# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p. 1xx) Answer

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p. 1xx) Answer

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p. 1xx) Answer

# data[].attributes.body
Refers to Page 172-173 example:

New York Convention and Visitors Bureau,

Page 176 and 182 example:

Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side

Here is my opinion:

Public officials at first support the destruction of aging neighborhoods and the reconstruction of cities in the 1930s. After 2 years, the two publications said They thought the "old" New York was dirty and unclean. The New York Convention and Visitors Bureau thought the old NYC have changed a lot, not the previous one. Tourists did not feel good. Whereas others appreciated the new tidy urban landscape, others sought more historic and authentic experiences in neighborhoods like Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side. Urban renewal, then, attracted some visitors and drove others away.

# data[].attributes.body
Phenomenon 1:

Refers to Page 178:

Titles One and Two of the 1949 United States Housing Act granted federal money for developers willing to replace slum housing with modern structures.

and Maybe page 179, I think it also can be an example, the NYC.

Phenomenon 2:

Page 180: Bureau’s promotional endeavors.

Page 181-182: Evoking both an older tradition of urban visitation and recent cultural trends in their quest for ‘authenticity’

Here is my opinion:

The initial phenomenon was the increased speed of urban renewal. Mega redevelopment schemes, such as new skyscrapers and mega infrastructure, which are making New York more attractive to middle-class tourists.

The second phenomenon was a shift in what tourists were interested in seeing. Gradually most visitors wished to visit the new, modern sights. by the late 1950s and early 1960s, a new trend emerged. Tourists began to seek more historic and authentic experiences in older districts.

# data[].attributes.body
Refers to Page 172

Example: New York Landmark Preservation Act of 1963. (Legislation to preserve the environment)

Page 183:

Whitney North Seymour Jr. described how architectural preservation could serve as a boost for business, as it attracts vacationers, out-of-towners, and other visitors.

Page 184:

The New York Landmark Preservation Bill was drafted by city council in 1964, they clarified many deatails.

The bill was a major change in city policy. It acknowledged that over-modernization was repelling tourists and residents. It understood that it was important to save old structures and cultural sites so that New York could remain a popular tourist destination. The bill came from the worry that city expansion was destroying the history and culture of the city, something many tourists wanted to experience.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p 173), No, the urban renewal in old districts have not been universally welcomed by public authorities and tourists. While the actions were welcomed by public bodies, tourists' attitudes were divided. On the one hand, tourists who previously sought authenticity here expressed dissatisfaction, yet the urban renewal also attracted those who enjoy downtown exploration.

# data[].attributes.body
1）(Refer to p. 178)Urban renewal, including slum clearance projects and the construction of steel-and-glass office buildings, entertainment venues, and other modern structures, made the new New York highly attractive to middle-class tourists.

2）(Refer to p. 179)The economic boom increased wages and provided more vacation time, making long-distance vacation travel accessible and affordable on a large scale.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p.183)The introduction of the New York Landmark Preservation Bill (1964) represented the convergence of tourism, municipal self-interest, and preservation as seen by city officials

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to Page 173) In the 1930s, the government strongly supported the clean-up and large-scale urban renewal of the old city, believing it to be a good way to improve the urban environment and solve the problem of slums.But not everyone is happy, especially those who have been forced to move. For tourists, urban renewal brings with it modern high-rises and new facilities, which many people find fresh and attractive. But there are also tourists who begin to miss the "authenticity" of the old town and find those places more attractive . So, the attitude of the government and tourists is not entirely consistent.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to Pages: 179-180, 183.

Commercialization of Tourism: Tourism exploded in New York after the war, especially in Midtown Manhattan, which became a center of shopping and entertainment. The government and big business desperately advertise these modern landmarks, such as newly built skyscrapers and shopping malls, which attract large numbers of tourists.

Return to the "Original": With the renewal of the city, some tourists and residents are starting to feel that New York's historic districts and cultural landmarks are more flavorful. Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side, for example, are becoming popular spots for tourists looking for the "real New York." This trend eventually led to the passage of the New York Landmarks Protection Act of 1964.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to Pages: 173, 183)

The passage of the New York Landmark Protection Act in 1964 marked the beginning of New York's realization that it is not enough to modernize, but also to preserve history and culture. This bill is designed to prevent the demolition of historic buildings. In simple words, this bill is a balance that New York has found between modernizing and preserving its history.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p. 173) The attitude of public authorities and tourists are not the same. Public authorities welcomed the clearance of old districts and large-scale urban renewal in the 1930s, because it's a effective method to create condition of modernisation and get rid of the issues of slums. But some tourists have different opinions. They prefer a diverse and traditional community that can offer an authentic experience instead of a modern commercialised city.

