Visitor numbers to Oxford’s major attractions have risen sharply, outpacing national trends and reinforcing the city’s position as one of the UK’s most resilient tourism hubs.

New figures from the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) show that visits to UK attractions rose by just 2% last year, reflecting a slow post-pandemic recovery across the sector. In contrast, Oxford University’s Gardens, Libraries and Museums (GLAM) recorded 3,816,898 visitors in 2025, up from 3,559,109 in 2024: a 7% increase year-on-year.

The figures place Oxford well above the national average and mark a continued divergence between the city and wider UK trends. GLAM sites are now operating above pre-pandemic levels, while the sector nationally has yet to fully recover. 

Oxford’s performance is closely tied to the University itself. Many of the city’s most visited attractions – including the Ashmolean Museum, the Bodleian Libraries, and the Museum of Natural History – are embedded within the University and form part of its academic infrastructure as well as its public-facing identity. Several of these sites rank among the most visited attractions in the UK, with the Ashmolean alone drawing over one million visitors in 2025. 

Richard Ovenden, Head of Gardens, Libraries and Museums told Cherwell the figures reflected the University’s cultural offer, pointing to free and low-cost entry as a key driver of footfall alongside “a lively and eclectic programme of events” designed to engage diverse audiences. 

Recent exhibitions have also contributed to rising visitor numbers. The Ashmolean Museum’s ‘This Is What You Get’ exhibition explored the visual art behind Radiohead through the three-decade collaboration between Thom Yorke and artist Stanley Donwood. Featuring more than 180 works, including album cover art, sketchbooks, and previously unseen material, the exhibition drew on the band’s Oxfordshire roots and offered visitors a rare insight into the creative processes behind one of the UK’s most influential bands.

This overlap between academic and public space is central to Oxford’s appeal, but it also shapes student experience, and students themselves also play a role in sustaining this ecosystem. The University’s global reputation draws prospective applicants, visiting families, and international tourists, many of whom engage directly with college and museum spaces. As visitor numbers grow, students increasingly occupy a dual position as both users of and contributors to Oxford’s tourism economy.

The rise in attraction visits reflects a broader increase in tourism across Oxfordshire, which continues to generate significant revenue for the local economy. At a national level, ALVA attributes continued growth to the enduring appeal of cultural experiences, even during the cost-of-living crisis, with visitors prioritising heritage and leisure spending.

The figures underline Oxford’s distinctive character as a university city where academic and public life intersect. Spaces such as the Bodleian Libraries and central college sites continue to serve both students and visitors, contributing to the city’s reputation as a globally significant cultural and intellectual hub.

Oxford City Council has rejected an application by Regent’s Park College to convert the Oxfam Bookshop on St Giles’ Street into its Middle Common Room (MCR), citing local regulations limiting city centre ground-floor units to specific uses such as retail, culture, tourism, and entertainment.

Regent’s Park told Cherwell that the College is “reviewing our options in light of the council’s decision”, and that the proposed change of use of the building was intended “to provide a larger, fit-for-purpose MCR and dedicated postgraduate study space to meet the needs of its expanded postgraduate body”.

The College told Cherwell that the site currently occupied by the Oxfam Bookshop “represents the best opportunity to provide an accessible, above-ground MCR within our existing on-site buildings”. The site at 56 St Giles is part of the College’s estate and is currently divided between the bookshop, which has been running since 1987, and student accommodation.

The change-of-use proposal claimed that the building was not in the city centre as officially defined and that college activities on the site would not “lead to detrimental effects” such as artificial lighting, construction, or “impact upon the significance of the heritage asset”. In their rejection of the application, the City Council did not dispute that it was unlikely that “any harm would arise from the change of use itself”, but noted that the site was, in fact, part of the city centre area by the standards of the Oxford Local Plan 2036. 

Local regulations set out acceptable uses of buildings in central Oxford, particularly in reference to sustainable development, designated heritage assets, and “ensuring the vitality of centres”. The Council documents also summarised objections to the proposal from members of the public, who noted an “effect on character of area” and “loss of community asset”, alongside fears of “noise and disturbance” and difficulties with accessible access. 

The current Regent’s Park College MCR was established in 2005, when the College had a graduate community of only 30 members, and is located underground in a former storage basement with no windows, as noted in their planning application. The College cited the fivefold expansion of the graduate student body over the past two decades and the inaccessibility of the site as reasons why the current MCR was “wholly unsuitable”. Regent’s Park’s planning application also referenced how “the University has drawn attention to the importance of suitable, inclusive facilities for postgraduate students, and the College must respond”.

The rejection of planning permission comes after Jesus College successfully converted the former Burger King on Cornmarket Street into student accommodation in 2025. Other colleges also have plans for new developments in the near future, including Magdalen College, which will be demolishing a 1960s building to construct more student housing.

Should I have been watching Euphoria’s first season as an innocent, bright-eyed 14-year-old? Probably not. At the time, I thought that the chaotic lives of the characters were what I could hesitantly expect as I got older. Little did I know that I was actually destined to be a neek aiming at Oxford, but the point still stands. While I couldn’t relate to Rue’s drug-fuelled crash-outs, or Cassie and Maddy’s fights over Nate, the angst and vulnerability of the ensemble cast spoke to me, and certainly to millions of other teenagers around the world. Coupled with a Petra Collins-esque aesthetic and the familiarity of Zendaya from her Disney days, Euphoria was bound to resonate with Gen Z. So, why was the recent premiere of the third season so underwhelming?

