Why doesn't anyone want to do the tourist stuff?
 

Are we a nation that has gotten too cool for ourselves? So many of the posts here ask some form of this question: I'm going to X but I don't want to do the stuff that made it famous. Where can I do the obscure, the out-of-the-way, the things 'tourists' don't do?<BR>Does anyone just want to go and see the things that make a place an attraction to begin with?

But sometimes the things that tourists do just aren't the most worthwhile things to do in a place. <BR><BR>For example, many visitors to Boston seem to think that the Freedom Trail and the city of Salem are key places to go, but they wouldn't make my Top 20 list of things to do. There are things that make Boston, Boston, that would make a visit more interesting and fun than just visitng hte same old tourist spots.

Ok Suzy, I'll ask -- what are your Top 20 for Boston?

"Touristy stuff" often means the superficial, hokey, unsophisticated things locals would never bother with. Hence they're sometimes deemed to be places only the travel-naive would visit.<BR>For example, going for Ghirardelli ice cream in San Francisco. Wait for an hour, overpriced, no better than any store brand ice cream. Not worth it.<BR>Or things like going to Navy Pier in Chicago. Does anyone who lives in Chicago ever go there? I doubt it. It's a waste of time.<BR>Wall Drug in South Dakota. Perhaps the ultimate unsophisticated tourist trap, which some people love simply because it makes no effort to hide the fact that it's simply an unvarnished tourist trap, and proud of it.<BR><BR>Not to imply that all well known tourist sites are to be passed over. Most have a well deserved reputation as popular destinations: Central Park NYC, Grand Central Station NYC, San Diego Zoo, St. Louis' Gateway Arch, virtually all the national parks, and on and on.<BR><BR>Then there are the in-betweens. Venice Beach is certainly a well known tourist site, not really a seasoned/sophisticated traveller's highlight, but definitely uniquely SoCal and a must see at least once.<BR><BR><BR>

By the look of the lines for the cable cars in San Francisco, I'd say that there are still MANY people who want to see and do the typical tourist things. However, I feel that this board tends to attract people who are looking for other things. There is plenty of information on the typical tourist traps out there, so people don't need to ask most of those questions on this board. <BR><BR>Also, when you talk about things that make a place an attraction, there are a lot of tourist traps that are pretty much "man-made" to bring in tourist dollars (South Street Seaport, Navy Pier, Inner Harbor, Disneyland, Quincy Market). These aren't original to the city and just "happen" to be located in the middle of their respective city. Of course, a lot of places do have things that made them attractions that are still tourist attractions (Central Park, Mag Mile, Mt. Vernon, Santa Monica Pier, Public Garden)

My definition of a tourist trap is a place whose major claim to fame is that they try to sell you something, generally overpriced - a meal (Rainforest Cafes), merchandise (Quincy Market in Boston, Fisherman's Wharf, Baltimore Inner Harbor), artifical entertainment (any Haunted House, Disney, Cheers bar).<BR><BR>I pick these places because we have been to all of them and had a good time - for what they were. I think they can be PART of what makes a trip enjoyable, but for me I also need a major dose of history, art, culture, "real people" of area. For example, when in Ireland I saw (did not kiss) the Blarney Stone, drank in touristy pubs, but also made a point of eating in a tiny restaurant where I am sure no knowledgeable tourist would eat (the food was awful but people watching and mild eavesdropping was priceless) and just wandering around.<BR><BR>Most places I have been, it is the "tourist traps" that made me think of the place at first - but there is usually much more to be had. (Are the pyramids in Egypt tourist traps? - I have never seen a greater concentration of people trying to sell me junk or camel rides in my life! - what about Niagara Falls?)<BR><BR>Also, kids often feel more of a bond to a destination if they can recount to their friends they have been to a famous attraction, no matter how tacky.

