Historical Archive for Tourism

The Center for Metropolitan Studies at the Technical University in Berlin houses a unique archive on tourism. The Historisches Archiv zum Tourismus is dedicated to collecting historical materials related to travel and tourism for the purpose of promoting interdisciplinary research. It is the world’s largest archival collection of this type. Though the primary focus is on 19th- and 20th-century materials on tourism in middle Europe, there is also information on other periods and geographical areas.

Interested scholars should inquire about using the collection via e-mail and additional information can be found at the archive’s website: http://hist-soz.de/hat/archivtxt-E.html

Advertisements

Why can’t he see it? Marshall Berman on Richard Sennett’s The Fall of Public Man

 

By Gareth Millington

I had known it existed for a few years but I only recently got around to tracking down and reading Marshall Berman’s review of Richard Sennett’s The Fall of Public Man (1977). The review was published in The Nation in August 1977, just over forty years ago, thereby chronologically placing the article somewhere between Berman’s first book The Politics of Authenticity (1970) and his best-known work All That Is Solid Melts into Air (1982). Even though Berman was not the most prolific of authors, this article is, to my knowledge, little known. Given its quality I’m surprised it didn’t made it into either Berman’s Adventures in Marxism (1999) collection or this year’s posthumous collection Modernism in the Streets. As such, it remains something of a rarity; indeed, I took pleasure in finally ‘unearthing’ and reading the piece.  I’d been told the review was fairly acerbic, and having previously read Berman’s review of Mike Davis’ City of Quartz (also in The Nation), I could well believe this. Marshall Berman shows a generosity of spirit in his own work, reserving this most of all for regular, everyday city dwellers or  in his interpretations of his beloved Marx, Nietzsche and Rousseau. His contemporaries—especially fellow ‘critical’ urban scholars—are often given much shorter shrift.

sennett cover

Berman’s review of Sennett is an important piece; an entertaining piece, too. It’s only in retrospect that the value of a review article becomes apparent, but it’s rare to see an intellectual heavyweight go up against another as is the case here.  The review has relevance for our own political times, and for our cities too; whether we are thinking about Catalans voting for independence, NFL superstars protesting against police brutality or anti-austerity marches in London. The arguments in this piece are relevant anywhere that people have chosen or have felt compelled to articulate their personal experiences or express their convictions in the public realm of the city.

Many readers will be familiar with Sennett’s book. It is a staple in the canon of urban sociology and continues to shape debates in urban studies on public space. It’s difficult, though, to move away from the verdict that while the book has a compelling thesis and is, unquestionably scholarly and erudite, it is also, well, a little bit stuffy. Sennett venerates ‘impersonal relations’ and is firmly against the kind of self-absorption, or ‘narcissism’ which he sees as a product of the 1960s. He warns against the ‘tyrannies’ of intimacy, claiming that public and intimate life have become worryingly confused, causing us increasing dissatisfaction with both. For example, Sennett (1977) writes, ‘[m]asses of people are concerned with their single life-histories and particular emotions as never before; this concern has proved to be a trap rather than a liberation’ (ibid: 5). Moreover, ‘[…] people are working out in terms of personal feelings public matters which properly can be dealt with only through codes of impersonal meaning’ (ibid: 5). Sennett prefers earlier incarnations of metropolitan life when there was stricter separation between private and public lives and where people wore ‘masks’ or performed ‘roles’ in public life rather than presenting themselves and judging the merits of others as ‘feeling individuals’. Sennett argues that the freedom to feel is much greater when one’s personality and one’s identity in society are unambiguously separated.

mberman1

There is a clear tension between Sennett’s thesis and the position Berman had already outlined in The Politics of Authenticity. For Berman, the wearing of masks in public and the schism between what is said or performed and what one truly thinks or feels is a barrier to leading an authentic life. The pursuit of authenticity is important to Berman. To struggle with and against this contradiction is, he argues, one of the hallmarks of a modern life.

