Adrian GUACHALLA GUTIERREZ

WestminsterResearch
http://www.westminster.ac.uk/research/westminsterresearch
The role of cultural flagships in the perception and experience

of urban areas for tourism and culture.
Case study: The Royal Opera House in Covent Garden.
Adrian Francisco Guachalla Gutierrez

School of Architecture and the Built Environment
This is an electronic version of a PhD thesis awarded by the University of

Westminster. © The Author, 2011.
This is an exact reproduction of the paper copy held by the University of

Westminster library.
The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of

Westminster aims to make the research output of the University available to a
wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the authors and/or
copyright owners.
Users are permitted to download and/or print one copy for non-commercial
private study or research. Further distribution and any use of material from
within this archive for profit-making enterprises or for commercial gain is
strictly forbidden.
Whilst further distribution of specific materials from within this archive is forbidden,
you may freely distribute the URL of WestminsterResearch:
(http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/).
In case of abuse or copyright appearing without permission e-mail

repository@westminster.ac.uk
THE ROLE OF CULTURAL FLAGSHIPS IN THE PERCEPTION
AND EXPERIENCE OF URBAN AREAS FOR TOURISM AND
CULTURE.
CASE STUDY: THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE IN COVENT

GARDEN.
ADRIAN FRANCISCO GUACHALLA GUTIERREZ
PhD 2011
THE ROLE OF CULTURAL FLAGSHIPS IN THE PERCEPTION
AND EXPERIENCE OF URBAN AREAS FOR TOURISM AND
CULTURE.
CASE STUDY: THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE IN COVENT

GARDEN.
ADRIAN FRANCISCO GUACHALLA GUTIERREZ
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements of the University of Westminster
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
March 2011
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents 1
Abstract 7
Acknowledgements 9
List of abbreviations 10
List of tables and figures 11
1. INTRODUCTION 12
1.1. Research area and rationale 13
1.2. Outline of chapters 16
2. CULTURAL TOURISM, CULTURAL TOURISTS AND THE 18

TOURIST’S EXPERIENCE
2.1. Introduction 18
2.2. Cultural tourism 18
2.3. The cultural tourist 23
2.4. The tourist experience 30
2.4.1. Sensorial experience of place 36
2.4.2. The tourist’s performance 40
2.4.3. Co tourism 43
2.4.4. Cultural distance and depth of experience 45
2.5. Conclusions 51
3. URBAN AREAS FOR TOURISM AND CULTURE 53

3.2. Urban precincts for tourism 53
3.3. The physical perspective 56
3.4. The clientele perspective 59
3.5. The business perspective - entertainment 62
3.6. The business perspective – culture 63
3.7. The output perspective – creativity 68
1
Table of Contents
3.8. Summary of perspectives on urban areas for tourism and culture 69

3.9. Conclusions 73
4. CULTURAL FLAGSHIPS 75
4.2. Flagship developments 76
4.3. Cultural flagships 78
4.4. Cultural flagships as monuments 79
4.5. Cultural flagships as icons 81
4.6. Museums as cultural flagships 83
4.7. Cultural flagships for the performing arts 86
4.7.1. Arts consumption in cultural flagships for the performing arts 91
4.8. Conclusions 95
5. COVENT GARDEN AND THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE: 97

HISTORY, FACES, CHALLENGES AND PHASES
5.2. The birth and evolution of the urban precinct 97
5.3. A place for theatres, performance and an opera house 98
5.4. A place of many faces 102
5.5. Proposed redevelopment of the area 105
5.6. Perspectives on Covent Garden 107
5.6.1. Covent Garden as an urban village 107
5.6.2. Covent Garden as a cultural quarter/cluster/creative milieu 108
5.6.3. Covent Garden as an entertainment district 110
5.7. Redevelopment of the Royal Opera House 112
5.8. Conclusions 118
6. METHODOLOGY, METHOD AND DATA ANALYSIS 120

6.2. Methodological approach 120
6.2.1. The social constructivist paradigm 121
2
Table of Contents
6.2.2. Social constructivism from the ontological and epistemological

perspectives 122
6.2.3. The facets and dilemmas of social constructivism 123
6.2.4. Constructivism and social actors 124
6.2.5. The anti foundational position of social constructivism 126
6.2.6. Social constructivism in tourism research 128
6.3. Method: Semi-structured interviews 129
6.3.1. The challenges of semi-structured interviews 132
6.4. Interview design 135
6.5. Fieldwork design 139
6.5.1. Selection of interviewees 139
6.5.2. Time of interview 141
6.5.3. Interviewing locations 141
6.5.4. Pilot test 144
6.6. Language considerations: Cross cultural qualitative research 145
6.7. Data analysis 152
6.7.1. Approach to data analysis 156
6.7.2. Coding as an essential task 159
6.7.3. Field notes as complementary sources of data 162
6.7.4. Computer assisted qualitative data analysis 164
6.7.4.1. Praxis 165
7. EVIDENCE ANALYSIS 172

7.2. Visitor characteristics 174
7.2.1. Nationality. 175
7.2.2. Gender 176
7.2.3. Age 177
7.2.4. Occupation 177
7.3. Findings related to the area 178
7.3.1. Preconceptions 181
3
Table of Contents
7.3.1.1. Covent Garden’s name as a literal implication 181

7.3.1.2. Media exposure 182
7.3.2. Motivation to visit 184
7.3.2.1. Central location 184
7.3.2.2. Shopping, eating and drinking 186
7.3.2.3. Performing arts and vibrancy 186
7.3.3. Experience of place 187
7.3.3.1. Roaming, exploring and discovering 187
7.3.3.2. Commercial experiences 188
7.3.3.3. Cultural experiences 189
7.3.3.4. Eating, drinking and social experiences throughout the day 189
7.3.3.5. Different experiences throughout different locations 191
7.3.4. Perception of the area 191
7.3.4.1. Urban environment based elements 193
7.3.4.1.1. Physical attributes 193
7.3.4.1.2. Streets shape and pattern 194
7.3.4.1.3. Contrast between locations 195
7.3.4.1.4. Gentrification 196
7.3.4.1.5. Outdoor settings 196
7.3.4.2. Human based elements 197
7.3.4.2.1. Visitors and co tourism 197
7.3.4.2.2. Place for relaxation and pedestrianistation 198
7.3.4.2.3. Diversity and cosmopolitanism 201
7.3.4.3. Activity based elements 202
7.3.4.3.1. Commerce and nature of shops 202
7.3.4.3.2. Street busking and quality of performance 203
7.3.5. Summary of relationships between place making elements in the area 205
7.4. Findings related to the flagship 208
7.4.1. Perception 211
7.4.1.1. Physical appearance 211
7.4.1.2. Contrast with other stand alone flagship buildings 212
7.4.2. The flagship as an institution 214
4
Table of Contents
7.4.2.1. Implications of the name, elitism and exclusivity 215

7.4.2.2. Access initiatives and the importance of experiencing the flagship
from the inside 216
7.4.3. Reciprocity between the area and the flagship 219
7.4.3.1. Covent Garden without an Opera House 220
7.4.3.2. The flagship and the visitors it attracts 222
7.4.3.3. Cosmopolitanism and the importance of an opera house 223
8. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 227

8.2. Visitors 227
8.2.1. Background - Age 227
8.2.2. Depth of experience 229
8.2.3. Background – Nationality and cultural distance 231
8.3. Environment 233
8.3.1. Sub-areas within the precinct 233
8.3.2. Relaxation and performance 235
8.3.3. People as place making elements 237
8.4. Flagship 240
8.4.1. Stereotypical views of Opera Houses 240
8.4.2. Significance 242
8.4.3. Cultural asset for the country 243
8.4.4. The flagship’s social input to the area 245
8.4.5. Access and audience development 245
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 250

9.1. What does the term ‘Covent Garden’ represent for the visitor? 250
9.1.1. Covent Garden as a concept 250
9.1.2. Covent Garden as a precinct 251
9.1.3. Covent Garden as a flagship. 252
5
Table of Contents
9.2. Motivation to visit, experience and perception of place 253

9.2.1. Performance 253
9.2.2. Consumption 255
9.2.3. Relaxation 257
9.2.4. Built environment 259
9.3. The Royal Opera House’s influence on the perception and experience of
Covent Garden 261
9.4. Critical appraisal of methodology and limitations of the study 263
9.5. Scope for further research 266
9.6. Encore 268
10. SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 271
APPENDIX A: Informed Consent Form 290

APPENDIX B: Permission to conduct the study 291
APPENDIX C: Examples of field notes generated throughout the data
collection stage 292
APPENDIX D: Data analysis and coding using QSR N*Vivo 293
APPENDIX E: Themes derived from the initial set of categories 297
APPENDIX F: Further evidence of Findings 299
6
Abstract
ABSTRACT
This research aims to explore how a cultural flagship influences the cultural
tourist’s perception and experience of a well established urban area for tourism
and culture, taking the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden as a case study.
Covent Garden, as an important part of London’s tourist portfolio is a case study
of interest because of its wide array of land use that makes it a popular area for
tourism and cultural consumption, with distinctive architecture, heritage and a
wide range of attractions and leisure opportunities. The Royal Opera House,
established at the core of the area, stands as a world renowned provider of high
culture and has a rich history and heritage of its own, yet it evolved over time
parallel to the area, to the extent that Covent Garden’s name is often used to refer
to either the precinct or the flagship. It was recently subjected to a redevelopment
scheme aimed towards providing the building with a fresh architectural front and
added facilities. This raises many questions regarding the role that an old cultural
flagship made new plays in the well established tourism precinct’s sense of place
and draw towards the cultural tourist. To address these matters, a social
constructivist approach has being adopted, through which the tourist’s
mechanisms of interpreting their surroundings were explored and the nature of
their cultural experiences in Covent Garden understood. 306 semi-structured
interviews were conducted throughout six different locations in the area and inside
the flagship building aiming to explore the tourist’s motivation to visit London
and Covent Garden, the nature of their experiences and their perception of both
the area and the flagship, and how the latter exerts an influence of their perception
and experience of place.
The evidence analysis has revealed that the Royal Opera House does not have a
strong influence on the tourist’s perception and experience of Covent Garden,
which is seen as a place for shopping and relaxation rather than high culture
despite the efforts made to provide it with a more attractive architectural front and
its policies for social inclusion. However, other visitors perceive it as a pinnacle of
high culture depending on their level of appreciation for opera and ballet.
7
Abstract
Furthermore, the notion of cultural distance (McKercher, 2002) exerts an

influence in these perceptions as the area’s visitors tend to relate their
surroundings to what they are familiar and unfamiliar with. The visitors’ age also
plays an important role in their perception and experience of place as the data
collected revealed that the older age groups tend to have a more inquisitive
attitude in regards to their tourist experiences, which can also be understood as
deeper. On the other hand, younger tourists are more likely to focus their visit on
leisure and entertainment. Regardless of this, the presence and behaviour of other
visitors in the area also prove to exert an impact on the tourist’s perception and
experience of place. They tend to engage in communal activities such as watching
street entertainment and provide each other with behavioural cues that manifest
themselves in a slower pace of movement and a relaxed attitude when
experiencing the precinct. This is also related to the area’s built environment and
urban characteristics as the streets are pedestrianised, allowing for visitors to roam
and explore their surroundings. However, Covent Garden can be seen as a
multifaceted precinct as the area’s different locations vary in terms of their size
and scale as well as the leisure and cultural opportunities available. The area’s
Piazza is an open space characterised by the presence of the market, street
entertainment and outdoor eating and drinking facilities that grant it with a
continental and cosmopolitan ambience. Other locations such as Seven Dials
provide the visitors with other types of experiences given the smaller scale of its
streets. The Royal Opera House is perceived as a valuable cultural asset for the
country and its name is associated with elitism, exclusivity and monumental
architecture. However, the building’s physical presence in the area does not
provide the same visual stimuli that other stand alone flagship developments such
as the Sydney Opera House provide for example. Therefore, its importance and
role in the tourist’s perception and experience of place depends on the individual’s
awareness of the building and personal interest in its cultural products.
8
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my utmost gratitude to the University of Westminster for

funding this research and providing me with every source of support and
resources to conduct this study.
My supervisors’ experienced advice and guidance played a fundamental role in

every stage of this research and I would like to thank them for believing in me and
the relevance of this study from the beginning. Professor Robert Maitland’s rigour
has led me to constantly develop and enhance my skills as a researcher and his
words of encouragement have been a constant source of motivation. It would not
have been possible for me to complete this research without Dr. Andrew Smith’s
guidance and support either, for which I am deeply grateful.
I would also like to thank Dr. Ilaria Pappalepore, not only for providing me with
academic advice and assistance but also for being a good friend. My fellow
researchers and friends at the Research Centre have also provided me with very
valuable support.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my mum, my nan and my auntie as the three
pillars who, from a great distance, carried me through challenging times.
It is my wish that this work is seen as a reflection of God’s love, power, honour
and glory.
9
List of Abbreviations
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation

CG Covent Garden
DCMS British Department of Culture, Media and Sport
ROH Royal Opera House
SOLT Society of London Theatre
UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
10
List of Tables and Figures
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
CHAPTER 2
Table 2.1– Traditional and novel forms of cultural consumption (Smith, 2007)
Figure 2.1 – Tourist typology according to motivation and depth of experience
(McKercher, 2002)
CHAPTER 3
Table 3.1– Summary of models of understanding of urban areas for tourism
CHAPTER 6
Figure 6.1 – Map of the area and interviewing locations
Figure 6.2 – Distribution of interviews conducted in English and in Spanish
Figure 6.3 - Data analysis summary
Table 6.1 – Topic guide
Table 6.2 – Initial set of categories
Table 6.3 – Themes derived from the initial set of categories
CHAPTER 7
Table 7.1– Number of interviews in the area according to location
Figure 7.1 – Interviewees’ nationality
Figure 7.2 – Interviewees’ gender
Figure 7.3 – Interviewees’ age
Figure 7.4 – Interviewees’ occupation
Figure 7.5 – Place making system
Figure 7.6 – Summary of relationships between place making elements in the area
11
Communication is more than just words.
Communication is architecture.
Because of course it is quite obvious
that a house which would be built without that will,
that desire to communicate,
would not look the way your house looks today.
- Tad Danielewski
12
Introduction Chapter 1
1. INTRODUCTION
The understanding of the role of tourism and culture in urban precincts is complex
since many elements are involved in the process of place making and the debates
that they generate. Covent Garden, as an important part of London’s tourist
portfolio, is a case study of interest because it is a well established tourism
precinct with a variety of land uses and a recently redeveloped opera house.
Centuries ago, it was London’s first planned square. Since then, it has evolved
becoming a popular area for tourism and cultural consumption, with distinctive
architecture, heritage and a wide range of attractions that act as catalysts for
tourism. For these reasons, it is important to explore the tourist’s experiential and
perceptual processes, and how they assign meanings to the urban settings that they
visit considering the diversity of elements that can influence their perception and
experience of the area.
The Royal Opera House is firmly established at the core of Covent Garden as a
world renowned provider of high culture with a rich history and heritage of its
own. Its attachment to an area that celebrates popular culture such as street
performance is evident in the fact that Covent Garden’s name is often used
interchangeably to refer to either the precinct or the flagship. It was subjected to a
redevelopment scheme to provide the building with a fresh architectural front and
added facilities. This raises many questions regarding the role that an old cultural
flagship made new plays in a well established tourism precinct’s sense of place
and its appeal to the cultural tourist.
Academic research on cultural flagships and their impact on cultural tourism

seems to mainly focus on the development or regeneration of urban areas for
tourism and novel flagships such as the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (Plaza,
2000a) and the Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam (Mommaas, 2004). This
represents an opportunity for this research to contribute with new knowledge
concerning the role of a well established cultural flagship in a popular urban area
for tourism and culture characterised by a variety of place making elements. This
12
will also contribute to the understanding of London’s status as a world city for
tourism. For this purpose, the overall aim of this research is to evaluate the role of
the Royal Opera House in the perception and experience of tourism in Covent
Garden. To attain this overall aim, the following research questions have been
determined:
• What does the term ‘Covent Garden’ represent for the visitor?
• What motivates tourists to visit Covent Garden?
• How is a visit to Covent Garden experienced by the visitor?
• How is Covent Garden perceived by the visitor?
• How does the Royal Opera House influence the perception and
experience of Covent Garden?
1.1. Research area and rationale

This study focuses on a cultural flagship and its influence on an area that is
popular because of its cultural offer in terms of performing arts (high and popular)
along with the presence of other elements related to leisure and culture. Law
(2002:152) states that ‘the wider impacts of the arts have become more important
in the thinking about policy making, whether this is economic impact (revenue
and jobs for example), role in urban regeneration and place marketing (and
thereby assisting in the attraction of investment), enhancing lifestyle opportunities
for mobile executives, the use of public arts to improve the appearance of the
environment or the potential to attract tourists’. In this sense, performing arts can
have a positive impact upon a district, a destination and the host community
because they act as catalysts for tourism. Tourists may visit the area due to its
vibrancy and cultural offer, and engage in other experiences that they may have
not sought originally because of their clustered availability. Myerscough (1988)
stresses the importance of tourist expenditure in the arts, which is not only directly
related to the consumption of the arts product but also the additional expenditure
that shopping and related peripheral activities represent. These activities are often
catalysed by flagship developments, as indicated by Leslie (2001:224) who
proposes that the development of infrastructure for cultural tourism increase levels
of employment in the cultural sector, promote conservation and refurbishment
13
efforts in the built environment, aid in the process of creating an image or brand
for a destination and has the potential of improving the quality of life of the local
population (as noted by Richards, 2001).
The link between performing arts and tourism is also appraised by Gibson and
Connell (2005:265), who indicate that ‘local and national authorities have
identified music tourism as a ready means of stimulating income flows and
revitalising moribund places (…) countries and regions are marketed –indeed
invented- through the lyrics and symbols that music has created’. The authors
introduce ‘symbols’ as an issue of consideration to understand the relationship
between the arts and tourism. This suggests that infrastructure developed for the
arts, such as an opera house, can play an active role in the projection of images
that speak of a vibrant cultural sector (Wing Tai Wai, 2004).
Law (2002) identifies three main reasons for the increased use of culture,
entertainment, sport and special events in tourist destinations. These are: the
perception of such endeavours bringing prestige to a destination, their
implications to the local quality of life, and the feasibility of including such
activities in the main tourism product of cities. The author (p. 127) also indicates
that ‘there has been a movement to make the arts wider and more inclusive by
widening access, developing arts centres in communities, broadening the
definition of art to include new and more technical arts and also popular culture,
embracing the production of the arts as well as their consumption’. This statement
highlights a growing trend towards cultural consumption that is materialised by
the development of venues that act as cultural suppliers and is applicable to this
research as the study focuses on a significant flagship development for the
performing arts. However, the fact that the cultural product delivered by the opera
house consists mainly of ballet and opera performances add complexity to the
study, as these art forms are perceived to be exclusive and elitist (DiMaggio and
Useem, 1978). In relation to this, Smith (2007a) states that ‘different models of
planning are being developed, such as cultural planning, which takes into
consideration people’s lifestyles, cultural associations, and identity so that
14
projects have resonance with local communities, and discursive planning, which
produces a sense of place, place-identity, and common cultural schemes’ (as cited
in Richards, 2007:107). This suggests that culture and cultural promotion can be
closely linked to a precinct’s urban identity but its consumption is subject to the
tourist’s background and personal preferences, indicating the need to conduct
research that aims to understand what factors influence this process of cultural
consumption.
Covent Garden is an important urban element of London’s tourism portfolio as

part of the destination’s world famous West End, which can be related to Heilbrun
and Grey’s (2001:358) views on the provision of culture and its impact upon
destinations by noting that ‘a strong cultural sector does help to create a
favourable image of a city’. The authors (p.358) also cite Cwi and Lyall (1977),
who highlight that cultural attractions are ‘an important indicator of the general
level of a community’s civility and culture. The presence of these attractions
suggests that a community is progressive, resourceful, concerned about itself and
energetic’. All these considerations indicate that flagship developments for the
arts can have implications for the physical and cultural landscape of a destination,
and they also speak of a vibrant cultural sector attracting tourists to the areas
where they are established. These views support the relevance of this research as
it is important to understand how a cultural flagship projects messages about
London’s cultural offer, how it influences the perception and experience of its
urban environment and how the other elements of the area intervene in these
processes.
The economic contribution of London theatre to the country’s economy is

approximately £2 billion per annum and around 41,000 jobs depend on London’s
theatre (Society of London Theatre, 2010). SOLT (2010) also reported that some
£505 million was generated by theatre ticket sales in London in 2009 (as noted by
UK Trade and Investment, 2010), indicating the importance of understanding the
attraction of visitors and tourist activities in the urban areas that host this cultural
offer. SOLT (2010) also highlights that the West End’s contribution to the
15
national economy is not only related to cultural consumption, but it holds a strong
link with other income generated through additional expenditure involved in the
performing arts sector. Burns (2009) states that seven out of ten theatregoers make
use of eating and drinking facilities and indicates that ‘almost 15,000 restaurant
tables would be empty each night without London theatre’. This suggests that in
order to understand how a cultural flagship affects the perception and experience
of place, these facilities and other experiential opportunities in the area also need
to be explored. The fact that 15% of theatergoers pay for hotel accommodation
(Burns, 2009 as quoted by SOLT, 2010) confirms the link between performing
arts and tourism, further supporting the relevance of this study. Another type of
performing arts that is found in the case study area is street busking, which can
potentially have an important influence on an area’s sense of place (Arkette, 2004)
and on the way tourists behave and experience an urban precinct (Kushner and
Brooks, 2000). Therefore, this research will focus on a variety of elements related
to the area’s built environment, the significance of the cultural flagship for the
area and the destination, the role played by other place making elements in the
perception and experience of place, and issues related to the tourist’s personal
background that also plays a role in these processes.
1.2. Outline of chapters

This thesis is structured in 11 chapters that establish a theoretical framework
(Chapters 2-4), present secondary data related to the case study area and flagship
(Chapter 5), propose an appropriate methodological approach and data collection
method (Chapter 6), present the findings gathered through primary research
(chapter 7) and discuss their relationships and implications (Chapter 8). This will
lead to a series of conclusions and recommendations as presented in Chapter 10.
A more detailed outline of the content of the chapters is as follows:
• Theoretical framework (Chapters 2, 3 and 4): Definitions of cultural
tourism are provided in Chapter 2 along with a review of different
typologies and perspectives of understanding the cultural tourist’s
experience and perception of place. Chapter 3 focuses on urban areas
for tourism and culture by reviewing different models of understanding
16
tourism precincts by focusing on different aspects that characterise

them. Chapter 4 reviews a series of concepts related to flagship
developments and their potential impacts on tourism, urban precincts
and destinations.
• Case study (Chapter 5): A historical and analytical exploration of
Covent Garden as a place for commerce, tourism and culture is
provided and the different models of understanding similar areas are
applied to the case study followed by a review of the Royal Opera
House’s significance for the area and recent redevelopment.
• Methodology, method and data collection (Chapter 6): The rationale
for applying a social constructivist approach for this study is provided
in the first sections of the chapter followed by how this approach is
applied through semi-structured interviews as the chosen data
collection method. Issues related to interview design and cross cultural
qualitative research are also presented followed by an exploration of
different data analysis techniques and the approach adopted to
undertake this task which also includes use of specialised qualitative
data analysis software.
• Evidence analysis and discussion (Chapters 7 and 8): The finding in
relation to both the area and the flagship building are presented in
chapter 7, which explore the data collected in terms of the
interviewees’ motivation to visit the area and their perception and
experience of both Covent Garden and the opera house. The
relationships and implications of these findings are discussed in
chapter 7 and applied to the area’s visitors, the area and the flagship.
• Conclusions and recommendations (Chapter 9): On the basis of the
evidence analysis and their subsequent discussion as indicated above, a
series of conclusions are drawn upon in terms of what Covent Garden
represents for the visitor and how the area’s different place making
elements effectively influence their perception and experience of the
precinct. A critical reflection of the method applied is provided
followed recommendations for further research.
17
Cultural Tourism, Cultural Tourists and the Tourist’s Experience Chapter 2
2. CULTURAL TOURISM, CULTURAL TOURISTS AND THE

TOURIST’S EXPERIENCE
2.1. Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to establish a theoretical framework related to
cultural tourism in an urban context given that this research focuses on the
influence of a cultural flagship in the cultural tourist’s perception and experience
of Covent Garden. For this purpose, different definitions and approaches to
cultural tourism will be reviewed along with notions related to the cultural tourist,
from motivational, behavioural and psychological perspectives. The experience of
urban cultural tourism will also be explored by focusing on cultural distance and
depth of experience. This conceptual framework will strengthen the theoretical
understanding of the research area in regards to the cultural tourist and how they
perceive and experience object and place. The next chapters will review concepts
related to urban areas for tourism and cultural flagships, which will further
enhance this understanding in order to apply a well informed approach to the
research design and data collection methods adopted for this study.
2.2. Cultural tourism

In order to establish an understanding of tourism within a cultural context, it is
important to explore different approaches and perspectives by which cultural
tourism can be viewed. Richardson and Fluker (2004) identify cultural resources
as an important pull factor for a tourism destination playing an influential role in
the visitor’s perception and experience of place by stating that ‘cultural tourism
can be viewed essentially as an opportunity for tourists to experience, understand
and appreciate the character of a place, its richness and diversity’ (p. 76). These
considerations imply that cultural tourism is a means of access to a destination’s
cultural resources that certain types of visitors may seek and consume. Another
definition of cultural tourism is provided by Richards (2001:37), who proposes
that cultural tourism is ‘the movement of persons to cultural attractions away from
their normal place of residence, with the intention to gather new information and
experiences to satisfy their cultural needs’. This statement implies that the tourist
18
has cultural needs to satisfy which can also be understood as push factors
motivating the individual to engage in tourist experiences. These considerations
can be linked to Maslow’s (1964) theory in regards to the hierarchical nature of
human needs, described by Beech and Chadwick (2006:103) as ‘one of the main
content theories of motivation’. They will be discussed more thoroughly while
revising concepts referred to the cultural tourist in further sections and are useful
to this study as they include the matter of needs and wants, and links them to the
cultural tourist’s motivation to visit urban precincts. As indicated by the definition
above, Richards (2001) places an emphasis on cultural attractions, and notes that
these can be ‘heritage sites, artistic and cultural manifestations, arts and drama’.
This statement points out the wide range of cultural attractions that are featured in
the cultural tourism portfolio of a destination; indicating the need to focus on
different aspects of this type of tourism considering that, for example, heritage
resources for tourism have different characteristics and markets than the
performing arts sector. In this sense, focused studies are required on each type of
cultural tourism to generate specialised knowledge in the field. However, it is
clear that cultural resources have the potential of providing visitors with different
types of tourist experiences. This applies to the tourist portfolio of urban areas for
tourism and culture, such as Covent Garden, where there are different attractions,
some related to culture to different extents, that attract visitors of a wide array of
interests and motivations to visit, experiencing and perceiving the precinct in
different manners.
These resources leading to cultural experiences can be associated with the notion
of cultural productions. MacCannell (1976) refers to cultural productions as both
the processes related to the creation of an attraction as well as the final product to
be consumed (as cited in Richards, 2001). In this sense, the different cultural
attractions that visitors seek in an area like Covent Garden involve a series of
actors and processes that ultimately deliver the products that visitors are seeking.
On the other hand, the authors also agree that it is important to denote the
differences between the wide range of sectors that these productions may be
related to. Love (2007:11) refers to Wales’ Strategy for Cultural Tourism and
19
identifies these sectors as ‘performing, visual and literary arts, museums, built and
social heritage, historic landscapes and gardens, crafts, architecture, design, film,
religion, broadcasting, food and sports’. The author emphasises the ample scope
of resources for cultural tourism that need to be taken into individual
consideration to understand the different types of experiences that they provide to
visitors. In relation to cultural productions, Boniface (1995) indicates that the
relationship between the different elements involved in cultural tourism consist of
the interaction between the ‘user’ comprising groups of cultural tourists with
different needs and motivations, ‘the presenter’ who the author (p. 28) defines as
‘the person or persons immediately involved in making a cultural provision for the
visitor’; and the ‘item’ conceptualised as the attraction itself whether this is
tangible or intangible. This framework is useful for this research because it
highlights the elements that the study should focus on, which in this case are the
area’s visitors (users), the cultural flagship (presenter) and culture itself (item).
It is also important to note that these sectors have the potential of interacting and
complementing one another in certain areas where cultural attractions and
resources are concentrated. Such is the case of Covent Garden and its array of
experiential opportunities1 that are associated with different types of cultural
resources such as a rich heritage in terms of its built environment and performing
arts of different types. Notwithstanding the need to have a clear focus and
development strategies for the cultural resources used by cultural tourism, Love
(2007:11) concludes that the inclusion of these resources in a tourism strategy can
‘encourage repeat visits to destinations, help destinations develop unique,
compelling market positions and present an appealing imagery’. The author
implies that cultural tourism can aid the development of a destination’s image and
suggests that the different sectors of cultural tourism can work as an integral and
structural network whilst a visit to one type of cultural attraction can induce
visitation to other attractions not necessarily of the same nature as the first. These
notions are applicable to Covent Garden as the variety of cultural resources
1
Throughout the thesis ‘experiential opportunities’ are understood as the different experiences
available in the area which tourists have the option to undertake
20
attracts visitors that may have experiences that differ from the ones they originally
sought because of their concentration within the same tourist precinct.
These considerations identify different types of culture that may be consumed,

perceived and experienced within the same tourist area. Hughes (2000) proposes a
scheme to distinguish the different forms and manifestations of cultural tourism,
indicating that ‘universal cultural tourism’ refers to the attributes associated with a
destination because of its cultural characteristics, such as sense of place or local
linguistic accent. Secondly, the author proposes the notion of ‘wide cultural
tourism’ which is likely to be experienced by visitors seeking a general overview
of the destination’s cultural offer without discriminating specific cultural
suppliers. This notion also relates to the multifaceted nature of cultural tourism,
which can be linked to the ‘cultural needs’ mentioned above. Regardless of the
type of cultural tourism sought and experienced by the tourist, it is the place’s
culture that is being assimilated in different forms. Thirdly, Hughes (2000)
indicates that ‘narrow cultural tourism’ starts to envisage discrimination between
the cultural resources that tourists seek, such as historic sites, museums,
performing arts and others. Finally, the author refers to ‘sectorised cultural
tourism’ as the sum of the specific resources attached to the narrowed sections
mentioned above. This perspective is helpful for this study because it addresses
the miscellaneous nature of cultural tourism as an activity, noting that cultural
resources can be consumed generally or specifically. In other words, tourists in
the case study area may visit the precinct seeking the get an overview of its
cultural ambience and offer, or they may seek specific cultural experiences.
In order to further understand cultural consumption in the context of cultural

tourism, Smith 2007a) evaluates the nature of the experiences that are provided
by different cultural resources and the way they are presented to the user. The
author identifies traditional and novel forms of cultural consumption as indicated
in table 2.1 below:
21
Table 2.1 –Traditional and novel forms of cultural consumption (Smith, 2007a)
TRADITIONAL NOVEL
Based on existing culture Creative
Provides passive experiences to visitors Experientially active
Educational Based in more than one location
Location based Focus on multicultural elements
Focus on indigenous monocultures Use of intangible resources
Use of tangible resources Use of technology
Educational and entertaining
Smith (2003) proposes that traditional cultural tourism can provide distinctive
experiences to users whereas experientially active cultural consumption can lead
to unique experiences. In this sense, cultural tourism is not only wide-ranging in
terms of the form of cultural resources consumed but also in the way by which it
is presented to the consumer and the nature of the experience provided by the
attractions, whether it be passive or active, tangible or intangible. Furthermore,
Smith’s (2007a) notion in regards to traditional and emerging forms of cultural
tourism has implications with how a visitor experiences culture, suggesting that
higher levels of engagement and participation with the ‘item’ (Boniface, 1995)
lead to educational and entertaining experiences. The ‘presenters’ should address
these trends in their cultural delivery policies, from visitor management to the
actual process of cultural consumption. These notions are useful and applicable
for this study as it focuses on an urban area where different types of cultural
experiences are provided to its visitors. However, they also highlight the level of
interaction between visitors and a cultural production, which is a complex topic in
the case of performing arts, as attending a performance can be understood as a
passive experience. In this sense, the views provided on these topics are useful for
this research as the study focuses on a provider of performing arts. The next
section addresses issues related to cultural tourists in terms of the motivations that
lead them to seek these cultural experiences and the processes involved in the
experience, perception and interpretation of cultural resources within an urban
context.
22
2.3. The cultural tourist

As indicated above, once a theoretical foundation for the understanding of cultural
tourism as a tourist activity has been determined, it is also necessary to review
different concepts in regards to the cultural tourist in terms of their motivation to
seek culture and the nature of their cultural experiences. However, as Richard’s
(2007) points out, the target market for many cultural attractions is mainly the
local population despite of their role as catalysts for the attraction of tourists. This
proposition is of interest to this study because, as evidenced in further chapters,
the Opera House in Covent Garden mainly attracts a domestic audience comprised
by local residents and domestic visitors. McKercher (2003:30) defines a cultural
tourist as ‘someone who visits, or intends to visit, a cultural tourism attraction, art
gallery, museum or historic site, attend a performance or festival, or participate in
a wide range of other activities at any time during their trip, regardless of their
main reason for travelling’. This conceptualisation of a cultural tourist is incisive
and concrete, and is applicable to this study as the attraction studied is a provider
of culture in terms of performing arts and many members of its domestic audience
can be understood as cultural tourists because they visit the destination to
consume cultural resources.
Cultural tourism, on the other hand, can also be linked to leisure activities given
the association between cultural consumption and entertainment proposed by
Smith (2007a). This is notable in the case of Covent Garden considering that
many cultural resources (performing arts, architectural heritage) are concentrated
in the same tourist precinct as leisure activities and infrastructure (cafes, pubs).
Parker (1976) analyses the reasons why the leisure industries continue to grow
and expand, concluding that the industrial and post industrial societies assign a
greater extent of importance to leisure, entertainment and relaxation related
activities. Relaxation, therefore, constitutes an important element of the
development of precincts for leisure. The author also indicates that these leisure
activities, their characteristics and nature hold a close relationship with
demographic factors related to the individual such as work, income, family
structure, education, religion and life cycle stage. This suggests that a visitor’s
23
interest in certain types of leisure activities, cultural for example, will be related to
the individual’s background and socio demographic profile. In example, children
might have a tendency to be more easily engaged by activities that imply lower
levels of intellectual engagement whilst undertaking leisure activities. Likewise,
religious beliefs might act as propellers to undertake cultural tourism in the form
of pilgrimage. In more recent studies, Richards (2001) also takes demographic
factors of the cultural tourists’ profiles to undertake research on cultural tourism
motivations and type of attractions visited. The author emphasises the relationship
between culture, leisure and motivation, and indicates that visits to cultural
attractions do not necessarily signify a strong interest in culture. He identifies two
major groups: the culturally motivated and the non-culturally motivated cultural
tourists. Given these considerations, cultural tourism may serve leisure purposes
effectively but not as a catalyst of cultural consumption. Equally, if cultural
attractions are visited by individuals not interested in culture, the area or the
attraction itself is associated with other elements that succeed in attracting them.
They may be amenities, the acquisition of status and prestige for example. These
concepts make a useful contribution to this research as it focuses on a popular area
for tourism and culture that attracts various types of visitors that differ
considerably in terms of their socio demographic profile, motivations to visit and
experiences sought. Furthermore, they indicate that a tourist’s visit to a cultural
attraction does not equal to a strong desire to experience culture in all cases. On
the other hand, a vibrant sense of place and the concentration of a variety of
tourist experiences within the same precinct, such as Covent Garden, may lure
visitors into cultural attractions and that their level of engagement with these
experiential opportunities will be influenced by their personal background.
These considerations highlight cultural motivation as a pivotal element in the

understanding of why visitors seek cultural experiences. In this respect, Smith
(2003) refers to DeBotton’s (2002) exploration of the subject, referring to the
constant quest for what DeBotton terms novelty and complacency. This view also
indicates that the consumption of culture may not be the primary motivation for
visiting cultural sites or consuming cultural resources, as it may be the case of
24
visitors in an area where different experiential opportunities are provided. The

author also appraises the distinct characteristics of the cultural tourist, affirming
that this group of travellers tends to be more focused on experiencing
differentiation, is preoccupied with matters related to authenticity, longs for
cultural interaction, tends to have idealised images of the destination and can be
highly resistant to simulacra. However, authenticity plays a much stronger role in
the cultural experience to those visitors whose main preoccupation and motivation
lies within the cultural needs mentioned before and may not be as central for
tourists visiting the sites for peripheral reasons. Likewise, Boniface (1995)
concludes that what she refers to as ‘differentness’ plays a fundamental role in the
nature of a tourist’s experience of culture and place. In the case of Covent Garden,
the array of experiential opportunities concentrated in the same urban precinct
suggests that the eclectic nature of this offer for tourism may translate into
distinctiveness for the area’s visitors.
The understanding of how a tourist’s motivation interacts with the experience of

cultural resources has led existing literature to categorise the cultural tourist. This
approach is useful for this research considering the assortment of experiential
opportunities available in the area as noted above. In relation to this, Seaton’s
(2002) typology of tourists emphasises the experiences sought and undertaken.
This approach categorises the cultural tourist as follows:
• The dilettante/aesthete, interested in displays such as museums or art
galleries
• The antiquarian heritage seeker
• The explorer adventurer, which can be linked to outdoors cultural
ventures
• The religious pilgrim and spiritual seeker
• The festival charivariist
• The literatteur
• The epicurean interested in food and wine
• The natural and social scientist
25
This categorisation is based upon the tourist’s behavioural pattern and what the
author refers to as role playing throughout a visit (as cited by Dann, 2002). It is
important to point out that the author identifies roles played by cultural tourists,
suggesting that they as tourists may become an active element of the tourist’s
experience themselves. However, and in spite of the graphic nature of this
typology, it can be argued that it does not precisely address the wide range of
activities that may be involved in cultural tourism. It can also be argued that some
behavioural attributes such as ‘adventuresomeness’ could be identified in other
types of cultural tourists other than the third category. From a more practical
perspective, Smith (2003) proposes that cultural tourists can be classified as:
• The heritage tourist
• The arts tourist
• The creative tourist
• The urban cultural tourist
• The rural cultural tourist
• The indigenous cultural tourist
• The popular cultural tourist
This typology provides a clearer approach to types of cultural tourists based on

activities undertaken, but it can also be noted that some of the categories are not
mutually exclusive, such as the cases of the urban, popular and creative cultural
tourists. Additionally, the author does not entirely integrate the matter of
motivation for undertaking cultural tourism or behavioural patterns, which as
stated above, can be the result of the actual consumption of cultural resources or
on the other hand, the attainment of other experiences that may not be related to
culture itself. As indicated before, these propositions are helpful for this study
given the range of experiential opportunities available in the case study area.
These categorisations highlight the complexity of the cultural tourist’s motivation

to consume culture. McKercher (2002) approaches the subject from two
perspectives. First, the centrality of culture in the decision to visit, considering
that undertaking cultural activities may result from different motivations. He
26
indicates that ‘participation alone may not be sufficient to document intent’ (p.31).
Secondly, there is the matter of depth of experience. Similarly to Hughes (2000),
McKercher (2002) proposes that visitors can be ‘generalised cultural tourists’
when cultural activities are broad and give a general overview of a destination’s
cultural offer; whilst the ‘specialised cultural tourist’ has a clear focus on the
specific sites or activities that they intend to undertake. These two categories
suggest that the depth of the experience can be either meaningful or shallow for
the visitor. This perspective differs from Seaton’s (2002) and Smith’s (2003)
stance because it considers depth of experience as an important element of the
understating of the cultural tourist. Different levels of depth of experience and
purpose of visit result in a categorisation of a set of five different cultural tourists
as illustrated by Figure 2.1 below:
Figure 2.1 – Tourist typology according to motivation and depth of experience

(McKercher, 2002)
27
McKercher (2002) proposes that cultural tourists can be:

• Purposeful cultural tourists, who have a clear focus on cultural
endeavours, often on very specific types of cultural tourism, and have
deep and meaningful cultural experiences.
• Sightseeing cultural tourists, with high levels of motivation associated
with the cultural aspects of the destination, but these are experienced
superficially.
• Incidental cultural tourists, with low levels of cultural motivation and
if they happen to come across cultural activities, they experience them
superficially as well.
• Casual cultural tourists, who may have a limited interest in cultural
activities in the destination of choice and have equally limited cultural
experiences.
• Serendipitous cultural tourists, with low levels of cultural motivation
but end up having meaningful and deep cultural experiences without
seeking them originally. He argues that this type of tourist is rare, and
if the cultural offer of a destination captivated the attention of non
cultural tourists to the extent that they have deep cultural experiences,
such destination has a strong cultural sector.
Overall, the main lesson from this model is that ‘it is overly simplistic to assume
that high motivation automatically equates to a deep experience’ (p.33). The
model was tested by the author in the case of visitors in Hong Kong, and it was
noted by the author that purposeful cultural tourists represent a comparatively
smaller group that the other categories. This type of tourists’ clear focus on
specific cultural endeavours makes them a market of interest and they are ‘the
greatest consumers of intellectually challenging learning experiences’ (p. 37).
Even though the latter statement implies what is to be understood as ‘depth of
experience’, a concise definition of the notion is not clearly defined. This
approach to the categorisation of the cultural tourist addresses the nature of the
tourist’s motivation and experience and highlights that participation does not
necessarily imply intent in cultural tourism. Nevertheless, it does not differentiate
28
between the different types of cultural tourism undertaken unlike Smith (2003),
suggesting the need for a more wide ranging classification that covers both the
supply and the demand of cultural tourism, implying a much more complex
network of categories. Furthermore, as insightful as the notion is and helpful in
terms of integration of motivation and experience, its applicability to a well
established urban precinct for tourism and culture in a world city like Covent
Garden in London is yet to be evaluated. As indicated above, the author conducted
his research in Hong Kong, which differs considerably in terms of nature of
attractions and urban settings from London. However, the notion is useful for this
study because Covent Garden has an ample array of experiential opportunities
related to culture and leisure that lead to different experiences, and it is beneficial
to consider motivation and depth of experience to understand the processes of
cultural consumption in the area.
This research focuses on a cultural flagship for the performing arts. Therefore, it is
also useful to review categorisations of the cultural tourist in terms of arts
consumption. Hughes (2000) focuses on arts related cultural tourists and indicates
that they can either be arts-core when the objective of their travels is to undertake
cultural tourism in the form of performing arts, or arts-peripheral when these
activities complement another primary travel purpose. The author indicates that
primary arts-core tourists are understood as visitors whose sole purpose of visit is
to undertake cultural tourism; or multi primary and arts-core when performing arts
are part of the main objectives of travel. Likewise, the arts-peripheral tourist can
be either incidental when undertaking cultural activities is not the objective of the
visit to a destination but is still planned; or accidental when it happens
spontaneously. Finally, the author (p.59) also considers the nature of the trip,
classifying it as either a holiday, which can be arts-core in the cases of those
visiting a destination to consume culture but as a part of a holiday, or arts
peripheral when culture is part of the holiday acting as a diversion. Non holiday
visitors can also be arts-core when they travel solely for culture whilst art-
peripheral non holiday travellers can either be on business or visiting friends or
relatives. The author provides an insightful approach to the circumstantial factors
29
affecting the experience of the arts as a form of cultural tourism which is

applicable to this study as tourists in Covent Garden may visit the area primarily
to attend a performance at the flagship building with other activities undertaken in
the area as a result. This notion also relates to McKercher’s (2002) ideas on this
matter as it considers the centrality of undertaking cultural activities in the
tourist’s experience of culture. Likewise, it can be applied to Smith’s (2003) and
Seaton’s (2002) typologies as it examines the consumption of the arts as a form of
cultural tourism. However, it is not a fully comprehensive model of understanding
given that it does not include depth of the experience or motivation to consume
cultural resources, whether they may be the arts themselves or the other secondary
factors proposed by the author.
All these considerations suggest that a categorisation of the cultural tourist implies
not only an understanding of the nature of the attractions but also of the
motivations to visit and the circumstances involved in the actual experience. The
theories reviewed point out that cultural tourism can be experienced in different
ways depending on the activities undertaken (Smith, 2003; Hughes, 2000).
However, there is a lack of consensus about participation in cultural activity as
indicators of intent considering that the first categorisations reviewed interpret the
act of participating in cultural endeavours as a given sign of willingness and full
engagement. McKercher (2002) on the other hand examines the nature of the
experiences and argues that undertaking them should not be considered as an
indicator of a meaningful or purposeful endeavour. Therefore, it is necessary to
undertake further research that would take these elements into account leading to
a more complex but inclusive classification of cultural tourists. In addition, it is
important to understand the mechanisms that intervene in the consumption of the
cultural tourism product within the minds of the consumers, the tourists, who have
different means of perceiving and experiencing culture.
2.4. The tourist experience

The review of different perspectives and approaches to the cultural tourist leads
towards the analysis of the cultural experience within an urban context. As this
30
research focuses on an urban area for tourism and culture, it can be said that the
urban settings and the nature of the offer for tourism in the area have an impact on
the visitor’s experience of place. The concept of a tourism precinct will be
developed in detail in the next chapter whilst analysing different concepts related
to urban areas for tourism and culture. However, it is broadly introduced here
because the nature of a visitor’s experience can be influenced by the settings in
which they are undertaken. Hayllar et al. (2008) indicate that rarely is tourism an
activity dispersed in and around the urban territory of a destination, but it is often
concentrated on specific sites of interest that over time shape the tourist landscape
of the destination. The authors (p.8) indicate that ‘these points of concentration
may include iconic sights, shopping areas, landmark cultural institutions or places
of historical significance (…) where a number of attractions of similar or differing
types aggregate alongside a range of tourism related services, these areas take on a
particular spatial, cultural, social and economic identity’. These elements will
ultimately constitute the tourism precinct’s place making system, and they will
influence the nature of the tourist’s experience as discussed below. The authors’
proposition is of particular interest to this research because it considers a wide
range of elements concentrated within an urban precinct such as Covent Garden,
which may shape to different extents the visitor’s experience of place.
Hayllar et al. (2008) argue that the experience of an urban tourism precinct is the
result of the process of individualizing the urban experience, which the authors
associate with Kelly’s (1955) ‘personal construct theory’. This notion proposes
that every experience is preconceived by the individual according to a
personalized set of elements that create a sense of expectation within the tourist
influencing their experience of place. This suggests that the urban experience,
according to the authors, is subject to the idealisation of place after the individual
has nurtured images and gathered representations of it. The author also
emphasises the socialisation of the urban experience, implying that the presence
of other tourists may affect the individual experience, which relates to the notion
of co tourism as discussed in further sections. This theoretical framework focuses
on preconceptions of place and the presence of others affecting the tourist’s
31
experience of an urban area and is applicable to Covent Garden as this urban

precinct is a popular area both in terms of visitor numbers and media exposure
that may create images and generate expectations.
Graefke and Vaske (1987) highlight that a tourist experience can be influenced by
‘individual, environmental, situational and personality related factors as well as
the degree of communication with other people’ (as cited in Ryan, 2002a:119).
This outline of factors affecting a tourist experience is useful because it
encompasses a relatively wide set of elements that may have an impact on the
final outcome of a tourist experience. It can be applicable to Covent Garden as the
built environment, the presence of other tourists, the circumstances in which they
visit the area and the tourist’s personal preferences may determine the nature of
their experiences. However, it oversees the depth of human interpretation and
perception of outer stimuli that result in such an experience. McKercher (1996:65)
indicates that ‘whether people feel that they are or are not tourists or have
participated in a tourism experience has less to do with the satisfaction of some
imposed distance, time, or space criterion and more to do with their own
perception of the experiences they have had or of their attitudes to the experiences
they perceive others to have had’. The author highlights the importance of inner
values and processes that lead to the interpretation of an image and the
characterisation of an experience. Richards (1996a) also argues that the meanings
assigned to what is perceived will be the key determinant of the nature of a
tourist’s experience, mentioning Urry’s (1990) theory of the tourist’s gaze, further
explored by MacCannell (1999) below.
MacCannell (1999:23) approaches cultural tourism experiences by indicating that

‘the data of cultural experiences are somewhat fictionalized, idealized or
exaggerated models of social life that are in the public domain, in film, fiction,
political rhetoric, small talk, comic strips, expositions, spectacles, etc.’. The
author notes that a determining precedent of the nature of the cultural tourist’s
experience are the preconceptions and expectations built on the tourist’s mind on
the basis of the images projected by different sorts of media. The author refers to
32
these images as ‘models’. Subsequently, there is a process of transformation of

these models through the process of personal interpretation by the tourist, which
the author suggests is the second element of a cultural tourist’s experience, the
‘influence’. A third element according to MacCannell’s (1999) theory is ‘the
medium’, which refers to the component of the structure, linking models and
influences in an interactive process. An example of a medium would be a
television broadcast or a one to one conversation, presenting the images provided
by the models to the subjective interpretation of the tourist, influencing their
personal meaning. In this sense, the author emphasises the importance of the
processes involved in cultural productions and the interactions amongst the
indicated elements which ultimately compound the experience of cultural tourism.
They can involve anything from a celebratory parade to music festivals to sport
games. All of which are extensions of the local culture perceived by the
prospective or actual tourist. MacCannell (1999) refers to these extensions as
‘signs’ or ‘rituals’ that represent local cultural values as a whole. However, these
are not to be mistaken by the models mentioned above, as the author claims that
‘(they) are not merely repositories of models for social life, they organise the
attitudes we have towards the models and life’. This indicates that a cultural sign
or ritual is the mixture between images and behaviour affecting the tourist’s
perception of a destination and its local community.
These perspectives help to understand the basic elements influencing the cultural
tourist’s experience of a destination and establish the role of the media and
personal interpretation in this process. In addition, MacCannell (1999) refers to
‘markers’ as information readily available before a person’s visit to a place, which
can potentially create images and expectations of a specific site. It is important to
note that according to this theory, the personal values of the sightseer will
determine how the actual site is transformed; therefore the markers are also
subject to personal interpretation. Richards (1996a) agrees with these views
considering that the intervention of different forms of media form mental
constructions influencing the tourist’s perception of a destination or of a cultural
production or attraction. These considerations are applicable to this research as the
33
area studied is a popular tourism precinct that is depicted in different forms of

media such as film (My Fair Lady) or tourist brochures, which lead to the
formation of preconceptions about it and mental images that potentially influence
the visitors’ perception and experience of place. In addition, the rituals indicated
by the authors can be identified in different tourist practices in the area, such as
watching street performances for example.
MacCannell’s (1999) views about the tourist and new leisure classes have been
referred to as groundbreaking (Tzanelli, 2004) and are useful to this research as
they provide a theoretical framework that identifies the elements that intervene in
the construction of a tourist’s experience of place. However, it can be argued that
these elements are approached from a complex and rather abstract perspective
subject to personal interpretation. Ross (1994) on the other hand, provides a
simpler and pragmatic approach to the tourist experience from a psychological
point of view, which can be linked to that of Grafke and Vaske (1987) considering
that it encompasses a series of elements that can have a direct or indirect effect on
the experience of place. According to the author, it is important to consider the
relationship between work and tourism, suggesting that the ‘spillover’ effect refers
to the identification of either positive or negative aspects of a person’s usual
working or everyday life in the tourist site. It is suggested that a tourist’s
experience is influenced by what is perceived as negative or positive aspects of
every day life and how they present themselves when undertaking tourist
activities.
These considerations are useful for this study as they encompass an individual’s
personal background in terms of how their past experiences influence their present
tourist experience. Ross (1994) also refers to Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs
(physiological, safety, love, esteem and self actualisation) as an important
consideration in order to understand the tourist’s inner mind processes that will
ultimately determine the nature of their experiences. He also relates the
understanding of the tourist’s experience to levels of satisfaction in relation to
Murray’s (1938) classification of needs (conservance, achievement, recognition,
34
exhibition, dominance, autonomy, contrariance, aggression, abasement, affiliation,

play and cognizance). These views are useful to analyse the tourist’s behaviour
from a specific stance, as it suggests that they manifest themselves according to
the tourist’s interest in undertaking certain types of activities. In example, the
cultural tourist will be driven by their needs of play and cognizance; while eco
tourists or adventure tourists orient their endeavours on the basis of their needs for
achievement or affiliation. Hence, the extent to which these needs are fulfilled
will be direct determinants of a pleasant or unpleasant tourist experience. These
views are also informative for this research as one of the research questions
focuses on what motivates tourists to visit Covent Garden, entailing an
exploration of what needs are being satisfied.
Asides from motivational considerations, Ross’ (1994) psychological approach to

tourism also implies the study of personality factors, referring to Plog’s (1984)
model about personality traits that can have a determining effect on the tourist’s
experience. These are indicated as venturesomeness, pleasure seeking,
impulsivity, self confidence, plainfulness, masculinity, intellectualism and people
orientation. As in the case of motivational issues affecting the tourist’s
experience, these personality considerations will not only determine the choice of
destinations and activities to undertake but will also shape the nature of the
tourist’s experience. The variety of experiential opportunities in Covent Garden
suggest that a wide array of visitors with different personality characteristics are
attracted to the area, and concepts such as ‘venturesomeness’, ‘plainfulness’ and
‘pleasure seeking’ provide useful guidelines to understand the nature of the
experiences they seek and have in the area. Finally, Ross (1994) also indicates
that both attitudes and the environment also shape the tourist’s experience of
place. In regards to the latter, the author indicates that a focus point in terms of the
environment of the destination is the image that it projects, making it appealing or
deterring for different types of tourism markets. MacCannell’s (1999) views about
the tourist’s experience can be linked with Ross’ (1994) stance on the matter,
whereas the importance of images attained through different means may actively
influence an individual’s experience of place. These considerations indicate the
35
importance of sensorial consumption of place and the influence that images and
other means of sensorial stimulus influences a visitor’s experience of a tourist
precinct.
2.4.1. Sensorial experience of place

Covent Garden is a multifaceted area for tourism and culture that can be perceived
from different perspectives. To provide a more inclusive understanding of the
processes of perception and interpretation of place, the following sections focus
on how images shape the tourist experience along with other sensorial stimulus
that also exert an influence. According to Pocock and Hudson (1978:19), ‘the
image is the sum of direct sensory interaction as interpreted through the
observer’s value system, and accommodated in the existing memory store where
inputs from indirect sources may be of at least equal importance’. This definition
of image is useful because it appraises the interaction of images with the visitor’s
intrinsic means of interpretation which shape their perception of place. The author
implies that images are partial, simplified, idiosyncratic and of a dynamic nature
as they can evolve over time. Pocock and Hudson (1978) argue that these views
on images are particularly applicable to modern cities and urban precincts,
considering that they are visual representations of local cultures and values.
Another important urban consideration is the activity or use of elements of the
urban landscape.
Pocock and Hudson (1978:77) state that ‘physical features of the environment
achieve significance or image ability through association with a particular activity
or function or (…) through the adherence of particular sentiments, memories,
attitudes or beliefs’. This assumption is useful to the understanding of the
dynamics between urban images and the tourist’s perception considering that
three elements are involved in the process: the image itself, the use it has and the
structure of the individual’s inner values and/or feelings. The result of the
interaction between such elements will ultimately be the final outcome of the
tourist’s experience of place. In the case of Covent Garden, for example, a popular
image is that of the market which is associated by the area’s commercial
36
ambience, leading to perceptions and preconceptions of place. However, Ley

(1981) notes that these are subject to a series of intrinsic and extrinsic factors by
indicating that tourism precincts are ‘a negotiated reality, a social construction by
a purposeful set of actors’ (as cited by Ringer, 1998 in Hayllar et al., 2008:190).
On the other hand, Pocock and Hudson (1978) stress the importance of sense of
place, summarizing it as the element by which an area and its traits can be recalled
or remembered easily by past visitors. MacCannell (1999) indicates that a tangible
and distinctive sense of place is the result of a strong set of markers as discussed
above. In the case study area, the market place, the presence of street entertainers
and a distinctive built environment present images that shape the area’s place
making system by presenting images that influence the visitor’s perception of
place. It is important to note, however, that these urban characteristics are also
subject to the human elements in and around it (other tourists, the local
population), therefore the authors indicate that they are not only urban precincts
but also cultural landscapes.
Ingold and Kurtilla (2000:90-91) indicate, ‘(the place) exists through the
realisable projects and availabilities, patterns of use and users, all of which are
practically negotiated daily (and) this unnoticed framework of practices and
concerns is something in which we dwell as habituated body subjects’ (as cited by
Minca and Oakes, 2006:29). The meaning of place is then referred to as a matter
of high complexity that includes people and activities that take place. Covent
Garden can be viewed as an immobile image in terms of its built environment, or
as a mobile image related to the movement of people and array of activities that
take place in the precinct. The immobile perspective can be associated with the
authors’ views on physical qualities that determine their level of ‘imageability’
according to how strongly they influence the process of overall image creation in
the visitors’ perception. Buildings and landmarks mostly account for this process
as discussed in further chapters. It is in this sense that flagships developments gain
their important role as influences of the image of a city or an urban district as a
whole.
37
These perspectives focus on visual qualities of an area directly affecting the

visitor’s experience of place. However, Edensor (2006, as cited in Minca and
Oakes, 2006) argues that the sensory experience of place goes beyond visual
stimulation, indicating that none of the other four human senses should be
overlooked whilst analysing the nature of a tourist’s experience; as smell, touch,
taste and sound can be just as powerful means of shaping a tourist’s experience. In
relation to this, Arkette (2004:159) proposes that studies focused on perception
and experience of place should include ‘the corporeal, the sensual and
psychological aspects of (a) subjective experience, as well as the broader cultural
characteristics of the different communities and subcultures which contribute to
the diversity of city spaces’. This suggests that there is a broader sphere of
elements that need to be taken into account to determine the tourist’s experience
beyond an area’s visual qualities. The author concludes that sound can be an
active and highly important part of place making in the tourist’s perception, and
that it may play a fundamental role in the urban identity of some districts where
street performance takes place for example. This is a clear indicator that sense of
place is undoubtedly constituted by a group of elements, out of which architecture
is one of them, and sound, amongst others, plays an influential role in the visitor’s
experience of place.
These assumptions are of special interest in urban areas for tourism and culture
where music is an important element of their portfolio of activities, such as
Covent Garden and its provision of street entertainment. Cartier (2005:5) agrees
and indicates that ‘sensory modes beyond the visual may be more elusive,
qualities that are aural, haptic, flavourful, olfactory. What stimulates these senses
might be fleeting; we might own the visual environment via the gaze, but sounds,
tastes, smells have their temporal limits’. This suggests that while visual assets
can have a longer term endurance and can be more easily highlighted, other
features of the environment are of a more spontaneous nature, and their perception
by the tourist is often casual. This once again confirms that the interpretation and
experience of place is almost entirely intrinsic but subject to extrinsic place
making elements, whilst personality and motivational issues influence the tourist,
38
the outer circumstances deliver different and temporary elements to certain

tourists at certain times. In this sense, asides from the provision of street
entertainment providing aural stimulus to visitors in Covent Garden, for research
purposes, it will be important to consider how the feel of other visitor’s shape
their experience of place, and how tastes and smells can also exert an influence.
Perkins and Thorns (2001) highlight that sensorial stimulus may affect the
tourists’ experience to the extent that their behaviour is modified. This notion can
also be linked to MacCannell’s (1999) tourist ‘rituals’, which lead visitors to
become performers themselves as they engage in communal activities. By these
means, they may become an important element of a precinct’s place making
system due to their common behaviour. As noted by Cloke and Perkins (1998) in
regards to adventure tourism, ‘involvement in adventure tourism, whether as
active participant or as a member of an eager audience, extends well past
watching or gazing. It is much more active than that. In their view, the notion of
the tourist performance more adequately captures the experience of adventure
tourism because it connotes both a sense of seeing and an association with the
active body, heightened sensory experience, risk, vulnerability, passion, pleasure,
mastery and/or failure’ (as stated in Perkins and Thorns 2001:196). Even though
the authors’ study focuses on adventure tourism, the statement illustrates that
sensorial stimulation leads visitors to engage in certain activities and behave in
particular ways that are common in a tourist area, which leads them to become
active performers, and indeed, part of the attraction and peculiarity of a tourism
precinct. They summarise these notions by indicating that ‘whichever
combination of activities they choose, and wherever those activities are pursued,
each tourist participates in a performance that compromises aspects of Urry’s
(1990) gaze accompanied by physical, intellectual and cognitive activity and
bodily sensation’ (Perkins and Thorns 2001:187). Considering that Covent Garden
is a popular precinct for tourism with high levels of visitation and the presence of
street entertainers that can be linked to the notion of rituals, it is also important to
further explore topics related to the tourist’s performance in an urban precinct and
the idea of co tourism as addressed below.
39
2.4.2. The tourist’s performance

This research focuses on a tourism precinct where different types of performance
are concentrated, from popular street entertainment to high culture presented at
Covent Garden’s Opera House. It should be noted, however, that performance in
the area should not be viewed strictly from the performing arts perspective, but
from the tourist’s contribution to the area’s sense of place given their behavioural
patterns which can be seen as a performance as well. Pine and Gilmore (1999)
make an important contribution to the understanding of a tourist experience in the
context of what they refer to as ‘the experience economy’ considering the
importance that the tourist’s experience has upon the economic, social and
environmental spheres of a tourism destination. In this sense, the authors propose
that they are determined, on one hand, by the level of participation, engagement
and interaction that the tourist experiences in respect to a tourist activity. These
can range from experiences of a passive nature to active participation and
involvement. It is interesting to note the link between this view and Smith’s
(2007a) proposition of the shift from passive to more engaging and interactive
forms of cultural tourism. Pine and Gilmore (1999) also indicate that the second
dimension to consider the tourist’s experience is ‘the kind of connection, or
environmental relationship that unites customers with the event or performance’.
This suggests that visitors ‘connect’ with an event in different manners which can
be associated with their level and nature of their participation in them. For
example, the audience of a street entertainer which becomes an important element
of the spectacle. In relation to this, the authors indicate that on one end of the
spectrum of this element is absorption, to address the mental engagement that
visitor’s experience whilst on the other end; immersion indicates the level of
physical interaction between visitor and attraction resulting in a tourist’s
experience.
Depending on the levels of participation and nature of engagement, Pine and

