On the travel boards people often post daily itineraries for their trip and rarely are there places or events that are different or lesser known. I live in NYC and try to be helpful about our city. But there is a whole world of interesting things to see and do that are never included. This includes art galleries, music, dance, off and off-off Broadway, readings, indie movies, less known ethnic cuisine, and other cultural events.

When you see other things, the choices are not safe. You may see something that is dreadful or something that will change your opinion for the rest of your life. I am not a fan of Broadway, it is practiced entertainment, similiar to Disney, a billion people think they are having a unique experience. But it is safe.

This is especially true when bringing older teens and kids in their 20's. Their world is narrow and here is a chance to broaden it. Take a chance. The city is more interesting than you would imgaine.

Thats why I drop my teens and 20's at the homeless shelters when we visit NYC...

... the problem with your proposal is that tourists only have a short window to scurry through Manhattan and try to maximize the value of their visit... if you live there, its easier to "take a chance" on wasting your time and money on some experimental theatre... it's like going to improv night at a comedy club... it could be funny, but its more likely to be a disaster... a two day visitor with only so much budget has to bet on a sure thing...

Gary

But do you pick up the kids when you leave?

If you are scurrying around, what is the difference between seeing something you know as opposed something that could be interesting. People are geared to safe.

And many people spend more than two days here as well.

I always see the "touristy" well known things first. Then if I have time or if I visit again, I dig deeper.

We have done, almost exclusively, National Park trips for the past five years. I could easily say the same thing for them. I always enjoy the parks more the longer I am at one.
For example, most people don't venture down into the Grand Canyon, because they don't want to put out the effort or the expense. Most people in Yosemite don't get more than a few hundred yards from a road.

Then a totally other subject. What about those parks, or even cities that never get mentioned. Some of those offer a lot too. NY is obviously a big draw for tourist, for instance, while somewhere like El Paso, Texas isn't.
People do that in restaurants too. A lot of people don't venture past what they are familiar with for fear of failure. You could even say this about medical procedures.

Of course, any place someone lives at the touristy things become familiar and even boring or irritating. The longer you live in one place, the longer time it takes you to find something you are unfamiliar with.

I will say this. I always try to eat at somewhere new and rarely see the same familiar things twice on a revisit.

Aduchamp1, what you forget is that it is not something we know as a visitor. I am fortunate to travel to other big cities and see play in Toronto, etc. However, the theatre in NYC is much different than Toronto or our nearby Detroit. Perhaps you can suggest some different places. Remember, if someone has never been to a city or has only been once or twice, they are using the tour books to guide them. They need someone like you to suggest the hidden gems.

And while your at it take lots of walks--on and off the beaten paths.

HTTY

There are resources available to all tourists to any city whi want to explore byond the "top" 4 or 5 sights. In NYC there are the web sites of Time Out New York and New York Magazine each of which lists many dozens if not hundreds of different activities that fit any taste and are easily searchable. For people coming to NYC with kids, ny1.com, the web site of the local 24 hour news channel lists a number of kids programs and activities that are available every weekend - from puppet shows, to kids dance programs to special museum of theater attractions.

The same is true for many other places - if you search there are tons of different places and activities and neighborhoods - to explore.

This is what makes me nuts about people who say I'm going to X - what should we see? When we know nothing about a person;s interests it's very difficult to know what will interest them the most. It's also why it makes me crazy when people say they want to see Boston, NYC and DC in 7 days. Of course it's possible to get to all 3 places in that time - but you're really just checking off places on a list - not actually learning anything about a place.

And my bete noire is people who come to NYC and want to go shopping. There are malls all over the country - why come to the greatest city in the world and spend your time in Macy's or Bloomingdale's? If you're really interested in fashion and want to tour the type of funky one-off boutiques or consignment stores that can be found here -as well as the Met Costume institute and the FIT museum - versus the chain stores - that at least makes sense. But otherwise - as my mother used to say during summer vacation when I was a child - go do something useful - expand your brain.

You can always look at the Village Voice on line or Time Out NY on line to see what is interesting when you are here.

http://www.villagevoice.com/

http://www.timeout.com/newyork

There are hidden in the sense that people rarely ask about them and that guides like Fodor's and Frommer's are middle of the road.