Set several years after the second season, season three of Euphoria sees the cast of troubled teenagers in their early adulthoods, pursuing careers and supposedly dealing with the same insecurities and relationship problems they faced in high school. We are transported from a gritty yet glittery haze to a desert straight out of Breaking Bad, with a complete overhaul of the show’s aesthetics and creative direction. Town festivals and house parties are swapped for meth labs and strip clubs, but many of the characters are invested with the same immaturity as before, while their audience has grown up in the meantime.

While ‘Euphoria Sundays’ are as popular as ever on X, the behind-the-scenes chaos plaguing the show is just as notorious. Just last week, season one and two composer Labrinth announced that his music would not appear in the third season, after being treated “like shit” by associates of the show. Although it is unclear exactly what happened between Labrinth, HBO, and writer Sam Levinson, the absence of Labrinth’s unique score has changed the feel of the show entirely. To add fuel to the fire, Labrinth also released music on the last ‘Euphoria Sunday’, leading fans to speculate that this was originally meant for the show. What was once a common thread between years-apart seasons is now an awkward Hans Zimmer-filled placeholder, lacking a clear vision. When the third season hinges entirely on the premise of a time-jump, aesthetic and thematic continuity is needed more than ever, but highly publicised fallouts like these only weaken the show’s identity.

Additionally, while it is yet to be seen whether major players from past seasons will return, several fan favourites are confirmed to have left the show for good. Actors Angus Cloud (Fezco O’Neill) and Eric Dane (Cal Jacobs) sadly passed away in 2023 and 2026, respectively, with Dane’s final scenes as Cal airing posthumously in the upcoming season. Other cast members are also said to be missing from the third season, including Algee Smith (Chris McKay), Barbie Ferreira (Kat Hernandez), and Storm Reid (Gia Bennett). Most shocking, however, may be that lead actor Hunter Schafer (Jules Vaughn) did not appear at all in the season premiere. An overhaul of characters does not bode well for the series, especially given the countless allegations of a toxic working environment, including from Oscar-nominated actor Colman Domingo.

These issues point to a wider problem with the show’s production, which has resulted in the loss of Gen Z’s attention: simply, too much time has passed. While Skins, a comparable British TV show, grew annually with its audience, Euphoria has taken six years to develop just three seasons, which can be a risky outcome for a coming-of-age drama. The four-year gap between the second and third seasons can be felt in the performances on screen; Jacob Elordi, in particular, does not seem to have his heart in it anymore. Why would he? After Oscar and BAFTA nominations, and partnerships with Hugo Boss and TAG Heuer, Euphoria may now be little more than a contractual obligation, instead of a significant step up from The Kissing Booth. Watching Elordi and Sweeney engage in pet play (yes, really) in the new season’s first episode is excruciating, devoid of any sexual chemistry or enjoyment. Thankfully, Zendaya’s excellent performance as chaotic, masc lesbian Rue is the saving grace of the show, proving the bittersweet point that her carefully-crafted character has been let down by the show’s writing.

If the aesthetic, cast, and music of the first two seasons were irrevocably stripped away to reveal a bland artistic landscape, the writing suffered an even worse fate. Admittedly, Euphoria was never a feminist masterpiece, and much can be said about the reliance of the early seasons on Sydney Sweeney’s naked body. But, fundamentally, they had something to say about the exploitation of women and the sexual politics of teenagers. Whether it was Rue’s drug addiction, Cassie’s abortion, or Maddy’s experience of domestic violence, Euphoria was never afraid to deal with hard-hitting issues and explore the emotional effects of adversity.

Fast forward to season three, and the picture is very different. Sexual scenes are ramped up and appear to be fetish content more than anything else. Rue’s reintroduction to the series sees her working as a drug mule, smuggling fentanyl from Mexico to the United States – naturally, this requires that we watch her swallow large balls of drugs, while sticking her fingers in her mouth, gagging, and salivating intensely. Likewise, Cassie attempts to fund her wedding by becoming an OnlyFans model, which obviously means that the audience must see her creating fetish porn. There is no critical lens held up to their actions, as there perhaps would have been in the past. No exploration of how it may feel for Rue to be exploited in this way, no exploration of Cassie’s relationship with her body. Rather, we are met with scenes designed to shock, disgust, but also arouse, perhaps a manifestation of the writer’s fantasies – the same writer who directed The Idol in 2023, which was critically panned for its sleazy approach to “shocking” sexual themes.

The demand for a third season of Euphoria was high, given that season two had ended on a cliffhanger, and the plot had captured the hearts of Gen Z. Yet, the time taken for this season to materialise failed to account for the audience’s dwindling desire, and the principal actors’ introductions to high-brow, award-winning cinema. A lack of interest from the audience seems to have been matched by a lack of interest from the actors themselves, including the few who chose to stay on at all. The show refuses to grow with its audience, instead pandering to the lowest common denominator of horny men turned on by Sydney Sweeney. If season three continues in this way, what could have been a powerful yet hilarious representation of youthful angst and drama will have literally lost the plot.