Gilmore (1999) propose four ‘realms’ of experiences:
40
• Entertaining experiences, which are usually of passive participation but

high levels of mental absorption, for example, watching a film or
attending a performance.
• Educational experiences, implying high levels of intellectual
absorption but can provide active experiences to the visitors, as with
museums providing ‘edu-taining’ experiences that engage visitor’s
actively in the learning process.
• Escapist experiences, which also imply high levels of participation but
can be more absorbing in a physical manner rather that intellectual;
immersing the visitors in them, as in the experiences provided by
casinos or themed parks.
• Aesthetic experiences, involving lower levels of participation but
higher levels of physical engagement. As in a tourist’s experience of
safari rides.
Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) approach is helpful because it involves the two spheres
by which the outer environment is absorbed by a visitor, both mentally and
physically. However, it also combines these elements with the nature of
interaction between visitor and object. These notions are applicable to this
research as a tourist’s engagement with the cultural flagship can be associated to
either the building’s physical presence in the area or to the institution as a
provider of high arts. In the latter case, providing interactive and engaging
experiences to the user imposes an issue of consideration for a provider of
performing arts due to the passive nature of attending a theatre performance.
Regardless of this, it is a communal activity that has also emerged from the
literature as an important element to understand a tourist’s experience of place. In
addition, the author’s views highlight the importance of physical immersion in an
environment which is a notion that can be applied to the case study as visitors in
the area may have their experience of place influenced by the presence of the
Opera House without physically penetrating its space. On the other hand, the
categorisation of experiences can also be linked to tourist roles assumed by
41
visitors that lead them to behave in different ways leading them to become
performers of the area as discussed below.
Edensor (2001) proposes that the tourist’s experience is a performance subject to a

tourist space: ‘tourist performance is socially and spatially regulated to varying
extents (...) the organisation, materiality and aesthetic and sensual qualities of
tourist space influence, but do not determine, the kinds of performance that
tourists undertake’ (p. 63). The author proposes that the tourist’s performance
provides cues of behaviour to others, and is catalysed by tourist rituals that may
be of a serious and formal nature referred to as incorporating rituals, characterised
by ‘grandiloquent pageantry and solemn, precise movements’ (p. 64). On the
other hand, Edensor (2001) notes that the rituals may be oriented towards leisure,
relaxation and entertainment in what he refers to as pleasurable carnivals that
consist of ‘more carnavalesque ceremonies’ that are ‘more convivial, sensual,
improvisational and playful’. This notion is useful because it encompasses the
importance of tourist behaviour in their experience that is often affected by other
tourists as they provide each other with behavioural cues of movement and
conduct. In the case of Covent Garden, the leisure orientated sense of place
facilitated by street entertainment and a commercial ambience can be linked to the
more relaxed ceremonies that may exert an influence on the visitor’s behaviour.
Edensor (2001) also takes into account the role of ‘sceneography, stage
production and design’ whilst evaluating the role of town planners that lay out
certain areas to provide different sorts of experiences to its visitors. The notion
also addresses media exposure and projected images as it conceptualises tourist
precincts as mediatised spaces; as well as the important role played by cultural
intermediaries that influence the tourists’ performance in the precinct. These
performances are conceptualised as ‘directed’ when there is a staged intervention
through town planning or the provision of certain attractions or experiential
opportunities that influence the visitor’s experience of place. For example,
designated areas within a precinct where street busking is permitted. On the other
hand, the author suggests that the performance may be ‘identity oriented’ when
42
the visitor turns to self to determine their behaviour in the area. Finally, the
performance may be ‘non conformist’ when they come as a result of resistance to
communal modes of behaviour. Harvey and Lorenzen (2006:16) address this latter
group from the post tourist perspective, indicating that ‘(they) have the cultural
capital to realise that tourist activities are staged and yet still reveal in the
inauthenticity and kitsch offered by the performances’. The authors refer to Holt’s
(1998) concepts regarding cultural capital, proposing that people with low levels
of cultural capital are more likely to engage in social interactions and that their
tourist experience is prone to be influenced by the presence of others. These
concepts are useful and informative for this research considering that the array of
experiential opportunities in Covent Garden attract visitors with a variety of levels
of cultural capital.
2.4.3. Co tourism
The considerations above can be linked to tourist’s participation in communal
activities and practices that lead them to perform in certain manners. It is also
important to consider how the presence of other tourists may affect their
experience of place and performance. Harvey and Lorenzen (2006) develop the
notion of the co tourist and identify its roots in Urry’s (1990) collective gaze,
which proposes that the attraction of certain sites and places is associated to the
presence of others. As Hogg et al. (2000) note, ‘what Urry ignores is the social
symbolism of shared consumption and the social interaction that increasingly
configures the role of the tourist’ (cited in Harvey and Lorenzen, 2006:18). The
authors compare the phenomenon of co tourism to any given game where the sole
presence of different players is not enough to deliver, but social interactions in the
form of performances and practices are necessary. These performances and
practices are stimulated by rituals, and have the potential of becoming rituals
themselves in a chain of social reactions and interactions that provide other
visitors with cues and behavioural parameters without impairing their ability to
gain cultural capital. As indicated by the authors (p.20), ‘tourist spaces are being
developed where the co presence of other tourists is necessary to fulfil the role of
the tourist. In these spaces, other tourists, co tourists, either provide cultural
43
scripts or simply participate in the interactional milieu that facilitate the role’. It is
important to note, however, that the collective presence of tourists in urban
precincts may lead to congestion that can potentially turn into a detrimental
element of the tourist’s experience. In relation to this, Lopez-Bonilla and Lopez-
Bonilla (2007) refer to Savariades’ (2000) notion of social carrying capacity and
define it as ‘the maximum level of use that can be absorbed by an area without an
unacceptable decline in the quality of experience of visitors and without
unacceptable adverse impact on the area’s society’ (p. 118). The author, thus,
identifies two layers of understanding of social carrying capacity, the first
concerning the tourists and the second related to the local community. Lopez-
Bonilla and Lopez-Bonilla (2007) conclude that the optimal levels of social
carrying capacity are psychologically established by the visitors themselves.
Covent Garden is a popular tourism precinct, and the high levels of visitation may
exert an influence on the visitor’s perception and experience of place by
representing a nuisance or a stimulating trait of the area.
Finally, it is important to refer to the profile of the visitor and impact that this has
on their experiences beyond the intrinsic psychological and behavioural
characteristics developed above. Edensor (2001:60) approaches the individual’s
socio demographic variables that may exert an impact on their experience of place
and concludes that ‘culturally coded patterns of tourist behaviour partly emerge
out of dispositions that evolve around class, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality for
instance’. There is also a consistent tendency in existing literature to make a
radical distinction between the host community and the area’s visitors in order to
understand the patterns of behaviour of both treated individually. However,
Maitland (2009:31) suggests that in world cities such as London or New York, the
boundaries between visitors and host communities are blurred, as the presence of
domestic visitors, temporary migrants such as students, the local population and
international tourists using the city simultaneously blur the distinction between
visitors and host community, identifying these city users as a ‘cosmopolitan
consuming class’ which comprise residents, workers and visitors alike (…) and
who ‘want to consume amenity and culture, and enjoy familiar landscapes of
44
consumptions’. The contemplations lead to the conclusion that the host

community should not be dismissed as a receptive market for cultural experiences
provided by the cultural tourism industry, and that whilst the nature of their
experiences may be subject to different elements, tourists and locals absorb the
same elements in the world city, where attractions are often not developed for
tourism in the first place. As noted before, London is a world city and Covent
Garden, located in its central area, attracts a variety of visitors of different
interests and socio demographic profiles that result in a cosmopolitan ambience.
This also points out the importance of evaluating how a tourist’s personal
background in terms of origin affects their perception and experience of place. In
this sense, the next section addresses issues related to cultural distance and its
influence on the nature of the tourist’s experience.
2.4.4. Cultural distance and depth of experience

McKercher (2002) argues that cultural distance has a considerable influence on
the appeal of cultural activities to international tourists. McKercher (2002:36)
refers to McIntosh and Goeldner (1990) to conceptualise the notion of cultural
distance, indicating that ‘visitors from more culturally distant regions tend to seek
deeper experiences, whereas those cultural tourists from culturally proximate
regions seek a more entertainment orientated experience’. This concept applied to
urban tourism would suggest that international tourists from distant countries
would seek to have deeper cultural experiences, and that the domestic visitor
would not assign as much importance to it.
Depth of experience is central to this notion. Nevertheless, it should be noted that

there is a lack of consensus regarding what depth of experience consists of and
what factors intervene in the process of having a deep or shallow experience.
McKercher and Chow So-Ming (2001) use a series of indicators based on tourist
activity to measure their depth of experience of place. These are: to mostly
sightsee and/or photography or seeing interesting and unusual sites, to learn a
little about the local culture and heritage, to learn a lot about the local culture and
heritage, or to develop a deep understanding of the local culture and heritage.
45
These indicators directly relate a tourist’s depth of experience with the choice of
activities undertaken during a visit and to a learning process that comes as a result.
However, it should be noted that the first indicator assumes that the individual
seeks to experience a foreign culture in unfamiliar settings. Conversely, the
authors also cite Jackson (2000) who suggests that ‘truly culturally distant
destinations are too strange and too threatening, with the prospect of visiting too
intimidating to be enjoyable, unless a sufficiently large environmental bubble can
be created to shield the visitor from that strangeness’ (p. 25). In this sense,
‘strangeness’ may attract or deter tourists from visiting a site or a precinct. Larsen
(2007) states that although central to tourism studies, the nature and essence of
tourism experience is a field that remains under researched. The quest for a clear
approach to this topic points towards McCannell’s (1999) views, which evaluate
the tourist’s level of understanding of what is perceived and the impact of this
understanding on the nature of the experience. The author (p.68) affirms that ‘the
tourist’s inability to understand what he sees is the product of the structural
arrangement that sets him into a touristic relationship with a social object’.
This assumption closely links to the matter of cultural distance addressed by

McKercher (2002), which indicates that tourists visiting a destination from more
culturally far regions will tend to seek deeper cultural endeavours in the search of
novel and authentic experiences. However, this position seems to somewhat
contradict that of McCannell’s (1999), who affirms that a culturally different
background may impair the tourist from understanding the cultural productions
presented before them. It should also be noted that McKercher (2002) indicates
that ‘different people have different abilities to engage cultural and heritage
attractions based on an array of factors, which include their level of education,
awareness of the site prior to the visit, preconceptions of the site, interest in it,
meaning to them, time availability, the presence or absence of competing
activities that vie for their time and a host of other factors’. All these other factors
are likely to be influenced by the individual’s personal background. In this sense,
if this foreign background may impair their ability to understand the visited site’s
cultural features yet the greater the cultural difference the deeper cultural
46
experiences may be, it could be inferred that the tourist embraces and enjoys the
challenge of not fully understanding the visited culture.
Goeldner and Ritchie (2003:365) conceptualise the notion of cultural distance as

‘the extent to which the culture of the area from which the tourist originates
differs from the culture of the host region (…) the greater the cultural distance, the
greater will be the resistance (…) however, the relationship might be the opposite
(..) the higher the cultural distance between particular origin and destination areas,
the more an allocentric person may wish to travel to that destination, to experience
this extreme difference’. This conceptualisation again presents a conundrum in the
understanding of the international tourist’s experience of cultural tourism in a
given precinct. In one hand, they may be intrigued by and attracted to what is
unknown to their cultural background; whilst it is also possible that this might be
a factor to deter them from experiencing an unfamiliar culture. Goeldner and
Ritchie (2003) associate this uncertainty to Plog’s classification of tourists in
allocentric when they are on the adventurous and exploratory side of tourism, and
psychocentric when they remain within the packaged holiday in the confinements
of Judd and Fainstein’s (1999) tourist bubble. The authors’ (2003) also identify
other factors that may deter tourists from visiting destinations and experiencing
their cultures. These include economic distance referred to financial constraints
resulting from taking the trip, cost and quality of services in the destination, and
seasonality.
Supporting the notion that cultural distance is a factor that prevent tourists from
undertaking culturally meaningful experiences is the work of Williams and
Zelinsky (1970), who indicate that ‘although geographical distance is a
commonsensical influencing factor to tourism flows, some proximate nations
display weak touristic interaction (and) are also affected by the cultural and social
differences among nations’ (as indicated by Bowden 2003:259). The authors
highlight the different elements involved in the notion of cultural distance,
identifying them as cultural differences that influence the tourist’s levels of
interaction and engagement with place. Bowden (2003) appraises the country of
47
origin of tourists in China in regards to the geographical areas that they tend to
visit and proposes that there is a pattern suggesting that cultural distance may not
only affect the nature of the cultural experience but it will also affect the
districts/regions of the country visited by international tourist. The author (p. 276)
indicates that ‘inter-regional tourists have more similar destination preferences
than intra-regional tourists do’. This suggests that because of the nature of the
cultural experience is apparently less meaningful from more culturally proximate
visitors, should they decide to visit the country they shall seek alternative forms of
culture rather than the one found in mainstream tourist districts. Similarly, Ryan
(2002b:952) undertakes studies to evaluate tourist flows within the Maori culture
in New Zealand, and states that ‘the lack of spatial distance between Maori and
tourists means that European New Zealanders are not drawn to Maori culture as
an attraction in the manner that those from Europe and North America are’. This
entails once again that the greater the cultural distance is, the more likely is that
the cultural experience will be meaningful, or if anything, appealing to the visitor.
Ryan (2002b) attributes this to what he refers to as the ‘exoticization’ of a culture
when this culture is unknown to the visitor, stimulating curiosity and intrigue.
On the other hand, McKercher (2002:31) cites Timothy’s (1998) work, who
indicates that ‘people will have different experiences based on their differing
levels of connectivity to a site’. This statement implies that despite great cultural
differences resulting from great cultural distances between the tourists and the
visited site or destination, there are other factors that intervene in the depth of
their experiences. Larsen (2007:7) approaches this issue from a psychological
point of view and states that ‘experiences are influenced by expectancies and
events and they remain or are constructed in the individual’s memory, forming the
basis for new preferences and expectancies’. This work suggests that expectations
and past experiences have a direct influence on the tourist’s ability to engage in
cultural activities resulting in either shallow or deep experiences. These views will
be of particular interest when evaluating a repeat visitor’s perception and
experience of the case study is given their past exposure to it.
48
The discussion of the nature and factors affecting the experience of cultural
tourism is addressed by Timothy and Boyd (2003), who refer to it as the key
outcome of tourism. The authors focus on heritage tourism to present their thesis
and indicate that ‘the heritage tourism experience is influenced and shaped by a
mix of elements: supply and demand, the nature of the heritage landscape that has
been conserved and protected, the impact heritage creates and leaves within
destination regions, how heritage attractions and resources are managed, how it is
interpreted and presented, as well as the role politics plays in forming the heritage
experience’ (p.7).This conceptualisation is useful because it provides a spectrum
of elements that affect the tourist’s experience, in this case, of heritage sites.
However, it is also important to note that Timothy and Boyd (2003) make a clear
distinction between the heritage that is perceived and the heritage that is valued by
the tourist. In this sense, the heritage assets of a tourism precinct might be
strongly perceived by its visitors or not noticed by them at all. On the other hand,
the importance assigned to such assets will vary according to the tourist’s inner
mechanisms of interpretation. This suggests that it is a misconception to believe
that a historical precinct with a long standing tradition as a place for culture is
going to directly influence the experience of all its visitors. As for the nature of
the significance of the heritage, the authors state that it can be economic, social,
political or scientific. They indicate (p. 13) that social heritage refers to ‘the
personal and collective identity that people and society have with their heritage
(…) (which) can also help determine a sense of place, creating situations where
people can use heritage to gain attachment to an area’. This suggests that a
culturally proximate set of visitors may manifest higher levels of connectivity
with a site because of a sense of belonging and positive identification with urban
settings that are rich in terms of heritage. However, this is also subject to the
individual’s inner mechanisms of perception and interpretation leading to
Timothy’s (1997) notion of ‘personal heritage’. Timothy and Boyd (2003)
associate the concept of personal heritage to past experiences as fundamental
factors that determine a visitor’s current and future interest in visiting heritage
sites, driven by what they refer to as nostalgia. However, the authors also note that
49
this is a neglected area of study, which strengthens the need to undertake the
present research in order to understand how an urban precinct is transformed into
personal heritage by the visitor, which implies the exploration of the factors that
have lead to such constructions. In the case of Covent Garden, the concept of
personal heritage may be related to a visitor’s past exposure to either the area or
the Opera House, exposure in terms of media or past experiences that shape their
current experience of place.
Returning to the debate regarding depth of experience, Timothy and Boyd

(2003:249) also link this issue to the matter of authenticity, referring to Herbert’s
(1995) question on the matter: ‘if visitors seek an experience from their visit
which is meaningful to them, should we be concerned whether that experience
draws upon fact or reality, or whether or not the two can be distinguished?’. For
this reason, a methodological stance that fully integrates the personal nature of the
interpretation of the heritage of an urban precinct is paramount to effective
experiential tourism studies. These issues are discussed in Chapter 6 whilst
exploring the philosophical stance that this research adopts. Timothy and Boyd
(2003) refer to the work of McIntosh and Prentice (1999), who indicate that the
tourist’s ability to create their own authentic experiences can be of three different
kinds. The first, reinforced assimilation, when a contrast between the past and the
present plays a determining factor in the construction of the experience. Secondly,
cognitive perception which entails the gathering and absorption of new knowledge
of the site visited. And third, retroactive association, which is a concept closely
related to nostalgia as addressed above. All these considerations indicate that the
personal construction of authenticity as well as the factors that lead to it needs to
be explored in order to fully understand the visitor’s experience of a tourism
precinct and the meaningfulness of the outcome. All these notions are useful to
the understanding of how a diversity of visitors of different socio cultural
backgrounds perceive and experience urban precincts. As noted before, Covent
Garden is a popular area for tourism located in central London, which is a world
city for tourism and culture. This suggests that international visitors from all over
the world visit the area driven by different motivations that can be linked to their
50
socio demographic profile. It is expected that this research will make a positive
contribution to understand how cultural distance effectively influences a tourist’s
experience of culture and urban tourism by taking into consideration all the views
and approaches presented above.
2.5. Conclusions
The review of theoretical concepts related to cultural tourism, the cultural tourist
and experience of culture in tourism precincts has set a foundation for this
research in terms of tourists visiting urban areas for tourism and culture. It has
been established that cultural tourism encompasses a wide range of categories of
tourism that often complement each other, particularly in the case of urban areas
where cultural resources are clustered. There are different types of experiential
opportunities in Covent Garden, some related to culture, from its heritage
perspective to the provision of high and popular forms of art. This indicates that
the area’s visitors are exposed to a variety of cultural resources that they will seek
depending on their motivation to visit. The motivational theories reviewed point
out that the cultural tourist can have focused interests in terms of what type of
culture they seek to experience, and that other experiences may come as a result.
However, it was also established that experiencing culture is not an indicator of
intent, as visitors may have cultural experiences that they were not originally
seeking. As indicated before, this is particularly the case of visitors in an area
where cultural resources are concentrated, such as Covent Garden, providing the
visitor with opportunities to consume culture regardless of their original purpose
of visit. In terms of experience, there is a lack of consensus of what a ‘deep’ or
‘shallow’ cultural experience entails.
On the other hand, the literature review suggests that the level of engagement and
participation will have an influence on a tourist’s experience of object and place.
It was also established that previous exposure to an area in terms of images and
other media exerts an influence on such experiences. Sensorial experience of
place, thus, acquires importance in the understanding of the topic area since
images, sounds and other sensorial stimulus play roles in the shaping of the
51
tourist’s experience. Sensorial stimuli, that can often be generated by tourists

themselves (in their pace of walk for example) provides behavioural cues for an
area’s visitors, who engage in tourist rituals that take place in the precinct and
become performers themselves. The communal nature of these activities also
suggests that the presence of other tourists affect a visitor’s perception and
experience of place. These perceptions and experiences have also been linked to
the tourists’ background in terms of their socio demographic profile as age,
occupation, education and other indicators exert an influence on their tourist
activity. The notion of cultural distance places an emphasis on the tourists’ origin
and proposes that visitors from culturally distant places may seek deeper cultural
experiences whereas tourists from proximate regions will focus their trips on
leisure and entertainment. This research will make a contribution to the
understanding of these topics as the case study area is used by international
tourists, domestic visitors and the local population. London’s rich cultural
resources attract a very diverse flow of tourists with different motivations to visit
and from culturally different parts of the world. The next chapter will address the
different perspectives by which the areas for tourism that they visit can be
evaluated.
52
Urban Areas for Tourism and Culture Chapter 3
3. URBAN AREAS FOR TOURISM AND CULTURE
3.1. Introduction
This chapter establishes a conceptual framework related to urban areas for tourism
and culture. Many areas in world cities are successful in attracting visitors because
of different elements that influence their perception and experience of place to
different extents. These elements may be related to cultural consumption,
relaxation, leisure and entertainment. But they may also relate to distinctive
physical characteristics that give them a unique sense of place. Whilst this mix of
different elements can make of an area a popular precinct for tourism with high
levels of visitation, it also makes them complex to understand. In this sense,
existing literature and current research tend to focus on specific elements of this
mix in order to understand how they influence the visitor’s perception and
experience of the precinct. However, to model the complex network of elements
holistically is a more challenging task. Different thematic approaches to urban
areas for tourism and culture are presented in this chapter by reviewing a series of
perspectives that focus on different aspects of urban areas for tourism. These
approaches have been organised according to the focus on the built environment
(physical perspective), the clientele the areas serve, the businesses and sectors that
operate in these areas and the output they present to clusters of tourism activity.
These theoretical concepts will be applied to the case of Covent Garden in
Chapter 5.
3.2. Urban precincts for tourism

Before presenting a focused thematic analysis on urban areas for tourism and
culture, it is important to establish a general conceptual understanding of these
areas and their role in tourism. Judd (1999:35-36) proposes that a tourist bubble
can be conceptualised as a mix that ‘combines financial, administrative and
professional services –increasingly clustered into a downtown office complex –
and a more or less well defined space composed of facilities and amenities
devoted to leisure activities and the tourist trade’. Similarly, Maitland (2007)
53
identifies flagship museums, galleries, aquaria, Imax cinemas or casinos,

shopping and leisure facilities along with internationally renowned bars and
restaurants as clustered economic units that characterise this type of urban
precincts for tourism. This suggests that different elements are drawn upon by city
planners in order to make an urban area suitable, hospitable and attractive for
visitors. But it is because of this wide range of elements that the process of
creating these urban tourist spaces becomes highly complex and varies from one
case to another. As a result, it is clear that different models of understanding of
these urban areas can be identified, and in further sections their characteristics will
be reviewed to explore how urban areas for tourism and culture vary from one
another according to the focus their planners adopted.
Hayllar and Griffin (2005:1) indicate that a tourism precinct can be conceptualised
as ‘a distinctive geographic area within a larger urban area, characterised by a
concentration of tourist-related land uses, activities and visitation, with fairly
definable boundaries’. Similarly, Pearce (1998:50) highlights the importance of
clustering in tourism areas by indicating that ‘tourism development depends upon
concentration rather than on dispersal, functional combination rather than
segregation, and multifunctional environments rather than monofunctional ones’.
This suggests that the use of land for tourism development purposes will define
the characteristics of the area. For example, an area where there is a clustered
performing arts sector can be directly associated with the creation of an image of
the place as a precinct for culture, such as in the case of Covent Garden that
represents an important part of London’s ‘Theatreland’. The authors also indicate
that in order to comprehensively understand the tourism dynamics of such
precincts, a thematic analysis needs to be performed in regards to three topics: the
atmosphere, the physical presence and the history. These layers of study suggest
that there are varied perspectives by which tourism precincts can be explored,
confirming the need of focused research upon selected case studies. This notion is
useful but its primary weakness is that is too broad and does not introduce the
specific elements that determine the characteristics of a tourism precinct. In
further sections, different approaches to the use of land for tourism and culture
54
will be addressed in order to gather an overview of different perspectives by

which a tourism precinct can be analysed and understood. These approaches to
land use are related to a variety of place making elements such as the built
environment and its use for cultural, commercial or entertainment purposes,
attracting a variety of tourist markets.
The latter considerations can be associated to existing literature on tourism spaces

and urban design theory related to place making elements. In this sense, Franck
and Stevens (2007:2) assert that “in urban public spaces around the world people
pursue a very rich variety of activities”. The authors refer to these types of areas
as “loose spaces” because of the range of activities that take place within them,
providing their visitors with a sense of freedom to explore their experiential
opportunities. They also highlight that these activities often have little or no
connection with the primary purpose for which the area was planned. Therefore,
the commercial and cultural sectors endow these areas with a sense of ‘looseness’
as their visitors have the option to explore it and have a variety of experiences
concentrated in the same space. The authors also highlight the importance of
visitors themselves and their behaviour as important place making elements
within tourism precincts and their input on these spaces’ sense of place: “just as
people may break free of intended uses and established meanings, they may also
break free of restricted forms of comportment and movement” (p.14). Therefore,
the variety of land uses attract a diverse set of visitors that become themselves
important place making elements. On the other hand, the authors indicate that
“looseness depends in part on the overall structure of the urban environment” (p.
6), suggesting that the physical attributes of an urban precinct also plays an
important role in its place making system.
Another author that proposes a similar approach to understanding the construction

and production of space is Lefebvre (1991), who highlights the relationship
between an area’s built environment (referred to by him as ‘spatial
architectonics’) and the tangible input made by people as place making elements
providing these urban spaces with an important social dimension that holds a
55
direct relationship with the variety of land uses that develop different markets for
tourism attracting diverse sets of visitors within the same precinct. All these
considerations are useful for this research because they highlight the importance
of different elements that interact with each other leading to distinctive urban
precincts, suggesting that these different layers should be explored. Therefore,
different models of understanding of urban areas for tourism and culture will be
reviewed in forthcoming sections, which focus on their physical attributes, the
clientele they serve and the businesses that operate within them.
3.3. The physical perspective

As indicated before, an area can be explored by focusing on different aspects of its
place making system. The first one to be analysed by this conceptual framework is
the physical attributes that can potentially grant an area with a distinctive sense of
place and that stimulate it’s visitors’ senses visually. As indicated by Zufkin
(1995) ‘culture and the built heritage are more and more the business of cities –
the basis of their tourist attractions and their unique competitive edge’ (as cited by
Gospodini 2004:22). The notion of urban villages is of interest to this study
because it focuses on urban precincts that serve a variety of purposes within well
delimitated geographical areas that tend to be pedestrianised, like Covent Garden.
This area can be understood as a ‘historical urban core representing long living
survivals from the past’ (Gospodini, 2001:928) and as such, presents peculiar
urban features that to an extent, respond to the notion of an urban village.
Aldous (1992:27) refers to a Structured Planned Urban Development (SPUD) or

urban village as ‘urban areas in which a mixture of uses and a human-scale
architecture full of incident and variety produce places that people instinctively
warm to and enjoy using’. The author also indicates that urban villages are the
result of conservation and restoration initiatives aimed towards heritage and
historic building, referred to as ‘visual and psychological assets’, combined with
new development projects that suggest an inclination to urban regeneration. In
regards to the built environment’s preservation and conservation, Gospodini
(2002a:25) states that ‘conservation of traditional buildings and urban cores – and
56
even neo vernacular design schemes in some cases – is able of creating distinctive
place identity by appealing to the city’s history and heritage – built heritage,
cultural heritage – and generating strong environmental images to both visitors
and residents’. The author highlights the potential impact that a preserved built
environment can have upon a precinct’s distinctive sense of place and equally
remarks that they benefit a tourist market as well as a domestic sector, particularly
in the value granted to well established tourism precincts that ‘in the course of
history, have become rich in meaning and can be interpreted again and again in
different contexts’ (Viddler, 2978 as cited by Gospodini, 2001:929). The latter
statement is also of interest because it indicates that the area’s different attributes
can be interpreted from different perspectives and contexts.
Aldous (1992) also suggests that just as important as the buildings in the urban
village are the spaces between them, highlighting streets, squares, lanes,
pedestrian highways, green spaces, pavement and street furniture as important
elements of the precinct’s place making system. Pedestrianisation also plays an
important role in urban villages according to the author, who relates the
experience of a visit to the area with the capability of visitors to explore the space
freely. This notion imposes a series of challenges for town planners who also need
to assure fast and effective public transport to these areas whilst ‘catering for the
car without encouraging its use’ (p.30). The mixture of uses given to buildings
and commercial spaces constitute distinctive characteristics of an urban village
according to this model. By these means, different market sectors are attracted to
an area resulting in a diverse ambience and cosmopolitan atmosphere. In relation
to geographical space, the author assumes that in order to preserve the welcoming
and distinctive atmosphere of an urban village, it should not cover more than 100
acres (or 40 hectares), citing the cases of Soho and Covent Garden in London to
illustrate how well limited and not too broad areas preserve their sense of place
and ambience. However, the author also indicates that they need to be small
enough to provide welcoming and friendly settings where stakeholders can have
direct social interactions, but large enough to house and sustain a wide range of
57
activities with the infrastructure, facilities and services that they require. Aldous
(1992) proposes that an authentic urban village should not be entirely commercial
but it also needs to house a residing local community, raising further challenges to
town planners to observe the interests of not only visitors but also a host
population. It this sense, the author introduces the matter of tenure of land and
suggests that it should not be owned in majority by government or by the private
sector, but ideally, a balance between both should be attained.
It is also important to note that this author appraises the difference between the
well established urban village developed over time and new initiatives that tend to
learn lessons from past successful experiences, such as cultural clusters to be
addressed in further sections. Nevertheless, there is a gap in academic studies
between new developments and the well established urban village that developed
as such organically over an extended period of time, such as Covent Garden as
reviewed in chapter 5. As the author indicates, ‘new urban villages must not be
expected to replicate the results achieved over long periods but the incremental
and often accidental development of existing urban neighbourhoods. The urban
villages of the future will each have their own special character, reflecting the
time and circumstances in which they have evolved.’ (Osboure, 1992 as cited in
Aldous, 1992:13).
Lemos (1998) states that globalisation, far from bringing cities together,
strengthens the difference between its urban villages and other areas. The author
(p. 7) points out that ‘globalisation is giving us global cities but it is not giving
rise to global government or global living (…) making people act local but think
global’. Despite the wide ranging contrast in the urban landscape that the
globalised city presents, which can also be linked to centres of gentrification as
addressed below, Lemos (1998) suggests that perhaps one of the most beneficial
results of the development of urban villages is the promotion of local pride
amongst the host community. The approach of urban villages applied to tourism
58
precincts is beneficial because it provides relevant and valid guidelines to analyse

the nature of spaces for tourism in terms of use of land and physical
characteristics. Furthermore, it considers tangible and intangible elements of a
precinct’s place making system. However, it does not comprehensively address
the activities that make of a tourist precinct a popular area for tourism or the
activities that take place within. Hence, the next perspective by which an urban
area for tourism and culture can be approached will be presented by focusing on
the clientele they serve in terms of tourism development.
3.4. The clientele perspective

Before addressing the development of urban areas in terms of tourism, it is
important to highlight the issue of gentrification whilst assessing a thriving
tourism precinct considering that gentrification can be a natural result of such
process. It is defined by Smith and LeFaivre (1984) as ‘the rehabilitation of
working-class inner-city neighbourhoods for upper-middle class consumption’
(Palen and London, 1984:43). This phenomenon also holds a link with the
creation of ‘tourist bubbles’ because it implies the development of areas that do
not always reflect the actual living and working circumstances in the destination.
It is also associated with rising prices and economy inflation as well as indicated
by Hoffman et al. (2003:249) who state that ‘tourism benefits local land markets,
elevating property values by increasing demand for centrally located sites, and by
creating positive externalities for spaces adjacent to tourist sites (…) however, it
can have negative distributional consequences’. In this sense, and asides from
other negative impacts of the development of urban tourism, the local population
can be adversely affected.
Smith (1996) refers to the issue of gentrification and highlights both the positive
sides of it as well as the negative effects. In first hand, the three R’s of
gentrification are proposed as ‘revitalisation, recycling and renaissance’ which
benefit derelict areas where a so called invasion of tourists and/or middle and
upper classes bring with them economic trade that result in regeneration.
59
However, this inner form of colonisation may upset the host population that
resists such changes and constitute what the author refers to as ‘the revanchist
city’. Smith (1996) also debates the role of the arts in centres of gentrification,
indicating that often artists bring exposure to certain areas and regeneration comes
as a result, accompanied by gentrification that eventually excludes them from
their own performing space. This notion indicates that gentrification over time
benefits and damages different stakeholders in a determined area. According to
the Real Estate of New York (1985), the concept of gentrification applies
positively or negatively to different sectors by stating that ‘to one person, it means
improved housing. To another, it means unaffordable housing. It means safer
streets and new retail businesses to some. To others, it means the homogenisation
of a formerly diverse neighbourhood’ (as cited in Smith, 1996:31).
In relation to this, Gospodini (2002a:24) cites Gillis (1994) who points out that
‘national identity involves a widely shared memory of common past for people
who have never seen or talked to one another in the flesh. The sense of belonging
to the same nationality depends as much on forgetting as on remembering – the
past being reconstructed as a trajectory of national present in order to guarantee a
common future’. These considerations are of interest because it can be said that
the built environment of an urban precinct is reminiscent of the past in terms of
local living. The gentrifying process of rehabilitating and reconstructing may put
this identity at stake by modifying or removing altogether important signifiers of
place and history. On the other hand, gentrification affects different segments of
the host population according to their demographic indicators such as income,
level of education and certainly, proximity to the area in question.
As a consequence of the development of tourism in urban areas, it has been noted

that a differentiation between spaces for tourism and spaces for the local
community is on the rise. As stated before, destinations are increasingly met with
the need to make cities hospitable, safe and entertaining to attract visitors with the
accompanying revenue that this implies. However, the development of designated
60
tourist areas has lead academics to identify what is referred to as a tourist bubble,
contextualized from Judd and Fainstein’s (1999:36) perspective as ‘virtual tourist
reservations’ given that the entertainment centres, services and facilities available
throughout these areas target a tourist market and do not reflect the poverty, crime
levels and other negative aspects of the quality of life in other areas of the
destination. This aims towards the development of tourist areas where expenditure
can be induced in a safe and dynamic environment. Judd (1979) stresses the issue
of conglomeration from a tourism perspective and concludes that ‘agglomeration
economies apply to tourist districts not principally because concentration lowers
costs or increases the efficiency of business transactions, but because a full
panopoly of services and businesses is necessary to make the space maximally
attractive to consumers of the tourist space’ (as cited by Pearce, 1998:50).
Therefore, clustering plays an important role in the development of tourist
bubbles.
Judd and Fainstein (1999) also highlight the most notable elements of a tourist
bubble, which in the case of high profile cities in the United States of America,
include convention centres, professional sports franchises, festival malls and
gambling facilities among other large scale developments that require high
investment to build and maintain. The authors indicate that the positive economic
impacts of the development of tourist bubbles are most likely to present
themselves in the middle or long terms given the high costs that they imply,
creating controversy among the host population because public funds are assigned
to these developments. Likewise Norris (2003), states that ‘if we build it, they will
come’ in reference to the provision of infrastructure for tourism, taking the case of
the city of Baltimore and the attraction of visitors to its tourist bubble. This
destination had a clear focus on tourism when it redeveloped its inner harbour and
clustered it with several tourist attractions including a sports stadium and a large
scale aquarium amongst others. The main benefits for the destination are
identified as the physical regeneration, the attraction of tourists and their spending
and the creation of job opportunities and tax revenues. However, and despite these
61
positive impacts, the author notes criticism raised by the lack of equally
distributed benefits for other parts of the city (as stated in Judd and Fainstein,
2003). These negatives effects of tourism amongst urban spaces are also related to
the issue of gentrification as noted above. However, the concept of a tourist
bubble is useful in terms of pragmatic research considering that it raises
awareness that the tourist’s reality is not necessarily that of the every day life of
the destination. On the other hand however, it does not comprehensively address
the types of business that comprise the tourist portfolio within these areas. For this
reason, the third perspective by which urban areas for tourism will be analysed
addresses these businesses in terms of the provision of entertainment and culture.
3.5. The business perspective - entertainment

Rubin et al. (1994) indicate that ‘retailing and urban redevelopment are now
driven by entertainment. Entertainment attracts people to an area and creates
pedestrian activity, repeat visits, (strengthens) the perception of economic vitality
(…) and are also credited with revitalizing many nearly abandoned downtowns.
Many other cities are now attempting to replicate this success by developing
downtown entertainment districts consisting of movie theatres, nightclubs, bars,
restaurants, and retail shopping.’ (as cited by Berkley and Thayer, 2000). In this
sense, it can be noted that the provision of culture for the development of cultural
tourism proves to be a viable and effective means for urban regeneration and
commercial trade. However, these authors’ focus on amenities and attractions that
tend to go ‘hand to hand’ with a place for culture, where visitors not only want to
experience the local culture or consume the arts, but also seek experiences related
to leisure and entertainment. On the other hand, Berkley and Thayer (2000) note
that the development of an entertainment district implies a series of challenges.
Namely, issues related to safety and security, transients and panhandlers that
constitute a non desired segment of the visitors that these districts attract, noise
pollution that disturb the local and working population in the area, traffic
congestion, public urination, the need for parking spaces, pedestrian crowding and
the need for visitor information centres. These problems can be tackled with by
62
visitor management strategies (See Roberts et al., 2006, 2005). However, they
represent an ongoing and evolving challenge that require constant monitoring
intended to ‘assuring public safety, setting a tone, maintaining high visibility to
create a perception of safety, crowd and traffic control, (…) and pedestrian flow’
(Berkley and Thayer, 200:480).
The approach of the entertainment district is useful because of its pragmatic

perspective upon the tourism precinct and focus on leisure and entertainment.
Nonetheless, it lacks an in depth scrutiny of the dynamics of the tourist’s
behaviour or motivations to visit. Furthermore, it is important to note that the
present study focuses on the provision of culture within an urban precinct for
tourism, therefore it is of key importance to explore the role of culture as a
business in a tourism context as addressed below.
3.6. The business perspective – culture

Montgomery (1995:136) highlights that there are many cultural resources that can
be included in an area’s mix of attractions and features that would ultimately
attract a wide variety of visitors with different cultural interests. As noted by the
author (p136) ‘culture is seen as a lifestyle indulgence for urban elites, as if high
art, opera and ballet were the only (or even the dominant) forms – what about
popular music, film, video games, dancing, night clubs, etc?’. The author also
suggests that the cultural elements of an urban precinct also have an impact on the
area’s visitors’ behaviour and experience of place as ‘(they encompass) the way
people eat, talk, think, meet others, engage in transactions, spend their free time,
during the day and at night’. These considerations suggest that the use of culture
as a catalyst for the development of urban areas for tourism can be seen as
activities that take place, but it also comprises behavioural aspects concerned with
the area’s visitors. The author notes that cultural consumption can stimulate
economic activity that tends to vary throughout different times of day in the
cultural precinct; it grants it with a vibrant and animated sense of place and can be
63
influenced by distinctive urban characteristics. All these considerations lead to the

notion of a cultural quarter as addressed below.
Roodhouse (2006:22) conceptualises a cultural quarter as ‘a geographical area of a

large town or city which acts as a focus for cultural and artistic activities through
the presence of a group of buildings devoted to housing a range of such activities,
and purpose designed or adapted spaces to create a sense of identity, providing an
environment to facilitate and encourage the provision of cultural and artistic
services and activities’. In this sense, clustering, architecture and infrastructure are
key elements of a cultural quarter. The author introduces the term ‘cultural
iconographic regeneration’ to address the importance of the establishment of these
cultural districts in a broader urban regeneration strategy. Despite these
considerations, Mommaas (2004:530) questions the development of cultural
clusters merely for the promotion of art by reflecting on different cultural quarters
in the Netherlands and concludes that ‘most of the projects analysed are not the
result of a clear choice between alternative developmental models, based on
specific cultural objectives and a related evaluation of local and historical
circumstances. Instead, most of them are the result of a rather eclectic coming
together of locally specific opportunities, in combination with a rather generalised
notion of the possible role of the arts and culture in the post-industrial city’. This
suggests that it is important to clarify that cultural quarters can play an important
role in the promotion of culture but they also serve a wide range of purposes that
are in many cases the primary motivation for their development, such as a strong
commercial sector for example.
The concept of cultural quarters and tourism clusters can also be associated with
what economists refer to as ‘economies of agglomeration’ as noted before. This
implies ‘savings in unit cost that accrue to certain kinds of firms when a large
enough number of them locate in the same city. The savings usually occur
because the firms are able to share a common pool of highly specialised inputs,
64
the very existence of which depends on there being a concentration of local

buyers’ (Heilbrun and Grey, 2001:338). Therefore, it can be said that the clustered
nature of economic units within a cultural quarter stimulates economic trade and a
synergic relationship between these units. Gordon and Goodall (2000:296)
support this view and indicate that the causes for the creation of tourism clusters
are ‘the comparative advantage arising from inherited local and accessible
resources, scale economies in the provision and use of key items of infrastructure,
notably transport links or terminals, but also major attractions; and economies of
scale and scope in the operation of tourist services’ (as cited in Shaw and
Williams 2004:189). Roodhouse (2006) also proposes a set of performance
indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the establishment of a cultural quarter,
stating that it is defined by its ability to address needs on the local, regional and
national perspectives; creating, supplying and developing the activity of choice;
stressing the conservation and development of the built environment; and a
constant quest for the identification of the local population with the meaning and
purpose of the district. Risk factors in this matter include the decrease of public
investment in certain districts to develop a cultural quarter, rise on long term
conservation costs and complexity in the task of providing services such as
transport that if altered, may not meet effectively the needs of other parts of the
destination. Therefore, a well established cultural quarter will consider issues
related to the built environment, the activities that take place within and the
stakeholders that are either affected by or affect the area and the activities that
take place in it..
Roodhouse (2006) also suggests a mix for the creation of a thriving cultural
quarter, indicating that it should be characterized by its activity, built form and
meaning. In these regards, Montgomery (2003) points out that other features not
directly related to the cultural activity featured in the cultural quarter can be
critical success factors, such as a dynamic night time economy and a lively
commercial sector, citing London’s Soho to illustrate this notion. On the other
hand, the author proposes a set of general principles for this matter, which include
the task of place making, the use of space, urban layout and visitor management.
65
Montgomery (2003) makes reference to a range of examples of cultural quarter to

illustrate different issues surrounding the concept, such as the United Kingdom’s
Sheffield cultural quarter which stresses the role of industry in culture and the
Wolverhampton cultural quarter focusing on the role of crafts. In a broader
sphere, Roodhouse (2006) cites the cases of Vienna’s museum cluster and
Belfast’s Opera compound as examples of the application of cultural quarters as a
regeneration strategy that can increase the number of visitors and help create an
image for a destination as a place for cultural consumption. Evans (2003) also
agrees that the cultural sector of a tourism cluster can help re define the concept
and perception of the visitor experience leading to the phenomenon known as re
branding, which also relates to the concept of culture-led urban regeneration as
stated by McCarthy (2006).
This research focuses on a cultural flagship and its influence on the perception and
experience of an area that can be understood as a cultural quarter. Therefore, it is
important to consider the role that a flagship development can have upon an urban
area. In this sense, the notion of a cultural cluster is also relevant to this study as it
highlights the presence of large scale cultural attractions in urban areas for culture.
Mommaas (2004) makes an evaluation of the creation and development of urban
spaces for tourism and proposes the cultural cluster model based on selected
Dutch case studies. The author focuses on the museum quarter in Rotterdam, the
multi functional theatre complex built in an industrial facility named the
Westergasfabriek located in Amsterdam, Tilburg’s musical facilities known as the
Veemarktkwartier and the museum and theatre quarter in Utrecht. It is important
to note that these clusters are relatively new developments in contrast to other
historic precincts that have developed cultural clusters over centuries.
Nevertheless, Mommaas (2004) makes a useful analysis related to culture-led
urban development. In the first instance, the author notes that the use of land
aimed towards the promotion of art with all the benefits that such endeavours
imply are identifiable in all cases, ‘linking cultural activities and amenities to
economic, spatial and social policy goals’ (p. 514). The author also identifies a
66
series of patterns in the relationship between different economic and cultural

units. He introduces the concept of vertical and horizontal integration and
indicates that horizontally, the gap between the range of activities and their level
of interaction amongst them need to be clearly distinguished. In other words,
‘although most projects contain elements of leisure and consumption (shopping,
entertainment, retail, bars and restaurants), the projects differ both in terms of the
share of these elements in the programme and in terms of the level of intra cluster
collaboration between these leisure elements and the cultural core’ (p. 514).
Another important consideration to evaluate the nature of a cultural cluster is the
vertical dynamics of the activities taking place in such urban spaces. Mommaas
(2004) indicates that a cluster can be monofunctional should a narrow assortment
of cultural attractions and activities take place, or multifunctional with a higher
level of diversity between them.
Finally, Mommaas (2004) also focuses on the development of the cluster as an

important element of its understanding. In general terms, the author indicates that
a quest for strengthening the identity, establishing a cultural attraction’s power
and positioning an area firmly in the tourism market set the grounds for a thriving
and sustainable cultural cluster. However, it is important to note once again that
this assumption is not entirely suitable for cultural clusters that were developed in
the tourist historic city over centuries, and not as a result of town planning or
cultural promotion. The same consideration applies to Mommaas’ (2004)
proposition about cultural clusters resulting from an entrepreneurial trend that
focuses on culture and arts. This can be understandable and expected from a case
study such as the Veemarktkwartier or any of the recent efforts to develop cultural
clusters, but not so in the tourist historic precinct where early policies did not
consider entrepreneurship or tourism.
67
3.7. The output perspective – creativity

It is clear that the use of cultural resources can succeed in granting an area with a
distinctive sense of place that attracts a variety of visitors resulting in a popular
tourism precinct. It is important to note, however, that the presence of cultural
entities may have a deeper impact on the area beyond its status as a tourism hub.
When culture is associated and embedded into an area’s every day life, fabric and
produce, it becomes a milieu for creativity where culture is not only seen as a
resource but as a tradition. Landry (2000) remarks the importance of the role of
creativity in the tourism city of the 21st century; and likewise, Mommaas (2004)
stresses the importance of the promotion of creativity and innovation to support a
cultural cluster. Another interesting observation of the author is the trend towards
using obsolete infrastructure located in neglected areas as focus points to develop
cultural flagships. Such is the case of the Westergasfabriek, an industrial facility
for processing natural gas that was transformed into a cultural centre that aided in
the development of a cultural cluster attracting a variety of visitors and with a
strong commercial sector. The stimulation of cultural diversity and democracy is
addressed as a key ingredient for the success of a cultural cluster because of the
globalised nature of the phenomenon of tourism in the recent decades. In further
sections, Landry’s (2000) notion about the creative city and the translation of a
cultural cluster into a creative milieu are addressed. The reason why an alternative
approach to cultural tourism precincts has been deemed necessary is because, as
useful as the cultural clusters theory is, it does not actively include the role of
people and institutions that carry through the cultural endeavours that attract
tourists.
Under the premise that cultural activity is the result of enterprises by individuals
often sponsored by organisations driven by the urge of artistic expression or
profitability by means of culture, Landry (2000) approaches the cultural cluster
perspective from the core of culture itself, which is creativity. The author
highlights the importance of persons involved in the process of their development,
not only in terms of funding but in the provision of art in its many expressions and
68
forms. A creative milieu is defined by the author (2000:133) as ‘a place, either a

cluster of buildings, a part of a city, a city as a whole or a region; that contains the
necessary preconditions in terms of hard and soft infrastructure to generate a flow
of ideas and inventions’. This proposition is useful to understand spaces for
cultural tourism considering that the basis of the successful attraction of visitors
can be related to an environment that facilitates and promotes the production of
culture. It is also interesting to note that the author refers to two different types of
infrastructure to create this environment, hard infrastructure constituted by the
buildings and facilities required to the production of arts, whereas soft
infrastructure refers to the social interactions, human networks and intellectual
intercourse required for the production of culture. Landry (2000) indicates that a
creative milieu can be formed and sustained if the infrastructural, cultural,
intellectual and organisational resources are managed effectively in a
collaborating network that should respond to the principle of synergy, where the
sum of all the elements’ efforts combined can achieve greater things that the sum
of their individual efforts. In the words of the author: ‘creativity and innovation
need to be seen as a holistic, integrated process covering every aspect of urban life
from the economic, political, cultural, environmental and social-multiple
innovativeness’. The author identifies the characteristics of the creative milieu and
concludes that knowledge, skills and communication between individuals and
organisations are their key success factors. This notion confirms the importance of
this research, as it focuses on a high profile provider of culture that is based at the
core of a vibrant area for tourism.
3.8. Summary of models of understanding of urban areas for tourism

All the models developed above contribute in different ways to the understanding
of the social and spatial aspects of urban areas for tourism and culture. It is
important however, to indicate that every city and indeed every urban precinct is
an individual mechanism with different characteristics, very much like human
beings. Therefore, it is reasonable to affirm that the characteristics of the area
studied are the ones that will suggest the relevance of the model, and not the other
69
way around. In order to understand the characteristics of an area, it is necessary to

evaluate it as an individual with intricate and distinctive characteristics. The result
of this analysis will suggest which model suits better to the area. However, it is
also important to reiterate that to a certain extent, all theories contribute positively
to the understanding of urban development, its relationship with tourism and the
role that culture plays in it. For this reason, the following table summarises these
different approaches. By providing a synthesized illustration of these models, it is
hoped that a more logical background can be proposed in order to apply these
concepts to the case study area. The table is composed of the authors that have
made the most significant contribution to the theories or those who have been
considered in this research, a brief conceptualisation of the theories followed by
illustrative examples and their focus. On the basis of this, the strengths and
weaknesses of each theory are addressed.
70
Table 3.2– Summary of models of understanding of urban areas for tourism

Contributing Concept Examples Focus Strengths Weaknesses
author(s)
Tourism Bubble Judd and ‘Virtual tourist Inner Harbour, Tourists, urban Helps identify areas Does not provide enough
Fainstein (1999) reservations’ Baltimore development specifically planned for focus on types of tourism
tourism demand served for
Gentrification Smith (1996) ‘Revitalisation, Mayfair, London Economics, Host Provides an Does not contemplate issues
Centre recycling, community understanding of the related to tourism supply and
renaissance’ effects of investment in demand
focalised urban areas
Entertainment Berkley and ‘Economic vitality Broadway, New Economics, The focus on leisure and Lacks insights of sociological
District Thayer (2000) through the York social dynamics, entertainment can be and behavioural
development of regulations directly linked to tourism considerations
leisure industries’
Urban Village Aldous (1992) ‘Mixture of uses Soho, London Social, It approaches a mixture Lack of in depth analyses
and features lead architectural, of issues related to both regarding the tourism mix and
to a distinctive urban planning the tourism and local structure of industries
and attractive segments involved
urban setting’
Cultural Cluster Mommaas ‘Urban areas Culture Park Cultural, It stresses the importance Limited to contemporary case
(2004) developed partly Westergasfabriek, agglomeration of flagship developments studies in the Netherlands
on the basis of Amsterdam economy,
flagships flagship
providing for the developments
cultural sector’
71
Contributing Concept Examples Focus Strengths Weaknesses

author(s)
Cultural Quarter Roodhouse ‘Urban areas as Museum Quarter, Cultural, flagship Cultural activities Lack of specialised focus on
(2006) centres for culture Vienna developments considered parallel to tourism and, tourist’s
on the basis of a flagship developments. motivation and behaviour
group of Clear definition of
developments for public/private
this purpose; intervention
providing identity
and ambience’
Creative Milieu Landry (2000) ‘A compound of Düsseldorf, Germany Creativity, Stress on the importance Does not consider interlinks
persons and people and of the dynamics between between cultural and other
institutions institutions, persons and organisations forms of tourism
fostering cultural social dynamics in the creative process
development in
urban areas’
72
Another lesson learned from the review of these theories of urban areas for
tourism is the need to conduct research on specific case studies to explore their
individual nature. It is also important to note that several of the case studies that
have given way to these theories are the results of contemporary efforts to develop
urban areas for tourism and culture (Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam for
example). This raises the issue of how the theories can be applied to case studies
from the culturally rich world city, with urban areas established over the course of
centuries and under researched as such. In this sense, and once again, considering
that some of these theories are the result of studies undertaken in modern or
contemporary urban settings, it can be suggested that a specialised focus on a
certain area that does not respond entirely to the notions of existing theories can
potentially give way to new theories for their understanding.
3.9. Conclusions
The different models of understanding of urban areas for tourism and culture are
eclectic in nature and focus. However, a common characteristic that can be
applied to all of them is the extent to which tourism has affected their urban
development. Whether they are seen as tourist bubbles or cultural quarters, it is
clear that these areas may have been purposely developed for tourism and cultural
promotion purposes, or they may have evolved organically as such over extended
periods of time. Covent Garden, as addressed in chapter 5, has a rich history as a
place for commerce and cultural activity that led to its current status as a popular
precinct for tourism and culture. Furthermore, its built environment and scale
constitute distinct characteristics that strengthen its sense of place and draw for
tourism. Cultural activity is intense in the area in terms of the provision of high
and popular forms of art along with the presence of cultural attractions such as St
Paul’s Church and the Transport Museum. However, the leisure and commercial
sectors are firmly positioned in the area as well considering the variety of shops
throughout its different locations as well as eating and drinking facilities. It has
been subjected to development efforts to different extents (the Opera House’s re
development for example) which have also led to gentrification and increased
73
property value. On the other hand, there are certain buildings surrounding the
area’s central Piazza that can be seen as flagship developments, such as the Royal
Opera House and Covent Garden Market. All these considerations indicate that all
the models reviewed in this chapter can be applied to different extents to the case
study area. From a physical point of view, Covent Garden’s built environment fits
into the urban village perspective because of its scale and mixed use of land.
However, it was not developed as such. The area’s cultural sector also point out
that it can be understood as a cultural quarter or creative milieu. Likewise, its
provision of experiences related to leisure and consumption suggest that it can
also be seen as an entertainment district or tourist bubble. And finally, the
presence of a large scale flagship development suggests that it can be seen as a
cultural cluster. These models of understanding of urban areas will be revisited
and further applied to Covent Garden in chapter 5. However, considering that the
overall aim of this study is to explore how the Royal Opera House as a cultural
flagship effectively influences the area’s visitors’ perception and experience of
place, it is important to establish a theoretical understanding of flagship
developments and their relationship to urban areas, destinations and users.
Therefore, the following chapter will explore the topic of cultural flagships.
74
Cultural Flagships Chapter 4
4. CULTURAL FLAGSHIPS
4.1. Introduction
Once a theoretical understanding of the cultural tourist and urban areas for
tourism and culture has been established, it is important to explore concepts
related to flagship developments as this research focuses on the Royal Opera
House in Covent Garden, which can be understood as a cultural supplier as well as
an architectural feature of the area. In this sense, Crosby (1970) indicates that a
city’s image is constituted mainly by architectural assets in the form of buildings,
landmarks and monuments; which interact with the visitor’s perception to
generate a depiction of the destination. Flagship developments have been
identified as important elements of a destination’s landscape that play signifying
roles in the projection of a city’s image. As indicated by Wing Tai Wai
(2004:245), ‘as cities strive for globality, flagship developments play
indispensable roles by signalling messages of economic development and cultural
vibrancy’. Roberts and Greed (2001) indicate that social and cultural values are
often associated and granted to buildings that can often acquire iconic status. In
this sense, the association of architecture as an extension of culture plays a vital
role in the understanding of what a cultural flagship embodies, both for the tourist,
the local community and the destination itself. In relation to this, DeBotton (2006)
states that buildings ‘speak’ and that they have a ‘virtue to them’ by
communicating messages without words but merely by means of visual signs.
Girst (1995:1) agrees and points out that ‘buildings speak to us. They tell us about
the economic and social structures of the times in which they were built. They
speak of pride of ownership, of municipal or state power, and of commercial
success-all through the subtle use of architectural form and decoration’. It is also
important to note, however, that cultural flagships as expressions of urban
development and culture provision are subjected to different mechanisms of
interpretation, suggesting that buildings may speak, but their input can also be
determined by social meaning.
75
Given these considerations, the objective of this chapter is to explore the concept
of cultural flagships by evaluating the notion from a physical perspective and
from their social and cultural perspectives. For this purpose, different concepts
associated with flagship developments as commercial and cultural providers will
be explored followed by a review of different approaches applied to the concept of
flagships as icons and monuments. Subsequently, museums and venues for the
performing arts will be evaluated as cultural flagships which will provide an
understanding of the different benefits that they may bring to urban precincts as
architectural attractions and providers of culture. The final sections of this chapter
will address issues related to arts consumption and audience development for
flagships for the performing arts.
4.2. Flagship developments

According to Bianchini et al. (1990), a flagship development can be understood as
a ‘significant, high profile development that plays an influential and catalytic role
in urban regeneration, which can be justified if it attracts other investment’ (as
cited in Smyth, 1994:4). As noted previously, flagships developments have the
potential of encouraging urban progress related to the attraction of different
elements around it, such as a thriving commercial sector or cultural vibrancy. This
notion is applicable to urban precincts such as Covent Garden where different
sectors such as commerce and different forms of cultural activity are concentrated
around the flagship building this study focuses on. Bianchini et al. (1990) note
that a flagship development is often funded by government entities or it can be
financially autonomous regardless of its role as catalyst of urban renewal
benefitting areas from a physical perspective or a cultural context leading to
investment and consumption. It can also be a focus point for further investment
projects and can become a strategic tool for the marketing of a destination. As
indicated by the authors, ‘the development of a flagship as an entity in itself is
important, yet it is the wider promotional value that makes the flagship
distinctive’ (Bianchini et al., 1990:28). In this sense, it is clear that flagship
developments have the potential of projecting images that can ultimately be
associated with the destination as a whole. These images however, can have
76
different focuses depending on the functional aspects and the purpose that the
flagship development serves. On one hand, commercial flagship developments are
appraised by Wing Tai Wai (2004), who focuses on the case of Shanghai's
Xintiandi to illustrate the efficient planning and management of flagship efforts
that benefit a destination’s image as a place for commercial consumption. It
should be noted however, that Wing Tai Wai (2004) focuses on a development
oriented towards the provision of eating and drinking, leisure and entertainment
facilities. Therefore, a distinction should be made between these types of
developments and those that focus on the provision of culture such as Opera
Houses and museums as discussed in further sections.
A commercial flagship, such as Kuala Lumpur’s The Mall can potentially act as a
landmark building and signifier of the city’s commercial dynamism and grandiose
approach to shopping centres. This development is addressed by Sardar (2000) as
an important element of the destination’s portfolio for tourism; however, it is also
argued that this commercial function and status as a contemporary development
lacks sufficient heritage and history to be considered as a cultural asset. On the
other hand, there are cultural landmarks that have been granted the status of
flagships because of their historic and cultural value, their status as providers of
culture and their positive influence on the development of urban areas for tourism
and culture. Crowley (2003) cites the case of the Palace of Culture and Science in
Warsaw, which was heavily affected by bombings during the Second World War
to illustrate this. The remains of the building were subjected to a series of
reconstruction efforts that lead to its full restoration and improvement leading to
its current status as a cultural flagship due to its visual characteristics and cultural
value. This suggests that buildings with rich heritage can be subjected to
redevelopment programmes to improve their accessibility to visitors and enable
them to act as cultural suppliers. The Royal Opera House is a similar case study as
discussed in the next chapter. Given these considerations, the forthcoming chapter
will focus on cultural flagships and different approaches by which they can be
understood, such as iconic buildings and monuments.
77
4.3. Cultural flagships

In relation to a flagship development’s significance for an urban area,
Montgomery (2003) notes that often the urban identity of precincts for tourism
and culture can be strongly influenced by the presence of a cultural flagship,
adding competitiveness to a destination in a tourism context and enriching its
cultural sector. In the case of London for example, a world famous Opera House
may project messages of the destination’s cultural vibrancy and resources.
Similarly, Smith (2003:159) appraises the close link held between the conception
of cultural flagships and their active role in the development of urban areas for
tourism by citing Knox (1993:10) who indicates that ‘spectacular local projects
such as downtown malls, festival market places, new stadia, theme parks and
conference centres are seen as having the greatest capacity to enhance property
values and generate retail turnover and generate employment’.
These notions suggest that as much as commercial flagship developments can

stimulate the economic sector of an area or a destination, the cultural credentials
of a tourism precinct can be enhanced by the presence of a flagship development
that acts as a supplier of culture. Smith (2003:159) also evaluates the relationship
between cultural flagships and the areas where they are situated by indicating that
‘it is important in any cultural regeneration project that cultural developments are
integrated into mixed-used (land) rather than constructing isolated arts centres or
cultural landmarks which fail to generate further economic and social benefits for
the local communities’. The author proposes that cultural flagships and the areas
where they are located can foster a mutually beneficial relationship through the
attraction of a wide array of visitors seeking different experiences concentrated
within them. These considerations are useful for this study as Covent Garden can
be perceived and experienced as a place for culture, but its cultural sector has
attracted further investment that resulted in a vibrant commercial ambience for
example. The Royal Opera House as a cultural flagship and its role as a catalyst
for this phenomenon will be further explored in the next chapter and through the
analysis of primary data in the findings and discussion chapters.
78
It is also important to evaluate the cultural significance granted to a flagship

development to the extent that it acquires the cultural flagship status. Smyth
(1994) proposes that a flagship development can acquire cultural significance
when it is closely linked to a local culture and/or cultural activities. The author
also suggests that because of their role as suppliers of local cultures, they have the
potential of engendering pride amongst the local community. However, the
context of the conception (original purpose) and development process of these
landmarks will ultimately determine the cultural value assigned to them. This
value can be associated with a large scale approach to its architectural features and
to its role as a supplier of culture. In relation to this, Grodach (2008b:496)
comments that ‘in addition to the physical and economic development
implications of this clustering dynamic, cultural flagships may serve as a support
centre for local artists and arts organisations by providing a space to meet and
exchange ideas, creating opportunities for career growth (...) and partnering with
non-profit community and commercial arts organisations’. These concepts can be
related to the notion of a creative milieu in regards to areas where creative
individuals and organisations partner and network for the development of a
precinct with a strong focus on culture and creativity (Landry, 2000). This is
notable in the case of Covent Garden given the area’s rich supply of different
types of performing arts, from high arts at the Opera House to popular street
entertainment in the Piazza as explored in the next chapter. Therefore, a flagship
development’s status as a cultural flagship can be associated with its visual value
in terms of its architecture, its role as a supplier of culture and the impact that it
has on its urban environment. However, as noted above, these functions can be
assigned to them primarily when a flagship is conceived as a provider of culture,
or they can acquire these functions through time and as a result of cultural
promotion (such as in the case of converted industrial facilities as venues for the
performing arts in cultural clusters as discussed in the previous chapter).
4.4. Cultural flagships as monuments

