# Could Britain market its cities better for tourism?



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

ranny fash said:


> :lol:What do you think of the pedestrianisation of Norwich City Centre?


Classic!!


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

A large part of the problem with the cities is that they only developed during the industrial revolution. They don't have historic market square centres etc now because they never head them, rather than them being destroyed by town planners in thr 50s/60s (although they hardly helped).

The most attractive towns are the towns that were important before the industrial revolution, places like Canterbury, Bath, York etc. The shocking thing really isn't just how little they are marketed to overseas visitors, but how little they are marketed to British tourists too. If asked to name the cities to visit apart from London, most people in Britain would have to stop and think too.

Then again, it's easy to get a misleading impression due to how little the average foreign person (who hasn't researched) would know about places to go in the UK. They'd be as equally unlikely to know much about other countries either. Someone who's never looked into going there would struggle to think of a single city apart from Paris to visit in France, or somewhere other than Berlin in Germany, or Rome in Italy.

It's why you get tour groups signing up for those one-country-a-day European breaks. They just don't know what else exists.

And before we sit back smugly laughing at such tourists, how many in Europe could think of the attractions of Brazil apart from Rio, or Argentina apart from Buenos Aires. How many wouldn't be able to name a single building (stadiums apart) in the whole of South America or Central America?


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Then again, it's easy to get a misleading impression due to how little the average foreign person (who hasn't researched) would know about places to go in the UK. They'd be as equally unlikely to know much about other countries either. Someone who's never looked into going there would struggle to think of a single city apart from Paris to visit in France, or somewhere other than Berlin in Germany, or Rome in Italy.
> 
> It's why you get tour groups signing up for those one-country-a-day European breaks. They just don't know what else exists.
> 
> And before we sit back smugly laughing at such tourists, how many in Europe could think of the attractions of Brazil apart from Rio, or Argentina apart from Buenos Aires.


Not sure all your comparisons holds true really.

I reckon most would at least know Pisa, Venice, Milan and Firenze outside of Rome in Italy. People who are more into the country would probably be able to name Naples, Palermo, Verona, Bologna and few more cities in Italy. 

Paris is probably right although many would perhaps be able to name Cannes in France too due to the Cannes Film Festival. 

I would not say that Berlin is any significantly more famous here in Norway than Munich, which have gotten fame as the home of BMW, their beer festival and due to the '70s Olympic Games. Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfurt and other German cities are however a few notches below in terms of fame. But then again Norway is relatively close to Germany so my perception may be colored by that. 

I agree with Argentina.

I think many would be able to name São Paulo in Brazil. 

While that is said I do believe most would be able to name Liverpool and Manchester in addition to London in the UK at least simply due to their football teams. I doubt many would be able to name a single building in these cities however though. 



Rev Stickleback said:


> How many wouldn't be able to name a single building (stadiums apart) in the whole of South America or Central America?


I doubt most Northern Europeans would be able, but people living in the Americas and in the Southern European countries with good connection to South America would probably be able to name a few.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Galro said:


> I doubt most Northern Europeans would be able, but people living in the Americas and in the Southern European countries with good connection to South America would probably be able to name a few.


Maybe Spain and Portugal (but they seems a bit uninformed too as well) because of language connections; Italians are quite ignorant about South America, outside of something about Brazil because of Brazilians immigrant; they know that the two biggest cities are Rio and São Paulo, their accent, openness and physical appearance (good looking); something vague about Mexico (food, accent) but not much about the rest, although Argentina had a huge Italian immigration in the past, but most do not even know this


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

To return to the argument, I guess that as has been already said, it is because a few British cities have born during the industrial era so they may lack something found in continental Europe, like the grandeur in most buildings; also, their centres are a bit "sterile" to me, mostly because city planners recently did not help at all.. what I love about Britain are the more historical towns like Edinburgh (now I learned it's pronounced Edimbra!), Canterbury, Bath, York and the likes, and the countryside, which are really wonderful.. However, they should be catered better; Scotland now has built its own brand, but England and Wales outside of London (and towns around London like Oxford and Cambridge) is a bit unknown to many.. the potentials are there anyways


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Maybe Spain and Portugal (but they seems a bit uninformed too as well) because of language connections; Italians are quite ignorant about South America, outside of something about Brazil because of Brazilians immigrant; they know that the two biggest cities are Rio and São Paulo, their accent, openness and physical appearance (good looking); something vague about Mexico (food, accent) *but not much about the rest, although Argentina had a huge Italian immigration in the past, but most do not even know this*


I'm quite surprised by that. Here in Norway we have had quite a lot of focus on Norwegian Americans who immigrated to the US and I would have expected the same with Italians and Argentina (you of course had many which went to the US too).


