Cultural Landscapes of Tourism in New South Wales and Victoria

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES OF TOURISM IN NEW SOUTH WALES AND VICTORIA Jock Collins, Simon Darcy, Kirrily Jordan, Ruth Skilbeck, Simone Grabowski , Vicki Peel, David Dunstan, Gary Lacey and Tracey Firth Technical Reports The technical report series present data and its analysis, meta-studies and conceptual studies, and are considered to be of value to industry, government and researchers. Unlike the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre’s Monograph series, these reports have not been subjected to an external peer review process. As such, the scientific accuracy and merit of the research reported here is the responsibility of the authors, who should be contacted for clarification of any content. Author contact details are at the back of this report. We'd love to know what you think of our new research titles. If you have five minutes to spare, please click on the link below to complete our online survey. Sustainable Tourism CRC Tech Report Feedback National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Cultural landscapes of tourism in New South Wales and Victoria Jock Collins ... [et al.] ISBNs: 9781920965822 (pbk) and 9781920965846 (pdf). Bibliography. Tourism—Social aspects—New South Wales—Case studies. Tourism—Social aspects—Victoria—Case studies. Culture and tourism—New South Wales—Case studies. Culture and tourism—Victoria—Case studies. Other Authors/Contributors: Simon Darcy Notes: Simon Darcy, Kirrily Jordan, Ruth Skilbeck, Simone Grabowski (UTS), Vicki Peel, David Dunstan, Gary Lacey (Monash) and Tracey Firth (UNSW), Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. Dewey Number: 338.479194 Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2008 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Any enquiries should be directed to: General Manager, Communications and Industry Extension or Publishing Manager, [email protected] First published in Australia in 2008 by CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd Printed in Australia (Gold Coast, Queensland) Cover designed by Sin Design Acknowledgements The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program, funded this research. We would also like to thank Kirrily Jordan for her fieldwork, Jon Miller and Simone Grabowski for data entry and the intra-university research team. ii CONTENTS SUMMARY________________________________________________________________________V CHAPTER 1 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES OF TOURISM ________________________________ 1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 1 Changes to Earlier Proposed Fieldwork ___________________________________________________ 2 Structure of this Report________________________________________________________________ 3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ________________________________________________ 4 The Tourism Experience_______________________________________________________________ 4 Cultural Tourism_____________________________________________________________________ 4 Ethnic Precincts _____________________________________________________________________ 4 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY______________________________________________________ 8 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 8 Case Study Methodology: Action Research ________________________________________________ 8 Data Collection Instruments ____________________________________________________________ 8 Data Analysis _______________________________________________________________________ 9 Overall Limitations___________________________________________________________________ 9 Ethics _____________________________________________________________________________ 9 CHAPTER 4 SYDNEY’S CHINATOWN _____________________________________________ 10 Case Study Location _________________________________________________________________ 10 Background to the Area ______________________________________________________________ 11 Consultation with Local Stakeholders ___________________________________________________ 12 Results of the Survey ________________________________________________________________ 17 Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism _________________________________________ 18 CHAPTER 5 MELBOURNE’S CHINATOWN _________________________________________ 20 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 20 Case Study Location _________________________________________________________________ 20 Background to the Area ______________________________________________________________ 20 Observational Assessment ____________________________________________________________ 21 Consultation with Local Stakeholders ___________________________________________________ 22 Results of the Survey ________________________________________________________________ 23 Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism _________________________________________ 25 CHAPTER 6 MELBOURNE’S LYGON STREET ITALIAN PRECINCT __________________ 27 Case Study Location _________________________________________________________________ 27 Background to the Area ______________________________________________________________ 27 Survey Results _____________________________________________________________________ 29 CHAPTER 7 SYDNEY’S WOOLLOOMOOLOO FINGER WHARF PRECINCT ___________ 31 Case Study Location _________________________________________________________________ 31 Background to the Area ______________________________________________________________ 31 Consultation with Local Stakeholders ___________________________________________________ 32 Results of the Survey ________________________________________________________________ 38 Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism _________________________________________ 38 CHAPTER 8 SYDNEY’S ART GALLERY OF NEW SOUTH WALES PRECINCT__________ 41 Case Study Location _________________________________________________________________ 41 Background to the Area ______________________________________________________________ 42 Consultation with Local Stakeholders ___________________________________________________ 46 Results of the Survey ________________________________________________________________ 50 Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism _________________________________________ 50 CHAPTER 9 GRIFFITH, NEW SOUTH WALES ______________________________________ 53 Case Study Location _________________________________________________________________ 53 Background to the Area ______________________________________________________________ 53 Consultation with Local Stakeholders ___________________________________________________ 54 Results of a Council Survey ___________________________________________________________ 56 Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism _________________________________________ 58 CHAPTER 10 CONSUMER SURVEY DATA __________________________________________ 60 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 60 Trip Characteristics__________________________________________________________________ 60 Motivation ________________________________________________________________________ 62 The Overall Experience ______________________________________________________________ 62 Demographics______________________________________________________________________ 63 CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS______________________________________________________ 66 Recommendations __________________________________________________________________ 67 APPENDIX A: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES SURVEY __________________________________ 68 REFERENCES ____________________________________________________________________ 75 AUTHORS _______________________________________________________________________ 79 List of Figures Figure 1: Sydney’s Chinatown _________________________________________________________10 Figure 2: Reasons for visiting Griffith during Easter long weekend ____________________________56 Figure 3: Origin of respondents ________________________________________________________56 Figure 4: Number of nights stayed in Griffith _____________________________________________57 Figure 5: Age of respondents __________________________________________________________57 Figure 6: Group size of respondents _____________________________________________________58 Figure 7: Frequency of visitation to the precinct ___________________________________________60 Figure 8: Size of visiting group ________________________________________________________61 Figure 9: Age of respondents __________________________________________________________63 Figure 10: Gender of respondents_______________________________________________________64 List of Tables Table 1: Survey respondents per site ____________________________________________________60 Table 2: Relationships of travelling companions ___________________________________________61 Table 3: Method of awareness of precinct ________________________________________________62 Table 4: Reason for visit______________________________________________________________62 Table 5: Means* of experience questions_________________________________________________63 Table 6: Self-reported ethnicity of respondents ____________________________________________64 Table 7: Place of Residence of Respondents ______________________________________________65 iv SUMMARY The growth of cultural industries and tourist industries is an important characteristic of modern developed economies like Australia. These industries intersect in a field known as cultural tourism. Cultural tourism is now recognised as an important agent of economic and social change in contemporary western societies such as Australia. Cultural tourism includes tourism to traditional cultural attractions such as museums and galleries, but it also incorporates new forms of tourism associated with cultural activities. They include, but are not limited to, cultural attractions related to the urban ethnic diversity that accompanied immigration to countries such as Australia. The research project conducted fieldwork in a number of case studies in metropolitan and regional and rural areas of New South Wales and Victoria in order to investigate and explore the intersection between traditional and new cultural landscape precincts and the current and future patterns of Australian tourism. Cultural landscapes of tourism are diverse in character. This project compared the more ‘traditional’ cultural tourist precinct of Sydney’s Art Gallery of New South Wales and Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf with the cosmopolitan cultural diversity of ethnic precincts including Sydney’s and Melbourne’s Chinatown and Melbourne’s Little Italy, Lygon Street. In addition to these urban tourist precincts, the research project also aimed to investigate the potential of rural tourist precincts in the form of Griffith, New South Wales—which has recently branded itself ‘Cosmopolitan Country’ to emphasise its Italian and multicultural past and present—and the King Valley wine region in rural Victoria, another example of rural Italian cultural heritage. In a reminder of the danger that fire always presents to built environments as tourist attractions, King Valley was decimated by the Victorian bushfires of 2006–07. A case study of Melbourne’s Little Italy, Lygon Street, was then chosen as a replacement site for King Valley, leaving Griffith as the only rural cultural landscape of tourism in this report. Through tracing the history of cultural diversity in each of the tourist precincts and fieldwork involving visitor surveys (100 in each site) and key informant interviews, we have explored current tourist dynamics in each case study precinct as cultural landscapes of tourism, including issues related to interpretation. These case studies provide important examples of how, in a range of urban and rural areas, cultural heritage and contemporary cultural landscapes can be developed into effective tourist attractions. Objectives of Study The field of cultural landscapes tourism is under-developed in Australia at the level of theory, research and policy development. Yet international research suggests that cultural landscapes tourism has significant potential in attracting new tourists. This research project is a scoping study designed to set out the parameters involved in cultural landscapes tourism research in Australia. It aims to identify how cultural heritage and contemporary cultural diversity impact on visitor experience and on local communities. The objective is to assist the Australian tourism industry—particularly those located in regional and rural areas—in understanding the growing importance of cultural tourism, by developing a number of case studies of cultural landscapes tourism in two Australia states. These case studies provide examples of existing tourism in a range of different cultural landscape sites, enabling the development of a process by which to identify change in cultural heritage tourism regions, including examining how multicultural precincts can operate as sustainable tourism destinations. Fieldwork with tourists and stakeholders will enable the development of industry strategies to increase tourism in the future. In addition, this fieldwork will facilitate the development of an innovative, multi-disciplinary theory of cultural landscapes tourism. This will set the stage for future research and policy development. Methodology The research project was conducted by an interdisciplinary team (Finance and Economics; Leisure, Sport and Tourism; Humanities and Social Sciences; Australian Studies; Arts; and Tourism and Hospitality) from three universities (UTS, UNSW and Monash). It embraced a case study approach which involved a range of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies appropriate to a scoping project on cultural landscapes of tourism in Australia. First, we undertook a detailed review of secondary sources: Australian and international literature on cultural landscapes tourism. Second, the research project chose a number of sites for fieldwork in two states (New South Wales and Victoria). The New South Wales sites include the Finger Wharf; the Art Gallery of New South Wales; Chinatown; and Griffith. The Victorian sites are Chinatown and Lygon Street, which replaced King Valley after the Victorian bushfires in the region made fieldwork impossible to conduct. The common methodology adopted to shape research in each site comprised three key elements: (a) a purposive random sample survey of 100 tourists at each site—this survey recorded background data about the tourist (gender, age, birthplace, country/city of residence etc) and about their tourist experience (How did they find about this place? Why did they visit it? For how long? Evaluation of the experience etc); (b) key informant interviews with site managers, tourism industry and local government stakeholders; and (c) local archival research into the cultural heritage of the area. We also explored examples of interpretation, particularly in the new cultural landscapes of ethnic precincts. Key Findings • • • • • • • • • vi The key finding of our research is that cultural tourism is a critical new growth area of Australian tourism, attracting increasing numbers of national and international tourists alike. Cultural tourism takes in an increasing diversity of sites and forms. While the industry has a good feel for traditional sites of cultural tourism, like museums, heritage buildings (like the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf) and art galleries (the Art Gallery of New South Wales), it has not come to grips with the dynamics and potential of new sites of cultural tourism such as ethnic precincts and ethnic heritage. One outcome of our research into cultural tourist precincts is a better understanding of the dynamics of cultural landscapes of tourism and of the way the built environment is shaped by cultural practices and cultural minorities. Another outcome is a road-tested and revised survey instrument of visitors which could be utilised in research into other cultural landscapes of tourism in urban and rural areas in Australia. Our major finding is that Australia’s multicultural past and the cosmopolitan nature of contemporary urban and rural Australia provide great potential for tourism in urban and rural areas in Australia, a potential that is untapped when compared to more traditional cultural tourist precincts such as the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Woolloomooloo’s Finger Wharf. A key finding of our research is that ethnic precincts and other landscapes of ethnic heritage in Australia provide great potential for future tourist attraction. This potential, which we call cosmopolitan tourism, is, as yet, untapped in Australia. While holding significant tourist potential, ethnic precincts require more effective partnerships between ethnic entrepreneurs, local government authorities, regional, city and state tourist and development boards, and local ethnic communities in order to maximise this potential. Ethnic festivals (such as Chinese New Year or the Griffith salami festival) and major events (including major international exhibitions at the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Melbourne’s F1 Grand Prix) provide key opportunities for the advertising, promoting and branding of cultural landscape tourist sites to national and international tourists, and sustaining greater tourist visitation to these sites throughout the year. While urban areas attract most tourists to Australia, and are the sites able to maximise cultural landscapes of tourism opportunities, the potential for developing tourism to cultural landscapes in regional and rural Australia—including those related to art galleries and ethnic heritage—is greatly under-estimated. Tourist growth remains one of regional and rural Australia’s greatest pathways to reinvigorate economic growth and vibrancy in non-metropolitan Australia. Our research has led us to develop a series of strategies for better utilising cosmopolitan cultural landscapes in future tourist plans and policies. First, the further development of ethnic precincts and other landscapes of ethnic heritage in Australia is a matter that local and state governments should address. Second, ethnic cultural landscapes are not sufficiently promoted by tourist authorities in New South Wales and Victoria. To date, Victoria has made more advances in advertising its ethnic heritage to tourists than New South Wales. Third, more research in a wider range of sites across Australia is necessary if we are to better tap the cultural tourism potential in Australia in coming years. This research should involve the use of methodologies trialled in this study, including the visitor surveys that we piloted in our fieldwork, key informant interviews and engagement with local community representatives. Fourth, while traditional cultural tourist sites like the Art Gallery of New South Wales have a strong tradition of interpretation, this is not the case for ethnic precincts and ethnic heritage sites. We have presented examples of interpretation of Sydney’s Chinatown and Melbourne’s Chinatown and Little Italy to act as best-practice models of interpretation of ethnic cultural landscapes for the tourist industry. Cultural landscapes of tourism are fundamentally contradictory sites. We have identified key contradictions related to cultural authenticity, credibility and safety which the Australian tourism industry needs to carefully confront if it is to maximise and sustain the tourist potential of cultural landscapes. We have also identified a series of pitfalls to be avoided in promoting tourism to cosmopolitan cultural tourist landscapes. Ethnic precincts and ethnic heritage tourism need to be grounded within the local ethnic community so that the resulting tourist experience is authentic and credible to both locals and visitors. In the case of the Italian Museum at Griffith, credibility was lost with the local Italian community who financed the venture because most of their personal artefacts were not displayed. A continuous slide-show of all this material and a less spacious presentation within the Museum would have overcome this dilemma. • Finally, we point to the importance of further research into cultural landscapes of tourism if their tourist potential is to be realised. Cultural tourism takes on an increasing diversity of forms. In this research project we have concentrated on the intersection of cosmopolitan cultural diversity, the landscapes built by immigrant minorities, and current and future tourist development and marketing. While ethnic precincts hold great tourist potential, maximising this potential will require more effective partnerships between ethnic entrepreneurs, local government authorities, regional, city and state tourist and development boards, and local ethnic communities. We believe that more research into what we call cosmopolitan tourism in urban and rural sites in New South Wales, Victoria and other Australian states and territories would reap great rewards for the Australian tourist industry. Our scoping study has revealed the potential; further research would consolidate the gains made in this regard. Future Action • • • • • more research into cultural landscapes of tourism the development of a National Strategy for Cultural Landscape Tourism in Australia translation of interpretation documents into languages other than English web-based promotion of cultural landscapes of tourism tourism promotions on cultural landscapes of tourism to be given high priority by appropriate tourism bodies across Australia. Chapter 1 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES OF TOURISM Introduction The growth of cultural industries and tourist industries is an important characteristic of modern developed economies like Australia. These industries intersect in a field known as cultural tourism. Cultural tourism is recognised as an important agent of economic and social change in Europe (Richards 2005, p. 10). Cultural tourism includes tourism to traditional cultural attractions such as museums and galleries, but it also incorporates new forms of tourism associated with cultural activities. They include, but are not limited to, cultural attractions related to the urban ethnic diversity that accompanied immigration to countries such as Australia. One form of such ethnic/cultural attractions is ethnic precincts such as Chinatowns or Little Italys, which have become important sites of tourism linked to immigrant diversity in major cosmopolitan cities such as Melbourne and Sydney, attracting visitation from national and international tourists. Other forms of cultural tourism are event-specific, linked to sub-cultures such as the gay community (Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras) or the ‘rev-head’ community (the Melbourne F1 Grand Prix; Bathurst car races; motor bike races). As Greg Richards (1996a, pp. 18–19) argues in his landmark study, Cultural tourism in Europe 1 , the increasing importance of cultural tourism can be seen in the way that globalisation has forced manufacturing industries of Western societies like Australia to decline: … the growth of cultural tourism can therefore be viewed as a consequence of both increased tourism demand, and the growing supply of cultural attractions. The demands of economic restructuring have forced cultural attractions to be more dependent on visitor markets in general, and tourists in particular. As cultural markets become increasingly globalised, so competition between cultural attractions for a share of the cultural tourism market will also intensify. Richards’ survey of cultural tourism in Western Europe is driven by what he identifies as the key questions for tourist industries that emerge from the rise of the importance of ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ cultural industries: ‘There is no doubt that culture is an important tourism resource in Europe, and that maintaining the competitiveness of the European tourism product is vital. However, a number of questions surround the use of cultural resources by tourists. Who are the tourists who use these cultural facilities? Why do they engage in cultural tourism? How great is the demand for cultural tourism? What elements of culture attract cultural tourists? Whose culture is being consumed by the cultural tourists? Few previous studies have attempted to answer these basic questions’ (Richards 1996a, p. 11). This research project responds to the gap in the international tourist literature identified by Richards and attempts to bring together an interdisciplinary team of academics from three Australian universities (UTS, UNSW and Monash) to provide case studies of cultural tourism in Sydney, Melbourne and Griffith to increase our understanding of cultural landscapes of tourism in Australia. These case studies take, as points of departure, the questions raised by Richards: Who are the tourists who take part in cultural tourism? Why? What are their responses to landscapes of cultural tourism? The broader questions are related to the opportunities that cultural landscapes in Australia offer for current and future patterns of Australian tourism and the policy implications for the Australian tourism industry in relation to the increasingly important cultural tourism phenomena. This research project is also concerned to investigate the interpretation of cultural landscapes for the tourist market. ‘Cultural landscapes’ is a term with very broad meaning. It refers in part to the way in which traditional cultural industries—‘high culture’ activities such as museums, art galleries, opera and ballet; and ‘popular culture’ activities such as film, music, restaurants and shopping—are a central part of national and international tourist activities and attractions in Australia. The term also refers, in part, to the way that the cultural diversity of Australian society and its built environment and social environment shape the dynamics of Australian tourism. Australia is one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world today: it has more immigrants and greater ethnic diversity than any other Western nation (Collins 1991, 2000). These two dimensions of cultural landscapes, of course, intersect and interact. This can be seen, for example, in the proliferation of ‘foreign’ film festivals in major Australian cities, of museum events or art gallery exhibitions related to immigrant cultures, and in the way that immigrant communities have pioneered the 1 Greg Richards (ed.) 1996, Cultural tourism in Europe, CABI, Wallingford, reissued in 2005 in electronic form by the Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS), www.atlas-euro.org. 1 Australian wine industry in regions such as Griffith, New South Wales, or in the tourism attraction of Chinese heritage in places such as Young in New South Wales and Ballarat in Victoria, and the festivals and eating and shopping experience in Sydney and Melbourne’s Chinatowns. While there is a strong tradition of research related to the dynamics of the relationship between tourism and Australian cultural industries, there is relatively little research into the relationship between cultural diversity and tourism and the way that this relationship is interpreted. Moreover, much tourism research has concentrated in Australia’s largest metropolises. The innovative aspect of this research project, therefore, is that it explores the relationships between the two dimensions of cultural landscapes and Australian tourism by conducting fieldwork across a range of high culture and popular culture activities in sites located in both metropolitan and regional and rural Australia, some of which reflect cultural diversity strongly and others that do not. One of the important outcomes of this research project is to develop further our theoretical understandings of the dynamics between Australian tourism and these two main forms of cultural landscapes and the way that they intersect and overlap in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. While cultural diversity is not limited to ethnic diversity, the research project will investigate, and report on, the important links between cultural landscapes, the conservation of heritage and enhanced tourism. One important emphasis of this research project is thus to explore the impact of Australia’s ethnic diversity on the built environment and social environment of Australian cities and towns, and how it influences the contemporary tourism experience and future tourism strategies. Cultural landscapes constitutes an innovative, multi-dimensional research project investigating effective placebranding and destination-marketing in the twenty-first century. Drawing on an interdisciplinary team of researchers from the University of Technology Sydney, the University of New South Wales and Monash University, this research project aims to conduct research in a selected number of sites in cities and towns in New South Wales and Victoria (including Sydney and Melbourne) to develop case studies through which to identify cultural heritage landscapes, to explore their current tourism dynamics and to develop models of interpretation of these cultural landscapes for visitors. From these case studies we aim to develop new interdisciplinary theoretical insights into the relationship between cultural landscapes and tourism in Australia, which provides an exciting new conceptual framework to turn cultural landscapes into metaphorical tourist and visitor ‘theme parks’. This analysis involves identifying the contradictions often inherent in the interpretations, place-marketing and theming of such cultural landscape tourist locations. These issues will be explored in the literature review and in the conclusions to this report. Another output of this research project is the development, and trialling, of a visitor questionnaire to survey tourists to cultural landscape sites. The survey developed for this research is intended as a vehicle to elicit answers to the questions about cultural landscapes of tourism identified by Richards above. In each site we surveyed 100 visitors, with the broad data results presented and discussed in chapter 9. As this is a scoping project, we have developed this research instrument (see Appendix A) so that it can be used in case studies other than those investigated in this research project. Finally, we are interested to highlight important lessons for the Australian tourism industry in relation to cultural landscapes of tourism, including issues related to the ways the interpretation of the ‘new’ cultural landscapes such as ethnic precincts can be applied and adapted to any region and which will, in turn, significantly help to conserve, promote and market Australia's heritage as an overall cultural landscape internationally and nationally. Changes to Earlier Proposed Fieldwork The research methodology for this investigation into cultural landscapes of tourism was designed to compare rural sites in New South Wales and Victoria (Griffith, the King Valley) with ‘traditional’ (Art Gallery of New South Wales, the Finger Wharf) and ‘cosmopolitan’ sites (Chinatowns in Sydney and Melbourne; Lygon Street, Melbourne). This aspect is a key innovation of our scoping project into cultural landscapes of tourism in Australia. The urban sites study explores both the cosmopolitan ethnic precincts (Chinatowns, Little Italy) and the traditional high cultural landscapes (Art Gallery of New South Wales, the Finger Wharf) as a way of extending the possibilities and diversity of cultural landscapes of tourism. The rural sites of Griffith and the King Valley had a common denominator as wine and agricultural regions with a strong Italian heritage. In our research submission to the Sustainable Tourism CRC, we conceived the King Valley case study as follows: • It will examine the role of immigrant groups and the wine industry in creating cultural tourist landscapes and a sense of region. The study will comprise a range of created sites on the King Valley Road from Wangarratta, which follows the course of the King River to its source in the Great Dividing Range. Selected commercialised tourism sites in the study area. The journey begins at Wangaratta, 150 metres above sea level, ascending in a south-easterly direction to the most elevated, Brown Brothers’ Whitlands Vineyard, which is on the snowline. More recently the area has been designated as a region under Australian wine law by the Geographical Indications Committee of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. • Italian immigrant settlers and the intensive agriculture undertaken and further encouraged by them have been a 2 major influence on the region. Italian farmers were instrumental in tobacco growing in the region. They also assisted the survival of nineteenth-century vineyards and winemaking in the region through provision of a market for table and fortified wine in the inter-war period. Later in the post-1945 period Italian settlers continued to be attracted to the region and encouraging of a further revival of the wine industry. Landholders Guy Darling and John Leviny planted vines and Brown Brothers purchased their grapes in the 1970s and subsequently many local Italian farmers switched from tobacco growing to vines as that industry began to decline and wine came into the ascendant. The family firm of Brown Brothers was a large buyer and investors in the region but more recently the growth and cultural tourism development of the industry have reflected the strong Italian heritage of the region. More recently the Italian heritage of the farmers of the region has been reflected in the fashioning of cultural landscapes, the construction of built heritage and the marketing of Italian produce and viticulture. In a reminder of the danger that fire presents to built environments as tourist attractions—and the fact that the landscapes of tourism constantly change and are often open to destruction during severe weather situations—the King Valley was decimated by the Victorian bushfires of 2006–07. This meant that it was not possible to complete this case study. In place of the King Valley the research team decided to keep the Italian heritage link but this time in its innerurban form of Lygon Street, Melbourne’s Little Italy. This location also offered the opportunity to study the Melbourne Grand Prix, staged around Lygon Street. So Melbourne’s Little Italy, Lygon Street, was chosen as a case study site replacing the King Valley, thus leaving Griffith as the only rural cultural landscape of tourism in this report. Structure of this Report The next chapter (Chapter 2) provides a literature review of the cultural landscapes of tourism with particular emphasis on ethnicity and ethnic precincts as a critical axis of new cultural landscapes of tourism in Australia. Chapter 3 outlines briefly the methodology underlying this research project. The remaining chapters report in turn on each case study adopted for this research project. Chapter 4 looks at Sydney’s Chinatown, while Chapter 5 reports on Melbourne’s Chinatown. Chapter 6 reports on the fieldwork in Melbourne’s Lygon Street or Little Italy precinct undertaken during the 2007 F1 Grand Prix. As this case study replaced the King Valley case study, the Lygon Street fieldwork was conducted later than that for the other case studies. Chapters 7 and 8 look at more traditional sites of cultural tourism: the Art Gallery of New South Wales precinct which includes the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf as a heritage site of tourism (Chapter 7) and the Art Gallery itself (Chapter 8). In Chapter 9 we report on the fieldwork in Griffith, New South Wales. Griffith, together with the King Valley in Victoria, were included as rural sites of new cultural landscapes of tourism. Regional and rural Australia is often overlooked in this regard because of the overwhelming urban nature of the Australian population and the urban destination of most of Australia’s national and international tourists. However, in this scoping project we argue that it is also important to investigate cultural landscapes of tourism in regional and rural Australia, particularly given the enormous potential of tourism to help drive the economies of towns and cities outside the major metropolises. Chapter 9 reports on the major findings and comparisons of the consumer survey studies conducted across the five precincts of Chinatowns Sydney and Melbourne, Lygon Street, Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf and the New South Wales Art Gallery. Finally, Chapter 10 draws together the major conclusions of this research project and the lessons for the Australian tourism industry. Appendix A presents the survey tool used in each site. 3 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The Tourism Experience Our first point of departure is the literature related to the tourism experience (Selwyn 1996; Urry 2002; Selby 2004) and the way that the cultural economy and the images and experience of place (Suvantola 2002) shape the tourism experience. The tourism experience consists not only of a collection of tourist facilities, or real economy experiences, but also of a set of symbolic economy experiences (Urry 2002). The latter involves the consumption of signs, symbols, festivals and spectacles used in creating aestheticised spaces of entertainment and pleasure. This has led researchers to explore the links between ethnic heritage, cultural diversity and urban tourism as crucial components of the cultural capital of post-industrial society (Kearns & Philo 1993; Lash & Urry 1994). Cultural Tourism In discussing the ‘symbolic economy’, Zukin (1995) points to the role of ethnic diversity in shaping place and space, and then relates this role to a tendency to commodify cosmopolitan lifestyles and turn them into a vital resource for the prosperity and growth of cities. City planners, place marketers, tourist guides and food and culture critics play a role in simultaneously advertising and promoting ethnic precincts and cultural diversity in the city while, at the same time, reshaping the very image of culture and ethnicity in a way that maximises the appeal to tourists (Halter 2000; Selby 2004). This involves what MacCannell (1973, 1999) calls a ‘reconstructed ethnicity’ and a ‘staged authenticity’. Cultural tourism, of course, entails many things: from ‘cultural’ activities such as viewing exhibitions at museums and attending operatic performances, to those activities associated with visiting historic building edifices and viewing ethnic festivals. When examining cultural urban tourism phenomena, the terms ‘ethnic tourism’ (cf. Hitchcock 1999), ‘heritage tourism’, ‘cultural tourism’, ‘urban tourism’ (cf. Chang 2000), and even ‘eco tourism’ (cf. Gibson, Dodds, Joppe & Jamieson 2003) are regularly used interchangeably. The literature on traditional or ‘old’ cultural landscapes of tourism, such as museums and art galleries, is fairly well established (Richards 2005, pp. 15–19). Richards (2005, p. 15) presents data to show that there has been a second ’museums boom’ in Europe in the past 25–30 years with a rapid growth in that time in the number of museums in Europe. This has been accompanied by a growth of ‘specialised museums’ with some 2500 museums identified in the United Kingdom alone (Richards 2005, p. 16). Examples of new specialist museums can be found in London (Museum of the Moving Image, Theatre Museum, Design Museum), in Brussels (Cartoon Museum), in Amsterdam (Sex Museum, Pianola Museum, Cannabis Museum) and in many other cities across Europe. As MacDonald (1992, p. 163) has observed, the ‘new’ museums have partly been created as a response to the deficiencies of the old: ‘The failure of mainstream museums (to reach a wider audience) is one reason why we are seeing growing numbers of specialised museums designed for specific audiences, such as children, indigenous peoples and specific ethnic communities.’ Ethnic Precincts Because the literature on traditional or ‘old’ cultural landscapes of tourism is so established, this scoping project can make its strongest contribution to the literature on cultural landscapes of tourism by focusing on one form of the new cultural landscapes of tourism—that of ethnic diversity as a consequence of immigration to Australia and other countries. In particular, we are interested to explore ethnic precincts as important sites for the new cultural tourism. As a consequence, this literature review will concentrate on ethnicity as a critical axis of new cultural landscapes of tourism. The most highly developed interdisciplinary theoretical framework for the study of urban ethnic tourism that draws on these elements is regulation theory, which has become central to the new tourism literature. Fainstein, Hoffman and Judd (2003) explore the way that four types of regulatory frameworks—regulation of visitors to protect the city, regulation of the city for the benefit of the visitors and the tourism industry, regulation of tourism labour markets, and regulation of the tourism industry itself—structure relations within the urban tourist milieu and provide a framework for a historical and contemporary comparative analysis of global urban tourism. This regulation theory approach ‘places tourism within a complex matrix of economic, political, cultural and spatial interactions and illustrates the interplay of sectors and scales—local, regional, national and international,’ according to Fainstein et al. (2003, p. 240). The authors 4 also stress the importance of studying the linkages and processes inherent in the city tourism experience, ‘without sacrificing the possibility of agency or overlooking the complex role of culture’. The conceptual framework for this exploration of the (contradictory) nature of ethnic precincts in Sydney and their relation to tourism draws on a broad-ranging interdisciplinary literature. This framework draws strongly on the interdisciplinary literature that addresses issues of the cultural economy (Zukin 1995), international tourism (Urry 2002; Suvantola 2002), the urban and cultural geography of ethnic place and space in the city (Burnley 2001), ethnic economies (Light & Gold 2000), immigrant entrepreneurship (Waldinger, Aldrich, Ward et al. 1990; Rath 2000; Kloosterman & Rath 2003), and the marketing of ethnicity (Halter 2000). One of the contradictions of globalisation is that local difference and place identity become more important in a globalised world. The urban tourism experience consists not only of a collection of tourist facilities, or real economy experiences, but also of a set of symbolic economy experiences. The latter consists of the consumption of signs, symbols, festivals and spectacles in creating aestheticised spaces of entertainment and pleasure. This then leads to an exploration of the links between ethnic heritage, cultural diversity and urban tourism as crucial components of the cultural capital of post-industrial society (Kearns & Philo 1993; Lash & Urry 1994). Zukin (1995), while discussing the ‘symbolic economy’, points to the role of ethnic diversity in shaping place and space, and relates this to the tendency to commodify cosmopolitan lifestyles and turn them into a vital resource for the prosperity and growth of cities. Hoffman, interestingly, observed that ‘multiculturalism and diversity have recently become a positive demographic characteristic for business and tourism’ (2003, p. 96), indicating that ethnic diversity in ethnic precincts is one aspect of the symbolic economy. Various authors draw attention to the spatial aspect of ethnic and cultural consumption, more particularly to places of consumption (shopping malls, high streets, eating precincts). Urry (2002, pp. 137, 9) notes how tourism experiences are shaped by the intersections of class, gender and ethnicity, and that: Ethnic groups are important in the British tourist industry… and in some respects play a key role… In recent years certain ethnic groups have come to be constructed as part of the ‘attraction’ or ‘theme’ of some places … giving as an example the case of Manchester around ‘its collection’ of Chinese restaurants in a small area. These spatial links between tourism and ethnic exotica are not new, of course. For example, Judd (2003) describes the rise of tourist enclaves that accompanied the rise of Grand Tourism in the mid-nineteenth century as the historical precursors of today’s places of consumption: shopping malls and ethnic precincts. Hoffman (2003, p. 97) argues that: ‘The pursuit of ethnic branding reflects the fact that minorities are the fastest growing (new) consumer population’. In Sydney, there is a clear link between the proliferation of ethnic precincts, ethnic branding and patterns of tourism and it is obvious that the sheer size and ethnic diversity of Sydney’s population account for this. The links between immigrant minorities in Sydney and the city’s tourism dynamics relate in part to the impact that minority immigrant communities have had on the built environment of Australian cities and towns. It also relates to the extent to which tourism to Sydney is immigration-induced. For example, is the purpose of tourism primarily to visit expatriate relatives and friends who have settled in Sydney? The links between international tourism and the ethnic economy in Australia have not been explored in detail. Research into ethnic precincts and tourism puts greater emphasis on the demand side, or the consumer/tourist side, of the ethnic economy. Most of the research into immigrant entrepreneurship in the past two decades has concentrated on the ‘supply side’ of immigrant enterprises: how the enterprise is established, the division of labour, employment relations, marketing and business success (Collins, Gibson, Alcorso, Tait & Castles 1995; Collins 2003). However, if we are to fully understand ethnic tourism, we must conduct new research into the demand side of ethnic entrepreneurship, often accepted but not investigated in the literature. Since ethnic restaurants are a significant legacy of minority ethnic communities on the Australian built environment, the cultural significance of eating ethnic food (Gabaccia 1998) and the ‘critical infrastructure’ required to support ethnic economies and the development of ethnic precincts (Zukin 1995, 1998) come into focus. Important questions emerge. • Who eats Chinese/Italian food? • Where and why? • What role do restaurant and food critics play in this regard? The cultural symbolism of eating Chinese or Italian food, for example, also needs exploring in this context. What cultural interaction occurs in Chinese restaurants? What symbolism and décor are used by entrepreneurs to signify to the public that they are eating in an ‘authentic’ Chinese or Italian restaurant/precinct? What constitute ‘authentic’ Chinese/Italian cultural experiences from the point of view of the customers, and how do they vary according to the 5 ethnicity and tourist status of the customer? Gabaccia (1998, pp. 229–30) views American taste for ethnic food (and music) as central to the American identity: Key to identity and culture in both American music and eating is the tension between people’s love for the familiar and the pleasure they find in desiring, creating and experiencing something new … Consumers’ preferences for multi-ethnic food and multi-ethnic music remain an important expression of their identities as Americans. Different regimes of regulation and governance (state, federal and local) also play an important role in shaping patterns of immigrant entrepreneurship in different countries (Kloosterman & Rath 2003), including spatial patterns. Regulation theory has become central to the new tourism literature (Fainstein, Hoffman & Judd 2003; Costa & Martinotti 2003, pp. 67–8). The examples of Sydney’s Chinatown and ‘Asiatown’ show the contradictory way that the development of Sydney’s ethnic precincts has been shaped by local and state government and the way that the state relates to different factions within the ethnic community. Related to this is the issue of authenticity versus its opposite, Disneyfication (Bryman 2004), an issue that underlies the credibility of any ethnic consumer experience. One of the critical parts of an ethnic precinct is its outer façade. What constitutes an authentic Chinese/Italian/Vietnamese place and how do you develop it? Bryman (2004, p. 52) refers to the centrality of theming in contemporary consumption places and of the contradictions of such theming attempts: Critics of theming often disapprove of the use of symbols of nostalgia for thematic cues. Drawing on faux designs and histories, theming in terms of nostalgic references is often depicted as presenting a sanitized history, one that removes any reference to hardship and conflict in the cause of consumption. While Bryman looks at the theming of restaurants, malls and other places, he does not look specifically at ethnic theming. The development of Sydney’s ethnic precincts of Chinatown, Little Italy and Cabramatta has been shaped by local government authorities, and provides an example of the ways in which regulation shapes ethnic entrepreneurial outcomes in different countries in different ways (Kloosterman & Rath 2001) and of the contradictory pitfalls of ethnic theming. Clearly a number of contradictions emerge. Is it possible for local authorities to help develop ethnic precincts that do not collapse into a ‘Disneyfication’ of ethnicity? Is it possible to develop ethnic precincts in cities such as Sydney without necessarily reproducing white stereotypes of the ethnic Other? The other key aspect of the authenticity of ethnic precincts relates to the custom of the precinct and the events that occur there. Certainly the presence of Italian immigrants as customers walking or driving in their loud cars along the streets and eating in the restaurants of the Little Italys contributes to its authentic feel, just as the large number of visibly Asian customers in the Chinatowns of cities helps to provide a similar ‘authentic’ feel. When Italy wins or loses World Cup soccer matches, Little Italy is where you will find happy or sad Italian supporters. This authenticity is boosted by the role of the ethnic precinct as the place where ethnic festivals are held. Chinatown and Cabramatta both hold a series of festivals to mark events on the Chinese lunar calendar, while Cabramatta hosts many other ethnic community events, national days and other public celebrations of ethnic diversity. Little Italy holds an annual Norton Street Festival in March or April each year. Norton Street is closed and lavishly decorated in the Italian colours of green, red and white. In place of cars, food and market stalls, art exhibitions and other entertainments regularly attract over 100,000 people, highlighting the popularity of this event (Collins & Castillo 1998, p. 169). The issue of tourist safety is central to any government tourist strategy. No one wants to go to a place where their or their family’s safety is put at risk. Control and surveillance are thus embedded in the development of tourism in general as well as in terms of potential tourist precincts such as ethnic precincts. Body-Gendrot (2003, p. 39) emphasises the importance of ‘techniques of social control and security’ that mega-event tourism, such as Olympic Games or World Cup soccer events, require, while Judd (2003, p. 23) points out that building tourist places as fortress spaces is one response to managing issues of tourist safety. Borrowing from Foucault, Edensor (1998, 2001) notes that in shopping malls there is a ‘remorseless surveillance through panopticon visual monitoring’. Shopping is encouraged but, as Judd (2003, p. 29) argues, ‘aimless loitering is discouraged or forbidden’. There are a number of aspects of control and surveillance that relate to Sydney’s ethnic precincts. The first is the historical construction of minority immigrant communities as criminal (Collins, Noble, Poynting & Tabar 2000), so that the places and spaces where they concentrate attract a criminal reputation. This is reinforced by the way that racism, prejudice and xenophobia construct immigrant minorities as the criminal ‘Other’ who are a threat to the safety of the host society (Poynting, Noble, Tabar & Collins 2004). Ethnic precincts of minority immigrant groups are thus constructed as places of crime such as gambling, drugs and prostitution and of criminal gangs at the same moment that they become exotic ethnic places. 6 Ironically, this criminal feel can also be an attraction to tourists. Chinatowns the world over have always had a criminal aspect. In New York’s Chinatown, Chinese tongs, or gangs, are involved in crime and control the streets (Kinkead 1993, pp. 4–5). According to Kinkead (1993, p. 47), in the first decades of the twentieth century tourists ‘went to Chinatown to ogle vice: guidebooks warned of the immorality and filth of the quarters. The sightseers hired guides to show them opium dens, slave girls, and sites of lurid tong murders. Bohemians visited to smoke opium and drift away into hazy dreams’, while gambling is a key leisure activity of the Chinese community in New York (Kinkead 1993, pp. 36–43). 7 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction In general this research aims to generate a greater understanding of the production, consumption and development of cultural landscapes by tourists and visitors as well as locals. The proposed case study research methods aim to understand: Who are the tourists who take part in cultural tourism? Why? What are their responses to landscapes of cultural tourism? In order to achieve this, fieldwork was conducted to capture the range and potential of cultural landscapes in metropolitan and regional and rural New South Wales and Victoria. Case Study Methodology: Action Research Case studies have been described by Yin as being ‘an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are used’ (1994, p. 13). The case study research design employed in this research project follows an action research approach. Action research is defined as the ‘… way groups of people can organise the conditions under which they can learn from their own experiences and make this experience accessible to others’ (McTaggart 1991, p. 170). This approach is informed by stakeholders on the ground, draws on the disciplinary backgrounds of the research team and uses their networks as a starting point for engaging stakeholders within the precincts. Of particular importance to this action research investigation are issues of theming, access, authenticity, commodification and spatial consumption. Importantly, our approach also recognises that other ‘actors’ such as residential communities, arts practitioners, historians, Indigenous and ethnic communities, entrepreneurs (producers) and regulators including local government and tourist industry organisations (critical infrastructure) play a significant role in the development, marketing and interpretation of cultural landscapes. We also recognise that there are often contradictions that underlie the different viewpoints of the various actors about the cultural landscape tourism in their area. Specifically, the case studies employ a range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies in the fieldwork that were conducted in sites of successful cultural landscape tourism. Data Collection Instruments Qualitative Methods Literature Review First, an extensive international literature review on cultural landscape tourism was conducted. From this, a theory of cultural landscape tourism informed our fieldwork which, in turn, was used to reassess our theory. Second, at each case study site the demand side, the supply side and the critical infrastructure (Zukin 1995) side of landscape tourism was investigated. Focus Groups The supply side research took a number of forms. First, focus groups were conducted with members of the local communities to get their impressions of the development of the cultural landscape tourist site. The contradictions that often accompany increased tourism, including issues of authenticity were explored. In-depth Interviews Second, in-depth interviews were conducted with tourist site operators. The history of the development of the cultural landscape tourism site and the impressions and experience of these tourist operators regarding a range of matters related to cultural landscape tourism, including interpretation and marketing, were recorded. The critical infrastructure research took the form of key informant interviews with local government and state regulators, interpreters and tourist industry organisations and officials. 8 Participant Observation Third, through participant observation we recorded the sites and signs, memorials, artefact preservation and display, landmarks and built environment aspects of the landscape tourism site. This acted as a visual representation, and record, of the cultural landscape site and its potential for further development. It is also of use in developing future interpretations of these cultural landscape sites. Secondary Data Fourth, we informally interviewed local newspaper, community, family and other sources in order to investigate the different discourses, and representations, of the cultural tourism landscape and the immigration stories that underlie them. For example, in Griffith (refer to Chapter 9) an annual Easter Weekend ‘La Festa’ takes place. The council surveys visitors and the results from the 2006 survey were analysed. Quantitative Method Questionnaire The demand side research took the form of a purposive random sample of approximately 100 tourists who visited each of the cultural landscape sites. An interviewer-completed six-page questionnaire (Appendix A) was designed to gather as much information about the experience as possible. This questionnaire recorded background information on the tourist, their length of stay, how the tourist heard about the site, what attracted them to the site, and their impressions of the tourist experience, including issues of interpretation and authenticity. Data was collected on varying days and at different times so as to capture the entire population studied. Data Analysis In-depth interviews were recorded, transcribed and scanned for main themes and sub themes. Participant observation at each of the precincts was recorded on digital camera or DVD and reviewed to understand the various aspects of the experience deemed popular by visitors to the precinct. Questionnaires were manually entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 15 (SPSS) for data analysis. The researchers chose univariate and bivariate methods of analysis, as the most important findings were the characteristics of the sample population and any comparisons between the samples in each study site. The univariate method of analysis included obtaining frequencies and/or means for all questions while the bivariate analysis included cross-tabulations for all nominal variables against each case study site and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for scale variables to uncover any significant relationships. Overall Limitations A glaring methodological limitation was in the quantitative survey instrument. There had been a limited number of prior studies that took a quantitative approach to exploring the issues surrounding experiences at cultural sites. For the past fifteen years ATLAS 2 has run a Cultural Tourism Research Programme. This has included various studies across Europe, Africa, Latin America and North America in which a questionnaire has been designed and tested. As this has not yet been tested in the Australasia region the elements of the questionnaire were disregarded in the design of this study’s questionnaire. This may be viewed as a serious limitation which neglected to acknowledge world’s best practice however, as a scoping study, the results from this study will inform the research process for future projects. Ethics This research project has been approved by UTS HREC, clearance number 2006-50A. 2 ATLAS is The Association for Tourism and Leisure Education which provides an international research exchange forum for Students and Educators. Further details can be found at http://www.atlas-euro.org/. 9 Chapter 4 SYDNEY’S CHINATOWN Case Study Location Sydney’s Chinatown is the largest Chinatown in Australia, and one of the largest in the world. It is located in downtown Sydney, a few hundred metres from the city’s main railway station. Although the precise boundaries of Chinatown are unclear and not officially designated, the concentration of Chinese businesses takes up roughly ten city blocks, between Pitt Street to the east, Barlow and Thomas Streets to the south, Harbour Street to the west and Liverpool Street to the north. The Dixon Street mall remains Chinatown’s symbolic centre (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Sydney’s Chinatown Source: City of Sydney 10 As an urbanised space with a clear visible concentration of symbols reflecting the cultural attributes of a (loosely defined) ethnic group, Sydney’s Chinatown can be characterised as an ‘ethnic precinct’ (Kunz 2005). Indeed, it is probably Sydney’s best-known ethnic precinct, and one of the few promoted as tourist attractions by the state tourism authority, Tourism New South Wales. Background to the Area Sydney’s first ‘Chinatown’ 3 developed in the 1860s in The Rocks area where Chinese migrants established lodging houses, furniture makers, tailors and cook shops. By the 1880s most of Sydney’s Chinese were settling further south around Campbell Street, following the relocation of the city’s fruit and vegetable markets to this end of town. By 1900, 86% of Sydney’s Chinese population lived in this area (Fitzgerald 1997). During the 1920s, the City Council moved the fruit and vegetable markets and, combined with ‘slum clearance’ operations in the existing Chinatown, this encouraged the movement of Chinatown to its current location of Dixon Street, a few blocks further west (Fitzgerald 1997). During the 1930s and 1940s businesses in Chinatown struggled with the combined effects of the depression (Fitzgerald 1997) and the ‘White Australia’ policy, which saw the Chinese population in Sydney dramatically decline. Those who remained spread to the suburbs and, by the early 1960s, less than 15% of Sydney’s Chinese population lived in Chinatown (Fitzgerald 1997). By the 1970s Chinatown’s fortunes were changing. The White Australia policy was being dismantled, multiculturalism was replacing assimilation as the official policy towards migration, and Australian attitudes were changing. While the more adventurous (or less salubrious) Caucasian clientele had long frequented Chinatown’s restaurants, mainstream consumers, spurred on by features in popular women’s magazines, began to see the consumption of Chinese goods as enticingly ‘exotic’. The city government saw potential in reinvigorating the area as a commercial precinct and in 1971 established the Dixon Street Chinese Committee, drawn from the local Chinese business owners, to plan the redevelopment. Some saw the idea as ‘contrived and backward-looking’ (Fitzgerald 1997, p. 151), while others disagreed about how the redevelopment should proceed (Anderson 1990). But, when the City invited public comment, many submissions were broadly supportive and donations came in from several Chinese businesses. ‘Chinese’ street lighting and rubbish bins were installed, Dixon Street was closed as a pedestrian mall, and Chinese arches were built at both ends of the street. Chinese earth was buried under one of the arches to signify that Sydney’s Chinese community was here to stay (Fitzgerald 1997). The redevelopment was commercially very successful. It coincided with exogenous changes that saw investment in Chinatown rapidly increase: federal immigration laws had changed again to attract wealthy business migrants; and the decision made in 1984 to hand control of Hong Kong to China led to a rush of investment from Hong Kong in overseas property such as Sydney’s Chinatown (Fitzgerald 1997). Under the Sydney City Council, further redevelopment was carried out in the lead-up to the 2000 Olympic Games, including the installation of themed street lighting and public art. Today, the main point of contact between the City of Sydney and Sydney’s Chinese community is the Chinatown Cultural Advisory Committee which, as the successor to the Dixon Street Chinese Committee, is the only ethno-specific committee under the auspices of the City Council. The City of Sydney sponsors the Chinese New Year Festival, with many activities centred in Chinatown. In 2007 the festival included over 35 events running over three weeks, including the biggest Chinese New Year parade outside of Asia, Chinese opera, dragon boat races, special banquets, art exhibitions, film screenings and history tours. Today, 89% of the enterprises in Chinatown are owned by ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs and investment by local and overseas Chinese has continued to expand. The residential population is on the rise, with an increasing number of ethnic Chinese living in or nearby Chinatown in new high-rise apartment blocks. Residents and entrepreneurs have come from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia, amongst other countries, as well as from various regions within China. While Dixon Street remains Chinatown’s symbolic centre, the precinct has grown considerably. It has become a popular entertainment area, particularly for its dozens of Chinese restaurants. The 1994 International Visitor Survey (the most recent survey to provide data specifically for Chinatown) ranked Chinatown as the ninth most popular tourist 3 The term ‘Chinatown’ only gained widespread use in Sydney in the twentieth century. While Chinese businesses were concentrated in the areas described here, the pattern of Chinese residential settlement was always more disperse (Fitzgerald 1997). 11 destination in New South Wales, behind the Sydney Opera House and Darling Harbour, but ahead of museums, art galleries and zoos. The Chinese Garden of Friendship, built next to Chinatown in 1988, is heavily promoted as a tourist attraction and in 2005 there were around 200 000 visitors to the Gardens (Chinese Garden of Friendship 2006). Consultation with Local Stakeholders Interviews and discussions were held with key stakeholders from the City of Sydney, the Chinese community, the Chinese Garden of Friendship and Tourism New South Wales. Summaries of these discussions are presented below. Representative, Chinatown Cultural Advisory Committee • • • • • • • • • • • Members of the Chinatown Cultural Advisory Committee (CCAC) are appointed by the Lord Mayor of Sydney under advice from Council staff. Membership is an honorary position. The committee includes representatives of community associations and one member of Council staff. The CCAC has a Chinese New Year Festival sub-committee. The CCAC is also involved in the City of Sydney’s ‘Local Action Plan’ (LAP) for Chinatown, which aims to revitalise the City’s various ‘villages’ based on community consultation. This is the first time the CCAC has been involved in such issues. It is portraying the views of businesses in Chinatown. The CCAC consults with businesses and with the Haymarket Chamber of Commerce (the old Chinatown Chamber of Commerce is not very active anymore). The CCAC has developed suggestions for the LAP process to renovate the streetscape, include more lighting and ‘do up’ the pagoda and arches. The arches are a traditional symbol of Chinatown. Symbols of contemporary China could be Louis Vuitton and Gucci. There was a lot of controversy about the Golden Water Mouth statue erected in 2000. The sculpture consists of a dead tree trunk partially coated in gold. Water drips from the top of the tree. This is bad feng shui, particularly for a commercial area, as water symbolises wealth, so the sculpture suggests a dissipation of wealth. Local businesses have never liked it and could not have been consulted. They have complained to each other, but Chinese people usually do not lobby Council. The exception is Chinese property developers, who have been lobbying Council for many years to remove the height restrictions for buildings in the area. The Council places no blanket restrictions on renovations of shopfronts. Chinatown is bigger than most people think. It extends to Belmore Park. Increased ‘theming’ of Chinatown’s streetscape (such as with the more widespread use of red lanterns) would indicate the boundaries of Chinatown more clearly. The City of Sydney has been very effective in its promotion and support of the Chinese New Year Festival. Over the ten years since its inception, the festival has put Sydney’s Chinatown, and Sydney in general, on the map. The festival includes events over more than two weeks, something that does not even happen in Hong Kong or Southeast Asian countries. Tourism New South Wales (TNSW) should promote the Chinese New Year Festival more. The festival occurs during the holiday period in Asia (China, Singapore, Malaysia), so it is an opportune time to come and visit, when there is a good atmosphere to ‘come and see how Australia celebrates Chinese New Year’. TNSW should also promote other Chinese festivals throughout the year, such as the Moon Festival, encouraging tourists to ‘come to Sydney and see the vibrant festivals’. The residential population of Chinatown is increasingly Chinese, from mainland China. Chinese tourists are increasing. This is impacting the businesses in the area, as waiters and waitresses now need to speak Mandarin as well as Cantonese. There is also an increasing diversity of food—it used to be mostly food native to Hong Kong. Now there is also food from Shanghai and other places. This is good for tourism as people want to try different kinds of food. The Chinese Garden needs to be renovated as the layout is ‘a bit all over the place’. It is not clear what it is supposed to signify. Director, local business, and former member Dixon Street Chinese Committee • Creation of themed ‘Chinatown’ • 12 There was cooperation between the local business community (property owners) and the City of Sydney, who together began discussing the idea of redeveloping and revitalising Chinatown in 1975. At this time the business community also began developing a relationship with the state and federal governments. At the time ‘about 90% of Dixon Street between Hay Street and Golbourn Street was either owned or occupied • • by Chinese’ (mostly Cantonese-speaking). So it was seen as appropriate to develop it as a Chinatown. The Dixon Street Chinese Committee (approximately 20 members) was established for this purpose. It was felt that ‘all the other streets in the same Haymarket precinct would also benefit’. Chinatown as a tourist attraction • • • • • • • • Dixon Street and Chinatown have been a strong attraction for Asian tourists since the 1970s and 1980s. The popularity of Chinatown amongst Asian tourists has been influenced by the economic conditions in China and Southeast Asia, with tourism increasing as those economies have grown. The appeal of Chinatown to Asian tourists also increased as the Chinese population grew in the 1970s and 1980s. The greater number of Chinese residents in Sydney meant that more good-quality restaurants and businesses were opened in Chinatown. The ‘Chinese cultural aspects’ of Chinatown are also an appeal for Asian visitors. Although there are now concentrations of Chinese businesses in several other Sydney suburbs, the cultural significance of Chinatown makes it a tourist attraction: ‘Chinatown to the Asian tourists is still the number one attraction. They don’t need to go to Chatswood or Cambramatta. But, after Chinatown Dixon Street, the number two tourist attraction would be out Cabramatta way, where there are genuine sites of Chinese cultural links. In the other suburban ones they are more of a population and a commercial nature … but they don’t have the cultural importance that Dixon Street or Cabramatta has.’ The City of Sydney and the business community tried to capitalise on tourism during the 2000 Olympic Games ‘because we had five international sports performed down at Darling Harbour. So Dixon Street became the ethnic food world … and every night they said they were just chock-a-block full of world tourists and sports people, and I heard that they even improved the quality of their presentation of food to catch some of the wealthy businessmen … I remember every evening the lights were out, we had special lights by the City Council, creating the Olympic colours, and every night was just busy, packed with people, walking through and curious, and the businessmen made a lot of money.’ Chinatown adds to the tourist attraction of Sydney. Tourism bodies like to promote ‘other things besides just the Opera House, Harbour Bridge, and the platypus and the Taronga Park Zoo’. The Chinese Garden is also part of the attraction, ‘because just by Chinatown itself, it has its commercial attraction, it has its cultural links, being a Chinatown, but a lot [of] tourists feel that without the Chinese Garden, it was just not complete’. There are several new apartment blocks around Chinatown, as well as major hotel chains. Many tourists stay in apartments because they are cheaper. The main tourist attractions include the duty-free shops, the restaurants and the ‘iconic’ experience of Chinatown. The Entertainment Centre is nearby, but ‘the tourists don’t consider that as a big attraction, because they’re not here long enough to see the entertainment. And lots of the entertainment are all westernised … [the tourists] come from Asian countries where they see plenty of Asian entertainment, so they don’t need to come here to see Asian entertainment. But they just feel like walking around, and in a lot of dutyfree shops. They just like to go home and say ‘Yes, I went through Sydney’s Chinatown’, you know? ... A lot of the tourist bus walk through … they say they don’t want to waste an hour just interested in local history. They’re interested in shopping, [they’re interested] in the appearance, taking videos and taking photos. Which is quite normal. It’s like me going to Hong Kong— I don’t want to sit for hours just knowing the local history. I want to do as much as I can shopping and walking and talking and eating and, you know? And then I get my history from the literature. In Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, they all promote literature of Chinese history, local Chinese history.’ Advertising and marketing • Chinese businesses are heavily promoted in the Chinese newspapers, as well as on Chinese radio. The City of Sydney does facilitate some promotion of Chinatown through a regular publication: ‘We have some of our Chinatown history written in short verses, produced by the City Council. They have short captions. But they expect the locals to advertise their wares. So, some of Chinese shops, they’ve been advertising in the City Council. That comes out, I think, every fortnight. So, you know, it’s a big commitment if you advertise every fortnight. But these publications, these City Council books, go to the airport, all the shipping lines, they produce thousands.’ Heritage In redeveloping Dixon Street, the City of Sydney imposed restrictions on the height of buildings: ‘Dixon Street has been created like a historical or heritage site, so that nearly all the buildings have been kept there, retained, without being demolished. And any new constructions would have to abide by the new regulations that the City Council’s imposed. So, there are benefits of keeping it as a heritage site, but then the disadvantage [is that] some of the owners want to go up multi-storeys high, and the Council said, well … we want to preserve 13 • • the height level of Dixon Street to about seven or eight levels … So, most of the businesses have repaired and… renovated internally.’ Visitors may not be interested in the heritage: ‘A lot of people, unless you’re interested in the history, they just will see what’s on the surface. Then they’ll worry about what happened a hundred years ago or who was famous 50 years ago, you know. That’s only for historical heritage students.’ Chinese organisations • • • • Most of the Chinese businesses in Chinatown in the 1970s and 1980s were linked to Chinese clan associations. These associations ‘still play a great influence in Dixon Street’. Between the early 1900s and 1976 the Chinese business community in Sydney was represented by the New South Wales Chinese Chamber of Commerce. In 1988 this was replaced with the Sydney Chinatown Chamber of Commerce. The Haymarket Chamber of Commerce is a separate organisation that is ‘more of the Caucasian, the non-Chinese’. There are ‘now over 100 [Chinese] associations, linking with each other in cultural needs, in religion, in sports, culture, politics… [And] we’ve now got seven Lions Clubs which are Chinese-based — mostly Chinese members’. The clan associations are still active, but most members are elderly and do not like to go to public meetings at the Council in the evenings. Current Local Action Plan • • Members of the clan associations are not very involved—although there have been public meetings; these members are mostly elderly and do not like going to evening meetings at the Council. Local businesses want to upgrade the streetscape: ‘We’re all saying that we need to upgrade probably the painting of the pavilion, and generally we like to see some lanterns in our Dixon Street, it’s a bit too “westernised” now. Originally when we started in 1975 we had lanterns in Dixon Street, to create that oriental atmosphere. But then, the City Councillors thought that it was too “Chinesey”, they want to make it a multicultural mix, you know.’ Safety • • There have been some concerns with safety but the business community has worked closely with the local police to reduce crime: ‘… you feel comfortable, walking around and there’s lots of people, and also we have a good relationship with the city police, because often … you get some people pinching bags, handbags’. The business community has been working with the City Police for the last ten years, and is involved in the City of Sydney Business Watch. Under these arrangements ‘we have seen crime figures come down, despite the increasing population’. There are also CCTV cameras around the streets and the private shopping centres have employed security personnel ‘so that you feel safe to walk around’. Comparison to other Chinatowns ‘I think the two archways definitely represent Chinatown. When you walk in there, you feel that you’re in Chinatown. They’ve done something similar in Melbourne, Little Bourke Street, but unfortunately their street’s a bit narrow, and longer, and they’re not as concentrated as Dixon Street. Dixon Street is concentrated with about 80% now, 85% owned and managed and staffed by Chinese or Asians. But in Little Bourke Street it’s very [much] in isolation. There’s no one part that’s just completely Chinatown … And we’re very proud of our Chinatown here. When we go around and see some of the Asian tourists, they say, “Oh you’ve got one of the best”, and they like our Chinese Gardens.’ Representative, events promotion, City of Sydney • • • • 14 The planning and development of Chinatown have been ‘stop-and-start’. There was a lot of development when Dixon Street was revamped with new lighting in 2000, then it petered off. Chinatown is one of the main impetuses for the Local Action Plan (LAP) process. The LAP involves community consultation about what people see as their community, what is important to them, what needs changing, and how they would like it developed. The members of the Chinatown Cultural Advisory Committee (CCAC) are community leaders with good profiles and contacts, such as heads of community organisations, or individuals with a strong public profile. The CCAC is the only ethno-specific committee on Council and the only one not comprised of councillors. Council tries to steer clear of business representatives on the CCAC because they can ‘tend to push their own barrow’. Council also has contact with the larger Chinese associations, such as the Chinese Youth League, the Chinese Australian Services Association, and the Australian Chinese Community Association. Council tries not to have • • • • • clan association members on the CCAC because then they would have to have all the clan associations represented. But it does deal with them through other avenues. The CCAC has suggested to Council that Dixon Street mall be renovated, including renovation of the existing pagoda, removing the Golden Water Mouth statue and creating a community centre. They also want Council to set up services for tourists in Chinatown, such as installing tourist information booths. The City Council has been working with Chinese New Year Festival since 1996. The Chinese New Year Festival sub-committee of the CCAC comprises members with specific skills useful in organising the festival. In 2004 Council did market research at three of the Chinese New Year events—the Chinatown markets, the Chinese New Year parade and the dragon boat races. There were an estimated 540 000 visitors to these events overall, including 250 000 at the markets over three days and 190 000 at the dragon boat races. The audience is very broad and is 40% Chinese. There is a clear difference between what the Chinese and wider community likes; for example, the audience at the dragon boat races is mostly non-Chinese. People with Chinese backgrounds will sit all day and watch entertainment such as the Peking Opera whereas non-Chinese will only stop to have a look. The Chinese New Year Festival is good for corporate sponsorship. A lot of higher-end luxury product manufacturers want to get involved because they are keen to tap the Chinese market. The City Council does no marketing of Chinatown itself—the Council works with Tourism Sydney and TNSW to do this. The City Council does advertise the Chinese New Year Festival through a bilingual website, brochure, postcards and bookmarks. There is no advertisement of the festival in the mainstream press (unless there is a media partner), but it is advertised in Chinese newspapers and radio. The CCAC suggested that Council also begin place-marketing Chinatown itself, but that will be done only if the businesses there pay for it. Representative, economic development (including precincts management), City of Sydney • • Economic development is a new initiative of Council. It has a strategic focus but is also looking at ways of engaging local communities. In Council’s economic development strategy the ‘branding’ of precincts is a high priority. This is to generate increased tourism as well as to differentiate local neighbourhoods. Representative, Chinatown ‘Local Action Plan’ process, City of Sydney • • • • • • • The current Local Action Plan (LAP) process is a ‘bottoms up’ approach to city planning, including a household survey, a street survey and engagement with community groups, resident groups, large businesses and small business. It is designed to capture the views of both workers and tourists. Surveys ask people what they would like to see happen in the precinct they are in. Chinatown falls under the Haymarket area. At a public meeting, residents of Haymarket identified priorities for improvements. These included additional lighting and graffiti removal. Under the LAP process there is also scope to make some improvements to the streetscape, including public art. The Golden Water Mouth sculpture (erected in 2000) is an existing exercise in ‘multicultural place-making’ through art. Council accepts that in any redevelopment not everyone will be happy with the outcome. They take a pragmatic response to conflicting community desires. Street use in Chinatown is better (busier) than in most areas of the city. As a planner this is a primary goal. In Chinatown the busy-ness stems from the ‘cultural aspect’. However, some of the second generation (Australian-born whose parents are Chinese) do not want to identify with Chinatown as ‘their village’. The City could see ethnicity as an asset. The Chinese are the biggest source of overseas tourism. Representative, public domain improvements, City of Sydney • • Chinatown is one area that is lacking in investment in public domain improvements. It has had a ‘hiatus’ since the Olympic Games when there was ‘branding’ of the site with decorative lighting. Council is currently trying to rectify this (for example, through the LAP process) and is working with the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. Chinatown can compare to Oxford Street in that the latter is still the cultural ‘centre’ of the gay, lesbian and transgender (GLT) community. While the GLT community are dispersed residentially, they still go to Oxford Street for festivals and celebrations. The same is true of Chinatown, for example for Chinese New Year. Representative, Chinese Garden of Friendship • The Chinese Garden of Friendship was opened in 1988 in what was a regenerated industrial area. The Chinese Garden and the surrounding area are managed by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA), a state government agency. 15 • • • • • • • • It is a replica of an eleventh-century Chinese garden. It was billed as a ‘gift’ from China to the people of New South Wales, although it was paid for by public funds in New South Wales. The plans were gifted from China along with a landscape architect and artisans. A Chinese-born Australian architect did the conceptual design and SHFA consulted with Chinese community leaders. There were 200 000 visitors to the Garden in 2005. Most visitors are non-Chinese (11% say they have Chinese heritage). The low number of Chinese visitors may be because the Garden is too familiar to them. SHFA wants to foster more Chinese attendance. On weekdays 55% of visitors are international tourists. On weekends this figure drops to 28%. Overall, 32% of visitors say they knew about it from walking past, 23% from word of mouth, and 15% from an English-language brochure (which is placed in hotels and at monorail stations). Common suggestions for improvements include adding more historical and cultural information. The main competitors are museums. The Chinese Garden is a ‘passive venue’ and is promoted as part of the experience of Darling Harbour (which houses shops, restaurants, bars and the Maritime Museum). The Garden may not be a destination in itself. Rather, it may be used to fill in time or as a ‘secondary activity’ in a bigger schedule (where the primary activities may include going to the nearby Powerhouse Museum and Maritime Museum). The Chinese Garden covers its own operating costs and has funded its own capital works, but it makes no commercial profit. The marketing department has a strong relationship with TNSW. The Garden is marketed for day visits as well as for after-hours functions (such as corporate Christmas parties) and weddings. There are no Chinese people involved in the maintenance of the Garden. Some visitors seem to expect a Chinese person to serve them at the counter. The Chinese Garden tries to get involved in the Chinese New Year festivities, engaging lion dancers and entertainers for the event. They work with the City of Sydney for the Chinese New Year Festival. Patronage of the Garden is affected by the weather and the calendar. Summer school holidays and public holidays are the best times for visitor numbers. The worst times are winter and very hot days. Representative, Tourism New South Wales (TNSW) • • • • • • • • 16 Tourism New South Wales has had a program for promoting precincts since 1997–98: the Sydney Tourism Experience Development (STED) program. TNSW currently has two staff working on this program, who promote 20 precincts in New South Wales. Since 1997–98 the New South Wales Government has committed almost $300,000 to the STED program. A ‘precinct’ is defined for TNSW purposes as ‘a local area, or a junction of streets which has clusters of attractions or experiences such as retail shopping/dining or nightlife within a reasonable walking distance of one another that can be easily accessed by tourists. Precincts are discrete tourism areas and do not necessarily relate to local government areas. The test for any tourist precinct is that it is popular with Sydneysiders. Until that local “tick of approval” is established, the appeal is not there for people from interstate or overseas to visit.’ The appeal to locals is seen as a test of ‘authenticity’. ‘To qualify for consideration, as a tourism precinct or zone, an area must have: an identified Unique Selling Proposition (USP), which fits with the Sydney Brand positioning; a “critical mass” of attractions and/or experience e.g. culture, heritage, shopping, dining, nightlife, events etc.; significant interest to sustain a half to a full day visit; a vitality, energy, and street life that is characteristic of Sydney—“tourists like to go where the locals go”; a potentially outstanding experience, as perceived by the community and the visitor, i.e. it is the best example of its type within Sydney; “visitor friendly” public transport links, access and signposting into and within the area.’ Precincts must have ‘a designated, organised group which can be either the local council or a chamber of commerce which wants to target tourists’. The STED program involves the development of partnerships between TNSW, ‘local tourism groups, councils, mainstreet committees, chambers of commerce and local businesses. It has provided funding in partnership with the local group to host a marketing workshop followed by the creation of media factsheets and images for use in tourism promotion’. TNSW promotes a number of ‘entertainment precincts’, ‘waterfront precincts’, ‘retail precincts’ and ‘cultural precincts’, including Sydney’s Chinatown, Spanish Quarter and Leichhardt (‘Little Italy’). TNSW held and funded a workshop with representatives from the City of Sydney and key attractions and hotels in and around Chinatown, as well as some prominent Chinatown personalities, in the late 1990s. This aimed to help the group decide on key areas of appeal. The results were listed on the TNSW website and are refreshed occasionally. Marketing also included funding for fact sheets and media sheets to tease out stories and photographs for key attractions. The original working group for Chinatown is no longer operational, but the City of Sydney now has a precincts manager who works with TNSW. TNSW has an ongoing role in promoting the Chinese New Year Festival in Sydney. It also features aspects of Chinatown gratis in international trade shows and promotional materials. TNSW runs trade and media familiarisations with Chinatown throughout the year. For example, it designs itineraries for visiting overseas travel journalists which include Chinatown. Additional advertising campaigns would require outside investment. Results of the Survey Surveys were carried out for 100 visitors at different times of the day and week. Respondents were approached randomly. Demographics Most respondents were young and single (46%). A further 12% were young/mid-life couples with no children. In total, 52% of respondents were between the ages of 18 and 34. The next largest group was older working married people (13%). Twenty per cent of respondents were in their 50s, with only 7% aged 60 or above. Only 4% of respondents were parents with young children aged under five. 24% of survey respondents self-identified as being Chinese or Asian; 12% identified as being Anglo or Caucasian. The vast majority of visitors to Chinatown were from Greater Sydney (‘local’). Of the overseas visitors, almost half were from Asia. 24% per cent of respondents were ‘tourists’, defined as those having been away from home for more than one night; 55% of respondents were male. Reason for Visit Most respondents were visiting Chinatown to eat (35%) or shop (16%) or for sightseeing and general interest (14%). Information Source When asked how they had heard about Chinatown, 32% said they were told by friends and family; 33% reported that they had always known about Chinatown. Amongst the ‘other’ category, several respondents indicated that they knew there was a Chinatown because ‘there is one in every city’. Evaluation of Experience Visitor responses to Chinatown were largely positive. When asked if they would like to visit Chinatown again, 92% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed; 83% agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend Chinatown to others. However, only 58% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Chinatown had met their expectations. A further 22% somewhat agreed with this statement. Open-ended Responses Site Appeal When asked what they liked most about the architecture and physical features of Chinatown, most respondents said that they liked the Chinese arches, the trees, the Chinese signage and the ‘Chinese feel’. Atmosphere When asked what they disliked about the general atmosphere of Chinatown, many respondents said that it was dirty and smelly and needed cleaning up. Many also disliked the ‘spruikers’ outside the restaurants in Dixon Street trying to encourage them to eat at their restaurants. Safety Almost all respondents (92%) reported that they felt safe in Chinatown. Amongst those who responded in the ‘other’ category, most reported that they felt safe in the day but less safe at night. Suggested Improvements Suggested improvements to Chinatown included cleaning and ‘revamping’ the streetscape, making Chinatown bigger and improving parking. A number of international tourists wanted more information on the history of Chinatown and the Chinese in Sydney as well as information booths or maps that directed them to points of interest or guided them to shops and restaurants in Chinatown. 17 Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism Multiple Perspectives Rather than a Single ‘Chinese community’ The development of Chinatown as a ‘themed’ precinct in the 1970s and 1980s was designed to increase its appeal to tourists and visitors, and therefore its commercial success. This appears to have been successful, with Chinatown a popular destination for eating out, shopping and sightseeing. However, controversy over the design of the streetscape (such as the Golden Water Mouth statue) indicates that signs and symbols of ethnicity carry multiple meanings and are interpreted differently by different constituents. In this case, the Golden Water Mouth is seen by some as an inclusive symbol of multicultural Australia. For others, it is seen as inappropriate because it is bad feng shui. Similarly, the original streetscape of Chinatown was themed with red lanterns, but, according to our informant, the City Council did not approve of the lanterns because they were ‘too Chinesey’. The current CCAC is lobbying to once again have red lanterns throughout Chinatown so that it is clearly identifiable to visitors. Although this might benefit the Chinese business community in Chinatown, such representations of ‘Chineseness’ in the streetscape may also be opposed by other Chinese-Australians: a previous survey of visitors to Chinatown found that Asian visitors thought the theming was ‘fake and kitschy’ (Collins & Kunz 2005). These concerns raise the issue of consultation. In a site like Chinatown where there are so many different individuals and organisations with an interest in it, the question of whom the City Council consults in its plans for redevelopment becomes crucial. In the current Local Action Plan process, while the Council has attempted to consult as widely as possible, in effect the CCAC is the primary link to Chinese constituents. While the CCAC is open to hearing all views and is comprised of representatives of community organisations, in practice the CCAC is strongly supportive of business interests and tourism development in Chinatown. Similarly, while the City Council opens its doors to all interested parties at public meetings, such traditional forms of consultation may not be the most effective way of engaging hard-to-reach constituents such as new or elderly migrants with poor English skills. In their study of public space design in south-western Sydney, Stewart, Hanna, Thompson, Gusheh, Armstrong and van der Plaat (2003) found that hard-to-reach residents were more effectively engaged in informal gatherings such as ‘open days’ where entertainment was provided while residents could record and map their perceptions of and desires for the space. In developing Chinatown further for tourism, it is important that the local community and Sydney’s Chinese population are not alienated. Their participation in Chinatown is important in maintaining its vibrancy and attraction to tourists. In any such redevelopment, it is therefore suggested that planners utilise more innovative ways of engaging hard-to-reach constituents to ensure that the diversity of interests is canvassed as fully as possible. Tourists have Different Desires Chinatown is used differently by different groups. For example, many Chinese migrants from the suburbs continue to use Chinatown to access Chinese goods and Chinese-speaking service providers. Tourists from China use the site for duty-free shopping. Local and international visitors come to Chinatown to dine out, while Chinese students visit the karaoke bars or utilise the space simply to walk and get ‘fresh air’. Together, these activities create a vibrant tourist site. These various interests must be catered for. For example, while key informant interviews suggest that Asian tourists may not be interested in learning about the history of Chinatown, our visitor surveys indicate that many international tourists do want more information on the history and culture of Chinatown. They would also like more assistance in guiding them to points of interest and popular shops and restaurants in Chinatown. Providing this information in the site (such as through information booths, maps and a Chinese history museum) would increase the tourist appeal. Marketing and Promotion Outside of the Chinese New Year celebrations, the City of Sydney does very little to promote Chinatown as a tourism destination in itself. The responsibility for such promotion lies with TNSW. Promotion of Chinatown by TNSW involves a Chinatown page on the TNSW website as well as promotion to visiting international travel journalists. The last workshop with businesses in Chinatown was held in the late 1990s and much more could be done to market the contemporary attractions of Chinatown. Chinatown could be much more aggressively marketed by both the City of Sydney and TNSW. The City of Sydney does actively promote the Chinese New Year Festival which is a fantastic success. It continues to expand every year and in 2008–09 the organisers hope to move to a night parade with lanterns and to engage more groups from within the diverse Chinese communities in Sydney. Links between the Chinese New Year Festival and TNSW are also being developed. The Festival sub-committee of the CCAC is very active in looking for promotional opportunities, including websites targeted at young Asians in Australia and overseas. The organisation of the Chinese New Year Festival may be a model for ethnic festivals elsewhere. 18 Cooperation of Various Levels of Government The Chinese Garden remains a popular tourist attraction. However, despite its proximity to Chinatown, there have been no attempts to develop a relationship between the two places. The Chinese Garden is located only 100 metres from Dixon Street but a complex set of roads divides the two sites. Rather than working together to provide a pedestrian overpass between them, SHFA opted to build the Chinese Garden facing away from Chinatown, so that only a high brick wall is visible from Dixon Street. The lack of cooperation between the two regulatory authorities has meant that the obvious potential synergies of the two sites have not been adequately exploited. While some informants indicated that the Chinese Garden was popular amongst visitors to Chinatown, data produced by the Chinese Garden itself indicate that it is not profit-making. Closer cooperation between SHFA and the City of Sydney to improve access and visibility between the two sites may improve the tourist potential of both the Garden and Chinatown itself. 19 Chapter 5 MELBOURNE’S CHINATOWN Introduction Melbourne’s Chinatown is distinctive as the only area of continuous Chinese settlement in Australia. While Sydney’s Chinatown moved from the original settlement in Lower George Street to the Gipps Ward in the 1890s and finally to the Dixon and Campbell Street area in the 1940s, the restaurants and shops that largely comprise modern Chinatown in Melbourne remain concentrated in the original block between Swanston and Exhibition Streets with Little Bourke Street as a central hub. Now predominantly a restaurant and retail district, Chinatown contains a number of listed buildings as well as the Museum of Chinese Australian History. As an extant business district promoted for tourism, Chinatown serves multiple purposes. Little Bourke Street is a major thoroughfare, especially for pedestrian traffic. The street also serves the cultural needs of the local Asian Diaspora, especially the Chinese community. The district is an important shopping destination and is noted for its high concentration of restaurants and lunch eateries. Usage patterns vary during the day and between daylight and night time. The balance of activities also varies with the season, although the components of the activities mix seem to remain constant. The precinct holds appeal for local Asian and non-Asian people as well as interstate and international visitors. Case Study Location Melbourne’s Chinatown consists of the eastern quarter of Little Bourke Street, plus the 23 lanes, places and alleys that intersect with Little Bourke Street between Spring Street and Swanston Street. Some city maps include the shops and businesses on the main intersections. The Chinatown Association's publication Melbourne Chinatown includes the Tianjin Chinese Garden on the eastern side of Spring Street and the western part of Nicholson Street also within the precinct. It is noted, however, that during the Lunar New Year Festival, Chinatown spills into Russell Street, between Bourke and Lonsdale Streets. This section of Russell Street is blocked to vehicles during the event and is the main focus of the festivities. Background to the Area Drawn by the discovery of alluvial gold, migrants from southern China’s Pearl River Delta accessed Hong Kong shipping routes to Australia in the 1850s and established lodgings, food, equipment, medicine and social networks in the north-east quarter of Melbourne. Within a decade, the decline of gold led many to return to Melbourne to establish businesses in wholesale fruit and vegetables, importing, retail and furniture making. Throughout the late nineteenth century, the area evolved as a distinct ethnic enclave within the British colony continuing to attract new arrivals and provide a cultural hub for Chinese living throughout Victoria. Members of Chinese district associations established Chinese language newspapers and built meeting places for their communities. Yet, in the xenophobic climate of the times, the district also provided a focal point for racial intolerance. Anti-Chinese sentiment among the European community reached a zenith in 1901 with the introduction of the Immigration Restriction Act, also known as the White Australia Policy. As a result, Chinese migration to Australia largely ceased although the district remained a significant cultural centre for many Australian-born Chinese throughout the interwar period. In the 1950s, the easing of labour regulations increased the Chinese population, although many chose to reside and establish new businesses in Melbourne’s burgeoning post-war suburbs. As a result, Chinatown continued to stagnate and many significant original buildings were demolished to make way for expanded retail in the central business district (Museum of Chinese Australian History, http://www.chinesemuseum.com.au/history.html). In the late 1960s, Councillor David Neng-Hsiang Wang spearheaded revival of the district modelled on the success of San Francisco’s Chinatown. The emergence of ‘multiculturalism’ as a political concept combined with fresh government interests in tourism in the 1970s to reshape the district into a tourist precinct. A development program aimed at injecting ‘Chineseness’ into the area through the creation of ‘celestial arches’ and other decorative works 20 developed a formal ‘Chinatown’. Driven by the Melbourne City Council together with the Chinese Professional and Business Association of Victoria, the project was regarded as controversial among parts of the Chinese community who challenged the idealised notions underpinning formulaic Chinese streetscaping (Anderson 1990). Further enhancement of the area as a tourist precinct in the 1980s included the creation of a lunar New Year festival and establishment in Cohen Place of the Museum of Chinese Australian History in 1985 with a grant from the Victorian Tourist Commission. The development of Melbourne’s Chinatown as a mainstream restaurant hub for the non-Chinese community began in the 1960s but rapidly developed through the 1980s. The area is now known as a centre for Chinese cuisine but has also developed significant new retail activities in videos, magazines and fashion, catering to the new ethnic Chinese student population resident in and around the city. Tourist activities and events in the district comprise a Feng Shui tour of Chinatown, the Museum’s Chinatown Heritage Walk, the Chinese New Year Festival and the Asian Food Festival conducted by the Melbourne City Council, the Chinese Restaurateurs Association of Victoria and Chinatown Precinct Association. The district still hosts some traditional political, religious and cultural activities associated with the Chinese community. Each of three ethnic precincts—Chinatown, ‘Little Italy’ in Carlton, and the ‘Greek Quarter’ in Lonsdale Street—is featured in the pamphlet Melbourne Precincts: that's Melbourne City, available free of charge from the Melbourne Visitor Centre located at Federation Square. Chinatown is described as a ‘slice of Asia in the heart of the city’. Features described include Yum Cha, exotic sweets, marble chess sets, carved trunks and ‘some of the city's hippest eating and drinking bars’. The pamphlet also describes Chinatown’s alleys, with a particular emphasis on restaurants. Arcades with clothing, manicurists and gift shops are also mentioned. The Chinatown Precinct Association’s pamphlet titled Melbourne Chinatown features the traditional colours of red and gold. In contrast to the Melbourne City publication, this pamphlet is largely a collection of advertisements by traders in the Chinatown precinct. A short history of Chinatown is followed by a large, informative advertisement for the Museum and the back page contains an excellent map of the precinct which is cross-referenced to businesses advertising in the publication. The Explore Melbourne Guide Map, also available from the Melbourne Visitor Centre, contains advertisements from sponsors, including ten restaurants in Chinatown. The Chinatown precinct is marked in red on one of the maps, which is cross-referenced to all ten restaurants. The red zone is not labelled, however, and the only mention of Chinatown is in the restaurant advertisements themselves. No other publicity material for Chinatown or any other ethnic precinct was available from the Melbourne Tourist Centre on the day of visitation. With regard to online marketing, the official website of the Chinatown Association (http://www.melbournechinatown.com.au) presents the theme: dining, shopping and entertainment. The site features a brief history of the precinct and links to the Asian Food Festival, events and featured businesses. Featured attractions are the Museum, Millennium Dai Loong Dragon, Arches and Chinatown Heritage Walks. While shopping and dining are main components of the website's theme, there is little information regarding these activities except on the featured businesses page. The history of Chinatown is presented succinctly, as is the story of the Dai Loong Dragon. The heritage walks are shown to be organised by the Museum and key information, including prices, is given on the site. The page dedicated to the arches is short on information, giving the impression that they are traditional features of Chinatown which have been recently restored to ‘their former glory’. The Asian Food Festival link advertises the upcoming 21st anniversary festival to be held in September 2007. The Events link opens a page on the Chinese New Year celebrations. The page is brightly coloured with graphics featuring paper lanterns, arches and dragons. The site clearly presents the Museum, the Millennium Dragon, the Arches and Heritage Walks as Chinatown's main attractions. Observational Assessment Observations of the precinct and its visitors were made in the lunchtime period and in the evening on Monday 20 November 2006. Chinatown is well defined with Chinese gates and lanterns at each end of the precinct. There is a significant emphasis on non-English-speaking custom as indicated by Chinese characters on signage for shops and other businesses. The narrow street and the even narrower alleyways give the feel of a traditional Chinese hutong (narrow street or alley). The precinct is dominated by restaurants, although there is a variety of businesses including hotels, hairdressers (both Asian and European), fashion boutiques, banks and money exchanges. In Little Bourke Street alone, there are at least 38 restaurants between Spring and Swanston Streets. All are Asian with the majority, a total of 24, being Chinese. 21 Chinatown emits a commercial feel with evidence of little overt tourism product beyond eating, drinking and, to a lesser extent, shopping. The Museum on Cohen Place offers an exception and the square in front of the Museum is a relatively large, relaxing area that appears suitable for reflection and as a meeting point. There appears to be little means for visitors to interpret the historic streetscape. Several buildings have the standard blue oval heritage plaques that are used to identify buildings of interest throughout the city and the state of Victoria, although these are not particularly visible. Despite our searching specifically for these plaques, it took two sweeps of Little Bourke Street before we spotted the first one and a total of four trips along the street before it could be reasonably concluded that all had been sighted. While the heritage plaques are consistent with similar plaques throughout Victoria, one commemorative plaque was a brass rectangle which, at first sight, was indistinguishable from the commercial plaques displayed on some buildings. Observations of Visitor Behaviour Two main activities were observed. Little Bourke Street is a thoroughfare and most of the people in the street appeared to be passing through. Many appeared to be local city workers and visitors to the city from suburbs. Most of the other visitors seemed to be in Little Bourke Street in order to visit a restaurant or to go shopping. This is perhaps unsurprising since the observations were conducted during the lunch period. A small number of people used the square in Cohen Place to eat a packed lunch or just to rest. Three Chinese people, one woman and two men, apparently local Chinese, sat conversing on the window sill of a shop. There were two organised tour groups that visited Little Bourke Street between Exhibition and Russell Streets during the period of observation. No other organised tour groups were observed but several couples and family groups were seen in the same vicinity. Most entered the Food Hall Arcade. Further observations of visitor behaviour were possible during the conduct of the survey. As predicted by the initial visitation, visitor behaviour patterns vary depending on the time of day and the day of the week. On the weekend, more overt sightseeing is apparent. More visitors are seen taking photographs and looking at buildings, gates and other street features. There is a more casual air with a lower percentage of visitors using Little Bourke Street as a thoroughfare. It is noted, however, that this is still a major use for the street, even on weekends. Visitor conduct differs within parts of Little Bourke Street which is divisible into three blocks within Chinatown. The most easterly block, between Spring and Exhibition Streets, attracts little activity apart from its use as a thoroughfare. Only two notable restaurants are to be found here (Bamboo House and Shark Fin Inn) along with very few shops. A great many restaurants and shops are located between Exhibition and Russell Streets, but this block is still relatively quiet outside the morning and evening peak periods and lunchtime. Consequently, the pace is often relaxed and there appears to be more overt sightseeing in this block. The Chinese Museum, located in this block, also attracted organised groups into this part of Chinatown. The busiest section, however, is between Russell and Swanston Streets. Even in the relatively quiet times outside the daytime peak periods, this block is crowded and bustling. Undoubtedly, tourists do wander through for sightseeing purposes but they tend to be moved along by the crowds and are far less visible. Shopping seems to be a more common activity in this block than in other parts of Chinatown and the local Chinese community is attracted to this part of Chinatown in order to collect a free Chinese-language newspaper, which is distributed daily, from piles outside a shop near the corner of Celestial Avenue. Cohen Place Plaza does attract a few people who eat there during the lunch period and others throughout the day who stop for a rest, but it appears under-utilised and is seemingly never crowded. This could be because it is situated at the quieter Elizabeth Street end of Little Bourke Street, or it might be that the plaza is too stark and open to attract many visitors. Evenings also produce a variance in behaviour patterns. Less photography is undertaken and many people appear to be visiting restaurants. Large crowds ebb and flow through Little Bourke Street during the evening. These crowds seem to be using Little Bourke as a thoroughfare upon leaving venues such as Her Majesty’s Theatre, on the corner of Elizabeth and Little Bourke Streets. Consultation with Local Stakeholders Interviews were conducted with cultural tourism stakeholders from the Museum of Chinese Australian History and the Melbourne City Council. Key commentary from these interviews is summarised below. Overall, there is a sense of pride at the long-established history of the district but also a belief that the heritage potential of Chinatown, and therefore its tourism prospects, has not been reached. The events conducted during lunar 22 New Year are branded as ‘unifying’ for the diverse stakeholders in the area and a valuable cultural tourism experience for all Victorians. However, there is a sense that the streetscaping reflective of ‘authentic’ Chinese culture has gone only part way to creating the kind of landscape necessary for the district to be seen as a heritage tourism precinct. The dominance of car parking in the district, inappropriate commercial signage on heritage buildings and examples of poor adaptation of buildings to commercial uses are seen as weakening the heritage tourism experience offered by the precinct. It is felt that relatively simple changes such as lighting the mostly intact upper storeys of existing buildings might enhance the remaining heritage fabric of the district. With regard to the Museum, sufficient funding for ongoing maintenance and developing a leading museum experience was seen as an annual problem, with resources for marketing at a particularly low level. Museum representatives assert that the Museum needs more engaging signage and interactive technology to convey historical information in an entertaining way. The Museum’s leading market segment is school groups which benefit particularly from the personalised interpretation that is characteristic of the Museum’s presentation. It was also noted that there is a limited nexus between Little Bourke Street and the Museum. Two key environmental weaknesses that were identified were the dirty appearance of rubbish bins in the alleys, and especially outside the entrance to the Museum, and the problems for pedestrians caused by cars in Little Bourke Street combined with the narrowness of the footpaths. Since 1985 when the Chinatown Historic Precinct Act attempted to reconstruct the area as a noted cultural and tourism landscape, Chinatown has lost significant service and retail function to the suburbs where Chinese communities reside. Those interviewed feel this has placed practical difficulties in developing the precinct as a coherent cultural landscape representative of the Chinese Diaspora. They point to a disconnection between the nineteenth-century goldfields generation of Chinese migrants, which currently frames the heritage presentation of the existing Chinatown, and the origins and expectations of newer arrivals of Chinese origin from countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan. There are concerns that this contributes to an inability to identify with the historical context of Chinatown on the part of many ethnic-Chinese resident in Melbourne. This has been reinforced by the separate nature of cultural and business groupings within the wider ethnic-Chinese population. Results of the Survey Demographics Respondents were significantly youthful, with 55% comprising the 18–34 age group. Those in their 20s comprised over one-third (38%) of the sample total. Ethnicity of participants was evenly divided, with 32% defining themselves as Chinese or Asian and 35% claiming European or ‘European–Australian’ background. The gender division was 45% female and 55% male. Place of residence was largely local (62%), compared with interstate visitors (15%) and international visitors (20%). Reason for Visit Almost one-third of respondents (30.8%) claimed to visit Chinatown for the restaurants. This was followed by those present for sightseeing/general interest (17.9%) and shopping (14.5%). Information Source For non-local survey respondents, knowledge of Chinatown came largely from non-directed sources with over onequarter of all respondents (26%) claiming that ‘friends/family told me about [Chinatown]’. Over one-fifth (20%) were Melbourne residents and ‘had always known about [Chinatown]’. Significantly, another 14% of respondents ‘just wandered in’, while only 5% claimed that formal tourist information encouraged them to seek out Chinatown. Evaluation of Experience Respondents largely assessed their experience in Chinatown as positive, with 62% of respondents strongly agreeing, agreeing or somewhat agreeing that their visit had been ‘memorable’. Only one-fifth of respondents disagreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. With regard to meeting expectations of visitors, 70% strongly agreed, agreed or somewhat agreed, while 15% somewhat disagreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed. A significant majority (80%) were also prepared to recommend a similar visit to others, and 88% claimed they would like to visit again. 