The high profile and large scale attributes associated with flagship developments
indicate their association with monumental architecture, suggesting that cultural
79
flagships can be understood as monuments considering their contribution to an

urban landscape. However, it is important to note that monumentality is not only
associated with physical attributes that make of flagships typical sights of a
destination. Canniffe (2006:130) proposes that cultural flagships can be
approached from the monumental perspective, defining a monument as ‘buildings
and objects which attract communal activities’. This indicates that monuments are
expressions of local culture that may exert an important influence on an area’s
cultural identity. Furthermore, the notion relates them with the practice of
communal activities that can be related to the tourist’s performance and rituals as
discussed by Perkins and Thorns (2001) and Edensor (2001). DeBotton (2002),
however, argues that these facts do not necessarily guarantee a genuine interest
from the visitor in monuments as flagships. The visitor’s motivational background
will determine the degree by which a visitor’s experience is affected by an
architectural artefact. Furthermore, DeBotton (2006:20) states that ‘reverence for
beautiful buildings does not seem to be a high ambition on which to pin our hopes
for happiness’, arguing that the tourist’s experience and the role of a cultural
flagship or monument is the result of the interaction between the intricate inner
processes of the viewer’s mind, the physical attributes of the architecture which is
perceived and the cultural value assigned to it.
On the other hand, Canniffe (2006:134) cites Serts (1943) whilst addressing the
multifaceted nature of flagships as monuments, indicating that ‘the people want
the buildings that represent their social community life to give more than
functional fulfilment. They want their aspiration for monumentality, joy, pride,
and excitement to be satisfied’. In this sense, the value assigned to flagship
developments as monuments is perhaps stronger to the local culture than as means
for attracting tourists. These considerations regarding flagships as monuments can
also be linked to the theoretical background provided in regards to the experience
of cultural tourism. It has been determined that cultural experiences are shifting
towards participative, active endeavours that would engage the visitor either
physically, intellectually, or both. Should a cultural flagship be interpreted as a
monument, the act of observing it constitutes a passive experience that does not
80
respond to Smith’s (2007a) novel forms of cultural tourism. This suggests that the
monumental perspective applied to cultural flagships is useful to understand the
cultural significance of a flagship development, but does not prove to be entirely
successful to understand why tourists are drawn to these attractions. However, it
can also be argued that the rituals and tourist performances that a monument’s
visitors’ may participate in can potentially constitute active and engaging tourist
experiences. Therefore, considering a flagship’s visual appeal and cultural
attachment to a destination that leads to high levels of visitation by tourists that
engage in active communal practices, cultural flagships can also be understood
from the iconic perspective as discussed below.
4.5. Cultural flagships as icons

High profile architectural artefacts were not in all cases designed to serve as
catalysts for tourism or urban regeneration, but acquired their flagship role
because of their cultural value as indicated before. From a visual point of view,
Cambie (2009:115) indicates that ‘an iconic building is one that shouts about its
presence, that transcends its context and makes a commanding statement’. This
suggests that both meaning and form are to be taken in consideration when
appraising a building’s status as an icon. The author (p. 115) also defines iconic
buildings as ‘sexy snapshots, it destinations, must have holiday visits, pin up
posters of modern urban tourism’ concluding that their imposing presence in
urban destinations lead to a form of tourism conceptualised as ‘architourism’.
However, the approach does not entirely integrate function, visual traits and
cultural meaning. To understand the iconic nature of a building that may acquire a
flagship status, Edensor (1998) makes an in depth study focusing on the case of
the Taj Mahal in India. Originally built as a posthumous monument in the 17th
century, its grandiose architecture successfully attracts tourists, which triggered
the need to establish a well defined tourism strategy to sustainably manage the
designated tourist space. This structure was granted World Heritage Site status by
the UNESCO because of its cultural and physical significance. This indicates that
an iconic building’s function evolves over time, and that tourism can potentially
exert an influence in this process, especially when the building’s image is used for
81
marketing and branding purposes. This example illustrates the contrast between a
cultural flagship and a cultural icon, being the latter more applicable to this case
because regardless of the measures taken by governments to regulate its visitation
and positive input on the economy; it is essentially a manifestation of the local
culture. This implies that whilst a cultural flagship may be of a transitory nature
because it is often conceived for an impermanent purpose, a cultural icon overlaps
and transcends these objectives becoming perennial expressions of culture.
Government involvement in the management and use of an architectural structure,
then, plays an important role in the building’s status as an icon, a cultural flagship,
a tool for place promotion and a means for urban regeneration. These concepts are
useful for this research because the Opera House in Covent Garden was subjected
to a redevelopment programme that entailed heavy governmental intervention that
aimed to achieve a series of objectives, being increased notoriety one of them in
terms of its physical appearance and functionality.
Another example of a cultural flagship that has transcended and transformed itself
into a symbol for a destination, a powerful catalyst for tourism and cultural icon is
the Eiffel Tower in France. The structure was originally built as an entrance for
the World Exposition held in Paris to commemorate the hundred years of the
French revolution (Harriss, 1975). It was poorly received by both audiences and
builders but in the present day it is the most visited paid attraction in the world
(Normand, 2007). This is a graphic illustration of how flagship edifications can
generate economic development by means of massive tourism flows. It is also a
landmark monument that has constituted the most important element of the
marketing of Paris as a tourism destination, as Harriss (1975:223) states, ‘it
becomes the symbol of Paris, of modernity (…) it is the inevitable sign’. All these
considerations suggest that function and visual aspects are involved in the
acquisition of an architectural artefact into a flagship and depending on the degree
of exposure and attachment to a destination’s image, into an icon. In terms of
function, museums and venues for the performing arts have drawn attention to
existing literature related to cultural flagships as discussed below.
82
4.6. Museums as cultural flagships

Dexter Lord and Lord (1998:53) address museums as cultural flagships and link
them to the tourism industry by stating that ‘museums are a vital part of the
world’s largest industry, tourism. As a result they need to be recognised –and to
recognise themselves- as significant economic development generators within
many communities’. The authors highlight the importance of museums to tourism
destinations in terms of economic revenue that the attraction of tourists generates.
However, their cultural implications should also be addressed. San Roman (1992)
proposes that these cultural institutions are often linked to a destination’s identity
in their role as providers of culture (as noted by Boylan, 1992). In this sense,
museums can be linked to the notion of cultural flagships because of the positive
input they have on destinations along with their architectural importance to the
urban landscape and the cultural significance assigned to them. Examples of
museums that respond to the notion of cultural flagships include the British
Museum in London and the Louvre in France because of their status as world
class providers of culture and distinctive architecture that is an important element
of their respective area’s urban landscape. Furthermore, they stimulate other
activities related to commerce and leisure that result in the attraction of tourists.
The Guggenheim museum in Bilbao has also been a flagship development that has
been the focus of extensive research on the impact of cultural flagships on the
attraction of tourists (Plaza, 2000a) whilst promoting a positive projection of the
city as a destination of cultural vibrancy and further urban developments such as
increased public transport (Klikzkowski, 2003).
The evaluation of museums as cultural flagships is also useful for this research in
terms of clustering, as noted by Van Aalst and Boogarts (2002:196), who propose
that ‘cities use museums as tools to redevelop or regenerate city centres, the
concentration –or clustering—of museums is considered to be an especially
effective way to attract more visitors and tourists to one particular area (...) (this)
physical concentration was and is generally tied to the redevelopment of public
space and is usually combined with other facilities (...) the intertwining of diverse
functions –such as cafes and restaurants, events, museum stores- within a single
83
space is an explicit goal’. These notions are applicable to this research from the
clustering perspective, as the case study area is characterised by the compression
of a variety of venues for the performing arts that has promoted the development
of other commercial businesses. Another illustration of the role of museum
clustering in the development of urban areas for tourism and culture is the Paseo
del Prado in Madrid; which has played an important role in the development of
cultural tourism in the destination (Parsons, 2003). This urban district houses
three of the most important museums in Spain: the Museo del Prado, the Thyssen-
Bornemisza Museum and the Museo de la Reina Sofia. The concentration of
museums in urban precincts like Paseo del Prado in Spain leads these clustered
institutions to share services such as public transport and parking space whilst
creating a more visible profile for its tourist attractions, which ‘provide visitors
with an opportunity to engage in multiple activities in a shorter period of time (...)
(the multifunctional cluster) has the advantage that a certain area can be used by
day as well as by night’ (Vaan Aalst and Boogarts, 2002:196). Therefore, such as
in the case of Covent Garden, cultural flagships can lead to the clustering of
tourist activities within a single precinct that presents visitors with a wider variety
of experiences concentrated in the same area.
As noted before, cultural flagships can be conceived as such or they can be

granted with that status over time. Hence, it is important to make a distinction
between contemporary museums and well established ones. Physick (1982)
focuses on the case of the Victoria and Albert Museum in South Kensington to
explore the case of well established museums, highlighting the importance of
architectural aesthetic to a flagship development which can become as important
as the building’s content and functionality. The author (1982:12) indicates that
‘perhaps the Victoria and Albert Museum is the only museum in the world housed
in a building which to a great extent itself was meant to be one of its own museum
exhibits’. The case of the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao can also be associated
with this notion because of its attractive and innovative design. However, it can be
argued that the difference between these case studies is the urban attachment that
the Victoria and Albert Museum has developed with South Kensington over time
84
and as an important element of the area’s cultural cluster. The presence of this
cluster along with the museum’s acquired heritage and cultural value actively
contribute to the attraction of tourists in the area, which is aided by the fact that it
has been there for an extended period of time. In relation to this, Handler and
Gable (1997) indicate that old museums face numerous challenges to keep up to
date with changing trends and demands of the industry because of their old
infrastructure, but have the advantage of merging into the cultural identity of the
area they are attached to, or the destinations themselves, over time. In regards to
new flagship developments, Grodach (2008a-b) points out that the opening of the
Guggenheim museum in Bilbao has suggested that the contemporary development
of large scale cultural facilities are catalysts of urban regeneration and the
consequent attraction of tourists. However, the author concludes that an attractive
architectural design is beneficial to achieve the indicated benefits, but the ‘Bilbao
effect’ will not automatically happen without careful planning in terms of
location, where the dynamics between the museum and other economic units
(shops, restaurants) can occur in synergy to achieve the desired urban progress,
regeneration and attraction of visitors.
All these considerations indicate that museums as cultural flagships can be well
established or contemporary developments, with different cultural values assigned
to each case. However, industrial facilities turned into cultural flagships are also
of interest to this research as the case study building was subjected to extensive
redevelopment work. The Tate Modern in London is appraised by Sabbagh (2000)
as playing an important role in the destination’s cultural portfolio actively
contribution to London’s status as a world city of culture. The author highlights
how the refurbishment of an industrial site and subsequent transformation into a
cultural venue adds on to the cultural offer of the attraction and in this case, to the
Southbank’s cultural vibrancy. Similarly, Sydney’s Powerhouse transformed the
infrastructure of an industrial facility and converted into an architectural attraction
that houses the Powerhouse museum. Scott (2000:35) indicates that it ‘opened to
acclaim for its architecture, contemporary exhibition design and innovative use of
interactive computer technology. Each year it welcomes up to 600.000 domestic
85
and international visitors’. Scott’s (2000) study reveals that the major challenge to
create a positive synergic relationship between a flagship and its wider urban
context is projecting an image that is accurate to the reality of the institution’s
cultural offer, as indicated by Colbert (2003) in regards to the Sydney Opera
House as well. It should be noted, however, that museums and theatres face
different challenges related to carrying capacity and provide different experiences
to their visitors as performing arts are inclined to put the user in a passive role.
Thus, the last section of this chapter will explore concepts and issues related to
cultural flagships for the performing arts.
4.7. Cultural flagships for the performing arts

‘Beginning with the last days of Enlightment, the power of a nation could almost
be measured by the strength of its opera companies (…) the great cities of Europe
gave birth to grand Opera Houses which became the envy of the world. Today,
opera prepares to enter the third millennium by casting its architecture and
repertory in the past but always freshly perfect tense’. (Beauvert, 1996:7)
It is important to note the importance of spaces for performing arts as flagships,

and often icons of urban areas for tourism and culture as this research focuses on
the case of the Royal Opera House. Mulryne and Shewring (1995) identify three
major considerations whilst pondering the presence of the performing arts in
urban areas. First, the hard infrastructure, constituted by the physical appearance,
geographical location and other physical aspects that may have the potential of
exerting an important influence on the area’s visitors’ perception and experience
of place. Second, the attraction of certain type of visitors to the area and the
consequent social interactions and dynamics that occur as a result. These
interactions are not only amongst users; but also involve the local population, and
other visitors in the area. And third, the artistic dimension of an institution for the
performing arts related to the quality of its productions. These notions are useful
for this research as they point out different elements that should be considered in
the study of how a flagship influences the perception and experience of the chosen
case study area. According to the authors, the physical presence of the building,
86
the attraction of visitors in the area and perceptions regarding the cultural product
should be addressed for research purposes. Despite the latter consideration
regarding quality of performance, it is also important to note Hofseth’s (2008:103)
considerations regarding flagship developments for the arts, which indicate that
‘an analysis of the media coverage suggests that culture can be used as a lever for
city development – not necessarily because of the inherent qualities of culture and
art as such, but because of the role they can play by being coupled to other
elements of urban development’. Therefore, evidence suggests that a flagship’s
cultural produce can be approached not entirely isolated but relatively
independently from the urban benefits that their architectural presence exerts on
the urban settings.
One of the most prominent cases of cultural flagships for the performing arts
exerting a powerful influence on tourism precincts and indeed on a destination’s
image is that of the Sydney Opera House, which can also be conceptualised as an
icon given the following considerations. According to Thiel-Silin (2005:96) its’
development began when ‘the government of New South Wales, announced a
competition for an Opera House, intended to elevate Sydney’s cultural viability
and visibility’. In this sense, the benefits of large scale flagship developments for
the performing arts are recognised as signifiers of a destination’s cultural vibrancy
as indicated by Wing Tai Wai (2004). In relation to its physical appearance, its
architect, Joern Utzon (1967:3) stated that ‘the Sydney Opera House is one of
those buildings where the roof is of major importance. It is a house which is
completely exposed. The Sydney Opera House is a house which one will see from
above, will sail around (…) because it sits on a point sticking out into a harbour, a
very beautiful harbour’. This emphasis on contemporary grandiose architecture
resulted in the inclusion of the Opera House as an important element of the
imagery projecting the city as a world class destination for art and culture. This
suggests that not only use of space or cultural meaning grant a building the status
of cultural flagship, but certainly its visual appeal and the attraction of other
businesses and visitors in its surrounding areas. On the other hand, it is also
interesting to note how the architect placed an emphasis on its high profile and
87
free standing location. Clustering has been identified as a potentially positive

attribute to flagship developments in the cases of the museum districts in Madrid
and London’s South Kensington (Van Aalst and Boogarts, 2002; Physick, 1982).
However, it also appears that a development’s urban detachment can play a
central role in its acquisition of flagship status because of the higher notoriety that
a free standing location provides to the building.
As indicated above, this flagship building is often granted with iconic status. As
stated by (Colbert, 2003:69), ‘a genuine Australian icon, the Sydney Opera House
building serves as a symbol of the city and the country, much like the Eiffel
Tower in Paris, Tower Bridge in London, the Coliseum in Rome and the Empire
State Building in New York City (and it) plays a key role in the highly developed
cultural life of the city’. The author approaches the Opera House in terms of its
visual input on the destination’s tourist landscape and as a provider of culture
enhancing the city’s cultural offer. It is also interesting to note that the author
reports that 95% of patrons indicate that not only the artistic content of a
performance has made the experience of visiting the Opera House memorable and
enjoyable, but also the simple fact of being inside the building. This indicates that
tourists may visit cultural flagships not only because of their content (performing
arts) but to experience visiting a building that is known worldwide. Furthermore,
it can be argued that the grandiosity and fame of the building may divert the
visitor’s focus, from culture to the building itself. In this sense, tourists not
seeking to experience culture but visiting the Opera House because of its
architecture impose a challenge to the delivery of its cultural produce. In this
sense, Colbert (2003:69) also addresses the relationship of the Sydney Opera
House and the development of tourism in Sydney by noting that its Chief
Executive, Michael Lynch ‘has set himself to ensure that tourists seek out the
Opera House for its shows as well as for its architecture’. This indicates the needs
for audience development and educational campaigns to actively engage potential
audiences and nurture a culture of appreciation for the work of the flagship
institutions asides from its world famous external appearance. It is also interesting
to note that the Sydney Opera House is a versatile venue catering for different
88
demands and purposes via different performing arts spaces (a concert hall, the
opera theatre, the drama theatre, a studio and a playhouse) (Beauvert, 1996).
Visitors can also take part in guided tours that are tailored according to their
special interests in order to serve effectively a wide range of audiences which
indicates that the institution has a focus on introducing audiences to its work. In
relation to the tourist precinct in which the Opera House is located, the
surrounding pier has an appropriate range of ancillary services and other
attractions that stimulate tourist activity in the area. These economic units include
restaurants, shops and boutiques. In addition, its proximity to the boarding area
for river cruise boats and other tourist experiential opportunities such as the
Sydney Aquarium facilitate a synergic relationship between the Opera House and
other catalysts for tourism development.
In terms of image and the institution’s operations, Colbert (2003:75) highlights

that ‘consumers, both current and potential, form an idea or a mental image of an
organisation. Even for people that have never set foot in Australia, the name
Sydney Opera House conjures an image’. This suggests that a major lyric theatre,
particularly in the case where it’s housed by such a distinctive architecture as this
case study, bring about mental images to audiences. The author also recommends
that in order for these images to have a positive and long lasting effect that will
turn potential audiences into actual theatre goers, the organisation should
concentrate on two areas. First, promote itself appropriately ensuring that these
potential audiences are constantly aware of its cultural offer. And second, monitor
the accuracy of the images projected with the actual products and/or services
delivered. On the other hand, the author (p. 75) summarizes the strength of the
Sydney Opera House in ‘the striking architecture that has made the structure a
symbol of Australia and the excellence of its resident companies’. He also notes
that loyalty is an important result of the institution’s focus on culture, indicating
that patrons are not only local residents but as a result of the efforts to position
itself internationally, tourists are drawn to it not only for its cultural offer but also
as any other ‘must see’ attraction which leads them to experience culture. The
cultural delivery is certainly aided by ‘the unique architecture of the building that
89
plays a key role in promoting Australia itself and attracts a great deal of attention
from tourists’ which fosters local and national pride (Colbert, 2003:75).
Although many lessons can be learned from the case of the Sydney Opera House,
it should be noted that this is also a contemporary development. There is limited
academic research on the well established Opera House, highlighting the
importance of conducting this study. However, La Scala theatre in Milan is also a
well established Opera House that has been subject to some academic discussion.
Foot (2001) uses the case of La Scala to illustrate how a cultural flagship for the
performing arts can reflect a society’s or a destination’s economic or cultural
position by indicating that it ‘symbolized the reconstruction of the city, and the
return of democracy with the return to Italy of Toscanini (...) the new image of the
city was reflected in the kitsch and design of the opening night opera-goers’ (p.
14). Another European example of a well established cultural flagship for
performing arts is the Palais Garnier in Paris evaluated by Crosby (1970). This
grand Opera House was subjected to a conservation programme aimed towards
the urban revitalisation of France after the Second World War, along with other
monuments such as the Louvre, Notre Dame and the Madeleine. The author
identifies these measures as a consequence of the development of the cultural
quarter known as Les Marais. This example can also be linked to the modern case
of Bilbao in Spain, which as indicated by Klickzkowski (2003), oriented efforts to
either develop or improve a series of cultural flagships in order to establish its
position as a world destination for culture. The case of Bilbao’s Guggenheim
success as a cultural flagship acting as a catalyst for urban regeneration has also
been identified by Hofseth (2008) in the development of Oslo’s new Opera House,
suggesting similar patterns between museum and theatre flagship landmarks.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the cultural experiences provided by

museums and theatres are of a different nature. On one hand, museums have the
opportunity of providing active experiences to its users allowing them to move
freely within its premises, whilst attending a performance is a passive experience.
It can be argued that cultural flagships for the performing arts can tackle this
90
experiential disadvantage by strategic use of space in terms of the inclusion of

added facilities and services to the building as in the case of the Sydney Opera
House presented above. Grodach (2008a) approaches venues for the performing
arts from its wider urban benefits perspective and takes the case of New York’s
Carnegie Hall, which ‘functions as a catalytic project by generating a significant
amount of night-time activity, acts as an anchor of secondary activity, in this case,
many smaller performing arts studios, restaurants and residential buildings that
attract musicians and artists, even despite its physical handicap of being situated at
the end of long block’ (Jacobs, 1961 as cited by Grodach, 2008a:197). The latter
considerations confirm that flagship developments for the performing arts lead to
urban growth. Furthermore, the authors note the nature of the businesses the
flagship attracts, which can be linked to Landry’s (2000) notion of the creative
milieu where organisations and individuals gather in areas where culture is
produced, contributing to its ambience and contributing to a sense of creative
space. Aside from the attraction of peripheral cultural units, Grodach (2008a:197)
emphasises the consequent cluster and relationship between the flagship and other
economic units by stating that ‘cultural facilities are designed within close
proximity and maintain direct linkages to commercial establishments, are located
near public transit and parking facilities, and pay attention to pedestrian traffic and
crowd flow’. This physical proximity to other attractions, services and amenities
can be identified in the case study area as addressed in the following chapter.
4.7.1. Arts consumption in cultural flagships for the performing arts

Cultural flagships for performing arts can help shape the social, cultural and visual
landscapes of a destination as outlined in this chapter. However, it is very
important to also consider issues related to arts consumption given that regardless
of an Opera House’s positive inputs to these destinations, they are also subject to
debate and discussion because their cultural produce (high arts) is consumed by a
select group of people. DiMaggio and Usseem (1978) make some very useful
contributions to the understanding of an individual’s interest and consumption of
high arts and propose that arts appreciation is trained and contextual, that it
enhances class cohesion and is a form of cultural capital.
91
The authors (p.142) indicate that “adult political attitudes are shaped by the family
during childhood and adolescence. This intergenerational reproduction of cultural
interests is likely to extend to aesthetic tastes as well”. DiMaggio and Ussem
(1978) argue that an individual’s personal background that roots down to their
childhood will underpin their personal preferences in their adult life. However,
appreciation for certain forms of art can also be acquired if the individual is
exposed and educated on the matter to the extent where they develop keenness
and interest in participating in cultural endeavours. In this sense, the authors
highlight the important of education as a socio demographic indicator of interest
to understand a person’s interest in the arts. But DiMaggio and Ussem (1978) not
only refer to education as the individual’s highest educational degree attained and
refute the notion that a person “lacking either appropriate family background or
educational experiences remains deprived of the means for appropriating the high
arts throughout their lives” (p.149). This suggests that exposure to certain art
forms can be understood as education as well, but the authors also argue that this
exposure is also associated with income levels as these arts forms (particularly
opera and ballet) tend to be expensive and exclusive to those who can afford them.
On the other hand, Belfiore (2002) argues that these forms of high arts are subject
to high standards of quality of productions, and consequently, access to them is
restricted to the upper classes that can pay the high price of admission, which
itself relates to the high cost of staging these productions.
In relation to this, it is important to consider that Opera Houses and other major
providers of culture tend to be subsidised by public funds in most cases (Belfiore,
2002), raising debates concerning their restricted access to those who can pay the
price of admission. The author (p. 92) highlights that “within the British arts
sector, the actual exclusion of large sections of the population (mainly belonging
to the working class) from publicly funded arts activities has been a source of
concern”. She also refers to the Arts Council’s Royal Charter (1967), which
emphasises the Council’s obligation to make these arts activities more accessible
across social classes in the country. Therefore, the issue of audience development
acquires two dimensions of importance. The first related to the urge to develop
92
new audiences to ensure the future production and consumption of the arts by
succeeding generations. And the second related to equal distribution of cultural
wealth. Kawashima (2006) proposes four types of audience development as
follows:
1. Extended marketing: These initiatives target potential and lapsed (not
frequent) attendees and do not alter the cultural product, but use it to tailor
marketing strategies to draw attention to it and raise attendance by
occasional or potential attendees. The purpose is financial and artistic
(when for example, a new opera is sought to be promoted and attended by
a variety of people).
2. Taste cultivation: these initiatives target existing audiences and do not
alter the cultural product but include a variety of them. For example, when
there is demand for a particular ballet production but cultural institutions
aim to raise attendance to similar productions. The purpose is artistic,
financial and educational.
3. Audience education: similar to taste cultivation initiatives, these target
existing audiences as well but aim to provide attendees with a deeper
insight of the cultural product. For example, when an opera is preceded by
a discussion of its background and content to enhance the audience’s
understanding of it for educational, and to an extent, financial purposes.
4. Outreach: These initiatives target people who are unlikely to attend
cultural events (from deprived communities for example). They take the
form of arts projects which tend to be participatory in line with Smith’s
(2007a) notion of novel forms of cultural tourism providing active
experiences to its users. The purpose is social and relates to equal
distribution of cultural wealth as indicated above.
DiMaggio and Useem (1978) also propose that arts appreciation is contextual
when analysing the circumstances associated with arts consumption. The authors
argue that these processes are not only related to the content of the cultural
product (the opera or ballet themselves for example), but acquire a more complex
dimension given that the context in which cultural resources are consumed also
93
play a significant role in their appreciation. In this sense, the authors evaluate the
infrastructure for the provision of arts, theatres themselves for example, and how
they influence the experience of arts consumption. They propose that for example,
open air performances may be more appealing for the working class as they are
less restrictive in terms of behavioural codes than ‘rigid’ spaces for performing
arts like opera houses where there is a fixed auditorium plan and audiences are
expected not to talk or interact with each other during the performance. Activities
and interactions taking place before and after the performances also play a
significant role in their enjoyment according to this notion, suggesting that arts
appreciation is not only related to the characteristics of the cultural products
themselves but to the circumstances associated with their consumption. It is also
interesting that the authors refer to Bernstein’s (1975) proposition in regards to
consumption of the arts, highlighting that the attendees’ behaviour can be
understood as rituals as they behave and interact in similar ways. This can be
directly related to Edensor’s (2001) notion of the tourist’s performance as
indicated in Chapter 2.
Another useful contribution made by DiMaggio and Useem (1978) to the

understanding of arts appreciation is the social dimension that arts consumption
acquires, as the authors propose that arts consumption enhances class cohesion.
As expressed by the authors (p. 151) “Participation in high arts activities builds
social solidarity among those who participate. Since, according to previous
propositions, high arts are primarily the preserve of the upper and upper-middle
classes, differential class exposure rates to the high arts have the effect of
reinforcing class cohesion”. In relation to this, the authors refer to as ‘class
solidarity’ when a sense of social understanding and belonging is generated to arts
consumption considering that attendees tend to belong to similar socio
demographic segments, suggesting that they share similar economic, social and
political values and perspectives. This sense of belongingness is also associated
by the authors to the attainment of cultural capital, who state that “fractions of the
upper and upper-middle class that lack economic capital will accumulate cultural
94
capital as an alternative strategy for maintaining and advancing their position in

the class structure” (p.151).
4.8. Conclusions
The literature reviewed indicates that there are different perspectives by which a
flagship development can be understood. A distinction has been made between
commercial and cultural flagships depending on their function, focus and nature
of produce. The attraction of investment leading to urban regeneration and
developing commercial sectors in the areas where they are situated are common
characteristics of commercial and cultural flagships. They can both be used to
signal messages of successful economies or strong cultural sectors that can be
associated with their wider urban environment or the destination as a whole.
However, the cultural value assigned to these developments varies considering
that their functional aspects are associated with the provision and celebration of
local cultures to different extents. Cultural flagships can be understood as
monuments because of their potential power to attract visitors that engage in
communal activities related to sightseeing due to the high profile nature of the
development, attractive imagery and cultural significance. Nevertheless, the
monumental perspective to understand cultural flagships is limited because it
frames the tourist’s experience from a gazing point of view, whereas it has been
determined that the visitor’s involvement with object, place and others are
important issues of consideration for the understanding of how a flagship
development can potentially influence their perception and experience of an urban
precinct. The image’s endurance and degree of attachment to an area or a
destination will determine the extent to which a building or structure can be
understood as an icon. The icons’ functionality, however, will not be a pivotal
factor in the acquisition of iconic status as illustrated by the case of the Eiffel
tower, which can be directly associated by Paris’ status as a place for tourism but
its functionality holds little association with the provision of culture.
The understanding of museums as cultural flagships pointed out that they enrich a
destination’s cultural offer whilst making a contribution to its urban landscape.
95
They can be either well established or new developments that are often functional
parts of urban clusters that attract visitors who benefit from the close proximity
between attractions and the concentration of tourists services and facilities.
However, it can be argued that the notoriety of many cultural flagships, and in
some cases their acquired iconic status, can be directly associated with their free
standing location and urban detachment. On the other hand, it is also important to
consider that the concept of flagship entails further urban development and the
attraction of other businesses.
The well established cultural flagship has the advantage of being situated within
an urban environment for a long period of time which aids its attachment to an
area. Whereas contemporary developments face the challenge of positioning
themselves in urban settings, but they also are more likely to respond effectively
to new trends in cultural consumption, from attractive architectural designs to
providing engaging and interactive experiences to their users. In relation to this,
attending a performing arts event can be viewed as a passive experience, and
flagship developments can respond to this by carefully planned and strategic use
of space to provide visitors with added services and facilities that would
encourage higher levels of participation and involvement. In any case, cultural
flagships can be viewed from their physical perspective, in terms of the range of
visitors they attract and the nature of their cultural produce. On the other hand, it
is evident that arts consumption is a complex issue because high arts, namely
opera and ballet, are perceived to be exclusive to the upper-classes and elitist in
their accessibility. But it is also clear that an individual’s interest in these art
forms is directly associated with their personal background as their appreciation is
trained and their enjoyment is not only related to the cultural product but to the
context in which it is consumed. However, audience development strategies can
be implemented to create awareness and generate demand for these cultural
products within sectors that would not otherwise attend, and this comes as a result
of a concern related to equal distribution of cultural resources.
96
Covent Garden and the Royal Opera House Chapter 5
5. COVENT GARDEN AND THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE:

HISTORY, FACES, CHALLENGES AND PHASES
5.1. Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the area of Covent
Garden and the case study cultural flagship, the Royal Opera House. Covent
Garden’s historical evolution will be reviewed highlighting factors that influenced
its development as an urban precinct for culture. There will be an emphasis on the
emergence of the theatre industry because of its direct relationship with the area’s
current status as a place for performing arts. Subsequently, the diverse nature of
experiential opportunities for tourism will be analysed by exploring other
elements that attract visitors to the area, such as shopping or eating and drinking.
The numerous challenges accompanying the development of the area as a place
for tourism will also be addressed followed by an overview of the different
perspectives by which the area can be understood. A review of the Royal Opera
House’s history and redevelopment will conclude the chapter, informing this
research in relation to the case study area and the flagship in terms of their past
and evolution.
5.2. The birth and evolution of the urban precinct

The history of Covent Garden can be archeologically traced back to as far as the
first century with evidence of the presence of both Romans and Saxons around
this area of London, then known as Londinium (Richardson, 1995). However, its
modern history and development only began with the establishment of St. Paul’s
Church in the county of Middlesex, nowadays serving as the east boundary of the
Covent Garden Piazza, then known as Convent Garden given the agricultural
activities carried out by monks. Until that point, the land was owned to the Abbey
of St. Peter, which designated the space for ecclesiastical settlements. It was then
handed to the 1st Earl of Bedford, John Russell (1486-1555) because of the close
collaborative relationship held with the Tudors and from this point in the mid 16th
century, and under the supervision of the prominent Renaissance British architect
97
Inigo Jones (1573-1652; the church, the Piazza and housing facilities were
developed (Rasmussen, 1991).
These efforts, referred to as ‘London’s first experiment of town planning’

(Westminster City Council, 2010) are an early example of urban regeneration, as
the religious landmark and attractive design of the Piazza promoted commercial
trade and attracted investment supported by the Russell family, which developed
grandiose housing blocks and mansions in the new fashionable area of London.
This also led to early environmental issues and debates because of the
disappearance of fruit trees and plantations, to give way to urban development
(Cathcart Borer, 1967). The disagreements led to the rehabilitation of the space
for agricultural trade as another early example of stakeholders and pressure groups
influencing the use of land. This influence has strongly manifested itself in the
area in the 20th century as discussed in further sections. Cathcart Borer (1967)
also notes that the presence of middle and upper classes settled in the area
attracted poets and artists seeking to gain notoriety amongst the powerful and
influential, leading to an early acquisition of Covent Garden’s character as a place
of culture.
5.3. A place for theatres, performance and an Opera House

Author John Gay (1685-1732) was very successful with his ‘Beggar’s Opera’ set
in the nearby Lincoln Inn’s theatre. The leading role of this musical work was
performed by John Rich (1692-1762), known as ‘the father of pantomime’, who
also acted as it’s producer. Such was the financial revenue generated by the
successful production that it earned its producer and leading man enough profits
to fund a theatre of his own, making ‘Rich gay and Gay rich’. The chosen site was
the west border of the Covent Garden Piazza where the first theatre at the Royal
Opera House’s site was founded. It was a short walk away from the already
established Theatre Royal Drury Lane under the management of David Garrick
(1717-1779), who was himself the star and producer of the performances in the
latter site. Both theatres were founded on the grounds of the letters patent granted
by Charles II in times when only two official theatre companies in the area where
98
recognised by the corresponding authorities (Hume, 2008). Other phenomena

actively influencing the dynamics between stakeholders back then that still stand
in the present day are the strong competition in a clustered space, given the close
proximity of both theatres exercising a duopoly in the provision of performing arts
in Covent Garden. This provision has expanded with the annulment of the letter
patent recognising only two official theatre companies, but the clustering of
theatres in the area remained, increasing the challenges of the supplier to remain
competitive in the market. It should be noted, however, that in the present day
these venues offer an eclectic variety of productions serving different types of
markets.
The establishment of these venues and the blossoming economy resulting from
the success of the market and the ambitious housing developments only
strengthened the area’s cultural identity, attracting historic cultural figures such as
George Frederic Handel (1685-1759). The baroque composer premiered high
profile musical works on this site and his long term association with Theatre
Royal Covent Garden suggested that the promotion of culture started acquiring
more importance in the governmental support towards the arts and the
development of the area as a cultural district (Burrows, 2008). Miles and
Paddinson (2005:833) indicate that ‘the idea that culture can be employed as a
driver for urban economic growth has become part of the new orthodoxy by which
cities seek to enhance their competitive position’. However, the review of the
historic evolution of the cultural sector leading to Covent Garden’s current status
as a place for culture indicates that this phenomenon is not new to the case study
area. Factually, it is a good example to illustrate how culture can lead to urban
regeneration even before the concept was known by town planners. In latter times,
specifically in the post Second World War era, Lebrecht (2000) points out that the
notable British economist Keynes, as a member of the Council for the
Encouragement of Music and the Arts, continuously supported and encouraged
assigning funds for the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden. The author links
this situation with the economist’s keen interest in the opera and ballet
productions performed at Covent Garden’s theatre. Subsequently he acted as first
99
chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain and ‘at a time when bread was
being rationed and London was a bombsite, money was found to create an opera
and a ballet company’ (Lebrecht, 2000:1). These historical events suggest that the
Opera House in Covent Garden has been viewed as a cultural asset for the nation
and a flagship institution for the production of high arts, which was reflected in
the continuous monetary support towards its operations at times of economic
crisis. On the other hand, they also suggest that the institution received this
support from wealthy and politically influential sources.
‘Theatre has always been an important part of the life of Covent Garden, and one
which during the eighteenth century generated a great deal of the public life of the
area. It is one of the major institutions that, although much transformed, still
stands today’ (Richardson, 1979 as stated in Stiff, 1979:np). The author implies
that the presence of theatres resulted in higher levels of activity and social
interactions in the area, and suggests that different sectors of the population
mingled because of a vibrant performing arts scene. In relation to this, Cathcart
Borer (1967:51) also notes that performing arts ‘is today more firmly established
than it ever was; a vigorous, thriving national institution, with permanent national
opera and ballet companies, and audiences who attend, not to be seen themselves,
in order to establish themselves socially, but because of their deep-felt love of the
music and the dance’. Despite the influence that the high arts have upon the social
and cultural dynamics in Covent Garden, popular arts in their many forms and
manifestations should not be disregarded as influential elements in the area. It
should also be noted, on the other hand, that motivational theories reviewed in
previous chapters suggest that arts related tourists are not exclusively motivated
by their interest in the arts, but their theatre trips may involve other activities
particularly in the case of a theatre located in an area with a wide array of
experiential opportunities Therefore, it is important to apply a holistic perspective
to the different elements that comprise an area’s place making system to
understand how they complement each other and affect the visitor’s perception
and experience of place.
100
As indicated above, there has been an important theatre at the Royal Opera
House’s site since 1732. The popularity of the first theatre lead to substantial
redevelopment schemes in 1782 and 1792 to increase its seating capacity,
indicating a positive response and rising demand for performing arts in the area.
This theatre burned down in 1808 and a new one built in neo classical style
reopened in 1809. To cover the costs, its management raised ticket prices which
led to riots and social disturbance given the reluctance of existing users to pay
more for attending a performance. In 1837, Queen Victoria granted her Royal
patronage which led to a fashionable perception of the area (Dorling Kindersley,
1999), implying that the Royal attendance and status of the institution attracted
flows of visitors to Covent Garden. This theatre was also subjected to
redevelopment in 1846 and reopened as the Royal Italian Opera and biggest Opera
House in the world at that time. In 1856, it also burned to ashes, but given the
Royal support to cover the costs of rebuilding it, it reopened in 1858 in a classical
Italian style with Corinthian columns at its front, becoming ‘a focal point of
fashionable London’ (Dorling Kindersley, 1999).
Even though the theatre has always been located next to Covent Garden Market, it
is at this stage that its association with commerce and leisure was confirmed by
the construction of the adjacent Floral Hall, a space to serve as a flower market
and dance hall. Described by the authors above as (1999:19) as ‘a monument to
the Victorian’s love of glass and iron’, it burned down in 1956 and the space was
used as repository until the House’s redevelopment in 1999. In 1892, the theatre
became the Royal Opera House reflecting the demand for repertoire asides from
Italian opera. The building’s use was affected by the First and Second World
Wars, as it became a warehouse during the second decade of the century and a
dance hall for troops during the fourth. In 1946 it reopened as the permanent home
of the resident opera company and Sadler’s Wells Ballet, which chartered its
Royal status in 1956 (BBC, 1999). The Opera House was subjected to a large
scale redevelopment programme that lead to two years of closure between 1997
and 1999, which will discussed in further sections.
101
5.4. A place of many faces

Stiff (1979) indicates that the presence of coffee shops and other forms of
commerce have become essential elements of the identity of Covent Garden as a
cultural district, attracting intellectuals and artists from its very beginnings in the
17th Century, not only for the social dynamics that thrive in the area but also for
the lively atmosphere that peripheral services and activities brought to their
visitors. Richardson (1995) notes that the presence of coffee houses, taverns,
hotels and bath houses in Covent Garden made the district ‘a pleasurable place’
for both locals and visitors. But they also set the grounds for crime and
prostitution as noted by Denlinger (2002) who highlights a concentration of
‘bawdy houses, especially around Drury Lane, St. James’s, and Covent Garden’,
being the prostitutes working there listed in what was then called Harris’ List of
Covent Garden Ladies. Likewise, Cathcart Borer (1967) highlights the presence of
taverns, coffee houses and clubs to illustrate the area’s vibrant night time
economy as a result of its leisure orientated ambience. As noted by Roberts
(2003), entertainment districts with thriving night time economies face a series of
challenges that are today identifiable in the case study area. In relation to this,
academic research suggests that anti social behaviour, consumption of drugs and
other illegal activities are potential threats to both visitors and the local
community in an entertainment district (Roberts et al., 2005).
There is a bilateral, beneficial and synergic association between commerce and

performing arts in the area. In addition, the tales of the rich history and heritage of
Covent Garden as a place for culture are told by its architecture, but its current
character is determined by the wide range of uses of land and land users that
contribute to an effective mix of a tourism cluster (as indicated by the Greater
London Council, 1970a). Examples of these uses and users include the coffee
shops mentioned above, restaurants, fashion galleries, accommodation services
and other cultural attractions such as the London Transport Museum, the now
relocated Theatre Museum and the Garrick Club Collections. The diverse
structure of attractions in the area confirms the need to adopt a wide ranging
approach to understand how these elements effectively influence the visitors’
102
perception and experience of place considering that they interact and complement
each other attracting a variety of visitors. Regardless of the lively and
cosmopolitan atmosphere that these economic activities add to the ambience of
the area, the Covent Garden Area Trust (1997) indicates that the presence of
outdoors eating and drinking facilities may have a negative effect on the image
projected by Covent Garden in what the authors refer to as ‘undesirable clutter’.
The provision of the services mentioned above may not contribute positively to
the aesthetics of the area when umbrellas, uncovered tables, unmatching chairs,
unpleasant food smells, unauthorized vendors and littering may exasperate the
culture led and arts-core tourist (Hughes, 2000). It is important to note, however,
that whilst some of the area’s users may find these features displeasing, they
attract a different type of visitors that enjoy using the area because of them. In
other words, the multifaceted nature of the area’s features attracts a wide array of
visitors that should be considered for this research as the area can be experienced
and perceived from many different perspectives and by a wide ranging variety of
users.
The Theatre Censorship Act, first established in 1737 indicated that all street
performers acting without a license from the Lord Chamberlain should be deemed
‘rogues and vagabonds’. However, this legislation was revoked in the 1960s as a
response to the tangible contribution that street performers can provide to an
urban precinct’s sense of place, such as Covent Garden, where the mixture of the
fine arts and popular entertainment constitute a vital element of its image as a
place of mixed cultures. Hughes (2000:80) agrees, stating that ‘on-street
entertainers do not always have a tourist-attracting purpose but contribute to the
animation of an area (…) perhaps the most well-known in the UK are the
entertainers at London’s Covent Garden. This old market area in the centre of
London, adjoining the Royal Opera House, has been transformed into a tourist
zone of specialist shops and market stalls, cafes and restaurants and is regularly
animated by fire-eaters, jugglers, living statues and the like.’ Street busking is also
discussed by Kushner and Brooks (2000:69), who indicate that ‘downtown retail
marketplaces and pedestrian walkways are often the location for artists working in
103
a variety of performance modes such as music, drama, comedy, puppetry,

juggling, or mime’.
Almost all major cities have locations known to residents, business visitors, and
tourists as places for street performance. In the case of London, Covent Garden is
an excellent illustration of this, where all the types of street performance
mentioned by the authors can be found in the designated areas surrounding the
market at different times of day and providing different types of performance that
also vary greatly in terms of quality. However, quality standards are determined
by the visitor, and the wide ranging nature of street entertainment in Covent
Garden adds many layers of complexity to the question of how desirable it is for
its development as a precinct for tourism and culture. In addition, street busking
leads to the ‘free rider’ effect and pedestrian congestion (Kushner and Brooks,
2000), identified by the Councils of Westminster and Camden as a critical issue
affecting the quality of the visitor’s experience in Covent Garden (see City of
Westminster, 2007).
Despite the potential problems that street performance may impose on urban
precincts, Veijola and Jokinen (1994) note that this sensorial stimulation may
exert a powerful influence on a visitor’s behaviour and experience of place. They
state that ‘we do gaze at street performances at home don’t we? But instead,
hardly ever engage ourselves in singing and dancing together; very rarely at home
do we share the feeling of being together in this big, incomprehensible world, full
of strangers whose words and gestures don’t say anything. Here, we know it in
our conscious bodies that are temporarily united in an utterly physical ritual’ (as
stated in Perkins and Thorns 2001:191). The authors suggest that street
performances engage audiences in a communal ritual and have an impact not only
on the precinct’s sense of place from an aural perspective, but they encourage
gatherings of people that lead to social interactions. Even though they may
represent a nuisance affecting some visitors’ experience of place negatively, it is
clear that these gatherings bring visitors together in Covent Garden. This also
relates to the notion of co tourism (Harvey and Lorenzen, 2006), which suggests
104
that a visitor’s experience of place can be influenced by others tourists’’

behaviour. This behaviour may itself be influenced by the presence of street
entertainers attracting audiences that sing along to their performances, applaud
them and gather communally, providing cues of behaviour to visitors in the area.
5.5. Proposed redevelopment of the area

Throughout its history, the rising numbers of visitors in Covent Garden and the
fast pace by which merchants have been drawn to it has lead to a series of
measures aimed to effectively cope with visitors whilst safe guarding local
interests. However, these efforts may have had a questionable effect upon the
authenticity of what is known today as Covent Garden. In the melancholic words
of Thorne (1980:7): ‘never again will the Royal Opera House audience emerging
into the night breathe those pungent and evocative market smells (…) nor will
they have to push their way past lorries and stacks of crates’. The statement
suggests that the experience of theatre at the opera in Covent Garden is subject to
the area’s periodically changes according to how the area evolves as an urban
precinct for commerce and culture.
Indeed, the urban development of Covent Garden has not come without its
casualties, not only represented by neighbouring areas that are neglected and over
shadowed by the booming economy of a historic urban quarter, but also by the
local residents who are affected by urban development initiatives to cope with
growing numbers of visitors and economic units. This is not a new occurrence; the
Duke of Bedford (1844) noted that ‘I cannot conceive what becomes of all these
poor people who are compelled to leave their homes and lodgings for the
improvement of Covent Garden’ (as cited by Anson, 1981). From a more recent
perspective, Kerr (2003:19) noted that there was a less shimmering side to the
West End district than its high profile avenues and streets, where there was a ‘dark
and wholly lifeless netherworld of abandoned warehouses and derelict market
halls shuttered away behind temporary hoardings’. The late 1960s and the early
1970s saw the proposed implementation of a large scale urban redevelopment
scheme that intended to replace the historic assets of the area, deemed as obsolete
105
and out of fashion, and give way to a modern compound of housing facilities,
open spaces and recreation centres, offices, a shopping mall, public houses, new
roads, hotels and an international conference centre (Greater London Council,
1970a). These redevelopment projects were driven by the decision to move out the
fruit and vegetable market to Nine Elms because of the increasing difficulty of
coping with the traffic it generated in central London. These initial proposals, in
the spirit of the times, were for comprehensive redevelopment but were
vigorously opposed and the historic fabric of the area was largely maintained.
This resulted in conservation and refurbishments efforts as opposed to complete
redevelopment of the market. This ensured a mixed used area that conserved the
architectural features that grant it with its ambience as a historic precinct that can
be sustainably used by the local community and tourists alike. The pressure
exerted by the local community that demanded the abandonment of the
redevelopment project lead to an extensive environmental study of the area, which
concluded that ‘the Greater London Council’s Covent Garden Committee
recognized and respected the area’s unique character and potential contribution to
the life of central London’. (Greater London Council, 1978 as cited by Tiesdel et
al. 1996). Richardson (1995) also highlights that the area may be a thriving and
vibrant precinct for tourism, culture and leisure nowadays; but that the proposed
redevelopment scheme propelled community groups to oppose to urban renewal
plans that would out the area’s built heritage at stake.
The rejection of the area’s proposed redevelopment emphasise its historical value,
which is evident by further projects that are aimed towards the restoration and
conservation of the built environment rather than in new development efforts,
such as the Royal Opera House as addressed in further sections. Nevertheless, the
emphasis on preservation implies other challenges to the planning of the area in
terms of land use and urban revitalisation considering that historic value and
urban renewal are required to reconcile in the area, giving way to conflict.
Hareven and Lagenbach (1981) refer to the restoration processes around the
Covent Garden Market several years after the large scale commercial
redevelopment programme was rejected. The authors indicate that ‘the extent and
106
quality of restoration (…) removed the visible effects of its use as a market. This
wear and patina is what one associates with a historical market and it can be
disorientating to find it so entirely removed when the market is turned into an
uncharacteristically elegant shopping centre’ (as cited in Tiesdel et al., 1996:175).
In this sense, it is important to note that the intangible identity of a historic urban
quarter is directly linked to its physical features and that regardless of how
important the concept of preservation is to town developers, the ambience of the
place changes with efforts to preserve or revitalize them.
5.6. Perspectives on Covent Garden

Glasson et al. (1995:37) indicate that ‘a key element in attracting and sustaining
visitors, as well as validating the residential decision of those who call it home, is
the identity, or image of a city’. The authors highlight that the image or identity of
place are not single layered issues, as not only can the many urban units of a
destination differentiate themselves from one another, but each and every one of
them can be viewed from different scopes. This premise is applicable to the case
of Covent Garden as indicated in the discussion below, which analyses the area
according to the different models of understanding of urban areas for tourism and
culture reviewed in the previous chapter:
5.6.1. Covent Garden as an urban village

Chapter 3 determined that a tourist precinct can be scrutinised from a range of
perspectives. One of these perspectives places an emphasis on physical attributes
and the precinct’s built environment. In this sense, Covent Garden can be
conceptualised as an urban village. Aldous (1992) indicates that the concept of an
urban village is the result of the constant quest to develop mixed-use urban areas
whilst effectively addressing the matter of sustainability. The author (p.27) notes
that ‘an increasing number of more enlightened developers have sought to create
urban areas in which a mixture of uses and a human scale architecture full of
incident and variety produces places that people instinctively enjoy using’. Covent
Garden as an urban village is not the direct product of planned urban
development, but it is perhaps one of the world’s most well-known examples of
107
how the need to make effective and wide ranging use of land whilst housing
residents and welcoming visitors has shaped its character. The challenges
accompanied by the development of an urban village can be linked to Covent
Garden, as vehicular and pedestrian congestion, criminality and potential conflict
between the local community and the visitors are issues of consideration in the
area. Despite these challenges, Covent Garden can be viewed as an urban village
considering that the area is small enough to provide a familiar and warm
atmosphere but large enough to hold the variety of services, venues and facilities
that act as pull factors for the visitor. On the other hand, and as established before,
there is a variety of such services serving different markets without neglecting the
needs of the temporary or permanent residents. It also provides means of transport
for the pedestrian, the cyclist, the car driver and the tube user. Another
characteristic is that there is a contrasting mixture between large buildings and
developments of a lesser scale that also provide a range of architectural styles
contributing to the speckled urban landscape that provides the area with its visual
identity. The area’s narrow streets indeed ‘cater for the car without encouraging
its use’, allowing visitors to freely explore its urban settings by making use of its
mostly pedestrian streets. All of these urban characteristics can be related to the
rejection of the area’s redevelopment as discussed in the previous section,
indicating that the preservation of these architectural features and layout resulted
in a distinctive sense of place within a historic urban precinct.
5.6.2. Covent Garden as a cultural quarter/cluster/creative milieu

From a consumption perspective, Covent Garden could also be understood as a
cultural quarter. According to Bell and Jayne (2004), these areas can either be the
result of history’s course or of planned development efforts to make effective use
of land whilst promoting a range of a clustered range of activities, many of which
are of a cultural nature. As noted before, Covent Garden evolved over time as a
precinct for tourism and culture but was subjected to some development efforts to
make its use more sustainable for visitors seeking culture and commerce and for
the local community, indicating that the area can be viewed as a cultural quarter.
Evans (2003) on the other hand, proposes that the underlying principles for the
108
development of cultural clusters, or quarters, can be categorised in three layers.

The first being the economic, by promoting industry in the area, assigning
workspace in an organized manner, fostering the creation of supply chains in their
productions as well as providing means of networking for their business
stakeholders. As mentioned before, the economic units and active industries in
Covent Garden inter relate and dynamise each other, as commerce benefits from
the attraction of tourists because of the presence of street entertainers for example,
responding to Evan’s (2003) premises regarding a cultural quarter. Secondly, the
author indicates that the social rationale for them are constituted by the
phenomenon of urban renewal, the creation of an identity for the area and by
promoting inclusion in the relationship between audiences and the arts; as in the
case of Covent Garden, that provides an accessible space for different users with
different interests (Bell and Jayne, 2004). In this sense, the area can also be
understood as a creative milieu because different networking units work in
partnership towards the promotion and enhancement of creative industries,
particularly those related to both high and popular forms of performing arts.
Roodhouse (2006) indicates that a cultural quarter can be classified according to

different perspectives, such as the level of importance of the creative industries or
the iconographic nature of their identity should a landmark or flagship be present,
as in the case of Covent Garden and the Royal Opera House. Nevertheless, the
author indicates that the success of any cultural quarter is defined by the
economic, social and cultural activities that thrive in the area; the dynamics
between the built environment and the use of space; and the contribution that it
provides to the broader identity of the destination because of its historic value or
distinctive ambience. The summary of Covent Garden’s past suggests that the area
also responds to the concept of a cultural quarter according to this author’s
standards. Whilst evaluating the feasibility of referring to Covent Garden as a
cultural quarter, Law (2002) indicates that it aims to ‘root tourism and leisure
more firmly in the existing fabric and culture of the city. Cultural quarters like
Dublin’s Temple Bar in Ireland, or Hindley Street in Adelaide, Australia are
planned developments, but the intention is to build on existing cultural activities,
109
emphasising the precinct’s history and developing its built environment to create
a new tourism cluster (as cited by Maitland, 2007) (see also McCarthy,1998;
Montgomery, 1995; Rains, 1999). This statement is also applicable to Covent
Garden because it recognises that novel efforts to create a cultural quarter have
better chances of thriving if existing cultural resources are expanded and
developed. The case of Covent Garden, as mentioned before, is a good example of
a cultural quarter that developed organically over time, and has been fostered by
planning since its redevelopment was abandoned in the 1970s. This is reflected in
the Opera House’s redevelopment scheme, the recent opening of the largest Apple
store in the world housed in the historic building surrounding the Piazza and the
closure of its tube station in 2007 to improve its capacity, amongst other
examples.
On the other hand, it is important to note that the notion of a cultural quarter
(Montgomery, 2003; Roodhouse, 2006) focuses on small enterprises and do not
emphasise the role of flagship developments enough. Thus, whilst most elements
of the cultural quarter model can be identified in this case study, the notion of a
cultural cluster (Mommaas, 2004) seems to be more useful to appraise the
presence of a flagship development in an urban precinct and the visitor’s
perception and experience of place. However, Mommaas’ (2004) views are based
upon new cultural flagships, in the case of the Westergasfabriek, an adapted
former industrial site. This makes the applicability of the theory to this area
questionable considering that its main flagship building, the Opera House, has
over two centuries of history and therefore has more cultural significance due to
its heritage
5.6.3. Covent Garden as an entertainment district

Considering the leisure orientated ambience of the area, another perspective by
which Covent Garden can be analysed from is that of the entertainment district.
Berkley and Thayer (2000:466) propose that ‘frequently, entertainment districts
are not planned, they just evolve over time’. Their legacy is manifested by other
destinations making significant if not large scale developments in an attempt to
110
emulate their success and attain the desired culture-led urban regeneration.
Examples of this can be identified in Sheffield, Birmingham and Manchester in
the United Kingdom. The authors also indicate that with their success, the
challenges of making entertainment districts safe and sustainable arise for the
local authorities, as has been the case throughout the history of Covent Garden.
Berkley and Thayer (2000), however, suggest that some of the features that make
of an area an entertainment district consist of leisure activities often associated
with the night time economy in the case of pubs and clubs, or with other activities
related to consumption and shopping. Covent Garden can be seen as a place for
high culture given the presence of the country’s leading Opera House at its core,
attracting visitors interested in high arts.
On the other hand, the wide assortment of leisure experiences available in the area
such as street entertainers and eating and drinking facilities attract visitors seeking
popular culture, leisure, relaxation and entertainment as opposed to high arts and
elitist experiences. Nichols Clark (2004) notes the importance of amenities in the
entertainment district; whether they are natural, constructed or social; concluding
that the importance of these characteristics of the entertainment district is strictly
subject to the visitor. Such is the case of Covent Garden, receiving visitors that
have little or no interest in the high arts but are drawn to it because of its nightlife
for example. The potential benefits of amenities improving the experience of the
precinct as an entertainment district vary according to the tourists’ use, which can
also be related to their motivation to visit the area along with their perception and
experience of it. These amenities, to name a few, include its eating and drinking
premises that facilitate an ambience of leisure, relaxation and socialisation
(social), its resting facilities and street furniture (constructed) and its central and
easily accessible location (natural).
111
5.7. Redevelopment of the Royal Opera House

