Tourism Urbanization

PATRICK MULLINS

Introduction
Tourist cities represent a new and extraordinary form of urbanization because they are
cities built solely for consumption. Whereas western urbanization emerged in the nineteenth
century generally for reasons of pryuction and commerce, tourist cities evolved during
the late twentieth century as sites for consumption. They are cities providing a great range
of consumption opportunities, with the consumers being resort tourists, people who move
into these centres to reside for a short time - a few days or a few weeks - in order
to consume some of the great range of goods and services on offer. This consumption
is for fun, pleasure, relaxation, recreation etc., and is not a consumption of basic needs
in the way of housing, health care, education and so on. That such large cities should
be built for this reason - and built for visitors - is most unusual in the history of western
urbanization.
Although tourism is considered the fastest growing industry in the world today, it
is a little understood industry, partly because it is defined demographically rather than
sociologically. It is seen as the movement of people away from their usual place of residence
for at least 24 hours, although day trippers - those leaving for most of one day - can
also be included (see Pearce, 1987). In measuring only the physical movement of tourists,
this demographic perspective explains little. A more useful approach is one focusing on
the industry itself, although even here there are difficulties because tourism is a very odd
industry. Rather than being a single industry, it is an amalgam of industries (manufacturing,
transport, entertainment etc.) and, very unconventionally, it is defined by consumption,
rather than production. Goods and services are classified as ‘tourist’ if they are consumed
by tourists, but if they are consumed by residents they are considered part of ‘normal’
consumption. Largely for this reason, tourism research has become a form of market
research, with official statistics, for example, being collected almost exclusively on
consumption - the demand side - and very little being collected on the production and
distributioa of goods and services - the supply side (see S . Smith, 1988). Ignorance of
the supply side makes it very difficult to pinpoint the fundamental nature of tourism and
therefore the social forces shaping it.
Little has been written on tourism urbanization. Few empirical studies have been
completed, and conceptual and theoretical works seem non-existent, with the absence of
appropriate concepts posing the greatest difficulties - especially for empirical research.
Without these concepts it is difficult to know what data to collect, as well as how to analyse
data which may already have been collected. Such neglect is surprising, considering how
new and different tourism urbanization is and the way in which tourist cities and towns
envelop significant parts of coastal Europe and the United States. In the United States,
for example, consumption centres (especially tourist cities) now have the fastest rates of
population and labour force growth of all urban areas in that country (Stanback, 1985).
All of this should have prodded urban researchers into showing more interest.
Tourism urbanization 327

This paper tries to make some sense-oftourism urbanization by means of a conceptual

discussion and a brief empirical analysis. At the conceptual level, an attempt is made to
define ‘tourism urbanization’, with the definition then being worked into a conceptual
framework suitable for empirical analyses. At the empirical level, this framework is used
to briefly analyse the Gold Coast (estimated 1990 resident population of 255,000) and
the Sunshine Coast (estimated 1990 resident population of 104,000), the largest cities in
Australia devoted exclusively to tourism. The former is located immediately south of
Brisbane, the third largest urban area in Australia, with an estimated 1990resident population
of 1.3 million people, while the latter is located immediately north of Brisbane. Included
is an identification of features distinguishing these new cities from other major Australian
cities - centres established mostly in the nineteenth century for reasons of commerce.

Defining tourism urbanization

Since tourism urbanization is an urbanization based on consumption, the obvious starting
point for defining the concept and then developing a conceptual framework is to consider
those concepts already used in arguments on the city and consumption. A good deal of
recent innovative urban sociology has focused on this relationship, with Saunders (1986)
even suggesting that urban sociology and the sociology of consumption be considered the
same subfield of the discipline, a conclusion emanating largely from work on the city
and ‘collective consumption’. In fact, most work on the city and consumption focuses
on ‘collective consumption’, although the concepts ‘suburbanization’, ‘gentrification’and
- more recently - ‘the postmodern city’ need also to be acknowledged, with a temporal
distinction being made between ‘collective consumption’ and ‘suburbanization’, and ‘the
postmodern city’ and ‘gentrification’. The former two identify processes integral to the
western urbanization of 1945-71, while ‘the postmodern city’ and ‘gentrification’pinpoint
changes to consumption from about 1971; these are effecting a new urbanization. By
understanding these developments, then, it should be possible to locate tourism urbanization
within the broader process of western urbanization.

Consumption
Although recent urban sociology devotes considerableatention to the city and consumption,
it pays little attention to ‘consumption’ itself, including its relationship with production.
Even Saunders (1986), who emphasizes the importance of a sociology of consumption,
fails to provide an adequate and detailed definition, with this neglect being typical for
sociology as a whole and for related social sciences (see Miller, 1987). A working definition,
however, is possible. Consumption can be said to refer to the use people make of goods
and services, with this consumption ensuring both personal survival and the continuity
of societies.
In capitalist societies, consumption is essentially of commodities produced for profit
and sold through the market place. Indeed, the history of capitalist development is one
of a continual search for new commodities for sale, with the last half century being
distinguished by the mass production and mass consumption of goods. So significant has
mass consumption become, that arguments are now profferred about the way those relation-
ships which exist between people in terms of consumption (‘the social relations of
consumption’) influence the trajectory of western urban development, and capitalist
development generally (see Pahl, 1989; Saunders, 1986). It is not just, or even primarily,
class relations (‘the social relations of production’),it is argued, which effect the development
of a society, city etc., but the social relations of consumption as well (e.g. between home
Owners and renters).
Over the last 20 years, the consumption of services providing pleasure has become
an increasingly important part of mass consumption (see Bauman, 1988), and these are
328 Patrick Mullins
consumed alongside the goods that were so central to the era of mass consumption (see
Walker, 1985). This issue will be considered more fully below, in the section on the city
and consumption after 1971.

