From a place-marketing perspective, the urban past offers a quarry of possibilities.  In historic cities, the built environment and its associations with former residents - in some cases whole communities - provides raw material from which 'heritage products' can be extracted and assembled (Ashworth 1994, 2001).  Usually, these are combined with contemporary themes, especially from the creative arts, sport, retailing, hospitality, conferences, festivals and other events.  Through interpretation and promotion, diverse elements of urban life and urbanity are integrated to appeal to target audiences, positioned or re-positioned to establish a distinctive, if not unique 'destination brand' (Morgan, Pritchard and Pride 2002).  In an increasingly volatile and globalized market, rival cities compete to attract target 'place-consumers' that may include high-spending visitors, as well as investors, property developers and high-income residents (Shaw 2003; Karmowska 1996, 2002)).  Historic urban landscapes - chance survivals of earlier phases of a city's development - may be aestheticized and exploited as valuable resources that contribute to quality of life for urban elites. Thus, they provide distinctive reference points that may feature prominently in strategies to secure sustainable competitive advantage.

In the early 1990s, Kotler, Haider and Rein (1993) commended a new maturity in place-marketing, as the more progressive city governments in North America eschewed crude civic boosterism and demonstrated a flair for competitive niche thinking, defining or re-defining themselves as distinctive places with specific advantages to target stakeholders.   In this context, they noted that 'places lose much when they neglect or destroy their historical land-marks' and highlighted the role of heritage: 'the task of preserving the history of places, their buildings, their people and customs, the machinery, and other artefacts that portray history' (ibid: 123, 209). Ashworth and Voogt (1994) suggest, however, that cities in Western Europe, with their more hierarchical systems of governance, have been less than comfortable with the idea that cities should compete with one another without reference to a national or regional plan. In post-communist Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the ideological shift from centralized master planning to the marketing of cities as destinations has been even more challenging.  UK authorities have always worked within much tighter legal and financial constraints than their US counterparts.  But, as the UK government reduced grant aid and encouraged 'municipal entrepreneurship', rivalry between UK cities became far more overt (Ward 1998).

UK city governments and urban development corporations in regions of decline have therefore looked to North American examples of leisure and tourism-led revitalization and re-imaging, especially for derelict industrial and waterfront areas.  As Urry (2002: 107) observes, rapid de-industrialization created a profound sense of loss, both for old technologies and the social life that went with them.  Furthermore, since much of this industry had been based in late C18^th and C19^th premises, a large stock of buildings became available for refurbishment and conversion to facilitate a 'heritage industry' that would trade, in particular, on nostalgic images of white working class life, exemplified by the Wigan Pier Heritage Centre, Lancashire (Hewison 1987).  Many present-day residents of inner city areas are, however, first or second generation immigrants to the UK from former colonies; some are recent refugees and asylum-seekers.  In some cases, areas close to the city centre have been home to successive waves of migrants, while the wealth that financed C18^th and early C19^th buildings and institutions (including the British Museum) in London, Liverpool and Bristol has associations with the slave trade that receive little prominence in heritage attractions.

Whose Place?  Whose Time?

A decade ago, as the European Union was making significant progress towards pooling of national sovereignty, Ashworth and Larkham (1993) assessed the implications for the presentation of heritage by its twelve member states that were soon to become fifteen.  They reviewed the multi-faceted use of the historic built environment and other cultural heritage; functions that ranged from the creation and maintenance of place-identities to heritage as a commercial resource for tourism development.  The authors argued that hitherto, the concept of the modern nation state had been underpinned by a national interpretation of cultural heritage that focussed in particular upon the built environment.  An inherently selective process, some features had been selected for re-creation or preservation for the nation; some historical incidents emphasised, others forgotten.  A more integrated Europe would, however, require a specifically European heritage interpretation. They noted, in particular, that little had been done to integrate the cultures of recent immigrants, from the Middle East, Africa, India and increasing numbers from other regions of Asia, all of whom were now citizens of Europe.  Many were disinherited as their heritage was ignored, or not shown in a favourable light (ibid: 269):

'Any consideration of a supra-national European heritage must regard this as a major problem.  It would be folly thus to disinherit minorities at a time when ethnic religious and other groups are responding to pressure by attempting to create more small nation states.  Instead, Europe requires a culturally and ethnically pluralist perspective.'

This paper considers the implications of adopting a culturally and ethnically pluralist perspective at the local level, especially in the re-presentation of historic districts on the fringe of city centers as landscapes of leisure and tourism.  In some cases, the very names of such localities have, for many years, signified the poverty of minority groups that have been marginalized, not only in the physical-spatial sense, but also socially and culturally at a distance from the brighter lights of the city center (Shaw and MacLeod 2000).  This is, nevertheless, an increasing recognition of the special contribution of migrants to creative life of European cities.  Landry and Bianchini (1995: 28) refer to the historic examples of Vienna, Antwerp and Amsterdam, while more recently in some areas of UK cities, Asian businesspeople have helped create a 24 hour/ 7 day economy.

Within the framework of the system of governance that has been created by the dominant culture, minority communities adapt and invest in the built environment.  In Europe, urban quarters where foreigners were allowed to settle and trade in commodities and services that were necessary to the urban economy have, in some cases, existed since medieval times.  These were generally located in districts symbolically outside the fortifications that surrounded established towns and citadels.  In a North American context, Anderson's (1991) one hundred-year longitudinal study of Vancouver's Chinatown, critically examines the hegemony of the European settlers over the area adjacent to the Central Business District that they called 'Chinatown'.  In the discourse of public policy, as well as in the local press, the district had long been regarded as a place of sinful and sinister activities.  In the mid 1930s, however, some representatives on the city government began to recognise that it had potential as a tourism attraction, an exotic place for sight-seeing, like its counterparts in San Francisco or London.  Indian-born anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1997: 33) has described such urban environments as characteristic elements of contemporary 'world cities' that are receptors of complex and volatile cultural flows.  He refers to these as ethnoscapes:

'landscapes of those who constitute the shifting world in which we live: tourists, immigrants, refugees, exiles, guest workers…'

Increasingly, micro-level place-marketing is being used to re-image ethnoscapes that are often very rich in historic buildings and their multicultural heritage, but poor in all other respects.  To make such areas accessible, safe, appealing to visitors more affluent than local population, municipalities - often in partnership with central government, landowners, developers and not-for-profit stakeholders - need to make a considerable investment to upgrade the public realm.  Especial attention is needed to make the 'gateway' entry points from the center more inviting for strolling pedestrians; in the case of larger cities, routes from transit stations or parking lots.  The influential economic guru Michael Porter (1995: 57) has argued that the thesis he previously set out in The Competitive Advantage of Nations (Porter 1980) is 'just as relevant to smaller areas such as the inner city'.  The role of the public sector should therefore move away from direct involvement towards facilitation of a favourable environment for business.  Since competitive markets for investment and development operate within as well as between cities, businesses should exploit the strategic advantages of inner city locations, prime examples being proximity to downtown areas, entertainment and tourist attractions, and the entrepreneurial talent among their immigrant communities. 