‘The reconstruction (of the Opera House) has produced, moreover, not so much a
building as a lively new urban quarter where there was formerly dereliction’
(Powell, 1999 as cited by BBC, 1999:64).
Mosse (1995) indicates that the Royal Opera House as an institution is directly
linked with British tradition integrating heritage, identity and pride to the
performing arts scene in Britain. However, as the 20th century progressed, the
need for a major redevelopment scheme was imminent considering that some
facilities and backstage technology dated back to the previous century. This
redevelopment programme was divided in two phases, the first consisting of an
extension of the building in Floral Street in 1982 benefiting the house with a range
of improved facilities and extensions. The second phase proved to be the most
challenging and controversial. Mosse (1995:11) points out that ‘phase II of the
redevelopment would make the difference and transform the Victorian building
into a modern theatre to rival the Metropolitan Opera House in New York or the
Bastille in Paris’. This emphasises that the task of transforming the Covent
Garden Theatre into a landmark building and a cultural flagship in its own right
was to be of high complexity, not only because of the existing facilities which
represented both assets in terms of the qualities listed above but also limitations
because of their obsolescence or unsuitability for a modern theatre. It is also
important to consider that the redevelopment scheme would not happen without
opposition of influential stakeholders, such as the Arts Council from a financial
point of view, the Westminster City Council from an urban point of view and the
Covent Garden Community Association from the resident population perspective.
As indicated in previous sections, the aforementioned Association can fiercely

oppose to any redevelopment agenda intended for the area because of the fear of
comprising the heritage value and cultural authenticity of the precinct. Mosse
(1995) exemplifies the Association’s disapproval of the implementation of Phase
II of the redevelopment by referring to a large scale mural placed in the corner of
Russell Street and the Piazza, which read ‘Please help us stop the Royal Opera
112
House demolishing these Georgian buildings and replacing them with an office
block’ (p. 180). The then Chief Executive of the House, Jeremy Isaacs also recalls
the striking amount of opposition faced by the programme as well as a number of
stakeholders imposing conditions before granting approval for its implementation.
These included, six ministers of the arts that speculated about the cost of the
project, three different chairmen of the Arts Council, English Heritage, the Royal
Fine Arts Commission, the London Committee and other entities such as
advocates for the disabled that did not stop questioning the redevelopment of the
house until it’s reopening in 1999 (as indicated in Latham and Swenarton, 2002).
Isaacs (2002) synthesises the requirements that were to be met by the second
phase of the Houses’ redevelopment, which comprised preserving the auditorium,
improving sightlines and air conditioning, upgrading the technical settings,
upgrading front of house areas, accommodating the ballet company, housing as
many of the theatre’s functional units on the same site and ‘to enhance the
cityscape while creating property value realisable on site to help pay for the
whole’ (as cited in Latham and Swenarton, 2002:122). This overview of the
project indicates that a heterogenic approach needed to be applied in the task of
converting this theatre into a world class Opera House, which can lead to
landmark cultural flagship status. Not only because of the wide range of
requirements that had to be observed, but also because of the need to apply state
of the art techniques in an area cherished for its historic background. The authors
(2002:101) also indicate that ‘the significance of the project can be described first
in terms of urban design and second in terms of theatre modernisation’. In this
sense, the redevelopment of the Opera House prioritised wider urban benefits over
the enhancement of the theatre’s facilities, suggesting that its primary objective
was to exert a positive influence on the urban precinct. Powell (1999) highlights
that upon completion of the redevelopment project; the designated architect
Jeremy Dixon also celebrated the 16th anniversary of winning an international
open competition for the bid in 1983, confirming the long and arduous process
that characterised the project throughout its implementation. (BBC, 1999).
Factually, talks of the redevelopment began 30 years before its conclusion amidst
113
controversy and much debate (BBC, 1999). Dixon (1999) indicates that
complementing political and economic problems that always accompanied the
project, the property crash of the early 1990s affected the implementation of the
redevelopment scheme, which was only able to be put through a subsidy of £78.5
million by National Lottery funds along with private sources of financial support
that raised the fund to £213 million (as stated by Binney, 1999 in BBC, 1999).
The Department of Media, Culture and Sports (DCMS) expressed concerns about
this subsidy, because it was not only the greatest single amount ever to be
awarded to a single organisation for a single purpose but it was also concerned
that the institution would experience financial deficits of £1.5 million per year
during the two years closure time (between 1997 and 1999) whilst the building
was developed (Towse, 2001). In addition, DCMS noted that 10% of the funds
granted by the Treasury where assigned towards the development of the Royal
Opera House for over 10 years whilst the Chairman at the time claimed that no
other European country assigned such little funding to a major Opera House; and
that the revenue from ticket sales was far more important than the public funds
received. These allegations lead to the dismissal of the Chairman and the in depth
evaluation of the entity’s financial and operational situation to assess the viability
of the project. This resulted in the Eyre Report, which was paramount in the
establishment of a series of performance indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of
public subsidy for the arts, not only at the Royal Opera House but to other cultural
entities funded by the Arts Council. These are: to encourage excellence at every
level, to encourage innovation at every level, to promote a thriving arts sector and
support the creative economy, to facilitate more consumption and participation in
the arts by more people, to encourage more relevant training in the arts sector, to
encourage better use of the arts in education, to combat social exclusion and
promote regeneration, and to improve public perception of the arts and to promote
British culture overseas (Towse, 2001). It is interesting to note that most of these
performance indicators focus on social inclusion and increasing levels of
participation by delivering cultural products to an extended audience whilst
promoting urban renewal and energizing economies based on cultural resources.
114
Powell (1999) discusses the intangible aspects that make the Covent Garden site
both an asset and a problem for the building’s redevelopment. The author reflects
on alternative proposals made in the 1980s regarding an entirely new building to
be constructed by the Southbank’s waterfront in an attempt to mimic the Sydney
Opera House for example. Asides from the potential benefits that it would have
brought, the author concludes that there is a strong emotional link between the
Londoner, the arts and Covent Garden, which propelled and strengthened the
decision to redevelop an Opera House that was seen at the time as the most
inadequate of the high profile Opera Houses in the world. However, the author
claims that ‘by remaining on its historic site (it) has enriched Covent Garden and
reinforced its status as part of London’s cultural heartland’ (BBC, 1999:64).
Dixon (1999) also agrees that ‘London’s Opera House belongs in Covent Garden
(but it) can never have the grand symmetrical layout of other Opera Houses‘ (as
stated by Binney, 1999 in BBC, 1999:76). The authors explain that the original
auditorium which was preserved by the redevelopment programme was originally
built at the blocks’ corner, leaving all possibilities of expansion to the other end.
Despite the problems that accompany the redevelopment of an old Opera House
on site, Binney (1999) affirms that an important contribution of the redeveloped
Opera House is that it innovates and contributes to urban pedestrianisation in the
area by connecting the Piazza with Bow street in a link open to all pedestrians,
which passes by the House’s shop and box office. In regards to the outside
appearance of the House, Dixon (1999) indicates that an innovative approach
needed to be used combining both old and new assets, not only to match the task
of modernising an old Opera House but also to accomplish a contrast with the
distinctive characters of the wider urban landscape. The L-shaped Covent Garden
Opera House is surrounded by the Piazza, from where the building is seen with a
traditional stone façade that contrasts with the Piazza’s historical Italian design
and where a grandiose front would not have been possible. On the other side,
along Bow Street, the old façade lies next to the restored iron and glass made
Hamlyn (formerly Floral) Hall which serves as the theatre’s largest social area and
eating and drinking facility as a result of the redevelopment (Binney, 1999 in
115
BBC, 1999). However, it is important to consider that Bow Street is

comparatively narrower than the Piazza, which affects the area’s visitors’
perception of the building’s attractive front.
An important highlight of the design of the new Royal Opera House is the
conjoined use of modern and innovative architecture along with conservationist
and revivalist schemes that focus on modernisation as well as preservation of built
heritage value of the site. In this sense, Maxwell (2002) highlights the partial
reconstruction of Inigo Jones’ vaulted Piazza, indicating that ‘(it) contributes
towards the re-invention of an important city space, lending itself to field as to
figure’ (as cited in Latham and Swenarton, 2002:97). The author also notes the
presence of shops and other forms of commerce housed alongside this renovated
urban asset, suggesting that the synergic work between an Opera House and other
catalysts for commercial trade is put to practice in the Covent Garden Piazza.
The Opera House’s redevelopment was not only in terms of infrastructure, but it
also propelled a shift in the institution’s values in terms of target markets and
intended audiences. As expressed by Dixon and Jones (2002:112), the new layout
integrates patrons from the stalls with amphitheatre ticket holders, ‘the aim is to
encourage the audience to move up as well as down (…) reversing the sense of
social hierarchy that existed within the old house’. The authors refer to the fact
that amphitheatre patrons could only access their lower cost seats through an
isolated entrance located in Floral Street, nurturing a culture of social dividedness
and exclusion. In the present day, no patrons are subject to any access restrictions
throughout the redeveloped building with the exception of the seat they occupy.
This situation leads to contemplate the way in which the house’s ‘excellence,
access and artistic development’ creed is put to practice, indicating that indeed,
access initiatives are implemented in the House’s operations. Another author that
confirms this assumption is Mosse (1995), who recalls a famous performance by a
world renowned singer which was attended by masses longing ‘to see –rather than
to listen to- the megastar’. (p.146). This indicates that a consequence of social
inclusion policies is a shift in the way culture is perceived and consumed by
116
audiences who grant the experience of attending a performance new meanings and
interpretations. The House’s focus on indiscriminate access for all audiences can
be notable in their student stand-by scheme that releases tickets at considerably
low prizes for students. And ultimately, in the fact that the House can be visited
by anyone, free of charge, during designated times where visitors are welcome to
the front of house foyers and have access to the restaurants, bars, terrace and
exhibition spaces. Latham and Swenarton (2002) also identify implicit socio
political features in the design of the redeveloped Royal Opera House. In the
words of Tooley (1999:47) ‘the reopening is an opportunity to throw open the
doors and invite inside all comers, leading the unsure gently to opera and ballet,
the raison d’etre of this magnificent building’ (as stated by the BBC, 1999).
According to Powell (1999), an estimated 25000 visitors were expected to
experience backstage tours yearly at the time of the house’s reopening, suggesting
that in the eleven years that have elapsed since, visitor numbers are likely to have
grown. (BBC, 1999). In terms of audience development and engagement, the
Opera House’s education department ‘aims to inspire and empower people to
learn and develop creative skills through engagement with its work and art forms’
(ROH, 2010). The initiatives implemented to accomplish these purposes include
special performances for schools, insight evenings providing audiences with a
comprehensive overview of certain productions and the live projection of opera
and ballet in big screens in public areas across the country. In 2009, over 87000
people were engaged by these initiatives (ROH, 2010). Even though not all
members of these audiences visited the area as a result of this (live relay of
performances in other parts of the country for example), these audience
development activities highlighted the work of the Opera House to a wider
audience and in many cases, attracted visitors to the area.
Michael Kaiser (1999), who at the time acted as Chief Executive of the House,
reflected on the large scale investment that was required to reconceive the theatre
and suggested at the time that it would act as an attraction for tourism in the area:
‘eventually, the Royal Opera House will repay the investment in its reconstruction
many times over through tourists and the money that tourism brings into the
117
country’. In this sense, it is suggested that tourists will visit Covent Garden to see
the redeveloped Opera House, but that process will also lead them to engage in
other experiences in the area. Another interesting remark made by the then Chief
Executive is that ticket prices had been significantly reduced for the reopening,
which can be linked to the social inclusion orientation developed in sections
above. In relation to this, it was suggested that the House would no longer be
deemed as a kind of ‘glorified private club’, but an institution where ‘the various
groups who will use the building will enjoy of a mutually beneficial coexistence
amongst each other’ (as stated by the BBC, 1999:62). Finally, the current Chief
Executive remarks that regardless of the English nation’s interest in the Opera
House’s cultural produce, its redevelopment and consequent contribution to
Covent Garden’s and London’s cultural landscape, it is a valued cultural asset and
that ‘even if they don’t come, they feel proud of the building’ (Hall, 2008 as cited
by BBC, 1999)
5.8. Conclusions
The review of the evolution of Covent Garden indicates that its firm position as a
vital element of London’s tourism portfolio has been a historical process that
unfolded over an extended period of time. This process has often consisted of
controversial chapters in the area’s evolution as a place for entertainment, tourism
and culture affecting the local population as the area evolved. However, its
popularity as a tourism precinct also plays a key role in the perception of London
as a destination of culture, with a diverse performing arts sector in a historically
rich urban setting. In addition, the presence of the market place, pubs, cafes of
different scale and street buskers attract a variety of visitors seeking different
experiences and perceiving the area in different ways. In this sense, the area can
be viewed from different perspectives by focusing on its physical attributes, the
clientele it serves and the activities that take place throughout its locations. In any
case, it is clear that the area is a multifaceted precinct that concentrates a range of
attractions that both tourists and the local population enjoy using.
118
In regards to the flagship building, it has been determined that the Opera House’s
redevelopment was complex from the social, economic and physical points of
view. The social and economic dimensions can be associated with the Royal
attachment of the institution that implies elitism and exclusivity whilst receiving
considerable amounts of public financial support to fund its redevelopment and
operations. On the other hand, and from a physical perspective, even though the
Opera House has been envisaged as a flagship building, it faces a series of
challenges related to its visual perception and geographical location in Bow
Street. However, its historical value, attachment to the area and quality of
performances suggests that its flagship status can be associated with its presence
as a provider of culture rather than an architectural artefact. An appropriate
methodological approach should be applied in order to enquire about these topics
comprehensively and efficiently. Therefore, the next chapter will focus on the
methodological perspective adopted to conduct this research, the method to be
applied and how the data gathered to answer the research questions will be
analysed.
119
Methodology, Method and Data Analysis Chapter 6
6. METHODOLOGY, METHOD AND DATA ANALYSIS
6.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodological framework that underpins the method
chosen to collect primary data to inform this research and how this data has been
analysed. It is structured in four sections. The first is concerned with the
philosophical stance adopted for the study and includes an exploration of the
social constructivist paradigm from its ontological and epistemological
perspectives. The second section addresses semi-structured interviews as the
method chosen to collect the data, followed by a detailed account of the interview
and fieldwork design. The last section establishes the approach adopted to analyse
the data and the different stages that this process entailed. The concluding section
summarises this methodological framework and introduces the next chapter,
which presents the data and the findings that stemmed from it.
6.2. Methodological approach

Once the theoretical framework for this research was established through the
review of existing literature related to cultural tourism and tourists, urban areas for
tourism and culture and cultural flagships; the next stage of this study involved
the adoption of a methodological perspective that served as a guideline in the
exploratory efforts to give answers to the research questions and overall aim. The
adoption of a paradigm is the first step leading to this methodological framework.
Willis (2007:8) refers to Chalmers (1982) to define the notion of a paradigm as
‘made up of the general assumptions and laws, and techniques for their
application that the members of a particular scientific community adopt’. This
suggests that a paradigm represents an approach that ultimately give the
researcher a perspective on the way the research topic is explored as well as a
series of methodological parameters. As indicated by Willis (2007:8), ‘a paradigm
is thus, a comprehensive belief system, world view, or framework that guides
research and practice in a field’. In this sense, and before contemplating practical
means of gathering data, it is important to establish the fundamental stance that
120
the study will adopt in regards to both reality as it is formed, constructed and
interpreted; and the individuals that provide this data.
6.2.1. The social constructivist paradigm

Lengkeek (2001:178), referring to the work of Kant, states that ‘we no longer
regard reality as the direct reflection of the things around us. Individuals
experience reality only through the filter of their ability to know and judge’. The
author sets out three elements in the process. First, the sensorial sphere by which
the individual perceives their environment (applied to the experience of cultural
tourism by Pocock and Hudson, 2978; Minca and Oakes, 2006). Second, the
interaction between these outer stimuli and inner values and concepts within the
individual. And third, the process by which such interaction leads to
interpretation. It is because the range of values that interact with the outer
environment vary greatly between individuals from a variety of backgrounds that
a positivist approach leading to generalisations is not adopted for this study. It
should be noted that all the research questions established for this research aim to
explore how a variety of Covent Garden’s visitors from many different
backgrounds interpret, assign meanings, perceive and experience this urban area
for tourism and culture. According to Lengkeek’s (2001) proposition regarding
the construction on reality, a focus on the individual is necessary in order to
explore these topics comprehensively and taking into account the visitors’
individuality and diversity in terms of their backgrounds.
Quinn Patton (2002:132) proposes the following set of questions to determine the
most suitable approach for qualitative research:
• How have the people in this setting constructed reality?
• What are their reported perceptions, ‘truths’, explanations, beliefs, and
worldview?
The author associates these questions with the constructivist perspective, and
provides a set of criteria for adopting this approach. This parameters indicate that
the subjective nature of the research is acknowledged, that the data obtained will
121
be trustworthy and authentic, that triangulation of results will be feasible and

appropriate, that praxis and reflexivity provide a frame to ‘understand how one’s
own experiences and background affect what one understands and how one acts in
the world’ (p.546), it contemplates the singularity of each individual and it
provides improved and elaborate knowledge on the research topic. These
considerations suggest that the framework provided by the constructivist approach
is suitable to undertake this research given its subjective nature focused on how
the individual constructs their own reality and the variety of tourists from many
different backgrounds that visit Covent Garden.
6.2.2. Social constructivism from the ontological and epistemological

perspectives
Willis (2007) considers that ontology and epistemology are components of
metaphysical studies and defines the former as the way the researcher deems
reality to be constructed, and the latter as the approach that the researcher adopts
to enquire about it. It is to be noted that social constructivism as a paradigm has
both ontological and epistemological implications as it provides a series of
directives in regards to both realms of social research. Hollinshead (2004:76)
develops a detailed insight into the nature of the constructivist paradigm from its
different perspectives. Firstly, he considers it as an ontological stance that intends
to give an explanation to what reality is and to the nature of the individual’s
existence, and indicates that constructivism is a relativist ontology as ‘realities
exist in the form of multiple mental constructions (…) dependent for their form
and content on the persons who hold them’. This suggests that the ontological
perspective of social constructivism provides a consistent framework to the
research topic and highlights its suitability for this study given its subjective
nature. Secondly, the author explores the epistemological dimension, that intends
to establish how the researcher approaches the individual providing the data, and
concludes that constructivism is an interactive and subjective epistemology
because ‘inquirer and inquired are fused into a singular entity (and) findings are
the creation of a process of interaction between the two’ (Guba, 1990:27). In this
sense, and considering that the ontological dimension of constructivism indicates
122
that reality is for the individual to construct; epistemologically, the researcher acts
as a facilitator for the individual to develop their interpretations from a subjective
point of view. Finally, Hollinshead (2004:76) appraises the approach as a
methodology and indicates that constructivism is a hermeneutic and dialectic
methodological position because ‘individual constructions are elicited and refined
hermeneutically and are compared and contrasted dialectically with the aim of
generating one or a few constructions on which there is general consensus’ (as
cited by Phillimore and Goodson, 2004). This research is entirely qualitative in
nature as data will be obtained through dialectic means of enquiry (semi-
structured interviews) as indicated in further sections of this chapter; and is
hermeneutic given that it explores the processes of interpretation of place. These
considerations also point out the suitability of a social constructivist approach as a
research paradigm for this work.
6.2.3. The facets and dilemmas of social constructivism

A lack of consensus in academic literature regarding the use of the terms
constructionism and constructivism has been identified. Whilst authors like
Jennings (2001) and Bryman (2004) use them indistinctively as synonyms, Quinn
Patton (2002) refers to Crotty (1998:58) who makes a distinction. According to
the latter author, ‘constructivism points out the unique experience of each of us. It
suggests that each one’s way of making sense of the world is as valid and worthy
of respect as any other, thereby tending to scotch any hint of a critical spirit.
Constructionism emphasises the hold our culture has on us, it shapes the way in
which we see things and gives us quite a definite view of the world’ (as cited by
Quinn Patton 2002: 97). In this sense, constructivism is a more subjective concept
and that constructionism is more oriented towards the social and cultural.
Nevertheless, the author himself points out the validity of the distinction and the
widespread acceptance of it in academia. These notions have implications for the
method chosen to collect the data as a subjective approach needs to be adopted
given the subjective nature of interpretation of place and the variety of
backgrounds of the area’s visitors as indicated above.
123
Another contribution on this subject is made by Delanty (2005) who ponders the
approach’s applicability in social science. The author indicates that constructivism
has three different layers of understanding, constructionism being the first and the
weakest position of the three, suggesting that ‘social science is principally
concerned with interpreting the process by which social reality is constructed by
social actors’ (p.140). Delanty (2005) describes the term as weaker in contrast to
the other two types of constructivism. On one hand, social constructivism, also
referred to as scientific constructivism, is defined as ‘the stronger thesis which
advances the controversial claim that science is constructed by social actors’.
These social actors can be linked to Boniface’s (1995) elements interacting in the
consumption of cultural resources (user, presenter and item). Thus, the inclusion
of the concept of social actors in the theoretical framework of this research
confirms the suitability of adopting the social constructivist approach given that
the study focuses on users (tourists), presenters (the flagship as a provider of
culture) and items (culture itself). Delanty (2005) also makes a differentiation
between this and radical constructivism concerned with the notion of reality that
‘can be viewed as a system which is structured as an information-processing
entity (and is) essentially, an endless process of constructing information in order
for a system to distinguish itself from the environment’. The practical
applicability of the latter concept is questionable for this research considering that
this study focuses on interpretation, perception and experience of place but does
not aim to radically differentiate these constructions from the urban environment
it focuses on. This suggests that a social constructivist position will effectively
address the individual’s constructions of reality taking into consideration the
social actors that intervene in the process.
6.2.4. Constructivism and social actors

Guba and Lincoln (1990) highlight that constructivism ‘begins with the premise
that the human world is different from the natural, physical world; and therefore
must be studied differently’ (as cited by Quinn Patton, 2002:96). This statement
suggests that reality is not only constructed by what is perceived through the
individual’s senses via the ‘real’ world’s stimuli, but it is the result of the
124
interaction between these sensorial experiences with the person’s inner

mechanisms of interpretation. These notions are useful for this research as the
individuals providing the data will assign different meanings to what they
perceive considering their subjectivity underpinned by their personal
backgrounds. Furthermore, this paradigm has a clear focus on the different social
actors that constantly influence the phenomenon of perception and interpretation
as noted above. Bryman (2004:17) supports this notion by stating that social
constructivism ‘asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually
being accomplished by social actors (and that) they are not only produced through
social interaction but that they are in a constant state of revision’. These
considerations also suggest the suitability of adopting this approach for this study
considering that the perception and experience of an urban precinct like Covent
Garden are not merely the result of social interactions (word of mouth
information, friendliness and physical appearance of individuals in the area, etc),
but there is a more complex network of elements and relationships to be explored.
Such elements, understood as actors, include the area’s built heritage, its sense of
place, the presence of an Opera House next to a market, the attraction of a variety
of visitors of different socio demographic characteristics and motivations to visit,
its commercial and cultural sectors, etc.
This epistemological approach also relates to Boniface’s (1995) basic assumptions

regarding the cultural tourist’s experience and the mix of elements that intervene
in this process, as can be seen in the theoretical framework presented Chapter 2.
As indicated above, there are users, presenters and items that interact with one
another and with the individual’s inner processes of interpretation that lead to
perception and interpretation. Three such elements can be seen as the social actors
indicated by the social constructivist approach. This is also supported by the
notion that these actors are subject to a constant process of evolution and change
that can be related to the constant state of revision indicated by the definition
above and the area’s evolution as a place for commerce and culture. In relation to
this, Jussim (1991) proposes another system that illustrates the basic assumption
of the construction of reality by the individual according to the constructivist
125
approach. The author (p. 57) indicates that background information and social
beliefs in the form of expectations and assumptions interact with the targets’
behaviour or attributes, which leads to the perceiver’s judgements. This can be
linked to background information on Covent Garden such as media exposure in
film or marketing material for example, which can exert an influence on the
individual’s perception of place.
Greene (2003) evaluates the relationship between the social world and the
physical environment, indicating that the first ‘does not exist independently ‘out
there’, waiting to be discovered by smart and technically expert social inquirers.
Rather, the emotional, linguistic, symbolic, interactive, political dimensions of the
social world, and their meaningfulness, or lack thereof; are all constructed by
agentic human actors. These constructions are influenced by specific historical,
geopolitical and cultural practices and discourses (…) so these constructions are
multiple, contingent and contextual’ (as indicated by Denzin and Lincoln,
2003:597). This statement suggests that the elements to be taken into
consideration to explore the nature of a visitor’s interpretation of an urban area for
tourism and culture will not be few; but many factors influencing this
interpretation take part in the process. This background confirms that conducting a
study of this scope is challenging as many elements that ultimately determine the
individual’s construction of reality have to be taken into consideration.
6.2.5. The anti foundational position of social constructivism

According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005:185) a constructivist research approach
implies the ‘production of reconstructed understandings of the social world (…)
(and that) constructivists value traditional knowledge (and) connect action to
praxis and build on anti foundational arguments while encouraging experimental
and multi voiced text’. Because no general assumptions can be made about the
nature of the experience and perception of Covent Garden in the view of its
visitors’ individual mechanisms of thought, it is important to adopt this non
foundational approach that provides the flexible framework required to enquire
individually and understand subjective realities. As noted before, these studies
126
need to be both experiential and pragmatic. Thus, a constructivist approach is

appropriate for this study. In relation to this, Gill (2000) indicates that this
perspective implies ‘a critical stance towards taken-for-granted knowledge and
scepticism towards the view that our observations of the world unproblematically
yield its true nature to us’ (as cited by Bauer and Gaskell, 2000:173).
Jennings (2001) reviews the benefits of adopting the social constructivist

approach because of its focus on the individual, indicating the need to recognise
the subjective nature of an individual’s experiences and that ‘there are multiple
explanations or realities to explain a phenomenon rather than one casual
relationship or one theory’ (p. 38). Many preconceptions could be deemed as true
in the case of Covent Garden. For example, that a famous Opera House has an
undisputable influence on the area’s sense of place, that tourists visit the area for
cultural motivations oriented to the performing arts, that visitors of the upper
classes seek high culture whilst low income tourists shift towards the popular arts,
and others. Nevertheless, and as noted before, these preconceptions are unhelpful
to the production of new knowledge in the field of tourism. This is because they
do not consider the intrinsic nature of a tourist’s construction of Covent Garden,
as it is not good research practice to assume that an element of it will mean the
same to all of its visitors, which relates to the notion of social construction of
place. In addition, these foundational assumptions overlook the complex
interactions between the different social actors that influence these processes of
interpretation. Therefore, the adoption of this non foundational approach leads to
findings that focus on the individual and have practical implications on the basis
of the lessons learned.
Regarding the experiential nature of the social constructivist perspective, Flick

(2006:79) proposes that ‘knowledge organises experiences, which first permit
cognition of the world beyond the experiencing subject or organisms (and these)
experiences are constructed and understood through the concepts and contexts,
which are constructed by this subject (and) whether the picture that is formed in
this way is true or correct cannot be determined’. This proposition points out that
127
adopting social constructivism as the epistemology to undertake this research

provides enough flexibility to allow the visitors interviewed to develop their
personal views on their perceptions and interpretations of Covent Garden as they
see it, without assuming that one perception is right or wrong. The result will be
the production of new knowledge that reflects reality as interpreted by the
individual rather than by the preconceptions and assumptions which lead to
generalisations that may prevent tourism research from novel findings.
6.2.6. Social constructivism in tourism research

Social constructivism in tourism research is addressed by Phillimore and Goodson
(2004), who indicate that the future of social enquiry in this field should shift
towards the personal socio cultural constructions of reality rather than the tangible
and physical attributes of destinations. The authors (p. 39) affirm that ‘tourism
spaces are not physically but socially constructed, it is important to consider how
the meanings relating to those spaces are constructed, deconstructed and
reconstructed over time. Tourism is a complex phenomenon based on inter-
relations and interactions, but the tendency in tourism research has been to focus
on the tangible, and arguably the objective’. Adopting this approach constitutes a
challenge for this study because it is indeed, intended to understand the impact of
a cultural flagship upon the visitors’ perception of an area, suggesting that a focus
on the tangible and physical would be recommended. However, according to the
literature reviewed in this chapter, it is clear that relevant knowledge will not only
be the result of understanding the building’s architecture, redevelopment
programme or nature of the area’s offer for tourism. It will comprise a more
complex network of elements that will focus on the perceiver rather than on what
is perceived.
All these considerations suggest that a flexible data collection method is required
to enable the individual to develop their views free of assumptions or
preconceptions which would be imposed by the administration of questionnaires
for example. Restricting the range of answers they can provide throughout the
128
data collection stage would limit the potential of this study to generate novel
findings, which does not harmonise effectively with the subjective social
constructivist approach adopted. Similarly, structured interviews would only
allow them to answer questions based on assumptions suggested by the literature
review, which would also impose a restriction on the potential of identifying
emerging patterns of thought that were not suggested by the theoretical framework
established. On the other hand and as indicated above, a dialectic and hermeneutic
approach has been identified as suitable for this research because it would allow
the individual to widely develop their views through the use of language. In this
sense, alternative qualitative data collection methods such as photo elicitation
would also entail restrictions to the generation of comprehensive data. These
considerations suggest that semi-structured interviews are a suitable data
collection method as discussed in the next sections of this chapter.
6.3. Method: Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews as a data collection method consists of verbal
(dialectic) enquiry about a set of topics regarding the themes that the researcher
wishes to explore (Veal, 2006). Unlike closed questionnaires, the topics to enquire
about throughout the interview are concepts and ideas that the researcher
translates into questions according to the particular circumstances under which the
research process is carried through and the individual that is interviewed. In
further sections, the proposed topic guide that translates the concepts reviewed in
the theoretical framework into issues to explore in the interview will be presented.
Veal (2006) also states that it is an appropriate method when the answers obtained
from the interviewees are likely to vary significantly from one to another. This
framework facilitates the customisation of the structure of the interview to gather
rich and comprehensive data from each individual, which would result in an
abundant input of information to interpret and structure the overall findings.
According to Finn et al. (2000), this method would fall in the category of semi-
structured interviews, where a range of topics are to be addressed, but enough
flexibility is provided to allow the interviewee to further expand and develop their
statements and points of view. The authors indicate that a disadvantage of the
129
method is that comparability of answers amongst respondents is more complex

because the data obtained is heterogenic. Nevertheless, and considering the
constructivist epistemology, the need of a strong focus on the individual taking
fully in consideration their subjectivity confirms that semi-structured interviews
are a suitable method to conduct this research. It is also important to note that
Veal (2006:205) addresses qualitative research in tourism from an ethnographic
point of view and indicates that ethnography ‘seeks to see the world through the
eyes of those being researched, allowing them to speak for themselves’. This
indicates that this study has an ethnographic quality about because of the social
constructivist approach adopted.
Marshall and Rossman (2006:101) quote Kahn and Cannell (1957) to

conceptualise interviews as ‘a conversation with a purpose’. The authors note that
the flexible and informal nature of interviews facilitate thorough enquiry. As will
be addressed further on and considering that the respondents will be tourists in the
area, the informal and flexible nature of interviews will lead the researcher to
capture wide ranging data. As indicated by Flick (2002), it is good research
practice to undertake this type of research with a friendly and relaxed attitude.
Marshall and Rossman (2006) also stress the emic perspective of interviews that
allows the interviewee to develop their views according to their own interpretation
of the topic, which is precisely the approach that these types of studies should
adopt considering their constructivist nature. On the other hand, the authors also
indicate that it is the researcher’s challenge to keep the interviewing process
casual, formal and comfortable but within a theoretical framework and conceptual
grounds.
Robson (2002:271) also addresses the instances where semi-structured interviews

are a suitable method for qualitative research and indicates that it is appropriate
‘where a study focuses on the meaning of particular phenomena of the
participants, where individual perceptions of processes within a social unit are to
be studied prospectively, where individual historical accounts are required of how
a particular phenomenon developed and where exploratory work is required
130
before a quantitative study can be carried out’. These four instances can be
directly related to the overall aim and research questions of this research because
the phenomenon of cultural tourism in Covent Garden intends to be explored from
its experiential and perceptual perspectives, being the cultural tourists themselves
the sources of information.
Connell and Lowe (1997:168) state that semi-structured interviews provide a

flexible framework in which ‘analytical interpretations and discoveries shape
ongoing data collection’. As will be addressed further on, the data collection stage
of this study requires such parallel process of gathering data and continuous and
gradual construction of knowledge. This again holds a link with ethnographic
research, as indicated by Finn et al. (2000:67) who note that ‘an ethnographer is
less likely to be narrow and restrictive in his/her approach to research (…)
(he/she) will use a more flexible approach to the research process and focus on
emergent themes or even alter the course of the research during the research
process. For the ethnographer, the perspectives and interpretations of those being
researched become the key to understanding human behaviour’. The authors
highlight that ethnographic research implies the researcher submerging him or
herself into the culture that is studied in order to understand the behaviour and
perceptual processes of the individuals belonging to this culture. The researcher
should pay high attention to detail and subtle signs of cultural meanings, and no
pre conceptions influence the judgement of the individuals studied. A holistic
approach is recommendable for ethnographic research as several layers of culture
need to be cross analysed to understand it as a whole.
Atkinson and Hammersley (1998) evaluate this type of methodological approach

and identify a series of features that characterise it (as cited by Flick 2002:147).
The first feature is ‘a strong emphasis on exploring the nature of a particular
social phenomenon, rather than setting out to test hypotheses about them’. This
antagonistic position to positivism effectively harmonises with the constructivist
epistemology determined as suitable for this study. The second feature is ‘a
tendency to work primarily with unstructured data, that is, data that have not been
131
coded at the point of data collection in terms of a closed set of analytic

categories’. As mentioned above, it is the researcher’s task to weave together the
key themes identified in the bulk of the data collected in order to construct the
reality as it is perceived by the interviewee, which is a principle that links
ethnography with the theoretical perspective and the epistemology adopted.
Another feature of ethnography according to the authors is the ‘analysis of data
that involves explicit interpretation of the meanings and functions of human
actions, the product of which mainly takes the form of verbal descriptions and
explanations, with quantification and statistical analysis playing a subordinate role
at most’. To understand the nature of the experience and perception of a cultural
precinct, it has been determined that a qualitative approach that addresses the
respondents as individuals is required. This approach recognises intrinsic values
that lead them to the consumption and interpretation patterns that can be obtained
through verbal discourse, confirming again that the interviews to be conducted
hold a link with ethnographic research.
6.3.1. The challenges of semi-structured interviews

Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005:71) review the benefits of conducting semi-
structured interviews in social research and indicate that they are ‘an excellent
way of discovering the subjective meanings and interpretations that people give to
their experiences (…) (they) allow aspects of social life, such as social processes
and negotiated interactions, to be studied that could not be studied in any other
way (…) (they) allow new understandings and theories to be developed during the
research process (and) work well with an inductive theoretical approach (and) are
less influenced by the direct presence of their peers’. It is of particular interest to
note that according to the authors, this method is compatible with the inductive
and subjective approach that the social constructivist perspective suggests for this
research. Despite these benefits, Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005) also identify a
series of limitations of the method, primarily concerned with the costs of the
research process. The authors note that conducting interviews can be a costly
method in terms of time and money. These concerns can be directly related to this
study, which approached tourists and consumed their time in circumstances when
132
they intended to invest such time in leisure and relaxation. For this purpose,
different forms of incentives needed to be provided, which is another cost
identified by Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005), who state that financial costs can rise
due to this matter. When the practicalities of the method are presented in
forthcoming sections, incentives to cooperate with the interview in the form of
gifts are evident as financial costs, along with the equipment used to record the
interviews and the licensed required to use the qualitative data analysis software.
Finn et al. (2000) also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of conducting
semi-structured interviews and indicate that a strength of the method is the
flexible framework that at the same time can also be subject to comparability
within answers and respondents. However, the authors note that the probing
questions that are asked in order for the individual to further develop their ideas
may introduce bias in their response and impair comparability of answers. It is
very important to note that the lack of comparability between interviews has
proved to be a limitation of this study as acknowledged in the conclusions and
recommendations chapter. The interviews conducted differed considerably from
one another depending on the interviewees’ answers to the questions, which were
further probed in different ways leading to a wide ranging set of interviews of
heterogenic nature that limited the ability of comparing them. In further sections,
the topic guide for this research will be presented, with the main questions and
topics that were addressed, but probing questions were also asked in order for the
interviewees to further develop their views which were adapted and tailored
individually resulting in data that was not comparable amongst respondents. The
authors make a further analysis of the introduction of bias throughout the
interviewing process and indicate that this could be the result of the researcher’s
personal opinion, the misrepresentation of the interviewee’s point of view during
the data analysis process, the cultural background of either the interviewee or the
interviewer and the induction of answers on behalf of the interviewer.
Finn at al. (2000) state that these potential disadvantages can affect the findings of
the study, but can be addressed with appropriate training in interviewing
133
techniques to develop the researcher’s enquiring skills. These skills were gathered
theoretically throughout a series of seminars and training sessions that the
researcher attended and put to practice throughout the pilot study stage as
indicated in further sections. It is also important to make a distinction between
bias and focus from the part of the researcher. Bryman (2004) highlights that
semi-structured interviews are appropriate when the researcher has a clear focus
on the research topic, overall aim and research questions of the study. This
suggests that a clear theoretical framework will accomplish the opposite of
introducing bias to the interview, but it will keep it focused and oriented towards
the aim of research. This conceptual framework was established by the extensive
literature review presented in previous chapters, which determined the theoretical
approach that underpinned the research design. In relation to this, Kvale (1996)
proposes that a researcher will face the interviewing process effectively when he
is knowledgeable about the subject, structured in the way he conducts the
interview, clear on his questions, gentle in his manner of approaching
respondents, sensitive to what the interviewee states, open and flexible in regards
to the questions to be asked, steering in his way of keeping the conversation
focused, critical in order to discriminate what is important from what is not by
remembering to avoid overstatements, and interpretive in the process of aiding
the interviewee to clarify their views (as noted by Bryman, 2004).
In regards to ethnographic interviewing, Finn et al. (2000:75) affirm that ‘to

undertake a successful ethnographic interview, the researcher must establish a
feeling of trust and rapport with the interviewee’. Creating this rapport may as
well represent another challenge during the research process because given the
wide ranging variety of visitors in the area; this is a cross cultural qualitative study
that will include international tourists from heterogenic cultural backgrounds.
Therefore, creating rapport may be a difficult task due to cultural issues. In
response to this, it should be noted that the researcher has strengthened his skills
in communicating with individuals of a large variety of cultural backgrounds
through voluntary work as Resident Assistant at International Students House for
134
three consecutive academic years, providing student services to residents from all
over the world.
On the other hand, Schostak (2006) also makes an account of the overall ethical
implications of conducting semi-structured interviews and refers to as ethical
protocols to the matters of anonymisation of the respondents, the confidential
nature of the data obtained, negotiation of access to both the people and the places
involved in the research process, the right to say no granted to the interviewees,
the independence to report the data that is considered suitable from the
researcher’s point of view and finally, representation of a wide ranging set of
individuals without favouring or leaning towards any particular groups of persons
or opinions. In this sense, the interviewees were asked to read a consent form
(included in Appendix A) that informed them of the study’s overall aim, that they
were free to refuse to answer any question at any time, that they were not obliged
in any way to continue with the interview, that they could stop the interview at
any time and the tape recordings would be erased in their presence, that
recordings and transcripts would be anonymised and securely stored, and that
nothing they say would be published in a form that makes it personally
identifiable. The interviewees were asked to sign this form and fill some socio
demographic information about themselves, such as country where they live,
gender, occupation and age group, which generated useful statistical data in
regards to the sample’s socio demographic profile.
6.4. Interview design

Bryman (2004) notes that an advantage of conducting semi-structured interviews
is the flexibility that it provides to the researcher in order to enquire about certain
topics depending on the specific interviewees’ case. However, it is also important
to follow a general structure so that interviews are conducted in a way that
collects data in a systematic manner. The author indicates that an effectively
designed interview needs to structure the topics logically and within the frame of
the research questions, and must use language that is comprehensible for the
interviewee: This latter point is particularly important in this research that
135
recruited international tourists whose first language may not be English. Bryman
(2004) proposes a categorisation of questions that has been used to design the
interview and was taken into consideration when tailoring probes to allow
interviewees to further develop their views. This framework includes the
following types of questions:
• Introducing questions, when a topic is broadly introduced to the interview.

• Follow up questions and probing questions, which aim to encourage the
interviewee to further develop a statement.
• Specifying questions, which will further develop details of a particular
statement.
• Direct questions, which are the most likely to get either an affirmative or a
negative answer when addressing a very specific topic.
• Indirect questions, which according to the author will get the interviewees’
own point of view regarding direct questions.
• Structuring questions, which will allow the interview’s topics to be
connected and associated with each other appropriately.
• Interpreting questions, which will allow for clarification of statements.
• And finally, silence, which will suggest to the interviewee that the
interviewer expects them to further elaborate a statement.
The topic guide was designed to explore the research questions and overall aim of
this study concerning the tourist’s motivation to visit the area, their experience
and perception of the area, and the influence that the Royal Opera House has on
these processes; informed by findings from the literature review. The interview
was structured in three sections. The first enquired about their visit to London in
order to determine what their overall purpose for visiting the city was and whether
it was a first or repeat visit along with the types of activities they sought and the
areas and attractions they visited. The second section enquired about Covent
Garden. Similarly, it enquired whether it was a first time or repeat visit which led
to useful data about perceptions of change in the area through the years. It also
136
enquired about potential preconceptions or expectations about it as suggested by

the literature review and their motivation to visit it as indicated by the first
research question. Their perception of place was assessed through enquiring about
what they liked or disliked the most, how they would describe Covent Garden to
someone who had never been there and whether it reminded them of any other
areas they had visited, and if so, why. Their experience of place was explored by
asking them what they had been doing in the area, which was often but not always
linked to their primary motivation to visit. The third section of the interview
enquired about the influence of the flagship on their perception and experience of
place. The flexible nature of semi-structured interviews proved to be especially
useful in this final section because some interviewees had heard about the
building whereas others had not, so probe questions had to be tailored
accordingly. Furthermore, over a third of the interviews were conducted inside the
building which entailed awareness of its presence in the area. Its influence on their
perception and experience of place was explored through questions related to how
important they considered it to be and in what sense.
The topic guide and interview protocol are presented in Table 6.1 in the next page.
137
Table 6.3– Topic guide
1. Approach visitor and provide information about the researcher and aim of the
research
2. Explain matters related to recording device, use of data and privacy
3. Attain consent
4. Get signature on informed consent form
5. Proceed with interview as follows:
1. LONDON 2. COVENT 3. ROYAL OPERA
GARDEN HOUSE
Is this your first time in Is this your first time in the Have you heard of the ROH
London? area? before?
If no, do you think it has For how long have you been Where did you hear from it?
changed since you first here? Was it a reason why you
came? What kind of things have you wanted to come to this area?
For how long have you been doing or want to do in Do you know where it’s
been here? this area? located?
What brings you to Have you heard of it before? Have you seen it?
London? Is it how you were expecting What would you imagine a
What kind of things have it to be? building called the ROH
you been doing/sites have Why did you have these would look like?
you been visiting? expectations? What do you like the most
What have you enjoyed What do you like the most about it? (if known)
the most? about it? What do you dislike about it?
Why? What do you dislike about it? Would you change anything
What is your favourite Would you change anything about it?
area or attraction in about it? Do you think it’s an important
London? Did you find anything that element of this area?
What do you like about surprised you or you were not Why would you say this?
it? expecting to find? Does it remind you of any
Do you think this area is other buildings you have seen
different from other areas in in London or abroad?
London? Do you think the area would
What makes it different? be the same without it?
What caught your attention If the ROH wasn’t there, what
the most? do you think you would find
How would you describe it to on that site?
a friend who has never been Have you been inside the
here? building?
Do you think it has a What would you expect to
character of its own? find inside?
What do you attribute this Would you say the place is
character to? famous?
Does this area remind you of Why do you think it’s
any other areas you have seen famous?
in London or abroad?
6. Thank the interviewee for their cooperation, end the interviewing process and
provide them with incentives (Royal Opera House pencils, season programmes and
In and Around Covent Garden magazine).
138
6.5. Fieldwork design

In the following sections, the selection of interviewees, interviewing times and
locations and other practicalities involved in the data collection stage are
discussed followed by a review of the pilot test which ultimately underpinned the
final fieldwork design.
6.5.1. Selection of interviewees

First time and repeat international and domestic tourists.
Rationale: The variety of backgrounds of cultural tourists in London suggests that
both international and domestic tourists visiting the area of Covent Garden should
be included in the study. The area attracts a variety of visitors that range from
tourists responding to the UNWTO’s (1995)2 definition of such, to domestic
visitors, Londoners that work in the area or visit it for shopping or other leisure
activities and temporary migrants such as students that may not be classified as
tourists but behave in touristic ways. This research has collected data from all
these groups of visitors with the exception of individuals living within the Greater
London area in order to keep the data within a tourism context. In relation to this,
the inclusion of temporary migrants such as students is debatable considering that
they may behave in touristic ways as noted above but they may also be studying
in the country for a period of over 6 months, which should exclude them from
participating in the study because under these circumstances they no longer
belong to the tourists category by definition. They were included in the study
regardless of this because it was considered that they could make useful
contributions to the research considering their variety of backgrounds and
willingness to participate as noted during the pilot test stage (addressed in further
sections). However, the length of their stay in the country was not assessed in
order to evaluate the suitability of recruiting them as interviewees, which
constitutes a limitation of the study as acknowledged in the conclusions and
recommendations chapter of this thesis.
2
‘People who travel to and stay in places outside their usual environment for more than twenty-
four (24) hours and not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes
not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited’
139
The importance of cultural distance in experiencing the area (McKercher, 2002,

see Chapter 2) indicates that both culturally proximate and distant individuals
should be interviewed to evaluate how this distance affects their perception and
experience of place. London is characterised by a high proportion of repeat
international visitors, whose perceptions and experience may differ from first time
visitors (see for example Maitland (2008), so both groups were also recruited as
interviewees. In relation to this, however, that qualitative studies are subject to
language considerations that restrict those who can participate as providers of
data. In this case, only tourists with a suitable level of spoken English can be
included. However, since the researcher is bilingual, Spanish speaking tourists
were also recruited. In further sections, an analytical discussion will be presented
in order to provide a clear focus and systematic approach to the difficulties of
cross cultural qualitative research and how the researcher approached these
challenges.
A total of 306 visitors were recruited to participate in the interview throughout

different locations of the area as specified in further sections to ensure that wide
ranging data from a representative group of tourists in the area was captured. This
approach can be linked to the concept of convenience sampling because the
recruitment of these interviewees depended on how suitable the interviewing
locations were and their willingness to participate in the study. Covent Garden is a
popular area that is visited by a large number of tourists every day, which allowed
the researcher to conduct a large number of interviews throughout the spring and
summer months of 2009, until it was clear that no new data was emerging from
the interviews and that the schedule determined for the research suggested that it
was time to draw the data collection stage to an end and begin the transcription
process, which was lengthy given the high number of interviews. It is also
important to note that depending on the interviewees’ fluency in the English
language and the depth of the data they provided, the interviews varied in length
considerably as well. As noted in previous sections, a limitation of conducting
semi-structured interviews is that comparability between data is not always
feasible. This was heavily noted throughout the data collection stage of this study
140
considering that some interviewees were willing to converse at length, leading to

substantial information in interviews that lasted up to 10 to 15 minutes. Other
interviewees were less willing to develop their views and perceptions of the area
and the flagship, which is also reflected in the short length of the interview and in
the fact that only a limited number of interviews were quotable in the next
chapter. The probing questions that were asked differed considerably, therefore,
lack of comparability between interviews emerged as an issue of consideration as
indicated in the critical appraisal of the method in the conclusions and
recommendations chapter.
6.5.2. Time of interview

Throughout the day, all days of the week.
Rationale: Through direct observation, it was noted that visitor numbers tend to
increase from the morning, through the afternoon and into the evening. Covent
Garden has a vibrant night time economy and performances in theatres
surrounding the area mostly start between 7 and 8pm. This suggested that
recruitment of potential respondents would be higher in the afternoon and evening
hours. Visitation is also higher during weekends, potentially increasing
recruitment rates. However, tourists visiting the area in the morning and during
weekdays were also interviewed to gather a wide ranging set of views throughout
different days of the day and the week.
6.5.3. Interviewing locations

Throughout a variety of locations in Covent Garden.
Rationale: A variety of interviewing locations were selected in order to gather an
appropriate range of views provided by a suitable range of visitors. Recruitment
was higher in the mainstream Piazza surrounding the market because of its variety
of leisure opportunities and concentration of attractions. However, Covent
Garden’s peripheral locations are also visited by tourists that informed this
research with contrasting views of the area as a whole and of these tangential
locations. The interviewing locations were also determined by the facilities
available to collect the data in a way that was comfortable and suitable for both
141
researcher and interviewees, places where tourists could sit down and talk at
length, without interruption. The chosen interviewing locations are shown in
Figure 6.1 below with a brief rationale for their choice which was also a result of
the pilot test as indicated in further sections.
Figure 6.1 – Map of the area and interviewing locations
1
6
© In and Around Covent Garden
142
1. Seven Dials Road Junction: This is the convergent point of seven

streets in the North West area of Covent Garden and its central
monument is a popular resting area for tourists where recruitment
proved to be successful due to the relaxed and social nature of the site.
2. St Martin’s Lane: This peripheral site is of interest because it is likely
to be frequented by tourists entering or leaving Covent Garden to other
nearby areas and attractions such as Trafalgar Square or the National
Gallery. Their reasons for entering the area or leaving it for other
places offered insights regarding their tourist experience in London
and perception of Covent Garden.
3. St Paul’s Church: Located on the West side of Covent Garden’s
Piazza, it is a popular sightseeing spot for tourists, not only because of
the tranquillity of its back garden but for its resting facilities (toilets
and bench seats) which allowed for successful recruitment.
4. Throughout the Piazza: as indicated in previous chapters, the Opera
House has a subtle physical presence when viewed from the Piazza,
which is a high profile location due to its closeness to the tube station
which makes it an entry point to the area and the concentration of
leisure opportunities such as street entertainment, shopping, eating,
drinking and relaxing around the market place. Recruitment was also
successful.
5. Inside the Royal Opera House: since the aim of this study is to explore
the flagship’s influence on the area’s visitors’ perception and
experience of place, it was vital to interview the Opera House’s
visitors, which was most effectively done within the building. Written
consent to conduct these interviews was obtained from the House
Manager (see Appendix B), who provided the researcher with an
interviewing desk where tourists visiting the building for its eating and
drinking facilities, exhibition, box office and shop were recruited.
6. Broad Court: Located directly opposite the Royal Opera House’s front
façade, tourists use this location to rest around its famous ballerina
statue where recruitment was successful.
143
6.5.4. Pilot test

In order to evaluate the feasibility of conducting the study as tentatively
determined by the initial research design, a pilot test was conducted throughout
the first two weeks of February in 2009. It was overwhelmingly affected by
unfavourable weather conditions. The very few tourists that were spotted
wandering in the area complained about the weather and in a case interrupted the
interview because of being cold and the recording was inaudible because of the
wind. In subsequent days, the weather improved but the amounts of ice on the
floor not only made street interviewing uncomfortable but also dangerous. It was
expected that as the weather improved in the spring and summer months,
recruitment would be more successful, which was the case.
The pilot test revealed that younger visitors were more likely to participate in the
interview as older tourists seemed to be less willing to be interviewed, perhaps
because the researcher wore a University ID card and a clipboard with the
informed consent forms, coming across as a charity worker. Cultural distance also
emerged as an issue of consideration as only one Asian visitor agreed to be
interviewed. On the other hand, it was also noted that tourists approached in the
Spanish language seemed to be more interested in participating. These issues were
taken in consideration in subsequent stages of data collection as the researcher
endeavoured to recruit a balanced mix of interviewees.
Another consideration resulting from the pilot test regarding cultural distance was
that the researcher needed to evaluate carefully the tourist’s proficiency in the
English language, as some interviews lacked substance due to insufficient
language skills by the interviewee. This was a difficult task because in some cases
tourists were approached and agreed to take part in the research but it wasn’t until
the interview started that their low level of English language skills was evident.
Therefore, a casual chat to evaluate the potential interviewees’ proficiency in the
language was included as part of the research protocol. Nevertheless, and as
acknowledged in the limitation of the study section of the conclusions and
recommendations chapter, a large proportion of interviews did not yield rich data
144
because of the interviewees’ inability or unwillingness to develop their views in

length.
According to the University of Westminster’s Code of Practice Governing the

Ethical Conduct of Investigations, Demonstrations, Research and Experiments
(2010); attaining written informed consent from the participants may not be
necessary in certain Class 1 types of work (p.6). Throughout the first two
interviewing sessions, the researcher obtained the participant’s written consent by
getting them to sign the form; but observed that some were intimidated by this as
they did not want give any personal details like their last names, cities where they
live or signatures. Considering this, it was determined that by participating in the
interview, the interviewee automatically granted the researcher their consent to do
so, and the consent form was filled for socio demographic monitoring purposes
only.
The low quality of some of the interviews conducted in the pilot test stage could
be attributed to unfavourable climate conditions, but also to the experimental
nature of the pilot testing stage. As the data collection stage progressed the
researcher’s interviewing skills and confidence improved along with the weather
and it was recommended that the volume of interviews was considerably
increased by two or three times per day rather than the 17 that were attained for
the pilot study, leading to a total of 306 interviewees in total exclusive of the pilot
test. The offer of gifts as incentives to take part in the research proved to be an
effective strategy to engage older interviewees also resulted from the pilot test
stage along with the inclusion of memos documenting the most relevant parts of
the interview as specified in the data analysis section below. Finally, the
interviews conducted during the pilot test stage suggested a series of probing
questions that were later applied in the data collection stage of this research.
6.6. Language considerations: Cross cultural qualitative research

As mentioned above, both English and Spanish speaking tourists were recruited to
take part in this study considering that the researcher is fluent in both languages.
145
Nevertheless, it was noted that interviews conducted in a different language are

subject to translation and interpretation issues that should be carefully assessed in
order to preserve the legitimacy of the data obtained. It is indeed an interesting
observation that very scarce literature exists on this subject applied to tourism
research, which is perhaps one of the fields that
th requires a very strong conceptual
framework on this matter the most. For this study, 50 Spanish speaking tourists
were recruited to participate in the interview, representing 16% of the sample;
whereas a much higher 84% of the sample (256 interviewees) were interviewed
in English as graphically represented in Figure 6.2 below:
Figure 6.2 - Distribution of interviews conducted in English and in Spanish
Spanish
English
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
There is a significant difference between the numbers of interviews conducted in

English and in Spanish,
anish, with the former being much higher than the latter.
However, it has been determined that considering issues in cross cultural
qualitative studies would strengthen the discussion of the methodological
approach adopted for this study. As noted throughout
throughout the pilot test stage of the
study, Spanish speaking tourists seemed to be more willing to be interviewed and
cooperative throughout this process, which urged the researcher to capture data
that was representative of the visitors in the area resulting in him avoiding
interviews conducted in Spanish at certain times. This can be related to the fact
146
that Spain and South America only constitute two of the other continents to be
considered to attain a representative sample, being the rest of the interviews
conducted with tourists from other parts of the world in the English language.
As indicated above, language considerations have been under researched in

tourism studies, and although the number of interviews conducted in Spanish only
amount to 16% of the sample, it is important to determine a suitable and informed
approach to interviews conducted in a different language than the one the research
is being written in. Therefore, the following sections present a detailed account of
issues and concerns that arise as a product of conducting cross cultural qualitative
enquiry in order to ensure the validity of the data obtained throughout this
research’s fieldwork considering the multicultural background of the interviewees.
In brief, these issues are mostly related to:
• Translation problems (Edwards, 2008 in Squires, 2008): when the
intervention of translators affect the trustworthiness of the data.
• Contextualisation (Squires, 2008; Lopez et al., 2008): when the
interviewee fails to understand the context of the concepts that are being
covered by the researcher.
• Alteration of meaning (Lopez et al., 2008): when the translation process
disregards specific meanings of terms that may vary greatly from one
culture to another regardless of them being used in conversations held in
the same language.
• Regional variations in use of language (Lopez at al., 2008): when the
researcher fails to identify the implications of the data obtained because of
either the differences mentioned in the former point or because of heavy
accents that may confuse the researcher.
• Creating rapport between the researcher and the interviewees. Due to
cultural differences, the manner in which the researcher approaches and
addresses the interviewee could possibly result in intimidation for the
latter.
147
It is interesting to note that contextualisation, alteration of meaning, regional

variation in use of language and creating rapport between the researcher and the
interviewees are all issues that might also be present when conducting interviews
in English when this is not the interviewee’s native language (native German or
French speakers for example). This suggests that it is not good research practice to
assume that interviews conducted in English are not subject to cross cultural
considerations and that the only division that can be made between the nature of
the data collected in terms of language refers to differences between English and
Spanish alone, given the multicultural background of the sample. Therefore, the
material presented in forthcoming sections is also useful for the study in terms of
how to collect and handle data that is subject to cross cultural considerations.
The challenge of what has been referred to as cross cultural studies in academic
literature relates to the conversion of meanings from one language to another.
Lopez et al. (2008:1729) define these studies as an ‘attempt to understand how
individuals from various cultures or backgrounds perceive their situations and act
in their own worlds within their own cultural context’. This definition confirms
the need to include these cross cultural considerations in tourism research as it is
concerned with the understanding of people’s behaviour, perceptions and
experiences outside their normal place of residence under the influence of their
own cultural background. Supporting this concern is that researchers often fail to
recognise this issue as an important limitation of their studies (Lopez et al., 2008).
In relation to this, Squires (2008:2) indicates that ‘language barriers between

interviewers and participants present significant methodological challenges for
researchers undertaking cross language qualitative studies’. On the basis of this
statement, the author makes an overview of language considerations in qualitative
research aiming to make relevant methodological recommendations in order to
reduce data distortion to a minimum in the translation process. The author
indicates that the ongoing forces of globalisation strengthen the need to include
these issues in social research. Although his study is undertaken within a health
and nursing context, his findings are transferable to tourism research because as
148
the author highlights, the level of data distortion mentioned above can be
measured according to a set of ‘trustworthiness’ standards. As indicated by
Edwards (2008), ‘inconsistent or inappropriate use of translators or interpreters
can threaten the trustworthiness of cross language qualitative research and
subsequently, the applicability of the translated findings on participant
populations’ (cited by Squires, 2008:2). This statement implies that the
intervention of third parties to mediate between the researcher and the interviewee
constitute a critical element to focus in order to minimise data distortion, or
trustworthiness as mentioned by the latter author. In this sense, the present study
did not make use of any mediators between the interviewees and the interviewer
to either translate or interpret the data obtained, as the researcher is fluent in both
languages considered as valid to conduct the interviews.
In order to systematically tackle with the methodological challenges that cross-

language qualitative studies represent, Squires (2008) proposes that there are four
key strategies to be observed should the quality and richness of the data processed
in a foreign language is to be preserved throughout the translation process. The
first of these key points is conceptual equivalence, which according to Jandt
(2003) means that ‘a translator provides a technically and conceptually accurate
translated communication of a concept spoken by the study’s participant (…)
when a poor translation occurs, the researcher may lose the conceptual
equivalence of or find the meanings of the participants’ words altered because of
how the translator performed the translation’ (as cited by Squires, 2008:2).
Conceptual equivalence was not a problem faced by this study as the researcher
was able to understand the interviewees’ statements in both Spanish and English
regardless of heavy accents that made the transcription process arduous but not
compromising the integrity of the data obtained. On the other hand, the author
observes that often the best possible wording or phrasing of thoughts and
impressions of the interviewees cannot be fully translated without altering their
meaning because there are no equivalent words or phrases in the target language
to entirely express the original concept. In these situations, the author (p. 3)
affirms that ‘providing a conceptually accurate translation involves translating the
149
concept conveyed in the sentence, the incorporation of subject matter knowledge,

and the integration of their local context knowledge into the translation process’.
This statement suggests that whilst literal translation of words or phrases may not
be possible, accurate contextualisation is a valid means to overcome this
difficulty. And that this contextualisation can be attained by an ample
understanding of the research area, which has been attained for this study by an
extensive literature review of a variety of topics related to this research area and
case study (Chapters 2 to 5).
The second key element in these series of standards for accurate cross language
qualitative research is the observation of the translator and interpreter’s
credentials. According to Squires (1998), both credentials and experience of the
mediators between the researcher and the interviewee can have an influence that
will manifest itself heavily throughout the coding phase of the research and the
recognition of emerging themes, threatening the reliability of the study. Squires
(2008:3) suggests that a reliable translator can be identified when they
‘demonstrate the ability to communicate between languages using complex
sentence structures, a high level of vocabulary and the ability to describe concepts
or words when they do not know the actual word or phrase’. Considering that the
researcher has completed primary, secondary and higher education degrees in
Spanish followed by postgraduate studies in English; it can be implied that he
responds to this profile, resulting in accurate translations of the data obtained.
The third element to consider is the role of the translator or interpreter during the
research process. The author indicates that it is of paramount importance that the
mediator between researcher and subject of research understands and agrees with
the theoretical and methodological approach adopted. Should this not be the case,
the nature of the data obtained will be negatively influenced, as this mediator not
only acts as a connecting point between researcher and interviewee but in some
way, they also act as a producer of data. In relation to this, the researcher himself
will undertake this role, safeguarding the adoption of one single methodological
and conceptual research approach.
150
The final elements on this set of considerations in cross language research are
issues related to qualitative approaches. Squires (2008) suggests that data obtained
in different languages should be handled with particular care as minor details,
namely subtle remarks or regional slang may convey the concepts that the
researcher needs to identify but can be easily lost in the translation process. As
with the other key elements reviewed above, the researcher’s expertise in the
Spanish tongue suggests that the data obtained will be translated meticulously and
constantly observing the preservation and unveiling of hidden meanings; which
again constitutes a strength of this study. Squires (2008:9) concludes that
‘researchers can improve the trustworthiness of their study by paying close
attention to how they describe the identity and role of translators and researchers
in the study’. Therefore, because the same person will be undertaking this role, it
is assumed that the translation process from Spanish to English will not distort the
data obtained but will benefit the study as the cultural background of the sample
will be broadened by including Spanish speaking tourists.
All these considerations link to the investigation undertaken by Lopez et al.