# data[].attributes.body
Page176-177: Describes how city planners and officials promoted urban renewal as a solution to New York’s "chaotic and unhealthy" environment.

Page 183: highlights how modernization and demolition of historic areas started alienating tourists and residents. Some architectural experts argued that cities were losing their unique character due to excessive urban renewal.

My opinion:

The clearance of old districts and large-scale urban renewal in the 1930s were initially supported by public authorities, who saw them as necessary for modernization and economic development. While some visitors appreciated the modern infrastructure and skyscrapers, others lamented the loss of historic neighborhoods and unique cultural spaces.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p. 178)

Phenomena 1: Mass tourism's growth

Due to longer paid vacations and improved transportation, more and more people from the middle-class are able to travel. The tourist behaviours are also changed. They are focusing modern landmarks and commercial entertainment.

Phenomena 2: Seeking Authenticity

When the city was becoming more and more modernised, many tourists want to get authentic experiences in historic districts like Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side. The desire for authenticity also influenced urban preservation efforts.

# data[].attributes.body
Page 178-180

1. Demographic Reorganization

Post-war migration patterns led to an influx of African Americans and Puerto Ricans into areas like the Lower East Side and Harlem. These districts, which had previously been popular for tourists seeking an "exotic" experience, became stigmatized and were largely avoided by mainstream visitors.

2. The Promotion of Urban Renewal as a Tourist Attraction:

The New York Convention and Visitor Bureau actively promoted New York's modernization, highlighting new skyscrapers, commercial spaces, and infrastructure projects, as a key selling point for visitors.

# data[].attributes.body
Pages 173-174

The introduction of the New York Landmark Preservation Bill (1964) represented a shift in urban planning and tourism policies, marking a move away from the unchecked modernization of urban renewal towards the recognition of historical and architectural heritage as valuable assets. It acknowledged that the destruction of historic sites could harm New York City's status as a global tourist destination and cultural hub.

Opinion:

This Bill was responding to concerns about over-modernization and catering to a growing tourist demand for “authentic” urban experiences. The bill's passing signified an official effort to balance development with heritage conservation, a perspective that contrasted with the dominant mid-century push for urban renewal.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p. 182) The New York Landmark Preservation Bill represents the change of people's attitudes towards urban space. It admits that the city's historical and architectural heritage should be preserved. is important to maintain its status as a world-wide tourist centre and cultural capital. It shows that unlimited renewal and modernisation of city may destroy the uniqueness of historic communities can cause decrease of public and tourists's support due to the experience.

# data[].attributes.body
No. (Refer to p.175-176) Initially, public authorities proposed and supported urban renewal projects, such as slum clearance and the construction of new urban complexes. They believed these measures would effectively diminish the disparities between various parts of the city.

(Refer to p.173) However, it also reflected that the clearance of old districts and large-scale urban renewal encroached upon the type of tourist who does not seek urban tourism but prefers to explore the authenticity of the city. As the words go, “the same urban renewal attracting one group of visitors would alienate another.”

# data[].attributes.body
（Refer to page 183)

It represents convergence of tourism, municipal self-interest and preservation, and a shift in American’s attitudes towards urban space.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p.178-180)First, the demographic reorganization of post-war America cast the formerly ‘picturesque’ neighbourhoods of the city in a darker hue. Stigmatized ethnic groups were forced to live in inferior communities, away from tourist areas. Second, the same city officials and merchants benefiting from urban renewal were increasingly active in ‘selling’ this modernization to visitors as one of New York’s most attractive qualities. They worked to build a tourism model designed for the middle class and to promote consumption.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p.183-184) It represents that NYC tourism shifted from damaging historical communities and buildings to protecting them, and began to emphasize the city's authenticity rather than showcasing artificial urbanization. "Unchecked modernization threatened to alienate both tourists and residents from the city" began to go the other way.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 176: Public authorities should generally agree that a massive cleanup and renovation is needed, as New York City demolished 37,000 apartments in 1937 and replaced them with modern residential towers (p176). This approach has the support of the federal government, so to some extent its positive attitude. Tourists may also hold a positive attitude, because they think that the renewal of the urban landscape is meaningful, and some places become new tourist attractions. What they miss about history, in my opinion, is probably not that they don't want urban renewal.(p177)

