104 resultados para Hospitality, Leisure, Sport
Resumo:
Awards:<br/>Award Best Leisure Building - 2009 RIAI Irish Architecture Awards<br/>Special Mention 2009 AAI Awards for Excellence in Architecture<br/><br/>Reviews:<br/>2010/11 RIAI Irish Architecture Review, Dublin Volume 1 <br/>2009 AAI New Irish Architecture Cork Volume 24 <br/>2009 Architecture Ireland, Dublin Volume 245 <br/>2009 A+D Magazine, Brussels Issue No.32 <br/>2009 A10 Magazine, Amsterdam Issue 26, March April 2009 <br/>2009 PLAN Magazine, Dublin March 2009 <br/>2009 PLAN Irish Architecture, Dublin Review 2009 <br/>2008 The Irish Times, Dublin November 27th <br/>2008 The Architects Journal, London Volume 228, November 13th<br/>
Resumo:
Londons successful bid for the 2012 Olympic Games presented a diverse, cosmopolitan city opening its arms and welcoming the world. This article explores the apparently benign gesture of hospitality contained in Londons official candidature files submitted in 2004 and asks how such a promise of inclusiveness is managed. We argue that Londons depiction of itself as hospitable to every kind of visitor relies on subtle techniques of governmentality in which the subject positions of host and guest are imagined and produced in ways that make them more governable. By this, we are not referring to acts of authority, coercion, or discipline that exclude subjects or render them docile bodies within a rigid panoptical city. Rather, we are referring to the delicate ways in which the official bid document imagines and produces the ideal subject positions of host and guest and in so doing enables, encourages, and incentivizes certain behaviors. This analysis of urban welcoming takes us beyond reductive oppositions of hospitality and hostility, inclusion and exclusion, self and other. It focuses instead on how Londons inclusive welcome produces a variety of host and guest positions (for example, the Olympic Family, volunteers, guest workers), segregates them within the city, and then conducts their conduct in the areas of planning, security, transport, accommodation, education, and training. By analyzing the techniques of governmentality at work in Londons 2004 bid document, this article foregrounds the enabling form of power driving the citys inclusive welcome and exposes its inherent micropolitics.
Resumo:
This article argues that the terrorist bombings of hotels, pubs and nightclubs in Bali in October 2002, and in Mombasa one month later, were inaugural moments in the post-9/11 securitization of the tourism industry. Although practices of tourism and terrorism seem antithetical one devoted to travel and leisure, the other to political violence this article argues that their entanglement is revealed most clearly in the counter-terrorism responses that brought the everyday lives of tourists and tourism workers, as well as the material infrastructure of the tourism industry, within the orbit of a global security apparatus waging a war on terror. Drawing on critical work in international relations and geography, this article understands the securitization of tourism as part of a much wider logic in which the liberal order enacts pernicious modes of governance by producing a terrorist threat that is exceptional. It explores how this logic is reproduced through a cosmopolitan community symbolized by global travellers, and examines the measures taken by the tourism industry to secure this community (e.g. the physical transformations of hotel infrastructure and the provision of counter-terrorism training).
Resumo:
<p>Unfavorable work characteristics, such as low job control and too high or too low job demands, have been suggested to increase the likelihood of physical inactivity during leisure time, but this has not been verified in large-scale studies. The authors combined individual-level data from 14 European cohort studies (baseline years from 19851988 to 20062008) to examine the association between unfavorable work characteristics and leisure-time physical inactivity in a total of 170,162 employees (50 women; mean age, 43.5 years). Of these employees, 56,735 were reexamined after 29 years. In cross-sectional analyses, the odds for physical inactivity were 26 higher (odds ratio 1.26, 95 confidence interval: 1.15, 1.38) for employees with high-strain jobs (low control/high demands) and 21 higher (odds ratio 1.21, 95 confidence interval: 1.11, 1.31) for those with passive jobs (low control/low demands) compared with employees in low-strain jobs (high control/low demands). In prospective analyses restricted to physically active participants, the odds of becoming physically inactive during follow-up were 21 and 20 higher for those with high-strain (odds ratio 1.21, 95 confidence interval: 1.11, 1.32) and passive (odds ratio 1.20, 95 confidence interval: 1.11, 1.30) jobs at baseline. These data suggest that unfavorable work characteristics may have a spillover effect on leisure-time physical activity.</p>
