2008). Places and people: A precinct typology (pp. 39–62). In B. Hayllar, T. Griffin, & D. Edwards (Eds.), City spaces – tourist places: Urban tourism precincts. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Guachalla Gutierrez, A. F. (2011). The role of cultural flagships in the perception and experience of urban areas for tourism and culture. Case study: The Royal Opera House in Covent Garden, PhD thesis, University of Westminster, School of Architecture and the Built Environment. Accessed 02.12.13. Haldrup, M., & Larsen, J. (2010). Tourism, performance and the everyday: Consuming the orient. London: Routledge. Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in a world culture. Theory, Culture and Society, 7, 237–251. Hubbard, P. (2006). City. London: Routledge. Hutton, T. (2006). Spatiality, built form, and creative industry development in the inner city. Environment and Planning A, 38, 1819–1841. Jacobs, J. (1970). The economy of cities. London: Cape. Jacobs, M. J. (1996). Edge of empire. Postcolonialism and the city. London: Routledge. Jordan, F., & Gibson, H. (2004). Researching women’s solo travel experiences. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism. Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. London: Routledge. Judd, D. R., & Fainstein, S. S. (1999). The tourist city. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps, and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153–168. Landry, C. (2000). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. London: Earthscan Publications. Larsen, J. (2008). De-exoticizing tourist travel: Everyday life and sociality on the move. Leisure Studies, 27(1), 21–34. Lash, S. (1990). Sociology of postmodernism. London: Routledge. Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of signs and space. London: Sage. Lefebre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ley, D. (2003). Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification. Urban Studies, 40, 2527–2544. Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (Eds.). (2005). Qualitative research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lloyd, R. (2006). Neo-bohemia: Art and commerce in the postindustrial city. New York: Routledge. Lugosi, P., Bell, D., & Lugosi, K. (2010). Hospitality, culture and regeneration: Urban decay, entrepreneurship and the ‘ruin’ bars of Budapest. Urban Studies, 47, 3079–3101. Maitland, R. (2008). Conviviality and everyday life: The appeal of new areas of London for visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 15–25. Maitland, R. (2010). Everyday life as a creative experience in cities. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3), 176–186. Maitland, R., & Newman, P. (Eds.). (2009). World tourism cities: Developing tourism off the beaten track. London: Routledge. McCabe, S. (2005). Who is a tourist? A critical review. Tourist Studies, 5(1), 85–106. McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism. New York: Haworth. Michael, E. J. (2003). Tourism micro-clusters. Tourism Economics, 9(2), 133–145. Montgomery, J. (2003). Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration. Part 1: Conceptualising cultural quarters. Planning Practice and Research, 18(4), 293–306. Nancarrow, C., Nancarrow, P., & Page, J. (2001). An analysis of the concept of cool and its marketing implications. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1(4), 311–322. Neff, G. (2005). The changing place of cultural production: The location of social networks in a digital media industry. Annals of the American Association of Political and Social Science, 597, 134–152. Pacione, M. (2005). Urban geography (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, history, practice. London: Routledge. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90. Pratt, A. C. (2009). Urban regeneration. From the arts ‘feel good’ factor to the cultural economy: A case study of Hoxton, London. Urban Studies, 46, 1041–1061. Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2003). Festival as creative destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 7–30. Rakic´, T., & Chambers, D. (2012). Rethinking the consumption of places. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1612–1633. Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and tourism. The state of the art. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1225–1253. Richards, G., & Raymond, C. (2000). Creative tourism. ATLAS News, 23, 16–20. Richards, G. (1994). Developments in European tourism (pp. 366–376). In A. Seaton (Ed.), Tourism: The state of the art. London: Wiley. Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27, 1408–1413. Robbins, D. (2000). Bourdieu and culture. London: Sage. Rofe, M. (2003). ’I Want to be Global’: Theorising the gentrifying class as an emergent elite global community. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2512–2526. Russo, A. P., & Arias Sans, A. (2009). Student communities and landscapes of creativity. How Venice—‘the world’s most touristed city’—is changing. European Urban and Regional Studies, 16, 161–175. Sacco, P. L., & Segre, G. (2009). Creativity, cultural investment and local development: A new theoretical framework for endogenous growth. Advances in Spatial Science, 3, 281–294. Scott, A. (2000). The cultural economy of cities. Essays on the geography of image-producing industries. London: Sage. Shaw, S., Bagwell, S., & Karmowska, J. (2004). Ethnoscapes as spectacle: Reimaging multicultural districts as new destinations for leisure and tourism consumption. Urban Studies, 41(10), 1983–2000. Shields, R. (1994). Fancy footwork: Walter Benjamin’s notes on flânerie. In K. Tester (Ed.), The flâneur. New York: Routledge. Silver, D., Nichols Clark, T., & Rothfield, L. (2006). A theory of scenes. Paper presented to annual meeting of Urban Affairs Association, Montreal, April 19–22, 2006. Simmel, G. ([1900] 1978). The Philosophy of Money (Tom Bottomore and David Frisby, Trans.). London: Routledge. Stebbins, R. (1979). Amateurs: On the margin between work and leisure. Beverly Hills: Sage.

240

I. Pappalepore et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 44 (2014) 227–240

Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370. Thornton, S. (1995). Club cultures: Music, media and subcultural capital. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thrift, N. (1997). Cities without modernity, cities with magic. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 113, 138–149. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Bantam Books. Tokatli, N. (2011). Creative individuals, creative places: Marc Jacobs, New York and Paris. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(6), 1256–1271. UNESCO (2006). Understanding creative industries. Cultural statistics for public-policy making. Retreived on November 2, 2012, from UNESCO portal website: . Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience. Conceptual Developments, Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 199–216. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Urry, J. (1995). Consuming places. London: Routledge. Urry, J. (2005). The Place of emotions within place. In J. Davidson, L. Bondi, & N. Smith (Eds.), Emotional geographies. Burlington VT, Aldershot: Ashgate Press. Veblen, T. ([1899] 1970). The theory of the leisure class. London: Unwin. Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 349–370. Wilson, E. (2000). Bohemians. The glamorous outcasts. London: I.B. Tauris & Co.. Wynn, J. (2011). The tour guide: Walking and talking New York. University of Chicago Press. Xie, P. F., Osumare, H., & Ibrahim, A. (2007). Gazing the hood: Hip-hop as tourism attraction. Tourism Management, 28, 452–460. Zukin, S. (1982). Loft-living: Culture and capital in urban change. London: The John Hopkins Press Ltd.. Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Oxford: Blackwell.