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 178-179: After the war, urban renewal accelerated, housing laws received federal funding, public housing projects were relocated, and floor space throughout New York was massively expanded. Nearly 33.6 million square feet of office space was added between 1947 and 1961. (p178)

This is followed by an increase in the number of tourists in the United States, an increase in practitioners and an increasing consumption of tourism.(p179)

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to p182: The introduction of the preservation bill reflects the importance attached to the city's historical and cultural heritage, as well as the realization that the preservation of this heritage is critical to maintaining New York's status as a global tourism center (p. 182).Tourists and residents are beginning to seek more historical and local experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to:

p172, By the late 1930s charges that the ‘old’ New York was a chaotic and unhealthy environment in need of replacement gained greater currency just as private–public bodies such as the New York Convention and Visitors Bureau were promoting the sanitized ‘renewed city’ at the expense of its older districts.

p176, The push for a more rational, harmonious and orderly city through urban design, present at least since the ‘City Beautiful’ movement of the late nineteenth century, was given extra impetus during the 1930s via renewed attention on the failings of laissez-faire development and the deepening of slum conditions.

p177, The increasingly visible and seemingly intractable poverty of the city’s older districts, particularly Harlem and the Lower East Side, added all the more to the lustre of the ‘New’ New York, facilitating their takeover of visitors and locals’ imagination.

Answer:

In the 1930s, New York's urban renewal was widely supported by public authorities as a means to modernize and improve sanitation. But tourists' reactions varied: while some were attracted to modern landmarks and amenities, others sought more "authentic" experiences in historic neighborhoods like Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p.183) It marked a dramatic shift in American’s attitudes towards urban space.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 177 - 178: In the 1930s, public authorities embraced old - district clearance and urban renewal, with the New York government acting and the public showing acceptance. Tourists had mixed feelings. Some favored modern attractions emerging from renewal, but others, who valued exploring diverse neighborhoods, disliked the changes. By the 1950s, those seeking “authentic” experiences in places like Greenwich Village were against renewal that endangered such areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 179 - 181:

Phenomenon 1: Minorities like African - Americans and Puerto Ricans moved into neighborhoods such as the Lower East Side. These areas were then stigmatized, becoming off - limits to post - war tourists, which changed the tourism geography in the city.

Phenomenon 2: City officials and the New York Convention and Visitor Bureau promoted New York's modernization. They highlighted new landmarks, consumer options, and entertainment in brochures and events. Urban renewal was presented as a major selling point, with an emphasis on midtown Manhattan, marginalizing other parts of the city.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 183: The 1964 New York Landmark Preservation Bill represented a shift in urban development and tourism approaches. It signified the convergence of tourism, municipal interests, and preservation. With modernization threatening to alienate tourists and residents, and some tourists seeking “authentic” experiences, the bill aimed to protect the city's heritage. It also marked a change in American attitudes towards urban space, recognizing the appeal of the city's existing features post the 1964 World's Fair failure.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 176-177: In the 30s of the 20th century, the demolition of the old town and large-scale urban renewal were generally supported by the public authorities, and some "new" mass tourists were more interested in modern architecture, etc., but not all tourists welcomed it, and there were still people who loved the old neighborhood.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 178-180: Two phenomena related to the development of urban tourism in post-war New York are: first, demographic restructuring has restricted some neighborhoods to tourists; Second, officials and businessmen actively promoted urban renewal as an attraction for New York.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 183-184: The introduction of the New York Landmarks Protection Act of 1964 marked a recognition by city officials of the convergence of tourism, municipal interests, and conservation. It's a response to tourists' need for "authentic" experiences, and it symbolizes a shift in Americans' attitudes toward urban space.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 176 - 178

No. Public authorities were in favor of it. The American public was becoming increasingly receptive to the utopian visions promised by urban renewal, and the New York municipal government was committed to slum clearance. However, not all tourists welcomed it. While some new tourists were attracted by modern buildings and infrastructure, older neighborhoods were losing their appeal for some, and the growth of mass tourism later sparked a counter - reaction among visitors seeking more “authentic” experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 179

First, the demographic reorganization of post - war America made formerly “picturesque” neighborhoods less attractive to tourists as stigmatized minorities moved in. Second, city officials and merchants actively promoted urban renewal and modernization as New York's attractive qualities to tourists, and the New York Convention and Visitor Bureau played a key role in selling the modernized city.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 183

It represented that city officials finally saw tourism, municipal self - interest and preservation as converging. Symbolically, it marked a dramatic shift in Americans' attitudes towards urban space. After the failure of the 1964 New York World's Fair, which was promoted as a festival of consumption and modernity, the focus shifted from the city's potential to the city as it was to attract tourists.

