Tenure-track at Sociology Department, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
martadom@cps.ucm.es
The main objective of this chapter is the analysis of food markets and its recent shift towards becoming a modern tourist resource, due to the boom in cultural tourism modality (Keller, 2005). These are markets located at the tourist center of the city and are set in attractive for different audiences, apart from traditional ones. This happens in the cases of La Boqueria, and Santa Caterina, in Barcelona, or San Antón, San Miguel and San Fernando, in Madrid.
These food markets have become the new tourist and identity exponent of the cities that project their attractive image to the visitor. Due to the continuous quantitative growth of tourism, cities have undergone important qualitative changes in their bid to adapt to new tastes and demands of visitors. This new functionality of food markets impacts their traditional use by both, its merchants and residents as well as its ‘users of urban spaces’. We focus our attention on the mix of tourism with local, a sort of sustainable approach, in order to establish a classification of food markets in the center of the tourist cities.
Tourist markets as new attractions to the historical centers of the city
IntroductionIn a globalized world, where homogenization is the pattern of daily life, what tourists seek are new experiences, something unusual, different, unique, which is found only in that particular place. The monuments, museums, the idiosyncrasies of the people, and the food markets are examples of what these new consumers are seeking, since they offer authenticity and local contacts. In this sense, food markets are one of the resources promoted where local and tourist shake hands, at least theoretically.
Tourists bother some traders and benefit others. Traders live mainly from their neighbors and families, but the arrival of tourists allows them to increase income
128
and improve the image of these markets. It also allows renovating the building and also opens the market in the evenings or even weekends, and introduces them as ‘mandatory’ places to visit.
Furthermore, food markets are exceptional spaces filled with history and culture of a territory, tastes and eating habits of their inhabitants. They are part of the rich heritage of a city. Many of them are located downtown, and have historical past, architectural beauty, etc. Therefore, they can be a great resource.
The present and potential success and attractiveness of food markets is due to three aspects (Casares, 2003, p. 34-37): the proximity as economic and sociological factors, the revitalization of the town and the environment, and the quality of groceries and goods. Proximity, having a nearby store where to buy quality products and have home treatment, explains the importance of these places. The city centers or neighborhood centers emerge around the food markets, as they are a guarantee of quality. Quality of service and product to the consumer satisfaction and linked more closely to the demands of the new middle and upper social classes (gentrification the city center). Food markets tend to be characterized as having a large assortment and quality. And this reliability, experience and credibility of the traditional food markets shape the prestigious image of these trade spaces. All this is completed with the presentation and attraction of the establishment, both the architectural building that houses it as the posts themselves and the display of products.
The city then sees itself as being ‘visited’, as much discovered by foreign visitors as by its own residents. When cultural tourism prevails, it becomes ever more difficult to distinguish between ‘visitors’ spaces and spaces for ‘locals’, given that leisure, entertainment and cultural sectors are thought to be just as crucial for local people as for foreign visitors. Moreover, when local residents aren’t travelling themselves, they also involve in similar activities as the tourists:
going out to eat, strolling the streets, wandering along the sea-front, visiting museums…In this way, local residents behave more and more like tourists in their own city (Lloyd, 2000, p.7). This is possible as the boundaries between tourists and local residents and between work and leisure are eroded in a fluid society (Bauman, 2003). It leads to different scholars to argue new paradigmatic changes: Touraine, 2005; Castells, 2005; Delgado, 2007; Richards, 2007; Urry, 2008; Lloyd & Nichols, 2010. Therefore, as Thrane (2000) concluded, we agree that consumption of cultural tourism is an extension of everyday life, the same consumption that tourists do at their home city, as well as if they were cosmopolitan natives. Thus, the main duality between residents and tourists disappears. However the risk of gentrification is still present.
Thus, this evolution involves the disappearance of the tourist and resident duality and the settings of a vast range of “urban users’, where tourism really keeps integrated into the city. They are integrated due to cities becoming
129
“experimental places’ (Barrado, 2010), where the local experience is needed.
Furthermore, it is necessary to add a new aspect into this cultural tourism experience. As Richards goes back over (2007, p.2) in the past, cultural tourism was largely associated with high culture and with ‘cultured’ people. Today, cultural tourism includes many popular cultural attractions…and the ‘everyday life’ of ‘local’ communities. The resources associated with cultural tourism have expanded from the largely fixed, tangible heritage of the past toward the mobile, intangible products of contemporary culture. Indeed, the aspect of ‘local’ is automatically linked to ‘authentic’ which has been a key element for the tourism industry (Taylor, 2001, p. 7). This involves another new paradigm: a change from going somewhere to see something to going somewhere to do something.