The review begins with (faint) praise for the ambition and provocative nature of Sennett’s book. Berman is impressed that Sennett takes in not only forms of drama staged in theatres, but also those that unfold on the streets, cafés, parks and public spaces of the city. Berman also approvingly notes Sennett’s scholarly, yet vivid depictions of the costumes, masks and public performances of urban life in centuries past. For Berman (1977: 118) though, ‘Sennett’s theoretical scheme is a kind of Paradise Lost, only without any Miltonic promises of redemption at the end’. This is because for Sennett the Golden Age of urban life belongs in Paris and London during the 18th-century. Ever since however, the book reads as if ‘[w]estern values have evolved in a wholly disastrous way, from a public to a private centre, from impersonality to intimacy, from performance to self-revelation […]’ (ibid). Moreover, ‘Sennett’s theory insists that once people begin to think about their feelings, it’s impossible for them to think or care about anything or anyone else’ (ibid: 120).

Berman is confused by Sennett in relation to when or how the proposed Fall takes place, or why people began to get serious about their inner lives. On the latter point, to Berman’s mind, the answer is obvious. It is suffering and injustice that cause an outpouring of emotional life, creating a release that enhances rather than diminishes public life. Fundamentally, people become unwilling to suffer alone or in silence. Acts of sharing and recognition lead to learning, protest and revolution. This was also the case in the 18th-century as is evident in the philosophy of Rousseau or the fiction of Samuel Johnson, sources that Berman suggests Sennett ignores or misrepresents. Sennett is too concerned with the forms that public life takes, rather than examining its content and trying to decipher what people are trying to express. Berman argues that even during Sennett’s favoured century, people knew how to see through the most splendid facades, including their own. No mask was ever worn without a sense of playfulness or irony. Berman’s summation, ‘is that Sennett sees none of this. As far as he is concerned, the Age of Revolution marks the burial of public man, not his rebirth’ (ibid: 119).

Berman is left exhausted by the middle part of the book, complaining how we are forced to accompany Sennett on a monochromatic tour through 19th and 20th-century Paris and that never has an American in Paris had such a miserable time. A social theory that grinds something so flat, dull and grey into the city of Paris and the inspirational art that celebrates it is an ‘environmental crime’, writes Berman. However, Berman is more engaged by the final sections of the book where Sennett eloquently affirms the values of city life. The problem is that he doesn’t budge from his point that the quality that animates urban life is impersonality. Once more, Sennett’s argument is that our current fear of impersonality has a deleterious effect on our cities, causing us to retreat into ethnic enclaves and/or the politics of community and defensive belonging. Berman finds this suggestion too high-minded:

Can a man really love the city if he can’t stand the people in it? His [Sennett’s] attack on localism is grossly abusive to those involved in it. He can’t imagine any reasonable motives on their part—e.g. a belief that locality is the only level at which most of us can participate actively, take initiative in making policy, exert some effective control over events and live a public life.

Sennett’s unfortunate example of ethnic enclavism is the Jews of Forest Hills in Queens. From this point on, the gloves come off and Berman gets up close, even accusing Sennett of getting bored by his own ideas. It is fascinating to read this caustic encounter between scholars who were, at the time, New York contemporaries (Sennett at NYU and Berman at City College). I wonder what kind of frosty relations existed between the two when, inevitably, their paths crossed at seminars or events in the city. I’m also interested in what shared acquaintances, friends and colleagues made of the review; did they sympathise with Sennett? Perhaps they felt Berman was correct but ultimately went too far? Berman willingly positions himself as the underdog in this review, just as he did in his later contretemps with Perry Anderson in the New Left Review in 1984. He does this here mainly to mock Sennett’s tendency to look down on those who share their personal troubles in public; all this from Sennett’s NYU office on Washington Square, where, confusingly,

[…] at any given moment, he is surrounded by hundreds or thousands of people of every race and age, acting and interacting, harmonizing and improving […] But none of this, alas, happens in Sennett’s city; as far as he is concerned, nothing like this has happened for the last 200 years. I picture him trudging through the square, wrapped up in his theory that all modern men are wrapped up in themselves […] (ibid: 121)