(2008:1729), who state that ‘cross cultural qualitative studies conducted in
languages other than the investigator’s primary language are rare and especially
challenging because of the belief that meaning – which is the heart of qualitative
analysis- cannot be sufficiently ascribed by an investigator whose primary
language differs from the study’s participants’. This suggests that because the
researcher’s primary language is Spanish, including Spanish speaking tourists in
this research will not only result in broader cultural representation of respondents
but also guarantees high fidelity in data interpretation. And more interestingly, the
data collection stage has generated a series of valuable findings related to cultural
distance, which were consistently gathered through interviews conducted in
Spanish and translated without losing their meaning. Furthermore, this conceptual
framework in terms of cross cultural studies have also provided the researcher
with an awareness that interviews conducted in English are also subject to
language considerations when this is not the interviewee’s native language.
151
6.7. Data analysis

Denscombe (2007:247), referring to qualitative data, proposes that ‘the process of
analysis involves the search for things that lie behind the surface content of the
data –core elements that explain what the thing is and how it works. The
researcher’s task is to probe the data in a way that helps to identify the crucial
components that can be used to explain the nature of the thing being studied, with
the aim of arriving at some general principles that can be applied elsewhere to
other situations’. The author argues that the task of collecting the data, as
demanding and time consuming as it may be, is actually the process of informing
the research with enough material that has the potential of giving an answer to the
research questions and overall aim of the study. However, once this is
accomplished, the researcher’s challenge consists of interpreting such information
in a comprehensive, exploratory and thoroughly inquisitive manner; so that no
potential finding is overlooked. In relation to analysing and interpreting data in
qualitative studies, the author (2007) indicates that qualitative research tends to
focus on words and/or visual images as the subjects of evaluation and has suitable
applicability to small scale studies implying involvement on behalf of the
researcher who responds to a research design and adopts a holistic perspective.
Out of all these notions, the latter two are of particular interest. The concept of
holism suggests that a body of knowledge is better explored and understood when
all of its constituting elements are taken into account as a whole rather than
focusing on just one or the sum of its individual elements. In this sense, a
particular phenomenon can be studied more thoroughly when the interaction and
relationship between its elements is taken into account. On the other hand,
Denscombe (2007) also indicates that interpreting data in qualitative studies tends
to engage the researcher more personally, to whom he refers as the ‘crucial
measurement device’, indicating that ‘the researcher’s self (their social
background, values, identity and belief) will have a significant bearing on the
nature of the data collected and the interpretations of the data’ (p.250). This
imposes a challenge for the researcher, consisting of maintaining a balance
152
between the indicated personal background and the framework, theoretical and
methodological, adopted for the study.
The author (2007) also suggests that four basic principles should be taken into
consideration when analysing qualitative data. These are:
• That the findings drawn leading to any conclusions or recommendations of
the research should always be evidence based, and directly linked to the
data collected to support their validity. All findings presented in the next
chapter stemmed for the interviews themselves and are supported by
excerpts from the interviews to validate them.
• That an exhaustive and thorough reading should be given to the data
before it is explained, to ensure a correct understanding of the nature of
such information. This principle can be related to the transcribing process
of the interviews, which provided the researcher with an initial overview
of the nature of the data obtained before the analysis was made.
• That the researcher should at all times refrain from allowing
preconceptions, presumptions or any other extraneous interpretive
elements into the process of analysing the data to ensure that the findings
are not biased. The researcher has endeavoured to avoid any bias
throughout the data analysis stage through an exhaustive exploration of the
social constructivist approach adopted for the study.
• That an iterative approach should be adopted throughout the course of
interpreting the information, where the researcher refers back to the data
along the process of formulating theories or concepts. As indicated above,
the findings presented in the next chapter are supported by evidence
directly extracted from the bulk of the interviews, which illustrates the
iterative nature of this process.
Following Denscombe’s (2007) approach to the process of analysing qualitative

data, this study has followed the steps presented below throughout the data
analysis stage:
153
1. Data preparation: Once the data has been collected, it is important to

suitably organise it to allow the researcher to access it easily and work
with it in a structured manner. Firstly, making backup copies of all
gathered materials is important due to irreplaceable nature of this type of
information. Secondly, the data should be standardised and gathered in a
consistent format. Thirdly, the data preparation stage should allow the
researcher to take preliminary notes and comments that might be useful for
subsequent analytical stages. And finally, a serial number should be
assigned to each unit of information to allow for its organised storage and
future access. Under these guidelines, the data preparation stage was
conducted for this study as follows: backup copies of the recorded
interviews in mp3 format were stored both online and on CD-ROM. The
standardisation of the data consisted of the transcription of these audio
files resulting from the interviews in one single format; they were also
stored electronically and printed in paper. Both electronic and hard copies
allowed for the researcher to make notes, highlight paragraphs and
produce memos as the analysis process developed as indicated in further
sections. Finally, each interview and informed consent form with the
interviewee’s socio demographic data was assigned a code denoting the
day the interview was conducted and the interviewing location; which
ensured that any given interview could be identified and located easily
from the files database.
2. Data familiarisation: This stage consists of the process of reading and re-
reading the data collected. Denscombe (2007) recommends a parallel
process of cross referencing this data with field notes taken throughout the
data collection stage, which is helpful to understand what is being read ‘in
context’ and to relate this information with the researcher’s thoughts and
ideas as the data collection stage progressed. He also argues that the re-
reading process should not be a mechanical task but also a quest for
unveiling what is ‘between the lines’ and uncover hidden meanings or
subtle messages that may not be apparent from superficial readings of the
text. This research has ensured familiarisation with the data through the
154
transcription process of all 306 interviews; which was a lengthy and

demanding task that helped the researcher to familiarise himself with the
nature of the data collected and allowed for a preliminary process of cross
analysis with field notes taken throughout the fieldwork phase as indicated
in forthcoming sections. However, it should be noted that the interviews
were thoroughly reviewed after transcription to allow for an analysis.
3. Data interpretation: This stage will be addressed in the section
corresponding to the approach adopted for the analytical stage of the data
below.
4. Data verification: Denscombe (2007) emphasises the importance of
making the researcher’s work ‘believable’, so it is imperative to seek ways
to demonstrate that the findings of the study are valid and accountable. For
this purpose, the author proposes four bases of verification:
• Validity, which refers to the precision and accuracy of the
information that is being taken as primary source of data for the
research. This can be accomplished by triangulating (referring to
other sources of information to corroborate the primary) or by
validating the information by referring to the original source. In
this research, the findings are supported by extracts stemmed from
the original source (the interviews themselves) to validate what is
said in the next chapter.
• Reliability, which evaluates the extent to which the researcher’s
involvement may have affected the nature of the findings, and
whether these findings would have been the same if the study had
been conducted by someone else. It is suggested that an audit trail
consisting of a detailed account of how the research process was
conducted informing the examiner of all decisions made and what
led to such research design strengthens the reliability of the study.
The present chapter aims to serve as an audit trail for this purpose,
as it covers issues related to the methodological approach adopted,
the method chosen, the research and fieldwork design and how the
data has been analysed.
155
• Generalisability, which questions the broader applicability of the

findings. The author suggests that this issue can be addressed by
clearly defining the limitations of the study and evaluating the
scope for further research, which are issues addressed in the
conclusions and recommendations chapter of this thesis.
• Objectivity, concerned with the extent to which the researcher’s
values and beliefs influence the process of interpreting the data.
The author recommends that the researcher’s personal values and
background should either be put aside in the data analysis process,
or they should be acknowledged as playing a role in this stage.
This work adopts the former approach as the researcher adheres to
the conceptual framework established by the literature review to
prevent his beliefs and values from affecting the analysis of the
qualitative data that has been gathered to answer the research
questions.
5. Data representation: As discussed above, the use of interview extracts is
the way in which qualitative data of this nature is effectively represented
as they constitute the evidence base of the findings made. This is the
approach adopted in the following chapter that presents the evidence
analysis supported by direct quotations from the interviewees either in the
chapter itself or included as appendices. The way in which the data has
been analysed leading to these findings is discussed below.
6.7.1. Approach to data analysis

Hall and Hall (2004:150) point out that ‘qualitative research is about
understanding the world of the subjects, listening to their voices, and allowing
those voices to be heard in the analysis and the report. This means that the
researcher will want to analyse the information in terms of the ideas, concepts and
words used by their subjects, rather than, or as well as, those the researcher thinks
are important’. In this sense, it is important to note that although the research
design has been underpinned by the issues highlighted by the literature review as
topics of interest for the research area, the main focus should be on what the
156
interviewees have said and the potential of identifying emerging patterns of

thought. The authors also indicate that in order to ensure valid representation of
the data, it is necessary to use direct quotations from the interviewees to illustrate
the concepts that are being developed as a result of the data collection. This is the
approach taken to present the findings in the next chapter.
Hall and Hall (2004) also agree with Denscombe (2006) in that the researcher’s
tasks after collecting the data are to organise it in a manner that is suitable for
analysis via transcription of the interviews ensuring that these are accurate and
consistent. They must then code this information and categorise the codes, which
entails identifying patterns of social thought and categorising those themes that
are recurring in the body of information being analysed. This process, referred to
by Babbie (2004) as ‘content analysis’ is conceptualised as ‘the process of
transforming raw data into a standardised form. In content analysis,
communications – oral, written or other - are coded or classified according to
some conceptual framework’ (p. 318). Babbie (2004) also makes a distinction
between coding of manifest content, where word counting and the surface aspects
of the data collected are being analysed; or latent content, which involves a deeper
analysis where hidden and underlying concepts are sought. This study has adopted
a latent content approach as it focused and is concerned with a deep understanding
of the interviewees’ views through the analysis of the interviews’ transcriptions.
Phelps et al. (2007) argue that the approach given to qualitative data analysis will
derive from the epistemological and methodological positions adopted. In this
case, the social constructivist approach suggests a strong focus on the individual,
and indicates that whilst content analysis may provide useful guidelines to analyse
the data, a theory-building approach is also helpful for this purpose. This approach
‘allows the researcher to seek connections within the data and aim to arrive at
theories to explain the connections (…) analysis will involve determining whether
the data possess discernable structures or whether links exist between/among
categories, with the purpose of making propositional statements or assertions
regarding the underlying principles’ (p.209). The theoretical framework of this
research focuses on three fundamental elements, which are the tourist, the area,
157
and the flagship. In this sense, it is important to provide an understanding of how

these three elements relate to one another and to identify the links between them
to understand how the flagship building affects the perception and experience of
place in Covent Garden in the tourist’s view. Therefore, the exploration of these
links can benefit from the adoption of certain elements of the theory-building
approach as suggested by Phelps et al. (2007). The authors postulate four basic
steps to adopt this approach which were applied throughout the data analysis stage
of this study:
1. Identifying themes, patterns and/or ‘hidden’ meanings in the transcripts
(latent content). This was done through an exhaustive reading of the
interviews that led the researcher to identify these patterns in terms of
what affects the perception and experience of the area as presented in the
next chapter.
2. Annotating thoughts about the meaning of what was said. Although
extensive field notes were taken throughout the data collection stage, these
were also generated as the process indicated above developed.
3. Extracting relevant pieces of text that represent what is being postulated
(meaningful units). These pieces are the ones used to illustrate the
findings.
4. Adding the extract to wider categories using the coding and categorising
scheme, as noted by Denscombe’s (2006) in relation to content analysis.
The themes identified were assigned to wider categories related to the
interviewees’ motivation to visit the area, their perception and experience
of place, and how the flagship influences this processes; which is evident
in the structure followed in the evidence analysis chapter.
The last step of this scheme suggests that there is a resemblance between both
content analysis and the theory-building approach. Therefore, they both make a
useful contribution to this study by providing guidelines related to the analysis of
extensive qualitative data.
158
Finally, and considering the wide range of approaches than can be adopted in the
task of analysing qualitative data, Bryman (2007) proposes the notion of narrative
analysis, which according to the author (p.412) ‘is a term that covers quite a wide
variety of approaches that are concerned with the search for and analysis of the
stories that people employ to understand their lives and the world around them
and (…) people’s sense of their place within events and state of affairs, the stories
they generate about them and the significance of context for the unfolding of
events and people’s sense of their role within them’. This approach is compatible
with the epistemological stance of social constructivism as it gives a clear
emphasis on the individual and their account of how reality is constructed by
them. Similarly, Bryman (2007) refers to Riessman (2004), who identifies
thematic analysis as one of the models entailed by narrative analysis. This model
focuses on ‘what is said rather than how it is said’ and the identification of
emerging themes throughout the data, which is the approach this investigation
adopted as suggested by most of the positions reviewed above. The identification
of emerging themes and coding is a key aspect of qualitative data analysis as
agreed by all these approaches, and because these codes provide the themes that
will be the subject of analysis in the findings chapter of this research, it is also
appropriate to include thematic analysis as a position considered in the process of
analysing the interviews.
6.7.2. Coding as an essential task

An interesting observation of these instances is the importance assigned to the
task of coding the data, referred to by Bryman (2004:408) as ‘the starting point for
most forms of qualitative data analysis’, ‘the key process in the analysis of
qualitative social research’ (Babbie, 2004:376) and as ‘an integral part of the
analysis, involving sifting through the data, making sense of it and categorising it
in various ways’ (Darlington and Scott, 2002:145). The latter two authors
highlight that coding essentially consists of finding patterns of social thought
amongst a body of qualitative data. Likewise, Miles and Huberman (1994:56)
define codes as ‘tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or
inferential information compiled during a study. Codes usually are attached to
159
chunks of varying sizes –words, phrases, sentences, or whole paragraphs,

connected or unconnected to a specific setting. They can take the form of a
straightforward category label or a more complex one’. (as cited by Jennings,
2001:198). Arksey and Knight (1999) argue that the process of meaning
assignment to qualitative data is the result of the combination of the frameworks
provided by the researcher’s own self, the research design, the conceptual grounds
established by the literature review and the data obtained itself. The authors also
stress the strong presence of coding in the approach known as grounded theory,
and agree that it consists of identifying similar ways of thinking made evident by
the data collected, and grouping such patterns in similar categories supported by
quotations in form of extracts taken from the interviews themselves. This
approach was applied throughout the coding stage of the data collected, but unlike
the guidelines provided by grounded theory, an extensive literature review was
conducted before the data collection stage.
Bryman (2004) formulates a series of directives that were adopted in the task of
coding the interviews. These are:
• Doing it as soon as the data collection process concluded and
complementing it with fieldwork observations and annotations,
• Doing it reiteratively and allowing the researcher to go back to texts
already coded in search of new themes, introducing more theoretical
content in the conceptual framework as the coding process may reveal new
topics of consideration, and
• Separating the tasks of coding and analysing as the former should be done
first.
In a more broad sense, Robson (2002:457) refers to Tesch (1990) and argues that
‘qualitative researchers are concerned with the characteristics of language, the
discovery of regularities, and the comprehension of the meaning of text or action
and reflection’. That has been the approach adopted to analyse the data collected.
The authors also highlight Miles and Huberman’s (1994) notions about coding
and suggest a set of common features of qualitative data analysis, proposing a list
160
of actions entailed in the analysis of qualitative data, or what they describe as

‘analytic moves’. These have been applied to analyse the data collected as
follows:
• Assign codes to the information.
• Produce what other authors refer to as ‘memos’, which are reflections and
observations made by the researcher throughout the fieldwork.
• Review the data, searching for common themes and patterns of thought.
• Elaborate theories and concepts based on the consistencies found
throughout the data.
• Link such consistencies with the theoretical framework established before
the data collection stage.
The task of coding is widely addressed by existing literature related to grounded

theory. Whilst such theory is not regarded as entirely suitable for this
investigation given that a review of secondary material preceded the data
collection stage, it provided useful guidelines for the task of coding this data.
Robson (2002:493) maintains that the aim of grounded theory analysis is ‘to find
conceptual categories in the data, to find relationships between these categories,
and to conceptualise and account for these relationships through finding core
categories’. This suggests that the approach to coding that was applied in the data
analysis stage of this study incorporated elements of grounded theory. On the
other hand, Hall and Hall (2004) relate the task of coding to other approaches,
such as that of thematic and narrative analysis, confirming the suitability of
adopting useful elements of different approaches of qualitative data analysis for
the optimal interpretation of the data obtained for this study. Because, as the
authors (p.155) point out, ‘codes (are) used to identify themes mentioned by the
interviewee that seem to the researcher to be interesting, significant and indicative
of the meanings of the situation held by the subject’. This suggests that the task of
coding provides an appropriate balance between what is said by the interviewee
and the researcher’s interpretations, which has been informed by an extensive
literature review of the topics explored. The task of coding was done through
161
computerised qualitative data analysis software (QSR N*Vivo), and a detailed

account of how this was done is specified in the corresponding section below.
6.7.3. Field notes as complementary sources of data

As noted before, the data analysis stage has also relied on field notes generated
throughout the data collection stage. Jennings (2001:198) indicates that ‘memos
serve to assist the researcher throughout the analysis phase. Memos can record an
observation, a reflection or a comment to pursue a new direction of question or
data collection/analysis. Memos can also record a ‘eureka’ discovery –an
unexpected finding or concept arising during field and analytical work’. This
indicates that as the data collection stage progressed, it was helpful for the
researcher to record thoughts and reflections on what was found. These memos
were generated throughout the fieldwork stage. Bryman (2004) recommends
generating memos in view of the frailty of human memory which could lead to the
dismissal of useful thoughts resulting from the fieldwork as a result of not
recording them. The author makes a distinction between mental notes, jotted notes
and full field notes, according to how appropriate it is for the researcher to
generate them throughout the interview. However, as noted by the author, human
memory cannot always be relied on. In this sense, this research has dismissed the
first category of memos, and because of the unobtrusive nature of the research,
full field notes have been generated freely but once the interviews were conducted
and the interviewees were debriefed. Adding further depth to the type of field
notes to be taken, Babbie (2004) refers to Strauss and Corbin (1990) and identifies
more categories, suggesting that they can be code notes, when the codes are being
identified as the data is being collected; theoretical notes when they are
observations related to the conceptual framework established before collecting the
data; or operational notes, when they observe issues related to the method or the
approach adopted. The field notes generated for this study respond to all three
categories as they focused on issues related to the theoretical framework, what the
interviewees said and the methodological approach. Additionally, Babbie (2004)
also proposes that these field notes can also be elemental memos when they
inform very broadly of the topic that is being investigated, sorting memos when
162
they suggest patterns of thought identified and may help in the task of creating
categories and associations between codes, or integrating memos which provide a
logical association between the latter two. The memos generated also respond to
these three categories as they focused on the topic itself and the links between
findings.
Appendix C includes two examples of how field notes were generated throughout
the data collection stage of this research. As indicated in the limitations of the
study section of the conclusions and recommendations chapter of this thesis, a
more reflective approach to generating field notes could have been used to help
the researcher develop ideas and themes on the field, as the nature of the memos
generated is brief. Nevertheless, they helped the researcher highlight important
issues from each interview, which was useful throughout the initial coding stage
of the data analysis. The first field note included in Appendix C, for example,
highlights that the interviewee noted that tourists may play a detrimental part of
his experience of Covent Garden, but they are an important element of the area’s
atmosphere. The field note also highlights that the interviewee made remarks
related to the quality of street entertainment, which is discussed in the evidence
analysis chapter of this study. On the other hand, the field note also highlights that
in the interviewee’s opinion, the area ‘feels like a destination’ rather than a
‘passing through’ area; and asserts that attending a performance at the Royal
Opera House does not only entail watching a show which is highlighted in the
memo. The second example of a field note generated throughout the data
collection stage highlights that the interviewee does not dislike tourists
themselves, but overcrowding that comes as a result of high levels of visitation is
not something that he enjoys about the area, which is discussed in the findings
chapter. Likewise, the field note reminded the researcher that the interviewee
asserted that age influences the way in which Covent Garden is experienced by its
visitors and that the area has a strong commercial sector but the Royal Opera
House’s cultural input to the area is also important in the view of the interviewee.
As stated above, highlighting these issues in recorded memos helped the
researcher remember important aspects of each interview as they were analysed.
163
The second field note also exemplifies how the interviewee’s opinion in relation
to Royalism and glamour associated with the Royal Opera House could be
contrasted with another interviewee’s opinion related to exclusivity and access to
the House. However, these field notes did not influence the main themes, as these
derived from the literature review, research questions, the topic guide and
emerged from the data itself as indicated in further sections.
Field notes were useful to record initial thoughts and to highlight important issues
raised by each interviewee right after the interviews were conducted, which
helped the researcher capture and record “fresh” reflections of each interview.
However, it is important to note that their nature is brief and their purpose was to
summarise rather than to analyse. Therefore, although field notes were used to
support the data collection stage and to aid in the evidence analysis, they did not
influence the main themes nor did they include an in depth reflection of the points
highlighted, which is recognised as a limitation of the study but provides scope for
enhancing the use of memos and field notes as data collection tools.
6.7.4. Computer assisted qualitative data analysis

Bryman (2004:417) asserts that ‘one of the most significant developments in
qualitative research in the last twenty years is the emergence of computer software
that can assist in the use of qualitative data analysis’. Silverman (2000) discusses
the advantages of using such software and indicates that it can help the researcher
in speeding the process of handling large amounts of data and it enhances the
rigour in which the information can be analysed. Likewise, Phelps et al.
(2007:210) summarise the benefits of using computer assisted qualitative data
analysis software by stating that ‘it is designed specifically to meet the needs of
qualitative researchers (and) essentially supports the coding, categorisation,
organisation and retrieval of data, providing enhanced flexibility and helping you
to manage notes or memos made during your analysis’. As noted before, field
notes taken throughout the data collection stage can be useful for the
interpretation process of the data analysis process, and existing software can also
integrate such memos within the same analytical platform as the interviews
164
themselves. The software QSR N*Vivo was dentified as a useful tool to support
the needs that this study required given the amount of interviews conducted.
Therefore, after transcription, all the interviews were uploaded in the program
which facilitated the tasks of analysing and coding.
Robson (2002) affirms that other advantages of using this type of software include
the provision of an organised single location storage system for all the data
collected, providing easier access to the information, facilitate handling of large
amounts of information, and help in the task of developing consistent codes.
However, the author also points out that there are disadvantages in using software
to analyse qualitative data, mostly referred to the need to undertake training to
make full use of its capabilities. Dey (1993:55) also highlights the limitations of
relying on computers by stating that ‘computers can do many things, but they
cannot think (…) that also means the thinking is up to us. A computer can help us
to analyse our data, but it cannot analyse our data’ (as quoted by Jennings,
2001:212). In this sense, it is important to establish that the software available has
been useful for organising the data and facilitating access to it. Nevertheless, the
data analysis stage was underpinned by the theoretical framework established and
the researcher’s analytical skills.
6.7.4.1 Praxis
As indicated above, it is recommended that the researcher undertakes thorough
training in order to make full use of the variety of tools and functions featured by
computerised data analysis software. Whilst this would have been helpful for the
researcher to understand the full capabilities of the program, the research schedule
was tight considering that four months were invested in collecting the data and
that the transcription process was lengthy given the high number of interviews
conducted. Therefore, only the most basic functions of QSR N*Vivo were used in
the process of analysing and coding the data, which is acknowledged as a
limitation of the study in the conclusions and recommendations chapter.
165
QSR N*Vivo was not the only software used to prepare and analyse the data.
Once the data collection stage was drawn to an end, the audio files containing the
interviews’ recordings were uploaded to Express Scribe in order to facilitate the
transcription process. An example of how this was done is included in Appendix
D.1. These transcriptions had several typing mistakes and Express Scribe is not a
helpful tool to identify and correct them promptly. Therefore, they were exported
as MS Word documents where mistakes were spotted and corrected. This stage
also helped the researcher to further familiarise himself with the data as indicated
before. Once all the interviews were transcribed, they were uploaded to QSR
N*Vivo resulting in an accessible database where each interview could be easily
located and accessed as illustrated in Appendix D.2.
The task of analysing the data consisted of two stages. In the initial coding stage,
Covent Garden (CG) and the Royal Opera House (ROH) were treated as Nodes in
N*Vivo, and subfolders were created for these nodes reflecting an initial set of
categories as illustrated in Appendices D.3 and D.4. These categories derived
from the theoretical framework established by the literature review on the basis of
the overall aim and research questions. Hence, the tourist’s motivation to visit and
perception and experience of place determined these categories a-priori. Likewise,
the influence of their nationality and age in these processes also determined these
categories as suggested by the literature. These categories were also influenced by
the literature reviewed in Chapter 3 in regards to urban areas for tourism and
culture and their place making elements (‘shopping’ and ‘busking/performance’
for example). On the other hand, as the interviews were coded, emergent
categories arose (‘weather’ and ‘time of visit’ for instance). Other categories
derived from the probing questions asked and presented in Table 6.1 (‘Different’
and preconceptions about the area for example). Therefore, the initial set of
categories derived from the literature review, research questions, the topic guide
166
and emerged from the data itself. This initial set of categories is presented in
Table 6.2 below, which is directly derived from the categories illustrated for both
CG and ROH in Appendices D.3 and D.4 respectively:
Table 6.2 – Initial set of categories
Age Experience Preconceptions
Accidental visitors Garden Relaxation
Areas Heard of Shopping

COVENT GARDEN
Busking/Performance Image Similar to
Cobbles Liked the most Smallness/Streets
Crime/Drugs Motivation Socialisation
Different Nationality Time of visit
Dislike Pedestrianisation Weather
Eat/drink People
Evolution Perception
Access Exhibitions Name

ROYAL OPERA HOUSE
Age Fame Nationality
Been inside Heard of Perception
CG Without Hidden Personal

Background
Change Image Quality first
Contrast with others Importance Relationship with

CG
English Asset Motivation
167
The categories established for ROH also derived from the research questions, the
literature review, the topic guide and emerged from the data itself. Appendices
D.3 and D.4 also illustrate how data could often be coded in more than one
category. For example, an interviewee in Appendix D.3 refers to the area’s
commercial sector and its built environment to illustrate his perception of place,
and associates this with his nationality. Therefore, this data was coded in the
‘Nationality’, ‘Perception’, ‘Shopping’ and ‘Smallness/Streets’ CG categories.
Similarly, Appendix D.4 illustrates how an interviewee was asked how she would
think the area would be like without the Opera House in it, and her response
indicated that that although the Royal Opera House’s physical appearance is not
noticeable by all of the area’s visitors, it can be seen as a cultural asset for the
country. Therefore, this data was coded in the ‘CG without’,’ English Asset’,
‘Hidden’ and ‘Importance’ ROH categories.
The fact that many of these initial categories are inter-related led to a second
analytical stage where these relationships were explored. This second analytical
stage consisted of re-reading data coded using the initial set of categories to
understand how these are linked. This is noted as good analytical practice by
many authors (Arksey and Knight, 1999; Bryman, 2004; Dey, 1993; Denscombe,
2007), who note that coding qualitative data is a reiterative process, and that it is
not uncommon for an initial coding stage to lead to a second one where the
relationships between the categories of an initial set are further explored. This led
to a more detailed set of themes that derived from the initial categories and the
understanding of how they are inter-related resulting from re-reading the data that
was coded initially. Table 6.3 below presents the themes that derived from the
initial set of categories:
168
Table 6.3 Themes derived from the initial set of categories

Area attracts younger visitors
Visitor characteristics
Nationality affects perception of area
Expectations of a garden
Preconceptions
Media exposure
Deliberate and accidental visitors
Centrality and typicality

Motivation to visit
Shopping, eating and drinking
Performing arts and vibrancy

Roaming and exploring
Commercial experiences
COVENT GARDEN
Experience Cultural experiences
Eating, drinking and social experiences throughout the day
Contrast between locations
Built environment
Streets shape and pattern
Urban based elements Physical contrast between locations
Gentrification
Outdoor settings
Perception Relaxed ambience
Pedestrianisation
Human based elements
Co tourism
Cosmopolitanism
Commerce and nature of shops
Activity based elements
Street busking and quality of performance
Flagship attracts older visitors
Visitor characteristics
Nationality affects perception of flagship
Physical appearance (hidden)
ROYAL OPERA HOUSE
The building Contrast with other stand alone flagship buildings

(stereotypes of opera houses)
Quality of performance over physical appearance
The institution Implications of the name (grandiosity), elitism and exclusivity
Audience development and access initiatives
Contrasting points of view
Attraction of visitors
Relationship with CG
Cosmopolitanism
Importance of opera houses for cultural destinations
169
The themes presented above are discussed in the evidence analysis chapter and
derive directly from the relationships between the initial set of categories.
Appendix E illustrates the relationship between each of these themes and the
initial categories. This is also closely linked to the fact that interview material was
often coded in more than one category, indicating the importance of
understanding these relationships, which ultimately underpinned the material
discussed in the next chapter.
The process of analysing the data is summarised in Figure 6.2 below:
Figure 6.3 - Data analysis summary
1. Initial reading and 2. Once the data was

coding of the data using a coded in these categories,
series of categories that it was re-read to
derived from the research understand the
questions, the literature relationships between
review, the topic guide categories, leading to the
and emerged from the data themes presented in Table
itself. These categories are 6.3. These themes are
presented in Table 6.2. used to support the
findings of the study. The
relationship between them
and the initial set of
categories is outlined in
Appendix E.
6.8. Conclusions
This chapter has discussed the methodological approach to the study and detailed
the methods that were adopted. A social constructivist approach is a suitable
philosophical perspective to undertake this research given its strong focus on the
individual’s subjective construction of reality. This stance also indicates that
semi-structured interviews are appropriate as a data collection method considering
their flexibility, which allows for thorough social enquiry. Since this research
focuses on perception and experience of urban precincts and consumption of
culture, certain conceptual elements of ethnographic interviewing proved useful to
170
establish a firmer approach to interviewing as a data collection technique. The

interview design was underpinned by the literature review and structured the
interview in three parts, focusing sequentially on the tourist’s perception and
experience of London, Covent Garden and the Royal Opera House.
The fieldwork design allowed for wide representation by conducting interviews in

a variety of locations during different times and with a wide range of visitors. The
pilot test stage provided a series of useful lessons in the approach to collecting the
data. They were applied in the main study which resulted in 306 semi-structured
interviews. These were analysed using guidelines provided by different
approaches to qualitative data analysis such as content analysis, the theory
building approach, narrative and thematic analysis as well as grounded theory
considering its strong focus on the importance of coding to identify patterns of
social thought. The data was complemented by field notes taken throughout the
data collection stage and consequent transcription, which allowed the researcher
to record reflections related to each interview that further informed the analytical
stage of the data. However, the use of field notes was limited as acknowledged in
this chapter and the limitations of the study section of the conclusions and
recommendations chapter. The analytical stage relied on specialised software that
assisted in the tasks of storing, organising and analysing the interviews. This
analytical stage consisted of two phases: the first was underpinned was an initial
set of categories determined by the literature review, research questions, the topic
guide or emerged from the data itself. These categories were inter-related which
prompted the researcher to re-read the coded data to understand the relationships
between these categories, leading to a series of themes presented and discussed in
the next chapter.
171
Evidence Analysis Chapter 7
7. EVIDENCE ANALYSIS
7.1. Introduction
The overall aim of this research is to explore the influence that a cultural flagship
has upon the perception and experience of urban areas for tourism and culture,
using the case of the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden as a case study. For
this purpose, a wide range of literature was reviewed to establish a theoretical
framework that explored the cultural tourists’ motivations, experience and
perception of place; as well as a variety of perspectives to understand urban
precincts for tourism and culture, and the influence that cultural flagships exert
upon them. These concepts, along with the adoption of a social constructivist
approach underpinned the methodological considerations that ultimately oriented
the primary data collection of this study.
As indicated in the previous chapter, the fieldwork was conducted in six different
locations throughout the area and inside the flagship building and was drawn to a
conclusion in August 2009, resulting in 306 semi-structured interviews that were
recorded and subsequently transcribed. This material was uploaded to the
specialised qualitative data analysis tool QSR N*Vivo and analysed using the
guidelines set out in the Praxis section of the Methodology chapter. This data was
analysed in two stages. The first coding stage was made on the basis of an initial
set of categories that derived from the research questions, the literature review, the
topic guide and others that emerged from the data itself. Once the data was coded
initially, the relationships between this initial set of categories was explored,
leading to a series of themes discussed in this chapter. A detailed account of the
relationships between the initial set of categories and themes is presented in
Appendix E. All of the 306 interviews were given equal weight when coding the
data. However, some of these interviews did not yield rich data because of
language restrictions that prevented the interviewees to develop their views in
length. In other cases, the interviewees were unwilling to provide detail in their
responses, leading to short interviews that did not yield rich data either. The
findings presented in this chapter are illustrated by quotes extracted from a
172
smaller number of interviews that yielded rich data, conducted with tourists that
developed their views in length and provided detail in their response (76
interviews in total). Regardless of this, all the interviews were read and coded
where possible since, even though a large proportion of the interviews where
short, some of these provided basic data that was coded where possible. In order
to further support the evidence analysis, some numbers are provided to reflect the
relative weight of certain findings. It is important to note that in some cases, these
numbers are higher than 76. This is because, as indicated in the previous chapter,
some interviews were coded to more than one category and because all interviews
were read, including brief ones that provided some data that was coded where
possible. To ensure clarity, the relative weight of findings is indicated in the text
by using terms like, for example, ‘some interviewees’, ‘many interviewees’, ‘a
large/small proportion of interviewees’, etc.
It is also important that the rationale of the structure of the chapter is made clear.
It begins with a discussion of the interviewees’ socio demographic characteristics,
and subsequently the discussion is organised around the research questions. This
means that the most significant findings are not necessarily presented first, but the
evidence analysis follows a structure determined by the research questions. The
first research question enquires about what Covent Garden represents for its
visitors, and therefore preconceptions about the area are presented first in this
section of the chapter although, as it turned out, comparatively few people brought
this up. But the order in which findings are presented is not determined by their
relative weight but by the research questions. This section is followed by the
interviewees’ motivation to visit the area, and their experience and perception of
place as outlined above, because these are the second, third and fourth research
questions respectively. As the final research question addressed the influence of
the flagship upon these processes, the findings regarding the Opera House are
presented after. These focus on the visitor’s perception of the flagship as an
architectural artefact and as an institution; as well as its relationship with Covent
Garden and its influence on the interviewees’ perception and experience of place.
173
7.2. Visitor characteristics

This study adopts a qualitative methodology that underpinned all considerations
regarding data collection and the methods used for that purpose. Nevertheless, the
high number of interviews conducted allowed for some statistical information to
be generated in relation to the interviewees’ demographic profiles. A total of 213
interviews were conducted in various locations throughout the area along with a
further 93 inside the flagship building as follows:
Table 7.1– Number of interviews in the area according to location

(Refer to Figure 6.1 in Methodology Chapter for map of the area)
1.Seven 2. St. Martin's 3. S Paul's 6. Broad

Dials Lane Church 4. Piazza 5. ROH Court Total
25 10 86 76 93 26 306
As indicated in the methodology chapter, a variety of interviewing locations were

selected in order to capture wide ranging data from a representative and diverse
group of visitors in the area. However, not all of them are quoted in this chapter as
a large proportion of them yielded limited data, which is to an extent, represented
in the numbers provided to support the findings. It was expected that the
interviewees’ perception and experience of place would be directly influenced by
the different locations where they were approached for the interview. This is
further explored in forthcoming sections of the findings chapter and the tourists
that provided the data are referred to as either CG or ROH interviewees depending
on where they were interviewed from this chapter onwards.
According to the London Development Agency (2009), the majority of domestic

and international tourists in its London Visitor Survey indicated that they visited
or intended to visit the City of Westminster. Additionally, Visit London (2010a)
indicates that the British Museum and the National Gallery which are located
north and south of Covent Garden respectively are the most visited tourist
attractions in London. This indicates that the majority of tourists in London visit
areas located in the immediate proximity of or within Covent Garden. For this
174
reason, the sample used for this research can be compared to existing
e data on
London visitors.
7.2.1. Nationality. Figure 7.1 below illustrates the sample’s profile according to
the interviewees’ nationality:
Figure 7.1 – Interviewees’ nationality
60
50
40
30
AREA
20 FLAGSHIP
10
As indicated by the figure, 58% of CG interviewees are of European

European origin (EU
and rest of Europe), followed by 19% of American origin, 13% of the CG sample
consisted of domestic visitors and 9% from other parts of the world. On the other
hand, 38% of ROH respondents were domestic visitors, 35% of European origin,
15%
% of American origin and 13% from other parts of the world.
Visit London (2010b) indicates that in 2009, 52%

% of London visitors were EU
nationals with a further 14% arrived from the rest of Europe in the corresponding
year, 15% were of North American origin
origin and 19% from the rest of the world.
These figures are reflected in the sample used for this research as the majority of
interviewees were from European origin in the area and in the flagship, including
domestic visitors. However, the flagship has a higher
higher number of domestic visitors
than the area in the sample used. This relates to SOLT’s (2004)) West End Theatre
Audience Survey, in which over 73%
% of the sample belongs to the domestic
175
sector, with almost 37% of it corresponding to the local London market.

market On the
other hand, the London Visitor Survey conducted by the London Development
Agency (2009) confirmed that 20% of overseas visitors have an interest in theatre,
music and performing arts; whereas a higher 26% of domestic tourists expressed
such interest.
st. This suggests that an appropriate group of respondents have been
interviewed for this research as the majority of visitors in the flagship were of
domestic origin. Nevertheless, as this research focuses on the tourist’s experience
and perception of place,
place, potential interviewees living in London were excluded
from the study.
7.2.2. Gender. In relation to the interviewees’ gender, Figure 7.2 illustrates the
percentile distribution of the sample:
Figure 7.2 – Interviewees’ gender
70
60
50
40 AREA
30 FLAGSHIP
20
10
0
Male Female
As indicated by the figure

figure above, 55% of CG interviewees were female
respondents, with a slightly lower number of male interviewees (45%). The
London Development Agency (2009) approached a similar sample in terms of
gender with 59% males and 41% females in their London Visitor Survey. ROH
interviewees in this research were mostly female (67%) as opposed to a
significantly lower 33% of male respondents. However, this does not necessarily
reflect audience composition.
176
7.2.3. Age. The third socio demographic indicator evaluated is the interviewees’
age. Figure 7.3 below illustrates the sample’s profile according to their age range:
Figure 7.3 – Interviewees’ age
60
50
40
30 AREA
20 FLAGSHIP
10
0
Under 30-39 40-49 50-59 Over
30 60
As indicated above, the majority of CG interviewees belong to the younger sector

below 30 years of age (53%), followed
followed 19% of respondents between the ages of
30 to 39, 12% between 40 and 49, 11% between 50 and 59, and 5% over the age
of 60. On the other hand, ROH respondents belonged to the older age groups as
indicated by the figure. The majority of these interviewees
interviewees were over the age of 60
(35%), 28% were between the ages of 50
5 to 59, 15% were between 40 to 49 years
of age, only 8% were between 30 and 39, and 14% belonged to the younger age
groups below 30. Similarly, the London Development Agency (2009) indicates
that
hat ‘London visitors have a relatively young profile, with more than half of all
those interviewed aged under 35 years (57%)’, which is consistent with the
visitors interviewed for this study. The impact that the high number of younger
visitors in the areaa has upon its sense of place will be discussed in further sections.
7.2.4. Occupation. The final socio demographic indicator taken into

consideration for this research was the interviewees’ occupation. Figure 7.4 below
illustrates this distribution:
177
Figure 7.4 – Interviewees’ occupation
OTHER
ENGINEERING, FACTORY, CONSTRUCTION,…
UNEMPLOYED, HOUSEWORK, INFORMAL WORK
RETIRED
TOURISM
FLAGSHIP
STUDENT
SOCIAL WORK AND HEALTH AREA
ARTS (architecture, performing, design, film, etc)
BUSINESS, BANKING, INSURANCE, SALES,…
GOVERNMENT, LAW, ECONOMY
EDUCATION, RESEARCH
0 10 20 30
The majority of CG interviewees were students, whilst they were retired in the
case of ROH respondents. This is directly related to the age considerations
presented above, as they are mostly over the age of 60 inside the
the flagship, and 30
or younger throughout the different interviewing locations in the area. Apart from
this consideration, all other types of occupation are fairly equally distributed, with
education and research (15% combined) and business and finance related
rel jobs
(17%) as the most common occupations. These figures confirm that the area
attracts a variety of visitors of contrasting socio demographic profiles due to the
diversity of experiential opportunities throughout its different locations. Despite
strong
ng cultural features, such as performing arts and architecture, only 9% of the
sample is employed in creative areas. These topics will be discussed in
forthcoming sections related to the interviewees’ perception and experience of the
area and the flagship.
7.3. Findings related to the area

This section discusses the interviewees’ motivation to visit, experience and
perception of place as determined by the research questions.
questions. As
A a foreword to
these sections, however, it is important to discuss how their socio demographic
characteristics can have an influence in these processes. In first instance, the
t
interviewees’ country of origin emerged as a socio demographic indicator exerting
178
an influence on their perception and experience of place as noted by 42

interviewees. As might be expected, many domestic visitors expressed more
awareness of the area’s heritage and history: “The Opera House is fine it’s a
cultural draw, but the area itself is so exciting What do you think makes it
exciting? The fact that it has been a place where actors and actresses and whores
and pimps and people and market folk and Londoners have hung out for
centuries. It has always been a pleasure ground. (...)Thousands of actors who
have lived in my lifetime have come here for research (...) How would you
describe the feel of the place to a friend who has never been here? It’s exciting,
its all the things that London is about. This church is quiet and holy. In the market
place its all about market values, it’s also always been a place for strolling
players, jugglers, clowns, acrobats. It’s always been a place where rich and poor
mingle. And the whores have always done a roaring trade. There was a book
about them in the 17th century. Register. You know how we nowadays have the
good pub guide? Well in those days they had the good guide for the ladies of the
town (Maria, England)”. The latter interviewee makes historical references that
suggest an in depth understanding of the area’s past. Such detailed accounts of the
area’s evolution and heritage were not provided by international respondents,
suggesting that domestic visitors are more aware of the area’s history.
As indicated in further sections, it was also noted consistently that the shorter
history in some interviewees’ countries of origin reflected in their less significant
architectural heritage makes them notice and appreciate Covent Garden’s built
environment. Many respondents, particularly of Australian and American origin,
stated that they appreciated the area because it is evident that it is ‘over 400 years
old’, whereas their home countries have not existed as such for such an extended
period (See Appendix F.2 for further evidence). On the other hand, it was also
found that some interviewees were not only attracted to the area because of their
unfamiliarity with it, but they also tended to connect and associate it with certain
aspects of their home countries. Such was the case of a Spanish tourists who made
negative remarks about the way a Covent Garden restaurant cooked a traditional
Spanish dish, referring to it as ‘horrendous’ because it was not served in a
179
Spanish fashion but it was marketed as such. This indicates that the interviewee’s
cultural values, in this case cuisine, have an influence on her perception of the
area. (See Appendix F.3 for full quote).
Another socio demographic indicator exerting an influence on the interviewees’

perception and experience of place is age, as 27 interviewees made remarks about
this issue. Some of them noted that the experiential opportunities available in the
area have a stronger appeal for a younger market, with some older respondents
observing that the vibrancy of Covent Garden, particularly of its central Piazza
may be appealing ‘to the younger crowd’: “Because of so many people visiting it
seems like it’s on alert, it’s constantly moving, it’s not still. That’s something that
I like, at least at this age I enjoy. Maybe later on I would like something more
quiet (Nicosia, 30-39)”. Similarly, other interviewees noted that the presence of
large numbers of younger visitors contributes to the area’s vibrancy, which is not
always regarded as a positive element of their experience as illustrated by
additional evidence in Appendix F.1. On the other hand, many interviewees
recognised that the array of experiences in the area attracts an ‘eclectic mix’ of
tourists of all ages, which adds to its cosmopolitan ambience: “I think no matter
what age, it’s got a lot of appeal. You have got stuff that would be great for young
children, you got places to eat, a lot of multiculture here. You got pubs for the
older children, so it has a lot to offer (Laura, 40-49)”.
Further probing was applied throughout the interviews to understand how the
interviewees’ age affects their perception and experience of place, with some of
them indicating that as they grow older, they become more perceptive of and
receptive to their surrounding: “As you grow older your expectations of the place
change? Yes I think so. You see other things. You see them in another way. You
see them more quietly, more at ease. So you see more (...) But in another way,
more receptive, receiving, accepting. More than chasing. Said the old man
(Marcel, 50-59)”. This is also evident in the fact that older interviewees tended to
give a more comprehensive account of their experience of London and Covent
Garden, providing more detailed answers about how they perceived and
180
interpreted the area. For example, a CG interviewee under 30 highlighted that her
previous visits were focused on ‘candy and dolls’ but as she grew older she is also
‘checking out the pubs’. In contrast, another interviewee over the age of 60
provided a very detailed account of his appreciation for the area’s heritage using
the case of the now closed National Sporting Club, and his desire to impart that
part of history to his grandson. Similarly, an interview conducted with mother and
daughter enquired about the first image that they associated with the area. The
mother indicated that it was the Opera House’s Corinthian architecture in Bow
Street, whereas the daughter mentioned the modern aluminium built ‘bridge of
aspiration’ in Floral Street, with both interviewees recognising the bias that their
age exerts on their opinions (full quote in Appendix F.1). These contrasts
evidence that the perception and interpretation of the area, along with the
experiences that its visitors seek, are sometimes subject to their age groups.
7.3.1. Preconceptions
In order to explore what Covent Garden means for its visitors as indicated by the
first research question, interviewees were asked if they had any previous
expectations or knowledge about Covent Garden. A small proportion of 30
interviewees made remarks in relation to this and two themes developed:
expectations of a garden (17 respondents) and media exposure (13 respondents).
The rest of the interviewees were either repeat visitors or expressed not to have
any preconceptions about the precinct.
7.3.1.1. Covent Garden’s name as a literal implication

“It’s quite unusual because I thought it was a garden but there is no
garden. I don’t know, I heard the name but I just had no idea what it was about, it
doesn’t sound like a market or a place for art (Maya, Mexico).”
The statement above is a generic example of some views gathered whilst

enquiring about the visitor’s expectations of the area, which indeed suggests the
presence of a botanical garden. This finding surfaced from the data itself and is an
emergent theme because the literal implications of an area’s name were not
181
suggested by existing literature. It is interesting to note that, the interviewees

evaluated the area in terms of its provision of performing arts of different types,
its urban shape and scale, its commercial ambience and other aspects related to the
visitors it attracts. But 17 interviewees interpret its name literally, as they
indicated that they expected green areas to be a focal point in the area’s attributes.
In relation to this, another interviewee interestingly identified a sense of greenery
in the architecture of the area despite the absence of large green spaces: “What is
the first image that you associate with Covent Garden? The glass rooftop of the
market. Does it remind you of any other buildings? No, it reminds me of a green
house. Is that a good thing? Yes, I really like vegetation (...) there is still a sense
of vegetation, the glass domes kind of reflect of greenhouses so in a way it is kind
of like a covered garden (Kim, Canada)”. In this sense, it is suggested that both
the architectural traits of the glass roofs of the market place area and the Opera
House’s Hamlyn Hall resemble green houses, which may imply that the literal
implications of the area’s name have been acknowledged in its visual planning,
and succeed in providing the area with a sense of flora and foliage in the view of
some of its visitors.
7.3.1.2. Media exposure

The play Pygmalion and the musical and the film derived from it, ‘My Fair Lady’
were the most notable media influence on how the area’s visitors perceive it as
indicated by 13 interviewees when asked about their preconceptions of the area.
The musical film, released in the 1964, features a humble flower seller in Covent
Garden during Edwardian times, and her views and aspirations of becoming an
aristocrat. This research has revealed that 47 years after the film’s release, it still
exerts an influence on some of the area’s visitors’ perception of place. In first
instance, some interviewees indicated that their fondness of the film (or play)
motivated them to visit the area: “It’s just another one of those sites you know. To
be honest every time I come here I come because of the play, My Fair Lady.
Because I read it as a kid and I never forget. In America we dream of these places
and then you come and you see them and it’s kind of great (James, US)”. Further
evidence of the connection between the film and the area is included in Appendix
182
F.4. Some of these interviewees also indicated that the first image that they
associate with the area is that of flowers being sold, Eliza Doolitle (the character),
Audrey Hepburn (who played her in the film) and other elements which can be
directly associated with the film. Nevertheless, it was also noted that these
statements were mostly gathered from individuals belonging to the older age
groups: “I’m old enough, I’m an old granny and I remember the days when here it
really was the flower market, the flower market that Eliza Doolittle sold her
violets (Maria, over 60).”
On the other hand, other types of media exposure affecting some of the
interviewees’ perception of Covent Garden relates to literature, as some
respondents connected the area with literature by Oscar Wilde, Jane Austen, and
Charles Dickens. It is important to observe that these 19th century British writers
often portrayed Victorian architecture in their written work, which can still be
found as described by them in their time as noted by some interviewees: “It’s an
old neighbourhood (…) what makes the difference is that it has history, Charles
Dickens. I think it’s the history, the novel, it’s a novel-esque neighbourhood (…) it
takes you back to novels and their times (Antonio, Spain)”. In relation to this, it is
also important to highlight the level of cultural awareness exerting an influence on
remarks of this nature, which also serves to illustrate how the individual’s
personal background affects their perception of place. It was found that some
respondents appreciated the area’s rich heritage because of what they have read in
history texts that make reference of both the area and the flagship building, and
the social implications that attending an opera conveyed as noted by the following
interviewee: “Have you heard of ROH before? Yes I have. Do you know where
you hear from it the most? I read quite a lot, a lot of history and it comes up quite
often in books about it. For example recently I read a book about the history of
Victorian London and it featured quite heavily in there because it focuses on
lifestyles of the social classes and that sort of thing. But generally I would say in
reading. Why do you read so much? Because I have an inquisitive mind I would
say. I don’t know, I find history fascinating. I find the whole Victorian period
183
really fascinating and obviously ROH is a major institution in that, in that

aristocratic lifestyle in Victorian times I suppose (Mike, England)”.
The latter statement suggests that the individual’s motivation to visit the area, his
experience of place and the way that he assimilates and interprets the history and
heritage of an urban precinct are affected by his individual background,
preferences and level of cultural awareness. These topics are addressed in the
remainder of the chapter.
7.3.2. Motivation to visit

In order to answer this study’s second research question, the interviewees were
asked why they decided to visit the area. The contrast between the answers
gathered from ROH and CG interviewees is an important consideration. In the
former case, most respondents indicated that they were in the area primarily to
visit the Opera House, with other activities coming as a result. CG interviewees’
motivations to visit were more diverse, suggesting that the eclectic array of
experiential opportunities in the area leads them to seek more than one experience.
These opportunities include the consumption of high and popular forms of
performing arts, shopping, eating, drinking and socialising. They present
themselves in different forms throughout different locations and they are
experienced by roaming and discovering the area by some interviewees. The
area’s central location makes it a convenient place to visit as addressed below.
7.3.2.1 Central location

In order to assess the respondents’ motivation to visit Covent Garden,
interviewees were asked about other tourist areas and attractions that they had
visited. Their answers confirmed that some tend to visit London’s most prominent
attractions for tourism, such as Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, National Gallery,
Houses of Parliament, the British Museum and other main stream tourist
attractions. This was also the case with popular tourist areas, with Soho, the South
Bank, Mayfair and other central areas consistently cited as part of the experience
184
of the city. Given Covent Garden’s physical proximity to many of these areas and
attractions, some wander into it knowingly or unknowingly:
- Deliberate sightseeing visitors: many tourists visiting the area seek to

experience London’s most prominent tourist attractions, seeking high
profile areas or attractions and often referring to their tourist guide books
to provide an account of the places they had been visiting (See Appendix
F.5). A large proportion of 261 respondents belonged to the deliberate
visitors’ category as they further explained their motivation to visit the
area by focusing on cultural, commercial or environmental aspects of it as
discussed in further sections.
- Accidental visitors: A lower proportion of 45 interviewees were unaware

that they were in Covent Garden, or had wandered into it by accident and
unknowingly: “Why did you decide to visit this area? By accident. I
stumbled upon it because I was in Piccadilly Circus and ended up in
Covent Garden (Tutu, Russia)”. Other visitors passed through en route to
somewhere else: “I was going to the British Museum and I found this
market which is very nice so I stayed. I also like the jugglers. So you
didn’t mean to come here? Not exactly (Johanes, Germany)”. This
suggests that there is a flow of tourists coming from popular tourist sites
who make their way into Covent Garden because of their physical
proximity to the area (Further evidence of this is included in Appendix
F.6).
Whether visiting Covent Garden deliberately or coincidentally, it was consistently

noted that many tourists valued the area as a resting spot in London’s tourist
panorama: “Why did you decide to bring the kids to Covent Garden? I know that
after one hour in National Gallery where we went on the tour they were a bit tired
so I wanted to show them something different than Leicester Square for example
where we were before. And I wanted to give them the opportunity to relax, to buy
some souvenirs here in Jubilee Market Hall and to eat something. Entertainment
185
basically (Horacy, Poland)”. In this sense, relaxation has also been identified as a
motivation to visit (See Appendix F.7). This will also be explored when
evaluating the tourists’ experience of place.
7.3.2.2. Shopping, eating and drinking

Shopping and commercial activities were identified as an important motivation for
the area’s visitors. As anticipated from literature reviewed, a large proportion of
interviewees mentioned that they visited the area to either look at the shops or
purchase goods. The area’s market place was identified as ‘famous’ by many
interviewees, which strengthened their motivation to visit. The presence of shops
of different scale and selling a diversity of products was further identified as an
important element of the area. However, very few respondents indicated that
shopping was the only reason why they visited the area. The presence of these
shops along with restaurants, cafes and pubs also acts as an important
motivational factor encouraging tourists to visit as indicated by a total of 192
respondents. This is also related to the social nature of the area and can be
associated with the area’s proximity to other main stream tourist areas.
7.3.2.3. Performing arts and vibrancy

Performing arts, both high and popular are another feature of the area motivating
tourists to visit (82 interviewees in total). Many CG respondents indicated that
they were attending a performance in a theatre (55), and some of them made use
of the area’s eating and drinking facilities or window shopped before the
performance started. Likewise, many ROH interviewees confirmed that the Opera
House was the main purpose of their visit, and that shopping, eating and drinking
were secondary activities that were undertaken as a complement to the primary
motivation. This indicates that there is a strong relationship between these
elements of the area.
The presence of street buskers was also mentioned as a motivation to visit by 27

respondents (20 visited because of ‘the artists’ and 7 because of ‘the buskers’).
However, the quality of these performance and the crowds they attract were
186
subject to criticism by other interviewees. In other cases, the respondents

indicated that although street performance was not central to their motivation to
visit, they decided to stay in the area because of the vibrant atmosphere street
busking generates, confirming the synergic relationship mentioned above.
Although street performance results in over crowdedness in the market place area
deterring some interviewees, it also contributes to its lively ambience, motivating
other respondents to stay.
7.3.3. Experience of place

The third research question focuses on the tourist’s experience of the area. For this
purpose, the next section of the topic guide enquired about what experiences the
interviewees were seeking or sought throughout the area. The consumption of the
arts, food and drink, and commercial activities were mentioned as their core
experiences of place by the number of visitors indicated in the section above.
Nevertheless, some of these respondents also suggested that they had been
roaming around it and ‘soaking up its atmosphere’ by wandering its streets and
gathering a variety of sensorial stimuli. This led some interviewees to indicate that
a visit to Covent Garden provided them with a glimpse of London as a whole
because of the variety of experiential opportunities in a single precinct: “It’s very
dynamic, very lively with a very special atmosphere if someone wants to
experience London in a snapshot they would come to Covent Garden I think. Why
do you think that is? Because there is so much here, it’s very intense; I think
Covent Garden is very intense so you can see everything here (...) If you are here
just for half a day or a few hours you can probably see it all here. It’s probably
not so much about the culture and the traditions but more about the shops and the
restaurants and the actual architecture is here so it’s a very lively place if you
want to have a drink or shop around it’s a good thing to come here for sure.
(Nora, Hungary).”
7.3.3.1. Roaming, exploring and discovering

Although Covent Garden presents a range of experiences that can provide the
visitor with a broader sense of tourism in London, they are mostly based on
187
shopping and consumption rather than culture (See Appendix F.8. for further
evidence of Covent Garden providing visitors with a ‘London in a snapshot’
experience as addressed above). In this sense, many interviewees observed that
Covent Garden is experienced by roaming, exploring and discovering the area;
which have been identified as fundamental activities that enhance the process of
sensorial perception and experience of the area. This leads them to listen to street
performers and people gathering around them, perceive the architecture and street
patterns; smell aromas from the shops or restaurants, eat, drink, and undertake
different activities that stimulate their senses (See Appendix F.9). The experience
of roaming and exploring the area also lead some tourists to experience
unexpected activities and discover attractions which were referred to as ‘hidden
London’, ‘places off the beaten track’ and ‘gems that you stumble across
accidentally’ as illustrated by the following interviewee: “We just saw a delightful
statue of a ballet dancer on Bow Street, which we didn’t notice before. Unless you
are doing what we are doing today, which is slowly walking, you miss such a lot
(...) We went past it many times and never realised. (Roshean, England)”.
7.3.3.2. Commercial experiences

Commercial experiences such as purchasing products or window shopping are
also an important element of the overall experience of the area as noted in the
previous section related to the interviewees’ motivation to visit. Furthermore,
some respondents referred to Covent Garden’s commercial aspect as ‘quaint’
because of the smaller scale and less generic nature of its retail premises in
contrast to other commercial areas in central London. It is also important to note
that the individual’s personal background, preferences and motivation to visit play
a pivotal role in their experience of Covent Garden as a commercial precinct. In
this sense, many interviewees consistently indicated that they visited the area
because of its cultural offer and its heritage, which leads them to avoid the
commercial aspects of the area: “If you go to other areas like Carnaby Street, it’s
quaint and all but it’s really focused on shopping so it’s not far from Oxford
Street, it’s all about shopping shopping shopping. Which I hate. At least here, you
188
get this kind of, spiritual influence from the church, and which I find a lot more
powerful, the Opera House (…). So all the ghost of the theatres, the memories of
the people that have gone to the theatres, all that energy is here (...) I haven’t ever
done any actual shopping in these shops you know. I specifically come here to
meet people, eat in the church (yard), go to the theatre (Krysia, Australia)”.
7.3.3.3. Cultural experiences

The comment above introduces the importance of performing arts in the visitor’s
experience of Covent Garden. Many interviewees indicated that the supply of high
and popular forms of art not only act as a primary motivation to visit but also
comprises the main element of their experience of the area. This was particularly
true in the case of ROH interviewees, who indicated that they were in the area to
visit the flagship building, make use of its eating and drinking facilities, book
tickets or watch its exhibition spaces. As indicated in previous sections, many of
them also confirmed that even though this is their main activity, window
shopping, roaming, exploring and all the other experiences are part of visiting the
area. It is also important to note that their preference tended to be towards high
forms of art such as opera or ballet, with many of them indicating that they
avoided popular forms of art such as street busking or musical theatre. Other
cultural attractions of importance in the area that emerged as important to the
interviewees’ experience of the area are St Paul’s Church and to a much lesser
extent, the London Transport Museum. It should also be noted that many
respondents interviewed inside the church discovered it by roaming through the
area, which was not the case of ROH interviewees who visited the flagship on
purpose.
7.3.3.4. Eating, drinking and social experiences throughout the day

Eating, drinking and socialising were also identified as important elements of the
visitor’s experience of the area. These issues are closely related to the visitor’s
motivation to visit Covent Garden because of its proximity to other areas for
189
tourism and because it is perceived as a place for relaxation. Many CG

interviewees confirmed that they were meeting someone in Covent Garden, or that
they enjoyed visiting for social reasons because of the presence of adequate
facilities to do so: “Normally I come for a cup of coffee or to meet someone. I
think it’s a meeting point for people, to find friends because it’s well located and
it’s easy to reach. (Silvia, Bolivia)”. “Generally I meet with friends in some of the
popular sites, Covent Garden in this case and after that we move somewhere else
to have a beer (…) my friends asked me to meet here by Punch and Judy and ever
since it has become my central axis (…) I wanted to meet some friends and
generally my reference point is Covent Garden, so I say lets meet here. (Enrique,
Colombia)”. 28 other respondents made remarks about the area’s social nature
because of its central location and eating and drinking facilities.
It was noted through personal observation that the nature of the experience of
eating and drinking tends to change throughout the day, although a relatively low
number of 21 interviewees made comments about their experience of place in
relation to their time of visit. In this sense, time of visit is another element to
understand the nature of the visitor’s experience of the area: “There’s lots of
movement, human activities. It’s essentially a human scale, human feel, the fact
that is open and pretty much around the clock. I wouldn’t like to be here at 2am in
the morning but I imagine there are still people on the streets, a different side of
life. At any hour of the day there’s always something going on and it’s human
activity related (Richard, England)”. This interviewee belongs to a group of
respondents that associated their time of visit with safety concerns. This topic is
also addressed in further sections when evaluating the tourist’s perception of the
area as a safe precinct because of its high amount of visitors and gatherings of
people generated by street buskers. Nevertheless, this study came across a few
cases of illegal drinking and consumption and commercialisation of illegal
substances (See Appendix F.10 for further details).
190
7.3.3.5. Different experiences throughout different locations

A final consideration is the contrast between the area’s central and peripheral
locations, and the different types of activities that tourists undertake in each. The
central Covent Garden Piazza is characterized by the presence of street
entertainers, the market, the Transport Museum, St Paul’s Church and a range of
high profile and large scale shops such as HMV (refer to figure 6.1 for map of the
area). These amenities, facilities and attractions provide different experiences for
the Piazza’s visitors depending on their motivation to visit and willingness to
explore other experiential opportunities. Non central areas of Covent Garden
provide their visitors with a different set of experiences, which led an interviewee
to indicate that he thinks of Covent Garden as ‘two different areas’, one
characterized by ‘the tackiest side of tourism’ when referring to the Piazza’s
commercial nature and the presence of street buskers, and another focused on
small scale shopping and cafes. This interviewee referred to Seven Dials to
illustrate this case as he noted that because of the lack of an open space free of car
traffic, street performance is not possible, and its urban form also prevents the
presence of large scale stores. In this sense, the tourist’s experience is based on
small scale shops such as the ones located in Neal’s Yard.
7.3.4. Perception of the area

The fourth research question of this study enquired about how Covent Garden is
perceived by its visitors. Once the interview enquired about the interviewees’
motivation and experience of place, it subsequently asked them to develop their
views of the area, what they enjoyed and disliked about it, how they contrasted it
with other areas in London and abroad, what caught their attention the most, how
did they perceive it to be distinctive and other probing questions to determine the
area’s elements that influence their perception of place. Their answers suggested
that these perceptions stem from three different dimensions: one related to the
area’s physical attributes, another related to the activities that take place, and the
third associated with human behaviour as indicated in forthcoming sections.
191
Figure 7.5 – Place making system
Urban
environment
Human
Activities
aspects
Although Figure 7.5 above is proposed by the researcher on the basis of the data
collected and analysed to address the overall aim and research questions of this
study, it can also be related to existing literature on tourism spaces with high
numbers of visitors and a variety of land uses. As noted in Chapter 3 in relation to
urban precincts, it is important to consider an area’s place making elements and
Figure 7.5 can be associated with Franck and Stevens (2007) notion of “loose
spaces” where land use (activities), the built environment and visitors themselves
conform the areas’ place making system. The relationship between the authors’
model with the case study can be illustrated by for example, focusing on Covent
Garden Market, which was originally developed for commercial purposes that
lead to the attraction of street entertainers and the establishment of eating and
drinking facilities. As indicated in forthcoming sections and further relating the
area’s proposed place making system with a sense of ‘looseness’, roaming and
exploring the area constitute an important part of the area’s visitors’ experience of
place, which is reflected in the perceived slower pace of movement of commuters
that embrace this freedom by exploring the area’s experiential opportunities and
environment-based features. On the other hand, Covent Garden’s built
environment not only provide a platform for a variety of land uses (theatres,
shops, restaurants, street entertainment), but also exert an important influence on
the way the area is perceived by its visitors from a visual perspective as further
developed in the sections below. Therefore, the model presented above relates to
existing literature on urban design, but it was proposed by the researcher on the
basis of the evidence discussed in this chapter.
192
7.3.4.1. Urban environment based elements

Covent Garden’s physical attributes and built environment are assimilated,
perceived and evaluated from different perspectives leading to different ways of
interpreting the area. As indicated before, an individual’s personal background
such as age and origin exerts an influence on their perception and experience of
place. In this sense, it was noted that this influence is related to connectivity as
many interviewees indicated that they liked its smaller scale and urban clustering
and because of the similarities with urban characteristics of their own places of
origin. Likewise, when enquiring about their impressions of the Opera House in
Covent Garden, some interviewees stated that they wanted to compare it to
theatres from their own countries. This was also the case with the market place
area and other urban features of the area as many interviewees compared them to
similar commercial precincts from their countries of origin. It was also noted that
some interviewees were attracted to the area, praised it or criticised it, because of
its differences to what they know, with some of them expressing that they enjoyed
their visit to Covent Garden because of its architectural features, regarded as
expressions of the area’s heritage and history, which they lack in their
hometowns: “Why did you like this place so much?I think basically because its
remnant of a past. We don’t see this kind of history in South Africa. There are no
major historical monuments in South Africa. (Robert, South Africa). The history of
the buildings, compared to America, everything is always being torn down and
rebuilt but here everything is being preserved and it still has that essence and the
history behind everything (Norpert, US)”. The data indicates that the area’s urban
characteristics can often be regarded as signifiers of the area’s heritage and
history; and that familiarity and unfamiliarity to such features exert an important
influence on the interviewees’ process of perception and interpretation.
7.3.4.1.1. Physical attributes

74 interviewees observed Covent Garden’s smaller scale in comparison to other
tourist areas in London. It was noted that Covent Garden is “kind of like a little
village in itself. So it’s like a little town within the city (Paul, England)” in
193
contrast with other central areas because of its architectural layout (See Appendix
F.11. for further evidence of the area’s perceived attributes of an urban village).
The area’s urban shape and scale were also evaluated from a land use point of
view, with some interviewees noting the urban clustering of a wide range of
attractions within a relatively confined space as indicated by the following
statements:
“Its quite pedestrian isn’t it? And you’ve got a lot of places where you
have to walk a long way to get to different places whereas here you know its all in
quite a small space so you can do a lot of things in one area (Wendy, US)”.
“It’s a physically smaller area compared to what we are used to but
there’s so much packed into it so to make sure you take a lot of time to explore
(Gerald, US)”.
“It feels like a community a little bit. Small geographical area but there is
a lot going on. It’s quite put together, quite condensed (Mo, Canada)”.
“It’s nice to be in London but not between hordes and hordes of people
and there is such variety, there is variety with the cafes and restaurants and
places to visit, I think it’s the variety (Hilary, England)”.
In relation to the topics raised by the latter statement, the area’s diversity was
praised by interviewees not only because of the wide range of visitors from many
backgrounds that it attracts, but also because of its architectural features which
reflect policies aimed at preserving the area’s heritage as well as new
developments. ‘The mix of the old and the new’ emerged from the data as what a
number interviewees will remember the most, and was associated with human
elements as indicated above due to the range of the age of visitors as well as the
presence of modern architecture (such as the Royal Opera House’s Hamlyn Hall)
attached to preserved Victorian architecture.
7.3.4.1.2. Streets shape and pattern