The city and consumption, 1945- 71: collective consumption and suburbanization
In considering consumption, recent urban sociology has overwhelmingly focused on
‘collective consumption’: the western state’s provisioning, to varying degrees, of essential
goods and services - housing, health care, education, transport etc. (see e.g. Pinch, 1989).
This is considered an urban process because it is concentrated in cities and is spatially
well represented by large tracts of public housing. So significant was it to European
urbanization over the three decades after the second world war that the concept dominated
1970s European urban sociology, and this contributed significantly to a theoretical overhaul
of the subdiscipline during that decade. Following sharp though selective cuts in state
expenditure over the 1970~-80s, the influence of collective consumption on European
urban development has diminished, and so the concept’s usefulness for European urban
sociology has also waned.
As a concept, ‘collectiveconsumption’ is of no real value for understanding tourism
urbanization because it is about the state, rather than about consumption. It focuses on
the state’s role in providing necessary consumption items, but pays little attention to
consumption itself. What interest is shown focuses on the notion of ‘basic needs’ and their
importance for the reproduction of labour power (see Preteceille and Terrail, 1985), but
this tells nothing about the ‘luxury’ consumption distinguishing tourism urbanization
‘Suburbanization’ is a more useful concept because it refers - like tourism urbanization
- to mass consumption (see Walker, 1981). Developed largely after 1945, it is represented
spatially by large tracts of low-density owner-occupied housing located on what was or
is the outskirts of cities. It is based on home ownership and the mass consumption of
consumer durables, with householders stocking dwellings with a great range of consumer
goods, including buying cars to self-service transport needs. Where collective consumption
(at the level of consumption) had the major impact on European urban development between
1945 and 1971, suburbanizationhad the major consumption impact on non-European western
urban development (e.g. of Australia, the United States) over this period.
The mass consumption leading to suburbanization was made possible by a reorganization
of production which began in the 1920s. A new regime of capital accumulation emerged
(‘fordism’) based on scientific management (‘taylorism’) and it aimed to increase produc-
tivity by increasing work discipline. This was generally accepted by the working class
because it meant marked increases in real wages, and wage increases provided greater
opportunities for consumption.
While the concept ‘suburbanization’is c e M y more useful than ‘collectiveconsump-
tion’ for understanding tourism urbanization, it is still too limited a concept because it
refers to a mass consumption which is different from that producing tourism urbanization.
Whereas suburbanization is about the mass consumption of consumer goods by householders
within (mainly) owner-occupied dwellings, and primarily for the reproduction of labour
power, the mass consumption surrounding tourism urbanization is tied very much to services
providing pleasure (although goods are also involved), and these are sold and consumed
within purposely-built cities - cities which people must visit for this consumption.
Nevertheless, tourism urbanization did have its origins in fordist mass consumption, since
increases in wages and in holidays had, from the 1940s, encouraged the rapid expansion
of tourism and this, in turn, produced tourism urbanization (e.g. along the Florida coastline).
The city and consumption afer 1971: gentri$cation and the rise of the postmodem city
The ‘postmoderncity’ and ‘gentrification’ are more useful concepts for present purposes,
because they identify processes similar to those effecting tourism urbanization. Along with
‘tourism urbanization’, they pinpoint a change in the nature of consumption and this is
Tourism urbanization 329

tied to a new regime (or social structure) of capital accumulation, one associated with
a new society, including a new form of urbanization. Terms like ‘postfordism’, ‘flexible
accumulation’, ‘global capitalism’ and ‘disorganized capitalism’ have variously been used
to identify this emerging regime or society (see Graham et al., 1988; Harvey, 1987; Lash
and Urry, 1987; Lipietz, 1986; Scott, 1988). Dating from about the early 1970s (the end
of the post-1940s economic boom), it is based on new systems of production and consump-
tion, with tourism urbanization being part of the latter. Therefore, to understand tourism
urbanization - and gentrification and the postmodern city - general features of this
postfordist production and postfordist consumption need first to be understood.
Flexibility, it is said, distinguishes ‘postfordist production’, a system created by a
new coterie of aggressive entrepreneurs and one contrasting with the rigid fordist system
preceding it (see Scott, 1988; Storper and Scott, 1989). It is called ‘flexible’ because
production processes and product configurations are easily changed, with industries including
those in high technology, in artisan production, and in design-intensive operations.
Accompanying this transformation is a change to the class structure. Most significantly,
there is the rapid expansion of both the unskilled and insecure service working class and
(most importantly) of that part of the middle class known variously as the ‘new middle
class’, the ‘service class’, or the ‘new petty bourgeoisie’, employees with considerable
work autonomy and employed in secure, skilled and well-paid service jobs. Despite these
changes, fordist mass production still clearly dominates the production process and whether
postfordist production will ever usurp it is yet to be seen (see Gertler, 1988; Peet, 1989).
Postfordist production has not (yet) effected a new urbanization. Minor developments
are certainly apparent, but there is nothing comparable to fordism’s ‘corporate-industrial
urbanization’, or the ‘industrial urbanization’ of nineteenth-centurycompetitive capitalism
(see Scott, 1988). This seems an inevitable outcome of postfordism’s recency, as well
as its relative insignificance, meaning that there are too few factories and workers involved
to have much direct impact.
Little is written on ‘postfordist consumption’ (but see Harvey, 1987; N. Smith, 1987;
Urry, 1988), although it is possible to identify the consumption of goods and services
providing pleasure as its central component (Bauman, 1988). This pursuit of pleasure
involves both a mass consumption, in the sense that everyone is involved, as well as
customized consumption, in the sense that there are differences between people in terms
of what is consumed (see Meegan, 1988). But in both cases there is a constant search
for new, different, bigger and better pleasures, with services being either collectively
packaged as spectacles and festivals (e.g. theme parks), or available as numerous individual
services ranging from concerts to purchased sex, and from sports to holiday accommoda-
tion. There is also an extraordinary number of goods available, including foods and legal
and illegal drugs and new consumer durables (e.g. spa baths), with cars now also being
as much about pleasure as about transport (see Moorehouse, 1983).
The body, obviously, is the target for this pleasure (see Featherstone, 1987a), with
members of the new middle class, for example, spending a great deal of money and effort
styling their bodies to achieve a particular look. In this and other ways consumption is
increasingly important for symbolic reasons - for what it says about consumers, rather
than for its use value alone. Consumption, then, leads to a particular type of social
differentiation, one based on ‘symbolic capital’, where differing levels of influence and
distinction accrue to people according to their consumption (see Bourdieu, 1984;
Featherstone, 1987a, 1987b; Veblen, 1970).
So significant has the consumption of pleasure become that Bauman (1988) maintains
that it is now the major focus of people’s lives and he uses the term ‘postmodernity’to
identify this contemporary obsession. This term, then, will be used in this paper to define
the consumption side of postfordism, a usage paralleling Alt’s (1976) views about the
Way the mass consumption of goods was the principal life interest during the fordist era;
and both contrast with the way wage labour had been the principal focus of life during
330 Patrick Mullins

the era of competitive capitalism. Therefore, ‘postmodernity’ and ‘flexible production’