# data[].attributes.body
（Page 172-178, 182）

The clearance of old districts and urban renewal in the 1930s were largely welcomed by public authorities, who saw the “old” New York as a “chaotic and unhealthy environment in need of replacement” (p. 172). Organizations like the New York Convention and Visitors Bureau promoted the “sanitized, commercialized ‘renewed city’ at the expense of its older districts” (p. 172). The municipal government committed to slum clearance, demolishing 37,000 apartment houses in 1937 alone, replacing them with modern residential towers (p. 176). Events like the 1939 New York World’s Fair reinforced this vision, presenting a future of skyscrapers, planned districts, and highways (p. 176).

However, tourist reactions were mixed. While some embraced modern landmarks like Rockefeller Center, others sought “authentic experiences” in historic neighborhoods such as Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side (p. 173). Before renewal, tourists enjoyed exploring Chinatown, the Village, and the Lower East Side, as noted in a 1931 New York Times article: “The unusual rather than the new things attract the stranger in New York City” (p. 175).

As renewal progressed, guidebooks shifted focus to modern infrastructure, describing brownstones as “hideous” (p. 178). This marginalization of historic neighborhoods led to a counter-reaction in the late 1950s, ultimately influencing the New York Landmark Preservation Bill of 1964, which aimed to protect the city’s historic and cultural heritage for tourism (p. 182).

# data[].attributes.body
(Page 177-178, 181-182)

1. The transformation of tourist geography, where older districts like the Lower East Side and Chinatown, which had once attracted visitors for their exoticism, were increasingly replaced by modern attractions like Rockefeller Center.

2. The rise of a counter-tourism movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s, where visitors began seeking out more "authentic" urban experiences in neighborhoods like Greenwich Village, which later influenced the development of preservation efforts.

# data[].attributes.body
(page 182)

The introduction of the New York Landmark Preservation Bill (1964) represented a shift in urban policy from unchecked modernization to a recognition of the value of historic preservation. The bill acknowledged that preserving New York’s historical and architectural heritage was essential for maintaining the city's status as a "worldwide tourist center." It reflected growing concerns that urban renewal was erasing cultural landmarks that attracted visitors.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to page 173-177,public authorities welcomed urban renewal. The push for a more rational, harmonious and orderly city through urban design had been present since the “City Beautiful” movement in the late 19th century. In the 1930s, due to the renewed attention on the failings of laissez - faire development and the deepening of slum conditions, architects, theorists and civic groups united in calling for urban renewal. The New York municipal government committed itself to a slum - clearance programme and received federal aid to demolish a large number of apartment houses in 1937. The American public was also becoming increasingly receptive to the utopian visions promised by urban renewal, as new infrastructure was being built across the country. However, the large - scale demolition also brought problems like forced relocation of residents, which caused social unrest.

• Tourists: Tourist attitudes were divided. Some tourists welcomed the changes. The growth of mass tourism and the changing demographics of tourists led to a shift in tourist needs. Many “new” tourists, who had less time for long, city - wide explorations, preferred more streamlined, structured vacations. Modern buildings and infrastructure, with their tourist amenities, became more popular. For example, Rockefeller Center became a top destination for many visitors. But other tourists were opposed. The old “slumming” itinerary, which included visiting ethnic neighbourhoods and unique districts, was replaced by a more selective geography concentrated in midtown. This made some tourists seeking “authentic” experiences, like those interested in Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side, feel that the city was losing its charm. As a result, there was a counter - reaction among these visitors against the changes brought by urban renewal.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to pages 178 - 180,post-war America's demographic changes cast the city's formerly “picturesque” neighbourhoods in a negative light. Minorities like African - Americans and Puerto Ricans moved into areas such as the Lower East Side. These neighbourhoods became associated with crime, and as a result, they were off - limits to post-war tourists, much like in the Victorian era. This change in perception of these areas affected the tourism landscape, leading tourists to avoid certain parts of the city.