This is a fundamental question for everyone who reads and contributes to travel forums. Like most philosophical questions, and it is a philosophical question, it is probably unanswerable. But that won't stop me from a couple of responses.

Some people get their travel satisfaction from checking off items on a must-see or bucket list. There are lots of places on these lists that don't excite me -- the Statue of Liberty or Alcatraz or the Eiffel Tower, for example -- but if that is your thing, fine.

Others, including shoppers, want to find the inside thing -- the shop or restaurant no one knows about yet. Kerouac posts a lot in the Europe forum about places no one knows about yet in Paris, but I would be interested in how many people actually go to his locations in the far reaches of Paris. If no one knows about them, who would be impressed if I go there?

Similarly, others seek the ultimate and ask "What is the best gelato in Italy?" or "If I only have time for one, should I go to Fairway or Zabars or Cittara?" No time for the second rate, and they want to get right down to it.

I enjoy the shock of recognition: I love to see a painting or a building or a landscape I know only from books or pictures and say, "Holy Moly, there it IS!" The unspoken sentence that follows is "And here I am, looking at it! I can't believe it!" So if I go to NYC, I will go to the Opera and the Met and MOMA and the Frick to see and hear directly what is only known to me in reproduction. I have been to Flushing to eat Chinese food, but it's a lot more work.

But the good part of doing that work is what you see of how people look and how they live. I remember taking that bus from Lexington Avenue to the Cloisters (is it the M3?) not long after 9-11 and seeing the flags and window boxes in parts of Harlem where it would have seemed people had little reason to love America, but the flags and the need for beauty touched my heart.

So now I want to go to Long Island City and to those Queens streets with exotic foods, but how can I do that and still go to the Met and the Opera? So more and more, we are thinking of renting an apartment for a season and spending the kind of time one needs to get truly off the beaten path.

But I know from living in a tourist destination, Nantucket, that the day tripper sees less than the renter, the renter sees less than the seasonal resident, and the seasonal resident sees less than the year round resident. That's what makes the brevity of life so poignant.

But then if you don't visit the "must sees", everyone looks at you like your crazy. I myself was just thinking, how could you not see Alcatraz, Statue of Liberty, or ET.

I've only been to Alaska once, but when asked what I thought about Denali, and I reply that we didn't go there, people give me that "you missed that" look.

My parents are going to Seattle at the end of August and we are going next week. My mom and dad both thought it was really sad that we weren't going to the top of the Space Needle. I thought it was sad that they didn want to eat at Salumi and that they didn't know who Mario Batali was and he hadn't bothered reading about any of the Tom Douglas Restaurants.

When traveling we often skip the most tourist of sights. We have been Paris many times but have never climbed the Eiffel Tower or have skipped Pisa in Italy.

Most of the things I am suggesting are evening activities. But when we have visitors, we take them where they want to go but also to things they would not ordinarily consider.

I don't think it's as simple as saying "It's a safe choice" in regards to people wanting to see/do the standard things.

It's very easy to live in a city and focus on lesser-known things, because you live there. You can more easily ignore things you've seen before and focus on getting off the beaten path. But someone who has never been there or done that doesn't have the luxury of spending years and years exploring.

Where else can you visit the Statue of Liberty? Where else can you see an indie movie?

Answer those 2 questions and it becomes very obvious why people want to see/do the 'safe' things and tend to ignore the lesser known things. To be clear, you can only see the Statue of Liberty in NYC, but you can watch an indie movie almost anywhere, including your couch. Wouldn't be the same as watching it in some cool theater in NYC, but when facing a time constraint the thing that you cannot see anywhere else will almost always win out over the thing you can see elsewhere.

I completely agree with WhereAreWe. On someone's first visit(s) to a famous city, they want to see the things that the city is famous for. That doesn't make them an unadventerous tourist. That just makes them a tourist. There's nothing wrong with that - at all.