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Galro said:


> I'm quite surprised by that. Here in Norway we have had quite a lot of focus on Norwegian Americans who immigrated to the US and I would have expected the same with Italians and Argentina (you of course had many which went to the US too).


Here people mostly know in more details about Italian-Americans, because the US is where most Italians went, and also because US has a much larger influence on medias; in comparison, Argentina does not have much mediatic influence, add to this the fact that Italians in Argentina were less in numbers and the initial inhabitants weren't the ones from the poorest parts of Italy (Sicily, Campania &c like in the US)


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm not sure better marketing would boost tourism to cities other than London unless we're talking about luring more Europeans to these places. Tourists from further afield are going to want to go to London.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

MusicMan1 said:


> Birmingham has a great, proud industrial heritage, but I agree that you can't simply market a city alone on that fact that it invented a Gas lighting or plastic for example. (Although this can be exploited to an extent). What it CAN market itself on is its architecture, (both old and its contemporary, with the 60s developments on the way out), its landmarks, i.e the cathedral, city hall and others. Then there's shopping, entertainment and its cultural history, such as the Tolkien, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin connections for example. Although Birmingham is not what I'd consider to be a beautiful city, it is VASTLY improving and I imagine in time will have a centre full of fantastic architecture. Then, if we play our cards right, central Birmingham will be able to balance business, retail and tourism well!


I was in Birmingham recently(also first time in the UK) to visit somebody, the town was very underwhelming for a city of 4 million. They should really build something in the center like the Seattle music experience or Cleveland rock n roll hall of fame or something to take advantage of Britain's great music history to create a real tourist attraction in the city. They city also had a lot of trash and graffiti that gave me a bad impression. I also felt like the center could have used a central park other than just the one around the cathedral. 

On the positive side, I think the new st train station will be nice when finished. The center and bull ring area are nice. The free city museum was great place to spend a couple hours too.

-those are just my observations as an American


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

Looking at a city like Birmingham you have to consider its past where it was heavily bombed. Bombing a European inner city is like taking the soul out if it. Few cities recuperate from that and unfortunately post-war reconstruction architecture is the worst there is. I come from a town mostly destroyed in WWII and the same has happened.


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

I don't think birmingham has a population of 4 milion. Maybe the metropolitan area has, but that really doesn't count in Europe and certainly not in a densely populated place as England with cities very near to each other. Many people living in the Birmingham metropolitan are of Birmingham may never or only very rarely go to this city.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Urban population is over 2.4 million, but metro population is over 3.6 million.



> Looking at a city like Birmingham you have to consider its past where it was heavily bombed. Bombing a European inner city is like taking the soul out if it. Few cities recuperate from that and unfortunately post-war reconstruction architecture is the worst there is. I come from a town mostly destroyed in WWII and the same has happened.


I would add post-WWII auto-centric urban planning has done lot damage to cities around the world. At least today's urban planners are fixing or attempting to fix the mistakes of mid 20th century. BTW, what is your hometown?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

isaidso said:


> I'm not sure better marketing would boost tourism to cities other than London unless we're talking about luring more Europeans to these places. Tourists from further afield are going to want to go to London.


Europeans would be the main market indeed, they already make up the big majority of visitors to the UK.


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

Jonesy55 said:


> Inventing gas lighting isn't a major reason why people choose their holiday destinations I think.


No. absolutely. But neither is inventing Custard. I was identifying the fact that Birmingham has played such a pivitol role in creating the world as we know it today it should be a hotbed of museums, monuments etc for which people to visit but the city is so bad at telling the world about just how much the city and it's pioneers have given to them is exactly the reason why Birmingham struggles to attract tourists. People visit cities because of their history mainly. Why is it that Birmingham hasn't used it's spectacular history to attract more tourists?? That's the question that has been posed for decades in the city and one that has never been answered. It seems we are happy to lay back, take the abuse about it being a concrete hell hole but we aren't able to stand up and say ..." look at what we've given you, come visit us and see it for yourself". It's a crying shame.


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

weava said:


> I was in Birmingham recently(also first time in the UK) to visit somebody, the town was very underwhelming for a city of 4 million. They should really build something in the center like the Seattle music experience or Cleveland rock n roll hall of fame or something to take advantage of Britain's great music history to create a real tourist attraction in the city. They city also had a lot of trash and graffiti that gave me a bad impression. I also felt like the center could have used a central park other than just the one around the cathedral.
> 
> On the positive side, I think the new st train station will be nice when finished. The center and bull ring area are nice. The free city museum was great place to spend a couple hours too.
> 
> -those are just my observations as an American


This is exactly what Birmingham needs. Although firstly the city only has a population of 1.1 million. However you'll be intrigued to know that Birmingham has more parkland then any other European city. 8,000 acres are within Birmingham city. Nine parks have received the prestigious green flag award. Sutton park is also Europe's largest nature reserve. Birmingham is also the holder of the record number of consecutive golds from the Chelsea flower show. 14 and counting. The city also this year opened up it's new park at Eastside. In the city centre. 