The last line is a killer. Berman concludes the review by asking why Sennett is unable to see how the public life that does exist in our cities can rescue us from our personal sorrows and anxieties and renew our strength to fight against injustice. The barrier, Berman surmises, is his theory. Berman detests theories that downgrade the critical potentials of individual social actors (his criticisms of Weber and Foucault in All That is Solid… are, let’s say, unrestrained). Sennett’s theory in The Fall… falls into this category. It decrees that all roads are blind alleys, that the rich variety of modern life is illusory, that contemporary urban life is all one big wasteland (ibid: 121). His theory always wins. It is self-fulfilling; shutting down a vast contemporary array of urban activities (that are all political in the broadest sense) without ever seeking to acknowledge or understand their meaning. Berman’s reading of Sennett is that everything that can be valued about city life belongs to a time that can never be recovered. In contrast, as we now know from All That is Solid…, Marshall Berman views modernism is an ongoing rather than outdated theme of contemporary life. It’s promises still exist to be fulfilled rather than abolished.

References:

Berman, M. (1977) ‘Facades at Face Value’, The Nation, August 6 1977

Sennett, R. (1977) The Fall of Public Man. New York: Alfred A. Knopf

EU Mobility Week: Inside the Sofia Metro

The European Union’s Mobility week is a continent-wide event that opens doors to mobility and transport operations for all citizens for free from 16th – 22nd of September. The 2017 edition of European Mobility week has been organised under the theme of clean, shared and intelligent mobility. The slogan is ‘Sharing gets you further’. The use of shared forms of transport can reduce costs and lower carbon emissions. The idea is to also encourage meetings between new people and make journeys more sociable. The thinking behind mobility week 2017 is to enable the public and local officials to experience the benefits of shared mobility. The week consists of 2,422 towns and cities with 605 mobility actions registered.

 

In Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, the Metro opened their doors to anyone who wanted to learn more about how the system operates and the new third line which is due to open in 2019. The third line will have 14 new stations built and will connect to lines 1 and 2 in 2 existing stations. The Sofia Metropolitan began operation on January 28, 1998. In July 2016, the metro opened the interconnection between lines 1 and 2. There are 35 stations and the total route length of 40.0 kilometres (24.9 mi) is among the top 30 of the most extensive European metro systems. The Metro provides fast connections between the densely-populated districts of Lyulin – Mladost (Line 1) and Nadezhda – Lozenets (Line 2). In April 2015 Line 1 was extended to Sofia Airport terminal 2.

 

The Mobility Week tour started at the Metro head office. It began by a tour of the control room for line 1 and 2 as well as the police security control booth. We observed how the lines are monitored and the trains instructed throughout the line. We also received a detailed presentation about the construction of the third line. It is a big construction that will traverse the city north-east to south-west. At present the number of passengers the Sofia metro carries daily is 350,000 with the third line it is anticipated the metro will carry 500,000 passengers. The construction entails 1000 workers building 16 stations (including 2 stations that are extensions of two on Line 1 and 2) and will generate 600 new jobs in the city.

 

The metro dates to the State-Socialist regime of Bulgaria. As such, the original two lines can be seen as socialist infrastructure. The new line presents an interesting counter point, as it has been built to European and not Soviet designs and operations; the new cars will be European rather than Soviet. The metro offers a window through which to explore the uses, adoption, and contestations of socialist and post-socialist infrastructure as they work in unison. Urban projects such as the metro showcase the competing urban cultures that continue to be at play and drawn into conversation over time and space.

 

For more info on Mobility Week: http://www.mobilityweek.eu

For more info on the Sofia Metro: http://www.Metropolitan.bg

Pictures awaiting endorsement

Whither the Creative City? The Comeuppance of Richard Florida

Talent, Technology, and Tolerance, said Florida (2002), were the pre-conditions for a successful urban economy. Florida’s ‘creative class’ theory, much copied, emulated and critically maligned, delineated urban regions with ‘talent’ (PhDs); ‘technology’ (things like patents granted); and ‘tolerance’ (represented by a rather arbitrary ‘gay index’ of same-sex households in census data).