I've been going to NYC regularly for business and/or leisure) since 1990 (before that for only quick in and out business trips). I like going back to "tourist" things - the Tenement museum comes to mind. I've been going since there was only one tour option. They didn't need more than one. I'd like to go back and try one of their new walking tours. I go back to the Top of the Rock when I'm traveling with someone who wants to see a great view of NYC. I doubt I'll opt to wait in the line for the Empire State Building ever again. I'm in Times Square on every visit. It's made clear on this forum that many locals think "That's not NYC!!!" but what scene opens the NYC segment of a movie? I've had great experiences in Times Square and enjoy the area.

If Sam's were still there, I'd eat there on every trip. Oh, who am I kidding? I'd visit almost every day I'm in the city - either talking with the bartender at the bar or enjoying a pre-theater dinner. I still order Thai delivery from the restaurant that served me my first Thai food. I gave back a $100 gift card to my friends' favorite local Italian restaurant and order Thai and Peruvian takeout twice each. If I eat out in NYC next month, chances are they will be at the West Bank Cafe and Kefi - because the food is good and I've been thinking about them since the last visit. I have a list of friends' favorites to try...but I'll probably order what I like/love because it's part of being back in NYC for me. When I'm back on the Big Island again, I can't wait to order the chicken curry at the Hilton again and the Thai restaurant in Volcano is at the top of my list.

There's nothing wrong with returning to old favorites. I like trying out new places at home, and not against trying new restaurants on the road. But there's a lot to be said for returning to old favorites in favorite cities too - even if other folks don't understand or agree with it.

Have been to SF numerous times and never seen Alcatraz - and don't plan on every doing so - it just doesn't interest me. Have seen the Eiffel Tower - didn't go back again even though I've been to paris at lest a dozen times. There are always new interesting things - not need to repeat the "traps". Although I will repeat museums many times - since I just really love them.

How do you know that you didn't miss something spectacular if you never saw it-even if it's wildly popular or unpopular? Normally, not always, there are good reasons things are popular.

I thought the night tour of Alcatraz was great. Once was enough for me, but certainly glad I did it.

Now StuDudley, who seems to be everthing San Francisco on this board, normally doesn't like places like Fisherman's Wharf, etc. So, see his posts for "off the beaten path" type places for that area. Iv'e been to SF 3 times and still haven't seen many things at all on his lists.

I do extensive research before I visit a place.

What is interesting I never mentioned any of the popular tourist sights as places not to go but almost everyone is writing about them. I am referring to cultural events and restuarants most of which occur at night or while you are traveling about.

But I think that is reflective of the issue. You know what you know and are reluctant to try other things.

When we re-visit different places, unless it is to see relatives, we like to stay in different areas and always ask what is interesting to see and where to go. I rely on the people who live there.

This is not about "off the beaten path" it is about trying new things that you might not have available in your home town. That is where the element of safe enters.

When I traveled for business, I always asked what for an interesting restaurant or offered the local cooking. If I had free time, I wanted to know the highlights and what they liked to do. Travel is not about me but where I am.

It's always fun to show a local a place in their own environs. One of my Dutch friends told me on my last trip that he hadn't been in a church in at least 30 years and we went to three while I was. He really liked doing it--we saw the little church in the Begijnhof in Amsterdam; visited the cathedral in Ghent to see the van Eyck altarpiece; and went to one of the other larger churches in Amsterdam as well. He doesn't go out of his way to do it, but since he was entertaining me it was fun for him too. I find I go places I would never go when out of town visitors come to me as well.

When I used to travel for business, I often had early afternoon meetings. I would take an early flight from Boston, pick up my rental car and head out of the city or too its fringes, more or less just driving as far as I thought I could and still get back by 1:30.

In London, Paris, NY, and San Francisco, I get on a bus and go to the end of the line or maybe to a big transfer point, then go somewhere else, eventually winding up back at my beginning point. One of my most interesting bus rides was in downtown LA, listening to a group of college age Mexican Americans talking about going back every summer to visit family in Michoacan. Sometimes I get way out of my comfort zone, but it is always rewarding.

In addition to concerts and other evening events, I find it interesting to go to churches for services in different places, sometimes in traditions that are not my own.