What Birmingham needs is museums. Eastside has 3 planned but they should be everywhere. Shakespeare's works are being displayed in the new central library after being hidden away for over 50 years in the old one. Thank god.


----------



## nicdel (May 13, 2011)

What about Cambridge? It seems to be quite popular among young students from all over the world due to the language schools and the university.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Birmingham said:


> No. absolutely. But neither is inventing Custard. I was identifying the fact that Birmingham has played such a pivitol role in creating the world as we know it today it should be a hotbed of museums, monuments etc for which people to visit but the city is so bad at telling the world about just how much the city and it's pioneers have given to them is exactly the reason why Birmingham struggles to attract tourists. People visit cities because of their history mainly. Why is it that Birmingham hasn't used it's spectacular history to attract more tourists?? That's the question that has been posed for decades in the city and one that has never been answered. It seems we are happy to lay back, take the abuse about it being a concrete hell hole but we aren't able to stand up and say ..." look at what we've given you, come visit us and see it for yourself". It's a crying shame.


People visit historical cities usually because there are remnants of that history left to see. They want to see the buildings, and be able to walk round feeling the history around them. 

The city does get a bit lumped on, but even if the place had a few museums showing off the heritage, it's still be a push to sell it as somewhere people would want to stay for three or four days. It would probably end up having to market itself as somewhere that has decent access to other places people might want to visit, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwick etc.

Sadly it's nearly impossible to think of Birmingham without thinking of Telly Savalas' overblown promotional film


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

But Birmingham and it's metropolitan area is home to Warwick Castle, Stratford-on-Avon, etc etc. People can stay for 3 or 4 days and visit these places quite easily. 

Birmingham has the best cuisine outside London, it's home to the Balti, it has the Tolkien Trail, Busiest indoor arena in Europe, it has the 3rd largest St Patricks day parade in the world after New York and Dublin. There is so much to offer but the city doesn't promote it. 

I do give them credit for this though. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-library-set-open-Birmingham-matter-days.html

Maybe "Peaky Blinders" will give the city some marketing also. It's expected to be a massive, massive hit. 



> Peaky Blinders is an epic, six-part gangster drama set in the lawless streets of post-war Birmingham on the cusp of the 1920s.
> 
> ﻿Britain in 1919 is a tumultuous mix of despair and hedonism, a nation cleaned out by the extravagances of the Great War. Returning soldiers, newly minted revolutionaries and criminal gangs all fight for survival in an industrial landscape gripped by economic upheaval.
> 
> ...


----------



## ced_flanders (Jan 22, 2008)

I think one of the problems is that the UK simply doesn't invest in tourism marketing in general, not even for London either, but London doesn't need it whereas the other cities do.
Living in Belgium we are about as close as you can possibly get to the UK, with tons of plane/train/ferry connections and yet I never see the UK being advertised. And yet every day I see TONS of advertisements for places in France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Greece,... 

Airlines never seem to advertise their flights to the UK either. People here care about London, but don't know anything about the rest of the UK. 
Even though I'm sure that with the right marketing several other UK cities could boost their image and attract weekend-city-trip type visitors. If Poland, which isn't exactly a tropical paradise either, can do it, why not the UK?

This is just based on my experience living here in Belgium of course, maybe the UK has massive tourism campagnes in other countries, I wouldn't know.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

You have a good point on UK tourism marketing. I live in the US and there is no marketing for UK tourism or most places in Europe. You usually see a lot of domestic and North American tourist marketing in general like the Caribbean.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

I guess I underestimated Scotland in my first respond in this thread. Seems like there's great potential for Edinburgh. And when I think about it I do know some people who has been there and says it's nice.

However. Scotland could do more to market their nature. 



Rev Stickleback said:


> Then again, it's easy to get a misleading impression due to how little the average foreign person (who hasn't researched) would know about places to go in the UK. They'd be as equally unlikely to know much about other countries either. Someone who's never looked into going there would struggle to think of a single city apart from Paris to visit in France, or somewhere other than Berlin in Germany, or Rome in Italy.
> 
> And before we sit back smugly laughing at such tourists, how many in Europe could think of the attractions of Brazil apart from Rio, or Argentina apart from Buenos Aires. How many wouldn't be able to name a single building (stadiums apart) in the whole of South America or Central America?