This combination, according to Florida’s interpretation of his data, indicated urban creative ‘winners’ versus urban ‘losers’: blue collar cities with more traditional economies and traditional worldviews. Creative people want to be around other creative people, wrote Florida, so failing to provide an ideal urban environment for them will result in their ‘flight’ (2005) and the loss of all the benefits of the creative economy. Therefore, to win in the ‘new economy’ (Harvey, 1989), cities need to compete for, and win the affections of, the ‘creative class’. Or so Florida then-believed.

Policymakers were keen to spread the ‘gospel’ of the ‘creative city’ (Peck, 2005) and despite its methodological question marks, the idea has found traction in both North American/European and Non-Western contexts. Florida’s books were ‘required reading’ for urban policy officials in Singapore, for example – one direct quote given to me during my doctoral research on cultural policy in the City-State (2012-2013). The rather awkward linkage between Florida’s North-American theoretical perspective and Singapore’s loosening restrictions on ‘table top dancing’ (in the words of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong) is just one of many examples of the haphazard yet fervent application of policies geared toward an envisioned (and mythologized) ‘creative’ elite.

The elite nature of the ‘creatives’ that Florida conjured into being, and the sharp delineation between urban ‘winners’ (creative) and ‘losers’ (non-creative), were not lost on Florida’s critics (among them, Peck 2005; McCann, 2007; Zimmerman, 2008), who quickly equated these ideas as neoliberal economics wrapped in a one-size-fits-all disguise.

This division, however, has become especially prescient since the 2008 financial crash, and in light of the sweeping socio-political movements that swept populist leaders like Donald Trump into power. What unifies populist movements from ‘Make America Great Again’ to ‘Brexit’ are reactions against urban elites and globally-focused cosmopolitan ideas. In other words, the very things Florida suggested cities needed to win.

Map of ‘Brexit’ Voting Patterns, with London inset 

It seems that Florida himself, who has made a (successful) career out of the ‘creative city’ thesis, has now come full circle and has re-thought, critically, his own theories (having sold enough copies of his books to enable him the luxury of such a self-critique).

His recent book, ‘The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class – and What we Can Do About It’ (2017), recognizes the problems in the increasing gap between elite, cosmopolitan cities and more traditional / conservative hinterlands. Indeed, Florida recognizes this gap is tearing apart the fabric of society, a fair and just observation.

Florida’s new argument is a sort of conceptual throat-clearing of why this gap is problematic and he adopts a much more left-wing approach than he has taken previously in suggesting some ways to combat the divide (solutions like affordable housing built on a mass scale, to make it easier for people of all incomes to live and remain in ‘winning’ cities where they are now priced out and displaced). The achievability of these solutions are left for urban policy officials to figure out, but the sentiment, at least, mirrors the growing and urgent call for housing equity in the world’s most expensive (and unequal) cities.

So, perhaps the new book represents the self-imposed end of the ‘creative city’ paradigm (which had a lifespan from 2002 to 2017, a healthy 15 years). The ‘creative city’ is dead, even if still dominant (to re-phrase Neil Smith’s 2008 musings on neoliberalism’s demise and and paradoxical resilience). If, as critics attested, the ‘creative city’ is inherently a neoliberal concept, then, as neoliberalism collapses under its own crisis-prone weight, so must the ‘creative city’. So what comes next?

What I find remarkable about this shift is the rapid speed at which the discourse has changed. Florida was not the only voice in the 2000-2017 time period arguing for the dominance of ‘winning’ cities: see also Edward Glaeser’s book ‘The Triumph of the City’, (2011) which in a slightly different yet similar vein, outlines a winning model of a city that has ‘made us richer, smarter, greener’ (with Manhattan portrayed on the book’s cover). And associated policy – pieces on ‘super-mayors’, and the potential for individual cities to change the world, released by urban think tanks (based in some of Florida’s ‘winners’).

