The Splitting of a City

TC Chang's lecture about how the tourism changes the landscape of a city through the process of transworldment, enworldment, deworldment and unworldment by providing the economic driving force for local government and private sector. In the unworldment which is one of the potential consequence when the government plans the city and transform it in its own will and presumption.

Photoed on Main Street, on 28th May, 2010

It is almost impossible to comfort and please both local citizens and tourists with same tourist zone. The globalization transforms the place to nowhere which provides the local citizens a great sense of cosmopolitan and modernization. Meanwhile it gives the tourists a great access and quick adaption to the new travelling destination by equipping the zones with common tourist facilities and landscape ranging from chain hotel (Hilton), coffee shop (Starbucks) to fastfood restaurant (McDonald's ). However, the feeling of similarity and nowhere may hit and upset to the tourists who are seeking for the cultural uniqueness and difference through travelling. They are not expecting to see the opera house and skyscrapers which they have been fed up with in their home cities after dozens of hours flight. In contrast, to build the uniqueness of a city and differentiate them from other cities undergoing the same transformation, a city needs to be somewhere through preservation of its historic heritage sites and cultural sites. However, this may mean a mitigation of modernization and cosmopolitan to local residents if they consider the skyscraper, luxury hotels and shopping mall as the sign. This pleases the tourists but infuriate the locals.

Photoed on Granville Street on 21st May, 2010

The compromise and consensus does not always exist to resolve the conflicting needs for both locals and tourists. This give rise to the most common consequence - splitting of a city into tourist zone and local residential zone. In the tourist zone of a city, tourists sites like historic building, park and relevant tourism facilities such as hotels, high-end restaurants, local specialty shops are cramped. In Singapore, Chinatown, Marina Bay are probably classified as such tourist zones. It is so ironic that the travelling to a city now is constrained to a narrow area that is specially prepared and designed for tourists alone. This raises up the puzzle that as a tourist, is what we see in China town and Marina Bay really reflect the whole image of a real Singapore? Is what we perceives and experiences in these zones representing the my whole impression about Singapore or any other destination? This may become the situation that Paris is just about river Seine and avenue des champs-elyses, Westminster and Trafalgar Square toLondon and Manhattan Island to New York. Is it what we want the tourists to perceive about the city?

Photoed on 41st Avenue 29th May

If we label tourists like temporary heterogeneous force, immigrants are more permanent heterogeneous force to shape the landscape of a city. The heterogeneous here represents the different origins and natures of cultures between the visiting group and local native group. Compared to the tourist's force to change the landscape of a city by economic motivation, the change brought by immigrants are more cultural in addition to the basic living needs. However, this change is more conducted by immigrants rather than the leading by government. The lack of economic motivation and fear of objection and protesting from local residents obstructs the planning and construction of immigrant community. This is how Richmond and Surrey is constructed without obvious guidance from the Vancouver government. Only when they view it as tourist attraction, like China Town in both Singapore and Vancouver, the planning and investment will be poured in. Therefore immigrants community and zones are more organically and spontaneously founded and formed compared to the government delicate design for the tourist zone.