complement one another because they represent, respectively, the postfordist system of
consumption and the postfordist system of production; this parallels the way fordist mass
consumption complemented fordist mass production.
New forms of social control are said to accompany postmodernity, and these are
ideologically based. The obsessive consumption of pleasure, central to postmodernity,
is claimed to be a convenient (if unintentional) way of controlling the masses: being
constantly tickled with amusements and having their bellies kept full ensures people’s
passivity (see Bauman, 1988; Harvey, 1987). Now, while this ‘bread and circuses’
hypothesis may have some validity, it remains a bald and unsubstantiated philosophy, one
requiring empirical verification, as well as conceptual and theoretical clarification. As
it stands, it falsely implies that people have little control over their lives and denies the
way they shape their world through (admittedlyunequal) social relationships of class, gender,
ethnicity, religion, politics etc. (see Ley and Olds, 1988).
In terms of urbanization, postmodernity - unlike flexible production - has had a
very marked impact, with the concept the ‘postmodern city’ being used to identify this
new urban consequence. Unfortunately, this concept, like its parent ‘postmodernism’, is
being incorporated into urban and regional research in a very imprecise way, a shortcoming
aggravated by poor writing, but with the overall problem resulting from an uncritical
borrowing of the muddled views on postmodernism expressed by art, architectural and
literary critics (for examples, see Albertson, 1988; Dear, 1986; Cooke, 1988; Zukin, 1988).
Even a recent lengthy debate on postmodernism within human geography has failed to
resolve the mess, with the debaters continuing to use the term in contradictory ways,
including calling it a new epistemology, as well as new social processes (see Graham,
1988; Gregory, 1989; Lovering, 1989). This indiscipline is aggravated by the claim made
by some that ‘it may be hard to pin postmodernism down precisely, but it is not hard
to recognise it when you meet it’ (Lovering, 1989: l)!
If the concept ‘the postmodern city’ is to be of any value to urban research it must
be defined more precisely, and so for present purposes it is used very simply - and following
Bauman (1988) - to refer to that urban form integral to the mass consumption of pleasure.
In other words, where postmodernity identifies, conceptually, the mass consumption of
pleasure, the postmodern city is postmodernity’s urban form - an urban form focusing
on pleasure. Tourism urbanization, then, is the most dramatic expression of this new urban
form because here are entire cities and towns built exclusively for pleasure.
Although tourism urbanization is the most striking form of the postmodern city, the
‘consumption compound’ is this city’s clearest manifestation. Rather than appearing as
entire cities, the ‘postmoderncity’ invariably prevails as parts of existing cities, and these
appear mainly in the form of ‘consumption compounds’, large urban precincts built as
spectacles and built for festivals and located usually in the inner city (e.g. Boston’s Fanueil
Hall). These compounds aim to attract all city residents, not only tourists, to spend some
of their disposable income on the many fun services and goods on offer (see Harvey, 1987;
Sawicki, 1989). In addition. there are specialized consumption compounds; these point
to a diversity in the consumption of pleasure. Specialized consumption compounds offer
specific pleasures to particular people, with cultural centres, for example, packaging the
arts for the convenient consumption of dominant classes (see Whitt, 1987). Therefore,
although postmodernity involves a mass (or universal) consumption, in the sense that all
classes, status groups etc., are involved, specialized consumption points to a diversity
in this obsession, with different people consuming different baskets of pleasurable
commodities.
Where consumption compounds are the most common expression of the postmodern
city, ‘gentrification’ is its first major manifestation. This process represents a marked
expansion of consumption opportunities for the new middle class, and these are also usually
located in the inner city, where housing markets previously used by the poor and the working
Tourism urbanization 33 1
class are transformed following recommodification (see N. Smith, 1987; Smith and
Williams, 1986). The area as a whole is further refurbished with the construction of pleasure-
dispensing outlets, such as art galleries. In this way, gentrified areas are socially and
physically quite distinct, with dwellings and other buildings being symbols of this new
middle-class consumer. The decorations, designs and colours used in the physical trans-
formation symbolize these people’s focus on pleasure, with the dwelling itself being the
most evocative symbol of the lot.
The postmodern city needs also to be understood as part of a broader process of urban
change. Included is increased competition between cities which, in the case of the post-
modern city, shows the way these cities compete with one another for the consumption
dollar. But there is also competition between cities for capital, fpr state expenditure, and
for the control and command functions of corporations and the s$te (Harvey, 1985; 1987).
Now, while all cities may compete for all four, success varies, and in such a climate of
fierce competition, image becomes vital; it is one tool in this interurban competition. The
state’s role has become more indirect, being ‘boosterist’ in style, rather than involving
substantial direct investment, City governments and business leaders unite to boost their
cities and use, among other things, evocative symbols to convince investors, consumers,
potential residents etc. that their city is vibrant, innovative, fun, profitable etc. and a good
place in which to live. This symbolism is expressed particularly through the city’s built
environment, with architecture and urban design being used symbolically to represent this
vibrancy, irrespective of whether there is any truth in the symbols (see Harris and Lipton,
1986). Therefore, the architecture of the postmodern city (‘postmodern architecture’) is
the architecture of consumption: an architecture signalling opportunities for pleasure.
Writings on urban symbolism - on the way the urban physical environment evokes
the social meaning of the city - have increased markedly over recent years, mainly it
seems because of recent transformations in western urbanization (see Gottdiener and
Lagopoulos, 1986). Unfortunately, this work is conceptually, methodologically and
theoretically weak, since it is philosophic, rather than social scientific, in orientation. There
is a constant fiddling with vague ideas and a failure to elaborate unambiguous concepts
useful for empirical research and for theoretical development. Unless suitable concepts
are developed and empirical research undertaken, urban symbolism will remain a vague
philosophy and will be of little use for urban social science.

Tourism urbanization: a dejnition and a conceptual framework

‘Tourism Urbanization’, then, can be said to be an urbanization based on the sale and
consumption of pleasure. Though having its origins in the high wages and mass consumption
of fordism, it matured under postfordism, the contemporary (post-1970s) ‘regime of capital
accumulation’. This mass consumption of pleasure, then, has come to represent the
consumption side of postfordism, with the term ‘postmodernity’being used to define this
type of consumption. In turn, ‘postmodernity’s’urban form can be called ‘the postmodern
city’, with tourism urbanization being its most dramatic expression, because here are entire
cities and towns built explicitly for pleasure.
From this definition and from the preceding discussion, a simple conceptual framework
can now be constructed and then used in the empirical analysis to follow. The framework
comprises seven interrelated components, the first three being important for descriptive
reasons, while the rest are important theoretically, because they identify major social forces
involved in this urbanization. Tourism urbanization, it can be said, is: (1) spatially different
because it is socially different; (2) symbolically distinctive, with the urban symbols acting
as lures to tourists; (3) distinguished by rapidpopulation and labourforce growth - after
the United States experience; (4)distinguished by aflexible system of production because
it is part of postfordism; (5) distinguished by a form of state intervention which is ‘booster&’
in style -- like the postmodern city generally; (6) distinguished by both a mass and
customized consumption of pleasure; and (7) distinguished by a resident population which
is socially distinctive, because this urbanization i s socially different.
332 Patrick Mullins