From Silicon Valley’s homeless camps to London’s tragic Grenfell fire and the rejection of that city by Brexit voters, it now seems that the world’s dominant (economically, anyway) cities have emerged into the post-neoliberal age as highly vulnerable (rather than simply ‘winners’) and rife with problems. Furthermore, the resilience of deep poverty, and a falling standard of living in cities in the Global South (and North), pose difficult questions for urbanists who have long considered the ‘city’ as the ideal form of human settlement. If the city isn’t making us richer, smarter, or greener – and by extension, if the city is causing dangerous socio-cultural-political divides that threaten to topple longstanding stable world governments and institutions – then is the way forward anti-urban, decentralized and bucolic, as envisioned by earlier urbanists such as Frank Lloyd Wright (in his vision for ‘Broadacre City’, 1935?).

Wright’s ‘Broadacre City’, 1935

As new technologies like driverless cars and IT infrastructure continue to shrink distances and re-shape settlement and labor patterns, and as anti-urban movements re-shape the political landscape in dramatic and paradigmatic ways,  it remains to be seen which cities will ‘win’ or ‘lose’ in the future;  or even if the city will remain the prototype for human co-habitation at all. Indeed, the future might be a rural one: will Florida’s next book be entitled ‘The Creative Hinterland,’ written from the comfort of a self-sustaining 40-acre exurban ranch?

CFP – TICYUrb June 2018

Call for Papers and Posters:

The TICYUrb (Third International Conference of Young Urban Researchers) is an international event that aims to echo frontier research, artistic works and professional practice related to different urban contexts around the world, under an environment of vibrant dialog between academia and society.
The conference is split in ten tracks: Collectivecity (the right to the city: 50 years later), Productcity (the city as a product), Divercity (diversity in the city), Fractalcity (the city amid policies), Ucity (utopias and dystopias), Fearcity (in-security), Metacity (ways of thinking and making city), Transitcity (migrations and racism), RiskCity (risks in the city) and City O’clock (24 hours in the city). We encourage the submission of theoretical and empirical works about these topics. TICYUrb wish to act as a bridge between social, human, natural and all other scientific domains, so every paper will be welcomed and accepted for consideration.
We encourage the submission of theoretical or empirical works about these topics. TICYUrb wish to act as a bridge between social, human, natural and all other scientific domains, so every paper will be welcomed and accepted for consideration.

Abstract of max. 500 words and a short biography/Vita via must be submitted via the form in our web-site.

We accept papers in English, Portuguese, Spanish, and French.

Authors should let us know in which language they prefer to present their papers.

This event will be a platform for sharing ongoing or recent work, open debate and networking. In parallel with the conference sessions, there will be open debates among young professional, exclusive networking sessions, and field excursions, among other activities.
TICYUrb will be held in Lisbon from June 18th to June 22nd 2018 at ISCTE-IUL
TICYURB is a collaborative effort of the Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology (CIES-IUL), the Research Center on Socioeconomic Change and Territory (DINAMIA’CET-IUL), the Interdisciplinar Center of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), the Institute of Sociology – University of Porto (ISUP) and the School of Architecture of the University of Sheffield (SSoA).
For further information visit our website: ticyurb.wordpress.com
And follow us in Twitter @ticyurb and Facebook: facebook.com/TICYURB

Manuel Garcia-Ruiz
Research Assistant at CIES-IUL & ISUP
TICYUrb Coordinator

Matter and Memory

There has been a lot written, tweeted, and argued recently about the place of statues and monuments in cities throughout the world. The arguments made by young scholars at elite British universities and citizens in American cities highlights the emotional, political, cultural, and imaginative power these objects hold. In Eastern Europe, particularly former state socialist countries, the debates over socialist era monuments have been part of life since 1991. In some cases, the argument about trying to erase history by removing socialist era monuments echoes the attempts of the state socialist regimes who erased history both materially and immaterially. This included new construction of monuments, roads, and plazas, and the renaming of existing places, rewriting educational material, and mass cultural programmes.

