Sometimes "touristy" is OK!

Old Oct 20th, 2000, 11:12 AM
  #1  
Patrick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sometimes "touristy" is OK!

I started to post this as a response to the Madame Tussaud's thread, but decided to do this as a new one. As a traveler I used to spend a lot of time avoiding things that were too "touristy". I didn't take the double decker bus ride the first time I went to London and certainly didn't visit Madame Tussaud's. Only tourists do that. Why wait in line to go to the top of the Eiffel Tower?
Only a tourist would do that. Who wants to go to Venice? It's mainly just filled with tourists? Finally I realized I was missing a lot. There is a reason certain things are popular with tourists -- often that they are the best things that a place has to offer. I love to feel like a resident of a foreign city for awhile, but if it means avoiding the things that city is famous for, then I say go ahead and be a tourist.
 
Old Oct 20th, 2000, 11:24 AM
  #2  
steve
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I agree. While I try to avoid places that are tourist "traps" there are many sights considered "touristy" that I have greatly enjoyed visiting.
When I go to a city for the first time I always take a guided city tour as soon as possible. That gets me aquainted with the lay of the land and points out the major sights and then I can go back and see those that interest me the most.
 
Old Oct 20th, 2000, 11:28 AM
  #3  
namestolen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I agree with you Patrick. Sometimes it's just fun to be a tourist and not feel obliged to be "in" or on a par with the residents. For many years I lived in NYC and never had the time or inclination to do any of the touristy things. As a "native" New Yorker, I habitually experienced the down side of the city, as well as the good side, but never saw it through the fresh eyes of a tourst. Now I don't live in the city anymore (I live in Long Island which I now prefer), and one of my favorite things to do is play hookie and go into the city for a day. I go to museums, sometimes a show, try restaurants, just walk around and look at everything. It's like being in a foreign country for a day.
 
Old Oct 20th, 2000, 11:32 AM
  #4  
Annie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Patrick:
Good thinking question.
I think of all the things I would have missed or not been able to locate had I not taken the double decker tour bus in Dublin, London or Paris.
Also, I am guilty of not seeing the tourist places in NYC. The only time I seem to go is when I have an out of town visitor. Shameful! Sometime being a tourist in your own city is necessary.
I have now started to a weekend day when I am stuck with the choice of housecleaning or...I hop on the subway and become a tourist. It is nice to see your city from someone else's point of view.
 
Old Oct 20th, 2000, 12:55 PM
  #5  
elaine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I've never minded being a tourist, in fact I love it. I'm not ashamed to stand on a street corner peering at my map, (though I try to stay out of the way of traffic, foot and vehicle). I of course didn't want to miss the Mona Lisa, The Tower of London, Giverney,etc. In fact I have seen many of the most famous sights more than once.
What I don't want to do is waste my time or money. There are some places/events/sites that are created just for getting tourists' money, and that are just not worth it; for example, if there weren't tourists The London Dungeon would not have been started. Nothing about it is real. Windsor Castle or the Eiffel Tower may have admission lines and gift shops, but at least each represents real history, not ersatz.
However, to each his/her own, whatever you enjoy is valid for you.
 
Old Oct 20th, 2000, 01:47 PM
  #6  
Jeff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Way to go Patrick!!!! Sometimes things are touristy for a reason: i.e. they are intriguing, beautiful, etc. Also, not everything you do on vacation must be "deep". Geez,you are on vacation, have some fun!!
 
Old Oct 20th, 2000, 02:10 PM
  #7  
Lori
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I've got to agree! Places like Westminster Abbey, Tower of London, Louvre, etc. etc. are full of tourists, but that's for a reason .. they are full of history too. It's only natural (I think) to want to see the famous, well known sights IF they are of interest to you. For me, Tussaud's is of no interest, so in dozens of trips to London I've skipped it, but if someone else enjoys it .. what the heck! Whenever we are in Paris we go to the top of the Eiffel Tower (at night) - sure it's touristy but it's also beautiful to see the city lights come on.

One thing I will say is if you return too a place you are apt to be able to concentrate on less touristy things the second/third/or more time around and it is nice to see and do things that are not being visited by thousands of other people.

I think there is a big difference between touristy places and tourist traps .. them we can all do without.
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 08:15 AM
  #8  
vanessa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I completely agree with this post. I get very frustrated with some those who skip amazing sites just because it is so "touristy." My friend refused to go to see the Sacre Couer in Paris because she heard the artists village was so crowded. I can't believe she skipped it. I think that the Sacre Couer is one of the most beautiful cathedrals I have ever seen and the art in the small square was wonderful to view. Yes, there were major crowds, but it was for a good reason. She also never went to the top of the Eiffel Tower even though she was in Paris for 3 months. Being at the top of the eiffel Tower with the wind blowing in your hair with Paris all around you is the most amazing feeling.
My brother on the other hand is taking this sentiment to the extreme. He is avoiding Paris all together because he says it's too touristy. Oh, what he is missing!
I have also been to places in Europe where my travel companions say to me, "This is just like Disney World." When they say this, I just want to shake them and say, "Why aren't you getting this? This isn't Disney World, Disney World is trying to be like this." Ugh! Very frustrating.
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 09:05 AM
  #9  
namestolen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Vanessa, maybe if they went to Disney World Paris wouldn't be so crowded! I don't mind touristy places...I can even stand a tourist trap if it's something amusing. Why shouldn't the locals try to make a living? What I can't take for long periods of time are the crowds. I get claustophrobic.
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 09:06 AM
  #10  
Diane
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
And how lucky are we to even get the chance to be a tourist! Life is what you make of it. Enjoy your choices. One touristy thing that I can not understand, however, is why someone would choose to eat at Planet Hollywood in every extraordinary city they visit.
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 09:21 AM
  #11  
Al
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Those who avoid the places that attract tourists remind me of what Yogi Berra is supposed to have said. "Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded."
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 09:22 AM
  #12  
Patrick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
To Diane:
Alas, even I must admit to visiting Planet Hollywood whenever I am abroad. I don't like the place and never go to one in the US, but I have found it to be the only place I can find cranberry juice in Europe (except that it has finally made its way onto the shelves of stores in the UK). So I must stop at the PH in Barcelona, Cannes, Madrid, and let's see. . .where else? just to go to the bar and get my cranberry juice. I hear they are in trouble, the one in Barcelona was padlocked last month, so perhaps my cranberry juice days are numbered in Europe.
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 09:26 AM
  #13  
Litsa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
An interesting topic.
Most replies seem to be from people who recommend NOT avoid visiting historic sites etc., just because they're busy with other tourists. And I quite agree with this point. When I've been to Paris or Barcelona, I check out the guidebooks and go to the same places as everyone else.