As in North America, the declining tax revenue of UK municipalities in inner city areas has not been met by government subsidy, a climate that has encouraged competitive niche thinking.  In historic cities this has included strategies to develop and promote leisure and tourism.  As well as generating badly-needed jobs, this may provide an economic rationale to refurbish and re-use older buildings, and a sustainable local tax base to improve run-down public infrastructure and community facilities.  'Urban renaissance' strategies based on built heritage are exemplified by Glasgow (Paddison 1993) and Manchester and Salford (Schofield 1996).  Some UK cities have cultivated a vibrant cosmopolitan image through attractions and events that owe their existence to immigrants from elsewhere in Europe as well as from other world regions.  Taylor (2000) discusses the renaissance of Ancoats 'urban village' as Manchester's historic 'Little Italy'.  Urry (2002: 144) describes a 'cultural re-interpretation of racial difference' in Bradford's guide to the Flavours of Asia that promoted Asian restaurants and sari centres, accompanied by a brief history of Asian religions and immigration to the city, while Birmingham's ethnic diversity is celebrated in its promotion of music, food and drink offered by its Irish, Pakistani, Chinese and Afro-Caribbean communities (Henry et al 2002).

In CEE countries, including Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, cities with rising unemployment and world class heritage, have also identified urban tourism, especially that which attracts international visitors from Western Europe and other OECD countries as something of a panacea.  For example, at an ICOMOS UK conference on 'Historic Cities and Sustainable Tourism', the former Tourism Minister of Poland, Marek Paszucha (1995: 44) spoke optimistically:

'…opportunities will present themselves for the care of historic buildings the creation of a higher technical standard, and also the possibility of the revitalization of the whole historic complexes in the town'.

He cautioned, however, that a firm plan would be necessary, since 'some threats to the historic places originate from the new economic situation of the free market' (ibid: 44).  Nevertheless, in the turbulent decade after communism, the regulatory powers of city governments have been weakened, and municipal finances have not been in a strong position.  In practice, their ability to plan and manage the growth of local visitor economy has therefore been somewhat limited.  For example, in the Czech Republic, the attractions of Prague’s built heritage stimulated rapid growth of international tourism.  Despite strong local opposition, the municipality could do little to prevent over-development of hotels and other tourism facilities that displaced residents from the Old Town and heightened social polarisation (Hoffman and Musil 1999).  Hall (2002) observes that the 're-branding' of some CEE destinations has been informed by a desire to portray ‘Europeanness’: a safe, stable and welcoming environment conducive to foreign investment, membership of the EU and tourism.  Conversely, the presentation of national heritage has, in some cases, been manipulated by agencies of the state to disinherit ethnic, religious and cultural minorities.

Ten years on, it seems an appropriate time to revisit Ashworth and Larkham's (1993) inclusive vision of built heritage; to consider how the multicultural reality of European cities can be communicated to visitors.  The paper considers the role of city governments in creating a climate conducive to businesses that have the potential to revitalize such areas, promoting built heritage and cultural attractions, alongside bars, restaurants, nightclubs and other entertainment.  Will promotion of a visitor economy based on multicultural heritage themes benefit low income residents and small firms?   Or will it cause their displacement?  Will the process of re-imaging encourage celebration of cultural and ethnic diversity?  Or will re-branding of inner city areas require de-selection, editing out, disinheritance of some cultures past or present?   The authors reflect upon the continuity of migration in some historic European cities from medieval times to the present day, with reference to two case studies of Spitalfields in East London, and the Kazimierz district of Cracow over decade 1992-2002.

Spitalfields, East London 

In medieval London, the 'Liberties' or settlements just beyond the city wall were outside the jurisdiction of the mayor and burgesses, as well as the powerful guilds that regulated craft production and other trades.  These provided physical space for marginalized groups and institutions whose presence was unwelcome within the city precincts.  Thus, they accommodated successive waves of migrants from other areas of the British Isles as well as foreigners, some of whom came at the invitation of the monarch, and were tolerated because of the functions they performed.  As its name suggests, Spitalfields developed in open land around a monastic foundation that cared for the sick, its location being just to the East of the important approach road through Bishopsgate, the main thoroughfare from the North to the city's only river crossing at London Bridge.  From the C14^th, cloth-makers from the Low Countries settled, originally at the behest of King Edward III (1327-77) to improve indigenous textiles, but in 1381 their economic success and foreign customs made them the object of mob violence during the Peasants' Revolt (Cox 1994: 143):

'[M]any Flemmynges loste here heedes… namely they koude nat say Breede and Chese, but Case and Brode'.

In the following centuries, other migrants arrived in Spitalfields.  Many were people displaced by political and religious persecution or extreme poverty elsewhere in Europe.  From the C16^th, the Sephardic Jews escaping the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal included some who prospered as money-lenders and merchants, but their safety was not guaranteed until the defeat of King Charles I and England's brief republic or 'Commonwealth' (1649-1660).  Social historian Roy Porter (1994: 132) comments: 'Continental anti-Semitism encouraged Jews to flee to London, though Jew-bating was not unknown in England, fed by fears that immigrants would undercut labour.'  Protestant Huguenots, expelled from France, gave the word refugee to the English language, and Spitalfields became the largest French settlement.  Their numbers greatly increased after 1685, and their contribution to the urban economy included silk-weaving and fine instrument-making (Museum of London 1985).  By the early 1700s, the area was by far the greatest center of the textile industry in the capital, with up to 50,000 masters and employees (Inwood 1998: 332).  Their wealth was invested in fine Georgian town houses in streets that bear French names to this day.  After two or three generations, however, they ceased to be distinguishable minority, and industrialization of craft production in the C19^th devastated their original skilled trades. Most moved away, but others took their place in Spitalfields.  The expression ethnic and cultural succession is well illustrated by the Neuve Eglise, built in the early 1700s, a non-conforming church that stands at the corner of Brick Lane and Fournier Street (Hebbert 1998: 173):

' The original congregation declined as the French-speaking minority intermarried and became absorbed, until in 1809 the church was taken over by the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews.  In Victorian times, it served as a Methodist chapel until the influx of north European Jews to Spitalfields at the turn of the century.  In 1898 it was converted into the Great Synagogue.  From the 1960s, the Jewish congregation dwindled, and the building closed again.  It was reopened in 1976 as the London Jamme Masjid, one of the largest mosques in the capital, with a capacity for 4000 worshippers in the prayer hall.'

