Should Cities Prioritise Tourists or Local Residents in Historic Centres? Historic city centres often depend economically on visitors, yet heavy tourism can make everyday life more difficult for the people who live there. This creates a conflict between supporting an important industry and protecting a functioning local community. Those who favour tourism point out that visitors support hotels, restaurants, museums, guides, and many small businesses. Tourism revenue can finance restoration that local taxes might not maintain. Restricting visitor numbers too aggressively could damage employment and reduce resources for preservation. Residents, however, experience costs that are less visible to short-term visitors. Apartments may be converted into holiday rentals, ordinary shops can be replaced by souvenir businesses, and crowded streets can make transport and daily services harder to use. If local people are gradually pushed out, the centre may remain beautiful while losing the community that gives it character. In my view, residents should have priority when the two interests directly conflict, because a city centre must function as a place to live before it functions as a product to visit. Nevertheless, this does not require rejecting tourism. Cities can limit short-term rentals, manage coach access, and use visitor taxes to support housing and public services. Tourism is most sustainable when local residents benefit from it rather than having to reorganise their lives around it.