Feature
TRAVEL AND TOURISM
Tourist central
by Seymour Touns
November 2004
''Where should I go and what should I see in Bucharest'' is a natural question posed by visitors to the city, and an impossibly difficult one to answer. At a recent conference aimed at developing tourism to Romania, a leading UK consultant explained to representatives from the Ministry of Culture the difference between a 'tourist destination' and a 'tourist attraction', claiming that while tourist destinations can be created by promoting local attractions, tourist attractions themselves can rarely be turned into destinations. (The ghastly Dracula Park project falls into this category!)
The Lipscani area could become a focal point for tourism.
In some of the world’s capital cities the line between
attraction and destination is clearly blurred. Would tourists still flock
to Paris if there were no Louvre or Eiffel Tower? Probably yes. However, would
tourists still travel to Cairo if there were no pyramids? Probably not –
they would travel straight to the Valley of the Kings and Luxor, by-passing
Cairo altogether. Bucharest is like a Cairo with no pyramids. Few people stay
in the city longer than a day or two at most, before heading out to the glories
of rural Transylvania and historic sites in Brasov, Sibiu, Sinaia, Sighisoara
and beyond.
As a resident in Bucharest I have to admit that having visitors to stay here
has always been rather difficult from the perspective of host and guide. I
have to rack my brains for places of interest to visit and then rather than
wonder from place to place by foot, I have to bundle my guests into the back
of a car and ferry them from church to museum to government landmark in an
attempt to show them the interesting and historical landmarks. Invariably
these ‘tourist sites’ are tucked between or behind modern concrete
monoliths, which do not inspire the visitor to have much faith in what the
attraction may hold.
The same can be said (and regrettably often is) of the Lipscani
area of the city; which whilst being one of my personal favourite areas, is
to the virgin tourist eye, exactly what it is - nothing more than a decaying
artefact of the passed, ramshackle, dirty and not the safest place to be after
nightfall. I actually feel embarrassed taking guests to Lipscani and try to
distract their attention from the shady parts by criss-crossing the streets
between glass blowing and curiosity shops.
Of course a degree of pragmatism is called for. Bucharest cannot begin to
match Prague or Rome in splendour; as the saying goes you can’t make
a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but it can at least make the most of
what Ceausescu bequeathed it to attract the kind of tourism and tourist revenue
that other cities in the region enjoy.
The first step in realising this vision is for the government to outline a
long-term culture and tourism plan linked to an urban development strategy.
Such a plan may take twenty years to complete, but is essential for the overall
development of the city. The most pressing need for Bucharest is to have a
focal point or focal points, a kind of tourist central, where visitors to
the city can head to experience the city’s culture and history in a
single stop. Obviously I would like to see the Lipscani area cleaned up and
renovated to create a quaint, cobbled and vehicle free pedestrian zone, brimming
with artisans, street cafes and shopping experiences where visitors can spend
an entire day, soaking up the history and lifestyle of Bucharest and importantly
spending their tourist dollars (souvenir hunting in Bucharest is still a notoriously
difficult thing to do). A similar tourist zone could be developed around the
Episcopiei-Enescu-Amzei district, again with street cafés, galleries
and live music – the Covent Garden of Bucharest. Even Dorobantilor could
offer an up market shopping and restaurant zone for the well-heeled tourist
(although I am dismayed to see that the cobblestones of Piata Dorobanti have
been covered in tarmac, thereby destroying some of what little charm remains
in the area).
Yet all three of these potential tourist hot spots have one obstacle in common
– traffic. All three are major link-roads through parts of the city
and are always gridlocked with foul smelling buses, maniac taxi drivers or
4X4s. There is absolutely no need (even with the soaring number of vehicles
on the city’s streets) for these areas to be used as thoroughfares.
Given political will and support, the city’s urban planners can quite
easily reroute traffic to other streets and create a one-way ring road system
which bypasses the pedestrian tourist areas.
Perhaps one of the cities main selling points - and one which in many ways
makes it unique for a European capital city - is its extensive urban lakes
and parkland. Herastrau Lake is already becoming a mecca for city dwellers
and visitors to eat, drink and people watch, but again there is nothing much
else to do or spend your money on while you are there. An international water-sports
calendar of events would attract enthusiasts and spectators to the city; outdoor
rock concerts or jazz festivals (also on the lake itself) during the summer
would bring people to Bucharest; even a discreet spa-hotel-resort on the shores
of the lake would put Bucharest on the map.
It is time for Bucharest to drop its moniker as ''the Paris of the East''
(it isn’t) and focus on developing its tourist infrastructure. Long-term
plans for tourism to the city need to include the creation of tourist friendly
zones, of focal points where visitors can come and experience the attractions
of the city. Only then can Bucharest become a destination of choice in its
own right.
Seymour Touns is a travel writer whose current project is a tourist’s
guide to countries that border the Black Sea.