Until the 1950s, few people in the UK appreciated the merit of C18^th town houses, let alone non-conformist church buildings.  A small circle of architects and scholars that had formed the Georgian Group in 1937 was nevertheless, championing the heritage of this period.  Now an officially-recognized 'expert' group, they argued against demolition and redevelopment, a notable success being their campaign to save Nash's Carlton House Terrace behind The Mall (Delafons 1997).  The Georgian Group's philosophy of townscape extended protection beyond the Listing of individual buildings (where Listed Building Consent is required for demolition or alteration).  They advocated the preservation, restoration and conservation of complete terraces, crescents and squares in order to maintain their integrity as attractive and graceful features of the contemporary urban landscape.  The Survey of London (1957) reflected a growing recognition of the value of such built heritage in its assessment of Spitalfields and Mile End Town.  It noted that the area's 'evil reputation' and lack of interest from developers meant that a remarkable number survived into the mid C20^th, albeit in a poor condition, neglected and unloved. 

Jacobs (1996: 75) observes that these Georgian houses, with their trademark mansard roofs that accommodated silk-weavers' looms, signified 'a more elegant, more prosperous and acceptably foreign' Spitalfields.  Thus, it became desirable to recover something of the 'good society' of the Huguenots, known for their love of flowers, caged birds and intellectual pursuits (Survey of London, 1957: 7).  In 1969, using its new powers under the Civic Amenities Act 1967, LB Tower Hamlets, the area's local authority, designated three Conservation Areas covering the heart of Spitalfields around (but not including) the late Victorian fruit and vegetable market building.  In 1976, the Secretary of State upgraded the heritage status of Fournier Street to an 'Outstanding Conservation Area', thus confirming its national importance (LB Tower Hamlets 1979).  Nevertheless, the continuing loss of the C18^th Huguenot heritage outside the Conservation Areas, as well as the poor state of many within them, prompted the formation of the Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust (1977).  A not-for-profit organization, it was founded by the Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava, and other eminent supporters of the Georgian Group.  Between 1977 and 1987, the Trust bought neatly forty houses to be re-sold or leased to 'appropriate' buyers, and refurbished. 

Acting as an 'unofficial inner city development organization', the Trust claimed credit for successful restoration of nearly 80 per cent of the nearly Georgian buildings  (Blain 1989: 9).  As the Jewish population which had been the dominant community in Spitalfields and adjacent Whitechapel from the late C19^th moved away in the 1970s, Bangalis acquired some Georgian residences that had established use rights as  workshops for the textile and leather trade.  Jacobs (1996: 86) comments that the other new community of white, middle class gentrifiers, who desired a nostalgic return to a restored Georgian enclave, 'produced an environment that was bathed in a rhetoric of co-habitation, but was antagonistic to the Bengali occupation of the area… It was not surprising that the Trust's activities worked to squeeze Bengali garment workshops out of Georgian houses and into more "suitable" premises and places', with the aim of 'restoring' them to residential use. The Trust was not, however, wholly successful in their attempt to draw this sharp spatial divide, and a number of Asian businesses still occupy Huguenot town houses.  The graceful affluence of these enclaves, by now inhabited by 'bohemian' white gentrifiers was, however, increasingly at odds with the squalor and visible neglect of the public realm in adjacent streets along and to the East of Brick Lane. 

According to the government's social indicators, Spitalfields in the 1970s and 1980s remained one of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the whole of the UK.  Racial tension increased as white male activists of the right-wing National Front harassed and assaulted Asians in conscious imitation of the anti-Semitic blackshirts that marched through East London in the 1930s, and Brick Lane became the focus of intimidation which continued into the mid 1990s.  The majority of the new immigrants, escaping famine and poverty in their homeland, found accommodation in low quality, often high-rise social housing.  To address the severe problems of its inner city neighborhoods, LB Tower Hamlets successfully bid for £7.2 million government funding for a program to revitalize Spitalfields and adjacent Bethnal Green 1992-7.  In 1995, a further bid secured £11.4 million 1997-2002 to 'strengthen links with the City and encourage diversification of the local economy', especially into leisure and tourism.  The vision for the 'Cityside' program would 'pioneer a new model of regeneration'.  Its aims (LB Tower Hamlets 1996: 1) were to:

i)      establish the area as one of the most attractive and accessible business locations in the capital;

 ii)    develop opportunities between the corporate sector and micro and small firms;

 iii)   expand the tourism potential of the area in order to stimulate economic activity, drawing on London's strength as a world city;

 iv)    encourage greater integration of economic development in order to both harmonise and add value to existing regeneration initiatives;

 v)   break stereotypical images of local people by supporting their entry and progression into the corporate sector and related local employment fields.

In 1997, Cityside set up a 'town management' scheme whose remit included the organization and promotion of events associated with the local Asian population: Bengali New Year, Brick Lane and Curry Festivals.  Businesses and residents from the area's diverse 'communities' were represented on the steering group, and it was through this more broadly-based forum that 'Banglatown' came to be used a brand for the area, especially to promote the new festivals and Asian restaurants.  London's daily newspaper Evening Standard was unimpressed: 'Has no one ever told the council that "Banglatown" began life as a white-yob insult?' (Barker 1998), but in general, the name became accepted as a neutral place-descriptor, as Cityside's Director Andrew Bramidge (2002) commented:

'There was a lot of sensitivity about "changing the name of the area", but it was never about re-naming Spitalfields - a distinctive locality since medieval times.  Rather, it was marketing tool to get people to come and visit the area…A minority of people probably did want that - comparing it to Chinatown in the West End - but our view is that this was never an appropriate model.  I think that it was quite an effective strategy because today you regularly get references to things happening in Banglatown '.

