Do you visit "tourist attractions" on vacation?

Part of my job is to give people directions and since I'm in an area that gets a lot of tourists I stay pretty busy with that. Yesterday I had to give a family directions to a few different sites and someone far cooler than me overheard it and offered me some advice. When he has people visit he tells them to skip the stuff theve seen on tv and read about in books and such and he shows them where real "New Yorkers" go. Am I that uncool that this sounds like a dumb idea? Who wants to see where someone gets their laundry done, their groceries or the drug store he went to for penicillin after he picked up that shemail a couple weeks ago? When I go away I usually take in some of the local attractions as I figure they are popular for a reason and I figurd the people coming here felt the same way. Does anyone here loike to travel the way this guy is suggesting and am I really that out of touch with things?

Depends on where I'm visiting. If I'm going to Door County, I stay FAR away from the tourist stuff, if I'm in Chicago, I like quite a bit of the tourist stuff. If I were going to NY for the first time, I would want to see the attractions... Not that I have any desire to go to NY. If they've been there more than one time, it makes sense though. Assuming that they're talking about cool underground places, not something that they can get in another flavor in another city.

I think its important to remember that you are giving this information to tourists who probably came for the sole purpose of seeing tourist destinations.

When traveling I do a combination of the two.

I think the guy is referring to seeing more "out of the way" stuff. For example, directing people to Little Italy in the Bx, which can be combined with a trip to the Botanical Garden and the Bx Zoo. Not many people are familiar with NYC outside of Manhattan, I talk up the other boros and take friends and visitors there. If they want to do the "touristy" stuff, it's cool, and I don't discourage them from doing so.

The Empire State Building is nice, but who wants to stand in line for hours on end, or trying to buy your way to the front of the line by purchasing photos of you and your crew?

Touristy = Expensive. Manhattan is nice, but I can eat @ a fraction of the cost across the river in Queens.

I like the touristy crap personally. The cheap side attractions, "Mystery Spots" all of that. Personally I don't want to see where Hugh Grant got pulled over for having a tranny in his car, or where the Viper Room is that River Phoenix OD'd at. (I had a tour like this once in hollywood, it sucked.) I wanna see the gator farms and the wierd little pieces of Americana that time forgot.

On vacation I like to hang out with the terrorists.

Oh wait, you said TOURISTS?

I prefer to do a little of both.

When we went to England 10 years ago we skipped the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace because I decided it was "too touristy". In retrospect I wish I had taken the family to see it.

On the other hand, on our last visit to New York, we went up to the 86th floor deck of the Empire State Building, because (despite living within 3 hours of it nearly all our lives) we'd never been up there. We basically spent the entire day's trip standing in line to do it and hardly saw anything else. If I'd known how that was going to be I'd have skipped it and just bummed around Manhattan.

Duke wrote: I prefer to do a little of both. When we went to England 10 years ago we skipped the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace because I decided it was "too touristy". In retrospect I wish I had taken the family to see it.

My mom was about 7 months pregnant with me when my parents went to England. They each got to pick stuff to do. Mom picked all the stuff expected. Dad took mom to industrial parks looking for Austin Healey parts. He came home from england with a bunch of belts, hoses, and miscellaneous healey parts.

mndsm wrote: I like the touristy crap personally. The cheap side attractions, "Mystery Spots" all of that. Personally I don't want to see where Hugh Grant got pulled over for having a tranny in his car, or where the Viper Room is that River Phoenix OD'd at. (I had a tour like this once in hollywood, it sucked.)

I took a similar tour. It was interesting, but yes overall, it stunk, because the focus was on the "houses of the stars." I took it for the hell of it; coolness points with the kids (and because it was cheap; the hostel I stayed at offered a discounted rate.)

Wally wrote: Part of my job is to give people directions and since I'm in an area that gets a lot of tourists I stay pretty busy with that.

Since it is part of your job that makes you part of the greater Tourism Machine. Based on that you are likely going to recommend standard type places. Even if you recommended the same "different type" place every time, it would soon not be all that different.
I am sure you know your neighborhood. Pick a few gems and from there rely on the old standards. At least the "standards" will be well marked.

If the traveler has waited until they get there and then ask they "guy on the street" the traveler is not all that informed and I expect not looking to get that far off the track.

mtn wrote:

Duke wrote: I prefer to do a little of both. When we went to England 10 years ago we skipped the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace because I decided it was "too touristy". In retrospect I wish I had taken the family to see it.

My mom was about 7 months pregnant with me when my parents went to England. They each got to pick stuff to do. Mom picked all the stuff expected. Dad took mom to industrial parks looking for Austin Healey parts. He came home from england with a bunch of belts, hoses, and miscellaneous healey parts.

Yeah, I figure it will be a compromise. Do things Family style and then each one should pick something. I would like to go to London...please the Family with sight-seeing...then hit Goodwood....