An empirical analysis of tourism urbanization

This conceptual framework will now be used in a comparative analysis of the Gold Coast
and the Sunshine Coast (the largest centres in Australia devoted exclusively to tourism)
and other mjor Australian cities - those with populations of 100,000 or more, but including
Darwin as the capital city of the Northern Territory. The other centres are Sydney and
Melbourne, as Australia’s ‘world’ cities; Brisbane and Perth, as the fastest growing of
the five largest cities; Adelaide and Hobart, as the remaining state capitals; Canberra and
Darwin, as the two government-dominatedcities; and Geelong, Newcastle and Wollongong,
as Australia’s major industrial cities. Since each of the seven components covers a huge
area and because space is limited, the analysis must necessarily be very brief; it merely
covers some major issues arising from each component.
Tourism urbanization as a new spatial form
As cities devoted to the consumption of pleasure, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast
are not only socially different from other Australian cities, they are also spatially different.
This is clearly seen in the way they overwhelm the southern Queensland littoral, an area
on the same latitude in the southern hemisphere as southern Florida (USA) in the northern
hemisphere. Both cities developed as long narrow bands of coastal settlement only 1 km
wide in places; the Sunshine Coast spreads 75 km northwards from Brisbane - Australia’s
third largest metropolitan area - while the Gold Coast extends 50 km southward from
this metropolis and overlaps into the neighbouring state of New South Wales, but with
88.1 per cent of its population and the overwhelming bulk of tourism infrastructure being
in the Queensland part of the city. This spatial patterning, then, is quite unlike that of
other major Australian cities.
Neither the Gold Coast nor the Sunshine Coast have traditional central business districts.
Instead they have a number of smaller commercial and tourist centres scattered along the
coasts and these cater to residents, tourists and nearby rural producers. Some are larger
than others, with Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast being the most significant tourist
centre in either city. In most other Australian cities, growth moved outwards from central
business districts, which are located around transportation nodes - primarily ports -
and which developed in the nineteenth century in response to mercantile demands.
The spatial distinctiveness of the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast seems largely
an outcome of the unusual commodification of these cities’ physical environments. Like
most instances of tourism urbanization, the cities are built in coastal areas with warm
year-round climates and the physical attributes of coast and climate (surf, sand, attractive
hinterland etc.) are integral to their commodification. Although bought and sold like the
physical environments of other cities, it is the pleasurable attributes of tourist cities’ physical
environments which are central to their commodification. Access to beach and sea, for
example, is fundamental, with land being bought and sold for the sea views and for the
access it gives to other pleasures offered by the environment. These ‘natural’ pleasures,
in turn, are tied to pleasures sold within the cities. Indeed, the physical environment seems
to be the packaging around which these other pleasures are wrapped; it acts as a lure to
tourists, pulling them into these cities and, once there, the ambience seduces them into
buying the pleasures for sale. Under these circumstances, the spreading of these cities
ribbon-fashion along the coast is understandable.
The ‘tourist strip’ is the most valuable part of the cities. This is the narrow piece
of land abutting the beach and extending the length of the coastlines. It is important for
the access it dY0rdS tourists to the free pleasures of sand, surf and sea, and over the last
10 Or SO Years this area has been rapidly redeveloped, particularly on the Gold Coast,
through the COnstruction of large numbers of high-rise buildings (see Jones, 1986; Mullins,
1984; 1987a). These buildings are mainly for tourist services, especially holiday accom-
modation, and are built Primarily in the form of home units (i.e. condominiums) (Jones,
Tourism urbanization 333

1986; Mullins, 1984). Immediately behind the tourist strip liives the permanent population
in mainly detached dwellings, with the wealthier living on the many canal estates. The
predominance of detached housing has meant that both cities have relatively low densities,
although the construction of large condominiums and other home units has, ironically,
brought higher housing densities to these cities than to most others. At the 1986 Census,
a greater share of Gold Coast housing (36.1 %) was medium to high density, compared
with the next three ranked cities: Sydney (29.1%), Adelaide (23.5%)and the Sunshine
Coast (2 1.5 %).

The symbols of tourism urbanization

The visually striking character of these tourist cities’ physical environments evoke distinctive
images - images of pleasure, fun, enjoyment etc. - and these are also symbols of post-
modernity. It is the unusual visual mix of the built and natural environments which lead
to these powerful images of pleasure. With the Gold Coast’s and the Sunshine Coast’s
built environments, it is not the architecture specifically, but the overall urban design which
evokes this symbolism. Buildings which physically dominate, notably the large condo-
miniums, are not postmodern, but are of the typically stark constructionsof late modernism.
They lack the ‘fun’element of postmodernist architecture. Yet when these modernist high-
rise buildings are juxtaposed against the rest of the built environment - the canal estates,
the pleasure palaces (casinos, theme parks etc .), the marinas, the shopping plazas, the
low-density housing stretching into the mountainous hinterland - then the postmodern
image is evoked. Even more striking are images prompted by the natural environment
- by the Pacific Ocean, the wide surf beaches, the unique river and lake systems, and
the rainforest-clad mountains in the hinterland. It is this environment’s beauty which most
clearly expresses the hedonism of these pleasure-dispensingcentres, and when these ‘natural’
symbols are combined with those of the built environment, then tourism urbanization’s
symbolism is fully expressed. Most particularly, it is the combined visual impact of the
high-rise buildings, strung for kilometre after kilometre along the littoral, the Ocean and
the beaches themselves, plus the mountainous hinterland, which most clearly symbolizes
pleasure. This, then, is a symbolism which promotes and advertises these cities and it
thus acts as a lure to tourists.
While both cities essentially express the same symbols, there are differences between
them, with the Gold Coast carrying more diverse images: images of greater opulence,
of more pleasures, and also of greater vulgarity, with intellectuals and certain of the new
middle class, for example, reacting against this vulgarity. Of the two cities, they prefer
the ‘more natural’ Sunshine Coast (specifically Noosa in the north with its unique ecology;
its more ‘natural’ pleasures).

Tourism urbanization as rapid urban growth

The Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast have, by far, the fastest rates of population and
labour force growth of all major Australian cities, having doubled their populations every
10 years for the last 40 years, and if current trends continue their populations will exceed
those of some larger cities by the year 2000 (see Jones, 1986; Mullins, 1979, 1984; cf.
Stanback, 1985). Table 1 clearly shows this spectacular growth for the decade 1976 to
1,986, the era in which postmodernism is said to have emerged. Over this period, the
populations and labour forces of the two cities grew at about twice the rate of Darwin,
the next fastest growing city, and about five to ten times greater than most remaining
cities (see Table 1). This seems partly an outcome of these being new cities, in the sense
that they developed from very small populations, but far more importantly it implies that
there is something significant about the way contemporary consumption effects rapid urban
growth.
Both centres developed as tourist cities from the late 1940s, expanding rapidly over
the next four decades, but having their origins in a number of small towns and hamlets
334 Patrick Mullins

Table 1 Major Australian cities: population, 1986, and population and labour force growth,
1976-86

1986 Census Population : Labour force:

population percentage change, percentage change,
City (in millions) 1976-86 1976-86
Gold Coast* 0.22 88.9 104.4
Sunshine Coast 0.09 103.2 111.8
Sydney 3.36 11.3 13.5
Melbourne 2.83 8.8 12.1
Brisbane 1.15 20.0 26.6
Perth 0.99 23.4 31.5
Adelaide 0.98. 8.6 12.1
Newcastle 0.41 11.6 17.1
Canberra 0.25 26.4 38.6
Wollongong 0.23 6.7 10.2
Hobart 0.18 8.0 12.5
Geelong 0.14 6.2 10.6
Darwin 0.07 56.3 55.2

*Both Queensland and New South Wales parts.