France, Germany and Italy have much more than their capitals, and most people I think are aware of it.

The southern coast in France are a common destination for European tourists. Cannes, Nice, Marseille and Monaco (almost French) are popular destinations.

In Germany I would say that Berlin are nowhere near it's potential. It has had a strong increase during the past ten years but the city is still underrated. Munich are almost as popular for inter-European tourists at least. Hamburg is popular too. Cologne are well-known. I personally love the city of Lübeck, but it may be that it's popular here mostly because it's close to Scandinavia. Germany probably benefit from being the geographical center of the continent. But to say that Berlin is as dominating as London is in the UK is simply wrong.

Italy has so much more than Rome that it's not possible to write everything. Venice are probably one of Europe's biggest tourist cities. Milano are popular. Pisa is well-known. Naples are well-known and people are curious about it, but many are weary about going there because of the organized crime syndicates.

It's simply not possible to try to say that it's the same for other major countries too. None of the larger European nations are so dominated by one city as the UK. None are even close.

Sure, for Europeans it may be the same for most of South/Central America. We know very little except for the capitals (and most nations probably not even that. And for Brazil: Rio). But how many Europeans visit South/Central America anyways? It's a new market.



LtBk said:


> You have a good point on UK tourism marketing. I live in the US and there is no marketing for UK tourism or most places in Europe. You usually see a lot of domestic and North American tourist marketing in general like the Caribbean.


Well... That's not surprising. The US is not marketed in Europe neither but there's still a huge demand to go there. Many Europeans dream about visiting the US sometime in their life, and I have a feeling it's the same for Americans, especially on the east coast.

Europe in general doesn't need marketing in the US and the US in general doesn't need marketing in Europe. The demand and desires to visit are already there.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

London is probably lazy. It probably just assumes that anyone coming to Europe from North America will visit London, so doesn't need to try so hard.

It's kind of like how New York doesn't really need to advertise itself.


----------



## GZT (May 17, 2010)

ced_flanders said:


> I think one of the problems is that the UK simply doesn't invest in tourism marketing in general, not even for London either, but London doesn't need it whereas the other cities do.
> Living in Belgium we are about as close as you can possibly get to the UK, with tons of plane/train/ferry connections and yet I never see the UK being advertised. And yet every day I see TONS of advertisements for places in France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Greece,...
> 
> Airlines never seem to advertise their flights to the UK either. People here care about London, but don't know anything about the rest of the UK.
> ...


This is just not true, the London-campaign by Eurostar is held every year if I'm not mistaken, and it's pretty big.









(London, now even more seductive)


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Wait a minute, wait a minute...............since when were there any cities in the UK outside of London?


----------



## ced_flanders (Jan 22, 2008)

GZT said:


> This is just not true, the London-campaign by Eurostar is held every year if I'm not mistaken, and it's pretty big.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK The Eurostar campagne is pretty big, I'll give you that, but it's the ONLY UK advertisement I ever see in Belgium. And since SNCF is a majority shareholder in Eurostar you could argue that France is promoting London more than the UK is  at least in Belgium.


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

Another major point is Britains aviations. It revolves around the south-east. I know Birmingham and probably other cities (less so Manchester) refrain from marketing in countries and cities where there are no direct flights.

This is why I think it's important the government allows Birmingham an extra run way and terminal. We have an extension at the moment which will give us direct flights to India and China but being at the heart of HS2 we need more space. 

Saying that currently BHX has capacity for 27million arrivals and they currently handle 9.3m. :nuts:


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

I've visited London many times (from the US) due to family there, and seen much of south England (Tunbridge Wells a ton, plus Brighton, Bath, St. Ives, Cambridge, Hastings, etc.). But never another major city. 

This is odd even to me. I love visiting new cities. The reason boils down to a lack of knowledge about these cities, and (very strangely) so far even a lack of curiosity. Maybe it's that the little I have heard hasn't been interesting enough to spur my imagination, including threads here. The 50s-70s stuff of course is a problem....London has that too, but it can be avoided (and is usually avoided by tourists) because there's so much good stuff too. 

My advice would be to show why these places are different from London. Show that they're the best in England in whatever way. Each city needs to highlight its uniqueness to justify a trip. And maybe tear down some midcentury shit in some cases.