However, as a UK resident, I frequently want a relaxing beach holiday, and there's another use of the phrase 'too touristy' that's relevant (and not a lot to do with historic sights!). Too touristy in this context means too many people - usually younger than me, drunker than me, and noisier than me, and who want to stay up and party later than I do! Many previously beautiful and relaxing resorts in Europe now cater for what we call 'lager louts'. The local culture can be completely changed by the proliferation of restaurants that offer British beer and British food, that advertise British football matches and comedy shows on TV. (I guess there are other resorts that do just the same for German visitors, for example!)

Don't get me wrong - if this is what people want from a holiday, that's fine. The locals are satisfying a demand that's there, and good luck to them. However, I want to be able to avoid this kind of environment, and I think we need better ways of describing the different holiday experiences.

From now on, I will describe the kind of destination that I'm looking for as 'relaxed, laid-back, quiet' rather than 'too touristy'!
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 10:15 AM
  #14  
SharonM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Litsa, you brought to mind a thought...
In the US I live in a beach area that attracts tourists during "season" which is spring break through the summer. It's so nice to see them go and to "reclaim" the beach once they go. Sure the weather (may) not be as perfect the rest of the year, but it is beautiful nonetheless!
So, on that note, maybe the trick is to travel off-season (which I always seem to do) when the bulk of tourists are gone. Sure, you may miss out on some of the flora and fauna, but the lines are shorter, the residents are happier, and most places are still quite beautiful, albeit in a different way.

I do agree though...tourist TRAPS aren't my thing, but beautiful or interesting areas that attract tourists, should not necessarily be avoided.
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 01:06 PM
  #15  
Diane
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cranberry juice? And no t-shirt to show for it? Oh, Patrick you are one of a kind.
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 01:41 PM
  #16  
Rod Hoots
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I am continually surprised when I read about people vacationing oversea and missing all of the major attractions because they don't want to be "touristy." After travelling around the world for over fifty years, I strongly advise people going overseas for the first time to take a standard commercial tour, particularly in Europe, to get a taste of several major countries and cities. This gives you a base for intelligent decisions about subsequent travel.
 
Old Oct 23rd, 2000, 04:43 PM
  #17  
wes fowler
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Patrick,
A little over two years ago, I posted a query to Fodor's captioned "Tourist or Traveler: is there a distinction?" Apparently provocative, it prompted over 40 fascinating responses.
In capsule, the responses implied that we are all initially tourists (gotta see this, gotta see that). In time, with experience in travel, when we, in the words of Al, can see new things through new eyes and say "Yes, I have learned something" then we become travelers. The traveler can gain as much reward from experiencing the Eiffel Tower or Westminster Abbey on return visits as does the tourist seeing them for the first and perhaps only time. Look at two recent postings for example, those of Elvira who immersed herself in Paris for the umpteenth time and Bob and his wife who experienced Paris and all its tourist attractions in a first time visit. It's impossible to discern who had the more rewarding experience. It's evident that all had the time of their lives.

Do a text search on the query mentioned above for some interesting commentary that supports the current query in many ways.
 
Old Oct 25th, 2000, 11:09 AM
  #18  
Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I like the distinction between REAL attractions (beautiful/scenic/historic/cultural/...) and "attractions" that are just created to attract tourists. Paris, the Amalfi Coast, Independence Hall, Florence are real. Anything created by Disney or Universal Studios, and all of Las Vegas (complete with fake Paris, fake Bellagio, fake Egypt, fake New York, fake Rome, etc. ad nauseum) are tourist traps!
 
Old Oct 25th, 2000, 02:05 PM
  #19  
elvira
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It all sort of depends on what you're in the mood for, and realistic expectations. I like DisneyWorld for what it is: a nice, pretty place that doesn't require any work or planning. Heck, at Epcot, you can walk to Paris from Venice. I've been to Las Vegas many times with friends, and I enjoy the glitz, the over-the-top architecture, the no-apologies gaudy. We don't go there for the culture; we go to gamble, see an outrageous show, and gawk at the fountains or fireworks displays. None of us would mistake it for an enlightening experience (well, lightening, maybe, we're not very good gamblers), so we know what we're getting, and we aren't disappointed or fooled.
I didn't go anywhere near the Eiffel Tower on this last trip, I had other things to do. Would I go to the top again? You betcha - many people advise going to the top of the Montparnasse Tower instead, but somehow the thrill isn't the same. Great view from Montparnasse, but it's not the top of the Eiffel Tower.
Different strokes for different folks - if we all liked the same thing at the same time, what a mess.
 
Old Oct 25th, 2000, 03:22 PM
  #20  
fran
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

I am one who readily admits "I love playing tourist". The first time I go to a city/country I want to see the same things ever
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -