More on heritage tourism
More on Albany as tourist destination: In response to my recent post about why Albany can never be a hotbed of heritage tourism, I got this email from Paul Bray, longtime Albany supporter and co-founder of the Albany Civic Agenda:
The comparative advantage of Albany as a heritage tourist town is not much. Trust me, no one is going to travel here to check out Lock 7. Rocky's errection is startling, but it's hardly the kind of history we'd be looking to preserve - it's only a monument to Albany heritage if you are talking about the political machine and the greenback slushfund flowing through the state government. And everthing else - the historic churches, state street, the old houses - well that's just niche tourism, anyway.
A few things on the list I can agree with: the capital is a magnificent building that might attract some tourists. The state museum is nice, something most smaller cities don't have. And by virtue of being a rather old city, Albany's history intersects with major pieces of American history. But so does virtually every other city in the northeast. And that's the problem - in order to be a tourist destination, you need to show people why it's great to come to your city and why you can do and see stuff there that you can't find anywhere else. And Nipper and the Egg are not going to make the cut. You need the big bang.
The bottom line is that you cannot produce a heritage tourism industry from the supply side. If there is no natural demand, the odds are incredibly against the artificial creation of such demand. The city could spend $100 million dollars pushing the above list of items, and it wouldn't change the bottom line: we don't have the one big thing that will get tourists here. It's cold half the year, there are no beaches, and there's no grand canyon. And that's why we're different than Charleston - they have Fort Sumter, they have the beaches, and they have that lovely carolina weather. Once you have that kind of natural demand, it's easy to do supply-side type things to enhance your attractiveness as a tourist town. But you'll never create that initial demand artificially. It just doesn't work that way. To say the difference between Albany and Charleston is just that Charleston has its act together and we don't is like saying we could produce as much orange juice as Florida, but we just don't have our act together. It's patently ridiculous.
Now, does this mean that we shouldn't care about Albany's heritage? Of course not. But let's be realistic here. There's a difference between actively preserving Albany's past and trying to sell the city as a heritage tourism town. That's the point I was trying to make on Monday. And in subtle ways, I think it's better not to be shooting for tourism - you don't create faux history like Williamsburg, you don't have to emphasize stuff that is popular over stuff that is actually historically relevent, and you don't have to spend a ton of public money on advertising and public relations. Instead, you can actively preserve things like historic buildings and old churches. The little things that are part of a real history, not a tourists history.
Look, I'm damn proud of Albany's heritage. I love its Dutch past and its Irish influence. I love the old buildings and I love the political history. And I'd love to spend more public money than we currently do to promote that history and preserve it. But it's just crazy to think that we can actually produce a tourism industry here. To argue that we have the "resources and narratives" is to misunderstand what makes a mid-sized city tourist destination popular - the one big thing. And that's what we don't have.
So, yes, scream at the politicos if you want them to spend more money and have more sensitivity toward historic Albany. But get off the soapbox and stop pretending that Albany's history could turn this town into Gettysburg if we just played our cards right. It's hackish idealism and a waste of time.
P.S. - I do wonder what Bray thinks are the reasons "why Albany metro is unlikely to become a heritage tourism destination" if it's not the lack of resources and narratives? My assumption is that he would point to the political system as the problem, just like Metroland did. But that's just a guess...
FYI, I recognize that you "love" Albany but you are living up to smalbany. There are reasons why Albany metro is unlikely to become a heritage tourism destination, but resources and narratives aren't amongst those reasons. Albany has a wealth of both:
-Native American association and first contacts between Native Americans and Europeans
-Hudson's discovery in 1609 and Dutch settlement
-colonial settlement incl. Albany Plan of Union, three first class historic house museums
-Rev. War
-Beginning of Erie Canal-concept and physically
-significant role in Civil War
-Association with future presidents-Van Buren, Arthur, Roosevelts
-transportation-first passenger rail, first muni airport, etc.
-World class architecture: Capital, Richardson city hall, SUNY Plaza, an acropolis of governmental bldgs., Empire State Plaza, UAlbany campus, the Bar Association bldg on Elk Street, etc.
-first class historic residential districts
-Albany Institute and State museum
-State Street, a truly great street
-Washington Park
-Churches
-assets like Bill Kennedy
-riverfront
and I could go on. In many ways we offer more than Charleston, only Charleston has its act together and we don't.
