FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - "Touristy" -- pro or con?
View Single Post
Old Mar 23, 2005 | 8:23 pm
  #11  
obscure2k
Moderator: Delta SkyMiles, Luxury Hotels, TravelBuzz! and Italy
30 Countries Visited
50 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 27,016
Originally Posted by letiole
I would say the difference in good touristy and bad is that good touristy sites are places that have a real history to them - the Acropolis, the Colisseum, Tower of London, etc. Bad touristy places are those that are fake - hula shows produced for tourists, the previously mentioned "cable" cars that aren't on cables, wax museums, theme restaurants and so on.
Nice post. The best touristy of all is when I took our youngest son and my niece to London and Paris. We got on a double-decker bus to the end of the line and did not care where we ended. Doesn't everyone have to see the Tower of London? How about the Eiffel Tower? The Lincoln Memorial? There are some tourist attractions which are simply irresistable.. I always return to the Piazza San Marco in VCE. It is special; always special.

Last edited by obscure2k; Mar 24, 2005 at 6:35 pm Reason: Typo, typo, always a typo
obscure2k is offline