 

In Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria after the end of Todor Zhikov’s regime in 1991 the mausoleum built for Georgi Dimitrov, the founder of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, was demolished in 1999. The area next to the city park in the centre of Sofia where the mausoleum stood remains empty with many plans about what to do with the space nearly twenty years later. Anthropological and geographical studies of Central and Eastern Europe have highlighted the multitude of experiences in the years following the collapse of state socialism across the region. The role of memory is a central part of post-socialist experiences. Creed (1998, 1999) has drawn attention to the ways that socialist memories are used to propose questions of the post-socialist present, emphasising the power of ritual to inform understanding of political and economic changes in everyday activities. Light and Young (2014) argue, through their study of residents contesting the renaming of socialist-era squares and boulevards in Romania, that everyday habits and memory remain stable despite rupture.

 

On July 28th 2017 the socialist era monument “1300 years of Bulgaria” in Sofia was demolished after several years of plans, legal actions, and protests and counter protests. The monument was unfinished at the time state socialism ended in the country and was in a serve state of disrepair. The decision to remove the monument was taken by the Sofia Municipal Council in 2014. However, the decision was repeatedly challenged in court by the monument’s sculptor Valentin Starchev. As part of the controversy around the monument have been efforts to restore the original monument to the Bulgarian army that the socialist regime replaced with ‘1300 years of Bulgaria’. In 2014, a group of 1,400 activists gathered together and organised a petition to restore the earlier Known Warrior Memorial for the 1st and 6th Infantry Regiments. The plans to restore the Known Warrior Memorial comes at a time when charges of erasing history are levelled at anyone disagreeing with monuments. However, in Sofia this memorial will stand in the shadow of the National Palace of Culture built in 1981 by Todor Zhikov’s socialist regime. At least here the relationship between different histories and regimes will be in constant conversation about the past and possible futures.

 

 

Site of the Monument of 1300 years of Bulgaria in Sofia. The former monument and the view towards the National Palace of culture.

Images courtesy of Anna Plyushteva and Desire&Subtext

 

References

Creed G (1998) Domesticating Revolution: From Socialist Reform to Ambivalent Transition in a Bulgarian Village . University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

Creed G (1999) Deconstructing socialism in Bulgaria. In: Burawoy M and Verdery K (eds) Uncertain Transition: Ethnographies of Change in the Postsocialist World. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 223–243.

Light D and Young C (2013) Urban space, political identity and the unwanted legacies of statesocialism: Bucharest’s problematic Centru Civic in the post-socialist era. Nationalities Papers41(4): 515–535.

Light D and Young C (2014) Habit, memory, and the persistence of socialist-era street names in postsocialist Bucharest, Romania. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104(3): 668– 685.

Upcoming Conference

A conference on tourism and cities will take place in Kitzbuhl, Austria in September. For details on “Fernweh und Stadt.Tourismus als städtisches Phänomen,” visit the following website: http://www.stadtgeschichtsforschung.at/

Programm

Fernweh und Stadt. Tourismus als städtisches Phänomen

Kitzbühel, 27.–29. September 2017

Organisation: Ferdinand Opll/Martin Scheutz/Wido Sieberer

Tagungsräumlichkeiten: Rathaus der Stadt Kitzbühel / Saal „Hahnenkamm“ (3. Obergeschoß, Lift vorhanden), Hinterstadt 20, 6370 Kitzbühel

27. September 2017
9.00
Begrüßung durch die Tagungsleitung und den Österreichischen Arbeitskreis für Stadtgeschichtsforschung

Eröffnung
9.20–10.00
Tourismusgeschichte. Aufrisse eines Forschungsfeldes
Hasso Spode, Berlin

Sektion 1: Vorformen der Tourismus
Vorsitzender: Andreas Weigl, Wien
10.00–10.30
Reiseziel Jerusalem. Pilgerfahrt und Tourismus im späten Mittelalter
Folker Reichert, Stuttgart
10.30–11.00
Kavalierstouren – Die Grand Tour des frühneuzeitlichen Adels
Katrin Keller, Wien
11.00–11.30
Sommerfrische – Entstehung eines bürgerlichen Rituals als Sehnsucht nach antiurbanen Sinnesreizen
Peter Payer, Wien
11.30–12.00: Gesamtdiskussion der Referate

Mittagspause 12.00–14.00

Sektion 2: Organisationsformen des städtischen Tourismus
Vorsitzender: Ferdinand Opll, Perchtoldsdorf
14.00–14.30
Der Beginn der organisierten Reise – das Reisebüro als städtische Einrichtung
Martin Scheutz
14.30–15.00
Urbane Gastronomie als Angebotsfaktor im Tourismus
Andreas Weigl, Wien
15.00–15.30
Tourismus im Zeichen faschistischer Propaganda
Sascha Howind, Frankfurt/Main
15.30–16.00: Gesamtdiskussion der Referate

Kaffeepause 16.00–16.30

16.30–18.30: Exkursion durch Kitzbühel – Tourismusgeschichte und ihre Realien (Treffpunkt Rathaus Kitzbühel vor dem Saal „Hahnenkamm“)

28. September 2017
Sektion 3: Wissensvermittlung und Werbung für Reiseziele
Vorsitzender: Martin Scheutz, Wien
9.00–9.30
Im Schatten der Metropole: Salzburg und Graz in Reiseführern des 19. Jahrhunderts
Harald Tersch, Wien
9.30–10.00
Das Reiseziel auf der Litfass-Säule: Plakate als Werbeträger
Bernhard Denscher, Wien
10.00–10.30
Reisen im Kopf. Stadtansichten und Panoramen als Medien von Information und Vergnügen
Ferdinand Opll, Perchtoldsdorf
10.30–11.00: Gesamtdiskussion der Referate

Kaffeepause 11.00–11.30

Mittagspause (bis 15.00)

Sektion 4: Maßnahmen zur Attraktivitätssteigerung im Bereich des städtischen Tourismus
Vorsitzender: Nikolaus Reisinger, Graz
15.00–15.30
Die Festivalstadt
Jan Hein Furnee, Nimwegen
15.30–16.00
Die Stadt als Schauplatz großer Sportereignisse
Noyan Dinçkal, Siegen
16.00–16.30
(Selbst-)Bildnisse der Stadt Linz – Ansichtskarten für den Tourismus
Walter Schuster, Linz
16.30–17.00: Gesamtdiskussion der Referate

18.00: Abendvortrag mit Empfang der Stadt
Vorsitzender: Andreas Weigl, Wien
Die politisch-wirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Tourismus für die österreichischen Städte
Thomas Weninger, Wien, Österreichischer Städtebund
Meran und der Tourismus: Chancen und Gefahren durch eine Massenbewegung
Paul Rösch, Meran
mit anschließender Diskussion

29. September 2017

Sektion 5: Tourismus und dessen wirtschaftsgeschichtliche Bedeutung für die Städte
Vorsitzender: Lukas Morscher, Innsbruck
9.00–9.30
Der Tourismus als wichtiges Element der wirtschaftlichen Bilanz von Städten?
Peter Eigner, Wien
9.30–10.00
Die Messestadt – die Messe als Tourismusfaktor
Heidrun Homburg, Freiburg/Br.
10.00–10.30
Natur und Kur – Bad Orb und Bad Homburg und der Frankfurter Tourismus vor dem ersten Weltkrieg/vor 1914
Holger Gräf/Andrea Pühringer, Grünberg
10.30–11.00
Die Gams und die Stadt in den Alpen – Stadt und Tourismus am Beispiel von Kitzbühel
Wido Sieberer, Kitzbühel
Gesamtdiskussion 11.00–11.30

Kaffeepause 11.30–12.00

12.00–13.00: Schlussdiskussion mit einem Impulsreferat von Dieter Kramer (Wien)

Eine Anmeldung zur Tagung ist nicht erforderlich.