23 Open-ended Responses Site appeal The Chinese-style lights and gates and the general Asian inspiration of the streetscaping were the most appealing aspects of Chinatown’s architecture and physical features. Visitors described these as ‘striking’, ‘colourful’ and ‘eclectic’. The small scale of the streetscape was also valued along with a perception that the area was ‘different to the rest of the city’ and ‘a haven’. The heritage buildings were not strongly regarded as significant in the overall appeal of the site. These were described as ‘run-down’ and ‘old and boring’ by some users, while others found them to be ‘inauthentic’ and ‘lacking in character’. The majority of negative commentary regarding Chinatown’s physical experience was directed at the narrowness of footpaths which made walking difficult and the apparent ‘dirtiness’ of the area. Rubbish bins in laneways were regarded as particularly unsightly and noisome. Graffiti was also mentioned as destroying the ‘Chinese character’ of the district along with other ‘negative influences of the west’ such as heavy use of inappropriate signage on historic buildings. The existence of cars in Little Bourke Street was also seen as significantly undermining the quality of experience in the precinct. Atmosphere Survey respondents indicated that Chinatown’s ‘busy-ness’ was significant in contributing to the generally vibrant atmosphere of the district. The sense of ‘lots of people and activity going on day and night’ imbued Chinatown with dynamism for visitors and a sense of difference from the rest of the city. For those visiting from Asia, Chinatown ‘reminded me of home’, while for non-Asian visitors the district was ‘familiar but exotic’ and several felt ‘reminded of Asia’. Other favourable contributing features were the ‘cultural character’ and ‘cross-cultural feeling’ of the destination. One respondent described their enjoyment at seeing ‘people with a lonely planet look on their faces’ visiting the area. For a small number of respondents, the existence of the Museum also added to what was described as the ‘cultural atmosphere’ of Chinatown. Factors that were seen as hindrances to a pleasant atmosphere in Chinatown were overwhelmingly traffic-related but also referred to the dirty state of streets and the sight of rubbish bins. There were several requests to have Little Bourke Street turned into a mall as the traffic and trucks in particular made visiting the area dangerous and disagreeable for pedestrians. A second, less dominant, theme related to an apparent ‘lack of Chinese character’ and suggestions that Chinatown was ‘not cultural enough’, while a lesser number of respondents complained of the presence of ‘drug dealers’ and ‘seedy laneways’. Safety Those who perceived Chinatown as non-threatening numbered 96% of the total. The nature of the site, particularly during the day, and a frequently voiced perception that ‘Asians are safe people’ or ‘not intimidating’ added to visitors’ sense of security. Several respondents compared Melbourne’s Chinatown with similar districts overseas describing it as ‘safe compared to others’ and referring to Melbourne as ‘generally safe’. Asian visitors also enjoyed the security that familiarity gave the area. Suggested improvements General commentary about the area was positive. Chinatown was described as ‘a big asset for Melbourne’, as adding ‘vibrancy to the city’ and as comparing well with Chinatowns in Sydney and other non-Asian destinations. Aside from its role as a major restaurant hub, Chinatown was perceived as an important destination for non-Chinese to learn about Chinese culture although, for one respondent, ‘Chinatown is too western and does not educate’. Inevitably the chief improvements to Chinatown suggested by respondents reflected previously stated concerns about the quality of the environment and authenticity of the experience for visitors. ‘Clean up the area’ and ‘remove rubbish bins’ were the most frequently voiced improvements followed by reducing the impact of vehicles in the area and conversion of Little Bourke Street into a pedestrian mall. Several respondents suggested a street market should be introduced as a means of improving pedestrian flow, adding variety to the retail options currently available and enhancing the sense of an authentic ‘Chinese’ streetscape for visitors. There were significant numbers of requests relating to improving the ethnic nature of the experience such as ‘more Chinese culture’, ‘reduce the western influence’ and ‘expand Asian cultural events beyond lunar New Year’. One respondent suggested the need for a visitor centre with maps and a history of the destination placed in a prominent position for visitors, while several requested Chinese music to be broadcast in the streets and for the opening of Asian 24 nightclubs and ‘authentic Asian cultural facilities other than just restaurants’. One respondent suggested having older Chinese residents ‘volunteer as guides either on walking tours or in an information booth. Have them share stories’. However, another warned against turning the area into a ‘theme park’ and advised letting ‘business control tourism development’. Commentary related to the restaurants that dominate Chinatown referred to the need for ‘more variety’, more specific styles of cuisine and, in one case, ‘more fast food’. However, the restaurants were not the focus of suggestions concerning specific improvements to Chinatown. Signage on the heritage buildings in the area was more frequently criticised as being too difficult to read or too easily missed. These buildings were also claimed to be in need of ‘refurbishment’ by several respondents. Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism Melbourne’s Chinatown is a tourism destination which is demonstrably meeting many of the needs of its current clientele. A visit to Chinatown met the expectations of 70% of those surveyed and 88% of visitors stated that they would come again. While the vast majority of purposeful visitors enter Chinatown to use the restaurants, the success of special events conducted during the lunar New Year and Asian Food Festival suggests that visitors will seek out the district primarily for a cultural experience. Both the results of the survey and discussion with heritage stakeholders indicate that the appeal of this experience could be broadened beyond the restaurant attractions which motivate most of the current visitation. Landscape plays a central role in the quest for experience through travel. The aesthetic appeal of a heritage precinct is undoubtedly essential to attracting visitors and affording a satisfying experience. Melbourne’s Chinatown offers a uniquely authentic cultural landscape which can be enhanced both as a destination for cultural tourism and as an asset to the Asian communities that maintain heritage ties with the site. A United Vision The advantages of stakeholder consensus in heritage tourism development is frequently recognised as ensuring resolution of conflicts in the long term and providing a cost-effective solution by the pooling of resources. The Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) noted that ‘success [in heritage tourism] depends on building relationships and, where appropriate, forming partnerships of benefit to both tourism and heritage’ (AHC 2001, p. 11). The success of Chinatown as a cultural tourism landscape requires excellent coordination in restaurant, retail, heritage and tourism activities conducted at the site. A united vision for the destination on the part of all stakeholders forms the foundation of good planning and growth. Whose Sense of Place? The survey recorded significant requests relating to improving the ethnic nature of the experience such as ‘more Chinese culture’, ‘reduce the western influence’ and ‘expand Asian cultural events beyond lunar New Year’. However, there are tensions between strengthening an inauthentic notion of culture at the site and improving an ‘ethnic experience’ for visitors. Underscoring many of the survey responses in this study is an idea of ‘Chineseness’ which, as stakeholders remarked, is romanticised and does not reflect the Chinese Diaspora that currently make up Melbourne’s population. Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) refer to ‘heritage dissonance’ as the often-conflicting views of heritage stakeholders whose history should be represented for tourism and the nature of the heritage to be displayed. The issue of whose ‘sense of place’ is to be presented in an historic and evolving landscape such as Melbourne’s Chinatown is challenging. A key factor in the experience and motivation of visitors to Chinatown is that they carry with them an anticipated understanding of ‘place’. In this survey, familiarity with the concept of ‘Chinatown’ was high, as some 85% remarked that they had visited a ‘similar site’ in Australia or abroad. Not unexpectedly, survey respondents did not recognise or regard as significant the concerns of heritage stakeholders that the district failed to reflect the diversity of Melbourne’s ethnic-Chinese population. Recent tourism research has identified heritage tourism as engendering community pride and shaping identities among residents while improving quality of life in host communities (Pearson & Dunn 1999; McKercher 2001). Remoulding that prescribed experience in Melbourne’s Chinatown, while testing heritage tourism stakeholders, would yield significant rewards. Community engagement in heritage tourism planning is frequently lauded for providing an enhanced ‘sense of place’ to the tourism product. Centralising the Significance of Place The existence of cars in narrow thoroughfares, dirty streets and rubbish bins, inappropriate commercial signage on heritage buildings and the poor adaptation of buildings to commercial uses were all seen as weakening the heritage tourism experience offered by the Chinatown precinct. Descriptions of the streetscape ranged from ‘run-down’ and ‘old 25 and boring’ to ‘inauthentic’ and ‘lacking in character’. The existence of heritage plaques on historic buildings which might engage visitor interest was rarely mentioned by those surveyed and many of these plaques were observed to be poorly placed for visitors. The Australian Heritage Commission notes that ‘understanding significance makes good business sense for tourism—it is one of the key selling points for products’ (AHC 2001). Yet in the case of Melbourne’s Chinatown, the heritage value of the site struggles to be heard. Visitor communication on Chinatown as a heritage tourism landscape is also limited in the tourism pamphlet material available. These materials reflect the dominance of commercial interests, particularly restaurants in the district, with Chinatown as an attractive heritage landscape for visitors secondary to the retail and restaurant experience available. The online material, particularly the Museum website and links promoting the Melbourne Food Festival, significantly combats this perception. However, the survey demonstrates the significance of word-of-mouth advice for visitors to Chinatown rather than written communication available through the internet or tourism outlets. This reinforces the importance of a satisfying experience for the tourist to Chinatown to ensure ongoing visitation. Centralising the significance of place in Melbourne’s Chinatown through simple improvements to the aesthetic and historic landscape is essential to raising the area’s profile as a cultural tourism experience. As a corollary, good heritage interpretation will provide meaning for the visitor in an entertaining and enjoyable manner (McKercher & du Cros 2002). Certainly the Museum has the potential to be an interpretative centre for the destination as a whole. However, only a small number of survey respondents remarked on the existence of the Museum as adding to the ‘cultural’ atmosphere of the destination and only one claimed to have entered the district specifically to visit the Museum. Unfortunately, sufficient funding for ongoing maintenance and developing a leading museum experience was an annual problem. The Australian Heritage Commission states that ‘high customer satisfaction is achieved through providing enjoyment for visitors, along with understanding of a place’ (AHC 2001, p. 13). Chinatowns throughout the world suffer from the fact that universally identifiable places rather than those that have a unique local meaning are frequently marketed as tourism destinations. Melbourne’s Chinatown offers an opportunity to challenge this perception in presenting a cultural landscape with a distinctive history linked to the dynamic and evolving nature of Victoria’s ethnicChinese communities. 26 Chapter 6 MELBOURNE’S LYGON STREET ITALIAN PRECINCT Case Study Location Lygon Street is an extended thoroughfare running north–south, principally through the Melbourne suburban districts of Carlton, North Carlton and Brunswick. It is best known for the commercial core precinct of buildings located between Grattan and Elgin Streets, although the southern extension to Queensberry and Victoria Streets contains additional notable buildings and recreational spaces. Many of the buildings are nineteenth century in origin, although extensively renovated and presented as contemporary commercial concerns. The area is mixed-use commercial and still low-rise (two-storey) in character, although considerable development has taken place behind the street facades in recent years. Lygon Street is today a commercial precinct dominated by restaurants and specialty stores. Many of the restaurants offer street dining and a café and trattoria atmosphere. The precinct is commonly cited as the Italian precinct of Melbourne and there is an historical basis for this. More than any other single urban location Lygon Street is the symbolic centre of Italian association and sentiment for Melburnians. Many of the restaurants and food and specialty stores build upon and express this association. The association is further reinforced by tourist literature, the activities of writers, local government and the commercial traders of Lygon Street themselves. The precinct is commonly entered into and enjoyed on foot. In this respect it is similar to many strip shopping precincts dotted around the Melbourne metropolitan area. A public transport tram hub is located not far away in Swanston Street, which runs parallel to Lygon Street, and a tram crosses at Elgin Street. Established trees, footpaths and traffic inhibitors help reinforce Lygon Street’s character as a pedestrian precinct, and to restrict automobile passage and speed, although it is far from being exclusively a pedestrian precinct. Background to the Area Lygon Street developed early as a commercial centre for Carlton from the late 1860s, with a concentration of commercial and retail activity between Victoria and Elgin Streets. Although poorly served by the railway system, Carlton’s proximity to the city and the prevalence of horse-drawn traffic, including omnibuses, made it a convenient location. The area’s commercial role was confirmed by the opening of a cable tram route in 1887, which extended down Lygon Street proper, connecting Carlton to the central city and establishing the street as the premier commercial strip of the suburb. Its affluence was reflected in notable commercial buildings, the Holdsworth and Lygon buildings, for example. Many of the commercial buildings that came into being in the late nineteenth century were two-storey, had living areas for the families that ran them, and sported verandahs, shades and awnings for the benefit of promenading customers. The precinct was a thriving commercial area but the first half of the twentieth century saw the suburb decay with the Depression years of the 1930s and a drift to other suburbs of Carlton’s formerly large Jewish population. In the twentieth century the development of large department stores in the central business district attracted commercial custom away from Carlton but the core of Lygon Street remained intact and still available for commercial use, though at a lower level. In the inter-war years in particular the suburb experienced a decline in social status. Since the 1880s the trend of suburban development had been away from the old inner suburbs and towards the new affluent suburbs to the east and south-east of the city especially. One recollection of Carlton before the Second World War was as ‘a fairly rough place after its early elegance and before its later emergence as the Montmartre of the Melbourne suburbs’ (Yule 2004, p. 494). Parts of Carlton came to be stigmatised as ‘slums’. Lygon Street itself was hardly anything special: it was ‘much the same then as the main street of any country town’ in one recollection (Yule 2004, p. 494). In the immediate 1939–45 post-war era the suburb was further depopulated by the progressive departure of population, including the old working classes of the inner city, as a new generation of migrants came to displace them in cheaper rental and ownership accommodation and to build new lives in the old inner city. Many of the new migrants in the post-war era were Italian and the community centre of Lygon Street rapidly became a migrant and Italian community centre. Many of the old shops that had formerly housed businesses took on the character of meeting places and social clubs. In turn, these became trattoria, cafés and restaurants, with social customs reflecting the conviviality and expressive public community life that many of the continental European immigrants were accustomed to. 27 The waves of Jewish and Italian settlement that had impacted on the area had helped to create a new era of inner suburban businesses that, as historian Caitlin Mahar states, ‘blurred distinctions between home and work; trader and customer; business and local community’ (Mahar 2004a, p. 244). In the post-war period Carlton was an ideal place for newly arrived immigrants to live. Housing was cheap and available, if somewhat run-down. It was close to the central city and public transport was close by. By 1960 every third or fourth house in Carlton was occupied by an Italian family (Yule 2004, p. 44). As Don Chambers and Alan Mayne have observed: ‘by the mid-1960s the scale of this Italian community ensured that its members could read local Italian newspapers in Italian cafés, visit Italian cinemas, attend mass celebrated by an Italian priest, belong to Italian sports clubs and enjoy the support of an Italian welfare agency’ (Chambers & Mayne 2004). Lygon Street became a visible and central representation of many of these associations picking up and strengthening Italian associations that already existed and helping to forge many new ones. Gradually, what could be purchased in local shops had changed. For example, the firm of King & Godfree (with its distinct Anglo–Celtic name) dates from 1886 as a business and 1870 as a building. It was taken over by the Valmorbida family in 1952 and transformed thereafter to a source of pasta, tomato paste, olive oil and imported Italian foodstuffs and wine. But the Anglo–Celtic name remained. Initially such establishments catered to the local community, but increasingly the area took on a wider appeal and acquired a distinct Italian association. All this occurred with subtlety in a physical landscape environment which differed little from that of surrounding inner metropolitan suburban commercial centres. The nomenclature of the King & Godfree business did not change but there had been a profound change. In 1945 only 14 shops on Lygon Street between Queensberry and Elgin Streets had Italian proprietors. By 1960 there were 47 shops owned by Italian migrants in the same area (Mahar 2004b, p. 250). Part of Carlton’s attraction for itinerants and new settlers was not so much the shops but the ready accommodation in either cheap rents (some owned by previous occupants who had ‘moved on’) or boarding houses such as that operated by Genoveffa Donchi at 240 Lygon Street. Together with their grocery shop in Cardigan Street, the Donchis offered a community resource with translation services, a library, flexible credit and employment information (Yule 2004, p. 81). Lygon Street was not just Italian. Some Jewish people remained and there was also an enclave of Greek families, but the Greek presence was never sufficiently dominating to transform the ‘ethnic’ character of the shopping strip and streetscapes in the same way that the Italian presence was. Selected Commercial Establishments with Italian Associations in Lygon Street • • • • • • Borsari’s Corner, named after Olympic gold medal-winning cyclist Nino Borsari, whose neon sign erected in the late 1940s is a city landmark Watson’s Wine Bar owned and run by J.C. ‘Jimmy’ Watson from 1935. Watson, partly through his Italianborn mother, was related to an extensive network of owners of Melbourne wine bars and cafés, including the Denat, Virgona and Massoni families The University Café operated by the Milani family from 1953 (an unofficial ‘Italian Consulate’) Giancarlo Giusti’s coffee business, Grinders, from 1963 Toto’s pizzeria (1966) opened by Salvatore Della Bruna (hailed as the first in Australia) King & Godfree, the licensed grocery purchased by the Valmorbida family (in 1952), which later became the linchpin of an Italian-influenced wine and food wholesale business and is still a fine licensed delicatessen. As Caitlin Mahar has written, ‘the strip was reinvented with newly arrived tailors steeped in European style, continental butchers, delicatessens and espresso bars’ (Mahar 2004b). The area became subject to new development pressures. The motor car began to make its present felt in the 1960s, as did the public authority dedicated to slum reclamation and the provision of high-rise housing for the poor and homeless, the Victorian Housing Commission. Neither impacted directly on the commercial core of Lygon Street, which remained the district focus and an emerging symbol of Carlton and inner-city identity. The precinct benefited considerably from the nearby proximity of the University of Melbourne and the presence of students and staff utilising the resources of hotels, cafés, restaurants and food stores. Although it was extensively utilised by motor traffic, Lygon Street did not become a major traffic artery into the city as did nearby Swanston Street. Carlton’s Italian population has declined since the 1970s and Lygon Street contains ‘only a token number of traders catering for the day-to-day shopping needs of Italians’ (Yule 2004). There are more extensive and better patronised equivalents in Sydney Road, Brunswick, and elsewhere. And the delicatessen, gelati ice cream, takeaway pizza and coffee culture that Lygon Street helped to create in Melbourne has spread everywhere. By the same token Lygon Street is acknowledged as a source of this. Equally, it is understood that an appreciation of café culture, with its continental European origins, has become a part of Melbourne’s inner-city lifestyle with Italian espresso coffee consumed in a street setting being a prominent part of this. Lygon street cafés were among the first to employ Italian-made espresso coffee machines in the post-war era (Brown-May 2001). According to Mahar, ‘the street remains a symbolic focus for the Italian community’ (Mahar 2004a), the consequence of it being the location of the annual Lygon Street Festa, a 28 community and promotional event organised by the Carlton Traders Association. Equally, the district has benefited and had its Italian heritage links underscored as a consequence of the annual Grand Prix in Melbourne (at which prominent Italian motor sport performers and car manufacturers such as Ferrari are active as participants) and at international sporting events that involve either Italian nationals or have an Italo–Australian connection. 4 In this respect the FIFA World Cup of 2006 won by Italy was an event with special significance for Lygon Street for the display and presentation of racing cars, attracting both Australian and Italian sympathisers and crowds to its restaurants, cafés and public spaces during the contest. Lygon Street shares similarities with some other inner metropolitan Melbourne locations, such as Chapel Street in Prahran, Brunswick Street in Fitzroy, and Fitzroy Street in St Kilda. But what remains distinctive about Lygon Street is the enduring Italian association. In this respect it is comparable with Little Bourke Street’s ‘Chinatown’ and the Greek precinct of Lonsdale Street. As with those two other locations the actual Italian presence has been somewhat dissipated with the passage of time and the dispersal of population. But, if anything, the Italian association has remained with the growing cosmopolitanism and general tourist orientation of inner-city commercial precincts. Historian Caitlin Mahar notes that, paradoxically, as other precincts have declined in their appeal to particular groups, Lygon Street has gone ahead. But this perhaps conceals the extent to which it has become a restaurant and café precinct for a much wider than merely local area and the Italian association is a convenient peg on which to hang this hat. There is no doubt that tourist information and websites tout Lygon Street as a restaurant precinct and that Italian national imagery is a powerful branding image in this. 5 Survey Results Although refusal rates were considerably lower than in the corresponding Chinatown survey, it is likely that participation was adversely affected by the actions of spruikers, beggars and magazine vendors. Many participants recorded complaints about the restaurant spruikers attached to businesses on the southern end of Lygon Street, beyond Grattan Street. Apparently some of these spruikers were aggressive, with one respondent reporting that one had grabbed him by the arm and tried to drag him into a restaurant. With such experiences, for people walking past the survey location from the south, it is likely that an approach from a researcher could be seen as an aggressive intrusion. To the north of the survey location, outside the Lygon Court shopping mall, vendors selling the publication The Big Issue also drew some criticism for their aggressive approach. One late-middle-aged man, without obvious identification, was observed collecting money with a charity tin in the area on Friday 16 March. His approach was extremely aggressive. Beggars also frequent the area outside the mall and have drawn criticism from participants in the survey. As a result, some people approaching the survey location from the north might also have felt threatened by the approach of a researcher. Demographics The age of respondents was quite evenly spread with the average age of 35 to 39. The ethnicity of respondents was as expected for an Italian precinct with very few respondents identifying themselves as having Asian ethnicity (10.2%). The most common ethnicities were Australian (29.3%) and Anglo-Caucasian (21.2%). 58.2% of respondents were male and an even larger proportion of them were local (69%) with very few international visitors (7%). Reason for Visit Eating appeared to be the most common reason for being in Lygon Street, suggesting that its restaurant and café image is very strong. Relaxation was also a common reason for being in Lygon Street. Unlike Chinatown, very few respondents reported that they were in the precinct for a cultural experience, although many stated that the Italian atmosphere was attractive to them. Shopping was another common reason for being in the street. This applied to locals and out-of-town visitors alike. Two respondents reported that they were in Lygon Street to attend church and several were there to attend the cinema. It can be inferred then that Lygon Street provides a multiplicity of attractions, including basic amenities that are accessed by both the local community and visitors to the region. There was a fairly wide range of responses to the question regarding frequency of visitation but it was apparent that Lygon Street does attract considerable revisitation from locals as well as interstate and international visitors. 4 ‘Ferrari paints Lygon Street red’, Herald-Sun, 4 March 2007. http://www.melbourne.com.au/lygon.htm; http://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/melbourne_details.php?id=1970 — websites accessed 25 May 2007. 5 29 Information Source While some people could recall how they first heard of Lygon Street, a great many reported that they had always known about it. Staying at or near the site and word-of-mouth also seemed to be common responses. Advertising and promotion did not seem to be a major source of knowledge about the precinct. Evaluation of Experience Overall, respondents had a largely positive experience on Lygon Street. 59% agreed, somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that their experience had been ‘memorable’, 95% more than agreed that they would recommend the experience to others, while almost all respondents (98%) indicated that they would like to visit again. Additionally, the expectations of 92% or respondents were met to some positive level. Open-ended Responses Site appeal The most-liked physical components of Lygon Street appeared to be the old buildings and the plane trees. The latter are particularly interesting since there has been a campaign by restaurateurs and some restaurant patrons to have the trees removed because they drop leaves onto the plates of alfresco diners. Interestingly, none of the participants listed the trees as something that they do not like about the street. Graffiti, badly maintained buildings and footpaths that are too narrow due to the incursion of alfresco dining were listed as negative physical components, as were incompatible developments such as Starbucks and the TAB. Atmosphere The general atmosphere was described as friendly, funky, vibrant and buzzing. However, the restaurant spruikers and beggars were commonly listed as negative components. Noise from automobile sound systems and motorcycle engines was also listed as a negative atmospheric component. For some people the lack of Italian authenticity was a negative. Safety There was almost unanimous agreement that Lygon Street is safe, especially during the day, because of its demographic mix, friendliness, crowds and its open plan. Some respondents, however, raised reservations about the safety at night and one or two considered that the street’s notorious, historic mob connections made it unsafe (although one conversely stated that this was what made the street safe, since the mob did not allow any riffraff in the street). Suggested Improvements Some interesting suggestions were made for improving the Lygon Street experience. Many people complained that there was insufficient parking and that parking was too expensive. Conversely many of the same respondents complained about there being too many cars, some even suggesting that they should be banned from the precinct. This criticism raises the anomalous position of people wanting to drive to Lygon Street while at the same time wanting cars banned. Others suggested putting a tram along Lygon Street to improve public transport access (in this respect, it is ironic that a tram did once run along Lygon Street), but others wanted the strip converted into a pedestrian mall or piazza. Several respondents suggested incorporating Italian cultural markers to help further identify the strip as ‘the Italian precinct’, with one respondent suggesting that there should be roaming musicians playing accordion music. Others suggested that businesses such as shops and cafés should play Italian music. Several respondents suggested controlling development to maintain an Italian atmosphere and identity. While some were recommending more Italian cultural themes, others suggested that a greater variety of restaurants (non-Italian cuisine) and boutique shops would improve the precinct, suggesting that, for some respondents, the strip’s shopping was more important than its Italian identity. Many stated that the control or removal of spruikers and beggars would improve their experience. 30 Chapter 7 SYDNEY’S WOOLLOOMOOLOO FINGER WHARF PRECINCT Case Study Location Woolloomooloo is a harbourside inner-city eastern suburb of Sydney located about 1.5 kilometres east of the Sydney central business district. Historically a poorer working-class district of Sydney, the suburb has undergone a recent period of gentrification including the redevelopment of the Finger Wharf on the lower docklands area. The area was once dominated by shipping and today is still home to the Garden Island base of the Royal Australian Navy. According to the Guinness Book of Records, the Finger Wharf building itself is the largest wooden structure in the world. The luxury hotel development the Blue Hotel, previously the W Hotel, was a key outcome of the wharf redevelopment process, and is owned by Taj Hotels and Resorts. This iconic hotel features 100 rooms and an award-winning bar located in the heritage building. Each year at the wharf the Sydney City Council holds the annual Woolloomooloo community festival which is a mix of stalls and entertainment stages with dancers and a band. Background to the Area Finger Wharf has been chosen as a heritage site worthy of study within the context of cultural heritage tourism because of its historical significance to a diverse range of stakeholder groups associated with Sydney’s waterfront area and its changing role over the past century. The Sydney Harbour Trust built the Finger Wharf between 1911 and 1915. Originally designed for storing and exporting wool, it stands as the largest covered timber pile wharf in the world and the only survivor of wharves built at Woolloomooloo between the 1890s and 1920s. Its significance stands in: ‘the timber engineering structure on a scale unparalleled in Australia and exceptional (possibly unique) in world terms. It also represents the use of Australian timbers in sizes and quantities which can never be matched in the future. The structure demonstrates engineering and construction processes and the surviving equipment includes the only electrically operated goods conveyors in the state and three of the oldest operating electric lifts in Sydney, which demonstrate the processes of goods handling. These processes are no longer practised in the same fashion today’ (Australian Heritage Database 1995). Finger Wharf was the port for ANZACs sailing for Gallipoli and a generation later for survivors returning home from Changi. Formerly known as ‘the cathedral of commerce’, it was also a gateway for trade for Sydney and in that capacity a bustling workplace for most of the twentieth century. For the wharf community living in Woolloomooloo it was a tough neighbourhood, home to residents and immigrants of mixed backgrounds and descent. During the 1970s new container ports, cruise liner facilities and airports in other places around the city gradually replaced the Wharf’s functions. The work and the workers moved with them leaving the building to lay derelict and decaying for almost a decade. In 1987 the New South Wales Government’s decision to replace the Wharf with a new marina caused a storm of community protest. Supporters of the Wharf formed ‘Friends of the Finger Wharf’ in support of the union’s green ban on its demolition. This was not surprising after more than 70 years at the heart of Sydney’s cargo and passenger handling industry, during which time the Wharf became a local landmark and symbol of the community’s struggle for economic development and social justice. However, the Wharf was considered by many others to be an eyesore and for the next three years the government, Heritage Council, conservationists and developers debated its future. In 1992 the government finally relented and called for redevelopment proposals that would conserve the Woolloomooloo wharf and conservation planning began. The Wharf was a joint venture between Walker Corporation and Multiplex Constructions. The project took approximately $350 million and three years to complete (http://www.sydneyshortstays.com.au/mmhistory). The redevelopment aimed to retain many of the features of the original wharf to preserve an icon of the city’s colourful maritime history. ‘This was a diverse and highly complex project which had to interpret and retain a significant heritage façade, presented in a variety of construction challenges’ (http://www.constructors.com.au/awardachievement/2001/finalists/finger.htm). 31 The redeveloped wharf was opened to the public in March 2000, in the form of bars, restaurants, apartments and a 104-room hotel. ‘The promenade of the Wharf gives Woolloomooloo its own “Eat Street” with restaurants offering contemporary dining and stunning views onto the harbour, marine berths, Domain, Royal Botanic Gardens and city skyline’ (http://www.istc.org/sisp/index.htm?fx=event.detail&event_id=34219). Once opened, the Wharf effectively became a dividing line between different economic and social groupings in Woolloomooloo. Hence Finger Wharf represents a lot of the issues and conflicts related to the maintenance and management of built heritage sites within older urban environments. A site of great historical significance within the local community, the redevelopment that took place aimed to preserve the original character of the building in line with community expectations and its maritime past (Grubits & Associates website). How successful the redevelopment process was in achieving these goals has not been explored in any great detail among the major stakeholder groups. Mayer (2000) contends that ‘decisions regarding urban issues and built heritage should reflect the will of the people’. This case study aimed to investigate the expectations and experiences of the various stakeholders of Finger Wharf today. In-depth interviews were held with some of the key stakeholders involved in discussions surrounding the redevelopment process and in management of Finger Wharf today. These included the an architect of the project; several owners of local businesses; as well as local residents. A member of the community group Friends of Finger Wharf, was also interviewed. An urban planner of the City of Sydney Council provided literature on Sydney’s harbourside redevelopment, while a member of the Domain and Royal Botanic Gardens Trust, provided an overview of their role in the redevelopment of Finger Wharf. Other significant stakeholders were also approached to participate in the study but declined. Consultation with Local Stakeholders Local Resident, Sonia Sonia is a resident living in Forbes Street which runs down to Finger Wharf. She has lived in Woolloomooloo for 11 years and works for Hopestreet, a non-government organisation working in the Woolloomooloo community. She has also been a member of the Woolloomooloo Neighbourhood Advisory Board, which holds meetings attended by government and non-government organisations, local politicians, police and the Department of Housing. ‘Although not a member anymore, I remember there were issues that came up from time to time about the development of the Wharf in relation to pollution, noise etc.’ According to Sonia, the Finger Wharf redevelopment process was funded by the New South Wales Government and involved collaboration between the state government and other stakeholders, including the Heritage Council and community groups like Friends of Finger Wharf. ‘The redeveloped wharf provides restaurants, bars, hotel accommodation and properties to purchase for wealthy people from anywhere and, of course, tourists. Lately there is a lot more activity on the water. Private cruises are stopping and picking up or dropping off people for harbour cruises. Sometimes these harbour cruise boats sail in just to have a look. The boats are often noisy with people sometimes stopping off to spend time at the local pubs. I don’t think that the interests of the local community or even the wider community interests were represented in the redevelopment process or in the management of the Wharf today. Local community members rarely access the Wharf unless for occasional fishing.’ ‘Today the Wharf is used by wealthy people from anywhere. It is not used by ethnicities, elderly or locals. The Wharf is used by these groups for entertainment and the restaurants and also for the private boats. Yachts at the Wharf most likely belong to the property owners. The uses of Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf haven’t really changed over time. I don’t think there has been anything added that would include the local community. There are no activities aimed at utilising the open spaces, e.g. music, entertainment, and a coffee shop rather than restaurants. There is no public ferry even at weekends and no public seats along the walkway to sit and look at the view.’ ‘The Wharf is important to me because it has been preserved with its original appearance intact and is of historical and cultural significance. It could be important to the broader community in the local area if there was more opportunity for the local community to enjoy the atmosphere and the location with affordable places to sit and enjoy or activities in the open space. Also a ferry to go into the city or East would be a great addition. The Wharf is of importance in the broader context of Sydney and Australia because Woolloomooloo Estate is an architectural gem. The history of Woolloomooloo’s survival is linked to the Wharf—the beautiful buildings, grassed areas and trees, and its struggle to survive against development which endangered its preservation. Finger Wharf is important for tourism but I don’t know how it is being marketed or promoted. I like the look of it from any outlook but I don’t like the indoor hotel bar which is very dark and not welcoming to the general public.’ 