The Tourist Bubble - Whats it's Worth?

The issue we discussed last week was about the tourist ‘bubble’ in cities, and of course in Chicago in more detail. The idea of the tourist bubble comes from the fact that often in major cities the tourist attractions/districts will be located somehow separately from the flow of everyday city life. Literally they may be placed in one part of the city (Navy Pier and the Lake Front, or Millennium Park and Michigan Avenue), but their figurative flow may also differ. There is often more police presence and more focus on ‘beautifying the area’ (keeping it clean and admirable, moving homeless people along so tourists don’t feel awkward). 

I think in order to maintain any significant tourist business in a city such as Chicago this is a necessary aspect of tourism; I mean if the area is not appealing then people won’t visit, and I think I am safe in assuming that people on holiday would like to come into as little contact as possible with the harsh realities of city life.  And I know that, although that might bother some true urbanites, a lot of tourists come to cities precisely to visit the landmarks such as Sears (Willis) Tower and the ‘Bean’ (Cloud Gate). 

On the issue of whether this is a sound investment I believe that it is. Tourism spawns the birth of many other jobs and income in the city (restaurants, service jobs, hotels, bars etc.) that might not be as successful without a thriving tourist trade. In fact, one of the main reasons that we in Britain have not abolished the Monarchy is that overall it is a good tourist investment!! However I can understand the viewpoints that were expressed in our class discussion. Undoubtedly 100s of millions would be better spent on schools, housing, health care etc.

Yet, if these were focused on, and tourism not, then the revenue from tourism might not come in to make Chicago the thriving, global city that it is today. And in turn the city might go the same way as Detroit or other industrial centres. And then the money spent on housing and schools would go to waste... At the same time, did the city really need to spend so much on that stage in the centre of the park? I agree it is nice, but was the architects name really worth it?