Source: Australian Censuses, 1976 and 1986.

scattered along the two coasts. As these expanded, they overflowed onto large tracts of
non-urban land in between and eventually met to become the two tourist cities. These
towns and hamlets developed in the nineteenth century to service nearby rural producers,
but also expanded into holiday centres for Brisbane residents and for those living in other
parts of south-east Queensland, after rail connections were completed in the 1880s. The
holiday component expanded rapidly after the 1920s from improved road transport, and
so by the late 1940s the area now defined as the Gold Coast had a population of about
13,000 people, while the Sunshine Coast contained only a few thousand. It was from these
populations that the two areas developed into new cities; into cities of the late twentieth
century; into tourist cities.
That the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast had their origins, as tourist cities, in
the late 1940s indicates the way fordism initiated this extraordinary urbanization. As mass
production and mass consumption expanded after the second world war, Australian workers
had greater opportunities for increased consumption, including more frequent and longer
holidays. These opportunities arose from rapid increases in real wages, as well as changes
in working and living conditions - notably shorter working hours and the introduction
of both paid annual leave and longer annual leave (see Whitwell, 1989). In this way, the
evolution of Australian tourism urbanization paralleled the rise of suburbanization in
Australia.

Tourism urbanization and flexible production

Where the first three components of our framework enabled a descriptive analysis to be
made of the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast, the remaining ones help pinpoint the
social forces involved. This, the fourth, component is concerned with a consideration of
the tourist cities’ economies, contrasting them with those of other major Australian cities.
More specifically, an attempt is made to see whether these cities have flexible production
systems and, if they do, it is suggested that their class structuresare also likely to be different,
thus implying differences in class relationships.
Table 2 shows the economies of the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast to be quite different
from those of the other Australian cities, being founded on tourism and (possibly more
 2
T
Tx:
Table 2 Employment b y city, 1986 @ercentages)*
&
R
2.
&4

Gold Sunshine E.
Industry Coast Coast Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth Hobart Canberra Darwin Newcastle Wollongong Geelong

Agriculture, forestry, fishing,

hunting 1.9 4.3 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.7 1.5 0.8 1.o
Mining 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.8 5.7 4.6 0.2
Manufacturing 9.2 8.5 16.7 20.6 14.0 17.1 12.9 11.6 3.8 4.7 18.6 26.7 27.2
Electricity, gas, water 0.7 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.7 3.0 0.7 0.1 3.1 2.9 1.4
Construction 10.7 10.8 6.1 6.0 7.2 6.4 7.3 7.0 7.3 9.1 6.3 6.4 6.8
Wholesale & retail trade 23.0 24.3 19.6 19.3 21.7 20.3 20.8 18.2 12.8 16.3 18.5 16.0 18.7
Transport & storage 3.7 3.7 6.1 5.1 6.0 4.4 5.3 3.8 3 .O 5.0 5.8 5.5 4.6
Communication 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.8 1.3 2.8 1.6 1.6 1.8
Finance, property, business
services 12.5 11.4 14.3 11.7 11.2 10.1 11.9 9.2 9.3 9.7 8.1 1.2 7.5
Community services 12.9 15.6 16.3 17.3 18.3 21.5 19.6 23.7 22.5 20.4 17.7 16.6 18.1
Recreation, personal, other
services 15.3 9.6 6.1 5.0 5.6 6.3 6.6 7.9 6.1 7.6 5.7 4.9 4.9
Public administration, defence 3.6 4.2 5.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 5.0 7.9 29.8 17.9 4.7 3.8 4.0
Not classifiable, not stated 4.3 3.8 3.9 4.7 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.1 2.8 4.9 2.7 3 .O 3.8
Total percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
IJnemployment (5% total
labour force) 16.0 19.7 8.6 6.6 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.1 4.7 9.7 12.4 13.1 8.2
*Statistical Divisions and Statistical Districts. For Gold Coast SD: both Queensland and New South Wales parts; for Canberra SD: ACT part only.
Source: Australian Census, 1986.