32 ‘To me, local community comprises of low-income earners who are residents of departmental housing and Kings Cross residents. There is nothing about the Wharf apart from the large photo of the signing of the tri-part agreement (federal, state and local government) that represents the culture of the local community. Woolloomooloo does have residents in private rental and property owners as well, so they may be represented more with the businesses that cater for them. I think that the local community in public housing represents the struggle to save low-income housing and that their interests should be represented and honoured. Also, the local community includes Kings Cross which has great diversity. The Wharf is very upper-class and conservative, with little recognition of community or cultural differences. I don’t think the broader Australian public perceives it as representative of local culture. The Wharf is part of history, as is the Woolloomooloo Estate, but now there is a great divide as though there is the wealthy trendy Woolloomooloo and the underclass, which is mainly ignored and is not seen to be connected in any way with the Wharf. I hope future development at the Wharf takes into account the local public housing community, but I don’t think this will happen.’ Local Resident, Martha Martha has lived in Woolloomooloo for 16 years and has been involved in public housing. Martha went to many of the meetings held prior to the redevelopment process and said it was a tremendous fight to get through all of the bureaucracy. ‘For many of those years the Wharf was not accessible to the public, as it was in a derelict state, and was partitioned off with barbed wire, so the waterfront area was basically off limits. The original idea was to demolish the Wharf and build a 10-storey hotel, which was opposed by many local residents who wanted the historic wharf to be restored, not completely demolished. Instead the decision was made to restore the Wharf and develop the site and many locals welcomed the decision. Locals were involved in meetings with the other key stakeholders for three years and were shown two developers’ plans for the site. It was finally decided after much debate that the Wharf would be restored, there would be no marina and public access would be allowed around the Wharf. Whilst several of the promises made to the locals were not honoured, such as the provision of a weekend ferry service and the exclusion of a marina, I believe that the locals are delighted with the development today.’ Much of the delight is due to the effort of the architect, Vivian Fraser, to maintain the original features, structure and character of the historic building. ‘We were supposed to have a community room to put up the history of Woolloomooloo but they didn’t follow through and the community room was never provided.’ A brief history of Woolloomooloo is illustrated on the walls inside Finger Wharf but no history of the wharf development. The Botanic Gardens created a historic walk from Mrs Macquarie’s Chair and built a bridge joining the Gardens to Finger Wharf. This allowed people access to a walk from Woolloomooloo from the Wharf to the Gardens and the city along the harbour foreshore. Originally there was a café which was less expensive than the existing upmarket restaurants but it closed down a few months ago, so now there is no mid-priced restaurant to cater for lower socioeconomic groups. ‘I was hoping there would be some new shops developed inside Finger Wharf such as a butcher, grocer, and bakery etc. because at the moment the locals have to go to Kings Cross to buy their groceries. The fact that the redevelopment includes a number of new apartments and many new residents would seem to be an even greater reason to include these conveniences. I also thought bus transport would be improved in the local area but it hasn’t changed, although a tourist bus stops opposite Finger Wharf several times a day. However, I wouldn’t consider the Wharf a destination in its own right—many people are just passing through on their way to somewhere else.’ ‘The main aspect of the redevelopment that is used by locals is the open plan walkways and pedestrian access to other parts of the inner city. When I have friends over I like to call the Wharf ‘my lounge room’ because of the views and peaceful aspect. The main benefit to locals has been the beautification of the area, as it has improved the status of Woolloomooloo Bay which reflects back on the broader area.’ Most of the people who visit the Wharf and the restaurant strip are ‘young wealthy adults who have come here to be seen’, as the scene is often reported in the social pages of newspapers and magazines. ‘The building brightens up the whole area and I enjoy the architecture, looking at the view, the boats, and all the people who come and go.’ ‘We feel it is a part of us as we walk around it, as there is only one area that is not open to the general public.’ ‘The Wharf is an important site for Sydney, as before the site was an eyesore; now it is a place to take people. It is an authentic representation of local culture as it has included our history within its walls so we don’t feel alienated.’ Café Owner, David David has owned a popular Woolloomooloo café for the past 20 years and has seen many changes to the waterfront area of Woolloomooloo. David’s Café is located on the east side of Finger Wharf near the navy base. The local fast food 33 restaurant and popular tourist destination has a lot of history in Sydney through the sale of something as simple as meat pies topped with potato and mushy peas. ‘The site of [café name] today used to be an old burnt-out shell of a car surrounded by bush and scrub. In the middle of winter the locals used to fill big drums with rubbish and set them alight and people would stand around them keeping warm and eating pies. That was an important part of Woolloomooloo’s history.’ ‘The Council seemed to have a holier-than-thou approach to consulting with the community about the proposed development. They went in and made their own decisions and so today we have the result which is a skyscraper built on its side with no parking. The local people who live in the area should have been consulted but there was so much bureaucracy. Even to get approval for a roundabout near [café name] to slow down the traffic involved endless meetings with police, Council and the Roads and Traffic Authority.’ ‘I don’t think the local people accurately perceived what the outcome of the redevelopment process would be, and that we would end up with upmarket restaurants … that have completely destroyed parking in Woolloomooloo. As a consequence we now have the Council deploying parking police with cameras to get anyone who has parked illegally near [café name] for a few minutes to grab a pie. These people have traditionally been the battlers and workers who inevitably end up paying $110 for a pie and sauce because they have been issued a parking ticket.’ ‘During the redevelopment discussions I sat and wondered and thought it’s like east meets west, like there is a wall and they are going to tear it down. On the one hand, you have Russell Crowe with $100 million in his back pocket; and on the other hand, you have the battlers who are scratching around and collecting bottles for change. Then you have [café name] in the middle which is one of the last places in the area that is affordable for families who can spend $20 for lunch rather than $80. There was no consideration of that in the redesign of the Wharf.’ ‘Low-cost, good-quality food is important in any city. Around here people stop off along their walk and pay a huge price just for a bottle of water. All this greed gives visitors the perception that Sydney is a very greedy city. But people still come here because they want to be seen, but it is a rip-off!’ The area is popular with tourists and other Sydneysiders. Since the redevelopment of the Wharf there have been more noise complaints in general from residents who live near the waterfront. ‘We used to get complaints about noise from some of the residents in the units across the road from [café name], so now we have to shut our doors right on midnight. The shift workers who work until two or three in the morning knew that they could come to [café name] for a late night feed, but now they have been cut out. These issues make it hard to be objective about the council’s consultation process because their decisions don’t seem fair.’ ‘Today I think people go to Finger Wharf out of curiosity and for something to do. Not many people know about the history of the Wharf and its significance in Sydney. I was thinking about doing a Woolloomooloo exhibition but the Council had all the pictures and I didn’t follow through. It’s still something I would like to do.’ ‘The Finger Wharf people have put some of the history up throughout the hotel foyer but they haven’t gone far enough. We need a place that is welcoming and invites people to come in and view this significant part of Sydney’s history. It shouldn’t be tucked away in a dark foyer where people can’t find it.’ ‘[café name] has a terrific history that people want to hear about. People love to come down to see the old photos that I have put up of [café name] and Woolloomooloo’s early days. Once the people started coming I had to turn it into something bigger, so it has lost a bit of its original small-scale appeal, but if I hadn’t, the caravan that is [café name] would have been rolled.’ ‘Not too many locals use the Wharf except those living in the Wharf apartments. The people on the other side of the street are lucky if they can still use the old fishing spot because the Wharf residents complained to Council about the people fishing, so today it has been restricted.’ ‘The Wharf is important in the context of Sydney and Australia because we need development like this for the young people, to keep them in the area and to provide employment. It is also important in attracting tourists who can come down here and visit [café name] and see a battleship and the Wharf. The area has become an interesting little pocket for tourists. If they clear out the big ships and [café name], then it wouldn’t be the place that people expect to see.’ 34 ‘I think the Wharf is mainly marketed through the Blue Hotel located at one end of the wharf. It has links to the airlines and inbound tour operators and, as time goes by, word of mouth increases. [café name] was the first food outlet to head up an international tourism advertising campaign in Australia. John Coleman was shot in a tuxedo eating a pie in front of the [café name] caravan.’ ‘Last year, [café name] was classified by the National Trust and you get a lot of people wanting to see places and things that are listed on the National Trust.’ In terms of plans for the future of the Wharf area, ‘I think we need to make it a bit more interactive and interesting for the visitors and the locals and make it accessible to all. We need more underground parking and a really good light rail system that goes down to the Wharf and up to Kings Cross or an interesting tram that covers the tourist track like in San Francisco.’ ‘The reason Finger Wharf got redeveloped was because it already existed. The reality was that if something wasn’t done soon, she was going to drop into the drink in 20 or 30 years.’ ‘I think the people who live on the other side of road from the Wharf enjoy walking past and looking at the people dining at the restaurants.’ ‘I went down for a look at the Council fair which was held at the Wharf the other day. Looking around I noticed there was no support from any of the Wharf businesses. You would think that the restaurant owners at the Wharf would have enough savvy to stay in touch with the local community even if it means forking out some dough to make sure the kids’ school is secure. It might be a case of middle management being short-sighted or it might be a way of alienating the community to keep them away from the Wharf.’ ‘If we can get a museum of artefacts in that big hall inside the Wharf by doing a deal with the hotel owners, then it could be accessible to all rather than being so exclusive. You would be surprised how many people want to see the Wharf because it means something to them because they or their family landed here so many years ago.’ Hotel Owner, Diane Diane and her family have lived in and owned a small hotel in Woolloomooloo for 29 years. Her children went to a local pre-school and Diane has always attended community meetings, so she knows a lot of the local people. She was also part of the Chamber of Commerce responsible for looking after business needs in the local neighbourhood before it was disbanded a few years ago. Diane was an active and core member of Friends of Finger Wharf, a community organisation established to voice community concerns during the battle over the proposed demolition of Finger Wharf back in the early 1990s. The Friends of Finger Wharf group was established by Susan Barley, a Housing Commission tenant and local resident who had a flat opposite Finger Wharf. This organisation had a core group of about 20 people who turned up at all meetings and rallies year in and year out. The whole Wharf redevelopment debate took about six years. ‘Finger Wharf was an industrial wonder and a key feature of the harbour because all the other wharfs had been demolished. When the government started talking about demolishing this last magnificent wharf, a few of us just thought it was sacrilege because we have lost too much heritage already.’ ‘There was a lot of publicity in the beginning with rallies held up near the Art Gallery but people didn’t see the process through with the exception of the core group, but there was a lot of community support for retaining Finger Wharf. Much of the business community both locally and at the bigger end of town wanted it to be demolished for a marina, so there was a lot of adverse publicity. It was also set on fire a couple of times. They said it was squatters, but who really knows?’ The government called a tender process and in the end there were three tenders in the running. One was David Hooker, the other was Ian Yates, but it ended up going to Jose de la Vega. Jack Mundey and Andrew Ferguson ended up putting a green ban on the Wharf which got the unions involved. It was the green ban that saved it in the end. ‘The community felt reassured about the redevelopment because the architect who had worked on the plans for de la Vega was Vivian Fraser who also did the plans for the Theatre Wharf for which he won an award. We were quite pleased that Vivian had drawn up the plans for the redevelopment of Finger Wharf. However, Fraser was sacked as soon as the tender had been awarded, as he promised to alert the community to any plans that might upset the heritage value of the Wharf.’ 35 ‘We thought the Wharf had been saved but, as I understand it, the developers just sat on it for two years until all the fuss had died down and then they sold it on to another developer. Clover Moore was the only politician to put up her hand in support of Finger Wharf and she helped convene several meetings at Parliament involving the government architect and various representatives from the local community.’ ‘It was very upsetting to the community that the developers had secretly arranged different plans for the redevelopment of the Wharf. They always had plans for an exclusive hotel, but it was originally planned to go at the harbour end of the Wharf. There was supposed to be public access halfway through Finger Wharf and around the entire apron of the Wharf. There was also supposed to be provisions for a ferry to come in and the locals who attended the meetings wanted a small post office. It was supposed to be integrated into the local community more than it is today. It wasn’t supposed to be just tacked on to the rest of the suburb. Because they put the apartments at the harbour end and gave some of the owners berthing rights for their boats, the proposed ferry couldn’t come in, which is a great shame. Having the hotel at the street end of the Wharf is like a barrier to the rest of the community, especially when that part of Woolloomooloo is housing estate. So it really alienates that part of the community from the wharf development. The Wharf that exists today is certainly not part of the broader Woolloomooloo community unless you are someone who can afford to dine at the restaurants.’ ‘My argument is that while the Wharf is fashionable, that is fine. But eventually it will become dilapidated and fall out of fashion and something that has greater integration with the broader community is likely to have a longer life, like the market places in Europe where everybody mixes. Whether you are rich or poor you go to the local market.’ ‘I think people are pretty proud that the Wharf is still there, as it is an asset to the suburb. But I think that at the time the battle was going on most people were disinterested and, as it’s not part of the community today, I guess they are still fairly disinterested. They are probably more impressed that Russell Crowe lives there. But it could have been more. If they had followed Vivian Fraser’s plans, it would have been a real asset to this part of the city and to everybody in Sydney. People could have caught a ferry there and really been a part of it.’ ‘The Wharf hasn’t changed much since the redevelopment was completed around 2000. It is a well-heeled enclave down there and the restaurants seem to do well. I suppose the Blue Hotel has a large say in the management of the Wharf today. It is well known that John Laws has a stake in the apartments and a restaurant down there.’ ‘The Council made a great show of having lots of community meetings but, once the tender process was finished, the first thing they did was sack the heritage architect and from then on they disengaged from the community and went on doing what they had always probably intended doing.’ The main users of the Wharf are restaurant-goers, the apartment owners and tourists. It is a good tourist spot. ‘I don’t think many locals really use the Wharf area, although I think they are allowed to fish down there now. At one time some of the Wharf residents asked Council to stop people fishing off the Wharf which, if it was successful, would have been a great shame. I think the Finger Wharf has become too exclusive and lacks the local feel of some other places like the Theatre Wharf.’ ‘I’m pleased to see that the Wharf is still there because it’s a magnificent structure. At the beginning of the campaign they tried to tell us that the Wharf was rotten and falling down and unsafe to walk on. Since then I found out that the London docks and Siberian railway are built of the same turpentine timber, so it’s virtually indestructible.’ ‘The fact that you can walk a short half a block from the Wharf and you are in the heart of the housing estate where the streetscape is very beautiful is a good thing. They spent a lot of money keeping the graffiti down and I think they have done well to marry the old and the new. I think it works really well. Also the fact that there is no high-rise part to the building is great and we can thank Jack Mundey for that.’ ‘I think that the Australian public probably know that Russell Crowe and John Laws live there but that’s about all. I think that’s a shame because Woolloomooloo is the second oldest suburb in Sydney after the Rocks with a lot of history. They have a few token photographs up near the steps when you walk into the apartments and they have kept an old conveyer belt as a token gesture to the industrial history of the Wharf, but I think they could have done a lot more. If there had been a little fish market or a weekend market, a ferry and a post office it would have been much better for the locals and visitors.’ ‘I think the entrance to the Wharf building is alienating due to the poor lighting, so the photos that they have up as a 36 token gesture to the history of the area no one gets to see, unless on their way to the cocktail bar. I think this area is a waste of space that could be much better used a community space. We talked a lot about the history of the Wharf during the consultation process. We had locals doing walks explaining the significance of the Wharf in terms of trade, immigration and soldiers going to and returning from war. So I think they have made a pathetic attempt at sharing that history.’ ‘I think it has become a little bit like Darling Harbour where the locals go there once and have a look around or your children take you there but it’s not a place you keep going back to. It’s the same at the Wharf. You visit a restaurant once or twice usually when you have visitors instead of using it on a weekly basis.’ ‘My hopes for the future of the site are that more consideration will be given to making the area more welcoming for visitors and locals. It should still be possible to bring a ferry in to the Wharf on the eastern side. It could be a small commuter ferry that links Watsons Bay, Rose Bay, Double Bay and Woolloomooloo Bay. There is a lot of car space there for Garden Island that we had hoped they might give some up for public parking, so people could commute on the ferry. But they have been reluctant to do so. I would also like to see small buses going back and forth all over the city. People could then leave their cars at home because parking down there, and in the rest of the suburb, is a nightmare.’ ‘The façade as you enter the main building of the Wharf could be made a lot friendlier. I don’t think even tourists would feel comfortable walking into that building. They need to create more natural light in the hall area. It currently has lighting with a cold feel about it and it feels almost spooky. A small museum inside the main Wharf building would also be great, so tourists have a reason to walk inside. They could integrate the small plaza opposite Finger Wharf and turn it into a marketplace or a weekly vegetable market. These additions combined with the ferry service would make a huge difference, because people could then walk from the Wharf along to the Art Gallery and then to the city.’ ‘Overall, I am so pleased to see the main structure of the Wharf is still there, but I’m very disappointed that whoever it was that let the developer get away with doing all the things that they said they wouldn’t do. I’m just so disappointed that a lot of the people who fought to save the Wharf have been alienated from the site because it’s unfriendly. Apart from the restaurants it is cold and uninviting!’ Tristan, Member, Domain and Royal Botanic Gardens Trust The Botanic Gardens Trust provided input to the development of the Wharf apartment complex at Lincoln Crescent in 1998. The Trust was involved with this adjoining development for a number of reasons. A key outcome of the development was public access to and from the Domain via the apartment complex, which is regularly used today. The Trust also had input into the redevelopment as some underground infrastructure connected to the Finger Wharf was removed from the Lincoln Crescent area prior to the Wharf’s redevelopment. There are records of tree plantings in the Domain which commemorate World War Two troops who departed from the Finger Wharf. Nelson, Architect Nelson’s work as architect for the conversion of Wharf 4/5 as headquarters for the Sydney Theatre Company and Sydney Dance Company led him to being approached by various developers to work on the other remaining finger wharves around Sydney Harbour including the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf. According to Nelson, the Finger Wharf redevelopment proposal emerged because ‘Sydney developers saw it as a great opportunity to make money. It was a wonderful government-owned site and therefore was no doubt cheaper to buy than if under private ownership’. While both the government and community were involved in discussion surrounding the redevelopment of the Wharf, it didn’t have much community support. ‘The locals however were certainly interested because of the close heritage and historical ties with what had been an enormous working wharf, and focus in the area.’ ‘The biggest change in the development came after my design was selected as the winner of a limited competition between development teams. Immediately following the agreements being signed, I was passed over for another firm of architects and their work resulted in what is there now. I go past it every morning when I run through the Gardens and I could weep at the result. The whole building is like a horizontal tower block which has been strata-ed. Therefore the building would be managed through a strata management company.’ Today the Wharf is used mainly by residential tenants and owners, hotel guests and Sydneysiders. ‘It is important to me because I’m glad that it hasn’t been demolished, as it was in danger of being. I think it is important to the broader Woolloomooloo community as a reminder of the original waterfront timber structure. It is important in the broader Sydney and Australian context as hopefully every building over a certain age isn’t an easy target for demolition.’ 37 ‘The treatment of the original façade is clumsy and unsympathetic and the new block of apartments at the base of the Botanic Gardens is second rate. As the Wharf is a strata building with multiple ownerships, I can’t see that the development can ever profoundly change.’ Results of the Survey Demographics The age of respondents is positively skewed with 64.8% under the age of 40 and the median response between 30 and 34. The majority of them are living alone or in shared accommodation (47.3%). Respondents have self-identified as being Australian (29.7%), European (26.4%) and Anglo-Caucasian (12.1%) and there is a surprisingly large proportion of non-local visitors (44%), the majority of these coming from Europe (17.6%). The male to female ratio is 47.2% to 52.8%. Reason for Visit There was a range of different reasons respondents gave for visiting Finger Wharf. The most popular of these were for eating (21.1%) and general sight-seeing (20%). It was also the first visit for the majority of respondents (28.3%) whilst 37% of respondents visit the precinct at least on a fortnightly basis. Information Source It appears as though the tourism industry does not play a major role in promoting Finger Wharf as a tourism precinct. Asked of the respondents’ initial awareness of the sight, 20.7% ‘just wandered in’ and a further 19.6% were told by family and friends. Evaluation of Experience The respondents were overly positive about their experience at Finger Wharf. Apart from three who were unsure, all respondents would have liked to visit the precinct again. A group of 82.6% of respondents somewhat agreed to strongly agreed that their expectations were met, 82.6% had a ‘memorable’ experience, while 94.6% would recommend the experience to others. Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism According to a report published by the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC), the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, with the assistance of the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism (CRC) (AHC 2001), successful tourism at heritage places involves several factors: • firstly, the importance of heritage places must be recognised by planners, managers before they can be looked after • developing mutually beneficial relationships • incorporating heritage issues in business planning • investing in people and place • marketing and promoting products responsibly • providing high-quality visitor experiences, and • respecting Indigenous rights and obligations. Several of these factors became apparent in the analysis of stakeholder feedback regarding tourism and local use of the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf. Integration of the Wharf with the Local Community ‘The fragility of a place, its significance or other management issues, means public access to heritage places is not always appropriate or may have to be restricted or modified’ (AHC 2001, p. 7). In the case of Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf the question remains, is the feeling of alienation felt by some members of the local community towards the Finger Wharf redevelopment the outcome of a deliberate strategy by planners and Wharf management to restrict access to the site or is it simply a case of a lack of consideration being given to the need and goals of the various social groups? There is no doubt that the Wharf is highly valued by the local community because of its history and the fact that it is a testament to the struggle of the working class in the Woolloomooloo area. Hence locals were naturally protective of the Wharf and most were against the proposal to demolish it in the early 1990s. However, comments made by the various stakeholders of the Wharf would suggest that there is a divide between the Wharf and the broader Woolloomooloo community. It would appear that the Wharf’s main market is visitors dining at the exclusive restaurants 38 on the promenade. As these restaurants tend to be aimed at the higher end of the market, they exclude visitation by many of the budget-conscious working-class locals and visitors. Woolloomooloo has traditionally been a working-class suburb and today it still accommodates a large housing estate area. Therefore residents of the housing estate and other locals may not be able to afford the high prices being charged by the restaurants at the Wharf, and thus they might feel alienated from the Wharf. When visitors were asked what they disliked about the atmosphere of the Wharf, some common responses included: ‘The Wharf is elitist’, ‘Expensive’, ‘Not many locals using the Wharf’, ‘Too touristy’, ‘Not very child-friendly’, ‘There is an obvious divide between the rich and poor’. One local was very blatant in their opinion of the Wharf and its place within the local community stating, ‘The Wharf is full of snobs. There is nothing here for the average Joe. It rubs it in our faces that the rich get the best locations and facilities and they make it so the working class can’t afford to go there’. Lack of Information and Record of the Historical and Cultural Significance of the Wharf ‘Responsibility for information about places, the way places are described and what information is conveyed to visitors, is often seen as an important part of a heritage manager’s duty of care’ (AHC 2001, p. 7). Yet it was the perception of many of the stakeholders who were interviewed that relatively few visitors would be aware of the historical and cultural significance of the Wharf. This hasn’t been helped by the fact there is a lack of signage and information presented at the Wharf about its rich history and the struggle of the traditional working-class users of the Wharf. Whilst the creation of a museum outlining the history of the site was discussed during the redevelopment process, it didn’t come to fruition. Now there is limited interpretation of the Wharf with the exception of a few photographs located inside the hotel lobby of the old Wharf building. Due to the lack of historical information provided, the Wharf exists more as a leisure precinct, primarily used for wining and dining rather than providing a real cultural experience. Lack of Public Facilities Some stakeholders suggested that there is a lack of basic facilities provided in the Wharf precinct such as garbage bins, public seating and convenience stores like a grocer, and a post office. This may be a deliberate strategy by management to limit visitation to the site by certain segments of the market, instead reserving the experience for the privileged few. One stakeholder even suggested that a weekly public market held opposite the Wharf in the arcade area could make the area more multicultural and add another element of interest and appeal for visitors and locals alike. This could effectively increase traffic in the Wharf area as well as the frequency and duration of visits to the area. When asked what they didn’t like about the atmosphere and architecture of the Wharf, some visitor responses included ‘not enough shop variety’, ‘only restaurants, not much else to do’, ‘too big considering there isn’t much to do’, ‘no area for kids to play’. Due to the lack of ‘things to do’, some don’t see Finger Wharf as a destination in its own right, but rather ‘a place you go to on your way to somewhere else’. Accessibility of the Wharf The out-of-the-way inner-city location was perceived as one reason why many people haven’t heard of Finger Wharf. Whilst tourist buses drive past daily, there is a perceived lack of public parking at the Wharf and throughout Woolloomooloo. Initially during the redevelopment consultation process there was discussion of the possibility of a ferry service operating to the Wharf. However, this idea was scrapped once the developers began work. Several stakeholders suggested that a regular commuter ferry service or a shuttle bus or light rail service that connects the Wharf to the Sydney CBD area and other bays would make the Wharf more accessible and user-friendly for its various visitors and might increase visitation to the area. Restricted Marketing and Promotion of the Wharf None of the stakeholders interviewed was aware of how the Wharf was being marketed. It was assumed that the Blue Hotel would be the major stakeholder responsible for promoting Finger Wharf. Aside from a page on the Tourism New South Wales website, there was no website dedicated specifically to Finger Wharf, although a single page in the Sydney tourist guide provided an overview of the hotel and restaurants at the Wharf. Nothing was mentioned about the historical and cultural significance of the site. This could be a deliberate management tactic to minimise visitation to the site aimed at maintaining the exclusivity of the Wharf. Many of the Wharf visitors who were interviewed knew to go to the Wharf only because it was suggested by family or a friend living in Sydney. Finger Wharf is seen by many as a ‘place to be seen’, as the restaurants attract many celebrities including Wharf apartment owners Russell Crowe and John Laws. These big names act as a drawcard for the Wharf. Consideration of Wider Community Interests Consultation with the various stakeholders has been cited as essential in the development of heritage tourism sites. Only heritage sites that are ‘sensitive to community aims and aspirations and are able to capture and reflect the essence of place and people’ (AHC 2001, p. 8) will be successful in tourism terms. The redevelopment and proposed demolition of the Finger Wharf created a lot of debate and controversy in the wider community and the actual redevelopment 39 discussions took six years before the final decision was made to preserve and redevelop the old wharf structure. Whilst Council appeared to consult with the wider community including local businessmen and residents, some now believe this was simply window-dressing because many of the outcomes that were promised to local residents did not eventuate, including the provision of a commuter ferry and a small museum dedicated to providing a photographic history of Finger Wharf and Woolloomooloo. ‘The best ambassadors for any heritage tourism operation are often local residents’ (AHC 2001, p. 8). This was demonstrated in numerous interviews with local stakeholders who admitted that the only time they use the Wharf is when they take visiting family or friends for a meal at one of the restaurants. As local resident Diane indicated, ‘I think it has become a little bit like Darling Harbour where the locals go there once and have a look around or your children take you there, but it’s not a place you keep going back to. It’s the same at the Wharf. You visit a restaurant once or twice usually when you have visitors instead of using it on a weekly basis’. Plans for the Future of the Wharf Several stakeholders would like to see Finger Wharf become more welcoming of a greater number of groups. This could be achieved by making the site more user-friendly by acting on recommendations for improving public transport in the area and by adding additional services and facilities such as more shops or a local weekly market. Others felt the façade of the building could be improved through additional signage. The interior of the building in particular was perceived by some as dark and uninviting. For example, when asked what they didn’t like about the architecture of the Wharf, one visitor said, ‘the dark cold interior of the building’. In addition, the few photos provided of the history of the Wharf were hidden away and would not be found by most visitors to the Wharf. It was suggested that a deal could be struck with the hotel company to use a greater amount of the building interior to create a small museum dedicated to telling the story of the Wharf and documenting the changes that have taken place over the last century. Visitors to the Wharf were asked to suggest any improvements that could be made to the Wharf. Some suggestions included: ‘Create more natural light inside the building; it is dark and a bit spooky’, ‘Better public transport’, ‘It needs to offer a greater variety of experiences rather than just restaurants’, ‘A walking tour’, ‘More information about the history of the Wharf and Woolloomooloo’, ‘Make it child-friendly’, ‘Move the housing estate away from the Wharf area’, ‘The Wharf hasn’t achieved its full potential because, walking around the Wharf, you wouldn’t know about its historical significance, because there is a lack of historical information and signage. Its history is a well-kept secret’, ‘It needs to be advertised better to create more awareness among tourists’, ‘More entertainment and activities on the water’, ‘More bins for waste’, ‘The inclusion of more mid-priced cafés and a deli’, ‘More information about the history of the Wharf in visible locations’, ‘Remove the divide between rich and poor. There is a lot of history in this area but you wouldn’t know it dining at one of those restaurants at the Wharf’. 