A key aim of Cityside's vision was 'to achieve a quantum leap in the area's status as a visitor/ cultural destination' (LB Tower Hamlets 1996: 13).  Brick Lane was also identified as a 'Developing Cultural Quarter' by the City Fringe Partnership (1997-2002).  It would thus be promoted to 'tourists as well as employees and business visitors, helping to enhance the City's reputation as the premier European business location' (City Corporation 1996: 17).  In this re-imaging of Brick Lane, special attention would be paid to the main 'gateways' or access points, including its pedestrian subways to improve perceptions of personal safety.  The program thus included the erection of Eastern-style ornamental gateways, signage and brighter street lamps the design of which incorporated 'Asian' motifs.  Brick Lane's restaurants would be imaginatively promoted to non-Asian customers, especially businesspeople from the City.  The vision recognised that the area would need at least one 'must see' attraction and identified two vacant heritage buildings from the Victorian era as suitable sites: Truman's Brewery and the nearby 'Moorish Market' (ibid: 14):

'[A] Cultural Heritage Centre will provide the area with its missing flagship attraction.  It will foster a sense of pride amongst the local community and promote an image of London as an exciting and vibrant multicultural city…The unique and beautiful Listed building in Fashion Street, inter-connected with the above, provides almost 100,000 square feet and could provide a major "bazaar/ souk".  This will act as a key motor to the local economy, providing the missing "ethnic" shopping experience'.

These two proposals were soundly based, but neither materialised during Cityside's five-year programme as the site owner had plans for more profitable uses.  In 1992, Grand Metropolitan sold its redundant brewery to a local entrepreneur, who  refurbished the buildings, gradually converting them to a lively mix of uses.  Ten years later these include 250 studios for cultural industries, two bars/ nightclubs, cafés, galleries, speciality retailers and an exhibition centre.  The same businessman acquired the Moorish Market, and has recently applied for planning permission to convert it to studios and loft-style apartments.

The success of Brick Lane as a centre for ethnic cuisine under the 'Banglatown' brand exceeded expectations.  A survey carried out for Cityside noted that in 1989 there were only eight cafés/ restaurants in Brick Lane, with a few additions in the early 1990s.  Between 1997 and 2002, however, this rose to 41, of which 16 had opened 2000-2, making Banglatown 'home to the largest cluster of Bangladeshi/ 'Indian' restaurants anywhere in the UK' (Carey 2002: 12).  All the restaurants (as opposed to cafés) reported that their clientele was 'overwhelmingly white', with a clear majority (70%) in the 25-34 age group and predominantly male (ibid: 4).  The boom was facilitated by relaxed planning policies that allowed local shops to be converted to restaurants.  Furthermore, the central area of C19^th buildings at the heart of Brick Lane was designated a 'Restaurant Zone' where restaurants, cafés, hot food outlets, public houses and bars would be 'favourably considered' (LB Tower Hamlets 1999).  By 2001, however, street canvassing by waiters indicated an excess supply, a problem that became even more pronounced with the downturn after 9/11 and the reluctance of some visitors to enter a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood. 

The Council called a public meeting on the issue at which some restaurant owners argued that licences should be extended beyond midnight to boost trade.  However, a number of the white, middle class residents of the Conservation Areas to the west of Brick Lane argued that litter and anti-social behaviour by late-night customers was already a serious nuisance.  Others argued that conversion to restaurants that commanded higher rents contributed to the loss of local shops.  Unfortunately, a stormy exchange led to physical blows and required police attendance.  LB Tower Hamlets then commissioned a survey of over 1500 residents from 'all communities', which confirmed widespread opposition to the proliferation of bars and restaurants  and to any extension of opening hours (Agroni 2001).  At the time of writing, the Restaurant Zone remains in force, but LB Tower Hamlets (2002) has recently used its planning powers to protect the southern section of Brick Lane as a 'Local Shopping Parade', a policy that is fully supported by Cityside.

The conversion of the previously run-down, mainly C19^th streetscape of Brick Lane to night clubs, bars and restaurants has undoubtedly brought wealth to Bengali-owned businesses and  job opportunities.  Carey (2002) estimated that around 400 workers were employed in Brick Lane restaurants, of whom 96% were of Bangladeshi origin, 92% lived in the Borough, and 99% were men.  Nevertheless, some problems identified in recent years have shed doubt on the wisdom of over-reliance on this sector. A third of restaurant owners expressed concern over staff turnover, and many felt that low pay and shifts made the work unattractive to younger Bengalis. Some said that it was risky to hire young local Bengali males who might be heroin or crack cocaine users, so they preferred to employ middle-aged men.  Bengali women seemed extremely unwilling to work as waitresses, regarding restaurants as a largely male domain. Gender inequalities in the use of public space resulting from the visitor economy have also become apparent.  Planning Officer Andrea Ritchie reported (2002) that in a recent focus group facilitated by the Borough:

'Older Bengali women stressed the point that they had to be escorted by their husbands and that they could not walk along Brick Lane at all because there are just too many men there, with all the visitors and [restaurant] staff.  So, although it is their area, they are socially excluded from it'.   

Kazimierz, Cracow

In 1335, King Kazimierz the Great founded the new town that bears his name on the Vistula.  With an impressive market area and all the privileges of a burgh, the monarch's aim was to make it one of the great trading centres of Europe that could compete with other cities, including Cracow on the other side of the river.  Over the turbulent centuries that followed, the place incorporated both Christian and Jewish cultures, for under the Oppidum Iudaeorum it became one of Europe's largest and oldest continuous districts of legalized Jewish settlement.  Czech, German, Spanish and Italian Jews migrated to Kazimierz to live alongside Roman Catholic Poles, developing their trades and crafts, especially wood and metalworking.  Thus, they contributed to the area's wealth, as well as to its unique identity.  Under royal protection, they established their communities with many synagogues and prayer-houses, a few of which survive to this day.  Now a World Heritage site, the historic built environment of Kazimierz reflects the richness of both traditions that co-existed for six hundred years, as well as its economic vicissitudes, one its most stable and prosperous periods being the C16^th and early C17^th.  Eventually, in the C18^th, it was incorporated as a district within the municipality of Cracow, by the end of the C19^th, with the town walls partly demolished and the river-arm that once separated them drained, it was physically united as a continuous urban settlement

