In the "experienced traveler" world, the adjective "touristy" is used almost 100% of the time as a perjorative.

Restaurants? Good food, but "touristy." Here's where the locals go . . . .

Sites? Historical, but crowded and "touristy." Here are off-the-beaten-path suggestions . . . .

Countries? Europe is so done-to-death and "touristy." 5 out-of-the-way "hidden treasures" that aren't "touristy" . . . .

In a way, this all kind of reminds me of the Yogi-ism, "no one ever goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

I'm here to stick up for "touristy." Heck, I'm a tourist. I was in London for the first time last month and I went to the Tower of London, the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, rode the Big Bus tour . . . touristy, touristy, touristy. But not to be missed, in my opinion. To me, if I've never been to a location, or maybe only once or twice, "touristy" is exactly what I'm looking for, and not a negative.

Thoughts?

Some "touristy" stuff is worth doing - the unique stuff.

But my problem with "touristy" is that often you can't tell what city you're in when you're doing it. We did some of the "touristy" markets in HKG recently and we could have been anywhere. All the same junk you could buy in any other major city. I don't think that's experiencing the place you're visiting.

When I travel I want to get a sense of the place, culture, people, food. If you surround yourself only with tourists or a contrived culture, you're not going to really experience the city you visit. You don't have to leave home for that.

On the other hand, and the end of the day I want to be back in my luxury hotel, which is probably not the place to meet locals

"Touristy" sites seem to attract really annoying people. Yes when in Athens for the first time, you must go to the Parthenon but my oh my, it's touristy. It is definitely a pejorative term.

I agree.

Tower of London? Good touristy.

Bubba Gump Shrimp Company? Bad touristy.

Couldn't have said it better myself (and didn't).

Along the lines of the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, I will say that I stayed next door to the Hard Rock Cafe during my week in London, and never set foot in the place. But given that it is the original (I think), maybe it is the only Hard Rock in the world that would qualify as "good touristy."

Funny that this should come up now- I'm off to Honolulu tomorrow and I bought the _Ultimate Oahu_ (from the publishers of the popular _Muai Revealed_) b/c I wanted to buy a guide produced by locals- partially for the objectivity and also to find out about non-"touristy" things (yes, I realize the irony that just by including something in a guidebook may _make_ it touristy).

While I know that guides cater to the clientle of the destinations covered, I didn't expect to open the book and find restaurant reviews of local establishments such as Cheesecake Factory, Planet Hollywood, Moose McGillycuddys, and (yup, you guessed it) Bubba Gump Shrimp Company.

While the guide has much that I think I'll find useful, it's completely useless for some things that I'd hoped for- nightlife, local resources (e.g. grocery stores), independent businesses, etc. I don't need to know that the Barnes and Noble at a mall in Honolulu has a great Hawaii section- the ones in NY probably do, too. Is there an independent used bookstore/coffee shop worth supporting (especially one w/ wireless)? I don't know from reading the _ultimate Oahu_.

I know that part of the reason people go to hawaii is b/c it's not NY, SF, LA, etc., but I like visiting cities and the amenities they offer.

Every time I see one of those "motorized cable cars" clogging the streets of SF, I say, "one of these days I should take one of those tours" expecting a total cheesefest. (yes, I'm a local)

Some things, touristy or not, need to be done, even if they are somewhat "bad touristy".

It depends. Some things, such as the Tower of London, are must-sees. We were there last April, though, and found the lines so long and the food service so slow and overpriced we'll probably never go back. Once is enough. Sometimes touristy is comfortable, too- like the restuarant we went to in Rome twice on the same trip. The musicians played the same hackneyed Italian "touristy" favorites (Funiculi Funicula, etc.) both nights, but the food was good and the service was cheerful.

We balance the well-trodden places with place names that make people go, "huh?", such as our upcoming trip to the Orkneys.

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.

letiole, I agree w/ you. The good touristy stuff, no matter how crowded, how overprice, you gotta do it. The other touristy stuff, let the other tourists do it.

When I'm visiting a new place, I'll go to the famous monuments, museums, etc. However, I'll seldom go on bus tours, tourist markets or tourist restaurants.

One thing I like to do is head to some random residential area, and walk around. You're prob the only non-local in the area, and it's amazing how much "real life" you get to see.

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.

When my fianc� and I travel, we often look for local restaurants and avoid touristy-looking places. But that sort of local = good / touristy = bad dichotomy assumes that locals always know, prefer, and frequent the best restaurants.

I like touristy on my first day or two in a new place, and take that opportunity to do the "must-sees". After that, I'd prefer to get out and see the true city or country. The locals are different in touristy areas - same as they are here. Their lives, and their reaction to outsiders, is totally different when compared to those in more rural areas.

I've never been disappointed when visiting the touristy places - we all should see those things, but have found the unexpected and atypical areas to be far more rewarding on a personal level. Some travel to 'find themselves'...I think we don't find ourselves when we travel, but we do grow ourselves in 'finding others' - that is, seeing people who live and think differently than you do. You don't 'see others' much in the touristy areas, where there is always a McDonalds and people who speak English and the same old crap to buy and often a Wal-Mart within driving distance.

I have to agree with the majority here who believe that some destinations, though touristy, are worth seeing. Washington DC, for example. The biggest draws are dredged with hordes of tourists, yet they are rich in history and culture and not to be missed. If you were to go off the beaten path to get a feel for the local culture, you might be in for a rude shock.

In defense of of the bad touristy, I offer this: Picture yourself in your leisure years on the RV trip of a lifetime--to see and experience as much as this great nation has to offer. You're cruising through the amber waves of grain, trekking over the purple mountains majesty, right above the fruited plain. If you see a sign that reads "World's Biggest _______", are you going to pass it up?

I know I'm not. But that's just me.

How about some examples.

In HK, good touristy: The Peak. Bad touristy: the moronic wax museum in the aforementioned Peak.