10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [24/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Tourist Bubble/Tourist
Enclaves
THIAGO ALLIS
University of São Paulo, Brazil
The discussion of “tourist bubbles” dates
back to the idea of the tourist experience,
particularly in relation to sociospatial aspects
of tourist activity regarding the interactions
between host communities and groups of
visitors, as well as space production processes
by and for tourism. In fact, tourists seek some
familiarity when away from home, basically
for security reasons, which encourages the
creation of such a “controlled environment of
the tourist facilities” (Laflamme 1979; Collins
1978).
The notion of “nonplace” (non-lieu), devel-
oped by Augé (1992), suggests that certain
landscapes would be sterilized and standard-
ized to the point of becoming very much alike
in any part of the world. Similarly, the idea
of “McDonaldization” (Ritzer 1993) points
out that the serial reproduction of processes,
habits, and landscapes in contemporary soci-
ety contributes to erasing particularities of
places, therefore homogenizing them. Cases
in point would be coastal resorts, entertain-
ment zones, gentrified urban districts, or
airports, to name a few.
The first aspect to be considered, in spatial
terms, is when portions of territory are built
exclusively for tourist purposes, drawing
upon landscapes valued by tourist demands
to which services and infrastructures are
provided for leisure and entertainment.
Mullins (1991) has called this a process of
“tourism urbanization” based on the study
of the Australian coast – although this argu-
ment could be applied to many parts of
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies. Edited by Anthony Orum.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344
the world, particularly coastal areas, which
reproduce the historical model of “sun and
sea tourism.” In this model, the classical for-
mat of the tourist bubble takes place through
resorts, usually a property managed by a
single company, in which tourist activities are
programmed and controlled in a very precise
manner. An effect of this is the generating
of atmospheres of confinement for users in
terms of spatial and social segregation of
other areas, most notably occurring when
the business is based on models of gated
communities.
In a second aspect, the idea of the tourist
bubble applies to more comprehensive urban
contexts in which tourist activities overlap
with preexisting dynamics – in general,
scarcely related to tourism. Spatial bound-
aries, although present, are not as marked as
in coastal resorts since urban fabric main-
tains prior sociospatial relationships. Cultural
heritage, or the conjugation of evening and
entertainment activities, are usually recurring
elements, almost always as downtown, port,
and abandoned brownfield urban redevel-
opment strategies. These processes produce,
as a side effect and in different intensities,
the phenomenon of gentrification, where
parcels of a population end up moving in
face of price increases or simply due to the
transformation of urban dynamics in the
region. After many classic cases of “festi-
val marketplaces” in the USA (Baltimore,
Boston/Quincy Market, Chicago/Navy Pier
(Figure 1), New York/South Street Seaport,
San Francisco/Fisherman’s Wharf) and
in Europe, this standard began to spread
globally, from the 1990s.
Indeed, the model of urban mega projects,
great financial engagement, and spatial
impact has been spreading around the world.

2 TOURIST BU BBLE/TOURIST ENCL AVES
Figure 1 Navy Pier, Chicago, September 2014 (photo: Thiago Allis)
This is evident within the organization of
mega-sports, cultural, and trade events. It
is said that “Barcelona’s model” (Monclús
2003) associated with the accomplishment of
a mega-sports event (1992 Olympic Games)
became a reference for emerging economies
and cities, particularly Latin American ones.
Recently, a port zone of Rio de Janeiro, which
hosted the Olympic Games (2016), is an
example of these important urban trans-
formations, including the implantation of
cultural equipment in the old docks of the
city port. After the demolition of an express-
way, replaced by a tramway, the area has been
renamed as “Porto Maravilha,” where the
new landmark Santiago Calatrava “Museu do
Amanhã” (Tomorrow’s Museum) is located
(Figure 2).
A third variation of this idea is the “fantasy
city,” or a city as theme park constituted
in a roughly homogeneous manner, but
always through a strong process of landscape
artificialization, entertainment, business pro-
motion, and leisure orientation. In that sense,
the idea of a theme park is taken as allegory to
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [24/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
describe these renewed and requalified cities
areas, that is, “hyperreal” and simulation of
the real (Baudrillard 1981).
The classic example is Las Vegas, but this
logic also can be observed in urban inter-
vention projects that propose the fruition
of urban landscapes in a spectacularized
manner, even when anchored upon con-
crete urban elements. A way of operating
necessary policy is through implantation
of flagship projects, wherein culture is a
central theme. The case of Bilbao (Basque
Country/Spain) is emblematic: in the wake
of “museum brands” (Urry and Larsen 2011,
153), with the backing of the Guggenheim
Foundation’s prestige and the project of the
widely known architect Frank Gehry, “him-
self a global brand” (p. 153), this new cultural
equipment structured a huge urban project
responsible for converting degraded indus-
trial areas into spaces of leisure and tourism.
In this case, tourist bubble borders and spatial
limits are not exactly visible or even formal,
but the strong presence of tourists in places
targeted to certain activities (e.g., banks of