In 1939, the Jewish population of Cracow was over 63,000 (about a quarter of the city's population) with a high proportion living in the Kazimierz district (Duda 1991), a presence that was to be terminated abruptly and tragically by the Nazi invasion (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996: 153).  In 1941, all Jews in the city were moved to the nearby ghetto district from where they were taken to the concentration camps.  As Ashworth (1996: 59) has commented, Kazimierz has become a memorial site to the atrocities of the Holocaust, but it is also an urban district whose residents have suffered poverty and social disadvantage.   In the post-Communist era of the 1990s, its potential was recognized as a special district requiring physical as well as social and economic revitalization, although sensitivity would be required to reconcile this with its complex duality and memorialization of the former Jewish inhabitants. As Ashworth (1996: 59) comments:  

‘If the atrocity element was the only consideration then it would be relatively easy to accord a paramount status to the national and international memorial function. It was however such a widespread phenomenon throughout European cities even containing a majority of the population in some Polish cases that it merges into more mundane issues of the local revitalisation and renovation problems of inner city districts. It is the clash of the sublime and mundane, the sacred and the secular, the international and the local that provides much of the complexity now facing the city planners as they embark upon renewal in such districts.’

During the Communist era, Kazimierz lost much of its former identity, and its built heritage deteriorated.  Although it remained one of the most densely populated districts of Cracow, much of its housing was rented to its poorest citizens, including migrants displaced from the eastern territories lost in 1945.  Though to the 1990s, its physical environment was in visible neglect, and with rents controlled and set at a very low level, landlords had little incentive to carry out even the most basic repairs.  Soon after the end of the Communist period, the need for a strategic approach was recognised.  Within the municipality in 1992, a taskforce was set up with responsibility for revitalization.  Then, with funding from the EU, a team of planners and other officers seconded from the cities of Cracow, Edinburgh and Berlin carried out the specially commissioned study in 1993-94.  The team prepared a joint report on the urban renewal and conservation of the built environment of Kazimierz, helping to identify the necessary legal, administrative and financial framework.  The aim was to formulate a comprehensive program to revive the run-down but potentially attractive area, and for creating an effective balance of residential, commercial and visitor uses (Cameron, Zuziak 1994).  The team produced the Kazimierz Action Plan, with short and medium-term horizons:

-    0-2 years (mostly marketing, partnership building and first regeneration works)

-    0-5 years (completions of landscaping of the selected sites, finalising particular regeneration projects).

Unfortunately, there was considerable uncertainty over financial support from the municipality and other public bodies, and it was difficult to set measurable objectives and milestones.  Furthermore, the Detailed Local Master Plan for the Historic Quarter of Kazimierz (1987) adopted during the Communist era remained in force as the regulatory framework for land use planning.  In practice hardly any of the Action Plan's recommendations were implemented as a report for UNESCO confirmed (Brzeski 2000):

‘After five years from the realisation of the Action Plan, Kazimierz Trafas, the chairman of the former team for Kazimierz revitalisation could mention only a few recommendations included in the plan that have already been completely realised.  Other recommendations have been either partly undertaken or never taken into account.'

Perhaps the main value of the project was to identify the potential factors that would be critical to the future development of the district, the role of public participation in this process, and the role which effective place-marketing would play.  During the 1990s, several other EU-funded projects and proposals followed.  This included several seminars and conferences, and ECOS II which resulted in an international competition for the riverfront of the Vistula, and a Geographical Information System (GIS) project to map Kazimierz, but these have had no more impact on the processes and pattern of development than ECOS I.  As with Spitalfields, revitalization has occurred in particular enclaves within the district.

Over the past decade, organisations devoted to Jewish culture and heritage preservation have played an important role in re-establishing the district’s former traditions, the ‘Centre for Jewish Culture’ being a notable example.  Established in 1993 under auspices of Judaica Foundation, and with substantial financial support of the United States Congress, the Marc Talizmann Foundation, the local authorities and the Polish Ministry of Culture, this institute is housed in the former C19^th prayer-house.  The nearby Lauder Foundation was also established, its primary aim being to promote and cultivate the Jewish religion, traditions and celebrations in Poland.  The small Jewish community in Cracow is active in promoting this Jewish culture.  To enhance this presence, they are currently considering the idea of inviting families from the Ukraine to come to live in the area (Jakubowicz 2003).  Unexpectedly, however, one of the most potent agents of change has been tourism inspired by cinema, as the area of Kazimierz around Szeroka featured prominently in Spielberg's (1993) film Schindler's List.   In pre-war times, like Brick Lane, the high street of the Jewish quarter, Szeroka and the surrounding area has thus attained celebrity status and readily included in itineraries of Poland from elsewhere in Europe and from North America, as well as independent travellers and participants in festivals and other events. Other sites and sights visited by international tourists include the monument to the Holocaust in the centre of Szeroka, the Jewish cemetery, the synagogues and prayer-houses, and mikveh (the old building of Jewish ritual baths).  

Since the mid-90s, many other buildings in this part of Kazimierz, mostly dating from the C19^th, have found new commercial uses as 'Jewish-style' cafés, bookshops, restaurants and hotels.   These prominently display signs in Hebrew, and some offer 'traditional Jewish entertainment’.  Like the cultural institutions described above, however, nearly all are managed and staffed by Polish Catholics.  Furthermore, genuine Kosher food is not available, except at one hotel where it is delivered in boxes from abroad.  Each year, the Festival of Jewish Culture takes place, with around 7,000 attending the final concert.  A few minutes walk from Szeroka, the area around Plac Nowy has become a popular evening entertainment venue for younger Cracovians. With many bars and nightclubs, its somewhat studied decadence is therefore juxtaposed with memorialization of the 'Old Jewish Quarter'.  A third sub-district of the World Heritage site has also been marked out on the contemporary tourist map around Plac Wolnica (the old market place of Kazimierz) and on the opposite side of Krakowska Street.  Historically, the life of this predominantly Catholic part of Kazimierz took place around its three great churches and the Old Town Hall (now ethnography and folk museum).  Although these impressive urban landmarks feature in guidebooks, and are sign-posted by the municipality for the benefit of visitors, as yet there is little evidence of revitalisation in this area.   Although this might be explained in rational terms, such as transport and relative accessibility, it appears that the development of urban tourism is subject to the vagaries of processes that are very difficult for city governments and other public agencies to anticipate or manage.  

