Photo: Wong's Bar, Bangkok.

Idle banter forum

Touristy?

Posted by Pedroinspain on 26/12/2013 at 10:15

I did a quick forum search for "Touristy". Interesting.
A much-used word in travel circles in would seem. Has it been discussed on the forum.

If not, permit me to offer a chopping-block for discussion:

1) What does "Touristy mean?

2) Is "non-Touristy" equivalent to remote/poorly accessible, or to boring, or to unsafe?

3) Are Rome, London, San Franscisco, and Cape Town "touristy"? If so, is this necessarily negative?

4) Are Conakry, Port Moresby, Bangui and Norilsk "non-touristy"? If so, is this necessarily positive?

#1 Pedroinspain has been a member since 24/12/2013. Posts: 13

Posted by LeonardCohen1 on 28/12/2013 at 03:00

Dunno. Depends what u like. I do what interests me on trips.

The people I find funny are the ones who dont know where they want to go or do and want people to tell them. They say they want adventure and culture lol

That is like asking for a restaurant tip and saying they like food and drinks.

#2 LeonardCohen1 has been a member since 24/7/2012. Posts: 2,148


Posted by Pedroinspain on 29/12/2013 at 08:10

LC, I couldn't agree with you more. How can you want to plan a vacation dependent on someone else's tastes. That just HAS to be flawed.

Which brings us back to the question of "Touristy", which I believe is why you raised it.

Can we presume that "touristy" means full of tourists? Why is it - this place in particular - full of tourists? Because it is a grotty hole? Because there is nothing interesting to do or see? Because it is beyond the pockets of most travellers? I presume that it has some attraction(s) which draw all of these people. Like the museums, shows, shopping, historical sights of London, Rome, Paris and Barcelona. So those cities are touristy by definition. But is seems to be a very POSITIVE "touristy" because folk just keep on flocking back to visit them.

So if "touristy" is crowds of tourists, what is NEGATIVE "touristy? I can only presume that those crowds are being drawn by attractions that do not appeal to 'you'. In my case that would be coastal resorts that offer little more than sardines-on-a-beach, almost exclusively "beer-and-pizza" cuisine, late-night clubs; Go-Go entertainment, ride-a-camel sort of 'adventuring', etc. I avoid them like the plague. However it is clear that what is my NEGATIVE is the POSITIVE to vast numbers of people.

So when the next poster asks for opinions as to what is not "touristy", are we right in assuming that they are recluses? And there we get back to your point.

Pedro

#3 Pedroinspain has been a member since 24/12/2013. Posts: 13

Posted by LeonardCohen1 on 29/12/2013 at 23:29

The attraction might be good when its quiet but huge crowd numbers ruin it or it might just be crap.

#4 LeonardCohen1 has been a member since 24/7/2012. Posts: 2,148

Posted by Pedroinspain on 12/7/2014 at 05:28

Just back from Chicago, which confirms that crowds can ruin it.
But I still don't understand why such crowds could mean "it is crap". Surely not to them?
That YOU and I might not like sardine-stacked beaches or pizza-and-beer resorts does not mean that they are "crap". Maybe hey are the best that a certain sector of travelling society can afford. So your "crap" is their "wonderful", and the crowds are duly explained.

So we are back at the us-and-them issue. Because I like guts-and-tripe dishes does not mean that those who like pan-seared sea bass are necessarily choosing "crap".

I put it to you therefore that "touristy" is a VERY subjective word that has very little value in general tourism descriptions, other than to people who are very familiar with your personal tastes.

#5 Pedroinspain has been a member since 24/12/2013. Posts: 13


Please login to add a reply

You need to be a Travelfish member to be able to add a reply to this post. Please use the button below to log in. After logging in you'll be returned to this page automatically to add your post. Not a member? Join up here.