----------



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

mhays said:


> I've visited London many times (from the US) due to family there, and seen much of south England (Tunbridge Wells a ton, plus Brighton, Bath, St. Ives, Cambridge, Hastings, etc.). But never another major city.
> 
> This is odd even to me. I love visiting new cities. The reason boils down to a lack of knowledge about these cities, and (very strangely) so far even a lack of curiosity. Maybe it's that the little I have heard hasn't been interesting enough to spur my imagination, including threads here. The 50s-70s stuff of course is a problem....London has that too, but it can be avoided (and is usually avoided by tourists) because there's so much good stuff too.
> 
> My advice would be to show why these places are different from London. Show that they're the best in England in whatever way. Each city needs to highlight its uniqueness to justify a trip. And maybe tear down some midcentury shit in some cases.


I wholeheartedly agree about getting rid of the ugly Brutalist crap that blights most of our towns and cities. It is being worked on, but not fast enough! Or maybe I'm just expecting too much too soon! :nuts: 
That said, I'd love to pay a visit to America one day. I'd love to see both the natural sights (I.e Niagara falls, Yellowstone park, Mount Rushmore, the Great Lakes, the Everglades etc.), as well as the cities. The ones I'd most love to visit are obviously New York, Washington D.C, Miami, Chicago, San Fransisco and maybe Seattle? The one I'd most love to see is New Orleans, as it seems so unique amongst the big American cities, plus as a huge Jazz fan it is just a must  Are there any other sights/ cities you'd recommend visiting?
But on the topic of British cities, I think that one way that our cities could be promoted is to give each city a specific theme. What I mean for example is:
Liverpool; the Victorian/Edwardian/ Art Deco Commercial city
Manchester; The Victorian industrial city
Newcastle; The Georgian Industrial city
Bristol; The most varied architectural city
York; The largest Medieval walled city
Norwich; The largest Medieval city.
Etc. etc., I'm sure you catch my drift. It just needs promotion to highlight the best. I'm sure as long as the right places are properly promoted and the best is highlighed, most tourists will very much like what we have. In my opinion (and I will probably get a lot of flack for this), the least attractive places, I.e Coventry, Newport, the London New towns I.e Bracknall and Luton etc. don't really need to be promoted, as we would simply be showing them our worst anyway! Not that there would be much to see in those places in any case!


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

I don't think Brutalist buildings are much of a problem, architecture in the UK is just as good as anywhere, its the poor public realm that's the problem.


----------



## Tiaren (Jan 29, 2006)

*Last year Germany overtook the UK for the first time in international tourist arrivals:*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings#International_tourist_arrivals_by_country_of_destination_2012

Ranking Germany as the 7th most visited country in the world and ranking the UK as the 8th.
Germany's visitor growth was steadily above 5% in the last years, even 7,3% in 2012. The UK's growth in 2012 was -0,3%.

So the UK must be doing something wrong and Germany something very right.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Berlin is very hip at the moment, whilst on the other end of the spectrum London is losing all it's independent businesses and character in the centre as rents skyrocket.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

ssiguy2 said:


> Wait a minute, wait a minute...............since when were there any cities in the UK outside of London?


I realize that's a joke, but Britain beyond London is a bit of a mystery to most north Americans. I bet even people who've heard of Coronation Street assume its set in London. Places that I think might resonate well are Stratford, Edinburgh, and perhaps the Lake District. Cities like Manchester and Birmingham aren't going to fair relatively poorly because they'd be competing head on with London.

It's sort of like why would you go to Baltimore when Washington is close by?


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

> Ranking Germany as the 7th most visited country in the world and ranking the UK as the 8th.
> Germany's visitor growth was steadily above 5% in the last years, even 7,3% in 2012. The UK's growth in 2012 was -0,3%.
> 
> So the UK must be doing something wrong and Germany something very right.


I think hosting the Olympics, surprisingly, usually has a negative effect on tourist numbers in that particular year, as non-Olympic tourists will deliberately avoid the country.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Germany is more accessible in some respects and centrally located within Europe. Britain's an island and tucked in a corner.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

isaidso said:


> Germany is more accessible in some respects and centrally located within Europe. Britain's an island and tucked in a corner.


Germany have more cities that tourists know about and are curious about. Hamburg and Munich especially (after Berlin).

And what Rascar said. Tourists that didn't want to go to the Olympics probably avoided London last year. The months before were all about preparations and the months after were autumn.


----------



## Britas (Jun 19, 2013)

Good thread this.

Maybe Britain could market its cities better, but things are already much better than they used to be. These days Liverpool has a lot of tourists from all over the world, taking pictures of all the nice buildings and posing in front of Beatles stuff (like the statue of John Lennon near the former Cavern Club). As a kid growing up in the 90s the thought that Liverpool could be a tourist destination seemed absurd, but here we are. And it's not just tourists either - there are so many foreign students and workers who can't get enough of the place.