A key issue in the district is the number of heritage buildings that are of 'uncertain ownership' under the program of restitution.  Most are properties that were owned by Jews who either died in the Holocaust, or else survived and left Poland, and whose descendants are entitled to reclaim them.  As a result of disputed claims and uncertain ownership, some important historic buildings on prominent sites have not been maintained, and some are now in an unsafe condition.  Despite this urban blight, and the district’s previous reputation as a low-rent district, pockets of affluence emerged in the mid 1990s.  Indeed, today some of the most expensive apartments in Cracow are in Kazimierz.  Since the ECOS I report was published, there have been some significant changes in the social mix of Kazimierz, as tenants on low, controlled rents - especially the elderly and poor – are often forced to leave the area.  In recent years, this has accelerated, and in 2005 the rent controls are due to end.  To some extent, the valorization of older property in Kazimierz has been an unintended consequence of a state-funded renovation program administered by SKOZK (Social Committee for Cracow Monuments Preservation).  However, gentrification has not always resulted in the renovation of older buildings, as some of the most sought-after accommodation is in new-build low-rise apartments built to a high standard in a retro-style on infill sites.

The process of commercial, as well as residential gentrification has also been boosted by the voluntary efforts to improve the area by a local association of small businesses.  Its initiatives have included a “clean up Kazimierz” campaign to reduce garbage on streets and pavements, late opening of shops and galleries every first Thursday of the month, and a summer soup festival.  Higher education and cultural institutions have also located here.  As in Spitalfields and other inner urban areas of West European cities, the new residents include a mix of artists, scientists and young professionals, who are attracted by the accessible location, ambience and now fashionable address.  Most of the district’s former craft industries have also been displaced. Traditionally famous for its wood and metalworking, these have rapidly declined.  Without effective planning control over change of use, or support from the state, craftspeople are now unable to pay rents comparable to restaurants and souvenir shops that have located here because of tourism.  Thus, the ECOS plan for Kazimierz, with its emphasis on maximizing social and economic benefits - especially to its disadvantaged residents and to the district’s established craft industries - has held very little sway.  The Detailed Local Master Plan appears increasingly irrelevant to a post-Communist urban economy; the vagaries of market forces prevail

Despite the overall lack of progress, one notable achievement of ECOS I was establishment in 1994 of the Local Kazimierz Office: an agency that has worked closely with the local community.  Its activities have focussed in particular on social revitalisation.  Its main strength was as a stabile point of contact for residents of the districts, as well as for potential investors.  With modest support from the municipality, and from the Prince of Wales Foundation in the UK, it instigated projects that have been widely recognised as important for the community life of Kazimierz during a difficult period of transition.  These included promotional activities, surveys to gauge public opinion, and public consultation on key issues that affected community life, educational projects that drew from the area’s rich history, such as ‘Future for the Past’ that encouraged participation from young adults, in particular.  Unfortunately, in the late 1990s, the activities of Kazimierz Office received very little support from the City Council (Walczak 2002; Brzeski 2000):

‘The Kazimierz Office does not function effectively at present. It is considered by its staff to be largely powerless and ineffective, with a budget sufficient only to support its own staff overheads and minor promotional initiatives (including newsletter), but without the authority or political support to implement the Action Plan and to achieve its community objectives. It was commented by others that the amount of international effort put into setting up of the Kazimierz office is out of all proportions to its achievements.’

In 2002 the Kazimierz Office was forced to close, but some of its volunteers have set up 'Friends of Kazimierz', an organisation which attempts to continue some of the initiatives, including a quarterly magazine Kazimierz, published in English as well as Polish.  Other publications discuss local issues and promote events to visitors and to the local community.  One issue of increasing concern is the effect of the booming 'Old Jewish Town' and late-night economy on the everyday lives of residents.  Some pavement cafés and restaurants in Kazimierz are open long after those in the Market Square in Cracow have closed, and on warm summer evenings their customers tend to stay outside all night.  At weekends, the pavements are lined with parked cars , and young people stand around, drinking and listening to the loud music from the cafés.  In the daytime, the public spaces are occupied by groups of weary tourists, and mothers from the local neighborhood have to walk some way from their homes to find a quiet area for their children to play.  There are also wider concerns that the smartly renovated apartments and business premises will attract wealthy owners and internationally branded retail outlets, causing rents to rise well beyond the means of established residents.  Those who are not displaced will also feel increasingly excluded, for example the new 'café society' will encroach upon and perhaps displace the area's local street markets.

Ten years on, few of the objectives outlined in the ECOS I report have been achieved.  Despite its status as a World Heritage site, and as a district identified for special treatment in the Master Plan, regulation has been ineffectual.  And, as yet Cracow City Council has offered very little financial support for the local policies and initiatives that they, in principle, espouse.  Market forces have thus prevailed, and the pace, location and type of investment by the private sector have been hard to predict.  Only time will tell whether revitalization through leisure and tourism will renovate the historic urban landscape and provide the promised economic and social benefits for established residents and their small businesses.  The municipality's Director of the Department of Architecture has voiced a positive view (Kozlowski 2000):

‘I hope that the charm of Kazimierz and its unique beauty will be paramount, and that investors will be continue to overcome the obstacles, including the lack of regulatory and legal clarity'.

The somewhat laissez-faire approach of the past decade has, however, produced a mosaic of 'scenes' within Kazimierz, sub-areas that cater for different segments of leisure demand: cheap bars for students, Jewish-style hotels and restaurants for international tourists, high class cuisine for the urban elite.  Poland's unstable national economy and the current uncertainties over global tourism demand, may also be compounded by the vagaries of fashion.  The Friends of Kazimierz and other community groups express concern that at some stage, a downturn in some or all of these will leave the district's heritage buildings empty and neglected once again.  In the next few years, such concerns and doubts regarding the sustainability of leisure and tourism-led revitalization in the 'showpiece' district of Kazimierz will have to be addressed by the new Mayor and City Council, elected on a program of reform in November 2002.   The ‘ten years after’ program has been announced.  According to the new Deputy Mayor, this will feature social planning, as well as heritage revitalization (Zuziak 2003).

