P_M

Malsherbes, picking up on what you said about Gatlinburg:

I grew up on NE Oklahoma, and we sometimes did day/weekend trips to a small, quaint mountain town called Branson, MO. This was in the early to mid 70's and Branson was lovely then. I went back in the 90's and I was horrified by what I saw. I'm not sure I'll ever go there again, Branson has been robbed of it's charm.

ilovetotravel29

I think we are all using different definitions of the term touristy....

to me, touristy isn't just a place that many want to visit (such as the eiffel tower or empire state building), but touristy to me means popular places that have become overrun with services for tourists and tourists themselves.

An example would be....The Uffizi in Florence isn't touristy, the art is beautiful. But the kiosks and stands all around it may be a bit touristy....

Travelkitty

I'd agree that there is a distinction between common usage of "touristy" and places that tourists like to visit.

In DC for example, the Vietnam Memorial is some place that many people want to visit, but I'd hardly call it touristy. The intrinsic nature of the site overrides any people selling tshirts nearby.

Likewise the Louvre may be a "must see" but there is nothing touristy about the paintings and artwork. I also think the stunning scenery from the Empire State Building overrides any concession booths on the first floor.

When I think of touristy with a negative implication it's a store that sells only tshirts and other manufactured, sort of cheap quality items. Or a restaurant that exists primarily because it's convenient to another site and tries to move people in and out quickly,t- that doesn't focus on quality of food or service.

Touristy things serve a purpose sometimes for convenience, but they're not things I'd try to seek out. But just because it's a popular site doesn't automatically make it touristy in my book.

escargot

For me, there is a distinction between toursity and 'off the beaten path' jewels.

I would never judge another persons idea of whether to take what some might consider a 'touristy' vacation or not, it depends on your personality, personal preferences, time limitations in perhaps planning a vacation, and sometimes money since 'deals' can often be found in 'touristy' spots. One isn't necessarily better than the other, depending on what you are looking for.

We have enjoyed both and a combination of both.
Depends on the purpose of the vacation.

As Gekko mentioned, when we went to Paris we certainly saw the Eiffel Tower, and many other monuments, touristy spots, 'famous spots' - etc - but we chose to rent an apartment in a residential area and the neighbors were wonderful about telling us where to food shop, eat, where they clothes shop, etc and even inviting us to participate in a neighborhood party and lending us some items when we were there during a holiday and ran out of a few essentials - those things, to me was our 'non touristy' experience.

And there were times when we were hungry and 'toursity' restaurants near a site were the easiest and most handy when all we needed was to put food in everyones body!

After that time, we rented a car and drove through the countryside, getting lost, staying at small B & B's, the highlight being one in which the husband and wife had their home overtaken by Germans and mesmerizing us with the details of the DDay when they were 'saved' - for our children and us to hear their stories made our visit to the beaches of Normandy even more emotional.

So to me, we had a combination of a touristy and non touristy vacation.

However, there are other times when meeting up with a large group of family or friends that we may indeed pick a touristy destination b/c many of them do offer the ease of central location and options for everyone

When my mom was alive, she and a group of 12 friends went on a touristy vacation every year - they were older, didn't want to hassle with rental cars and distances, and for them being on a tour and having it all laid out for them and being whisked from toursity spot and restaurant to another worked perfectly and they would have the best of times.

My husband loves to ask policeman on the street where they suggest we have lunch - or where the best deli is - or pizza - or whatever he is looking for, and usually not too far from the touristy/site/monument area we are in - even if in NYC, - they always send us to a great place, with excellent reasonably priced food and no crowds.

Different strokes for different folks.

LvSun

Wow, what a lot of reaction! To me, touristy and a tourism hot spot are two different things. Example: St. Thomas and Grand Cayman. I love GC, do not like ST.

I like tourism hot spots, do not like touristy places. Neither is right or wrong - just different.