City officials and merchants actively promoted the modernization brought by urban renewal as an attractive quality of New York. The New York Convention and Visitor Bureau, which had initially focused on attracting conventions, became more influential as tourism grew. The bureau, composed of important commercial and civic figures, emphasized New York's singular landmarks, cultural and entertainment options, and consumer offerings. They promoted urban renewal as a prime “selling point,” presenting the city as a clean, modern, and exciting destination tailored to a white, middle - class family audience. This promotional effort was a significant factor in shaping tourists' perception of the city and attracting them to the modernized parts of New York.

# data[].attributes.body
Refers to p.172: attitudes of Mayor Robert of New York and the New York Tourism and Convention Bureau;

p.173: the article in Look Magazine and the truth that some visitors were seeking authentic experience

p.177 the transition of tourist needs and tourist in the 1930s

My opinion is:

public ahthorities largely welcomed urban renewal and clearance. Tourist attitudes changed with time — in the 1930s, tourists were generely receptive to the change; however, since the late 1950s, tourists were not in favor of the clearance of old districts, as they valued the historical and cultural experience of these areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to pages 173, 183,convergence of interests: It represented the recognition by city officials that tourism, municipal self - interest, and preservation could converge. There was a growing understanding that disregarding the city's historical and architectural heritage would threaten its standing as a global tourist center, business hub, and cultural capital. By preserving landmarks, the city could enhance its appeal to tourists, which in turn would benefit the local economy.

Response to changing tourist demands: It was a response to the counter - reaction among tourists seeking more “authentic” experiences. As some visitors started to explore areas like Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side for their unique charm, the threat of urban renewal to these places became a concern. The bill aimed to protect these areas of historical and cultural significance, acknowledging that they were important to certain segments of tourists.

Symbolically, it marked a dramatic shift in American attitudes towards urban space. Since the utopian visions of the 1939 New York World's Fair, which emphasized modernity and progress, Americans' views had changed. Now, the city as it was, with its historical elements intact, was seen as more attractive to tourists, rather than just a vision of a future, completely modernized city.

# data[].attributes.body
Phenomenon 1:

Refers to p.178: The demographic reorganization of New York City was a major post-war event. Stigmatized minorities like African-Americans and Puerto Ricans moved into Lower East Side areas. After the war, post-war tourists avoided these lovely locations due to crime and the 'old world'.

Phenomenon 2:

Refers to p.179: Municipal officials and businessmen actively promote urban modernization. They portrayed New York's evolution as its best feature. The New York Convention and Visitor Bureau and other business and civic leaders promoted the city's modern landmarks, cultural and entertainment services, and consumer offers to white, middle-class families. This promotion gave tourists a modernized New York, emphasizing new projects above old districts.

# data[].attributes.body
Refers to p.173-174, it was a crucial reaction to the extensive urban redevelopment initiatives that were changing the look of the city. It also emphasized how crucial it is to protect New York's architectural and historical legacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to pp. 176 - 177, 178：Public authorities welcomed the 1930s urban renewal as it fit their vision of an orderly city, and the public was receptive to its utopian promises. But not all tourists agreed. Some liked the new modern sites, while others seeking “authentic” experiences were put off as their favored areas faced renewal.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to pp. 179 - 180：Two post - war phenomena were: demographic changes made certain neighborhoods off - limits to tourists as minority groups moved in; and city officials and merchants actively promoted urban renewal and modernization, highlighting new attractions to draw visitors.

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to pp. 183 - 184：The 1964 New York Landmark Preservation Bill showed that city officials recognized the convergence of tourism, self - interest, and preservation. It aimed to protect the city's heritage for its status as a global center. Its passage symbolized a shift in Americans' views on urban space, with the real city becoming more appealing to tourists.

# data[].attributes.body
(Refer to p.176)The public were in favor. Architects such as Le Corbusier, theorists like Lewis Mumford and civic groups such as the Regional Plan Association united in calling for a drastic remodelling of the cityscape. The American public was becoming increasingly receptive to the utopian visions promised by urban renewal.

(Refer to p.177)Tourists had different attitudes. On the one hand, individual modern landmarks were given a greater prominence than ever before. But some people like old district.