I think the key to attracting visitors is to have something which is almost universally-recognised and use it as a selling point: in Liverpool's case it's the Beatles, and although the city's promotion of the Fab Four can seem a bit contrived and over-the-top at times it _does_ draw in the tourists, who then come to appreciate all the other stuff the city has to offer (grand architecture, quaint pubs, etc.). Simply put, you need at least one major draw to start off with; the lesser-known charms and attractions will become known when visitors arrive due to the main incentive.

Regarding Birmingham, I think it probably suffered the effects of misguided post-war planning more than any other British city. There are so many before-and-after shots of that city which could make you cry. I've never visited but I'm sure it's not all doom-and-gloom and Birmingham (the poster) does make some pretty good points in its favour.

It's true that most of the larger British cities only really grew during the Industrial Revolution, and the corollary of this is that there's very little in the way of old castles and such that an unprepared visitor to Britain might automatically expect. Liverpool is essentially a New World city in relation to its development: the oldest building in the city centre dates from 1717, which is more recent than in some North American cities (such as Boston and Montreal). However, there are so many fine Georgian/Victorian/Edwardian buildings which provide an impressive architectural showcase. This is generally true for other large British cities, though no two are exactly the same.

If our cities have a bland reputation it has to be due to post-war philistinism: some buildings were destroyed during the war but others were torn down and replaced with crap in the name of progess. Modern architecture is at least an improvement on this, but it's still bland for the most part and I find that our cities are all trying to look the same by building identikit glass buildings. And yes, some parts of our cities are pretty badly run-down thanks to post-industrial decline - but these criticisms could just as easily be applied to other more celebrated cities. Some parts of London are as deprived as anywhere else in Britain and some of the banlieues of Paris are just as depressing, but that doesn't harm their reputations as world-class tourist destinations. It shouldn't be the case for smaller, lesser-known cities either.

As for location, Britain might seem a bit off the beaten track but that needn't be the case. Most people travelling across Europe do so by air these days thanks to the increased availability of low-cost airlines, and although Britain is an island it's still pretty close by. It also acts as a convenient stop-off between North America and the rest of Europe, and of course if you're making a return trip it doesn't matter how much a crossroads the destination is. If however people _do_ think it's too much effort to seek out the lesser-known cities in Britain, look at it this way: people are willing to travel to London, and they're also likely to consider Edinburgh and Dublin (being non-English helps their sense of distinctiveness in relation to London), so why not travel to places in-between?

Finally, with regard to the weather no-one should let it put them off visiting Britain. I think the climate here is often misunderstood: you're as likely to have a dry sunny day as a wet cloudy one, the real problem is that the weather is generally changeable and thus unreliable - you get no guarantees here as to what the weather will be like when planning ahead. Anyway, just grin and bear it. Would you cancel your trip to Vienna or Rome if you knew it was going to rain during your stay?

So basically, just come and see for yourself. You may not like it, but then again you just might. That's part of the adventure of travel. 

Sorry for being so brief.


----------



## Colm Flynn (Mar 8, 2012)

The picture below shows tourism for english cities (Edinburgh would 2nd with 1.25m visitors if all of the uk was included)

as you can see



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Cities other than London do need to improve their tourism alright, and it would be cool if more people could visit other cities of the UK


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

KeanoManu said:


> However. Scotland could do more to market their nature.


Wanted to come back to this with a lengthy dismissal when I noticed the smilie and realized it was a joke. :lol:

I think Birmingham could reinvent itself as a Berlin of Britain. A large city with all the advantages coming from that (vibrant melting pot, young, generating knowledge, connected to the world, infrastructure and amenities, opportunities), but also much cheaper as it's not fancy at all. I don't know, though - is it actually cheaper? A lot would need to be started from scratch, but the Brits are creative enough for that task. 

Or has that kind of dynamic been grabbed by Manchester? And regardless, would it be possible in a time of recession and under a conservative government?


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

London will always dominate, maybe the tourism department can find a way to promote other places to tourists after they have arrived in London. Everywhere is pretty close


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Tiaren said:


> *Last year Germany overtook the UK for the first time in international tourist arrivals:*
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings#International_tourist_arrivals_by_country_of_destination_2012
> 
> ...


As others have said, the Olympics probably had a negative effect last year, visits to the UK in the first 7 months of this year were up on the same period in 2012.