The nature and scale of Covent Garden’s streets also proved to be an element
influencing the visitor’s perception of the area was mentioned 66 times. Some of
these indicated that they enjoyed visiting the area because of its distinctive
194
narrow, pedestrianised streets. Pedestrianisation was cited by 22 interviewees as

an important element of their perception of place, indicating that it plays a
considerable role in the visitor’s perception of the area which can also be related
to their pace of movement and human interactions amongst the area’s visitors.
This acquires a unique dimension due to the area’s narrow streets characterised by
distinctive architecture. One of these distinctive characteristics are the cobbles that
pave them. They were noted by a lower number of interviewees (11) as
expressions of the area’s heritage because they ‘restore the originality of the
place’, which they regard as a positive element affecting their perception of the
area. Nevertheless, one interviewee interested in fashion indicated that they
represent a nuisance because they are difficult to walk on (refer to Appendix F.12.
for details of these contrasting opinions). This confirms that the area is perceived
and interpreted from different perspectives according to the individual’s personal
background, interests and motivation to visit.
7.3.4.1.3. Contrast between locations

The opinions mentioned above were gathered in central and peripheral locations
of the area, suggesting that the visitor’s overall perception of place is influenced
by the attributes that its different areas present to the individual. Whilst not a
typical stand point, a small proportion of 8 interviewees noted that they disliked
the areas in and around the Piazza because they perceive them as ‘tailored for
tourists’ due to the presence of street performers, souvenir shops and other
amenities whose users are not the local population. But the same interviewee
observed that Covent Garden’s peripheral areas are of smaller scale but tend to be
used by a local working community away from the ‘tackiness’ of the market place
area (as evidenced by the excerpt included in Appendix F.13). Some respondents
interviewed in the Piazza tended to focus their perception of place on street
busking, the conglomeration of people and other place making elements typical of
the central square. Conversely, interviewees approached in Seven Dials, Broad
Court or St Martin’s Lane focused more on the area’s urban shape and scale.
195
7.3.4.1.4. Gentrification
Gentrification processes are common in urban precincts for tourism and culture.
This was mentioned by some older domestic interviewees who noted local
displacement as part of their perception of the area, which can relate to a lack of
exposure to the area before the development of tourism. Although some
interviewees’ praised Covent Garden as ‘London in a snap shot’ as noted before,
other respondents noted that the area has been modified to suit the demand for
tourist attractions and activities, which entails the displacement of the local
working community to other areas: “How often do you come to London? As little
as I can. How come? Because it is not the London I knew. What is the London
you knew? As a child I came here to the fruit market and it was hustle bustle (...)
it was a very very busy working community (...) Everything was working; there
was no tourism in Covent Garden. Busy busy, 5 o’clock forget about it, it’s just,
finished. The pubs were open all night (...); everything was different (Maurice,
England)”. The interviewee refers to the area’s gentrification and the ‘invasion’
of tourists that has had a defining impact on the area’s nature, shifting from a busy
local working community to what it is in the present day as a tourism precinct.
Similarly, other interviewees often referred to the commercial origins of Covent
Garden as a fruit and vegetable market place, concluding that its evolution as a
shopping area for tourism has resulted in a loss of heritage as noted in the excerpts
included in Appendix F.14.
7.3.4.1.5. Outdoor settings

57 interviewees indicated that they found Covent Garden similar to other historic
precincts in the European continent. This hold a link with its perceived ‘al fresco’
culture that provides it with a ‘continental ambience’ due to the amount of cafes
and restaurants providing outdoor seating facilities and the presence of street
buskers as suggested by the following interviewee: “What do you like the most
about Covent Garden? I like the street entertainers so that’s good, and Covent
Garden is just a very nice area to be in a sunny day like this. What makes it nice?
It’s got a nice atmosphere with all the people in the streets, the entertainers,
different things going on, the singers. It just makes a really nice atmosphere on a
196
sunny day (...)It’s a lot more outside based, whereas in other parts in London like
museums you have to go inside whereas here there’s a lot more going on in the
street and also you get a lot more people taking part in the street entertainment
and stuff like that. (Clive, England)”.
This statement can also be associated with the perception of the area as a place for
relaxation which was made evident throughout the fieldwork stage of this study as
it was observed that throughout the day, tourists enjoy sitting on the pavements by
the Piazza and watching street entertainment. These activities tend to be affected
by adverse weather conditions, which were noted 29 times as a negative element
of their experience of the city. However, one of these respondents (of the same
name and nationality as the interviewee quoted above) praised Covent Garden
because its narrow streets that in a way protects it’s Piazza from the wind: “What
do you like the most about Covent Garden? The outdoor life, there are few
places in England where you can have a sense of outdoor living, Covent Garden
would be one of those few places (...) I think its different, the street theatre makes
it different but I think as I already said that the main difference is this sense of
being in the outdoors which is very continental but we can’t do it in Britain
because of the weather. Covent Garden being reasonably enclosed from the wind,
it’s more possible. (Clive, England)”.
7.3.4.2. Human based elements

This study has also found that the perception of the area is also deeply influenced
by a series of elements associated with other tourists, such as their relaxed attitude
when experiencing the precinct and their diversity which grant the area with a
cosmopolitan ambience as discussed below.
7.3.4.2.1. Visitors and co tourism

The influence of other visitors in the area upon the tourists’ perception of place
was mentioned 75 times, with many interviewees noting that the number and
variety of its visitors is both Covent Garden’s charm and curse: it creates a lively
atmosphere but also causes pedestrian congestion and overcrowding. It is
197
important to note, however, that overcrowding occurs mainly in the market place
area due to the presence of street entertainers and the market’s fully pedestrian
periphery (See Appendix F.17. for evidence related to how other visitors affect the
tourist’s experience and perception of place). To a lesser extent, this is also the
case in other locations where controlled vehicular traffic allows visitors to roam
through their streets with more freedom.
It was also noted that many interviewees indicated that what they disliked about
Covent Garden was the presence of ‘too many tourists’ decreasing their feeling of
having an authentic experience of an area in London. However, some of these
interviewees recognized themselves as part of that tourist crowd (refer to
Appendix F.18). These respondents expressed that they did not enjoy the presence
of other tourists, yet they enjoy its vibrancy and cosmopolitan feel as addressed in
further sections. Furthermore, other respondents said that the increasing number
of people congregating can impose an inconvenience to pedestrians, but they are
part of the area’s appeal motivating them to visit along with other aspects of the
experiential opportunities available in the area (See Appendix F.19). Asides from
providing the area’s visitors with a sense of belonging to the crowd and a vibrant
atmosphere, the presence of large groups of tourists was also assessed from a
positive perspective because of its implications in terms of safety:” I feel safe here
even when there is people drunk or trying to pluck money or whatever, you know
that there is a lot of security around here and a lot of different types of people and
no one can really cause trouble because there are just too many people around so
it has a fairly relaxed nature to it (Matt, England)”.
7.3.4.2.2. Place for relaxation and pedestrianistation

Relaxation plays an important role on the visitor’s experience of Covent Garden,
as noted by 32 interviewees. This is also associated with the area’s proximity to
other main stream tourist areas because tourists visit it to rest and make use of its
resting facilities. The relaxing ambience of the area was often associated with the
synergic relationship of different elements that characterise the area and lead to a
relaxed ambience: “Despite being very commercial at the same time it’s very
198
cheery, it’s a chilling area. You can have a relaxed time here. Even when it’s
crowded with people you still feel a bit comfortable and cosy that’s the best thing
about Covent Garden, you can sit down. You feel comfortable just to sit and
appreciate the area and the sun and hear the music people are playing. And just
enjoy yourself without having to do shopping or to consume properly. Just relax.
(Favio, Brazil).”
The latter interviewee recognises the area’s vibrancy, crowdedness and high levels
of activity; yet still perceives it as a suitable area for relaxation. In relation to this,
many interviewees noted that the behaviour and pace of movement of Covent
Garden’s visitors are a reflection and consequence of the perceived relaxed nature
of the area compared to other busy areas of London as indicated by the following
statements:
“What makes this area different? The people's movement, there is
something different in the way people walk, people walk like they are enjoying
their time. In other places people walk maybe thinking in their jobs and what to
do and more concentrated. Here people are more at ease. (Simone, Brazil)”.
“Maybe that people are not in a hurry so much. Like in Piccadilly Circus
or Trafalgar square, the proximity of those places makes a huge contrast between
this place and those ones. Everything is going around there faster and faster and
here people rather are looking for some rest, calming down, slowing down, sitting
and just experiencing and thinking and hearing. (Horacy, Poland)”
Further evidence of this finding is included in Appendix F.15. The area provides a
more relaxed urban setting which, as indicated previously, is related to the area’s
proximity to other popular areas for tourism in central London as tourists
experience these busy areas and then visit Covent Garden to eat, drink, watch
street performances and rest. It should be noted that with the exception of St
Paul’s Church garden, there are no free seating facilities that tourists can make use
of for relaxation purposes. However, the shared and communal nature of
relaxation and people ‘spilling out onto the streets’ lead to human interactions and
199
a friendly ambience that is not normally found in other busy areas of central
London as explained by some interviewees (further evidence in Appendix F.16).
The area was also often referred to as vibrant because of its large numbers of
visitors, street performances in its main stream Piazza and the audiences they
attract. Conversely, some interviewees also pointed out that they perceived the
area to be quieter, providing them with an appropriate setting to relax. They
perceive the area as such because the pace of movement of its visitors appears to
be slower as they roam through it, enabling them to explore and assimilate the
area’s features. Similarly, an interviewee indicated that Covent Garden feels like a
destination, as opposed to other areas where he feels he’s just passing through
them. And yet, many tourists visit the area, knowingly or unconsciously, because
of its central location and proximity to other areas for tourism in central London.
Although Covent Garden is perceived by some visitors as a ‘stop over’ on their
way to other areas or attractions, its different elements tend to engage them,
having an effect on their pace of movement and activities they undertake.
Activities related to relaxation were identified as important elements of the
interviewees’ experience of the area, and it was also noted by some interviewees
that they expect every large city to have central urban precincts that provide
relaxing settings to its visitors. However, Covent Garden’s vibrancy, its large
number of visitors leading to people congestion, particularly in its central areas,
and the loud noise emitted by large groups of people and street buskers were also
identified as important elements of its place making system, confirming the
complexity of this case study.
Tourists roaming through the precinct, soaking up its atmosphere, the presence of
street entertainers and the consequent attractions of large groups of audiences can
all be directly related to the area’s pedestrianised and traffic calmed streets. When
asked how the visitors perceived Covent Garden to be different from other
popular areas for tourism in London, a recurring answer related pedestrianisation
and the range of human related activities that take place due to the lack of
vehicular traffic. An interviewee interestingly noted that the area is indeed very
200
busy and loud, but what made it ‘special’ were the sounds generated by people
and performers, and not by vehicular traffic, suggesting that part of the
interviewees’ enjoyment of the area is related to its human feel.
7.3.4.2.3. Diversity and cosmopolitanism

Covent Garden seems to be an expression of London’s status as a cosmopolitan
destination as noted by 15 respondents. This was supported by some interviewees
who highlighted that the clustering of buildings in areas with rich heritage are an
important motivational factor and critical element in their enjoyment of the city.
On the other hand, the diversity of the visitors that lead to the vibrancy of these
areas are an important pull factor attracting visitors from different backgrounds
who add themselves to the area’s vibrancy, diversity and cosmopolitan ambience
as observed by 31 interviewees. When asked about what they liked the most about
the area, what they will remember the most and what is the first image that they
associate it with it, some interviewees related their answers to the diverse and
multi cultural nature of the range of the area’s visitors as noted by the following
statement: “(...) it is very cosmopolitan, that is what I like the most. Because you
find different cultures and can meet people from various countries and you can
immerse yourself in those cultures without having to visit them. For example here
I can meet people from Europe or South America where I have never been but
have kind of known of these places even though I have not been there, the cuisine
for example, you can access places to eat in so many different places from all over
the world. That’s what I like about it. (Angelica, Mexico)”.
In relation to this, it was also noted that it is not only the number of people that
congregate in Covent Garden that makes them an important place making
element, but also the diversity of ages and nationalities that affects the visitors’
perception of place. The variety and numbers of visitors reflect other popular
tourism precincts that attract high numbers of tourists such as Mayfair or the
South Bank, further enhancing the ‘London in a snapshot’ appeal. However, and
as noted before, the pace of movement of visitors in the area is slower, allowing
201
them to calmly perceive its built environment, the activities that take place and the
diverse characteristics of their fellow visitors.
7.3.4.3. Activity based elements

Similarly to factors motivating tourists to visit the area and the experiences that
they are engaged in, the area’s commercial and cultural sectors have a strong
influence on their perception of place as noted in the following sections.
7.3.4.3.1. Commerce and nature of shops

Shopping and other commercial activities have already been identified as
motivations to visit and important parts of a large proportion of the interviewees’
experience of place as noted by 192 respondents. From a perceptual point of view,
the scale, nature, and contrast of the shops around Covent Garden, both in central
and peripheral areas were identified by some of these interviewees as important
elements that not only motivate them to visit the area but also play a considerable
role in the area’s sense of place. However, the commercial aspect of Covent
Garden was questioned by some interviewees, who either recognised the
importance of shopping in the area’s place making system, but criticised the
quality of products being sold, or believe that shopping is in itself a negative
element of the area’s place making system: “It is very touristy. Lots of souvenir
shops but again I understand people like these sort of things. They don’t appeal to
me but I understand why people like them (Simon, Australia). Oh it’s just a bunch
of commercial bull****. I detest the commercial side of it (David, US)”.
On the other hand, it was also noted that the small scale of the shops constitutes a
positive element, which harmonises effectively with the small scale nature of the
area’s urban features as mentioned in previous sections. “England has gone in a
way that there are all these shopping centres and things which are very
uninteresting you can get the same shops anywhere all over the country. Whereas
here, it’s unique, the little shops. (Kathryn, England)”. In relation to the small
scale of the shopping infrastructure, some interviewees indicated that they dislike
the presence of large shops such as HMV or Urban Outfitters, suggesting that the
202
area’s small scale urban features and ‘traditional’ feel should be conserved by
restricting the presence of generic and high profile brands (See Appendix F.20.).
Many interviewees indicated that they enjoyed visiting the area because of its
cosmopolitan ambience; and the presence of the variety of large and small scale
shops adds to that atmosphere. In addition, and as indicated in previous sections,
‘the mix of the old and the new’ was identified as another positive element of the
area’s attributes. This indicates that there are contrasting opinions regarding how
Covent Garden’s commercial nature effectively influences the tourist’s perception
of the area.
7.3.4.3.2. Street busking and quality of performance

Even though street performance is exclusive to the surroundings of the market
place area, it has already been noted that it is an important element of the area’s
place making system affecting its sense of place and motivating 27 respondents to
visit as evidenced by the following interviewee: “(People) go out of the box, right
now you can hear the music for kind of a teenage market and it’s just complete
mix of people and mix of performing things. Last time I came I stood in the
balcony and somebody was singing opera and there’s the mimes. It’s just the
whole mix of... this is lovely, it’s alive and open. (Marcia, South Africa)”.
This was also associated with the variety of visitors that provide the area with a
cosmopolitan ambience. It was also suggested that street performance may be of
stronger appeal to the younger age groups, which has also been identified as an
element of consideration influencing the visitor’s perception and experience of the
area as some interviewees perceived the market place area as ‘young’. Some of
these interviewees praised the presence of live street entertainment not only
because it adds to the liveliness of the area but also because it makes it safer and
helps the area’s visitor to relax: “I think it’s always good to have an influx of
artists, of people doing things on the streets, singing or presenting some type of
art form like the magician or the juggler, especially when there are audiences
around them, it makes it more cheerful. That also maintains a level of safety and
makes you feel good. That’s what generates the sense of being happy. In other
203
parts of London everything is about everyday work, whereas here everything

relaxes. (Enrique, Colombia)”.
This statement is of particular interest because it relates the presence of street

buskers to the relaxed atmosphere of the area affecting its visitors pace of walk
and attitude towards each other as noted in previous sections. Despite the positive
elements cited by the interviewee in regards to the contribution of street
performance to their perception of the area, other respondents were heavily
critical. In some cases, they evaluated the nature of entertainment itself: “The
street entertainers are not always very good, they make a lot of noise and the
people that watch them must be morons because it’s just rubbish (Keith,
England)”; whilst others reflected on monotony “I have never really been into a
couple of the consistent buskers. Some of them really drive me mad because they
play the same s... all the time. Because it’s trashy in comparison to having high
art you know? You have this low art and high art (...) I acknowledge that it’s
acceptable because in the end, you need a balance of tackiness (...) But ultimately
I would prefer (...) more traditional music (Krysia, Australia)”.
It is important to note, however, that both statements clearly illustrate how the
personal background of the interviewees influences their perception of street
busking. In the first case, the respondent belonged to an older age group and
identified loudness as a negative element of the area; whilst the second
interviewee is an entertainer herself and recognises that she has a preference
towards high culture over popular forms of performing arts. On the other hand,
another interviewee indicated that these buskers make their audiences ‘happy’ and
contribute to the area’s relaxed ambience. Thus, and similar to the process of
interpretation of the area’s heritage which is influenced by the individual’s
background, the presence of street entertainers is interpreted subjectively by each
interviewee, who regards them as either positive or negative elements of the place
making system.
204
A final consideration related to activity based elements of the area’s place making
system is that they strengthen and complement one another, creating synergic
relationships that provide the visitors with multifaceted experiences in the area:
“You get the opera singers inside, the street entertainers, you get so many
different things going on you can just wonder (…) What do you think is the most
important thing? I'd say they’re all important because they all contribute to the
others, lets say tourism contributes to the arts and the commerce contributes to
that as well but then the arts contribute to commerce as well (Clive, England)”. In
this sense, the network of place making elements and their interactions is evident,
and are effectively regarded by the latter statement as a synergic partnership.
Further sections addressing issues related to the Opera House’s visitors will also
present evidence of this synergic relationship as many interviewees indicated that
even though they visited the area primarily to visit the Opera House, they also
visited the area’s shops and experienced street busking and engaged in other
activities in the area.
7.3.5. Summary of relationships between place making elements in the area

Figure 7.6 below summarises the findings related to Covent Garden’s perception
and experience of place along with the interviewees’ motivation to visit the area
and media exposure that lead to preconceptions.
205
Figure 7.6 – Summary of relationships between place making elements in

the area
The analysis of the interviewees’ socio demographic characteristics indicated that

the majority belonged to the younger age group below 30 years of age and that the
majority of them were visiting from the European continent. As discussed in
previous sections, the area’s vibrancy and array of experiential opportunities were
206
identified by many interviewees as having a stronger appeal to a younger market,

and the interviewees’ nationality also plays a role in their perception and
experience of place because they tend to relate the urban settings they visit to
what they are familiar and unfamiliar with. In terms of the visitors’ motivation to
visit, it was interesting to note that 261 respondents were visiting the area
willingly either because they perceived it to be a typical area to visit in London, or
because of its convenient central location proximate to other tourist areas and
attractions such as Trafalgar Square or the British Museum. On the other hand,
other features of the area such as the activities that take place within it and human
based elements that characterise it motivate them to visit and play an important
part in their perception and experience of place along with media exposure (travel
guides, film and literature) as well as the perceived presence of green areas
because of Covent Garden’s name.
In relation to the area’s built environment, it is clear that the clustering of

buildings, the streets’ shape and scale that cater for pedestrian visitors and
outdoors eating and drinking facilities also play an important role in the visitor’s
perception and experience of place. Nevertheless, Covent Garden is not
experienced or perceived in the same manner throughout its different locations as
some respondent’s highlighted the contrast between its areas. In first instance, the
market place area is characterised by the Market and the provision of street
entertainment, which were referred to by an interviewee as ‘tacky’. On the other
hand, peripheral locations such as Seven Dials are structurally different because of
the smaller scale of its shops and narrower pattern of its streets, attracting a
different set of visitors that in some cases are deterred by the crowds that tend to
congregate in the main stream Piazza.
The latter point highlights the importance of variety of land use throughout
different locations of the area, which are used and attract a contrasting set of
visitors seeking different experiences that are concentrated within the precinct.
The area’s commercial sector is certainly strong with the presence of a variety of
shops and Covent Garden Market at its core. Eating and drinking facilities also
207
succeed in attracting tourists given the outdoors continental ambience perceived

by many interviewees that often experience the area by roaming and exploring it
which is a phenomenon that is aided by the area’s pedestrian streets. On the other
hand, the cultural sector also proves to exert an important influence on the
visitors’ motivation to visit the area and their perception and experience of place,
as many of the interviewees cited attending a performance as a motivation to visit
and as street busking provides the area with a soundtrack and attract visitors that
gather around them becoming place making elements themselves. Although this
activity is exclusive to the surroundings of the piazza, it also highlights the
importance of visitors themselves as place making elements which relate to
human aspects exerting an important influence on the visitors’ perception and
experience of place.
Many interviewees cited relaxation as motivation to visit the area given its
convenient proximity to other busy and popular areas and attractions for tourism
along with the presence of eating and drinking facilities and street buskers that
endow the area with a relaxing ambience. All of these elements along with its
pedestrianised streets invite visitors to experience it through roaming and
exploring it as indicated above, which lead many interviewees to note how ‘there
is something different about the way in which Covent Garden’s visitors move’.
Their slower pace of movement also proved to exert a considerable role in their
perception and experience of place, which many of them related to the social
nature of the area. Its central location along with an array of eating and drinking
facilities makes of the area a convenient place for socialisation attracting a variety
of visitors and granting it with a vibrant sense of place. All of these relationships
will be discussed in detail in the forthcoming chapter, and the following sections
of this chapter will focus on the findings related to the flagship and how it
influences the visitors’ perception and experience of place as indicated below.
7.4. Findings related to the flagship

The third section of the interview enquired about the interviewees’ perception of
the flagship building and its relationship with Covent Garden as an area for
208
tourism and culture. This final section of the chapter presents the findings
regarding the interviewees’ age and origin influencing their perception of the
flagship as an institution and as a building, as well as the dynamics between the
flagship and the area in terms of its significance as an architectural artefact and a
provider of culture.
Before presenting these findings, it is important to note that several interviewees

connected their perception and experience of the flagship building with their socio
demographic indicators, such as their age and nationality, suggesting that these
findings are a suitable introduction to forthcoming sections. In first instance, it
was noted that some ROH interviewees heard of the work of the Opera House and
were interested in visiting it because of performers from their countries that
worked for the flagship’s company (full text in Appendix F.21). In addition, 34
interviewees noted that their countries of origin provide them with examples that
make them compare the Opera House in Covent Garden to similar flagships in
their own countries: “I’m coming from a town where there is a brilliant Opera
House (...) so I am interested in seeing other Opera Houses to maybe compare
(Iona, Germany)”. Another interviewee commented on national cultural values
that are likely to spark an interest in certain art forms and in the buildings that host
them: “La Scala is the cradle of opera, so opera is part of Italian culture; it goes
to all levels of society, not only from the top sophisticated educated people but to
the lowest level. You see people that do simple jobs that love opera, that know by
heart all the words of each opera. So its part of our culture. (Ricardo, Italy)”.
These statements suggest that the interviewees’ country of origin influence their
interest in certain art forms and make them compare venues for the performing
arts with similar buildings in their home towns.
Conversely, the lack of cultural offer in some of the interviewees’ countries of

origin also constitutes an important consideration in their perception of the
flagship, as another set of visitors expressed that their nationality makes them
appreciate the Opera House, and London as a cultural destination, because of its
rich cultural resources in terms of performing arts: “I think it’s a centre for
209
culture and also for us, as tourists. In Thailand we don’t have this much exposure.
So coming to metropolitan city like this is a good opportunity for us to see and
have a chance to listen and experience Opera Houses (Narn, Thailand)”. This
evidence indicates that the interviewees’ country of origin makes them appreciate
the Opera House because of its similarities and differences with what they know.
It was also evident that age plays a role in the interviewees’ interest in the Royal
Opera House, as noted by a small proportion of 11 interviewees. The majority of
ROH respondents were over 60 years of age, and some of them recognised that
the building may be of more interest to older generations: “The Royal Opera
House is not for pupils the age of my pupils, they are 14 years old so that is really
too far off their world. They are too young. (...) they want to buy things, they want
to go shopping and go home and say I bought this in London. (Danielle,
Belgium)”. Further supporting this finding, another CG interviewee explained that
he is open to the idea of experiencing these arts forms in latter stages of his life,
but because of his young age he focuses on other art forms:”It’s something that I
haven’t gotten into yet. I’d `like to be very culturally aware but probably as I age
a lot older I will probably get into and go there but at the moment I’m into
painting and things like that but it’s probably something I will look into (Luke,
under 30)”. The Opera House’s initiatives to engage and deliver its cultural
products to younger generations also emerged as an important finding of this
study as addressed in further sections. Another interviewee explained how the
empty nest stage of her life age improved her financial prospects and allowed for
her to experience more expensive art forms, further illustrating the relationship
between age and interest in the Opera House: “Why do you go to Opera Houses?
Because I like opera, I retired in 2004 and I always went to the opera in Berlin
but I decided to spread my wings and go to other places. Is this since you were a
kid? No, since I retired in 2004, my kids are all grown up so I can spend my
money on myself for a change and this is how I am spending my money (Anne,
Ireland)”.
210
The next sections of this chapter will evaluate the visitors’ perception of the
flagship both as an institution and from its physical perspectives, as well as its
importance to the perception and experience of Covent Garden as an area.
7.4.1. Perception
As indicated above, when enquiring about the influence of the flagship has upon
visitors’ perception and experience of the area, two perspectives emerged: one
concerned with the flagship as a building and the other concerned with it as an
institution. This suggests that a cultural flagship can be understood both as an
architectural artefact and as a provider of culture. The following section focuses
on aspects related to the visual appearance of the Opera House in Covent Garden
first.
7.4.1.1. Physical appearance

The Royal Opera House’s apparent visual concealment was mentioned 179 times,
with a large proportion of CG interviewees noting that they could not identify the
building despite its central location opposite the market: “I was hoping to find
grand architecture. Just the theatre and nothing else around it (...) I did not know
where it was, I could not find the entrance (...) When my friend pointed it out to
me I didn’t understand because all I could see were shops and shops and shops
and galleries and galleries and galleries and then a tiny door with its name on
top. One has to read and look to find it (…) I thought I would see a grand theatre
like on other parts of the world. You go to Argentina and you see that the Colon is
there, you can’t miss it, it’s inevitable to see it. I looked for the Royal Opera
House but I must confess that the first time I came to Covent Garden I did not
realise it was here. (Silvia, Bolivia)”. This statement highlights issues such as the
clustering of buildings and commerce in the precinct. In addition, it contrasts the
Opera House with other stand alone cultural flagships, which was a recurring
issue that emerged from the data (55 interviews). This evidence suggests that
London in general is not a monumental or formally planned city. In that sense, the
perceived concealment of the Royal Opera House within a cluster of buildings and
211
use of land makes it more typical of London than a grandiose stand alone location
would (See Appendix F.22 for further evidence of this finding).
Despite the apparent visual disadvantage that the geographical location of the
building has, it was also found that many interviewees do not perceive a cultural
flagship of this nature according to its visual traits but for its role as a supplier of
culture. In this sense, even though flagship buildings can have a strong visual
influence on the visitor’s perception of an area, the case of Covent Garden and the
Royal Opera House is different, with its architecture playing a secondary role in
the significance of the institution: “It’s not just the building but what it represents,
the art itself (…) To me it’s more a matter of what it is but the building itself
(Gerald, US)”. These reflections were not only gathered in regards to the Opera
House, but in more generic terms, to other flagship buildings, as another
interviewee expressed that her favourite tourist attraction in London are the
Houses of Parliament, ‘not only because it’s very impressive, but because it makes
(her) think about the people that have worked there, and how hard they must have
worked (Angelica, Mexico)”.
7.4.1.2. Contrast with other stand alone flagship buildings

55 interviewees compared the Opera House to other flagship buildings. These
comparative references were often from the interviewees’ countries of origin as
noted before, but a frequent example used was the Sydney Opera House. This case
study is widely discussed in existing literature related to flagship developments,
and it also emerged from the data when analysing the contrast of the Covent
Garden Opera House with other flagship buildings:
“Obviously it is not quite as flamboyant as the Sydney Opera House (...)
but people talk about the Sydney Opera House more because of its architectural
features rather than what it actually means as an institution for the art of opera I
guess. So I guess in many ways, ROH is probably the opposite case and it’s a
much more interesting place because of that. It’s more about the performances
that they give rather than the fact that it’s a visual treat. That’s not what opera is
about; it’s about the music and not about the building where it takes place (Mike,
England)”.
212
This point of view was also shared by another interviewee of Australian origin,
who agreed that the advantage of the Opera House in Covent Garden over
Sydney’s Opera House is related to its functionality as a venue for performing arts
even though its external appearance lacks the grandiosity of the former: “(ROH) is
an Opera House that works. The problem with the Sydney Opera House is that the
acoustics is awful so they had to go back and refit it out to put good acoustics in.
whereas CG was perfect from day one. There is no need for speakers or
microphones because it is acoustically perfect (Erica, Australia)”. 18
interviewees indicated that they appreciated the Opera House because of the high
standard and quality of its productions over its physical appearance, and
additional evidence that highlights the importance of quality of performances over
the building’s physical attributes is included in Appendix F.23.
It was also noted that the comparative references used to contrast the Opera House
with other flagship developments were all free standing buildings as evidence by
the following interviewee: “I think when you have an Opera House you like to see
a stand-alone building and you have some space around it so you can admire the
architecture. Usually that’s how they design them. (Nora, Hungary) Would you
change anything about the building? In a simple way, absolutely like in Vienna
the big Opera House, Staatsoper in Dresden is always big style, its single
standing separately and here it stands in the middle of the big architecture group
so maybe you could miss it if you go through the streets (Iona, Germany)”. The
latter statement once again introduces the notion of urban clustering affecting the
visual significance of the case study flagship. Nevertheless, another CG
respondent recognised that the clustering of buildings in London does not
facilitate the establishment of cultural flagships in busy areas: “I would give it
more space so that people could visualise it and realise it’s there (…) everything
is a bit saturated. That’s what happens in London, it’s very populated, very
saturated and I feel like one thing is on top of the other and if you removed the
Royal Opera House and put it in the middle of a park like Regent’s Park I think it
would be more notorious. (Silvia, Bolivia)”.
213
Similarly, another interviewee cited the case of the Royal Albert Hall and
compared it with the Opera House in Covent Garden, concluding that its
geographical location and free standing nature allows for the visitor’s appreciation
of its architecture. However, it is located in a fairly separated area of South
Kensington, which was planned as a district for culture (‘museum polis’) and it
was mentioned by other interviewees that the Opera House’s central location
effectively harmonises with the urban village characteristics of the area, and
represents a valuable asset to its eclectic cultural offer: “I think it’s something
quite special, the fact that it’s sort of an integral part of the whole layout of the
buildings. When they built it they could have flattened the whole area to have a
free standing building completely distinct from all its neighbours but the fact that
its kind of built into the network of streets and the building around the Piazza is
something quite good. It’s something quite London, working to an existing street
layout or the foundations that have existed for hundreds and hundreds of years
without sort of the North American principle that is knocking something down and
building something new eradicating parts of history. They built it into the
environment that it sits now basically (Mike, England)”.
The latter statement raises issues related to a second dimension by which the
Royal Opera House is assessed by the interviewees, related to its historic
significance for the area and its relationship with London’s urban and cultural
identity, which are findings addressed below.
7.4.2. The flagship as an institution

All the architectural and visual considerations presented above indicated that the
Opera House is not only perceived and interpreted as an architectural artefact, but
as a provider of culture attracting contrasting sets of visitors to the area. In this
sense, it has been found that the Royal title of the institution has an impact on the
visitor’s assessment of the flagship, leading to perceptions of exclusivity. The
institution’s efforts to develop new audiences and to make opera and ballet
accessible to the wider public have also emerged as important considerations to
214
understand its importance for the area and for London’s cultural offer as discussed
in forthcoming sections.
7.4.2.1. Implications of the name, elitism and exclusivity

Visitors outside the flagship building who indicated that they did not know where
the Opera House was located were asked how they imagined a building called the
Royal Opera House to be. The Royal status attached to the institution’s name
proved to exert an influence on the visitor’s expectations of the building, with 35
of them using adjectives that illustrate the title’s allusion to grandeur such as
‘opulent’, ‘magnificent’ and ‘spectacular’. This indicates that the flagship’s name
is interpreted literally, suggesting grandiose architecture to some interviewees. It
was also noted, however, that the implications of the Opera House’s Royal title
were perceived as both positive and negative elements of the flagship as an
institution. The positive connotations of the Royal attachment include the
perceived association of the institution to the country’s monarchic history and
cultural agenda: “Why have you decided to visit the Royal Opera House today?
Because I love opera and I love ballet and I love history and I am a little bit of a
royalist” (Dean, England)”. On the other hand, other interviewees indicated that
the name is a signifier of social divide and exclusivity: “I would change the name.
I would make it the People’s Republic Opera House. Why would you say that?
I’m not a monarchist (Pamina, Wales)”.
Many interviewees perceived the Opera House’s cultural products to be costly and
inaccessible to a wider audience. Nevertheless, other respondents acknowledged
that the institution’s reputation is directly associated with the high quality of its
performances, which entails higher costs of production and their subsequent
impact on the price of its cultural offer: “I can recognise why it has to be
expensive. Opera is a very expensive art form to mount and to keep standards up
with. But for most ordinary people, it’s way out of one’s pocket to come in
regularly. We tend to go to opera in Birmingham and at the Warwick centre they
have smaller productions coming around so we go there, but you can’t compare it
to this really (Patricia, England)”. These perceptions of exclusivity were not only
215
associated with the high cost of attending a performance at the Opera House, but
also to its perceived concealment that lead some interviewees to tag it as an
‘uninviting’ building inaccessible to the average visitor: “Does it look inviting? I
can’t say. I don’t think it does, because there are no big open doors like in other
places. Sometimes you walk in front of a shop and the doors are wide open so you
know you can come in. I don’t see that here (Myriam, Canada)”.
In most cases, the perception of the Opera House as a socially exclusive

institution was regarded as a negative element of the flagship. However, and as
will be addressed further on, this perception does not always carry a negative
connotation, because it provides the area with the contrast and the ‘mix’ of
elements that were identified in previous sections as motivators attracting visitors
to the area: “We walked around it today and it has been accused of being an elitist
organisation for people that can afford it. The Opera House feels quite exclusive
and elitist, but the actual area feels quite open and inclusive. And you got the
market close to it, so you have quite a contrast in a small area (Anabelle,
England)”.
These considerations suggest that both the flagship’s name and its architectural
design led many interviewees to perceive it as a socially exclusive institution.
However, the educational initiatives undertaken by the Opera House aimed at
developing new audiences and reaching disadvantaged sectors of the population
also emerged as issues of consideration and proved to be effective means of
improving the level of awareness of both the institution and its cultural products
as indicated below.
7.4.2.2. Access initiatives and the importance of experiencing the flagship

from the inside
“I’m always hoping that any theatre would reach to a large audience, not
exactly to their principal audience which at this time they are cultured people that
want to see ballet and opera and theatre of that nature, but sometimes it’s a very
216
limited crowd. I think once people get into it, they want to see it more (Katrina,
US)”.
The previous statement is a suitable introduction to this section as it highlights the

importance of audience development and reviews how it can succeed at
generating awareness of the cultural offer of an institution and the provision of
performing arts. In this sense, and considering the disadvantage that the flagship’s
physical location imposes on the visual perception of the building, it was evident
that the degree to which the interviewees assign importance to the Opera House is
often directly associated with whether they have been inside the building or not:
“Do you think it’s an important element of Covent Garden? Not to me because I
have never been there but I’m sure it is (Anna, Austria)”. 23 interviewees
expressed that the flagship is better perceived from the inside given its concealed
outer appearance, confirming the importance of introducing the individual to the
inside of the building in order to raise awareness of its significance and
relationship with the area: “Do you think it’s a powerful visual element of the
area? I think it’s much more powerful on the inside than outside. Outside you
don’t spot it immediately like La Scala in Milan for example. But inside it’s a
great place (Ricardo, Italy). Inside it’s amazing, when you think of an Opera
House you think of a glass dome or the actual theatre, I think it’s a much more
internal image I get for when I think of ROH than the outside. So I don’t think it’s
visually important to CG because I think it is quite hidden. (David, England)”
The Opera House’s initiatives to engage a wider audience emerged from the data
as some interviewees noted the positive experience provided by their discounted
tickets for students, which made the respondent feel ‘special’. Another initiative
aimed at social inclusion and increasing cultural awareness is the large scale relay
of live performances in high profile public areas throughout the country. As
illustrated in the narrative included in Appendix F.24, this scheme proved to be an
effective means of engaging audiences that would not otherwise be interested in
attending an opera or ballet performance. Nevertheless, the latter activity takes
place outside the flagship building and as indicated above, the task of ‘bringing
217
people inside the building’ is vital to increase their level of awareness of its
presence in the area considering its perceived concealment amidst the area’s urban
clustering. In relation to this, the house is open to the general public during
designated times when they do not require a ticket to go inside and make use of its
facilities, which many ROH interviewees remarked as a good initiative, yet not
widely known by the general public: “I was pleasantly surprised when I found
that I didn’t need a ticket to come into the Opera House. It’s a fantastic piece of
architecture and a lovely building (Claude, France)”. “I think it would be quite
good if you had a few signs out. Maybe to draw more people in because I think
people feel a bit worried about coming in. (...) (Roseanne, England)” (further
evidence of this is included in Appendix F.24). A total of 32 respondents made
reference to the House’s access initiatives.
Although the interviewees indicated that the activities that take place on stage is
what they regard as the essence of the Opera House, the building’s added services
and facilities play an important role in the perception and experience of the
flagship. ROH interviewees visited the Opera House to shop at its store, to book
tickets, to make use of its eating and drinking facilities, to appreciate the view
from its terrace and to attend its exhibitions, which confirms that the experience of
the building is not only related to the direct appreciation of performing arts, but
also to the provision of these services. In this sense, the experience of being inside
the building to make use of any of them is likely to encourage attendance to a
performance, which harmonises with the flagship’s policies of education and
audience development: “Has your perception of the place changed now that you
have been inside the building? Well now I feel like coming to watch a show
because it’s so pretty, and the decorations, the photos on the exhibition that we
just saw about Robert Helpmann they make you want to come and experience that
entire atmosphere live. (Angelica, Mexico)”.
Some interviewees recognised that the area’s visitors need to be introduced to the
work of the Opera House in order for it to exert an influence on their perception
and experience of the area. However, this discovery process can also work
218
conversely, with the flagship’s visitors’ discovery of the area and its many
elements as an unexpected experience: “I’m sure a lot of people experience
Covent Garden because they come to visit the Royal Opera House. It draws
people from around the world. As far as I understand it’s a pretty well respected
institution so I am sure a lot of people come specifically, those people who are
really into opera come from all over the world for it and I imagine its reputation
spread out further than Covent Garden itself so I imagine that people probably
come to visit the Opera House and find Covent Garden a kind of unexpected jewel
attached to the side of it (Mike, England)”.
This interviewee raises matters related to the two way relationship between the
area and the flagship, as well as issues concerned with the social implications of
an Opera House and its value for a cosmopolitan destination for tourism and
culture. Given these considerations, the following sections will evaluate the
dynamics and complex relationship between the area and the flagship.
7.4.3. Reciprocity between the area and the flagship

Many ROH interviewees referred to the Opera House simply as Covent Garden,
as if they were synonyms: “The words Covent Garden go with the Royal Opera
House, everyone says Royal Opera House/Covent Garden. Or they say I’m going
to Covent Garden or somebody is playing at Covent Garden but actually what
they mean is the Royal Opera House (Dicle, Turkey)”. Appendix F.25 also
illustrates the case of a ROH interviewee who refused to develop any views about
the area itself, but asserted that the improved views of the stage were a positive
result of Covent Garden’s evolution (redevelopment). Likewise, other respondents
who were interested in opera or ballet (or both) directly associated the area’s
history as a precinct for culture and the performing arts to the presence of the
Opera House; and attempted to explain how the tradition of referring to both the
area and the flagship indistinctively by the same name is passed on through
generations: “I suppose because people have enjoyed it so much throughout the
years, everybody knows about it and programmes are kept, parents tell their
219
children about going and grandparents talk about it and it’s just impossible to
imagine Covent Garden without the Royal Opera House (Maria, Ireland)”.
Nevertheless, it is clear that this occurrence is more common amongst visitors that
have an interest in the Opera House’s cultural produce and belong to the older age
groups as illustrated by an interviewee who associated her fondness and interest in
the Opera House to her early exposure to its work (See Appendix F.26). This was
explicitly acknowledged by another interviewee who recognised that the extent to
which the Opera House exerts an influence on the visitor’s perception and
experience of place is directly related to their affinity with the arts: “I don’t think
that the Royal Opera House makes Covent Garden. It does contribute but I would
say it contributes to the people that are interested in arts. Like if you go to an
Irish pub here in Covent Garden, I don’t think those people care if there is a
Royal Opera House or not. But for those people who are interested in the arts,
definitely, it’s a reason to visit Covent Garden. (Nicosia, Cyprus)”. In total, 130
CG respondents indicated that the area would remain the same without the Opera
House at its core as indicated in the next section.
7.4.3.1. Covent Garden without an Opera House

In order to further evaluate the relationship between the Opera House and the
area, the interviewees were asked to imagine how Covent Garden would change if
the Royal Opera House was located elsewhere. Two very different perspectives
were identified regarding this topic. The first one indicating that it would not
change because of the many other elements of its place making system that
attracts a wide array of visitors regardless of the presence of the Opera House:
“Do you think CG would be the same without ROH there? I probably have to
say yes, I think it would probably be largely the same because most of the people
that come here come just to experience CG itself. As I say there is obviously a
sector of people who would come here for the Opera House but I think most
people come here regardless of the Opera House which may or may not be a good
thing. But I would probably end up coming here anyways even if the Opera House
wasn’t there. (Paul, England)”.
220
The latter statement highlights that personal interest in art is a crucial factor in the
way the flagship is perceived by the area’s visitors and the importance they assign
to it; and it implies that the scope of amenities and attractions throughout the area
would still provide different tourist experiences to its visitors even if the Opera
House was located elsewhere. This was also noted by many interviewees who
spoke of their perceptions and experience of the area and their reasons to visit; yet
were unaware of the presence of the flagship building. It was also acknowledged
by other interviewees who expressed an affinity for the arts but recognised that
without the Opera House, the area would still attract visitors because of its
commercial and entertainment related features (refer to Appendix F.27 for further
evidence). Nevertheless, some interviewees thought that the provision of other
facilities, attractions and amenities for tourism came as a result of the presence of
the Opera House before the area developed into a precinct for tourism: “If this
wasn’t here then probably the markets wouldn’t be next door and it would
probably still be a fruit and veg market. But this attracts customers from all over
the world and they can come here for the culture and next door for a different
level of entertainment (Laurence, England)”.
There is on the other hand, another set of opinions, mostly from ROH
interviewees that believe that the area would be missing a key element: “It would
be like someone without a soul I think. And what would that be like? Like
anything that’s soul less, not worth worrying about (Susie, England) I don’t want
to imagine. I think the Opera House is the heart of Covent Garden. The whole
history of the Piazza is tied up and linked with theatres and the Opera House. If
you take that away it would still have some interesting characteristics but I’m
very biased, I think it’s the heart of Covent Garden (Valerie, England) I think it
would lose its heart really. What makes it its heart? It’s the quality of
entertainment and the international acclaim it has as an Opera House. And the
people that it draws to the area from all over the world. That would change if it
wasn’t here (Andrew, Scotland)”.
221
The latter statement suggests that an important element of the Opera House’s
relationship with the area is the influx of visitors that it attracts, adding to the
cosmopolitan ambience that has been identified as an important place making
element as indicated before. The findings related to the social dimension of the
Opera House in Covent Garden will be presented in subsequent sections.
7.4.3.2. The flagship and the visitors it attracts

The importance of the Royal Opera House was not only evaluated on the basis of
its architecture, but also in terms of the diversity of visitors it attracts: “its part of
the culture, the vibe around here. You know you get the people… there are
different crowds I suppose that are made up of different people at different times
and there is the Opera House crowd that comes at certain times to see the shows
and those kind of people that (...) bring an element to the area which is kind of
like the show kind of theatre going people and then there are the other kind of
people that are here for the shopping and other kind of people that are here to
spend a nice day outside. It all adds together to make it a cool vibrant place to be.
(Ola, Poland). It brings a wonderful influx of people to CG. They come early but
if they can’t eat in the restaurant inside they come to CG and eat here, drink here,
whatever or go shopping. I feel that it is like an oasis of creativity being
manifested. So for me it’s very magical (Krysia, Australia)”. Both interviewees
recognised that time of visit is a factor to consider when evaluating the flows of
visitors in Covent Garden attending a performance at the Opera House, suggesting
that the flagship’s social significance is not only related to the type of visitors it
attracts but their time of visit. In this sense, the variety of visitors that are attracted
to the area because of performing arts was also found to be a positive input of the
Opera House upon some visitors’ experience of place: “The thing about Covent
Garden is that it has its hours or so. Come in the twilight that’s when the opera
and theatre take over, and the ballet and things like that. (...) So that’s when you
have a different kind of person that comes from twilight. Different character of
people that’s what I like, the sort of changing hours of Covent Garden. (Alice,
New Zealand)”.
222
7.4.3.3. Cosmopolitanism and the importance of an Opera House

As noted in previous sections, 15 interviewees indicated that they enjoyed visiting
London and Covent Garden because of the diversity of visitors and cosmopolitan
ambience. Opera is not an English art form, but many interviewees mentioned the
importance of major flagship buildings devoted to the provision of performing
arts for any large city, which adds on to their status as cosmopolitan destinations:
“Most large metropolitan cities have an Opera House of their own and that’s a
mimic of London anyways, or Paris, New York (Alice, New Zealand) I think every
major city really has an Opera House and because London is such a centre of the
arts it needs to have one so in that perspective it’s a key thing to have. (Clive,
England)”.
It was also noted that the importance of an Opera House in cosmopolitan

destinations is not only associated with the diversity of visitors that it attracts, but
also to the practice of international artistic endeavours regarded as fine arts. A
sense of national pride in the institution was identified amongst some domestic
tourists, who praised the Opera House for being a leading cultural institution that
represents the country globally: “Do you think the Royal Opera House is an
important element of the area? It’s an essential element of the area, of the
nation’s life. Why do you think that is? Because I think culture matters and it’s
very high in culture. Can’t say I’ve been to the Royal Opera more than once,
opera isn’t my thing, but nevertheless you know... it’s as much of English national
life as Lords, as Wembley and many other things. And the British Museum where
we have been today (Clive, England)”. “It’s our heritage, I think it’s extremely
important and it’s known world-wide and it attracts people from all over the
world (Susie, England)”.
The latter statements emphasise the relevance of the Opera House in Covent
Garden not only for the area but for the country itself, which was also agreed by
36 other respondents who indicated that the Opera house can be seen as an
English cultural asset. On the other hand, and confirming the statistical analysis
that indicated that most ROH respondents were domestic visitors, an interviewee
223
observed that the Opera House has a greater appeal for domestic visitors and
Londoners, and that commerce and other features of the area attract an
international market: “I don’t think people come to Covent Garden for the Royal
Opera; I think they are more interested in the shops and the market. Maybe the
Opera House interests more local people Do you think the Royal Opera House is
more for local people then? Yes you don’t see tourists coming to London for
opera. Maybe some sophisticated tourists (Jakob, Austria)”. This notion was also
noted by domestic visitors, who recognized their awareness of the Opera House
because of their country of origin: “Do you think CG would be the same without
ROH? I think it would be because it’s tucked away in a corner and un less you
know about it... most tourists don’t even realise there. I think it’s only because we
are British that we know that. So I think you can quite easily miss it if you are an
international tourist (Roshean, England)”.
The local interest in the Opera House was expanded from different perspectives,
relating it to the part royalty plays in the country and its role as a nurturer of
culture: “A big part of the English culture and identity has come from the arts and
their attraction to the classics and I suppose their attraction to things Royal and
things of I suppose what they might consider of noble state and the classics have
an association with that and the Opera House represents that certain part of
society (Christina, Ireland)”.
Finally, and from a financial perspective, another domestic tourist mentioned the
high cost of the flagship’s redevelopment scheme and his personal thoughts about
it before and after personally seeing how these public funds where spent: “Is it
how you were expecting it to be? No, this has absolutely thrown me, it’s
absolutely wonderful. When I saw how much money was spent here I thought it
was wrong but coming in and seeing what they have achieved and perhaps the
down side is that the public doesn’t know they can walk in and look. That is
definitely a downside because people out there they come to the door, I said to my
grandson I don’t think you can come in they will throw you out, it didn’t worry
224
me. To be able to come and see this, I think they are doing themselves a big
disfavour by not inviting the public to look at it. (Maurice, England)”.
The statement shows that domestic visitors, regardless of their appreciation of

opera or ballet have an awareness of the institution because of the amount of
public funds spent on its redevelopment.
7.5. Conclusions
The variety of experiences throughout the area is clearly reflected in the variety of
visitors that have been interviewed for this study and the range of views gathered
in relation to their perception and experience of place, and how the flagship
building influences these processes. The presence of a variety of shops, eating and
drinking facilities in the area have been identified as motivational factors
attracting visitors and having an impact on their perception of place because of
their scale and diversity. Similarly, street performance exerts an influence on their
motivation to visit and their experience of place. Furthermore, it encourages the
gathering of large groups of audiences which become themselves an important
factor affecting the visitors’ experience of the precinct and contribute to its lively
and cosmopolitan ambience. The area’s pedestrian streets allow visitors to explore
Covent Garden without fear of vehicular traffic which reflects on their slower
pace of movement, and ultimately lead them to have a roaming based experience
of the area associated with its perception as a resting place in central London. In
relation to urban characteristics, the clustering of buildings and smaller scale of
streets proved to exert a profound impact on the way visitors experience and
perceive the area. However, it also affects their perception of the Opera House
which appears to be concealed due to these clustered characteristics. Regardless of
this, the Opera House is seen as a catalyst for the attraction of tourists that
contrasts with those visitors seeking other experiences in the area. Whilst the
Piazza and surrounding areas are popular amongst younger, international visitors;
the Opera House is visited by an older and domestic set of visitors, which
effectively contribute to the area’s cosmopolitan ambience and diverse sense of
place. It is also evident that, the flagship can also be seen as a national asset
225
considering its reputation as a highly regarded provider of culture. This reputation

has little connection to the building’s architectural features that lack the
monumental characteristics that are stereotypically attached to the concept of an
Opera House.
All these considerations suggest that the many elements effectively influencing
the visitor’s perception and experience of the area interact synergistically with one
another, as the experience of visitors seeking high culture is influenced by the
presence of shops and street entertainment for example. Adding more complexity
to this case study, the individual’s personal background such as age and origins
play a pivotal role in their processes of perception and interpretation. The data
also suggests that older visitors seek deeper cultural experiences as they adopt an
inquisitive approach to exploring the precinct whereas younger visitors are
focused on experiencing more, but from the surface as developed in the next
chapter. In this sense, the next stage of this study consists of relating these
findings with the theoretical framework established in the literature review
regarding the cultural tourist, the experience of cultural tourism, urban areas for
tourism and culture and flagship developments in these areas. This will lead to the
identification of gaps in existing knowledge regarding the well established
precinct for tourism and the impact that the redevelopment of historical cultural
flagships exerts on the area’s visitors.
226
Discussion of Findings Chapter 8
8. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
8.1. Introduction
Given the overall aim of this study that explores the influence of the Royal Opera
House as a cultural flagship on the tourist’s perception and experience of Covent
Garden as a precinct for tourism and culture, the purpose of this chapter is to
identify overarching themes and patterns on the basis of the findings presented in
the previous chapter, as well as discussing their implications. This discussion will
focus on the visitors’ socio demographic characteristics and their impact on their
motivation to visit, their experience of place, levels of cultural awareness and
connectivity with the site. Subsequently, findings related to the area’s
environment will be discussed, focusing on the contrast between perceptions
gathered throughout different locations. Finally, the findings relating to the
flagship will be revisited, with a focus on its physical appearance as a building
and its significance as an institution for the area and the destination.
8.2. Visitors
8.2.1. Background - Age
A large number of visitors of different socio demographic profiles were
interviewed throughout a variety of locations in the area. In relation to these
profiles, the interviewees’ age is an indicator of consideration given its influence
on how tourists perceive and experience the area. As indicated in the findings
chapter, the majority of CG interviewees were under 30 years of age, and ROH
respondents were mostly over the age of 60, suggesting that the flagship has a
stronger appeal to the older generations whereas the array of experiential
opportunities found throughout the area tends to attract younger visitors. These
opportunities consist mostly of shopping, eating and drinking, socialising and the
consumption of popular forms of art such as street busking. Some CG
interviewees indicated that they engage in these experiences unexpectedly as they
roam throughout the area, highlighting the importance of exploration in their
experience of place. This exploratory experience of place is also associated with
their age, as many respondents noted that they are more receptive of their
227
surroundings when they are older, seeking more inquisitive and informative
tourist experiences, which can also be understood as deeper as illustrated by the
following statement: “Do you think London has changed since? No, we have
changed (...) We are more micro, looking more micro(in) more detail (Rene, 50-
59).”
The older CG and ROH interviewees were more likely to visit specific attractions
in the area, whether it was the Opera House, St Paul’s Church or attending a
performance elsewhere. Younger CG interviewees were likely to cite more than
one motivation. They perceive the area as a whole and not as a cluster of sites of
interest, leading to more varied experiences. This data suggests that visits to
specific attractions are more likely to be purposeful, as opposed to the experience
of Covent Garden’s shops and street performers which result from roaming,
exploring and discovering the area. However, and as indicated above, the older
age groups are more likely to roam and explore the tourist precinct, soaking in its
atmosphere and discovering its opportunities instead of “running from one place
to the other” and “ticking boxes” when they are younger. A possible explanation
is that older visitors are more experienced and better travelled, which leads them
to have deeper, more informative and inquisitive experiences. In some cases, they
have already experienced the most notorious areas and attractions of a destination
and its’ precincts. An inexperienced tourist, likely to belong to a younger age
group, tends to visit the most notable attractions and areas for tourism as indicated
by travel guides and other forms of media. For example, many CG interviewees
stated that although they were not drawn to the area for a specific reason, they
wanted to visit it because it is the setting of the musical film My Fair Lady.
Similarly, the market place area and the street entertainers are also often
mentioned in travel guides and other media. These attractions serve as signs and
markers, as suggested by MacCannell (1999), and succeed in attracting a set of
visitors that are not driven by a strong interest or motivation other than getting to
know these high profile sights/sites. The more experienced and older travellers
tend to explore lower profile experiential opportunities by roaming around the
228
area and discovering unexpected features, described as “gems off the beaten
track”. They seek a deeper understanding of place once they have experienced the
typical and main stream aspects of a precinct, leading them to more informative
experiences. The more informative nature of the older tourists’ experience of
place is illustrated by interviewees in cultural attractions such as the Opera House
or St Paul’s Church being more inquisitive about the sites’ heritage and history.
Similarly, older interviewees tended to develop more elaborate and explanatory
accounts of their perception of place in terms of the area’s history and heritage,
indicating the importance of their previous knowledge of place in their present
perception and experience. This knowledge is acquired through previous visits,
confirming that older visitors are more likely to have gathered these experiences
leading them to seek more exploratory, informative and inquisitive experiences of
a precinct.
8.2.2. Depth of experience

Multi sensory consumption plays an important role in the visitors’ experience of
place, as senses are stimulated by sights, sounds, fragrances and other sources of
sensorial stimulation throughout the tourist precinct. However, this study indicates
that a deeper tourist experience consists of not only perceiving these stimuli, but
proactively reacting to it in an inquisitive manner. This is evidenced by some
interviewees who not only perceived the physical presence of St Paul’s Church or
the Opera House, but entered their premises and learned about the sites. This
suggests that the notion of a ‘deep’ tourist experience can be directly associated
with the act of physically penetrating into a space and reacting to the sensorial
stimuli by proactively seeking to learn about it. Conversely, other CG visitors
were mostly driven by their eagerness to visit the attractions noted in a guide book
(sightseeing tourists - McKercher and DuCros, 2002, Browsers – Hayllar et al,
2008). Their lack of knowledge of the city makes them seek typical experiences of
it as a destination. Once this need has been fulfilled, they explore other
opportunities as they become older and more experienced. The surface approach
to visiting an urban precinct evidenced in younger interviewees can be understood
229
as a ‘shallow’ tourist experience, as it entails low levels of reaction to the

precinct’s sensorial stimuli.
It is clear that the eclecticism of the area has an appeal for visitors of a variety of
backgrounds and cultural motivations, as expressed by the following interviewee:
“What brings you to Covent Garden today? Because of all the theatres around,
the market as well, the little shops and there’s always something to look around
like performers and all that it’s just really relaxing (Maya, Mexico)”. All these
experiential opportunities related to leisure are compressed in the area in different
forms throughout its different locations. For example, the Opera House and St
Paul’s Church are located in the Piazza, attracting tourists that seek cultural
experiences. The market place and the areas designated for street entertainment
are located in immediate vicinity attracting sightseeing visitors focused on leisure
and entertainment. Some CG interviewees indicated that they visited the area
unknowingly because of its proximity to other popular areas or attractions.
However, this did not mean that they had a shallow experience of place in all
cases, as many of them praised the area for its unexpected features and array of
experiential opportunities, as expressly suggested by the following statement: “I
was passing through here, I didn’t even realised this was a specific area. I just
sort of wandered through and I have seen... very interesting, very different, very
unique I have to say I very much like it’ (Michael, US)”. These visitors can be
understood as serendipitous tourists (McKercher and DuCros, 2002).
Conversely, many culturally motivated ROH interviewees expressed reluctance to

experience any other features of the area. Hughes (2000) proposes that these arts
orientated visitors can be arts core or arts peripheral depending on their likelihood
of engaging in other experiences that may result from their visit to a destination or
an urban precinct. Although some ROH interviewees praised the area for its
eclecticism, older interviewees appeared to be purposeful and arts core given their
unwillingness to experience the area as illustrated by the following interviewee:
“I’m sorry; nowadays I simply come here for the opera and then make my way
back to my village outside Cambridge. Being retired (...) just going around
230
looking at things that you may or may not want to buy is not something that
interests me particularly. I think it would probably interest the much younger
rather than the retired population (Anna, over 60)”.
This indicates that the area is appraised from many different perspectives that lead
each interviewee to have individual perceptions and experiences of the precinct
and the flagship. However, the area’s commercialisation and vibrancy deters
tourists seeking deep cultural experiences, who limit their visit to a specific
attraction which may impose a restriction to the learning process of discovery of
place through roaming and exploring it. All these considerations indicate that the
variables to consider the tourist’s experience of place are not only their level of
motivation or depth of experience, but also their willingness and likelihood of
being engaged by unexpected features and experiential opportunities. Although
older visitors are more willing to undertake this exploratory consumption of place
because of their previous knowledge of the area, it is evident that their age may
also diminish their willingness to do so.
8.2.3. Background – Nationality and cultural distance