Hmm, actually my favorites are places that have not yet become a tourist hot spot.

happytrailstoyou

Thanks for the loaded question. Answer: "touristy" is not a dirty word.

However, I try to avoid places where I may "be treated like a tourist" (i.e. with contempt).

Some of the most desirable destinations in the world are "touristy," including Venice, MOMA, the Taj Mahal, and Machu Pitcchu.

Malesherbes

P_M Branson is a perfect example. I'm afraid we can add Wimberley to that list too.

Gekko

"Touristy" certainly can be a dirty word. If I'm visiting a city like London, for example, and I ask about a bar or restaurant and it's described as touristy, I generally won't go there. When I visit places, I don't want to meet fellow tourists, I want to talk to locals and ask them about their city or country.

ronkala

Touristy---

Pigeon Forge

Underhill

On the European board we see fairly frequent posts from people who want to avoid touristy places. But then they want to see the main sights, like the Arc de Triomple or the Eiffel Tower in Paris--you can't have it both ways, folks. Touristy places are usually that way because they have things many people want to see.

Giovanna

No one on this long thread has mentioned the word "traveler." I find a big distinction between tourist and traveler, and snobbish or not like to consider myself the latter.

There's no shame in visiting any site anyplace you go if it is of interest to you. Because there are a lot of people there doesn't necessarily tag it "touristy" to me. It's just a crowded place I sometimes wish we hadn't gone.

Far more annoying to me is when people ask if something or someplace is "worth it." How can you possibly evaluate whether it is or isn't for someone else. And how can the poster take the advice of complete strangers when we all have extremely different values and tastes? I would venture to guess that with few exceptions everyplace is "worth it" to someone.

Some of the sites thought by posters on this thread to be "touristy" are in complete opposition to my opinions. For example the Smithsonean Air & Space Museum. Why would it not be of interest to walk through this huge display of aircraft and see so many historic planes?

We've not been to the top of the Empire State Building, but I certainly wouldn't belittle someone who wants to do this. Likewise the space needle in Seattle is of no interest to me, but it isn't necessarily touristy--it's just a landmark that lots of people like to visit. So what!

Live and let live. Do what you want, see what you're interested in, eat where you like. I might not want to join you for any or all of your choices, but that doesn't make you a dumb tourist.

Stephanie

talking of tourism I think of D.C. and going back the last weekend of September. what got me interested is a cspan special on The Capitol and the history of it. Every block seems to have so much to see. i'll look forward to fall.

LoveItaly

In my case I don't think of "touristy" as a dirty word but I do feel bad when people visit somewhere and only seem to hang around the real touristy area.
SF is an example. To me (and I know people in N CA that have done this) people that visit SF and only really see Fisherman's Wharf have only been to the "touristy area" and have not really gotten acquainted with SF. But if it makes them happy and they are content with their visit that is all that matters.

starrsville

Same here - Savannah. Folks spend an hour or so walking River Street and think they have "done" Savannah. Then, they talk to others (or post) and share out they didn't like Savannah. They didn't even see it! (IMHO, of course!

Gekko

I'm not a fan of that ridiculous, check-the-box, "done" mentality. If that's your attitude, don't travel.

Ditto with down-to-the-minute itineraries. Relax; it's a vacation.

traveler100

Stephanie,

Wasn't that a wonderful show on the Capitol? I missed the last segment, will have to order the DVD's. I thought I couldn't possibly watch three nights three hours each, but I was hooked after the first hour, it was so well-produced. Have a great trip to DC doing the touristy things (had to bring this back to the topic...)

Stephanie

Yes it was great. gave alot of angles on the bldg that i'll never see in person like when they walked up steps to the very top of the Capitol which is the equivalent of an 18 story bldg to show the details of the design at that height. I'd never go up that way since I am afraid of heights and there are alot of open points on the stairway up. Was it just me or did you notice an exit sign just above a window on the dome? I found that funny what are you going to do jump out the window and hold on for dear life?