The extensive growth of urban tourism has influenced the living environment of urban citizens worldwide, which is among others due to changes in the range of commercial amenities. As a manifestation of this development, the existing supply of retail and hospitality services gradually changes from a focus on inhabitants to the tourist. As a result, the call for municipal intervention grows. However, little is known about the steerability of this development. In this article we therefore asses how tourism affects the range of commercial amenities in city streets, and what local policy responses are most suitable. The research builds on the concepts of tourism gentrification and different types of ‘policy-instrument fit’. Our case study of the city centre of Amsterdam, including a media and policy document analysis, as well as in-depth interviews with stakeholders, show that some problems caused by mass tourism require ‘hard’ forms of government control, while others require a ‘softer’ process approach, linking local parties to jointly improve a city street. The presented steering perspectives are not only relevant for the city of Amsterdam, but also for many other towns within, and beyond, the Netherlands, that have been struggling with the growth of tourism. The open attitude towards urban mass tourism has come up for discussion and urban (tourism) policy calls for reconsideration.

In the near future, the Dutch government intends to change the rules relating to smoking bans in the hospitality industry again. After a complete ban, coming into force in July 2008, and introducing an exception for small bars in June 2011, the complete ban will return this year. This article describes the law regarding smoking bans in the Netherlands, and reports along researches of the relevant authority and a commercial research institute the effectiveness of the bans. From these findings it becomes clear that the hospitality industry did a good job in complying with the bans. But there is one exception: small bars. Next we explain, based on the ideas of Kagan and Skolnick and Elias the effectiveness of smoking bans.

This article sketches an alternative route to stimulate public familiarity: introducing spaces and zones of hospitality. Maybe hospitality in (semi)public space can offer more safe and comfortable ways of interaction. How does hospitality relate to the principles of public life like free access? Which views of interaction between strangers are presupposed? It is argued that hospitality means sharing together a certain limited space. The persons present depend on each other and they have the opportunity to make contact and get nearer. Guests have the positive obligation to treat each other with respect. Hospitable social regulation may be promoted in various ways. First by introducing symbolic demarcations like gateways and fences. Secondly by introducing convivial forms of interaction. Making use of public space in sheltered and relaxed ways may function as 'leveler' through which newcomers may feel welcome and 'at home'. Thirdly, by means of a 'personal hospitability' small conflicts can be managed. In that case some persons may take the role of public host without being asked. Finally some objections against hospitability are dealt with: on the one hand the freedom to move as one wants would be restricted and on the other hand informal manners in hospitable spaces would not satisfy the rules of detached and impersonal public interaction. Against that it is argued that 'total freedom of movement' and impersonal interaction are not always suitable principles to shape public life.