W
W
u
l
336 Patrick Mullins

importantly) construction - the building of the cities. The economically active populations
of both cities are concentrated in tourism services (‘recreation, personal, and other services’
and ‘wholesale and retail’) and in industries involved in construction (‘construction’ and
‘finance, property, and business services’) (see Table 2). In 1986, these four accounted
for 61.5% of Gold Coast employment, and 56.1 % of Sunshine Coast employment (see
Table 2). Perth had the next highest share, with 46.6%,with most other cities being around
44%. The industrial city of Wollongong (34.5%)had the lowest level, with the other two
industrial cities, Geelong (37.9%) and Newcastle (38.6%), and the federal capital of
Canberra (35.5%) also having low levels.
Few tourist city residents were in manufacturing, with only the government cities
of Canberra and Darwin having smaller percentages (see Table 2). Also, few were in
‘public administration and defence’, with only the three industrial cities having similar
percentages (see Table 2). Clearly, private sector employment is more important to the
tourist cities, with the Gold Coast (84.2%)and the Sunshine Coast (80.4%)having a larger
share of their workforces in this sector, and for this reason it is predictable that these
cities proclaim themselves ‘free enterprise cities’. The industrial cities of Geelong (75.8 %)
and Wollongong (75.2%) had the next highest percentages in the private sector, while
the government centres of Canberra (45.3 %) and Darwin (53.6%)understandably had
the lowest levels.
Table 2 also points to the paradoxical character of these cities’ economies. Although
experiencing very rapid population and labour force growth over the last 40 years -
suggesting boom economies - they also have the highest rates of unemployment of all
major cities in Australia, thus suggesting a simultaneous ‘bust’ component (see Mullins,
1984; 1987a; 1990). At the 1986 Census, the Sunshine Coast. (19.7%)had the highest
rate of unemployment, followed by the Gold Coast (16.0%)and then the two industrial
cities of Wollongong (13.1 %) and Newcastle (12.4%),with Melbourne (6.6%)having
the lowest level (see Table 2). Although this panern has been evident for a couple of decades,
popular opinion and much urban research still associates high urban unemployment with
deindustrializing cities, not with booming consumption centres.
The failure to acknowledge tourism urbanization’s high unemployment seems a
consequence of myths surrounding these cities. Apart from a disbelief that there is such
high unemployment, the most pervasive myth sees unemployment as an imported problem;
the unemployed migrate to the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast from other states because
- it is said - it is preferable to be unemployed in a warm, fun place, than elsewhere.
Not only does this sound unconvincing, but it cannot be substantiated. Unpublished data
produced by the Australian Department of Social Security shows that interstate transferees
on unemployment benefits, who moved to the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast during
the 1980s, barely comprised 1 % of the total unemployed in each of these cities (Department
of Social Security, 1989). The high unemployment is essentially an outcome of these cities’
unstable economies. Being reliant on tourism and construction inevitably means high
unemployment. Tourism is a seasonal industry employing many part-time workers, while
construction fluctuates wildly with demand, and so together these lead to a perennial problem
of unemployment. This is aggravated by the large number of small and insecure employers
who provide most of the employment, with the overwhelmingbulk of tourist and construction
operations employing only between one and four workers (Australian Bureau of Statistics,
1987).
From these observed levels of unemployment caution needs to be invoked about the
extent to which tourism can be said to promote employment. Hall’s (1987) optimism, for
example, about tourism as a solution to the unemployment woes of declining cities and
regions, is premature at best. If lessons are to be learned from the Gold Coast and the
Sunshine Coast, then tourism does not recommend itself as a means for achieving long-term,
secure employment.
Economic differences between the two tourist cities and the other Australian cities
Tourism urbanization 337
imply a ‘flexibility’ in the organization of production. Flexibility is inferred from the greater
dominance of the private sector, from the importance of small employers (see also below),
and from the very high rates of unemployment. The unemployment is particularly indicative
of a flexibility based on a weak and insecure labour force, although low levels of unionization
and low personal incomes can be added to this list. While no data are available on
unionization in these two cities, it is possible to extrapolate from national data. Almost
half (46%)of all Australian employees are members of unions, but apart from ‘agriculture,
etc.’, the lowest levels of unionization are in ‘wholesale and retail’ (25%),followed by
‘recreation, personal, and other services’ (29 %), ‘finance, property, and business services’
(34%),and ‘construction’ (48%).Since these last four form the major sectors of the tourist
city economies, the data seem to suggest that low levels of unionization do exist among
the workers of these cities. Furthermore, residents had the lowest personal incomes of
all cities. At the 1986 Census, 73.2% of Sunshine Coast residents and 68.2% of Gold
Coast residents received less than $15,000 a year, followed by Newcastle (64.2%),with
Canberra (46.7%)and Darwin (44.9%)having the smallest percentages of this income.
Part-time work can also be used as an indicator of flexible work practices, at least
in reference to the insecure end of the labour market. However, evidence from the two
tourist cities suggests that part-time work, contrary to assumptions made about tourism
employment, is not as significant on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast as one would
assume. In fact, the reverse seems to be the case, since data from the 1986 Census shows
that the economically active populations worked longer hours, not shorter hours, as the
hypothesis would suggest. In the case of the Sunshine Coast, 60.6%worked 40 or more
hours a week, followed by the Gold Coast (60.5%),then Darwin (57.7%),with Canberra
(45.6%)having the smallest percentage. Moreover, although women in all cities were
far more likely than men to be part-time workers, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast women
worked longer hours than their counterparts in other cities. Gold Coast women (44.7%)
and Sunshine Coast women (43.4%)were more likely to work 40 hours or more a week,
compared with women in the next two ranked cities, Newcastle (43.3%) and Sydney
(36.1 %), with Adelaide women workers (29.2%)being the least likely to work 40 hours
or more.
Overall, then, it is possible to suggest that flexible work practices operate more in
these cities than in the others - at least at the lower end of the labour market. It is not
so evident at the highly skilled end (e.g. in science and technology), since the Gold Coast
(8.9%) and the Sunshine Coast (9.8%)have fewer professionals than other cities, with
Canberra (19.5 %) having proportionately the most.
These data imply that the class structures of these tourist cities are also different,
and this is certainly suggested by Table 3. While the employment categories used in this
table do not exactly coincide with social classes, they do suggest that the class structures
of the two tourist cities are quite unlike those of the other major cities. Specifically, there
is a much larger proportion who are small capitalists and petty bourgeoisie, these classes
being suggested by the ‘employer’, ‘self employed’, and ‘unpaid helper’ categories (see
Table 3). ‘Unpaid helpers’ are essentially women assisting (apparently kin) who are
employers or self employed. In the case of the Sunshine Coast, the larger ‘self employed’
and ‘unpaid helper’ categories point to significant numbers of farmers living in these cities.
This different class structure suggests different economic and political outcomes for
these cities. By their size, small capitalists and the petty bourgeoisie have clearly had a
profound economic impact, but they have also had a profound political impact (see
McRobbie, 1988; Mullins, 1984). Indeed, they seem, economically and politically, to
have led this urban development, with the working class apparently playing a more passive
role than in other cities (for details, see Jones, 1986; McRobbie, 1988; Mullins, 1984).
Economically, small capitalist and the petty bourgeoisie have provided the tourist goods
and services (e.g. as shopkeepers, restaurateurs) and they have constructed the cities (e.g.
as builders, land developers, real estate agents). Politically, they have dominated local
338 Patrick Mullins
Table 3 Labowforce status, 1986* brcentages)
Unpaid
city Wagdsalary Self-employed Employer helper Total
Gold Coast 75.5 13.3 10.1 1.1 100.0
Sunshine Coast 70.1 17.0 11.3 1.6 100.0
SYhY 86.7 7.5 5.3 0.5 100.0
Melbourne 86.6 7.8 5.2 0.5 100.0
Brisbane 86.5 7.4 5.5 0.6 100.0
Adelaide 87.0 7.5 5.0 0.5 100.0
perth 84.9 8.6 5.8 0.7 100.0
Hobart 88.4 5.9 5.2 0.5 100.0
Canberra 91.1 4.8 3.7 0.4 100.0
Darwin 90.0 5.2 4.4 0.4 100.0
Newcastle 86.3 7.6 5.3 0.8 100.0
Wollongong 85.9 8.0 5.4 0.7 100.0
Geelong 83.0 10.0 6.0 0.9 99.9
*Statistical Divisions and Statistical Districts. For Gold Coast SD: both Queensland and New South Wales
parts; for Canberra S D ACT part only.
Source: Australian Census, 1986.

