When is something "touristy"
 

I see a lot of comments that folks want to eat "where the locals eat". Or we don't want to go "there" because it is too "touristy"
I remember that expression my grandmother had--"Don't cut your nose off to spite your face"
Isn't good food--good food--isn't good service yada yada

But if it's good food and good service, you can pretty much bet that the locals will frequent the place too! :-)

I think the word "touristy" gets used two different ways: To mean that a place atttracts a lot of tourists (as well as locals) OR that a place was designed specifically to attract tourists (rather than locals). And I think it's the latter type of place that travelers often try to avoid.

For example, in the Lancaster, PA, Amish country area there are restaurants that local families flock to but there are others whose customers are almost exclusively tourists.

Good food is good food. But, the last thing I want when I'm in Paris is to be surrounded by the same people I'd be sitting near in NYC.

Or eating the same thing that you would be eating if you were in NYC!

Exactly! That's why I rarely eat on the main strips, but tend to find the smaller/ local neighborhood places that run off of the main drag by 2 or 3 blocks. We found one of those in Ft. Lauderdale and it was the best meal we had in the three days there. Local traffic going into it made me take notice- especially their sushi/make pick up side building lines never stopped.

A couple of "touristy" places pop to mind: Margaritaville and Sloppy Joe's in Key West - everyone raves about Margaritaville's cheeseburgers but I've heard they were awful, lol, and I can attest to the fact that the sloppy joe at Sloppy Joe's is so bad it's virtually disgusting. Another tourist trap is Bubba Gumps.

However, I agree with the poster who's amused by people looking for good restaurants that only locals use. We tourists are pretty cagey: we have a way of finding good food, whether it's being eaten by locals OR tourists!

As a New Yorker, I think "touristy" describes a place that New Yorkers generally avoid because, well, there are too many tourists.

Quality and value are <i>often</i> issues as well, but not always (e.g., many midtown restaurants that are &quot;highly rated&quot; in travel guides).

When I travel, I like a good mix of touristy and non-touristy experiences.

To me touristy is a label infrequent visitors give an attraction that attracts newbies to that location.

Visitor snobbishness.

Living in a tourist location as a local, the only thing I avoid are certain roads at certain times.

I sort of have a problem with someone labeling avoiding something they deem 'touristy' for no other valid reason.

Example, I will not eat at Tavern on the Green for no other reason than the food is bad.

Good guide to what's touristy = what's listed in the free guides planted in the hotel rooms and lobbies. &quot;What's Happening on the Coast&quot; will inevitably list all the restaurants with restrooms marked &quot;buoys&quot; and &quot;gulls&quot; frying things in recycled fat.

Along this line: Another guide is in-your-face thematic places, esp. touting themselves as regional specialties.

Not all touristy places are bad but it's rare that they provide anything original or a particularly good value.

On the other hand, when you are in terra incognita, sometimes going to an obviously tourist-oriented place may spare you having to eat something unexpectedly bizarre or unappetizing.

Finally, not sure anyone should count on any place the locals eat. They aren't there for special-occasion eating, probably, just something inexpensive and familiar to THEM. They might all have a real taste for grease-soaked cheeseburgers and mealy puddings. If you're going for atmosphere and authenticity, fine. But if you are going for haute cuisine or careful preparation, maybe not.

Amen GoTravel!

However I do avoid The Monday after New Years when all the folks from &quot;THE NORTH&quot; come to Gulf Shores Walmart. As my wife says All the geezer stuff is gone--ie Metamucil LOL

Touristy means something that exists primarily to make money from tourists. One non-example of this would be Cuba.

FH and jor,
Great calls.
M

Touristy is a place that is designed to attract tourists and does. Gatorworld (or similar) is touristy. Disney is touristy. Las Vegas Boulevard is touristy. The entire Wisconsin Dells area is touristy. Heck, Yellowstone, Niagra Falls and the South Rim are touristy.

I think it is much harder to call a restaurant touristy since most are not designed specifically in order to attract tourists.

This reminds me of a thread when someone said to avoid Hyman's Seafood in Charleston because it is touristy.

How do you know it is touristy? Do you poll the people waiting in line? Do you poll the people eating there? Why does touristy make it bad?

Tourism has put two of my stepchildren through college, it will put another one through and has provided a wonderful life for my husband and myself.

Tourism puts roofs over the heads of many and to avoid something just because you think it is touristy is stupid.

I will say that I will avoid tourist attractions during peak times.

<i>Why does touristy make it bad?</i>

A place deemed &quot;touristy,&quot; whether it's a restaurant or an attraction or an area, is certainly not automatically or necessarily &quot;bad.&quot; It may be great!

But &quot;bad&quot; is in the eye of the beholder. A touristy restaurant, for example, may serve fine food, but if one's definition of &quot;bad&quot; includes the type of clientele or ambiance, than a touristy restaurant may <i>be</i> bad, for that reason and that reason alone.

How many posts does this forum see asking about &quot;hip&quot; restaurants? I'd suggest that these people are more interested in the clientele and ambiance than other factors. Basically, they don't want to be surrounded by a bunch of hapless tourists or boring stiffs or screaming children. Fair enough.

Finally, certain destinations, like the Metropolitan Museum of Art, transcend &quot;touristy.&quot; I'll even go on a crowded weekend if I need to get my aesthetic fix.

:)

Interesting debate. I do agree that the term touristy is subjective.

No one can claim that the Cafe Du Monde in Jackson Square isn't a magnet for tourists. However, that doesn't make it less enjoyable, even for some locals I know in NOLA.

On the flip side, I was eagerly anticipating a drink at the famous Long Bar in the Raffles Hotel in Singapore. Much to my dismay, the Singapore Sling is premade and sold to you in a souvenir cup.

