4 ms·

Residents of places like Venice have to deal with agonizing about the same Faustian bargain with tourism, having to weigh the income boost against the real soci

Residents of places like Venice have to deal with agonizing about the same Faustian bargain with tourism, having to weigh the income boost against the real social and physical costs of gigantic cruise ships and thousands and thousands of foreign people tramping about carelessly. It's easy to think that visitors don't have serious material effects on the places they go compared to residents, but with enough of them, franchises come in their wake chasing the money and the questions get rather difficult. Unlike Hawaii, in Venice's case, also, the cruise ships are literally destroying the city with their presence, too, and in both cases, "authentic" locals and their culture give way to commercialized imitations (tour guides, actors pretending to perform historic/cultural acts, etc.), because the money is too good. I think, ultimately, it can't continue, the charm of places can definitely be completely, and sometimes irreparably lost when they accommodate masses of crowds, as they transition to a giant stage show/theme park and I do sit and wonder if there's really actual value to having tens of thousands of people drag themselves up a mountain, or similar. Maybe if we all spent some more time looking inward, we wouldn't need to fly somewhere to change our point of view?

graderjs 4y ago
Just a pointer that this article specifically says that the problem is not so much the tourists as their numbers have not really increased that much tourism has always been a thing but the problem now is from people who have chosen to move there and become the air quotes new locals after spending just a year or so there. Same kind of thing as with how the Hong Kong people feel like the mainland Chinese moving to or buying up apartments and real estate in Hong Kong drives up the prices, the locals in Hawaii are feeling something similar I think. But yeah your points about the tourism effect of high popular tourist places is definitely good and interesting but just pointing out this article made a distinction between that and the actual newcomers who were moving there, nomads and their ilk.
- superchroma 4y ago
  For sure, it's the same thing, I think. They're effectively entrenched tourists; foreigners, and integration is not a quick process. A society and its culture only has a capacity to absorb and convert so many new additions at a time without being diluted and I think that's been exceeded in this case. The thing is that even seasoned travellers complain about this, remarking that many touristy places feel "like everywhere else", so it almost seems like nobody is winning in the end.
  - graderjs 4y ago
    I think you're wrong about that. I don't think it's the same thing I think tourists and long-term stays are fundamentally different. Especially economically and I think that's a really important baseline that affects things a lot specifically for locals. Because the thing is like locals can invent a tourism industry to absorb and corral you know the herds of tourists around and kind of give them as you say exaggerated you know accentuated artificial view of the culture that nevertheless gives them some sort of experience and this is sort of how the tourism industry works and so it's able to absorb those numbers and and continue on. And I think the points you make about that, while common and a bit bland (you know the "Disneyfication" of things), are nevertheless interesting and you state them pretty well I think. But the article specifically, and the fundamental difference is, when people choose to live there they're no longer just staying to the tourist areas and no longer just shipped around by tour groups or tour buses or they're no longer sort of shepherded by the tourist industry and they're also pushing into like economic activity that affects locals specifically rents and buying up real estate right? and the landlords then realize, "oh s** I can make more money from all this demand on all these people coming in with all this extra money so I'm going to charge more." And I think that then has a whole lot of other effects for locals and it's just it sounds like a simple change you know, "okay well the rents get more expensive" but it's this fundamental thing that then really changes many things about a place, like in Hong Kong like in San Francisco and you can see it you know the locals are unhappy about this kind of stuff.

graderjs 4y ago

Just a pointer that this article specifically says that the problem is not so much the tourists as their numbers have not really increased that much tourism has always been a thing but the problem now is from people who have chosen to move there and become the air quotes new locals after spending just a year or so there. Same kind of thing as with how the Hong Kong people feel like the mainland Chinese moving to or buying up apartments and real estate in Hong Kong drives up the prices, the locals in Hawaii are feeling something similar I think. But yeah your points about the tourism effect of high popular tourist places is definitely good and interesting but just pointing out this article made a distinction between that and the actual newcomers who were moving there, nomads and their ilk.

superchroma 4y ago
For sure, it's the same thing, I think. They're effectively entrenched tourists; foreigners, and integration is not a quick process. A society and its culture only has a capacity to absorb and convert so many new additions at a time without being diluted and I think that's been exceeded in this case. The thing is that even seasoned travellers complain about this, remarking that many touristy places feel "like everywhere else", so it almost seems like nobody is winning in the end.
- graderjs 4y ago
  I think you're wrong about that. I don't think it's the same thing I think tourists and long-term stays are fundamentally different. Especially economically and I think that's a really important baseline that affects things a lot specifically for locals. Because the thing is like locals can invent a tourism industry to absorb and corral you know the herds of tourists around and kind of give them as you say exaggerated you know accentuated artificial view of the culture that nevertheless gives them some sort of experience and this is sort of how the tourism industry works and so it's able to absorb those numbers and and continue on. And I think the points you make about that, while common and a bit bland (you know the "Disneyfication" of things), are nevertheless interesting and you state them pretty well I think. But the article specifically, and the fundamental difference is, when people choose to live there they're no longer just staying to the tourist areas and no longer just shipped around by tour groups or tour buses or they're no longer sort of shepherded by the tourist industry and they're also pushing into like economic activity that affects locals specifically rents and buying up real estate right? and the landlords then realize, "oh s** I can make more money from all this demand on all these people coming in with all this extra money so I'm going to charge more." And I think that then has a whole lot of other effects for locals and it's just it sounds like a simple change you know, "okay well the rents get more expensive" but it's this fundamental thing that then really changes many things about a place, like in Hong Kong like in San Francisco and you can see it you know the locals are unhappy about this kind of stuff.