After a quick sweep of the big ticket tourist suff, I like to find local flavor. Little bars and diners. Old stores and roadside odditys.

We tend to gravitate to local attractions that are related to nature, history or culture. We shy away from amusement parks, crowds, mass-appeal, carnival or honky-tonk atmospheres. We aren't really interested in "night life" at all.

But, yes - when I travel, I definitely want to visit "tourist" destinations such as museums, national parks and historic sites. I want to take the walking tour, visit the site of the big battle, see the ancient ruins, go on the rafting trip, snorkle in the lagoon and have my picture taken next to the giant redwood.

However I want to EAT local cuisine in local joints (preferably spicy and messy) and stay as far away from tourists as possible when it comes to food.

I tend to not have an intinerary when i go places. I like to explore, get lost, and attempt to find my way back again, while checking out everything i can.

In NYC, this probably sounds like a bad idea, doesn't it...

Wallster looks like I will be headed your way in June, My Mom is coming to visit after a Euro vacation and I'm going to meet her there, where should we go while there..?

Just serious, want to meet up and have a beer in a cool bar and run our Automotive afflicted minds until we get thrown out.

93celicaGT2 wrote: In NYC, this probably sounds like a bad idea, doesn't it...

Actually, it's a great idea. Get a Metrocard fun pass (unlimited subway/bus rides within the MTA system with the exception of Metro North & LIRR) , and you're good to go

Local joints are great, but if I had one trip to NYC and I missed Lady Liberty, Empire State, Central Park, etc. I would be a bit miffed. I always go see the "real" tourist attractions on my first trip somewhere. (St. Louis Arch, Fisherman's Wharf, Mallory Square, El Morro...stuff like that. Not alligator farms, large twine balls, or the exact spot where someone was killed.)

pinchvalve wrote: I always go see the "real" tourist attractions on my first trip somewhere. (... Not ... the exact spot where someone was killed.)

Exception to the rule: Dealey Plaza and the 6th Fl. Museum in Dallas was worth the two hours spent, but I agree.

I'd say it depends on the person(s), places, and time. The kind of travelers who know how to do the "path less travelled" thing already know what they are going to do, and the ones that do ask might be uncomfortable with the experience once they get out of their comfort zone.

Me? The first thing I do when I visit a new place is to recon the area, usually by myself, and most often without speaking the local tongue. It's liberating, but not for everybody. I could fill this page with examples of the people I'd met while I was someplace I wasn't supposed to be, but I won't put y'all through that right now.

For your situation Wally, I'd say to direct hardy travelers to a local neighborhood tavern you know to be non-violent, and tell them to spend a couple of hours just mingling with the regulars; I think this is what many of them are looking for, i.e. a taste of what it's like to live there.

After dark in a big city is a different matter. You have to be pretty street-smart to pull that off!

captain_napalm said: 93celicaGT2 wrote: In NYC, this probably sounds like a bad idea, doesn't it... Actually, it's a great idea. Get a Metrocard fun pass (unlimited subway/bus rides within the MTA system with the exception of Metro North & LIRR) , and you're good to go

That's what I did many afternoons when I was in school. It's much harder to get yourself killed than people think ,especially since Gulianl "ruined" the city.

bludroptop wrote:

pinchvalve wrote: I always go see the "real" tourist attractions on my first trip somewhere. (... Not ... the exact spot where someone was killed.)

Exception to the rule: Dealey Plaza and the 6th Fl. Museum in Dallas was worth the two hours spent, but I agree.

I also get a lot of people looking for Strawberry Fields.

Strawberry Fields? 72nd and CPW?

Well, if you are in NY there is a LOT to do. You could kill a whole day in one section grazing in restaurants and looking up at tall buildings or just riding the train to cool stuff. I work in the city so I forget how cool it is for the first time. My kids were amazed at the idea we were riding a train under the river. They would have been happy to just explore the underbelly of Penn Station or ride the ferry around. I've been there a 1000x and I've never been to the Statue of Liberty or set foot in the Empire State Bldg. In NY you have options... if your vacation is in Yellowstone... you look at damn geyser.

I've been to two of the Alamos - the old in in San Antonio, and the one John Wayne defended near Brackettville. I suppose that makes me a tourist.

Sometimes, I really do want to see the real thing - the one that I've seen in pictures all my life. Disappointing though it may be, I can say I've been there.

I especially enjoy the lesser known places. Another example from San Antonio, check out the Menger Hotel Bar, next to the Alamo. Ghost stories, a Rough Rider connection, and they serve beer. What more do you need? More than once I've found out about a neat place AFTER the trip.

I am corney, but I like the vactiony stuff.

I'm trying to be a foodie and figure i better not recognize the name of the place on vacation. We have had geat luck in Mexico with the cab drivers . Just asking where they would take there families. Once we paid for the cab drivers family and had an absolute blast.

Last place I went was Vegas--which is one big tourist attraction.

I dunno a massive fine-dining binge and golf is tourist-y, though.