Tourism in Amsterdam: “The city has been locked into its image”
For 200 years, tourists have been visiting Amsterdam en masse. But the attractions keep changing, architectural historian Sophie van Ginneken discovered. In her dissertation, she uses travel guides to describe how the tourist image of Amsterdam is determined. “The development of photography was at least as important as the construction of the Rijksmuseum.”
You write in your dissertation that tourism in Amsterdam has become unbalanced. Why is that, and is this the first time in history this has happened?
“It’s a feeling, such a balance. If more people come in a short period of time it stands out, and tourism then gets a negative connotation. We felt that 10 years ago, but you see that happening all the time over the years. Mass tourism comes in growth spurts. The starting point was in 1840 when trains and steamboats came and more and more people had leisure time. In the 19th century, it was mostly artists and rich young men who visited Amsterdam, then in the late 19th century more women and families came. Young people joined them in the late 1960s. Around 2000, smartphones and airplanes brought another wave of tourists. And that won’t be the last. All of Africa and South America, for example, are still to come.”
“Why did I write the dissertation? Tourism began to interest me more and more as a resident of Amsterdam. The whole inner city has become one big amusement park and that causes damage. I wanted to know: how did we end up in this situation?”
What were the most important turning points in Amsterdam’s tourist history? And what role did architecture play in this?
“The construction of the Rijksmuseum is a special moment. As soon as the building is there, you see a very clear change in interest in the travel guides: the Rijksmuseum was immediately the main attraction. In that sense, you can shift tourists’ attention with architecture and good content - because the most important art treasures of the Netherlands are exhibited there.”
“But it’s usually the other way around. Often it is external factors that attract tourists. The development of photography was at least as important as the construction of the Rijksmuseum. With the rise of photography, architecture also took on a different meaning. From then on, travel guides described all buildings differently: much more visually, much more from the exterior.”
What is the link between tourism and architecture?
“You see it immediately when you walk into a souvenir shop: buildings appear in all sorts of shapes on refrigerator magnets, postcards, and chocolate boxes. Buildings are landmarks that express a certain identity, an important function of architecture. Architecture can also give places tourist value. A good example is the Bilbao effect: the sleepy town of Bilbao has been highlighted worldwide by its Guggenheim Museum.”
“I wanted to further investigate the relationship between tourism and architecture in Amsterdam. Hardly any research had been done on this from the point of view of architectural history.”
Around 1970, Amsterdam acquired the image of a “free, tolerant city of the Golden Age.” Where did that image come from?
“That was partly due to architectural-historical information picked up by international travel guides. They describe Amsterdam much more as the monumental Golden Age city known for its canal ring. These are new terms of reference; the words ‘Golden Age’ and ‘canal ring’ don’t appear in guidebooks until the 1960s. These turned out to be magic words for the tourist who wants a clear frame of reference.”
“At the same time, industry moves out of Amsterdam in the late 1960s, creating a kind of vacuum for new things. Amsterdam becomes the hub of drug networks, youth culture emerges, and hippies discover the city. The old image of a ‘free, tolerant city’ is suddenly redefined: from ‘everyone can practice their religion’ to ‘here we can smoke and have free sex.’ Amsterdam still suffers from that image.”
Do you think that image still exists? Or has a new image already replaced it?
“It’s kind of interesting. All those images are still around, but no new image has been added in the last 20 years. My conclusion is that Amsterdam has unconsciously conformed so much to the existing images that the city has become locked in its own image. You can also see this in the architecture. You can’t really build anything more in the inner city. Everything is monumental, so that image is literally frozen.”
Can Amsterdam still get rid of its image as a “free” city?
“The image is persistent, but the hopeful thing is that the meaning can change. Things are shifting again now. The image of the ‘Golden Age’ is now very much being called into question. Also, we want to get rid of the Red Light District.”
What could Amsterdam do to attract fewer tourists, and can architecture help?
“Two years ago, the planologist Zef Hemel came up with the plan to devise a number of new cultural attractionsoutside the city. This research shows clearly that this is extremely difficult. Tourists won’t be fooled. It has succeeded once in history to relocate an attraction. That was with the Rijksmuseum because it collectivized the most important objects of the Netherlands’ national heritage and the building provided exactly what the tourist wanted to see, namely a modern Dutch building. But with the relocation of, say, an erotic center, that is not the case. I don’t think that makes sense unless you use the plan to eventually eliminate the Red Light District.”
“What I learned from my research is that tourism is woven into all aspects of urban development. The housing market, economy, internationalization, attracting large companies, organizing activities, and screening films are all aspects that contribute to the attraction of Amsterdam and encourage tourism. If you continue with those developments then it doesn’t make much sense to slow down visitors.”
“In that sense, the municipality’s current plans are symptomatic. The more attractive we make Amsterdam for ourselves, the more attractive it is for tourists. That is the bind the city is in, and you have to make a choice.”
So what is the solution?
“Look, it is an illusion to think that tourism is disappearing; on the contrary, it is only increasing. The number of tourists visiting Amsterdam annually is now around 20 million and is expected to be around 30 million by 2030, in a city of less than a million inhabitants.”
“But I do think something can be done about it. Providing plenty of choices for residents by providing affordable housing and encouraging all the amenities that keep life in the city, for example, is a first step. We also need to understand tourism much better than we have so far. Hopefully, my research will help with that. The municipality has been blinded by city marketing, flights, and moving attractions. I would argue for a much more complex approach, as this research shows that tourism is present in the most diverse aspects, and therefore relevant to almost all policy areas.”
Do you relate to the tourist differently as a result of writing the dissertation?
“I have come to the realization that I am one of them and that is the reason I live in Amsterdam. There are differences, of course, but by and large I look at the city with the same ‘sightseeing’ outlook as a tourist. We go out to eat the same way, visit museums, and cycle along the canals. Unlike before, we also look the same now: we all wear the same casual clothes and are almost indistinguishable from one another. I don’t think we should be annoyed by tourists, in fact. After all, you never have a beautiful city to yourself, although that may be a very normative statement. My research has helped me better understand and deal with tourism.”
Sophie van Ginneken will receive her doctorate on Thursday, July 6th at 2 p.m. for her dissertation “The tourist gaze on Amsterdam. The city as ‘sight’ and ‘site,’ 1840-2000.” The defense will take place in the Aula (Oude Lutherse Kerk) and is freely accessible
