"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."

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 "touristy", but I think there is a difference between a place that is frequented by tourists and a place that is simply "touristy". And that touristy label doesn't have to be bad. Certainly the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone Park, and the Eiffel Tower are all "touristy" 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 "touristy", yet many surveys have shown that it is the number one "celebration dinner" 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 "touristy" usually is used to indicate something "bad". 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 "that hotel is too touristy". 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 "touristy" 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 "hip" 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 "touristy" 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 "touristy" 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 "touristy."

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.

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.