Well, now we know why so many people call the ACA a bunch of well-intentioned dreamers. I mean, come on Paul. You might get away with that kind of pie-in-the-sky nonsense over at Democray in Albany, but we can't let it slide by over here. Do you really think anything on that list is going to attract tourists to Albany from farther away than, say, Utica? Just reading it over makes me laugh. Washington Park as tourist destination? UAlbany's campus as a model of architecture? And then there's the associations with past presidents. Like I said Monday, I've been to the Van Buren House ten times. It's not a tourist destination and it never will be. And Arthur's grave?. Trust me, you couldn't pay locals to take a trip to the Albany rural cemetary. And Roosevelt does have a nice tourist spot - but it's a mansion down in Hyde Park.-Native American association and first contacts between Native Americans and Europeans
-Hudson's discovery in 1609 and Dutch settlement
-colonial settlement incl. Albany Plan of Union, three first class historic house museums
-Rev. War
-Beginning of Erie Canal-concept and physically
-significant role in Civil War
-Association with future presidents-Van Buren, Arthur, Roosevelts
-transportation-first passenger rail, first muni airport, etc.
-World class architecture: Capital, Richardson city hall, SUNY Plaza, an acropolis of governmental bldgs., Empire State Plaza, UAlbany campus, the Bar Association bldg on Elk Street, etc.
-first class historic residential districts
-Albany Institute and State museum
-State Street, a truly great street
-Washington Park
-Churches
-assets like Bill Kennedy
-riverfront
and I could go on. In many ways we offer more than Charleston, only Charleston has its act together and we don't.
The comparative advantage of Albany as a heritage tourist town is not much. Trust me, no one is going to travel here to check out Lock 7. Rocky's errection is startling, but it's hardly the kind of history we'd be looking to preserve - it's only a monument to Albany heritage if you are talking about the political machine and the greenback slushfund flowing through the state government. And everthing else - the historic churches, state street, the old houses - well that's just niche tourism, anyway.
A few things on the list I can agree with: the capital is a magnificent building that might attract some tourists. The state museum is nice, something most smaller cities don't have. And by virtue of being a rather old city, Albany's history intersects with major pieces of American history. But so does virtually every other city in the northeast. And that's the problem - in order to be a tourist destination, you need to show people why it's great to come to your city and why you can do and see stuff there that you can't find anywhere else. And Nipper and the Egg are not going to make the cut. You need the big bang.
The bottom line is that you cannot produce a heritage tourism industry from the supply side. If there is no natural demand, the odds are incredibly against the artificial creation of such demand. The city could spend $100 million dollars pushing the above list of items, and it wouldn't change the bottom line: we don't have the one big thing that will get tourists here. It's cold half the year, there are no beaches, and there's no grand canyon. And that's why we're different than Charleston - they have Fort Sumter, they have the beaches, and they have that lovely carolina weather. Once you have that kind of natural demand, it's easy to do supply-side type things to enhance your attractiveness as a tourist town. But you'll never create that initial demand artificially. It just doesn't work that way. To say the difference between Albany and Charleston is just that Charleston has its act together and we don't is like saying we could produce as much orange juice as Florida, but we just don't have our act together. It's patently ridiculous.
Now, does this mean that we shouldn't care about Albany's heritage? Of course not. But let's be realistic here. There's a difference between actively preserving Albany's past and trying to sell the city as a heritage tourism town. That's the point I was trying to make on Monday. And in subtle ways, I think it's better not to be shooting for tourism - you don't create faux history like Williamsburg, you don't have to emphasize stuff that is popular over stuff that is actually historically relevent, and you don't have to spend a ton of public money on advertising and public relations. Instead, you can actively preserve things like historic buildings and old churches. The little things that are part of a real history, not a tourists history.
Look, I'm damn proud of Albany's heritage. I love its Dutch past and its Irish influence. I love the old buildings and I love the political history. And I'd love to spend more public money than we currently do to promote that history and preserve it. But it's just crazy to think that we can actually produce a tourism industry here. To argue that we have the "resources and narratives" is to misunderstand what makes a mid-sized city tourist destination popular - the one big thing. And that's what we don't have.
So, yes, scream at the politicos if you want them to spend more money and have more sensitivity toward historic Albany. But get off the soapbox and stop pretending that Albany's history could turn this town into Gettysburg if we just played our cards right. It's hackish idealism and a waste of time.
P.S. - I do wonder what Bray thinks are the reasons "why Albany metro is unlikely to become a heritage tourism destination" if it's not the lack of resources and narratives? My assumption is that he would point to the political system as the problem, just like Metroland did. But that's just a guess...
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 4:08 AM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
At 8:39 PM ,It is truly frightening that a man heading an organization promoting Albany feels the NY Bar Association should be a tourist attraction.
At 7:13 AM ,
Bray forgot to mention the Palais Royale, another Albany institution.
At 8:32 AM ,
UAlbany campus.....oh yeah that really comes to mind when thinking about colleges based on aesthetics. Although most state schools' looks are not comparable to private colleges, if anything, SUNY Oswego has the most beautiful and applicable "tourist attraction" sitting on Lake Ontario.
» Post a Comment