Many ROH and CG interviewees associated and evaluated different aspects of the
area according to the similarities and differences that they hold with their places
of origin. Their level of familiarity with certain elements of the area play a pivotal
role in their enjoyment of place as they are either attracted or deterred depending
on their previous experiences. This was also the case for their views and
perceptions of the flagship, as many of them cited venues for the performing arts
from their own countries as examples of their expectations of an Opera House.
Similarly, they praised it as a building and as an institution because of the lack of
cultural resources of this nature in their own countries: “Its historical significance
is the primal thing, especially coming from the US where there isn’t any history.
So the cultural significance of the building and what it represents (Doron,
US)”.This indicates that the interviewees’ interpretation of place can be the result
of sensory perception that interacts internally with the filter of their own cultural
values. This process is directly associated with the individual’s background, as
231
some are excited about the new and unfamiliar whereas others escape it. Visitors
evaluate a tourist precinct according to the values determined by their previous
experiences which can be linked to their age, their nationality, their previous
travelling experience, their level of education and other socio demographic
variables which are pivotal elements that constitute the filters that ultimately
determine their appraisals of place and influence their perceptions and experience
of it.
McKercher (2002) suggests that visitors from culturally distant regions will seek
to have deeper experiences of place because of their desire to gather novel
knowledge and experience unfamiliar cultures. Conversely, he proposes that the
culturally proximate domestic market for tourism will tend to focus on
experiences based on leisure and entertainment as they are already acquainted
with the cultural aspects of a precinct and arguably ‘take them for granted’.
However, according to these results, the interviewees’ cultural values may attract
or deter them from certain elements of the area that lead to their processes of
perception, experience and enjoyment of place as noted above. But their level of
cultural awareness and motivation to visit will also play a fundamental role, which
are also underpinned by their personal background through the process of cultural
appraisal that determine their preferences. This is evidenced by the Opera House’s
stronger appeal to domestic visitors, who almost in all cases expressed a keen
interest in opera and ballet. Likewise, international ROH interviewees indicated
that they visited the flagship because of their enthusiasm for high arts. In both
cases, they used their cultural awareness to evaluate the importance of the Opera
House for the area, the city and the country. Their personal interest in these forms
of arts was to an extent influenced by their origins, but other variables such as
previous exposure also intervene in this process “I was taken to dancing classes
by my mum”(Janet, over 60). This is also notable in that opera and ballet are not
English art forms, but the Opera House’s interviewees were mostly domestic
visitors with a fondness for these art forms. Conversely, many international CG
interviewees indicated that they focused their visit on leisure, entertainment and
relaxation.
232
The contrasting appraisal processes that take the individual’s cultural values to
evaluate what is perceived are more closely related to the tourist’s connectivity
with a site (Timothy, 1998), indicating that the interviewees’ interpretation of the
area and the flagship is indeed determined by their cultural values. However, these
cultural values are not only related to the interviewees’ origin, but to personal
preferences determined by past experiences and exposure to culture as illustrated
as follows: “My parents, we went to the Opera House a lot at home, we visited
some museums too, planetariums. And nowadays we also take our grandsons
(Norma, over 60) I was brought up on a lot of ballet and a lot of opera. I saw a lot
of that when I was young” (Dean, England)”.
8.3. Environment
8.3.1. Sub-areas within the precinct
The findings indicate that the area can be viewed from different perspectives as
suggested by the literature reviewed in chapter 3. These are related to the contrast
between the area’s central and peripheral locations, and their corresponding use of
land and urban characteristics that attract different types of visitors. As indicated
before, the socio demographic profiles of ROH and CG interviewees differed
considerably. These differences were not only identified in the types of visitors
that agreed to be interviewed, but also in their insights regarding their perceptions
and experience of the area. The interviewees approached in the Piazza tended to
focus on the provision of street entertainment and commerce. On the other hand,
those interviewed in St Paul’s Church held the area’s heritage as central to their
perceptions of place. Those interviewed in peripheral locations such as Seven
Dials referred to the small scale of the area’s streets and buildings. This indicates
that there are different qualities and characteristics present to different extents
throughout the area’s locations, exerting an influence on the visitors’ perception
and experience of place to different degrees. These qualities, identified as urban
characteristics, human based elements and activities that take place; vary
considerably from one interviewing location to the other. For example, the market
place is an open area surrounded by large buildings, street entertainers and
outdoor eating and drinking facilities. Conversely, Seven Dials, Broad Court and
233
St Martin’s Lane are surrounded by narrow streets where the shops are of smaller
scale and a theatre can be found in each location. In this sense, Covent Garden can
be understood as a multifaceted precinct characterised by the compression of a
range of attractions that act as catalysts for tourism. Given the contrasts between
its different locations, it is not feasible to treat it as a single urban unit in central
London in terms of perception and experience of place. As an interviewee stated:
“I kind of think about it as two separate areas almost. I think around Seven Dials
are people who work and live in London and kind of know what they are doing
(...) Its people just stopping and having coffee with their friends whereas when
you are going towards the market its just tourists hanging out and its people who
have come to their day trip in London almost on holiday, its a bit more tacky”
(David, England). An urban precinct’s uniformity often leads similar studies to
treat these areas as a whole (Hayllar and Griffin, 2005). However, Covent
Garden’s different locations are characterised by different features that provide
different experiences and stimulate the visitor’s senses in different ways. This
indicates that if a tourism precinct of this nature is treated as a single urban unit,
its understanding is limited and superficial; and that its diversity is part of its
appeal.
The area lacks a sense of coherence and uniformity between its locations despite
the ring of major roads that clearly limit it. Many of these locations present
characteristics that hold a closer resemblance to adjoining areas when contrasted
with the Piazza. For example, the peripheral Seven Dials is more similar to the
adjoining Soho than the market place area. The lack of coherence between these
locations throughout the area is also notable in some interviewees’ enjoyment of
place. Many CG interviewees indicated that they enjoyed the vibrant ambience of
the Piazza whereas others were deterred by it and preferred the less busy and
smaller in scale peripheral locations. However, the most prominent attractions
attached to the area’s name, the market and the Opera House, are located in its
Piazza. Many tourists interviewed in peripheral locations were unaware that they
were visiting Covent Garden, especially those who found their way from an
adjacent area. This evidence suggests that tourists seeking London’s most
234
prominent areas and attractions for tourism tend to limit their visit to the market
place area, where the market, the Opera House, the tube station and the Opera
House are located. These serve as the most important markers attached to the area
which attract sightseeing visitors, but they are limited to the Piazza and its
surroundings attracting browsing tourists (Hayllar et al, 2008).
8.3.2. Relaxation and performance

Many casual and serendipitous interviewees indicated that the area’s perceived
relaxed ambience encouraged them to use it as a resting spot and explore it in
some cases. However, it was also praised for its vibrancy aided by the presence of
street performers that contribute to crowdedness in its popular market place area.
Regardless of this, its visitors ‘warm up to it and enjoy visiting because of its
human feel’ (Aldous, 1992). This perception is not associated with the provision
of facilities aimed for the purpose of relaxation such as benches (both of which
are only present in St Paul’s Church). It is the human aspect and the social
interactions that take place which visitors find relaxing. As many CG interviewees
noted, the visitor’s pace of movement is slower compared to other nearby busy
areas such as Mayfair or Westminster, which makes them relax: “there is
something different in the way that people move in Covent Garden (…) (its
visitors) are not so much in a rush, but assimilating the area’ (Dicle, Turkey)”
This indicates that the experience of relaxation in Covent Garden does not only
entail sitting down or consuming food and drink, but it acquires a more complex
perspective. It involves a slower pace of movement facilitated by the area’s
pedestrian streets that also allowed some interviewees to experience the area by
roaming, exploring and discovering it. These exploring tourists are ‘looking for
the unexpected discovery and the chance of encounter (they are) rather
serendipitous, wandering aimlessly but with hope (Hayllar et al., 2008:55). Many
tourists interviewed contrasted this pace of movement to other adjoining areas for
tourism where it was noted that people’s pace of movement was faster, as
illustrated by an interviewee: “When you are in other parts of London, people are
always going somewhere, going to do something, always focused. Whereas here
235
you feel like people are relaxed and enjoying their walk. (Silvia, Bolivia)”. The
visitor’s slower pace of walk, therefore, can be understood as a ‘touristic
choreographed movement’ (Edensor, 1998:114) which has a profound effect on
the area’s sense of place and on the way its visitors perceive and experience it.
This choreographed movement provides visitors with a range of cues and patterns
of behavior that engage them and encourage them to become an active part of a
ritual, in what appears to be a process of influence and imitation as tourist’s
follow each others’ cues (pace of movement for example). Tourists in the area
influence each other’s behavior subtly whilst taking part in these unspoken rituals
that engage and lure other tourists to participate. This phenomenon is related to
how its visitors behave and the impact that this behavior has upon its
distinctiveness. When they roam through it, they are not only gazing or exploring
(Urry, 2002), but they are effectively performing and becoming a fundamental
element of its place making system.
All of the aspects mentioned above are closely related to the area’s pedestrian
streets, indicating the importance of vehicular traffic engineered in a way that
visitors are free to roam through its streets (Aldous, 1992). This is one of the
area’s most recognised and distinctive urban characteristic which provides a sense
of freedom to the visitor, a lack of fear of vehicular traffic leading them to
perceive that the streets are theirs. According to these findings, some interviewees
embrace this freedom by roaming, exploring and discovering the area, which also
proves to enhance the interviewees’ experience of place because it strengthens
their ‘degree of communication with other people’, identified by Graefke and
Vaske (1987) as a fundamental aspect of a tourist experience (as cited in Ryan
2002a). The notion of co tourism suggests that the individual’s experience of
place is to a considerable degree affected by other tourists’ attitudes and
experience of a tourism precinct. This is the case in Covent Garden, as many
interviewees attributed its perceived relaxed ambience to the slower pace of
movement and relaxed attitude of others. The presence of street entertainers
around the market place area actively contributes to its relaxed ambience of
leisure as well. These street performances can be linked to the ‘rituals’ which play
236
pivotal roles in the tourist’s experience of place (MacCannell, 1999). In this case,
the notion of ritual acquires two dimensions. The first focuses on the performers
who ritually deliver an artistic product repeatedly and within a designated space.
Secondly, the tourists who communally gather around them, in some cases pay for
their songs and celebrate their performance. This indicates that the ritual of street
performance engages its audience and makes them an active part of it. These
spectators experience a sense of belonging as they become an active element of a
ritual that characterises the area, providing them with a stronger degree of
communication with other spectators and the performers themselves: “Today
there was this person who was playing the guitar and just singing and everyone
was just standing there watching him. It’s different from the usual Londoners that
are just rushing around everywhere. People are just spending time enjoying and
relaxing” (Guy, 40-49). This can also be related to Canniffe’s (2006) views on
monuments around which tourists manifest common behaviour. It is interesting to
note that street performance and consumption are concentrated around the market
place. In this sense, Covent Garden Market can be viewed as a monument because
of the activities that take place around it influencing the tourist’s perception and
experience of place along with their behaviour as they become active parts of
tourist rituals.
8.3.3. People as place making elements

Novel forms of cultural tourism provide active experiences for the user, relying on
intangible elements to engage them (Smith, 2007a). In this case, these intangible
elements are the sense of belonging and acceptance that this audience experiences
when they become part of the shows. They are stimulated by sounds of music and
applause, partly generated by themselves, which have an important influence on a
precinct’s atmosphere and have implications on its perception as a place for
leisure and relaxation (Arkette, 2004): “The people. I love it because people are
singing. There’s action, it’s not boring” (Carol, Student). Although some
interviewees indicated that they disliked the crowds produced by street
entertainment, they felt part of them as visitors themselves. In this sense, people
play a fundamental role as place making elements of the area. These crowds also
237
contribute to the area’s safety, strengthening its perception as a place for

relaxation. Considering the positive and negative implications of crowds, it is
evident that the interviewees determine optimal levels of crowdedness (social
carrying capacity - See Lopez-Bonilla and Lopez-Bonilla, 2008) which emphasise
the advantages (safety in example) and diminish the disadvantages (difficulty to
walk): “Is there anything that you would change about the area? 50% of the
tourists. But they are allowed to come as much as we do” (Erica, Australia). It is
important to note, however, that many tourists, particularly those interviewed in
cultural attractions such as St Paul’s Church and the Opera House, were heavily
critical of the nature of street performances and the crowds that they attract. In
any case, the presence of street entertainment, whether enjoyed or not, was
acknowledged by a significant number of interviewees. This indicates its
importance as a place making element of the market place area and it acquires a
deeper importance from a social perspective because it acts as a catalyst of social
interactions and sensorial stimuli for the area’s visitors. However, it is also
important to reiterate that the area’s different locations are characterised by very
different features, and street entertainment is exclusive to the mainstream area
surrounding the market.
From a different perspective, the visitor’s enjoyment of the area was often
associated with its perceived cosmopolitan ambience. Hannerz (1996)
conceptualises cosmopolitanism as ‘an orientation, a willingness to engage with
the other (entailing) an intellectual and aesthetic stance towards divergent cultural
experiences (and) a search for contrasts rather than uniformity’ (as cited by Binnie
et al., 2006:103). In this sense, the many elements of the area that attract a
contrasting variety of visitors not only contribute to the area’s vibrancy but grant
it a cosmopolitan atmosphere. These visitors are not only engaged by this sense of
place, but also feel like active parts of it, relating to feelings of belonging
indicated before. They become the fundamental elements that make the area
distinctive (Edensor, 1998), which results in a stimulating and positive experience
of place. In this sense, the notion of co tourism can once again be effectively
applied to this case study as many interviewees’ perception and experience of
238
place was directly influenced by other tourists and their diversity. This effect is
not only achieved by the mingling of visitors of many nationalities, but also of
different age. ‘The mix of the old and the new’ was not only frequently regarded
as positive characteristic of the built environment, but also in terms of the range of
ages of the area’s visitors. “A mixture of old and new architecture, a mix of range
of people, very cosmopolitan but quite nice old fashioned’ (Phil, Wales)”. This
indicates that a ‘cosmopolitan ambience’ involves two dimensions. The first
concerned with its tangible elements, the al fresco cafes and the distinctive
village-like built environment for example. The second dimension relates to
intangible elements such a diverse, relaxed and vibrant atmosphere, the sounds
emitted by street entertainers, the assortment of visitors and their slower pace of
movement that make them interact.
The enjoyment of the area because of the diversity of its visitors increases the
opportunity to use and acquire cultural capital from a tourist experience (Harvey
and Lorenzen, 2006). In this sense, the tourist’s performance has implications for
the area’s distinctiveness, other tourists’ and their own enjoyment of place. This
indicates that a tourist precinct is socially constructed rather than being ‘out there’
(Blunt and Rose, 1994 in Hayllar et al., 2008). It is important to highlight that
these precincts tend to be enjoyed by tourists that seek conviviality and value the
presence of others as an important element of their collective experience of place
(Urry, 2002). Although crowds were acknowledged and recognised by many ROH
and CG interviewees as an important element of the area’s place making system,
this study has also identified ‘romantic gazers’ who appreciate solitude, privacy
and intimacy with what is visited as evidenced by the following statement: “What
have you enjoyed the most about your trip? The city at night and along the river
What about it at night? The fact that it’s empty, so it’s mine essentially (Guy,
England)”. This is also associated with the interviewees’ age and past
experiences, as the majority of ROH respondents were older. It is evident that
youth equates to speed, rushing around and ticking boxes in tourist agendas. As
they grow older and gather more tourist experience, they seek quietness and sites
239
that represent intimacy and substance. Hence, these flagship visitors can be
understood as ‘romantic’ gazers.
8.4. Flagship
8.4.1. Stereotypical views of Opera Houses
Many CG and ROH interviewees expressed preconceptions of what an Opera
House should look like. As indicated before, many of them used venues for the
performing arts from their own countries as examples of these expectations. They
pointed out that the notion of an Opera House is associated with grandiose
architecture and free standing buildings, as well as their detachment from
entertainment districts and popular culture: “Considering I’m from Italy I just find
out that that’s the Royal Opera House and it doesn’t look like an Opera House
should look like’ (Angelo, Italy)”. Monumentality, then, is directly associated with
the notion of an Opera House. However, as will be discussed further on, it is
important to emphasise that the difference between a monument and a flagship
relates to both significance and functionality. In this sense, the Royal Opera
House is a peculiar case study. It is perceived as one of the country’s most elitist
venues and is widely recognised for the world class quality of its performances.
And yet, it is located at the core of an urban precinct characterised by its strong
commercial sector, the celebration of popular forms of art and is perceived and
experienced as a place for leisure and relaxation. Furthermore, the royal
attachment of the institution’s name also made some interviewees expect an
opulent, free standing building that would project a majestic image. In this sense,
the concept of cultural flagship has visual and literal implications.
Cultural flagships tend to be stereotyped as free standing buildings with opulent

architectural features, often located in urban areas that may or may not also serve
as tourism precincts (the Royal Albert Hall for example). But the spaces they
occupy and the area’s morphology assign the status of flagship to a building. The
British Museum is another flagship building of interest in this regard because its
surrounding urban environment speaks of rich heritage amidst narrow streets and
urban density. A large courtyard paves the way for the museum, drawing attention
240
to the building by allowing the visual perception of its distinctive and monumental
architecture. The urban density of the area prevents the visual perception of the
Opera House in Covent Garden despite its extensive redevelopment programme.
Its potential influence upon the area’s visitors’ perception and experience of place
is directly affected by the building’s subtle physical presence. However, the
visitor’s cultural motivations play a pivotal role in the process of assigning
meaning to this institution and its relevance to the area.
As indicated in chapter 5, the Opera House’s re development scheme considered

relocating the institution to a different area where a free standing building could
have been built for a lesser cost. But this alternative was rejected due to the
flagship’s historical attachment to the area, which is evident in the fact that many
ROH interviewees refer to the Opera House simply as Covent Garden. Regardless
of this, the redevelopment scheme acknowledged the importance of
monumentality as a trend in flagship developments. It succeeded in providing the
building with a distinctive front that responds to the ‘mix of the old and the new’
with the restoration of the steel glass made Hamlyn Hall along with the
preservation of the Corinthian columns of the original theatre. Regardless of the
free standing grandiose stereotype of flagship developments, current trends and
practice in the development of these buildings can celebrate their heritage whilst
embracing modernity to bring them up to the millennium as illustrated by the
following statement: “I think up until twenty or thirty years ago, if anyone thought
about an Opera House, they would think of something Victorian or Edwardian
that sort of style. But I think in the last twenty or thirty years there have been a lot
of those types of buildings that have been rebuilt, reconditioned or architecturally
redesigned. So now I think the scope is completely open for all sorts of different
types of architecturally interesting designs for buildings of an entertainment
nature whether its culturally high brow or whether it’s just a cinema multiplex It
has been blown wide open over the last twenty or thirty years and there’s a lot of
innovative designs in architecture, specially for entertainment (Matt, England)”.
241
8.4.2. Significance
As stated above, many ROH interviewees use the term Covent Garden to refer to
the area or the flagship indistinctively, indicating that for them, that is what the
area consists of. This is also evidenced by many of them visiting the area
exclusively for the Opera House and they feel a sense of attachment to it because
of their strong interest in opera and ballet. Conversely, other CG interviewees
indicated that for them, the area represents commerce, leisure and relaxation.
Their dismissal of the flagship’s cultural input relates to the Opera House’s lack
of visual appeal and more importantly, because they are not interested in high
forms of art. It was expected that the considerable contrast between the
interviewees’ appraisals of the importance of the Opera House in their experience
of the area would be directly related to their interest in opera and ballet. In one
case, the majority of ROH interviewees and some CG respondents regarded it as
an essential element of the cultural offer of the area and the city. On the other
hand, a considerable majority of CG interviewees highlighted that given the
building’s subtle physical presence and the wide array of experiential
opportunities in the area, the Opera House does not exert an important influence
in their perception and experience of place. These contrasting points of view are
firmly subject to their interest in the art forms that the Opera House produces and
delivers to its receiving audience, as indicated by a respondent: “Do you think the
Royal Opera House is an important element of the area? Maybe for many people
but probably not for me, because I’m not so much of an arts person (Colin, under
30)”.
In spite of the Opera House’s subtle physical presence, many ROH and CG
interviewees indicated that they regarded the Royal Opera House as an important
element of the area, not as an architectural artefact but as an institution. They
associate this importance to its long standing tradition as a highly regarded
provider of culture characterised by excellence in the quality of its productions. In
this sense, the concept of cultural flagships and the potential impact that they can
have on urban precincts and destinations acquires an intangible dimension directly
related to its content and not its form (Ham, 1987; Mulryne and Shewring, 1995).
242
This intangible perspective can also be associated with the implications of the
institution’s name, suggesting that its royal status implies high quality. In
addition, the importance of the institution was consistently evaluated from its
functionality as a venue for the performing arts. As noted by a ROH interviewee,
its suitable acoustics, improved seating facilities, backstage technology and the
consequent attraction of famous performers put the Covent Garden Opera House
ahead of other contemporary developments that tend to be led by design rather
than function. For example, the Sydney Opera House, which is considered a
triumph of contemporary architecture and succeeds in exerting a visually
stimulating physical presence to the area’s visitors. But its functionality as a
theatre was subject to criticism. This is also the case with the Royal Albert Hall.
Regardless of its free standing location and distinctive architecture, it had to be
subjected to extensive improvement works to enhance its auditorium’s acoustics
that were inadequate due to the building’s oval design (Royal Albert Hall, 2007).
However, it is important to note that these considerations are given a pivotal
importance by respondents who were interested in the consumption of the Opera
House’s productions. Whereas they were assigned little, if any importance at all
by CG interviewees who visited the area to shop, eat, drink, socialise or undertake
any of the other experiential opportunities available in the area. In this sense, the
concept of flagship and the attributes that grant a building or an institution with
such status depends on the individual’s interests. Opera and ballet enthusiasts tend
to approach the concept by examining and assessing the nature of the institution’s
produce and its quality. Conversely, the potential impact that a flagship may have
upon other visitors in the area will directly depend on the building’s physical
presence. This is notable in statements like the following: “Unless you’re an
opera fan you wouldn’t seek it out. I don’t know, it’s in a very prime location but
it’s almost tucked away it’s quite private” (Deidre, England).
8.4.3. Cultural asset for the country

The institution’s status as one of the country’s symbols of high culture leads to a
sense of national pride amongst some domestic visitors, mostly in those who are
interested in these forms of art. Another set of less culturally motivated
243
interviewees indicated that they visited the Opera House to evaluate how the large
amounts of public spending were invested regardless of their interest in opera or
ballet. This suggests that regardless of these visitors enthusiasm for opera or
ballet, the Opera House is perceived as an asset, or a cost, for the English nation.
Likewise, many overseas CG respondents mentioned that they enjoyed visiting
London because of its cosmopolitan ambience as indicated before. They
expressed that they expected a reputable Opera House or venue for performing
arts in any world city, indicating that an Opera House is regarded as a feature that
speaks of a destination’s rich and high levels of cultural offer. It is important to
note that opera and ballet are not English art forms, but over time they have
become superior artistic expressions that appear to grant status and prestige to the
destinations they are attached to and to the users that appreciate them. In this
sense, the Royal Opera House does not only influence some visitor’s perception
of Covent Garden positively as a precinct for culture, but of London as a cultural
destination: “Do you think ROH is an important element of this area? It’s an
important element of London I would say. If it’s an important element of this area,
I wouldn’t say so What makes it an important element of London? It’s an
important cultural highlight (Ulrike, Germany)”.
For the non opera enthusiast, the Opera House is an attribute that is expected from
a world city. However, the urban concealment of the building prevents it from
having the Sydney Opera House effect. Arguably, the flagship’s historical value
and attachment to the area’s evolution make up for this disadvantage. But these
considerations are again subject to the individual’s interest in opera and ballet. In
any case, the presence of this cultural flagship can be associated with the concept
of option or existence demand, as visitors in the city ‘do not at present use and
may not have specific plans to use but (...) feel that these things should be
maintained so that the option to use them is always there’ (Veal, 2006:61). “It’s a
cultural landmark in the city, it’s really important for a big city like New York,
Tokyo, Paris, even in Buenos Aires the Opera House is always an important
building in the city” (Brova, France).
244
8.4.4. The flagship’s social input to the area

From a social perspective, the Opera House exerts a powerful influence of the
precinct’s ambience because of the influx of visitors it attracts.
In this sense, the relationship between the Opera House with London’s status as a
World City is not only confined to the provision of high forms of art. But also, to
the attraction of visitors interested in these high art forms that mingle and contrast
with visitors who are not. The diversity of people visiting the area is a pivotal
place making element that benefits greatly from the presence of the Opera House
at its core. The market place area and peripheral locations tend to attract younger
visitors seeking leisure activities and commercial experiences, as well as a local
population focused on entertainment and the night time economy. It is also
important to consider that the variety of people visiting the area tangibly
contributes to its cosmopolitan ambience, and the Opera House is a catalyst for
the attraction of a contrasting set of visitors as illustrated by the following
statement: “What do you think CG would be like without ROH? I think it would
be a sad loss for CG, I’m sure it would continue but I think it draws in a different
type of person to those who come to CG for the shopping, it brings in an
international audience” (Charles, Wales)”. However, many arts core ROH
interviewees indicated that they only visited the area for the flagship, and were
heavily critical of the area’s commercial ambience and street entertainers
providing ‘low’ forms of culture. Nevertheless, these findings indicate a
reciprocal positive relationship between the area and the flagship, not only
because of the variety of visitors it attracts, but because the area’s central location
allows for easy access for domestic visitors in the city and the local population.
The area’s wide ranging provision of shopping, eating and drinking facilities were
also regarded by some ROH interviewees as positive elements of the area along
with its urban cultural heritage, making of Covent Garden a convenient and
distinctive place for the Opera House.
8.4.5. Access and audience development

Regardless of its popular location, the royal attachment of the institution’s name
leads many interviewees to perceive the flagship as socially exclusive and elitist.
245
This is further corroborated by the high number of CG interviewees expressing a

lack of interest in experiencing high culture. They explained this lack of interest
because ‘it is not their thing’ and to the perceived high cost that attending a
performance at the Opera House may imply. These high costs were recognised by
ROH interviewees, who acknowledged that the high quality of the Opera House’s
productions demands for ticket prices to be expensive. As a consequence, those
seeking leisure activities and relaxing experiences lack the sense of belonging and
connectivity with the Opera House. This lack of connectivity along with the
building’s subtle physical presence in the area prevents them from exploring the
flagship in spite of its free daytime openings. Attending a performance at the
Opera House is a passive experience where the audience does not take an active
part as opposed to informally watching a street performer, resulting in some of the
area’s visitors’ disregard of the flagship as an element of their experience of
Covent Garden. In relation to this, it is important to mention that cultural
attractions of this nature are primarily intended for a domestic audience (Richards,
2007), which largely explains the majority of domestic ROH interviewees who
were English, but tourists nonetheless (potential respondents living in London
were dismissed from the interview as the study focuses on tourists). Furthermore,
the majority of ROH interviewees were over the age of 60, indicating the
impending urgency of engaging younger generations necessary to secure the
future of the production of opera and ballet.
The Opera House’s response to these perceptions of exclusivity through access

initiatives and audience engagement schemes emerged from the data as an issue of
consideration as many interviewees noted that their perception of the flagship is
influenced by them. The most notable of these consist of the live relay of
performances in public areas, discounted tickets for students and its daytime
access to free exhibitions and a terrace cafe. As the majority of interviewees
inside the flagship belong to the older age groups, these initiatives aim to engage
and nurture new audiences who may come to appreciate opera and ballet.
Furthermore, the Opera House is largely subsidised by public funds, which means
the institution has a social responsibility to deliver benefits to other sectors of the
246
nation aside from its core market. Active experiences for diverse audiences are
important for the development of cultural tourism markets (Smith, 2007a) and
they can be associated with the initiatives listed above as they not only entail a
passive experience of watching a show. They invite the user to play an active role
in the discovery of the Opera House, but it is up to the individual to explore these
opportunities, which depends directly on their level of cultural motivation and
inquisitive approach to a tourist experience of a precinct. The building’s subtle
physical presence prevents the area’s visitors from being aware of these
opportunities as noted by many interviewees. In this sense, potential new
audiences can be provided with welcoming feelings of belonging that might result
in novel markets for the appreciation of opera and ballet. But this task is faced
with the challenge of overcoming the building’s lack of visual appeal and these
potential markets’ reluctance to experience these art forms.
An Opera House may exert an influence over a visitor’s perception and

experience of place when it presents itself in a visually stimulating manner. In
addition to this stimulus, added facilities such as shops, cafes and terraces can
potentially engage the area’s visitors and embed the flagship as part of the overall
experience of an urban precinct. These added facilities are available for the wider
public’s use within the Opera House in Covent Garden. However, the wide
assortment of experiential opportunities in an environmentally clustered urban
precinct causes it to remain hidden from the area’s visitors’ reach. In a sense, this
is also part of its appeal to domestic and older visitors likely to seek culture, as
they regard it as one of those ‘hidden gems’ of Covent Garden that in a way,
delivers the area back to the nation and provides a space free of tourist activities.
On the other hand, audience development initiatives like the student stand by
scheme, the availability of day tickets, the house’s daytime openings, family and
school performances at reduced prices and a creative marketing approach for
example play a key role in the engagement of new markets that would further
strengthen a reciprocal and synergic relationship between Covent Garden and the
Opera House.
247
8.5. Conclusions
The apparent association between the interviewee’s socio demographic variables
with their perception and experience of the area acquires a complex, yet more
comprehensive dimension when it is understood as a process of cultural appraisal.
An individual’s personal background along with their previous experiences and
preferences leads them to perceive the area and the flagship from different
perspectives. Tourists perceive and evaluate areas and buildings differently
according to their background, which comprises their education, their age, their
class, their previous positive or negative exposure to places, artefacts and arts.
They are attracted to the familiar as it provides them with a sense of safety and
assurance, and to the unfamiliar as it excites their desire to learn and experience
the unknown, if such a longing exists. The tourists themselves are also central to
the understanding of the process of perception and experience of place. Not only
because of what they make of it, but also because they are an active and functional
part of it. They are a fundamental element in the area’s place making system as
they do not only gaze but perform like the street buskers and the singers at the
Opera House when they roam, applaud, eat, drink and interact with one another.
They represent simultaneously a nuisance and a source of reassurance, a blight
and an attraction. The area’s distinctive urban environment and the array of
activities that take place throughout its different locations accentuate the impact of
these processes, making of Covent Garden a peculiar and complex case study.
Areas for tourism may be formally constructed as grandiose and monumental by

presenting rigid structures to its visitors (for example, Trafalgar Square). Covent
Garden is characterised by the opposite. Its flexibility and plasticity allows for the
visitor to interpret it intrinsically. Its organic development, exacerbated by its
popularity and centrality, was not laid out to signify a specific meaning. The
Royal Opera House at its core is the ultimate example of how its different
elements mean and serve different functions to the diverse assortment of visitors
in the area. For some, it is the heart and soul of Covent Garden, the pinnacle of
high performing arts of the country and a highly regarded building and institution.
Whereas for others, it is a plain and subtle architectural artefact amidst the sights
248
and sounds of its vibrant Piazza. An Opera House, then, may acquire an iconic
status stimulating the visitor’s senses regardless of their appreciation for its
functionality as a venue for the performing arts in what can be understood as an
aural attraction to what is seen when it is meant to be primarily heard. In this case,
the Royal Opera House is an atypical icon as it relies on its historic significance
above its visual appearance, stimulating the area’s visitor’s senses in an
unconventional way. But the relationship between the area and the flagship is
strong because of its positive input into the visitor’s perception of London as a
destination for culture. However, this, and all processes explored throughout this
study are strictly subject to the individual’s cultural appraisal of object and place.
249
Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter 9
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research applied a qualitative methodology to understand how the Royal
Opera House in Covent Garden influences the area’s visitors’ perception and
experience of place. It resulted in extensive data that has been presented and
discussed in previous chapters. The objective of this concluding chapter is to
summarise these findings and their relationships and to make a critical reflection
on the methodological approach and scope for further research.
The research questions for the study were:
• What does the term ‘Covent Garden’ represent for the visitor?
• What motivates tourists to visit Covent Garden?
• How is a visit to Covent Garden experienced by the visitor?
• How is Covent Garden perceived by the visitor?
• How does the Royal Opera House influence the perception and experience
of Covent Garden?
The organisation and presentation in the evidence analysis chapter reflected this
structure. These findings and their subsequent discussion are tied in with each
other in this chapter, and applied to the research questions below.
9.1. What does the term ‘Covent Garden’ represent for the visitor?
The notion of ‘Covent Garden’ can be seen from different perspectives as the
place signifies and is signified by different elements interpreted by different
people. It has been identified, however, that the area can signify a concept, a
precinct or a flagship.
9.1.1. Covent Garden as a concept

First, it is important to consider the area’s ‘markers’ (MacCannell, 1999) to
understand what the area consists of in the view of the visitor. Elements of the
area providing strong visual stimuli to its visitors can ultimately represent the area
and signify what Covent Garden is. The market discussed below, can be seen as
the area’s commercial flagship building and deeply influences the visitor’s
perception of place due to its close association with the area as a whole because of
250
its name (Covent Garden Market) and its commercial function. Other markers in
the area are the Tube station, the Royal Opera House and even the street buskers
around the market which present images that are associated and paired up with the
area’s name. On the other hand, it is also important to note other literal
interpretations of this name. Some first time visitors indicated that they expected
not just a market, but a garden: a botanical space since the name suggests a green
area. This indicates that individuals tend to assign literal meanings to places due
to their names, which would be especially applicable to people who have no
previous experience or knowledge about the place. In relation to previous
exposure, the film My Fair Lady emerged in the data collected, indicating that it
can also be seen as an area marker, providing visitors and potential visitors with
images about the precinct as a place for commerce.
9.1.2. Covent Garden as a precinct

The fact that many visitors interviewed in the area’s peripheral locations were
unaware that they were in Covent Garden indicates that the precinct consists of a
series of sub-areas with different characteristics. Given the considerations in the
previous point, it is clear that the sub-area within the precinct that presents the
most distinctive characteristics of the area as a whole (such as street busking and
shopping) is the market place in the Piazza. Therefore, the understanding of the
area can be limited to the perception and experience of this central sub-area in the
view of some visitors. As discussed in further sections, the presence of street
entertainers that stimulate gatherings leading to social interactions, having an
impact on the tourist’s behaviour and providing a soundtrack for the area are all
pivotal place making elements. The fact that they are exclusive to the market
place area relates to the limited understanding of Covent Garden as confined to
this location. From a visual point of view, the market’s building proved to be a
powerful image that captures the attention of visitors who directly associate the
concept of the area with this image, and hence, with its function. The area’s
commercial ambience has been consistently identified as an important place
making element affecting the visitors’ perception and experience of place. This
indicates that the market place is the epitome of this phenomenon due to the
251
concentration of shops of different scales, which along with the provision of

eating and drinking facilities attract a variety of visitors. It should be noted,
however, that this in an open space surrounded by large scale buildings. There are
on the other hand, other sub-areas within the precinct that are characterised by
other urban features related to their smaller ‘village like’ scale. Some visitors
associate the notion of Covent Garden with narrow paths, cobbled streets and
independently owned shops. According to the visitors’ interpretation, then,
‘Covent Garden’ can signify different precincts.
9.1.3. Covent Garden as a flagship

Whilst the area is directly associated with the image and the function of the
market, which can also be seen as a flagship development for the area in terms of
its commercial function, some visitors limit the meaning of Covent Garden to the
Royal Opera House. These visitors tend to be older, domestic tourists with a keen
interest in opera and ballet. In this sense, previous exposure to the Opera House’s
work, artistic heritage and historical attachment to the area is pivotal to this
understanding of Covent Garden. The fact that the interviewees that hold this
view belong to the older age groups is explained by the understanding that this
exposure happens over a prolonged period of time and as the individual grows
older. This exposure is enhanced by the cultural proximity of domestic tourists
and rooted in their personal interest in these art forms. The Royal Opera House
was referred to as ‘part of our heritage’ by a domestic interviewee, indicating that
it can be seen as a cultural asset that engenders a sense of local pride amongst
some culturally proximate visitors. This perception often depends on their interest
in the Opera House’s cultural produce. On the other hand, another interviewee
referred to it as a ‘key thing to have’ in terms of its role on London’s cultural
portfolio, suggesting that regardless of the individual’s interest in opera or ballet,
it can still be perceived as a flagship institution symbolizing London’s cultural
vibrancy in the high arts arena.
252
9.2. Motivation to visit, experience and perception of place

The findings presented and discussed the proposed that Covent Garden’s place
making system can be related to the activities that take place in the area, its urban
characteristics and human based elements related to the area’s users, their
behaviour and interactions. In this sense, all of these elements motivate tourists to
visit the area and influence their perception and experience of place to different
extents. The close links between motivation to visit, perception and experience of
place indicate that these research questions can be addressed in this concluding
chapter through the understanding of four key elements. These are performance,
consumption in the area, the role played by relaxation and the influence of the
built environment. They are discussed below.
9.2.1. Performance
The area’s cultural sector in terms of performing arts attracts tourists who may
visit it exclusively for this purpose or are engaged by other experiential
opportunities whether deliberately or accidentally (Hughes, 2000). This exerts an
influence on the way the area is perceived by its visitors from different
perspectives. In the first instance, the architecture for performing arts along with
billboards throughout the area’s different locations visually strengthens its status
as an entertainment district. However, the presence of street entertainers around
the market place area has proved to exert a more complex influence on the manner
in which this precinct is perceived and experienced by the visitors interviewed. As
noted in the evidence analysis and further discussed in the previous chapter, these
street performers provide the precinct with a soundtrack that can be understood as
two aural layers. The first one stems from the entertainment itself; the music that
the performers produce influences the visitors’ perception of place, suggesting an
ambience of entertainment that can result in the attraction of tourists. As this is
accomplished, a second aural layer can be related to the sounds made by these
audiences, which acquire a fundamental role in the provision of street
entertainment. The sounds of cheering and clapping act as signifiers of
appreciation for street performance. From a more complex perspective, they also
engage visitors in communal rituals that create rapport between them and facilitate
253
a sense of belonging to these crowds and to the spectacle itself. It is also

interesting to note that even though these are communal activities, there is also a
lack of rigid behavioural codes which allows these audiences to engage in the
rituals freely, and to withdraw from them without fear of social disapproval. This
is a fundamental difference between attending a performance in a conventional
venue with such guidelines of conduct as opposed to street events (DiMaggio and
Usseem, 1978). Therefore, appreciation for the performing arts is not only
associated with the quality or nature of the cultural product, but with the
circumstances involved in the process of its consumption. This pattern of cultural
consumption is interactive and entertaining, and responds to novel forms of
cultural tourism that stimulate learning through entertainment and leisure
activities that focus on sensorial stimulation and active and inclusive experiences
(Smith, 2007a). The educational value of street entertainment, however, can be
contested from a performing arts perspective given the casual, light and popular
nature of the cultural product. But street performance can also be viewed as an
opportunity to experience Covent Garden’s cultural offer, which as noted in
chapter 5, has been characterized by the presence of popular entertainment
throughout history. Street busking, therefore, is as much a part of the area’s
heritage as the built environment is, not only because of its long standing presence
around the market place area but also because of the impact that it has the
communal behaviour manifested by the visitors of this central sub-area on the
precinct.
The phenomena discussed above constitute relevant findings related to the impact
of street entertainment in the visitors’ perception and experience of the case study
area. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that the provision of these popular
forms of entertainment are exclusive to the market place’s surroundings. This can
be linked to the limited perception of Covent Garden constituted by the Piazza,
the market place area, the tube station and other signifiers of place concentrated in
its central location. In this sense, street entertainers can also be understood as
these signifiers of place which provide visitors with considerable sensorial stimuli
that has an important influence on their perception of the area and of their
254
experience of place should they engage in the communal rituals mentioned before.
On the other hand, it is also important to note that the appreciation of these
popular art forms are determined by the individual’s preferences, which are
themselves underpinned by the mechanisms of cultural appraisal related to the
tourist’s background in terms of their nationality, age and previous exposure to
these art forms. McKercher’s (2002) views in relation to cultural distance plays a
fundamental role in this process as tourists are attracted to what they are familiar
with as much as they seek unfamiliar experiences. Street entertainment was also
consistently associated with pedestrian congestion and overcrowding by many
interviewees, which was noted as both a positive or negative attribute of this
central area. From a positive perspective, these audiences can be viewed as
expressions of the area’s vibrancy and cosmopolitan ambience providing cues of
behaviour that relate to relaxation and leisure. From a negative stance, they can be
seen as a result of the area’s popularisation and commercialization representing a
nuisance to visitors not interested in partaking in these activities. This can also be
associated with the tourist’s purpose of visit and likelihood to engage in other
activities as noted in the previous chapter.
9.2.2. Consumption
As in the case of performing arts, shopping and consumption of food and drink act
as key motivators attracting tourists to Covent Garden, engaging them in
commercial experiences and influencing their perception of place. As indicated
before, many interviewees relate the concept of Covent Garden to the market
place, which as noted above can also be understood as a flagship for the area. The
association between the area’s name and the market suggests that the area is
perceived as a place for commerce. This is also noted by the relationship between
the area and the main character (a flower vendor in this market) in the film My
Fair Lady, which is evident in some interviewees’ expectations of similar
commercial activity. Therefore, the commercial perspective by which the area can
be understood as a commercial precinct is related to the presence of the market
that presents the area’s visitors with visual stimulation through its distinctive
architecture and large scale. However, it should be noted that this commercial
255
perspective varied depending on the interviewing location, as many tourists

interviewed in peripheral locations indicated that they escaped the mainstream
Piazza because of the generic nature of its shops labelled in many cases as
‘touristy’ and ‘tacky’. This further supports the notion that a distinction should be
made between Covent Garden as a district and as a precinct in terms of its
commercial ambience. Covent Garden as a district is made up of different sub-
areas with distinctive commercial characteristics. The market place area can be
defined as the mainstream commercial precinct characterized by the presence of
the large scale Covent Garden Market. Due to the powerful visual stimuli that this
building presents to its visitors along with its heritage and attachment to the area
aided by media exposure, this structure could also be understood as a flagship
building. However, its flagship status is related to its function as a commercial
provider which as noted in the recommendations section of this chapter, provides
scope for further research.
On the other hand, the comparatively smaller in scale Neil’s Yard and Seven Dials
have also being praised by visitors for the consumption opportunities that they
provide. These smaller commercial sub-areas attract a different set of tourists that
seek detachment from the mainstream experience of Covent Garden as a place for
commerce. They reject the idea of being stereotyped as typical visitors that ‘tick
boxes’ as noted on a tourist guide and are preoccupied with individuality and
originality of the products they purchase.
The considerations above also apply to other economic activity. The presence of
shops and a vibrant cultural scene facilitated the attraction and establishment of
pubs, cafes and spaces for consumption of food and drink that motivate tourists to
visit the area, play pivotal roles in their experience of place and influence their
perception of Covent Garden. The area’s central location and the varied supply of
these establishments were consistently identified as positive attributes of place
that provide its visitors with spaces that not only serve the purpose of relaxation as
discussed in the next section, but also act as catalysts for socialisation that
contribute to the perceived ‘friendly’ nature of the area’s ambience. The night
256
time economy can result in public disturbance (Roberts, 2005), and this research
has shown that the case study area is no exception. However, Covent Garden’s
cultural vibrancy combined with its dynamic commercial sector makes many of
its visitors feel safe and provides suitable shopping and entertainment
opportunities that stimulate commercial trade whilst developing a sociable sense
of place based on consumption and social interaction. The provision of these
services and the presence of this infrastructure play an important role in the
acquisition of cultural capital as visitors from all over the world gather, engage in
communal rituals and interact to different extents within the same tourist precinct.
All this relates to Covent Garden’s perceived ‘continental’ and cosmopolitan
sense of place. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that these considerations are
also subject to place configuration as Covent Garden’s different sub-areas
accommodate infrastructure of different scale and carrying capacity. The open
surroundings of the market place area allow for users of cafes and pubs to spread
into the pedestrian streets which are in some cases taken by chairs and tables that
remind some visitors of similar continental precincts. This may be attractive
through both familiarity or unfamiliarity, depending on how cultural distance
effectively influences the visitors’ perception and experience of place. This is not
the case in smaller sub-areas such as St Martin’s Lane or Broad Court where the
streets are narrow and the scale of pubs and restaurants is smaller. In any case,
however, these businesses contribute in different ways to the area’s role as a place
for leisure that links to relaxation as discussed below.
9.2.3. Relaxation
As consistently noted in the evidence analysis and discussed in the previous
chapter, Covent Garden is perceived and experienced as a place for relaxation. Its
convenient location in central London in the immediate vicinity of other popular
areas for tourism along with the presence of infrastructure and services for leisure
and consumption lead to visitation both purposefully and serendipitously. The
absence of benches and seats throughout the area (with the exception of St Paul’s
Church) does not prevent visitors relaxing, since relaxing means more than sitting
down and resting. Relaxation is more complex because it is not associated with a
257
physical act but with an attitude and an approach to experiencing a precinct. The
area’s pedestrian streets prove to play a fundamental role in making the areas
seem relaxing, as they deliver the streets for the visitor’s free exploration. This
exploratory attitude to visiting the area is subject to the individual’s background
as discussed before considering that younger visitors are more likely to be driven
by the pursuit of quantity of experiences whereas older visitors are more
concerned with the quality of these experiences. This leads them to calmly
assimilate a precinct and explore it by means of roaming through its streets, which
has proved to be a vital behavioural consideration in the understanding of the
visitor’s experience of Covent Garden. It can be argued that this behavioural
pattern applies mostly to visitors that have gathered enough tourist experiences to
understand the importance of exploring a tourist precinct and discover its hidden
traits, qualities, experiential opportunities, character and heritage.
Roaming and exploring imply a slower pace of movement that has been
distinguished by interviewees of all ages as a distinctive characteristic of place,
indicating the pivotal role that visitors themselves play in the area’s place making
system. As indicated in the previous chapter, the notion of co-tourism is directly
applicable to this research as the interviewees’ perception and experience of place
was influenced, if not determined by the presence and attitudes of others. This
evidence suggests that the concept of the tourist’s performance in Covent Garden
is not only evident in their engagement in communal activities associated with the
appreciation of street entertainment. In addition, it is clear that the ‘infectious’
exploratory attitude to experiencing the precinct leads to unknowing imitation as
visitors who may be young and in a hurry lower their pace of movement as a
result of other visitors in the area doing so. Therefore, imitation and social
behavioural cues related to relaxation constitute a key element to understand the
perception and experience of place.
These phenomena lead to a strengthened cohesion between visitors that as in the

case of performing arts, provides them with a sense of belonging that can
potentially enhance their tourist experience. On the other hand, it is also important
258
to note that these considerations are as well subject to the perception and
experience of Covent Garden as different sub-areas. The market place area is
characterized by spatial configuration that allows for large gatherings of people
that experience relaxation either through street performance, the use of cafes and
pubs, window shopping or sitting down around the Piazza. This is not the case in
other adjacent areas where the streets are narrow and not pedestrian (Seven Dials
for example). This suggests that the market place area and its surroundings can be
seen as the most adequate settings that facilitate exploration as a way of
experiencing the area and to relaxing experiences. This is also suggested by the
higher concentration of eating and drinking facilities and spaces completely free
of vehicular traffic which many visitors use to sit and socialise as well. In relation
to this, the notion of ‘freedom’ acquires importance to the understanding of the
role of relaxation in the tourist’s perception and experience of place. Firstly,
freedom provided by the area’s pedestrian streets that allow visitors to roam,
explore and discover the precinct. Secondly, freedom from behavioural codes that
can potentially alienate or have a detrimental effect on the experience of visitors
seeking relaxation and leisure. Ironically, they embrace this freedom by
manifesting similar behavioural patterns which are evident in their communal
slower pace of movement and their exploratory means to experiencing the
precinct.
9.2.4. Built environment

Covent Garden’s attributes in terms of its built environment are as diverse as its
mixed land use and the array of tourists that it attracts. This entails that its
understanding as a precinct for tourism and culture acquires great complexity
considering the different thematic perspectives that can be applied to it as
discussed in chapter 3. From a built environment perspective, it is clear that the
peculiar urban settings related to the smaller scale of its buildings and cobbled
streets that speak of rich heritage can be perceived and interpreted as important
place making elements. These traits grant the precinct its status as a historic urban
core that presents its visitors with visual stimuli related to its authenticity and
meaning, leading to a distinctive sense of place. However, this process is subject
259
to divergent interpretations according to the mechanisms of cultural appraisal

developed above (Gospodini, 2001, 2002a) and subject to cultural distance
(McKercher, 2002) as visitors tend to evaluate the built environment according to
what they are used to and unfamiliar with. This process can be particularly noted
in domestic and culturally proximate visitors that perceive these features as
remnants of the past providing them with built heritage narratives that emphasize
the cultural value of their visit to Covent Garden (Graham, 2002). On the other
hand, many interviewees attributed the area’s distinctiveness to ‘the mix of the old
and the new’, not only referred to the variety of the area’s users but to the
conservation of historic architecture along with new developments. It should be
noted, however, that these developments apply an innovative approach to
conservation that aims to improve the area’s urban landscape by means of modern
developments inspired by historic architecture. Such is the case of the Opera
House’s domed Hamlyn hall resulting from its redevelopment along with the
market’s similar use of iron and glass structures and the more recent renovation of
the Transport Museum. This infrastructure presents strong images to the
precinct’s users which were interestingly associated with a sense of greenery,
reminding an interviewee of a greenhouse leading to the association between the
built environment and the area’s name. These associations and range of visual
stimuli can play pivotal roles in the visitors’ interpretation of the area’s
distinctiveness and sense of place. The built environment provides infrastructure
for shops, cafes, restaurants and other facilities that further enhance the attraction
of visitors due to its distinctive architecture and variety of uses. This infrastructure
is also used for cultural promotion in many cases. This is noted in the use of
exhibition spaces in the area now taken over by the world’s largest Apple store, its
designated spaces for street performance and the clustering of theatres within the
area. This strengthens the area’s creative ambience that leads to its current status
as a perceived place for arts and culture and responds to Landry’s (2000) views in
relation to the creative milieu. This ambience is associated with an adequate hard
infrastructure that accommodates soft infrastructure understood as the processes
and interactions involved in the production of culture as theatres and spaces for
creative endeavours serve as platforms for such purpose. The clustering of cultural
260
activity in the area and the built environment’s historical value and heritage
strengthen its identity and underpins its distinctive sense of place (Newman and
Smith, 2000).
9.3. The Royal Opera House’s influence on the perception and experience of
Covent Garden
The findings related to how the Opera House is perceived by the area’s visitors
clearly indicate that its physical presence does not exert an important influence on
Covent Garden’s perceived urban landscape. The redevelopment scheme
succeeded in providing it with a fresh façade by conserving its built heritage and
complementing it with innovative design that resulted in monumental architecture
that is not visible from the Piazza. If this attractive front was visible from the
market place, the area’s identity and perception as a place for tourism and culture
could change dramatically. The facade would be associated and used in media
along with the other popular images associated with the area (street entertainers
and the market for example). However, the images of the Corinthian columns and
the Victorian glass and iron Hamlyn Hall attached to the Opera House are used
independently and are detached from other elements associated with the area.
These physical considerations along with the perception of elitism and exclusivity
suggested by the Opera House’s name leads to the conclusion that there is a sense
of detachment between the flagship and the area. Covent Garden is perceived and
experienced as an open, popular place for leisure, relaxation and entertainment.
On the other hand, the Opera House is experienced by a selected group, does not
stimulate the Piazza’s visitors’ senses and is exclusive to those who know it is
there and visit it. This awareness, as established before, is the result of previous
exposure to different aspects of the Opera House such as its history, past or
present productions and the entertainers that have performed there. Therefore, a
visitor’s perception and experience of the area are likely to be influenced by the
presence of the Opera House provided that the visitor is aware of this presence
and assigns value to it. This value may not be necessarily linked to the act of
visiting the Opera House or a strong interest in its productions. It can also be
261
understood as option demand when tourists will not visit it or attend a

performance but appreciate the fact that it is there and that they have the option to
use it. On the other hand, it is important to consider that appreciation for the arts is
trained (DiMaggio and Useem, 1978) and that the Opera House is highly valued
by people who do appreciate its work. These people’s personal background has
underpinned this preference, which could be related to a variety of socio
demographic indicators. For example, exposure to high arts and culture from an
early age, or attendance to an opera or a ballet performance for financial reasons
considering the high cost of doing so leading to an association between this and
status and prestige. These considerations indicate that the Royal Opera House
does indeed play a flagship role in the performing arts arena as a provider of opera
or ballet of the highest quality, but does not act as a flagship for the area because
of its lack of visual appeal from the most visited locations, its perception as an
exclusive and elitist venue suggested by its royal title and the wide array of other
leisure and commercial opportunities available throughout the area.
Cultural flagships have been stereotyped as free standing buildings and are
associated with grandiose and monumental architecture. However, in this case, it
can be concluded that a monumental design can distract from the core activity of
an institution, diluting its role as a flagship supplier of culture. The Royal Opera
House’s quality of performance and status as one of the world’s most famous
Opera Houses was never contested by any interviewees who were not only aware
of its presence in the area but also had an interest in its work. They indicated that
they do not perceive the Opera House as an architectural artefact (Lefebvre,
1991), but it is its role as the country’s leading Opera House that underpins its
importance. Therefore, this study has concluded that powerful visual images
provided by flagship developments may enhance the projection of messages of
economic and cultural vibrancy (Wing Tai Wai, 2004), but in the case of Covent
Garden, it is the Opera House’s heritage and standards of quality in terms of its
productions that grants it flagship status. A flagship is, by definition, the leading
ship in a fleet of vessels, where the fleet’s commander is based and his flag is
waved. In this sense, the Royal Opera House is indeed a flagship institution as one
262
of the country’s most important providers of high performing arts. For people who
appreciate these art forms, it can even be interpreted as an iconic institution
because of its heritage and all the famous performers and performances that it
housed over centuries. However, none of these qualities are related to its
architecture or physical attributes. Although current research focuses on the visual
dimensions of a flagship development, its function and its role should not be
neglected. This is noted in the fact that this research has concluded that the Opera
House may exert a profound influence on a visitor’s perception and experience of
place, to the extent where some of them refer to the Opera House as Covent
Garden itself depending on their level of appreciation for opera and ballet and
their familiarity with the Opera House’s work. But this phenomenon does not hold
a link with the building’s outer appearance, but is directly associated with its
history, heritage, productions and performers.
9.4. Critical appraisal of methodology and limitations of the study

The adoption of a social constructivist approach to conduct this research still
stands as the most appropriate considering that it focused on how visitors perceive
and experience a place, which are individual processes that vary in each case.
However, other topics related to tourist activity in the area could have been
explored through quantitative data collection methods. For example, statistical
information could have been generated in terms of how many people visited the
area to attend a performance as opposed to shopping to establish a relation
between the different sectors that the area caters for. But exploring these issues
were not the overall aim of this study as much as there is potential to conduct
quantitative research in the area, which provides scope for further studies as
addressed in the next section. On the other hand, because this research explored
what Covent Garden represents for its visitors, a better inclusion of the notion of
image could have been introduced to the research design. By doing this, a more
innovative methodological framework could have been applied, such as photo
elicitation to understand how the area’s architecture and visual images exert an
influence on how its visitors perceive it.
263
The data analysis stage of this research was undertaken with the assistance of
qualitative data analysis software, which was used to organise, structure and
interpret the bulk of the interviews and identify themes and codes throughout their
content as indicated in Chapter 6. Whilst this harmonised effectively with the
approach chosen to analyse the information gathered, many potentially useful
functions of the software could have been considered in this stage in order to
present the findings in a more creative and exhaustive manner. For example, if the
chosen approach would have included counting the frequency of key words,
N*Vivo could have counted the most commonly used words in order to, for
example, assess which are the most popular images that visitors relate with the
area or the attractions that were most often mentioned as part of the interviewees’
tourist experience of London. More importantly, cross analyses would have been
feasible if the researcher had had a more thorough understanding of the software’s
variety of functions that allow for cross analysing data which would have made
provided more argument in the evidence analysis chapter. For example, it would
have been interesting to establish a more comprehensive contrast between the
experience of the area between different age groups according to their occupation
(for example, by exploring what activities are undertaken by visitors within the
40-49 age bracket in Seven Dials as opposed to the youngest age group in the
Piazza; or how a visitor’s gender and occupation influence their perception and
experience of the precinct). Therefore, a more thorough use of the software could
have been applied to analyse the data, considering that a high number of
interviews were conducted with a variety of visitors. Nevertheless, it is also
important to note that the bulk of this data provides scope for further research, and
that the present thesis is subject to a limit in length.
Semi-structured interviews have proved to be an effective means of capturing

qualitative data to inform tourism studies of this nature. However, it is clear that
the heterogenic nature of the interviews conducted heavily impaired the ability of
comparing them. Some interviews were short as the visitors recruited provided
very brief answers to the questions and did not respond well to further probing. In
these cases, and as noted above, capturing data through questionnaires would have
264
allowed for generating statistical information to complement data of a qualitative

nature. On the other hand, other interviewees were willing to talk at length and
responded effectively to probing questions leading to longer interviews that were
more substantial in terms of their dialectic content. Although all interviews were
given equal weight during the initial coding stage, the longer interviews
effectively illustrated the findings in the evidence analysis chapter better.
However, the interviewees that did not respond well to the semi-structured
interviews had the potential of further informing this research if a quantitative
data collection method had been applied
Another limitation of this study, and as mentioned in the Methodology chapter, is

that temporary migrants such as students were recruited as interviewees regardless
of the length of their stay in the country because of their willingness to participate
in the study and the potential contribution that the data provided by them in terms
of age and cultural distance would have made. Nevertheless, many of these
students do not fall under the tourist category as defined by the UNWTO (see
footnote, page 137). Therefore, a student’s suitability to participate in a cross
cultural study of this nature should be evaluated in terms of how long they have
been in the country regardless of the fact that many of them behave in touristic
ways.
Finally, and as noted in the methodology chapter as well, it is important to

acknowledge that the use of field notes was limited because they were brief in
content and had a summarising function for each interview, rather than an
analytical one. They could have been used in a more organised manner that could
have potentially helped the researcher develop the initial set of categories
following a more systematic approach. However, and as reflected in the examples
presented in Appendix C, these memos were only used to record initial views and
highlight important points from each interview, and their use was limited
throughout the coding stage. In this sense, field notes as complementary sources
of data could have informed the research better.
265
9.5. Scope for further research

As indicated above, the area’s popularity and high levels of visitation would allow
for future quantitative research efforts that could aim to generate statistical data
related to tourist activity such as shopping, attendance to theatre, consumption of
food and drink and a more detailed analysis of the area’s visitors’ socio
demographic indicators. The findings of this research indicate that appreciation
for the performing arts is learned and subject to a series of factors related to the
individual’s background. This suggests that there is scope for a deeper
understanding of how an individual’s level of education, occupation, income,
nationality and family background effectively influences his or her interest in the
arts. This would also allow for further studies focusing on what types of arts are
sought by which groups of people and how they affect social construction of
place, which would also enhance the understanding of audience development
initiatives and how effective they are in attracting new audiences for certain art
forms.
This research has also revealed that the area’s name lead many individuals to
expect a green area in Covent Garden, and that the Opera House’s name suggests
monumental architecture and elitism due to its Royal status. This indicates that
there is scope for exploring the influence that an area’s or an institution’s name
exerts on the tourist’s perception of place and object. This can also be related to
language considerations as this has been basically, a bilingual study throughout
the data collection stage, and the potential influence that the words ‘royal’ or
‘garden’ may have had on some interviewees could have been related to their
native tongue. In relation to this, the fact that only 16% of the interviews was
conducted in Spanish does not affect the bilingual nature of the study, as the
majority of tourists that were interviewed in the area were of European origin and
therefore, many of them spoke a second language throughout the data collection
stage.
It is also recommended that similar studies are conducted to understand the

perception and experience of other well established precincts and flagships for
266
tourism and culture. Existing literature tends to focus on novel developments and
areas, but it appears that the long standing precinct and historical cultural
attractions are neglected by current research practice. Considering London’s
strong cultural sector that has a wide array of historical attractions in its tourism
portfolio, usually located in urban areas, future studies should aim to understand
how these attractions interact and effectively influence the area’s perception and
experience by tourists. Other flagship developments in London’s urban landscape
such as the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square invite further research in terms of
how the spaces around it are constructed by the individual and the interactions
between the built environment and the social dimensions that these spaces acquire
because of the tourists that visit it. The National Theatre is also a flagship
development of interest because of its waterfront based location in London’s
Southbank, suggesting that research efforts could be made to assess how visitors
use the precinct and contrast the presence of this landmark building with other
developments that shape the urban landscape such as the nearby London Eye and
Houses of Parliament for example. Another research trend of interest is that of
former industrial facilities converted into spaces for culture. This has been the
case with London’s Tate Modern, suggesting that further studies could focus on
this flagship development and how its status as a converted industrial site plays a
role in the attraction of visitors.
The case of the Royal Albert Hall was also raised as a case study of interest
because despite its free standing location and grandiose architecture, some
interviewees have noted that its functionality as a music venue is subject to
limitations due to its oval structure that is not ideal in terms of acoustics. In this
sense, it is suggested that future research should focus on the visual appeal of
flagship developments in contrast with the flagship’s function. This can also be
related to the fact that many sightseeing tourists experience the Royal Albert Hall
from the outside and as an architectural artefact, but its actual function is not part
of their experience. Conversely, the Royal Opera House lacks the visual appeal
that the Royal Albert Hall has and is not perceived as an attractive visual asset for
Covent Garden’s built environment, but its cultural productions are highly
267
regarded by those interested in them. Therefore, a flagship’s function should also

be considered by further studies to understand how it influences an area’s visitors’
perception and experience of place. Research on the tourist’s experience of
flagship developments should focus on the nature of these experiences as this
study has focused on a venue for the performing arts, which provides passive
experiences to users who pay for them. On the other hand, other cultural flagships
such as the British Museum and the Tate Modern are free and allow for more
interaction between object, place and user. Therefore, there is scope for further
evaluation of the processes involved in arts consumption.
9.6. Encore
The process of establishing a suitable theoretical framework to conduct this
research, the adoption of a social constructivist approach to address the overall
aim and research questions along with the data collection stage that led to 306
semi-structured interviews which were thoroughly analysed and discussed
generated a variety of findings related to how tourists perceive and experience
urban precincts for tourism and culture and how a flagship development can exert
a role in these processes. The complexity of the case study is related to its rich
heritage and status as a world renowned provider of culture and this study has
revealed that flagship status can be acquired through monumental architecture.
However, it is clear that the understanding of this concept is also related to the
institution’s name and quality of cultural produce, which are areas that have been
under researched and provide scope for further studies as addressed above.
Elements of a destination that act as catalysts for tourism then, whether its an area
or an attraction, should be understood not only from their physical or functional
characteristics. They are concepts that are complex to understand because they are
determined by many aspects about them which are given different interpretations
by every individual, which is a process that is in itself determined by the tourist’s
background. This background is related to their nationality, their age, their
exposure to media, their previous experiences, personal preferences and a large
number of variables that make them unique tourists and make the task of
268
understanding their perceptions and experiences so complex. It is evident

however, that these processes can be influenced by for example, developing a
stand alone cultural flagship with distinctive architecture that shapes a
destination’s tourist landscape. Or, as evidenced by this study, by implementing
social inclusion initiatives that aim to introduce potential new audiences to a
cultural institution’s work and by these means, drawing attention to it. In this
sense, the social dimension of urban spaces acquires great importance because not
only are these places perceived and experienced in different ways depending on
the individual’s background, but these individuals construct these spaces as well,
and influence each other’s perception and experience of place by providing each
other with behavioural codes and granting the area with a distinctive ambience.
The task of understanding the bond between a flagship development and the area
where it is set is more complex in urban precincts that developed organically over
extended periods of time and that were not planned as such. In this sense, this type
of precincts and well established cultural flagships should be explored by taking
into consideration the processes that led to their current status as popular areas for
tourism and culture. Chapter 5 of this thesis provided an overview of the area’s
evolution and highlighted the relationship between its commercial and cultural
sectors, which strengthened the researcher’s understanding of the case study area
and flagship along with their relationship. Hence, it is not only the tourist’s inner
processes of interpretation that should be explored, but a comprehensive
evaluation of the area’s evolution as a precinct for tourism consistently reinforced
the researcher’s approach to understanding the connection between Covent
Garden and the Royal Opera House.
Although subject to a series of methodological limitations as indicated in previous

sections, this study has made a thorough analysis on a complex case study which
lead to an understanding of how the Royal Opera House effectively influences the
perception and experience of cultural tourism in Covent Garden, which is an area
characterised by the provision of popular forms of art, high levels of commercial
activity and distinctive architecture, adding on to the challenge of exploring the
269
relationship between these elements. Considering that the well established urban
precinct and long standing cultural flagship tend to be under researched by
tourism studies that focus on planned tourist areas and novel flagship
developments, this work has addressed a relevant area that plays an important role
in London’s status as a destination for urban cultural tourism. The findings that
stemmed from these efforts are of a complex nature but the researcher’s ultimate
goal has been achieved, not only as the overall aim and research questions
determined for the study have all been addressed, but also because of his personal
interest in understanding the significance of the Royal Opera House to London, to
others, and to himself.
270
Sources and Bibliography Chapter 10
10. SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Aldous T., (1992). Urban Villages: A Concept for Creating Mixed Use
Urban Developments on a Sustainable Scale. London: Urban Villages
Group
- Allen M., (1998). A House Divided: The Diary of a Chief Executive of the
Royal Opera House. London: Simon and Schuster
- Anson B., (1981). I’ll Fight you for it: Behind the Struggle for Covent
Garden. London: Cape
- Arkette S., (2004). Sounds Like City. Theory, Culture & Society, Volume
21 Number 1. Pages 159-168
- Arkley H. and Knight P, (1999). Interviewing for Social Scientists.