Therefore, I guess I'd define touristy as a place that has lost the original charm that caused it to be popular in the first place. It's now popular not for what it is, but for what it used to be and for what people THINK it is.

Gekko, I am strictly speaking when someone uses the term touristy meaning 'bad'.

When people use the adjective &quot;touristy&quot; as a synonym for &quot;bad,&quot; I'd <i>guess</i> they <i>usually</i> mean crowded, cliched, low quality, low value, with lots of tourists present. Who knows? It's a subjective term.

But I don't think you should assume that when people say &quot;touristy&quot; they mean &quot;bad.&quot; They just may be looking for something different, particularly if they're repeat visitors.

&quot;I guess I'd define touristy as a place that has lost the original charm that caused it to be popular in the first place. It's now popular not for what it is, but for what it used to be and for what people THINK it is.&quot;

I like that definition, Ryan. I have seen it happen so many times (having had the good fortune to live in a few different tourist destinations). And it always makes me sad. I read on another thread that Jacques Imo's in New Orleans may be following that path. When I lived in NOLA, you went to Jacques Imo's because it was the type of place where they might put a table in the back of a pick-up truck parked out front when it got too crowded. It becomes too touristy (in a bad sense) when people come expecting to see that pick-up truck out front.

&quot;I guess I'd define touristy as a place that has lost the original charm that caused it to be popular in the first place. It's now popular not for what it is, but for what it used to be and for what people THINK it is.&quot;

I like that definition too. But then I think about Place du Tertre in Paris, and how for me, it almost defines the city, even though there are clearly few locals there.

There's no such thing as a definitive description of &quot;touristy&quot;, but I think there is a difference between a place that is frequented by tourists and a place that is simply &quot;touristy&quot;. And that touristy label doesn't have to be bad. Certainly the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone Park, and the Eiffel Tower are all &quot;touristy&quot; as no one lives in any of them -- they exist solely as a place to be visited by tourists, so does that mean people should avoid those places? Heavens, no! Restaurants can be the same, except that with the exception of restaurants that have been built strictly for tourists -- like those in a museum or a national park -- most restaurnats will be frequented by locals as well as tourists.

Some people say Tavern on the Green in NYC is too &quot;touristy&quot;, yet many surveys have shown that it is the number one &quot;celebration dinner&quot; location for locals. Yesterday I whined on a photography thread about not being able to enjoy a meal in any upscale restaurant in my home town of Naples, Florida because there are always so many people taking pictures. Someone told me not to go to restaurants that cater to tourists. Huh? In our town, EVERY restaurant caters to tourists. The idea that tourists only look for the cheap and cheesy is way wrong. Many people travel for the primary purpose of eating in top notch restaurants. Often locals are the ones eating in the fast food places.

I agree that the term &quot;touristy&quot; usually is used to indicate something &quot;bad&quot;. But that is so unfair. Today's tourists are very aware of the best places to dine, and you will always find lots of tourists in the best places.

By the way, I still laugh when someone says &quot;that hotel is too touristy&quot;. Huh? As opposed to all the hotels where the locals stay?

By Ryan's definition (which I think also is a good one)many of the older places/attractions, and especially restaurants, that exist today in my evolved Chicago are &quot;touristy&quot; to me. That doesn't mean they are bad, in any sense, just crowded and not at all what they were in quality or experience. For instance Billy Goats (cheeseburger, chee'burger etc.) or Berghoff's are prime examples. As is Navy Pier on the whole, jazz clubs that are left- don't want to go on. Too sad! Sometimes all that is left seem like money-making machines with little soul or individuality. Orignal personality obliterated by the hype and parody of itself.

Regardless of what others like or dislike in restaurants or &quot;hip&quot; places, I still find that my favorites are way off the beaten track. When they haven't seen a tourist in a week or so, and people are friendly and someone is not adverse to converse (hey, that rhymes)you can perceive a bit of the local essense in a fairly short period of time. And that's what I do like regardless of pampering, haute cusisine or whatever. Sometime it is sublime and sometimes it is not, but it is almost always an adventure. Yes, you might get stuck with a bum stop, but I do like the people more than the places.

Of course there are some icons as mentioned above that will always be great mixes/crowds of tourists. That's ok too- but my prefered take is just not for the entire city/town/country experience- to be in that midst.

Well when I use the word touristy I think of somewhere like Fishermans Wharf in SF.

For sure locals don't stay in their local hotels and tourist, especially since we have the web, know what restaurants they want to go to, which normally includes locals as well as tourist.

But I always cringe when I talk to people that say they have been to SF and the only place they have been to is Fishermens Wharf. Which is not only touristy but tacky.

Florence for example I guess could be considered touristy but it is still a city with a large population and a jewell of a city so I don't think of it in the same way as I do say Fishermens Wharf.

One can fall into the &quot;touristy&quot; trap - I grew up 30 minutes from NYC and then spent some adult years there as well. And I have never been to the Statue of Liberty and several other &quot;touristy&quot; locations in NYC. I will now have to take an expensive trip with my teenagers to see these places.

I think Fisherman's Wharf is a good example. It still has a bit of charm early on a foggy morning before all the tacky shops have opened, but it's not what I remember during my visit when I was younger.

I'll hazard a guess that standing outside NBC at the crack of dawn in NYC to get on the Today show would be considered &quot;touristy.&quot;

<i>But I always cringe when I talk to people that say they have been to SF and the only place they have been to is Fishermens Wharf.</i>

That's how many New Yorkers feel about Times Square (including me).

When everybody there is a tourist, it is touristy. A hotel with nobody staying there who is on a business trip, for instance. This is may be a problem because the people who work at the hotel know they will never see you again, and they may treat you accordingly.

Some touristy places are good--Machu Picchu and the Taj Mahal for instance.