Figure 2 Porto Maravilha, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 2016 (photo: Carla Fraga)
rivers and the city’s historical center) defines
its invisible borders.
In general, despite physical barriers, tourist
bubbles are structured through the presence
of user attraction elements focused on certain
consumptions – gastronomy, entertainment,
culture, and tourism. Therefore, in its spatial
dynamic, visitors’ spatial behavior defines
the routine of these areas, usually strongly
monitored and structured for a performatic
consumption not only of services but also of
urban space itself.
As for urban landscape materiality, tourist
bubbles may be products or by-products of
rather complex urban processes, as expres-
sions of urban restructuring observed in
the main cities of the world (including many
parts of the so-called Global South). Thus, the
most visible faces of this phenomenon are the
large urban interventions – or megaprojects,
conducted from the association of economic
agents and the state, producing an urbanism
of exception, given the spatial selective-
ness brought about by urban mechanisms.
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [24/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TOURIST BU BBLE/TOURIST ENCL AVES 3
Convention centers, professional sport fran-
chises, festival malls, and casinos are physical
elements embedded in the context of the
tourist bubble (Judd 1999).
The notion of “tourist precinct” or “tourist
enclave” would also apply as descriptors for
tourist bubbles as areas with a concentration
of tourism-related services within a given
spatial, cultural, social, and economic iden-
tity, whose boundaries are not always clearly
defined (Hayllar, Griffin, and Edwards 2008;
Urry and Larsen 2011). In these cases, and
despite critiques related to gentrification, it
appears that an “urban tourism precinct”
presupposes some diversity in the form of
“mixtures of activities and land uses” (Hayllar,
Griffin, and Edwards 2008, 9).
Following periods of urban decay, local
governments and tourism entrepreneurs
often work together in order to provide
facilities in a safe and welcoming environ-
ment, aiming to increase tourist visits (Urry
and Larsen 2011, 37). Such “consumption
compounds” emerge from the desire of local

4 TOURIST BU BBLE/TOURIST ENCL AVES
agents, both public and private, to pro-
vide activities in a given urban precinct to
new visitors and also to local urban middle
classes or “creative classes” (Mullins 1991;
Florida 2012). Side effects may include social
exclusion, urban space spectacularization,
selectivity in heritage preservation strategies,
among others.
Different from coastal tourist enclaves,
these tourist bubbles within urbanized areas
are underpinned not only by tourist flows,
but also by local audiences – in general the
so-called creative classes. In these cases, it
is important that the concepts of tourism
and tourists be relativized, thus conferring
attention not only on external audiences
(tourists), but also on local demands – of
new residents who feed real estate cycles and
groups of visitors from other areas of the
city or its metropolitan region in search of
nightlife, gastronomy, art, culture, and so on.
In daily life, “fortified cities” or super-
surveillance of public spaces define the
contemporary urban experience. The repro-
duction of this very same logic is expected
in times of leisure – when we travel. In this
sense, in any of these manifestations, the
dispersion of tourist bubbles may deepen
sociospatial fragmentation when consider-
ing that public policies or business sector
demands lead to dilution of traditional
urban activities – in general inconsistent
with tourism expectations. The “themed
spaces,” indeed, occur with levels of priva-
tization, commodification, and regulation
of practices and spaces since public poli-
cies for urban and tourism development
seek the participation of private sector and
international capital investments (Urry and
Larsen 2011, 125).
Over the last three to four decades, while
tourist bubbles have been increasing in
frequency and scale – along with constant
expansion of tourist activity in the world –
resistance movements have been observed.
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [24/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Barcelona, which has been recognized by
the intense tourism growth in its most central
areas, has become an arena of incisive
antitourism movements (“Tourists Go
Home”), in which communities rebel against
gentrification and touristification processes,
which usually impact the availability and
prices of residential property.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to express my gratitude to Bryan Clift,
University of Bath, who carefully revised this
manuscript, though I assume all responsibil-
ity for its contents.
SEE ALSO: City Branding; Gentrification;
Megaprojects; Place Marketing; Simulation and
Simulacra; Tourist City; Urban Entrepreneurial
Governance; Urban Megaprojects
REFERENCES
Augé, Marc.1992. Non-lieux: Introduction à une
anthropologie de la surmodernité. Paris: Éditions
du Seuil.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1981. Simulacres et simulation.
Paris: Galilée.
Collins, Lloyd R. 1978. “Second Review.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 5(2): 278–280.
Florida, Richard. 2012. The Rise of the Creative
Class, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Hayllar, Bruce, Tony Griffin, and Deborah
Edwards, eds. 2008. City Spaces, Tourist Places.
Oxford: Elsevier.
Judd, Dennis R. 1999. “Constructing the Tourist
Bubble.” In The Tourist City, edited by Dennis R.
Judd and Susan S. Fainstein, 35–53. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Laflamme, Alan G. 1979. “The Impact of Tourism:
A Case from the Bahama Islands.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 6(2): 137–148.
Monclús, Javier. 2003. “The Barcelona Model: An
Original Formula? From ‘Reconstruction’ to
Strategic Urban Projects (1979–2004).” Planning
Perspectives, 18(4): 399–421.
Mullins, Patrick. 1991. “Tourism Urbanization.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 15(3): 326–342.
 10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0344 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [24/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TOURIST BU BBLE/TOURIST ENCL AVES 5

Ritzer, G. 1993. The McDonaldization of Society. Hoffman, Lily M., Susan S. Fainstein, and Dennis
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. R. Judd, eds. 2003. Cities and Visitors: Regulating
Urry, John, and Jonas Larsen. 2011. The Tourist People, Markets, and City Space. Malden, MA:
Gaze 3.0. London: SAGE. Blackwell.

FURTHER READING
Hannigan, John. 1998. Fantasy City: Pleasure and
Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis. Abingdon:
Routledge.