London: SAGE
- Arksey H. and Knight H., (1999). Interviewing for Social Scientists.

London: SAGE
- Ashworth G. and Tunbridge J., (2000). The Tourist-Historic City:

Retrospect and Prospect of Managing the Heritage City. Oxford:
Pergamon
- Babbie E., (2004). The Practice of Social Research. London: Thomson

Wadsworth
- Barton L., (2008). I’m a Rock Chick, Get Me Out of Here. Guardian. 02
September 2008. Pages 23-25
- Bauer M. and Gaskell G., (2000). Qualitative Researching: with Text,

Image and Sound, A Practical Handbook. London: Sage
- British Broadcasting Corporation, (1999). The Official BBC Guide to the

Reopening of the Royal Opera House. London: BBC
- Beauvert T., (1996). Opera Houses of the World. London: Thames and
Hudson
- Belfiore E., (2002). Arts as a means of alleviating social exclusion: Does it

really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies and social impact
studies in the UK. International Journal of Cultural Policy. Volume 8:1.
Pages 91-106
- Bell D. and Jayne M., (2004). City of Quarters: Urban Villages in the
Contemporary City. Hants: Ashgate
271
- Beech, J. and Chadwick, S., (2006). The Business of Tourism

Management. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall
- Berkley B. and Thayer J., (2000). Policing Entertainment Districts.

Journal of Policing Strategies and Management. Volume 43 Number.
Pages 466-491
- Binnie J. Holloway J. Millington S. and Young C., (2006). Cosmopolitan

Urbanism, Oxon: Routledge
- Boniface P., (1995). Managing Quality Cultural Tourism. London:

Routledge
- Boniface B. and Cooper C., (2005). Worldwide Destinations: The

Geography of Travel and Tourism. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann
- Bowden J., (2003). A Cross-National Analysis of International Tourist

Flows in China. Tourism Geographies. Volume 5 Issue 3. Pages 257-279.
- Boylan P., (1992). Museums 2000: Politics, People, Professionals and

Profit. London: Routledge
- Brooks A., (2001). Who Opposes Government Art Funding? Public

Choice. Volume 108 Numbers 3-4. Pages. 355-367
- Bryman A., (2004). Social Research Methods. Second Edition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press
- Bull D., (1999). Dancing Away: A Covent Garden Diary. London:

Methuen
- Burns N., (2009). Foreword. Success and Foreboding: The Report of the
Society of London Theatre 2009. [online] Available from:
<http://www.solt.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/reports/2009-annual-report.pdf>
[Accessed: 20 Nov 2010]
- Burrows D., (2008). Transforming and Adapting: Handel at the London

Stage. Paper presented at John Rich and the Eighteenth-Century London
Stage: Commerce, Magic and Management Conference. London: 25 Jan
2008
- Burton R., (1995). Travel Geography. Second Edition. London: Pitman

Publishing
- Cambie S., (2009). Iconic Buildings and Tourism: Where to Next?.

Tourism Insights. Volume 2 Issue 2. Pages 115-120
272
- Canniffe E., (2006). Urban Ethic: Design in the Contemporary City.

Oxon: Routledge
- Cartier C. and Lew A., (2005). Seductions of Place: Geographical

Perspectives on Globalization and Touristed Landscapes. Oxon:
Routledge
- Casey B., Dunlop R. and Selwood S., (1996). Culture as Commodity? The
Economics of the Arts and Built Heritage in the UK. London: PSI
- Caves R., (2000). Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and

Commerce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
- Cathcart Borer M., (1967). Covent Garden. London: Abelard Schuman
- Cirrincione A. and Pace S., (2005). How Museum’s Brand Name Affect the
Perception Through Imaginative Experience: An Empirical Investigation.
Bocconi University. 8th International Conference on Arts and Cultural
Management. July 3-6. Montréal, Canada
- City of Westminster, (2007). The West End Debate: Defining the West
End Brand. London: Westminster City Council
- Colbert F., (2003). The Sydney Opera House: An Australian Icon.

International Journal of Arts Management. Volume 5 Number 2. Pages 69-
77
- Connell J. and Lowe A., (1997). Generating Grounded Theory from

Qualitative Data: The Application of Inductive Methods in Tourism and
Hospitality Management Research. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality
Research. Volume 3. Pages 165-173
- Covent Garden Life, (2008). Map of Covent Garden. [online image]

Available from: <http://www.covent-
garden.co.uk/images/lndscpTube.jpg> [Accessed: 25 November 2008]
- Covent Garden Life, (2007). History. [online] Available from:

<http://www.coventgardenlife.com/info/history.htm> [Accessed: 05 Feb
2008]
- Covent Garden Area Trust (1997). Environmental Study of Central Covent

Garden. London
- Crotty M., (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and

Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage
- Crosby T., (1970). The Necessary Monument. London: Studio Vista
273
- Crowley D., (2003). Warsaw. London: Reaktion
- Cryer A., (2007). Editorial. Tourism: The Journal for the Tourism
Industry. The Tourism Society. Quarter 1 Issue 131. Page 3
- Dann G., (2002). The Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World. London:
CABI
- Darlington Y. and Scott D., (2002). Qualitative Research in practice:
Stories from the Field. Buckingham: Open University Press
- Davidson R. and Maitland R., (1997). Tourism Destinations. London:

Hodder and Stoughton
- De Botton A., (2002). The Art of Travel. London: Penguin Books
- De Botton A., (2006). The Architecture of Happiness. London: Penguin

Books
- Delanty G., (2005). Social Science. Second Edition. Berkshire: McGraw

Hill
- Denlinger E., (2002). The Garment and the Man: Masculine Desire in
Harris's List of Covent-Garden Ladies, 1764-1793. Journal of the History
of Sexuality. Volume 11 Number 3. Pages 357-394
- Denscombe M., (2007). The Good Research Guide. Buckingham: Open

University Press
- Denzin N. and Lincoln Y., (2003). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative

Materials. Second Edition. London: Sage
- Denzin N. and Lincoln Y., (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative

Research. Third Edition. London: Sage
- Dexter Lord G. and Lord B., (1998). The Manual of Museum Planning.
Second Edition. London: The Stationery Office
- Dey I., (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: A user Friendly Guide for
Social Scientists. London: Routeledge
- DiMaggio P. and Useem M., (1978). Social Class and Arts Consumption:
The Origins and Consequences of Class: Differences in Exposure to the
Arts in America. Theory and Society. Volume 5 Number. 2. Pages 141-
161
- Dorling Kindersley (1999). Covent Garden and the Royal Opera House.
London: DK Travel Guides
274
- Duncan D., (2000). 'London the Ring, Covent Garden the Jewel of that
Ring': New Light on Covent Garden. Architectural History, Volume 43.
Pages 140-161
- Edensor T., (2001). Performing Tourism, Staging Tourism: (Re)producing

Tourist Space and Practice. Tourist Studies. Volume 1 Number 1. Pages
59-81
- Edensor T., (1998). Tourists at the Taj. London: Routledge

- Eisinger P., (2000). The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City
for the Visitor Class. Urban Affairs Review. Volume 35 Number 3. Pages
316-333
- Evans G., (2003). Hard-branding the Cultural City - from Prado to Prada
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Volume 27
Number 2. Pages 417–440
- Fernie J., Moore C., Lawrie A. and Hallsworth A., (1997). The
Internationalization of the High Fashion Brand: the Case of Central
London. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Volume 6 Issue 3.
Pages 151 - 162
- Finn M.., Elliot-White M. and Walton M., (2000). Tourism and Leisure
Research Methods: Data Collection, Analysis and Interpretation. Essex:
Pearson Education
- Flick U., (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Second Edition.

London: Sage
- Foot J., (2001). Milan Since the Miracle: City, Culture and Identity.
Oxford:Berg
- Franck K. And Stevens Q., (2007). Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity
in Urban Life. London: Routledge
- Gibson C. and Connell, J., (2005). Music and Tourism: On the Road
Again. Clevedon: Channel View Publications
- Glancey J., (2001). London: Bread and Circuses. London: Verso
- Glasson J., Godfrey K. and Goodey B., (1995). Towards Visitor Impact
Management: Visitor Impacts, Carrying Capacity and Management,
Responses in Europe’s Historic Towns and Cities. Avebury: Hants
- Goeldner C. and Ritchie B., (2003). Tourism: Principles, Practices,

Philosophies. Ninth Edition. New Jersey: Wiley
- Gorst T., (1995). The Buildings Around Us. London: Chapman and Hall
275
- Gospodini A., (2004). Urban Morphology and Place Identity in European

Cities: Built Heritage and Innovative Design. Journal of Urban Design.
Volume 9 Number 2. Pages 225-248
- Gospodini A., (2002a). European Cities and Place Identity. Discussion

Paper Series. Volume 8 Number 2. Pages 19-36
- Gospodini A., (2002b). European Cities in Competition and the New

‘Uses’ of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design. Volume 7 Number 1.
Pages 59–73
- Gospodini A., (2001). Urban Design, Urban Space Morphology, Urban

Tourism: An Emerging New Paradigm Concerning Their Relationship.
European Planning Studies. Volume 9 Number 7. Pages 925-934
- Graham B., (2002). Heritage as Knowledge: Capital or Culture?. Urban

Studies. Volume 39 Number 5. Pages 1003-1017
- Greater London Council (1970a). Covent Garden: Written Statement.

London
- Greater London Council (1970b). Covent Garden: Explanatory Statement.

London
- Grodach, C., (2008a). 'Museums as Urban Catalysts: The Role of Urban

Design in Flagship Cultural Development', Journal of Urban Design,
Volume 13 Number 2. Pages 195 — 212
- Grodach C., (2008b). Looking Beyond Image and Tourism: The Role of
Flagship Cultural Projects in Local Arts Development. Planning, Practice
and Research. Volume 23 Number 4. Pages 495-516
- Guba E., (1990). The Paradigm Dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
- Hall C. and Jenkins J., (1995). Tourism and Public Policy. London:
Routeledge
- Hall P., (1997). Modelling the Post-Industrial City. Futures. Volume 29

Number 415. Pages 311-322
- Hall I. and Hall D., (2004). Evaluation and Social Research: Introducing
Small-Scale Practice. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan
- Ham R., (1987). Theatres: Planning Guidance for Design and Adaptation.
London: Architectural Press
276
- Handler R. and Gable E., (1997). The New History in an Old Museum:
Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg. Durham: Duke University
Press
- Harriss J., (1975). The Eiffel Tower: Symbol of an Age. London: Elek
- Harvey D. and Lorenzen J., (2006). Signifying Practices and the Co-
tourist. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism.
- Hayllar B., Griffin T. and Edwards D., (2008). City Spaces Tourist Places:
Urban Tourism Precincts. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
- Hayllar B. and Griffin T., (2005). The Precinct Experience: A
Phenomenological Approach. Tourism Management. Volume 26. Pages
517-528
- Hearst M. and Rosner D., (2008). Tag Clouds: Data Analysis Tool or
Social Signaller?. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences
- Heilbrun J. and Gray C., (2001). The Economics of Art and Culture.
Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Hoffman L., Fainstein S. and Judd D., (2003). Cities and Visitors:
Regulating People, Markets and City Space. Oxford:Blackwell
- Hofseth M., (2008). The New Opera House in Oslo: A Boost for Urban
Development?, Urban Research and Practice. Volume 1 Number1. Pages
101 — 103
- Hollinshead K. (2004). A premier ontological craft. In Phillimore J. and

Goodson L. (2004). Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies,
Epistemologies and Methodologies. London: Routledge.
- Hughes H., (2000). Arts, Entertainment and Tourism. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann
- Hughes H., (1998). Theatre in London and the Inter-relationship with

Tourism. Tourism Management. Volume 19 Issue 5. Pages 445-452
- Hume R., (2008). John Rich as Entrepreneur and Manager Paper presented
at John Rich and the Eighteenth-Century London Stage: Commerce,
Magic and Management Conference. London: 25 Jan 2008
- Hume R., (1982). The Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. A Series of
Articles to Mark the 250th Anniversary. Covent Garden Theatre in 1732.
The Musical Times, Volume 123 Number. 16782. Pages 823-826
277
- In and Around Covent Garden (2007). Way Forward 2007. Nov 2007
issue. Page 26
- Isaacs J., (1999). Never Mind the Moon. London: Bantam Press
- Jack I., (1999). London: The Lives of the City. London: Penguin Books
- Jencks C., (2006). The Iconic Building is Here to Stay. City. Volume 10
- Jenkins O., (1999). Understanding and Measuring Tourist Destination

Images. International Journal of Tourism Research. Volume 1. Pages 1-15
- Jennings G., (2001). Tourism Research. Milton: Wiley
- Judd D., (2003). The Infrastructure of Play: Building the Tourist City.
New York: ME Sharpe
- Judd D. and Fainstein S., (1999). The Tourist City. London: Yale
- Jussim L., (1991). Social Perception and Social Reality: A Reflection-

Construction Model. Psychological Review. Volume 98 Number 1. Pages
54-73
- Kawashima N., (2006). Audience Development and Social Inclusion in

Britain. International Journal of Cultural Policy. Volume 12:1. Pages 55-
72
- Kelly G., (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York:

Norton
- Kerr, J., (2003). London: From Punk to Blair. London: Reaktion
- Kliczkowski H., (2003). Guggenheim. Barcelona: Loft
- Kushner R. and Brooks A., (2000). The One-Man Band by the Quick
Lunch Stand: Modeling Audience Response to Street Performance.
Journal of Cultural Economics. Volume 24. Pages 65–77
- Landry C., (2000). The Creative City: A Toolkit for City Innovators.
London: Comedia
- Larsen S., (2007). Aspects of a Psychology of the Tourist Experience.

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. Volume 7. Pages 7-18
- Latham I. and Swenarton A., (2002). Dixon Jones: Buildings and Projects
1959-2002. London: Right Angle Publishing
278
- Law C., (2002). Urban Tourism: The Visitor Economy and Growth of
Large Cities. Second Edition. London: Continuum
- Lebrecht N., (2000). Covent Garden: The Untold Story. Dispatches from
the English Culture War 1945-2000. London: Simon and Schuster
- Lemos G., (1998). Urban Village: Global City: The Regeneration of

Colville 1993-1998. London: Colville
- Lengkeek J., (2001). Leisure Experience and Imagination: Rethinking

Cohen’s Models of Tourist Experience. International Sociology. Volume
16. Pages 173-184
- Lefebvre H., (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell
- Liamputtong P. and Ezzy D., (2005). Qualitative Research Methods.

Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
- London Development Agency (2009). London Visitor Survey. Annual

Report 2008 January – December. [online] Available from:
<http://www.lda.gov.uk/Documents/London_Visitor_Survey_Annual_Rep
ort_2008_8202.pdf> [Accessed 17 July 2009]
- London Development Agency, (2008). London: A Cultural Audit. [online]

Available from: <http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/culture/docs/cultural-
audit.pdf> [Accessed 2 June 2007]
- Lopez G., Figueroa M., Connor S., and Maliski S., (2008). Translation
Barriers in Conducting Qualitative Research with Spanish Speaking
Speakers. Qualitative Health Research. Volume 18 Number 12. Pages
1729-1737
- Lopez-Bonilla J. and Lopez-Bonilla L., (2008). Measuring Social Carrying

Capacity: An Exploratory Study. Tourismos: An International
Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism. Volume 3 Number 1. Pages 116-
134
- Love A., (2007). Impact of Cultural Attractions on Tourism. Tourism: The

Journal for the Tourism Industry. The Tourism Society. Quarter 1 Issue
131. Page 11
- MacCannell D., (1999). The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class.
London: University of California Press
- Madge C. and Willmott P., (1981). Inner City Poverty in Paris and
London. Surrey: Routeledge and Kegan Paul
279
- Maitland R. and Ritchie B., (2009). City Tourism: National Capital

Perspectives. London: CABI
- Maitland, R. (2008). Conviviality and Everyday Life: the Appeal of New

Areas of London for Visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research.
Volume 10 Issue 1. Pages 15-25
- Maitland R. (2007). Cultural Tourism and the Development of New

Tourism Areas in London, in Richards G. (ed.). Cultural Tourism. The
Haworth Press
- Maitland R. and Newman P. (2007). Visitor-Host relationships:

Conviviality Between Visitors and Host Communities. In Hayllar B.
Griffin T. Edwards D. City spaces - Tourist Places: Urban Tourism
Precincts. Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann
- Maitland R. (2006). Culture, City Users and the Creation of New Tourism
areas in Smith M. K. Cities, in Tourism, culture, and regeneration. CAB
International
- Maitland R. and Newman P. (2004). Developing Metropolitan Tourism on

the Fringe of Central London. International Journal of Tourism Research.
- Maitland R. (1997). Cities, Tourism and Mixed Uses. In Coupland, A.

(ed.). Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development. London: Taylor &
Francis Routledge
- Marshall C. and Rossman G., (2006). Designing Qualitative Research.

Fourth Edition. London: Sage
- Massey D., (2007). World City. Cambridge: Polity
- May T., (2002). Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage
- Mayor of London, (2003). London – Cultural capital – Realising the

Potential of a World Class City. London: Greater London Authority City
Hall
- McCarthy J., (2006). 'Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for

Place Image or Place Identity?'. Journal of Urban Design. Volume 11
Number 2. Pages 243 – 262
- McCarthy J., (1998). Dublin’s Temple Bar: A Case Study of Culture-led

Regeneration. European Planning Studies. Volume 6 Number 3. Pages
271-281
280
- McKercher B., Ho P., DuCros H. and Chow So-Ming B., (2002).

Activities Based Segmentation of the Cultural Tourism Market. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing. Volume 12 Number 1. Pages 23-46
- McKercher B., (2002). Towards a Classification of Cultural Tourists.

International Journal of Tourism Research. Volume 4. Pages 29-38
- McKercher B. and Chow So-Ming B., (2001). Cultural Distance and

Participation in Cultural Tourism. Pacific Tourism Review. Volume 5
- McKercher B. and Du Cros H., (2003). Testing a Cultural Tourism

Typology. International Journal of Tourism Research. Volume 5. Pages
45-58
- McKercher B., (1996). Difference Between Tourism and Recreation in

Parks. Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 23 Number 3. Pages 563-575
- McNeill D. and Tewdwr-Jones M., (2003). Architecture, Banal
Nationalism and Re-territorialization. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research. Volume 27 Number 3. Pages 738-743
- Miles S. and Paddison R., (2005). Introduction: The Rise and Rise of
Culture-led Urban Regeneration. Urban Studies. Volume 42 Number 5.
Pages 833 – 839
- Minca C. and Oakes T., (2006). Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism.

Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
- Mommaas, H., (2004) 'Cultural Clusters and the Post-industrial City:

Towards the Remapping of Urban Cultural Policy'. Urban Studies.
Volume 41 Number 3. Pages 507 – 532
- Montgomery, J., (2003). 'Cultural Quarters as Mechanisms for Urban

Regeneration. Part 1: Conceptualising Cultural Quarters'. Planning
Practice and Research. Volume 18 Number 4. Pages 293 – 306
- Montgomery J., (1995). The Story of Temple Bar: Creating Dublin’s

Cultural Quarter. Planning Practice and Research. Volume 10 Number 2.
Pages 135- 172
- Mosse K., (1995). The House: Inside the Royal Opera House, Covent
Garden. London: BBC Books
- Mulryne R. and Shewring M., (1995). Making Space for Theatre: British
Architecture and Theatre since 1958. Warwickshire: Mulryne and
Shewring
281
- Myerscough J., (1988). The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain.

London: PSI
- Newman P. and Smith I., (2000). Cultural Production, Place and Politics
on the South Bank of the Thames. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research. Volume 24 Number 1. Pages 9-24
- Nichols Clark T., (2004). The City as an Entertainment Machine. Oxford:

Elsevier
- Norman J., (2007). Tour Eiffel et souvenirs de Paris. Le Mond. 288
- Palen J. and London B., (1984). Gentrification, Displacement and

Neighbourhood Revitalization. New York: State University of New York
Press
- Parker S., (1976). The Sociology of Leisure. Plymouth: George Allen &
Unwin
- Parsons D., (2003). A Cultural History of Madrid: Modernism and the

Urban Spectacle. Oxford: Berg
- Pearce D., (1998). Tourism Districts in Paris: Structure and Functions.

Tourism Management. Volume 19 Number 1. Pages 49-65
- Perkins H. and Thorns H., (2001). Gazing or Performing? Reflections on

Urry’s Tourist Gaze in the Context of Contemporary Experience in the
Antipodes. International Sociology. Volume 16 Number 2. Pages 185–
204.
- Phelps R. Fisher K. and Ellis A., (2007). Organizing and Managing your
Research; A Practical Guide for Postgraduates. London: SAGE
- Phillimore J. and Goodson L., (2004). Qualitative Research in Tourism:

Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies. London: Routeledge
- Physick J., (1982). The Victoria and Albert Museum: The History of its
Building. Oxford: Phaidon
- Pine J. and Gilmore J., (1999). The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre
and Every Business is a Stage. Boston: HBS Press
- Plaza B., (2000a). Evaluating the Influence of a Large Cultural Artefact in

the Attraction of Tourism: The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Case. Urban
Affairs Review. Volume 36 Number 2. Pages 264-274
282
- Plaza B., (2000b). Guggenheim Museum’s Effectiveness to Attract

Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. Volume 27 Number 4. Pages 1055-
1058
- Pocock D. and Hudson R., (1978). Images of the Urban Environment.

London: MacMillan
- Pulman J., (2007). The Importance of World Heritage Status for the
Jurassic Coast. Tourism: The Journal for the Tourism Industry. The
Tourism Society. Quarter 1 Issue 131. Pages 8-9
- Quinn Patton M., (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods.

London: Sage
- Rains S., (1999). Touring Temple Bar: Cultural Tourism in Dublin’s

Cultural Quarter. International Journal of Cultural Policy. Volume 6
- Rasmussen S., (1991). London: The Unique City. London: MIT Press
- Reavill L., (2000). Can Viable Systems Modelling Explain the

Management Problems of London’s Royal Opera House? Conference
Paper. First International Conference on Systems Thinking in
Management. Geelong, Australia, November 8-10, 2000
- Richards G., (2007). Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives.

New York: Haworth Hospitality Press
- Richards G., (2001). Cultural Attractions and European Tourism. Oxon:

CABI
- Richards G., (1996a). Production and Consumption of European Cultural

Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 23 Number 2. Pages 261-
283
- Richards G., (1996b). Cultural Tourism in Europe. Oxon: CABI
- Richardson J. and Fluker M., (2004). Understanding and Managing

Tourism. Frenchs Forest: Pearson
- Richardson J., (1995). Covent Garden Past. London: Historical

Publications
- Roberts M., Turner C., Greenfield S. and Osborn G., (2006). A

Continental Ambience? Lessons in Managing Alcohol-related Evening
and Night-time Entertainment from Four European Capitals. Urban
Studies. Volume 43 Number 7. Pages 1105-1125
283
- Roberts M. and Turner C., (2005). Conflicts of Liveability in the 24-hour

City: Learning from 48 Hours in the Life of London’s Soho. Journal of
Urban Design. Volume 10 Number 2. Pages 171-193
- Roberts M. and Greed C., (2001). Approaching Urban Design: The Design
Process. Essex: Pearson
- Robinson M., Evans N. and Callaghan P., (1996). Tourism and Culture:
Towards the 21st Century. Conference Proceedings. Sunderland: CTTA
- Robson C., (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists
and Practitioner-Researchers. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell
- Roodhouse S., (2006). Cultural Quarters: Principles and Practice. Bristol:

Intellect
- Ross G., (1994). The Psychology of Tourism. Victoria: Hospitality Press
- Royal Albert Hall, (2007). Souvenir Guide.
- Royal Opera House (2010). Education. [online] Available from: <

http://www.roh.org.uk> [Accessed: 13 December 2010]
- Ryan C., (2002a). The Tourist Experience. Second Edition. London:

Continuum
- Ryan C., (2002b). Tourism and Cultural Proximity. Examples from New
Zealand. Annals of Tourism Research. Volume 29 Number 4. Pages 952-
971
- Sabbagh K., (2000). Power Into Art: Creating Tate Modern, Bankside.
London: Penguin Books
- Sardar Z., (2000). The Consumption of Kuala Lumpur. London: Reaktion
- Schostak J., (2006). Interviewing and Representation in Qualitative

Research. Berkshire: McGraw Hill
- Scott C., (2000). Branding: Positioning Museums in the 21st Century.

International Journal of Arts Management. Volume 2 Number 3. Pages
35-39
- Schaumann P., (2005). The Guide to Successful Destination Management.

New Jersey: Wiley
- Shaw G. and Williams A., (2004). Tourism and Tourism Spaces. London:
Sage
284
- Shoval M. and Raveh A., (2004). Categorisation of Tourist Attractions and

the Modelling of Tourist Cities: Based on the Co-Plot Method of
Multivariate Analysis. Tourism Management. Volume 25. Pages 741-750
- Silverman D., (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook.

London: Sage
- Smith M., (2007a). Cultural Tourism in a Changing World. Tourism. The

Journal for the Tourism Industry. The Tourism Society. Quarter 1 Issue
131. Pages 18-19
- Smith M., (2007b). Tourism, Culture and Regeneration. Oxfordshire:

CABI
- Smith M. and Robinson M., (2006). Cultural Tourism in a Changing

World: Politics, Participation and (Re)presentation. Clevendon: Channel
View Publications
- Smith M., (2003). Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. London:Routeledge

- Smith N., (1996). The New European Frontier: Gentrification and the
Revanchist City. London: Routeledge
- Smyth H., (1994). Marketing the City: The Role of Flagship Developments
in Urban Regeneration. London: E&FN
- Society of London Theatre, (2008). Success and Foreboding. The Report

of the Society of London Theatre 2009. [online] Available from: <
http://www.solt.co.uk/about/audience_econ.html> [Accessed: 20 Nov
2010]
- Society of London Theatre, (2004). West End Theatre Audience Report.

[online]. Available from:
<http://www.solt.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/theatreland/33573_demographic_a
udience.pdf> [Accessed: 13 December 2010]
- Society of London Theatre (1998). The Wyndham Report: The Economic

Impact of London’s West End Theatre. [online] Available from: <
http://www.solt.co.uk/about/audience_econ.html> [Accessed: 20 Jan
2008]
- Squires A., (2008). Methodological Challenges in Cross-Language

Qualitative Research: A Research Review. International Journal of
Nursing Studies. Volume 46 Issue 2. Pages 277-287
- Sternberg E., (1997). The Iconography of the Tourism Experience. Annals

of Tourism Research. Volume 24 Number 4. Pages 951-969
285
- Stiff M., (1979). Covent Garden, Les Halles and the Transformation of the
Public Realm. Thesis (Diploma). Polytechnic of Central London
- Strain E., (2003). Public Places Private Journeys: Ethnography,

Entertainment and the Tourist Gaze. London: Rutgers
- Strauss L. and Bin J., (1998). Basics of Qualitative research: Techniques

and Procedures for developing Grounded Theory. Second Edition.
London: Sage.
- Tasci A. and Kozak M., (2006). Destination Brand vs Destination Images:

Do We Know What We Mean? Journal of Vacation Marketing. Volume
12 Number 4. Pages 2999-317
- The Official Site of the Eiffel Tower, 2007. Numbers of Visitors since
1889. [online] Available from: < http://www.tour-
eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/documentation/chiffres/page/frequentation.html>
[Accessed: 01 Dec 2007]
- Thiel-Siling S., (2005). Icons of Architecture: The 20th Century. London:

Prestel
- Thorne R., (1980). Covent Garden Market: Its History and Restoration.
London: The Architectural Press
- Throsby D., (1994). The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View
of Cultural Economics. Journal of Economic Literature. Volume 32
- Tiesdell S., Oc T. and Heath T., (1996). Revitalizing Historic Urban

Quarters. Oxford: The Architectural Press
- Timothy J. and Boyd S., (2003). Heritage Tourism. Essex: Pearson

Education Limited
- Timothy J., (1998). Tourism and the Personal Heritage Experience.

Annals of Tourism Research. Volume 24 Number 3. Pages 751-54
- Tooley J., (1999). In House-Covent Garden. 50 Years of Opera and Ballet.

London: Faber and Faber
- Towse R., 2001). Quis Custodiet? Or Managing the Management: The

Case of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. International Journal of
Arts Management. Volume 3 Number 3. Pages 88 - 50
- Tribe J., (2005). The Economics of Recreation, Leisure and Tourism.

Third Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
286
- Tzanelli R., (2004). Constructing the ‘Cinematic Tourist’: The ‘sign

industry’ of the Lord of the Rings. Tourist Studies 2004. Volume 4
- UK Trade and Investment, (2010). Applause! Applause! More Dramatic

Success for London’s Theatreland. [online] Available from:
<http://www.ukti.gov.uk/investintheuk/unitedkingdom/london/item/11290
6.html> [Accessed: 11 December 2010]
- United Kingdom Parliament, (1998a). The Royal Opera House. [online]

Available from:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmcumed
s/199i/cu0102.htm> [Accessed: 16 July 2008]
- United Kingdom Parliament, (1998b). Response from the Department for

Culture, Media and Sport to the First Report from the Culture , Media and
Sport Committee, Session 1997-98, on the Royal Opera House. [online]
Available from:
s/493s2/cus202.htm> [Accessed: 16 July 2008]
- United Kingdom Parliament, (1998c). The Eyre Review and the Royal
Opera House. [online] Available from:
s/994/99402.htm> [Accessed: 16 July 2008]
- University of Westminster, (2010). Code of Practice Governing the

Ethical Conduct of Investigations, Demonstrations, Research and
Experiments. [online] Available from:
<http://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/43450/Code-
of-Good-Research-Practice-2010V2.pdf> [Accessed: 22 December 2010]
- UNWTO (1995). Concepts, Definitions and Classifications for Tourism

Statistics. Technical Manual. Number 1. Madrid: World Tourism
Organisation
- Urry J., (2002). The Tourist Gaze. Second Edition. London: SAGE
- Utzon J., (1967). Utzon and the Sydney Opera House. Sydney: Morgan
- Van Aalst I. and Boogarts I., (2002). From Museum to Mass

Entertainment: The Evolution of the Role of Museums in Cities. European
Urban and Regional Studies. Volume 9 Issue 3. Pages 195-209
- Veal A., (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical
Guide. Third Edition. Essex: Prentice Hall
287
- Visit London, (2010a). Top 10 London Attractions. [online] Available

from: < http://www.visitlondon.com/attractions/culture/top-ten-
attractions> [Accessed 4 April 2010]
- Visit London, (2010b). London Overseas Visits 2009. Fact Sheet. [online]
Available from:
<http://www.visitlondonmediacentre.com/images/uploads/London_-
_Overseas_Visits_2009_-_Factsheet.pdf> [Accessed 13 December 2010]
- Visit London, (2009). Key Visitor Statistics 2009. Fact Sheet. [online]
Available from:
<http://www.visitlondonmediacentre.com/images/uploads/London_-
_Key_Visitor_Statistics_2009_-_Factsheet.pdf> [Accessed 13 December
2010]
- Visit London (2008). London Tourism in Numbers. [online] Available

from:
<http://static.visitlondon.com/corporate1/assets/facts_figures/London%20
Tourism%20in%20numbers.pdf> [Accessed 2 June 2007]
- Visit London, (2007). Strong Attendance Levels at London Attractions.

[online] Available from:
<http://corporate.visitlondon.com/press_centre/press_releases/070820_lon
don_attractions.html> [Accessed 21 August 2007]
- Visit London, (2007). London Visitor Statistics 2006/07. London: Visit

London
- Vogel H., (2004). Entertainment Industry Economics. Sixth Edition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Walle A., (1997). Quantitative Versus Qualitative Tourism Research.

Annals of Tourism Research. Volume 24 Number 3. Pages 524-536
- Westminster City Council, (2010). Covent Garden. [online] Available

from:
<http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/planning/majorproj
ects/thewestend/covent/> [Accessed 11 December 2010]
- Wilks-Heeg S. and North P., (2004). Cultural Policy and Urban

Regeneration: A Special Edition of Local Economy. Local Economy.
Volume 19 Number 4. Pages 305 - 311
- Willis J., (2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and

Critical Approaches. London: Sage
- White J., (2001). London in the Twentieth Century. London: Penguin

Books
288
- Wing Tai Wai A., (2004). Place Promotion and Iconography in Shanghai's
Xintiandi. Habitat International. Volume 30 Issue 2. Pages 245-260
- Wynne D. and O’Connor J., (1998). Consumption and the Post Modern
City. Urban Studies, Volume 35 Number 5. Pages 841 – 864
- Yale P., (1997). From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism. Second

Edition. Huntigdon: ELM
- Yale P., (1992). Tourism in the UK. Huntigdon: ELM
- Yale P., (1991). From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism.

Huntigdon: ELM
289
Informed Consent Form Appendix
A
APPENDIX A:
Informed consent from
Nbr.
CONSENT FORM
The role of cultural flagships in the perception and experience of urban areas
for tourism and culture: The case of Covent Garden.
This academic research aims to understand how the Covent Garden visitor’s experience
and perception of the area is influenced by the presence of the Royal Opera House.
Researcher: Adrian Guachalla, Centre for Tourism, University of Westminster.
I agree to take part in the research and understand that:

I am free to refuse to answer any question at any time.
I am not obliged in any way to continue with the interview. I can stop the interview
at any time, and the tape recordings will be erased in my presence.
Recordings and transcripts will be anonymised and securely stored.
Nothing I say will be published in a form that makes it personally identifiable.
Name:
Signature: (optional)
Please indicate:
Country where you live
Town / City where you
live
Gender Female / Male
Occupation
Age Group Under 30
30-39
40-49
50-59
0ver 60
290
Permission to conduct the study Appendix
B
APPENDIX B:
Permission from the Royal Opera House’s House Manager to conduct the
study
Nicki Spencer
Nicki.Spencer@roh.org.uk
From: Nicki Spencer (Nicki.Spencer@roh.org.uk)
Sent: Wed 7/15/09 8:31 AM
To: Security Control Room (Security.ControlRoom@roh.org.uk); Alan Gilbert
(Alan.Gilbert@roh.org.uk); Box Office Management (BoxOfficeManagement@roh.org.uk);
adrianete@hotmail.com (adrianete@hotmail.com); Adam Holgado
(Adam.Holgado@roh.org.uk); Amanda Lane (Amanda.Lane@roh.org.uk); Annina Barandun
(Annina.Barandun@roh.org.uk); BarryStewart (Barry.Stewart@roh.org.uk); Rosalind
Templeman (Rosalind.Templeman@roh.org.uk); Salvatore Scalzo
(Salvatore.Scalzo@roh.org.uk)
Usher, Adrian Guachalla, has been given permission by Nicki Spencer and Caroline Bailey to
interview daytime visitors in the Main Entrance Foyer and Link as from Monday 20 July to the end
of the season. This is work towards his PhD.
From: adrianete@hotmail.com
To: nicki.spencer@roh.org.uk
Subject: Interviews
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:26:14 +0000
Dear Nicki:
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing because as you know, I am halfway
through a PhD that is looking at the significance of ROH to Covent Garden’s urban
identity as a place for tourism and culture. So far I have conducted 230 interviews
with visitors in the area in places like the Piazza, Broad court, Seven Dials, etc. It has
been really tough but my findings are quite interesting. As I am about to draw the
data collection stage to a close, it is time to hear what visitors at the House have to
say, which are basically the most important interviews I have to conduct. So I was
wondering if it would be possible for me to show up during daytime opening times at
the Hamlyn Hall wearing my University ID card and ask people if they would be willing
to give me a 3 minute interview. I will make sure I do this as they are leaving the
building and I won’t hassle them (my interviewing skills have improved massively this
year so I know how to do it ethically and hassle free). It would only be for the next
two or three weeks during daytime opening and around the box office after 330pm.
Please find attached the set of questions I will be asking, an informed consent form
that I will be showing the interviewees to guarantee their right to privacy and
anonymity and also a document that summarizes my progress so far.
As always, I am deeply grateful for your cooperation and the privilege of being part of
our lovely front of house staff, and I am sure that this research will lead to new and
interesting knowledge about our much loved ROH. And on a side note, thank you for
putting me inside for the RB School summer performance at the Linbury last Friday, I
very much enjoyed it.
Kindest regards:
Adrian Guachalla BSc, MATM, PhD (Candidate)

Centre for Tourism Research
UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER
291
Examples of field notes Appendix
C
APPENDIX C:
Examples of field notes generated throughout the data collection stage
292
Data Analysis Appendix
D
APPENDIX D.1:
Transcribing the interviews using Express Scribe software
293
D
APPENDIX D.2:
Uploaded transcriptions of the interviews to QSR N*Vivo
294
D
APPENDIX D.3:
Creation of sub-folders for CG categories and initial coding
295
D
APPENDIX D.4:
Creation of sub-folders for ROH categories and initial coding
296
Themes derived from the initial set of categories Appendix E
APPENDIX E:
Themes derived from the initial set of categories
THEMES INITIAL CATEGORIES THEMES DERIVED FROM
Visitor Area attracts younger visitors Age (CG) - Experience – Motivation (CG) – Perception (CG)
characteristics Nationality affects perception of area Motivation (CG) - Nationality (CG) – Perception (CG)
Expectations of a garden Preconceptions - Garden
Preconceptions
Media exposure Preconceptions - Heard of (CG)
Deliberate and accidental visitors Accidental visitors – Motivation (CG)
Motivation to Centrality and typicality Motivation (CG) – Perception (CG)
visit Shopping, eating and drinking Motivation (CG) - Shopping - Eat/Drink - Socialisation
Performing arts and vibrancy Motivation (CG) - Busking/Performance - People - Different
Roaming and exploring Experience (CG) - Pedestrianisation - Relaxation
Commercial experiences Experience (CG) - Shopping
AREA
Experience Cultural experiences Experience (CG) - Busking/Performance

Eating, drinking and social experiences Experience (CG) - Eat/Drink - Time of visit - Crime/Drugs - People -
throughout the day Socialisation
Contrast between locations Experience (CG) - Areas
P Different - Image (CG) - Liked the most - Perception (CG) - Similar
E Built environment
to – Smallness/Streets
R
C Cobbles - Different - Image (CG) - Liked the most - Pedestrianisation
Urban based Streets shape and pattern
E - Perception (CG) - Similar to – Smallness/Streets
P elements Physical contrast between locations Areas – Perception (CG)
T
I Gentrification Dislike - Evolution – Perception (CG)
O
N Outdoor settings Eat/Drink - Liked the most – Perception (CG) - Weather
Human based Liked the most - Pedestrianisation - People - Perception (CG) -
Relaxed ambience
elements Relaxation - Socialisation
297
Themes derived from the initial set of categories Appendix E
P Liked the most - Pedestrianisation - People - Perception - Relaxation -

E Pedestrianisation
R Socialisation
C Dislike - Liked the most - People - Pedestrianisation – Perception
E Co tourism
(CG)
P
T Cosmopolitanism Liked the most - People - Pedestrianisation – Perception (CG)
I Activity
O
Commerce and nature of shops Dislike - Liked the most - Perception (CG) - Shopping
N based
elements Street busking and quality of performance Busking/Performance - Dislike - Liked the most – Perception (CG)
Flagship attracts older visitors Age (ROH) - Motivation (ROH) – Personal Background
Visitor
Contrast with others - Motivation (ROH) - Nationality (ROH) – Image
characteristics Nationality affects perception of flagship
- Personal background
Physical appearance (hidden) Contrast with others – Image - Perception (ROH) - Hidden
The building Contrast with other stand alone flagship Contrast with others – Nationality (ROH) - Perception (ROH) -
buildings (stereotypes of opera houses) Hidden – Image (ROH)
Quality of performance over physical Contrast with others - Fame - Image (ROH) - Perception (ROH) -
FLAGSHIP
appearance Hidden - Quality first

The institution Implications of the name (grandiosity), elitism
Access - Fame - Image (ROH) - Name - Perception (ROH)
and exclusivity
Audience development and access initiatives Access - Been inside - Exhibitions
Contrasting points of view Heard of – Motivation (ROH and CG) - Personal background
Attraction of visitors Change - CG without - Importance - Relationship with CG
Relationship Change - CG without - English asset - Importance - Relationship with
with CG Cosmopolitanism
CG
Importance of opera houses for cultural Change - CG without - English asset - Importance - Relationship with
destinations CG
298
Further Evidence of Findings - Selection of quotes Appendix
F
APPENDIX F:
Further evidence of findings
F.1. EVIDENCE OF AGE AFFECTING THE VISITOR’S PERCEPTION

AND EXPERIENCE OF THE AREA
“What is your favourite thing about Covent Garden as an area? I’m sorry;
nowadays I simply come here for the opera and then make my way back to my
village outside Cambridge. Being retired and especially at the moment with the
financial crunch, just going around looking at things that you may or may not
want to buy is not something that interests me particularly. I think it would
probably interest the much younger rather than the retired population (Anna, over
60)”
“Is there anything that you dislike about it? It’s just rather crowded, I’m sure
you generation doesn’t mind but mine does (Doris, over 60)”
“Do you remember the first time you came? I was probably 14 or 15 Do you
think it has changed since then? Probably, but I have changed too Say more
about that Back then I was trying to buy candies and doll things but now I’m also
checking for the pubs (Dicle, under 30)”
“What makes this are different in your view? Well it’s a little more high
energy it seems to me than other parts What do you attribute that energy to? I
think there’s a lot of younger kids (Marion, US)”
“I like the refurbs and because I know the history of some of the buildings. I
showed to my grandson the building that used to be the National Sporting club at
the turn of the century. You look at it now and there’s a restaurant underneath and
you would never think that in the 1800s gentlemen used to seat there and watch
fester cuffs at least once a month. So it’s nice that I can impart that part of history
so that he knows what went on there (Maurice, over 60)”
“What is the first image that you relate with Covent Garden?
1. The opera house
2. The bridge between ballet school because you are walking and look up and
see this amazing bridge, I quite like that
1. Well that’s because you’re young, I’m stuck in the past, but for me it’s the
Bow street façade (Erica and Jill, Under 30 and Over 60)”
F.2. EVIDENCE OF NATIONALITY AFFECTING THE PERCEPTION

OF THE AREA-LACK OF HERITAGE IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES
“How would you describe this area to a friend who has never been here?
Charming, good shopping. It’s a historical market square that has a great deal of
diversity in shopping, in people and entertainment (...) What do you think makes
it charming? Well when you come from California we don’t have housing that is
400 years old (Marion, US)”
“What do you like the most about Covent Garden? I suppose that if you’re an
Australian and you come from a country that’s barely over 200 years old, it’s
299
F
what you love about London and Dublin. It’s the history, the age (...) you realise
its 400 years old and my country isn’t 400 years old. So it’s the history (Gary,
Australia)”
F.3. EVIDENCE OF NATIONALITY AFFECTING THE PERCEPTION

OF THE AREA – NEGATIVE BECAUSE OF THEIR ORIGIN
“Is there anything that you dislike about the area? The paella we saw being
cooked over there it was horrendous Is this because you are Spanish? Yes they
were adding chorizo and paella should not go with it (Marga, Spain)”
“I am from a market town so I kind of had expectations of finding a market, not

the hussle and bussle but I never realised on what scale it would be like. The scale
is quite larger (Paul, England)”
“I think it’s to go and see some shops that we don’t have in our country like see
different clothes. All these H and M, designer stores and things that we don’t have
that come with the big cities (Lina, Sweden)”
“What things are you expecting to do in Covent Garden? (…) Museums (…)
National gallery (…) British Museum (…) and musical spectacles that I can’t find
in Seville. (Julia, Spain)”
F.4. EVIDENCE OF CONNECTION WITH ‘MY FAIR LADY’

“Do you think it’s an important element of Covent Garden? Yes I’m sure it
attracts tourists. My Fair Lady took place at Coven Garden, that’s also one thing I
wanted to come for, to get the feeling, you still can imagine it smaller and people
and the street vendors, so it is where it took place. (Claude, France)”
“What do you like the most about the area? There’s a lot of interesting shops,
it’s nice to be in the same place where Audrey Hepburn made My Fair Lady, the
sights are different around every corner. (Gerald, US)”
F.5. EVIDENCE OF TOURISTS VISITING HIGH PROFILE AREAS AND

ATTRACTIONS
“What places have you been visiting? Westminster Abbey, Camden town,
Westminster, Trafalgar Square, all the tourist centres (Peter, Germany)”
“We visit exhibits, museums; we have done all the main tourist attractions (Andy,
Ireland)”
F.6. EVIDENCE OF PROXIMITY TO OTHER AREAS/ATTRACTIONS

AS MOTIVATION TO VISIT
“What makes it touristic? (...) it’s very central for the tourists to find. You can
walk straight up from Trafalgar square and you are there (Dicle, Turkey)”
“To be honest we were just walking by, we are coming from the river and passed
by because we are on our way to the British Museum and our hotel is nearby as
well (Maria, Spain)”
300
F
“It’s very convenient because you can walk to most of the main sites from here so
you don’t have to rely on public transportation and actually you don’t need a car.
If you want to go further you use the underground but to walk like from here I
walk to the river, I go to Piccadilly, Leicester square, Soho, Oxford Street, Hyde
Park. (Wiorgos, Cyrpus)”
F.7. EVIDENCE OF RELAXATION AS MOTIVATION TO VISIT

“I think the atmosphere is great, its not so, its a little bit more relaxing, not so
stressed like, in Oxford street, the atmosphere is really great. The streets with a lot
of little small shops and some nice restaurants The same, the place inside is really
great, really relaxed, plenty of stuff to see but no one is in a hurry. Seems a lot
more relaxed. (Martin and Ania, Germany)”
“Despite being very commercial at the same time it’s very cheery, it’s a chilling
area. You can have a relaxed time here. Even when it’s crowded with people you
still feel a bit comfortable and cosy that’s the best thing about Covent Garden, you
can sit down (Fabio, Brasil)”
F.8. EVIDENCE OF ‘LONDON IN A SNAPSHOT’ EXPERIENCE

“If you want to see London in a short way, have a glance of it you can come to
Covent Garden and look at all the places and you will have a sense of some kind
of English thing in style (Tutu, Russia)”
“It typifies London How does it typify London would you say? Well because
the concentration of the streets and all the different nationalities of the visitors, the
tourists the people who live here and work here all the time is just... lovely
(Marvis, England)”
“With like with the perceptions of our... when someone from the United States
thinks of London, a lot of what they think of is the small narrow streets and the
grand buildings and interesting shops and this area has all of that (Gerald, US)”
F.9.EVIDENCE OF SENSORIAL CONSUMPTION OF PLACE

“The thing which amazed me here from the first time was the smell. It’s nice and
warm, the smell of the soup, the shops. I think that’s it. Different experiences
from different senses. Your head is surrounded by different sounds like violin
players and some meters further you can hear a singer and so forth. That’s very
unusual. In each corner you can have different sensual experiences, voices and
smells. That’s it. (Horacy, Poland)”
F.10. EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA

“What kind of things do you do when you come to Covent Garden? Drink
beer, watch people and smoke a spliff. Do you have one? (…) What is the first
image that you associate with Covent Garden? A spliff (Diego, Venezuela)”
“What brings you to Covent Garden today? We are illegally drinking on the
streets Is that what you usually do in Covent Garden? Yes because I can’t
afford anything else here (Brian, Germany)”
301
F
“What brings you to Covent Garden? Business (...) What other things do you
do in Covent Garden? Nothing really that I would reveal (Jude, Iraq?)”
F.11. EVIDENCE OF URBAN VILLAGE FEATURES

“Yes, its, I want to say suburban. It’s kind of suburban because it takes you out of
the hussle and bussle of the city life. It’s kind of like a little village in itself. So
it’s like a little town within the city (Paul, England)”
“You know all the parts is very busy and here it seems like you are in a much
smaller town that London really is and other parts of the city is very noisy very
busy lots of people rushing (...) it’s like a small town although it’s a very huge
town where you don’t expect it. (Doris, Germany)”
“(…) in these little streets you feel like you are not in London because it’s all
small. The street and the small squares so you feel like in a small village instead
of the big city that London actually is (Silvia, Italy)”
“What makes them unique and different? They are almost encapsuled. If you
stand at the terrace of the opera house and you look around, it’s a lot of brick
work which makes it unique buildings (...) It has a lot of character, it seems like it
has been around for a very long time and its purpose is to look beautiful and to be
enriched with culture when you are sitting here taking it all in. (Kim, Canada)”
F.12. EVIDENCE OF COBBLED STREETS AS PLACE MAKING

ELEMENTS
“Does this area remind you of any other areas that you have seen in London
or abroad? No not really it’s quite different. Yes because the market was there
since 1830 so that’s quite different. And if I’m not mistaken the cobbled stones
are original Is that important? It is for a landmark Why do you think it’s
important? It stores the originality of the place (Oliver, Australia)”
“Do you think Covent Garden is different from other areas? It seems older,
the structure of it would remind me of an older time with cobbled streets. (Janet,
US)”
“Is there anything that you would change about the area? I hate the floor, you
can’t walk. It’s all really old and then yeah it’s definitely not suitable for heels. I
would change that. (Maya, Mexico)”
F.13. EVIDENCE OF CONTRAST BETWEEN AREAS FROM A

PERCEPTUAL POINT OF VIEW
“Some of the shops are quite good around Floral Street but I quite like moving
away from the touristy south side of Covent Garden and going north more
towards Seven Dials. (…) I kind of think about it as two separate areas almost.
How would you contrast these areas? I think around Seven Dials are people
who work and live in London and kind of know what they are doing (...) Its
302
F
people just stopping and having coffee with their friends whereas when you are
going towards the market its just tourism hanging out and its people who have
come to their day trip in London almost on holiday, its a bit more tacky (David,
England)”
F.14. EVIDENCE OF GENTRIFICATION

“It’s just like your average thrown on the mill sort of giant market place these
days with all the little markets in the middle (…) I used to go to a lot of pubs and
they used to go on about Covent Garden and how wonderful it was when it was
actually a proper market. (Alice, New Zealand)”
F.15. EVIDENCE OF PACE OF MOVEMENT

“What makes this area different? The people. I think that the people are here
for amusement, they are strolling relaxed on the streets. When you are in other
parts of London, people are always going somewhere, going to do something,
always focused. Whereas here you feel like people are relaxed and enjoying their
walk. (Silvia, Bolivia)”
“I like it because London feels like such a rush, very chaotic and I like it here
because you can relax for a while, people don’t seem to be in such a rush like in
other areas. For example I’m coming from Canary Wharf and everyone looked
like they were running a marathon, I was choking as I walked, here is more of a
relaxing zone. (Angelica, Mexico)”
F.16. EVIDENCE OF FRIENDLY AMBIENCE

“Do you think it’s different from other areas in London?
Yes, because of the fact that Londoners don’t seem to want to stop and talk much
whereas in Covent Garden they all mingle, people stop and chat, they watch the
performers, they spill out onto the streets in the pubs and the clubs, the restaurants
are out. It’s almost like Paris where they spill out onto the streets. I think that’s
quite unique in London (Phil, England)”
F.17. EVIDENCE OF CONGLOMERATION AS A NEGATIVE ELEMENT

“Is there anything that you dislike about the area? The tourists. Its not that I
dislike them but I just find that they occupy large spaces that you are trying to get
through and because they are not from the place they don’t have the awareness of
moving on to the side or respecting other large groups of people. Covent Garden
seems notorious for several large groups of people sightseeing at the same time.
(Dean, England)”
“Is there anything that you would change about the area? 50% of the tourists.
But they are allowed to come as much as we do. I think she’s right, the area has
still retained its charm, and the trouble is when you walk through, an awful lot of
tackiness (Erica, Australia)”
F.18. EVIDENCE OF TOURIST’S CARRYING CAPACITY

“Do you like the area? Not very much What do you dislike about it? Too many
tourists, like me (David, Netherlands)”
303
F
F.19. EVIDENCE OF LARGE CROWDS AS A RESULT OF TOURISM

DEVELOPMENT
“It can get quite congested of people in certain parts where people tend to gather
together in the streets but I suppose that’s part of the appeal as well. (Phil,
Wales)”
“Do you think the area has changed since then? It seems a lot busier than it
was Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well to us it’s not a good thing but its
part of London, that’s why you come to London really; it’s the buzz of the place
that is part of being in a big city (Jonathan, England)”
F.20. EVIDENCE OF LARGE SCALE SHOPS AS NEGATIVE

ELEMENTS
“They should ban all chain stores from Covent Garden. Its part of its charm that
it’s an old market square and there are small stores but also huge chain stores.
(Brian, Germany)”
“Is there anything that you dislike about Covent Garden or that you would
change? I think that some of the shops are too generic it would be nice to have
more boutiquey shops What do you mean by that? Sort of individual shops,
more privately owned shops. (Claire, England)”
F.21. EVIDENCE OF NATIONALITY EXERTING INFLUENCE ON THE

VISITOR’S INTEREST IN THE OPERA HOUSE
“Have you heard of the Royal Opera house before? Yes Where did you hear
of it? Because the first ballerina is Spanish Tamara Rojo? Yes (Paula, Spain)”
How do you imagine it to be?

“Like the Royal Spanish theatre (Alejandro, Spain)”
“I can’t explain because in my mind house of opera also in Bucharest (Vasilica,
Rumania)”
“I would imagine it would be something like the Belfast opera house (Rich,
Ireland)”
“I wanted to make out the difference between our opera house and this one
(Margarita, Armenia)”
F.22. EVIDENCE OF THE OPERA HOUSE’S URBAN CONCEALMENT

“I don’t think it’s important to the area because I think it’s quite hidden almost.
It’s a very small door in the corner of the courtyard by the piazza which you
wouldn’t really know unless you knew it was there and I think the other side
which is a nice frontage you don’t get the aspect because it’s on a street with a
building opposite so you cant stand back. Whereas other landmarks you get views
which I don’t think you get with the Royal Opera House (David, England)”
304
F
F.23. EVIDENCE OF QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE OVER PHYSICAL

APPEARANCE
“I mean the most important thing about the opera house is what it sounds like
within. I think the inside is the most important thing than the outside (Doris,
Germany)”
“I don’t think that one thinks about it in terms of its architecture. You think in
terms of the performances but not the architecture. (Aline, England)”
F.24. EVIDENCE OF AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

“It’s the heart of the culture and the poshness of Covent Garden, what’s sitting
outside on a terrace with a glass of wine without the opera? It’s somewhere where
people can go and feel like they are part of some rich society. Some people are
I’m sure but someone like me it’s like just once in a while that I can do that and it
makes me feel very special (Kim, Canada)”
“Do you know where you first heard from it? Probably in one of the things
they did in Trafalgar sq where you can see it live The big summer screens? Yes
the BP thing yes How did you find out about that? It was advertised on websites
so that’s where I first saw it Did you enjoy the big summer screen? Yes Do you
think they should do more stuff like that? Yes because it gets more people
involved and a lot of people go to see it in Trafalgar sq just because you get the
people that wander by. Would you say you are an opera loving person? Not
necessarily, if it hadn’t been free I wouldn’t have gone. I went just because it was
free and its something nice to do in the evening but I don’t necessarily love opera
Yet you enjoyed it? Yes it was good. It’s the atmosphere that was nice. The
opera was good but then the atmosphere was nice, it’s a nice summer thing to do
Did you enjoy the opera more than you expected to? Yes (Clive, England)”
“I thought I would not be able to come in. Maybe it’s necessary to raise awareness
of the possibility of going in a bit further so that more people can come in and
have a closer look (Silvia, Bolivia)”
“It just seems to be very people friendly and I didn’t expect it to be open like this
when I came today. I just came to stare at it from the outside so that was very
nice. It’s very nice that you can just walk inside and have a drink, that’s charming
(Doris, US)”
“What do you think it’s famous for? Because of its name, what it stand for. It
might have sometimes an image of being a little bit exclusive sometimes (…) I
would try to get more people who might not necessarily come to see the type of
things that sometimes are on, to try and get them to come in just to experience it
perhaps (Caroline, England)”
305
F
F.25. EVIDENCE OF RECIPROCITY BETWEEN COVENT GARDEN

AND THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE
“Do you remember the first time you came to Covent Garden? More or less
Do you think it has changed? Yes, the seating is much better, we used to get
masses of places that if you had expensive seats but there was a pillar or
something in front of you and you couldn’t see the stage Let’s talk about the
whole area I don’t really know much about the area, I want to talk about the
opera house (Kate, England)”
F.26. EVIDENCE OF EARLY EXPOSURE TO ROYAL OPERA HOUSE

AND LINGUISTIC DILEMMA
“How would you imagine Covent Garden would be like without the Royal
Opera House? It would be awful to me How do you imagine it? It would be
dead. People come initially to see the opera house What does Covent Garden
mean to you? Covent Garden is the Royal Opera House So the first thing that
you associate with Covent Garden is the Royal Opera House? Yes definitely
You obviously have an interest in opera and ballet am I right? Yes, but even
before they redeveloped, even as a young girl, Covent Garden was the Royal
Opera House and of course all of this has evolved since the 1960s (Maria,
Ireland)”
F.27. EVIDENCE OF COVENT GARDEN BEING THE SAME WITHOUT

THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE
“Even for us because we make music but I don’t think people in this area... they
only like the shops. If I reach in the guide, it says about the restaurants and the
shops, but not the opera. It is mentioned but it’s not central. (Ulrike, Germany)”
“Do you think the Royal Opera House is an important element of Covent
Garden? Certainly, I think its absolutely central, take away the opera house and
the place would probably become a kind of minor Soho (Anna, Russia)”
“What do you think Covent Garden would be like without the opera house? I
dread to think What do you reckon? I don’t know, I think the space that it
occupies would probably be more restaurants and shops possibly and I don’t
necessarily think that would be a good thing. (Dean, England)”
“I sincerely think it would be the same from my point of view because I am

coming to watch an opera, it is an important building but if it was located
elsewhere in London for me it would be the same. Perhaps people in the
neighborhood feel proud its there but for me as a tourist it makes no difference
where its located, I am going to watch an opera. (Silvia, Bolivia)”
“In some respects it hasn’t changed but in others it will permanently keep
changing because stores and shops and people are always moving and some things
close and some others open and when I came to the Royal Opera House it wasn’t
how it looked now and it was before the change so you got quite a major change
here (Dean, England)”
306

Adrian GUACHALLA GUTIERREZ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adrian GUACHALLA GUTIERREZ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adrian GUACHALLA GUTIERREZ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WestminsterResearch

The role of cultural flagships in the perception and experience

Case study: The Royal Opera House in Covent Garden.

Adrian Francisco Guachalla Gutierrez

This is an electronic version of a PhD thesis awarded by the University of

This is an exact reproduction of the paper copy held by the University of

The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of

In case of abuse or copyright appearing without permission e-mail

CASE STUDY: THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE IN COVENT

ADRIAN FRANCISCO GUACHALLA GUTIERREZ

CASE STUDY: THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE IN COVENT

ADRIAN FRANCISCO GUACHALLA GUTIERREZ

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the

2. CULTURAL TOURISM, CULTURAL TOURISTS AND THE 18

3. URBAN AREAS FOR TOURISM AND CULTURE 53

3.8. Summary of perspectives on urban areas for tourism and culture 69

5. COVENT GARDEN AND THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE: 97

6. METHODOLOGY, METHOD AND DATA ANALYSIS 120

6.2.2. Social constructivism from the ontological and epistemological

7. EVIDENCE ANALYSIS 172

7.3.1.1. Covent Garden’s name as a literal implication 181

7.4.2.1. Implications of the name, elitism and exclusivity 215

8. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 227

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 250

9.2. Motivation to visit, experience and perception of place 253

10. SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 271

APPENDIX A: Informed Consent Form 290

Furthermore, the notion of cultural distance (McKercher, 2002) exerts an

I would like to express my utmost gratitude to the University of Westminster for

My supervisors’ experienced advice and guidance played a fundamental role in

BBC British Broadcasting Corporation

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Academic research on cultural flagships and their impact on cultural tourism

1.1. Research area and rationale

Covent Garden is an important urban element of London’s tourism portfolio as

The economic contribution of London theatre to the country’s economy is

1.2. Outline of chapters

tourism precincts by focusing on different aspects that characterise

2. CULTURAL TOURISM, CULTURAL TOURISTS AND THE

2.2. Cultural tourism

These considerations identify different types of culture that may be consumed,

In order to further understand cultural consumption in the context of cultural

2.3. The cultural tourist

These considerations highlight cultural motivation as a pivotal element in the

visitors in an area where different experiential opportunities are provided. The

The understanding of how a tourist’s motivation interacts with the experience of

This typology provides a clearer approach to types of cultural tourists based on

These categorisations highlight the complexity of the cultural tourist’s motivation

Figure 2.1 – Tourist typology according to motivation and depth of experience

McKercher (2002) proposes that cultural tourists can be:

affecting the experience of the arts as a form of cultural tourism which is

2.4. The tourist experience

experience of an urban area and is applicable to Covent Garden as this urban

MacCannell (1999:23) approaches cultural tourism experiences by indicating that

these images as ‘models’. Subsequently, there is a process of transformation of

area studied is a popular tourism precinct that is depicted in different forms of

exhibition, dominance, autonomy, contrariance, aggression, abasement, affiliation,

Asides from motivational considerations, Ross’ (1994) psychological approach to

2.4.1. Sensorial experience of place