40 Chapter 8 SYDNEY’S ART GALLERY OF NEW SOUTH WALES PRECINCT Case Study Location The Art Gallery of New South Wales is one of Australia’s leading state art museums, cultural institutions and most popular cultural tourist destinations. Standing alone on a promontory above Sydney Harbour, the Art Gallery of New South Wales is located in an elegant nineteenth-century heritage building, on Art Gallery Road, on the edge of Sydney’s Domain. With its impressive classical Greek facade of Ionic columns and unfinished nineteenth-century frescoes depicting classical artists, the Art Gallery faces the parkland of the Domain to the west, the Harbour to the north and east, and the city to the south. Situated within the central business area of the City of Sydney, the Art Gallery is a landmark in the city arts precinct which includes a number of prominent cultural institutions stretching from the Finger Wharf to Walsh Bay. From the outside the Art Gallery of New South Wales may look traditional, even a little austere, and until the 1970s it did have a largely traditional focus on nineteenth-century Australian landscape paintings and British paintings. But over the past 30 years the Art Gallery has undergone a radical transformation, doubling its floor space and expanding and diversifying its collections to include a contemporary department, an Asian gallery and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander gallery. During this time its profile has increased nationally and internationally. Over one million domestic and international visitors now visit the Art Gallery every year, according to current estimates in the Art Gallery of New South Wales Annual Report, making it one of the most visited art museums in Australia. This case study investigates and interprets ways that the Art Gallery is perceived to interact with and shape features of the physical and social landscape in which it is located, drawing from this some lessons for cultural tourism. The physical design of the Art Gallery takes advantage of the dramatic landscape of its surrounds. A couple of entry-level galleries and its modern alfresco Gallery Café overlook the Harbour. The Restaurant and Members Lounge frame spectacular harbour views for which Sydney is renowned. (Membership of the Art Gallery Society is by application and annual fee.) The seductions and, for the art viewer, potential distractions the views afford have been accommodated effectively into the Art Gallery’s interior and exterior environment. Within the Art Gallery where the views may potentially compete with the art works, the windows are subtly tinted, exposed but not highlighted. This is not the case in the dining areas and bars located in the Gallery Café, the Restaurant and the Members Lounge. Here, features such as glass walls, large windows, ample comfortable seating, a wide terrace and outdoor shade umbrellas (in the Gallery Café) encourage relaxation and immersion in the visual spectacle of the natural environment: the Harbour, Finger Wharf and its Woolloomooloo environs, the naval base and apartments of Potts Point to the east, and the sky above. One of Australia’s ‘Big Four’ major state art museums (interview with spokesperson for Artsupport Australia), the Art Gallery of New South Wales is located in a complex, multi-layered social and cultural landscape which begins with the local and national arts, education and cultural sectors and communities. Amongst the groups of stakeholders involved are art aficionados, advocates, supporters, critics, and creators of all kinds: artists, writers, curators, gallerists, directors, educators, arts patrons, sponsors, philanthropists, collectors, teachers, students, as well as visitors and tourists of many backgrounds. This landscape is, of necessity, irrigated by benefaction. The Annual Report and website state repeatedly, that the Art Gallery of New South Wales has always been reliant upon philanthropy, sponsorship and donations, and gifts including bequests, art works and collections. The Board of Trustees and the fund-raising Art Foundation play a crucial part in the Art Gallery’s sustainability, including adopting significant roles in the selection of acquisitions. Benefaction involves an enormous number of participants; for example, there are over 33,000 members of the Art Gallery Society of New South Wales, the largest organisation of art supporters in Australia (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/member). Combining cultural heritage, regional awareness and a contemporary focus, the Art Gallery of New South Wales is increasingly developing a distinctive and unique profile in the global landscape of cultural tourism, and in the international art world. Its 2005 Annual Report states its vision: ‘To maintain our reputation as an energetic, outgoing and accessible Australian art institution, and at the same time strive to be a major international gallery of the world, continuing to inspire, interest and provide enjoyment to our increasingly diverse audience’ (Art Gallery of NSW 2005, p. 5). The Gallery takes an inclusive approach to cultural heritage which is recognised and admired, as respondents in the fieldwork survey indicate, for its distinctive juxtaposition (within the same Gallery) of a diverse range of art works from Australia including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander works, the Asia–Pacific region and Europe. In 41 comparison, art museums in Europe, Asia and America tend to specialise more exclusively in eras, schools, movements and places. The Art Gallery comprises nineteenth-century and modern buildings in which are located its old courts and new galleries, as well as additional cultural facilities including a restaurant, café, bars, Members Lounge, shop, screening rooms, lecture halls, prints rooms, conservation rooms and a research library. The Art Gallery is physically and symbolically located as a coordinating force within a complex heritage of multi-layered cultural diversity: overall the whole exceeds its many parts as indicated by the virtual Gallery of its website/s (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au). The Art Gallery of New South Wale actively maintains its position in the international transcultural landscape in which it is located. This is shown by the Gallery’s hosting of significant international conferences; for instance, the 2005 Art Association of Australia and New Zealand conference, Transforming Aesthetics, in which Dr Anthony Bond AM, Head Curator of International Art, presented a paper, ‘Global art after 1989’. He considered questions such as: ‘How to be inclusive without inappropriately forcing works together with different cultural contexts ... How could we preserve the specificity of works from different traditions while allowing them to hang side by side? How could we develop a critical framework to embrace this diversity or would the answer be to have multiple overlapping frameworks?’ (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/aaanzz05/abstracts/tony_bond). The nature of this participation indicates the transcultural aesthetic concerns that inform its international curatorship, locating the Art Gallery within contemporary discourse in the global art world. Located in the City of Sydney, the Art Gallery comes under the aegis of the City of Sydney Council. The Council supports the Gallery by allowing it to use banner poles, free of charge, throughout the city on which to prominently display and advertise its major exhibitions in the city locale (information from conversations with Kiersten Fishburn, Cultural Development Manager, City of Sydney Council, and Susanne Briggs, Art Gallery of New South Wales media officer). Background to the Area The Art Gallery of New South Wales was originally founded in 1874 and moved to its present historic site in the Domain in 1885. The nineteenth-century building, designed by Walter Liberty Vernon and built in four stages between 1896 and 1901, was not completed (plans Vernon presented to the Trustees in 1902 for a completed Gallery were not accepted). In 1968 the New South Wales Government decided to incorporate the completion of the Gallery into the Captain Cook Bicentenary Celebrations. A modern extension was opened in 1970, and a further eastern extension completed in 1988, both designed by government architect Andrew Anderson. This effectively doubled the space of the Gallery. The Yiribana Gallery was opened in 1994. Supported by corporate sponsorship, this is the largest gallery space devoted solely to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art in an Australian state gallery. The Art Gallery’s website documents its cultural history from idealistic beginnings in the first soiree of the New South Wales Academy of Art on 7 August 1871. Amidst talk of violent unrest in Europe, and the burning of the Louvre, the animated rhetoric of the night touched on the possibility of a young Australia having to carry the torch of culture, even as Europe degenerated into chaos. It is a theme which has been rehashed throughout Australian history. These events fuelled a budding local resolve to establish an academy of Art “for the purpose of promoting the fine arts through lectures, art classes and regular exhibitions. (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/history) As well as providing historical information, this excerpt from the Gallery’s website illustrates the kinds of selfreflective cultural narratives the Art Gallery tells about itself and its place in the history of colonial Australia—how it interprets and markets its location in the world, to the world. In one of its guided Auslan tours for hearing-impaired people, this theme of the Art Gallery’s significant historical role in the development of Australian national and international cultural identity is reiterated. ‘The Art Gallery of New South Wales was born during a time of turmoil and revolution in Europe. Discover the idealism and hope embedded in the history of the building and collections and consider the ways in which their development reflects Australia’s identity and place in the wordl. (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/events/access/auslan) The Gallery reflects and constructs Australia’s identity and place in the world in many ways, not just through its collections of art but also through its history of community involvement and the changing and increasingly cultural diverse community that it now caters to and represents. In the late nineteenth century the Gallery had a policy of acquiring contemporary works of the time ‘from the studio’, albeit these reflected the taste of the Academy—hence its robust collection of nineteenth-century Australian landscape paintings which were acquired when they were painted. Contemporary acquisitions were not sustained into 42 Modernism, with Pissarro not bought until 1935; Monet in 1950. By the late 1970s, ‘Post World War Two art from overseas was virtually absent ... Consequently... the thinnest part of our collection is European art from about 1870 to the present.’ Thus writes Anthony Bond on his personal web page on the Art Gallery website (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/staff/anthonybond/collection). The Art Gallery’s evolution into an international art museum with a contemporary Australian identity began in the late 1970s under the new directorship of Dr Edmund Capon OBE, an art scholar specialising in Chinese art. In 1984 Anthony Bond joined the Gallery as International Curator. Further significant personnel in this transformation included Bernice Murphy, Australia’s first Curator of Contemporary Art, and Djon Mundine, art adviser from Ramingining, who was appointed the Art Gallery of New South Wales’ Curator-in-the-Field in 1984. ‘This was the first appointment of an Aboriginal person to a curatorial position in an Aboriginal art department of a public gallery.’ (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/history/collection). More recently, Hetti Perkins, curator of Aboriginal Art, curated the ground-breaking Papunya Tula exhibition at the Gallery in 2000 as part of the Sydney Olympic Games Arts Festival. The exhibition was to firmly place the Papunya Tula movement, and Aboriginal art more widely, on the national and international map. A significant percentage of cultural tourists now visit the Art Gallery of New South Wales primarily to experience Aboriginal art, as indicated by the results of the fieldwork surveys. The Art Gallery’s transformation into a significant international cultural tourist and visitor destination since the late 1970s is symbolically expressed and is literally manifest in the architectural development and use of its buildings. The traditional old court galleries on the first floor, designed by government architect Walter Vernon and built between 1896 and 1909, are now, fittingly, used to display the Gallery’s nineteenth-century Australian and early European collections. The Contemporary art department founded in 1979 was the inaugural contemporary art department in an Australian state museum. In the 1970s and 1980s building extensions were made which doubled the Gallery’s hanging space and responded to the changing needs of visitors for new, contemporary interpretations of visual art and culture at the beginning of the era of international contemporary art. The Contemporary International collection of the Art Gallery of New South Wales was initiated in 1984 with funds from the Mervyn Horton bequest, including plans for a new wing with rooms dedicated entirely to contemporary art. With this funding, Anthony Bond was charged with beginning a collection to fill the gap from the late nineteenth century onwards. Since the 1980s, Anthony Bond writes on his web page, he has pursued a ‘conceptual and poetic vision’—targeting major current works and focusing on European art with precedents in Arte Povera, the influence of Minimalism and Conceptual art. Major international contemporary exhibitions he has brought to the Gallery, with the support of the Gallery Foundation, sponsors and trustees, include Anish Kapoor (residency 1991) and Tracey Emin (residency 2003). After the Sensation show was banned entry to Australia, the Art Gallery of New South Wales arranged to bring out one of its leading artists Tracey Emin to Australia, a visit funded by trustees Geoff and Vicki Ainsworth, and the Gallery acquired one of Tracey Emin’s quilts for its permanent contemporary collection. Tracey Emin was accommodated by the Art Gallery at the W Hotel on the Finger Wharf (Skilbeck 2003c). In 2003 the Asian galleries were expanded into a new wing in a move which the Gallery’s Annual Report declares to ‘affirm the Gallery’s commitment to presenting the art and culture of our region’ (Art Gallery of NSW 2005). This symbolically gestures towards and acknowledges Australia’s increasing participation in the cultural landscape and life of the Asia–Pacific region—a development which is further affirmed by the increasing number of cultural tourists from Asia to the Gallery. Amongst the most significant innovations made by the Gallery over the past 30 years are its support of the inaugural Sydney Biennale (1973) and its subsequent active support of the Biennale which brings together contemporary artists and art works from around the world. This has been instrumental in connecting Australia with the international contemporary art world. The Art Gallery was a principal venue in 2006 of the 15th Biennale of Sydney, Zones of Contact, maintaining its support with educational programs and events. The Biennale brought together artists from 40 countries around the world practising all forms of the visual arts. Another major innovation was the support for Bernice Murphy’s inaugural Australian Perspecta, a survey exhibition (showing 147 artists over a two-year period) in 1980, a biennial of Australian contemporary art that has been widely influential. Exhibitions and artists have been brought to the Art Gallery, and art works acquired, through the funding provided by private philanthropy and sponsorship. This includes donations or loans of collections such as the John Fairfax Collection of Old Masters, which is housed in the John Fairfax Gallery on the entry level of the Art Gallery. In 43 interview Edmund Capon said, ‘The James Fairfax Collection is the finest private collection of European Old Masters in Australia. The quality and distinction of the works he has acquired would grace any of the world’s public institutions’ (Skilbeck 2003b, p. 59). On his philosophy of collecting Old Masters James Fairfax said: ‘I’ve never sold an Old Master and they will probably all end up in public collection. It will be spread but they will stay together’ (Skilbeck 2003b, p. 61). Since its inception the Gallery had depended on philanthropic support for its acquisitions and community programs. Director Edmund Capon writes in the ‘About Us’ web page: ‘This tradition of patronage has remained crucial to the development of the collection ... Today acquisitions are acquired mainly through the Foundation, the Art Gallery Society, donations, grants, bequests and gifts ... Many private endowments take the form of prizes and scholarships for the encouragement of artists, such as the Archibald, Wynne and Sulman Prizes, the Dyason Bequest, the Basil and Muriel Hooper Scholarships.’ The Art Gallery also allocates annual tenancy to two art studios in Paris, the Moya Dyring Studio and the Dr Denise Hickey Memorial Studio (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/history/collection). Analysis of press releases from the Art Gallery of New South Wales’ Press Office from 2006 shows that sponsorship supports every major exhibition and event. To give an example: in 2006 Myer supported the Archibald Prize, Wynne and Sulman Prize. In return the sponsor receives publicity and is quoted in the media release: ’Myer is proud to partner with the Gallery to support Australian artists and preserve the memory of great Australians through the nation’s most popular annual art exhibition. By sponsoring the Archibald Prize, Myer actively acknowledges the very important role art plays and acknowledges art’s capacity to delight, to engage and to inspire,’ said Dawn Robertson, Managing Director, Myer (AGNSW press release 2006). Analysis of the marketing and press releases related to prominent events at the Art Gallery showed a number of annual prizes including the Archibald Prize, the Wynne Prize, the Sulman Prize, the Dobell Drawing Prize, and the popular but short-lived Photographic Portrait Prize, a Citigroup Award (which ran from 2003 until 2006). This analysis indicates there is a wider cultural and community role played in the maintenance of art prizes, grants and scholarships bequeathed philanthropically to the Art Gallery, such as the Archibald Prize. This is an event in which local artists literally interpret and create cultural heritage in the form of portraits of selected Australian sitters, and it can include self-portraiture. A prize of $35 000 is awarded to the winner of the Archibald Prize, $15 000 for the Wynne Prize for landscape painting or figure sculpture, and $10 000 for the Sulman Prize for subject/genre painting and/or mural work. The winners are decided by the Board of Trustees and each year this causes controversy. According to the media release for the 2006 Archibald, Wynne and Sulman Prizes: Australia’s most extraordinary art event, the Archibald Prize, first awarded in 1921, is one of this country’s oldest and most prestigious art awards. Combined with the Wynne and Sulman Prizes, lively debate and controversy are assured. The Gallery’s news releases offer summaries of each prize and its cultural significance. An example from 2006 reads: Jules Francois Archibald’s primary aim, through his bequest of 1919, was to foster portraiture, as well as support artists, and perpetuate the memory of great Australians. Amongst many controversies, these original aims have certainly been fulfilled and indeed many believe the Archibald prize has done more than any other single event to stimulate and sustain public interest in the art of portrait painting in Australia. The Archibald Prize attracts extensive coverage, huge attendances, and public participation in many ways, including a People’s Choice Award for the work most people vote as their favourite. Local community participation is further encouraged by the Packing Room Prize. This highly coveted prize is awarded by the hardworking people behind the scenes who receive, unpack and hang all the entries— around 2000 precious works of art. (AGNSW Press Release 2006) Series of talks accompany the Archibald exhibition and each year the Prize generates fresh controversy and debate in the media, in Sydney’s local community and the arts community, over a range of issues to do with the selection of the winners, the role and competence of the trustees as judges, the significance and value of portraiture, the definition of painting and portraiture and so on, reflecting the issues and concerns of the day. The Archibald Prize also generates a number of annual spin-offs in the local arts community, including the Salon de Refuses at the SH Ervin Gallery, and the Bald Archies, as well as numerous more transient events. 44 Website Analysis of the Art Gallery of New South Wales website shows that the Art Gallery has a comprehensive and informative searchable website which is regularly updated, and usage continues to grow. According to the 2005 Annual Report the average number of visits per day in 2004–05 was 3423, an increase of approximately 38% from 2003–04. The website is a significant tool in the Gallery’s strategy of interpreting and marketing itself to the worldwide public. Through use of new technology it promotes its cultural heritage as a site for the exhibition of its varied diverse programs which include modern and contemporary art and culture. The website offers a history of the Gallery, its buildings, collection and administration. It includes a general introduction to the collections and illustrated highlights of each area. The Art Gallery has also created permanent websites for Art Express (www.artexpress.com.au), Fundays at the Gallery (www.fundays.com.au), and the Archibald Prize (www.thearchibaldprize.com.au). It hosts temporary websites for exhibitions such as the major Indigenous exhibition Crossing Country: The Alchemy of Western Arnhem Land Art (2004), Bill Henson (2005), and for conferences such as Transforming Aesthetics (2005) and Art museums: sites of communication 2 (2005) (www.artgallery.ns.gov.au/aaanz), (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/sites2). An interactive site, my VirtualGallery, allows users to create their own virtual exhibitions online using works from the Gallery’s collections. A section on conservation of artworks and the role of conservation in an art museum gives information on the conservation department at the Gallery, which includes a specialised scroll-mounting studio where a Chinese professional conserves and remounts Chinese paintings and calligraphy. Interested parties are encouraged to join the Collections Benefactions group, Friends of Conservation. The list of events gives an indication of the range of current and upcoming events at the Art Gallery: What’s On, Events Calendar, Exhibition-related Events, Art After Hours, Exhibition Talks, Tours, Lectures, Courses, Symposia, Films, Performances, Concerts, Kids, Workshops, Special Events, Contempo Member Events, Access Programs, Bookings. Upcoming events in June 2007 included a series of Experimental Films, in conjunction with the exhibition An Incomplete World: Works From The UBS Art Collection, one of the world’s leading corporate art collections which was touring the Gallery. Demonstrating an active commitment to cultural diversity, the website has pages on Accessibility and Access Programs catering to the diverse needs of its visitors. Access Programs offer a range of regular events—for children, adults and families. A web page gives information about access to the Gallery, including wheelchair access, lifts and ground-level entrances and exits. The Art Gallery runs comprehensive programs of events throughout the year, including ‘Signing Art 2007, Auslan interpreted events at the Gallery’. This is a range of Auslan tours and talk with signing for hearing-impaired people, which interpret the Gallery through a different theme each month. It is free and uses registered Auslan interpreters. There is also a range of interactive Auslan programs for children and their families, including performances by local comedians and actors. The Gallery runs tactile tours, ‘In Touch at the Gallery’, designed for blind or vision-impaired people, which offer ‘a free guided sensory tour’ of works in the collections. The Da Vinci project offers a program for intellectually disabled children, and one for gifted and talented children (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/events/access/auslan). The Art Gallery Society, Volunteering and Community Ambassadors The Art Gallery provides numerous opportunities for contributing to and participating in interpretation and marketing of cultural heritage by locals through philanthropic support and volunteering. These opportunities for active cultural participation take the form of the various groups run by the Art Gallery of New South Wales. They include the philanthropic groups, the Art Gallery Society, its group for younger members, Contempo, and the various special interest programs of Collection Benefactors. The activities of the groups include involvement in making choices for acquisitions for the Gallery. As well as making donations and fundraising these include two options for volunteering: Society Task Force and Community Ambassadors. The Community Ambassadors program is a recent initiative of the Art Gallery of New South Wales and the Art Gallery Society. Its stated aim is to expand the Galley’s audience to include members of a range of non-English-speaking Asian languages, including Vietnamese, Mandarin, Japanese and Cantonese. The guides, who in 2007 overwhelmingly tend to be women, volunteer for training in providing information on the Gallery’s collections of Australian, Aboriginal, European and Asian art. On booking, these tours are available free of charge to the public (www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/member/volunteer/community_ambassador). 45 Background Themes and Issues Philanthropy Recent changes to tax laws with the introduction of Prescribed Private Funds (PPFs), which are facilitating a trend for philanthropists to start up or donate to private art foundations, are seen by some to be a potential threat to the philanthropic support of the Gallery (indicated in an interview with a spokesperson for Artsupport Australia about the role and impacts of new philanthropy). However, the Art Gallery Society 2006 Annual Report indicates that currently support for the Gallery is not waning but, rather, increasing. In 2006 the Society raised $1,190,909 for new acquisitions for the Gallery; a new Collection Circle amongst members raised $124 069 towards purchase of Jeffrey Smart’s Matisse at Ashford. This information is listed on the Membership pages of the website (http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/member/annual_report_06). Storage One of the major problems facing the Gallery is storage. Management is seeking to resolve the issues to do with storage in the lower floor, which may mean finding more storage space externally and creating more gallery space. Meanwhile the policy of circulating works from permanent Australian collections ensures that many works are on view, albeit for short periods of time. Consultation with Local Stakeholders The transformation of the Art Gallery of New South Wales into an international Australian art museum over the past 25 years offers a model of diverse ways in which local and national cultural heritage and contemporary cultural landscapes may be developed into effective, sustainable tourist attractions. To investigate what goes on behind the scenes of such a transformation, the kinds of strategies and concerns at play, a number of stakeholders were interviewed. These include: Art Gallery curators, an Art Gallery benefactor, the Gallery’s marketing manager, spokespeople from Artsupport Australia and the City of Sydney Council, and artists in the local community. Interviewing techniques ranged from formal face-to-face interviews, phone interviews, email interviews, and informal talks and discussions. These interviews occurred over a two-year period. Information used in this report also draws, for background, on interview-based articles written by Ruth Skilbeck on Australian art and culture since 2003, most specifically a fivefeature series, ‘Australian contemporary art comes of age’ (Skilbeck 2003a); interviews with James Fairfax and Edmund Capon (Skilbeck 2003b); and interviews with artist Tracey Emin and Art Gallery of New South Wales contemporary curator, Wayne Tunnicliffe (Skilbeck 2003c). Extracts from some of the interviews conducted as part of this research, including quotations and summaries, follow. Amongst local stakeholders consulted were professional artists and photographers, curators and government advisers. Art Gallery Curator of International Art We interviewed a curator of international art on the interpretation of cultural heritage in shaping contemporary cultural landscapes, in relation to his work at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. His comments emphasised the importance of making, maintaining and utilising transcultural connections in positioning Australia on the international map of contemporary art and cultural tourism. My own focus is international but always including Australian contemporary artists alongside their peers and I have exported shows of curated components, e.g. Bicentennial Perspecta to Germany 1988, Boundary Rider the 9th Biennale of Sydney 1992, Johannesburg Biennale 1995, adviser to Fellbach Scultpure Triennial and Florence Biennale 2001, and Trace 1999 in Liverpool. How have directors of the Art Gallery of New South Wales through their position and influence been seen to have advanced Australian art internationally? The curator replied: Edmund Capon was the first director to introduce a contemporary department in a museum here and he presided over Bernice Murphy's ground-breaking series Australian Perspecta. In spite of a sometimes rocky relationship with contemporary art, he has staunchly defended its place in the museum and gone out of his way to make space for it through Australian Perspecta, Biennale of Sydney, continuing project series and major monographic exhibitions and publications as well as a major collection development program. In 1988 Edmund encouraged me to tour the Bicentennial Perspecta in Europe and in 1992 he released me to curate the Sydney Biennale fully paid for by the Art Gallery. He also allowed me to work on the first Johannesburg Biennale and in 1999 he allowed me to take time to curate the first Liverpool Biennial in [the] UK. 46 Former Art Gallery Curator, and Art Writer ‘One of the great pleasures of my curatorial life was co-curating the British Show with [aforementioned curator] in the mid-80s which toured all Australia and the National Gallery in New Zealand. We were fortunate to have begun our show three months before the English curators got to do their version in Britain and, as a consequence, we had a better exhibition than theirs, and more replete with key works. Collaborations are usually fraught with conflict but it was a joy working with someone like [curator] who has such extraordinary insight into the way artists think and work. The way [curator] has inclusively configured the contemporary wing at the Art Galley of New South Wales—with Australian works alongside their overseas contemporaries—should be studied by all art museum curators’ (Skilbeck 2003a, p. 78). This indicates the significance and strategic scope of individual leading curators, working together, in facilitating the transformation of an art gallery into a significant, sustainable international art museum in the global cultural landscape of the contemporary art world. Curator and Writer We interviewed a writer, curator and consultant, primarily in Indigenous art and culture, on the role of the curator in the interpretation and marketing of cultural heritage. She praised the work of Hetti Perkins, curator of Aboriginal art at the Art Gallery of New South Wales: Her first exhibition was Papunya Tula. She spent the whole budget on it. Somehow she managed to get the director to do it. That was a first for Aboriginal art. It showed how Aboriginal art is [rightfully positioned] at the forefront of contemporary art. The show took Aboriginal art from the very beginnings to the present. It had a huge effect on curators and collectors who could see the progression (that it hadn’t just come from nowhere). It reassured the sceptic in the mindset of people’.(Skilbeck 2003a, p. 81) As mentioned earlier, the Papunya Tula exhibition curated by Hetti Perkins was part of the Sydney Olympic Games Arts Festival. The exhibition was to firmly place the Papunya Tula movement, and Aboriginal art more widely, on the national, and international, map. Many cultural tourists now visit the Art Gallery of New South Wales primarily to experience Aboriginal art, as indicated by the results of the survey. Art Gallery Marketing Manager To what extent has attendance risen at the Art Gallery since the late 1970s? ‘It’s increased markedly, and that includes to tourists, and that to a large extent has been due to the marked increase in the number and quality of the exhibitions and [the heightened] profile of the Gallery. That’s been to do largely with the appointment of Edmund Capon who has a huge level of expertise and profile and art knowledge. He expanded the Gallery in terms of space. In the 1970s a new wing was built, the Captain Cook wing for contemporary art. An Aboriginal Gallery was built in the 1990s, Yiribana. And more recently a major gallery of Asian art opened. This significant increase in overall size, therefore, increased the presentation of exhibitions. There are over 35 exhibitions a year at the Gallery. The Gallery caters primarily for a local audience by virtue of being a major institution in Sydney. Many Sydneysiders come here regularly—we cater to the local [market].’ Can you say anything about particularly successful marketing strategies in this time? ‘Media is very important—a level of advertising and presentation adds to profile in the media. The Gallery has a very strong media profile across electronic and print media. We are listed in international publications and in tourist guides. We’re comprehensively listed across tourist guides as specialising in Australian and Aboriginal art. People who go to galleries will seek you out because they’re interested in discovering more about Australian and Aboriginal art. We’re listed as one of the most interesting places to go to. ‘We’ve held onto free admission, over that period [since the 1970s]. Whereas other institutions have introduced a fee. We’ve found if there isn’t an entry fee people will have goodwill, they will spend when they’re in the Gallery, on a coffee or at the shop. A minus is that we don’t get tours who book a group rate, depending on a reduced admission fee. But we do get numerous buses of tourists, particularly Asian groups of visitors, that pass the Gallery on the [guided] tour circuit that goes to Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, then to the Opera House and over the Harbour Bridge. Since the opening of the Asian gallery there has been a very big, and increasing, number of Asian visitors. We offer tours in Asian languages, such as Mandarin, Cantonese. There are daily tours for Asian visitors. We run over 3000 tours a year. ‘Another thing [that draws people in] is the building itself. It’s a really beautiful building, the light and the architecture and the old courts which people love. People really enjoy the experience of visiting the Gallery. They find out about it by publicity and word of mouth. People have a wonderful experience and they spread that around. They 47 bring family and friends. The Gallery has a very strong profile with Sydneysiders. If people are staying with people in Sydney they will take them to the Gallery—as you take people to the local attractions.’ How does the Gallery seek to cater to the needs of a diverse range of visitors? For instance, do you conduct surveys amongst visitors to find out their responses? ‘Some. Sometimes it’s harder to get international visitors. We offer self-guides, maps in foreign languages; language tours in foreign languages; tailored tours and services. For instance, for a group of American students we might offer a tour of the Aboriginal gallery which ends with Aboriginal performances. We tailor tours for students and adult groups. The Gallery is open every day, there’s open access. On Wednesday it stays open to 9 pm and that brings in a lot of people.’ Developing Innovative Products and Services Does the Art Gallery of New South Wales develop any innovative cultural products that tie in with the exhibitions? ‘Yes, we have products, including iconic products. Posters, cards, collectable cards, framed prints of Aboriginal works. These are very popular. Including novelty items, such as scarves, merchandise. It’s on ongoing offer. Paper products, a few reproductions. Every major exhibition has a suite of merchandise developed. One of the main things is books. The Gallery is Australia’s leading art book supplier. Each exhibition has books, a catalogue as well as paper products and gifts which people buy as souvenirs, that’s really important.’ Theming and Multi-Theming: Does the gallery use concepts of theming—for instance, in relation to the exhibitions, and the merchandise as you’ve mentioned? ‘Yes. Themes in exhibitions focus on an artist or a movement or a concept, such as recently the (very popular) Goddess exhibition which focused on Hindu and Buddhist art. It was a conceptual theme with a range of materials related to goddess worship, exploration, understanding.’ ‘The Archibald Prize [is another example] every year. It’s extremely popular. Upcoming is an exhibition of international contemporary art—works selected from an international corporate collection. Its theme is how we relate to the natural world and how the world relates to us. This includes works by major contemporary artists including Lucien Freud and Roy Lichtenstein. There’s a major Sydney Nolan exhibition coming up at the end of the year that focuses on gaining a deeper understanding of his work.’ Links: Does the Gallery have links with other national and international institutions? ‘Yes, we have links with all of them. Nationally we have close links with all the other major state galleries, in Victoria, Queensland, the National Gallery of Australia, the Gallery of South Australia, and Western Australia. They loan works to one another, they often tour exhibitions to one another, they have very close professional relationships. We also have close links with international galleries, in London, the Tate, the National Portrait Gallery, the National Gallery, and in the [United] States. These are different [according to] to [the interests and connections of] particular curators, and groups of curators.’ Cultural Development Officer, Sydney City Council She said that the Council currently supports the Art Gallery of New South Wales for projects on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. ‘The Art Gallery is part of the city’s central business area. The Art Gallery is part of the arts precinct that stretches from the Finger Wharf to Walsh Bay. The Council supports community-based programs for Indigenous artists and for people with disabilities. ‘As one of the 12–14 major cultural institutions that are located in the City of Sydney’, the Art Gallery of New South Wales is given ‘the use of banner poles throughout the city free of charge. The City of Sydney is one of the major sponsors of the Sydney Biennale. We liaise regularly with the Art Gallery over the Biennale.’ Professional Art Photographer With 30 years’ experience working in the arts in Australia and overseas, she entered works into the now-defunct Citigroup Photographic Prize. She is a full-time art teacher at a high school. We spoke to her about her long-term involvement with the Art Gallery as an artist who goes to the Gallery for research, to see individual exhibitions, as a 48 participant in competitions, and as a teacher overseeing school visits. ‘I go there quite a lot. I go there on school excursions [take school excursions there] every year. It’s really well organised. I’d go to the films, the Wednesday night talks and lectures. I’ve been to a lot of things there. They have music, performances, it’s reasonably priced. They show Australian art within an international context. I enjoy the way they have the installations. I really enjoyed the Goddess show. They do some shows really well. The Archibald is really well done. A few years ago they had the choice of a Brett Whiteley or Frida Kahlo show. They chose Brett Whiteley— Sketches of Paris—instead of the Frida Kahlo show. Everyone was outraged. They do have favourites. Mike Parr [curator] loves his work.’ She singles out the Dobell [Drawing] Prize for praise. “The Goddess show was excellent. It’s different to overseas galleries. It’s got smaller spaces, it feels familiar, it’s safe. You know it really well. There’s not enough outside space— not enough outside sculpture. I like the café. It would be really nice if they invited local artists to their functions ... It’s horrible having to gate-crash. I still do it. I never have an invitation, even if you’ve put something in [to prizes such as the Citigroup Photographic Prize], you pay a fee, and it’s rejected.’ Professional Artist, Art Teacher, Facilitator of Community Art Programs How often do you go to the Art Gallery? ‘Five to eight times a year.’ What do you usually go to see? ‘I usually go to see everything but more so the contemporary [works].’ In your experience, what role does the Art Gallery of New South Wales play in promoting and exhibiting Australian art and culture here and overseas? ‘I would think it’s probably the centre, the initial stop for 50–60% of people who go out to galleries. It’s high profile.’ What are your responses to the Gallery’s exhibition and promotion of Australian art and culture here in Australia and internationally? ‘They could do more blockbusters, but it’s fine. It’s a cutting-edge place and it does everything it’s supposed to do, it’s a fine gallery. It lacks promoting new Australian artists, but maybe that’s not its function. It’s not a place for emerging artists... They won’t step on the toes of the MCA which do more of that. The NSW gallery has more of an agenda. They are big on museum-type presentation too. There’s always a big museum thing — artefacts, swords... from another [culture]. That would be their focus.’ Can you suggest any changes to its selection, promotion and exhibition of art in Australia? ‘No.’ Do you have any thoughts on the promotion and exhibition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art at the Gallery? ‘It can do so much more. There’s no Aboriginal representatives on the Board of Trustees ... They could have a small room [of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders art] on permanent exhibition on the upper floor. They keep all that traditional [nineteenth-century paintings] up there—they could put aside traditional paintings for a travelling exhibition. Because of the storage and the lighting and heating problems of moving those traditional paintings, they keep them there like a museum—they keep that first floor. They keep the great art in the foyer. There could be more installations in the foyer.’ Do you have any thoughts on the diversity of the collections and exhibitions at the Gallery? ‘Let’s just say that from what I’ve seen it seems to be a very interesting and diverse program year after year, but that’s not to say things can’t be more innovative and unique to the Gallery experience and to take more chances with the work they’re exhibiting; for instance, using photography, [a range of] experiences, going not for the artistic and intellectual but more for the everyday. It could do more on a contemporary front but not on a traditional front.’ Can you make any suggestions of things you’d like to see in the Gallery? ‘After looking at the web pages there’s a lot I’m missing that the Art Gallery of New South Wales offers. I was totally impressed by the web pages and I intend to access more of what they offer.’ 49 Professional Media Art Photographer (Arts Press and Exhibiting Art Photographer) based in Sydney He said he visits the Gallery regularly. He is impressed by the range of exhibitions and collections. But he questions the location of the Aboriginal art collection on the lower floor. He suggests that it should be more prominently on display on the upper floor, so that it can be readily accessed by visitors entering the Gallery. Practising Emerging Conceptual Artist in Sydney ‘The Art Gallery of New South Wales needs a contemporary arts prize, akin to London's Turner Prize. More focus on contemporary art issues and closer corporate relations to facilitate the above. Promotion! Promotion! Promotion! The New South Wales gallery needs to broaden its audience.’ Results of the Survey Demographics The age of respondents varied with a median response of between 30 and 34; a large proportion of them were single and living alone or in shared accommodation (30.3%). Respondents self-identified themselves predominantly as ‘European’ (30.3%) and the majority of them were international tourists (61.2%) with only 28.6% of the sample identified as ‘local’. There were slightly more females than males at 53.5% to 46.5%. Reason for Visit A resounding 54.5% of respondents visited the Art Gallery of New South Wales for a ‘cultural experience’ and for 55.6% of respondents, it was their first visit. The second most popular reason for visit was ‘sightseeing’ (18.2%). Information Source As shown by the percentage of international respondents, the Art Gallery of New South Wales is more likely to be a tourist precinct than the four previous case study sites. This was shown in the survey results with 38.4% of respondents heard about the Gallery via tourist information centres or brochures. Evaluation of Experience The Art Gallery of New South Wales appeared to have a profoundly positive affect on respondents (84.4%) with all but one agreeing to some extent that they would recommend it to others and 97.7% somewhat to strongly agreeing that it was a ‘memorable’ experience. 93% agreed that they were likely to visit again and 91.7% had their expectations met by the experience. Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism The Art Gallery of New South Wales is an example of a successfully developed cultural tourist destination that interprets and markets cultural heritage including contemporary art. It has earned a place on the international map of cultural tourism and in the art world for a uniquely ‘Australian’ form of curatorship and presentation based on diversely juxtaposed exhibition of Indigenous Australian, Australian, European and Asian–Pacific art—in an environment which is widely perceived by visitors and tourists to be safe and non-intimidating, welcoming and friendly. In contrast to many comparable museums overseas, it is free of a general admission charge which is appreciated by visitors, as are the free cloakroom facilities. Focusing on the local area of Sydney and interpreting and marketing the Gallery and its exhibitions to the local community provide an authentic and distinctive place-based local context that tourists and visitors want to experience, and take souvenirs and memories with them. The results from the surveys and stakeholder interviews suggest some further needs could be addressed to meet, or exceed, the expectations of some visitors. These needs tended to be specific to the members of particular cultural groups. For example, several survey respondents from the United Kingdom expressed a wish for more narratives contextualising the Australian art works in relation to movements from Europe, and giving more information about the nineteenth-century Australian landscape paintings. There’s no information about it on the walls, so you don’t know what you’re looking at, to paraphrase one respondent. The narratives in the Asian rooms were praised by one respondent from England who requested that such interpretive information—displayed by the exhibits—be extended to the Australian art works. 50 Some survey respondents expressed a wish that the Indigenous art be more prominently displayed in the Art Gallery, in the front foyer; many respondents visited the gallery primarily to see Aboriginal art. The Gallery’s view is that the Yiribana gallery is the largest area of continuous display in the Gallery and therefore, due to its size, is the most appropriate area. Some respondent criticisms revealed a lack of knowledge—or information—about Gallery decisions; for example, in relation to the display of works and lighting. Some respondents, with little experience of art museums and galleries, criticised dim lighting in one gallery of traditional Asian works, displaying lack of knowledge that some art works and artefacts are sensitive to light. For their preservation they cannot be exposed to direct light. This is implicit in the information on the Gallery’s Conservation web pages. Information about lighting and site choices could be given on maps or guides to state galleries and museums, or on wall plaques or brochures in the specific galleries. A number of respondents confessed that they had become lost walking around the Art Gallery. They expressed a need for more signage and maps to direct their progress through the Gallery. Conversely others said that they appreciated the fact that they could make their own way, and find their own route through the rooms, and that they weren’t directed. Also, as one said, there weren’t ‘intimidating curators’ in attendance. Numerous respondents mentioned their appreciation of the friendly non-intimidating atmosphere, contrasting this to some art museums in the United States, continental Europe and the United Kingdom. Overall the response of visitors to the Gallery was overwhelmingly favourable, as somewhat ironically expressed by one young German visitor, interviewed in front of the (contemporary Australian) Mike Parr work that he was perusing. The galleries he had visited included a dazzling list of the world’s most renowned public and private art museums. When asked if his experience of the Gallery met his expectations, he said, ‘No,’ laughed, and hastened to add, ‘and that’s a good thing—I had not expected it to be good—and it is very good. I am very impressed.’ One lesson for tourism that can be drawn from this is that internationally informed, knowledgeable and inspired directorship, and specifically curatorship, are a requisite in the sustainability of art museums for international cultural tourists. This is the fundamental and necessary basis for developing an art museum or gallery into a successful and sustainable cultural tourist destination of world-class quality. Beyond this are many other subtending factors which contribute, perhaps in a subliminal way, to the enhancement, enjoyment and self-implication of the experience of visiting an art gallery or museum—which is, after all, an experience that revolves around and crucially involves the subjective self-implication of the aesthetic experience. The evidence gathered in this survey suggests that, within the sensory aesthetic space of an art museum or gallery, the overall experience and memorability of the visit may be enhanced by attending to the subliminal, phenomenal factors that influence the subjective experience of each visitor to the site. Sensitive attention to factors including the provision of self-directed movement, maps, variety and choice, comfortable temperatures, the opportunity for refreshments and rest—as well as, but not instead of, intellectual context and cultural information—increase the overall impact, pleasure and satisfaction of the aesthetic, cultural experience for visitors. The Director’s Statement in the 2005 Annual Report indicates that it is Gallery policy to take into account such phenomenological concerns of visitor experience—and the survey results indicate it succeeds in satisfying, and often exceeding, expectations of a majority of visitors. The lessons to be taken from the Art Gallery of New South Wales include the value of taking informed risks (such as supporting the inaugural Sydney Biennale and the inaugural Australian Perspecta and Papunya Tula exhibition), supporting originality and innovation, ‘poetic and conceptual’ contemporary art. Lessons include the need for curators and directors to be well informed and directly involved with the cultural product: art, artists and the international art world. The following strategies that emerged in researching the case study of the Art Gallery of New South Wales may be beneficial as lessons for tourism: • development of policies of inclusive cultural heritage • promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art • promotion of contemporary Australian art • promotion of Asian art • encouragement of narratives and contextualisation of Australian art in all its forms • implementation of a range of themed programs, events and products developed from exhibitions • participation in international and national dialogue, exchanges and cultural linkages • support of local artists, including emerging artists, and art communities • active engagement in securing philanthropic support and sponsorship • maximisation of the physical surroundings in the local natural and built environment • development and maintenance of virtual galleries in informative websites. 51 The case study survey indicates that international cultural tourists in art museums are curious and critical. They have open minds and they want, expect and appreciate information about all aspects of what they are seeing and experiencing—to make sense of it, to make comparisons, to increase their knowledge, to learn, reflect and understand, to gain the most they can, and to take something memorable with them from the cultural experience of the location they are visiting. With its focus on transcultural diversity and its stimulating, thought-provoking juxtaposition of traditional, modern and contemporary art, cultural heritage and contemporary culture, the Art Gallery of New South Wales provides the kind of high-level, varied cultural experience, including a sense of belonging that makes many local visitors and international cultural tourists want to return. This is evidenced by comments such as the following by an academic from London: ‘I always come here when I am in Sydney’. Or from an Art Gallery Society member living in regional Australia, who said: ‘I’ve been coming here since I was a child’. 52 Chapter 9 GRIFFITH, NEW SOUTH WALES Case Study Location Griffith is a regional city approximately 570 kilometres south-west of Sydney. It is the regional centre of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and began receiving irrigation from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Scheme in the early 1900s. It has become a prosperous farming area with strong citrus, rice and wine industries as well as large food processing operations. Its population in 2001 was almost 24,000 and it is expected to have surpassed 35,000 people by 2030. Each year Griffith receives approximately 150,000 visitors, including independent travellers, tour groups and itinerant workers. Griffith City Council states that ‘Griffith has defined itself as a cosmopolitan food and wine destination famed for its multicultural and special events’ (Griffith City Council 2007). Background to the Area Griffith has a long history of multiculturalism, with the Wiradjuri, the traditional owners of the land, joined by Anglo– Celtic migrants in the early nineteenth century and southern European migrants (particularly Italians 6 ) since the early 1900s. The last two decades have seen further migration from South and Central Asia, the Pacific Islands, the Middle East and, most recently, from Africa. Recent estimates put the proportion of the population in Griffith with Italian ancestry at up to 60% of the total population and some ‘Italian’ families are now into their fifth generation in Australia. The cultural diversity of Griffith is quite unique amongst Australian non-metropolitan areas. The built environment of Griffith tells the story of cultural diversity amongst the city’s migrant communities. Many of these non-Anglo ethnic communities have ‘cultural icons, which in some way represent them’ (Kabaila 2005, p. 54). Places significant to the Italian community were the first of these to be built. These include the various Italian clubs, the Italian Museum and Cultural Centre, an abundance of Italian cafés and restaurants, the Lady of Loreto statue, the Capella Della Pieta mausoleum and the Our Lady of Pompeii Church (Kabaila 2005). For many of Griffith’s Italian migrants and their descendants, these physical structures have been an important element in consolidating their position in the community. The Our Lady of Pompeii Church, built in 1939, has recently been placed on the New South Wales State Heritage Inventory. A 2005 study recommended that the Italian Museum and Cultural Centre (located within Pioneer Park Museum) also be listed on local and state heritage registers for its ‘high significance to the Italian community’ (Kabaila 2005). The Museum was built largely with community funds, voluntary labour and donated materials, to an estimated value of $500 000. Construction was completed in 2003. The Museum traces the history of Italian migrants to Griffith and the surrounding region, with photographs and artefacts pointing to the central role of Italian migrants in the economic and cultural development of the town. The Sikh community is also represented in the built environment of the region, having established a Sikh temple in 1993. Interestingly, the premises were originally built by the Italian community in 1937 as the Italo–Australian Club (Kabaila 2005). The Sikh community is also served by two Indian and Asian supermarkets. Many Turks, Pakistanis and Fijians, amongst others, attend the Riaz mosque near the centre of town. The mosque began operating in these premises in 2000. Initially the premises were rented but were subsequently purchased in approximately 2004. All of these sites add to the multicultural feel of Griffith. They also sustain its diversity, which is celebrated each year in the La Festa and Garribarri multicultural festivals. La Festa is of long standing, having its origins in the Waterwheel festival which started in the mid-twentieth century. It incorporates ethnic food stalls as well as cultural performances from various local ethnic communities and world music from professional artists. Garribarri is now in its second year. Its primary focus has been community development but the organisers hope that, as it develops, it will also attract tourists. 6 The first Italian migrants to Griffith were mainly Trevisani from the Veneto region (Huber 1977). Subsequent migrants came from many other Italian regions. 53 A third annual festival is the Festa Delle Salsicce (Salami Festival), which is held in the grounds adjacent to the Italian Museum and organised by the Italian Museum Committee. The festival is a fundraiser for the Museum and was originally conceived as a way to showcase the Museum to the public. The first festival, in approximately 2003, was held inside the Museum before the display was installed. It has grown steadily, now attracting around 300 people including locals of both Italian and Anglo–Celtic heritage, as well as groups from Victoria (this year from Melbourne, Cobram and Geelong). While some come for the day, many stay in Griffith overnight, bringing tourist dollars into the town. The festival also has strong support from the local community. It is seen by some of the more elderly Italians in Griffith as a chance to catch up with old friends, and by some of the younger generation as an opportunity to learn from elders about Italian heritage. This study of Griffith focuses on La Festa, Garribarri and Festa Delle Salsicce as well as the Griffith Italian Museum and Cultural Centre as four opportunities for cultural tourism. Consultation with Local Stakeholders Interviews and discussions were held with key stakeholders from Griffith City Council, Griffith Multicultural Communities Council, the Griffith Italian Museum and Cultural Centre and the local Italian community. Summaries of these discussions are presented below. President, Italian Museum and Cultural Centre • • • • • • • • The aim of the Italian Museum is to preserve and recognise the Italian contribution to Griffith and to pass on this knowledge to younger generations of Italian descent. There was originally a lot of enthusiasm for the Museum but over time that has dissipated. The energy for the Museum waned as members of the Italian community disagreed over an appropriate design and location for the Museum. One proposal was to locate the Museum in the main street of Griffith. Another was to locate it in the grounds of Pioneer Park, an open air museum that houses historic buildings and heritage items from Griffith’s pioneering past. The Park is managed by Council staff and local volunteers. The proposal to locate the Museum within Pioneer Park gained the most support, as it was thought that while an independent museum in the main street would need to be staffed permanently by a roster of volunteers, the existing management structure of the Park would relieve the Italian community of that responsibility. The downside is that it is removed from the town centre and so misses the passing traffic. The Italian Museum Committee is made up mostly of middle-aged to elderly Italian migrants. It is hard to get more people involved, particularly the younger generations. Key members of the Committee (who are northern Italian) have made an effort to ensure that southern Italians are represented on it, although it is also difficult to maintain the interest of southern Italian representatives on an ongoing basis. The Italian Museum and Cultural Centre might be perceived in the community as being a ‘northern Italian thing’, to the exclusion of southern Italians. But this is largely due to the fact that it was the northerners who came first and were the ‘pioneers’, and the materials displayed reflect those early pioneering days. The Museum Committee is currently in the process of a large fundraising venture, involving fundraising within the local community as well as applying for state government grants. The moneys raised will fund a major expansion of the items on display. This will include the installation of several large glass display cabinets and the retrieval of some donated materials from storage. It will also bring the display up to the contemporary era. The local Italian regional associations (such as the Calabrian association, the Trevisani) will be asked for funds, with each group then having a display cabinet of their own. The Festa Delle Salsicce has been a bigger success than anyone envisaged. It is a unique ‘product’ that catches people’s interest—nowhere else can you attend a salami festival. Many people in the local community enter the salami competition, including non-Italians. Making the salamis is still done by Italian families in the traditional way, but now others are also getting involved. The Museum Committee, which organises Festa Delle Salsicce, is getting worried because Council has started talking about food safety inspections. Most of the salami makers are small groups of friends or family who make the salami in their backyards. There is a concern that a bureaucratic food safety process would scare people away from entering the competition and so effectively shut the festival down. Festa Delle Salsicce is big enough now. It is still manageable by a small committee but if it continued to grow too quickly, it would become too difficult logistically. There are usually 300 tickets and they all sell out. Some tour groups are organised from Sydney and Melbourne. Coordinator, Salami Judging Competition, Festa Delle Salsicce • 54 As well as fundraising for the Museum and providing a family activity, the main aim of Festa Delle Salsicce is to reinforce the importance of Italian traditions to the younger generations with Italian ancestry. • • It is a primary concern to get the younger generations involved. The 2006 Festa Delle Salsicce involved a number of the younger generations in the salami judging process. It also made a point of including a southern Italian at each judging table so that the judging process would maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the broader Italian community. The judging process is taken very seriously and offers significant cash prizes (including $1000 for first prize). Making salami is also very expensive, so people have made a considerable investment in order to enter the competition. Curator, Pioneer Park Museum • • The interior design of the Museum was planned by a professional curator. It was decided to go with a ‘minimalist’ approach and be highly selective in the materials displayed. This was to avoid the ‘trap’ of many regional museums that end up displaying old junk. The Museum is managed on a day-to-day basis by Council, although the Italian Museum Committee still meets regularly and has input into strategic management decisions. Local Italian Resident 1 • • • The Italian Museum and Cultural Centre has been a big disappointment. Many people donated materials that were important to them, only to find that they were placed in storage rather than on display. People now have little faith that their materials will ever be displayed. Some materials that were displayed have been labelled incorrectly. Letters to the Museum Committee pointing out the errors have not resulted in them being rectified. Local Italian Resident 2 • • La Festa is an inappropriate name for the annual Easter long weekend festival. Italians were not consulted in the process of renaming the festival. ‘La Festa’ implies a big event, it is a special name. The Easter long weekend festival in Griffith is not big enough to warrant the name ‘La Festa’. Member, Griffith Multicultural Communities Council • • La Festa is organised by the City Council. It is highly bureaucratic and has alienated some in the community. For example, the stalls that are available to hire in order to sell food are very expensive, and rents need to be paid six months in advance. For these reasons some migrant groups are angry and do not like to participate. The new festival, Garribarri, is entirely community-run. In the long term it would be great if it became a tourist attraction, but the primary aim is community development. Groups who want to hold a stall still have to pay rent, but this is cheaper than La Festa and the less bureaucratic approach to organising the festival means that those put off by La Festa feel more comfortable to get involved. Representative, Griffith City Council Tourism • • • • • The main way that Council promotes Griffith’s cultural diversity is through La Festa, which is billed as an international street festival and international music, food and wine festival. It takes place in Griffith’s main street, parts of which are closed to vehicular traffic during the festival. Council’s website describes the festival as a ‘real celebration of everything the city has to offer, its colourful and dynamic multicultural community and its premium wine and food industry’. La Festa grew out of the original Waterwheel festival. The Waterwheel festival celebrated Griffith’s farming success and included a street parade with elaborate floats. Over time it became a food and wine festival, with wine served all day in plastic glasses that people carried around their necks. As the wine became a bigger component of the festival, the family atmosphere was eroded and the wineries started to withdraw their support to avoid tarnished reputations. As a result, the festival was ‘reimagined’ into a multicultural festival, with the aim of restoring the family vibe. Today, Council’s website states that ‘La Festa is the perfect family day out with lively and exciting children's entertainment and performances to keep the kids busy for hours while mum and dad sit back and enjoy the music, food and wine’. There were an estimated 7000 visitors to La Festa in 2005, increasing to an estimated 11 000 in 2006. It has grown to incorporate three stages, including a ‘community stage’ for local amateur performers and ethnic communities, a stage for world music performers who are invited from outside Griffith, and a youth arts and culture stage. Aside from La Festa, Council does little to promote Griffith’s cultural diversity as a tourist attraction. However, most tourist material Council produces briefly mentions that Griffith is a multicultural community. Council is not involved in the Garribarri festival, although it has let the organisers know that it can assist, if desired, with things like legal advice. Similarly, Council has tried to take a ‘hands off’ approach with Festa Delle Salsicce. It is trying to establish a food safety auditing process because there are food and travel 55 journalists from Sydney interested in attending and Council wants to make sure that formal food safety processes are in place before that occurs. In the meantime they are encouraging the journalists to hold off. In 2006 Festa Delle Salsicce was covered by a regional television news program. Results of a Council Survey Visitor numbers at the Italian Museum are too low to allow a visitor survey to be practical. A visitor survey of participants at La Festa is carried out annually by Council and the results of the 2006 festival are presented below. It is estimated that around 11 000 people attended La Festa in 2006. Approximately 150 people were surveyed. The survey results show that almost 70% of respondents were visiting Griffith during the Easter long weekend to attend La Festa (Figure 2). Figure 2: Reasons for visiting Griffith during Easter long weekend Source: Griffith City Council, unpublished data 58.7 60 La Festa 50 Easter Cup 40 Jet Sprint Boat Races 30 Friends & Relatives 20 17.5 15.9 10 4.8 1.6 Other Not Answered 1.6 0 1st Qtr Reason for Visit Figure 3 shows that 56% of visitors surveyed at La Festa were from outside of Griffith. Around 38% of respondents planned to stay in Griffith for longer than one night, while 16% had come just for the day (Figure 4). Figure 3: Origin of respondents Source: Griffith City Council, unpublished data 4 1.6 1.6 3.2 Griffith (local) Sydney 17.5 44 Other NSW ACT South Aust Victoria 23.8 International 56 Figure 4: Number of nights stayed in Griffith Source: Griffith City Council, unpublished data 1.6 4.8 1 night 12.7 2 nights 44.4 3 nights 4 nights 20.6 Day Trip Not Answered 15.9 Figure 5 illustrates that the majority of those surveyed at La Festa were aged between 31 and 50 years (37%), while a further 29% were aged between 51 and 70. There was also a significant proportion of 18–30 year olds (19%). Figure 5: Age of respondents Source: Griffith City Council, unpublished data 40 36.5 Under 18 yrs 35 28.6 30 18-30 yrs 25 31-50 yrs 19 20 15 10 51-70 yrs 9.5 6.3 71 or over 5 0 The survey results indicate that people tend to go to La Festa in large groups. Figure 6 shows that almost 56% of respondents were in groups of five or more. Very few respondents were attending La Festa on their own. 57 Figure 6: Group size of respondents Source: Griffith City Council, unpublished data 60 55.6 Alone 50 40 31.7 2 people 30 3-4 people 20 11.1 10 5 or more 1.6 0 Group Size Lessons from the Case Study for Heritage Tourism Balancing Government Involvement and Community Control To maximise sustainable cultural tourism in Griffith, there needs to be an effective balance between Council support and community control. This necessitates more effective communication. For example, Council sees itself as being ‘hands off’ and supportive of the Festa Delle Salsicce, but this is not how the community experiences it. Rather, they feel threatened by the suggestion of Council involvement. Likewise, Council may not be aware that community groups are avoiding La Festa because they feel it is too bureaucratic, or because they see naming it La Festa as a self-interested exploitation of Griffith’s Italian heritage for marketing purposes. Improved communication between Council and the community is necessary in order to solve these problems. The active involvement and enthusiasm of the local community can be an important attraction for tourists and visitors who feel they are experiencing something ‘authentic’ rather than contrived. For example, Festa Delle Salsicce has become a tourist attraction but its aims were very much tied to providing financial support to the Italian Museum and cultural education to the younger members of the local community. A key feature is the salami competition, with salami-making still a part of the local Italian culture. Over-regulation that threatens community involvement can, in the long term, undermine an event’s tourist appeal. In this context, food safety concerns in a community-based event pose a particular challenge. Council will need to work with the community sensitively to ensure that formal procedures do not undermine the grassroots involvement that makes Festa Delle Salsicce such a success. Cooperation and Consultation within Communities are also Important Ensuring the sustainability of community involvement is not just a matter of balancing government interventions and community control. It also necessitates effective cooperation and consultation within communities. This is difficult where there are many conflicting views, but in the case of the Griffith Italian Museum the decision not to display many of the donated materials has severely undermined community support for the venture. The lack of enthusiasm for the Italian Museum within the local community may be limiting its appeal to visitors. For example, there is no visible promotion of the Museum in the main street of Griffith where there would be ample opportunities to display posters or leaflets in the many Italian cafés and restaurants. The lack of local interest may be revived with the current phase of fundraising and the plans to significantly expand the display. Promoting Cultural Diversity itself as a Tourist Attraction While Griffith Council heavily promotes La Festa, it does not adequately promote Griffith’s cultural diversity as a tourist attraction. Since Griffith is a considerable distance from the closest major cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, cultural tourists may be more likely to visit Griffith if they know there are a range of cultural experiences on offer. Council’s website states that ‘Griffith has defined itself as a cosmopolitan food and wine destination famed for its multicultural special events’. But the concept of ‘cosmopolitan Griffith’ is not developed further either on the website or in other marketing materials. 58 There are many opportunities for developing this cosmopolitan image. The foundations are already in place in the diverse cultures of Griffith residents and the many reflections of this cultural diversity in the city’s built environment. The various cafés, restaurants and supermarkets specialising in ‘ethnic’ foods, the diversity of places of worship, the cultural heritage evident in the Italian clubs and Italian Museum are all aspects of Griffith’s unique cultural landscape that are under-promoted. For example, the Council’s website lists Pioneer Park as an attraction but it does not mention the Italian Museum that is housed within its grounds. Similarly, the obvious potential for cross-promotion between La Festa and the Italian Museum has not been exploited. 59 Chapter 10 CONSUMER SURVEY DATA Introduction Completed questionnaires were obtained from 492 visitors between June 2006 and April 2007 at five precincts around New South Wales and Victoria: Chinatown Sydney; the Art Gallery of New South Wales; Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf; Chinatown Melbourne and Lygon Street. The number of visitors surveyed at each site is shown in Table 1. The results of the survey are presented below and statistical summaries are detailed in Appendix B. Sample Size Chinatown Sydney 101 Table 1: Survey respondents per site AGNSW Finger Chinatown Wharf Melbourne 99 92 100 Lygon Street 100 Total 492 Trip Characteristics To determine the trip profile of the cultural heritage tourist, respondents were asked how often they visited the precinct. The responses were quite evenly spread over all precincts except AGNSW where it was found that this was the first visit for the majority (55.6%) of visitors (Figure 7). The other four precincts are more likely to see visitors frequent the precinct on more than a weekly basis. Figure 7: Frequency of visitation to the precinct 60.0% 50.0% Survey location Percent 40.0% Chinatown Sydney AGNSW Finger Wharf Chinatown Melbourne Lygon Street 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Daily Several times a week Weekly Fortnightly Monthly Every few months Yearly Once every 2 to 3 years First visit Other How often visited Note: The y-axis refers to the percent of visitation within each site A large proportion of visitors to cultural heritage sites tend to visit with one other person (43.4%) or alone (38.7%) (Figure 8). Visiting alone was most common amongst AGNSW visitors whilst the other four precincts were most popularly visited with one other person. 60 Figure 8: Size of visiting group Percent 50.0% 40.0% Survey location 30.0% Chinatown Sydney AGNSW Finger Wharf Chinatown Melbourne Lygon Street 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Alone One other Two others Three others Four others Five + others Size of group Note: The y-axis refers to the percent of visitation within each site Visiting Finger Wharf was less likely to be a solitary act with 71.4% of respondents visiting with one or more persons. Of those respondents who did visit with others, these tended to be friends (41.7%) and family members (28.7%). This was the trend across all precincts apart from Finger Wharf. Here 44.6% of respondents visited with family (Table 2). Table 2: Relationships of travelling companions AGNSW Finger Wharf Family Chinatown Sydney 26.2% Lygon Street 44.6% Chinatown Melbourne 21.1% 30.2% Friends 37.7% 54.7% 36.9% 36.8% 43.8% Colleagues 6.6% 7.5% 15.4% 5.3% 1.6% Tour group .0% 3.8% 1.5% .0% .0% 29.5% .0% .0% 35.1% 34.4% Other .0% 3.8% 1.5% 1.8% .0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Partner 20.3% The source of awareness about the precinct varied across precincts (Table 3). The AGNSW was mainly sourced via tourist information centres and brochures (38.4% of AGNSW respondents). The main source of awareness for Finger Wharf visitors was that they had ‘just wandered in’. Both of these results have implications for the tourism industry which can increase promotions to both these areas. Visitors to the cultural eating precincts of Lygon Street and Chinatown’s Sydney and Melbourne had either always known about the precinct or were told about it by friends and family. 61 Table 3: Method of awareness of precinct Chinatown Sydney Always known (32.7%) Tourist info (38.4%) Second source Friends/Family (31.7%) Third source Just wandered in (10.9%) First source AGNSW Finger Wharf Just wandered in (20.7%) Chinatown Melbourne Friends/Family (26%) Lygon Street Always known (41%) Friends/Family (16.2%) Friends/Family (19.6%) Always known (22%) Friends/Family (30%) Other (16.2%) Live near here (17.4%) Just wandered in (14%) Other (14%) Note: For full table see Appendix B Motivation The four most popular reasons for visiting the precincts were for eating, sightseeing, shopping and for a cultural experience (Table 4). Broken down into their respective precincts, eating was the most popular reason for all precincts except the Art Gallery. In this case a cultural experience was the main reason for visit Table 4: Reason for visit Chinatown Sydney AGNSW Finger Wharf Chinatown Melbourne Lygon Street Total Eating 46 0 20 36 38 140 Sightseeing/General interest 18 18 19 21 8 84 Shopping 21 1 1 17 29 69 Cultural experience 3 54 2 6 3 68 Other 20 6 3 8 25 62 Relaxation/Time out 3 6 15 1 12 37 Thoroughfare 7 0 4 10 3 24 Business engagement 3 5 9 2 3 22 Special event 1 2 3 11 5 22 Social engagement 5 2 6 1 5 19 Work here 2 0 9 4 3 18 Educational reasons 2 5 2 0 0 9 Hotel located here 0 0 2 0 3 5 Total responses* 131 99 95 117 137 579 *This was a multiple response question The Overall Experience All precincts received positive feedback on the quality of the visitor experience (Table 5). Across precincts there was a significant difference in respondents’ views. For example, those that visited the AGNSW were much more likely to find the experience memorable, meeting expectations, and having a great effect on them. They would also recommend the Art Gallery to others and would like to visit again. It appeared that visitors to Chinatown Melbourne were not as positive about the experience as those in the other four precincts. 62 Table 5: Means* of experience questions AGNSW Memorable experience Chinatown Sydney 2.7 Chinatown Melbourne 3.37 Lygon Street 3.42 Total 1.84 Finger Wharf 2.72 Had little effect on me 4.47 6.26 5.13 4.14 4.85 4.93 Met my expectations 2.7 1.79 2.57 2.96 2.19 2.46 Would recommend to others 2.05 1.41 2.25 2.29 1.8 1.97 Like to visit again 1.91 1.56 2.11 1.95 1.63 1.83 2.84 *1=Strongly Agree, 7=Strongly Disagree Demographics The average age of visitors to the five precincts is 35 to 39 and they all follow a similar pattern of being quite young visiting samples (Figure 9). This varies from precinct to precinct with the Lygon Street precinct attracting a much more diverse range of ages while Finger Wharf is heavily skewed towards attracting younger visitors. Figure 9: Age of respondents 25.0% Survey location Chinatown Sydney AGNSW Finger Wharf Chinatown Melbourne Lygon Street 20.0% Percent 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70+ Age In general the gender balance in all precincts was quite equal with a slightly greater proportion of males surveyed (52.6%–47.4%). Males outnumbered females in the three cultural eating precincts of Chinatown’s Sydney and Melbourne and Lygon Street (Figure 10). However, there was a greater female to male ratio at the AGNSW (53.5%– 46.5%) and Finger Wharf (52.8%–47.2%) precincts. 