UK travel and tourism stats for the first 7 months of 2013 (Jan-Jul)



Visitors to the UK - 18.50m (+4% compared with same period last year)



of which:



Holidays 7.26m (+4%)

Business trips 4.58m (+6%)

Visiting friends and relatives in UK 5.09m (+1%)

Miscellaneous 1.55m (+4%)



Visitors came from:



Europe 13.50m (+3%)

North America 2.06m (-2%)

Rest of world 2.94m (+11%)

In terms of expenditure visitors spent £11.24bn in those 7 months (+13%)

Given Germany's larger size and more easy accessibility from other European markets I thing' the UK does well to have similar visitor numbers.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Hmmm, Liverpool's very photogenic, and one of the better city centres in the country (although a bit of a ghost town on Sundays still) - but also quite rust belt and long-term depopulated (over a million down to 466,000 but now growing by 5% a year). The suburbs have street after street of boarded up homes, the most Ive ever seen. Stick to the waterside, which is pretty atmospheric in a brooding Atlantic kind of way.

centre

















































but just outside it you start to see this:


----------



## MusicMan1 (Aug 18, 2013)

the spliff fairy said:


> Hmmm, Liverpool's very photogenic, and one of the better city centres in the country (although a bit of a ghost town on Sundays still) - but also quite rust belt and long-term depopulated (over a million down to 466,000 but now growing by 5% a year). The suburbs have street after street of boarded up homes, the most Ive ever seen. Stick to the waterside, which is pretty atmospheric in a brooding Atlantic kind of way.
> 
> centre
> 
> ...



I find it quite ironic really that both Liverpool and Glasgow, which (aside from Edinburgh) are arguably the most attractive large regional cities in the UK, seem to have the largest amounts of poverty and deprivation. I suppose it highlights both cities great industrial and commercial pasts, and how Britain's economic decline in the 20th century has affected both cities.
I do think on the whole most cities in the UK are beginning to get their act together regarding architecture and public realm, most new architecture is certainly a hell of a lot more attractive than it was 40 years ago. Some cities are more ahead than others in this regard certainly, but the scope is there for improvement. Personally speaking, the cities I'm most eager to see redeveloped for touristic purposes are Bristol and Nottingham, both of these cities have a great history and architecture that could make for amazing tourist cities, but have both been blighted terribly in certain areas. I wish they'd hurry up in redeveloping Nelson Street, Broadmead, Redcliffe and the Dutch House in Bristol, and Maid Marion Way, Broadmarsh and the Victoria centre in Nottingham. I know things take time, but it just seems like people are dithering way too much over this!


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Basically decline often equated to missing out on the postwar demolition parties, and the gracing of dual carriageways and tower blocks. Glasgow suffered terribly from this, but it had enough old buildings to survive.


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

the spliff fairy said:


> Hmmm, Liverpool's very photogenic, and one of the better city centres in the country (although a bit of a ghost town on Sundays still) - but also quite rust belt and long-term depopulated (over a million down to 466,000 but now growing by 5% a year). The suburbs have street after street of boarded up homes, the most Ive ever seen. Stick to the waterside, which is pretty atmospheric in a brooding Atlantic kind of way.
> 
> centre
> 
> ...


Careful with this one. This is very much a London view of Liverpool - something that you see on British television all the time.

Liverpool never had a population greater than 1m (probably 800,000 at its peak in the 1940s) and whilst its very true that there are areas with boarded up housing in the inner city area it certainly isn't typical of the suburbs of the city.

As for the city centre being a ghost town on Sundays - that may have been true some 10 - 20 years ago but the streets this time of year are teeming with people.

Stick to the waterfront if you want but you would be missing the two cathedrals, the extensive Georgian streets, the three Universities, the miles of parkland in the south of the city and one of the tourist draws of the city - the Elizabethan manor house, Speke Hall.

If you travel further within the City Region, there are miles of beaches on the coasts of Wirral and Sefton, world class golf courses (hosting the British Open at , Birkdale and Royal Liverpool), pine forests, country villages and traditional seaside resorts.

In less than two hours from Liverpool, you can be in the Lake District, Snowdonia or the Peak District.

Nobody denies the negatives, Liverpool is still a poor city in British terms but it is good to look beyond the stereotypes.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I think it was a bad week that I visited (Sunday), back in 2008. It was the City of Culture that year, but it took us ages to find a restaurant that was open in the centre. But then when we hit the waterfront we realised where all the people were - the 'real centre' (at the time).


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

the spliff fairy said:


> I think it was a bad week that I visited (Sunday), back in 2008. It was the City of Culture that year, but it took us ages to find a restaurant that was open in the centre. But then when we hit the waterfront we realised where all the people were - the 'real centre' (at the time).


Things have come on quite a bit since then. In 2008 the Liverpool 1 shopping development was just on the point of opening and since then there have been many new hotels, the cruise liner terminal and the Museum of Liverpool opened.