government and provided most of the successful candidates for local, state and federal
elections (see Mullins, 1984; 1987a).
Tourism urbanization and the state
Where class relations indicate one major social force - and perhaps the most important
- the state also plays a distinct role in these cities’ development. This essentially has
been indirect, being boosterist in style, rather than as a major direct investor. Indeed,
if the level of public sector employment is any indication, the state’s overall role in these
cities is less than in other Australian cities. The state does, of course, act directly and
this essentially is in terms of physical infrastructure (e.g. roads, sewage, electricity) and
social infrastructure (e.g. schools, health services etc.), a pattern typical for all Australian
cities (see Halligan and Paris, 1984).
In being boosterist in style, the state’s indirect role aims to encourage both tourism
and urban development. This is apparent in actions taken by both local governmentsand
the Queensland government, with local government initiatives being evident from Gold
Coast city council actions (e.g. in attracting tourists and land developers), while the
Queensland government’s boosterism is undertaken through its quango, the Queensland
Tourist and Travel Corporation (see Mullins, 1984; 1987a).
The two main targets of state initiatives - tourism and urban development - do not
receive equal benefit; the latter has been overwhelminglyfavoured. Conflictsarising from
this discriminatory action have been played out in local government, between tourist and
development interests. This brought a marked upheaval within the Gold Coast city council
during the 1970s,resulting in the sacking of the council by the Queensland government
in 1978 - only to be reinstated after new elections the next year (see McRobbie, 1988;
Andrews, 1979;Mullins, 1984).
Tourism urbanization and consumption
Tourists must also be considered a sisnificant social force. That such large numbers should
enter these cities inevitably means that they have a profound impact, not only in dramatic
events like crime, but also on the city’s social structuregenerally. Over the year 1986-7,
2.4 million tourists resided for an average of 7.5 days on the Gold Coast, meaning that
Tourism urbanization 339

there were 11 tourists to every 1 resident (QueenslandTourist and Travel Corporation,

1988a). For the Sunshine Coast the figures were 1.6 million tourists staying an average
of 6.0 days, meaning that there were 17 tourists for every 1 resident (Queensland Tourist
and Travel Corporation, 1988b). These figures, however, refer only to tourists in paid
accommodation. It excludes those staying with friends and relatives, those in their own
holiday houses, and day trippers.
The Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast are resort cities for domestic tourists. When
only those in paid accommodationare considered, 92.3 % of Gold Coast tourists and 97.3 %
of Sunshine Coast tourists (in 1986-7) were from other parts of Australia; and 43 % of
the former and 58% of the latter were from Brisbane alone. Most of the small number
of international tourists are from New Zealand, although increasing numbers are now coming
from Japan (Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, 1988c, 1988d).
About two-thirds go to these cities for ‘holiday/pleasure’, with a fifth going to see
‘friends and relatives’, and most of the rest for ‘business’ (Queensland Tourist and Travel
Corporation, 1988a; 1988b). Tourism expenditure confirms the focus on pleasure, with
food and legal drugs being the single biggest item, followed by accommodation and
pleasure shopping (see Table 4). There are, however, differences between the two
cities, with Gold Coast tourists spending more than twice the amount of Sunshine Coast
tourists (see Table 4). This reflects the way the Gold Coast offers a greater range of
pleasures, while the Sunshine Coast offers simpler fare. Behind all of this are the free
pleasures of sun, sea, surf, sand, and the general ambience evoked by the physical
environment.
Most tourist offerings are directed at the masses (e.g. theme parks), but the 1980s
saw a marked expansion of customized pleasures. These have mainly taken the form of
expensive integrated resorts aimed at capitalists, the wealthy petty bourgeoisie, and certain
of the new middle class. On the Gold Coast they include Sanctuary Cove, Jupiter’s Casino,
and Marina Mirage, while on the Sunshine Coast they include Noosa and the Hyatt Regency
Coolum (Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, 1988c; 1988d).
New concepts and theories are now required to help clarify the way tourists are a
social force, and there is need to get away from the simplistic ‘bread and circuses’ philosophy
outlined earlier, implying that tourism and other pleasures are forms of social control.
The most energetic attempts at a new conceptualization are coming from cultural studies
(e.g. see Caulfield, 1989). Yet, identifying cultural factors does little to explain culture’s
existence, particularly since culture emanates from social relationships, and so the study
of culture is the study of social relationships.

R e residents of tourist cities

Residents’ impact on tourism urbanization is apparent in three major ways. The first is
in terms of their location within the broader urban social structure, with the concept
‘household and residential organization’ identifying this location (see Mullins, 1987b).
This pinpoints the way people organize the private sphere of life, the area outside (though
associated with) the public worlds of the economy and politics, and one based essentially
within households and residential areas. Qualitative differences between cities in household
and residential organization, then, imply broader differences in urban social structures.
From 1986 Census data, the household and residential organizations of the two tourist
cities seem quite different from those of other major Australian cities. There are many
newcomers, many who are transient, a large adult population, fewer children, more older
people (specifically retirees) and fewer nuclear families (see Mullins, 1990). Also, the
high level of unemployment and the low incomes imply the existence of significant social
problems.
The second and more obvious way residents influence tourism urbanization is through
urban movements: organized actions taken by residents to change or conserve aspects of
their city. Within the two tourist cities these have largely been actions taken by residents
340 Patrick Mullins

Table 4 Expenditure of Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast tourists in paid accommodation
(average amount per visitor night, I986- I)

GOLD COAST* SUNSHINE COAST

Amount spent ($) % Amount spent ($) %
Accommodation 18.10 (23.5) 10.30 (30.6)
Foodlbeverage 19.40 (25.2) 13.30 (39.5)
Pleasure shopping 15.00 (19.5) 4.70 (13.9)
Local transport 4.90 (6.4) 3.50 (10.4)
Other 19.60 (25.5) 1.90 (5.6)
(100.1) (100.0)
Total average daily
expenditure $77.00 $33.70
*Queensland part only.
Source: Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (1988a; 1988b).

to protect housing and residential quality, with many revolving around environmental issues.
Residents’ antagonists have invariably been developers and builders who threatened
residential life, with the most dramatic fights including the battle to protect the Gold Coast
Broadwater - a large inland lagoon - and Sunshine Coast residents’ fight against high-rise
buildings (see Mullins, 1984; 1987a).
The third resident impact emanates from progress associations: locally based (e.g .
suburban) organizations,of residents, business people, voluntary associations etc., who
try to influence the development of their (usually new) locale. From a newspaper analysis
(1945- ) of Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast development, the actions taken by these
associations have been both radical and conservative, influencing, on the one hand, the
acquisition of social services such as schools and hospitals, and on the other hand, objecting
to certain developments. Although these associations appear to have had a very significant
impact on Australian urban development, nothing seems to have been published on either
their organization or their actions (but see Halligan and Paris, 1984).