Consequently, tourism policies needed take into account the economic stakeholders as well as the ‘host society’ (Ávila & Barrado, 2005, p. 30-31).
In this scenario, food markets become one of the resources and exponents of the brand new city. That is, spaces recognized for their ability to attract new experiences, where tourists can mix with the local population and their daily lives. That is the main attraction for new tourists.
The city brand
Traditionally, the city brand has been associated with creating an attractive city for tourists and investors, as a way to leverage resources and improve the local economy (Anderson and Ekman, 2009). Thus, the city aspires to become and remain an attractive place for the (potential) residents, businesses and visitors (van den Berg & Braun, 1999). It is conceived as a ‘consumer-oriented product,’
but includes all tangible aspects (physical structures) and even intangible (culture and experience that a place can offer). In any case, Kavaratzis (2004, p.
70) concludes that the city brand is understood ‘as the means to achieve competitive advantage both to increase local investment and tourism, as well as to achieve development community, reinforcing local identity and identification of citizens with their city and enabled all social forces to prevent social exclusion.’ Bramwell & Rawding (1996, p. 201) predict that: ‘It is necessary to attract tourists, capture the interest of investors and government officials, and building safety, comfort and pride among residents.’
The role of tourism in the process of positioning a city brand is indisputable (Capel, 2007). Those who see the involvement of tourism in the urban landscape as positive speak of ‘smart growth’ as opposed to the ideology of growth ‘all costs’ (Lloyd & Nichols, 2010). Tourism can be built without considering their impact or well balanced and integrated with local development.
Recall that since the 1990s, international urban tourism landscape has changed.
Industrial production, in crisis, has turned cities to services and consumption, exploiting its tourism potential, as if they all had ‘tourism opportunities’
130
(Fainstein, 2005) to position them in the mental and visual map international travelers. Described as ‘entrepreneurial cities’, all these cities (Barrado, 2010) have followed the strategy of improving their competitive position in the spatial distribution of consumption, which involves making flow of the capital through tourism (Harvey, 2001). Accordingly the city presents itself as innovative, exciting, and an attractive place to live, visit and consume.
Consumers (tourists) in this city brand, as stated above, are no longer motivated by culture as objects of cultural consumption and from a contemplative vision but instead become consumers strongly oriented to urban behaviors and aspirations (Amin & Thrift, 2007; Quaglieri & Russo, 2010; Barrado, 2010).
Their behaviors are the same as they develop in their own city during their leisure time. This development of the tourism company came to the so-called
‘liquidity’ of contemporary society (Bauman 2003), in which the spatial displacement loses its special character to be inserted into the daily lives of individuals, responding to ‘a compulsion to mobility’ (Urry, 2008) to exploit the opportunities of spatially dispersed consumption. This means that urban spaces are converted to the cosmopolitan consumer class (Fainstein, 2005) anywhere.
Thus, consumers can make these cosmopolitan, rapid acclimatization home or building (homing), as suggested by Sheller &Urry (2006, p. 211) in various contexts. Thus, cities attend a spatial reconfiguration; becoming platforms open to global flows of consumer consumption, which has been called by Muñoz (2008), an urbanization process. So cities become like images and elements of success for global consumers trivializing and increasingly resembling each other. We are witnessing a process of theming cityscape or Disneyfication (Zukin, 1995), with environments ‘shiny and protected’ (Hannigan, 1998, p. 7) and time to enjoy the urban offer comfortably without interference unpredictable and undesirable situations.
Hence, the cultural tourist third generation, also called ‘city consumers’ by Maitland (2008, p. 18), are interested mainly in intangible elements of local culture (Richards & Wilson, 2007). One concrete example of these intangible values is local food markets. In Barcelona and Madrid we find several food markets that allow us to establish a typology and assess their impact on the city.
It can be seen in traditional, neighborhood markets, even the most touristified;
from the most modern to more traditional; of the most genuine and authentic to artificial. However, in many of them we find the coexistence of tourists and locals in a space where ones can indulge and share experiences with locals, and where locals can make their traditional shopping at a reasonable price and with a notorious variety and quality. This desirable and attractive trend could end disappearing given the current dynamics.
131