63 Figure 10: Gender of respondents 70 60 Percent 50 Female 40 Male 30 20 10 0 Chinatown Sydney AGNSW Finger Wharf Chinatown Melbourne Lygon Street Chinatown Sydney Surve y Location Respondents were asked to self-identify their ethnicities. Across all sites, ‘European’ was the most common response identified by 21.4% of respondents closely followed by ‘Australian’ (19.4%) (Table 6). On comparison across sites both Chinatowns Sydney and Melbourne had a majority Asian/Chinese sample (23.8% and 32% in respective sites) while the other three precincts experienced greater visitation from Europeans, Australians and Anglo/Caucasians. Table 6: Self-reported ethnicity of respondents Chinatown Sydney AGNSW Finger Wharf Chinatown Melbourne Lygon Street Anglo/Caucasian 11.9% 17.2% 12.1% 16% 21.2% Australian 16.8% 15.2% 29.7% 7% 29.3% 0% 0% 2.2% 0% 7.1% European 11.9% 30.3% 26.4% 28% 11.1% Chinese 7.9% 4% 2.2% 20% 5.1% Asian 15.8% 11.1% 8.8% 12% 5.1% Middle Eastern/Arab 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% African 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Americas 3% 8.1% 2.2% 0% 1% New Zealand/Oceania 1% 4% 1.1% 2% 3% Multicultural 20.8% 8.1% 14.3% 10% 14.1% Other 8.9% 2% 1.1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% Italian Don't know Cultural heritage attractions in Australia attract a mix of international and local visitors. Table 7 shows that the AGNSW attracts a greater number of international visitors (61.2%) whereas the other precincts mainly attract local or interstate visitors (anywhere between 73% at Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf and 93% on Lygon Street). 64 Table 7: Place of Residence of Respondents Chinatown Sydney AGNSW Finger Wharf Chinatown Melbourne Lygon Street Local 63.4% 28.6% 56% 62% 69% Regional 8.9% 6.1% 3.3% 3% 10% Interstate 5% 4.1% 13.2% 15% 14% Asia 8.9% 15.3% 3.3% 5% 1% Europe 7.9% 29.6% 17.6% 9% 3% Americas 3% 12.2% 5.5% 1% 1% New Zealand/Oceania 2% 4.1% 1.1% 4% 2% Middle East/Africa 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 65 Chapter 11 CONCLUSIONS The field of cultural landscapes tourism is underdeveloped in Australia at the level of theory, research and policy development. Yet international research suggests that cultural landscapes tourism has significant potential in attracting new tourists. This research project is a scoping study designed to set out the parameters involved in cultural landscapes tourism research in Australia. It aims to identify how cultural heritage and contemporary cultural diversity impact on visitor experience and on local communities. Our objective is to assist the Australian tourism industry—particularly those located in regional and rural areas—in understanding the growing importance of cultural tourism by developing a number of case studies of cultural landscapes tourism in two Australian states. These case studies—the Finger Wharf; the Art Gallery of New South Wales; Chinatown and Griffith in New South Wales; and Chinatown and Lygon Street in Victoria—generated in great detail examples of existing tourism dynamics in a range of different (traditional and new) cultural landscapes sites. At the beginning of this report we cited Greg Richards’ landmark European report on cultural tourism and its observation that there was little case study research into the phenomenon. Richards identified a number of questions that were absent from the European research and that are absent in the Australian research. These research questions are: • Who are the tourists who use these cultural facilities? • Why do they engage in cultural tourism? • How great is the demand for cultural tourism? • What elements of culture attract cultural tourists? Our research project has piloted a methodology for getting the answers to these questions. As the case studies above indicate, the answers to these critical questions require a combination of visitor surveys, and key stakeholder interviews. While we will not repeat the detail of the answers to each question in each site, this line of research inquiry is clearly very fruitful. Our scoping project budget could afford only 100 surveys for each site. Cleary there is a case for a much larger survey across a greater number of Australian sites of cultural landscapes tourism. The development of a sustained research project into cultural landscapes of tourism, we believe, should be a high priority of the Sustainable Tourism CRC in coming years. There are a number of important findings of our scoping research project into cultural landscapes of tourism in Australia that we would like to report, in brief, to the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian tourism industry. • The key finding of our research is that cultural tourism is a critical new growth area of Australian tourism, attracting increasing numbers of national and international tourists alike. Cultural tourism takes in an increasing diversity of sites and forms. While the industry has a good feel for traditional sites of cultural tourism, like museums, heritage buildings (like the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf) and art galleries (the Art Gallery of New South Wales), it has not come to grips with the dynamics and potential of new sites of cultural tourism such as ethnic precincts and ethnic heritage. • One outcome of our research into cultural tourist precincts is a better understanding of the dynamics of cultural landscapes of tourism and our understanding of the way in which the built environment is shaped by cultural practices and cultural minorities. Another outcome is a road-tested and revised survey instrument of visitors which could be utilised in research into other cultural landscapes of tourism in urban and rural areas in Australia. • Our major finding is that Australia’s multicultural past and the cosmopolitan nature of contemporary urban and rural Australia provide a great potential for tourism in urban and rural areas in Australia, a potential that is untapped when compared to more traditional cultural tourist precincts such as the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Woolloomooloo’s Finger Wharf. A key finding of our research is that ethnic precincts and other landscapes of ethnic heritage in Australia provide a great potential for future tourist attraction. This potential, which we call cosmopolitan tourism, is, as yet, untapped in Australia. While ethnic precincts hold great tourist potential, they require more effective partnerships between ethnic entrepreneurs, local government authorities, regional, city and state tourist and development boards, and local ethnic communities in order to maximise this potential. 66 • Ethnic festivals (such as Chinese New Year or the Griffith salami festival) and major events (including major international exhibitions at the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Melbourne’s F1 Grand Prix) provide key opportunities for the advertising, promoting and branding of cultural landscape tourist sites to national and international tourists, and sustaining greater tourist visitation to these sites throughout the year. While urban areas attract most tourists to Australia, and are the sites able to maximise cultural landscapes of tourism opportunities, the potential for developing tourism to cultural landscapes in regional and rural Australia—including those related to art galleries and ethnic heritage—is greatly under-estimated. Tourist growth remains one of regional and rural Australia’s greatest pathways to reinvigorate economic growth and vibrancy in non-metropolitan Australia. Recommendations Our research has led us to develop a series of strategies for better utilising cosmopolitan cultural landscapes in future tourist plans and policies. • First, the further development of ethnic precincts and other landscapes of ethnic heritage in Australia is a matter that local and state governments should address. • Second, ethnic cultural landscapes are not sufficiently promoted by tourist authorities in New South Wales and Victoria. To date, Victoria has made more advances in advertising its ethnic heritage to tourists than New South Wales. • Third, more research in a wider range of sites across Australia is necessary if we are to better tap the cultural tourism potential in Australia in coming years. This research should involve the use of methodologies trialled in this study, including the visitor surveys that we piloted in our fieldwork, key informant interviews and engagement with local community representatives. • Fourth, while traditional cultural tourist sites like the Art Gallery of New South Wales have a strong tradition of interpretation, this is not the case for ethnic precincts and ethnic heritage sites. We have presented examples of interpretation of Sydney’s Chinatown and Melbourne’s Chinatown and Little Italy to act as best-practice models of interpretation of ethnic cultural landscapes for the tourist industry. Cultural landscapes of tourism are fundamentally contradictory sites. We have identified key contradictions related to cultural authenticity, credibility and safety which the Australian tourism industry needs to carefully confront if it is to maximise and sustain the tourist potential of cultural landscapes. We have also identified a series of pitfalls to be avoided in promoting tourism to cosmopolitan cultural tourist landscapes. Ethnic precincts and ethnic heritage tourism need to be grounded within the local ethnic community so that the resulting tourist experience is authentic and credible to both locals and visitors. In the case of the Italian Museum at Griffith, credibility was lost with the local Italian community who financed the venture because most of their personal artefacts were not displayed. A continuous slideshow of all this material and a less spacious presentation within the Museum would have overcome this dilemma. Finally, we point to the importance of further research into cultural landscapes of tourism if their tourist potential is to be realised. Cultural tourism takes on an increasing diversity of forms. In this research project we have concentrated on the intersection of cosmopolitan cultural diversity, the landscapes built by immigrant minorities, and current and future tourist development and marketing. While ethnic precincts hold great tourist potential, maximising this potential will require more effective partnerships between ethnic entrepreneurs, local government authorities, regional, city and state tourist and development boards, and local ethnic communities. We believe that more research into what we call cosmopolitan tourism into urban and rural sites in New South Wales, Victoria and other Australian states and territories would reap great rewards for the Australian tourist industry. Our scoping study has revealed the potential; further research would consolidate the gains made in this regard. 67 APPENDIX A: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES SURVEY University of Technology, Sydney, Monash University, University of New South Wales QNO___ Interviewer: _________________________________________ INT___ Date: ____/____/20___ DATE______ DATE Time: Record in 24hr time (e.g. 13:00): TIME_______ TIME__________ TIME Day of week: ________________________________________ (1=Sunday, 2=Monday, 3=Tuesday, 4=Wednesday, 5=Thursday, 6=Friday, 7=Saturday) DOW___ Survey Location: Chinatown Sydney 1 AGNSW 2 Finger Wharf 3 Griffith 4 Chinatown Melbourne 5 King Valley 6 LOC___ My name is … and I am conducting research on behalf of [name of institution]. This research seeks to understand people’s experiences of the [name of site]. The survey is anonymous and you will not be identified in any way. I would like to ask you about your experiences of this site. Are you over 18? Can I take a few minutes of your time to complete this survey? You can ‘pass’ on any questions you do not wish to answer. PART A 1. How often have you visited [name of site]? [ask as open-ended question, tick box] 68 Daily 1 Several times a week 2 Weekly 3 Fortnightly 4 Monthly 5 Every few months 6 Yearly 7 Once every 2 to 3 years 8 First visit 9 Other (please specify) 10 Q1OFT___ 2. When do you mainly visit [name of site]? Weekdays 1 Weekends 2 Holidays 3 Special Events 4 Other (please specify: _______________________ 5 Q2WHE___ 3. How did you first hear about [name of site]? Live near here 1 Work near here 2 Friends/family told me about it 3 Newspaper/Magazine (please specify): _________________ 4 TV 5 Radio 6 Banner/Poster 7 Brochure 8 Tourist Information Brochure/Pamphlet 9 Hotel staff 10 Tour company 11 Always known about it 12 Just wandered in 13 Website (please specify): _______________________ 14 Other (please specify): ______________________________ 15 Q3HR___ 4. How many people are accompanying you today? Alone 1 One other 2 Two others 3 Three others 4 Four others 5 Five + others 6 Q4GRP___ 5. What is their relationship to you? Family 1 Friends 2 Colleagues 3 69 Tour group 4 Other ___________________ 5 Q5RLN___ 6. What are your reasons for visiting here today? [tick all responses] (code Yes = 1; No = 0) Business engagement Q6A___ Work here Q6B___ Shopping ____________________ Q6C___ Eating Q6D___ Social engagement Q6E___ Sightseeing/General Interest Q6F___ Cultural experience Q6G___ Educational reasons Q6H___ Hotel located here Q6I___ Relaxation / time out Q6J___ Thoroughfare Q6K___ Special event (please specify):____________________ Q6L___ Other (please specify): ________________________________ Q6M___ PART B I would now like to ask you about the physical form of [name of site]. 7. What do you like most about the architecture and physical features of [name of site]? [record key words] 8. Are there things you don’t like about the architecture and physical features of [name of site]? [record key words] I would now like to ask you about the way you feel when moving around [name of site]. 9. What do you like most about the general atmosphere of [name of site]? [record key words] 70 10. Are there things you don’t like about the general atmosphere of [name of site]? [record key words] 11. Generally do you feel safe or unsafe when in this area? Safe 1 Unsafe 2 Q11SAF___ 12. What are your reasons for feeling (safe or unsafe) in this site? 71 13. Have you been to similar [sites] in other cities [or regions]? Yes 1 No 2 Q13OTH___ The next questions ask you to use a scale to indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with a number of statements. [give respondent card with scale] Strongly Agree Somewhat agree Agree 1 Don’t know 2 3 Somewhat Disagree Strongly disagree 4 disagree 5 6 7 14. Using the scale I have given you, can you tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements: StrA A SmA DK SmD D StrD A. This visit has been a memorable experience for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q14A___ B. The [site] has had little effect on me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q14B___ C. My visit to [this site] has met my expectations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q14C___ D. I would recommend the [site] to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q14D___ E. I would like to visit the [site] again 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q14E___ 15. Can you suggest ways of improving your experience of [name of site]? PART C This is the last section. It asks for some basic demographic details. [give respondent card with list of options] 16. Looking at the items on the card, which of the groups best describes your situation? 72 Young single living at home 1 Young single living alone or in shared accommodation 2 Midlife single 3 Young / midlife couple no kids 4 Parent with youngest child aged 5 or less 5 Parent with youngest child aged 6 - 14 6 Parent with youngest childe aged 15 or older 7 Older working single 8 Older non-working single 9 Older working married person 10 Older non-working married person 11 Q16SIT___ 73 17. Do you mind telling me your age? 18-19 1 20-24 2 25-29 3 30-34 4 35-39 5 40-44 6 45-49 7 50-54 8 55-59 9 60-64 10 65-69 11 70+ 12 Q17AGE___ 18. How would you describe your ethnicity or cultural background? __________________ 18ETH___ 19. Where is your place of residence? ____________________________________ Q19RES___ 20. [If Australian resident] What is the postcode for the area you live in? __________ Q20PC___ (code overseas resident = 0) 21. [If not local] How long have you been away from your usual place of residence? (code Local = 0) 1 night or less 1 More than 1 night 2 Q21TOU___ 22. [If reside overseas] Where did you first hear about [name of site] - in Australia or overseas? (code Australian resident = 0) Australia 1 Overseas 2 Q22OZ___ 23. And finally, do you have any other comments about the questionnaire or [name of site] that you’d like to add? 24. Note the gender of the respondent Female 74 1 Male 2 Q24GEN___ “That completes the questionnaire. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation” END OF QUESTIONNAIRE Interviewer Notes Note any other comments, characteristics etc of the interview which you feel may be pertinent data for the analysis 75 REFERENCES Aitchison, C, Macleod, NE & Shaw, SJ 2000, Leisure and Tourism Landscapes: Social and Cultural Geographies, Routledge, London. Anderson, KJ 1990, ‘“Chinatown re-oriented”: a critical analysis of recent redevelopment schemes in a Melbourne and Sydney enclave’, Australian Geographical Studies, vol. 28, pp. 137–54. ⎯⎯ 1991, Vancouver’s Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875–1980, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal. ⎯⎯ 1993, ‘Otherness, culture and capital: Chinatown’s transformation under Australian multiculturalism’, in GL Clark, D Forbes & R Francis (eds), Multiculturalism, Difference and Postmodernism, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne. Art Gallery of New South Wales 2005, Annual report 2005, AGNSW, Sydney, accessed at http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/annual_reports. Art Gallery of New South Wales 2006, Press Releases, AGNSW, Sydney, accessed at http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/media/archives_2006. Australian Heritage Commission 2001, Successful Tourism at Heritage Places: A Guide for Tourism Operators, Heritage Managers and Communities, AHC & Sustainable Tourism CRC, Canberra. Body-Gendrot, S 2003, ‘Cities, security, and visitors: managing mega-events in France’, in LM Hoffman, SS Fainstein & DR Judd (eds), Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Markets, and City Space, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 39–52. Bonacich, E & Modell, J 1980, The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: small business in the Japanese American community, University of California Press, Berkeley. Brown-May, A 2001, Espresso: Melbourne Coffee Stories, Arcadia, Melbourne. Bryman, A 2004, The Disneyization of Society, Sage, London. Burnley, I 1986, ‘Immigration: the post-war transformation of Sydney and Melbourne’, in J Davidson (ed.), The Sydney–Melbourne Book, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 119–34. ⎯⎯ 2001, The Impact of Immigration on Australia: A Demographic Approach, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Castles, S, Foster, W, Iredale, R & Withers, G 1998, Immigration and Australia: Myths and Realities, Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Chambers, D & Mayne, A 2004, ‘Colonial times’, in P Yule (ed.), Carlton: A History, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 13–36. Chang, TC 2000, ‘Singapore’s Little India: a tourist attraction as a contested landscape’, Urban Studies, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 343–68. Chin, KH 1988, ‘Chinese in modern Australia’, in J Jupp (ed.), The Australian People: An Encyclopaedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, pp. 317–23. Chinese Garden of Friendship 2006, Chinese Garden Summary Factsheet 2006: Customer Awareness and Satisfaction, unpublished. Collins, J 1991, Migrant Hands in a Distant Land: Australia’s Post-War Immigration, Pluto Press, Sydney. ⎯⎯ 2000, ‘Immigration and immigrants: ethnic inequality and social cohesion’, in P Boreham, G Stokes & R Hall (eds), The Politics of Australian Society: Political Issues for the New Century, Longman, Sydney, pp. 302–16. ⎯⎯ 2002, ‘Chinese entrepreneurs: the Chinese Diaspora in Australia’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, vol. 8, no. 1–2, pp. 113–33. ⎯⎯ 2003, ‘Australia: cosmopolitan capitalists down under’, in R Kloosterman & J Rath (eds), Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Venturing Abroad in the Age of Globalisation, New York University Press, New York; & Berg Publishing, Oxford, pp. 61–78. Collins, J & Castillo, A 1998, Cosmopolitan Sydney: Explore the World in one City, Pluto Press, Sydney. Collins, J & Kunz, P 2005, Spatial Dimensions of the Commodification of Ethnicity in the City: Producers, Consumers and the Critical Infrastructure in Four Sydney Ethnic Precincts, Paper to IMISCOE Cluster B6 Workshop on Ethnic, Cultural, and Religious Diversity, Amsterdam, 26–28 May. Collins, J & Poynting, S (eds) 2000, The Other Sydney: Communities, Identities and Inequalities in Western Sydney, Common Ground, Melbourne. 76 Collins, J, Gibson, K, Alcorso, C, Tait, D & Castles, S 1995, A Shop Full of Dreams: Ethnic Small Business in Australia, Pluto Press, Sydney. Collins, J, Noble, G, Poynting, S & Tabar, P 2000, Kebabs, Kids, Cops and Crime: Youth Ethnicity and Crime, Pluto Press, Sydney. Connell, J (ed.) 2000, Sydney: The Emergence of a World City, Oxford University Press, New York. Costa, N & Martinotti, G 2003, ‘Sociological theories of tourism and regulation theory’, in LM Hoffman, SS Fainstein & DR Judd (eds), Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Markets, and City Space, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 53–71. Culler J 1981, ‘Semiotics of tourism’, American Journal of Semiotics, vol. 1(1–2), pp. 127–40. Dunstan, D 1994, Better than Pommard! A History of Wine in Victoria, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne. Edensor, T 1998, Tourists at the Taj: Performance and Meaning as Symbolic Site, Routledge, London. Edensor, T 2001, ‘Performing tourism, staging tourism: (re)producing tourist space and practice’, Tourist Studies, vol. 1, pp. 58–81. European Travel Commission 2005, City Tourism and Culture: The European Experience, ETC research report, European Travel Commission, Brussels. Fainstein, SS, Hoffman, LM & Judd, DR 2003, ‘Making theoretical sense of tourism’, in LM Hoffman, SS Fainstein & DR Judd (eds), Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Markets, and City Space, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 239–53. Fitzgerald, S 1997, Red Tape, Gold Scissors: The Story of Sydney’s Chinese, State Library of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Fong, TP 1994, The First Suburban Chinatown: The Remaking of Monterey Park, California, Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Frow, J 1997, Time and Commodity Culture: Essays on Cultural Theory and Modernity, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Gabaccia, DR 1998, We Are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the Making of Americans, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Gibson, A, Dodds, R, Joppe, M & Jamieson, B 2003, ‘Ecotourism in the city? Toronto’s Green Tourism Association’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 324–7. Griffith City Council 2007, Griffith City Statistics, accessed on 23 May 2007 at http://www.griffith.nsw.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=95&p=1. Halter, M 2000, Shopping for Identity: The Marketing of Ethnicity, Schocken Books, New York. Hartley, J 2003, A Short History of Cultural Studies, Sage, London. Hitchcock, M 1999, ‘Tourism and ethnicity: situational perspectives’, The International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17–32. Hoffman, LM 2003, ‘Revalorizing the inner-city: tourism and regulation in Harlem’, in LM Hoffman, SS Fainstein & DR Judd (eds), Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Markets, and City Space, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 91–112. Hoffman, LM, Fainstein, SS & Judd, DR (eds) 2003, Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Markets, and City Space, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford Huber, R 1977, From Pasta to Pavlova: A Comparative Study of Italian Settlers in Sydney and Griffith, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, Qld. Jacobsen, G 2001, ‘Spiritual tour aims at toleration in ethnic heartland’, Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 17 September. Jakubowicz, A 1984, ‘Ethnicity, multiculturalism and neo-conservatism’, in G Bottomley & M de Lepervanche (eds), Ethnicity, Class and Gender in Australia, George Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 28–48. Judd, DR 2003, ‘Visitors and the spatial ecology of the city’, in LM Hoffman, SS Fainstein & DR Judd (eds), Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Markets, and City Space, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 23–38. Jupp, J 2002, From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. Kabaila, P 2005, Griffith Heritage: a Thematic History, Pirion Publishing, Canberra. Kearns, G & Philo, C (eds) 1993, Selling Places: the City as Cultural Capital Past and Present, Pergamon Press, Oxford. Kidman, J 2002, ‘Gunman “fled overseas”’, Sun-Herald, 30 June. 77 Kinkead, G 1993, Chinatown: a portrait of a closed society, Harper Perennial, New York. Kloosterman, R & Rath, J 2001, ‘Immigrant entrepreneurs in advanced economies: mixed embeddedness further explored’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Special issue on ‘Immigrant entrepreneurship’, R Kloosterman & J Rath (eds), vol. 27(2), pp. 189–202. Kloosterman, R & Rath, J (eds) 2003, Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Venturing Abroad in the Age of Globalisation, New York University Press, New York; & Berg Publishing, Oxford. Kunz, P 2005, Ethnic Entrepreneurs, Ethnic Precincts and Tourism: Missed Opportunities from Sydney, unpublished thesis, University of Technology, Sydney. Lalich, W 2003, Ethnic Community Capital in Sydney, unpublished thesis, University of Technology, Sydney. Lash, S & Urry, J 1994, Economies of Signs and Space, Sage, London. Light, I & Gold, SJ 2000, Ethnic Economies, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Lin, J 1998, Reconstructing Chinatown: Ethnic Enclave, Global Change, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Low, A 2003, Embedded Intersections of Female Entrepreneurship: A Study of Asian-born Women Entrepreneurs in Sydney, unpublished thesis, University of Technology, Sydney. MacCannell, D 1973, ‘Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings’, American Sociological Review, vol. 79, pp. 589–603 MacCannell, D 1999, The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, 3rd edn, Schocken, New York. MacDonald, GF 1992, ‘Change and challenge: museums in the informational society’, in I Karp, CM Kreamer & SD Lavine (eds), Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp. 158–81. Mahar, C 2004a, ‘A bohemian main drag: Lygon Street’, in P Yule (ed.), Carlton: A History, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 250–6. Mahar, C 2004b, ‘Shops’, in P Yule (ed.), Carlton: A History, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 240–5. Mayer, M 2000, ‘Post Fordist city politics’, in RT LeGates & F Stout, The City Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 229–39. McKercher, B 2001. ‘Attitudes to a non-viable community-owned heritage tourist attraction’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 9(1), pp. 29–43. McKercher, B & du Cros, H 2002, Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management, Haworth Hospitality Press, New York. McTaggart, R 1991, Action Research: A short Modern History, Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. O’Brien, IM 1992, Bridging Two Worlds: Jews and Italians in Carlton [exhibition catalogue], Italian Historical Society, Jewish Museum of Australia & Australian Museum of Victoria, Melbourne. Pascoe, R 1988, Buongiorno Australia: Our Italian Heritage, Greenhouse Publications and the Vaccari Italian Historical Trust, Melbourne. Pearson, L & Dunn, K 1999, ‘Reidentifying Wollongong: disposition of the local citizenry’, in J Molloy & J Davies (eds), Tourism and Hospitality: Delighting the Senses, Proceedings of the 9th Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra, pp. 67–72. Poynting, S, Noble, G, Tabar, P & Collins, J 2004, Bin Laden in the Suburbs: Criminalising the Arab Other, Federation Press, Sydney. Prato, P & Trivero, G 1985, ‘The spectacle of travel’, Australian Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 3(2): 25–42 Price, C 1963, Southern Europeans in Australia, Australian National University Press, Canberra. Rath, J (ed.) 2000, Immigrant Business: The Economic, Political and Social Environment, Macmillan, Basingstoke; & St Martins Press, New York. Richards, G (ed.) 1996, Cultural Tourism in Europe, CABI, Wallingford. Richards, G 1996a, ‘Introduction: cultural tourism in Europe’, in G Richards (ed.), Cultural Tourism in Europe, CABI, Wallingford, pp. 8–20. Richards, G 2005, ‘Introduction: cultural tourism in Europe’, in G Richards (ed.), Cultural Tourism in Europe, online edn, Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS), accessed at http://www.atlas-euro.org, pp. 8–20. Robertson, I & Richards, P 2003, Studying Cultural Landscapes, Arnold, London. Sagazio, C 1998, A Walk Through Italian Carlton, National Trust of Australia (Victoria), Melbourne. Selby, M 2004, Understanding Urban Tourism: Image, Culture and Experience, IB Tauris, New York. Selwyn, T (ed.) 1996, The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Skilbeck, R 2003a, ‘Australian contemporary art comes of age’, Australian Art Collector, Issue 25, pp. 75–89. 78 Skilbeck, R 2003b, ‘A masterly collection’, Australian Art Collector, Issue 25, pp. 59–61. Skilbeck, R 2003c, ‘Tracey Emin: Tracey Emin down under’, Pol Oxygen: The International Design, Art, Architecture Quarterly (Sydney), Issue 2, pp. 116–25. Skilbeck, R 2004, ‘Tracey Moffatt’, Pol Oxygen: The International Design, Art, Architecture Quarterly (Sydney), Issue 10, pp. 44–52. Sophios, S 2001, ‘Suburb winning the war on drugs’, Daily Telegraph, 2 October. Spearitt, P 2000, Sydney’s Century: A History, University of NSW Press, Sydney. Stewart, S, Hanna, B, Thompson, S, Gisheh, M, Armstrong, H & van der Plaat, D 2003, ‘Navigating the sea of diversity: multicultural place-making in Sydney’, International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, vol. 3, pp. 239–52. Suvantola, J 2002, Tourist’s Experience of Place, Ashgate, Aldershot. Trigger, D & Griffiths, G 2003, Disputed Territories: Land, Culture and Identity in Settler Societies, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong. Tunbridge, JE & Ashworth, GJ 1996, Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict, Wiley, Chichester. Urry, J 2002, The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, London. Waldinger, R 1986, Through the Eyes of the Needle: Immigrants and Enterprises in New York’s Garment Trade, New York University Press, New York. Waldinger, R, Aldrich, H, Ward, R & Associates 1990, Ethnic Entrepreneurs: Immigrant Business in Industrial Societies, Sage, Newbury Park. Warde, A 1997, Consumption, food and taste, Sage Publications, London. Warde, A & Martens, L 2000, Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and Pleasure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ware, H 1988, ‘Post-war Italian immigration’, in J Jupp (ed.), The Australian People: An Encyclopaedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, pp. 613–24. Willis, S 1995, Inside the Mouse: Work and Play at Disney World, Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Wilson, E 2001, The Contradictions of Culture: Cities, Culture, Women, Sage, London. Wilson, K & Martin, WA 1982, ‘Ethnic enclaves: a comparison of the Cuban and black economies in Miami’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 88, pp. 135–68. Yin, R. K 1994, Case Study Research: Designs and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Yule, P (ed.) 2004, Carlton: A History, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Zhou, M 1992, Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave, Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Zukin, S 1995, The Cultures of Cities, Blackwell, Cambridge MA. ⎯⎯ 1998, ‘Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardization in spaces of consumption’, Urban Studies, vol. 35(5–6), pp. 825–39. Historical information about Finger Wharf was found at the following websites: http://www.grubits.com.au/trackrecord_study4.asp http://www.maju.com.au/wharf_history.cfm http://www.artspace.org.au/2001/temporaryfixtures.html http://www.constructors.com.au/award-achievement/2001/finalists/finger.htm http://www.sydneyshortstays.com.au/mmhistory 79 AUTHORS Jock Collins Dr Jock Collins is a Professor of Economics, School of Finance and Economics, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). He has been researching and writing about Australian immigration and cultural diversity for thirty years. His books include Migrant Hands in a Distant Land: Australia's Postwar Immigration (Pluto Press 1998 and 1991), A Shop Full of Dreams: Ethnic Small Business in Australia (with others (Pluto Press 1995), Kebabs, Kids, Cops and Crime: Youth, ethnicity and crime (with others, Pluto Press, 2000), Cosmopolitan Sydney: Exploring the World in One City, (with Antonio Castillo, Pluto Press, 1998) and Cosmopolitan Melbourne: Exploring the World in One City, (with others, Big Box Press, 2001). His latest book, Bin Laden in the Suburbs: The criminalisation of the Arabic Other (with Greg Nobel, Scott Poynting and Paul Tabar) was published by Federation Press, Sydney, in 2004. He has over 60 articles published in journals and as book chapters. Email: [email protected] Simon Darcy Dr Simon Darcy is an Associate Professor and Research Director of the School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism, Faculty of Business at the University of Technology, Sydney. He teaches subjects including environmental planning, public policy, diversity management, and research methods across the School’s undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Simon has published chapters in books and journal articles on leisure and tourism participation patterns, environmental planning of tourism developments, appropriate use options for natural and heritage areas, and access planning. He has a long track record of externally-funded research on leisure and tourism. Email: [email protected] Kirrily Jordan Kirrily Jordan holds a first class honours degree in Political Economy from the University of Sydney. She is the author, with Frank Stilwell, of Who Gets What? Anaysising Economic Inequality in Australia (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Kirrily is currently a PhD candidate in the School of Finance and Economics, UTS. Email: [email protected] Ruth Skilbeck Dr Ruth Skilbeck is an arts writer and academic. Her research field is the creative process- particularly in relation to writing and the visual arts. She is a part time lecturer at the University of Technology, Sydney where she has recently completed her PhD entitled The Writer’s Fugue, authorship, subjectivity and the self. She teaches subjects including colonialism and modernity, communications and information environments and design differences. She is founding director of Art Features International, an independent arts research and feature writing organisation. Email: [email protected] Vicki Peel Dr Vicki Peel is a graduate of Deakin University and the University of Melbourne with a PhD in History. She is a business history specialist with particular interest in the private education sector and municipal government. Recent tourism research has addressed the backpacker and student traveller segments. She has lectured for five years in the areas of Cultural Tourism and Tourism Development Planning in the Master of Tourism program conducted through the National Centre for Australian Studies. Email: [email protected] 80 David Dunstan Dr David Dusntan graduated in History at Monash University in 1975. He completed his PhD at the University of Melbourne in 1983 and a Graduate Diploma in Editing and Publishing at RMIT University in 1995. He has taught in Victorian schools and Australian History and Australian Studies at the University of Melbourne and at Monash and Deakin universities and has worked with the Government of Victoria in heritage administration and with Museum Victoria. He is the author of Governing the Metropolis (1984), Better Than Pommard!: a History of Wine in Victoria (1994) and Owen Suffolk's Days of Crime and Years of Suffering (2000). He is a contributor to the Australian Dictionary of Biography, a member of its Victorian working party and its Board, an editor of the Journal of Publishing, an associate editor of The Encyclopedia of Melbourne (2005), and an associate and board member of the Tourism Research Unit at Monash University. Email: [email protected] Gary Lacey Gary Lacey teaches in the Department of Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University and has a research interest in tourism studies. Tracey Firth Tracey Firth is a Lecturer in marketing at the Australian School of Business, UNSW. She holds a B Bus (hons) and PhD in tourism studies from Southern Cross University. Tracey has published on issues related to Aboriginal tourism and backpacker tourism in Australia. Email: [email protected] 81 • Travel and tourism industry • Academic researchers • Government policy makers EDUCATION AND TRAINING INN COLLABORATION OVA O I T RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TI INDUSTRY P ARTNERS N A C O M NIC M U COMMERCIALISE UTILISE ON • New products, services and technologies • Uptake of research inding by business, government and academe • Improved business productivity • Industry-ready post-graduate students • Public good beneits for tourism destinations UNIVERSITY P ARTNERS C O M M E R C I A L I S AT I O N EC3, a wholly-owned commercialisation company, takes the outcomes from the relevant STCRC research; develops them for market; and delivers them to industry as products and services. EC3 delivers signiicant beneits to the STCRC through the provision of a wide range of business services both nationally and internationally. KEY EC3PRODUCTS TOURISM NT NORTHERN TERRITORY AUSTRALIA Chairman: Stephen Gregg Chief Executive: Ian Kean Director of Research: Prof. David Simmons CRC For Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd Gold Coast Campus Grifith University Queensland 4222 Australia ABN 53 077 407 286 Telephone: +61 7 5552 8172 Facsimile: +61 7 5552 8171 Website: www.crctourism.com.au Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop Email: [email protected] The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre The program emphasises collaboration between businesses (STCRC) is established under the Australian Government’s and researchers to maximise the benefits of research Cooperative Research Centres Program. STCRC is the through utilisation, commercialisation and technology world’s leading scientific institution delivering research to transfer. support the sustainability of travel and tourism – one of An education component focuses on producing graduates the world’s largest and fastest growing industries. with skills relevant to industry needs. Introduction STCRC’s objectives are to enhance: The STCRC has grown to be the largest, dedicated tourism research organisation in the world, with $187 million invested in tourism research programs, commercialisation and education since 1997. The STCRC was established in July 2003 under the Commonwealth Government’s CRC program and is an extension of the previous Tourism CRC, which operated from 1997 to 2003. Role and responsibilities The Commonwealth CRC program aims to turn research outcomes into successful new products, services and technologies. This enables Australian industries to be more efficient, productive and competitive. • the contribution of long-term scientific and technological research and innovation to Australia’s sustainable economic and social development; • the transfer of research outputs into outcomes of economic, environmental or social benefit to Australia; • the value of graduate researchers to Australia; • collaboration among researchers, between researchers and industry or other users; and efficiency in the use of intellectual and other research outcomes.