Conclusion
The Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast, then, are quite unlike other major Australian
cities. They are cities built for the consumption of pleasure - a focus which gives them
a distinctive ecology, one evoking powerful images of pleasure - and this acts as a lure
to tourists. More importantly, what sets these cities apart is rapid population and labour
force growth, a ‘flexible’ labour market, a different class structure, a different household
and residential organization, somewhat more limited state intervention, and the large number
of tourists who flock into these cities for fun.
In the absence of appropriate concepts and theories, this paper has merely been an
introduction to tourism urbanization. The need for greater conceptual clarification and
for far more empirical research is most apparent. Only with the aid of these concepts and
empirical data will it be possible to develop theory - an explanation of tourism urbanization.
Patrick Mullins, Department of Anthropology and Sociology,. The University of Queensland,
Queensland 4072, Australia
Tourism urbanization 34 1
References
Albertson, N. (1988) Postmodernism, postfordism, and critical social theory. Society and Space 6,
339-65.
Alt, J. (1976) Beyond class: the decline of industrial labor and leisure. Telos 28, 55-80.
Andrews, J.H. (1979) Some aspects of administration of the Gold Coast. Australian Journal of
Public Administration 38, 383-90,
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1987) Integrated register counts as at July 1987: employment size
by location, Queensland. Unpublished data, Australian Bureau of Statistics (Queensland Office),
Brisbane.
Bauman, Z. (1988) Sociology and postmodernity. Sociological Review 36, 790-813.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Caulfield, J. (1989) ‘Gentrification’ and desire. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26,
632.
Cooke, P. (1988) The postmodern conditior and the city. In M.P. Smith (ed.), Power, community,
and the city: comparative urban and community research, vol. 1, Transaction Books, New
Brunswick.
Dear, M.J. (1986) Postmodernispl and planning. Society and Space 4, 367-84.
Department of Social Security (1989) Unemployment claims: benejit types (claims interstate,
intrastate, and benefit transfers) by ofice (Table USB 140A). Unpublished data, Australian
Department of Social Security, Brisbane.
Featherstone, M. (1987a) Lifestyle and consumer culture. Theory, Culture and Society 4, 55-70.
_ _ (198%) Leisure, symbolic power, and the life course. In J. Horne, D. Jary and A. Tomlinson
(eds), Sport, leisure and social relations, Sociological Review Monograph, Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London.
Gertler, M. (1988) The limits of flexibility: comments on the postfordist vision of production and
its geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (NS) 13, 419-32.
Gottdiener, M. and A.P. Lagopoulos (eds) (1986) The city and the sign. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Graham, J. (1988) Postmodernism and marxism. Antipode 20, 60-6.
-, K. Gibson, R. Horvath and D. Shakow (1988) Restructuring in US manufacturing: the
decline of monopoly capitalism. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 78,473-90.
Gregory, D. (1989) Areal differentiation and postmodern human geography. In D. Gregory and
R. Walford (eds), Horizons in human geography, Macmillan, Houndmills.
Hall, P. (1987) Urban development and the future of tourism. Tourism Management 8, 129-30.
Halligan, J. and C. Paris (eds) (1984) Australian urban politics. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.
Harris, H. and A. Lipton (1986) A culture of despair: reflections on postmodern architecture.
Sociological Review 34, 837-54.
Harvey, D. (1985) The urbanization of capital. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
_ _ (1987) Flexible accumulation through urbanization: reflections on ‘postmodernism’ in the
American city. Antipode 19, 260-86.
Jones, M. (1986). A sunny place for shady people. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Lash, S. and J. Urry (1987) The end of organised capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Ley, D. and K. Olds (1988) Landscape as spectacle: world’s fairs and the culture of heroic
consumption. Society and Space 6, 191-212.
Lipietz, A. (1986) New tendencies in the new international division of labour. In A.J. Scott and
M. Storper (eds), Production, work, territory, Allen and Unwin, Boston.
Lovering, J. (1989) Postmodernism, marxism, and locality research. Antipode 21, 1-12.
McRobbie, A. (1988) The real Surfers Paradise story. Pan News, Surfers Paradise.
Meegan, R. (1988) A crisis of mass production? In J. Allen and D. Massey (eds), 7he economy
in question, Sage, London.
Miller, D. (1987) Material culture and mass consumption. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Moorehouse, H.F. (1983) American automobiles and workers’ dreams. Sociological Review 3 1 ,
403-26.
Mullins, P. (1979) Australia’s Sunbelt migration: the recent growth of Brisbane and the Moreton
region. Journal of Australian Political Economy 5, 17-32.
342 Patrick Mullins

___ (1984) Hedonism and real estate: resort tourism and Gold Coast development. In P. Williams
(ed.), Conflict and development, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
(1987a) The emergence of tourism urbanisation in Australia. Paper given at the Sixth Urban
Change and Conflict Conference, University of Kent at Canterbury.
(1987b) Community and urban movements. Sociological Review 35, 347-69.
___ (1990) Tourist cities as new cities: Australia’s Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. Australian
Planner 28, 37-41.
Pahl, R.E. (1989) Is the emperor naked? Some questions on the adequacy of sociological theory
in urban and regional research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13,
709 -20.
Pearce, D. (1987) Tourism today. Longman, Harlow.
Peet, R. (1989) Conceptual problems in neo-marxist industrial geography. Antipode 21, 35-50.
Pinch, S . (1989) Collective consumption. In J. Wolch and M. Dear (eds), The power ofgeography,
Unwin Hyman, Boston.
Preteceille, E. and J-P. Terrail(1985) Capitalism,consumption and needs. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (1988a) Major survey research programme: executive
summaries to June 1988. Gold Coast region. Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation,
Brisbane.
(1988b) Major survey research programme: executive summary to June 1988. Sunshine
Coast region. Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, Brisbane.
(1988~)An overview of tourism growth in the Gold Coast region. Research and Regional
Development Division, Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation.
___ (1988d) An overview of tourism growth in the Sunshine Coast region. Research and Regional
Development Division, Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation.
Saunders, P. (1986) Social theory and the urban question (2nd edn). Hutchinson, London.
Sawicki, D. (1989) The festival market as public policy. Journal of the American Planning
Association 55, 347 -6 1.
Scott, A.J. (1988) Flexible production systems and regional development. ZnternationaE Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 12, 171-86.
Smith, N . (1987) Of housing and yuppies: gentrification, social restructuring and the urban dream.
Society and Space 5 , 151-72.
and P. Williams (eds) (1986) Gentrification of the city. Allen and Unwin, Boston.
Smith, S . (1988) Defining tourism: a supply-side view. Annals of Tourism Research 15, 179-90.
Stanback, T. (1985) The changing fortunes of metropolitan economies. In M. Castells (ed.), High
technology, space and society, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Storper, M. and A.J. Scott (1989) The geographical foundations and social regulation of flexible
production complexes. In J. Wolch and M. Dear (eds), 7hepower of geography, Unwin Hyman,
Boston.
Urry, J. (1988) Cultural change and contemporary holiday-making. Theory, Culture and Society 5 ,
35-55.
Veblen, T. (1970) The theory of the leisure class. Unwin, London.
Walker, R. (1981) A theory of suburbanization. In M.J. Dear and A.J. Scott (eds), Urbanization
and urban planning in capitalist society, Methuen, London.
(1985) Is there a service economy? The changing capitalist division of labour. Science and
Society 49, 42-83.
Whitt, J.A. (1987) Mozart in the metropolis: the arts coalition and the urban growth machine. Urban
Affairs Quarterly 23, 15-36.
Whitwell, G. (1989) Making the market: the rise of consumer society. McPhee Gribble, Melbourne.
Zukin, S. (1988) The postmodern debate over urban form. Reory, Culture and Sociefy 5,431-46.