Conclusion

The present circumstances of the two case study areas seem very different, but there are also some common themes.  Both Spitalfields and Kazimierz have medieval origins as urban quarters where immigrant communities were permitted to settle and establish their trades.  Over the following centuries, through the early modern period to the present day, this rich multicultural heritage has left its imprint on the urban landscape.  In these and other European cities, such places have complex place-identities that contrast with the 'mainstream' image of the national 'heritage industry'.  For many years associated with the poverty of other cultural and ethnic groups, they may contain a large stock of heritage buildings, deemed worthy of conservation because of their architectural merit and/ or historic value.  Typically, however, there are serious problems of dereliction and poor maintenance.  The public realm of streets, community facilities and other infrastructure is also worn out and visibly neglected, as the local tax base is low, and city governments have other priorities.  Over the last decade, the opportunity to market and promote an emerging visitor economy has been seen as something of a panacea to revitalize such areas.  Their built heritage has thus been exploited as raw material from which a distinctive heritage 'product' can be developed, the buildings saved and restored. 

In the examples described above, particular places associated with one minority of a particular historical period - or else an exotic theme built around the contemporary inhabitants - are marked out, and promoted to appeal to target audiences.  Within each bounded enclave, considerable effort is invested to create a safe environment for visitors; a suitable ambience conducive to leisure and tourism consumption.  This 'monocultural' approach may help to establish a strong unifying theme that can readily be communicated to prospective place-consumers.  An optimistic scenario is that the development of a thriving visitor economy generates badly-needed income and jobs for inner city residents, compensating decline older trades, and raising business confidence.  New leisure and tourism-related uses for vacant or under-used heritage buildings may facilitate the restoration of neglected urban landscapes.  The creation of a tourism enclave also provides the rationale, and resources to upgrade the public realm, to the benefit of benefit local users and visitors alike.  Less tangibly, the process may raise 'local pride' in areas where low self-esteem has long been reinforced by negative stereotypes of inner city neighborhoods and their minority residents. 

The case studies also serve to illustrate some difficult issues and problems for municipalities that wish to raise the profile of such disadvantaged urban areas through micro-level place-marketing to visitors.  The significant cultural legacy of such areas may be far from obvious to the casual observer, especially short-stay international tourists.  Likewise, the creative activities of current inhabitants may be hidden from view.  From a marketing perspective, a strong and simple theme may be the most effective way of establishing a positive place-brand and playing down less favourable associations.  But, as Judd (1999) has emphasised, with reference to urban tourism in North America, an essentially false reality may be created through re-imaging inner city areas as constructed 'tourist bubbles' where visitors move, as in a theme park: a process described by Zukin (1995: 28) as 'pacification by cappuccino.'   In both case studies, there is now an emerging 'mosaic' of enclaves: places presented as 'of' a particular time or group of migrants.  Thus, the visitor crosses from the Roman Catholic monastic and ecclesiastical heritage of Gothic churches to a re-presentation of a pre-war 'Jewish ghetto' with monuments to the Holocaust; from elegant Georgian terraces of the Huguenot silk-weavers and merchants to vibrant 'Banglatown'.

A less benign view is that the transformation of public realm into such visitor-oriented enclaves alienates those among established local communities who perceive little personal benefit, marginalising if not excluding some groups.  In historic cities that have a heritage of immigration, there are essential difficulties of interpreting complex urban place-histories and territorializing ethnic-geographies that are seldom static.  Like holiday resorts in less developed countries that become the playgrounds of more affluent foreign tourists, visitors and wealthy residents may valorize historic inner city areas.  In this aestheticized urban landscape of multiple realities, the 'host' population may itself become the object of curiosity, a theater of extras: actors whose role is to animate the scene (Shaw and MacLeod 2000).  Ironically, the self-conscious sign-posting and marking out of cultural and ethnic difference creates an anodyne homogenous landscape of 'pure consumption', disconnected from life of the local population.  The unleashing of market forces may result in an unequal distribution of costs and benefits, and rising property values will drive out low-income residents and small firms, including local shops and craft industries that once provided a sense of place as well as utility and employment.

De-coupled from established systems urban governance and land use planning, urban tourism may take on momentum of its own.  City governments and other public agencies may offer a clear vision of desirable outcomes, and some may invest in facilitating infrastructure, including the 'soft 'infrastructure of place-marketing in its widest sense.   Nevertheless today, in CEE as well as Western European countries, much depends on the commercial decisions of private-sector stakeholders, especially landowners and developers.  In practice, policy-makers and planners can seldom predict with any certainty where, when or what type of investment will actually occur, far less its cumulative impact on the lives of local residents and communities.  As the EU prepares to extend its boundaries to include new member states in Central and Eastern Europe in 2004, Ashworth and Larkham's (1993) vision of an inclusive, pan-European heritage remains elusive.  A culturally and ethnically pluralist perspective is a challenging notion, especially in divided cities where pasts as well as presents are deeply contested.  But, without such sensitivity, there is a very real danger that urban tourism, while helping to save and conserve vulnerable built heritage, may exacerbate rather than de-fuse tensions in inner cities with turbulent social histories, where violent conflict has periodically re-surfaced. 

References:

 Agroni (2001) Brick Lane Restaurant Zone Consultation Report, November, London;

Aitchison, MacLeod and Shaw (2002) Leisure and Tourism Landscapes: social and cultural geographies, London and New York: Routledge;

Anderson, K. (1995) Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press;

Appadurai, A. (1997) Modernity at Large: Cultural Aspects of Globalisation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press;

Ashworth, G. and Voogt, H. (1994) 'Marketing and Place Promotion' in Gold, J. and Ward, S. (Eds) Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions, pp. 39-52, Chichester: Wiley;

Ashworth, G. (1994) 'From History to Heritage; From heritage to identity; in search of concepts and models', in Ashworth, G. and Larkham, P. Building a New Heritage: Tourism, culture and identity in the New Europe, London and New York: Routledge;

Ashworth, G. (1996) 'Realisable potential but hidden problems: a heritage tale from five Central European cities' in Purchla J. (Ed.) The Historical Metropolis: A Hidden Potential, Cracow: International Culture Centre;

Ashworth, G. (2001) 'Heritage and Tourism: Managing the Resource Crisis', in Purchla, J. (Ed)  From the World of Borders to the World of Horizons, Cracow: International Cultural Centre;

Barker, P. (1998) 'London is no place for this ghetto mentality', Evening Standard, 3^rd August, p 11;

Blain, D. (1989) 'A Very Brief and Very Personal History of the Spitalfields Trust', in M. Girouard, D. Cruickshank, and R, Samuel (eds.) The Saving of Spitalfields, London: The Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust, pp. 1-31;