Admittedly you don't get the huge crowds that you get in some parts of London but most of the city centre has quite a vibe nowadays.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

I am jumping in late to the conversation and haven't read all the posts. I am also doing this from a purely US perspective.

I have been to London several times, and have also visited Leeds a couple of times, and spent a little bit of time in a few cities/towns around that area. I think there is plenty enough content to interest the American tourist. In fact the type of tourist who would venture out of the major cities would be more interested in the local scene, local restaurants and local stores and shopping.

There are some things that I think hold back tourists, though. First is getting there. The US is a big country and people don't often live near the major gateway cities. Mot people already have to make a stop somewhere in the US just to get international, so if the only flights are to London from there, that is where they are going. I think this is why Birmingham is so low (outside of recognition). No one can figure out how to get there.

Second, people need to know how to get around. The big cities have metro systems which people are familiar enough with. On the other hand, in the US buses are usually considered poor transit options, and people dont know how to ride them. Driving is not only difficult (other side of the rod, far, far to complicated road signs and rules, and driving is hyped up to be so strict over there) but also costly. SO I think highlighting transit options would help a lot.

Third is marketing. Few people know a Birmingham exists outside of Alabama. And even fewer know it is a large city and not some suburb of London. A few more people have heard of Manchester, but I think few know what is there. I think a simple good marketing campaign would do wonders.

One last thing - England is reachable from the east coast by plane if you leave early in the morning and are comfortable arriving late evening. I think a lot of tourists get scared of red eye flights, and that also affects their willingness to travel trans-Atlantic. There are one or two daytime flights, I think if those were promoted better you would find more people flying to England.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Rascar said:


> Certainly, though it's also that the dutch feel more at home in the UK being among the more anglophile of continentals. Touring the English countryside appeals to them in away it doesn't to French, Italians, Belgiums.


You certainly see a lot more Dutch vehicles touring around here in the summer than French, Italian or German cars despite those countries all being much more populated than the Netherlands.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Oh man, rural and small-town Yorkshire is beautiful... Already bookmarked Aysgarth and Ripon and I'll be looking up today's TdF map to find other places I saw.
> Some of the landscapes have an uncanny resemblance to my native Transylvania.


Yes, that was good publicity! Check out Harrogate and Knaresborough as well as York itself and Fountains Abbey which are all well worth a visit in that area.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ my missus's been to York, it was the first time she saw a proper medieval heritage in a city.... Needless to say her memories are on the very positive side and we want to get there sometime. 

I've not looked up the route yet but her other travel highlight was the seaside (on high cliffs) train trip from Glasgow to Leeds.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Cloudship said:


> There are some things that I think hold back tourists, though. First is getting there. The US is a big country and people don't often live near the major gateway cities. Mot people already have to make a stop somewhere in the US just to get international, so if the only flights are to London from there, that is where they are going. I think this is why Birmingham is so low (outside of recognition). No one can figure out how to get there.
> 
> Second, people need to know how to get around. The big cities have metro systems which people are familiar enough with. On the other hand, in the US buses are usually considered poor transit options, and people dont know how to ride them. Driving is not only difficult (other side of the rod, far, far to complicated road signs and rules, and driving is hyped up to be so strict over there) but also costly. SO I think highlighting transit options would help a lot.


Interesting points. I don't think getting to those places internally should be too much of a problem, I personally don't see that driving should be too difficult, driving on the other side of the road is fine once you get used to it but I can understand people not wanting to do that. Birmingham is only 90 minutes by train from London though, Manchester/Liverpool just over two hours, most places are fairly easily reachable by train unless you want to go to some rural areas and I would think that most city centres are compact enough to walk around once there. 

It would be nice to have more direct transatlantic flights to other airports but when London is only a couple of hours away most airlines will fly there. You can fly direct to Manchester from around 10-12 North American cities so that is a reasonable selection and that airport also serves the North of England generally not just Manchester itself.

Maybe improving transit passes for tourists so that they can just get on any local train, tram or bus would be helpful if they want to visit more peripheral parts of the cities.


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

Oxford has a massive tourist industry - I'd wager its the biggest money spinner.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

mintgum84 said:


> Oxford has a massive tourist industry - I'd wager its the biggest money spinner.


I'm not sure, the university and indirectly connected business schools and private schools bring in a huge amount in foreign earnings.

Overall Oxford has a very strong economy, with the university, tourism and a BMW (Mini) factory in what is not a particularly large city.

Going slightly off topic, but it is a shame Oxford and it's rival Cambridge are not both 100 miles further from London, both could provide strong hubs and rebalance the economy away from London in tourism and other sectors.


----------