Oh come on!!!!!! As a Bostonian I love doing the touristy stuff whether it's taking visitors to the Swan Boats or if they insist Quincy Market..and when In S.F. Ghiadelli Square, China town, Fishermen's Wharf (boy, is that tacky)...The London Bridge and Tower, "Covent Gardens..Just walking around Boston or S.F. does that make it tacky..no..these places have a flavor of their own..G-d how I love London..wandering the streets to see the little and big pockets of history..They say Stratford on Avon is visited mainly by Americans....this upcoming trip I'm going to "do"... Madame Toussards.. as well as St. Paul's (again) and Portabello..BTW in Salem isn't there the great museum..and some of the old houses around the common are wonderful.. Let's not become people who are too cool...enjoy

Parrot Mom, I don't think anyone has said that being popular with tourists is necessarily a bad thing. (I spent two whole days in Stratford myself!) We're saying that being popular with tourists doesn't automatically mean that something is worthwhile. The Swan Boats would definitely be on my (mythical) Top 20 list for Boston.

I travel a decent amount. I get 5 weeks vacation and I travel for 4 of them, not counting long weekends. I enjoy a lot of the tourist trap places. I go to Fisherman's Warf, Chinatown, Disney, etc Just recently went to Niagara Falls and stayed on Clifton Hill BECAUSE that was were all the touristy stuff is. It is just plain fun to do. The Great Wall of China in now a touristy place, but it is a must see. Yes, I do other things and always check out the out of the way places, historic sites, etc. Don't overlook the tourist traps for just plain fun. Just keep in mind, they are there to make money.<BR>Enjoy,<BR>Duane

Good morning!! I'm a tourist - I love visiting other cities, states, and countries because they offer so much. Of course we see the tourist traps and we all leave them a little sooner but we have great memories of the rest of that city, state, or country. <BR>I really don't have a need to have that unique little hideaway - the tried and true places are perfect for me. That's probably why I love my hometown area of washington - Annapolis - baltimore so very much. This is a great site Bob and everyone is looking for help to be a great tourist.

Yep, I'm a tourist and darn proud to be one.. We tourists are the ones that bring $$ into a city or country. Oh yes, I buy the t-shirts, but I also talk to locals and ask questions.. I just love being a tourist...it's my favorite thing in the world. Being a tourist and talking to locals head me to little secret places and restaurants and sights off the beaten tracks.. Oh yes, being invited to private homes for supper and to meet the family (in Miraflores in Peru many years ago)..Long live tourists and tourism..except for the Ugly Americans which is a whole section by it'self..

Suzy,<BR>Do Boston without the Freedom Trail? Are you for real?

People are so afraid of being seen as ordinary or common. This fear is first fostered on many as teenagers by their peers. If you weren't doing something radical or different then you just weren't cool. This same mentality is at work when people put down "tourist" as though it is some disease of the mentality challenged. As though to go to Notre Dame or the Eiffel Tower or Pompei or the Tower of London is stupid because everyone else has done it. You know, if you want to climb Mt Everest on your next vacation, go ahead but don't put down others for doing what you may consider mundane. For them it isn't. It'a a childish state of mind and like kids who let their lives be controlled by peer pressure, some adults, when they travel, do the same thing. Dumb but true.

Um, isn't "climbing Mt. Everest" kind of "touristy" now.

Not exactly.<BR>A total of 964 different people have scaled Everest.<BR>Since it now costs almost $80,000 per person to join an Everest expedition, I'd say it's not in danger of becoming overrun like a Disney trinket shop.

It was a joke, but I would guess out of the 964 (although I think this number is wrong) how many have been in the last 5 years. Also, how many thousands have tried it or settled for a 1/2 Everest. Thousands

Sorry to disappoint you WildBill, but I pulled the 964 number right from an Everest expedition news site. I don't think they'd lie to their own niche audience.<BR>They also state that there are still about 120 corpses on the mountain.<BR>And as recently as the 1970's there were entire years during which no one successfully scaled the mountain.<BR>Just a bit O' useless trivia.

I find that figure plausible, since the following BBC article from April 2001 gives a figure of 800 people having climbed Everest, and you have to add-in last year's climbers. The article is about all the trash that is accumulating on hte mountain --apparently it's so stressful that the climbers don't observe the usual courtesies about carrying out all your trash.<BR><BR>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1254724.stm