Bogdanowski J. (1993) Methodological Problems in Urban Landscape Reconstruction, A Town Case of Historic Town: Kazimierz in Poland, Revista Scientifica ICOMOS Conservacion de Ciudades Pueblos y Barrios Historicos,Comite Nacional Espanol de ICOMOS, pp.218-229;

Bramidge, A., Director Cityside Regeneration (2002) personal interview with authors Spitalfields, London, 7^th October;

Brzeski, W.J. (Ed.) (2000) Prospects for the Development of Kazimierz – What Hope for Revitalization in the Future?, Cracow: Fundacja Krakowski Instytut Nieruchomości;

Cameron, D., Zuziak, Z. (Eds) (1994) Kazimierz Action Plan: a European Union ECOS Funded Project carried out by the Cities of Cracow, Edinburgh and Berlin, 1993-94, Cracow: Viator Co.;

Carey, S. (2002) Brick Lane, Banglatown: A Study of the Catering Sector, final report, Research Works Limited, Hendon, London: prepared for Ethnic Minority Enterprise Project and Cityside Regeneration;

City Corporation (1996) Revitalising the City Fringe: inner city action with a world city focus, London: City Corporation;

Cox, J. (1994) London's East End: Life and Traditions, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson;

Dąbrowski, J. (1957) Kraków – studia nad rozwojem miasta (Cracow – studies on the city development), Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie;

Delafons, J. (1997) Politics and Preservation: A policy history of the built heritage 1882-1996, London: Spon;

Duda E. (1991) Krakowskie Judaica (Cracow’s Judaica), Warsaw: PTTK Kraj;

Fanstein, S. (2001) The City Builders: Property development in New York and London 1980-2000 (second edition), Kansas: University Press of Kansas;

Hall, D. (2002) Branding and national identity: the case of Central and Eastern Europe, in Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (eds) Destination Branding: Creating the unique destination proposition, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann;

Hebbert, M. (1998) London: More by fortune than design, Chichester: Wiley;

Henry, N., McEwan, C and Pollard, J. S. (2002) Globalisation from below: Birmingham - postcolonial workshop of the world? Area, volume 34, number 2, June, pp. 117-127;

Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry, London: Methuen;

Inwood, S. (1998) A History of London, London: MacMillan

Jacobs, J. M. (1996) Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the city, London and New York: Routledge;

Jakubowicz, T. (2003) President of the Jewish Community in Cracow, personal interview, Cracow, 28^th March;

Judd, D. (1999) 'Constructing the Tourist Bubble', in Judd, D. and Fainstein, S. (Eds.) The Tourist City, pp. 35-53, New Haven and London: Yale University Press;

Karmowska, J. (1996) Z warsztatu badan spolecznych nad promocja w wybranych miastach europejskich (From the practice of social research on the promotion of selected European cities), in Frysztacki, K. (Ed) Z zagadnien socjologii stosowanej, Cracow: Universitas, pp.165-179

Karmowska, J. (2002) Cultural Heritage as an Element of Marketing Strategy in European Historic Cities, awaiting publication after 5^th EC Conference Cultural Heritage Research: a Pan-European Challenge, Cracow

Kotler, P., Haider, D. and Rein, I. (1993) Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations, New York: The Free Press;

Landry, C. and Bianchi F. (1995) The Creative City, London: Demos; ;

LB Tower Hamlets (1979) Fournier Street Outstanding Conservation Area, Planning and Conservation Policy;

LB Tower Hamlets (1996) Eastside Challenge Fund Submission;

LB Tower Hamlets (1999) Brick Lane Retail and Restaurant Policy Review, 1^st March;

LB Tower Hamlets (2002) Brick Lane Retail and Restaurant Policy Review, 9^th January;

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., Pride, D. (2002) Destination Branding: Creating the unique destination proposition, Oxford: Butterworth and Heinemann;

Museum of London (1985) The Quiet Conquest: the Huguenots 1685-1985, London: Museum of London publications;

Orbasli, A. (2000) Tourists in Historic Towns: Urban Conservation and Heritage Management, London and New York: Spon;

Paddison, R. (1993) City Marketing, Image Reconstruction and Urban Regeneration, Urban Studies, volume 30, number 2, pp 339-350;

Paszucha, M. (1995) 'Managing Places - Cracow', in Historic Cities and Sustainable Tourism, ICOMOS UK conference, pp. 39-53, Bath: ICOMOS

Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: The Free Press;

Porter, M. (1995) The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City, Harvard Business Review, May - June, pp. 55-71;

Porter, R. (1994) London: A Social History, Harmondsworth: Penguin;

Ritchie, A. (2002) Planning and Community Liaison Officer, LB Tower Hamlets, personal interview with authors, Bow Road, London, 27^th September;

Rożek, M. (1990) Jewish Monuments of Cracow’s Kazimierz, Cracow: Oficyna Cracovia;

Schofield, P. (1996) Cinematic images of a city: Alternative heritage tourism in Manchester, Tourism Management, volume 17, number 5, pp. 333-340;

Shaw, S. and MacLeod, N.(2000) Creativity and Conflict: Cultural Tourism in London's City Fringe, Tourism, Culture and Communication, volume 2, number 3, pp. 165-175;

Shaw, S. (2003) The Canadian 'World City' and Sustainable Downtown Revitalisation: Messages from MontrJal 1962-2002, British Journal of Canadian Studies (awaiting publication);

Smith, V. L. (1989) (Ed.) Hosts and Guess: The anthropology of tourism, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press;

Survey of London (1957) Spitalfields and Mile End Town, volume XXVll, London: The Athlone Press for London County Council;

Taylor, I. (2000) European ethnoscapes and urban redevelopment: the return of Little Italy in 21^st century Manchester, City, volume 4, number 1, pp. 27-42;

Trafas, K. (2003) Head of Cracow Team for Kazimierz Action Plan 1993-94, personal interview Cracow, 29^th March ;

Tunbridge, J. and Ashworth, G. (1996) Dissonant Heritage: The management of the past as a resource in conflict, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons;

Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies, second edition, London: Sage;

Walczak, M. (2002) Vice President, Friends of Kazimierz Society, personal interview, Cracow 27^th November;

Ward (1998) Selling Places: The Marketing and Selling of Towns and Cities 1850-2000, London: Spon;

Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities, Cambridge, Massachusetts and Oxford: Blackwell;

Zuziak, Z. (2003) Vice-mayor of Cracow responsible among others for urban and economic development of the City, personal interview, Cracow, 23^rd March..